CASE

A 38-year-old woman presents for a routine physical. Other than urgent care visits for 1 episode of influenza and 2 upper respiratory illnesses, she has not seen a physician for a physical in 5 years. She denies any significant medical history. She takes naproxen occasionally for chronic right knee pain. She does not use tobacco or alcohol. Recently, she has started using a meal replacement shake at lunchtime for weight management. She performs aerobic exercise 30 to 40 minutes per day, 5 days per week. Her family history is significant for type 2 diabetes mellitus, arthritis, heart disease, and hyperlipidemia on her mother’s side. She is single, is not currently sexually active, works as a pharmacy technician, and has no children. A high-risk human papillomavirus test was normal 4 years ago.

A review of systems is notable for a 20-pound weight gain over the past year, worsening heartburn over the past 2 weeks, and chronic knee pain, which is greater in the right knee than the left. She denies weakness, fatigue, nausea, diarrhea, constipation, or abdominal pain. Vital signs reveal a blood pressure of 146/88 mm Hg, a heart rate of 63 bpm, a temperature of 98°F (36.7°C), a respiratory rate of 16, a height of 5’7’’ (1.7 m), a weight of 217 lbs (98.4 kg), and a peripheral capillary oxygen saturation (SpO₂) of 99% on room air. The physical exam reveals a body mass index (BMI) of 34, warm dry skin, and coarse brittle hair.

Lab results reveal a thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) level of 11.17 mIU/L (reference range, 0.45-4.5 mIU/L) and a free thyroxine (T4) of 0.58 ng/dL (reference range, 0.8-2.8 ng/dL). A basic metabolic panel and hemoglobin A1C level are normal.

What would you recommend?

In the United States, the prevalence of overt hypothyroidism (defined as a TSH level > 4.5 mIU/L and a low free T4) among people ≥ 12 years of age was estimated at 0.3% based on National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data from 1999-2002.¹ Subclinical hypothyroidism (TSH level > 4.5 mIU/L but < 10 mIU/L and a normal T4 level) is even more common, with an estimated prevalence of 3.4%.¹ Hypothyroidism is more common in females and occurs more frequently in Caucasian Americans and Mexican Americans than in African Americans.¹

The most common etiologies of hypothyroidism include autoimmune thyroiditis (eg, Hashimoto thyroiditis, atrophic autoimmune thyroiditis) and iatrogenic causes (eg, after radioactive iodine ablation or thyroidectomy) (TABLE 1).^2-4

Initiating thyroid hormone replacement

Factors to consider when starting a patient on thyroid hormone replacement include age, weight, symptom severity, TSH level, goal TSH value, adverse effects from thyroid supplements, history of cardiac disease, and, for women of child-bearing age, the desire for pregnancy vs the use of contraceptives. Most adult patients < 50 years with overt hypothyroidism can begin a weight-based dose of levothyroxine: ~1.6 mcg/kg/d (based on ideal body weight).³

Continue to: For adults with cardiac disease...

For adults with cardiac disease, the risk of over-replacement limits initial dosing to 25 to 50 mcg/d for patients < 50 years (12.5-25 mcg/d; ≥ 50 years).³ For adults with subclinical hypothyroidism, it is reasonable to begin therapy at a lower daily dose (eg, 25-75 mcg/d) depending on baseline TSH level, symptoms (the patient may be asymptomatic), and the presence of cardiac disease (TABLE 2^3,4). Consider treatment in patients with subclinical hypothyroidism particularly when patients have a goiter or dyslipidemia and in women contemplating pregnancy in the near future. Elderly patients may require a dose 20% to 25% lower than younger adults because of decreased body mass.³

Levothyroxine is considered first-line therapy for hypothyroidism because of its low cost, dose consistency, low risk of allergic reactions, and potential to cause fewer cardiac adverse effects than triiodothyronine (T3) products such as desiccated thyroid extract.⁵ Although data have not shown an absolute increase in cardiovascular adverse effects, T3 products have a higher T3 vs T4 ratio, giving them a theoretically increased risk.^5,6 Desiccated thyroid extract also has been associated with allergic reactions.⁵

Consider treatment in adults with subclinical hypothyroidism when they have a goiter or dyslipidemia and in women contemplating pregnancy in the near future.

Use of liothyronine alone or in combination with levothyroxine lacks evidence and guideline support.⁴ Furthermore, it is dosed twice daily, which makes it less convenient, and concerns still exist that there may be an increase in cardiovascular adverse effects.^4,6 See TABLE 3⁷ for a summary of available products and their equivalent doses.

Maintaining patients on therapy

The maintenance phase begins once hypothyroidism is diagnosed and treatment is initiated. This phase includes regular monitoring with laboratory studies, office visits, and as-needed adjustments in hormone replacement dosing. The frequency at which all of these occur is variable and based on a number of factors including the patient’s other medical conditions, use of other medications including over-the-counter agents, the patient’s age, weight changes, and pregnancy status.^3,4,8 In general, dosage adjustments of 12.5 to 25 mcg can be made at 6- to 8-week intervals based on repeat TSH measurements, patient symptoms, and comorbidities.³

Instruct patients to take levothyroxine either in the morning at least 30 to 60 minutes before eating or 3 to 4 hours after the last meal of the day.

Once a patient is symptomatically stable and laboratory values have normalized, the recommended frequency of laboratory evaluation and office visits is every 12 months, barring significant changes in any of the factors mentioned above. At each visit, physicians should perform medication (including supplements) reconciliation and discuss any health condition updates. Changes to the therapy plan, including frequency or timing of laboratory tests, may be necessary if patients begin taking medications that alter the absorption or function of levothyroxine (eg, steroids).

Continue to: To maximize absorption...

To maximize absorption, providers should review with patients the optimal way to take thyroid hormones. Levothyroxine is approximately 70% to 80% absorbed under ideal conditions, which means taking it in the morning at least 30 to 60 minutes before eating or 3 to 4 hours after the last meal of the day.^3,9-13 Of note, TSH levels may increase slightly in patients taking proton pump inhibitors, but this does not usually require a dose increase of thyroid hormone.¹¹ Given that some supplements, particularly iron and calcium, can interfere with absorption, it is recommended to maintain a 3- to 4-hour gap between taking those supplements and taking levothyroxine.^12-14 For those patients unable or unwilling to adhere to these recommendations, an increase in levothyroxine dose may be required in order to compensate for the decreased absorption.

Don’t adjust hormone therapy based on clinical presentation alone. While clinical symptoms are important, it is not recommended to adjust hormone therapy based solely on clinical presentation. Common hypothyroid symptoms of dry skin, edema, weight gain, and fatigue may be caused by other medical conditions. While indices including Achilles reflex time and basal metabolic rate have shown some correlation to thyroid dysfunction, there has been limited evidence to show that longitudinal index changes reflect subtle changes in thyroid hormone levels.³

The most recent guidelines from the American Thyroid Association recommend that, “Symptoms should be followed, but considered in the context of serum thyrotropin values, relevant comorbidities, and other potential causes.”³

Special populations/circumstances to keep in mind

Malabsorption conditions. When a higher than expected weight-based dose of levothyroxine is required, physicians should review administration timing, adherence, and comorbid medical conditions that can affect absorption.

Several studies, for example, have demonstrated the impact of Helicobacter pylori gastritis on levothyroxine absorption and subsequent TSH levels.^15-17 In one nonrandomized prospective study, patients with H pylori and hypothyroidism who were previously thought to be unresponsive to levothyroxine therapy had a decrease in average TSH level from 30.5 mIU/L to 4.2 mIU/L after H pylori was eradicated.¹⁵ Autoimmune atrophic gastritis and celiac disease, both of which are more common in those with other autoimmune diseases, are also associated with the need for higher than expected levothyroxine doses.^17,18

Continue to: A history of gastric bypass surgery...

A history of gastric bypass surgery alone is not considered a risk factor for poor absorption of thyroid hormone, given that the majority of levothyroxine absorption occurs in the ileum.^19,20 However, advancing age (> 70 years) and extreme obesity (BMI > 40) are independent risk factors for decreased levothyroxine absorption.^20,21

Women of reproductive age and pregnant women. Overt untreated or undertreated hypothyroidism can be associated with increased risk of maternal and fetal complications including decreased fertility, miscarriage, preterm delivery, lower birth rates, and infant cognitive deficits.^3,22 Therefore, the main focus should be optimization of thyroid hormone levels prior to and during pregnancy.^3,4,8,22 Thyroid hormone replacement needs to be increased during pregnancy in approximately 50% to 85% of women using thyroid replacement prior to pregnancy, but the dose requirements vary based on the underlying etiology of thyroid dysfunction.

One initial option for patients on a stable dose before pregnancy is to increase their daily dose by a half tablet (1.5 × daily dose) immediately after home confirmation of pregnancy, until finer dose adjustments (usually increases of 25%-60% ) can be made by a physician. Experts recommend that a TSH level be obtained every 4 weeks until mid-gestation and then at least once around 30 weeks’ gestation to ensure specific targets are being met with dose adjustments.²² Optimal thyrotropin reference ranges during conception and pregnancy can be found in the literature.²³

Iron and calcium supplements can interfere with the absorption of levothyroxine, so a 3- to 4-hour gap between taking these supplements and levothyroxine is recommended.

Patients who have positive antibodies and normal thyroid function tests. Patients who are screened for thyroid disorders may demonstrate normal thyroid function (ie, euthyroid) with TSH, free T4, and, if checked, free T3, all within normal ranges. Despite these normal lab results, patients may have additional test results that demonstrate positive thyroid autoantibodies including thyroglobulin antibodies and/or thyroid peroxidase antibodies. Thyroid ­autoimmunity itself has been associated with a range of other autoimmune conditions as well as an increased risk of thyroid cancer in those with Hashimoto thyroiditis.²⁴ Two studies showed that prophylactic treatment of euthyroid patients with levothyroxine led to a reduction in antibody levels and a lower TSH level.^25,26 However, no studies have focused on patient-oriented outcomes such as hospitalizations, quality of life, or symptoms. If the patient remains asymptomatic, we recommend no treatment, but that the patient’s TSH levels be monitored every 12 months.²⁷

Elderly patients. Population data have shown that TSH increases normally with age, with a TSH level of 7.5 mIU/L being the ­upper limit of normal for a population of healthy adults > 80 years of age.^28,29 Overall, studies have failed to show any benefit in treating elderly patients with subclinical hypothyroidism unless their TSH level exceeds 10 mIU/L.^6,21 The one exception is elderly patients with heart failure in whom untreated subclinical hypothyroidism has been shown to be associated with higher mortality.³⁰

Continue to: Elderly patients are at higher risk...

Elderly patients are at higher risk for adverse effects of thyroid over-replacement, including atrial fibrillation and osteoporosis. While there have been no randomized trials examining target TSH levels in this population, a reasonable recommendation is a goal TSH level of 4 to 6 mIU/L for elderly patients ≥ 70 years.⁴

CASE

As a result of the patient’s elevated TSH level and symptoms of hypothyroidism, you start levothyroxine 150 mcg/d by mouth, counsel her on potential adverse effects, and schedule a follow-up visit with another TSH check in 6 weeks.

Follow-up laboratory studies 6 weeks later reveal a TSH level of 5.86 mIU/L (reference range, 0.45-4.5 mIU/L) and a free T4 level of 0.74 ng/dL (reference range, 0.8-2.8 ng/dL). Based on those results, you increase the dose of levothyroxine to 175 mcg/d.

Advancing age (> 70 years) and extreme obesity (BMI > 40) are independent risk factors for decreased levothyroxine absorption.

At her follow-up visit 12 weeks after initial presentation, her TSH level is 3.85 mIU/L. She reports feeling better overall with less fatigue, and she has lost 5 pounds since her last visit. You recommend she continue levothyroxine 175 mcg/d after reviewing medication compliance with the patient and ensuring she is indeed taking it in the morning, at least 30 minutes prior to eating. With improved but not resolved symptoms, she agrees to follow-up with repeat TSH laboratory studies in 6 weeks to determine whether further dose adjustments are necessary. Given that she is of reproductive age and her TSH level is suboptimal for pregnancy, you caution her about heightened pregnancy/fetal risks with a suboptimal TSH and recommend that she use reliable contraception.

CORRESPONDENCE
Christopher Bunt, MD, FAAFP, 5 Charleston Center Drive, Suite 263, MSC 192,Charleston, SC 29425; buntc@musc.edu

CASE

A 38-year-old woman presents for a routine physical. Other than urgent care visits for 1 episode of influenza and 2 upper respiratory illnesses, she has not seen a physician for a physical in 5 years. She denies any significant medical history. She takes naproxen occasionally for chronic right knee pain. She does not use tobacco or alcohol. Recently, she has started using a meal replacement shake at lunchtime for weight management. She performs aerobic exercise 30 to 40 minutes per day, 5 days per week. Her family history is significant for type 2 diabetes mellitus, arthritis, heart disease, and hyperlipidemia on her mother’s side. She is single, is not currently sexually active, works as a pharmacy technician, and has no children. A high-risk human papillomavirus test was normal 4 years ago.

A review of systems is notable for a 20-pound weight gain over the past year, worsening heartburn over the past 2 weeks, and chronic knee pain, which is greater in the right knee than the left. She denies weakness, fatigue, nausea, diarrhea, constipation, or abdominal pain. Vital signs reveal a blood pressure of 146/88 mm Hg, a heart rate of 63 bpm, a temperature of 98°F (36.7°C), a respiratory rate of 16, a height of 5’7’’ (1.7 m), a weight of 217 lbs (98.4 kg), and a peripheral capillary oxygen saturation (SpO₂) of 99% on room air. The physical exam reveals a body mass index (BMI) of 34, warm dry skin, and coarse brittle hair.

Lab results reveal a thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) level of 11.17 mIU/L (reference range, 0.45-4.5 mIU/L) and a free thyroxine (T4) of 0.58 ng/dL (reference range, 0.8-2.8 ng/dL). A basic metabolic panel and hemoglobin A1C level are normal.

What would you recommend?

In the United States, the prevalence of overt hypothyroidism (defined as a TSH level > 4.5 mIU/L and a low free T4) among people ≥ 12 years of age was estimated at 0.3% based on National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data from 1999-2002.¹ Subclinical hypothyroidism (TSH level > 4.5 mIU/L but < 10 mIU/L and a normal T4 level) is even more common, with an estimated prevalence of 3.4%.¹ Hypothyroidism is more common in females and occurs more frequently in Caucasian Americans and Mexican Americans than in African Americans.¹

The most common etiologies of hypothyroidism include autoimmune thyroiditis (eg, Hashimoto thyroiditis, atrophic autoimmune thyroiditis) and iatrogenic causes (eg, after radioactive iodine ablation or thyroidectomy) (TABLE 1).^2-4

Initiating thyroid hormone replacement

Factors to consider when starting a patient on thyroid hormone replacement include age, weight, symptom severity, TSH level, goal TSH value, adverse effects from thyroid supplements, history of cardiac disease, and, for women of child-bearing age, the desire for pregnancy vs the use of contraceptives. Most adult patients < 50 years with overt hypothyroidism can begin a weight-based dose of levothyroxine: ~1.6 mcg/kg/d (based on ideal body weight).³

Continue to: For adults with cardiac disease...

For adults with cardiac disease, the risk of over-replacement limits initial dosing to 25 to 50 mcg/d for patients < 50 years (12.5-25 mcg/d; ≥ 50 years).³ For adults with subclinical hypothyroidism, it is reasonable to begin therapy at a lower daily dose (eg, 25-75 mcg/d) depending on baseline TSH level, symptoms (the patient may be asymptomatic), and the presence of cardiac disease (TABLE 2^3,4). Consider treatment in patients with subclinical hypothyroidism particularly when patients have a goiter or dyslipidemia and in women contemplating pregnancy in the near future. Elderly patients may require a dose 20% to 25% lower than younger adults because of decreased body mass.³

Levothyroxine is considered first-line therapy for hypothyroidism because of its low cost, dose consistency, low risk of allergic reactions, and potential to cause fewer cardiac adverse effects than triiodothyronine (T3) products such as desiccated thyroid extract.⁵ Although data have not shown an absolute increase in cardiovascular adverse effects, T3 products have a higher T3 vs T4 ratio, giving them a theoretically increased risk.^5,6 Desiccated thyroid extract also has been associated with allergic reactions.⁵

Consider treatment in adults with subclinical hypothyroidism when they have a goiter or dyslipidemia and in women contemplating pregnancy in the near future.

Use of liothyronine alone or in combination with levothyroxine lacks evidence and guideline support.⁴ Furthermore, it is dosed twice daily, which makes it less convenient, and concerns still exist that there may be an increase in cardiovascular adverse effects.^4,6 See TABLE 3⁷ for a summary of available products and their equivalent doses.

Maintaining patients on therapy

The maintenance phase begins once hypothyroidism is diagnosed and treatment is initiated. This phase includes regular monitoring with laboratory studies, office visits, and as-needed adjustments in hormone replacement dosing. The frequency at which all of these occur is variable and based on a number of factors including the patient’s other medical conditions, use of other medications including over-the-counter agents, the patient’s age, weight changes, and pregnancy status.^3,4,8 In general, dosage adjustments of 12.5 to 25 mcg can be made at 6- to 8-week intervals based on repeat TSH measurements, patient symptoms, and comorbidities.³

Instruct patients to take levothyroxine either in the morning at least 30 to 60 minutes before eating or 3 to 4 hours after the last meal of the day.

Once a patient is symptomatically stable and laboratory values have normalized, the recommended frequency of laboratory evaluation and office visits is every 12 months, barring significant changes in any of the factors mentioned above. At each visit, physicians should perform medication (including supplements) reconciliation and discuss any health condition updates. Changes to the therapy plan, including frequency or timing of laboratory tests, may be necessary if patients begin taking medications that alter the absorption or function of levothyroxine (eg, steroids).

Continue to: To maximize absorption...

To maximize absorption, providers should review with patients the optimal way to take thyroid hormones. Levothyroxine is approximately 70% to 80% absorbed under ideal conditions, which means taking it in the morning at least 30 to 60 minutes before eating or 3 to 4 hours after the last meal of the day.^3,9-13 Of note, TSH levels may increase slightly in patients taking proton pump inhibitors, but this does not usually require a dose increase of thyroid hormone.¹¹ Given that some supplements, particularly iron and calcium, can interfere with absorption, it is recommended to maintain a 3- to 4-hour gap between taking those supplements and taking levothyroxine.^12-14 For those patients unable or unwilling to adhere to these recommendations, an increase in levothyroxine dose may be required in order to compensate for the decreased absorption.

Don’t adjust hormone therapy based on clinical presentation alone. While clinical symptoms are important, it is not recommended to adjust hormone therapy based solely on clinical presentation. Common hypothyroid symptoms of dry skin, edema, weight gain, and fatigue may be caused by other medical conditions. While indices including Achilles reflex time and basal metabolic rate have shown some correlation to thyroid dysfunction, there has been limited evidence to show that longitudinal index changes reflect subtle changes in thyroid hormone levels.³

The most recent guidelines from the American Thyroid Association recommend that, “Symptoms should be followed, but considered in the context of serum thyrotropin values, relevant comorbidities, and other potential causes.”³

Special populations/circumstances to keep in mind

Malabsorption conditions. When a higher than expected weight-based dose of levothyroxine is required, physicians should review administration timing, adherence, and comorbid medical conditions that can affect absorption.

Several studies, for example, have demonstrated the impact of Helicobacter pylori gastritis on levothyroxine absorption and subsequent TSH levels.^15-17 In one nonrandomized prospective study, patients with H pylori and hypothyroidism who were previously thought to be unresponsive to levothyroxine therapy had a decrease in average TSH level from 30.5 mIU/L to 4.2 mIU/L after H pylori was eradicated.¹⁵ Autoimmune atrophic gastritis and celiac disease, both of which are more common in those with other autoimmune diseases, are also associated with the need for higher than expected levothyroxine doses.^17,18

Continue to: A history of gastric bypass surgery...

A history of gastric bypass surgery alone is not considered a risk factor for poor absorption of thyroid hormone, given that the majority of levothyroxine absorption occurs in the ileum.^19,20 However, advancing age (> 70 years) and extreme obesity (BMI > 40) are independent risk factors for decreased levothyroxine absorption.^20,21

Women of reproductive age and pregnant women. Overt untreated or undertreated hypothyroidism can be associated with increased risk of maternal and fetal complications including decreased fertility, miscarriage, preterm delivery, lower birth rates, and infant cognitive deficits.^3,22 Therefore, the main focus should be optimization of thyroid hormone levels prior to and during pregnancy.^3,4,8,22 Thyroid hormone replacement needs to be increased during pregnancy in approximately 50% to 85% of women using thyroid replacement prior to pregnancy, but the dose requirements vary based on the underlying etiology of thyroid dysfunction.

One initial option for patients on a stable dose before pregnancy is to increase their daily dose by a half tablet (1.5 × daily dose) immediately after home confirmation of pregnancy, until finer dose adjustments (usually increases of 25%-60% ) can be made by a physician. Experts recommend that a TSH level be obtained every 4 weeks until mid-gestation and then at least once around 30 weeks’ gestation to ensure specific targets are being met with dose adjustments.²² Optimal thyrotropin reference ranges during conception and pregnancy can be found in the literature.²³

Iron and calcium supplements can interfere with the absorption of levothyroxine, so a 3- to 4-hour gap between taking these supplements and levothyroxine is recommended.

Patients who have positive antibodies and normal thyroid function tests. Patients who are screened for thyroid disorders may demonstrate normal thyroid function (ie, euthyroid) with TSH, free T4, and, if checked, free T3, all within normal ranges. Despite these normal lab results, patients may have additional test results that demonstrate positive thyroid autoantibodies including thyroglobulin antibodies and/or thyroid peroxidase antibodies. Thyroid ­autoimmunity itself has been associated with a range of other autoimmune conditions as well as an increased risk of thyroid cancer in those with Hashimoto thyroiditis.²⁴ Two studies showed that prophylactic treatment of euthyroid patients with levothyroxine led to a reduction in antibody levels and a lower TSH level.^25,26 However, no studies have focused on patient-oriented outcomes such as hospitalizations, quality of life, or symptoms. If the patient remains asymptomatic, we recommend no treatment, but that the patient’s TSH levels be monitored every 12 months.²⁷

Elderly patients. Population data have shown that TSH increases normally with age, with a TSH level of 7.5 mIU/L being the ­upper limit of normal for a population of healthy adults > 80 years of age.^28,29 Overall, studies have failed to show any benefit in treating elderly patients with subclinical hypothyroidism unless their TSH level exceeds 10 mIU/L.^6,21 The one exception is elderly patients with heart failure in whom untreated subclinical hypothyroidism has been shown to be associated with higher mortality.³⁰

Continue to: Elderly patients are at higher risk...

Elderly patients are at higher risk for adverse effects of thyroid over-replacement, including atrial fibrillation and osteoporosis. While there have been no randomized trials examining target TSH levels in this population, a reasonable recommendation is a goal TSH level of 4 to 6 mIU/L for elderly patients ≥ 70 years.⁴

CASE

As a result of the patient’s elevated TSH level and symptoms of hypothyroidism, you start levothyroxine 150 mcg/d by mouth, counsel her on potential adverse effects, and schedule a follow-up visit with another TSH check in 6 weeks.

Follow-up laboratory studies 6 weeks later reveal a TSH level of 5.86 mIU/L (reference range, 0.45-4.5 mIU/L) and a free T4 level of 0.74 ng/dL (reference range, 0.8-2.8 ng/dL). Based on those results, you increase the dose of levothyroxine to 175 mcg/d.

Advancing age (> 70 years) and extreme obesity (BMI > 40) are independent risk factors for decreased levothyroxine absorption.

At her follow-up visit 12 weeks after initial presentation, her TSH level is 3.85 mIU/L. She reports feeling better overall with less fatigue, and she has lost 5 pounds since her last visit. You recommend she continue levothyroxine 175 mcg/d after reviewing medication compliance with the patient and ensuring she is indeed taking it in the morning, at least 30 minutes prior to eating. With improved but not resolved symptoms, she agrees to follow-up with repeat TSH laboratory studies in 6 weeks to determine whether further dose adjustments are necessary. Given that she is of reproductive age and her TSH level is suboptimal for pregnancy, you caution her about heightened pregnancy/fetal risks with a suboptimal TSH and recommend that she use reliable contraception.

CORRESPONDENCE
Christopher Bunt, MD, FAAFP, 5 Charleston Center Drive, Suite 263, MSC 192,Charleston, SC 29425; buntc@musc.edu

CASE

A 38-year-old woman presents for a routine physical. Other than urgent care visits for 1 episode of influenza and 2 upper respiratory illnesses, she has not seen a physician for a physical in 5 years. She denies any significant medical history. She takes naproxen occasionally for chronic right knee pain. She does not use tobacco or alcohol. Recently, she has started using a meal replacement shake at lunchtime for weight management. She performs aerobic exercise 30 to 40 minutes per day, 5 days per week. Her family history is significant for type 2 diabetes mellitus, arthritis, heart disease, and hyperlipidemia on her mother’s side. She is single, is not currently sexually active, works as a pharmacy technician, and has no children. A high-risk human papillomavirus test was normal 4 years ago.

A review of systems is notable for a 20-pound weight gain over the past year, worsening heartburn over the past 2 weeks, and chronic knee pain, which is greater in the right knee than the left. She denies weakness, fatigue, nausea, diarrhea, constipation, or abdominal pain. Vital signs reveal a blood pressure of 146/88 mm Hg, a heart rate of 63 bpm, a temperature of 98°F (36.7°C), a respiratory rate of 16, a height of 5’7’’ (1.7 m), a weight of 217 lbs (98.4 kg), and a peripheral capillary oxygen saturation (SpO₂) of 99% on room air. The physical exam reveals a body mass index (BMI) of 34, warm dry skin, and coarse brittle hair.

Lab results reveal a thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) level of 11.17 mIU/L (reference range, 0.45-4.5 mIU/L) and a free thyroxine (T4) of 0.58 ng/dL (reference range, 0.8-2.8 ng/dL). A basic metabolic panel and hemoglobin A1C level are normal.

What would you recommend?

In the United States, the prevalence of overt hypothyroidism (defined as a TSH level > 4.5 mIU/L and a low free T4) among people ≥ 12 years of age was estimated at 0.3% based on National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data from 1999-2002.¹ Subclinical hypothyroidism (TSH level > 4.5 mIU/L but < 10 mIU/L and a normal T4 level) is even more common, with an estimated prevalence of 3.4%.¹ Hypothyroidism is more common in females and occurs more frequently in Caucasian Americans and Mexican Americans than in African Americans.¹

The most common etiologies of hypothyroidism include autoimmune thyroiditis (eg, Hashimoto thyroiditis, atrophic autoimmune thyroiditis) and iatrogenic causes (eg, after radioactive iodine ablation or thyroidectomy) (TABLE 1).^2-4

Initiating thyroid hormone replacement

Factors to consider when starting a patient on thyroid hormone replacement include age, weight, symptom severity, TSH level, goal TSH value, adverse effects from thyroid supplements, history of cardiac disease, and, for women of child-bearing age, the desire for pregnancy vs the use of contraceptives. Most adult patients < 50 years with overt hypothyroidism can begin a weight-based dose of levothyroxine: ~1.6 mcg/kg/d (based on ideal body weight).³

Continue to: For adults with cardiac disease...

For adults with cardiac disease, the risk of over-replacement limits initial dosing to 25 to 50 mcg/d for patients < 50 years (12.5-25 mcg/d; ≥ 50 years).³ For adults with subclinical hypothyroidism, it is reasonable to begin therapy at a lower daily dose (eg, 25-75 mcg/d) depending on baseline TSH level, symptoms (the patient may be asymptomatic), and the presence of cardiac disease (TABLE 2^3,4). Consider treatment in patients with subclinical hypothyroidism particularly when patients have a goiter or dyslipidemia and in women contemplating pregnancy in the near future. Elderly patients may require a dose 20% to 25% lower than younger adults because of decreased body mass.³

Levothyroxine is considered first-line therapy for hypothyroidism because of its low cost, dose consistency, low risk of allergic reactions, and potential to cause fewer cardiac adverse effects than triiodothyronine (T3) products such as desiccated thyroid extract.⁵ Although data have not shown an absolute increase in cardiovascular adverse effects, T3 products have a higher T3 vs T4 ratio, giving them a theoretically increased risk.^5,6 Desiccated thyroid extract also has been associated with allergic reactions.⁵

Consider treatment in adults with subclinical hypothyroidism when they have a goiter or dyslipidemia and in women contemplating pregnancy in the near future.

Use of liothyronine alone or in combination with levothyroxine lacks evidence and guideline support.⁴ Furthermore, it is dosed twice daily, which makes it less convenient, and concerns still exist that there may be an increase in cardiovascular adverse effects.^4,6 See TABLE 3⁷ for a summary of available products and their equivalent doses.

Maintaining patients on therapy

The maintenance phase begins once hypothyroidism is diagnosed and treatment is initiated. This phase includes regular monitoring with laboratory studies, office visits, and as-needed adjustments in hormone replacement dosing. The frequency at which all of these occur is variable and based on a number of factors including the patient’s other medical conditions, use of other medications including over-the-counter agents, the patient’s age, weight changes, and pregnancy status.^3,4,8 In general, dosage adjustments of 12.5 to 25 mcg can be made at 6- to 8-week intervals based on repeat TSH measurements, patient symptoms, and comorbidities.³

Instruct patients to take levothyroxine either in the morning at least 30 to 60 minutes before eating or 3 to 4 hours after the last meal of the day.

Once a patient is symptomatically stable and laboratory values have normalized, the recommended frequency of laboratory evaluation and office visits is every 12 months, barring significant changes in any of the factors mentioned above. At each visit, physicians should perform medication (including supplements) reconciliation and discuss any health condition updates. Changes to the therapy plan, including frequency or timing of laboratory tests, may be necessary if patients begin taking medications that alter the absorption or function of levothyroxine (eg, steroids).

Continue to: To maximize absorption...

To maximize absorption, providers should review with patients the optimal way to take thyroid hormones. Levothyroxine is approximately 70% to 80% absorbed under ideal conditions, which means taking it in the morning at least 30 to 60 minutes before eating or 3 to 4 hours after the last meal of the day.^3,9-13 Of note, TSH levels may increase slightly in patients taking proton pump inhibitors, but this does not usually require a dose increase of thyroid hormone.¹¹ Given that some supplements, particularly iron and calcium, can interfere with absorption, it is recommended to maintain a 3- to 4-hour gap between taking those supplements and taking levothyroxine.^12-14 For those patients unable or unwilling to adhere to these recommendations, an increase in levothyroxine dose may be required in order to compensate for the decreased absorption.

Don’t adjust hormone therapy based on clinical presentation alone. While clinical symptoms are important, it is not recommended to adjust hormone therapy based solely on clinical presentation. Common hypothyroid symptoms of dry skin, edema, weight gain, and fatigue may be caused by other medical conditions. While indices including Achilles reflex time and basal metabolic rate have shown some correlation to thyroid dysfunction, there has been limited evidence to show that longitudinal index changes reflect subtle changes in thyroid hormone levels.³

The most recent guidelines from the American Thyroid Association recommend that, “Symptoms should be followed, but considered in the context of serum thyrotropin values, relevant comorbidities, and other potential causes.”³

Special populations/circumstances to keep in mind

Malabsorption conditions. When a higher than expected weight-based dose of levothyroxine is required, physicians should review administration timing, adherence, and comorbid medical conditions that can affect absorption.

Several studies, for example, have demonstrated the impact of Helicobacter pylori gastritis on levothyroxine absorption and subsequent TSH levels.^15-17 In one nonrandomized prospective study, patients with H pylori and hypothyroidism who were previously thought to be unresponsive to levothyroxine therapy had a decrease in average TSH level from 30.5 mIU/L to 4.2 mIU/L after H pylori was eradicated.¹⁵ Autoimmune atrophic gastritis and celiac disease, both of which are more common in those with other autoimmune diseases, are also associated with the need for higher than expected levothyroxine doses.^17,18

Continue to: A history of gastric bypass surgery...

A history of gastric bypass surgery alone is not considered a risk factor for poor absorption of thyroid hormone, given that the majority of levothyroxine absorption occurs in the ileum.^19,20 However, advancing age (> 70 years) and extreme obesity (BMI > 40) are independent risk factors for decreased levothyroxine absorption.^20,21

Women of reproductive age and pregnant women. Overt untreated or undertreated hypothyroidism can be associated with increased risk of maternal and fetal complications including decreased fertility, miscarriage, preterm delivery, lower birth rates, and infant cognitive deficits.^3,22 Therefore, the main focus should be optimization of thyroid hormone levels prior to and during pregnancy.^3,4,8,22 Thyroid hormone replacement needs to be increased during pregnancy in approximately 50% to 85% of women using thyroid replacement prior to pregnancy, but the dose requirements vary based on the underlying etiology of thyroid dysfunction.

One initial option for patients on a stable dose before pregnancy is to increase their daily dose by a half tablet (1.5 × daily dose) immediately after home confirmation of pregnancy, until finer dose adjustments (usually increases of 25%-60% ) can be made by a physician. Experts recommend that a TSH level be obtained every 4 weeks until mid-gestation and then at least once around 30 weeks’ gestation to ensure specific targets are being met with dose adjustments.²² Optimal thyrotropin reference ranges during conception and pregnancy can be found in the literature.²³

Iron and calcium supplements can interfere with the absorption of levothyroxine, so a 3- to 4-hour gap between taking these supplements and levothyroxine is recommended.

Patients who have positive antibodies and normal thyroid function tests. Patients who are screened for thyroid disorders may demonstrate normal thyroid function (ie, euthyroid) with TSH, free T4, and, if checked, free T3, all within normal ranges. Despite these normal lab results, patients may have additional test results that demonstrate positive thyroid autoantibodies including thyroglobulin antibodies and/or thyroid peroxidase antibodies. Thyroid ­autoimmunity itself has been associated with a range of other autoimmune conditions as well as an increased risk of thyroid cancer in those with Hashimoto thyroiditis.²⁴ Two studies showed that prophylactic treatment of euthyroid patients with levothyroxine led to a reduction in antibody levels and a lower TSH level.^25,26 However, no studies have focused on patient-oriented outcomes such as hospitalizations, quality of life, or symptoms. If the patient remains asymptomatic, we recommend no treatment, but that the patient’s TSH levels be monitored every 12 months.²⁷

Elderly patients. Population data have shown that TSH increases normally with age, with a TSH level of 7.5 mIU/L being the ­upper limit of normal for a population of healthy adults > 80 years of age.^28,29 Overall, studies have failed to show any benefit in treating elderly patients with subclinical hypothyroidism unless their TSH level exceeds 10 mIU/L.^6,21 The one exception is elderly patients with heart failure in whom untreated subclinical hypothyroidism has been shown to be associated with higher mortality.³⁰

Continue to: Elderly patients are at higher risk...

Elderly patients are at higher risk for adverse effects of thyroid over-replacement, including atrial fibrillation and osteoporosis. While there have been no randomized trials examining target TSH levels in this population, a reasonable recommendation is a goal TSH level of 4 to 6 mIU/L for elderly patients ≥ 70 years.⁴

CASE

As a result of the patient’s elevated TSH level and symptoms of hypothyroidism, you start levothyroxine 150 mcg/d by mouth, counsel her on potential adverse effects, and schedule a follow-up visit with another TSH check in 6 weeks.

Follow-up laboratory studies 6 weeks later reveal a TSH level of 5.86 mIU/L (reference range, 0.45-4.5 mIU/L) and a free T4 level of 0.74 ng/dL (reference range, 0.8-2.8 ng/dL). Based on those results, you increase the dose of levothyroxine to 175 mcg/d.

Advancing age (> 70 years) and extreme obesity (BMI > 40) are independent risk factors for decreased levothyroxine absorption.

At her follow-up visit 12 weeks after initial presentation, her TSH level is 3.85 mIU/L. She reports feeling better overall with less fatigue, and she has lost 5 pounds since her last visit. You recommend she continue levothyroxine 175 mcg/d after reviewing medication compliance with the patient and ensuring she is indeed taking it in the morning, at least 30 minutes prior to eating. With improved but not resolved symptoms, she agrees to follow-up with repeat TSH laboratory studies in 6 weeks to determine whether further dose adjustments are necessary. Given that she is of reproductive age and her TSH level is suboptimal for pregnancy, you caution her about heightened pregnancy/fetal risks with a suboptimal TSH and recommend that she use reliable contraception.

CORRESPONDENCE
Christopher Bunt, MD, FAAFP, 5 Charleston Center Drive, Suite 263, MSC 192,Charleston, SC 29425; buntc@musc.edu

Adding cetuximab to radiotherapy and cisplatin does not improve outcomes in patients with locoregionally advanced head and neck carcinoma, according to 10-year follow-up from a phase 3 trial.

The addition of cetuximab did not reduce local-regional failure or distant metastasis, and it did not improve progression-free or overall survival.

“With a median follow-up of over 10 years, this updated report confirms the addition of cetuximab to radiation/cisplatin did not improve any measured outcome in the entire cohort or when stratifying by p16 status,” said Jimmy J. Caudell, MD, of Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, Fla.

Dr. Caudell presented this update at the Multidisciplinary Head and Neck Cancer Symposium, sponsored by the American Society for Radiation Oncology.

Dr. Caudell noted that cisplatin plus radiotherapy or cetuximab plus radiotherapy have been shown to improve overall survival in patients with locoregionally advanced head and neck carcinoma. Researchers conducted this phase 3 trial, RTOG 0522 (NCT00265941), to determine if adding cetuximab to radiotherapy and cisplatin would improve progression-free survival.

The trial included 891 evaluable patients with stage T2 N2a-3 M0 or T3-4 N0-3 M0 disease. They were randomized to receive radiotherapy and cisplatin without cetuximab (n = 447) or with cetuximab (n = 444). Most patients were assigned to intensity-modulated radiotherapy (86.8% in the radiotherapy/cisplatin arm and 89.2% in the cetuximab arm) rather than 3-D conformal radiotherapy (13.2% and 10.8%, respectively).

Baseline characteristics were balanced between the treatment arms. The median age was 57 years (range, 31-79 years) in the radiotherapy/cisplatin arm and 58 years (range, 34-76 years) in the cetuximab arm. Nearly 90% of patients in both arms were men, and the oropharynx was the primary site of disease in about 70% of patients in both arms.

More patients were p16-positive (35.7% in the radiotherapy/cisplatin arm and 39.4% in the cetuximab arm) than were p16-negative (14.4% and 13.1%, respectively). However, p16 status was unknown for about half of patients in each arm.
 

Long-term efficacy

At a median follow-up of 10.1 years, 452 patients were still alive.

The rate of local-regional failure was 28.5% in the radiotherapy/cisplatin arm and 34.8% in the cetuximab arm (hazard ratio, 1.21; P = .94). The rate of distant metastases was 15% and 11.8%, respectively (HR, 0.79; P = .10).

The 10-year progression-free survival rate was 43.6% in the radiotherapy/cisplatin arm and 40.2% in the cetuximab arm (HR, 1.06; P = .74). The 10-year overall survival rate was 49.9% and 50%, respectively (HR, 0.97; P = .36)

“As might be expected, patients who were p16-positive had a substantially improved progression-free survival as well as overall survival,” Dr. Caudell said. “Patients who had p16-negative oropharyngeal cancer or nonoropharyngeal cancer had equivalent progression-free survival and overall survival.”

However, the addition of cetuximab did not improve progression-free or overall survival in patients with p16-positive, p16-negative oropharyngeal, or nonoropharyngeal cancers.

“[These results] have proven conclusively that the addition of cetuximab to concurrent cisplatin and radiation therapy does not improve outcomes in stage III-IV head and neck cancer, regardless of the primary tumor site and p16 status,” said Kartik Sehgal, MD, of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, who was not involved in this study.
 

Late toxicity

Dr. Caudell noted that late toxicity was “substantial” in both treatment arms. Late toxicity was defined as adverse events occurring greater than 90 days from the start of radiotherapy.

The incidence of grade 3/4 late toxicity was 57.4% in the radiotherapy/cisplatin arm and 61.3% in the cetuximab arm (P = .26). The most common grade 3/4 late adverse event was dysphagia, occurring in 39.6% of patients in the radiotherapy/cisplatin arm and 38.2% of those in the cetuximab arm.

Other late grade 3/4 events (in the radiotherapy/cisplatin and cetuximab arms, respectively) included dry mouth (3% and 5%), radiation mucositis (5.3% and 7%), weight decrease (7.6% and 8.7%), hearing impairment (6% and 5%), pharynx mucositis/stomatitis (4.9% and 6%), and osteonecrosis (6% and 4.8%).

Feeding tube use was similar in both treatment arms over time. At 10 years, 14.3% of patients in the radiotherapy/cisplatin arm and 11% of those in the cetuximab arm used a feeding tube (P = .53).

“Despite the use of intensity-modulated radiotherapy, there was a high incidence of late grade 3 and higher toxicities, primarily related to dysphagia, which have substantial effects on the quality of life of our patients,” Dr. Sehgal noted. “These findings need to be considered carefully while designing future studies.

“Future directions for the management of locoregionally advanced head and neck cancer include evaluation of benefits from the addition of immune checkpoint inhibitors to cisplatin with concurrent radiation therapy (e.g., JAVELIN with avelumab [NCT01772004], KEYNOTE-412 with pembrolizumab [NCT03040999], and NCT03349710 with nivolumab) and whether immune checkpoint inhibitors can substitute for cisplatin in those being treated concurrently with radiation therapy (e.g., REACH trial comparing avelumab, cetuximab, and radiation therapy versus cisplatin plus radiation therapy [NCT02999087]).”

The current study was sponsored by the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group, the National Cancer Institute, NRG Oncology, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Caudell disclosed grants and fees from Varian Medical Systems. Dr. Sehgal had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

jensmith@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Caudell J et al. Head and Neck Cancers Symposium 2020, Abstract 6.

Adding cetuximab to radiotherapy and cisplatin does not improve outcomes in patients with locoregionally advanced head and neck carcinoma, according to 10-year follow-up from a phase 3 trial.

The addition of cetuximab did not reduce local-regional failure or distant metastasis, and it did not improve progression-free or overall survival.

“With a median follow-up of over 10 years, this updated report confirms the addition of cetuximab to radiation/cisplatin did not improve any measured outcome in the entire cohort or when stratifying by p16 status,” said Jimmy J. Caudell, MD, of Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, Fla.

Dr. Caudell presented this update at the Multidisciplinary Head and Neck Cancer Symposium, sponsored by the American Society for Radiation Oncology.

Dr. Caudell noted that cisplatin plus radiotherapy or cetuximab plus radiotherapy have been shown to improve overall survival in patients with locoregionally advanced head and neck carcinoma. Researchers conducted this phase 3 trial, RTOG 0522 (NCT00265941), to determine if adding cetuximab to radiotherapy and cisplatin would improve progression-free survival.

The trial included 891 evaluable patients with stage T2 N2a-3 M0 or T3-4 N0-3 M0 disease. They were randomized to receive radiotherapy and cisplatin without cetuximab (n = 447) or with cetuximab (n = 444). Most patients were assigned to intensity-modulated radiotherapy (86.8% in the radiotherapy/cisplatin arm and 89.2% in the cetuximab arm) rather than 3-D conformal radiotherapy (13.2% and 10.8%, respectively).

Baseline characteristics were balanced between the treatment arms. The median age was 57 years (range, 31-79 years) in the radiotherapy/cisplatin arm and 58 years (range, 34-76 years) in the cetuximab arm. Nearly 90% of patients in both arms were men, and the oropharynx was the primary site of disease in about 70% of patients in both arms.

More patients were p16-positive (35.7% in the radiotherapy/cisplatin arm and 39.4% in the cetuximab arm) than were p16-negative (14.4% and 13.1%, respectively). However, p16 status was unknown for about half of patients in each arm.
 

Long-term efficacy

At a median follow-up of 10.1 years, 452 patients were still alive.

The rate of local-regional failure was 28.5% in the radiotherapy/cisplatin arm and 34.8% in the cetuximab arm (hazard ratio, 1.21; P = .94). The rate of distant metastases was 15% and 11.8%, respectively (HR, 0.79; P = .10).

The 10-year progression-free survival rate was 43.6% in the radiotherapy/cisplatin arm and 40.2% in the cetuximab arm (HR, 1.06; P = .74). The 10-year overall survival rate was 49.9% and 50%, respectively (HR, 0.97; P = .36)

“As might be expected, patients who were p16-positive had a substantially improved progression-free survival as well as overall survival,” Dr. Caudell said. “Patients who had p16-negative oropharyngeal cancer or nonoropharyngeal cancer had equivalent progression-free survival and overall survival.”

However, the addition of cetuximab did not improve progression-free or overall survival in patients with p16-positive, p16-negative oropharyngeal, or nonoropharyngeal cancers.

“[These results] have proven conclusively that the addition of cetuximab to concurrent cisplatin and radiation therapy does not improve outcomes in stage III-IV head and neck cancer, regardless of the primary tumor site and p16 status,” said Kartik Sehgal, MD, of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, who was not involved in this study.
 

Late toxicity

Dr. Caudell noted that late toxicity was “substantial” in both treatment arms. Late toxicity was defined as adverse events occurring greater than 90 days from the start of radiotherapy.

The incidence of grade 3/4 late toxicity was 57.4% in the radiotherapy/cisplatin arm and 61.3% in the cetuximab arm (P = .26). The most common grade 3/4 late adverse event was dysphagia, occurring in 39.6% of patients in the radiotherapy/cisplatin arm and 38.2% of those in the cetuximab arm.

Other late grade 3/4 events (in the radiotherapy/cisplatin and cetuximab arms, respectively) included dry mouth (3% and 5%), radiation mucositis (5.3% and 7%), weight decrease (7.6% and 8.7%), hearing impairment (6% and 5%), pharynx mucositis/stomatitis (4.9% and 6%), and osteonecrosis (6% and 4.8%).

Feeding tube use was similar in both treatment arms over time. At 10 years, 14.3% of patients in the radiotherapy/cisplatin arm and 11% of those in the cetuximab arm used a feeding tube (P = .53).

“Despite the use of intensity-modulated radiotherapy, there was a high incidence of late grade 3 and higher toxicities, primarily related to dysphagia, which have substantial effects on the quality of life of our patients,” Dr. Sehgal noted. “These findings need to be considered carefully while designing future studies.

“Future directions for the management of locoregionally advanced head and neck cancer include evaluation of benefits from the addition of immune checkpoint inhibitors to cisplatin with concurrent radiation therapy (e.g., JAVELIN with avelumab [NCT01772004], KEYNOTE-412 with pembrolizumab [NCT03040999], and NCT03349710 with nivolumab) and whether immune checkpoint inhibitors can substitute for cisplatin in those being treated concurrently with radiation therapy (e.g., REACH trial comparing avelumab, cetuximab, and radiation therapy versus cisplatin plus radiation therapy [NCT02999087]).”

The current study was sponsored by the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group, the National Cancer Institute, NRG Oncology, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Caudell disclosed grants and fees from Varian Medical Systems. Dr. Sehgal had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

jensmith@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Caudell J et al. Head and Neck Cancers Symposium 2020, Abstract 6.

Adding cetuximab to radiotherapy and cisplatin does not improve outcomes in patients with locoregionally advanced head and neck carcinoma, according to 10-year follow-up from a phase 3 trial.

The addition of cetuximab did not reduce local-regional failure or distant metastasis, and it did not improve progression-free or overall survival.

“With a median follow-up of over 10 years, this updated report confirms the addition of cetuximab to radiation/cisplatin did not improve any measured outcome in the entire cohort or when stratifying by p16 status,” said Jimmy J. Caudell, MD, of Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, Fla.

Dr. Caudell presented this update at the Multidisciplinary Head and Neck Cancer Symposium, sponsored by the American Society for Radiation Oncology.

Dr. Caudell noted that cisplatin plus radiotherapy or cetuximab plus radiotherapy have been shown to improve overall survival in patients with locoregionally advanced head and neck carcinoma. Researchers conducted this phase 3 trial, RTOG 0522 (NCT00265941), to determine if adding cetuximab to radiotherapy and cisplatin would improve progression-free survival.

The trial included 891 evaluable patients with stage T2 N2a-3 M0 or T3-4 N0-3 M0 disease. They were randomized to receive radiotherapy and cisplatin without cetuximab (n = 447) or with cetuximab (n = 444). Most patients were assigned to intensity-modulated radiotherapy (86.8% in the radiotherapy/cisplatin arm and 89.2% in the cetuximab arm) rather than 3-D conformal radiotherapy (13.2% and 10.8%, respectively).

Baseline characteristics were balanced between the treatment arms. The median age was 57 years (range, 31-79 years) in the radiotherapy/cisplatin arm and 58 years (range, 34-76 years) in the cetuximab arm. Nearly 90% of patients in both arms were men, and the oropharynx was the primary site of disease in about 70% of patients in both arms.

More patients were p16-positive (35.7% in the radiotherapy/cisplatin arm and 39.4% in the cetuximab arm) than were p16-negative (14.4% and 13.1%, respectively). However, p16 status was unknown for about half of patients in each arm.
 

Long-term efficacy

At a median follow-up of 10.1 years, 452 patients were still alive.

The rate of local-regional failure was 28.5% in the radiotherapy/cisplatin arm and 34.8% in the cetuximab arm (hazard ratio, 1.21; P = .94). The rate of distant metastases was 15% and 11.8%, respectively (HR, 0.79; P = .10).

The 10-year progression-free survival rate was 43.6% in the radiotherapy/cisplatin arm and 40.2% in the cetuximab arm (HR, 1.06; P = .74). The 10-year overall survival rate was 49.9% and 50%, respectively (HR, 0.97; P = .36)

“As might be expected, patients who were p16-positive had a substantially improved progression-free survival as well as overall survival,” Dr. Caudell said. “Patients who had p16-negative oropharyngeal cancer or nonoropharyngeal cancer had equivalent progression-free survival and overall survival.”

However, the addition of cetuximab did not improve progression-free or overall survival in patients with p16-positive, p16-negative oropharyngeal, or nonoropharyngeal cancers.

“[These results] have proven conclusively that the addition of cetuximab to concurrent cisplatin and radiation therapy does not improve outcomes in stage III-IV head and neck cancer, regardless of the primary tumor site and p16 status,” said Kartik Sehgal, MD, of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, who was not involved in this study.
 

Late toxicity

Dr. Caudell noted that late toxicity was “substantial” in both treatment arms. Late toxicity was defined as adverse events occurring greater than 90 days from the start of radiotherapy.

The incidence of grade 3/4 late toxicity was 57.4% in the radiotherapy/cisplatin arm and 61.3% in the cetuximab arm (P = .26). The most common grade 3/4 late adverse event was dysphagia, occurring in 39.6% of patients in the radiotherapy/cisplatin arm and 38.2% of those in the cetuximab arm.

Other late grade 3/4 events (in the radiotherapy/cisplatin and cetuximab arms, respectively) included dry mouth (3% and 5%), radiation mucositis (5.3% and 7%), weight decrease (7.6% and 8.7%), hearing impairment (6% and 5%), pharynx mucositis/stomatitis (4.9% and 6%), and osteonecrosis (6% and 4.8%).

Feeding tube use was similar in both treatment arms over time. At 10 years, 14.3% of patients in the radiotherapy/cisplatin arm and 11% of those in the cetuximab arm used a feeding tube (P = .53).

“Despite the use of intensity-modulated radiotherapy, there was a high incidence of late grade 3 and higher toxicities, primarily related to dysphagia, which have substantial effects on the quality of life of our patients,” Dr. Sehgal noted. “These findings need to be considered carefully while designing future studies.

“Future directions for the management of locoregionally advanced head and neck cancer include evaluation of benefits from the addition of immune checkpoint inhibitors to cisplatin with concurrent radiation therapy (e.g., JAVELIN with avelumab [NCT01772004], KEYNOTE-412 with pembrolizumab [NCT03040999], and NCT03349710 with nivolumab) and whether immune checkpoint inhibitors can substitute for cisplatin in those being treated concurrently with radiation therapy (e.g., REACH trial comparing avelumab, cetuximab, and radiation therapy versus cisplatin plus radiation therapy [NCT02999087]).”

The current study was sponsored by the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group, the National Cancer Institute, NRG Oncology, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Caudell disclosed grants and fees from Varian Medical Systems. Dr. Sehgal had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

jensmith@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Caudell J et al. Head and Neck Cancers Symposium 2020, Abstract 6.

Colorectal cancer patients aged 10-25 years have significantly worse survival rates than those of older patients, findings from a retrospective review suggest.

Overall survival (OS) at 3 years was 42% among patients aged 10-25 years and 90% among patients older than 25 years of age (P less than .0001). Recurrence-free survival (RFS) rates were 32% and 78%, respectively (P less than .0001).

Andrea A. Hayes-Jordan, MD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and colleagues reported these findings in the Journal of the American College of Surgeons.

The researchers reviewed patients treated at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston between 1991 and 2017 who were part of a prospectively maintained database. The cohort comprised 94 patients ages 10-25 years and 765 patients who were older than 25 years of age.

RFS and OS data were available for all of the older patients. For the younger group, RFS data were available for 77 patients, and OS data were available for 80 patients.

Five-year OS rates by disease stage in the younger and older groups, respectively, were:

100% and 96% for stage 1.

64% and 90% for stage 2 (P less than .0001).

58% and 85% for stage 3 (P less than .0001).

16% and 55% for stage 4 (P less than .0001).

Five-year RFS rates by disease stage in the younger and older groups, respectively, were:

100% and 95% for stage 1.

55% and 85% for stage 2 (P = .0002).

31% and 73% for stage 3 (P less than .0001).

5% and 27% for stage 4 (P less than .0001).

On multivariate analysis, patients aged 10-25 years had a significantly higher risk of recurrence or death (hazard ratio, 2.312; P less than .0001) and a higher risk of death (HR, 3.592; P less than .0001) compared with older patients.

Of note, peritoneal metastasis occurred significantly more often in the younger group (P = .00001), but predisposing conditions such as polyposis or congenital colon disease did not account for this difference.

“Besides age, mucinous and signet ring histology, poorly differentiated histology, [and] microsatellite instability were statistically significantly more prevalent in this [young] population,” the researchers wrote. “Although other authors have noted similar differences, none have identified peritoneal metastasis to be statistically significantly more prevalent in patients under 25 years.”

The reason for this finding “most certainly lies in the biology in this age group and propensity to develop peritoneal metastasis based on a yet unknown genetic factor,” the researchers added. They reported having no disclosures.

sworcester@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Hayes-Jordan A et al. J Am Coll Surg. 2020 Feb 21. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2019.12.043.

Colorectal cancer patients aged 10-25 years have significantly worse survival rates than those of older patients, findings from a retrospective review suggest.

Overall survival (OS) at 3 years was 42% among patients aged 10-25 years and 90% among patients older than 25 years of age (P less than .0001). Recurrence-free survival (RFS) rates were 32% and 78%, respectively (P less than .0001).

Andrea A. Hayes-Jordan, MD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and colleagues reported these findings in the Journal of the American College of Surgeons.

The researchers reviewed patients treated at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston between 1991 and 2017 who were part of a prospectively maintained database. The cohort comprised 94 patients ages 10-25 years and 765 patients who were older than 25 years of age.

RFS and OS data were available for all of the older patients. For the younger group, RFS data were available for 77 patients, and OS data were available for 80 patients.

Five-year OS rates by disease stage in the younger and older groups, respectively, were:

100% and 96% for stage 1.

64% and 90% for stage 2 (P less than .0001).

58% and 85% for stage 3 (P less than .0001).

16% and 55% for stage 4 (P less than .0001).

Five-year RFS rates by disease stage in the younger and older groups, respectively, were:

100% and 95% for stage 1.

55% and 85% for stage 2 (P = .0002).

31% and 73% for stage 3 (P less than .0001).

5% and 27% for stage 4 (P less than .0001).

On multivariate analysis, patients aged 10-25 years had a significantly higher risk of recurrence or death (hazard ratio, 2.312; P less than .0001) and a higher risk of death (HR, 3.592; P less than .0001) compared with older patients.

Of note, peritoneal metastasis occurred significantly more often in the younger group (P = .00001), but predisposing conditions such as polyposis or congenital colon disease did not account for this difference.

“Besides age, mucinous and signet ring histology, poorly differentiated histology, [and] microsatellite instability were statistically significantly more prevalent in this [young] population,” the researchers wrote. “Although other authors have noted similar differences, none have identified peritoneal metastasis to be statistically significantly more prevalent in patients under 25 years.”

The reason for this finding “most certainly lies in the biology in this age group and propensity to develop peritoneal metastasis based on a yet unknown genetic factor,” the researchers added. They reported having no disclosures.

sworcester@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Hayes-Jordan A et al. J Am Coll Surg. 2020 Feb 21. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2019.12.043.

Colorectal cancer patients aged 10-25 years have significantly worse survival rates than those of older patients, findings from a retrospective review suggest.

Overall survival (OS) at 3 years was 42% among patients aged 10-25 years and 90% among patients older than 25 years of age (P less than .0001). Recurrence-free survival (RFS) rates were 32% and 78%, respectively (P less than .0001).

Andrea A. Hayes-Jordan, MD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and colleagues reported these findings in the Journal of the American College of Surgeons.

The researchers reviewed patients treated at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston between 1991 and 2017 who were part of a prospectively maintained database. The cohort comprised 94 patients ages 10-25 years and 765 patients who were older than 25 years of age.

RFS and OS data were available for all of the older patients. For the younger group, RFS data were available for 77 patients, and OS data were available for 80 patients.

Five-year OS rates by disease stage in the younger and older groups, respectively, were:

100% and 96% for stage 1.

64% and 90% for stage 2 (P less than .0001).

58% and 85% for stage 3 (P less than .0001).

16% and 55% for stage 4 (P less than .0001).

Five-year RFS rates by disease stage in the younger and older groups, respectively, were:

100% and 95% for stage 1.

55% and 85% for stage 2 (P = .0002).

31% and 73% for stage 3 (P less than .0001).

5% and 27% for stage 4 (P less than .0001).

On multivariate analysis, patients aged 10-25 years had a significantly higher risk of recurrence or death (hazard ratio, 2.312; P less than .0001) and a higher risk of death (HR, 3.592; P less than .0001) compared with older patients.

Of note, peritoneal metastasis occurred significantly more often in the younger group (P = .00001), but predisposing conditions such as polyposis or congenital colon disease did not account for this difference.

“Besides age, mucinous and signet ring histology, poorly differentiated histology, [and] microsatellite instability were statistically significantly more prevalent in this [young] population,” the researchers wrote. “Although other authors have noted similar differences, none have identified peritoneal metastasis to be statistically significantly more prevalent in patients under 25 years.”

The reason for this finding “most certainly lies in the biology in this age group and propensity to develop peritoneal metastasis based on a yet unknown genetic factor,” the researchers added. They reported having no disclosures.

sworcester@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Hayes-Jordan A et al. J Am Coll Surg. 2020 Feb 21. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2019.12.043.

Amit Vashist, MD, SFHM, is the senior vice president and chief clinical officer at Ballad Health, an integrated 21-hospital health system serving 29 counties of northeast Tennessee, southwest Virginia, northwest North Carolina, and southeast Kentucky.

Dr. Vashist, who is a member of the Hospitalist’s editorial advisory board, focuses on clinical quality and safety, value-based initiatives to improve quality while reducing cost of care, performance improvement, and oversight of the enterprise-wide clinical delivery of care. He also provides administrative oversight of the Ballad Health Clinical Council – a model of physician partnership for clinical transformation and outcomes improvement.

Dr. Vashist is a dual board-certified internist and psychiatrist and an avid proponent of initiatives aimed at promoting quality, improving safety, reducing cost, and minimizing variation in the delivery of patient care across diverse settings. His work has been instrumental in improving outcomes and reducing mortality in patients with sepsis, earning him several local, regional, and national awards, and his work in promoting a zero-harm culture at Ballad Health has been instrumental in significantly reducing hospital-acquired infections system wide.

Prior to transitioning into the role of the chief clinical officer, Dr. Vashist served as the chair of the Ballad Health Clinical Council and the system chair for Ballad Health’s hospitalist division running a group of over 130 hospitalists.

Why did you choose a career in medicine?

The ability to have a positive impact and help others. In addition, I love learning new information and skills, and medicine affords one the opportunity to be a lifelong learner.

What do you like most about working as a hospitalist?

The relatively fast-paced nature of the work and the ability to tie seemingly fragmented episodes of patient care together. I believe that no other specialty offers that 30,000-foot vantage view of things in clinical medicine.

What do you like the least?

The shift worker mindset emanating from the traditional and rigid 7-on, 7-off model. A sense of team can be lost in this model and, contrary to conventional thinking, this model can accelerate hospitalist burnout.

What’s the best advice you ever received?

“You’ve gotta learn to listen!”

What’s the worst advice you ever received?

“Don’t rock the boat.” I strongly believe that frequent disruption is required to change the established status quo.

What aspect of patient care is most challenging?

A perceived disruption in the continuity of care by virtue of a new hospitalist seeing those patients, and the challenge to build the same level of trust and comfort as the outgoing hospitalist. Superior models of care have developed over the years promoting a better continuity of care but this domain continues to pose a challenge to proponents of hospital medicine.

What’s the biggest change you’ve seen in hospital medicine in your career?

Hospitalists being increasingly perceived as the “quarterbacks” and gatekeepers of quality, costs of care, and clinical outcomes in our hospitals and health care systems.

What’s the biggest change you would like to see in hospital medicine?

Inpatient volumes across the country continue to shrink, and this trend will not change for the foreseeable future. Hospitalists have got to embrace newer models of care faster, like hospitals at home, postacute care, transitional care clinics, hospital at home, etc. Remember what they say: “If you are not at the table, you are on the menu.” Now is our time to be at the table, and be the champions of change and move to true value (quality plus experience/cost), or else, we could end up and vanish like Blockbuster.

Outside of patient care, tell us about your career interests.

Implementing value-driven initiatives, pursuing endeavors aimed at cutting out waste and redundancy in health care, and developing a new generation of physician leaders with these skill sets.

Where do you see yourself in 10 years?

Leveraging my experience, training and expertise in hospital medicine to design better systems of health care that transcend above and beyond the four walls of the hospital, and facilitate true consumerism and “patient centeredness.”

What has been your most meaningful experience with SHM?

Attending the annual SHM meetings for the past several years, which have helped me to not only reap rewards from the numerous educational sessions but has also helped me develop a rich network of friends, colleagues, and mentors whose advice I solicit from time to time.

Amit Vashist, MD, SFHM, is the senior vice president and chief clinical officer at Ballad Health, an integrated 21-hospital health system serving 29 counties of northeast Tennessee, southwest Virginia, northwest North Carolina, and southeast Kentucky.

Dr. Vashist, who is a member of the Hospitalist’s editorial advisory board, focuses on clinical quality and safety, value-based initiatives to improve quality while reducing cost of care, performance improvement, and oversight of the enterprise-wide clinical delivery of care. He also provides administrative oversight of the Ballad Health Clinical Council – a model of physician partnership for clinical transformation and outcomes improvement.

Dr. Vashist is a dual board-certified internist and psychiatrist and an avid proponent of initiatives aimed at promoting quality, improving safety, reducing cost, and minimizing variation in the delivery of patient care across diverse settings. His work has been instrumental in improving outcomes and reducing mortality in patients with sepsis, earning him several local, regional, and national awards, and his work in promoting a zero-harm culture at Ballad Health has been instrumental in significantly reducing hospital-acquired infections system wide.

Prior to transitioning into the role of the chief clinical officer, Dr. Vashist served as the chair of the Ballad Health Clinical Council and the system chair for Ballad Health’s hospitalist division running a group of over 130 hospitalists.

Why did you choose a career in medicine?

The ability to have a positive impact and help others. In addition, I love learning new information and skills, and medicine affords one the opportunity to be a lifelong learner.

What do you like most about working as a hospitalist?

The relatively fast-paced nature of the work and the ability to tie seemingly fragmented episodes of patient care together. I believe that no other specialty offers that 30,000-foot vantage view of things in clinical medicine.

What do you like the least?

The shift worker mindset emanating from the traditional and rigid 7-on, 7-off model. A sense of team can be lost in this model and, contrary to conventional thinking, this model can accelerate hospitalist burnout.

What’s the best advice you ever received?

“You’ve gotta learn to listen!”

What’s the worst advice you ever received?

“Don’t rock the boat.” I strongly believe that frequent disruption is required to change the established status quo.

What aspect of patient care is most challenging?

A perceived disruption in the continuity of care by virtue of a new hospitalist seeing those patients, and the challenge to build the same level of trust and comfort as the outgoing hospitalist. Superior models of care have developed over the years promoting a better continuity of care but this domain continues to pose a challenge to proponents of hospital medicine.

What’s the biggest change you’ve seen in hospital medicine in your career?

Hospitalists being increasingly perceived as the “quarterbacks” and gatekeepers of quality, costs of care, and clinical outcomes in our hospitals and health care systems.

What’s the biggest change you would like to see in hospital medicine?

Inpatient volumes across the country continue to shrink, and this trend will not change for the foreseeable future. Hospitalists have got to embrace newer models of care faster, like hospitals at home, postacute care, transitional care clinics, hospital at home, etc. Remember what they say: “If you are not at the table, you are on the menu.” Now is our time to be at the table, and be the champions of change and move to true value (quality plus experience/cost), or else, we could end up and vanish like Blockbuster.

Outside of patient care, tell us about your career interests.

Implementing value-driven initiatives, pursuing endeavors aimed at cutting out waste and redundancy in health care, and developing a new generation of physician leaders with these skill sets.

Where do you see yourself in 10 years?

Leveraging my experience, training and expertise in hospital medicine to design better systems of health care that transcend above and beyond the four walls of the hospital, and facilitate true consumerism and “patient centeredness.”

What has been your most meaningful experience with SHM?

Attending the annual SHM meetings for the past several years, which have helped me to not only reap rewards from the numerous educational sessions but has also helped me develop a rich network of friends, colleagues, and mentors whose advice I solicit from time to time.

Amit Vashist, MD, SFHM, is the senior vice president and chief clinical officer at Ballad Health, an integrated 21-hospital health system serving 29 counties of northeast Tennessee, southwest Virginia, northwest North Carolina, and southeast Kentucky.

Dr. Vashist, who is a member of the Hospitalist’s editorial advisory board, focuses on clinical quality and safety, value-based initiatives to improve quality while reducing cost of care, performance improvement, and oversight of the enterprise-wide clinical delivery of care. He also provides administrative oversight of the Ballad Health Clinical Council – a model of physician partnership for clinical transformation and outcomes improvement.

Dr. Vashist is a dual board-certified internist and psychiatrist and an avid proponent of initiatives aimed at promoting quality, improving safety, reducing cost, and minimizing variation in the delivery of patient care across diverse settings. His work has been instrumental in improving outcomes and reducing mortality in patients with sepsis, earning him several local, regional, and national awards, and his work in promoting a zero-harm culture at Ballad Health has been instrumental in significantly reducing hospital-acquired infections system wide.

Prior to transitioning into the role of the chief clinical officer, Dr. Vashist served as the chair of the Ballad Health Clinical Council and the system chair for Ballad Health’s hospitalist division running a group of over 130 hospitalists.

Why did you choose a career in medicine?

The ability to have a positive impact and help others. In addition, I love learning new information and skills, and medicine affords one the opportunity to be a lifelong learner.

What do you like most about working as a hospitalist?

The relatively fast-paced nature of the work and the ability to tie seemingly fragmented episodes of patient care together. I believe that no other specialty offers that 30,000-foot vantage view of things in clinical medicine.

What do you like the least?

The shift worker mindset emanating from the traditional and rigid 7-on, 7-off model. A sense of team can be lost in this model and, contrary to conventional thinking, this model can accelerate hospitalist burnout.

What’s the best advice you ever received?

“You’ve gotta learn to listen!”

What’s the worst advice you ever received?

“Don’t rock the boat.” I strongly believe that frequent disruption is required to change the established status quo.

What aspect of patient care is most challenging?

A perceived disruption in the continuity of care by virtue of a new hospitalist seeing those patients, and the challenge to build the same level of trust and comfort as the outgoing hospitalist. Superior models of care have developed over the years promoting a better continuity of care but this domain continues to pose a challenge to proponents of hospital medicine.

What’s the biggest change you’ve seen in hospital medicine in your career?

Hospitalists being increasingly perceived as the “quarterbacks” and gatekeepers of quality, costs of care, and clinical outcomes in our hospitals and health care systems.

What’s the biggest change you would like to see in hospital medicine?

Inpatient volumes across the country continue to shrink, and this trend will not change for the foreseeable future. Hospitalists have got to embrace newer models of care faster, like hospitals at home, postacute care, transitional care clinics, hospital at home, etc. Remember what they say: “If you are not at the table, you are on the menu.” Now is our time to be at the table, and be the champions of change and move to true value (quality plus experience/cost), or else, we could end up and vanish like Blockbuster.

Outside of patient care, tell us about your career interests.

Implementing value-driven initiatives, pursuing endeavors aimed at cutting out waste and redundancy in health care, and developing a new generation of physician leaders with these skill sets.

Where do you see yourself in 10 years?

Leveraging my experience, training and expertise in hospital medicine to design better systems of health care that transcend above and beyond the four walls of the hospital, and facilitate true consumerism and “patient centeredness.”

What has been your most meaningful experience with SHM?

Attending the annual SHM meetings for the past several years, which have helped me to not only reap rewards from the numerous educational sessions but has also helped me develop a rich network of friends, colleagues, and mentors whose advice I solicit from time to time.

A multifaceted intervention significantly changed clinicians’ use of antibiotics to treat urinary tract infections (UTIs) in children, according to data from more than 2,000 cases observed between January 2014 and September 2018.

“Changing clinicians’ antibiotic prescribing practices can be challenging; barriers to change include lack of awareness of new evidence, competing clinical demands, and concern about treatment failure,” wrote Matthew F. Daley, MD, of Kaiser Permanente Colorado, Aurora, and colleagues in Pediatrics.

To promote judicious antibiotic use, the researchers designed an intervention including the development of new local UTI guidelines; a live, case-based educational session; emailed knowledge assessments before and after the session; and a specific UTI order set in the EHR.

The researchers divided the study period into a preintervention period (January 1, 2014, to April 25, 2017) and a postintervention period (April 26, 2017, to September 30, 2018). They collected data on 2,142 incident outpatient UTIs; 1,636 from the preintervention period and 506 from the postintervention period. The patients were younger than 18 years and older than 60 days, and children with complicated urologic or neurologic conditions were excluded.

Overall, the proportion of UTIs treated with first-line antibiotics increased significantly from 43% preintervention to 62% postintervention (P less than .0001). In particular, the use of first-line, narrow spectrum cephalexin increased significantly from 29% during the preintervention period to 53% during the postintervention period (P less than .0001). In addition, use of broad spectrum cefixime decreased from 17% during the preintervention period to 3% during the postintervention period (P less than .0001). These changes in prescribing patterns continued through the end of the study period, the researchers said.

The study was limited by several factors, notably that “the interrupted time-series design prevents us from inferring that the intervention caused the observed change in practice,” the researchers wrote. However, other factors including the immediate change in prescribing patterns after the intervention, multiple time points, large sample size, and consistent UTI case mix support the impact of the intervention, they suggested. Although the results might not translate completely to other settings, “developing a UTI-specific EHR order set is relatively straightforward” and might be applied elsewhere, they noted.

“Despite the limitations inherent in a nonexperimental study design, the methods and interventions developed in the current study may be informative to other learning health systems and other content areas when conducting organization-wide quality improvement initiatives,” they concluded.

The study was supported by unrestricted internal resources from the Colorado Permanente Medical Group. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Daley MF et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Mar 3. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-2503.

A multifaceted intervention significantly changed clinicians’ use of antibiotics to treat urinary tract infections (UTIs) in children, according to data from more than 2,000 cases observed between January 2014 and September 2018.

“Changing clinicians’ antibiotic prescribing practices can be challenging; barriers to change include lack of awareness of new evidence, competing clinical demands, and concern about treatment failure,” wrote Matthew F. Daley, MD, of Kaiser Permanente Colorado, Aurora, and colleagues in Pediatrics.

To promote judicious antibiotic use, the researchers designed an intervention including the development of new local UTI guidelines; a live, case-based educational session; emailed knowledge assessments before and after the session; and a specific UTI order set in the EHR.

The researchers divided the study period into a preintervention period (January 1, 2014, to April 25, 2017) and a postintervention period (April 26, 2017, to September 30, 2018). They collected data on 2,142 incident outpatient UTIs; 1,636 from the preintervention period and 506 from the postintervention period. The patients were younger than 18 years and older than 60 days, and children with complicated urologic or neurologic conditions were excluded.

Overall, the proportion of UTIs treated with first-line antibiotics increased significantly from 43% preintervention to 62% postintervention (P less than .0001). In particular, the use of first-line, narrow spectrum cephalexin increased significantly from 29% during the preintervention period to 53% during the postintervention period (P less than .0001). In addition, use of broad spectrum cefixime decreased from 17% during the preintervention period to 3% during the postintervention period (P less than .0001). These changes in prescribing patterns continued through the end of the study period, the researchers said.

The study was limited by several factors, notably that “the interrupted time-series design prevents us from inferring that the intervention caused the observed change in practice,” the researchers wrote. However, other factors including the immediate change in prescribing patterns after the intervention, multiple time points, large sample size, and consistent UTI case mix support the impact of the intervention, they suggested. Although the results might not translate completely to other settings, “developing a UTI-specific EHR order set is relatively straightforward” and might be applied elsewhere, they noted.

“Despite the limitations inherent in a nonexperimental study design, the methods and interventions developed in the current study may be informative to other learning health systems and other content areas when conducting organization-wide quality improvement initiatives,” they concluded.

The study was supported by unrestricted internal resources from the Colorado Permanente Medical Group. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Daley MF et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Mar 3. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-2503.

A multifaceted intervention significantly changed clinicians’ use of antibiotics to treat urinary tract infections (UTIs) in children, according to data from more than 2,000 cases observed between January 2014 and September 2018.

“Changing clinicians’ antibiotic prescribing practices can be challenging; barriers to change include lack of awareness of new evidence, competing clinical demands, and concern about treatment failure,” wrote Matthew F. Daley, MD, of Kaiser Permanente Colorado, Aurora, and colleagues in Pediatrics.

To promote judicious antibiotic use, the researchers designed an intervention including the development of new local UTI guidelines; a live, case-based educational session; emailed knowledge assessments before and after the session; and a specific UTI order set in the EHR.

The researchers divided the study period into a preintervention period (January 1, 2014, to April 25, 2017) and a postintervention period (April 26, 2017, to September 30, 2018). They collected data on 2,142 incident outpatient UTIs; 1,636 from the preintervention period and 506 from the postintervention period. The patients were younger than 18 years and older than 60 days, and children with complicated urologic or neurologic conditions were excluded.

Overall, the proportion of UTIs treated with first-line antibiotics increased significantly from 43% preintervention to 62% postintervention (P less than .0001). In particular, the use of first-line, narrow spectrum cephalexin increased significantly from 29% during the preintervention period to 53% during the postintervention period (P less than .0001). In addition, use of broad spectrum cefixime decreased from 17% during the preintervention period to 3% during the postintervention period (P less than .0001). These changes in prescribing patterns continued through the end of the study period, the researchers said.

The study was limited by several factors, notably that “the interrupted time-series design prevents us from inferring that the intervention caused the observed change in practice,” the researchers wrote. However, other factors including the immediate change in prescribing patterns after the intervention, multiple time points, large sample size, and consistent UTI case mix support the impact of the intervention, they suggested. Although the results might not translate completely to other settings, “developing a UTI-specific EHR order set is relatively straightforward” and might be applied elsewhere, they noted.

“Despite the limitations inherent in a nonexperimental study design, the methods and interventions developed in the current study may be informative to other learning health systems and other content areas when conducting organization-wide quality improvement initiatives,” they concluded.

The study was supported by unrestricted internal resources from the Colorado Permanente Medical Group. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Daley MF et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Mar 3. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-2503.

References

1. Interim Infection Prevention and Control Recommendations for Patients with Confirmed Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) or Persons Under Investigation for COVID-19 in Healthcare Settings. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Web site. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/infection-control/control-recommendations.html?CDC_AA_refVal=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Fcoronavirus%2F2019-ncov%2Fhcp%2Finfection-control.html. Updated February 21, 2020. Accessed February 27, 2020.
2. Interim Clinical Guidance for Management of Patients with Confirmed Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Web site. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/clinical-guidance-management-patients.html. Updated February 12, 2020. Accessed February 27, 2020.
3. Interim Guidance for Implementing Home Care of People Not Requiring Hospitalization for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Web site. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/guidance-home-care.html. Updated February 12, 2020. Accessed February 27, 2020.
4. Interim Guidance for Preventing the Spread of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Homes and Residential Communities. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Web site. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/guidance-prevent-spread.html. Updated February 14, 2020. Accessed February 27, 2020.
5. World Health Organization. Coronavirus disease (COVID-2019) situation reports. https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/situation-reports. Updated February 26, 2020. Accessed February 27, 2020.
6. Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Web site. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-in-us.html. Updated February 26, 2020. Accessed February 27, 2020.

ALSO, see last month’s audiocast: “Coronavirus outbreak: Putting it into perspective.”

References

1. Interim Infection Prevention and Control Recommendations for Patients with Confirmed Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) or Persons Under Investigation for COVID-19 in Healthcare Settings. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Web site. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/infection-control/control-recommendations.html?CDC_AA_refVal=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Fcoronavirus%2F2019-ncov%2Fhcp%2Finfection-control.html. Updated February 21, 2020. Accessed February 27, 2020.
2. Interim Clinical Guidance for Management of Patients with Confirmed Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Web site. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/clinical-guidance-management-patients.html. Updated February 12, 2020. Accessed February 27, 2020.
3. Interim Guidance for Implementing Home Care of People Not Requiring Hospitalization for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Web site. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/guidance-home-care.html. Updated February 12, 2020. Accessed February 27, 2020.
4. Interim Guidance for Preventing the Spread of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Homes and Residential Communities. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Web site. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/guidance-prevent-spread.html. Updated February 14, 2020. Accessed February 27, 2020.
5. World Health Organization. Coronavirus disease (COVID-2019) situation reports. https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/situation-reports. Updated February 26, 2020. Accessed February 27, 2020.
6. Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Web site. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-in-us.html. Updated February 26, 2020. Accessed February 27, 2020.

ALSO, see last month’s audiocast: “Coronavirus outbreak: Putting it into perspective.”

References

1. Interim Infection Prevention and Control Recommendations for Patients with Confirmed Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) or Persons Under Investigation for COVID-19 in Healthcare Settings. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Web site. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/infection-control/control-recommendations.html?CDC_AA_refVal=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Fcoronavirus%2F2019-ncov%2Fhcp%2Finfection-control.html. Updated February 21, 2020. Accessed February 27, 2020.
2. Interim Clinical Guidance for Management of Patients with Confirmed Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Web site. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/clinical-guidance-management-patients.html. Updated February 12, 2020. Accessed February 27, 2020.
3. Interim Guidance for Implementing Home Care of People Not Requiring Hospitalization for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Web site. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/guidance-home-care.html. Updated February 12, 2020. Accessed February 27, 2020.
4. Interim Guidance for Preventing the Spread of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Homes and Residential Communities. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Web site. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/guidance-prevent-spread.html. Updated February 14, 2020. Accessed February 27, 2020.
5. World Health Organization. Coronavirus disease (COVID-2019) situation reports. https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/situation-reports. Updated February 26, 2020. Accessed February 27, 2020.
6. Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Web site. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-in-us.html. Updated February 26, 2020. Accessed February 27, 2020.

ALSO, see last month’s audiocast: “Coronavirus outbreak: Putting it into perspective.”

As the first COVID-19 outbreak in the United States emerges in Washington State, the city of Seattle, King County, and Washington State health officials provided the beginnings of a roadmap for how the region will address the rapidly evolving health crisis.

Health officials announced that four new cases were reported over the weekend in King County, Wash. There have now been 10 hospitalizations and 6 COVID-19 deaths at Evergreen Health, Kirkland, Wash. Of the deaths, five were King County residents and one was a resident of Snohomish County. Three patients died on March 1; all were in their 70s or 80s with comorbidities. Two had been residents of the Life Care senior residential facility that is at the center of the Kirkland outbreak. The number of cases in Washington now totals 18, with four cases in Snohomish County and the balance in neighboring King County.

Approximately 29 cases are under investigation with test results pending; a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) team is on-site.

Speaking at a news conference March 2, officials sought to strike a balance between giving the community a realistic appraisal of the likely scope of the COVID-19 outbreak and avoiding sparking a panic.

“This is a complex and unprecedented challenge nationally, globally, and locally. The vast majority of the infected have mild or moderate disease and do not need hospitalization,” said Jeffrey Duchin, MD, health officer and chief, Communicable Disease EPI/Immunization Section, Public Health, Seattle and King County, and a professor of infectious diseases at the University of Washington, Seattle. “On the other hand, it’s obvious that this infection can cause very serious disease in people who are older and have underlying health conditions. We expect cases to continue to increase. We are taking the situation extremely seriously; the risk for all of us becoming infected is increasing. ...There is the potential for many to become ill at the same time.”

Among the measures being taken immediately are the purchase by King County of a hotel to house individuals who require isolation and those who are convalescing from the virus. Officials are also placing a number of prefabricated stand-alone housing units on public grounds in Seattle, with the recognition that the area has a large transient and homeless community. The stand-alone units will house homeless individuals who need isolation, treatment, or recuperation but who aren’t ill enough to be hospitalized.

Dr. Duchin said that testing capacity is ramping up rapidly in Washington State: The state lab can now accommodate up to about 200 tests daily, and expects to be able to do up to 1,000 daily soon. The University of Washington’s testing capacity will come online March 2 or 3 as a testing facility with similar initial and future peak testing capacities.

The testing strategy will continue to include very ill individuals with pneumonia or other respiratory illness of unknown etiology, but will also expand to include less ill people. This shift is being made in accordance with a shift in CDC guidelines, because of increased testing capacity, and to provide a better picture of the severity, scope, geography, and timing of the current COVID-19 outbreak in the greater Seattle area.

No school closures or cancellation of gatherings are currently recommended by public health authorities. There are currently no COVID-19 cases in Washington schools. The expectation is that any recommendations regarding closures will be re-evaluated as the outbreak progresses.

Repeatedly, officials asked the general public to employ basic measures such as handwashing and avoidance of touching the face, and to spare masks for the ill and for those who care for them. “The vast majority of people will not have serious illness. In turn we need to do everything we can to help those health care workers. I’m asking the public to do things like save the masks for our health care workers. …We need assets for our front-line health care workers and also for those who may be needing them,” said King County Health Department director Patty Hayes, RN, MN.

Courtesy King County Public Health Department

Now is also the time for households to initiate basic emergency preparedness measures, such as having adequate food and medication, and to make arrangements for childcare in the event of school closures, said several officials.

“We can decrease the impact on our health care system by reducing our individual risk. We are making individual- and community-level recommendations to limit the spread of disease. These are very similar to what we recommend for influenza,” said Dr. Duchin.

Ettore Palazzo, MD, chief medical and quality officer at EvergreenHealth, gave a sense of how the hospital is coping with being Ground Zero for COVID-19 in the United States. “We have made adjustments for airborne precautions,” he said, including transforming the entire critical care unit to a negative pressure unit. “We have these capabilities in other parts of the hospital as well.” Staff are working hard, but thus far staffing has kept pace with demand, he said, but all are feeling the strain already.

Dr. Duchin made the point that Washington is relatively well equipped to handle the increasingly likely scenario of a large spike in coronavirus cases, since it’s part of the Northwest Healthcare Response Network. The network is planning for sharing resources such as staff, respirators, and intensive care unit beds as circumstances warrant.

“What you just heard illustrates the challenge of this disease,” said Dr. Duchin, summing up. “The public health service and clinical health care delivery systems don’t have the capacity to track down every case in the community. I’m guessing we will see more cases of coronavirus than we see of influenza. At some point we will be shifting from counting every case” to focusing on outbreaks and the critically ill in hospitals, he said.

“We are still trying to contain the outbreak, but we are at the same time pivoting to a more community-based approach,” similar to the approach with influenza, said Dr. Duchin.

• A man in his 50s, who was hospitalized and died at EvergreenHealth.

koakes@mdedge.com

As the first COVID-19 outbreak in the United States emerges in Washington State, the city of Seattle, King County, and Washington State health officials provided the beginnings of a roadmap for how the region will address the rapidly evolving health crisis.

Health officials announced that four new cases were reported over the weekend in King County, Wash. There have now been 10 hospitalizations and 6 COVID-19 deaths at Evergreen Health, Kirkland, Wash. Of the deaths, five were King County residents and one was a resident of Snohomish County. Three patients died on March 1; all were in their 70s or 80s with comorbidities. Two had been residents of the Life Care senior residential facility that is at the center of the Kirkland outbreak. The number of cases in Washington now totals 18, with four cases in Snohomish County and the balance in neighboring King County.

Approximately 29 cases are under investigation with test results pending; a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) team is on-site.

Speaking at a news conference March 2, officials sought to strike a balance between giving the community a realistic appraisal of the likely scope of the COVID-19 outbreak and avoiding sparking a panic.

“This is a complex and unprecedented challenge nationally, globally, and locally. The vast majority of the infected have mild or moderate disease and do not need hospitalization,” said Jeffrey Duchin, MD, health officer and chief, Communicable Disease EPI/Immunization Section, Public Health, Seattle and King County, and a professor of infectious diseases at the University of Washington, Seattle. “On the other hand, it’s obvious that this infection can cause very serious disease in people who are older and have underlying health conditions. We expect cases to continue to increase. We are taking the situation extremely seriously; the risk for all of us becoming infected is increasing. ...There is the potential for many to become ill at the same time.”

Among the measures being taken immediately are the purchase by King County of a hotel to house individuals who require isolation and those who are convalescing from the virus. Officials are also placing a number of prefabricated stand-alone housing units on public grounds in Seattle, with the recognition that the area has a large transient and homeless community. The stand-alone units will house homeless individuals who need isolation, treatment, or recuperation but who aren’t ill enough to be hospitalized.

Dr. Duchin said that testing capacity is ramping up rapidly in Washington State: The state lab can now accommodate up to about 200 tests daily, and expects to be able to do up to 1,000 daily soon. The University of Washington’s testing capacity will come online March 2 or 3 as a testing facility with similar initial and future peak testing capacities.

The testing strategy will continue to include very ill individuals with pneumonia or other respiratory illness of unknown etiology, but will also expand to include less ill people. This shift is being made in accordance with a shift in CDC guidelines, because of increased testing capacity, and to provide a better picture of the severity, scope, geography, and timing of the current COVID-19 outbreak in the greater Seattle area.

No school closures or cancellation of gatherings are currently recommended by public health authorities. There are currently no COVID-19 cases in Washington schools. The expectation is that any recommendations regarding closures will be re-evaluated as the outbreak progresses.

Repeatedly, officials asked the general public to employ basic measures such as handwashing and avoidance of touching the face, and to spare masks for the ill and for those who care for them. “The vast majority of people will not have serious illness. In turn we need to do everything we can to help those health care workers. I’m asking the public to do things like save the masks for our health care workers. …We need assets for our front-line health care workers and also for those who may be needing them,” said King County Health Department director Patty Hayes, RN, MN.

Courtesy King County Public Health Department

Now is also the time for households to initiate basic emergency preparedness measures, such as having adequate food and medication, and to make arrangements for childcare in the event of school closures, said several officials.

“We can decrease the impact on our health care system by reducing our individual risk. We are making individual- and community-level recommendations to limit the spread of disease. These are very similar to what we recommend for influenza,” said Dr. Duchin.

Ettore Palazzo, MD, chief medical and quality officer at EvergreenHealth, gave a sense of how the hospital is coping with being Ground Zero for COVID-19 in the United States. “We have made adjustments for airborne precautions,” he said, including transforming the entire critical care unit to a negative pressure unit. “We have these capabilities in other parts of the hospital as well.” Staff are working hard, but thus far staffing has kept pace with demand, he said, but all are feeling the strain already.

Dr. Duchin made the point that Washington is relatively well equipped to handle the increasingly likely scenario of a large spike in coronavirus cases, since it’s part of the Northwest Healthcare Response Network. The network is planning for sharing resources such as staff, respirators, and intensive care unit beds as circumstances warrant.

“What you just heard illustrates the challenge of this disease,” said Dr. Duchin, summing up. “The public health service and clinical health care delivery systems don’t have the capacity to track down every case in the community. I’m guessing we will see more cases of coronavirus than we see of influenza. At some point we will be shifting from counting every case” to focusing on outbreaks and the critically ill in hospitals, he said.

“We are still trying to contain the outbreak, but we are at the same time pivoting to a more community-based approach,” similar to the approach with influenza, said Dr. Duchin.

• A man in his 50s, who was hospitalized and died at EvergreenHealth.

koakes@mdedge.com

As the first COVID-19 outbreak in the United States emerges in Washington State, the city of Seattle, King County, and Washington State health officials provided the beginnings of a roadmap for how the region will address the rapidly evolving health crisis.

Health officials announced that four new cases were reported over the weekend in King County, Wash. There have now been 10 hospitalizations and 6 COVID-19 deaths at Evergreen Health, Kirkland, Wash. Of the deaths, five were King County residents and one was a resident of Snohomish County. Three patients died on March 1; all were in their 70s or 80s with comorbidities. Two had been residents of the Life Care senior residential facility that is at the center of the Kirkland outbreak. The number of cases in Washington now totals 18, with four cases in Snohomish County and the balance in neighboring King County.

Approximately 29 cases are under investigation with test results pending; a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) team is on-site.

Speaking at a news conference March 2, officials sought to strike a balance between giving the community a realistic appraisal of the likely scope of the COVID-19 outbreak and avoiding sparking a panic.

“This is a complex and unprecedented challenge nationally, globally, and locally. The vast majority of the infected have mild or moderate disease and do not need hospitalization,” said Jeffrey Duchin, MD, health officer and chief, Communicable Disease EPI/Immunization Section, Public Health, Seattle and King County, and a professor of infectious diseases at the University of Washington, Seattle. “On the other hand, it’s obvious that this infection can cause very serious disease in people who are older and have underlying health conditions. We expect cases to continue to increase. We are taking the situation extremely seriously; the risk for all of us becoming infected is increasing. ...There is the potential for many to become ill at the same time.”

Among the measures being taken immediately are the purchase by King County of a hotel to house individuals who require isolation and those who are convalescing from the virus. Officials are also placing a number of prefabricated stand-alone housing units on public grounds in Seattle, with the recognition that the area has a large transient and homeless community. The stand-alone units will house homeless individuals who need isolation, treatment, or recuperation but who aren’t ill enough to be hospitalized.

Dr. Duchin said that testing capacity is ramping up rapidly in Washington State: The state lab can now accommodate up to about 200 tests daily, and expects to be able to do up to 1,000 daily soon. The University of Washington’s testing capacity will come online March 2 or 3 as a testing facility with similar initial and future peak testing capacities.

The testing strategy will continue to include very ill individuals with pneumonia or other respiratory illness of unknown etiology, but will also expand to include less ill people. This shift is being made in accordance with a shift in CDC guidelines, because of increased testing capacity, and to provide a better picture of the severity, scope, geography, and timing of the current COVID-19 outbreak in the greater Seattle area.

No school closures or cancellation of gatherings are currently recommended by public health authorities. There are currently no COVID-19 cases in Washington schools. The expectation is that any recommendations regarding closures will be re-evaluated as the outbreak progresses.

Repeatedly, officials asked the general public to employ basic measures such as handwashing and avoidance of touching the face, and to spare masks for the ill and for those who care for them. “The vast majority of people will not have serious illness. In turn we need to do everything we can to help those health care workers. I’m asking the public to do things like save the masks for our health care workers. …We need assets for our front-line health care workers and also for those who may be needing them,” said King County Health Department director Patty Hayes, RN, MN.

Courtesy King County Public Health Department

Now is also the time for households to initiate basic emergency preparedness measures, such as having adequate food and medication, and to make arrangements for childcare in the event of school closures, said several officials.

“We can decrease the impact on our health care system by reducing our individual risk. We are making individual- and community-level recommendations to limit the spread of disease. These are very similar to what we recommend for influenza,” said Dr. Duchin.

Ettore Palazzo, MD, chief medical and quality officer at EvergreenHealth, gave a sense of how the hospital is coping with being Ground Zero for COVID-19 in the United States. “We have made adjustments for airborne precautions,” he said, including transforming the entire critical care unit to a negative pressure unit. “We have these capabilities in other parts of the hospital as well.” Staff are working hard, but thus far staffing has kept pace with demand, he said, but all are feeling the strain already.

Dr. Duchin made the point that Washington is relatively well equipped to handle the increasingly likely scenario of a large spike in coronavirus cases, since it’s part of the Northwest Healthcare Response Network. The network is planning for sharing resources such as staff, respirators, and intensive care unit beds as circumstances warrant.

“What you just heard illustrates the challenge of this disease,” said Dr. Duchin, summing up. “The public health service and clinical health care delivery systems don’t have the capacity to track down every case in the community. I’m guessing we will see more cases of coronavirus than we see of influenza. At some point we will be shifting from counting every case” to focusing on outbreaks and the critically ill in hospitals, he said.

“We are still trying to contain the outbreak, but we are at the same time pivoting to a more community-based approach,” similar to the approach with influenza, said Dr. Duchin.

• A man in his 50s, who was hospitalized and died at EvergreenHealth.

koakes@mdedge.com

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – Thermal injury of a patient’s esophagus during radiofrequency catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation is notorious as a relatively common and problematic complication of the procedure, but two new approaches showed promise for substantially cutting the risk of esophageal thermal injury and the potential for the most severe damage: perforation.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

One of these innovations is intensive esophageal cooling with a commercially marketed, fluid-chilled catheter placed in a patient’s esophagus during radiofrequency catheter ablation that keeps the inner surface of the esophagus at 4°C. This approach cut the incidence of periprocedural episodes of endoscopically detected esophageal thermal injury from 20% among controls to 3% in patients who had esophageal cooling in a randomized study with 120 patients, Mark M. Gallagher, MD, said at the annual International AF Symposium. The same device can also maintain a temperature on the inner surface of the esophagus of 42 ° C in patients undergoing cryoablation of atrial fibrillation, noted Dr. Gallagher, a cardiac electrophysiologist at St. George’s University Hospitals in London.

A second approach to cutting esophageal damage focuses on modifying the energy delivery with a radiofrequency ablation method known as high-power short-duration (HPSD). As the name says, this strategy uses a relatively high level of radiofrequency energy, 50 watts in the reported experience, for the brief interval of about 7 seconds, ideally delivering an overall Ablation Index of at least 350 but below 360, said Thomas Deneke, MD, an electrophysiologist, professor, and cochief of cardiology at the Heart Center in Bad Neustadt, Germany.

Dr. Deneke and his associates in Bad Neustadt began using this HPSD approach in mid-2019, and by early 2020 they had data from 179 patients who underwent first-time catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AFib), all of whom had undergone routine esophageal endoscopy 1-3 days after their treatment. Eight patients (4%) showed evidence of endoscopically detected esophageal lesions (EDEL), including three patients (2%) with an actual esophageal ulcer, and one (0.6%) who developed a perforation that healed after 52 days, Dr. Deneke reported. An additional 55 patients underwent a redo catheter ablation procedure using the HPSD method during this period, and in that group follow-up endoscopy in all patients showed EDEL in two patients (4%). In contrast, during Jan. 2012–May 2019, the same German center treated 2,102 patients who had a first radiofrequency catheter ablation using convention energy levels and treatment times, which resulted in 291 patients having an EDEL (14%), including 94 (4%) with an ulcer, and six patients (0.3%) with an esophageal perforation, he said.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

His center’s recent safety experience with HPSD radiofrequncy ablation, compared with the historical controls, suggests that this technique can produce a substantial reduction in esophageal thermal injury, but HPSD has not completely eliminated the risk and hence there is need for continued alertness for this potential complication Dr. Deneke concluded. The HPSD method is also limited by having “a very narrow window” between efficacy at an Ablation Index of 350 and safety when the index remains below 360, he added.

The randomized study that Dr. Gallagher ran at St. George’s followed an analysis he and his associates recently published that suggested efficacy using esophageal cooling in prior reports when the data combined in a meta-analysis (J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2019 Nov 22. doi: 10.1007/s10840-019-00661-5). They also concluded that the clinical setting required a temperature control device with an enhanced capacity for rapid cooling, which prior studies had lacked. So they turned to a Food and Drug Administration–approved catheter designed for placement in the esophagus for the purpose of either whole-body cooling or warming.

The study randomized a total of 187 patients, but collected follow-up endoscopy at 5-7 days after the ablation procedure on 120 patients, of whom 60 received esophageal cooling and 60 did not. The types of ablations performed on patients in the two study arms were similar, and use of esophageal cooling had no impact on treatment duration or efficacy, either acute and longer term, Dr. Gallagher reported.

Cooling had a marked and statistically significant impact on endoscopically detected thermal injury. Although two patients in the group that underwent cooling had injuries, in one of these cases the injury involved a protocol violation: Radiofrequency ablation mistakenly occurred after the cooling device shut off, and it was during this period when the injury happened. In the second case of thermal injury, blinded scoring judged the injury as grade 2 in severity – an erosion of less than 5 mm – on a nine-item scale that ranged from zero to grade 6, the most severe level denoting a fistula. By contrast, among the 12 patients with thermal injury in the nonprotected subgroup, one patient had a grade 5a lesion denoting a deep ulcer, one had a 4b denoting a superficial ulcer with a clot, and four had a 4a lesion defined as a clean superficial ulcer.

“This is really effective. It’s the first study to show reduced damage without affecting ablation efficacy,” Dr. Gallagher said. He plans to now use this method of esophageal protection routinely for his AFib ablation patients who pay privately, and for patients insured under the national U.K. system once this coverage is approved. Dr. Deneke expressed his interest in also using this approach to esophageal protection, but noted that currently he did not have access to the cooling catheter that Dr. Gallagher used because of regulatory constraints.

The esophageal cooling study was sponsored by Attune Medical, which markets the cooling device. Dr. Gallagher has received research funding from Attune Medical, and has received honoraria as a speaker on behalf of Biosense Webster and Medtronic. Dr. Deneke has been a speaker on behalf of Abbott, Biosense Webster, Biotronik, and Boston Scientific, and his institution has received research funding from Biosense Webster and Securus/Boston Scientific.

mzoler@mdedge.com

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – Thermal injury of a patient’s esophagus during radiofrequency catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation is notorious as a relatively common and problematic complication of the procedure, but two new approaches showed promise for substantially cutting the risk of esophageal thermal injury and the potential for the most severe damage: perforation.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

One of these innovations is intensive esophageal cooling with a commercially marketed, fluid-chilled catheter placed in a patient’s esophagus during radiofrequency catheter ablation that keeps the inner surface of the esophagus at 4°C. This approach cut the incidence of periprocedural episodes of endoscopically detected esophageal thermal injury from 20% among controls to 3% in patients who had esophageal cooling in a randomized study with 120 patients, Mark M. Gallagher, MD, said at the annual International AF Symposium. The same device can also maintain a temperature on the inner surface of the esophagus of 42 ° C in patients undergoing cryoablation of atrial fibrillation, noted Dr. Gallagher, a cardiac electrophysiologist at St. George’s University Hospitals in London.

A second approach to cutting esophageal damage focuses on modifying the energy delivery with a radiofrequency ablation method known as high-power short-duration (HPSD). As the name says, this strategy uses a relatively high level of radiofrequency energy, 50 watts in the reported experience, for the brief interval of about 7 seconds, ideally delivering an overall Ablation Index of at least 350 but below 360, said Thomas Deneke, MD, an electrophysiologist, professor, and cochief of cardiology at the Heart Center in Bad Neustadt, Germany.

Dr. Deneke and his associates in Bad Neustadt began using this HPSD approach in mid-2019, and by early 2020 they had data from 179 patients who underwent first-time catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AFib), all of whom had undergone routine esophageal endoscopy 1-3 days after their treatment. Eight patients (4%) showed evidence of endoscopically detected esophageal lesions (EDEL), including three patients (2%) with an actual esophageal ulcer, and one (0.6%) who developed a perforation that healed after 52 days, Dr. Deneke reported. An additional 55 patients underwent a redo catheter ablation procedure using the HPSD method during this period, and in that group follow-up endoscopy in all patients showed EDEL in two patients (4%). In contrast, during Jan. 2012–May 2019, the same German center treated 2,102 patients who had a first radiofrequency catheter ablation using convention energy levels and treatment times, which resulted in 291 patients having an EDEL (14%), including 94 (4%) with an ulcer, and six patients (0.3%) with an esophageal perforation, he said.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

His center’s recent safety experience with HPSD radiofrequncy ablation, compared with the historical controls, suggests that this technique can produce a substantial reduction in esophageal thermal injury, but HPSD has not completely eliminated the risk and hence there is need for continued alertness for this potential complication Dr. Deneke concluded. The HPSD method is also limited by having “a very narrow window” between efficacy at an Ablation Index of 350 and safety when the index remains below 360, he added.

The randomized study that Dr. Gallagher ran at St. George’s followed an analysis he and his associates recently published that suggested efficacy using esophageal cooling in prior reports when the data combined in a meta-analysis (J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2019 Nov 22. doi: 10.1007/s10840-019-00661-5). They also concluded that the clinical setting required a temperature control device with an enhanced capacity for rapid cooling, which prior studies had lacked. So they turned to a Food and Drug Administration–approved catheter designed for placement in the esophagus for the purpose of either whole-body cooling or warming.

The study randomized a total of 187 patients, but collected follow-up endoscopy at 5-7 days after the ablation procedure on 120 patients, of whom 60 received esophageal cooling and 60 did not. The types of ablations performed on patients in the two study arms were similar, and use of esophageal cooling had no impact on treatment duration or efficacy, either acute and longer term, Dr. Gallagher reported.

Cooling had a marked and statistically significant impact on endoscopically detected thermal injury. Although two patients in the group that underwent cooling had injuries, in one of these cases the injury involved a protocol violation: Radiofrequency ablation mistakenly occurred after the cooling device shut off, and it was during this period when the injury happened. In the second case of thermal injury, blinded scoring judged the injury as grade 2 in severity – an erosion of less than 5 mm – on a nine-item scale that ranged from zero to grade 6, the most severe level denoting a fistula. By contrast, among the 12 patients with thermal injury in the nonprotected subgroup, one patient had a grade 5a lesion denoting a deep ulcer, one had a 4b denoting a superficial ulcer with a clot, and four had a 4a lesion defined as a clean superficial ulcer.

“This is really effective. It’s the first study to show reduced damage without affecting ablation efficacy,” Dr. Gallagher said. He plans to now use this method of esophageal protection routinely for his AFib ablation patients who pay privately, and for patients insured under the national U.K. system once this coverage is approved. Dr. Deneke expressed his interest in also using this approach to esophageal protection, but noted that currently he did not have access to the cooling catheter that Dr. Gallagher used because of regulatory constraints.

The esophageal cooling study was sponsored by Attune Medical, which markets the cooling device. Dr. Gallagher has received research funding from Attune Medical, and has received honoraria as a speaker on behalf of Biosense Webster and Medtronic. Dr. Deneke has been a speaker on behalf of Abbott, Biosense Webster, Biotronik, and Boston Scientific, and his institution has received research funding from Biosense Webster and Securus/Boston Scientific.

mzoler@mdedge.com

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – Thermal injury of a patient’s esophagus during radiofrequency catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation is notorious as a relatively common and problematic complication of the procedure, but two new approaches showed promise for substantially cutting the risk of esophageal thermal injury and the potential for the most severe damage: perforation.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

One of these innovations is intensive esophageal cooling with a commercially marketed, fluid-chilled catheter placed in a patient’s esophagus during radiofrequency catheter ablation that keeps the inner surface of the esophagus at 4°C. This approach cut the incidence of periprocedural episodes of endoscopically detected esophageal thermal injury from 20% among controls to 3% in patients who had esophageal cooling in a randomized study with 120 patients, Mark M. Gallagher, MD, said at the annual International AF Symposium. The same device can also maintain a temperature on the inner surface of the esophagus of 42 ° C in patients undergoing cryoablation of atrial fibrillation, noted Dr. Gallagher, a cardiac electrophysiologist at St. George’s University Hospitals in London.

A second approach to cutting esophageal damage focuses on modifying the energy delivery with a radiofrequency ablation method known as high-power short-duration (HPSD). As the name says, this strategy uses a relatively high level of radiofrequency energy, 50 watts in the reported experience, for the brief interval of about 7 seconds, ideally delivering an overall Ablation Index of at least 350 but below 360, said Thomas Deneke, MD, an electrophysiologist, professor, and cochief of cardiology at the Heart Center in Bad Neustadt, Germany.

Dr. Deneke and his associates in Bad Neustadt began using this HPSD approach in mid-2019, and by early 2020 they had data from 179 patients who underwent first-time catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AFib), all of whom had undergone routine esophageal endoscopy 1-3 days after their treatment. Eight patients (4%) showed evidence of endoscopically detected esophageal lesions (EDEL), including three patients (2%) with an actual esophageal ulcer, and one (0.6%) who developed a perforation that healed after 52 days, Dr. Deneke reported. An additional 55 patients underwent a redo catheter ablation procedure using the HPSD method during this period, and in that group follow-up endoscopy in all patients showed EDEL in two patients (4%). In contrast, during Jan. 2012–May 2019, the same German center treated 2,102 patients who had a first radiofrequency catheter ablation using convention energy levels and treatment times, which resulted in 291 patients having an EDEL (14%), including 94 (4%) with an ulcer, and six patients (0.3%) with an esophageal perforation, he said.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

His center’s recent safety experience with HPSD radiofrequncy ablation, compared with the historical controls, suggests that this technique can produce a substantial reduction in esophageal thermal injury, but HPSD has not completely eliminated the risk and hence there is need for continued alertness for this potential complication Dr. Deneke concluded. The HPSD method is also limited by having “a very narrow window” between efficacy at an Ablation Index of 350 and safety when the index remains below 360, he added.

The randomized study that Dr. Gallagher ran at St. George’s followed an analysis he and his associates recently published that suggested efficacy using esophageal cooling in prior reports when the data combined in a meta-analysis (J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2019 Nov 22. doi: 10.1007/s10840-019-00661-5). They also concluded that the clinical setting required a temperature control device with an enhanced capacity for rapid cooling, which prior studies had lacked. So they turned to a Food and Drug Administration–approved catheter designed for placement in the esophagus for the purpose of either whole-body cooling or warming.

The study randomized a total of 187 patients, but collected follow-up endoscopy at 5-7 days after the ablation procedure on 120 patients, of whom 60 received esophageal cooling and 60 did not. The types of ablations performed on patients in the two study arms were similar, and use of esophageal cooling had no impact on treatment duration or efficacy, either acute and longer term, Dr. Gallagher reported.

Cooling had a marked and statistically significant impact on endoscopically detected thermal injury. Although two patients in the group that underwent cooling had injuries, in one of these cases the injury involved a protocol violation: Radiofrequency ablation mistakenly occurred after the cooling device shut off, and it was during this period when the injury happened. In the second case of thermal injury, blinded scoring judged the injury as grade 2 in severity – an erosion of less than 5 mm – on a nine-item scale that ranged from zero to grade 6, the most severe level denoting a fistula. By contrast, among the 12 patients with thermal injury in the nonprotected subgroup, one patient had a grade 5a lesion denoting a deep ulcer, one had a 4b denoting a superficial ulcer with a clot, and four had a 4a lesion defined as a clean superficial ulcer.

“This is really effective. It’s the first study to show reduced damage without affecting ablation efficacy,” Dr. Gallagher said. He plans to now use this method of esophageal protection routinely for his AFib ablation patients who pay privately, and for patients insured under the national U.K. system once this coverage is approved. Dr. Deneke expressed his interest in also using this approach to esophageal protection, but noted that currently he did not have access to the cooling catheter that Dr. Gallagher used because of regulatory constraints.

The esophageal cooling study was sponsored by Attune Medical, which markets the cooling device. Dr. Gallagher has received research funding from Attune Medical, and has received honoraria as a speaker on behalf of Biosense Webster and Medtronic. Dr. Deneke has been a speaker on behalf of Abbott, Biosense Webster, Biotronik, and Boston Scientific, and his institution has received research funding from Biosense Webster and Securus/Boston Scientific.

mzoler@mdedge.com

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration today approved isatuximab (Sarclisa, Sanofi) in combination with pomalidomide (Revlimid, Celgene) and dexamethasone for the treatment of adult patients with multiple myeloma who have received two or more prior therapies including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor.

Isatuximab is an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody administered by intravenous infusion that works by helping the immune system attack multiple myeloma cancer cells.

“While there is no cure for multiple myeloma, Sarclisa is now another CD38-directed treatment option added to the list of FDA-approved treatments of patients with multiple myeloma who have progressive disease after previous therapies,” said Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence and acting director of the Office of Oncologic Diseases in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

“In the clinical trial, there was a 40% reduction in the risk of disease progression or death with this therapy,” he added.

The new approval is based on results from ICARIA-MM, an open-label, randomized phase 3 clinical trial of isatuximab among 307 patients in this setting.

In the trial, at a median follow-up of 11.6 months, median progression-free survival was 11.5 months in the isatuximab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone group versus 6.5 months in the pomalidomide-dexamethasone group (hazard ratio, 0.60; P = .001), as reported last year. Overall response rates were 60.4% for the triplet-treated group versus 35.3% for the doublet-treated group.

The most common side effects for isatuximab included neutropenia, infusion-related reactions, pneumonia, upper respiratory tract infection, diarrhea, anemia, lymphopenia, and thrombocytopenia.

Deaths because of treatment-related adverse events were reported for one patient (less than 1%) in the isatuximab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone group (sepsis) and two patients (1%) in the pomalidomide-dexamethasone group (pneumonia and urinary tract infection).

The drug can also cause serious side effects, including IV infusion-related reactions. In the case of a grade 3 or higher reaction, the drug should be permanently discontinued and health care professionals should institute appropriate medical management.

The FDA notes there have been higher incidences of second primary malignancies observed in a controlled clinical trial of patients with multiple myeloma receiving the drug.

The FDA also highlighted that laboratory test interference may be caused by isatuximab and that blood banks should be informed that patients are receiving the drug. Isatuximab may interfere with, for example, antibody screening for patients who need a blood transfusion. Isatuximab may also interfere with the assays used to monitor M-protein, which may impact the determination of complete response.

This article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration today approved isatuximab (Sarclisa, Sanofi) in combination with pomalidomide (Revlimid, Celgene) and dexamethasone for the treatment of adult patients with multiple myeloma who have received two or more prior therapies including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor.

Isatuximab is an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody administered by intravenous infusion that works by helping the immune system attack multiple myeloma cancer cells.

“While there is no cure for multiple myeloma, Sarclisa is now another CD38-directed treatment option added to the list of FDA-approved treatments of patients with multiple myeloma who have progressive disease after previous therapies,” said Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence and acting director of the Office of Oncologic Diseases in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

“In the clinical trial, there was a 40% reduction in the risk of disease progression or death with this therapy,” he added.

The new approval is based on results from ICARIA-MM, an open-label, randomized phase 3 clinical trial of isatuximab among 307 patients in this setting.

In the trial, at a median follow-up of 11.6 months, median progression-free survival was 11.5 months in the isatuximab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone group versus 6.5 months in the pomalidomide-dexamethasone group (hazard ratio, 0.60; P = .001), as reported last year. Overall response rates were 60.4% for the triplet-treated group versus 35.3% for the doublet-treated group.

The most common side effects for isatuximab included neutropenia, infusion-related reactions, pneumonia, upper respiratory tract infection, diarrhea, anemia, lymphopenia, and thrombocytopenia.

Deaths because of treatment-related adverse events were reported for one patient (less than 1%) in the isatuximab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone group (sepsis) and two patients (1%) in the pomalidomide-dexamethasone group (pneumonia and urinary tract infection).

The drug can also cause serious side effects, including IV infusion-related reactions. In the case of a grade 3 or higher reaction, the drug should be permanently discontinued and health care professionals should institute appropriate medical management.

The FDA notes there have been higher incidences of second primary malignancies observed in a controlled clinical trial of patients with multiple myeloma receiving the drug.

The FDA also highlighted that laboratory test interference may be caused by isatuximab and that blood banks should be informed that patients are receiving the drug. Isatuximab may interfere with, for example, antibody screening for patients who need a blood transfusion. Isatuximab may also interfere with the assays used to monitor M-protein, which may impact the determination of complete response.

This article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration today approved isatuximab (Sarclisa, Sanofi) in combination with pomalidomide (Revlimid, Celgene) and dexamethasone for the treatment of adult patients with multiple myeloma who have received two or more prior therapies including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor.

Isatuximab is an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody administered by intravenous infusion that works by helping the immune system attack multiple myeloma cancer cells.

“While there is no cure for multiple myeloma, Sarclisa is now another CD38-directed treatment option added to the list of FDA-approved treatments of patients with multiple myeloma who have progressive disease after previous therapies,” said Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence and acting director of the Office of Oncologic Diseases in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

“In the clinical trial, there was a 40% reduction in the risk of disease progression or death with this therapy,” he added.

The new approval is based on results from ICARIA-MM, an open-label, randomized phase 3 clinical trial of isatuximab among 307 patients in this setting.

In the trial, at a median follow-up of 11.6 months, median progression-free survival was 11.5 months in the isatuximab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone group versus 6.5 months in the pomalidomide-dexamethasone group (hazard ratio, 0.60; P = .001), as reported last year. Overall response rates were 60.4% for the triplet-treated group versus 35.3% for the doublet-treated group.

The most common side effects for isatuximab included neutropenia, infusion-related reactions, pneumonia, upper respiratory tract infection, diarrhea, anemia, lymphopenia, and thrombocytopenia.

Deaths because of treatment-related adverse events were reported for one patient (less than 1%) in the isatuximab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone group (sepsis) and two patients (1%) in the pomalidomide-dexamethasone group (pneumonia and urinary tract infection).

The drug can also cause serious side effects, including IV infusion-related reactions. In the case of a grade 3 or higher reaction, the drug should be permanently discontinued and health care professionals should institute appropriate medical management.

The FDA notes there have been higher incidences of second primary malignancies observed in a controlled clinical trial of patients with multiple myeloma receiving the drug.

The FDA also highlighted that laboratory test interference may be caused by isatuximab and that blood banks should be informed that patients are receiving the drug. Isatuximab may interfere with, for example, antibody screening for patients who need a blood transfusion. Isatuximab may also interfere with the assays used to monitor M-protein, which may impact the determination of complete response.

This article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

LONDON – A quarter of urgent contacts in 20 children with generalized severe recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (GS-RDEB) were tied to esophageal narrowing, according data from a 12-month review of electronic health records.

Urgent advice was sought 102 times outside of regular or scheduled appointments by the parents of 20 children with GS-RDEB, Christine Prodinger, MD, of the University Clinic of Dermatology at Paracelsus Medical University, Salzburg, Austria, and colleagues reported in a poster presentation at the EB World Congress, organized by the Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa Association (DEBRA). The researchers looked at the records from the EB clinic at Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust, London, during April 2018–April 2019.

The mean number of urgent contacts with the specialist unit was 5.1 per patient per year, the researchers reported, with 24 of the 102 contacts (23.5%) resulting in the child being admitted to a hospital. Most of the contacts were made via email or telephone to EB nurses (94%), by contacts during home visits (3%), or in an appointment with the palliative or symptom care team (3%).

“The most common reason [for the urgent contact] was acute dysphagia,” which was experienced as choking, throat pain, difficulty eating, reflux, and vomiting, the researchers observed. Dysphagia affected children in 27 of the contacts (26.5%), and resulted in esophageal dilatation in 90% of the cases. Other reasons for urgent contact were skin infection (15.7% of contacts), uncontrolled pain (15.7% of the contacts), and eye problems (11.8%).
 

Esophageal dilatation

Strictures are just one of the esophageal manifestations of the disease, noted Anna Bruckner, MD, associate professor of dermatology and pediatrics in the department of dermatology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, during an oral presentation. Other possible manifestations include blisters and erosions, the formation of webs – a thin extension of esophageal tissue, perforations, and rupture. “These are primarily problems with dystrophic EB” but can occur with other EB subtypes, she noted.

“We don’t have great evidence” on whether the onset of esophageal strictures can be delayed or prevented, Dr. Bruckner observed. As for management, “fluoroscopy-guided balloon dilatation is probably best” for most patients, but the best procedural approach needs to be discussed on a patient-by-patient basis.

Citing a paper that documents her own experience on the use of esophageal dilatation in 24 children who underwent 231 fluoroscopy-guided balloon dilatation procedures, Dr. Bruckner noted that strictures were most commonly located in the proximal part of the esophagus, with a median distance of 13 cm down from the lips (J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2018;67[6]:701-5).

The retrospective chart review reported by Dr. Bruckner showed that there were a median of seven dilatation procedures per patient, and 20 patients had repeated procedures at a median interval of 164 days. About 10% of procedures resulted in adverse events – mostly vomiting, pain, and fever – but there were no perforations or other serious effects, and the rate of subsequent hospitalization was 6.9%.
 

Dysphagia

Dysphagia was the predominant symptom caused by esophageal stricture in another dataset reported in a poster by Elena Pope, MD, MSc, of the Hospital for Sick Children at the University of Toronto, and colleagues.

Of 125 EB patients who had experienced at least 1 esophageal stricture episode, 497 esophageal stricture events were reported, and 85.5% of patients had difficulty swallowing at presentation, with 29.8% unable to swallow solids and 7.2% unable to swallow liquids. Other symptoms at presentation were painful swallowing (11%), food being stuck in the esophagus (8%), regurgitation (5%), coughing (4.8%), and dyspepsia (2.8%).

The aim of the retrospective, multicenter cohort study was to determine the prevalence of, and predisposing factors for, restenosis of esophageal strictures and factors that may predispose to restenosis. The study population consisted of 66 men and 59 women who had experienced their esophageal stricture at around ages 12-13 years. The majority (98.4%) had dystrophic EB, of which almost half (46.5%) had GS-RDEB.

The researchers found that the location of the esophageal stricture was important for restenosis, and that strictures occurring in the lower esophagus were 67.5% less likely to result in restenosis than if they occurred in the upper esophagus (P = .057; hazard ratio, 0.675).

A higher number of strictures was associated with a higher rate of restenosis, they reported. Indeed, patients who had two esophageal strictures had a 29.4% increased risk of restenosis, compared with those who had just one stricture (P = .038; HR, 1.294), and those with three or more strictures had an increased risk of 78.5%, compared with those having one stricture (P = .005; HR, 1.785).

Strictures longer than 1 cm also were associated with a greater (34.7%) risk of restenosis, compared with shorter strictures (P = .032; HR, 1.347). Various methods of resolving the stricture were used, from fluoroscopy-guided balloon dilatation to retro- or antegrade endoscopy. “Irrespective of method, dilatations are successful,” Dr. Pope and colleagues reported. The overall success of dilatation was 99.3%, with full dilatation achieved in almost all of the patients (96%). Of note is that there was a low risk (2.6%) of complications, they observed.

Medications were used in 46.8% of the patients, with the most popular choice being corticosteroids (90.3%), but the researchers noted that the “potential benefit of periprocedural corticosteroids use in decreasing the risk of restenosis needs further exploration.”

Dr. Bruckner had noted in her presentation that her group did not favor the use of periprocedural corticosteroids, but that antifibrotic therapy “could be attractive” for preventing future strictures.

Dr. Prodinger, Dr. Pope, and their colleagues did not provide disclosure information. Dr. Bruckner is the principal investigator for the Epidermolysis Bullosa Clinical Characterization and Outcomes Database. She disclosed the receipt of grants or research funding, honoraria, or consultation fees from a number of drug companies, as well as other support from the EB Research Partnership and the EB Medical Research Foundation.

SOURCES: Prodinger et al. EB 2020. Poster 3; Bruckner A et al. Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2018;67(6):701-5; Pope et al. EB 2020. Poster 8.

LONDON – A quarter of urgent contacts in 20 children with generalized severe recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (GS-RDEB) were tied to esophageal narrowing, according data from a 12-month review of electronic health records.

Urgent advice was sought 102 times outside of regular or scheduled appointments by the parents of 20 children with GS-RDEB, Christine Prodinger, MD, of the University Clinic of Dermatology at Paracelsus Medical University, Salzburg, Austria, and colleagues reported in a poster presentation at the EB World Congress, organized by the Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa Association (DEBRA). The researchers looked at the records from the EB clinic at Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust, London, during April 2018–April 2019.

The mean number of urgent contacts with the specialist unit was 5.1 per patient per year, the researchers reported, with 24 of the 102 contacts (23.5%) resulting in the child being admitted to a hospital. Most of the contacts were made via email or telephone to EB nurses (94%), by contacts during home visits (3%), or in an appointment with the palliative or symptom care team (3%).

“The most common reason [for the urgent contact] was acute dysphagia,” which was experienced as choking, throat pain, difficulty eating, reflux, and vomiting, the researchers observed. Dysphagia affected children in 27 of the contacts (26.5%), and resulted in esophageal dilatation in 90% of the cases. Other reasons for urgent contact were skin infection (15.7% of contacts), uncontrolled pain (15.7% of the contacts), and eye problems (11.8%).
 

Esophageal dilatation

Strictures are just one of the esophageal manifestations of the disease, noted Anna Bruckner, MD, associate professor of dermatology and pediatrics in the department of dermatology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, during an oral presentation. Other possible manifestations include blisters and erosions, the formation of webs – a thin extension of esophageal tissue, perforations, and rupture. “These are primarily problems with dystrophic EB” but can occur with other EB subtypes, she noted.

“We don’t have great evidence” on whether the onset of esophageal strictures can be delayed or prevented, Dr. Bruckner observed. As for management, “fluoroscopy-guided balloon dilatation is probably best” for most patients, but the best procedural approach needs to be discussed on a patient-by-patient basis.

Citing a paper that documents her own experience on the use of esophageal dilatation in 24 children who underwent 231 fluoroscopy-guided balloon dilatation procedures, Dr. Bruckner noted that strictures were most commonly located in the proximal part of the esophagus, with a median distance of 13 cm down from the lips (J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2018;67[6]:701-5).

The retrospective chart review reported by Dr. Bruckner showed that there were a median of seven dilatation procedures per patient, and 20 patients had repeated procedures at a median interval of 164 days. About 10% of procedures resulted in adverse events – mostly vomiting, pain, and fever – but there were no perforations or other serious effects, and the rate of subsequent hospitalization was 6.9%.
 

Dysphagia

Dysphagia was the predominant symptom caused by esophageal stricture in another dataset reported in a poster by Elena Pope, MD, MSc, of the Hospital for Sick Children at the University of Toronto, and colleagues.

Of 125 EB patients who had experienced at least 1 esophageal stricture episode, 497 esophageal stricture events were reported, and 85.5% of patients had difficulty swallowing at presentation, with 29.8% unable to swallow solids and 7.2% unable to swallow liquids. Other symptoms at presentation were painful swallowing (11%), food being stuck in the esophagus (8%), regurgitation (5%), coughing (4.8%), and dyspepsia (2.8%).

The aim of the retrospective, multicenter cohort study was to determine the prevalence of, and predisposing factors for, restenosis of esophageal strictures and factors that may predispose to restenosis. The study population consisted of 66 men and 59 women who had experienced their esophageal stricture at around ages 12-13 years. The majority (98.4%) had dystrophic EB, of which almost half (46.5%) had GS-RDEB.

The researchers found that the location of the esophageal stricture was important for restenosis, and that strictures occurring in the lower esophagus were 67.5% less likely to result in restenosis than if they occurred in the upper esophagus (P = .057; hazard ratio, 0.675).

A higher number of strictures was associated with a higher rate of restenosis, they reported. Indeed, patients who had two esophageal strictures had a 29.4% increased risk of restenosis, compared with those who had just one stricture (P = .038; HR, 1.294), and those with three or more strictures had an increased risk of 78.5%, compared with those having one stricture (P = .005; HR, 1.785).

Strictures longer than 1 cm also were associated with a greater (34.7%) risk of restenosis, compared with shorter strictures (P = .032; HR, 1.347). Various methods of resolving the stricture were used, from fluoroscopy-guided balloon dilatation to retro- or antegrade endoscopy. “Irrespective of method, dilatations are successful,” Dr. Pope and colleagues reported. The overall success of dilatation was 99.3%, with full dilatation achieved in almost all of the patients (96%). Of note is that there was a low risk (2.6%) of complications, they observed.

Medications were used in 46.8% of the patients, with the most popular choice being corticosteroids (90.3%), but the researchers noted that the “potential benefit of periprocedural corticosteroids use in decreasing the risk of restenosis needs further exploration.”

Dr. Bruckner had noted in her presentation that her group did not favor the use of periprocedural corticosteroids, but that antifibrotic therapy “could be attractive” for preventing future strictures.

Dr. Prodinger, Dr. Pope, and their colleagues did not provide disclosure information. Dr. Bruckner is the principal investigator for the Epidermolysis Bullosa Clinical Characterization and Outcomes Database. She disclosed the receipt of grants or research funding, honoraria, or consultation fees from a number of drug companies, as well as other support from the EB Research Partnership and the EB Medical Research Foundation.

SOURCES: Prodinger et al. EB 2020. Poster 3; Bruckner A et al. Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2018;67(6):701-5; Pope et al. EB 2020. Poster 8.

LONDON – A quarter of urgent contacts in 20 children with generalized severe recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (GS-RDEB) were tied to esophageal narrowing, according data from a 12-month review of electronic health records.

Urgent advice was sought 102 times outside of regular or scheduled appointments by the parents of 20 children with GS-RDEB, Christine Prodinger, MD, of the University Clinic of Dermatology at Paracelsus Medical University, Salzburg, Austria, and colleagues reported in a poster presentation at the EB World Congress, organized by the Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa Association (DEBRA). The researchers looked at the records from the EB clinic at Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust, London, during April 2018–April 2019.

The mean number of urgent contacts with the specialist unit was 5.1 per patient per year, the researchers reported, with 24 of the 102 contacts (23.5%) resulting in the child being admitted to a hospital. Most of the contacts were made via email or telephone to EB nurses (94%), by contacts during home visits (3%), or in an appointment with the palliative or symptom care team (3%).

“The most common reason [for the urgent contact] was acute dysphagia,” which was experienced as choking, throat pain, difficulty eating, reflux, and vomiting, the researchers observed. Dysphagia affected children in 27 of the contacts (26.5%), and resulted in esophageal dilatation in 90% of the cases. Other reasons for urgent contact were skin infection (15.7% of contacts), uncontrolled pain (15.7% of the contacts), and eye problems (11.8%).
 

Esophageal dilatation

Strictures are just one of the esophageal manifestations of the disease, noted Anna Bruckner, MD, associate professor of dermatology and pediatrics in the department of dermatology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, during an oral presentation. Other possible manifestations include blisters and erosions, the formation of webs – a thin extension of esophageal tissue, perforations, and rupture. “These are primarily problems with dystrophic EB” but can occur with other EB subtypes, she noted.

“We don’t have great evidence” on whether the onset of esophageal strictures can be delayed or prevented, Dr. Bruckner observed. As for management, “fluoroscopy-guided balloon dilatation is probably best” for most patients, but the best procedural approach needs to be discussed on a patient-by-patient basis.

Citing a paper that documents her own experience on the use of esophageal dilatation in 24 children who underwent 231 fluoroscopy-guided balloon dilatation procedures, Dr. Bruckner noted that strictures were most commonly located in the proximal part of the esophagus, with a median distance of 13 cm down from the lips (J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2018;67[6]:701-5).

The retrospective chart review reported by Dr. Bruckner showed that there were a median of seven dilatation procedures per patient, and 20 patients had repeated procedures at a median interval of 164 days. About 10% of procedures resulted in adverse events – mostly vomiting, pain, and fever – but there were no perforations or other serious effects, and the rate of subsequent hospitalization was 6.9%.
 

Dysphagia

Dysphagia was the predominant symptom caused by esophageal stricture in another dataset reported in a poster by Elena Pope, MD, MSc, of the Hospital for Sick Children at the University of Toronto, and colleagues.

Of 125 EB patients who had experienced at least 1 esophageal stricture episode, 497 esophageal stricture events were reported, and 85.5% of patients had difficulty swallowing at presentation, with 29.8% unable to swallow solids and 7.2% unable to swallow liquids. Other symptoms at presentation were painful swallowing (11%), food being stuck in the esophagus (8%), regurgitation (5%), coughing (4.8%), and dyspepsia (2.8%).

The aim of the retrospective, multicenter cohort study was to determine the prevalence of, and predisposing factors for, restenosis of esophageal strictures and factors that may predispose to restenosis. The study population consisted of 66 men and 59 women who had experienced their esophageal stricture at around ages 12-13 years. The majority (98.4%) had dystrophic EB, of which almost half (46.5%) had GS-RDEB.

The researchers found that the location of the esophageal stricture was important for restenosis, and that strictures occurring in the lower esophagus were 67.5% less likely to result in restenosis than if they occurred in the upper esophagus (P = .057; hazard ratio, 0.675).

A higher number of strictures was associated with a higher rate of restenosis, they reported. Indeed, patients who had two esophageal strictures had a 29.4% increased risk of restenosis, compared with those who had just one stricture (P = .038; HR, 1.294), and those with three or more strictures had an increased risk of 78.5%, compared with those having one stricture (P = .005; HR, 1.785).

Strictures longer than 1 cm also were associated with a greater (34.7%) risk of restenosis, compared with shorter strictures (P = .032; HR, 1.347). Various methods of resolving the stricture were used, from fluoroscopy-guided balloon dilatation to retro- or antegrade endoscopy. “Irrespective of method, dilatations are successful,” Dr. Pope and colleagues reported. The overall success of dilatation was 99.3%, with full dilatation achieved in almost all of the patients (96%). Of note is that there was a low risk (2.6%) of complications, they observed.

Medications were used in 46.8% of the patients, with the most popular choice being corticosteroids (90.3%), but the researchers noted that the “potential benefit of periprocedural corticosteroids use in decreasing the risk of restenosis needs further exploration.”

Dr. Bruckner had noted in her presentation that her group did not favor the use of periprocedural corticosteroids, but that antifibrotic therapy “could be attractive” for preventing future strictures.

Dr. Prodinger, Dr. Pope, and their colleagues did not provide disclosure information. Dr. Bruckner is the principal investigator for the Epidermolysis Bullosa Clinical Characterization and Outcomes Database. She disclosed the receipt of grants or research funding, honoraria, or consultation fees from a number of drug companies, as well as other support from the EB Research Partnership and the EB Medical Research Foundation.

SOURCES: Prodinger et al. EB 2020. Poster 3; Bruckner A et al. Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2018;67(6):701-5; Pope et al. EB 2020. Poster 8.