Use of a topical Janus kinase inhibitor in immune checkpoint inhibitor-induced eczematous reaction: a case report.

In this report, we describe the case of a 28-year-old female with bilateral breast cancer in the setting of a BRCA1 mutation, who presented to dermatology with an eczematous reaction, ultimately diagnosed as a cutaneous immune-related adverse event (cirAE) secondary to an immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI), pembrolizumab. Our case report highlights a novel therapeutic option for an eczematous cirAE: the topical JAK 1/2 inhibitor, ruxolitinib. CirAEs can occur in up to 55% of patients on ICIs, a class of medications seeing rapidly increasing use in cancer therapy, and prior research has demonstrated that ICI-induced dermatitis may involve different pathways than traditionally observed in their spontaneous counterparts. Specifically, marked Th1 skewing is noted in ICI-induced dermatitis, as opposed to a predominant Th2 response which typically characterizes spontaneous atopic dermatitis. To our knowledge, this is the first case report in the literature discussing use of a topical JAK inhibitor, ruxolitinib, in the treatment of topical steroid-refractory cirAEs. Furthermore, as topical JAK inhibitors are thought to not carry the risks of systemic JAK inhibitors, including malignancy, ruxolitinib cream is a promising therapeutic option for this challenging patient population.

Patient Satisfaction with Telehealth at an Academic Medical Center Primary Care Clinic.

Objective: To determine whether the quality of the patient experience differs between video visits and in-person visits for primary care. Methods: Using patient satisfaction survey results from patients who had visits with the internal medicine faculty primary care practice at a large urban academic hospital in New York City from 2018 to 2022, we compared results regarding satisfaction with the clinic, physician, and ease of access to care between patients who attended a video visit and those who attended an in-person appointment. Logistic regression analyses were performed to determine if there was a statistically significant difference in patient experience. Results: In total, 9,862 participants were included in analysis. Mean age of respondents attending in-person visits was 59.0; mean age of respondents attending telemedicine visits was 56.0. There was no statistically significant difference in scores between the in-person and telemedicine groups for likelihood of recommending the practice to others, quality of time spent with the doctor, and how well the clinical team explained care. Patient satisfaction was significantly higher in the telemedicine group compared with the in-person group for ability to get an appointment when needed (4.48 ± 1.00 vs. 4.34 ± 1.04, p < 0.001), how helpful and courteous the person who assisted them was (4.64 ± 0.83 vs. 4.61 ± 0.79, p = 0.009), and ease of reaching the office through phone (4.55 ± 0.97 vs. 4.46 ± 0.96, p < 0.001). Conclusions: This analysis demonstrated parity in patient satisfaction for traditional in-person visits and telemedicine visits in primary care.

The Impact of the Affordable Care Act on Disparities in Utilization of Cardiovascular Preventive Services by Socioeconomic Status.

Disparities in cardiovascular outcomes are persistent in our society. The objective was to track the trends before and after the passage of the Affordable Care Act in socioeconomic status (SES) disparities in utilization of cardiovascular disease (CVD) preventive services among nonelderly adults aged 18-64 years. This study used the National Health Interview Survey (2011-2017) to compare utilization of blood pressure, cholesterol, glycemic screening, and diet and smoking cessation advice over time between groups stratified by SES and race using difference-in-difference analysis. This study also measured the differences over time in specific vulnerable population subgroups (Hispanic, low-income and uninsured vs. White, middle-high-income, and insured). The study population included 176,961 surveyed individuals (mean age 40 [±13] years; 51% female; 67.7% non-Hispanic White) between 2011 and 2017, translating to 194.8 million nonelderly US adults per year. Most individuals were from high-income SES (40.0%), followed by middle-income (28.1%), low-income (13.6%), and lowest income SES (18.3%). The proportion of CVD preventive services increased over all SES categories through the study period. The biggest relative changes were seen among low-income individuals. The difference in blood pressure checks, cholesterol checks, and smoking cessation advise between high- and lowest income groups showed a statistically significant decrease at 5.2%, 4.8%, and 11.2%, respectively, between 2011 and 2017. The findings demonstrate a trend in reduction of CVD preventive care disparities between SES groups. However, a gap still exists, and this study highlights the need for continuous improvement to eliminate SES disparities.

Asthma and COVID-19: lessons learned and questions that remain.

INTRODUCTION: Asthma is one of the most common chronic diseases worldwide. As a disease of the respiratory tract, the site of entry for the SARS-CoV-2 virus, there may be an important interplay between asthma and COVID-19 disease. AREAS COVERED: We report asthma prevalence among hospitalized cohorts with COVID-19. Those with non-allergic and severe asthma may be at increased risk of a worsened clinical outcome from COVID-19 infection. We explore the epidemiology of asthma as a risk factor for the severity of COVID-19 infection. We then consider the role COVID-19 may play in leading to exacerbations of asthma. The impact of asthma endotype on outcome is discussed. Lastly, we address the safety of common asthma therapeutics. A literature search was performed with relevant terms for each of the sections of the review using PubMed, Google Scholar, and Medline. EXPERT OPINION: Asthma diagnosis may be a risk factor for severe COVID-19 especially for those with severe disease or nonallergic phenotypes. COVID-19 does not appear to provoke asthma exacerbations and asthma therapeutics should be continued for patients with exposure to COVID-19. Clearly much regarding this topic remains unknown and we identify some key questions that may be of interest for future researchers.[Figure: see text].

The relationship between asthma, eosinophilia, and outcomes in coronavirus disease 2019 infection.

BACKGROUND: The impact of asthma diagnosis and asthma endotype on outcomes from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: To describe the association between asthma diagnosis and endotype and clinical outcomes among patients diagnosed as having COVID-19 infection. METHODS: Retrospective multicenter cohort study of outpatients and inpatients presenting to 6 hospitals in the Mount Sinai Health System New York metropolitan region between March 7, 2020, and June 7, 2020, with COVID-19 infection, with and without a history of asthma. The primary outcome evaluated was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included hospitalization, intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, and hospital length of stay. The outcomes were compared in patients with or without asthma using a multivariate Cox regression model. The outcomes stratified by blood eosinophilia count were also evaluated. RESULTS: Of 10,523 patients diagnosed as having COVID-19 infection, 4902 were hospitalized and 468 had a diagnosis of asthma (4.4%). When adjusted for COVID-19 disease severity, comorbidities, and concurrent therapies, patients with asthma had a lower mortality (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.64 (0.53-0.77); P < .001) and a lower rate of hospitalization and intensive care unit admission (OR, 0.43 (0.28-0.64); P < .001 and OR, 0.51 (0.41-0.64); P < .001, respectively). Those with blood eosinophils greater than or equal to 200 cells/µL, both with and without asthma, had lower mortality. CONCLUSION: Patients with asthma may be at a reduced risk of poor outcomes from COVID-19 infection. Eosinophilia, both in those with and without asthma, may be associated with reduced mortality risk.