Adults are interested in a dengue vaccine for themselves and their children, and physicians recognize that dengue is a public health problem, according to data from parents and physicians in Puerto Rico. Most doctors, but fewer parents, found the idea of protecting children with Dengue vaccine acceptable.

itsmejust/Thinkstock

Lack of detailed information about the vaccine is the greatest barrier to parents’ consent to vaccination, noted Ines Esquilin, MD, of the University of Puerto Rico, San Juan, in a presentation at the February meeting of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).

The ACIP dengue vaccines work group reviewed data from 102 physicians in Puerto Rico, 82% of which were pediatricians, regarding potential dengue vaccination. Overall, 98% said they considered dengue a significant public health problem in Puerto Rico, and 73% said they would recommend the dengue vaccine to patients if a laboratory test with acceptable specificity were available. Among the physicians who said they would not recommend the vaccine, the most common reason (71%) was concern about the risks of vaccinating individuals with false-positive tests.

The availability of a test that can be performed in the medical office and avoid repeat visits is a major factor in the feasibility of dengue vaccination, Dr. Esquilin said.

The ACIP dengue vaccines work group also sought public opinion on the acceptability of a generic dengue vaccine through focus group sessions with parents of children aged 9-16 years in Puerto Rico, said Dr. Esquilin.

Approximately one-third of the parents said they were willing to vaccinate their children, one-third were unwilling, and one-third were unsure. The most commonly identified barriers to vaccination included lack of information or inconsistent information about the vaccine, high cost/lack of insurance coverage, time-consuming lab test to confirm infection, side effects, potential for false-positive lab results, and low vaccine effectiveness.

Motivating factors for vaccination included correct information about the vaccine, desire to prevent infection, lab-confirmed positive test, support from public health organizations, the presence of a dengue epidemic, and educational forums.

Based in part on these findings, the ACIP dengue vaccines work group noted that the need for an acceptably specific screening lab test is the greatest concern in their consideration of recommendations, and the work group expects to review a CDC assessment of laboratory tests for prevaccination screening at a future meeting.

Dr. Esquilin had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Esquilin E. 2020. February meeting of the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) presentation.

Adults are interested in a dengue vaccine for themselves and their children, and physicians recognize that dengue is a public health problem, according to data from parents and physicians in Puerto Rico. Most doctors, but fewer parents, found the idea of protecting children with Dengue vaccine acceptable.

itsmejust/Thinkstock

Lack of detailed information about the vaccine is the greatest barrier to parents’ consent to vaccination, noted Ines Esquilin, MD, of the University of Puerto Rico, San Juan, in a presentation at the February meeting of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).

The ACIP dengue vaccines work group reviewed data from 102 physicians in Puerto Rico, 82% of which were pediatricians, regarding potential dengue vaccination. Overall, 98% said they considered dengue a significant public health problem in Puerto Rico, and 73% said they would recommend the dengue vaccine to patients if a laboratory test with acceptable specificity were available. Among the physicians who said they would not recommend the vaccine, the most common reason (71%) was concern about the risks of vaccinating individuals with false-positive tests.

The availability of a test that can be performed in the medical office and avoid repeat visits is a major factor in the feasibility of dengue vaccination, Dr. Esquilin said.

The ACIP dengue vaccines work group also sought public opinion on the acceptability of a generic dengue vaccine through focus group sessions with parents of children aged 9-16 years in Puerto Rico, said Dr. Esquilin.

Approximately one-third of the parents said they were willing to vaccinate their children, one-third were unwilling, and one-third were unsure. The most commonly identified barriers to vaccination included lack of information or inconsistent information about the vaccine, high cost/lack of insurance coverage, time-consuming lab test to confirm infection, side effects, potential for false-positive lab results, and low vaccine effectiveness.

Motivating factors for vaccination included correct information about the vaccine, desire to prevent infection, lab-confirmed positive test, support from public health organizations, the presence of a dengue epidemic, and educational forums.

Based in part on these findings, the ACIP dengue vaccines work group noted that the need for an acceptably specific screening lab test is the greatest concern in their consideration of recommendations, and the work group expects to review a CDC assessment of laboratory tests for prevaccination screening at a future meeting.

Dr. Esquilin had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Esquilin E. 2020. February meeting of the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) presentation.

Adults are interested in a dengue vaccine for themselves and their children, and physicians recognize that dengue is a public health problem, according to data from parents and physicians in Puerto Rico. Most doctors, but fewer parents, found the idea of protecting children with Dengue vaccine acceptable.

itsmejust/Thinkstock

Lack of detailed information about the vaccine is the greatest barrier to parents’ consent to vaccination, noted Ines Esquilin, MD, of the University of Puerto Rico, San Juan, in a presentation at the February meeting of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).

The ACIP dengue vaccines work group reviewed data from 102 physicians in Puerto Rico, 82% of which were pediatricians, regarding potential dengue vaccination. Overall, 98% said they considered dengue a significant public health problem in Puerto Rico, and 73% said they would recommend the dengue vaccine to patients if a laboratory test with acceptable specificity were available. Among the physicians who said they would not recommend the vaccine, the most common reason (71%) was concern about the risks of vaccinating individuals with false-positive tests.

The availability of a test that can be performed in the medical office and avoid repeat visits is a major factor in the feasibility of dengue vaccination, Dr. Esquilin said.

The ACIP dengue vaccines work group also sought public opinion on the acceptability of a generic dengue vaccine through focus group sessions with parents of children aged 9-16 years in Puerto Rico, said Dr. Esquilin.

Approximately one-third of the parents said they were willing to vaccinate their children, one-third were unwilling, and one-third were unsure. The most commonly identified barriers to vaccination included lack of information or inconsistent information about the vaccine, high cost/lack of insurance coverage, time-consuming lab test to confirm infection, side effects, potential for false-positive lab results, and low vaccine effectiveness.

Motivating factors for vaccination included correct information about the vaccine, desire to prevent infection, lab-confirmed positive test, support from public health organizations, the presence of a dengue epidemic, and educational forums.

Based in part on these findings, the ACIP dengue vaccines work group noted that the need for an acceptably specific screening lab test is the greatest concern in their consideration of recommendations, and the work group expects to review a CDC assessment of laboratory tests for prevaccination screening at a future meeting.

Dr. Esquilin had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Esquilin E. 2020. February meeting of the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) presentation.

GRAPEVINE, TEXAS – Performing a total salpingectomy at the time of cesarean delivery added just over 6 minutes of operative time, compared with cesarean delivery and conventional sterilization, according to a recent systematic review and meta-analysis.

Although surgery took a little longer with salpingectomy, there was no increase in surgical complications, Jared Roeckner, MD, said in an interview at the Pregnancy Meeting, sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. “Total salpingectomy could provide an effective means of contraception and reduce the risk of future ovarian cancer,” he said.

Dr. Roeckner, a maternal-fetal medicine fellow at the University of South Florida, Tampa, explained in an interview that the systematic review and meta-analysis comprised 11 studies and included 320,443 women who received salpingectomy or standard sterilization methods. Eight cohort studies and three randomized controlled trials were included in the analysis, which was presented in a poster session at the meeting and in a simultaneous publication in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

The review’s results, wrote Dr. Roeckner and colleagues, “suggest total salpingectomy should be offered to women interested in ovarian cancer risk-reduction interventions [who] plan to undergo sterilization at the time of cesarean delivery.”

The eight cohort studies included 7,303 women. In these studies, women who received total salpingectomy at the time of cesarean delivery had operative time – defined as the time from skin incision to skin closure – 6.3 minutes longer than women who received a standard sterilization method (95% confidence interval, 3.5-9.1). The difference in duration of procedure for the three randomized controlled trials was not statistically significant between the two procedures.

Dr. Roeckner and colleagues noted that two of the randomized controlled trials reported times for the sterilization procedures. One study found a duration of 5.6 minutes for salpingectomy with a bipolar device and 6.1 minutes for tubal interruption; the other study compared salpingectomy with suture ligation and tubal interruption, finding operative times of 18.5 and 6.9 minutes, respectively.

In addition to the primary outcome of operative time, Dr. Roeckner and colleagues looked at rates of a variety of complications. These included transfusion, estimated blood loss, change in hemoglobin, wound infection, internal organ damage, readmission, reoperation, and length of stay. Salpingectomy was not associated with higher rates of any of these complications.

“Our main finding was that salpingectomy at the time of cesarean delivery may be associated with a small increase in operative time, but it doesn’t appear to be associated with an increased rate of surgical complications,” the researchers wrote.

One concern that’s been raised about the strategy of salpingectomy is the possibility of reduction of ovarian reserve related to decreased blood supply to the ovaries. However, noted Dr. Roeckner and coinvestigators, other studies have not shown decreases in anti-Müllerian hormone levels or other real-world signals for reduced ovarian reserve.

It’s true, the investigators acknowledged, that there is no possibility for reanastomosis and future fertility with salpingectomy. However, they observed that if the possibility for future fertility exists, conventional tubal ligation should not be performed.

Despite the thoroughness of the review and the investigators’ emphasis on adhering to best practices for systematic reviews and meta-analysis, they acknowledged that there were few studies, which resulted in some difficulties with statistical power. Still, they said, “there does not appear to be a trend toward increased complications among the salpingectomy cohort.”

Dr. Roeckner reported no outside sources of funding and no conflicts of interest.

koakes@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Roeckner J et al. Pregnancy Meeting, Abstract P180; Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Feb;135:3:550-7.

GRAPEVINE, TEXAS – Performing a total salpingectomy at the time of cesarean delivery added just over 6 minutes of operative time, compared with cesarean delivery and conventional sterilization, according to a recent systematic review and meta-analysis.

Although surgery took a little longer with salpingectomy, there was no increase in surgical complications, Jared Roeckner, MD, said in an interview at the Pregnancy Meeting, sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. “Total salpingectomy could provide an effective means of contraception and reduce the risk of future ovarian cancer,” he said.

Dr. Roeckner, a maternal-fetal medicine fellow at the University of South Florida, Tampa, explained in an interview that the systematic review and meta-analysis comprised 11 studies and included 320,443 women who received salpingectomy or standard sterilization methods. Eight cohort studies and three randomized controlled trials were included in the analysis, which was presented in a poster session at the meeting and in a simultaneous publication in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

The review’s results, wrote Dr. Roeckner and colleagues, “suggest total salpingectomy should be offered to women interested in ovarian cancer risk-reduction interventions [who] plan to undergo sterilization at the time of cesarean delivery.”

The eight cohort studies included 7,303 women. In these studies, women who received total salpingectomy at the time of cesarean delivery had operative time – defined as the time from skin incision to skin closure – 6.3 minutes longer than women who received a standard sterilization method (95% confidence interval, 3.5-9.1). The difference in duration of procedure for the three randomized controlled trials was not statistically significant between the two procedures.

Dr. Roeckner and colleagues noted that two of the randomized controlled trials reported times for the sterilization procedures. One study found a duration of 5.6 minutes for salpingectomy with a bipolar device and 6.1 minutes for tubal interruption; the other study compared salpingectomy with suture ligation and tubal interruption, finding operative times of 18.5 and 6.9 minutes, respectively.

In addition to the primary outcome of operative time, Dr. Roeckner and colleagues looked at rates of a variety of complications. These included transfusion, estimated blood loss, change in hemoglobin, wound infection, internal organ damage, readmission, reoperation, and length of stay. Salpingectomy was not associated with higher rates of any of these complications.

“Our main finding was that salpingectomy at the time of cesarean delivery may be associated with a small increase in operative time, but it doesn’t appear to be associated with an increased rate of surgical complications,” the researchers wrote.

One concern that’s been raised about the strategy of salpingectomy is the possibility of reduction of ovarian reserve related to decreased blood supply to the ovaries. However, noted Dr. Roeckner and coinvestigators, other studies have not shown decreases in anti-Müllerian hormone levels or other real-world signals for reduced ovarian reserve.

It’s true, the investigators acknowledged, that there is no possibility for reanastomosis and future fertility with salpingectomy. However, they observed that if the possibility for future fertility exists, conventional tubal ligation should not be performed.

Despite the thoroughness of the review and the investigators’ emphasis on adhering to best practices for systematic reviews and meta-analysis, they acknowledged that there were few studies, which resulted in some difficulties with statistical power. Still, they said, “there does not appear to be a trend toward increased complications among the salpingectomy cohort.”

Dr. Roeckner reported no outside sources of funding and no conflicts of interest.

koakes@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Roeckner J et al. Pregnancy Meeting, Abstract P180; Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Feb;135:3:550-7.

GRAPEVINE, TEXAS – Performing a total salpingectomy at the time of cesarean delivery added just over 6 minutes of operative time, compared with cesarean delivery and conventional sterilization, according to a recent systematic review and meta-analysis.

Although surgery took a little longer with salpingectomy, there was no increase in surgical complications, Jared Roeckner, MD, said in an interview at the Pregnancy Meeting, sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. “Total salpingectomy could provide an effective means of contraception and reduce the risk of future ovarian cancer,” he said.

Dr. Roeckner, a maternal-fetal medicine fellow at the University of South Florida, Tampa, explained in an interview that the systematic review and meta-analysis comprised 11 studies and included 320,443 women who received salpingectomy or standard sterilization methods. Eight cohort studies and three randomized controlled trials were included in the analysis, which was presented in a poster session at the meeting and in a simultaneous publication in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

The review’s results, wrote Dr. Roeckner and colleagues, “suggest total salpingectomy should be offered to women interested in ovarian cancer risk-reduction interventions [who] plan to undergo sterilization at the time of cesarean delivery.”

The eight cohort studies included 7,303 women. In these studies, women who received total salpingectomy at the time of cesarean delivery had operative time – defined as the time from skin incision to skin closure – 6.3 minutes longer than women who received a standard sterilization method (95% confidence interval, 3.5-9.1). The difference in duration of procedure for the three randomized controlled trials was not statistically significant between the two procedures.

Dr. Roeckner and colleagues noted that two of the randomized controlled trials reported times for the sterilization procedures. One study found a duration of 5.6 minutes for salpingectomy with a bipolar device and 6.1 minutes for tubal interruption; the other study compared salpingectomy with suture ligation and tubal interruption, finding operative times of 18.5 and 6.9 minutes, respectively.

In addition to the primary outcome of operative time, Dr. Roeckner and colleagues looked at rates of a variety of complications. These included transfusion, estimated blood loss, change in hemoglobin, wound infection, internal organ damage, readmission, reoperation, and length of stay. Salpingectomy was not associated with higher rates of any of these complications.

“Our main finding was that salpingectomy at the time of cesarean delivery may be associated with a small increase in operative time, but it doesn’t appear to be associated with an increased rate of surgical complications,” the researchers wrote.

One concern that’s been raised about the strategy of salpingectomy is the possibility of reduction of ovarian reserve related to decreased blood supply to the ovaries. However, noted Dr. Roeckner and coinvestigators, other studies have not shown decreases in anti-Müllerian hormone levels or other real-world signals for reduced ovarian reserve.

It’s true, the investigators acknowledged, that there is no possibility for reanastomosis and future fertility with salpingectomy. However, they observed that if the possibility for future fertility exists, conventional tubal ligation should not be performed.

Despite the thoroughness of the review and the investigators’ emphasis on adhering to best practices for systematic reviews and meta-analysis, they acknowledged that there were few studies, which resulted in some difficulties with statistical power. Still, they said, “there does not appear to be a trend toward increased complications among the salpingectomy cohort.”

Dr. Roeckner reported no outside sources of funding and no conflicts of interest.

koakes@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Roeckner J et al. Pregnancy Meeting, Abstract P180; Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Feb;135:3:550-7.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – A significant proportion of patients who suffer from chronic pain also have features of borderline personality disorder (BPD), new research shows.

Results of a systematic literature review showed 23% of patients with chronic noncancer pain (CNCP) had some features of BPD, including difficulty maintaining relationships, as well as affect and mood instability.

“The fact that one-fourth of individuals with CNCP could have co-occurring BPD underscores the need for improved access to good psychological care,” lead investigator Fei Cao, MD, PhD, University of Missouri at Kansas City, said in an interview.

“If we treat the borderline personality disorder and address the psychiatric needs as well as the pain needs of the patient, then we will be able to treat their pain more successfully,” Cao said.

The findings were presented at the American Academy of Pain Medicine (AAPM) 2020 Annual Meeting.
 

Treatment resistance

Cao noted that a “significant number” of CNCP patients have at least some resistance to any type of pain treatment and speculated that BPD may increase treatment-resistant chronic pain.

Initially an anesthesiologist and pain medicine specialist, Cao later became a psychiatrist after recognizing the importance of addressing the underlying psychological needs of patients with chronic pain.

He noted that there is a strong psychological component to chronic pain and that many patients with chronic pain have suffered psychological trauma.

“You have to think about what may have happened to these patients. That is most important. I would not say these are difficult patients. I would say we just don’t know what happened to them,” he said.

To gain a better understanding of the prevalence of BPD in patients suffering from chronic pain and potentially provide some unexploited targets for chronic pain management, the investigators analyzed data from 11 studies published between 1994 and 2019. They found the prevalence of BPD among CNCP patients was 23.3%. Pain types included chronic headache (11.3%), arthritis (27.5%), and chronic spinal cord pain (24.3%).

“The point of this research is that you cannot help these patients in the long-run if you only treat their pain. We also have to treat their BPD. This can then make pain easier to control. Chronic pain management is often long-term and requires good compliance. A diagnosis of BPD might suggest poor compliance,” said Cao.
 

Screen for BPD

The study findings, he added, indicate a need to screen for BPD in patients with chronic pain. Interventions that are effective in the treatment of BPD and CNCP include cognitive-behavioral therapy, dialectical behavior therapy, antidepressants, and anticonvulsants.

“These should be considered as the first-line treatment in persons with comorbid pain and BPD,” Cao said.

Commenting on the findings, Ann E. Hansen, DVM, MD, Chronic Pain Wellness Center, Phoenix VA Health Care System, Arizona, said the study illustrates the multifactorial nature of chronic pain syndromes, and underscores the importance of a multidisciplinary approach to evaluation and treatment.

“The authors present data showing that BPD is a common diagnosis in patients with chronic pain, thus raising provider awareness to consider BPD and to involve behavioral health colleagues in comanaging these complex patients to achieve optimal outcomes,” Hansen said.

Cao and Hansen have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

SOURCE: Cao F et al. American Academy of Pain Medicine (AAPM) 2020 Annual Meeting, Abstract 505.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – A significant proportion of patients who suffer from chronic pain also have features of borderline personality disorder (BPD), new research shows.

Results of a systematic literature review showed 23% of patients with chronic noncancer pain (CNCP) had some features of BPD, including difficulty maintaining relationships, as well as affect and mood instability.

“The fact that one-fourth of individuals with CNCP could have co-occurring BPD underscores the need for improved access to good psychological care,” lead investigator Fei Cao, MD, PhD, University of Missouri at Kansas City, said in an interview.

“If we treat the borderline personality disorder and address the psychiatric needs as well as the pain needs of the patient, then we will be able to treat their pain more successfully,” Cao said.

The findings were presented at the American Academy of Pain Medicine (AAPM) 2020 Annual Meeting.
 

Treatment resistance

Cao noted that a “significant number” of CNCP patients have at least some resistance to any type of pain treatment and speculated that BPD may increase treatment-resistant chronic pain.

Initially an anesthesiologist and pain medicine specialist, Cao later became a psychiatrist after recognizing the importance of addressing the underlying psychological needs of patients with chronic pain.

He noted that there is a strong psychological component to chronic pain and that many patients with chronic pain have suffered psychological trauma.

“You have to think about what may have happened to these patients. That is most important. I would not say these are difficult patients. I would say we just don’t know what happened to them,” he said.

To gain a better understanding of the prevalence of BPD in patients suffering from chronic pain and potentially provide some unexploited targets for chronic pain management, the investigators analyzed data from 11 studies published between 1994 and 2019. They found the prevalence of BPD among CNCP patients was 23.3%. Pain types included chronic headache (11.3%), arthritis (27.5%), and chronic spinal cord pain (24.3%).

“The point of this research is that you cannot help these patients in the long-run if you only treat their pain. We also have to treat their BPD. This can then make pain easier to control. Chronic pain management is often long-term and requires good compliance. A diagnosis of BPD might suggest poor compliance,” said Cao.
 

Screen for BPD

The study findings, he added, indicate a need to screen for BPD in patients with chronic pain. Interventions that are effective in the treatment of BPD and CNCP include cognitive-behavioral therapy, dialectical behavior therapy, antidepressants, and anticonvulsants.

“These should be considered as the first-line treatment in persons with comorbid pain and BPD,” Cao said.

Commenting on the findings, Ann E. Hansen, DVM, MD, Chronic Pain Wellness Center, Phoenix VA Health Care System, Arizona, said the study illustrates the multifactorial nature of chronic pain syndromes, and underscores the importance of a multidisciplinary approach to evaluation and treatment.

“The authors present data showing that BPD is a common diagnosis in patients with chronic pain, thus raising provider awareness to consider BPD and to involve behavioral health colleagues in comanaging these complex patients to achieve optimal outcomes,” Hansen said.

Cao and Hansen have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

SOURCE: Cao F et al. American Academy of Pain Medicine (AAPM) 2020 Annual Meeting, Abstract 505.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – A significant proportion of patients who suffer from chronic pain also have features of borderline personality disorder (BPD), new research shows.

Results of a systematic literature review showed 23% of patients with chronic noncancer pain (CNCP) had some features of BPD, including difficulty maintaining relationships, as well as affect and mood instability.

“The fact that one-fourth of individuals with CNCP could have co-occurring BPD underscores the need for improved access to good psychological care,” lead investigator Fei Cao, MD, PhD, University of Missouri at Kansas City, said in an interview.

“If we treat the borderline personality disorder and address the psychiatric needs as well as the pain needs of the patient, then we will be able to treat their pain more successfully,” Cao said.

The findings were presented at the American Academy of Pain Medicine (AAPM) 2020 Annual Meeting.
 

Treatment resistance

Cao noted that a “significant number” of CNCP patients have at least some resistance to any type of pain treatment and speculated that BPD may increase treatment-resistant chronic pain.

Initially an anesthesiologist and pain medicine specialist, Cao later became a psychiatrist after recognizing the importance of addressing the underlying psychological needs of patients with chronic pain.

He noted that there is a strong psychological component to chronic pain and that many patients with chronic pain have suffered psychological trauma.

“You have to think about what may have happened to these patients. That is most important. I would not say these are difficult patients. I would say we just don’t know what happened to them,” he said.

To gain a better understanding of the prevalence of BPD in patients suffering from chronic pain and potentially provide some unexploited targets for chronic pain management, the investigators analyzed data from 11 studies published between 1994 and 2019. They found the prevalence of BPD among CNCP patients was 23.3%. Pain types included chronic headache (11.3%), arthritis (27.5%), and chronic spinal cord pain (24.3%).

“The point of this research is that you cannot help these patients in the long-run if you only treat their pain. We also have to treat their BPD. This can then make pain easier to control. Chronic pain management is often long-term and requires good compliance. A diagnosis of BPD might suggest poor compliance,” said Cao.
 

Screen for BPD

The study findings, he added, indicate a need to screen for BPD in patients with chronic pain. Interventions that are effective in the treatment of BPD and CNCP include cognitive-behavioral therapy, dialectical behavior therapy, antidepressants, and anticonvulsants.

“These should be considered as the first-line treatment in persons with comorbid pain and BPD,” Cao said.

Commenting on the findings, Ann E. Hansen, DVM, MD, Chronic Pain Wellness Center, Phoenix VA Health Care System, Arizona, said the study illustrates the multifactorial nature of chronic pain syndromes, and underscores the importance of a multidisciplinary approach to evaluation and treatment.

“The authors present data showing that BPD is a common diagnosis in patients with chronic pain, thus raising provider awareness to consider BPD and to involve behavioral health colleagues in comanaging these complex patients to achieve optimal outcomes,” Hansen said.

Cao and Hansen have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

SOURCE: Cao F et al. American Academy of Pain Medicine (AAPM) 2020 Annual Meeting, Abstract 505.

CASE

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

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

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

What would you recommend?

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

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

Initiating thyroid hormone replacement

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

Continue to: For adults with cardiac disease...

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

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

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

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

Maintaining patients on therapy

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

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

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

Continue to: To maximize absorption...

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

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

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

Special populations/circumstances to keep in mind

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CASE

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

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

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

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

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

CASE

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

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

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

What would you recommend?

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

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

Initiating thyroid hormone replacement

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

Continue to: For adults with cardiac disease...

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

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

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

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

Maintaining patients on therapy

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

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

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

Continue to: To maximize absorption...

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

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

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

Special populations/circumstances to keep in mind

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CASE

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

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

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

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

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

CASE

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

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

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

What would you recommend?

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

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

Initiating thyroid hormone replacement

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

Continue to: For adults with cardiac disease...

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

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

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

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

Maintaining patients on therapy

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

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

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

Continue to: To maximize absorption...

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

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

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

Special populations/circumstances to keep in mind

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CASE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Long-term efficacy

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

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

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

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

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

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

Late toxicity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

jensmith@mdedge.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Long-term efficacy

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

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

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

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

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

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

Late toxicity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

jensmith@mdedge.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Long-term efficacy

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

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

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

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

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

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

Late toxicity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

jensmith@mdedge.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

100% and 96% for stage 1.

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

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

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

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

100% and 95% for stage 1.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

sworcester@mdedge.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

100% and 96% for stage 1.

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

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

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

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

100% and 95% for stage 1.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

sworcester@mdedge.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

100% and 96% for stage 1.

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

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

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

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

100% and 95% for stage 1.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

sworcester@mdedge.com

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

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

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

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

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

Why did you choose a career in medicine?

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

What do you like most about working as a hospitalist?

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

What do you like the least?

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

What’s the best advice you ever received?

“You’ve gotta learn to listen!”

What’s the worst advice you ever received?

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

What aspect of patient care is most challenging?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where do you see yourself in 10 years?

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

What has been your most meaningful experience with SHM?

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

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

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

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

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

Why did you choose a career in medicine?

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

What do you like most about working as a hospitalist?

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

What do you like the least?

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

What’s the best advice you ever received?

“You’ve gotta learn to listen!”

What’s the worst advice you ever received?

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

What aspect of patient care is most challenging?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where do you see yourself in 10 years?

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

What has been your most meaningful experience with SHM?

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

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

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

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

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

Why did you choose a career in medicine?

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

What do you like most about working as a hospitalist?

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

What do you like the least?

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

What’s the best advice you ever received?

“You’ve gotta learn to listen!”

What’s the worst advice you ever received?

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

What aspect of patient care is most challenging?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where do you see yourself in 10 years?

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

What has been your most meaningful experience with SHM?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

References

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Courtesy King County Public Health Department

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

koakes@mdedge.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Courtesy King County Public Health Department

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

koakes@mdedge.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Courtesy King County Public Health Department

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

koakes@mdedge.com