ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 48-year-old man is admitted to your family medicine service for cellulitis after failed outpatient therapy. He has presumed community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection of the left lower extremity and is receiving intravenous (IV) vancomycin. His BP this morning is 176/98 mm Hg, and the reading from the previous shift was 168/94 mm Hg. He is asymptomatic from this elevated BP. Based on protocol, his nurse is asking about treatment in response to the multiple elevated readings. How should you address the patient’s elevated BP, knowing that you will see him for a transition management appointment in 2 weeks?

Elevated BP is common in the adult inpatient setting. Prevalence estimates range from 25% to > 50%. Many factors can contribute to elevated BP in the acute illness setting, such as pain, anxiety, medication withdrawal, and volume status.^2,3

Treatment of elevated BP in outpatients is well researched, with evidence-based guidelines for physicians. That is not the case for treatment of asymptomatic elevated BP in the inpatient setting. Most published guidance on inpatient management of acutely elevated BP recommends IV medications, such as hydralazine or labetalol, although there is limited evidence to support such recommendations. There is minimal evidence for outcomes-based benefit in treating acute elevations of inpatient BP, such as reduced myocardial injury or stroke; however, there is some evidence of adverse outcomes, such as hypotension and prolonged hospital stays.^4-8

Although the possibility of intensifying antihypertensive therapy for those with known hypertension or those with presumed “new-onset” hypertension could theoretically lead to improved outcomes over the long term, there is little evidence to support this presumption. Rather, there is evidence that intensification of antihypertensive therapy at discharge is linked to short-term harms. This was demonstrated in a propensity-matched veteran cohort that included 4056 hospitalized older adults with hypertension (mean age, 77 years; 3961 men), equally split between those who received antihypertensive intensification at hospital discharge and those who did not. Within 30 days, patients receiving intensification had a higher risk of readmission (number needed to harm [NNH] = 27) and serious adverse events (NNH = 63).⁹

The current study aimed to put all these pieces together by quantifying the prevalence of hypertension in hospitalized patients, characterizing clinician response to patients’ acutely elevated BP, and comparing both short- and long-term outcomes in patients treated for acute BP elevations while hospitalized vs those who were not. The study also assessed the potential effects of antihypertensive intensification at discharge.

STUDY SUMMARY

Treatment of acute hypertension was associated with end-organ injury

This retrospective, propensity score–matched cohort study (N = 22,834) evaluated the electronic health records of all adult patients (age > 18 years) admitted to a medicine service with a noncardiovascular diagnosis over a 1-year period at 10 Cleveland Clinic hospitals, with 1 year of follow-up data.

Exclusion criteria included hospitalization for a cardiovascular diagnosis; admission for a cerebrovascular event or acute coronary syndrome within the previous 30 days; pregnancy; length of stay of less than 2 days or more than 14 days; and lack of outpatient medication data. Patients were propensity-score matched using BP, demographic features, comorbidities, hospital shift, and time since admission. Exposure was defined as administration of IV antihypertensive medication or a new class of oral antihypertensive medication.

Continue to: Outcomes were defined...

The 22,834 patients had a mean (SD) age of 65.6 (17.9) years; 12,993 (56.9%) were women, and 15,963 (69.9%) were White. Of the 17,821 (78%) who had at least 1 inpatient hypertensive systolic BP (SBP) episode, defined as an SBP ≥ 140 mm Hg, 5904 (33.1%) received a new treatment. Of those receiving a new treatment, 4378 (74.2%) received only oral treatment, and 1516 (25.7%) received at least 1 dose of IV medication with or without oral dosing.

Acute treatment of elevated BP in noncardiac inpatients was not beneficial, and treatment intensification at discharge did not improve BP control over the following year.

Using the propensity-matched sample (4520 treated for elevated BP matched to 4520 who were not treated), treated patients had higher rates of AKI (10.3% vs 7.9%; P < .001) and myocardial injury (1.2% vs 0.6%; P = .003). When assessed by SBP, nontreatment of BP was still superior up to an SBP of 199 mm Hg. At an SBP of ≥ 200 mm Hg, there was no difference in rates of AKI or MI between the treatment and nontreatment groups. There was no difference in stroke in either cohort, although the overall numbers were quite low.

Patients with and without antihypertensive intensification at discharge had similar rates of MI (0.1% vs 0.2%; P > .99) and stroke (0.5% vs 0.4%; P > .99) in a matched cohort at 30 days post discharge. At 1 year, BP control in the intensification vs no-intensification groups was nearly the same: maximum SBP was 157.2 mm Hg vs 157.8 mm Hg, respectively (P = .54) and maximum diastolic BP was 86.5 mm Hg vs 86.1 mm Hg, respectively (P = .49).

WHAT’S NEW

Previous research is confirmed in a more diverse population

Whereas previous research showed no benefit to intensification of treatment among hospitalized older male patients, this large, retrospective, propensity score–matched cohort study demonstrated the short- and long-term effects of treating acute, asymptomatic BP elevations in a younger, more generalizable population that included women. Regardless of treatment modality, there appeared to be more harm than good from treating these BP elevations.

In addition, the study appears to corroborate previous research showing that intensification of BP treatment at discharge did not lead to better outcomes.⁹ At the very least, the study makes a reasonable argument that treating acute BP elevations in noncardiac patients in the hospital setting is not beneficial.

CAVEATS

Impact of existing therapy could be underestimated

This study had several important limitations. First, 23% of treated participants were excluded from the propensity analysis without justification from the authors. Additionally, there was no reporting of missing data and how it was managed. The authors’ definition of treatment excluded dose intensification of existing antihypertensive therapy, which would undercount the number of treated patients. However, this could underestimate the actual harms of the acute antihypertensive therapy. The authors also included patients with atrial fibrillation and heart failure in the study population, even though they already may have been taking antihypertensive agents.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Potential delays in translating findings to patient care

Although several recent studies have shown the potential benefit of not treating asymptomatic acute BP elevations in inpatients, incorporating that information into electronic health record order sets or clinical decision support, and disseminating it to clinical end users, will take time. In the interim, despite these findings, patients may continue to receive IV or oral medications to treat acute, asymptomatic BP elevations while hospitalized for noncardiac diagnoses.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 48-year-old man is admitted to your family medicine service for cellulitis after failed outpatient therapy. He has presumed community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection of the left lower extremity and is receiving intravenous (IV) vancomycin. His BP this morning is 176/98 mm Hg, and the reading from the previous shift was 168/94 mm Hg. He is asymptomatic from this elevated BP. Based on protocol, his nurse is asking about treatment in response to the multiple elevated readings. How should you address the patient’s elevated BP, knowing that you will see him for a transition management appointment in 2 weeks?

Elevated BP is common in the adult inpatient setting. Prevalence estimates range from 25% to > 50%. Many factors can contribute to elevated BP in the acute illness setting, such as pain, anxiety, medication withdrawal, and volume status.^2,3

Treatment of elevated BP in outpatients is well researched, with evidence-based guidelines for physicians. That is not the case for treatment of asymptomatic elevated BP in the inpatient setting. Most published guidance on inpatient management of acutely elevated BP recommends IV medications, such as hydralazine or labetalol, although there is limited evidence to support such recommendations. There is minimal evidence for outcomes-based benefit in treating acute elevations of inpatient BP, such as reduced myocardial injury or stroke; however, there is some evidence of adverse outcomes, such as hypotension and prolonged hospital stays.^4-8

Although the possibility of intensifying antihypertensive therapy for those with known hypertension or those with presumed “new-onset” hypertension could theoretically lead to improved outcomes over the long term, there is little evidence to support this presumption. Rather, there is evidence that intensification of antihypertensive therapy at discharge is linked to short-term harms. This was demonstrated in a propensity-matched veteran cohort that included 4056 hospitalized older adults with hypertension (mean age, 77 years; 3961 men), equally split between those who received antihypertensive intensification at hospital discharge and those who did not. Within 30 days, patients receiving intensification had a higher risk of readmission (number needed to harm [NNH] = 27) and serious adverse events (NNH = 63).⁹

The current study aimed to put all these pieces together by quantifying the prevalence of hypertension in hospitalized patients, characterizing clinician response to patients’ acutely elevated BP, and comparing both short- and long-term outcomes in patients treated for acute BP elevations while hospitalized vs those who were not. The study also assessed the potential effects of antihypertensive intensification at discharge.

STUDY SUMMARY

Treatment of acute hypertension was associated with end-organ injury

This retrospective, propensity score–matched cohort study (N = 22,834) evaluated the electronic health records of all adult patients (age > 18 years) admitted to a medicine service with a noncardiovascular diagnosis over a 1-year period at 10 Cleveland Clinic hospitals, with 1 year of follow-up data.

Exclusion criteria included hospitalization for a cardiovascular diagnosis; admission for a cerebrovascular event or acute coronary syndrome within the previous 30 days; pregnancy; length of stay of less than 2 days or more than 14 days; and lack of outpatient medication data. Patients were propensity-score matched using BP, demographic features, comorbidities, hospital shift, and time since admission. Exposure was defined as administration of IV antihypertensive medication or a new class of oral antihypertensive medication.

Continue to: Outcomes were defined...

The 22,834 patients had a mean (SD) age of 65.6 (17.9) years; 12,993 (56.9%) were women, and 15,963 (69.9%) were White. Of the 17,821 (78%) who had at least 1 inpatient hypertensive systolic BP (SBP) episode, defined as an SBP ≥ 140 mm Hg, 5904 (33.1%) received a new treatment. Of those receiving a new treatment, 4378 (74.2%) received only oral treatment, and 1516 (25.7%) received at least 1 dose of IV medication with or without oral dosing.

Acute treatment of elevated BP in noncardiac inpatients was not beneficial, and treatment intensification at discharge did not improve BP control over the following year.

Using the propensity-matched sample (4520 treated for elevated BP matched to 4520 who were not treated), treated patients had higher rates of AKI (10.3% vs 7.9%; P < .001) and myocardial injury (1.2% vs 0.6%; P = .003). When assessed by SBP, nontreatment of BP was still superior up to an SBP of 199 mm Hg. At an SBP of ≥ 200 mm Hg, there was no difference in rates of AKI or MI between the treatment and nontreatment groups. There was no difference in stroke in either cohort, although the overall numbers were quite low.

Patients with and without antihypertensive intensification at discharge had similar rates of MI (0.1% vs 0.2%; P > .99) and stroke (0.5% vs 0.4%; P > .99) in a matched cohort at 30 days post discharge. At 1 year, BP control in the intensification vs no-intensification groups was nearly the same: maximum SBP was 157.2 mm Hg vs 157.8 mm Hg, respectively (P = .54) and maximum diastolic BP was 86.5 mm Hg vs 86.1 mm Hg, respectively (P = .49).

WHAT’S NEW

Previous research is confirmed in a more diverse population

Whereas previous research showed no benefit to intensification of treatment among hospitalized older male patients, this large, retrospective, propensity score–matched cohort study demonstrated the short- and long-term effects of treating acute, asymptomatic BP elevations in a younger, more generalizable population that included women. Regardless of treatment modality, there appeared to be more harm than good from treating these BP elevations.

In addition, the study appears to corroborate previous research showing that intensification of BP treatment at discharge did not lead to better outcomes.⁹ At the very least, the study makes a reasonable argument that treating acute BP elevations in noncardiac patients in the hospital setting is not beneficial.

CAVEATS

Impact of existing therapy could be underestimated

This study had several important limitations. First, 23% of treated participants were excluded from the propensity analysis without justification from the authors. Additionally, there was no reporting of missing data and how it was managed. The authors’ definition of treatment excluded dose intensification of existing antihypertensive therapy, which would undercount the number of treated patients. However, this could underestimate the actual harms of the acute antihypertensive therapy. The authors also included patients with atrial fibrillation and heart failure in the study population, even though they already may have been taking antihypertensive agents.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Potential delays in translating findings to patient care

Although several recent studies have shown the potential benefit of not treating asymptomatic acute BP elevations in inpatients, incorporating that information into electronic health record order sets or clinical decision support, and disseminating it to clinical end users, will take time. In the interim, despite these findings, patients may continue to receive IV or oral medications to treat acute, asymptomatic BP elevations while hospitalized for noncardiac diagnoses.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 48-year-old man is admitted to your family medicine service for cellulitis after failed outpatient therapy. He has presumed community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection of the left lower extremity and is receiving intravenous (IV) vancomycin. His BP this morning is 176/98 mm Hg, and the reading from the previous shift was 168/94 mm Hg. He is asymptomatic from this elevated BP. Based on protocol, his nurse is asking about treatment in response to the multiple elevated readings. How should you address the patient’s elevated BP, knowing that you will see him for a transition management appointment in 2 weeks?

Elevated BP is common in the adult inpatient setting. Prevalence estimates range from 25% to > 50%. Many factors can contribute to elevated BP in the acute illness setting, such as pain, anxiety, medication withdrawal, and volume status.^2,3

Treatment of elevated BP in outpatients is well researched, with evidence-based guidelines for physicians. That is not the case for treatment of asymptomatic elevated BP in the inpatient setting. Most published guidance on inpatient management of acutely elevated BP recommends IV medications, such as hydralazine or labetalol, although there is limited evidence to support such recommendations. There is minimal evidence for outcomes-based benefit in treating acute elevations of inpatient BP, such as reduced myocardial injury or stroke; however, there is some evidence of adverse outcomes, such as hypotension and prolonged hospital stays.^4-8

Although the possibility of intensifying antihypertensive therapy for those with known hypertension or those with presumed “new-onset” hypertension could theoretically lead to improved outcomes over the long term, there is little evidence to support this presumption. Rather, there is evidence that intensification of antihypertensive therapy at discharge is linked to short-term harms. This was demonstrated in a propensity-matched veteran cohort that included 4056 hospitalized older adults with hypertension (mean age, 77 years; 3961 men), equally split between those who received antihypertensive intensification at hospital discharge and those who did not. Within 30 days, patients receiving intensification had a higher risk of readmission (number needed to harm [NNH] = 27) and serious adverse events (NNH = 63).⁹

The current study aimed to put all these pieces together by quantifying the prevalence of hypertension in hospitalized patients, characterizing clinician response to patients’ acutely elevated BP, and comparing both short- and long-term outcomes in patients treated for acute BP elevations while hospitalized vs those who were not. The study also assessed the potential effects of antihypertensive intensification at discharge.

STUDY SUMMARY

Treatment of acute hypertension was associated with end-organ injury

This retrospective, propensity score–matched cohort study (N = 22,834) evaluated the electronic health records of all adult patients (age > 18 years) admitted to a medicine service with a noncardiovascular diagnosis over a 1-year period at 10 Cleveland Clinic hospitals, with 1 year of follow-up data.

Exclusion criteria included hospitalization for a cardiovascular diagnosis; admission for a cerebrovascular event or acute coronary syndrome within the previous 30 days; pregnancy; length of stay of less than 2 days or more than 14 days; and lack of outpatient medication data. Patients were propensity-score matched using BP, demographic features, comorbidities, hospital shift, and time since admission. Exposure was defined as administration of IV antihypertensive medication or a new class of oral antihypertensive medication.

Continue to: Outcomes were defined...

The 22,834 patients had a mean (SD) age of 65.6 (17.9) years; 12,993 (56.9%) were women, and 15,963 (69.9%) were White. Of the 17,821 (78%) who had at least 1 inpatient hypertensive systolic BP (SBP) episode, defined as an SBP ≥ 140 mm Hg, 5904 (33.1%) received a new treatment. Of those receiving a new treatment, 4378 (74.2%) received only oral treatment, and 1516 (25.7%) received at least 1 dose of IV medication with or without oral dosing.

Acute treatment of elevated BP in noncardiac inpatients was not beneficial, and treatment intensification at discharge did not improve BP control over the following year.

Using the propensity-matched sample (4520 treated for elevated BP matched to 4520 who were not treated), treated patients had higher rates of AKI (10.3% vs 7.9%; P < .001) and myocardial injury (1.2% vs 0.6%; P = .003). When assessed by SBP, nontreatment of BP was still superior up to an SBP of 199 mm Hg. At an SBP of ≥ 200 mm Hg, there was no difference in rates of AKI or MI between the treatment and nontreatment groups. There was no difference in stroke in either cohort, although the overall numbers were quite low.

Patients with and without antihypertensive intensification at discharge had similar rates of MI (0.1% vs 0.2%; P > .99) and stroke (0.5% vs 0.4%; P > .99) in a matched cohort at 30 days post discharge. At 1 year, BP control in the intensification vs no-intensification groups was nearly the same: maximum SBP was 157.2 mm Hg vs 157.8 mm Hg, respectively (P = .54) and maximum diastolic BP was 86.5 mm Hg vs 86.1 mm Hg, respectively (P = .49).

WHAT’S NEW

Previous research is confirmed in a more diverse population

Whereas previous research showed no benefit to intensification of treatment among hospitalized older male patients, this large, retrospective, propensity score–matched cohort study demonstrated the short- and long-term effects of treating acute, asymptomatic BP elevations in a younger, more generalizable population that included women. Regardless of treatment modality, there appeared to be more harm than good from treating these BP elevations.

In addition, the study appears to corroborate previous research showing that intensification of BP treatment at discharge did not lead to better outcomes.⁹ At the very least, the study makes a reasonable argument that treating acute BP elevations in noncardiac patients in the hospital setting is not beneficial.

CAVEATS

Impact of existing therapy could be underestimated

This study had several important limitations. First, 23% of treated participants were excluded from the propensity analysis without justification from the authors. Additionally, there was no reporting of missing data and how it was managed. The authors’ definition of treatment excluded dose intensification of existing antihypertensive therapy, which would undercount the number of treated patients. However, this could underestimate the actual harms of the acute antihypertensive therapy. The authors also included patients with atrial fibrillation and heart failure in the study population, even though they already may have been taking antihypertensive agents.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Potential delays in translating findings to patient care

Although several recent studies have shown the potential benefit of not treating asymptomatic acute BP elevations in inpatients, incorporating that information into electronic health record order sets or clinical decision support, and disseminating it to clinical end users, will take time. In the interim, despite these findings, patients may continue to receive IV or oral medications to treat acute, asymptomatic BP elevations while hospitalized for noncardiac diagnoses.

Not long ago, the grandmother of my son’s friend died of COVID-19 infection. She was elderly and unvaccinated. Her grandson had no regrets over her unvaccinated status. “Why would she inject poison into her body?” he said, and then expressed a strong opinion that she had died because the hospital physicians refused to give her ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. My son, wisely, did not push the issue.

Soon thereafter, my personal family physician emailed a newsletter to his patients (me included) with 3 important messages: (1) COVID vaccines were available in the office; (2) He was not going to prescribe hydroxychloroquine, no matter how adamantly it was requested; and (3) He warned against threatening him or his staff with lawsuits or violence over refusal to prescribe any unproven medication.

Mistakes will be made; corrections will be issued. This is the scientific process in action.

How, as a country, have we come to this? A sizeable portion of the public trusts the advice of quacks, hacks, and political opportunists over that of the nation’s most expert scientists and physicians. The National Institutes of Health maintains a website with up-to-date recommendations on the use of treatments for COVID-19. They assess the existing evidence and make recommendations for or against a wide array of interventions. (They recommend against the use of both ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine.) The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention publishes extensively about the current knowledge on the safety and efficacy of vaccines. Neither agency is part of a “deep state” or conspiracy. They are comprised of some of the nation’s leading scientists, including physicians, trying to protect the public from disease and foster good health.

Sadly, some physicians have been a source of inaccurate vaccine information; some even prescribe ineffective treatments despite the evidence. These physicians are either letting their politics override their good sense or are improperly assessing the scientific literature, or both. Medical licensing agencies, and specialty certification boards, need to find ways to prevent this—ways that can survive judicial scrutiny and allow for legitimate scientific debate.

I have been tempted to just accept the current situation as the inevitable outcome of social media–fueled tribalism. But when we know that the COVID death rate among the unvaccinated is 9 times that of people who have received a booster dose,¹ I can’t sit idly and watch the Internet pundits prevail. Instead, I continue to advise and teach my students to have confidence in trustworthy authorities and websites. Mistakes will be made; corrections will be issued. However, this is not evidence of malintent or incompetence, but rather, the scientific process in action.

I tell my students that one of the biggest challenges facing them and society is to figure out how to stop, or at least minimize the effects of, incorrect information, misleading statements, and outright lies in a society that values free speech. Physicians—young and old alike—must remain committed to communicating factual information to a not-always-receptive audience. And I wish my young colleagues luck; I hope that their passion for family medicine and their insights into social media may be just the combination that’s needed to redirect the public’s trust back to where it belongs during a health care crisis.

Not long ago, the grandmother of my son’s friend died of COVID-19 infection. She was elderly and unvaccinated. Her grandson had no regrets over her unvaccinated status. “Why would she inject poison into her body?” he said, and then expressed a strong opinion that she had died because the hospital physicians refused to give her ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. My son, wisely, did not push the issue.

Soon thereafter, my personal family physician emailed a newsletter to his patients (me included) with 3 important messages: (1) COVID vaccines were available in the office; (2) He was not going to prescribe hydroxychloroquine, no matter how adamantly it was requested; and (3) He warned against threatening him or his staff with lawsuits or violence over refusal to prescribe any unproven medication.

Mistakes will be made; corrections will be issued. This is the scientific process in action.

How, as a country, have we come to this? A sizeable portion of the public trusts the advice of quacks, hacks, and political opportunists over that of the nation’s most expert scientists and physicians. The National Institutes of Health maintains a website with up-to-date recommendations on the use of treatments for COVID-19. They assess the existing evidence and make recommendations for or against a wide array of interventions. (They recommend against the use of both ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine.) The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention publishes extensively about the current knowledge on the safety and efficacy of vaccines. Neither agency is part of a “deep state” or conspiracy. They are comprised of some of the nation’s leading scientists, including physicians, trying to protect the public from disease and foster good health.

Sadly, some physicians have been a source of inaccurate vaccine information; some even prescribe ineffective treatments despite the evidence. These physicians are either letting their politics override their good sense or are improperly assessing the scientific literature, or both. Medical licensing agencies, and specialty certification boards, need to find ways to prevent this—ways that can survive judicial scrutiny and allow for legitimate scientific debate.

I have been tempted to just accept the current situation as the inevitable outcome of social media–fueled tribalism. But when we know that the COVID death rate among the unvaccinated is 9 times that of people who have received a booster dose,¹ I can’t sit idly and watch the Internet pundits prevail. Instead, I continue to advise and teach my students to have confidence in trustworthy authorities and websites. Mistakes will be made; corrections will be issued. However, this is not evidence of malintent or incompetence, but rather, the scientific process in action.

I tell my students that one of the biggest challenges facing them and society is to figure out how to stop, or at least minimize the effects of, incorrect information, misleading statements, and outright lies in a society that values free speech. Physicians—young and old alike—must remain committed to communicating factual information to a not-always-receptive audience. And I wish my young colleagues luck; I hope that their passion for family medicine and their insights into social media may be just the combination that’s needed to redirect the public’s trust back to where it belongs during a health care crisis.

Not long ago, the grandmother of my son’s friend died of COVID-19 infection. She was elderly and unvaccinated. Her grandson had no regrets over her unvaccinated status. “Why would she inject poison into her body?” he said, and then expressed a strong opinion that she had died because the hospital physicians refused to give her ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. My son, wisely, did not push the issue.

Soon thereafter, my personal family physician emailed a newsletter to his patients (me included) with 3 important messages: (1) COVID vaccines were available in the office; (2) He was not going to prescribe hydroxychloroquine, no matter how adamantly it was requested; and (3) He warned against threatening him or his staff with lawsuits or violence over refusal to prescribe any unproven medication.

Mistakes will be made; corrections will be issued. This is the scientific process in action.

How, as a country, have we come to this? A sizeable portion of the public trusts the advice of quacks, hacks, and political opportunists over that of the nation’s most expert scientists and physicians. The National Institutes of Health maintains a website with up-to-date recommendations on the use of treatments for COVID-19. They assess the existing evidence and make recommendations for or against a wide array of interventions. (They recommend against the use of both ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine.) The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention publishes extensively about the current knowledge on the safety and efficacy of vaccines. Neither agency is part of a “deep state” or conspiracy. They are comprised of some of the nation’s leading scientists, including physicians, trying to protect the public from disease and foster good health.

Sadly, some physicians have been a source of inaccurate vaccine information; some even prescribe ineffective treatments despite the evidence. These physicians are either letting their politics override their good sense or are improperly assessing the scientific literature, or both. Medical licensing agencies, and specialty certification boards, need to find ways to prevent this—ways that can survive judicial scrutiny and allow for legitimate scientific debate.

I have been tempted to just accept the current situation as the inevitable outcome of social media–fueled tribalism. But when we know that the COVID death rate among the unvaccinated is 9 times that of people who have received a booster dose,¹ I can’t sit idly and watch the Internet pundits prevail. Instead, I continue to advise and teach my students to have confidence in trustworthy authorities and websites. Mistakes will be made; corrections will be issued. However, this is not evidence of malintent or incompetence, but rather, the scientific process in action.

I tell my students that one of the biggest challenges facing them and society is to figure out how to stop, or at least minimize the effects of, incorrect information, misleading statements, and outright lies in a society that values free speech. Physicians—young and old alike—must remain committed to communicating factual information to a not-always-receptive audience. And I wish my young colleagues luck; I hope that their passion for family medicine and their insights into social media may be just the combination that’s needed to redirect the public’s trust back to where it belongs during a health care crisis.

Managing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) presents a significant challenge to busy clinicians in many ways, especially when one is approaching the long list of inhaled pharmaceutical agents with an eye toward a cost-effective, patient-centered regimen. Inhaled agents remain expensive, with few available in generic form.

Our primary goal in this article is to detail these agents’ utility, limitations, and relative cost. Specifically, we review why the following considerations are important:

• Choose the right delivery device and drug while considering patient factors.
• Provide patient education through allied health professionals.
• Reduce environmental exposures.
• Rethink the use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS).
• Understand the role of dual therapy and triple therapy.

Guidelines recommend reassessing inhaler technique at every visit and when evaluating treatment response.

There are numerous other treatment modalities for COPD that are recommended in national and international practice guidelines, including vaccination, pulmonary rehabilitation, home visits, phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitors, oral glucocorticoids, supplemental oxygen, and ventilatory support.¹ Discussion of those modalities is beyond the scope of this review.

Pathophysiology and pharmacotherapy targets

COPD is characterized by persistent respiratory symptoms and airflow limitation, usually due to airway or alveolar abnormalities, or both, caused by environmental and host factors.² Sustained lung parenchymal irritation results from exposure to noxious fumes generated by tobacco, pollution, chemicals, and cleaning agents. Host factors include lung immaturity at birth; genetic mutations, such as alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency and dysregulation of elastase; and increased reactivity of bronchial smooth muscles, similar to what is seen in asthma.¹

IMAGE: © JOE GORMAN

Improving ventilation with the intention of relieving dyspnea is the goal of inhaler pharmacotherapy; targets include muscarinic receptors and beta 2-adrenergic receptors that act on bronchial smooth muscle and the autonomic nervous system. Immune modulators, such as corticosteroids, help reduce inflammation around airways.¹ Recent pharmacotherapeutic developments include combinations of inhaled medications and expanding options for devices that deliver drugs.

Delivery devices: Options and optimizing their use

Three principal types of inhaler devices are available: pressurized metered-dose inhalers (MDIs), dry-powder inhalers (DPIs), and soft-mist inhalers (SMIs). These devices, and nebulizers, facilitate medication delivery into the lungs (TABLE 1^3-9).

Errors in using inhalers affect outcome. Correct inhaler technique is essential for optimal delivery of inhaled medications. Errors in technique when using an inhaled delivery device lead to inadequate drug delivery and are associated with poor outcomes: 90% of patients make errors that are classified as critical (ie, those that reduce drug delivery) or noncritical.² Critical inhaler errors increase the risk of hospitalization and emergency department visits, and can necessitate a course of oral corticosteroids.¹⁰ Many critical errors are device specific; several such errors are described in TABLE 1.^3-9

Continue to: Patient education

Patient education is necessary to ensure that drug is delivered to the patient consistently, with the same expectation of effect seen in efficacy studies (which usually provide rigorous inhaler technique training and require demonstration of proficiency).^1,2,10 For the busy clinician, a multidisciplinary approach, discussed shortly, can help. Guidelines developed by the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) recommend that inhaler technique be reassessed at every visit and when evaluating treatment response.¹TABLE 1^3-9 provides information on each device type, patient requirements for use, proper technique, common errors in use, and tips for optimizing delivery.

Inhaler education and assessment of technique that is provided to patients in collaboration with a clinical pharmacist, nursing staff, and a respiratory therapist can help alleviate the pressure on a time-constrained primary care physician. Furthermore, pharmacist involvement in the COPD management team meaningfully improves inhaler technique and medication adherence.^6,7 Intervention by a pharmacist correlates with a significant reduction in number of exacerbations; an increased likelihood that the patient has a COPD care plan and has received the pneumococcal vaccine; and an improvement in the mean health-related quality of life.^11,12

In primary care practices that lack robust multidisciplinary resources, we recommend utilizing virtual resources, such as educational videos, to allow face-to-face or virtual education. A free source of such resources is the COPD Foundation,^a a not-for-profit organization funded partly by industry.

Short- and long-acting inhaled medications for COPD

Each class of inhaled medication for treating COPD is discussed broadly in the following sections. TABLE 2¹ provides details about individual drugs, devices available to deliver them, and starting dosages.

Short-acting agents

These drugs are available in MDI, SMI, and nebulizer delivery devices. When portability and equipment burden are important to the patient, we recommend an MDI over a nebulizer; an MDI is as efficacious as a nebulizer in improving forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) and reducing the length of hospital stay for exacerbations.⁴

Continue to: SABAs

Short-acting beta 2-adrenergic agonists (or beta-agonists [SABAs]). Beta-­agonists are typically used to treat exacerbations. They facilitate bronchodilation by upregulating cyclic adenosine monophosphate, preventing smooth-muscle contraction, and reducing dynamic hyperinflation. The effect of a SABA lasts 4 to 6 hours.

In general, SABAs are not recommended for daily use in stable COPD. However, they can be useful, and appropriate, for treating occasional dyspnea and can confer additional symptom improvement when used occasionally along with a long-acting beta 2-adrenergic agonist (or beta-agonist [LABA]; discussed later).¹

Continue use of a long-acting bronchodilator during exacerbations, when feasible.

Albuterol, a commonly used SABA, is less expensive than, and just as effective as, same-class levalbuterol for decreasing breathlessness associated with acute exacerbations. There is no significant difference between the 2 drugs in regard to the incidence of tachycardia or palpitations in patients with cardiovascular disease.¹³

Although no significant differences have been observed in outcomes when a nebulizer or an MDI is used to administer a SABA, it’s wise to avoid continuous SABA nebulizer therapy, due to the increased risk of disease transmission through the generation of droplets.^1,4 Instead, it’s appropriate to use an MDI regimen of 1 to 3 puffs every hour for 2 to 3 hours, followed by 1 to 3 puffs every 2 to 4 hours thereafter, based on the patient’s response.^1,4

Short-acting muscarinic antagonists (SAMAs). Muscarinic antagonists achieve bronchodilation by blocking acetylcholine on muscarinic receptors. We do not specifically recommend SAMAs over SABAs for treating COPD exacerbations in our patients: There is no difference in improvement in FEV₁ during an acute exacerbation. Nebulized delivery of a SAMA raises concern for an increase in the risk of acute narrow-angle glaucoma, a risk that can be reduced by using a mask during administration.^1,14

Continue to: SABA + SAMA

SABA + SAMA. One combination formulation of the 2 short-term classes of drugs (albuterol [SABA] + ipratropium [SAMA]), US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–­approved for every-6-hour dosing, is available for SMI delivery devices and nebulizers. In the setting of a hospitalized patient who requires more frequent bronchodilator dosing, we use albuterol and ipratropium delivered separately (ie, dosed independently), with ipratropium dosed no more frequently than every 4 hours.

Long-acting agents

The mechanisms of long-acting agents are similar to those of their short-acting counterparts. The recommendation is to continue use of a long-acting bronchodilator during exacerbations, when feasible.¹

LABA monotherapy reduces exacerbations that result in hospitalization (number needed to treat [NNT] = 39, to prevent 1 hospitalization in an 8-month period).¹⁵ Specifically, formoterol at higher dosages reduces exacerbations requiring hospitalization (NNT = 23, to prevent 1 exacerbation in a 6-month to 3-year period).¹⁵ Evidence supports better control of symptoms when a LABA is combined with a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA; discussed shortly).^1,15

Adverse effects of LABAs include sinus tachycardia, tachyphylaxis, somatic tremors, and, less commonly, hypokalemia—the latter specific to the LABA dosage and concomitant use of a thiazide diuretic. Other adverse effects include a mild decrease in the partial pressure of O₂ and, in patients with heart failure, increased oxygen consumption. Although higher dosages are not associated with an increased incidence of nonfatal adverse events, there appears to be no additional benefit to higher dosages in regard to mortality, particularly in patients with stable COPD.^1,15

LAMA. Monotherapy with a LAMA reduces the severity of COPD symptoms and reduces the risk of exacerbations and hospitalization (NNT = 58, to prevent 1 hospitalization in a 3 to 48–month period).¹⁶ Tiotropium is superior to LABA as monotherapy in (1) reducing exacerbations (NNT = 33, to prevent 1 exacerbation in a 3 to 12–month period) and (2) being associated with a lower rate of all adverse events.¹⁷ LAMAs also confer additional benefit when used in combination with agents of other classes, which we discuss in a bit.

Continue to: The most commonly...

The most commonly reported adverse effect of a LAMA is dry mouth. Some patients report developing a bitter metallic taste in the mouth.¹

ICSs are not recommended as monotherapy in COPD.¹ However, an ICS can be combined with a LABA to reduce the risk of exacerbations in patients with severe COPD (NNT = 22, to prevent 1 exacerbation per year).¹⁸ However, this combination increases the risk of pneumonia in this population (number needed to harm [NNH] = 36, to cause 1 case of nonfatal pneumonia per year).¹⁸

ICSs increase the incidence of oropharyngeal candidiasis and hoarseness. In addition, ICSs increase the risk of pneumonia in some patients with COPD¹⁸—in particular, current smokers, patients ≥ 55 years of age, and patients with a history of pneumonia or exacerbations, a body mass index < 25, or severe COPD symptoms.^1,18 ICS therapy does reduce the risk of COPD exacerbations in patients with a history of asthma or with eosinophilia > 300 cells/μL and in those who have a history of hospitalization for COPD exacerbations.^19,20

When portability and equipment burden are important to the patient, consider a metereddose inhaler (MDI) over a nebulizer: An MDI is equally efficacious.

The risk of pneumonia is not equal across all ICS agents. Fluticasone increases the risk of pneumonia (NNH = 23, to cause 1 case of pneumonia in a 22-month period).²¹ Budesonide showed no statistically significant increase in risk of pneumonia.²² However, further studies on the risk of pneumonia with budesonide are needed because those cited in the Cochrane review²¹ were much smaller trials, compared to trials of fluticasone, and of low-to-moderate quality. Furthermore, evidence is mixed whether ICS monotherapy in COPD worsens mortality during an 18-month study period.^21-23

For these reasons, it’s reasonable to (1) exercise caution when considering the addition of an ICS to LABA therapy and (2) limit such a combination to the setting of severe disease (as discussed already).

Continue to: LABA + LAMA

LABA + LAMA. In a trial of patients with moderate-to-severe COPD, combining a LABA and a LAMA did not reduce the risk of exacerbations or hospitalizations, compared to LABA or LAMA monotherapy, but did improve subjects’ reported daily symptoms and quality of life scores (using the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire^b; NNT = 14 [LAMA monotherapy] and NNT = 9 [LABA monotherapy], both in a 3 to 12–month period).²⁴ However, another study that looked at patients with moderate-to-severe COPD found that combining a LABA and a LAMA led to fewer exacerbations (NNT = 22, to prevent 1 exacerbation in a 3 to 12–month period) and a lower risk of pneumonia (NNT = 93, to prevent 1 case of pneumonia in a 3 to 12–month period) than LABA + ICS.²⁵

LABA + ICS. This dual therapy is falling out of favor, compared to treatment with LABA + LAMA, because LABA + ICS formulations are less effective at reducing exacerbations and increase the risk of pneumonia in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD.^1,25 However, LABA + ICS therapy still has a role in a subset of patients with COPD (discussed in the section on ICS). A LABA combined with an ICS does reduce exacerbations in patients with severe COPD (NNT = 22, to prevent 1 exacerbation per year).¹⁸ Expect that the reported rates of candidiasis, hoarseness, and pneumonia associated with an ICS will be similar with LABA + ICS.¹⁸

LABA + LAMA + ICS. These are the newest combination inhaled agents approved for clinical use. It is recommended that escalation to such triple therapy be reserved for patients with persistent dyspnea on LAMA + LABA therapy and who have the factors (previously described) that suggest benefit from adding an ICS.¹ Several clinical trials have provided guidance:

• In the 2018 TRIBUTE trial,²⁶ beclometasone (ICS) + formoterol (LABA) + glycopyrronium (LAMA) ^c outperformed indacaterol (LABA) + glycopyrronium for preventing moderate-to-severe exacerbations (NNT = 11, to prevent 1 exacerbation per year) in patients with symptomatic COPD who have severe or very severe airflow resistance and a history of a moderate-to-severe exacerbation during the previous year.
• In the 2017 TRINITY trial,²⁷ beclometasone + formoterol + glycopyrronium^c outperformed tiotropium (LAMA) in preventing moderate-to-severe exacerbations (NNT = 9, to prevent 1 exacerbation per year) in patients with an FEV₁ < 50% and a history of ≥ 1 moderate-to-severe exacerbation during the previous year.
• In the 2020 ETHOS trial,²⁸ budesonide + formoterol + glycopyrronium (approved by the FDA in 2020 under the brand name Breztri) outperformed both glycopyrrolate + formoterol (LABA) and budesonide (ICS) + formoterol in preventing moderate-to-severe exacerbations (NNT = 56 and 34, respectively, to prevent 1 exacerbation per year) in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD who had a history of ≥ 1 exacerbation in the previous year. Additionally, higher-dose budesonide + formoterol + glycopyrronium reduced 1-year mortality to a modest degree compared to glycopyrrolate + formoterol (NNT = 100, to prevent 1 death in a 12-month period).
• A 2016 Cochrane review that compared tiotropium + LABA + ICS to tiotropium monotherapy²⁹ showed improvement in FEV₁ and patient-reported symptoms and quality of life scores. However, the review showed no difference in exacerbations or hospitalizations over a 1-year period.

Mitigating environmental exposures that affect inhaler medication efficacy

Tobacco smoke. Emphasizing smoking cessation is highly relevant in patients who are still smoking. Smoking impedes the efficacy of ICSs in reducing exacerbations of COPD.³⁰ Along with improved lung function, former smokers with COPD experience fewer exacerbations (NNT = 73, to prevent 1 exacerbation in a 4-year period for all former smokers; NNT = 33, to do so for smokers who quit > 10 years ago).^31,32

The continuous use of shortacting betaagonist nebulizer therapy can increase the risk of disease transmission through the generation of droplets.

A 2005 Veterans Health Administration study showed reduced mortality in smokers who were enrolled in a 10-week smoking cessation program, had access to nicotine replacement therapy, and received strong physician messaging.³³ Despite a 20% to 25% quit rate, the NNT was 56 to prevent 1 death in 14.5 years across the entire group. It is worth having patients take advantage of this 3-pronged approach if it is available in your community or health system.

Continue to: Exposure to air pollution

Exposure to air pollution. Air pollutants other than tobacco smoke remain important modifiable factors that impact COPD. These include organic and inorganic dusts, chemical agents and fumes, and burning of solid biomass (eg, wood, coal) indoors in open fires or poorly functioning stoves.¹ With this risk in mind, counsel patients regarding efficient home ventilation, use of nonpolluting cooking stoves, and the reduction of occupational exposure to these potential irritants.

GOLD approach to starting and adjusting inhaled therapy

Initiating inhaled therapy

A good resource for family physicians is the GOLD refined ABCD assessment scheme for initiating inhaler therapy that integrates symptoms and exacerbations (TABLE 3¹). To assess the severity of dyspnea, either the Modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) Questionnaire or COPD Assessment Test (CAT) can be used. A moderate exacerbation requires an oral corticosteroid or antibiotic, or both; a severe exacerbation requires an emergency department visit or hospitalization, or both. TABLE 3¹ offers a guide to choosing initial therapy based on these factors.¹

Following up on and adjusting an inhaler regimen

Adjust inhaler pharmacotherapy based on whether exacerbations or daily symptoms of dyspnea are more bothersome to the patient. Escalation of therapy involves adding other long-acting agents and is warranted for patients with exacerbations or severe or worsening dyspnea. Before escalating therapy with additional agents, reassess the appropriateness of the delivery device that the patient has been using and assess their adherence to the prescribed regimen.¹

Dyspnea predominates. Escalate with LABA + LAMA. For a patient already taking an ICS, consider removing that ICS if the original indication was inappropriate, no response to treatment has been noted, or pneumonia develops.¹

Exacerbations predominate. Escalate with LABA + LAMA or with LABA + ICS. Consider adding an ICS in patients who have a history of asthma, eosinophilia > 300 cells/uL, or eosinophilia > 100 cells/uL and 2 moderate exacerbations or 1 severe (ie, hospitalizing) exacerbation. This addition of an ICS results in dual or triple therapy (ie, either LABA + ICS or LABA + LAMA + ICS).¹

Continue to: Unclear what predominates?

Unclear what predominates? Follow the exacerbation predominance pathway.¹

Additional decision-making might be necessary in several circumstances:

• For the patient who requires further titration beyond these pathways, consider triple therapy as LABA + LAMA + ICS, unless the eosinophil count is < 100 cell/μL.¹
• Consider de-escalating ICS therapy if the patient develops pneumonia, there is a lack of demonstrated benefit, or the initial indication was uncertain or inappropriate.
• For the patient who continues to have significant dyspnea despite dual or triple therapy, consider investigating and treating other causes of dyspnea.¹

Last, keep in mind that evidence is limited regarding escalating the dosage of these agents (1) beyond what is listed in TABLE 2¹ and (2) in specific instances mentioned in the discussion of each inhaler class.

^a www.copdfoundation.org/Learn-More/EducationalMaterials-Resources/Educational-Video-Series.aspx

^b www.thoracic.org/members/assemblies/assemblies/srn/questionaires/sgrq.php

^c Not an FDA-approved combination inhaled-agent treatment; approved in the European Union, under various brand names, by the European Medicines Agency.

^c Not an FDA-approved combination inhaled-agent treatment; approved in the European Union, under various brand names, by the European Medicines Agency.

CORRESPONDENCE
Michael Arnold, DO, FAAFP, Carl R. Darnall Army Medical Center, Uniformed Service University, 36065 Santa Fe Avenue, Fort Hood, TX 76544; scalpelandyardstick@gmail.com

Managing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) presents a significant challenge to busy clinicians in many ways, especially when one is approaching the long list of inhaled pharmaceutical agents with an eye toward a cost-effective, patient-centered regimen. Inhaled agents remain expensive, with few available in generic form.

Our primary goal in this article is to detail these agents’ utility, limitations, and relative cost. Specifically, we review why the following considerations are important:

• Choose the right delivery device and drug while considering patient factors.
• Provide patient education through allied health professionals.
• Reduce environmental exposures.
• Rethink the use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS).
• Understand the role of dual therapy and triple therapy.

Guidelines recommend reassessing inhaler technique at every visit and when evaluating treatment response.

There are numerous other treatment modalities for COPD that are recommended in national and international practice guidelines, including vaccination, pulmonary rehabilitation, home visits, phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitors, oral glucocorticoids, supplemental oxygen, and ventilatory support.¹ Discussion of those modalities is beyond the scope of this review.

Pathophysiology and pharmacotherapy targets

COPD is characterized by persistent respiratory symptoms and airflow limitation, usually due to airway or alveolar abnormalities, or both, caused by environmental and host factors.² Sustained lung parenchymal irritation results from exposure to noxious fumes generated by tobacco, pollution, chemicals, and cleaning agents. Host factors include lung immaturity at birth; genetic mutations, such as alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency and dysregulation of elastase; and increased reactivity of bronchial smooth muscles, similar to what is seen in asthma.¹

IMAGE: © JOE GORMAN

Improving ventilation with the intention of relieving dyspnea is the goal of inhaler pharmacotherapy; targets include muscarinic receptors and beta 2-adrenergic receptors that act on bronchial smooth muscle and the autonomic nervous system. Immune modulators, such as corticosteroids, help reduce inflammation around airways.¹ Recent pharmacotherapeutic developments include combinations of inhaled medications and expanding options for devices that deliver drugs.

Delivery devices: Options and optimizing their use

Three principal types of inhaler devices are available: pressurized metered-dose inhalers (MDIs), dry-powder inhalers (DPIs), and soft-mist inhalers (SMIs). These devices, and nebulizers, facilitate medication delivery into the lungs (TABLE 1^3-9).

Errors in using inhalers affect outcome. Correct inhaler technique is essential for optimal delivery of inhaled medications. Errors in technique when using an inhaled delivery device lead to inadequate drug delivery and are associated with poor outcomes: 90% of patients make errors that are classified as critical (ie, those that reduce drug delivery) or noncritical.² Critical inhaler errors increase the risk of hospitalization and emergency department visits, and can necessitate a course of oral corticosteroids.¹⁰ Many critical errors are device specific; several such errors are described in TABLE 1.^3-9

Continue to: Patient education

Patient education is necessary to ensure that drug is delivered to the patient consistently, with the same expectation of effect seen in efficacy studies (which usually provide rigorous inhaler technique training and require demonstration of proficiency).^1,2,10 For the busy clinician, a multidisciplinary approach, discussed shortly, can help. Guidelines developed by the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) recommend that inhaler technique be reassessed at every visit and when evaluating treatment response.¹TABLE 1^3-9 provides information on each device type, patient requirements for use, proper technique, common errors in use, and tips for optimizing delivery.

Inhaler education and assessment of technique that is provided to patients in collaboration with a clinical pharmacist, nursing staff, and a respiratory therapist can help alleviate the pressure on a time-constrained primary care physician. Furthermore, pharmacist involvement in the COPD management team meaningfully improves inhaler technique and medication adherence.^6,7 Intervention by a pharmacist correlates with a significant reduction in number of exacerbations; an increased likelihood that the patient has a COPD care plan and has received the pneumococcal vaccine; and an improvement in the mean health-related quality of life.^11,12

In primary care practices that lack robust multidisciplinary resources, we recommend utilizing virtual resources, such as educational videos, to allow face-to-face or virtual education. A free source of such resources is the COPD Foundation,^a a not-for-profit organization funded partly by industry.

Short- and long-acting inhaled medications for COPD

Each class of inhaled medication for treating COPD is discussed broadly in the following sections. TABLE 2¹ provides details about individual drugs, devices available to deliver them, and starting dosages.

Short-acting agents

These drugs are available in MDI, SMI, and nebulizer delivery devices. When portability and equipment burden are important to the patient, we recommend an MDI over a nebulizer; an MDI is as efficacious as a nebulizer in improving forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) and reducing the length of hospital stay for exacerbations.⁴

Continue to: SABAs

Short-acting beta 2-adrenergic agonists (or beta-agonists [SABAs]). Beta-­agonists are typically used to treat exacerbations. They facilitate bronchodilation by upregulating cyclic adenosine monophosphate, preventing smooth-muscle contraction, and reducing dynamic hyperinflation. The effect of a SABA lasts 4 to 6 hours.

In general, SABAs are not recommended for daily use in stable COPD. However, they can be useful, and appropriate, for treating occasional dyspnea and can confer additional symptom improvement when used occasionally along with a long-acting beta 2-adrenergic agonist (or beta-agonist [LABA]; discussed later).¹

Continue use of a long-acting bronchodilator during exacerbations, when feasible.

Albuterol, a commonly used SABA, is less expensive than, and just as effective as, same-class levalbuterol for decreasing breathlessness associated with acute exacerbations. There is no significant difference between the 2 drugs in regard to the incidence of tachycardia or palpitations in patients with cardiovascular disease.¹³

Although no significant differences have been observed in outcomes when a nebulizer or an MDI is used to administer a SABA, it’s wise to avoid continuous SABA nebulizer therapy, due to the increased risk of disease transmission through the generation of droplets.^1,4 Instead, it’s appropriate to use an MDI regimen of 1 to 3 puffs every hour for 2 to 3 hours, followed by 1 to 3 puffs every 2 to 4 hours thereafter, based on the patient’s response.^1,4

Short-acting muscarinic antagonists (SAMAs). Muscarinic antagonists achieve bronchodilation by blocking acetylcholine on muscarinic receptors. We do not specifically recommend SAMAs over SABAs for treating COPD exacerbations in our patients: There is no difference in improvement in FEV₁ during an acute exacerbation. Nebulized delivery of a SAMA raises concern for an increase in the risk of acute narrow-angle glaucoma, a risk that can be reduced by using a mask during administration.^1,14

Continue to: SABA + SAMA

SABA + SAMA. One combination formulation of the 2 short-term classes of drugs (albuterol [SABA] + ipratropium [SAMA]), US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–­approved for every-6-hour dosing, is available for SMI delivery devices and nebulizers. In the setting of a hospitalized patient who requires more frequent bronchodilator dosing, we use albuterol and ipratropium delivered separately (ie, dosed independently), with ipratropium dosed no more frequently than every 4 hours.

Long-acting agents

The mechanisms of long-acting agents are similar to those of their short-acting counterparts. The recommendation is to continue use of a long-acting bronchodilator during exacerbations, when feasible.¹

LABA monotherapy reduces exacerbations that result in hospitalization (number needed to treat [NNT] = 39, to prevent 1 hospitalization in an 8-month period).¹⁵ Specifically, formoterol at higher dosages reduces exacerbations requiring hospitalization (NNT = 23, to prevent 1 exacerbation in a 6-month to 3-year period).¹⁵ Evidence supports better control of symptoms when a LABA is combined with a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA; discussed shortly).^1,15

Adverse effects of LABAs include sinus tachycardia, tachyphylaxis, somatic tremors, and, less commonly, hypokalemia—the latter specific to the LABA dosage and concomitant use of a thiazide diuretic. Other adverse effects include a mild decrease in the partial pressure of O₂ and, in patients with heart failure, increased oxygen consumption. Although higher dosages are not associated with an increased incidence of nonfatal adverse events, there appears to be no additional benefit to higher dosages in regard to mortality, particularly in patients with stable COPD.^1,15

LAMA. Monotherapy with a LAMA reduces the severity of COPD symptoms and reduces the risk of exacerbations and hospitalization (NNT = 58, to prevent 1 hospitalization in a 3 to 48–month period).¹⁶ Tiotropium is superior to LABA as monotherapy in (1) reducing exacerbations (NNT = 33, to prevent 1 exacerbation in a 3 to 12–month period) and (2) being associated with a lower rate of all adverse events.¹⁷ LAMAs also confer additional benefit when used in combination with agents of other classes, which we discuss in a bit.

Continue to: The most commonly...

The most commonly reported adverse effect of a LAMA is dry mouth. Some patients report developing a bitter metallic taste in the mouth.¹

ICSs are not recommended as monotherapy in COPD.¹ However, an ICS can be combined with a LABA to reduce the risk of exacerbations in patients with severe COPD (NNT = 22, to prevent 1 exacerbation per year).¹⁸ However, this combination increases the risk of pneumonia in this population (number needed to harm [NNH] = 36, to cause 1 case of nonfatal pneumonia per year).¹⁸

ICSs increase the incidence of oropharyngeal candidiasis and hoarseness. In addition, ICSs increase the risk of pneumonia in some patients with COPD¹⁸—in particular, current smokers, patients ≥ 55 years of age, and patients with a history of pneumonia or exacerbations, a body mass index < 25, or severe COPD symptoms.^1,18 ICS therapy does reduce the risk of COPD exacerbations in patients with a history of asthma or with eosinophilia > 300 cells/μL and in those who have a history of hospitalization for COPD exacerbations.^19,20

When portability and equipment burden are important to the patient, consider a metereddose inhaler (MDI) over a nebulizer: An MDI is equally efficacious.

The risk of pneumonia is not equal across all ICS agents. Fluticasone increases the risk of pneumonia (NNH = 23, to cause 1 case of pneumonia in a 22-month period).²¹ Budesonide showed no statistically significant increase in risk of pneumonia.²² However, further studies on the risk of pneumonia with budesonide are needed because those cited in the Cochrane review²¹ were much smaller trials, compared to trials of fluticasone, and of low-to-moderate quality. Furthermore, evidence is mixed whether ICS monotherapy in COPD worsens mortality during an 18-month study period.^21-23

For these reasons, it’s reasonable to (1) exercise caution when considering the addition of an ICS to LABA therapy and (2) limit such a combination to the setting of severe disease (as discussed already).

Continue to: LABA + LAMA

LABA + LAMA. In a trial of patients with moderate-to-severe COPD, combining a LABA and a LAMA did not reduce the risk of exacerbations or hospitalizations, compared to LABA or LAMA monotherapy, but did improve subjects’ reported daily symptoms and quality of life scores (using the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire^b; NNT = 14 [LAMA monotherapy] and NNT = 9 [LABA monotherapy], both in a 3 to 12–month period).²⁴ However, another study that looked at patients with moderate-to-severe COPD found that combining a LABA and a LAMA led to fewer exacerbations (NNT = 22, to prevent 1 exacerbation in a 3 to 12–month period) and a lower risk of pneumonia (NNT = 93, to prevent 1 case of pneumonia in a 3 to 12–month period) than LABA + ICS.²⁵

LABA + ICS. This dual therapy is falling out of favor, compared to treatment with LABA + LAMA, because LABA + ICS formulations are less effective at reducing exacerbations and increase the risk of pneumonia in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD.^1,25 However, LABA + ICS therapy still has a role in a subset of patients with COPD (discussed in the section on ICS). A LABA combined with an ICS does reduce exacerbations in patients with severe COPD (NNT = 22, to prevent 1 exacerbation per year).¹⁸ Expect that the reported rates of candidiasis, hoarseness, and pneumonia associated with an ICS will be similar with LABA + ICS.¹⁸

LABA + LAMA + ICS. These are the newest combination inhaled agents approved for clinical use. It is recommended that escalation to such triple therapy be reserved for patients with persistent dyspnea on LAMA + LABA therapy and who have the factors (previously described) that suggest benefit from adding an ICS.¹ Several clinical trials have provided guidance:

• In the 2018 TRIBUTE trial,²⁶ beclometasone (ICS) + formoterol (LABA) + glycopyrronium (LAMA) ^c outperformed indacaterol (LABA) + glycopyrronium for preventing moderate-to-severe exacerbations (NNT = 11, to prevent 1 exacerbation per year) in patients with symptomatic COPD who have severe or very severe airflow resistance and a history of a moderate-to-severe exacerbation during the previous year.
• In the 2017 TRINITY trial,²⁷ beclometasone + formoterol + glycopyrronium^c outperformed tiotropium (LAMA) in preventing moderate-to-severe exacerbations (NNT = 9, to prevent 1 exacerbation per year) in patients with an FEV₁ < 50% and a history of ≥ 1 moderate-to-severe exacerbation during the previous year.
• In the 2020 ETHOS trial,²⁸ budesonide + formoterol + glycopyrronium (approved by the FDA in 2020 under the brand name Breztri) outperformed both glycopyrrolate + formoterol (LABA) and budesonide (ICS) + formoterol in preventing moderate-to-severe exacerbations (NNT = 56 and 34, respectively, to prevent 1 exacerbation per year) in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD who had a history of ≥ 1 exacerbation in the previous year. Additionally, higher-dose budesonide + formoterol + glycopyrronium reduced 1-year mortality to a modest degree compared to glycopyrrolate + formoterol (NNT = 100, to prevent 1 death in a 12-month period).
• A 2016 Cochrane review that compared tiotropium + LABA + ICS to tiotropium monotherapy²⁹ showed improvement in FEV₁ and patient-reported symptoms and quality of life scores. However, the review showed no difference in exacerbations or hospitalizations over a 1-year period.

Mitigating environmental exposures that affect inhaler medication efficacy

Tobacco smoke. Emphasizing smoking cessation is highly relevant in patients who are still smoking. Smoking impedes the efficacy of ICSs in reducing exacerbations of COPD.³⁰ Along with improved lung function, former smokers with COPD experience fewer exacerbations (NNT = 73, to prevent 1 exacerbation in a 4-year period for all former smokers; NNT = 33, to do so for smokers who quit > 10 years ago).^31,32

The continuous use of shortacting betaagonist nebulizer therapy can increase the risk of disease transmission through the generation of droplets.

A 2005 Veterans Health Administration study showed reduced mortality in smokers who were enrolled in a 10-week smoking cessation program, had access to nicotine replacement therapy, and received strong physician messaging.³³ Despite a 20% to 25% quit rate, the NNT was 56 to prevent 1 death in 14.5 years across the entire group. It is worth having patients take advantage of this 3-pronged approach if it is available in your community or health system.

Continue to: Exposure to air pollution

Exposure to air pollution. Air pollutants other than tobacco smoke remain important modifiable factors that impact COPD. These include organic and inorganic dusts, chemical agents and fumes, and burning of solid biomass (eg, wood, coal) indoors in open fires or poorly functioning stoves.¹ With this risk in mind, counsel patients regarding efficient home ventilation, use of nonpolluting cooking stoves, and the reduction of occupational exposure to these potential irritants.

GOLD approach to starting and adjusting inhaled therapy

Initiating inhaled therapy

A good resource for family physicians is the GOLD refined ABCD assessment scheme for initiating inhaler therapy that integrates symptoms and exacerbations (TABLE 3¹). To assess the severity of dyspnea, either the Modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) Questionnaire or COPD Assessment Test (CAT) can be used. A moderate exacerbation requires an oral corticosteroid or antibiotic, or both; a severe exacerbation requires an emergency department visit or hospitalization, or both. TABLE 3¹ offers a guide to choosing initial therapy based on these factors.¹

Following up on and adjusting an inhaler regimen

Adjust inhaler pharmacotherapy based on whether exacerbations or daily symptoms of dyspnea are more bothersome to the patient. Escalation of therapy involves adding other long-acting agents and is warranted for patients with exacerbations or severe or worsening dyspnea. Before escalating therapy with additional agents, reassess the appropriateness of the delivery device that the patient has been using and assess their adherence to the prescribed regimen.¹

Dyspnea predominates. Escalate with LABA + LAMA. For a patient already taking an ICS, consider removing that ICS if the original indication was inappropriate, no response to treatment has been noted, or pneumonia develops.¹

Exacerbations predominate. Escalate with LABA + LAMA or with LABA + ICS. Consider adding an ICS in patients who have a history of asthma, eosinophilia > 300 cells/uL, or eosinophilia > 100 cells/uL and 2 moderate exacerbations or 1 severe (ie, hospitalizing) exacerbation. This addition of an ICS results in dual or triple therapy (ie, either LABA + ICS or LABA + LAMA + ICS).¹

Continue to: Unclear what predominates?

Unclear what predominates? Follow the exacerbation predominance pathway.¹

Additional decision-making might be necessary in several circumstances:

• For the patient who requires further titration beyond these pathways, consider triple therapy as LABA + LAMA + ICS, unless the eosinophil count is < 100 cell/μL.¹
• Consider de-escalating ICS therapy if the patient develops pneumonia, there is a lack of demonstrated benefit, or the initial indication was uncertain or inappropriate.
• For the patient who continues to have significant dyspnea despite dual or triple therapy, consider investigating and treating other causes of dyspnea.¹

Last, keep in mind that evidence is limited regarding escalating the dosage of these agents (1) beyond what is listed in TABLE 2¹ and (2) in specific instances mentioned in the discussion of each inhaler class.

^a www.copdfoundation.org/Learn-More/EducationalMaterials-Resources/Educational-Video-Series.aspx

^b www.thoracic.org/members/assemblies/assemblies/srn/questionaires/sgrq.php

^c Not an FDA-approved combination inhaled-agent treatment; approved in the European Union, under various brand names, by the European Medicines Agency.

^c Not an FDA-approved combination inhaled-agent treatment; approved in the European Union, under various brand names, by the European Medicines Agency.

CORRESPONDENCE
Michael Arnold, DO, FAAFP, Carl R. Darnall Army Medical Center, Uniformed Service University, 36065 Santa Fe Avenue, Fort Hood, TX 76544; scalpelandyardstick@gmail.com

Managing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) presents a significant challenge to busy clinicians in many ways, especially when one is approaching the long list of inhaled pharmaceutical agents with an eye toward a cost-effective, patient-centered regimen. Inhaled agents remain expensive, with few available in generic form.

Our primary goal in this article is to detail these agents’ utility, limitations, and relative cost. Specifically, we review why the following considerations are important:

• Choose the right delivery device and drug while considering patient factors.
• Provide patient education through allied health professionals.
• Reduce environmental exposures.
• Rethink the use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS).
• Understand the role of dual therapy and triple therapy.

Guidelines recommend reassessing inhaler technique at every visit and when evaluating treatment response.

There are numerous other treatment modalities for COPD that are recommended in national and international practice guidelines, including vaccination, pulmonary rehabilitation, home visits, phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitors, oral glucocorticoids, supplemental oxygen, and ventilatory support.¹ Discussion of those modalities is beyond the scope of this review.

Pathophysiology and pharmacotherapy targets

COPD is characterized by persistent respiratory symptoms and airflow limitation, usually due to airway or alveolar abnormalities, or both, caused by environmental and host factors.² Sustained lung parenchymal irritation results from exposure to noxious fumes generated by tobacco, pollution, chemicals, and cleaning agents. Host factors include lung immaturity at birth; genetic mutations, such as alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency and dysregulation of elastase; and increased reactivity of bronchial smooth muscles, similar to what is seen in asthma.¹

IMAGE: © JOE GORMAN

Improving ventilation with the intention of relieving dyspnea is the goal of inhaler pharmacotherapy; targets include muscarinic receptors and beta 2-adrenergic receptors that act on bronchial smooth muscle and the autonomic nervous system. Immune modulators, such as corticosteroids, help reduce inflammation around airways.¹ Recent pharmacotherapeutic developments include combinations of inhaled medications and expanding options for devices that deliver drugs.

Delivery devices: Options and optimizing their use

Three principal types of inhaler devices are available: pressurized metered-dose inhalers (MDIs), dry-powder inhalers (DPIs), and soft-mist inhalers (SMIs). These devices, and nebulizers, facilitate medication delivery into the lungs (TABLE 1^3-9).

Errors in using inhalers affect outcome. Correct inhaler technique is essential for optimal delivery of inhaled medications. Errors in technique when using an inhaled delivery device lead to inadequate drug delivery and are associated with poor outcomes: 90% of patients make errors that are classified as critical (ie, those that reduce drug delivery) or noncritical.² Critical inhaler errors increase the risk of hospitalization and emergency department visits, and can necessitate a course of oral corticosteroids.¹⁰ Many critical errors are device specific; several such errors are described in TABLE 1.^3-9

Continue to: Patient education

Patient education is necessary to ensure that drug is delivered to the patient consistently, with the same expectation of effect seen in efficacy studies (which usually provide rigorous inhaler technique training and require demonstration of proficiency).^1,2,10 For the busy clinician, a multidisciplinary approach, discussed shortly, can help. Guidelines developed by the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) recommend that inhaler technique be reassessed at every visit and when evaluating treatment response.¹TABLE 1^3-9 provides information on each device type, patient requirements for use, proper technique, common errors in use, and tips for optimizing delivery.

Inhaler education and assessment of technique that is provided to patients in collaboration with a clinical pharmacist, nursing staff, and a respiratory therapist can help alleviate the pressure on a time-constrained primary care physician. Furthermore, pharmacist involvement in the COPD management team meaningfully improves inhaler technique and medication adherence.^6,7 Intervention by a pharmacist correlates with a significant reduction in number of exacerbations; an increased likelihood that the patient has a COPD care plan and has received the pneumococcal vaccine; and an improvement in the mean health-related quality of life.^11,12

In primary care practices that lack robust multidisciplinary resources, we recommend utilizing virtual resources, such as educational videos, to allow face-to-face or virtual education. A free source of such resources is the COPD Foundation,^a a not-for-profit organization funded partly by industry.

Short- and long-acting inhaled medications for COPD

Each class of inhaled medication for treating COPD is discussed broadly in the following sections. TABLE 2¹ provides details about individual drugs, devices available to deliver them, and starting dosages.

Short-acting agents

These drugs are available in MDI, SMI, and nebulizer delivery devices. When portability and equipment burden are important to the patient, we recommend an MDI over a nebulizer; an MDI is as efficacious as a nebulizer in improving forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) and reducing the length of hospital stay for exacerbations.⁴

Continue to: SABAs

Short-acting beta 2-adrenergic agonists (or beta-agonists [SABAs]). Beta-­agonists are typically used to treat exacerbations. They facilitate bronchodilation by upregulating cyclic adenosine monophosphate, preventing smooth-muscle contraction, and reducing dynamic hyperinflation. The effect of a SABA lasts 4 to 6 hours.

In general, SABAs are not recommended for daily use in stable COPD. However, they can be useful, and appropriate, for treating occasional dyspnea and can confer additional symptom improvement when used occasionally along with a long-acting beta 2-adrenergic agonist (or beta-agonist [LABA]; discussed later).¹

Continue use of a long-acting bronchodilator during exacerbations, when feasible.

Albuterol, a commonly used SABA, is less expensive than, and just as effective as, same-class levalbuterol for decreasing breathlessness associated with acute exacerbations. There is no significant difference between the 2 drugs in regard to the incidence of tachycardia or palpitations in patients with cardiovascular disease.¹³

Although no significant differences have been observed in outcomes when a nebulizer or an MDI is used to administer a SABA, it’s wise to avoid continuous SABA nebulizer therapy, due to the increased risk of disease transmission through the generation of droplets.^1,4 Instead, it’s appropriate to use an MDI regimen of 1 to 3 puffs every hour for 2 to 3 hours, followed by 1 to 3 puffs every 2 to 4 hours thereafter, based on the patient’s response.^1,4

Short-acting muscarinic antagonists (SAMAs). Muscarinic antagonists achieve bronchodilation by blocking acetylcholine on muscarinic receptors. We do not specifically recommend SAMAs over SABAs for treating COPD exacerbations in our patients: There is no difference in improvement in FEV₁ during an acute exacerbation. Nebulized delivery of a SAMA raises concern for an increase in the risk of acute narrow-angle glaucoma, a risk that can be reduced by using a mask during administration.^1,14

Continue to: SABA + SAMA

SABA + SAMA. One combination formulation of the 2 short-term classes of drugs (albuterol [SABA] + ipratropium [SAMA]), US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–­approved for every-6-hour dosing, is available for SMI delivery devices and nebulizers. In the setting of a hospitalized patient who requires more frequent bronchodilator dosing, we use albuterol and ipratropium delivered separately (ie, dosed independently), with ipratropium dosed no more frequently than every 4 hours.

Long-acting agents

The mechanisms of long-acting agents are similar to those of their short-acting counterparts. The recommendation is to continue use of a long-acting bronchodilator during exacerbations, when feasible.¹

LABA monotherapy reduces exacerbations that result in hospitalization (number needed to treat [NNT] = 39, to prevent 1 hospitalization in an 8-month period).¹⁵ Specifically, formoterol at higher dosages reduces exacerbations requiring hospitalization (NNT = 23, to prevent 1 exacerbation in a 6-month to 3-year period).¹⁵ Evidence supports better control of symptoms when a LABA is combined with a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA; discussed shortly).^1,15

Adverse effects of LABAs include sinus tachycardia, tachyphylaxis, somatic tremors, and, less commonly, hypokalemia—the latter specific to the LABA dosage and concomitant use of a thiazide diuretic. Other adverse effects include a mild decrease in the partial pressure of O₂ and, in patients with heart failure, increased oxygen consumption. Although higher dosages are not associated with an increased incidence of nonfatal adverse events, there appears to be no additional benefit to higher dosages in regard to mortality, particularly in patients with stable COPD.^1,15

LAMA. Monotherapy with a LAMA reduces the severity of COPD symptoms and reduces the risk of exacerbations and hospitalization (NNT = 58, to prevent 1 hospitalization in a 3 to 48–month period).¹⁶ Tiotropium is superior to LABA as monotherapy in (1) reducing exacerbations (NNT = 33, to prevent 1 exacerbation in a 3 to 12–month period) and (2) being associated with a lower rate of all adverse events.¹⁷ LAMAs also confer additional benefit when used in combination with agents of other classes, which we discuss in a bit.

Continue to: The most commonly...

The most commonly reported adverse effect of a LAMA is dry mouth. Some patients report developing a bitter metallic taste in the mouth.¹

ICSs are not recommended as monotherapy in COPD.¹ However, an ICS can be combined with a LABA to reduce the risk of exacerbations in patients with severe COPD (NNT = 22, to prevent 1 exacerbation per year).¹⁸ However, this combination increases the risk of pneumonia in this population (number needed to harm [NNH] = 36, to cause 1 case of nonfatal pneumonia per year).¹⁸

ICSs increase the incidence of oropharyngeal candidiasis and hoarseness. In addition, ICSs increase the risk of pneumonia in some patients with COPD¹⁸—in particular, current smokers, patients ≥ 55 years of age, and patients with a history of pneumonia or exacerbations, a body mass index < 25, or severe COPD symptoms.^1,18 ICS therapy does reduce the risk of COPD exacerbations in patients with a history of asthma or with eosinophilia > 300 cells/μL and in those who have a history of hospitalization for COPD exacerbations.^19,20

When portability and equipment burden are important to the patient, consider a metereddose inhaler (MDI) over a nebulizer: An MDI is equally efficacious.

The risk of pneumonia is not equal across all ICS agents. Fluticasone increases the risk of pneumonia (NNH = 23, to cause 1 case of pneumonia in a 22-month period).²¹ Budesonide showed no statistically significant increase in risk of pneumonia.²² However, further studies on the risk of pneumonia with budesonide are needed because those cited in the Cochrane review²¹ were much smaller trials, compared to trials of fluticasone, and of low-to-moderate quality. Furthermore, evidence is mixed whether ICS monotherapy in COPD worsens mortality during an 18-month study period.^21-23

For these reasons, it’s reasonable to (1) exercise caution when considering the addition of an ICS to LABA therapy and (2) limit such a combination to the setting of severe disease (as discussed already).

Continue to: LABA + LAMA

LABA + LAMA. In a trial of patients with moderate-to-severe COPD, combining a LABA and a LAMA did not reduce the risk of exacerbations or hospitalizations, compared to LABA or LAMA monotherapy, but did improve subjects’ reported daily symptoms and quality of life scores (using the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire^b; NNT = 14 [LAMA monotherapy] and NNT = 9 [LABA monotherapy], both in a 3 to 12–month period).²⁴ However, another study that looked at patients with moderate-to-severe COPD found that combining a LABA and a LAMA led to fewer exacerbations (NNT = 22, to prevent 1 exacerbation in a 3 to 12–month period) and a lower risk of pneumonia (NNT = 93, to prevent 1 case of pneumonia in a 3 to 12–month period) than LABA + ICS.²⁵

LABA + ICS. This dual therapy is falling out of favor, compared to treatment with LABA + LAMA, because LABA + ICS formulations are less effective at reducing exacerbations and increase the risk of pneumonia in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD.^1,25 However, LABA + ICS therapy still has a role in a subset of patients with COPD (discussed in the section on ICS). A LABA combined with an ICS does reduce exacerbations in patients with severe COPD (NNT = 22, to prevent 1 exacerbation per year).¹⁸ Expect that the reported rates of candidiasis, hoarseness, and pneumonia associated with an ICS will be similar with LABA + ICS.¹⁸

LABA + LAMA + ICS. These are the newest combination inhaled agents approved for clinical use. It is recommended that escalation to such triple therapy be reserved for patients with persistent dyspnea on LAMA + LABA therapy and who have the factors (previously described) that suggest benefit from adding an ICS.¹ Several clinical trials have provided guidance:

• In the 2018 TRIBUTE trial,²⁶ beclometasone (ICS) + formoterol (LABA) + glycopyrronium (LAMA) ^c outperformed indacaterol (LABA) + glycopyrronium for preventing moderate-to-severe exacerbations (NNT = 11, to prevent 1 exacerbation per year) in patients with symptomatic COPD who have severe or very severe airflow resistance and a history of a moderate-to-severe exacerbation during the previous year.
• In the 2017 TRINITY trial,²⁷ beclometasone + formoterol + glycopyrronium^c outperformed tiotropium (LAMA) in preventing moderate-to-severe exacerbations (NNT = 9, to prevent 1 exacerbation per year) in patients with an FEV₁ < 50% and a history of ≥ 1 moderate-to-severe exacerbation during the previous year.
• In the 2020 ETHOS trial,²⁸ budesonide + formoterol + glycopyrronium (approved by the FDA in 2020 under the brand name Breztri) outperformed both glycopyrrolate + formoterol (LABA) and budesonide (ICS) + formoterol in preventing moderate-to-severe exacerbations (NNT = 56 and 34, respectively, to prevent 1 exacerbation per year) in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD who had a history of ≥ 1 exacerbation in the previous year. Additionally, higher-dose budesonide + formoterol + glycopyrronium reduced 1-year mortality to a modest degree compared to glycopyrrolate + formoterol (NNT = 100, to prevent 1 death in a 12-month period).
• A 2016 Cochrane review that compared tiotropium + LABA + ICS to tiotropium monotherapy²⁹ showed improvement in FEV₁ and patient-reported symptoms and quality of life scores. However, the review showed no difference in exacerbations or hospitalizations over a 1-year period.

Mitigating environmental exposures that affect inhaler medication efficacy

Tobacco smoke. Emphasizing smoking cessation is highly relevant in patients who are still smoking. Smoking impedes the efficacy of ICSs in reducing exacerbations of COPD.³⁰ Along with improved lung function, former smokers with COPD experience fewer exacerbations (NNT = 73, to prevent 1 exacerbation in a 4-year period for all former smokers; NNT = 33, to do so for smokers who quit > 10 years ago).^31,32

The continuous use of shortacting betaagonist nebulizer therapy can increase the risk of disease transmission through the generation of droplets.

A 2005 Veterans Health Administration study showed reduced mortality in smokers who were enrolled in a 10-week smoking cessation program, had access to nicotine replacement therapy, and received strong physician messaging.³³ Despite a 20% to 25% quit rate, the NNT was 56 to prevent 1 death in 14.5 years across the entire group. It is worth having patients take advantage of this 3-pronged approach if it is available in your community or health system.

Continue to: Exposure to air pollution

Exposure to air pollution. Air pollutants other than tobacco smoke remain important modifiable factors that impact COPD. These include organic and inorganic dusts, chemical agents and fumes, and burning of solid biomass (eg, wood, coal) indoors in open fires or poorly functioning stoves.¹ With this risk in mind, counsel patients regarding efficient home ventilation, use of nonpolluting cooking stoves, and the reduction of occupational exposure to these potential irritants.

GOLD approach to starting and adjusting inhaled therapy

Initiating inhaled therapy

A good resource for family physicians is the GOLD refined ABCD assessment scheme for initiating inhaler therapy that integrates symptoms and exacerbations (TABLE 3¹). To assess the severity of dyspnea, either the Modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) Questionnaire or COPD Assessment Test (CAT) can be used. A moderate exacerbation requires an oral corticosteroid or antibiotic, or both; a severe exacerbation requires an emergency department visit or hospitalization, or both. TABLE 3¹ offers a guide to choosing initial therapy based on these factors.¹

Following up on and adjusting an inhaler regimen

Adjust inhaler pharmacotherapy based on whether exacerbations or daily symptoms of dyspnea are more bothersome to the patient. Escalation of therapy involves adding other long-acting agents and is warranted for patients with exacerbations or severe or worsening dyspnea. Before escalating therapy with additional agents, reassess the appropriateness of the delivery device that the patient has been using and assess their adherence to the prescribed regimen.¹

Dyspnea predominates. Escalate with LABA + LAMA. For a patient already taking an ICS, consider removing that ICS if the original indication was inappropriate, no response to treatment has been noted, or pneumonia develops.¹

Exacerbations predominate. Escalate with LABA + LAMA or with LABA + ICS. Consider adding an ICS in patients who have a history of asthma, eosinophilia > 300 cells/uL, or eosinophilia > 100 cells/uL and 2 moderate exacerbations or 1 severe (ie, hospitalizing) exacerbation. This addition of an ICS results in dual or triple therapy (ie, either LABA + ICS or LABA + LAMA + ICS).¹

Continue to: Unclear what predominates?

Unclear what predominates? Follow the exacerbation predominance pathway.¹

Additional decision-making might be necessary in several circumstances:

• For the patient who requires further titration beyond these pathways, consider triple therapy as LABA + LAMA + ICS, unless the eosinophil count is < 100 cell/μL.¹
• Consider de-escalating ICS therapy if the patient develops pneumonia, there is a lack of demonstrated benefit, or the initial indication was uncertain or inappropriate.
• For the patient who continues to have significant dyspnea despite dual or triple therapy, consider investigating and treating other causes of dyspnea.¹

Last, keep in mind that evidence is limited regarding escalating the dosage of these agents (1) beyond what is listed in TABLE 2¹ and (2) in specific instances mentioned in the discussion of each inhaler class.

^a www.copdfoundation.org/Learn-More/EducationalMaterials-Resources/Educational-Video-Series.aspx

^b www.thoracic.org/members/assemblies/assemblies/srn/questionaires/sgrq.php

^c Not an FDA-approved combination inhaled-agent treatment; approved in the European Union, under various brand names, by the European Medicines Agency.

^c Not an FDA-approved combination inhaled-agent treatment; approved in the European Union, under various brand names, by the European Medicines Agency.

CORRESPONDENCE
Michael Arnold, DO, FAAFP, Carl R. Darnall Army Medical Center, Uniformed Service University, 36065 Santa Fe Avenue, Fort Hood, TX 76544; scalpelandyardstick@gmail.com

Absence does make the heart grow fonder. Three years have passed since our last in person CHEST Challenge Championship.

It was CHEST 2019 New Orleans when we last saw the enthusiasm and camaraderie of talented fellow teams cheered on by that irreplaceable, engaged audience, creating moments and memories through that magical combination of education and entertainment (“edutainment”). We were blissfully ignorant then to the terrible challenges that would soon come with the pandemic.

Since its inception, now 21 years ago, the live CHEST Challenge Championship has become a highly anticipated capstone event at the annual scientific meeting.

Courtesy CHEST

Fellows from across the country first compete in a challenging, secure online knowledge quiz from which top-performing programs are selected as finalists.

All along the way, the participants engage in social media challenges that build excitement and collegiality (see tweeted image above). A recent commentary in the CHEST^® journal highlighted the competition’s important milestones,¹ and organizers continue to innovate year after year.

Dr. William Kelly, creator of CHEST Challenge, noted, “Our 20th anniversary broadcast during CHEST 2021 was our most innovative, had the most generous prizes, and the largest, most interactive audience to date. Our team of amazing committee members, CHEST staff, and contributors are somehow going even bigger this year! When combining never-before-seen challenges, surprises, giveaways, and a special ‘opening act’ with the joy and energy of all of us being back together again in person – I just can’t wait.

“That necessary pivot to online-only events in 2020 and 2021 brought new challenges to the game but also provided lessons to be learned, inspired reflection, and gave us opportunities to interact, play, and learn together in new ways.

“As chair of the Training and Transitions Committee, I recall the innovations: CHEST Challenge has always been about innovation in medical education.

“Two decades of history allowed pushing the boundaries into the online arena, allowing competitors to play from their own institutions, audience to join from home, and the camaraderie and support characteristics of the CHEST community to transcend virtual barriers.

“Using advanced, remote video recordings with virtual proctoring by judges, we were able to offer more extensive skills challenges. Highly engaged online audiences had contagious and hilarious chat room banter. And, virtual watch parties allowed for greatly increased viewership. Leveraging social media, the audience became part of the competition, including winning substantial prizes for themselves.

“It takes an extraordinary number of dedicated individuals to deliver the experience.”

Dr. Matthew Miles, past chair of T&T Committee, comments: “One of the joys of working on CHEST Challenge is just being part of the production team. We have brilliant faculty who specialize in cutting-edge education, visionaries who concoct new and imaginative ways for fellows to compete, and incredible CHEST staff who somehow pull off an amazing event every year.

Courtesy CHEST

“I’m so thankful for the way that our CHEST community celebrates learning and prioritizes our fellows-in-training,” he added.

“Years after each in-person championship, the attendees still comment on the electrifying atmosphere they thoroughly enjoyed.

“It is literally a nail-biter – you can see people in the audience sitting at the edge of their seats, holding their breath while teams play to win big in surprise hands-on simulation-based challenges during the Championship,” says Dr. Subani Chandra, who helped implement surprise simulation challenges into the live CHEST Challenge Championship in 2017 that are now an integral part of the experience.

On October 18, at CHEST 2022, championship fellow teams from New York Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist, Mayo Clinic, and Brooke Army Medical Center, cheered on live by all of us, will compete in order to hoist the Rosen Cup and be declared the CHEST Challenge Champions!

Come experience for yourself the rapid-fire pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine knowledge review, the thrill of competition, and see the energy of some of our best and brightest fellows.

Being together in person again to support and learn with each other will be a big win for all of us.

CHEST Challenge is sponsored by VIATRIS

Reference

1. Danckers M, et al. CHEST Challenge turns twenty. Chest. 2022;161(3):860.

Absence does make the heart grow fonder. Three years have passed since our last in person CHEST Challenge Championship.

It was CHEST 2019 New Orleans when we last saw the enthusiasm and camaraderie of talented fellow teams cheered on by that irreplaceable, engaged audience, creating moments and memories through that magical combination of education and entertainment (“edutainment”). We were blissfully ignorant then to the terrible challenges that would soon come with the pandemic.

Since its inception, now 21 years ago, the live CHEST Challenge Championship has become a highly anticipated capstone event at the annual scientific meeting.

Courtesy CHEST

Fellows from across the country first compete in a challenging, secure online knowledge quiz from which top-performing programs are selected as finalists.

All along the way, the participants engage in social media challenges that build excitement and collegiality (see tweeted image above). A recent commentary in the CHEST^® journal highlighted the competition’s important milestones,¹ and organizers continue to innovate year after year.

Dr. William Kelly, creator of CHEST Challenge, noted, “Our 20th anniversary broadcast during CHEST 2021 was our most innovative, had the most generous prizes, and the largest, most interactive audience to date. Our team of amazing committee members, CHEST staff, and contributors are somehow going even bigger this year! When combining never-before-seen challenges, surprises, giveaways, and a special ‘opening act’ with the joy and energy of all of us being back together again in person – I just can’t wait.

“That necessary pivot to online-only events in 2020 and 2021 brought new challenges to the game but also provided lessons to be learned, inspired reflection, and gave us opportunities to interact, play, and learn together in new ways.

“As chair of the Training and Transitions Committee, I recall the innovations: CHEST Challenge has always been about innovation in medical education.

“Two decades of history allowed pushing the boundaries into the online arena, allowing competitors to play from their own institutions, audience to join from home, and the camaraderie and support characteristics of the CHEST community to transcend virtual barriers.

“Using advanced, remote video recordings with virtual proctoring by judges, we were able to offer more extensive skills challenges. Highly engaged online audiences had contagious and hilarious chat room banter. And, virtual watch parties allowed for greatly increased viewership. Leveraging social media, the audience became part of the competition, including winning substantial prizes for themselves.

“It takes an extraordinary number of dedicated individuals to deliver the experience.”

Dr. Matthew Miles, past chair of T&T Committee, comments: “One of the joys of working on CHEST Challenge is just being part of the production team. We have brilliant faculty who specialize in cutting-edge education, visionaries who concoct new and imaginative ways for fellows to compete, and incredible CHEST staff who somehow pull off an amazing event every year.

Courtesy CHEST

“I’m so thankful for the way that our CHEST community celebrates learning and prioritizes our fellows-in-training,” he added.

“Years after each in-person championship, the attendees still comment on the electrifying atmosphere they thoroughly enjoyed.

“It is literally a nail-biter – you can see people in the audience sitting at the edge of their seats, holding their breath while teams play to win big in surprise hands-on simulation-based challenges during the Championship,” says Dr. Subani Chandra, who helped implement surprise simulation challenges into the live CHEST Challenge Championship in 2017 that are now an integral part of the experience.

On October 18, at CHEST 2022, championship fellow teams from New York Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist, Mayo Clinic, and Brooke Army Medical Center, cheered on live by all of us, will compete in order to hoist the Rosen Cup and be declared the CHEST Challenge Champions!

Come experience for yourself the rapid-fire pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine knowledge review, the thrill of competition, and see the energy of some of our best and brightest fellows.

Being together in person again to support and learn with each other will be a big win for all of us.

CHEST Challenge is sponsored by VIATRIS

Reference

1. Danckers M, et al. CHEST Challenge turns twenty. Chest. 2022;161(3):860.

Absence does make the heart grow fonder. Three years have passed since our last in person CHEST Challenge Championship.

It was CHEST 2019 New Orleans when we last saw the enthusiasm and camaraderie of talented fellow teams cheered on by that irreplaceable, engaged audience, creating moments and memories through that magical combination of education and entertainment (“edutainment”). We were blissfully ignorant then to the terrible challenges that would soon come with the pandemic.

Since its inception, now 21 years ago, the live CHEST Challenge Championship has become a highly anticipated capstone event at the annual scientific meeting.

Courtesy CHEST

Fellows from across the country first compete in a challenging, secure online knowledge quiz from which top-performing programs are selected as finalists.

All along the way, the participants engage in social media challenges that build excitement and collegiality (see tweeted image above). A recent commentary in the CHEST^® journal highlighted the competition’s important milestones,¹ and organizers continue to innovate year after year.

Dr. William Kelly, creator of CHEST Challenge, noted, “Our 20th anniversary broadcast during CHEST 2021 was our most innovative, had the most generous prizes, and the largest, most interactive audience to date. Our team of amazing committee members, CHEST staff, and contributors are somehow going even bigger this year! When combining never-before-seen challenges, surprises, giveaways, and a special ‘opening act’ with the joy and energy of all of us being back together again in person – I just can’t wait.

“That necessary pivot to online-only events in 2020 and 2021 brought new challenges to the game but also provided lessons to be learned, inspired reflection, and gave us opportunities to interact, play, and learn together in new ways.

“As chair of the Training and Transitions Committee, I recall the innovations: CHEST Challenge has always been about innovation in medical education.

“Two decades of history allowed pushing the boundaries into the online arena, allowing competitors to play from their own institutions, audience to join from home, and the camaraderie and support characteristics of the CHEST community to transcend virtual barriers.

“Using advanced, remote video recordings with virtual proctoring by judges, we were able to offer more extensive skills challenges. Highly engaged online audiences had contagious and hilarious chat room banter. And, virtual watch parties allowed for greatly increased viewership. Leveraging social media, the audience became part of the competition, including winning substantial prizes for themselves.

“It takes an extraordinary number of dedicated individuals to deliver the experience.”

Dr. Matthew Miles, past chair of T&T Committee, comments: “One of the joys of working on CHEST Challenge is just being part of the production team. We have brilliant faculty who specialize in cutting-edge education, visionaries who concoct new and imaginative ways for fellows to compete, and incredible CHEST staff who somehow pull off an amazing event every year.

Courtesy CHEST

“I’m so thankful for the way that our CHEST community celebrates learning and prioritizes our fellows-in-training,” he added.

“Years after each in-person championship, the attendees still comment on the electrifying atmosphere they thoroughly enjoyed.

“It is literally a nail-biter – you can see people in the audience sitting at the edge of their seats, holding their breath while teams play to win big in surprise hands-on simulation-based challenges during the Championship,” says Dr. Subani Chandra, who helped implement surprise simulation challenges into the live CHEST Challenge Championship in 2017 that are now an integral part of the experience.

On October 18, at CHEST 2022, championship fellow teams from New York Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist, Mayo Clinic, and Brooke Army Medical Center, cheered on live by all of us, will compete in order to hoist the Rosen Cup and be declared the CHEST Challenge Champions!

Come experience for yourself the rapid-fire pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine knowledge review, the thrill of competition, and see the energy of some of our best and brightest fellows.

Being together in person again to support and learn with each other will be a big win for all of us.

CHEST Challenge is sponsored by VIATRIS

Reference

1. Danckers M, et al. CHEST Challenge turns twenty. Chest. 2022;161(3):860.

Obstructive sleep apnea is a prevalent and underdiagnosed sleep-related breathing disorder. The estimated prevalence of OSA in the general population of North America ranges from 9% to 38%. This prevalence is higher in men, with a roughly 2:1 male to female ratio, and it also increases with age (Senaratna CV, et al. Sleep Med Rev. 2017;34:70-81). In large epidemiologic studies, the association between OSA and atrial fibrillation (AF) has been well established. The prevalence of OSA in patients with AF is high, with estimates ranging from 21% to 74%. In the OSA population, the Sleep Heart Health Study (Mehra R, et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2006;173[8]:910-16) and the Multi Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (Lin GM, et al. Am J Epidemiol. 2015;182[1]:49-57) found that patients with OSA had a twofold to fourfold increased risk of AF compared with those who did not have OSA. Therefore, the most current American Heart Association guidelines recommend assessing OSA symptoms in all patients with AF and screening for OSA in recurrent patients with AF.

The pathophysiology of OSA involves multiple physiologic stressors that may contribute to an increased propensity for atrial arrhythmias in this population. Among these factors are large changes in intrathoracic pressures that may cause atrial and ventricular wall stretching, recurrent oxidative stress, and a sympathetic surge associated with shortening atrial refractory periods and atrial extrasystoles. By occurring nightly over many years, these physiologic stressors may lead to permanent atrial dilation and structural remodeling, eventually affecting the conduction system and producing a substrate conducive to reentrant circuits. Other common comorbidities in patients with OSA–such as hypertension, obesity, and metabolic syndrome–may also contribute to arrhythmogenicity (Linz D, et al. JAMA Cardiol. 2018;3[6]:532).

Does treating OSA with CPAP prevent the development of AF?

Previous case-control and retrospective observational studies suggested that having OSA makes treating AF more difficult. Patients with OSA had lower response rates to antiarrhythmic drugs, with the lowest in those with more severe OSA. Rhythm control with cardioversion and catheter-based pulmonary vein isolation was also less successful in patients with OSA due to higher rates of AF recurrence. According to one meta-analysis, patients with OSA had a 31% higher rate of AF recurrence after pulmonary vein isolation (Li L, et al. Europace. 2014;16[9]:1309-14).

Prospective studies using CPAP to treat OSA have not demonstrated a reduced risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes. The SAVE trial is the most well-known of these studies. The primary endpoint was death from cardiovascular causes (myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or transient ischemic attack). There was no difference in this outcome between the CPAP and usual care groups. A secondary outcome in this study was new-onset AF detected by electrocardiography, and there was no difference between the CPAP and the usual care group. The low amount of CPAP usage in the treatment group was a commonly cited shortcoming of the SAVE trial–mean usage was 4.4 hours per night during the first month of treatment and subsequently decreased to 3.3 hours per night by the 12-month time point (McEvoy RD, et al. N Engl J Med. 2016;375[10]:919-31).

Caples and colleagues screened patients undergoing direct current cardioversion or catheter ablation. They chose those who were also positive for OSA by polysomnography (apnea-hypopnea index – AHI greater than five events per hour). Twenty-five patients were included in the study and were randomly assigned to either CPAP treatment or usual care. Body mass index, blood pressure, ejection fraction, AHI, and nocturnal desaturation levels were comparable between the two groups. The rate of recurrence of AF and the time point following randomization at which the AF recurred did not differ between the two groups (Caples SM, et al. Int J Cardiol. 2019;278:133-6).

A Norwegian trial by Traaen and colleagues included a larger sample of 108 patients with moderate to severe sleep apnea and paroxysmal AF who underwent catheter ablation. Patients were followed for 5 months before and 12 months after ablation. They were randomly assigned to either CPAP therapy plus usual care or usual care alone. The primary goal was to assess AF burden using implanted loop recorders. There was no significant difference in AF burden between the two groups from baseline to the final 3 months of the study (Traaen GM, et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2021;204[5]:573-82). These two prospective trials, which had AF recurrence or burden as primary outcomes, found no interaction between AF burden and CPAP use, at least within the first year of therapy. Both trials found that their participants used CPAP for more extended periods of time than the SAVE trial, with over 6 hours in the Caples and coworkers’ trial and nearly 5 hours in the Traaen and coworkers’ study.
 

Is the lack of efficacy due to starting CPAP too late in the course of OSA?

It has been proposed that there may be a critical early period after the onset of OSA when intervention with CPAP (or alternative therapies) will be most effective in preventing adverse cardiovascular outcomes. An answer will almost certainly necessitate a long-term prospective study enrolling people before they develop OSA. Additionally, the AHI is used in most trials to determine the presence and severity of OSA. However, the AHI has been shown to have a poor correlation with sleep-related symptoms, and it may fail to capture key OSA pathophysiologic stressors (e.g., hyperadrenergic drive, cyclical hypoxemia, etc), which may increase the risk of AF. Other disease characteristics and polysomnographic features may better capture disease severity and the cardiovascular risk factors associated with it. The respiratory arousal threshold, arousal index, degree of loop gain, hypoxic burden, heart rate variability, and cardiopulmonary coupling are some examples of such features.

Another possible explanation is that AF is not causally related, and the demonstrated association between the two is because both conditions share risk factors such as age and BMI, among others. Or, if they are causally linked, OSA may be a minor contributor, and the magnitude of that contribution is insufficient to reduce the risk of AF significantly by treating OSA. More research is needed to define the salient intervenable aspects of OSA better and design the optimal timing and duration of intervention.

Dr. Mudrakola is with the Department of Pulmonary & Critical Care Medicine, Summa Health, Akron, Ohio. Dr. Selim is with the Department of Pulmonary & Critical Care Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.

Obstructive sleep apnea is a prevalent and underdiagnosed sleep-related breathing disorder. The estimated prevalence of OSA in the general population of North America ranges from 9% to 38%. This prevalence is higher in men, with a roughly 2:1 male to female ratio, and it also increases with age (Senaratna CV, et al. Sleep Med Rev. 2017;34:70-81). In large epidemiologic studies, the association between OSA and atrial fibrillation (AF) has been well established. The prevalence of OSA in patients with AF is high, with estimates ranging from 21% to 74%. In the OSA population, the Sleep Heart Health Study (Mehra R, et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2006;173[8]:910-16) and the Multi Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (Lin GM, et al. Am J Epidemiol. 2015;182[1]:49-57) found that patients with OSA had a twofold to fourfold increased risk of AF compared with those who did not have OSA. Therefore, the most current American Heart Association guidelines recommend assessing OSA symptoms in all patients with AF and screening for OSA in recurrent patients with AF.

The pathophysiology of OSA involves multiple physiologic stressors that may contribute to an increased propensity for atrial arrhythmias in this population. Among these factors are large changes in intrathoracic pressures that may cause atrial and ventricular wall stretching, recurrent oxidative stress, and a sympathetic surge associated with shortening atrial refractory periods and atrial extrasystoles. By occurring nightly over many years, these physiologic stressors may lead to permanent atrial dilation and structural remodeling, eventually affecting the conduction system and producing a substrate conducive to reentrant circuits. Other common comorbidities in patients with OSA–such as hypertension, obesity, and metabolic syndrome–may also contribute to arrhythmogenicity (Linz D, et al. JAMA Cardiol. 2018;3[6]:532).

Does treating OSA with CPAP prevent the development of AF?

Previous case-control and retrospective observational studies suggested that having OSA makes treating AF more difficult. Patients with OSA had lower response rates to antiarrhythmic drugs, with the lowest in those with more severe OSA. Rhythm control with cardioversion and catheter-based pulmonary vein isolation was also less successful in patients with OSA due to higher rates of AF recurrence. According to one meta-analysis, patients with OSA had a 31% higher rate of AF recurrence after pulmonary vein isolation (Li L, et al. Europace. 2014;16[9]:1309-14).

Prospective studies using CPAP to treat OSA have not demonstrated a reduced risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes. The SAVE trial is the most well-known of these studies. The primary endpoint was death from cardiovascular causes (myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or transient ischemic attack). There was no difference in this outcome between the CPAP and usual care groups. A secondary outcome in this study was new-onset AF detected by electrocardiography, and there was no difference between the CPAP and the usual care group. The low amount of CPAP usage in the treatment group was a commonly cited shortcoming of the SAVE trial–mean usage was 4.4 hours per night during the first month of treatment and subsequently decreased to 3.3 hours per night by the 12-month time point (McEvoy RD, et al. N Engl J Med. 2016;375[10]:919-31).

Caples and colleagues screened patients undergoing direct current cardioversion or catheter ablation. They chose those who were also positive for OSA by polysomnography (apnea-hypopnea index – AHI greater than five events per hour). Twenty-five patients were included in the study and were randomly assigned to either CPAP treatment or usual care. Body mass index, blood pressure, ejection fraction, AHI, and nocturnal desaturation levels were comparable between the two groups. The rate of recurrence of AF and the time point following randomization at which the AF recurred did not differ between the two groups (Caples SM, et al. Int J Cardiol. 2019;278:133-6).

A Norwegian trial by Traaen and colleagues included a larger sample of 108 patients with moderate to severe sleep apnea and paroxysmal AF who underwent catheter ablation. Patients were followed for 5 months before and 12 months after ablation. They were randomly assigned to either CPAP therapy plus usual care or usual care alone. The primary goal was to assess AF burden using implanted loop recorders. There was no significant difference in AF burden between the two groups from baseline to the final 3 months of the study (Traaen GM, et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2021;204[5]:573-82). These two prospective trials, which had AF recurrence or burden as primary outcomes, found no interaction between AF burden and CPAP use, at least within the first year of therapy. Both trials found that their participants used CPAP for more extended periods of time than the SAVE trial, with over 6 hours in the Caples and coworkers’ trial and nearly 5 hours in the Traaen and coworkers’ study.
 

Is the lack of efficacy due to starting CPAP too late in the course of OSA?

It has been proposed that there may be a critical early period after the onset of OSA when intervention with CPAP (or alternative therapies) will be most effective in preventing adverse cardiovascular outcomes. An answer will almost certainly necessitate a long-term prospective study enrolling people before they develop OSA. Additionally, the AHI is used in most trials to determine the presence and severity of OSA. However, the AHI has been shown to have a poor correlation with sleep-related symptoms, and it may fail to capture key OSA pathophysiologic stressors (e.g., hyperadrenergic drive, cyclical hypoxemia, etc), which may increase the risk of AF. Other disease characteristics and polysomnographic features may better capture disease severity and the cardiovascular risk factors associated with it. The respiratory arousal threshold, arousal index, degree of loop gain, hypoxic burden, heart rate variability, and cardiopulmonary coupling are some examples of such features.

Another possible explanation is that AF is not causally related, and the demonstrated association between the two is because both conditions share risk factors such as age and BMI, among others. Or, if they are causally linked, OSA may be a minor contributor, and the magnitude of that contribution is insufficient to reduce the risk of AF significantly by treating OSA. More research is needed to define the salient intervenable aspects of OSA better and design the optimal timing and duration of intervention.

Dr. Mudrakola is with the Department of Pulmonary & Critical Care Medicine, Summa Health, Akron, Ohio. Dr. Selim is with the Department of Pulmonary & Critical Care Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.

Obstructive sleep apnea is a prevalent and underdiagnosed sleep-related breathing disorder. The estimated prevalence of OSA in the general population of North America ranges from 9% to 38%. This prevalence is higher in men, with a roughly 2:1 male to female ratio, and it also increases with age (Senaratna CV, et al. Sleep Med Rev. 2017;34:70-81). In large epidemiologic studies, the association between OSA and atrial fibrillation (AF) has been well established. The prevalence of OSA in patients with AF is high, with estimates ranging from 21% to 74%. In the OSA population, the Sleep Heart Health Study (Mehra R, et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2006;173[8]:910-16) and the Multi Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (Lin GM, et al. Am J Epidemiol. 2015;182[1]:49-57) found that patients with OSA had a twofold to fourfold increased risk of AF compared with those who did not have OSA. Therefore, the most current American Heart Association guidelines recommend assessing OSA symptoms in all patients with AF and screening for OSA in recurrent patients with AF.

The pathophysiology of OSA involves multiple physiologic stressors that may contribute to an increased propensity for atrial arrhythmias in this population. Among these factors are large changes in intrathoracic pressures that may cause atrial and ventricular wall stretching, recurrent oxidative stress, and a sympathetic surge associated with shortening atrial refractory periods and atrial extrasystoles. By occurring nightly over many years, these physiologic stressors may lead to permanent atrial dilation and structural remodeling, eventually affecting the conduction system and producing a substrate conducive to reentrant circuits. Other common comorbidities in patients with OSA–such as hypertension, obesity, and metabolic syndrome–may also contribute to arrhythmogenicity (Linz D, et al. JAMA Cardiol. 2018;3[6]:532).

Does treating OSA with CPAP prevent the development of AF?

Previous case-control and retrospective observational studies suggested that having OSA makes treating AF more difficult. Patients with OSA had lower response rates to antiarrhythmic drugs, with the lowest in those with more severe OSA. Rhythm control with cardioversion and catheter-based pulmonary vein isolation was also less successful in patients with OSA due to higher rates of AF recurrence. According to one meta-analysis, patients with OSA had a 31% higher rate of AF recurrence after pulmonary vein isolation (Li L, et al. Europace. 2014;16[9]:1309-14).

Prospective studies using CPAP to treat OSA have not demonstrated a reduced risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes. The SAVE trial is the most well-known of these studies. The primary endpoint was death from cardiovascular causes (myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or transient ischemic attack). There was no difference in this outcome between the CPAP and usual care groups. A secondary outcome in this study was new-onset AF detected by electrocardiography, and there was no difference between the CPAP and the usual care group. The low amount of CPAP usage in the treatment group was a commonly cited shortcoming of the SAVE trial–mean usage was 4.4 hours per night during the first month of treatment and subsequently decreased to 3.3 hours per night by the 12-month time point (McEvoy RD, et al. N Engl J Med. 2016;375[10]:919-31).

Caples and colleagues screened patients undergoing direct current cardioversion or catheter ablation. They chose those who were also positive for OSA by polysomnography (apnea-hypopnea index – AHI greater than five events per hour). Twenty-five patients were included in the study and were randomly assigned to either CPAP treatment or usual care. Body mass index, blood pressure, ejection fraction, AHI, and nocturnal desaturation levels were comparable between the two groups. The rate of recurrence of AF and the time point following randomization at which the AF recurred did not differ between the two groups (Caples SM, et al. Int J Cardiol. 2019;278:133-6).

A Norwegian trial by Traaen and colleagues included a larger sample of 108 patients with moderate to severe sleep apnea and paroxysmal AF who underwent catheter ablation. Patients were followed for 5 months before and 12 months after ablation. They were randomly assigned to either CPAP therapy plus usual care or usual care alone. The primary goal was to assess AF burden using implanted loop recorders. There was no significant difference in AF burden between the two groups from baseline to the final 3 months of the study (Traaen GM, et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2021;204[5]:573-82). These two prospective trials, which had AF recurrence or burden as primary outcomes, found no interaction between AF burden and CPAP use, at least within the first year of therapy. Both trials found that their participants used CPAP for more extended periods of time than the SAVE trial, with over 6 hours in the Caples and coworkers’ trial and nearly 5 hours in the Traaen and coworkers’ study.
 

Is the lack of efficacy due to starting CPAP too late in the course of OSA?

It has been proposed that there may be a critical early period after the onset of OSA when intervention with CPAP (or alternative therapies) will be most effective in preventing adverse cardiovascular outcomes. An answer will almost certainly necessitate a long-term prospective study enrolling people before they develop OSA. Additionally, the AHI is used in most trials to determine the presence and severity of OSA. However, the AHI has been shown to have a poor correlation with sleep-related symptoms, and it may fail to capture key OSA pathophysiologic stressors (e.g., hyperadrenergic drive, cyclical hypoxemia, etc), which may increase the risk of AF. Other disease characteristics and polysomnographic features may better capture disease severity and the cardiovascular risk factors associated with it. The respiratory arousal threshold, arousal index, degree of loop gain, hypoxic burden, heart rate variability, and cardiopulmonary coupling are some examples of such features.

Another possible explanation is that AF is not causally related, and the demonstrated association between the two is because both conditions share risk factors such as age and BMI, among others. Or, if they are causally linked, OSA may be a minor contributor, and the magnitude of that contribution is insufficient to reduce the risk of AF significantly by treating OSA. More research is needed to define the salient intervenable aspects of OSA better and design the optimal timing and duration of intervention.

Dr. Mudrakola is with the Department of Pulmonary & Critical Care Medicine, Summa Health, Akron, Ohio. Dr. Selim is with the Department of Pulmonary & Critical Care Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.

THE PRESENTATION

Severe long-standing hidradenitis suppurativa (Hurley stage III) with architectural changes, ropy scarring, granulation tissue, and purulent discharge in the axilla of a 35-year-old Black man (A) and a 42-year-old Hispanic woman with a light skin tone (B).

Photographs courtesy of Richard P. Usatine, MD.

Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a chronic inflammatory condition of the follicular epithelium that most commonly is found in the axillae and buttocks, as well as the inguinal, perianal, and submammary areas. It is characterized by firm and tender chronic nodules, abscesses complicated by sinus tracts, fistulae, and scarring thought to be related to follicular occlusion. Double-open comedones also may be seen.

The Hurley staging system is widely used to characterize the extent of disease in HS patients:

• Stage I (mild): nodule(s) and abscess(es) without sinus tracts (tunnels) or scarring;
• Stage II (moderate): recurrent nodule(s) and abscess(es) with a limited number of sinus tracts (tunnels) and/or scarring; and
• Stage III (severe): multiple or extensive sinus tracts (tunnels), abscesses, and/or scarring across the entire area.

Epidemiology

Hidradenitis suppurativa is most common in adults and African American patients. It has a prevalence of 1.3% in African Americans.¹ When it occurs in children, it generally develops after the onset of puberty. The incidence is higher in females as well as individuals with a history of smoking and obesity (a higher body mass index).^2-5

Key clinical features in people with darker skin tones

The erythema associated with HS may be difficult to see in darker skin tones, but violaceous, dark brown, and gray lesions may be present. When active HS lesions subside, intense hyperpigmentation may be left behind, and in some skin tones a pink or violaceous lesion may be apparent.

Worth noting

Hidradenitis suppurativa is disfiguring and has a negative impact on quality of life, including social relationships. Mental health support and screening tools are useful. Pain also is a common concern and may warrant referral to a pain specialist.⁶ In early disease, HS lesions can be misdiagnosed as an infection that recurs in the same location.

Treatments for HS include oral antibiotics (ie, tetracyclines, rifampin, clindamycin), topical antibiotics, immunosuppressing biologics, metformin, and spironolactone.⁷ Surgical interventions may be considered earlier in HS management and vary based on the location and severity of the lesions.⁸

Patients with HS are at risk for developing squamous cell carcinoma in scars even many years later⁹; therefore, patients should perform skin checks and be referred to a dermatologist. Squamous cell carcinoma is most commonly found on the buttocks of men with HS and has a poor prognosis.

Health disparity highlight

Although those of African American and African descent have the highest rates of HS,¹ the clinical trials for adalimumab (the only biologic approved for HS) enrolled a low number of Black patients.

Thirty HS comorbidities have been identified. Garg et al¹⁰ recommended that dermatologists perform examinations for comorbid conditions involving the skin and conduct a simple review of systems for extracutaneous comorbidities. Access to medical care is essential, and health care system barriers affect the ability of some patients to receive adequate continuity of care.

The diagnosis of HS often is delayed due to lack of HS knowledge about the condition in the medical community at large and delayed presentation to a dermatologist.

THE PRESENTATION

Severe long-standing hidradenitis suppurativa (Hurley stage III) with architectural changes, ropy scarring, granulation tissue, and purulent discharge in the axilla of a 35-year-old Black man (A) and a 42-year-old Hispanic woman with a light skin tone (B).

Photographs courtesy of Richard P. Usatine, MD.

Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a chronic inflammatory condition of the follicular epithelium that most commonly is found in the axillae and buttocks, as well as the inguinal, perianal, and submammary areas. It is characterized by firm and tender chronic nodules, abscesses complicated by sinus tracts, fistulae, and scarring thought to be related to follicular occlusion. Double-open comedones also may be seen.

The Hurley staging system is widely used to characterize the extent of disease in HS patients:

• Stage I (mild): nodule(s) and abscess(es) without sinus tracts (tunnels) or scarring;
• Stage II (moderate): recurrent nodule(s) and abscess(es) with a limited number of sinus tracts (tunnels) and/or scarring; and
• Stage III (severe): multiple or extensive sinus tracts (tunnels), abscesses, and/or scarring across the entire area.

Epidemiology

Hidradenitis suppurativa is most common in adults and African American patients. It has a prevalence of 1.3% in African Americans.¹ When it occurs in children, it generally develops after the onset of puberty. The incidence is higher in females as well as individuals with a history of smoking and obesity (a higher body mass index).^2-5

Key clinical features in people with darker skin tones

The erythema associated with HS may be difficult to see in darker skin tones, but violaceous, dark brown, and gray lesions may be present. When active HS lesions subside, intense hyperpigmentation may be left behind, and in some skin tones a pink or violaceous lesion may be apparent.

Worth noting

Hidradenitis suppurativa is disfiguring and has a negative impact on quality of life, including social relationships. Mental health support and screening tools are useful. Pain also is a common concern and may warrant referral to a pain specialist.⁶ In early disease, HS lesions can be misdiagnosed as an infection that recurs in the same location.

Treatments for HS include oral antibiotics (ie, tetracyclines, rifampin, clindamycin), topical antibiotics, immunosuppressing biologics, metformin, and spironolactone.⁷ Surgical interventions may be considered earlier in HS management and vary based on the location and severity of the lesions.⁸

Patients with HS are at risk for developing squamous cell carcinoma in scars even many years later⁹; therefore, patients should perform skin checks and be referred to a dermatologist. Squamous cell carcinoma is most commonly found on the buttocks of men with HS and has a poor prognosis.

Health disparity highlight

Although those of African American and African descent have the highest rates of HS,¹ the clinical trials for adalimumab (the only biologic approved for HS) enrolled a low number of Black patients.

Thirty HS comorbidities have been identified. Garg et al¹⁰ recommended that dermatologists perform examinations for comorbid conditions involving the skin and conduct a simple review of systems for extracutaneous comorbidities. Access to medical care is essential, and health care system barriers affect the ability of some patients to receive adequate continuity of care.

The diagnosis of HS often is delayed due to lack of HS knowledge about the condition in the medical community at large and delayed presentation to a dermatologist.

THE PRESENTATION

Severe long-standing hidradenitis suppurativa (Hurley stage III) with architectural changes, ropy scarring, granulation tissue, and purulent discharge in the axilla of a 35-year-old Black man (A) and a 42-year-old Hispanic woman with a light skin tone (B).

Photographs courtesy of Richard P. Usatine, MD.

Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a chronic inflammatory condition of the follicular epithelium that most commonly is found in the axillae and buttocks, as well as the inguinal, perianal, and submammary areas. It is characterized by firm and tender chronic nodules, abscesses complicated by sinus tracts, fistulae, and scarring thought to be related to follicular occlusion. Double-open comedones also may be seen.

The Hurley staging system is widely used to characterize the extent of disease in HS patients:

• Stage I (mild): nodule(s) and abscess(es) without sinus tracts (tunnels) or scarring;
• Stage II (moderate): recurrent nodule(s) and abscess(es) with a limited number of sinus tracts (tunnels) and/or scarring; and
• Stage III (severe): multiple or extensive sinus tracts (tunnels), abscesses, and/or scarring across the entire area.

Epidemiology

Hidradenitis suppurativa is most common in adults and African American patients. It has a prevalence of 1.3% in African Americans.¹ When it occurs in children, it generally develops after the onset of puberty. The incidence is higher in females as well as individuals with a history of smoking and obesity (a higher body mass index).^2-5

Key clinical features in people with darker skin tones

The erythema associated with HS may be difficult to see in darker skin tones, but violaceous, dark brown, and gray lesions may be present. When active HS lesions subside, intense hyperpigmentation may be left behind, and in some skin tones a pink or violaceous lesion may be apparent.

Worth noting

Hidradenitis suppurativa is disfiguring and has a negative impact on quality of life, including social relationships. Mental health support and screening tools are useful. Pain also is a common concern and may warrant referral to a pain specialist.⁶ In early disease, HS lesions can be misdiagnosed as an infection that recurs in the same location.

Treatments for HS include oral antibiotics (ie, tetracyclines, rifampin, clindamycin), topical antibiotics, immunosuppressing biologics, metformin, and spironolactone.⁷ Surgical interventions may be considered earlier in HS management and vary based on the location and severity of the lesions.⁸

Patients with HS are at risk for developing squamous cell carcinoma in scars even many years later⁹; therefore, patients should perform skin checks and be referred to a dermatologist. Squamous cell carcinoma is most commonly found on the buttocks of men with HS and has a poor prognosis.

Health disparity highlight

Although those of African American and African descent have the highest rates of HS,¹ the clinical trials for adalimumab (the only biologic approved for HS) enrolled a low number of Black patients.

Thirty HS comorbidities have been identified. Garg et al¹⁰ recommended that dermatologists perform examinations for comorbid conditions involving the skin and conduct a simple review of systems for extracutaneous comorbidities. Access to medical care is essential, and health care system barriers affect the ability of some patients to receive adequate continuity of care.

The diagnosis of HS often is delayed due to lack of HS knowledge about the condition in the medical community at large and delayed presentation to a dermatologist.

The Diagnosis: Cutaneous Lymphoid Hyperplasia

Cutaneous lymphoid hyperplasia (CLH)(also known as pseudolymphoma or lymphocytoma cutis) is a benign inflammatory condition that typically presents as a flesh-colored to erythematous or violaceous papule or nodule on the head or neck. Cutaneous lymphoid hyperplasia may arise in response to an antigenic stimulus, such as an insect bite, infectious agent (eg, Borrelia species), medication, or foreign body (eg, tattoos and piercings).^1,2 Given the benign nature and potential for spontaneous resolution, treatment is conservative; however, high-potency topical steroids, cryosurgery, surgical excision, or local radiotherapy may lead to improvement.³ Our patient was started on clobetasol ointment 0.05% and topical tacrolimus 0.1%. After 3 months of use, she reported lesion improvement, but a new lesion appeared on the nose superior to the original. She was offered a steroid injection and liquid nitrogen freezing but was lost to follow-up.

The histopathologic features of CLH are variable and can resemble a cutaneous B- or T-cell lymphoma (quiz images). If there is B-cell predominance, histopathology typically shows a dense dermal infiltrate of lymphocytes admixed with sparse histiocytes, eosinophils, and plasma cells. Multiple germinal-center phenotype lymphoid follicles also may be seen.⁴ Histopathology of T-cell–predominant CLH commonly shows CD4⁺ T helper lymphocytes admixed with CD8⁺ T cells within the dermis with possible papillary dermal edema and red cell extravasation.⁵ Immunohistochemical stains for CD3, CD4, CD8, and CD20 usually are positive. Most lymphocytes are CD3⁺ T cells. Admixed clusters of CD20⁺ B cells may be present.

Angiolymphoid hyperplasia with eosinophilia is a vascular tumor of the skin composed of endothelial cells and inflammatory cells.^6,7 The condition presents as single or multiple flesh-colored to purple papules most commonly on the face, scalp, and ears.⁸ Histologically, lesions appear as well-circumscribed collections of blood vessels composed of plump endothelial cells and an inflammatory infiltrate with lymphocytes and eosinophils (Figure 1A). Endothelial cells also may have an epithelioid appearance.⁷ Apparent fenestrations—holes within endothelial cells—may be present (Figure 1B). Surgical excision is the preferred treatment of angiolymphoid hyperplasia with eosinophilia. Success with laser and cryosurgery also has been reported.

Granuloma faciale typically presents as a solitary redbrown papule or plaque on the face. Linear arborizing vessels and dilated follicular openings with brown globules frequently are seen on dermoscopy.⁹ Although it may resemble CLH clinically, the histopathology of granuloma faciale is characterized by a perivascular and interstitial dermal infiltrate of numerous eosinophils admixed with lymphocytes, plasma cells, and neutrophils underneath a grenz zone (Figure 2).¹⁰ Leukocytoclastic vasculitis may be seen in early lesions, and lesions can show variable angiocentric fibrosis.¹¹ Treatment options include intralesional triamcinolone, topical steroids or calcineurin inhibitors, topical psoralen plus UVA, surgical excision, and laser therapy, but outcomes are variable.¹²

Leukemia cutis is a malignant hematopoietic skin infiltration that presents as multiple pink to red-brown, firm, hemorrhagic papules most frequently involving the head, neck, and trunk.¹³ Rarely, lesions of leukemia cutis may present as ulcers or bullae. Most lesions occur at presentation of systemic leukemia or in the setting of established leukemia. The cutaneous involvement portends a poor prognosis, strongly correlating with additional extramedullary leukemic involvement.¹⁴ Histologic features vary based on the specific type of leukemia (eg, acute myelogenous leukemia). Generally, neoplastic infiltration of the dermis and subcutaneous tissue in a nodular, diffuse, perivascular, or interstitial pattern is seen (Figure 3).¹⁵ Leukemia cutis typically resolves after successful treatment of the underlying leukemia.

Mycosis fungoides (MF) is the most common type of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. In its early stages, MF presents as erythematous, brown, scaly patches and plaques. With progression to the tumor stage of disease, clonal expansion of CD4⁺ T cells leads to the development of purple papules and nodules.¹⁶ Microscopic findings of MF are dependent on the stage of disease. Early patch lesions show superficial or lichenoid lymphocytic infiltration of the epidermal basal layer.¹⁷ In the plaque stage, dermal infiltrates and epidermotropism become more pronounced, with increased atypical lymphocytes with cerebriform nuclei and interspersed inflammatory cells (Figure 4). In the tumor stage, lymphocytic infiltrates may involve the entirety of the dermis or extend into the subcutaneous tissue, and malignant cells become larger in size.¹⁷ Mycosis fungoides lesions typically stain positive for helper T-cell markers with a minority staining positive for CD8.

The Diagnosis: Cutaneous Lymphoid Hyperplasia

Cutaneous lymphoid hyperplasia (CLH)(also known as pseudolymphoma or lymphocytoma cutis) is a benign inflammatory condition that typically presents as a flesh-colored to erythematous or violaceous papule or nodule on the head or neck. Cutaneous lymphoid hyperplasia may arise in response to an antigenic stimulus, such as an insect bite, infectious agent (eg, Borrelia species), medication, or foreign body (eg, tattoos and piercings).^1,2 Given the benign nature and potential for spontaneous resolution, treatment is conservative; however, high-potency topical steroids, cryosurgery, surgical excision, or local radiotherapy may lead to improvement.³ Our patient was started on clobetasol ointment 0.05% and topical tacrolimus 0.1%. After 3 months of use, she reported lesion improvement, but a new lesion appeared on the nose superior to the original. She was offered a steroid injection and liquid nitrogen freezing but was lost to follow-up.

The histopathologic features of CLH are variable and can resemble a cutaneous B- or T-cell lymphoma (quiz images). If there is B-cell predominance, histopathology typically shows a dense dermal infiltrate of lymphocytes admixed with sparse histiocytes, eosinophils, and plasma cells. Multiple germinal-center phenotype lymphoid follicles also may be seen.⁴ Histopathology of T-cell–predominant CLH commonly shows CD4⁺ T helper lymphocytes admixed with CD8⁺ T cells within the dermis with possible papillary dermal edema and red cell extravasation.⁵ Immunohistochemical stains for CD3, CD4, CD8, and CD20 usually are positive. Most lymphocytes are CD3⁺ T cells. Admixed clusters of CD20⁺ B cells may be present.

Angiolymphoid hyperplasia with eosinophilia is a vascular tumor of the skin composed of endothelial cells and inflammatory cells.^6,7 The condition presents as single or multiple flesh-colored to purple papules most commonly on the face, scalp, and ears.⁸ Histologically, lesions appear as well-circumscribed collections of blood vessels composed of plump endothelial cells and an inflammatory infiltrate with lymphocytes and eosinophils (Figure 1A). Endothelial cells also may have an epithelioid appearance.⁷ Apparent fenestrations—holes within endothelial cells—may be present (Figure 1B). Surgical excision is the preferred treatment of angiolymphoid hyperplasia with eosinophilia. Success with laser and cryosurgery also has been reported.

Granuloma faciale typically presents as a solitary redbrown papule or plaque on the face. Linear arborizing vessels and dilated follicular openings with brown globules frequently are seen on dermoscopy.⁹ Although it may resemble CLH clinically, the histopathology of granuloma faciale is characterized by a perivascular and interstitial dermal infiltrate of numerous eosinophils admixed with lymphocytes, plasma cells, and neutrophils underneath a grenz zone (Figure 2).¹⁰ Leukocytoclastic vasculitis may be seen in early lesions, and lesions can show variable angiocentric fibrosis.¹¹ Treatment options include intralesional triamcinolone, topical steroids or calcineurin inhibitors, topical psoralen plus UVA, surgical excision, and laser therapy, but outcomes are variable.¹²

Leukemia cutis is a malignant hematopoietic skin infiltration that presents as multiple pink to red-brown, firm, hemorrhagic papules most frequently involving the head, neck, and trunk.¹³ Rarely, lesions of leukemia cutis may present as ulcers or bullae. Most lesions occur at presentation of systemic leukemia or in the setting of established leukemia. The cutaneous involvement portends a poor prognosis, strongly correlating with additional extramedullary leukemic involvement.¹⁴ Histologic features vary based on the specific type of leukemia (eg, acute myelogenous leukemia). Generally, neoplastic infiltration of the dermis and subcutaneous tissue in a nodular, diffuse, perivascular, or interstitial pattern is seen (Figure 3).¹⁵ Leukemia cutis typically resolves after successful treatment of the underlying leukemia.

Mycosis fungoides (MF) is the most common type of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. In its early stages, MF presents as erythematous, brown, scaly patches and plaques. With progression to the tumor stage of disease, clonal expansion of CD4⁺ T cells leads to the development of purple papules and nodules.¹⁶ Microscopic findings of MF are dependent on the stage of disease. Early patch lesions show superficial or lichenoid lymphocytic infiltration of the epidermal basal layer.¹⁷ In the plaque stage, dermal infiltrates and epidermotropism become more pronounced, with increased atypical lymphocytes with cerebriform nuclei and interspersed inflammatory cells (Figure 4). In the tumor stage, lymphocytic infiltrates may involve the entirety of the dermis or extend into the subcutaneous tissue, and malignant cells become larger in size.¹⁷ Mycosis fungoides lesions typically stain positive for helper T-cell markers with a minority staining positive for CD8.

The Diagnosis: Cutaneous Lymphoid Hyperplasia

Cutaneous lymphoid hyperplasia (CLH)(also known as pseudolymphoma or lymphocytoma cutis) is a benign inflammatory condition that typically presents as a flesh-colored to erythematous or violaceous papule or nodule on the head or neck. Cutaneous lymphoid hyperplasia may arise in response to an antigenic stimulus, such as an insect bite, infectious agent (eg, Borrelia species), medication, or foreign body (eg, tattoos and piercings).^1,2 Given the benign nature and potential for spontaneous resolution, treatment is conservative; however, high-potency topical steroids, cryosurgery, surgical excision, or local radiotherapy may lead to improvement.³ Our patient was started on clobetasol ointment 0.05% and topical tacrolimus 0.1%. After 3 months of use, she reported lesion improvement, but a new lesion appeared on the nose superior to the original. She was offered a steroid injection and liquid nitrogen freezing but was lost to follow-up.

The histopathologic features of CLH are variable and can resemble a cutaneous B- or T-cell lymphoma (quiz images). If there is B-cell predominance, histopathology typically shows a dense dermal infiltrate of lymphocytes admixed with sparse histiocytes, eosinophils, and plasma cells. Multiple germinal-center phenotype lymphoid follicles also may be seen.⁴ Histopathology of T-cell–predominant CLH commonly shows CD4⁺ T helper lymphocytes admixed with CD8⁺ T cells within the dermis with possible papillary dermal edema and red cell extravasation.⁵ Immunohistochemical stains for CD3, CD4, CD8, and CD20 usually are positive. Most lymphocytes are CD3⁺ T cells. Admixed clusters of CD20⁺ B cells may be present.

Angiolymphoid hyperplasia with eosinophilia is a vascular tumor of the skin composed of endothelial cells and inflammatory cells.^6,7 The condition presents as single or multiple flesh-colored to purple papules most commonly on the face, scalp, and ears.⁸ Histologically, lesions appear as well-circumscribed collections of blood vessels composed of plump endothelial cells and an inflammatory infiltrate with lymphocytes and eosinophils (Figure 1A). Endothelial cells also may have an epithelioid appearance.⁷ Apparent fenestrations—holes within endothelial cells—may be present (Figure 1B). Surgical excision is the preferred treatment of angiolymphoid hyperplasia with eosinophilia. Success with laser and cryosurgery also has been reported.

Granuloma faciale typically presents as a solitary redbrown papule or plaque on the face. Linear arborizing vessels and dilated follicular openings with brown globules frequently are seen on dermoscopy.⁹ Although it may resemble CLH clinically, the histopathology of granuloma faciale is characterized by a perivascular and interstitial dermal infiltrate of numerous eosinophils admixed with lymphocytes, plasma cells, and neutrophils underneath a grenz zone (Figure 2).¹⁰ Leukocytoclastic vasculitis may be seen in early lesions, and lesions can show variable angiocentric fibrosis.¹¹ Treatment options include intralesional triamcinolone, topical steroids or calcineurin inhibitors, topical psoralen plus UVA, surgical excision, and laser therapy, but outcomes are variable.¹²

Leukemia cutis is a malignant hematopoietic skin infiltration that presents as multiple pink to red-brown, firm, hemorrhagic papules most frequently involving the head, neck, and trunk.¹³ Rarely, lesions of leukemia cutis may present as ulcers or bullae. Most lesions occur at presentation of systemic leukemia or in the setting of established leukemia. The cutaneous involvement portends a poor prognosis, strongly correlating with additional extramedullary leukemic involvement.¹⁴ Histologic features vary based on the specific type of leukemia (eg, acute myelogenous leukemia). Generally, neoplastic infiltration of the dermis and subcutaneous tissue in a nodular, diffuse, perivascular, or interstitial pattern is seen (Figure 3).¹⁵ Leukemia cutis typically resolves after successful treatment of the underlying leukemia.

Mycosis fungoides (MF) is the most common type of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. In its early stages, MF presents as erythematous, brown, scaly patches and plaques. With progression to the tumor stage of disease, clonal expansion of CD4⁺ T cells leads to the development of purple papules and nodules.¹⁶ Microscopic findings of MF are dependent on the stage of disease. Early patch lesions show superficial or lichenoid lymphocytic infiltration of the epidermal basal layer.¹⁷ In the plaque stage, dermal infiltrates and epidermotropism become more pronounced, with increased atypical lymphocytes with cerebriform nuclei and interspersed inflammatory cells (Figure 4). In the tumor stage, lymphocytic infiltrates may involve the entirety of the dermis or extend into the subcutaneous tissue, and malignant cells become larger in size.¹⁷ Mycosis fungoides lesions typically stain positive for helper T-cell markers with a minority staining positive for CD8.

Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), or lupus, shows a marked sex bias, affecting about nine females for every one male, according to Susan Kovats, PhD, who studies sex differences in immunity at the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation in Oklahoma City. This characteristic of lupus suggests that hormones are involved in the pathogenesis of the disease. It also suggests, Dr. Kovats said, that the X chromosome might play a role.

Though studies since the 1970s have indicated a significant role for hormones, the issue is still complex and not well understood, and relatively little research has been done on the molecular mechanisms that might be responsible. This may be because of difficulties with influencing the immune system in vitro, said George A. Robinson, PhD, of University College London’s Centre for Rheumatology.

But Dr. Robinson and his team found a unique way of investigating the role of sex chromosomes and hormones in the inflammatory profiles across subjects of different sex, gender, age, and disease status. In research published online in The Lancet Rheumatology, Dr. Robinson and his team looked at immune cells taken from both cisgender men and women and transgender men and women, and thus were able to “get a more physiological view of what sex hormones are doing to the immune system,” he said.

Dr. Kovats agreed that it was a useful approach. “The transgender people provided an opportunity to effectively separate sex hormone levels from chromosome content,” she said in an interview.
 

Methods and findings

Peripheral blood mononuclear cell (PBMC) samples were taken from cisgender individuals with and without juvenile-onset lupus and assessed for 28 immune-cell subsets, including different T-cell, B-cell, and monotype subsets. Subjects included 39 postpubertal cisgender men and women (17 men and 22 women) who did not have juvenile-onset lupus, and 35 postpubertal cisgender men and women (12 men and 23 women) who did have juvenile onset lupus. All were aged 16-25 years. The transgender group included five transgender men and five transgender women (aged 18-19) who were undergoing gender-affirming sex hormone treatment.

The analysis found that one of the key differences between young postpubertal cisgender men and age-matched cisgender women was that the men had significantly elevated frequencies of regulatory T cells (T-reg cells), and the T-reg cells from young cisgender men had greater suppressive capacity in vitro than did those from cisgender women. In addition, RNA sequencing data from isolated T-reg cells showed the transcriptomic signature of the cisgender men’s T-regs were significantly enriched for genes in the P13K-AKT signaling pathway. The frequency of T-reg cells was not influenced by sex hormones, but their transcriptomic profile was affected.

“These results are beginning to give us an indication of which genes might be differentially regulated by sex hormones and how these are associated with autoimmunity,” Dr. Robinson said. “We’ve also found that, depending on whether you’re a cisgender man or woman, you may have a different pathogenic process to developing lupus. It’s not necessarily that one mechanism drives the disease across both sexes.”
 

New approaches, better insights

Dr. Kovats was particularly impressed by the methods of this study. “It was a natural study, the kind of thing we can usually do only in mice,” she said.

Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation

“One problem with studies on the effects of hormones in disease is that historically researchers have not paid that much attention to the actual hormone levels in the humans they studied. They might look at 100 women and 100 men, roughly between the ages of 20 and 50. We’re starting to see more, but there aren’t a lot of studies correlating numbers of cells in blood with actual hormone levels in the person. And as we know, just because someone’s a certain age doesn’t mean that they have a textbook hormone level. Early menopause, birth-control pills, many things can affect those levels.”

The researchers hope that these findings will shed light on the mechanisms that create sexual bias in autoimmune diseases, particularly lupus, as well as help researchers to better understand the innate and adaptive immunological differences between men and women. It could also be useful in the clinical setting, Dr. Robinson said. Because of the extreme sex bias in lupus, doctors see far more women with the illness than men. When they do see men with lupus, they need to be able to consider how the patient’s sex affects the development and course of the disease. “I think that people need to start looking at patients as clinically different, depending on their sex and gender,” he said. Information like that analyzed in this study could help with that. This could be especially important because as Dr. Kovats pointed out, although men get lupus far less often than women, when they do have it, they tend to have more severe disease.
 

Help from machines

This study was groundbreaking in another area as well. The researchers used machine learning to analyze the data. “We’ve started working a lot more with these analysis methods to try to answer as much as we can with these smaller data sets,” Dr. Robinson said. “Rather than the conventional analysis that we would typically perform, we’re able to use machine learning and artificial intelligence to try and learn from the data and increase the numbers that we’re working with by using a training data set. This allows us to interrogate the data with a lot more precision.”

The authors declared no competing interests.

Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), or lupus, shows a marked sex bias, affecting about nine females for every one male, according to Susan Kovats, PhD, who studies sex differences in immunity at the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation in Oklahoma City. This characteristic of lupus suggests that hormones are involved in the pathogenesis of the disease. It also suggests, Dr. Kovats said, that the X chromosome might play a role.

Though studies since the 1970s have indicated a significant role for hormones, the issue is still complex and not well understood, and relatively little research has been done on the molecular mechanisms that might be responsible. This may be because of difficulties with influencing the immune system in vitro, said George A. Robinson, PhD, of University College London’s Centre for Rheumatology.

But Dr. Robinson and his team found a unique way of investigating the role of sex chromosomes and hormones in the inflammatory profiles across subjects of different sex, gender, age, and disease status. In research published online in The Lancet Rheumatology, Dr. Robinson and his team looked at immune cells taken from both cisgender men and women and transgender men and women, and thus were able to “get a more physiological view of what sex hormones are doing to the immune system,” he said.

Dr. Kovats agreed that it was a useful approach. “The transgender people provided an opportunity to effectively separate sex hormone levels from chromosome content,” she said in an interview.
 

Methods and findings

Peripheral blood mononuclear cell (PBMC) samples were taken from cisgender individuals with and without juvenile-onset lupus and assessed for 28 immune-cell subsets, including different T-cell, B-cell, and monotype subsets. Subjects included 39 postpubertal cisgender men and women (17 men and 22 women) who did not have juvenile-onset lupus, and 35 postpubertal cisgender men and women (12 men and 23 women) who did have juvenile onset lupus. All were aged 16-25 years. The transgender group included five transgender men and five transgender women (aged 18-19) who were undergoing gender-affirming sex hormone treatment.

The analysis found that one of the key differences between young postpubertal cisgender men and age-matched cisgender women was that the men had significantly elevated frequencies of regulatory T cells (T-reg cells), and the T-reg cells from young cisgender men had greater suppressive capacity in vitro than did those from cisgender women. In addition, RNA sequencing data from isolated T-reg cells showed the transcriptomic signature of the cisgender men’s T-regs were significantly enriched for genes in the P13K-AKT signaling pathway. The frequency of T-reg cells was not influenced by sex hormones, but their transcriptomic profile was affected.

“These results are beginning to give us an indication of which genes might be differentially regulated by sex hormones and how these are associated with autoimmunity,” Dr. Robinson said. “We’ve also found that, depending on whether you’re a cisgender man or woman, you may have a different pathogenic process to developing lupus. It’s not necessarily that one mechanism drives the disease across both sexes.”
 

New approaches, better insights

Dr. Kovats was particularly impressed by the methods of this study. “It was a natural study, the kind of thing we can usually do only in mice,” she said.

Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation

“One problem with studies on the effects of hormones in disease is that historically researchers have not paid that much attention to the actual hormone levels in the humans they studied. They might look at 100 women and 100 men, roughly between the ages of 20 and 50. We’re starting to see more, but there aren’t a lot of studies correlating numbers of cells in blood with actual hormone levels in the person. And as we know, just because someone’s a certain age doesn’t mean that they have a textbook hormone level. Early menopause, birth-control pills, many things can affect those levels.”

The researchers hope that these findings will shed light on the mechanisms that create sexual bias in autoimmune diseases, particularly lupus, as well as help researchers to better understand the innate and adaptive immunological differences between men and women. It could also be useful in the clinical setting, Dr. Robinson said. Because of the extreme sex bias in lupus, doctors see far more women with the illness than men. When they do see men with lupus, they need to be able to consider how the patient’s sex affects the development and course of the disease. “I think that people need to start looking at patients as clinically different, depending on their sex and gender,” he said. Information like that analyzed in this study could help with that. This could be especially important because as Dr. Kovats pointed out, although men get lupus far less often than women, when they do have it, they tend to have more severe disease.
 

Help from machines

This study was groundbreaking in another area as well. The researchers used machine learning to analyze the data. “We’ve started working a lot more with these analysis methods to try to answer as much as we can with these smaller data sets,” Dr. Robinson said. “Rather than the conventional analysis that we would typically perform, we’re able to use machine learning and artificial intelligence to try and learn from the data and increase the numbers that we’re working with by using a training data set. This allows us to interrogate the data with a lot more precision.”

The authors declared no competing interests.

Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), or lupus, shows a marked sex bias, affecting about nine females for every one male, according to Susan Kovats, PhD, who studies sex differences in immunity at the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation in Oklahoma City. This characteristic of lupus suggests that hormones are involved in the pathogenesis of the disease. It also suggests, Dr. Kovats said, that the X chromosome might play a role.

Though studies since the 1970s have indicated a significant role for hormones, the issue is still complex and not well understood, and relatively little research has been done on the molecular mechanisms that might be responsible. This may be because of difficulties with influencing the immune system in vitro, said George A. Robinson, PhD, of University College London’s Centre for Rheumatology.

But Dr. Robinson and his team found a unique way of investigating the role of sex chromosomes and hormones in the inflammatory profiles across subjects of different sex, gender, age, and disease status. In research published online in The Lancet Rheumatology, Dr. Robinson and his team looked at immune cells taken from both cisgender men and women and transgender men and women, and thus were able to “get a more physiological view of what sex hormones are doing to the immune system,” he said.

Dr. Kovats agreed that it was a useful approach. “The transgender people provided an opportunity to effectively separate sex hormone levels from chromosome content,” she said in an interview.
 

Methods and findings

Peripheral blood mononuclear cell (PBMC) samples were taken from cisgender individuals with and without juvenile-onset lupus and assessed for 28 immune-cell subsets, including different T-cell, B-cell, and monotype subsets. Subjects included 39 postpubertal cisgender men and women (17 men and 22 women) who did not have juvenile-onset lupus, and 35 postpubertal cisgender men and women (12 men and 23 women) who did have juvenile onset lupus. All were aged 16-25 years. The transgender group included five transgender men and five transgender women (aged 18-19) who were undergoing gender-affirming sex hormone treatment.

The analysis found that one of the key differences between young postpubertal cisgender men and age-matched cisgender women was that the men had significantly elevated frequencies of regulatory T cells (T-reg cells), and the T-reg cells from young cisgender men had greater suppressive capacity in vitro than did those from cisgender women. In addition, RNA sequencing data from isolated T-reg cells showed the transcriptomic signature of the cisgender men’s T-regs were significantly enriched for genes in the P13K-AKT signaling pathway. The frequency of T-reg cells was not influenced by sex hormones, but their transcriptomic profile was affected.

“These results are beginning to give us an indication of which genes might be differentially regulated by sex hormones and how these are associated with autoimmunity,” Dr. Robinson said. “We’ve also found that, depending on whether you’re a cisgender man or woman, you may have a different pathogenic process to developing lupus. It’s not necessarily that one mechanism drives the disease across both sexes.”
 

New approaches, better insights

Dr. Kovats was particularly impressed by the methods of this study. “It was a natural study, the kind of thing we can usually do only in mice,” she said.

Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation

“One problem with studies on the effects of hormones in disease is that historically researchers have not paid that much attention to the actual hormone levels in the humans they studied. They might look at 100 women and 100 men, roughly between the ages of 20 and 50. We’re starting to see more, but there aren’t a lot of studies correlating numbers of cells in blood with actual hormone levels in the person. And as we know, just because someone’s a certain age doesn’t mean that they have a textbook hormone level. Early menopause, birth-control pills, many things can affect those levels.”

The researchers hope that these findings will shed light on the mechanisms that create sexual bias in autoimmune diseases, particularly lupus, as well as help researchers to better understand the innate and adaptive immunological differences between men and women. It could also be useful in the clinical setting, Dr. Robinson said. Because of the extreme sex bias in lupus, doctors see far more women with the illness than men. When they do see men with lupus, they need to be able to consider how the patient’s sex affects the development and course of the disease. “I think that people need to start looking at patients as clinically different, depending on their sex and gender,” he said. Information like that analyzed in this study could help with that. This could be especially important because as Dr. Kovats pointed out, although men get lupus far less often than women, when they do have it, they tend to have more severe disease.
 

Help from machines

This study was groundbreaking in another area as well. The researchers used machine learning to analyze the data. “We’ve started working a lot more with these analysis methods to try to answer as much as we can with these smaller data sets,” Dr. Robinson said. “Rather than the conventional analysis that we would typically perform, we’re able to use machine learning and artificial intelligence to try and learn from the data and increase the numbers that we’re working with by using a training data set. This allows us to interrogate the data with a lot more precision.”

The authors declared no competing interests.

Atopic dermatitis (AD) and allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) are 2 common inflammatory skin conditions that may have similar clinical presentations. Historically, it was thought that these conditions could not be diagnosed simultaneously due to their differing immune mechanisms; however, this belief has been challenged by recent evidence suggesting a more nuanced relationship between the 2 disease processes. In this review, we examine the complex interplay between AD and ACD and explain how shifts in conventional understanding of the 2 conditions shaped our evolving recognition of their ability to coexist.

Epidemiology of AD and ACD

Atopic dermatitis is the most common inflammatory skin disease in children and adolescents, with an estimated prevalence reaching 21%.¹ In 60% of cases, onset of AD will occur within the first year of life, and 90% of cases begin within the first 5 years.² Resolution may occur by adulthood; however, AD may continue to impact up to 8% to 9% of adults, with an increased prevalence in those older than 75 years.¹ This may represent an underestimation of the burden of adult AD; one systematic review of 17 studies found that the pooled proportion of adult-onset AD was greater than 25%.³

In contrast, ACD previously was assumed to be a disease that more commonly impacted adults and only rarely children, primarily due to an early misconception that children were not frequently exposed to contact allergens and their immune systems were too immature to react to them even if exposed.^4,5 However, it is now known that children do have risk factors for development of ACD, including a thinner stratum corneum and potentially a more absorbent skin surface.⁴ In addition, a 2022 study by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) found similar rates of ACD in children (n=1871) and adults (n=41,699) referred for patch testing (55.2% and 57.3%, respectively) as well as similar rates of having at least 1 relevant positive patch test (49.2% and 52.2%).⁶

In opposition to traditional beliefs, these findings highlight that AD and ACD can occur across age groups.

Immune Mechanism

The pathogenesis of AD represents a multifactorial process involving the immune system, cutaneous flora, genetic predisposition, and surrounding environment. Immunologically, acute AD is driven by a predominantly T_H2 helper T-cell response with high levels of IL-4, IL-5, and IL-13⁷; T_H22, T_H17, and T_H1 also have been implicated.⁸ Notably, T_H17 is found in high levels during the acute eczema phase, while T_H1 and T_H22are associated with the chronic phase.⁷

The pathophysiology of ACD is not completely understood. The classic paradigm involves 2 phases: sensitization and elicitation. Sensitization involves antigen-presenting cells that take up allergens absorbed by the skin to present them in regional lymph nodes where antigen-specific T lymphocytes are generated. Elicitation occurs upon re-exposure to the allergen, at which time the primed T lymphocytes are recruited to the skin, causing inflammation.⁹ Allergic contact dermatitis initially was thought to be driven by T_H1 cytokines and IL-17 but now is understood to be more complex.¹⁰ Studies have revealed immune polarization of contact allergens, demonstrating that nickel primarily induces a T_H1/T_H17 response, whereas fragrance and rubber accelerators skew to T_H2; T_H9 and T_H22 also may be involved depending on the causative allergen.^11,12

Of note, the immunologic differences between AD and ACD led early investigators to believe that patients with AD were relatively protected from ACD.¹³ However, as previously described, there are several overlapping cytokines between AD and ACD. Furthermore, research has revealed that risk of contact sensitization might be increased in the chronic eczema phase due to the shared T_H1 pathway.¹⁴ Barrier-disrupted skin (such as that in AD) also may increase the cytokine response and the density of antigen-presenting cells, leading to a proallergic state.¹⁵ This suggests that the immunologic pathways of AD and ACD are more intertwined than was previously understood.

Underlying Risk Factors

Skin barrier dysfunction is a key step in the pathogenesis of AD. Patients with AD commonly have loss-of-function mutations in the filaggrin gene, a protein that is key to the function of the stratum corneum. Loss of this protein may not only impact the immune response as previously noted but also may lead to increased transepidermal water loss and bacterial colonization.¹⁶ Interestingly, a 2014 review examined how this mutation could lead to an increased risk of sensitization to bivalent metal ions via an impaired chelating ability of the skin.¹⁷ Furthermore, a 2016 study conducted in Dutch construction workers revealed an increased risk for contact dermatitis (irritant and allergic) for those with a loss-of-function filaggrin mutation.¹⁸

Importantly, this same mutation may explain why patients with AD tend to have increased skin colonization by Staphylococcus aureus. The abundance of S aureus and the relative decrease in the diversity of other microorganisms on the skin may be associated with increased AD severity.¹⁹ Likewise, S aureus may play a role in the pathogenesis of ACD via production of its exotoxin directed at the T-cell receptor V beta 17 region. In particular, this receptor has been associated with nickel sensitization.¹⁷

Another risk factor to consider is increased exposure to contact sensitizers when treating AD. For instance, management often includes use of over-the-counter emollients, natural or botanical remedies with purported benefits for AD, cleansers, and detergents. However, these products can contain some of the most prevalent contact allergens seen in those with AD, including methyl-isothiazolinone, formaldehyde releasers, and fragrance.²⁰ Topical corticosteroids also are frequently used, and ACD to steroid molecules can occur, particularly to tixocortol-21-pivalate (a marker for class A corticosteroids) and budesonide (a marker for class B corticosteroids).²¹ Other allergens (eg, benzyl alcohol, propylene glycol) also may be found as inactive ingredients of topical corticosteroids.²² These exposures may place AD patients at risk for ACD.

The Coexistence of AD and ACD

Given the overlapping epidemiology, immunology, and potentially increased risk for the development of ACD in patients with AD, it would be reasonable to assume that the 2 diagnoses could coexist; however, is there clinical data to support this idea? Based on recent database reviews, the answer appears to be yes.^20,23-26 An analysis from the Pediatric Contact Dermatitis Registry revealed that 30% of 1142 pediatric patch test cases analyzed were diagnosed as AD and ACD simultaneously.²⁴ The NACDG found similar results in its 2021 review, as 29.5% of children (n=1648) and 20.7% of adults (n=36,834) had a concurrent diagnosis of AD and ACD.²⁰ Notably, older results from these databases also demonstrated an association between the 2 conditions.^23,25,26

It remains unclear whether the prevalence of ACD is higher in those with or without AD. A comprehensive systematic review conducted in 2017 examined this topic through analysis of 74 studies. The results demonstrated a similar prevalence of contact sensitization in individuals with and without AD.²⁷ Another systematic review of 31 studies conducted in 2017 found a higher prevalence for ACD in children without AD; however, the authors noted that the included studies were too variable (eg, size, design, allergens tested) to draw definitive conclusions.²⁸

Even though there is no clear overall increased risk for ACD in patients with AD, research has suggested that certain allergens may be more prevalent in the setting of AD. An NACDG study found that adults with AD had increased odds of reacting to 10 of the top 25 NACDG screening allergens compared to those without AD.²⁰ Other studies have found that AD patients may be more likely to become sensitized to certain allergens, such as fragrance and lanolin.¹⁴

Considerations for Management

Diagnosis of ACD in patients with AD can be challenging because these conditions may present similarly with chronic, pruritic, inflammatory patches and plaques. Chronic ACD may be misdiagnosed as AD if patch testing is not performed.²⁹ Given the prevalence of ACD in the setting of AD, there should be a low threshold to pursue patch testing, especially when dermatitis is recalcitrant to standard therapies or presents in an atypical distribution (ie, perioral, predominantly head/neck, hand and foot, isolated eyelid involvement, buttocks).^4,30 Various allergen series are available for patch testing adults and children including the NACDG Standard Series, American Contact Dermatitis Society Core Allergen Series, or the Pediatric Baseline Series.^31-33

If potentially relevant allergens are uncovered by patch testing, patients should be counseled on avoidance strategies. However, allergen avoidance may not always lead to complete symptom resolution, especially if AD is present concomitantly with ACD. Therefore, use of topical or systemic therapies still may be required. Topical corticosteroids can be used when dermatitis is acute and localized. Systemic corticosteroids are utilized for both diagnoses when cases are more severe or extensive, but their adverse-effect profile limits long-term use. Other systemic treatments, including conventional agents (ie, azathioprine, cyclosporine, methotrexate, mycophenolate mofetil), biologics, and small molecule inhibitors also may be considered for severe cases.^34,35 Dupilumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting IL-4/IL-13, is approved for use in moderate to severe AD in patients 6 months and older. Recent evidence has suggested that dupilumab also may be an effective off-label treatment choice for ACD when allergen avoidance alone is insufficient.³⁶ Studies have been conducted on secukinumab, a monoclonal antibody against IL-17; however, it has not been shown to be effective in either AD or ACD.^37,38 This indicates that targeted biologics may not always be successful in treating these diagnoses, likely due to their complex immune pathways. Finally, there is an emerging role for JAK inhibitors. Three are approved for AD: topical ruxolitinib, oral abrocitinib, and oral upadacitinib.³⁹ Further investigation is needed to determine the efficacy of JAK inhibitors in ACD.

Final Interpretation

Evolving evidence shows that AD and ACD can occur at the same time despite the historical perspective that their immune pathways were too polarized for this to happen. Atopic dermatitis may be an important risk factor for subsequent development of ACD. Management should include a low threshold to perform patch testing, while pharmacotherapies utilized in the treatment of both conditions should be considered.

Atopic dermatitis (AD) and allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) are 2 common inflammatory skin conditions that may have similar clinical presentations. Historically, it was thought that these conditions could not be diagnosed simultaneously due to their differing immune mechanisms; however, this belief has been challenged by recent evidence suggesting a more nuanced relationship between the 2 disease processes. In this review, we examine the complex interplay between AD and ACD and explain how shifts in conventional understanding of the 2 conditions shaped our evolving recognition of their ability to coexist.

Epidemiology of AD and ACD

Atopic dermatitis is the most common inflammatory skin disease in children and adolescents, with an estimated prevalence reaching 21%.¹ In 60% of cases, onset of AD will occur within the first year of life, and 90% of cases begin within the first 5 years.² Resolution may occur by adulthood; however, AD may continue to impact up to 8% to 9% of adults, with an increased prevalence in those older than 75 years.¹ This may represent an underestimation of the burden of adult AD; one systematic review of 17 studies found that the pooled proportion of adult-onset AD was greater than 25%.³

In contrast, ACD previously was assumed to be a disease that more commonly impacted adults and only rarely children, primarily due to an early misconception that children were not frequently exposed to contact allergens and their immune systems were too immature to react to them even if exposed.^4,5 However, it is now known that children do have risk factors for development of ACD, including a thinner stratum corneum and potentially a more absorbent skin surface.⁴ In addition, a 2022 study by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) found similar rates of ACD in children (n=1871) and adults (n=41,699) referred for patch testing (55.2% and 57.3%, respectively) as well as similar rates of having at least 1 relevant positive patch test (49.2% and 52.2%).⁶

In opposition to traditional beliefs, these findings highlight that AD and ACD can occur across age groups.

Immune Mechanism

The pathogenesis of AD represents a multifactorial process involving the immune system, cutaneous flora, genetic predisposition, and surrounding environment. Immunologically, acute AD is driven by a predominantly T_H2 helper T-cell response with high levels of IL-4, IL-5, and IL-13⁷; T_H22, T_H17, and T_H1 also have been implicated.⁸ Notably, T_H17 is found in high levels during the acute eczema phase, while T_H1 and T_H22are associated with the chronic phase.⁷

The pathophysiology of ACD is not completely understood. The classic paradigm involves 2 phases: sensitization and elicitation. Sensitization involves antigen-presenting cells that take up allergens absorbed by the skin to present them in regional lymph nodes where antigen-specific T lymphocytes are generated. Elicitation occurs upon re-exposure to the allergen, at which time the primed T lymphocytes are recruited to the skin, causing inflammation.⁹ Allergic contact dermatitis initially was thought to be driven by T_H1 cytokines and IL-17 but now is understood to be more complex.¹⁰ Studies have revealed immune polarization of contact allergens, demonstrating that nickel primarily induces a T_H1/T_H17 response, whereas fragrance and rubber accelerators skew to T_H2; T_H9 and T_H22 also may be involved depending on the causative allergen.^11,12

Of note, the immunologic differences between AD and ACD led early investigators to believe that patients with AD were relatively protected from ACD.¹³ However, as previously described, there are several overlapping cytokines between AD and ACD. Furthermore, research has revealed that risk of contact sensitization might be increased in the chronic eczema phase due to the shared T_H1 pathway.¹⁴ Barrier-disrupted skin (such as that in AD) also may increase the cytokine response and the density of antigen-presenting cells, leading to a proallergic state.¹⁵ This suggests that the immunologic pathways of AD and ACD are more intertwined than was previously understood.

Underlying Risk Factors

Skin barrier dysfunction is a key step in the pathogenesis of AD. Patients with AD commonly have loss-of-function mutations in the filaggrin gene, a protein that is key to the function of the stratum corneum. Loss of this protein may not only impact the immune response as previously noted but also may lead to increased transepidermal water loss and bacterial colonization.¹⁶ Interestingly, a 2014 review examined how this mutation could lead to an increased risk of sensitization to bivalent metal ions via an impaired chelating ability of the skin.¹⁷ Furthermore, a 2016 study conducted in Dutch construction workers revealed an increased risk for contact dermatitis (irritant and allergic) for those with a loss-of-function filaggrin mutation.¹⁸

Importantly, this same mutation may explain why patients with AD tend to have increased skin colonization by Staphylococcus aureus. The abundance of S aureus and the relative decrease in the diversity of other microorganisms on the skin may be associated with increased AD severity.¹⁹ Likewise, S aureus may play a role in the pathogenesis of ACD via production of its exotoxin directed at the T-cell receptor V beta 17 region. In particular, this receptor has been associated with nickel sensitization.¹⁷

Another risk factor to consider is increased exposure to contact sensitizers when treating AD. For instance, management often includes use of over-the-counter emollients, natural or botanical remedies with purported benefits for AD, cleansers, and detergents. However, these products can contain some of the most prevalent contact allergens seen in those with AD, including methyl-isothiazolinone, formaldehyde releasers, and fragrance.²⁰ Topical corticosteroids also are frequently used, and ACD to steroid molecules can occur, particularly to tixocortol-21-pivalate (a marker for class A corticosteroids) and budesonide (a marker for class B corticosteroids).²¹ Other allergens (eg, benzyl alcohol, propylene glycol) also may be found as inactive ingredients of topical corticosteroids.²² These exposures may place AD patients at risk for ACD.

The Coexistence of AD and ACD

Given the overlapping epidemiology, immunology, and potentially increased risk for the development of ACD in patients with AD, it would be reasonable to assume that the 2 diagnoses could coexist; however, is there clinical data to support this idea? Based on recent database reviews, the answer appears to be yes.^20,23-26 An analysis from the Pediatric Contact Dermatitis Registry revealed that 30% of 1142 pediatric patch test cases analyzed were diagnosed as AD and ACD simultaneously.²⁴ The NACDG found similar results in its 2021 review, as 29.5% of children (n=1648) and 20.7% of adults (n=36,834) had a concurrent diagnosis of AD and ACD.²⁰ Notably, older results from these databases also demonstrated an association between the 2 conditions.^23,25,26

It remains unclear whether the prevalence of ACD is higher in those with or without AD. A comprehensive systematic review conducted in 2017 examined this topic through analysis of 74 studies. The results demonstrated a similar prevalence of contact sensitization in individuals with and without AD.²⁷ Another systematic review of 31 studies conducted in 2017 found a higher prevalence for ACD in children without AD; however, the authors noted that the included studies were too variable (eg, size, design, allergens tested) to draw definitive conclusions.²⁸

Even though there is no clear overall increased risk for ACD in patients with AD, research has suggested that certain allergens may be more prevalent in the setting of AD. An NACDG study found that adults with AD had increased odds of reacting to 10 of the top 25 NACDG screening allergens compared to those without AD.²⁰ Other studies have found that AD patients may be more likely to become sensitized to certain allergens, such as fragrance and lanolin.¹⁴

Considerations for Management

Diagnosis of ACD in patients with AD can be challenging because these conditions may present similarly with chronic, pruritic, inflammatory patches and plaques. Chronic ACD may be misdiagnosed as AD if patch testing is not performed.²⁹ Given the prevalence of ACD in the setting of AD, there should be a low threshold to pursue patch testing, especially when dermatitis is recalcitrant to standard therapies or presents in an atypical distribution (ie, perioral, predominantly head/neck, hand and foot, isolated eyelid involvement, buttocks).^4,30 Various allergen series are available for patch testing adults and children including the NACDG Standard Series, American Contact Dermatitis Society Core Allergen Series, or the Pediatric Baseline Series.^31-33

If potentially relevant allergens are uncovered by patch testing, patients should be counseled on avoidance strategies. However, allergen avoidance may not always lead to complete symptom resolution, especially if AD is present concomitantly with ACD. Therefore, use of topical or systemic therapies still may be required. Topical corticosteroids can be used when dermatitis is acute and localized. Systemic corticosteroids are utilized for both diagnoses when cases are more severe or extensive, but their adverse-effect profile limits long-term use. Other systemic treatments, including conventional agents (ie, azathioprine, cyclosporine, methotrexate, mycophenolate mofetil), biologics, and small molecule inhibitors also may be considered for severe cases.^34,35 Dupilumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting IL-4/IL-13, is approved for use in moderate to severe AD in patients 6 months and older. Recent evidence has suggested that dupilumab also may be an effective off-label treatment choice for ACD when allergen avoidance alone is insufficient.³⁶ Studies have been conducted on secukinumab, a monoclonal antibody against IL-17; however, it has not been shown to be effective in either AD or ACD.^37,38 This indicates that targeted biologics may not always be successful in treating these diagnoses, likely due to their complex immune pathways. Finally, there is an emerging role for JAK inhibitors. Three are approved for AD: topical ruxolitinib, oral abrocitinib, and oral upadacitinib.³⁹ Further investigation is needed to determine the efficacy of JAK inhibitors in ACD.

Final Interpretation

Evolving evidence shows that AD and ACD can occur at the same time despite the historical perspective that their immune pathways were too polarized for this to happen. Atopic dermatitis may be an important risk factor for subsequent development of ACD. Management should include a low threshold to perform patch testing, while pharmacotherapies utilized in the treatment of both conditions should be considered.

Atopic dermatitis (AD) and allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) are 2 common inflammatory skin conditions that may have similar clinical presentations. Historically, it was thought that these conditions could not be diagnosed simultaneously due to their differing immune mechanisms; however, this belief has been challenged by recent evidence suggesting a more nuanced relationship between the 2 disease processes. In this review, we examine the complex interplay between AD and ACD and explain how shifts in conventional understanding of the 2 conditions shaped our evolving recognition of their ability to coexist.

Epidemiology of AD and ACD

Atopic dermatitis is the most common inflammatory skin disease in children and adolescents, with an estimated prevalence reaching 21%.¹ In 60% of cases, onset of AD will occur within the first year of life, and 90% of cases begin within the first 5 years.² Resolution may occur by adulthood; however, AD may continue to impact up to 8% to 9% of adults, with an increased prevalence in those older than 75 years.¹ This may represent an underestimation of the burden of adult AD; one systematic review of 17 studies found that the pooled proportion of adult-onset AD was greater than 25%.³

In contrast, ACD previously was assumed to be a disease that more commonly impacted adults and only rarely children, primarily due to an early misconception that children were not frequently exposed to contact allergens and their immune systems were too immature to react to them even if exposed.^4,5 However, it is now known that children do have risk factors for development of ACD, including a thinner stratum corneum and potentially a more absorbent skin surface.⁴ In addition, a 2022 study by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) found similar rates of ACD in children (n=1871) and adults (n=41,699) referred for patch testing (55.2% and 57.3%, respectively) as well as similar rates of having at least 1 relevant positive patch test (49.2% and 52.2%).⁶

In opposition to traditional beliefs, these findings highlight that AD and ACD can occur across age groups.

Immune Mechanism

The pathogenesis of AD represents a multifactorial process involving the immune system, cutaneous flora, genetic predisposition, and surrounding environment. Immunologically, acute AD is driven by a predominantly T_H2 helper T-cell response with high levels of IL-4, IL-5, and IL-13⁷; T_H22, T_H17, and T_H1 also have been implicated.⁸ Notably, T_H17 is found in high levels during the acute eczema phase, while T_H1 and T_H22are associated with the chronic phase.⁷

The pathophysiology of ACD is not completely understood. The classic paradigm involves 2 phases: sensitization and elicitation. Sensitization involves antigen-presenting cells that take up allergens absorbed by the skin to present them in regional lymph nodes where antigen-specific T lymphocytes are generated. Elicitation occurs upon re-exposure to the allergen, at which time the primed T lymphocytes are recruited to the skin, causing inflammation.⁹ Allergic contact dermatitis initially was thought to be driven by T_H1 cytokines and IL-17 but now is understood to be more complex.¹⁰ Studies have revealed immune polarization of contact allergens, demonstrating that nickel primarily induces a T_H1/T_H17 response, whereas fragrance and rubber accelerators skew to T_H2; T_H9 and T_H22 also may be involved depending on the causative allergen.^11,12

Of note, the immunologic differences between AD and ACD led early investigators to believe that patients with AD were relatively protected from ACD.¹³ However, as previously described, there are several overlapping cytokines between AD and ACD. Furthermore, research has revealed that risk of contact sensitization might be increased in the chronic eczema phase due to the shared T_H1 pathway.¹⁴ Barrier-disrupted skin (such as that in AD) also may increase the cytokine response and the density of antigen-presenting cells, leading to a proallergic state.¹⁵ This suggests that the immunologic pathways of AD and ACD are more intertwined than was previously understood.

Underlying Risk Factors

Skin barrier dysfunction is a key step in the pathogenesis of AD. Patients with AD commonly have loss-of-function mutations in the filaggrin gene, a protein that is key to the function of the stratum corneum. Loss of this protein may not only impact the immune response as previously noted but also may lead to increased transepidermal water loss and bacterial colonization.¹⁶ Interestingly, a 2014 review examined how this mutation could lead to an increased risk of sensitization to bivalent metal ions via an impaired chelating ability of the skin.¹⁷ Furthermore, a 2016 study conducted in Dutch construction workers revealed an increased risk for contact dermatitis (irritant and allergic) for those with a loss-of-function filaggrin mutation.¹⁸

Importantly, this same mutation may explain why patients with AD tend to have increased skin colonization by Staphylococcus aureus. The abundance of S aureus and the relative decrease in the diversity of other microorganisms on the skin may be associated with increased AD severity.¹⁹ Likewise, S aureus may play a role in the pathogenesis of ACD via production of its exotoxin directed at the T-cell receptor V beta 17 region. In particular, this receptor has been associated with nickel sensitization.¹⁷

Another risk factor to consider is increased exposure to contact sensitizers when treating AD. For instance, management often includes use of over-the-counter emollients, natural or botanical remedies with purported benefits for AD, cleansers, and detergents. However, these products can contain some of the most prevalent contact allergens seen in those with AD, including methyl-isothiazolinone, formaldehyde releasers, and fragrance.²⁰ Topical corticosteroids also are frequently used, and ACD to steroid molecules can occur, particularly to tixocortol-21-pivalate (a marker for class A corticosteroids) and budesonide (a marker for class B corticosteroids).²¹ Other allergens (eg, benzyl alcohol, propylene glycol) also may be found as inactive ingredients of topical corticosteroids.²² These exposures may place AD patients at risk for ACD.

The Coexistence of AD and ACD

Given the overlapping epidemiology, immunology, and potentially increased risk for the development of ACD in patients with AD, it would be reasonable to assume that the 2 diagnoses could coexist; however, is there clinical data to support this idea? Based on recent database reviews, the answer appears to be yes.^20,23-26 An analysis from the Pediatric Contact Dermatitis Registry revealed that 30% of 1142 pediatric patch test cases analyzed were diagnosed as AD and ACD simultaneously.²⁴ The NACDG found similar results in its 2021 review, as 29.5% of children (n=1648) and 20.7% of adults (n=36,834) had a concurrent diagnosis of AD and ACD.²⁰ Notably, older results from these databases also demonstrated an association between the 2 conditions.^23,25,26

It remains unclear whether the prevalence of ACD is higher in those with or without AD. A comprehensive systematic review conducted in 2017 examined this topic through analysis of 74 studies. The results demonstrated a similar prevalence of contact sensitization in individuals with and without AD.²⁷ Another systematic review of 31 studies conducted in 2017 found a higher prevalence for ACD in children without AD; however, the authors noted that the included studies were too variable (eg, size, design, allergens tested) to draw definitive conclusions.²⁸

Even though there is no clear overall increased risk for ACD in patients with AD, research has suggested that certain allergens may be more prevalent in the setting of AD. An NACDG study found that adults with AD had increased odds of reacting to 10 of the top 25 NACDG screening allergens compared to those without AD.²⁰ Other studies have found that AD patients may be more likely to become sensitized to certain allergens, such as fragrance and lanolin.¹⁴

Considerations for Management

Diagnosis of ACD in patients with AD can be challenging because these conditions may present similarly with chronic, pruritic, inflammatory patches and plaques. Chronic ACD may be misdiagnosed as AD if patch testing is not performed.²⁹ Given the prevalence of ACD in the setting of AD, there should be a low threshold to pursue patch testing, especially when dermatitis is recalcitrant to standard therapies or presents in an atypical distribution (ie, perioral, predominantly head/neck, hand and foot, isolated eyelid involvement, buttocks).^4,30 Various allergen series are available for patch testing adults and children including the NACDG Standard Series, American Contact Dermatitis Society Core Allergen Series, or the Pediatric Baseline Series.^31-33

If potentially relevant allergens are uncovered by patch testing, patients should be counseled on avoidance strategies. However, allergen avoidance may not always lead to complete symptom resolution, especially if AD is present concomitantly with ACD. Therefore, use of topical or systemic therapies still may be required. Topical corticosteroids can be used when dermatitis is acute and localized. Systemic corticosteroids are utilized for both diagnoses when cases are more severe or extensive, but their adverse-effect profile limits long-term use. Other systemic treatments, including conventional agents (ie, azathioprine, cyclosporine, methotrexate, mycophenolate mofetil), biologics, and small molecule inhibitors also may be considered for severe cases.^34,35 Dupilumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting IL-4/IL-13, is approved for use in moderate to severe AD in patients 6 months and older. Recent evidence has suggested that dupilumab also may be an effective off-label treatment choice for ACD when allergen avoidance alone is insufficient.³⁶ Studies have been conducted on secukinumab, a monoclonal antibody against IL-17; however, it has not been shown to be effective in either AD or ACD.^37,38 This indicates that targeted biologics may not always be successful in treating these diagnoses, likely due to their complex immune pathways. Finally, there is an emerging role for JAK inhibitors. Three are approved for AD: topical ruxolitinib, oral abrocitinib, and oral upadacitinib.³⁹ Further investigation is needed to determine the efficacy of JAK inhibitors in ACD.

Final Interpretation

Evolving evidence shows that AD and ACD can occur at the same time despite the historical perspective that their immune pathways were too polarized for this to happen. Atopic dermatitis may be an important risk factor for subsequent development of ACD. Management should include a low threshold to perform patch testing, while pharmacotherapies utilized in the treatment of both conditions should be considered.

Basal cell carcinomas (BCCs) are considered the most common cutaneous cancers. Approximately 80% of nonmelanoma skin cancers are BCCs.^1,2 Surgical management is the gold standard for early-stage and localized BCCs; it may include simple excision vs Mohs micrographic surgery.^3,4 However, if left untreated, these lesions can progress to an advanced stage (locally advanced BCC) or infrequently may spread to distant sites (metastatic BCC). In the advanced stage, the lesions are no longer manageable by surgery or radiation therapy.^5,6 Recently, inhibitors targeting the hedgehog (Hh) pathway have shown great promise for these patients. The first drug approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for locally advanced and metastatic BCC is vismodegib.⁷ In this article, we provide a clinical review of vismodegib for the management of BCC, including a discussion of the Hh pathway in BCC, adverse effects of vismodegib, use of vismodegib in adnexal skin tumors, recommended doses for vismodegib therapy in BCC, and management of the side effects of treatment.

Hh Pathway in BCC

In embryonic development, the Hh signaling pathway is crucial across a broad spectrum of species, including humans. Various members of the Hh family have been recognized, all working as secreted regulatory proteins.⁸ The name of the Hh signaling pathway is derived from a polypeptide ligand called hedgehog found in some fruit flies. Mutations in the gene led to fruit fly larvae that had a spiky hairy pattern of denticles similar to hedgehogs, leading to the name of this molecule.⁹ The transmembrane protein smoothened (SMO) is the main component of the Hh signaling pathway and initiates a signaling cascade that in turn leads to an increased expression of target genes, such as GLI1. Patched (PTCH), also a transmembrane protein and a cell-surface receptor for the secreted Hh ligand, suppresses the signaling capacity of SMO. Upon binding of the Hh ligand to the PTCH receptor, the suppression of SMO is relieved and a signal is propagated, evoking a cellular response.¹⁰ Molecular and genetic studies have reported that genetic alterations in the Hh signaling pathway are almost universally present in all BCCs, leading to an aberrant activation of the pathway and an uncontrolled proliferation of the basal cells. Frequently, these alterations have been shown to cause loss of function of PTCH homologue 1, which usually acts to inhibit the SMO homologue signaling activity.^11,12

Because of the potential importance of Hh signaling in other solid malignancies and the failure of topical inhibition of SMO,¹³ subsequent studies on the development of Hh pathway inhibitors have mostly focused on the systemic approach. A multitude of Hh pathway inhibitors have been developed thus far, such as SANT1-SANT4, GDC-0449, IPI-926, BMS-833923 (XL139), HhAntag-691, and MK-4101.¹⁴ Many of these inhibitors have been clinically investigated.^13,15,16

Systemic SMO Inhibitor: Vismodegib

Vismodegib was the earliest systemic SMO inhibitor to fulfill early clinical evaluation^15,16 and the first drug to receive FDA approval for the management of advanced or metastatic BCC. Vismodegib is a small-molecule SMO inhibitor used for the management of selected locally advanced BCC and metastatic BCC in adults.^3,17 Although there is a possibility of recurrence following drug withdrawal, vismodegib constitutes a new therapeutic strategy presenting positive benefits to patients. It may provide superior improvement over sunitinib, which has shown efficacy in a few patients; however, the efficacy and tolerance of sunitinib have been shown to be limited.^18,19

Adverse Effects of Vismodegib Therapy

Adverse events with vismodegib use have been reported in 98% of patients (N=491); most of these were mild to moderate.²⁰ However, the frequency of adverse events could prove to be a therapeutic challenge for patients requiring extended treatment. The most frequently reported reversible side effects were muscle spasms (64%), alopecia (62%), weight loss (33%), fatigue (28%), decreased appetite (25%), diarrhea (17%), nausea (16%), dysgeusia (54%), and ageusia (22%).²⁰ In clinical trials, amenorrhea was noticed in 30% (3/10) of females with reproductive potential.² Apart from alopecia and possibly amenorrhea, these side effects are reversible.¹⁷ Alkeraye et al¹⁷ reported 3 clinical cases of persistent alopecia following the use of vismodegib. Amenorrhea is a possible side effect of unknown reversibility.⁷

Vismodegib is a pregnancy category D medication.⁴ Severe birth defects, including craniofacial abnormalities, retardations in normal growth, open perineum, and absence of digital fusion at a corresponding 20% of the recommended daily dose, were found in rat studies. Embryo-fetal death was noted when rats were exposedto concentrations comparable to the recommended human dose.⁴

Hepatic events with the use of vismodegib have been reported. The use of vismodegib in randomized controlled trials resulted in elevation of both alanine aminotransferase and aspartate aminotransferase levels compared with placebo.²¹ Moreover, severe hepatotoxicity with vismodegib has been reported.^22-24 A study conducted by Edwards et al²⁵ concluded that the use of vismodegib in patients with severe liver disease must include thorough risk-benefit assessment, with caution in using other concomitant hepatotoxic medications.

Rare adverse events also have been reported in the literature, including vismodegib-induced pancreatitis in a 79-year-old patient treated for locally advanced, recurrent BCC that was cleared following cessation of therapy.²⁶ Additionally, atypical fibroxanthoma was observed in an 83-year-old patient after 30 days of treatment with vismodegib for multiple BCCs.²⁷ The development of other secondary malignancies, such as squamous cell carcinoma, melanoma, keratoacanthomas, and pilomatricomas, during or after the long-term use of vismodegib also have been described.^28-35

Use of Vismodegib for Adnexal Skin Tumors

The role of the sonic Hh–PTCH pathway in the pathogenesis of adnexal tumors varies in the literature. Some studies propose the involvement of this pathway in the formation of adnexal tumors such as trichoblastoma, trichoepithelioma, and cylindroma, as in BCC. Various lines of evidence support this involvement. Firstly, in mice, the spontaneous generation of numerous BCCs, trichoblastomas, trichoepitheliomas, and cylindromas has been observed following constitutive activation of the sonic Hh–PTCH pathway.³⁶ Secondly, in trichoepitheliomas, there have been positive results in molecular research into the tumor suppressor gene PTCH homologue 1, PTCH1, whose mutations cause constitutive activation of the sonic Hh–PTCH pathway.³⁷ Thirdly, GLI1³⁸ and SOX9³⁹ transcription factors associated with the signaling pathway of sonic Hh–PTCH appear to have increased levels in adnexal carcinomas.¹⁹ Lepesant et al¹⁹ reported a notable clinical response to vismodegib in trichoblastic carcinoma. Baur et al⁴⁰ reported successful treatment of multiple familial trichoepitheliomas with vismodegib. Nonetheless, more studies are required to assess the efficacy and reliability of vismodegib in the management of adnexal tumors.

Recommended Dose of Vismodegib Therapy

The vismodegib dosage that is approved by the FDA is 150 mg/d until disease progression or the development of intolerable side effects.⁴ Higher dosing regimens were evaluated with 270 mg/d and 540 mg/d. No added therapeutic benefit was noted with the increase in the dose, and no dose-limiting toxic effects were observed.⁴¹

Management of Vismodegib Side Effects

Managing patient expectations is a crucial step in improving dysgeusia. The experience of dysgeusia varies among patients; thus, patients should be instructed to adjust their diets according to their level of dysgeusia, which can be achieved by changing ingredients or dressings used with their diet. This step has been proven to be effective in overcoming vismodegib-related dysgeusia. Also, fluid taste distortion may lead to dehydration and an increase in creatine level. Thus, patients should be encouraged to monitor fluid intake. Moreover, a treatment hiatus of 2 to 8 months results in near-complete improvement of taste distortion.

For muscle spasms, quinine, treatment break for 1 month, gentle exercise of affected areas, or muscle relaxants such as baclofen and temazepam all are effective methods. For vismodegib-related alopecia, managing patient expectations is key; patients should be aware that hair may take 6 to 12 months or even longer to regrow. In addition, shaving less frequently helps improve alopecia.

For gastrointestinal disorders, loperamide with or without codeine phosphate is effective in resolving diarrhea, and metoclopramide is mostly adequate in treating nausea. Another adverse event is weight loss; weight loss of 5% or more of total body weight prompts dietetic referral. If weight loss persists, a treatment break might be needed to regain weight.

Overall, treatment breaks are sufficient to resolve adverse events caused by vismodegib and do not compromise efficacy of treatment. The duration of a treatment break should be considered before initiation. In one clinical trial, a longer treatment break was associated with fewer adverse effects without affecting the efficacy of treatment.⁴²

Conclusion

Vismodegib provides an effective alternative to surgical intervention in the management of BCC. However, patients must be monitored vigilantly, as adverse events are common (>90%).

Basal cell carcinomas (BCCs) are considered the most common cutaneous cancers. Approximately 80% of nonmelanoma skin cancers are BCCs.^1,2 Surgical management is the gold standard for early-stage and localized BCCs; it may include simple excision vs Mohs micrographic surgery.^3,4 However, if left untreated, these lesions can progress to an advanced stage (locally advanced BCC) or infrequently may spread to distant sites (metastatic BCC). In the advanced stage, the lesions are no longer manageable by surgery or radiation therapy.^5,6 Recently, inhibitors targeting the hedgehog (Hh) pathway have shown great promise for these patients. The first drug approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for locally advanced and metastatic BCC is vismodegib.⁷ In this article, we provide a clinical review of vismodegib for the management of BCC, including a discussion of the Hh pathway in BCC, adverse effects of vismodegib, use of vismodegib in adnexal skin tumors, recommended doses for vismodegib therapy in BCC, and management of the side effects of treatment.

Hh Pathway in BCC

In embryonic development, the Hh signaling pathway is crucial across a broad spectrum of species, including humans. Various members of the Hh family have been recognized, all working as secreted regulatory proteins.⁸ The name of the Hh signaling pathway is derived from a polypeptide ligand called hedgehog found in some fruit flies. Mutations in the gene led to fruit fly larvae that had a spiky hairy pattern of denticles similar to hedgehogs, leading to the name of this molecule.⁹ The transmembrane protein smoothened (SMO) is the main component of the Hh signaling pathway and initiates a signaling cascade that in turn leads to an increased expression of target genes, such as GLI1. Patched (PTCH), also a transmembrane protein and a cell-surface receptor for the secreted Hh ligand, suppresses the signaling capacity of SMO. Upon binding of the Hh ligand to the PTCH receptor, the suppression of SMO is relieved and a signal is propagated, evoking a cellular response.¹⁰ Molecular and genetic studies have reported that genetic alterations in the Hh signaling pathway are almost universally present in all BCCs, leading to an aberrant activation of the pathway and an uncontrolled proliferation of the basal cells. Frequently, these alterations have been shown to cause loss of function of PTCH homologue 1, which usually acts to inhibit the SMO homologue signaling activity.^11,12

Because of the potential importance of Hh signaling in other solid malignancies and the failure of topical inhibition of SMO,¹³ subsequent studies on the development of Hh pathway inhibitors have mostly focused on the systemic approach. A multitude of Hh pathway inhibitors have been developed thus far, such as SANT1-SANT4, GDC-0449, IPI-926, BMS-833923 (XL139), HhAntag-691, and MK-4101.¹⁴ Many of these inhibitors have been clinically investigated.^13,15,16

Systemic SMO Inhibitor: Vismodegib

Vismodegib was the earliest systemic SMO inhibitor to fulfill early clinical evaluation^15,16 and the first drug to receive FDA approval for the management of advanced or metastatic BCC. Vismodegib is a small-molecule SMO inhibitor used for the management of selected locally advanced BCC and metastatic BCC in adults.^3,17 Although there is a possibility of recurrence following drug withdrawal, vismodegib constitutes a new therapeutic strategy presenting positive benefits to patients. It may provide superior improvement over sunitinib, which has shown efficacy in a few patients; however, the efficacy and tolerance of sunitinib have been shown to be limited.^18,19

Adverse Effects of Vismodegib Therapy

Adverse events with vismodegib use have been reported in 98% of patients (N=491); most of these were mild to moderate.²⁰ However, the frequency of adverse events could prove to be a therapeutic challenge for patients requiring extended treatment. The most frequently reported reversible side effects were muscle spasms (64%), alopecia (62%), weight loss (33%), fatigue (28%), decreased appetite (25%), diarrhea (17%), nausea (16%), dysgeusia (54%), and ageusia (22%).²⁰ In clinical trials, amenorrhea was noticed in 30% (3/10) of females with reproductive potential.² Apart from alopecia and possibly amenorrhea, these side effects are reversible.¹⁷ Alkeraye et al¹⁷ reported 3 clinical cases of persistent alopecia following the use of vismodegib. Amenorrhea is a possible side effect of unknown reversibility.⁷

Vismodegib is a pregnancy category D medication.⁴ Severe birth defects, including craniofacial abnormalities, retardations in normal growth, open perineum, and absence of digital fusion at a corresponding 20% of the recommended daily dose, were found in rat studies. Embryo-fetal death was noted when rats were exposedto concentrations comparable to the recommended human dose.⁴

Hepatic events with the use of vismodegib have been reported. The use of vismodegib in randomized controlled trials resulted in elevation of both alanine aminotransferase and aspartate aminotransferase levels compared with placebo.²¹ Moreover, severe hepatotoxicity with vismodegib has been reported.^22-24 A study conducted by Edwards et al²⁵ concluded that the use of vismodegib in patients with severe liver disease must include thorough risk-benefit assessment, with caution in using other concomitant hepatotoxic medications.

Rare adverse events also have been reported in the literature, including vismodegib-induced pancreatitis in a 79-year-old patient treated for locally advanced, recurrent BCC that was cleared following cessation of therapy.²⁶ Additionally, atypical fibroxanthoma was observed in an 83-year-old patient after 30 days of treatment with vismodegib for multiple BCCs.²⁷ The development of other secondary malignancies, such as squamous cell carcinoma, melanoma, keratoacanthomas, and pilomatricomas, during or after the long-term use of vismodegib also have been described.^28-35

Use of Vismodegib for Adnexal Skin Tumors

The role of the sonic Hh–PTCH pathway in the pathogenesis of adnexal tumors varies in the literature. Some studies propose the involvement of this pathway in the formation of adnexal tumors such as trichoblastoma, trichoepithelioma, and cylindroma, as in BCC. Various lines of evidence support this involvement. Firstly, in mice, the spontaneous generation of numerous BCCs, trichoblastomas, trichoepitheliomas, and cylindromas has been observed following constitutive activation of the sonic Hh–PTCH pathway.³⁶ Secondly, in trichoepitheliomas, there have been positive results in molecular research into the tumor suppressor gene PTCH homologue 1, PTCH1, whose mutations cause constitutive activation of the sonic Hh–PTCH pathway.³⁷ Thirdly, GLI1³⁸ and SOX9³⁹ transcription factors associated with the signaling pathway of sonic Hh–PTCH appear to have increased levels in adnexal carcinomas.¹⁹ Lepesant et al¹⁹ reported a notable clinical response to vismodegib in trichoblastic carcinoma. Baur et al⁴⁰ reported successful treatment of multiple familial trichoepitheliomas with vismodegib. Nonetheless, more studies are required to assess the efficacy and reliability of vismodegib in the management of adnexal tumors.

Recommended Dose of Vismodegib Therapy

The vismodegib dosage that is approved by the FDA is 150 mg/d until disease progression or the development of intolerable side effects.⁴ Higher dosing regimens were evaluated with 270 mg/d and 540 mg/d. No added therapeutic benefit was noted with the increase in the dose, and no dose-limiting toxic effects were observed.⁴¹

Management of Vismodegib Side Effects

Managing patient expectations is a crucial step in improving dysgeusia. The experience of dysgeusia varies among patients; thus, patients should be instructed to adjust their diets according to their level of dysgeusia, which can be achieved by changing ingredients or dressings used with their diet. This step has been proven to be effective in overcoming vismodegib-related dysgeusia. Also, fluid taste distortion may lead to dehydration and an increase in creatine level. Thus, patients should be encouraged to monitor fluid intake. Moreover, a treatment hiatus of 2 to 8 months results in near-complete improvement of taste distortion.

For muscle spasms, quinine, treatment break for 1 month, gentle exercise of affected areas, or muscle relaxants such as baclofen and temazepam all are effective methods. For vismodegib-related alopecia, managing patient expectations is key; patients should be aware that hair may take 6 to 12 months or even longer to regrow. In addition, shaving less frequently helps improve alopecia.

For gastrointestinal disorders, loperamide with or without codeine phosphate is effective in resolving diarrhea, and metoclopramide is mostly adequate in treating nausea. Another adverse event is weight loss; weight loss of 5% or more of total body weight prompts dietetic referral. If weight loss persists, a treatment break might be needed to regain weight.

Overall, treatment breaks are sufficient to resolve adverse events caused by vismodegib and do not compromise efficacy of treatment. The duration of a treatment break should be considered before initiation. In one clinical trial, a longer treatment break was associated with fewer adverse effects without affecting the efficacy of treatment.⁴²

Conclusion

Vismodegib provides an effective alternative to surgical intervention in the management of BCC. However, patients must be monitored vigilantly, as adverse events are common (>90%).

Basal cell carcinomas (BCCs) are considered the most common cutaneous cancers. Approximately 80% of nonmelanoma skin cancers are BCCs.^1,2 Surgical management is the gold standard for early-stage and localized BCCs; it may include simple excision vs Mohs micrographic surgery.^3,4 However, if left untreated, these lesions can progress to an advanced stage (locally advanced BCC) or infrequently may spread to distant sites (metastatic BCC). In the advanced stage, the lesions are no longer manageable by surgery or radiation therapy.^5,6 Recently, inhibitors targeting the hedgehog (Hh) pathway have shown great promise for these patients. The first drug approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for locally advanced and metastatic BCC is vismodegib.⁷ In this article, we provide a clinical review of vismodegib for the management of BCC, including a discussion of the Hh pathway in BCC, adverse effects of vismodegib, use of vismodegib in adnexal skin tumors, recommended doses for vismodegib therapy in BCC, and management of the side effects of treatment.

Hh Pathway in BCC

In embryonic development, the Hh signaling pathway is crucial across a broad spectrum of species, including humans. Various members of the Hh family have been recognized, all working as secreted regulatory proteins.⁸ The name of the Hh signaling pathway is derived from a polypeptide ligand called hedgehog found in some fruit flies. Mutations in the gene led to fruit fly larvae that had a spiky hairy pattern of denticles similar to hedgehogs, leading to the name of this molecule.⁹ The transmembrane protein smoothened (SMO) is the main component of the Hh signaling pathway and initiates a signaling cascade that in turn leads to an increased expression of target genes, such as GLI1. Patched (PTCH), also a transmembrane protein and a cell-surface receptor for the secreted Hh ligand, suppresses the signaling capacity of SMO. Upon binding of the Hh ligand to the PTCH receptor, the suppression of SMO is relieved and a signal is propagated, evoking a cellular response.¹⁰ Molecular and genetic studies have reported that genetic alterations in the Hh signaling pathway are almost universally present in all BCCs, leading to an aberrant activation of the pathway and an uncontrolled proliferation of the basal cells. Frequently, these alterations have been shown to cause loss of function of PTCH homologue 1, which usually acts to inhibit the SMO homologue signaling activity.^11,12

Because of the potential importance of Hh signaling in other solid malignancies and the failure of topical inhibition of SMO,¹³ subsequent studies on the development of Hh pathway inhibitors have mostly focused on the systemic approach. A multitude of Hh pathway inhibitors have been developed thus far, such as SANT1-SANT4, GDC-0449, IPI-926, BMS-833923 (XL139), HhAntag-691, and MK-4101.¹⁴ Many of these inhibitors have been clinically investigated.^13,15,16

Systemic SMO Inhibitor: Vismodegib

Vismodegib was the earliest systemic SMO inhibitor to fulfill early clinical evaluation^15,16 and the first drug to receive FDA approval for the management of advanced or metastatic BCC. Vismodegib is a small-molecule SMO inhibitor used for the management of selected locally advanced BCC and metastatic BCC in adults.^3,17 Although there is a possibility of recurrence following drug withdrawal, vismodegib constitutes a new therapeutic strategy presenting positive benefits to patients. It may provide superior improvement over sunitinib, which has shown efficacy in a few patients; however, the efficacy and tolerance of sunitinib have been shown to be limited.^18,19

Adverse Effects of Vismodegib Therapy

Adverse events with vismodegib use have been reported in 98% of patients (N=491); most of these were mild to moderate.²⁰ However, the frequency of adverse events could prove to be a therapeutic challenge for patients requiring extended treatment. The most frequently reported reversible side effects were muscle spasms (64%), alopecia (62%), weight loss (33%), fatigue (28%), decreased appetite (25%), diarrhea (17%), nausea (16%), dysgeusia (54%), and ageusia (22%).²⁰ In clinical trials, amenorrhea was noticed in 30% (3/10) of females with reproductive potential.² Apart from alopecia and possibly amenorrhea, these side effects are reversible.¹⁷ Alkeraye et al¹⁷ reported 3 clinical cases of persistent alopecia following the use of vismodegib. Amenorrhea is a possible side effect of unknown reversibility.⁷

Vismodegib is a pregnancy category D medication.⁴ Severe birth defects, including craniofacial abnormalities, retardations in normal growth, open perineum, and absence of digital fusion at a corresponding 20% of the recommended daily dose, were found in rat studies. Embryo-fetal death was noted when rats were exposedto concentrations comparable to the recommended human dose.⁴

Hepatic events with the use of vismodegib have been reported. The use of vismodegib in randomized controlled trials resulted in elevation of both alanine aminotransferase and aspartate aminotransferase levels compared with placebo.²¹ Moreover, severe hepatotoxicity with vismodegib has been reported.^22-24 A study conducted by Edwards et al²⁵ concluded that the use of vismodegib in patients with severe liver disease must include thorough risk-benefit assessment, with caution in using other concomitant hepatotoxic medications.

Rare adverse events also have been reported in the literature, including vismodegib-induced pancreatitis in a 79-year-old patient treated for locally advanced, recurrent BCC that was cleared following cessation of therapy.²⁶ Additionally, atypical fibroxanthoma was observed in an 83-year-old patient after 30 days of treatment with vismodegib for multiple BCCs.²⁷ The development of other secondary malignancies, such as squamous cell carcinoma, melanoma, keratoacanthomas, and pilomatricomas, during or after the long-term use of vismodegib also have been described.^28-35

Use of Vismodegib for Adnexal Skin Tumors

The role of the sonic Hh–PTCH pathway in the pathogenesis of adnexal tumors varies in the literature. Some studies propose the involvement of this pathway in the formation of adnexal tumors such as trichoblastoma, trichoepithelioma, and cylindroma, as in BCC. Various lines of evidence support this involvement. Firstly, in mice, the spontaneous generation of numerous BCCs, trichoblastomas, trichoepitheliomas, and cylindromas has been observed following constitutive activation of the sonic Hh–PTCH pathway.³⁶ Secondly, in trichoepitheliomas, there have been positive results in molecular research into the tumor suppressor gene PTCH homologue 1, PTCH1, whose mutations cause constitutive activation of the sonic Hh–PTCH pathway.³⁷ Thirdly, GLI1³⁸ and SOX9³⁹ transcription factors associated with the signaling pathway of sonic Hh–PTCH appear to have increased levels in adnexal carcinomas.¹⁹ Lepesant et al¹⁹ reported a notable clinical response to vismodegib in trichoblastic carcinoma. Baur et al⁴⁰ reported successful treatment of multiple familial trichoepitheliomas with vismodegib. Nonetheless, more studies are required to assess the efficacy and reliability of vismodegib in the management of adnexal tumors.

Recommended Dose of Vismodegib Therapy

The vismodegib dosage that is approved by the FDA is 150 mg/d until disease progression or the development of intolerable side effects.⁴ Higher dosing regimens were evaluated with 270 mg/d and 540 mg/d. No added therapeutic benefit was noted with the increase in the dose, and no dose-limiting toxic effects were observed.⁴¹

Management of Vismodegib Side Effects

Managing patient expectations is a crucial step in improving dysgeusia. The experience of dysgeusia varies among patients; thus, patients should be instructed to adjust their diets according to their level of dysgeusia, which can be achieved by changing ingredients or dressings used with their diet. This step has been proven to be effective in overcoming vismodegib-related dysgeusia. Also, fluid taste distortion may lead to dehydration and an increase in creatine level. Thus, patients should be encouraged to monitor fluid intake. Moreover, a treatment hiatus of 2 to 8 months results in near-complete improvement of taste distortion.

For muscle spasms, quinine, treatment break for 1 month, gentle exercise of affected areas, or muscle relaxants such as baclofen and temazepam all are effective methods. For vismodegib-related alopecia, managing patient expectations is key; patients should be aware that hair may take 6 to 12 months or even longer to regrow. In addition, shaving less frequently helps improve alopecia.

For gastrointestinal disorders, loperamide with or without codeine phosphate is effective in resolving diarrhea, and metoclopramide is mostly adequate in treating nausea. Another adverse event is weight loss; weight loss of 5% or more of total body weight prompts dietetic referral. If weight loss persists, a treatment break might be needed to regain weight.

Overall, treatment breaks are sufficient to resolve adverse events caused by vismodegib and do not compromise efficacy of treatment. The duration of a treatment break should be considered before initiation. In one clinical trial, a longer treatment break was associated with fewer adverse effects without affecting the efficacy of treatment.⁴²

Conclusion

Vismodegib provides an effective alternative to surgical intervention in the management of BCC. However, patients must be monitored vigilantly, as adverse events are common (>90%).