Gynecology

The International Continence Society (ICS) defines overactive bladder (OAB) as a syndrome of "urinary urgency, usually accompanied by frequency and nocturia, with or without urgency urinary incontinence (UUI), in the absence of urinary tract infection [UTI] or obvious pathology."¹ The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) reported OAB prevalence to be 15% in US women, with 11% reporting UUI.² OAB represents a significant health care burden that impacts nearly every aspect of life, including physical, emotional, and psychological domains.^3,4 The economic impact is notable; the projected cost is estimated to reach $82.6 billion annually by 2020.⁵

The American Urological Association (AUA) and the Society for Urodynamics, Female Pelvic Medicine and Urogenital Reconstruction (SUFU) have endorsed an algorithm for use in the evaluation of idiopathic OAB (FIGURE).⁶ If the patient's symptoms are certain, minimal evaluation is needed and it is reasonable to proceed with first-line therapy, which includes fluid management (decreasing caffeine intake and limiting evening fluid intake), bladder retraining drills such as timed voiding, and improving pelvic floor muscles with the use of biofeedback and functional electrical stimulation.^6,7 Pelvic floor muscle training can be facilitated with a referral to a physical therapist trained in pelvic floor muscle education.

If treatment goals are not met with first-line strategies, second-line therapy may be initiated with anticholinergic or β3-adrenergic receptor agonist medications. If symptoms persist after 4 to 8 weeks of pharmacologic therapy, clinicians are encouraged to reassess or refer the patient to a specialist. Further evaluation may include a bladder diary in which the patient documents voided volumes, voiding frequency, and number of incontinent episodes; symptom-specific questionnaires; and/or urodynamic testing.

Related article:
The latest treatments for urinary and fecal incontinence: Which hold water?

Based on that evaluation, the patient may be a candidate for third-line therapy with either intradetrusor onabotulinumtoxinA, posterior tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS), or sacral neuromodulation.

There is a paucity of information comparing third-line therapies. In this Update, we focus on 4 randomized clinical trials that compare third-line treatment options for idiopathic OAB.

Read about how anticholinergic medication and onabotulinumtoxinA compare for treating UUI.

Anticholinergic therapy and onabotulinumtoxinA produce equivalent reductions in the frequency of daily UUI episodes

Visco AG, Brubaker L, Richter HE, et al; for the Pelvic Floor Disorders Network. Anticholinergic therapy vs onabotulinumtoxinA for urgency urinary incontinence. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(19):1803-1813.

In a double-blind, double-placebo-controlled randomized trial, Visco and colleagues compared anticholinergic medication with onabotulinumtoxinA 100 U for the treatment of women with UUI.

Details of the study

Two hundred forty-one women with moderate to severe UUI received either 6 months of oral anticholinergic therapy (solifenacin 5 mg daily with the option of dose escalation to 10 mg daily or change to trospium XR 60 mg daily based on the Patient Global Symptom Control score) plus a single intradetrusor injection of saline, or a single intradetrusor injection of onabotulinumtoxinA 100 U plus a 6-month oral placebo regimen.

Inclusion criteria were 5 or more UUI episodes on a 3-day diary, insufficient resolution of symptoms after 2 medications, or being drug naive. Exclusions included a postvoid residual (PVR) urine volume greater than 150 mL or previous therapy with onabotulinumtoxinA.

Participants were scheduled for follow up every 2 to 6 months post randomization, at which time all study medications were discontinued. The primary outcome was reduction from baseline in the mean number of UUI episodes per day over the 6-month period, as recorded in the monthly 3-day bladder diaries. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of participants with complete resolution of UUI, the proportion of participants with 75% or more reduction in UUI episodes, Overactive Bladder Questionnaire Short Form (OABq-SF) scores, other symptom-specific questionnaire scores, and adverse events.

Related article:
Which treatments for pelvic floor disorders are backed by evidence?

Both treatments significantly reduced UUI episodes

At baseline, participants reported a mean (SD) of 5.0 (2.7) UUI episodes per day, and 41% of participants were drug naive. Both treatment groups experienced significant reductions compared with baseline in mean UUI episodes, and the reductions were similar between the 2 groups (reduction of 3.4 episodes per day in the anticholinergic group, reduction of 3.3 episodes in the onabotulinumtoxinA group; P = .81). Complete resolution of UUI was more common in the onabotulinumtoxinA group (27%) as compared with the anticholinergic group (13%) (P = .003). There were no differences in improvement in OABq-SF scores (37.05 in the anticholinergic group vs 37.13 in the onabotulinumtoxinA group; P = .98) or other quality-of-life measures.

Adverse events. The anticholinergic group experienced a higher rate of dry mouth compared with the onabotulinumtoxinA group (46% vs 31%; P = .02) but had lower rates of intermittent catheterization use at 2 months (0% vs 5%, P = .01) and UTIs (13% vs 33%, P<.001).

Strengths and limitations. This was a well-designed, multicenter, randomized double-blind, double placebo-controlled trial. The study design allowed for dose escalation and change to another medication for inadequate symptom control and included drug-naive participants, which increases the generalizability of the results. However, current guidelines recommend reserving onabotulinumtoxinA therapy for third-line therapy, thus deterring this treatment's use in the drug-naive population. Additionally, the lack of a pure placebo arm makes it difficult to interpret the extent to which a placebo effect contributed to observed improvements in clinical symptoms.

Read: onabotulinumtoxinA vs PTNS for OAB.

OnabotulinumtoxinA has greater 9-month durability for OAB symptoms compared with12 weeks of PTNS

Sherif H, Khalil M, Omar R. Management of refractory idiopathic overactive bladder: intradetrusor injection of botulinum toxin type A versus posterior tibial nerve stimulation. Can J Urol. 2017;24(3):8838-8846.

In this randomized clinical trial, Sherif and colleagues compared the safety and efficacy of a single intradetrusor injection of onabotulinumtoxinA 100 U with that of PTNS for OAB.

Details of the study

Sixty adult men and women with OAB who did not respond to medical therapy were randomly assigned to treatment with either onabotulinumtoxinA 100 U or PTNS. Criteria for exclusion were current UTI, PVR urine volume of more than 150 mL, previous radiation therapy or chemotherapy, previous incontinence surgery or bladder malignancy, or presence of mixed urinary incontinence.

At baseline, participants completed a 3-day bladder diary, an OAB symptom score (OABSS) questionnaire, and urodynamic testing. The OABSS questionnaire included 7 questions (scoring range, 0-28), with higher scores indicating worse symptoms, and included subscales for urgency and quality-of-life measures. Total OABSS, urgency score, quality-of-life score, bladder diary records, and urodynamic testing parameters were assessed at 6, 12, 24, and 36 weeks, along with adverse events.

OnabotulinumtoxinA injections were performed under spinal anesthesia. If PVR urine volume was greater than 200 mL at any follow-up visit, participants were instructed to begin clean intermittent self-catheterization. PTNS was administered as weekly 30-minute sessions for 12 consecutive weeks.

Participants' baseline demographics and symptoms were similar. Average age was 45 years. Averages (SD) for duration of anticholinergic use was 13 (0.8) weeks, UUI episode score was 4.5 (1) on 3-day bladder diary, and OABSS was 22 (2.7). Nine-month data were available for 29 participants in the onabotulinumtoxinA group and for 8 in the PTNS group.

Related article:
Update on pelvic floor dysfunction: Focus on urinary incontinence

OnabotulinumtoxinA treatment benefits sustained for 9 months

Through 6 months, compared with baseline assessments, both treatment groups had significant improvements in clinical symptoms and OABSS total score, as well as urgency and quality-of-life subscales. At 3 months, urodynamic study parameters were similarly improved from baseline in both groups.

At 9 months, however, only the onabotulinumtoxinA group, compared with the PTNS group, maintained the significant improvement from baseline in 3-day bladder diary voiding episodes (average [SD], 10.7 [1.01] vs 11.6 [1.09]; P = .009), 3-day bladder diary nocturia episodes (average [SD], 3.8 [1.09] vs 4.4 [0.8]; P = .02), and average [SD] UUI episodes over 3 days (3.5 [1.2] vs 4.2 [1.04]; P = .02). Similarly, onabotulinumtoxinA-treated participants, compared with those treated with PTNS, maintained improvements at 9 months in average (SD): OABSS total score (19.2 [2.4] vs 20.4 [1.7]; P = .03), urgency scores (10.9 [1.3] vs 11.8 [1.4]; P = .009), urine volume at first desire (177.8 [9.2] vs 171.8 [7.7]), maximum cystometric capacity (304 [17.6] vs 290 [13.1]), and Qmax (mL/sec) (20.7 [1.6] vs 22.2 [1.2]).

Adverse events. Average PVR urine volumes were higher in the onabotulinumtoxinA group compared with the PTNS group (36.8 [2.7] vs 32.4 [3.03]; P = .0001) at all time points, and self-catheterization was required in 6.6% of onabotulinumtoxinA-treated participants. Urinary tract infection occurred in 6.6% of participants in the onabotulinumtoxinA group and in none of the PTNS group. In the PTNS group, few experienced pain and minor bleeding at the needle site.

Strengths and limitations. This randomized, open-label trial comparing treatment with onabotulinumtoxinA 100 U and PTNS included both men and women with idiopathic OAB symptoms. The participants were assessed at regular intervals with various measures, and follow-up adherence was good. The sample size was small, so the study may not have been powered to see differences prior to 9 months.

Although at 9 months only the onabotulinumtoxinA group maintained significant improvement over baseline levels, the improvement was diminished, and therefore the clinical meaningfulness is uncertain. Further, participants in the PTNS group did not undergo monthly maintenance therapy after 3 months, which is recommended for those with a 12-week therapeutic response; this may have affected 9-month outcomes in this group. Since the one-time onabotulinumtoxinA 100 U injection was performed under spinal anesthesia, cost comparisons should be considered, since future onabotulinumtoxinA injections would be necessary. 

Read about using different doses of onabotulinumtoxinA for OAB.

OnabotulinumtoxinA 200-U injection provides longer OAB symptom  improvement than 100-U injection

Abdelwahab O, Sherif H, Soliman T, Elbarky I, Eshazly A. Efficacy of botulinum toxin type A 100 units versus 200 units for treatment of refractory idiopathic overactive bladder. Int Braz J Urol. 2015;41(6):1132-1140.

Abdelwahab and colleagues conducted a single-center, randomized clinical trial to investigate the safety and efficacy of a single injection of intradetrusor onabotulinumtoxinA in 2 different doses (100 U and 200 U) for treatment of OAB.

Details of the study

Eighty adults (63 women, 17 men) who did not benefit from anticholinergic medication during the previous 3 months were randomly assigned to receive either a 100-U (n = 40) or a 200-U (n = 40) injection of onabotulinumtoxinA. Exclusion criteria were PVR urine volume greater than 150 mL and previous radiation therapy or chemotherapy.

Initial assessments -- completed at baseline and at 1, 3, 6, and 9 months -- included the health-related quality-of-life (HR-QOL) questionnaire (maximum score, 100; higher score indicates better quality of life), an abbreviated OABSS questionnaire (4 questions; score range, 0-15; higher score indicates more severe symptoms), and urodynamic evaluation. Outcomes included OABSS, HR-QOL score, and urodynamic parameters at the various time points.

Related article:
Is there a link between impaired mobility and urinary incontinence in elderly, community-dwelling women?

Higher dose, greater symptom improvement and higher adverse event rate

At baseline, participants (average age, 31 years) had an average (SD) OABSS of 1.7 (1.6). OnabotulinumtoxinA treatment with both a 100-U and a 200-U dose resulted in significant improvements (compared with baseline levels) in frequency, nocturia, UUI episodes, OABSS, and urodynamic parameters throughout the 9 months. At 9 months, however, the group treated with the 200-U dose had greater improvements, compared with the group who received a 100-U dose, in urinary frequency symptom scores (mean [SD], 0.32 [0.47] vs 1.1 [0.51]; P<.05), nocturia symptom scores (mean [SD], 0.13 [0.34] vs 0.36 [0.49]; P<.05), UUI symptom scores (mean [SD], 0.68 [0.16] vs 1.26 [1.1]; P<.05), and mean (SD) total OABSS (2.6 [2.31] vs 5.3 [2.11]; P<.05). Similarly, at 9 months the 200-U dose resulted in greater improvements in volume at first desire (mean [SD], 291.8 [42.8] vs 246.8 [53.8] mL; P<.05), volume at strong desire (mean [SD], 392.1 [37.3] vs 313.1 [67.4] mL; P<.05), detrusor pressure (mean [SD], 10.4 [4.0] vs 19.2 [7.8] cm H₂O; P<.05), and maximum cystometric capacity (mean [SD], 430.5 [34.2] vs 350 [69.1] mL; P<.05) compared with the 100-U dose.

Adverse events. No participant had a PVR urine volume greater than 100 mL at any follow-up visit. Postoperative hematuria occurred in 23% of the group treated with onabotulinumtoxinA 200 U versus in 15% of those treated with a 100-U dose. Similarly, UTIs occurred in 17.5% of the 200-U dose group and in 7.5% of the 100-U dose group. Dysuria was reported in 37.5% and 15% of the 200-U and 100-U dose groups, respectively.

Strengths and limitations. This randomized, open-label trial comparing a single injection of 100 U versus 200 U of onabotulinumtoxinA included mostly women. OAB symptoms and urodynamic parameters improved after treatment with both dose levels, but a longer duration of improvement was seen with the 200-U dose. The cohort had a low baseline OAB severity, based on the OABSS questionnaire, and a young average age of participants, which limits the generalizability of the study results to a population with refractory OAB. The 0% rate of clean intermittent self-catheterization postinjection might be based on the study's criteria for requiring clean intermittent catheterization. In addition, the initial postinjection visit occurred at 1 month, possibly missing participants who had symptoms of retention soon after injection.

Read: onabotulinumtoxinA vs sacral neuromodulation therapy for UUI.

Treatment with onabotulinumtoxinA may control UUI symptoms better than sacral neuromodulation therapy

Amundsen CL, Richter HE, Menefee SA, et al; Pelvic Floor Disorders Network. OnabotulinumtoxinA vs sacral neuromodulation on refractory urgency urinary incontinence in women: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2016;316(13):1366-1374.

In this multicenter open-label randomized trial, Amundsen and colleagues compared the efficacy and safety of onabotulinumtoxinA 200 U with that of sacral neuromodulation.

Details of the study

Three hundred sixty-four women with UUI had data available for primary analysis at  6 months. Women were considered eligible for the study if they had 6 or more UUI episodes on a 3-day bladder diary, persistent symptoms despite anticholinergic therapy, a PVR urine volume of less than 150 mL, and had never previously received either study treatment.

There were no differences in baseline characteristics of the participants. The average (SD) age of the study population was 63 (11.6) years, with an average (SD) daily number of UUI episodes of 5.3 (2.8). The average (SD) body mass index was 32 (8) kg/m².

Participants were randomly assigned to undergo either sacral neuromodulation (n = 174) or intradetrusor injection of onabotulinumtoxinA 200 U (n = 190). The primary outcome was change from baseline in mean number of daily UUI episodes averaged over 6 months as recorded on a monthly 3-day bladder diary. Secondary outcomes included complete resolution of urgency incontinence, 75% or more reduction in UUI episodes, the Overactive Bladder Questionnaire Short Form (SF) score (range, 0-100; higher score indicates higher symptom severity), the Overactive Bladder Satisfaction of Treatment questionnaire (range, 0-100; higher score indicates better satisfaction), other quality-of-life measures, and adverse events.

Related article:
2015 Update on pelvic floor dysfunction: Bladder pain syndrome

Greater symptom bother improvement, treatment satisfaction with onabotulinumtoxinA 200 U

Participants treated with onabotulinumtoxinA had a greater mean reduction of 3.9 UUI episodes per day than the sacral neuromodulation group's reduction of 3.3 UUI episodes per day (mean difference, 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.13-1.14; P = .01). In addition, complete UUI resolution was higher in the onabotulinumtoxinA group as compared with the sacral neuromodulation group (20% vs 4%; P<.001). The onabotulinumtoxinA group also had higher rates of 75% or more reduction of UUI episodes compared with the sacral neuromodulation group (46% vs 26%; P<.001). Over 6 months, both groups had improvements in all quality-of-life measures, but the onabotulinumtoxinA group had greater improvement in symptom bother compared with the sacral neuromodulation group (-46.7 vs -38.6; mean difference, 8.1; 95% CI, 3.0-13.3; P = .002). Furthermore, the onabotulinumtoxinA group had greater treatment satisfaction compared with the sacral neuromodulation group (mean difference, 7.8; 95% CI, 1.6-14.1; P = .01).

Adverse events. Six women (3%) underwent sacral neuromodulation device revision or removal. Approximately 8% of onabotulinumtoxinA-treated participants required intermittent self-catheterization at 1 month, 4% at 3 months, and 2% at 6 months. The risk of UTI was higher in the onabotulinumtoxinA group compared with the sacral neuromodulation group (35% vs 11%; risk difference, 23%; 95% CI, -33% to -13%; P<.001).

Strengths and limitations. This is a well-designed randomized clinical trial comparing clinical outcomes and adverse events after treatment with onabotulinumtoxinA 200-U versus sacral neuromodulation. The interventions were standardized across investigators at multiple sites, and the study design required close follow-up to assess efficacy and adverse events. The study used a 200-U dose based on reported durability of effect at that time and findings of equivalency between onabotulinumtoxinA 100 U and anticholinergic therapy. The US Food and Drug Administration's recommendation to use a 100-U dose in all patients with idiopathic OAB might dissuade clinicians from considering the higher dose of onabotulinumtoxinA. The study was limited by the lack of a placebo group.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

The International Continence Society (ICS) defines overactive bladder (OAB) as a syndrome of "urinary urgency, usually accompanied by frequency and nocturia, with or without urgency urinary incontinence (UUI), in the absence of urinary tract infection [UTI] or obvious pathology."¹ The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) reported OAB prevalence to be 15% in US women, with 11% reporting UUI.² OAB represents a significant health care burden that impacts nearly every aspect of life, including physical, emotional, and psychological domains.^3,4 The economic impact is notable; the projected cost is estimated to reach $82.6 billion annually by 2020.⁵

The American Urological Association (AUA) and the Society for Urodynamics, Female Pelvic Medicine and Urogenital Reconstruction (SUFU) have endorsed an algorithm for use in the evaluation of idiopathic OAB (FIGURE).⁶ If the patient's symptoms are certain, minimal evaluation is needed and it is reasonable to proceed with first-line therapy, which includes fluid management (decreasing caffeine intake and limiting evening fluid intake), bladder retraining drills such as timed voiding, and improving pelvic floor muscles with the use of biofeedback and functional electrical stimulation.^6,7 Pelvic floor muscle training can be facilitated with a referral to a physical therapist trained in pelvic floor muscle education.

If treatment goals are not met with first-line strategies, second-line therapy may be initiated with anticholinergic or β3-adrenergic receptor agonist medications. If symptoms persist after 4 to 8 weeks of pharmacologic therapy, clinicians are encouraged to reassess or refer the patient to a specialist. Further evaluation may include a bladder diary in which the patient documents voided volumes, voiding frequency, and number of incontinent episodes; symptom-specific questionnaires; and/or urodynamic testing.

Related article:
The latest treatments for urinary and fecal incontinence: Which hold water?

Based on that evaluation, the patient may be a candidate for third-line therapy with either intradetrusor onabotulinumtoxinA, posterior tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS), or sacral neuromodulation.

There is a paucity of information comparing third-line therapies. In this Update, we focus on 4 randomized clinical trials that compare third-line treatment options for idiopathic OAB.

Read about how anticholinergic medication and onabotulinumtoxinA compare for treating UUI.

Anticholinergic therapy and onabotulinumtoxinA produce equivalent reductions in the frequency of daily UUI episodes

Visco AG, Brubaker L, Richter HE, et al; for the Pelvic Floor Disorders Network. Anticholinergic therapy vs onabotulinumtoxinA for urgency urinary incontinence. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(19):1803-1813.

In a double-blind, double-placebo-controlled randomized trial, Visco and colleagues compared anticholinergic medication with onabotulinumtoxinA 100 U for the treatment of women with UUI.

Details of the study

Two hundred forty-one women with moderate to severe UUI received either 6 months of oral anticholinergic therapy (solifenacin 5 mg daily with the option of dose escalation to 10 mg daily or change to trospium XR 60 mg daily based on the Patient Global Symptom Control score) plus a single intradetrusor injection of saline, or a single intradetrusor injection of onabotulinumtoxinA 100 U plus a 6-month oral placebo regimen.

Inclusion criteria were 5 or more UUI episodes on a 3-day diary, insufficient resolution of symptoms after 2 medications, or being drug naive. Exclusions included a postvoid residual (PVR) urine volume greater than 150 mL or previous therapy with onabotulinumtoxinA.

Participants were scheduled for follow up every 2 to 6 months post randomization, at which time all study medications were discontinued. The primary outcome was reduction from baseline in the mean number of UUI episodes per day over the 6-month period, as recorded in the monthly 3-day bladder diaries. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of participants with complete resolution of UUI, the proportion of participants with 75% or more reduction in UUI episodes, Overactive Bladder Questionnaire Short Form (OABq-SF) scores, other symptom-specific questionnaire scores, and adverse events.

Related article:
Which treatments for pelvic floor disorders are backed by evidence?

Both treatments significantly reduced UUI episodes

At baseline, participants reported a mean (SD) of 5.0 (2.7) UUI episodes per day, and 41% of participants were drug naive. Both treatment groups experienced significant reductions compared with baseline in mean UUI episodes, and the reductions were similar between the 2 groups (reduction of 3.4 episodes per day in the anticholinergic group, reduction of 3.3 episodes in the onabotulinumtoxinA group; P = .81). Complete resolution of UUI was more common in the onabotulinumtoxinA group (27%) as compared with the anticholinergic group (13%) (P = .003). There were no differences in improvement in OABq-SF scores (37.05 in the anticholinergic group vs 37.13 in the onabotulinumtoxinA group; P = .98) or other quality-of-life measures.

Adverse events. The anticholinergic group experienced a higher rate of dry mouth compared with the onabotulinumtoxinA group (46% vs 31%; P = .02) but had lower rates of intermittent catheterization use at 2 months (0% vs 5%, P = .01) and UTIs (13% vs 33%, P<.001).

Strengths and limitations. This was a well-designed, multicenter, randomized double-blind, double placebo-controlled trial. The study design allowed for dose escalation and change to another medication for inadequate symptom control and included drug-naive participants, which increases the generalizability of the results. However, current guidelines recommend reserving onabotulinumtoxinA therapy for third-line therapy, thus deterring this treatment's use in the drug-naive population. Additionally, the lack of a pure placebo arm makes it difficult to interpret the extent to which a placebo effect contributed to observed improvements in clinical symptoms.

Read: onabotulinumtoxinA vs PTNS for OAB.

OnabotulinumtoxinA has greater 9-month durability for OAB symptoms compared with12 weeks of PTNS

Sherif H, Khalil M, Omar R. Management of refractory idiopathic overactive bladder: intradetrusor injection of botulinum toxin type A versus posterior tibial nerve stimulation. Can J Urol. 2017;24(3):8838-8846.

In this randomized clinical trial, Sherif and colleagues compared the safety and efficacy of a single intradetrusor injection of onabotulinumtoxinA 100 U with that of PTNS for OAB.

Details of the study

Sixty adult men and women with OAB who did not respond to medical therapy were randomly assigned to treatment with either onabotulinumtoxinA 100 U or PTNS. Criteria for exclusion were current UTI, PVR urine volume of more than 150 mL, previous radiation therapy or chemotherapy, previous incontinence surgery or bladder malignancy, or presence of mixed urinary incontinence.

At baseline, participants completed a 3-day bladder diary, an OAB symptom score (OABSS) questionnaire, and urodynamic testing. The OABSS questionnaire included 7 questions (scoring range, 0-28), with higher scores indicating worse symptoms, and included subscales for urgency and quality-of-life measures. Total OABSS, urgency score, quality-of-life score, bladder diary records, and urodynamic testing parameters were assessed at 6, 12, 24, and 36 weeks, along with adverse events.

OnabotulinumtoxinA injections were performed under spinal anesthesia. If PVR urine volume was greater than 200 mL at any follow-up visit, participants were instructed to begin clean intermittent self-catheterization. PTNS was administered as weekly 30-minute sessions for 12 consecutive weeks.

Participants' baseline demographics and symptoms were similar. Average age was 45 years. Averages (SD) for duration of anticholinergic use was 13 (0.8) weeks, UUI episode score was 4.5 (1) on 3-day bladder diary, and OABSS was 22 (2.7). Nine-month data were available for 29 participants in the onabotulinumtoxinA group and for 8 in the PTNS group.

Related article:
Update on pelvic floor dysfunction: Focus on urinary incontinence

OnabotulinumtoxinA treatment benefits sustained for 9 months

Through 6 months, compared with baseline assessments, both treatment groups had significant improvements in clinical symptoms and OABSS total score, as well as urgency and quality-of-life subscales. At 3 months, urodynamic study parameters were similarly improved from baseline in both groups.

At 9 months, however, only the onabotulinumtoxinA group, compared with the PTNS group, maintained the significant improvement from baseline in 3-day bladder diary voiding episodes (average [SD], 10.7 [1.01] vs 11.6 [1.09]; P = .009), 3-day bladder diary nocturia episodes (average [SD], 3.8 [1.09] vs 4.4 [0.8]; P = .02), and average [SD] UUI episodes over 3 days (3.5 [1.2] vs 4.2 [1.04]; P = .02). Similarly, onabotulinumtoxinA-treated participants, compared with those treated with PTNS, maintained improvements at 9 months in average (SD): OABSS total score (19.2 [2.4] vs 20.4 [1.7]; P = .03), urgency scores (10.9 [1.3] vs 11.8 [1.4]; P = .009), urine volume at first desire (177.8 [9.2] vs 171.8 [7.7]), maximum cystometric capacity (304 [17.6] vs 290 [13.1]), and Qmax (mL/sec) (20.7 [1.6] vs 22.2 [1.2]).

Adverse events. Average PVR urine volumes were higher in the onabotulinumtoxinA group compared with the PTNS group (36.8 [2.7] vs 32.4 [3.03]; P = .0001) at all time points, and self-catheterization was required in 6.6% of onabotulinumtoxinA-treated participants. Urinary tract infection occurred in 6.6% of participants in the onabotulinumtoxinA group and in none of the PTNS group. In the PTNS group, few experienced pain and minor bleeding at the needle site.

Strengths and limitations. This randomized, open-label trial comparing treatment with onabotulinumtoxinA 100 U and PTNS included both men and women with idiopathic OAB symptoms. The participants were assessed at regular intervals with various measures, and follow-up adherence was good. The sample size was small, so the study may not have been powered to see differences prior to 9 months.

Although at 9 months only the onabotulinumtoxinA group maintained significant improvement over baseline levels, the improvement was diminished, and therefore the clinical meaningfulness is uncertain. Further, participants in the PTNS group did not undergo monthly maintenance therapy after 3 months, which is recommended for those with a 12-week therapeutic response; this may have affected 9-month outcomes in this group. Since the one-time onabotulinumtoxinA 100 U injection was performed under spinal anesthesia, cost comparisons should be considered, since future onabotulinumtoxinA injections would be necessary. 

Read about using different doses of onabotulinumtoxinA for OAB.

OnabotulinumtoxinA 200-U injection provides longer OAB symptom  improvement than 100-U injection

Abdelwahab O, Sherif H, Soliman T, Elbarky I, Eshazly A. Efficacy of botulinum toxin type A 100 units versus 200 units for treatment of refractory idiopathic overactive bladder. Int Braz J Urol. 2015;41(6):1132-1140.

Abdelwahab and colleagues conducted a single-center, randomized clinical trial to investigate the safety and efficacy of a single injection of intradetrusor onabotulinumtoxinA in 2 different doses (100 U and 200 U) for treatment of OAB.

Details of the study

Eighty adults (63 women, 17 men) who did not benefit from anticholinergic medication during the previous 3 months were randomly assigned to receive either a 100-U (n = 40) or a 200-U (n = 40) injection of onabotulinumtoxinA. Exclusion criteria were PVR urine volume greater than 150 mL and previous radiation therapy or chemotherapy.

Initial assessments -- completed at baseline and at 1, 3, 6, and 9 months -- included the health-related quality-of-life (HR-QOL) questionnaire (maximum score, 100; higher score indicates better quality of life), an abbreviated OABSS questionnaire (4 questions; score range, 0-15; higher score indicates more severe symptoms), and urodynamic evaluation. Outcomes included OABSS, HR-QOL score, and urodynamic parameters at the various time points.

Related article:
Is there a link between impaired mobility and urinary incontinence in elderly, community-dwelling women?

Higher dose, greater symptom improvement and higher adverse event rate

At baseline, participants (average age, 31 years) had an average (SD) OABSS of 1.7 (1.6). OnabotulinumtoxinA treatment with both a 100-U and a 200-U dose resulted in significant improvements (compared with baseline levels) in frequency, nocturia, UUI episodes, OABSS, and urodynamic parameters throughout the 9 months. At 9 months, however, the group treated with the 200-U dose had greater improvements, compared with the group who received a 100-U dose, in urinary frequency symptom scores (mean [SD], 0.32 [0.47] vs 1.1 [0.51]; P<.05), nocturia symptom scores (mean [SD], 0.13 [0.34] vs 0.36 [0.49]; P<.05), UUI symptom scores (mean [SD], 0.68 [0.16] vs 1.26 [1.1]; P<.05), and mean (SD) total OABSS (2.6 [2.31] vs 5.3 [2.11]; P<.05). Similarly, at 9 months the 200-U dose resulted in greater improvements in volume at first desire (mean [SD], 291.8 [42.8] vs 246.8 [53.8] mL; P<.05), volume at strong desire (mean [SD], 392.1 [37.3] vs 313.1 [67.4] mL; P<.05), detrusor pressure (mean [SD], 10.4 [4.0] vs 19.2 [7.8] cm H₂O; P<.05), and maximum cystometric capacity (mean [SD], 430.5 [34.2] vs 350 [69.1] mL; P<.05) compared with the 100-U dose.

Adverse events. No participant had a PVR urine volume greater than 100 mL at any follow-up visit. Postoperative hematuria occurred in 23% of the group treated with onabotulinumtoxinA 200 U versus in 15% of those treated with a 100-U dose. Similarly, UTIs occurred in 17.5% of the 200-U dose group and in 7.5% of the 100-U dose group. Dysuria was reported in 37.5% and 15% of the 200-U and 100-U dose groups, respectively.

Strengths and limitations. This randomized, open-label trial comparing a single injection of 100 U versus 200 U of onabotulinumtoxinA included mostly women. OAB symptoms and urodynamic parameters improved after treatment with both dose levels, but a longer duration of improvement was seen with the 200-U dose. The cohort had a low baseline OAB severity, based on the OABSS questionnaire, and a young average age of participants, which limits the generalizability of the study results to a population with refractory OAB. The 0% rate of clean intermittent self-catheterization postinjection might be based on the study's criteria for requiring clean intermittent catheterization. In addition, the initial postinjection visit occurred at 1 month, possibly missing participants who had symptoms of retention soon after injection.

Read: onabotulinumtoxinA vs sacral neuromodulation therapy for UUI.

Treatment with onabotulinumtoxinA may control UUI symptoms better than sacral neuromodulation therapy

Amundsen CL, Richter HE, Menefee SA, et al; Pelvic Floor Disorders Network. OnabotulinumtoxinA vs sacral neuromodulation on refractory urgency urinary incontinence in women: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2016;316(13):1366-1374.

In this multicenter open-label randomized trial, Amundsen and colleagues compared the efficacy and safety of onabotulinumtoxinA 200 U with that of sacral neuromodulation.

Details of the study

Three hundred sixty-four women with UUI had data available for primary analysis at  6 months. Women were considered eligible for the study if they had 6 or more UUI episodes on a 3-day bladder diary, persistent symptoms despite anticholinergic therapy, a PVR urine volume of less than 150 mL, and had never previously received either study treatment.

There were no differences in baseline characteristics of the participants. The average (SD) age of the study population was 63 (11.6) years, with an average (SD) daily number of UUI episodes of 5.3 (2.8). The average (SD) body mass index was 32 (8) kg/m².

Participants were randomly assigned to undergo either sacral neuromodulation (n = 174) or intradetrusor injection of onabotulinumtoxinA 200 U (n = 190). The primary outcome was change from baseline in mean number of daily UUI episodes averaged over 6 months as recorded on a monthly 3-day bladder diary. Secondary outcomes included complete resolution of urgency incontinence, 75% or more reduction in UUI episodes, the Overactive Bladder Questionnaire Short Form (SF) score (range, 0-100; higher score indicates higher symptom severity), the Overactive Bladder Satisfaction of Treatment questionnaire (range, 0-100; higher score indicates better satisfaction), other quality-of-life measures, and adverse events.

Related article:
2015 Update on pelvic floor dysfunction: Bladder pain syndrome

Greater symptom bother improvement, treatment satisfaction with onabotulinumtoxinA 200 U

Participants treated with onabotulinumtoxinA had a greater mean reduction of 3.9 UUI episodes per day than the sacral neuromodulation group's reduction of 3.3 UUI episodes per day (mean difference, 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.13-1.14; P = .01). In addition, complete UUI resolution was higher in the onabotulinumtoxinA group as compared with the sacral neuromodulation group (20% vs 4%; P<.001). The onabotulinumtoxinA group also had higher rates of 75% or more reduction of UUI episodes compared with the sacral neuromodulation group (46% vs 26%; P<.001). Over 6 months, both groups had improvements in all quality-of-life measures, but the onabotulinumtoxinA group had greater improvement in symptom bother compared with the sacral neuromodulation group (-46.7 vs -38.6; mean difference, 8.1; 95% CI, 3.0-13.3; P = .002). Furthermore, the onabotulinumtoxinA group had greater treatment satisfaction compared with the sacral neuromodulation group (mean difference, 7.8; 95% CI, 1.6-14.1; P = .01).

Adverse events. Six women (3%) underwent sacral neuromodulation device revision or removal. Approximately 8% of onabotulinumtoxinA-treated participants required intermittent self-catheterization at 1 month, 4% at 3 months, and 2% at 6 months. The risk of UTI was higher in the onabotulinumtoxinA group compared with the sacral neuromodulation group (35% vs 11%; risk difference, 23%; 95% CI, -33% to -13%; P<.001).

Strengths and limitations. This is a well-designed randomized clinical trial comparing clinical outcomes and adverse events after treatment with onabotulinumtoxinA 200-U versus sacral neuromodulation. The interventions were standardized across investigators at multiple sites, and the study design required close follow-up to assess efficacy and adverse events. The study used a 200-U dose based on reported durability of effect at that time and findings of equivalency between onabotulinumtoxinA 100 U and anticholinergic therapy. The US Food and Drug Administration's recommendation to use a 100-U dose in all patients with idiopathic OAB might dissuade clinicians from considering the higher dose of onabotulinumtoxinA. The study was limited by the lack of a placebo group.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

The International Continence Society (ICS) defines overactive bladder (OAB) as a syndrome of "urinary urgency, usually accompanied by frequency and nocturia, with or without urgency urinary incontinence (UUI), in the absence of urinary tract infection [UTI] or obvious pathology."¹ The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) reported OAB prevalence to be 15% in US women, with 11% reporting UUI.² OAB represents a significant health care burden that impacts nearly every aspect of life, including physical, emotional, and psychological domains.^3,4 The economic impact is notable; the projected cost is estimated to reach $82.6 billion annually by 2020.⁵

The American Urological Association (AUA) and the Society for Urodynamics, Female Pelvic Medicine and Urogenital Reconstruction (SUFU) have endorsed an algorithm for use in the evaluation of idiopathic OAB (FIGURE).⁶ If the patient's symptoms are certain, minimal evaluation is needed and it is reasonable to proceed with first-line therapy, which includes fluid management (decreasing caffeine intake and limiting evening fluid intake), bladder retraining drills such as timed voiding, and improving pelvic floor muscles with the use of biofeedback and functional electrical stimulation.^6,7 Pelvic floor muscle training can be facilitated with a referral to a physical therapist trained in pelvic floor muscle education.

If treatment goals are not met with first-line strategies, second-line therapy may be initiated with anticholinergic or β3-adrenergic receptor agonist medications. If symptoms persist after 4 to 8 weeks of pharmacologic therapy, clinicians are encouraged to reassess or refer the patient to a specialist. Further evaluation may include a bladder diary in which the patient documents voided volumes, voiding frequency, and number of incontinent episodes; symptom-specific questionnaires; and/or urodynamic testing.

Related article:
The latest treatments for urinary and fecal incontinence: Which hold water?

Based on that evaluation, the patient may be a candidate for third-line therapy with either intradetrusor onabotulinumtoxinA, posterior tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS), or sacral neuromodulation.

There is a paucity of information comparing third-line therapies. In this Update, we focus on 4 randomized clinical trials that compare third-line treatment options for idiopathic OAB.

Read about how anticholinergic medication and onabotulinumtoxinA compare for treating UUI.

Anticholinergic therapy and onabotulinumtoxinA produce equivalent reductions in the frequency of daily UUI episodes

Visco AG, Brubaker L, Richter HE, et al; for the Pelvic Floor Disorders Network. Anticholinergic therapy vs onabotulinumtoxinA for urgency urinary incontinence. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(19):1803-1813.

In a double-blind, double-placebo-controlled randomized trial, Visco and colleagues compared anticholinergic medication with onabotulinumtoxinA 100 U for the treatment of women with UUI.

Details of the study

Two hundred forty-one women with moderate to severe UUI received either 6 months of oral anticholinergic therapy (solifenacin 5 mg daily with the option of dose escalation to 10 mg daily or change to trospium XR 60 mg daily based on the Patient Global Symptom Control score) plus a single intradetrusor injection of saline, or a single intradetrusor injection of onabotulinumtoxinA 100 U plus a 6-month oral placebo regimen.

Inclusion criteria were 5 or more UUI episodes on a 3-day diary, insufficient resolution of symptoms after 2 medications, or being drug naive. Exclusions included a postvoid residual (PVR) urine volume greater than 150 mL or previous therapy with onabotulinumtoxinA.

Participants were scheduled for follow up every 2 to 6 months post randomization, at which time all study medications were discontinued. The primary outcome was reduction from baseline in the mean number of UUI episodes per day over the 6-month period, as recorded in the monthly 3-day bladder diaries. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of participants with complete resolution of UUI, the proportion of participants with 75% or more reduction in UUI episodes, Overactive Bladder Questionnaire Short Form (OABq-SF) scores, other symptom-specific questionnaire scores, and adverse events.

Related article:
Which treatments for pelvic floor disorders are backed by evidence?

Both treatments significantly reduced UUI episodes

At baseline, participants reported a mean (SD) of 5.0 (2.7) UUI episodes per day, and 41% of participants were drug naive. Both treatment groups experienced significant reductions compared with baseline in mean UUI episodes, and the reductions were similar between the 2 groups (reduction of 3.4 episodes per day in the anticholinergic group, reduction of 3.3 episodes in the onabotulinumtoxinA group; P = .81). Complete resolution of UUI was more common in the onabotulinumtoxinA group (27%) as compared with the anticholinergic group (13%) (P = .003). There were no differences in improvement in OABq-SF scores (37.05 in the anticholinergic group vs 37.13 in the onabotulinumtoxinA group; P = .98) or other quality-of-life measures.

Adverse events. The anticholinergic group experienced a higher rate of dry mouth compared with the onabotulinumtoxinA group (46% vs 31%; P = .02) but had lower rates of intermittent catheterization use at 2 months (0% vs 5%, P = .01) and UTIs (13% vs 33%, P<.001).

Strengths and limitations. This was a well-designed, multicenter, randomized double-blind, double placebo-controlled trial. The study design allowed for dose escalation and change to another medication for inadequate symptom control and included drug-naive participants, which increases the generalizability of the results. However, current guidelines recommend reserving onabotulinumtoxinA therapy for third-line therapy, thus deterring this treatment's use in the drug-naive population. Additionally, the lack of a pure placebo arm makes it difficult to interpret the extent to which a placebo effect contributed to observed improvements in clinical symptoms.

Read: onabotulinumtoxinA vs PTNS for OAB.

OnabotulinumtoxinA has greater 9-month durability for OAB symptoms compared with12 weeks of PTNS

Sherif H, Khalil M, Omar R. Management of refractory idiopathic overactive bladder: intradetrusor injection of botulinum toxin type A versus posterior tibial nerve stimulation. Can J Urol. 2017;24(3):8838-8846.

In this randomized clinical trial, Sherif and colleagues compared the safety and efficacy of a single intradetrusor injection of onabotulinumtoxinA 100 U with that of PTNS for OAB.

Details of the study

Sixty adult men and women with OAB who did not respond to medical therapy were randomly assigned to treatment with either onabotulinumtoxinA 100 U or PTNS. Criteria for exclusion were current UTI, PVR urine volume of more than 150 mL, previous radiation therapy or chemotherapy, previous incontinence surgery or bladder malignancy, or presence of mixed urinary incontinence.

At baseline, participants completed a 3-day bladder diary, an OAB symptom score (OABSS) questionnaire, and urodynamic testing. The OABSS questionnaire included 7 questions (scoring range, 0-28), with higher scores indicating worse symptoms, and included subscales for urgency and quality-of-life measures. Total OABSS, urgency score, quality-of-life score, bladder diary records, and urodynamic testing parameters were assessed at 6, 12, 24, and 36 weeks, along with adverse events.

OnabotulinumtoxinA injections were performed under spinal anesthesia. If PVR urine volume was greater than 200 mL at any follow-up visit, participants were instructed to begin clean intermittent self-catheterization. PTNS was administered as weekly 30-minute sessions for 12 consecutive weeks.

Participants' baseline demographics and symptoms were similar. Average age was 45 years. Averages (SD) for duration of anticholinergic use was 13 (0.8) weeks, UUI episode score was 4.5 (1) on 3-day bladder diary, and OABSS was 22 (2.7). Nine-month data were available for 29 participants in the onabotulinumtoxinA group and for 8 in the PTNS group.

Related article:
Update on pelvic floor dysfunction: Focus on urinary incontinence

OnabotulinumtoxinA treatment benefits sustained for 9 months

Through 6 months, compared with baseline assessments, both treatment groups had significant improvements in clinical symptoms and OABSS total score, as well as urgency and quality-of-life subscales. At 3 months, urodynamic study parameters were similarly improved from baseline in both groups.

At 9 months, however, only the onabotulinumtoxinA group, compared with the PTNS group, maintained the significant improvement from baseline in 3-day bladder diary voiding episodes (average [SD], 10.7 [1.01] vs 11.6 [1.09]; P = .009), 3-day bladder diary nocturia episodes (average [SD], 3.8 [1.09] vs 4.4 [0.8]; P = .02), and average [SD] UUI episodes over 3 days (3.5 [1.2] vs 4.2 [1.04]; P = .02). Similarly, onabotulinumtoxinA-treated participants, compared with those treated with PTNS, maintained improvements at 9 months in average (SD): OABSS total score (19.2 [2.4] vs 20.4 [1.7]; P = .03), urgency scores (10.9 [1.3] vs 11.8 [1.4]; P = .009), urine volume at first desire (177.8 [9.2] vs 171.8 [7.7]), maximum cystometric capacity (304 [17.6] vs 290 [13.1]), and Qmax (mL/sec) (20.7 [1.6] vs 22.2 [1.2]).

Adverse events. Average PVR urine volumes were higher in the onabotulinumtoxinA group compared with the PTNS group (36.8 [2.7] vs 32.4 [3.03]; P = .0001) at all time points, and self-catheterization was required in 6.6% of onabotulinumtoxinA-treated participants. Urinary tract infection occurred in 6.6% of participants in the onabotulinumtoxinA group and in none of the PTNS group. In the PTNS group, few experienced pain and minor bleeding at the needle site.

Strengths and limitations. This randomized, open-label trial comparing treatment with onabotulinumtoxinA 100 U and PTNS included both men and women with idiopathic OAB symptoms. The participants were assessed at regular intervals with various measures, and follow-up adherence was good. The sample size was small, so the study may not have been powered to see differences prior to 9 months.

Although at 9 months only the onabotulinumtoxinA group maintained significant improvement over baseline levels, the improvement was diminished, and therefore the clinical meaningfulness is uncertain. Further, participants in the PTNS group did not undergo monthly maintenance therapy after 3 months, which is recommended for those with a 12-week therapeutic response; this may have affected 9-month outcomes in this group. Since the one-time onabotulinumtoxinA 100 U injection was performed under spinal anesthesia, cost comparisons should be considered, since future onabotulinumtoxinA injections would be necessary. 

Read about using different doses of onabotulinumtoxinA for OAB.

OnabotulinumtoxinA 200-U injection provides longer OAB symptom  improvement than 100-U injection

Abdelwahab O, Sherif H, Soliman T, Elbarky I, Eshazly A. Efficacy of botulinum toxin type A 100 units versus 200 units for treatment of refractory idiopathic overactive bladder. Int Braz J Urol. 2015;41(6):1132-1140.

Abdelwahab and colleagues conducted a single-center, randomized clinical trial to investigate the safety and efficacy of a single injection of intradetrusor onabotulinumtoxinA in 2 different doses (100 U and 200 U) for treatment of OAB.

Details of the study

Eighty adults (63 women, 17 men) who did not benefit from anticholinergic medication during the previous 3 months were randomly assigned to receive either a 100-U (n = 40) or a 200-U (n = 40) injection of onabotulinumtoxinA. Exclusion criteria were PVR urine volume greater than 150 mL and previous radiation therapy or chemotherapy.

Initial assessments -- completed at baseline and at 1, 3, 6, and 9 months -- included the health-related quality-of-life (HR-QOL) questionnaire (maximum score, 100; higher score indicates better quality of life), an abbreviated OABSS questionnaire (4 questions; score range, 0-15; higher score indicates more severe symptoms), and urodynamic evaluation. Outcomes included OABSS, HR-QOL score, and urodynamic parameters at the various time points.

Related article:
Is there a link between impaired mobility and urinary incontinence in elderly, community-dwelling women?

Higher dose, greater symptom improvement and higher adverse event rate

At baseline, participants (average age, 31 years) had an average (SD) OABSS of 1.7 (1.6). OnabotulinumtoxinA treatment with both a 100-U and a 200-U dose resulted in significant improvements (compared with baseline levels) in frequency, nocturia, UUI episodes, OABSS, and urodynamic parameters throughout the 9 months. At 9 months, however, the group treated with the 200-U dose had greater improvements, compared with the group who received a 100-U dose, in urinary frequency symptom scores (mean [SD], 0.32 [0.47] vs 1.1 [0.51]; P<.05), nocturia symptom scores (mean [SD], 0.13 [0.34] vs 0.36 [0.49]; P<.05), UUI symptom scores (mean [SD], 0.68 [0.16] vs 1.26 [1.1]; P<.05), and mean (SD) total OABSS (2.6 [2.31] vs 5.3 [2.11]; P<.05). Similarly, at 9 months the 200-U dose resulted in greater improvements in volume at first desire (mean [SD], 291.8 [42.8] vs 246.8 [53.8] mL; P<.05), volume at strong desire (mean [SD], 392.1 [37.3] vs 313.1 [67.4] mL; P<.05), detrusor pressure (mean [SD], 10.4 [4.0] vs 19.2 [7.8] cm H₂O; P<.05), and maximum cystometric capacity (mean [SD], 430.5 [34.2] vs 350 [69.1] mL; P<.05) compared with the 100-U dose.

Adverse events. No participant had a PVR urine volume greater than 100 mL at any follow-up visit. Postoperative hematuria occurred in 23% of the group treated with onabotulinumtoxinA 200 U versus in 15% of those treated with a 100-U dose. Similarly, UTIs occurred in 17.5% of the 200-U dose group and in 7.5% of the 100-U dose group. Dysuria was reported in 37.5% and 15% of the 200-U and 100-U dose groups, respectively.

Strengths and limitations. This randomized, open-label trial comparing a single injection of 100 U versus 200 U of onabotulinumtoxinA included mostly women. OAB symptoms and urodynamic parameters improved after treatment with both dose levels, but a longer duration of improvement was seen with the 200-U dose. The cohort had a low baseline OAB severity, based on the OABSS questionnaire, and a young average age of participants, which limits the generalizability of the study results to a population with refractory OAB. The 0% rate of clean intermittent self-catheterization postinjection might be based on the study's criteria for requiring clean intermittent catheterization. In addition, the initial postinjection visit occurred at 1 month, possibly missing participants who had symptoms of retention soon after injection.

Read: onabotulinumtoxinA vs sacral neuromodulation therapy for UUI.

Treatment with onabotulinumtoxinA may control UUI symptoms better than sacral neuromodulation therapy

Amundsen CL, Richter HE, Menefee SA, et al; Pelvic Floor Disorders Network. OnabotulinumtoxinA vs sacral neuromodulation on refractory urgency urinary incontinence in women: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2016;316(13):1366-1374.

In this multicenter open-label randomized trial, Amundsen and colleagues compared the efficacy and safety of onabotulinumtoxinA 200 U with that of sacral neuromodulation.

Details of the study

Three hundred sixty-four women with UUI had data available for primary analysis at  6 months. Women were considered eligible for the study if they had 6 or more UUI episodes on a 3-day bladder diary, persistent symptoms despite anticholinergic therapy, a PVR urine volume of less than 150 mL, and had never previously received either study treatment.

There were no differences in baseline characteristics of the participants. The average (SD) age of the study population was 63 (11.6) years, with an average (SD) daily number of UUI episodes of 5.3 (2.8). The average (SD) body mass index was 32 (8) kg/m².

Participants were randomly assigned to undergo either sacral neuromodulation (n = 174) or intradetrusor injection of onabotulinumtoxinA 200 U (n = 190). The primary outcome was change from baseline in mean number of daily UUI episodes averaged over 6 months as recorded on a monthly 3-day bladder diary. Secondary outcomes included complete resolution of urgency incontinence, 75% or more reduction in UUI episodes, the Overactive Bladder Questionnaire Short Form (SF) score (range, 0-100; higher score indicates higher symptom severity), the Overactive Bladder Satisfaction of Treatment questionnaire (range, 0-100; higher score indicates better satisfaction), other quality-of-life measures, and adverse events.

Related article:
2015 Update on pelvic floor dysfunction: Bladder pain syndrome

Greater symptom bother improvement, treatment satisfaction with onabotulinumtoxinA 200 U

Participants treated with onabotulinumtoxinA had a greater mean reduction of 3.9 UUI episodes per day than the sacral neuromodulation group's reduction of 3.3 UUI episodes per day (mean difference, 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.13-1.14; P = .01). In addition, complete UUI resolution was higher in the onabotulinumtoxinA group as compared with the sacral neuromodulation group (20% vs 4%; P<.001). The onabotulinumtoxinA group also had higher rates of 75% or more reduction of UUI episodes compared with the sacral neuromodulation group (46% vs 26%; P<.001). Over 6 months, both groups had improvements in all quality-of-life measures, but the onabotulinumtoxinA group had greater improvement in symptom bother compared with the sacral neuromodulation group (-46.7 vs -38.6; mean difference, 8.1; 95% CI, 3.0-13.3; P = .002). Furthermore, the onabotulinumtoxinA group had greater treatment satisfaction compared with the sacral neuromodulation group (mean difference, 7.8; 95% CI, 1.6-14.1; P = .01).

Adverse events. Six women (3%) underwent sacral neuromodulation device revision or removal. Approximately 8% of onabotulinumtoxinA-treated participants required intermittent self-catheterization at 1 month, 4% at 3 months, and 2% at 6 months. The risk of UTI was higher in the onabotulinumtoxinA group compared with the sacral neuromodulation group (35% vs 11%; risk difference, 23%; 95% CI, -33% to -13%; P<.001).

Strengths and limitations. This is a well-designed randomized clinical trial comparing clinical outcomes and adverse events after treatment with onabotulinumtoxinA 200-U versus sacral neuromodulation. The interventions were standardized across investigators at multiple sites, and the study design required close follow-up to assess efficacy and adverse events. The study used a 200-U dose based on reported durability of effect at that time and findings of equivalency between onabotulinumtoxinA 100 U and anticholinergic therapy. The US Food and Drug Administration's recommendation to use a 100-U dose in all patients with idiopathic OAB might dissuade clinicians from considering the higher dose of onabotulinumtoxinA. The study was limited by the lack of a placebo group.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

As the population of patients with limited English proficiency increases throughout English-speaking countries, health care providers often need translator services. Medical translator smartphone applications (apps) are useful tools that can provide ad hoc translator services.

According to the US Census Bureau in 2015, more than 60 million individuals — about 19% of Americans — reported speaking a language other than English at home, and more than 25 million said that they speak English “less than very well.”^1,2 The top 5 non-English languages spoken at home were Spanish, French, Chinese, Tagalog, and Vietnamese, encompassing 72% of non-English speakers.

In the health care sector, translator services are essential for providing accurate and culturally competent care. Current options for translator services include face-to-face interpreters, phone-based translator services, and translator apps on mobile devices. In settings where face-to-face interpreters or phone-based translator services are not available, translator apps may provide reasonable alternatives. My colleagues, Dr. Amrin Khander and Dr. Sara Farag, and I identified and evaluated medical translator apps that are available from the Apple iTunes and Google Play stores to aid clinicians in using such apps during clinical encounters.³

Three types of translator apps

Preset medical phrase translator apps require the user to search for or find a question or statement in order to facilitate a conversation. With these types of apps, a health care provider can choose fully conjugated sentences, which then can be played or read back to the patient in the chosen translated language. Within this group of apps, Canopy Speak and Universal Doctor Speaker are highly accessible, since both apps are available from the Apple iTunes and Google Play stores and both are free.

Medical dictionary apps require the user to search for a medical term in one language to receive a translation in another language. These apps are less useful, but they can help providers find and define specific terms in a given language.

General language translator apps require the user to enter a term, statement, or question in one language and then provide a translation in another language. Google Translate and Vocre Translate are examples.

The top recommended translator apps are listed in the TABLE alphabetically and are detailed with a shortened version of the APPLICATIONS scoring system, APPLI (app comprehensiveness, price, platform, literature use, and important special features).⁴ I hope the apps described here will help you enhance communication with your patients who have limited English proficiency.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

As the population of patients with limited English proficiency increases throughout English-speaking countries, health care providers often need translator services. Medical translator smartphone applications (apps) are useful tools that can provide ad hoc translator services.

According to the US Census Bureau in 2015, more than 60 million individuals — about 19% of Americans — reported speaking a language other than English at home, and more than 25 million said that they speak English “less than very well.”^1,2 The top 5 non-English languages spoken at home were Spanish, French, Chinese, Tagalog, and Vietnamese, encompassing 72% of non-English speakers.

In the health care sector, translator services are essential for providing accurate and culturally competent care. Current options for translator services include face-to-face interpreters, phone-based translator services, and translator apps on mobile devices. In settings where face-to-face interpreters or phone-based translator services are not available, translator apps may provide reasonable alternatives. My colleagues, Dr. Amrin Khander and Dr. Sara Farag, and I identified and evaluated medical translator apps that are available from the Apple iTunes and Google Play stores to aid clinicians in using such apps during clinical encounters.³

Three types of translator apps

Preset medical phrase translator apps require the user to search for or find a question or statement in order to facilitate a conversation. With these types of apps, a health care provider can choose fully conjugated sentences, which then can be played or read back to the patient in the chosen translated language. Within this group of apps, Canopy Speak and Universal Doctor Speaker are highly accessible, since both apps are available from the Apple iTunes and Google Play stores and both are free.

Medical dictionary apps require the user to search for a medical term in one language to receive a translation in another language. These apps are less useful, but they can help providers find and define specific terms in a given language.

General language translator apps require the user to enter a term, statement, or question in one language and then provide a translation in another language. Google Translate and Vocre Translate are examples.

The top recommended translator apps are listed in the TABLE alphabetically and are detailed with a shortened version of the APPLICATIONS scoring system, APPLI (app comprehensiveness, price, platform, literature use, and important special features).⁴ I hope the apps described here will help you enhance communication with your patients who have limited English proficiency.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

As the population of patients with limited English proficiency increases throughout English-speaking countries, health care providers often need translator services. Medical translator smartphone applications (apps) are useful tools that can provide ad hoc translator services.

According to the US Census Bureau in 2015, more than 60 million individuals — about 19% of Americans — reported speaking a language other than English at home, and more than 25 million said that they speak English “less than very well.”^1,2 The top 5 non-English languages spoken at home were Spanish, French, Chinese, Tagalog, and Vietnamese, encompassing 72% of non-English speakers.

In the health care sector, translator services are essential for providing accurate and culturally competent care. Current options for translator services include face-to-face interpreters, phone-based translator services, and translator apps on mobile devices. In settings where face-to-face interpreters or phone-based translator services are not available, translator apps may provide reasonable alternatives. My colleagues, Dr. Amrin Khander and Dr. Sara Farag, and I identified and evaluated medical translator apps that are available from the Apple iTunes and Google Play stores to aid clinicians in using such apps during clinical encounters.³

Three types of translator apps

Preset medical phrase translator apps require the user to search for or find a question or statement in order to facilitate a conversation. With these types of apps, a health care provider can choose fully conjugated sentences, which then can be played or read back to the patient in the chosen translated language. Within this group of apps, Canopy Speak and Universal Doctor Speaker are highly accessible, since both apps are available from the Apple iTunes and Google Play stores and both are free.

Medical dictionary apps require the user to search for a medical term in one language to receive a translation in another language. These apps are less useful, but they can help providers find and define specific terms in a given language.

General language translator apps require the user to enter a term, statement, or question in one language and then provide a translation in another language. Google Translate and Vocre Translate are examples.

The top recommended translator apps are listed in the TABLE alphabetically and are detailed with a shortened version of the APPLICATIONS scoring system, APPLI (app comprehensiveness, price, platform, literature use, and important special features).⁴ I hope the apps described here will help you enhance communication with your patients who have limited English proficiency.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

MY STORY: Prologue

My aunt received a breast cancer diagnosis at age 40, and she died at age 60, in 1970. Then, in 1975, my mother’s breast cancer was found at age 55, but only after she was examined for nipple retraction; on mammography, the cancer had been obscured by dense breast tissue. Mom had 2 metastatic nodes but participated in the earliest clinical trials of chemotherapy and lived free of breast cancer for another 41 years. Naturally I thought that, were I to develop this disease, I would want it found earlier. Ironically, it was, but only because I had spent my career trying to understand the optimal screening approaches for women with dense breasts—women like me.

Cancers are masked on mammography in dense breasts

For women, screening mammography is an important step in reducing the risk of dying from breast cancer. The greatest benefits are realized by those who start annual screening at age 40, or 45 at the latest.¹ As it takes 9 to 10 years to see a benefit from breast cancer screening at the population level, it is not logical to continue this testing when life expectancy is less than 10 years, as is the case with women age 85 or older, even those in the healthiest quartile.^2–4 However, despite recent advances, the development of 3D mammography (tomosynthesis) (FIGURE 1) in particular, cancers can still be masked by dense breast tissue. Both 2D and 3D mammograms are x-rays; both dense tissue and cancers absorb x-rays and appear white.

Breast density is determined on mammography and is categorized as fatty, scattered fibroglandular, heterogeneously dense, or extremely dense (FIGURE 2).⁵ Tissue in the heterogeneous and extreme categories is considered dense. More than half of women in their 40s have dense breasts; with some fatty involution occurring around menopause, the proportion drops to 25% for women in their 60s.⁶ About half of breast cancers have calcifications, which on mammography are usually easily visible even in dense breasts. The problem is with noncalcified invasive cancers that can be hidden by dense tissue (FIGURE 3).

3D mammography improves cancer detection but is of minimal benefit in extremely dense breasts

Although 3D mammography improves cancer detection in most women, any benefit is minimal in women with extremely dense breasts, as there is no inherent soft-tissue contrast.⁷ Masked cancers are often only discovered because of a lump after a normal screening mammogram, as so-called “interval cancers.” Compared with screen-detected cancers, interval cancers tend to be more biologically aggressive, to have spread to lymph nodes, and to have worse prognoses. However, even some small screen-detected cancers are biologically aggressive and can spread to lymph nodes quickly, and no screening test or combination of screening tests can prevent this occurrence completely, regardless of breast density.

Related article:
Get smart about dense breasts

ILLUSTRATION: KIMBERLY MARTENS FOR OBG MANAGEMENT/COURTESY OF WENDIE A. BERG, MD, PHD

MRI provides early detection across all breast densities

In all tissue densities, contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is far better than mammography in detecting breast cancer.⁸ Women at high risk for breast cancer caused by mutations in BRCA1, BRCA2, p53, and other genes have poor outcomes with screening mammography alone—up to 50% of cancers are interval cancers. Annual screening MRI reduces this percentage significantly, to 11% in women with pathogenic BRCA1 mutations and to 4% in women with BRCA2 mutations.⁹ Warner and colleagues found a decrease in late-stage cancers in high-risk women who underwent annual MRI screenings compared to high-risk women unable to have MRI.¹⁰

The use of MRI for screening is limited by availability, patient tolerance,¹¹ and high cost. Research is being conducted to further validate approaches using shortened screening MRI times (so-called “abbreviated” or “fast” MRI) and, thereby, improve access, tolerance, and reduce associated costs; several investigators already have reported promising results, and a few centers offer this modality directly to patients willing to pay $300 to $350 out of pocket.^12,13 Even in normal-risk women, MRI significantly increases detection of early breast cancer after a normal mammogram and ultrasound, and the cancer detection benefit of MRI is seen across all breast densities.¹⁴

Most health insurance plans cover screening MRI only for women who meet defined risk criteria, including women who have a known disease-causing mutation—or are suspected of having one, given a family history of breast cancer with higher than 20% to 25% lifetime risk by a model that predicts mutation carrier status—as well as women who had chest radiation therapy before age 30, typically for Hodgkin lymphoma, and at least 8 years earlier.¹⁵ In addition, MRI can be considered in women with atypical breast biopsy results or a personal history of lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS).¹⁶

Screening MRI should start by age 25 in women with disease-causing mutations, or at the time of atypical or LCIS biopsy results, and should be performed annually unless the woman is pregnant or has a metallic implant, renal insufficiency, or another contraindication to MRI. MRI can be beneficial in women with a personal history of cancer, although annual mammography remains the standard of care.^17–19

MRI and mammography can be performed at the same time or on an alternating 6-month basis, with mammography usually starting only after age 30 because of the small risk that radiation poses for younger women. There are a few other impediments to having breast MRI: The woman must lie on her stomach within a confined space (tunnel), the contrast that is injected may not be well tolerated, and insurance does not cover the test for women who do not meet the defined risk criteria.¹¹

Read why mammography supplemented by US is best for women with dense breasts.

Ultrasonography supplements mammography

Mammography supplemented with ultrasonography (US) has been studied as a “Goldilocks” or best-fit solution for the screening of women with dense breasts, as detection of invasive cancers is improved with the 2 modalities over mammography alone, and US is less invasive, better tolerated, and lower in cost than the more sensitive MRI.

In women with dense breasts, US has been found to improve cancer detection over mammography alone, and early results suggest a larger cancer detection benefit from US than from 3D mammography, although research is ongoing.²⁰ Adding US reduces the interval cancer rate in women with dense breasts to less than 10% of all cancers found—similar to results for women with fatty breasts.^17,21,22

US can be performed by a trained technologist or a physician using a small transducer, which usually provides diagnostic images (so that most callbacks would be for a true finding), or a larger transducer and an automated system can be used to create more than a thousand images for radiologist review.^23,24 Use of a hybrid system, a small transducer with an automated arm, has been validated as well.²⁵ Screening US is not available universally, and with all these approaches optimal performance requires trained personnel. Supplemental screening US usually is covered by insurance but is nearly always subject to a deductible/copay.

Related article:
Educate patients about dense breasts and cancer risk

Reducing false-positives, callbacks, and additional testing

Mammography carries a risk of false-positives. On average, 11% to 12% of women are called back for additional testing after a screening mammogram, and in more than 95% of women brought back for extra testing, no cancer is found.²⁶ Women with dense breasts are more likely than those with less dense breasts to be called back.²⁷ US and MRI improve cancer detection and therefore yield additional positive, but also false-positive, findings. Notably, callbacks decrease after the first round of screening with any modality or combination of tests, as long as prior examinations are available for comparison.

One advantage of 3D over 2D mammography is a decrease in extra testing for areas of asymmetry, which are often recognizable on 3D mammography as representing normal superimposed tissue.^28–30 Architectural distortion, which is better seen on 3D mammography and usually represents either cancer or a benign radial scar, can lead to false-positive biopsies, although the average biopsy rate is no higher for 3D than for 2D alone.³¹ Typically, the 3D and 2D examinations are performed together (slightly more than doubling the radiation dose), or synthetic 2D images can be created from the 3D slices (resulting in a total radiation dose almost the same as standard 2D alone).

Most additional cancers seen on 3D mammography or US are lower-grade invasive cancers with good prognoses. Some aggressive high-grade breast cancers go undetected even when mammography is supplemented with US, either because they are too small to be seen or because they resemble common benign masses and may not be recognized. MRI is particularly effective in depicting high-grade cancers, even small ones.

The TABLE summarizes the relative rates of cancer detection and additional testing by various breast screening tests or combinations of tests. Neither clinical breast examination by a physician or other health care professional nor routine breast self-examination reduces the number of deaths caused by breast cancer. Nevertheless, women should monitor any changes in their breasts and report these changes to their clinician. A new lump, skin or nipple retraction, or a spontaneous clear or bloody nipple discharge merits diagnostic breast imaging even if a recent screening mammogram was normal.

Read how to take advantage of today’s technology for breast density screening

MY STORY: Epilogue

My annual 3D mammograms were normal, even the year my cancer was present. In 2014, I entered my family history into the IBIS Breast Cancer Risk Evaluation Tool (Tyrer-Cuzick model of breast cancer risk) (http://www.ems-trials.org/riskevaluator/) and calculated my lifetime risk at 19.7%. That is when I decided to have a screening MRI. My invasive breast cancer was easily seen on MRI and then on US. The cancer was node-negative, easily confirmed with needle biopsy, and treated with lumpectomy and radiation. There was no need for chemotherapy.

My personal experience prompted me to join JoAnn Pushkin and Cindy Henke-Sarmento, RT(R)(M), BA, in developing a website, www.DenseBreast-info.org, to give women and their physicians easy access to information on making decisions about screening in dense breasts.

My colleagues and I are often asked what is the best way to order supplemental imaging for a patient who may have dense breasts. Even in cases in which a mammogram does not exist or is unavailable, the following prescription can be implemented easily at centers that offer US: “2D plus 3D mammogram if available; if dense, perform ultrasound as needed.”

Related article:
DenseBreast-info.org: What this resource can offer you, and your patients

Breast density screening: Take advantage of today’s technology

Breast screening and diagnostic imaging have improved significantly since the 1970s, when many of the randomized trials of mammography were conducted. Breast density is one of the most common and important risk factors for development of breast cancer and is now incorporated into the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium model (https://tools.bcsc-scc.org/BC5yearRisk/calculator.htm) and the Tyrer-Cuzick model (see also http://densebreast-info.org/explanation-of-dense-breast-risk-models.aspx).³² Although we continue to validate newer approaches, women should take advantage of the improved methods of early cancer detection, particularly if they have dense breasts or are at high risk for breast cancer.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

MY STORY: Prologue

My aunt received a breast cancer diagnosis at age 40, and she died at age 60, in 1970. Then, in 1975, my mother’s breast cancer was found at age 55, but only after she was examined for nipple retraction; on mammography, the cancer had been obscured by dense breast tissue. Mom had 2 metastatic nodes but participated in the earliest clinical trials of chemotherapy and lived free of breast cancer for another 41 years. Naturally I thought that, were I to develop this disease, I would want it found earlier. Ironically, it was, but only because I had spent my career trying to understand the optimal screening approaches for women with dense breasts—women like me.

Cancers are masked on mammography in dense breasts

For women, screening mammography is an important step in reducing the risk of dying from breast cancer. The greatest benefits are realized by those who start annual screening at age 40, or 45 at the latest.¹ As it takes 9 to 10 years to see a benefit from breast cancer screening at the population level, it is not logical to continue this testing when life expectancy is less than 10 years, as is the case with women age 85 or older, even those in the healthiest quartile.^2–4 However, despite recent advances, the development of 3D mammography (tomosynthesis) (FIGURE 1) in particular, cancers can still be masked by dense breast tissue. Both 2D and 3D mammograms are x-rays; both dense tissue and cancers absorb x-rays and appear white.

Breast density is determined on mammography and is categorized as fatty, scattered fibroglandular, heterogeneously dense, or extremely dense (FIGURE 2).⁵ Tissue in the heterogeneous and extreme categories is considered dense. More than half of women in their 40s have dense breasts; with some fatty involution occurring around menopause, the proportion drops to 25% for women in their 60s.⁶ About half of breast cancers have calcifications, which on mammography are usually easily visible even in dense breasts. The problem is with noncalcified invasive cancers that can be hidden by dense tissue (FIGURE 3).

3D mammography improves cancer detection but is of minimal benefit in extremely dense breasts

Although 3D mammography improves cancer detection in most women, any benefit is minimal in women with extremely dense breasts, as there is no inherent soft-tissue contrast.⁷ Masked cancers are often only discovered because of a lump after a normal screening mammogram, as so-called “interval cancers.” Compared with screen-detected cancers, interval cancers tend to be more biologically aggressive, to have spread to lymph nodes, and to have worse prognoses. However, even some small screen-detected cancers are biologically aggressive and can spread to lymph nodes quickly, and no screening test or combination of screening tests can prevent this occurrence completely, regardless of breast density.

Related article:
Get smart about dense breasts

ILLUSTRATION: KIMBERLY MARTENS FOR OBG MANAGEMENT/COURTESY OF WENDIE A. BERG, MD, PHD

MRI provides early detection across all breast densities

In all tissue densities, contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is far better than mammography in detecting breast cancer.⁸ Women at high risk for breast cancer caused by mutations in BRCA1, BRCA2, p53, and other genes have poor outcomes with screening mammography alone—up to 50% of cancers are interval cancers. Annual screening MRI reduces this percentage significantly, to 11% in women with pathogenic BRCA1 mutations and to 4% in women with BRCA2 mutations.⁹ Warner and colleagues found a decrease in late-stage cancers in high-risk women who underwent annual MRI screenings compared to high-risk women unable to have MRI.¹⁰

The use of MRI for screening is limited by availability, patient tolerance,¹¹ and high cost. Research is being conducted to further validate approaches using shortened screening MRI times (so-called “abbreviated” or “fast” MRI) and, thereby, improve access, tolerance, and reduce associated costs; several investigators already have reported promising results, and a few centers offer this modality directly to patients willing to pay $300 to $350 out of pocket.^12,13 Even in normal-risk women, MRI significantly increases detection of early breast cancer after a normal mammogram and ultrasound, and the cancer detection benefit of MRI is seen across all breast densities.¹⁴

Most health insurance plans cover screening MRI only for women who meet defined risk criteria, including women who have a known disease-causing mutation—or are suspected of having one, given a family history of breast cancer with higher than 20% to 25% lifetime risk by a model that predicts mutation carrier status—as well as women who had chest radiation therapy before age 30, typically for Hodgkin lymphoma, and at least 8 years earlier.¹⁵ In addition, MRI can be considered in women with atypical breast biopsy results or a personal history of lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS).¹⁶

Screening MRI should start by age 25 in women with disease-causing mutations, or at the time of atypical or LCIS biopsy results, and should be performed annually unless the woman is pregnant or has a metallic implant, renal insufficiency, or another contraindication to MRI. MRI can be beneficial in women with a personal history of cancer, although annual mammography remains the standard of care.^17–19

MRI and mammography can be performed at the same time or on an alternating 6-month basis, with mammography usually starting only after age 30 because of the small risk that radiation poses for younger women. There are a few other impediments to having breast MRI: The woman must lie on her stomach within a confined space (tunnel), the contrast that is injected may not be well tolerated, and insurance does not cover the test for women who do not meet the defined risk criteria.¹¹

Read why mammography supplemented by US is best for women with dense breasts.

Ultrasonography supplements mammography

Mammography supplemented with ultrasonography (US) has been studied as a “Goldilocks” or best-fit solution for the screening of women with dense breasts, as detection of invasive cancers is improved with the 2 modalities over mammography alone, and US is less invasive, better tolerated, and lower in cost than the more sensitive MRI.

In women with dense breasts, US has been found to improve cancer detection over mammography alone, and early results suggest a larger cancer detection benefit from US than from 3D mammography, although research is ongoing.²⁰ Adding US reduces the interval cancer rate in women with dense breasts to less than 10% of all cancers found—similar to results for women with fatty breasts.^17,21,22

US can be performed by a trained technologist or a physician using a small transducer, which usually provides diagnostic images (so that most callbacks would be for a true finding), or a larger transducer and an automated system can be used to create more than a thousand images for radiologist review.^23,24 Use of a hybrid system, a small transducer with an automated arm, has been validated as well.²⁵ Screening US is not available universally, and with all these approaches optimal performance requires trained personnel. Supplemental screening US usually is covered by insurance but is nearly always subject to a deductible/copay.

Related article:
Educate patients about dense breasts and cancer risk

Reducing false-positives, callbacks, and additional testing

Mammography carries a risk of false-positives. On average, 11% to 12% of women are called back for additional testing after a screening mammogram, and in more than 95% of women brought back for extra testing, no cancer is found.²⁶ Women with dense breasts are more likely than those with less dense breasts to be called back.²⁷ US and MRI improve cancer detection and therefore yield additional positive, but also false-positive, findings. Notably, callbacks decrease after the first round of screening with any modality or combination of tests, as long as prior examinations are available for comparison.

One advantage of 3D over 2D mammography is a decrease in extra testing for areas of asymmetry, which are often recognizable on 3D mammography as representing normal superimposed tissue.^28–30 Architectural distortion, which is better seen on 3D mammography and usually represents either cancer or a benign radial scar, can lead to false-positive biopsies, although the average biopsy rate is no higher for 3D than for 2D alone.³¹ Typically, the 3D and 2D examinations are performed together (slightly more than doubling the radiation dose), or synthetic 2D images can be created from the 3D slices (resulting in a total radiation dose almost the same as standard 2D alone).

Most additional cancers seen on 3D mammography or US are lower-grade invasive cancers with good prognoses. Some aggressive high-grade breast cancers go undetected even when mammography is supplemented with US, either because they are too small to be seen or because they resemble common benign masses and may not be recognized. MRI is particularly effective in depicting high-grade cancers, even small ones.

The TABLE summarizes the relative rates of cancer detection and additional testing by various breast screening tests or combinations of tests. Neither clinical breast examination by a physician or other health care professional nor routine breast self-examination reduces the number of deaths caused by breast cancer. Nevertheless, women should monitor any changes in their breasts and report these changes to their clinician. A new lump, skin or nipple retraction, or a spontaneous clear or bloody nipple discharge merits diagnostic breast imaging even if a recent screening mammogram was normal.

Read how to take advantage of today’s technology for breast density screening

MY STORY: Epilogue

My annual 3D mammograms were normal, even the year my cancer was present. In 2014, I entered my family history into the IBIS Breast Cancer Risk Evaluation Tool (Tyrer-Cuzick model of breast cancer risk) (http://www.ems-trials.org/riskevaluator/) and calculated my lifetime risk at 19.7%. That is when I decided to have a screening MRI. My invasive breast cancer was easily seen on MRI and then on US. The cancer was node-negative, easily confirmed with needle biopsy, and treated with lumpectomy and radiation. There was no need for chemotherapy.

My personal experience prompted me to join JoAnn Pushkin and Cindy Henke-Sarmento, RT(R)(M), BA, in developing a website, www.DenseBreast-info.org, to give women and their physicians easy access to information on making decisions about screening in dense breasts.

My colleagues and I are often asked what is the best way to order supplemental imaging for a patient who may have dense breasts. Even in cases in which a mammogram does not exist or is unavailable, the following prescription can be implemented easily at centers that offer US: “2D plus 3D mammogram if available; if dense, perform ultrasound as needed.”

Related article:
DenseBreast-info.org: What this resource can offer you, and your patients

Breast density screening: Take advantage of today’s technology

Breast screening and diagnostic imaging have improved significantly since the 1970s, when many of the randomized trials of mammography were conducted. Breast density is one of the most common and important risk factors for development of breast cancer and is now incorporated into the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium model (https://tools.bcsc-scc.org/BC5yearRisk/calculator.htm) and the Tyrer-Cuzick model (see also http://densebreast-info.org/explanation-of-dense-breast-risk-models.aspx).³² Although we continue to validate newer approaches, women should take advantage of the improved methods of early cancer detection, particularly if they have dense breasts or are at high risk for breast cancer.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

MY STORY: Prologue

My aunt received a breast cancer diagnosis at age 40, and she died at age 60, in 1970. Then, in 1975, my mother’s breast cancer was found at age 55, but only after she was examined for nipple retraction; on mammography, the cancer had been obscured by dense breast tissue. Mom had 2 metastatic nodes but participated in the earliest clinical trials of chemotherapy and lived free of breast cancer for another 41 years. Naturally I thought that, were I to develop this disease, I would want it found earlier. Ironically, it was, but only because I had spent my career trying to understand the optimal screening approaches for women with dense breasts—women like me.

Cancers are masked on mammography in dense breasts

For women, screening mammography is an important step in reducing the risk of dying from breast cancer. The greatest benefits are realized by those who start annual screening at age 40, or 45 at the latest.¹ As it takes 9 to 10 years to see a benefit from breast cancer screening at the population level, it is not logical to continue this testing when life expectancy is less than 10 years, as is the case with women age 85 or older, even those in the healthiest quartile.^2–4 However, despite recent advances, the development of 3D mammography (tomosynthesis) (FIGURE 1) in particular, cancers can still be masked by dense breast tissue. Both 2D and 3D mammograms are x-rays; both dense tissue and cancers absorb x-rays and appear white.

Breast density is determined on mammography and is categorized as fatty, scattered fibroglandular, heterogeneously dense, or extremely dense (FIGURE 2).⁵ Tissue in the heterogeneous and extreme categories is considered dense. More than half of women in their 40s have dense breasts; with some fatty involution occurring around menopause, the proportion drops to 25% for women in their 60s.⁶ About half of breast cancers have calcifications, which on mammography are usually easily visible even in dense breasts. The problem is with noncalcified invasive cancers that can be hidden by dense tissue (FIGURE 3).

3D mammography improves cancer detection but is of minimal benefit in extremely dense breasts

Although 3D mammography improves cancer detection in most women, any benefit is minimal in women with extremely dense breasts, as there is no inherent soft-tissue contrast.⁷ Masked cancers are often only discovered because of a lump after a normal screening mammogram, as so-called “interval cancers.” Compared with screen-detected cancers, interval cancers tend to be more biologically aggressive, to have spread to lymph nodes, and to have worse prognoses. However, even some small screen-detected cancers are biologically aggressive and can spread to lymph nodes quickly, and no screening test or combination of screening tests can prevent this occurrence completely, regardless of breast density.

Related article:
Get smart about dense breasts

ILLUSTRATION: KIMBERLY MARTENS FOR OBG MANAGEMENT/COURTESY OF WENDIE A. BERG, MD, PHD

MRI provides early detection across all breast densities

In all tissue densities, contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is far better than mammography in detecting breast cancer.⁸ Women at high risk for breast cancer caused by mutations in BRCA1, BRCA2, p53, and other genes have poor outcomes with screening mammography alone—up to 50% of cancers are interval cancers. Annual screening MRI reduces this percentage significantly, to 11% in women with pathogenic BRCA1 mutations and to 4% in women with BRCA2 mutations.⁹ Warner and colleagues found a decrease in late-stage cancers in high-risk women who underwent annual MRI screenings compared to high-risk women unable to have MRI.¹⁰

The use of MRI for screening is limited by availability, patient tolerance,¹¹ and high cost. Research is being conducted to further validate approaches using shortened screening MRI times (so-called “abbreviated” or “fast” MRI) and, thereby, improve access, tolerance, and reduce associated costs; several investigators already have reported promising results, and a few centers offer this modality directly to patients willing to pay $300 to $350 out of pocket.^12,13 Even in normal-risk women, MRI significantly increases detection of early breast cancer after a normal mammogram and ultrasound, and the cancer detection benefit of MRI is seen across all breast densities.¹⁴

Most health insurance plans cover screening MRI only for women who meet defined risk criteria, including women who have a known disease-causing mutation—or are suspected of having one, given a family history of breast cancer with higher than 20% to 25% lifetime risk by a model that predicts mutation carrier status—as well as women who had chest radiation therapy before age 30, typically for Hodgkin lymphoma, and at least 8 years earlier.¹⁵ In addition, MRI can be considered in women with atypical breast biopsy results or a personal history of lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS).¹⁶

Screening MRI should start by age 25 in women with disease-causing mutations, or at the time of atypical or LCIS biopsy results, and should be performed annually unless the woman is pregnant or has a metallic implant, renal insufficiency, or another contraindication to MRI. MRI can be beneficial in women with a personal history of cancer, although annual mammography remains the standard of care.^17–19

MRI and mammography can be performed at the same time or on an alternating 6-month basis, with mammography usually starting only after age 30 because of the small risk that radiation poses for younger women. There are a few other impediments to having breast MRI: The woman must lie on her stomach within a confined space (tunnel), the contrast that is injected may not be well tolerated, and insurance does not cover the test for women who do not meet the defined risk criteria.¹¹

Read why mammography supplemented by US is best for women with dense breasts.

Ultrasonography supplements mammography

Mammography supplemented with ultrasonography (US) has been studied as a “Goldilocks” or best-fit solution for the screening of women with dense breasts, as detection of invasive cancers is improved with the 2 modalities over mammography alone, and US is less invasive, better tolerated, and lower in cost than the more sensitive MRI.

In women with dense breasts, US has been found to improve cancer detection over mammography alone, and early results suggest a larger cancer detection benefit from US than from 3D mammography, although research is ongoing.²⁰ Adding US reduces the interval cancer rate in women with dense breasts to less than 10% of all cancers found—similar to results for women with fatty breasts.^17,21,22

US can be performed by a trained technologist or a physician using a small transducer, which usually provides diagnostic images (so that most callbacks would be for a true finding), or a larger transducer and an automated system can be used to create more than a thousand images for radiologist review.^23,24 Use of a hybrid system, a small transducer with an automated arm, has been validated as well.²⁵ Screening US is not available universally, and with all these approaches optimal performance requires trained personnel. Supplemental screening US usually is covered by insurance but is nearly always subject to a deductible/copay.

Related article:
Educate patients about dense breasts and cancer risk

Reducing false-positives, callbacks, and additional testing

Mammography carries a risk of false-positives. On average, 11% to 12% of women are called back for additional testing after a screening mammogram, and in more than 95% of women brought back for extra testing, no cancer is found.²⁶ Women with dense breasts are more likely than those with less dense breasts to be called back.²⁷ US and MRI improve cancer detection and therefore yield additional positive, but also false-positive, findings. Notably, callbacks decrease after the first round of screening with any modality or combination of tests, as long as prior examinations are available for comparison.

One advantage of 3D over 2D mammography is a decrease in extra testing for areas of asymmetry, which are often recognizable on 3D mammography as representing normal superimposed tissue.^28–30 Architectural distortion, which is better seen on 3D mammography and usually represents either cancer or a benign radial scar, can lead to false-positive biopsies, although the average biopsy rate is no higher for 3D than for 2D alone.³¹ Typically, the 3D and 2D examinations are performed together (slightly more than doubling the radiation dose), or synthetic 2D images can be created from the 3D slices (resulting in a total radiation dose almost the same as standard 2D alone).

Most additional cancers seen on 3D mammography or US are lower-grade invasive cancers with good prognoses. Some aggressive high-grade breast cancers go undetected even when mammography is supplemented with US, either because they are too small to be seen or because they resemble common benign masses and may not be recognized. MRI is particularly effective in depicting high-grade cancers, even small ones.

The TABLE summarizes the relative rates of cancer detection and additional testing by various breast screening tests or combinations of tests. Neither clinical breast examination by a physician or other health care professional nor routine breast self-examination reduces the number of deaths caused by breast cancer. Nevertheless, women should monitor any changes in their breasts and report these changes to their clinician. A new lump, skin or nipple retraction, or a spontaneous clear or bloody nipple discharge merits diagnostic breast imaging even if a recent screening mammogram was normal.

Read how to take advantage of today’s technology for breast density screening

MY STORY: Epilogue

My annual 3D mammograms were normal, even the year my cancer was present. In 2014, I entered my family history into the IBIS Breast Cancer Risk Evaluation Tool (Tyrer-Cuzick model of breast cancer risk) (http://www.ems-trials.org/riskevaluator/) and calculated my lifetime risk at 19.7%. That is when I decided to have a screening MRI. My invasive breast cancer was easily seen on MRI and then on US. The cancer was node-negative, easily confirmed with needle biopsy, and treated with lumpectomy and radiation. There was no need for chemotherapy.

My personal experience prompted me to join JoAnn Pushkin and Cindy Henke-Sarmento, RT(R)(M), BA, in developing a website, www.DenseBreast-info.org, to give women and their physicians easy access to information on making decisions about screening in dense breasts.

My colleagues and I are often asked what is the best way to order supplemental imaging for a patient who may have dense breasts. Even in cases in which a mammogram does not exist or is unavailable, the following prescription can be implemented easily at centers that offer US: “2D plus 3D mammogram if available; if dense, perform ultrasound as needed.”

Related article:
DenseBreast-info.org: What this resource can offer you, and your patients

Breast density screening: Take advantage of today’s technology

Breast screening and diagnostic imaging have improved significantly since the 1970s, when many of the randomized trials of mammography were conducted. Breast density is one of the most common and important risk factors for development of breast cancer and is now incorporated into the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium model (https://tools.bcsc-scc.org/BC5yearRisk/calculator.htm) and the Tyrer-Cuzick model (see also http://densebreast-info.org/explanation-of-dense-breast-risk-models.aspx).³² Although we continue to validate newer approaches, women should take advantage of the improved methods of early cancer detection, particularly if they have dense breasts or are at high risk for breast cancer.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

Woman dies following cervical cone biopsy: $4.25M award  

A 46-year-old woman underwent a cervical cone biopsy at a Veterans Administration (VA) hospital on July 18. Following the test, significant bleeding occurred. The gynecologic surgeon attempted to control the hemorrhage by injecting ferric subsulfate (Monsel’s) solution into the patient’s vagina. The bleeding abated, but the patient went into hypovolemic shock. During emergency laparotomy, a uterine perforation and injuries to both uterine arteries were detected. A hysterectomy was performed to stop the hemorrhage. The patient improved at first, but developed sepsis, small-bowel necrosis, and other complications. A bowel resection procedure was performed on July 26. She died on September 5.

ESTATE'S CLAIM:
The surgeon’s actions were negligent. She removed too much tissue during the biopsy, injured the vaginal and uterine walls, and failed to timely diagnose and appropriately treat the injuries. The ferric subsulfate solution entered the abdominal cavity via the perforation, causing peritonitis and bowel injuries. A pathology report from the bowel resection surgery informed the surgeon that the bowel was not properly reconnected after the damaged portion was removed, but this condition was neither detected intraoperatively nor treated postoperatively.

DEFENDANTS' DEFENSE:
The surgeon moved for summary judgment, countering that, as a federal employee, she was exempt from personal liability for the services performed as an employee of the VA. That motion was denied. She then argued that injury to the vaginal/uterine wall is a known complication of the biopsy procedure.

VERDICT:
A $4.25 million Illinois verdict was returned in federal court.

Related article:
Reducing maternal mortality in the United States—Let’s get organized!

Needle stick not reported to patient

A woman delivered a baby assisted by an on-call ObGyn. When the baby developed fetal tachycardia, the ObGyn recommended expediting delivery and discussed various options and the risks of each option. The mother chose a vaginal forceps delivery. During the procedure, the mother experienced a 3rd-degree perineal laceration and a few minor lacerations, which were repaired. The mother was in pain, so the ObGyn performed a revision repair. During the procedure, the ObGyn accidentally stuck himself with a clean needle. He replaced the needle and changed his glove. The mother reported instant pain relief following revision and was discharged. After the needle incident, the ObGyn’s thumb became red and swollen, so he took antibiotics.

Two days after discharge, the patient reported to the ObGyn’s office with fever, pain, and a foul odor emanating from the surgery site. She was given the diagnosis of pelvic incisional cellulitis and was taken to the operating room for exploration and debridement. The patient developed septic shock and necrotizing fasciitis. She was placed on a ventilator and underwent 13 surgeries.

PATIENTS' CLAIM:
The ObGyn was negligent. The patient claimed breach of duty: the ObGyn did not disclose that his thumb was swollen and that he took antibiotics.

PHYSICIANS' DEFENSE:
There was no breach of duty. He did not feel the need to concern the patient about an injury to himself that did not affect her.

VERDICT:
A Kansas defense verdict was returned.

Related article:
2017 Update on infectious disease

Catheter removal, air embolism: $3.5M settlement

A 44-year-old woman underwent gynecologic surgery on April 22. She developed a rectovaginal fistula and other complications. Intravenous antibiotics were required and parenteral nutrition was delivered through a central venous catheter. On May 22, after a hospital nurse removed the catheter, an air embolism developed, causing a brain injury. The patient has a mental disability and residual leg tremors.

PATIENTS' CLAIM:
Because of the surgeon’s negligence during surgery, a fistula developed. The nurse negligently removed the catheter, causing the embolism.

DEFENDANTS' DEFENSE:
The case settled during the trial.

VERDICT:
A $3.5 million Illinois settlement was reached, including payments of $1 million from the surgeon and $2.5 million from the hospital.

These cases were selected by the editors of OBG Management from Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Settlements & Experts, with permission of the editor, Lewis Laska (www.verdictslaska.com). The information available to the editors about the cases presented here is sometimes incomplete. Moreover, the cases may or may not have merit. Nevertheless, these cases represent the types of clinical situations that typically result in litigation and are meant to illustrate nationwide variation in jury verdicts and awards.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

Woman dies following cervical cone biopsy: $4.25M award  

A 46-year-old woman underwent a cervical cone biopsy at a Veterans Administration (VA) hospital on July 18. Following the test, significant bleeding occurred. The gynecologic surgeon attempted to control the hemorrhage by injecting ferric subsulfate (Monsel’s) solution into the patient’s vagina. The bleeding abated, but the patient went into hypovolemic shock. During emergency laparotomy, a uterine perforation and injuries to both uterine arteries were detected. A hysterectomy was performed to stop the hemorrhage. The patient improved at first, but developed sepsis, small-bowel necrosis, and other complications. A bowel resection procedure was performed on July 26. She died on September 5.

ESTATE'S CLAIM:
The surgeon’s actions were negligent. She removed too much tissue during the biopsy, injured the vaginal and uterine walls, and failed to timely diagnose and appropriately treat the injuries. The ferric subsulfate solution entered the abdominal cavity via the perforation, causing peritonitis and bowel injuries. A pathology report from the bowel resection surgery informed the surgeon that the bowel was not properly reconnected after the damaged portion was removed, but this condition was neither detected intraoperatively nor treated postoperatively.

DEFENDANTS' DEFENSE:
The surgeon moved for summary judgment, countering that, as a federal employee, she was exempt from personal liability for the services performed as an employee of the VA. That motion was denied. She then argued that injury to the vaginal/uterine wall is a known complication of the biopsy procedure.

VERDICT:
A $4.25 million Illinois verdict was returned in federal court.

Related article:
Reducing maternal mortality in the United States—Let’s get organized!

Needle stick not reported to patient

A woman delivered a baby assisted by an on-call ObGyn. When the baby developed fetal tachycardia, the ObGyn recommended expediting delivery and discussed various options and the risks of each option. The mother chose a vaginal forceps delivery. During the procedure, the mother experienced a 3rd-degree perineal laceration and a few minor lacerations, which were repaired. The mother was in pain, so the ObGyn performed a revision repair. During the procedure, the ObGyn accidentally stuck himself with a clean needle. He replaced the needle and changed his glove. The mother reported instant pain relief following revision and was discharged. After the needle incident, the ObGyn’s thumb became red and swollen, so he took antibiotics.

Two days after discharge, the patient reported to the ObGyn’s office with fever, pain, and a foul odor emanating from the surgery site. She was given the diagnosis of pelvic incisional cellulitis and was taken to the operating room for exploration and debridement. The patient developed septic shock and necrotizing fasciitis. She was placed on a ventilator and underwent 13 surgeries.

PATIENTS' CLAIM:
The ObGyn was negligent. The patient claimed breach of duty: the ObGyn did not disclose that his thumb was swollen and that he took antibiotics.

PHYSICIANS' DEFENSE:
There was no breach of duty. He did not feel the need to concern the patient about an injury to himself that did not affect her.

VERDICT:
A Kansas defense verdict was returned.

Related article:
2017 Update on infectious disease

Catheter removal, air embolism: $3.5M settlement

A 44-year-old woman underwent gynecologic surgery on April 22. She developed a rectovaginal fistula and other complications. Intravenous antibiotics were required and parenteral nutrition was delivered through a central venous catheter. On May 22, after a hospital nurse removed the catheter, an air embolism developed, causing a brain injury. The patient has a mental disability and residual leg tremors.

PATIENTS' CLAIM:
Because of the surgeon’s negligence during surgery, a fistula developed. The nurse negligently removed the catheter, causing the embolism.

DEFENDANTS' DEFENSE:
The case settled during the trial.

VERDICT:
A $3.5 million Illinois settlement was reached, including payments of $1 million from the surgeon and $2.5 million from the hospital.

These cases were selected by the editors of OBG Management from Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Settlements & Experts, with permission of the editor, Lewis Laska (www.verdictslaska.com). The information available to the editors about the cases presented here is sometimes incomplete. Moreover, the cases may or may not have merit. Nevertheless, these cases represent the types of clinical situations that typically result in litigation and are meant to illustrate nationwide variation in jury verdicts and awards.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

Woman dies following cervical cone biopsy: $4.25M award  

A 46-year-old woman underwent a cervical cone biopsy at a Veterans Administration (VA) hospital on July 18. Following the test, significant bleeding occurred. The gynecologic surgeon attempted to control the hemorrhage by injecting ferric subsulfate (Monsel’s) solution into the patient’s vagina. The bleeding abated, but the patient went into hypovolemic shock. During emergency laparotomy, a uterine perforation and injuries to both uterine arteries were detected. A hysterectomy was performed to stop the hemorrhage. The patient improved at first, but developed sepsis, small-bowel necrosis, and other complications. A bowel resection procedure was performed on July 26. She died on September 5.

ESTATE'S CLAIM:
The surgeon’s actions were negligent. She removed too much tissue during the biopsy, injured the vaginal and uterine walls, and failed to timely diagnose and appropriately treat the injuries. The ferric subsulfate solution entered the abdominal cavity via the perforation, causing peritonitis and bowel injuries. A pathology report from the bowel resection surgery informed the surgeon that the bowel was not properly reconnected after the damaged portion was removed, but this condition was neither detected intraoperatively nor treated postoperatively.

DEFENDANTS' DEFENSE:
The surgeon moved for summary judgment, countering that, as a federal employee, she was exempt from personal liability for the services performed as an employee of the VA. That motion was denied. She then argued that injury to the vaginal/uterine wall is a known complication of the biopsy procedure.

VERDICT:
A $4.25 million Illinois verdict was returned in federal court.

Related article:
Reducing maternal mortality in the United States—Let’s get organized!

Needle stick not reported to patient

A woman delivered a baby assisted by an on-call ObGyn. When the baby developed fetal tachycardia, the ObGyn recommended expediting delivery and discussed various options and the risks of each option. The mother chose a vaginal forceps delivery. During the procedure, the mother experienced a 3rd-degree perineal laceration and a few minor lacerations, which were repaired. The mother was in pain, so the ObGyn performed a revision repair. During the procedure, the ObGyn accidentally stuck himself with a clean needle. He replaced the needle and changed his glove. The mother reported instant pain relief following revision and was discharged. After the needle incident, the ObGyn’s thumb became red and swollen, so he took antibiotics.

Two days after discharge, the patient reported to the ObGyn’s office with fever, pain, and a foul odor emanating from the surgery site. She was given the diagnosis of pelvic incisional cellulitis and was taken to the operating room for exploration and debridement. The patient developed septic shock and necrotizing fasciitis. She was placed on a ventilator and underwent 13 surgeries.

PATIENTS' CLAIM:
The ObGyn was negligent. The patient claimed breach of duty: the ObGyn did not disclose that his thumb was swollen and that he took antibiotics.

PHYSICIANS' DEFENSE:
There was no breach of duty. He did not feel the need to concern the patient about an injury to himself that did not affect her.

VERDICT:
A Kansas defense verdict was returned.

Related article:
2017 Update on infectious disease

Catheter removal, air embolism: $3.5M settlement

A 44-year-old woman underwent gynecologic surgery on April 22. She developed a rectovaginal fistula and other complications. Intravenous antibiotics were required and parenteral nutrition was delivered through a central venous catheter. On May 22, after a hospital nurse removed the catheter, an air embolism developed, causing a brain injury. The patient has a mental disability and residual leg tremors.

PATIENTS' CLAIM:
Because of the surgeon’s negligence during surgery, a fistula developed. The nurse negligently removed the catheter, causing the embolism.

DEFENDANTS' DEFENSE:
The case settled during the trial.

VERDICT:
A $3.5 million Illinois settlement was reached, including payments of $1 million from the surgeon and $2.5 million from the hospital.

These cases were selected by the editors of OBG Management from Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Settlements & Experts, with permission of the editor, Lewis Laska (www.verdictslaska.com). The information available to the editors about the cases presented here is sometimes incomplete. Moreover, the cases may or may not have merit. Nevertheless, these cases represent the types of clinical situations that typically result in litigation and are meant to illustrate nationwide variation in jury verdicts and awards.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

The relationship between procedure volume and outcomes has long been recognized: studies have concluded that patients operated on by high-volume surgeons at high-volume hospitals have improved outcomes.^1,2 This paradigm is also associated with ovarian cancer outcomes. But what affect does adherence to evidence-based guidelines have on these statistics?

Jason D. Wright, MD, and colleagues at the Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, in New York City, sought to determine whether strict adherence to quality metrics by hospitals could explain the association between hospital volume and ovarian cancer survival.³

Details of the study

Using the National Cancer Database (NCD), the research team identified 100,725 patients at 1,268 hospitals who were treated for invasive epithelial ovarian cancer between 2004 and 2013. Hospitals were stratified by annual case volume into quintiles: low-volume (≤2 cases; n = 299 [23.6%]), low-intermediate–volume (2.01–5 cases; n = 465 [36.7%]), intermediate-volume (5.01–9 cases; n = 157 [12.4%]), high-intermediate–volume (9.01–19.9 cases; n = 194 [15.3%]), and high-volume (≥20 cases; n = 153 [12.1%]).³

To measure quality, the authors defined hospital-level rates of 5 metrics based on clinical guidelines³:

1. lymph node dissection performed for patients with stage I–IIIB tumors
2. performance of omentectomy or cytoreduction for patients with advanced stage tumors
3. use of chemotherapy among patients with early-stage, high-risk tumors
4. omission of chemotherapy for women with early-stage, low-risk tumors
5. use of chemotherapy (either neoadjuvant or adjuvant) for women with advanced-stage disease.

For each metric, the authors determined the rate of hospital-level compliance for all study-eligible patients. Then a composite variable of overall quality was derived using all 5 metrics. Based on the overall quality metric, hospitals were stratified into quartiles: low-quality, medium-low–quality, medium-high–quality, and high-quality.³

Hospital-level adjusted 2- and 5-year survival rates were compared based on volume and adherence to quality metrics.³

Related article:
2017 Update on ovarian cancer

Trends and conclusions

Researchers found that compliance with quality metrics generally increased with hospital volume. Trends of increased compliance were observed with lymph node dissection for early-stage tumors, cytoreduction for advanced-stage tumors, and use of chemotherapy for advanced-stage tumors. No trends were evident for use of chemotherapy for high-risk, early-stage tumors. By contrast, a trend for higher-volume hospitals to administer chemotherapy for low-risk, early-stage tumors was discovered. Adherence with the composite overall quality metric was noted in 64.2% of low-volume centers and increased with each volume category to 82.2% at the highest-volume hospitals.³

Study results indicated that survival increased with increasing hospital volume and with adherence to the quality metrics. The association between volume and quality was then examined. For each volume category, survival increased with increasing adherence to the quality metrics. In the highest-volume group, 2-year adjusted survival rose from 75.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 73.2%–77.8%) at the lowest-quality hospitals, to 78.6% (95% CI, 78.0%–79.1%) at the highest-quality hospitals. Similar trends were found for intermediate-volume hospitals and for 5-year survival. However, the relationship between adherence to quality metrics and survival was less consistent for the low-, low-intermediate–, and high-intermediate–volume hospitals.³

The authors concluded that both hospital volume and adherence to quality metrics are associated with survival for ovarian cancer. Even though survival rates are improved at low-volume hospitals that are highly adherent to quality metrics, their survival rates are still lower than high-volume hospitals.

Read about the pros and cons of regionalization for high-risk ovarian cancer surgery.

Study limitations

The authors cite several limitations to this study:

• chosen quality metrics focused on care during initial treatment. Women with ovarian cancer are often treated for many years.
• the NCD lacks information on aspects like hospital infrastructure and staffing; there are probably other confounders that influence treatment and outcomes
• although NCD data have been validated, misclassification of a small number of patients may exist. Also, some hospitals did not treat patients who might be eligible for a quality metric and therefore were not included in this analysis.
• some study participants (13.7%) received treatment at multiple hospitals
• the volume cutpoints chosen by the research team were based on prior studies; there could be outcome variation within a volume strata.

Should high-risk surgeries be regionalized?

The association between higher surgical volume and improved outcomes has led to efforts to regionalize the care for high-risk operations to high-volume centers, say the authors. They conclude that this may be a reasonable strategy for some procedures. However, they suggest that regionalization presents practical difficulties:

1. patients prefer to receive local care and are often unwilling to or cannot travel
2. regionalization can worsen inequalities in access to care and may adversely affect low-volume hospitals
3. high-volume centers do not exist in some areas of the country. A recent report suggested that 9% of the US female population had geographic barriers to receiving care from a gynecologic oncologist.⁴

Can low-volume facilities attain the same outcomes as high-volume centers?

The authors pose an important question: Can lower-volume facilities that deliver high-quality care achieve the same outcomes as higher-volume centers? With the difficulties associated with regionalization, many advocates seek strategies to raise the quality of care at low-volume centers, they say. The authors note that, “although outcomes improve at low-volume centers that are highly compliant with the quality metrics examined, survival at these centers is still lower than at high-volume centers.”³ The authors suggest that there are factors other than adherence to guidelines that play a role in how hospital volume affects ovarian cancer outcomes.³

Practice considerations

“Because the best outcomes appear to be achieved at high-volume hospitals, efforts to promote volume-based referral for women with ovarian cancer are reasonable,” the authors conclude.³ However, in practicality, many women will not be able to receive care at high-volume centers, they concede. “For low-volume centers, targeted quality improvement efforts and strict adherence to quality guidelines may help to optimize outcomes for women with ovarian cancer.”³

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

The relationship between procedure volume and outcomes has long been recognized: studies have concluded that patients operated on by high-volume surgeons at high-volume hospitals have improved outcomes.^1,2 This paradigm is also associated with ovarian cancer outcomes. But what affect does adherence to evidence-based guidelines have on these statistics?

Jason D. Wright, MD, and colleagues at the Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, in New York City, sought to determine whether strict adherence to quality metrics by hospitals could explain the association between hospital volume and ovarian cancer survival.³

Details of the study

Using the National Cancer Database (NCD), the research team identified 100,725 patients at 1,268 hospitals who were treated for invasive epithelial ovarian cancer between 2004 and 2013. Hospitals were stratified by annual case volume into quintiles: low-volume (≤2 cases; n = 299 [23.6%]), low-intermediate–volume (2.01–5 cases; n = 465 [36.7%]), intermediate-volume (5.01–9 cases; n = 157 [12.4%]), high-intermediate–volume (9.01–19.9 cases; n = 194 [15.3%]), and high-volume (≥20 cases; n = 153 [12.1%]).³

To measure quality, the authors defined hospital-level rates of 5 metrics based on clinical guidelines³:

1. lymph node dissection performed for patients with stage I–IIIB tumors
2. performance of omentectomy or cytoreduction for patients with advanced stage tumors
3. use of chemotherapy among patients with early-stage, high-risk tumors
4. omission of chemotherapy for women with early-stage, low-risk tumors
5. use of chemotherapy (either neoadjuvant or adjuvant) for women with advanced-stage disease.

For each metric, the authors determined the rate of hospital-level compliance for all study-eligible patients. Then a composite variable of overall quality was derived using all 5 metrics. Based on the overall quality metric, hospitals were stratified into quartiles: low-quality, medium-low–quality, medium-high–quality, and high-quality.³

Hospital-level adjusted 2- and 5-year survival rates were compared based on volume and adherence to quality metrics.³

Related article:
2017 Update on ovarian cancer

Trends and conclusions

Researchers found that compliance with quality metrics generally increased with hospital volume. Trends of increased compliance were observed with lymph node dissection for early-stage tumors, cytoreduction for advanced-stage tumors, and use of chemotherapy for advanced-stage tumors. No trends were evident for use of chemotherapy for high-risk, early-stage tumors. By contrast, a trend for higher-volume hospitals to administer chemotherapy for low-risk, early-stage tumors was discovered. Adherence with the composite overall quality metric was noted in 64.2% of low-volume centers and increased with each volume category to 82.2% at the highest-volume hospitals.³

Study results indicated that survival increased with increasing hospital volume and with adherence to the quality metrics. The association between volume and quality was then examined. For each volume category, survival increased with increasing adherence to the quality metrics. In the highest-volume group, 2-year adjusted survival rose from 75.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 73.2%–77.8%) at the lowest-quality hospitals, to 78.6% (95% CI, 78.0%–79.1%) at the highest-quality hospitals. Similar trends were found for intermediate-volume hospitals and for 5-year survival. However, the relationship between adherence to quality metrics and survival was less consistent for the low-, low-intermediate–, and high-intermediate–volume hospitals.³

The authors concluded that both hospital volume and adherence to quality metrics are associated with survival for ovarian cancer. Even though survival rates are improved at low-volume hospitals that are highly adherent to quality metrics, their survival rates are still lower than high-volume hospitals.

Read about the pros and cons of regionalization for high-risk ovarian cancer surgery.

Study limitations

The authors cite several limitations to this study:

• chosen quality metrics focused on care during initial treatment. Women with ovarian cancer are often treated for many years.
• the NCD lacks information on aspects like hospital infrastructure and staffing; there are probably other confounders that influence treatment and outcomes
• although NCD data have been validated, misclassification of a small number of patients may exist. Also, some hospitals did not treat patients who might be eligible for a quality metric and therefore were not included in this analysis.
• some study participants (13.7%) received treatment at multiple hospitals
• the volume cutpoints chosen by the research team were based on prior studies; there could be outcome variation within a volume strata.

Should high-risk surgeries be regionalized?

The association between higher surgical volume and improved outcomes has led to efforts to regionalize the care for high-risk operations to high-volume centers, say the authors. They conclude that this may be a reasonable strategy for some procedures. However, they suggest that regionalization presents practical difficulties:

1. patients prefer to receive local care and are often unwilling to or cannot travel
2. regionalization can worsen inequalities in access to care and may adversely affect low-volume hospitals
3. high-volume centers do not exist in some areas of the country. A recent report suggested that 9% of the US female population had geographic barriers to receiving care from a gynecologic oncologist.⁴

Can low-volume facilities attain the same outcomes as high-volume centers?

The authors pose an important question: Can lower-volume facilities that deliver high-quality care achieve the same outcomes as higher-volume centers? With the difficulties associated with regionalization, many advocates seek strategies to raise the quality of care at low-volume centers, they say. The authors note that, “although outcomes improve at low-volume centers that are highly compliant with the quality metrics examined, survival at these centers is still lower than at high-volume centers.”³ The authors suggest that there are factors other than adherence to guidelines that play a role in how hospital volume affects ovarian cancer outcomes.³

Practice considerations

“Because the best outcomes appear to be achieved at high-volume hospitals, efforts to promote volume-based referral for women with ovarian cancer are reasonable,” the authors conclude.³ However, in practicality, many women will not be able to receive care at high-volume centers, they concede. “For low-volume centers, targeted quality improvement efforts and strict adherence to quality guidelines may help to optimize outcomes for women with ovarian cancer.”³

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

The relationship between procedure volume and outcomes has long been recognized: studies have concluded that patients operated on by high-volume surgeons at high-volume hospitals have improved outcomes.^1,2 This paradigm is also associated with ovarian cancer outcomes. But what affect does adherence to evidence-based guidelines have on these statistics?

Jason D. Wright, MD, and colleagues at the Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, in New York City, sought to determine whether strict adherence to quality metrics by hospitals could explain the association between hospital volume and ovarian cancer survival.³

Details of the study

Using the National Cancer Database (NCD), the research team identified 100,725 patients at 1,268 hospitals who were treated for invasive epithelial ovarian cancer between 2004 and 2013. Hospitals were stratified by annual case volume into quintiles: low-volume (≤2 cases; n = 299 [23.6%]), low-intermediate–volume (2.01–5 cases; n = 465 [36.7%]), intermediate-volume (5.01–9 cases; n = 157 [12.4%]), high-intermediate–volume (9.01–19.9 cases; n = 194 [15.3%]), and high-volume (≥20 cases; n = 153 [12.1%]).³

To measure quality, the authors defined hospital-level rates of 5 metrics based on clinical guidelines³:

1. lymph node dissection performed for patients with stage I–IIIB tumors
2. performance of omentectomy or cytoreduction for patients with advanced stage tumors
3. use of chemotherapy among patients with early-stage, high-risk tumors
4. omission of chemotherapy for women with early-stage, low-risk tumors
5. use of chemotherapy (either neoadjuvant or adjuvant) for women with advanced-stage disease.

For each metric, the authors determined the rate of hospital-level compliance for all study-eligible patients. Then a composite variable of overall quality was derived using all 5 metrics. Based on the overall quality metric, hospitals were stratified into quartiles: low-quality, medium-low–quality, medium-high–quality, and high-quality.³

Hospital-level adjusted 2- and 5-year survival rates were compared based on volume and adherence to quality metrics.³

Related article:
2017 Update on ovarian cancer

Trends and conclusions

Researchers found that compliance with quality metrics generally increased with hospital volume. Trends of increased compliance were observed with lymph node dissection for early-stage tumors, cytoreduction for advanced-stage tumors, and use of chemotherapy for advanced-stage tumors. No trends were evident for use of chemotherapy for high-risk, early-stage tumors. By contrast, a trend for higher-volume hospitals to administer chemotherapy for low-risk, early-stage tumors was discovered. Adherence with the composite overall quality metric was noted in 64.2% of low-volume centers and increased with each volume category to 82.2% at the highest-volume hospitals.³

Study results indicated that survival increased with increasing hospital volume and with adherence to the quality metrics. The association between volume and quality was then examined. For each volume category, survival increased with increasing adherence to the quality metrics. In the highest-volume group, 2-year adjusted survival rose from 75.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 73.2%–77.8%) at the lowest-quality hospitals, to 78.6% (95% CI, 78.0%–79.1%) at the highest-quality hospitals. Similar trends were found for intermediate-volume hospitals and for 5-year survival. However, the relationship between adherence to quality metrics and survival was less consistent for the low-, low-intermediate–, and high-intermediate–volume hospitals.³

The authors concluded that both hospital volume and adherence to quality metrics are associated with survival for ovarian cancer. Even though survival rates are improved at low-volume hospitals that are highly adherent to quality metrics, their survival rates are still lower than high-volume hospitals.

Read about the pros and cons of regionalization for high-risk ovarian cancer surgery.

Study limitations

The authors cite several limitations to this study:

• chosen quality metrics focused on care during initial treatment. Women with ovarian cancer are often treated for many years.
• the NCD lacks information on aspects like hospital infrastructure and staffing; there are probably other confounders that influence treatment and outcomes
• although NCD data have been validated, misclassification of a small number of patients may exist. Also, some hospitals did not treat patients who might be eligible for a quality metric and therefore were not included in this analysis.
• some study participants (13.7%) received treatment at multiple hospitals
• the volume cutpoints chosen by the research team were based on prior studies; there could be outcome variation within a volume strata.

Should high-risk surgeries be regionalized?

The association between higher surgical volume and improved outcomes has led to efforts to regionalize the care for high-risk operations to high-volume centers, say the authors. They conclude that this may be a reasonable strategy for some procedures. However, they suggest that regionalization presents practical difficulties:

1. patients prefer to receive local care and are often unwilling to or cannot travel
2. regionalization can worsen inequalities in access to care and may adversely affect low-volume hospitals
3. high-volume centers do not exist in some areas of the country. A recent report suggested that 9% of the US female population had geographic barriers to receiving care from a gynecologic oncologist.⁴

Can low-volume facilities attain the same outcomes as high-volume centers?

The authors pose an important question: Can lower-volume facilities that deliver high-quality care achieve the same outcomes as higher-volume centers? With the difficulties associated with regionalization, many advocates seek strategies to raise the quality of care at low-volume centers, they say. The authors note that, “although outcomes improve at low-volume centers that are highly compliant with the quality metrics examined, survival at these centers is still lower than at high-volume centers.”³ The authors suggest that there are factors other than adherence to guidelines that play a role in how hospital volume affects ovarian cancer outcomes.³

Practice considerations

“Because the best outcomes appear to be achieved at high-volume hospitals, efforts to promote volume-based referral for women with ovarian cancer are reasonable,” the authors conclude.³ However, in practicality, many women will not be able to receive care at high-volume centers, they concede. “For low-volume centers, targeted quality improvement efforts and strict adherence to quality guidelines may help to optimize outcomes for women with ovarian cancer.”³

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

The first single-dose, oral treatment for bacterial vaginosis will be available by prescription in early 2018, thanks to its approval by the Food and Drug Administration.

Symbiomix Therapeutics announced Sept. 18 that the FDA had granted approval to secnidazole (Solosec) 2 g oral granules for the treatment of bacterial vaginosis in adult women. Clinical trials of the 5-nitroimidazole antibiotic have shown it to be effective in a single dose, offering the potential for greater patient adherence to treatment over the common regimen of twice-a-day dosing for 7 days.

mschneider@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @maryellenny

The first single-dose, oral treatment for bacterial vaginosis will be available by prescription in early 2018, thanks to its approval by the Food and Drug Administration.

Symbiomix Therapeutics announced Sept. 18 that the FDA had granted approval to secnidazole (Solosec) 2 g oral granules for the treatment of bacterial vaginosis in adult women. Clinical trials of the 5-nitroimidazole antibiotic have shown it to be effective in a single dose, offering the potential for greater patient adherence to treatment over the common regimen of twice-a-day dosing for 7 days.

mschneider@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @maryellenny

The first single-dose, oral treatment for bacterial vaginosis will be available by prescription in early 2018, thanks to its approval by the Food and Drug Administration.

Symbiomix Therapeutics announced Sept. 18 that the FDA had granted approval to secnidazole (Solosec) 2 g oral granules for the treatment of bacterial vaginosis in adult women. Clinical trials of the 5-nitroimidazole antibiotic have shown it to be effective in a single dose, offering the potential for greater patient adherence to treatment over the common regimen of twice-a-day dosing for 7 days.

mschneider@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @maryellenny

SAN FRANCISCO – Dermatologists are often on the frontline when it comes to diagnosing polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), which is one reason they should be up to date and aware of the changing diagnostic criteria for the condition, according to Kanade Shinkai, MD.

About one-quarter of patients who are diagnosed with PCOS are seen first by a dermatologist. That’s because skin conditions may be more concerning than reproductive issues in young women.

“Sometimes, people don’t see [irregular menstruation] as a problem,” explained Dr. Shinkai of the department of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco. “Maybe they’re young, or they’re not trying to get pregnant. But if their hair is falling out, they see that as a problem, or if they have bad acne, or they’re becoming hirsute, they see that as a problem. So, they present to a dermatologist.”

Early recognition of PCOS is important, because many women with the condition go on to develop diabetes, impaired glucose intolerance, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, fertility problems, and obesity.

SAN FRANCISCO – Dermatologists are often on the frontline when it comes to diagnosing polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), which is one reason they should be up to date and aware of the changing diagnostic criteria for the condition, according to Kanade Shinkai, MD.

About one-quarter of patients who are diagnosed with PCOS are seen first by a dermatologist. That’s because skin conditions may be more concerning than reproductive issues in young women.

“Sometimes, people don’t see [irregular menstruation] as a problem,” explained Dr. Shinkai of the department of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco. “Maybe they’re young, or they’re not trying to get pregnant. But if their hair is falling out, they see that as a problem, or if they have bad acne, or they’re becoming hirsute, they see that as a problem. So, they present to a dermatologist.”

Early recognition of PCOS is important, because many women with the condition go on to develop diabetes, impaired glucose intolerance, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, fertility problems, and obesity.

SAN FRANCISCO – Dermatologists are often on the frontline when it comes to diagnosing polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), which is one reason they should be up to date and aware of the changing diagnostic criteria for the condition, according to Kanade Shinkai, MD.

About one-quarter of patients who are diagnosed with PCOS are seen first by a dermatologist. That’s because skin conditions may be more concerning than reproductive issues in young women.

“Sometimes, people don’t see [irregular menstruation] as a problem,” explained Dr. Shinkai of the department of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco. “Maybe they’re young, or they’re not trying to get pregnant. But if their hair is falling out, they see that as a problem, or if they have bad acne, or they’re becoming hirsute, they see that as a problem. So, they present to a dermatologist.”

Early recognition of PCOS is important, because many women with the condition go on to develop diabetes, impaired glucose intolerance, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, fertility problems, and obesity.

Postmenopausal women treated with conjugated equine estrogens (CEE) plus medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) for a median of 5.6 years, or with CEE alone for a median of 7.2 years had no increased risk of all-cause, cardiovascular, or cancer mortality over a cumulative follow-up of 18 years, according to the latest report from the Women’s Health Initiative hormone therapy trials.

All-cause mortality among the 27,347 participants in the two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials was 27.1% in the hormone therapy group versus 27.6% in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.99), JoAnn E. Manson, MD, Harvard Medical School, Boston, and her colleagues reported.

For those who received CEE plus MPA, the hazard ratio was 1.02, while for CEE alone the hazard ratio was 0.94 (JAMA. 2017 Sep;318[10]:927-38).

Cardiovascular mortality among the pooled cohort was 8.9% with hormone therapy and 9.0% with placebo (HR, 1.00), and total cancer mortality was 8.2% and 8.0%, respectively (HR, 1.03). Mortality from other causes was 10.0% with hormone therapy, compared with 10.7% with placebo (HR, 0.95). The results did not differ significantly between the trials, the investigators noted.

An analysis by age showed that women aged 50-59 years tended to have lower hazard ratios for mortality from cardiovascular disease, cancer, and other causes during the intervention phases of the trials, but only the difference for “other” causes in the CEE-alone trial showed a statistically significant trend with age. This was influenced in part by adverse effects of the treatment in women aged 70-79 years. During cumulative follow-up, trends related to mortality across age groups were not statistically significantly different.

The trials included women aged 50-79 years who were enrolled between 1993 and 1998 and followed through 2014. Given the hormone-therapy-related risks identified in the CEE plus MPA and CEE-alone trials – which were stopped early because of increased risk of breast cancer/overall risks exceeding benefits, and for increased stroke risk, respectively – the absence of an increase in all-cause mortality during the intervention and cumulative follow-up phases of the trials is noteworthy, the investigators wrote.

“Although these findings lend support to practice guidelines endorsing use of hormone therapy for recently menopausal women with moderate to severe symptoms, in the absence of contraindications, the attenuation of age differences with longer follow-up and potential health risks of treatment would not support use of hormone therapy for reducing chronic disease or mortality,” they wrote. “Moreover, it is unclear whether benefits would outweigh risks with longer duration of treatment.”

They added that “in clinical decision making, these considerations must be weighed against the evidence linking untreated vasomotor symptoms in midlife women to impaired health and quality of life, disrupted sleep, reduced work productivity, and increased health care expenditures.”

The Women’s Health Initiative is funded by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. Study drugs were donated by Wyeth Ayerst. Dr. Manson reported having no financial disclosures. Several of her coauthors reported receiving grants and research funding from the National Institutes of Health, and receiving personal fees, speaking fees, and honoraria from various pharmaceutical companies.

sworcester@frontlinemedcom.com

Postmenopausal women treated with conjugated equine estrogens (CEE) plus medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) for a median of 5.6 years, or with CEE alone for a median of 7.2 years had no increased risk of all-cause, cardiovascular, or cancer mortality over a cumulative follow-up of 18 years, according to the latest report from the Women’s Health Initiative hormone therapy trials.

All-cause mortality among the 27,347 participants in the two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials was 27.1% in the hormone therapy group versus 27.6% in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.99), JoAnn E. Manson, MD, Harvard Medical School, Boston, and her colleagues reported.

For those who received CEE plus MPA, the hazard ratio was 1.02, while for CEE alone the hazard ratio was 0.94 (JAMA. 2017 Sep;318[10]:927-38).

Cardiovascular mortality among the pooled cohort was 8.9% with hormone therapy and 9.0% with placebo (HR, 1.00), and total cancer mortality was 8.2% and 8.0%, respectively (HR, 1.03). Mortality from other causes was 10.0% with hormone therapy, compared with 10.7% with placebo (HR, 0.95). The results did not differ significantly between the trials, the investigators noted.

An analysis by age showed that women aged 50-59 years tended to have lower hazard ratios for mortality from cardiovascular disease, cancer, and other causes during the intervention phases of the trials, but only the difference for “other” causes in the CEE-alone trial showed a statistically significant trend with age. This was influenced in part by adverse effects of the treatment in women aged 70-79 years. During cumulative follow-up, trends related to mortality across age groups were not statistically significantly different.

The trials included women aged 50-79 years who were enrolled between 1993 and 1998 and followed through 2014. Given the hormone-therapy-related risks identified in the CEE plus MPA and CEE-alone trials – which were stopped early because of increased risk of breast cancer/overall risks exceeding benefits, and for increased stroke risk, respectively – the absence of an increase in all-cause mortality during the intervention and cumulative follow-up phases of the trials is noteworthy, the investigators wrote.

“Although these findings lend support to practice guidelines endorsing use of hormone therapy for recently menopausal women with moderate to severe symptoms, in the absence of contraindications, the attenuation of age differences with longer follow-up and potential health risks of treatment would not support use of hormone therapy for reducing chronic disease or mortality,” they wrote. “Moreover, it is unclear whether benefits would outweigh risks with longer duration of treatment.”

They added that “in clinical decision making, these considerations must be weighed against the evidence linking untreated vasomotor symptoms in midlife women to impaired health and quality of life, disrupted sleep, reduced work productivity, and increased health care expenditures.”

The Women’s Health Initiative is funded by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. Study drugs were donated by Wyeth Ayerst. Dr. Manson reported having no financial disclosures. Several of her coauthors reported receiving grants and research funding from the National Institutes of Health, and receiving personal fees, speaking fees, and honoraria from various pharmaceutical companies.

sworcester@frontlinemedcom.com

Postmenopausal women treated with conjugated equine estrogens (CEE) plus medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) for a median of 5.6 years, or with CEE alone for a median of 7.2 years had no increased risk of all-cause, cardiovascular, or cancer mortality over a cumulative follow-up of 18 years, according to the latest report from the Women’s Health Initiative hormone therapy trials.

All-cause mortality among the 27,347 participants in the two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials was 27.1% in the hormone therapy group versus 27.6% in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.99), JoAnn E. Manson, MD, Harvard Medical School, Boston, and her colleagues reported.

For those who received CEE plus MPA, the hazard ratio was 1.02, while for CEE alone the hazard ratio was 0.94 (JAMA. 2017 Sep;318[10]:927-38).

Cardiovascular mortality among the pooled cohort was 8.9% with hormone therapy and 9.0% with placebo (HR, 1.00), and total cancer mortality was 8.2% and 8.0%, respectively (HR, 1.03). Mortality from other causes was 10.0% with hormone therapy, compared with 10.7% with placebo (HR, 0.95). The results did not differ significantly between the trials, the investigators noted.

An analysis by age showed that women aged 50-59 years tended to have lower hazard ratios for mortality from cardiovascular disease, cancer, and other causes during the intervention phases of the trials, but only the difference for “other” causes in the CEE-alone trial showed a statistically significant trend with age. This was influenced in part by adverse effects of the treatment in women aged 70-79 years. During cumulative follow-up, trends related to mortality across age groups were not statistically significantly different.

The trials included women aged 50-79 years who were enrolled between 1993 and 1998 and followed through 2014. Given the hormone-therapy-related risks identified in the CEE plus MPA and CEE-alone trials – which were stopped early because of increased risk of breast cancer/overall risks exceeding benefits, and for increased stroke risk, respectively – the absence of an increase in all-cause mortality during the intervention and cumulative follow-up phases of the trials is noteworthy, the investigators wrote.

“Although these findings lend support to practice guidelines endorsing use of hormone therapy for recently menopausal women with moderate to severe symptoms, in the absence of contraindications, the attenuation of age differences with longer follow-up and potential health risks of treatment would not support use of hormone therapy for reducing chronic disease or mortality,” they wrote. “Moreover, it is unclear whether benefits would outweigh risks with longer duration of treatment.”

They added that “in clinical decision making, these considerations must be weighed against the evidence linking untreated vasomotor symptoms in midlife women to impaired health and quality of life, disrupted sleep, reduced work productivity, and increased health care expenditures.”

The Women’s Health Initiative is funded by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. Study drugs were donated by Wyeth Ayerst. Dr. Manson reported having no financial disclosures. Several of her coauthors reported receiving grants and research funding from the National Institutes of Health, and receiving personal fees, speaking fees, and honoraria from various pharmaceutical companies.

sworcester@frontlinemedcom.com

Women aged 30-65 years should be offered a choice between two cervical cancer screening methods, according to draft recommendations from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. The recommendations were released on Sept. 12.

The Task Force continues to recommend that women in their 20s be screened every 3 years via cervical cytology, but in a change from the 2012 recommendations, the researchers now advise clinicians to offer women aged 30-65 years a choice of either cytology every 3 years or the high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) test every 5 years as a method of screening for cervical cancer. Cotesting is no longer recommended.

Offering women aged 30-65 years a screening choice received an A recommendation. The draft retains the previous Task Force position and D recommendation against cervical cancer screening for certain groups, including women younger than 21 years, women aged 65 and older with a history of screening and a low risk of cervical cancer, and women who have had a hysterectomy.

Nephron via Wikimedia Commons

Women aged 30-65 years should be offered a choice between two cervical cancer screening methods, according to draft recommendations from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. The recommendations were released on Sept. 12.

The Task Force continues to recommend that women in their 20s be screened every 3 years via cervical cytology, but in a change from the 2012 recommendations, the researchers now advise clinicians to offer women aged 30-65 years a choice of either cytology every 3 years or the high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) test every 5 years as a method of screening for cervical cancer. Cotesting is no longer recommended.

Offering women aged 30-65 years a screening choice received an A recommendation. The draft retains the previous Task Force position and D recommendation against cervical cancer screening for certain groups, including women younger than 21 years, women aged 65 and older with a history of screening and a low risk of cervical cancer, and women who have had a hysterectomy.

Nephron via Wikimedia Commons

Women aged 30-65 years should be offered a choice between two cervical cancer screening methods, according to draft recommendations from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. The recommendations were released on Sept. 12.

The Task Force continues to recommend that women in their 20s be screened every 3 years via cervical cytology, but in a change from the 2012 recommendations, the researchers now advise clinicians to offer women aged 30-65 years a choice of either cytology every 3 years or the high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) test every 5 years as a method of screening for cervical cancer. Cotesting is no longer recommended.

Offering women aged 30-65 years a screening choice received an A recommendation. The draft retains the previous Task Force position and D recommendation against cervical cancer screening for certain groups, including women younger than 21 years, women aged 65 and older with a history of screening and a low risk of cervical cancer, and women who have had a hysterectomy.

Nephron via Wikimedia Commons

SAN DIEGO – The first randomized, sham-controlled study of a radiofrequency energy-based device for vaginal laxity showed a significant and sustained effect, and likely raises the bar on vaginal rejuvenation options, Suzanne L. Kilmer, MD, said during a presentation at the annual Masters of Aesthetics Symposium.

“There are a lot of women who have vaginal laxity, vaginal atrophy, and other issues, and this is something that seems to help,” she said. No devices have yet received female rejuvenation/vaginal function indications from the Food and Drug Administration.

Current in-office procedures involve the delivery of radiofrequency (RF) energy, which appears to stimulate collagen production, and the use of fractionated lasers to target the epithelium. “RF devices tend to be easier to use,” said Dr. Kilmer, director of the Laser and Skin Surgery of Northern California, Sacramento. “They’re smaller devices, do not require as much laser training, and they tend to be less expensive. There’s no plume or odor with any of the RF devices.”

She discussed the results of the Viveve Treatment of the Vaginal Introitus to Evaluate Effectiveness (Viveve I) study, conducted at nine sites in four countries, which examined the Viveve monopolar RF device in 155 premenopausal women. The study subjects were randomized to one of two groups: the treatment group received 90 J/cm² for five passes and the sham group received 1 J/cm2 for five passes (J Sex Med 2017;14[2]:215-25).

The researchers used the Vaginal Laxity Questionnaire (VSQ), which grades vaginal tone on a 7-point scale that ranges from very loose (0) to very tight (7), and the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) to collect patient-reported outcomes at one, three, and six months. Subjects had to have a VSQ score of 3 or less to participate in the study.

dbrunk@frontlinemedcom.com

SAN DIEGO – The first randomized, sham-controlled study of a radiofrequency energy-based device for vaginal laxity showed a significant and sustained effect, and likely raises the bar on vaginal rejuvenation options, Suzanne L. Kilmer, MD, said during a presentation at the annual Masters of Aesthetics Symposium.

“There are a lot of women who have vaginal laxity, vaginal atrophy, and other issues, and this is something that seems to help,” she said. No devices have yet received female rejuvenation/vaginal function indications from the Food and Drug Administration.

Current in-office procedures involve the delivery of radiofrequency (RF) energy, which appears to stimulate collagen production, and the use of fractionated lasers to target the epithelium. “RF devices tend to be easier to use,” said Dr. Kilmer, director of the Laser and Skin Surgery of Northern California, Sacramento. “They’re smaller devices, do not require as much laser training, and they tend to be less expensive. There’s no plume or odor with any of the RF devices.”

She discussed the results of the Viveve Treatment of the Vaginal Introitus to Evaluate Effectiveness (Viveve I) study, conducted at nine sites in four countries, which examined the Viveve monopolar RF device in 155 premenopausal women. The study subjects were randomized to one of two groups: the treatment group received 90 J/cm² for five passes and the sham group received 1 J/cm2 for five passes (J Sex Med 2017;14[2]:215-25).

The researchers used the Vaginal Laxity Questionnaire (VSQ), which grades vaginal tone on a 7-point scale that ranges from very loose (0) to very tight (7), and the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) to collect patient-reported outcomes at one, three, and six months. Subjects had to have a VSQ score of 3 or less to participate in the study.

dbrunk@frontlinemedcom.com

SAN DIEGO – The first randomized, sham-controlled study of a radiofrequency energy-based device for vaginal laxity showed a significant and sustained effect, and likely raises the bar on vaginal rejuvenation options, Suzanne L. Kilmer, MD, said during a presentation at the annual Masters of Aesthetics Symposium.

“There are a lot of women who have vaginal laxity, vaginal atrophy, and other issues, and this is something that seems to help,” she said. No devices have yet received female rejuvenation/vaginal function indications from the Food and Drug Administration.

Current in-office procedures involve the delivery of radiofrequency (RF) energy, which appears to stimulate collagen production, and the use of fractionated lasers to target the epithelium. “RF devices tend to be easier to use,” said Dr. Kilmer, director of the Laser and Skin Surgery of Northern California, Sacramento. “They’re smaller devices, do not require as much laser training, and they tend to be less expensive. There’s no plume or odor with any of the RF devices.”

She discussed the results of the Viveve Treatment of the Vaginal Introitus to Evaluate Effectiveness (Viveve I) study, conducted at nine sites in four countries, which examined the Viveve monopolar RF device in 155 premenopausal women. The study subjects were randomized to one of two groups: the treatment group received 90 J/cm² for five passes and the sham group received 1 J/cm2 for five passes (J Sex Med 2017;14[2]:215-25).

The researchers used the Vaginal Laxity Questionnaire (VSQ), which grades vaginal tone on a 7-point scale that ranges from very loose (0) to very tight (7), and the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) to collect patient-reported outcomes at one, three, and six months. Subjects had to have a VSQ score of 3 or less to participate in the study.

dbrunk@frontlinemedcom.com