The Journal of Family Practice

EVIDENCE SUMMARY

Metformin has modest effects on body weight

A large systematic review and meta-­analysis (38 RCTs; n = 2199) published in 2020 evaluated metformin therapy in children and adolescents (including those with metabolic disease, growth problems, and psychological disorders in addition to obesity and overweight).¹ Over an average of 6 months, metformin use modestly reduced BMI (weighted mean difference [WMD] = –1.07 kg/m²; 95% CI, –1.43 to –0.72 kg/m²) and body weight (WMD = –2.51 kg; 95% CI, –3.14 to –1.89 kg) for all participants.¹

However, the authors also performed a meta-analysis of trials involving obese or overweight youth without other comorbidities. Participants in these trials ranged in age from 7 to 17 years (mean not supplied; most trials, 12-15 years), had a BMI greater than the 95th percentile for age, and took doses of metformin ranging from 1500 to 3000 mg (most trials, 1500-2000 mg/d for 24 weeks).¹ In this analysis, metformin reduced body weight (8 trials; n = 616; WMD = –2.06 kg; 95% CI, –3.47 to –0.65 kg) and body fat mass (–1.9%; 95% CI, –3.25% to –0.56%). But it did not reduce BMI (12 trials; n = 826; WMD = –0.76 kg/m²; 95 % CI, –1.61 to 0.08 kg/m²) or improve lean body mass (2 trials; N = 98; WMD = –0.74 kg; 95% CI, –2.4 to 0.91 kg).¹

The authors of this meta-analysis did not include an evaluation of the quality of the individual RCTs.

Metformin has benefits but also adverse effects

A 2016 Cochrane systematic review and ­meta-analysis assessed 8 trials (total n = 543) evaluating metformin vs placebo in adolescents prescribed exercise and lifestyle support.² This meta-analysis included 4 trials (n = 294) with obese or overweight adolescents that were also included in the newer meta-analysis,¹ as well as 4 trials involving obese adolescents with insulin resistance. The authors did not assess the effects of metformin on obese or overweight adolescents separately.

Over 6 months, metformin use reduced BMI (WMD = –1.35 kg/m²; 95% CI –2 to –0.69 kg/m²).² Metformin commonly produced gastrointestinal symptoms: diarrhea, flatulence (rates not given), and nausea in 15% to 42% compared with 3% to 21% with placebo (no comparison statistic supplied), however rarely to the point of discontinuation (< 5%).² Nine participants withdrew due to adverse effects: 5 in the metformin group and 4 in the placebo group. The authors rated the quality of the included trials as low to moderate.

An evidence report and systematic review (42 RCTs; total n = 6956) compared the efficacy of several approaches for weight loss in adolescents, including metformin (6 of the 8 RCTs included in the 2020 meta-analysis¹) and lifestyle interventions.³ Interventions comprising exercise and diet counseling for > 26 hours over 6 to 12 months produced decreases in BMI (–0.86 kg/m²; 95% CI –1.44 to –0.29 kg/m²) but not weight (–2 kg; 95% CI –3.2 to 1.2 kg).³

Recommendations from others

The US Preventive Services Task Force states that metformin treatment in adolescents who are overweight or obese produces a small reduction in BMI when compared to placebo, but the clinical significance of this reduction is unclear.³

Editor’s takeaway

The idea of using medications for weight loss remains seductive, given how hard it can be for patients to achieve significant, lasting weight loss through lifestyle modification. Evidence suggests that metformin can help in this regard but not enough to recommend it. In addition, metformin therapy is associated with gastrointestinal adverse effects.

EVIDENCE SUMMARY

Metformin has modest effects on body weight

A large systematic review and meta-­analysis (38 RCTs; n = 2199) published in 2020 evaluated metformin therapy in children and adolescents (including those with metabolic disease, growth problems, and psychological disorders in addition to obesity and overweight).¹ Over an average of 6 months, metformin use modestly reduced BMI (weighted mean difference [WMD] = –1.07 kg/m²; 95% CI, –1.43 to –0.72 kg/m²) and body weight (WMD = –2.51 kg; 95% CI, –3.14 to –1.89 kg) for all participants.¹

However, the authors also performed a meta-analysis of trials involving obese or overweight youth without other comorbidities. Participants in these trials ranged in age from 7 to 17 years (mean not supplied; most trials, 12-15 years), had a BMI greater than the 95th percentile for age, and took doses of metformin ranging from 1500 to 3000 mg (most trials, 1500-2000 mg/d for 24 weeks).¹ In this analysis, metformin reduced body weight (8 trials; n = 616; WMD = –2.06 kg; 95% CI, –3.47 to –0.65 kg) and body fat mass (–1.9%; 95% CI, –3.25% to –0.56%). But it did not reduce BMI (12 trials; n = 826; WMD = –0.76 kg/m²; 95 % CI, –1.61 to 0.08 kg/m²) or improve lean body mass (2 trials; N = 98; WMD = –0.74 kg; 95% CI, –2.4 to 0.91 kg).¹

The authors of this meta-analysis did not include an evaluation of the quality of the individual RCTs.

Metformin has benefits but also adverse effects

A 2016 Cochrane systematic review and ­meta-analysis assessed 8 trials (total n = 543) evaluating metformin vs placebo in adolescents prescribed exercise and lifestyle support.² This meta-analysis included 4 trials (n = 294) with obese or overweight adolescents that were also included in the newer meta-analysis,¹ as well as 4 trials involving obese adolescents with insulin resistance. The authors did not assess the effects of metformin on obese or overweight adolescents separately.

Over 6 months, metformin use reduced BMI (WMD = –1.35 kg/m²; 95% CI –2 to –0.69 kg/m²).² Metformin commonly produced gastrointestinal symptoms: diarrhea, flatulence (rates not given), and nausea in 15% to 42% compared with 3% to 21% with placebo (no comparison statistic supplied), however rarely to the point of discontinuation (< 5%).² Nine participants withdrew due to adverse effects: 5 in the metformin group and 4 in the placebo group. The authors rated the quality of the included trials as low to moderate.

An evidence report and systematic review (42 RCTs; total n = 6956) compared the efficacy of several approaches for weight loss in adolescents, including metformin (6 of the 8 RCTs included in the 2020 meta-analysis¹) and lifestyle interventions.³ Interventions comprising exercise and diet counseling for > 26 hours over 6 to 12 months produced decreases in BMI (–0.86 kg/m²; 95% CI –1.44 to –0.29 kg/m²) but not weight (–2 kg; 95% CI –3.2 to 1.2 kg).³

Recommendations from others

The US Preventive Services Task Force states that metformin treatment in adolescents who are overweight or obese produces a small reduction in BMI when compared to placebo, but the clinical significance of this reduction is unclear.³

Editor’s takeaway

The idea of using medications for weight loss remains seductive, given how hard it can be for patients to achieve significant, lasting weight loss through lifestyle modification. Evidence suggests that metformin can help in this regard but not enough to recommend it. In addition, metformin therapy is associated with gastrointestinal adverse effects.

EVIDENCE SUMMARY

Metformin has modest effects on body weight

A large systematic review and meta-­analysis (38 RCTs; n = 2199) published in 2020 evaluated metformin therapy in children and adolescents (including those with metabolic disease, growth problems, and psychological disorders in addition to obesity and overweight).¹ Over an average of 6 months, metformin use modestly reduced BMI (weighted mean difference [WMD] = –1.07 kg/m²; 95% CI, –1.43 to –0.72 kg/m²) and body weight (WMD = –2.51 kg; 95% CI, –3.14 to –1.89 kg) for all participants.¹

However, the authors also performed a meta-analysis of trials involving obese or overweight youth without other comorbidities. Participants in these trials ranged in age from 7 to 17 years (mean not supplied; most trials, 12-15 years), had a BMI greater than the 95th percentile for age, and took doses of metformin ranging from 1500 to 3000 mg (most trials, 1500-2000 mg/d for 24 weeks).¹ In this analysis, metformin reduced body weight (8 trials; n = 616; WMD = –2.06 kg; 95% CI, –3.47 to –0.65 kg) and body fat mass (–1.9%; 95% CI, –3.25% to –0.56%). But it did not reduce BMI (12 trials; n = 826; WMD = –0.76 kg/m²; 95 % CI, –1.61 to 0.08 kg/m²) or improve lean body mass (2 trials; N = 98; WMD = –0.74 kg; 95% CI, –2.4 to 0.91 kg).¹

The authors of this meta-analysis did not include an evaluation of the quality of the individual RCTs.

Metformin has benefits but also adverse effects

A 2016 Cochrane systematic review and ­meta-analysis assessed 8 trials (total n = 543) evaluating metformin vs placebo in adolescents prescribed exercise and lifestyle support.² This meta-analysis included 4 trials (n = 294) with obese or overweight adolescents that were also included in the newer meta-analysis,¹ as well as 4 trials involving obese adolescents with insulin resistance. The authors did not assess the effects of metformin on obese or overweight adolescents separately.

Over 6 months, metformin use reduced BMI (WMD = –1.35 kg/m²; 95% CI –2 to –0.69 kg/m²).² Metformin commonly produced gastrointestinal symptoms: diarrhea, flatulence (rates not given), and nausea in 15% to 42% compared with 3% to 21% with placebo (no comparison statistic supplied), however rarely to the point of discontinuation (< 5%).² Nine participants withdrew due to adverse effects: 5 in the metformin group and 4 in the placebo group. The authors rated the quality of the included trials as low to moderate.

An evidence report and systematic review (42 RCTs; total n = 6956) compared the efficacy of several approaches for weight loss in adolescents, including metformin (6 of the 8 RCTs included in the 2020 meta-analysis¹) and lifestyle interventions.³ Interventions comprising exercise and diet counseling for > 26 hours over 6 to 12 months produced decreases in BMI (–0.86 kg/m²; 95% CI –1.44 to –0.29 kg/m²) but not weight (–2 kg; 95% CI –3.2 to 1.2 kg).³

Recommendations from others

The US Preventive Services Task Force states that metformin treatment in adolescents who are overweight or obese produces a small reduction in BMI when compared to placebo, but the clinical significance of this reduction is unclear.³

Editor’s takeaway

The idea of using medications for weight loss remains seductive, given how hard it can be for patients to achieve significant, lasting weight loss through lifestyle modification. Evidence suggests that metformin can help in this regard but not enough to recommend it. In addition, metformin therapy is associated with gastrointestinal adverse effects.

EVIDENCE SUMMARY

Benzodiazepines work—but how do they compare?

A 2010 Cochrane meta-analysis of 64 RCTs and controlled clinical trials (CCTs; N = 4309) evaluated the use of benzodiazepines for treatment of AWS in adults.¹ This systematic review compared benzodiazepines

• vs placebo (10 studies)
• vs other drugs, including phenobarbital, carbamazepine, topiramate, lamotrigine, gabapentin, haloperidol, clonidine, hydroxyzine, propranolol, and baclofen (42 studies)
• to other benzodiazepines, including chlordiazepoxide, alprazolam, diazepam, and lorazepam (18 studies)
• in combination with other drugs vs other drugs alone (3 studies)
• administered on a fixed schedule vs symptom-triggered administration (3 studies).

Primary outcomes included efficacy (alcohol withdrawal seizures, alcohol withdrawal delirium, alcohol withdrawal symptoms, global improvement), safety (adverse events and severe, life-threatening adverse events), and acceptability (dropouts and dropouts due to adverse events).

Benzodiazepines performed better than placebo for seizures in 3 studies (N = 324), with a relative risk (RR) of 0.16 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.04-0.69). Studies assessing the described outcomes between benzodiazepines and other drugs were often of small sample size and heterogeneous in ­interventions and outcomes, limiting the ability to draw clear conclusions regarding benzodiazepine superiority. Comparisons of different benzodiazepines with each other and comparisons of benzodiazepines combined with other drugs vs other drugs alone did not reach statistical significance. Data on harms of benzodiazepines were lacking.

Anticonvulsants are not better than placebo for AWS

Another 2010 Cochrane meta-analysis of 56 RCTs and CCTs (N = 4076) evaluated the use of anticonvulsants for AWS.² This systematic review compared anticonvulsants

• vs placebo (17 studies)
• vs other drugs, such as bromocriptine, piracetam, gamma-hydroxybutyric acid, trifluoperazine, clonidine, and various benzodiazepines (32 studies)
• to other anticonvulsants (10 studies)
• in combination with other drugs vs other drugs alone (6 studies)
• in combination with other drugs vs different anticonvulsants (1 study).

Primary outcomes included reductions in alcohol withdrawal seizures, adverse events, and acceptability of medication as indicated by participant dropouts.

Anticonvulsants were not superior to placebo for any outcome. Three studies (N = 260) favored carbamazepine over benzodiazepine (oxazepam or lorazepam) for 1 secondary outcome: a reduction of Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment of Alcohol Scale (CIWA-Ar) score (maximum score of 7; mean difference [MD] = –1 [95% CI, –1.9 to –0.2]).

Continue to: Gabapentin is effective; less sedating than chlordiazepoxide

A 2013 RCT of US veterans with AWS (N = 26; 25 men; average age, 53.5 years) compared gabapentin and chlordiazepoxide.³ Endpoints were ratings on the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS; maximum score = 24), Penn Alcohol Craving Scale (PACS; maximum score, 30), and CIWA-Ar.

In the early treatment period (Days 1-4), ESS and PACS scores did not differ significantly between groups. At end of treatment (Days 5-7), ESS and PACS scores were lower in gabapentin-treated patients (ESS: MD = –3.7; 95% CI, –7.2 to –0.19; P = .04; PACS: MD = –6.05; 95% CI –12.82 to 0.72; P = .08). CIWA-Ar did not differ between treatment groups.

Recommendations from others

In January 2020, the American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) published a clinical practice guideline for alcohol withdrawal management. Protocols for diagnosis, assessment, level of care determination, and management are delineated.⁴

Dozens of small trials and meta-analyses confirm the benefits (sometimes marginal) of sedation to treat alcohol withdrawal.

Benzodiazepines are the first-line treatment for moderate-to-severe AWS, or when there is risk for severe AWS. In the ambulatory setting, when AWS is mild and there is no risk for worsening, AWS can be managed with supportive care or with either benzodiazepines, gabapentin, or carbamazepine as monotherapy. ASAM recommends long-­acting benzodiazepines (eg, chlordiazepoxide or diazepam) over short-acting benzodiazepines (eg, alprazolam or lorazepam), except in the elderly and those with liver or lung disease.⁵

Editor’s takeaway

Dozens of small trials and meta-analyses confirm the benefits (sometimes marginal) of sedation to treat alcohol withdrawal. Given that the evidence fails to point to the superiority of 1 agent over another, it seems reasonable to make treatment decisions based on physician and perhaps patient preference. This review does not support a change in clinical practice.

EVIDENCE SUMMARY

Benzodiazepines work—but how do they compare?

A 2010 Cochrane meta-analysis of 64 RCTs and controlled clinical trials (CCTs; N = 4309) evaluated the use of benzodiazepines for treatment of AWS in adults.¹ This systematic review compared benzodiazepines

• vs placebo (10 studies)
• vs other drugs, including phenobarbital, carbamazepine, topiramate, lamotrigine, gabapentin, haloperidol, clonidine, hydroxyzine, propranolol, and baclofen (42 studies)
• to other benzodiazepines, including chlordiazepoxide, alprazolam, diazepam, and lorazepam (18 studies)
• in combination with other drugs vs other drugs alone (3 studies)
• administered on a fixed schedule vs symptom-triggered administration (3 studies).

Primary outcomes included efficacy (alcohol withdrawal seizures, alcohol withdrawal delirium, alcohol withdrawal symptoms, global improvement), safety (adverse events and severe, life-threatening adverse events), and acceptability (dropouts and dropouts due to adverse events).

Benzodiazepines performed better than placebo for seizures in 3 studies (N = 324), with a relative risk (RR) of 0.16 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.04-0.69). Studies assessing the described outcomes between benzodiazepines and other drugs were often of small sample size and heterogeneous in ­interventions and outcomes, limiting the ability to draw clear conclusions regarding benzodiazepine superiority. Comparisons of different benzodiazepines with each other and comparisons of benzodiazepines combined with other drugs vs other drugs alone did not reach statistical significance. Data on harms of benzodiazepines were lacking.

Anticonvulsants are not better than placebo for AWS

Another 2010 Cochrane meta-analysis of 56 RCTs and CCTs (N = 4076) evaluated the use of anticonvulsants for AWS.² This systematic review compared anticonvulsants

• vs placebo (17 studies)
• vs other drugs, such as bromocriptine, piracetam, gamma-hydroxybutyric acid, trifluoperazine, clonidine, and various benzodiazepines (32 studies)
• to other anticonvulsants (10 studies)
• in combination with other drugs vs other drugs alone (6 studies)
• in combination with other drugs vs different anticonvulsants (1 study).

Primary outcomes included reductions in alcohol withdrawal seizures, adverse events, and acceptability of medication as indicated by participant dropouts.

Anticonvulsants were not superior to placebo for any outcome. Three studies (N = 260) favored carbamazepine over benzodiazepine (oxazepam or lorazepam) for 1 secondary outcome: a reduction of Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment of Alcohol Scale (CIWA-Ar) score (maximum score of 7; mean difference [MD] = –1 [95% CI, –1.9 to –0.2]).

Continue to: Gabapentin is effective; less sedating than chlordiazepoxide

A 2013 RCT of US veterans with AWS (N = 26; 25 men; average age, 53.5 years) compared gabapentin and chlordiazepoxide.³ Endpoints were ratings on the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS; maximum score = 24), Penn Alcohol Craving Scale (PACS; maximum score, 30), and CIWA-Ar.

In the early treatment period (Days 1-4), ESS and PACS scores did not differ significantly between groups. At end of treatment (Days 5-7), ESS and PACS scores were lower in gabapentin-treated patients (ESS: MD = –3.7; 95% CI, –7.2 to –0.19; P = .04; PACS: MD = –6.05; 95% CI –12.82 to 0.72; P = .08). CIWA-Ar did not differ between treatment groups.

Recommendations from others

In January 2020, the American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) published a clinical practice guideline for alcohol withdrawal management. Protocols for diagnosis, assessment, level of care determination, and management are delineated.⁴

Dozens of small trials and meta-analyses confirm the benefits (sometimes marginal) of sedation to treat alcohol withdrawal.

Benzodiazepines are the first-line treatment for moderate-to-severe AWS, or when there is risk for severe AWS. In the ambulatory setting, when AWS is mild and there is no risk for worsening, AWS can be managed with supportive care or with either benzodiazepines, gabapentin, or carbamazepine as monotherapy. ASAM recommends long-­acting benzodiazepines (eg, chlordiazepoxide or diazepam) over short-acting benzodiazepines (eg, alprazolam or lorazepam), except in the elderly and those with liver or lung disease.⁵

Editor’s takeaway

Dozens of small trials and meta-analyses confirm the benefits (sometimes marginal) of sedation to treat alcohol withdrawal. Given that the evidence fails to point to the superiority of 1 agent over another, it seems reasonable to make treatment decisions based on physician and perhaps patient preference. This review does not support a change in clinical practice.

EVIDENCE SUMMARY

Benzodiazepines work—but how do they compare?

A 2010 Cochrane meta-analysis of 64 RCTs and controlled clinical trials (CCTs; N = 4309) evaluated the use of benzodiazepines for treatment of AWS in adults.¹ This systematic review compared benzodiazepines

• vs placebo (10 studies)
• vs other drugs, including phenobarbital, carbamazepine, topiramate, lamotrigine, gabapentin, haloperidol, clonidine, hydroxyzine, propranolol, and baclofen (42 studies)
• to other benzodiazepines, including chlordiazepoxide, alprazolam, diazepam, and lorazepam (18 studies)
• in combination with other drugs vs other drugs alone (3 studies)
• administered on a fixed schedule vs symptom-triggered administration (3 studies).

Primary outcomes included efficacy (alcohol withdrawal seizures, alcohol withdrawal delirium, alcohol withdrawal symptoms, global improvement), safety (adverse events and severe, life-threatening adverse events), and acceptability (dropouts and dropouts due to adverse events).

Benzodiazepines performed better than placebo for seizures in 3 studies (N = 324), with a relative risk (RR) of 0.16 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.04-0.69). Studies assessing the described outcomes between benzodiazepines and other drugs were often of small sample size and heterogeneous in ­interventions and outcomes, limiting the ability to draw clear conclusions regarding benzodiazepine superiority. Comparisons of different benzodiazepines with each other and comparisons of benzodiazepines combined with other drugs vs other drugs alone did not reach statistical significance. Data on harms of benzodiazepines were lacking.

Anticonvulsants are not better than placebo for AWS

Another 2010 Cochrane meta-analysis of 56 RCTs and CCTs (N = 4076) evaluated the use of anticonvulsants for AWS.² This systematic review compared anticonvulsants

• vs placebo (17 studies)
• vs other drugs, such as bromocriptine, piracetam, gamma-hydroxybutyric acid, trifluoperazine, clonidine, and various benzodiazepines (32 studies)
• to other anticonvulsants (10 studies)
• in combination with other drugs vs other drugs alone (6 studies)
• in combination with other drugs vs different anticonvulsants (1 study).

Primary outcomes included reductions in alcohol withdrawal seizures, adverse events, and acceptability of medication as indicated by participant dropouts.

Anticonvulsants were not superior to placebo for any outcome. Three studies (N = 260) favored carbamazepine over benzodiazepine (oxazepam or lorazepam) for 1 secondary outcome: a reduction of Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment of Alcohol Scale (CIWA-Ar) score (maximum score of 7; mean difference [MD] = –1 [95% CI, –1.9 to –0.2]).

Continue to: Gabapentin is effective; less sedating than chlordiazepoxide

A 2013 RCT of US veterans with AWS (N = 26; 25 men; average age, 53.5 years) compared gabapentin and chlordiazepoxide.³ Endpoints were ratings on the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS; maximum score = 24), Penn Alcohol Craving Scale (PACS; maximum score, 30), and CIWA-Ar.

In the early treatment period (Days 1-4), ESS and PACS scores did not differ significantly between groups. At end of treatment (Days 5-7), ESS and PACS scores were lower in gabapentin-treated patients (ESS: MD = –3.7; 95% CI, –7.2 to –0.19; P = .04; PACS: MD = –6.05; 95% CI –12.82 to 0.72; P = .08). CIWA-Ar did not differ between treatment groups.

Recommendations from others

In January 2020, the American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) published a clinical practice guideline for alcohol withdrawal management. Protocols for diagnosis, assessment, level of care determination, and management are delineated.⁴

Dozens of small trials and meta-analyses confirm the benefits (sometimes marginal) of sedation to treat alcohol withdrawal.

Benzodiazepines are the first-line treatment for moderate-to-severe AWS, or when there is risk for severe AWS. In the ambulatory setting, when AWS is mild and there is no risk for worsening, AWS can be managed with supportive care or with either benzodiazepines, gabapentin, or carbamazepine as monotherapy. ASAM recommends long-­acting benzodiazepines (eg, chlordiazepoxide or diazepam) over short-acting benzodiazepines (eg, alprazolam or lorazepam), except in the elderly and those with liver or lung disease.⁵

Editor’s takeaway

Dozens of small trials and meta-analyses confirm the benefits (sometimes marginal) of sedation to treat alcohol withdrawal. Given that the evidence fails to point to the superiority of 1 agent over another, it seems reasonable to make treatment decisions based on physician and perhaps patient preference. This review does not support a change in clinical practice.

The Journal of Family Practice rightfully places a high priority on evidence-based practice by including “strength of evidence” qualifiers to help physicians analyze scientific studies and emphasizing campaigns that encourage good stewardship of medical resources. The editorial “When patients don’t get the care they should” (J Fam Pract. 2020;69:427) struck on an often-neglected aspect of evidence-based practice: the increase in care provided by nonphysician practitioners.

Henry Silver, MD, created the first pediatric nurse practitioner (NP) training program at the University of Colorado in 1965. That same year, Eugene Stead, MD, created the first physician assistant (PA) program at Duke University. The goal of both professions was simple: to create physician extenders to reach medically needy patients in underserved areas. But over the past 20 years, NPs and PAs have increasingly sought—and legislatively gained—independent practice, the right to treat patients without physician supervision.

Studies show that nonphysician practitioners order more labs and radiographic tests and prescribe more medications— including antibiotics—than physicians.

Here’s where evidence-based practice comes in. Despite claims by NP advocates that “50 years of evidence” shows safe and effective practice, the truth is that there is no scientific evidence that nonphysicians can practice safely and effectively without physician supervision. The best meta-analysis of nurse practitioner care, a Cochrane review, found only 18 studies of adequate quality to analyze.¹ Of these, only 3 were performed in the United States, and every single study in the Cochrane review involved nurses working under physician supervision or following physician-­created protocols. Yes, even supposedly independent NPs in Mary Mundinger’s famous 2000 study were practicing under a collaborating physician, as required by New York statute at the time. In addition, NPs in the study were assigned a physician mentor and received an additional 9 months of training with medical residents.

Regarding the emphasis for physicians to “choose wisely,” research raises concerns about an overuse of health care resources by nonphysician practitioners.Studies show that nonphysician practitioners order more labs² and radiographic tests³ than physicians; prescribe more medications, including opioids,⁴ antipsychotics,⁴ and antibiotics⁵ than physicians; place lower-quality referrals than physicians⁶; and perform significantly more biopsies than physicians to diagnose malignant neoplasms in patients < 65 years.⁷ 

As the rate of nonphysician practitioners increases (significantly outpacing the growth of physicians), we must be cognizant of the rising risks to our patients in the absence of appropriate physician oversight.⁸ This issue is so concerning to me that I co-authored a book on the subject.⁸ I encourage all physicians to educate themselves on this topic and make practice decisions with the evidence in mind.

The Journal of Family Practice rightfully places a high priority on evidence-based practice by including “strength of evidence” qualifiers to help physicians analyze scientific studies and emphasizing campaigns that encourage good stewardship of medical resources. The editorial “When patients don’t get the care they should” (J Fam Pract. 2020;69:427) struck on an often-neglected aspect of evidence-based practice: the increase in care provided by nonphysician practitioners.

Henry Silver, MD, created the first pediatric nurse practitioner (NP) training program at the University of Colorado in 1965. That same year, Eugene Stead, MD, created the first physician assistant (PA) program at Duke University. The goal of both professions was simple: to create physician extenders to reach medically needy patients in underserved areas. But over the past 20 years, NPs and PAs have increasingly sought—and legislatively gained—independent practice, the right to treat patients without physician supervision.

Studies show that nonphysician practitioners order more labs and radiographic tests and prescribe more medications— including antibiotics—than physicians.

Here’s where evidence-based practice comes in. Despite claims by NP advocates that “50 years of evidence” shows safe and effective practice, the truth is that there is no scientific evidence that nonphysicians can practice safely and effectively without physician supervision. The best meta-analysis of nurse practitioner care, a Cochrane review, found only 18 studies of adequate quality to analyze.¹ Of these, only 3 were performed in the United States, and every single study in the Cochrane review involved nurses working under physician supervision or following physician-­created protocols. Yes, even supposedly independent NPs in Mary Mundinger’s famous 2000 study were practicing under a collaborating physician, as required by New York statute at the time. In addition, NPs in the study were assigned a physician mentor and received an additional 9 months of training with medical residents.

Regarding the emphasis for physicians to “choose wisely,” research raises concerns about an overuse of health care resources by nonphysician practitioners.Studies show that nonphysician practitioners order more labs² and radiographic tests³ than physicians; prescribe more medications, including opioids,⁴ antipsychotics,⁴ and antibiotics⁵ than physicians; place lower-quality referrals than physicians⁶; and perform significantly more biopsies than physicians to diagnose malignant neoplasms in patients < 65 years.⁷ 

As the rate of nonphysician practitioners increases (significantly outpacing the growth of physicians), we must be cognizant of the rising risks to our patients in the absence of appropriate physician oversight.⁸ This issue is so concerning to me that I co-authored a book on the subject.⁸ I encourage all physicians to educate themselves on this topic and make practice decisions with the evidence in mind.

The Journal of Family Practice rightfully places a high priority on evidence-based practice by including “strength of evidence” qualifiers to help physicians analyze scientific studies and emphasizing campaigns that encourage good stewardship of medical resources. The editorial “When patients don’t get the care they should” (J Fam Pract. 2020;69:427) struck on an often-neglected aspect of evidence-based practice: the increase in care provided by nonphysician practitioners.

Henry Silver, MD, created the first pediatric nurse practitioner (NP) training program at the University of Colorado in 1965. That same year, Eugene Stead, MD, created the first physician assistant (PA) program at Duke University. The goal of both professions was simple: to create physician extenders to reach medically needy patients in underserved areas. But over the past 20 years, NPs and PAs have increasingly sought—and legislatively gained—independent practice, the right to treat patients without physician supervision.

Studies show that nonphysician practitioners order more labs and radiographic tests and prescribe more medications— including antibiotics—than physicians.

Here’s where evidence-based practice comes in. Despite claims by NP advocates that “50 years of evidence” shows safe and effective practice, the truth is that there is no scientific evidence that nonphysicians can practice safely and effectively without physician supervision. The best meta-analysis of nurse practitioner care, a Cochrane review, found only 18 studies of adequate quality to analyze.¹ Of these, only 3 were performed in the United States, and every single study in the Cochrane review involved nurses working under physician supervision or following physician-­created protocols. Yes, even supposedly independent NPs in Mary Mundinger’s famous 2000 study were practicing under a collaborating physician, as required by New York statute at the time. In addition, NPs in the study were assigned a physician mentor and received an additional 9 months of training with medical residents.

Regarding the emphasis for physicians to “choose wisely,” research raises concerns about an overuse of health care resources by nonphysician practitioners.Studies show that nonphysician practitioners order more labs² and radiographic tests³ than physicians; prescribe more medications, including opioids,⁴ antipsychotics,⁴ and antibiotics⁵ than physicians; place lower-quality referrals than physicians⁶; and perform significantly more biopsies than physicians to diagnose malignant neoplasms in patients < 65 years.⁷ 

As the rate of nonphysician practitioners increases (significantly outpacing the growth of physicians), we must be cognizant of the rising risks to our patients in the absence of appropriate physician oversight.⁸ This issue is so concerning to me that I co-authored a book on the subject.⁸ I encourage all physicians to educate themselves on this topic and make practice decisions with the evidence in mind.

A 49-year-old woman with a history of end-stage renal disease, uncontrolled type 2 diabetes, and congestive heart failure visited the hospital for an acute heart failure exacerbation secondary to missed dialysis appointments. On admission, her provider noted that she had tender, pruritic lesions on the extensor surface of her arms. She said they had appeared 2 to 3 months after she started dialysis. She had attempted to control the pain and pruritus with over-the-counter topical hydrocortisone and oral diphenhydramine but nothing provided relief. She was recommended for follow-up at the hospital for further examination and biopsy of one of her lesions.

At this follow-up visit, the patient noted that the lesions had spread to her left knee. Multiple firm discrete papules and nodules, with central hyperkeratotic plugs, were noted along the extensor surfaces of her forearms, left extensor knee, and around her ankles (FIGURES 1A and 1B). Some of the lesions were tender. Examination of the rest of her skin was normal. A punch biopsy was obtained.

WHAT IS YOUR DIAGNOSIS?
HOW WOULD YOU TREAT THIS PATIENT?

Diagnosis: Kyrle disease

The patient’s end-stage renal disease and type 2 diabetes—along with findings from the physical examination—led us to suspect Kyrle disease. The punch biopsy, as well as the characteristic keratotic plugs (FIGURE 2) within epidermal invagination that was bordered by hyperkeratotic epidermis, confirmed the diagnosis.

The acquired form of Kyrle disease is associated with diabetes and renal failure, but there is a lack of data on its pathogenesis.

Kyrle disease (also known as hyperkeratosis follicularis et follicularis in cutem penetrans) is a rare skin condition. It is 1 of 4 skin conditions that are classified as perforating skin disorders; the other 3 are elastosis perforans serpiginosa, reactive perforating collagenosis, and perforating folliculitis (TABLE^1,2).³ Perforating skin disorders share the common characteristic of transepidermal elimination of material from the upper dermis.⁴ These disorders are typically classified based on the nature of the eliminated material and the type of epidermal disruption.⁵

There are 2 forms of Kyrle disease: an inherited form often seen in childhood that is not associated with systemic disease and an acquired form that occurs in adulthood, most commonly among women ages 35 to 70 years who have systemic disease.^3,4,6 The acquired form of Kyrle disease is associated with diabetes and renal failure, but there is a lack of data on its pathogenesis.^7,8

Characteristic findings include discrete pruritic, dry papules and nodules with central keratotic plugs that are occasionally tender. These can manifest over the extensor surface of the extremities, trunk, face, and scalp.^4,7,9 Lesions most commonly manifest on the extensor surfaces of the lower extremities.

Other conditions that feature pruritic lesions

In addition to the other perforating skin disorders described in the TABLE,^1,2 the differential for Kyrle disease includes the following:

Prurigo nodularis (PN) is a skin disorder in which the manifestation of extremely pruritic nodules leads to vigorous scratching and secondary infections. These lesions typically have a grouped and symmetrically distributed appearance. They often appear on extensor surfaces of upper and lower extremities.¹⁰ PN has no known etiology, but like Kyrle disease, is associated with renal failure. Biopsy can help to distinguish PN from Kyrle disease.

Continue to: Hypertrophic lichen planus

Hypertrophic lichen planus is a pruritic skin disorder characterized by the “6 Ps”: planar, purple, polygonal, pruritic, papules, and plaques. These lesions can mimic the early stages of Kyrle disease.¹¹ However, in the later stages of Kyrle disease, discrete papules with hyperkeratotic plugs develop, whereas large plaques will be seen with lichen planus.

Keratosis pilaris (KP) is an extremely common, yet benign, disorder in which hair follicles become keratinized.¹² KP can feature rough papules that are often described as “goosebumps” or having a sandpaper–like appearance. These papules often affect the upper arms. KP usually manifests in adolescents or young adults and tends to improve with age.¹² The lesions are typically smaller than those seen in Kyrle disease and are asymptomatic. In addition, KP is not associated with systemic disease.

Target symptoms and any underlying conditions

In patients who have an acquired form of the disease, symptoms may improve by treating the underlying condition. For instance, better control of type 2 diabetes may improve symptoms. In patients with end-stage renal disease, a renal transplant can bring complete resolution.¹³

For patients whose Kyrle disease is inherited or whose underlying condition is not easily treated, there are a number of treatment options to consider. First-line treatment includes topical keratolytics (salicylic acid and urea), topical retinoids, and ultraviolet light therapy.^5,7 Systemic retinoids, topical steroids, cryotherapy, electrosurgery, CO₂ laser surgery, and surgical excision have also been used with some success.^7,14 Oral histamines and emollients also may help to relieve the pruritus. Lesions often recur upon discontinuation of therapy.

Our patient was referred to Dermatology for ultraviolet light therapy. She was also treated with topical 12% ammonium lactate twice daily. Within a few months, she reported improvement of her symptoms.

A 49-year-old woman with a history of end-stage renal disease, uncontrolled type 2 diabetes, and congestive heart failure visited the hospital for an acute heart failure exacerbation secondary to missed dialysis appointments. On admission, her provider noted that she had tender, pruritic lesions on the extensor surface of her arms. She said they had appeared 2 to 3 months after she started dialysis. She had attempted to control the pain and pruritus with over-the-counter topical hydrocortisone and oral diphenhydramine but nothing provided relief. She was recommended for follow-up at the hospital for further examination and biopsy of one of her lesions.

At this follow-up visit, the patient noted that the lesions had spread to her left knee. Multiple firm discrete papules and nodules, with central hyperkeratotic plugs, were noted along the extensor surfaces of her forearms, left extensor knee, and around her ankles (FIGURES 1A and 1B). Some of the lesions were tender. Examination of the rest of her skin was normal. A punch biopsy was obtained.

WHAT IS YOUR DIAGNOSIS?
HOW WOULD YOU TREAT THIS PATIENT?

Diagnosis: Kyrle disease

The patient’s end-stage renal disease and type 2 diabetes—along with findings from the physical examination—led us to suspect Kyrle disease. The punch biopsy, as well as the characteristic keratotic plugs (FIGURE 2) within epidermal invagination that was bordered by hyperkeratotic epidermis, confirmed the diagnosis.

The acquired form of Kyrle disease is associated with diabetes and renal failure, but there is a lack of data on its pathogenesis.

Kyrle disease (also known as hyperkeratosis follicularis et follicularis in cutem penetrans) is a rare skin condition. It is 1 of 4 skin conditions that are classified as perforating skin disorders; the other 3 are elastosis perforans serpiginosa, reactive perforating collagenosis, and perforating folliculitis (TABLE^1,2).³ Perforating skin disorders share the common characteristic of transepidermal elimination of material from the upper dermis.⁴ These disorders are typically classified based on the nature of the eliminated material and the type of epidermal disruption.⁵

There are 2 forms of Kyrle disease: an inherited form often seen in childhood that is not associated with systemic disease and an acquired form that occurs in adulthood, most commonly among women ages 35 to 70 years who have systemic disease.^3,4,6 The acquired form of Kyrle disease is associated with diabetes and renal failure, but there is a lack of data on its pathogenesis.^7,8

Characteristic findings include discrete pruritic, dry papules and nodules with central keratotic plugs that are occasionally tender. These can manifest over the extensor surface of the extremities, trunk, face, and scalp.^4,7,9 Lesions most commonly manifest on the extensor surfaces of the lower extremities.

Other conditions that feature pruritic lesions

In addition to the other perforating skin disorders described in the TABLE,^1,2 the differential for Kyrle disease includes the following:

Prurigo nodularis (PN) is a skin disorder in which the manifestation of extremely pruritic nodules leads to vigorous scratching and secondary infections. These lesions typically have a grouped and symmetrically distributed appearance. They often appear on extensor surfaces of upper and lower extremities.¹⁰ PN has no known etiology, but like Kyrle disease, is associated with renal failure. Biopsy can help to distinguish PN from Kyrle disease.

Continue to: Hypertrophic lichen planus

Hypertrophic lichen planus is a pruritic skin disorder characterized by the “6 Ps”: planar, purple, polygonal, pruritic, papules, and plaques. These lesions can mimic the early stages of Kyrle disease.¹¹ However, in the later stages of Kyrle disease, discrete papules with hyperkeratotic plugs develop, whereas large plaques will be seen with lichen planus.

Keratosis pilaris (KP) is an extremely common, yet benign, disorder in which hair follicles become keratinized.¹² KP can feature rough papules that are often described as “goosebumps” or having a sandpaper–like appearance. These papules often affect the upper arms. KP usually manifests in adolescents or young adults and tends to improve with age.¹² The lesions are typically smaller than those seen in Kyrle disease and are asymptomatic. In addition, KP is not associated with systemic disease.

Target symptoms and any underlying conditions

In patients who have an acquired form of the disease, symptoms may improve by treating the underlying condition. For instance, better control of type 2 diabetes may improve symptoms. In patients with end-stage renal disease, a renal transplant can bring complete resolution.¹³

For patients whose Kyrle disease is inherited or whose underlying condition is not easily treated, there are a number of treatment options to consider. First-line treatment includes topical keratolytics (salicylic acid and urea), topical retinoids, and ultraviolet light therapy.^5,7 Systemic retinoids, topical steroids, cryotherapy, electrosurgery, CO₂ laser surgery, and surgical excision have also been used with some success.^7,14 Oral histamines and emollients also may help to relieve the pruritus. Lesions often recur upon discontinuation of therapy.

Our patient was referred to Dermatology for ultraviolet light therapy. She was also treated with topical 12% ammonium lactate twice daily. Within a few months, she reported improvement of her symptoms.

A 49-year-old woman with a history of end-stage renal disease, uncontrolled type 2 diabetes, and congestive heart failure visited the hospital for an acute heart failure exacerbation secondary to missed dialysis appointments. On admission, her provider noted that she had tender, pruritic lesions on the extensor surface of her arms. She said they had appeared 2 to 3 months after she started dialysis. She had attempted to control the pain and pruritus with over-the-counter topical hydrocortisone and oral diphenhydramine but nothing provided relief. She was recommended for follow-up at the hospital for further examination and biopsy of one of her lesions.

At this follow-up visit, the patient noted that the lesions had spread to her left knee. Multiple firm discrete papules and nodules, with central hyperkeratotic plugs, were noted along the extensor surfaces of her forearms, left extensor knee, and around her ankles (FIGURES 1A and 1B). Some of the lesions were tender. Examination of the rest of her skin was normal. A punch biopsy was obtained.

WHAT IS YOUR DIAGNOSIS?
HOW WOULD YOU TREAT THIS PATIENT?

Diagnosis: Kyrle disease

The patient’s end-stage renal disease and type 2 diabetes—along with findings from the physical examination—led us to suspect Kyrle disease. The punch biopsy, as well as the characteristic keratotic plugs (FIGURE 2) within epidermal invagination that was bordered by hyperkeratotic epidermis, confirmed the diagnosis.

The acquired form of Kyrle disease is associated with diabetes and renal failure, but there is a lack of data on its pathogenesis.

Kyrle disease (also known as hyperkeratosis follicularis et follicularis in cutem penetrans) is a rare skin condition. It is 1 of 4 skin conditions that are classified as perforating skin disorders; the other 3 are elastosis perforans serpiginosa, reactive perforating collagenosis, and perforating folliculitis (TABLE^1,2).³ Perforating skin disorders share the common characteristic of transepidermal elimination of material from the upper dermis.⁴ These disorders are typically classified based on the nature of the eliminated material and the type of epidermal disruption.⁵

There are 2 forms of Kyrle disease: an inherited form often seen in childhood that is not associated with systemic disease and an acquired form that occurs in adulthood, most commonly among women ages 35 to 70 years who have systemic disease.^3,4,6 The acquired form of Kyrle disease is associated with diabetes and renal failure, but there is a lack of data on its pathogenesis.^7,8

Characteristic findings include discrete pruritic, dry papules and nodules with central keratotic plugs that are occasionally tender. These can manifest over the extensor surface of the extremities, trunk, face, and scalp.^4,7,9 Lesions most commonly manifest on the extensor surfaces of the lower extremities.

Other conditions that feature pruritic lesions

In addition to the other perforating skin disorders described in the TABLE,^1,2 the differential for Kyrle disease includes the following:

Prurigo nodularis (PN) is a skin disorder in which the manifestation of extremely pruritic nodules leads to vigorous scratching and secondary infections. These lesions typically have a grouped and symmetrically distributed appearance. They often appear on extensor surfaces of upper and lower extremities.¹⁰ PN has no known etiology, but like Kyrle disease, is associated with renal failure. Biopsy can help to distinguish PN from Kyrle disease.

Continue to: Hypertrophic lichen planus

Hypertrophic lichen planus is a pruritic skin disorder characterized by the “6 Ps”: planar, purple, polygonal, pruritic, papules, and plaques. These lesions can mimic the early stages of Kyrle disease.¹¹ However, in the later stages of Kyrle disease, discrete papules with hyperkeratotic plugs develop, whereas large plaques will be seen with lichen planus.

Keratosis pilaris (KP) is an extremely common, yet benign, disorder in which hair follicles become keratinized.¹² KP can feature rough papules that are often described as “goosebumps” or having a sandpaper–like appearance. These papules often affect the upper arms. KP usually manifests in adolescents or young adults and tends to improve with age.¹² The lesions are typically smaller than those seen in Kyrle disease and are asymptomatic. In addition, KP is not associated with systemic disease.

Target symptoms and any underlying conditions

In patients who have an acquired form of the disease, symptoms may improve by treating the underlying condition. For instance, better control of type 2 diabetes may improve symptoms. In patients with end-stage renal disease, a renal transplant can bring complete resolution.¹³

For patients whose Kyrle disease is inherited or whose underlying condition is not easily treated, there are a number of treatment options to consider. First-line treatment includes topical keratolytics (salicylic acid and urea), topical retinoids, and ultraviolet light therapy.^5,7 Systemic retinoids, topical steroids, cryotherapy, electrosurgery, CO₂ laser surgery, and surgical excision have also been used with some success.^7,14 Oral histamines and emollients also may help to relieve the pruritus. Lesions often recur upon discontinuation of therapy.

Our patient was referred to Dermatology for ultraviolet light therapy. She was also treated with topical 12% ammonium lactate twice daily. Within a few months, she reported improvement of her symptoms.

THE CASE

A 14-year-old girl with no significant medical history presented to the office accompanied by her mother for a routine well-adolescent visit. She attended school online due to a history of severe bullying and, when interviewed alone, admitted to a lack of a social life as a result. On questioning, she denied tobacco, alcohol, or illicit drug use. Her gender identity was female. Her sexual orientation was toward both males and females, but she was not sexually active. She denied exposure to physical or emotional violence at home and said she did not feel depressed or think about suicide.

Physical examination revealed multiple erythematous linear scars surrounding the areola of both breasts. When questioned about these lesions, she admitted to cutting herself on the breasts during the past several months but again denied suicidal intent. She believed that her behavior was a normal coping mechanism. 

The physical exam was otherwise normal. Lab results, including thyroid-stimulating hormone and complete blood count, were within normal limits.

THE DIAGNOSIS

The physical exam findings and the patient’s self report pointed to a diagnosis of nonsuicidal self-injurious (NSSI) behavior involving cutting.

DISCUSSION

The NSSI behavior displayed by this patient is a common biopsychosocial disorder observed in adolescents. Self-injury is defined as the deliberate injuring of body tissues without suicidal intent.¹ Self-injurious behavior typically begins when patients are 13 to 16 years of age, and cutting is the most common form. Most acts occur on the arms, legs, wrists, and stomach.² Studies have shown that the prevalence of this behavior is on the rise among adolescents, from about 7% in 2014 to between 14% and 24% in 2015.³

Risk for suicide. Although a feature of NSSI is the lack of suicidal intent, this type of high-risk behavior is associated with past, present, and future suicide attempts. It is important for physicians to identify NSSI in an adolescent, as it is linked to a 7-fold increased risk for a suicide attempt.³

Screening for NSSI. Less than one-fifth of adolescents who injure themselves come to the attention of health care providers.⁴ We propose that primary care physicians add NSSI to the list of risky behaviors—including drug abuse, sexual activity, and depression—for which they screen during well-child visits.

Continue to: Identifying risk factors

Identifying risk factors. The case patient experienced bullying and reported a nonheterosexual orientation, both of which have been demonstrated as strong risk factors for NSSI.⁵ Female gender has also been identified as a risk factor for NSSI.³

In adolescent psychiatric samples, prevalence rates of NSSI were found to be as high as 60% for 1 incident of NSSI and around 50% for repetitive NSSI.⁶ NSSI coincides with other psychiatric comorbidities, including eating disorders, mood disorders (depression), anxiety disorders, posttraumatic stress disorder, and borderline personality disorder.³ In a study of 93 subjects, each of whom was a self-reported abuse survivor with a history of self-injury, 96% were in therapy for diagnoses that included posttraumatic stress disorder (73%), dissociative disorder (40%), borderline personality disorder (37%), and multiple personality disorder (29%).⁷

Some patients may self-harm to generate feeling when emotionally empty or to avert suicidal intent.

The experience of adverse childhood events also increases risk for NSSI. This includes parental neglect, abuse, or deprivation.⁶ Insecure paternal attachment and parental neglect are significant predictors for women, while childhood separation is a primary predictor for men.⁸ Indirect childhood maltreatment, such as witnessing domestic violence or increased parental critique, is also associated with NSSI.⁸ NSSI is also more prevalent among young people who identify with a subculture such as gothic or emo.⁶

Why they do it and how to help

In multiple studies aimed at identifying reasons for self-injury, converging evidence suggests that nearly all patients act with the intent of alleviating negative affect.⁹ Patients self-harm to regulate distress, anxiety, and frustration that they perceive to be intolerable.⁹ They may self-harm to generate feeling when emotionally empty or to avert suicidal intent.⁹ For others, self-harm is a way to communicate their distress.

How to proceed. After a physician identifies NSSI, the patient should be assessed for suicidality and medical severity of the injury.³ Factors associated with higher likelihood of suicidality in patients with NSSI include multiple self-injurious methods and locations, early age of onset, longer history of NSSI, recent worsening of the injuries, simultaneous substance use, and the perception that the patient is addicted to self-injury.¹⁰

Continue to: It is also important...

It is also important to ask the patient whether she or he has told anyone about the behavior. Participation in NSSI communities may reinforce it.³

Treatment found to be effective for NSSI involves dialectical behavioral therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, and mentalization-based therapy.¹¹

Our patient was admitted to the hospital several weeks after her well visit because she expressed suicidal ideation. After being discharged, she was referred to outpatient Psychiatry with a treatment plan that included cognitive behavioral therapy.

THE TAKEAWAY

While our patient may have concealed her self-injurious experience because of stigma and concern about others’ reactions, there were several risk factors for NSSI in her history that prompted further investigation with a skin exam.

If a patient presents with 1 or more risk factors, an initial assessment for possible NSSI should be performed with detailed history-taking and a skin exam. Once NSSI is identified, the initial response and tone of questioning toward the patient need to convey a sense of genuine curiosity about the patient’s experience. From there, the physician can avail the patient to the proper treatment modalities.

NSSI patients can be resistant to sharing and participating in support groups. However, a referred counselor can follow up with a stepwise approach to slowly gain the trust of the individual, find the root cause, and get the patient to a point where she or he is ready to start the necessary treatment.

THE CASE

A 14-year-old girl with no significant medical history presented to the office accompanied by her mother for a routine well-adolescent visit. She attended school online due to a history of severe bullying and, when interviewed alone, admitted to a lack of a social life as a result. On questioning, she denied tobacco, alcohol, or illicit drug use. Her gender identity was female. Her sexual orientation was toward both males and females, but she was not sexually active. She denied exposure to physical or emotional violence at home and said she did not feel depressed or think about suicide.

Physical examination revealed multiple erythematous linear scars surrounding the areola of both breasts. When questioned about these lesions, she admitted to cutting herself on the breasts during the past several months but again denied suicidal intent. She believed that her behavior was a normal coping mechanism. 

The physical exam was otherwise normal. Lab results, including thyroid-stimulating hormone and complete blood count, were within normal limits.

THE DIAGNOSIS

The physical exam findings and the patient’s self report pointed to a diagnosis of nonsuicidal self-injurious (NSSI) behavior involving cutting.

DISCUSSION

The NSSI behavior displayed by this patient is a common biopsychosocial disorder observed in adolescents. Self-injury is defined as the deliberate injuring of body tissues without suicidal intent.¹ Self-injurious behavior typically begins when patients are 13 to 16 years of age, and cutting is the most common form. Most acts occur on the arms, legs, wrists, and stomach.² Studies have shown that the prevalence of this behavior is on the rise among adolescents, from about 7% in 2014 to between 14% and 24% in 2015.³

Risk for suicide. Although a feature of NSSI is the lack of suicidal intent, this type of high-risk behavior is associated with past, present, and future suicide attempts. It is important for physicians to identify NSSI in an adolescent, as it is linked to a 7-fold increased risk for a suicide attempt.³

Screening for NSSI. Less than one-fifth of adolescents who injure themselves come to the attention of health care providers.⁴ We propose that primary care physicians add NSSI to the list of risky behaviors—including drug abuse, sexual activity, and depression—for which they screen during well-child visits.

Continue to: Identifying risk factors

Identifying risk factors. The case patient experienced bullying and reported a nonheterosexual orientation, both of which have been demonstrated as strong risk factors for NSSI.⁵ Female gender has also been identified as a risk factor for NSSI.³

In adolescent psychiatric samples, prevalence rates of NSSI were found to be as high as 60% for 1 incident of NSSI and around 50% for repetitive NSSI.⁶ NSSI coincides with other psychiatric comorbidities, including eating disorders, mood disorders (depression), anxiety disorders, posttraumatic stress disorder, and borderline personality disorder.³ In a study of 93 subjects, each of whom was a self-reported abuse survivor with a history of self-injury, 96% were in therapy for diagnoses that included posttraumatic stress disorder (73%), dissociative disorder (40%), borderline personality disorder (37%), and multiple personality disorder (29%).⁷

Some patients may self-harm to generate feeling when emotionally empty or to avert suicidal intent.

The experience of adverse childhood events also increases risk for NSSI. This includes parental neglect, abuse, or deprivation.⁶ Insecure paternal attachment and parental neglect are significant predictors for women, while childhood separation is a primary predictor for men.⁸ Indirect childhood maltreatment, such as witnessing domestic violence or increased parental critique, is also associated with NSSI.⁸ NSSI is also more prevalent among young people who identify with a subculture such as gothic or emo.⁶

Why they do it and how to help

In multiple studies aimed at identifying reasons for self-injury, converging evidence suggests that nearly all patients act with the intent of alleviating negative affect.⁹ Patients self-harm to regulate distress, anxiety, and frustration that they perceive to be intolerable.⁹ They may self-harm to generate feeling when emotionally empty or to avert suicidal intent.⁹ For others, self-harm is a way to communicate their distress.

How to proceed. After a physician identifies NSSI, the patient should be assessed for suicidality and medical severity of the injury.³ Factors associated with higher likelihood of suicidality in patients with NSSI include multiple self-injurious methods and locations, early age of onset, longer history of NSSI, recent worsening of the injuries, simultaneous substance use, and the perception that the patient is addicted to self-injury.¹⁰

Continue to: It is also important...

It is also important to ask the patient whether she or he has told anyone about the behavior. Participation in NSSI communities may reinforce it.³

Treatment found to be effective for NSSI involves dialectical behavioral therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, and mentalization-based therapy.¹¹

Our patient was admitted to the hospital several weeks after her well visit because she expressed suicidal ideation. After being discharged, she was referred to outpatient Psychiatry with a treatment plan that included cognitive behavioral therapy.

THE TAKEAWAY

While our patient may have concealed her self-injurious experience because of stigma and concern about others’ reactions, there were several risk factors for NSSI in her history that prompted further investigation with a skin exam.

If a patient presents with 1 or more risk factors, an initial assessment for possible NSSI should be performed with detailed history-taking and a skin exam. Once NSSI is identified, the initial response and tone of questioning toward the patient need to convey a sense of genuine curiosity about the patient’s experience. From there, the physician can avail the patient to the proper treatment modalities.

NSSI patients can be resistant to sharing and participating in support groups. However, a referred counselor can follow up with a stepwise approach to slowly gain the trust of the individual, find the root cause, and get the patient to a point where she or he is ready to start the necessary treatment.

THE CASE

A 14-year-old girl with no significant medical history presented to the office accompanied by her mother for a routine well-adolescent visit. She attended school online due to a history of severe bullying and, when interviewed alone, admitted to a lack of a social life as a result. On questioning, she denied tobacco, alcohol, or illicit drug use. Her gender identity was female. Her sexual orientation was toward both males and females, but she was not sexually active. She denied exposure to physical or emotional violence at home and said she did not feel depressed or think about suicide.

Physical examination revealed multiple erythematous linear scars surrounding the areola of both breasts. When questioned about these lesions, she admitted to cutting herself on the breasts during the past several months but again denied suicidal intent. She believed that her behavior was a normal coping mechanism. 

The physical exam was otherwise normal. Lab results, including thyroid-stimulating hormone and complete blood count, were within normal limits.

THE DIAGNOSIS

The physical exam findings and the patient’s self report pointed to a diagnosis of nonsuicidal self-injurious (NSSI) behavior involving cutting.

DISCUSSION

The NSSI behavior displayed by this patient is a common biopsychosocial disorder observed in adolescents. Self-injury is defined as the deliberate injuring of body tissues without suicidal intent.¹ Self-injurious behavior typically begins when patients are 13 to 16 years of age, and cutting is the most common form. Most acts occur on the arms, legs, wrists, and stomach.² Studies have shown that the prevalence of this behavior is on the rise among adolescents, from about 7% in 2014 to between 14% and 24% in 2015.³

Risk for suicide. Although a feature of NSSI is the lack of suicidal intent, this type of high-risk behavior is associated with past, present, and future suicide attempts. It is important for physicians to identify NSSI in an adolescent, as it is linked to a 7-fold increased risk for a suicide attempt.³

Screening for NSSI. Less than one-fifth of adolescents who injure themselves come to the attention of health care providers.⁴ We propose that primary care physicians add NSSI to the list of risky behaviors—including drug abuse, sexual activity, and depression—for which they screen during well-child visits.

Continue to: Identifying risk factors

Identifying risk factors. The case patient experienced bullying and reported a nonheterosexual orientation, both of which have been demonstrated as strong risk factors for NSSI.⁵ Female gender has also been identified as a risk factor for NSSI.³

In adolescent psychiatric samples, prevalence rates of NSSI were found to be as high as 60% for 1 incident of NSSI and around 50% for repetitive NSSI.⁶ NSSI coincides with other psychiatric comorbidities, including eating disorders, mood disorders (depression), anxiety disorders, posttraumatic stress disorder, and borderline personality disorder.³ In a study of 93 subjects, each of whom was a self-reported abuse survivor with a history of self-injury, 96% were in therapy for diagnoses that included posttraumatic stress disorder (73%), dissociative disorder (40%), borderline personality disorder (37%), and multiple personality disorder (29%).⁷

Some patients may self-harm to generate feeling when emotionally empty or to avert suicidal intent.

The experience of adverse childhood events also increases risk for NSSI. This includes parental neglect, abuse, or deprivation.⁶ Insecure paternal attachment and parental neglect are significant predictors for women, while childhood separation is a primary predictor for men.⁸ Indirect childhood maltreatment, such as witnessing domestic violence or increased parental critique, is also associated with NSSI.⁸ NSSI is also more prevalent among young people who identify with a subculture such as gothic or emo.⁶

Why they do it and how to help

In multiple studies aimed at identifying reasons for self-injury, converging evidence suggests that nearly all patients act with the intent of alleviating negative affect.⁹ Patients self-harm to regulate distress, anxiety, and frustration that they perceive to be intolerable.⁹ They may self-harm to generate feeling when emotionally empty or to avert suicidal intent.⁹ For others, self-harm is a way to communicate their distress.

How to proceed. After a physician identifies NSSI, the patient should be assessed for suicidality and medical severity of the injury.³ Factors associated with higher likelihood of suicidality in patients with NSSI include multiple self-injurious methods and locations, early age of onset, longer history of NSSI, recent worsening of the injuries, simultaneous substance use, and the perception that the patient is addicted to self-injury.¹⁰

Continue to: It is also important...

It is also important to ask the patient whether she or he has told anyone about the behavior. Participation in NSSI communities may reinforce it.³

Treatment found to be effective for NSSI involves dialectical behavioral therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, and mentalization-based therapy.¹¹

Our patient was admitted to the hospital several weeks after her well visit because she expressed suicidal ideation. After being discharged, she was referred to outpatient Psychiatry with a treatment plan that included cognitive behavioral therapy.

THE TAKEAWAY

While our patient may have concealed her self-injurious experience because of stigma and concern about others’ reactions, there were several risk factors for NSSI in her history that prompted further investigation with a skin exam.

If a patient presents with 1 or more risk factors, an initial assessment for possible NSSI should be performed with detailed history-taking and a skin exam. Once NSSI is identified, the initial response and tone of questioning toward the patient need to convey a sense of genuine curiosity about the patient’s experience. From there, the physician can avail the patient to the proper treatment modalities.

NSSI patients can be resistant to sharing and participating in support groups. However, a referred counselor can follow up with a stepwise approach to slowly gain the trust of the individual, find the root cause, and get the patient to a point where she or he is ready to start the necessary treatment.

The year 2020 was challenging for public health agencies and especially for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). In a normal year, the ACIP meets in person 3 times for a total of 6 days of deliberations. In 2020, there were 10 meetings (all but 1 using Zoom) covering 14 days. Much of the time was dedicated to the COVID-19 pandemic, the vaccines being developed to prevent COVID-19, and the prioritization of those who should receive the vaccines first.

The ACIP also made recommendations for the use of influenza vaccines in the 2020-2021 season, approved the adult and pediatric immunization schedules for 2021, and approved the use of 2 new vaccines, one to protect against meningococcal meningitis and the other to prevent Ebola virus disease. The influenza recommendations were covered in the October 2020 Practice Alert,¹ and the immunization schedules can be found on the CDC website at www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/hcp/index.html.

COVID-19 vaccines

Two COVID-19 vaccines have been approved for use in the United States. The first was the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on December 11 and recommended for use by the ACIP on December 12.² The second vaccine, from Moderna, was approved by the FDA on December 18 and recommended by the ACIP on December 19.³ Both were approved by the FDA under an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) and were approved by the ACIP for use while the EUA is in effect. Both vaccines must eventually undergo regular approval by the FDA and will be reconsidered by the ACIP regarding use in non–public health emergency conditions. A description of the EUA process and measures taken to assure efficacy and safety, before and after approval, were discussed in the September 2020 audiocast.

Both COVID-19 vaccines consist of nucleoside-modified mRNA encapsulated with lipid nanoparticles, which encode for a spike glycoprotein of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. Both vaccines require 2 doses (separated by 3 weeks for the Pfizer vaccine and 4 weeks for the Moderna vaccine) and are approved for use only in adults and older adolescents (ages ≥ 16 years for the Pfizer vaccine and ≥ 18 years for the Moderna vaccine) (TABLE 1^2-5).

In anticipation of vaccine shortages immediately after approval for use and a high demand for the vaccine, the ACIP developed a list of high-priority groups who should receive the vaccine in ranked order.⁶ States are encouraged, but not required, to follow this priority list (TABLE 2⁶).

Caveats with usage. Both COVID-19 vaccines are very reactogenic, causing local and systemic adverse effects that patients should be warned about (TABLE 3^7,8). These reactions are usually mild to moderate and last 24 hours or less. Acetaminophen can alleviate these symptoms but should not be used to prevent them. In addition, both vaccines have stringent cold-storage requirements; once the vaccines are thawed, they must be used within a defined time-period.

Neither vaccine is listed as preferred. And they are not interchangeable; both recommended doses should be completed with the same vaccine. More details about the use of these vaccines were discussed in the January 2021 audiocast (www.mdedge.com/familymedicine/article/234239/coronavirus-updates/covid-19-vaccines-rollout-risks-and-reason-still) and can be located on the CDC website (www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/info-by-product/pfizer/reactogenicity.html; www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/info-by-product/moderna/reactogenicity.html).

Continue to: Much remains unknown...

Much remains unknown regarding the use of these COVID-19 vaccines:

• What is their duration of protection, and will booster doses be needed?
• Will they protect against asymptomatic infection and carrier states, and thereby prevent transmission?
• Can they be co-administered with other vaccines?
• Will they be efficacious and safe to use during pregnancy and breastfeeding?

These issues will need to be addressed before they are recommended for non–public health emergency use.

Quadrivalent meningococcal conjugate vaccine (MenACWY)

In June 2020, the ACIP added a third quadrivalent meningococcal conjugate vaccine to its recommended list of vaccines that are FDA-approved for meningococcal disease (TABLE 4⁹). The new vaccine fills a void left by the meningococcal polysaccharide vaccine (MPSV4), which is no longer marketed in the United States. MPSV4 was previously the only meningococcal vaccine approved for individuals 55 years and older.

MenQuadfi, approved for those ≥ 2 years including those > 55, will likely be approved for individuals ≥ 6 months and replace Menactra.

The new vaccine, MenACWY-TT (MenQuadfi), is approved for those ages 2 years and older, including those > 55 years. It is anticipated that MenQuadfi will, in the near future, be licensed and approved for individuals 6 months and older and will replace MenACWY-D (Menactra). (Both are manufactured by Sanofi Pasteur.)

Groups for whom a MenACWY vaccine is recommended are listed in TABLE 5.⁹ A full description of current, updated recommendations for the prevention of meningococcal disease is also available.⁹

Continue to: Ebola virus (EBOV) vaccine

A vaccine to prevent Ebola virus disease (EVD) is available by special request in the United States. Recombinant vesicular stomatitis virus-based Ebola virus vaccine, abbreviated as rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP (brand name, ERVBO) is manufactured by Merck and received approval by the FDA on December 19, 2019, for use in those ages 18 years and older. It is a live, attenuated vaccine.

The ACIP has recommended pre-­exposure vaccination with rVSVΔG-­ZEBOV-GP for adults 18 years or older who are at risk of exposure to EBOV while responding to an outbreak of EVD; while working as health care personnel at a federally designated Ebola Treatment Center; or while working at biosafety-level 4 facilities.¹⁰ The vaccine is protective against just 1 of 4 EBOV species, Zaire ebolavirus, which has been the cause of most reported EVD outbreaks, including the 2 largest EVD outbreaks in history that occurred in West Africa and the Republic of Congo.

It is estimated that EBOV outbreaks have infected more than 31,000 people and resulted in more than 12,000 deaths worldwide.¹¹ Only 11 people infected with EBOV have been treated in the United States, all related to the 2014-2016 large outbreaks in West Africa. Nine of these cases were imported and only 1 resulted in transmission, to 2 people.¹⁰ The mammalian species that are suspected as intermediate hosts for EBOV are not present in the United States, which prevents EBOV from becoming endemic here.

The rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP vaccine was tested in a large trial in Africa during the 2014 outbreak. Its effectiveness was 100% (95% confidence interval, 63.5%-100%). The most common adverse effects were injection site pain, swelling, and redness. Mild-to-­moderate systemic symptoms can occur within the first 2 days following vaccination, and include headache (37%), fever (34%), muscle pain (33%), fatigue (19%), joint pain (18%), nausea (8%), arthritis (5%), rash (4%), and sweating (3%).¹⁰ Data are not available to assess the safety of the vaccine during pregnancy; vaccinating pregnant women should probably be avoided unless the risk of exposure to EBOV is high.

Since the vaccine contains a live virus that causes stomatitis in animals, it is possible that the virus could be transmitted to humans and other animals through close contact. Accordingly, the CDC has published some precautions including, but not limited to, not donating blood and, for 6 weeks after vaccination, avoiding contact with those who are immunosuppressed.¹⁰ The vaccine is not commercially available in the United States and must be obtained from the CDC. Information on requesting the vaccine is available at www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/clinicians/vaccine/.

The year 2020 was challenging for public health agencies and especially for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). In a normal year, the ACIP meets in person 3 times for a total of 6 days of deliberations. In 2020, there were 10 meetings (all but 1 using Zoom) covering 14 days. Much of the time was dedicated to the COVID-19 pandemic, the vaccines being developed to prevent COVID-19, and the prioritization of those who should receive the vaccines first.

The ACIP also made recommendations for the use of influenza vaccines in the 2020-2021 season, approved the adult and pediatric immunization schedules for 2021, and approved the use of 2 new vaccines, one to protect against meningococcal meningitis and the other to prevent Ebola virus disease. The influenza recommendations were covered in the October 2020 Practice Alert,¹ and the immunization schedules can be found on the CDC website at www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/hcp/index.html.

COVID-19 vaccines

Two COVID-19 vaccines have been approved for use in the United States. The first was the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on December 11 and recommended for use by the ACIP on December 12.² The second vaccine, from Moderna, was approved by the FDA on December 18 and recommended by the ACIP on December 19.³ Both were approved by the FDA under an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) and were approved by the ACIP for use while the EUA is in effect. Both vaccines must eventually undergo regular approval by the FDA and will be reconsidered by the ACIP regarding use in non–public health emergency conditions. A description of the EUA process and measures taken to assure efficacy and safety, before and after approval, were discussed in the September 2020 audiocast.

Both COVID-19 vaccines consist of nucleoside-modified mRNA encapsulated with lipid nanoparticles, which encode for a spike glycoprotein of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. Both vaccines require 2 doses (separated by 3 weeks for the Pfizer vaccine and 4 weeks for the Moderna vaccine) and are approved for use only in adults and older adolescents (ages ≥ 16 years for the Pfizer vaccine and ≥ 18 years for the Moderna vaccine) (TABLE 1^2-5).

In anticipation of vaccine shortages immediately after approval for use and a high demand for the vaccine, the ACIP developed a list of high-priority groups who should receive the vaccine in ranked order.⁶ States are encouraged, but not required, to follow this priority list (TABLE 2⁶).

Caveats with usage. Both COVID-19 vaccines are very reactogenic, causing local and systemic adverse effects that patients should be warned about (TABLE 3^7,8). These reactions are usually mild to moderate and last 24 hours or less. Acetaminophen can alleviate these symptoms but should not be used to prevent them. In addition, both vaccines have stringent cold-storage requirements; once the vaccines are thawed, they must be used within a defined time-period.

Neither vaccine is listed as preferred. And they are not interchangeable; both recommended doses should be completed with the same vaccine. More details about the use of these vaccines were discussed in the January 2021 audiocast (www.mdedge.com/familymedicine/article/234239/coronavirus-updates/covid-19-vaccines-rollout-risks-and-reason-still) and can be located on the CDC website (www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/info-by-product/pfizer/reactogenicity.html; www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/info-by-product/moderna/reactogenicity.html).

Continue to: Much remains unknown...

Much remains unknown regarding the use of these COVID-19 vaccines:

• What is their duration of protection, and will booster doses be needed?
• Will they protect against asymptomatic infection and carrier states, and thereby prevent transmission?
• Can they be co-administered with other vaccines?
• Will they be efficacious and safe to use during pregnancy and breastfeeding?

These issues will need to be addressed before they are recommended for non–public health emergency use.

Quadrivalent meningococcal conjugate vaccine (MenACWY)

In June 2020, the ACIP added a third quadrivalent meningococcal conjugate vaccine to its recommended list of vaccines that are FDA-approved for meningococcal disease (TABLE 4⁹). The new vaccine fills a void left by the meningococcal polysaccharide vaccine (MPSV4), which is no longer marketed in the United States. MPSV4 was previously the only meningococcal vaccine approved for individuals 55 years and older.

MenQuadfi, approved for those ≥ 2 years including those > 55, will likely be approved for individuals ≥ 6 months and replace Menactra.

The new vaccine, MenACWY-TT (MenQuadfi), is approved for those ages 2 years and older, including those > 55 years. It is anticipated that MenQuadfi will, in the near future, be licensed and approved for individuals 6 months and older and will replace MenACWY-D (Menactra). (Both are manufactured by Sanofi Pasteur.)

Groups for whom a MenACWY vaccine is recommended are listed in TABLE 5.⁹ A full description of current, updated recommendations for the prevention of meningococcal disease is also available.⁹

Continue to: Ebola virus (EBOV) vaccine

A vaccine to prevent Ebola virus disease (EVD) is available by special request in the United States. Recombinant vesicular stomatitis virus-based Ebola virus vaccine, abbreviated as rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP (brand name, ERVBO) is manufactured by Merck and received approval by the FDA on December 19, 2019, for use in those ages 18 years and older. It is a live, attenuated vaccine.

The ACIP has recommended pre-­exposure vaccination with rVSVΔG-­ZEBOV-GP for adults 18 years or older who are at risk of exposure to EBOV while responding to an outbreak of EVD; while working as health care personnel at a federally designated Ebola Treatment Center; or while working at biosafety-level 4 facilities.¹⁰ The vaccine is protective against just 1 of 4 EBOV species, Zaire ebolavirus, which has been the cause of most reported EVD outbreaks, including the 2 largest EVD outbreaks in history that occurred in West Africa and the Republic of Congo.

It is estimated that EBOV outbreaks have infected more than 31,000 people and resulted in more than 12,000 deaths worldwide.¹¹ Only 11 people infected with EBOV have been treated in the United States, all related to the 2014-2016 large outbreaks in West Africa. Nine of these cases were imported and only 1 resulted in transmission, to 2 people.¹⁰ The mammalian species that are suspected as intermediate hosts for EBOV are not present in the United States, which prevents EBOV from becoming endemic here.

The rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP vaccine was tested in a large trial in Africa during the 2014 outbreak. Its effectiveness was 100% (95% confidence interval, 63.5%-100%). The most common adverse effects were injection site pain, swelling, and redness. Mild-to-­moderate systemic symptoms can occur within the first 2 days following vaccination, and include headache (37%), fever (34%), muscle pain (33%), fatigue (19%), joint pain (18%), nausea (8%), arthritis (5%), rash (4%), and sweating (3%).¹⁰ Data are not available to assess the safety of the vaccine during pregnancy; vaccinating pregnant women should probably be avoided unless the risk of exposure to EBOV is high.

Since the vaccine contains a live virus that causes stomatitis in animals, it is possible that the virus could be transmitted to humans and other animals through close contact. Accordingly, the CDC has published some precautions including, but not limited to, not donating blood and, for 6 weeks after vaccination, avoiding contact with those who are immunosuppressed.¹⁰ The vaccine is not commercially available in the United States and must be obtained from the CDC. Information on requesting the vaccine is available at www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/clinicians/vaccine/.

The year 2020 was challenging for public health agencies and especially for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). In a normal year, the ACIP meets in person 3 times for a total of 6 days of deliberations. In 2020, there were 10 meetings (all but 1 using Zoom) covering 14 days. Much of the time was dedicated to the COVID-19 pandemic, the vaccines being developed to prevent COVID-19, and the prioritization of those who should receive the vaccines first.

The ACIP also made recommendations for the use of influenza vaccines in the 2020-2021 season, approved the adult and pediatric immunization schedules for 2021, and approved the use of 2 new vaccines, one to protect against meningococcal meningitis and the other to prevent Ebola virus disease. The influenza recommendations were covered in the October 2020 Practice Alert,¹ and the immunization schedules can be found on the CDC website at www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/hcp/index.html.

COVID-19 vaccines

Two COVID-19 vaccines have been approved for use in the United States. The first was the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on December 11 and recommended for use by the ACIP on December 12.² The second vaccine, from Moderna, was approved by the FDA on December 18 and recommended by the ACIP on December 19.³ Both were approved by the FDA under an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) and were approved by the ACIP for use while the EUA is in effect. Both vaccines must eventually undergo regular approval by the FDA and will be reconsidered by the ACIP regarding use in non–public health emergency conditions. A description of the EUA process and measures taken to assure efficacy and safety, before and after approval, were discussed in the September 2020 audiocast.

Both COVID-19 vaccines consist of nucleoside-modified mRNA encapsulated with lipid nanoparticles, which encode for a spike glycoprotein of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. Both vaccines require 2 doses (separated by 3 weeks for the Pfizer vaccine and 4 weeks for the Moderna vaccine) and are approved for use only in adults and older adolescents (ages ≥ 16 years for the Pfizer vaccine and ≥ 18 years for the Moderna vaccine) (TABLE 1^2-5).

In anticipation of vaccine shortages immediately after approval for use and a high demand for the vaccine, the ACIP developed a list of high-priority groups who should receive the vaccine in ranked order.⁶ States are encouraged, but not required, to follow this priority list (TABLE 2⁶).

Caveats with usage. Both COVID-19 vaccines are very reactogenic, causing local and systemic adverse effects that patients should be warned about (TABLE 3^7,8). These reactions are usually mild to moderate and last 24 hours or less. Acetaminophen can alleviate these symptoms but should not be used to prevent them. In addition, both vaccines have stringent cold-storage requirements; once the vaccines are thawed, they must be used within a defined time-period.

Neither vaccine is listed as preferred. And they are not interchangeable; both recommended doses should be completed with the same vaccine. More details about the use of these vaccines were discussed in the January 2021 audiocast (www.mdedge.com/familymedicine/article/234239/coronavirus-updates/covid-19-vaccines-rollout-risks-and-reason-still) and can be located on the CDC website (www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/info-by-product/pfizer/reactogenicity.html; www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/info-by-product/moderna/reactogenicity.html).

Continue to: Much remains unknown...

Much remains unknown regarding the use of these COVID-19 vaccines:

• What is their duration of protection, and will booster doses be needed?
• Will they protect against asymptomatic infection and carrier states, and thereby prevent transmission?
• Can they be co-administered with other vaccines?
• Will they be efficacious and safe to use during pregnancy and breastfeeding?

These issues will need to be addressed before they are recommended for non–public health emergency use.

Quadrivalent meningococcal conjugate vaccine (MenACWY)

In June 2020, the ACIP added a third quadrivalent meningococcal conjugate vaccine to its recommended list of vaccines that are FDA-approved for meningococcal disease (TABLE 4⁹). The new vaccine fills a void left by the meningococcal polysaccharide vaccine (MPSV4), which is no longer marketed in the United States. MPSV4 was previously the only meningococcal vaccine approved for individuals 55 years and older.

MenQuadfi, approved for those ≥ 2 years including those > 55, will likely be approved for individuals ≥ 6 months and replace Menactra.

The new vaccine, MenACWY-TT (MenQuadfi), is approved for those ages 2 years and older, including those > 55 years. It is anticipated that MenQuadfi will, in the near future, be licensed and approved for individuals 6 months and older and will replace MenACWY-D (Menactra). (Both are manufactured by Sanofi Pasteur.)

Groups for whom a MenACWY vaccine is recommended are listed in TABLE 5.⁹ A full description of current, updated recommendations for the prevention of meningococcal disease is also available.⁹

Continue to: Ebola virus (EBOV) vaccine

A vaccine to prevent Ebola virus disease (EVD) is available by special request in the United States. Recombinant vesicular stomatitis virus-based Ebola virus vaccine, abbreviated as rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP (brand name, ERVBO) is manufactured by Merck and received approval by the FDA on December 19, 2019, for use in those ages 18 years and older. It is a live, attenuated vaccine.

The ACIP has recommended pre-­exposure vaccination with rVSVΔG-­ZEBOV-GP for adults 18 years or older who are at risk of exposure to EBOV while responding to an outbreak of EVD; while working as health care personnel at a federally designated Ebola Treatment Center; or while working at biosafety-level 4 facilities.¹⁰ The vaccine is protective against just 1 of 4 EBOV species, Zaire ebolavirus, which has been the cause of most reported EVD outbreaks, including the 2 largest EVD outbreaks in history that occurred in West Africa and the Republic of Congo.

It is estimated that EBOV outbreaks have infected more than 31,000 people and resulted in more than 12,000 deaths worldwide.¹¹ Only 11 people infected with EBOV have been treated in the United States, all related to the 2014-2016 large outbreaks in West Africa. Nine of these cases were imported and only 1 resulted in transmission, to 2 people.¹⁰ The mammalian species that are suspected as intermediate hosts for EBOV are not present in the United States, which prevents EBOV from becoming endemic here.

The rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP vaccine was tested in a large trial in Africa during the 2014 outbreak. Its effectiveness was 100% (95% confidence interval, 63.5%-100%). The most common adverse effects were injection site pain, swelling, and redness. Mild-to-­moderate systemic symptoms can occur within the first 2 days following vaccination, and include headache (37%), fever (34%), muscle pain (33%), fatigue (19%), joint pain (18%), nausea (8%), arthritis (5%), rash (4%), and sweating (3%).¹⁰ Data are not available to assess the safety of the vaccine during pregnancy; vaccinating pregnant women should probably be avoided unless the risk of exposure to EBOV is high.

Since the vaccine contains a live virus that causes stomatitis in animals, it is possible that the virus could be transmitted to humans and other animals through close contact. Accordingly, the CDC has published some precautions including, but not limited to, not donating blood and, for 6 weeks after vaccination, avoiding contact with those who are immunosuppressed.¹⁰ The vaccine is not commercially available in the United States and must be obtained from the CDC. Information on requesting the vaccine is available at www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/clinicians/vaccine/.