Wearing stable, supportive footwear reduces knee pain to a significantly greater extent than what’s felt with flat, flexible shoes in patients with severe knee osteoarthritis, according to results of a randomized, controlled trial presented at the OARSI 2021 World Congress.

Stockbyte/Thinkstock

Clinical guidelines for knee OA emphasize the importance of patients self-managing their condition with exercise, weight control, and appropriate footwear. However, there is limited evidence on which footwear is best, and some guidelines advocate stable supportive shoes based solely on expert opinion, Kade Paterson, PhD, of the University of Melbourne told the conference, sponsored by Osteoarthritis Research Society International.

“Recent research suggests that another type of shoe style – termed flat, flexible shoes – may be more beneficial,” Dr. Paterson said, citing a randomized, controlled trial that found greater improvement in pain and function with flat flexible shoes, compared with neutral tennis shoes. “Flat, flexible shoes are generally lighter, and have thinner, more flexible soles.”

In this study, which was published earlier this year in Annals of Internal Medicine, 164 individuals with knee OA who had experienced knee pain on most days of the past month were randomized to wear either stable, supportive shoes or flat, flexible shoes for at least 6 hours a day for 6 months. Six of each shoe type – three male styles and three female styles – were offered, having been chosen based on a survey in which participants were asked about a selection of commercially available shoes they were most likely to wear.

Researchers found participants who wore the stable, supportive shoes had significantly greater reductions in knee pain on walking during the previous week, representing a mean difference of 1.1 units on an 11-point numerical rating scale. More patients in the stable, supportive shoe arm of the study achieved minimal clinically important difference in pain than did those in the flat, flexible shoe group.

Stable, supportive shoes were also associated with greater improvements in knee-related quality of life scores and greater improvements in overall pain. However, there was no significant difference between the two groups in function. Patients wearing flat, flexible shoes reported significantly more adverse events – mainly onset of or increases in knee pain.

Dr. Paterson said the results were surprising, given previous research suggesting a benefit from lighter flat, flexible shoes. “Some previous research showed that those shoes reduced knee joint forces that were associated with pain and reduced it more than stable, supportive shoes, and based on the biomechanical research, we thought would be flat, flexible shoes,” he said in an interview.

Another observation to come from the study was the poor quality of most patients’ everyday shoes. Dr. Paterson said that most of the participants’ usual shoes were very old, and many were also wearing inappropriate footwear for knee OA, including shoes with heels or slippers.

“We would strongly recommend that clinicians ask patients to even bring in their most commonly worn shoes and then recommend new shoes, and based on our data, certainly stable supportive shoes,” he said.

Commenting on the findings, Jos Runhaar, PhD, of Erasmus University Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, said this study provided high-quality evidence for this specific intervention in this specific group of patients, namely those with more severe, end-stage OA who had long-lasting changes in their foot posture and gait.

“Based on this, I would say that restoring the original posture of the foot – because that’s how the stable, supportive shoes are probably designed – is more beneficial than actually supporting the natural gait that people are already adapted to at that stage,” Dr. Runhaar said in an interview.

Dr. Paterson noted that the findings of the study were not generalizable to people with mild knee OA, and also that the study did not compare either shoe type with participants’ usual shoes.

The study and three authors were supported by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. No conflicts of interest were declared.

Wearing stable, supportive footwear reduces knee pain to a significantly greater extent than what’s felt with flat, flexible shoes in patients with severe knee osteoarthritis, according to results of a randomized, controlled trial presented at the OARSI 2021 World Congress.

Stockbyte/Thinkstock

Clinical guidelines for knee OA emphasize the importance of patients self-managing their condition with exercise, weight control, and appropriate footwear. However, there is limited evidence on which footwear is best, and some guidelines advocate stable supportive shoes based solely on expert opinion, Kade Paterson, PhD, of the University of Melbourne told the conference, sponsored by Osteoarthritis Research Society International.

“Recent research suggests that another type of shoe style – termed flat, flexible shoes – may be more beneficial,” Dr. Paterson said, citing a randomized, controlled trial that found greater improvement in pain and function with flat flexible shoes, compared with neutral tennis shoes. “Flat, flexible shoes are generally lighter, and have thinner, more flexible soles.”

In this study, which was published earlier this year in Annals of Internal Medicine, 164 individuals with knee OA who had experienced knee pain on most days of the past month were randomized to wear either stable, supportive shoes or flat, flexible shoes for at least 6 hours a day for 6 months. Six of each shoe type – three male styles and three female styles – were offered, having been chosen based on a survey in which participants were asked about a selection of commercially available shoes they were most likely to wear.

Researchers found participants who wore the stable, supportive shoes had significantly greater reductions in knee pain on walking during the previous week, representing a mean difference of 1.1 units on an 11-point numerical rating scale. More patients in the stable, supportive shoe arm of the study achieved minimal clinically important difference in pain than did those in the flat, flexible shoe group.

Stable, supportive shoes were also associated with greater improvements in knee-related quality of life scores and greater improvements in overall pain. However, there was no significant difference between the two groups in function. Patients wearing flat, flexible shoes reported significantly more adverse events – mainly onset of or increases in knee pain.

Dr. Paterson said the results were surprising, given previous research suggesting a benefit from lighter flat, flexible shoes. “Some previous research showed that those shoes reduced knee joint forces that were associated with pain and reduced it more than stable, supportive shoes, and based on the biomechanical research, we thought would be flat, flexible shoes,” he said in an interview.

Another observation to come from the study was the poor quality of most patients’ everyday shoes. Dr. Paterson said that most of the participants’ usual shoes were very old, and many were also wearing inappropriate footwear for knee OA, including shoes with heels or slippers.

“We would strongly recommend that clinicians ask patients to even bring in their most commonly worn shoes and then recommend new shoes, and based on our data, certainly stable supportive shoes,” he said.

Commenting on the findings, Jos Runhaar, PhD, of Erasmus University Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, said this study provided high-quality evidence for this specific intervention in this specific group of patients, namely those with more severe, end-stage OA who had long-lasting changes in their foot posture and gait.

“Based on this, I would say that restoring the original posture of the foot – because that’s how the stable, supportive shoes are probably designed – is more beneficial than actually supporting the natural gait that people are already adapted to at that stage,” Dr. Runhaar said in an interview.

Dr. Paterson noted that the findings of the study were not generalizable to people with mild knee OA, and also that the study did not compare either shoe type with participants’ usual shoes.

The study and three authors were supported by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. No conflicts of interest were declared.

Wearing stable, supportive footwear reduces knee pain to a significantly greater extent than what’s felt with flat, flexible shoes in patients with severe knee osteoarthritis, according to results of a randomized, controlled trial presented at the OARSI 2021 World Congress.

Stockbyte/Thinkstock

Clinical guidelines for knee OA emphasize the importance of patients self-managing their condition with exercise, weight control, and appropriate footwear. However, there is limited evidence on which footwear is best, and some guidelines advocate stable supportive shoes based solely on expert opinion, Kade Paterson, PhD, of the University of Melbourne told the conference, sponsored by Osteoarthritis Research Society International.

“Recent research suggests that another type of shoe style – termed flat, flexible shoes – may be more beneficial,” Dr. Paterson said, citing a randomized, controlled trial that found greater improvement in pain and function with flat flexible shoes, compared with neutral tennis shoes. “Flat, flexible shoes are generally lighter, and have thinner, more flexible soles.”

In this study, which was published earlier this year in Annals of Internal Medicine, 164 individuals with knee OA who had experienced knee pain on most days of the past month were randomized to wear either stable, supportive shoes or flat, flexible shoes for at least 6 hours a day for 6 months. Six of each shoe type – three male styles and three female styles – were offered, having been chosen based on a survey in which participants were asked about a selection of commercially available shoes they were most likely to wear.

Researchers found participants who wore the stable, supportive shoes had significantly greater reductions in knee pain on walking during the previous week, representing a mean difference of 1.1 units on an 11-point numerical rating scale. More patients in the stable, supportive shoe arm of the study achieved minimal clinically important difference in pain than did those in the flat, flexible shoe group.

Stable, supportive shoes were also associated with greater improvements in knee-related quality of life scores and greater improvements in overall pain. However, there was no significant difference between the two groups in function. Patients wearing flat, flexible shoes reported significantly more adverse events – mainly onset of or increases in knee pain.

Dr. Paterson said the results were surprising, given previous research suggesting a benefit from lighter flat, flexible shoes. “Some previous research showed that those shoes reduced knee joint forces that were associated with pain and reduced it more than stable, supportive shoes, and based on the biomechanical research, we thought would be flat, flexible shoes,” he said in an interview.

Another observation to come from the study was the poor quality of most patients’ everyday shoes. Dr. Paterson said that most of the participants’ usual shoes were very old, and many were also wearing inappropriate footwear for knee OA, including shoes with heels or slippers.

“We would strongly recommend that clinicians ask patients to even bring in their most commonly worn shoes and then recommend new shoes, and based on our data, certainly stable supportive shoes,” he said.

Commenting on the findings, Jos Runhaar, PhD, of Erasmus University Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, said this study provided high-quality evidence for this specific intervention in this specific group of patients, namely those with more severe, end-stage OA who had long-lasting changes in their foot posture and gait.

“Based on this, I would say that restoring the original posture of the foot – because that’s how the stable, supportive shoes are probably designed – is more beneficial than actually supporting the natural gait that people are already adapted to at that stage,” Dr. Runhaar said in an interview.

Dr. Paterson noted that the findings of the study were not generalizable to people with mild knee OA, and also that the study did not compare either shoe type with participants’ usual shoes.

The study and three authors were supported by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. No conflicts of interest were declared.

The ivory white appearance and slight atrophy of the lesions raised the possibility of extragenital lichen sclerosus (LS). A 4-mm punch biopsy confirmed the diagnosis.

LS occurs in all races and is an uncommon, chronic inflammatory disease that most often affects the vulva and perianal mucosa in postmenopausal women.¹ That said, it can also affect men and children, and manifest in places such as the trunk and neck. Extragenital lesions may appear ivory white, as in this case, or may resemble ecchymoses and raise alarm for possible abuse.

When LS is present on the extremities, a complete skin surface exam, including external genitalia, is warranted. LS is thought to be an autoimmune disease and is associated with vitiligo, autoimmune thyroid disease, and morphea.

In cases of suspected LS, it’s important to biopsy the full thickness of the skin and subcutaneous tissue. It is helpful to include an area of normal skin in the sample, as the findings are subtle and best contrasted with the architecture of unaffected skin. For this patient, a 4-mm punch biopsy was sufficient, but an incisional biopsy would be more appropriate for a larger patch or plaque.

Treatment options are based on a small case series and a few small randomized controlled trials. Medications include topical steroids, topical calcineurin inhibitors, systemic retinoids, and topical estrogens.

In this case, the patient was advised to apply topical clobetasol 0.05% cream bid to the affected area for 2 weeks, then twice weekly for 4 weeks. She had partial clearance with this approach, but small macules later appeared on her dorsal foot; the treatment was repeated.

‌

Text and photos courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD, medical director, MDFMR Dermatology Services, Augusta, ME. (Photo copyright retained.)

The ivory white appearance and slight atrophy of the lesions raised the possibility of extragenital lichen sclerosus (LS). A 4-mm punch biopsy confirmed the diagnosis.

LS occurs in all races and is an uncommon, chronic inflammatory disease that most often affects the vulva and perianal mucosa in postmenopausal women.¹ That said, it can also affect men and children, and manifest in places such as the trunk and neck. Extragenital lesions may appear ivory white, as in this case, or may resemble ecchymoses and raise alarm for possible abuse.

When LS is present on the extremities, a complete skin surface exam, including external genitalia, is warranted. LS is thought to be an autoimmune disease and is associated with vitiligo, autoimmune thyroid disease, and morphea.

In cases of suspected LS, it’s important to biopsy the full thickness of the skin and subcutaneous tissue. It is helpful to include an area of normal skin in the sample, as the findings are subtle and best contrasted with the architecture of unaffected skin. For this patient, a 4-mm punch biopsy was sufficient, but an incisional biopsy would be more appropriate for a larger patch or plaque.

Treatment options are based on a small case series and a few small randomized controlled trials. Medications include topical steroids, topical calcineurin inhibitors, systemic retinoids, and topical estrogens.

In this case, the patient was advised to apply topical clobetasol 0.05% cream bid to the affected area for 2 weeks, then twice weekly for 4 weeks. She had partial clearance with this approach, but small macules later appeared on her dorsal foot; the treatment was repeated.

‌

Text and photos courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD, medical director, MDFMR Dermatology Services, Augusta, ME. (Photo copyright retained.)

The ivory white appearance and slight atrophy of the lesions raised the possibility of extragenital lichen sclerosus (LS). A 4-mm punch biopsy confirmed the diagnosis.

LS occurs in all races and is an uncommon, chronic inflammatory disease that most often affects the vulva and perianal mucosa in postmenopausal women.¹ That said, it can also affect men and children, and manifest in places such as the trunk and neck. Extragenital lesions may appear ivory white, as in this case, or may resemble ecchymoses and raise alarm for possible abuse.

When LS is present on the extremities, a complete skin surface exam, including external genitalia, is warranted. LS is thought to be an autoimmune disease and is associated with vitiligo, autoimmune thyroid disease, and morphea.

In cases of suspected LS, it’s important to biopsy the full thickness of the skin and subcutaneous tissue. It is helpful to include an area of normal skin in the sample, as the findings are subtle and best contrasted with the architecture of unaffected skin. For this patient, a 4-mm punch biopsy was sufficient, but an incisional biopsy would be more appropriate for a larger patch or plaque.

Treatment options are based on a small case series and a few small randomized controlled trials. Medications include topical steroids, topical calcineurin inhibitors, systemic retinoids, and topical estrogens.

In this case, the patient was advised to apply topical clobetasol 0.05% cream bid to the affected area for 2 weeks, then twice weekly for 4 weeks. She had partial clearance with this approach, but small macules later appeared on her dorsal foot; the treatment was repeated.

‌

Text and photos courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD, medical director, MDFMR Dermatology Services, Augusta, ME. (Photo copyright retained.)

No matter where an initial fracture occurs in a postmenopausal woman, there is a subsequent increased risk of another fracture, with the risk surprisingly highest in the youngest postmenopausal group and among certain minorities, new data indicate.

“To our knowledge, no previous prospective study has reported detailed patterns of subsequent fracture locations after initial fracture according to age strata among women in the U.S.,” the authors noted in their article, published online May 5, 2021, in EClinicalMedicine.

The results show that a first fracture of the lower arm or wrist; upper arm; or shoulder, upper leg, knee, lower leg, or ankle – as well as those of the hip or pelvis – were associated with an approximately three- to sixfold increased risk for subsequent fractures. The findings have important implications for clinicians, said lead author Carolyn J. Crandall, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles.

“By not paying attention to which types of fractures increase the risk of future fractures, we are missing the opportunity to identify people at increased risk of future fracture and counsel them regarding risk reduction,” she said in a press statement.

Commenting on the research, Michael R. McClung, MD, stressed this message to clinicians needs to be underscored.

“This paper is one of a series of papers highlighting the fact that having a previous fracture is a risk factor for subsequent fractures,” he said in an interview.

“This has been known for a very long time, but it is a point still not appreciated by patients and primary care doctors, so having another study pointing this out is important,” emphasized Dr. McClung, of the Oregon Osteoporosis Center in Portland.
 

30% of women’s health initiative participants had a fracture

For the study, Dr. Crandall and colleagues evaluated data on 157,282 women between the ages of 50 and 79 who were enrolled in the Women’s Health Initiative between 1993 and 2018.

The women were a mean age of 63.1 years and 47,126 (30%) experienced an incident fracture during the study period.

With a mean follow-up of 15.4 years, each type of fracture was associated with an increased risk of a subsequent fracture after adjusting for age, race/ethnicity, body mass index, hormone therapy use, and other factors.

A wide range of initial risk fractures – including an initial lower arm or wrist fracture (adjusted hazard ratio, 4.80), upper arm or shoulder fracture (aHR, 5.06), upper leg fracture (aHR, 5.11), knee fracture (aHR, 5.03), lower leg/ankle fracture (aHR, 4.10), and spinal fracture (aHR, 6.69) – increased the risk of sustaining a subsequent hip fracture. 

For initial fractures of the lower arm or wrist, there was an increased risk of a subsequent fracture of the upper arm/shoulder, upper leg, knee, lower leg/ankle, hip/pelvis, and spine (aHRs ranged from 2.63 to 5.68). 

“The finding that knee fracture has the same prognostic value for subsequent fracture as hip or wrist fracture is a novel key finding, as knee fracture is generally not considered ‘osteoporotic’,” the authors noted.

The risk of fracture after sustaining an initial hip or pelvis fracture was exceptionally high – with as much as a 27-fold higher risk of a subsequent upper leg (nonhip) fracture (aHR, 27.18).

“Thirty-four percent of women who experienced initial hip or pelvis fracture experienced a subsequent nonhip fracture,” the authors noted.

However, the risks associated with an initial hip fracture are already well established, and the study’s more notable findings are the risks of other bone breaks, Dr. Crandall told this news organization.

“The (increased risk with hip fracture) is a rather substantial result,” she said. “However, the more major point of this study is that no matter where the initial fracture happened, the risk of the future fracture was elevated.”
 

Don’t disregard risks in younger women, racial/ethnic groups

The findings regarding age are also important. The highest risk was observed in the youngest postmenopausal age group of 50-59 years (aHR, 6.45), which decreased slightly in the 60- to 69-year age group (aHR, 6.04) and further decreased in the 70- to 79-year age group (aHR, 4.99).

“This was a surprise, and it highlights that clinicians should not disregard initial fractures among young postmenopausal women,” Dr. Crandall told this news organization.

Even greater increased risks for a subsequent fracture following an initial lower extremity fracture were observed in non-Hispanic Black women, Hispanic or Latina women, and women of Asian Pacific Islander ethnicity, ranging from ninefold to 14-fold, versus a sevenfold risk among non-Hispanic White women.

“This has public health implications because it means that we may have been missing the opportunity to prevent fractures among younger postmenopausal women and underrepresented racial/ethnic groups,” Dr. Crandall noted.

Is risk greatest 1-2 years after the initial fracture?

The findings suggest that current treatment guidelines may need to be revisited in light of inconsistencies regarding when, and for which fracture types, to initiate treatment.

“It will be important to determine whether existing risk calculators can be adapted (or new calculators developed) to help refine decision-making to determine which of the women with fractures other than hip or vertebral fractures should be treated,” the authors wrote.

Dr. McClung said a randomized, controlled trial of osteoporosis treatment in people who present with all types of fractures would help determine whether having a knee or a wrist fracture does indeed warrant such therapy.

He further commented that future studies should evaluate the shorter- versus longer-term risks.

“The most recent research suggests that the risk of having a second fracture is much higher in the first year or 2 after the first or incident fracture,” he observed. “So, the next stage in research with this dataset would be to ask not what happens over a 10-year time frame but what happens over the first year or 2 after the fracture.”

The study was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Crandall reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. McClung reported being a consultant and on the speakers bureau for Amgen and being a speaker for Alexion.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

No matter where an initial fracture occurs in a postmenopausal woman, there is a subsequent increased risk of another fracture, with the risk surprisingly highest in the youngest postmenopausal group and among certain minorities, new data indicate.

“To our knowledge, no previous prospective study has reported detailed patterns of subsequent fracture locations after initial fracture according to age strata among women in the U.S.,” the authors noted in their article, published online May 5, 2021, in EClinicalMedicine.

The results show that a first fracture of the lower arm or wrist; upper arm; or shoulder, upper leg, knee, lower leg, or ankle – as well as those of the hip or pelvis – were associated with an approximately three- to sixfold increased risk for subsequent fractures. The findings have important implications for clinicians, said lead author Carolyn J. Crandall, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles.

“By not paying attention to which types of fractures increase the risk of future fractures, we are missing the opportunity to identify people at increased risk of future fracture and counsel them regarding risk reduction,” she said in a press statement.

Commenting on the research, Michael R. McClung, MD, stressed this message to clinicians needs to be underscored.

“This paper is one of a series of papers highlighting the fact that having a previous fracture is a risk factor for subsequent fractures,” he said in an interview.

“This has been known for a very long time, but it is a point still not appreciated by patients and primary care doctors, so having another study pointing this out is important,” emphasized Dr. McClung, of the Oregon Osteoporosis Center in Portland.
 

30% of women’s health initiative participants had a fracture

For the study, Dr. Crandall and colleagues evaluated data on 157,282 women between the ages of 50 and 79 who were enrolled in the Women’s Health Initiative between 1993 and 2018.

The women were a mean age of 63.1 years and 47,126 (30%) experienced an incident fracture during the study period.

With a mean follow-up of 15.4 years, each type of fracture was associated with an increased risk of a subsequent fracture after adjusting for age, race/ethnicity, body mass index, hormone therapy use, and other factors.

A wide range of initial risk fractures – including an initial lower arm or wrist fracture (adjusted hazard ratio, 4.80), upper arm or shoulder fracture (aHR, 5.06), upper leg fracture (aHR, 5.11), knee fracture (aHR, 5.03), lower leg/ankle fracture (aHR, 4.10), and spinal fracture (aHR, 6.69) – increased the risk of sustaining a subsequent hip fracture. 

For initial fractures of the lower arm or wrist, there was an increased risk of a subsequent fracture of the upper arm/shoulder, upper leg, knee, lower leg/ankle, hip/pelvis, and spine (aHRs ranged from 2.63 to 5.68). 

“The finding that knee fracture has the same prognostic value for subsequent fracture as hip or wrist fracture is a novel key finding, as knee fracture is generally not considered ‘osteoporotic’,” the authors noted.

The risk of fracture after sustaining an initial hip or pelvis fracture was exceptionally high – with as much as a 27-fold higher risk of a subsequent upper leg (nonhip) fracture (aHR, 27.18).

“Thirty-four percent of women who experienced initial hip or pelvis fracture experienced a subsequent nonhip fracture,” the authors noted.

However, the risks associated with an initial hip fracture are already well established, and the study’s more notable findings are the risks of other bone breaks, Dr. Crandall told this news organization.

“The (increased risk with hip fracture) is a rather substantial result,” she said. “However, the more major point of this study is that no matter where the initial fracture happened, the risk of the future fracture was elevated.”
 

Don’t disregard risks in younger women, racial/ethnic groups

The findings regarding age are also important. The highest risk was observed in the youngest postmenopausal age group of 50-59 years (aHR, 6.45), which decreased slightly in the 60- to 69-year age group (aHR, 6.04) and further decreased in the 70- to 79-year age group (aHR, 4.99).

“This was a surprise, and it highlights that clinicians should not disregard initial fractures among young postmenopausal women,” Dr. Crandall told this news organization.

Even greater increased risks for a subsequent fracture following an initial lower extremity fracture were observed in non-Hispanic Black women, Hispanic or Latina women, and women of Asian Pacific Islander ethnicity, ranging from ninefold to 14-fold, versus a sevenfold risk among non-Hispanic White women.

“This has public health implications because it means that we may have been missing the opportunity to prevent fractures among younger postmenopausal women and underrepresented racial/ethnic groups,” Dr. Crandall noted.

Is risk greatest 1-2 years after the initial fracture?

The findings suggest that current treatment guidelines may need to be revisited in light of inconsistencies regarding when, and for which fracture types, to initiate treatment.

“It will be important to determine whether existing risk calculators can be adapted (or new calculators developed) to help refine decision-making to determine which of the women with fractures other than hip or vertebral fractures should be treated,” the authors wrote.

Dr. McClung said a randomized, controlled trial of osteoporosis treatment in people who present with all types of fractures would help determine whether having a knee or a wrist fracture does indeed warrant such therapy.

He further commented that future studies should evaluate the shorter- versus longer-term risks.

“The most recent research suggests that the risk of having a second fracture is much higher in the first year or 2 after the first or incident fracture,” he observed. “So, the next stage in research with this dataset would be to ask not what happens over a 10-year time frame but what happens over the first year or 2 after the fracture.”

The study was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Crandall reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. McClung reported being a consultant and on the speakers bureau for Amgen and being a speaker for Alexion.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

No matter where an initial fracture occurs in a postmenopausal woman, there is a subsequent increased risk of another fracture, with the risk surprisingly highest in the youngest postmenopausal group and among certain minorities, new data indicate.

“To our knowledge, no previous prospective study has reported detailed patterns of subsequent fracture locations after initial fracture according to age strata among women in the U.S.,” the authors noted in their article, published online May 5, 2021, in EClinicalMedicine.

The results show that a first fracture of the lower arm or wrist; upper arm; or shoulder, upper leg, knee, lower leg, or ankle – as well as those of the hip or pelvis – were associated with an approximately three- to sixfold increased risk for subsequent fractures. The findings have important implications for clinicians, said lead author Carolyn J. Crandall, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles.

“By not paying attention to which types of fractures increase the risk of future fractures, we are missing the opportunity to identify people at increased risk of future fracture and counsel them regarding risk reduction,” she said in a press statement.

Commenting on the research, Michael R. McClung, MD, stressed this message to clinicians needs to be underscored.

“This paper is one of a series of papers highlighting the fact that having a previous fracture is a risk factor for subsequent fractures,” he said in an interview.

“This has been known for a very long time, but it is a point still not appreciated by patients and primary care doctors, so having another study pointing this out is important,” emphasized Dr. McClung, of the Oregon Osteoporosis Center in Portland.
 

30% of women’s health initiative participants had a fracture

For the study, Dr. Crandall and colleagues evaluated data on 157,282 women between the ages of 50 and 79 who were enrolled in the Women’s Health Initiative between 1993 and 2018.

The women were a mean age of 63.1 years and 47,126 (30%) experienced an incident fracture during the study period.

With a mean follow-up of 15.4 years, each type of fracture was associated with an increased risk of a subsequent fracture after adjusting for age, race/ethnicity, body mass index, hormone therapy use, and other factors.

A wide range of initial risk fractures – including an initial lower arm or wrist fracture (adjusted hazard ratio, 4.80), upper arm or shoulder fracture (aHR, 5.06), upper leg fracture (aHR, 5.11), knee fracture (aHR, 5.03), lower leg/ankle fracture (aHR, 4.10), and spinal fracture (aHR, 6.69) – increased the risk of sustaining a subsequent hip fracture. 

For initial fractures of the lower arm or wrist, there was an increased risk of a subsequent fracture of the upper arm/shoulder, upper leg, knee, lower leg/ankle, hip/pelvis, and spine (aHRs ranged from 2.63 to 5.68). 

“The finding that knee fracture has the same prognostic value for subsequent fracture as hip or wrist fracture is a novel key finding, as knee fracture is generally not considered ‘osteoporotic’,” the authors noted.

The risk of fracture after sustaining an initial hip or pelvis fracture was exceptionally high – with as much as a 27-fold higher risk of a subsequent upper leg (nonhip) fracture (aHR, 27.18).

“Thirty-four percent of women who experienced initial hip or pelvis fracture experienced a subsequent nonhip fracture,” the authors noted.

However, the risks associated with an initial hip fracture are already well established, and the study’s more notable findings are the risks of other bone breaks, Dr. Crandall told this news organization.

“The (increased risk with hip fracture) is a rather substantial result,” she said. “However, the more major point of this study is that no matter where the initial fracture happened, the risk of the future fracture was elevated.”
 

Don’t disregard risks in younger women, racial/ethnic groups

The findings regarding age are also important. The highest risk was observed in the youngest postmenopausal age group of 50-59 years (aHR, 6.45), which decreased slightly in the 60- to 69-year age group (aHR, 6.04) and further decreased in the 70- to 79-year age group (aHR, 4.99).

“This was a surprise, and it highlights that clinicians should not disregard initial fractures among young postmenopausal women,” Dr. Crandall told this news organization.

Even greater increased risks for a subsequent fracture following an initial lower extremity fracture were observed in non-Hispanic Black women, Hispanic or Latina women, and women of Asian Pacific Islander ethnicity, ranging from ninefold to 14-fold, versus a sevenfold risk among non-Hispanic White women.

“This has public health implications because it means that we may have been missing the opportunity to prevent fractures among younger postmenopausal women and underrepresented racial/ethnic groups,” Dr. Crandall noted.

Is risk greatest 1-2 years after the initial fracture?

The findings suggest that current treatment guidelines may need to be revisited in light of inconsistencies regarding when, and for which fracture types, to initiate treatment.

“It will be important to determine whether existing risk calculators can be adapted (or new calculators developed) to help refine decision-making to determine which of the women with fractures other than hip or vertebral fractures should be treated,” the authors wrote.

Dr. McClung said a randomized, controlled trial of osteoporosis treatment in people who present with all types of fractures would help determine whether having a knee or a wrist fracture does indeed warrant such therapy.

He further commented that future studies should evaluate the shorter- versus longer-term risks.

“The most recent research suggests that the risk of having a second fracture is much higher in the first year or 2 after the first or incident fracture,” he observed. “So, the next stage in research with this dataset would be to ask not what happens over a 10-year time frame but what happens over the first year or 2 after the fracture.”

The study was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Crandall reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. McClung reported being a consultant and on the speakers bureau for Amgen and being a speaker for Alexion.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

“Antibiotic stewardship is never easy, and sometimes it is very difficult to differentiate what is going on with a patient in the clinical setting,” said Valerie M. Vaughn, MD, of the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, at SHM Converge, the annual conference of the Society of Hospital Medicine.

“We know from studies that 20% of hospitalized patients who receive an antibiotic have an adverse drug event from that antibiotic within 30 days,” said Dr. Vaughn.

Dr. Vaughn identified several practical ways in which hospitalists can reduce antibiotic overuse, including in the management of patients hospitalized with COVID-19.
 

Identify asymptomatic bacteriuria

One key area in which hospitalists can improve antibiotic stewardship is in recognizing asymptomatic bacteriuria and the harms associated with treatment, Dr. Vaughn said. For example, a common scenario for hospitalists might involve and 80-year-old woman with dementia, who can provide little in the way of history, and whose chest x-ray can’t rule out an underlying infection. This patient might have a positive urine culture, but no other signs of a urinary tract infection. “We know that asymptomatic bacteriuria is very common in hospitalized patients,” especially elderly women living in nursing home settings, she noted.

In cases of asymptomatic bacteriuria, data show that antibiotic treatment does not improve outcomes, and in fact may increase the risk of subsequent UTI, said Dr. Vaughn. Elderly patients also are at increased risk for developing antibiotic-related adverse events, especially Clostridioides difficile. Asymptomatic bacteriuria is any bacteria in the urine in the absence of signs or symptoms of a UTI, even if lab tests show pyuria, nitrates, and resistant bacteria. These lab results are often associated with inappropriate antibiotic use. “The laboratory tests can’t distinguish between asymptomatic bacteriuria and a UTI, only the symptoms can,” she emphasized.
 

Contain treatment of community-acquired pneumonia

Another practical point for reducing antibiotics in the hospital setting is to limit treatment of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) to 5 days when possible. Duration matters because for many diseases, shorter durations of antibiotic treatments are just as effective as longer durations based on the latest evidence. “This is a change in dogma,” from previous thinking that patients must complete a full course, and that anything less might promote antibiotic resistance, she said.

“In fact, longer antibiotic durations kill off more healthy, normal flora, select for resistant pathogens, increase the risk of C. difficile, and increase the risk of side effects,” she said.

Ultimately, the right treatment duration for pneumonia depends on several factors including patient factors, disease, clinical stability, and rate of improvement. However, a good rule of thumb is that approximately 89% of CAP patients need only 5 days of antibiotics as long as they are afebrile for 48 hours and have 1 or fewer vital sign abnormalities by day 5 of treatment. “We do need to prescribe longer durations for patients with complications,” she emphasized.
 

Revisit need for antibiotics at discharge

Hospitalists also can practice antibiotic stewardship by considering four points at patient discharge, said Dr. Vaughn.

First, consider whether antibiotics can be stopped. For example, antibiotics are not needed on discharge if infection is no longer the most likely diagnosis, or if the course of antibiotics has been completed, as is often the case for patients hospitalized with CAP, she noted.

Second, if the antibiotics can’t be stopped at the time of discharge, consider whether the preferred agent is being used. Third, be sure the patient is receiving the minimum duration of antibiotics, and fourth, be sure that the dose, indication, and total planned duration with start and stop dates is written in the discharge summary, said Dr. Vaughn. “This helps with communication to our outpatient providers as well as with education to the patients themselves.”
 

Bacterial coinfections rare in COVID-19

Dr. Vaughn concluded the session with data from a study she conducted with colleagues on the use of empiric antibacterial therapy and community-onset bacterial coinfection in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. The study included 1,667 patients at 32 hospitals in Michigan. The number of patients treated with antibiotics varied widely among hospitals, from 30% to as much as 90%, Dr. Vaughn said.

“What we found was that more than half of hospitalized patients with COVID (57%) received empiric antibiotic therapy in the first few days of hospitalization,” she said.

However, “despite all the antibiotic use, community-onset bacterial coinfections were rare,” and occurred in only 3.5% of the patients, meaning that the number needed to treat with antibiotics to prevent a single case was about 20.

Predictors of community-onset co-infections in the patients included older age, more severe disease, patients coming from nursing homes, and those with lower BMI or kidney disease, said Dr. Vaughn. She and her team also found that procalcitonin’s positive predictive value was 9.3%, but the negative predictive value was 98.3%, so these patients were extremely likely to have no coinfection.

Dr. Vaughn said that in her practice she might order procalcitonin when considering stopping antibiotics in a patient with COVID-19 and make a decision based on the negative predictive value, but she emphasized that she does not use it in the converse situation to rely on a positive value when deciding whether to start antibiotics in these patients.

Dr. Vaughn had no financial conflicts to disclose.

“Antibiotic stewardship is never easy, and sometimes it is very difficult to differentiate what is going on with a patient in the clinical setting,” said Valerie M. Vaughn, MD, of the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, at SHM Converge, the annual conference of the Society of Hospital Medicine.

“We know from studies that 20% of hospitalized patients who receive an antibiotic have an adverse drug event from that antibiotic within 30 days,” said Dr. Vaughn.

Dr. Vaughn identified several practical ways in which hospitalists can reduce antibiotic overuse, including in the management of patients hospitalized with COVID-19.
 

Identify asymptomatic bacteriuria

One key area in which hospitalists can improve antibiotic stewardship is in recognizing asymptomatic bacteriuria and the harms associated with treatment, Dr. Vaughn said. For example, a common scenario for hospitalists might involve and 80-year-old woman with dementia, who can provide little in the way of history, and whose chest x-ray can’t rule out an underlying infection. This patient might have a positive urine culture, but no other signs of a urinary tract infection. “We know that asymptomatic bacteriuria is very common in hospitalized patients,” especially elderly women living in nursing home settings, she noted.

In cases of asymptomatic bacteriuria, data show that antibiotic treatment does not improve outcomes, and in fact may increase the risk of subsequent UTI, said Dr. Vaughn. Elderly patients also are at increased risk for developing antibiotic-related adverse events, especially Clostridioides difficile. Asymptomatic bacteriuria is any bacteria in the urine in the absence of signs or symptoms of a UTI, even if lab tests show pyuria, nitrates, and resistant bacteria. These lab results are often associated with inappropriate antibiotic use. “The laboratory tests can’t distinguish between asymptomatic bacteriuria and a UTI, only the symptoms can,” she emphasized.
 

Contain treatment of community-acquired pneumonia

Another practical point for reducing antibiotics in the hospital setting is to limit treatment of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) to 5 days when possible. Duration matters because for many diseases, shorter durations of antibiotic treatments are just as effective as longer durations based on the latest evidence. “This is a change in dogma,” from previous thinking that patients must complete a full course, and that anything less might promote antibiotic resistance, she said.

“In fact, longer antibiotic durations kill off more healthy, normal flora, select for resistant pathogens, increase the risk of C. difficile, and increase the risk of side effects,” she said.

Ultimately, the right treatment duration for pneumonia depends on several factors including patient factors, disease, clinical stability, and rate of improvement. However, a good rule of thumb is that approximately 89% of CAP patients need only 5 days of antibiotics as long as they are afebrile for 48 hours and have 1 or fewer vital sign abnormalities by day 5 of treatment. “We do need to prescribe longer durations for patients with complications,” she emphasized.
 

Revisit need for antibiotics at discharge

Hospitalists also can practice antibiotic stewardship by considering four points at patient discharge, said Dr. Vaughn.

First, consider whether antibiotics can be stopped. For example, antibiotics are not needed on discharge if infection is no longer the most likely diagnosis, or if the course of antibiotics has been completed, as is often the case for patients hospitalized with CAP, she noted.

Second, if the antibiotics can’t be stopped at the time of discharge, consider whether the preferred agent is being used. Third, be sure the patient is receiving the minimum duration of antibiotics, and fourth, be sure that the dose, indication, and total planned duration with start and stop dates is written in the discharge summary, said Dr. Vaughn. “This helps with communication to our outpatient providers as well as with education to the patients themselves.”
 

Bacterial coinfections rare in COVID-19

Dr. Vaughn concluded the session with data from a study she conducted with colleagues on the use of empiric antibacterial therapy and community-onset bacterial coinfection in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. The study included 1,667 patients at 32 hospitals in Michigan. The number of patients treated with antibiotics varied widely among hospitals, from 30% to as much as 90%, Dr. Vaughn said.

“What we found was that more than half of hospitalized patients with COVID (57%) received empiric antibiotic therapy in the first few days of hospitalization,” she said.

However, “despite all the antibiotic use, community-onset bacterial coinfections were rare,” and occurred in only 3.5% of the patients, meaning that the number needed to treat with antibiotics to prevent a single case was about 20.

Predictors of community-onset co-infections in the patients included older age, more severe disease, patients coming from nursing homes, and those with lower BMI or kidney disease, said Dr. Vaughn. She and her team also found that procalcitonin’s positive predictive value was 9.3%, but the negative predictive value was 98.3%, so these patients were extremely likely to have no coinfection.

Dr. Vaughn said that in her practice she might order procalcitonin when considering stopping antibiotics in a patient with COVID-19 and make a decision based on the negative predictive value, but she emphasized that she does not use it in the converse situation to rely on a positive value when deciding whether to start antibiotics in these patients.

Dr. Vaughn had no financial conflicts to disclose.

“Antibiotic stewardship is never easy, and sometimes it is very difficult to differentiate what is going on with a patient in the clinical setting,” said Valerie M. Vaughn, MD, of the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, at SHM Converge, the annual conference of the Society of Hospital Medicine.

“We know from studies that 20% of hospitalized patients who receive an antibiotic have an adverse drug event from that antibiotic within 30 days,” said Dr. Vaughn.

Dr. Vaughn identified several practical ways in which hospitalists can reduce antibiotic overuse, including in the management of patients hospitalized with COVID-19.
 

Identify asymptomatic bacteriuria

One key area in which hospitalists can improve antibiotic stewardship is in recognizing asymptomatic bacteriuria and the harms associated with treatment, Dr. Vaughn said. For example, a common scenario for hospitalists might involve and 80-year-old woman with dementia, who can provide little in the way of history, and whose chest x-ray can’t rule out an underlying infection. This patient might have a positive urine culture, but no other signs of a urinary tract infection. “We know that asymptomatic bacteriuria is very common in hospitalized patients,” especially elderly women living in nursing home settings, she noted.

In cases of asymptomatic bacteriuria, data show that antibiotic treatment does not improve outcomes, and in fact may increase the risk of subsequent UTI, said Dr. Vaughn. Elderly patients also are at increased risk for developing antibiotic-related adverse events, especially Clostridioides difficile. Asymptomatic bacteriuria is any bacteria in the urine in the absence of signs or symptoms of a UTI, even if lab tests show pyuria, nitrates, and resistant bacteria. These lab results are often associated with inappropriate antibiotic use. “The laboratory tests can’t distinguish between asymptomatic bacteriuria and a UTI, only the symptoms can,” she emphasized.
 

Contain treatment of community-acquired pneumonia

Another practical point for reducing antibiotics in the hospital setting is to limit treatment of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) to 5 days when possible. Duration matters because for many diseases, shorter durations of antibiotic treatments are just as effective as longer durations based on the latest evidence. “This is a change in dogma,” from previous thinking that patients must complete a full course, and that anything less might promote antibiotic resistance, she said.

“In fact, longer antibiotic durations kill off more healthy, normal flora, select for resistant pathogens, increase the risk of C. difficile, and increase the risk of side effects,” she said.

Ultimately, the right treatment duration for pneumonia depends on several factors including patient factors, disease, clinical stability, and rate of improvement. However, a good rule of thumb is that approximately 89% of CAP patients need only 5 days of antibiotics as long as they are afebrile for 48 hours and have 1 or fewer vital sign abnormalities by day 5 of treatment. “We do need to prescribe longer durations for patients with complications,” she emphasized.
 

Revisit need for antibiotics at discharge

Hospitalists also can practice antibiotic stewardship by considering four points at patient discharge, said Dr. Vaughn.

First, consider whether antibiotics can be stopped. For example, antibiotics are not needed on discharge if infection is no longer the most likely diagnosis, or if the course of antibiotics has been completed, as is often the case for patients hospitalized with CAP, she noted.

Second, if the antibiotics can’t be stopped at the time of discharge, consider whether the preferred agent is being used. Third, be sure the patient is receiving the minimum duration of antibiotics, and fourth, be sure that the dose, indication, and total planned duration with start and stop dates is written in the discharge summary, said Dr. Vaughn. “This helps with communication to our outpatient providers as well as with education to the patients themselves.”
 

Bacterial coinfections rare in COVID-19

Dr. Vaughn concluded the session with data from a study she conducted with colleagues on the use of empiric antibacterial therapy and community-onset bacterial coinfection in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. The study included 1,667 patients at 32 hospitals in Michigan. The number of patients treated with antibiotics varied widely among hospitals, from 30% to as much as 90%, Dr. Vaughn said.

“What we found was that more than half of hospitalized patients with COVID (57%) received empiric antibiotic therapy in the first few days of hospitalization,” she said.

However, “despite all the antibiotic use, community-onset bacterial coinfections were rare,” and occurred in only 3.5% of the patients, meaning that the number needed to treat with antibiotics to prevent a single case was about 20.

Predictors of community-onset co-infections in the patients included older age, more severe disease, patients coming from nursing homes, and those with lower BMI or kidney disease, said Dr. Vaughn. She and her team also found that procalcitonin’s positive predictive value was 9.3%, but the negative predictive value was 98.3%, so these patients were extremely likely to have no coinfection.

Dr. Vaughn said that in her practice she might order procalcitonin when considering stopping antibiotics in a patient with COVID-19 and make a decision based on the negative predictive value, but she emphasized that she does not use it in the converse situation to rely on a positive value when deciding whether to start antibiotics in these patients.

Dr. Vaughn had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Your mentor has been looking for someone to help lead a new project in your division, and tells you she’s been having a hard time finding someone – but that you would be great. The project isn’t something you are very interested in doing and you’re already swamped with other projects, but the mentor seems to need the help. What do you do?

Mentor-mentee relationships can be deeply beneficial, but the dynamics – in this situation and many others – can be complex. At SHM Converge, the annual conference of the Society of Hospital Medicine, panelists offered guidance on how best to navigate this terrain.

Vineet Arora, MD, MAPP, MHM, associate chief medical officer for clinical learning environment at the University of Chicago, suggested that, in the situation involving the mentor’s request to an uncertain mentee, the mentee should not give an immediate answer, but consider the pros and cons.

“It’s tough when it’s somebody who’s directly overseeing you,” she said. “If you’re really truly the best person, they’re going to want you in the job, and maybe they’ll make it work for you.” She said it would be important to find out why the mentor is having trouble finding someone, and suggested the mentee could find someone with whom to discuss it.

Calling mentoring a “team sport,” Dr. Arora described several types: the traditional mentor who helps many aspects of a mentee’s career, a “coach” who helps on a specific project or topic, a “sponsor” that can help elevate a mentee to a bigger opportunity, and a “connector” who can help a mentee begin new career relationships.

“Don’t invest in just one person,” she said. “Try to get that personal board of directors.”

She mentioned six things all mentors should do: Choose mentees carefully, establish a mentorship team, run a tight ship, head off rifts or resolve them, prepare for transitions when they take a new position and might have a new relationship with a mentee, and don’t commit “mentorship malpractice.”

Mentoring is a two-way street, with both people benefiting and learning, but mentoring can have its troubles, either through active, dysfunctional behavior that’s easy to spot, or passive behavior, such as the “bottleneck” problem when a mentor is too preoccupied with his or her own priorities to mentor well, the “country clubber” who mentors only for popularity and social capital but doesn’t do the work required, and the “world traveler” who is sought after but has little time for day-to-day mentoring.

Valerie Vaughan, MD, MSc, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Utah, described four “golden rules” of being a mentee. First, find a CAPE mentor (for capable, availability, projects of interest, and easy to get along with). Then, be respectful of a mentor’s time, communicate effectively, and be engaged and energizing.

“Mentors typically don’t get paid to mentor and so a lot of them are doing it because they find joy for doing it,” Dr. Vaughan said. “So as much as you can as a mentee, try to be the person who brings energy to the mentor-mentee relationship. It’s up to you to drive projects forward.”

Valerie Press, MD, MPH, SFHM, associate professor of medicine at the University of Chicago, offered tips for men who are mentoring women. She said that, while cross-gender mentorship is common and important, gender-based stereotypes and “unconscious assumptions” are alive and well. Women, she noted, have less access to mentorship and sponsorship, are paid less for the same work, and have high rates of attrition.

Male mentors have to meet the challenge of thinking outside of their own lived experience, combating stereotypes, and addressing these gender-based career disparities, she said.

She suggested that male mentors, for one thing, “rewrite gender scripts,” with comments such as, “This is a difficult situation, but I have confidence in you! What do you think your next move should be?” They should also “learn from each other on how to change the power dynamic,” and start and participate in conversations involving emotions, since they can be clues to what a mentee is experiencing.

When it comes to pushing for better policies, “be an upstander, not a bystander,” Dr. Press said.

“Use your organizational power and your social capital,” she said. “Use your voice to help make more equitable policies. Don’t just leave it to the women’s committee to come up with solutions to lack of lactation rooms, or paternity and maternity leave, or better daycare. These are family issues and everybody issues.”

Maylyn S. Martinez, MD, clinical associate professor of medicine at the University of Chicago, suggested that mentors for physicians from minority groups should resist the tendency to view their interests narrowly.

“Don’t assume that their interests are going to center on their gender or minority status – invite them to be on projects that have nothing to do with that,” she said. They should also not be encouraged to do projects that won’t help with career advancement any more than others would be encouraged to take on such projects.

“Be the solution,” she said. “Not the problem.”
 

Your mentor has been looking for someone to help lead a new project in your division, and tells you she’s been having a hard time finding someone – but that you would be great. The project isn’t something you are very interested in doing and you’re already swamped with other projects, but the mentor seems to need the help. What do you do?

Mentor-mentee relationships can be deeply beneficial, but the dynamics – in this situation and many others – can be complex. At SHM Converge, the annual conference of the Society of Hospital Medicine, panelists offered guidance on how best to navigate this terrain.

Vineet Arora, MD, MAPP, MHM, associate chief medical officer for clinical learning environment at the University of Chicago, suggested that, in the situation involving the mentor’s request to an uncertain mentee, the mentee should not give an immediate answer, but consider the pros and cons.

“It’s tough when it’s somebody who’s directly overseeing you,” she said. “If you’re really truly the best person, they’re going to want you in the job, and maybe they’ll make it work for you.” She said it would be important to find out why the mentor is having trouble finding someone, and suggested the mentee could find someone with whom to discuss it.

Calling mentoring a “team sport,” Dr. Arora described several types: the traditional mentor who helps many aspects of a mentee’s career, a “coach” who helps on a specific project or topic, a “sponsor” that can help elevate a mentee to a bigger opportunity, and a “connector” who can help a mentee begin new career relationships.

“Don’t invest in just one person,” she said. “Try to get that personal board of directors.”

She mentioned six things all mentors should do: Choose mentees carefully, establish a mentorship team, run a tight ship, head off rifts or resolve them, prepare for transitions when they take a new position and might have a new relationship with a mentee, and don’t commit “mentorship malpractice.”

Mentoring is a two-way street, with both people benefiting and learning, but mentoring can have its troubles, either through active, dysfunctional behavior that’s easy to spot, or passive behavior, such as the “bottleneck” problem when a mentor is too preoccupied with his or her own priorities to mentor well, the “country clubber” who mentors only for popularity and social capital but doesn’t do the work required, and the “world traveler” who is sought after but has little time for day-to-day mentoring.

Valerie Vaughan, MD, MSc, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Utah, described four “golden rules” of being a mentee. First, find a CAPE mentor (for capable, availability, projects of interest, and easy to get along with). Then, be respectful of a mentor’s time, communicate effectively, and be engaged and energizing.

“Mentors typically don’t get paid to mentor and so a lot of them are doing it because they find joy for doing it,” Dr. Vaughan said. “So as much as you can as a mentee, try to be the person who brings energy to the mentor-mentee relationship. It’s up to you to drive projects forward.”

Valerie Press, MD, MPH, SFHM, associate professor of medicine at the University of Chicago, offered tips for men who are mentoring women. She said that, while cross-gender mentorship is common and important, gender-based stereotypes and “unconscious assumptions” are alive and well. Women, she noted, have less access to mentorship and sponsorship, are paid less for the same work, and have high rates of attrition.

Male mentors have to meet the challenge of thinking outside of their own lived experience, combating stereotypes, and addressing these gender-based career disparities, she said.

She suggested that male mentors, for one thing, “rewrite gender scripts,” with comments such as, “This is a difficult situation, but I have confidence in you! What do you think your next move should be?” They should also “learn from each other on how to change the power dynamic,” and start and participate in conversations involving emotions, since they can be clues to what a mentee is experiencing.

When it comes to pushing for better policies, “be an upstander, not a bystander,” Dr. Press said.

“Use your organizational power and your social capital,” she said. “Use your voice to help make more equitable policies. Don’t just leave it to the women’s committee to come up with solutions to lack of lactation rooms, or paternity and maternity leave, or better daycare. These are family issues and everybody issues.”

Maylyn S. Martinez, MD, clinical associate professor of medicine at the University of Chicago, suggested that mentors for physicians from minority groups should resist the tendency to view their interests narrowly.

“Don’t assume that their interests are going to center on their gender or minority status – invite them to be on projects that have nothing to do with that,” she said. They should also not be encouraged to do projects that won’t help with career advancement any more than others would be encouraged to take on such projects.

“Be the solution,” she said. “Not the problem.”
 

Your mentor has been looking for someone to help lead a new project in your division, and tells you she’s been having a hard time finding someone – but that you would be great. The project isn’t something you are very interested in doing and you’re already swamped with other projects, but the mentor seems to need the help. What do you do?

Mentor-mentee relationships can be deeply beneficial, but the dynamics – in this situation and many others – can be complex. At SHM Converge, the annual conference of the Society of Hospital Medicine, panelists offered guidance on how best to navigate this terrain.

Vineet Arora, MD, MAPP, MHM, associate chief medical officer for clinical learning environment at the University of Chicago, suggested that, in the situation involving the mentor’s request to an uncertain mentee, the mentee should not give an immediate answer, but consider the pros and cons.

“It’s tough when it’s somebody who’s directly overseeing you,” she said. “If you’re really truly the best person, they’re going to want you in the job, and maybe they’ll make it work for you.” She said it would be important to find out why the mentor is having trouble finding someone, and suggested the mentee could find someone with whom to discuss it.

Calling mentoring a “team sport,” Dr. Arora described several types: the traditional mentor who helps many aspects of a mentee’s career, a “coach” who helps on a specific project or topic, a “sponsor” that can help elevate a mentee to a bigger opportunity, and a “connector” who can help a mentee begin new career relationships.

“Don’t invest in just one person,” she said. “Try to get that personal board of directors.”

She mentioned six things all mentors should do: Choose mentees carefully, establish a mentorship team, run a tight ship, head off rifts or resolve them, prepare for transitions when they take a new position and might have a new relationship with a mentee, and don’t commit “mentorship malpractice.”

Mentoring is a two-way street, with both people benefiting and learning, but mentoring can have its troubles, either through active, dysfunctional behavior that’s easy to spot, or passive behavior, such as the “bottleneck” problem when a mentor is too preoccupied with his or her own priorities to mentor well, the “country clubber” who mentors only for popularity and social capital but doesn’t do the work required, and the “world traveler” who is sought after but has little time for day-to-day mentoring.

Valerie Vaughan, MD, MSc, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Utah, described four “golden rules” of being a mentee. First, find a CAPE mentor (for capable, availability, projects of interest, and easy to get along with). Then, be respectful of a mentor’s time, communicate effectively, and be engaged and energizing.

“Mentors typically don’t get paid to mentor and so a lot of them are doing it because they find joy for doing it,” Dr. Vaughan said. “So as much as you can as a mentee, try to be the person who brings energy to the mentor-mentee relationship. It’s up to you to drive projects forward.”

Valerie Press, MD, MPH, SFHM, associate professor of medicine at the University of Chicago, offered tips for men who are mentoring women. She said that, while cross-gender mentorship is common and important, gender-based stereotypes and “unconscious assumptions” are alive and well. Women, she noted, have less access to mentorship and sponsorship, are paid less for the same work, and have high rates of attrition.

Male mentors have to meet the challenge of thinking outside of their own lived experience, combating stereotypes, and addressing these gender-based career disparities, she said.

She suggested that male mentors, for one thing, “rewrite gender scripts,” with comments such as, “This is a difficult situation, but I have confidence in you! What do you think your next move should be?” They should also “learn from each other on how to change the power dynamic,” and start and participate in conversations involving emotions, since they can be clues to what a mentee is experiencing.

When it comes to pushing for better policies, “be an upstander, not a bystander,” Dr. Press said.

“Use your organizational power and your social capital,” she said. “Use your voice to help make more equitable policies. Don’t just leave it to the women’s committee to come up with solutions to lack of lactation rooms, or paternity and maternity leave, or better daycare. These are family issues and everybody issues.”

Maylyn S. Martinez, MD, clinical associate professor of medicine at the University of Chicago, suggested that mentors for physicians from minority groups should resist the tendency to view their interests narrowly.

“Don’t assume that their interests are going to center on their gender or minority status – invite them to be on projects that have nothing to do with that,” she said. They should also not be encouraged to do projects that won’t help with career advancement any more than others would be encouraged to take on such projects.

“Be the solution,” she said. “Not the problem.”
 

THE CASE

An 18-year-old woman with no significant past medical history presented to the emergency department complaining of midsternal chest pain and mild shortness of breath, which had been intermittent for the past several months. She denied any history of deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism risk factors, such as oral contraceptive use.

Laboratory values were within normal limits. An electrocardiogram (EKG), however, showed T-wave inversions in leads V₁ and V₂, and physical examination revealed decreased breath sounds in the right lung base. A chest radiograph and subsequent chest computed tomography (CT) were ordered.

The initial radiograph (FIGURE 1) showed a large right anterior mediastinal mass; the CT revealed fat, fluid, soft tissue, and ossification within the mass (FIGURE 2). The CT also showed evidence of local mass effect on the right atrium, as well as compressive atelectasis in the adjacent right lung, contributing to the patient’s EKG abnormality and physical exam findings.

THE DIAGNOSIS

Based on the patient’s clinical history and imaging findings, which were consistent with a benign well-differentiated teratoma, she was given a diagnosis of anterior mediastinal teratoma.

DISCUSSION

Teratomas are tumors composed of pluripotent stem cells that carry elements from all 3 of the embryologic layers (ectoderm, mesoderm, and endoderm).¹ There are 3 classifications of teratomas: mature (well-differentiated), immature (poorly differentiated), and malignant.

Tumors of germ cell origin are rare within the anterior mediastinum, accounting for 1% to 3% of total reported cases.² Among anterior mediastinal masses, germ cell tumors such as teratomas, seminomas, and nonseminomatous tumors comprise approximately 15% of adult and 24% of pediatric anterior mediastinal tumors.³

It is reported that up to 60% of patients with mediastinal teratomas present with no signs or symptoms upon diagnosis.⁴ When the mass is large, patients can develop chest pain or shortness of breath relating to tumor mass effect. In rare instances, there can be hemoptysis or trichoptysis, pathognomonic for teratomas with bronchial communication.⁵ Physical exam findings are also nonspecific and may include decreased breath sounds secondary to compressive atelectasis with large tumor burden.

Continue to: Radiographic imaging...

Radiographic imaging is essential to elucidate the diagnosis. Chest radiograph can show an intrathoracic mass, and CT can provide further characterization, such as density and precise location.

Location of mass guides differential

Localizing an intrathoracic mass in the anterior, middle, or posterior mediastinum allows for narrowing of the differential diagnosis (TABLE⁶). The main diagnostic consideration for a middle mediastinal or hilar mass is primary carcinoma. Posterior mediastinal masses, on the other hand, are generally of benign etiology and may include neurogenic tumors, foregut duplication cysts, or, in rare cases, extramedullary hematopoiesis.

The differential diagnosis of anterior mediastinal masses can be separated into 4 main categories of disease, colloquially known as the “4 Ts”:

Teratoma. Mixed tissue densities seen on CT relate to the multiple tissue types originating from the embryologic germ cell layers.Frequently, there will be fat, fluid, and calcifications.

Thyroid pathology. A goiter or thyroid cancer can manifest with endocrine dysfunction, such as thyroid-stimulating hormone and T3/T4 abnormalities. A thyroid mass tends to sit more superiorly than do other anterior mediastinal masses and may be confirmed using a nuclear scan looking for increased radioactive iodine uptake.

Continue to: Thymoma

Thymoma. The diagnostic features include parathymic syndromes such as myasthenia gravis (30%-50% of thymoma cases^7,8) and pure red cell aplasia (5% of thymoma cases⁹).

“Terrible” lymphoma. The most effective way to differentiate an anterior mediastinal mass due to lymphadenopathy (secondary to lymphoma) is to perform a tissue sample biopsy.

Also consider, as part of the differential for anterior mediastinal masses, such things as mesenchymal tumors, Morgagni hernia (anterior diaphragmatic defect), and pericardial cysts (fluid attenuating and usually located at the right cardiophrenic angle).

Surgical resection is effective

The treatment for anterior mediastinal teratoma is surgical resection.¹⁰ A complete surgical resection is typically curative and provides adequate therapy for symptom resolution.

The standard surgical approach involves gaining access to the anterior mediastinum via a median sternotomy. When there is extensive tumor involvement of the hemithorax, clamshell thoracotomy is preferred, requiring incisions in both the left and right hemithoraxes.¹¹

Continue to: Our patient

Our patient underwent resection of the tumor; the subsequent pathology report for the specimen (FIGURE 3) confirmed the diagnosis. There was no abnormal enhancement or vascular invasion to suggest aggressive or malignant potential.

THE TAKEAWAY

Patients frequently present with nonspecific and vague chest complaints. This case points to the importance of obtaining a thorough clinical history and conducting a complete physical examination to guide additional work-up and radiographic imaging.

CORRESPONDENCE
Cassie Tran, MD, 320 E North Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15212; tran.cassie@gmail.com

THE CASE

An 18-year-old woman with no significant past medical history presented to the emergency department complaining of midsternal chest pain and mild shortness of breath, which had been intermittent for the past several months. She denied any history of deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism risk factors, such as oral contraceptive use.

Laboratory values were within normal limits. An electrocardiogram (EKG), however, showed T-wave inversions in leads V₁ and V₂, and physical examination revealed decreased breath sounds in the right lung base. A chest radiograph and subsequent chest computed tomography (CT) were ordered.

The initial radiograph (FIGURE 1) showed a large right anterior mediastinal mass; the CT revealed fat, fluid, soft tissue, and ossification within the mass (FIGURE 2). The CT also showed evidence of local mass effect on the right atrium, as well as compressive atelectasis in the adjacent right lung, contributing to the patient’s EKG abnormality and physical exam findings.

THE DIAGNOSIS

Based on the patient’s clinical history and imaging findings, which were consistent with a benign well-differentiated teratoma, she was given a diagnosis of anterior mediastinal teratoma.

DISCUSSION

Teratomas are tumors composed of pluripotent stem cells that carry elements from all 3 of the embryologic layers (ectoderm, mesoderm, and endoderm).¹ There are 3 classifications of teratomas: mature (well-differentiated), immature (poorly differentiated), and malignant.

Tumors of germ cell origin are rare within the anterior mediastinum, accounting for 1% to 3% of total reported cases.² Among anterior mediastinal masses, germ cell tumors such as teratomas, seminomas, and nonseminomatous tumors comprise approximately 15% of adult and 24% of pediatric anterior mediastinal tumors.³

It is reported that up to 60% of patients with mediastinal teratomas present with no signs or symptoms upon diagnosis.⁴ When the mass is large, patients can develop chest pain or shortness of breath relating to tumor mass effect. In rare instances, there can be hemoptysis or trichoptysis, pathognomonic for teratomas with bronchial communication.⁵ Physical exam findings are also nonspecific and may include decreased breath sounds secondary to compressive atelectasis with large tumor burden.

Continue to: Radiographic imaging...

Radiographic imaging is essential to elucidate the diagnosis. Chest radiograph can show an intrathoracic mass, and CT can provide further characterization, such as density and precise location.

Location of mass guides differential

Localizing an intrathoracic mass in the anterior, middle, or posterior mediastinum allows for narrowing of the differential diagnosis (TABLE⁶). The main diagnostic consideration for a middle mediastinal or hilar mass is primary carcinoma. Posterior mediastinal masses, on the other hand, are generally of benign etiology and may include neurogenic tumors, foregut duplication cysts, or, in rare cases, extramedullary hematopoiesis.

The differential diagnosis of anterior mediastinal masses can be separated into 4 main categories of disease, colloquially known as the “4 Ts”:

Teratoma. Mixed tissue densities seen on CT relate to the multiple tissue types originating from the embryologic germ cell layers.Frequently, there will be fat, fluid, and calcifications.

Thyroid pathology. A goiter or thyroid cancer can manifest with endocrine dysfunction, such as thyroid-stimulating hormone and T3/T4 abnormalities. A thyroid mass tends to sit more superiorly than do other anterior mediastinal masses and may be confirmed using a nuclear scan looking for increased radioactive iodine uptake.

Continue to: Thymoma

Thymoma. The diagnostic features include parathymic syndromes such as myasthenia gravis (30%-50% of thymoma cases^7,8) and pure red cell aplasia (5% of thymoma cases⁹).

“Terrible” lymphoma. The most effective way to differentiate an anterior mediastinal mass due to lymphadenopathy (secondary to lymphoma) is to perform a tissue sample biopsy.

Also consider, as part of the differential for anterior mediastinal masses, such things as mesenchymal tumors, Morgagni hernia (anterior diaphragmatic defect), and pericardial cysts (fluid attenuating and usually located at the right cardiophrenic angle).

Surgical resection is effective

The treatment for anterior mediastinal teratoma is surgical resection.¹⁰ A complete surgical resection is typically curative and provides adequate therapy for symptom resolution.

The standard surgical approach involves gaining access to the anterior mediastinum via a median sternotomy. When there is extensive tumor involvement of the hemithorax, clamshell thoracotomy is preferred, requiring incisions in both the left and right hemithoraxes.¹¹

Continue to: Our patient

Our patient underwent resection of the tumor; the subsequent pathology report for the specimen (FIGURE 3) confirmed the diagnosis. There was no abnormal enhancement or vascular invasion to suggest aggressive or malignant potential.

THE TAKEAWAY

Patients frequently present with nonspecific and vague chest complaints. This case points to the importance of obtaining a thorough clinical history and conducting a complete physical examination to guide additional work-up and radiographic imaging.

CORRESPONDENCE
Cassie Tran, MD, 320 E North Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15212; tran.cassie@gmail.com

THE CASE

An 18-year-old woman with no significant past medical history presented to the emergency department complaining of midsternal chest pain and mild shortness of breath, which had been intermittent for the past several months. She denied any history of deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism risk factors, such as oral contraceptive use.

Laboratory values were within normal limits. An electrocardiogram (EKG), however, showed T-wave inversions in leads V₁ and V₂, and physical examination revealed decreased breath sounds in the right lung base. A chest radiograph and subsequent chest computed tomography (CT) were ordered.

The initial radiograph (FIGURE 1) showed a large right anterior mediastinal mass; the CT revealed fat, fluid, soft tissue, and ossification within the mass (FIGURE 2). The CT also showed evidence of local mass effect on the right atrium, as well as compressive atelectasis in the adjacent right lung, contributing to the patient’s EKG abnormality and physical exam findings.

THE DIAGNOSIS

Based on the patient’s clinical history and imaging findings, which were consistent with a benign well-differentiated teratoma, she was given a diagnosis of anterior mediastinal teratoma.

DISCUSSION

Teratomas are tumors composed of pluripotent stem cells that carry elements from all 3 of the embryologic layers (ectoderm, mesoderm, and endoderm).¹ There are 3 classifications of teratomas: mature (well-differentiated), immature (poorly differentiated), and malignant.

Tumors of germ cell origin are rare within the anterior mediastinum, accounting for 1% to 3% of total reported cases.² Among anterior mediastinal masses, germ cell tumors such as teratomas, seminomas, and nonseminomatous tumors comprise approximately 15% of adult and 24% of pediatric anterior mediastinal tumors.³

It is reported that up to 60% of patients with mediastinal teratomas present with no signs or symptoms upon diagnosis.⁴ When the mass is large, patients can develop chest pain or shortness of breath relating to tumor mass effect. In rare instances, there can be hemoptysis or trichoptysis, pathognomonic for teratomas with bronchial communication.⁵ Physical exam findings are also nonspecific and may include decreased breath sounds secondary to compressive atelectasis with large tumor burden.

Continue to: Radiographic imaging...

Radiographic imaging is essential to elucidate the diagnosis. Chest radiograph can show an intrathoracic mass, and CT can provide further characterization, such as density and precise location.

Location of mass guides differential

Localizing an intrathoracic mass in the anterior, middle, or posterior mediastinum allows for narrowing of the differential diagnosis (TABLE⁶). The main diagnostic consideration for a middle mediastinal or hilar mass is primary carcinoma. Posterior mediastinal masses, on the other hand, are generally of benign etiology and may include neurogenic tumors, foregut duplication cysts, or, in rare cases, extramedullary hematopoiesis.

The differential diagnosis of anterior mediastinal masses can be separated into 4 main categories of disease, colloquially known as the “4 Ts”:

Teratoma. Mixed tissue densities seen on CT relate to the multiple tissue types originating from the embryologic germ cell layers.Frequently, there will be fat, fluid, and calcifications.

Thyroid pathology. A goiter or thyroid cancer can manifest with endocrine dysfunction, such as thyroid-stimulating hormone and T3/T4 abnormalities. A thyroid mass tends to sit more superiorly than do other anterior mediastinal masses and may be confirmed using a nuclear scan looking for increased radioactive iodine uptake.

Continue to: Thymoma

Thymoma. The diagnostic features include parathymic syndromes such as myasthenia gravis (30%-50% of thymoma cases^7,8) and pure red cell aplasia (5% of thymoma cases⁹).

“Terrible” lymphoma. The most effective way to differentiate an anterior mediastinal mass due to lymphadenopathy (secondary to lymphoma) is to perform a tissue sample biopsy.

Also consider, as part of the differential for anterior mediastinal masses, such things as mesenchymal tumors, Morgagni hernia (anterior diaphragmatic defect), and pericardial cysts (fluid attenuating and usually located at the right cardiophrenic angle).

Surgical resection is effective

The treatment for anterior mediastinal teratoma is surgical resection.¹⁰ A complete surgical resection is typically curative and provides adequate therapy for symptom resolution.

The standard surgical approach involves gaining access to the anterior mediastinum via a median sternotomy. When there is extensive tumor involvement of the hemithorax, clamshell thoracotomy is preferred, requiring incisions in both the left and right hemithoraxes.¹¹

Continue to: Our patient

Our patient underwent resection of the tumor; the subsequent pathology report for the specimen (FIGURE 3) confirmed the diagnosis. There was no abnormal enhancement or vascular invasion to suggest aggressive or malignant potential.

THE TAKEAWAY

Patients frequently present with nonspecific and vague chest complaints. This case points to the importance of obtaining a thorough clinical history and conducting a complete physical examination to guide additional work-up and radiographic imaging.

CORRESPONDENCE
Cassie Tran, MD, 320 E North Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15212; tran.cassie@gmail.com

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s director Rochelle Walensky, MD, signed off on an advisory panel’s recommendation May 12 endorsing the use of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in adolescents aged 12-15 years.

Earlier in the day the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted 14-0 in favor of the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine in younger teens.

“CDC now recommends that this vaccine be used among this population, and providers may begin vaccinating them right away,” Dr. Walensky said in an official statement.

The Food and Drug Administration on May 10 issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for the prevention of COVID-19 in individuals 12-15 years old. The FDA first cleared the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine through an EUA in December 2020 for those ages 16 and older. Pfizer this month also initiated steps with the FDA toward a full approval of its vaccine.

Dr. Walenksy urged parents to seriously consider vaccinating their children.

“Understandably, some parents want more information before their children receive a vaccine,” she said. “I encourage parents with questions to talk to your child’s healthcare provider or your family doctor to learn more about the vaccine.”
 

Vaccine “safe and effective”

Separately, the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a statement May 12 in support of vaccinating all children ages 12 and older who are eligible for the federally authorized COVID-19 vaccine.

“As a pediatrician and a parent, I have looked forward to getting my own children and patients vaccinated, and I am thrilled that those ages 12 and older can now be protected,” said AAP President Lee Savio Beers, MD, in a statement. “The data continue to show that this vaccine is safe and effective. I urge all parents to call their pediatrician to learn more about how to get their children and teens vaccinated.”

The expanded clearance for the Pfizer vaccine is seen as a critical step for allowing teens to resume activities on which they missed out during the pandemic.

“We’ve seen the harm done to children’s mental and emotional health as they’ve missed out on so many experiences during the pandemic,” Dr. Beers said. “Vaccinating children will protect them and allow them to fully engage in all of the activities – school, sports, socializing with friends and family – that are so important to their health and development.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s director Rochelle Walensky, MD, signed off on an advisory panel’s recommendation May 12 endorsing the use of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in adolescents aged 12-15 years.

Earlier in the day the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted 14-0 in favor of the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine in younger teens.

“CDC now recommends that this vaccine be used among this population, and providers may begin vaccinating them right away,” Dr. Walensky said in an official statement.

The Food and Drug Administration on May 10 issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for the prevention of COVID-19 in individuals 12-15 years old. The FDA first cleared the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine through an EUA in December 2020 for those ages 16 and older. Pfizer this month also initiated steps with the FDA toward a full approval of its vaccine.

Dr. Walenksy urged parents to seriously consider vaccinating their children.

“Understandably, some parents want more information before their children receive a vaccine,” she said. “I encourage parents with questions to talk to your child’s healthcare provider or your family doctor to learn more about the vaccine.”
 

Vaccine “safe and effective”

Separately, the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a statement May 12 in support of vaccinating all children ages 12 and older who are eligible for the federally authorized COVID-19 vaccine.

“As a pediatrician and a parent, I have looked forward to getting my own children and patients vaccinated, and I am thrilled that those ages 12 and older can now be protected,” said AAP President Lee Savio Beers, MD, in a statement. “The data continue to show that this vaccine is safe and effective. I urge all parents to call their pediatrician to learn more about how to get their children and teens vaccinated.”

The expanded clearance for the Pfizer vaccine is seen as a critical step for allowing teens to resume activities on which they missed out during the pandemic.

“We’ve seen the harm done to children’s mental and emotional health as they’ve missed out on so many experiences during the pandemic,” Dr. Beers said. “Vaccinating children will protect them and allow them to fully engage in all of the activities – school, sports, socializing with friends and family – that are so important to their health and development.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s director Rochelle Walensky, MD, signed off on an advisory panel’s recommendation May 12 endorsing the use of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in adolescents aged 12-15 years.

Earlier in the day the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted 14-0 in favor of the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine in younger teens.

“CDC now recommends that this vaccine be used among this population, and providers may begin vaccinating them right away,” Dr. Walensky said in an official statement.

The Food and Drug Administration on May 10 issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for the prevention of COVID-19 in individuals 12-15 years old. The FDA first cleared the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine through an EUA in December 2020 for those ages 16 and older. Pfizer this month also initiated steps with the FDA toward a full approval of its vaccine.

Dr. Walenksy urged parents to seriously consider vaccinating their children.

“Understandably, some parents want more information before their children receive a vaccine,” she said. “I encourage parents with questions to talk to your child’s healthcare provider or your family doctor to learn more about the vaccine.”
 

Vaccine “safe and effective”

Separately, the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a statement May 12 in support of vaccinating all children ages 12 and older who are eligible for the federally authorized COVID-19 vaccine.

“As a pediatrician and a parent, I have looked forward to getting my own children and patients vaccinated, and I am thrilled that those ages 12 and older can now be protected,” said AAP President Lee Savio Beers, MD, in a statement. “The data continue to show that this vaccine is safe and effective. I urge all parents to call their pediatrician to learn more about how to get their children and teens vaccinated.”

The expanded clearance for the Pfizer vaccine is seen as a critical step for allowing teens to resume activities on which they missed out during the pandemic.

“We’ve seen the harm done to children’s mental and emotional health as they’ve missed out on so many experiences during the pandemic,” Dr. Beers said. “Vaccinating children will protect them and allow them to fully engage in all of the activities – school, sports, socializing with friends and family – that are so important to their health and development.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

For patients with colorectal liver metastasis (CLM), surgical resection is the only hope for cure, but conventional hepatectomy involves mechanical manipulation that could release tumor cells into the bloodstream and result in further spread.

To minimize this risk, an alternative method was introduced in 1992 – an anterior approach for open right hepatectomies, which involves less manipulation. However, a trial that compared the two surgical approaches showed no difference between the two in reducing intraoperative tumor cell dissemination.

Circulating tumor cells (CTCs) were detected in 6 of 22 patients (27%) in the anterior hepatectomy group and in 5 of 21 (24%) patients in the conventional hepatectomy group, the study authors reported.

Operating time was longer with the anterior approach (221 vs. 171 minutes), but intraoperative and postoperative outcomes were similar for the two approaches. Median overall and disease-free survival were also similar (55 vs. 73 months and 48 vs. 40 months, respectively), as were recurrence patterns, reported Nuh N. Rahbari, MD, and colleagues. Dr. Rahbari is affiliated with the University of Heidelberg (Germany).

The findings were published online Nov. 4, 2020, in JAMA Surgery.

This “timely” trial “addresses the concerns of many liver surgeons about detaching and shedding cancer cells into the hepatic veins during the initial mobilization of the right lobe,” comment the authors of an accompanying editorial, Iswanto Sucandy, MD, from the Digestive Health Institute, AdventHealth, Tampa, and Allan Tsung, MD, from Ohio State University, Columbus.

“The medial rotation to get the right lobe out of its anatomical confinement is often mechanically rigorous (and potentially traumatic to the tumor and remaining parenchyma), but it is very helpful in facilitating later steps of the operation,” they wrote. “It seems intuitive and easy to extrapolate that this maneuver can increase the release of CTCs into the systemic circulation, thus leading to an inferior oncological outcome.”

However, this assumption appears to be unfounded in light of results from this latest study, they pointed out.

“The most likely reason for these findings is that surgical techniques for CLM resection play a minor role, compared with those of tumor biology and patient responses in affecting the metastatic cascade,” they suggested.
 

Tumor cell spread remains a concern

About 70% of patients experience hepatic or extrahepatic recurrence after conventional hepatectomy, noted the study authors, so the concern over tumor cell spread during surgical manipulation remains.

Although their study was limited by small sample size, the absence of bone marrow samples for eight patients, and early discontinuation of the study per protocol, the authors said the findings “do not support further efforts to reduce tumor cell dissemination and subsequent disease recurrence by minimizing intraoperative manipulation.”

The findings should “rather prompt strategies to prevent spontaneous tumor cell dissemination and to target minimal residual disease after potentially curative resection.”

The editorialists added that the results of this study provide further insights and points for discussion regarding the benefits of minimally invasive approaches to liver surgery, which have been shown in several studies to decrease dissemination of CTCs by reducing surgical manipulation of tumors.

The study was supported by the department of surgery at the University of Heidelberg. The study authors and the editorialists disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

For patients with colorectal liver metastasis (CLM), surgical resection is the only hope for cure, but conventional hepatectomy involves mechanical manipulation that could release tumor cells into the bloodstream and result in further spread.

To minimize this risk, an alternative method was introduced in 1992 – an anterior approach for open right hepatectomies, which involves less manipulation. However, a trial that compared the two surgical approaches showed no difference between the two in reducing intraoperative tumor cell dissemination.

Circulating tumor cells (CTCs) were detected in 6 of 22 patients (27%) in the anterior hepatectomy group and in 5 of 21 (24%) patients in the conventional hepatectomy group, the study authors reported.

Operating time was longer with the anterior approach (221 vs. 171 minutes), but intraoperative and postoperative outcomes were similar for the two approaches. Median overall and disease-free survival were also similar (55 vs. 73 months and 48 vs. 40 months, respectively), as were recurrence patterns, reported Nuh N. Rahbari, MD, and colleagues. Dr. Rahbari is affiliated with the University of Heidelberg (Germany).

The findings were published online Nov. 4, 2020, in JAMA Surgery.

This “timely” trial “addresses the concerns of many liver surgeons about detaching and shedding cancer cells into the hepatic veins during the initial mobilization of the right lobe,” comment the authors of an accompanying editorial, Iswanto Sucandy, MD, from the Digestive Health Institute, AdventHealth, Tampa, and Allan Tsung, MD, from Ohio State University, Columbus.

“The medial rotation to get the right lobe out of its anatomical confinement is often mechanically rigorous (and potentially traumatic to the tumor and remaining parenchyma), but it is very helpful in facilitating later steps of the operation,” they wrote. “It seems intuitive and easy to extrapolate that this maneuver can increase the release of CTCs into the systemic circulation, thus leading to an inferior oncological outcome.”

However, this assumption appears to be unfounded in light of results from this latest study, they pointed out.

“The most likely reason for these findings is that surgical techniques for CLM resection play a minor role, compared with those of tumor biology and patient responses in affecting the metastatic cascade,” they suggested.
 

Tumor cell spread remains a concern

About 70% of patients experience hepatic or extrahepatic recurrence after conventional hepatectomy, noted the study authors, so the concern over tumor cell spread during surgical manipulation remains.

Although their study was limited by small sample size, the absence of bone marrow samples for eight patients, and early discontinuation of the study per protocol, the authors said the findings “do not support further efforts to reduce tumor cell dissemination and subsequent disease recurrence by minimizing intraoperative manipulation.”

The findings should “rather prompt strategies to prevent spontaneous tumor cell dissemination and to target minimal residual disease after potentially curative resection.”

The editorialists added that the results of this study provide further insights and points for discussion regarding the benefits of minimally invasive approaches to liver surgery, which have been shown in several studies to decrease dissemination of CTCs by reducing surgical manipulation of tumors.

The study was supported by the department of surgery at the University of Heidelberg. The study authors and the editorialists disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

For patients with colorectal liver metastasis (CLM), surgical resection is the only hope for cure, but conventional hepatectomy involves mechanical manipulation that could release tumor cells into the bloodstream and result in further spread.

To minimize this risk, an alternative method was introduced in 1992 – an anterior approach for open right hepatectomies, which involves less manipulation. However, a trial that compared the two surgical approaches showed no difference between the two in reducing intraoperative tumor cell dissemination.

Circulating tumor cells (CTCs) were detected in 6 of 22 patients (27%) in the anterior hepatectomy group and in 5 of 21 (24%) patients in the conventional hepatectomy group, the study authors reported.

Operating time was longer with the anterior approach (221 vs. 171 minutes), but intraoperative and postoperative outcomes were similar for the two approaches. Median overall and disease-free survival were also similar (55 vs. 73 months and 48 vs. 40 months, respectively), as were recurrence patterns, reported Nuh N. Rahbari, MD, and colleagues. Dr. Rahbari is affiliated with the University of Heidelberg (Germany).

The findings were published online Nov. 4, 2020, in JAMA Surgery.

This “timely” trial “addresses the concerns of many liver surgeons about detaching and shedding cancer cells into the hepatic veins during the initial mobilization of the right lobe,” comment the authors of an accompanying editorial, Iswanto Sucandy, MD, from the Digestive Health Institute, AdventHealth, Tampa, and Allan Tsung, MD, from Ohio State University, Columbus.

“The medial rotation to get the right lobe out of its anatomical confinement is often mechanically rigorous (and potentially traumatic to the tumor and remaining parenchyma), but it is very helpful in facilitating later steps of the operation,” they wrote. “It seems intuitive and easy to extrapolate that this maneuver can increase the release of CTCs into the systemic circulation, thus leading to an inferior oncological outcome.”

However, this assumption appears to be unfounded in light of results from this latest study, they pointed out.

“The most likely reason for these findings is that surgical techniques for CLM resection play a minor role, compared with those of tumor biology and patient responses in affecting the metastatic cascade,” they suggested.
 

Tumor cell spread remains a concern

About 70% of patients experience hepatic or extrahepatic recurrence after conventional hepatectomy, noted the study authors, so the concern over tumor cell spread during surgical manipulation remains.

Although their study was limited by small sample size, the absence of bone marrow samples for eight patients, and early discontinuation of the study per protocol, the authors said the findings “do not support further efforts to reduce tumor cell dissemination and subsequent disease recurrence by minimizing intraoperative manipulation.”

The findings should “rather prompt strategies to prevent spontaneous tumor cell dissemination and to target minimal residual disease after potentially curative resection.”

The editorialists added that the results of this study provide further insights and points for discussion regarding the benefits of minimally invasive approaches to liver surgery, which have been shown in several studies to decrease dissemination of CTCs by reducing surgical manipulation of tumors.

The study was supported by the department of surgery at the University of Heidelberg. The study authors and the editorialists disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 45-year-old woman with no chronic medical illness presents to your office for her annual physical examination. After a medical assistant (MA) applies an automatic BP cuff to the patient’s left arm, the BP reading is 155/92 mm Hg. The MA then rechecks the BP, and this time it reads 160/98 mm Hg. The MA performs a manual BP reading, which is 158/90 mm Hg (left arm) and 162/100 mm Hg (right arm). The patient denies any headache, visual changes, chest pain, or difficulty breathing and tells the MA that her BP is always high during a doctor visit. You are wondering if she has hypertension or if is this the white-coat effect.

Depending on the definition of hypertension, its prevalence among US adults 18 years or older varies from 46%, based on the American College of Cardiology guideline (≥ 130/80 mm Hg), to 29%, based on the Eighth Joint National Committee (JNC-8) guideline (≥ 140/90 mm Hg for adults ages 18–59 years and ≥ 150/90 mm Hg for adults ≥ 60 years without diabetes and/or chronic kidney disease).^2,3

According to JNC-8, the prevalence is similar among men (30.2%) and women (27.7%) and increases with age: 18 to 39 years, 7.5%; 40 to 59 years, 33.2%; and ≥ 60 years, 63.1%.^3,4 When ranked by risk-attributable ­disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs), high systolic blood pressure (SBP) is the leading risk factor, accounting for 10.4 million deaths and 218 million DALYs globally in 2017.⁵ National medical costs associated with hypertension are estimated to account for about $131 billion in annual health care expenditures, averaged over 12 years from 2003 to 2014.⁶

When performed correctly, the auscultatory method using a mercury sphygmomanometer correlates well with simultaneous intra-arterial BP and was considered the gold standard for office-based measurements for many years.^7,8 However, significant ­observer-related differences in auditory acuity and terminal digit rounding are sources of inaccurate measurement. White-coat hypertension cannot be detected with this method—another significant limitation. The inaccuracy of office-based BP readings leads to concerns about hypertension being inappropriately diagnosed in patients or delays in diagnosis occurring.⁹

A proposed solution to this problem is measurement using an oscillometric sphygmomanometer. This device uses a pressure transducer to assess the oscillations of pressure in a cuff during gradual deflation; it provides accurate BP measurements when fully automated and programmed to complete several BP measurements at appropriate intervals while the patient rests alone in a quiet room.¹⁰

The accuracy of this new method was tested in a 2009 cohort study of 309 patients referred to an ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) monitoring unit at an academic hospital for diagnosis or management of hypertension.¹¹ The study compared mean awake ABP, which continuously measures patients’ BP throughout the day, manual sphygmomanometer readings taken by the patient’s own physician, and an automated office blood pressure (AOBP) device called BpTRU (an automated oscillometric sphygmomanometer) while the patient rested alone in the exam room.¹¹ The awake ABP is a federally approved standard for the diagnosis of white-coat hypertension.¹² In this study, the white-coat response was negated with the use of the automated BpTRU device.¹¹

A 2019 meta-analysis that included 26 studies (N = 7116) comparing AOBP with other BP measurement techniques concluded that the use of automated oscillometric BP readings is more accurate for diagnosing hypertension and assists in negating the white-coat hypertension effect.⁹

Continue to: STUDY SUMMARY

STUDY SUMMARY

Automated office BP devices are just as accurate as more expensive ABP studies

This systematic review and meta-analysis (N = 9279; 23 cross-sectional, 1 cohort, and 7 randomized controlled trials [N = 1304], of which 17 studies overlapped with those included in the previously mentioned meta-analysis⁹) compared SBP and diastolic blood pressure measured by an oscillometric AOBP device to awake or daytime ABP (continuously monitoring BP while awake, used as a standard for BP measurement), routine manual office BP, or research BP measurements.

The study also explored the protocol by which the best AOBP results could be obtained. For AOBP measurement, the included trials had no more than 2 minutes of elapsed time between individual AOBP measurements and had at least 3 AOBP readings to calculate the mean.

Compared with AOBP, in samples with an SBP of ≥ 130 mm Hg, SBP readings were significantly higher for both routine office visits (mean difference [MD] = 14.5 mm Hg; 95% CI, 11.8–17.2) and research (MD = 7 mm Hg; 95% CI, 4.9–9.1). However, no difference was found between AOBP and awake ambulatory SBP values (MD = 0.3 mm Hg; 95% CI, −1.1 to 1.7). In all cases, heterogeneity of the included studies was high (I² was > 75%). There was no evidence of small-study effect or publication bias, and little evidence of potential financial bias. The most accurate methodology for AOBP measurements included multiple BP readings and the patient resting alone in a quiet location.

This meta-analysis supports the use of an automated office blood pressure device to accurately screen for hypertension and avoid the white-coat effect.

Although there was statistical heterogeneity, the results were confirmed in the authors’ analysis of studies with high methodologic quality. In addition, researchers performed multiple meta-regression analyses to evaluate the statistical heterogeneity and found no significant differences based on age, body mass index, number of treated patients, gender, measurement interval, or added rest before AOBP.

WHAT'S NEW

Study confirms unattended, automated office BP as preferred technique

This is the second recent comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis to directly compare AOBP with other common techniques of BP measurement in screening for and diagnosing hypertension in the clinical setting. ⁹

Continue to: This meta-analysis...

This meta-analysis emphasized the technique (see below) by which to obtain the best AOBP vs ABP results, whereas the other ­meta-analysis⁹ did not. Thus the study provides practice-based settings with the information they need to more closely replicate the results of the studies included in the meta-analysis.

Also, the equivalency comparison with the more expensive and intrusive ABP monitoring may save money, improve patient adherence, and increase patient satisfaction. Given these advantages, along with its demonstrated accuracy, AOBP should be adopted in routine clinical practice to screen patients for hypertension.

CAVEATS

Close adherence to measurementprocedures is a necessity

Effective use of AOBP in clinical practice requires close adherence to the AOBP study procedures described in this meta-analysis. These include taking multiple (at least 3) BP readings, 1 to 2 minutes apart, recorded with a fully automated oscillometric sphygmomanometer while the patient rests alone in a quiet place.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Adjusting workflows, addressing cost

Physicians may be reluctant to adopt this technique because they may not be convinced of its advantages compared with the traditional methods of recording BP and because of difficulties with implementing new rooming workflows.¹² The cost of AOBP devices used in this study (Omron 907 and BpTRU; BpTRU ceased operations in 2017) were not disclosed, which may be a hindrance, as devices may cost $1000 or more.

Effective use of automated office blood pressure requires that one take multiple (at least 3) BP readings, 1 to 2 minutes apart, while the patient rests alone in a quiet place.

An online search for “automated oscillometric BP monitor” by one of the PURL authors (RCM) found oscillometric AOBP devices ranging from $150 to > $1000, depending on whether the device was medical grade; a search for “Omron 907” found devices for ≤ $599 on multiple sites. However, none of the lower-cost devices indicated the ability to take multiple, unattended BP readings.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

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

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 45-year-old woman with no chronic medical illness presents to your office for her annual physical examination. After a medical assistant (MA) applies an automatic BP cuff to the patient’s left arm, the BP reading is 155/92 mm Hg. The MA then rechecks the BP, and this time it reads 160/98 mm Hg. The MA performs a manual BP reading, which is 158/90 mm Hg (left arm) and 162/100 mm Hg (right arm). The patient denies any headache, visual changes, chest pain, or difficulty breathing and tells the MA that her BP is always high during a doctor visit. You are wondering if she has hypertension or if is this the white-coat effect.

Depending on the definition of hypertension, its prevalence among US adults 18 years or older varies from 46%, based on the American College of Cardiology guideline (≥ 130/80 mm Hg), to 29%, based on the Eighth Joint National Committee (JNC-8) guideline (≥ 140/90 mm Hg for adults ages 18–59 years and ≥ 150/90 mm Hg for adults ≥ 60 years without diabetes and/or chronic kidney disease).^2,3

According to JNC-8, the prevalence is similar among men (30.2%) and women (27.7%) and increases with age: 18 to 39 years, 7.5%; 40 to 59 years, 33.2%; and ≥ 60 years, 63.1%.^3,4 When ranked by risk-attributable ­disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs), high systolic blood pressure (SBP) is the leading risk factor, accounting for 10.4 million deaths and 218 million DALYs globally in 2017.⁵ National medical costs associated with hypertension are estimated to account for about $131 billion in annual health care expenditures, averaged over 12 years from 2003 to 2014.⁶

When performed correctly, the auscultatory method using a mercury sphygmomanometer correlates well with simultaneous intra-arterial BP and was considered the gold standard for office-based measurements for many years.^7,8 However, significant ­observer-related differences in auditory acuity and terminal digit rounding are sources of inaccurate measurement. White-coat hypertension cannot be detected with this method—another significant limitation. The inaccuracy of office-based BP readings leads to concerns about hypertension being inappropriately diagnosed in patients or delays in diagnosis occurring.⁹

A proposed solution to this problem is measurement using an oscillometric sphygmomanometer. This device uses a pressure transducer to assess the oscillations of pressure in a cuff during gradual deflation; it provides accurate BP measurements when fully automated and programmed to complete several BP measurements at appropriate intervals while the patient rests alone in a quiet room.¹⁰

The accuracy of this new method was tested in a 2009 cohort study of 309 patients referred to an ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) monitoring unit at an academic hospital for diagnosis or management of hypertension.¹¹ The study compared mean awake ABP, which continuously measures patients’ BP throughout the day, manual sphygmomanometer readings taken by the patient’s own physician, and an automated office blood pressure (AOBP) device called BpTRU (an automated oscillometric sphygmomanometer) while the patient rested alone in the exam room.¹¹ The awake ABP is a federally approved standard for the diagnosis of white-coat hypertension.¹² In this study, the white-coat response was negated with the use of the automated BpTRU device.¹¹

A 2019 meta-analysis that included 26 studies (N = 7116) comparing AOBP with other BP measurement techniques concluded that the use of automated oscillometric BP readings is more accurate for diagnosing hypertension and assists in negating the white-coat hypertension effect.⁹

Continue to: STUDY SUMMARY

STUDY SUMMARY

Automated office BP devices are just as accurate as more expensive ABP studies

This systematic review and meta-analysis (N = 9279; 23 cross-sectional, 1 cohort, and 7 randomized controlled trials [N = 1304], of which 17 studies overlapped with those included in the previously mentioned meta-analysis⁹) compared SBP and diastolic blood pressure measured by an oscillometric AOBP device to awake or daytime ABP (continuously monitoring BP while awake, used as a standard for BP measurement), routine manual office BP, or research BP measurements.

The study also explored the protocol by which the best AOBP results could be obtained. For AOBP measurement, the included trials had no more than 2 minutes of elapsed time between individual AOBP measurements and had at least 3 AOBP readings to calculate the mean.

Compared with AOBP, in samples with an SBP of ≥ 130 mm Hg, SBP readings were significantly higher for both routine office visits (mean difference [MD] = 14.5 mm Hg; 95% CI, 11.8–17.2) and research (MD = 7 mm Hg; 95% CI, 4.9–9.1). However, no difference was found between AOBP and awake ambulatory SBP values (MD = 0.3 mm Hg; 95% CI, −1.1 to 1.7). In all cases, heterogeneity of the included studies was high (I² was > 75%). There was no evidence of small-study effect or publication bias, and little evidence of potential financial bias. The most accurate methodology for AOBP measurements included multiple BP readings and the patient resting alone in a quiet location.

This meta-analysis supports the use of an automated office blood pressure device to accurately screen for hypertension and avoid the white-coat effect.

Although there was statistical heterogeneity, the results were confirmed in the authors’ analysis of studies with high methodologic quality. In addition, researchers performed multiple meta-regression analyses to evaluate the statistical heterogeneity and found no significant differences based on age, body mass index, number of treated patients, gender, measurement interval, or added rest before AOBP.

WHAT'S NEW

Study confirms unattended, automated office BP as preferred technique

This is the second recent comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis to directly compare AOBP with other common techniques of BP measurement in screening for and diagnosing hypertension in the clinical setting. ⁹

Continue to: This meta-analysis...

This meta-analysis emphasized the technique (see below) by which to obtain the best AOBP vs ABP results, whereas the other ­meta-analysis⁹ did not. Thus the study provides practice-based settings with the information they need to more closely replicate the results of the studies included in the meta-analysis.

Also, the equivalency comparison with the more expensive and intrusive ABP monitoring may save money, improve patient adherence, and increase patient satisfaction. Given these advantages, along with its demonstrated accuracy, AOBP should be adopted in routine clinical practice to screen patients for hypertension.

CAVEATS

Close adherence to measurementprocedures is a necessity

Effective use of AOBP in clinical practice requires close adherence to the AOBP study procedures described in this meta-analysis. These include taking multiple (at least 3) BP readings, 1 to 2 minutes apart, recorded with a fully automated oscillometric sphygmomanometer while the patient rests alone in a quiet place.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Adjusting workflows, addressing cost

Physicians may be reluctant to adopt this technique because they may not be convinced of its advantages compared with the traditional methods of recording BP and because of difficulties with implementing new rooming workflows.¹² The cost of AOBP devices used in this study (Omron 907 and BpTRU; BpTRU ceased operations in 2017) were not disclosed, which may be a hindrance, as devices may cost $1000 or more.

Effective use of automated office blood pressure requires that one take multiple (at least 3) BP readings, 1 to 2 minutes apart, while the patient rests alone in a quiet place.

An online search for “automated oscillometric BP monitor” by one of the PURL authors (RCM) found oscillometric AOBP devices ranging from $150 to > $1000, depending on whether the device was medical grade; a search for “Omron 907” found devices for ≤ $599 on multiple sites. However, none of the lower-cost devices indicated the ability to take multiple, unattended BP readings.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

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

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 45-year-old woman with no chronic medical illness presents to your office for her annual physical examination. After a medical assistant (MA) applies an automatic BP cuff to the patient’s left arm, the BP reading is 155/92 mm Hg. The MA then rechecks the BP, and this time it reads 160/98 mm Hg. The MA performs a manual BP reading, which is 158/90 mm Hg (left arm) and 162/100 mm Hg (right arm). The patient denies any headache, visual changes, chest pain, or difficulty breathing and tells the MA that her BP is always high during a doctor visit. You are wondering if she has hypertension or if is this the white-coat effect.

Depending on the definition of hypertension, its prevalence among US adults 18 years or older varies from 46%, based on the American College of Cardiology guideline (≥ 130/80 mm Hg), to 29%, based on the Eighth Joint National Committee (JNC-8) guideline (≥ 140/90 mm Hg for adults ages 18–59 years and ≥ 150/90 mm Hg for adults ≥ 60 years without diabetes and/or chronic kidney disease).^2,3

According to JNC-8, the prevalence is similar among men (30.2%) and women (27.7%) and increases with age: 18 to 39 years, 7.5%; 40 to 59 years, 33.2%; and ≥ 60 years, 63.1%.^3,4 When ranked by risk-attributable ­disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs), high systolic blood pressure (SBP) is the leading risk factor, accounting for 10.4 million deaths and 218 million DALYs globally in 2017.⁵ National medical costs associated with hypertension are estimated to account for about $131 billion in annual health care expenditures, averaged over 12 years from 2003 to 2014.⁶

When performed correctly, the auscultatory method using a mercury sphygmomanometer correlates well with simultaneous intra-arterial BP and was considered the gold standard for office-based measurements for many years.^7,8 However, significant ­observer-related differences in auditory acuity and terminal digit rounding are sources of inaccurate measurement. White-coat hypertension cannot be detected with this method—another significant limitation. The inaccuracy of office-based BP readings leads to concerns about hypertension being inappropriately diagnosed in patients or delays in diagnosis occurring.⁹

A proposed solution to this problem is measurement using an oscillometric sphygmomanometer. This device uses a pressure transducer to assess the oscillations of pressure in a cuff during gradual deflation; it provides accurate BP measurements when fully automated and programmed to complete several BP measurements at appropriate intervals while the patient rests alone in a quiet room.¹⁰

The accuracy of this new method was tested in a 2009 cohort study of 309 patients referred to an ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) monitoring unit at an academic hospital for diagnosis or management of hypertension.¹¹ The study compared mean awake ABP, which continuously measures patients’ BP throughout the day, manual sphygmomanometer readings taken by the patient’s own physician, and an automated office blood pressure (AOBP) device called BpTRU (an automated oscillometric sphygmomanometer) while the patient rested alone in the exam room.¹¹ The awake ABP is a federally approved standard for the diagnosis of white-coat hypertension.¹² In this study, the white-coat response was negated with the use of the automated BpTRU device.¹¹

A 2019 meta-analysis that included 26 studies (N = 7116) comparing AOBP with other BP measurement techniques concluded that the use of automated oscillometric BP readings is more accurate for diagnosing hypertension and assists in negating the white-coat hypertension effect.⁹

Continue to: STUDY SUMMARY

STUDY SUMMARY

Automated office BP devices are just as accurate as more expensive ABP studies

This systematic review and meta-analysis (N = 9279; 23 cross-sectional, 1 cohort, and 7 randomized controlled trials [N = 1304], of which 17 studies overlapped with those included in the previously mentioned meta-analysis⁹) compared SBP and diastolic blood pressure measured by an oscillometric AOBP device to awake or daytime ABP (continuously monitoring BP while awake, used as a standard for BP measurement), routine manual office BP, or research BP measurements.

The study also explored the protocol by which the best AOBP results could be obtained. For AOBP measurement, the included trials had no more than 2 minutes of elapsed time between individual AOBP measurements and had at least 3 AOBP readings to calculate the mean.

Compared with AOBP, in samples with an SBP of ≥ 130 mm Hg, SBP readings were significantly higher for both routine office visits (mean difference [MD] = 14.5 mm Hg; 95% CI, 11.8–17.2) and research (MD = 7 mm Hg; 95% CI, 4.9–9.1). However, no difference was found between AOBP and awake ambulatory SBP values (MD = 0.3 mm Hg; 95% CI, −1.1 to 1.7). In all cases, heterogeneity of the included studies was high (I² was > 75%). There was no evidence of small-study effect or publication bias, and little evidence of potential financial bias. The most accurate methodology for AOBP measurements included multiple BP readings and the patient resting alone in a quiet location.

This meta-analysis supports the use of an automated office blood pressure device to accurately screen for hypertension and avoid the white-coat effect.

Although there was statistical heterogeneity, the results were confirmed in the authors’ analysis of studies with high methodologic quality. In addition, researchers performed multiple meta-regression analyses to evaluate the statistical heterogeneity and found no significant differences based on age, body mass index, number of treated patients, gender, measurement interval, or added rest before AOBP.

WHAT'S NEW

Study confirms unattended, automated office BP as preferred technique

This is the second recent comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis to directly compare AOBP with other common techniques of BP measurement in screening for and diagnosing hypertension in the clinical setting. ⁹

Continue to: This meta-analysis...

This meta-analysis emphasized the technique (see below) by which to obtain the best AOBP vs ABP results, whereas the other ­meta-analysis⁹ did not. Thus the study provides practice-based settings with the information they need to more closely replicate the results of the studies included in the meta-analysis.

Also, the equivalency comparison with the more expensive and intrusive ABP monitoring may save money, improve patient adherence, and increase patient satisfaction. Given these advantages, along with its demonstrated accuracy, AOBP should be adopted in routine clinical practice to screen patients for hypertension.

CAVEATS

Close adherence to measurementprocedures is a necessity

Effective use of AOBP in clinical practice requires close adherence to the AOBP study procedures described in this meta-analysis. These include taking multiple (at least 3) BP readings, 1 to 2 minutes apart, recorded with a fully automated oscillometric sphygmomanometer while the patient rests alone in a quiet place.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Adjusting workflows, addressing cost

Physicians may be reluctant to adopt this technique because they may not be convinced of its advantages compared with the traditional methods of recording BP and because of difficulties with implementing new rooming workflows.¹² The cost of AOBP devices used in this study (Omron 907 and BpTRU; BpTRU ceased operations in 2017) were not disclosed, which may be a hindrance, as devices may cost $1000 or more.

Effective use of automated office blood pressure requires that one take multiple (at least 3) BP readings, 1 to 2 minutes apart, while the patient rests alone in a quiet place.

An online search for “automated oscillometric BP monitor” by one of the PURL authors (RCM) found oscillometric AOBP devices ranging from $150 to > $1000, depending on whether the device was medical grade; a search for “Omron 907” found devices for ≤ $599 on multiple sites. However, none of the lower-cost devices indicated the ability to take multiple, unattended BP readings.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

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

Since the last Practice Alert update on recommendations made by the US Preventive Services Task Force,¹ the Task Force has completed work on 12 topics (TABLE 1).^2-17 Five of these topics have been discussed in JFP audio recordings, and the links are provided in TABLE 1.

This latest Task Force endeavor resulted in 18 recommendations (TABLE 2), all of which reaffirm previous recommendations on these topics and expand the scope of 2. There were 2 “A” recommendations, 6 “B” recommendations, 2 “D” recommendations, and 8 “I” statements, indicating that there was insufficient evidence to assess effectiveness or harms. The willingness to make “I” statements when there is little or no evidence on the intervention being assessed distinguishes the USPSTF from other clinical guideline committees.

Screening for carotid artery stenosis

One of the “D” recommendations this past year reaffirms the prior recommendation against screening for carotid artery stenosis in asymptomatic adults—ie, those without a history of transient ischemic attack, stroke, or neurologic signs or symptoms that might be caused by carotid artery stenosis.² The screening tests the Task Force researched included carotid duplex ultrasonography (DUS), magnetic resonance angiography, and computed tomography angiography. The Task Force did not look at the value of auscultation for carotid bruits because it has been proven to be inaccurate and they do not consider it to be a useful screening tool. 

The Task Force based its “D” recommendation on a lack of evidence for any benefit in detecting asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis, and on evidence that screening can lead to harms through false-positive tests and potential complications from carotid endarterectomy and carotid artery angioplasty and stenting. In its clinical considerations, the Task Force emphasized the primary prevention of atherosclerotic disease by focusing on the following actions:

• screening for high blood pressure in adults
• encouraging tobacco smoking cessation in adults
• promoting a healthy diet and physical activity in adults with cardiovascular risk factors
• recommending aspirin use to prevent cardiovascular disease and colorectal cancer
• advising statin use for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in adults ages 45 to 75 years who have 1 or more risk factors (hyperlipidemia, diabetes, hypertension, smoking) and those with a 10-year risk of a cardiovascular event of 10% or greater.

This “D” recommendation differs from recommendations made by other professional organizations, some of which recommend testing with DUS for asymptomatic patients with a carotid bruit, and others that recommend DUS screening in patients with multiple risk factors for stroke and in those with known peripheral artery disease or other cardiovascular disease.^18,19

Smoking cessation in adults

Smoking tobacco is the leading preventable cause of death in the United States, causing about 480,000 deaths annually.³ Smoking during pregnancy increases the risk of complications including miscarriage, congenital anomalies, stillbirth, fetal growth restriction, preterm birth, and placental abruption.

The Task Force published recommendations earlier this year advising all clinicians to ask all adult patients about tobacco use; and, for those who smoke, to provide (or refer them to) smoking cessation behavioral therapy. The Task Force also recommends prescribing pharmacotherapy approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for smoking cessation for nonpregnant adults. (There is a lack of information to assess the harms and benefits of smoking cessation pharmacotherapy during pregnancy.)

Continue to: FDA-approved medications...

The Task Force recommends prescribing pharmacotherapy approved by the FDA for smoking cessation for nonpregnant adults.

FDA-approved medications for treating tobacco smoking dependence are nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), bupropion hydrochloride, and varenicline.³ NRT is available in transdermal patches, lozenges, gum, inhalers, and nasal sprays.

In addition, the Task Force indicates that there is insufficient evidence to assess the benefits and harms of e-cigarettes when used as a method of achieving smoking cessation: “Few randomized trials have evaluated the effectiveness of e-cigarettes to increase tobacco smoking cessation in nonpregnant adults, and no trials have evaluated e-­cigarettes for tobacco smoking cessation in pregnant persons.”⁴

Hepatitis B infection screening

The Task Force reaffirmed a previous recommendation to screen for hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection only in adults who are at high risk,⁵ rather than universal screening that it recommends for hepatitis C virus infection (HCV).⁷ (See: https://bit.ly/3tt064Q). The Task Force has a separate recommendation to screen all pregnant women for hepatitis B at the first prenatal visit.⁶

Those at high risk for hepatitis B who should be screened include individuals born in countries or regions of the world with a hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) prevalence ≥ 2% and individuals born in the United States who have not received HBV vaccine and whose parents were born in regions with an HBsAg prevalence ≥ 8%.⁵ (A table listing countries with HBsAg ≥ 8%—as well as those in lower prevalence categories—is included with the recommendation.⁵)

Screening individuals at high risk for HBV infection is important because nearly two-thirds of those infected are unaware of their condition.

HBV screening should also be offered to other high-risk groups that have a prevalence of positive HBsAg ≥ 2%: those who have injected drugs in the past or are currently injecting drugs; men who have sex with men; individuals with HIV; and sex partners, needle-sharing contacts, and household contacts of people known to be HBsAg positive.⁵

Continue to: It is estimated that...

It is estimated that > 860,000 people in the United States have chronic HBV infection and that close to two-thirds of them are unaware of their infection.⁵ The screening test for HBV is highly accurate; sensitivity and specificity are both > 98%.⁵ While there is no direct evidence that screening, detecting, and treating asymptomatic HBV infection reduces morbidity and mortality, the Task Force felt that the evidence for improvement in multiple outcomes in those with HBV when treated with antiviral regimens was sufficient to support the recommendation.

Screening for bacterial vaginosis in pregnancy

While bacterial vaginosis (BV) is associated with a two-fold risk of preterm delivery, treating BV during pregnancy does not seem to reduce this risk, indicating that some other variable is involved.⁸ In addition, studies that looked at screening for, and treatment of, ­asymptomatic BV in pregnant women at high risk for preterm delivery (defined primarily as those with a previous preterm delivery) have shown inconsistent results. There is the potential for harm in treating BV in pregnancy, chiefly involving gastrointestinal upset caused by metronidazole or clindamycin.

Given that there are no benefits—and some harms—resulting from treatment, the Task Force recommends against screening for BV in non-high-risk pregnant women. A lack of sufficient information to assess any potential benefits to screening in high-risk pregnancies led the Task Force to an “I” statement on this question.⁸

Behavioral counseling on healthy diet, exercise for adults with CV risks

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains the number one cause of death in the United States. The major risk factors for CVD, which can be modified, are high blood pressure, hyperlipidemia, diabetes, smoking, obesity or overweight, and lack of physical activity.

The Task Force has previously recommended intensive behavioral interventions to improve nutrition and physical activity in those who are overweight/obese and in those with abnormal blood glucose levels,⁹ and has addressed smoking prevention and cessation.⁴ This new recommendation applies to those with other CVD risks such as high blood pressure and/or hyperlipidemia and those with an estimated 10-year CVD risk of ≥ 7.5%.¹⁰

Continue to: Behavioral interventions...

Behavioral interventions included in the Task Force analysis employed a median of 12 contacts and an estimated 6 hours of contact time over 6 to 18 months.¹⁰ Most interventions involved motivational interviewing and instruction on behavioral change methods. These interventions can be provided by primary care clinicians, as well as a wide range of other trained professionals. The Affordable Care Act dictates that all “A” and “B” recommendations must be provided by commercial health plans at no out-of-pocket expense for the patient.

Nutritional advice should include reductions in saturated fats, salt, and sugars and increases in fruits, vegetables, and whole grains. The Mediterranean diet and the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet are often recommended.¹⁰ Physical activity counseling should advocate for 90 to 180 minutes per week of moderate to vigorous activity.

This new recommendation, along with the previous ones pertaining to behavioral interventions for lifestyle changes, make it clear that intensive interventions are needed to achieve meaningful change. Simple advice from a clinician will have little to no effect.

Task Force reviews evidence on HTN, smoking cessation in young people

In 2020 the Task Force completed reviews of evidence relevant to screening for high blood pressure¹¹ and intervening for tobacco prevention and cessation in children and adolescents.¹² The Task Force concluded that the evidence is insufficient to make a judgment on screening for high blood pressure and for providing smoking cessation interventions. It did, however, reaffirm a previous recommendation to provide interventions to children and adolescents to prevent tobacco and e-cigarette use.

Screening for asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis is discouraged due to a lack of evidence for benefit in detection, and on evidence that false-positives lead to harm from procedures such as endarterectomy.

The 2 “I” statements are in disagreement with recommendations of other professional organizations. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the American Heart Association recommend routine screening for high blood pressure starting at age 3 years. And the AAP recommends screening teenagers for tobacco use and offering tobacco dependence treatment, referral, or both (including pharmacotherapy) when indicated. E-cigarettes are not recommended as a treatment for tobacco dependence.²⁰

Continue to: The difference between...

The difference between the methods used by the Task Force and other guideline-­producing organizations becomes apparent when it comes to recommendations pertaining to children and adolescents, for whom long-term outcome-oriented studies on prevention issues are rare. The Task Force is unwilling to make recommendations when evidence does not exist. The AAP often makes recommendations based on expert opinion consensus in such situations. One notable part of each Task Force recommendation statement is a discussion of what other organizations recommend on the same topic so that these differences can be openly described.

Better Task Force funding could expand topic coverage

It is worth revisiting 2 issues that were pointed out in last year’s USPSTF summary in this column.¹ First, the Task Force methods are robust and evidence based, and recommendations therefore are rarely changed once they are made at an “A”, “B”, or “D” level. Second, Task Force resources are finite, and thus, the group is currently unable to update previous recommendations with greater frequency or to consider many new topics. In the past 2 years, the Task Force has developed recommendations on only 2 completely new topics. Hopefully, its budget can be expanded so that new topics can be added in the future.

Since the last Practice Alert update on recommendations made by the US Preventive Services Task Force,¹ the Task Force has completed work on 12 topics (TABLE 1).^2-17 Five of these topics have been discussed in JFP audio recordings, and the links are provided in TABLE 1.

This latest Task Force endeavor resulted in 18 recommendations (TABLE 2), all of which reaffirm previous recommendations on these topics and expand the scope of 2. There were 2 “A” recommendations, 6 “B” recommendations, 2 “D” recommendations, and 8 “I” statements, indicating that there was insufficient evidence to assess effectiveness or harms. The willingness to make “I” statements when there is little or no evidence on the intervention being assessed distinguishes the USPSTF from other clinical guideline committees.

Screening for carotid artery stenosis

One of the “D” recommendations this past year reaffirms the prior recommendation against screening for carotid artery stenosis in asymptomatic adults—ie, those without a history of transient ischemic attack, stroke, or neurologic signs or symptoms that might be caused by carotid artery stenosis.² The screening tests the Task Force researched included carotid duplex ultrasonography (DUS), magnetic resonance angiography, and computed tomography angiography. The Task Force did not look at the value of auscultation for carotid bruits because it has been proven to be inaccurate and they do not consider it to be a useful screening tool. 

The Task Force based its “D” recommendation on a lack of evidence for any benefit in detecting asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis, and on evidence that screening can lead to harms through false-positive tests and potential complications from carotid endarterectomy and carotid artery angioplasty and stenting. In its clinical considerations, the Task Force emphasized the primary prevention of atherosclerotic disease by focusing on the following actions:

• screening for high blood pressure in adults
• encouraging tobacco smoking cessation in adults
• promoting a healthy diet and physical activity in adults with cardiovascular risk factors
• recommending aspirin use to prevent cardiovascular disease and colorectal cancer
• advising statin use for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in adults ages 45 to 75 years who have 1 or more risk factors (hyperlipidemia, diabetes, hypertension, smoking) and those with a 10-year risk of a cardiovascular event of 10% or greater.

This “D” recommendation differs from recommendations made by other professional organizations, some of which recommend testing with DUS for asymptomatic patients with a carotid bruit, and others that recommend DUS screening in patients with multiple risk factors for stroke and in those with known peripheral artery disease or other cardiovascular disease.^18,19

Smoking cessation in adults

Smoking tobacco is the leading preventable cause of death in the United States, causing about 480,000 deaths annually.³ Smoking during pregnancy increases the risk of complications including miscarriage, congenital anomalies, stillbirth, fetal growth restriction, preterm birth, and placental abruption.

The Task Force published recommendations earlier this year advising all clinicians to ask all adult patients about tobacco use; and, for those who smoke, to provide (or refer them to) smoking cessation behavioral therapy. The Task Force also recommends prescribing pharmacotherapy approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for smoking cessation for nonpregnant adults. (There is a lack of information to assess the harms and benefits of smoking cessation pharmacotherapy during pregnancy.)

Continue to: FDA-approved medications...

The Task Force recommends prescribing pharmacotherapy approved by the FDA for smoking cessation for nonpregnant adults.

FDA-approved medications for treating tobacco smoking dependence are nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), bupropion hydrochloride, and varenicline.³ NRT is available in transdermal patches, lozenges, gum, inhalers, and nasal sprays.

In addition, the Task Force indicates that there is insufficient evidence to assess the benefits and harms of e-cigarettes when used as a method of achieving smoking cessation: “Few randomized trials have evaluated the effectiveness of e-cigarettes to increase tobacco smoking cessation in nonpregnant adults, and no trials have evaluated e-­cigarettes for tobacco smoking cessation in pregnant persons.”⁴

Hepatitis B infection screening

The Task Force reaffirmed a previous recommendation to screen for hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection only in adults who are at high risk,⁵ rather than universal screening that it recommends for hepatitis C virus infection (HCV).⁷ (See: https://bit.ly/3tt064Q). The Task Force has a separate recommendation to screen all pregnant women for hepatitis B at the first prenatal visit.⁶

Those at high risk for hepatitis B who should be screened include individuals born in countries or regions of the world with a hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) prevalence ≥ 2% and individuals born in the United States who have not received HBV vaccine and whose parents were born in regions with an HBsAg prevalence ≥ 8%.⁵ (A table listing countries with HBsAg ≥ 8%—as well as those in lower prevalence categories—is included with the recommendation.⁵)

Screening individuals at high risk for HBV infection is important because nearly two-thirds of those infected are unaware of their condition.

HBV screening should also be offered to other high-risk groups that have a prevalence of positive HBsAg ≥ 2%: those who have injected drugs in the past or are currently injecting drugs; men who have sex with men; individuals with HIV; and sex partners, needle-sharing contacts, and household contacts of people known to be HBsAg positive.⁵

Continue to: It is estimated that...

It is estimated that > 860,000 people in the United States have chronic HBV infection and that close to two-thirds of them are unaware of their infection.⁵ The screening test for HBV is highly accurate; sensitivity and specificity are both > 98%.⁵ While there is no direct evidence that screening, detecting, and treating asymptomatic HBV infection reduces morbidity and mortality, the Task Force felt that the evidence for improvement in multiple outcomes in those with HBV when treated with antiviral regimens was sufficient to support the recommendation.

Screening for bacterial vaginosis in pregnancy

While bacterial vaginosis (BV) is associated with a two-fold risk of preterm delivery, treating BV during pregnancy does not seem to reduce this risk, indicating that some other variable is involved.⁸ In addition, studies that looked at screening for, and treatment of, ­asymptomatic BV in pregnant women at high risk for preterm delivery (defined primarily as those with a previous preterm delivery) have shown inconsistent results. There is the potential for harm in treating BV in pregnancy, chiefly involving gastrointestinal upset caused by metronidazole or clindamycin.

Given that there are no benefits—and some harms—resulting from treatment, the Task Force recommends against screening for BV in non-high-risk pregnant women. A lack of sufficient information to assess any potential benefits to screening in high-risk pregnancies led the Task Force to an “I” statement on this question.⁸

Behavioral counseling on healthy diet, exercise for adults with CV risks

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains the number one cause of death in the United States. The major risk factors for CVD, which can be modified, are high blood pressure, hyperlipidemia, diabetes, smoking, obesity or overweight, and lack of physical activity.

The Task Force has previously recommended intensive behavioral interventions to improve nutrition and physical activity in those who are overweight/obese and in those with abnormal blood glucose levels,⁹ and has addressed smoking prevention and cessation.⁴ This new recommendation applies to those with other CVD risks such as high blood pressure and/or hyperlipidemia and those with an estimated 10-year CVD risk of ≥ 7.5%.¹⁰

Continue to: Behavioral interventions...

Behavioral interventions included in the Task Force analysis employed a median of 12 contacts and an estimated 6 hours of contact time over 6 to 18 months.¹⁰ Most interventions involved motivational interviewing and instruction on behavioral change methods. These interventions can be provided by primary care clinicians, as well as a wide range of other trained professionals. The Affordable Care Act dictates that all “A” and “B” recommendations must be provided by commercial health plans at no out-of-pocket expense for the patient.

Nutritional advice should include reductions in saturated fats, salt, and sugars and increases in fruits, vegetables, and whole grains. The Mediterranean diet and the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet are often recommended.¹⁰ Physical activity counseling should advocate for 90 to 180 minutes per week of moderate to vigorous activity.

This new recommendation, along with the previous ones pertaining to behavioral interventions for lifestyle changes, make it clear that intensive interventions are needed to achieve meaningful change. Simple advice from a clinician will have little to no effect.

Task Force reviews evidence on HTN, smoking cessation in young people

In 2020 the Task Force completed reviews of evidence relevant to screening for high blood pressure¹¹ and intervening for tobacco prevention and cessation in children and adolescents.¹² The Task Force concluded that the evidence is insufficient to make a judgment on screening for high blood pressure and for providing smoking cessation interventions. It did, however, reaffirm a previous recommendation to provide interventions to children and adolescents to prevent tobacco and e-cigarette use.

Screening for asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis is discouraged due to a lack of evidence for benefit in detection, and on evidence that false-positives lead to harm from procedures such as endarterectomy.

The 2 “I” statements are in disagreement with recommendations of other professional organizations. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the American Heart Association recommend routine screening for high blood pressure starting at age 3 years. And the AAP recommends screening teenagers for tobacco use and offering tobacco dependence treatment, referral, or both (including pharmacotherapy) when indicated. E-cigarettes are not recommended as a treatment for tobacco dependence.²⁰

Continue to: The difference between...

The difference between the methods used by the Task Force and other guideline-­producing organizations becomes apparent when it comes to recommendations pertaining to children and adolescents, for whom long-term outcome-oriented studies on prevention issues are rare. The Task Force is unwilling to make recommendations when evidence does not exist. The AAP often makes recommendations based on expert opinion consensus in such situations. One notable part of each Task Force recommendation statement is a discussion of what other organizations recommend on the same topic so that these differences can be openly described.

Better Task Force funding could expand topic coverage

It is worth revisiting 2 issues that were pointed out in last year’s USPSTF summary in this column.¹ First, the Task Force methods are robust and evidence based, and recommendations therefore are rarely changed once they are made at an “A”, “B”, or “D” level. Second, Task Force resources are finite, and thus, the group is currently unable to update previous recommendations with greater frequency or to consider many new topics. In the past 2 years, the Task Force has developed recommendations on only 2 completely new topics. Hopefully, its budget can be expanded so that new topics can be added in the future.

Since the last Practice Alert update on recommendations made by the US Preventive Services Task Force,¹ the Task Force has completed work on 12 topics (TABLE 1).^2-17 Five of these topics have been discussed in JFP audio recordings, and the links are provided in TABLE 1.

This latest Task Force endeavor resulted in 18 recommendations (TABLE 2), all of which reaffirm previous recommendations on these topics and expand the scope of 2. There were 2 “A” recommendations, 6 “B” recommendations, 2 “D” recommendations, and 8 “I” statements, indicating that there was insufficient evidence to assess effectiveness or harms. The willingness to make “I” statements when there is little or no evidence on the intervention being assessed distinguishes the USPSTF from other clinical guideline committees.

Screening for carotid artery stenosis

One of the “D” recommendations this past year reaffirms the prior recommendation against screening for carotid artery stenosis in asymptomatic adults—ie, those without a history of transient ischemic attack, stroke, or neurologic signs or symptoms that might be caused by carotid artery stenosis.² The screening tests the Task Force researched included carotid duplex ultrasonography (DUS), magnetic resonance angiography, and computed tomography angiography. The Task Force did not look at the value of auscultation for carotid bruits because it has been proven to be inaccurate and they do not consider it to be a useful screening tool. 

The Task Force based its “D” recommendation on a lack of evidence for any benefit in detecting asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis, and on evidence that screening can lead to harms through false-positive tests and potential complications from carotid endarterectomy and carotid artery angioplasty and stenting. In its clinical considerations, the Task Force emphasized the primary prevention of atherosclerotic disease by focusing on the following actions:

• screening for high blood pressure in adults
• encouraging tobacco smoking cessation in adults
• promoting a healthy diet and physical activity in adults with cardiovascular risk factors
• recommending aspirin use to prevent cardiovascular disease and colorectal cancer
• advising statin use for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in adults ages 45 to 75 years who have 1 or more risk factors (hyperlipidemia, diabetes, hypertension, smoking) and those with a 10-year risk of a cardiovascular event of 10% or greater.

This “D” recommendation differs from recommendations made by other professional organizations, some of which recommend testing with DUS for asymptomatic patients with a carotid bruit, and others that recommend DUS screening in patients with multiple risk factors for stroke and in those with known peripheral artery disease or other cardiovascular disease.^18,19

Smoking cessation in adults

Smoking tobacco is the leading preventable cause of death in the United States, causing about 480,000 deaths annually.³ Smoking during pregnancy increases the risk of complications including miscarriage, congenital anomalies, stillbirth, fetal growth restriction, preterm birth, and placental abruption.

The Task Force published recommendations earlier this year advising all clinicians to ask all adult patients about tobacco use; and, for those who smoke, to provide (or refer them to) smoking cessation behavioral therapy. The Task Force also recommends prescribing pharmacotherapy approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for smoking cessation for nonpregnant adults. (There is a lack of information to assess the harms and benefits of smoking cessation pharmacotherapy during pregnancy.)

Continue to: FDA-approved medications...

The Task Force recommends prescribing pharmacotherapy approved by the FDA for smoking cessation for nonpregnant adults.

FDA-approved medications for treating tobacco smoking dependence are nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), bupropion hydrochloride, and varenicline.³ NRT is available in transdermal patches, lozenges, gum, inhalers, and nasal sprays.

In addition, the Task Force indicates that there is insufficient evidence to assess the benefits and harms of e-cigarettes when used as a method of achieving smoking cessation: “Few randomized trials have evaluated the effectiveness of e-cigarettes to increase tobacco smoking cessation in nonpregnant adults, and no trials have evaluated e-­cigarettes for tobacco smoking cessation in pregnant persons.”⁴

Hepatitis B infection screening

The Task Force reaffirmed a previous recommendation to screen for hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection only in adults who are at high risk,⁵ rather than universal screening that it recommends for hepatitis C virus infection (HCV).⁷ (See: https://bit.ly/3tt064Q). The Task Force has a separate recommendation to screen all pregnant women for hepatitis B at the first prenatal visit.⁶

Those at high risk for hepatitis B who should be screened include individuals born in countries or regions of the world with a hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) prevalence ≥ 2% and individuals born in the United States who have not received HBV vaccine and whose parents were born in regions with an HBsAg prevalence ≥ 8%.⁵ (A table listing countries with HBsAg ≥ 8%—as well as those in lower prevalence categories—is included with the recommendation.⁵)

Screening individuals at high risk for HBV infection is important because nearly two-thirds of those infected are unaware of their condition.

HBV screening should also be offered to other high-risk groups that have a prevalence of positive HBsAg ≥ 2%: those who have injected drugs in the past or are currently injecting drugs; men who have sex with men; individuals with HIV; and sex partners, needle-sharing contacts, and household contacts of people known to be HBsAg positive.⁵

Continue to: It is estimated that...

It is estimated that > 860,000 people in the United States have chronic HBV infection and that close to two-thirds of them are unaware of their infection.⁵ The screening test for HBV is highly accurate; sensitivity and specificity are both > 98%.⁵ While there is no direct evidence that screening, detecting, and treating asymptomatic HBV infection reduces morbidity and mortality, the Task Force felt that the evidence for improvement in multiple outcomes in those with HBV when treated with antiviral regimens was sufficient to support the recommendation.

Screening for bacterial vaginosis in pregnancy

While bacterial vaginosis (BV) is associated with a two-fold risk of preterm delivery, treating BV during pregnancy does not seem to reduce this risk, indicating that some other variable is involved.⁸ In addition, studies that looked at screening for, and treatment of, ­asymptomatic BV in pregnant women at high risk for preterm delivery (defined primarily as those with a previous preterm delivery) have shown inconsistent results. There is the potential for harm in treating BV in pregnancy, chiefly involving gastrointestinal upset caused by metronidazole or clindamycin.

Given that there are no benefits—and some harms—resulting from treatment, the Task Force recommends against screening for BV in non-high-risk pregnant women. A lack of sufficient information to assess any potential benefits to screening in high-risk pregnancies led the Task Force to an “I” statement on this question.⁸

Behavioral counseling on healthy diet, exercise for adults with CV risks

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains the number one cause of death in the United States. The major risk factors for CVD, which can be modified, are high blood pressure, hyperlipidemia, diabetes, smoking, obesity or overweight, and lack of physical activity.

The Task Force has previously recommended intensive behavioral interventions to improve nutrition and physical activity in those who are overweight/obese and in those with abnormal blood glucose levels,⁹ and has addressed smoking prevention and cessation.⁴ This new recommendation applies to those with other CVD risks such as high blood pressure and/or hyperlipidemia and those with an estimated 10-year CVD risk of ≥ 7.5%.¹⁰

Continue to: Behavioral interventions...

Behavioral interventions included in the Task Force analysis employed a median of 12 contacts and an estimated 6 hours of contact time over 6 to 18 months.¹⁰ Most interventions involved motivational interviewing and instruction on behavioral change methods. These interventions can be provided by primary care clinicians, as well as a wide range of other trained professionals. The Affordable Care Act dictates that all “A” and “B” recommendations must be provided by commercial health plans at no out-of-pocket expense for the patient.

Nutritional advice should include reductions in saturated fats, salt, and sugars and increases in fruits, vegetables, and whole grains. The Mediterranean diet and the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet are often recommended.¹⁰ Physical activity counseling should advocate for 90 to 180 minutes per week of moderate to vigorous activity.

This new recommendation, along with the previous ones pertaining to behavioral interventions for lifestyle changes, make it clear that intensive interventions are needed to achieve meaningful change. Simple advice from a clinician will have little to no effect.

Task Force reviews evidence on HTN, smoking cessation in young people

In 2020 the Task Force completed reviews of evidence relevant to screening for high blood pressure¹¹ and intervening for tobacco prevention and cessation in children and adolescents.¹² The Task Force concluded that the evidence is insufficient to make a judgment on screening for high blood pressure and for providing smoking cessation interventions. It did, however, reaffirm a previous recommendation to provide interventions to children and adolescents to prevent tobacco and e-cigarette use.

Screening for asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis is discouraged due to a lack of evidence for benefit in detection, and on evidence that false-positives lead to harm from procedures such as endarterectomy.

The 2 “I” statements are in disagreement with recommendations of other professional organizations. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the American Heart Association recommend routine screening for high blood pressure starting at age 3 years. And the AAP recommends screening teenagers for tobacco use and offering tobacco dependence treatment, referral, or both (including pharmacotherapy) when indicated. E-cigarettes are not recommended as a treatment for tobacco dependence.²⁰

Continue to: The difference between...

The difference between the methods used by the Task Force and other guideline-­producing organizations becomes apparent when it comes to recommendations pertaining to children and adolescents, for whom long-term outcome-oriented studies on prevention issues are rare. The Task Force is unwilling to make recommendations when evidence does not exist. The AAP often makes recommendations based on expert opinion consensus in such situations. One notable part of each Task Force recommendation statement is a discussion of what other organizations recommend on the same topic so that these differences can be openly described.

Better Task Force funding could expand topic coverage

It is worth revisiting 2 issues that were pointed out in last year’s USPSTF summary in this column.¹ First, the Task Force methods are robust and evidence based, and recommendations therefore are rarely changed once they are made at an “A”, “B”, or “D” level. Second, Task Force resources are finite, and thus, the group is currently unable to update previous recommendations with greater frequency or to consider many new topics. In the past 2 years, the Task Force has developed recommendations on only 2 completely new topics. Hopefully, its budget can be expanded so that new topics can be added in the future.