CCJM delivers practical clinical articles relevant to internists, cardiologists, endocrinologists, and other specialists, all written by known experts.

Theme
medstat_ccjm
Top Sections
CME
Reviews
1-Minute Consult
The Clinical Picture
Smart Testing
Symptoms to Diagnosis
ccjm
Main menu
CCJM Main Menu
Explore menu
CCJM Explore Menu
Proclivity ID
18804001
Unpublish
Negative Keywords
gaming
gambling
compulsive behaviors
ammunition
assault rifle
black jack
Boko Haram
bondage
child abuse
cocaine
Daech
drug paraphernalia
explosion
gun
human trafficking
ISIL
ISIS
Islamic caliphate
Islamic state
mixed martial arts
MMA
molestation
national rifle association
NRA
nsfw
pedophile
pedophilia
poker
porn
pornography
psychedelic drug
recreational drug
sex slave rings
slot machine
terrorism
terrorist
Texas hold 'em
UFC
substance abuse
abuseed
abuseer
abusees
abuseing
abusely
abuses
aeolus
aeolused
aeoluser
aeoluses
aeolusing
aeolusly
aeoluss
ahole
aholeed
aholeer
aholees
aholeing
aholely
aholes
alcohol
alcoholed
alcoholer
alcoholes
alcoholing
alcoholly
alcohols
allman
allmaned
allmaner
allmanes
allmaning
allmanly
allmans
alted
altes
alting
altly
alts
analed
analer
anales
analing
anally
analprobe
analprobeed
analprobeer
analprobees
analprobeing
analprobely
analprobes
anals
anilingus
anilingused
anilinguser
anilinguses
anilingusing
anilingusly
anilinguss
anus
anused
anuser
anuses
anusing
anusly
anuss
areola
areolaed
areolaer
areolaes
areolaing
areolaly
areolas
areole
areoleed
areoleer
areolees
areoleing
areolely
areoles
arian
arianed
arianer
arianes
arianing
arianly
arians
aryan
aryaned
aryaner
aryanes
aryaning
aryanly
aryans
asiaed
asiaer
asiaes
asiaing
asialy
asias
ass
ass hole
ass lick
ass licked
ass licker
ass lickes
ass licking
ass lickly
ass licks
assbang
assbanged
assbangeded
assbangeder
assbangedes
assbangeding
assbangedly
assbangeds
assbanger
assbanges
assbanging
assbangly
assbangs
assbangsed
assbangser
assbangses
assbangsing
assbangsly
assbangss
assed
asser
asses
assesed
asseser
asseses
assesing
assesly
assess
assfuck
assfucked
assfucker
assfuckered
assfuckerer
assfuckeres
assfuckering
assfuckerly
assfuckers
assfuckes
assfucking
assfuckly
assfucks
asshat
asshated
asshater
asshates
asshating
asshatly
asshats
assholeed
assholeer
assholees
assholeing
assholely
assholes
assholesed
assholeser
assholeses
assholesing
assholesly
assholess
assing
assly
assmaster
assmastered
assmasterer
assmasteres
assmastering
assmasterly
assmasters
assmunch
assmunched
assmuncher
assmunches
assmunching
assmunchly
assmunchs
asss
asswipe
asswipeed
asswipeer
asswipees
asswipeing
asswipely
asswipes
asswipesed
asswipeser
asswipeses
asswipesing
asswipesly
asswipess
azz
azzed
azzer
azzes
azzing
azzly
azzs
babeed
babeer
babees
babeing
babely
babes
babesed
babeser
babeses
babesing
babesly
babess
ballsac
ballsaced
ballsacer
ballsaces
ballsacing
ballsack
ballsacked
ballsacker
ballsackes
ballsacking
ballsackly
ballsacks
ballsacly
ballsacs
ballsed
ballser
ballses
ballsing
ballsly
ballss
barf
barfed
barfer
barfes
barfing
barfly
barfs
bastard
bastarded
bastarder
bastardes
bastarding
bastardly
bastards
bastardsed
bastardser
bastardses
bastardsing
bastardsly
bastardss
bawdy
bawdyed
bawdyer
bawdyes
bawdying
bawdyly
bawdys
beaner
beanered
beanerer
beaneres
beanering
beanerly
beaners
beardedclam
beardedclamed
beardedclamer
beardedclames
beardedclaming
beardedclamly
beardedclams
beastiality
beastialityed
beastialityer
beastialityes
beastialitying
beastialityly
beastialitys
beatch
beatched
beatcher
beatches
beatching
beatchly
beatchs
beater
beatered
beaterer
beateres
beatering
beaterly
beaters
beered
beerer
beeres
beering
beerly
beeyotch
beeyotched
beeyotcher
beeyotches
beeyotching
beeyotchly
beeyotchs
beotch
beotched
beotcher
beotches
beotching
beotchly
beotchs
biatch
biatched
biatcher
biatches
biatching
biatchly
biatchs
big tits
big titsed
big titser
big titses
big titsing
big titsly
big titss
bigtits
bigtitsed
bigtitser
bigtitses
bigtitsing
bigtitsly
bigtitss
bimbo
bimboed
bimboer
bimboes
bimboing
bimboly
bimbos
bisexualed
bisexualer
bisexuales
bisexualing
bisexually
bisexuals
bitch
bitched
bitcheded
bitcheder
bitchedes
bitcheding
bitchedly
bitcheds
bitcher
bitches
bitchesed
bitcheser
bitcheses
bitchesing
bitchesly
bitchess
bitching
bitchly
bitchs
bitchy
bitchyed
bitchyer
bitchyes
bitchying
bitchyly
bitchys
bleached
bleacher
bleaches
bleaching
bleachly
bleachs
blow job
blow jobed
blow jober
blow jobes
blow jobing
blow jobly
blow jobs
blowed
blower
blowes
blowing
blowjob
blowjobed
blowjober
blowjobes
blowjobing
blowjobly
blowjobs
blowjobsed
blowjobser
blowjobses
blowjobsing
blowjobsly
blowjobss
blowly
blows
boink
boinked
boinker
boinkes
boinking
boinkly
boinks
bollock
bollocked
bollocker
bollockes
bollocking
bollockly
bollocks
bollocksed
bollockser
bollockses
bollocksing
bollocksly
bollockss
bollok
bolloked
bolloker
bollokes
bolloking
bollokly
bolloks
boner
bonered
bonerer
boneres
bonering
bonerly
boners
bonersed
bonerser
bonerses
bonersing
bonersly
bonerss
bong
bonged
bonger
bonges
bonging
bongly
bongs
boob
boobed
boober
boobes
boobies
boobiesed
boobieser
boobieses
boobiesing
boobiesly
boobiess
boobing
boobly
boobs
boobsed
boobser
boobses
boobsing
boobsly
boobss
booby
boobyed
boobyer
boobyes
boobying
boobyly
boobys
booger
boogered
boogerer
boogeres
boogering
boogerly
boogers
bookie
bookieed
bookieer
bookiees
bookieing
bookiely
bookies
bootee
booteeed
booteeer
booteees
booteeing
booteely
bootees
bootie
bootieed
bootieer
bootiees
bootieing
bootiely
booties
booty
bootyed
bootyer
bootyes
bootying
bootyly
bootys
boozeed
boozeer
boozees
boozeing
boozely
boozer
boozered
boozerer
boozeres
boozering
boozerly
boozers
boozes
boozy
boozyed
boozyer
boozyes
boozying
boozyly
boozys
bosomed
bosomer
bosomes
bosoming
bosomly
bosoms
bosomy
bosomyed
bosomyer
bosomyes
bosomying
bosomyly
bosomys
bugger
buggered
buggerer
buggeres
buggering
buggerly
buggers
bukkake
bukkakeed
bukkakeer
bukkakees
bukkakeing
bukkakely
bukkakes
bull shit
bull shited
bull shiter
bull shites
bull shiting
bull shitly
bull shits
bullshit
bullshited
bullshiter
bullshites
bullshiting
bullshitly
bullshits
bullshitsed
bullshitser
bullshitses
bullshitsing
bullshitsly
bullshitss
bullshitted
bullshitteded
bullshitteder
bullshittedes
bullshitteding
bullshittedly
bullshitteds
bullturds
bullturdsed
bullturdser
bullturdses
bullturdsing
bullturdsly
bullturdss
bung
bunged
bunger
bunges
bunging
bungly
bungs
busty
bustyed
bustyer
bustyes
bustying
bustyly
bustys
butt
butt fuck
butt fucked
butt fucker
butt fuckes
butt fucking
butt fuckly
butt fucks
butted
buttes
buttfuck
buttfucked
buttfucker
buttfuckered
buttfuckerer
buttfuckeres
buttfuckering
buttfuckerly
buttfuckers
buttfuckes
buttfucking
buttfuckly
buttfucks
butting
buttly
buttplug
buttpluged
buttpluger
buttpluges
buttpluging
buttplugly
buttplugs
butts
caca
cacaed
cacaer
cacaes
cacaing
cacaly
cacas
cahone
cahoneed
cahoneer
cahonees
cahoneing
cahonely
cahones
cameltoe
cameltoeed
cameltoeer
cameltoees
cameltoeing
cameltoely
cameltoes
carpetmuncher
carpetmunchered
carpetmuncherer
carpetmuncheres
carpetmunchering
carpetmuncherly
carpetmunchers
cawk
cawked
cawker
cawkes
cawking
cawkly
cawks
chinc
chinced
chincer
chinces
chincing
chincly
chincs
chincsed
chincser
chincses
chincsing
chincsly
chincss
chink
chinked
chinker
chinkes
chinking
chinkly
chinks
chode
chodeed
chodeer
chodees
chodeing
chodely
chodes
chodesed
chodeser
chodeses
chodesing
chodesly
chodess
clit
clited
cliter
clites
cliting
clitly
clitoris
clitorised
clitoriser
clitorises
clitorising
clitorisly
clitoriss
clitorus
clitorused
clitoruser
clitoruses
clitorusing
clitorusly
clitoruss
clits
clitsed
clitser
clitses
clitsing
clitsly
clitss
clitty
clittyed
clittyer
clittyes
clittying
clittyly
clittys
cocain
cocaine
cocained
cocaineed
cocaineer
cocainees
cocaineing
cocainely
cocainer
cocaines
cocaining
cocainly
cocains
cock
cock sucker
cock suckered
cock suckerer
cock suckeres
cock suckering
cock suckerly
cock suckers
cockblock
cockblocked
cockblocker
cockblockes
cockblocking
cockblockly
cockblocks
cocked
cocker
cockes
cockholster
cockholstered
cockholsterer
cockholsteres
cockholstering
cockholsterly
cockholsters
cocking
cockknocker
cockknockered
cockknockerer
cockknockeres
cockknockering
cockknockerly
cockknockers
cockly
cocks
cocksed
cockser
cockses
cocksing
cocksly
cocksmoker
cocksmokered
cocksmokerer
cocksmokeres
cocksmokering
cocksmokerly
cocksmokers
cockss
cocksucker
cocksuckered
cocksuckerer
cocksuckeres
cocksuckering
cocksuckerly
cocksuckers
coital
coitaled
coitaler
coitales
coitaling
coitally
coitals
commie
commieed
commieer
commiees
commieing
commiely
commies
condomed
condomer
condomes
condoming
condomly
condoms
coon
cooned
cooner
coones
cooning
coonly
coons
coonsed
coonser
coonses
coonsing
coonsly
coonss
corksucker
corksuckered
corksuckerer
corksuckeres
corksuckering
corksuckerly
corksuckers
cracked
crackwhore
crackwhoreed
crackwhoreer
crackwhorees
crackwhoreing
crackwhorely
crackwhores
crap
craped
craper
crapes
craping
craply
crappy
crappyed
crappyer
crappyes
crappying
crappyly
crappys
cum
cumed
cumer
cumes
cuming
cumly
cummin
cummined
cumminer
cummines
cumming
cumminged
cumminger
cumminges
cumminging
cummingly
cummings
cummining
cumminly
cummins
cums
cumshot
cumshoted
cumshoter
cumshotes
cumshoting
cumshotly
cumshots
cumshotsed
cumshotser
cumshotses
cumshotsing
cumshotsly
cumshotss
cumslut
cumsluted
cumsluter
cumslutes
cumsluting
cumslutly
cumsluts
cumstain
cumstained
cumstainer
cumstaines
cumstaining
cumstainly
cumstains
cunilingus
cunilingused
cunilinguser
cunilinguses
cunilingusing
cunilingusly
cunilinguss
cunnilingus
cunnilingused
cunnilinguser
cunnilinguses
cunnilingusing
cunnilingusly
cunnilinguss
cunny
cunnyed
cunnyer
cunnyes
cunnying
cunnyly
cunnys
cunt
cunted
cunter
cuntes
cuntface
cuntfaceed
cuntfaceer
cuntfacees
cuntfaceing
cuntfacely
cuntfaces
cunthunter
cunthuntered
cunthunterer
cunthunteres
cunthuntering
cunthunterly
cunthunters
cunting
cuntlick
cuntlicked
cuntlicker
cuntlickered
cuntlickerer
cuntlickeres
cuntlickering
cuntlickerly
cuntlickers
cuntlickes
cuntlicking
cuntlickly
cuntlicks
cuntly
cunts
cuntsed
cuntser
cuntses
cuntsing
cuntsly
cuntss
dago
dagoed
dagoer
dagoes
dagoing
dagoly
dagos
dagosed
dagoser
dagoses
dagosing
dagosly
dagoss
dammit
dammited
dammiter
dammites
dammiting
dammitly
dammits
damn
damned
damneded
damneder
damnedes
damneding
damnedly
damneds
damner
damnes
damning
damnit
damnited
damniter
damnites
damniting
damnitly
damnits
damnly
damns
dick
dickbag
dickbaged
dickbager
dickbages
dickbaging
dickbagly
dickbags
dickdipper
dickdippered
dickdipperer
dickdipperes
dickdippering
dickdipperly
dickdippers
dicked
dicker
dickes
dickface
dickfaceed
dickfaceer
dickfacees
dickfaceing
dickfacely
dickfaces
dickflipper
dickflippered
dickflipperer
dickflipperes
dickflippering
dickflipperly
dickflippers
dickhead
dickheaded
dickheader
dickheades
dickheading
dickheadly
dickheads
dickheadsed
dickheadser
dickheadses
dickheadsing
dickheadsly
dickheadss
dicking
dickish
dickished
dickisher
dickishes
dickishing
dickishly
dickishs
dickly
dickripper
dickrippered
dickripperer
dickripperes
dickrippering
dickripperly
dickrippers
dicks
dicksipper
dicksippered
dicksipperer
dicksipperes
dicksippering
dicksipperly
dicksippers
dickweed
dickweeded
dickweeder
dickweedes
dickweeding
dickweedly
dickweeds
dickwhipper
dickwhippered
dickwhipperer
dickwhipperes
dickwhippering
dickwhipperly
dickwhippers
dickzipper
dickzippered
dickzipperer
dickzipperes
dickzippering
dickzipperly
dickzippers
diddle
diddleed
diddleer
diddlees
diddleing
diddlely
diddles
dike
dikeed
dikeer
dikees
dikeing
dikely
dikes
dildo
dildoed
dildoer
dildoes
dildoing
dildoly
dildos
dildosed
dildoser
dildoses
dildosing
dildosly
dildoss
diligaf
diligafed
diligafer
diligafes
diligafing
diligafly
diligafs
dillweed
dillweeded
dillweeder
dillweedes
dillweeding
dillweedly
dillweeds
dimwit
dimwited
dimwiter
dimwites
dimwiting
dimwitly
dimwits
dingle
dingleed
dingleer
dinglees
dingleing
dinglely
dingles
dipship
dipshiped
dipshiper
dipshipes
dipshiping
dipshiply
dipships
dizzyed
dizzyer
dizzyes
dizzying
dizzyly
dizzys
doggiestyleed
doggiestyleer
doggiestylees
doggiestyleing
doggiestylely
doggiestyles
doggystyleed
doggystyleer
doggystylees
doggystyleing
doggystylely
doggystyles
dong
donged
donger
donges
donging
dongly
dongs
doofus
doofused
doofuser
doofuses
doofusing
doofusly
doofuss
doosh
dooshed
doosher
dooshes
dooshing
dooshly
dooshs
dopeyed
dopeyer
dopeyes
dopeying
dopeyly
dopeys
douchebag
douchebaged
douchebager
douchebages
douchebaging
douchebagly
douchebags
douchebagsed
douchebagser
douchebagses
douchebagsing
douchebagsly
douchebagss
doucheed
doucheer
douchees
doucheing
douchely
douches
douchey
doucheyed
doucheyer
doucheyes
doucheying
doucheyly
doucheys
drunk
drunked
drunker
drunkes
drunking
drunkly
drunks
dumass
dumassed
dumasser
dumasses
dumassing
dumassly
dumasss
dumbass
dumbassed
dumbasser
dumbasses
dumbassesed
dumbasseser
dumbasseses
dumbassesing
dumbassesly
dumbassess
dumbassing
dumbassly
dumbasss
dummy
dummyed
dummyer
dummyes
dummying
dummyly
dummys
dyke
dykeed
dykeer
dykees
dykeing
dykely
dykes
dykesed
dykeser
dykeses
dykesing
dykesly
dykess
erotic
eroticed
eroticer
erotices
eroticing
eroticly
erotics
extacy
extacyed
extacyer
extacyes
extacying
extacyly
extacys
extasy
extasyed
extasyer
extasyes
extasying
extasyly
extasys
fack
facked
facker
fackes
facking
fackly
facks
fag
faged
fager
fages
fagg
fagged
faggeded
faggeder
faggedes
faggeding
faggedly
faggeds
fagger
fagges
fagging
faggit
faggited
faggiter
faggites
faggiting
faggitly
faggits
faggly
faggot
faggoted
faggoter
faggotes
faggoting
faggotly
faggots
faggs
faging
fagly
fagot
fagoted
fagoter
fagotes
fagoting
fagotly
fagots
fags
fagsed
fagser
fagses
fagsing
fagsly
fagss
faig
faiged
faiger
faiges
faiging
faigly
faigs
faigt
faigted
faigter
faigtes
faigting
faigtly
faigts
fannybandit
fannybandited
fannybanditer
fannybandites
fannybanditing
fannybanditly
fannybandits
farted
farter
fartes
farting
fartknocker
fartknockered
fartknockerer
fartknockeres
fartknockering
fartknockerly
fartknockers
fartly
farts
felch
felched
felcher
felchered
felcherer
felcheres
felchering
felcherly
felchers
felches
felching
felchinged
felchinger
felchinges
felchinging
felchingly
felchings
felchly
felchs
fellate
fellateed
fellateer
fellatees
fellateing
fellately
fellates
fellatio
fellatioed
fellatioer
fellatioes
fellatioing
fellatioly
fellatios
feltch
feltched
feltcher
feltchered
feltcherer
feltcheres
feltchering
feltcherly
feltchers
feltches
feltching
feltchly
feltchs
feom
feomed
feomer
feomes
feoming
feomly
feoms
fisted
fisteded
fisteder
fistedes
fisteding
fistedly
fisteds
fisting
fistinged
fistinger
fistinges
fistinging
fistingly
fistings
fisty
fistyed
fistyer
fistyes
fistying
fistyly
fistys
floozy
floozyed
floozyer
floozyes
floozying
floozyly
floozys
foad
foaded
foader
foades
foading
foadly
foads
fondleed
fondleer
fondlees
fondleing
fondlely
fondles
foobar
foobared
foobarer
foobares
foobaring
foobarly
foobars
freex
freexed
freexer
freexes
freexing
freexly
freexs
frigg
frigga
friggaed
friggaer
friggaes
friggaing
friggaly
friggas
frigged
frigger
frigges
frigging
friggly
friggs
fubar
fubared
fubarer
fubares
fubaring
fubarly
fubars
fuck
fuckass
fuckassed
fuckasser
fuckasses
fuckassing
fuckassly
fuckasss
fucked
fuckeded
fuckeder
fuckedes
fuckeding
fuckedly
fuckeds
fucker
fuckered
fuckerer
fuckeres
fuckering
fuckerly
fuckers
fuckes
fuckface
fuckfaceed
fuckfaceer
fuckfacees
fuckfaceing
fuckfacely
fuckfaces
fuckin
fuckined
fuckiner
fuckines
fucking
fuckinged
fuckinger
fuckinges
fuckinging
fuckingly
fuckings
fuckining
fuckinly
fuckins
fuckly
fucknugget
fucknuggeted
fucknuggeter
fucknuggetes
fucknuggeting
fucknuggetly
fucknuggets
fucknut
fucknuted
fucknuter
fucknutes
fucknuting
fucknutly
fucknuts
fuckoff
fuckoffed
fuckoffer
fuckoffes
fuckoffing
fuckoffly
fuckoffs
fucks
fucksed
fuckser
fuckses
fucksing
fucksly
fuckss
fucktard
fucktarded
fucktarder
fucktardes
fucktarding
fucktardly
fucktards
fuckup
fuckuped
fuckuper
fuckupes
fuckuping
fuckuply
fuckups
fuckwad
fuckwaded
fuckwader
fuckwades
fuckwading
fuckwadly
fuckwads
fuckwit
fuckwited
fuckwiter
fuckwites
fuckwiting
fuckwitly
fuckwits
fudgepacker
fudgepackered
fudgepackerer
fudgepackeres
fudgepackering
fudgepackerly
fudgepackers
fuk
fuked
fuker
fukes
fuking
fukly
fuks
fvck
fvcked
fvcker
fvckes
fvcking
fvckly
fvcks
fxck
fxcked
fxcker
fxckes
fxcking
fxckly
fxcks
gae
gaeed
gaeer
gaees
gaeing
gaely
gaes
gai
gaied
gaier
gaies
gaiing
gaily
gais
ganja
ganjaed
ganjaer
ganjaes
ganjaing
ganjaly
ganjas
gayed
gayer
gayes
gaying
gayly
gays
gaysed
gayser
gayses
gaysing
gaysly
gayss
gey
geyed
geyer
geyes
geying
geyly
geys
gfc
gfced
gfcer
gfces
gfcing
gfcly
gfcs
gfy
gfyed
gfyer
gfyes
gfying
gfyly
gfys
ghay
ghayed
ghayer
ghayes
ghaying
ghayly
ghays
ghey
gheyed
gheyer
gheyes
gheying
gheyly
gheys
gigolo
gigoloed
gigoloer
gigoloes
gigoloing
gigololy
gigolos
goatse
goatseed
goatseer
goatsees
goatseing
goatsely
goatses
godamn
godamned
godamner
godamnes
godamning
godamnit
godamnited
godamniter
godamnites
godamniting
godamnitly
godamnits
godamnly
godamns
goddam
goddamed
goddamer
goddames
goddaming
goddamly
goddammit
goddammited
goddammiter
goddammites
goddammiting
goddammitly
goddammits
goddamn
goddamned
goddamner
goddamnes
goddamning
goddamnly
goddamns
goddams
goldenshower
goldenshowered
goldenshowerer
goldenshoweres
goldenshowering
goldenshowerly
goldenshowers
gonad
gonaded
gonader
gonades
gonading
gonadly
gonads
gonadsed
gonadser
gonadses
gonadsing
gonadsly
gonadss
gook
gooked
gooker
gookes
gooking
gookly
gooks
gooksed
gookser
gookses
gooksing
gooksly
gookss
gringo
gringoed
gringoer
gringoes
gringoing
gringoly
gringos
gspot
gspoted
gspoter
gspotes
gspoting
gspotly
gspots
gtfo
gtfoed
gtfoer
gtfoes
gtfoing
gtfoly
gtfos
guido
guidoed
guidoer
guidoes
guidoing
guidoly
guidos
handjob
handjobed
handjober
handjobes
handjobing
handjobly
handjobs
hard on
hard oned
hard oner
hard ones
hard oning
hard only
hard ons
hardknight
hardknighted
hardknighter
hardknightes
hardknighting
hardknightly
hardknights
hebe
hebeed
hebeer
hebees
hebeing
hebely
hebes
heeb
heebed
heeber
heebes
heebing
heebly
heebs
hell
helled
heller
helles
helling
hellly
hells
hemp
hemped
hemper
hempes
hemping
hemply
hemps
heroined
heroiner
heroines
heroining
heroinly
heroins
herp
herped
herper
herpes
herpesed
herpeser
herpeses
herpesing
herpesly
herpess
herping
herply
herps
herpy
herpyed
herpyer
herpyes
herpying
herpyly
herpys
hitler
hitlered
hitlerer
hitleres
hitlering
hitlerly
hitlers
hived
hiver
hives
hiving
hivly
hivs
hobag
hobaged
hobager
hobages
hobaging
hobagly
hobags
homey
homeyed
homeyer
homeyes
homeying
homeyly
homeys
homo
homoed
homoer
homoes
homoey
homoeyed
homoeyer
homoeyes
homoeying
homoeyly
homoeys
homoing
homoly
homos
honky
honkyed
honkyer
honkyes
honkying
honkyly
honkys
hooch
hooched
hoocher
hooches
hooching
hoochly
hoochs
hookah
hookahed
hookaher
hookahes
hookahing
hookahly
hookahs
hooker
hookered
hookerer
hookeres
hookering
hookerly
hookers
hoor
hoored
hoorer
hoores
hooring
hoorly
hoors
hootch
hootched
hootcher
hootches
hootching
hootchly
hootchs
hooter
hootered
hooterer
hooteres
hootering
hooterly
hooters
hootersed
hooterser
hooterses
hootersing
hootersly
hooterss
horny
hornyed
hornyer
hornyes
hornying
hornyly
hornys
houstoned
houstoner
houstones
houstoning
houstonly
houstons
hump
humped
humpeded
humpeder
humpedes
humpeding
humpedly
humpeds
humper
humpes
humping
humpinged
humpinger
humpinges
humpinging
humpingly
humpings
humply
humps
husbanded
husbander
husbandes
husbanding
husbandly
husbands
hussy
hussyed
hussyer
hussyes
hussying
hussyly
hussys
hymened
hymener
hymenes
hymening
hymenly
hymens
inbred
inbreded
inbreder
inbredes
inbreding
inbredly
inbreds
incest
incested
incester
incestes
incesting
incestly
incests
injun
injuned
injuner
injunes
injuning
injunly
injuns
jackass
jackassed
jackasser
jackasses
jackassing
jackassly
jackasss
jackhole
jackholeed
jackholeer
jackholees
jackholeing
jackholely
jackholes
jackoff
jackoffed
jackoffer
jackoffes
jackoffing
jackoffly
jackoffs
jap
japed
japer
japes
japing
japly
japs
japsed
japser
japses
japsing
japsly
japss
jerkoff
jerkoffed
jerkoffer
jerkoffes
jerkoffing
jerkoffly
jerkoffs
jerks
jism
jismed
jismer
jismes
jisming
jismly
jisms
jiz
jized
jizer
jizes
jizing
jizly
jizm
jizmed
jizmer
jizmes
jizming
jizmly
jizms
jizs
jizz
jizzed
jizzeded
jizzeder
jizzedes
jizzeding
jizzedly
jizzeds
jizzer
jizzes
jizzing
jizzly
jizzs
junkie
junkieed
junkieer
junkiees
junkieing
junkiely
junkies
junky
junkyed
junkyer
junkyes
junkying
junkyly
junkys
kike
kikeed
kikeer
kikees
kikeing
kikely
kikes
kikesed
kikeser
kikeses
kikesing
kikesly
kikess
killed
killer
killes
killing
killly
kills
kinky
kinkyed
kinkyer
kinkyes
kinkying
kinkyly
kinkys
kkk
kkked
kkker
kkkes
kkking
kkkly
kkks
klan
klaned
klaner
klanes
klaning
klanly
klans
knobend
knobended
knobender
knobendes
knobending
knobendly
knobends
kooch
kooched
koocher
kooches
koochesed
koocheser
koocheses
koochesing
koochesly
koochess
kooching
koochly
koochs
kootch
kootched
kootcher
kootches
kootching
kootchly
kootchs
kraut
krauted
krauter
krautes
krauting
krautly
krauts
kyke
kykeed
kykeer
kykees
kykeing
kykely
kykes
lech
leched
lecher
leches
leching
lechly
lechs
leper
lepered
leperer
leperes
lepering
leperly
lepers
lesbiansed
lesbianser
lesbianses
lesbiansing
lesbiansly
lesbianss
lesbo
lesboed
lesboer
lesboes
lesboing
lesboly
lesbos
lesbosed
lesboser
lesboses
lesbosing
lesbosly
lesboss
lez
lezbianed
lezbianer
lezbianes
lezbianing
lezbianly
lezbians
lezbiansed
lezbianser
lezbianses
lezbiansing
lezbiansly
lezbianss
lezbo
lezboed
lezboer
lezboes
lezboing
lezboly
lezbos
lezbosed
lezboser
lezboses
lezbosing
lezbosly
lezboss
lezed
lezer
lezes
lezing
lezly
lezs
lezzie
lezzieed
lezzieer
lezziees
lezzieing
lezziely
lezzies
lezziesed
lezzieser
lezzieses
lezziesing
lezziesly
lezziess
lezzy
lezzyed
lezzyer
lezzyes
lezzying
lezzyly
lezzys
lmaoed
lmaoer
lmaoes
lmaoing
lmaoly
lmaos
lmfao
lmfaoed
lmfaoer
lmfaoes
lmfaoing
lmfaoly
lmfaos
loined
loiner
loines
loining
loinly
loins
loinsed
loinser
loinses
loinsing
loinsly
loinss
lubeed
lubeer
lubees
lubeing
lubely
lubes
lusty
lustyed
lustyer
lustyes
lustying
lustyly
lustys
massa
massaed
massaer
massaes
massaing
massaly
massas
masterbate
masterbateed
masterbateer
masterbatees
masterbateing
masterbately
masterbates
masterbating
masterbatinged
masterbatinger
masterbatinges
masterbatinging
masterbatingly
masterbatings
masterbation
masterbationed
masterbationer
masterbationes
masterbationing
masterbationly
masterbations
masturbate
masturbateed
masturbateer
masturbatees
masturbateing
masturbately
masturbates
masturbating
masturbatinged
masturbatinger
masturbatinges
masturbatinging
masturbatingly
masturbatings
masturbation
masturbationed
masturbationer
masturbationes
masturbationing
masturbationly
masturbations
methed
mether
methes
mething
methly
meths
militaryed
militaryer
militaryes
militarying
militaryly
militarys
mofo
mofoed
mofoer
mofoes
mofoing
mofoly
mofos
molest
molested
molester
molestes
molesting
molestly
molests
moolie
moolieed
moolieer
mooliees
moolieing
mooliely
moolies
moron
moroned
moroner
morones
moroning
moronly
morons
motherfucka
motherfuckaed
motherfuckaer
motherfuckaes
motherfuckaing
motherfuckaly
motherfuckas
motherfucker
motherfuckered
motherfuckerer
motherfuckeres
motherfuckering
motherfuckerly
motherfuckers
motherfucking
motherfuckinged
motherfuckinger
motherfuckinges
motherfuckinging
motherfuckingly
motherfuckings
mtherfucker
mtherfuckered
mtherfuckerer
mtherfuckeres
mtherfuckering
mtherfuckerly
mtherfuckers
mthrfucker
mthrfuckered
mthrfuckerer
mthrfuckeres
mthrfuckering
mthrfuckerly
mthrfuckers
mthrfucking
mthrfuckinged
mthrfuckinger
mthrfuckinges
mthrfuckinging
mthrfuckingly
mthrfuckings
muff
muffdiver
muffdivered
muffdiverer
muffdiveres
muffdivering
muffdiverly
muffdivers
muffed
muffer
muffes
muffing
muffly
muffs
murdered
murderer
murderes
murdering
murderly
murders
muthafuckaz
muthafuckazed
muthafuckazer
muthafuckazes
muthafuckazing
muthafuckazly
muthafuckazs
muthafucker
muthafuckered
muthafuckerer
muthafuckeres
muthafuckering
muthafuckerly
muthafuckers
mutherfucker
mutherfuckered
mutherfuckerer
mutherfuckeres
mutherfuckering
mutherfuckerly
mutherfuckers
mutherfucking
mutherfuckinged
mutherfuckinger
mutherfuckinges
mutherfuckinging
mutherfuckingly
mutherfuckings
muthrfucking
muthrfuckinged
muthrfuckinger
muthrfuckinges
muthrfuckinging
muthrfuckingly
muthrfuckings
nad
naded
nader
nades
nading
nadly
nads
nadsed
nadser
nadses
nadsing
nadsly
nadss
nakeded
nakeder
nakedes
nakeding
nakedly
nakeds
napalm
napalmed
napalmer
napalmes
napalming
napalmly
napalms
nappy
nappyed
nappyer
nappyes
nappying
nappyly
nappys
nazi
nazied
nazier
nazies
naziing
nazily
nazis
nazism
nazismed
nazismer
nazismes
nazisming
nazismly
nazisms
negro
negroed
negroer
negroes
negroing
negroly
negros
nigga
niggaed
niggaer
niggaes
niggah
niggahed
niggaher
niggahes
niggahing
niggahly
niggahs
niggaing
niggaly
niggas
niggased
niggaser
niggases
niggasing
niggasly
niggass
niggaz
niggazed
niggazer
niggazes
niggazing
niggazly
niggazs
nigger
niggered
niggerer
niggeres
niggering
niggerly
niggers
niggersed
niggerser
niggerses
niggersing
niggersly
niggerss
niggle
niggleed
niggleer
nigglees
niggleing
nigglely
niggles
niglet
nigleted
nigleter
nigletes
nigleting
nigletly
niglets
nimrod
nimroded
nimroder
nimrodes
nimroding
nimrodly
nimrods
ninny
ninnyed
ninnyer
ninnyes
ninnying
ninnyly
ninnys
nooky
nookyed
nookyer
nookyes
nookying
nookyly
nookys
nuccitelli
nuccitellied
nuccitellier
nuccitellies
nuccitelliing
nuccitellily
nuccitellis
nympho
nymphoed
nymphoer
nymphoes
nymphoing
nympholy
nymphos
opium
opiumed
opiumer
opiumes
opiuming
opiumly
opiums
orgies
orgiesed
orgieser
orgieses
orgiesing
orgiesly
orgiess
orgy
orgyed
orgyer
orgyes
orgying
orgyly
orgys
paddy
paddyed
paddyer
paddyes
paddying
paddyly
paddys
paki
pakied
pakier
pakies
pakiing
pakily
pakis
pantie
pantieed
pantieer
pantiees
pantieing
pantiely
panties
pantiesed
pantieser
pantieses
pantiesing
pantiesly
pantiess
panty
pantyed
pantyer
pantyes
pantying
pantyly
pantys
pastie
pastieed
pastieer
pastiees
pastieing
pastiely
pasties
pasty
pastyed
pastyer
pastyes
pastying
pastyly
pastys
pecker
peckered
peckerer
peckeres
peckering
peckerly
peckers
pedo
pedoed
pedoer
pedoes
pedoing
pedoly
pedophile
pedophileed
pedophileer
pedophilees
pedophileing
pedophilely
pedophiles
pedophilia
pedophiliac
pedophiliaced
pedophiliacer
pedophiliaces
pedophiliacing
pedophiliacly
pedophiliacs
pedophiliaed
pedophiliaer
pedophiliaes
pedophiliaing
pedophilialy
pedophilias
pedos
penial
penialed
penialer
peniales
penialing
penially
penials
penile
penileed
penileer
penilees
penileing
penilely
peniles
penis
penised
peniser
penises
penising
penisly
peniss
perversion
perversioned
perversioner
perversiones
perversioning
perversionly
perversions
peyote
peyoteed
peyoteer
peyotees
peyoteing
peyotely
peyotes
phuck
phucked
phucker
phuckes
phucking
phuckly
phucks
pillowbiter
pillowbitered
pillowbiterer
pillowbiteres
pillowbitering
pillowbiterly
pillowbiters
pimp
pimped
pimper
pimpes
pimping
pimply
pimps
pinko
pinkoed
pinkoer
pinkoes
pinkoing
pinkoly
pinkos
pissed
pisseded
pisseder
pissedes
pisseding
pissedly
pisseds
pisser
pisses
pissing
pissly
pissoff
pissoffed
pissoffer
pissoffes
pissoffing
pissoffly
pissoffs
pisss
polack
polacked
polacker
polackes
polacking
polackly
polacks
pollock
pollocked
pollocker
pollockes
pollocking
pollockly
pollocks
poon
pooned
pooner
poones
pooning
poonly
poons
poontang
poontanged
poontanger
poontanges
poontanging
poontangly
poontangs
porn
porned
porner
pornes
porning
pornly
porno
pornoed
pornoer
pornoes
pornography
pornographyed
pornographyer
pornographyes
pornographying
pornographyly
pornographys
pornoing
pornoly
pornos
porns
prick
pricked
pricker
prickes
pricking
prickly
pricks
prig
priged
priger
priges
priging
prigly
prigs
prostitute
prostituteed
prostituteer
prostitutees
prostituteing
prostitutely
prostitutes
prude
prudeed
prudeer
prudees
prudeing
prudely
prudes
punkass
punkassed
punkasser
punkasses
punkassing
punkassly
punkasss
punky
punkyed
punkyer
punkyes
punkying
punkyly
punkys
puss
pussed
pusser
pusses
pussies
pussiesed
pussieser
pussieses
pussiesing
pussiesly
pussiess
pussing
pussly
pusss
pussy
pussyed
pussyer
pussyes
pussying
pussyly
pussypounder
pussypoundered
pussypounderer
pussypounderes
pussypoundering
pussypounderly
pussypounders
pussys
puto
putoed
putoer
putoes
putoing
putoly
putos
queaf
queafed
queafer
queafes
queafing
queafly
queafs
queef
queefed
queefer
queefes
queefing
queefly
queefs
queer
queered
queerer
queeres
queering
queerly
queero
queeroed
queeroer
queeroes
queeroing
queeroly
queeros
queers
queersed
queerser
queerses
queersing
queersly
queerss
quicky
quickyed
quickyer
quickyes
quickying
quickyly
quickys
quim
quimed
quimer
quimes
quiming
quimly
quims
racy
racyed
racyer
racyes
racying
racyly
racys
rape
raped
rapeded
rapeder
rapedes
rapeding
rapedly
rapeds
rapeed
rapeer
rapees
rapeing
rapely
raper
rapered
raperer
raperes
rapering
raperly
rapers
rapes
rapist
rapisted
rapister
rapistes
rapisting
rapistly
rapists
raunch
raunched
rauncher
raunches
raunching
raunchly
raunchs
rectus
rectused
rectuser
rectuses
rectusing
rectusly
rectuss
reefer
reefered
reeferer
reeferes
reefering
reeferly
reefers
reetard
reetarded
reetarder
reetardes
reetarding
reetardly
reetards
reich
reiched
reicher
reiches
reiching
reichly
reichs
retard
retarded
retardeded
retardeder
retardedes
retardeding
retardedly
retardeds
retarder
retardes
retarding
retardly
retards
rimjob
rimjobed
rimjober
rimjobes
rimjobing
rimjobly
rimjobs
ritard
ritarded
ritarder
ritardes
ritarding
ritardly
ritards
rtard
rtarded
rtarder
rtardes
rtarding
rtardly
rtards
rum
rumed
rumer
rumes
ruming
rumly
rump
rumped
rumper
rumpes
rumping
rumply
rumprammer
rumprammered
rumprammerer
rumprammeres
rumprammering
rumprammerly
rumprammers
rumps
rums
ruski
ruskied
ruskier
ruskies
ruskiing
ruskily
ruskis
sadism
sadismed
sadismer
sadismes
sadisming
sadismly
sadisms
sadist
sadisted
sadister
sadistes
sadisting
sadistly
sadists
scag
scaged
scager
scages
scaging
scagly
scags
scantily
scantilyed
scantilyer
scantilyes
scantilying
scantilyly
scantilys
schlong
schlonged
schlonger
schlonges
schlonging
schlongly
schlongs
scrog
scroged
scroger
scroges
scroging
scrogly
scrogs
scrot
scrote
scroted
scroteed
scroteer
scrotees
scroteing
scrotely
scroter
scrotes
scroting
scrotly
scrots
scrotum
scrotumed
scrotumer
scrotumes
scrotuming
scrotumly
scrotums
scrud
scruded
scruder
scrudes
scruding
scrudly
scruds
scum
scumed
scumer
scumes
scuming
scumly
scums
seaman
seamaned
seamaner
seamanes
seamaning
seamanly
seamans
seamen
seamened
seamener
seamenes
seamening
seamenly
seamens
seduceed
seduceer
seducees
seduceing
seducely
seduces
semen
semened
semener
semenes
semening
semenly
semens
shamedame
shamedameed
shamedameer
shamedamees
shamedameing
shamedamely
shamedames
shit
shite
shiteater
shiteatered
shiteaterer
shiteateres
shiteatering
shiteaterly
shiteaters
shited
shiteed
shiteer
shitees
shiteing
shitely
shiter
shites
shitface
shitfaceed
shitfaceer
shitfacees
shitfaceing
shitfacely
shitfaces
shithead
shitheaded
shitheader
shitheades
shitheading
shitheadly
shitheads
shithole
shitholeed
shitholeer
shitholees
shitholeing
shitholely
shitholes
shithouse
shithouseed
shithouseer
shithousees
shithouseing
shithousely
shithouses
shiting
shitly
shits
shitsed
shitser
shitses
shitsing
shitsly
shitss
shitt
shitted
shitteded
shitteder
shittedes
shitteding
shittedly
shitteds
shitter
shittered
shitterer
shitteres
shittering
shitterly
shitters
shittes
shitting
shittly
shitts
shitty
shittyed
shittyer
shittyes
shittying
shittyly
shittys
shiz
shized
shizer
shizes
shizing
shizly
shizs
shooted
shooter
shootes
shooting
shootly
shoots
sissy
sissyed
sissyer
sissyes
sissying
sissyly
sissys
skag
skaged
skager
skages
skaging
skagly
skags
skank
skanked
skanker
skankes
skanking
skankly
skanks
slave
slaveed
slaveer
slavees
slaveing
slavely
slaves
sleaze
sleazeed
sleazeer
sleazees
sleazeing
sleazely
sleazes
sleazy
sleazyed
sleazyer
sleazyes
sleazying
sleazyly
sleazys
slut
slutdumper
slutdumpered
slutdumperer
slutdumperes
slutdumpering
slutdumperly
slutdumpers
sluted
sluter
slutes
sluting
slutkiss
slutkissed
slutkisser
slutkisses
slutkissing
slutkissly
slutkisss
slutly
sluts
slutsed
slutser
slutses
slutsing
slutsly
slutss
smegma
smegmaed
smegmaer
smegmaes
smegmaing
smegmaly
smegmas
smut
smuted
smuter
smutes
smuting
smutly
smuts
smutty
smuttyed
smuttyer
smuttyes
smuttying
smuttyly
smuttys
snatch
snatched
snatcher
snatches
snatching
snatchly
snatchs
sniper
snipered
sniperer
sniperes
snipering
sniperly
snipers
snort
snorted
snorter
snortes
snorting
snortly
snorts
snuff
snuffed
snuffer
snuffes
snuffing
snuffly
snuffs
sodom
sodomed
sodomer
sodomes
sodoming
sodomly
sodoms
spic
spiced
spicer
spices
spicing
spick
spicked
spicker
spickes
spicking
spickly
spicks
spicly
spics
spik
spoof
spoofed
spoofer
spoofes
spoofing
spoofly
spoofs
spooge
spoogeed
spoogeer
spoogees
spoogeing
spoogely
spooges
spunk
spunked
spunker
spunkes
spunking
spunkly
spunks
steamyed
steamyer
steamyes
steamying
steamyly
steamys
stfu
stfued
stfuer
stfues
stfuing
stfuly
stfus
stiffy
stiffyed
stiffyer
stiffyes
stiffying
stiffyly
stiffys
stoneded
stoneder
stonedes
stoneding
stonedly
stoneds
stupided
stupider
stupides
stupiding
stupidly
stupids
suckeded
suckeder
suckedes
suckeding
suckedly
suckeds
sucker
suckes
sucking
suckinged
suckinger
suckinges
suckinging
suckingly
suckings
suckly
sucks
sumofabiatch
sumofabiatched
sumofabiatcher
sumofabiatches
sumofabiatching
sumofabiatchly
sumofabiatchs
tard
tarded
tarder
tardes
tarding
tardly
tards
tawdry
tawdryed
tawdryer
tawdryes
tawdrying
tawdryly
tawdrys
teabagging
teabagginged
teabagginger
teabagginges
teabagginging
teabaggingly
teabaggings
terd
terded
terder
terdes
terding
terdly
terds
teste
testee
testeed
testeeed
testeeer
testeees
testeeing
testeely
testeer
testees
testeing
testely
testes
testesed
testeser
testeses
testesing
testesly
testess
testicle
testicleed
testicleer
testiclees
testicleing
testiclely
testicles
testis
testised
testiser
testises
testising
testisly
testiss
thrusted
thruster
thrustes
thrusting
thrustly
thrusts
thug
thuged
thuger
thuges
thuging
thugly
thugs
tinkle
tinkleed
tinkleer
tinklees
tinkleing
tinklely
tinkles
tit
tited
titer
tites
titfuck
titfucked
titfucker
titfuckes
titfucking
titfuckly
titfucks
titi
titied
titier
tities
titiing
titily
titing
titis
titly
tits
titsed
titser
titses
titsing
titsly
titss
tittiefucker
tittiefuckered
tittiefuckerer
tittiefuckeres
tittiefuckering
tittiefuckerly
tittiefuckers
titties
tittiesed
tittieser
tittieses
tittiesing
tittiesly
tittiess
titty
tittyed
tittyer
tittyes
tittyfuck
tittyfucked
tittyfucker
tittyfuckered
tittyfuckerer
tittyfuckeres
tittyfuckering
tittyfuckerly
tittyfuckers
tittyfuckes
tittyfucking
tittyfuckly
tittyfucks
tittying
tittyly
tittys
toke
tokeed
tokeer
tokees
tokeing
tokely
tokes
toots
tootsed
tootser
tootses
tootsing
tootsly
tootss
tramp
tramped
tramper
trampes
tramping
tramply
tramps
transsexualed
transsexualer
transsexuales
transsexualing
transsexually
transsexuals
trashy
trashyed
trashyer
trashyes
trashying
trashyly
trashys
tubgirl
tubgirled
tubgirler
tubgirles
tubgirling
tubgirlly
tubgirls
turd
turded
turder
turdes
turding
turdly
turds
tush
tushed
tusher
tushes
tushing
tushly
tushs
twat
twated
twater
twates
twating
twatly
twats
twatsed
twatser
twatses
twatsing
twatsly
twatss
undies
undiesed
undieser
undieses
undiesing
undiesly
undiess
unweded
unweder
unwedes
unweding
unwedly
unweds
uzi
uzied
uzier
uzies
uziing
uzily
uzis
vag
vaged
vager
vages
vaging
vagly
vags
valium
valiumed
valiumer
valiumes
valiuming
valiumly
valiums
venous
virgined
virginer
virgines
virgining
virginly
virgins
vixen
vixened
vixener
vixenes
vixening
vixenly
vixens
vodkaed
vodkaer
vodkaes
vodkaing
vodkaly
vodkas
voyeur
voyeured
voyeurer
voyeures
voyeuring
voyeurly
voyeurs
vulgar
vulgared
vulgarer
vulgares
vulgaring
vulgarly
vulgars
wang
wanged
wanger
wanges
wanging
wangly
wangs
wank
wanked
wanker
wankered
wankerer
wankeres
wankering
wankerly
wankers
wankes
wanking
wankly
wanks
wazoo
wazooed
wazooer
wazooes
wazooing
wazooly
wazoos
wedgie
wedgieed
wedgieer
wedgiees
wedgieing
wedgiely
wedgies
weeded
weeder
weedes
weeding
weedly
weeds
weenie
weenieed
weenieer
weeniees
weenieing
weeniely
weenies
weewee
weeweeed
weeweeer
weeweees
weeweeing
weeweely
weewees
weiner
weinered
weinerer
weineres
weinering
weinerly
weiners
weirdo
weirdoed
weirdoer
weirdoes
weirdoing
weirdoly
weirdos
wench
wenched
wencher
wenches
wenching
wenchly
wenchs
wetback
wetbacked
wetbacker
wetbackes
wetbacking
wetbackly
wetbacks
whitey
whiteyed
whiteyer
whiteyes
whiteying
whiteyly
whiteys
whiz
whized
whizer
whizes
whizing
whizly
whizs
whoralicious
whoralicioused
whoraliciouser
whoraliciouses
whoraliciousing
whoraliciously
whoraliciouss
whore
whorealicious
whorealicioused
whorealiciouser
whorealiciouses
whorealiciousing
whorealiciously
whorealiciouss
whored
whoreded
whoreder
whoredes
whoreding
whoredly
whoreds
whoreed
whoreer
whorees
whoreface
whorefaceed
whorefaceer
whorefacees
whorefaceing
whorefacely
whorefaces
whorehopper
whorehoppered
whorehopperer
whorehopperes
whorehoppering
whorehopperly
whorehoppers
whorehouse
whorehouseed
whorehouseer
whorehousees
whorehouseing
whorehousely
whorehouses
whoreing
whorely
whores
whoresed
whoreser
whoreses
whoresing
whoresly
whoress
whoring
whoringed
whoringer
whoringes
whoringing
whoringly
whorings
wigger
wiggered
wiggerer
wiggeres
wiggering
wiggerly
wiggers
woody
woodyed
woodyer
woodyes
woodying
woodyly
woodys
wop
woped
woper
wopes
woping
woply
wops
wtf
wtfed
wtfer
wtfes
wtfing
wtfly
wtfs
xxx
xxxed
xxxer
xxxes
xxxing
xxxly
xxxs
yeasty
yeastyed
yeastyer
yeastyes
yeastying
yeastyly
yeastys
yobbo
yobboed
yobboer
yobboes
yobboing
yobboly
yobbos
zoophile
zoophileed
zoophileer
zoophilees
zoophileing
zoophilely
zoophiles
anal
ass
ass lick
balls
ballsac
bisexual
bleach
causas
cheap
cost of miracles
cunt
display network stats
fart
fda and death
fda AND warn
fda AND warning
fda AND warns
feom
fuck
gfc
humira AND expensive
illegal
madvocate
masturbation
nuccitelli
overdose
porn
shit
snort
texarkana
direct\-acting antivirals
assistance
ombitasvir
support path
harvoni
abbvie
direct-acting antivirals
paritaprevir
advocacy
ledipasvir
vpak
ritonavir with dasabuvir
program
gilead
greedy
financial
needy
fake-ovir
viekira pak
v pak
sofosbuvir
support
oasis
discount
dasabuvir
protest
ritonavir
Negative Keywords Excluded Elements
header[@id='header']
section[contains(@class, 'nav-hidden')]
footer[@id='footer']
div[contains(@class, 'pane-pub-article-cleveland-clinic')]
div[contains(@class, 'pane-pub-home-cleveland-clinic')]
div[contains(@class, 'pane-pub-topic-cleveland-clinic')]
div[contains(@class, 'panel-panel-inner')]
div[contains(@class, 'pane-node-field-article-topics')]
section[contains(@class, 'footer-nav-section-wrapper')]
Altmetric
DSM Affiliated
Display in offset block
Disqus Exclude
Best Practices
CE/CME
Education Center
Medical Education Library
Enable Disqus
Display Author and Disclosure Link
Publication Type
Society
Slot System
Featured Buckets
Disable Sticky Ads
Disable Ad Block Mitigation
Featured Buckets Admin
LayerRx MD-IQ Id
773
Show Ads on this Publication's Homepage
Consolidated Pub
Show Article Page Numbers on TOC
Use larger logo size
Off
publication_blueconic_enabled
Off
Show More Destinations Menu
Disable Adhesion on Publication
Off
Restore Menu Label on Mobile Navigation
Disable Facebook Pixel from Publication
Exclude this publication from publication selection on articles and quiz

Clinical update in sexually transmitted diseases 2014

Article Type
Changed
Wed, 09/13/2017 - 08:43
Display Headline
Clinical update in sexually transmitted disease –2014

With nearly 20 million new infections annually, sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) are very common in the United States.1,2 And with recent changes to the national health care landscape, including the passage of the Affordable Care Act and state budget cuts resulting in the closure of STD and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) clinics, primary care providers can expect to encounter more patients with STDs.

For women and infants, STDs can have serious and long-term consequences, including infertility, facilitation of HIV infection, reproductive tract cancer, pelvic inflammatory disease, and poor perinatal outcomes.2 STDs cost the US health care system nearly $16 billion every year.3

STD prevention and control strategies traditionally include surveillance, screening, behavioral interventions, treatment, and partner management.4 This paper will review patient management by syndrome and provide guidance to clinicians to facilitate timely diagnosis and treatment, important components of any effective STD prevention strategy.

ANYONE CAN HAVE AN STD

STDs affect people of all races, ages, and sexual orientations. That said, some groups are at greater risk:

Adolescents and young adults. Persons ages 15 through 24 represent 25% of the sexually experienced population in the United States but account for nearly half of all incident STDs.1

Racial and ethnic minorities. STD disparities are one of the five greatest health disparities for African American communities.4

Men who have sex with men number approximately 2% to 4% of the US male population, yet account for approximately 70% of reported cases of primary and secondary syphilis and more than 50% of persons with HIV infection.3,5,6

HIGH-RISK BEHAVIOR AND SCREENING

A thorough sexual history will reveal behaviors that place a person at risk of infection. The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) defines high-risk sexual behavior as having multiple current partners, having a new partner, using condoms inconsistently, having sex while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or exchanging sex for money or drugs.7

An effective strategy for obtaining a sexual history is the “five Ps”8:

  • Partners (eg, Do you have sex with men, women, or both?)
  • Prevention of pregnancy (eg, What are you doing to prevent pregnancy?)
  • Protection from STDs (eg, What do you do to protect yourself from STDs?)
  • Practices (eg, To understand your risks for STDs, I need to understand the kind of sex you have had recently.)
  • Past history of STDs (eg, Have you ever had an STD?).8

The USPSTF and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommend certain populations be screened for STDs.7,8

Everyone age 13 through 64 should be tested for HIV at least once, per CDC recommendation.8

Sexually active females up to age 24 should routinely be screened for chlamydia every year.7,8

Nonpregnant women at higher risk of infection should be screened for gonorrhea and syphilis.

Pregnant women, regardless of risk, should be screened for chlamydia, hepatitis B, HIV, and syphilis; pregnant women at higher risk of infection should also be screened for gonorrhea and hepatitis C.7,9

Men should be screened for HIV, and men at higher risk should also be screened for syphilis.8

Men who have sex with men should be screened at least annually for HIV and syphilis and undergo a test for urethral chlamydia and gonorrhea infection. Men who participate in receptive anal intercourse should be tested for rectal chlamydia and gonorrhea and, in those who participate in oral intercourse, for pharyngeal gonorrhea.8

PREVENTION

Vaccination against HPV, hepatitis A and B

Preexposure vaccination is one of the most effective ways to prevent human papillomavirus (HPV), hepatitis A, and hepatitis B infection.10

HPV vaccination. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommends routine HPV vaccination of female patients at age 11 or 12, or through age 26 if not previously vaccinated.11,12 Routine vaccination is also recommended for males at age 11 or 12 and through age 21, if not previously vaccinated.12 The upper age is extended through age 26 for men who have sex with men and for immunocompromised patients.12

Two HPV vaccines are available for females; one is quadrivalent and the other is bivalent. Both protect against two HPV types that cause cervical and other HPV-associated cancers.11 The quadrivalent vaccine also protects against the two types that cause 90% of genital warts.13 Only the quadrivalent vaccine is licensed for use in males.12

Hepatitis A and B vaccination. Hepatitis B vaccination is recommended for all unvaccinated, uninfected patients being evaluated for an STD.8,14

Vaccinating for hepatitis A and hepatitis B is important for men who have sex with men, who have a higher risk of acquiring and transmitting these infections.15

Other preventive practices

Male circumcision has been shown to reduce the risk of HIV infection, high-risk genital HPV infection, and genital herpes in heterosexual men.10,16,17

Male condoms, when used consistently and correctly, can reduce the risk of chlamydia, gonorrhea, and trichomoniasis.8 The risk of transmission of syphilis, genital HPV, and genital herpes can also be reduced by correctly and consistently using condoms when the infected area of exposure is covered.8

Microbiocides not recommended. Topical microbiocides do not have not enough evidence to recommend them for STD prevention. However, limited data suggest that tenofovir 1% vaginal gel may reduce the risk of acquiring genital herpes simplex virus type 2 (HSV-2) infection in women.18,19

 

 

GENITAL ULCERATIVE DISEASE: HERPES, SYPHILIS, OTHERS

The risk of acquiring HIV is two to five times higher if one is exposed to it when a genital ulcerative disease is present.20,21

In the United States, most cases of genital, anal, or perianal ulcers in sexually active persons are due to genital herpes or syphilis.8 Other causes include chancroid, granuloma inguinale, lymphogranuloma venereum, and noninfectious causes.

Although the frequency of these conditions varies by geographic area and demographic profile, herpes is the most prevalent of them.8 HSV-2 infection is one of the most prevalent STDs in the United States, with approximately 17% of all adolescents and adults infected,1,22 and a much higher prevalence in persons who use drugs.23

A thorough medical history and physical examination should be conducted. In addition, an accurate diagnosis requires specific tests: syphilis serology, dark field microscopy (if available), and culture or polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing for herpes.8 A positive serologic test for HSV-1 or HSV-2 is enough to make the diagnosis in a patient whose symptoms suggest herpes, even if PCR and culture are negative.

GENITAL HERPES: MOSTLY ASYMPTOMATIC

Genital herpes is caused by HSV-1 or HSV-2. Of these, HSV-1 is on the rise, causing an increasing proportion of first episodes of genital herpes in some populations. It may now account for most new genital herpes infections in young women and in men who have sex with men.8,24

Most people infected with HSV-1 or HSV-2 have no symptoms or have subclinical disease. When symptoms do occur, one or more vesicles may appear on or around the genitals, rectum, or mouth. The average incubation period after exposure is 4 days (range 2–12).25 The first episode of genital herpes is often associated with systemic symptoms (eg, fever, headache, myalgia, and malaise) and local symptoms (eg, dysuria, vaginal or urethral discharge, and inguinal adenopathy).26,27

Genital herpes often recurs, especially during the first year. Recurrences are less frequent with HSV-1 than with HSV-2.

Diagnosing genital herpes requires laboratory testing

Diagnosing genital herpes by clinical signs and symptoms is both insensitive and nonspecific. Therefore, laboratory testing should be performed for patients who present with genital ulcerative disease.

Virologic tests. Viral culture and nucleic acid amplification methods, including PCR assays, are the preferred virologic tests for herpes.8 Although viral culture is widely available, its sensitivity depends on the stage of the lesion and rapidly declines as lesions begin to heal. PCR assays are more sensitive than viral culture, can be done in automated systems, and are increasingly being used in clinical settings.26 However, if the patient has no active lesions at the time of testing, failure to detect herpes by culture or PCR does not guarantee that the patient is not infected, as viral shedding is intermittent.

Serologic tests. Type-specific antibodies to HSV develop during the first several weeks following infection and persist indefinitely. Providers should specifically request serologic type-specific immunoglobulin G (IgG) assays. IgM testing for HSV should not be used, as IgM testing is not type-specific. Moreover, although some clinicians believe IgM is a good test for early infection because levels rise early and then decline, IgM may be positive during recurrent episodes.8

Both laboratory-based assays and point-of-care tests for HSV-2 are available. They are performed on capillary blood or serum and have sensitivities that range from 80% to 100% and specificities greater than 96%, compared with HSV-2 immunoblot and Western blot testing as the standard.28,29

False-negative results may be more frequent in the early stages of infection. HSV-2 antibody indicates anogenital infection, while HSV-1 antibody might also be due to orolabial infection, which is something to keep in mind in a patient without genital symptoms.8

Treatment can control herpes but not eradicate it

Several herpes vaccines have undergone clinical trials, but an effective one remains elusive.30,31

Antiviral therapy is used to control signs and symptoms of clinical disease but does not eradicate latent virus. For initial clinical episodes of genital herpes, the CDC recommends acyclovir, valacyclovir, or famciclovir for 7 to 10 days.8 In patients with established genital herpes, daily suppressive antiviral therapy can reduce recurrences, subclinical shedding, and the likelihood of transmission to partners; famciclovir is somewhat less efficacious for suppressing viral shedding.8

A diagnosis of herpes can carry considerable stigma, which can substantially interfere with a patient’s current and future relationships.25,32,33 Sex partners of patients with genital herpes may benefit from evaluation and counseling. Clinicians should appreciate the psychological impact of a genital herpes diagnosis and address these concerns by providing education, counseling, and support while encouraging patients to recognize that herpes is a manageable condition.34

SYPHILIS IS INCREASING IN MEN WHO HAVE SEX WITH MEN

Since 2001, rates of syphilis, a systemic disease caused by Treponema pallidum, have been increasing in men who have sex with men.3,35 As of 2011, this group accounts for approximately 72% of all cases of primary and secondary syphilis in the United States.3

Primary syphilis is characterized by a firm, painless chancre at the site of inoculation. The chancre lasts 3 to 6 weeks and heals regardless of treatment. However, if the infected person does not receive adequate treatment, the infection progresses to the secondary stage.26

Secondary syphilis typically starts with a nonpruritic rash, usually macular or papular, on the trunk and extremities, classically including the palms and soles. Other symptoms may include alopecia, lymphadenopathy, condylomata, and systemic symptoms.

Without treatment, the infection can progress to latent syphilis, which is further categorized as early (acquired during the preceding year), late latent, or of unknown duration.26

Practical diagnosis of syphilis relies on serologic testing

Definitive diagnosis of early syphilis requires dark field microscopy or PCR to detect T pallidum in lesion exudate or tissue.8 However, because there are no commercially available tests for T pallidum, serologic testing is the mainstay.

Two types of serologic tests must be performed to diagnose syphilis: a nontreponemal test and a treponemal test.8

Nontreponemal tests:

  • The Venereal Disease Research Laboratory (VDRL) test
  • The rapid plasma reagin (RPR) test.

Treponemal tests:

  • T pallidum passive particle agglutination (TP-PA) assay
  • Fluorescent treponemal antibody absorbed (FTA-ABS) test
  • Enzyme immunoassay (EIA)
  • Chemiluminescence immunoassay (CIA).

Using only one type of serologic test is in-sufficient for diagnosis because each type has limitations, including the possibility of false-positive results.

Nontreponemal test results may correlate with disease activity, and results should be reported quantitatively; a fourfold change in titer, equivalent to a change of two dilutions, is needed to demonstrate a clinically significant difference between two nontreponemal test results using the same serologic test.8

 

 

Which order of testing for syphilis is best?

The CDC recommends that nontreponemal tests be used to screen for syphilis and treponemal tests be used to confirm the diagnosis.36 This traditional algorithm performs well in identifying persons with active infection who require further evaluation and treatment, while minimizing false-positive results in low-prevalence populations.

However, some clinical laboratories have adopted the reverse sequence, using treponemal tests (usually an EIA or a CIA) to screen for syphilis, followed by a nontreponemal test to confirm active infection.36–38 This reverse-sequence testing may result in overdiagnosis and overtreatment of syphilis in some clinical settings.37 When reverse-sequence syphilis screening is used, the CDC recommends reflexively testing all sera that produce reactive EIA or CIA results with a quantitative nontreponemal test and reflexively testing sera with discordant results (ie, a reactive EIA or CIA and a nonreactive RPR or VDRL test) with a different treponemal test.36

Traditionally, the FTA-ABS test had been considered the gold standard treponemal test; however, it has lower specificity than other treponemal tests. Accordingly, TP-PA is the recommended confirmatory treponemal test.8,39 False-negative results, although rare, may occur for biological or technical reasons, such as the prozone phenomenon, resulting in a missed diagnosis. The prozone phenomenon occurs when the antibody titer is high and antigen binding sites are saturated, preventing the cross-linking reaction between antigens and antibodies. In this instance, when syphilis is suspected clinically and the RPR assay is nonreactive, the clinician can request RPR testing at dilutions of sera, ie, diluting the patient’s serum to bring the antibody concentration into the zone equivalence.40

Suspect neurosyphilis if neurologic symptoms arise

Central nervous system involvement can occur at any stage of syphilis. If clinical evidence of neurologic involvement (meningitis, stroke, cranial nerve dysfunction, or auditory or ophthalmic abnormalities) is observed in any patient with syphilis, regardless of stage, a cerebrospinal fluid examination should be performed.8 Laboratory testing can support the diagnosis of neurosyphilis; however, no single laboratory test can be used to diagnose it.

Cerebrospinal fluid abnormalities (ie, mononuclear pleocytosis, increased protein) are common in patients with early syphilis even in the absence of clinical neurologic findings. There is no firm evidence to support diverging from recommended treatment for early syphilis in these patients.35

Cerebrospinal fluid examination is recommended for all patients with serologic evidence of syphilis infection and neurologic symptoms and for patients who do not achieve an adequate serologic decline with stage-appropriate treatment.8

Penicillin is still the mainstay of syphilis treatment

Penicillin is still the mainstay of syphilis treatment.

  • Patients with early syphilis (primary, secondary, or early latent) should receive a single intramuscular dose of benzathine penicillin G (2.4 million units).8,35
  • Patients with late latent syphilis should receive three intramuscular doses of benzathine penicillin G (2.4 million units each) at 1-week intervals.
  • Neurosyphilis should be treated with aqueous crystalline penicillin G 18 to 24 million units daily for 10 to 14 days.8

Doxycycline is the preferred alternative in nonpregnant patients who are allergic to penicillin. The dosage is 100 mg orally twice a day for 14 days (for primary, secondary, or early latent infections) or for 28 days (for late latent infections or those of unknown duration).35,41

Ceftriaxone (1–2 g daily) may be effective for treating early syphilis. However, data are limited, and the optimal dose and duration of therapy are not defined.8,42

Azithromycin in a single 2-g oral dose is effective for treating early syphilis. However, T pallidum chromosomal mutations associated with macrolide resistance are being detected.35,43 In view of this, azithromycin should not be used in men who have sex with men or in pregnant women.

Follow-up of syphilis patients and partners

Close clinical and serologic follow-up is strongly advised in persons who receive an alternate regimen to evaluate for treatment failure.8

Sex partners of patients with primary syphilis should be considered at risk and given treatment if they had sexual contact with the patient within 3 months plus the duration of symptoms, within 6 months plus the duration of symptoms for those with secondary syphilis, or 1 year for patients with early latent syphilis.8

Serologic and clinical evaluation should be repeated at 6, 12, and 24 months after treatment. HIV-infected patients should receive closer follow-up, ie, at 3, 6, 9, 12, and 24 months. The same quantitative nontreponemal serologic test should be used at each visit, with at least a fourfold decrease in titer representing an appropriate serologic decline.

Failure to achieve an appropriate serologic decline in 6 to 12 months may represent treatment failure.8 Optimal management in this instance is unclear; at a minimum, additional clinical and serologic follow-up should be performed.8 If additional follow-up cannot be ensured, retreatment (weekly intramuscular injections of benzathine penicillin G 2.4 million units for 3 weeks) is recommended. Cerebrospinal fluid examination can be considered to exclude unrecognized neurosyphilis.8

URETHRITIS: GONORRHEA, CHLAMYDIA TOP THE LIST

Symptoms of urethritis can include dysuria, discharge (purulent or mucopurulent), and urethral pruritus.26 However, asymptomatic infections are common.8

Several organisms are associated with infectious urethritis, including26:

  • Neisseria gonorrhoeae
  • Chlamydia trachomatis
  • Mycoplasma genitalium
  • Trichomonas vaginalis
  • Ureaplasma urealyticum.

Diagnosing urethritis: Try to identify the agent

The clinician should attempt to obtain objective evidence of urethral inflammation. Urethral discharge should be examined with microscopy using Gram stain or methylene blue, or a first-void urine sample should be tested with microscopy and leukocyte esterase.26 If clinic-based diagnostic testing is not available, testing for N gonorrhoeae and C trachomatis using nucleic acid amplification can identify additional infections.8

During the clinic visit, either Gram-stain microscopy of a urethral swab or microscopic examination of a first-catch urine sample may identify the causative agent. If gram-negative intracellular diplococci are seen on urethral smear, gonorrhea infection is diagnosed. Nongonococcal urethritis is diagnosed when microscopy or urinalysis displays evidence of inflammation (positive leukocyte esterase or at least 10 white blood cells per high-power field) without gram-negative intracellular diplococci.8

Testing should be performed to determine the specific cause of urethritis, because both chlamydia and gonorrhea are reportable diseases. Nucleic acid amplification tests are the most sensitive tests for C trachomatis and N gonorrhoeae and can be performed on urethral swabs or urine.44 If clinic-based diagnostic tools are unavailable, patients should receive empiric treatment for chlamydia and gonorrhea.8

Treatment of urethritis, by organism

Urethral gonorrhea should be treated with dual therapy: ceftriaxone 250 mg in a single intramuscular dose and either azithromycin 1 g orally as a single dose or doxycycline 100 mg orally twice a day for 7 days. Oral cephalosporins are no longer recommended as first-line treatment of gonorrhea.45

Chlamydial urethritis is treated with azithromycin 1 g in a single oral dose or doxycycline 100 mg orally twice a day for 7 days. Although azithromycin provides the advantages of a single-dose regimen administered and directly observed by the provider, some evidence suggests that doxycycline may be more effective than azithromycin for symptomatic chlamydial urethritis.46

All sex partners within the preceding 60 days should be referred for evaluation, testing, and empiric treatment with a drug regimen effective against chlamydia (if nongonococcal urethritis or only C trachomatis was identified) and gonorrhea (if N gonorrhoeae was identified). When patients diagnosed with chlamydia or gonorrhea indicate that their partners are unlikely to seek evaluation, providers can offer patient-delivered partner therapy, a form of expedited partner therapy in which partners of infected persons are treated without previous medical evaluation. Providers should visit www.cdc.gov/std/ept for updated information for their individual jurisdiction, as expedited partner therapy is prohibited in some states. No studies have been published involving patient-delivered partner therapy for chlamydia or gonorrhea in men who have sex with men.8

Patients with recurrent or persistent urethritis can be retreated with the initial regimen if they did not comply with treatment or were reexposed to an untreated sex partner. However, persistent urethritis after doxycycline therapy may suggest the presence of doxycycline-resistant M genitalium or U urealyticum. T vaginalis may also cause urethritis in men. Diagnostic evaluation may include culture or nucleic acid amplification testing of a urethral swab or urine (ie, PCR [Amplicor] or transcription-mediated amplification).8

M genitalium or U urealyticum urethritis. Currently, no commercially available diagnostic test exists for M genitalium or U urealyticum, so clinicians must choose a treatment regimen on the basis of objective evidence of inflammation in the absence of an etiologic agent. If azithromycin was not given during the initial course, metronidazole 2 g orally or tinidazole 2 g orally in a single dose plus azithromycin 1 g orally should be considered.8

M genitalium is one of the most common pathogens in men with persistent urethritis, accounting for 15% to 25% of cases. Several studies have shown that moxifloxacin 400 mg orally daily for 7 days is effective against M genitalium.46–48 Therefore, men for whom an initial regimen of azithromycin fails should be retreated with moxifloxacin 400 mg orally once daily for 7 days.

If men require treatment with a new antibiotic regimen for persistent urethritis and a sexually transmitted agent is the suspected cause, all partners in the past 60 days before the initial diagnosis and any interim partners should be referred for evaluation and appropriate treatment.

 

 

CERVICITIS: CHLAMYDIA, GONORRHEA, OTHERS

Cervicitis is frequently asymptomatic, but signs on pelvic examination may include purulent or mucopurulent endocervical exudate and sustained endocervical bleeding easily induced by passage of a cotton swab through the cervical os.26

In most cases, the pathogen cannot be identified.49 When an organism is isolated, it is typically C trachomatis or N gonorrhoeae. Others that may cause cervicitis include the organisms responsible for bacterial vaginosis, T vaginalis, HSV, and possibly M genitalium.50

Diagnostic workup for cervicitis

Diagnostic workup for cervicitis should include microscopic evaluation of an endocervical specimen and testing for C trachomatis and N gonorrhoeae. A finding of leukorrhea (> 10 white blood cells per high-power field on microscopic examination of vaginal fluid) has been associated with chlamydial and gonococcal infection of the cervix.8 In the absence of inflammatory vaginitis, leukorrhea might be a sensitive indicator of cervical inflammation, with a high negative predictive value.

Nucleic acid amplification testing for C trachomatis and N gonorrhoeae can be performed on urine, endocervical, or vaginal swab specimens collected by the clinician or self-collected.51 The performance of C trachomatis nucleic acid amplification testing on patient-collected vaginal swab specimens has similar sensitivity and specificity to those performed on cervical and first-void urine samples.26,44,52

Women with cervicitis also should be evaluated for bacterial vaginosis and trichomoniasis, and if the organisms that cause these conditions are detected, treatment is advised. Microscopy has a low sensitivity (approximately 50%) for detecting T vaginalis; if the organism is not identified, further testing such as culture may be performed to exclude it as the pathogen.

Women with cervicitis should also be evaluated for clinical signs of pelvic inflammatory disease, including uterine, adnexal, and cervical motion tenderness, and fever.

Cervicitis can be treated presumptively

Women with cervicitis who should receive presumptive therapy include those at higher risk of chlamydial infection (ie, those with new or multiple sex partners, those age 25 or younger, and those who engage in unprotected intercourse, especially if follow-up cannot be ensured).8

Recommended therapy is either azithromycin 1 g orally in a single dose or doxycycline 100 mg orally twice a day for 7 days. The clinician should consider dual therapy to cover gonorrhea if the prevalence of gonorrhea is more than 5% (ie, in younger patients).8 If bacterial vaginosis or T vaginalis infection is diagnosed, these conditions should be treated at the time of clinical evaluation (see vaginitis section for more detail). For women in whom presumptive therapy is deferred, the results of diagnostic testing should guide appropriate treatment.

Repeat testing 3 to 6 months after treatment is recommended for all women diagnosed with chlamydia or gonorrhea,53 and all sex partners in the past 60 days should be referred for evaluation and receive treatment for the STDs for which the index patient received treatment. In states where it is allowed, patient-delivered partner therapy should be considered if the patient indicates her partner is unlikely to seek medical evaluation.

VAGINITIS: NOT JUST YEAST

Women with vaginitis may present with complaints of discharge, pruritus, or a bad vaginal odor. A careful medical history, including information on sexual behaviors and vaginal hygiene practices (ie, douching), should be conducted in addition to physical examination and diagnostic testing.

The most common conditions associated with vaginitis are bacterial vaginosis, trichomoniasis, and candidiasis. However, vulvovaginal candidiasis, most often caused by Candida albicans, is not transmitted sexually and will not be reviewed further here. Although bacterial vaginosis is associated with known risk factors for STDs (eg, new or multiple sex partners), the cause of the microbial alteration that precipitates it is not known.44 Co-infection with T vaginalis is extremely common.54

BACTERIAL VAGINOSIS: VERY COMMON

Bacterial vaginosis is the most common genital infection in reproductive-age women.55 It is a polymicrobial syndrome in which anaerobic bacteria (Prevotella and Mobiluncus species), Gardnerella vaginalis, Ureaplasma, and Mycoplasma replace the normal vaginal flora.

Diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis

Bacterial vaginosis can be diagnosed by clinical criteria or Gram staining. Clinical diagnosis requires three of the following clinical criteria proposed by Amsel et al56:

  • Clue cells
  • Vaginal fluid pH > 4.5
  • Fishy odor before or after addition of 10% potassium hydroxide
  • Thin, homogeneous, white discharge that smoothly coats the vaginal walls.

The clinical utility of PCR for diagnosing G vaginalis remains unclear, and culture is not recommended because it has low specificity. Gram staining can be used to determine the concentration of lactobacilli, small gram-negative or variable rods (G vaginalis and anaerobic rods), and curved gram-negative rods (ie, Mobiluncus species).

Treatment of bacterial vaginosis: Metronidazole or clindamycin

Treatment is recommended to relieve vaginal symptoms, with the potential benefit of reducing the risk of acquiring chlamydia, gonorrhea, and HIV and other viral STDs.8

Recommended treatment is with metronidazole 500 mg orally twice a day for 7 days, metronidazole gel 0.75% vaginal suppository once a day for 5 days, or clindamycin cream 2% vaginal suppository once a day for 7 days.44 A meta-analysis of several trials found that clindamycin and metronidazole have equivalent effectiveness for eradicating bacterial vaginosis symptoms.57 Accordingly, providers can consider patient preference, co-infections, and possible side effects when selecting a regimen. Alternative regimens include tinidazole or clindamycin orally or in vaginal ovules.

Women should be advised to refrain from sexual intercourse during treatment. Routine treatment of male or female sexual partners is not warranted.

Bacterial vaginosis commonly recurs, and limited data exist regarding optimal management of recurrences. Using a different treatment regimen may be an option in patients who have a recurrence; however, re-treatment with the same topical regimen is an acceptable approach for treating recurrent bacterial vaginosis during the early stages of infection.58 One study suggests that metronidazole for 7 days, followed by intravaginal boric acid for 21 days, and then, for those in remission, suppressive metronidazole gel for 16 weeks may be another option.59 For women with multiple recurrences, metronidazole gel twice weekly for 4 to 6 months has been shown to reduce recurrences, although its benefit may not persist after it is stopped. The therapeutic role for probiotics remains unclear.60

 

 

TRICHOMONIASIS: TREAT PARTNERS

Although most women with trichomoniasis have few or no symptoms, some have vaginal discharge that may be diffuse, malodorous, and yellow-greenish, and some have vulvar irritation.

Diagnosis of trichomoniasis: Microscopy is first-line but insensitive

The most common method for diagnosing T vaginalis infection remains microscopic evaluation of wet preparations of genital secretions, because of its convenience and relatively low cost. This may demonstrate the motile, flagellated protozoa T vaginalis and many white blood cells. Slides of vaginal fluid specimens should be examined immediately after collection to maximize performance. Unfortunately, the sensitivity of wet preparation is 44% to 80% in vaginal specimens.61

Culture is still considered the gold standard for diagnosing trichomoniasis and, if available, should be performed when direct microscopy is unrevealing.

Point-of-care diagnostic tests for T vaginalis infection include the OSOM Trichomonas Rapid Test (Sekisui Diagnostics, San Diego, CA), which is an immunochromatographic capillary flow dipstick test, and the Affirm VPIII (Becton, Dickinson and Company, Franklin Lakes, NJ), a nucleic acid probe-hydridization test that identifies T vaginalis, G vaginalis, and C albicans.44,62 Liquid-based Pap tests may demonstrate T vaginalis, although they should not be performed exclusively for this purpose. Among women, nucleic acid amplification tests may detect a prevalence three to five times higher than indicated by wet mount microscopy. The APTIMA Trichomonas vaginalis assay (Hologic Gen-Probe, San Diego, CA) was the most sensitive test for trichomonas detection in this study.63

Extragenital testing with nucleic acid amplification tests is not recommended for T vaginalis, as it remains unclear if the rectum can serve as a reservoir for infection, and T vaginalis has not been found to infect oral sites.8

Treatment of trichomoniasis: Metronidazole or tinidazole

Nitroimidazoles, ie, metronidazole and tinidazole, are the only class of drugs available to treat trichomoniasis. The recommended regimen is metronidazole or tinidazole 2 g orally in a single dose. Studies suggest that tinidazole may be superior to metronidazole, with higher cure rates due to its longer half-life and higher tissue concentrations.64

Low-level metronidazole resistance is estimated to occur in 2% to 5% of trichomoniasis infections65; high-level resistance occurs rarely. If a single dose of metronidazole 2 g fails to cure the infection and reinfection is ruled out, the patient should be treated with metronidazole 500 mg orally twice a day for 7 days. If this regimen is not effective, providers can consider tinidazole or metronidazole 2 g orally for 7 days.44,62,64 Consultation and susceptibility testing for T vaginalis is available from the CDC if these alternative regimens are ineffective.

T vaginalis infection has a high rate of transmission to sexual partners,66 and all partners should be treated. Male sexual partners should be treated with metronidazole 500 mg twice a day orally for 7 days, tinidazole 2 g orally in a single dose, or tinidazole 500 mg twice a day for 7 days. Patient-delivered partner therapy may have a role in partner management for trichomoniasis.67

PROCTITIS: SUSPECT LYMPHOGRANULOMA VENEREUM

Acute proctitis in men and women who practice receptive anal intercourse is usually sexually acquired. The most common causative organisms are N gonorrhoeae, C trachomatis (serotypes associated with or not associated with lymphogranuloma venereum), and HSV; T pallidum is less common.68 Co-infections are not uncommon in this setting.69

Symptoms of proctitis may include anal discharge, rectal ulcers and bleeding, anorectal pain, tenesmus, and constipation. Patients with lymphogranuloma venereum may also present with tender, fluctuant inguinal or femoral lymphadenopathy (buboes), or herpetiform genital ulcers or papules.

Diagnosis of proctitis

Clinical evaluation should include digital rectal examination and anoscopy (if possible) to look for abnormalities such as ulcerations, hemorrhoids, anal fissures, condylomas, strictures, exudate, and bleeding.

Appropriate diagnostic testing includes Gram staining and culture of discharge, herpes viral culture or PCR, and nucleic acid amplification testing for chlamydia and gonorrhea (in laboratories with Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments validation).8

Nucleic acid amplification tests detect C trachomatis serotypes L1–L3, responsible for lymphogranuloma venereum, and non-lymphogranuloma venereum serotypes A–K, but cannot distinguish between the two, whereas PCR-based genotyping can.8,26 Although this distinction is important to ensure appropriate evaluation and management of sex partners, empiric treatment for lymphogranuloma venereum (doxycycline 100 mg orally twice a day for 21 days) should be provided to patients at high risk, including men who have sex with men and who have anorectal chlamydia, HIV infection, or bloody discharge and perianal or mucosal ulcers.8

Treatment of proctitis

Patients with painful perianal or mucosal ulceration should receive presumptive treatment for lymphogranuloma venereum and HSV while awaiting results of diagnostic testing. If rectal discharge is detected or Gram staining of anorectal secretions detects polymorphonuclear leukocytes, treatment should include ceftriaxone 250 mg intramuscularly and doxycycline 100 mg orally twice a day for 7 days.8 Additional testing for syphilis and HIV should also be performed.

All sexual partners should be evaluated for any disease diagnosed in the index patient.

References
  1. Satterwhite CL, Torrone E, Meites E, et al. Sexually transmitted infections among US women and men: prevalence and incidence estimates, 2008. Sex Transm Dis 2013; 40:187193.
  2. Institute of Medicine (US); Committee on Prevention and Control of Sexually Transmitted Diseases. The hidden epidemic: confronting sexually transmitted diseases. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1997.
  3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2011 Sexually Transmitted Disease Surveillance. http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats11/toc.htm. Accessed January 10, 2014.
  4. Barrow RY, Newman LM, Douglas JM. Taking positive steps to address STD disparities for African-American communities. Sex Transm Dis 2008; 35(suppl 12):S1S3.
  5. Mitchell JW, Petroll AE. Patterns of HIV and sexually transmitted infection testing among men who have sex with men couples in the United States. Sex Transm Dis 2012; 39:871876.
  6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). HIV testing among men who have sex with men—21 cities, United States, 2008. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2011; 60:694699.
  7. Meyers D, Wolff T, Gregory K, et al., USPSTF. USPSTF recommendations for STI screening. Am Fam Physician 2008; 77:819824.
  8. Workowski KA, Berman S; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Sexually transmitted diseases treatment guidelines, 2010. MMWR Recomm Rep 2010; 59:1110.
  9. Summaries for patients. Screening for chlamydial infection: recommendations from the US Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 2007; 147:I44.
  10. Marrazzo JM, Cates W. Interventions to prevent sexually transmitted infections, including HIV infection. Clin Infect Dis 2011; 53(suppl 3):S64S78.
  11. Markowitz LE, Dunne EF, Saraiya M, Lawson HW, Chesson H, Unger ER; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). Quadrivalent Human Papillomavirus Vaccine: Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). MMWR Recomm Rep 2007; 56:124.
  12. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Recommendations on the use of quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine in males—Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), 2011. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2011; 60:17051708.
  13. Paavonen J, Jenkins D, Bosch FX, et al; HPV PATRICIA study group. Efficacy of a prophylactic adjuvanted bivalent L1 virus-like-particle vaccine against infection with human papillomavirus types 16 and 18 in young women: an interim analysis of a phase III double-blind, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2007; 369:21612170.
  14. Mast EE, Weinbaum CM, Fiore AE, et al; Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP); Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). A comprehensive immunization strategy to eliminate transmission of hepatitis B virus infection in the United States: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Part II: immunization of adults. MMWR Recomm Rep 2006; 55:133.
  15. Mayer KH. Sexually transmitted diseases in men who have sex with men. Clin Infect Dis 2011; 53(suppl 3):S79S83.
  16. Tobian AA, Serwadda D, Quinn TC, et al. Male circumcision for the prevention of HSV-2 and HPV infections and syphilis. N Engl J Med 2009; 360:12981309.
  17. Auvert B, Sobngwi-Tambekou J, Cutler E, et al. Effect of male circumcision on the prevalence of high-risk human papillomavirus in young men: results of a randomized controlled trial conducted in Orange Farm, South Africa. J Infect Dis 2009; 199:1419.
  18. Obiero J, Mwethera PG, Wiysonge CS. Topical microbicides for prevention of sexually transmitted infections. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; 6:CD007961.
  19. Abdool Karim Q, Abdool Karim SS, Frohlich JA, et al; CAPRISA 004 Trial Group. Effectiveness and safety of tenofovir gel, an antiretroviral microbicide, for the prevention of HIV infection in women. Science 2010; 329:11681174.
  20. HIV prevention through early detection and treatment of other sexually transmitted diseases—United States. Recommendations of the Advisory Committee for HIV and STD prevention. MMWR Recomm Rep 1998; 47:124.
  21. Fleming DT, Wasserheit JN. From epidemiological synergy to public health policy and practice: the contribution of other sexually transmitted diseases to sexual transmission of HIV infection. Sex Transm Infect 1999; 75:317.
  22. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Seroprevalence of herpes simplex virus type 2 among persons aged 14–49 years—United States, 2005–2008. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2010; 59:456459.
  23. Semaan S, Leinhos M, Neumann MS. Public health strategies for prevention and control of HSV-2 in persons who use drugs in the United States. Drug Alcohol Depend 2013; 131:182197.
  24. Bernstein DI, Bellamy AR, Hook EW, et al. Epidemiology, clinical presentation, and antibody response to primary infection with herpes simplex virus type 1 and type 2 in young women. Clin Infect Dis 2013; 56:344351.
  25. Kimberlin DW, Rouse DJ. Clinical practice. Genital herpes. N Engl J Med 2004; 350:19701977.
  26. Sexually Transmitted Diseases. 4th ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Professional Publishing; 2007.
  27. Johnston C, Magaret A, Selke S, Remington M, Corey L, Wald A. Herpes simplex virus viremia during primary genital infection. J Infect Dis 2008; 198:3134.
  28. Laderman EI, Whitworth E, Dumaual E, et al. Rapid, sensitive, and specific lateral-flow immunochromatographic point-of-care device for detection of herpes simplex virus type 2-specific immunoglobulin G antibodies in serum and whole blood. Clin Vaccine Immunol 2008; 15:159163.
  29. Philip SS, Ahrens K, Shayevich C, et al. Evaluation of a new point-of-care serologic assay for herpes simplex virus type 2 infection. Clin Infect Dis 2008; 47:e79e82.
  30. Belshe RB, Leone PA, Bernstein DI, et al; Herpevac Trial for Women. Efficacy results of a trial of a herpes simplex vaccine. N Engl J Med 2012; 366:3443.
  31. Stanberry LR, Spruance SL, Cunningham AL, et al; GlaxoSmithKline Herpes Vaccine Efficacy Study Group. Glycoprotein-D-adjuvant vaccine to prevent genital herpes. N Engl J Med 2002; 347:16521661.
  32. Mark H, Gilbert L, Nanda J. Psychosocial well-being and quality of life among women newly diagnosed with genital herpes. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 2009; 38:320326.
  33. Gilbert LK, Omisore F. Common questions about herpes: analysis of chat-room transcripts. Herpes 2009; 15:5761.
  34. Alexander L, Naisbett B. Patient and physician partnerships in managing genital herpes. J Infect Dis 2002; 186(suppl 1):S57S65.
  35. Ghanem KG, Workowski KA. Management of adult syphilis. Clin Infect Dis 2011; 53(suppl 3):S110S128.
  36. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Discordant results from reverse sequence syphilis screening—five laboratories, United States, 2006–2010. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2011; 60:133137.
  37. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Syphilis testing algorithms using treponemal tests for initial screening—four laboratories, New York City, 2005–2006. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2008; 57:872875.
  38. Seña AC, White BL, Sparling PF. Novel Treponema pallidum serologic tests: a paradigm shift in syphilis screening for the 21st century. Clin Infect Dis 2010; 51:700708.
  39. Marangoni A, Sambri V, Storni E, D’Antuono A, Negosanti M, Cevenini R. Treponema pallidum surface immunofluorescence assay for serologic diagnosis of syphilis. Clin Diagn Lab Immunol 2000; 7:417421.
  40. Post JJ, Khor C, Furner V, Smith DE, Whybin LR, Robertson PW. Case report and evaluation of the frequency of the prozone phenomenon in syphilis serology—an infrequent but important laboratory phenomenon. Sex Health 2012; 9:488490.
  41. Ghanem KG, Erbelding EJ, Cheng WW, Rompalo AM. Doxycycline compared with benzathine penicillin for the treatment of early syphilis. Clin Infect Dis 2006; 42:e45e49.
  42. Hook EW, Roddy RE, Handsfield HH. Ceftriaxone therapy for incubating and early syphilis. J Infect Dis 1988; 158:881884.
  43. A2058G Prevalence Workgroup. Prevalence of the 23S rRNA A2058G point mutation and molecular subtypes in Treponema pallidum in the United States, 2007 to 2009. Sex Transm Dis 2012; 39:794798.
  44. Workowski KA, Berman SM. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Sexually Transmitted Disease Treatment Guidelines. Clin Infect Dis 2011; 53(suppl 3):S59S63.
  45. Kirkcaldy RD, Bolan GA, Wasserheit JN. Cephalosporin-resistant gonorrhea in North America. JAMA 2013; 309:185187.
  46. Seña AC, Lensing S, Rompalo A, et al. Chlamydia trachomatis, Mycoplasma genitalium, and Trichomonas vaginalis infections in men with nongonococcal urethritis: predictors and persistence after therapy. J Infect Dis 2012; 206:357365.
  47. Manhart LE, Broad JM, Golden MR. Mycoplasma genitalium: should we treat and how? Clin Infect Dis 2011; 53(suppl 3):S129S142.
  48. Jernberg E, Moghaddam A, Moi H. Azithromycin and moxifloxacin for microbiological cure of Mycoplasma genitalium infection: an open study. Int J STD AIDS 2008; 19:676679.
  49. Taylor SN, Lensing S, Schwebke J, et al. Prevalence and treatment outcome of cervicitis of unknown etiology. Sex Transm Dis 2013; 40:379385.
  50. Lusk MJ, Konecny P. Cervicitis: a review. Curr Opin Infect Dis 2008; 21:4955.
  51. Geisler WM. Diagnosis and management of uncomplicated Chlamydia trachomatis infections in adolescents and adults: summary of evidence reviewed for the 2010 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Sexually Transmitted Diseases Treatment Guidelines. Clin Infect Dis 2011; 53(suppl 3):S92S98.
  52. Schachter J, Chernesky MA, Willis DE, et al. Vaginal swabs are the specimens of choice when screening for Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae: results from a multicenter evaluation of the APTIMA assays for both infections. Sex Transm Dis 2005; 32:725728.
  53. Hosenfeld CB, Workowski KA, Berman S, et al. Repeat infection with Chlamydia and gonorrhea among females: a systematic review of the literature. Sex Transm Dis 2009; 36:478489.
  54. Sobel JD, Subramanian C, Foxman B, Fairfax M, Gygax SE. Mixed vaginitis-more than coinfection and with therapeutic implications. Curr Infect Dis Rep 2013; 15:104108.
  55. Taylor BD, Darville T, Haggerty CL. Does bacterial vaginosis cause pelvic inflammatory disease? Sex Transm Dis 2013; 40:117122.
  56. Amsel R, Totten PA, Spiegel CA, Chen KC, Eschenbach D, Holmes KK. Nonspecific vaginitis. Diagnostic criteria and microbial and epidemiologic associations. Am J Med 1983; 74:1422.
  57. Oduyebo OO, Anorlu RI, Ogunsola FT. The effects of antimicrobial therapy on bacterial vaginosis in non-pregnant women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009; ( 3):CD006055.
  58. Bunge KE, Beigi RH, Meyn LA, Hillier SL. The efficacy of retreatment with the same medication for early treatment failure of bacterial vaginosis. Sex Transm Dis 2009; 36:711713.
  59. Reichman O, Akins R, Sobel JD. Boric acid addition to suppressive antimicrobial therapy for recurrent bacterial vaginosis. Sex Transm Dis 2009; 36:732734.
  60. Senok AC, Verstraelen H, Temmerman M, Botta GA. Probiotics for the treatment of bacterial vaginosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009; (4):CD006289.
  61. Nye MB, Schwebke JR, Body BA. Comparison of APTIMA Trichomonas vaginalis transcription-mediated amplification to wet mount microscopy, culture, and polymerase chain reaction for diagnosis of trichomoniasis in men and women. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009; 200:188.e1188.e7.
  62. Bachmann LH, Hobbs MM, Seña AC, et al. Trichomonas vaginalis genital infections: progress and challenges. Clin Infect Dis 2011; 53(suppl 3):S160S172.
  63. Schwebke JR, Hobbs MM, Taylor SN, et al. Molecular testing for Trichomonas vaginalis in women: results from a prospective US clinical trial. J Clin Microbiol 2011; 49:41064111.
  64. Coleman JS, Gaydos CA, Witter F. Trichomonas vaginalis vaginitis in obstetrics and gynecology practice: new concepts and controversies. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2013; 68:4350.
  65. Kirkcaldy RD, Augostini P, Asbel LE, et al. Trichomonas vaginalis antimicrobial drug resistance in 6 US cities, STD Surveillance Network, 2009–2010. Emerg Infect Dis 2012; 18:939943.
  66. Hoots BE, Peterman TA, Torrone EA, Weinstock H, Meites E, Bolan GA. A Trich-y question: should Trichomonas vaginalis infection be reportable? Sex Transm Dis 2013; 40:113116.
  67. Schwebke JR, Desmond RA. A randomized controlled trial of partner notification methods for prevention of trichomoniasis in women. Sex Transm Dis 2010; 37:392396.
  68. Studemeister A. Cytomegalovirus proctitis: a rare and disregarded sexually transmitted disease. Sex Transm Dis 2011; 38:876878.
  69. Hoentjen F, Rubin DT. Infectious proctitis: when to suspect it is not inflammatory bowel disease. Dig Dis Sci 2012; 57:269273.
Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Robyn Neblett Fanfair, MD, MPH
Division of STD Prevention, National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA

Kimberly A. Workowski, MD
Division of STD Prevention, National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA; and Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA; Chairperson, Sexually Transmitted Diseases Treatment Guidelines, 2014

Address: Robyn Neblett Fanfair, MD, MPH, Division of Sexually Transmitted Disease Prevention, National Center for HIV–AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS E-02, Atlanta, GA 30333; e-mail: iyo5@cdc.gov

Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 81(2)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
91-101
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Robyn Neblett Fanfair, MD, MPH
Division of STD Prevention, National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA

Kimberly A. Workowski, MD
Division of STD Prevention, National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA; and Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA; Chairperson, Sexually Transmitted Diseases Treatment Guidelines, 2014

Address: Robyn Neblett Fanfair, MD, MPH, Division of Sexually Transmitted Disease Prevention, National Center for HIV–AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS E-02, Atlanta, GA 30333; e-mail: iyo5@cdc.gov

Author and Disclosure Information

Robyn Neblett Fanfair, MD, MPH
Division of STD Prevention, National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA

Kimberly A. Workowski, MD
Division of STD Prevention, National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA; and Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA; Chairperson, Sexually Transmitted Diseases Treatment Guidelines, 2014

Address: Robyn Neblett Fanfair, MD, MPH, Division of Sexually Transmitted Disease Prevention, National Center for HIV–AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS E-02, Atlanta, GA 30333; e-mail: iyo5@cdc.gov

Article PDF
Article PDF

With nearly 20 million new infections annually, sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) are very common in the United States.1,2 And with recent changes to the national health care landscape, including the passage of the Affordable Care Act and state budget cuts resulting in the closure of STD and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) clinics, primary care providers can expect to encounter more patients with STDs.

For women and infants, STDs can have serious and long-term consequences, including infertility, facilitation of HIV infection, reproductive tract cancer, pelvic inflammatory disease, and poor perinatal outcomes.2 STDs cost the US health care system nearly $16 billion every year.3

STD prevention and control strategies traditionally include surveillance, screening, behavioral interventions, treatment, and partner management.4 This paper will review patient management by syndrome and provide guidance to clinicians to facilitate timely diagnosis and treatment, important components of any effective STD prevention strategy.

ANYONE CAN HAVE AN STD

STDs affect people of all races, ages, and sexual orientations. That said, some groups are at greater risk:

Adolescents and young adults. Persons ages 15 through 24 represent 25% of the sexually experienced population in the United States but account for nearly half of all incident STDs.1

Racial and ethnic minorities. STD disparities are one of the five greatest health disparities for African American communities.4

Men who have sex with men number approximately 2% to 4% of the US male population, yet account for approximately 70% of reported cases of primary and secondary syphilis and more than 50% of persons with HIV infection.3,5,6

HIGH-RISK BEHAVIOR AND SCREENING

A thorough sexual history will reveal behaviors that place a person at risk of infection. The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) defines high-risk sexual behavior as having multiple current partners, having a new partner, using condoms inconsistently, having sex while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or exchanging sex for money or drugs.7

An effective strategy for obtaining a sexual history is the “five Ps”8:

  • Partners (eg, Do you have sex with men, women, or both?)
  • Prevention of pregnancy (eg, What are you doing to prevent pregnancy?)
  • Protection from STDs (eg, What do you do to protect yourself from STDs?)
  • Practices (eg, To understand your risks for STDs, I need to understand the kind of sex you have had recently.)
  • Past history of STDs (eg, Have you ever had an STD?).8

The USPSTF and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommend certain populations be screened for STDs.7,8

Everyone age 13 through 64 should be tested for HIV at least once, per CDC recommendation.8

Sexually active females up to age 24 should routinely be screened for chlamydia every year.7,8

Nonpregnant women at higher risk of infection should be screened for gonorrhea and syphilis.

Pregnant women, regardless of risk, should be screened for chlamydia, hepatitis B, HIV, and syphilis; pregnant women at higher risk of infection should also be screened for gonorrhea and hepatitis C.7,9

Men should be screened for HIV, and men at higher risk should also be screened for syphilis.8

Men who have sex with men should be screened at least annually for HIV and syphilis and undergo a test for urethral chlamydia and gonorrhea infection. Men who participate in receptive anal intercourse should be tested for rectal chlamydia and gonorrhea and, in those who participate in oral intercourse, for pharyngeal gonorrhea.8

PREVENTION

Vaccination against HPV, hepatitis A and B

Preexposure vaccination is one of the most effective ways to prevent human papillomavirus (HPV), hepatitis A, and hepatitis B infection.10

HPV vaccination. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommends routine HPV vaccination of female patients at age 11 or 12, or through age 26 if not previously vaccinated.11,12 Routine vaccination is also recommended for males at age 11 or 12 and through age 21, if not previously vaccinated.12 The upper age is extended through age 26 for men who have sex with men and for immunocompromised patients.12

Two HPV vaccines are available for females; one is quadrivalent and the other is bivalent. Both protect against two HPV types that cause cervical and other HPV-associated cancers.11 The quadrivalent vaccine also protects against the two types that cause 90% of genital warts.13 Only the quadrivalent vaccine is licensed for use in males.12

Hepatitis A and B vaccination. Hepatitis B vaccination is recommended for all unvaccinated, uninfected patients being evaluated for an STD.8,14

Vaccinating for hepatitis A and hepatitis B is important for men who have sex with men, who have a higher risk of acquiring and transmitting these infections.15

Other preventive practices

Male circumcision has been shown to reduce the risk of HIV infection, high-risk genital HPV infection, and genital herpes in heterosexual men.10,16,17

Male condoms, when used consistently and correctly, can reduce the risk of chlamydia, gonorrhea, and trichomoniasis.8 The risk of transmission of syphilis, genital HPV, and genital herpes can also be reduced by correctly and consistently using condoms when the infected area of exposure is covered.8

Microbiocides not recommended. Topical microbiocides do not have not enough evidence to recommend them for STD prevention. However, limited data suggest that tenofovir 1% vaginal gel may reduce the risk of acquiring genital herpes simplex virus type 2 (HSV-2) infection in women.18,19

 

 

GENITAL ULCERATIVE DISEASE: HERPES, SYPHILIS, OTHERS

The risk of acquiring HIV is two to five times higher if one is exposed to it when a genital ulcerative disease is present.20,21

In the United States, most cases of genital, anal, or perianal ulcers in sexually active persons are due to genital herpes or syphilis.8 Other causes include chancroid, granuloma inguinale, lymphogranuloma venereum, and noninfectious causes.

Although the frequency of these conditions varies by geographic area and demographic profile, herpes is the most prevalent of them.8 HSV-2 infection is one of the most prevalent STDs in the United States, with approximately 17% of all adolescents and adults infected,1,22 and a much higher prevalence in persons who use drugs.23

A thorough medical history and physical examination should be conducted. In addition, an accurate diagnosis requires specific tests: syphilis serology, dark field microscopy (if available), and culture or polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing for herpes.8 A positive serologic test for HSV-1 or HSV-2 is enough to make the diagnosis in a patient whose symptoms suggest herpes, even if PCR and culture are negative.

GENITAL HERPES: MOSTLY ASYMPTOMATIC

Genital herpes is caused by HSV-1 or HSV-2. Of these, HSV-1 is on the rise, causing an increasing proportion of first episodes of genital herpes in some populations. It may now account for most new genital herpes infections in young women and in men who have sex with men.8,24

Most people infected with HSV-1 or HSV-2 have no symptoms or have subclinical disease. When symptoms do occur, one or more vesicles may appear on or around the genitals, rectum, or mouth. The average incubation period after exposure is 4 days (range 2–12).25 The first episode of genital herpes is often associated with systemic symptoms (eg, fever, headache, myalgia, and malaise) and local symptoms (eg, dysuria, vaginal or urethral discharge, and inguinal adenopathy).26,27

Genital herpes often recurs, especially during the first year. Recurrences are less frequent with HSV-1 than with HSV-2.

Diagnosing genital herpes requires laboratory testing

Diagnosing genital herpes by clinical signs and symptoms is both insensitive and nonspecific. Therefore, laboratory testing should be performed for patients who present with genital ulcerative disease.

Virologic tests. Viral culture and nucleic acid amplification methods, including PCR assays, are the preferred virologic tests for herpes.8 Although viral culture is widely available, its sensitivity depends on the stage of the lesion and rapidly declines as lesions begin to heal. PCR assays are more sensitive than viral culture, can be done in automated systems, and are increasingly being used in clinical settings.26 However, if the patient has no active lesions at the time of testing, failure to detect herpes by culture or PCR does not guarantee that the patient is not infected, as viral shedding is intermittent.

Serologic tests. Type-specific antibodies to HSV develop during the first several weeks following infection and persist indefinitely. Providers should specifically request serologic type-specific immunoglobulin G (IgG) assays. IgM testing for HSV should not be used, as IgM testing is not type-specific. Moreover, although some clinicians believe IgM is a good test for early infection because levels rise early and then decline, IgM may be positive during recurrent episodes.8

Both laboratory-based assays and point-of-care tests for HSV-2 are available. They are performed on capillary blood or serum and have sensitivities that range from 80% to 100% and specificities greater than 96%, compared with HSV-2 immunoblot and Western blot testing as the standard.28,29

False-negative results may be more frequent in the early stages of infection. HSV-2 antibody indicates anogenital infection, while HSV-1 antibody might also be due to orolabial infection, which is something to keep in mind in a patient without genital symptoms.8

Treatment can control herpes but not eradicate it

Several herpes vaccines have undergone clinical trials, but an effective one remains elusive.30,31

Antiviral therapy is used to control signs and symptoms of clinical disease but does not eradicate latent virus. For initial clinical episodes of genital herpes, the CDC recommends acyclovir, valacyclovir, or famciclovir for 7 to 10 days.8 In patients with established genital herpes, daily suppressive antiviral therapy can reduce recurrences, subclinical shedding, and the likelihood of transmission to partners; famciclovir is somewhat less efficacious for suppressing viral shedding.8

A diagnosis of herpes can carry considerable stigma, which can substantially interfere with a patient’s current and future relationships.25,32,33 Sex partners of patients with genital herpes may benefit from evaluation and counseling. Clinicians should appreciate the psychological impact of a genital herpes diagnosis and address these concerns by providing education, counseling, and support while encouraging patients to recognize that herpes is a manageable condition.34

SYPHILIS IS INCREASING IN MEN WHO HAVE SEX WITH MEN

Since 2001, rates of syphilis, a systemic disease caused by Treponema pallidum, have been increasing in men who have sex with men.3,35 As of 2011, this group accounts for approximately 72% of all cases of primary and secondary syphilis in the United States.3

Primary syphilis is characterized by a firm, painless chancre at the site of inoculation. The chancre lasts 3 to 6 weeks and heals regardless of treatment. However, if the infected person does not receive adequate treatment, the infection progresses to the secondary stage.26

Secondary syphilis typically starts with a nonpruritic rash, usually macular or papular, on the trunk and extremities, classically including the palms and soles. Other symptoms may include alopecia, lymphadenopathy, condylomata, and systemic symptoms.

Without treatment, the infection can progress to latent syphilis, which is further categorized as early (acquired during the preceding year), late latent, or of unknown duration.26

Practical diagnosis of syphilis relies on serologic testing

Definitive diagnosis of early syphilis requires dark field microscopy or PCR to detect T pallidum in lesion exudate or tissue.8 However, because there are no commercially available tests for T pallidum, serologic testing is the mainstay.

Two types of serologic tests must be performed to diagnose syphilis: a nontreponemal test and a treponemal test.8

Nontreponemal tests:

  • The Venereal Disease Research Laboratory (VDRL) test
  • The rapid plasma reagin (RPR) test.

Treponemal tests:

  • T pallidum passive particle agglutination (TP-PA) assay
  • Fluorescent treponemal antibody absorbed (FTA-ABS) test
  • Enzyme immunoassay (EIA)
  • Chemiluminescence immunoassay (CIA).

Using only one type of serologic test is in-sufficient for diagnosis because each type has limitations, including the possibility of false-positive results.

Nontreponemal test results may correlate with disease activity, and results should be reported quantitatively; a fourfold change in titer, equivalent to a change of two dilutions, is needed to demonstrate a clinically significant difference between two nontreponemal test results using the same serologic test.8

 

 

Which order of testing for syphilis is best?

The CDC recommends that nontreponemal tests be used to screen for syphilis and treponemal tests be used to confirm the diagnosis.36 This traditional algorithm performs well in identifying persons with active infection who require further evaluation and treatment, while minimizing false-positive results in low-prevalence populations.

However, some clinical laboratories have adopted the reverse sequence, using treponemal tests (usually an EIA or a CIA) to screen for syphilis, followed by a nontreponemal test to confirm active infection.36–38 This reverse-sequence testing may result in overdiagnosis and overtreatment of syphilis in some clinical settings.37 When reverse-sequence syphilis screening is used, the CDC recommends reflexively testing all sera that produce reactive EIA or CIA results with a quantitative nontreponemal test and reflexively testing sera with discordant results (ie, a reactive EIA or CIA and a nonreactive RPR or VDRL test) with a different treponemal test.36

Traditionally, the FTA-ABS test had been considered the gold standard treponemal test; however, it has lower specificity than other treponemal tests. Accordingly, TP-PA is the recommended confirmatory treponemal test.8,39 False-negative results, although rare, may occur for biological or technical reasons, such as the prozone phenomenon, resulting in a missed diagnosis. The prozone phenomenon occurs when the antibody titer is high and antigen binding sites are saturated, preventing the cross-linking reaction between antigens and antibodies. In this instance, when syphilis is suspected clinically and the RPR assay is nonreactive, the clinician can request RPR testing at dilutions of sera, ie, diluting the patient’s serum to bring the antibody concentration into the zone equivalence.40

Suspect neurosyphilis if neurologic symptoms arise

Central nervous system involvement can occur at any stage of syphilis. If clinical evidence of neurologic involvement (meningitis, stroke, cranial nerve dysfunction, or auditory or ophthalmic abnormalities) is observed in any patient with syphilis, regardless of stage, a cerebrospinal fluid examination should be performed.8 Laboratory testing can support the diagnosis of neurosyphilis; however, no single laboratory test can be used to diagnose it.

Cerebrospinal fluid abnormalities (ie, mononuclear pleocytosis, increased protein) are common in patients with early syphilis even in the absence of clinical neurologic findings. There is no firm evidence to support diverging from recommended treatment for early syphilis in these patients.35

Cerebrospinal fluid examination is recommended for all patients with serologic evidence of syphilis infection and neurologic symptoms and for patients who do not achieve an adequate serologic decline with stage-appropriate treatment.8

Penicillin is still the mainstay of syphilis treatment

Penicillin is still the mainstay of syphilis treatment.

  • Patients with early syphilis (primary, secondary, or early latent) should receive a single intramuscular dose of benzathine penicillin G (2.4 million units).8,35
  • Patients with late latent syphilis should receive three intramuscular doses of benzathine penicillin G (2.4 million units each) at 1-week intervals.
  • Neurosyphilis should be treated with aqueous crystalline penicillin G 18 to 24 million units daily for 10 to 14 days.8

Doxycycline is the preferred alternative in nonpregnant patients who are allergic to penicillin. The dosage is 100 mg orally twice a day for 14 days (for primary, secondary, or early latent infections) or for 28 days (for late latent infections or those of unknown duration).35,41

Ceftriaxone (1–2 g daily) may be effective for treating early syphilis. However, data are limited, and the optimal dose and duration of therapy are not defined.8,42

Azithromycin in a single 2-g oral dose is effective for treating early syphilis. However, T pallidum chromosomal mutations associated with macrolide resistance are being detected.35,43 In view of this, azithromycin should not be used in men who have sex with men or in pregnant women.

Follow-up of syphilis patients and partners

Close clinical and serologic follow-up is strongly advised in persons who receive an alternate regimen to evaluate for treatment failure.8

Sex partners of patients with primary syphilis should be considered at risk and given treatment if they had sexual contact with the patient within 3 months plus the duration of symptoms, within 6 months plus the duration of symptoms for those with secondary syphilis, or 1 year for patients with early latent syphilis.8

Serologic and clinical evaluation should be repeated at 6, 12, and 24 months after treatment. HIV-infected patients should receive closer follow-up, ie, at 3, 6, 9, 12, and 24 months. The same quantitative nontreponemal serologic test should be used at each visit, with at least a fourfold decrease in titer representing an appropriate serologic decline.

Failure to achieve an appropriate serologic decline in 6 to 12 months may represent treatment failure.8 Optimal management in this instance is unclear; at a minimum, additional clinical and serologic follow-up should be performed.8 If additional follow-up cannot be ensured, retreatment (weekly intramuscular injections of benzathine penicillin G 2.4 million units for 3 weeks) is recommended. Cerebrospinal fluid examination can be considered to exclude unrecognized neurosyphilis.8

URETHRITIS: GONORRHEA, CHLAMYDIA TOP THE LIST

Symptoms of urethritis can include dysuria, discharge (purulent or mucopurulent), and urethral pruritus.26 However, asymptomatic infections are common.8

Several organisms are associated with infectious urethritis, including26:

  • Neisseria gonorrhoeae
  • Chlamydia trachomatis
  • Mycoplasma genitalium
  • Trichomonas vaginalis
  • Ureaplasma urealyticum.

Diagnosing urethritis: Try to identify the agent

The clinician should attempt to obtain objective evidence of urethral inflammation. Urethral discharge should be examined with microscopy using Gram stain or methylene blue, or a first-void urine sample should be tested with microscopy and leukocyte esterase.26 If clinic-based diagnostic testing is not available, testing for N gonorrhoeae and C trachomatis using nucleic acid amplification can identify additional infections.8

During the clinic visit, either Gram-stain microscopy of a urethral swab or microscopic examination of a first-catch urine sample may identify the causative agent. If gram-negative intracellular diplococci are seen on urethral smear, gonorrhea infection is diagnosed. Nongonococcal urethritis is diagnosed when microscopy or urinalysis displays evidence of inflammation (positive leukocyte esterase or at least 10 white blood cells per high-power field) without gram-negative intracellular diplococci.8

Testing should be performed to determine the specific cause of urethritis, because both chlamydia and gonorrhea are reportable diseases. Nucleic acid amplification tests are the most sensitive tests for C trachomatis and N gonorrhoeae and can be performed on urethral swabs or urine.44 If clinic-based diagnostic tools are unavailable, patients should receive empiric treatment for chlamydia and gonorrhea.8

Treatment of urethritis, by organism

Urethral gonorrhea should be treated with dual therapy: ceftriaxone 250 mg in a single intramuscular dose and either azithromycin 1 g orally as a single dose or doxycycline 100 mg orally twice a day for 7 days. Oral cephalosporins are no longer recommended as first-line treatment of gonorrhea.45

Chlamydial urethritis is treated with azithromycin 1 g in a single oral dose or doxycycline 100 mg orally twice a day for 7 days. Although azithromycin provides the advantages of a single-dose regimen administered and directly observed by the provider, some evidence suggests that doxycycline may be more effective than azithromycin for symptomatic chlamydial urethritis.46

All sex partners within the preceding 60 days should be referred for evaluation, testing, and empiric treatment with a drug regimen effective against chlamydia (if nongonococcal urethritis or only C trachomatis was identified) and gonorrhea (if N gonorrhoeae was identified). When patients diagnosed with chlamydia or gonorrhea indicate that their partners are unlikely to seek evaluation, providers can offer patient-delivered partner therapy, a form of expedited partner therapy in which partners of infected persons are treated without previous medical evaluation. Providers should visit www.cdc.gov/std/ept for updated information for their individual jurisdiction, as expedited partner therapy is prohibited in some states. No studies have been published involving patient-delivered partner therapy for chlamydia or gonorrhea in men who have sex with men.8

Patients with recurrent or persistent urethritis can be retreated with the initial regimen if they did not comply with treatment or were reexposed to an untreated sex partner. However, persistent urethritis after doxycycline therapy may suggest the presence of doxycycline-resistant M genitalium or U urealyticum. T vaginalis may also cause urethritis in men. Diagnostic evaluation may include culture or nucleic acid amplification testing of a urethral swab or urine (ie, PCR [Amplicor] or transcription-mediated amplification).8

M genitalium or U urealyticum urethritis. Currently, no commercially available diagnostic test exists for M genitalium or U urealyticum, so clinicians must choose a treatment regimen on the basis of objective evidence of inflammation in the absence of an etiologic agent. If azithromycin was not given during the initial course, metronidazole 2 g orally or tinidazole 2 g orally in a single dose plus azithromycin 1 g orally should be considered.8

M genitalium is one of the most common pathogens in men with persistent urethritis, accounting for 15% to 25% of cases. Several studies have shown that moxifloxacin 400 mg orally daily for 7 days is effective against M genitalium.46–48 Therefore, men for whom an initial regimen of azithromycin fails should be retreated with moxifloxacin 400 mg orally once daily for 7 days.

If men require treatment with a new antibiotic regimen for persistent urethritis and a sexually transmitted agent is the suspected cause, all partners in the past 60 days before the initial diagnosis and any interim partners should be referred for evaluation and appropriate treatment.

 

 

CERVICITIS: CHLAMYDIA, GONORRHEA, OTHERS

Cervicitis is frequently asymptomatic, but signs on pelvic examination may include purulent or mucopurulent endocervical exudate and sustained endocervical bleeding easily induced by passage of a cotton swab through the cervical os.26

In most cases, the pathogen cannot be identified.49 When an organism is isolated, it is typically C trachomatis or N gonorrhoeae. Others that may cause cervicitis include the organisms responsible for bacterial vaginosis, T vaginalis, HSV, and possibly M genitalium.50

Diagnostic workup for cervicitis

Diagnostic workup for cervicitis should include microscopic evaluation of an endocervical specimen and testing for C trachomatis and N gonorrhoeae. A finding of leukorrhea (> 10 white blood cells per high-power field on microscopic examination of vaginal fluid) has been associated with chlamydial and gonococcal infection of the cervix.8 In the absence of inflammatory vaginitis, leukorrhea might be a sensitive indicator of cervical inflammation, with a high negative predictive value.

Nucleic acid amplification testing for C trachomatis and N gonorrhoeae can be performed on urine, endocervical, or vaginal swab specimens collected by the clinician or self-collected.51 The performance of C trachomatis nucleic acid amplification testing on patient-collected vaginal swab specimens has similar sensitivity and specificity to those performed on cervical and first-void urine samples.26,44,52

Women with cervicitis also should be evaluated for bacterial vaginosis and trichomoniasis, and if the organisms that cause these conditions are detected, treatment is advised. Microscopy has a low sensitivity (approximately 50%) for detecting T vaginalis; if the organism is not identified, further testing such as culture may be performed to exclude it as the pathogen.

Women with cervicitis should also be evaluated for clinical signs of pelvic inflammatory disease, including uterine, adnexal, and cervical motion tenderness, and fever.

Cervicitis can be treated presumptively

Women with cervicitis who should receive presumptive therapy include those at higher risk of chlamydial infection (ie, those with new or multiple sex partners, those age 25 or younger, and those who engage in unprotected intercourse, especially if follow-up cannot be ensured).8

Recommended therapy is either azithromycin 1 g orally in a single dose or doxycycline 100 mg orally twice a day for 7 days. The clinician should consider dual therapy to cover gonorrhea if the prevalence of gonorrhea is more than 5% (ie, in younger patients).8 If bacterial vaginosis or T vaginalis infection is diagnosed, these conditions should be treated at the time of clinical evaluation (see vaginitis section for more detail). For women in whom presumptive therapy is deferred, the results of diagnostic testing should guide appropriate treatment.

Repeat testing 3 to 6 months after treatment is recommended for all women diagnosed with chlamydia or gonorrhea,53 and all sex partners in the past 60 days should be referred for evaluation and receive treatment for the STDs for which the index patient received treatment. In states where it is allowed, patient-delivered partner therapy should be considered if the patient indicates her partner is unlikely to seek medical evaluation.

VAGINITIS: NOT JUST YEAST

Women with vaginitis may present with complaints of discharge, pruritus, or a bad vaginal odor. A careful medical history, including information on sexual behaviors and vaginal hygiene practices (ie, douching), should be conducted in addition to physical examination and diagnostic testing.

The most common conditions associated with vaginitis are bacterial vaginosis, trichomoniasis, and candidiasis. However, vulvovaginal candidiasis, most often caused by Candida albicans, is not transmitted sexually and will not be reviewed further here. Although bacterial vaginosis is associated with known risk factors for STDs (eg, new or multiple sex partners), the cause of the microbial alteration that precipitates it is not known.44 Co-infection with T vaginalis is extremely common.54

BACTERIAL VAGINOSIS: VERY COMMON

Bacterial vaginosis is the most common genital infection in reproductive-age women.55 It is a polymicrobial syndrome in which anaerobic bacteria (Prevotella and Mobiluncus species), Gardnerella vaginalis, Ureaplasma, and Mycoplasma replace the normal vaginal flora.

Diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis

Bacterial vaginosis can be diagnosed by clinical criteria or Gram staining. Clinical diagnosis requires three of the following clinical criteria proposed by Amsel et al56:

  • Clue cells
  • Vaginal fluid pH > 4.5
  • Fishy odor before or after addition of 10% potassium hydroxide
  • Thin, homogeneous, white discharge that smoothly coats the vaginal walls.

The clinical utility of PCR for diagnosing G vaginalis remains unclear, and culture is not recommended because it has low specificity. Gram staining can be used to determine the concentration of lactobacilli, small gram-negative or variable rods (G vaginalis and anaerobic rods), and curved gram-negative rods (ie, Mobiluncus species).

Treatment of bacterial vaginosis: Metronidazole or clindamycin

Treatment is recommended to relieve vaginal symptoms, with the potential benefit of reducing the risk of acquiring chlamydia, gonorrhea, and HIV and other viral STDs.8

Recommended treatment is with metronidazole 500 mg orally twice a day for 7 days, metronidazole gel 0.75% vaginal suppository once a day for 5 days, or clindamycin cream 2% vaginal suppository once a day for 7 days.44 A meta-analysis of several trials found that clindamycin and metronidazole have equivalent effectiveness for eradicating bacterial vaginosis symptoms.57 Accordingly, providers can consider patient preference, co-infections, and possible side effects when selecting a regimen. Alternative regimens include tinidazole or clindamycin orally or in vaginal ovules.

Women should be advised to refrain from sexual intercourse during treatment. Routine treatment of male or female sexual partners is not warranted.

Bacterial vaginosis commonly recurs, and limited data exist regarding optimal management of recurrences. Using a different treatment regimen may be an option in patients who have a recurrence; however, re-treatment with the same topical regimen is an acceptable approach for treating recurrent bacterial vaginosis during the early stages of infection.58 One study suggests that metronidazole for 7 days, followed by intravaginal boric acid for 21 days, and then, for those in remission, suppressive metronidazole gel for 16 weeks may be another option.59 For women with multiple recurrences, metronidazole gel twice weekly for 4 to 6 months has been shown to reduce recurrences, although its benefit may not persist after it is stopped. The therapeutic role for probiotics remains unclear.60

 

 

TRICHOMONIASIS: TREAT PARTNERS

Although most women with trichomoniasis have few or no symptoms, some have vaginal discharge that may be diffuse, malodorous, and yellow-greenish, and some have vulvar irritation.

Diagnosis of trichomoniasis: Microscopy is first-line but insensitive

The most common method for diagnosing T vaginalis infection remains microscopic evaluation of wet preparations of genital secretions, because of its convenience and relatively low cost. This may demonstrate the motile, flagellated protozoa T vaginalis and many white blood cells. Slides of vaginal fluid specimens should be examined immediately after collection to maximize performance. Unfortunately, the sensitivity of wet preparation is 44% to 80% in vaginal specimens.61

Culture is still considered the gold standard for diagnosing trichomoniasis and, if available, should be performed when direct microscopy is unrevealing.

Point-of-care diagnostic tests for T vaginalis infection include the OSOM Trichomonas Rapid Test (Sekisui Diagnostics, San Diego, CA), which is an immunochromatographic capillary flow dipstick test, and the Affirm VPIII (Becton, Dickinson and Company, Franklin Lakes, NJ), a nucleic acid probe-hydridization test that identifies T vaginalis, G vaginalis, and C albicans.44,62 Liquid-based Pap tests may demonstrate T vaginalis, although they should not be performed exclusively for this purpose. Among women, nucleic acid amplification tests may detect a prevalence three to five times higher than indicated by wet mount microscopy. The APTIMA Trichomonas vaginalis assay (Hologic Gen-Probe, San Diego, CA) was the most sensitive test for trichomonas detection in this study.63

Extragenital testing with nucleic acid amplification tests is not recommended for T vaginalis, as it remains unclear if the rectum can serve as a reservoir for infection, and T vaginalis has not been found to infect oral sites.8

Treatment of trichomoniasis: Metronidazole or tinidazole

Nitroimidazoles, ie, metronidazole and tinidazole, are the only class of drugs available to treat trichomoniasis. The recommended regimen is metronidazole or tinidazole 2 g orally in a single dose. Studies suggest that tinidazole may be superior to metronidazole, with higher cure rates due to its longer half-life and higher tissue concentrations.64

Low-level metronidazole resistance is estimated to occur in 2% to 5% of trichomoniasis infections65; high-level resistance occurs rarely. If a single dose of metronidazole 2 g fails to cure the infection and reinfection is ruled out, the patient should be treated with metronidazole 500 mg orally twice a day for 7 days. If this regimen is not effective, providers can consider tinidazole or metronidazole 2 g orally for 7 days.44,62,64 Consultation and susceptibility testing for T vaginalis is available from the CDC if these alternative regimens are ineffective.

T vaginalis infection has a high rate of transmission to sexual partners,66 and all partners should be treated. Male sexual partners should be treated with metronidazole 500 mg twice a day orally for 7 days, tinidazole 2 g orally in a single dose, or tinidazole 500 mg twice a day for 7 days. Patient-delivered partner therapy may have a role in partner management for trichomoniasis.67

PROCTITIS: SUSPECT LYMPHOGRANULOMA VENEREUM

Acute proctitis in men and women who practice receptive anal intercourse is usually sexually acquired. The most common causative organisms are N gonorrhoeae, C trachomatis (serotypes associated with or not associated with lymphogranuloma venereum), and HSV; T pallidum is less common.68 Co-infections are not uncommon in this setting.69

Symptoms of proctitis may include anal discharge, rectal ulcers and bleeding, anorectal pain, tenesmus, and constipation. Patients with lymphogranuloma venereum may also present with tender, fluctuant inguinal or femoral lymphadenopathy (buboes), or herpetiform genital ulcers or papules.

Diagnosis of proctitis

Clinical evaluation should include digital rectal examination and anoscopy (if possible) to look for abnormalities such as ulcerations, hemorrhoids, anal fissures, condylomas, strictures, exudate, and bleeding.

Appropriate diagnostic testing includes Gram staining and culture of discharge, herpes viral culture or PCR, and nucleic acid amplification testing for chlamydia and gonorrhea (in laboratories with Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments validation).8

Nucleic acid amplification tests detect C trachomatis serotypes L1–L3, responsible for lymphogranuloma venereum, and non-lymphogranuloma venereum serotypes A–K, but cannot distinguish between the two, whereas PCR-based genotyping can.8,26 Although this distinction is important to ensure appropriate evaluation and management of sex partners, empiric treatment for lymphogranuloma venereum (doxycycline 100 mg orally twice a day for 21 days) should be provided to patients at high risk, including men who have sex with men and who have anorectal chlamydia, HIV infection, or bloody discharge and perianal or mucosal ulcers.8

Treatment of proctitis

Patients with painful perianal or mucosal ulceration should receive presumptive treatment for lymphogranuloma venereum and HSV while awaiting results of diagnostic testing. If rectal discharge is detected or Gram staining of anorectal secretions detects polymorphonuclear leukocytes, treatment should include ceftriaxone 250 mg intramuscularly and doxycycline 100 mg orally twice a day for 7 days.8 Additional testing for syphilis and HIV should also be performed.

All sexual partners should be evaluated for any disease diagnosed in the index patient.

With nearly 20 million new infections annually, sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) are very common in the United States.1,2 And with recent changes to the national health care landscape, including the passage of the Affordable Care Act and state budget cuts resulting in the closure of STD and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) clinics, primary care providers can expect to encounter more patients with STDs.

For women and infants, STDs can have serious and long-term consequences, including infertility, facilitation of HIV infection, reproductive tract cancer, pelvic inflammatory disease, and poor perinatal outcomes.2 STDs cost the US health care system nearly $16 billion every year.3

STD prevention and control strategies traditionally include surveillance, screening, behavioral interventions, treatment, and partner management.4 This paper will review patient management by syndrome and provide guidance to clinicians to facilitate timely diagnosis and treatment, important components of any effective STD prevention strategy.

ANYONE CAN HAVE AN STD

STDs affect people of all races, ages, and sexual orientations. That said, some groups are at greater risk:

Adolescents and young adults. Persons ages 15 through 24 represent 25% of the sexually experienced population in the United States but account for nearly half of all incident STDs.1

Racial and ethnic minorities. STD disparities are one of the five greatest health disparities for African American communities.4

Men who have sex with men number approximately 2% to 4% of the US male population, yet account for approximately 70% of reported cases of primary and secondary syphilis and more than 50% of persons with HIV infection.3,5,6

HIGH-RISK BEHAVIOR AND SCREENING

A thorough sexual history will reveal behaviors that place a person at risk of infection. The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) defines high-risk sexual behavior as having multiple current partners, having a new partner, using condoms inconsistently, having sex while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or exchanging sex for money or drugs.7

An effective strategy for obtaining a sexual history is the “five Ps”8:

  • Partners (eg, Do you have sex with men, women, or both?)
  • Prevention of pregnancy (eg, What are you doing to prevent pregnancy?)
  • Protection from STDs (eg, What do you do to protect yourself from STDs?)
  • Practices (eg, To understand your risks for STDs, I need to understand the kind of sex you have had recently.)
  • Past history of STDs (eg, Have you ever had an STD?).8

The USPSTF and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommend certain populations be screened for STDs.7,8

Everyone age 13 through 64 should be tested for HIV at least once, per CDC recommendation.8

Sexually active females up to age 24 should routinely be screened for chlamydia every year.7,8

Nonpregnant women at higher risk of infection should be screened for gonorrhea and syphilis.

Pregnant women, regardless of risk, should be screened for chlamydia, hepatitis B, HIV, and syphilis; pregnant women at higher risk of infection should also be screened for gonorrhea and hepatitis C.7,9

Men should be screened for HIV, and men at higher risk should also be screened for syphilis.8

Men who have sex with men should be screened at least annually for HIV and syphilis and undergo a test for urethral chlamydia and gonorrhea infection. Men who participate in receptive anal intercourse should be tested for rectal chlamydia and gonorrhea and, in those who participate in oral intercourse, for pharyngeal gonorrhea.8

PREVENTION

Vaccination against HPV, hepatitis A and B

Preexposure vaccination is one of the most effective ways to prevent human papillomavirus (HPV), hepatitis A, and hepatitis B infection.10

HPV vaccination. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommends routine HPV vaccination of female patients at age 11 or 12, or through age 26 if not previously vaccinated.11,12 Routine vaccination is also recommended for males at age 11 or 12 and through age 21, if not previously vaccinated.12 The upper age is extended through age 26 for men who have sex with men and for immunocompromised patients.12

Two HPV vaccines are available for females; one is quadrivalent and the other is bivalent. Both protect against two HPV types that cause cervical and other HPV-associated cancers.11 The quadrivalent vaccine also protects against the two types that cause 90% of genital warts.13 Only the quadrivalent vaccine is licensed for use in males.12

Hepatitis A and B vaccination. Hepatitis B vaccination is recommended for all unvaccinated, uninfected patients being evaluated for an STD.8,14

Vaccinating for hepatitis A and hepatitis B is important for men who have sex with men, who have a higher risk of acquiring and transmitting these infections.15

Other preventive practices

Male circumcision has been shown to reduce the risk of HIV infection, high-risk genital HPV infection, and genital herpes in heterosexual men.10,16,17

Male condoms, when used consistently and correctly, can reduce the risk of chlamydia, gonorrhea, and trichomoniasis.8 The risk of transmission of syphilis, genital HPV, and genital herpes can also be reduced by correctly and consistently using condoms when the infected area of exposure is covered.8

Microbiocides not recommended. Topical microbiocides do not have not enough evidence to recommend them for STD prevention. However, limited data suggest that tenofovir 1% vaginal gel may reduce the risk of acquiring genital herpes simplex virus type 2 (HSV-2) infection in women.18,19

 

 

GENITAL ULCERATIVE DISEASE: HERPES, SYPHILIS, OTHERS

The risk of acquiring HIV is two to five times higher if one is exposed to it when a genital ulcerative disease is present.20,21

In the United States, most cases of genital, anal, or perianal ulcers in sexually active persons are due to genital herpes or syphilis.8 Other causes include chancroid, granuloma inguinale, lymphogranuloma venereum, and noninfectious causes.

Although the frequency of these conditions varies by geographic area and demographic profile, herpes is the most prevalent of them.8 HSV-2 infection is one of the most prevalent STDs in the United States, with approximately 17% of all adolescents and adults infected,1,22 and a much higher prevalence in persons who use drugs.23

A thorough medical history and physical examination should be conducted. In addition, an accurate diagnosis requires specific tests: syphilis serology, dark field microscopy (if available), and culture or polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing for herpes.8 A positive serologic test for HSV-1 or HSV-2 is enough to make the diagnosis in a patient whose symptoms suggest herpes, even if PCR and culture are negative.

GENITAL HERPES: MOSTLY ASYMPTOMATIC

Genital herpes is caused by HSV-1 or HSV-2. Of these, HSV-1 is on the rise, causing an increasing proportion of first episodes of genital herpes in some populations. It may now account for most new genital herpes infections in young women and in men who have sex with men.8,24

Most people infected with HSV-1 or HSV-2 have no symptoms or have subclinical disease. When symptoms do occur, one or more vesicles may appear on or around the genitals, rectum, or mouth. The average incubation period after exposure is 4 days (range 2–12).25 The first episode of genital herpes is often associated with systemic symptoms (eg, fever, headache, myalgia, and malaise) and local symptoms (eg, dysuria, vaginal or urethral discharge, and inguinal adenopathy).26,27

Genital herpes often recurs, especially during the first year. Recurrences are less frequent with HSV-1 than with HSV-2.

Diagnosing genital herpes requires laboratory testing

Diagnosing genital herpes by clinical signs and symptoms is both insensitive and nonspecific. Therefore, laboratory testing should be performed for patients who present with genital ulcerative disease.

Virologic tests. Viral culture and nucleic acid amplification methods, including PCR assays, are the preferred virologic tests for herpes.8 Although viral culture is widely available, its sensitivity depends on the stage of the lesion and rapidly declines as lesions begin to heal. PCR assays are more sensitive than viral culture, can be done in automated systems, and are increasingly being used in clinical settings.26 However, if the patient has no active lesions at the time of testing, failure to detect herpes by culture or PCR does not guarantee that the patient is not infected, as viral shedding is intermittent.

Serologic tests. Type-specific antibodies to HSV develop during the first several weeks following infection and persist indefinitely. Providers should specifically request serologic type-specific immunoglobulin G (IgG) assays. IgM testing for HSV should not be used, as IgM testing is not type-specific. Moreover, although some clinicians believe IgM is a good test for early infection because levels rise early and then decline, IgM may be positive during recurrent episodes.8

Both laboratory-based assays and point-of-care tests for HSV-2 are available. They are performed on capillary blood or serum and have sensitivities that range from 80% to 100% and specificities greater than 96%, compared with HSV-2 immunoblot and Western blot testing as the standard.28,29

False-negative results may be more frequent in the early stages of infection. HSV-2 antibody indicates anogenital infection, while HSV-1 antibody might also be due to orolabial infection, which is something to keep in mind in a patient without genital symptoms.8

Treatment can control herpes but not eradicate it

Several herpes vaccines have undergone clinical trials, but an effective one remains elusive.30,31

Antiviral therapy is used to control signs and symptoms of clinical disease but does not eradicate latent virus. For initial clinical episodes of genital herpes, the CDC recommends acyclovir, valacyclovir, or famciclovir for 7 to 10 days.8 In patients with established genital herpes, daily suppressive antiviral therapy can reduce recurrences, subclinical shedding, and the likelihood of transmission to partners; famciclovir is somewhat less efficacious for suppressing viral shedding.8

A diagnosis of herpes can carry considerable stigma, which can substantially interfere with a patient’s current and future relationships.25,32,33 Sex partners of patients with genital herpes may benefit from evaluation and counseling. Clinicians should appreciate the psychological impact of a genital herpes diagnosis and address these concerns by providing education, counseling, and support while encouraging patients to recognize that herpes is a manageable condition.34

SYPHILIS IS INCREASING IN MEN WHO HAVE SEX WITH MEN

Since 2001, rates of syphilis, a systemic disease caused by Treponema pallidum, have been increasing in men who have sex with men.3,35 As of 2011, this group accounts for approximately 72% of all cases of primary and secondary syphilis in the United States.3

Primary syphilis is characterized by a firm, painless chancre at the site of inoculation. The chancre lasts 3 to 6 weeks and heals regardless of treatment. However, if the infected person does not receive adequate treatment, the infection progresses to the secondary stage.26

Secondary syphilis typically starts with a nonpruritic rash, usually macular or papular, on the trunk and extremities, classically including the palms and soles. Other symptoms may include alopecia, lymphadenopathy, condylomata, and systemic symptoms.

Without treatment, the infection can progress to latent syphilis, which is further categorized as early (acquired during the preceding year), late latent, or of unknown duration.26

Practical diagnosis of syphilis relies on serologic testing

Definitive diagnosis of early syphilis requires dark field microscopy or PCR to detect T pallidum in lesion exudate or tissue.8 However, because there are no commercially available tests for T pallidum, serologic testing is the mainstay.

Two types of serologic tests must be performed to diagnose syphilis: a nontreponemal test and a treponemal test.8

Nontreponemal tests:

  • The Venereal Disease Research Laboratory (VDRL) test
  • The rapid plasma reagin (RPR) test.

Treponemal tests:

  • T pallidum passive particle agglutination (TP-PA) assay
  • Fluorescent treponemal antibody absorbed (FTA-ABS) test
  • Enzyme immunoassay (EIA)
  • Chemiluminescence immunoassay (CIA).

Using only one type of serologic test is in-sufficient for diagnosis because each type has limitations, including the possibility of false-positive results.

Nontreponemal test results may correlate with disease activity, and results should be reported quantitatively; a fourfold change in titer, equivalent to a change of two dilutions, is needed to demonstrate a clinically significant difference between two nontreponemal test results using the same serologic test.8

 

 

Which order of testing for syphilis is best?

The CDC recommends that nontreponemal tests be used to screen for syphilis and treponemal tests be used to confirm the diagnosis.36 This traditional algorithm performs well in identifying persons with active infection who require further evaluation and treatment, while minimizing false-positive results in low-prevalence populations.

However, some clinical laboratories have adopted the reverse sequence, using treponemal tests (usually an EIA or a CIA) to screen for syphilis, followed by a nontreponemal test to confirm active infection.36–38 This reverse-sequence testing may result in overdiagnosis and overtreatment of syphilis in some clinical settings.37 When reverse-sequence syphilis screening is used, the CDC recommends reflexively testing all sera that produce reactive EIA or CIA results with a quantitative nontreponemal test and reflexively testing sera with discordant results (ie, a reactive EIA or CIA and a nonreactive RPR or VDRL test) with a different treponemal test.36

Traditionally, the FTA-ABS test had been considered the gold standard treponemal test; however, it has lower specificity than other treponemal tests. Accordingly, TP-PA is the recommended confirmatory treponemal test.8,39 False-negative results, although rare, may occur for biological or technical reasons, such as the prozone phenomenon, resulting in a missed diagnosis. The prozone phenomenon occurs when the antibody titer is high and antigen binding sites are saturated, preventing the cross-linking reaction between antigens and antibodies. In this instance, when syphilis is suspected clinically and the RPR assay is nonreactive, the clinician can request RPR testing at dilutions of sera, ie, diluting the patient’s serum to bring the antibody concentration into the zone equivalence.40

Suspect neurosyphilis if neurologic symptoms arise

Central nervous system involvement can occur at any stage of syphilis. If clinical evidence of neurologic involvement (meningitis, stroke, cranial nerve dysfunction, or auditory or ophthalmic abnormalities) is observed in any patient with syphilis, regardless of stage, a cerebrospinal fluid examination should be performed.8 Laboratory testing can support the diagnosis of neurosyphilis; however, no single laboratory test can be used to diagnose it.

Cerebrospinal fluid abnormalities (ie, mononuclear pleocytosis, increased protein) are common in patients with early syphilis even in the absence of clinical neurologic findings. There is no firm evidence to support diverging from recommended treatment for early syphilis in these patients.35

Cerebrospinal fluid examination is recommended for all patients with serologic evidence of syphilis infection and neurologic symptoms and for patients who do not achieve an adequate serologic decline with stage-appropriate treatment.8

Penicillin is still the mainstay of syphilis treatment

Penicillin is still the mainstay of syphilis treatment.

  • Patients with early syphilis (primary, secondary, or early latent) should receive a single intramuscular dose of benzathine penicillin G (2.4 million units).8,35
  • Patients with late latent syphilis should receive three intramuscular doses of benzathine penicillin G (2.4 million units each) at 1-week intervals.
  • Neurosyphilis should be treated with aqueous crystalline penicillin G 18 to 24 million units daily for 10 to 14 days.8

Doxycycline is the preferred alternative in nonpregnant patients who are allergic to penicillin. The dosage is 100 mg orally twice a day for 14 days (for primary, secondary, or early latent infections) or for 28 days (for late latent infections or those of unknown duration).35,41

Ceftriaxone (1–2 g daily) may be effective for treating early syphilis. However, data are limited, and the optimal dose and duration of therapy are not defined.8,42

Azithromycin in a single 2-g oral dose is effective for treating early syphilis. However, T pallidum chromosomal mutations associated with macrolide resistance are being detected.35,43 In view of this, azithromycin should not be used in men who have sex with men or in pregnant women.

Follow-up of syphilis patients and partners

Close clinical and serologic follow-up is strongly advised in persons who receive an alternate regimen to evaluate for treatment failure.8

Sex partners of patients with primary syphilis should be considered at risk and given treatment if they had sexual contact with the patient within 3 months plus the duration of symptoms, within 6 months plus the duration of symptoms for those with secondary syphilis, or 1 year for patients with early latent syphilis.8

Serologic and clinical evaluation should be repeated at 6, 12, and 24 months after treatment. HIV-infected patients should receive closer follow-up, ie, at 3, 6, 9, 12, and 24 months. The same quantitative nontreponemal serologic test should be used at each visit, with at least a fourfold decrease in titer representing an appropriate serologic decline.

Failure to achieve an appropriate serologic decline in 6 to 12 months may represent treatment failure.8 Optimal management in this instance is unclear; at a minimum, additional clinical and serologic follow-up should be performed.8 If additional follow-up cannot be ensured, retreatment (weekly intramuscular injections of benzathine penicillin G 2.4 million units for 3 weeks) is recommended. Cerebrospinal fluid examination can be considered to exclude unrecognized neurosyphilis.8

URETHRITIS: GONORRHEA, CHLAMYDIA TOP THE LIST

Symptoms of urethritis can include dysuria, discharge (purulent or mucopurulent), and urethral pruritus.26 However, asymptomatic infections are common.8

Several organisms are associated with infectious urethritis, including26:

  • Neisseria gonorrhoeae
  • Chlamydia trachomatis
  • Mycoplasma genitalium
  • Trichomonas vaginalis
  • Ureaplasma urealyticum.

Diagnosing urethritis: Try to identify the agent

The clinician should attempt to obtain objective evidence of urethral inflammation. Urethral discharge should be examined with microscopy using Gram stain or methylene blue, or a first-void urine sample should be tested with microscopy and leukocyte esterase.26 If clinic-based diagnostic testing is not available, testing for N gonorrhoeae and C trachomatis using nucleic acid amplification can identify additional infections.8

During the clinic visit, either Gram-stain microscopy of a urethral swab or microscopic examination of a first-catch urine sample may identify the causative agent. If gram-negative intracellular diplococci are seen on urethral smear, gonorrhea infection is diagnosed. Nongonococcal urethritis is diagnosed when microscopy or urinalysis displays evidence of inflammation (positive leukocyte esterase or at least 10 white blood cells per high-power field) without gram-negative intracellular diplococci.8

Testing should be performed to determine the specific cause of urethritis, because both chlamydia and gonorrhea are reportable diseases. Nucleic acid amplification tests are the most sensitive tests for C trachomatis and N gonorrhoeae and can be performed on urethral swabs or urine.44 If clinic-based diagnostic tools are unavailable, patients should receive empiric treatment for chlamydia and gonorrhea.8

Treatment of urethritis, by organism

Urethral gonorrhea should be treated with dual therapy: ceftriaxone 250 mg in a single intramuscular dose and either azithromycin 1 g orally as a single dose or doxycycline 100 mg orally twice a day for 7 days. Oral cephalosporins are no longer recommended as first-line treatment of gonorrhea.45

Chlamydial urethritis is treated with azithromycin 1 g in a single oral dose or doxycycline 100 mg orally twice a day for 7 days. Although azithromycin provides the advantages of a single-dose regimen administered and directly observed by the provider, some evidence suggests that doxycycline may be more effective than azithromycin for symptomatic chlamydial urethritis.46

All sex partners within the preceding 60 days should be referred for evaluation, testing, and empiric treatment with a drug regimen effective against chlamydia (if nongonococcal urethritis or only C trachomatis was identified) and gonorrhea (if N gonorrhoeae was identified). When patients diagnosed with chlamydia or gonorrhea indicate that their partners are unlikely to seek evaluation, providers can offer patient-delivered partner therapy, a form of expedited partner therapy in which partners of infected persons are treated without previous medical evaluation. Providers should visit www.cdc.gov/std/ept for updated information for their individual jurisdiction, as expedited partner therapy is prohibited in some states. No studies have been published involving patient-delivered partner therapy for chlamydia or gonorrhea in men who have sex with men.8

Patients with recurrent or persistent urethritis can be retreated with the initial regimen if they did not comply with treatment or were reexposed to an untreated sex partner. However, persistent urethritis after doxycycline therapy may suggest the presence of doxycycline-resistant M genitalium or U urealyticum. T vaginalis may also cause urethritis in men. Diagnostic evaluation may include culture or nucleic acid amplification testing of a urethral swab or urine (ie, PCR [Amplicor] or transcription-mediated amplification).8

M genitalium or U urealyticum urethritis. Currently, no commercially available diagnostic test exists for M genitalium or U urealyticum, so clinicians must choose a treatment regimen on the basis of objective evidence of inflammation in the absence of an etiologic agent. If azithromycin was not given during the initial course, metronidazole 2 g orally or tinidazole 2 g orally in a single dose plus azithromycin 1 g orally should be considered.8

M genitalium is one of the most common pathogens in men with persistent urethritis, accounting for 15% to 25% of cases. Several studies have shown that moxifloxacin 400 mg orally daily for 7 days is effective against M genitalium.46–48 Therefore, men for whom an initial regimen of azithromycin fails should be retreated with moxifloxacin 400 mg orally once daily for 7 days.

If men require treatment with a new antibiotic regimen for persistent urethritis and a sexually transmitted agent is the suspected cause, all partners in the past 60 days before the initial diagnosis and any interim partners should be referred for evaluation and appropriate treatment.

 

 

CERVICITIS: CHLAMYDIA, GONORRHEA, OTHERS

Cervicitis is frequently asymptomatic, but signs on pelvic examination may include purulent or mucopurulent endocervical exudate and sustained endocervical bleeding easily induced by passage of a cotton swab through the cervical os.26

In most cases, the pathogen cannot be identified.49 When an organism is isolated, it is typically C trachomatis or N gonorrhoeae. Others that may cause cervicitis include the organisms responsible for bacterial vaginosis, T vaginalis, HSV, and possibly M genitalium.50

Diagnostic workup for cervicitis

Diagnostic workup for cervicitis should include microscopic evaluation of an endocervical specimen and testing for C trachomatis and N gonorrhoeae. A finding of leukorrhea (> 10 white blood cells per high-power field on microscopic examination of vaginal fluid) has been associated with chlamydial and gonococcal infection of the cervix.8 In the absence of inflammatory vaginitis, leukorrhea might be a sensitive indicator of cervical inflammation, with a high negative predictive value.

Nucleic acid amplification testing for C trachomatis and N gonorrhoeae can be performed on urine, endocervical, or vaginal swab specimens collected by the clinician or self-collected.51 The performance of C trachomatis nucleic acid amplification testing on patient-collected vaginal swab specimens has similar sensitivity and specificity to those performed on cervical and first-void urine samples.26,44,52

Women with cervicitis also should be evaluated for bacterial vaginosis and trichomoniasis, and if the organisms that cause these conditions are detected, treatment is advised. Microscopy has a low sensitivity (approximately 50%) for detecting T vaginalis; if the organism is not identified, further testing such as culture may be performed to exclude it as the pathogen.

Women with cervicitis should also be evaluated for clinical signs of pelvic inflammatory disease, including uterine, adnexal, and cervical motion tenderness, and fever.

Cervicitis can be treated presumptively

Women with cervicitis who should receive presumptive therapy include those at higher risk of chlamydial infection (ie, those with new or multiple sex partners, those age 25 or younger, and those who engage in unprotected intercourse, especially if follow-up cannot be ensured).8

Recommended therapy is either azithromycin 1 g orally in a single dose or doxycycline 100 mg orally twice a day for 7 days. The clinician should consider dual therapy to cover gonorrhea if the prevalence of gonorrhea is more than 5% (ie, in younger patients).8 If bacterial vaginosis or T vaginalis infection is diagnosed, these conditions should be treated at the time of clinical evaluation (see vaginitis section for more detail). For women in whom presumptive therapy is deferred, the results of diagnostic testing should guide appropriate treatment.

Repeat testing 3 to 6 months after treatment is recommended for all women diagnosed with chlamydia or gonorrhea,53 and all sex partners in the past 60 days should be referred for evaluation and receive treatment for the STDs for which the index patient received treatment. In states where it is allowed, patient-delivered partner therapy should be considered if the patient indicates her partner is unlikely to seek medical evaluation.

VAGINITIS: NOT JUST YEAST

Women with vaginitis may present with complaints of discharge, pruritus, or a bad vaginal odor. A careful medical history, including information on sexual behaviors and vaginal hygiene practices (ie, douching), should be conducted in addition to physical examination and diagnostic testing.

The most common conditions associated with vaginitis are bacterial vaginosis, trichomoniasis, and candidiasis. However, vulvovaginal candidiasis, most often caused by Candida albicans, is not transmitted sexually and will not be reviewed further here. Although bacterial vaginosis is associated with known risk factors for STDs (eg, new or multiple sex partners), the cause of the microbial alteration that precipitates it is not known.44 Co-infection with T vaginalis is extremely common.54

BACTERIAL VAGINOSIS: VERY COMMON

Bacterial vaginosis is the most common genital infection in reproductive-age women.55 It is a polymicrobial syndrome in which anaerobic bacteria (Prevotella and Mobiluncus species), Gardnerella vaginalis, Ureaplasma, and Mycoplasma replace the normal vaginal flora.

Diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis

Bacterial vaginosis can be diagnosed by clinical criteria or Gram staining. Clinical diagnosis requires three of the following clinical criteria proposed by Amsel et al56:

  • Clue cells
  • Vaginal fluid pH > 4.5
  • Fishy odor before or after addition of 10% potassium hydroxide
  • Thin, homogeneous, white discharge that smoothly coats the vaginal walls.

The clinical utility of PCR for diagnosing G vaginalis remains unclear, and culture is not recommended because it has low specificity. Gram staining can be used to determine the concentration of lactobacilli, small gram-negative or variable rods (G vaginalis and anaerobic rods), and curved gram-negative rods (ie, Mobiluncus species).

Treatment of bacterial vaginosis: Metronidazole or clindamycin

Treatment is recommended to relieve vaginal symptoms, with the potential benefit of reducing the risk of acquiring chlamydia, gonorrhea, and HIV and other viral STDs.8

Recommended treatment is with metronidazole 500 mg orally twice a day for 7 days, metronidazole gel 0.75% vaginal suppository once a day for 5 days, or clindamycin cream 2% vaginal suppository once a day for 7 days.44 A meta-analysis of several trials found that clindamycin and metronidazole have equivalent effectiveness for eradicating bacterial vaginosis symptoms.57 Accordingly, providers can consider patient preference, co-infections, and possible side effects when selecting a regimen. Alternative regimens include tinidazole or clindamycin orally or in vaginal ovules.

Women should be advised to refrain from sexual intercourse during treatment. Routine treatment of male or female sexual partners is not warranted.

Bacterial vaginosis commonly recurs, and limited data exist regarding optimal management of recurrences. Using a different treatment regimen may be an option in patients who have a recurrence; however, re-treatment with the same topical regimen is an acceptable approach for treating recurrent bacterial vaginosis during the early stages of infection.58 One study suggests that metronidazole for 7 days, followed by intravaginal boric acid for 21 days, and then, for those in remission, suppressive metronidazole gel for 16 weeks may be another option.59 For women with multiple recurrences, metronidazole gel twice weekly for 4 to 6 months has been shown to reduce recurrences, although its benefit may not persist after it is stopped. The therapeutic role for probiotics remains unclear.60

 

 

TRICHOMONIASIS: TREAT PARTNERS

Although most women with trichomoniasis have few or no symptoms, some have vaginal discharge that may be diffuse, malodorous, and yellow-greenish, and some have vulvar irritation.

Diagnosis of trichomoniasis: Microscopy is first-line but insensitive

The most common method for diagnosing T vaginalis infection remains microscopic evaluation of wet preparations of genital secretions, because of its convenience and relatively low cost. This may demonstrate the motile, flagellated protozoa T vaginalis and many white blood cells. Slides of vaginal fluid specimens should be examined immediately after collection to maximize performance. Unfortunately, the sensitivity of wet preparation is 44% to 80% in vaginal specimens.61

Culture is still considered the gold standard for diagnosing trichomoniasis and, if available, should be performed when direct microscopy is unrevealing.

Point-of-care diagnostic tests for T vaginalis infection include the OSOM Trichomonas Rapid Test (Sekisui Diagnostics, San Diego, CA), which is an immunochromatographic capillary flow dipstick test, and the Affirm VPIII (Becton, Dickinson and Company, Franklin Lakes, NJ), a nucleic acid probe-hydridization test that identifies T vaginalis, G vaginalis, and C albicans.44,62 Liquid-based Pap tests may demonstrate T vaginalis, although they should not be performed exclusively for this purpose. Among women, nucleic acid amplification tests may detect a prevalence three to five times higher than indicated by wet mount microscopy. The APTIMA Trichomonas vaginalis assay (Hologic Gen-Probe, San Diego, CA) was the most sensitive test for trichomonas detection in this study.63

Extragenital testing with nucleic acid amplification tests is not recommended for T vaginalis, as it remains unclear if the rectum can serve as a reservoir for infection, and T vaginalis has not been found to infect oral sites.8

Treatment of trichomoniasis: Metronidazole or tinidazole

Nitroimidazoles, ie, metronidazole and tinidazole, are the only class of drugs available to treat trichomoniasis. The recommended regimen is metronidazole or tinidazole 2 g orally in a single dose. Studies suggest that tinidazole may be superior to metronidazole, with higher cure rates due to its longer half-life and higher tissue concentrations.64

Low-level metronidazole resistance is estimated to occur in 2% to 5% of trichomoniasis infections65; high-level resistance occurs rarely. If a single dose of metronidazole 2 g fails to cure the infection and reinfection is ruled out, the patient should be treated with metronidazole 500 mg orally twice a day for 7 days. If this regimen is not effective, providers can consider tinidazole or metronidazole 2 g orally for 7 days.44,62,64 Consultation and susceptibility testing for T vaginalis is available from the CDC if these alternative regimens are ineffective.

T vaginalis infection has a high rate of transmission to sexual partners,66 and all partners should be treated. Male sexual partners should be treated with metronidazole 500 mg twice a day orally for 7 days, tinidazole 2 g orally in a single dose, or tinidazole 500 mg twice a day for 7 days. Patient-delivered partner therapy may have a role in partner management for trichomoniasis.67

PROCTITIS: SUSPECT LYMPHOGRANULOMA VENEREUM

Acute proctitis in men and women who practice receptive anal intercourse is usually sexually acquired. The most common causative organisms are N gonorrhoeae, C trachomatis (serotypes associated with or not associated with lymphogranuloma venereum), and HSV; T pallidum is less common.68 Co-infections are not uncommon in this setting.69

Symptoms of proctitis may include anal discharge, rectal ulcers and bleeding, anorectal pain, tenesmus, and constipation. Patients with lymphogranuloma venereum may also present with tender, fluctuant inguinal or femoral lymphadenopathy (buboes), or herpetiform genital ulcers or papules.

Diagnosis of proctitis

Clinical evaluation should include digital rectal examination and anoscopy (if possible) to look for abnormalities such as ulcerations, hemorrhoids, anal fissures, condylomas, strictures, exudate, and bleeding.

Appropriate diagnostic testing includes Gram staining and culture of discharge, herpes viral culture or PCR, and nucleic acid amplification testing for chlamydia and gonorrhea (in laboratories with Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments validation).8

Nucleic acid amplification tests detect C trachomatis serotypes L1–L3, responsible for lymphogranuloma venereum, and non-lymphogranuloma venereum serotypes A–K, but cannot distinguish between the two, whereas PCR-based genotyping can.8,26 Although this distinction is important to ensure appropriate evaluation and management of sex partners, empiric treatment for lymphogranuloma venereum (doxycycline 100 mg orally twice a day for 21 days) should be provided to patients at high risk, including men who have sex with men and who have anorectal chlamydia, HIV infection, or bloody discharge and perianal or mucosal ulcers.8

Treatment of proctitis

Patients with painful perianal or mucosal ulceration should receive presumptive treatment for lymphogranuloma venereum and HSV while awaiting results of diagnostic testing. If rectal discharge is detected or Gram staining of anorectal secretions detects polymorphonuclear leukocytes, treatment should include ceftriaxone 250 mg intramuscularly and doxycycline 100 mg orally twice a day for 7 days.8 Additional testing for syphilis and HIV should also be performed.

All sexual partners should be evaluated for any disease diagnosed in the index patient.

References
  1. Satterwhite CL, Torrone E, Meites E, et al. Sexually transmitted infections among US women and men: prevalence and incidence estimates, 2008. Sex Transm Dis 2013; 40:187193.
  2. Institute of Medicine (US); Committee on Prevention and Control of Sexually Transmitted Diseases. The hidden epidemic: confronting sexually transmitted diseases. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1997.
  3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2011 Sexually Transmitted Disease Surveillance. http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats11/toc.htm. Accessed January 10, 2014.
  4. Barrow RY, Newman LM, Douglas JM. Taking positive steps to address STD disparities for African-American communities. Sex Transm Dis 2008; 35(suppl 12):S1S3.
  5. Mitchell JW, Petroll AE. Patterns of HIV and sexually transmitted infection testing among men who have sex with men couples in the United States. Sex Transm Dis 2012; 39:871876.
  6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). HIV testing among men who have sex with men—21 cities, United States, 2008. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2011; 60:694699.
  7. Meyers D, Wolff T, Gregory K, et al., USPSTF. USPSTF recommendations for STI screening. Am Fam Physician 2008; 77:819824.
  8. Workowski KA, Berman S; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Sexually transmitted diseases treatment guidelines, 2010. MMWR Recomm Rep 2010; 59:1110.
  9. Summaries for patients. Screening for chlamydial infection: recommendations from the US Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 2007; 147:I44.
  10. Marrazzo JM, Cates W. Interventions to prevent sexually transmitted infections, including HIV infection. Clin Infect Dis 2011; 53(suppl 3):S64S78.
  11. Markowitz LE, Dunne EF, Saraiya M, Lawson HW, Chesson H, Unger ER; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). Quadrivalent Human Papillomavirus Vaccine: Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). MMWR Recomm Rep 2007; 56:124.
  12. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Recommendations on the use of quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine in males—Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), 2011. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2011; 60:17051708.
  13. Paavonen J, Jenkins D, Bosch FX, et al; HPV PATRICIA study group. Efficacy of a prophylactic adjuvanted bivalent L1 virus-like-particle vaccine against infection with human papillomavirus types 16 and 18 in young women: an interim analysis of a phase III double-blind, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2007; 369:21612170.
  14. Mast EE, Weinbaum CM, Fiore AE, et al; Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP); Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). A comprehensive immunization strategy to eliminate transmission of hepatitis B virus infection in the United States: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Part II: immunization of adults. MMWR Recomm Rep 2006; 55:133.
  15. Mayer KH. Sexually transmitted diseases in men who have sex with men. Clin Infect Dis 2011; 53(suppl 3):S79S83.
  16. Tobian AA, Serwadda D, Quinn TC, et al. Male circumcision for the prevention of HSV-2 and HPV infections and syphilis. N Engl J Med 2009; 360:12981309.
  17. Auvert B, Sobngwi-Tambekou J, Cutler E, et al. Effect of male circumcision on the prevalence of high-risk human papillomavirus in young men: results of a randomized controlled trial conducted in Orange Farm, South Africa. J Infect Dis 2009; 199:1419.
  18. Obiero J, Mwethera PG, Wiysonge CS. Topical microbicides for prevention of sexually transmitted infections. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; 6:CD007961.
  19. Abdool Karim Q, Abdool Karim SS, Frohlich JA, et al; CAPRISA 004 Trial Group. Effectiveness and safety of tenofovir gel, an antiretroviral microbicide, for the prevention of HIV infection in women. Science 2010; 329:11681174.
  20. HIV prevention through early detection and treatment of other sexually transmitted diseases—United States. Recommendations of the Advisory Committee for HIV and STD prevention. MMWR Recomm Rep 1998; 47:124.
  21. Fleming DT, Wasserheit JN. From epidemiological synergy to public health policy and practice: the contribution of other sexually transmitted diseases to sexual transmission of HIV infection. Sex Transm Infect 1999; 75:317.
  22. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Seroprevalence of herpes simplex virus type 2 among persons aged 14–49 years—United States, 2005–2008. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2010; 59:456459.
  23. Semaan S, Leinhos M, Neumann MS. Public health strategies for prevention and control of HSV-2 in persons who use drugs in the United States. Drug Alcohol Depend 2013; 131:182197.
  24. Bernstein DI, Bellamy AR, Hook EW, et al. Epidemiology, clinical presentation, and antibody response to primary infection with herpes simplex virus type 1 and type 2 in young women. Clin Infect Dis 2013; 56:344351.
  25. Kimberlin DW, Rouse DJ. Clinical practice. Genital herpes. N Engl J Med 2004; 350:19701977.
  26. Sexually Transmitted Diseases. 4th ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Professional Publishing; 2007.
  27. Johnston C, Magaret A, Selke S, Remington M, Corey L, Wald A. Herpes simplex virus viremia during primary genital infection. J Infect Dis 2008; 198:3134.
  28. Laderman EI, Whitworth E, Dumaual E, et al. Rapid, sensitive, and specific lateral-flow immunochromatographic point-of-care device for detection of herpes simplex virus type 2-specific immunoglobulin G antibodies in serum and whole blood. Clin Vaccine Immunol 2008; 15:159163.
  29. Philip SS, Ahrens K, Shayevich C, et al. Evaluation of a new point-of-care serologic assay for herpes simplex virus type 2 infection. Clin Infect Dis 2008; 47:e79e82.
  30. Belshe RB, Leone PA, Bernstein DI, et al; Herpevac Trial for Women. Efficacy results of a trial of a herpes simplex vaccine. N Engl J Med 2012; 366:3443.
  31. Stanberry LR, Spruance SL, Cunningham AL, et al; GlaxoSmithKline Herpes Vaccine Efficacy Study Group. Glycoprotein-D-adjuvant vaccine to prevent genital herpes. N Engl J Med 2002; 347:16521661.
  32. Mark H, Gilbert L, Nanda J. Psychosocial well-being and quality of life among women newly diagnosed with genital herpes. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 2009; 38:320326.
  33. Gilbert LK, Omisore F. Common questions about herpes: analysis of chat-room transcripts. Herpes 2009; 15:5761.
  34. Alexander L, Naisbett B. Patient and physician partnerships in managing genital herpes. J Infect Dis 2002; 186(suppl 1):S57S65.
  35. Ghanem KG, Workowski KA. Management of adult syphilis. Clin Infect Dis 2011; 53(suppl 3):S110S128.
  36. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Discordant results from reverse sequence syphilis screening—five laboratories, United States, 2006–2010. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2011; 60:133137.
  37. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Syphilis testing algorithms using treponemal tests for initial screening—four laboratories, New York City, 2005–2006. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2008; 57:872875.
  38. Seña AC, White BL, Sparling PF. Novel Treponema pallidum serologic tests: a paradigm shift in syphilis screening for the 21st century. Clin Infect Dis 2010; 51:700708.
  39. Marangoni A, Sambri V, Storni E, D’Antuono A, Negosanti M, Cevenini R. Treponema pallidum surface immunofluorescence assay for serologic diagnosis of syphilis. Clin Diagn Lab Immunol 2000; 7:417421.
  40. Post JJ, Khor C, Furner V, Smith DE, Whybin LR, Robertson PW. Case report and evaluation of the frequency of the prozone phenomenon in syphilis serology—an infrequent but important laboratory phenomenon. Sex Health 2012; 9:488490.
  41. Ghanem KG, Erbelding EJ, Cheng WW, Rompalo AM. Doxycycline compared with benzathine penicillin for the treatment of early syphilis. Clin Infect Dis 2006; 42:e45e49.
  42. Hook EW, Roddy RE, Handsfield HH. Ceftriaxone therapy for incubating and early syphilis. J Infect Dis 1988; 158:881884.
  43. A2058G Prevalence Workgroup. Prevalence of the 23S rRNA A2058G point mutation and molecular subtypes in Treponema pallidum in the United States, 2007 to 2009. Sex Transm Dis 2012; 39:794798.
  44. Workowski KA, Berman SM. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Sexually Transmitted Disease Treatment Guidelines. Clin Infect Dis 2011; 53(suppl 3):S59S63.
  45. Kirkcaldy RD, Bolan GA, Wasserheit JN. Cephalosporin-resistant gonorrhea in North America. JAMA 2013; 309:185187.
  46. Seña AC, Lensing S, Rompalo A, et al. Chlamydia trachomatis, Mycoplasma genitalium, and Trichomonas vaginalis infections in men with nongonococcal urethritis: predictors and persistence after therapy. J Infect Dis 2012; 206:357365.
  47. Manhart LE, Broad JM, Golden MR. Mycoplasma genitalium: should we treat and how? Clin Infect Dis 2011; 53(suppl 3):S129S142.
  48. Jernberg E, Moghaddam A, Moi H. Azithromycin and moxifloxacin for microbiological cure of Mycoplasma genitalium infection: an open study. Int J STD AIDS 2008; 19:676679.
  49. Taylor SN, Lensing S, Schwebke J, et al. Prevalence and treatment outcome of cervicitis of unknown etiology. Sex Transm Dis 2013; 40:379385.
  50. Lusk MJ, Konecny P. Cervicitis: a review. Curr Opin Infect Dis 2008; 21:4955.
  51. Geisler WM. Diagnosis and management of uncomplicated Chlamydia trachomatis infections in adolescents and adults: summary of evidence reviewed for the 2010 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Sexually Transmitted Diseases Treatment Guidelines. Clin Infect Dis 2011; 53(suppl 3):S92S98.
  52. Schachter J, Chernesky MA, Willis DE, et al. Vaginal swabs are the specimens of choice when screening for Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae: results from a multicenter evaluation of the APTIMA assays for both infections. Sex Transm Dis 2005; 32:725728.
  53. Hosenfeld CB, Workowski KA, Berman S, et al. Repeat infection with Chlamydia and gonorrhea among females: a systematic review of the literature. Sex Transm Dis 2009; 36:478489.
  54. Sobel JD, Subramanian C, Foxman B, Fairfax M, Gygax SE. Mixed vaginitis-more than coinfection and with therapeutic implications. Curr Infect Dis Rep 2013; 15:104108.
  55. Taylor BD, Darville T, Haggerty CL. Does bacterial vaginosis cause pelvic inflammatory disease? Sex Transm Dis 2013; 40:117122.
  56. Amsel R, Totten PA, Spiegel CA, Chen KC, Eschenbach D, Holmes KK. Nonspecific vaginitis. Diagnostic criteria and microbial and epidemiologic associations. Am J Med 1983; 74:1422.
  57. Oduyebo OO, Anorlu RI, Ogunsola FT. The effects of antimicrobial therapy on bacterial vaginosis in non-pregnant women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009; ( 3):CD006055.
  58. Bunge KE, Beigi RH, Meyn LA, Hillier SL. The efficacy of retreatment with the same medication for early treatment failure of bacterial vaginosis. Sex Transm Dis 2009; 36:711713.
  59. Reichman O, Akins R, Sobel JD. Boric acid addition to suppressive antimicrobial therapy for recurrent bacterial vaginosis. Sex Transm Dis 2009; 36:732734.
  60. Senok AC, Verstraelen H, Temmerman M, Botta GA. Probiotics for the treatment of bacterial vaginosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009; (4):CD006289.
  61. Nye MB, Schwebke JR, Body BA. Comparison of APTIMA Trichomonas vaginalis transcription-mediated amplification to wet mount microscopy, culture, and polymerase chain reaction for diagnosis of trichomoniasis in men and women. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009; 200:188.e1188.e7.
  62. Bachmann LH, Hobbs MM, Seña AC, et al. Trichomonas vaginalis genital infections: progress and challenges. Clin Infect Dis 2011; 53(suppl 3):S160S172.
  63. Schwebke JR, Hobbs MM, Taylor SN, et al. Molecular testing for Trichomonas vaginalis in women: results from a prospective US clinical trial. J Clin Microbiol 2011; 49:41064111.
  64. Coleman JS, Gaydos CA, Witter F. Trichomonas vaginalis vaginitis in obstetrics and gynecology practice: new concepts and controversies. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2013; 68:4350.
  65. Kirkcaldy RD, Augostini P, Asbel LE, et al. Trichomonas vaginalis antimicrobial drug resistance in 6 US cities, STD Surveillance Network, 2009–2010. Emerg Infect Dis 2012; 18:939943.
  66. Hoots BE, Peterman TA, Torrone EA, Weinstock H, Meites E, Bolan GA. A Trich-y question: should Trichomonas vaginalis infection be reportable? Sex Transm Dis 2013; 40:113116.
  67. Schwebke JR, Desmond RA. A randomized controlled trial of partner notification methods for prevention of trichomoniasis in women. Sex Transm Dis 2010; 37:392396.
  68. Studemeister A. Cytomegalovirus proctitis: a rare and disregarded sexually transmitted disease. Sex Transm Dis 2011; 38:876878.
  69. Hoentjen F, Rubin DT. Infectious proctitis: when to suspect it is not inflammatory bowel disease. Dig Dis Sci 2012; 57:269273.
References
  1. Satterwhite CL, Torrone E, Meites E, et al. Sexually transmitted infections among US women and men: prevalence and incidence estimates, 2008. Sex Transm Dis 2013; 40:187193.
  2. Institute of Medicine (US); Committee on Prevention and Control of Sexually Transmitted Diseases. The hidden epidemic: confronting sexually transmitted diseases. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1997.
  3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2011 Sexually Transmitted Disease Surveillance. http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats11/toc.htm. Accessed January 10, 2014.
  4. Barrow RY, Newman LM, Douglas JM. Taking positive steps to address STD disparities for African-American communities. Sex Transm Dis 2008; 35(suppl 12):S1S3.
  5. Mitchell JW, Petroll AE. Patterns of HIV and sexually transmitted infection testing among men who have sex with men couples in the United States. Sex Transm Dis 2012; 39:871876.
  6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). HIV testing among men who have sex with men—21 cities, United States, 2008. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2011; 60:694699.
  7. Meyers D, Wolff T, Gregory K, et al., USPSTF. USPSTF recommendations for STI screening. Am Fam Physician 2008; 77:819824.
  8. Workowski KA, Berman S; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Sexually transmitted diseases treatment guidelines, 2010. MMWR Recomm Rep 2010; 59:1110.
  9. Summaries for patients. Screening for chlamydial infection: recommendations from the US Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 2007; 147:I44.
  10. Marrazzo JM, Cates W. Interventions to prevent sexually transmitted infections, including HIV infection. Clin Infect Dis 2011; 53(suppl 3):S64S78.
  11. Markowitz LE, Dunne EF, Saraiya M, Lawson HW, Chesson H, Unger ER; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). Quadrivalent Human Papillomavirus Vaccine: Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). MMWR Recomm Rep 2007; 56:124.
  12. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Recommendations on the use of quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine in males—Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), 2011. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2011; 60:17051708.
  13. Paavonen J, Jenkins D, Bosch FX, et al; HPV PATRICIA study group. Efficacy of a prophylactic adjuvanted bivalent L1 virus-like-particle vaccine against infection with human papillomavirus types 16 and 18 in young women: an interim analysis of a phase III double-blind, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2007; 369:21612170.
  14. Mast EE, Weinbaum CM, Fiore AE, et al; Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP); Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). A comprehensive immunization strategy to eliminate transmission of hepatitis B virus infection in the United States: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Part II: immunization of adults. MMWR Recomm Rep 2006; 55:133.
  15. Mayer KH. Sexually transmitted diseases in men who have sex with men. Clin Infect Dis 2011; 53(suppl 3):S79S83.
  16. Tobian AA, Serwadda D, Quinn TC, et al. Male circumcision for the prevention of HSV-2 and HPV infections and syphilis. N Engl J Med 2009; 360:12981309.
  17. Auvert B, Sobngwi-Tambekou J, Cutler E, et al. Effect of male circumcision on the prevalence of high-risk human papillomavirus in young men: results of a randomized controlled trial conducted in Orange Farm, South Africa. J Infect Dis 2009; 199:1419.
  18. Obiero J, Mwethera PG, Wiysonge CS. Topical microbicides for prevention of sexually transmitted infections. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; 6:CD007961.
  19. Abdool Karim Q, Abdool Karim SS, Frohlich JA, et al; CAPRISA 004 Trial Group. Effectiveness and safety of tenofovir gel, an antiretroviral microbicide, for the prevention of HIV infection in women. Science 2010; 329:11681174.
  20. HIV prevention through early detection and treatment of other sexually transmitted diseases—United States. Recommendations of the Advisory Committee for HIV and STD prevention. MMWR Recomm Rep 1998; 47:124.
  21. Fleming DT, Wasserheit JN. From epidemiological synergy to public health policy and practice: the contribution of other sexually transmitted diseases to sexual transmission of HIV infection. Sex Transm Infect 1999; 75:317.
  22. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Seroprevalence of herpes simplex virus type 2 among persons aged 14–49 years—United States, 2005–2008. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2010; 59:456459.
  23. Semaan S, Leinhos M, Neumann MS. Public health strategies for prevention and control of HSV-2 in persons who use drugs in the United States. Drug Alcohol Depend 2013; 131:182197.
  24. Bernstein DI, Bellamy AR, Hook EW, et al. Epidemiology, clinical presentation, and antibody response to primary infection with herpes simplex virus type 1 and type 2 in young women. Clin Infect Dis 2013; 56:344351.
  25. Kimberlin DW, Rouse DJ. Clinical practice. Genital herpes. N Engl J Med 2004; 350:19701977.
  26. Sexually Transmitted Diseases. 4th ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Professional Publishing; 2007.
  27. Johnston C, Magaret A, Selke S, Remington M, Corey L, Wald A. Herpes simplex virus viremia during primary genital infection. J Infect Dis 2008; 198:3134.
  28. Laderman EI, Whitworth E, Dumaual E, et al. Rapid, sensitive, and specific lateral-flow immunochromatographic point-of-care device for detection of herpes simplex virus type 2-specific immunoglobulin G antibodies in serum and whole blood. Clin Vaccine Immunol 2008; 15:159163.
  29. Philip SS, Ahrens K, Shayevich C, et al. Evaluation of a new point-of-care serologic assay for herpes simplex virus type 2 infection. Clin Infect Dis 2008; 47:e79e82.
  30. Belshe RB, Leone PA, Bernstein DI, et al; Herpevac Trial for Women. Efficacy results of a trial of a herpes simplex vaccine. N Engl J Med 2012; 366:3443.
  31. Stanberry LR, Spruance SL, Cunningham AL, et al; GlaxoSmithKline Herpes Vaccine Efficacy Study Group. Glycoprotein-D-adjuvant vaccine to prevent genital herpes. N Engl J Med 2002; 347:16521661.
  32. Mark H, Gilbert L, Nanda J. Psychosocial well-being and quality of life among women newly diagnosed with genital herpes. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 2009; 38:320326.
  33. Gilbert LK, Omisore F. Common questions about herpes: analysis of chat-room transcripts. Herpes 2009; 15:5761.
  34. Alexander L, Naisbett B. Patient and physician partnerships in managing genital herpes. J Infect Dis 2002; 186(suppl 1):S57S65.
  35. Ghanem KG, Workowski KA. Management of adult syphilis. Clin Infect Dis 2011; 53(suppl 3):S110S128.
  36. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Discordant results from reverse sequence syphilis screening—five laboratories, United States, 2006–2010. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2011; 60:133137.
  37. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Syphilis testing algorithms using treponemal tests for initial screening—four laboratories, New York City, 2005–2006. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2008; 57:872875.
  38. Seña AC, White BL, Sparling PF. Novel Treponema pallidum serologic tests: a paradigm shift in syphilis screening for the 21st century. Clin Infect Dis 2010; 51:700708.
  39. Marangoni A, Sambri V, Storni E, D’Antuono A, Negosanti M, Cevenini R. Treponema pallidum surface immunofluorescence assay for serologic diagnosis of syphilis. Clin Diagn Lab Immunol 2000; 7:417421.
  40. Post JJ, Khor C, Furner V, Smith DE, Whybin LR, Robertson PW. Case report and evaluation of the frequency of the prozone phenomenon in syphilis serology—an infrequent but important laboratory phenomenon. Sex Health 2012; 9:488490.
  41. Ghanem KG, Erbelding EJ, Cheng WW, Rompalo AM. Doxycycline compared with benzathine penicillin for the treatment of early syphilis. Clin Infect Dis 2006; 42:e45e49.
  42. Hook EW, Roddy RE, Handsfield HH. Ceftriaxone therapy for incubating and early syphilis. J Infect Dis 1988; 158:881884.
  43. A2058G Prevalence Workgroup. Prevalence of the 23S rRNA A2058G point mutation and molecular subtypes in Treponema pallidum in the United States, 2007 to 2009. Sex Transm Dis 2012; 39:794798.
  44. Workowski KA, Berman SM. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Sexually Transmitted Disease Treatment Guidelines. Clin Infect Dis 2011; 53(suppl 3):S59S63.
  45. Kirkcaldy RD, Bolan GA, Wasserheit JN. Cephalosporin-resistant gonorrhea in North America. JAMA 2013; 309:185187.
  46. Seña AC, Lensing S, Rompalo A, et al. Chlamydia trachomatis, Mycoplasma genitalium, and Trichomonas vaginalis infections in men with nongonococcal urethritis: predictors and persistence after therapy. J Infect Dis 2012; 206:357365.
  47. Manhart LE, Broad JM, Golden MR. Mycoplasma genitalium: should we treat and how? Clin Infect Dis 2011; 53(suppl 3):S129S142.
  48. Jernberg E, Moghaddam A, Moi H. Azithromycin and moxifloxacin for microbiological cure of Mycoplasma genitalium infection: an open study. Int J STD AIDS 2008; 19:676679.
  49. Taylor SN, Lensing S, Schwebke J, et al. Prevalence and treatment outcome of cervicitis of unknown etiology. Sex Transm Dis 2013; 40:379385.
  50. Lusk MJ, Konecny P. Cervicitis: a review. Curr Opin Infect Dis 2008; 21:4955.
  51. Geisler WM. Diagnosis and management of uncomplicated Chlamydia trachomatis infections in adolescents and adults: summary of evidence reviewed for the 2010 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Sexually Transmitted Diseases Treatment Guidelines. Clin Infect Dis 2011; 53(suppl 3):S92S98.
  52. Schachter J, Chernesky MA, Willis DE, et al. Vaginal swabs are the specimens of choice when screening for Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae: results from a multicenter evaluation of the APTIMA assays for both infections. Sex Transm Dis 2005; 32:725728.
  53. Hosenfeld CB, Workowski KA, Berman S, et al. Repeat infection with Chlamydia and gonorrhea among females: a systematic review of the literature. Sex Transm Dis 2009; 36:478489.
  54. Sobel JD, Subramanian C, Foxman B, Fairfax M, Gygax SE. Mixed vaginitis-more than coinfection and with therapeutic implications. Curr Infect Dis Rep 2013; 15:104108.
  55. Taylor BD, Darville T, Haggerty CL. Does bacterial vaginosis cause pelvic inflammatory disease? Sex Transm Dis 2013; 40:117122.
  56. Amsel R, Totten PA, Spiegel CA, Chen KC, Eschenbach D, Holmes KK. Nonspecific vaginitis. Diagnostic criteria and microbial and epidemiologic associations. Am J Med 1983; 74:1422.
  57. Oduyebo OO, Anorlu RI, Ogunsola FT. The effects of antimicrobial therapy on bacterial vaginosis in non-pregnant women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009; ( 3):CD006055.
  58. Bunge KE, Beigi RH, Meyn LA, Hillier SL. The efficacy of retreatment with the same medication for early treatment failure of bacterial vaginosis. Sex Transm Dis 2009; 36:711713.
  59. Reichman O, Akins R, Sobel JD. Boric acid addition to suppressive antimicrobial therapy for recurrent bacterial vaginosis. Sex Transm Dis 2009; 36:732734.
  60. Senok AC, Verstraelen H, Temmerman M, Botta GA. Probiotics for the treatment of bacterial vaginosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009; (4):CD006289.
  61. Nye MB, Schwebke JR, Body BA. Comparison of APTIMA Trichomonas vaginalis transcription-mediated amplification to wet mount microscopy, culture, and polymerase chain reaction for diagnosis of trichomoniasis in men and women. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009; 200:188.e1188.e7.
  62. Bachmann LH, Hobbs MM, Seña AC, et al. Trichomonas vaginalis genital infections: progress and challenges. Clin Infect Dis 2011; 53(suppl 3):S160S172.
  63. Schwebke JR, Hobbs MM, Taylor SN, et al. Molecular testing for Trichomonas vaginalis in women: results from a prospective US clinical trial. J Clin Microbiol 2011; 49:41064111.
  64. Coleman JS, Gaydos CA, Witter F. Trichomonas vaginalis vaginitis in obstetrics and gynecology practice: new concepts and controversies. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2013; 68:4350.
  65. Kirkcaldy RD, Augostini P, Asbel LE, et al. Trichomonas vaginalis antimicrobial drug resistance in 6 US cities, STD Surveillance Network, 2009–2010. Emerg Infect Dis 2012; 18:939943.
  66. Hoots BE, Peterman TA, Torrone EA, Weinstock H, Meites E, Bolan GA. A Trich-y question: should Trichomonas vaginalis infection be reportable? Sex Transm Dis 2013; 40:113116.
  67. Schwebke JR, Desmond RA. A randomized controlled trial of partner notification methods for prevention of trichomoniasis in women. Sex Transm Dis 2010; 37:392396.
  68. Studemeister A. Cytomegalovirus proctitis: a rare and disregarded sexually transmitted disease. Sex Transm Dis 2011; 38:876878.
  69. Hoentjen F, Rubin DT. Infectious proctitis: when to suspect it is not inflammatory bowel disease. Dig Dis Sci 2012; 57:269273.
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 81(2)
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 81(2)
Page Number
91-101
Page Number
91-101
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Clinical update in sexually transmitted disease –2014
Display Headline
Clinical update in sexually transmitted disease –2014
Sections
Inside the Article

KEY POINTS

  • Anyone can have an STD, although the prevalence is higher in some groups, such as younger sexually active people, certain racial and ethnic minorities, men who have sex with men, and people who engage in risky sexual behavior.
  • Preexposure vaccination is one of the most effective ways to prevent human papillomavirus, hepatitis A virus, and hepatitis B virus infections.
  • The risk of acquiring human immunodeficiency virus is two to five times higher if the patient has a genital ulcerative disease such as syphilis or herpes at the time of exposure.
  • Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae are major players in urethritis, cervicitis, and proctitis.
  • The most common conditions associated with vaginitis include bacterial vaginosis, trichomoniasis, and candidiasis.
Disallow All Ads
Alternative CME
Article PDF Media

Should patients with gout avoid thiazides for hypertension?

Article Type
Changed
Wed, 09/13/2017 - 08:42
Display Headline
Should patients with gout avoid thiazides for hypertension?

The decision should be individualized, taking into consideration the degree to which the thiazide increases the serum urate level, whether this increase can be managed without overly complicating the patient’s hypouricemic therapy, and, most importantly, what effect switching to another drug will have on the control of the patient’s hypertension. No study has directly addressed this issue.

My practice in most patients, for reasons I explain below, is to use a thiazide if it helps to control the blood pressure and to adjust the dose of the hypouricemic therapy as needed to reduce the serum urate to the desired level.

THIAZIDES REMAIN IMPORTANT IN ANTIHYPERTENSIVE THERAPY

Many patients with gout also have hypertension, perhaps due in part to the same hyperuricemia that caused their gouty arthritis. It is well documented that thiazide diuretics can raise the serum urate level.1 In some studies2 (but not all3), patients using thiazides had a higher incidence of gouty arthritis. Thus, it is reasonable to ask if we should avoid thiazides in patients with coexistent gout and hypertension.

Many hypertensive patients fail to reach their target blood pressures (although with the “looser” recommendations in the latest guidelines,4 we may appear to be doing a better job). The reasons for failing to reach target pressures are complex and many: physicians may simply not be aggressive enough in pursuing a target blood pressure; patients cannot tolerate the drugs or cannot afford the drugs; and many patients need two or more antihypertensive drugs to achieve adequate control. Thiazides are cheap and effective5 and work synergistically with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers.6

Thus, in many patients, avoiding or discontinuing a thiazide may inhibit our ability to control their hypertension, which is a key contributor to cardiovascular events and chronic kidney injury in patients with gout. Since other diuretics (eg, loop diuretics, which can lower blood pressure but often require split doses) also raise the serum urate level, switching to one of them will not eliminate concern over hyperuricemia.

Thiazides and serum urate

Thiazides slightly increase the serum urate level and in a dose-dependent manner. At the doses commonly used in treating hypertension (12.5 or 25 mg once a day), hydrochlorothiazide increases the serum urate level by 0.8 mg/dL or less in patients with normal renal function, as shown in a number of older hypertension treatment trials and in a recent prospective study.1 The effect of chlorthalidone is similar.

In patients with chronic gout treated with a xanthine oxidase inhibitor (allopurinol or febuxostat) to lower the serum urate to the American College of Rheumatology’s recommended target level7 of less than 6.0 mg/dL (or < 5 mg/dL in the British Rheumatology guidelines), this small elevation in serum urate is unlikely to negate the clinical efficacy of these drugs when dosing is optimized. Small studies have demonstrated a clinically insignificant pharmacodynamic interaction between thiazides and xanthine oxidase inhibitors.8,9 When I add a thiazide to a patient’s regimen, I do not usually need to increase the dose of allopurinol significantly to keep the serum urate level below the desired target.

Switch antihypertensive therapy

Occasionally, in a patient with chronic gout and mild hypertension who has a serum urate level marginally above the estimated precipitation threshold of 6.7 mg/dL, it is reasonable to simply switch the thiazide to another antihypertensive, such as losartan. Losartan is a weak uricosuric and can lower the serum urate level slightly, possibly making the addition of another hypouricemic agent unnecessary, while still controlling the blood pressure with a single pill. This decision must be individualized, taking into consideration the efficacy and cost of the alternative antihypertensive drug, as well as the potential but as yet unproven cardiovascular and renal benefits of lowering the serum urate with a more potent hypouricemic to a degree not likely to be attained with losartan alone.

Continue thiazide, adjust gout therapy

Discontinuing a thiazide or switching to another antihypertensive drug may increase the cost and decrease the efficacy of hypertensive therapy. Continuing thiazide therapy and, if necessary, adjusting hypouricemic therapy will not worsen the control of the serum urate level or gouty arthritis, and in most patients will not complicate the management of gout.

ASPIRIN AND HYPERURICEMIA

In answer to a separate but related question, aspirin in low doses for cardioprotection (81 mg daily) also need not be stopped in patients with hyperuricemia or gout in an effort to better control the serum urate level. Low-dose aspirin increases the serum urate level by about 0.3 mg/dL. Since patients with gout have a higher risk of having cardiovascular disease, metabolic syndrome, and chronic kidney disease, many will benefit from low-dose aspirin therapy.

References
  1. McAdams DeMarco MA, Maynard JW, Baer AN, et al. Diuretic use, increased serum urate levels, and risk of incident gout in a population-based study of adults with hypertension: the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities cohort study. Arthritis Rheum 2012; 64:121129.
  2. Choi HK, Soriano LC, Zhang Y, Rodríguez LA. Antihypertensive drugs and risk of incident gout among patients with hypertension: population based case-control study. BMJ 2012; 344:d8190.
  3. Hueskes BA, Roovers EA, Mantel-Teeuwisse AK, Janssens HJ, van de Lisdonk EH, Janssen M. Use of diuretics and the risk of gouty arthritis: a systematic review. Semin Arthritis Rheum 2012; 41:879889.
  4. James PA, Oparil S, Carter BL, et al. 2014 Evidence-based guideline for the management of high blood pressure in adults. Report from the panel members appointed to the Eighth Joint National Committee (JNC 8). JAMA 2013; doi: 10.1001/jama2013.284427
  5. Fuchs FD. Diuretics: still essential drugs for the management of hypertension. Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther 2009; 7:591598.
  6. Sood N, Reinhart KM, Baker WL. Combination therapy for the management of hypertension: a review of the evidence. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2010; 67:885894.
  7. Khanna D, Fitzgerald JD, Khanna PP, et al; American College of Rheumatology. 2012 American College of Rheumatology guidelines for management of gout. Part 1: systematic nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic therapeutic approaches to hyperuricemia. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2012; 64:14311446.
  8. Löffler W, Landthaler R, de Vries JX, et al. Interaction of allopurinol and hydrochlorothiazide during prolonged oral administration of both drugs in normal subjects. I. Uric acid kinetics. Clin Investig 1994; 72:10711075.
  9. Grabowski B, Khosravan R, Wu JT, Vernillet L, Lademacher C. Effect of hydrochlorothiazide on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of febuxostat, a non-purine selective inhibitor of xanthine oxidase. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2010; 70:5764.
Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Brian F. Mandell, MD, PhD
Professor and Chairman, Department of Academic Medicine; Department of Rheumatic and Immunologic Diseases, Cleveland Clinic; Editor in Chief, Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine

Address: Brian F. Mandell, MD, PhD, Internal Medicine Residency Program, NA1-10, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44195; e-mail: mandelb@ccf.org

Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 81(2)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
83, 86
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Brian F. Mandell, MD, PhD
Professor and Chairman, Department of Academic Medicine; Department of Rheumatic and Immunologic Diseases, Cleveland Clinic; Editor in Chief, Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine

Address: Brian F. Mandell, MD, PhD, Internal Medicine Residency Program, NA1-10, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44195; e-mail: mandelb@ccf.org

Author and Disclosure Information

Brian F. Mandell, MD, PhD
Professor and Chairman, Department of Academic Medicine; Department of Rheumatic and Immunologic Diseases, Cleveland Clinic; Editor in Chief, Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine

Address: Brian F. Mandell, MD, PhD, Internal Medicine Residency Program, NA1-10, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44195; e-mail: mandelb@ccf.org

Article PDF
Article PDF

The decision should be individualized, taking into consideration the degree to which the thiazide increases the serum urate level, whether this increase can be managed without overly complicating the patient’s hypouricemic therapy, and, most importantly, what effect switching to another drug will have on the control of the patient’s hypertension. No study has directly addressed this issue.

My practice in most patients, for reasons I explain below, is to use a thiazide if it helps to control the blood pressure and to adjust the dose of the hypouricemic therapy as needed to reduce the serum urate to the desired level.

THIAZIDES REMAIN IMPORTANT IN ANTIHYPERTENSIVE THERAPY

Many patients with gout also have hypertension, perhaps due in part to the same hyperuricemia that caused their gouty arthritis. It is well documented that thiazide diuretics can raise the serum urate level.1 In some studies2 (but not all3), patients using thiazides had a higher incidence of gouty arthritis. Thus, it is reasonable to ask if we should avoid thiazides in patients with coexistent gout and hypertension.

Many hypertensive patients fail to reach their target blood pressures (although with the “looser” recommendations in the latest guidelines,4 we may appear to be doing a better job). The reasons for failing to reach target pressures are complex and many: physicians may simply not be aggressive enough in pursuing a target blood pressure; patients cannot tolerate the drugs or cannot afford the drugs; and many patients need two or more antihypertensive drugs to achieve adequate control. Thiazides are cheap and effective5 and work synergistically with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers.6

Thus, in many patients, avoiding or discontinuing a thiazide may inhibit our ability to control their hypertension, which is a key contributor to cardiovascular events and chronic kidney injury in patients with gout. Since other diuretics (eg, loop diuretics, which can lower blood pressure but often require split doses) also raise the serum urate level, switching to one of them will not eliminate concern over hyperuricemia.

Thiazides and serum urate

Thiazides slightly increase the serum urate level and in a dose-dependent manner. At the doses commonly used in treating hypertension (12.5 or 25 mg once a day), hydrochlorothiazide increases the serum urate level by 0.8 mg/dL or less in patients with normal renal function, as shown in a number of older hypertension treatment trials and in a recent prospective study.1 The effect of chlorthalidone is similar.

In patients with chronic gout treated with a xanthine oxidase inhibitor (allopurinol or febuxostat) to lower the serum urate to the American College of Rheumatology’s recommended target level7 of less than 6.0 mg/dL (or < 5 mg/dL in the British Rheumatology guidelines), this small elevation in serum urate is unlikely to negate the clinical efficacy of these drugs when dosing is optimized. Small studies have demonstrated a clinically insignificant pharmacodynamic interaction between thiazides and xanthine oxidase inhibitors.8,9 When I add a thiazide to a patient’s regimen, I do not usually need to increase the dose of allopurinol significantly to keep the serum urate level below the desired target.

Switch antihypertensive therapy

Occasionally, in a patient with chronic gout and mild hypertension who has a serum urate level marginally above the estimated precipitation threshold of 6.7 mg/dL, it is reasonable to simply switch the thiazide to another antihypertensive, such as losartan. Losartan is a weak uricosuric and can lower the serum urate level slightly, possibly making the addition of another hypouricemic agent unnecessary, while still controlling the blood pressure with a single pill. This decision must be individualized, taking into consideration the efficacy and cost of the alternative antihypertensive drug, as well as the potential but as yet unproven cardiovascular and renal benefits of lowering the serum urate with a more potent hypouricemic to a degree not likely to be attained with losartan alone.

Continue thiazide, adjust gout therapy

Discontinuing a thiazide or switching to another antihypertensive drug may increase the cost and decrease the efficacy of hypertensive therapy. Continuing thiazide therapy and, if necessary, adjusting hypouricemic therapy will not worsen the control of the serum urate level or gouty arthritis, and in most patients will not complicate the management of gout.

ASPIRIN AND HYPERURICEMIA

In answer to a separate but related question, aspirin in low doses for cardioprotection (81 mg daily) also need not be stopped in patients with hyperuricemia or gout in an effort to better control the serum urate level. Low-dose aspirin increases the serum urate level by about 0.3 mg/dL. Since patients with gout have a higher risk of having cardiovascular disease, metabolic syndrome, and chronic kidney disease, many will benefit from low-dose aspirin therapy.

The decision should be individualized, taking into consideration the degree to which the thiazide increases the serum urate level, whether this increase can be managed without overly complicating the patient’s hypouricemic therapy, and, most importantly, what effect switching to another drug will have on the control of the patient’s hypertension. No study has directly addressed this issue.

My practice in most patients, for reasons I explain below, is to use a thiazide if it helps to control the blood pressure and to adjust the dose of the hypouricemic therapy as needed to reduce the serum urate to the desired level.

THIAZIDES REMAIN IMPORTANT IN ANTIHYPERTENSIVE THERAPY

Many patients with gout also have hypertension, perhaps due in part to the same hyperuricemia that caused their gouty arthritis. It is well documented that thiazide diuretics can raise the serum urate level.1 In some studies2 (but not all3), patients using thiazides had a higher incidence of gouty arthritis. Thus, it is reasonable to ask if we should avoid thiazides in patients with coexistent gout and hypertension.

Many hypertensive patients fail to reach their target blood pressures (although with the “looser” recommendations in the latest guidelines,4 we may appear to be doing a better job). The reasons for failing to reach target pressures are complex and many: physicians may simply not be aggressive enough in pursuing a target blood pressure; patients cannot tolerate the drugs or cannot afford the drugs; and many patients need two or more antihypertensive drugs to achieve adequate control. Thiazides are cheap and effective5 and work synergistically with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers.6

Thus, in many patients, avoiding or discontinuing a thiazide may inhibit our ability to control their hypertension, which is a key contributor to cardiovascular events and chronic kidney injury in patients with gout. Since other diuretics (eg, loop diuretics, which can lower blood pressure but often require split doses) also raise the serum urate level, switching to one of them will not eliminate concern over hyperuricemia.

Thiazides and serum urate

Thiazides slightly increase the serum urate level and in a dose-dependent manner. At the doses commonly used in treating hypertension (12.5 or 25 mg once a day), hydrochlorothiazide increases the serum urate level by 0.8 mg/dL or less in patients with normal renal function, as shown in a number of older hypertension treatment trials and in a recent prospective study.1 The effect of chlorthalidone is similar.

In patients with chronic gout treated with a xanthine oxidase inhibitor (allopurinol or febuxostat) to lower the serum urate to the American College of Rheumatology’s recommended target level7 of less than 6.0 mg/dL (or < 5 mg/dL in the British Rheumatology guidelines), this small elevation in serum urate is unlikely to negate the clinical efficacy of these drugs when dosing is optimized. Small studies have demonstrated a clinically insignificant pharmacodynamic interaction between thiazides and xanthine oxidase inhibitors.8,9 When I add a thiazide to a patient’s regimen, I do not usually need to increase the dose of allopurinol significantly to keep the serum urate level below the desired target.

Switch antihypertensive therapy

Occasionally, in a patient with chronic gout and mild hypertension who has a serum urate level marginally above the estimated precipitation threshold of 6.7 mg/dL, it is reasonable to simply switch the thiazide to another antihypertensive, such as losartan. Losartan is a weak uricosuric and can lower the serum urate level slightly, possibly making the addition of another hypouricemic agent unnecessary, while still controlling the blood pressure with a single pill. This decision must be individualized, taking into consideration the efficacy and cost of the alternative antihypertensive drug, as well as the potential but as yet unproven cardiovascular and renal benefits of lowering the serum urate with a more potent hypouricemic to a degree not likely to be attained with losartan alone.

Continue thiazide, adjust gout therapy

Discontinuing a thiazide or switching to another antihypertensive drug may increase the cost and decrease the efficacy of hypertensive therapy. Continuing thiazide therapy and, if necessary, adjusting hypouricemic therapy will not worsen the control of the serum urate level or gouty arthritis, and in most patients will not complicate the management of gout.

ASPIRIN AND HYPERURICEMIA

In answer to a separate but related question, aspirin in low doses for cardioprotection (81 mg daily) also need not be stopped in patients with hyperuricemia or gout in an effort to better control the serum urate level. Low-dose aspirin increases the serum urate level by about 0.3 mg/dL. Since patients with gout have a higher risk of having cardiovascular disease, metabolic syndrome, and chronic kidney disease, many will benefit from low-dose aspirin therapy.

References
  1. McAdams DeMarco MA, Maynard JW, Baer AN, et al. Diuretic use, increased serum urate levels, and risk of incident gout in a population-based study of adults with hypertension: the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities cohort study. Arthritis Rheum 2012; 64:121129.
  2. Choi HK, Soriano LC, Zhang Y, Rodríguez LA. Antihypertensive drugs and risk of incident gout among patients with hypertension: population based case-control study. BMJ 2012; 344:d8190.
  3. Hueskes BA, Roovers EA, Mantel-Teeuwisse AK, Janssens HJ, van de Lisdonk EH, Janssen M. Use of diuretics and the risk of gouty arthritis: a systematic review. Semin Arthritis Rheum 2012; 41:879889.
  4. James PA, Oparil S, Carter BL, et al. 2014 Evidence-based guideline for the management of high blood pressure in adults. Report from the panel members appointed to the Eighth Joint National Committee (JNC 8). JAMA 2013; doi: 10.1001/jama2013.284427
  5. Fuchs FD. Diuretics: still essential drugs for the management of hypertension. Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther 2009; 7:591598.
  6. Sood N, Reinhart KM, Baker WL. Combination therapy for the management of hypertension: a review of the evidence. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2010; 67:885894.
  7. Khanna D, Fitzgerald JD, Khanna PP, et al; American College of Rheumatology. 2012 American College of Rheumatology guidelines for management of gout. Part 1: systematic nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic therapeutic approaches to hyperuricemia. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2012; 64:14311446.
  8. Löffler W, Landthaler R, de Vries JX, et al. Interaction of allopurinol and hydrochlorothiazide during prolonged oral administration of both drugs in normal subjects. I. Uric acid kinetics. Clin Investig 1994; 72:10711075.
  9. Grabowski B, Khosravan R, Wu JT, Vernillet L, Lademacher C. Effect of hydrochlorothiazide on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of febuxostat, a non-purine selective inhibitor of xanthine oxidase. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2010; 70:5764.
References
  1. McAdams DeMarco MA, Maynard JW, Baer AN, et al. Diuretic use, increased serum urate levels, and risk of incident gout in a population-based study of adults with hypertension: the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities cohort study. Arthritis Rheum 2012; 64:121129.
  2. Choi HK, Soriano LC, Zhang Y, Rodríguez LA. Antihypertensive drugs and risk of incident gout among patients with hypertension: population based case-control study. BMJ 2012; 344:d8190.
  3. Hueskes BA, Roovers EA, Mantel-Teeuwisse AK, Janssens HJ, van de Lisdonk EH, Janssen M. Use of diuretics and the risk of gouty arthritis: a systematic review. Semin Arthritis Rheum 2012; 41:879889.
  4. James PA, Oparil S, Carter BL, et al. 2014 Evidence-based guideline for the management of high blood pressure in adults. Report from the panel members appointed to the Eighth Joint National Committee (JNC 8). JAMA 2013; doi: 10.1001/jama2013.284427
  5. Fuchs FD. Diuretics: still essential drugs for the management of hypertension. Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther 2009; 7:591598.
  6. Sood N, Reinhart KM, Baker WL. Combination therapy for the management of hypertension: a review of the evidence. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2010; 67:885894.
  7. Khanna D, Fitzgerald JD, Khanna PP, et al; American College of Rheumatology. 2012 American College of Rheumatology guidelines for management of gout. Part 1: systematic nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic therapeutic approaches to hyperuricemia. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2012; 64:14311446.
  8. Löffler W, Landthaler R, de Vries JX, et al. Interaction of allopurinol and hydrochlorothiazide during prolonged oral administration of both drugs in normal subjects. I. Uric acid kinetics. Clin Investig 1994; 72:10711075.
  9. Grabowski B, Khosravan R, Wu JT, Vernillet L, Lademacher C. Effect of hydrochlorothiazide on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of febuxostat, a non-purine selective inhibitor of xanthine oxidase. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2010; 70:5764.
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 81(2)
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 81(2)
Page Number
83, 86
Page Number
83, 86
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Should patients with gout avoid thiazides for hypertension?
Display Headline
Should patients with gout avoid thiazides for hypertension?
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Alternative CME
Article PDF Media

Wide QRS complex rhythm with pulseless electrical activity

Article Type
Changed
Wed, 09/13/2017 - 09:06
Display Headline
Wide QRS complex rhythm with pulseless electrical activity

A 64-year-old man with chronic kidney disease and recent upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage suffered pulseless electrical activity and cardiac arrest. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation was started, with three attempted but failed electrical cardioversions. Return of spontaneous circulation required prolonged resuscitation efforts, including multiple rounds of epinephrine, calcium, and sodium bicarbonate. The standard 12-lead electrocardiogram (Figure 1) showed an irregular wide-QRS-complex rhythm, with right bundle branch block and right-superior-axis deviation.

Figure 1. At presentation, the standard 12-lead electrocardiogram demonstrated an irregular wide-QRS-complex rhythm with features of right-superior-axis deviation and right bundle branch block. Although the interpretation software indicated a ventricular rate of 156 bpm, inspection reveals the rate to be only half that (ie, “double counting” of the heart rate). The serum potassium concentration at the time of this test was 8.9 mmol/L.

What was the cause of the pulseless electrical activity and the features on the electrocardiogram?

The presentation of cardiac arrest with pulseless electrical activity usually has a grave prognosis, and in the acute setting, the cause may be difficult to establish. However, several conditions that cause this presentation have treatments that, applied immediately, can lead to quick and sustained recovery.1

Electrocardiography can be a powerful tool in the urgent evaluation of pulseless electrical activity.2,3 Narrow-QRS-complex pulseless electrical activity is often caused by mechanical factors such as cardiac tamponade, tension pneumothorax, pulmonary embolism, and major hemorrhage.3 Pulseless electrical activity associated with a wide QRS complex and marked axis deviation, as in this patient, is usually the result of a metabolic abnormality, most often hyperkalemia3; additional indicators of severe hyperkalemia include ST-segment elevation in the anterior chest leads (including the Brugada pattern4) and, as in this patient, “double counting” of the heart rate by the interpretation software (Figure 1).5,6

Based on the suspicion of a metabolic cause, the serum potassium was tested and was 8.9 mmol/L (reference range 3.5–5.0). The patient was given intravenous calcium, sodium bicarbonate, glucose, and insulin, and 2 hours later the serum potassium had decreased to 7.1 mmol/L. At that time, the electrocardiogram (Figure 2) showed a regular rhythm with ectopic P waves, probably an ectopic atrial tachycardia. There were now narrow QRS complexes with J-point depression, upsloping ST segments, and tall, hyperacute T waves in the chest leads—a pattern recently described in proximal left anterior descending coronary artery occlusion.7 The electrocardiographic similarities in hyperkalemia and acute myocardial infarction are probably the result of potassium accumulation in the ischemic myocardium associated with acute coronary occlusion.7

The patient had a full recovery, both clinically and on electrocardiography.

Figure 2. After aggressive treatment of the hyperkalemia, the QRS complexes narrowed and the QRS axis normalized, but the chest leads demonstrated J-point depression followed by upsloping ST segments, culminating in tall, peaked T waves. This pattern is also occasionally seen in acute occlusion of the left anterior descending coronary artery. The serum potassium at this time was 7.1 mmol/L.

References
  1. Saarinen S, Nurmi J, Toivio T, Fredman D, Virkkunen I, Castrén M. Does appropriate treatment of the primary underlying cause of PEA during resuscitation improve patients’ survival? Resuscitation 2012; 83:819822.
  2. Mehta C, Brady W. Pulseless electrical activity in cardiac arrest: electrocardiographic presentations and management considerations based on the electrocardiogram. Am J Emerg Med 2012; 30:236239.
  3. Littmann L, Bustin DJ, Haley MW. A simplified and structured teaching tool for the evaluation and management of pulseless electrical activity. Med Princ Pract 2014; 23:16.
  4. Littmann L, Monroe MH, Taylor L, Brearley WD. The hyperkalemic Brugada sign. J Electrocardiol 2007; 40:5359.
  5. Littmann L, Brearley WD, Taylor L, Monroe MH. Double counting of heart rate by interpretation software: a new electrocardiographic sign of severe hyperkalemia. Am J Emerg Med 2007; 25:584586.
  6. Tomcsányi J, Wágner V, Bózsik B. Littmann sign in hyperkalemia: double counting of heart rate. Am J Emerg Med 2007; 25:10771078.
  7. de Winter RJ, Verouden NJ, Wellens HJ, Wilde AA; Interventional Cardiology Group of the Academic Medical Center. A new ECG sign of proximal LAD occlusion. N Engl J Med 2008; 359:20712073.
Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Laszlo Littmann, MD, PhD
Department of Internal Medicine, Carolinas Medical Center, Charlotte, NC, and Professor of Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

Address: Laszlo Littmann, MD, PhD, Department of Internal Medicine, Carolinas Medical Center, PO Box 32861, Charlotte, NC 28232; e-mail: Laszlo.Littmann@carolinashealthcare.org

Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 81(2)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
81-82
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Laszlo Littmann, MD, PhD
Department of Internal Medicine, Carolinas Medical Center, Charlotte, NC, and Professor of Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

Address: Laszlo Littmann, MD, PhD, Department of Internal Medicine, Carolinas Medical Center, PO Box 32861, Charlotte, NC 28232; e-mail: Laszlo.Littmann@carolinashealthcare.org

Author and Disclosure Information

Laszlo Littmann, MD, PhD
Department of Internal Medicine, Carolinas Medical Center, Charlotte, NC, and Professor of Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

Address: Laszlo Littmann, MD, PhD, Department of Internal Medicine, Carolinas Medical Center, PO Box 32861, Charlotte, NC 28232; e-mail: Laszlo.Littmann@carolinashealthcare.org

Article PDF
Article PDF

A 64-year-old man with chronic kidney disease and recent upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage suffered pulseless electrical activity and cardiac arrest. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation was started, with three attempted but failed electrical cardioversions. Return of spontaneous circulation required prolonged resuscitation efforts, including multiple rounds of epinephrine, calcium, and sodium bicarbonate. The standard 12-lead electrocardiogram (Figure 1) showed an irregular wide-QRS-complex rhythm, with right bundle branch block and right-superior-axis deviation.

Figure 1. At presentation, the standard 12-lead electrocardiogram demonstrated an irregular wide-QRS-complex rhythm with features of right-superior-axis deviation and right bundle branch block. Although the interpretation software indicated a ventricular rate of 156 bpm, inspection reveals the rate to be only half that (ie, “double counting” of the heart rate). The serum potassium concentration at the time of this test was 8.9 mmol/L.

What was the cause of the pulseless electrical activity and the features on the electrocardiogram?

The presentation of cardiac arrest with pulseless electrical activity usually has a grave prognosis, and in the acute setting, the cause may be difficult to establish. However, several conditions that cause this presentation have treatments that, applied immediately, can lead to quick and sustained recovery.1

Electrocardiography can be a powerful tool in the urgent evaluation of pulseless electrical activity.2,3 Narrow-QRS-complex pulseless electrical activity is often caused by mechanical factors such as cardiac tamponade, tension pneumothorax, pulmonary embolism, and major hemorrhage.3 Pulseless electrical activity associated with a wide QRS complex and marked axis deviation, as in this patient, is usually the result of a metabolic abnormality, most often hyperkalemia3; additional indicators of severe hyperkalemia include ST-segment elevation in the anterior chest leads (including the Brugada pattern4) and, as in this patient, “double counting” of the heart rate by the interpretation software (Figure 1).5,6

Based on the suspicion of a metabolic cause, the serum potassium was tested and was 8.9 mmol/L (reference range 3.5–5.0). The patient was given intravenous calcium, sodium bicarbonate, glucose, and insulin, and 2 hours later the serum potassium had decreased to 7.1 mmol/L. At that time, the electrocardiogram (Figure 2) showed a regular rhythm with ectopic P waves, probably an ectopic atrial tachycardia. There were now narrow QRS complexes with J-point depression, upsloping ST segments, and tall, hyperacute T waves in the chest leads—a pattern recently described in proximal left anterior descending coronary artery occlusion.7 The electrocardiographic similarities in hyperkalemia and acute myocardial infarction are probably the result of potassium accumulation in the ischemic myocardium associated with acute coronary occlusion.7

The patient had a full recovery, both clinically and on electrocardiography.

Figure 2. After aggressive treatment of the hyperkalemia, the QRS complexes narrowed and the QRS axis normalized, but the chest leads demonstrated J-point depression followed by upsloping ST segments, culminating in tall, peaked T waves. This pattern is also occasionally seen in acute occlusion of the left anterior descending coronary artery. The serum potassium at this time was 7.1 mmol/L.

A 64-year-old man with chronic kidney disease and recent upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage suffered pulseless electrical activity and cardiac arrest. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation was started, with three attempted but failed electrical cardioversions. Return of spontaneous circulation required prolonged resuscitation efforts, including multiple rounds of epinephrine, calcium, and sodium bicarbonate. The standard 12-lead electrocardiogram (Figure 1) showed an irregular wide-QRS-complex rhythm, with right bundle branch block and right-superior-axis deviation.

Figure 1. At presentation, the standard 12-lead electrocardiogram demonstrated an irregular wide-QRS-complex rhythm with features of right-superior-axis deviation and right bundle branch block. Although the interpretation software indicated a ventricular rate of 156 bpm, inspection reveals the rate to be only half that (ie, “double counting” of the heart rate). The serum potassium concentration at the time of this test was 8.9 mmol/L.

What was the cause of the pulseless electrical activity and the features on the electrocardiogram?

The presentation of cardiac arrest with pulseless electrical activity usually has a grave prognosis, and in the acute setting, the cause may be difficult to establish. However, several conditions that cause this presentation have treatments that, applied immediately, can lead to quick and sustained recovery.1

Electrocardiography can be a powerful tool in the urgent evaluation of pulseless electrical activity.2,3 Narrow-QRS-complex pulseless electrical activity is often caused by mechanical factors such as cardiac tamponade, tension pneumothorax, pulmonary embolism, and major hemorrhage.3 Pulseless electrical activity associated with a wide QRS complex and marked axis deviation, as in this patient, is usually the result of a metabolic abnormality, most often hyperkalemia3; additional indicators of severe hyperkalemia include ST-segment elevation in the anterior chest leads (including the Brugada pattern4) and, as in this patient, “double counting” of the heart rate by the interpretation software (Figure 1).5,6

Based on the suspicion of a metabolic cause, the serum potassium was tested and was 8.9 mmol/L (reference range 3.5–5.0). The patient was given intravenous calcium, sodium bicarbonate, glucose, and insulin, and 2 hours later the serum potassium had decreased to 7.1 mmol/L. At that time, the electrocardiogram (Figure 2) showed a regular rhythm with ectopic P waves, probably an ectopic atrial tachycardia. There were now narrow QRS complexes with J-point depression, upsloping ST segments, and tall, hyperacute T waves in the chest leads—a pattern recently described in proximal left anterior descending coronary artery occlusion.7 The electrocardiographic similarities in hyperkalemia and acute myocardial infarction are probably the result of potassium accumulation in the ischemic myocardium associated with acute coronary occlusion.7

The patient had a full recovery, both clinically and on electrocardiography.

Figure 2. After aggressive treatment of the hyperkalemia, the QRS complexes narrowed and the QRS axis normalized, but the chest leads demonstrated J-point depression followed by upsloping ST segments, culminating in tall, peaked T waves. This pattern is also occasionally seen in acute occlusion of the left anterior descending coronary artery. The serum potassium at this time was 7.1 mmol/L.

References
  1. Saarinen S, Nurmi J, Toivio T, Fredman D, Virkkunen I, Castrén M. Does appropriate treatment of the primary underlying cause of PEA during resuscitation improve patients’ survival? Resuscitation 2012; 83:819822.
  2. Mehta C, Brady W. Pulseless electrical activity in cardiac arrest: electrocardiographic presentations and management considerations based on the electrocardiogram. Am J Emerg Med 2012; 30:236239.
  3. Littmann L, Bustin DJ, Haley MW. A simplified and structured teaching tool for the evaluation and management of pulseless electrical activity. Med Princ Pract 2014; 23:16.
  4. Littmann L, Monroe MH, Taylor L, Brearley WD. The hyperkalemic Brugada sign. J Electrocardiol 2007; 40:5359.
  5. Littmann L, Brearley WD, Taylor L, Monroe MH. Double counting of heart rate by interpretation software: a new electrocardiographic sign of severe hyperkalemia. Am J Emerg Med 2007; 25:584586.
  6. Tomcsányi J, Wágner V, Bózsik B. Littmann sign in hyperkalemia: double counting of heart rate. Am J Emerg Med 2007; 25:10771078.
  7. de Winter RJ, Verouden NJ, Wellens HJ, Wilde AA; Interventional Cardiology Group of the Academic Medical Center. A new ECG sign of proximal LAD occlusion. N Engl J Med 2008; 359:20712073.
References
  1. Saarinen S, Nurmi J, Toivio T, Fredman D, Virkkunen I, Castrén M. Does appropriate treatment of the primary underlying cause of PEA during resuscitation improve patients’ survival? Resuscitation 2012; 83:819822.
  2. Mehta C, Brady W. Pulseless electrical activity in cardiac arrest: electrocardiographic presentations and management considerations based on the electrocardiogram. Am J Emerg Med 2012; 30:236239.
  3. Littmann L, Bustin DJ, Haley MW. A simplified and structured teaching tool for the evaluation and management of pulseless electrical activity. Med Princ Pract 2014; 23:16.
  4. Littmann L, Monroe MH, Taylor L, Brearley WD. The hyperkalemic Brugada sign. J Electrocardiol 2007; 40:5359.
  5. Littmann L, Brearley WD, Taylor L, Monroe MH. Double counting of heart rate by interpretation software: a new electrocardiographic sign of severe hyperkalemia. Am J Emerg Med 2007; 25:584586.
  6. Tomcsányi J, Wágner V, Bózsik B. Littmann sign in hyperkalemia: double counting of heart rate. Am J Emerg Med 2007; 25:10771078.
  7. de Winter RJ, Verouden NJ, Wellens HJ, Wilde AA; Interventional Cardiology Group of the Academic Medical Center. A new ECG sign of proximal LAD occlusion. N Engl J Med 2008; 359:20712073.
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 81(2)
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 81(2)
Page Number
81-82
Page Number
81-82
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Wide QRS complex rhythm with pulseless electrical activity
Display Headline
Wide QRS complex rhythm with pulseless electrical activity
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Alternative CME
Article PDF Media

Slow-growing angiomatous lesions on the limbs

Article Type
Changed
Wed, 09/13/2017 - 09:05
Display Headline
Slow-growing angiomatous lesions on the limbs

 

A 70-year-old man presented with multiple erythematous plaques on the arms and legs (Figure 1). The plaques had infiltrated the skin and were poorly demarcated.

Figure 1. The poorly demarcated erythematous plaques had infiltrated the skin on the arms and legs.

He had hypertension but no history of other relevant medical conditions, and he was not taking any medication. He was not neutropenic or immunocompromised.

In a patient after the sixth decade of life, erythematous plate-shaped lesions on the legs that become apparent on palpation should raise suspicion of classic Kaposi sarcoma. A biopsy confirmed this diagnosis (Figure 2). Immunohistochemical staining was positive for human herpesvirus 8 latent nuclear antigen. Clinical examination, computed tomography, and blood tests showed no extracutaneous involvement or other associated pathology. He was treated with paclitaxel, which resulted in improvement of his symptoms.

Figure 2. Histologic examination showed dissecting vessel proliferation of collagen fibers in the superficial dermis, along with superficial perivascular lymphoplasmacytic infiltration (black arrow). Note the central location of the lymphangioma-like spaces (red arrow) (hematoxylin and eosin, × 10).

DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS

Bacillary angiomatosis, acroangiodermatitis (“pseudo-Kaposi sarcoma”) and atypical mycobacterial infections such as Mycobacterium marinum infection may present as papules or nodules on the legs.

Bacillary angiomatosis

Bacillary angiomatosis is more common in patients with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome and other forms of immunosuppression. Bacilli are produced by Bartonella henselae and B quintana and are a manifestation of cat-scratch disease in an immunocompromised host.1 The disease manifests as pyogenic granuloma-like lesions or subcutaneous nodules and may be associated with liver damage and systemic impairment.

Acroangiodermatitis

Acroangiodermatitis, or pseudo-Kaposi sarcoma, is caused by hyperplasia of the venous vasculature or chronic venous stasis. It is an entity observed in amputees, in hemodialysis patients with an arteriovenous fistula who are inflected with hepatitis C virus, and in patients with vascular malformations.2–3 It presents as plaques or violaceous papules on the legs.

M marinum infection

This syndrome presents clinically with erythematous papular and nodular lesions on the skin surface. They can appear on the knees and feet of people infected while swimming in pools, or on the hands of aquarium owners.4–5 A high index of suspicion and a complete medical history are key to properly diagnosing this disease.

CLASSIC KAPOSI SARCOMA

Kaposi sarcoma is a neoplasm of lymphatic endothelial cells. Four types have been described: classic, endemic, iatrogenic, and associated with human immunodeficiency virus infection.

The disease affects men and women around the sixth decade of life. It is more common in Ashkenazi Jews and people of Mediterranean origin. It presents as slow-growing plaques or nodules on the lower extremities; a disseminated form or internal organ involvement is rare.6

Histologic study reveals vascular proliferation with superficial perivascular lymphoplasmacytic infiltration, displaying the classic formation of new vessels from pre-existing vessels. It has a benign course that may last 10 years. Single lesions can be removed surgically or can be treated with chemotherapy. Advanced disease requires systemic chemotherapy with pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, interferon alfa-2a, paclitaxel, or bleomycin and vinblastine.7,8

References
  1. Zarraga M, Rosen L, Herschthal D. Bacillary angiomatosis in an immunocompetent child: a case report and review of the literature. Am J Dermatopathol 2011; 33:513515.
  2. Brenner S, Martinez de Morentin E. What’s new in pseudo-Kaposi’s sarcoma. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2001; 15:382384.
  3. Mehta AA, Pereira RR, Nayak CS, Dhurat RS. Acroangiodermatitis of mali: a rare vascular phenomenon. IIndian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol 2010; 76:553556.
  4. Petrini B. Mycobacterium marinum: ubiquitous agent of waterborne granulomatous skin infections. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2006; 25:609613.
  5. Aboutalebi A, Shen A, Katta R, Allen SE. Primary cutaneous infection by Mycobacterium avium: a case report and literature review. Cutis 2012; 89:175179.
  6. Kandemir NO, Yurdakan G, Bektas S, Tekin NS. Classic Kaposi sarcoma with sarcoid-like granulomas: a case report and literature review. Exp Mol Pathol 2009; 87:8993.
  7. Régnier-Rosencher E, Guillot B, Dupin N. Treatments for classic Kaposi sarcoma: a systematic review of the literature. J Am Acad Dermatol 2013; 68:313331.
  8. Di Lorenzo G, Di Trolio R, Montesarchio V, et al. Pegylated liposomal doxorubicin as second-line therapy in the treatment of patients with advanced classic Kaposi sarcoma: a retrospective study. Cancer 2008; 112:11471152.
Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

José Ramón Estela Cubells, MD
Department of Dermatology, Valencia University General Hospital, Valencia, Spain

Amparo Pérez Ferriols, MD
Department of Dermatology, Valencia University General Hospital, and University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain

Víctor Alegre De Miquel, MD
Department of Dermatology, Valencia University General Hospital, Valencia, Spain

Address: José Ramón Estela Cubells, MD, Department of Dermatology, Valencia University General Hospital, Avda. Tres Cruces 2, 46014 Valencia, Spain; e-mail: j.estela@hotmail.com

Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 81(2)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
79-80
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

José Ramón Estela Cubells, MD
Department of Dermatology, Valencia University General Hospital, Valencia, Spain

Amparo Pérez Ferriols, MD
Department of Dermatology, Valencia University General Hospital, and University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain

Víctor Alegre De Miquel, MD
Department of Dermatology, Valencia University General Hospital, Valencia, Spain

Address: José Ramón Estela Cubells, MD, Department of Dermatology, Valencia University General Hospital, Avda. Tres Cruces 2, 46014 Valencia, Spain; e-mail: j.estela@hotmail.com

Author and Disclosure Information

José Ramón Estela Cubells, MD
Department of Dermatology, Valencia University General Hospital, Valencia, Spain

Amparo Pérez Ferriols, MD
Department of Dermatology, Valencia University General Hospital, and University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain

Víctor Alegre De Miquel, MD
Department of Dermatology, Valencia University General Hospital, Valencia, Spain

Address: José Ramón Estela Cubells, MD, Department of Dermatology, Valencia University General Hospital, Avda. Tres Cruces 2, 46014 Valencia, Spain; e-mail: j.estela@hotmail.com

Article PDF
Article PDF

 

A 70-year-old man presented with multiple erythematous plaques on the arms and legs (Figure 1). The plaques had infiltrated the skin and were poorly demarcated.

Figure 1. The poorly demarcated erythematous plaques had infiltrated the skin on the arms and legs.

He had hypertension but no history of other relevant medical conditions, and he was not taking any medication. He was not neutropenic or immunocompromised.

In a patient after the sixth decade of life, erythematous plate-shaped lesions on the legs that become apparent on palpation should raise suspicion of classic Kaposi sarcoma. A biopsy confirmed this diagnosis (Figure 2). Immunohistochemical staining was positive for human herpesvirus 8 latent nuclear antigen. Clinical examination, computed tomography, and blood tests showed no extracutaneous involvement or other associated pathology. He was treated with paclitaxel, which resulted in improvement of his symptoms.

Figure 2. Histologic examination showed dissecting vessel proliferation of collagen fibers in the superficial dermis, along with superficial perivascular lymphoplasmacytic infiltration (black arrow). Note the central location of the lymphangioma-like spaces (red arrow) (hematoxylin and eosin, × 10).

DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS

Bacillary angiomatosis, acroangiodermatitis (“pseudo-Kaposi sarcoma”) and atypical mycobacterial infections such as Mycobacterium marinum infection may present as papules or nodules on the legs.

Bacillary angiomatosis

Bacillary angiomatosis is more common in patients with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome and other forms of immunosuppression. Bacilli are produced by Bartonella henselae and B quintana and are a manifestation of cat-scratch disease in an immunocompromised host.1 The disease manifests as pyogenic granuloma-like lesions or subcutaneous nodules and may be associated with liver damage and systemic impairment.

Acroangiodermatitis

Acroangiodermatitis, or pseudo-Kaposi sarcoma, is caused by hyperplasia of the venous vasculature or chronic venous stasis. It is an entity observed in amputees, in hemodialysis patients with an arteriovenous fistula who are inflected with hepatitis C virus, and in patients with vascular malformations.2–3 It presents as plaques or violaceous papules on the legs.

M marinum infection

This syndrome presents clinically with erythematous papular and nodular lesions on the skin surface. They can appear on the knees and feet of people infected while swimming in pools, or on the hands of aquarium owners.4–5 A high index of suspicion and a complete medical history are key to properly diagnosing this disease.

CLASSIC KAPOSI SARCOMA

Kaposi sarcoma is a neoplasm of lymphatic endothelial cells. Four types have been described: classic, endemic, iatrogenic, and associated with human immunodeficiency virus infection.

The disease affects men and women around the sixth decade of life. It is more common in Ashkenazi Jews and people of Mediterranean origin. It presents as slow-growing plaques or nodules on the lower extremities; a disseminated form or internal organ involvement is rare.6

Histologic study reveals vascular proliferation with superficial perivascular lymphoplasmacytic infiltration, displaying the classic formation of new vessels from pre-existing vessels. It has a benign course that may last 10 years. Single lesions can be removed surgically or can be treated with chemotherapy. Advanced disease requires systemic chemotherapy with pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, interferon alfa-2a, paclitaxel, or bleomycin and vinblastine.7,8

 

A 70-year-old man presented with multiple erythematous plaques on the arms and legs (Figure 1). The plaques had infiltrated the skin and were poorly demarcated.

Figure 1. The poorly demarcated erythematous plaques had infiltrated the skin on the arms and legs.

He had hypertension but no history of other relevant medical conditions, and he was not taking any medication. He was not neutropenic or immunocompromised.

In a patient after the sixth decade of life, erythematous plate-shaped lesions on the legs that become apparent on palpation should raise suspicion of classic Kaposi sarcoma. A biopsy confirmed this diagnosis (Figure 2). Immunohistochemical staining was positive for human herpesvirus 8 latent nuclear antigen. Clinical examination, computed tomography, and blood tests showed no extracutaneous involvement or other associated pathology. He was treated with paclitaxel, which resulted in improvement of his symptoms.

Figure 2. Histologic examination showed dissecting vessel proliferation of collagen fibers in the superficial dermis, along with superficial perivascular lymphoplasmacytic infiltration (black arrow). Note the central location of the lymphangioma-like spaces (red arrow) (hematoxylin and eosin, × 10).

DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS

Bacillary angiomatosis, acroangiodermatitis (“pseudo-Kaposi sarcoma”) and atypical mycobacterial infections such as Mycobacterium marinum infection may present as papules or nodules on the legs.

Bacillary angiomatosis

Bacillary angiomatosis is more common in patients with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome and other forms of immunosuppression. Bacilli are produced by Bartonella henselae and B quintana and are a manifestation of cat-scratch disease in an immunocompromised host.1 The disease manifests as pyogenic granuloma-like lesions or subcutaneous nodules and may be associated with liver damage and systemic impairment.

Acroangiodermatitis

Acroangiodermatitis, or pseudo-Kaposi sarcoma, is caused by hyperplasia of the venous vasculature or chronic venous stasis. It is an entity observed in amputees, in hemodialysis patients with an arteriovenous fistula who are inflected with hepatitis C virus, and in patients with vascular malformations.2–3 It presents as plaques or violaceous papules on the legs.

M marinum infection

This syndrome presents clinically with erythematous papular and nodular lesions on the skin surface. They can appear on the knees and feet of people infected while swimming in pools, or on the hands of aquarium owners.4–5 A high index of suspicion and a complete medical history are key to properly diagnosing this disease.

CLASSIC KAPOSI SARCOMA

Kaposi sarcoma is a neoplasm of lymphatic endothelial cells. Four types have been described: classic, endemic, iatrogenic, and associated with human immunodeficiency virus infection.

The disease affects men and women around the sixth decade of life. It is more common in Ashkenazi Jews and people of Mediterranean origin. It presents as slow-growing plaques or nodules on the lower extremities; a disseminated form or internal organ involvement is rare.6

Histologic study reveals vascular proliferation with superficial perivascular lymphoplasmacytic infiltration, displaying the classic formation of new vessels from pre-existing vessels. It has a benign course that may last 10 years. Single lesions can be removed surgically or can be treated with chemotherapy. Advanced disease requires systemic chemotherapy with pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, interferon alfa-2a, paclitaxel, or bleomycin and vinblastine.7,8

References
  1. Zarraga M, Rosen L, Herschthal D. Bacillary angiomatosis in an immunocompetent child: a case report and review of the literature. Am J Dermatopathol 2011; 33:513515.
  2. Brenner S, Martinez de Morentin E. What’s new in pseudo-Kaposi’s sarcoma. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2001; 15:382384.
  3. Mehta AA, Pereira RR, Nayak CS, Dhurat RS. Acroangiodermatitis of mali: a rare vascular phenomenon. IIndian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol 2010; 76:553556.
  4. Petrini B. Mycobacterium marinum: ubiquitous agent of waterborne granulomatous skin infections. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2006; 25:609613.
  5. Aboutalebi A, Shen A, Katta R, Allen SE. Primary cutaneous infection by Mycobacterium avium: a case report and literature review. Cutis 2012; 89:175179.
  6. Kandemir NO, Yurdakan G, Bektas S, Tekin NS. Classic Kaposi sarcoma with sarcoid-like granulomas: a case report and literature review. Exp Mol Pathol 2009; 87:8993.
  7. Régnier-Rosencher E, Guillot B, Dupin N. Treatments for classic Kaposi sarcoma: a systematic review of the literature. J Am Acad Dermatol 2013; 68:313331.
  8. Di Lorenzo G, Di Trolio R, Montesarchio V, et al. Pegylated liposomal doxorubicin as second-line therapy in the treatment of patients with advanced classic Kaposi sarcoma: a retrospective study. Cancer 2008; 112:11471152.
References
  1. Zarraga M, Rosen L, Herschthal D. Bacillary angiomatosis in an immunocompetent child: a case report and review of the literature. Am J Dermatopathol 2011; 33:513515.
  2. Brenner S, Martinez de Morentin E. What’s new in pseudo-Kaposi’s sarcoma. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2001; 15:382384.
  3. Mehta AA, Pereira RR, Nayak CS, Dhurat RS. Acroangiodermatitis of mali: a rare vascular phenomenon. IIndian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol 2010; 76:553556.
  4. Petrini B. Mycobacterium marinum: ubiquitous agent of waterborne granulomatous skin infections. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2006; 25:609613.
  5. Aboutalebi A, Shen A, Katta R, Allen SE. Primary cutaneous infection by Mycobacterium avium: a case report and literature review. Cutis 2012; 89:175179.
  6. Kandemir NO, Yurdakan G, Bektas S, Tekin NS. Classic Kaposi sarcoma with sarcoid-like granulomas: a case report and literature review. Exp Mol Pathol 2009; 87:8993.
  7. Régnier-Rosencher E, Guillot B, Dupin N. Treatments for classic Kaposi sarcoma: a systematic review of the literature. J Am Acad Dermatol 2013; 68:313331.
  8. Di Lorenzo G, Di Trolio R, Montesarchio V, et al. Pegylated liposomal doxorubicin as second-line therapy in the treatment of patients with advanced classic Kaposi sarcoma: a retrospective study. Cancer 2008; 112:11471152.
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 81(2)
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 81(2)
Page Number
79-80
Page Number
79-80
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Slow-growing angiomatous lesions on the limbs
Display Headline
Slow-growing angiomatous lesions on the limbs
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Alternative CME
Article PDF Media

The impact of anti-TNF therapy on the nonspecialist

Article Type
Changed
Wed, 09/13/2017 - 08:40
Display Headline
The impact of anti-TNF therapy on the nonspecialist

About 15 years ago, the first anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) drugs received approval for treating Crohn disease and rheumatoid arthritis, and a new era of pharmacotherapy was born. A few years before that, I was at a meeting discussing the potential benefits and pitfalls of these new biologic therapies, and I opined that no one would pay for them on an ongoing basis unless they were amazingly effective—which was unlikely, as the drugs only affected a single cytokine. And if they were effective, they would undoubtedly be associated with a host of opportunistic infections. Given my predictive skills, it is no surprise that Warren Buffett rarely calls to ask my opinion.

Clearly, anti-TNF drugs are effective and have raised the bar for how we define successful response to therapy. But recent studies in early rheumatoid arthritis indicate that they may not be much better than traditional combination therapy or monotherapy with methotrexate if the methotrexate and the other drugs are given and tolerated at full dose. This is clearly not the case for other inflammatory diseases.

Anti-TNF drugs and other biologics are now part of the arsenal of most medical specialists, so outpatient internists and hospitalists increasingly encounter patients taking these drugs. Since patients with systemic inflammatory disease have an increased prevalence of cardiovascular disease, cardiologists are also seeing more patients taking these drugs. Thus, the overview by Hadam et al in this issue of the Journal on the risks of biologic therapies is relevant to many readers.

Almost all prescriptions and requests for insurance approval for these drugs are written by subspecialists familiar with their risks. But patients may ask their primary care physicians about the tests and vaccines recommended for those about to start anti-TNF therapy. Before starting anti-TNF therapy, all patients should be tested for previous exposure to tuberculosis and should be treated for latent tuberculosis if appropriate. Blocking TNF leads to a breakdown of the protective granulomatous inflammatory response that contains the mycobacteria and, as with corticosteroid treatment, results in reactivation of the disease. Interestingly, the reactivation is quite often not in the lungs. And since anti-TNF therapy dramatically blunts the inflammatory response, as does corticosteroid therapy, reactivation may appear as nonspecific malaise or may be misinterpreted as a flare in the underlying disease, and thus it may go undiagnosed. Patients should also be screened for exposure to hepatitis B virus. Vaccines, particularly live vaccines, are generally given if possible before starting anti-TNF therapy, and all patients on chronic therapy should get annual influenza vaccines.

Despite initial concerns about a dramatically increased risk of routine and opportunistic infections in patients on anti-TNF therapy, this has not been observed. Even in the perioperative setting, the increased risk of infection is modest. What has struck me, however, is the way these drugs, like steroids, blunt and mask the signs of infection. I have seen deep soft-tissue, intra-abdominal, and native and prosthetic joint infections go unsuspected for days or even weeks in the absence of significant fever, elevation in acute-phase markers, or dramatic local findings. We must be extra vigilant.

There is a fear of malignancy arising or recurring in patients on anti-TNF therapy. This fear is certainly promoted by the required black-box warning about the risk of lymphoma and other malignancies that these drugs carry. The evidence of a significant increase in risk of malignancies other than hepatosplenic T-cell lymphoma in children and nonmelanoma skin cancers is not strong and is likely slanted by an increased risk of certain malignancies associated with the underlying rheumatic disease and other previous therapies. Nonetheless, I am reluctant to use these drugs in patients with a history of melanoma.

We still have much to learn about these drugs. Why are specific agents more effective in some diseases than others? For example, etanercept treats rheumatoid arthritis but not Crohn disease. Also, we still do not know how they can elicit reversible demyelinating disorders or autoantibodies with or without associated drug-induced lupus syndromes. Even odder is the occurrence of psoriasis induced by anti-TNF drugs, despite their being used to treat psoriasis.

My initial skepticism regarding anti-TNF drugs was unjustified. They are being tested and used successfully in an increasing number of diseases. But we all need to increase our familiarity with their unique risks and somehow find a way to deal with their unique cost.

Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 81(2)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
71-72
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information
Author and Disclosure Information
Article PDF
Article PDF

About 15 years ago, the first anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) drugs received approval for treating Crohn disease and rheumatoid arthritis, and a new era of pharmacotherapy was born. A few years before that, I was at a meeting discussing the potential benefits and pitfalls of these new biologic therapies, and I opined that no one would pay for them on an ongoing basis unless they were amazingly effective—which was unlikely, as the drugs only affected a single cytokine. And if they were effective, they would undoubtedly be associated with a host of opportunistic infections. Given my predictive skills, it is no surprise that Warren Buffett rarely calls to ask my opinion.

Clearly, anti-TNF drugs are effective and have raised the bar for how we define successful response to therapy. But recent studies in early rheumatoid arthritis indicate that they may not be much better than traditional combination therapy or monotherapy with methotrexate if the methotrexate and the other drugs are given and tolerated at full dose. This is clearly not the case for other inflammatory diseases.

Anti-TNF drugs and other biologics are now part of the arsenal of most medical specialists, so outpatient internists and hospitalists increasingly encounter patients taking these drugs. Since patients with systemic inflammatory disease have an increased prevalence of cardiovascular disease, cardiologists are also seeing more patients taking these drugs. Thus, the overview by Hadam et al in this issue of the Journal on the risks of biologic therapies is relevant to many readers.

Almost all prescriptions and requests for insurance approval for these drugs are written by subspecialists familiar with their risks. But patients may ask their primary care physicians about the tests and vaccines recommended for those about to start anti-TNF therapy. Before starting anti-TNF therapy, all patients should be tested for previous exposure to tuberculosis and should be treated for latent tuberculosis if appropriate. Blocking TNF leads to a breakdown of the protective granulomatous inflammatory response that contains the mycobacteria and, as with corticosteroid treatment, results in reactivation of the disease. Interestingly, the reactivation is quite often not in the lungs. And since anti-TNF therapy dramatically blunts the inflammatory response, as does corticosteroid therapy, reactivation may appear as nonspecific malaise or may be misinterpreted as a flare in the underlying disease, and thus it may go undiagnosed. Patients should also be screened for exposure to hepatitis B virus. Vaccines, particularly live vaccines, are generally given if possible before starting anti-TNF therapy, and all patients on chronic therapy should get annual influenza vaccines.

Despite initial concerns about a dramatically increased risk of routine and opportunistic infections in patients on anti-TNF therapy, this has not been observed. Even in the perioperative setting, the increased risk of infection is modest. What has struck me, however, is the way these drugs, like steroids, blunt and mask the signs of infection. I have seen deep soft-tissue, intra-abdominal, and native and prosthetic joint infections go unsuspected for days or even weeks in the absence of significant fever, elevation in acute-phase markers, or dramatic local findings. We must be extra vigilant.

There is a fear of malignancy arising or recurring in patients on anti-TNF therapy. This fear is certainly promoted by the required black-box warning about the risk of lymphoma and other malignancies that these drugs carry. The evidence of a significant increase in risk of malignancies other than hepatosplenic T-cell lymphoma in children and nonmelanoma skin cancers is not strong and is likely slanted by an increased risk of certain malignancies associated with the underlying rheumatic disease and other previous therapies. Nonetheless, I am reluctant to use these drugs in patients with a history of melanoma.

We still have much to learn about these drugs. Why are specific agents more effective in some diseases than others? For example, etanercept treats rheumatoid arthritis but not Crohn disease. Also, we still do not know how they can elicit reversible demyelinating disorders or autoantibodies with or without associated drug-induced lupus syndromes. Even odder is the occurrence of psoriasis induced by anti-TNF drugs, despite their being used to treat psoriasis.

My initial skepticism regarding anti-TNF drugs was unjustified. They are being tested and used successfully in an increasing number of diseases. But we all need to increase our familiarity with their unique risks and somehow find a way to deal with their unique cost.

About 15 years ago, the first anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) drugs received approval for treating Crohn disease and rheumatoid arthritis, and a new era of pharmacotherapy was born. A few years before that, I was at a meeting discussing the potential benefits and pitfalls of these new biologic therapies, and I opined that no one would pay for them on an ongoing basis unless they were amazingly effective—which was unlikely, as the drugs only affected a single cytokine. And if they were effective, they would undoubtedly be associated with a host of opportunistic infections. Given my predictive skills, it is no surprise that Warren Buffett rarely calls to ask my opinion.

Clearly, anti-TNF drugs are effective and have raised the bar for how we define successful response to therapy. But recent studies in early rheumatoid arthritis indicate that they may not be much better than traditional combination therapy or monotherapy with methotrexate if the methotrexate and the other drugs are given and tolerated at full dose. This is clearly not the case for other inflammatory diseases.

Anti-TNF drugs and other biologics are now part of the arsenal of most medical specialists, so outpatient internists and hospitalists increasingly encounter patients taking these drugs. Since patients with systemic inflammatory disease have an increased prevalence of cardiovascular disease, cardiologists are also seeing more patients taking these drugs. Thus, the overview by Hadam et al in this issue of the Journal on the risks of biologic therapies is relevant to many readers.

Almost all prescriptions and requests for insurance approval for these drugs are written by subspecialists familiar with their risks. But patients may ask their primary care physicians about the tests and vaccines recommended for those about to start anti-TNF therapy. Before starting anti-TNF therapy, all patients should be tested for previous exposure to tuberculosis and should be treated for latent tuberculosis if appropriate. Blocking TNF leads to a breakdown of the protective granulomatous inflammatory response that contains the mycobacteria and, as with corticosteroid treatment, results in reactivation of the disease. Interestingly, the reactivation is quite often not in the lungs. And since anti-TNF therapy dramatically blunts the inflammatory response, as does corticosteroid therapy, reactivation may appear as nonspecific malaise or may be misinterpreted as a flare in the underlying disease, and thus it may go undiagnosed. Patients should also be screened for exposure to hepatitis B virus. Vaccines, particularly live vaccines, are generally given if possible before starting anti-TNF therapy, and all patients on chronic therapy should get annual influenza vaccines.

Despite initial concerns about a dramatically increased risk of routine and opportunistic infections in patients on anti-TNF therapy, this has not been observed. Even in the perioperative setting, the increased risk of infection is modest. What has struck me, however, is the way these drugs, like steroids, blunt and mask the signs of infection. I have seen deep soft-tissue, intra-abdominal, and native and prosthetic joint infections go unsuspected for days or even weeks in the absence of significant fever, elevation in acute-phase markers, or dramatic local findings. We must be extra vigilant.

There is a fear of malignancy arising or recurring in patients on anti-TNF therapy. This fear is certainly promoted by the required black-box warning about the risk of lymphoma and other malignancies that these drugs carry. The evidence of a significant increase in risk of malignancies other than hepatosplenic T-cell lymphoma in children and nonmelanoma skin cancers is not strong and is likely slanted by an increased risk of certain malignancies associated with the underlying rheumatic disease and other previous therapies. Nonetheless, I am reluctant to use these drugs in patients with a history of melanoma.

We still have much to learn about these drugs. Why are specific agents more effective in some diseases than others? For example, etanercept treats rheumatoid arthritis but not Crohn disease. Also, we still do not know how they can elicit reversible demyelinating disorders or autoantibodies with or without associated drug-induced lupus syndromes. Even odder is the occurrence of psoriasis induced by anti-TNF drugs, despite their being used to treat psoriasis.

My initial skepticism regarding anti-TNF drugs was unjustified. They are being tested and used successfully in an increasing number of diseases. But we all need to increase our familiarity with their unique risks and somehow find a way to deal with their unique cost.

Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 81(2)
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 81(2)
Page Number
71-72
Page Number
71-72
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
The impact of anti-TNF therapy on the nonspecialist
Display Headline
The impact of anti-TNF therapy on the nonspecialist
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Alternative CME
Article PDF Media

Managing risks of TNF inhibitors: An update for the internist

Article Type
Changed
Wed, 09/13/2017 - 08:49
Display Headline
Managing risks of TNF inhibitors: An update for the internist

Biologic agents such as those that block tumor necrosis factor (TNF) alpha have revolutionized the treatment of autoimmune diseases like rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease, dramatically improving disease control and quality of life. In addition, they have made true disease remission possible in some cases.

However, as with any new therapy, a variety of side effects must be considered.

WHAT ARE BIOLOGIC AGENTS?

Biologic agents are genetically engineered drugs manufactured or synthesized in vitro from molecules such as proteins, genes, and antibodies present in living organisms. By targeting specific molecular components of the inflammatory cascade, including cytokines, these drugs alter certain aspects of the body’s inflammatory response in autoimmune diseases. Because TNF inhibitors are the most widely used biologic agents in the United States, this review will focus on them.

TNF INHIBITORS

TNF inhibitors suppress the inflammatory cascade by inactivating TNF alpha, a cytokine that promotes inflammation in the intestine, synovial tissue, and other sites.1,2

Several TNF inhibitors are available. Etanercept and infliximab were the first two to receive US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval, and they are extensively used. Etanercept, a soluble TNF receptor given subcutaneously, was approved for treating rheumatoid arthritis in 1998. Infliximab, a chimeric monoclonal antibody (75% human and 25% mouse protein sequence) given intravenously, received FDA approval for treating Crohn disease in 1998 and for rheumatoid arthritis in 1999. Other anti-TNF agents with varying properties are also available.

Table 1 lists anti-TNF agents approved for treating rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease. These are chronic, relapsing diseases that significantly and dramatically reduce quality of life, especially when they are poorly controlled.3,4 Untreated disease has been associated with malignancy, infection, pregnancy loss, and malnutrition.5–8 TNF inhibitors are aimed at patients who have moderate to severe disease or for whom previous treatments have failed, to help them achieve and maintain steroid-free remission. However, use of these agents is tempered by the risk of potentially serious side effects.

Special thought should also be given to the direct costs of the drugs (up to $30,000 per year, not counting the cost of their administration) and to the indirect costs such as time away from work to receive treatment. These are major considerations in some cases, and patients should be selected carefully for treatment with these drugs.

BEFORE STARTING THERAPY

Before starting anti-TNF therapy, several steps can reduce the risk of serious adverse events.

Take a focused history

The clinical history should include inquiries about previous bacterial, fungal, and tuberculosis infections or exposure; diabetes; and other immunocompromised states that increase the risk of acquiring potentially life-threatening infections.

Details of particular geographic areas of residence, occupational exposures, and social history should be sought. These include history of incarceration (which may put patients at risk of tuberculosis) and residence in the Ohio River valley or in the southwestern or midwestern United States (which may increase the risk of histoplasmosis, coccidioidomycosis, and other fungal infections).

Bring vaccinations up to date

Age-appropriate vaccinations should be discussed and given, ideally before starting therapy. These include influenza vaccine every year and tetanus boosters every 10 years for all and, as appropriate, varicella, human papillomavirus, and pneumococcal vaccinations. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend an additional dose of the pneumococcal vaccine if more than 5 years have elapsed since the first one, and many clinicians opt to give it every 5 years.

In general, live-attenuated vaccines, including the intranasal influenza vaccine, are contraindicated in patients taking biologic agents.9 For patients at high risk of exposure or infection, it may be reasonable to hold the biologic agent for a period of time, vaccinate, and resume the biologic agent a month later.

Recent data suggest that the varicella zoster vaccine may be safely given to older patients with immune-mediated diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease taking biologic agents.10 New guidelines from the American College of Rheumatology recommend age-appropriate vaccines for rheumatoid arthritis patients age 60 and older before biologic treatments are started. Case-by-case discussion with the subspecialist and the patient is recommended.

Screen for chronic infections

Tuberculosis screening with a purified protein derivative test or an interferon-gamma-release (Quantiferon) assay followed by chest radiography in patients with a positive test is mandatory before giving a TNF inhibitor.

Hepatitis B virus status should be determined before starting anti-TNF therapy.11

Hepatitis B vaccination has been recommended for patients with inflammatory bowel disease, but no clear recommendation exists for patients with rheumatic disease. Patients with inflammatory bowel disease tend to have low rates of response to hepatitis B vaccination12,13; possible reasons include their lack of an appropriate innate immune response to infectious agents, malnutrition, surgery, older age, and immunosuppressive drugs.14 An accelerated vaccination protocol with recombinant hepatitis B vaccine (Energix-B) in a double dose at 0, 1, and 2 months has been shown to improve response rates.15

Whenever possible, it may be better to vaccinate patients before starting immunosuppressive therapy, and to check postvaccination titers to ensure adequate response.

 

 

Perform an examination

A full physical examination with special attention to skin rashes should be performed. This may serve as a baseline to assist early detection of new rashes associated with anti-TNF therapy.

A baseline complete blood cell count and complete metabolic panel should be routinely obtained before starting therapy (and thereafter at the discretion of the physician). In conjunction with follow-up tests, they can help detect an unexpected decrease in white blood cell count or abnormal results on the liver panel.16 These baseline and follow-up tests are generally performed by the subspecialist, and the results are shared with the primary care physician.

Table 2 summarizes key information to be sought before starting a patient on a TNF inhibitor.

ADVERSE EFFECTS OF ANTI-TNF DRUGS

Infusion reactions, infections, cardiac arrhythmias, demyelinating disorders, skin infections, and malignancies have been reported with anti-TNF therapy. The relative frequencies of these adverse events are summarized in Table 3.17–22

NONINFECTIOUS COMPLICATIONS OF TNF INHIBITORS

Injection site reactions

When anti-TNF agents are given subcutaneously, injection site reactions are common (occurring in up to 40% of patients) and are considered minor.11 Reactions, including significant pain, typically occur within the first few months of therapy. They can last 2 to 5 days but rarely warrant stopping therapy. Treatment with ice and an antihistamine is almost always sufficient to control symptoms.

Infusion reactions with infliximab

Infliximab can cause both acute and delayed infusion reactions. Acute reactions can occur up to 24 hours after infusion but usually appear within 10 minutes of administration and are handled by the infusion suite staff. They range from the severe immunoglobulin E-mediated type I reaction, manifesting with hypotension, bronchospasm, and urticaria, to the milder anaphylactoid-type reaction, which constitutes the majority.23–25

While most primary care physicians will not encounter an acute reaction, family doctors and emergency room physicians may encounter delayed reactions, which can develop 1 to 14 days after infusion. These reactions usually resemble serum sickness and present with joint pain, fatigue, myalgia, and fever. But, unlike classic serum sickness, these reactions are generally not associated with a rash.

With nonspecific symptoms, the diagnosis may be easy to overlook. However, establishing this diagnosis is important because repeat therapy may result in a more severe reaction upon reexposure to the drug.

Once diagnosed, these reactions can be treated symptomatically with a combination of acetaminophen and diphenhydramine after discussion between the primary care physician and subspecialist.23,24

Autoimmune syndromes

Several studies have reported a small percentage of patients treated with anti-TNF agents who develop paradoxical autoimmune conditions. These range from asymptomatic immunologic alterations, including the formation of antinuclear antibodies and antibodies to double-stranded DNA, to life-threatening systemic autoimmune diseases.26,27

Autoimmune diseases associated with anti-TNF treatment include a lupus-like syndrome, vasculitides, and psoriatic skin lesions. These syndromes warrant stopping the inciting drug and, on occasion, giving corticosteroids. Most cases arise between 1 month and 1 year of starting treatment, and almost 75% resolve completely after the anti-TNF therapy is stopped.26

Interestingly, anti-TNF agents are approved for treating psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, but psoriasis has paradoxically developed in patients being treated with these drugs for other autoimmune diseases. The FDA has reviewed 69 cases of new-onset psoriasis with anti-TNF therapy, including 17 pustular and 15 palmoplantar cases. The 12 most severe cases resulted in hospitalization, and symptoms resolved in most after treatment cessation.28

Figure 1. New-onset psoriasis in a patient receiving a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor.

Fiorino et al29 counted 18 reported cases of psoriasis induced by anti-TNF therapy in patients with inflammatory bowel disease and concluded that it is rare. Harrison et al30 reported similar findings in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, with an increased incidence rate of 1.04 per 1,000 person-years. New-onset psoriasis was most common in patients treated with adalimumab. An example of the rash is seen in Figure 1.

CARDIOVASCULAR SIDE EFFECTS

Cardiovascular side effects of anti-TNF agents range from nonspecific and asymptomatic arrhythmias to worsening of heart failure.

Circulating levels of TNF are increased in patients with heart failure, and studies have evaluated the effects of TNF inhibition with infliximab on cardiac function and overall survival.31,32 The combined risk of death from any cause or hospitalization from heart failure was significantly higher in the infliximab groups, and the effects persisted for up to 5 months after stopping therapy.

Other studies22,33 have evaluated the effects of infliximab and etanercept on cardiac function and overall survival. Results showed possible exacerbation of heart failure with etanercept and increased risk of death with infliximab in patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III or IV heart failure and left ventricular ejection fractions less than 35%.

Case reports have also described patients with worsening or new-onset heart failure on TNF inhibitors, including patients younger than 50 years and without identifiable cardiovascular risk factors.

Data analyses31,34,35 from large clinical registries have reported no significant increase in heart failure attributable to TNF inhibitors. However, we have concerns about the methodology of these analyses.

Currently, anti-TNF therapy is contraindicated in patients with NYHA class III or IV heart failure. Data are inconclusive for patients with class I or II heart failure. Baseline echocardiography and cardiology consultation can be considered, with close monitoring and avoidance of high doses of TNF inhibitors. If heart failure develops in a patient on anti-TNF therapy, the drug should be discontinued and the patient should be evaluated further.36

 

 

DEMYELINATING DISEASE, INCLUDING MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS

Anti-TNF agents have been associated with the onset or exacerbation of clinical symptoms and radiographic evidence of central nervous system demyelinating disorders, including multiple sclerosis.37–40 Mohan et al38 identified 19 cases of demyelinating events occurring after administration of anti-TNF agents in early 2001. In most cases, symptoms improved or resolved after therapy was stopped.

Optic neuritis,41,42 bilateral optic neuropathy,43 and aseptic meningitis44 have also been reported, but these have occurred only rarely.

How common are these effects? Postmarketing surveillance in patients with rheumatoid arthritis yields an estimated incidence of demyelinating disorders of 1 per 1,000 patient-years with adalimumab therapy.45 Complicating the assessment is an observed slight increase in risk of demyelinating conditions associated with inflammatory bowel disease.

Symptoms that should heighten the physician’s suspicion of this adverse effect include confusion, paresthesias, and ataxia. Patients on anti-TNF therapy who develop new visual symptoms should be checked for painless visual loss as a sign of early demyelinating disease.

Although data that conclusively link anti-TNF agents to multiple sclerosis are lacking, these drugs should not be initiated in patients who have a history of demyelinating disease, and treatment should be stopped promptly if the diagnosis is suspected.

MALIGNANCY

Whether anti-TNF therapy is directly linked to development of malignancies is difficult to determine. There are many confounding factors, including the risk of malignancy in underlying inflammatory disease and the concomitant use of other medications such as thiopurines, which have a known association with lymphoma.46

The incidence of lymphoma is twice as high in rheumatoid arthritis patients as in the general population.47 The risk is higher in those with more aggressive joint disease—the subset of rheumatoid arthritis patients who are more likely to be given anti-TNF agents.5

In patients with inflammatory bowel disease, the risk of cholangiocarcinoma is four times higher, and the risk of small-bowel adenocarcinoma is 16 to 18 times higher, but no increased risk of lymphoma has been identified in this population.48,49

Data from six clinical trials of infliximab, including a long-term study of its safety in Crohn disease, suggest it poses no increase in overall risk of malignancy.50–52 Similar results have been reported in patients with other rheumatic diseases.8 Information on this topic is constantly evolving, and studies range from case series to clinical trials to large patient registries.

The decision to use a TNF inhibitor should be based on the patient’s clinical picture and risk factors. Discussion of the risks and benefits of therapy with the patient should be clearly documented.

Non-Hodgkin lymphoma

Evidence about the risk of lymphoma with anti-TNF use is mixed, as up to two-thirds of patients on anti-TNF therapy have received concomitant nonbiologic immunosuppressive medications, making it difficult to determine the true risk from the biologic agents alone.53 Current evidence both supports9,53–56 and refutes7,55,57–60 the idea that anti-TNF agents increase lymphoma risk.

In patients with inflammatory bowel disease, several population-based studies have not shown a clear increase in lymphoma risk with anti-TNF use.56,59,60 Pedersen et al,61 in a meta-analysis of eight studies, confirmed these findings by showing no overall lymphoma risk in patients with inflammatory bowel disease.

However, a Canadian population-based study found a statistically significant increase in non-Hodgkin lymphoma in males with Crohn disease, with an incidence ratio of 3.63 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.53–8.62).61 Additionally, Siegel et al62 found a significantly higher risk (6.1 cases per 10,000 patients) in patients treated with anti-TNF agents and thiopurines than in the general population (1.9 cases per 10,000 people). Although the difference was statistically significant, the overall risk is still very low.

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis seem to have a risk of lymphoma two to three times higher than in the general population. However, large population-based studies have not shown a statistically significant increase in the risk of lymphoma with anti-TNF therapy.63

Hepatosplenic T-cell lymphoma is a rare subtype of peripheral T-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma; 25 cases have been reported in patients receiving anti-TNF therapy.64 Although the risk is extremely low (< 0.05%), physicians must carefully consider the risks and benefits of combination therapy, especially in young male patients with inflammatory bowel disease, since death is the usual outcome of this disease.65–67

Skin cancers

Wolfe and Michaud8 evaluated malignancy risk in rheumatoid arthritis patients being treated with biologic agents, including TNF inhibitors, using a large longitudinal database. These data were compared with those of the US Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End-Results (SEER) national database. No increase in the overall cancer rate was seen in rheumatoid arthritis patients (standardized incidence ratio [SIR] 1.0, 95% CI 1.0–1.1).

However, melanoma was more common in rheumatoid arthritis patients compared with SEER rates (SIR 1.7, 95% CI 1.3–2.3).8 In addition, biologic therapy was associated with a higher (but not statistically significant) risk of melanoma (odds ratio [OR] 2.3, 95% CI 0.9–5.4) and a higher risk of nonmelanoma skin cancer (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.2–1.8), but not of other types of cancer.8

INFECTION

Patients on anti-TNF therapy are at a higher risk of infection, ranging from minor to life-threatening bacterial infections, and including the reactivation of granulomatous and fungal infections. More importantly, these agents are similar to steroids in blunting signs of infection, which may delay diagnosis and treatment.

The management of infection in patients on anti-TNF medications varies from case to case. In general, patients with a minor infection that does not require hospitalization or intravenous antibiotics can continue the biologic therapy while taking oral antibiotics. TNF inhibitors must be held in the event of a major infection.

Consultation with an infectious disease specialist is recommended, especially in complex cases.

Bacterial infections

An increased risk of minor bacterial infections such as urinary tract and respiratory infections has been well documented in several randomized control trials of anti-TNF agents, though other studies have shown no such increase in risk.33,51–59

The threshold for using antibiotics for a suspected bacterial infection is somewhat shifted in favor of treatment in patients on anti-TNF therapy. The reason is twofold: as previously noted, infections may be worse than they appear, because anti-TNF drugs can mask the signs and symptoms of a serious infection, and in patients on these drugs, an untreated bacterial infection may rapidly become life-threatening.

In general, broad-spectrum antibiotics are not warranted unless the source of infection is unclear or the patient is in danger of hemodynamic compromise.

Opportunistic infections

The association of anti-TNF agents with opportunistic infections could be viewed as an extension of their normal and intended therapeutic activity as potent immunosuppressive agents.68 Rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease are usually associated with conditions and situations that predispose patients to opportunistic infections, such as decreased immune response, malnutrition or malabsorption, surgeries, and concomitant immunosuppressive medications.7 Combination therapy with other immunosuppressive drugs and older age appear to markedly increase the risk of opportunistic infections, including mycobacterial and fungal infections, in patients with inflammatory bowel disease.7

Overall, opportunistic infections represent a measurable risk of anti-TNF therapy, and awareness and vigilance are important, especially in areas where opportunistic infections such as histoplasmosis and coccidiomycosis are endemic.50 Furthermore, physicians must be aware of the higher risk of opportunistic infections when multiple immunosuppressive drugs are used concurrently.

 

 

Granulomatous infections such as tuberculosis

Anti-TNF agents increase the risk of de novo granulomatous infections and of reactivating such infections. Granuloma formation and intracellular destruction of mycobacteria depend on TNF. TNF is important in maintaining the anatomic integrity of granulomas where these organisms have been sequestered, and blocking TNF leads to breakdown of granulomas and release of virulent organisms.69,70

TNF inhibitors increase the risk of reactivation of latent tuberculosis infection. The risk is greater with infliximab and adalimumab than with etanercept,71,72 and it has been described with certolizumab.74 Study results are varied thus far but show a risk of tuberculosis reactivation five to 30 times higher than in the general population, with tremendous variability in risk depending on background rates of previous exposure.

The absence of typical tuberculosis symptoms further complicates care in these cases. Fever, weight loss, and night sweats tend to be TNF-mediated and are therefore masked by anti-TNF agents, leading to atypical presentations. In addition, active tuberculosis infection associated with TNF inhibitors is more likely to involve extrapulmonary sites such as the skin and musculoskeletal system and to be disseminated at presentation.

A paradoxical worsening of tuberculosis symptoms may also be seen in patients with latent tuberculosis reactivation, especially after discontinuing anti-TNF therapy. This is thought to result from an immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome.

The pretreatment evaluation should include a history of risk factors, a physical examination, and either a tuberculin skin test or an interferon-gamma-release assay. Interferon-gamma-release assays are particularly helpful in patients who have received bacille Calmette-Guérin vaccination. In patients who test positive or have been exposed, tuberculosis treatment should begin 4 weeks before starting anti-TNF therapy, though the optimal timing of antituberculosis agents is still controversial.74–77

If tuberculosis develops in a patient on anti-TNF therapy, he or she should receive antituberculosis drugs. Anti-TNF therapy should be stopped and should be resumed after 2 months only if no other treatment option is available.75

Invasive opportunistic fungal infections

Invasive opportunistic fungal infections have been reported with anti-TNF therapy, including histoplasmosis and coccidioidomycosis.78–80 Most patients who had histoplasmosis were treated with other immunosuppressive therapies and resided in or were raised near the Ohio or Mississippi River valleys, where this disease is endemic. Similarly, most cases of coccidioidomycosis were in endemic areas of Arizona, California, and Nevada, and patients on concomitant immunosuppressive therapy.78

Currently, there is no evidence to recommend obtaining Histoplasma capsulatum or Coccidioides immitis serologies before initiating anti-TNF therapy in patients in endemic areas.81 However, patients must be instructed to seek medical attention quickly for pulmonary or febrile illnesses.

Viral hepatitis infections

The data on hepatitis B and hepatitis C in patients on biologic therapies are mostly limited to case reports.

Hepatitis B. A small prospective study from Spain followed the liver biochemistry tests and hepatitis B status of 80 patients with Crohn disease treated with infliximab. Of three patients who were chronic hepatitis B carriers before starting infliximab, two experienced reactivation of hepatitis B after discontinuing infliximab, and one ultimately died. The third patient was treated with lamivudine concurrently with infliximab without clinical or biochemical changes during or after therapy.82

Similar findings were observed in two patients with rheumatoid arthritis on treatment with infliximab. One of the patients required liver transplantation, and both were treated with lamivudine, resulting in normalization of liver function test results.83,84

Recent reviews indicate that despite these findings, hepatitis B reactivation after anti-TNF withdrawal may not be common.85 There are limited data on hepatitis B reactivation and associated liver dysfunction in patients with inflammatory bowel disease treated with immunosuppressants. In a retrospective multicenter trial by Loras et al86 in patients with inflammatory bowel disease who had viral hepatitis, 36% of patients positive for hepatitis B surface antigen developed liver dysfunction, and six patients developed liver failure. In that study, treatment with more than two immunosuppressants was an independent predictor of hepatitis B reactivation.

Prolonged immunosuppression (longer than 3 months) has also been identified as an independent predictor of liver dysfunction (OR 3.06; 95% 95% CI 1.02–9.16).87

The European Association for the Study of the Liver and the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases recommend starting lamivudine before chemotherapy or immunomodulator or immunosuppressive therapy in hepatitis B virus carriers and continuing preventive treatment for at least 6 months after stopping immunomodulating drugs. Lamivudine at a dose of 100 mg/day may reduce the risk of reactivation of hepatitis B.88–90 Tenofovir and entecavir may be useful alternatives in patients with hepatitis B who have never received nucleoside analogues. Hepatitis B reactivation did not occur in any of the 16 patients who received preventive entecavir treatment while receiving immunosuppressive treatments.89,91

In patients receiving immunosuppressive therapy, hepatitis B reactivation is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Although risk factors for reactivation of hepatitis B virus infection have been identified, we recommend preventive treatment for all carriers positive for hepatitis B surface antigen. This should be done regardless of the number, type, and dosage of immunosuppressants and regardless of hepatitis B virus DNA levels.90

The frequency of hepatitis B and hepatitis C infection in patients with Crohn disease has been reported to be as high as 24%. The high incidence is thought to be secondary to multiple blood transfusions and surgeries.92 The use of biologic agents, including anti-TNF agents, in chronic hepatitis B virus- or hepatitis C virus-infected patients can lead to enhanced viral replication and hepatitis exacerbation.

Although active viral replication can occur during treatment with biologic agents, reactivation or exacerbation can also occur after the anti-TNF agent is stopped.82 This finding has prompted the recommendation that all candidates for biologic therapy be tested for hepatitis B immunization status, followed by immunization in nonimmune patients before starting anti-TNF therapy.93,94

Hepatitis C. There are no guidelines that adequately address the use of anti-TNF agents in patients with chronic hepatitis C infection.

Several small retrospective studies in rheumatoid arthritis patients with hepatitis C have shown that TNF inhibitors can be safely used without worsening liver function tests or changing the viral load.95–98 This is reassuring and provides the subspecialist with another treatment option, as other therapies such as disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and steroids are known to aggravate viral hepatitis and increase the risk of viremia.96

Although small retrospective studies and one large randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial have shown TNF inhibitors to be relatively safe in rheumatoid arthritis patients with hepatitis C, their use in these patients should be considered only with caution if they have evidence of hepatic synthetic dysfunction (eg, hypoalbuminemia, thrombocytopenia, increased international normalized ratio). The American College of Rheumatology recommends avoiding TNF inhibitors in Child-Pugh classes B and C.99

 

 

PREGNANCY

Physicians caring for patients with rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease must be aware of how these diseases affect fecundity and fertility and how the medications can affect conception and pregnancy. Many patients have difficulty conceiving while their autoimmune disease is active, and better disease control may improve fecundity and result in unanticipated pregnancy. Patients should be advised of the need for contraception if pregnancy is ill-advised or undesired.

Many patients seek advice about teratogenicity before conceiving, or seek guidance about rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease treatment while pregnant.

Several studies have reported a higher risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease than in the general population.99–105 In inflammatory bowel disease, the odds of a premature delivery or having a low-birth-weight child are twice as high as in the normal population.100,103 Higher rates of cesarean delivery and stillbirth have also been reported. The main predisposing factor appears to be the disease activity at the time of conception, as active disease seems to be linked to adverse pregnancy outcomes.

Treatment with anti-TNF agents may rapidly achieve and maintain remission, raising the question of the safety of continued anti-TNF use during pregnancy. The FDA classifies anti-TNF agents as category B drugs, as animal studies have not demonstrated fetal risk, and no well-controlled prospective study has yet been conducted with pregnant women.

In an observational study, Schnitzler et al105 assessed the outcomes of 42 pregnancies in 35 patients with inflammatory bowel disease receiving either infliximab or adalimumab during pregnancy, compared with 56 pregnancies in 45 healthy patients without inflammatory bowel disease. There was no statistical difference in abortion rates between patients receiving anti-TNF agents and healthy women without inflammatory bowel disease (21% vs 14%, P = .4234). There was also no significant difference observed in birth weight, birth length, or cranial circumference of the children between the two groups. However, pregnancies with direct exposure to anti-TNF agents resulted in a higher frequency of premature delivery (25% vs 6%, P = .023).

Similar results were noted from the Crohn’s Therapy, Resource, Evaluation, and Assessment Tool, or TREAT, registry, as well as from a large systematic review by Vinet et al106 and case reports of rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease in women exposed to anti-TNF agents during pregnancy.

In addition, results from a recent systematic review of 38 studies of anti-TNF use and fetal risk, with a total of 437 women (189 on infliximab, 230 on adalimumab, 18 on certolizumab pegol), showed similar results.107 In pregnancies exposed to anti-TNF agents, the rates of congenital abnormalities (3.4%), fetal deaths (8.5%), and preterm births (2.7%) were similar to those in the general population.

For patients in disease remission on TNF inhibitors, it is reasonable to continue these agents during pregnancy after careful discussion with the patient. Fetal safety and infant immunization response after delivery are the primary concerns in these cases.

Both infliximab and adalimumab cross the placenta and remain detectable in the baby’s circulation 4 months (for adalimumab) to 6 months (for infliximab) after delivery. It is currently recommended that infliximab be stopped at 32 weeks of gestation for the remainder of the pregnancy and that adalimumab be stopped at 34 to 36 weeks, given a planned 40-week gestation.

Certolizumab does not cross the placenta in significant amounts and should be continued throughout pregnancy; drug levels in infants were shown to be less than 2 μg/mL, even when dosed the week of delivery.108–112

TAKE-HOME POINTS

  • All health care providers of patients with rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease should be familiar with anti-TNF agents used in treating these diseases.
  • The benefits of controlling the disease far outweigh the risks of therapy when used appropriately.
  • Care of these patients should be multidisciplinary, with clear communication between primary care physician and specialist.
  • Patient education and monitoring combined with prompt communication between primary care physician and specialist are key.
References
  1. Wijbrandts CA, Dijkgraaf MG, Kraan MC, et al. The clinical response to infliximab in rheumatoid arthritis is in part dependent on pretreatment tumour necrosis factor alpha expression in the synovium. Ann Rheum Dis 2008; 67:11391144.
  2. Sfikakis PP. The first decade of biologic TNF antagonists in clinical practice: lessons learned, unresolved issues and future directions. Curr Dir Autoimmun 2010; 11:180210.
  3. Casellas F, Alcalá MJ, Prieto L, Miró JR, Malagelada JR. Assessment of the influence of disease activity on the quality of life of patients with inflammatory bowel disease using a short questionnaire. Am J Gastroenterol 2004; 99:457461.
  4. Casellas F, López-Vivancos J, Badia X, Vilaseca J, Malagelada JR. Influence of inflammatory bowel disease on different dimensions of quality of life. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2001; 13:567572.
  5. Baecklund E, Iliadou A, Askling J, et al. Association of chronic inflammation, not its treatment, with increased lymphoma risk in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2006; 54:692701.
  6. Franklin J, Lunt M, Bunn D, Symmons D, Silman A. Incidence of lymphoma in a large primary care derived cohort of cases of inflammatory polyarthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2006; 65:617622.
  7. Toruner M, Loftus EV, Harmsen WS, et al. Risk factors for opportunistic infections in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Gastroenterology 2008; 134:929936.
  8. Wolfe F, Michaud K. Biologic treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and the risk of malignancy: analyses from a large US observational study. Arthritis Rheum 2007; 56:28862895.
  9. Prevention of pneumococcal disease: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). MMWR Recomm Rep 1997; 46:124.
  10. Zhang J, Xie F, Delzell E, et al. Association between vaccination for herpes zoster and risk of herpes zoster infection among older patients with selected immune-mediated diseases. JAMA 2012; 308:4349.
  11. Moreland LW, Baumgartner SW, Schiff MH, et al. Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with a recombinant human tumor necrosis factor receptor (p75)-Fc fusion protein. N Engl J Med 1997; 337:141147.
  12. Altunöz ME, Senates E, Yesil A, Calhan T, Ovünç AO. Patients with inflammatory bowel disease have a lower response rate to HBV vaccination compared to controls. Dig Dis Sci 2012; 57:10391044.
  13. Gisbert JP, Villagrasa JR, Rodríguez-Nogueiras A, Chaparro M. Efficacy of hepatitis B vaccination and revaccination and factors impacting on response in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Am J Gastroenterol 2012; 107:14601466.
  14. Carrera E, Manzano R, Garrido E. Efficacy of the vaccination in inflammatory bowel disease. World J Gastroenterol 2013; 19:13491353.
  15. Gisbert JP, Menchén L, García-Sánchez V, Marín I, Villagrasa JR, Chaparro M. Comparison of the effectiveness of two protocols for vaccination (standard and double dosage) against hepatitis B virus in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2012; 35:13791385.
  16. Ferkolj I. How to improve the safety of biologic therapy in Crohn’s disease. J Physiol Pharmacol 2009; 60(suppl 7):6770.
  17. Siegel CA. The risks of biologic therapy for inflammatory bowel disease. In:Bernstein ED, editor. The Inflammatory Bowel Disease Yearbook, volume 6. London, UK: Remedica, 2010:89108.
  18. Remicade (infliximab) Package Insert. Horsham, PA: Janssen Biotech, Inc; 2013. http://www.remicade.com/shared/product/remicade/prescribing-information.pdf. Accessed January 2, 2014.
  19. Vermeire S, Noman M, Van Assche G, et al. Autoimmunity associated with anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha treatment in Crohn’s disease: a prospective cohort study. Gastroenterology 2003; 125:3239.
  20. Cush JJ. Biological drug use: US perspectives on indications and monitoring. Ann Rheum Dis 2005; 64(suppl 4):iv18iv23.
  21. TNF neutralization in MS: results of a randomized, placebo-controlled multicenter study. The Lenercept Multiple Sclerosis Study Group and The University of British Columbia MS/MRI Analysis Group. Neurology 1999; 53:457465.
  22. Chung ES, Packer M, Lo KH, Fasanmade AA, Willerson JT; Anti-TNF Therapy Against Congestive Heart Failure Investigators. Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, pilot trial of infliximab, a chimeric monoclonal antibody to tumor necrosis factor-alpha, in patients with moderate-to-severe heart failure: results of the anti-TNF Therapy Against Congestive Heart Failure (ATTACH) trial. Circulation 2003; 107:31333140.
  23. Cheifetz A, Mayer L. Monoclonal antibodies, immunogenicity, and associated infusion reactions. Mt Sinai J Med 2005; 72:250256.
  24. Cheifetz A, Smedley M, Martin S, et al. The incidence and management of infusion reactions to infliximab: a large center experience. Am J Gastroenterol 2003; 98:13151324.
  25. Vultaggio A, Matucci A, Nencini F, et al. Anti-infliximab IgE and non-IgE antibodies and induction of infusion-related severe anaphylactic reactions. Allergy 2010; 65:657661.
  26. Ramos-Casals M, Brito-Zerón P, Muñoz S, et al. Autoimmune diseases induced by TNF-targeted therapies: analysis of 233 cases. Medicine (Baltimore) 2007; 86:242251.
  27. Stallmach A, Hagel S, Bruns T. Adverse effects of biologics used for treating IBD. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 2010; 24:167182.
  28. Haagsma CJ, Blom HJ, van Riel PL, et al. Influence of sulphasalazine, methotrexate, and the combination of both on plasma homocysteine concentrations in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 1999; 58:7984.
  29. Fiorino G, Allez M, Malesci A, Danese S. Review article: anti TNF-alpha induced psoriasis in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2009; 29:921927.
  30. Harrison MJ, Dixon WG, Watson KD, et al; British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register Control Centre Consortium; BSRBR. Rates of new-onset psoriasis in patients with rheumatoid arthritis receiving anti-tumour necrosis factor alpha therapy: results from the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register. Ann Rheum Dis 2009; 68:209215.
  31. Marchesoni A, Zaccara E, Gorla R, et al. TNF-alpha antagonist survival rate in a cohort of rheumatoid arthritis patients observed under conditions of standard clinical practice. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2009; 1173:837846.
  32. Tomas L, Lazurova I, Pundova L, et al. Acute and long-term effect of infliximab on humoral and echocardiographic parameters in patients with chronic inflammatory diseases. Clin Rheumatol 2013 32:6166.
  33. Senel S, Cobankara V, Taskoylu O, et al. The safety and efficacy of etanercept on cardiac functions and lipid profile in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis. J Investig Med 2012; 60:6265.
  34. Al-Aly Z, Pan H, Zeringue A, et al. Tumor necrosis factor-a blockade, cardiovascular outcomes, and survival in rheumatoid arthritis. Transl Res 2011; 157:1018.
  35. Listing J, Strangfeld A, Kekow J, et al. Does tumor necrosis factor alpha inhibition promote or prevent heart failure in patients with rheumatoid arthritis? Arthritis Rheum 2008; 58:667677.
  36. Wolfe F, Michaud K. Heart failure in rheumatoid arthritis: rates, predictors, and the effect of anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy. Am J Med 2004; 116:305311.
  37. Enayati PJ, Papadakis KA. Association of anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy with the development of multiple sclerosis. J Clin Gastroenterol 2005; 39:303306.
  38. Mohan N, Edwards ET, Cupps TR, et al. Demyelination occurring during anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha therapy for inflammatory arthritides. Arthritis Rheum 2001; 44:28622869.
  39. Sands BE, Anderson FH, Bernstein CN, et al. Infliximab maintenance therapy for fistulizing Crohn’s disease. N Engl J Med 2004; 350:876885.
  40. Thomas CW, Weinshenker BG, Sandborn WJ. Demyelination during anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha therapy with infliximab for Crohn’s disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2004; 10:2831.
  41. Foroozan R, Buono LM, Sergott RC, Savino PJ. Retrobulbar optic neuritis associated with infliximab. Arch Ophthalmol 2002; 120:985987.
  42. Strong BY, Erny BC, Herzenberg H, Razzeca KJ. Retrobulbar optic neuritis associated with infliximab in a patient with Crohn disease. Ann Intern Med 2004; 140:W34.
  43. ten Tusscher MP, Jacobs PJ, Busch MJ, de Graaf L, Diemont WL. Bilateral anterior toxic optic neuropathy and the use of infliximab. BMJ 2003; 326:579.
  44. Hegde N, Gayomali C, Rich MW. Infliximab-induced headache and infliximab-induced meningitis: two ends of the same spectrum? South Med J 2005; 98:564566.
  45. Schiff MH, Burmester GR, Kent JD, et al. Safety analyses of adalimumab (HUMIRA) in global clinical trials and US postmarketing surveillance of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2006; 65:889894.
  46. Beaugerie L, Brousse N, Bouvier AM, et al; CESAME Study Group. Lymphoproliferative disorders in patients receiving thiopurines for inflammatory bowel disease: a prospective observational cohort study. Lancet 2009; 374:16171625.
  47. Ekström K, Hjalgrim H, Brandt L, et al. Risk of malignant lymphomas in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and in their first-degree relatives. Arthritis Rheum 2003; 48:963970.
  48. Lakatos PL, Lakatos L. Risk for colorectal cancer in ulcerative colitis: changes, causes and management strategies. World J Gastroenterol 2008; 14:39373947.
  49. Persson PG, Karlén P, Bernell O, et al. Crohn’s disease and cancer: a population-based cohort study. Gastroenterology 1994; 107:16751679.
  50. de Silva S, Devlin S, Panaccione R. Optimizing the safety of biologic therapy for IBD. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2010; 7:93101.
  51. Lichtenstein GR, Feagan BG, Cohen RD, et al. Serious infections and mortality in association with therapies for Crohn’s disease: TREAT registry. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2006; 4:621630.
  52. Peyrin-Biroulet L, Deltenre P, de Suray N, Branche J, Sandborn WJ, Colombel JF. Efficacy and safety of tumor necrosis factor antagonists in Crohn’s disease: meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2008; 6:644653.
  53. Hanauer SB, Feagan BG, Lichtenstein GR, et al; ACCENT I Study Group. Maintenance infliximab for Crohn’s disease: the ACCENT I randomised trial. Lancet 2002; 359:15411549.
  54. Colombel JF, Sandborn WJ, Rutgeerts P, et al. Adalimumab for maintenance of clinical response and remission in patients with Crohn’s disease: the CHARM trial. Gastroenterology 2007; 132:5265.
  55. Sandborn WJ, Feagan BG, Stoinov S, et al; PRECISE 1 Study Investigators. Certolizumab pegol for the treatment of Crohn’s disease. N Engl J Med 2007; 357:228238.
  56. Sandborn WJ, Hanauer SB, Rutgeerts P, et al. Adalimumab for maintenance treatment of Crohn’s disease: results of the CLASSIC II trial. Gut 2007; 56:12321239.
  57. Hanauer SB, Sandborn WJ, Rutgeerts P, et al. Human anti-tumor necrosis factor monoclonal antibody (adalimumab) in Crohn’s disease: the CLASSIC-I trial. Gastroenterology 2006; 130:323333.
  58. Rutgeerts P, D’Haens G, Targan S, et al. Efficacy and safety of retreatment with anti-tumor necrosis factor antibody (infliximab) to maintain remission in Crohn’s disease. Gastroenterology 1999; 117:761769.
  59. Rutgeerts P, Sandborn WJ, Feagan BG, et al. Infliximab for induction and maintenance therapy for ulcerative colitis. N Engl J Med 2005; 353:24622476.
  60. Pedersen N, Duricova D, Elkjaer M, Gamborg M, Munkholm P, Jess T. Risk of extra-intestinal cancer in inflammatory bowel disease: meta-analysis of population-based cohort studies. Am J Gastroenterol 2010; 105:14801487.
  61. Bernstein CN, Blanchard JF, Kliewer E, Wajda A. Cancer risk in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: a population-based study. Cancer 2001; 91:854862.
  62. Siegel CA, Marden SM, Persing SN, Larson RJ, Sands BE. Risk of lymphoma associated with combination anti-tumor necrosis factor and immunomodulator therapy for the treatment of Crohn’s disease: a meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2009; 7:874881.
  63. Wolfe F, Michaud K. Lympyhoma in rheumatoid arthritis. The effect of methotrexate and anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy in 18,572 patients. Arthritis Rheum 2004; 50:17401751.
  64. Parakkal D, Sifuentes H, Semer R, Ehrenpreis ED. Hepatosplenic T-cell lymphoma in patients receiving TNF-a inhibitor therapy: expanding the groups at risk. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2011; 23:11501156.
  65. Rosh JR, Gross T, Mamula P, Griffiths A, Hyams J. Hepatosplenic T-cell lymphoma in adolescents and young adults with Crohn’s disease: a cautionary tale? Inflamm Bowel Dis 2007; 13:10241030.
  66. Shale M, Kanfer E, Panaccione R, Ghosh S. Hepatosplenic T cell lymphoma in inflammatory bowel disease. Gut 2008; 57:16391641.
  67. Thai A, Prindiville T. Hepatosplenic T-cell lymphoma and inflammatory bowel disease. J Crohns Colitis 2010; 4:511522.
  68. Viget N, Vernier-Massouille G, Salmon-Ceron D, Yazdanpanah Y, Colombel JF. Opportunistic infections in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: prevention and diagnosis. Gut 2008; 57:549558.
  69. Bekker LG, Freeman S, Murray PJ, Ryffel B, Kaplan G. TNF-alpha controls intracellular mycobacterial growth by both inducible nitric oxide synthase-dependent and inducible nitric oxide synthase-independent pathways. J Immunol 2001; 166:67286734.
  70. Roach DR, Bean AG, Demangel C, France MP, Briscoe H, Britton WJ. TNF regulates chemokine induction essential for cell recruitment, granuloma formation, and clearance of mycobacterial infection. J Immunol 2002; 168:46204627.
  71. Gómez-Reino JJ, Carmona L, Valverde VR, Mola EM, Montero MDBIOBADASER Group. Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors may predispose to significant increase in tuberculosis risk: a multicenter active-surveillance report. Arthritis Rheum 2003; 48:21222127.
  72. Keane J, Gershon S, Wise RP, et al. Tuberculosis associated with infliximab, a tumor necrosis factor alpha-neutralizing agent. N Engl J Med 2001; 345:10981104.
  73. Smolen J, Landewé RB, Mease P, et al. Efficacy and safety of certolizumab pegol plus methotrexate in active rheumatoid arthritis: the RAPID 2 study. A randomised controlled trial. Ann Rheum Dis 2009; 68:797804.
  74. Demkow U, Broniarek-Samson B, Filewska M, et al. Prevalence of latent tuberculosis infection in health care workers in Poland assessed by interferon-gamma whole blood and tuberculin skin tests. J Physiol Pharmacol 2008; 59(suppl 6):209217.
  75. Pache I, Rogler G, Felley C. TNF-alpha blockers in inflammatory bowel diseases: practical consensus recommendations and a user’s guide. Swiss Med Wkly 2009; 139:278287.
  76. Rahier JF, Ben-Horin S, Chowers Y, et al; European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation (ECCO). European evidence-based consensus on the prevention, diagnosis and management of opportunistic infections in inflammatory bowel disease. J Crohns Colitis 2009; 3:4791.
  77. Rahier JF, Yazdanpanah Y, Colombel JF, Travis S. The European (ECCO) consensus on infection in IBD: what does it change for the clinician? Gut 2009; 58:13131315.
  78. Bergstrom L, Yocum DE, Ampel NM, et al. Increased risk of coccidioidomycosis in patients treated with tumor necrosis factor alpha antagonists. Arthritis Rheum 2004; 50:19591966.
  79. Lee JH, Slifman NR, Gershon SK, et al. Life-threatening histoplasmosis complicating immunotherapy with tumor necrosis factor alpha antagonists infliximab and etanercept. Arthritis Rheum 2002; 46:25652570.
  80. Wood KL, Hage CA, Knox KS, et al. Histoplasmosis after treatment with anti-tumor necrosis factor-alpha therapy. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2003; 167:12791282.
  81. Reddy JG, Loftus EV. Safety of infliximab and other biologic agents in the inflammatory bowel diseases. Gastroenterol Clin North Am 2006; 35:837855.
  82. Esteve M, Saro C, González-Huix F, Suarez F, Forné M, Viver JM. Chronic hepatitis B reactivation following infliximab therapy in Crohn’s disease patients: need for primary prophylaxis. Gut 2004; 53:13631365.
  83. Michel M, Duvoux C, Hezode C, Cherqui D. Fulminant hepatitis after infliximab in a patient with hepatitis B virus treated for an adult onset Still’s disease. J Rheumatol 2003; 30:16241625.
  84. Ostuni P, Botsios C, Punzi L, Sfriso P, Todesco S. Hepatitis B reactivation in a chronic hepatitis B surface antigen carrier with rheumatoid arthritis treated with infliximab and low dose methotrexate. Ann Rheum Dis 2003; 62:686687.
  85. Pérez-Alvarez R, Díaz-Lagares C, García-Hernández F, et al; BIOGEAS Study Group. Hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation in patients receiving tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-targeted therapy: analysis of 257 cases. Medicine (Baltimore) 2011; 90:359371.
  86. Loras C, Gisbert JP, Mínguez M, et al; REPENTINA study; GETECCU (Grupo Español de Enfermedades de Crohn y Colitis Ulcerosa) Group. Liver dysfunction related to hepatitis B and C in patients with inflammatory bowel disease treated with immunosuppressive therapy. Gut 2010; 59:13401346.
  87. Park SH, Yang SK, Lim YS, et al. Clinical courses of chronic hepatitis B virus infection and inflammatory bowel disease in patients with both diseases. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2012; 18:20042010.
  88. Loomba R, Rowley A, Wesley R, et al. Systematic review: the effect of preventive lamivudine on hepatitis B reactivation during chemotherapy. Ann Intern Med 2008; 148:519528.
  89. Lok AS, McMahon BJ. Chronic hepatitis B: update 2009. Hepatology 2009; 50:661662.
  90. European Association For The Study Of The Liver. EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines: management of chronic hepatitis B. J Hepatol 2009; 50:227242.
  91. Watanabe M, Shibuya A, Takada J, et al. Entecavir is an optional agent to prevent hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation: a review of 16 patients. Eur J Intern Med 2010; 21:333337.
  92. Biancone L, Pavia M, Del Vecchio Blanco G, et al; Italian Group for the Study of the Colon and Rectum (GISC). Hepatitis B and C virus infection in Crohn’s disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2001; 7:287294.
  93. Melmed GY. Vaccination strategies for patients with inflammatory bowel disease on immunomodulators and biologics. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2009; 15:14101416.
  94. Melmed GY, Ippoliti AF, Papadakis KA, et al. Patients with inflammatory bowel disease are at risk for vaccine-preventable illnesses. Am J Gastroenterol 2006; 101:18341840.
  95. Ferri C, Ferraccioli G, Ferrari D, et al. Safety of anti-tumor necrosis factor-alpha therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and chronic hepatitis C virus infection. J Rheumatol 2008; 35:19441949.
  96. Mok MY, Ng WL, Yuen MF, Wong RW, Lau CS. Safety of disease modifying anti-rheumatic agents in rheumatoid arthritis patients with chronic viral hepatitis. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2000; 18:363368.
  97. Vassilopoulos D, Calabrese LH. Risks of immunosuppressive therapies including biologic agents in patients with rheumatic diseases and coexisting chronic viral infections. Curr Opin Rheumatol 2007; 19:619625.
  98. Vassilopoulos D, Apostolopoulou A, Hadziyannis E, et al. Long-term safety of anti-TNF treatment in patients with rheumatic diseases and chronic or resolved hepatitis B virus infection. Ann Rheum Dis 2010; 69:13521355.
  99. Saag KG, Teng GG, Patkar NM, et al; American College of Rheumatology. American College of Rheumatology 2008 recommendations for the use of nonbiologic and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2008; 59:762784.
  100. Cornish J, Tan E, Teare J, et al. A meta-analysis on the influence of inflammatory bowel disease on pregnancy. Gut 2007; 56:830837.
  101. Dominitz JA, Young JC, Boyko EJ. Outcomes of infants born to mothers with inflammatory bowel disease: a population-based cohort study. Am J Gastroenterol 2002; 97:641648.
  102. Kornfeld D, Cnattingius S, Ekbom A. Pregnancy outcomes in women with inflammatory bowel disease—a population-based cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1997; 177:942946.
  103. Mahadevan U, Sandborn WJ, Li DK, Hakimian S, Kane S, Corley DA. Pregnancy outcomes in women with inflammatory bowel disease: a large community-based study from Northern California. Gastroenterology 2007; 133:11061112.
  104. Nguyen GC, Boudreau H, Harris ML, Maxwell CV. Outcomes of obstetric hospitalizations among women with inflammatory bowel disease in the United States. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2009; 7:329334.
  105. Schnitzler F, Fidder H, Ferrante M, et al. Outcome of pregnancy in women with inflammatory bowel disease treated with antitumor necrosis factor therapy. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2011; 17:18461854.
  106. Vinet E, Pineau C, Gordon C, Clarke AE, Bernatsky S. Biologic therapy and pregnancy outcomes in women with rheumatic diseases. Arthritis Rheum 2009; 61:587592.
  107. Guidi L, Pugliese D, Armuzzi A. Update on the management of inflammatory bowel disease: specific role of adalimumab. Clin Exp Gastroenterol 2011; 4:163172.
  108. Mahadevan U. Continuing immunomodulators and biologic medications in pregnant IBD patients – pro. IInflamm Bowel Dis 2007; 13:14391440.
  109. Mahadevan U. Gastrointestinal medications in pregnancy. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 2007; 21:849877.
  110. Mahadevan U, Cucchiara S, Hyams JS, et al. The London Position Statement of the World Congress of Gastroenterology on Biological Therapy for IBD with the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation: pregnancy and pediatrics. Am J Gastroenterol 2011; 106:214223.
  111. Mahadevan U, Kane S. Use of infliximab in pregnancy. Am J Gastroenterol 2010; 105:219220.
  112. Vasiliauskas EA, Church JA, Silverman N, Barry M, Targan SR, Dubinsky MC. Case report: evidence for transplacental transfer of maternally administered infliximab to the newborn. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2006; 4:12551258.
Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Jennifer Hadam, MD
Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition, Allegheny Health Network, Pittsburgh, PA

Elie Aoun, MD, MS
Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition, Allegheny Health Network, Pittsburgh, PA

Kofi Clarke, MD
Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition, Allegheny Health Network, Pittsburgh, PA

Mary Chester Wasko, MD, MSc
Division of Rheumatology, Allegheny Health Network, Pittsburgh, PA

Address: Mary Chester Wasko, MD, MSc, Division of Rheumatology, West Penn Allegheny Health System, 4815 Liberty Avenue, Suite 222, Pittsburgh, PA 15224; e-mail: mcwasko@wpahs.org

Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 81(2)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
115-127
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Jennifer Hadam, MD
Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition, Allegheny Health Network, Pittsburgh, PA

Elie Aoun, MD, MS
Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition, Allegheny Health Network, Pittsburgh, PA

Kofi Clarke, MD
Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition, Allegheny Health Network, Pittsburgh, PA

Mary Chester Wasko, MD, MSc
Division of Rheumatology, Allegheny Health Network, Pittsburgh, PA

Address: Mary Chester Wasko, MD, MSc, Division of Rheumatology, West Penn Allegheny Health System, 4815 Liberty Avenue, Suite 222, Pittsburgh, PA 15224; e-mail: mcwasko@wpahs.org

Author and Disclosure Information

Jennifer Hadam, MD
Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition, Allegheny Health Network, Pittsburgh, PA

Elie Aoun, MD, MS
Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition, Allegheny Health Network, Pittsburgh, PA

Kofi Clarke, MD
Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition, Allegheny Health Network, Pittsburgh, PA

Mary Chester Wasko, MD, MSc
Division of Rheumatology, Allegheny Health Network, Pittsburgh, PA

Address: Mary Chester Wasko, MD, MSc, Division of Rheumatology, West Penn Allegheny Health System, 4815 Liberty Avenue, Suite 222, Pittsburgh, PA 15224; e-mail: mcwasko@wpahs.org

Article PDF
Article PDF

Biologic agents such as those that block tumor necrosis factor (TNF) alpha have revolutionized the treatment of autoimmune diseases like rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease, dramatically improving disease control and quality of life. In addition, they have made true disease remission possible in some cases.

However, as with any new therapy, a variety of side effects must be considered.

WHAT ARE BIOLOGIC AGENTS?

Biologic agents are genetically engineered drugs manufactured or synthesized in vitro from molecules such as proteins, genes, and antibodies present in living organisms. By targeting specific molecular components of the inflammatory cascade, including cytokines, these drugs alter certain aspects of the body’s inflammatory response in autoimmune diseases. Because TNF inhibitors are the most widely used biologic agents in the United States, this review will focus on them.

TNF INHIBITORS

TNF inhibitors suppress the inflammatory cascade by inactivating TNF alpha, a cytokine that promotes inflammation in the intestine, synovial tissue, and other sites.1,2

Several TNF inhibitors are available. Etanercept and infliximab were the first two to receive US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval, and they are extensively used. Etanercept, a soluble TNF receptor given subcutaneously, was approved for treating rheumatoid arthritis in 1998. Infliximab, a chimeric monoclonal antibody (75% human and 25% mouse protein sequence) given intravenously, received FDA approval for treating Crohn disease in 1998 and for rheumatoid arthritis in 1999. Other anti-TNF agents with varying properties are also available.

Table 1 lists anti-TNF agents approved for treating rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease. These are chronic, relapsing diseases that significantly and dramatically reduce quality of life, especially when they are poorly controlled.3,4 Untreated disease has been associated with malignancy, infection, pregnancy loss, and malnutrition.5–8 TNF inhibitors are aimed at patients who have moderate to severe disease or for whom previous treatments have failed, to help them achieve and maintain steroid-free remission. However, use of these agents is tempered by the risk of potentially serious side effects.

Special thought should also be given to the direct costs of the drugs (up to $30,000 per year, not counting the cost of their administration) and to the indirect costs such as time away from work to receive treatment. These are major considerations in some cases, and patients should be selected carefully for treatment with these drugs.

BEFORE STARTING THERAPY

Before starting anti-TNF therapy, several steps can reduce the risk of serious adverse events.

Take a focused history

The clinical history should include inquiries about previous bacterial, fungal, and tuberculosis infections or exposure; diabetes; and other immunocompromised states that increase the risk of acquiring potentially life-threatening infections.

Details of particular geographic areas of residence, occupational exposures, and social history should be sought. These include history of incarceration (which may put patients at risk of tuberculosis) and residence in the Ohio River valley or in the southwestern or midwestern United States (which may increase the risk of histoplasmosis, coccidioidomycosis, and other fungal infections).

Bring vaccinations up to date

Age-appropriate vaccinations should be discussed and given, ideally before starting therapy. These include influenza vaccine every year and tetanus boosters every 10 years for all and, as appropriate, varicella, human papillomavirus, and pneumococcal vaccinations. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend an additional dose of the pneumococcal vaccine if more than 5 years have elapsed since the first one, and many clinicians opt to give it every 5 years.

In general, live-attenuated vaccines, including the intranasal influenza vaccine, are contraindicated in patients taking biologic agents.9 For patients at high risk of exposure or infection, it may be reasonable to hold the biologic agent for a period of time, vaccinate, and resume the biologic agent a month later.

Recent data suggest that the varicella zoster vaccine may be safely given to older patients with immune-mediated diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease taking biologic agents.10 New guidelines from the American College of Rheumatology recommend age-appropriate vaccines for rheumatoid arthritis patients age 60 and older before biologic treatments are started. Case-by-case discussion with the subspecialist and the patient is recommended.

Screen for chronic infections

Tuberculosis screening with a purified protein derivative test or an interferon-gamma-release (Quantiferon) assay followed by chest radiography in patients with a positive test is mandatory before giving a TNF inhibitor.

Hepatitis B virus status should be determined before starting anti-TNF therapy.11

Hepatitis B vaccination has been recommended for patients with inflammatory bowel disease, but no clear recommendation exists for patients with rheumatic disease. Patients with inflammatory bowel disease tend to have low rates of response to hepatitis B vaccination12,13; possible reasons include their lack of an appropriate innate immune response to infectious agents, malnutrition, surgery, older age, and immunosuppressive drugs.14 An accelerated vaccination protocol with recombinant hepatitis B vaccine (Energix-B) in a double dose at 0, 1, and 2 months has been shown to improve response rates.15

Whenever possible, it may be better to vaccinate patients before starting immunosuppressive therapy, and to check postvaccination titers to ensure adequate response.

 

 

Perform an examination

A full physical examination with special attention to skin rashes should be performed. This may serve as a baseline to assist early detection of new rashes associated with anti-TNF therapy.

A baseline complete blood cell count and complete metabolic panel should be routinely obtained before starting therapy (and thereafter at the discretion of the physician). In conjunction with follow-up tests, they can help detect an unexpected decrease in white blood cell count or abnormal results on the liver panel.16 These baseline and follow-up tests are generally performed by the subspecialist, and the results are shared with the primary care physician.

Table 2 summarizes key information to be sought before starting a patient on a TNF inhibitor.

ADVERSE EFFECTS OF ANTI-TNF DRUGS

Infusion reactions, infections, cardiac arrhythmias, demyelinating disorders, skin infections, and malignancies have been reported with anti-TNF therapy. The relative frequencies of these adverse events are summarized in Table 3.17–22

NONINFECTIOUS COMPLICATIONS OF TNF INHIBITORS

Injection site reactions

When anti-TNF agents are given subcutaneously, injection site reactions are common (occurring in up to 40% of patients) and are considered minor.11 Reactions, including significant pain, typically occur within the first few months of therapy. They can last 2 to 5 days but rarely warrant stopping therapy. Treatment with ice and an antihistamine is almost always sufficient to control symptoms.

Infusion reactions with infliximab

Infliximab can cause both acute and delayed infusion reactions. Acute reactions can occur up to 24 hours after infusion but usually appear within 10 minutes of administration and are handled by the infusion suite staff. They range from the severe immunoglobulin E-mediated type I reaction, manifesting with hypotension, bronchospasm, and urticaria, to the milder anaphylactoid-type reaction, which constitutes the majority.23–25

While most primary care physicians will not encounter an acute reaction, family doctors and emergency room physicians may encounter delayed reactions, which can develop 1 to 14 days after infusion. These reactions usually resemble serum sickness and present with joint pain, fatigue, myalgia, and fever. But, unlike classic serum sickness, these reactions are generally not associated with a rash.

With nonspecific symptoms, the diagnosis may be easy to overlook. However, establishing this diagnosis is important because repeat therapy may result in a more severe reaction upon reexposure to the drug.

Once diagnosed, these reactions can be treated symptomatically with a combination of acetaminophen and diphenhydramine after discussion between the primary care physician and subspecialist.23,24

Autoimmune syndromes

Several studies have reported a small percentage of patients treated with anti-TNF agents who develop paradoxical autoimmune conditions. These range from asymptomatic immunologic alterations, including the formation of antinuclear antibodies and antibodies to double-stranded DNA, to life-threatening systemic autoimmune diseases.26,27

Autoimmune diseases associated with anti-TNF treatment include a lupus-like syndrome, vasculitides, and psoriatic skin lesions. These syndromes warrant stopping the inciting drug and, on occasion, giving corticosteroids. Most cases arise between 1 month and 1 year of starting treatment, and almost 75% resolve completely after the anti-TNF therapy is stopped.26

Interestingly, anti-TNF agents are approved for treating psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, but psoriasis has paradoxically developed in patients being treated with these drugs for other autoimmune diseases. The FDA has reviewed 69 cases of new-onset psoriasis with anti-TNF therapy, including 17 pustular and 15 palmoplantar cases. The 12 most severe cases resulted in hospitalization, and symptoms resolved in most after treatment cessation.28

Figure 1. New-onset psoriasis in a patient receiving a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor.

Fiorino et al29 counted 18 reported cases of psoriasis induced by anti-TNF therapy in patients with inflammatory bowel disease and concluded that it is rare. Harrison et al30 reported similar findings in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, with an increased incidence rate of 1.04 per 1,000 person-years. New-onset psoriasis was most common in patients treated with adalimumab. An example of the rash is seen in Figure 1.

CARDIOVASCULAR SIDE EFFECTS

Cardiovascular side effects of anti-TNF agents range from nonspecific and asymptomatic arrhythmias to worsening of heart failure.

Circulating levels of TNF are increased in patients with heart failure, and studies have evaluated the effects of TNF inhibition with infliximab on cardiac function and overall survival.31,32 The combined risk of death from any cause or hospitalization from heart failure was significantly higher in the infliximab groups, and the effects persisted for up to 5 months after stopping therapy.

Other studies22,33 have evaluated the effects of infliximab and etanercept on cardiac function and overall survival. Results showed possible exacerbation of heart failure with etanercept and increased risk of death with infliximab in patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III or IV heart failure and left ventricular ejection fractions less than 35%.

Case reports have also described patients with worsening or new-onset heart failure on TNF inhibitors, including patients younger than 50 years and without identifiable cardiovascular risk factors.

Data analyses31,34,35 from large clinical registries have reported no significant increase in heart failure attributable to TNF inhibitors. However, we have concerns about the methodology of these analyses.

Currently, anti-TNF therapy is contraindicated in patients with NYHA class III or IV heart failure. Data are inconclusive for patients with class I or II heart failure. Baseline echocardiography and cardiology consultation can be considered, with close monitoring and avoidance of high doses of TNF inhibitors. If heart failure develops in a patient on anti-TNF therapy, the drug should be discontinued and the patient should be evaluated further.36

 

 

DEMYELINATING DISEASE, INCLUDING MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS

Anti-TNF agents have been associated with the onset or exacerbation of clinical symptoms and radiographic evidence of central nervous system demyelinating disorders, including multiple sclerosis.37–40 Mohan et al38 identified 19 cases of demyelinating events occurring after administration of anti-TNF agents in early 2001. In most cases, symptoms improved or resolved after therapy was stopped.

Optic neuritis,41,42 bilateral optic neuropathy,43 and aseptic meningitis44 have also been reported, but these have occurred only rarely.

How common are these effects? Postmarketing surveillance in patients with rheumatoid arthritis yields an estimated incidence of demyelinating disorders of 1 per 1,000 patient-years with adalimumab therapy.45 Complicating the assessment is an observed slight increase in risk of demyelinating conditions associated with inflammatory bowel disease.

Symptoms that should heighten the physician’s suspicion of this adverse effect include confusion, paresthesias, and ataxia. Patients on anti-TNF therapy who develop new visual symptoms should be checked for painless visual loss as a sign of early demyelinating disease.

Although data that conclusively link anti-TNF agents to multiple sclerosis are lacking, these drugs should not be initiated in patients who have a history of demyelinating disease, and treatment should be stopped promptly if the diagnosis is suspected.

MALIGNANCY

Whether anti-TNF therapy is directly linked to development of malignancies is difficult to determine. There are many confounding factors, including the risk of malignancy in underlying inflammatory disease and the concomitant use of other medications such as thiopurines, which have a known association with lymphoma.46

The incidence of lymphoma is twice as high in rheumatoid arthritis patients as in the general population.47 The risk is higher in those with more aggressive joint disease—the subset of rheumatoid arthritis patients who are more likely to be given anti-TNF agents.5

In patients with inflammatory bowel disease, the risk of cholangiocarcinoma is four times higher, and the risk of small-bowel adenocarcinoma is 16 to 18 times higher, but no increased risk of lymphoma has been identified in this population.48,49

Data from six clinical trials of infliximab, including a long-term study of its safety in Crohn disease, suggest it poses no increase in overall risk of malignancy.50–52 Similar results have been reported in patients with other rheumatic diseases.8 Information on this topic is constantly evolving, and studies range from case series to clinical trials to large patient registries.

The decision to use a TNF inhibitor should be based on the patient’s clinical picture and risk factors. Discussion of the risks and benefits of therapy with the patient should be clearly documented.

Non-Hodgkin lymphoma

Evidence about the risk of lymphoma with anti-TNF use is mixed, as up to two-thirds of patients on anti-TNF therapy have received concomitant nonbiologic immunosuppressive medications, making it difficult to determine the true risk from the biologic agents alone.53 Current evidence both supports9,53–56 and refutes7,55,57–60 the idea that anti-TNF agents increase lymphoma risk.

In patients with inflammatory bowel disease, several population-based studies have not shown a clear increase in lymphoma risk with anti-TNF use.56,59,60 Pedersen et al,61 in a meta-analysis of eight studies, confirmed these findings by showing no overall lymphoma risk in patients with inflammatory bowel disease.

However, a Canadian population-based study found a statistically significant increase in non-Hodgkin lymphoma in males with Crohn disease, with an incidence ratio of 3.63 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.53–8.62).61 Additionally, Siegel et al62 found a significantly higher risk (6.1 cases per 10,000 patients) in patients treated with anti-TNF agents and thiopurines than in the general population (1.9 cases per 10,000 people). Although the difference was statistically significant, the overall risk is still very low.

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis seem to have a risk of lymphoma two to three times higher than in the general population. However, large population-based studies have not shown a statistically significant increase in the risk of lymphoma with anti-TNF therapy.63

Hepatosplenic T-cell lymphoma is a rare subtype of peripheral T-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma; 25 cases have been reported in patients receiving anti-TNF therapy.64 Although the risk is extremely low (< 0.05%), physicians must carefully consider the risks and benefits of combination therapy, especially in young male patients with inflammatory bowel disease, since death is the usual outcome of this disease.65–67

Skin cancers

Wolfe and Michaud8 evaluated malignancy risk in rheumatoid arthritis patients being treated with biologic agents, including TNF inhibitors, using a large longitudinal database. These data were compared with those of the US Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End-Results (SEER) national database. No increase in the overall cancer rate was seen in rheumatoid arthritis patients (standardized incidence ratio [SIR] 1.0, 95% CI 1.0–1.1).

However, melanoma was more common in rheumatoid arthritis patients compared with SEER rates (SIR 1.7, 95% CI 1.3–2.3).8 In addition, biologic therapy was associated with a higher (but not statistically significant) risk of melanoma (odds ratio [OR] 2.3, 95% CI 0.9–5.4) and a higher risk of nonmelanoma skin cancer (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.2–1.8), but not of other types of cancer.8

INFECTION

Patients on anti-TNF therapy are at a higher risk of infection, ranging from minor to life-threatening bacterial infections, and including the reactivation of granulomatous and fungal infections. More importantly, these agents are similar to steroids in blunting signs of infection, which may delay diagnosis and treatment.

The management of infection in patients on anti-TNF medications varies from case to case. In general, patients with a minor infection that does not require hospitalization or intravenous antibiotics can continue the biologic therapy while taking oral antibiotics. TNF inhibitors must be held in the event of a major infection.

Consultation with an infectious disease specialist is recommended, especially in complex cases.

Bacterial infections

An increased risk of minor bacterial infections such as urinary tract and respiratory infections has been well documented in several randomized control trials of anti-TNF agents, though other studies have shown no such increase in risk.33,51–59

The threshold for using antibiotics for a suspected bacterial infection is somewhat shifted in favor of treatment in patients on anti-TNF therapy. The reason is twofold: as previously noted, infections may be worse than they appear, because anti-TNF drugs can mask the signs and symptoms of a serious infection, and in patients on these drugs, an untreated bacterial infection may rapidly become life-threatening.

In general, broad-spectrum antibiotics are not warranted unless the source of infection is unclear or the patient is in danger of hemodynamic compromise.

Opportunistic infections

The association of anti-TNF agents with opportunistic infections could be viewed as an extension of their normal and intended therapeutic activity as potent immunosuppressive agents.68 Rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease are usually associated with conditions and situations that predispose patients to opportunistic infections, such as decreased immune response, malnutrition or malabsorption, surgeries, and concomitant immunosuppressive medications.7 Combination therapy with other immunosuppressive drugs and older age appear to markedly increase the risk of opportunistic infections, including mycobacterial and fungal infections, in patients with inflammatory bowel disease.7

Overall, opportunistic infections represent a measurable risk of anti-TNF therapy, and awareness and vigilance are important, especially in areas where opportunistic infections such as histoplasmosis and coccidiomycosis are endemic.50 Furthermore, physicians must be aware of the higher risk of opportunistic infections when multiple immunosuppressive drugs are used concurrently.

 

 

Granulomatous infections such as tuberculosis

Anti-TNF agents increase the risk of de novo granulomatous infections and of reactivating such infections. Granuloma formation and intracellular destruction of mycobacteria depend on TNF. TNF is important in maintaining the anatomic integrity of granulomas where these organisms have been sequestered, and blocking TNF leads to breakdown of granulomas and release of virulent organisms.69,70

TNF inhibitors increase the risk of reactivation of latent tuberculosis infection. The risk is greater with infliximab and adalimumab than with etanercept,71,72 and it has been described with certolizumab.74 Study results are varied thus far but show a risk of tuberculosis reactivation five to 30 times higher than in the general population, with tremendous variability in risk depending on background rates of previous exposure.

The absence of typical tuberculosis symptoms further complicates care in these cases. Fever, weight loss, and night sweats tend to be TNF-mediated and are therefore masked by anti-TNF agents, leading to atypical presentations. In addition, active tuberculosis infection associated with TNF inhibitors is more likely to involve extrapulmonary sites such as the skin and musculoskeletal system and to be disseminated at presentation.

A paradoxical worsening of tuberculosis symptoms may also be seen in patients with latent tuberculosis reactivation, especially after discontinuing anti-TNF therapy. This is thought to result from an immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome.

The pretreatment evaluation should include a history of risk factors, a physical examination, and either a tuberculin skin test or an interferon-gamma-release assay. Interferon-gamma-release assays are particularly helpful in patients who have received bacille Calmette-Guérin vaccination. In patients who test positive or have been exposed, tuberculosis treatment should begin 4 weeks before starting anti-TNF therapy, though the optimal timing of antituberculosis agents is still controversial.74–77

If tuberculosis develops in a patient on anti-TNF therapy, he or she should receive antituberculosis drugs. Anti-TNF therapy should be stopped and should be resumed after 2 months only if no other treatment option is available.75

Invasive opportunistic fungal infections

Invasive opportunistic fungal infections have been reported with anti-TNF therapy, including histoplasmosis and coccidioidomycosis.78–80 Most patients who had histoplasmosis were treated with other immunosuppressive therapies and resided in or were raised near the Ohio or Mississippi River valleys, where this disease is endemic. Similarly, most cases of coccidioidomycosis were in endemic areas of Arizona, California, and Nevada, and patients on concomitant immunosuppressive therapy.78

Currently, there is no evidence to recommend obtaining Histoplasma capsulatum or Coccidioides immitis serologies before initiating anti-TNF therapy in patients in endemic areas.81 However, patients must be instructed to seek medical attention quickly for pulmonary or febrile illnesses.

Viral hepatitis infections

The data on hepatitis B and hepatitis C in patients on biologic therapies are mostly limited to case reports.

Hepatitis B. A small prospective study from Spain followed the liver biochemistry tests and hepatitis B status of 80 patients with Crohn disease treated with infliximab. Of three patients who were chronic hepatitis B carriers before starting infliximab, two experienced reactivation of hepatitis B after discontinuing infliximab, and one ultimately died. The third patient was treated with lamivudine concurrently with infliximab without clinical or biochemical changes during or after therapy.82

Similar findings were observed in two patients with rheumatoid arthritis on treatment with infliximab. One of the patients required liver transplantation, and both were treated with lamivudine, resulting in normalization of liver function test results.83,84

Recent reviews indicate that despite these findings, hepatitis B reactivation after anti-TNF withdrawal may not be common.85 There are limited data on hepatitis B reactivation and associated liver dysfunction in patients with inflammatory bowel disease treated with immunosuppressants. In a retrospective multicenter trial by Loras et al86 in patients with inflammatory bowel disease who had viral hepatitis, 36% of patients positive for hepatitis B surface antigen developed liver dysfunction, and six patients developed liver failure. In that study, treatment with more than two immunosuppressants was an independent predictor of hepatitis B reactivation.

Prolonged immunosuppression (longer than 3 months) has also been identified as an independent predictor of liver dysfunction (OR 3.06; 95% 95% CI 1.02–9.16).87

The European Association for the Study of the Liver and the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases recommend starting lamivudine before chemotherapy or immunomodulator or immunosuppressive therapy in hepatitis B virus carriers and continuing preventive treatment for at least 6 months after stopping immunomodulating drugs. Lamivudine at a dose of 100 mg/day may reduce the risk of reactivation of hepatitis B.88–90 Tenofovir and entecavir may be useful alternatives in patients with hepatitis B who have never received nucleoside analogues. Hepatitis B reactivation did not occur in any of the 16 patients who received preventive entecavir treatment while receiving immunosuppressive treatments.89,91

In patients receiving immunosuppressive therapy, hepatitis B reactivation is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Although risk factors for reactivation of hepatitis B virus infection have been identified, we recommend preventive treatment for all carriers positive for hepatitis B surface antigen. This should be done regardless of the number, type, and dosage of immunosuppressants and regardless of hepatitis B virus DNA levels.90

The frequency of hepatitis B and hepatitis C infection in patients with Crohn disease has been reported to be as high as 24%. The high incidence is thought to be secondary to multiple blood transfusions and surgeries.92 The use of biologic agents, including anti-TNF agents, in chronic hepatitis B virus- or hepatitis C virus-infected patients can lead to enhanced viral replication and hepatitis exacerbation.

Although active viral replication can occur during treatment with biologic agents, reactivation or exacerbation can also occur after the anti-TNF agent is stopped.82 This finding has prompted the recommendation that all candidates for biologic therapy be tested for hepatitis B immunization status, followed by immunization in nonimmune patients before starting anti-TNF therapy.93,94

Hepatitis C. There are no guidelines that adequately address the use of anti-TNF agents in patients with chronic hepatitis C infection.

Several small retrospective studies in rheumatoid arthritis patients with hepatitis C have shown that TNF inhibitors can be safely used without worsening liver function tests or changing the viral load.95–98 This is reassuring and provides the subspecialist with another treatment option, as other therapies such as disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and steroids are known to aggravate viral hepatitis and increase the risk of viremia.96

Although small retrospective studies and one large randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial have shown TNF inhibitors to be relatively safe in rheumatoid arthritis patients with hepatitis C, their use in these patients should be considered only with caution if they have evidence of hepatic synthetic dysfunction (eg, hypoalbuminemia, thrombocytopenia, increased international normalized ratio). The American College of Rheumatology recommends avoiding TNF inhibitors in Child-Pugh classes B and C.99

 

 

PREGNANCY

Physicians caring for patients with rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease must be aware of how these diseases affect fecundity and fertility and how the medications can affect conception and pregnancy. Many patients have difficulty conceiving while their autoimmune disease is active, and better disease control may improve fecundity and result in unanticipated pregnancy. Patients should be advised of the need for contraception if pregnancy is ill-advised or undesired.

Many patients seek advice about teratogenicity before conceiving, or seek guidance about rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease treatment while pregnant.

Several studies have reported a higher risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease than in the general population.99–105 In inflammatory bowel disease, the odds of a premature delivery or having a low-birth-weight child are twice as high as in the normal population.100,103 Higher rates of cesarean delivery and stillbirth have also been reported. The main predisposing factor appears to be the disease activity at the time of conception, as active disease seems to be linked to adverse pregnancy outcomes.

Treatment with anti-TNF agents may rapidly achieve and maintain remission, raising the question of the safety of continued anti-TNF use during pregnancy. The FDA classifies anti-TNF agents as category B drugs, as animal studies have not demonstrated fetal risk, and no well-controlled prospective study has yet been conducted with pregnant women.

In an observational study, Schnitzler et al105 assessed the outcomes of 42 pregnancies in 35 patients with inflammatory bowel disease receiving either infliximab or adalimumab during pregnancy, compared with 56 pregnancies in 45 healthy patients without inflammatory bowel disease. There was no statistical difference in abortion rates between patients receiving anti-TNF agents and healthy women without inflammatory bowel disease (21% vs 14%, P = .4234). There was also no significant difference observed in birth weight, birth length, or cranial circumference of the children between the two groups. However, pregnancies with direct exposure to anti-TNF agents resulted in a higher frequency of premature delivery (25% vs 6%, P = .023).

Similar results were noted from the Crohn’s Therapy, Resource, Evaluation, and Assessment Tool, or TREAT, registry, as well as from a large systematic review by Vinet et al106 and case reports of rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease in women exposed to anti-TNF agents during pregnancy.

In addition, results from a recent systematic review of 38 studies of anti-TNF use and fetal risk, with a total of 437 women (189 on infliximab, 230 on adalimumab, 18 on certolizumab pegol), showed similar results.107 In pregnancies exposed to anti-TNF agents, the rates of congenital abnormalities (3.4%), fetal deaths (8.5%), and preterm births (2.7%) were similar to those in the general population.

For patients in disease remission on TNF inhibitors, it is reasonable to continue these agents during pregnancy after careful discussion with the patient. Fetal safety and infant immunization response after delivery are the primary concerns in these cases.

Both infliximab and adalimumab cross the placenta and remain detectable in the baby’s circulation 4 months (for adalimumab) to 6 months (for infliximab) after delivery. It is currently recommended that infliximab be stopped at 32 weeks of gestation for the remainder of the pregnancy and that adalimumab be stopped at 34 to 36 weeks, given a planned 40-week gestation.

Certolizumab does not cross the placenta in significant amounts and should be continued throughout pregnancy; drug levels in infants were shown to be less than 2 μg/mL, even when dosed the week of delivery.108–112

TAKE-HOME POINTS

  • All health care providers of patients with rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease should be familiar with anti-TNF agents used in treating these diseases.
  • The benefits of controlling the disease far outweigh the risks of therapy when used appropriately.
  • Care of these patients should be multidisciplinary, with clear communication between primary care physician and specialist.
  • Patient education and monitoring combined with prompt communication between primary care physician and specialist are key.

Biologic agents such as those that block tumor necrosis factor (TNF) alpha have revolutionized the treatment of autoimmune diseases like rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease, dramatically improving disease control and quality of life. In addition, they have made true disease remission possible in some cases.

However, as with any new therapy, a variety of side effects must be considered.

WHAT ARE BIOLOGIC AGENTS?

Biologic agents are genetically engineered drugs manufactured or synthesized in vitro from molecules such as proteins, genes, and antibodies present in living organisms. By targeting specific molecular components of the inflammatory cascade, including cytokines, these drugs alter certain aspects of the body’s inflammatory response in autoimmune diseases. Because TNF inhibitors are the most widely used biologic agents in the United States, this review will focus on them.

TNF INHIBITORS

TNF inhibitors suppress the inflammatory cascade by inactivating TNF alpha, a cytokine that promotes inflammation in the intestine, synovial tissue, and other sites.1,2

Several TNF inhibitors are available. Etanercept and infliximab were the first two to receive US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval, and they are extensively used. Etanercept, a soluble TNF receptor given subcutaneously, was approved for treating rheumatoid arthritis in 1998. Infliximab, a chimeric monoclonal antibody (75% human and 25% mouse protein sequence) given intravenously, received FDA approval for treating Crohn disease in 1998 and for rheumatoid arthritis in 1999. Other anti-TNF agents with varying properties are also available.

Table 1 lists anti-TNF agents approved for treating rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease. These are chronic, relapsing diseases that significantly and dramatically reduce quality of life, especially when they are poorly controlled.3,4 Untreated disease has been associated with malignancy, infection, pregnancy loss, and malnutrition.5–8 TNF inhibitors are aimed at patients who have moderate to severe disease or for whom previous treatments have failed, to help them achieve and maintain steroid-free remission. However, use of these agents is tempered by the risk of potentially serious side effects.

Special thought should also be given to the direct costs of the drugs (up to $30,000 per year, not counting the cost of their administration) and to the indirect costs such as time away from work to receive treatment. These are major considerations in some cases, and patients should be selected carefully for treatment with these drugs.

BEFORE STARTING THERAPY

Before starting anti-TNF therapy, several steps can reduce the risk of serious adverse events.

Take a focused history

The clinical history should include inquiries about previous bacterial, fungal, and tuberculosis infections or exposure; diabetes; and other immunocompromised states that increase the risk of acquiring potentially life-threatening infections.

Details of particular geographic areas of residence, occupational exposures, and social history should be sought. These include history of incarceration (which may put patients at risk of tuberculosis) and residence in the Ohio River valley or in the southwestern or midwestern United States (which may increase the risk of histoplasmosis, coccidioidomycosis, and other fungal infections).

Bring vaccinations up to date

Age-appropriate vaccinations should be discussed and given, ideally before starting therapy. These include influenza vaccine every year and tetanus boosters every 10 years for all and, as appropriate, varicella, human papillomavirus, and pneumococcal vaccinations. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend an additional dose of the pneumococcal vaccine if more than 5 years have elapsed since the first one, and many clinicians opt to give it every 5 years.

In general, live-attenuated vaccines, including the intranasal influenza vaccine, are contraindicated in patients taking biologic agents.9 For patients at high risk of exposure or infection, it may be reasonable to hold the biologic agent for a period of time, vaccinate, and resume the biologic agent a month later.

Recent data suggest that the varicella zoster vaccine may be safely given to older patients with immune-mediated diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease taking biologic agents.10 New guidelines from the American College of Rheumatology recommend age-appropriate vaccines for rheumatoid arthritis patients age 60 and older before biologic treatments are started. Case-by-case discussion with the subspecialist and the patient is recommended.

Screen for chronic infections

Tuberculosis screening with a purified protein derivative test or an interferon-gamma-release (Quantiferon) assay followed by chest radiography in patients with a positive test is mandatory before giving a TNF inhibitor.

Hepatitis B virus status should be determined before starting anti-TNF therapy.11

Hepatitis B vaccination has been recommended for patients with inflammatory bowel disease, but no clear recommendation exists for patients with rheumatic disease. Patients with inflammatory bowel disease tend to have low rates of response to hepatitis B vaccination12,13; possible reasons include their lack of an appropriate innate immune response to infectious agents, malnutrition, surgery, older age, and immunosuppressive drugs.14 An accelerated vaccination protocol with recombinant hepatitis B vaccine (Energix-B) in a double dose at 0, 1, and 2 months has been shown to improve response rates.15

Whenever possible, it may be better to vaccinate patients before starting immunosuppressive therapy, and to check postvaccination titers to ensure adequate response.

 

 

Perform an examination

A full physical examination with special attention to skin rashes should be performed. This may serve as a baseline to assist early detection of new rashes associated with anti-TNF therapy.

A baseline complete blood cell count and complete metabolic panel should be routinely obtained before starting therapy (and thereafter at the discretion of the physician). In conjunction with follow-up tests, they can help detect an unexpected decrease in white blood cell count or abnormal results on the liver panel.16 These baseline and follow-up tests are generally performed by the subspecialist, and the results are shared with the primary care physician.

Table 2 summarizes key information to be sought before starting a patient on a TNF inhibitor.

ADVERSE EFFECTS OF ANTI-TNF DRUGS

Infusion reactions, infections, cardiac arrhythmias, demyelinating disorders, skin infections, and malignancies have been reported with anti-TNF therapy. The relative frequencies of these adverse events are summarized in Table 3.17–22

NONINFECTIOUS COMPLICATIONS OF TNF INHIBITORS

Injection site reactions

When anti-TNF agents are given subcutaneously, injection site reactions are common (occurring in up to 40% of patients) and are considered minor.11 Reactions, including significant pain, typically occur within the first few months of therapy. They can last 2 to 5 days but rarely warrant stopping therapy. Treatment with ice and an antihistamine is almost always sufficient to control symptoms.

Infusion reactions with infliximab

Infliximab can cause both acute and delayed infusion reactions. Acute reactions can occur up to 24 hours after infusion but usually appear within 10 minutes of administration and are handled by the infusion suite staff. They range from the severe immunoglobulin E-mediated type I reaction, manifesting with hypotension, bronchospasm, and urticaria, to the milder anaphylactoid-type reaction, which constitutes the majority.23–25

While most primary care physicians will not encounter an acute reaction, family doctors and emergency room physicians may encounter delayed reactions, which can develop 1 to 14 days after infusion. These reactions usually resemble serum sickness and present with joint pain, fatigue, myalgia, and fever. But, unlike classic serum sickness, these reactions are generally not associated with a rash.

With nonspecific symptoms, the diagnosis may be easy to overlook. However, establishing this diagnosis is important because repeat therapy may result in a more severe reaction upon reexposure to the drug.

Once diagnosed, these reactions can be treated symptomatically with a combination of acetaminophen and diphenhydramine after discussion between the primary care physician and subspecialist.23,24

Autoimmune syndromes

Several studies have reported a small percentage of patients treated with anti-TNF agents who develop paradoxical autoimmune conditions. These range from asymptomatic immunologic alterations, including the formation of antinuclear antibodies and antibodies to double-stranded DNA, to life-threatening systemic autoimmune diseases.26,27

Autoimmune diseases associated with anti-TNF treatment include a lupus-like syndrome, vasculitides, and psoriatic skin lesions. These syndromes warrant stopping the inciting drug and, on occasion, giving corticosteroids. Most cases arise between 1 month and 1 year of starting treatment, and almost 75% resolve completely after the anti-TNF therapy is stopped.26

Interestingly, anti-TNF agents are approved for treating psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, but psoriasis has paradoxically developed in patients being treated with these drugs for other autoimmune diseases. The FDA has reviewed 69 cases of new-onset psoriasis with anti-TNF therapy, including 17 pustular and 15 palmoplantar cases. The 12 most severe cases resulted in hospitalization, and symptoms resolved in most after treatment cessation.28

Figure 1. New-onset psoriasis in a patient receiving a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor.

Fiorino et al29 counted 18 reported cases of psoriasis induced by anti-TNF therapy in patients with inflammatory bowel disease and concluded that it is rare. Harrison et al30 reported similar findings in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, with an increased incidence rate of 1.04 per 1,000 person-years. New-onset psoriasis was most common in patients treated with adalimumab. An example of the rash is seen in Figure 1.

CARDIOVASCULAR SIDE EFFECTS

Cardiovascular side effects of anti-TNF agents range from nonspecific and asymptomatic arrhythmias to worsening of heart failure.

Circulating levels of TNF are increased in patients with heart failure, and studies have evaluated the effects of TNF inhibition with infliximab on cardiac function and overall survival.31,32 The combined risk of death from any cause or hospitalization from heart failure was significantly higher in the infliximab groups, and the effects persisted for up to 5 months after stopping therapy.

Other studies22,33 have evaluated the effects of infliximab and etanercept on cardiac function and overall survival. Results showed possible exacerbation of heart failure with etanercept and increased risk of death with infliximab in patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III or IV heart failure and left ventricular ejection fractions less than 35%.

Case reports have also described patients with worsening or new-onset heart failure on TNF inhibitors, including patients younger than 50 years and without identifiable cardiovascular risk factors.

Data analyses31,34,35 from large clinical registries have reported no significant increase in heart failure attributable to TNF inhibitors. However, we have concerns about the methodology of these analyses.

Currently, anti-TNF therapy is contraindicated in patients with NYHA class III or IV heart failure. Data are inconclusive for patients with class I or II heart failure. Baseline echocardiography and cardiology consultation can be considered, with close monitoring and avoidance of high doses of TNF inhibitors. If heart failure develops in a patient on anti-TNF therapy, the drug should be discontinued and the patient should be evaluated further.36

 

 

DEMYELINATING DISEASE, INCLUDING MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS

Anti-TNF agents have been associated with the onset or exacerbation of clinical symptoms and radiographic evidence of central nervous system demyelinating disorders, including multiple sclerosis.37–40 Mohan et al38 identified 19 cases of demyelinating events occurring after administration of anti-TNF agents in early 2001. In most cases, symptoms improved or resolved after therapy was stopped.

Optic neuritis,41,42 bilateral optic neuropathy,43 and aseptic meningitis44 have also been reported, but these have occurred only rarely.

How common are these effects? Postmarketing surveillance in patients with rheumatoid arthritis yields an estimated incidence of demyelinating disorders of 1 per 1,000 patient-years with adalimumab therapy.45 Complicating the assessment is an observed slight increase in risk of demyelinating conditions associated with inflammatory bowel disease.

Symptoms that should heighten the physician’s suspicion of this adverse effect include confusion, paresthesias, and ataxia. Patients on anti-TNF therapy who develop new visual symptoms should be checked for painless visual loss as a sign of early demyelinating disease.

Although data that conclusively link anti-TNF agents to multiple sclerosis are lacking, these drugs should not be initiated in patients who have a history of demyelinating disease, and treatment should be stopped promptly if the diagnosis is suspected.

MALIGNANCY

Whether anti-TNF therapy is directly linked to development of malignancies is difficult to determine. There are many confounding factors, including the risk of malignancy in underlying inflammatory disease and the concomitant use of other medications such as thiopurines, which have a known association with lymphoma.46

The incidence of lymphoma is twice as high in rheumatoid arthritis patients as in the general population.47 The risk is higher in those with more aggressive joint disease—the subset of rheumatoid arthritis patients who are more likely to be given anti-TNF agents.5

In patients with inflammatory bowel disease, the risk of cholangiocarcinoma is four times higher, and the risk of small-bowel adenocarcinoma is 16 to 18 times higher, but no increased risk of lymphoma has been identified in this population.48,49

Data from six clinical trials of infliximab, including a long-term study of its safety in Crohn disease, suggest it poses no increase in overall risk of malignancy.50–52 Similar results have been reported in patients with other rheumatic diseases.8 Information on this topic is constantly evolving, and studies range from case series to clinical trials to large patient registries.

The decision to use a TNF inhibitor should be based on the patient’s clinical picture and risk factors. Discussion of the risks and benefits of therapy with the patient should be clearly documented.

Non-Hodgkin lymphoma

Evidence about the risk of lymphoma with anti-TNF use is mixed, as up to two-thirds of patients on anti-TNF therapy have received concomitant nonbiologic immunosuppressive medications, making it difficult to determine the true risk from the biologic agents alone.53 Current evidence both supports9,53–56 and refutes7,55,57–60 the idea that anti-TNF agents increase lymphoma risk.

In patients with inflammatory bowel disease, several population-based studies have not shown a clear increase in lymphoma risk with anti-TNF use.56,59,60 Pedersen et al,61 in a meta-analysis of eight studies, confirmed these findings by showing no overall lymphoma risk in patients with inflammatory bowel disease.

However, a Canadian population-based study found a statistically significant increase in non-Hodgkin lymphoma in males with Crohn disease, with an incidence ratio of 3.63 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.53–8.62).61 Additionally, Siegel et al62 found a significantly higher risk (6.1 cases per 10,000 patients) in patients treated with anti-TNF agents and thiopurines than in the general population (1.9 cases per 10,000 people). Although the difference was statistically significant, the overall risk is still very low.

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis seem to have a risk of lymphoma two to three times higher than in the general population. However, large population-based studies have not shown a statistically significant increase in the risk of lymphoma with anti-TNF therapy.63

Hepatosplenic T-cell lymphoma is a rare subtype of peripheral T-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma; 25 cases have been reported in patients receiving anti-TNF therapy.64 Although the risk is extremely low (< 0.05%), physicians must carefully consider the risks and benefits of combination therapy, especially in young male patients with inflammatory bowel disease, since death is the usual outcome of this disease.65–67

Skin cancers

Wolfe and Michaud8 evaluated malignancy risk in rheumatoid arthritis patients being treated with biologic agents, including TNF inhibitors, using a large longitudinal database. These data were compared with those of the US Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End-Results (SEER) national database. No increase in the overall cancer rate was seen in rheumatoid arthritis patients (standardized incidence ratio [SIR] 1.0, 95% CI 1.0–1.1).

However, melanoma was more common in rheumatoid arthritis patients compared with SEER rates (SIR 1.7, 95% CI 1.3–2.3).8 In addition, biologic therapy was associated with a higher (but not statistically significant) risk of melanoma (odds ratio [OR] 2.3, 95% CI 0.9–5.4) and a higher risk of nonmelanoma skin cancer (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.2–1.8), but not of other types of cancer.8

INFECTION

Patients on anti-TNF therapy are at a higher risk of infection, ranging from minor to life-threatening bacterial infections, and including the reactivation of granulomatous and fungal infections. More importantly, these agents are similar to steroids in blunting signs of infection, which may delay diagnosis and treatment.

The management of infection in patients on anti-TNF medications varies from case to case. In general, patients with a minor infection that does not require hospitalization or intravenous antibiotics can continue the biologic therapy while taking oral antibiotics. TNF inhibitors must be held in the event of a major infection.

Consultation with an infectious disease specialist is recommended, especially in complex cases.

Bacterial infections

An increased risk of minor bacterial infections such as urinary tract and respiratory infections has been well documented in several randomized control trials of anti-TNF agents, though other studies have shown no such increase in risk.33,51–59

The threshold for using antibiotics for a suspected bacterial infection is somewhat shifted in favor of treatment in patients on anti-TNF therapy. The reason is twofold: as previously noted, infections may be worse than they appear, because anti-TNF drugs can mask the signs and symptoms of a serious infection, and in patients on these drugs, an untreated bacterial infection may rapidly become life-threatening.

In general, broad-spectrum antibiotics are not warranted unless the source of infection is unclear or the patient is in danger of hemodynamic compromise.

Opportunistic infections

The association of anti-TNF agents with opportunistic infections could be viewed as an extension of their normal and intended therapeutic activity as potent immunosuppressive agents.68 Rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease are usually associated with conditions and situations that predispose patients to opportunistic infections, such as decreased immune response, malnutrition or malabsorption, surgeries, and concomitant immunosuppressive medications.7 Combination therapy with other immunosuppressive drugs and older age appear to markedly increase the risk of opportunistic infections, including mycobacterial and fungal infections, in patients with inflammatory bowel disease.7

Overall, opportunistic infections represent a measurable risk of anti-TNF therapy, and awareness and vigilance are important, especially in areas where opportunistic infections such as histoplasmosis and coccidiomycosis are endemic.50 Furthermore, physicians must be aware of the higher risk of opportunistic infections when multiple immunosuppressive drugs are used concurrently.

 

 

Granulomatous infections such as tuberculosis

Anti-TNF agents increase the risk of de novo granulomatous infections and of reactivating such infections. Granuloma formation and intracellular destruction of mycobacteria depend on TNF. TNF is important in maintaining the anatomic integrity of granulomas where these organisms have been sequestered, and blocking TNF leads to breakdown of granulomas and release of virulent organisms.69,70

TNF inhibitors increase the risk of reactivation of latent tuberculosis infection. The risk is greater with infliximab and adalimumab than with etanercept,71,72 and it has been described with certolizumab.74 Study results are varied thus far but show a risk of tuberculosis reactivation five to 30 times higher than in the general population, with tremendous variability in risk depending on background rates of previous exposure.

The absence of typical tuberculosis symptoms further complicates care in these cases. Fever, weight loss, and night sweats tend to be TNF-mediated and are therefore masked by anti-TNF agents, leading to atypical presentations. In addition, active tuberculosis infection associated with TNF inhibitors is more likely to involve extrapulmonary sites such as the skin and musculoskeletal system and to be disseminated at presentation.

A paradoxical worsening of tuberculosis symptoms may also be seen in patients with latent tuberculosis reactivation, especially after discontinuing anti-TNF therapy. This is thought to result from an immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome.

The pretreatment evaluation should include a history of risk factors, a physical examination, and either a tuberculin skin test or an interferon-gamma-release assay. Interferon-gamma-release assays are particularly helpful in patients who have received bacille Calmette-Guérin vaccination. In patients who test positive or have been exposed, tuberculosis treatment should begin 4 weeks before starting anti-TNF therapy, though the optimal timing of antituberculosis agents is still controversial.74–77

If tuberculosis develops in a patient on anti-TNF therapy, he or she should receive antituberculosis drugs. Anti-TNF therapy should be stopped and should be resumed after 2 months only if no other treatment option is available.75

Invasive opportunistic fungal infections

Invasive opportunistic fungal infections have been reported with anti-TNF therapy, including histoplasmosis and coccidioidomycosis.78–80 Most patients who had histoplasmosis were treated with other immunosuppressive therapies and resided in or were raised near the Ohio or Mississippi River valleys, where this disease is endemic. Similarly, most cases of coccidioidomycosis were in endemic areas of Arizona, California, and Nevada, and patients on concomitant immunosuppressive therapy.78

Currently, there is no evidence to recommend obtaining Histoplasma capsulatum or Coccidioides immitis serologies before initiating anti-TNF therapy in patients in endemic areas.81 However, patients must be instructed to seek medical attention quickly for pulmonary or febrile illnesses.

Viral hepatitis infections

The data on hepatitis B and hepatitis C in patients on biologic therapies are mostly limited to case reports.

Hepatitis B. A small prospective study from Spain followed the liver biochemistry tests and hepatitis B status of 80 patients with Crohn disease treated with infliximab. Of three patients who were chronic hepatitis B carriers before starting infliximab, two experienced reactivation of hepatitis B after discontinuing infliximab, and one ultimately died. The third patient was treated with lamivudine concurrently with infliximab without clinical or biochemical changes during or after therapy.82

Similar findings were observed in two patients with rheumatoid arthritis on treatment with infliximab. One of the patients required liver transplantation, and both were treated with lamivudine, resulting in normalization of liver function test results.83,84

Recent reviews indicate that despite these findings, hepatitis B reactivation after anti-TNF withdrawal may not be common.85 There are limited data on hepatitis B reactivation and associated liver dysfunction in patients with inflammatory bowel disease treated with immunosuppressants. In a retrospective multicenter trial by Loras et al86 in patients with inflammatory bowel disease who had viral hepatitis, 36% of patients positive for hepatitis B surface antigen developed liver dysfunction, and six patients developed liver failure. In that study, treatment with more than two immunosuppressants was an independent predictor of hepatitis B reactivation.

Prolonged immunosuppression (longer than 3 months) has also been identified as an independent predictor of liver dysfunction (OR 3.06; 95% 95% CI 1.02–9.16).87

The European Association for the Study of the Liver and the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases recommend starting lamivudine before chemotherapy or immunomodulator or immunosuppressive therapy in hepatitis B virus carriers and continuing preventive treatment for at least 6 months after stopping immunomodulating drugs. Lamivudine at a dose of 100 mg/day may reduce the risk of reactivation of hepatitis B.88–90 Tenofovir and entecavir may be useful alternatives in patients with hepatitis B who have never received nucleoside analogues. Hepatitis B reactivation did not occur in any of the 16 patients who received preventive entecavir treatment while receiving immunosuppressive treatments.89,91

In patients receiving immunosuppressive therapy, hepatitis B reactivation is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Although risk factors for reactivation of hepatitis B virus infection have been identified, we recommend preventive treatment for all carriers positive for hepatitis B surface antigen. This should be done regardless of the number, type, and dosage of immunosuppressants and regardless of hepatitis B virus DNA levels.90

The frequency of hepatitis B and hepatitis C infection in patients with Crohn disease has been reported to be as high as 24%. The high incidence is thought to be secondary to multiple blood transfusions and surgeries.92 The use of biologic agents, including anti-TNF agents, in chronic hepatitis B virus- or hepatitis C virus-infected patients can lead to enhanced viral replication and hepatitis exacerbation.

Although active viral replication can occur during treatment with biologic agents, reactivation or exacerbation can also occur after the anti-TNF agent is stopped.82 This finding has prompted the recommendation that all candidates for biologic therapy be tested for hepatitis B immunization status, followed by immunization in nonimmune patients before starting anti-TNF therapy.93,94

Hepatitis C. There are no guidelines that adequately address the use of anti-TNF agents in patients with chronic hepatitis C infection.

Several small retrospective studies in rheumatoid arthritis patients with hepatitis C have shown that TNF inhibitors can be safely used without worsening liver function tests or changing the viral load.95–98 This is reassuring and provides the subspecialist with another treatment option, as other therapies such as disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and steroids are known to aggravate viral hepatitis and increase the risk of viremia.96

Although small retrospective studies and one large randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial have shown TNF inhibitors to be relatively safe in rheumatoid arthritis patients with hepatitis C, their use in these patients should be considered only with caution if they have evidence of hepatic synthetic dysfunction (eg, hypoalbuminemia, thrombocytopenia, increased international normalized ratio). The American College of Rheumatology recommends avoiding TNF inhibitors in Child-Pugh classes B and C.99

 

 

PREGNANCY

Physicians caring for patients with rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease must be aware of how these diseases affect fecundity and fertility and how the medications can affect conception and pregnancy. Many patients have difficulty conceiving while their autoimmune disease is active, and better disease control may improve fecundity and result in unanticipated pregnancy. Patients should be advised of the need for contraception if pregnancy is ill-advised or undesired.

Many patients seek advice about teratogenicity before conceiving, or seek guidance about rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease treatment while pregnant.

Several studies have reported a higher risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease than in the general population.99–105 In inflammatory bowel disease, the odds of a premature delivery or having a low-birth-weight child are twice as high as in the normal population.100,103 Higher rates of cesarean delivery and stillbirth have also been reported. The main predisposing factor appears to be the disease activity at the time of conception, as active disease seems to be linked to adverse pregnancy outcomes.

Treatment with anti-TNF agents may rapidly achieve and maintain remission, raising the question of the safety of continued anti-TNF use during pregnancy. The FDA classifies anti-TNF agents as category B drugs, as animal studies have not demonstrated fetal risk, and no well-controlled prospective study has yet been conducted with pregnant women.

In an observational study, Schnitzler et al105 assessed the outcomes of 42 pregnancies in 35 patients with inflammatory bowel disease receiving either infliximab or adalimumab during pregnancy, compared with 56 pregnancies in 45 healthy patients without inflammatory bowel disease. There was no statistical difference in abortion rates between patients receiving anti-TNF agents and healthy women without inflammatory bowel disease (21% vs 14%, P = .4234). There was also no significant difference observed in birth weight, birth length, or cranial circumference of the children between the two groups. However, pregnancies with direct exposure to anti-TNF agents resulted in a higher frequency of premature delivery (25% vs 6%, P = .023).

Similar results were noted from the Crohn’s Therapy, Resource, Evaluation, and Assessment Tool, or TREAT, registry, as well as from a large systematic review by Vinet et al106 and case reports of rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease in women exposed to anti-TNF agents during pregnancy.

In addition, results from a recent systematic review of 38 studies of anti-TNF use and fetal risk, with a total of 437 women (189 on infliximab, 230 on adalimumab, 18 on certolizumab pegol), showed similar results.107 In pregnancies exposed to anti-TNF agents, the rates of congenital abnormalities (3.4%), fetal deaths (8.5%), and preterm births (2.7%) were similar to those in the general population.

For patients in disease remission on TNF inhibitors, it is reasonable to continue these agents during pregnancy after careful discussion with the patient. Fetal safety and infant immunization response after delivery are the primary concerns in these cases.

Both infliximab and adalimumab cross the placenta and remain detectable in the baby’s circulation 4 months (for adalimumab) to 6 months (for infliximab) after delivery. It is currently recommended that infliximab be stopped at 32 weeks of gestation for the remainder of the pregnancy and that adalimumab be stopped at 34 to 36 weeks, given a planned 40-week gestation.

Certolizumab does not cross the placenta in significant amounts and should be continued throughout pregnancy; drug levels in infants were shown to be less than 2 μg/mL, even when dosed the week of delivery.108–112

TAKE-HOME POINTS

  • All health care providers of patients with rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease should be familiar with anti-TNF agents used in treating these diseases.
  • The benefits of controlling the disease far outweigh the risks of therapy when used appropriately.
  • Care of these patients should be multidisciplinary, with clear communication between primary care physician and specialist.
  • Patient education and monitoring combined with prompt communication between primary care physician and specialist are key.
References
  1. Wijbrandts CA, Dijkgraaf MG, Kraan MC, et al. The clinical response to infliximab in rheumatoid arthritis is in part dependent on pretreatment tumour necrosis factor alpha expression in the synovium. Ann Rheum Dis 2008; 67:11391144.
  2. Sfikakis PP. The first decade of biologic TNF antagonists in clinical practice: lessons learned, unresolved issues and future directions. Curr Dir Autoimmun 2010; 11:180210.
  3. Casellas F, Alcalá MJ, Prieto L, Miró JR, Malagelada JR. Assessment of the influence of disease activity on the quality of life of patients with inflammatory bowel disease using a short questionnaire. Am J Gastroenterol 2004; 99:457461.
  4. Casellas F, López-Vivancos J, Badia X, Vilaseca J, Malagelada JR. Influence of inflammatory bowel disease on different dimensions of quality of life. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2001; 13:567572.
  5. Baecklund E, Iliadou A, Askling J, et al. Association of chronic inflammation, not its treatment, with increased lymphoma risk in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2006; 54:692701.
  6. Franklin J, Lunt M, Bunn D, Symmons D, Silman A. Incidence of lymphoma in a large primary care derived cohort of cases of inflammatory polyarthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2006; 65:617622.
  7. Toruner M, Loftus EV, Harmsen WS, et al. Risk factors for opportunistic infections in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Gastroenterology 2008; 134:929936.
  8. Wolfe F, Michaud K. Biologic treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and the risk of malignancy: analyses from a large US observational study. Arthritis Rheum 2007; 56:28862895.
  9. Prevention of pneumococcal disease: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). MMWR Recomm Rep 1997; 46:124.
  10. Zhang J, Xie F, Delzell E, et al. Association between vaccination for herpes zoster and risk of herpes zoster infection among older patients with selected immune-mediated diseases. JAMA 2012; 308:4349.
  11. Moreland LW, Baumgartner SW, Schiff MH, et al. Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with a recombinant human tumor necrosis factor receptor (p75)-Fc fusion protein. N Engl J Med 1997; 337:141147.
  12. Altunöz ME, Senates E, Yesil A, Calhan T, Ovünç AO. Patients with inflammatory bowel disease have a lower response rate to HBV vaccination compared to controls. Dig Dis Sci 2012; 57:10391044.
  13. Gisbert JP, Villagrasa JR, Rodríguez-Nogueiras A, Chaparro M. Efficacy of hepatitis B vaccination and revaccination and factors impacting on response in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Am J Gastroenterol 2012; 107:14601466.
  14. Carrera E, Manzano R, Garrido E. Efficacy of the vaccination in inflammatory bowel disease. World J Gastroenterol 2013; 19:13491353.
  15. Gisbert JP, Menchén L, García-Sánchez V, Marín I, Villagrasa JR, Chaparro M. Comparison of the effectiveness of two protocols for vaccination (standard and double dosage) against hepatitis B virus in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2012; 35:13791385.
  16. Ferkolj I. How to improve the safety of biologic therapy in Crohn’s disease. J Physiol Pharmacol 2009; 60(suppl 7):6770.
  17. Siegel CA. The risks of biologic therapy for inflammatory bowel disease. In:Bernstein ED, editor. The Inflammatory Bowel Disease Yearbook, volume 6. London, UK: Remedica, 2010:89108.
  18. Remicade (infliximab) Package Insert. Horsham, PA: Janssen Biotech, Inc; 2013. http://www.remicade.com/shared/product/remicade/prescribing-information.pdf. Accessed January 2, 2014.
  19. Vermeire S, Noman M, Van Assche G, et al. Autoimmunity associated with anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha treatment in Crohn’s disease: a prospective cohort study. Gastroenterology 2003; 125:3239.
  20. Cush JJ. Biological drug use: US perspectives on indications and monitoring. Ann Rheum Dis 2005; 64(suppl 4):iv18iv23.
  21. TNF neutralization in MS: results of a randomized, placebo-controlled multicenter study. The Lenercept Multiple Sclerosis Study Group and The University of British Columbia MS/MRI Analysis Group. Neurology 1999; 53:457465.
  22. Chung ES, Packer M, Lo KH, Fasanmade AA, Willerson JT; Anti-TNF Therapy Against Congestive Heart Failure Investigators. Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, pilot trial of infliximab, a chimeric monoclonal antibody to tumor necrosis factor-alpha, in patients with moderate-to-severe heart failure: results of the anti-TNF Therapy Against Congestive Heart Failure (ATTACH) trial. Circulation 2003; 107:31333140.
  23. Cheifetz A, Mayer L. Monoclonal antibodies, immunogenicity, and associated infusion reactions. Mt Sinai J Med 2005; 72:250256.
  24. Cheifetz A, Smedley M, Martin S, et al. The incidence and management of infusion reactions to infliximab: a large center experience. Am J Gastroenterol 2003; 98:13151324.
  25. Vultaggio A, Matucci A, Nencini F, et al. Anti-infliximab IgE and non-IgE antibodies and induction of infusion-related severe anaphylactic reactions. Allergy 2010; 65:657661.
  26. Ramos-Casals M, Brito-Zerón P, Muñoz S, et al. Autoimmune diseases induced by TNF-targeted therapies: analysis of 233 cases. Medicine (Baltimore) 2007; 86:242251.
  27. Stallmach A, Hagel S, Bruns T. Adverse effects of biologics used for treating IBD. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 2010; 24:167182.
  28. Haagsma CJ, Blom HJ, van Riel PL, et al. Influence of sulphasalazine, methotrexate, and the combination of both on plasma homocysteine concentrations in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 1999; 58:7984.
  29. Fiorino G, Allez M, Malesci A, Danese S. Review article: anti TNF-alpha induced psoriasis in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2009; 29:921927.
  30. Harrison MJ, Dixon WG, Watson KD, et al; British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register Control Centre Consortium; BSRBR. Rates of new-onset psoriasis in patients with rheumatoid arthritis receiving anti-tumour necrosis factor alpha therapy: results from the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register. Ann Rheum Dis 2009; 68:209215.
  31. Marchesoni A, Zaccara E, Gorla R, et al. TNF-alpha antagonist survival rate in a cohort of rheumatoid arthritis patients observed under conditions of standard clinical practice. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2009; 1173:837846.
  32. Tomas L, Lazurova I, Pundova L, et al. Acute and long-term effect of infliximab on humoral and echocardiographic parameters in patients with chronic inflammatory diseases. Clin Rheumatol 2013 32:6166.
  33. Senel S, Cobankara V, Taskoylu O, et al. The safety and efficacy of etanercept on cardiac functions and lipid profile in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis. J Investig Med 2012; 60:6265.
  34. Al-Aly Z, Pan H, Zeringue A, et al. Tumor necrosis factor-a blockade, cardiovascular outcomes, and survival in rheumatoid arthritis. Transl Res 2011; 157:1018.
  35. Listing J, Strangfeld A, Kekow J, et al. Does tumor necrosis factor alpha inhibition promote or prevent heart failure in patients with rheumatoid arthritis? Arthritis Rheum 2008; 58:667677.
  36. Wolfe F, Michaud K. Heart failure in rheumatoid arthritis: rates, predictors, and the effect of anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy. Am J Med 2004; 116:305311.
  37. Enayati PJ, Papadakis KA. Association of anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy with the development of multiple sclerosis. J Clin Gastroenterol 2005; 39:303306.
  38. Mohan N, Edwards ET, Cupps TR, et al. Demyelination occurring during anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha therapy for inflammatory arthritides. Arthritis Rheum 2001; 44:28622869.
  39. Sands BE, Anderson FH, Bernstein CN, et al. Infliximab maintenance therapy for fistulizing Crohn’s disease. N Engl J Med 2004; 350:876885.
  40. Thomas CW, Weinshenker BG, Sandborn WJ. Demyelination during anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha therapy with infliximab for Crohn’s disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2004; 10:2831.
  41. Foroozan R, Buono LM, Sergott RC, Savino PJ. Retrobulbar optic neuritis associated with infliximab. Arch Ophthalmol 2002; 120:985987.
  42. Strong BY, Erny BC, Herzenberg H, Razzeca KJ. Retrobulbar optic neuritis associated with infliximab in a patient with Crohn disease. Ann Intern Med 2004; 140:W34.
  43. ten Tusscher MP, Jacobs PJ, Busch MJ, de Graaf L, Diemont WL. Bilateral anterior toxic optic neuropathy and the use of infliximab. BMJ 2003; 326:579.
  44. Hegde N, Gayomali C, Rich MW. Infliximab-induced headache and infliximab-induced meningitis: two ends of the same spectrum? South Med J 2005; 98:564566.
  45. Schiff MH, Burmester GR, Kent JD, et al. Safety analyses of adalimumab (HUMIRA) in global clinical trials and US postmarketing surveillance of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2006; 65:889894.
  46. Beaugerie L, Brousse N, Bouvier AM, et al; CESAME Study Group. Lymphoproliferative disorders in patients receiving thiopurines for inflammatory bowel disease: a prospective observational cohort study. Lancet 2009; 374:16171625.
  47. Ekström K, Hjalgrim H, Brandt L, et al. Risk of malignant lymphomas in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and in their first-degree relatives. Arthritis Rheum 2003; 48:963970.
  48. Lakatos PL, Lakatos L. Risk for colorectal cancer in ulcerative colitis: changes, causes and management strategies. World J Gastroenterol 2008; 14:39373947.
  49. Persson PG, Karlén P, Bernell O, et al. Crohn’s disease and cancer: a population-based cohort study. Gastroenterology 1994; 107:16751679.
  50. de Silva S, Devlin S, Panaccione R. Optimizing the safety of biologic therapy for IBD. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2010; 7:93101.
  51. Lichtenstein GR, Feagan BG, Cohen RD, et al. Serious infections and mortality in association with therapies for Crohn’s disease: TREAT registry. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2006; 4:621630.
  52. Peyrin-Biroulet L, Deltenre P, de Suray N, Branche J, Sandborn WJ, Colombel JF. Efficacy and safety of tumor necrosis factor antagonists in Crohn’s disease: meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2008; 6:644653.
  53. Hanauer SB, Feagan BG, Lichtenstein GR, et al; ACCENT I Study Group. Maintenance infliximab for Crohn’s disease: the ACCENT I randomised trial. Lancet 2002; 359:15411549.
  54. Colombel JF, Sandborn WJ, Rutgeerts P, et al. Adalimumab for maintenance of clinical response and remission in patients with Crohn’s disease: the CHARM trial. Gastroenterology 2007; 132:5265.
  55. Sandborn WJ, Feagan BG, Stoinov S, et al; PRECISE 1 Study Investigators. Certolizumab pegol for the treatment of Crohn’s disease. N Engl J Med 2007; 357:228238.
  56. Sandborn WJ, Hanauer SB, Rutgeerts P, et al. Adalimumab for maintenance treatment of Crohn’s disease: results of the CLASSIC II trial. Gut 2007; 56:12321239.
  57. Hanauer SB, Sandborn WJ, Rutgeerts P, et al. Human anti-tumor necrosis factor monoclonal antibody (adalimumab) in Crohn’s disease: the CLASSIC-I trial. Gastroenterology 2006; 130:323333.
  58. Rutgeerts P, D’Haens G, Targan S, et al. Efficacy and safety of retreatment with anti-tumor necrosis factor antibody (infliximab) to maintain remission in Crohn’s disease. Gastroenterology 1999; 117:761769.
  59. Rutgeerts P, Sandborn WJ, Feagan BG, et al. Infliximab for induction and maintenance therapy for ulcerative colitis. N Engl J Med 2005; 353:24622476.
  60. Pedersen N, Duricova D, Elkjaer M, Gamborg M, Munkholm P, Jess T. Risk of extra-intestinal cancer in inflammatory bowel disease: meta-analysis of population-based cohort studies. Am J Gastroenterol 2010; 105:14801487.
  61. Bernstein CN, Blanchard JF, Kliewer E, Wajda A. Cancer risk in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: a population-based study. Cancer 2001; 91:854862.
  62. Siegel CA, Marden SM, Persing SN, Larson RJ, Sands BE. Risk of lymphoma associated with combination anti-tumor necrosis factor and immunomodulator therapy for the treatment of Crohn’s disease: a meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2009; 7:874881.
  63. Wolfe F, Michaud K. Lympyhoma in rheumatoid arthritis. The effect of methotrexate and anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy in 18,572 patients. Arthritis Rheum 2004; 50:17401751.
  64. Parakkal D, Sifuentes H, Semer R, Ehrenpreis ED. Hepatosplenic T-cell lymphoma in patients receiving TNF-a inhibitor therapy: expanding the groups at risk. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2011; 23:11501156.
  65. Rosh JR, Gross T, Mamula P, Griffiths A, Hyams J. Hepatosplenic T-cell lymphoma in adolescents and young adults with Crohn’s disease: a cautionary tale? Inflamm Bowel Dis 2007; 13:10241030.
  66. Shale M, Kanfer E, Panaccione R, Ghosh S. Hepatosplenic T cell lymphoma in inflammatory bowel disease. Gut 2008; 57:16391641.
  67. Thai A, Prindiville T. Hepatosplenic T-cell lymphoma and inflammatory bowel disease. J Crohns Colitis 2010; 4:511522.
  68. Viget N, Vernier-Massouille G, Salmon-Ceron D, Yazdanpanah Y, Colombel JF. Opportunistic infections in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: prevention and diagnosis. Gut 2008; 57:549558.
  69. Bekker LG, Freeman S, Murray PJ, Ryffel B, Kaplan G. TNF-alpha controls intracellular mycobacterial growth by both inducible nitric oxide synthase-dependent and inducible nitric oxide synthase-independent pathways. J Immunol 2001; 166:67286734.
  70. Roach DR, Bean AG, Demangel C, France MP, Briscoe H, Britton WJ. TNF regulates chemokine induction essential for cell recruitment, granuloma formation, and clearance of mycobacterial infection. J Immunol 2002; 168:46204627.
  71. Gómez-Reino JJ, Carmona L, Valverde VR, Mola EM, Montero MDBIOBADASER Group. Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors may predispose to significant increase in tuberculosis risk: a multicenter active-surveillance report. Arthritis Rheum 2003; 48:21222127.
  72. Keane J, Gershon S, Wise RP, et al. Tuberculosis associated with infliximab, a tumor necrosis factor alpha-neutralizing agent. N Engl J Med 2001; 345:10981104.
  73. Smolen J, Landewé RB, Mease P, et al. Efficacy and safety of certolizumab pegol plus methotrexate in active rheumatoid arthritis: the RAPID 2 study. A randomised controlled trial. Ann Rheum Dis 2009; 68:797804.
  74. Demkow U, Broniarek-Samson B, Filewska M, et al. Prevalence of latent tuberculosis infection in health care workers in Poland assessed by interferon-gamma whole blood and tuberculin skin tests. J Physiol Pharmacol 2008; 59(suppl 6):209217.
  75. Pache I, Rogler G, Felley C. TNF-alpha blockers in inflammatory bowel diseases: practical consensus recommendations and a user’s guide. Swiss Med Wkly 2009; 139:278287.
  76. Rahier JF, Ben-Horin S, Chowers Y, et al; European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation (ECCO). European evidence-based consensus on the prevention, diagnosis and management of opportunistic infections in inflammatory bowel disease. J Crohns Colitis 2009; 3:4791.
  77. Rahier JF, Yazdanpanah Y, Colombel JF, Travis S. The European (ECCO) consensus on infection in IBD: what does it change for the clinician? Gut 2009; 58:13131315.
  78. Bergstrom L, Yocum DE, Ampel NM, et al. Increased risk of coccidioidomycosis in patients treated with tumor necrosis factor alpha antagonists. Arthritis Rheum 2004; 50:19591966.
  79. Lee JH, Slifman NR, Gershon SK, et al. Life-threatening histoplasmosis complicating immunotherapy with tumor necrosis factor alpha antagonists infliximab and etanercept. Arthritis Rheum 2002; 46:25652570.
  80. Wood KL, Hage CA, Knox KS, et al. Histoplasmosis after treatment with anti-tumor necrosis factor-alpha therapy. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2003; 167:12791282.
  81. Reddy JG, Loftus EV. Safety of infliximab and other biologic agents in the inflammatory bowel diseases. Gastroenterol Clin North Am 2006; 35:837855.
  82. Esteve M, Saro C, González-Huix F, Suarez F, Forné M, Viver JM. Chronic hepatitis B reactivation following infliximab therapy in Crohn’s disease patients: need for primary prophylaxis. Gut 2004; 53:13631365.
  83. Michel M, Duvoux C, Hezode C, Cherqui D. Fulminant hepatitis after infliximab in a patient with hepatitis B virus treated for an adult onset Still’s disease. J Rheumatol 2003; 30:16241625.
  84. Ostuni P, Botsios C, Punzi L, Sfriso P, Todesco S. Hepatitis B reactivation in a chronic hepatitis B surface antigen carrier with rheumatoid arthritis treated with infliximab and low dose methotrexate. Ann Rheum Dis 2003; 62:686687.
  85. Pérez-Alvarez R, Díaz-Lagares C, García-Hernández F, et al; BIOGEAS Study Group. Hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation in patients receiving tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-targeted therapy: analysis of 257 cases. Medicine (Baltimore) 2011; 90:359371.
  86. Loras C, Gisbert JP, Mínguez M, et al; REPENTINA study; GETECCU (Grupo Español de Enfermedades de Crohn y Colitis Ulcerosa) Group. Liver dysfunction related to hepatitis B and C in patients with inflammatory bowel disease treated with immunosuppressive therapy. Gut 2010; 59:13401346.
  87. Park SH, Yang SK, Lim YS, et al. Clinical courses of chronic hepatitis B virus infection and inflammatory bowel disease in patients with both diseases. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2012; 18:20042010.
  88. Loomba R, Rowley A, Wesley R, et al. Systematic review: the effect of preventive lamivudine on hepatitis B reactivation during chemotherapy. Ann Intern Med 2008; 148:519528.
  89. Lok AS, McMahon BJ. Chronic hepatitis B: update 2009. Hepatology 2009; 50:661662.
  90. European Association For The Study Of The Liver. EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines: management of chronic hepatitis B. J Hepatol 2009; 50:227242.
  91. Watanabe M, Shibuya A, Takada J, et al. Entecavir is an optional agent to prevent hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation: a review of 16 patients. Eur J Intern Med 2010; 21:333337.
  92. Biancone L, Pavia M, Del Vecchio Blanco G, et al; Italian Group for the Study of the Colon and Rectum (GISC). Hepatitis B and C virus infection in Crohn’s disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2001; 7:287294.
  93. Melmed GY. Vaccination strategies for patients with inflammatory bowel disease on immunomodulators and biologics. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2009; 15:14101416.
  94. Melmed GY, Ippoliti AF, Papadakis KA, et al. Patients with inflammatory bowel disease are at risk for vaccine-preventable illnesses. Am J Gastroenterol 2006; 101:18341840.
  95. Ferri C, Ferraccioli G, Ferrari D, et al. Safety of anti-tumor necrosis factor-alpha therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and chronic hepatitis C virus infection. J Rheumatol 2008; 35:19441949.
  96. Mok MY, Ng WL, Yuen MF, Wong RW, Lau CS. Safety of disease modifying anti-rheumatic agents in rheumatoid arthritis patients with chronic viral hepatitis. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2000; 18:363368.
  97. Vassilopoulos D, Calabrese LH. Risks of immunosuppressive therapies including biologic agents in patients with rheumatic diseases and coexisting chronic viral infections. Curr Opin Rheumatol 2007; 19:619625.
  98. Vassilopoulos D, Apostolopoulou A, Hadziyannis E, et al. Long-term safety of anti-TNF treatment in patients with rheumatic diseases and chronic or resolved hepatitis B virus infection. Ann Rheum Dis 2010; 69:13521355.
  99. Saag KG, Teng GG, Patkar NM, et al; American College of Rheumatology. American College of Rheumatology 2008 recommendations for the use of nonbiologic and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2008; 59:762784.
  100. Cornish J, Tan E, Teare J, et al. A meta-analysis on the influence of inflammatory bowel disease on pregnancy. Gut 2007; 56:830837.
  101. Dominitz JA, Young JC, Boyko EJ. Outcomes of infants born to mothers with inflammatory bowel disease: a population-based cohort study. Am J Gastroenterol 2002; 97:641648.
  102. Kornfeld D, Cnattingius S, Ekbom A. Pregnancy outcomes in women with inflammatory bowel disease—a population-based cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1997; 177:942946.
  103. Mahadevan U, Sandborn WJ, Li DK, Hakimian S, Kane S, Corley DA. Pregnancy outcomes in women with inflammatory bowel disease: a large community-based study from Northern California. Gastroenterology 2007; 133:11061112.
  104. Nguyen GC, Boudreau H, Harris ML, Maxwell CV. Outcomes of obstetric hospitalizations among women with inflammatory bowel disease in the United States. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2009; 7:329334.
  105. Schnitzler F, Fidder H, Ferrante M, et al. Outcome of pregnancy in women with inflammatory bowel disease treated with antitumor necrosis factor therapy. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2011; 17:18461854.
  106. Vinet E, Pineau C, Gordon C, Clarke AE, Bernatsky S. Biologic therapy and pregnancy outcomes in women with rheumatic diseases. Arthritis Rheum 2009; 61:587592.
  107. Guidi L, Pugliese D, Armuzzi A. Update on the management of inflammatory bowel disease: specific role of adalimumab. Clin Exp Gastroenterol 2011; 4:163172.
  108. Mahadevan U. Continuing immunomodulators and biologic medications in pregnant IBD patients – pro. IInflamm Bowel Dis 2007; 13:14391440.
  109. Mahadevan U. Gastrointestinal medications in pregnancy. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 2007; 21:849877.
  110. Mahadevan U, Cucchiara S, Hyams JS, et al. The London Position Statement of the World Congress of Gastroenterology on Biological Therapy for IBD with the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation: pregnancy and pediatrics. Am J Gastroenterol 2011; 106:214223.
  111. Mahadevan U, Kane S. Use of infliximab in pregnancy. Am J Gastroenterol 2010; 105:219220.
  112. Vasiliauskas EA, Church JA, Silverman N, Barry M, Targan SR, Dubinsky MC. Case report: evidence for transplacental transfer of maternally administered infliximab to the newborn. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2006; 4:12551258.
References
  1. Wijbrandts CA, Dijkgraaf MG, Kraan MC, et al. The clinical response to infliximab in rheumatoid arthritis is in part dependent on pretreatment tumour necrosis factor alpha expression in the synovium. Ann Rheum Dis 2008; 67:11391144.
  2. Sfikakis PP. The first decade of biologic TNF antagonists in clinical practice: lessons learned, unresolved issues and future directions. Curr Dir Autoimmun 2010; 11:180210.
  3. Casellas F, Alcalá MJ, Prieto L, Miró JR, Malagelada JR. Assessment of the influence of disease activity on the quality of life of patients with inflammatory bowel disease using a short questionnaire. Am J Gastroenterol 2004; 99:457461.
  4. Casellas F, López-Vivancos J, Badia X, Vilaseca J, Malagelada JR. Influence of inflammatory bowel disease on different dimensions of quality of life. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2001; 13:567572.
  5. Baecklund E, Iliadou A, Askling J, et al. Association of chronic inflammation, not its treatment, with increased lymphoma risk in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2006; 54:692701.
  6. Franklin J, Lunt M, Bunn D, Symmons D, Silman A. Incidence of lymphoma in a large primary care derived cohort of cases of inflammatory polyarthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2006; 65:617622.
  7. Toruner M, Loftus EV, Harmsen WS, et al. Risk factors for opportunistic infections in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Gastroenterology 2008; 134:929936.
  8. Wolfe F, Michaud K. Biologic treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and the risk of malignancy: analyses from a large US observational study. Arthritis Rheum 2007; 56:28862895.
  9. Prevention of pneumococcal disease: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). MMWR Recomm Rep 1997; 46:124.
  10. Zhang J, Xie F, Delzell E, et al. Association between vaccination for herpes zoster and risk of herpes zoster infection among older patients with selected immune-mediated diseases. JAMA 2012; 308:4349.
  11. Moreland LW, Baumgartner SW, Schiff MH, et al. Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with a recombinant human tumor necrosis factor receptor (p75)-Fc fusion protein. N Engl J Med 1997; 337:141147.
  12. Altunöz ME, Senates E, Yesil A, Calhan T, Ovünç AO. Patients with inflammatory bowel disease have a lower response rate to HBV vaccination compared to controls. Dig Dis Sci 2012; 57:10391044.
  13. Gisbert JP, Villagrasa JR, Rodríguez-Nogueiras A, Chaparro M. Efficacy of hepatitis B vaccination and revaccination and factors impacting on response in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Am J Gastroenterol 2012; 107:14601466.
  14. Carrera E, Manzano R, Garrido E. Efficacy of the vaccination in inflammatory bowel disease. World J Gastroenterol 2013; 19:13491353.
  15. Gisbert JP, Menchén L, García-Sánchez V, Marín I, Villagrasa JR, Chaparro M. Comparison of the effectiveness of two protocols for vaccination (standard and double dosage) against hepatitis B virus in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2012; 35:13791385.
  16. Ferkolj I. How to improve the safety of biologic therapy in Crohn’s disease. J Physiol Pharmacol 2009; 60(suppl 7):6770.
  17. Siegel CA. The risks of biologic therapy for inflammatory bowel disease. In:Bernstein ED, editor. The Inflammatory Bowel Disease Yearbook, volume 6. London, UK: Remedica, 2010:89108.
  18. Remicade (infliximab) Package Insert. Horsham, PA: Janssen Biotech, Inc; 2013. http://www.remicade.com/shared/product/remicade/prescribing-information.pdf. Accessed January 2, 2014.
  19. Vermeire S, Noman M, Van Assche G, et al. Autoimmunity associated with anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha treatment in Crohn’s disease: a prospective cohort study. Gastroenterology 2003; 125:3239.
  20. Cush JJ. Biological drug use: US perspectives on indications and monitoring. Ann Rheum Dis 2005; 64(suppl 4):iv18iv23.
  21. TNF neutralization in MS: results of a randomized, placebo-controlled multicenter study. The Lenercept Multiple Sclerosis Study Group and The University of British Columbia MS/MRI Analysis Group. Neurology 1999; 53:457465.
  22. Chung ES, Packer M, Lo KH, Fasanmade AA, Willerson JT; Anti-TNF Therapy Against Congestive Heart Failure Investigators. Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, pilot trial of infliximab, a chimeric monoclonal antibody to tumor necrosis factor-alpha, in patients with moderate-to-severe heart failure: results of the anti-TNF Therapy Against Congestive Heart Failure (ATTACH) trial. Circulation 2003; 107:31333140.
  23. Cheifetz A, Mayer L. Monoclonal antibodies, immunogenicity, and associated infusion reactions. Mt Sinai J Med 2005; 72:250256.
  24. Cheifetz A, Smedley M, Martin S, et al. The incidence and management of infusion reactions to infliximab: a large center experience. Am J Gastroenterol 2003; 98:13151324.
  25. Vultaggio A, Matucci A, Nencini F, et al. Anti-infliximab IgE and non-IgE antibodies and induction of infusion-related severe anaphylactic reactions. Allergy 2010; 65:657661.
  26. Ramos-Casals M, Brito-Zerón P, Muñoz S, et al. Autoimmune diseases induced by TNF-targeted therapies: analysis of 233 cases. Medicine (Baltimore) 2007; 86:242251.
  27. Stallmach A, Hagel S, Bruns T. Adverse effects of biologics used for treating IBD. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 2010; 24:167182.
  28. Haagsma CJ, Blom HJ, van Riel PL, et al. Influence of sulphasalazine, methotrexate, and the combination of both on plasma homocysteine concentrations in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 1999; 58:7984.
  29. Fiorino G, Allez M, Malesci A, Danese S. Review article: anti TNF-alpha induced psoriasis in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2009; 29:921927.
  30. Harrison MJ, Dixon WG, Watson KD, et al; British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register Control Centre Consortium; BSRBR. Rates of new-onset psoriasis in patients with rheumatoid arthritis receiving anti-tumour necrosis factor alpha therapy: results from the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register. Ann Rheum Dis 2009; 68:209215.
  31. Marchesoni A, Zaccara E, Gorla R, et al. TNF-alpha antagonist survival rate in a cohort of rheumatoid arthritis patients observed under conditions of standard clinical practice. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2009; 1173:837846.
  32. Tomas L, Lazurova I, Pundova L, et al. Acute and long-term effect of infliximab on humoral and echocardiographic parameters in patients with chronic inflammatory diseases. Clin Rheumatol 2013 32:6166.
  33. Senel S, Cobankara V, Taskoylu O, et al. The safety and efficacy of etanercept on cardiac functions and lipid profile in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis. J Investig Med 2012; 60:6265.
  34. Al-Aly Z, Pan H, Zeringue A, et al. Tumor necrosis factor-a blockade, cardiovascular outcomes, and survival in rheumatoid arthritis. Transl Res 2011; 157:1018.
  35. Listing J, Strangfeld A, Kekow J, et al. Does tumor necrosis factor alpha inhibition promote or prevent heart failure in patients with rheumatoid arthritis? Arthritis Rheum 2008; 58:667677.
  36. Wolfe F, Michaud K. Heart failure in rheumatoid arthritis: rates, predictors, and the effect of anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy. Am J Med 2004; 116:305311.
  37. Enayati PJ, Papadakis KA. Association of anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy with the development of multiple sclerosis. J Clin Gastroenterol 2005; 39:303306.
  38. Mohan N, Edwards ET, Cupps TR, et al. Demyelination occurring during anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha therapy for inflammatory arthritides. Arthritis Rheum 2001; 44:28622869.
  39. Sands BE, Anderson FH, Bernstein CN, et al. Infliximab maintenance therapy for fistulizing Crohn’s disease. N Engl J Med 2004; 350:876885.
  40. Thomas CW, Weinshenker BG, Sandborn WJ. Demyelination during anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha therapy with infliximab for Crohn’s disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2004; 10:2831.
  41. Foroozan R, Buono LM, Sergott RC, Savino PJ. Retrobulbar optic neuritis associated with infliximab. Arch Ophthalmol 2002; 120:985987.
  42. Strong BY, Erny BC, Herzenberg H, Razzeca KJ. Retrobulbar optic neuritis associated with infliximab in a patient with Crohn disease. Ann Intern Med 2004; 140:W34.
  43. ten Tusscher MP, Jacobs PJ, Busch MJ, de Graaf L, Diemont WL. Bilateral anterior toxic optic neuropathy and the use of infliximab. BMJ 2003; 326:579.
  44. Hegde N, Gayomali C, Rich MW. Infliximab-induced headache and infliximab-induced meningitis: two ends of the same spectrum? South Med J 2005; 98:564566.
  45. Schiff MH, Burmester GR, Kent JD, et al. Safety analyses of adalimumab (HUMIRA) in global clinical trials and US postmarketing surveillance of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2006; 65:889894.
  46. Beaugerie L, Brousse N, Bouvier AM, et al; CESAME Study Group. Lymphoproliferative disorders in patients receiving thiopurines for inflammatory bowel disease: a prospective observational cohort study. Lancet 2009; 374:16171625.
  47. Ekström K, Hjalgrim H, Brandt L, et al. Risk of malignant lymphomas in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and in their first-degree relatives. Arthritis Rheum 2003; 48:963970.
  48. Lakatos PL, Lakatos L. Risk for colorectal cancer in ulcerative colitis: changes, causes and management strategies. World J Gastroenterol 2008; 14:39373947.
  49. Persson PG, Karlén P, Bernell O, et al. Crohn’s disease and cancer: a population-based cohort study. Gastroenterology 1994; 107:16751679.
  50. de Silva S, Devlin S, Panaccione R. Optimizing the safety of biologic therapy for IBD. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2010; 7:93101.
  51. Lichtenstein GR, Feagan BG, Cohen RD, et al. Serious infections and mortality in association with therapies for Crohn’s disease: TREAT registry. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2006; 4:621630.
  52. Peyrin-Biroulet L, Deltenre P, de Suray N, Branche J, Sandborn WJ, Colombel JF. Efficacy and safety of tumor necrosis factor antagonists in Crohn’s disease: meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2008; 6:644653.
  53. Hanauer SB, Feagan BG, Lichtenstein GR, et al; ACCENT I Study Group. Maintenance infliximab for Crohn’s disease: the ACCENT I randomised trial. Lancet 2002; 359:15411549.
  54. Colombel JF, Sandborn WJ, Rutgeerts P, et al. Adalimumab for maintenance of clinical response and remission in patients with Crohn’s disease: the CHARM trial. Gastroenterology 2007; 132:5265.
  55. Sandborn WJ, Feagan BG, Stoinov S, et al; PRECISE 1 Study Investigators. Certolizumab pegol for the treatment of Crohn’s disease. N Engl J Med 2007; 357:228238.
  56. Sandborn WJ, Hanauer SB, Rutgeerts P, et al. Adalimumab for maintenance treatment of Crohn’s disease: results of the CLASSIC II trial. Gut 2007; 56:12321239.
  57. Hanauer SB, Sandborn WJ, Rutgeerts P, et al. Human anti-tumor necrosis factor monoclonal antibody (adalimumab) in Crohn’s disease: the CLASSIC-I trial. Gastroenterology 2006; 130:323333.
  58. Rutgeerts P, D’Haens G, Targan S, et al. Efficacy and safety of retreatment with anti-tumor necrosis factor antibody (infliximab) to maintain remission in Crohn’s disease. Gastroenterology 1999; 117:761769.
  59. Rutgeerts P, Sandborn WJ, Feagan BG, et al. Infliximab for induction and maintenance therapy for ulcerative colitis. N Engl J Med 2005; 353:24622476.
  60. Pedersen N, Duricova D, Elkjaer M, Gamborg M, Munkholm P, Jess T. Risk of extra-intestinal cancer in inflammatory bowel disease: meta-analysis of population-based cohort studies. Am J Gastroenterol 2010; 105:14801487.
  61. Bernstein CN, Blanchard JF, Kliewer E, Wajda A. Cancer risk in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: a population-based study. Cancer 2001; 91:854862.
  62. Siegel CA, Marden SM, Persing SN, Larson RJ, Sands BE. Risk of lymphoma associated with combination anti-tumor necrosis factor and immunomodulator therapy for the treatment of Crohn’s disease: a meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2009; 7:874881.
  63. Wolfe F, Michaud K. Lympyhoma in rheumatoid arthritis. The effect of methotrexate and anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy in 18,572 patients. Arthritis Rheum 2004; 50:17401751.
  64. Parakkal D, Sifuentes H, Semer R, Ehrenpreis ED. Hepatosplenic T-cell lymphoma in patients receiving TNF-a inhibitor therapy: expanding the groups at risk. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2011; 23:11501156.
  65. Rosh JR, Gross T, Mamula P, Griffiths A, Hyams J. Hepatosplenic T-cell lymphoma in adolescents and young adults with Crohn’s disease: a cautionary tale? Inflamm Bowel Dis 2007; 13:10241030.
  66. Shale M, Kanfer E, Panaccione R, Ghosh S. Hepatosplenic T cell lymphoma in inflammatory bowel disease. Gut 2008; 57:16391641.
  67. Thai A, Prindiville T. Hepatosplenic T-cell lymphoma and inflammatory bowel disease. J Crohns Colitis 2010; 4:511522.
  68. Viget N, Vernier-Massouille G, Salmon-Ceron D, Yazdanpanah Y, Colombel JF. Opportunistic infections in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: prevention and diagnosis. Gut 2008; 57:549558.
  69. Bekker LG, Freeman S, Murray PJ, Ryffel B, Kaplan G. TNF-alpha controls intracellular mycobacterial growth by both inducible nitric oxide synthase-dependent and inducible nitric oxide synthase-independent pathways. J Immunol 2001; 166:67286734.
  70. Roach DR, Bean AG, Demangel C, France MP, Briscoe H, Britton WJ. TNF regulates chemokine induction essential for cell recruitment, granuloma formation, and clearance of mycobacterial infection. J Immunol 2002; 168:46204627.
  71. Gómez-Reino JJ, Carmona L, Valverde VR, Mola EM, Montero MDBIOBADASER Group. Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors may predispose to significant increase in tuberculosis risk: a multicenter active-surveillance report. Arthritis Rheum 2003; 48:21222127.
  72. Keane J, Gershon S, Wise RP, et al. Tuberculosis associated with infliximab, a tumor necrosis factor alpha-neutralizing agent. N Engl J Med 2001; 345:10981104.
  73. Smolen J, Landewé RB, Mease P, et al. Efficacy and safety of certolizumab pegol plus methotrexate in active rheumatoid arthritis: the RAPID 2 study. A randomised controlled trial. Ann Rheum Dis 2009; 68:797804.
  74. Demkow U, Broniarek-Samson B, Filewska M, et al. Prevalence of latent tuberculosis infection in health care workers in Poland assessed by interferon-gamma whole blood and tuberculin skin tests. J Physiol Pharmacol 2008; 59(suppl 6):209217.
  75. Pache I, Rogler G, Felley C. TNF-alpha blockers in inflammatory bowel diseases: practical consensus recommendations and a user’s guide. Swiss Med Wkly 2009; 139:278287.
  76. Rahier JF, Ben-Horin S, Chowers Y, et al; European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation (ECCO). European evidence-based consensus on the prevention, diagnosis and management of opportunistic infections in inflammatory bowel disease. J Crohns Colitis 2009; 3:4791.
  77. Rahier JF, Yazdanpanah Y, Colombel JF, Travis S. The European (ECCO) consensus on infection in IBD: what does it change for the clinician? Gut 2009; 58:13131315.
  78. Bergstrom L, Yocum DE, Ampel NM, et al. Increased risk of coccidioidomycosis in patients treated with tumor necrosis factor alpha antagonists. Arthritis Rheum 2004; 50:19591966.
  79. Lee JH, Slifman NR, Gershon SK, et al. Life-threatening histoplasmosis complicating immunotherapy with tumor necrosis factor alpha antagonists infliximab and etanercept. Arthritis Rheum 2002; 46:25652570.
  80. Wood KL, Hage CA, Knox KS, et al. Histoplasmosis after treatment with anti-tumor necrosis factor-alpha therapy. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2003; 167:12791282.
  81. Reddy JG, Loftus EV. Safety of infliximab and other biologic agents in the inflammatory bowel diseases. Gastroenterol Clin North Am 2006; 35:837855.
  82. Esteve M, Saro C, González-Huix F, Suarez F, Forné M, Viver JM. Chronic hepatitis B reactivation following infliximab therapy in Crohn’s disease patients: need for primary prophylaxis. Gut 2004; 53:13631365.
  83. Michel M, Duvoux C, Hezode C, Cherqui D. Fulminant hepatitis after infliximab in a patient with hepatitis B virus treated for an adult onset Still’s disease. J Rheumatol 2003; 30:16241625.
  84. Ostuni P, Botsios C, Punzi L, Sfriso P, Todesco S. Hepatitis B reactivation in a chronic hepatitis B surface antigen carrier with rheumatoid arthritis treated with infliximab and low dose methotrexate. Ann Rheum Dis 2003; 62:686687.
  85. Pérez-Alvarez R, Díaz-Lagares C, García-Hernández F, et al; BIOGEAS Study Group. Hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation in patients receiving tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-targeted therapy: analysis of 257 cases. Medicine (Baltimore) 2011; 90:359371.
  86. Loras C, Gisbert JP, Mínguez M, et al; REPENTINA study; GETECCU (Grupo Español de Enfermedades de Crohn y Colitis Ulcerosa) Group. Liver dysfunction related to hepatitis B and C in patients with inflammatory bowel disease treated with immunosuppressive therapy. Gut 2010; 59:13401346.
  87. Park SH, Yang SK, Lim YS, et al. Clinical courses of chronic hepatitis B virus infection and inflammatory bowel disease in patients with both diseases. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2012; 18:20042010.
  88. Loomba R, Rowley A, Wesley R, et al. Systematic review: the effect of preventive lamivudine on hepatitis B reactivation during chemotherapy. Ann Intern Med 2008; 148:519528.
  89. Lok AS, McMahon BJ. Chronic hepatitis B: update 2009. Hepatology 2009; 50:661662.
  90. European Association For The Study Of The Liver. EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines: management of chronic hepatitis B. J Hepatol 2009; 50:227242.
  91. Watanabe M, Shibuya A, Takada J, et al. Entecavir is an optional agent to prevent hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation: a review of 16 patients. Eur J Intern Med 2010; 21:333337.
  92. Biancone L, Pavia M, Del Vecchio Blanco G, et al; Italian Group for the Study of the Colon and Rectum (GISC). Hepatitis B and C virus infection in Crohn’s disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2001; 7:287294.
  93. Melmed GY. Vaccination strategies for patients with inflammatory bowel disease on immunomodulators and biologics. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2009; 15:14101416.
  94. Melmed GY, Ippoliti AF, Papadakis KA, et al. Patients with inflammatory bowel disease are at risk for vaccine-preventable illnesses. Am J Gastroenterol 2006; 101:18341840.
  95. Ferri C, Ferraccioli G, Ferrari D, et al. Safety of anti-tumor necrosis factor-alpha therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and chronic hepatitis C virus infection. J Rheumatol 2008; 35:19441949.
  96. Mok MY, Ng WL, Yuen MF, Wong RW, Lau CS. Safety of disease modifying anti-rheumatic agents in rheumatoid arthritis patients with chronic viral hepatitis. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2000; 18:363368.
  97. Vassilopoulos D, Calabrese LH. Risks of immunosuppressive therapies including biologic agents in patients with rheumatic diseases and coexisting chronic viral infections. Curr Opin Rheumatol 2007; 19:619625.
  98. Vassilopoulos D, Apostolopoulou A, Hadziyannis E, et al. Long-term safety of anti-TNF treatment in patients with rheumatic diseases and chronic or resolved hepatitis B virus infection. Ann Rheum Dis 2010; 69:13521355.
  99. Saag KG, Teng GG, Patkar NM, et al; American College of Rheumatology. American College of Rheumatology 2008 recommendations for the use of nonbiologic and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2008; 59:762784.
  100. Cornish J, Tan E, Teare J, et al. A meta-analysis on the influence of inflammatory bowel disease on pregnancy. Gut 2007; 56:830837.
  101. Dominitz JA, Young JC, Boyko EJ. Outcomes of infants born to mothers with inflammatory bowel disease: a population-based cohort study. Am J Gastroenterol 2002; 97:641648.
  102. Kornfeld D, Cnattingius S, Ekbom A. Pregnancy outcomes in women with inflammatory bowel disease—a population-based cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1997; 177:942946.
  103. Mahadevan U, Sandborn WJ, Li DK, Hakimian S, Kane S, Corley DA. Pregnancy outcomes in women with inflammatory bowel disease: a large community-based study from Northern California. Gastroenterology 2007; 133:11061112.
  104. Nguyen GC, Boudreau H, Harris ML, Maxwell CV. Outcomes of obstetric hospitalizations among women with inflammatory bowel disease in the United States. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2009; 7:329334.
  105. Schnitzler F, Fidder H, Ferrante M, et al. Outcome of pregnancy in women with inflammatory bowel disease treated with antitumor necrosis factor therapy. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2011; 17:18461854.
  106. Vinet E, Pineau C, Gordon C, Clarke AE, Bernatsky S. Biologic therapy and pregnancy outcomes in women with rheumatic diseases. Arthritis Rheum 2009; 61:587592.
  107. Guidi L, Pugliese D, Armuzzi A. Update on the management of inflammatory bowel disease: specific role of adalimumab. Clin Exp Gastroenterol 2011; 4:163172.
  108. Mahadevan U. Continuing immunomodulators and biologic medications in pregnant IBD patients – pro. IInflamm Bowel Dis 2007; 13:14391440.
  109. Mahadevan U. Gastrointestinal medications in pregnancy. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 2007; 21:849877.
  110. Mahadevan U, Cucchiara S, Hyams JS, et al. The London Position Statement of the World Congress of Gastroenterology on Biological Therapy for IBD with the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation: pregnancy and pediatrics. Am J Gastroenterol 2011; 106:214223.
  111. Mahadevan U, Kane S. Use of infliximab in pregnancy. Am J Gastroenterol 2010; 105:219220.
  112. Vasiliauskas EA, Church JA, Silverman N, Barry M, Targan SR, Dubinsky MC. Case report: evidence for transplacental transfer of maternally administered infliximab to the newborn. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2006; 4:12551258.
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 81(2)
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 81(2)
Page Number
115-127
Page Number
115-127
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Managing risks of TNF inhibitors: An update for the internist
Display Headline
Managing risks of TNF inhibitors: An update for the internist
Sections
Inside the Article

KEY POINTS

  • Over the past 10 years, TNF inhibitors have substantially altered the management of autoimmune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease.
  • Safety concerns include risks of infection, reactivation of latent infection (eg, fungal infection, granulomatous infection), malignancy, and autoimmune and neurologic effects.
  • Before treating, take a complete history, including exposure to latent infections and geographic considerations, and bring patients’ immunizations up to date.
  • Regular clinical and laboratory monitoring during treatment helps optimize therapy and minimize the risk of adverse effects.
  • Physicians must be aware of atypical presentations of infection and understand how their treatment may differ in patients on biologic therapy.
Disallow All Ads
Alternative CME
Article PDF Media

Obesity in the elderly: More complicated than you think

Article Type
Changed
Tue, 09/12/2017 - 15:44
Display Headline
Obesity in the elderly: More complicated than you think

Should older obese people try to lose weight? Such a simple question is more complicated than one would think.

At issue is whether obesity is harmful in older people, and whether treating it will reduce their health risks. True, obesity is an independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease and is associated with many comorbidities, including type 2 diabetes mellitus, hyperlipidemia, heart failure, and hypertension.1 An independent association also exists between obesity and all-cause mortality.2 However, there is also evidence suggesting that obesity in this age group is associated with a lower, not higher, risk of death—a finding termed the obesity paradox.3 And for that matter, what exactly constitutes obesity in elderly people, who naturally undergo changes in body composition as they age?

This article examines the literature on these controversial issues, including changes in body composition with age, the definition of obesity in older adults, the obesity paradox, and treatment of obesity in older adults.

AMERICANS ARE GETTING OLDER—AND BIGGER

Americans are living longer than ever before; life expectancy has reached a new high of 77.8 years.4,5 According to the US Census Bureau,6 about 27 million people in the United States are over age 70, and this number is expected to nearly double by 2030.

Meanwhile, the prevalence of obesity, defined as a body mass index (BMI) of 30 kg/m2 or higher, has increased in the last 25 years in all age groups in the United States, including those age 65 and older.7,8 These two trends add up to an increase in the number of obese older people. In 2000, 22.9% of people age 60 to 69 and 15.5% of those over age 70 and older were obese.9 This amounted to a 56% increase in the former group and a 36% increase in the latter group in the interval since 1991.5,9

BUT WHAT CONSTITUTES ‘OBESITY’?

Obesity is the excess accumulation of body fat, leading to a higher risk of medical illness and premature death. But measuring it is not as simple as one might think.

The body mass index can mislead

The BMI, ie, weight in kilograms divided by the square of the height in meters, correlates fairly well with body fat stores and is generally used to classify medical risk.

However, the BMI can classify some older people as overweight (BMI 30.0–34.9 kg/m2) or obese (BMI ≥ 35.0 kg/m2) who actually do not have an excess of body fat—and can fail to classify others as overweight or obese who do. For example, if a person loses height as a result of vertebral compression fractures, his or her BMI would become higher, even with no change in weight or body fat. Conversely, changes in body composition with age, including loss of muscle and an increase in fat, may not be reflected in the BMI, even if the person really does have too much body fat.10

This second limitation of the BMI is important when estimating risk in older adults, who have a particular fat distribution. Visceral, subcutaneous, intramuscular, and intrahepatic fat increase with age, and they are all risk factors for insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes mellitus.11 And in older people, having too much visceral fat is more prevalent than the BMI might predict.10

Percent body fat awaits investigation

Percent body fat is another way to assess body fat. Defined as the total weight of fat divided by total weight, it is measured in various ways.

Dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging can measure percent body fat, and they can differentiate visceral from subcutaneous fat (which is less metabolically active). Unfortunately, most of these tests are used for this purpose only in research, and they are relatively expensive.

Commercially available bioelectrical impedance devices send a weak electric current through the body and measure the resistance, and using this information and four other factors (height, weight, age, and sex), they calculate percent body fat. This method is fast, easy, painless, and cheap. A disadvantage is that the handheld devices measure body composition of the upper body only. Because the lower body is excluded, they do not give an accurate measurement of body fat of the abdomen and hips. Also, they cannot differentiate visceral from subcutaneous fat.

Bioelectrical impedance devices work well in healthy individuals with stable water balance. The values are only an estimate of fat-free mass, and therefore this method is not the gold standard for assessing body fat. Bioelectrical impedance is better at tracking body composition in an individual over time than at diagnosing obesity.

Percent body fat can vary by sex and race. Asians, for example, have higher percent body fats at lower BMIs, particularly when younger.12 Also, Gallagher et al12 found that percent body fat increased with age at every given BMI in both men and women (Table 1).

The traditional universal cutoffs for defining obesity by percent body fat are 25% in men and 35% in women. However, research has indicated that cutoffs of 20% to 25% in men and 30% to 38% in women may better identify those at risk of metabolic disease.13 Guidelines and evidence-based cutoffs for percent body fat must await further investigation.

 

 

Waist circumference is useful

In older adults, obesity can be diagnosed by a measurement such as waist circumference, which correlates highly with total fat and intra-abdominal fat.14 It is very cost-effective, simple, and useful for the office assessment of adiposity.

The measurement should be made halfway between the iliac crest and the lower anterior ribs, with the patient standing, and at the end of expiration.

The traditional standard for waist circumference is less than 89 cm (35 inches) for women and 102 cm (40 inches) for men. However, opinion differs, and different reference ranges exist depending on ethnicity. Additionally, because stature and body composition change with age, concerns have been raised about misclassification of the health risks related to obesity in older adults using the current standard.15,16

The waist circumference is as good as or even better than the BMI as a measure of excess adiposity in older adults.16–18 This is in part because of the age-dependent height decrease in older adults.15,19 (Recall that the BMI is calculated using the height squared as the denominator; as a result, the BMI would give a higher reading and thus an overestimate of total body fat.) Conversely, we can underestimate the amount of adiposity because of decreases in abdominal muscle tone.17

Cutoffs for waist circumference should be age-specific.16

Investigators in the Netherlands15,16 prospectively took 4,996 measurements in 2,232 people with a mean age of 70, from 1992 through 2006. They concluded that the best cutoffs for predicting the health risks of obesity in the elderly were 109 cm (43 inches) in men and 98 cm (39 inches) in women.

A group of researchers has proposed that the cutoffs be shifted upward in older adults, with new values for those age 70 and over.20 The Health Survey for England aimed to describe the patterns and trends in waist circumference and abdominal obesity and overweight in people age 70 through 89, comparing both the standard and the new cutoffs. Optimal cutoffs recommended for abdominal obesity for patients age 70 and older were 100 to 106 cm in men and 99 cm in women.20 Estimates of the prevalence of abdominal obesity are much lower using the new cutoffs.

SARCOPENIA: LOSS OF MUSCLE WITH AGE

With age comes sarcopenia—the progressive loss of muscle mass, primarily skeletal muscle, resulting in a decrease in strength and power.21 The process begins as early as the 20s or 30s.22 It is distinct from wasting (involuntary weight loss from inadequate intake), seen in starvation.21

Sarcopenia is defined as an appendicular skeletal muscle mass index (the appendicular skeletal mass divided by the square of the height in meters) of less than 2 standard deviations below a young adult reference, and a percentage of body fat over the 60th percentile for the individual’s sex and age.23,24 Estimates of its prevalence vary, but it is common and it increases with age.14,20

Sarcopenic obesity: Less muscle, more fat

Progressive loss of skeletal muscle with age, along with an increase and redistribution of body fat, is known as sarcopenic obesity.25 It is associated with higher morbidity and mortality rates as well as a decline in functional strength, which leads to frailty.23 This loss of muscle mass may go unnoticed in an older person until he or she begins to lose physical function.

As noted, in an older person with sarcopenic obesity, the BMI may mislead because of the high percentage of fat and the low lean mass.26

Why we change with age

This change in body composition with age is a result of several factors. Illness or inactivity can lead to loss of muscle, while body fat is preserved.17 The combination of reduced physical activity, a lower resting metabolic rate, and an unchanged intake of food can increase the likelihood of sarcopenia.27 Also possibly contributing are hormonal changes, including reduced production of growth hormone and testosterone and decreased responsiveness to thyroid hormone and leptin.28

Moreover, the interaction of several factors can lead to a vicious circle of progressive loss of muscle and increase in fat. As people age, their physical activity tends to decrease, resulting in muscle loss. As muscle mass decreases, the amount of available insulin-responsive tissue is reduced, resulting in insulin resistance, which in turn promotes the metabolic syndrome and an increase in fat. With more fat, people produce more of the adipokines tumor necrosis factor alpha and interleukin 6, which further promote insulin resistance.

Other changes contribute to a decrease in muscle quality and performance, including an increase in intramuscular and intrahepatic fat, which is associated with insulin resistance.11 The increases in adipose stores occur mostly in intra-abdominal fat rather than in subcutaneous fat.

ADVERSE EFFECTS OF OBESITY

A number of comorbidities arise with obesity, regardless of age.19

The diseases most strongly associated with obesity are the metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes mellitus.17 Studies have shown that in older adults, obesity as measured by waist circumference is associated with hyperglycemia and dyslipidemia.29,30

Metabolic abnormalities may ensue in obese older people through complex mechanisms involving an age-related decline in sex hormones. For example, late-onset hypogonadism in men, which is more common in those who are obese, is related to the metabolic syndrome.29

These mechanisms are also complex in women. Because estrogens can be produced in adipose tissue, obese postmenopausal women have higher concentrations of estrogens than their lean counterparts, and this may lead to metabolic abnormalities.31 (On the other hand, higher estrogen levels in obese menopausal women can protect against osteoporosis by increasing bone mass.)

Older people who weigh more and have more adipose tissue, especially those who became obese at a young age, have a greater risk of osteoarthritis of the knee,32,33 which when combined with obesity can cause disability and physical impairment.19 And cardiovascular risk factors,18,33 hypertension,34 and certain cancers35 are more common in older people with higher waist circumference.

THE OBESITY PARADOX

In general, obesity in younger adults has been shown to shorten life expectancy. This risk of death is often associated with obesity-related health problems.

In older people, the effect of obesity is much more complex.36 The optimal weight in terms of survival increases with age. More interesting is the finding that although the risk of cardiovascular disease is higher in overweight or obese older adults, studies also suggest that in this age group, being overweight or obese is paradoxically associated with lower mortality rates from these diseases.26 This phenomenon is called the obesity paradox.37

For those over age 75, the relative risk of death from all causes and from cardiovascular disease has been found to decrease with increasing BMI.25 The relationship between BMI and death from all causes in older adults may actually be a U-shaped curve, meaning that the risk of death rises at both extremes of BMI values.26

 

 

Possible explanations for the paradox

Several hypotheses have been proposed to explain the change in the relationship between BMI and the risk of death that occurs with aging.

The BMI is an imperfect measure of obesity. The obesity paradox may be an artifact of using the BMI to measure obesity in older adults.17 As described above, sarcopenic obesity must be considered in those over age 65 because the BMI does not differentiate between fat and muscle. Older adults tend to have a higher proportion of body and visceral fat that is distributed differently, making the waist circumference or waist-hip ratio a more appropriate measure of obesity in this group.38 Janssen et al39 found that in people age 65 and older, after controlling for waist circumference, higher BMI values were associated with lower death rates; after controlling for BMI, waist circumference was associated with a higher risk of death.

The survival effect suggests that people who are susceptible to the negative effects of obesity die sooner,40 and those who survive until old age may be resistant to the effects of obesity.41 If true, the survival effect would explain why the death rate seems to be unaffected by BMI in the older population.

Unhealthy weight loss. Smoking and diseases such as cancer that can cause early death may also induce weight loss, further complicating the relationship between BMI and death.19 After age 80, the association between BMI and the risk of death is weak because those with a low BMI include not only those who have always been lean and physically active, but also those who lost weight through chronic ill health or smoking.17

Further study needed. Thus, a number of confounding variables may muddy the association between obesity and death in older adults. Obesity should not be misinterpreted as being harmless or beneficial in older adults. Stevens et al36 found that a greater BMI was associated with a higher rate of death from all causes and from cardiovascular disease in men and women up to age 75, but that the relative risk of death associated with a greater BMI decreased with age.

Optimal BMI targets in older people have yet to be validated in a large prospective trial. However, multiple studies have examined the relationship between BMI and all-cause mortality in older adults and have identified a BMI of 24 to 35 as “ideal” and associated with the lowest risk of death, with a lower range for men and a higher range for women.42,43 The topic has been reviewed by Oreopoulos et al.26 More research is needed to evaluate this relationship.

THE BENEFIT OF WEIGHT LOSS IN OLDER ADULTS IS CONTROVERSIAL

In younger obese people, weight loss brings a multitude of benefits by reducing the risk of complications arising from obesity. However, in older adults, the effects of weight loss remain controversial, and evidence to guide treatment is limited.44,45 The few trials that have been published have typically focused on cardiovascular risk factors rather than physical function.45

In a 1-year trial, 107 people age 65 or older were randomized to a control group, to weight management, to exercise, or to weight management plus exercise. The combination of weight loss and exercise yielded the greatest improvement in physical function.46

Intentional vs unintentional weight loss

Intentional weight loss is altogether different from unintentional weight loss.

In most cases, weight loss in older adults is unintentional and may indicate underlying disease and impending death.17 For example, older men who lose weight unintentionally have significantly greater rates of smoking, disability, cancer, and respiratory disease and less obesity and physical activity than those who lose weight intentionally.47

Studies have shown an increase in life expectancy in older patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who lost weight intentionally.48,49 In fact, moderate weight loss—just 5% to 10%—has been shown to improve cardiovascular risk factors,44 osteoarthritis, and type 2 diabetes.50

Bales and Buhr44 performed a systematic review of 16 studies that had lasted at least 6 months. Patients were age 60 or older with a minimum baseline BMI of 27 kg/m2 who intentionally lost at least 3% of body weight or 2 kg. Levels of the inflammatory markers C-reactive protein, tumor necrosis factor alpha, and interleukin 6 declined with weight, along with blood pressure, fasting glucose, waist circumference, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. On the downside, bone mineral density and lean body mass also declined slightly. The best way to avoid losing lean body mass and to preserve bone density during weight loss is to include a program of resistance-training exercises.

No clinical trial has evaluated the effects of intentional weight loss on death rates in older obese people.25 As a result, evidence-based recommendations cannot be made. Rather, advice on weight loss must be individualized, with special emphasis on the patient’s weight history and medical comorbidities.44

Oreopoulos et al26 summarized the possible effects of BMI, abdominal fat, lean body mass, and intentional weight loss on morbidity and mortality outcomes in older adults (Table 2).

TREATMENT GUIDELINES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Many of the methods of weight management in older adults are the same as in young and middle-aged adults.51 Recommendations for all age groups include lifestyle changes, increased activity, dietary changes, drug therapy, and bariatric surgery.

Whether there should be separate guidelines for older adults is controversial. In view of the obesity paradox, physicians have been reluctant to recommend weight loss in elderly patients. Caution is advised in recommending weight loss solely on the basis of body weight, as studies have shown that the weight associated with maximal survival increases with age. Because of age-related changes in body composition and reduced energy requirements and expenditure, recommendations for the young and middle-aged should not be applied directly to older adults.

In this group, especially those who have survived into old age with good health and an intact functional status, one could argue that significant caloric restriction should not be recommended. In these people, the goal is often to maintain weight and incorporate a daily exercise program rather than to aggressively lose weight. Adding resistance training can improve physical function, which can improve quality of life. There is less emphasis on cardiovascular risk, but both outcomes apply for both age groups.52

Intentional weight loss should be recommended to high-risk older adults, including those with cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and metabolic syndrome, because the absolute risk of death and morbidity is higher in this group. Most health benefits can be achieved with modest weight loss.53 Potential benefits include prevention of cognitive impairment, protection from bone fractures, an increase in antioxidant defense, a reserve of fat and energy stores, and an increase in longevity.26

Treatment differs from that in the younger population primarily because of the importance of preventing loss of muscle with intentional weight loss. People of all ages who lose weight intentionally lose fat and, to a lesser extent, skeletal muscle. Older patients have already lost muscle mass, but further changes in body composition, especially a further reduction in muscle mass, can be limited by consuming about 1.0 g/kg of high-quality protein in the diet and by engaging in resistance training and weight training.52

Improving quality of life and physical function are important goals. Information is emerging about when obesity needs to be managed in older adults. There is also evidence to support dietary and exercise therapy.54 Weight-loss options include lifestyle interventions, pharmacotherapy, and bariatric surgery.

 

 

Lifestyle interventions: Diet and exercise

The goal is to induce an energy deficit by reducing energy intake, increasing energy expenditure, or both—by 500 to 1,000 calories a day. This generally leads to a loss of 1 to 2 lb per week, and possibly up to 10% of weight in 6 months. Loss of about 10 to 20 lb with diet and exercise can translate to a relatively large reduction in visceral fat, with subsequent improvement in metabolic abnormalities.

A regular exercise program is important for improving overall physical function, which can slow progression to frailty. Adding aerobic, endurance, and resistance training helps preserve fat-free mass, which otherwise tends to diminish during active weight loss.55–57

The exercise program should begin at the outset of the weight-loss effort to help maintain weight loss and to prevent weight regain.58 Exercise is not essential for reaching the targeted weight loss, but starting early is important to reduce the loss of lean muscle that is usually already seen in the older population.

Several studies indicate that diet and exercise are just as effective in middle-aged and older people (over age 60) as in the younger population.58–60 Older people in the Diabetes Prevention Program were more compliant with lifestyle interventions and lost more weight than younger participants49: 60% of the older group met the 7% weight-loss goal at the end of 24 weeks, compared with 43% of those under age 45. At 3 years, the numbers were 63% vs 27%.

In a small randomized controlled trial,61 fat mass decreased by 6.6 kg in 17 people assigned to a program of diet and exercise, compared with a gain of 1.7 kg in a control group of 10 patients. Fat-free mass decreased by about 1 kg in both groups. The authors concluded that diet plus exercise (resistance training and strength training in this trial) could ameliorate frailty in obese older adults.

If exercise is appropriate, a physician should write a prescription for it, especially for resistance training, strengthening, flexibility, and stretching. This is important for patients with sarcopenic obesity and for those at high risk of chronic bone loss. The 2007 American College of Sports Medicine guidelines recommend muscle-strengthening activity of 8 to 10 exercises involving the major muscle groups, 10 to 15 repetitions at least twice a week. Flexibility and balance exercises should be included for those at risk of falls.62

Pharmacotherapy

At present, there are two general classes of weight-loss drugs: appetite suppressants and drugs that interfere with nutrient absorption.

Appetite suppressants include the sympathomimetics, which stimulate the release of dopamine and norepinephrine, resulting in increased satiety. Data—and therefore, recommendations—on their use in the elderly are very scarce, as most randomized controlled trials included only a small number of older people. A meta-analysis of drug therapy to treat obesity noted that the study population ranged in age from 34 to 54.63

The only approved drug currently available for use in older adults is orlistat, which blocks absorption of dietary fat by binding to intestinal lipase. A randomized controlled trial found the weight loss with orlistat to be comparable in older and younger adults.64,65

Review medications than can cause weight gain

When assessing older adults, always review the drugs they are taking. Those known to cause weight gain include certain of the following:

  • Antiepileptics (eg, gabapentin)
  • Antipsychotics (eg, olanzapine)
  • Antidepressants (eg, tricyclics)
  • Antihyperglycemic drugs (eg, sulfonylureas, thiazolidinediones)
  • Beta-blockers
  • Steroids.

If medically appropriate, a weight-neutral drug should be substituted for one suspected of causing weight gain. If a different physician (eg, a specialist) prescribed the original drug, he or she should be notified or consulted about any change.

Bariatric surgery

Bariatric surgery is the most effective weight-loss option, and more older patients are undergoing it than in the past. Dorman et al66 showed that the number of patients age 65 or older undergoing bariatric surgery increased from the year 2005 (when they accounted for 2%) to 2009 (when they accounted for 4.8%).

However, very few studies have provided information on the safety and effectiveness of bariatric surgery in older people. Several reports concluded that rates of perioperative morbidity and mortality are higher in older patients.67–69 Surgery resulted in marked weight loss and improvement in obesity-related complications and physical disability in older patients, although by a lower rate than in younger patients.

Varela et al70 examined the outcomes of bariatric surgery in a database from the University Health System Consortium Centers between 1999 and 2005. Patients over age 60 accounted for 1,339 (2.7%) of all bariatric operations performed. Compared with young and middle-aged patients, older patients had more comorbidities, longer hospital stays, and more complications, in addition to a higher in-hospital mortality rate. When risk-adjusted, the observed-to-expected mortality ratio for the older group was 0.9, compared with 0.7 in the young and middle-aged cohort.

Willkomm et al71 found an apparently higher operative risk profile in those over age 65 (n = 100) than in younger patients (n = 1,374), with higher rates of sleep apnea, diabetes, and hypertension. However, the operative outcomes were similar in the two groups in terms of operative time, length of stay, and 30-day readmission rates. The authors concluded that patients over age 65 had excellent outcomes compared with younger patients, suggesting that older age is not a risk factor for complications or death with bariatric surgery.

The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program evaluated the outcomes of 48,378 adults with a BMI greater than or equal to 35 kg/m2 who underwent bariatric surgery between 2005 and 2009.66 During this time, the number of patients age 65 and older seeking bariatric surgery increased from 1.5% to 4%. A total of 1,449 patients were in this age range. Thirty-day mortality rates did not differ significantly by age group and were less than 1% for all age ranges. Being age 65 or older was a significant predictor of prolonged length of stay but not of major adverse events. Significant predictors of major adverse events were a BMI greater than or equal to 55 kg/m2, cardiac comorbidities, a severe American Society of Anesthesiologists score, albumin levels lower than 3 g/dL, and creatinine levels greater than 1.5 mg/dL.

The most up-to-date study of the outcomes of bariatric surgery in patients over age 70 was a retrospective review at a single institution from 2007 to 2008 of 42 patients who underwent bariatric surgery.72 Twenty-two patients had laparoscopic gastric banding, 12 had laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, and 8 underwent laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. No patient died, complications occurred in 9 patients, and the rates of postoperative use of medications for hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes, and osteoarthritis were reduced by about half. With the increasing number of patients seeking bariatric surgery, especially those over age 70, further prospective studies will determine if the outcomes are statistically significant.

If bariatric surgery is considered

The outcomes, complications, and mortality rates associated with bariatric surgery have been shown to be acceptable for adults age 65 and older. Perioperative risk assessment in the older obese patient seeking bariatric surgery is paramount to ensure that the benefits of the procedure justify any associated risks to the patient. Consequently, patients over age 65 should not be excluded out of hand: the patient’s individual risk of major adverse events must be identified beforehand.

If the patient is at risk, efforts should be made to reduce the risk to an acceptable level, including cardiac risk stratification, optimization of drug therapy, and discussions with the bariatric surgeon to plan on a less-invasive laparoscopic procedure. Otherwise, older obese patients can safely proceed with conventional bariatric surgery, which will help them achieve durable weight loss, improve quality of life, and reduce associated comorbidities.

The aforementioned studies of bariatric surgery are retrospective, include small numbers of patients, and lack long-term follow-up. The issues of long-term safety and the risk of death and morbidity in the aging population will require randomized controlled trials to answer these important questions.

At our hospital, we have seen an increase in the number of patients referred for a possible additional procedure (revision) to correct a problem from a previous bariatric surgery. The problems arising from the previous surgery can lead to weight gain or to excessive weight loss and malnutrition. To date, our institution has no policy on when to consider a revisional procedure in an older patient. All patients, including older ones, are assessed for the procedure on a case-by-case basis.

References
  1. Bray GA, Macdiarmid J. The epidemic of obesity. West J Med 2000; 172:7879.
  2. Calle EE, Thun MJ, Petrelli JM, Rodriguez C, Heath CW. Body-mass index and mortality in a prospective cohort of US adults. N Engl J Med 1999; 341:10971105.
  3. Kalantar-Zadeh K, Horwich TB, Oreopoulos A, et al. Risk factor paradox in wasting diseases. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care 2007; 10:433442.
  4. Mokdad AH, Marks JS, Stroup DF, Gerberding JL. Actual causes of death in the United States, 2000. JAMA 2004; 291:12381245.
  5. Arias E, Rostron BL, Tejada-Vera B. United States life tables, 2005. National vital statistics reports; vol 58no 10. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. 2010.
  6. US Census Bureau International Database (IDB). Population projections of the US by age, sex, race, Hispanic origin, population division. http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idb/country.php. Accessed September 13, 2013.
  7. Hedley AA, Ogden CL, Johnson CL, Carroll MD, Curtin LR, Flegal KM. Prevalence of overweight and obesity among US children, adolescents, and adults, 1999–2002. JAMA 2004; 291:28472850.
  8. Kuczmarski RJ, Flegal KM, Campbell SM, Johnson CL. Increasing prevalence of overweight among US adults. The National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys, 1960 to 1991. JAMA 1994; 272:205211.
  9. Mokdad AH, Serdula MK, Dietz WH, Bowman BA, Marks JS, Koplan JP. The spread of the obesity epidemic in the United States, 1991–1998. JAMA 1999; 282:15191522.
  10. Horani MH, Mooradian AD. Management of obesity in the elderly: special considerations. Treat Endocrinol 2002; 1:387398.
  11. Beaufrère B, Morio B. Fat and protein redistribution with aging: metabolic considerations. Eur J Clin Nutr 2000; 54(suppl 3):S48S53.
  12. Gallagher D, Heymsfield SB, Heo M, Jebb SA, Murgatroyd PR, Sakamoto Y. Healthy percentage body fat ranges: an approach for developing guidelines based on body mass index. Am J Clin Nutr 2000; 72:694701.
  13. Snitker S. Use of body fatness cutoff points (author reply). Mayo Clin Proc 2010; 85:1057; author reply 1057–1058.
  14. Baumgartner RN, Koehler KM, Gallagher D, et al. Epidemiology of sarcopenia among the elderly in New Mexico. Am J Epidemiol 1998; 147:755–763. Erratum in Am J Epidemiol 1999; 149:1161.
  15. Visscher TL, Seidell JC, Molarius A, van der Kuip D, Hofman A, Witteman JC. A comparison of body mass index, waist-hip ratio and waist circumference as predictors of all-cause mortality among the elderly: the Rotterdam study. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 2001; 25:17301735.
  16. Molarius A, Seidell JC, Visscher TL, Hofman A. Misclassification of high-risk older subjects using waist action levels established for young and middle-aged adults—results from the Rotterdam Study. J Am Geriatr Soc 2000; 48:16381645.
  17. Han TS, Tajar A, Lean ME. Obesity and weight management in the elderly. Br Med Bull 2011; 97:169196.
  18. Turcato E, Bosello O, Di Francesco V, et al. Waist circumference and abdominal sagittal diameter as surrogates of body fat distribution in the elderly: their relation with cardiovascular risk factors. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 2000; 24:10051010.
  19. Zamboni M, Mazzali G, Zoico E, et al. Health consequences of obesity in the elderly: a review of four unresolved questions. Int J Obes (Lond) 2005; 29:10111029.
  20. Heim N, Snijder MB, Heymans MW, Deeg DJ, Seidell JC, Visser M. Optimal cutoff values for high-risk waist circumference in older adults based on related health outcomes. Am J Epidemiol 2011; 174:479489.
  21. Roubenoff R, Castaneda C. Sarcopenia—understanding the dynamics of aging muscle. JAMA 2001; 286:12301231.
  22. Schutz Y, Kyle UU, Pichard C. Fat-free mass index and fat mass index percentiles in Caucasians aged 18-98 y. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 2002; 26:953960.
  23. Baumgartner RN, Wayne SJ, Waters DL, Janssen I, Gallagher D, Morley JE. Sarcopenic obesity predicts instrumental activities of daily living disability in the elderly. Obes Res 2004; 12:19952004.
  24. Morley JE, Baumgartner RN, Roubenoff R, Mayer J, Nair KS. Sarcopenia. J Lab Clin Med 2001; 137:231243.
  25. Roubenoff R. Sarcopenic obesity: the confluence of two epidemics. Obes Res 2004; 12:887888.
  26. Oreopoulos A, Kalantar-Zadeh K, Sharma AM, Fonarow GC. The obesity paradox in the elderly: potential mechanisms and clinical implications. Clin Geriatr Med 2009; 25:643659.
  27. Elia M, Ritz P, Stubbs RJ. Total energy expenditure in the elderly. Eur J Clin Nutr 2000; 54(suppl 3):S92S103.
  28. Reaven GM. Banting lecture 1988. Role of insulin resistance in human disease. Diabetes 1988; 37:15951607.
  29. Corona G, Mannucci E, Forti G, Maggi M. Hypogonadism, ED, metabolic syndrome and obesity: a pathological link supporting cardiovascular diseases. Int J Androl 2009; 32:587598.
  30. Haarbo J, Hassager C, Riis BJ, Christiansen C. Relation of body fat distribution to serum lipids and lipoproteins in elderly women. Atherosclerosis 1989; 80:5762.
  31. Cignarella A, Kratz M, Bolego C. Emerging role of estrogen in the control of cardiometabolic disease. Trends Pharmacol Sci 2010; 31:183189.
  32. Felson DT, Anderson JJ, Naimark A, Walker AM, Meenan RF. Obesity and knee osteoarthritis. The Framingham Study. Ann Intern Med 1988; 109:1824.
  33. Gelber AC, Hochberg MC, Mead LA, Wang NY, Wigley FM, Klag MJ. Body mass index in young men and the risk of subsequent knee and hip osteoarthritis. Am J Med 1999; 107:542548.
  34. Iwao S, Iwao N, Muller DC, Elahi D, Shimokata H, Andres R. Effect of aging on the relationship between multiple risk factors and waist circumference. J Am Geriatr Soc 2000; 48:788794.
  35. Folsom AR, Kushi LH, Anderson KE, et al. Associations of general and abdominal obesity with multiple health outcomes in older women: the Iowa Women’s Health Study. Arch Intern Med 2000; 160:21172128.
  36. Stevens J, Cai J, Pamuk ER, Williamson DF, Thun MJ, Wood JL. The effect of age on the association between body-mass index and mortality. N Engl J Med 1998; 338:17.
  37. Kalantar-Zadeh K, Horwich TB, Oreopoulos A, et al. Risk factor paradox in wasting diseases. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care 2007; 10:433442.
  38. Zamboni M, Armellini F, Harris T, et al. Effects of age on body fat distribution and cardiovascular risk factors in women. Am J Clin Nutr 1997; 66:111115.
  39. Janssen I, Katzmarzyk PT, Ross R. Body mass index is inversely related to mortality in older people after adjustment for waist circumference. J Am Geriatr Soc 2005; 53:21122118.
  40. Inelmen EM, Sergi G, Coin A, Miotto F, Peruzza S, Enzi G. Can obesity be a risk factor in elderly people? Obes Rev 2003; 4:147155.
  41. Elia M. Obesity in the elderly. Obes Res 2001; 9(suppl 4):244S248S.
  42. Losonczy KG, Harris TB, Cornoni-Huntley J, et al. Does weight loss from middle age to old age explain the inverse weight mortality relation in old age? Am J Epidemiol 1995; 141:312321.
  43. Corrada MM, Kawas CH, Mozaffar F, Paganini-Hill A. Association of body mass index and weight change with all-cause mortality in the elderly. Am J Epidemiol 2006; 163:938949.
  44. Bales CW, Buhr G. Is obesity bad for older persons? A systematic review of the pros and cons of weight reduction in later life. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2008; 9:302312.
  45. Witham MD, Avenell A. Interventions to achieve long-term weight loss in obese older people: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Age Ageing 2010; 39:176184.
  46. Villareal DT, Chode S, Parimi N, et al. Weight loss, exercise, or both and physical function in obese older adults. N Engl J Med 2011; 364:12181229.
  47. Wannamethee SG, Shaper AG, Whincup PH, Walker M. Characteristics of older men who lose weight intentionally or unintentionally. Am J Epidemiol 2000; 151:667675.
  48. Lean ME, Powrie JK, Anderson AS, Garthwaite PH. Obesity, weight loss and prognosis in type 2 diabetes. Diabet Med 1990; 7:228233.
  49. Williamson DF, Thompson TJ, Thun M, Flanders D, Pamuk E, Byers T. Intentional weight loss and mortality among overweight individuals with diabetes. Diabetes Care 2000; 23:14991504.
  50. Hamman RF, Wing RR, Edelstein SL, et al. Effect of weight loss with lifestyle intervention on risk of diabetes. Diabetes Care 2006; 29:2102-2107.
  51. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute in cooperation with The National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Clinical guidelines on the identification, evaluation and treatment of the overweight and obesity in adults, the evidence report. NIH Publication number 98-4803 http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/guidelines/obesity/ob_gdlns.pdf. Accessed September 13, 2013.
  52. Villareal DT, Apovian CM, Kushner RF, Klein S; American Society for Nutrition; NAASO, The Obesity Society. Obesity in older adults: technical review and position statement of the American Society for Nutrition and NAASO, The Obesity Society. Am J Clin Nutr 2005; 82:923934.
  53. Williamson DF, Pamuk E, Thun M, Flanders D, Byers T, Heath C. Prospective study of intentional weight loss and mortality in never-smoking overweight US white women aged 40-64 years. Am J Epidemiol 1995; 141:11281141.
  54. McTigue KM, Hess R, Ziouras J. Obesity in older adults: a systematic review of the evidence for diagnosis and treatment. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2006; 14:14851497.
  55. Ryan AS, Pratley RE, Elahi D, Goldberg AP. Resistive training increases fat-free mass and maintains RMR despite weight loss in postmenopausal women. J Appl Physiol 1995; 79:818823.
  56. Pavlou KN, Krey S, Steffee WP. Exercise as an adjunct to weight loss and maintenance in moderately obese subjects. Am J Clin Nutr 1989; 49(suppl 5):11151123.
  57. Kraemer WJ, Volek JS, Clark KL, et al. Influence of exercise training on physiological and performance changes with weight loss in men. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1999; 31:13201329.
  58. Wing RR, Hill JO. Successful weight loss maintenance. Annu Rev Nutr 2001; 21:323341.
  59. Banks M, Klein S, Sinacore D, Siener C, Villareal DT. Effects of weight loss and exercise on frailty in obese elderly subjects. J Am Geriatr Soc 2005; 53:S16.
  60. Messier SP, Loeser RF, Miller GD, et al. Exercise and dietary weight loss in overweight and obese older adults with knee osteoarthritis: the Arthritis, Diet, and Activity Promotion Trial. Arthritis Rheum 2004; 50:15011510.
  61. Villareal DT, Banks M, Sinacore DR, Siener C, Klein S. Effect of weight loss and exercise on frailty in obese older adults. Arch Intern Med 2006; 166:860866.
  62. Nelson ME, Rejeski WJ, Blair SN, et al; American College of Sports Medicine; American Heart Association. Physical activity and public health in older adults: recommendation from the American College of Sports Medicine and the American Heart Association. Circulation 2007; 116:10941105.
  63. Li Z, Maglione M, Tu W, et al. Meta-analysis: pharmacologic treatment of obesity. Ann Intern Med 2005; 142:532546.
  64. Segal KR, Lucas C, Boldrin M, Hauptman J. Weight loss efficacy of orlistat in obese elderly adults (abstract). Obes Res 1999; 7(suppl):26S.
  65. Hauptman J, Lucas C, Boldrin MN, Collins H, Segal KR. Orlistat in the long-term treatment of obesity in primary care settings. Arch Fam Med 2000; 9:160167.
  66. Dorman RB, Abraham AA, Al-Refaie WB, Parsons HM, Ikramuddin S, Habermann EB. Bariatric surgery outcomes in the elderly: an ACS NSQIP study. J Gastrointest Surg 2012; 16:3544.
  67. Sugerman HJ, DeMaria EJ, Kellum JM, Sugerman EL, Meador JG, Wolfe LG. Effects of bariatric surgery in older patients. Ann Surg 2004; 240:243247.
  68. St. Peter SD, Craft RO, Tiede JL, Swain JM. Impact of advanced age on weight loss and health benefits after laparoscopic gastric bypass. Arch Surg 2005; 140:165168.
  69. Sosa JL, Pombo H, Pallavicini H, Ruiz-Rodriguez M. Laparoscopic gastric bypass beyond age 60. Obes Surg 2004; 14:13981401.
  70. Varela JE, Wilson SE, Nguyen NT. Outcomes of bariatric surgery in the elderly. Am Surg 2006; 72:865869.
  71. Willkomm CM, Fisher TL, Barnes GS, Kennedy CI, Kuhn JA. Surgical weight loss >65 years old: is it worth the risk? Surg Obes Relat Dis 2010; 6:491496.
  72. Heiat A, Vaccarino V, Krumholz HM. An evidence-based assessment of federal guidelines for overweight and obesity as they apply to elderly persons. Arch Intern Med 2001; 161:11941203.
Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Derrick C. Cetin, DO
Bariatric and Metabolic Institute, Cleveland Clinic

Gaelle Nasr, BA
Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH

Address: Derrick C. Cetin, DO, Bariatric and Metabolic Institute, M61, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44195; e-mail: cetind@ccf.org

Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 81(1)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
51-61
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Derrick C. Cetin, DO
Bariatric and Metabolic Institute, Cleveland Clinic

Gaelle Nasr, BA
Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH

Address: Derrick C. Cetin, DO, Bariatric and Metabolic Institute, M61, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44195; e-mail: cetind@ccf.org

Author and Disclosure Information

Derrick C. Cetin, DO
Bariatric and Metabolic Institute, Cleveland Clinic

Gaelle Nasr, BA
Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH

Address: Derrick C. Cetin, DO, Bariatric and Metabolic Institute, M61, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44195; e-mail: cetind@ccf.org

Article PDF
Article PDF

Should older obese people try to lose weight? Such a simple question is more complicated than one would think.

At issue is whether obesity is harmful in older people, and whether treating it will reduce their health risks. True, obesity is an independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease and is associated with many comorbidities, including type 2 diabetes mellitus, hyperlipidemia, heart failure, and hypertension.1 An independent association also exists between obesity and all-cause mortality.2 However, there is also evidence suggesting that obesity in this age group is associated with a lower, not higher, risk of death—a finding termed the obesity paradox.3 And for that matter, what exactly constitutes obesity in elderly people, who naturally undergo changes in body composition as they age?

This article examines the literature on these controversial issues, including changes in body composition with age, the definition of obesity in older adults, the obesity paradox, and treatment of obesity in older adults.

AMERICANS ARE GETTING OLDER—AND BIGGER

Americans are living longer than ever before; life expectancy has reached a new high of 77.8 years.4,5 According to the US Census Bureau,6 about 27 million people in the United States are over age 70, and this number is expected to nearly double by 2030.

Meanwhile, the prevalence of obesity, defined as a body mass index (BMI) of 30 kg/m2 or higher, has increased in the last 25 years in all age groups in the United States, including those age 65 and older.7,8 These two trends add up to an increase in the number of obese older people. In 2000, 22.9% of people age 60 to 69 and 15.5% of those over age 70 and older were obese.9 This amounted to a 56% increase in the former group and a 36% increase in the latter group in the interval since 1991.5,9

BUT WHAT CONSTITUTES ‘OBESITY’?

Obesity is the excess accumulation of body fat, leading to a higher risk of medical illness and premature death. But measuring it is not as simple as one might think.

The body mass index can mislead

The BMI, ie, weight in kilograms divided by the square of the height in meters, correlates fairly well with body fat stores and is generally used to classify medical risk.

However, the BMI can classify some older people as overweight (BMI 30.0–34.9 kg/m2) or obese (BMI ≥ 35.0 kg/m2) who actually do not have an excess of body fat—and can fail to classify others as overweight or obese who do. For example, if a person loses height as a result of vertebral compression fractures, his or her BMI would become higher, even with no change in weight or body fat. Conversely, changes in body composition with age, including loss of muscle and an increase in fat, may not be reflected in the BMI, even if the person really does have too much body fat.10

This second limitation of the BMI is important when estimating risk in older adults, who have a particular fat distribution. Visceral, subcutaneous, intramuscular, and intrahepatic fat increase with age, and they are all risk factors for insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes mellitus.11 And in older people, having too much visceral fat is more prevalent than the BMI might predict.10

Percent body fat awaits investigation

Percent body fat is another way to assess body fat. Defined as the total weight of fat divided by total weight, it is measured in various ways.

Dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging can measure percent body fat, and they can differentiate visceral from subcutaneous fat (which is less metabolically active). Unfortunately, most of these tests are used for this purpose only in research, and they are relatively expensive.

Commercially available bioelectrical impedance devices send a weak electric current through the body and measure the resistance, and using this information and four other factors (height, weight, age, and sex), they calculate percent body fat. This method is fast, easy, painless, and cheap. A disadvantage is that the handheld devices measure body composition of the upper body only. Because the lower body is excluded, they do not give an accurate measurement of body fat of the abdomen and hips. Also, they cannot differentiate visceral from subcutaneous fat.

Bioelectrical impedance devices work well in healthy individuals with stable water balance. The values are only an estimate of fat-free mass, and therefore this method is not the gold standard for assessing body fat. Bioelectrical impedance is better at tracking body composition in an individual over time than at diagnosing obesity.

Percent body fat can vary by sex and race. Asians, for example, have higher percent body fats at lower BMIs, particularly when younger.12 Also, Gallagher et al12 found that percent body fat increased with age at every given BMI in both men and women (Table 1).

The traditional universal cutoffs for defining obesity by percent body fat are 25% in men and 35% in women. However, research has indicated that cutoffs of 20% to 25% in men and 30% to 38% in women may better identify those at risk of metabolic disease.13 Guidelines and evidence-based cutoffs for percent body fat must await further investigation.

 

 

Waist circumference is useful

In older adults, obesity can be diagnosed by a measurement such as waist circumference, which correlates highly with total fat and intra-abdominal fat.14 It is very cost-effective, simple, and useful for the office assessment of adiposity.

The measurement should be made halfway between the iliac crest and the lower anterior ribs, with the patient standing, and at the end of expiration.

The traditional standard for waist circumference is less than 89 cm (35 inches) for women and 102 cm (40 inches) for men. However, opinion differs, and different reference ranges exist depending on ethnicity. Additionally, because stature and body composition change with age, concerns have been raised about misclassification of the health risks related to obesity in older adults using the current standard.15,16

The waist circumference is as good as or even better than the BMI as a measure of excess adiposity in older adults.16–18 This is in part because of the age-dependent height decrease in older adults.15,19 (Recall that the BMI is calculated using the height squared as the denominator; as a result, the BMI would give a higher reading and thus an overestimate of total body fat.) Conversely, we can underestimate the amount of adiposity because of decreases in abdominal muscle tone.17

Cutoffs for waist circumference should be age-specific.16

Investigators in the Netherlands15,16 prospectively took 4,996 measurements in 2,232 people with a mean age of 70, from 1992 through 2006. They concluded that the best cutoffs for predicting the health risks of obesity in the elderly were 109 cm (43 inches) in men and 98 cm (39 inches) in women.

A group of researchers has proposed that the cutoffs be shifted upward in older adults, with new values for those age 70 and over.20 The Health Survey for England aimed to describe the patterns and trends in waist circumference and abdominal obesity and overweight in people age 70 through 89, comparing both the standard and the new cutoffs. Optimal cutoffs recommended for abdominal obesity for patients age 70 and older were 100 to 106 cm in men and 99 cm in women.20 Estimates of the prevalence of abdominal obesity are much lower using the new cutoffs.

SARCOPENIA: LOSS OF MUSCLE WITH AGE

With age comes sarcopenia—the progressive loss of muscle mass, primarily skeletal muscle, resulting in a decrease in strength and power.21 The process begins as early as the 20s or 30s.22 It is distinct from wasting (involuntary weight loss from inadequate intake), seen in starvation.21

Sarcopenia is defined as an appendicular skeletal muscle mass index (the appendicular skeletal mass divided by the square of the height in meters) of less than 2 standard deviations below a young adult reference, and a percentage of body fat over the 60th percentile for the individual’s sex and age.23,24 Estimates of its prevalence vary, but it is common and it increases with age.14,20

Sarcopenic obesity: Less muscle, more fat

Progressive loss of skeletal muscle with age, along with an increase and redistribution of body fat, is known as sarcopenic obesity.25 It is associated with higher morbidity and mortality rates as well as a decline in functional strength, which leads to frailty.23 This loss of muscle mass may go unnoticed in an older person until he or she begins to lose physical function.

As noted, in an older person with sarcopenic obesity, the BMI may mislead because of the high percentage of fat and the low lean mass.26

Why we change with age

This change in body composition with age is a result of several factors. Illness or inactivity can lead to loss of muscle, while body fat is preserved.17 The combination of reduced physical activity, a lower resting metabolic rate, and an unchanged intake of food can increase the likelihood of sarcopenia.27 Also possibly contributing are hormonal changes, including reduced production of growth hormone and testosterone and decreased responsiveness to thyroid hormone and leptin.28

Moreover, the interaction of several factors can lead to a vicious circle of progressive loss of muscle and increase in fat. As people age, their physical activity tends to decrease, resulting in muscle loss. As muscle mass decreases, the amount of available insulin-responsive tissue is reduced, resulting in insulin resistance, which in turn promotes the metabolic syndrome and an increase in fat. With more fat, people produce more of the adipokines tumor necrosis factor alpha and interleukin 6, which further promote insulin resistance.

Other changes contribute to a decrease in muscle quality and performance, including an increase in intramuscular and intrahepatic fat, which is associated with insulin resistance.11 The increases in adipose stores occur mostly in intra-abdominal fat rather than in subcutaneous fat.

ADVERSE EFFECTS OF OBESITY

A number of comorbidities arise with obesity, regardless of age.19

The diseases most strongly associated with obesity are the metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes mellitus.17 Studies have shown that in older adults, obesity as measured by waist circumference is associated with hyperglycemia and dyslipidemia.29,30

Metabolic abnormalities may ensue in obese older people through complex mechanisms involving an age-related decline in sex hormones. For example, late-onset hypogonadism in men, which is more common in those who are obese, is related to the metabolic syndrome.29

These mechanisms are also complex in women. Because estrogens can be produced in adipose tissue, obese postmenopausal women have higher concentrations of estrogens than their lean counterparts, and this may lead to metabolic abnormalities.31 (On the other hand, higher estrogen levels in obese menopausal women can protect against osteoporosis by increasing bone mass.)

Older people who weigh more and have more adipose tissue, especially those who became obese at a young age, have a greater risk of osteoarthritis of the knee,32,33 which when combined with obesity can cause disability and physical impairment.19 And cardiovascular risk factors,18,33 hypertension,34 and certain cancers35 are more common in older people with higher waist circumference.

THE OBESITY PARADOX

In general, obesity in younger adults has been shown to shorten life expectancy. This risk of death is often associated with obesity-related health problems.

In older people, the effect of obesity is much more complex.36 The optimal weight in terms of survival increases with age. More interesting is the finding that although the risk of cardiovascular disease is higher in overweight or obese older adults, studies also suggest that in this age group, being overweight or obese is paradoxically associated with lower mortality rates from these diseases.26 This phenomenon is called the obesity paradox.37

For those over age 75, the relative risk of death from all causes and from cardiovascular disease has been found to decrease with increasing BMI.25 The relationship between BMI and death from all causes in older adults may actually be a U-shaped curve, meaning that the risk of death rises at both extremes of BMI values.26

 

 

Possible explanations for the paradox

Several hypotheses have been proposed to explain the change in the relationship between BMI and the risk of death that occurs with aging.

The BMI is an imperfect measure of obesity. The obesity paradox may be an artifact of using the BMI to measure obesity in older adults.17 As described above, sarcopenic obesity must be considered in those over age 65 because the BMI does not differentiate between fat and muscle. Older adults tend to have a higher proportion of body and visceral fat that is distributed differently, making the waist circumference or waist-hip ratio a more appropriate measure of obesity in this group.38 Janssen et al39 found that in people age 65 and older, after controlling for waist circumference, higher BMI values were associated with lower death rates; after controlling for BMI, waist circumference was associated with a higher risk of death.

The survival effect suggests that people who are susceptible to the negative effects of obesity die sooner,40 and those who survive until old age may be resistant to the effects of obesity.41 If true, the survival effect would explain why the death rate seems to be unaffected by BMI in the older population.

Unhealthy weight loss. Smoking and diseases such as cancer that can cause early death may also induce weight loss, further complicating the relationship between BMI and death.19 After age 80, the association between BMI and the risk of death is weak because those with a low BMI include not only those who have always been lean and physically active, but also those who lost weight through chronic ill health or smoking.17

Further study needed. Thus, a number of confounding variables may muddy the association between obesity and death in older adults. Obesity should not be misinterpreted as being harmless or beneficial in older adults. Stevens et al36 found that a greater BMI was associated with a higher rate of death from all causes and from cardiovascular disease in men and women up to age 75, but that the relative risk of death associated with a greater BMI decreased with age.

Optimal BMI targets in older people have yet to be validated in a large prospective trial. However, multiple studies have examined the relationship between BMI and all-cause mortality in older adults and have identified a BMI of 24 to 35 as “ideal” and associated with the lowest risk of death, with a lower range for men and a higher range for women.42,43 The topic has been reviewed by Oreopoulos et al.26 More research is needed to evaluate this relationship.

THE BENEFIT OF WEIGHT LOSS IN OLDER ADULTS IS CONTROVERSIAL

In younger obese people, weight loss brings a multitude of benefits by reducing the risk of complications arising from obesity. However, in older adults, the effects of weight loss remain controversial, and evidence to guide treatment is limited.44,45 The few trials that have been published have typically focused on cardiovascular risk factors rather than physical function.45

In a 1-year trial, 107 people age 65 or older were randomized to a control group, to weight management, to exercise, or to weight management plus exercise. The combination of weight loss and exercise yielded the greatest improvement in physical function.46

Intentional vs unintentional weight loss

Intentional weight loss is altogether different from unintentional weight loss.

In most cases, weight loss in older adults is unintentional and may indicate underlying disease and impending death.17 For example, older men who lose weight unintentionally have significantly greater rates of smoking, disability, cancer, and respiratory disease and less obesity and physical activity than those who lose weight intentionally.47

Studies have shown an increase in life expectancy in older patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who lost weight intentionally.48,49 In fact, moderate weight loss—just 5% to 10%—has been shown to improve cardiovascular risk factors,44 osteoarthritis, and type 2 diabetes.50

Bales and Buhr44 performed a systematic review of 16 studies that had lasted at least 6 months. Patients were age 60 or older with a minimum baseline BMI of 27 kg/m2 who intentionally lost at least 3% of body weight or 2 kg. Levels of the inflammatory markers C-reactive protein, tumor necrosis factor alpha, and interleukin 6 declined with weight, along with blood pressure, fasting glucose, waist circumference, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. On the downside, bone mineral density and lean body mass also declined slightly. The best way to avoid losing lean body mass and to preserve bone density during weight loss is to include a program of resistance-training exercises.

No clinical trial has evaluated the effects of intentional weight loss on death rates in older obese people.25 As a result, evidence-based recommendations cannot be made. Rather, advice on weight loss must be individualized, with special emphasis on the patient’s weight history and medical comorbidities.44

Oreopoulos et al26 summarized the possible effects of BMI, abdominal fat, lean body mass, and intentional weight loss on morbidity and mortality outcomes in older adults (Table 2).

TREATMENT GUIDELINES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Many of the methods of weight management in older adults are the same as in young and middle-aged adults.51 Recommendations for all age groups include lifestyle changes, increased activity, dietary changes, drug therapy, and bariatric surgery.

Whether there should be separate guidelines for older adults is controversial. In view of the obesity paradox, physicians have been reluctant to recommend weight loss in elderly patients. Caution is advised in recommending weight loss solely on the basis of body weight, as studies have shown that the weight associated with maximal survival increases with age. Because of age-related changes in body composition and reduced energy requirements and expenditure, recommendations for the young and middle-aged should not be applied directly to older adults.

In this group, especially those who have survived into old age with good health and an intact functional status, one could argue that significant caloric restriction should not be recommended. In these people, the goal is often to maintain weight and incorporate a daily exercise program rather than to aggressively lose weight. Adding resistance training can improve physical function, which can improve quality of life. There is less emphasis on cardiovascular risk, but both outcomes apply for both age groups.52

Intentional weight loss should be recommended to high-risk older adults, including those with cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and metabolic syndrome, because the absolute risk of death and morbidity is higher in this group. Most health benefits can be achieved with modest weight loss.53 Potential benefits include prevention of cognitive impairment, protection from bone fractures, an increase in antioxidant defense, a reserve of fat and energy stores, and an increase in longevity.26

Treatment differs from that in the younger population primarily because of the importance of preventing loss of muscle with intentional weight loss. People of all ages who lose weight intentionally lose fat and, to a lesser extent, skeletal muscle. Older patients have already lost muscle mass, but further changes in body composition, especially a further reduction in muscle mass, can be limited by consuming about 1.0 g/kg of high-quality protein in the diet and by engaging in resistance training and weight training.52

Improving quality of life and physical function are important goals. Information is emerging about when obesity needs to be managed in older adults. There is also evidence to support dietary and exercise therapy.54 Weight-loss options include lifestyle interventions, pharmacotherapy, and bariatric surgery.

 

 

Lifestyle interventions: Diet and exercise

The goal is to induce an energy deficit by reducing energy intake, increasing energy expenditure, or both—by 500 to 1,000 calories a day. This generally leads to a loss of 1 to 2 lb per week, and possibly up to 10% of weight in 6 months. Loss of about 10 to 20 lb with diet and exercise can translate to a relatively large reduction in visceral fat, with subsequent improvement in metabolic abnormalities.

A regular exercise program is important for improving overall physical function, which can slow progression to frailty. Adding aerobic, endurance, and resistance training helps preserve fat-free mass, which otherwise tends to diminish during active weight loss.55–57

The exercise program should begin at the outset of the weight-loss effort to help maintain weight loss and to prevent weight regain.58 Exercise is not essential for reaching the targeted weight loss, but starting early is important to reduce the loss of lean muscle that is usually already seen in the older population.

Several studies indicate that diet and exercise are just as effective in middle-aged and older people (over age 60) as in the younger population.58–60 Older people in the Diabetes Prevention Program were more compliant with lifestyle interventions and lost more weight than younger participants49: 60% of the older group met the 7% weight-loss goal at the end of 24 weeks, compared with 43% of those under age 45. At 3 years, the numbers were 63% vs 27%.

In a small randomized controlled trial,61 fat mass decreased by 6.6 kg in 17 people assigned to a program of diet and exercise, compared with a gain of 1.7 kg in a control group of 10 patients. Fat-free mass decreased by about 1 kg in both groups. The authors concluded that diet plus exercise (resistance training and strength training in this trial) could ameliorate frailty in obese older adults.

If exercise is appropriate, a physician should write a prescription for it, especially for resistance training, strengthening, flexibility, and stretching. This is important for patients with sarcopenic obesity and for those at high risk of chronic bone loss. The 2007 American College of Sports Medicine guidelines recommend muscle-strengthening activity of 8 to 10 exercises involving the major muscle groups, 10 to 15 repetitions at least twice a week. Flexibility and balance exercises should be included for those at risk of falls.62

Pharmacotherapy

At present, there are two general classes of weight-loss drugs: appetite suppressants and drugs that interfere with nutrient absorption.

Appetite suppressants include the sympathomimetics, which stimulate the release of dopamine and norepinephrine, resulting in increased satiety. Data—and therefore, recommendations—on their use in the elderly are very scarce, as most randomized controlled trials included only a small number of older people. A meta-analysis of drug therapy to treat obesity noted that the study population ranged in age from 34 to 54.63

The only approved drug currently available for use in older adults is orlistat, which blocks absorption of dietary fat by binding to intestinal lipase. A randomized controlled trial found the weight loss with orlistat to be comparable in older and younger adults.64,65

Review medications than can cause weight gain

When assessing older adults, always review the drugs they are taking. Those known to cause weight gain include certain of the following:

  • Antiepileptics (eg, gabapentin)
  • Antipsychotics (eg, olanzapine)
  • Antidepressants (eg, tricyclics)
  • Antihyperglycemic drugs (eg, sulfonylureas, thiazolidinediones)
  • Beta-blockers
  • Steroids.

If medically appropriate, a weight-neutral drug should be substituted for one suspected of causing weight gain. If a different physician (eg, a specialist) prescribed the original drug, he or she should be notified or consulted about any change.

Bariatric surgery

Bariatric surgery is the most effective weight-loss option, and more older patients are undergoing it than in the past. Dorman et al66 showed that the number of patients age 65 or older undergoing bariatric surgery increased from the year 2005 (when they accounted for 2%) to 2009 (when they accounted for 4.8%).

However, very few studies have provided information on the safety and effectiveness of bariatric surgery in older people. Several reports concluded that rates of perioperative morbidity and mortality are higher in older patients.67–69 Surgery resulted in marked weight loss and improvement in obesity-related complications and physical disability in older patients, although by a lower rate than in younger patients.

Varela et al70 examined the outcomes of bariatric surgery in a database from the University Health System Consortium Centers between 1999 and 2005. Patients over age 60 accounted for 1,339 (2.7%) of all bariatric operations performed. Compared with young and middle-aged patients, older patients had more comorbidities, longer hospital stays, and more complications, in addition to a higher in-hospital mortality rate. When risk-adjusted, the observed-to-expected mortality ratio for the older group was 0.9, compared with 0.7 in the young and middle-aged cohort.

Willkomm et al71 found an apparently higher operative risk profile in those over age 65 (n = 100) than in younger patients (n = 1,374), with higher rates of sleep apnea, diabetes, and hypertension. However, the operative outcomes were similar in the two groups in terms of operative time, length of stay, and 30-day readmission rates. The authors concluded that patients over age 65 had excellent outcomes compared with younger patients, suggesting that older age is not a risk factor for complications or death with bariatric surgery.

The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program evaluated the outcomes of 48,378 adults with a BMI greater than or equal to 35 kg/m2 who underwent bariatric surgery between 2005 and 2009.66 During this time, the number of patients age 65 and older seeking bariatric surgery increased from 1.5% to 4%. A total of 1,449 patients were in this age range. Thirty-day mortality rates did not differ significantly by age group and were less than 1% for all age ranges. Being age 65 or older was a significant predictor of prolonged length of stay but not of major adverse events. Significant predictors of major adverse events were a BMI greater than or equal to 55 kg/m2, cardiac comorbidities, a severe American Society of Anesthesiologists score, albumin levels lower than 3 g/dL, and creatinine levels greater than 1.5 mg/dL.

The most up-to-date study of the outcomes of bariatric surgery in patients over age 70 was a retrospective review at a single institution from 2007 to 2008 of 42 patients who underwent bariatric surgery.72 Twenty-two patients had laparoscopic gastric banding, 12 had laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, and 8 underwent laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. No patient died, complications occurred in 9 patients, and the rates of postoperative use of medications for hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes, and osteoarthritis were reduced by about half. With the increasing number of patients seeking bariatric surgery, especially those over age 70, further prospective studies will determine if the outcomes are statistically significant.

If bariatric surgery is considered

The outcomes, complications, and mortality rates associated with bariatric surgery have been shown to be acceptable for adults age 65 and older. Perioperative risk assessment in the older obese patient seeking bariatric surgery is paramount to ensure that the benefits of the procedure justify any associated risks to the patient. Consequently, patients over age 65 should not be excluded out of hand: the patient’s individual risk of major adverse events must be identified beforehand.

If the patient is at risk, efforts should be made to reduce the risk to an acceptable level, including cardiac risk stratification, optimization of drug therapy, and discussions with the bariatric surgeon to plan on a less-invasive laparoscopic procedure. Otherwise, older obese patients can safely proceed with conventional bariatric surgery, which will help them achieve durable weight loss, improve quality of life, and reduce associated comorbidities.

The aforementioned studies of bariatric surgery are retrospective, include small numbers of patients, and lack long-term follow-up. The issues of long-term safety and the risk of death and morbidity in the aging population will require randomized controlled trials to answer these important questions.

At our hospital, we have seen an increase in the number of patients referred for a possible additional procedure (revision) to correct a problem from a previous bariatric surgery. The problems arising from the previous surgery can lead to weight gain or to excessive weight loss and malnutrition. To date, our institution has no policy on when to consider a revisional procedure in an older patient. All patients, including older ones, are assessed for the procedure on a case-by-case basis.

Should older obese people try to lose weight? Such a simple question is more complicated than one would think.

At issue is whether obesity is harmful in older people, and whether treating it will reduce their health risks. True, obesity is an independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease and is associated with many comorbidities, including type 2 diabetes mellitus, hyperlipidemia, heart failure, and hypertension.1 An independent association also exists between obesity and all-cause mortality.2 However, there is also evidence suggesting that obesity in this age group is associated with a lower, not higher, risk of death—a finding termed the obesity paradox.3 And for that matter, what exactly constitutes obesity in elderly people, who naturally undergo changes in body composition as they age?

This article examines the literature on these controversial issues, including changes in body composition with age, the definition of obesity in older adults, the obesity paradox, and treatment of obesity in older adults.

AMERICANS ARE GETTING OLDER—AND BIGGER

Americans are living longer than ever before; life expectancy has reached a new high of 77.8 years.4,5 According to the US Census Bureau,6 about 27 million people in the United States are over age 70, and this number is expected to nearly double by 2030.

Meanwhile, the prevalence of obesity, defined as a body mass index (BMI) of 30 kg/m2 or higher, has increased in the last 25 years in all age groups in the United States, including those age 65 and older.7,8 These two trends add up to an increase in the number of obese older people. In 2000, 22.9% of people age 60 to 69 and 15.5% of those over age 70 and older were obese.9 This amounted to a 56% increase in the former group and a 36% increase in the latter group in the interval since 1991.5,9

BUT WHAT CONSTITUTES ‘OBESITY’?

Obesity is the excess accumulation of body fat, leading to a higher risk of medical illness and premature death. But measuring it is not as simple as one might think.

The body mass index can mislead

The BMI, ie, weight in kilograms divided by the square of the height in meters, correlates fairly well with body fat stores and is generally used to classify medical risk.

However, the BMI can classify some older people as overweight (BMI 30.0–34.9 kg/m2) or obese (BMI ≥ 35.0 kg/m2) who actually do not have an excess of body fat—and can fail to classify others as overweight or obese who do. For example, if a person loses height as a result of vertebral compression fractures, his or her BMI would become higher, even with no change in weight or body fat. Conversely, changes in body composition with age, including loss of muscle and an increase in fat, may not be reflected in the BMI, even if the person really does have too much body fat.10

This second limitation of the BMI is important when estimating risk in older adults, who have a particular fat distribution. Visceral, subcutaneous, intramuscular, and intrahepatic fat increase with age, and they are all risk factors for insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes mellitus.11 And in older people, having too much visceral fat is more prevalent than the BMI might predict.10

Percent body fat awaits investigation

Percent body fat is another way to assess body fat. Defined as the total weight of fat divided by total weight, it is measured in various ways.

Dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging can measure percent body fat, and they can differentiate visceral from subcutaneous fat (which is less metabolically active). Unfortunately, most of these tests are used for this purpose only in research, and they are relatively expensive.

Commercially available bioelectrical impedance devices send a weak electric current through the body and measure the resistance, and using this information and four other factors (height, weight, age, and sex), they calculate percent body fat. This method is fast, easy, painless, and cheap. A disadvantage is that the handheld devices measure body composition of the upper body only. Because the lower body is excluded, they do not give an accurate measurement of body fat of the abdomen and hips. Also, they cannot differentiate visceral from subcutaneous fat.

Bioelectrical impedance devices work well in healthy individuals with stable water balance. The values are only an estimate of fat-free mass, and therefore this method is not the gold standard for assessing body fat. Bioelectrical impedance is better at tracking body composition in an individual over time than at diagnosing obesity.

Percent body fat can vary by sex and race. Asians, for example, have higher percent body fats at lower BMIs, particularly when younger.12 Also, Gallagher et al12 found that percent body fat increased with age at every given BMI in both men and women (Table 1).

The traditional universal cutoffs for defining obesity by percent body fat are 25% in men and 35% in women. However, research has indicated that cutoffs of 20% to 25% in men and 30% to 38% in women may better identify those at risk of metabolic disease.13 Guidelines and evidence-based cutoffs for percent body fat must await further investigation.

 

 

Waist circumference is useful

In older adults, obesity can be diagnosed by a measurement such as waist circumference, which correlates highly with total fat and intra-abdominal fat.14 It is very cost-effective, simple, and useful for the office assessment of adiposity.

The measurement should be made halfway between the iliac crest and the lower anterior ribs, with the patient standing, and at the end of expiration.

The traditional standard for waist circumference is less than 89 cm (35 inches) for women and 102 cm (40 inches) for men. However, opinion differs, and different reference ranges exist depending on ethnicity. Additionally, because stature and body composition change with age, concerns have been raised about misclassification of the health risks related to obesity in older adults using the current standard.15,16

The waist circumference is as good as or even better than the BMI as a measure of excess adiposity in older adults.16–18 This is in part because of the age-dependent height decrease in older adults.15,19 (Recall that the BMI is calculated using the height squared as the denominator; as a result, the BMI would give a higher reading and thus an overestimate of total body fat.) Conversely, we can underestimate the amount of adiposity because of decreases in abdominal muscle tone.17

Cutoffs for waist circumference should be age-specific.16

Investigators in the Netherlands15,16 prospectively took 4,996 measurements in 2,232 people with a mean age of 70, from 1992 through 2006. They concluded that the best cutoffs for predicting the health risks of obesity in the elderly were 109 cm (43 inches) in men and 98 cm (39 inches) in women.

A group of researchers has proposed that the cutoffs be shifted upward in older adults, with new values for those age 70 and over.20 The Health Survey for England aimed to describe the patterns and trends in waist circumference and abdominal obesity and overweight in people age 70 through 89, comparing both the standard and the new cutoffs. Optimal cutoffs recommended for abdominal obesity for patients age 70 and older were 100 to 106 cm in men and 99 cm in women.20 Estimates of the prevalence of abdominal obesity are much lower using the new cutoffs.

SARCOPENIA: LOSS OF MUSCLE WITH AGE

With age comes sarcopenia—the progressive loss of muscle mass, primarily skeletal muscle, resulting in a decrease in strength and power.21 The process begins as early as the 20s or 30s.22 It is distinct from wasting (involuntary weight loss from inadequate intake), seen in starvation.21

Sarcopenia is defined as an appendicular skeletal muscle mass index (the appendicular skeletal mass divided by the square of the height in meters) of less than 2 standard deviations below a young adult reference, and a percentage of body fat over the 60th percentile for the individual’s sex and age.23,24 Estimates of its prevalence vary, but it is common and it increases with age.14,20

Sarcopenic obesity: Less muscle, more fat

Progressive loss of skeletal muscle with age, along with an increase and redistribution of body fat, is known as sarcopenic obesity.25 It is associated with higher morbidity and mortality rates as well as a decline in functional strength, which leads to frailty.23 This loss of muscle mass may go unnoticed in an older person until he or she begins to lose physical function.

As noted, in an older person with sarcopenic obesity, the BMI may mislead because of the high percentage of fat and the low lean mass.26

Why we change with age

This change in body composition with age is a result of several factors. Illness or inactivity can lead to loss of muscle, while body fat is preserved.17 The combination of reduced physical activity, a lower resting metabolic rate, and an unchanged intake of food can increase the likelihood of sarcopenia.27 Also possibly contributing are hormonal changes, including reduced production of growth hormone and testosterone and decreased responsiveness to thyroid hormone and leptin.28

Moreover, the interaction of several factors can lead to a vicious circle of progressive loss of muscle and increase in fat. As people age, their physical activity tends to decrease, resulting in muscle loss. As muscle mass decreases, the amount of available insulin-responsive tissue is reduced, resulting in insulin resistance, which in turn promotes the metabolic syndrome and an increase in fat. With more fat, people produce more of the adipokines tumor necrosis factor alpha and interleukin 6, which further promote insulin resistance.

Other changes contribute to a decrease in muscle quality and performance, including an increase in intramuscular and intrahepatic fat, which is associated with insulin resistance.11 The increases in adipose stores occur mostly in intra-abdominal fat rather than in subcutaneous fat.

ADVERSE EFFECTS OF OBESITY

A number of comorbidities arise with obesity, regardless of age.19

The diseases most strongly associated with obesity are the metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes mellitus.17 Studies have shown that in older adults, obesity as measured by waist circumference is associated with hyperglycemia and dyslipidemia.29,30

Metabolic abnormalities may ensue in obese older people through complex mechanisms involving an age-related decline in sex hormones. For example, late-onset hypogonadism in men, which is more common in those who are obese, is related to the metabolic syndrome.29

These mechanisms are also complex in women. Because estrogens can be produced in adipose tissue, obese postmenopausal women have higher concentrations of estrogens than their lean counterparts, and this may lead to metabolic abnormalities.31 (On the other hand, higher estrogen levels in obese menopausal women can protect against osteoporosis by increasing bone mass.)

Older people who weigh more and have more adipose tissue, especially those who became obese at a young age, have a greater risk of osteoarthritis of the knee,32,33 which when combined with obesity can cause disability and physical impairment.19 And cardiovascular risk factors,18,33 hypertension,34 and certain cancers35 are more common in older people with higher waist circumference.

THE OBESITY PARADOX

In general, obesity in younger adults has been shown to shorten life expectancy. This risk of death is often associated with obesity-related health problems.

In older people, the effect of obesity is much more complex.36 The optimal weight in terms of survival increases with age. More interesting is the finding that although the risk of cardiovascular disease is higher in overweight or obese older adults, studies also suggest that in this age group, being overweight or obese is paradoxically associated with lower mortality rates from these diseases.26 This phenomenon is called the obesity paradox.37

For those over age 75, the relative risk of death from all causes and from cardiovascular disease has been found to decrease with increasing BMI.25 The relationship between BMI and death from all causes in older adults may actually be a U-shaped curve, meaning that the risk of death rises at both extremes of BMI values.26

 

 

Possible explanations for the paradox

Several hypotheses have been proposed to explain the change in the relationship between BMI and the risk of death that occurs with aging.

The BMI is an imperfect measure of obesity. The obesity paradox may be an artifact of using the BMI to measure obesity in older adults.17 As described above, sarcopenic obesity must be considered in those over age 65 because the BMI does not differentiate between fat and muscle. Older adults tend to have a higher proportion of body and visceral fat that is distributed differently, making the waist circumference or waist-hip ratio a more appropriate measure of obesity in this group.38 Janssen et al39 found that in people age 65 and older, after controlling for waist circumference, higher BMI values were associated with lower death rates; after controlling for BMI, waist circumference was associated with a higher risk of death.

The survival effect suggests that people who are susceptible to the negative effects of obesity die sooner,40 and those who survive until old age may be resistant to the effects of obesity.41 If true, the survival effect would explain why the death rate seems to be unaffected by BMI in the older population.

Unhealthy weight loss. Smoking and diseases such as cancer that can cause early death may also induce weight loss, further complicating the relationship between BMI and death.19 After age 80, the association between BMI and the risk of death is weak because those with a low BMI include not only those who have always been lean and physically active, but also those who lost weight through chronic ill health or smoking.17

Further study needed. Thus, a number of confounding variables may muddy the association between obesity and death in older adults. Obesity should not be misinterpreted as being harmless or beneficial in older adults. Stevens et al36 found that a greater BMI was associated with a higher rate of death from all causes and from cardiovascular disease in men and women up to age 75, but that the relative risk of death associated with a greater BMI decreased with age.

Optimal BMI targets in older people have yet to be validated in a large prospective trial. However, multiple studies have examined the relationship between BMI and all-cause mortality in older adults and have identified a BMI of 24 to 35 as “ideal” and associated with the lowest risk of death, with a lower range for men and a higher range for women.42,43 The topic has been reviewed by Oreopoulos et al.26 More research is needed to evaluate this relationship.

THE BENEFIT OF WEIGHT LOSS IN OLDER ADULTS IS CONTROVERSIAL

In younger obese people, weight loss brings a multitude of benefits by reducing the risk of complications arising from obesity. However, in older adults, the effects of weight loss remain controversial, and evidence to guide treatment is limited.44,45 The few trials that have been published have typically focused on cardiovascular risk factors rather than physical function.45

In a 1-year trial, 107 people age 65 or older were randomized to a control group, to weight management, to exercise, or to weight management plus exercise. The combination of weight loss and exercise yielded the greatest improvement in physical function.46

Intentional vs unintentional weight loss

Intentional weight loss is altogether different from unintentional weight loss.

In most cases, weight loss in older adults is unintentional and may indicate underlying disease and impending death.17 For example, older men who lose weight unintentionally have significantly greater rates of smoking, disability, cancer, and respiratory disease and less obesity and physical activity than those who lose weight intentionally.47

Studies have shown an increase in life expectancy in older patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who lost weight intentionally.48,49 In fact, moderate weight loss—just 5% to 10%—has been shown to improve cardiovascular risk factors,44 osteoarthritis, and type 2 diabetes.50

Bales and Buhr44 performed a systematic review of 16 studies that had lasted at least 6 months. Patients were age 60 or older with a minimum baseline BMI of 27 kg/m2 who intentionally lost at least 3% of body weight or 2 kg. Levels of the inflammatory markers C-reactive protein, tumor necrosis factor alpha, and interleukin 6 declined with weight, along with blood pressure, fasting glucose, waist circumference, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. On the downside, bone mineral density and lean body mass also declined slightly. The best way to avoid losing lean body mass and to preserve bone density during weight loss is to include a program of resistance-training exercises.

No clinical trial has evaluated the effects of intentional weight loss on death rates in older obese people.25 As a result, evidence-based recommendations cannot be made. Rather, advice on weight loss must be individualized, with special emphasis on the patient’s weight history and medical comorbidities.44

Oreopoulos et al26 summarized the possible effects of BMI, abdominal fat, lean body mass, and intentional weight loss on morbidity and mortality outcomes in older adults (Table 2).

TREATMENT GUIDELINES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Many of the methods of weight management in older adults are the same as in young and middle-aged adults.51 Recommendations for all age groups include lifestyle changes, increased activity, dietary changes, drug therapy, and bariatric surgery.

Whether there should be separate guidelines for older adults is controversial. In view of the obesity paradox, physicians have been reluctant to recommend weight loss in elderly patients. Caution is advised in recommending weight loss solely on the basis of body weight, as studies have shown that the weight associated with maximal survival increases with age. Because of age-related changes in body composition and reduced energy requirements and expenditure, recommendations for the young and middle-aged should not be applied directly to older adults.

In this group, especially those who have survived into old age with good health and an intact functional status, one could argue that significant caloric restriction should not be recommended. In these people, the goal is often to maintain weight and incorporate a daily exercise program rather than to aggressively lose weight. Adding resistance training can improve physical function, which can improve quality of life. There is less emphasis on cardiovascular risk, but both outcomes apply for both age groups.52

Intentional weight loss should be recommended to high-risk older adults, including those with cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and metabolic syndrome, because the absolute risk of death and morbidity is higher in this group. Most health benefits can be achieved with modest weight loss.53 Potential benefits include prevention of cognitive impairment, protection from bone fractures, an increase in antioxidant defense, a reserve of fat and energy stores, and an increase in longevity.26

Treatment differs from that in the younger population primarily because of the importance of preventing loss of muscle with intentional weight loss. People of all ages who lose weight intentionally lose fat and, to a lesser extent, skeletal muscle. Older patients have already lost muscle mass, but further changes in body composition, especially a further reduction in muscle mass, can be limited by consuming about 1.0 g/kg of high-quality protein in the diet and by engaging in resistance training and weight training.52

Improving quality of life and physical function are important goals. Information is emerging about when obesity needs to be managed in older adults. There is also evidence to support dietary and exercise therapy.54 Weight-loss options include lifestyle interventions, pharmacotherapy, and bariatric surgery.

 

 

Lifestyle interventions: Diet and exercise

The goal is to induce an energy deficit by reducing energy intake, increasing energy expenditure, or both—by 500 to 1,000 calories a day. This generally leads to a loss of 1 to 2 lb per week, and possibly up to 10% of weight in 6 months. Loss of about 10 to 20 lb with diet and exercise can translate to a relatively large reduction in visceral fat, with subsequent improvement in metabolic abnormalities.

A regular exercise program is important for improving overall physical function, which can slow progression to frailty. Adding aerobic, endurance, and resistance training helps preserve fat-free mass, which otherwise tends to diminish during active weight loss.55–57

The exercise program should begin at the outset of the weight-loss effort to help maintain weight loss and to prevent weight regain.58 Exercise is not essential for reaching the targeted weight loss, but starting early is important to reduce the loss of lean muscle that is usually already seen in the older population.

Several studies indicate that diet and exercise are just as effective in middle-aged and older people (over age 60) as in the younger population.58–60 Older people in the Diabetes Prevention Program were more compliant with lifestyle interventions and lost more weight than younger participants49: 60% of the older group met the 7% weight-loss goal at the end of 24 weeks, compared with 43% of those under age 45. At 3 years, the numbers were 63% vs 27%.

In a small randomized controlled trial,61 fat mass decreased by 6.6 kg in 17 people assigned to a program of diet and exercise, compared with a gain of 1.7 kg in a control group of 10 patients. Fat-free mass decreased by about 1 kg in both groups. The authors concluded that diet plus exercise (resistance training and strength training in this trial) could ameliorate frailty in obese older adults.

If exercise is appropriate, a physician should write a prescription for it, especially for resistance training, strengthening, flexibility, and stretching. This is important for patients with sarcopenic obesity and for those at high risk of chronic bone loss. The 2007 American College of Sports Medicine guidelines recommend muscle-strengthening activity of 8 to 10 exercises involving the major muscle groups, 10 to 15 repetitions at least twice a week. Flexibility and balance exercises should be included for those at risk of falls.62

Pharmacotherapy

At present, there are two general classes of weight-loss drugs: appetite suppressants and drugs that interfere with nutrient absorption.

Appetite suppressants include the sympathomimetics, which stimulate the release of dopamine and norepinephrine, resulting in increased satiety. Data—and therefore, recommendations—on their use in the elderly are very scarce, as most randomized controlled trials included only a small number of older people. A meta-analysis of drug therapy to treat obesity noted that the study population ranged in age from 34 to 54.63

The only approved drug currently available for use in older adults is orlistat, which blocks absorption of dietary fat by binding to intestinal lipase. A randomized controlled trial found the weight loss with orlistat to be comparable in older and younger adults.64,65

Review medications than can cause weight gain

When assessing older adults, always review the drugs they are taking. Those known to cause weight gain include certain of the following:

  • Antiepileptics (eg, gabapentin)
  • Antipsychotics (eg, olanzapine)
  • Antidepressants (eg, tricyclics)
  • Antihyperglycemic drugs (eg, sulfonylureas, thiazolidinediones)
  • Beta-blockers
  • Steroids.

If medically appropriate, a weight-neutral drug should be substituted for one suspected of causing weight gain. If a different physician (eg, a specialist) prescribed the original drug, he or she should be notified or consulted about any change.

Bariatric surgery

Bariatric surgery is the most effective weight-loss option, and more older patients are undergoing it than in the past. Dorman et al66 showed that the number of patients age 65 or older undergoing bariatric surgery increased from the year 2005 (when they accounted for 2%) to 2009 (when they accounted for 4.8%).

However, very few studies have provided information on the safety and effectiveness of bariatric surgery in older people. Several reports concluded that rates of perioperative morbidity and mortality are higher in older patients.67–69 Surgery resulted in marked weight loss and improvement in obesity-related complications and physical disability in older patients, although by a lower rate than in younger patients.

Varela et al70 examined the outcomes of bariatric surgery in a database from the University Health System Consortium Centers between 1999 and 2005. Patients over age 60 accounted for 1,339 (2.7%) of all bariatric operations performed. Compared with young and middle-aged patients, older patients had more comorbidities, longer hospital stays, and more complications, in addition to a higher in-hospital mortality rate. When risk-adjusted, the observed-to-expected mortality ratio for the older group was 0.9, compared with 0.7 in the young and middle-aged cohort.

Willkomm et al71 found an apparently higher operative risk profile in those over age 65 (n = 100) than in younger patients (n = 1,374), with higher rates of sleep apnea, diabetes, and hypertension. However, the operative outcomes were similar in the two groups in terms of operative time, length of stay, and 30-day readmission rates. The authors concluded that patients over age 65 had excellent outcomes compared with younger patients, suggesting that older age is not a risk factor for complications or death with bariatric surgery.

The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program evaluated the outcomes of 48,378 adults with a BMI greater than or equal to 35 kg/m2 who underwent bariatric surgery between 2005 and 2009.66 During this time, the number of patients age 65 and older seeking bariatric surgery increased from 1.5% to 4%. A total of 1,449 patients were in this age range. Thirty-day mortality rates did not differ significantly by age group and were less than 1% for all age ranges. Being age 65 or older was a significant predictor of prolonged length of stay but not of major adverse events. Significant predictors of major adverse events were a BMI greater than or equal to 55 kg/m2, cardiac comorbidities, a severe American Society of Anesthesiologists score, albumin levels lower than 3 g/dL, and creatinine levels greater than 1.5 mg/dL.

The most up-to-date study of the outcomes of bariatric surgery in patients over age 70 was a retrospective review at a single institution from 2007 to 2008 of 42 patients who underwent bariatric surgery.72 Twenty-two patients had laparoscopic gastric banding, 12 had laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, and 8 underwent laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. No patient died, complications occurred in 9 patients, and the rates of postoperative use of medications for hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes, and osteoarthritis were reduced by about half. With the increasing number of patients seeking bariatric surgery, especially those over age 70, further prospective studies will determine if the outcomes are statistically significant.

If bariatric surgery is considered

The outcomes, complications, and mortality rates associated with bariatric surgery have been shown to be acceptable for adults age 65 and older. Perioperative risk assessment in the older obese patient seeking bariatric surgery is paramount to ensure that the benefits of the procedure justify any associated risks to the patient. Consequently, patients over age 65 should not be excluded out of hand: the patient’s individual risk of major adverse events must be identified beforehand.

If the patient is at risk, efforts should be made to reduce the risk to an acceptable level, including cardiac risk stratification, optimization of drug therapy, and discussions with the bariatric surgeon to plan on a less-invasive laparoscopic procedure. Otherwise, older obese patients can safely proceed with conventional bariatric surgery, which will help them achieve durable weight loss, improve quality of life, and reduce associated comorbidities.

The aforementioned studies of bariatric surgery are retrospective, include small numbers of patients, and lack long-term follow-up. The issues of long-term safety and the risk of death and morbidity in the aging population will require randomized controlled trials to answer these important questions.

At our hospital, we have seen an increase in the number of patients referred for a possible additional procedure (revision) to correct a problem from a previous bariatric surgery. The problems arising from the previous surgery can lead to weight gain or to excessive weight loss and malnutrition. To date, our institution has no policy on when to consider a revisional procedure in an older patient. All patients, including older ones, are assessed for the procedure on a case-by-case basis.

References
  1. Bray GA, Macdiarmid J. The epidemic of obesity. West J Med 2000; 172:7879.
  2. Calle EE, Thun MJ, Petrelli JM, Rodriguez C, Heath CW. Body-mass index and mortality in a prospective cohort of US adults. N Engl J Med 1999; 341:10971105.
  3. Kalantar-Zadeh K, Horwich TB, Oreopoulos A, et al. Risk factor paradox in wasting diseases. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care 2007; 10:433442.
  4. Mokdad AH, Marks JS, Stroup DF, Gerberding JL. Actual causes of death in the United States, 2000. JAMA 2004; 291:12381245.
  5. Arias E, Rostron BL, Tejada-Vera B. United States life tables, 2005. National vital statistics reports; vol 58no 10. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. 2010.
  6. US Census Bureau International Database (IDB). Population projections of the US by age, sex, race, Hispanic origin, population division. http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idb/country.php. Accessed September 13, 2013.
  7. Hedley AA, Ogden CL, Johnson CL, Carroll MD, Curtin LR, Flegal KM. Prevalence of overweight and obesity among US children, adolescents, and adults, 1999–2002. JAMA 2004; 291:28472850.
  8. Kuczmarski RJ, Flegal KM, Campbell SM, Johnson CL. Increasing prevalence of overweight among US adults. The National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys, 1960 to 1991. JAMA 1994; 272:205211.
  9. Mokdad AH, Serdula MK, Dietz WH, Bowman BA, Marks JS, Koplan JP. The spread of the obesity epidemic in the United States, 1991–1998. JAMA 1999; 282:15191522.
  10. Horani MH, Mooradian AD. Management of obesity in the elderly: special considerations. Treat Endocrinol 2002; 1:387398.
  11. Beaufrère B, Morio B. Fat and protein redistribution with aging: metabolic considerations. Eur J Clin Nutr 2000; 54(suppl 3):S48S53.
  12. Gallagher D, Heymsfield SB, Heo M, Jebb SA, Murgatroyd PR, Sakamoto Y. Healthy percentage body fat ranges: an approach for developing guidelines based on body mass index. Am J Clin Nutr 2000; 72:694701.
  13. Snitker S. Use of body fatness cutoff points (author reply). Mayo Clin Proc 2010; 85:1057; author reply 1057–1058.
  14. Baumgartner RN, Koehler KM, Gallagher D, et al. Epidemiology of sarcopenia among the elderly in New Mexico. Am J Epidemiol 1998; 147:755–763. Erratum in Am J Epidemiol 1999; 149:1161.
  15. Visscher TL, Seidell JC, Molarius A, van der Kuip D, Hofman A, Witteman JC. A comparison of body mass index, waist-hip ratio and waist circumference as predictors of all-cause mortality among the elderly: the Rotterdam study. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 2001; 25:17301735.
  16. Molarius A, Seidell JC, Visscher TL, Hofman A. Misclassification of high-risk older subjects using waist action levels established for young and middle-aged adults—results from the Rotterdam Study. J Am Geriatr Soc 2000; 48:16381645.
  17. Han TS, Tajar A, Lean ME. Obesity and weight management in the elderly. Br Med Bull 2011; 97:169196.
  18. Turcato E, Bosello O, Di Francesco V, et al. Waist circumference and abdominal sagittal diameter as surrogates of body fat distribution in the elderly: their relation with cardiovascular risk factors. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 2000; 24:10051010.
  19. Zamboni M, Mazzali G, Zoico E, et al. Health consequences of obesity in the elderly: a review of four unresolved questions. Int J Obes (Lond) 2005; 29:10111029.
  20. Heim N, Snijder MB, Heymans MW, Deeg DJ, Seidell JC, Visser M. Optimal cutoff values for high-risk waist circumference in older adults based on related health outcomes. Am J Epidemiol 2011; 174:479489.
  21. Roubenoff R, Castaneda C. Sarcopenia—understanding the dynamics of aging muscle. JAMA 2001; 286:12301231.
  22. Schutz Y, Kyle UU, Pichard C. Fat-free mass index and fat mass index percentiles in Caucasians aged 18-98 y. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 2002; 26:953960.
  23. Baumgartner RN, Wayne SJ, Waters DL, Janssen I, Gallagher D, Morley JE. Sarcopenic obesity predicts instrumental activities of daily living disability in the elderly. Obes Res 2004; 12:19952004.
  24. Morley JE, Baumgartner RN, Roubenoff R, Mayer J, Nair KS. Sarcopenia. J Lab Clin Med 2001; 137:231243.
  25. Roubenoff R. Sarcopenic obesity: the confluence of two epidemics. Obes Res 2004; 12:887888.
  26. Oreopoulos A, Kalantar-Zadeh K, Sharma AM, Fonarow GC. The obesity paradox in the elderly: potential mechanisms and clinical implications. Clin Geriatr Med 2009; 25:643659.
  27. Elia M, Ritz P, Stubbs RJ. Total energy expenditure in the elderly. Eur J Clin Nutr 2000; 54(suppl 3):S92S103.
  28. Reaven GM. Banting lecture 1988. Role of insulin resistance in human disease. Diabetes 1988; 37:15951607.
  29. Corona G, Mannucci E, Forti G, Maggi M. Hypogonadism, ED, metabolic syndrome and obesity: a pathological link supporting cardiovascular diseases. Int J Androl 2009; 32:587598.
  30. Haarbo J, Hassager C, Riis BJ, Christiansen C. Relation of body fat distribution to serum lipids and lipoproteins in elderly women. Atherosclerosis 1989; 80:5762.
  31. Cignarella A, Kratz M, Bolego C. Emerging role of estrogen in the control of cardiometabolic disease. Trends Pharmacol Sci 2010; 31:183189.
  32. Felson DT, Anderson JJ, Naimark A, Walker AM, Meenan RF. Obesity and knee osteoarthritis. The Framingham Study. Ann Intern Med 1988; 109:1824.
  33. Gelber AC, Hochberg MC, Mead LA, Wang NY, Wigley FM, Klag MJ. Body mass index in young men and the risk of subsequent knee and hip osteoarthritis. Am J Med 1999; 107:542548.
  34. Iwao S, Iwao N, Muller DC, Elahi D, Shimokata H, Andres R. Effect of aging on the relationship between multiple risk factors and waist circumference. J Am Geriatr Soc 2000; 48:788794.
  35. Folsom AR, Kushi LH, Anderson KE, et al. Associations of general and abdominal obesity with multiple health outcomes in older women: the Iowa Women’s Health Study. Arch Intern Med 2000; 160:21172128.
  36. Stevens J, Cai J, Pamuk ER, Williamson DF, Thun MJ, Wood JL. The effect of age on the association between body-mass index and mortality. N Engl J Med 1998; 338:17.
  37. Kalantar-Zadeh K, Horwich TB, Oreopoulos A, et al. Risk factor paradox in wasting diseases. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care 2007; 10:433442.
  38. Zamboni M, Armellini F, Harris T, et al. Effects of age on body fat distribution and cardiovascular risk factors in women. Am J Clin Nutr 1997; 66:111115.
  39. Janssen I, Katzmarzyk PT, Ross R. Body mass index is inversely related to mortality in older people after adjustment for waist circumference. J Am Geriatr Soc 2005; 53:21122118.
  40. Inelmen EM, Sergi G, Coin A, Miotto F, Peruzza S, Enzi G. Can obesity be a risk factor in elderly people? Obes Rev 2003; 4:147155.
  41. Elia M. Obesity in the elderly. Obes Res 2001; 9(suppl 4):244S248S.
  42. Losonczy KG, Harris TB, Cornoni-Huntley J, et al. Does weight loss from middle age to old age explain the inverse weight mortality relation in old age? Am J Epidemiol 1995; 141:312321.
  43. Corrada MM, Kawas CH, Mozaffar F, Paganini-Hill A. Association of body mass index and weight change with all-cause mortality in the elderly. Am J Epidemiol 2006; 163:938949.
  44. Bales CW, Buhr G. Is obesity bad for older persons? A systematic review of the pros and cons of weight reduction in later life. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2008; 9:302312.
  45. Witham MD, Avenell A. Interventions to achieve long-term weight loss in obese older people: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Age Ageing 2010; 39:176184.
  46. Villareal DT, Chode S, Parimi N, et al. Weight loss, exercise, or both and physical function in obese older adults. N Engl J Med 2011; 364:12181229.
  47. Wannamethee SG, Shaper AG, Whincup PH, Walker M. Characteristics of older men who lose weight intentionally or unintentionally. Am J Epidemiol 2000; 151:667675.
  48. Lean ME, Powrie JK, Anderson AS, Garthwaite PH. Obesity, weight loss and prognosis in type 2 diabetes. Diabet Med 1990; 7:228233.
  49. Williamson DF, Thompson TJ, Thun M, Flanders D, Pamuk E, Byers T. Intentional weight loss and mortality among overweight individuals with diabetes. Diabetes Care 2000; 23:14991504.
  50. Hamman RF, Wing RR, Edelstein SL, et al. Effect of weight loss with lifestyle intervention on risk of diabetes. Diabetes Care 2006; 29:2102-2107.
  51. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute in cooperation with The National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Clinical guidelines on the identification, evaluation and treatment of the overweight and obesity in adults, the evidence report. NIH Publication number 98-4803 http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/guidelines/obesity/ob_gdlns.pdf. Accessed September 13, 2013.
  52. Villareal DT, Apovian CM, Kushner RF, Klein S; American Society for Nutrition; NAASO, The Obesity Society. Obesity in older adults: technical review and position statement of the American Society for Nutrition and NAASO, The Obesity Society. Am J Clin Nutr 2005; 82:923934.
  53. Williamson DF, Pamuk E, Thun M, Flanders D, Byers T, Heath C. Prospective study of intentional weight loss and mortality in never-smoking overweight US white women aged 40-64 years. Am J Epidemiol 1995; 141:11281141.
  54. McTigue KM, Hess R, Ziouras J. Obesity in older adults: a systematic review of the evidence for diagnosis and treatment. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2006; 14:14851497.
  55. Ryan AS, Pratley RE, Elahi D, Goldberg AP. Resistive training increases fat-free mass and maintains RMR despite weight loss in postmenopausal women. J Appl Physiol 1995; 79:818823.
  56. Pavlou KN, Krey S, Steffee WP. Exercise as an adjunct to weight loss and maintenance in moderately obese subjects. Am J Clin Nutr 1989; 49(suppl 5):11151123.
  57. Kraemer WJ, Volek JS, Clark KL, et al. Influence of exercise training on physiological and performance changes with weight loss in men. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1999; 31:13201329.
  58. Wing RR, Hill JO. Successful weight loss maintenance. Annu Rev Nutr 2001; 21:323341.
  59. Banks M, Klein S, Sinacore D, Siener C, Villareal DT. Effects of weight loss and exercise on frailty in obese elderly subjects. J Am Geriatr Soc 2005; 53:S16.
  60. Messier SP, Loeser RF, Miller GD, et al. Exercise and dietary weight loss in overweight and obese older adults with knee osteoarthritis: the Arthritis, Diet, and Activity Promotion Trial. Arthritis Rheum 2004; 50:15011510.
  61. Villareal DT, Banks M, Sinacore DR, Siener C, Klein S. Effect of weight loss and exercise on frailty in obese older adults. Arch Intern Med 2006; 166:860866.
  62. Nelson ME, Rejeski WJ, Blair SN, et al; American College of Sports Medicine; American Heart Association. Physical activity and public health in older adults: recommendation from the American College of Sports Medicine and the American Heart Association. Circulation 2007; 116:10941105.
  63. Li Z, Maglione M, Tu W, et al. Meta-analysis: pharmacologic treatment of obesity. Ann Intern Med 2005; 142:532546.
  64. Segal KR, Lucas C, Boldrin M, Hauptman J. Weight loss efficacy of orlistat in obese elderly adults (abstract). Obes Res 1999; 7(suppl):26S.
  65. Hauptman J, Lucas C, Boldrin MN, Collins H, Segal KR. Orlistat in the long-term treatment of obesity in primary care settings. Arch Fam Med 2000; 9:160167.
  66. Dorman RB, Abraham AA, Al-Refaie WB, Parsons HM, Ikramuddin S, Habermann EB. Bariatric surgery outcomes in the elderly: an ACS NSQIP study. J Gastrointest Surg 2012; 16:3544.
  67. Sugerman HJ, DeMaria EJ, Kellum JM, Sugerman EL, Meador JG, Wolfe LG. Effects of bariatric surgery in older patients. Ann Surg 2004; 240:243247.
  68. St. Peter SD, Craft RO, Tiede JL, Swain JM. Impact of advanced age on weight loss and health benefits after laparoscopic gastric bypass. Arch Surg 2005; 140:165168.
  69. Sosa JL, Pombo H, Pallavicini H, Ruiz-Rodriguez M. Laparoscopic gastric bypass beyond age 60. Obes Surg 2004; 14:13981401.
  70. Varela JE, Wilson SE, Nguyen NT. Outcomes of bariatric surgery in the elderly. Am Surg 2006; 72:865869.
  71. Willkomm CM, Fisher TL, Barnes GS, Kennedy CI, Kuhn JA. Surgical weight loss >65 years old: is it worth the risk? Surg Obes Relat Dis 2010; 6:491496.
  72. Heiat A, Vaccarino V, Krumholz HM. An evidence-based assessment of federal guidelines for overweight and obesity as they apply to elderly persons. Arch Intern Med 2001; 161:11941203.
References
  1. Bray GA, Macdiarmid J. The epidemic of obesity. West J Med 2000; 172:7879.
  2. Calle EE, Thun MJ, Petrelli JM, Rodriguez C, Heath CW. Body-mass index and mortality in a prospective cohort of US adults. N Engl J Med 1999; 341:10971105.
  3. Kalantar-Zadeh K, Horwich TB, Oreopoulos A, et al. Risk factor paradox in wasting diseases. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care 2007; 10:433442.
  4. Mokdad AH, Marks JS, Stroup DF, Gerberding JL. Actual causes of death in the United States, 2000. JAMA 2004; 291:12381245.
  5. Arias E, Rostron BL, Tejada-Vera B. United States life tables, 2005. National vital statistics reports; vol 58no 10. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. 2010.
  6. US Census Bureau International Database (IDB). Population projections of the US by age, sex, race, Hispanic origin, population division. http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idb/country.php. Accessed September 13, 2013.
  7. Hedley AA, Ogden CL, Johnson CL, Carroll MD, Curtin LR, Flegal KM. Prevalence of overweight and obesity among US children, adolescents, and adults, 1999–2002. JAMA 2004; 291:28472850.
  8. Kuczmarski RJ, Flegal KM, Campbell SM, Johnson CL. Increasing prevalence of overweight among US adults. The National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys, 1960 to 1991. JAMA 1994; 272:205211.
  9. Mokdad AH, Serdula MK, Dietz WH, Bowman BA, Marks JS, Koplan JP. The spread of the obesity epidemic in the United States, 1991–1998. JAMA 1999; 282:15191522.
  10. Horani MH, Mooradian AD. Management of obesity in the elderly: special considerations. Treat Endocrinol 2002; 1:387398.
  11. Beaufrère B, Morio B. Fat and protein redistribution with aging: metabolic considerations. Eur J Clin Nutr 2000; 54(suppl 3):S48S53.
  12. Gallagher D, Heymsfield SB, Heo M, Jebb SA, Murgatroyd PR, Sakamoto Y. Healthy percentage body fat ranges: an approach for developing guidelines based on body mass index. Am J Clin Nutr 2000; 72:694701.
  13. Snitker S. Use of body fatness cutoff points (author reply). Mayo Clin Proc 2010; 85:1057; author reply 1057–1058.
  14. Baumgartner RN, Koehler KM, Gallagher D, et al. Epidemiology of sarcopenia among the elderly in New Mexico. Am J Epidemiol 1998; 147:755–763. Erratum in Am J Epidemiol 1999; 149:1161.
  15. Visscher TL, Seidell JC, Molarius A, van der Kuip D, Hofman A, Witteman JC. A comparison of body mass index, waist-hip ratio and waist circumference as predictors of all-cause mortality among the elderly: the Rotterdam study. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 2001; 25:17301735.
  16. Molarius A, Seidell JC, Visscher TL, Hofman A. Misclassification of high-risk older subjects using waist action levels established for young and middle-aged adults—results from the Rotterdam Study. J Am Geriatr Soc 2000; 48:16381645.
  17. Han TS, Tajar A, Lean ME. Obesity and weight management in the elderly. Br Med Bull 2011; 97:169196.
  18. Turcato E, Bosello O, Di Francesco V, et al. Waist circumference and abdominal sagittal diameter as surrogates of body fat distribution in the elderly: their relation with cardiovascular risk factors. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 2000; 24:10051010.
  19. Zamboni M, Mazzali G, Zoico E, et al. Health consequences of obesity in the elderly: a review of four unresolved questions. Int J Obes (Lond) 2005; 29:10111029.
  20. Heim N, Snijder MB, Heymans MW, Deeg DJ, Seidell JC, Visser M. Optimal cutoff values for high-risk waist circumference in older adults based on related health outcomes. Am J Epidemiol 2011; 174:479489.
  21. Roubenoff R, Castaneda C. Sarcopenia—understanding the dynamics of aging muscle. JAMA 2001; 286:12301231.
  22. Schutz Y, Kyle UU, Pichard C. Fat-free mass index and fat mass index percentiles in Caucasians aged 18-98 y. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 2002; 26:953960.
  23. Baumgartner RN, Wayne SJ, Waters DL, Janssen I, Gallagher D, Morley JE. Sarcopenic obesity predicts instrumental activities of daily living disability in the elderly. Obes Res 2004; 12:19952004.
  24. Morley JE, Baumgartner RN, Roubenoff R, Mayer J, Nair KS. Sarcopenia. J Lab Clin Med 2001; 137:231243.
  25. Roubenoff R. Sarcopenic obesity: the confluence of two epidemics. Obes Res 2004; 12:887888.
  26. Oreopoulos A, Kalantar-Zadeh K, Sharma AM, Fonarow GC. The obesity paradox in the elderly: potential mechanisms and clinical implications. Clin Geriatr Med 2009; 25:643659.
  27. Elia M, Ritz P, Stubbs RJ. Total energy expenditure in the elderly. Eur J Clin Nutr 2000; 54(suppl 3):S92S103.
  28. Reaven GM. Banting lecture 1988. Role of insulin resistance in human disease. Diabetes 1988; 37:15951607.
  29. Corona G, Mannucci E, Forti G, Maggi M. Hypogonadism, ED, metabolic syndrome and obesity: a pathological link supporting cardiovascular diseases. Int J Androl 2009; 32:587598.
  30. Haarbo J, Hassager C, Riis BJ, Christiansen C. Relation of body fat distribution to serum lipids and lipoproteins in elderly women. Atherosclerosis 1989; 80:5762.
  31. Cignarella A, Kratz M, Bolego C. Emerging role of estrogen in the control of cardiometabolic disease. Trends Pharmacol Sci 2010; 31:183189.
  32. Felson DT, Anderson JJ, Naimark A, Walker AM, Meenan RF. Obesity and knee osteoarthritis. The Framingham Study. Ann Intern Med 1988; 109:1824.
  33. Gelber AC, Hochberg MC, Mead LA, Wang NY, Wigley FM, Klag MJ. Body mass index in young men and the risk of subsequent knee and hip osteoarthritis. Am J Med 1999; 107:542548.
  34. Iwao S, Iwao N, Muller DC, Elahi D, Shimokata H, Andres R. Effect of aging on the relationship between multiple risk factors and waist circumference. J Am Geriatr Soc 2000; 48:788794.
  35. Folsom AR, Kushi LH, Anderson KE, et al. Associations of general and abdominal obesity with multiple health outcomes in older women: the Iowa Women’s Health Study. Arch Intern Med 2000; 160:21172128.
  36. Stevens J, Cai J, Pamuk ER, Williamson DF, Thun MJ, Wood JL. The effect of age on the association between body-mass index and mortality. N Engl J Med 1998; 338:17.
  37. Kalantar-Zadeh K, Horwich TB, Oreopoulos A, et al. Risk factor paradox in wasting diseases. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care 2007; 10:433442.
  38. Zamboni M, Armellini F, Harris T, et al. Effects of age on body fat distribution and cardiovascular risk factors in women. Am J Clin Nutr 1997; 66:111115.
  39. Janssen I, Katzmarzyk PT, Ross R. Body mass index is inversely related to mortality in older people after adjustment for waist circumference. J Am Geriatr Soc 2005; 53:21122118.
  40. Inelmen EM, Sergi G, Coin A, Miotto F, Peruzza S, Enzi G. Can obesity be a risk factor in elderly people? Obes Rev 2003; 4:147155.
  41. Elia M. Obesity in the elderly. Obes Res 2001; 9(suppl 4):244S248S.
  42. Losonczy KG, Harris TB, Cornoni-Huntley J, et al. Does weight loss from middle age to old age explain the inverse weight mortality relation in old age? Am J Epidemiol 1995; 141:312321.
  43. Corrada MM, Kawas CH, Mozaffar F, Paganini-Hill A. Association of body mass index and weight change with all-cause mortality in the elderly. Am J Epidemiol 2006; 163:938949.
  44. Bales CW, Buhr G. Is obesity bad for older persons? A systematic review of the pros and cons of weight reduction in later life. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2008; 9:302312.
  45. Witham MD, Avenell A. Interventions to achieve long-term weight loss in obese older people: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Age Ageing 2010; 39:176184.
  46. Villareal DT, Chode S, Parimi N, et al. Weight loss, exercise, or both and physical function in obese older adults. N Engl J Med 2011; 364:12181229.
  47. Wannamethee SG, Shaper AG, Whincup PH, Walker M. Characteristics of older men who lose weight intentionally or unintentionally. Am J Epidemiol 2000; 151:667675.
  48. Lean ME, Powrie JK, Anderson AS, Garthwaite PH. Obesity, weight loss and prognosis in type 2 diabetes. Diabet Med 1990; 7:228233.
  49. Williamson DF, Thompson TJ, Thun M, Flanders D, Pamuk E, Byers T. Intentional weight loss and mortality among overweight individuals with diabetes. Diabetes Care 2000; 23:14991504.
  50. Hamman RF, Wing RR, Edelstein SL, et al. Effect of weight loss with lifestyle intervention on risk of diabetes. Diabetes Care 2006; 29:2102-2107.
  51. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute in cooperation with The National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Clinical guidelines on the identification, evaluation and treatment of the overweight and obesity in adults, the evidence report. NIH Publication number 98-4803 http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/guidelines/obesity/ob_gdlns.pdf. Accessed September 13, 2013.
  52. Villareal DT, Apovian CM, Kushner RF, Klein S; American Society for Nutrition; NAASO, The Obesity Society. Obesity in older adults: technical review and position statement of the American Society for Nutrition and NAASO, The Obesity Society. Am J Clin Nutr 2005; 82:923934.
  53. Williamson DF, Pamuk E, Thun M, Flanders D, Byers T, Heath C. Prospective study of intentional weight loss and mortality in never-smoking overweight US white women aged 40-64 years. Am J Epidemiol 1995; 141:11281141.
  54. McTigue KM, Hess R, Ziouras J. Obesity in older adults: a systematic review of the evidence for diagnosis and treatment. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2006; 14:14851497.
  55. Ryan AS, Pratley RE, Elahi D, Goldberg AP. Resistive training increases fat-free mass and maintains RMR despite weight loss in postmenopausal women. J Appl Physiol 1995; 79:818823.
  56. Pavlou KN, Krey S, Steffee WP. Exercise as an adjunct to weight loss and maintenance in moderately obese subjects. Am J Clin Nutr 1989; 49(suppl 5):11151123.
  57. Kraemer WJ, Volek JS, Clark KL, et al. Influence of exercise training on physiological and performance changes with weight loss in men. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1999; 31:13201329.
  58. Wing RR, Hill JO. Successful weight loss maintenance. Annu Rev Nutr 2001; 21:323341.
  59. Banks M, Klein S, Sinacore D, Siener C, Villareal DT. Effects of weight loss and exercise on frailty in obese elderly subjects. J Am Geriatr Soc 2005; 53:S16.
  60. Messier SP, Loeser RF, Miller GD, et al. Exercise and dietary weight loss in overweight and obese older adults with knee osteoarthritis: the Arthritis, Diet, and Activity Promotion Trial. Arthritis Rheum 2004; 50:15011510.
  61. Villareal DT, Banks M, Sinacore DR, Siener C, Klein S. Effect of weight loss and exercise on frailty in obese older adults. Arch Intern Med 2006; 166:860866.
  62. Nelson ME, Rejeski WJ, Blair SN, et al; American College of Sports Medicine; American Heart Association. Physical activity and public health in older adults: recommendation from the American College of Sports Medicine and the American Heart Association. Circulation 2007; 116:10941105.
  63. Li Z, Maglione M, Tu W, et al. Meta-analysis: pharmacologic treatment of obesity. Ann Intern Med 2005; 142:532546.
  64. Segal KR, Lucas C, Boldrin M, Hauptman J. Weight loss efficacy of orlistat in obese elderly adults (abstract). Obes Res 1999; 7(suppl):26S.
  65. Hauptman J, Lucas C, Boldrin MN, Collins H, Segal KR. Orlistat in the long-term treatment of obesity in primary care settings. Arch Fam Med 2000; 9:160167.
  66. Dorman RB, Abraham AA, Al-Refaie WB, Parsons HM, Ikramuddin S, Habermann EB. Bariatric surgery outcomes in the elderly: an ACS NSQIP study. J Gastrointest Surg 2012; 16:3544.
  67. Sugerman HJ, DeMaria EJ, Kellum JM, Sugerman EL, Meador JG, Wolfe LG. Effects of bariatric surgery in older patients. Ann Surg 2004; 240:243247.
  68. St. Peter SD, Craft RO, Tiede JL, Swain JM. Impact of advanced age on weight loss and health benefits after laparoscopic gastric bypass. Arch Surg 2005; 140:165168.
  69. Sosa JL, Pombo H, Pallavicini H, Ruiz-Rodriguez M. Laparoscopic gastric bypass beyond age 60. Obes Surg 2004; 14:13981401.
  70. Varela JE, Wilson SE, Nguyen NT. Outcomes of bariatric surgery in the elderly. Am Surg 2006; 72:865869.
  71. Willkomm CM, Fisher TL, Barnes GS, Kennedy CI, Kuhn JA. Surgical weight loss >65 years old: is it worth the risk? Surg Obes Relat Dis 2010; 6:491496.
  72. Heiat A, Vaccarino V, Krumholz HM. An evidence-based assessment of federal guidelines for overweight and obesity as they apply to elderly persons. Arch Intern Med 2001; 161:11941203.
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 81(1)
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 81(1)
Page Number
51-61
Page Number
51-61
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Obesity in the elderly: More complicated than you think
Display Headline
Obesity in the elderly: More complicated than you think
Sections
Inside the Article

KEY POINTS

  • In older patients, the waist circumference may be more appropriate than the body mass index as a measure of adiposity.
  • Data suggest that being moderately overweight may offer a survival advantage in older people, but a body mass index of 30 kg/m2 or higher continues to be associated with many health risks in this age group.
  • In obese patients, intensive lifestyle interventions with an emphasis on exercise and strength training can optimize their overall health and quality of life.
  • Weight-loss recommendations in older obese patients should take into account the benefits and risks of lifestyle interventions, drug therapy, and bariatric surgery.
Disallow All Ads
Alternative CME
Article PDF Media

How to spot heritable breast cancer: A primary care physician’s guide

Article Type
Changed
Tue, 09/12/2017 - 15:48
Display Headline
How to spot heritable breast cancer: A primary care physician’s guide

PATIENT 1: A PERSONAL AND FAMILY HISTORY OF BREAST CANCER

A 55-year-old Ashkenazi Jewish woman presents to your clinic for her annual physical. She reports that she had been diagnosed with breast cancer 10 years ago and that it had been treated with lumpectomy. You recall that Ashkenazi Jewish ethnicity and a diagnosis of breast cancer before age 50 are red flags for a hereditary cancer syndrome, and you ask about her family history of cancer. She reports that her mother was diagnosed with breast cancer in her 60s. The patient wants to know if her daughter should start breast cancer screening.

What do you do next?

Facing increasing demands and a plethora of information to be discussed in a short time, primary care physicians may find it challenging to inform patients about the possibility of a hereditary cancer syndrome, to assess the risk, to organize genetic testing if appropriate, and to counsel patients about their management options. As our knowledge of the genetics of breast cancer continues to expand, this information will become more detailed and complex.

Nevertheless, primary care physicians can help identify patients who may have a syndrome of inherited cancer predisposition or whose family history raises concern for familial breast cancer. Patients in both groups may be candidates for genetic risk assessment, for special management options for women at high risk, or for both.

This article provides an overview of inherited conditions associated with higher breast cancer risk, and guidelines to help physicians recognize patients in their own practice for whom a genetics referral may be appropriate.

BREAST CANCER IS COMPLEX AND HETEROGENEOUS

Breast cancer is the second-leading cause of cancer deaths in women. According to the American Cancer Society, an estimated 234,340 new cases of breast cancer are expected to be diagnosed in women in the United States in 2013, and about 2,240 new cases are expected in men; 39,620 women and 410 men are expected to die of it.1

Breast cancer is a complex and heterogeneous disease, influenced by many factors, of which female sex and increasing age are the most significant. Modifiable risk factors include obesity, use of combined hormone replacement therapy, and physical inactivity. Other risk factors include dense breast tissue, having had a breast biopsy in the past, the finding of atypical hyperplasia on biopsy, a history of high-dose chest radiation, and reproductive factors that include early menarche, late menopause, nulliparity, and birth of first child after age 30.

After female sex and age, family history of the disease is the most significant risk factor for breast cancer.2 If a woman has a first-degree relative (mother, sister, daughter) with breast cancer, her risk is 1.8 times higher, and if she has a second-degree relative (aunt, grandmother) with breast cancer, her risk is 1.3 times higher.3

Hereditary cancer predisposition syndromes account for 5% to 10% of cases of breast cancer. These are caused by a germline mutation in a highly penetrant gene that considerably increases the risk of malignancies of the breast and other tissues. These conditions are inherited in an autosomal-dominant fashion, with age of onset tending to be significantly—several decades—younger than the median age of onset in the general population. The most common of these is hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome, caused by germline mutations of the BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene.

Familial breast cancers account for 15% to 20% of cases. Here, the women who develop breast cancer have multiple family members who are also affected but without an obvious inheritance pattern, and the age of onset is similar to that in the general population.4

Sporadic forms of breast cancer account for the remaining 70% to 80% of cases. Their development can be attributed mainly to nonhereditary causes, such as the environmental and personal risk factors listed above. In general, sporadic forms of breast cancer occur at older ages, with no particular inheritance pattern and with frequency of occurrence in a family comparable to that in the general population.

IS A GENETICS CONSULTATION NEEDED?

In the case described above, the primary care physician gathered basic information about the patient’s cancer-related personal and family history. Asking a few key questions (Table  1)5,6 can help physicians understand two important things: whether a more detailed assessment of genetic risk and counseling by a genetics professional are indicated, and whether the patient would benefit from additional cancer screening and prevention.

Table 2 summarizes the National Comprehensive Cancer Network’s recommendations for cancer genetics consultation.5 These red flags for a hereditary breast cancer syndrome can help primary care providers identify patients for whom a cancer genetics referral is appropriate. Of note: the maternal and paternal family histories are equally important.

Because our patient was diagnosed with breast cancer before age 50 and is of Ashkenazi Jewish ethnicity, she meets these criteria and warrants a cancer genetics consultation.

 

 

What is a cancer-focused genetic counseling session?

The tenets of genetic counseling, described previously in this series,7 are relevant to hereditary cancer syndromes. Cancer risk assessment and genetic counseling constitute the process of identifying and counseling individuals at risk of familial or hereditary cancer.8

As in other genetic counseling scenarios, a detailed pedigree (family tree) is taken, and this information, along with the patient’s personal medical history, allows a genetics specialist to determine if the presentation is most suggestive of sporadic, familial, or hereditary cancer.

A common misconception among patients is that there is a single genetic test for hereditary breast cancer, when in fact many highly penetrant predisposition genes have been linked to heightened risk (see below). The syndromes summarized in Table 35,9–18 are part of the differential diagnosis for every patient presenting with a personal or family history of breast cancer, and the detailed information from the personal and family history, ascertained during the assessment, ensures the right syndrome is explored within a family.

Cancer-focused genetic counseling may also help a patient or family process the psychological and emotional responses that can occur when cancer risk is discussed: eg, fear of cancer and death; guilt a parent may feel for passing on a genetic predisposition; and survivor guilt experienced by family members who test negative.

Genetic counselors are trained to recognize patients who may benefit from additional counseling. Not all patients pursuing cancer-focused genetic testing need a thorough evaluation by a psychologist, unlike those with adult-onset neurodegenerative conditions such as Huntington disease. Rather, the genetic counselor discusses the psychological implications of cancer-focused genetic testing and can refer the patient to a psychologist, therapist, social worker, or others if he or she feels the patient may benefit.8

Some patients come to a genetic counseling session with concerns about whether their insurance will pay for testing, and about whether they will face discrimination because of the testing results. In most situations, genetic testing is deemed medically necessary and is covered by the patient’s insurance. When testing is necessary, genetic counselors are skilled at preauthorizing it and writing letters of medical necessity. They are also familiar with laws and regulations that protect patients, such as the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, which protects patients from insurance and employment discrimination.

Because a cancer-focused genetic counseling session typically lasts 1 hour, the counselor has enough time to address these and any other concerns that might prevent a patient who is otherwise interested in genetic testing from pursuing it.

HOW CAN GENETIC TESTING HELP?

Genetic testing for hereditary cancer syndromes can have personal benefit for the patient and at-risk family members.

Note that the syndromes in Table 3 all increase the risk of more than one type of cancer. Patients with these syndromes frequently receive care from multiple subspecialists to mitigate those risks. Guidelines exist for each of these syndromes and, if followed, may prevent the morbidity and possibly death from the genotype-specific cancers that would otherwise be in the patient’s future. For patients found to have a hereditary cancer syndrome, medical management options include more-frequent cancer screening or surveillance, prophylactic surgery, and preventive medical treatment, which will be reviewed in a future article in this series.

Identifying the specific mutation in one family member allows at-risk relatives, both female and male, to then take advantage of predictive testing, with genetic counseling. If they test positive for the risk-increasing mutation, they too can take advantage of the management options for people at high risk. If they test negative, they can continue to undergo the same screening as recommended for the general population. Also, they may be relieved to know that their cancer risk is no greater than that in the general population.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology9 recommends genetic counseling and testing when all of the following are true:

  • There is a personal or family history suggesting genetic cancer susceptibility
  • The test can be adequately interpreted
  • The results will aid in the diagnosis or influence the medical or surgical management of the patient or family at hereditary risk of cancer.

Professional society guidelines also recommend that genetic testing be done only with genetic counseling before and after.5,6,8 The National Society of Genetic Counselors provides a list of clinical genetic counselors, organized by geographical area, at www.nsgc.org.

PATIENT 1 RECEIVES GENETIC TESTING AND COUNSELING

Let’s return to the Ashkenazi Jewish patient who has a personal and family history of breast cancer, whom you referred for cancer genetics consultation and who attends this appointment. A detailed personal and family history is gathered, and a brief physical examination is done, which reveals that the patient has macrocephaly and a history of multiple uterine fibroids.

The genetic differential diagnosis for your patient includes hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome (resulting from mutations in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes) and Cowden syndrome (from mutations in the PTEN gene) (TABLE 3). The counselor uses BRCAPRO, a statistical risk-assessment tool that estimates a patient’s risk of harboring a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation based on ethnicity and personal and family history of cancer, and finds her risk to be 31%. In view of this risk, genetic testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2 is offered after a detailed discussion of the genetic differential diagnosis, the implications of a positive vs a negative test result, the possibility of finding gene changes (variants) of unknown significance, and the implications of the test results for family members.

Your patient elects to pursue BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic testing and the results are negative—no mutations in either gene are found. PTEN testing is recommended next, which your patient elects to undergo. A mutation in the PTEN gene is found, indicating that she has Cowden syndrome. This result and its implications are discussed in a posttest genetic counseling session.

Cowden syndrome is an autosomal-dominant condition that carries a heightened risk of benign and malignant neoplasms, including a lifetime risk of breast cancer of up to 85%, with the average age at diagnosis in the 40s. Mutations in the PTEN gene also predispose to other cancer types, including nonmedullary thyroid, uterine, renal, and colorectal cancers, as well as melanoma.9 Multiple benign skin lesions and gastrointestinal polyposis are common.20

During the appointment, medical management options for patients with PTEN mutations are presented (Table 4).9 Given that your patient’s breast cancer was initially treated with lumpectomy, her remaining breast tissue is at risk of a second malignancy. She has never undergone thyroid imaging, colonoscopy, or kidney imaging. She reports that lately she has had occasional abnormal uterine bleeding and pain, which she believes are caused by her uterine fibroids. Given these symptoms and in light of her PTEN mutation, hysterectomy may be presented to her as an option. The genetics team sends a detailed clinical note directly to the primary care physician so they can coordinate and “quarterback” the patient’s care.

Like many patients, your patient is very concerned about how this information may affect her daughter. She first expresses some guilt at having to tell her daughter that she may have “given” her a risk of cancer. However, during the course of the genetic counseling session, she accepts that she could not have prevented her daughter from possibly inheriting this mutation, and understands that sharing this information will enable her daughter to pursue testing to help her understand her own risks.

When a known mutation exists in the family, as is the case with your patient, predictive testing only for that mutation gives a 100% accurate result. During a separate genetic counseling appointment, the patient’s daughter opts to proceed with testing and is found to be negative for her mother’s PTEN mutation.

 

 

 

 

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN GENETIC TESTING IS NOT INDICATED?

Cancer genetic risk assessment and counseling provides benefits even when genetic testing is not indicated. In some situations genetic testing is not warranted, but referral for heightened surveillance for breast cancer is deemed necessary. Patients who have a personal or family history of cancer can still gain from a detailed assessment of their personal and family history and may come away relieved after learning that they or their family members are not at high risk of developing cancer. Such patients or families may be classified as demonstrating either familial or sporadic breast cancer diagnoses.

Familial breast cancer

Familial breast cancers, believed to account for 15% to 20% of all cases of breast cancer, share features with hereditary breast cancer syndromes.4 In affected families, the frequency of breast cancer is higher than in the general population (multiple family members may be affected), and the age of onset tends to be close to that in the general population.

Members of a family with familial breast cancer who have not yet developed the disease may be at increased risk of it. Several risk-assessment tools (the Gail, Tyrer-Cuzick, Claus, and other models)21–25 use personal and family history to estimate breast cancer risk.

Depending on the assessed risk, additional options for screening and surveillance are available. The American Cancer Society recommends magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in addition to annual mammography for women whose lifetime risk of breast cancer is greater than 20%. They also recommend that women at moderately increased risk (ie, 15%–20% lifetime risk) talk to their doctor about the benefits and limitations of adding MRI screening to yearly mammography.1

Sporadic breast cancer

Sporadic forms of breast cancer account for 70% to 80% of cases of breast cancer. Sporadic breast cancers are thought to have mainly nonhereditary causes, with environment and personal risk factors playing a large role.

Women with apparently sporadic breast cancers are diagnosed at or beyond the average age at diagnosis in the general population and do not have a family history that suggests either a hereditary cancer syndrome or familial breast cancer. If they undergo a cancer risk assessment, they may be relieved to learn that other women in their family do not have a high probability of being affected, and that they themselves do not appear to be at increased risk of other malignancies.

PATIENT 2: NEGATIVE TEST RESULTS ARE SOMETIMES ‘UNINFORMATIVE’

A healthy 35-year-old woman is referred for a genetics consultation by her gynecologist because her mother developed breast cancer at age 40 and died of the disease. A detailed personal and family history and risk assessment are done. After pretest genetic counseling, testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations (hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome) is ordered, and the patient’s test results are negative. Risk assessment determines that no other hereditary cancer syndrome is likely. Therefore, no other genetic testing is offered at this time.

Genetic testing is most informative when performed first on the family member at highest risk of having a mutation. For families with breast cancer, this is typically the person with cancer diagnosed at the earliest age.

Unfortunately, sometimes these family members cannot be tested because they are deceased or otherwise unavailable. In such situations, it is acceptable to offer testing to a close, unaffected relative, such as your patient. Pretest genetic counseling in these circumstances is key, highlighting the fact that negative (normal) results would be uninformative. In your case, we cannot know whether the patient’s mother would have tested positive for a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation and your patient is a “true negative,” or whether her mother would have tested negative as well.

In unaffected patients with uninformative genetic testing results, medical management is based on the patient’s personal risk factors and family history of cancer. For your patient, statistical risk modeling tools (the Gail, Claus, Couch, and Tyrer-Cuzick models) determine that her risk of developing breast cancer is 22% to 28.5%, qualifying her for MRI along with yearly mammography per the American Cancer Society guidelines previously discussed.

KNOWLEDGE CONTINUES TO EXPAND

Major advances in the understanding of breast cancer susceptibility were made in the last decade through genetic linkage mapping in families that have an overabundance of members with breast cancer.26–28 Additionally, as more information is acquired, other genes predisposing to cancer or modifying cancer risk may be identified and additional knowledge gained.

With the advent of gene-panel-based testing and exome sequencing, we will incidentally discover mutations that predispose to cancer in patients in whom we were not looking for these mutations. With improving technology and value-based health care delivery, providers must continue to embrace multidisciplinary care, and genetics will become central in guiding medical management. In the event of an incidental finding suggesting susceptibility to heritable cancer, a consult to genetic counseling is recommended.

Many studies of the genetics of breast cancer are now focusing on known hereditary breast cancer syndromes and on possibilities for risk reduction, lifestyle modification, and identification of genetic variations that may increase or decrease cancer risk for an individual patient. The Center for Personalized Genetic Healthcare at Cleveland Clinic is collaborating in one such study. Titled “Risk Factor Analysis of Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Syndrome,” it is an international study led by a leading breast cancer researcher, Dr. Steven Narod from the Women’s College Research Institute in Toronto, ON. This study is focusing on women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation and their personal cancer risk factors, lifestyle choices, and overall development of cancer. This research group and others are also focusing on identifying genetic “modifiers” of cancer risk in these high-risk women.29

For patients who do not have a hereditary cancer syndrome, research is further exploring novel genes and their relation to breast cancer risk. One such study in our laboratory has found that several genes once thought only to cause an increased risk of hereditary paraganglioma may also predispose to breast and thyroid cancer.29,31 Additional research in this area is under way to clarify these risks.

GOOD SCIENCE, BAD MEDICINE?

Other research studies have identified a number of genes currently thought to be “moderately penetrant” for breast cancer risk, meaning that they may confer a risk of breast cancer slightly greater than that in the general population, but in some instances the risk has not been proven to be high enough to alter a patient’s management.32,33

Although a few clinical laboratories currently offer testing for these kinds of genes, the clinical utility of this testing is questionable. Before offering testing on a clinical basis, we need clear, consistent data on the types of cancers associated with these genes and on the lifetime percentage risk of acquiring these cancers. Currently, it is difficult to understand whether a variant in a moderately penetrant gene is the true explanation behind a patient’s breast cancer diagnosis. If such a variant is identified and family members pursue testing for it, should those family members who test negative be considered to have the same risk of cancer as the general population? And should family members testing positive be offered prophylactic surgical options?

Without more data these questions cannot be answered, and until such data are gathered, we believe that testing for moderately penetrant genes should not be performed outside of a research study. The Center for Personalized Genetic Healthcare in Cleveland Clinic’s Genomic Medicine Institute can assist in educating and coordinating patients’ enrollment in such research studies.

PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER

Primary care physicians are the first-line providers to individuals and families, many of whom have a personal or family history of breast cancer. Identifying patients at risk of breast cancer and hereditary cancer syndromes can be challenging in this era of shortened appointment times and patients with complex medical histories.

Reviewing an individual’s personal and cancer family history is a necessary first step in considering appropriate medical management recommendations for cancer screening and prevention, the cornerstone of personalized health care. Patients with hereditary breast cancer syndromes and those with familial breast cancer can benefit from high-risk breast cancer surveillance.

Cancer genetics risk assessment ensures that the correct genetic testing is offered to the most appropriate patients, with personalized interpretation of results and provision of future management recommendations based on the individual patient’s personal and family history. Genetic counselors empower patients to make educated and informed decisions about genetic testing, cancer screening, and prevention.

As health care continues to focus more on prevention in this new era of genomic medicine and value-based delivery of health care, genetic counselors will serve as powerful allies to physicians.34


Acknowledgments: We would like to thank Dr. Colleen Clayton and Dr. Lynn Pattimakiel of the Medicine Institute, Cleveland Clinic, for their critical review of and thoughtful feedback on this manuscript.

References
  1. American Cancer Society. Breast cancer: detailed guide( 2013). http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/BreastCancer/DetailedGuide/index. Accessed November 12, 2013.
  2. McTiernan A, Gilligan MA, Redmond C. Assessing individual risk for breast cancer: risky business. J Clin Epidemiol 1997; 50:547556.
  3. Teerlink CC, Albright FS, Lins L, Cannon-Albright LA. A comprehensive survey of cancer risks in extended families. Genet Med 2012; 14:107114.
  4. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. Breast cancer risk reduction (version 1.2013). http://www.nccn.org. Accessed November 21, 2013.
  5. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. Genetic/familial high risk assessment: breast and ovarian (version 4.2013). http://www.nccn.org. Accessed November 21, 2013.
  6. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. Breast cancer screening and diagnosis (version 2.2013). http://www.nccn.org. Accessed November 21, 2013.
  7. Mester JL, Schreiber AH, Moran RT. Genetic counselors: your partners in clinical practice. Cleve Clin J Med 2012; 79:560568.
  8. Trepanier A, Ahrens M, McKinnon W, et al; National Society of Genetic Counselors. Genetic cancer risk assessment and counseling: recommendations of the National Society of Genetic Counselors. J Genet Couns 2004; 13:83114.
  9. Tan MH, Mester JL, Ngeow J, Rybicki LA, Orloff MS, Eng C. Lifetime cancer risks in individuals with germline PTEN mutations. Clin Cancer Res 2012; 18:400407.
  10. Ford D, Easton DF, Stratton M, et al. Genetic heterogeneity and penetrance analysis of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes in breast cancer families. The Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium. Am J Hum Genet 1998; 62:676689.
  11. Liede A, Karlan BY, Narod SA. Cancer risks for male carriers of germline mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2: a review of the literature. J Clin Oncol 2004; 22:735742.
  12. Struewing JP, Hartge P, Wacholder S, et al. The risk of cancer associated with specific mutations of BRCA1 and BRCA2 among Ashkenazi Jews. N Engl J Med 1997; 336:14011408.
  13. Birch JM, Hartley AL, Tricker KJ, et al. Prevalence and diversity of constitutional mutations in the p53 gene among 21 Li-Fraumeni families. Cancer Res 1994; 54:12981304.
  14. Chompret A, Brugières L, Ronsin M, et al. P53 germline mutations in childhood cancers and cancer risk for carrier individuals. Br J Cancer 2000; 82:19321937.
  15. Gonzalez KD, Noltner KA, Buzin CH, et al. Beyond Li Fraumeni syndrome: clinical characteristics of families with p53 germline mutations. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27:12501256.
  16. Varley JM. Germline TP53 mutations and Li-Fraumeni syndrome. Hum Mutat 2003; 21:313320.
  17. Fitzgerald RC, Hardwick R, Huntsman D, et al; International Gastric Cancer Linkage Consortium. Hereditary diffuse gastric cancer: updated consensus guidelines for clinical management and directions for future research. J Med Genet 2010; 47:436444.
  18. Hearle N, Schumacher V, Menko FH, et al. Frequency and spectrum of cancers in the Peutz-Jeghers syndrome. Clin Cancer Res 2006; 12:32093215.
  19. American Society of Clinical Oncology. American Society of Clinical Oncology policy statement update: genetic testing for cancer susceptibility. J Clin Oncol 2003; 21:23972406.
  20. Mester J, Eng C. When overgrowth bumps into cancer: the PTEN-opathies. Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet 2013; 163:114121.
  21. Claus EB, Risch N, Thompson WD. Autosomal dominant inheritance of early-onset breast cancer. Implications for risk prediction. Cancer 1994; 73:643651.
  22. Couch FJ, DeShano ML, Blackwood MA, et al. BRCA1 mutations in women attending clinics that evaluate the risk of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 1997; 336:14091415.
  23. Tyrer J, Duffy SW, Cuzick J. A breast cancer prediction model incorporating familial and personal risk factors. Stat Med 2004; 23:11111130.
  24. Gail MH, Anderson WF, Garcia-Closas M, Sherman ME. Absolute risk models for subtypes of breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2007; 99:16571659.
  25. Gail MH, Brinton LA, Byar DP, et al. Projecting individualized probabilities of developing breast cancer for white females who are being examined annually. J Natl Cancer Inst 1989; 81:18791886.
  26. Kent P, O’Donoghue JM, O’Hanlon DM, Kerin MJ, Maher DJ, Given HF. Linkage analysis and the susceptibility gene (BRCA-1) in familial breast cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 1995; 21:240241.
  27. Easton DF, Bishop DT, Ford D, Crockford GP. Genetic linkage analysis in familial breast and ovarian cancer: results from 214 families. The Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium. Am J Hum Genet 1993; 52:678701.
  28. Ormiston W. Hereditary breast cancer. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) 1996; 5:1320.
  29. Couch FJ, Wang X, McGuffog L, et al. Genome-wide association study in BRCA1 mutation carriers identifies novel loci associated with breast and ovarian cancer risk. PLoS Genet 2013; 9:e1003212.
  30. Bennett KL, Mester J, Eng C. Germline epigenetic regulation of KILLIN in Cowden and Cowden-like syndrome. JAMA 2010; 304:27242731.
  31. Ni Y, He X, Chen J, et al. Germline SDHx variants modify breast and thyroid cancer risks in Cowden and Cowden-like syndrome via FAD/NAD-dependent destabilization of p53. Hum Mol Genet 2012; 21:300310.
  32. Casadei S, Norquist BM, Walsh T, et al. Contribution of inherited mutations in the BRCA2-interacting protein PALB2 to familial breast cancer. Cancer Res 2011; 71:22222229.
  33. Walsh T, Lee MK, Casadei S, et al. Detection of inherited mutations for breast and ovarian cancer using genomic capture and massively parallel sequencing. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2010; 107:1262912633.
  34. Eng C. Molecular genetics to genomic medicine: at the heart of value-based delivery of healthcare. Mol Genet Genom Med 2013; 1:46.
Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Marissa Smith, MS, CGC
Genetic Counselor, Center for Personalized Genetic Healthcare, Genomic Medicine Institute, and Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland Clinic

Jessica Mester, MS, CGC
Genetic Counselor, Center for Personalized Genetic Healthcare, Genomic Medicine Institute, and Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland Clinic

Charis Eng, MD, PhD
Hardis and ACS Professor and Chair, Genomic Medicine Institute, Director, Center for Personalized Genetic Healthcare, and Medical Director, Cancer Genetics Clinical Service, Cleveland Clinic; Professor and Vice Chair, Department of Genetics and Genome Sciences, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH

Address: Marissa Smith, MS, Genomic Medicine Institute, NE50, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44195; e-mail: smithm31@ccf.org

Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 81(1)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
31-40
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Marissa Smith, MS, CGC
Genetic Counselor, Center for Personalized Genetic Healthcare, Genomic Medicine Institute, and Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland Clinic

Jessica Mester, MS, CGC
Genetic Counselor, Center for Personalized Genetic Healthcare, Genomic Medicine Institute, and Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland Clinic

Charis Eng, MD, PhD
Hardis and ACS Professor and Chair, Genomic Medicine Institute, Director, Center for Personalized Genetic Healthcare, and Medical Director, Cancer Genetics Clinical Service, Cleveland Clinic; Professor and Vice Chair, Department of Genetics and Genome Sciences, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH

Address: Marissa Smith, MS, Genomic Medicine Institute, NE50, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44195; e-mail: smithm31@ccf.org

Author and Disclosure Information

Marissa Smith, MS, CGC
Genetic Counselor, Center for Personalized Genetic Healthcare, Genomic Medicine Institute, and Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland Clinic

Jessica Mester, MS, CGC
Genetic Counselor, Center for Personalized Genetic Healthcare, Genomic Medicine Institute, and Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland Clinic

Charis Eng, MD, PhD
Hardis and ACS Professor and Chair, Genomic Medicine Institute, Director, Center for Personalized Genetic Healthcare, and Medical Director, Cancer Genetics Clinical Service, Cleveland Clinic; Professor and Vice Chair, Department of Genetics and Genome Sciences, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH

Address: Marissa Smith, MS, Genomic Medicine Institute, NE50, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44195; e-mail: smithm31@ccf.org

Article PDF
Article PDF

PATIENT 1: A PERSONAL AND FAMILY HISTORY OF BREAST CANCER

A 55-year-old Ashkenazi Jewish woman presents to your clinic for her annual physical. She reports that she had been diagnosed with breast cancer 10 years ago and that it had been treated with lumpectomy. You recall that Ashkenazi Jewish ethnicity and a diagnosis of breast cancer before age 50 are red flags for a hereditary cancer syndrome, and you ask about her family history of cancer. She reports that her mother was diagnosed with breast cancer in her 60s. The patient wants to know if her daughter should start breast cancer screening.

What do you do next?

Facing increasing demands and a plethora of information to be discussed in a short time, primary care physicians may find it challenging to inform patients about the possibility of a hereditary cancer syndrome, to assess the risk, to organize genetic testing if appropriate, and to counsel patients about their management options. As our knowledge of the genetics of breast cancer continues to expand, this information will become more detailed and complex.

Nevertheless, primary care physicians can help identify patients who may have a syndrome of inherited cancer predisposition or whose family history raises concern for familial breast cancer. Patients in both groups may be candidates for genetic risk assessment, for special management options for women at high risk, or for both.

This article provides an overview of inherited conditions associated with higher breast cancer risk, and guidelines to help physicians recognize patients in their own practice for whom a genetics referral may be appropriate.

BREAST CANCER IS COMPLEX AND HETEROGENEOUS

Breast cancer is the second-leading cause of cancer deaths in women. According to the American Cancer Society, an estimated 234,340 new cases of breast cancer are expected to be diagnosed in women in the United States in 2013, and about 2,240 new cases are expected in men; 39,620 women and 410 men are expected to die of it.1

Breast cancer is a complex and heterogeneous disease, influenced by many factors, of which female sex and increasing age are the most significant. Modifiable risk factors include obesity, use of combined hormone replacement therapy, and physical inactivity. Other risk factors include dense breast tissue, having had a breast biopsy in the past, the finding of atypical hyperplasia on biopsy, a history of high-dose chest radiation, and reproductive factors that include early menarche, late menopause, nulliparity, and birth of first child after age 30.

After female sex and age, family history of the disease is the most significant risk factor for breast cancer.2 If a woman has a first-degree relative (mother, sister, daughter) with breast cancer, her risk is 1.8 times higher, and if she has a second-degree relative (aunt, grandmother) with breast cancer, her risk is 1.3 times higher.3

Hereditary cancer predisposition syndromes account for 5% to 10% of cases of breast cancer. These are caused by a germline mutation in a highly penetrant gene that considerably increases the risk of malignancies of the breast and other tissues. These conditions are inherited in an autosomal-dominant fashion, with age of onset tending to be significantly—several decades—younger than the median age of onset in the general population. The most common of these is hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome, caused by germline mutations of the BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene.

Familial breast cancers account for 15% to 20% of cases. Here, the women who develop breast cancer have multiple family members who are also affected but without an obvious inheritance pattern, and the age of onset is similar to that in the general population.4

Sporadic forms of breast cancer account for the remaining 70% to 80% of cases. Their development can be attributed mainly to nonhereditary causes, such as the environmental and personal risk factors listed above. In general, sporadic forms of breast cancer occur at older ages, with no particular inheritance pattern and with frequency of occurrence in a family comparable to that in the general population.

IS A GENETICS CONSULTATION NEEDED?

In the case described above, the primary care physician gathered basic information about the patient’s cancer-related personal and family history. Asking a few key questions (Table  1)5,6 can help physicians understand two important things: whether a more detailed assessment of genetic risk and counseling by a genetics professional are indicated, and whether the patient would benefit from additional cancer screening and prevention.

Table 2 summarizes the National Comprehensive Cancer Network’s recommendations for cancer genetics consultation.5 These red flags for a hereditary breast cancer syndrome can help primary care providers identify patients for whom a cancer genetics referral is appropriate. Of note: the maternal and paternal family histories are equally important.

Because our patient was diagnosed with breast cancer before age 50 and is of Ashkenazi Jewish ethnicity, she meets these criteria and warrants a cancer genetics consultation.

 

 

What is a cancer-focused genetic counseling session?

The tenets of genetic counseling, described previously in this series,7 are relevant to hereditary cancer syndromes. Cancer risk assessment and genetic counseling constitute the process of identifying and counseling individuals at risk of familial or hereditary cancer.8

As in other genetic counseling scenarios, a detailed pedigree (family tree) is taken, and this information, along with the patient’s personal medical history, allows a genetics specialist to determine if the presentation is most suggestive of sporadic, familial, or hereditary cancer.

A common misconception among patients is that there is a single genetic test for hereditary breast cancer, when in fact many highly penetrant predisposition genes have been linked to heightened risk (see below). The syndromes summarized in Table 35,9–18 are part of the differential diagnosis for every patient presenting with a personal or family history of breast cancer, and the detailed information from the personal and family history, ascertained during the assessment, ensures the right syndrome is explored within a family.

Cancer-focused genetic counseling may also help a patient or family process the psychological and emotional responses that can occur when cancer risk is discussed: eg, fear of cancer and death; guilt a parent may feel for passing on a genetic predisposition; and survivor guilt experienced by family members who test negative.

Genetic counselors are trained to recognize patients who may benefit from additional counseling. Not all patients pursuing cancer-focused genetic testing need a thorough evaluation by a psychologist, unlike those with adult-onset neurodegenerative conditions such as Huntington disease. Rather, the genetic counselor discusses the psychological implications of cancer-focused genetic testing and can refer the patient to a psychologist, therapist, social worker, or others if he or she feels the patient may benefit.8

Some patients come to a genetic counseling session with concerns about whether their insurance will pay for testing, and about whether they will face discrimination because of the testing results. In most situations, genetic testing is deemed medically necessary and is covered by the patient’s insurance. When testing is necessary, genetic counselors are skilled at preauthorizing it and writing letters of medical necessity. They are also familiar with laws and regulations that protect patients, such as the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, which protects patients from insurance and employment discrimination.

Because a cancer-focused genetic counseling session typically lasts 1 hour, the counselor has enough time to address these and any other concerns that might prevent a patient who is otherwise interested in genetic testing from pursuing it.

HOW CAN GENETIC TESTING HELP?

Genetic testing for hereditary cancer syndromes can have personal benefit for the patient and at-risk family members.

Note that the syndromes in Table 3 all increase the risk of more than one type of cancer. Patients with these syndromes frequently receive care from multiple subspecialists to mitigate those risks. Guidelines exist for each of these syndromes and, if followed, may prevent the morbidity and possibly death from the genotype-specific cancers that would otherwise be in the patient’s future. For patients found to have a hereditary cancer syndrome, medical management options include more-frequent cancer screening or surveillance, prophylactic surgery, and preventive medical treatment, which will be reviewed in a future article in this series.

Identifying the specific mutation in one family member allows at-risk relatives, both female and male, to then take advantage of predictive testing, with genetic counseling. If they test positive for the risk-increasing mutation, they too can take advantage of the management options for people at high risk. If they test negative, they can continue to undergo the same screening as recommended for the general population. Also, they may be relieved to know that their cancer risk is no greater than that in the general population.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology9 recommends genetic counseling and testing when all of the following are true:

  • There is a personal or family history suggesting genetic cancer susceptibility
  • The test can be adequately interpreted
  • The results will aid in the diagnosis or influence the medical or surgical management of the patient or family at hereditary risk of cancer.

Professional society guidelines also recommend that genetic testing be done only with genetic counseling before and after.5,6,8 The National Society of Genetic Counselors provides a list of clinical genetic counselors, organized by geographical area, at www.nsgc.org.

PATIENT 1 RECEIVES GENETIC TESTING AND COUNSELING

Let’s return to the Ashkenazi Jewish patient who has a personal and family history of breast cancer, whom you referred for cancer genetics consultation and who attends this appointment. A detailed personal and family history is gathered, and a brief physical examination is done, which reveals that the patient has macrocephaly and a history of multiple uterine fibroids.

The genetic differential diagnosis for your patient includes hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome (resulting from mutations in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes) and Cowden syndrome (from mutations in the PTEN gene) (TABLE 3). The counselor uses BRCAPRO, a statistical risk-assessment tool that estimates a patient’s risk of harboring a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation based on ethnicity and personal and family history of cancer, and finds her risk to be 31%. In view of this risk, genetic testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2 is offered after a detailed discussion of the genetic differential diagnosis, the implications of a positive vs a negative test result, the possibility of finding gene changes (variants) of unknown significance, and the implications of the test results for family members.

Your patient elects to pursue BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic testing and the results are negative—no mutations in either gene are found. PTEN testing is recommended next, which your patient elects to undergo. A mutation in the PTEN gene is found, indicating that she has Cowden syndrome. This result and its implications are discussed in a posttest genetic counseling session.

Cowden syndrome is an autosomal-dominant condition that carries a heightened risk of benign and malignant neoplasms, including a lifetime risk of breast cancer of up to 85%, with the average age at diagnosis in the 40s. Mutations in the PTEN gene also predispose to other cancer types, including nonmedullary thyroid, uterine, renal, and colorectal cancers, as well as melanoma.9 Multiple benign skin lesions and gastrointestinal polyposis are common.20

During the appointment, medical management options for patients with PTEN mutations are presented (Table 4).9 Given that your patient’s breast cancer was initially treated with lumpectomy, her remaining breast tissue is at risk of a second malignancy. She has never undergone thyroid imaging, colonoscopy, or kidney imaging. She reports that lately she has had occasional abnormal uterine bleeding and pain, which she believes are caused by her uterine fibroids. Given these symptoms and in light of her PTEN mutation, hysterectomy may be presented to her as an option. The genetics team sends a detailed clinical note directly to the primary care physician so they can coordinate and “quarterback” the patient’s care.

Like many patients, your patient is very concerned about how this information may affect her daughter. She first expresses some guilt at having to tell her daughter that she may have “given” her a risk of cancer. However, during the course of the genetic counseling session, she accepts that she could not have prevented her daughter from possibly inheriting this mutation, and understands that sharing this information will enable her daughter to pursue testing to help her understand her own risks.

When a known mutation exists in the family, as is the case with your patient, predictive testing only for that mutation gives a 100% accurate result. During a separate genetic counseling appointment, the patient’s daughter opts to proceed with testing and is found to be negative for her mother’s PTEN mutation.

 

 

 

 

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN GENETIC TESTING IS NOT INDICATED?

Cancer genetic risk assessment and counseling provides benefits even when genetic testing is not indicated. In some situations genetic testing is not warranted, but referral for heightened surveillance for breast cancer is deemed necessary. Patients who have a personal or family history of cancer can still gain from a detailed assessment of their personal and family history and may come away relieved after learning that they or their family members are not at high risk of developing cancer. Such patients or families may be classified as demonstrating either familial or sporadic breast cancer diagnoses.

Familial breast cancer

Familial breast cancers, believed to account for 15% to 20% of all cases of breast cancer, share features with hereditary breast cancer syndromes.4 In affected families, the frequency of breast cancer is higher than in the general population (multiple family members may be affected), and the age of onset tends to be close to that in the general population.

Members of a family with familial breast cancer who have not yet developed the disease may be at increased risk of it. Several risk-assessment tools (the Gail, Tyrer-Cuzick, Claus, and other models)21–25 use personal and family history to estimate breast cancer risk.

Depending on the assessed risk, additional options for screening and surveillance are available. The American Cancer Society recommends magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in addition to annual mammography for women whose lifetime risk of breast cancer is greater than 20%. They also recommend that women at moderately increased risk (ie, 15%–20% lifetime risk) talk to their doctor about the benefits and limitations of adding MRI screening to yearly mammography.1

Sporadic breast cancer

Sporadic forms of breast cancer account for 70% to 80% of cases of breast cancer. Sporadic breast cancers are thought to have mainly nonhereditary causes, with environment and personal risk factors playing a large role.

Women with apparently sporadic breast cancers are diagnosed at or beyond the average age at diagnosis in the general population and do not have a family history that suggests either a hereditary cancer syndrome or familial breast cancer. If they undergo a cancer risk assessment, they may be relieved to learn that other women in their family do not have a high probability of being affected, and that they themselves do not appear to be at increased risk of other malignancies.

PATIENT 2: NEGATIVE TEST RESULTS ARE SOMETIMES ‘UNINFORMATIVE’

A healthy 35-year-old woman is referred for a genetics consultation by her gynecologist because her mother developed breast cancer at age 40 and died of the disease. A detailed personal and family history and risk assessment are done. After pretest genetic counseling, testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations (hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome) is ordered, and the patient’s test results are negative. Risk assessment determines that no other hereditary cancer syndrome is likely. Therefore, no other genetic testing is offered at this time.

Genetic testing is most informative when performed first on the family member at highest risk of having a mutation. For families with breast cancer, this is typically the person with cancer diagnosed at the earliest age.

Unfortunately, sometimes these family members cannot be tested because they are deceased or otherwise unavailable. In such situations, it is acceptable to offer testing to a close, unaffected relative, such as your patient. Pretest genetic counseling in these circumstances is key, highlighting the fact that negative (normal) results would be uninformative. In your case, we cannot know whether the patient’s mother would have tested positive for a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation and your patient is a “true negative,” or whether her mother would have tested negative as well.

In unaffected patients with uninformative genetic testing results, medical management is based on the patient’s personal risk factors and family history of cancer. For your patient, statistical risk modeling tools (the Gail, Claus, Couch, and Tyrer-Cuzick models) determine that her risk of developing breast cancer is 22% to 28.5%, qualifying her for MRI along with yearly mammography per the American Cancer Society guidelines previously discussed.

KNOWLEDGE CONTINUES TO EXPAND

Major advances in the understanding of breast cancer susceptibility were made in the last decade through genetic linkage mapping in families that have an overabundance of members with breast cancer.26–28 Additionally, as more information is acquired, other genes predisposing to cancer or modifying cancer risk may be identified and additional knowledge gained.

With the advent of gene-panel-based testing and exome sequencing, we will incidentally discover mutations that predispose to cancer in patients in whom we were not looking for these mutations. With improving technology and value-based health care delivery, providers must continue to embrace multidisciplinary care, and genetics will become central in guiding medical management. In the event of an incidental finding suggesting susceptibility to heritable cancer, a consult to genetic counseling is recommended.

Many studies of the genetics of breast cancer are now focusing on known hereditary breast cancer syndromes and on possibilities for risk reduction, lifestyle modification, and identification of genetic variations that may increase or decrease cancer risk for an individual patient. The Center for Personalized Genetic Healthcare at Cleveland Clinic is collaborating in one such study. Titled “Risk Factor Analysis of Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Syndrome,” it is an international study led by a leading breast cancer researcher, Dr. Steven Narod from the Women’s College Research Institute in Toronto, ON. This study is focusing on women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation and their personal cancer risk factors, lifestyle choices, and overall development of cancer. This research group and others are also focusing on identifying genetic “modifiers” of cancer risk in these high-risk women.29

For patients who do not have a hereditary cancer syndrome, research is further exploring novel genes and their relation to breast cancer risk. One such study in our laboratory has found that several genes once thought only to cause an increased risk of hereditary paraganglioma may also predispose to breast and thyroid cancer.29,31 Additional research in this area is under way to clarify these risks.

GOOD SCIENCE, BAD MEDICINE?

Other research studies have identified a number of genes currently thought to be “moderately penetrant” for breast cancer risk, meaning that they may confer a risk of breast cancer slightly greater than that in the general population, but in some instances the risk has not been proven to be high enough to alter a patient’s management.32,33

Although a few clinical laboratories currently offer testing for these kinds of genes, the clinical utility of this testing is questionable. Before offering testing on a clinical basis, we need clear, consistent data on the types of cancers associated with these genes and on the lifetime percentage risk of acquiring these cancers. Currently, it is difficult to understand whether a variant in a moderately penetrant gene is the true explanation behind a patient’s breast cancer diagnosis. If such a variant is identified and family members pursue testing for it, should those family members who test negative be considered to have the same risk of cancer as the general population? And should family members testing positive be offered prophylactic surgical options?

Without more data these questions cannot be answered, and until such data are gathered, we believe that testing for moderately penetrant genes should not be performed outside of a research study. The Center for Personalized Genetic Healthcare in Cleveland Clinic’s Genomic Medicine Institute can assist in educating and coordinating patients’ enrollment in such research studies.

PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER

Primary care physicians are the first-line providers to individuals and families, many of whom have a personal or family history of breast cancer. Identifying patients at risk of breast cancer and hereditary cancer syndromes can be challenging in this era of shortened appointment times and patients with complex medical histories.

Reviewing an individual’s personal and cancer family history is a necessary first step in considering appropriate medical management recommendations for cancer screening and prevention, the cornerstone of personalized health care. Patients with hereditary breast cancer syndromes and those with familial breast cancer can benefit from high-risk breast cancer surveillance.

Cancer genetics risk assessment ensures that the correct genetic testing is offered to the most appropriate patients, with personalized interpretation of results and provision of future management recommendations based on the individual patient’s personal and family history. Genetic counselors empower patients to make educated and informed decisions about genetic testing, cancer screening, and prevention.

As health care continues to focus more on prevention in this new era of genomic medicine and value-based delivery of health care, genetic counselors will serve as powerful allies to physicians.34


Acknowledgments: We would like to thank Dr. Colleen Clayton and Dr. Lynn Pattimakiel of the Medicine Institute, Cleveland Clinic, for their critical review of and thoughtful feedback on this manuscript.

PATIENT 1: A PERSONAL AND FAMILY HISTORY OF BREAST CANCER

A 55-year-old Ashkenazi Jewish woman presents to your clinic for her annual physical. She reports that she had been diagnosed with breast cancer 10 years ago and that it had been treated with lumpectomy. You recall that Ashkenazi Jewish ethnicity and a diagnosis of breast cancer before age 50 are red flags for a hereditary cancer syndrome, and you ask about her family history of cancer. She reports that her mother was diagnosed with breast cancer in her 60s. The patient wants to know if her daughter should start breast cancer screening.

What do you do next?

Facing increasing demands and a plethora of information to be discussed in a short time, primary care physicians may find it challenging to inform patients about the possibility of a hereditary cancer syndrome, to assess the risk, to organize genetic testing if appropriate, and to counsel patients about their management options. As our knowledge of the genetics of breast cancer continues to expand, this information will become more detailed and complex.

Nevertheless, primary care physicians can help identify patients who may have a syndrome of inherited cancer predisposition or whose family history raises concern for familial breast cancer. Patients in both groups may be candidates for genetic risk assessment, for special management options for women at high risk, or for both.

This article provides an overview of inherited conditions associated with higher breast cancer risk, and guidelines to help physicians recognize patients in their own practice for whom a genetics referral may be appropriate.

BREAST CANCER IS COMPLEX AND HETEROGENEOUS

Breast cancer is the second-leading cause of cancer deaths in women. According to the American Cancer Society, an estimated 234,340 new cases of breast cancer are expected to be diagnosed in women in the United States in 2013, and about 2,240 new cases are expected in men; 39,620 women and 410 men are expected to die of it.1

Breast cancer is a complex and heterogeneous disease, influenced by many factors, of which female sex and increasing age are the most significant. Modifiable risk factors include obesity, use of combined hormone replacement therapy, and physical inactivity. Other risk factors include dense breast tissue, having had a breast biopsy in the past, the finding of atypical hyperplasia on biopsy, a history of high-dose chest radiation, and reproductive factors that include early menarche, late menopause, nulliparity, and birth of first child after age 30.

After female sex and age, family history of the disease is the most significant risk factor for breast cancer.2 If a woman has a first-degree relative (mother, sister, daughter) with breast cancer, her risk is 1.8 times higher, and if she has a second-degree relative (aunt, grandmother) with breast cancer, her risk is 1.3 times higher.3

Hereditary cancer predisposition syndromes account for 5% to 10% of cases of breast cancer. These are caused by a germline mutation in a highly penetrant gene that considerably increases the risk of malignancies of the breast and other tissues. These conditions are inherited in an autosomal-dominant fashion, with age of onset tending to be significantly—several decades—younger than the median age of onset in the general population. The most common of these is hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome, caused by germline mutations of the BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene.

Familial breast cancers account for 15% to 20% of cases. Here, the women who develop breast cancer have multiple family members who are also affected but without an obvious inheritance pattern, and the age of onset is similar to that in the general population.4

Sporadic forms of breast cancer account for the remaining 70% to 80% of cases. Their development can be attributed mainly to nonhereditary causes, such as the environmental and personal risk factors listed above. In general, sporadic forms of breast cancer occur at older ages, with no particular inheritance pattern and with frequency of occurrence in a family comparable to that in the general population.

IS A GENETICS CONSULTATION NEEDED?

In the case described above, the primary care physician gathered basic information about the patient’s cancer-related personal and family history. Asking a few key questions (Table  1)5,6 can help physicians understand two important things: whether a more detailed assessment of genetic risk and counseling by a genetics professional are indicated, and whether the patient would benefit from additional cancer screening and prevention.

Table 2 summarizes the National Comprehensive Cancer Network’s recommendations for cancer genetics consultation.5 These red flags for a hereditary breast cancer syndrome can help primary care providers identify patients for whom a cancer genetics referral is appropriate. Of note: the maternal and paternal family histories are equally important.

Because our patient was diagnosed with breast cancer before age 50 and is of Ashkenazi Jewish ethnicity, she meets these criteria and warrants a cancer genetics consultation.

 

 

What is a cancer-focused genetic counseling session?

The tenets of genetic counseling, described previously in this series,7 are relevant to hereditary cancer syndromes. Cancer risk assessment and genetic counseling constitute the process of identifying and counseling individuals at risk of familial or hereditary cancer.8

As in other genetic counseling scenarios, a detailed pedigree (family tree) is taken, and this information, along with the patient’s personal medical history, allows a genetics specialist to determine if the presentation is most suggestive of sporadic, familial, or hereditary cancer.

A common misconception among patients is that there is a single genetic test for hereditary breast cancer, when in fact many highly penetrant predisposition genes have been linked to heightened risk (see below). The syndromes summarized in Table 35,9–18 are part of the differential diagnosis for every patient presenting with a personal or family history of breast cancer, and the detailed information from the personal and family history, ascertained during the assessment, ensures the right syndrome is explored within a family.

Cancer-focused genetic counseling may also help a patient or family process the psychological and emotional responses that can occur when cancer risk is discussed: eg, fear of cancer and death; guilt a parent may feel for passing on a genetic predisposition; and survivor guilt experienced by family members who test negative.

Genetic counselors are trained to recognize patients who may benefit from additional counseling. Not all patients pursuing cancer-focused genetic testing need a thorough evaluation by a psychologist, unlike those with adult-onset neurodegenerative conditions such as Huntington disease. Rather, the genetic counselor discusses the psychological implications of cancer-focused genetic testing and can refer the patient to a psychologist, therapist, social worker, or others if he or she feels the patient may benefit.8

Some patients come to a genetic counseling session with concerns about whether their insurance will pay for testing, and about whether they will face discrimination because of the testing results. In most situations, genetic testing is deemed medically necessary and is covered by the patient’s insurance. When testing is necessary, genetic counselors are skilled at preauthorizing it and writing letters of medical necessity. They are also familiar with laws and regulations that protect patients, such as the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, which protects patients from insurance and employment discrimination.

Because a cancer-focused genetic counseling session typically lasts 1 hour, the counselor has enough time to address these and any other concerns that might prevent a patient who is otherwise interested in genetic testing from pursuing it.

HOW CAN GENETIC TESTING HELP?

Genetic testing for hereditary cancer syndromes can have personal benefit for the patient and at-risk family members.

Note that the syndromes in Table 3 all increase the risk of more than one type of cancer. Patients with these syndromes frequently receive care from multiple subspecialists to mitigate those risks. Guidelines exist for each of these syndromes and, if followed, may prevent the morbidity and possibly death from the genotype-specific cancers that would otherwise be in the patient’s future. For patients found to have a hereditary cancer syndrome, medical management options include more-frequent cancer screening or surveillance, prophylactic surgery, and preventive medical treatment, which will be reviewed in a future article in this series.

Identifying the specific mutation in one family member allows at-risk relatives, both female and male, to then take advantage of predictive testing, with genetic counseling. If they test positive for the risk-increasing mutation, they too can take advantage of the management options for people at high risk. If they test negative, they can continue to undergo the same screening as recommended for the general population. Also, they may be relieved to know that their cancer risk is no greater than that in the general population.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology9 recommends genetic counseling and testing when all of the following are true:

  • There is a personal or family history suggesting genetic cancer susceptibility
  • The test can be adequately interpreted
  • The results will aid in the diagnosis or influence the medical or surgical management of the patient or family at hereditary risk of cancer.

Professional society guidelines also recommend that genetic testing be done only with genetic counseling before and after.5,6,8 The National Society of Genetic Counselors provides a list of clinical genetic counselors, organized by geographical area, at www.nsgc.org.

PATIENT 1 RECEIVES GENETIC TESTING AND COUNSELING

Let’s return to the Ashkenazi Jewish patient who has a personal and family history of breast cancer, whom you referred for cancer genetics consultation and who attends this appointment. A detailed personal and family history is gathered, and a brief physical examination is done, which reveals that the patient has macrocephaly and a history of multiple uterine fibroids.

The genetic differential diagnosis for your patient includes hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome (resulting from mutations in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes) and Cowden syndrome (from mutations in the PTEN gene) (TABLE 3). The counselor uses BRCAPRO, a statistical risk-assessment tool that estimates a patient’s risk of harboring a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation based on ethnicity and personal and family history of cancer, and finds her risk to be 31%. In view of this risk, genetic testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2 is offered after a detailed discussion of the genetic differential diagnosis, the implications of a positive vs a negative test result, the possibility of finding gene changes (variants) of unknown significance, and the implications of the test results for family members.

Your patient elects to pursue BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic testing and the results are negative—no mutations in either gene are found. PTEN testing is recommended next, which your patient elects to undergo. A mutation in the PTEN gene is found, indicating that she has Cowden syndrome. This result and its implications are discussed in a posttest genetic counseling session.

Cowden syndrome is an autosomal-dominant condition that carries a heightened risk of benign and malignant neoplasms, including a lifetime risk of breast cancer of up to 85%, with the average age at diagnosis in the 40s. Mutations in the PTEN gene also predispose to other cancer types, including nonmedullary thyroid, uterine, renal, and colorectal cancers, as well as melanoma.9 Multiple benign skin lesions and gastrointestinal polyposis are common.20

During the appointment, medical management options for patients with PTEN mutations are presented (Table 4).9 Given that your patient’s breast cancer was initially treated with lumpectomy, her remaining breast tissue is at risk of a second malignancy. She has never undergone thyroid imaging, colonoscopy, or kidney imaging. She reports that lately she has had occasional abnormal uterine bleeding and pain, which she believes are caused by her uterine fibroids. Given these symptoms and in light of her PTEN mutation, hysterectomy may be presented to her as an option. The genetics team sends a detailed clinical note directly to the primary care physician so they can coordinate and “quarterback” the patient’s care.

Like many patients, your patient is very concerned about how this information may affect her daughter. She first expresses some guilt at having to tell her daughter that she may have “given” her a risk of cancer. However, during the course of the genetic counseling session, she accepts that she could not have prevented her daughter from possibly inheriting this mutation, and understands that sharing this information will enable her daughter to pursue testing to help her understand her own risks.

When a known mutation exists in the family, as is the case with your patient, predictive testing only for that mutation gives a 100% accurate result. During a separate genetic counseling appointment, the patient’s daughter opts to proceed with testing and is found to be negative for her mother’s PTEN mutation.

 

 

 

 

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN GENETIC TESTING IS NOT INDICATED?

Cancer genetic risk assessment and counseling provides benefits even when genetic testing is not indicated. In some situations genetic testing is not warranted, but referral for heightened surveillance for breast cancer is deemed necessary. Patients who have a personal or family history of cancer can still gain from a detailed assessment of their personal and family history and may come away relieved after learning that they or their family members are not at high risk of developing cancer. Such patients or families may be classified as demonstrating either familial or sporadic breast cancer diagnoses.

Familial breast cancer

Familial breast cancers, believed to account for 15% to 20% of all cases of breast cancer, share features with hereditary breast cancer syndromes.4 In affected families, the frequency of breast cancer is higher than in the general population (multiple family members may be affected), and the age of onset tends to be close to that in the general population.

Members of a family with familial breast cancer who have not yet developed the disease may be at increased risk of it. Several risk-assessment tools (the Gail, Tyrer-Cuzick, Claus, and other models)21–25 use personal and family history to estimate breast cancer risk.

Depending on the assessed risk, additional options for screening and surveillance are available. The American Cancer Society recommends magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in addition to annual mammography for women whose lifetime risk of breast cancer is greater than 20%. They also recommend that women at moderately increased risk (ie, 15%–20% lifetime risk) talk to their doctor about the benefits and limitations of adding MRI screening to yearly mammography.1

Sporadic breast cancer

Sporadic forms of breast cancer account for 70% to 80% of cases of breast cancer. Sporadic breast cancers are thought to have mainly nonhereditary causes, with environment and personal risk factors playing a large role.

Women with apparently sporadic breast cancers are diagnosed at or beyond the average age at diagnosis in the general population and do not have a family history that suggests either a hereditary cancer syndrome or familial breast cancer. If they undergo a cancer risk assessment, they may be relieved to learn that other women in their family do not have a high probability of being affected, and that they themselves do not appear to be at increased risk of other malignancies.

PATIENT 2: NEGATIVE TEST RESULTS ARE SOMETIMES ‘UNINFORMATIVE’

A healthy 35-year-old woman is referred for a genetics consultation by her gynecologist because her mother developed breast cancer at age 40 and died of the disease. A detailed personal and family history and risk assessment are done. After pretest genetic counseling, testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations (hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome) is ordered, and the patient’s test results are negative. Risk assessment determines that no other hereditary cancer syndrome is likely. Therefore, no other genetic testing is offered at this time.

Genetic testing is most informative when performed first on the family member at highest risk of having a mutation. For families with breast cancer, this is typically the person with cancer diagnosed at the earliest age.

Unfortunately, sometimes these family members cannot be tested because they are deceased or otherwise unavailable. In such situations, it is acceptable to offer testing to a close, unaffected relative, such as your patient. Pretest genetic counseling in these circumstances is key, highlighting the fact that negative (normal) results would be uninformative. In your case, we cannot know whether the patient’s mother would have tested positive for a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation and your patient is a “true negative,” or whether her mother would have tested negative as well.

In unaffected patients with uninformative genetic testing results, medical management is based on the patient’s personal risk factors and family history of cancer. For your patient, statistical risk modeling tools (the Gail, Claus, Couch, and Tyrer-Cuzick models) determine that her risk of developing breast cancer is 22% to 28.5%, qualifying her for MRI along with yearly mammography per the American Cancer Society guidelines previously discussed.

KNOWLEDGE CONTINUES TO EXPAND

Major advances in the understanding of breast cancer susceptibility were made in the last decade through genetic linkage mapping in families that have an overabundance of members with breast cancer.26–28 Additionally, as more information is acquired, other genes predisposing to cancer or modifying cancer risk may be identified and additional knowledge gained.

With the advent of gene-panel-based testing and exome sequencing, we will incidentally discover mutations that predispose to cancer in patients in whom we were not looking for these mutations. With improving technology and value-based health care delivery, providers must continue to embrace multidisciplinary care, and genetics will become central in guiding medical management. In the event of an incidental finding suggesting susceptibility to heritable cancer, a consult to genetic counseling is recommended.

Many studies of the genetics of breast cancer are now focusing on known hereditary breast cancer syndromes and on possibilities for risk reduction, lifestyle modification, and identification of genetic variations that may increase or decrease cancer risk for an individual patient. The Center for Personalized Genetic Healthcare at Cleveland Clinic is collaborating in one such study. Titled “Risk Factor Analysis of Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Syndrome,” it is an international study led by a leading breast cancer researcher, Dr. Steven Narod from the Women’s College Research Institute in Toronto, ON. This study is focusing on women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation and their personal cancer risk factors, lifestyle choices, and overall development of cancer. This research group and others are also focusing on identifying genetic “modifiers” of cancer risk in these high-risk women.29

For patients who do not have a hereditary cancer syndrome, research is further exploring novel genes and their relation to breast cancer risk. One such study in our laboratory has found that several genes once thought only to cause an increased risk of hereditary paraganglioma may also predispose to breast and thyroid cancer.29,31 Additional research in this area is under way to clarify these risks.

GOOD SCIENCE, BAD MEDICINE?

Other research studies have identified a number of genes currently thought to be “moderately penetrant” for breast cancer risk, meaning that they may confer a risk of breast cancer slightly greater than that in the general population, but in some instances the risk has not been proven to be high enough to alter a patient’s management.32,33

Although a few clinical laboratories currently offer testing for these kinds of genes, the clinical utility of this testing is questionable. Before offering testing on a clinical basis, we need clear, consistent data on the types of cancers associated with these genes and on the lifetime percentage risk of acquiring these cancers. Currently, it is difficult to understand whether a variant in a moderately penetrant gene is the true explanation behind a patient’s breast cancer diagnosis. If such a variant is identified and family members pursue testing for it, should those family members who test negative be considered to have the same risk of cancer as the general population? And should family members testing positive be offered prophylactic surgical options?

Without more data these questions cannot be answered, and until such data are gathered, we believe that testing for moderately penetrant genes should not be performed outside of a research study. The Center for Personalized Genetic Healthcare in Cleveland Clinic’s Genomic Medicine Institute can assist in educating and coordinating patients’ enrollment in such research studies.

PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER

Primary care physicians are the first-line providers to individuals and families, many of whom have a personal or family history of breast cancer. Identifying patients at risk of breast cancer and hereditary cancer syndromes can be challenging in this era of shortened appointment times and patients with complex medical histories.

Reviewing an individual’s personal and cancer family history is a necessary first step in considering appropriate medical management recommendations for cancer screening and prevention, the cornerstone of personalized health care. Patients with hereditary breast cancer syndromes and those with familial breast cancer can benefit from high-risk breast cancer surveillance.

Cancer genetics risk assessment ensures that the correct genetic testing is offered to the most appropriate patients, with personalized interpretation of results and provision of future management recommendations based on the individual patient’s personal and family history. Genetic counselors empower patients to make educated and informed decisions about genetic testing, cancer screening, and prevention.

As health care continues to focus more on prevention in this new era of genomic medicine and value-based delivery of health care, genetic counselors will serve as powerful allies to physicians.34


Acknowledgments: We would like to thank Dr. Colleen Clayton and Dr. Lynn Pattimakiel of the Medicine Institute, Cleveland Clinic, for their critical review of and thoughtful feedback on this manuscript.

References
  1. American Cancer Society. Breast cancer: detailed guide( 2013). http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/BreastCancer/DetailedGuide/index. Accessed November 12, 2013.
  2. McTiernan A, Gilligan MA, Redmond C. Assessing individual risk for breast cancer: risky business. J Clin Epidemiol 1997; 50:547556.
  3. Teerlink CC, Albright FS, Lins L, Cannon-Albright LA. A comprehensive survey of cancer risks in extended families. Genet Med 2012; 14:107114.
  4. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. Breast cancer risk reduction (version 1.2013). http://www.nccn.org. Accessed November 21, 2013.
  5. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. Genetic/familial high risk assessment: breast and ovarian (version 4.2013). http://www.nccn.org. Accessed November 21, 2013.
  6. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. Breast cancer screening and diagnosis (version 2.2013). http://www.nccn.org. Accessed November 21, 2013.
  7. Mester JL, Schreiber AH, Moran RT. Genetic counselors: your partners in clinical practice. Cleve Clin J Med 2012; 79:560568.
  8. Trepanier A, Ahrens M, McKinnon W, et al; National Society of Genetic Counselors. Genetic cancer risk assessment and counseling: recommendations of the National Society of Genetic Counselors. J Genet Couns 2004; 13:83114.
  9. Tan MH, Mester JL, Ngeow J, Rybicki LA, Orloff MS, Eng C. Lifetime cancer risks in individuals with germline PTEN mutations. Clin Cancer Res 2012; 18:400407.
  10. Ford D, Easton DF, Stratton M, et al. Genetic heterogeneity and penetrance analysis of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes in breast cancer families. The Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium. Am J Hum Genet 1998; 62:676689.
  11. Liede A, Karlan BY, Narod SA. Cancer risks for male carriers of germline mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2: a review of the literature. J Clin Oncol 2004; 22:735742.
  12. Struewing JP, Hartge P, Wacholder S, et al. The risk of cancer associated with specific mutations of BRCA1 and BRCA2 among Ashkenazi Jews. N Engl J Med 1997; 336:14011408.
  13. Birch JM, Hartley AL, Tricker KJ, et al. Prevalence and diversity of constitutional mutations in the p53 gene among 21 Li-Fraumeni families. Cancer Res 1994; 54:12981304.
  14. Chompret A, Brugières L, Ronsin M, et al. P53 germline mutations in childhood cancers and cancer risk for carrier individuals. Br J Cancer 2000; 82:19321937.
  15. Gonzalez KD, Noltner KA, Buzin CH, et al. Beyond Li Fraumeni syndrome: clinical characteristics of families with p53 germline mutations. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27:12501256.
  16. Varley JM. Germline TP53 mutations and Li-Fraumeni syndrome. Hum Mutat 2003; 21:313320.
  17. Fitzgerald RC, Hardwick R, Huntsman D, et al; International Gastric Cancer Linkage Consortium. Hereditary diffuse gastric cancer: updated consensus guidelines for clinical management and directions for future research. J Med Genet 2010; 47:436444.
  18. Hearle N, Schumacher V, Menko FH, et al. Frequency and spectrum of cancers in the Peutz-Jeghers syndrome. Clin Cancer Res 2006; 12:32093215.
  19. American Society of Clinical Oncology. American Society of Clinical Oncology policy statement update: genetic testing for cancer susceptibility. J Clin Oncol 2003; 21:23972406.
  20. Mester J, Eng C. When overgrowth bumps into cancer: the PTEN-opathies. Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet 2013; 163:114121.
  21. Claus EB, Risch N, Thompson WD. Autosomal dominant inheritance of early-onset breast cancer. Implications for risk prediction. Cancer 1994; 73:643651.
  22. Couch FJ, DeShano ML, Blackwood MA, et al. BRCA1 mutations in women attending clinics that evaluate the risk of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 1997; 336:14091415.
  23. Tyrer J, Duffy SW, Cuzick J. A breast cancer prediction model incorporating familial and personal risk factors. Stat Med 2004; 23:11111130.
  24. Gail MH, Anderson WF, Garcia-Closas M, Sherman ME. Absolute risk models for subtypes of breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2007; 99:16571659.
  25. Gail MH, Brinton LA, Byar DP, et al. Projecting individualized probabilities of developing breast cancer for white females who are being examined annually. J Natl Cancer Inst 1989; 81:18791886.
  26. Kent P, O’Donoghue JM, O’Hanlon DM, Kerin MJ, Maher DJ, Given HF. Linkage analysis and the susceptibility gene (BRCA-1) in familial breast cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 1995; 21:240241.
  27. Easton DF, Bishop DT, Ford D, Crockford GP. Genetic linkage analysis in familial breast and ovarian cancer: results from 214 families. The Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium. Am J Hum Genet 1993; 52:678701.
  28. Ormiston W. Hereditary breast cancer. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) 1996; 5:1320.
  29. Couch FJ, Wang X, McGuffog L, et al. Genome-wide association study in BRCA1 mutation carriers identifies novel loci associated with breast and ovarian cancer risk. PLoS Genet 2013; 9:e1003212.
  30. Bennett KL, Mester J, Eng C. Germline epigenetic regulation of KILLIN in Cowden and Cowden-like syndrome. JAMA 2010; 304:27242731.
  31. Ni Y, He X, Chen J, et al. Germline SDHx variants modify breast and thyroid cancer risks in Cowden and Cowden-like syndrome via FAD/NAD-dependent destabilization of p53. Hum Mol Genet 2012; 21:300310.
  32. Casadei S, Norquist BM, Walsh T, et al. Contribution of inherited mutations in the BRCA2-interacting protein PALB2 to familial breast cancer. Cancer Res 2011; 71:22222229.
  33. Walsh T, Lee MK, Casadei S, et al. Detection of inherited mutations for breast and ovarian cancer using genomic capture and massively parallel sequencing. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2010; 107:1262912633.
  34. Eng C. Molecular genetics to genomic medicine: at the heart of value-based delivery of healthcare. Mol Genet Genom Med 2013; 1:46.
References
  1. American Cancer Society. Breast cancer: detailed guide( 2013). http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/BreastCancer/DetailedGuide/index. Accessed November 12, 2013.
  2. McTiernan A, Gilligan MA, Redmond C. Assessing individual risk for breast cancer: risky business. J Clin Epidemiol 1997; 50:547556.
  3. Teerlink CC, Albright FS, Lins L, Cannon-Albright LA. A comprehensive survey of cancer risks in extended families. Genet Med 2012; 14:107114.
  4. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. Breast cancer risk reduction (version 1.2013). http://www.nccn.org. Accessed November 21, 2013.
  5. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. Genetic/familial high risk assessment: breast and ovarian (version 4.2013). http://www.nccn.org. Accessed November 21, 2013.
  6. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. Breast cancer screening and diagnosis (version 2.2013). http://www.nccn.org. Accessed November 21, 2013.
  7. Mester JL, Schreiber AH, Moran RT. Genetic counselors: your partners in clinical practice. Cleve Clin J Med 2012; 79:560568.
  8. Trepanier A, Ahrens M, McKinnon W, et al; National Society of Genetic Counselors. Genetic cancer risk assessment and counseling: recommendations of the National Society of Genetic Counselors. J Genet Couns 2004; 13:83114.
  9. Tan MH, Mester JL, Ngeow J, Rybicki LA, Orloff MS, Eng C. Lifetime cancer risks in individuals with germline PTEN mutations. Clin Cancer Res 2012; 18:400407.
  10. Ford D, Easton DF, Stratton M, et al. Genetic heterogeneity and penetrance analysis of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes in breast cancer families. The Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium. Am J Hum Genet 1998; 62:676689.
  11. Liede A, Karlan BY, Narod SA. Cancer risks for male carriers of germline mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2: a review of the literature. J Clin Oncol 2004; 22:735742.
  12. Struewing JP, Hartge P, Wacholder S, et al. The risk of cancer associated with specific mutations of BRCA1 and BRCA2 among Ashkenazi Jews. N Engl J Med 1997; 336:14011408.
  13. Birch JM, Hartley AL, Tricker KJ, et al. Prevalence and diversity of constitutional mutations in the p53 gene among 21 Li-Fraumeni families. Cancer Res 1994; 54:12981304.
  14. Chompret A, Brugières L, Ronsin M, et al. P53 germline mutations in childhood cancers and cancer risk for carrier individuals. Br J Cancer 2000; 82:19321937.
  15. Gonzalez KD, Noltner KA, Buzin CH, et al. Beyond Li Fraumeni syndrome: clinical characteristics of families with p53 germline mutations. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27:12501256.
  16. Varley JM. Germline TP53 mutations and Li-Fraumeni syndrome. Hum Mutat 2003; 21:313320.
  17. Fitzgerald RC, Hardwick R, Huntsman D, et al; International Gastric Cancer Linkage Consortium. Hereditary diffuse gastric cancer: updated consensus guidelines for clinical management and directions for future research. J Med Genet 2010; 47:436444.
  18. Hearle N, Schumacher V, Menko FH, et al. Frequency and spectrum of cancers in the Peutz-Jeghers syndrome. Clin Cancer Res 2006; 12:32093215.
  19. American Society of Clinical Oncology. American Society of Clinical Oncology policy statement update: genetic testing for cancer susceptibility. J Clin Oncol 2003; 21:23972406.
  20. Mester J, Eng C. When overgrowth bumps into cancer: the PTEN-opathies. Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet 2013; 163:114121.
  21. Claus EB, Risch N, Thompson WD. Autosomal dominant inheritance of early-onset breast cancer. Implications for risk prediction. Cancer 1994; 73:643651.
  22. Couch FJ, DeShano ML, Blackwood MA, et al. BRCA1 mutations in women attending clinics that evaluate the risk of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 1997; 336:14091415.
  23. Tyrer J, Duffy SW, Cuzick J. A breast cancer prediction model incorporating familial and personal risk factors. Stat Med 2004; 23:11111130.
  24. Gail MH, Anderson WF, Garcia-Closas M, Sherman ME. Absolute risk models for subtypes of breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2007; 99:16571659.
  25. Gail MH, Brinton LA, Byar DP, et al. Projecting individualized probabilities of developing breast cancer for white females who are being examined annually. J Natl Cancer Inst 1989; 81:18791886.
  26. Kent P, O’Donoghue JM, O’Hanlon DM, Kerin MJ, Maher DJ, Given HF. Linkage analysis and the susceptibility gene (BRCA-1) in familial breast cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 1995; 21:240241.
  27. Easton DF, Bishop DT, Ford D, Crockford GP. Genetic linkage analysis in familial breast and ovarian cancer: results from 214 families. The Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium. Am J Hum Genet 1993; 52:678701.
  28. Ormiston W. Hereditary breast cancer. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) 1996; 5:1320.
  29. Couch FJ, Wang X, McGuffog L, et al. Genome-wide association study in BRCA1 mutation carriers identifies novel loci associated with breast and ovarian cancer risk. PLoS Genet 2013; 9:e1003212.
  30. Bennett KL, Mester J, Eng C. Germline epigenetic regulation of KILLIN in Cowden and Cowden-like syndrome. JAMA 2010; 304:27242731.
  31. Ni Y, He X, Chen J, et al. Germline SDHx variants modify breast and thyroid cancer risks in Cowden and Cowden-like syndrome via FAD/NAD-dependent destabilization of p53. Hum Mol Genet 2012; 21:300310.
  32. Casadei S, Norquist BM, Walsh T, et al. Contribution of inherited mutations in the BRCA2-interacting protein PALB2 to familial breast cancer. Cancer Res 2011; 71:22222229.
  33. Walsh T, Lee MK, Casadei S, et al. Detection of inherited mutations for breast and ovarian cancer using genomic capture and massively parallel sequencing. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2010; 107:1262912633.
  34. Eng C. Molecular genetics to genomic medicine: at the heart of value-based delivery of healthcare. Mol Genet Genom Med 2013; 1:46.
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 81(1)
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 81(1)
Page Number
31-40
Page Number
31-40
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
How to spot heritable breast cancer: A primary care physician’s guide
Display Headline
How to spot heritable breast cancer: A primary care physician’s guide
Sections
Inside the Article

KEY POINTS

  • Primary care physicians play a critical role in identifying patients at risk of inherited health problems.
  • Hereditary cancers are important to detect because the age of onset is early, multiple primary cancers can develop, and cancer predisposition may be inherited.
  • Hereditary syndromes account for only a minority of cases of breast cancer, but women who bear the responsible mutations have an extremely high risk.
  • Patients with hereditary breast cancer syndromes and those with familial breast cancer can benefit from heightened surveillance for breast cancer.
  • Cancer genetics risk assessment ensures that the correct genetic testing is offered to the most appropriate patients, with personalized interpretation of results and provision of future management recommendations based on the individual patient’s personal and family history.
Disallow All Ads
Alternative CME
Article PDF Media

Do all hospitalized patients need stress ulcer prophylaxis?

Article Type
Changed
Tue, 09/12/2017 - 15:39
Display Headline
Do all hospitalized patients need stress ulcer prophylaxis?

No. Based on current evidence and guidelines, routine acid-suppressive therapy to prevent stress ulcers has no benefit in hospitalized patients outside the critical-care setting. Only critically ill patients who meet specific criteria, as described in the guidelines of the American Society of Health System Pharmacists, should receive acid-suppressive therapy.

Unfortunately, routine stress ulcer prophylaxis is common in US hospitals, unnecessarily putting patients at risk of complications and adding costs.

STRESS ULCER AND CRITICAL ILLNESS

Stress ulcers—ulcerations of the upper part of the gastrointestinal (GI) mucosa in the setting of acute disease—usually involve the fundus and body of the stomach. The stomach is lined with a glycoprotein mucous layer rich in bicarbonates, forming a physiologic barrier to protect the gastric wall from acid insult by neutralizing hydrogen ions. Disruption of this protective layer can occur in critically ill patients (eg, those with shock or sepsis) through overproduction of uremic toxins, increased reflux of bile salts, compromised blood flow, and increased stomach acidity through gastrin stimulation of parietal cells.

More than 75% of patients with major burns or cranial trauma develop endoscopic mucosal abnormalities within 72 hours of injury.1 In critically ill patients, the risk of ulcer-related overt bleeding is estimated to be 5% to 25%. Furthermore, 1% to 5% of stress ulcers can be deep enough to erode into the submucosa, causing clinically significant GI bleeding, defined as bleeding complicated by hemodynamic compromise or a drop in hemoglobin that requires a blood transfusion.2 In contrast, in inpatients who are not critically ill, the risk of overt bleeding from stress ulcers is less than 1%.3

ADDRESSING RISK

A multicenter prospective cohort study of 2,252 intensive care patients2 reported two main risk factors for significant bleeding caused by stress ulcers: mechanical ventilation for more than 48 hours and coagulopathy, defined as a platelet count below 50 × 109/L, an international normalized ratio greater than 1.5, or a partial thromboplastin time more than twice the control value.4 In hemodynamically stable patients receiving anticoagulation in a general medical or surgical ward, the risk of GI bleeding was low, and acid suppression failed to lower the rate of stress ulcer occurrence.3

Other risk factors include severe sepsis, shock, liver failure, kidney failure, burns over 35% of the total body surface, organ transplantation, cranial trauma, spinal cord trauma, history of peptic ulcer disease, and history of upper GI bleeding.3,5,6 Steroid therapy is not considered a risk factor for stress ulcers unless it is used in the presence of another risk factor such as use of aspirin or nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs).2

INDICATIONS FOR PROPHYLAXIS

Prophylaxis with a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) is indicated in specific conditions—ie, peptic ulcer disease, gastroesophageal reflux disease, chronic NSAID therapy, and Zollinger-Ellison syndrome—and to eradicate Helicobacter pylori infection.7 But in the United States, stress ulcer prophylaxis is overused in general-care floors despite the lack of supporting evidence.

The American Society of Health System Pharmacists guidelines recommend it in the intensive care unit for patients with any of the following: coagulopathy, prolonged mechanical ventilation (more than 48 hours), GI ulcer or bleeding within the past year, sepsis, a stay longer than 1 week in the intensive care unit, occult GI bleeding for 6 or more days, and steroid therapy with more than 250 mg of hydrocortisone daily.8 Hemodynamically stable patients admitted to general-care floors should not receive stress ulcer prophylaxis, as it only negligibly decreases the rate of GI bleeding, from 0.33% to 0.22%.9

 

 

WHY ROUTINE ULCER PROPHYLAXIS IS NOT FOR ALL HOSPITALIZED PATIENTS

Although stress ulcer prophylaxis is often considered benign, its lack of proven benefit, additional cost, and risk of adverse effects, including interactions with foods and other drugs, preclude using it routinely for all hospitalized patients.10,11 Chronic use of PPIs has been associated with complications, as discussed below.

Infection

Acid suppression may impair the destruction of ingested microorganisms, resulting in overgrowth of bacteria.12 Overuse of PPIs may increase the risk of several infections:

  • Diarrhea due to Clostridium difficile12
  • Community-acquired pneumonia, from increased microaspiration of overgrown microorganisms into the lung.12
  • Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis in patients with cirrhosis,13 although the mechanism is not clear. (Small-bowel bacterial overgrowth is the hypothesized cause.)

Bone fracture

PPIs lower gastric acidity, and this can inhibit intestinal calcium absorption. Furthermore, PPIs may directly inhibit bone resorption by osteoclasts.14

Reduction in clopidogrel efficacy

PPIs may reduce the efficacy of clopidogrel as a result of competitive inhibition of cytochrome CYP2C19, which is necessary to metabolize clopidogrel to its active forms. Therefore, concomitant use of clopidogrel with omeprazole, esomeprazole, or other CYP2C19 inhibitors is not recommended.15

Nutritional deficiencies

The overgrown microorganisms consume cobalamin in the stomach, resulting in vitamin B12 deficiency. Acid-suppressive therapy can also reduce the absorption of magnesium and iron.12

Unnecessary cost

Heidelbaugh and Inadomi16 reviewed the non-evidence-based use of stress ulcer prophylaxis in patients admitted to a large university hospital and estimated that it entailed a cost to the hospital of $111,791 over the course of a year.

WHICH ULCER PROPHYLAXIS SHOULD BE USED IN CRITICALLY ILL PATIENTS?

Studies have shown histamine-2 blockers to be superior to antacids and sucralfate in preventing stress ulcer and GI bleeding,8,15 but no study has compared PPIs with sucralfate and antacids.

When indicated, an oral PPI is preferred over an oral histamine-2 blocker for GI prophylaxis.17 This practice is considered cost-effective and is associated with lower rates of stress ulcer and GI bleeding. In intubated patients, however, an intravenous histamine-2 blocker is preferable to an intravenous PPI.3,8,11 Interestingly, no difference was reported between PPIs and histamine-2 blockers in terms of mortality rate or reduction in the incidence of nosocomial pneumonia.17

OUR RECOMMENDATION

Only critically ill patients who meet the specific criteria described here should receive stress ulcer prophylaxis. More effort is needed to educate residents, medical staff, and pharmacists about current guidelines. Computerized ordering templates and reminders to discontinue prophylaxis at discharge or step-down may decrease overall use, reduce costs, and limit potential side effects.18

References
  1. DePriest JL. Stress ulcer prophylaxis. Do critically ill patients need it? Postgrad Med 1995; 98:159168.
  2. Cook DJ, Fuller HD, Guyatt GH, et al. Risk factors for gastrointestinal bleeding in critically ill patients. Canadian Critical Care Trials Group. N Engl J Med 1994; 330:377381.
  3. Qadeer MA, Richter JE, Brotman DJ. Hospital-acquired gastrointestinal bleeding outside the critical care unit: risk factors, role of acid suppression, and endoscopy findings. J Hosp Med 2006; 1:1320.
  4. Shuman RB, Schuster DP, Zuckerman GR. Prophylactic therapy for stress ulcer bleeding: a reappraisal. Ann Intern Med 1987; 106:562567.
  5. Dellinger RP, Levy MM, Rhodes A, et al; Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines Committee including the Pediatric Subgroup. Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2012. Crit Care Med 2013; 41:580637.
  6. Cook DJ, Reeve BK, Guyatt GH, et al. Stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients. Resolving discordant meta-analyses. JAMA 1996; 275:308314.
  7. Kahrilas PJ, Shaheen NJ, Vaezi MF, et al; American Gastroenterological Association. American Gastroenterological Association Medical Position Statement on the management of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Gastroenterology 2008; 135:13831391.e11391.e5.
  8. Barkun AN, Bardou M, Pham CQ, Martel M. Proton pump inhibitors vs histamine 2 receptor antagonists for stress-related mucosal bleeding prophylaxis in critically ill patients: a meta-analysis. Am J Gastroenterol 2012; 107:507520.
  9. Herzig SJ, Vaughn BP, Howell MD, Ngo LH, Marcantonio ER. Acid-suppressive medication use and the risk for nosocomial gastrointestinal tract bleeding. Arch Intern Med 2011; 171:991997.
  10. Cook DJ. Stress ulcer prophylaxis: gastrointestinal bleeding and nosocomial pneumonia. Best evidence synthesis. Scand J Gastroenterol Suppl 1995; 210:4852.
  11. Messori A, Trippoli S, Vaiani M, Gorini M, Corrado A. Bleeding and pneumonia in intensive care patients given ranitidine and sucralfate for prevention of stress ulcer: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 2000; 321:11031106.
  12. Heidelbaugh JJ, Kim AH, Chang R, Walker PC. Overutilization of proton-pump inhibitors: what the clinician needs to know. Therap Adv Gastroenterol 2012; 5:219232.
  13. Deshpande A, Pasupuleti V, Thota P, et al. Acid-suppressive therapy is associated with spontaneous bacterial peritonitis in cirrhotic patients: a meta-analysis. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2013; 28:235242.
  14. Farina C, Gagliardi S. Selective inhibition of osteoclast vacuolar H(+)- ATPase. Curr Pharm Des 2002; 8:20332048.
  15. ASHP Therapeutic Guidelines on Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis. ASHP Commission on Therapeutics and approved by the ASHP Board of Directors on November 14, 1998. Am J Health Syst Pharm 1999; 56:347379.
  16. Heidelbaugh JJ, Inadomi JM. Magnitude and economic impact of inappropriate use of stress ulcer prophylaxis in non-ICU hospitalized patients. Am J Gastroenterol 2006; 101:22002205.
  17. Alhazzani W, Alenezi F, Jaeschke RZ, Moayyedi P, Cook DJ. Proton pump inhibitors versus histamine 2 receptor antagonists for stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care Med 2013; 41:693705.
  18. Liberman JD, Whelan CT. Brief report: reducing inappropriate usage of stress ulcer prophylaxis among internal medicine residents. A practice-based educational intervention. J Gen Intern Med 2006; 21:498500.
Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Naseem Eisa, MD
Department of Hospital Medicine, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH

Fateh Bazerbachi, MD
Department of Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN

Abdul Hamid Alraiyes, MD, FCCP
Department of Pulmonary Diseases, Critical Care, and Environmental Medicine, Tulane University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans, LA

M. Chadi Alraies, MD, FACP
Division of Cardiology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis

Address: M. Chadi Alraies, MD, 3635 E 43rd Street, Apartment 317, Minneapolis, MN 55406; e-mail: alraies@hotmail.com

Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 81(1)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
23-25
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Naseem Eisa, MD
Department of Hospital Medicine, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH

Fateh Bazerbachi, MD
Department of Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN

Abdul Hamid Alraiyes, MD, FCCP
Department of Pulmonary Diseases, Critical Care, and Environmental Medicine, Tulane University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans, LA

M. Chadi Alraies, MD, FACP
Division of Cardiology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis

Address: M. Chadi Alraies, MD, 3635 E 43rd Street, Apartment 317, Minneapolis, MN 55406; e-mail: alraies@hotmail.com

Author and Disclosure Information

Naseem Eisa, MD
Department of Hospital Medicine, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH

Fateh Bazerbachi, MD
Department of Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN

Abdul Hamid Alraiyes, MD, FCCP
Department of Pulmonary Diseases, Critical Care, and Environmental Medicine, Tulane University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans, LA

M. Chadi Alraies, MD, FACP
Division of Cardiology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis

Address: M. Chadi Alraies, MD, 3635 E 43rd Street, Apartment 317, Minneapolis, MN 55406; e-mail: alraies@hotmail.com

Article PDF
Article PDF
Related Articles

No. Based on current evidence and guidelines, routine acid-suppressive therapy to prevent stress ulcers has no benefit in hospitalized patients outside the critical-care setting. Only critically ill patients who meet specific criteria, as described in the guidelines of the American Society of Health System Pharmacists, should receive acid-suppressive therapy.

Unfortunately, routine stress ulcer prophylaxis is common in US hospitals, unnecessarily putting patients at risk of complications and adding costs.

STRESS ULCER AND CRITICAL ILLNESS

Stress ulcers—ulcerations of the upper part of the gastrointestinal (GI) mucosa in the setting of acute disease—usually involve the fundus and body of the stomach. The stomach is lined with a glycoprotein mucous layer rich in bicarbonates, forming a physiologic barrier to protect the gastric wall from acid insult by neutralizing hydrogen ions. Disruption of this protective layer can occur in critically ill patients (eg, those with shock or sepsis) through overproduction of uremic toxins, increased reflux of bile salts, compromised blood flow, and increased stomach acidity through gastrin stimulation of parietal cells.

More than 75% of patients with major burns or cranial trauma develop endoscopic mucosal abnormalities within 72 hours of injury.1 In critically ill patients, the risk of ulcer-related overt bleeding is estimated to be 5% to 25%. Furthermore, 1% to 5% of stress ulcers can be deep enough to erode into the submucosa, causing clinically significant GI bleeding, defined as bleeding complicated by hemodynamic compromise or a drop in hemoglobin that requires a blood transfusion.2 In contrast, in inpatients who are not critically ill, the risk of overt bleeding from stress ulcers is less than 1%.3

ADDRESSING RISK

A multicenter prospective cohort study of 2,252 intensive care patients2 reported two main risk factors for significant bleeding caused by stress ulcers: mechanical ventilation for more than 48 hours and coagulopathy, defined as a platelet count below 50 × 109/L, an international normalized ratio greater than 1.5, or a partial thromboplastin time more than twice the control value.4 In hemodynamically stable patients receiving anticoagulation in a general medical or surgical ward, the risk of GI bleeding was low, and acid suppression failed to lower the rate of stress ulcer occurrence.3

Other risk factors include severe sepsis, shock, liver failure, kidney failure, burns over 35% of the total body surface, organ transplantation, cranial trauma, spinal cord trauma, history of peptic ulcer disease, and history of upper GI bleeding.3,5,6 Steroid therapy is not considered a risk factor for stress ulcers unless it is used in the presence of another risk factor such as use of aspirin or nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs).2

INDICATIONS FOR PROPHYLAXIS

Prophylaxis with a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) is indicated in specific conditions—ie, peptic ulcer disease, gastroesophageal reflux disease, chronic NSAID therapy, and Zollinger-Ellison syndrome—and to eradicate Helicobacter pylori infection.7 But in the United States, stress ulcer prophylaxis is overused in general-care floors despite the lack of supporting evidence.

The American Society of Health System Pharmacists guidelines recommend it in the intensive care unit for patients with any of the following: coagulopathy, prolonged mechanical ventilation (more than 48 hours), GI ulcer or bleeding within the past year, sepsis, a stay longer than 1 week in the intensive care unit, occult GI bleeding for 6 or more days, and steroid therapy with more than 250 mg of hydrocortisone daily.8 Hemodynamically stable patients admitted to general-care floors should not receive stress ulcer prophylaxis, as it only negligibly decreases the rate of GI bleeding, from 0.33% to 0.22%.9

 

 

WHY ROUTINE ULCER PROPHYLAXIS IS NOT FOR ALL HOSPITALIZED PATIENTS

Although stress ulcer prophylaxis is often considered benign, its lack of proven benefit, additional cost, and risk of adverse effects, including interactions with foods and other drugs, preclude using it routinely for all hospitalized patients.10,11 Chronic use of PPIs has been associated with complications, as discussed below.

Infection

Acid suppression may impair the destruction of ingested microorganisms, resulting in overgrowth of bacteria.12 Overuse of PPIs may increase the risk of several infections:

  • Diarrhea due to Clostridium difficile12
  • Community-acquired pneumonia, from increased microaspiration of overgrown microorganisms into the lung.12
  • Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis in patients with cirrhosis,13 although the mechanism is not clear. (Small-bowel bacterial overgrowth is the hypothesized cause.)

Bone fracture

PPIs lower gastric acidity, and this can inhibit intestinal calcium absorption. Furthermore, PPIs may directly inhibit bone resorption by osteoclasts.14

Reduction in clopidogrel efficacy

PPIs may reduce the efficacy of clopidogrel as a result of competitive inhibition of cytochrome CYP2C19, which is necessary to metabolize clopidogrel to its active forms. Therefore, concomitant use of clopidogrel with omeprazole, esomeprazole, or other CYP2C19 inhibitors is not recommended.15

Nutritional deficiencies

The overgrown microorganisms consume cobalamin in the stomach, resulting in vitamin B12 deficiency. Acid-suppressive therapy can also reduce the absorption of magnesium and iron.12

Unnecessary cost

Heidelbaugh and Inadomi16 reviewed the non-evidence-based use of stress ulcer prophylaxis in patients admitted to a large university hospital and estimated that it entailed a cost to the hospital of $111,791 over the course of a year.

WHICH ULCER PROPHYLAXIS SHOULD BE USED IN CRITICALLY ILL PATIENTS?

Studies have shown histamine-2 blockers to be superior to antacids and sucralfate in preventing stress ulcer and GI bleeding,8,15 but no study has compared PPIs with sucralfate and antacids.

When indicated, an oral PPI is preferred over an oral histamine-2 blocker for GI prophylaxis.17 This practice is considered cost-effective and is associated with lower rates of stress ulcer and GI bleeding. In intubated patients, however, an intravenous histamine-2 blocker is preferable to an intravenous PPI.3,8,11 Interestingly, no difference was reported between PPIs and histamine-2 blockers in terms of mortality rate or reduction in the incidence of nosocomial pneumonia.17

OUR RECOMMENDATION

Only critically ill patients who meet the specific criteria described here should receive stress ulcer prophylaxis. More effort is needed to educate residents, medical staff, and pharmacists about current guidelines. Computerized ordering templates and reminders to discontinue prophylaxis at discharge or step-down may decrease overall use, reduce costs, and limit potential side effects.18

No. Based on current evidence and guidelines, routine acid-suppressive therapy to prevent stress ulcers has no benefit in hospitalized patients outside the critical-care setting. Only critically ill patients who meet specific criteria, as described in the guidelines of the American Society of Health System Pharmacists, should receive acid-suppressive therapy.

Unfortunately, routine stress ulcer prophylaxis is common in US hospitals, unnecessarily putting patients at risk of complications and adding costs.

STRESS ULCER AND CRITICAL ILLNESS

Stress ulcers—ulcerations of the upper part of the gastrointestinal (GI) mucosa in the setting of acute disease—usually involve the fundus and body of the stomach. The stomach is lined with a glycoprotein mucous layer rich in bicarbonates, forming a physiologic barrier to protect the gastric wall from acid insult by neutralizing hydrogen ions. Disruption of this protective layer can occur in critically ill patients (eg, those with shock or sepsis) through overproduction of uremic toxins, increased reflux of bile salts, compromised blood flow, and increased stomach acidity through gastrin stimulation of parietal cells.

More than 75% of patients with major burns or cranial trauma develop endoscopic mucosal abnormalities within 72 hours of injury.1 In critically ill patients, the risk of ulcer-related overt bleeding is estimated to be 5% to 25%. Furthermore, 1% to 5% of stress ulcers can be deep enough to erode into the submucosa, causing clinically significant GI bleeding, defined as bleeding complicated by hemodynamic compromise or a drop in hemoglobin that requires a blood transfusion.2 In contrast, in inpatients who are not critically ill, the risk of overt bleeding from stress ulcers is less than 1%.3

ADDRESSING RISK

A multicenter prospective cohort study of 2,252 intensive care patients2 reported two main risk factors for significant bleeding caused by stress ulcers: mechanical ventilation for more than 48 hours and coagulopathy, defined as a platelet count below 50 × 109/L, an international normalized ratio greater than 1.5, or a partial thromboplastin time more than twice the control value.4 In hemodynamically stable patients receiving anticoagulation in a general medical or surgical ward, the risk of GI bleeding was low, and acid suppression failed to lower the rate of stress ulcer occurrence.3

Other risk factors include severe sepsis, shock, liver failure, kidney failure, burns over 35% of the total body surface, organ transplantation, cranial trauma, spinal cord trauma, history of peptic ulcer disease, and history of upper GI bleeding.3,5,6 Steroid therapy is not considered a risk factor for stress ulcers unless it is used in the presence of another risk factor such as use of aspirin or nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs).2

INDICATIONS FOR PROPHYLAXIS

Prophylaxis with a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) is indicated in specific conditions—ie, peptic ulcer disease, gastroesophageal reflux disease, chronic NSAID therapy, and Zollinger-Ellison syndrome—and to eradicate Helicobacter pylori infection.7 But in the United States, stress ulcer prophylaxis is overused in general-care floors despite the lack of supporting evidence.

The American Society of Health System Pharmacists guidelines recommend it in the intensive care unit for patients with any of the following: coagulopathy, prolonged mechanical ventilation (more than 48 hours), GI ulcer or bleeding within the past year, sepsis, a stay longer than 1 week in the intensive care unit, occult GI bleeding for 6 or more days, and steroid therapy with more than 250 mg of hydrocortisone daily.8 Hemodynamically stable patients admitted to general-care floors should not receive stress ulcer prophylaxis, as it only negligibly decreases the rate of GI bleeding, from 0.33% to 0.22%.9

 

 

WHY ROUTINE ULCER PROPHYLAXIS IS NOT FOR ALL HOSPITALIZED PATIENTS

Although stress ulcer prophylaxis is often considered benign, its lack of proven benefit, additional cost, and risk of adverse effects, including interactions with foods and other drugs, preclude using it routinely for all hospitalized patients.10,11 Chronic use of PPIs has been associated with complications, as discussed below.

Infection

Acid suppression may impair the destruction of ingested microorganisms, resulting in overgrowth of bacteria.12 Overuse of PPIs may increase the risk of several infections:

  • Diarrhea due to Clostridium difficile12
  • Community-acquired pneumonia, from increased microaspiration of overgrown microorganisms into the lung.12
  • Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis in patients with cirrhosis,13 although the mechanism is not clear. (Small-bowel bacterial overgrowth is the hypothesized cause.)

Bone fracture

PPIs lower gastric acidity, and this can inhibit intestinal calcium absorption. Furthermore, PPIs may directly inhibit bone resorption by osteoclasts.14

Reduction in clopidogrel efficacy

PPIs may reduce the efficacy of clopidogrel as a result of competitive inhibition of cytochrome CYP2C19, which is necessary to metabolize clopidogrel to its active forms. Therefore, concomitant use of clopidogrel with omeprazole, esomeprazole, or other CYP2C19 inhibitors is not recommended.15

Nutritional deficiencies

The overgrown microorganisms consume cobalamin in the stomach, resulting in vitamin B12 deficiency. Acid-suppressive therapy can also reduce the absorption of magnesium and iron.12

Unnecessary cost

Heidelbaugh and Inadomi16 reviewed the non-evidence-based use of stress ulcer prophylaxis in patients admitted to a large university hospital and estimated that it entailed a cost to the hospital of $111,791 over the course of a year.

WHICH ULCER PROPHYLAXIS SHOULD BE USED IN CRITICALLY ILL PATIENTS?

Studies have shown histamine-2 blockers to be superior to antacids and sucralfate in preventing stress ulcer and GI bleeding,8,15 but no study has compared PPIs with sucralfate and antacids.

When indicated, an oral PPI is preferred over an oral histamine-2 blocker for GI prophylaxis.17 This practice is considered cost-effective and is associated with lower rates of stress ulcer and GI bleeding. In intubated patients, however, an intravenous histamine-2 blocker is preferable to an intravenous PPI.3,8,11 Interestingly, no difference was reported between PPIs and histamine-2 blockers in terms of mortality rate or reduction in the incidence of nosocomial pneumonia.17

OUR RECOMMENDATION

Only critically ill patients who meet the specific criteria described here should receive stress ulcer prophylaxis. More effort is needed to educate residents, medical staff, and pharmacists about current guidelines. Computerized ordering templates and reminders to discontinue prophylaxis at discharge or step-down may decrease overall use, reduce costs, and limit potential side effects.18

References
  1. DePriest JL. Stress ulcer prophylaxis. Do critically ill patients need it? Postgrad Med 1995; 98:159168.
  2. Cook DJ, Fuller HD, Guyatt GH, et al. Risk factors for gastrointestinal bleeding in critically ill patients. Canadian Critical Care Trials Group. N Engl J Med 1994; 330:377381.
  3. Qadeer MA, Richter JE, Brotman DJ. Hospital-acquired gastrointestinal bleeding outside the critical care unit: risk factors, role of acid suppression, and endoscopy findings. J Hosp Med 2006; 1:1320.
  4. Shuman RB, Schuster DP, Zuckerman GR. Prophylactic therapy for stress ulcer bleeding: a reappraisal. Ann Intern Med 1987; 106:562567.
  5. Dellinger RP, Levy MM, Rhodes A, et al; Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines Committee including the Pediatric Subgroup. Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2012. Crit Care Med 2013; 41:580637.
  6. Cook DJ, Reeve BK, Guyatt GH, et al. Stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients. Resolving discordant meta-analyses. JAMA 1996; 275:308314.
  7. Kahrilas PJ, Shaheen NJ, Vaezi MF, et al; American Gastroenterological Association. American Gastroenterological Association Medical Position Statement on the management of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Gastroenterology 2008; 135:13831391.e11391.e5.
  8. Barkun AN, Bardou M, Pham CQ, Martel M. Proton pump inhibitors vs histamine 2 receptor antagonists for stress-related mucosal bleeding prophylaxis in critically ill patients: a meta-analysis. Am J Gastroenterol 2012; 107:507520.
  9. Herzig SJ, Vaughn BP, Howell MD, Ngo LH, Marcantonio ER. Acid-suppressive medication use and the risk for nosocomial gastrointestinal tract bleeding. Arch Intern Med 2011; 171:991997.
  10. Cook DJ. Stress ulcer prophylaxis: gastrointestinal bleeding and nosocomial pneumonia. Best evidence synthesis. Scand J Gastroenterol Suppl 1995; 210:4852.
  11. Messori A, Trippoli S, Vaiani M, Gorini M, Corrado A. Bleeding and pneumonia in intensive care patients given ranitidine and sucralfate for prevention of stress ulcer: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 2000; 321:11031106.
  12. Heidelbaugh JJ, Kim AH, Chang R, Walker PC. Overutilization of proton-pump inhibitors: what the clinician needs to know. Therap Adv Gastroenterol 2012; 5:219232.
  13. Deshpande A, Pasupuleti V, Thota P, et al. Acid-suppressive therapy is associated with spontaneous bacterial peritonitis in cirrhotic patients: a meta-analysis. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2013; 28:235242.
  14. Farina C, Gagliardi S. Selective inhibition of osteoclast vacuolar H(+)- ATPase. Curr Pharm Des 2002; 8:20332048.
  15. ASHP Therapeutic Guidelines on Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis. ASHP Commission on Therapeutics and approved by the ASHP Board of Directors on November 14, 1998. Am J Health Syst Pharm 1999; 56:347379.
  16. Heidelbaugh JJ, Inadomi JM. Magnitude and economic impact of inappropriate use of stress ulcer prophylaxis in non-ICU hospitalized patients. Am J Gastroenterol 2006; 101:22002205.
  17. Alhazzani W, Alenezi F, Jaeschke RZ, Moayyedi P, Cook DJ. Proton pump inhibitors versus histamine 2 receptor antagonists for stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care Med 2013; 41:693705.
  18. Liberman JD, Whelan CT. Brief report: reducing inappropriate usage of stress ulcer prophylaxis among internal medicine residents. A practice-based educational intervention. J Gen Intern Med 2006; 21:498500.
References
  1. DePriest JL. Stress ulcer prophylaxis. Do critically ill patients need it? Postgrad Med 1995; 98:159168.
  2. Cook DJ, Fuller HD, Guyatt GH, et al. Risk factors for gastrointestinal bleeding in critically ill patients. Canadian Critical Care Trials Group. N Engl J Med 1994; 330:377381.
  3. Qadeer MA, Richter JE, Brotman DJ. Hospital-acquired gastrointestinal bleeding outside the critical care unit: risk factors, role of acid suppression, and endoscopy findings. J Hosp Med 2006; 1:1320.
  4. Shuman RB, Schuster DP, Zuckerman GR. Prophylactic therapy for stress ulcer bleeding: a reappraisal. Ann Intern Med 1987; 106:562567.
  5. Dellinger RP, Levy MM, Rhodes A, et al; Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines Committee including the Pediatric Subgroup. Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2012. Crit Care Med 2013; 41:580637.
  6. Cook DJ, Reeve BK, Guyatt GH, et al. Stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients. Resolving discordant meta-analyses. JAMA 1996; 275:308314.
  7. Kahrilas PJ, Shaheen NJ, Vaezi MF, et al; American Gastroenterological Association. American Gastroenterological Association Medical Position Statement on the management of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Gastroenterology 2008; 135:13831391.e11391.e5.
  8. Barkun AN, Bardou M, Pham CQ, Martel M. Proton pump inhibitors vs histamine 2 receptor antagonists for stress-related mucosal bleeding prophylaxis in critically ill patients: a meta-analysis. Am J Gastroenterol 2012; 107:507520.
  9. Herzig SJ, Vaughn BP, Howell MD, Ngo LH, Marcantonio ER. Acid-suppressive medication use and the risk for nosocomial gastrointestinal tract bleeding. Arch Intern Med 2011; 171:991997.
  10. Cook DJ. Stress ulcer prophylaxis: gastrointestinal bleeding and nosocomial pneumonia. Best evidence synthesis. Scand J Gastroenterol Suppl 1995; 210:4852.
  11. Messori A, Trippoli S, Vaiani M, Gorini M, Corrado A. Bleeding and pneumonia in intensive care patients given ranitidine and sucralfate for prevention of stress ulcer: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 2000; 321:11031106.
  12. Heidelbaugh JJ, Kim AH, Chang R, Walker PC. Overutilization of proton-pump inhibitors: what the clinician needs to know. Therap Adv Gastroenterol 2012; 5:219232.
  13. Deshpande A, Pasupuleti V, Thota P, et al. Acid-suppressive therapy is associated with spontaneous bacterial peritonitis in cirrhotic patients: a meta-analysis. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2013; 28:235242.
  14. Farina C, Gagliardi S. Selective inhibition of osteoclast vacuolar H(+)- ATPase. Curr Pharm Des 2002; 8:20332048.
  15. ASHP Therapeutic Guidelines on Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis. ASHP Commission on Therapeutics and approved by the ASHP Board of Directors on November 14, 1998. Am J Health Syst Pharm 1999; 56:347379.
  16. Heidelbaugh JJ, Inadomi JM. Magnitude and economic impact of inappropriate use of stress ulcer prophylaxis in non-ICU hospitalized patients. Am J Gastroenterol 2006; 101:22002205.
  17. Alhazzani W, Alenezi F, Jaeschke RZ, Moayyedi P, Cook DJ. Proton pump inhibitors versus histamine 2 receptor antagonists for stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care Med 2013; 41:693705.
  18. Liberman JD, Whelan CT. Brief report: reducing inappropriate usage of stress ulcer prophylaxis among internal medicine residents. A practice-based educational intervention. J Gen Intern Med 2006; 21:498500.
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 81(1)
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 81(1)
Page Number
23-25
Page Number
23-25
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Do all hospitalized patients need stress ulcer prophylaxis?
Display Headline
Do all hospitalized patients need stress ulcer prophylaxis?
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Alternative CME
Article PDF Media

Deep T waves and chest pain

Article Type
Changed
Thu, 06/07/2018 - 15:33
Display Headline
Deep T waves and chest pain

A 67-year-old man with a history of hypertension and hyperlipidemia presented to the emergency department after 3 hours of what he described as a burning sensation in his chest that woke him from sleep. He attributed it at first to a late-night meal and treated himself with some milk and yogurt, which seemed to relieve the symptoms. However, the pain recurred and was associated with difficulty breathing. At that point, he drove himself to the emergency department.

On arrival, his temperature was 36.5°C (97.7°F), blood pressure 134/67 mm Hg, heart rate 89 bpm, respirations 18/min, and oxygen saturation 98% on room air. His cardiovascular, lung, and neurologic examinations were normal. His cardiac enzyme levels (creatine kinase, creatine kinase MB fraction, and troponin T) were within normal limits.

Figure 1. The patient’s electrocardiogram on admission. Note the T-wave inversions in precordial leads V2 and V3 (red arrows) and ST-segment changes in V1 (black arrow).

Figure 1 depicts his initial electrocardiogram. It showed deep, symmetric T-wave inversions in the precordial leads especially in V2 and V3, changes known as Wellens syndrome. The ST-T changes in lead V1 suggested a very proximal lesion in the left anterior descending artery (LAD), before the first septal perforator. Also, lateral and high lateral (V5 and V6) findings indicated stenoses of the branching diagonals and left circumflex myocardial territory. Furthermore, the inferior ST-T changes indicated that his LAD may have wrapped around the cardiac apex. All of these findings were prognostically significant.

Figure 2. Coronary angiography showed intraluminal disease, with 50% to 60% stenosis of the left main coronary artery (A), 90% steno-sis in the proximal left anterior descending artery (B), 80% stenosis in the middle segment of the left anterior descending artery (C), and 40% stenosis in a large (> 3.0-mm) second diagonal artery (D).

The patient was given aspirin and was started on intravenous unfractionated heparin and nitroglycerin. He was sent for urgent left-heart catheterization, which showed a 50% to 60% stenosis in the left main coronary artery, with involvement of the left circumflex artery proximally, in addition to a “tight” first-diagonal stenosis, a 90% stenosis in a large (> 3.0-mm) proximal segment of the LAD, an 80% stenosis in a large (> 3.0-mm) mid-LAD segment, and a 40% stenosis in a large (> 3.0-mm) second diagonal artery (Figure 2).

He was referred for cardiac surgery and underwent triple coronary artery bypass grafting: the left internal thoracic artery was grafted to the LAD, a reverse saphenous vein graft was performed to the diagonal artery, and a reverse saphenous vein graft was performed to the obtuse marginal artery.

A PRECURSOR TO INFARCTION

Wellens et al described specific precordial T-wave changes in patients with unstable angina who subsequently developed anterior wall myocardial infarction.1

The importance of Wellens syndrome is that it occurs in the pain-free interval when no other evidence of ischemia or angina may be present.1 Cardiac enzyme levels are typically normal or only minimally elevated; only 12% of patients with this syndrome have elevated cardiac biomarker levels.2

Given the extent of myocardial injury, urgent echocardiography can show a wall-motion abnormality even if cardiac enzyme levels are normal. This gives important insight into electrocardiographic changes and should prompt consideration of revascularization.

Even with extensive medical management, Wellens syndrome progresses to acute anterior wall ischemia. About 75% of patients with Wellens syndrome who receive medical management but do not undergo revascularization (eg, coronary artery bypass grafting, percutaneous coronary intervention) develop extensive anterior wall infarction within days.1,3 Despite negative cardiac biomarkers, Wellens syndrome is considered an acute coronary syndrome requiring urgent cardiac intervention.

References
  1. Movahed MR. Wellens’ syndrome or inverted U-waves? Clin Cardiol 2008; 31:133134.
  2. de Zwaan C, Bär FW, Janssen JH, et al. Angiographic and clinical characteristics of patients with unstable angina showing an ECG pattern indicating critical narrowing of the proximal LAD coronary artery. Am Heart J 1989; 117:657665.
  3. de Zwaan C, Bär FW, Wellens HJ. Characteristic electrocardiographic pattern indicating a critical stenosis high in left anterior descending coronary artery in patients admitted because of impending myocardial infarction. Am Heart J 1982; 103:730736.
Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

M. Chadi Alraies, MD, FACP
Clinical Assistant Professor of Medicine, Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine of Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, Department of Hospital Medicine, Cleveland Clinic

Wael Aljaroudi, MD
Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Heart and Vascular Institute, Cleveland Clinic

Usman Ayub Khan, MBBS
Department of Hospital Medicine, Cleveland Clinic

Abdul Hamid Alraiyes, MD, FCCP
Respiratory institute, Cleveland Clinic

Address: M. Chadi Alraies, MD, Department of Hospital Medicine, A13, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44195; e-mail: alraies@hotmail.com

Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 81(1)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
21-22
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

M. Chadi Alraies, MD, FACP
Clinical Assistant Professor of Medicine, Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine of Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, Department of Hospital Medicine, Cleveland Clinic

Wael Aljaroudi, MD
Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Heart and Vascular Institute, Cleveland Clinic

Usman Ayub Khan, MBBS
Department of Hospital Medicine, Cleveland Clinic

Abdul Hamid Alraiyes, MD, FCCP
Respiratory institute, Cleveland Clinic

Address: M. Chadi Alraies, MD, Department of Hospital Medicine, A13, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44195; e-mail: alraies@hotmail.com

Author and Disclosure Information

M. Chadi Alraies, MD, FACP
Clinical Assistant Professor of Medicine, Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine of Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, Department of Hospital Medicine, Cleveland Clinic

Wael Aljaroudi, MD
Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Heart and Vascular Institute, Cleveland Clinic

Usman Ayub Khan, MBBS
Department of Hospital Medicine, Cleveland Clinic

Abdul Hamid Alraiyes, MD, FCCP
Respiratory institute, Cleveland Clinic

Address: M. Chadi Alraies, MD, Department of Hospital Medicine, A13, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44195; e-mail: alraies@hotmail.com

Article PDF
Article PDF

A 67-year-old man with a history of hypertension and hyperlipidemia presented to the emergency department after 3 hours of what he described as a burning sensation in his chest that woke him from sleep. He attributed it at first to a late-night meal and treated himself with some milk and yogurt, which seemed to relieve the symptoms. However, the pain recurred and was associated with difficulty breathing. At that point, he drove himself to the emergency department.

On arrival, his temperature was 36.5°C (97.7°F), blood pressure 134/67 mm Hg, heart rate 89 bpm, respirations 18/min, and oxygen saturation 98% on room air. His cardiovascular, lung, and neurologic examinations were normal. His cardiac enzyme levels (creatine kinase, creatine kinase MB fraction, and troponin T) were within normal limits.

Figure 1. The patient’s electrocardiogram on admission. Note the T-wave inversions in precordial leads V2 and V3 (red arrows) and ST-segment changes in V1 (black arrow).

Figure 1 depicts his initial electrocardiogram. It showed deep, symmetric T-wave inversions in the precordial leads especially in V2 and V3, changes known as Wellens syndrome. The ST-T changes in lead V1 suggested a very proximal lesion in the left anterior descending artery (LAD), before the first septal perforator. Also, lateral and high lateral (V5 and V6) findings indicated stenoses of the branching diagonals and left circumflex myocardial territory. Furthermore, the inferior ST-T changes indicated that his LAD may have wrapped around the cardiac apex. All of these findings were prognostically significant.

Figure 2. Coronary angiography showed intraluminal disease, with 50% to 60% stenosis of the left main coronary artery (A), 90% steno-sis in the proximal left anterior descending artery (B), 80% stenosis in the middle segment of the left anterior descending artery (C), and 40% stenosis in a large (> 3.0-mm) second diagonal artery (D).

The patient was given aspirin and was started on intravenous unfractionated heparin and nitroglycerin. He was sent for urgent left-heart catheterization, which showed a 50% to 60% stenosis in the left main coronary artery, with involvement of the left circumflex artery proximally, in addition to a “tight” first-diagonal stenosis, a 90% stenosis in a large (> 3.0-mm) proximal segment of the LAD, an 80% stenosis in a large (> 3.0-mm) mid-LAD segment, and a 40% stenosis in a large (> 3.0-mm) second diagonal artery (Figure 2).

He was referred for cardiac surgery and underwent triple coronary artery bypass grafting: the left internal thoracic artery was grafted to the LAD, a reverse saphenous vein graft was performed to the diagonal artery, and a reverse saphenous vein graft was performed to the obtuse marginal artery.

A PRECURSOR TO INFARCTION

Wellens et al described specific precordial T-wave changes in patients with unstable angina who subsequently developed anterior wall myocardial infarction.1

The importance of Wellens syndrome is that it occurs in the pain-free interval when no other evidence of ischemia or angina may be present.1 Cardiac enzyme levels are typically normal or only minimally elevated; only 12% of patients with this syndrome have elevated cardiac biomarker levels.2

Given the extent of myocardial injury, urgent echocardiography can show a wall-motion abnormality even if cardiac enzyme levels are normal. This gives important insight into electrocardiographic changes and should prompt consideration of revascularization.

Even with extensive medical management, Wellens syndrome progresses to acute anterior wall ischemia. About 75% of patients with Wellens syndrome who receive medical management but do not undergo revascularization (eg, coronary artery bypass grafting, percutaneous coronary intervention) develop extensive anterior wall infarction within days.1,3 Despite negative cardiac biomarkers, Wellens syndrome is considered an acute coronary syndrome requiring urgent cardiac intervention.

A 67-year-old man with a history of hypertension and hyperlipidemia presented to the emergency department after 3 hours of what he described as a burning sensation in his chest that woke him from sleep. He attributed it at first to a late-night meal and treated himself with some milk and yogurt, which seemed to relieve the symptoms. However, the pain recurred and was associated with difficulty breathing. At that point, he drove himself to the emergency department.

On arrival, his temperature was 36.5°C (97.7°F), blood pressure 134/67 mm Hg, heart rate 89 bpm, respirations 18/min, and oxygen saturation 98% on room air. His cardiovascular, lung, and neurologic examinations were normal. His cardiac enzyme levels (creatine kinase, creatine kinase MB fraction, and troponin T) were within normal limits.

Figure 1. The patient’s electrocardiogram on admission. Note the T-wave inversions in precordial leads V2 and V3 (red arrows) and ST-segment changes in V1 (black arrow).

Figure 1 depicts his initial electrocardiogram. It showed deep, symmetric T-wave inversions in the precordial leads especially in V2 and V3, changes known as Wellens syndrome. The ST-T changes in lead V1 suggested a very proximal lesion in the left anterior descending artery (LAD), before the first septal perforator. Also, lateral and high lateral (V5 and V6) findings indicated stenoses of the branching diagonals and left circumflex myocardial territory. Furthermore, the inferior ST-T changes indicated that his LAD may have wrapped around the cardiac apex. All of these findings were prognostically significant.

Figure 2. Coronary angiography showed intraluminal disease, with 50% to 60% stenosis of the left main coronary artery (A), 90% steno-sis in the proximal left anterior descending artery (B), 80% stenosis in the middle segment of the left anterior descending artery (C), and 40% stenosis in a large (> 3.0-mm) second diagonal artery (D).

The patient was given aspirin and was started on intravenous unfractionated heparin and nitroglycerin. He was sent for urgent left-heart catheterization, which showed a 50% to 60% stenosis in the left main coronary artery, with involvement of the left circumflex artery proximally, in addition to a “tight” first-diagonal stenosis, a 90% stenosis in a large (> 3.0-mm) proximal segment of the LAD, an 80% stenosis in a large (> 3.0-mm) mid-LAD segment, and a 40% stenosis in a large (> 3.0-mm) second diagonal artery (Figure 2).

He was referred for cardiac surgery and underwent triple coronary artery bypass grafting: the left internal thoracic artery was grafted to the LAD, a reverse saphenous vein graft was performed to the diagonal artery, and a reverse saphenous vein graft was performed to the obtuse marginal artery.

A PRECURSOR TO INFARCTION

Wellens et al described specific precordial T-wave changes in patients with unstable angina who subsequently developed anterior wall myocardial infarction.1

The importance of Wellens syndrome is that it occurs in the pain-free interval when no other evidence of ischemia or angina may be present.1 Cardiac enzyme levels are typically normal or only minimally elevated; only 12% of patients with this syndrome have elevated cardiac biomarker levels.2

Given the extent of myocardial injury, urgent echocardiography can show a wall-motion abnormality even if cardiac enzyme levels are normal. This gives important insight into electrocardiographic changes and should prompt consideration of revascularization.

Even with extensive medical management, Wellens syndrome progresses to acute anterior wall ischemia. About 75% of patients with Wellens syndrome who receive medical management but do not undergo revascularization (eg, coronary artery bypass grafting, percutaneous coronary intervention) develop extensive anterior wall infarction within days.1,3 Despite negative cardiac biomarkers, Wellens syndrome is considered an acute coronary syndrome requiring urgent cardiac intervention.

References
  1. Movahed MR. Wellens’ syndrome or inverted U-waves? Clin Cardiol 2008; 31:133134.
  2. de Zwaan C, Bär FW, Janssen JH, et al. Angiographic and clinical characteristics of patients with unstable angina showing an ECG pattern indicating critical narrowing of the proximal LAD coronary artery. Am Heart J 1989; 117:657665.
  3. de Zwaan C, Bär FW, Wellens HJ. Characteristic electrocardiographic pattern indicating a critical stenosis high in left anterior descending coronary artery in patients admitted because of impending myocardial infarction. Am Heart J 1982; 103:730736.
References
  1. Movahed MR. Wellens’ syndrome or inverted U-waves? Clin Cardiol 2008; 31:133134.
  2. de Zwaan C, Bär FW, Janssen JH, et al. Angiographic and clinical characteristics of patients with unstable angina showing an ECG pattern indicating critical narrowing of the proximal LAD coronary artery. Am Heart J 1989; 117:657665.
  3. de Zwaan C, Bär FW, Wellens HJ. Characteristic electrocardiographic pattern indicating a critical stenosis high in left anterior descending coronary artery in patients admitted because of impending myocardial infarction. Am Heart J 1982; 103:730736.
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 81(1)
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 81(1)
Page Number
21-22
Page Number
21-22
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Deep T waves and chest pain
Display Headline
Deep T waves and chest pain
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Alternative CME
Use ProPublica
Article PDF Media