Priapism is a disorder that occurs when the penis maintains a prolonged erection in the absence of appropriate stimulation. The disorder is typically divided into subgroups based on arterial flow: low flow (ischemic) and high flow (nonischemic). Ischemic priapism is the most common form and results from venous congestion due to obstructed outflow and inability of cavernous smooth muscle to contract, resulting in compartment syndrome, tissue hypoxia, hypercapnia, and acidosis.¹ Conditions that result in hypercoagulable states and hyperviscosity are associated with ischemic priapism. COVID-19 is well known to cause an acute respiratory illness and systemic inflammatory response and has been increasingly associated with coagulopathy. Studies have shown that 20% to 55% of patients admitted to the hospital for COVID-19 show objective laboratory evidence of a hypercoagulable state.²

To date, there are 6 reported cases of priapism occurring in the setting of COVID-19 with all cases demonstrating the ischemic subtype. The onset of priapism from the beginning of infectious symptoms ranged from 2 days to more than a month. Five of the cases occurred in patients with critical COVID-19 and 1 in the setting of mild disease.^3-8 Two critically ill patients did not receive treatment for their ischemic priapism as they were transitioned to expectant management and/or comfort measures.Most were treated with cavernosal blood aspiration and intracavernosal injections of phenylephrine or ethylephrine. Some patients were managed with prophylactic doses of anticoagulation after the identification of priapism; others were transitioned to therapeutic doses. Two patients were followed postdischarge; one patient reported normal nighttime erections with sexual desire 2 weeks postdischarge, and another patient, who underwent a bilateral T-shunt procedure after unsuccessful phenylephrine injections, reported complete erectile dysfunction at 3 months postdischarge.^4,7 There was a potentially confounding variable in 2 cases in which propofol infusions were used for sedation management in the setting of mechanical ventilation.^6,8 Propofol has been linked to priapism through its blockade of sympathetic activation resulting in persistent relaxation of cavernosal smooth muscle.⁹ We present a unique case of COVID-19–associated ischemic priapism as our patient had moderate rather than critical COVID-19.

Case Presentation

A 67-year-old male patient presented to the emergency department for a painful erection of 34-hour duration. The patient had been exposed to COVID-19 roughly 2 months prior. Since the exposure, he had experienced headache, nonproductive cough, sore throat, and decreased appetite with weight loss. His medical history included hypertension, thoracic aortic aneurysm, B-cell type chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), and obstructive sleep apnea. Daily outpatient medications included atenolol 100 mg, hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg, and omeprazole 20 mg. The patient stopped tobacco use about 30 years previously. He reported no alcohol consumption or illicit drug use and had no previous episodes of prolonged erection.

The patient was afebrile, hemodynamically stable, and had an oxygen saturation of 92% on room air. Physical examination revealed clear breath sounds and an erect circumcised penis without any lesions, discoloration, or skin necrosis. Laboratory data were remarkable for the following values: 125,660 cells/μL white blood cells (WBCs), 13.82 × 10³/ μL neutrophils, 110.58 × 10³/μL lymphocytes, 1.26 × 10³/μL monocytes, no blasts, 9.4 gm/dL hemoglobin, 100.3 fl mean corpuscular volume, 417,000 cells/μL platelets, 23,671 ng/mL D-dimer, 29.6 seconds activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT), 16.3 seconds prothrombin time, 743 mg/dL fibrinogen, 474 U/L lactate dehydrogenase, and 202.1 mg/dL haptoglobin. A nasopharyngeal reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction test resulted positive for the SARS-CoV-2 virus, and subsequent chest X-ray revealed bilateral, hazy opacities predominantly in a peripheral distribution. Computed tomography (CT) angiogram of the chest did not reveal pulmonary emboli, pneumothorax, effusions, or lobar consolidation. However, it displayed bilateral ground-glass opacities with interstitial consolidation worst in the upper lobes. Corporal aspiration and blood gas analysis revealed a pH of 7.05, Pco₂ of 64 mm Hg, and Po₂ of 33 mm Hg.

Differential Diagnosis

The first consideration in the differential diagnosis of priapism is to differentiate between ischemic and nonischemic. Based on the abnormal blood gas results above, this case clearly falls within the ischemic spectrum. Ischemic priapism secondary to CLL-induced hyperleukocytosis was considered. It has been noted that up to 20% of priapism cases in adults are related to hematologic disorders.¹⁰ While it is not uncommon to see hyperleukocytosis (total WBC count > 100 × 10⁹/L) in CLL, leukostasis is rare with most reports demonstrating WBC counts > 1000 × 10⁹/L.¹¹ Hematology, vascular surgery, and urology services were consulted and agreed that ischemic priapism was due to microthrombi or pelvic vein thrombosis secondary to COVID-19–associated coagulopathy (CAC) was the most likely etiology.

Treatment

After corporal aspiration, intracorporal phenylephrine was administered. Diluted phenylephrine (100 ug/mL) was injected every 5 to 10 minutes while intermittently aspirating and irrigating multiple sites along the lateral length of the penile shaft. This initial procedure reduced the erection from 100% to 30% rigidity, with repeat blood gas analysis revealing minimal improvement. CT of the abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast revealed no evidence of pelvic thrombi. A second round of phenylephrine injections were administered, resulting in detumescence. The patient was treated with 2 to 3 L/min of oxygen supplementation via nasal cannula, a 5-day course of remdesivir and low-intensity heparin drip. Following the initial low-intensity heparin drip, the patient transitioned to therapeutic enoxaparin and subsequently was discharged on apixaban for a 3-month course. Since discharge, the patient followed up with hematology. He tolerated and completed the anticoagulation regimen without any recurrences of priapism or residual deficits.

Discussion

Recent studies have overwhelmingly analyzed the incidence and presentation of thrombotic complications in critically ill patients with COVID-19. CAC has been postulated to result from endotheliopathy along with immune cell activation and propagation of coagulation. While COVID-19 has been noted to create lung injury through binding angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptors expressed on alveolar pneumocytes, it increasingly has been found to affect endothelial cells throughout the body. Recent postmortem analyses have demonstrated direct viral infection of endothelial cells with consequent diffuse endothelial inflammation, as evidenced by viral inclusions, sequestered immune cells, and endothelial apoptosis.^12,13 Manifestations of this endotheliopathy have been delineated through various studies.

An early retrospective study in Wuhan, China, illustrated that 36% of the first 99 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 demonstrated an elevated D-dimer, 6% an elevated aPTT, and 5% an elevated prothrombin time.¹⁴ Another retrospective study conducted in Wuhan found a 25% incidence of venous thromboembolic complications in critically ill patients with severe COVID-19.¹⁵ In the Netherlands, a study reported the incidence of arterial and venous thrombotic complications to be 31% in 184 critically ill patients with COVID-19, with 81% of these cases involving pulmonary emboli.¹⁶

To our knowledge, our patient is the seventh reported case of ischemic priapism occurring in the setting of a COVID-19 infection, and the first to have occurred in its moderate form. Ischemic priapism is often a consequence of penile venous outflow obstruction and resultant stasis of hypoxic blood.⁷ The prothrombotic state induced by CAC has been proposed to cause the obstruction of small emissary veins in the subtunical space and in turn lead to venous stasis, which propagates the formation of ischemic priapism.⁸ Furthermore, 4 of the previously reported cases shared laboratory data on their patients, and all demonstrated elevated D-dimer and fibrinogen levels, which strengthens this hypothesis.^3,5,7,8 CLL presents a potential confounding variable in this case; however, as we have reviewed earlier, the risk of leukostasis at WBC counts < 1000 × 10⁹/L is very low.¹¹ It is also probable that the patient had some level of immune dysregulation secondary to CLL, leading to his prolonged course and slow clearance of the virus.

Conclusions

Although only a handful of CAC cases leading to ischemic priapism have been reported, the true incidence may be much higher. While our case highlights the importance of considering COVID-19 infection in the differential diagnosis of ischemic priapism, more research is needed to understand incidence and definitively establish a causative relationship.

Priapism is a disorder that occurs when the penis maintains a prolonged erection in the absence of appropriate stimulation. The disorder is typically divided into subgroups based on arterial flow: low flow (ischemic) and high flow (nonischemic). Ischemic priapism is the most common form and results from venous congestion due to obstructed outflow and inability of cavernous smooth muscle to contract, resulting in compartment syndrome, tissue hypoxia, hypercapnia, and acidosis.¹ Conditions that result in hypercoagulable states and hyperviscosity are associated with ischemic priapism. COVID-19 is well known to cause an acute respiratory illness and systemic inflammatory response and has been increasingly associated with coagulopathy. Studies have shown that 20% to 55% of patients admitted to the hospital for COVID-19 show objective laboratory evidence of a hypercoagulable state.²

To date, there are 6 reported cases of priapism occurring in the setting of COVID-19 with all cases demonstrating the ischemic subtype. The onset of priapism from the beginning of infectious symptoms ranged from 2 days to more than a month. Five of the cases occurred in patients with critical COVID-19 and 1 in the setting of mild disease.^3-8 Two critically ill patients did not receive treatment for their ischemic priapism as they were transitioned to expectant management and/or comfort measures.Most were treated with cavernosal blood aspiration and intracavernosal injections of phenylephrine or ethylephrine. Some patients were managed with prophylactic doses of anticoagulation after the identification of priapism; others were transitioned to therapeutic doses. Two patients were followed postdischarge; one patient reported normal nighttime erections with sexual desire 2 weeks postdischarge, and another patient, who underwent a bilateral T-shunt procedure after unsuccessful phenylephrine injections, reported complete erectile dysfunction at 3 months postdischarge.^4,7 There was a potentially confounding variable in 2 cases in which propofol infusions were used for sedation management in the setting of mechanical ventilation.^6,8 Propofol has been linked to priapism through its blockade of sympathetic activation resulting in persistent relaxation of cavernosal smooth muscle.⁹ We present a unique case of COVID-19–associated ischemic priapism as our patient had moderate rather than critical COVID-19.

Case Presentation

A 67-year-old male patient presented to the emergency department for a painful erection of 34-hour duration. The patient had been exposed to COVID-19 roughly 2 months prior. Since the exposure, he had experienced headache, nonproductive cough, sore throat, and decreased appetite with weight loss. His medical history included hypertension, thoracic aortic aneurysm, B-cell type chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), and obstructive sleep apnea. Daily outpatient medications included atenolol 100 mg, hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg, and omeprazole 20 mg. The patient stopped tobacco use about 30 years previously. He reported no alcohol consumption or illicit drug use and had no previous episodes of prolonged erection.

The patient was afebrile, hemodynamically stable, and had an oxygen saturation of 92% on room air. Physical examination revealed clear breath sounds and an erect circumcised penis without any lesions, discoloration, or skin necrosis. Laboratory data were remarkable for the following values: 125,660 cells/μL white blood cells (WBCs), 13.82 × 10³/ μL neutrophils, 110.58 × 10³/μL lymphocytes, 1.26 × 10³/μL monocytes, no blasts, 9.4 gm/dL hemoglobin, 100.3 fl mean corpuscular volume, 417,000 cells/μL platelets, 23,671 ng/mL D-dimer, 29.6 seconds activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT), 16.3 seconds prothrombin time, 743 mg/dL fibrinogen, 474 U/L lactate dehydrogenase, and 202.1 mg/dL haptoglobin. A nasopharyngeal reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction test resulted positive for the SARS-CoV-2 virus, and subsequent chest X-ray revealed bilateral, hazy opacities predominantly in a peripheral distribution. Computed tomography (CT) angiogram of the chest did not reveal pulmonary emboli, pneumothorax, effusions, or lobar consolidation. However, it displayed bilateral ground-glass opacities with interstitial consolidation worst in the upper lobes. Corporal aspiration and blood gas analysis revealed a pH of 7.05, Pco₂ of 64 mm Hg, and Po₂ of 33 mm Hg.

Differential Diagnosis

The first consideration in the differential diagnosis of priapism is to differentiate between ischemic and nonischemic. Based on the abnormal blood gas results above, this case clearly falls within the ischemic spectrum. Ischemic priapism secondary to CLL-induced hyperleukocytosis was considered. It has been noted that up to 20% of priapism cases in adults are related to hematologic disorders.¹⁰ While it is not uncommon to see hyperleukocytosis (total WBC count > 100 × 10⁹/L) in CLL, leukostasis is rare with most reports demonstrating WBC counts > 1000 × 10⁹/L.¹¹ Hematology, vascular surgery, and urology services were consulted and agreed that ischemic priapism was due to microthrombi or pelvic vein thrombosis secondary to COVID-19–associated coagulopathy (CAC) was the most likely etiology.

Treatment

After corporal aspiration, intracorporal phenylephrine was administered. Diluted phenylephrine (100 ug/mL) was injected every 5 to 10 minutes while intermittently aspirating and irrigating multiple sites along the lateral length of the penile shaft. This initial procedure reduced the erection from 100% to 30% rigidity, with repeat blood gas analysis revealing minimal improvement. CT of the abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast revealed no evidence of pelvic thrombi. A second round of phenylephrine injections were administered, resulting in detumescence. The patient was treated with 2 to 3 L/min of oxygen supplementation via nasal cannula, a 5-day course of remdesivir and low-intensity heparin drip. Following the initial low-intensity heparin drip, the patient transitioned to therapeutic enoxaparin and subsequently was discharged on apixaban for a 3-month course. Since discharge, the patient followed up with hematology. He tolerated and completed the anticoagulation regimen without any recurrences of priapism or residual deficits.

Discussion

Recent studies have overwhelmingly analyzed the incidence and presentation of thrombotic complications in critically ill patients with COVID-19. CAC has been postulated to result from endotheliopathy along with immune cell activation and propagation of coagulation. While COVID-19 has been noted to create lung injury through binding angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptors expressed on alveolar pneumocytes, it increasingly has been found to affect endothelial cells throughout the body. Recent postmortem analyses have demonstrated direct viral infection of endothelial cells with consequent diffuse endothelial inflammation, as evidenced by viral inclusions, sequestered immune cells, and endothelial apoptosis.^12,13 Manifestations of this endotheliopathy have been delineated through various studies.

An early retrospective study in Wuhan, China, illustrated that 36% of the first 99 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 demonstrated an elevated D-dimer, 6% an elevated aPTT, and 5% an elevated prothrombin time.¹⁴ Another retrospective study conducted in Wuhan found a 25% incidence of venous thromboembolic complications in critically ill patients with severe COVID-19.¹⁵ In the Netherlands, a study reported the incidence of arterial and venous thrombotic complications to be 31% in 184 critically ill patients with COVID-19, with 81% of these cases involving pulmonary emboli.¹⁶

To our knowledge, our patient is the seventh reported case of ischemic priapism occurring in the setting of a COVID-19 infection, and the first to have occurred in its moderate form. Ischemic priapism is often a consequence of penile venous outflow obstruction and resultant stasis of hypoxic blood.⁷ The prothrombotic state induced by CAC has been proposed to cause the obstruction of small emissary veins in the subtunical space and in turn lead to venous stasis, which propagates the formation of ischemic priapism.⁸ Furthermore, 4 of the previously reported cases shared laboratory data on their patients, and all demonstrated elevated D-dimer and fibrinogen levels, which strengthens this hypothesis.^3,5,7,8 CLL presents a potential confounding variable in this case; however, as we have reviewed earlier, the risk of leukostasis at WBC counts < 1000 × 10⁹/L is very low.¹¹ It is also probable that the patient had some level of immune dysregulation secondary to CLL, leading to his prolonged course and slow clearance of the virus.

Conclusions

Although only a handful of CAC cases leading to ischemic priapism have been reported, the true incidence may be much higher. While our case highlights the importance of considering COVID-19 infection in the differential diagnosis of ischemic priapism, more research is needed to understand incidence and definitively establish a causative relationship.

Priapism is a disorder that occurs when the penis maintains a prolonged erection in the absence of appropriate stimulation. The disorder is typically divided into subgroups based on arterial flow: low flow (ischemic) and high flow (nonischemic). Ischemic priapism is the most common form and results from venous congestion due to obstructed outflow and inability of cavernous smooth muscle to contract, resulting in compartment syndrome, tissue hypoxia, hypercapnia, and acidosis.¹ Conditions that result in hypercoagulable states and hyperviscosity are associated with ischemic priapism. COVID-19 is well known to cause an acute respiratory illness and systemic inflammatory response and has been increasingly associated with coagulopathy. Studies have shown that 20% to 55% of patients admitted to the hospital for COVID-19 show objective laboratory evidence of a hypercoagulable state.²

To date, there are 6 reported cases of priapism occurring in the setting of COVID-19 with all cases demonstrating the ischemic subtype. The onset of priapism from the beginning of infectious symptoms ranged from 2 days to more than a month. Five of the cases occurred in patients with critical COVID-19 and 1 in the setting of mild disease.^3-8 Two critically ill patients did not receive treatment for their ischemic priapism as they were transitioned to expectant management and/or comfort measures.Most were treated with cavernosal blood aspiration and intracavernosal injections of phenylephrine or ethylephrine. Some patients were managed with prophylactic doses of anticoagulation after the identification of priapism; others were transitioned to therapeutic doses. Two patients were followed postdischarge; one patient reported normal nighttime erections with sexual desire 2 weeks postdischarge, and another patient, who underwent a bilateral T-shunt procedure after unsuccessful phenylephrine injections, reported complete erectile dysfunction at 3 months postdischarge.^4,7 There was a potentially confounding variable in 2 cases in which propofol infusions were used for sedation management in the setting of mechanical ventilation.^6,8 Propofol has been linked to priapism through its blockade of sympathetic activation resulting in persistent relaxation of cavernosal smooth muscle.⁹ We present a unique case of COVID-19–associated ischemic priapism as our patient had moderate rather than critical COVID-19.

Case Presentation

A 67-year-old male patient presented to the emergency department for a painful erection of 34-hour duration. The patient had been exposed to COVID-19 roughly 2 months prior. Since the exposure, he had experienced headache, nonproductive cough, sore throat, and decreased appetite with weight loss. His medical history included hypertension, thoracic aortic aneurysm, B-cell type chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), and obstructive sleep apnea. Daily outpatient medications included atenolol 100 mg, hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg, and omeprazole 20 mg. The patient stopped tobacco use about 30 years previously. He reported no alcohol consumption or illicit drug use and had no previous episodes of prolonged erection.

The patient was afebrile, hemodynamically stable, and had an oxygen saturation of 92% on room air. Physical examination revealed clear breath sounds and an erect circumcised penis without any lesions, discoloration, or skin necrosis. Laboratory data were remarkable for the following values: 125,660 cells/μL white blood cells (WBCs), 13.82 × 10³/ μL neutrophils, 110.58 × 10³/μL lymphocytes, 1.26 × 10³/μL monocytes, no blasts, 9.4 gm/dL hemoglobin, 100.3 fl mean corpuscular volume, 417,000 cells/μL platelets, 23,671 ng/mL D-dimer, 29.6 seconds activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT), 16.3 seconds prothrombin time, 743 mg/dL fibrinogen, 474 U/L lactate dehydrogenase, and 202.1 mg/dL haptoglobin. A nasopharyngeal reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction test resulted positive for the SARS-CoV-2 virus, and subsequent chest X-ray revealed bilateral, hazy opacities predominantly in a peripheral distribution. Computed tomography (CT) angiogram of the chest did not reveal pulmonary emboli, pneumothorax, effusions, or lobar consolidation. However, it displayed bilateral ground-glass opacities with interstitial consolidation worst in the upper lobes. Corporal aspiration and blood gas analysis revealed a pH of 7.05, Pco₂ of 64 mm Hg, and Po₂ of 33 mm Hg.

Differential Diagnosis

The first consideration in the differential diagnosis of priapism is to differentiate between ischemic and nonischemic. Based on the abnormal blood gas results above, this case clearly falls within the ischemic spectrum. Ischemic priapism secondary to CLL-induced hyperleukocytosis was considered. It has been noted that up to 20% of priapism cases in adults are related to hematologic disorders.¹⁰ While it is not uncommon to see hyperleukocytosis (total WBC count > 100 × 10⁹/L) in CLL, leukostasis is rare with most reports demonstrating WBC counts > 1000 × 10⁹/L.¹¹ Hematology, vascular surgery, and urology services were consulted and agreed that ischemic priapism was due to microthrombi or pelvic vein thrombosis secondary to COVID-19–associated coagulopathy (CAC) was the most likely etiology.

Treatment

After corporal aspiration, intracorporal phenylephrine was administered. Diluted phenylephrine (100 ug/mL) was injected every 5 to 10 minutes while intermittently aspirating and irrigating multiple sites along the lateral length of the penile shaft. This initial procedure reduced the erection from 100% to 30% rigidity, with repeat blood gas analysis revealing minimal improvement. CT of the abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast revealed no evidence of pelvic thrombi. A second round of phenylephrine injections were administered, resulting in detumescence. The patient was treated with 2 to 3 L/min of oxygen supplementation via nasal cannula, a 5-day course of remdesivir and low-intensity heparin drip. Following the initial low-intensity heparin drip, the patient transitioned to therapeutic enoxaparin and subsequently was discharged on apixaban for a 3-month course. Since discharge, the patient followed up with hematology. He tolerated and completed the anticoagulation regimen without any recurrences of priapism or residual deficits.

Discussion

Recent studies have overwhelmingly analyzed the incidence and presentation of thrombotic complications in critically ill patients with COVID-19. CAC has been postulated to result from endotheliopathy along with immune cell activation and propagation of coagulation. While COVID-19 has been noted to create lung injury through binding angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptors expressed on alveolar pneumocytes, it increasingly has been found to affect endothelial cells throughout the body. Recent postmortem analyses have demonstrated direct viral infection of endothelial cells with consequent diffuse endothelial inflammation, as evidenced by viral inclusions, sequestered immune cells, and endothelial apoptosis.^12,13 Manifestations of this endotheliopathy have been delineated through various studies.

An early retrospective study in Wuhan, China, illustrated that 36% of the first 99 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 demonstrated an elevated D-dimer, 6% an elevated aPTT, and 5% an elevated prothrombin time.¹⁴ Another retrospective study conducted in Wuhan found a 25% incidence of venous thromboembolic complications in critically ill patients with severe COVID-19.¹⁵ In the Netherlands, a study reported the incidence of arterial and venous thrombotic complications to be 31% in 184 critically ill patients with COVID-19, with 81% of these cases involving pulmonary emboli.¹⁶

To our knowledge, our patient is the seventh reported case of ischemic priapism occurring in the setting of a COVID-19 infection, and the first to have occurred in its moderate form. Ischemic priapism is often a consequence of penile venous outflow obstruction and resultant stasis of hypoxic blood.⁷ The prothrombotic state induced by CAC has been proposed to cause the obstruction of small emissary veins in the subtunical space and in turn lead to venous stasis, which propagates the formation of ischemic priapism.⁸ Furthermore, 4 of the previously reported cases shared laboratory data on their patients, and all demonstrated elevated D-dimer and fibrinogen levels, which strengthens this hypothesis.^3,5,7,8 CLL presents a potential confounding variable in this case; however, as we have reviewed earlier, the risk of leukostasis at WBC counts < 1000 × 10⁹/L is very low.¹¹ It is also probable that the patient had some level of immune dysregulation secondary to CLL, leading to his prolonged course and slow clearance of the virus.

Conclusions

Although only a handful of CAC cases leading to ischemic priapism have been reported, the true incidence may be much higher. While our case highlights the importance of considering COVID-19 infection in the differential diagnosis of ischemic priapism, more research is needed to understand incidence and definitively establish a causative relationship.

Paraneoplastic syndrome is a rare disorder involving manifestations of immune dysregulation triggered by malignancy. The immune system develops antibodies to the malignancy, which can cause cross reactivation with various tissues in the body, resulting in an autoimmune response. Paraneoplastic cerebellar degeneration (PCD) is a rare condition caused by immune-mediated damage to the Purkinje cells of the cerebellar tract. Symptoms may include gait instability, double vision, decreased fine motor skills, and ataxia, with progression to brainstem-associated symptoms, such as nystagmus, dysarthria, and dysphagia. Early detection and treatment of the underlying malignancy is critical to halt the progression of autoimmune-mediated destruction. We present a case of a young adult female patient with PCD caused by Purkinje cell cytoplasmic–Tr (PCA-Tr) antibody with Hodgkin lymphoma.

Case Presentation

A 20-year-old previously healthy active-duty female patient presented to the emergency department with acute worsening of chronic intermittent, recurrent episodes of lightheadedness and vertigo. Symptoms persisted for 9 months until acutely worsening over the 2 weeks prior to presentation. She reported left eye double vision but did not report seeing spots, photophobia, tinnitus, or headache. She felt off-balance, leaning on nearby objects to remain standing. Symptoms primarily occurred during ambulation; however, occasionally they happened at rest. Episodes lasted up to several minutes and occurred up to 15 times a day. The patient reported no fever, night sweats, unexplained weight loss, muscle aches, weakness, numbness or tingling, loss of bowel or bladder function, or rash. She had no recent illnesses, changes to medications, or recent travel. Oral intake to include food and water was adequate and unchanged. The patient had a remote history of mild concussions without loss of consciousness while playing sports 4 years previously. She reported no recent trauma. Nine months before, she received treatment for benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV) with the Epley maneuver with full resolution of symptoms lasting several days. She reported no prescription or over-the-counter medications, herbal remedies, or supplements. She reported no other medical or surgical history and no pertinent social or family history.

Physical examination revealed a nontoxic-appearing female patient with intermittent conversational dysarthria, saccadic pursuits, horizontal nystagmus with lateral gaze, and vertical nystagmus with vertical gaze. The patient exhibited dysdiadochokinesia, or impaired ability to perform rapid alternating hand movements with repetition. Finger-to-nose testing was impaired and heel-to-shin motion remained intact. A Romberg test was positive, and the patient had tandem gait instability. Strength testing, sensation, reflexes, and cranial nerves were otherwise intact. Initial laboratory testing was unremarkable except for mild normocytic anemia. Her infectious workup, including testing for venereal disease, HIV, COVID-19, and Coccidioidies was negative. Heavy metals analysis and urine drug screen were negative. Ophthalmology was consulted and workup revealed small amplitude downbeat nystagmus in primary gaze, sustained gaze evoked lateral beating jerk nystagmus with rebound nystagmus R>L gaze, but there was no evidence of afferent package defect and optic nerve function remained intact. Magnetic resonance imaging of the brain demonstrated cerebellar vermis hypoplasia with prominence of the superior cerebellar folia. Due to concerns for autoimmune encephalitis, a lumbar puncture was performed. Antibody testing revealed PCA-Tr antibodies, which is commonly associated with Hodgkin lymphoma, prompting further evaluation for malignancy.

Computed tomography (CT) of the chest with contrast demonstrated multiple mediastinal masses with a conglomeration of lymph nodes along the right paratracheal region. Further evaluation was performed with a positron emission tomography (PET)–CT, revealing a large conglomeration of hypermetabolic pretracheal, mediastinal, and right supraclavicular lymph that were suggestive of lymphoma. Mediastinoscopy with excisional lymph node biopsy was performed with immunohistochemical staining confirming diagnosis of a nodular sclerosing variant of Hodgkin lymphoma. The patient was treated with IV immunoglobulin at 0.4g/kg daily for 5 days. A central venous catheter was placed into the patient’s right internal jugular vein and a chemotherapy regimen of doxorubicin 46 mg, vinblastine 11 mg, bleomycin 19 units, and dacarbazine 700 mg was initiated. The patient’s symptoms improved with resolution of dysarthria; however, her visual impairment and gait instability persisted. Repeat PET-CT imaging 2 months later revealed interval improvement with decreased intensity and extent of the hypermetabolic lymph nodes and no new hypermetabolic foci.

Discussion

PCA-Tr antibodies affect the delta/notchlike epidermal growth factor–related receptor, expressed on the dendrites of cerebellar Purkinje cells.¹ These fibers are the only output neurons of the cerebellar cortex and are critical to the coordination of motor movements, accounting for the ataxia experienced by patients with this subtype of PCD.² The link between Hodgkin lymphoma and PCA-Tr antibodies has been established; however, most reports involve men with a median age of 61 years with lymphoma-associated symptoms (such as lymphadenopathy) or systemic symptoms (fever, night sweats, or weight loss) preceding neurologic manifestations in 80% of cases.³

Our patient was a young, previously healthy adult female who initially presented with vertigo, a common concern with frequently benign origins. Although there was temporary resolution of symptoms after Epley maneuvers, symptoms recurred and progressed over several months to include brainstem manifestations of nystagmus, diplopia, and dysarthria. Previous reports indicate that after remission of the Hodgkin lymphoma, PCA-Tr antibodies disappear and symptoms can improve or resolve.^4,5 Treatment has just begun for our patient and although there has been initial clinical improvement, given the chronicity of symptoms, it is unclear if complete resolution will be achieved.

Conclusions

PCD can result in debilitating neurologic dysfunction and may be associated with malignancy such as Hodgkin lymphoma. This case offers unique insight due to the patient’s demographics and presentation, which involved brainstem pathology typically associated with late-onset disease and preceded by constitutional symptoms. Clinical suspicion of this rare disorder should be considered in all ages, especially if symptoms are progressive or neurologic manifestations arise, as early detection and treatment of the underlying malignancy are paramount to the prevention of significant disability.

Paraneoplastic syndrome is a rare disorder involving manifestations of immune dysregulation triggered by malignancy. The immune system develops antibodies to the malignancy, which can cause cross reactivation with various tissues in the body, resulting in an autoimmune response. Paraneoplastic cerebellar degeneration (PCD) is a rare condition caused by immune-mediated damage to the Purkinje cells of the cerebellar tract. Symptoms may include gait instability, double vision, decreased fine motor skills, and ataxia, with progression to brainstem-associated symptoms, such as nystagmus, dysarthria, and dysphagia. Early detection and treatment of the underlying malignancy is critical to halt the progression of autoimmune-mediated destruction. We present a case of a young adult female patient with PCD caused by Purkinje cell cytoplasmic–Tr (PCA-Tr) antibody with Hodgkin lymphoma.

Case Presentation

A 20-year-old previously healthy active-duty female patient presented to the emergency department with acute worsening of chronic intermittent, recurrent episodes of lightheadedness and vertigo. Symptoms persisted for 9 months until acutely worsening over the 2 weeks prior to presentation. She reported left eye double vision but did not report seeing spots, photophobia, tinnitus, or headache. She felt off-balance, leaning on nearby objects to remain standing. Symptoms primarily occurred during ambulation; however, occasionally they happened at rest. Episodes lasted up to several minutes and occurred up to 15 times a day. The patient reported no fever, night sweats, unexplained weight loss, muscle aches, weakness, numbness or tingling, loss of bowel or bladder function, or rash. She had no recent illnesses, changes to medications, or recent travel. Oral intake to include food and water was adequate and unchanged. The patient had a remote history of mild concussions without loss of consciousness while playing sports 4 years previously. She reported no recent trauma. Nine months before, she received treatment for benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV) with the Epley maneuver with full resolution of symptoms lasting several days. She reported no prescription or over-the-counter medications, herbal remedies, or supplements. She reported no other medical or surgical history and no pertinent social or family history.

Physical examination revealed a nontoxic-appearing female patient with intermittent conversational dysarthria, saccadic pursuits, horizontal nystagmus with lateral gaze, and vertical nystagmus with vertical gaze. The patient exhibited dysdiadochokinesia, or impaired ability to perform rapid alternating hand movements with repetition. Finger-to-nose testing was impaired and heel-to-shin motion remained intact. A Romberg test was positive, and the patient had tandem gait instability. Strength testing, sensation, reflexes, and cranial nerves were otherwise intact. Initial laboratory testing was unremarkable except for mild normocytic anemia. Her infectious workup, including testing for venereal disease, HIV, COVID-19, and Coccidioidies was negative. Heavy metals analysis and urine drug screen were negative. Ophthalmology was consulted and workup revealed small amplitude downbeat nystagmus in primary gaze, sustained gaze evoked lateral beating jerk nystagmus with rebound nystagmus R>L gaze, but there was no evidence of afferent package defect and optic nerve function remained intact. Magnetic resonance imaging of the brain demonstrated cerebellar vermis hypoplasia with prominence of the superior cerebellar folia. Due to concerns for autoimmune encephalitis, a lumbar puncture was performed. Antibody testing revealed PCA-Tr antibodies, which is commonly associated with Hodgkin lymphoma, prompting further evaluation for malignancy.

Computed tomography (CT) of the chest with contrast demonstrated multiple mediastinal masses with a conglomeration of lymph nodes along the right paratracheal region. Further evaluation was performed with a positron emission tomography (PET)–CT, revealing a large conglomeration of hypermetabolic pretracheal, mediastinal, and right supraclavicular lymph that were suggestive of lymphoma. Mediastinoscopy with excisional lymph node biopsy was performed with immunohistochemical staining confirming diagnosis of a nodular sclerosing variant of Hodgkin lymphoma. The patient was treated with IV immunoglobulin at 0.4g/kg daily for 5 days. A central venous catheter was placed into the patient’s right internal jugular vein and a chemotherapy regimen of doxorubicin 46 mg, vinblastine 11 mg, bleomycin 19 units, and dacarbazine 700 mg was initiated. The patient’s symptoms improved with resolution of dysarthria; however, her visual impairment and gait instability persisted. Repeat PET-CT imaging 2 months later revealed interval improvement with decreased intensity and extent of the hypermetabolic lymph nodes and no new hypermetabolic foci.

Discussion

PCA-Tr antibodies affect the delta/notchlike epidermal growth factor–related receptor, expressed on the dendrites of cerebellar Purkinje cells.¹ These fibers are the only output neurons of the cerebellar cortex and are critical to the coordination of motor movements, accounting for the ataxia experienced by patients with this subtype of PCD.² The link between Hodgkin lymphoma and PCA-Tr antibodies has been established; however, most reports involve men with a median age of 61 years with lymphoma-associated symptoms (such as lymphadenopathy) or systemic symptoms (fever, night sweats, or weight loss) preceding neurologic manifestations in 80% of cases.³

Our patient was a young, previously healthy adult female who initially presented with vertigo, a common concern with frequently benign origins. Although there was temporary resolution of symptoms after Epley maneuvers, symptoms recurred and progressed over several months to include brainstem manifestations of nystagmus, diplopia, and dysarthria. Previous reports indicate that after remission of the Hodgkin lymphoma, PCA-Tr antibodies disappear and symptoms can improve or resolve.^4,5 Treatment has just begun for our patient and although there has been initial clinical improvement, given the chronicity of symptoms, it is unclear if complete resolution will be achieved.

Conclusions

PCD can result in debilitating neurologic dysfunction and may be associated with malignancy such as Hodgkin lymphoma. This case offers unique insight due to the patient’s demographics and presentation, which involved brainstem pathology typically associated with late-onset disease and preceded by constitutional symptoms. Clinical suspicion of this rare disorder should be considered in all ages, especially if symptoms are progressive or neurologic manifestations arise, as early detection and treatment of the underlying malignancy are paramount to the prevention of significant disability.

Paraneoplastic syndrome is a rare disorder involving manifestations of immune dysregulation triggered by malignancy. The immune system develops antibodies to the malignancy, which can cause cross reactivation with various tissues in the body, resulting in an autoimmune response. Paraneoplastic cerebellar degeneration (PCD) is a rare condition caused by immune-mediated damage to the Purkinje cells of the cerebellar tract. Symptoms may include gait instability, double vision, decreased fine motor skills, and ataxia, with progression to brainstem-associated symptoms, such as nystagmus, dysarthria, and dysphagia. Early detection and treatment of the underlying malignancy is critical to halt the progression of autoimmune-mediated destruction. We present a case of a young adult female patient with PCD caused by Purkinje cell cytoplasmic–Tr (PCA-Tr) antibody with Hodgkin lymphoma.

Case Presentation

A 20-year-old previously healthy active-duty female patient presented to the emergency department with acute worsening of chronic intermittent, recurrent episodes of lightheadedness and vertigo. Symptoms persisted for 9 months until acutely worsening over the 2 weeks prior to presentation. She reported left eye double vision but did not report seeing spots, photophobia, tinnitus, or headache. She felt off-balance, leaning on nearby objects to remain standing. Symptoms primarily occurred during ambulation; however, occasionally they happened at rest. Episodes lasted up to several minutes and occurred up to 15 times a day. The patient reported no fever, night sweats, unexplained weight loss, muscle aches, weakness, numbness or tingling, loss of bowel or bladder function, or rash. She had no recent illnesses, changes to medications, or recent travel. Oral intake to include food and water was adequate and unchanged. The patient had a remote history of mild concussions without loss of consciousness while playing sports 4 years previously. She reported no recent trauma. Nine months before, she received treatment for benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV) with the Epley maneuver with full resolution of symptoms lasting several days. She reported no prescription or over-the-counter medications, herbal remedies, or supplements. She reported no other medical or surgical history and no pertinent social or family history.

Physical examination revealed a nontoxic-appearing female patient with intermittent conversational dysarthria, saccadic pursuits, horizontal nystagmus with lateral gaze, and vertical nystagmus with vertical gaze. The patient exhibited dysdiadochokinesia, or impaired ability to perform rapid alternating hand movements with repetition. Finger-to-nose testing was impaired and heel-to-shin motion remained intact. A Romberg test was positive, and the patient had tandem gait instability. Strength testing, sensation, reflexes, and cranial nerves were otherwise intact. Initial laboratory testing was unremarkable except for mild normocytic anemia. Her infectious workup, including testing for venereal disease, HIV, COVID-19, and Coccidioidies was negative. Heavy metals analysis and urine drug screen were negative. Ophthalmology was consulted and workup revealed small amplitude downbeat nystagmus in primary gaze, sustained gaze evoked lateral beating jerk nystagmus with rebound nystagmus R>L gaze, but there was no evidence of afferent package defect and optic nerve function remained intact. Magnetic resonance imaging of the brain demonstrated cerebellar vermis hypoplasia with prominence of the superior cerebellar folia. Due to concerns for autoimmune encephalitis, a lumbar puncture was performed. Antibody testing revealed PCA-Tr antibodies, which is commonly associated with Hodgkin lymphoma, prompting further evaluation for malignancy.

Computed tomography (CT) of the chest with contrast demonstrated multiple mediastinal masses with a conglomeration of lymph nodes along the right paratracheal region. Further evaluation was performed with a positron emission tomography (PET)–CT, revealing a large conglomeration of hypermetabolic pretracheal, mediastinal, and right supraclavicular lymph that were suggestive of lymphoma. Mediastinoscopy with excisional lymph node biopsy was performed with immunohistochemical staining confirming diagnosis of a nodular sclerosing variant of Hodgkin lymphoma. The patient was treated with IV immunoglobulin at 0.4g/kg daily for 5 days. A central venous catheter was placed into the patient’s right internal jugular vein and a chemotherapy regimen of doxorubicin 46 mg, vinblastine 11 mg, bleomycin 19 units, and dacarbazine 700 mg was initiated. The patient’s symptoms improved with resolution of dysarthria; however, her visual impairment and gait instability persisted. Repeat PET-CT imaging 2 months later revealed interval improvement with decreased intensity and extent of the hypermetabolic lymph nodes and no new hypermetabolic foci.

Discussion

PCA-Tr antibodies affect the delta/notchlike epidermal growth factor–related receptor, expressed on the dendrites of cerebellar Purkinje cells.¹ These fibers are the only output neurons of the cerebellar cortex and are critical to the coordination of motor movements, accounting for the ataxia experienced by patients with this subtype of PCD.² The link between Hodgkin lymphoma and PCA-Tr antibodies has been established; however, most reports involve men with a median age of 61 years with lymphoma-associated symptoms (such as lymphadenopathy) or systemic symptoms (fever, night sweats, or weight loss) preceding neurologic manifestations in 80% of cases.³

Our patient was a young, previously healthy adult female who initially presented with vertigo, a common concern with frequently benign origins. Although there was temporary resolution of symptoms after Epley maneuvers, symptoms recurred and progressed over several months to include brainstem manifestations of nystagmus, diplopia, and dysarthria. Previous reports indicate that after remission of the Hodgkin lymphoma, PCA-Tr antibodies disappear and symptoms can improve or resolve.^4,5 Treatment has just begun for our patient and although there has been initial clinical improvement, given the chronicity of symptoms, it is unclear if complete resolution will be achieved.

Conclusions

PCD can result in debilitating neurologic dysfunction and may be associated with malignancy such as Hodgkin lymphoma. This case offers unique insight due to the patient’s demographics and presentation, which involved brainstem pathology typically associated with late-onset disease and preceded by constitutional symptoms. Clinical suspicion of this rare disorder should be considered in all ages, especially if symptoms are progressive or neurologic manifestations arise, as early detection and treatment of the underlying malignancy are paramount to the prevention of significant disability.

Two GOP congressmen have introduced legislation aimed at holding doctors who perform gender transition procedures on minors liable for their actions, says a story reported on KATV.com, among other news sites.

The two GOP lawmakers – Rep. Jim Banks (IN) and Sen. Tom Cotton (AR) – introduced the Protecting Minors from Medical Malpractice Act in their respective chambers.

If passed, the House and Senate bills would make doctors liable for any gender transition surgery on a minor that results in injury, whether physical, psychological, emotional, or physiological. Minors who believe they’ve been harmed would have up to 30 years from when they turn 18 to file a claim.

The House proposal would also strip federal funding from states that require health care professionals to provide gender transition procedures, including puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and gender reassignment surgeries.

A companion House bill, also sponsored by Banks, targets another issue related to gender transitioning for minors: parental consent.

If passed, the Empower Parents to Protect Their Kids Act of 2022 would deny federal funding to any elementary and secondary schools that initiate a minor’s gender transition without first securing parental consent. (Last October, Sen. Cotton released a similar bill in the Senate.)

The content contained in this article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reliance on any information provided in this article is solely at your own risk.      

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

Two GOP congressmen have introduced legislation aimed at holding doctors who perform gender transition procedures on minors liable for their actions, says a story reported on KATV.com, among other news sites.

The two GOP lawmakers – Rep. Jim Banks (IN) and Sen. Tom Cotton (AR) – introduced the Protecting Minors from Medical Malpractice Act in their respective chambers.

If passed, the House and Senate bills would make doctors liable for any gender transition surgery on a minor that results in injury, whether physical, psychological, emotional, or physiological. Minors who believe they’ve been harmed would have up to 30 years from when they turn 18 to file a claim.

The House proposal would also strip federal funding from states that require health care professionals to provide gender transition procedures, including puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and gender reassignment surgeries.

A companion House bill, also sponsored by Banks, targets another issue related to gender transitioning for minors: parental consent.

If passed, the Empower Parents to Protect Their Kids Act of 2022 would deny federal funding to any elementary and secondary schools that initiate a minor’s gender transition without first securing parental consent. (Last October, Sen. Cotton released a similar bill in the Senate.)

The content contained in this article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reliance on any information provided in this article is solely at your own risk.      

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

Two GOP congressmen have introduced legislation aimed at holding doctors who perform gender transition procedures on minors liable for their actions, says a story reported on KATV.com, among other news sites.

The two GOP lawmakers – Rep. Jim Banks (IN) and Sen. Tom Cotton (AR) – introduced the Protecting Minors from Medical Malpractice Act in their respective chambers.

If passed, the House and Senate bills would make doctors liable for any gender transition surgery on a minor that results in injury, whether physical, psychological, emotional, or physiological. Minors who believe they’ve been harmed would have up to 30 years from when they turn 18 to file a claim.

The House proposal would also strip federal funding from states that require health care professionals to provide gender transition procedures, including puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and gender reassignment surgeries.

A companion House bill, also sponsored by Banks, targets another issue related to gender transitioning for minors: parental consent.

If passed, the Empower Parents to Protect Their Kids Act of 2022 would deny federal funding to any elementary and secondary schools that initiate a minor’s gender transition without first securing parental consent. (Last October, Sen. Cotton released a similar bill in the Senate.)

The content contained in this article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reliance on any information provided in this article is solely at your own risk.      

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

While two new studies reiterate a possible relationship between adenovirus 41 and acute hepatitis of unknown cause in children, whether these infections are significant or merely bystanders remains unclear.

In both studies – one conducted in Alabama and the other conducted in the United Kingdom – researchers found that 90% of children with acute hepatitis of unknown cause tested positive for adenovirus 41. The virus subtype is not an uncommon infection, but it usually causes gastroenteritis in children.

“Across the world, adenovirus continues to be a common signal” in these pediatric hepatitis cases, said Helena Gutierrez, MD, the medical director of the Pediatric Liver Transplant Program at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, in an interview. She led one of the studies. More data are necessary to understand what role this virus may play in these cases, she said.

In November, the Alabama Department of Public Health and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention began investigating a cluster of severe pediatric hepatitis cases at the Children’s of Alabama hospital in Birmingham. These children also tested positive for adenovirus. In April, the United Kingdom announced they were investigating similar cases, and the CDC expanded their search nationally. As of July 8, 1,010 cases in 35 countries have been reported to the World Health Organization. There are 263 confirmed cases in the United Kingdom and 332 cases under investigation by the CDC in the United States, according to the most recent counts.

The two studies, both published in the New England Journal of Medicine, provide additional clinical data on a number of these mysterious hepatitis cases. Dr. Gutierrez’s study looked at nine children admitted for hepatitis of unknown origin between October 1 and February 28. Patients had a median age of 2 years 11 months and two required liver transplants, and there were no deaths.

Eight out of nine patients (89%) tested positive for adenovirus, and all five of the samples that were of sufficient quality for gene sequencing tested positive for adenovirus 41. None of the six liver biopsies performed found signs of adenovirus infection, but the liver tissue samples of three patients tested positive for adenovirus via PCR.

The second study involved 44 children referred to a liver transplantation center in the United Kingdom between January 1 and April 11, 2022. The median age for patients was 4 years. Six children required liver transplants, and there were no deaths. Of the 30 patients who underwent molecular adenovirus testing, 27 (90%) were positive for adenovirus 41. Liver samples of nine children (3 from biopsies and 6 from explanted livers) all tested negative for adenovirus antibodies.

In both studies, however, the median adenovirus viral load of patients needing a transplant was much higher than the viral loads in children who did not require liver transplants.

Although most of the clinical features and test results of these cases suggest that adenovirus may be involved, the negative results in histology are “intriguing,” Chayarani Kelgeri, MD, a consultant pediatric hepatologist at the Birmingham Women’s and Children’s Hospital, U.K., said in an email. She is the lead author of the U.K. study. “Whether this is because the liver injury we see is an aftermath of the viral infection, the mechanism of injury is immune mediated, and if other cofactors are involved is being explored,” she added. “Further investigations being undertaken by UK Health Security Agency will add to our understanding of this illness.”

Although there is a high adenovirus positivity rate amongst these cases, there is not enough evidence yet to say adenovirus 41 is a new cause of pediatric hepatitis in previously healthy children, said Saul Karpen, MD, PhD, the division chief of pediatric gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition at Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta. He wrote an editorial accompanying the two NEJM studies.

The CDC has not yet found an increase in pediatric hepatitis cases, according to a recent analysis, though the United Kingdom has found an uptick in cases this year, he told this news organization. Also, the cases highlighted in both articles showed no histological evidence of adenovirus in liver biopsies. “That’s completely opposite of what we generally see in adenoviral hepatitis that can be quite severe,” he said, adding that in general, there are detectable viral particles and antigens in affected livers.

“These two important reports indicate to those inside and outside the field of pediatric hepatology that registries and clinical studies of acute hepatitis in children are sorely needed,” Dr. Karpen writes in the editorial; “It is likely that with greater attention to collecting data on cases and biospecimens from children with acute hepatitis, we will be able to determine whether this one virus, human adenovirus 41, is of relevance to this important and serious condition in children.”

Dr. Gutierrez, Dr. Kelgeri, and Dr. Karpen report no relevant financial relationships.

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

While two new studies reiterate a possible relationship between adenovirus 41 and acute hepatitis of unknown cause in children, whether these infections are significant or merely bystanders remains unclear.

In both studies – one conducted in Alabama and the other conducted in the United Kingdom – researchers found that 90% of children with acute hepatitis of unknown cause tested positive for adenovirus 41. The virus subtype is not an uncommon infection, but it usually causes gastroenteritis in children.

“Across the world, adenovirus continues to be a common signal” in these pediatric hepatitis cases, said Helena Gutierrez, MD, the medical director of the Pediatric Liver Transplant Program at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, in an interview. She led one of the studies. More data are necessary to understand what role this virus may play in these cases, she said.

In November, the Alabama Department of Public Health and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention began investigating a cluster of severe pediatric hepatitis cases at the Children’s of Alabama hospital in Birmingham. These children also tested positive for adenovirus. In April, the United Kingdom announced they were investigating similar cases, and the CDC expanded their search nationally. As of July 8, 1,010 cases in 35 countries have been reported to the World Health Organization. There are 263 confirmed cases in the United Kingdom and 332 cases under investigation by the CDC in the United States, according to the most recent counts.

The two studies, both published in the New England Journal of Medicine, provide additional clinical data on a number of these mysterious hepatitis cases. Dr. Gutierrez’s study looked at nine children admitted for hepatitis of unknown origin between October 1 and February 28. Patients had a median age of 2 years 11 months and two required liver transplants, and there were no deaths.

Eight out of nine patients (89%) tested positive for adenovirus, and all five of the samples that were of sufficient quality for gene sequencing tested positive for adenovirus 41. None of the six liver biopsies performed found signs of adenovirus infection, but the liver tissue samples of three patients tested positive for adenovirus via PCR.

The second study involved 44 children referred to a liver transplantation center in the United Kingdom between January 1 and April 11, 2022. The median age for patients was 4 years. Six children required liver transplants, and there were no deaths. Of the 30 patients who underwent molecular adenovirus testing, 27 (90%) were positive for adenovirus 41. Liver samples of nine children (3 from biopsies and 6 from explanted livers) all tested negative for adenovirus antibodies.

In both studies, however, the median adenovirus viral load of patients needing a transplant was much higher than the viral loads in children who did not require liver transplants.

Although most of the clinical features and test results of these cases suggest that adenovirus may be involved, the negative results in histology are “intriguing,” Chayarani Kelgeri, MD, a consultant pediatric hepatologist at the Birmingham Women’s and Children’s Hospital, U.K., said in an email. She is the lead author of the U.K. study. “Whether this is because the liver injury we see is an aftermath of the viral infection, the mechanism of injury is immune mediated, and if other cofactors are involved is being explored,” she added. “Further investigations being undertaken by UK Health Security Agency will add to our understanding of this illness.”

Although there is a high adenovirus positivity rate amongst these cases, there is not enough evidence yet to say adenovirus 41 is a new cause of pediatric hepatitis in previously healthy children, said Saul Karpen, MD, PhD, the division chief of pediatric gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition at Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta. He wrote an editorial accompanying the two NEJM studies.

The CDC has not yet found an increase in pediatric hepatitis cases, according to a recent analysis, though the United Kingdom has found an uptick in cases this year, he told this news organization. Also, the cases highlighted in both articles showed no histological evidence of adenovirus in liver biopsies. “That’s completely opposite of what we generally see in adenoviral hepatitis that can be quite severe,” he said, adding that in general, there are detectable viral particles and antigens in affected livers.

“These two important reports indicate to those inside and outside the field of pediatric hepatology that registries and clinical studies of acute hepatitis in children are sorely needed,” Dr. Karpen writes in the editorial; “It is likely that with greater attention to collecting data on cases and biospecimens from children with acute hepatitis, we will be able to determine whether this one virus, human adenovirus 41, is of relevance to this important and serious condition in children.”

Dr. Gutierrez, Dr. Kelgeri, and Dr. Karpen report no relevant financial relationships.

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

While two new studies reiterate a possible relationship between adenovirus 41 and acute hepatitis of unknown cause in children, whether these infections are significant or merely bystanders remains unclear.

In both studies – one conducted in Alabama and the other conducted in the United Kingdom – researchers found that 90% of children with acute hepatitis of unknown cause tested positive for adenovirus 41. The virus subtype is not an uncommon infection, but it usually causes gastroenteritis in children.

“Across the world, adenovirus continues to be a common signal” in these pediatric hepatitis cases, said Helena Gutierrez, MD, the medical director of the Pediatric Liver Transplant Program at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, in an interview. She led one of the studies. More data are necessary to understand what role this virus may play in these cases, she said.

In November, the Alabama Department of Public Health and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention began investigating a cluster of severe pediatric hepatitis cases at the Children’s of Alabama hospital in Birmingham. These children also tested positive for adenovirus. In April, the United Kingdom announced they were investigating similar cases, and the CDC expanded their search nationally. As of July 8, 1,010 cases in 35 countries have been reported to the World Health Organization. There are 263 confirmed cases in the United Kingdom and 332 cases under investigation by the CDC in the United States, according to the most recent counts.

The two studies, both published in the New England Journal of Medicine, provide additional clinical data on a number of these mysterious hepatitis cases. Dr. Gutierrez’s study looked at nine children admitted for hepatitis of unknown origin between October 1 and February 28. Patients had a median age of 2 years 11 months and two required liver transplants, and there were no deaths.

Eight out of nine patients (89%) tested positive for adenovirus, and all five of the samples that were of sufficient quality for gene sequencing tested positive for adenovirus 41. None of the six liver biopsies performed found signs of adenovirus infection, but the liver tissue samples of three patients tested positive for adenovirus via PCR.

The second study involved 44 children referred to a liver transplantation center in the United Kingdom between January 1 and April 11, 2022. The median age for patients was 4 years. Six children required liver transplants, and there were no deaths. Of the 30 patients who underwent molecular adenovirus testing, 27 (90%) were positive for adenovirus 41. Liver samples of nine children (3 from biopsies and 6 from explanted livers) all tested negative for adenovirus antibodies.

In both studies, however, the median adenovirus viral load of patients needing a transplant was much higher than the viral loads in children who did not require liver transplants.

Although most of the clinical features and test results of these cases suggest that adenovirus may be involved, the negative results in histology are “intriguing,” Chayarani Kelgeri, MD, a consultant pediatric hepatologist at the Birmingham Women’s and Children’s Hospital, U.K., said in an email. She is the lead author of the U.K. study. “Whether this is because the liver injury we see is an aftermath of the viral infection, the mechanism of injury is immune mediated, and if other cofactors are involved is being explored,” she added. “Further investigations being undertaken by UK Health Security Agency will add to our understanding of this illness.”

Although there is a high adenovirus positivity rate amongst these cases, there is not enough evidence yet to say adenovirus 41 is a new cause of pediatric hepatitis in previously healthy children, said Saul Karpen, MD, PhD, the division chief of pediatric gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition at Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta. He wrote an editorial accompanying the two NEJM studies.

The CDC has not yet found an increase in pediatric hepatitis cases, according to a recent analysis, though the United Kingdom has found an uptick in cases this year, he told this news organization. Also, the cases highlighted in both articles showed no histological evidence of adenovirus in liver biopsies. “That’s completely opposite of what we generally see in adenoviral hepatitis that can be quite severe,” he said, adding that in general, there are detectable viral particles and antigens in affected livers.

“These two important reports indicate to those inside and outside the field of pediatric hepatology that registries and clinical studies of acute hepatitis in children are sorely needed,” Dr. Karpen writes in the editorial; “It is likely that with greater attention to collecting data on cases and biospecimens from children with acute hepatitis, we will be able to determine whether this one virus, human adenovirus 41, is of relevance to this important and serious condition in children.”

Dr. Gutierrez, Dr. Kelgeri, and Dr. Karpen report no relevant financial relationships.

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

The American Academy of Pediatrics is built on good intentions. It wants the best for children in the world, and it hopes to support its members in their efforts to achieve this goal. But from time to time, the academy loses sight of reality and makes recommendations that are counterproductive to its stated goals.

The recent release of its new policy “Breastfeeding and the Use of Human Milk” is another unfortunate example of poorly aimed recommendations. A careful reading of the document reveals it to be a well-researched treatise on breastfeeding and the value of human milk, including a discussion of the numerous impediments to the universal adoption of breastfeeding in our society. However, when a document of this breadth and complexity is released to the public it is never surprising that the messages deserving the most attention are lost in the press coverage. Most of the headlines I saw mentioned pediatricians supporting breastfeeding for a year or 2.

Who was the target audience? If it was pediatricians, most of us don’t need a longer list of the health benefits of breastfeeding. We already believe it is the best nutritional source for human babies and realize that the institutional framework in this country continues to be unfriendly to women who intend to breastfeed.

If the audience is politicians and public health decision-makers, the new policy contains a wealth of supportive evidence. However, most pediatricians I know are too busy or lack the skills and enthusiasm to become political activists. For the rest of population, including parents, the recommendations represent a collection of TMI (too much information).

If the audience is women who are considering breastfeeding I suspect nearly 100% already know pediatricians think it is the preferred way to feed their babies. And, likewise, a longer list won’t convince them to try nursing. Additional evidence may simply make them feel more guilty when they aren’t successful.

Many pregnant women have already been told that breastfeeding can be a challenge and given their situation breast milk alone for the first 6 months may sound like an unreasonable goal. The new recommendation that breastfeeding for a year or 2 is good is not a message they want to hear.

On the other hand, if the target audience is women who will be comforted to hear an official statement that normalizes breastfeeding longer than a year, the new policy statement has hit the nail on the head.

Of course the new policy document is sprinkled with caveats that vaguely hint at the possibility that pediatricians are sensitive human beings who under certain circumstances may be able to compromise when it comes to the duration of breastfeeding and the introduction of formula. But this whiff of reality is certainly not the dominant odor in these new recommendations.

Don’t get me wrong: I think the academy was overdue for a policy revision on breastfeeding. However, it should have been one that was reality based. It should acknowledge that there are institutional and societal biases against breastfeeding, and it should remind pediatricians that they can effect change by discussing these realities honestly with parents, while making it clear that we are there for them and their children regardless of how they feed their baby. Pediatricians believe that breastfeeding is the best but not the only way to feed a baby. We have (or will provide) the skills to assist parents succeed in whatever method they choose and strive to minimize the impediments that are within our power to change.

If the academy had chosen to release a separate statement simply supporting mothers who chose to nurse longer than a year, then that would have been a good idea. However, when presented as part of the larger document, that message dominated in the media and only served to fuel the guilt that many new mothers must endure.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

The American Academy of Pediatrics is built on good intentions. It wants the best for children in the world, and it hopes to support its members in their efforts to achieve this goal. But from time to time, the academy loses sight of reality and makes recommendations that are counterproductive to its stated goals.

The recent release of its new policy “Breastfeeding and the Use of Human Milk” is another unfortunate example of poorly aimed recommendations. A careful reading of the document reveals it to be a well-researched treatise on breastfeeding and the value of human milk, including a discussion of the numerous impediments to the universal adoption of breastfeeding in our society. However, when a document of this breadth and complexity is released to the public it is never surprising that the messages deserving the most attention are lost in the press coverage. Most of the headlines I saw mentioned pediatricians supporting breastfeeding for a year or 2.

Who was the target audience? If it was pediatricians, most of us don’t need a longer list of the health benefits of breastfeeding. We already believe it is the best nutritional source for human babies and realize that the institutional framework in this country continues to be unfriendly to women who intend to breastfeed.

If the audience is politicians and public health decision-makers, the new policy contains a wealth of supportive evidence. However, most pediatricians I know are too busy or lack the skills and enthusiasm to become political activists. For the rest of population, including parents, the recommendations represent a collection of TMI (too much information).

If the audience is women who are considering breastfeeding I suspect nearly 100% already know pediatricians think it is the preferred way to feed their babies. And, likewise, a longer list won’t convince them to try nursing. Additional evidence may simply make them feel more guilty when they aren’t successful.

Many pregnant women have already been told that breastfeeding can be a challenge and given their situation breast milk alone for the first 6 months may sound like an unreasonable goal. The new recommendation that breastfeeding for a year or 2 is good is not a message they want to hear.

On the other hand, if the target audience is women who will be comforted to hear an official statement that normalizes breastfeeding longer than a year, the new policy statement has hit the nail on the head.

Of course the new policy document is sprinkled with caveats that vaguely hint at the possibility that pediatricians are sensitive human beings who under certain circumstances may be able to compromise when it comes to the duration of breastfeeding and the introduction of formula. But this whiff of reality is certainly not the dominant odor in these new recommendations.

Don’t get me wrong: I think the academy was overdue for a policy revision on breastfeeding. However, it should have been one that was reality based. It should acknowledge that there are institutional and societal biases against breastfeeding, and it should remind pediatricians that they can effect change by discussing these realities honestly with parents, while making it clear that we are there for them and their children regardless of how they feed their baby. Pediatricians believe that breastfeeding is the best but not the only way to feed a baby. We have (or will provide) the skills to assist parents succeed in whatever method they choose and strive to minimize the impediments that are within our power to change.

If the academy had chosen to release a separate statement simply supporting mothers who chose to nurse longer than a year, then that would have been a good idea. However, when presented as part of the larger document, that message dominated in the media and only served to fuel the guilt that many new mothers must endure.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

The American Academy of Pediatrics is built on good intentions. It wants the best for children in the world, and it hopes to support its members in their efforts to achieve this goal. But from time to time, the academy loses sight of reality and makes recommendations that are counterproductive to its stated goals.

The recent release of its new policy “Breastfeeding and the Use of Human Milk” is another unfortunate example of poorly aimed recommendations. A careful reading of the document reveals it to be a well-researched treatise on breastfeeding and the value of human milk, including a discussion of the numerous impediments to the universal adoption of breastfeeding in our society. However, when a document of this breadth and complexity is released to the public it is never surprising that the messages deserving the most attention are lost in the press coverage. Most of the headlines I saw mentioned pediatricians supporting breastfeeding for a year or 2.

Who was the target audience? If it was pediatricians, most of us don’t need a longer list of the health benefits of breastfeeding. We already believe it is the best nutritional source for human babies and realize that the institutional framework in this country continues to be unfriendly to women who intend to breastfeed.

If the audience is politicians and public health decision-makers, the new policy contains a wealth of supportive evidence. However, most pediatricians I know are too busy or lack the skills and enthusiasm to become political activists. For the rest of population, including parents, the recommendations represent a collection of TMI (too much information).

If the audience is women who are considering breastfeeding I suspect nearly 100% already know pediatricians think it is the preferred way to feed their babies. And, likewise, a longer list won’t convince them to try nursing. Additional evidence may simply make them feel more guilty when they aren’t successful.

Many pregnant women have already been told that breastfeeding can be a challenge and given their situation breast milk alone for the first 6 months may sound like an unreasonable goal. The new recommendation that breastfeeding for a year or 2 is good is not a message they want to hear.

On the other hand, if the target audience is women who will be comforted to hear an official statement that normalizes breastfeeding longer than a year, the new policy statement has hit the nail on the head.

Of course the new policy document is sprinkled with caveats that vaguely hint at the possibility that pediatricians are sensitive human beings who under certain circumstances may be able to compromise when it comes to the duration of breastfeeding and the introduction of formula. But this whiff of reality is certainly not the dominant odor in these new recommendations.

Don’t get me wrong: I think the academy was overdue for a policy revision on breastfeeding. However, it should have been one that was reality based. It should acknowledge that there are institutional and societal biases against breastfeeding, and it should remind pediatricians that they can effect change by discussing these realities honestly with parents, while making it clear that we are there for them and their children regardless of how they feed their baby. Pediatricians believe that breastfeeding is the best but not the only way to feed a baby. We have (or will provide) the skills to assist parents succeed in whatever method they choose and strive to minimize the impediments that are within our power to change.

If the academy had chosen to release a separate statement simply supporting mothers who chose to nurse longer than a year, then that would have been a good idea. However, when presented as part of the larger document, that message dominated in the media and only served to fuel the guilt that many new mothers must endure.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

Barbara L. McAneny, MD, CEO of New Mexico Oncology Hematology Consultants, experienced a data breach about 10 years ago, when a laptop was stolen from her large practice.   

She and the other physicians were upset and worried that the individual would attempt to log in to the computer system and hack their patients’ private health information.

Dr. McAneny was also worried that the practice would have to pay a hefty fine to the government for having unsecured private health information on a laptop. She could have paid from $50,000 to more than $1.9 million for lost and stolen devices (although that didn’t happen).

Dr. McAneny had a standard cyber liability benefit in her med-mal policy that covered up to $50,000 of the data breach costs. That covered the legal advice The Doctors Company provided about state and federal reporting requirements when a data breach occurs and the costs the practice incurred from mailing letters to all of its patients notifying them of the data breach, says Dr. McAneny.

“The data breach taught me a lot. Our practice spent a lot of money on increasing our internal controls, cybersecurity, and monitoring. Our IT department started testing our computer firewalls periodically, and that’s how we discovered that cybercriminals were attempting to break into our computer system at least 100 times daily,” says Dr. McAneny.

That discovery changed how she thought about insurance. “I decided the med-mal benefit wasn’t enough. I bought the best cybersecurity policy we could afford to protect against future breaches, especially malware or ransomware attacks.” 

Her practice also had to make its electronic health records (EHRs) more secure to comply with the Department of Health & Human Services Office of Civil Rights standards for protected health information. The cost of increased security wasn’t covered by her cyber benefit.
 

Cyberattacks increasing in health care

Despite having comprehensive coverage, Dr. McAneny worries that the cybercriminals are a step ahead of the cybersecurity experts and her practice will eventually have another data breach.

“The policy only covers things that we know about today. As we upgrade our defenses, criminals are finding new ways to breach firewalls and work around our defenses,” she says.

Cybercriminals – whether from foreign countries or just plain, homegrown thugs – have stepped up their attacks on health care organizations. So far this year, nearly 200 medical groups have reported cyberattacks involving 500 or more of their patients’ medical records to the federal government.

EHRs are valuable targets to cybercriminals because of the protected health information they contain. Cybercriminals grab information such as Social Security numbers, dates of birth, medical procedures and results, and in some cases billing and financial information and sell it on the dark web.

They typically bundle the information and sell it to other criminals who later use it for various kinds of fraud and extortion such as banking and credit fraud, health care fraud, identity theft, and ransom extortion.
 

What do most doctors have?

The vast majority (82%) of doctors polled by the Medical Group Management Association last year said they had cyber insurance, compared with 54% in 2018.

For those who answered “yes,” many said they have coverage through their malpractice insurance carrier.

David Zetter, president of Zetter HealthCare Management Consultants, recommends that physicians speak with their malpractice carrier to determine what coverage they have, if any, within their malpractice policy. 

A typical cybersecurity benefit is limited to what is needed to fix and resolve the hacking incident, says Raj Shah, senior regulatory attorney and policyholder advisor at MagMutual, which insures medical practices for malpractice and cyber liability.

That usually covers investigating the cause of the breach and the extent of the damage, legal advice about federal and state reporting requirements, whether to pay a ransom, and a public relations professional to handle patient communication, says Mr. Shah.

The benefit doesn’t cover lost patient revenue when practices have to shut down their operations, the cost of replacing damaged computers, or the ransom payment, he says.

Mr. Zetter advises doctors to consider buying cybersecurity coverage. “I recommend that they speak with an insurance broker who is experienced with cybersecurity policies sold to health care professionals to determine what type of coverage and how much coverage they may need. Their malpractice carrier may also be able to provide some answers,” says Mr. Zetter.

The physician will need to be able to answer questions about their network and how many staff they have and may need to involve their IT vendor too, he adds.
 

How does comprehensive coverage compare?

Ransomware attacks continue to be one of the most frequent types of attacks, and the amount criminals are demanding has risen significantly. The median ransom payment was $5,000 in the fourth quarter of 2018, compared with over $300,000 during the  fourth quarter of 2021.

Cybercriminals now engage in “double extortion” – demanding a ransom payment to hand over the code that will unlock their encrypted data – and then another ransom payment to not post patients’ sensitive medical information they copied onto the dark web.

Comprehensive cybersecurity insurance will cover “double extortion” payments, legal costs that may arise from defending against patient lawsuits, and the costs of meeting federal and state privacy requirements, including notifying patients of the data breach and regulatory investigations, says Michael Carr, head of risk engineering for North America for Coalition, a cyber insurance firm.  

Cyber insurers also contract with vendors who sell bitcoin, which is the currency cybercriminals typically demand for ransom payments, and work with ransom negotiators.

For example, once Coalition decided to pay the ransom on behalf of a health care client, it negotiated the ransom demand down by nearly 75% from $750,000 to $200,000, and proceeded to help the company restore all of its data.

The costs to respond to the incident, to recover lost data, and to pay the extortion, together with the lost business income resulting from the incident, were covered by Coalition’s cyber insurance policy.

Other clients have had their funds retrieved before a fraudulent wire transfer was completed. “Medical practices have vendors they pay regularly. A cybercriminal may compromise your email or take over a bank account and then impersonate a vendor asking to be paid for services they didn’t provide,” says Mr. Carr.
 

How much coverage do you need? Cost?

Dr. McAneny has increased her cybersecurity coverage every year. “It’s expensive, but I think it’s worth it. But you can never buy enough protection due to the coverage limits.”

She worries that the costs could exceed the limits if a ransomware attack disrupts her practice for days, weeks, or longer, or if the Office for Civil Rights fines her practice $10,000 per patient chart – the practice has 100,000 health records. “That can run several millions of dollars and ruin a practice,” she says.

Health systems and hospitals need massive amounts of coverage, which often runs from $20 million to $30 million, says Mr. Shah. However, practices insured through MagMutual have lower coverage limits that range from $1 million to $5 million, he says.

“A large practice does not necessarily need more than $1,000,000 in coverage if they have limited loss in this area and strong internal processes and controls. Most large practices also have a dedicated information security director, which reduces their risk, so they may be comfortable with $1,000,000 in coverage,” says Mr. Shah.

Premiums are based on the number of patient health records per practice, which translates into higher premiums for larger practices.

Other factors that come into play include the underlying coverage, risk controls the practice has implemented, and its claims history, says Mr. Shah.

However, the cost for cyber liability insurance has increased, and practices can expect to pay higher premiums and deductibles. For example, a practice that paid $10,000 in premiums for a new policy last year will have to pay $20,000 this year, says Dan Hanson, senior vice president of management liability and client experience at Marsh & McLennon Agency, a risk management firm that sells cyber insurance policies.

“We saw 71% of our self-insured clients experience higher deductibles over last year due to increased claim activity and the lack of capacity in the market. The carriers are saying they will set limits, but you are going to pay a lot more, and you are going to participate more in losses through the higher deductibles,” says Mr. Hanson.
 

Are you eligible?

Cyber insurance companies have a vested interest in avoiding claims. With increasing cyberattacks and larger payouts, many insurers are requiring practices to implement some defensive measures before they insure them. Some insurers, such as Coalition, say they may still insure small practices for comprehensive coverage, but it may impact the pricing or what’s covered, says Mr. Carr.  

Here are some of the security measures that cyber insurers are looking for:

• Multifactorial authentication (MFA) requires an extra layer of security to access the system. For example, when logging into your organization’s EHR platform, instead of just using a username and password to access the platform, MFA would require you to input an additional unique login credential before you can access the EHR. A secondary login credential may include security questions, a one-time PIN, or biometrics.
• Removing a terminated employee’s login credentials quickly from the computer system. “One of the most damaging and expensive types of attacks are by disgruntled employees who still have their login credentials and take revenge by logging back into the system and planting malware,” says Mr. Shah.
• Automatic system updates (patches). “Phishing email compromises usually result from a failure to fix vulnerabilities. When a system needs to restart, it should be set to automatically update any potential security loopholes within programs or products,” says Mr. Carr. The firewall settings should also be updated.
• Prior hacking incidents: Are the attackers out of your system? Once criminals hack into the system, your practice is vulnerable to repeat attacks. “If a cyberattack is not completely addressed, threat actors will maintain access to or a presence on the compromised network. In general, we will work with the insured to ensure that the initial point of compromise has been addressed and that any threat actor presence in the network has been removed,” says Mr. Carr.

When doctors compare cybersecurity policies, experts recommend avoiding companies that may offer lower prices but lack a proven track record of handling claims and do not offer resources that can detect a threat, such as ongoing network monitoring and employee training with simulated exercises.

“Practices tend to think, ‘It won’t happen to me.’ Every practice needs to take this seriously,” says Dr. McAneny.

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

Barbara L. McAneny, MD, CEO of New Mexico Oncology Hematology Consultants, experienced a data breach about 10 years ago, when a laptop was stolen from her large practice.   

She and the other physicians were upset and worried that the individual would attempt to log in to the computer system and hack their patients’ private health information.

Dr. McAneny was also worried that the practice would have to pay a hefty fine to the government for having unsecured private health information on a laptop. She could have paid from $50,000 to more than $1.9 million for lost and stolen devices (although that didn’t happen).

Dr. McAneny had a standard cyber liability benefit in her med-mal policy that covered up to $50,000 of the data breach costs. That covered the legal advice The Doctors Company provided about state and federal reporting requirements when a data breach occurs and the costs the practice incurred from mailing letters to all of its patients notifying them of the data breach, says Dr. McAneny.

“The data breach taught me a lot. Our practice spent a lot of money on increasing our internal controls, cybersecurity, and monitoring. Our IT department started testing our computer firewalls periodically, and that’s how we discovered that cybercriminals were attempting to break into our computer system at least 100 times daily,” says Dr. McAneny.

That discovery changed how she thought about insurance. “I decided the med-mal benefit wasn’t enough. I bought the best cybersecurity policy we could afford to protect against future breaches, especially malware or ransomware attacks.” 

Her practice also had to make its electronic health records (EHRs) more secure to comply with the Department of Health & Human Services Office of Civil Rights standards for protected health information. The cost of increased security wasn’t covered by her cyber benefit.
 

Cyberattacks increasing in health care

Despite having comprehensive coverage, Dr. McAneny worries that the cybercriminals are a step ahead of the cybersecurity experts and her practice will eventually have another data breach.

“The policy only covers things that we know about today. As we upgrade our defenses, criminals are finding new ways to breach firewalls and work around our defenses,” she says.

Cybercriminals – whether from foreign countries or just plain, homegrown thugs – have stepped up their attacks on health care organizations. So far this year, nearly 200 medical groups have reported cyberattacks involving 500 or more of their patients’ medical records to the federal government.

EHRs are valuable targets to cybercriminals because of the protected health information they contain. Cybercriminals grab information such as Social Security numbers, dates of birth, medical procedures and results, and in some cases billing and financial information and sell it on the dark web.

They typically bundle the information and sell it to other criminals who later use it for various kinds of fraud and extortion such as banking and credit fraud, health care fraud, identity theft, and ransom extortion.
 

What do most doctors have?

The vast majority (82%) of doctors polled by the Medical Group Management Association last year said they had cyber insurance, compared with 54% in 2018.

For those who answered “yes,” many said they have coverage through their malpractice insurance carrier.

David Zetter, president of Zetter HealthCare Management Consultants, recommends that physicians speak with their malpractice carrier to determine what coverage they have, if any, within their malpractice policy. 

A typical cybersecurity benefit is limited to what is needed to fix and resolve the hacking incident, says Raj Shah, senior regulatory attorney and policyholder advisor at MagMutual, which insures medical practices for malpractice and cyber liability.

That usually covers investigating the cause of the breach and the extent of the damage, legal advice about federal and state reporting requirements, whether to pay a ransom, and a public relations professional to handle patient communication, says Mr. Shah.

The benefit doesn’t cover lost patient revenue when practices have to shut down their operations, the cost of replacing damaged computers, or the ransom payment, he says.

Mr. Zetter advises doctors to consider buying cybersecurity coverage. “I recommend that they speak with an insurance broker who is experienced with cybersecurity policies sold to health care professionals to determine what type of coverage and how much coverage they may need. Their malpractice carrier may also be able to provide some answers,” says Mr. Zetter.

The physician will need to be able to answer questions about their network and how many staff they have and may need to involve their IT vendor too, he adds.
 

How does comprehensive coverage compare?

Ransomware attacks continue to be one of the most frequent types of attacks, and the amount criminals are demanding has risen significantly. The median ransom payment was $5,000 in the fourth quarter of 2018, compared with over $300,000 during the  fourth quarter of 2021.

Cybercriminals now engage in “double extortion” – demanding a ransom payment to hand over the code that will unlock their encrypted data – and then another ransom payment to not post patients’ sensitive medical information they copied onto the dark web.

Comprehensive cybersecurity insurance will cover “double extortion” payments, legal costs that may arise from defending against patient lawsuits, and the costs of meeting federal and state privacy requirements, including notifying patients of the data breach and regulatory investigations, says Michael Carr, head of risk engineering for North America for Coalition, a cyber insurance firm.  

Cyber insurers also contract with vendors who sell bitcoin, which is the currency cybercriminals typically demand for ransom payments, and work with ransom negotiators.

For example, once Coalition decided to pay the ransom on behalf of a health care client, it negotiated the ransom demand down by nearly 75% from $750,000 to $200,000, and proceeded to help the company restore all of its data.

The costs to respond to the incident, to recover lost data, and to pay the extortion, together with the lost business income resulting from the incident, were covered by Coalition’s cyber insurance policy.

Other clients have had their funds retrieved before a fraudulent wire transfer was completed. “Medical practices have vendors they pay regularly. A cybercriminal may compromise your email or take over a bank account and then impersonate a vendor asking to be paid for services they didn’t provide,” says Mr. Carr.
 

How much coverage do you need? Cost?

Dr. McAneny has increased her cybersecurity coverage every year. “It’s expensive, but I think it’s worth it. But you can never buy enough protection due to the coverage limits.”

She worries that the costs could exceed the limits if a ransomware attack disrupts her practice for days, weeks, or longer, or if the Office for Civil Rights fines her practice $10,000 per patient chart – the practice has 100,000 health records. “That can run several millions of dollars and ruin a practice,” she says.

Health systems and hospitals need massive amounts of coverage, which often runs from $20 million to $30 million, says Mr. Shah. However, practices insured through MagMutual have lower coverage limits that range from $1 million to $5 million, he says.

“A large practice does not necessarily need more than $1,000,000 in coverage if they have limited loss in this area and strong internal processes and controls. Most large practices also have a dedicated information security director, which reduces their risk, so they may be comfortable with $1,000,000 in coverage,” says Mr. Shah.

Premiums are based on the number of patient health records per practice, which translates into higher premiums for larger practices.

Other factors that come into play include the underlying coverage, risk controls the practice has implemented, and its claims history, says Mr. Shah.

However, the cost for cyber liability insurance has increased, and practices can expect to pay higher premiums and deductibles. For example, a practice that paid $10,000 in premiums for a new policy last year will have to pay $20,000 this year, says Dan Hanson, senior vice president of management liability and client experience at Marsh & McLennon Agency, a risk management firm that sells cyber insurance policies.

“We saw 71% of our self-insured clients experience higher deductibles over last year due to increased claim activity and the lack of capacity in the market. The carriers are saying they will set limits, but you are going to pay a lot more, and you are going to participate more in losses through the higher deductibles,” says Mr. Hanson.
 

Are you eligible?

Cyber insurance companies have a vested interest in avoiding claims. With increasing cyberattacks and larger payouts, many insurers are requiring practices to implement some defensive measures before they insure them. Some insurers, such as Coalition, say they may still insure small practices for comprehensive coverage, but it may impact the pricing or what’s covered, says Mr. Carr.  

Here are some of the security measures that cyber insurers are looking for:

• Multifactorial authentication (MFA) requires an extra layer of security to access the system. For example, when logging into your organization’s EHR platform, instead of just using a username and password to access the platform, MFA would require you to input an additional unique login credential before you can access the EHR. A secondary login credential may include security questions, a one-time PIN, or biometrics.
• Removing a terminated employee’s login credentials quickly from the computer system. “One of the most damaging and expensive types of attacks are by disgruntled employees who still have their login credentials and take revenge by logging back into the system and planting malware,” says Mr. Shah.
• Automatic system updates (patches). “Phishing email compromises usually result from a failure to fix vulnerabilities. When a system needs to restart, it should be set to automatically update any potential security loopholes within programs or products,” says Mr. Carr. The firewall settings should also be updated.
• Prior hacking incidents: Are the attackers out of your system? Once criminals hack into the system, your practice is vulnerable to repeat attacks. “If a cyberattack is not completely addressed, threat actors will maintain access to or a presence on the compromised network. In general, we will work with the insured to ensure that the initial point of compromise has been addressed and that any threat actor presence in the network has been removed,” says Mr. Carr.

When doctors compare cybersecurity policies, experts recommend avoiding companies that may offer lower prices but lack a proven track record of handling claims and do not offer resources that can detect a threat, such as ongoing network monitoring and employee training with simulated exercises.

“Practices tend to think, ‘It won’t happen to me.’ Every practice needs to take this seriously,” says Dr. McAneny.

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

Barbara L. McAneny, MD, CEO of New Mexico Oncology Hematology Consultants, experienced a data breach about 10 years ago, when a laptop was stolen from her large practice.   

She and the other physicians were upset and worried that the individual would attempt to log in to the computer system and hack their patients’ private health information.

Dr. McAneny was also worried that the practice would have to pay a hefty fine to the government for having unsecured private health information on a laptop. She could have paid from $50,000 to more than $1.9 million for lost and stolen devices (although that didn’t happen).

Dr. McAneny had a standard cyber liability benefit in her med-mal policy that covered up to $50,000 of the data breach costs. That covered the legal advice The Doctors Company provided about state and federal reporting requirements when a data breach occurs and the costs the practice incurred from mailing letters to all of its patients notifying them of the data breach, says Dr. McAneny.

“The data breach taught me a lot. Our practice spent a lot of money on increasing our internal controls, cybersecurity, and monitoring. Our IT department started testing our computer firewalls periodically, and that’s how we discovered that cybercriminals were attempting to break into our computer system at least 100 times daily,” says Dr. McAneny.

That discovery changed how she thought about insurance. “I decided the med-mal benefit wasn’t enough. I bought the best cybersecurity policy we could afford to protect against future breaches, especially malware or ransomware attacks.” 

Her practice also had to make its electronic health records (EHRs) more secure to comply with the Department of Health & Human Services Office of Civil Rights standards for protected health information. The cost of increased security wasn’t covered by her cyber benefit.
 

Cyberattacks increasing in health care

Despite having comprehensive coverage, Dr. McAneny worries that the cybercriminals are a step ahead of the cybersecurity experts and her practice will eventually have another data breach.

“The policy only covers things that we know about today. As we upgrade our defenses, criminals are finding new ways to breach firewalls and work around our defenses,” she says.

Cybercriminals – whether from foreign countries or just plain, homegrown thugs – have stepped up their attacks on health care organizations. So far this year, nearly 200 medical groups have reported cyberattacks involving 500 or more of their patients’ medical records to the federal government.

EHRs are valuable targets to cybercriminals because of the protected health information they contain. Cybercriminals grab information such as Social Security numbers, dates of birth, medical procedures and results, and in some cases billing and financial information and sell it on the dark web.

They typically bundle the information and sell it to other criminals who later use it for various kinds of fraud and extortion such as banking and credit fraud, health care fraud, identity theft, and ransom extortion.
 

What do most doctors have?

The vast majority (82%) of doctors polled by the Medical Group Management Association last year said they had cyber insurance, compared with 54% in 2018.

For those who answered “yes,” many said they have coverage through their malpractice insurance carrier.

David Zetter, president of Zetter HealthCare Management Consultants, recommends that physicians speak with their malpractice carrier to determine what coverage they have, if any, within their malpractice policy. 

A typical cybersecurity benefit is limited to what is needed to fix and resolve the hacking incident, says Raj Shah, senior regulatory attorney and policyholder advisor at MagMutual, which insures medical practices for malpractice and cyber liability.

That usually covers investigating the cause of the breach and the extent of the damage, legal advice about federal and state reporting requirements, whether to pay a ransom, and a public relations professional to handle patient communication, says Mr. Shah.

The benefit doesn’t cover lost patient revenue when practices have to shut down their operations, the cost of replacing damaged computers, or the ransom payment, he says.

Mr. Zetter advises doctors to consider buying cybersecurity coverage. “I recommend that they speak with an insurance broker who is experienced with cybersecurity policies sold to health care professionals to determine what type of coverage and how much coverage they may need. Their malpractice carrier may also be able to provide some answers,” says Mr. Zetter.

The physician will need to be able to answer questions about their network and how many staff they have and may need to involve their IT vendor too, he adds.
 

How does comprehensive coverage compare?

Ransomware attacks continue to be one of the most frequent types of attacks, and the amount criminals are demanding has risen significantly. The median ransom payment was $5,000 in the fourth quarter of 2018, compared with over $300,000 during the  fourth quarter of 2021.

Cybercriminals now engage in “double extortion” – demanding a ransom payment to hand over the code that will unlock their encrypted data – and then another ransom payment to not post patients’ sensitive medical information they copied onto the dark web.

Comprehensive cybersecurity insurance will cover “double extortion” payments, legal costs that may arise from defending against patient lawsuits, and the costs of meeting federal and state privacy requirements, including notifying patients of the data breach and regulatory investigations, says Michael Carr, head of risk engineering for North America for Coalition, a cyber insurance firm.  

Cyber insurers also contract with vendors who sell bitcoin, which is the currency cybercriminals typically demand for ransom payments, and work with ransom negotiators.

For example, once Coalition decided to pay the ransom on behalf of a health care client, it negotiated the ransom demand down by nearly 75% from $750,000 to $200,000, and proceeded to help the company restore all of its data.

The costs to respond to the incident, to recover lost data, and to pay the extortion, together with the lost business income resulting from the incident, were covered by Coalition’s cyber insurance policy.

Other clients have had their funds retrieved before a fraudulent wire transfer was completed. “Medical practices have vendors they pay regularly. A cybercriminal may compromise your email or take over a bank account and then impersonate a vendor asking to be paid for services they didn’t provide,” says Mr. Carr.
 

How much coverage do you need? Cost?

Dr. McAneny has increased her cybersecurity coverage every year. “It’s expensive, but I think it’s worth it. But you can never buy enough protection due to the coverage limits.”

She worries that the costs could exceed the limits if a ransomware attack disrupts her practice for days, weeks, or longer, or if the Office for Civil Rights fines her practice $10,000 per patient chart – the practice has 100,000 health records. “That can run several millions of dollars and ruin a practice,” she says.

Health systems and hospitals need massive amounts of coverage, which often runs from $20 million to $30 million, says Mr. Shah. However, practices insured through MagMutual have lower coverage limits that range from $1 million to $5 million, he says.

“A large practice does not necessarily need more than $1,000,000 in coverage if they have limited loss in this area and strong internal processes and controls. Most large practices also have a dedicated information security director, which reduces their risk, so they may be comfortable with $1,000,000 in coverage,” says Mr. Shah.

Premiums are based on the number of patient health records per practice, which translates into higher premiums for larger practices.

Other factors that come into play include the underlying coverage, risk controls the practice has implemented, and its claims history, says Mr. Shah.

However, the cost for cyber liability insurance has increased, and practices can expect to pay higher premiums and deductibles. For example, a practice that paid $10,000 in premiums for a new policy last year will have to pay $20,000 this year, says Dan Hanson, senior vice president of management liability and client experience at Marsh & McLennon Agency, a risk management firm that sells cyber insurance policies.

“We saw 71% of our self-insured clients experience higher deductibles over last year due to increased claim activity and the lack of capacity in the market. The carriers are saying they will set limits, but you are going to pay a lot more, and you are going to participate more in losses through the higher deductibles,” says Mr. Hanson.
 

Are you eligible?

Cyber insurance companies have a vested interest in avoiding claims. With increasing cyberattacks and larger payouts, many insurers are requiring practices to implement some defensive measures before they insure them. Some insurers, such as Coalition, say they may still insure small practices for comprehensive coverage, but it may impact the pricing or what’s covered, says Mr. Carr.  

Here are some of the security measures that cyber insurers are looking for:

• Multifactorial authentication (MFA) requires an extra layer of security to access the system. For example, when logging into your organization’s EHR platform, instead of just using a username and password to access the platform, MFA would require you to input an additional unique login credential before you can access the EHR. A secondary login credential may include security questions, a one-time PIN, or biometrics.
• Removing a terminated employee’s login credentials quickly from the computer system. “One of the most damaging and expensive types of attacks are by disgruntled employees who still have their login credentials and take revenge by logging back into the system and planting malware,” says Mr. Shah.
• Automatic system updates (patches). “Phishing email compromises usually result from a failure to fix vulnerabilities. When a system needs to restart, it should be set to automatically update any potential security loopholes within programs or products,” says Mr. Carr. The firewall settings should also be updated.
• Prior hacking incidents: Are the attackers out of your system? Once criminals hack into the system, your practice is vulnerable to repeat attacks. “If a cyberattack is not completely addressed, threat actors will maintain access to or a presence on the compromised network. In general, we will work with the insured to ensure that the initial point of compromise has been addressed and that any threat actor presence in the network has been removed,” says Mr. Carr.

When doctors compare cybersecurity policies, experts recommend avoiding companies that may offer lower prices but lack a proven track record of handling claims and do not offer resources that can detect a threat, such as ongoing network monitoring and employee training with simulated exercises.

“Practices tend to think, ‘It won’t happen to me.’ Every practice needs to take this seriously,” says Dr. McAneny.

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

Treatment with oral sabizabulin (Veru Pharmaceuticals) cut the risk for death by more than 55% in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, an interim analysis of a phase 3 placebo-controlled trial found.

Sabizabulin treatment consistently and significantly reduced deaths across patient subgroups “regardless of standard of care treatment received, baseline World Health Organization scores, age, comorbidities, vaccination status, COVID-19 variant, or geography,” study investigator Mitchell Steiner, MD, chairman, president, and CEO of Veru, said in a news release.

The company has submitted an emergency use authorization request to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to use sabizabulin to treat COVID-19.

The analysis was published online in NEJM Evidence.

Sabizabulin, originally developed to treat metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, is a novel, investigational, oral microtubule disruptor with dual antiviral and anti-inflammatory activities. Given the drug’s mechanism, researchers at Veru thought that sabizabulin could help treat lung inflammation in patients with COVID-19 as well.

Findings of the interim analysis are based on 150 adults hospitalized with moderate to severe COVID-19 at high risk for acute respiratory distress syndrome and death. The patients were randomly allocated to receive 9 mg oral sabizabulin (n = 98) or placebo (n = 52) once daily for up to 21 days.

Overall, the mortality rate was 20.2% in the sabizabulin group vs. 45.1% in the placebo group. Compared with placebo, treatment with sabizabulin led to a 24.9–percentage point absolute reduction and a 55.2% relative reduction in death (odds ratio, 3.23; P = .0042).

The key secondary endpoint of mortality through day 29 also favored sabizabulin over placebo, with a mortality rate of 17% vs. 35.3%. In this scenario, treatment with sabizabulin resulted in an absolute reduction in deaths of 18.3 percentage points and a relative reduction of 51.8%.

Sabizabulin led to a significant 43% relative reduction in ICU days, a 49% relative reduction in days on mechanical ventilation, and a 26% relative reduction in days in the hospital, compared with placebo.

Adverse and serious adverse events were also lower in the sabizabulin group (61.5%) than the placebo group (78.3%).

The data are “pretty impressive and in a group of patients that we really have limited things to offer,” Aaron Glatt, MD, a spokesperson for the Infectious Diseases Society of America and chief of infectious diseases and hospital epidemiologist at Mount Sinai South Nassau in Oceanside, N.Y., said in an interview. “This is an interim analysis and obviously we’d like to see more data, but it certainly is something that is novel and quite interesting.”

David Boulware, MD, MPH, an infectious disease expert at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, told the New York Times that the large number of deaths in the placebo group seemed “rather high” and that the final analysis might reveal a more modest benefit for sabizabulin.

“I would be skeptical” that the reduced risk for death remains 55%, he noted.

The study was funded by Veru Pharmaceuticals. Several authors are employed by the company or have financial relationships with the company.

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

Treatment with oral sabizabulin (Veru Pharmaceuticals) cut the risk for death by more than 55% in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, an interim analysis of a phase 3 placebo-controlled trial found.

Sabizabulin treatment consistently and significantly reduced deaths across patient subgroups “regardless of standard of care treatment received, baseline World Health Organization scores, age, comorbidities, vaccination status, COVID-19 variant, or geography,” study investigator Mitchell Steiner, MD, chairman, president, and CEO of Veru, said in a news release.

The company has submitted an emergency use authorization request to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to use sabizabulin to treat COVID-19.

The analysis was published online in NEJM Evidence.

Sabizabulin, originally developed to treat metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, is a novel, investigational, oral microtubule disruptor with dual antiviral and anti-inflammatory activities. Given the drug’s mechanism, researchers at Veru thought that sabizabulin could help treat lung inflammation in patients with COVID-19 as well.

Findings of the interim analysis are based on 150 adults hospitalized with moderate to severe COVID-19 at high risk for acute respiratory distress syndrome and death. The patients were randomly allocated to receive 9 mg oral sabizabulin (n = 98) or placebo (n = 52) once daily for up to 21 days.

Overall, the mortality rate was 20.2% in the sabizabulin group vs. 45.1% in the placebo group. Compared with placebo, treatment with sabizabulin led to a 24.9–percentage point absolute reduction and a 55.2% relative reduction in death (odds ratio, 3.23; P = .0042).

The key secondary endpoint of mortality through day 29 also favored sabizabulin over placebo, with a mortality rate of 17% vs. 35.3%. In this scenario, treatment with sabizabulin resulted in an absolute reduction in deaths of 18.3 percentage points and a relative reduction of 51.8%.

Sabizabulin led to a significant 43% relative reduction in ICU days, a 49% relative reduction in days on mechanical ventilation, and a 26% relative reduction in days in the hospital, compared with placebo.

Adverse and serious adverse events were also lower in the sabizabulin group (61.5%) than the placebo group (78.3%).

The data are “pretty impressive and in a group of patients that we really have limited things to offer,” Aaron Glatt, MD, a spokesperson for the Infectious Diseases Society of America and chief of infectious diseases and hospital epidemiologist at Mount Sinai South Nassau in Oceanside, N.Y., said in an interview. “This is an interim analysis and obviously we’d like to see more data, but it certainly is something that is novel and quite interesting.”

David Boulware, MD, MPH, an infectious disease expert at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, told the New York Times that the large number of deaths in the placebo group seemed “rather high” and that the final analysis might reveal a more modest benefit for sabizabulin.

“I would be skeptical” that the reduced risk for death remains 55%, he noted.

The study was funded by Veru Pharmaceuticals. Several authors are employed by the company or have financial relationships with the company.

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

Treatment with oral sabizabulin (Veru Pharmaceuticals) cut the risk for death by more than 55% in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, an interim analysis of a phase 3 placebo-controlled trial found.

Sabizabulin treatment consistently and significantly reduced deaths across patient subgroups “regardless of standard of care treatment received, baseline World Health Organization scores, age, comorbidities, vaccination status, COVID-19 variant, or geography,” study investigator Mitchell Steiner, MD, chairman, president, and CEO of Veru, said in a news release.

The company has submitted an emergency use authorization request to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to use sabizabulin to treat COVID-19.

The analysis was published online in NEJM Evidence.

Sabizabulin, originally developed to treat metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, is a novel, investigational, oral microtubule disruptor with dual antiviral and anti-inflammatory activities. Given the drug’s mechanism, researchers at Veru thought that sabizabulin could help treat lung inflammation in patients with COVID-19 as well.

Findings of the interim analysis are based on 150 adults hospitalized with moderate to severe COVID-19 at high risk for acute respiratory distress syndrome and death. The patients were randomly allocated to receive 9 mg oral sabizabulin (n = 98) or placebo (n = 52) once daily for up to 21 days.

Overall, the mortality rate was 20.2% in the sabizabulin group vs. 45.1% in the placebo group. Compared with placebo, treatment with sabizabulin led to a 24.9–percentage point absolute reduction and a 55.2% relative reduction in death (odds ratio, 3.23; P = .0042).

The key secondary endpoint of mortality through day 29 also favored sabizabulin over placebo, with a mortality rate of 17% vs. 35.3%. In this scenario, treatment with sabizabulin resulted in an absolute reduction in deaths of 18.3 percentage points and a relative reduction of 51.8%.

Sabizabulin led to a significant 43% relative reduction in ICU days, a 49% relative reduction in days on mechanical ventilation, and a 26% relative reduction in days in the hospital, compared with placebo.

Adverse and serious adverse events were also lower in the sabizabulin group (61.5%) than the placebo group (78.3%).

The data are “pretty impressive and in a group of patients that we really have limited things to offer,” Aaron Glatt, MD, a spokesperson for the Infectious Diseases Society of America and chief of infectious diseases and hospital epidemiologist at Mount Sinai South Nassau in Oceanside, N.Y., said in an interview. “This is an interim analysis and obviously we’d like to see more data, but it certainly is something that is novel and quite interesting.”

David Boulware, MD, MPH, an infectious disease expert at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, told the New York Times that the large number of deaths in the placebo group seemed “rather high” and that the final analysis might reveal a more modest benefit for sabizabulin.

“I would be skeptical” that the reduced risk for death remains 55%, he noted.

The study was funded by Veru Pharmaceuticals. Several authors are employed by the company or have financial relationships with the company.

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

Will your health plan pay for an abortion now that the Supreme Court has overturned Roe v. Wade?

Even before the June 24 ruling, insurance coverage for abortion varied widely. Now the issue is even more complex as states set varying rules – about half are expected to limit or ban abortion in almost all circumstances.

To be clear, though, the question of whether an insurance plan covers abortion is not the same as whether abortion is allowed in a state. Coverage issues are more complicated and governed by a wide variety of factors, including the level of abortion access a state allows.

How dense a thicket is it? Abortion may be covered by a health plan, but if no providers are available, patients don’t have access. However, people with insurance that does not cover abortion can still get one – but only if it’s available in their states or they can afford to travel and pay out of pocket. There are also a host of unanswered questions about whether states that restrict abortion will have the legal authority to target abortion coverage in employer plans.

The issues will likely be before the courts for years to come.

“States will pass laws, there will be some conflict, and then it goes to the courts,” said Erin Fuse Brown, director of the Center for Law, Health & Society at the Georgia State University, Atlanta. “It could be a while.”

In the meantime, here are answers to three common questions.
 

Are health plans – or employers – required to offer coverage for elective abortions?

The simple answer is “no.”

“There’s no law that requires any health plan, employer-based or anything else, to cover an elective abortion,” Ms. Fuse Brown said.

Whether they do is more complicated.

Some job-based health plans cover elective abortions. Patients can search their plan documents or call their insurers directly to check.

Coverage is more likely in plans offered by self-insured employers because a federal pensions law generally preempts state regulation of those health plans. Self-funded employers, which tend to be the larger ones, pay the medical bills, although they generally hire third parties, sometimes health insurers, to handle claims and administrative work.

Still, millions of Americans work for smaller employers, which tend to buy plans directly from health insurers, which then pay the medical bills. Those plans, known as “fully insured,” are subject to state laws, whose approaches to abortion coverage have long varied.

Eleven states bar those private plans from covering abortion in most circumstances, according to KFF, although some of the states allow consumers to purchase an insurance rider that would cover abortion costs.

If you’re not sure what type of health plan you have, ask the administrators.

“There is no way to tell from the face of your insurance card if you are fully insured or self-funded,” Ms. Fuse Brown said.

For the more than 14 million Americans who buy their coverage through the Affordable Care Act marketplaces, their state of residence is key.

Twenty-six states restrict abortion coverage in ACA plans, while seven states require it as a plan benefit, according to KFF. Those states are California, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, New York, Oregon, and Washington.

The rules for Medicaid, the federal-state health program for people with low incomes, also vary. Thirty-four states and the District of Columbia follow the so-called Hyde Amendment, which bars federal funds from paying for abortions, except in cases of rape or incest or to save the life of the mother, although some states allow coverage for other medically necessary abortions.

For all those reasons, it’s not surprising that research published in the journal Health Affairs noted that patients paid out-of-pocket for the majority of abortions (69% in one study). The researchers found that the median cost of a medication abortion was $560 and that abortion procedures ranged from a median of $575 in the first trimester to $895 in the second.
 

What about coverage for pregnancy-related complications that require treatment similar to abortion?

Insurance policies must cover care for essential health services, including medically necessary pregnancy care and abortion when carrying a pregnancy to term would endanger a patient’s life.

Under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 and other rules, Ms. Fuse Brown said, “pregnancy and prenatal care, including high-risk pregnancies, and obstetric care in general is required to be covered.”

In an ectopic pregnancy – when a fertilized egg implants outside the uterus – the embryo is not viable, and the condition is generally life-threatening to the mother without medical treatment. Many other scenarios could come into play, including situations in which a woman has a miscarriage but not all the tissue is expelled, potentially leading to a dangerous infection.

Although all state laws that currently restrict abortion include an exception to save the life of the mother, what constitutes a life-threatening scenario is not always clear. That means physicians in abortion-ban states may have to weigh the pregnant person’s medical risk against possible legal ramifications.

“This is less of a coverage question and more of a question of whether providers in the states that ban abortion are going to provide the care,” said Katie Keith, a research faculty member at the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University, Washington. “All of these laws are designed to chill behavior, to make it so unattractive or scary to providers to keep them from doing it at all.”
 

Can residents of states where abortion is illegal get coverage in other states or help with travel costs?

In recent weeks, many large employers – including Microsoft, Bank of America, Disney, and Netflix – have said they will set up programs to help pay travel costs so workers or other beneficiaries in states with bans can travel to get an abortion elsewhere.

But it isn’t as straightforward as it sounds. Employers will have to figure out whether workers will access this benefit through the health plan or some other reimbursement method. Protecting privacy, too, may be an issue. Some consultants also said employers will need to consider whether their travel reimbursement benefit conflicts with other rules. If an employer, for example, covers travel for abortion procedures but not for an eating disorder clinic, does that violate the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act? If a plan has no providers willing or able to do abortions, does it violate any state or federal network adequacy rules?

Lawmakers need to think about these conflicts, said Jessica Waltman, vice president for compliance at employee benefits company MZQ Consulting. “They could be putting all the employer group plans in their state in a very precarious position if that state law would prohibit them from complying with federal law,” particularly if they restrict access to benefits called for in the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.

There are other potential conflicts if an employer is in a state that allows abortion but a worker is in a state that restricts it. “If I’m an Oregon-based company, my insurance plan must provide for abortion coverage, but what do I do about an Oklahoma employee? I don’t know the answer,” said René Thorne, a principal at Jackson Lewis, where she oversees litigation that involves self-insured firms.

Also uncertain is whether state laws will take aim at insurers, employers, or others that offer benefits, including travel or televisits, for abortion services.

Laws that restrict abortion, Ms. Thorne wrote in a white paper for clients, generally apply to the medical provider and sometimes those who “aid or abet” the abortion. Some states, including Texas, allow private citizens to sue for $10,000 anyone who provides an illegal abortion or helps a person access an abortion.

Whether those laws will be applied to employers or insurers will undoubtedly end up in the courts.

“We are in uncharted territory here, as we’ve never before been in a situation where plans, as well as their employer sponsors and those administering the plans, might face criminal liability in connection with a plan benefit,” said Seth Perretta, a principal at the Groom Law Group, which advises employers.

Answers won’t come soon, but “there will be so much litigation around this,” said Ms. Thorne.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Will your health plan pay for an abortion now that the Supreme Court has overturned Roe v. Wade?

Even before the June 24 ruling, insurance coverage for abortion varied widely. Now the issue is even more complex as states set varying rules – about half are expected to limit or ban abortion in almost all circumstances.

To be clear, though, the question of whether an insurance plan covers abortion is not the same as whether abortion is allowed in a state. Coverage issues are more complicated and governed by a wide variety of factors, including the level of abortion access a state allows.

How dense a thicket is it? Abortion may be covered by a health plan, but if no providers are available, patients don’t have access. However, people with insurance that does not cover abortion can still get one – but only if it’s available in their states or they can afford to travel and pay out of pocket. There are also a host of unanswered questions about whether states that restrict abortion will have the legal authority to target abortion coverage in employer plans.

The issues will likely be before the courts for years to come.

“States will pass laws, there will be some conflict, and then it goes to the courts,” said Erin Fuse Brown, director of the Center for Law, Health & Society at the Georgia State University, Atlanta. “It could be a while.”

In the meantime, here are answers to three common questions.
 

Are health plans – or employers – required to offer coverage for elective abortions?

The simple answer is “no.”

“There’s no law that requires any health plan, employer-based or anything else, to cover an elective abortion,” Ms. Fuse Brown said.

Whether they do is more complicated.

Some job-based health plans cover elective abortions. Patients can search their plan documents or call their insurers directly to check.

Coverage is more likely in plans offered by self-insured employers because a federal pensions law generally preempts state regulation of those health plans. Self-funded employers, which tend to be the larger ones, pay the medical bills, although they generally hire third parties, sometimes health insurers, to handle claims and administrative work.

Still, millions of Americans work for smaller employers, which tend to buy plans directly from health insurers, which then pay the medical bills. Those plans, known as “fully insured,” are subject to state laws, whose approaches to abortion coverage have long varied.

Eleven states bar those private plans from covering abortion in most circumstances, according to KFF, although some of the states allow consumers to purchase an insurance rider that would cover abortion costs.

If you’re not sure what type of health plan you have, ask the administrators.

“There is no way to tell from the face of your insurance card if you are fully insured or self-funded,” Ms. Fuse Brown said.

For the more than 14 million Americans who buy their coverage through the Affordable Care Act marketplaces, their state of residence is key.

Twenty-six states restrict abortion coverage in ACA plans, while seven states require it as a plan benefit, according to KFF. Those states are California, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, New York, Oregon, and Washington.

The rules for Medicaid, the federal-state health program for people with low incomes, also vary. Thirty-four states and the District of Columbia follow the so-called Hyde Amendment, which bars federal funds from paying for abortions, except in cases of rape or incest or to save the life of the mother, although some states allow coverage for other medically necessary abortions.

For all those reasons, it’s not surprising that research published in the journal Health Affairs noted that patients paid out-of-pocket for the majority of abortions (69% in one study). The researchers found that the median cost of a medication abortion was $560 and that abortion procedures ranged from a median of $575 in the first trimester to $895 in the second.
 

What about coverage for pregnancy-related complications that require treatment similar to abortion?

Insurance policies must cover care for essential health services, including medically necessary pregnancy care and abortion when carrying a pregnancy to term would endanger a patient’s life.

Under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 and other rules, Ms. Fuse Brown said, “pregnancy and prenatal care, including high-risk pregnancies, and obstetric care in general is required to be covered.”

In an ectopic pregnancy – when a fertilized egg implants outside the uterus – the embryo is not viable, and the condition is generally life-threatening to the mother without medical treatment. Many other scenarios could come into play, including situations in which a woman has a miscarriage but not all the tissue is expelled, potentially leading to a dangerous infection.

Although all state laws that currently restrict abortion include an exception to save the life of the mother, what constitutes a life-threatening scenario is not always clear. That means physicians in abortion-ban states may have to weigh the pregnant person’s medical risk against possible legal ramifications.

“This is less of a coverage question and more of a question of whether providers in the states that ban abortion are going to provide the care,” said Katie Keith, a research faculty member at the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University, Washington. “All of these laws are designed to chill behavior, to make it so unattractive or scary to providers to keep them from doing it at all.”
 

Can residents of states where abortion is illegal get coverage in other states or help with travel costs?

In recent weeks, many large employers – including Microsoft, Bank of America, Disney, and Netflix – have said they will set up programs to help pay travel costs so workers or other beneficiaries in states with bans can travel to get an abortion elsewhere.

But it isn’t as straightforward as it sounds. Employers will have to figure out whether workers will access this benefit through the health plan or some other reimbursement method. Protecting privacy, too, may be an issue. Some consultants also said employers will need to consider whether their travel reimbursement benefit conflicts with other rules. If an employer, for example, covers travel for abortion procedures but not for an eating disorder clinic, does that violate the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act? If a plan has no providers willing or able to do abortions, does it violate any state or federal network adequacy rules?

Lawmakers need to think about these conflicts, said Jessica Waltman, vice president for compliance at employee benefits company MZQ Consulting. “They could be putting all the employer group plans in their state in a very precarious position if that state law would prohibit them from complying with federal law,” particularly if they restrict access to benefits called for in the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.

There are other potential conflicts if an employer is in a state that allows abortion but a worker is in a state that restricts it. “If I’m an Oregon-based company, my insurance plan must provide for abortion coverage, but what do I do about an Oklahoma employee? I don’t know the answer,” said René Thorne, a principal at Jackson Lewis, where she oversees litigation that involves self-insured firms.

Also uncertain is whether state laws will take aim at insurers, employers, or others that offer benefits, including travel or televisits, for abortion services.

Laws that restrict abortion, Ms. Thorne wrote in a white paper for clients, generally apply to the medical provider and sometimes those who “aid or abet” the abortion. Some states, including Texas, allow private citizens to sue for $10,000 anyone who provides an illegal abortion or helps a person access an abortion.

Whether those laws will be applied to employers or insurers will undoubtedly end up in the courts.

“We are in uncharted territory here, as we’ve never before been in a situation where plans, as well as their employer sponsors and those administering the plans, might face criminal liability in connection with a plan benefit,” said Seth Perretta, a principal at the Groom Law Group, which advises employers.

Answers won’t come soon, but “there will be so much litigation around this,” said Ms. Thorne.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Will your health plan pay for an abortion now that the Supreme Court has overturned Roe v. Wade?

Even before the June 24 ruling, insurance coverage for abortion varied widely. Now the issue is even more complex as states set varying rules – about half are expected to limit or ban abortion in almost all circumstances.

To be clear, though, the question of whether an insurance plan covers abortion is not the same as whether abortion is allowed in a state. Coverage issues are more complicated and governed by a wide variety of factors, including the level of abortion access a state allows.

How dense a thicket is it? Abortion may be covered by a health plan, but if no providers are available, patients don’t have access. However, people with insurance that does not cover abortion can still get one – but only if it’s available in their states or they can afford to travel and pay out of pocket. There are also a host of unanswered questions about whether states that restrict abortion will have the legal authority to target abortion coverage in employer plans.

The issues will likely be before the courts for years to come.

“States will pass laws, there will be some conflict, and then it goes to the courts,” said Erin Fuse Brown, director of the Center for Law, Health & Society at the Georgia State University, Atlanta. “It could be a while.”

In the meantime, here are answers to three common questions.
 

Are health plans – or employers – required to offer coverage for elective abortions?

The simple answer is “no.”

“There’s no law that requires any health plan, employer-based or anything else, to cover an elective abortion,” Ms. Fuse Brown said.

Whether they do is more complicated.

Some job-based health plans cover elective abortions. Patients can search their plan documents or call their insurers directly to check.

Coverage is more likely in plans offered by self-insured employers because a federal pensions law generally preempts state regulation of those health plans. Self-funded employers, which tend to be the larger ones, pay the medical bills, although they generally hire third parties, sometimes health insurers, to handle claims and administrative work.

Still, millions of Americans work for smaller employers, which tend to buy plans directly from health insurers, which then pay the medical bills. Those plans, known as “fully insured,” are subject to state laws, whose approaches to abortion coverage have long varied.

Eleven states bar those private plans from covering abortion in most circumstances, according to KFF, although some of the states allow consumers to purchase an insurance rider that would cover abortion costs.

If you’re not sure what type of health plan you have, ask the administrators.

“There is no way to tell from the face of your insurance card if you are fully insured or self-funded,” Ms. Fuse Brown said.

For the more than 14 million Americans who buy their coverage through the Affordable Care Act marketplaces, their state of residence is key.

Twenty-six states restrict abortion coverage in ACA plans, while seven states require it as a plan benefit, according to KFF. Those states are California, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, New York, Oregon, and Washington.

The rules for Medicaid, the federal-state health program for people with low incomes, also vary. Thirty-four states and the District of Columbia follow the so-called Hyde Amendment, which bars federal funds from paying for abortions, except in cases of rape or incest or to save the life of the mother, although some states allow coverage for other medically necessary abortions.

For all those reasons, it’s not surprising that research published in the journal Health Affairs noted that patients paid out-of-pocket for the majority of abortions (69% in one study). The researchers found that the median cost of a medication abortion was $560 and that abortion procedures ranged from a median of $575 in the first trimester to $895 in the second.
 

What about coverage for pregnancy-related complications that require treatment similar to abortion?

Insurance policies must cover care for essential health services, including medically necessary pregnancy care and abortion when carrying a pregnancy to term would endanger a patient’s life.

Under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 and other rules, Ms. Fuse Brown said, “pregnancy and prenatal care, including high-risk pregnancies, and obstetric care in general is required to be covered.”

In an ectopic pregnancy – when a fertilized egg implants outside the uterus – the embryo is not viable, and the condition is generally life-threatening to the mother without medical treatment. Many other scenarios could come into play, including situations in which a woman has a miscarriage but not all the tissue is expelled, potentially leading to a dangerous infection.

Although all state laws that currently restrict abortion include an exception to save the life of the mother, what constitutes a life-threatening scenario is not always clear. That means physicians in abortion-ban states may have to weigh the pregnant person’s medical risk against possible legal ramifications.

“This is less of a coverage question and more of a question of whether providers in the states that ban abortion are going to provide the care,” said Katie Keith, a research faculty member at the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University, Washington. “All of these laws are designed to chill behavior, to make it so unattractive or scary to providers to keep them from doing it at all.”
 

Can residents of states where abortion is illegal get coverage in other states or help with travel costs?

In recent weeks, many large employers – including Microsoft, Bank of America, Disney, and Netflix – have said they will set up programs to help pay travel costs so workers or other beneficiaries in states with bans can travel to get an abortion elsewhere.

But it isn’t as straightforward as it sounds. Employers will have to figure out whether workers will access this benefit through the health plan or some other reimbursement method. Protecting privacy, too, may be an issue. Some consultants also said employers will need to consider whether their travel reimbursement benefit conflicts with other rules. If an employer, for example, covers travel for abortion procedures but not for an eating disorder clinic, does that violate the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act? If a plan has no providers willing or able to do abortions, does it violate any state or federal network adequacy rules?

Lawmakers need to think about these conflicts, said Jessica Waltman, vice president for compliance at employee benefits company MZQ Consulting. “They could be putting all the employer group plans in their state in a very precarious position if that state law would prohibit them from complying with federal law,” particularly if they restrict access to benefits called for in the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.

There are other potential conflicts if an employer is in a state that allows abortion but a worker is in a state that restricts it. “If I’m an Oregon-based company, my insurance plan must provide for abortion coverage, but what do I do about an Oklahoma employee? I don’t know the answer,” said René Thorne, a principal at Jackson Lewis, where she oversees litigation that involves self-insured firms.

Also uncertain is whether state laws will take aim at insurers, employers, or others that offer benefits, including travel or televisits, for abortion services.

Laws that restrict abortion, Ms. Thorne wrote in a white paper for clients, generally apply to the medical provider and sometimes those who “aid or abet” the abortion. Some states, including Texas, allow private citizens to sue for $10,000 anyone who provides an illegal abortion or helps a person access an abortion.

Whether those laws will be applied to employers or insurers will undoubtedly end up in the courts.

“We are in uncharted territory here, as we’ve never before been in a situation where plans, as well as their employer sponsors and those administering the plans, might face criminal liability in connection with a plan benefit,” said Seth Perretta, a principal at the Groom Law Group, which advises employers.

Answers won’t come soon, but “there will be so much litigation around this,” said Ms. Thorne.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

INDIANAPOLIS – Nearly two-thirds of pediatric patients with hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) met criteria for obesity at the time of their diagnosis, and 36% had acne, in a study presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology.

In addition, 44% presented with scarring, which suggests that HS may be underdiagnosed in this patient population. Those are the key findings from the study, a single-center retrospective chart review presented by Stephanie Sanchez during a poster session at the meeting.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

“There is limited research on HS within the pediatric population,” said Ms. Sanchez, a fourth-year medical student at Boston University. “It’s not very well defined or characterized.” The “unusually high number of pediatric patients with HS” at Boston Medical Center provided “a unique opportunity to study this topic.”

Working with her mentor, Lisa Shen, MD, associate medical director of pediatric dermatology at Boston University, Ms. Sanchez and colleagues retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 303 patients aged 4-18 years who were diagnosed with HS at Boston Medical Center from 2012 to 2021. Boston Medical Center is the largest safety net hospital in New England. All data points and outcome measures were collected within 6 months of the patient’s HS diagnosis date.

Of the 303 patients with HS, 84% were female and 16% were male. Complete information about race was available in 286 patients. Of these, 65% were Black/African American, 11% were White, and the rest were from other racial groups. The mean age at symptom onset was 13 years, while the mean age at diagnosis was 15 years, and the mean delay to diagnosis was 2 years. A family history of HS was reported in 36% of patients.

Elsevier

The most common clinical features in these HS patients were pain/tenderness (90%), pustules/papules (65%), discharge/drainage (62%), and deep-seated nodules (51%). Scarring was present in 44% of patients at the time of diagnosis. The three most common sites of involvement were the axillary area (79%), the pubic area (36%), and the inguinal folds/inner thighs (34%).

Obesity was the most common comorbidity at the time of diagnosis, with 64% of patients affected. The next most common comorbidities were acne vulgaris (36%), acanthosis nigricans (25%), depression (18%), being overweight (17%), polycystic ovary syndrome (16%) and anxiety (13%). None had type 1 diabetes or metabolic syndrome.

Referring to the large population of underserved minority patients at Boston Medical Center, Dr. Shen noted, “we have to make sure not to underestimate the prevalence of obesity in this population as they get older. We need to start from a younger age to incorporate multidisciplinary care such as weight management, nutrition, and working with our pediatric surgery colleagues in trying to tackle [HS] because there is data to suggest that the earlier we intervene, the better outcomes they have. That makes sense.”

Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the findings, said that the study “highlights the impressive and concerning gap and delays in diagnosis, not too dissimilar to what the literature shows in adult HS patients, which unfortunately has tremendous ramifications, both physically and emotionally/psychosocially.”

While this single-center study identified potential risk factors, such as obesity and self-identifying as Black, he said, “it is important to note that this condition does not discriminate and therefore it is important not to miss the cases that don’t follow the textbook nor stigmatize this condition as one that only impacts certain demographics.”

The researchers reported having no financial disclosures. Dr. Friedman, who was not involved with the study, reported that he serves as a consultant and/or advisor to numerous pharmaceutical companies. He is a speaker for companies including, Regeneron, Sanofi, AbbVie, Janssen, Incyte, and Brickell Biotech, and has received grants from Pfizer, the Dermatology Foundation, Almirall, Incyte, Galderma, and Janssen.

INDIANAPOLIS – Nearly two-thirds of pediatric patients with hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) met criteria for obesity at the time of their diagnosis, and 36% had acne, in a study presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology.

In addition, 44% presented with scarring, which suggests that HS may be underdiagnosed in this patient population. Those are the key findings from the study, a single-center retrospective chart review presented by Stephanie Sanchez during a poster session at the meeting.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

“There is limited research on HS within the pediatric population,” said Ms. Sanchez, a fourth-year medical student at Boston University. “It’s not very well defined or characterized.” The “unusually high number of pediatric patients with HS” at Boston Medical Center provided “a unique opportunity to study this topic.”

Working with her mentor, Lisa Shen, MD, associate medical director of pediatric dermatology at Boston University, Ms. Sanchez and colleagues retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 303 patients aged 4-18 years who were diagnosed with HS at Boston Medical Center from 2012 to 2021. Boston Medical Center is the largest safety net hospital in New England. All data points and outcome measures were collected within 6 months of the patient’s HS diagnosis date.

Of the 303 patients with HS, 84% were female and 16% were male. Complete information about race was available in 286 patients. Of these, 65% were Black/African American, 11% were White, and the rest were from other racial groups. The mean age at symptom onset was 13 years, while the mean age at diagnosis was 15 years, and the mean delay to diagnosis was 2 years. A family history of HS was reported in 36% of patients.

Elsevier

The most common clinical features in these HS patients were pain/tenderness (90%), pustules/papules (65%), discharge/drainage (62%), and deep-seated nodules (51%). Scarring was present in 44% of patients at the time of diagnosis. The three most common sites of involvement were the axillary area (79%), the pubic area (36%), and the inguinal folds/inner thighs (34%).

Obesity was the most common comorbidity at the time of diagnosis, with 64% of patients affected. The next most common comorbidities were acne vulgaris (36%), acanthosis nigricans (25%), depression (18%), being overweight (17%), polycystic ovary syndrome (16%) and anxiety (13%). None had type 1 diabetes or metabolic syndrome.

Referring to the large population of underserved minority patients at Boston Medical Center, Dr. Shen noted, “we have to make sure not to underestimate the prevalence of obesity in this population as they get older. We need to start from a younger age to incorporate multidisciplinary care such as weight management, nutrition, and working with our pediatric surgery colleagues in trying to tackle [HS] because there is data to suggest that the earlier we intervene, the better outcomes they have. That makes sense.”

Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the findings, said that the study “highlights the impressive and concerning gap and delays in diagnosis, not too dissimilar to what the literature shows in adult HS patients, which unfortunately has tremendous ramifications, both physically and emotionally/psychosocially.”

While this single-center study identified potential risk factors, such as obesity and self-identifying as Black, he said, “it is important to note that this condition does not discriminate and therefore it is important not to miss the cases that don’t follow the textbook nor stigmatize this condition as one that only impacts certain demographics.”

The researchers reported having no financial disclosures. Dr. Friedman, who was not involved with the study, reported that he serves as a consultant and/or advisor to numerous pharmaceutical companies. He is a speaker for companies including, Regeneron, Sanofi, AbbVie, Janssen, Incyte, and Brickell Biotech, and has received grants from Pfizer, the Dermatology Foundation, Almirall, Incyte, Galderma, and Janssen.

INDIANAPOLIS – Nearly two-thirds of pediatric patients with hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) met criteria for obesity at the time of their diagnosis, and 36% had acne, in a study presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology.

In addition, 44% presented with scarring, which suggests that HS may be underdiagnosed in this patient population. Those are the key findings from the study, a single-center retrospective chart review presented by Stephanie Sanchez during a poster session at the meeting.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

“There is limited research on HS within the pediatric population,” said Ms. Sanchez, a fourth-year medical student at Boston University. “It’s not very well defined or characterized.” The “unusually high number of pediatric patients with HS” at Boston Medical Center provided “a unique opportunity to study this topic.”

Working with her mentor, Lisa Shen, MD, associate medical director of pediatric dermatology at Boston University, Ms. Sanchez and colleagues retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 303 patients aged 4-18 years who were diagnosed with HS at Boston Medical Center from 2012 to 2021. Boston Medical Center is the largest safety net hospital in New England. All data points and outcome measures were collected within 6 months of the patient’s HS diagnosis date.

Of the 303 patients with HS, 84% were female and 16% were male. Complete information about race was available in 286 patients. Of these, 65% were Black/African American, 11% were White, and the rest were from other racial groups. The mean age at symptom onset was 13 years, while the mean age at diagnosis was 15 years, and the mean delay to diagnosis was 2 years. A family history of HS was reported in 36% of patients.

Elsevier

The most common clinical features in these HS patients were pain/tenderness (90%), pustules/papules (65%), discharge/drainage (62%), and deep-seated nodules (51%). Scarring was present in 44% of patients at the time of diagnosis. The three most common sites of involvement were the axillary area (79%), the pubic area (36%), and the inguinal folds/inner thighs (34%).

Obesity was the most common comorbidity at the time of diagnosis, with 64% of patients affected. The next most common comorbidities were acne vulgaris (36%), acanthosis nigricans (25%), depression (18%), being overweight (17%), polycystic ovary syndrome (16%) and anxiety (13%). None had type 1 diabetes or metabolic syndrome.

Referring to the large population of underserved minority patients at Boston Medical Center, Dr. Shen noted, “we have to make sure not to underestimate the prevalence of obesity in this population as they get older. We need to start from a younger age to incorporate multidisciplinary care such as weight management, nutrition, and working with our pediatric surgery colleagues in trying to tackle [HS] because there is data to suggest that the earlier we intervene, the better outcomes they have. That makes sense.”

Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the findings, said that the study “highlights the impressive and concerning gap and delays in diagnosis, not too dissimilar to what the literature shows in adult HS patients, which unfortunately has tremendous ramifications, both physically and emotionally/psychosocially.”

While this single-center study identified potential risk factors, such as obesity and self-identifying as Black, he said, “it is important to note that this condition does not discriminate and therefore it is important not to miss the cases that don’t follow the textbook nor stigmatize this condition as one that only impacts certain demographics.”

The researchers reported having no financial disclosures. Dr. Friedman, who was not involved with the study, reported that he serves as a consultant and/or advisor to numerous pharmaceutical companies. He is a speaker for companies including, Regeneron, Sanofi, AbbVie, Janssen, Incyte, and Brickell Biotech, and has received grants from Pfizer, the Dermatology Foundation, Almirall, Incyte, Galderma, and Janssen.

Use of new biologics such as ustekinumab and vedolizumab during pregnancy appears to be safe, with favorable pregnancy and postnatal infant outcomes, according to a study published in the Journal of Crohn’s and Colitis.

The results, which come from the Czech IBD Working Group, point to the need for safe options to treat inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) during pregnancy, wrote the researchers led by Katarina Mitrova, MD, PhD, of the Clinical and Research Centre for Inflammatory Bowel Disease at Charles University, Prague.

digitalskillet/Thinkstock

“As the long-term therapy can affect pregnancy and neonatal outcomes, strong evidence is needed to reassure patients about safety,” they wrote. “Recent years have seen significant progress in research around anti-TNF treatment in pregnancy, confirming its safe use, but the data on the new biologics are still limited.”

In a prospective, multicenter observational study of women with IBD, the researchers included 54 pregnancies in 49 women exposed to ustekinumab and 39 pregnancies in 37 women exposed to vedolizumab 2 months prior to conception or during pregnancy between January 2017 and December 2021 in 15 centers across the Czech Republic.

The control group of 90 pregnancies in 81 women was collected retrospectively and included pregnant women with IBD exposed to anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy – 29% to adalimumab and 71% to infliximab – in two centers in the Czech Republic between 2013 and 2021. Only singleton pregnancies were included in the analyses because of the increased risk of complications in multiple pregnancies, the investigators noted.

About 94% of patients treated with ustekinumab had Crohn’s disease, while the disease distribution was nearly equal in patients treated with vedolizumab. Active disease any time during pregnancy was reported in 17% of women on ustekinumab and 23% of those on vedolizumab, as well as 10% of those on anti-TNF therapy.

Pregnancies resulted in live births in 79.9% of the ustekinumab group, 89.7% of the vedolizumab group, and 87.8% of the anti-TNF group; however, these differences were not statistically significant.

Overall, there were no significant differences in pregnancy outcomes between either the vedolizumab or ustekinumab groups or the controls. Similarly, there were no negative safety signals in the postnatal outcomes of children up to 1 year of life, including measures such as growth, psychomotor development, and the risk of allergy, atopy, or infectious complications.

Blue Planet Studio/Getty Images

Ustekinumab was administered for the last time during pregnancy at median gestational week 33, ranging from 18 to 38 weeks. Five women stopped the treatment during the second trimester, and 37 continued to use it during the third trimester. An intensified regimen, shortening the interval to 4-6 weeks, was given to 13 patients. There were no disease flares after stopping the treatment.

Vedolizumab was administered for the last time during pregnancy at median gestational week 32, ranging from 18 to 38 weeks. Seven women discontinued the treatment during the second trimester, and 27 continued to use it in the third trimester. An intensified regimen was used in six pregnancies. No disease relapse was observed after treatment discontinuation.

Of the pregnancies that resulted in live births, maternal pregnancy-related complications occurred in six women (14%) treated with ustekinumab and seven women (20%) treated with vedolizumab. The most frequent complication was gestational diabetes mellitus, followed by arterial hypertension, preeclampsia, and intrapartum hemorrhage. The rate of complications was not significantly different from the control population for either biologic.

On the day of delivery, maternal venous blood and umbilical cord blood were collected to determine the levels of ustekinumab and vedolizumab.

Additional studies are needed because of the overall small study population, the researchers suggested.

“According to recent guidelines, continuing with biologic therapy, including new biologics, is recommended throughout pregnancy to prevent disease relapse, which is a strong risk factor of adverse pregnancy outcomes,” the researchers wrote.

“Data on the safety of non-anti-TNF biologics in pregnancy are limited by small numbers and, in many cases, retrospective design,” said Eugenia Shmidt, MD, an assistant professor in the division of gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition at the University of Minnesota and founder of the university's IBD Preconception and Pregnancy Planning Clinic. “This study’s prospective nature and larger size make it a particularly valuable contribution to the field. Hopefully IBD clinicians will be reassured that ustekinumab and vedolizumab are safe for both mother and baby and can be continued throughout the entire duration of pregnancy.”

No specific funding was received for the study. The authors listed financial disclosures and conflict of interest statements for AbbVie, Takeda, Janssen, Pfizer, Biogen, Tillotts, Ferring, Alfasigma, Celltrion, and PRO.MED.CS. Dr. Shmidt declared no relevant disclosures.

This article was updated July 18, 2022.

Use of new biologics such as ustekinumab and vedolizumab during pregnancy appears to be safe, with favorable pregnancy and postnatal infant outcomes, according to a study published in the Journal of Crohn’s and Colitis.

The results, which come from the Czech IBD Working Group, point to the need for safe options to treat inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) during pregnancy, wrote the researchers led by Katarina Mitrova, MD, PhD, of the Clinical and Research Centre for Inflammatory Bowel Disease at Charles University, Prague.

digitalskillet/Thinkstock

“As the long-term therapy can affect pregnancy and neonatal outcomes, strong evidence is needed to reassure patients about safety,” they wrote. “Recent years have seen significant progress in research around anti-TNF treatment in pregnancy, confirming its safe use, but the data on the new biologics are still limited.”

In a prospective, multicenter observational study of women with IBD, the researchers included 54 pregnancies in 49 women exposed to ustekinumab and 39 pregnancies in 37 women exposed to vedolizumab 2 months prior to conception or during pregnancy between January 2017 and December 2021 in 15 centers across the Czech Republic.

The control group of 90 pregnancies in 81 women was collected retrospectively and included pregnant women with IBD exposed to anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy – 29% to adalimumab and 71% to infliximab – in two centers in the Czech Republic between 2013 and 2021. Only singleton pregnancies were included in the analyses because of the increased risk of complications in multiple pregnancies, the investigators noted.

About 94% of patients treated with ustekinumab had Crohn’s disease, while the disease distribution was nearly equal in patients treated with vedolizumab. Active disease any time during pregnancy was reported in 17% of women on ustekinumab and 23% of those on vedolizumab, as well as 10% of those on anti-TNF therapy.

Pregnancies resulted in live births in 79.9% of the ustekinumab group, 89.7% of the vedolizumab group, and 87.8% of the anti-TNF group; however, these differences were not statistically significant.

Overall, there were no significant differences in pregnancy outcomes between either the vedolizumab or ustekinumab groups or the controls. Similarly, there were no negative safety signals in the postnatal outcomes of children up to 1 year of life, including measures such as growth, psychomotor development, and the risk of allergy, atopy, or infectious complications.

Blue Planet Studio/Getty Images

Ustekinumab was administered for the last time during pregnancy at median gestational week 33, ranging from 18 to 38 weeks. Five women stopped the treatment during the second trimester, and 37 continued to use it during the third trimester. An intensified regimen, shortening the interval to 4-6 weeks, was given to 13 patients. There were no disease flares after stopping the treatment.

Vedolizumab was administered for the last time during pregnancy at median gestational week 32, ranging from 18 to 38 weeks. Seven women discontinued the treatment during the second trimester, and 27 continued to use it in the third trimester. An intensified regimen was used in six pregnancies. No disease relapse was observed after treatment discontinuation.

Of the pregnancies that resulted in live births, maternal pregnancy-related complications occurred in six women (14%) treated with ustekinumab and seven women (20%) treated with vedolizumab. The most frequent complication was gestational diabetes mellitus, followed by arterial hypertension, preeclampsia, and intrapartum hemorrhage. The rate of complications was not significantly different from the control population for either biologic.

On the day of delivery, maternal venous blood and umbilical cord blood were collected to determine the levels of ustekinumab and vedolizumab.

Additional studies are needed because of the overall small study population, the researchers suggested.

“According to recent guidelines, continuing with biologic therapy, including new biologics, is recommended throughout pregnancy to prevent disease relapse, which is a strong risk factor of adverse pregnancy outcomes,” the researchers wrote.

“Data on the safety of non-anti-TNF biologics in pregnancy are limited by small numbers and, in many cases, retrospective design,” said Eugenia Shmidt, MD, an assistant professor in the division of gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition at the University of Minnesota and founder of the university's IBD Preconception and Pregnancy Planning Clinic. “This study’s prospective nature and larger size make it a particularly valuable contribution to the field. Hopefully IBD clinicians will be reassured that ustekinumab and vedolizumab are safe for both mother and baby and can be continued throughout the entire duration of pregnancy.”

No specific funding was received for the study. The authors listed financial disclosures and conflict of interest statements for AbbVie, Takeda, Janssen, Pfizer, Biogen, Tillotts, Ferring, Alfasigma, Celltrion, and PRO.MED.CS. Dr. Shmidt declared no relevant disclosures.

This article was updated July 18, 2022.

Use of new biologics such as ustekinumab and vedolizumab during pregnancy appears to be safe, with favorable pregnancy and postnatal infant outcomes, according to a study published in the Journal of Crohn’s and Colitis.

The results, which come from the Czech IBD Working Group, point to the need for safe options to treat inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) during pregnancy, wrote the researchers led by Katarina Mitrova, MD, PhD, of the Clinical and Research Centre for Inflammatory Bowel Disease at Charles University, Prague.

digitalskillet/Thinkstock

“As the long-term therapy can affect pregnancy and neonatal outcomes, strong evidence is needed to reassure patients about safety,” they wrote. “Recent years have seen significant progress in research around anti-TNF treatment in pregnancy, confirming its safe use, but the data on the new biologics are still limited.”

In a prospective, multicenter observational study of women with IBD, the researchers included 54 pregnancies in 49 women exposed to ustekinumab and 39 pregnancies in 37 women exposed to vedolizumab 2 months prior to conception or during pregnancy between January 2017 and December 2021 in 15 centers across the Czech Republic.

The control group of 90 pregnancies in 81 women was collected retrospectively and included pregnant women with IBD exposed to anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy – 29% to adalimumab and 71% to infliximab – in two centers in the Czech Republic between 2013 and 2021. Only singleton pregnancies were included in the analyses because of the increased risk of complications in multiple pregnancies, the investigators noted.

About 94% of patients treated with ustekinumab had Crohn’s disease, while the disease distribution was nearly equal in patients treated with vedolizumab. Active disease any time during pregnancy was reported in 17% of women on ustekinumab and 23% of those on vedolizumab, as well as 10% of those on anti-TNF therapy.

Pregnancies resulted in live births in 79.9% of the ustekinumab group, 89.7% of the vedolizumab group, and 87.8% of the anti-TNF group; however, these differences were not statistically significant.

Overall, there were no significant differences in pregnancy outcomes between either the vedolizumab or ustekinumab groups or the controls. Similarly, there were no negative safety signals in the postnatal outcomes of children up to 1 year of life, including measures such as growth, psychomotor development, and the risk of allergy, atopy, or infectious complications.

Blue Planet Studio/Getty Images

Ustekinumab was administered for the last time during pregnancy at median gestational week 33, ranging from 18 to 38 weeks. Five women stopped the treatment during the second trimester, and 37 continued to use it during the third trimester. An intensified regimen, shortening the interval to 4-6 weeks, was given to 13 patients. There were no disease flares after stopping the treatment.

Vedolizumab was administered for the last time during pregnancy at median gestational week 32, ranging from 18 to 38 weeks. Seven women discontinued the treatment during the second trimester, and 27 continued to use it in the third trimester. An intensified regimen was used in six pregnancies. No disease relapse was observed after treatment discontinuation.

Of the pregnancies that resulted in live births, maternal pregnancy-related complications occurred in six women (14%) treated with ustekinumab and seven women (20%) treated with vedolizumab. The most frequent complication was gestational diabetes mellitus, followed by arterial hypertension, preeclampsia, and intrapartum hemorrhage. The rate of complications was not significantly different from the control population for either biologic.

On the day of delivery, maternal venous blood and umbilical cord blood were collected to determine the levels of ustekinumab and vedolizumab.

Additional studies are needed because of the overall small study population, the researchers suggested.

“According to recent guidelines, continuing with biologic therapy, including new biologics, is recommended throughout pregnancy to prevent disease relapse, which is a strong risk factor of adverse pregnancy outcomes,” the researchers wrote.

“Data on the safety of non-anti-TNF biologics in pregnancy are limited by small numbers and, in many cases, retrospective design,” said Eugenia Shmidt, MD, an assistant professor in the division of gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition at the University of Minnesota and founder of the university's IBD Preconception and Pregnancy Planning Clinic. “This study’s prospective nature and larger size make it a particularly valuable contribution to the field. Hopefully IBD clinicians will be reassured that ustekinumab and vedolizumab are safe for both mother and baby and can be continued throughout the entire duration of pregnancy.”

No specific funding was received for the study. The authors listed financial disclosures and conflict of interest statements for AbbVie, Takeda, Janssen, Pfizer, Biogen, Tillotts, Ferring, Alfasigma, Celltrion, and PRO.MED.CS. Dr. Shmidt declared no relevant disclosures.

This article was updated July 18, 2022.