This year, medical media has been dominated by reporting on the devastating COVID-19 pandemic. Many studies and analyses have shown that staying at home, social distancing, quarantining of close contacts, and wearing face masks and face shields are effective ways of preventing spread.

Although initially there were no known effective treatments for severe COVID-19 infection (other than oxygen and ventilator support), we now know that dexamethasone,¹ remdesivir,² and convalescent plasma³ are effective in lessening the severity of illness and perhaps preventing death. That said, we will continue to struggle with COVID-19 for the foreseeable future.

We must continue to tend to the other health care needs of our patients even as we deal with COVID-19.

But other medical illnesses actually predominate in terms of morbidity and mortality, even during this pandemic. For example, although there has been an average of roughly 5600 COVID-19-related deaths per week for the past 4 months,⁴ there are, on average, more than 54,000 deaths per week in the United States from other causes.⁵ This means that we must continue to tend to the other health care needs of our patients even as we deal with COVID-19.

In that light, JFP continues to publish practical, evidence-based clinical reviews designed to keep family physicians and other primary health care clinicians up to date on a variety of topics. For instance, in this issue of JFP, we have articles on:

• Opioid prescribing. Although opioids have risks, they remain potent medications for relief from acute pain, as well as cancer-related pain and chronic pain not sufficiently treated with other medications. Mahvan et al provide expert advice on maximizing benefit and minimizing the risks of opioid prescribing.
• Secondary ischemic stroke prevention. For patients who have suffered a transient ischemic attack or minor stroke, a mainstay of prevention is antiplatelet therapy. Aspirin alone used to be the treatment of choice, but research has demonstrated the value of adding another antiplatelet agent. Helmer et al’s thorough review reminds us that the antiplatelet drug of choice, in addition to aspirin, is clopidogrel, which should be used only for the first 30 days after the event because of an increased bleeding risk.
• Combatting Clostridioides difficile infection. CDI has been a difficult condition to treat, especially in high-risk patients. Zukauckas et al provide a comprehensive review of diagnosis and management. Vancomycin is now the drug of choice, and fecal transplant is highly effective in preventing recurrent CDI.

This diverse range of timely, practical, evidence-based guidance—in addition to coverage of COVID-19 and other rapidly emerging medical news stories—can all be found on our Web site at www.mdedge.com/familymedicine. We remain committed to supplying you with all of the information you need to provide your patients with the very best care—no matter what brings them in to see you.

This year, medical media has been dominated by reporting on the devastating COVID-19 pandemic. Many studies and analyses have shown that staying at home, social distancing, quarantining of close contacts, and wearing face masks and face shields are effective ways of preventing spread.

Although initially there were no known effective treatments for severe COVID-19 infection (other than oxygen and ventilator support), we now know that dexamethasone,¹ remdesivir,² and convalescent plasma³ are effective in lessening the severity of illness and perhaps preventing death. That said, we will continue to struggle with COVID-19 for the foreseeable future.

We must continue to tend to the other health care needs of our patients even as we deal with COVID-19.

But other medical illnesses actually predominate in terms of morbidity and mortality, even during this pandemic. For example, although there has been an average of roughly 5600 COVID-19-related deaths per week for the past 4 months,⁴ there are, on average, more than 54,000 deaths per week in the United States from other causes.⁵ This means that we must continue to tend to the other health care needs of our patients even as we deal with COVID-19.

In that light, JFP continues to publish practical, evidence-based clinical reviews designed to keep family physicians and other primary health care clinicians up to date on a variety of topics. For instance, in this issue of JFP, we have articles on:

• Opioid prescribing. Although opioids have risks, they remain potent medications for relief from acute pain, as well as cancer-related pain and chronic pain not sufficiently treated with other medications. Mahvan et al provide expert advice on maximizing benefit and minimizing the risks of opioid prescribing.
• Secondary ischemic stroke prevention. For patients who have suffered a transient ischemic attack or minor stroke, a mainstay of prevention is antiplatelet therapy. Aspirin alone used to be the treatment of choice, but research has demonstrated the value of adding another antiplatelet agent. Helmer et al’s thorough review reminds us that the antiplatelet drug of choice, in addition to aspirin, is clopidogrel, which should be used only for the first 30 days after the event because of an increased bleeding risk.
• Combatting Clostridioides difficile infection. CDI has been a difficult condition to treat, especially in high-risk patients. Zukauckas et al provide a comprehensive review of diagnosis and management. Vancomycin is now the drug of choice, and fecal transplant is highly effective in preventing recurrent CDI.

This diverse range of timely, practical, evidence-based guidance—in addition to coverage of COVID-19 and other rapidly emerging medical news stories—can all be found on our Web site at www.mdedge.com/familymedicine. We remain committed to supplying you with all of the information you need to provide your patients with the very best care—no matter what brings them in to see you.

This year, medical media has been dominated by reporting on the devastating COVID-19 pandemic. Many studies and analyses have shown that staying at home, social distancing, quarantining of close contacts, and wearing face masks and face shields are effective ways of preventing spread.

Although initially there were no known effective treatments for severe COVID-19 infection (other than oxygen and ventilator support), we now know that dexamethasone,¹ remdesivir,² and convalescent plasma³ are effective in lessening the severity of illness and perhaps preventing death. That said, we will continue to struggle with COVID-19 for the foreseeable future.

We must continue to tend to the other health care needs of our patients even as we deal with COVID-19.

But other medical illnesses actually predominate in terms of morbidity and mortality, even during this pandemic. For example, although there has been an average of roughly 5600 COVID-19-related deaths per week for the past 4 months,⁴ there are, on average, more than 54,000 deaths per week in the United States from other causes.⁵ This means that we must continue to tend to the other health care needs of our patients even as we deal with COVID-19.

In that light, JFP continues to publish practical, evidence-based clinical reviews designed to keep family physicians and other primary health care clinicians up to date on a variety of topics. For instance, in this issue of JFP, we have articles on:

• Opioid prescribing. Although opioids have risks, they remain potent medications for relief from acute pain, as well as cancer-related pain and chronic pain not sufficiently treated with other medications. Mahvan et al provide expert advice on maximizing benefit and minimizing the risks of opioid prescribing.
• Secondary ischemic stroke prevention. For patients who have suffered a transient ischemic attack or minor stroke, a mainstay of prevention is antiplatelet therapy. Aspirin alone used to be the treatment of choice, but research has demonstrated the value of adding another antiplatelet agent. Helmer et al’s thorough review reminds us that the antiplatelet drug of choice, in addition to aspirin, is clopidogrel, which should be used only for the first 30 days after the event because of an increased bleeding risk.
• Combatting Clostridioides difficile infection. CDI has been a difficult condition to treat, especially in high-risk patients. Zukauckas et al provide a comprehensive review of diagnosis and management. Vancomycin is now the drug of choice, and fecal transplant is highly effective in preventing recurrent CDI.

This diverse range of timely, practical, evidence-based guidance—in addition to coverage of COVID-19 and other rapidly emerging medical news stories—can all be found on our Web site at www.mdedge.com/familymedicine. We remain committed to supplying you with all of the information you need to provide your patients with the very best care—no matter what brings them in to see you.

Starting breast cancer screening in young adulthood has the potential to sharply reduce deaths from the disease among women who have received chest radiation for childhood cancer, a modeling study suggests.

Two strategies – annual mammography with MRI and annual MRI alone – at least halved breast cancer mortality when started at the ages of 25 or 30 years.

Jennifer M. Yeh, PhD, of Harvard Medical School in Boston and colleagues reported these results in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

When cost was also considered, 30 years emerged as the preferred starting age, dropping the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) below the generally accepted threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained.

“Our findings underscore the importance of making sure that young women previously treated with chest radiation are informed about their elevated breast cancer risk and the benefits of routine screening. Both primary care providers and oncologists who care for survivors should discuss breast cancer screening with these patients,” Dr. Yeh and colleagues wrote.

“Screening guidelines should emphasize the importance of MRI screening (with or without mammography) among survivors,” the authors recommended. “Our findings also highlight the importance of ensuring that survivors have access to health insurance coverage for MRI screening.”
 

Implications for awareness, coverage

“My hope is that, by showing the significantly decreased risk of death associated with early breast cancer screening, with harm-benefit ratios considerably lower than benchmarks for average-risk women, this study will help health insurance companies see the benefit in covering early screening for at-risk survivors,” commented Karen E. Effinger, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, and the Aflac Cancer & Blood Disorders Center at Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta.

“In many survivors, the cost of current screening [as recommended by] guidelines is prohibitive,” added Dr. Effinger, who was not involved in the current study.

The main concern regarding the study’s findings is generalizability to the contemporary era, given the use of a cohort diagnosed and treated decades ago and changes in radiation techniques and dosing since then, she noted in an interview. This limitation was addressed in a sensitivity analysis that halved the women’s base-case lifetime risk of breast cancer and still netted similar results.

“However, it will take many years to determine the true risk reduction of our current treatment strategies,” Dr. Effinger acknowledged.

“It is crucial that we improve our education of both survivors and our colleagues who care for these survivors, especially in regard to risk of subsequent malignancies and the benefits of screening,” Dr. Effinger maintained. “While many people are aware of the risk of breast cancer associated with BRCA mutations, the increased risk in survivors of childhood cancer is not as recognized by nononcologists. This study reinforces that increasing this awareness can save lives.”

In educating their patients about preventive care, health care providers must strike “a fine balance between discussing the risks and benefits of screening without provoking significant anxiety,” she concluded. “It is important for survivors to establish care with a primary care provider in order to develop trust and receive the guidance they need to decrease the risk of early mortality.”
 

Study details

Dr. Yeh and colleagues developed models to compare outcomes with various screening strategies among women aged 20 years who had received chest radiotherapy for childhood cancer during 1970-1986. The women had been diagnosed with Hodgkin lymphoma (55%), Wilms tumor (12%), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (8%), and other cancers.

The investigators conducted their analysis using data from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study and other published sources, a lifetime time horizon, and a payer perspective.

The team assessed three strategies: no screening; digital mammography with MRI screening starting at 25 years of age (the current Children’s Oncology Group recommendation), 30 years, or 35 years and continuing to 74 years of age; and MRI only starting at age 25, 30, or 35 years and continuing to age 74 years.

The main study results showed that, without screening, women who had received chest radiation for childhood cancer had a 10%-11% lifetime risk of breast cancer mortality across models.

Relative to no screening, starting at age 25 years, the largest share of deaths was averted with the strategy of annual mammography with MRI – 56.3%-71.2% – or with the strategy of annual MRI alone – 55.7%-62.0%.

These two strategies also yielded the most screening tests, as well as the most false-positive test results and benign biopsy results.

For women who started screening at age 25, there were 4,188-4,879 false-positive test results per 1,000 women for mammography plus MRI and 3,283-3,764 false-positive results per 1,000 women for MRI alone.

For women who started screening at age 25, there were 1,340-1,561 benign biopsy results per 1,000 women for mammography plus MRI and 1,248-1,430 benign results per 1,000 women for MRI alone.

After cost was factored in, beginning screening at age 30 emerged as the preferred strategy to achieve an ICER threshold of less than $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained.

When started at 30 years of age, annual mammography with MRI averted 54.7%-68.8% of breast cancer deaths, with an ICER of $25,400-$113,200 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Annual MRI alone averted 54.0%-60.0% of breast cancer deaths, with an ICER of $21,800-$50,580 per quality-adjusted life-year gained.

This research was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute, American Cancer Society, and American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities. The authors disclosed relationships with GE Healthcare and Biovector. Dr. Effinger disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Yeh JM et al. Ann Intern Med. 2020 Jul 7. doi: 10.7326/M19-3481.

Starting breast cancer screening in young adulthood has the potential to sharply reduce deaths from the disease among women who have received chest radiation for childhood cancer, a modeling study suggests.

Two strategies – annual mammography with MRI and annual MRI alone – at least halved breast cancer mortality when started at the ages of 25 or 30 years.

Jennifer M. Yeh, PhD, of Harvard Medical School in Boston and colleagues reported these results in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

When cost was also considered, 30 years emerged as the preferred starting age, dropping the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) below the generally accepted threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained.

“Our findings underscore the importance of making sure that young women previously treated with chest radiation are informed about their elevated breast cancer risk and the benefits of routine screening. Both primary care providers and oncologists who care for survivors should discuss breast cancer screening with these patients,” Dr. Yeh and colleagues wrote.

“Screening guidelines should emphasize the importance of MRI screening (with or without mammography) among survivors,” the authors recommended. “Our findings also highlight the importance of ensuring that survivors have access to health insurance coverage for MRI screening.”
 

Implications for awareness, coverage

“My hope is that, by showing the significantly decreased risk of death associated with early breast cancer screening, with harm-benefit ratios considerably lower than benchmarks for average-risk women, this study will help health insurance companies see the benefit in covering early screening for at-risk survivors,” commented Karen E. Effinger, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, and the Aflac Cancer & Blood Disorders Center at Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta.

“In many survivors, the cost of current screening [as recommended by] guidelines is prohibitive,” added Dr. Effinger, who was not involved in the current study.

The main concern regarding the study’s findings is generalizability to the contemporary era, given the use of a cohort diagnosed and treated decades ago and changes in radiation techniques and dosing since then, she noted in an interview. This limitation was addressed in a sensitivity analysis that halved the women’s base-case lifetime risk of breast cancer and still netted similar results.

“However, it will take many years to determine the true risk reduction of our current treatment strategies,” Dr. Effinger acknowledged.

“It is crucial that we improve our education of both survivors and our colleagues who care for these survivors, especially in regard to risk of subsequent malignancies and the benefits of screening,” Dr. Effinger maintained. “While many people are aware of the risk of breast cancer associated with BRCA mutations, the increased risk in survivors of childhood cancer is not as recognized by nononcologists. This study reinforces that increasing this awareness can save lives.”

In educating their patients about preventive care, health care providers must strike “a fine balance between discussing the risks and benefits of screening without provoking significant anxiety,” she concluded. “It is important for survivors to establish care with a primary care provider in order to develop trust and receive the guidance they need to decrease the risk of early mortality.”
 

Study details

Dr. Yeh and colleagues developed models to compare outcomes with various screening strategies among women aged 20 years who had received chest radiotherapy for childhood cancer during 1970-1986. The women had been diagnosed with Hodgkin lymphoma (55%), Wilms tumor (12%), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (8%), and other cancers.

The investigators conducted their analysis using data from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study and other published sources, a lifetime time horizon, and a payer perspective.

The team assessed three strategies: no screening; digital mammography with MRI screening starting at 25 years of age (the current Children’s Oncology Group recommendation), 30 years, or 35 years and continuing to 74 years of age; and MRI only starting at age 25, 30, or 35 years and continuing to age 74 years.

The main study results showed that, without screening, women who had received chest radiation for childhood cancer had a 10%-11% lifetime risk of breast cancer mortality across models.

Relative to no screening, starting at age 25 years, the largest share of deaths was averted with the strategy of annual mammography with MRI – 56.3%-71.2% – or with the strategy of annual MRI alone – 55.7%-62.0%.

These two strategies also yielded the most screening tests, as well as the most false-positive test results and benign biopsy results.

For women who started screening at age 25, there were 4,188-4,879 false-positive test results per 1,000 women for mammography plus MRI and 3,283-3,764 false-positive results per 1,000 women for MRI alone.

For women who started screening at age 25, there were 1,340-1,561 benign biopsy results per 1,000 women for mammography plus MRI and 1,248-1,430 benign results per 1,000 women for MRI alone.

After cost was factored in, beginning screening at age 30 emerged as the preferred strategy to achieve an ICER threshold of less than $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained.

When started at 30 years of age, annual mammography with MRI averted 54.7%-68.8% of breast cancer deaths, with an ICER of $25,400-$113,200 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Annual MRI alone averted 54.0%-60.0% of breast cancer deaths, with an ICER of $21,800-$50,580 per quality-adjusted life-year gained.

This research was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute, American Cancer Society, and American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities. The authors disclosed relationships with GE Healthcare and Biovector. Dr. Effinger disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Yeh JM et al. Ann Intern Med. 2020 Jul 7. doi: 10.7326/M19-3481.

Starting breast cancer screening in young adulthood has the potential to sharply reduce deaths from the disease among women who have received chest radiation for childhood cancer, a modeling study suggests.

Two strategies – annual mammography with MRI and annual MRI alone – at least halved breast cancer mortality when started at the ages of 25 or 30 years.

Jennifer M. Yeh, PhD, of Harvard Medical School in Boston and colleagues reported these results in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

When cost was also considered, 30 years emerged as the preferred starting age, dropping the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) below the generally accepted threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained.

“Our findings underscore the importance of making sure that young women previously treated with chest radiation are informed about their elevated breast cancer risk and the benefits of routine screening. Both primary care providers and oncologists who care for survivors should discuss breast cancer screening with these patients,” Dr. Yeh and colleagues wrote.

“Screening guidelines should emphasize the importance of MRI screening (with or without mammography) among survivors,” the authors recommended. “Our findings also highlight the importance of ensuring that survivors have access to health insurance coverage for MRI screening.”
 

Implications for awareness, coverage

“My hope is that, by showing the significantly decreased risk of death associated with early breast cancer screening, with harm-benefit ratios considerably lower than benchmarks for average-risk women, this study will help health insurance companies see the benefit in covering early screening for at-risk survivors,” commented Karen E. Effinger, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, and the Aflac Cancer & Blood Disorders Center at Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta.

“In many survivors, the cost of current screening [as recommended by] guidelines is prohibitive,” added Dr. Effinger, who was not involved in the current study.

The main concern regarding the study’s findings is generalizability to the contemporary era, given the use of a cohort diagnosed and treated decades ago and changes in radiation techniques and dosing since then, she noted in an interview. This limitation was addressed in a sensitivity analysis that halved the women’s base-case lifetime risk of breast cancer and still netted similar results.

“However, it will take many years to determine the true risk reduction of our current treatment strategies,” Dr. Effinger acknowledged.

“It is crucial that we improve our education of both survivors and our colleagues who care for these survivors, especially in regard to risk of subsequent malignancies and the benefits of screening,” Dr. Effinger maintained. “While many people are aware of the risk of breast cancer associated with BRCA mutations, the increased risk in survivors of childhood cancer is not as recognized by nononcologists. This study reinforces that increasing this awareness can save lives.”

In educating their patients about preventive care, health care providers must strike “a fine balance between discussing the risks and benefits of screening without provoking significant anxiety,” she concluded. “It is important for survivors to establish care with a primary care provider in order to develop trust and receive the guidance they need to decrease the risk of early mortality.”
 

Study details

Dr. Yeh and colleagues developed models to compare outcomes with various screening strategies among women aged 20 years who had received chest radiotherapy for childhood cancer during 1970-1986. The women had been diagnosed with Hodgkin lymphoma (55%), Wilms tumor (12%), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (8%), and other cancers.

The investigators conducted their analysis using data from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study and other published sources, a lifetime time horizon, and a payer perspective.

The team assessed three strategies: no screening; digital mammography with MRI screening starting at 25 years of age (the current Children’s Oncology Group recommendation), 30 years, or 35 years and continuing to 74 years of age; and MRI only starting at age 25, 30, or 35 years and continuing to age 74 years.

The main study results showed that, without screening, women who had received chest radiation for childhood cancer had a 10%-11% lifetime risk of breast cancer mortality across models.

Relative to no screening, starting at age 25 years, the largest share of deaths was averted with the strategy of annual mammography with MRI – 56.3%-71.2% – or with the strategy of annual MRI alone – 55.7%-62.0%.

These two strategies also yielded the most screening tests, as well as the most false-positive test results and benign biopsy results.

For women who started screening at age 25, there were 4,188-4,879 false-positive test results per 1,000 women for mammography plus MRI and 3,283-3,764 false-positive results per 1,000 women for MRI alone.

For women who started screening at age 25, there were 1,340-1,561 benign biopsy results per 1,000 women for mammography plus MRI and 1,248-1,430 benign results per 1,000 women for MRI alone.

After cost was factored in, beginning screening at age 30 emerged as the preferred strategy to achieve an ICER threshold of less than $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained.

When started at 30 years of age, annual mammography with MRI averted 54.7%-68.8% of breast cancer deaths, with an ICER of $25,400-$113,200 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Annual MRI alone averted 54.0%-60.0% of breast cancer deaths, with an ICER of $21,800-$50,580 per quality-adjusted life-year gained.

This research was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute, American Cancer Society, and American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities. The authors disclosed relationships with GE Healthcare and Biovector. Dr. Effinger disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Yeh JM et al. Ann Intern Med. 2020 Jul 7. doi: 10.7326/M19-3481.

Preoperative pelvic floor muscle injections and pudendal nerve blocks with bupivacaine and dexamethasone do not significantly improve pain control after vaginal apical prolapse repair, compared with placebo, according to a study.

In a randomized trial, patients generally reported mild postoperative pain and low dosages of narcotic use. “The majority reported that they returned to their baseline activity by 2 weeks after surgery, which should be reassuring to similar urogynecology patient populations,” said Lauren Giugale, MD.

Although many gynecologic surgeries increasingly are performed as outpatient procedures, patients may have inadequate pain control and persistently use narcotics after surgery. In an effort to reduce postoperative pain, doctors have tried preemptive analgesia with various local anesthetic techniques. These approaches have had mixed results, however, and there is “no consensus on the ideal local anesthetic technique to reduce postoperative pain after vaginal reconstructive surgery,” said Dr. Giugale, of the University of Pittsburgh.

To evaluate whether preoperative pelvic floor muscle injections and pudendal nerve blocks with bupivacaine and dexamethasone improve postoperative pain control after vaginal apical prolapse repairs, Dr. Giugale and colleagues conducted a three-arm, double-blind trial that included 75 patients. Patients received placebo (normal saline), bupivacaine alone, or bupivacaine combined with 4 mg of dexamethasone at four injection sites.

Dr. Giugale presented the study results at the virtual annual scientific meeting of the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons.

A range of procedures

Participants received bilateral levator ani muscle injections via a transobturator approach and pudendal nerve blocks via a transvaginal approach. They received the injections – 5 mL at each site – after the administration of general anesthesia but before the start of surgery. “Anecdotally, we have had good success” with the transobturator approach to treating chronic pelvic pain, which was part of the rationale for the trial, said Dr. Giugale.

The study included women 18 years or older who were scheduled for a vaginal native tissue repair with apical support. Participants had to be able to tolerate general anesthesia with a standardized enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol. The investigators excluded women undergoing mesh-augmented prolapse repairs or abdominal surgery and those with chronic pelvic pain or immunosuppression.

Each treatment arm had 25 patients. Patients had an average age of 69 years and an average body mass index of 27.5 kg/m². Most patients were white, and demographic variables did not significantly differ among the groups.

“The distribution of prolapse procedures was similar among study groups, with colpocleisis being the most common, followed by uterosacral ligament suspension, levator myorrhaphy, and sacrospinous ligament fixation,” said Dr. Giugale. Rates of concomitant hysterectomy were similar for each group.

Before surgery, patients completed pain, nausea, and activities assessments. At 6 hours after surgery, they completed pain and nausea assessments. During postoperative days 1 through 3, patients documented pain scores and analgesic use. One week after surgery, patients completed pain and activities assessments. And at postoperative weeks 2, 6, and 12, they completed additional activities assessments. The assessments included validated handouts that patients completed at home, and no additional office visits were required.

The numeric rating scale pain score on the day after surgery was the primary outcome, and the median pain score did not significantly differ among the groups (3.75 in the placebo group, 4 in the bupivacaine group, and 3 in the bupivacaine plus dexamethasone group). Between-group differences in pain scores at other time points also were not significant.

Activities assessments, nausea and vomiting scores, the percentage of patients with same-day discharge, urinary retention, postoperative narcotic use as measured by oral morphine equivalents, and adverse events also did not significantly differ among the groups.

“One week after surgery, 52% of women reported that they were at or better than their baseline preoperative activity level, which increased to 70% at 2 weeks, 84% at 6 weeks, and 94% at 12 weeks,” Dr. Giugale said.

In all, 57% of patients used narcotic medicine the day after surgery, which decreased to 44% on day 3. The dosage was low, with a median oral morphine equivalent of 5 mg of oxycodone or less per day, she said.

Early postoperative pain may be influenced by procedure type, according to an exploratory analysis. Through the first postoperative day, “there was a trend toward more pain with uterosacral ligament suspension,” Dr. Giugale said. By day 3, sacrospinous ligament fixation was associated with significantly more postoperative pain.
 

The role of ERAS protocols

The heterogeneity of surgical procedures among the treatment groups and the use of a predefined ERAS protocol may have confounded the results. In addition, the researchers did not measure patient satisfaction, and the findings may not apply to different patient populations, Dr. Giugale noted.

“As more and more gynecologic surgery patients have surgery under these enhanced recovery protocols, maybe additional preemptive local analgesia for vaginal reconstructive surgery is not all that beneficial,” she said. “Maybe we are getting enough benefit from the enhanced [recovery] protocols themselves.”

The investigators studied a novel idea – dual local therapy for pain in patients undergoing pelvic floor surgery – and described a novel transobturator technique for levator injection, commented Sunil Balgobin, MD, associate director of the female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery fellowship at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

“For the current opioid problem, development of alternative pain control strategies is extremely important to reduce narcotic use and improve patient outcomes,” Dr. Balgobin said. The study “addresses an important gap in the literature, is relevant to surgeons performing vaginal apical procedures, and aims to advance research in this area for the potential benefit of ... patients.”

Interpretation of the results for individual procedure types may be limited by the smaller sample sizes, he added.

The researchers and Dr. Balgobin had no relevant financial disclosures.

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Giugale L et al. SGS 2020, Abstract 10.

Preoperative pelvic floor muscle injections and pudendal nerve blocks with bupivacaine and dexamethasone do not significantly improve pain control after vaginal apical prolapse repair, compared with placebo, according to a study.

In a randomized trial, patients generally reported mild postoperative pain and low dosages of narcotic use. “The majority reported that they returned to their baseline activity by 2 weeks after surgery, which should be reassuring to similar urogynecology patient populations,” said Lauren Giugale, MD.

Although many gynecologic surgeries increasingly are performed as outpatient procedures, patients may have inadequate pain control and persistently use narcotics after surgery. In an effort to reduce postoperative pain, doctors have tried preemptive analgesia with various local anesthetic techniques. These approaches have had mixed results, however, and there is “no consensus on the ideal local anesthetic technique to reduce postoperative pain after vaginal reconstructive surgery,” said Dr. Giugale, of the University of Pittsburgh.

To evaluate whether preoperative pelvic floor muscle injections and pudendal nerve blocks with bupivacaine and dexamethasone improve postoperative pain control after vaginal apical prolapse repairs, Dr. Giugale and colleagues conducted a three-arm, double-blind trial that included 75 patients. Patients received placebo (normal saline), bupivacaine alone, or bupivacaine combined with 4 mg of dexamethasone at four injection sites.

Dr. Giugale presented the study results at the virtual annual scientific meeting of the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons.

A range of procedures

Participants received bilateral levator ani muscle injections via a transobturator approach and pudendal nerve blocks via a transvaginal approach. They received the injections – 5 mL at each site – after the administration of general anesthesia but before the start of surgery. “Anecdotally, we have had good success” with the transobturator approach to treating chronic pelvic pain, which was part of the rationale for the trial, said Dr. Giugale.

The study included women 18 years or older who were scheduled for a vaginal native tissue repair with apical support. Participants had to be able to tolerate general anesthesia with a standardized enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol. The investigators excluded women undergoing mesh-augmented prolapse repairs or abdominal surgery and those with chronic pelvic pain or immunosuppression.

Each treatment arm had 25 patients. Patients had an average age of 69 years and an average body mass index of 27.5 kg/m². Most patients were white, and demographic variables did not significantly differ among the groups.

“The distribution of prolapse procedures was similar among study groups, with colpocleisis being the most common, followed by uterosacral ligament suspension, levator myorrhaphy, and sacrospinous ligament fixation,” said Dr. Giugale. Rates of concomitant hysterectomy were similar for each group.

Before surgery, patients completed pain, nausea, and activities assessments. At 6 hours after surgery, they completed pain and nausea assessments. During postoperative days 1 through 3, patients documented pain scores and analgesic use. One week after surgery, patients completed pain and activities assessments. And at postoperative weeks 2, 6, and 12, they completed additional activities assessments. The assessments included validated handouts that patients completed at home, and no additional office visits were required.

The numeric rating scale pain score on the day after surgery was the primary outcome, and the median pain score did not significantly differ among the groups (3.75 in the placebo group, 4 in the bupivacaine group, and 3 in the bupivacaine plus dexamethasone group). Between-group differences in pain scores at other time points also were not significant.

Activities assessments, nausea and vomiting scores, the percentage of patients with same-day discharge, urinary retention, postoperative narcotic use as measured by oral morphine equivalents, and adverse events also did not significantly differ among the groups.

“One week after surgery, 52% of women reported that they were at or better than their baseline preoperative activity level, which increased to 70% at 2 weeks, 84% at 6 weeks, and 94% at 12 weeks,” Dr. Giugale said.

In all, 57% of patients used narcotic medicine the day after surgery, which decreased to 44% on day 3. The dosage was low, with a median oral morphine equivalent of 5 mg of oxycodone or less per day, she said.

Early postoperative pain may be influenced by procedure type, according to an exploratory analysis. Through the first postoperative day, “there was a trend toward more pain with uterosacral ligament suspension,” Dr. Giugale said. By day 3, sacrospinous ligament fixation was associated with significantly more postoperative pain.
 

The role of ERAS protocols

The heterogeneity of surgical procedures among the treatment groups and the use of a predefined ERAS protocol may have confounded the results. In addition, the researchers did not measure patient satisfaction, and the findings may not apply to different patient populations, Dr. Giugale noted.

“As more and more gynecologic surgery patients have surgery under these enhanced recovery protocols, maybe additional preemptive local analgesia for vaginal reconstructive surgery is not all that beneficial,” she said. “Maybe we are getting enough benefit from the enhanced [recovery] protocols themselves.”

The investigators studied a novel idea – dual local therapy for pain in patients undergoing pelvic floor surgery – and described a novel transobturator technique for levator injection, commented Sunil Balgobin, MD, associate director of the female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery fellowship at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

“For the current opioid problem, development of alternative pain control strategies is extremely important to reduce narcotic use and improve patient outcomes,” Dr. Balgobin said. The study “addresses an important gap in the literature, is relevant to surgeons performing vaginal apical procedures, and aims to advance research in this area for the potential benefit of ... patients.”

Interpretation of the results for individual procedure types may be limited by the smaller sample sizes, he added.

The researchers and Dr. Balgobin had no relevant financial disclosures.

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Giugale L et al. SGS 2020, Abstract 10.

Preoperative pelvic floor muscle injections and pudendal nerve blocks with bupivacaine and dexamethasone do not significantly improve pain control after vaginal apical prolapse repair, compared with placebo, according to a study.

In a randomized trial, patients generally reported mild postoperative pain and low dosages of narcotic use. “The majority reported that they returned to their baseline activity by 2 weeks after surgery, which should be reassuring to similar urogynecology patient populations,” said Lauren Giugale, MD.

Although many gynecologic surgeries increasingly are performed as outpatient procedures, patients may have inadequate pain control and persistently use narcotics after surgery. In an effort to reduce postoperative pain, doctors have tried preemptive analgesia with various local anesthetic techniques. These approaches have had mixed results, however, and there is “no consensus on the ideal local anesthetic technique to reduce postoperative pain after vaginal reconstructive surgery,” said Dr. Giugale, of the University of Pittsburgh.

To evaluate whether preoperative pelvic floor muscle injections and pudendal nerve blocks with bupivacaine and dexamethasone improve postoperative pain control after vaginal apical prolapse repairs, Dr. Giugale and colleagues conducted a three-arm, double-blind trial that included 75 patients. Patients received placebo (normal saline), bupivacaine alone, or bupivacaine combined with 4 mg of dexamethasone at four injection sites.

Dr. Giugale presented the study results at the virtual annual scientific meeting of the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons.

A range of procedures

Participants received bilateral levator ani muscle injections via a transobturator approach and pudendal nerve blocks via a transvaginal approach. They received the injections – 5 mL at each site – after the administration of general anesthesia but before the start of surgery. “Anecdotally, we have had good success” with the transobturator approach to treating chronic pelvic pain, which was part of the rationale for the trial, said Dr. Giugale.

The study included women 18 years or older who were scheduled for a vaginal native tissue repair with apical support. Participants had to be able to tolerate general anesthesia with a standardized enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol. The investigators excluded women undergoing mesh-augmented prolapse repairs or abdominal surgery and those with chronic pelvic pain or immunosuppression.

Each treatment arm had 25 patients. Patients had an average age of 69 years and an average body mass index of 27.5 kg/m². Most patients were white, and demographic variables did not significantly differ among the groups.

“The distribution of prolapse procedures was similar among study groups, with colpocleisis being the most common, followed by uterosacral ligament suspension, levator myorrhaphy, and sacrospinous ligament fixation,” said Dr. Giugale. Rates of concomitant hysterectomy were similar for each group.

Before surgery, patients completed pain, nausea, and activities assessments. At 6 hours after surgery, they completed pain and nausea assessments. During postoperative days 1 through 3, patients documented pain scores and analgesic use. One week after surgery, patients completed pain and activities assessments. And at postoperative weeks 2, 6, and 12, they completed additional activities assessments. The assessments included validated handouts that patients completed at home, and no additional office visits were required.

The numeric rating scale pain score on the day after surgery was the primary outcome, and the median pain score did not significantly differ among the groups (3.75 in the placebo group, 4 in the bupivacaine group, and 3 in the bupivacaine plus dexamethasone group). Between-group differences in pain scores at other time points also were not significant.

Activities assessments, nausea and vomiting scores, the percentage of patients with same-day discharge, urinary retention, postoperative narcotic use as measured by oral morphine equivalents, and adverse events also did not significantly differ among the groups.

“One week after surgery, 52% of women reported that they were at or better than their baseline preoperative activity level, which increased to 70% at 2 weeks, 84% at 6 weeks, and 94% at 12 weeks,” Dr. Giugale said.

In all, 57% of patients used narcotic medicine the day after surgery, which decreased to 44% on day 3. The dosage was low, with a median oral morphine equivalent of 5 mg of oxycodone or less per day, she said.

Early postoperative pain may be influenced by procedure type, according to an exploratory analysis. Through the first postoperative day, “there was a trend toward more pain with uterosacral ligament suspension,” Dr. Giugale said. By day 3, sacrospinous ligament fixation was associated with significantly more postoperative pain.
 

The role of ERAS protocols

The heterogeneity of surgical procedures among the treatment groups and the use of a predefined ERAS protocol may have confounded the results. In addition, the researchers did not measure patient satisfaction, and the findings may not apply to different patient populations, Dr. Giugale noted.

“As more and more gynecologic surgery patients have surgery under these enhanced recovery protocols, maybe additional preemptive local analgesia for vaginal reconstructive surgery is not all that beneficial,” she said. “Maybe we are getting enough benefit from the enhanced [recovery] protocols themselves.”

The investigators studied a novel idea – dual local therapy for pain in patients undergoing pelvic floor surgery – and described a novel transobturator technique for levator injection, commented Sunil Balgobin, MD, associate director of the female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery fellowship at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

“For the current opioid problem, development of alternative pain control strategies is extremely important to reduce narcotic use and improve patient outcomes,” Dr. Balgobin said. The study “addresses an important gap in the literature, is relevant to surgeons performing vaginal apical procedures, and aims to advance research in this area for the potential benefit of ... patients.”

Interpretation of the results for individual procedure types may be limited by the smaller sample sizes, he added.

The researchers and Dr. Balgobin had no relevant financial disclosures.

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Giugale L et al. SGS 2020, Abstract 10.

Laser treatment for lichen sclerosus was noninferior to steroid therapy after 6 months and may lead to better outcomes on various patient- and physician-reported measures, according to trial results presented at the virtual annual scientific meeting of the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons.

Patients with lichen sclerosus often present with itching, burning, and dysuria. Untreated, the vulvar dystrophy can cause architectural changes and is associated with an increased risk of vulvar malignancies.

Topical steroids are the standard treatment. To assess whether fractional CO₂ laser treatment is noninferior to clobetasol propionate at 6 months, Linda Burkett, MD, and colleagues conducted a randomized controlled trial. Dr. Burkett is affiliated with MedStar Washington Hospital Center and Georgetown University in Washington and UPMC Magee-Womens Hospital in Pittsburgh.

The researchers enrolled 52 postmenopausal women with biopsy-proven lichen sclerosus. Patients had to have significant symptoms reflected by a score of at least 21 on the Skindex-29.

Twenty-seven women were assigned to receive laser therapy, and 25 were assigned to receive steroids. One patient in the steroid arm was lost to follow-up. About half of the patients in each group had prior clobetasol propionate exposure.

Patients in the steroid arm were started on 0.05% clobetasol propionate used nightly for 4 weeks, then three times per week for 8 weeks, and then as needed. They had a phone call follow-up at 2 weeks to confirm compliance and an optional in-person appointment at 3 months.

Patients in the laser arm received three laser treatments 4-6 weeks apart.

At 6 months, all patients returned for repeat assessments. The primary outcome was the Skindex-29, a dermatologic questionnaire. Secondary outcomes included a patient visual analog scale of bothersome vulvar symptoms, a provider visual assessment score, the Vaginal Health Index, the Vulvovaginal Symptom Questionnaire, the Patient Global Impression of Improvement, and the Patient Global Impression of Satisfaction.

Average Skindex-29 scores from baseline to 6 months improved more in the laser treatment group, compared with the steroid group, for all health-related quality of life categories: overall, emotional, functional, and symptoms. “At 6 months across all scores, patients reported very little bother,” Dr. Burkett said.

Differences between the groups were statistically significant for all but the functional subscore.

Average scores on subjective secondary outcomes improved more in the laser treatment group, compared with the steroid treatment group. The between-group differences were statistically significant for irritation and the Vulvovaginal Symptom Questionnaire.

For provider-based scores, patients in the laser group had greater improvement on all measures except perianal involvement, relative to patients in the steroid group. In addition, fusion of the labia minora and phimosis worsened in the steroid group.

Differences between the groups were statistically significant for phimosis, erosion, and the Vaginal Health Index.

Significantly more patients in the laser group than in the steroid group were satisfied or very satisfied with the results at 6 months (81% vs. 41%). Patients in the laser group were more likely to report that they were better or much better (89% vs. 62%), though the difference was not statistically significant.

There were no major adverse events.

The trial – the first randomized controlled study of energy-based treatment for lichen sclerosus – was conducted at a single center, and treatment was not blinded, Dr. Burkett noted.

“The treatment effect was pretty significant in favor of laser therapy,” said Cecile A. Ferrando, MD, MPH, of the Center for Urogynecology and Pelvic Reconstructive Surgery at Cleveland Clinic, commenting on the research.

“Compliance issues with clobetasol aside,” the findings raise the question of whether laser therapy should be offered as first-line treatment, Dr. Ferrando said.

The study might have been more robust had it excluded patients with previous clobetasol propionate exposure, Dr. Ferrando added.

Dr. Burkett noted that future studies may incorporate multiple centers, histology measures, and sham laser treatments and include only women who have not previously received clobetasol propionate.

The researchers had no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Ferrando disclosed authorship royalties from UpToDate.

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Burkett L et al. SGS 2020, Abstract 09.

Laser treatment for lichen sclerosus was noninferior to steroid therapy after 6 months and may lead to better outcomes on various patient- and physician-reported measures, according to trial results presented at the virtual annual scientific meeting of the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons.

Patients with lichen sclerosus often present with itching, burning, and dysuria. Untreated, the vulvar dystrophy can cause architectural changes and is associated with an increased risk of vulvar malignancies.

Topical steroids are the standard treatment. To assess whether fractional CO₂ laser treatment is noninferior to clobetasol propionate at 6 months, Linda Burkett, MD, and colleagues conducted a randomized controlled trial. Dr. Burkett is affiliated with MedStar Washington Hospital Center and Georgetown University in Washington and UPMC Magee-Womens Hospital in Pittsburgh.

The researchers enrolled 52 postmenopausal women with biopsy-proven lichen sclerosus. Patients had to have significant symptoms reflected by a score of at least 21 on the Skindex-29.

Twenty-seven women were assigned to receive laser therapy, and 25 were assigned to receive steroids. One patient in the steroid arm was lost to follow-up. About half of the patients in each group had prior clobetasol propionate exposure.

Patients in the steroid arm were started on 0.05% clobetasol propionate used nightly for 4 weeks, then three times per week for 8 weeks, and then as needed. They had a phone call follow-up at 2 weeks to confirm compliance and an optional in-person appointment at 3 months.

Patients in the laser arm received three laser treatments 4-6 weeks apart.

At 6 months, all patients returned for repeat assessments. The primary outcome was the Skindex-29, a dermatologic questionnaire. Secondary outcomes included a patient visual analog scale of bothersome vulvar symptoms, a provider visual assessment score, the Vaginal Health Index, the Vulvovaginal Symptom Questionnaire, the Patient Global Impression of Improvement, and the Patient Global Impression of Satisfaction.

Average Skindex-29 scores from baseline to 6 months improved more in the laser treatment group, compared with the steroid group, for all health-related quality of life categories: overall, emotional, functional, and symptoms. “At 6 months across all scores, patients reported very little bother,” Dr. Burkett said.

Differences between the groups were statistically significant for all but the functional subscore.

Average scores on subjective secondary outcomes improved more in the laser treatment group, compared with the steroid treatment group. The between-group differences were statistically significant for irritation and the Vulvovaginal Symptom Questionnaire.

For provider-based scores, patients in the laser group had greater improvement on all measures except perianal involvement, relative to patients in the steroid group. In addition, fusion of the labia minora and phimosis worsened in the steroid group.

Differences between the groups were statistically significant for phimosis, erosion, and the Vaginal Health Index.

Significantly more patients in the laser group than in the steroid group were satisfied or very satisfied with the results at 6 months (81% vs. 41%). Patients in the laser group were more likely to report that they were better or much better (89% vs. 62%), though the difference was not statistically significant.

There were no major adverse events.

The trial – the first randomized controlled study of energy-based treatment for lichen sclerosus – was conducted at a single center, and treatment was not blinded, Dr. Burkett noted.

“The treatment effect was pretty significant in favor of laser therapy,” said Cecile A. Ferrando, MD, MPH, of the Center for Urogynecology and Pelvic Reconstructive Surgery at Cleveland Clinic, commenting on the research.

“Compliance issues with clobetasol aside,” the findings raise the question of whether laser therapy should be offered as first-line treatment, Dr. Ferrando said.

The study might have been more robust had it excluded patients with previous clobetasol propionate exposure, Dr. Ferrando added.

Dr. Burkett noted that future studies may incorporate multiple centers, histology measures, and sham laser treatments and include only women who have not previously received clobetasol propionate.

The researchers had no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Ferrando disclosed authorship royalties from UpToDate.

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Burkett L et al. SGS 2020, Abstract 09.

Laser treatment for lichen sclerosus was noninferior to steroid therapy after 6 months and may lead to better outcomes on various patient- and physician-reported measures, according to trial results presented at the virtual annual scientific meeting of the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons.

Patients with lichen sclerosus often present with itching, burning, and dysuria. Untreated, the vulvar dystrophy can cause architectural changes and is associated with an increased risk of vulvar malignancies.

Topical steroids are the standard treatment. To assess whether fractional CO₂ laser treatment is noninferior to clobetasol propionate at 6 months, Linda Burkett, MD, and colleagues conducted a randomized controlled trial. Dr. Burkett is affiliated with MedStar Washington Hospital Center and Georgetown University in Washington and UPMC Magee-Womens Hospital in Pittsburgh.

The researchers enrolled 52 postmenopausal women with biopsy-proven lichen sclerosus. Patients had to have significant symptoms reflected by a score of at least 21 on the Skindex-29.

Twenty-seven women were assigned to receive laser therapy, and 25 were assigned to receive steroids. One patient in the steroid arm was lost to follow-up. About half of the patients in each group had prior clobetasol propionate exposure.

Patients in the steroid arm were started on 0.05% clobetasol propionate used nightly for 4 weeks, then three times per week for 8 weeks, and then as needed. They had a phone call follow-up at 2 weeks to confirm compliance and an optional in-person appointment at 3 months.

Patients in the laser arm received three laser treatments 4-6 weeks apart.

At 6 months, all patients returned for repeat assessments. The primary outcome was the Skindex-29, a dermatologic questionnaire. Secondary outcomes included a patient visual analog scale of bothersome vulvar symptoms, a provider visual assessment score, the Vaginal Health Index, the Vulvovaginal Symptom Questionnaire, the Patient Global Impression of Improvement, and the Patient Global Impression of Satisfaction.

Average Skindex-29 scores from baseline to 6 months improved more in the laser treatment group, compared with the steroid group, for all health-related quality of life categories: overall, emotional, functional, and symptoms. “At 6 months across all scores, patients reported very little bother,” Dr. Burkett said.

Differences between the groups were statistically significant for all but the functional subscore.

Average scores on subjective secondary outcomes improved more in the laser treatment group, compared with the steroid treatment group. The between-group differences were statistically significant for irritation and the Vulvovaginal Symptom Questionnaire.

For provider-based scores, patients in the laser group had greater improvement on all measures except perianal involvement, relative to patients in the steroid group. In addition, fusion of the labia minora and phimosis worsened in the steroid group.

Differences between the groups were statistically significant for phimosis, erosion, and the Vaginal Health Index.

Significantly more patients in the laser group than in the steroid group were satisfied or very satisfied with the results at 6 months (81% vs. 41%). Patients in the laser group were more likely to report that they were better or much better (89% vs. 62%), though the difference was not statistically significant.

There were no major adverse events.

The trial – the first randomized controlled study of energy-based treatment for lichen sclerosus – was conducted at a single center, and treatment was not blinded, Dr. Burkett noted.

“The treatment effect was pretty significant in favor of laser therapy,” said Cecile A. Ferrando, MD, MPH, of the Center for Urogynecology and Pelvic Reconstructive Surgery at Cleveland Clinic, commenting on the research.

“Compliance issues with clobetasol aside,” the findings raise the question of whether laser therapy should be offered as first-line treatment, Dr. Ferrando said.

The study might have been more robust had it excluded patients with previous clobetasol propionate exposure, Dr. Ferrando added.

Dr. Burkett noted that future studies may incorporate multiple centers, histology measures, and sham laser treatments and include only women who have not previously received clobetasol propionate.

The researchers had no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Ferrando disclosed authorship royalties from UpToDate.

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Burkett L et al. SGS 2020, Abstract 09.

The first order of business in the long-awaited, recently released Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) proposed national coverage decision (NCD) for transcatheter mitral valve repair (TMVR) was to get rid of its familiar moniker.

The document tosses the term TMVR in favor of transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (TEER) “to more precisely define the treatment addressed in this NCD” and differentiate it from other therapies that repair or replace the mitral valve.

(In an off-the-cuff Twitter poll launched right after the CMS document’s release, 80.3% of respondents answered that they “hate” the new acronym and the remainder said they “love” it; those two were the poll’s only choices.)

The NCD proposal goes on to say that CMS coverage of TEER would expand to include treatment of symptomatic moderate-to-severe or severe functional mitral regurgitation (MR) when used with maximally tolerated guideline-directed medical therapy.

The proposed NCD has been expected since March 2019 when the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the MitraClip (Abbott Vascular) for secondary functional MR. Medicare has covered MitraClip for primary degenerative MR since 2014.

Abbott announced in October 2019 that it would ramp up production of the MitraClip, which is currently the only FDA-approved TEER device.

Further specifications

Even as the new proposed NCD would add CMS coverage for functional MR, it would also decline a coverage statement for degenerative MR. Instead, it proposes to leave such coverage decisions to local Medical Administrative Contractors (MACs), given a relatively low incidence of clip intervention for degenerative MR. Less than 1% of the Medicare population undergo TEER of the mitral valve for that indication, the document says.

“The MACs are structured to be able to take into account local patient, physician, and institutional factors, which are especially important when overall prevalence is very low.”

The proposal also emphasizes that patients undergoing such covered TEER procedures be “under the care of a heart failure physician specialist experienced in the care and treatment of mitral valve disease,» with additional care provided by a heart team that includes a cardiac surgeon, interventional cardiologist, interventional echocardiographer.

The new document is generally consistent with a Consensus Statement from the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons published in December 2019 and covered then by theheart.org / Medscape Cardiology.

In anticipation the CMS coverage proposal, the ACC earlier this year published a Focused Update of the 2017 Expert Consensus Decision Pathway on the Management of Mitral Regurgitation to reflect new evidence in the field, mainly the recent clinical trial data on functional MR from the MITRA-FR and COAPT trials.

“The proposed criteria are nicely guided by the multisociety consensus document, which sought to foster optimal patient outcomes while also maintaining access to TEER,” Sammy Elmariah, MD, MPH, from Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, commented by email.

“These criteria, in conjunction with results of the COAPT trial, establish TEER as the standard of care for patients with symptomatic functional MR despite guideline-directed medical therapy who do not possess an alternative indication for cardiac surgery,” said Elmariah, a coauthor on both the Consensus Statement and the Focused Update.

The proposed NCD seems “reasonable,” cardiothoracic surgeon Michael J. Reardon, MD, Houston Methodist Hospital, said by email. But he thought there might be some objections to the requirement for TEER centers to have a surgery program with a minimum annual volume for mitral-valve surgeries.

The proposed NCD says a hospital must have “a surgical program that performs ≥25 total mitral valve surgical procedures for severe MR per year, of which at least 10 must be mitral valve repairs.”

“There is a very definite relationship between mitral valve surgery volume and surgical outcomes and between TEER volume and TEER outcomes, but no real relationship between mitral valve surgery volumes and TEER outcomes,” Reardon said. “A mitral valve surgery program is important, but how many cases do you need to be able to start and run a TEER program?”

Edwards Lifesciences is currently testing its own device for TEER: the PASCAL transcatheter mitral valve repair system. Early findings from the company’s ongoing CLASP IID trial, a head-to-head comparison of Pascal and MitraClip, are expected in December 2023.

CMS is seeking comments on the proposed national coverage determination, and will render a final decision within 60 days of the end of the 30-day public comment period.

Elmariah discloses receiving research grants from the American Heart Association, the National Institutes of Health, Edwards Lifesciences, Svelte Medical, and Medtronic, and consulting fees from AstraZeneca. Reardon recently reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The first order of business in the long-awaited, recently released Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) proposed national coverage decision (NCD) for transcatheter mitral valve repair (TMVR) was to get rid of its familiar moniker.

The document tosses the term TMVR in favor of transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (TEER) “to more precisely define the treatment addressed in this NCD” and differentiate it from other therapies that repair or replace the mitral valve.

(In an off-the-cuff Twitter poll launched right after the CMS document’s release, 80.3% of respondents answered that they “hate” the new acronym and the remainder said they “love” it; those two were the poll’s only choices.)

The NCD proposal goes on to say that CMS coverage of TEER would expand to include treatment of symptomatic moderate-to-severe or severe functional mitral regurgitation (MR) when used with maximally tolerated guideline-directed medical therapy.

The proposed NCD has been expected since March 2019 when the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the MitraClip (Abbott Vascular) for secondary functional MR. Medicare has covered MitraClip for primary degenerative MR since 2014.

Abbott announced in October 2019 that it would ramp up production of the MitraClip, which is currently the only FDA-approved TEER device.

Further specifications

Even as the new proposed NCD would add CMS coverage for functional MR, it would also decline a coverage statement for degenerative MR. Instead, it proposes to leave such coverage decisions to local Medical Administrative Contractors (MACs), given a relatively low incidence of clip intervention for degenerative MR. Less than 1% of the Medicare population undergo TEER of the mitral valve for that indication, the document says.

“The MACs are structured to be able to take into account local patient, physician, and institutional factors, which are especially important when overall prevalence is very low.”

The proposal also emphasizes that patients undergoing such covered TEER procedures be “under the care of a heart failure physician specialist experienced in the care and treatment of mitral valve disease,» with additional care provided by a heart team that includes a cardiac surgeon, interventional cardiologist, interventional echocardiographer.

The new document is generally consistent with a Consensus Statement from the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons published in December 2019 and covered then by theheart.org / Medscape Cardiology.

In anticipation the CMS coverage proposal, the ACC earlier this year published a Focused Update of the 2017 Expert Consensus Decision Pathway on the Management of Mitral Regurgitation to reflect new evidence in the field, mainly the recent clinical trial data on functional MR from the MITRA-FR and COAPT trials.

“The proposed criteria are nicely guided by the multisociety consensus document, which sought to foster optimal patient outcomes while also maintaining access to TEER,” Sammy Elmariah, MD, MPH, from Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, commented by email.

“These criteria, in conjunction with results of the COAPT trial, establish TEER as the standard of care for patients with symptomatic functional MR despite guideline-directed medical therapy who do not possess an alternative indication for cardiac surgery,” said Elmariah, a coauthor on both the Consensus Statement and the Focused Update.

The proposed NCD seems “reasonable,” cardiothoracic surgeon Michael J. Reardon, MD, Houston Methodist Hospital, said by email. But he thought there might be some objections to the requirement for TEER centers to have a surgery program with a minimum annual volume for mitral-valve surgeries.

The proposed NCD says a hospital must have “a surgical program that performs ≥25 total mitral valve surgical procedures for severe MR per year, of which at least 10 must be mitral valve repairs.”

“There is a very definite relationship between mitral valve surgery volume and surgical outcomes and between TEER volume and TEER outcomes, but no real relationship between mitral valve surgery volumes and TEER outcomes,” Reardon said. “A mitral valve surgery program is important, but how many cases do you need to be able to start and run a TEER program?”

Edwards Lifesciences is currently testing its own device for TEER: the PASCAL transcatheter mitral valve repair system. Early findings from the company’s ongoing CLASP IID trial, a head-to-head comparison of Pascal and MitraClip, are expected in December 2023.

CMS is seeking comments on the proposed national coverage determination, and will render a final decision within 60 days of the end of the 30-day public comment period.

Elmariah discloses receiving research grants from the American Heart Association, the National Institutes of Health, Edwards Lifesciences, Svelte Medical, and Medtronic, and consulting fees from AstraZeneca. Reardon recently reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The first order of business in the long-awaited, recently released Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) proposed national coverage decision (NCD) for transcatheter mitral valve repair (TMVR) was to get rid of its familiar moniker.

The document tosses the term TMVR in favor of transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (TEER) “to more precisely define the treatment addressed in this NCD” and differentiate it from other therapies that repair or replace the mitral valve.

(In an off-the-cuff Twitter poll launched right after the CMS document’s release, 80.3% of respondents answered that they “hate” the new acronym and the remainder said they “love” it; those two were the poll’s only choices.)

The NCD proposal goes on to say that CMS coverage of TEER would expand to include treatment of symptomatic moderate-to-severe or severe functional mitral regurgitation (MR) when used with maximally tolerated guideline-directed medical therapy.

The proposed NCD has been expected since March 2019 when the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the MitraClip (Abbott Vascular) for secondary functional MR. Medicare has covered MitraClip for primary degenerative MR since 2014.

Abbott announced in October 2019 that it would ramp up production of the MitraClip, which is currently the only FDA-approved TEER device.

Further specifications

Even as the new proposed NCD would add CMS coverage for functional MR, it would also decline a coverage statement for degenerative MR. Instead, it proposes to leave such coverage decisions to local Medical Administrative Contractors (MACs), given a relatively low incidence of clip intervention for degenerative MR. Less than 1% of the Medicare population undergo TEER of the mitral valve for that indication, the document says.

“The MACs are structured to be able to take into account local patient, physician, and institutional factors, which are especially important when overall prevalence is very low.”

The proposal also emphasizes that patients undergoing such covered TEER procedures be “under the care of a heart failure physician specialist experienced in the care and treatment of mitral valve disease,» with additional care provided by a heart team that includes a cardiac surgeon, interventional cardiologist, interventional echocardiographer.

The new document is generally consistent with a Consensus Statement from the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons published in December 2019 and covered then by theheart.org / Medscape Cardiology.

In anticipation the CMS coverage proposal, the ACC earlier this year published a Focused Update of the 2017 Expert Consensus Decision Pathway on the Management of Mitral Regurgitation to reflect new evidence in the field, mainly the recent clinical trial data on functional MR from the MITRA-FR and COAPT trials.

“The proposed criteria are nicely guided by the multisociety consensus document, which sought to foster optimal patient outcomes while also maintaining access to TEER,” Sammy Elmariah, MD, MPH, from Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, commented by email.

“These criteria, in conjunction with results of the COAPT trial, establish TEER as the standard of care for patients with symptomatic functional MR despite guideline-directed medical therapy who do not possess an alternative indication for cardiac surgery,” said Elmariah, a coauthor on both the Consensus Statement and the Focused Update.

The proposed NCD seems “reasonable,” cardiothoracic surgeon Michael J. Reardon, MD, Houston Methodist Hospital, said by email. But he thought there might be some objections to the requirement for TEER centers to have a surgery program with a minimum annual volume for mitral-valve surgeries.

The proposed NCD says a hospital must have “a surgical program that performs ≥25 total mitral valve surgical procedures for severe MR per year, of which at least 10 must be mitral valve repairs.”

“There is a very definite relationship between mitral valve surgery volume and surgical outcomes and between TEER volume and TEER outcomes, but no real relationship between mitral valve surgery volumes and TEER outcomes,” Reardon said. “A mitral valve surgery program is important, but how many cases do you need to be able to start and run a TEER program?”

Edwards Lifesciences is currently testing its own device for TEER: the PASCAL transcatheter mitral valve repair system. Early findings from the company’s ongoing CLASP IID trial, a head-to-head comparison of Pascal and MitraClip, are expected in December 2023.

CMS is seeking comments on the proposed national coverage determination, and will render a final decision within 60 days of the end of the 30-day public comment period.

Elmariah discloses receiving research grants from the American Heart Association, the National Institutes of Health, Edwards Lifesciences, Svelte Medical, and Medtronic, and consulting fees from AstraZeneca. Reardon recently reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A phase 1/2 trial of a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 being developed by the University of Oxford has found that the vaccine is safe, causes few side effects, and induces strong immune responses.

The early stage results, published in The Lancet, found that the candidate vaccine, known as ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, provoked a T-cell response peaking 14 days after vaccination, and an antibody response within 28 days.

Andrew Pollard, chief investigator on the study, and professor of pediatric infection and immunity at Oxford University, described the results as “encouraging”. He told a briefing convened by the Science Media Centre on Monday that it was “a really important milestone on the path to the development of the vaccine”.

In the Commons, the Health Secretary, Matt Hancock, hailed the results for taking us “one step closer to finding a vaccine that can potentially save lives, all around the world”.

The trial, which has so far involved 1,077 healthy adults, caused minor side effects when compared with a control group given a meningitis vaccine. Fatigue and headache were the most commonly reported reactions.

However, there were no serious adverse events from the vaccine, the researchers said.
 

‘Still a long way to go’

Sarah Gilbert, lead researcher of the vaccine development program, and professor of vaccinology at Oxford, cautioned that there was still a long way to go before the team could confirm that the vaccine could protect against developing COVID-19.

“The difficulty that we have, and that all vaccine developers have in trying to make a vaccine against this particular virus, is that we don’t know how strong that immune response needs to be,” she said.

“So, we can’t say just by looking at immune responses whether this is going to protect people or not. And the only way we’re going to find out is by doing the large phase 3 trials and wait for people to be infected as part of that trial before we know if the vaccine can work.”

The authors noted some limitations to their findings. They said more research was needed to confirm their results in different groups of people – including older age groups, those with other health conditions, and in ethnically and geographically diverse populations.

A notable result of the trial was that participants given a second dose of the vaccine appeared to display a stronger immune response, a finding that had influenced plans to “look at two dose regimes as well as one dose regimes in the phase 3 trial”, Prof Adrian Hill, director of Oxford’s Jenner Institute, confirmed.

ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 is made from a weakened version of an adenovirus that causes infections in chimpanzees. The virus has been genetically modified so that it cannot grow in humans.

On Monday, the government announced that it had struck a deal with AstraZeneca for access to 100 million doses of the Oxford vaccine, in addition to millions of doses of other promising candidate vaccines.
 

Expert reaction to the findings

The Medical Research Council helped to fund the trial. Executive Chair Professor Fiona Watt commented: “It is truly remarkable how fast this vaccine has progressed, with our support, through early clinical trials, and it is very encouraging that it shows no safety concerns and evokes strong immune responses.

“There is a lot that we don’t yet know about immunity to the virus that causes COVID-19. However, it seems that both antibody and T cell immunity are important, and this vaccine triggers both responses. The much anticipated next milestone will be the results of the larger trials that are happening now to find out if the vaccine will protect people from the virus.”

Jonathan Ball, professor of molecular virology at the University of Nottingham, told the SMC: “The results of the Oxford chimp adenovirus vaccine candidate show that the vaccine is able to generate antibodies and T cells in humans and these persisted for several weeks. Whilst encouraging there is still a long way to go before we can herald the arrival of a successful coronavirus vaccine.

“It is unclear whether the levels of immunity can protect against infection – that’s what the larger ongoing phase III trials are designed to test. Nor do we know if this vaccine can protect those most vulnerable to severe COVID-19 disease.”

Stephen Evans, professor of pharmacoepidemiology at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, commented: “For the vaccine to be really useful, we not only need the larger studies conducted where COVID-19 is still occurring at a high rate, but we need to be reasonably sure that the protection lasts for a considerable time.”

He said it was also vital that people older than 55 were included in later trials.

Richard Torbett, chief executive of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, said: “Developing a vaccine is an incredibly difficult challenge; the fact that there are multiple candidates in development is hopefully a sign that the hard work will ultimately pay off.

“But we must be patient. Proving that a vaccine is safe and effective is a long process and we could still be many months away.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A phase 1/2 trial of a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 being developed by the University of Oxford has found that the vaccine is safe, causes few side effects, and induces strong immune responses.

The early stage results, published in The Lancet, found that the candidate vaccine, known as ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, provoked a T-cell response peaking 14 days after vaccination, and an antibody response within 28 days.

Andrew Pollard, chief investigator on the study, and professor of pediatric infection and immunity at Oxford University, described the results as “encouraging”. He told a briefing convened by the Science Media Centre on Monday that it was “a really important milestone on the path to the development of the vaccine”.

In the Commons, the Health Secretary, Matt Hancock, hailed the results for taking us “one step closer to finding a vaccine that can potentially save lives, all around the world”.

The trial, which has so far involved 1,077 healthy adults, caused minor side effects when compared with a control group given a meningitis vaccine. Fatigue and headache were the most commonly reported reactions.

However, there were no serious adverse events from the vaccine, the researchers said.
 

‘Still a long way to go’

Sarah Gilbert, lead researcher of the vaccine development program, and professor of vaccinology at Oxford, cautioned that there was still a long way to go before the team could confirm that the vaccine could protect against developing COVID-19.

“The difficulty that we have, and that all vaccine developers have in trying to make a vaccine against this particular virus, is that we don’t know how strong that immune response needs to be,” she said.

“So, we can’t say just by looking at immune responses whether this is going to protect people or not. And the only way we’re going to find out is by doing the large phase 3 trials and wait for people to be infected as part of that trial before we know if the vaccine can work.”

The authors noted some limitations to their findings. They said more research was needed to confirm their results in different groups of people – including older age groups, those with other health conditions, and in ethnically and geographically diverse populations.

A notable result of the trial was that participants given a second dose of the vaccine appeared to display a stronger immune response, a finding that had influenced plans to “look at two dose regimes as well as one dose regimes in the phase 3 trial”, Prof Adrian Hill, director of Oxford’s Jenner Institute, confirmed.

ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 is made from a weakened version of an adenovirus that causes infections in chimpanzees. The virus has been genetically modified so that it cannot grow in humans.

On Monday, the government announced that it had struck a deal with AstraZeneca for access to 100 million doses of the Oxford vaccine, in addition to millions of doses of other promising candidate vaccines.
 

Expert reaction to the findings

The Medical Research Council helped to fund the trial. Executive Chair Professor Fiona Watt commented: “It is truly remarkable how fast this vaccine has progressed, with our support, through early clinical trials, and it is very encouraging that it shows no safety concerns and evokes strong immune responses.

“There is a lot that we don’t yet know about immunity to the virus that causes COVID-19. However, it seems that both antibody and T cell immunity are important, and this vaccine triggers both responses. The much anticipated next milestone will be the results of the larger trials that are happening now to find out if the vaccine will protect people from the virus.”

Jonathan Ball, professor of molecular virology at the University of Nottingham, told the SMC: “The results of the Oxford chimp adenovirus vaccine candidate show that the vaccine is able to generate antibodies and T cells in humans and these persisted for several weeks. Whilst encouraging there is still a long way to go before we can herald the arrival of a successful coronavirus vaccine.

“It is unclear whether the levels of immunity can protect against infection – that’s what the larger ongoing phase III trials are designed to test. Nor do we know if this vaccine can protect those most vulnerable to severe COVID-19 disease.”

Stephen Evans, professor of pharmacoepidemiology at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, commented: “For the vaccine to be really useful, we not only need the larger studies conducted where COVID-19 is still occurring at a high rate, but we need to be reasonably sure that the protection lasts for a considerable time.”

He said it was also vital that people older than 55 were included in later trials.

Richard Torbett, chief executive of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, said: “Developing a vaccine is an incredibly difficult challenge; the fact that there are multiple candidates in development is hopefully a sign that the hard work will ultimately pay off.

“But we must be patient. Proving that a vaccine is safe and effective is a long process and we could still be many months away.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A phase 1/2 trial of a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 being developed by the University of Oxford has found that the vaccine is safe, causes few side effects, and induces strong immune responses.

The early stage results, published in The Lancet, found that the candidate vaccine, known as ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, provoked a T-cell response peaking 14 days after vaccination, and an antibody response within 28 days.

Andrew Pollard, chief investigator on the study, and professor of pediatric infection and immunity at Oxford University, described the results as “encouraging”. He told a briefing convened by the Science Media Centre on Monday that it was “a really important milestone on the path to the development of the vaccine”.

In the Commons, the Health Secretary, Matt Hancock, hailed the results for taking us “one step closer to finding a vaccine that can potentially save lives, all around the world”.

The trial, which has so far involved 1,077 healthy adults, caused minor side effects when compared with a control group given a meningitis vaccine. Fatigue and headache were the most commonly reported reactions.

However, there were no serious adverse events from the vaccine, the researchers said.
 

‘Still a long way to go’

Sarah Gilbert, lead researcher of the vaccine development program, and professor of vaccinology at Oxford, cautioned that there was still a long way to go before the team could confirm that the vaccine could protect against developing COVID-19.

“The difficulty that we have, and that all vaccine developers have in trying to make a vaccine against this particular virus, is that we don’t know how strong that immune response needs to be,” she said.

“So, we can’t say just by looking at immune responses whether this is going to protect people or not. And the only way we’re going to find out is by doing the large phase 3 trials and wait for people to be infected as part of that trial before we know if the vaccine can work.”

The authors noted some limitations to their findings. They said more research was needed to confirm their results in different groups of people – including older age groups, those with other health conditions, and in ethnically and geographically diverse populations.

A notable result of the trial was that participants given a second dose of the vaccine appeared to display a stronger immune response, a finding that had influenced plans to “look at two dose regimes as well as one dose regimes in the phase 3 trial”, Prof Adrian Hill, director of Oxford’s Jenner Institute, confirmed.

ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 is made from a weakened version of an adenovirus that causes infections in chimpanzees. The virus has been genetically modified so that it cannot grow in humans.

On Monday, the government announced that it had struck a deal with AstraZeneca for access to 100 million doses of the Oxford vaccine, in addition to millions of doses of other promising candidate vaccines.
 

Expert reaction to the findings

The Medical Research Council helped to fund the trial. Executive Chair Professor Fiona Watt commented: “It is truly remarkable how fast this vaccine has progressed, with our support, through early clinical trials, and it is very encouraging that it shows no safety concerns and evokes strong immune responses.

“There is a lot that we don’t yet know about immunity to the virus that causes COVID-19. However, it seems that both antibody and T cell immunity are important, and this vaccine triggers both responses. The much anticipated next milestone will be the results of the larger trials that are happening now to find out if the vaccine will protect people from the virus.”

Jonathan Ball, professor of molecular virology at the University of Nottingham, told the SMC: “The results of the Oxford chimp adenovirus vaccine candidate show that the vaccine is able to generate antibodies and T cells in humans and these persisted for several weeks. Whilst encouraging there is still a long way to go before we can herald the arrival of a successful coronavirus vaccine.

“It is unclear whether the levels of immunity can protect against infection – that’s what the larger ongoing phase III trials are designed to test. Nor do we know if this vaccine can protect those most vulnerable to severe COVID-19 disease.”

Stephen Evans, professor of pharmacoepidemiology at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, commented: “For the vaccine to be really useful, we not only need the larger studies conducted where COVID-19 is still occurring at a high rate, but we need to be reasonably sure that the protection lasts for a considerable time.”

He said it was also vital that people older than 55 were included in later trials.

Richard Torbett, chief executive of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, said: “Developing a vaccine is an incredibly difficult challenge; the fact that there are multiple candidates in development is hopefully a sign that the hard work will ultimately pay off.

“But we must be patient. Proving that a vaccine is safe and effective is a long process and we could still be many months away.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The American Society for Metabolic & Bariatric Surgery (ASMBS) has issued a statement declaring that obesity surgery is not elective and should be resumed as soon as it›s safe to do so during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The ASMBS statement, “Safer Through Surgery,” was published online in Surgery for Obesity and Related Diseases by the ASMBS executive committee.

It is a reaction to the fact that some U.S. states have placed metabolic and bariatric surgery in the same low-priority category as cosmetic surgery as examples of “elective” procedures that should be among the last to be restarted when pandemic restrictions are eased.

Rather, ASMBS argues, although obesity surgery must be postponed along with other nonemergency procedures when surges in the novel coronavirus make them unsafe, such operations should be resumed as soon as possible along with other medically necessary procedures.

“Metabolic and bariatric surgery is NOT elective. Metabolic and bariatric surgery is medically necessary and the best treatment for those with the life-threatening and life-limiting disease of severe obesity,” the statement says.

And obesity itself is a major risk factor for worse COVID-19 outcomes, ASMBS President Matt Hutter, MD, told Medscape Medical News, noting that individuals with obesity are “more likely to be in [intensive care units].”

“Mortality rates are higher, even in young patients. And [obesity] ... is associated with other comorbidities including diabetes and heart disease...We know the clock is ticking for some folks. For those with early diabetes, the sooner the [bariatric] surgery the more likely it is [for diabetes] to go into remission.”

Because the pandemic may be around for a while, “If we can make people [with obesity] safer ... because they’ve had surgery ... they may be better off,” should they get COVID-19 later, he pointed out.

Hutter noted that the ASMBS recorded a series of webinars, archived on the society’s website, with panels discussing in-depth issues to consider in prioritizing patients when restarting metabolic and bariatric surgery.

There are some differences of opinion, such as whether the sickest patients should be the first to have the surgeries upon reopening, or whether those individuals might be worse off if they contract COVID-19 in the perioperative setting.

“I don’t think there’s a right or wrong answer, but I think we have to figure out what’s right for the individual patient, considering their specific risks of having versus not having surgery, of waiting 1 month, 2 months, or 6 months. One thing we do know is that obesity is a significant disease.”
 

‘Before, during, and after COVID, obesity itself remains an epidemic’

Asked to comment on the ASMBS stance, Obesity Society president Lee M. Kaplan, MD, PhD, sent Medscape Medical News a statement.

“We do not fully understand which aspects of obesity pathophysiology ... are most responsible for the adverse COVID-19 outcomes, nor do we know the degree to which reduced access to care, social isolation, and other social and environmental determinants of health disproportionately affect COVID-19 patients with obesity,” he noted.

“At this early stage, we have not yet determined the impact of weight loss and various types of antiobesity therapies on these risks.”

Nonetheless, Kaplan said, “the extended COVID-19 pandemic underscores the importance of increasing, not diminishing, our commitment to understanding and treating obesity, using all available, evidence-based therapies, including lifestyle modification, antiobesity medications, bariatric surgery, and combinations thereof.”

As all health care delivery is being reorganized around the pandemic, Kaplan added: “Rethinking and changing our approach to obesity needs to be a central feature of this process.

“Before, during, and after COVID, obesity itself remains an epidemic. Its high global prevalence, increasing severity, and profound impact on all aspects of health and disease require that it be addressed more universally within the health care system, with the same commitment afforded to other chronic diseases.”

Obesity treatment isn’t generally considered an emergency, he noted, “because obesity is a chronic disease, whose adverse health effects often accumulate slowly and insidiously. Its generally slow progression allows for careful and coordinated care planning, and advanced scheduling of therapeutic interventions, including surgery. These characteristics, however, should not lead us to infer that treating obesity itself is optional.”

Hutter has reported receiving honoraria from Ethicon and Medtronic, and is a consultant for Vicarious Surgical and Sigilon Therapeutics. Kaplan has reported consulting for Boehringer Ingelheim, Fractyl, Gelesis, GI Dynamics, Johnson & Johnson, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Rhythm Pharmaceuticals, the National Institutes of Health, and the Department of State.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The American Society for Metabolic & Bariatric Surgery (ASMBS) has issued a statement declaring that obesity surgery is not elective and should be resumed as soon as it›s safe to do so during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The ASMBS statement, “Safer Through Surgery,” was published online in Surgery for Obesity and Related Diseases by the ASMBS executive committee.

It is a reaction to the fact that some U.S. states have placed metabolic and bariatric surgery in the same low-priority category as cosmetic surgery as examples of “elective” procedures that should be among the last to be restarted when pandemic restrictions are eased.

Rather, ASMBS argues, although obesity surgery must be postponed along with other nonemergency procedures when surges in the novel coronavirus make them unsafe, such operations should be resumed as soon as possible along with other medically necessary procedures.

“Metabolic and bariatric surgery is NOT elective. Metabolic and bariatric surgery is medically necessary and the best treatment for those with the life-threatening and life-limiting disease of severe obesity,” the statement says.

And obesity itself is a major risk factor for worse COVID-19 outcomes, ASMBS President Matt Hutter, MD, told Medscape Medical News, noting that individuals with obesity are “more likely to be in [intensive care units].”

“Mortality rates are higher, even in young patients. And [obesity] ... is associated with other comorbidities including diabetes and heart disease...We know the clock is ticking for some folks. For those with early diabetes, the sooner the [bariatric] surgery the more likely it is [for diabetes] to go into remission.”

Because the pandemic may be around for a while, “If we can make people [with obesity] safer ... because they’ve had surgery ... they may be better off,” should they get COVID-19 later, he pointed out.

Hutter noted that the ASMBS recorded a series of webinars, archived on the society’s website, with panels discussing in-depth issues to consider in prioritizing patients when restarting metabolic and bariatric surgery.

There are some differences of opinion, such as whether the sickest patients should be the first to have the surgeries upon reopening, or whether those individuals might be worse off if they contract COVID-19 in the perioperative setting.

“I don’t think there’s a right or wrong answer, but I think we have to figure out what’s right for the individual patient, considering their specific risks of having versus not having surgery, of waiting 1 month, 2 months, or 6 months. One thing we do know is that obesity is a significant disease.”
 

‘Before, during, and after COVID, obesity itself remains an epidemic’

Asked to comment on the ASMBS stance, Obesity Society president Lee M. Kaplan, MD, PhD, sent Medscape Medical News a statement.

“We do not fully understand which aspects of obesity pathophysiology ... are most responsible for the adverse COVID-19 outcomes, nor do we know the degree to which reduced access to care, social isolation, and other social and environmental determinants of health disproportionately affect COVID-19 patients with obesity,” he noted.

“At this early stage, we have not yet determined the impact of weight loss and various types of antiobesity therapies on these risks.”

Nonetheless, Kaplan said, “the extended COVID-19 pandemic underscores the importance of increasing, not diminishing, our commitment to understanding and treating obesity, using all available, evidence-based therapies, including lifestyle modification, antiobesity medications, bariatric surgery, and combinations thereof.”

As all health care delivery is being reorganized around the pandemic, Kaplan added: “Rethinking and changing our approach to obesity needs to be a central feature of this process.

“Before, during, and after COVID, obesity itself remains an epidemic. Its high global prevalence, increasing severity, and profound impact on all aspects of health and disease require that it be addressed more universally within the health care system, with the same commitment afforded to other chronic diseases.”

Obesity treatment isn’t generally considered an emergency, he noted, “because obesity is a chronic disease, whose adverse health effects often accumulate slowly and insidiously. Its generally slow progression allows for careful and coordinated care planning, and advanced scheduling of therapeutic interventions, including surgery. These characteristics, however, should not lead us to infer that treating obesity itself is optional.”

Hutter has reported receiving honoraria from Ethicon and Medtronic, and is a consultant for Vicarious Surgical and Sigilon Therapeutics. Kaplan has reported consulting for Boehringer Ingelheim, Fractyl, Gelesis, GI Dynamics, Johnson & Johnson, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Rhythm Pharmaceuticals, the National Institutes of Health, and the Department of State.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The American Society for Metabolic & Bariatric Surgery (ASMBS) has issued a statement declaring that obesity surgery is not elective and should be resumed as soon as it›s safe to do so during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The ASMBS statement, “Safer Through Surgery,” was published online in Surgery for Obesity and Related Diseases by the ASMBS executive committee.

It is a reaction to the fact that some U.S. states have placed metabolic and bariatric surgery in the same low-priority category as cosmetic surgery as examples of “elective” procedures that should be among the last to be restarted when pandemic restrictions are eased.

Rather, ASMBS argues, although obesity surgery must be postponed along with other nonemergency procedures when surges in the novel coronavirus make them unsafe, such operations should be resumed as soon as possible along with other medically necessary procedures.

“Metabolic and bariatric surgery is NOT elective. Metabolic and bariatric surgery is medically necessary and the best treatment for those with the life-threatening and life-limiting disease of severe obesity,” the statement says.

And obesity itself is a major risk factor for worse COVID-19 outcomes, ASMBS President Matt Hutter, MD, told Medscape Medical News, noting that individuals with obesity are “more likely to be in [intensive care units].”

“Mortality rates are higher, even in young patients. And [obesity] ... is associated with other comorbidities including diabetes and heart disease...We know the clock is ticking for some folks. For those with early diabetes, the sooner the [bariatric] surgery the more likely it is [for diabetes] to go into remission.”

Because the pandemic may be around for a while, “If we can make people [with obesity] safer ... because they’ve had surgery ... they may be better off,” should they get COVID-19 later, he pointed out.

Hutter noted that the ASMBS recorded a series of webinars, archived on the society’s website, with panels discussing in-depth issues to consider in prioritizing patients when restarting metabolic and bariatric surgery.

There are some differences of opinion, such as whether the sickest patients should be the first to have the surgeries upon reopening, or whether those individuals might be worse off if they contract COVID-19 in the perioperative setting.

“I don’t think there’s a right or wrong answer, but I think we have to figure out what’s right for the individual patient, considering their specific risks of having versus not having surgery, of waiting 1 month, 2 months, or 6 months. One thing we do know is that obesity is a significant disease.”
 

‘Before, during, and after COVID, obesity itself remains an epidemic’

Asked to comment on the ASMBS stance, Obesity Society president Lee M. Kaplan, MD, PhD, sent Medscape Medical News a statement.

“We do not fully understand which aspects of obesity pathophysiology ... are most responsible for the adverse COVID-19 outcomes, nor do we know the degree to which reduced access to care, social isolation, and other social and environmental determinants of health disproportionately affect COVID-19 patients with obesity,” he noted.

“At this early stage, we have not yet determined the impact of weight loss and various types of antiobesity therapies on these risks.”

Nonetheless, Kaplan said, “the extended COVID-19 pandemic underscores the importance of increasing, not diminishing, our commitment to understanding and treating obesity, using all available, evidence-based therapies, including lifestyle modification, antiobesity medications, bariatric surgery, and combinations thereof.”

As all health care delivery is being reorganized around the pandemic, Kaplan added: “Rethinking and changing our approach to obesity needs to be a central feature of this process.

“Before, during, and after COVID, obesity itself remains an epidemic. Its high global prevalence, increasing severity, and profound impact on all aspects of health and disease require that it be addressed more universally within the health care system, with the same commitment afforded to other chronic diseases.”

Obesity treatment isn’t generally considered an emergency, he noted, “because obesity is a chronic disease, whose adverse health effects often accumulate slowly and insidiously. Its generally slow progression allows for careful and coordinated care planning, and advanced scheduling of therapeutic interventions, including surgery. These characteristics, however, should not lead us to infer that treating obesity itself is optional.”

Hutter has reported receiving honoraria from Ethicon and Medtronic, and is a consultant for Vicarious Surgical and Sigilon Therapeutics. Kaplan has reported consulting for Boehringer Ingelheim, Fractyl, Gelesis, GI Dynamics, Johnson & Johnson, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Rhythm Pharmaceuticals, the National Institutes of Health, and the Department of State.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A 32-year-old woman presented to our clinic with left elbow swelling and pain of 6 days’ duration. She’d had a posterior interosseous nerve (PIN) injection (hydrodissection) at another facility 12 days earlier for refractory intersection syndrome.

During nerve hydrodissection, fluid is injected into the area surrounding the nerve in an effort to displace the muscles, tendons, and fascia and thus reduce friction on the nerve. This treatment, often completed with ultrasound guidance, is utilized by patients who want to obtain pain relief without undergoing surgery for nerve entrapment syndromes.

In this case, a combination of 1 mL (40 mg) of methylprednisolone acetate, 1 mL of lidocaine 2%, and 3 mL of normal saline was injected into the supinator muscle belly (proximal dorsal aspect of the forearm) under ultrasound guidance. Six days later, the patient began to experience elbow pain, redness, and swelling. The symptoms progressed within several hours and became so notable that she sought care at an urgent care facility the next morning. At this facility, she was told she had an infection and was prescribed oral levofloxacin 500 mg/d.

The patient presented to our clinic after 4 days of oral levofloxacin with no improvement of symptoms. She denied chills or fever and described her pain as moderate and radiating to her fingers. There was no history of trauma. The patient reported riding her bike more frequently, which had caused the original forearm pain that warranted the PIN injection. There were no other recent changes to activity. Her medical, social, and surgical histories were otherwise unremarkable.

Her vital signs were normal. Physical exam revealed an erythematous and warm left elbow (FIGURE 1). Her left elbow range of motion (extension and flexion) was mildly decreased due to the pain and swelling.

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

Aspiration of the patient’s olecranon bursa produced 3 mL of cloudy fluid (FIGURE 2). The patient’s painful, swollen, erythematous, warm elbow, cloudy aspirate, and history of preceding PIN hydrodissection were consistent with a diagnosis of septic olecranon bursitis.

PHOTO COURTESY OF MORTEZA KHODAEE, MD, MPH

When septic bursitis is strongly suspected or confirmed, the patient should be started on an antibiotic regimen that covers S aureus.

Septic bursitis usually is caused by bacteria.^1,2 Bursal infection can result from the spread of infection from nearby tissues or direct inoculation from skin trauma. It can also be iatrogenic and occur among healthy individuals.^2,3 Injection anywhere close to the bursa can inoculate enough bacteria to progress to cellulitis first and then septic bursitis. Inflammatory conditions such as gout and rheumatoid arthritis also can cause acute and/or chronic superficial bursitis.^1,2,4

Differentiating between septic and nonseptic bursitis can be challenging on history and physical exam alone, but specific signs and symptoms should warrant concern for infection.^1,2,4,5 Fever is present in up to 75% of septic cases⁵; however, lack of fever does not rule out septic bursitis. Pain, erythema, warmth, and an overlying skin lesion also can indicate infection.⁴ Diagnostic imaging modalities may help distinguish different types of olecranon bursitis, but in most cases, they are not necessary.²

Other joint disorders factor into the differential

The differential diagnosis is broad and includes a variety of joint disorders in addition to septic (and nonseptic) bursitis.^2,3

Septic arthritis is a deeper infection that involves the elbow joint and is considered an orthopedic emergency due to potential joint destruction.

Continue to: A simple joint effusion

A simple joint effusion also arises from the elbow joint, but this diagnosis becomes less likely when the joint aspirate appears cloudy. A simple joint effusion would not produce bacteria on gram stain and culture.

Crystalline inflammatory arthritis (gout, pseudogout) is due to intra-articular precipitation of crystals (uric acid crystals in gout, calcium pyrophosphate crystals in ­pseudogout).

Hematomas would produce gross blood or clot on joint aspiration.

Cellulitis is an infection of the superficial soft tissue (only) and thus, aspiration is not likely to yield fluid.

Diagnosis can be made with culture of fluid

Confirmation of septic olecranon bursitis is best attained by bursal needle aspiration and culture. Aspiration also can evaluate for other causes of elbow swelling. (If septic olecranon bursitis is suspected clinically, empiric antibiotics should be started while awaiting culture results.⁶) White blood cell counts from the aspirate also may be utilized but have a lower sensitivity and specificity for diagnosis.⁷

Continue to: In addition to aiding in diagnosis

In addition to aiding in diagnosis, bursal aspiration for a patient with septic bursitis can improve symptoms and reduce bacterial load.^1-3,8 The use of a compressive bandage after aspiration may help reduce re-accumulation of the bursal fluid.^1-3,8Staphylococcus aureus is responsible for the majority of septic olecranon bursitis cases.^9-11

Tailoring the antibiotic regimen

There is wide variation in the treatment of septic olecranon bursitis due to the lack of strong evidence-based guidelines.^1,2,8,11-13 When septic bursitis is strongly suspected (or confirmed) the patient should be started on an antibiotic regimen that covers S aureus.^1,2 Once culture results and sensitivities return, the antibiotic regimen can be tailored appropriately.

In cases of mild-to-moderate septic olecranon bursitis in an immunocompetent host, the patient can be started on oral antibiotics and monitored closely as an outpatient.^1-3,8 Patients with septic olecranon bursitis who meet the criteria for systemic inflammatory response syndrome or who are immunocompromised should be hospitalized and started on intravenous antibiotics.^1-3 Recommended duration of antibiotic therapy varies but is usually about 10 to 14 days.^1-3,8 In rare cases, surgical intervention with bursectomy may be necessary.^1,2,14

Our patient was given a dose of ceftriaxone 250 mg intramuscularly and was started on oral sulfamethoxazole/trimethoprim 800 mg/160 mg twice daily after aspiration of the bursa. Culture of the bursal fluid grew oxacillin-sensitive S aureus which was sensitive to a variety of antibiotics including levofloxacin and sulfamethoxazole/trimethoprim. Her symptoms gradually improved (FIGURE 3) and resolved after a 14-day course of oral sulfamethoxazole/trimethoprim.

PHOTO COURTESY OF MORTEZA KHODAEE, MD, MPH

CORRESPONDENCE
Morteza Khodaee, MD, MPH, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Department of Family Medicine & Orthopedics, AFW Clinic, 3055 Roslyn St, Denver, CO 80238; morteza. khodaee@cuanschutz.edu

A 32-year-old woman presented to our clinic with left elbow swelling and pain of 6 days’ duration. She’d had a posterior interosseous nerve (PIN) injection (hydrodissection) at another facility 12 days earlier for refractory intersection syndrome.

During nerve hydrodissection, fluid is injected into the area surrounding the nerve in an effort to displace the muscles, tendons, and fascia and thus reduce friction on the nerve. This treatment, often completed with ultrasound guidance, is utilized by patients who want to obtain pain relief without undergoing surgery for nerve entrapment syndromes.

In this case, a combination of 1 mL (40 mg) of methylprednisolone acetate, 1 mL of lidocaine 2%, and 3 mL of normal saline was injected into the supinator muscle belly (proximal dorsal aspect of the forearm) under ultrasound guidance. Six days later, the patient began to experience elbow pain, redness, and swelling. The symptoms progressed within several hours and became so notable that she sought care at an urgent care facility the next morning. At this facility, she was told she had an infection and was prescribed oral levofloxacin 500 mg/d.

The patient presented to our clinic after 4 days of oral levofloxacin with no improvement of symptoms. She denied chills or fever and described her pain as moderate and radiating to her fingers. There was no history of trauma. The patient reported riding her bike more frequently, which had caused the original forearm pain that warranted the PIN injection. There were no other recent changes to activity. Her medical, social, and surgical histories were otherwise unremarkable.

Her vital signs were normal. Physical exam revealed an erythematous and warm left elbow (FIGURE 1). Her left elbow range of motion (extension and flexion) was mildly decreased due to the pain and swelling.

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

Aspiration of the patient’s olecranon bursa produced 3 mL of cloudy fluid (FIGURE 2). The patient’s painful, swollen, erythematous, warm elbow, cloudy aspirate, and history of preceding PIN hydrodissection were consistent with a diagnosis of septic olecranon bursitis.

PHOTO COURTESY OF MORTEZA KHODAEE, MD, MPH

When septic bursitis is strongly suspected or confirmed, the patient should be started on an antibiotic regimen that covers S aureus.

Septic bursitis usually is caused by bacteria.^1,2 Bursal infection can result from the spread of infection from nearby tissues or direct inoculation from skin trauma. It can also be iatrogenic and occur among healthy individuals.^2,3 Injection anywhere close to the bursa can inoculate enough bacteria to progress to cellulitis first and then septic bursitis. Inflammatory conditions such as gout and rheumatoid arthritis also can cause acute and/or chronic superficial bursitis.^1,2,4

Differentiating between septic and nonseptic bursitis can be challenging on history and physical exam alone, but specific signs and symptoms should warrant concern for infection.^1,2,4,5 Fever is present in up to 75% of septic cases⁵; however, lack of fever does not rule out septic bursitis. Pain, erythema, warmth, and an overlying skin lesion also can indicate infection.⁴ Diagnostic imaging modalities may help distinguish different types of olecranon bursitis, but in most cases, they are not necessary.²

Other joint disorders factor into the differential

The differential diagnosis is broad and includes a variety of joint disorders in addition to septic (and nonseptic) bursitis.^2,3

Septic arthritis is a deeper infection that involves the elbow joint and is considered an orthopedic emergency due to potential joint destruction.

Continue to: A simple joint effusion

A simple joint effusion also arises from the elbow joint, but this diagnosis becomes less likely when the joint aspirate appears cloudy. A simple joint effusion would not produce bacteria on gram stain and culture.

Crystalline inflammatory arthritis (gout, pseudogout) is due to intra-articular precipitation of crystals (uric acid crystals in gout, calcium pyrophosphate crystals in ­pseudogout).

Hematomas would produce gross blood or clot on joint aspiration.

Cellulitis is an infection of the superficial soft tissue (only) and thus, aspiration is not likely to yield fluid.

Diagnosis can be made with culture of fluid

Confirmation of septic olecranon bursitis is best attained by bursal needle aspiration and culture. Aspiration also can evaluate for other causes of elbow swelling. (If septic olecranon bursitis is suspected clinically, empiric antibiotics should be started while awaiting culture results.⁶) White blood cell counts from the aspirate also may be utilized but have a lower sensitivity and specificity for diagnosis.⁷

Continue to: In addition to aiding in diagnosis

In addition to aiding in diagnosis, bursal aspiration for a patient with septic bursitis can improve symptoms and reduce bacterial load.^1-3,8 The use of a compressive bandage after aspiration may help reduce re-accumulation of the bursal fluid.^1-3,8Staphylococcus aureus is responsible for the majority of septic olecranon bursitis cases.^9-11

Tailoring the antibiotic regimen

There is wide variation in the treatment of septic olecranon bursitis due to the lack of strong evidence-based guidelines.^1,2,8,11-13 When septic bursitis is strongly suspected (or confirmed) the patient should be started on an antibiotic regimen that covers S aureus.^1,2 Once culture results and sensitivities return, the antibiotic regimen can be tailored appropriately.

In cases of mild-to-moderate septic olecranon bursitis in an immunocompetent host, the patient can be started on oral antibiotics and monitored closely as an outpatient.^1-3,8 Patients with septic olecranon bursitis who meet the criteria for systemic inflammatory response syndrome or who are immunocompromised should be hospitalized and started on intravenous antibiotics.^1-3 Recommended duration of antibiotic therapy varies but is usually about 10 to 14 days.^1-3,8 In rare cases, surgical intervention with bursectomy may be necessary.^1,2,14

Our patient was given a dose of ceftriaxone 250 mg intramuscularly and was started on oral sulfamethoxazole/trimethoprim 800 mg/160 mg twice daily after aspiration of the bursa. Culture of the bursal fluid grew oxacillin-sensitive S aureus which was sensitive to a variety of antibiotics including levofloxacin and sulfamethoxazole/trimethoprim. Her symptoms gradually improved (FIGURE 3) and resolved after a 14-day course of oral sulfamethoxazole/trimethoprim.

PHOTO COURTESY OF MORTEZA KHODAEE, MD, MPH

CORRESPONDENCE
Morteza Khodaee, MD, MPH, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Department of Family Medicine & Orthopedics, AFW Clinic, 3055 Roslyn St, Denver, CO 80238; morteza. khodaee@cuanschutz.edu

A 32-year-old woman presented to our clinic with left elbow swelling and pain of 6 days’ duration. She’d had a posterior interosseous nerve (PIN) injection (hydrodissection) at another facility 12 days earlier for refractory intersection syndrome.

During nerve hydrodissection, fluid is injected into the area surrounding the nerve in an effort to displace the muscles, tendons, and fascia and thus reduce friction on the nerve. This treatment, often completed with ultrasound guidance, is utilized by patients who want to obtain pain relief without undergoing surgery for nerve entrapment syndromes.

In this case, a combination of 1 mL (40 mg) of methylprednisolone acetate, 1 mL of lidocaine 2%, and 3 mL of normal saline was injected into the supinator muscle belly (proximal dorsal aspect of the forearm) under ultrasound guidance. Six days later, the patient began to experience elbow pain, redness, and swelling. The symptoms progressed within several hours and became so notable that she sought care at an urgent care facility the next morning. At this facility, she was told she had an infection and was prescribed oral levofloxacin 500 mg/d.

The patient presented to our clinic after 4 days of oral levofloxacin with no improvement of symptoms. She denied chills or fever and described her pain as moderate and radiating to her fingers. There was no history of trauma. The patient reported riding her bike more frequently, which had caused the original forearm pain that warranted the PIN injection. There were no other recent changes to activity. Her medical, social, and surgical histories were otherwise unremarkable.

Her vital signs were normal. Physical exam revealed an erythematous and warm left elbow (FIGURE 1). Her left elbow range of motion (extension and flexion) was mildly decreased due to the pain and swelling.

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

Aspiration of the patient’s olecranon bursa produced 3 mL of cloudy fluid (FIGURE 2). The patient’s painful, swollen, erythematous, warm elbow, cloudy aspirate, and history of preceding PIN hydrodissection were consistent with a diagnosis of septic olecranon bursitis.

PHOTO COURTESY OF MORTEZA KHODAEE, MD, MPH

When septic bursitis is strongly suspected or confirmed, the patient should be started on an antibiotic regimen that covers S aureus.

Septic bursitis usually is caused by bacteria.^1,2 Bursal infection can result from the spread of infection from nearby tissues or direct inoculation from skin trauma. It can also be iatrogenic and occur among healthy individuals.^2,3 Injection anywhere close to the bursa can inoculate enough bacteria to progress to cellulitis first and then septic bursitis. Inflammatory conditions such as gout and rheumatoid arthritis also can cause acute and/or chronic superficial bursitis.^1,2,4

Differentiating between septic and nonseptic bursitis can be challenging on history and physical exam alone, but specific signs and symptoms should warrant concern for infection.^1,2,4,5 Fever is present in up to 75% of septic cases⁵; however, lack of fever does not rule out septic bursitis. Pain, erythema, warmth, and an overlying skin lesion also can indicate infection.⁴ Diagnostic imaging modalities may help distinguish different types of olecranon bursitis, but in most cases, they are not necessary.²

Other joint disorders factor into the differential

The differential diagnosis is broad and includes a variety of joint disorders in addition to septic (and nonseptic) bursitis.^2,3

Septic arthritis is a deeper infection that involves the elbow joint and is considered an orthopedic emergency due to potential joint destruction.

Continue to: A simple joint effusion

A simple joint effusion also arises from the elbow joint, but this diagnosis becomes less likely when the joint aspirate appears cloudy. A simple joint effusion would not produce bacteria on gram stain and culture.

Crystalline inflammatory arthritis (gout, pseudogout) is due to intra-articular precipitation of crystals (uric acid crystals in gout, calcium pyrophosphate crystals in ­pseudogout).

Hematomas would produce gross blood or clot on joint aspiration.

Cellulitis is an infection of the superficial soft tissue (only) and thus, aspiration is not likely to yield fluid.

Diagnosis can be made with culture of fluid

Confirmation of septic olecranon bursitis is best attained by bursal needle aspiration and culture. Aspiration also can evaluate for other causes of elbow swelling. (If septic olecranon bursitis is suspected clinically, empiric antibiotics should be started while awaiting culture results.⁶) White blood cell counts from the aspirate also may be utilized but have a lower sensitivity and specificity for diagnosis.⁷

Continue to: In addition to aiding in diagnosis

In addition to aiding in diagnosis, bursal aspiration for a patient with septic bursitis can improve symptoms and reduce bacterial load.^1-3,8 The use of a compressive bandage after aspiration may help reduce re-accumulation of the bursal fluid.^1-3,8Staphylococcus aureus is responsible for the majority of septic olecranon bursitis cases.^9-11

Tailoring the antibiotic regimen

There is wide variation in the treatment of septic olecranon bursitis due to the lack of strong evidence-based guidelines.^1,2,8,11-13 When septic bursitis is strongly suspected (or confirmed) the patient should be started on an antibiotic regimen that covers S aureus.^1,2 Once culture results and sensitivities return, the antibiotic regimen can be tailored appropriately.

In cases of mild-to-moderate septic olecranon bursitis in an immunocompetent host, the patient can be started on oral antibiotics and monitored closely as an outpatient.^1-3,8 Patients with septic olecranon bursitis who meet the criteria for systemic inflammatory response syndrome or who are immunocompromised should be hospitalized and started on intravenous antibiotics.^1-3 Recommended duration of antibiotic therapy varies but is usually about 10 to 14 days.^1-3,8 In rare cases, surgical intervention with bursectomy may be necessary.^1,2,14

Our patient was given a dose of ceftriaxone 250 mg intramuscularly and was started on oral sulfamethoxazole/trimethoprim 800 mg/160 mg twice daily after aspiration of the bursa. Culture of the bursal fluid grew oxacillin-sensitive S aureus which was sensitive to a variety of antibiotics including levofloxacin and sulfamethoxazole/trimethoprim. Her symptoms gradually improved (FIGURE 3) and resolved after a 14-day course of oral sulfamethoxazole/trimethoprim.

PHOTO COURTESY OF MORTEZA KHODAEE, MD, MPH

CORRESPONDENCE
Morteza Khodaee, MD, MPH, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Department of Family Medicine & Orthopedics, AFW Clinic, 3055 Roslyn St, Denver, CO 80238; morteza. khodaee@cuanschutz.edu

For adolescent patients, routinely take a sexual history, discuss the use of barrier methods, and perform relevant examinations, screenings, and vaccinations, according to a new policy statement on barrier protection use from the American Academy of Pediatrics’ Committee on Adolescence.

The policy statement has been expanded to cover multiple types of sexual activity and methods of barrier protection. These include not only traditional condoms, but also internal condoms (available in the United States only by prescription) and dental dams (for use during oral sex) or a latex sheet. “Pediatricians and other clinicians are encouraged to provide barrier methods within their offices and support availability within their communities,” said Laura K. Grubb, MD, MPH, of Tufts Medical Center in Boston, who authored both the policy statement and the technical report.

Counsel adolescents that abstaining from sexual intercourse is the best way to prevent genital sexually transmitted infections (STIs), HIV infection, and unplanned pregnancy. Also encourage and support consistent, correct barrier method use – in addition to other reliable contraception, if patients are sexually active or are thinking about becoming sexually active – the policy statement notes. Emphasize that all partners share responsibility to prevent STIs and unplanned pregnancies. “Adolescents with intellectual and physical disabilities are an overlooked group when it comes to sexual behavior, but they have similar rates of sexual behaviors when compared with their peers without disabilities,” Dr. Grubb and colleagues emphasized in the policy statement.

This is key because Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2017 data showed that in the United States, “456,000 adolescent and young women younger than 20 years became pregnant; 448,000 of those pregnancies were among 15- to 19-year-olds, and 7,400 were among those 14 years of age and younger,” according to the technical report accompanying the policy statement. Also, “new cases of STIs increased 31% in the United States from 2013 to 2017, with half of the 2.3 million new STIs reported each year among young people 15 to 24 years of age.”

Parents may need support and encouragement to talk with their children about sex, sexuality, and the use of barrier methods to prevent STIs. Dr. Grubb and colleagues recommend via the policy statement: “Actively communicate to parents and communities that making barrier methods available to adolescents does not increase the onset or frequency of adolescent sexual activity, and that use of barrier methods can help decrease rates of unintended pregnancy and acquisition of STIs.”

Use Bright Futures: Guidelines for Health Supervision of Infants, Children, and Adolescents, Fourth Edition, for guidance on supporting parents and adolescents in promoting healthy sexual development and sexuality, including discussions of barrier methods.

Some groups of adolescents may use barrier methods less consistently because they perceive themselves to be lower risk. These include adolescents who use preexposure prophylaxis or nonbarrier contraception, who identify as bisexual or lesbian, or who are in established relationships. Monitor these patients to assess their risk and need for additional counseling. In the technical report, studies are cited finding that barrier methods are used less consistently during oral sex and that condom use is lower among cisgender and transgender females, and among adolescents who self-identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, compared with other groups.

In the policy statement, Dr. Grubb and colleagues call on pediatricians to advocate for more research and better access to barrier methods, especially for higher-risk adolescents and those living in underserved areas. In particular, school education programs on barrier methods can reach large adolescent groups and provide a “comprehensive array of educational and health care resources.”

Katie Brigham, MD, a pediatrician at MassGeneral Hospital for Children in Boston, affirmed the recommendations in the new policy statement (which she did not help write or research). “Even though the pregnancy rate is dropping in the United States, STI rates are increasing, so it is vital that pediatricians and other providers of adolescents and young adults counsel all their patients, regardless of gender and sexual orientation, of the importance of barrier methods when having oral, vaginal, or anal sex,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Brigham praised the technical report, adding that she found no major weaknesses in its methodology. “For future research, it would be interesting to see if there are different rates of pregnancy and STIs in pediatric practices that provide condoms and other barrier methods free to their patients, compared to those that do not.”

No external funding sources were reported. Dr. Grubb and Dr. Brigham reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Grubb LK et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Jul 20. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-007237.

For adolescent patients, routinely take a sexual history, discuss the use of barrier methods, and perform relevant examinations, screenings, and vaccinations, according to a new policy statement on barrier protection use from the American Academy of Pediatrics’ Committee on Adolescence.

The policy statement has been expanded to cover multiple types of sexual activity and methods of barrier protection. These include not only traditional condoms, but also internal condoms (available in the United States only by prescription) and dental dams (for use during oral sex) or a latex sheet. “Pediatricians and other clinicians are encouraged to provide barrier methods within their offices and support availability within their communities,” said Laura K. Grubb, MD, MPH, of Tufts Medical Center in Boston, who authored both the policy statement and the technical report.

Counsel adolescents that abstaining from sexual intercourse is the best way to prevent genital sexually transmitted infections (STIs), HIV infection, and unplanned pregnancy. Also encourage and support consistent, correct barrier method use – in addition to other reliable contraception, if patients are sexually active or are thinking about becoming sexually active – the policy statement notes. Emphasize that all partners share responsibility to prevent STIs and unplanned pregnancies. “Adolescents with intellectual and physical disabilities are an overlooked group when it comes to sexual behavior, but they have similar rates of sexual behaviors when compared with their peers without disabilities,” Dr. Grubb and colleagues emphasized in the policy statement.

This is key because Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2017 data showed that in the United States, “456,000 adolescent and young women younger than 20 years became pregnant; 448,000 of those pregnancies were among 15- to 19-year-olds, and 7,400 were among those 14 years of age and younger,” according to the technical report accompanying the policy statement. Also, “new cases of STIs increased 31% in the United States from 2013 to 2017, with half of the 2.3 million new STIs reported each year among young people 15 to 24 years of age.”

Parents may need support and encouragement to talk with their children about sex, sexuality, and the use of barrier methods to prevent STIs. Dr. Grubb and colleagues recommend via the policy statement: “Actively communicate to parents and communities that making barrier methods available to adolescents does not increase the onset or frequency of adolescent sexual activity, and that use of barrier methods can help decrease rates of unintended pregnancy and acquisition of STIs.”

Use Bright Futures: Guidelines for Health Supervision of Infants, Children, and Adolescents, Fourth Edition, for guidance on supporting parents and adolescents in promoting healthy sexual development and sexuality, including discussions of barrier methods.

Some groups of adolescents may use barrier methods less consistently because they perceive themselves to be lower risk. These include adolescents who use preexposure prophylaxis or nonbarrier contraception, who identify as bisexual or lesbian, or who are in established relationships. Monitor these patients to assess their risk and need for additional counseling. In the technical report, studies are cited finding that barrier methods are used less consistently during oral sex and that condom use is lower among cisgender and transgender females, and among adolescents who self-identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, compared with other groups.

In the policy statement, Dr. Grubb and colleagues call on pediatricians to advocate for more research and better access to barrier methods, especially for higher-risk adolescents and those living in underserved areas. In particular, school education programs on barrier methods can reach large adolescent groups and provide a “comprehensive array of educational and health care resources.”

Katie Brigham, MD, a pediatrician at MassGeneral Hospital for Children in Boston, affirmed the recommendations in the new policy statement (which she did not help write or research). “Even though the pregnancy rate is dropping in the United States, STI rates are increasing, so it is vital that pediatricians and other providers of adolescents and young adults counsel all their patients, regardless of gender and sexual orientation, of the importance of barrier methods when having oral, vaginal, or anal sex,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Brigham praised the technical report, adding that she found no major weaknesses in its methodology. “For future research, it would be interesting to see if there are different rates of pregnancy and STIs in pediatric practices that provide condoms and other barrier methods free to their patients, compared to those that do not.”

No external funding sources were reported. Dr. Grubb and Dr. Brigham reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Grubb LK et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Jul 20. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-007237.

For adolescent patients, routinely take a sexual history, discuss the use of barrier methods, and perform relevant examinations, screenings, and vaccinations, according to a new policy statement on barrier protection use from the American Academy of Pediatrics’ Committee on Adolescence.

The policy statement has been expanded to cover multiple types of sexual activity and methods of barrier protection. These include not only traditional condoms, but also internal condoms (available in the United States only by prescription) and dental dams (for use during oral sex) or a latex sheet. “Pediatricians and other clinicians are encouraged to provide barrier methods within their offices and support availability within their communities,” said Laura K. Grubb, MD, MPH, of Tufts Medical Center in Boston, who authored both the policy statement and the technical report.

Counsel adolescents that abstaining from sexual intercourse is the best way to prevent genital sexually transmitted infections (STIs), HIV infection, and unplanned pregnancy. Also encourage and support consistent, correct barrier method use – in addition to other reliable contraception, if patients are sexually active or are thinking about becoming sexually active – the policy statement notes. Emphasize that all partners share responsibility to prevent STIs and unplanned pregnancies. “Adolescents with intellectual and physical disabilities are an overlooked group when it comes to sexual behavior, but they have similar rates of sexual behaviors when compared with their peers without disabilities,” Dr. Grubb and colleagues emphasized in the policy statement.

This is key because Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2017 data showed that in the United States, “456,000 adolescent and young women younger than 20 years became pregnant; 448,000 of those pregnancies were among 15- to 19-year-olds, and 7,400 were among those 14 years of age and younger,” according to the technical report accompanying the policy statement. Also, “new cases of STIs increased 31% in the United States from 2013 to 2017, with half of the 2.3 million new STIs reported each year among young people 15 to 24 years of age.”

Parents may need support and encouragement to talk with their children about sex, sexuality, and the use of barrier methods to prevent STIs. Dr. Grubb and colleagues recommend via the policy statement: “Actively communicate to parents and communities that making barrier methods available to adolescents does not increase the onset or frequency of adolescent sexual activity, and that use of barrier methods can help decrease rates of unintended pregnancy and acquisition of STIs.”

Use Bright Futures: Guidelines for Health Supervision of Infants, Children, and Adolescents, Fourth Edition, for guidance on supporting parents and adolescents in promoting healthy sexual development and sexuality, including discussions of barrier methods.

Some groups of adolescents may use barrier methods less consistently because they perceive themselves to be lower risk. These include adolescents who use preexposure prophylaxis or nonbarrier contraception, who identify as bisexual or lesbian, or who are in established relationships. Monitor these patients to assess their risk and need for additional counseling. In the technical report, studies are cited finding that barrier methods are used less consistently during oral sex and that condom use is lower among cisgender and transgender females, and among adolescents who self-identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, compared with other groups.

In the policy statement, Dr. Grubb and colleagues call on pediatricians to advocate for more research and better access to barrier methods, especially for higher-risk adolescents and those living in underserved areas. In particular, school education programs on barrier methods can reach large adolescent groups and provide a “comprehensive array of educational and health care resources.”

Katie Brigham, MD, a pediatrician at MassGeneral Hospital for Children in Boston, affirmed the recommendations in the new policy statement (which she did not help write or research). “Even though the pregnancy rate is dropping in the United States, STI rates are increasing, so it is vital that pediatricians and other providers of adolescents and young adults counsel all their patients, regardless of gender and sexual orientation, of the importance of barrier methods when having oral, vaginal, or anal sex,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Brigham praised the technical report, adding that she found no major weaknesses in its methodology. “For future research, it would be interesting to see if there are different rates of pregnancy and STIs in pediatric practices that provide condoms and other barrier methods free to their patients, compared to those that do not.”

No external funding sources were reported. Dr. Grubb and Dr. Brigham reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Grubb LK et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Jul 20. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-007237.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 40-year-old woman presents to your office to establish care. During your interview you realize that she has never been screened for cervical cancer. In fact, she has not had a pelvic exam because she is fearful of the procedure. She would like to know if alternatives exist for cervical cancer screening. What can you suggest?

Although deaths from cervical cancer decreased in the United States from 1975 to 2017, demographic and social disparities in the burden of the disease remain.^2,3 Data from 2016 reveal that cervical cancer incidence per 100,000 women is lowest among white (7.5), Asian-Pacific Islander (5.8), and American Indian/Alaska native (5.6) women, and highest among Hispanic (9.8) and black (8.7) women, which could be explained by lower screening rates in these populations.^4,5 The National Cancer Institute’s publication on reducing cancer health disparities states that the most effective way to reduce cervical cancer incidence and mortality is by increasing screening rates among women who have not been screened or who have not been screened regularly.⁶

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the first human papillomavirus (HPV) screening test in 2003.⁷ Evidence now suggests that high-risk HPV screening provides greater protection against cervical cancer than screening with cytology alone.⁸ The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) have changed their recommendations to include primary HPV testing as an alternative method to Pap smears for cervical cancer screening.⁹

An advantage of primary HPV screening is that it can be performed on a specimen collected by the patient, which could potentially increase rates of screening and help to decrease demographic and social disparities. A randomized trial of almost 2000 women ages 21 to 65 years that evaluated the acceptability of this method to patients revealed that more than half of women prefer the idea of a self-collected specimen to one that is collected by a clinician because it is more convenient and obviates the need for a pelvic exam.¹⁰

A meta-analysis of 36 studies and more than 150,000 women concluded that when self-collected samples were used with signal-based assays, the tests were not as sensitive or specific as when clinician-collected samples were used.¹¹ However, the meta-analysis also found that some polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based HPV tests were similarly sensitive for both self- and clinician-collected samples.

STUDY SUMMARY

PCR vs signal amplification HPV tests with collection by patients vs clinicians

This meta-analysis compared the accuracy of high-risk HPV self-screening with clinician collection of samples (56 diagnostic accuracy trials; total N not provided) in identifying cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN 2+) with signal amplification and PCR tests evaluated separately.¹ In addition, this review evaluated strategies to screen women who are underscreened or not screened, which was defined as women who were irregularly or never screened, or did not respond to reminder letters about cervical cancer screening (25 randomized controlled trials [RCTs]; total N not provided).

In the diagnostic accuracy studies, patients collected a vaginal sample themselves and then had a sample taken by a clinician. CIN 2+ or 3+ was confirmed by either colposcopy and biopsy performed on all patients or by a positive high-risk HPV test result. Studies were further divided into those using assays based on signal amplification or PCR.

Continue to: In signal amplification assays...

In signal amplification assays, the pooled sensitivity for CIN 2+ was lower in the group with the self-collected samples than in the clinician-collected sample group (77%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 69%-82% vs 93%; 95% CI, 89%-96%). The pooled specificity to exclude CIN 2+ was also lower in the group with the self-collected samples (84%; 95% CI, 77%-88% vs 86%; 95% CI, 81%-90%). In high-risk HPV assays based on PCR, there was no difference in sensitivity (96%) or specificity (79%) between the specimen groups.

This study offers robust evidence that high-risk HPV PCR-based assays using patient-collected specimens are as sensitive at diagnosing CIN 2+ or 3+ as using clinician-collected samples.

With regard to the pooled relative sensitivity and specificity of signal amplification assays, those using self-swab samples were less sensitive and less specific for CIN 2+ (sensitivity ratio = 0.85; 95% CI, 0.80-0.89; specificity ratio = 0.96; 95% CI, 0.93-0.98) and CIN 3+ (sensitivity ratio = 0.86; 95% CI, 0.76-0.98; specificity ratio = 0.97; 95% CI, 0.95-0.99). Using PCR assays, there was no difference between groups in relative sensitivity for the diagnosis of CIN 2+ (sensitivity ratio = 0.99; 95% CI, 0.97-1.02) and CIN 3+ (sensitivity ratio = 0.99; 95% CI, 0.96-1.02). Relative specificity was slightly lower in the self-swab group for CIN 2+ (specificity ratio = 0.98; 95% CI, 0.97-0.99) and CIN 3+ (specificity ratio = 0.98; 95% CI, 0.97-0.99).

The second analysis to evaluate which outreach strategies are effective methods for screening underscreened/unscreened women found that delivering self-sample kits to patients was more effective than the control method, which was sending reminders to women to undergo conventional screening (95% vs 53%; mean difference [MD], 41%; 95% CI, 3%-78%). Similarly, mailing kits to patients compared favorably to the control method (25% vs 12%; MD, 13%; 95% CI, 10%-15%).

WHAT’S NEW

Self-collected specimens can beas reliable as clinician-collected ones

This is the first study to provide robust evidence that high-risk HPV PCR-based assays using patient self-collected specimens are as sensitive at diagnosing CIN 2+ or 3+ as using clinician-collected samples.

CAVEATS

Balancing lower specificity with reaching underscreened populations

Patients with a positive HPV test result require additional testing. The success rates for this follow-up are not known and could be a barrier to accurate diagnoses because of accessibility and patient willingness to follow up with a pelvic exam. In addition, self-collection may be less specific than cytology and could increase colposcopy referrals that lead to negative findings and overtreatment.¹² However, the increased acceptance of this screening method could make it an effective strategy to reach underscreened or reluctant patients.

Continue to: CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Availability of PCR-based HPV assays may be an issue

HPV PCR assays may not be available at all laboratories, but signal amplification HPV tests have been shown to be inferior to PCR assays. Physicians will have to confirm with their laboratories whether PCR-based HPV assays are available.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center For Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center For Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 40-year-old woman presents to your office to establish care. During your interview you realize that she has never been screened for cervical cancer. In fact, she has not had a pelvic exam because she is fearful of the procedure. She would like to know if alternatives exist for cervical cancer screening. What can you suggest?

Although deaths from cervical cancer decreased in the United States from 1975 to 2017, demographic and social disparities in the burden of the disease remain.^2,3 Data from 2016 reveal that cervical cancer incidence per 100,000 women is lowest among white (7.5), Asian-Pacific Islander (5.8), and American Indian/Alaska native (5.6) women, and highest among Hispanic (9.8) and black (8.7) women, which could be explained by lower screening rates in these populations.^4,5 The National Cancer Institute’s publication on reducing cancer health disparities states that the most effective way to reduce cervical cancer incidence and mortality is by increasing screening rates among women who have not been screened or who have not been screened regularly.⁶

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the first human papillomavirus (HPV) screening test in 2003.⁷ Evidence now suggests that high-risk HPV screening provides greater protection against cervical cancer than screening with cytology alone.⁸ The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) have changed their recommendations to include primary HPV testing as an alternative method to Pap smears for cervical cancer screening.⁹

An advantage of primary HPV screening is that it can be performed on a specimen collected by the patient, which could potentially increase rates of screening and help to decrease demographic and social disparities. A randomized trial of almost 2000 women ages 21 to 65 years that evaluated the acceptability of this method to patients revealed that more than half of women prefer the idea of a self-collected specimen to one that is collected by a clinician because it is more convenient and obviates the need for a pelvic exam.¹⁰

A meta-analysis of 36 studies and more than 150,000 women concluded that when self-collected samples were used with signal-based assays, the tests were not as sensitive or specific as when clinician-collected samples were used.¹¹ However, the meta-analysis also found that some polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based HPV tests were similarly sensitive for both self- and clinician-collected samples.

STUDY SUMMARY

PCR vs signal amplification HPV tests with collection by patients vs clinicians

This meta-analysis compared the accuracy of high-risk HPV self-screening with clinician collection of samples (56 diagnostic accuracy trials; total N not provided) in identifying cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN 2+) with signal amplification and PCR tests evaluated separately.¹ In addition, this review evaluated strategies to screen women who are underscreened or not screened, which was defined as women who were irregularly or never screened, or did not respond to reminder letters about cervical cancer screening (25 randomized controlled trials [RCTs]; total N not provided).

In the diagnostic accuracy studies, patients collected a vaginal sample themselves and then had a sample taken by a clinician. CIN 2+ or 3+ was confirmed by either colposcopy and biopsy performed on all patients or by a positive high-risk HPV test result. Studies were further divided into those using assays based on signal amplification or PCR.

Continue to: In signal amplification assays...

In signal amplification assays, the pooled sensitivity for CIN 2+ was lower in the group with the self-collected samples than in the clinician-collected sample group (77%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 69%-82% vs 93%; 95% CI, 89%-96%). The pooled specificity to exclude CIN 2+ was also lower in the group with the self-collected samples (84%; 95% CI, 77%-88% vs 86%; 95% CI, 81%-90%). In high-risk HPV assays based on PCR, there was no difference in sensitivity (96%) or specificity (79%) between the specimen groups.

This study offers robust evidence that high-risk HPV PCR-based assays using patient-collected specimens are as sensitive at diagnosing CIN 2+ or 3+ as using clinician-collected samples.

With regard to the pooled relative sensitivity and specificity of signal amplification assays, those using self-swab samples were less sensitive and less specific for CIN 2+ (sensitivity ratio = 0.85; 95% CI, 0.80-0.89; specificity ratio = 0.96; 95% CI, 0.93-0.98) and CIN 3+ (sensitivity ratio = 0.86; 95% CI, 0.76-0.98; specificity ratio = 0.97; 95% CI, 0.95-0.99). Using PCR assays, there was no difference between groups in relative sensitivity for the diagnosis of CIN 2+ (sensitivity ratio = 0.99; 95% CI, 0.97-1.02) and CIN 3+ (sensitivity ratio = 0.99; 95% CI, 0.96-1.02). Relative specificity was slightly lower in the self-swab group for CIN 2+ (specificity ratio = 0.98; 95% CI, 0.97-0.99) and CIN 3+ (specificity ratio = 0.98; 95% CI, 0.97-0.99).

The second analysis to evaluate which outreach strategies are effective methods for screening underscreened/unscreened women found that delivering self-sample kits to patients was more effective than the control method, which was sending reminders to women to undergo conventional screening (95% vs 53%; mean difference [MD], 41%; 95% CI, 3%-78%). Similarly, mailing kits to patients compared favorably to the control method (25% vs 12%; MD, 13%; 95% CI, 10%-15%).

WHAT’S NEW

Self-collected specimens can beas reliable as clinician-collected ones

This is the first study to provide robust evidence that high-risk HPV PCR-based assays using patient self-collected specimens are as sensitive at diagnosing CIN 2+ or 3+ as using clinician-collected samples.

CAVEATS

Balancing lower specificity with reaching underscreened populations

Patients with a positive HPV test result require additional testing. The success rates for this follow-up are not known and could be a barrier to accurate diagnoses because of accessibility and patient willingness to follow up with a pelvic exam. In addition, self-collection may be less specific than cytology and could increase colposcopy referrals that lead to negative findings and overtreatment.¹² However, the increased acceptance of this screening method could make it an effective strategy to reach underscreened or reluctant patients.

Continue to: CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Availability of PCR-based HPV assays may be an issue

HPV PCR assays may not be available at all laboratories, but signal amplification HPV tests have been shown to be inferior to PCR assays. Physicians will have to confirm with their laboratories whether PCR-based HPV assays are available.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center For Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center For Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 40-year-old woman presents to your office to establish care. During your interview you realize that she has never been screened for cervical cancer. In fact, she has not had a pelvic exam because she is fearful of the procedure. She would like to know if alternatives exist for cervical cancer screening. What can you suggest?

Although deaths from cervical cancer decreased in the United States from 1975 to 2017, demographic and social disparities in the burden of the disease remain.^2,3 Data from 2016 reveal that cervical cancer incidence per 100,000 women is lowest among white (7.5), Asian-Pacific Islander (5.8), and American Indian/Alaska native (5.6) women, and highest among Hispanic (9.8) and black (8.7) women, which could be explained by lower screening rates in these populations.^4,5 The National Cancer Institute’s publication on reducing cancer health disparities states that the most effective way to reduce cervical cancer incidence and mortality is by increasing screening rates among women who have not been screened or who have not been screened regularly.⁶

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the first human papillomavirus (HPV) screening test in 2003.⁷ Evidence now suggests that high-risk HPV screening provides greater protection against cervical cancer than screening with cytology alone.⁸ The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) have changed their recommendations to include primary HPV testing as an alternative method to Pap smears for cervical cancer screening.⁹

An advantage of primary HPV screening is that it can be performed on a specimen collected by the patient, which could potentially increase rates of screening and help to decrease demographic and social disparities. A randomized trial of almost 2000 women ages 21 to 65 years that evaluated the acceptability of this method to patients revealed that more than half of women prefer the idea of a self-collected specimen to one that is collected by a clinician because it is more convenient and obviates the need for a pelvic exam.¹⁰

A meta-analysis of 36 studies and more than 150,000 women concluded that when self-collected samples were used with signal-based assays, the tests were not as sensitive or specific as when clinician-collected samples were used.¹¹ However, the meta-analysis also found that some polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based HPV tests were similarly sensitive for both self- and clinician-collected samples.

STUDY SUMMARY

PCR vs signal amplification HPV tests with collection by patients vs clinicians

This meta-analysis compared the accuracy of high-risk HPV self-screening with clinician collection of samples (56 diagnostic accuracy trials; total N not provided) in identifying cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN 2+) with signal amplification and PCR tests evaluated separately.¹ In addition, this review evaluated strategies to screen women who are underscreened or not screened, which was defined as women who were irregularly or never screened, or did not respond to reminder letters about cervical cancer screening (25 randomized controlled trials [RCTs]; total N not provided).

In the diagnostic accuracy studies, patients collected a vaginal sample themselves and then had a sample taken by a clinician. CIN 2+ or 3+ was confirmed by either colposcopy and biopsy performed on all patients or by a positive high-risk HPV test result. Studies were further divided into those using assays based on signal amplification or PCR.

Continue to: In signal amplification assays...

In signal amplification assays, the pooled sensitivity for CIN 2+ was lower in the group with the self-collected samples than in the clinician-collected sample group (77%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 69%-82% vs 93%; 95% CI, 89%-96%). The pooled specificity to exclude CIN 2+ was also lower in the group with the self-collected samples (84%; 95% CI, 77%-88% vs 86%; 95% CI, 81%-90%). In high-risk HPV assays based on PCR, there was no difference in sensitivity (96%) or specificity (79%) between the specimen groups.

This study offers robust evidence that high-risk HPV PCR-based assays using patient-collected specimens are as sensitive at diagnosing CIN 2+ or 3+ as using clinician-collected samples.

With regard to the pooled relative sensitivity and specificity of signal amplification assays, those using self-swab samples were less sensitive and less specific for CIN 2+ (sensitivity ratio = 0.85; 95% CI, 0.80-0.89; specificity ratio = 0.96; 95% CI, 0.93-0.98) and CIN 3+ (sensitivity ratio = 0.86; 95% CI, 0.76-0.98; specificity ratio = 0.97; 95% CI, 0.95-0.99). Using PCR assays, there was no difference between groups in relative sensitivity for the diagnosis of CIN 2+ (sensitivity ratio = 0.99; 95% CI, 0.97-1.02) and CIN 3+ (sensitivity ratio = 0.99; 95% CI, 0.96-1.02). Relative specificity was slightly lower in the self-swab group for CIN 2+ (specificity ratio = 0.98; 95% CI, 0.97-0.99) and CIN 3+ (specificity ratio = 0.98; 95% CI, 0.97-0.99).

The second analysis to evaluate which outreach strategies are effective methods for screening underscreened/unscreened women found that delivering self-sample kits to patients was more effective than the control method, which was sending reminders to women to undergo conventional screening (95% vs 53%; mean difference [MD], 41%; 95% CI, 3%-78%). Similarly, mailing kits to patients compared favorably to the control method (25% vs 12%; MD, 13%; 95% CI, 10%-15%).

WHAT’S NEW

Self-collected specimens can beas reliable as clinician-collected ones

This is the first study to provide robust evidence that high-risk HPV PCR-based assays using patient self-collected specimens are as sensitive at diagnosing CIN 2+ or 3+ as using clinician-collected samples.

CAVEATS

Balancing lower specificity with reaching underscreened populations

Patients with a positive HPV test result require additional testing. The success rates for this follow-up are not known and could be a barrier to accurate diagnoses because of accessibility and patient willingness to follow up with a pelvic exam. In addition, self-collection may be less specific than cytology and could increase colposcopy referrals that lead to negative findings and overtreatment.¹² However, the increased acceptance of this screening method could make it an effective strategy to reach underscreened or reluctant patients.

Continue to: CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Availability of PCR-based HPV assays may be an issue

HPV PCR assays may not be available at all laboratories, but signal amplification HPV tests have been shown to be inferior to PCR assays. Physicians will have to confirm with their laboratories whether PCR-based HPV assays are available.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center For Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center For Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.