Koning 3D Breast CT

Koning expects to submit trial data for their ongoing screening study to the FDA in Q1 2022.

For more information, visit https://www.koninghealth.com/en/

New STI treatment resources

Healthcare Effectiveness and Data Information Set (HEDIS) measures are performance improvement measures used for health plans to track various dimensions of care. In 2019, the HEDIS measure for chlamydia screening showed that commercial and Medicaid health plans had an average 52% screening rate among sexually active 16- to 24-year-old women. In an effort to increase screening rates among young women, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has implemented opt-out, or universal screening, for chlamydia. In order to aid clinicians in implementing this opt-out screening into their practices, the American Sexual Health Association and the National Chlamydia Coalition created resources that offer guidance, including using normalizing language with patients to explain the screening strategy. Providers can access these resources online (http://chlamydiacoalition.org/opt-out-screening/). Videos are offered and include case examples of how to speak with patients about universal screening, and printable documents are included that expand on ways that practices can improve screening rates.

For more information, visit http://chlamydiacoalition.org/opt-out-screening/.

Koning 3D Breast CT

Koning expects to submit trial data for their ongoing screening study to the FDA in Q1 2022.

For more information, visit https://www.koninghealth.com/en/

New STI treatment resources

Healthcare Effectiveness and Data Information Set (HEDIS) measures are performance improvement measures used for health plans to track various dimensions of care. In 2019, the HEDIS measure for chlamydia screening showed that commercial and Medicaid health plans had an average 52% screening rate among sexually active 16- to 24-year-old women. In an effort to increase screening rates among young women, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has implemented opt-out, or universal screening, for chlamydia. In order to aid clinicians in implementing this opt-out screening into their practices, the American Sexual Health Association and the National Chlamydia Coalition created resources that offer guidance, including using normalizing language with patients to explain the screening strategy. Providers can access these resources online (http://chlamydiacoalition.org/opt-out-screening/). Videos are offered and include case examples of how to speak with patients about universal screening, and printable documents are included that expand on ways that practices can improve screening rates.

For more information, visit http://chlamydiacoalition.org/opt-out-screening/.

Koning 3D Breast CT

Koning expects to submit trial data for their ongoing screening study to the FDA in Q1 2022.

For more information, visit https://www.koninghealth.com/en/

New STI treatment resources

Healthcare Effectiveness and Data Information Set (HEDIS) measures are performance improvement measures used for health plans to track various dimensions of care. In 2019, the HEDIS measure for chlamydia screening showed that commercial and Medicaid health plans had an average 52% screening rate among sexually active 16- to 24-year-old women. In an effort to increase screening rates among young women, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has implemented opt-out, or universal screening, for chlamydia. In order to aid clinicians in implementing this opt-out screening into their practices, the American Sexual Health Association and the National Chlamydia Coalition created resources that offer guidance, including using normalizing language with patients to explain the screening strategy. Providers can access these resources online (http://chlamydiacoalition.org/opt-out-screening/). Videos are offered and include case examples of how to speak with patients about universal screening, and printable documents are included that expand on ways that practices can improve screening rates.

For more information, visit http://chlamydiacoalition.org/opt-out-screening/.

Contraception and family planning have improved the health of all people by reducing maternal mortality, improving maternal and child health through birth spacing, supporting full education attainment, and advancing workforce participation.¹ Contraception is cost-effective and should be supported by all health insurers. One economic study reported that depending on the contraceptive method utilized, up to $7 of health care costs were saved for each dollar spent on contraceptive services and supplies.²

Progestin-only pills (POPs) are an important contraceptive option for people in the following situations who³:

• have a contraindication to estrogen-containing contraceptives
• are actively breastfeeding
• are less than 21 days since birth
• have a preference to avoid estrogen.

POPs are contraindicated for women who have breast cancer, abnormal uterine bleeding, or active liver disease and for women who are pregnant. A history of bariatric surgery with a malabsorption procedure (Roux-en-Y and biliopancreatic diversion) and the use of antiepileptic medications that are strong enzyme inducers are additional situations where the risk of POP may outweigh the benefit.³ Alternative progestin-only options include the subdermal etonogestrel implant, depot medroxyprogesterone acetate, and levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices. These 3 options provide superior contraceptive efficacy to POP.

As a contraceptive, norethindrone at a dose of 0.35 mg daily has two major flaws:

• it does not reliably inhibit ovulation
• it has a short half-life.

In clinical studies, norethindrone inhibits ovulation in approximately 50% of cycles.^4,5 Because norethindrone at a dose of 0.35 mg does not reliably inhibit ovulation it relies on additional mechanisms for contraceptive efficacy, including thickening of the cervical mucus to block sperm entry into the upper reproductive tract, reduced fallopian tube motility, and thinning of the endometrium.⁶

Norethindrone POP is formulated in packs of 28 pills containing 0.35 mg intended for daily continuous administration and no medication-free intervals. One rationale for the low dose of 0.35 mg in norethindrone POP is that it approximates the lowest dose with contraceptive efficacy for breastfeeding women, which has the benefit of minimizing exposure of the baby to the medication. Estrogen-progestin birth control pills containing norethindrone as the progestin reliably inhibit ovulation and have a minimum of 1 mg of norethindrone in each hormone pill. A POP with 1 mg of norethindrone per pill would likely have greater contraceptive efficacy. When taken daily, norethindrone acetate 5 mg (Aygestin) suppresses ovarian estrogen production, ovulation, and often causes cessation of uterine bleeding.⁷ The short half-life of norethindrone (7.7 hours) further exacerbates the problem of an insufficient daily dose.⁶ The standard guidance is that norethindrone must be taken at the same time every day, a goal that is nearly impossible to achieve. If a dose of norethindrone is taken >3 hours late, backup contraception is recommended for 48 hours.⁶

Drospirenone is a chemical analogue of spironolactone. Drospirenone is a progestin that suppresses LH and FSH and has anti-androgenic and partial anti-mineralocorticoid effects.⁸ Drospirenone POP contains 4 mg of a nonmicronized formulation that is believed to provide a pharmacologically similar area under the curve in drug metabolism studies to the 3 mg of micronized drospirenone, present in drospirenone-containing estrogen-progestin contraceptives.⁸ It is provided in a pack of 28 pills with 24 drospirenone pills and 4 pills without hormone. Drospirenone has a long half-life of 30 to 34 hours.⁸ If ≥2 drospirenone pills are missed, backup contraception is recommended for 7 days.⁹ The contraceptive effectiveness of drospirenone POP is thought to be similar to estrogen-progestin pills.⁸ Theoretically, drospirenone, acting as an anti-mineralocorticoid, can cause hyperkalemia. People with renal and adrenal insufficiency are most vulnerable to this adverse effect and should not be prescribed drospirenone. Women taking drospirenone and a medication that strongly inhibits CYP3A4, an enzyme involved in drospirenone degradation—including ketoconazole, indinavir, boceprevir, and clarithromycin—may have increased circulating levels of drospirenone and be at an increased risk of hyperkalemia. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) suggests that clinicians consider monitoring potassium concentration in women taking drospirenone who are also prescribed a strong CYP3A4 inhibitor.⁹ In people with normal renal and adrenal function, drospirenone-induced hyperkalemia is not commonly observed.⁹

Drospirenone 4 mg has been reported to not affect the natural balance of pro- and anti-coagulation factors in women.¹⁰ Drospirenone 4 mg daily has been reported to cause a modest decrease in systolic (-8 mm Hg) and diastolic (-5 mm Hg) blood pressure for women with a baseline blood pressure ≥130 mm Hg. Drospirenone 4 mg daily did not change blood pressure measurement in women with a baseline systolic blood pressure <130 mm Hg.¹¹ For women using drospirenone POP, circulating estradiol concentration is usually >30 pg/mL, with a mean concentration of 51 pg/mL.^12,13 Drospirenone POP does not result in a significant change in body weight.¹⁴ Preliminary studies suggest that drospirenone is an effective contraceptive in women with a BMI >30 kg/m².^14,15 Drospirenone enters breast milk and the relative infant dose is reported to be 1.5%.⁹ In general, breastfeeding is considered reasonably safe when the relative infant dose of a medication is <10%.¹⁶

The most common adverse effect reported with both norethindrone and drospirenone POP is unscheduled uterine bleeding. With norethindrone POP about 50% of users have a relatively preserved monthly bleeding pattern and approximately 50% have bleeding between periods, spotting and/or prolonged bleeding.^17,18 A similar frequency of unscheduled uterine bleeding has been reported with drospirenone POP.^14,19 Unscheduled and bothersome uterine bleeding is a common reason people discontinue POP. For drospirenone POP, the FDA reports a Pearl Index of 4.⁹ Other studies report a Pearl Index of 0.73 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.31 to 1.43) for drospirenone POP.¹⁴ For norethindrone POP, the FDA reports that in typical use about 5% of people using the contraceptive method would become pregnant.⁶ The TABLE provides a comparison of the key features of the two available POP contraceptives. My assessment is that drospirenone has superior contraceptive properties over norethindrone POP. However, a head-to-head clinical trial would be necessary to determine the relative contraceptive effectiveness of drospirenone versus norethindrone POP.

Maintaining contraception access

Access to contraception without a copayment is an important component of a comprehensive and equitable insurance program.²⁰ The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) advocates that all people “should have unhindered and affordable access to all U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptives.”²¹ ACOG also calls for the “full implementation of the Affordable Care Act requirement that new and revised private health insurance plans cover all U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved contraceptives without cost sharing, including nonequivalent options within one method category.” The National Women’s Law Center²² provides helpful resources to ensure access to legislated contraceptive benefits, including a phone script for speaking with an insurance benefits agent²³ and a toolkit for advocating for your contraceptive choice.²⁴ We need to ensure that people have unfettered access to all FDA-approved contraceptives because access to contraception is an important component of public health. Although drospirenone is more costly than norethindrone POP, drospirenone contraception should be available to all patients seeking POP contraception. ●

Contraception and family planning have improved the health of all people by reducing maternal mortality, improving maternal and child health through birth spacing, supporting full education attainment, and advancing workforce participation.¹ Contraception is cost-effective and should be supported by all health insurers. One economic study reported that depending on the contraceptive method utilized, up to $7 of health care costs were saved for each dollar spent on contraceptive services and supplies.²

Progestin-only pills (POPs) are an important contraceptive option for people in the following situations who³:

• have a contraindication to estrogen-containing contraceptives
• are actively breastfeeding
• are less than 21 days since birth
• have a preference to avoid estrogen.

POPs are contraindicated for women who have breast cancer, abnormal uterine bleeding, or active liver disease and for women who are pregnant. A history of bariatric surgery with a malabsorption procedure (Roux-en-Y and biliopancreatic diversion) and the use of antiepileptic medications that are strong enzyme inducers are additional situations where the risk of POP may outweigh the benefit.³ Alternative progestin-only options include the subdermal etonogestrel implant, depot medroxyprogesterone acetate, and levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices. These 3 options provide superior contraceptive efficacy to POP.

As a contraceptive, norethindrone at a dose of 0.35 mg daily has two major flaws:

• it does not reliably inhibit ovulation
• it has a short half-life.

In clinical studies, norethindrone inhibits ovulation in approximately 50% of cycles.^4,5 Because norethindrone at a dose of 0.35 mg does not reliably inhibit ovulation it relies on additional mechanisms for contraceptive efficacy, including thickening of the cervical mucus to block sperm entry into the upper reproductive tract, reduced fallopian tube motility, and thinning of the endometrium.⁶

Norethindrone POP is formulated in packs of 28 pills containing 0.35 mg intended for daily continuous administration and no medication-free intervals. One rationale for the low dose of 0.35 mg in norethindrone POP is that it approximates the lowest dose with contraceptive efficacy for breastfeeding women, which has the benefit of minimizing exposure of the baby to the medication. Estrogen-progestin birth control pills containing norethindrone as the progestin reliably inhibit ovulation and have a minimum of 1 mg of norethindrone in each hormone pill. A POP with 1 mg of norethindrone per pill would likely have greater contraceptive efficacy. When taken daily, norethindrone acetate 5 mg (Aygestin) suppresses ovarian estrogen production, ovulation, and often causes cessation of uterine bleeding.⁷ The short half-life of norethindrone (7.7 hours) further exacerbates the problem of an insufficient daily dose.⁶ The standard guidance is that norethindrone must be taken at the same time every day, a goal that is nearly impossible to achieve. If a dose of norethindrone is taken >3 hours late, backup contraception is recommended for 48 hours.⁶

Drospirenone is a chemical analogue of spironolactone. Drospirenone is a progestin that suppresses LH and FSH and has anti-androgenic and partial anti-mineralocorticoid effects.⁸ Drospirenone POP contains 4 mg of a nonmicronized formulation that is believed to provide a pharmacologically similar area under the curve in drug metabolism studies to the 3 mg of micronized drospirenone, present in drospirenone-containing estrogen-progestin contraceptives.⁸ It is provided in a pack of 28 pills with 24 drospirenone pills and 4 pills without hormone. Drospirenone has a long half-life of 30 to 34 hours.⁸ If ≥2 drospirenone pills are missed, backup contraception is recommended for 7 days.⁹ The contraceptive effectiveness of drospirenone POP is thought to be similar to estrogen-progestin pills.⁸ Theoretically, drospirenone, acting as an anti-mineralocorticoid, can cause hyperkalemia. People with renal and adrenal insufficiency are most vulnerable to this adverse effect and should not be prescribed drospirenone. Women taking drospirenone and a medication that strongly inhibits CYP3A4, an enzyme involved in drospirenone degradation—including ketoconazole, indinavir, boceprevir, and clarithromycin—may have increased circulating levels of drospirenone and be at an increased risk of hyperkalemia. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) suggests that clinicians consider monitoring potassium concentration in women taking drospirenone who are also prescribed a strong CYP3A4 inhibitor.⁹ In people with normal renal and adrenal function, drospirenone-induced hyperkalemia is not commonly observed.⁹

Drospirenone 4 mg has been reported to not affect the natural balance of pro- and anti-coagulation factors in women.¹⁰ Drospirenone 4 mg daily has been reported to cause a modest decrease in systolic (-8 mm Hg) and diastolic (-5 mm Hg) blood pressure for women with a baseline blood pressure ≥130 mm Hg. Drospirenone 4 mg daily did not change blood pressure measurement in women with a baseline systolic blood pressure <130 mm Hg.¹¹ For women using drospirenone POP, circulating estradiol concentration is usually >30 pg/mL, with a mean concentration of 51 pg/mL.^12,13 Drospirenone POP does not result in a significant change in body weight.¹⁴ Preliminary studies suggest that drospirenone is an effective contraceptive in women with a BMI >30 kg/m².^14,15 Drospirenone enters breast milk and the relative infant dose is reported to be 1.5%.⁹ In general, breastfeeding is considered reasonably safe when the relative infant dose of a medication is <10%.¹⁶

The most common adverse effect reported with both norethindrone and drospirenone POP is unscheduled uterine bleeding. With norethindrone POP about 50% of users have a relatively preserved monthly bleeding pattern and approximately 50% have bleeding between periods, spotting and/or prolonged bleeding.^17,18 A similar frequency of unscheduled uterine bleeding has been reported with drospirenone POP.^14,19 Unscheduled and bothersome uterine bleeding is a common reason people discontinue POP. For drospirenone POP, the FDA reports a Pearl Index of 4.⁹ Other studies report a Pearl Index of 0.73 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.31 to 1.43) for drospirenone POP.¹⁴ For norethindrone POP, the FDA reports that in typical use about 5% of people using the contraceptive method would become pregnant.⁶ The TABLE provides a comparison of the key features of the two available POP contraceptives. My assessment is that drospirenone has superior contraceptive properties over norethindrone POP. However, a head-to-head clinical trial would be necessary to determine the relative contraceptive effectiveness of drospirenone versus norethindrone POP.

Maintaining contraception access

Access to contraception without a copayment is an important component of a comprehensive and equitable insurance program.²⁰ The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) advocates that all people “should have unhindered and affordable access to all U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptives.”²¹ ACOG also calls for the “full implementation of the Affordable Care Act requirement that new and revised private health insurance plans cover all U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved contraceptives without cost sharing, including nonequivalent options within one method category.” The National Women’s Law Center²² provides helpful resources to ensure access to legislated contraceptive benefits, including a phone script for speaking with an insurance benefits agent²³ and a toolkit for advocating for your contraceptive choice.²⁴ We need to ensure that people have unfettered access to all FDA-approved contraceptives because access to contraception is an important component of public health. Although drospirenone is more costly than norethindrone POP, drospirenone contraception should be available to all patients seeking POP contraception. ●

Contraception and family planning have improved the health of all people by reducing maternal mortality, improving maternal and child health through birth spacing, supporting full education attainment, and advancing workforce participation.¹ Contraception is cost-effective and should be supported by all health insurers. One economic study reported that depending on the contraceptive method utilized, up to $7 of health care costs were saved for each dollar spent on contraceptive services and supplies.²

Progestin-only pills (POPs) are an important contraceptive option for people in the following situations who³:

• have a contraindication to estrogen-containing contraceptives
• are actively breastfeeding
• are less than 21 days since birth
• have a preference to avoid estrogen.

POPs are contraindicated for women who have breast cancer, abnormal uterine bleeding, or active liver disease and for women who are pregnant. A history of bariatric surgery with a malabsorption procedure (Roux-en-Y and biliopancreatic diversion) and the use of antiepileptic medications that are strong enzyme inducers are additional situations where the risk of POP may outweigh the benefit.³ Alternative progestin-only options include the subdermal etonogestrel implant, depot medroxyprogesterone acetate, and levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices. These 3 options provide superior contraceptive efficacy to POP.

As a contraceptive, norethindrone at a dose of 0.35 mg daily has two major flaws:

• it does not reliably inhibit ovulation
• it has a short half-life.

In clinical studies, norethindrone inhibits ovulation in approximately 50% of cycles.^4,5 Because norethindrone at a dose of 0.35 mg does not reliably inhibit ovulation it relies on additional mechanisms for contraceptive efficacy, including thickening of the cervical mucus to block sperm entry into the upper reproductive tract, reduced fallopian tube motility, and thinning of the endometrium.⁶

Norethindrone POP is formulated in packs of 28 pills containing 0.35 mg intended for daily continuous administration and no medication-free intervals. One rationale for the low dose of 0.35 mg in norethindrone POP is that it approximates the lowest dose with contraceptive efficacy for breastfeeding women, which has the benefit of minimizing exposure of the baby to the medication. Estrogen-progestin birth control pills containing norethindrone as the progestin reliably inhibit ovulation and have a minimum of 1 mg of norethindrone in each hormone pill. A POP with 1 mg of norethindrone per pill would likely have greater contraceptive efficacy. When taken daily, norethindrone acetate 5 mg (Aygestin) suppresses ovarian estrogen production, ovulation, and often causes cessation of uterine bleeding.⁷ The short half-life of norethindrone (7.7 hours) further exacerbates the problem of an insufficient daily dose.⁶ The standard guidance is that norethindrone must be taken at the same time every day, a goal that is nearly impossible to achieve. If a dose of norethindrone is taken >3 hours late, backup contraception is recommended for 48 hours.⁶

Drospirenone is a chemical analogue of spironolactone. Drospirenone is a progestin that suppresses LH and FSH and has anti-androgenic and partial anti-mineralocorticoid effects.⁸ Drospirenone POP contains 4 mg of a nonmicronized formulation that is believed to provide a pharmacologically similar area under the curve in drug metabolism studies to the 3 mg of micronized drospirenone, present in drospirenone-containing estrogen-progestin contraceptives.⁸ It is provided in a pack of 28 pills with 24 drospirenone pills and 4 pills without hormone. Drospirenone has a long half-life of 30 to 34 hours.⁸ If ≥2 drospirenone pills are missed, backup contraception is recommended for 7 days.⁹ The contraceptive effectiveness of drospirenone POP is thought to be similar to estrogen-progestin pills.⁸ Theoretically, drospirenone, acting as an anti-mineralocorticoid, can cause hyperkalemia. People with renal and adrenal insufficiency are most vulnerable to this adverse effect and should not be prescribed drospirenone. Women taking drospirenone and a medication that strongly inhibits CYP3A4, an enzyme involved in drospirenone degradation—including ketoconazole, indinavir, boceprevir, and clarithromycin—may have increased circulating levels of drospirenone and be at an increased risk of hyperkalemia. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) suggests that clinicians consider monitoring potassium concentration in women taking drospirenone who are also prescribed a strong CYP3A4 inhibitor.⁹ In people with normal renal and adrenal function, drospirenone-induced hyperkalemia is not commonly observed.⁹

Drospirenone 4 mg has been reported to not affect the natural balance of pro- and anti-coagulation factors in women.¹⁰ Drospirenone 4 mg daily has been reported to cause a modest decrease in systolic (-8 mm Hg) and diastolic (-5 mm Hg) blood pressure for women with a baseline blood pressure ≥130 mm Hg. Drospirenone 4 mg daily did not change blood pressure measurement in women with a baseline systolic blood pressure <130 mm Hg.¹¹ For women using drospirenone POP, circulating estradiol concentration is usually >30 pg/mL, with a mean concentration of 51 pg/mL.^12,13 Drospirenone POP does not result in a significant change in body weight.¹⁴ Preliminary studies suggest that drospirenone is an effective contraceptive in women with a BMI >30 kg/m².^14,15 Drospirenone enters breast milk and the relative infant dose is reported to be 1.5%.⁹ In general, breastfeeding is considered reasonably safe when the relative infant dose of a medication is <10%.¹⁶

The most common adverse effect reported with both norethindrone and drospirenone POP is unscheduled uterine bleeding. With norethindrone POP about 50% of users have a relatively preserved monthly bleeding pattern and approximately 50% have bleeding between periods, spotting and/or prolonged bleeding.^17,18 A similar frequency of unscheduled uterine bleeding has been reported with drospirenone POP.^14,19 Unscheduled and bothersome uterine bleeding is a common reason people discontinue POP. For drospirenone POP, the FDA reports a Pearl Index of 4.⁹ Other studies report a Pearl Index of 0.73 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.31 to 1.43) for drospirenone POP.¹⁴ For norethindrone POP, the FDA reports that in typical use about 5% of people using the contraceptive method would become pregnant.⁶ The TABLE provides a comparison of the key features of the two available POP contraceptives. My assessment is that drospirenone has superior contraceptive properties over norethindrone POP. However, a head-to-head clinical trial would be necessary to determine the relative contraceptive effectiveness of drospirenone versus norethindrone POP.

Maintaining contraception access

Access to contraception without a copayment is an important component of a comprehensive and equitable insurance program.²⁰ The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) advocates that all people “should have unhindered and affordable access to all U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptives.”²¹ ACOG also calls for the “full implementation of the Affordable Care Act requirement that new and revised private health insurance plans cover all U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved contraceptives without cost sharing, including nonequivalent options within one method category.” The National Women’s Law Center²² provides helpful resources to ensure access to legislated contraceptive benefits, including a phone script for speaking with an insurance benefits agent²³ and a toolkit for advocating for your contraceptive choice.²⁴ We need to ensure that people have unfettered access to all FDA-approved contraceptives because access to contraception is an important component of public health. Although drospirenone is more costly than norethindrone POP, drospirenone contraception should be available to all patients seeking POP contraception. ●

Current selection criteria for autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant (AHSCT) in patients with rapidly progressing systemic sclerosis were validated in a study presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Rheumatology Association.

The study, which associated AHSCT with improvement in overall survival and an acceptable risk of adverse events, “provides valuable real-world, long-term data pertaining to key clinical outcomes to support the use of AHSCT in patients with rapidly progressing systemic sclerosis,” reported Nancy Maltez, MD, a rheumatologist and clinical investigator who is on the faculty of the University of Ottawa.

Fnaq / Wikimedia Commons / CC BY-SA 4.0

The prospective study enrolled 85 patients in Canada and 41 patients in France with rapidly progressing systemic sclerosis. The patients in both countries were enrolled with the same eligibility criteria for AHSCT, but patients in France underwent AHSCT while the patients in Canada were treated with conventional therapies, such as cyclophosphamide.

On the primary outcome of overall survival, the Kaplan-Meier curve split almost immediately in favor of AHSCT. At 4 years, more than 25% of patients in the conventional therapy group had died versus less than 5% of those who underwent AHSCT. Although the mortality curve did slope downwards in the AHSCT group over the subsequent 6 years of follow-up, it largely paralleled and remained superior to convention therapy.
 

About 50% survival advantage seen for AHSCT

In this nonrandomized study, the statistical survival advantage of AHSCT was not provided, but the survival graph showed about 75% survival at 8 years of follow-up in the AHSCT group, compared with about 50% survival in the conventional-therapy group.

Many of the secondary outcomes, including those evaluating skin involvement, preservation of lung function, and absence of renal complications also favored AHSCT, according to Dr. Maltez.

On the modified Rodnan skin score, a significant difference (P < .001) observed at 12 months was sustained at 36 months, when the score was 4.48 points lower among patients treated with AHSCT. The difference in forced vital capacity (FVC) was about 10% higher (P < .0001) in the AHSCT group.

Over long-term follow-up, the incidence of scleroderma renal crisis per 100 person-years was 6.02 cases in the conventional therapy group versus 0.58 cases (P < .001) in the AHSCT group. There was no significant difference in the proportion of patients in the two groups receiving a pacemaker over the course of follow-up, but the rate of new malignancies per 100 person-years was 3.71 in the conventional care group versus 0.58 (P < .001) in the AHSCT group.

Significant complications attributed to AHSCT were uncommon. This is important, because AHSCT was not uniformly well tolerated in the initial trials. The first of three randomized trials with AHSCT in progressive systemic sclerosis was published more than 10 years ago after a series of promising early phase trials. Each associated AHSCT with benefit, but patient selection appeared to be important.

In the ASSIST trial of 2011, AHSCT was associated with significant reductions in skin involvement and improvements in pulmonary function relative to cyclophosphamide, but enrollment was stopped after only 19 patients, and follow-up extended to only 2 years.

Substantial AHSCT-related mortality in ASTIS

In the second trial, called ASTIS, AHSCT was associated with a higher rate of mortality than cyclophosphamide after 1 year of follow-up, although there was a significantly greater long-term event-free survival for AHSCT when patients were followed out to 4 years. This study reinforced the need for cardiac screening because of because of concern that severe cardiac compromise contributed to the increased risk of AHSCT-related mortality.

The SCOT trial employed a high-intensity myeloablative conditioning regimen and total body irradiation prior to AHSCT. It is not clear that these contributed to improved survival, particularly because of the risk for irradiation to exacerbate complications in the lung and kidney, but AHSCT-related mortality was only 3% at 54 months. Patient enrollment criteria in this trial were also suspected of having played a role in the favorable results.

In the Canadian-French collaborative study, patients were considered eligible for AHSCT if they met the enrollment criteria used in the ASTIS trial, according to Dr. Maltez. She attributed the low rates of early mortality and relative absence of transplant-related death to the lessons learned in the published trials.

Overall, the data support the routine but selective use of AHSCT in rapidly progressing systemic sclerosis, Dr. Maltez concluded.

Maria Carolina Oliveira, MD, of the department of internal medicine at the University of São Paulo, generally agreed. A coauthor of a recent review of AHSCT for systemic sclerosis, Dr. Oliveira emphasized that patient selection is critical.

“AHSCT for systemic sclerosis has very specific inclusion criteria. Indeed, it is indicated for patients with severe and progressive disease but under two specific conditions: severe and progressive diffuse skin involvement and/or progressive interstitial lung disease,” she said in an interview.

Because of the thin line between benefit and risk according to disease subtypes and comorbidities, she said that it is important to be aware of relative contraindications and to recognize the risks of AHSCT.

At this time, and in the absence of better biomarkers to identify those most likely to benefit, “patients with other forms of severe scleroderma, such as those with pulmonary hypertension, scleroderma renal crisis, or severe cardiac involvement, for example, are not eligible,” she said.

Dr. Maltez and Dr. Oliveira reported having no potential conflicts of interest.

Current selection criteria for autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant (AHSCT) in patients with rapidly progressing systemic sclerosis were validated in a study presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Rheumatology Association.

The study, which associated AHSCT with improvement in overall survival and an acceptable risk of adverse events, “provides valuable real-world, long-term data pertaining to key clinical outcomes to support the use of AHSCT in patients with rapidly progressing systemic sclerosis,” reported Nancy Maltez, MD, a rheumatologist and clinical investigator who is on the faculty of the University of Ottawa.

Fnaq / Wikimedia Commons / CC BY-SA 4.0

The prospective study enrolled 85 patients in Canada and 41 patients in France with rapidly progressing systemic sclerosis. The patients in both countries were enrolled with the same eligibility criteria for AHSCT, but patients in France underwent AHSCT while the patients in Canada were treated with conventional therapies, such as cyclophosphamide.

On the primary outcome of overall survival, the Kaplan-Meier curve split almost immediately in favor of AHSCT. At 4 years, more than 25% of patients in the conventional therapy group had died versus less than 5% of those who underwent AHSCT. Although the mortality curve did slope downwards in the AHSCT group over the subsequent 6 years of follow-up, it largely paralleled and remained superior to convention therapy.
 

About 50% survival advantage seen for AHSCT

In this nonrandomized study, the statistical survival advantage of AHSCT was not provided, but the survival graph showed about 75% survival at 8 years of follow-up in the AHSCT group, compared with about 50% survival in the conventional-therapy group.

Many of the secondary outcomes, including those evaluating skin involvement, preservation of lung function, and absence of renal complications also favored AHSCT, according to Dr. Maltez.

On the modified Rodnan skin score, a significant difference (P < .001) observed at 12 months was sustained at 36 months, when the score was 4.48 points lower among patients treated with AHSCT. The difference in forced vital capacity (FVC) was about 10% higher (P < .0001) in the AHSCT group.

Over long-term follow-up, the incidence of scleroderma renal crisis per 100 person-years was 6.02 cases in the conventional therapy group versus 0.58 cases (P < .001) in the AHSCT group. There was no significant difference in the proportion of patients in the two groups receiving a pacemaker over the course of follow-up, but the rate of new malignancies per 100 person-years was 3.71 in the conventional care group versus 0.58 (P < .001) in the AHSCT group.

Significant complications attributed to AHSCT were uncommon. This is important, because AHSCT was not uniformly well tolerated in the initial trials. The first of three randomized trials with AHSCT in progressive systemic sclerosis was published more than 10 years ago after a series of promising early phase trials. Each associated AHSCT with benefit, but patient selection appeared to be important.

In the ASSIST trial of 2011, AHSCT was associated with significant reductions in skin involvement and improvements in pulmonary function relative to cyclophosphamide, but enrollment was stopped after only 19 patients, and follow-up extended to only 2 years.

Substantial AHSCT-related mortality in ASTIS

In the second trial, called ASTIS, AHSCT was associated with a higher rate of mortality than cyclophosphamide after 1 year of follow-up, although there was a significantly greater long-term event-free survival for AHSCT when patients were followed out to 4 years. This study reinforced the need for cardiac screening because of because of concern that severe cardiac compromise contributed to the increased risk of AHSCT-related mortality.

The SCOT trial employed a high-intensity myeloablative conditioning regimen and total body irradiation prior to AHSCT. It is not clear that these contributed to improved survival, particularly because of the risk for irradiation to exacerbate complications in the lung and kidney, but AHSCT-related mortality was only 3% at 54 months. Patient enrollment criteria in this trial were also suspected of having played a role in the favorable results.

In the Canadian-French collaborative study, patients were considered eligible for AHSCT if they met the enrollment criteria used in the ASTIS trial, according to Dr. Maltez. She attributed the low rates of early mortality and relative absence of transplant-related death to the lessons learned in the published trials.

Overall, the data support the routine but selective use of AHSCT in rapidly progressing systemic sclerosis, Dr. Maltez concluded.

Maria Carolina Oliveira, MD, of the department of internal medicine at the University of São Paulo, generally agreed. A coauthor of a recent review of AHSCT for systemic sclerosis, Dr. Oliveira emphasized that patient selection is critical.

“AHSCT for systemic sclerosis has very specific inclusion criteria. Indeed, it is indicated for patients with severe and progressive disease but under two specific conditions: severe and progressive diffuse skin involvement and/or progressive interstitial lung disease,” she said in an interview.

Because of the thin line between benefit and risk according to disease subtypes and comorbidities, she said that it is important to be aware of relative contraindications and to recognize the risks of AHSCT.

At this time, and in the absence of better biomarkers to identify those most likely to benefit, “patients with other forms of severe scleroderma, such as those with pulmonary hypertension, scleroderma renal crisis, or severe cardiac involvement, for example, are not eligible,” she said.

Dr. Maltez and Dr. Oliveira reported having no potential conflicts of interest.

Current selection criteria for autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant (AHSCT) in patients with rapidly progressing systemic sclerosis were validated in a study presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Rheumatology Association.

The study, which associated AHSCT with improvement in overall survival and an acceptable risk of adverse events, “provides valuable real-world, long-term data pertaining to key clinical outcomes to support the use of AHSCT in patients with rapidly progressing systemic sclerosis,” reported Nancy Maltez, MD, a rheumatologist and clinical investigator who is on the faculty of the University of Ottawa.

Fnaq / Wikimedia Commons / CC BY-SA 4.0

The prospective study enrolled 85 patients in Canada and 41 patients in France with rapidly progressing systemic sclerosis. The patients in both countries were enrolled with the same eligibility criteria for AHSCT, but patients in France underwent AHSCT while the patients in Canada were treated with conventional therapies, such as cyclophosphamide.

On the primary outcome of overall survival, the Kaplan-Meier curve split almost immediately in favor of AHSCT. At 4 years, more than 25% of patients in the conventional therapy group had died versus less than 5% of those who underwent AHSCT. Although the mortality curve did slope downwards in the AHSCT group over the subsequent 6 years of follow-up, it largely paralleled and remained superior to convention therapy.
 

About 50% survival advantage seen for AHSCT

In this nonrandomized study, the statistical survival advantage of AHSCT was not provided, but the survival graph showed about 75% survival at 8 years of follow-up in the AHSCT group, compared with about 50% survival in the conventional-therapy group.

Many of the secondary outcomes, including those evaluating skin involvement, preservation of lung function, and absence of renal complications also favored AHSCT, according to Dr. Maltez.

On the modified Rodnan skin score, a significant difference (P < .001) observed at 12 months was sustained at 36 months, when the score was 4.48 points lower among patients treated with AHSCT. The difference in forced vital capacity (FVC) was about 10% higher (P < .0001) in the AHSCT group.

Over long-term follow-up, the incidence of scleroderma renal crisis per 100 person-years was 6.02 cases in the conventional therapy group versus 0.58 cases (P < .001) in the AHSCT group. There was no significant difference in the proportion of patients in the two groups receiving a pacemaker over the course of follow-up, but the rate of new malignancies per 100 person-years was 3.71 in the conventional care group versus 0.58 (P < .001) in the AHSCT group.

Significant complications attributed to AHSCT were uncommon. This is important, because AHSCT was not uniformly well tolerated in the initial trials. The first of three randomized trials with AHSCT in progressive systemic sclerosis was published more than 10 years ago after a series of promising early phase trials. Each associated AHSCT with benefit, but patient selection appeared to be important.

In the ASSIST trial of 2011, AHSCT was associated with significant reductions in skin involvement and improvements in pulmonary function relative to cyclophosphamide, but enrollment was stopped after only 19 patients, and follow-up extended to only 2 years.

Substantial AHSCT-related mortality in ASTIS

In the second trial, called ASTIS, AHSCT was associated with a higher rate of mortality than cyclophosphamide after 1 year of follow-up, although there was a significantly greater long-term event-free survival for AHSCT when patients were followed out to 4 years. This study reinforced the need for cardiac screening because of because of concern that severe cardiac compromise contributed to the increased risk of AHSCT-related mortality.

The SCOT trial employed a high-intensity myeloablative conditioning regimen and total body irradiation prior to AHSCT. It is not clear that these contributed to improved survival, particularly because of the risk for irradiation to exacerbate complications in the lung and kidney, but AHSCT-related mortality was only 3% at 54 months. Patient enrollment criteria in this trial were also suspected of having played a role in the favorable results.

In the Canadian-French collaborative study, patients were considered eligible for AHSCT if they met the enrollment criteria used in the ASTIS trial, according to Dr. Maltez. She attributed the low rates of early mortality and relative absence of transplant-related death to the lessons learned in the published trials.

Overall, the data support the routine but selective use of AHSCT in rapidly progressing systemic sclerosis, Dr. Maltez concluded.

Maria Carolina Oliveira, MD, of the department of internal medicine at the University of São Paulo, generally agreed. A coauthor of a recent review of AHSCT for systemic sclerosis, Dr. Oliveira emphasized that patient selection is critical.

“AHSCT for systemic sclerosis has very specific inclusion criteria. Indeed, it is indicated for patients with severe and progressive disease but under two specific conditions: severe and progressive diffuse skin involvement and/or progressive interstitial lung disease,” she said in an interview.

Because of the thin line between benefit and risk according to disease subtypes and comorbidities, she said that it is important to be aware of relative contraindications and to recognize the risks of AHSCT.

At this time, and in the absence of better biomarkers to identify those most likely to benefit, “patients with other forms of severe scleroderma, such as those with pulmonary hypertension, scleroderma renal crisis, or severe cardiac involvement, for example, are not eligible,” she said.

Dr. Maltez and Dr. Oliveira reported having no potential conflicts of interest.

When Omar N. Qutub, MD, opened his dermatology practice in Portland, Ore., in 2018, he sensed he had his work cut out for him to attract patients as a dermatologist of color in a city with a largely White population – so he launched community outreach efforts with local businesses to attract patients from diverse backgrounds.

“For instance, I worked with U.S. Bank to give lectures on minorities in medicine and talked about outreach options and possible ways to include more ethnicities in medicine overall,” Dr. Qutub said during a panel discussion on equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) that took place at the ODAC Dermatology, Aesthetic & Surgical Conference. “I also did outreach with medical clinics in the area. Once patients are referred to you, they start to talk to people in their communities about you, and before you know it, you get people from their church and family members in your clinic.”

Educational resources

Another panelist, Adam Friedman, MD, emphasized inclusivity of educational resources to ensure a dermatology workforce that can take care of all patients. “How can we expect the dermatology community to be able to treat anyone who comes through the door of their clinic if we don’t provide the resources that highlight and showcase the nuances and the diversity that skin disease has to offer?” asked Dr. Friedman, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington. “It comes down to educational tools and being purposeful when you’re putting together a talk or writing a paper, to be inclusive and have that on the top of your mind. It’s about saying right here, right now, we have to purposefully make a decision to be inclusive, to be welcoming to all so that we can practice at the highest level of our calling to treat everyone effectively and equitably.”

A unique feature of the atlas “is that we have taken multiple skin conditions, even common features such as erythema, and placed different skin tones side by side at the same angle to appreciate the full spectrum, and highlight those nuances,” Dr. Friedman said. “When you’re in clinic, when you see even common things like acne or seborrheic dermatitis,” he recommended taking photos to create a repository, “because you never know when that will be helpful when you want to show a medical student or a patient what something can look like on someone with a similar skin tone, or even to share with them how diverse skin conditions can appear across populations.”
 

Clinical research

Another way to help close racial gaps in dermatology is to improve access to mentorships and clinical research, according to panelist Chesahna Kindred, MD, of Kindred Hair & Skin Center in Columbia, Md. “We should be thoroughly embarrassed by the lack of diversity in our clinical trials,” she said.

Mentorships

DiAnne S. Davis, MD, of North Dallas Dermatology Associates, rounded out the panel discussion by underscoring the importance of mentorships for underrepresented minority medical students, which includes providing guidance through the application process. “Mentorship is key to closing some of these gaps, particularly in our field of dermatology,” Dr. Davis said.

When Omar N. Qutub, MD, opened his dermatology practice in Portland, Ore., in 2018, he sensed he had his work cut out for him to attract patients as a dermatologist of color in a city with a largely White population – so he launched community outreach efforts with local businesses to attract patients from diverse backgrounds.

“For instance, I worked with U.S. Bank to give lectures on minorities in medicine and talked about outreach options and possible ways to include more ethnicities in medicine overall,” Dr. Qutub said during a panel discussion on equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) that took place at the ODAC Dermatology, Aesthetic & Surgical Conference. “I also did outreach with medical clinics in the area. Once patients are referred to you, they start to talk to people in their communities about you, and before you know it, you get people from their church and family members in your clinic.”

Educational resources

Another panelist, Adam Friedman, MD, emphasized inclusivity of educational resources to ensure a dermatology workforce that can take care of all patients. “How can we expect the dermatology community to be able to treat anyone who comes through the door of their clinic if we don’t provide the resources that highlight and showcase the nuances and the diversity that skin disease has to offer?” asked Dr. Friedman, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington. “It comes down to educational tools and being purposeful when you’re putting together a talk or writing a paper, to be inclusive and have that on the top of your mind. It’s about saying right here, right now, we have to purposefully make a decision to be inclusive, to be welcoming to all so that we can practice at the highest level of our calling to treat everyone effectively and equitably.”

A unique feature of the atlas “is that we have taken multiple skin conditions, even common features such as erythema, and placed different skin tones side by side at the same angle to appreciate the full spectrum, and highlight those nuances,” Dr. Friedman said. “When you’re in clinic, when you see even common things like acne or seborrheic dermatitis,” he recommended taking photos to create a repository, “because you never know when that will be helpful when you want to show a medical student or a patient what something can look like on someone with a similar skin tone, or even to share with them how diverse skin conditions can appear across populations.”
 

Clinical research

Another way to help close racial gaps in dermatology is to improve access to mentorships and clinical research, according to panelist Chesahna Kindred, MD, of Kindred Hair & Skin Center in Columbia, Md. “We should be thoroughly embarrassed by the lack of diversity in our clinical trials,” she said.

Mentorships

DiAnne S. Davis, MD, of North Dallas Dermatology Associates, rounded out the panel discussion by underscoring the importance of mentorships for underrepresented minority medical students, which includes providing guidance through the application process. “Mentorship is key to closing some of these gaps, particularly in our field of dermatology,” Dr. Davis said.

When Omar N. Qutub, MD, opened his dermatology practice in Portland, Ore., in 2018, he sensed he had his work cut out for him to attract patients as a dermatologist of color in a city with a largely White population – so he launched community outreach efforts with local businesses to attract patients from diverse backgrounds.

“For instance, I worked with U.S. Bank to give lectures on minorities in medicine and talked about outreach options and possible ways to include more ethnicities in medicine overall,” Dr. Qutub said during a panel discussion on equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) that took place at the ODAC Dermatology, Aesthetic & Surgical Conference. “I also did outreach with medical clinics in the area. Once patients are referred to you, they start to talk to people in their communities about you, and before you know it, you get people from their church and family members in your clinic.”

Educational resources

Another panelist, Adam Friedman, MD, emphasized inclusivity of educational resources to ensure a dermatology workforce that can take care of all patients. “How can we expect the dermatology community to be able to treat anyone who comes through the door of their clinic if we don’t provide the resources that highlight and showcase the nuances and the diversity that skin disease has to offer?” asked Dr. Friedman, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington. “It comes down to educational tools and being purposeful when you’re putting together a talk or writing a paper, to be inclusive and have that on the top of your mind. It’s about saying right here, right now, we have to purposefully make a decision to be inclusive, to be welcoming to all so that we can practice at the highest level of our calling to treat everyone effectively and equitably.”

A unique feature of the atlas “is that we have taken multiple skin conditions, even common features such as erythema, and placed different skin tones side by side at the same angle to appreciate the full spectrum, and highlight those nuances,” Dr. Friedman said. “When you’re in clinic, when you see even common things like acne or seborrheic dermatitis,” he recommended taking photos to create a repository, “because you never know when that will be helpful when you want to show a medical student or a patient what something can look like on someone with a similar skin tone, or even to share with them how diverse skin conditions can appear across populations.”
 

Clinical research

Another way to help close racial gaps in dermatology is to improve access to mentorships and clinical research, according to panelist Chesahna Kindred, MD, of Kindred Hair & Skin Center in Columbia, Md. “We should be thoroughly embarrassed by the lack of diversity in our clinical trials,” she said.

Mentorships

DiAnne S. Davis, MD, of North Dallas Dermatology Associates, rounded out the panel discussion by underscoring the importance of mentorships for underrepresented minority medical students, which includes providing guidance through the application process. “Mentorship is key to closing some of these gaps, particularly in our field of dermatology,” Dr. Davis said.

Exposure to opioid analgesics during the first trimester of pregnancy appears to increase the risk of congenital anomalies diagnosed in the first year of life, researchers report.

While the absolute risk of congenital anomalies was low, these findings add to an increasing body of evidence suggesting that prenatal exposure to opioids may confer harm to infants post partum.

“We undertook a population-based cohort study to estimate associations between opioid analgesic exposure during the first trimester and congenital anomalies using health administrative data capturing all narcotic prescriptions during pregnancy,” lead author Alexa C. Bowie, MPH, of Queen’s University in Kingston, Ont., and colleagues reported in CMAJ.

The researchers retrospectively reviewed administrative health data in a single-payer health care system from 2013 to 2018. They identified parent-infant pair records for all live births and stillbirths that occurred at more than 20 weeks’ gestation.

The exposure of interest was a prescription for any opioid analgesic with a fill date between the estimated date of conception and less than 14 weeks’ gestation. The referent group included any infant not exposed to an opioid analgesic during the index pregnancy period.
 

Results

The study cohort included a total of 599,579 gestational parent-infant pairs. Of these, 11,903 (2.0%) were exposed to opioid analgesics, and most were exposed during the first trimester only (75.8%).

Overall, 2.0% of these infants developed a congenital anomaly during the first year of life; the prevalence of congenital anomalies was 2.0% in unexposed infants and 2.8% in exposed infants.

Relative to unexposed infants, the researchers observed greater risks among infants who were exposed for some anomaly groups, including many specific anomalies, such as ankyloglossia (any opioid: adjusted risk ratio, 1.88; 95% confidence interval, 1.30-2.72; codeine: aRR, 2.14; 95% CI, 1.35-3.40), as well as gastrointestinal anomalies (any opioid: aRR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.15-1.85; codeine: aRR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.12-2.09; tramadol: aRR, 2.69; 95% CI 1.34-5.38).

After sensitivity analyses, which included exposure 4 weeks before conception or excluded individuals with exposure to opioid analgesics before pregnancy, the findings remained unchanged.

“Although the overall risk was low, we observed an increased risk of any congenital anomaly with tramadol, and a previously unreported risk with morphine,” the researchers wrote.

“Previous studies reported elevated risks of heart anomalies with first-trimester exposure to any opioid analgesic, codeine, and tramadol, but others reported no association with any opioid analgesic or codeine,” they explained.
 

Interpreting the results

Study author Susan Brogly, PhD, of Queen’s University said “Our population-based study confirms evidence of a small increased risk of birth defects from opioid analgesic exposure in the first trimester that was observed in a recent study of private insurance and Medicaid beneficiaries in the U.S. We further show that this small increased risk is not due to other risk factors for fetal harm in women who may take these medications.”

“An opioid prescription dispensed in the first trimester would imply that there was an acute injury or chronic condition also present in the first trimester, which may also be associated with congenital abnormalities,” commented Elisabeth Poorman, MD, MPH, a clinical instructor and primary care physician at the University of Washington in Seattle.

“Opioid use disorder is often diagnosed incorrectly; since the researchers used diagnostic billing codes to exclude individuals with opioid use disorder, some women may have been missed,” Dr. Poorman explained.

Ms. Bowie and colleagues acknowledged that a key limitation of the study was the identification of cases using diagnostic billing codes. As a result, exposure-dependent recording bias could be present and limit the applicability of the findings.

“The diagnosis and documentation of minor anomalies and those with subtle medical significance could be vulnerable to exposure-dependent recording bias,” Ms. Bowie wrote.

Dr. Poorman recommended that these results should be interpreted with caution given these and other limitations. “Overall, results from this study may imply that there is limited evidence to suspect opioids are related to congenital abnormalities due to a very small difference observed in relatively unequal groups,” she concluded.

This study received funding from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institutes of Child Health and Human Development and was also supported by the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, which is funded by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health. One author reported receiving honoraria from the National Institutes of Health and a grant from the Canadian Institute of Health Research, outside the submitted work. No other competing interests were declared.

Exposure to opioid analgesics during the first trimester of pregnancy appears to increase the risk of congenital anomalies diagnosed in the first year of life, researchers report.

While the absolute risk of congenital anomalies was low, these findings add to an increasing body of evidence suggesting that prenatal exposure to opioids may confer harm to infants post partum.

“We undertook a population-based cohort study to estimate associations between opioid analgesic exposure during the first trimester and congenital anomalies using health administrative data capturing all narcotic prescriptions during pregnancy,” lead author Alexa C. Bowie, MPH, of Queen’s University in Kingston, Ont., and colleagues reported in CMAJ.

The researchers retrospectively reviewed administrative health data in a single-payer health care system from 2013 to 2018. They identified parent-infant pair records for all live births and stillbirths that occurred at more than 20 weeks’ gestation.

The exposure of interest was a prescription for any opioid analgesic with a fill date between the estimated date of conception and less than 14 weeks’ gestation. The referent group included any infant not exposed to an opioid analgesic during the index pregnancy period.
 

Results

The study cohort included a total of 599,579 gestational parent-infant pairs. Of these, 11,903 (2.0%) were exposed to opioid analgesics, and most were exposed during the first trimester only (75.8%).

Overall, 2.0% of these infants developed a congenital anomaly during the first year of life; the prevalence of congenital anomalies was 2.0% in unexposed infants and 2.8% in exposed infants.

Relative to unexposed infants, the researchers observed greater risks among infants who were exposed for some anomaly groups, including many specific anomalies, such as ankyloglossia (any opioid: adjusted risk ratio, 1.88; 95% confidence interval, 1.30-2.72; codeine: aRR, 2.14; 95% CI, 1.35-3.40), as well as gastrointestinal anomalies (any opioid: aRR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.15-1.85; codeine: aRR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.12-2.09; tramadol: aRR, 2.69; 95% CI 1.34-5.38).

After sensitivity analyses, which included exposure 4 weeks before conception or excluded individuals with exposure to opioid analgesics before pregnancy, the findings remained unchanged.

“Although the overall risk was low, we observed an increased risk of any congenital anomaly with tramadol, and a previously unreported risk with morphine,” the researchers wrote.

“Previous studies reported elevated risks of heart anomalies with first-trimester exposure to any opioid analgesic, codeine, and tramadol, but others reported no association with any opioid analgesic or codeine,” they explained.
 

Interpreting the results

Study author Susan Brogly, PhD, of Queen’s University said “Our population-based study confirms evidence of a small increased risk of birth defects from opioid analgesic exposure in the first trimester that was observed in a recent study of private insurance and Medicaid beneficiaries in the U.S. We further show that this small increased risk is not due to other risk factors for fetal harm in women who may take these medications.”

“An opioid prescription dispensed in the first trimester would imply that there was an acute injury or chronic condition also present in the first trimester, which may also be associated with congenital abnormalities,” commented Elisabeth Poorman, MD, MPH, a clinical instructor and primary care physician at the University of Washington in Seattle.

“Opioid use disorder is often diagnosed incorrectly; since the researchers used diagnostic billing codes to exclude individuals with opioid use disorder, some women may have been missed,” Dr. Poorman explained.

Ms. Bowie and colleagues acknowledged that a key limitation of the study was the identification of cases using diagnostic billing codes. As a result, exposure-dependent recording bias could be present and limit the applicability of the findings.

“The diagnosis and documentation of minor anomalies and those with subtle medical significance could be vulnerable to exposure-dependent recording bias,” Ms. Bowie wrote.

Dr. Poorman recommended that these results should be interpreted with caution given these and other limitations. “Overall, results from this study may imply that there is limited evidence to suspect opioids are related to congenital abnormalities due to a very small difference observed in relatively unequal groups,” she concluded.

This study received funding from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institutes of Child Health and Human Development and was also supported by the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, which is funded by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health. One author reported receiving honoraria from the National Institutes of Health and a grant from the Canadian Institute of Health Research, outside the submitted work. No other competing interests were declared.

Exposure to opioid analgesics during the first trimester of pregnancy appears to increase the risk of congenital anomalies diagnosed in the first year of life, researchers report.

While the absolute risk of congenital anomalies was low, these findings add to an increasing body of evidence suggesting that prenatal exposure to opioids may confer harm to infants post partum.

“We undertook a population-based cohort study to estimate associations between opioid analgesic exposure during the first trimester and congenital anomalies using health administrative data capturing all narcotic prescriptions during pregnancy,” lead author Alexa C. Bowie, MPH, of Queen’s University in Kingston, Ont., and colleagues reported in CMAJ.

The researchers retrospectively reviewed administrative health data in a single-payer health care system from 2013 to 2018. They identified parent-infant pair records for all live births and stillbirths that occurred at more than 20 weeks’ gestation.

The exposure of interest was a prescription for any opioid analgesic with a fill date between the estimated date of conception and less than 14 weeks’ gestation. The referent group included any infant not exposed to an opioid analgesic during the index pregnancy period.
 

Results

The study cohort included a total of 599,579 gestational parent-infant pairs. Of these, 11,903 (2.0%) were exposed to opioid analgesics, and most were exposed during the first trimester only (75.8%).

Overall, 2.0% of these infants developed a congenital anomaly during the first year of life; the prevalence of congenital anomalies was 2.0% in unexposed infants and 2.8% in exposed infants.

Relative to unexposed infants, the researchers observed greater risks among infants who were exposed for some anomaly groups, including many specific anomalies, such as ankyloglossia (any opioid: adjusted risk ratio, 1.88; 95% confidence interval, 1.30-2.72; codeine: aRR, 2.14; 95% CI, 1.35-3.40), as well as gastrointestinal anomalies (any opioid: aRR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.15-1.85; codeine: aRR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.12-2.09; tramadol: aRR, 2.69; 95% CI 1.34-5.38).

After sensitivity analyses, which included exposure 4 weeks before conception or excluded individuals with exposure to opioid analgesics before pregnancy, the findings remained unchanged.

“Although the overall risk was low, we observed an increased risk of any congenital anomaly with tramadol, and a previously unreported risk with morphine,” the researchers wrote.

“Previous studies reported elevated risks of heart anomalies with first-trimester exposure to any opioid analgesic, codeine, and tramadol, but others reported no association with any opioid analgesic or codeine,” they explained.
 

Interpreting the results

Study author Susan Brogly, PhD, of Queen’s University said “Our population-based study confirms evidence of a small increased risk of birth defects from opioid analgesic exposure in the first trimester that was observed in a recent study of private insurance and Medicaid beneficiaries in the U.S. We further show that this small increased risk is not due to other risk factors for fetal harm in women who may take these medications.”

“An opioid prescription dispensed in the first trimester would imply that there was an acute injury or chronic condition also present in the first trimester, which may also be associated with congenital abnormalities,” commented Elisabeth Poorman, MD, MPH, a clinical instructor and primary care physician at the University of Washington in Seattle.

“Opioid use disorder is often diagnosed incorrectly; since the researchers used diagnostic billing codes to exclude individuals with opioid use disorder, some women may have been missed,” Dr. Poorman explained.

Ms. Bowie and colleagues acknowledged that a key limitation of the study was the identification of cases using diagnostic billing codes. As a result, exposure-dependent recording bias could be present and limit the applicability of the findings.

“The diagnosis and documentation of minor anomalies and those with subtle medical significance could be vulnerable to exposure-dependent recording bias,” Ms. Bowie wrote.

Dr. Poorman recommended that these results should be interpreted with caution given these and other limitations. “Overall, results from this study may imply that there is limited evidence to suspect opioids are related to congenital abnormalities due to a very small difference observed in relatively unequal groups,” she concluded.

This study received funding from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institutes of Child Health and Human Development and was also supported by the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, which is funded by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health. One author reported receiving honoraria from the National Institutes of Health and a grant from the Canadian Institute of Health Research, outside the submitted work. No other competing interests were declared.

Tardive dyskinesia (TD) is a delayed movement disorder resulting from treatment with dopamine receptor–blocking medications, Dr Karen Anderson of Georgetown University School of Medicine explains. TD is most commonly associated with long-term use of antipsychotic drugs. 

TD is characterized by involuntary, jerking movements of the tongue, lips, face, trunk, extremities, or the whole body. Although its characteristic movements are sometimes viewed as cosmetic, TD can interfere with patients’ quality of life and add to the stigma of mental illness. 

The sooner TD is diagnosed, the more likely it is for patients to achieve remission spontaneously and without treatment. To that end, patients who are prescribed antipsychotic medication should be evaluated at baseline and regularly thereafter using the Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale (AIMS), which rates abnormal movements. 

The optimal first step in TD management is to stop the dopamine receptor–blocking medication, but this option may not be possible in patients with chronic conditions, such as manic depression and schizophrenia. In these patients, dose reduction or switching to a newer antipsychotic may provide relief.  

Two vesicular monoamine transporter 2 (VMAT2) inhibitors are approved to treat TD and have been found to not worsen patients’ underlying psychiatric condition. Dr Anderson cautions that patients treated with a VMAT2 inhibitor will require monitoring because side effects of these agents include suicidal ideation. 

--

Karen Anderson, MD, Professor, Department of Psychiatry and Neurology, Georgetown University School of Medicine; Washington, DC 

Karen Anderson, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: 
 
Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from: Neurocrine; Teva 

Tardive dyskinesia (TD) is a delayed movement disorder resulting from treatment with dopamine receptor–blocking medications, Dr Karen Anderson of Georgetown University School of Medicine explains. TD is most commonly associated with long-term use of antipsychotic drugs. 

TD is characterized by involuntary, jerking movements of the tongue, lips, face, trunk, extremities, or the whole body. Although its characteristic movements are sometimes viewed as cosmetic, TD can interfere with patients’ quality of life and add to the stigma of mental illness. 

The sooner TD is diagnosed, the more likely it is for patients to achieve remission spontaneously and without treatment. To that end, patients who are prescribed antipsychotic medication should be evaluated at baseline and regularly thereafter using the Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale (AIMS), which rates abnormal movements. 

The optimal first step in TD management is to stop the dopamine receptor–blocking medication, but this option may not be possible in patients with chronic conditions, such as manic depression and schizophrenia. In these patients, dose reduction or switching to a newer antipsychotic may provide relief.  

Two vesicular monoamine transporter 2 (VMAT2) inhibitors are approved to treat TD and have been found to not worsen patients’ underlying psychiatric condition. Dr Anderson cautions that patients treated with a VMAT2 inhibitor will require monitoring because side effects of these agents include suicidal ideation. 

--

Karen Anderson, MD, Professor, Department of Psychiatry and Neurology, Georgetown University School of Medicine; Washington, DC 

Karen Anderson, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: 
 
Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from: Neurocrine; Teva 

Tardive dyskinesia (TD) is a delayed movement disorder resulting from treatment with dopamine receptor–blocking medications, Dr Karen Anderson of Georgetown University School of Medicine explains. TD is most commonly associated with long-term use of antipsychotic drugs. 

TD is characterized by involuntary, jerking movements of the tongue, lips, face, trunk, extremities, or the whole body. Although its characteristic movements are sometimes viewed as cosmetic, TD can interfere with patients’ quality of life and add to the stigma of mental illness. 

The sooner TD is diagnosed, the more likely it is for patients to achieve remission spontaneously and without treatment. To that end, patients who are prescribed antipsychotic medication should be evaluated at baseline and regularly thereafter using the Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale (AIMS), which rates abnormal movements. 

The optimal first step in TD management is to stop the dopamine receptor–blocking medication, but this option may not be possible in patients with chronic conditions, such as manic depression and schizophrenia. In these patients, dose reduction or switching to a newer antipsychotic may provide relief.  

Two vesicular monoamine transporter 2 (VMAT2) inhibitors are approved to treat TD and have been found to not worsen patients’ underlying psychiatric condition. Dr Anderson cautions that patients treated with a VMAT2 inhibitor will require monitoring because side effects of these agents include suicidal ideation. 

--

Karen Anderson, MD, Professor, Department of Psychiatry and Neurology, Georgetown University School of Medicine; Washington, DC 

Karen Anderson, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: 
 
Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from: Neurocrine; Teva 

Aggressive up-front combination therapy, more lofty treatment goals, and earlier and more frequent reassessments to guide treatment are improving care of patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) while at the same time making it more complex.

A larger number of oral and generic treatment options have in some respects ushered in more management ease. But overall, “I don’t know if management of these patients has ever been more complicated, given the treatment options and strategies,” said Murali M. Chakinala, MD, professor of medicine at Washington University, St. Louis. “We’re always thinking through approaches.”

Diagnosis continues to be challenging given the rarity of PAH and its nonspecific presentation – and in some cases it’s now harder. Experts such as Dr. Chakinala are seeing increasing number of aging patients with left heart disease, chronic kidney disease, and other comorbidities who have significant precapillary pulmonary hypertension and who exhibit hemodynamics consistent with PAH, or group 1 PH.

The question experts face is, do such patients have “true PAH,” as do a reported 25-50 people per million, or do they have another type of PH in the classification schema – or a mixture?

Deciding which patients “really fit into group 1 and should be managed like group 1,” Dr. Chakinala said, requires clinical acumen and has important implications, as patients with PAH are the main beneficiaries of vasodilator therapy. Most other patients with PH will not respond to or tolerate such treatment.

“These older patients may be getting PAH through different mechanisms than our younger patients, but because we define PAH through hemodynamic criteria and by ruling out other obvious explanations, they all get lumped together,” said Dr. Chakinala. “We need to parse these patients out better in the future, much like our oncology colleagues are doing.”

Yale Rosen/Wikimedia Commons/Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generi

Personalized medicine hopefully is the next horizon for this condition, characterized by severe remodeling of the distal pulmonary arteries. Researchers are pushing to achieve deep phenotyping, identify biomarkers and improve risk assessment tools.

And with 80 or so centers now accredited by the Pulmonary Hypertension Association as Pulmonary Hypertension Care Centers, referred patients are accessing clinical trials of new nonvasodilatory drugs. Currently available therapies improve hemodynamics and symptoms, and can slow disease progression, but are not truly disease modifying, sources say.

“The endothelin, nitric oxide, and prostacyclin pathways have been exhaustively studied and we now have great drugs for those pathways,” said Dr. Chakinala, who leads the PHA’s scientific leadership council. But “we’re not going to put a greater dent into this disease until we have new drugs that work on different biologic pathways.”
 

Diagnostic challenges

The diagnosis of PAH – a remarkably heterogeneous condition that encompasses heritable forms and idiopathic forms, and that comprises a broad mix of predisposing conditions and exposures, from scleroderma to methamphetamine use – is still too often missed or delayed. Delayed diagnoses and misdiagnoses of PAH and other types of PH have been reported in up to 85% of at-risk patients, according to a 2016 literature review.

Being able to pivot from thinking about common pulmonary ailments or heart failure to considering PAH is a key part of earlier diagnosis and better treatment outcomes. “If someone has unexplained dyspnea or if they’re treated for other lung diseases and are not improving, think about a screening echocardiogram,” said Timothy L. Williamson, MD, vice president of quality and safety and a pulmonary and critical care physician at the University of Kansas Health Center, Kansas City.

One of the most common reasons Dr. Chakinala sees for missed diagnoses are right heart catheterizations that are incomplete or misinterpreted. (Right heart catheterizations are required to confirm the diagnosis.) “One can’t simply measure pressures and stop,” he said. “We need the full hemodynamic profile to know that it’s truly precapillary PAH ... and we need proper interpretation of [elements like] the waveforms.”

The 2019 World Symposium on Pulmonary Hypertension shifted the definition of PH from an arbitrarily defined mean pulmonary arterial pressure of at least 25 mm Hg at rest (as measured by right heart catheterization) to a more scientifically determined mPAP of at least 20 mm Hg.

The classification document also requires pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) of at least 3 Wood units in the definition of all forms of precapillary PH. PAH specifically is defined as the presence of mPAP of at least 20 mm Hg, PVR of at least 3 Wood units, and pulmonary arterial wedge pressure 15 mm Hg or less.
 

Trends in treatment

The value of initial combination therapy with an endothelin receptor antagonist (ERA) and a phosphodiesterase-5 (PDE5) inhibitor in treatment-naive PAH was cemented in 2015 by the AMBITION trial. The primary endpoint (death, PAH hospitalization, or unsatisfactory clinical response) occurred in 18%, 34%, and 28% of patients who were randomized, respectively, to combination therapy, monotherapy with the ERA ambrisentan, or monotherapy with the PDE-5 inhibitor tadalafil – and in 31% of the two monotherapy groups combined.

The trial reported a 50% reduction in the primary endpoint in the combination-therapy group versus the pooled monotherapy group, as well as greater reductions in N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide levels, more satisfactory clinical response and greater improvement in 6-minute walking distance.

In practice, a minority of patients – typically older patients with multiple comorbidities – still receive initial monotherapy with sequential add-on therapies based on tolerance, but “for the most part PAH patients will start on combination therapy, most commonly with a ERA and PDE5 inhibitor,” Dr. Chakinala said.

For patients who are not improving on the ERA-PDE5 inhibitor approach – typically those who remain in the intermediate-risk category for intermediate-term mortality – substitution of the PDE5 inhibitor with the soluble guanylate cyclase stimulator riociguat may be considered, he and Dr. Williamson said. Clinical improvement with this substitution was demonstrated in the REPLACE trial.

Experts at PH care centers are also utilizing triple therapy for patients who do not improve to low-risk status after 2-4 months of dual combination therapy. The availability of oral prostacyclin analogues (selexipag and treprostinil) makes it easier to consider adding these agents early on, Dr. Chakinala and Dr. Richardson said.

Patients who fall into the high-risk category, at any point, are still best managed with parenteral prostacyclin analogues, Dr. Chakinala said.

In general, said Dr. Williamson, who also directs the University of Kansas Pulmonary Hypertension Comprehensive Care Center, “the PH community tends to be fairly aggressive up front, and with a low threshold for using prostacyclin analogues.”

The agents are “always part of the picture for someone who is really ill, in functional class IV, or has really impaired right ventricular function,” he said. “And we’re finding increased roles in patients who are not as ill but still have decompensated right ventricular dysfunction. It’s something we now consider.”

Recently published research on up-front oral triple therapy suggests possible benefit for some patients – but it’s far from conclusive, said Dr. Chakinala. The TRITON study randomized treatment-naive patients to the traditional ERA-PDE5 combination and either oral selexipag (a selective prostacyclin receptor agonist) or placebo as a third agent. It found no significant difference in reduction in PVR, the primary outcome, at week 26. However, the authors reported a “possible signal” for improved long-term outcomes with triple therapy.

“Based on this best evidence from a randomized clinical trial, I think it’s unfair to say that all patients should be on triple combination therapy right out of the gate,” he said. “Having said that, more recent [European] data showed that two drugs fell short of the mark in some patients, with high rates of clinical progression. And even in AMBITION, there were a number of patients in the combination arm who didn’t have a robust response.”

A 2021 retrospective analysis from the French Pulmonary Hypertension Registry – one of the European studies – assessed survival with monotherapy, dual therapy, or triple-combination therapy (two orals with a parenteral prostacyclin), and found no difference between monotherapy and dual therapy in high-risk patients.

Experts have been upping the ante, therefore, on early assessment and frequent reassessment of treatment response. Not long ago, patients were typically reassessed 6-12 months after the initiation of treatment. Now, experts at the PH care centers want to assess patients at 3-4 months and adjust or intensify treatment regimens for those who don’t yet qualify as low risk using a multidimensional risk score calculator.

The REVEAL (Registry to Evaluate Early and Long-Term PAH Management) risk score calculator, for instance, predicts the probability of 1-year survival and assigns patients to a strata of risk level based on either 12 or 6 variables (for the full or “lite” versions).]

Even better monitoring and risk assessment is needed, however, to “help sift out which patients are not improving enough on initial therapy or who are starting to fall off after being on a regimen for a period of time,” Dr. Chakinala said.

Today, with a network of accredited centers of expertise and a desire and need for many patients to remain close to home, Dr. Chakinala encourages finding a balance. Well-resourced clinicians can strive for early diagnosis and management – potentially initiating ERA–PDE-5 inhibitor combination therapy – but still should collaborate with PH experts.

“It’s a good idea to comanage these patients and let the experts see them periodically to help you determine when your patient may be declining,” he said. “The timetable for reassessment, the complexity of the reassessment, and the need to escalate to more advanced therapies has never been more important.”
 

Research highlights

Therapies that target inflammation and altered metabolism – including metformin – are among those being investigated for PAH. So are therapies targeting dysfunctional bone morphogenetic protein pathway signaling, which has been shown to be associated with hereditary, idiopathic, and likely other forms of PAH; one such drug, called sotatercept, is currently at the phase 3 trial stage.

Most promising for PAH may be the research efforts involving deep phenotyping, said Andrew J. Sweatt, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University and the Vera Moulton Wall Center for Pulmonary Vascular Disease.

“It’s where a lot of research is headed – deep phenotyping to deconstruct the molecular and clinical heterogeneity that exists within PAH ... to detect distinct subphenotypes of patients who would respond to particular therapies,” said Dr. Sweatt, who led a review of PH clinical research presented at the 2020 American Thoracic Society International Conference

“Right now, we largely treat all patients the same ... [while] we know that patients have a wide response to therapies and there’s a lot of clinical heterogeneity in how their disease evolves over time,” he said.

Data from a large National Institutes of Health–funded multicenter phenotyping study of PH is being analyzed and should yield findings and publications starting this year, said Anna R. Hemnes, MD, associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., and an investigator with the initiative, coined “Redefining Pulmonary Hypertension through Pulmonary Disease Phenomics (PVDOMICS).”

Patients have undergone advanced imaging (for example, echocardiography, cardiac MRI, chest CT, ventilation/perfusion scans), advanced testing through right heart catheterization, body composition testing, quality of life questionnaires, and blood draws that have been analyzed for DNA and RNA expression, proteomics, and metabolomics, said Dr. Hemnes, assistant director of Vanderbilt’s Pulmonary Vascular Center.

The initiative aims to refine the classification of all kinds of PH and “to bring precision medicine to the field so we’re no longer characterizing somebody [based on imaging] and right heart catheterization, but we also incorporating molecular pieces and biomarkers into the diagnostic evaluation,” she said.

In the short term, the results of deep phenotyping should “allow us to be more effective with our therapy recommendations,” Dr. Hemnes said. “Then hopefully in the longer term, [identified biomarkers] will help us to develop new, more effective therapies.”

Dr. Sweatt and Dr. Williamson reported that they have no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Hemnes reported that she holds stock in Tenax (which is studying a tyrosine kinase inhibitor for PAH) and serves as a consultant for Acceleron, Bayer, GossamerBio, United Therapeutics, and Janssen. She also receives research funding from Imara. Dr. Chakinala reported that he is an investigator on clinical trials for a number of pharmaceutical companies. He also serves on advisory boards for Phase Bio, Liquidia/Rare Gen, Bayer, Janssen, Trio Health Analytics, and Aerovate.

Aggressive up-front combination therapy, more lofty treatment goals, and earlier and more frequent reassessments to guide treatment are improving care of patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) while at the same time making it more complex.

A larger number of oral and generic treatment options have in some respects ushered in more management ease. But overall, “I don’t know if management of these patients has ever been more complicated, given the treatment options and strategies,” said Murali M. Chakinala, MD, professor of medicine at Washington University, St. Louis. “We’re always thinking through approaches.”

Diagnosis continues to be challenging given the rarity of PAH and its nonspecific presentation – and in some cases it’s now harder. Experts such as Dr. Chakinala are seeing increasing number of aging patients with left heart disease, chronic kidney disease, and other comorbidities who have significant precapillary pulmonary hypertension and who exhibit hemodynamics consistent with PAH, or group 1 PH.

The question experts face is, do such patients have “true PAH,” as do a reported 25-50 people per million, or do they have another type of PH in the classification schema – or a mixture?

Deciding which patients “really fit into group 1 and should be managed like group 1,” Dr. Chakinala said, requires clinical acumen and has important implications, as patients with PAH are the main beneficiaries of vasodilator therapy. Most other patients with PH will not respond to or tolerate such treatment.

“These older patients may be getting PAH through different mechanisms than our younger patients, but because we define PAH through hemodynamic criteria and by ruling out other obvious explanations, they all get lumped together,” said Dr. Chakinala. “We need to parse these patients out better in the future, much like our oncology colleagues are doing.”

Yale Rosen/Wikimedia Commons/Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generi

Personalized medicine hopefully is the next horizon for this condition, characterized by severe remodeling of the distal pulmonary arteries. Researchers are pushing to achieve deep phenotyping, identify biomarkers and improve risk assessment tools.

And with 80 or so centers now accredited by the Pulmonary Hypertension Association as Pulmonary Hypertension Care Centers, referred patients are accessing clinical trials of new nonvasodilatory drugs. Currently available therapies improve hemodynamics and symptoms, and can slow disease progression, but are not truly disease modifying, sources say.

“The endothelin, nitric oxide, and prostacyclin pathways have been exhaustively studied and we now have great drugs for those pathways,” said Dr. Chakinala, who leads the PHA’s scientific leadership council. But “we’re not going to put a greater dent into this disease until we have new drugs that work on different biologic pathways.”
 

Diagnostic challenges

The diagnosis of PAH – a remarkably heterogeneous condition that encompasses heritable forms and idiopathic forms, and that comprises a broad mix of predisposing conditions and exposures, from scleroderma to methamphetamine use – is still too often missed or delayed. Delayed diagnoses and misdiagnoses of PAH and other types of PH have been reported in up to 85% of at-risk patients, according to a 2016 literature review.

Being able to pivot from thinking about common pulmonary ailments or heart failure to considering PAH is a key part of earlier diagnosis and better treatment outcomes. “If someone has unexplained dyspnea or if they’re treated for other lung diseases and are not improving, think about a screening echocardiogram,” said Timothy L. Williamson, MD, vice president of quality and safety and a pulmonary and critical care physician at the University of Kansas Health Center, Kansas City.

One of the most common reasons Dr. Chakinala sees for missed diagnoses are right heart catheterizations that are incomplete or misinterpreted. (Right heart catheterizations are required to confirm the diagnosis.) “One can’t simply measure pressures and stop,” he said. “We need the full hemodynamic profile to know that it’s truly precapillary PAH ... and we need proper interpretation of [elements like] the waveforms.”

The 2019 World Symposium on Pulmonary Hypertension shifted the definition of PH from an arbitrarily defined mean pulmonary arterial pressure of at least 25 mm Hg at rest (as measured by right heart catheterization) to a more scientifically determined mPAP of at least 20 mm Hg.

The classification document also requires pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) of at least 3 Wood units in the definition of all forms of precapillary PH. PAH specifically is defined as the presence of mPAP of at least 20 mm Hg, PVR of at least 3 Wood units, and pulmonary arterial wedge pressure 15 mm Hg or less.
 

Trends in treatment

The value of initial combination therapy with an endothelin receptor antagonist (ERA) and a phosphodiesterase-5 (PDE5) inhibitor in treatment-naive PAH was cemented in 2015 by the AMBITION trial. The primary endpoint (death, PAH hospitalization, or unsatisfactory clinical response) occurred in 18%, 34%, and 28% of patients who were randomized, respectively, to combination therapy, monotherapy with the ERA ambrisentan, or monotherapy with the PDE-5 inhibitor tadalafil – and in 31% of the two monotherapy groups combined.

The trial reported a 50% reduction in the primary endpoint in the combination-therapy group versus the pooled monotherapy group, as well as greater reductions in N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide levels, more satisfactory clinical response and greater improvement in 6-minute walking distance.

In practice, a minority of patients – typically older patients with multiple comorbidities – still receive initial monotherapy with sequential add-on therapies based on tolerance, but “for the most part PAH patients will start on combination therapy, most commonly with a ERA and PDE5 inhibitor,” Dr. Chakinala said.

For patients who are not improving on the ERA-PDE5 inhibitor approach – typically those who remain in the intermediate-risk category for intermediate-term mortality – substitution of the PDE5 inhibitor with the soluble guanylate cyclase stimulator riociguat may be considered, he and Dr. Williamson said. Clinical improvement with this substitution was demonstrated in the REPLACE trial.

Experts at PH care centers are also utilizing triple therapy for patients who do not improve to low-risk status after 2-4 months of dual combination therapy. The availability of oral prostacyclin analogues (selexipag and treprostinil) makes it easier to consider adding these agents early on, Dr. Chakinala and Dr. Richardson said.

Patients who fall into the high-risk category, at any point, are still best managed with parenteral prostacyclin analogues, Dr. Chakinala said.

In general, said Dr. Williamson, who also directs the University of Kansas Pulmonary Hypertension Comprehensive Care Center, “the PH community tends to be fairly aggressive up front, and with a low threshold for using prostacyclin analogues.”

The agents are “always part of the picture for someone who is really ill, in functional class IV, or has really impaired right ventricular function,” he said. “And we’re finding increased roles in patients who are not as ill but still have decompensated right ventricular dysfunction. It’s something we now consider.”

Recently published research on up-front oral triple therapy suggests possible benefit for some patients – but it’s far from conclusive, said Dr. Chakinala. The TRITON study randomized treatment-naive patients to the traditional ERA-PDE5 combination and either oral selexipag (a selective prostacyclin receptor agonist) or placebo as a third agent. It found no significant difference in reduction in PVR, the primary outcome, at week 26. However, the authors reported a “possible signal” for improved long-term outcomes with triple therapy.

“Based on this best evidence from a randomized clinical trial, I think it’s unfair to say that all patients should be on triple combination therapy right out of the gate,” he said. “Having said that, more recent [European] data showed that two drugs fell short of the mark in some patients, with high rates of clinical progression. And even in AMBITION, there were a number of patients in the combination arm who didn’t have a robust response.”

A 2021 retrospective analysis from the French Pulmonary Hypertension Registry – one of the European studies – assessed survival with monotherapy, dual therapy, or triple-combination therapy (two orals with a parenteral prostacyclin), and found no difference between monotherapy and dual therapy in high-risk patients.

Experts have been upping the ante, therefore, on early assessment and frequent reassessment of treatment response. Not long ago, patients were typically reassessed 6-12 months after the initiation of treatment. Now, experts at the PH care centers want to assess patients at 3-4 months and adjust or intensify treatment regimens for those who don’t yet qualify as low risk using a multidimensional risk score calculator.

The REVEAL (Registry to Evaluate Early and Long-Term PAH Management) risk score calculator, for instance, predicts the probability of 1-year survival and assigns patients to a strata of risk level based on either 12 or 6 variables (for the full or “lite” versions).]

Even better monitoring and risk assessment is needed, however, to “help sift out which patients are not improving enough on initial therapy or who are starting to fall off after being on a regimen for a period of time,” Dr. Chakinala said.

Today, with a network of accredited centers of expertise and a desire and need for many patients to remain close to home, Dr. Chakinala encourages finding a balance. Well-resourced clinicians can strive for early diagnosis and management – potentially initiating ERA–PDE-5 inhibitor combination therapy – but still should collaborate with PH experts.

“It’s a good idea to comanage these patients and let the experts see them periodically to help you determine when your patient may be declining,” he said. “The timetable for reassessment, the complexity of the reassessment, and the need to escalate to more advanced therapies has never been more important.”
 

Research highlights

Therapies that target inflammation and altered metabolism – including metformin – are among those being investigated for PAH. So are therapies targeting dysfunctional bone morphogenetic protein pathway signaling, which has been shown to be associated with hereditary, idiopathic, and likely other forms of PAH; one such drug, called sotatercept, is currently at the phase 3 trial stage.

Most promising for PAH may be the research efforts involving deep phenotyping, said Andrew J. Sweatt, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University and the Vera Moulton Wall Center for Pulmonary Vascular Disease.

“It’s where a lot of research is headed – deep phenotyping to deconstruct the molecular and clinical heterogeneity that exists within PAH ... to detect distinct subphenotypes of patients who would respond to particular therapies,” said Dr. Sweatt, who led a review of PH clinical research presented at the 2020 American Thoracic Society International Conference

“Right now, we largely treat all patients the same ... [while] we know that patients have a wide response to therapies and there’s a lot of clinical heterogeneity in how their disease evolves over time,” he said.

Data from a large National Institutes of Health–funded multicenter phenotyping study of PH is being analyzed and should yield findings and publications starting this year, said Anna R. Hemnes, MD, associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., and an investigator with the initiative, coined “Redefining Pulmonary Hypertension through Pulmonary Disease Phenomics (PVDOMICS).”

Patients have undergone advanced imaging (for example, echocardiography, cardiac MRI, chest CT, ventilation/perfusion scans), advanced testing through right heart catheterization, body composition testing, quality of life questionnaires, and blood draws that have been analyzed for DNA and RNA expression, proteomics, and metabolomics, said Dr. Hemnes, assistant director of Vanderbilt’s Pulmonary Vascular Center.

The initiative aims to refine the classification of all kinds of PH and “to bring precision medicine to the field so we’re no longer characterizing somebody [based on imaging] and right heart catheterization, but we also incorporating molecular pieces and biomarkers into the diagnostic evaluation,” she said.

In the short term, the results of deep phenotyping should “allow us to be more effective with our therapy recommendations,” Dr. Hemnes said. “Then hopefully in the longer term, [identified biomarkers] will help us to develop new, more effective therapies.”

Dr. Sweatt and Dr. Williamson reported that they have no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Hemnes reported that she holds stock in Tenax (which is studying a tyrosine kinase inhibitor for PAH) and serves as a consultant for Acceleron, Bayer, GossamerBio, United Therapeutics, and Janssen. She also receives research funding from Imara. Dr. Chakinala reported that he is an investigator on clinical trials for a number of pharmaceutical companies. He also serves on advisory boards for Phase Bio, Liquidia/Rare Gen, Bayer, Janssen, Trio Health Analytics, and Aerovate.

Aggressive up-front combination therapy, more lofty treatment goals, and earlier and more frequent reassessments to guide treatment are improving care of patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) while at the same time making it more complex.

A larger number of oral and generic treatment options have in some respects ushered in more management ease. But overall, “I don’t know if management of these patients has ever been more complicated, given the treatment options and strategies,” said Murali M. Chakinala, MD, professor of medicine at Washington University, St. Louis. “We’re always thinking through approaches.”

Diagnosis continues to be challenging given the rarity of PAH and its nonspecific presentation – and in some cases it’s now harder. Experts such as Dr. Chakinala are seeing increasing number of aging patients with left heart disease, chronic kidney disease, and other comorbidities who have significant precapillary pulmonary hypertension and who exhibit hemodynamics consistent with PAH, or group 1 PH.

The question experts face is, do such patients have “true PAH,” as do a reported 25-50 people per million, or do they have another type of PH in the classification schema – or a mixture?

Deciding which patients “really fit into group 1 and should be managed like group 1,” Dr. Chakinala said, requires clinical acumen and has important implications, as patients with PAH are the main beneficiaries of vasodilator therapy. Most other patients with PH will not respond to or tolerate such treatment.

“These older patients may be getting PAH through different mechanisms than our younger patients, but because we define PAH through hemodynamic criteria and by ruling out other obvious explanations, they all get lumped together,” said Dr. Chakinala. “We need to parse these patients out better in the future, much like our oncology colleagues are doing.”

Yale Rosen/Wikimedia Commons/Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generi

Personalized medicine hopefully is the next horizon for this condition, characterized by severe remodeling of the distal pulmonary arteries. Researchers are pushing to achieve deep phenotyping, identify biomarkers and improve risk assessment tools.

And with 80 or so centers now accredited by the Pulmonary Hypertension Association as Pulmonary Hypertension Care Centers, referred patients are accessing clinical trials of new nonvasodilatory drugs. Currently available therapies improve hemodynamics and symptoms, and can slow disease progression, but are not truly disease modifying, sources say.

“The endothelin, nitric oxide, and prostacyclin pathways have been exhaustively studied and we now have great drugs for those pathways,” said Dr. Chakinala, who leads the PHA’s scientific leadership council. But “we’re not going to put a greater dent into this disease until we have new drugs that work on different biologic pathways.”
 

Diagnostic challenges

The diagnosis of PAH – a remarkably heterogeneous condition that encompasses heritable forms and idiopathic forms, and that comprises a broad mix of predisposing conditions and exposures, from scleroderma to methamphetamine use – is still too often missed or delayed. Delayed diagnoses and misdiagnoses of PAH and other types of PH have been reported in up to 85% of at-risk patients, according to a 2016 literature review.

Being able to pivot from thinking about common pulmonary ailments or heart failure to considering PAH is a key part of earlier diagnosis and better treatment outcomes. “If someone has unexplained dyspnea or if they’re treated for other lung diseases and are not improving, think about a screening echocardiogram,” said Timothy L. Williamson, MD, vice president of quality and safety and a pulmonary and critical care physician at the University of Kansas Health Center, Kansas City.

One of the most common reasons Dr. Chakinala sees for missed diagnoses are right heart catheterizations that are incomplete or misinterpreted. (Right heart catheterizations are required to confirm the diagnosis.) “One can’t simply measure pressures and stop,” he said. “We need the full hemodynamic profile to know that it’s truly precapillary PAH ... and we need proper interpretation of [elements like] the waveforms.”

The 2019 World Symposium on Pulmonary Hypertension shifted the definition of PH from an arbitrarily defined mean pulmonary arterial pressure of at least 25 mm Hg at rest (as measured by right heart catheterization) to a more scientifically determined mPAP of at least 20 mm Hg.

The classification document also requires pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) of at least 3 Wood units in the definition of all forms of precapillary PH. PAH specifically is defined as the presence of mPAP of at least 20 mm Hg, PVR of at least 3 Wood units, and pulmonary arterial wedge pressure 15 mm Hg or less.
 

Trends in treatment

The value of initial combination therapy with an endothelin receptor antagonist (ERA) and a phosphodiesterase-5 (PDE5) inhibitor in treatment-naive PAH was cemented in 2015 by the AMBITION trial. The primary endpoint (death, PAH hospitalization, or unsatisfactory clinical response) occurred in 18%, 34%, and 28% of patients who were randomized, respectively, to combination therapy, monotherapy with the ERA ambrisentan, or monotherapy with the PDE-5 inhibitor tadalafil – and in 31% of the two monotherapy groups combined.

The trial reported a 50% reduction in the primary endpoint in the combination-therapy group versus the pooled monotherapy group, as well as greater reductions in N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide levels, more satisfactory clinical response and greater improvement in 6-minute walking distance.

In practice, a minority of patients – typically older patients with multiple comorbidities – still receive initial monotherapy with sequential add-on therapies based on tolerance, but “for the most part PAH patients will start on combination therapy, most commonly with a ERA and PDE5 inhibitor,” Dr. Chakinala said.

For patients who are not improving on the ERA-PDE5 inhibitor approach – typically those who remain in the intermediate-risk category for intermediate-term mortality – substitution of the PDE5 inhibitor with the soluble guanylate cyclase stimulator riociguat may be considered, he and Dr. Williamson said. Clinical improvement with this substitution was demonstrated in the REPLACE trial.

Experts at PH care centers are also utilizing triple therapy for patients who do not improve to low-risk status after 2-4 months of dual combination therapy. The availability of oral prostacyclin analogues (selexipag and treprostinil) makes it easier to consider adding these agents early on, Dr. Chakinala and Dr. Richardson said.

Patients who fall into the high-risk category, at any point, are still best managed with parenteral prostacyclin analogues, Dr. Chakinala said.

In general, said Dr. Williamson, who also directs the University of Kansas Pulmonary Hypertension Comprehensive Care Center, “the PH community tends to be fairly aggressive up front, and with a low threshold for using prostacyclin analogues.”

The agents are “always part of the picture for someone who is really ill, in functional class IV, or has really impaired right ventricular function,” he said. “And we’re finding increased roles in patients who are not as ill but still have decompensated right ventricular dysfunction. It’s something we now consider.”

Recently published research on up-front oral triple therapy suggests possible benefit for some patients – but it’s far from conclusive, said Dr. Chakinala. The TRITON study randomized treatment-naive patients to the traditional ERA-PDE5 combination and either oral selexipag (a selective prostacyclin receptor agonist) or placebo as a third agent. It found no significant difference in reduction in PVR, the primary outcome, at week 26. However, the authors reported a “possible signal” for improved long-term outcomes with triple therapy.

“Based on this best evidence from a randomized clinical trial, I think it’s unfair to say that all patients should be on triple combination therapy right out of the gate,” he said. “Having said that, more recent [European] data showed that two drugs fell short of the mark in some patients, with high rates of clinical progression. And even in AMBITION, there were a number of patients in the combination arm who didn’t have a robust response.”

A 2021 retrospective analysis from the French Pulmonary Hypertension Registry – one of the European studies – assessed survival with monotherapy, dual therapy, or triple-combination therapy (two orals with a parenteral prostacyclin), and found no difference between monotherapy and dual therapy in high-risk patients.

Experts have been upping the ante, therefore, on early assessment and frequent reassessment of treatment response. Not long ago, patients were typically reassessed 6-12 months after the initiation of treatment. Now, experts at the PH care centers want to assess patients at 3-4 months and adjust or intensify treatment regimens for those who don’t yet qualify as low risk using a multidimensional risk score calculator.

The REVEAL (Registry to Evaluate Early and Long-Term PAH Management) risk score calculator, for instance, predicts the probability of 1-year survival and assigns patients to a strata of risk level based on either 12 or 6 variables (for the full or “lite” versions).]

Even better monitoring and risk assessment is needed, however, to “help sift out which patients are not improving enough on initial therapy or who are starting to fall off after being on a regimen for a period of time,” Dr. Chakinala said.

Today, with a network of accredited centers of expertise and a desire and need for many patients to remain close to home, Dr. Chakinala encourages finding a balance. Well-resourced clinicians can strive for early diagnosis and management – potentially initiating ERA–PDE-5 inhibitor combination therapy – but still should collaborate with PH experts.

“It’s a good idea to comanage these patients and let the experts see them periodically to help you determine when your patient may be declining,” he said. “The timetable for reassessment, the complexity of the reassessment, and the need to escalate to more advanced therapies has never been more important.”
 

Research highlights

Therapies that target inflammation and altered metabolism – including metformin – are among those being investigated for PAH. So are therapies targeting dysfunctional bone morphogenetic protein pathway signaling, which has been shown to be associated with hereditary, idiopathic, and likely other forms of PAH; one such drug, called sotatercept, is currently at the phase 3 trial stage.

Most promising for PAH may be the research efforts involving deep phenotyping, said Andrew J. Sweatt, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University and the Vera Moulton Wall Center for Pulmonary Vascular Disease.

“It’s where a lot of research is headed – deep phenotyping to deconstruct the molecular and clinical heterogeneity that exists within PAH ... to detect distinct subphenotypes of patients who would respond to particular therapies,” said Dr. Sweatt, who led a review of PH clinical research presented at the 2020 American Thoracic Society International Conference

“Right now, we largely treat all patients the same ... [while] we know that patients have a wide response to therapies and there’s a lot of clinical heterogeneity in how their disease evolves over time,” he said.

Data from a large National Institutes of Health–funded multicenter phenotyping study of PH is being analyzed and should yield findings and publications starting this year, said Anna R. Hemnes, MD, associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., and an investigator with the initiative, coined “Redefining Pulmonary Hypertension through Pulmonary Disease Phenomics (PVDOMICS).”

Patients have undergone advanced imaging (for example, echocardiography, cardiac MRI, chest CT, ventilation/perfusion scans), advanced testing through right heart catheterization, body composition testing, quality of life questionnaires, and blood draws that have been analyzed for DNA and RNA expression, proteomics, and metabolomics, said Dr. Hemnes, assistant director of Vanderbilt’s Pulmonary Vascular Center.

The initiative aims to refine the classification of all kinds of PH and “to bring precision medicine to the field so we’re no longer characterizing somebody [based on imaging] and right heart catheterization, but we also incorporating molecular pieces and biomarkers into the diagnostic evaluation,” she said.

In the short term, the results of deep phenotyping should “allow us to be more effective with our therapy recommendations,” Dr. Hemnes said. “Then hopefully in the longer term, [identified biomarkers] will help us to develop new, more effective therapies.”

Dr. Sweatt and Dr. Williamson reported that they have no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Hemnes reported that she holds stock in Tenax (which is studying a tyrosine kinase inhibitor for PAH) and serves as a consultant for Acceleron, Bayer, GossamerBio, United Therapeutics, and Janssen. She also receives research funding from Imara. Dr. Chakinala reported that he is an investigator on clinical trials for a number of pharmaceutical companies. He also serves on advisory boards for Phase Bio, Liquidia/Rare Gen, Bayer, Janssen, Trio Health Analytics, and Aerovate.

Can you talk about your research thus far and what your overall lab work has shown regarding endometriosis as a chronic systemic disease?

Dr. Flores: Endometriosis has traditionally been characterized by its pelvic manifestation however, it is important to understand that it is profoundly more than a pelvic disease—it is a chronic, systemic disease with multifactorial effects throughout the body.

We and other groups have found increased expression of several inflammatory cytokines in women with endometriosis. Our lab has found that compared to women without endometriosis, women with endometriosis not only have certain inflammatory cytokines elevated but also have altered expression of microRNAs. MicroRNAs are small noncoding RNAs that bind to and modulate translation of mRNA. To help determine whether these miRNAs were involved in mediating increased expression of inflammatory cytokines in women with endometriosis, we then transfected these miRNAs into a macrophage cell line, and again found altered inflammatory cytokine expression. We and others have also found a role for stem cells (from bone marrow and other sources) in the pathogenesis of endometriosis. In addition, we have found that in endometriosis, women have a low body-mass index and altered metabolism, which is related to induction of induction of hepatic (anorexigenic) gene expression and microRNA-mediated changes in adipocyte (metabolic) gene expression. Furthermore, we have found altered gene expression in regions of the brain associated with anxiety and depression and altered pain sensitization. Taken together, this work helps provide support for the systemic nature of endometriosis.

How can your findings in this space help us in diagnosing clinically and ultimately avoid diagnostic delay?

Dr. Flores: It’s about understanding that endometriosis is not just a pelvic disease and understanding that endometriosis is leading to inflammation and altered expression of miRNAs which allows endometriosis to have long-range effects. For example, women with endometriosis commonly have anxiety and depression and low BMI. As mentioned earlier, we have found that in a murine model of endometriosis, there is altered gene expression in regions of the brain associated with anxiety and depression and altered metabolism in a murine model of endometriosis. Other groups have also found changes in brain volume in these same areas in women with endometriosis, and we have seen low BMI in women with endometriosis.  In fact, a common misconception was that being thin was a risk factor for endometriosis, however we have found that the endometriosis itself, is causing women alteration in genes associated with metabolism.

With respect to the endometrium, in addition to being a pelvic pain disorder, we also see that women with endometriosis have a higher likelihood of having infertility. And we think that's in part because one, just like the lesions can be resistant to progesterone, the endometrium of these women can also be resistant to progesterone. Progesterone is necessary for decidualization/implantation. We have also seen that stem cells can be recruited and ultimately incorrectly incorporated into the endometrium, which may also contribute to infertility in women with endometriosis.

If we can understand this multifactorial nature of endometriosis, I think this will help us not only shift toward diagnosing endometriosis clinically, but also avoid diagnostic delay. If we can understand that endometriosis is not just a pelvic disorder, but that It can also involve altered mood, bowel/bladder symptoms, inflammation, altered metabolism and/or cause infertility, I think that will ultimately help us to diagnosing earlier.

In addition, we can also utilize pelvic pain symptomatology to help with diagnosis as well. We can ask about cyclic pelvic pain that's been getting progressively worse over the years, not responding to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medications. Also, in understanding that endometriosis can affect other organs, asking about cyclic pain/symptoms in other areas, such as cyclical bowel or bladder symptoms.

Thinking about the fact that if you do have a patient like that, you're seeing that they have altered mood symptoms, or alterations in inflammatory markers. Maybe that will help us shift from a disease that was typically only considered to be diagnosed by surgery, by switching to a clinical diagnosis for endometriosis. Doing that will hopefully help avoid diagnostic delay.

If we understand that while we typically describe endometriosis as causing cyclic pain symptoms, sometimes because of the existing diagnostic delay, ultimately women can present with chronic pelvic pain. Thus, it's also important to ask patients presenting with chronic pelvic pain what the symptoms were like beforehand (i.e., was the pain cyclic and progressively worsening over the years/before it became chronic) doing so will also help in terms of diagnosing sooner.

Lastly, circulating miRNAs have been considered promising biomarker candidates because they are stable in circulation and have highly specific expression profiles. We have found that the combination of several miRNAs reliably distinguished endometriosis patients from controls, and a prospective, blinded study showed that the combination of several miRNAs could be used to accurately identify patients with endometriosis, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.93.

Roughly 11%, or more than 6.5 million, women in the United States between the ages of 15–44 years, may have endometriosis. Is this disease more common in any particular age range or ethnicity?

Dr. Flores: We’re actually actively investigating that right now. And I think what makes it challenging, especially with respect to the age range, is now we're -- I think in part because of so much more awareness and more research is being done looking at this disease as a chronic systemic disease-- we're now starting to see/diagnose adolescents with endometriosis.

I think as we start gathering more information about these individuals, we'll be able to better say if there is a particular age range. Right now, we usually say it's in the reproductive years, however for some women it may be later if they were not diagnosed earlier. Conversely, some who are hopefully reading this, and also who conduct research on endometriosis, may be able to diagnose someone earlier that may have been missed until they were in their 30s or 40s, for example.

With respect to ethnicity, I'm the task force leader for diversity, equity, and inclusion in research and recruitment. This is something that I'm actively starting to work on, as are other groups. I don't have the answer for that yet, but as we continue to collect more data, we will have more information on this.

What are some of the existing hormonal therapies you rely upon as well as the biomarkers in predicting response to treatment, and are there any new research or treatments on the horizon?

Dr. Flores: I'll first start by telling you a bit about our existing treatment regimens, and then how I decide who would benefit from a given one. First line has always been progestin-based therapy, either in the form of a combined oral contraceptive pill or as progesterone only pills. However, up to 1/3 of women fail progestin-based therapy—this is termed progesterone resistance.

When progestin-based therapies fail, we then rely on other agents that are focused more on estrogen deprivation because, while we don't know the complete etiology of endometriosis, we do know that it is estrogen-dependent. There are two classes— gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists and GnRH antagonists. The agonist binds to the GnRH receptors, and initially can cause a flare effect due to its agonist properties, initially stimulate release of estradiol,  and ultimately the GnRH receptor becomes downregulated and estradiol is decreased to the menopausal range. As a result we routinely provided add-back therapy with norethindrone to help prevent hot flashes and ensure bone protection.

Within the past three years, there has been a new oral GnRH receptor antagonist approved for treating endometriosis. The medication is available as a once a day or twice a day dosing regimen. As this is a GnRH antagonist, upon binding to the GnRH receptor, it blocks receptor activity, thus avoiding the flare affect; essentially, within 24 hours, there is a decrease in estradiol production.

As two doses are available, you can tailor how much you dial down estrogen for a given patient. The low dose lowers estradiol to a range of 40 picograms while the high (twice a day) dosing lowers your estrogen to about 6 picograms. Also, although it was not studied originally in terms of giving add-back therapy for the higher dose, given the safety  (and effectiveness) of add-back therapy with GnRH agonists we are using the same norethindrone add-back therapy for women who are taking the GnRH receptor antagonist.

The next question is, how do we decide which medication a given patient receives? To answer that, I will tell you a bit about my precision-based medicine research. As mentioned before, while progestin-based therapy is first-line, failure rates are high, and unfortunately, we previously have not been able to identify who will or will not respond to first-line therapy.  As such, I decided to assess progesterone receptor expression in endometriotic lesions from women who had undergone surgery for endometriosis, and determine whether progesterone receptor expression levels in lesions could be used to predict response to progestin-based therapy. I found that in women that had high levels of the progesterone receptor, they responded completely to progestin-based therapy-- there was a 100% response rate to progestin-based therapy. This is in sharp contrast to women who had low PR expression, where there was only a 6% response rate to progestin-based therapy.

While this is great with respect to being able to predict who will or will not respond to first line therapy, the one limitation is that would mean that women have to undergo surgery in order to determine progesterone receptor status/response to progestin-based therapy. However, given that within two to five years following surgery, up to 50% of women will have recurrence of pain symptoms, where I see my test coming into play is postoperatively.  This is because many times , women who had pain, or who were failing a given agent, are placed back on that same medical therapy they were failing after surgery. Usually that was a progestin. Therefore, instead of putting them on that same therapy that they were failing, we can use my test to place them on an alternative therapy (such as a GnRH analogue) that more specifically targets estradiol production.

In terms of future directions with respect to treatment, there is a microRNA that has been found to be low in women with endometriosis—miRNALet-7b. In a murine model of endometriosis, we have found that if we supplement with Let-7, there is decreased inflammation and decreased lesion size of endometriosis.  We have also found that supplementing miRNA Let-7b in human endometriotic lesions results in decreased inflammation in cell culture.

That would be future directions in terms of focusing on microRNAs and seeing how we can manipulate those to essentially block inflammation and lesion growth. Furthermore, such treatment would be non-hormonal, which would be a novel therapeutic approach.

Can you talk about your research thus far and what your overall lab work has shown regarding endometriosis as a chronic systemic disease?

Dr. Flores: Endometriosis has traditionally been characterized by its pelvic manifestation however, it is important to understand that it is profoundly more than a pelvic disease—it is a chronic, systemic disease with multifactorial effects throughout the body.

We and other groups have found increased expression of several inflammatory cytokines in women with endometriosis. Our lab has found that compared to women without endometriosis, women with endometriosis not only have certain inflammatory cytokines elevated but also have altered expression of microRNAs. MicroRNAs are small noncoding RNAs that bind to and modulate translation of mRNA. To help determine whether these miRNAs were involved in mediating increased expression of inflammatory cytokines in women with endometriosis, we then transfected these miRNAs into a macrophage cell line, and again found altered inflammatory cytokine expression. We and others have also found a role for stem cells (from bone marrow and other sources) in the pathogenesis of endometriosis. In addition, we have found that in endometriosis, women have a low body-mass index and altered metabolism, which is related to induction of induction of hepatic (anorexigenic) gene expression and microRNA-mediated changes in adipocyte (metabolic) gene expression. Furthermore, we have found altered gene expression in regions of the brain associated with anxiety and depression and altered pain sensitization. Taken together, this work helps provide support for the systemic nature of endometriosis.

How can your findings in this space help us in diagnosing clinically and ultimately avoid diagnostic delay?

Dr. Flores: It’s about understanding that endometriosis is not just a pelvic disease and understanding that endometriosis is leading to inflammation and altered expression of miRNAs which allows endometriosis to have long-range effects. For example, women with endometriosis commonly have anxiety and depression and low BMI. As mentioned earlier, we have found that in a murine model of endometriosis, there is altered gene expression in regions of the brain associated with anxiety and depression and altered metabolism in a murine model of endometriosis. Other groups have also found changes in brain volume in these same areas in women with endometriosis, and we have seen low BMI in women with endometriosis.  In fact, a common misconception was that being thin was a risk factor for endometriosis, however we have found that the endometriosis itself, is causing women alteration in genes associated with metabolism.

With respect to the endometrium, in addition to being a pelvic pain disorder, we also see that women with endometriosis have a higher likelihood of having infertility. And we think that's in part because one, just like the lesions can be resistant to progesterone, the endometrium of these women can also be resistant to progesterone. Progesterone is necessary for decidualization/implantation. We have also seen that stem cells can be recruited and ultimately incorrectly incorporated into the endometrium, which may also contribute to infertility in women with endometriosis.

If we can understand this multifactorial nature of endometriosis, I think this will help us not only shift toward diagnosing endometriosis clinically, but also avoid diagnostic delay. If we can understand that endometriosis is not just a pelvic disorder, but that It can also involve altered mood, bowel/bladder symptoms, inflammation, altered metabolism and/or cause infertility, I think that will ultimately help us to diagnosing earlier.

In addition, we can also utilize pelvic pain symptomatology to help with diagnosis as well. We can ask about cyclic pelvic pain that's been getting progressively worse over the years, not responding to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medications. Also, in understanding that endometriosis can affect other organs, asking about cyclic pain/symptoms in other areas, such as cyclical bowel or bladder symptoms.

Thinking about the fact that if you do have a patient like that, you're seeing that they have altered mood symptoms, or alterations in inflammatory markers. Maybe that will help us shift from a disease that was typically only considered to be diagnosed by surgery, by switching to a clinical diagnosis for endometriosis. Doing that will hopefully help avoid diagnostic delay.

If we understand that while we typically describe endometriosis as causing cyclic pain symptoms, sometimes because of the existing diagnostic delay, ultimately women can present with chronic pelvic pain. Thus, it's also important to ask patients presenting with chronic pelvic pain what the symptoms were like beforehand (i.e., was the pain cyclic and progressively worsening over the years/before it became chronic) doing so will also help in terms of diagnosing sooner.

Lastly, circulating miRNAs have been considered promising biomarker candidates because they are stable in circulation and have highly specific expression profiles. We have found that the combination of several miRNAs reliably distinguished endometriosis patients from controls, and a prospective, blinded study showed that the combination of several miRNAs could be used to accurately identify patients with endometriosis, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.93.

Roughly 11%, or more than 6.5 million, women in the United States between the ages of 15–44 years, may have endometriosis. Is this disease more common in any particular age range or ethnicity?

Dr. Flores: We’re actually actively investigating that right now. And I think what makes it challenging, especially with respect to the age range, is now we're -- I think in part because of so much more awareness and more research is being done looking at this disease as a chronic systemic disease-- we're now starting to see/diagnose adolescents with endometriosis.

I think as we start gathering more information about these individuals, we'll be able to better say if there is a particular age range. Right now, we usually say it's in the reproductive years, however for some women it may be later if they were not diagnosed earlier. Conversely, some who are hopefully reading this, and also who conduct research on endometriosis, may be able to diagnose someone earlier that may have been missed until they were in their 30s or 40s, for example.

With respect to ethnicity, I'm the task force leader for diversity, equity, and inclusion in research and recruitment. This is something that I'm actively starting to work on, as are other groups. I don't have the answer for that yet, but as we continue to collect more data, we will have more information on this.

What are some of the existing hormonal therapies you rely upon as well as the biomarkers in predicting response to treatment, and are there any new research or treatments on the horizon?

Dr. Flores: I'll first start by telling you a bit about our existing treatment regimens, and then how I decide who would benefit from a given one. First line has always been progestin-based therapy, either in the form of a combined oral contraceptive pill or as progesterone only pills. However, up to 1/3 of women fail progestin-based therapy—this is termed progesterone resistance.

When progestin-based therapies fail, we then rely on other agents that are focused more on estrogen deprivation because, while we don't know the complete etiology of endometriosis, we do know that it is estrogen-dependent. There are two classes— gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists and GnRH antagonists. The agonist binds to the GnRH receptors, and initially can cause a flare effect due to its agonist properties, initially stimulate release of estradiol,  and ultimately the GnRH receptor becomes downregulated and estradiol is decreased to the menopausal range. As a result we routinely provided add-back therapy with norethindrone to help prevent hot flashes and ensure bone protection.

Within the past three years, there has been a new oral GnRH receptor antagonist approved for treating endometriosis. The medication is available as a once a day or twice a day dosing regimen. As this is a GnRH antagonist, upon binding to the GnRH receptor, it blocks receptor activity, thus avoiding the flare affect; essentially, within 24 hours, there is a decrease in estradiol production.

As two doses are available, you can tailor how much you dial down estrogen for a given patient. The low dose lowers estradiol to a range of 40 picograms while the high (twice a day) dosing lowers your estrogen to about 6 picograms. Also, although it was not studied originally in terms of giving add-back therapy for the higher dose, given the safety  (and effectiveness) of add-back therapy with GnRH agonists we are using the same norethindrone add-back therapy for women who are taking the GnRH receptor antagonist.

The next question is, how do we decide which medication a given patient receives? To answer that, I will tell you a bit about my precision-based medicine research. As mentioned before, while progestin-based therapy is first-line, failure rates are high, and unfortunately, we previously have not been able to identify who will or will not respond to first-line therapy.  As such, I decided to assess progesterone receptor expression in endometriotic lesions from women who had undergone surgery for endometriosis, and determine whether progesterone receptor expression levels in lesions could be used to predict response to progestin-based therapy. I found that in women that had high levels of the progesterone receptor, they responded completely to progestin-based therapy-- there was a 100% response rate to progestin-based therapy. This is in sharp contrast to women who had low PR expression, where there was only a 6% response rate to progestin-based therapy.

While this is great with respect to being able to predict who will or will not respond to first line therapy, the one limitation is that would mean that women have to undergo surgery in order to determine progesterone receptor status/response to progestin-based therapy. However, given that within two to five years following surgery, up to 50% of women will have recurrence of pain symptoms, where I see my test coming into play is postoperatively.  This is because many times , women who had pain, or who were failing a given agent, are placed back on that same medical therapy they were failing after surgery. Usually that was a progestin. Therefore, instead of putting them on that same therapy that they were failing, we can use my test to place them on an alternative therapy (such as a GnRH analogue) that more specifically targets estradiol production.

In terms of future directions with respect to treatment, there is a microRNA that has been found to be low in women with endometriosis—miRNALet-7b. In a murine model of endometriosis, we have found that if we supplement with Let-7, there is decreased inflammation and decreased lesion size of endometriosis.  We have also found that supplementing miRNA Let-7b in human endometriotic lesions results in decreased inflammation in cell culture.

That would be future directions in terms of focusing on microRNAs and seeing how we can manipulate those to essentially block inflammation and lesion growth. Furthermore, such treatment would be non-hormonal, which would be a novel therapeutic approach.

Can you talk about your research thus far and what your overall lab work has shown regarding endometriosis as a chronic systemic disease?

Dr. Flores: Endometriosis has traditionally been characterized by its pelvic manifestation however, it is important to understand that it is profoundly more than a pelvic disease—it is a chronic, systemic disease with multifactorial effects throughout the body.

We and other groups have found increased expression of several inflammatory cytokines in women with endometriosis. Our lab has found that compared to women without endometriosis, women with endometriosis not only have certain inflammatory cytokines elevated but also have altered expression of microRNAs. MicroRNAs are small noncoding RNAs that bind to and modulate translation of mRNA. To help determine whether these miRNAs were involved in mediating increased expression of inflammatory cytokines in women with endometriosis, we then transfected these miRNAs into a macrophage cell line, and again found altered inflammatory cytokine expression. We and others have also found a role for stem cells (from bone marrow and other sources) in the pathogenesis of endometriosis. In addition, we have found that in endometriosis, women have a low body-mass index and altered metabolism, which is related to induction of induction of hepatic (anorexigenic) gene expression and microRNA-mediated changes in adipocyte (metabolic) gene expression. Furthermore, we have found altered gene expression in regions of the brain associated with anxiety and depression and altered pain sensitization. Taken together, this work helps provide support for the systemic nature of endometriosis.

How can your findings in this space help us in diagnosing clinically and ultimately avoid diagnostic delay?

Dr. Flores: It’s about understanding that endometriosis is not just a pelvic disease and understanding that endometriosis is leading to inflammation and altered expression of miRNAs which allows endometriosis to have long-range effects. For example, women with endometriosis commonly have anxiety and depression and low BMI. As mentioned earlier, we have found that in a murine model of endometriosis, there is altered gene expression in regions of the brain associated with anxiety and depression and altered metabolism in a murine model of endometriosis. Other groups have also found changes in brain volume in these same areas in women with endometriosis, and we have seen low BMI in women with endometriosis.  In fact, a common misconception was that being thin was a risk factor for endometriosis, however we have found that the endometriosis itself, is causing women alteration in genes associated with metabolism.

With respect to the endometrium, in addition to being a pelvic pain disorder, we also see that women with endometriosis have a higher likelihood of having infertility. And we think that's in part because one, just like the lesions can be resistant to progesterone, the endometrium of these women can also be resistant to progesterone. Progesterone is necessary for decidualization/implantation. We have also seen that stem cells can be recruited and ultimately incorrectly incorporated into the endometrium, which may also contribute to infertility in women with endometriosis.

If we can understand this multifactorial nature of endometriosis, I think this will help us not only shift toward diagnosing endometriosis clinically, but also avoid diagnostic delay. If we can understand that endometriosis is not just a pelvic disorder, but that It can also involve altered mood, bowel/bladder symptoms, inflammation, altered metabolism and/or cause infertility, I think that will ultimately help us to diagnosing earlier.

In addition, we can also utilize pelvic pain symptomatology to help with diagnosis as well. We can ask about cyclic pelvic pain that's been getting progressively worse over the years, not responding to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medications. Also, in understanding that endometriosis can affect other organs, asking about cyclic pain/symptoms in other areas, such as cyclical bowel or bladder symptoms.

Thinking about the fact that if you do have a patient like that, you're seeing that they have altered mood symptoms, or alterations in inflammatory markers. Maybe that will help us shift from a disease that was typically only considered to be diagnosed by surgery, by switching to a clinical diagnosis for endometriosis. Doing that will hopefully help avoid diagnostic delay.

If we understand that while we typically describe endometriosis as causing cyclic pain symptoms, sometimes because of the existing diagnostic delay, ultimately women can present with chronic pelvic pain. Thus, it's also important to ask patients presenting with chronic pelvic pain what the symptoms were like beforehand (i.e., was the pain cyclic and progressively worsening over the years/before it became chronic) doing so will also help in terms of diagnosing sooner.

Lastly, circulating miRNAs have been considered promising biomarker candidates because they are stable in circulation and have highly specific expression profiles. We have found that the combination of several miRNAs reliably distinguished endometriosis patients from controls, and a prospective, blinded study showed that the combination of several miRNAs could be used to accurately identify patients with endometriosis, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.93.

Roughly 11%, or more than 6.5 million, women in the United States between the ages of 15–44 years, may have endometriosis. Is this disease more common in any particular age range or ethnicity?

Dr. Flores: We’re actually actively investigating that right now. And I think what makes it challenging, especially with respect to the age range, is now we're -- I think in part because of so much more awareness and more research is being done looking at this disease as a chronic systemic disease-- we're now starting to see/diagnose adolescents with endometriosis.

I think as we start gathering more information about these individuals, we'll be able to better say if there is a particular age range. Right now, we usually say it's in the reproductive years, however for some women it may be later if they were not diagnosed earlier. Conversely, some who are hopefully reading this, and also who conduct research on endometriosis, may be able to diagnose someone earlier that may have been missed until they were in their 30s or 40s, for example.

With respect to ethnicity, I'm the task force leader for diversity, equity, and inclusion in research and recruitment. This is something that I'm actively starting to work on, as are other groups. I don't have the answer for that yet, but as we continue to collect more data, we will have more information on this.

What are some of the existing hormonal therapies you rely upon as well as the biomarkers in predicting response to treatment, and are there any new research or treatments on the horizon?

Dr. Flores: I'll first start by telling you a bit about our existing treatment regimens, and then how I decide who would benefit from a given one. First line has always been progestin-based therapy, either in the form of a combined oral contraceptive pill or as progesterone only pills. However, up to 1/3 of women fail progestin-based therapy—this is termed progesterone resistance.

When progestin-based therapies fail, we then rely on other agents that are focused more on estrogen deprivation because, while we don't know the complete etiology of endometriosis, we do know that it is estrogen-dependent. There are two classes— gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists and GnRH antagonists. The agonist binds to the GnRH receptors, and initially can cause a flare effect due to its agonist properties, initially stimulate release of estradiol,  and ultimately the GnRH receptor becomes downregulated and estradiol is decreased to the menopausal range. As a result we routinely provided add-back therapy with norethindrone to help prevent hot flashes and ensure bone protection.

Within the past three years, there has been a new oral GnRH receptor antagonist approved for treating endometriosis. The medication is available as a once a day or twice a day dosing regimen. As this is a GnRH antagonist, upon binding to the GnRH receptor, it blocks receptor activity, thus avoiding the flare affect; essentially, within 24 hours, there is a decrease in estradiol production.

As two doses are available, you can tailor how much you dial down estrogen for a given patient. The low dose lowers estradiol to a range of 40 picograms while the high (twice a day) dosing lowers your estrogen to about 6 picograms. Also, although it was not studied originally in terms of giving add-back therapy for the higher dose, given the safety  (and effectiveness) of add-back therapy with GnRH agonists we are using the same norethindrone add-back therapy for women who are taking the GnRH receptor antagonist.

The next question is, how do we decide which medication a given patient receives? To answer that, I will tell you a bit about my precision-based medicine research. As mentioned before, while progestin-based therapy is first-line, failure rates are high, and unfortunately, we previously have not been able to identify who will or will not respond to first-line therapy.  As such, I decided to assess progesterone receptor expression in endometriotic lesions from women who had undergone surgery for endometriosis, and determine whether progesterone receptor expression levels in lesions could be used to predict response to progestin-based therapy. I found that in women that had high levels of the progesterone receptor, they responded completely to progestin-based therapy-- there was a 100% response rate to progestin-based therapy. This is in sharp contrast to women who had low PR expression, where there was only a 6% response rate to progestin-based therapy.

While this is great with respect to being able to predict who will or will not respond to first line therapy, the one limitation is that would mean that women have to undergo surgery in order to determine progesterone receptor status/response to progestin-based therapy. However, given that within two to five years following surgery, up to 50% of women will have recurrence of pain symptoms, where I see my test coming into play is postoperatively.  This is because many times , women who had pain, or who were failing a given agent, are placed back on that same medical therapy they were failing after surgery. Usually that was a progestin. Therefore, instead of putting them on that same therapy that they were failing, we can use my test to place them on an alternative therapy (such as a GnRH analogue) that more specifically targets estradiol production.

In terms of future directions with respect to treatment, there is a microRNA that has been found to be low in women with endometriosis—miRNALet-7b. In a murine model of endometriosis, we have found that if we supplement with Let-7, there is decreased inflammation and decreased lesion size of endometriosis.  We have also found that supplementing miRNA Let-7b in human endometriotic lesions results in decreased inflammation in cell culture.

That would be future directions in terms of focusing on microRNAs and seeing how we can manipulate those to essentially block inflammation and lesion growth. Furthermore, such treatment would be non-hormonal, which would be a novel therapeutic approach.

Vasculitis of the coronary arteries is a well-recognized acute complication of Kawasaki disease, but the long-term risk of cardiovascular (CV) sequelae does not appear to be clinically meaningful for most patients, according to results from an analysis of data presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Rheumatology Association.

For patients and parents, these data provide “a message of reassurance,” according to Jennifer J.Y. Lee, MD, a pediatric rheumatologist affiliated with the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto.

The long-term outcomes were characterized as reassuring even though rates of hypertension, major adverse cardiac events (MACE), and death from CV events were higher in patients with Kawasaki disease relative to controls in a retrospective data-linkage study. In fact, these differences were highly statistically significant, but the absolute differences were extremely small.

For this analysis, the 1,174 patients diagnosed with Kawasaki disease at Dr. Lee’s institution between 1991 and 2008 were compared in a 10:1 ratio to 11,740 controls matched for factors such as age, sex, ethnicity, and geographic region. The median follow-up period was 20 years, and the maximum was 28 years.
 

Adjusted CV risks are significant

In an adjusted Cox proportional hazard ratio model, patients in the Kawasaki group had a more than twofold increase in risk for hypertension (aHR, 2.3; P < .0001) and all-cause mortality (aHR, 2.5; P = .009). They also had more than a 10-fold increase in risk for MACE (aHR, 10.3; P < .0001).

These statistics belie the clinical relevance, according to Dr. Lee. Because of the very low rates of all the measured events in both groups, there was just one more case of hypertension per 1,250 patient-years of follow-up, one more case of MACE per 833 patient-years of follow-up, and one more death for 3,846 patient years of follow-up.

Moreover, when these outcomes were graphed over time, most events occurred during the acute period or in the initial years of follow-up.

“There was not a constant increase in risk of these outcomes over time for patients with Kawasaki disease relative to the controls,” Dr. Lee reported. “The long-term prognosis for Kawasaki patients remains favorable.”

European group reports similar results

Similar results from a single-center experience were published 3 years ago. In that study, 207 Kawasaki patients treated at the University of Lausanne (Switzerland) were followed for 30 years. Complications after the acute phase were characterized as “rare.”

For example, only three patients (1.4%) had a subsequent episode of myocardial ischemia. All three had developed a coronary aneurysm during the acute phase of Kawasaki disease. The authors of that study reported that children who had not received immunoglobulins during the acute phase or who developed Kawasaki disease outside of the usual age range were more likely to have subsequent events, such as disease recurrence.

Other studies of long-term CV outcomes in patients with Kawasaki disease generally show similar data, according to James T. Gaensbauer, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

“I generally agree with the premise that major complications are rare when you compare a cohort of patients with Kawasaki disease with the general population,” Dr. Gaensbauer said. However, he added, “I do not think you can say no one needs to worry.”
 

Severity of acute disease might matter

During the acute phase of Kawasaki disease, the arterial damage varies. As suggested in the University of Lausanne follow-up, patients with significant coronary aneurysms do appear to be at greater risk of long-term complications. Dr. Gaensbauer cited a statement from the American Heart Association that noted a higher risk of CV sequelae from Kawasaki disease with a greater or more severe coronary aneurysm or in the face of other evidence of damage to the arterial tree.

“The clinical course within the first 2 years of Kawasaki disease appears to be important for risk of CV complications after this time,” Dr. Gaensbauer said.

The absolute risk of CV events in patients with a more complicated acute course of Kawasaki disease remains incompletely understood, but Dr. Gaensbauer said that there are several sets of data, including these new data from the Hospital for Sick Children, that suggest that the overall prognosis is good. However, he cautioned that this reassurance does not necessarily apply to children with a difficult acute course.

According to the 2017 AHA statement on Kawasaki disease, risk stratification based on echocardiography and other measures after the acute phase of Kawasaki disease are reasonable to determine if long-term follow-up is needed. In those without abnormalities, it is reasonable to forgo further cardiology assessment.

Dr. Lee and Dr. Gaensbauer reported having no potential conflicts of interest.

Vasculitis of the coronary arteries is a well-recognized acute complication of Kawasaki disease, but the long-term risk of cardiovascular (CV) sequelae does not appear to be clinically meaningful for most patients, according to results from an analysis of data presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Rheumatology Association.

For patients and parents, these data provide “a message of reassurance,” according to Jennifer J.Y. Lee, MD, a pediatric rheumatologist affiliated with the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto.

The long-term outcomes were characterized as reassuring even though rates of hypertension, major adverse cardiac events (MACE), and death from CV events were higher in patients with Kawasaki disease relative to controls in a retrospective data-linkage study. In fact, these differences were highly statistically significant, but the absolute differences were extremely small.

For this analysis, the 1,174 patients diagnosed with Kawasaki disease at Dr. Lee’s institution between 1991 and 2008 were compared in a 10:1 ratio to 11,740 controls matched for factors such as age, sex, ethnicity, and geographic region. The median follow-up period was 20 years, and the maximum was 28 years.
 

Adjusted CV risks are significant

In an adjusted Cox proportional hazard ratio model, patients in the Kawasaki group had a more than twofold increase in risk for hypertension (aHR, 2.3; P < .0001) and all-cause mortality (aHR, 2.5; P = .009). They also had more than a 10-fold increase in risk for MACE (aHR, 10.3; P < .0001).

These statistics belie the clinical relevance, according to Dr. Lee. Because of the very low rates of all the measured events in both groups, there was just one more case of hypertension per 1,250 patient-years of follow-up, one more case of MACE per 833 patient-years of follow-up, and one more death for 3,846 patient years of follow-up.

Moreover, when these outcomes were graphed over time, most events occurred during the acute period or in the initial years of follow-up.

“There was not a constant increase in risk of these outcomes over time for patients with Kawasaki disease relative to the controls,” Dr. Lee reported. “The long-term prognosis for Kawasaki patients remains favorable.”

European group reports similar results

Similar results from a single-center experience were published 3 years ago. In that study, 207 Kawasaki patients treated at the University of Lausanne (Switzerland) were followed for 30 years. Complications after the acute phase were characterized as “rare.”

For example, only three patients (1.4%) had a subsequent episode of myocardial ischemia. All three had developed a coronary aneurysm during the acute phase of Kawasaki disease. The authors of that study reported that children who had not received immunoglobulins during the acute phase or who developed Kawasaki disease outside of the usual age range were more likely to have subsequent events, such as disease recurrence.

Other studies of long-term CV outcomes in patients with Kawasaki disease generally show similar data, according to James T. Gaensbauer, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

“I generally agree with the premise that major complications are rare when you compare a cohort of patients with Kawasaki disease with the general population,” Dr. Gaensbauer said. However, he added, “I do not think you can say no one needs to worry.”
 

Severity of acute disease might matter

During the acute phase of Kawasaki disease, the arterial damage varies. As suggested in the University of Lausanne follow-up, patients with significant coronary aneurysms do appear to be at greater risk of long-term complications. Dr. Gaensbauer cited a statement from the American Heart Association that noted a higher risk of CV sequelae from Kawasaki disease with a greater or more severe coronary aneurysm or in the face of other evidence of damage to the arterial tree.

“The clinical course within the first 2 years of Kawasaki disease appears to be important for risk of CV complications after this time,” Dr. Gaensbauer said.

The absolute risk of CV events in patients with a more complicated acute course of Kawasaki disease remains incompletely understood, but Dr. Gaensbauer said that there are several sets of data, including these new data from the Hospital for Sick Children, that suggest that the overall prognosis is good. However, he cautioned that this reassurance does not necessarily apply to children with a difficult acute course.

According to the 2017 AHA statement on Kawasaki disease, risk stratification based on echocardiography and other measures after the acute phase of Kawasaki disease are reasonable to determine if long-term follow-up is needed. In those without abnormalities, it is reasonable to forgo further cardiology assessment.

Dr. Lee and Dr. Gaensbauer reported having no potential conflicts of interest.

Vasculitis of the coronary arteries is a well-recognized acute complication of Kawasaki disease, but the long-term risk of cardiovascular (CV) sequelae does not appear to be clinically meaningful for most patients, according to results from an analysis of data presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Rheumatology Association.

For patients and parents, these data provide “a message of reassurance,” according to Jennifer J.Y. Lee, MD, a pediatric rheumatologist affiliated with the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto.

The long-term outcomes were characterized as reassuring even though rates of hypertension, major adverse cardiac events (MACE), and death from CV events were higher in patients with Kawasaki disease relative to controls in a retrospective data-linkage study. In fact, these differences were highly statistically significant, but the absolute differences were extremely small.

For this analysis, the 1,174 patients diagnosed with Kawasaki disease at Dr. Lee’s institution between 1991 and 2008 were compared in a 10:1 ratio to 11,740 controls matched for factors such as age, sex, ethnicity, and geographic region. The median follow-up period was 20 years, and the maximum was 28 years.
 

Adjusted CV risks are significant

In an adjusted Cox proportional hazard ratio model, patients in the Kawasaki group had a more than twofold increase in risk for hypertension (aHR, 2.3; P < .0001) and all-cause mortality (aHR, 2.5; P = .009). They also had more than a 10-fold increase in risk for MACE (aHR, 10.3; P < .0001).

These statistics belie the clinical relevance, according to Dr. Lee. Because of the very low rates of all the measured events in both groups, there was just one more case of hypertension per 1,250 patient-years of follow-up, one more case of MACE per 833 patient-years of follow-up, and one more death for 3,846 patient years of follow-up.

Moreover, when these outcomes were graphed over time, most events occurred during the acute period or in the initial years of follow-up.

“There was not a constant increase in risk of these outcomes over time for patients with Kawasaki disease relative to the controls,” Dr. Lee reported. “The long-term prognosis for Kawasaki patients remains favorable.”

European group reports similar results

Similar results from a single-center experience were published 3 years ago. In that study, 207 Kawasaki patients treated at the University of Lausanne (Switzerland) were followed for 30 years. Complications after the acute phase were characterized as “rare.”

For example, only three patients (1.4%) had a subsequent episode of myocardial ischemia. All three had developed a coronary aneurysm during the acute phase of Kawasaki disease. The authors of that study reported that children who had not received immunoglobulins during the acute phase or who developed Kawasaki disease outside of the usual age range were more likely to have subsequent events, such as disease recurrence.

Other studies of long-term CV outcomes in patients with Kawasaki disease generally show similar data, according to James T. Gaensbauer, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

“I generally agree with the premise that major complications are rare when you compare a cohort of patients with Kawasaki disease with the general population,” Dr. Gaensbauer said. However, he added, “I do not think you can say no one needs to worry.”
 

Severity of acute disease might matter

During the acute phase of Kawasaki disease, the arterial damage varies. As suggested in the University of Lausanne follow-up, patients with significant coronary aneurysms do appear to be at greater risk of long-term complications. Dr. Gaensbauer cited a statement from the American Heart Association that noted a higher risk of CV sequelae from Kawasaki disease with a greater or more severe coronary aneurysm or in the face of other evidence of damage to the arterial tree.

“The clinical course within the first 2 years of Kawasaki disease appears to be important for risk of CV complications after this time,” Dr. Gaensbauer said.

The absolute risk of CV events in patients with a more complicated acute course of Kawasaki disease remains incompletely understood, but Dr. Gaensbauer said that there are several sets of data, including these new data from the Hospital for Sick Children, that suggest that the overall prognosis is good. However, he cautioned that this reassurance does not necessarily apply to children with a difficult acute course.

According to the 2017 AHA statement on Kawasaki disease, risk stratification based on echocardiography and other measures after the acute phase of Kawasaki disease are reasonable to determine if long-term follow-up is needed. In those without abnormalities, it is reasonable to forgo further cardiology assessment.

Dr. Lee and Dr. Gaensbauer reported having no potential conflicts of interest.

Long COVID continues to be a moving target – continuously evolving and still surprising doctors and patients who have sometimes incapacitating long-term symptoms.

Little about the disorder seems predictable at this point. People can have long COVID after asymptomatic, mild, or severe COVID-19, for example. And when a person gets long COVID – also known as long-haul COVID – symptoms can vary widely.

To address all the uncertainty, the New York State Department of Health gathered experts in primary care, pediatrics, physical medicine, rehabilitation, and pulmonology to answer some pressing questions.

New York in 2020 was the first epicenter of the pandemic in the United States, making it also the center of the long COVID epidemic, says Emily Lutterloh, MD, director of the Division of Epidemiology at the New York State Department of Health.
 

What do you do when you’re seeing a patient with long COVID for the first time?

The first exam varies because there are so many different ways long COVID presents itself, says Benjamin Abramoff, MD, a physical medicine and rehabilitation specialist at Penn Medicine in Philadelphia.

I’ve now been seriously ill with #LongCovid for 11 months. I was never hospitalized. I didn’t even have a “mild” covid case. Instead, I developed Long Covid from an asymptomatic infection.

I’m far from unique. Up to 1/5 of asymptomatic patients go on to have long-term symptoms.

— Ravi Veriah Jacques (@RaviHVJ) February 3, 2022

Assessing their previous and current care also helps to direct their ongoing management, says Zijian Chen, MD, medical director of the Center for Post-COVID Care at Mount Sinai Health System in New York.
 

Can vaccination help people with long COVID?

Anything that we can do to help prevent people from being critically ill or being hospitalized with COVID-19 is helpful to prevent long COVID, says Dr. Abramoff, who is also director of the long COVID clinic at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

“So that’s something I always discuss with patients. In some research, sometimes patients do feel better after the vaccine,” he says.
 

What kind of therapies do you find helpful for your patients?

Rehabilitation is a key part of recovery from long COVID, Dr. Abramoff says. “It is very important to make this very patient-specific.”

“We have patients that are working. They’re already going to the gym in some cases but don’t feel like they have the same endurance,” he says. “And then we have patients who are so crippled by their fatigue that they can’t get out of bed.”
 

1/ What is #LongCOVID?!

A disabling malady from ongoing inflammation, autoimmunity, & potential viral reservoirs (GI, brain?)

NEW DATA: The Lungs “light up” on special MRI Scans 3 to 9 months later in patients never hospitalized for COVID.https://t.co/I2kyZ4cK5F pic.twitter.com/dL1P67L2DK

— WesElyMD (@WesElyMD) February 2, 2022

An exercise program can help people who have long COVID.

“There’s a big role for therapy services in the recovery of these patients,” says John Baratta, MD, of the department of physical medicine and rehabilitation at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

But the limited number of long COVID clinics can mean some people are unable to get to therapists trained on the needs of patients with lingering COVID symptoms. Educating community physical and occupational therapists is one solution.
 

How long does it take for people with long COVID to recover and get back to 100% if they can?

Specific numbers aren’t really available, Dr. Baratta says.

“But I can tell you the general trend that I see is that a lot of patients have a gradual improvement of symptoms. The slow but steady improvement with time may be the body’s natural healing process, a result of medical interventions, or both.”

It can help to reassure people with long COVID that they will not be discharged from care until they feel they’ve maximized their health, says Sharagim Kemp, DO, medical director of the COVID Recovery Program for Nuvance Health, a health system in New York and Connecticut.

It’s essential to set realistic recovery expectations and tell patients that not everyone will return to 100% of their pre-COVID functioning, she says.

“Once we are able to help them reset their expectations, there’s almost an accelerated recovery because they are not putting that pressure on themselves anymore,” Dr. Kemp says.
 

What are the most common symptoms you’re seeing in long COVID?

It’s helpful to think of long COVID as a very broad umbrella term, Dr. Abramoff says.

Echoing what many others have observed, fatigue, cognitive dysfunction or “brain fog,“ and shortness of breath or troubled breathing appear to be the most common symptoms, he says.

Some reported vague symptoms, Dr. Kemp says.

People may go to the doctor “not even realizing that they had COVID. That’s one of the important points here – to have a high index of suspicion for patients who come in with multiple symptoms,” she says.

For this reason, patients can report symptoms that don’t necessarily fit into any specialty, says Sarah J. Ryan, MD, an internal medicine doctor at Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York. People say they are “just not themselves” or they are tired after their COVID-19 recovery.
 

Is there a connection between severe COVID cases and severe long COVID?

“It’s not like that at all. I would say that more than 80% of the patients that we see had mild to moderate illness and they were not hospitalized,” Dr. Baratta says.

Long COVID is a bit different in children and teenagers, says Ixsy Ramirez, MD, a pediatric pulmonologist at University of Michigan Health, Ann Arbor. Most patients in the long COVID clinic at the University of Michigan were previously healthy, and not children with asthma or other lung conditions as one might expect. In fact, many are student athletes, or were before they had long COVID.

In this population, shortness of breath is most common, followed by chest pain and fatigue. Unfortunately, the symptoms are so serious for many kids that their performance is limited, even if they can return to competitive play.
 

Are there defined criteria you use to diagnose long COVID? How do you give someone a diagnosis?

That’s an ever-evolving question, Dr. Kemp says. The generally accepted definition centers on persistent or new symptoms 4 weeks or more after the original COVID-19 illness, but there are exceptions.

Researchers are working on lab tests to help confirm the diagnosis. But without a definitive blood biomarker, getting to the diagnosis requires “some thorough detective work,” Dr. Ryan says.
 

Do you bring in mental health providers to help with treatment?

“We focus on mental health quite a bit actually,” says, Dr. Chen, cofounder of his institution’s COVID recovery clinic. Mount Sinai offers one-on-one and group mental health services, for example.

“Personally, I’ve seen patients that I did not expect to have such severe mental health changes” with long COVID.
 

One of the most powerful accounts and testimonies I have seen on what most #LongCovid patients experience when interacting with their doctors.

“I did not fit in a box, so they chose not to see me, even worse they made me feel like it was my fault for not fitting in their box” pic.twitter.com/7GQLBucuO5

— charlos (@loscharlos) February 3, 2022

Examples include severe depression, cases of acute psychosis, hallucinations, and other problems “that are really unexpected after a viral illness.”

Stony Brook University Hospital in New York has a long COVID clinic staffed by multiple primary care doctors who do exams and refer patients to services. A bonus of offering psychological services to all post-COVID patients is doctors get a more complete picture of each person and a better understanding of what they are going through, says Abigail Chua, MD, a pulmonologist at Stony Brook.

Some empathy is essential, Dr. Baratta says. “It’s important to recognize that a lot of these patients present with a sense of grief or loss for their prior life.”
 

What does the future hold?

A simple test to diagnose long COVID, combined with an effective treatment that helps people feel better within a week, would be ideal, Dr. Abramoff says.

“That would be lovely. But you know, we’re just not at that point.”

And it would be helpful to start identifying subtypes of long COVID so diagnosis and treatment can be more targeted, Dr. Abramoff says. Otherwise, “It’s going to be a very challenging approach to try to treat all of our patients with long COVID symptoms the same way.”

Good clinical trials likewise are needed to address all the subtleties of long COVID.

A number of long COVID centers are collaborating on research to find out more, Dr. Chen says. Actions include setting up a bank of tissue samples from people with long COVID so researchers can continue to figure out the condition.

One goal, Dr. Chen says, would be the ability to treat long COVID rather than just its symptoms.

Long COVID emphasizes the need to prevent people from getting COVID in the first place, Dr. Ramirez says. This will continue to be important, particularly when some people dismiss the seriousness of COVID, comparing it to a cold if they get it. That attitude discounts the large number of people who unfortunately go on to develop long-term, often debilitating, symptoms.

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

Long COVID continues to be a moving target – continuously evolving and still surprising doctors and patients who have sometimes incapacitating long-term symptoms.

Little about the disorder seems predictable at this point. People can have long COVID after asymptomatic, mild, or severe COVID-19, for example. And when a person gets long COVID – also known as long-haul COVID – symptoms can vary widely.

To address all the uncertainty, the New York State Department of Health gathered experts in primary care, pediatrics, physical medicine, rehabilitation, and pulmonology to answer some pressing questions.

New York in 2020 was the first epicenter of the pandemic in the United States, making it also the center of the long COVID epidemic, says Emily Lutterloh, MD, director of the Division of Epidemiology at the New York State Department of Health.
 

What do you do when you’re seeing a patient with long COVID for the first time?

The first exam varies because there are so many different ways long COVID presents itself, says Benjamin Abramoff, MD, a physical medicine and rehabilitation specialist at Penn Medicine in Philadelphia.

I’ve now been seriously ill with #LongCovid for 11 months. I was never hospitalized. I didn’t even have a “mild” covid case. Instead, I developed Long Covid from an asymptomatic infection.

I’m far from unique. Up to 1/5 of asymptomatic patients go on to have long-term symptoms.

— Ravi Veriah Jacques (@RaviHVJ) February 3, 2022

Assessing their previous and current care also helps to direct their ongoing management, says Zijian Chen, MD, medical director of the Center for Post-COVID Care at Mount Sinai Health System in New York.
 

Can vaccination help people with long COVID?

Anything that we can do to help prevent people from being critically ill or being hospitalized with COVID-19 is helpful to prevent long COVID, says Dr. Abramoff, who is also director of the long COVID clinic at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

“So that’s something I always discuss with patients. In some research, sometimes patients do feel better after the vaccine,” he says.
 

What kind of therapies do you find helpful for your patients?

Rehabilitation is a key part of recovery from long COVID, Dr. Abramoff says. “It is very important to make this very patient-specific.”

“We have patients that are working. They’re already going to the gym in some cases but don’t feel like they have the same endurance,” he says. “And then we have patients who are so crippled by their fatigue that they can’t get out of bed.”
 

1/ What is #LongCOVID?!

A disabling malady from ongoing inflammation, autoimmunity, & potential viral reservoirs (GI, brain?)

NEW DATA: The Lungs “light up” on special MRI Scans 3 to 9 months later in patients never hospitalized for COVID.https://t.co/I2kyZ4cK5F pic.twitter.com/dL1P67L2DK

— WesElyMD (@WesElyMD) February 2, 2022

An exercise program can help people who have long COVID.

“There’s a big role for therapy services in the recovery of these patients,” says John Baratta, MD, of the department of physical medicine and rehabilitation at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

But the limited number of long COVID clinics can mean some people are unable to get to therapists trained on the needs of patients with lingering COVID symptoms. Educating community physical and occupational therapists is one solution.
 

How long does it take for people with long COVID to recover and get back to 100% if they can?

Specific numbers aren’t really available, Dr. Baratta says.

“But I can tell you the general trend that I see is that a lot of patients have a gradual improvement of symptoms. The slow but steady improvement with time may be the body’s natural healing process, a result of medical interventions, or both.”

It can help to reassure people with long COVID that they will not be discharged from care until they feel they’ve maximized their health, says Sharagim Kemp, DO, medical director of the COVID Recovery Program for Nuvance Health, a health system in New York and Connecticut.

It’s essential to set realistic recovery expectations and tell patients that not everyone will return to 100% of their pre-COVID functioning, she says.

“Once we are able to help them reset their expectations, there’s almost an accelerated recovery because they are not putting that pressure on themselves anymore,” Dr. Kemp says.
 

What are the most common symptoms you’re seeing in long COVID?

It’s helpful to think of long COVID as a very broad umbrella term, Dr. Abramoff says.

Echoing what many others have observed, fatigue, cognitive dysfunction or “brain fog,“ and shortness of breath or troubled breathing appear to be the most common symptoms, he says.

Some reported vague symptoms, Dr. Kemp says.

People may go to the doctor “not even realizing that they had COVID. That’s one of the important points here – to have a high index of suspicion for patients who come in with multiple symptoms,” she says.

For this reason, patients can report symptoms that don’t necessarily fit into any specialty, says Sarah J. Ryan, MD, an internal medicine doctor at Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York. People say they are “just not themselves” or they are tired after their COVID-19 recovery.
 

Is there a connection between severe COVID cases and severe long COVID?

“It’s not like that at all. I would say that more than 80% of the patients that we see had mild to moderate illness and they were not hospitalized,” Dr. Baratta says.

Long COVID is a bit different in children and teenagers, says Ixsy Ramirez, MD, a pediatric pulmonologist at University of Michigan Health, Ann Arbor. Most patients in the long COVID clinic at the University of Michigan were previously healthy, and not children with asthma or other lung conditions as one might expect. In fact, many are student athletes, or were before they had long COVID.

In this population, shortness of breath is most common, followed by chest pain and fatigue. Unfortunately, the symptoms are so serious for many kids that their performance is limited, even if they can return to competitive play.
 

Are there defined criteria you use to diagnose long COVID? How do you give someone a diagnosis?

That’s an ever-evolving question, Dr. Kemp says. The generally accepted definition centers on persistent or new symptoms 4 weeks or more after the original COVID-19 illness, but there are exceptions.

Researchers are working on lab tests to help confirm the diagnosis. But without a definitive blood biomarker, getting to the diagnosis requires “some thorough detective work,” Dr. Ryan says.
 

Do you bring in mental health providers to help with treatment?

“We focus on mental health quite a bit actually,” says, Dr. Chen, cofounder of his institution’s COVID recovery clinic. Mount Sinai offers one-on-one and group mental health services, for example.

“Personally, I’ve seen patients that I did not expect to have such severe mental health changes” with long COVID.
 

One of the most powerful accounts and testimonies I have seen on what most #LongCovid patients experience when interacting with their doctors.

“I did not fit in a box, so they chose not to see me, even worse they made me feel like it was my fault for not fitting in their box” pic.twitter.com/7GQLBucuO5

— charlos (@loscharlos) February 3, 2022

Examples include severe depression, cases of acute psychosis, hallucinations, and other problems “that are really unexpected after a viral illness.”

Stony Brook University Hospital in New York has a long COVID clinic staffed by multiple primary care doctors who do exams and refer patients to services. A bonus of offering psychological services to all post-COVID patients is doctors get a more complete picture of each person and a better understanding of what they are going through, says Abigail Chua, MD, a pulmonologist at Stony Brook.

Some empathy is essential, Dr. Baratta says. “It’s important to recognize that a lot of these patients present with a sense of grief or loss for their prior life.”
 

What does the future hold?

A simple test to diagnose long COVID, combined with an effective treatment that helps people feel better within a week, would be ideal, Dr. Abramoff says.

“That would be lovely. But you know, we’re just not at that point.”

And it would be helpful to start identifying subtypes of long COVID so diagnosis and treatment can be more targeted, Dr. Abramoff says. Otherwise, “It’s going to be a very challenging approach to try to treat all of our patients with long COVID symptoms the same way.”

Good clinical trials likewise are needed to address all the subtleties of long COVID.

A number of long COVID centers are collaborating on research to find out more, Dr. Chen says. Actions include setting up a bank of tissue samples from people with long COVID so researchers can continue to figure out the condition.

One goal, Dr. Chen says, would be the ability to treat long COVID rather than just its symptoms.

Long COVID emphasizes the need to prevent people from getting COVID in the first place, Dr. Ramirez says. This will continue to be important, particularly when some people dismiss the seriousness of COVID, comparing it to a cold if they get it. That attitude discounts the large number of people who unfortunately go on to develop long-term, often debilitating, symptoms.

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

Long COVID continues to be a moving target – continuously evolving and still surprising doctors and patients who have sometimes incapacitating long-term symptoms.

Little about the disorder seems predictable at this point. People can have long COVID after asymptomatic, mild, or severe COVID-19, for example. And when a person gets long COVID – also known as long-haul COVID – symptoms can vary widely.

To address all the uncertainty, the New York State Department of Health gathered experts in primary care, pediatrics, physical medicine, rehabilitation, and pulmonology to answer some pressing questions.

New York in 2020 was the first epicenter of the pandemic in the United States, making it also the center of the long COVID epidemic, says Emily Lutterloh, MD, director of the Division of Epidemiology at the New York State Department of Health.
 

What do you do when you’re seeing a patient with long COVID for the first time?

The first exam varies because there are so many different ways long COVID presents itself, says Benjamin Abramoff, MD, a physical medicine and rehabilitation specialist at Penn Medicine in Philadelphia.

I’ve now been seriously ill with #LongCovid for 11 months. I was never hospitalized. I didn’t even have a “mild” covid case. Instead, I developed Long Covid from an asymptomatic infection.

I’m far from unique. Up to 1/5 of asymptomatic patients go on to have long-term symptoms.

— Ravi Veriah Jacques (@RaviHVJ) February 3, 2022

Assessing their previous and current care also helps to direct their ongoing management, says Zijian Chen, MD, medical director of the Center for Post-COVID Care at Mount Sinai Health System in New York.
 

Can vaccination help people with long COVID?

Anything that we can do to help prevent people from being critically ill or being hospitalized with COVID-19 is helpful to prevent long COVID, says Dr. Abramoff, who is also director of the long COVID clinic at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

“So that’s something I always discuss with patients. In some research, sometimes patients do feel better after the vaccine,” he says.
 

What kind of therapies do you find helpful for your patients?

Rehabilitation is a key part of recovery from long COVID, Dr. Abramoff says. “It is very important to make this very patient-specific.”

“We have patients that are working. They’re already going to the gym in some cases but don’t feel like they have the same endurance,” he says. “And then we have patients who are so crippled by their fatigue that they can’t get out of bed.”
 

1/ What is #LongCOVID?!

A disabling malady from ongoing inflammation, autoimmunity, & potential viral reservoirs (GI, brain?)

NEW DATA: The Lungs “light up” on special MRI Scans 3 to 9 months later in patients never hospitalized for COVID.https://t.co/I2kyZ4cK5F pic.twitter.com/dL1P67L2DK

— WesElyMD (@WesElyMD) February 2, 2022

An exercise program can help people who have long COVID.

“There’s a big role for therapy services in the recovery of these patients,” says John Baratta, MD, of the department of physical medicine and rehabilitation at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

But the limited number of long COVID clinics can mean some people are unable to get to therapists trained on the needs of patients with lingering COVID symptoms. Educating community physical and occupational therapists is one solution.
 

How long does it take for people with long COVID to recover and get back to 100% if they can?

Specific numbers aren’t really available, Dr. Baratta says.

“But I can tell you the general trend that I see is that a lot of patients have a gradual improvement of symptoms. The slow but steady improvement with time may be the body’s natural healing process, a result of medical interventions, or both.”

It can help to reassure people with long COVID that they will not be discharged from care until they feel they’ve maximized their health, says Sharagim Kemp, DO, medical director of the COVID Recovery Program for Nuvance Health, a health system in New York and Connecticut.

It’s essential to set realistic recovery expectations and tell patients that not everyone will return to 100% of their pre-COVID functioning, she says.

“Once we are able to help them reset their expectations, there’s almost an accelerated recovery because they are not putting that pressure on themselves anymore,” Dr. Kemp says.
 

What are the most common symptoms you’re seeing in long COVID?

It’s helpful to think of long COVID as a very broad umbrella term, Dr. Abramoff says.

Echoing what many others have observed, fatigue, cognitive dysfunction or “brain fog,“ and shortness of breath or troubled breathing appear to be the most common symptoms, he says.

Some reported vague symptoms, Dr. Kemp says.

People may go to the doctor “not even realizing that they had COVID. That’s one of the important points here – to have a high index of suspicion for patients who come in with multiple symptoms,” she says.

For this reason, patients can report symptoms that don’t necessarily fit into any specialty, says Sarah J. Ryan, MD, an internal medicine doctor at Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York. People say they are “just not themselves” or they are tired after their COVID-19 recovery.
 

Is there a connection between severe COVID cases and severe long COVID?

“It’s not like that at all. I would say that more than 80% of the patients that we see had mild to moderate illness and they were not hospitalized,” Dr. Baratta says.

Long COVID is a bit different in children and teenagers, says Ixsy Ramirez, MD, a pediatric pulmonologist at University of Michigan Health, Ann Arbor. Most patients in the long COVID clinic at the University of Michigan were previously healthy, and not children with asthma or other lung conditions as one might expect. In fact, many are student athletes, or were before they had long COVID.

In this population, shortness of breath is most common, followed by chest pain and fatigue. Unfortunately, the symptoms are so serious for many kids that their performance is limited, even if they can return to competitive play.
 

Are there defined criteria you use to diagnose long COVID? How do you give someone a diagnosis?

That’s an ever-evolving question, Dr. Kemp says. The generally accepted definition centers on persistent or new symptoms 4 weeks or more after the original COVID-19 illness, but there are exceptions.

Researchers are working on lab tests to help confirm the diagnosis. But without a definitive blood biomarker, getting to the diagnosis requires “some thorough detective work,” Dr. Ryan says.
 

Do you bring in mental health providers to help with treatment?

“We focus on mental health quite a bit actually,” says, Dr. Chen, cofounder of his institution’s COVID recovery clinic. Mount Sinai offers one-on-one and group mental health services, for example.

“Personally, I’ve seen patients that I did not expect to have such severe mental health changes” with long COVID.
 

One of the most powerful accounts and testimonies I have seen on what most #LongCovid patients experience when interacting with their doctors.

“I did not fit in a box, so they chose not to see me, even worse they made me feel like it was my fault for not fitting in their box” pic.twitter.com/7GQLBucuO5

— charlos (@loscharlos) February 3, 2022

Examples include severe depression, cases of acute psychosis, hallucinations, and other problems “that are really unexpected after a viral illness.”

Stony Brook University Hospital in New York has a long COVID clinic staffed by multiple primary care doctors who do exams and refer patients to services. A bonus of offering psychological services to all post-COVID patients is doctors get a more complete picture of each person and a better understanding of what they are going through, says Abigail Chua, MD, a pulmonologist at Stony Brook.

Some empathy is essential, Dr. Baratta says. “It’s important to recognize that a lot of these patients present with a sense of grief or loss for their prior life.”
 

What does the future hold?

A simple test to diagnose long COVID, combined with an effective treatment that helps people feel better within a week, would be ideal, Dr. Abramoff says.

“That would be lovely. But you know, we’re just not at that point.”

And it would be helpful to start identifying subtypes of long COVID so diagnosis and treatment can be more targeted, Dr. Abramoff says. Otherwise, “It’s going to be a very challenging approach to try to treat all of our patients with long COVID symptoms the same way.”

Good clinical trials likewise are needed to address all the subtleties of long COVID.

A number of long COVID centers are collaborating on research to find out more, Dr. Chen says. Actions include setting up a bank of tissue samples from people with long COVID so researchers can continue to figure out the condition.

One goal, Dr. Chen says, would be the ability to treat long COVID rather than just its symptoms.

Long COVID emphasizes the need to prevent people from getting COVID in the first place, Dr. Ramirez says. This will continue to be important, particularly when some people dismiss the seriousness of COVID, comparing it to a cold if they get it. That attitude discounts the large number of people who unfortunately go on to develop long-term, often debilitating, symptoms.

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