Heidi Splete

Adolescent girls with heavy menstrual bleeding should be assessed for bleeding disorders, according to a Committee Opinion issued by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

A bleeding disorder is secondary only to anovulation as a cause of heavy menstrual bleeding in adolescents.

Bleeding disorders affect 1%-2% of the general population, but are “found in approximately 20% of adolescent girls who present for evaluation of heavy menstrual bleeding and in 33% of adolescent girls hospitalized for heavy menstrual bleeding,” wrote Oluyemisi Adeyemi-Fowode, MD, and Judith Simms-Cendan, MD, and members of the ACOG Committee on Adolescent Health Care in the opinion, published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

The committee advised that physical examination of teens with acute heavy menstrual bleeding should include assessment of hemodynamic stability with orthostatic blood pressure and pulse measurements. A speculum exam is not usually needed in teen girls with heavy menstrual bleeding. Evaluation should include screening for anemia attributable to blood loss with serum ferritin, endocrine disorders, and bleeding disorders. In suspected cases of bleeding disorders, laboratory evaluation and medical management should be done in consultation with a hematologist.

Those who are actively bleeding or hemodynamically unstable should be hospitalized for medical management, they said.

Ultrasonography is not necessary for an initial work-up of teens with heavy menstrual bleeding, but could be useful in patients who fail to respond to medical management.

Adolescent girls without contraindications to estrogen can be treated with hormone therapy in various forms including intravenous conjugated estrogen every 4-6 hours or oral 30-50 mg ethinyl estradiol every 6-8 hours until cessation of bleeding. Antifibrinolytics also can be used to stop bleeding.

Maintenance therapy after correction of acute heavy bleeding can include a combination of treatments such as hormonal contraceptives, oral and injectable progestins, and levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices, the committee wrote. They also recommended oral iron replacement therapy for all women of reproductive age with anemia caused by menstrual bleeding.

If a patient fails to respond to medical therapy, nonmedical options or surgery may be considered, according to the committee. In addition, all teen girls with bleeding disorders should be advised about safe medication use, including the use of aspirin or NSAIDs only on the recommendation of a hematologist.

Patients and their families need education on menstrual issues including possible options for surgery in the future if heavy menstruation does not resolve. If a patient has a known bleeding disorder and is considering surgery, preoperative evaluation should include a consultation with a hematologist and an anesthesiologist, the committee noted.

Melissa Kottke, MD, MPH, said in an interview, “Every ob.gyn. will see a young patient with ‘heavy menstrual bleeding.’ And it becomes part of the art and challenge to work with the patient and family to collectively explore if this is, indeed, ‘heavy’ and of concern … or is it is a ‘normal’ menstrual period and simply reflects a newer life experience that would benefit from some education? And the stakes are high. Young people who have heavy menstrual cycles are much more likely to have an underlying bleeding disorder than the general population (20% vs. 1%-2%), and 75%-80% of adolescents with bleeding disorders report heavy menses as the most common clinical manifestation of their disorder. 

“Fortunately, Committee Opinion 785, ‘Screening and Management of Bleeding Disorders in Adolescents with Heavy Menstrual Bleeding’ from the ACOG Committee on Adolescent Health Care is detailed and pragmatic. It outlines how to translate everyday conversations with young people about their menses into a quantifiable estimate of bleeding, including a very teen-friendly Pictorial Blood Loss Assessment Chart. It also gives ob.gyns. ever-important guidance about what to do next for evaluation and diagnosis. This committee opinion nicely outlines how to help manage heavy bleeding in an adolescent with a detailed algorithm. And very importantly, it gives clear management guidance and encourages ob.gyns. to avoid frequently unnecessary (speculum exams and ultrasounds) and excessive (early transfusion or surgical interventions) approaches to management for the young patient. I think it will be a great resource for any provider who is taking care of heavy menstrual bleeding for a young person,” said Dr. Kottke, who is director of the Jane Fonda Center for Adolescent Reproductive Health and associate professor of gynecology and obstetrics, both at Emory University, Atlanta. Dr. Kottke is not a member of the ACOG Committee on Adolescent Health and was asked to comment on the opinion.* 


The complete opinion, ACOG Committee Opinion number 785, includes recommended laboratory tests, an eight-question screening tool, and a management algorithm.

The committee members had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Kottke said she had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Adeyemi-Fowode O and Simms-Cendan J. Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Sep. 134:e71-83.

*This article was updated on 9/9/2019.

Adolescent girls with heavy menstrual bleeding should be assessed for bleeding disorders, according to a Committee Opinion issued by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

A bleeding disorder is secondary only to anovulation as a cause of heavy menstrual bleeding in adolescents.

Bleeding disorders affect 1%-2% of the general population, but are “found in approximately 20% of adolescent girls who present for evaluation of heavy menstrual bleeding and in 33% of adolescent girls hospitalized for heavy menstrual bleeding,” wrote Oluyemisi Adeyemi-Fowode, MD, and Judith Simms-Cendan, MD, and members of the ACOG Committee on Adolescent Health Care in the opinion, published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

The committee advised that physical examination of teens with acute heavy menstrual bleeding should include assessment of hemodynamic stability with orthostatic blood pressure and pulse measurements. A speculum exam is not usually needed in teen girls with heavy menstrual bleeding. Evaluation should include screening for anemia attributable to blood loss with serum ferritin, endocrine disorders, and bleeding disorders. In suspected cases of bleeding disorders, laboratory evaluation and medical management should be done in consultation with a hematologist.

Those who are actively bleeding or hemodynamically unstable should be hospitalized for medical management, they said.

Ultrasonography is not necessary for an initial work-up of teens with heavy menstrual bleeding, but could be useful in patients who fail to respond to medical management.

Adolescent girls without contraindications to estrogen can be treated with hormone therapy in various forms including intravenous conjugated estrogen every 4-6 hours or oral 30-50 mg ethinyl estradiol every 6-8 hours until cessation of bleeding. Antifibrinolytics also can be used to stop bleeding.

Maintenance therapy after correction of acute heavy bleeding can include a combination of treatments such as hormonal contraceptives, oral and injectable progestins, and levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices, the committee wrote. They also recommended oral iron replacement therapy for all women of reproductive age with anemia caused by menstrual bleeding.

If a patient fails to respond to medical therapy, nonmedical options or surgery may be considered, according to the committee. In addition, all teen girls with bleeding disorders should be advised about safe medication use, including the use of aspirin or NSAIDs only on the recommendation of a hematologist.

Patients and their families need education on menstrual issues including possible options for surgery in the future if heavy menstruation does not resolve. If a patient has a known bleeding disorder and is considering surgery, preoperative evaluation should include a consultation with a hematologist and an anesthesiologist, the committee noted.

Melissa Kottke, MD, MPH, said in an interview, “Every ob.gyn. will see a young patient with ‘heavy menstrual bleeding.’ And it becomes part of the art and challenge to work with the patient and family to collectively explore if this is, indeed, ‘heavy’ and of concern … or is it is a ‘normal’ menstrual period and simply reflects a newer life experience that would benefit from some education? And the stakes are high. Young people who have heavy menstrual cycles are much more likely to have an underlying bleeding disorder than the general population (20% vs. 1%-2%), and 75%-80% of adolescents with bleeding disorders report heavy menses as the most common clinical manifestation of their disorder. 

“Fortunately, Committee Opinion 785, ‘Screening and Management of Bleeding Disorders in Adolescents with Heavy Menstrual Bleeding’ from the ACOG Committee on Adolescent Health Care is detailed and pragmatic. It outlines how to translate everyday conversations with young people about their menses into a quantifiable estimate of bleeding, including a very teen-friendly Pictorial Blood Loss Assessment Chart. It also gives ob.gyns. ever-important guidance about what to do next for evaluation and diagnosis. This committee opinion nicely outlines how to help manage heavy bleeding in an adolescent with a detailed algorithm. And very importantly, it gives clear management guidance and encourages ob.gyns. to avoid frequently unnecessary (speculum exams and ultrasounds) and excessive (early transfusion or surgical interventions) approaches to management for the young patient. I think it will be a great resource for any provider who is taking care of heavy menstrual bleeding for a young person,” said Dr. Kottke, who is director of the Jane Fonda Center for Adolescent Reproductive Health and associate professor of gynecology and obstetrics, both at Emory University, Atlanta. Dr. Kottke is not a member of the ACOG Committee on Adolescent Health and was asked to comment on the opinion.* 


The complete opinion, ACOG Committee Opinion number 785, includes recommended laboratory tests, an eight-question screening tool, and a management algorithm.

The committee members had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Kottke said she had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Adeyemi-Fowode O and Simms-Cendan J. Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Sep. 134:e71-83.

*This article was updated on 9/9/2019.

Adolescent girls with heavy menstrual bleeding should be assessed for bleeding disorders, according to a Committee Opinion issued by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

A bleeding disorder is secondary only to anovulation as a cause of heavy menstrual bleeding in adolescents.

Bleeding disorders affect 1%-2% of the general population, but are “found in approximately 20% of adolescent girls who present for evaluation of heavy menstrual bleeding and in 33% of adolescent girls hospitalized for heavy menstrual bleeding,” wrote Oluyemisi Adeyemi-Fowode, MD, and Judith Simms-Cendan, MD, and members of the ACOG Committee on Adolescent Health Care in the opinion, published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

The committee advised that physical examination of teens with acute heavy menstrual bleeding should include assessment of hemodynamic stability with orthostatic blood pressure and pulse measurements. A speculum exam is not usually needed in teen girls with heavy menstrual bleeding. Evaluation should include screening for anemia attributable to blood loss with serum ferritin, endocrine disorders, and bleeding disorders. In suspected cases of bleeding disorders, laboratory evaluation and medical management should be done in consultation with a hematologist.

Those who are actively bleeding or hemodynamically unstable should be hospitalized for medical management, they said.

Ultrasonography is not necessary for an initial work-up of teens with heavy menstrual bleeding, but could be useful in patients who fail to respond to medical management.

Adolescent girls without contraindications to estrogen can be treated with hormone therapy in various forms including intravenous conjugated estrogen every 4-6 hours or oral 30-50 mg ethinyl estradiol every 6-8 hours until cessation of bleeding. Antifibrinolytics also can be used to stop bleeding.

Maintenance therapy after correction of acute heavy bleeding can include a combination of treatments such as hormonal contraceptives, oral and injectable progestins, and levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices, the committee wrote. They also recommended oral iron replacement therapy for all women of reproductive age with anemia caused by menstrual bleeding.

If a patient fails to respond to medical therapy, nonmedical options or surgery may be considered, according to the committee. In addition, all teen girls with bleeding disorders should be advised about safe medication use, including the use of aspirin or NSAIDs only on the recommendation of a hematologist.

Patients and their families need education on menstrual issues including possible options for surgery in the future if heavy menstruation does not resolve. If a patient has a known bleeding disorder and is considering surgery, preoperative evaluation should include a consultation with a hematologist and an anesthesiologist, the committee noted.

Melissa Kottke, MD, MPH, said in an interview, “Every ob.gyn. will see a young patient with ‘heavy menstrual bleeding.’ And it becomes part of the art and challenge to work with the patient and family to collectively explore if this is, indeed, ‘heavy’ and of concern … or is it is a ‘normal’ menstrual period and simply reflects a newer life experience that would benefit from some education? And the stakes are high. Young people who have heavy menstrual cycles are much more likely to have an underlying bleeding disorder than the general population (20% vs. 1%-2%), and 75%-80% of adolescents with bleeding disorders report heavy menses as the most common clinical manifestation of their disorder. 

“Fortunately, Committee Opinion 785, ‘Screening and Management of Bleeding Disorders in Adolescents with Heavy Menstrual Bleeding’ from the ACOG Committee on Adolescent Health Care is detailed and pragmatic. It outlines how to translate everyday conversations with young people about their menses into a quantifiable estimate of bleeding, including a very teen-friendly Pictorial Blood Loss Assessment Chart. It also gives ob.gyns. ever-important guidance about what to do next for evaluation and diagnosis. This committee opinion nicely outlines how to help manage heavy bleeding in an adolescent with a detailed algorithm. And very importantly, it gives clear management guidance and encourages ob.gyns. to avoid frequently unnecessary (speculum exams and ultrasounds) and excessive (early transfusion or surgical interventions) approaches to management for the young patient. I think it will be a great resource for any provider who is taking care of heavy menstrual bleeding for a young person,” said Dr. Kottke, who is director of the Jane Fonda Center for Adolescent Reproductive Health and associate professor of gynecology and obstetrics, both at Emory University, Atlanta. Dr. Kottke is not a member of the ACOG Committee on Adolescent Health and was asked to comment on the opinion.* 


The complete opinion, ACOG Committee Opinion number 785, includes recommended laboratory tests, an eight-question screening tool, and a management algorithm.

The committee members had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Kottke said she had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Adeyemi-Fowode O and Simms-Cendan J. Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Sep. 134:e71-83.

*This article was updated on 9/9/2019.

The fracture risk assessment tool FRAX may underestimate fracture risk in women with diabetes when bone mineral density is included, according to data from 566 women aged 40-90 years.

©wildpixel/Thinkstock

In a study published in Bone Reports, Lelia L.F. de Abreu, MD, of Deakin University, Geelong, Australia, and colleagues investigated the accuracy of FRAX scores and the role of impaired fasting glucose (IFG) and bone mineral density (BMD) on fracture risk by comparing FRAX scores for 252 normoglycemic women, 247 women with IFG, and 67 women with diabetes.

When BMD was not included, women with diabetes had a higher median FRAX score for major osteoporotic fractures of the hip, clinical spine, forearm, and wrist than women without diabetes or women with IFG (7.1, 4.3, and 5.1, respectively). In the diabetes group, 11 major osteoporotic fractures were observed versus 5 predicted by FRAX. In the normoglycemic group, 28 fractures were observed versus 15 predicted, and in the IFG group 31 fractures were observed versus 16 predicted.

When BMD was included, major osteoporotic fractures and hip fractures also were underestimated in the diabetes group (11 observed vs. 4 observed; 6 observed vs. 1 predicted, respectively), but the difference in observed versus predicted fractures trended toward statistical significance but was not significant (P = .055; P = .52, respectively). FRAX with BMD increased the underestimation of major osteoporotic fractures in the normoglycemic and IFG groups (28 observed vs. 13 predicted; 31 observed vs. 13 predicted).

The study findings were limited by several factors including the inability to determine the impact of specific types of diabetes on fracture risk, lack of data on the duration of diabetes in study participants, the use of self-reports, and a relatively small and homogeneous sample size, the researchers noted.

However, the results support data from previous studies showing an increased fracture risk in diabetes patients regardless of BMD, and suggest that FRAX may be unreliable as a predictor of fractures in the diabetes population, they concluded.

The study was supported in part by the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation, National Health and Medical Research Council Australia, and the Geelong Region Medical Research Foundation. Two researchers were supported by university postgraduate rewards and one researcher was supported by a university postdoctoral research fellowship. The remaining coauthors reported no relevant financial conflicts.

SOURCE: de Abreu LLF et al. Bone Reports. 2019 Aug 13. doi: 10.1016/j.bonr.2019.100223.

The fracture risk assessment tool FRAX may underestimate fracture risk in women with diabetes when bone mineral density is included, according to data from 566 women aged 40-90 years.

©wildpixel/Thinkstock

In a study published in Bone Reports, Lelia L.F. de Abreu, MD, of Deakin University, Geelong, Australia, and colleagues investigated the accuracy of FRAX scores and the role of impaired fasting glucose (IFG) and bone mineral density (BMD) on fracture risk by comparing FRAX scores for 252 normoglycemic women, 247 women with IFG, and 67 women with diabetes.

When BMD was not included, women with diabetes had a higher median FRAX score for major osteoporotic fractures of the hip, clinical spine, forearm, and wrist than women without diabetes or women with IFG (7.1, 4.3, and 5.1, respectively). In the diabetes group, 11 major osteoporotic fractures were observed versus 5 predicted by FRAX. In the normoglycemic group, 28 fractures were observed versus 15 predicted, and in the IFG group 31 fractures were observed versus 16 predicted.

When BMD was included, major osteoporotic fractures and hip fractures also were underestimated in the diabetes group (11 observed vs. 4 observed; 6 observed vs. 1 predicted, respectively), but the difference in observed versus predicted fractures trended toward statistical significance but was not significant (P = .055; P = .52, respectively). FRAX with BMD increased the underestimation of major osteoporotic fractures in the normoglycemic and IFG groups (28 observed vs. 13 predicted; 31 observed vs. 13 predicted).

The study findings were limited by several factors including the inability to determine the impact of specific types of diabetes on fracture risk, lack of data on the duration of diabetes in study participants, the use of self-reports, and a relatively small and homogeneous sample size, the researchers noted.

However, the results support data from previous studies showing an increased fracture risk in diabetes patients regardless of BMD, and suggest that FRAX may be unreliable as a predictor of fractures in the diabetes population, they concluded.

The study was supported in part by the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation, National Health and Medical Research Council Australia, and the Geelong Region Medical Research Foundation. Two researchers were supported by university postgraduate rewards and one researcher was supported by a university postdoctoral research fellowship. The remaining coauthors reported no relevant financial conflicts.

SOURCE: de Abreu LLF et al. Bone Reports. 2019 Aug 13. doi: 10.1016/j.bonr.2019.100223.

The fracture risk assessment tool FRAX may underestimate fracture risk in women with diabetes when bone mineral density is included, according to data from 566 women aged 40-90 years.

©wildpixel/Thinkstock

In a study published in Bone Reports, Lelia L.F. de Abreu, MD, of Deakin University, Geelong, Australia, and colleagues investigated the accuracy of FRAX scores and the role of impaired fasting glucose (IFG) and bone mineral density (BMD) on fracture risk by comparing FRAX scores for 252 normoglycemic women, 247 women with IFG, and 67 women with diabetes.

When BMD was not included, women with diabetes had a higher median FRAX score for major osteoporotic fractures of the hip, clinical spine, forearm, and wrist than women without diabetes or women with IFG (7.1, 4.3, and 5.1, respectively). In the diabetes group, 11 major osteoporotic fractures were observed versus 5 predicted by FRAX. In the normoglycemic group, 28 fractures were observed versus 15 predicted, and in the IFG group 31 fractures were observed versus 16 predicted.

When BMD was included, major osteoporotic fractures and hip fractures also were underestimated in the diabetes group (11 observed vs. 4 observed; 6 observed vs. 1 predicted, respectively), but the difference in observed versus predicted fractures trended toward statistical significance but was not significant (P = .055; P = .52, respectively). FRAX with BMD increased the underestimation of major osteoporotic fractures in the normoglycemic and IFG groups (28 observed vs. 13 predicted; 31 observed vs. 13 predicted).

The study findings were limited by several factors including the inability to determine the impact of specific types of diabetes on fracture risk, lack of data on the duration of diabetes in study participants, the use of self-reports, and a relatively small and homogeneous sample size, the researchers noted.

However, the results support data from previous studies showing an increased fracture risk in diabetes patients regardless of BMD, and suggest that FRAX may be unreliable as a predictor of fractures in the diabetes population, they concluded.

The study was supported in part by the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation, National Health and Medical Research Council Australia, and the Geelong Region Medical Research Foundation. Two researchers were supported by university postgraduate rewards and one researcher was supported by a university postdoctoral research fellowship. The remaining coauthors reported no relevant financial conflicts.

SOURCE: de Abreu LLF et al. Bone Reports. 2019 Aug 13. doi: 10.1016/j.bonr.2019.100223.

Vaccination status should be reviewed annually for patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases, according to updated recommendations from the European League Against Rheumatism.

luiscar/Thinkstock

Patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases (AIIRD) are at increased risk for infections, and vaccination has been shown to reduce risk by “potentially translating into a lower rate of hospital admissions due to infections, emergency room visits, and the rate of invasive infectious diseases,” wrote Victoria Furer, MD, of Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, and members of the task force that updated the recommendations, which were published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

However, AIIRD patients often go unvaccinated because of a lack of awareness or concerns about vaccine safety and efficacy, they said (Ann Rheum Dis. 2019 Aug 14. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-215882).

The task force consisted of 21 experts, including patients, rheumatologists, immunologists, an infectious disease specialist, and health professionals in rheumatology representing eight countries. They evaluated data from four systematic literature reviews and developed nine recommendations based on six key principles.

“For each recommendation, the level of evidence for the incidence/prevalence of vaccine preventable infection in AIIRD, and efficacy/immunogenicity/safety of vaccination were stated, when available, followed by the strength of recommendation and the level of agreement,” the task force wrote.

These overarching principles start with an annual assessment of vaccination status by the AIIRD patient’s rheumatology team. Other principles include explanation of an individualized vaccination program to the patient as a foundation for joint decision-making, vaccinating patients during quiescent disease periods, vaccinating in advance of planned immunosuppression when possible, considering non-live vaccines for AIIRD patients also treated with systemic glucocorticoids and DMARDs, and considering live-attenuated vaccines with caution.

Several of the nine recommendations developed by the task force are modified from the previous recommendations issued in 2011. The task force made its recommendations with an eye toward optimizing individual risk stratification and avoiding “unnecessary” vaccination in AIIRD patients with low risk of infection as part of the update process. A notable change from the 2011 guidelines is the recommendation of both influenza and pneumococcal vaccinations for the majority of patients with AIIRD as opposed to all patients to emphasize the importance of individualized risk assessment, the task force noted.

The recommendations state that influenza vaccination and pneumococcal vaccination should be “strongly considered” for patients with AIIRD, and patients also should receive tetanus toxoid vaccination according to recommendations for the general population. However, clinicians should consider passive immunization for patients treated with B-cell depleting therapy, the task force wrote.

AIIRD patients at risk for hepatitis A and B should receive vaccinations for those diseases, with boosters or passive immunization if indicated, and high-risk patients may consider herpes zoster vaccination, according to the recommendations.

In addition, AIIRD patients – especially patients with systemic lupus erythematosus – should receive human papilloma virus vaccination according to recommendations for the general population, but AIIRD patients should avoid yellow fever vaccination, the task force stated. However, for AIIRD patients traveling to areas of yellow fever risk, “withholding immunosuppressive therapy to allow a safe vaccination or measuring serology in previously exposed patients may be considered.”

Finally, mothers treated with biologics during the second half of pregnancy should avoid live-attenuated vaccines for their newborns, and immunocompetent household members of AIIRD patients should be encouraged to follow national guidelines for routine vaccination with the exception of the oral polio vaccine, the task force concluded.

Vaccination status should be reviewed annually for patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases, according to updated recommendations from the European League Against Rheumatism.

luiscar/Thinkstock

Patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases (AIIRD) are at increased risk for infections, and vaccination has been shown to reduce risk by “potentially translating into a lower rate of hospital admissions due to infections, emergency room visits, and the rate of invasive infectious diseases,” wrote Victoria Furer, MD, of Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, and members of the task force that updated the recommendations, which were published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

However, AIIRD patients often go unvaccinated because of a lack of awareness or concerns about vaccine safety and efficacy, they said (Ann Rheum Dis. 2019 Aug 14. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-215882).

The task force consisted of 21 experts, including patients, rheumatologists, immunologists, an infectious disease specialist, and health professionals in rheumatology representing eight countries. They evaluated data from four systematic literature reviews and developed nine recommendations based on six key principles.

“For each recommendation, the level of evidence for the incidence/prevalence of vaccine preventable infection in AIIRD, and efficacy/immunogenicity/safety of vaccination were stated, when available, followed by the strength of recommendation and the level of agreement,” the task force wrote.

These overarching principles start with an annual assessment of vaccination status by the AIIRD patient’s rheumatology team. Other principles include explanation of an individualized vaccination program to the patient as a foundation for joint decision-making, vaccinating patients during quiescent disease periods, vaccinating in advance of planned immunosuppression when possible, considering non-live vaccines for AIIRD patients also treated with systemic glucocorticoids and DMARDs, and considering live-attenuated vaccines with caution.

Several of the nine recommendations developed by the task force are modified from the previous recommendations issued in 2011. The task force made its recommendations with an eye toward optimizing individual risk stratification and avoiding “unnecessary” vaccination in AIIRD patients with low risk of infection as part of the update process. A notable change from the 2011 guidelines is the recommendation of both influenza and pneumococcal vaccinations for the majority of patients with AIIRD as opposed to all patients to emphasize the importance of individualized risk assessment, the task force noted.

The recommendations state that influenza vaccination and pneumococcal vaccination should be “strongly considered” for patients with AIIRD, and patients also should receive tetanus toxoid vaccination according to recommendations for the general population. However, clinicians should consider passive immunization for patients treated with B-cell depleting therapy, the task force wrote.

AIIRD patients at risk for hepatitis A and B should receive vaccinations for those diseases, with boosters or passive immunization if indicated, and high-risk patients may consider herpes zoster vaccination, according to the recommendations.

In addition, AIIRD patients – especially patients with systemic lupus erythematosus – should receive human papilloma virus vaccination according to recommendations for the general population, but AIIRD patients should avoid yellow fever vaccination, the task force stated. However, for AIIRD patients traveling to areas of yellow fever risk, “withholding immunosuppressive therapy to allow a safe vaccination or measuring serology in previously exposed patients may be considered.”

Finally, mothers treated with biologics during the second half of pregnancy should avoid live-attenuated vaccines for their newborns, and immunocompetent household members of AIIRD patients should be encouraged to follow national guidelines for routine vaccination with the exception of the oral polio vaccine, the task force concluded.

Vaccination status should be reviewed annually for patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases, according to updated recommendations from the European League Against Rheumatism.

luiscar/Thinkstock

Patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases (AIIRD) are at increased risk for infections, and vaccination has been shown to reduce risk by “potentially translating into a lower rate of hospital admissions due to infections, emergency room visits, and the rate of invasive infectious diseases,” wrote Victoria Furer, MD, of Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, and members of the task force that updated the recommendations, which were published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

However, AIIRD patients often go unvaccinated because of a lack of awareness or concerns about vaccine safety and efficacy, they said (Ann Rheum Dis. 2019 Aug 14. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-215882).

The task force consisted of 21 experts, including patients, rheumatologists, immunologists, an infectious disease specialist, and health professionals in rheumatology representing eight countries. They evaluated data from four systematic literature reviews and developed nine recommendations based on six key principles.

“For each recommendation, the level of evidence for the incidence/prevalence of vaccine preventable infection in AIIRD, and efficacy/immunogenicity/safety of vaccination were stated, when available, followed by the strength of recommendation and the level of agreement,” the task force wrote.

These overarching principles start with an annual assessment of vaccination status by the AIIRD patient’s rheumatology team. Other principles include explanation of an individualized vaccination program to the patient as a foundation for joint decision-making, vaccinating patients during quiescent disease periods, vaccinating in advance of planned immunosuppression when possible, considering non-live vaccines for AIIRD patients also treated with systemic glucocorticoids and DMARDs, and considering live-attenuated vaccines with caution.

Several of the nine recommendations developed by the task force are modified from the previous recommendations issued in 2011. The task force made its recommendations with an eye toward optimizing individual risk stratification and avoiding “unnecessary” vaccination in AIIRD patients with low risk of infection as part of the update process. A notable change from the 2011 guidelines is the recommendation of both influenza and pneumococcal vaccinations for the majority of patients with AIIRD as opposed to all patients to emphasize the importance of individualized risk assessment, the task force noted.

The recommendations state that influenza vaccination and pneumococcal vaccination should be “strongly considered” for patients with AIIRD, and patients also should receive tetanus toxoid vaccination according to recommendations for the general population. However, clinicians should consider passive immunization for patients treated with B-cell depleting therapy, the task force wrote.

AIIRD patients at risk for hepatitis A and B should receive vaccinations for those diseases, with boosters or passive immunization if indicated, and high-risk patients may consider herpes zoster vaccination, according to the recommendations.

In addition, AIIRD patients – especially patients with systemic lupus erythematosus – should receive human papilloma virus vaccination according to recommendations for the general population, but AIIRD patients should avoid yellow fever vaccination, the task force stated. However, for AIIRD patients traveling to areas of yellow fever risk, “withholding immunosuppressive therapy to allow a safe vaccination or measuring serology in previously exposed patients may be considered.”

Finally, mothers treated with biologics during the second half of pregnancy should avoid live-attenuated vaccines for their newborns, and immunocompetent household members of AIIRD patients should be encouraged to follow national guidelines for routine vaccination with the exception of the oral polio vaccine, the task force concluded.

Stigmatizing language in the public domain that falsely links U.S. gun violence to mental illness led the National Council for Behavioral Health to move up release of a report analyzing causes, impacts, and solutions of mass violence, according to Jack Rozel, MD.

“We were planning to release it in October but released it early to push back,” Dr. Rozel, a member of the report’s expert panel and medical director of resolve Crisis Services, said on the Aug. 21 MDedge Psychcast.

The 82-page report examines behavior-based motives and solutions related to mass violence in the United States (Parks J et al. National Council for Behavioral Health. 2019 Aug 6. “Mass Violence in America: Causes, Impacts and Solutions”). It was created by the Medical Director Institute, which advises the National Council on current issues affecting clinical practice.

Policy makers and the public often leap to conclusions about the role of mental illness in the actions of individuals responsible for mass violence, wrote the panel convened by the institute. The panel included not only clinicians such as Dr. Rozel with expertise in treating mental illness, but also researchers, educators, law enforcement personnel, FBI members, judges, policy makers, and parents.

According to the report’s executive summary, perpetrators of mass violence share certain traits independent of cultural, demographic, socioeconomic, and occupational factors. The most common perpetrators of mass violence are “males, often hopeless and harboring grievances that are frequently related to work, school, finances, or interpersonal relationships; feeling victimized and sympathizing with others whom they perceive to be similarly mistreated; indifference to life; and often subsequently dying by suicide.”

Mental illness may contribute to mass violence, but the public presumption that all perpetrators have mental illness is inaccurate, and many have no diagnosed mental illness, according to the report. In fact, many perpetrators do not suffer from any major psychiatric disorder, and most individuals who do suffer from mental illness are not violent.

“Lumping all mental illness together, and then assuming that acts that seem incomprehensible to the average person are due to mental illness, results in millions of harmless, nonviolent individuals recovering from treatable mental health conditions being subjected to stigma, rejection, discrimination and even unwarranted legal restrictions and social control,” the panel wrote. Recent episodes of mass violence in the United States can contribute to a generalized fear of individuals with mental illness, they added.

More research and strategies are needed to explore and address the root causes that contribute to acts of mass violence, including social problems and insufficient mental health care, the report said.

The panelists also offered recommendations for stakeholders, including health care organizations, schools, law enforcement, and community groups.

Recommendations for health care organizations in particular include establishing multidisciplinary teams for threat assessment and management that include not only security personnel, but also human resources, legal, and law enforcement. In addition, the panel recommended that health care staff be trained in lethal means reduction. “This is a rational strategy for lethal violence reduction and very helpful in combating suicide,” they said. However, staff also should be prepared for compassion fatigue and vicarious trauma, and health care organizations should develop resources for self-care and staff support.

Other recommendations include enacting state red flag laws that would remove guns from high-risk individuals for the short term, and reassessing the value of school safety protocols, such as bulletproof glass, zero tolerance policies, and active shooter drills.

The panel also offered recommendations for additional research on mass violence, including studies on “the nature and factors that contribute to mass violence, including neurobiological, psychological and sociological factors,” as well as research on methods of intervention and prevention of mass violence and the creation of a standardized analysis for mass violence incidence led by the Department of Justice with a multidisciplinary team.

Working with the media is important for engaging and educating the public about mental illness and mass violence, the panel members wrote. They recommended that all stakeholders in mental health develop messages in advance and protocols about how to respond to media requests for information about behavioral health.

“Talk about the role of treatment in helping people at risk of violence. Highlight the fact that most people with mental illnesses will never become violent. Speak to untreated or undertreated mental illness in combination with other risk factors,” they said.

Finally, they emphasized the need to remind the public to be aware of risk factors for mass violence, and the value of the “see something, say something” message.

In the Psychcast interview, Dr. Rozel said he and several colleagues will be conducting talks and training on these issues over the next few months, including at the Institute on Psychiatric Services conference (IPS 2019) in October in New York; at the National Council’s preconference (NatCon20) in April in Austin, Tex.; and at the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP 2019) meeting in October in Denver.

The National Council’s expert panel was led by Joe Parks, MD, medical director of the National Council; Donald W. Bechtold, MD, of the Colorado-based Jefferson Center for Mental Health; Sara Coffey, DO, of Oklahoma State University, Tulsa; Jeffrey A. Lieberman, MD, of Columbia University, New York; and Frank Shelp, MD, MPH, of Envolve Health, Atlanta.

Stigmatizing language in the public domain that falsely links U.S. gun violence to mental illness led the National Council for Behavioral Health to move up release of a report analyzing causes, impacts, and solutions of mass violence, according to Jack Rozel, MD.

“We were planning to release it in October but released it early to push back,” Dr. Rozel, a member of the report’s expert panel and medical director of resolve Crisis Services, said on the Aug. 21 MDedge Psychcast.

The 82-page report examines behavior-based motives and solutions related to mass violence in the United States (Parks J et al. National Council for Behavioral Health. 2019 Aug 6. “Mass Violence in America: Causes, Impacts and Solutions”). It was created by the Medical Director Institute, which advises the National Council on current issues affecting clinical practice.

Policy makers and the public often leap to conclusions about the role of mental illness in the actions of individuals responsible for mass violence, wrote the panel convened by the institute. The panel included not only clinicians such as Dr. Rozel with expertise in treating mental illness, but also researchers, educators, law enforcement personnel, FBI members, judges, policy makers, and parents.

According to the report’s executive summary, perpetrators of mass violence share certain traits independent of cultural, demographic, socioeconomic, and occupational factors. The most common perpetrators of mass violence are “males, often hopeless and harboring grievances that are frequently related to work, school, finances, or interpersonal relationships; feeling victimized and sympathizing with others whom they perceive to be similarly mistreated; indifference to life; and often subsequently dying by suicide.”

Mental illness may contribute to mass violence, but the public presumption that all perpetrators have mental illness is inaccurate, and many have no diagnosed mental illness, according to the report. In fact, many perpetrators do not suffer from any major psychiatric disorder, and most individuals who do suffer from mental illness are not violent.

“Lumping all mental illness together, and then assuming that acts that seem incomprehensible to the average person are due to mental illness, results in millions of harmless, nonviolent individuals recovering from treatable mental health conditions being subjected to stigma, rejection, discrimination and even unwarranted legal restrictions and social control,” the panel wrote. Recent episodes of mass violence in the United States can contribute to a generalized fear of individuals with mental illness, they added.

More research and strategies are needed to explore and address the root causes that contribute to acts of mass violence, including social problems and insufficient mental health care, the report said.

The panelists also offered recommendations for stakeholders, including health care organizations, schools, law enforcement, and community groups.

Recommendations for health care organizations in particular include establishing multidisciplinary teams for threat assessment and management that include not only security personnel, but also human resources, legal, and law enforcement. In addition, the panel recommended that health care staff be trained in lethal means reduction. “This is a rational strategy for lethal violence reduction and very helpful in combating suicide,” they said. However, staff also should be prepared for compassion fatigue and vicarious trauma, and health care organizations should develop resources for self-care and staff support.

Other recommendations include enacting state red flag laws that would remove guns from high-risk individuals for the short term, and reassessing the value of school safety protocols, such as bulletproof glass, zero tolerance policies, and active shooter drills.

The panel also offered recommendations for additional research on mass violence, including studies on “the nature and factors that contribute to mass violence, including neurobiological, psychological and sociological factors,” as well as research on methods of intervention and prevention of mass violence and the creation of a standardized analysis for mass violence incidence led by the Department of Justice with a multidisciplinary team.

Working with the media is important for engaging and educating the public about mental illness and mass violence, the panel members wrote. They recommended that all stakeholders in mental health develop messages in advance and protocols about how to respond to media requests for information about behavioral health.

“Talk about the role of treatment in helping people at risk of violence. Highlight the fact that most people with mental illnesses will never become violent. Speak to untreated or undertreated mental illness in combination with other risk factors,” they said.

Finally, they emphasized the need to remind the public to be aware of risk factors for mass violence, and the value of the “see something, say something” message.

In the Psychcast interview, Dr. Rozel said he and several colleagues will be conducting talks and training on these issues over the next few months, including at the Institute on Psychiatric Services conference (IPS 2019) in October in New York; at the National Council’s preconference (NatCon20) in April in Austin, Tex.; and at the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP 2019) meeting in October in Denver.

The National Council’s expert panel was led by Joe Parks, MD, medical director of the National Council; Donald W. Bechtold, MD, of the Colorado-based Jefferson Center for Mental Health; Sara Coffey, DO, of Oklahoma State University, Tulsa; Jeffrey A. Lieberman, MD, of Columbia University, New York; and Frank Shelp, MD, MPH, of Envolve Health, Atlanta.

Stigmatizing language in the public domain that falsely links U.S. gun violence to mental illness led the National Council for Behavioral Health to move up release of a report analyzing causes, impacts, and solutions of mass violence, according to Jack Rozel, MD.

“We were planning to release it in October but released it early to push back,” Dr. Rozel, a member of the report’s expert panel and medical director of resolve Crisis Services, said on the Aug. 21 MDedge Psychcast.

The 82-page report examines behavior-based motives and solutions related to mass violence in the United States (Parks J et al. National Council for Behavioral Health. 2019 Aug 6. “Mass Violence in America: Causes, Impacts and Solutions”). It was created by the Medical Director Institute, which advises the National Council on current issues affecting clinical practice.

Policy makers and the public often leap to conclusions about the role of mental illness in the actions of individuals responsible for mass violence, wrote the panel convened by the institute. The panel included not only clinicians such as Dr. Rozel with expertise in treating mental illness, but also researchers, educators, law enforcement personnel, FBI members, judges, policy makers, and parents.

According to the report’s executive summary, perpetrators of mass violence share certain traits independent of cultural, demographic, socioeconomic, and occupational factors. The most common perpetrators of mass violence are “males, often hopeless and harboring grievances that are frequently related to work, school, finances, or interpersonal relationships; feeling victimized and sympathizing with others whom they perceive to be similarly mistreated; indifference to life; and often subsequently dying by suicide.”

Mental illness may contribute to mass violence, but the public presumption that all perpetrators have mental illness is inaccurate, and many have no diagnosed mental illness, according to the report. In fact, many perpetrators do not suffer from any major psychiatric disorder, and most individuals who do suffer from mental illness are not violent.

“Lumping all mental illness together, and then assuming that acts that seem incomprehensible to the average person are due to mental illness, results in millions of harmless, nonviolent individuals recovering from treatable mental health conditions being subjected to stigma, rejection, discrimination and even unwarranted legal restrictions and social control,” the panel wrote. Recent episodes of mass violence in the United States can contribute to a generalized fear of individuals with mental illness, they added.

More research and strategies are needed to explore and address the root causes that contribute to acts of mass violence, including social problems and insufficient mental health care, the report said.

The panelists also offered recommendations for stakeholders, including health care organizations, schools, law enforcement, and community groups.

Recommendations for health care organizations in particular include establishing multidisciplinary teams for threat assessment and management that include not only security personnel, but also human resources, legal, and law enforcement. In addition, the panel recommended that health care staff be trained in lethal means reduction. “This is a rational strategy for lethal violence reduction and very helpful in combating suicide,” they said. However, staff also should be prepared for compassion fatigue and vicarious trauma, and health care organizations should develop resources for self-care and staff support.

Other recommendations include enacting state red flag laws that would remove guns from high-risk individuals for the short term, and reassessing the value of school safety protocols, such as bulletproof glass, zero tolerance policies, and active shooter drills.

The panel also offered recommendations for additional research on mass violence, including studies on “the nature and factors that contribute to mass violence, including neurobiological, psychological and sociological factors,” as well as research on methods of intervention and prevention of mass violence and the creation of a standardized analysis for mass violence incidence led by the Department of Justice with a multidisciplinary team.

Working with the media is important for engaging and educating the public about mental illness and mass violence, the panel members wrote. They recommended that all stakeholders in mental health develop messages in advance and protocols about how to respond to media requests for information about behavioral health.

“Talk about the role of treatment in helping people at risk of violence. Highlight the fact that most people with mental illnesses will never become violent. Speak to untreated or undertreated mental illness in combination with other risk factors,” they said.

Finally, they emphasized the need to remind the public to be aware of risk factors for mass violence, and the value of the “see something, say something” message.

In the Psychcast interview, Dr. Rozel said he and several colleagues will be conducting talks and training on these issues over the next few months, including at the Institute on Psychiatric Services conference (IPS 2019) in October in New York; at the National Council’s preconference (NatCon20) in April in Austin, Tex.; and at the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP 2019) meeting in October in Denver.

The National Council’s expert panel was led by Joe Parks, MD, medical director of the National Council; Donald W. Bechtold, MD, of the Colorado-based Jefferson Center for Mental Health; Sara Coffey, DO, of Oklahoma State University, Tulsa; Jeffrey A. Lieberman, MD, of Columbia University, New York; and Frank Shelp, MD, MPH, of Envolve Health, Atlanta.

Use of nonselective beta-blockers to reduce portal pressure in cirrhosis improved outcomes in adults with or without ascites, based on data from a meta-analysis of more than 1,000 patients.

Wikimedia Commons/Cancer Research UK

Previous research has suggested that nonselective beta-blockers (NSBBs) might have a negative effect on patients with refractory ascites, but the effect on patients with and without ascites has not been assessed, wrote Laura Turco, MD, of the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Emilia-Romagna, Italy, and colleagues.

In a study published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, the researchers analyzed 1,113 cirrhosis patients including 452 with ascites. Overall, 968 patients had received treatment with NSBBs. Response to pressure reduction was defined as a decrease of more than 20% from baseline or a decrease to less than 12 mm Hg.

A total of 329 of the 661 patients without ascites (50%) met the definition as responders. These responders had significantly lower odds than did nonresponders of a combination of clinical events including ascites, variceal hemorrhage, or encephalopathy (odds ratio, 0.35) and also had significantly lower odds than nonresponders of liver transplantation or death (OR, 0.50).

A total of 188 of the 452 patients with ascites were responders (42%). These responders had significantly lower odds than those of nonresponders (OR, 0.27) of variceal hemorrhage, refractory ascites, spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, or hepatorenal syndrome. The responders also had significantly lower odds of liver transplantation or death (OR, 0.47).

The results are important in light of concerns about the impact of NSBBs on renal function and mortality in cirrhosis patients with ascites, the researchers said.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the use of retrospective data from prospective studies, and the incomplete collection of data on the variables of comorbidities, hepatocellular carcinoma, and other predictive scores; alcohol use or abstinence was a potential confounder as well, the researchers noted.

However, “By showing that reductions in portal pressure induced by NSBB-based pharmacologic therapy improve outcomes and decrease mortality, our study supports the use of NSBB in all clinical settings (primary or secondary prophylaxis) and in both patients with or without ascites,” they concluded. They found no heterogeneity among the studies included in the analysis.

The study was supported by multiple sources including the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Yale Liver Center, National Institutes of Health, and Instituto de Salud Carlos III, and was cofunded by the European Union. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Turco L et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 June 5. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.05.050.

Use of nonselective beta-blockers to reduce portal pressure in cirrhosis improved outcomes in adults with or without ascites, based on data from a meta-analysis of more than 1,000 patients.

Wikimedia Commons/Cancer Research UK

Previous research has suggested that nonselective beta-blockers (NSBBs) might have a negative effect on patients with refractory ascites, but the effect on patients with and without ascites has not been assessed, wrote Laura Turco, MD, of the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Emilia-Romagna, Italy, and colleagues.

In a study published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, the researchers analyzed 1,113 cirrhosis patients including 452 with ascites. Overall, 968 patients had received treatment with NSBBs. Response to pressure reduction was defined as a decrease of more than 20% from baseline or a decrease to less than 12 mm Hg.

A total of 329 of the 661 patients without ascites (50%) met the definition as responders. These responders had significantly lower odds than did nonresponders of a combination of clinical events including ascites, variceal hemorrhage, or encephalopathy (odds ratio, 0.35) and also had significantly lower odds than nonresponders of liver transplantation or death (OR, 0.50).

A total of 188 of the 452 patients with ascites were responders (42%). These responders had significantly lower odds than those of nonresponders (OR, 0.27) of variceal hemorrhage, refractory ascites, spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, or hepatorenal syndrome. The responders also had significantly lower odds of liver transplantation or death (OR, 0.47).

The results are important in light of concerns about the impact of NSBBs on renal function and mortality in cirrhosis patients with ascites, the researchers said.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the use of retrospective data from prospective studies, and the incomplete collection of data on the variables of comorbidities, hepatocellular carcinoma, and other predictive scores; alcohol use or abstinence was a potential confounder as well, the researchers noted.

However, “By showing that reductions in portal pressure induced by NSBB-based pharmacologic therapy improve outcomes and decrease mortality, our study supports the use of NSBB in all clinical settings (primary or secondary prophylaxis) and in both patients with or without ascites,” they concluded. They found no heterogeneity among the studies included in the analysis.

The study was supported by multiple sources including the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Yale Liver Center, National Institutes of Health, and Instituto de Salud Carlos III, and was cofunded by the European Union. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Turco L et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 June 5. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.05.050.

Use of nonselective beta-blockers to reduce portal pressure in cirrhosis improved outcomes in adults with or without ascites, based on data from a meta-analysis of more than 1,000 patients.

Wikimedia Commons/Cancer Research UK

Previous research has suggested that nonselective beta-blockers (NSBBs) might have a negative effect on patients with refractory ascites, but the effect on patients with and without ascites has not been assessed, wrote Laura Turco, MD, of the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Emilia-Romagna, Italy, and colleagues.

In a study published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, the researchers analyzed 1,113 cirrhosis patients including 452 with ascites. Overall, 968 patients had received treatment with NSBBs. Response to pressure reduction was defined as a decrease of more than 20% from baseline or a decrease to less than 12 mm Hg.

A total of 329 of the 661 patients without ascites (50%) met the definition as responders. These responders had significantly lower odds than did nonresponders of a combination of clinical events including ascites, variceal hemorrhage, or encephalopathy (odds ratio, 0.35) and also had significantly lower odds than nonresponders of liver transplantation or death (OR, 0.50).

A total of 188 of the 452 patients with ascites were responders (42%). These responders had significantly lower odds than those of nonresponders (OR, 0.27) of variceal hemorrhage, refractory ascites, spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, or hepatorenal syndrome. The responders also had significantly lower odds of liver transplantation or death (OR, 0.47).

The results are important in light of concerns about the impact of NSBBs on renal function and mortality in cirrhosis patients with ascites, the researchers said.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the use of retrospective data from prospective studies, and the incomplete collection of data on the variables of comorbidities, hepatocellular carcinoma, and other predictive scores; alcohol use or abstinence was a potential confounder as well, the researchers noted.

However, “By showing that reductions in portal pressure induced by NSBB-based pharmacologic therapy improve outcomes and decrease mortality, our study supports the use of NSBB in all clinical settings (primary or secondary prophylaxis) and in both patients with or without ascites,” they concluded. They found no heterogeneity among the studies included in the analysis.

The study was supported by multiple sources including the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Yale Liver Center, National Institutes of Health, and Instituto de Salud Carlos III, and was cofunded by the European Union. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Turco L et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 June 5. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.05.050.

The American College of Physicians recently described its methods for developing clinical guidelines and guidance statements, in a paper published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

The ACP’s Clinical Guidelines Committee (CGC) "aims to disclose all health care–related interests and manage conflicts in a manner that is transparent, proportional, and consistent. Any person involved in the development of an ACP clinical guideline or guidance statement must disclose all financial and intellectual interests related to health care from the previous 3 years,” Amir Qaseem, MD, and Timothy J. Wilt, MD, wrote.

“The goals of our process are to mitigate any actual bias during the development of ACP’s clinical recommendations and to ensure creditability and public trust in our clinical policies by reducing the potential for perceived bias,” noted Robert M. McLean, MD, president of the ACP, in a statement.

This paper’s publication comes on the heels of authors of a Cancer paper having reported that nearly 25% of the American Society of Clinical Oncology’s guideline authors who were not exempt from reporting conflicts of interest failed to disclose receiving industry payments.

The ACP committee’s guiding principle for collection of disclosures of interest and management of conflicts of interests “is to prioritize the interests of the patient over any competing or professional interests via an evidence-based assessment of the benefits, harms, and costs of an intervention,” wrote the authors on behalf of the CGC.

The CGC created a tiered system to classify potential conflicts as low level, moderate level, or high level based on three tenets: transparency (all disclosures are freely accessible so readers can assess them for themselves), proportionality (not all conflicts of interest have equal risk), and consistency (policies should be impartially applied across all variables).

Examples of low-level conflicts of interest (COIs) include high-level COIs that have become inactive and intellectual interests tangentially related to the topic under discussion. Moderate-level COIs are usually intellectual interests clinically relevant to the guideline topic; these interests might prompt an individual to seek professional or financial advantages through association with guideline development.

High-level COIs are active relationships with high-risk entities, defined by the CGC as “an entity that has a direct financial stake in the clinical conclusions of a guideline or guidance statement.”

While the time frame for reporting health-related interests is 3 years, disclosure is an ongoing process when clinical guidelines are in development because interests change over time, the authors said. Prospective guidelines committee members complete disclosure of interest forms before working on CGC projects, and they update these forms before each in-person CGC meeting.

“The CGC’s policy does not mandate disclosure of interests related primarily to personal matters or relationships outside the household,” such as political, religious, or ideological views, they noted.

The CGC maintains a DOI-COI Review and Management Panel to reviews conflicts, and all ACP guidelines include a list of relevant conflicts for committee members.

The authors of this paper disclosed no conflicts of interest.
 

SOURCE: Qaseem A and TJ Wilt. Ann Intern Med. 2019 Aug 20. doi: 10.7326/M18-3279 .

This article was updated 8/22/19.

The American College of Physicians recently described its methods for developing clinical guidelines and guidance statements, in a paper published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

The ACP’s Clinical Guidelines Committee (CGC) "aims to disclose all health care–related interests and manage conflicts in a manner that is transparent, proportional, and consistent. Any person involved in the development of an ACP clinical guideline or guidance statement must disclose all financial and intellectual interests related to health care from the previous 3 years,” Amir Qaseem, MD, and Timothy J. Wilt, MD, wrote.

“The goals of our process are to mitigate any actual bias during the development of ACP’s clinical recommendations and to ensure creditability and public trust in our clinical policies by reducing the potential for perceived bias,” noted Robert M. McLean, MD, president of the ACP, in a statement.

This paper’s publication comes on the heels of authors of a Cancer paper having reported that nearly 25% of the American Society of Clinical Oncology’s guideline authors who were not exempt from reporting conflicts of interest failed to disclose receiving industry payments.

The ACP committee’s guiding principle for collection of disclosures of interest and management of conflicts of interests “is to prioritize the interests of the patient over any competing or professional interests via an evidence-based assessment of the benefits, harms, and costs of an intervention,” wrote the authors on behalf of the CGC.

The CGC created a tiered system to classify potential conflicts as low level, moderate level, or high level based on three tenets: transparency (all disclosures are freely accessible so readers can assess them for themselves), proportionality (not all conflicts of interest have equal risk), and consistency (policies should be impartially applied across all variables).

Examples of low-level conflicts of interest (COIs) include high-level COIs that have become inactive and intellectual interests tangentially related to the topic under discussion. Moderate-level COIs are usually intellectual interests clinically relevant to the guideline topic; these interests might prompt an individual to seek professional or financial advantages through association with guideline development.

High-level COIs are active relationships with high-risk entities, defined by the CGC as “an entity that has a direct financial stake in the clinical conclusions of a guideline or guidance statement.”

While the time frame for reporting health-related interests is 3 years, disclosure is an ongoing process when clinical guidelines are in development because interests change over time, the authors said. Prospective guidelines committee members complete disclosure of interest forms before working on CGC projects, and they update these forms before each in-person CGC meeting.

“The CGC’s policy does not mandate disclosure of interests related primarily to personal matters or relationships outside the household,” such as political, religious, or ideological views, they noted.

The CGC maintains a DOI-COI Review and Management Panel to reviews conflicts, and all ACP guidelines include a list of relevant conflicts for committee members.

The authors of this paper disclosed no conflicts of interest.
 

SOURCE: Qaseem A and TJ Wilt. Ann Intern Med. 2019 Aug 20. doi: 10.7326/M18-3279 .

This article was updated 8/22/19.

The American College of Physicians recently described its methods for developing clinical guidelines and guidance statements, in a paper published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

The ACP’s Clinical Guidelines Committee (CGC) "aims to disclose all health care–related interests and manage conflicts in a manner that is transparent, proportional, and consistent. Any person involved in the development of an ACP clinical guideline or guidance statement must disclose all financial and intellectual interests related to health care from the previous 3 years,” Amir Qaseem, MD, and Timothy J. Wilt, MD, wrote.

“The goals of our process are to mitigate any actual bias during the development of ACP’s clinical recommendations and to ensure creditability and public trust in our clinical policies by reducing the potential for perceived bias,” noted Robert M. McLean, MD, president of the ACP, in a statement.

This paper’s publication comes on the heels of authors of a Cancer paper having reported that nearly 25% of the American Society of Clinical Oncology’s guideline authors who were not exempt from reporting conflicts of interest failed to disclose receiving industry payments.

The ACP committee’s guiding principle for collection of disclosures of interest and management of conflicts of interests “is to prioritize the interests of the patient over any competing or professional interests via an evidence-based assessment of the benefits, harms, and costs of an intervention,” wrote the authors on behalf of the CGC.

The CGC created a tiered system to classify potential conflicts as low level, moderate level, or high level based on three tenets: transparency (all disclosures are freely accessible so readers can assess them for themselves), proportionality (not all conflicts of interest have equal risk), and consistency (policies should be impartially applied across all variables).

Examples of low-level conflicts of interest (COIs) include high-level COIs that have become inactive and intellectual interests tangentially related to the topic under discussion. Moderate-level COIs are usually intellectual interests clinically relevant to the guideline topic; these interests might prompt an individual to seek professional or financial advantages through association with guideline development.

High-level COIs are active relationships with high-risk entities, defined by the CGC as “an entity that has a direct financial stake in the clinical conclusions of a guideline or guidance statement.”

While the time frame for reporting health-related interests is 3 years, disclosure is an ongoing process when clinical guidelines are in development because interests change over time, the authors said. Prospective guidelines committee members complete disclosure of interest forms before working on CGC projects, and they update these forms before each in-person CGC meeting.

“The CGC’s policy does not mandate disclosure of interests related primarily to personal matters or relationships outside the household,” such as political, religious, or ideological views, they noted.

The CGC maintains a DOI-COI Review and Management Panel to reviews conflicts, and all ACP guidelines include a list of relevant conflicts for committee members.

The authors of this paper disclosed no conflicts of interest.
 

SOURCE: Qaseem A and TJ Wilt. Ann Intern Med. 2019 Aug 20. doi: 10.7326/M18-3279 .

This article was updated 8/22/19.

Lipophilic statin therapy significantly reduced the incidence and mortality of hepatocellular carcinoma in adults with viral hepatitis, based on data from 16,668 patients.

The mortality rates for hepatocellular carcinoma in the United States and Europe have been on the rise for decades, and the risk may persist in severe cases despite the use of hepatitis B virus suppression or hepatitis C virus eradication, wrote Tracey G. Simon, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues. Previous studies suggest that statins might reduce HCC risk in viral hepatitis patients, but evidence supporting one type of statin over another for HCC prevention is limited, they said.

In a study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, the researchers reviewed data from a national registry of hepatitis patients in Sweden to assess the effect of lipophilic or hydrophilic statin use on HCC incidence and mortality.

They found a significant reduction in 10-year HCC risk for lipophilic statin users, compared with nonusers (8.1% vs. 3.3%. However, the difference was not significant for hydrophilic statin users vs. nonusers (8.0% vs. 6.8%). The effect of lipophilic statin use was dose dependent; the largest effect on reduction in HCC risk occurred with 600 or more lipophilic statin cumulative daily doses in users, compared with nonusers (8.4% vs. 2.5%).

The study population included 6,554 lipophilic statin users and 1,780 hydrophilic statin users, matched with 8,334 nonusers. Patient demographics were similar between both types of statin user and nonuser groups.

In addition, 10-year mortality was significantly lower for lipophilic statin users compared with nonusers (15.2% vs. 7.3%) and also for hydrophilic statin users, compared with nonusers (16.0% vs. 11.5%).

In a small number of patients with liver disease (462), liver-specific mortality was significantly reduced in lipophilic statin users, compared with nonusers (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.76 vs. 0.98).

“Of note, our findings were robust across several sensitivity analyses and were similar in all predefined subgroups, including among men and women and persons with and without cirrhosis or antiviral therapy use,” the researchers noted.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the potential confounding from variables such as smoking, hepatitis B viral DNA, hepatitis C virus eradication, stage of fibrosis, and HCC screening, as well as a lack of laboratory data to assess cholesterol levels’ impact on statin use, the researchers said. In addition, the study did not compare lipophilic and hydrophilic statins.

However, the results suggest potential distinct benefits of lipophilic statins to reduce HCC risk and support the need for further research, the researchers concluded.

Dr. Simon had no financial conflicts to disclose, but disclosed support from a North American Training Grant from the American College of Gastroenterology. Several coauthors disclosed relationships with multiple companies including AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Janssen, and Merck Sharp & Dohme. The study was supported in part by the American College of Gastroenterology, the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the Boston Nutrition Obesity Research Center, the National Institutes of Health, Nyckelfonden, Region Orebro (Sweden) County, and the Karolinska Institutet.
 

SOURCE: Simon TG et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019 Aug 19. doi: 10.7326/M18-2753.

Lipophilic statin therapy significantly reduced the incidence and mortality of hepatocellular carcinoma in adults with viral hepatitis, based on data from 16,668 patients.

The mortality rates for hepatocellular carcinoma in the United States and Europe have been on the rise for decades, and the risk may persist in severe cases despite the use of hepatitis B virus suppression or hepatitis C virus eradication, wrote Tracey G. Simon, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues. Previous studies suggest that statins might reduce HCC risk in viral hepatitis patients, but evidence supporting one type of statin over another for HCC prevention is limited, they said.

In a study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, the researchers reviewed data from a national registry of hepatitis patients in Sweden to assess the effect of lipophilic or hydrophilic statin use on HCC incidence and mortality.

They found a significant reduction in 10-year HCC risk for lipophilic statin users, compared with nonusers (8.1% vs. 3.3%. However, the difference was not significant for hydrophilic statin users vs. nonusers (8.0% vs. 6.8%). The effect of lipophilic statin use was dose dependent; the largest effect on reduction in HCC risk occurred with 600 or more lipophilic statin cumulative daily doses in users, compared with nonusers (8.4% vs. 2.5%).

The study population included 6,554 lipophilic statin users and 1,780 hydrophilic statin users, matched with 8,334 nonusers. Patient demographics were similar between both types of statin user and nonuser groups.

In addition, 10-year mortality was significantly lower for lipophilic statin users compared with nonusers (15.2% vs. 7.3%) and also for hydrophilic statin users, compared with nonusers (16.0% vs. 11.5%).

In a small number of patients with liver disease (462), liver-specific mortality was significantly reduced in lipophilic statin users, compared with nonusers (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.76 vs. 0.98).

“Of note, our findings were robust across several sensitivity analyses and were similar in all predefined subgroups, including among men and women and persons with and without cirrhosis or antiviral therapy use,” the researchers noted.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the potential confounding from variables such as smoking, hepatitis B viral DNA, hepatitis C virus eradication, stage of fibrosis, and HCC screening, as well as a lack of laboratory data to assess cholesterol levels’ impact on statin use, the researchers said. In addition, the study did not compare lipophilic and hydrophilic statins.

However, the results suggest potential distinct benefits of lipophilic statins to reduce HCC risk and support the need for further research, the researchers concluded.

Dr. Simon had no financial conflicts to disclose, but disclosed support from a North American Training Grant from the American College of Gastroenterology. Several coauthors disclosed relationships with multiple companies including AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Janssen, and Merck Sharp & Dohme. The study was supported in part by the American College of Gastroenterology, the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the Boston Nutrition Obesity Research Center, the National Institutes of Health, Nyckelfonden, Region Orebro (Sweden) County, and the Karolinska Institutet.
 

SOURCE: Simon TG et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019 Aug 19. doi: 10.7326/M18-2753.

Lipophilic statin therapy significantly reduced the incidence and mortality of hepatocellular carcinoma in adults with viral hepatitis, based on data from 16,668 patients.

The mortality rates for hepatocellular carcinoma in the United States and Europe have been on the rise for decades, and the risk may persist in severe cases despite the use of hepatitis B virus suppression or hepatitis C virus eradication, wrote Tracey G. Simon, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues. Previous studies suggest that statins might reduce HCC risk in viral hepatitis patients, but evidence supporting one type of statin over another for HCC prevention is limited, they said.

In a study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, the researchers reviewed data from a national registry of hepatitis patients in Sweden to assess the effect of lipophilic or hydrophilic statin use on HCC incidence and mortality.

They found a significant reduction in 10-year HCC risk for lipophilic statin users, compared with nonusers (8.1% vs. 3.3%. However, the difference was not significant for hydrophilic statin users vs. nonusers (8.0% vs. 6.8%). The effect of lipophilic statin use was dose dependent; the largest effect on reduction in HCC risk occurred with 600 or more lipophilic statin cumulative daily doses in users, compared with nonusers (8.4% vs. 2.5%).

The study population included 6,554 lipophilic statin users and 1,780 hydrophilic statin users, matched with 8,334 nonusers. Patient demographics were similar between both types of statin user and nonuser groups.

In addition, 10-year mortality was significantly lower for lipophilic statin users compared with nonusers (15.2% vs. 7.3%) and also for hydrophilic statin users, compared with nonusers (16.0% vs. 11.5%).

In a small number of patients with liver disease (462), liver-specific mortality was significantly reduced in lipophilic statin users, compared with nonusers (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.76 vs. 0.98).

“Of note, our findings were robust across several sensitivity analyses and were similar in all predefined subgroups, including among men and women and persons with and without cirrhosis or antiviral therapy use,” the researchers noted.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the potential confounding from variables such as smoking, hepatitis B viral DNA, hepatitis C virus eradication, stage of fibrosis, and HCC screening, as well as a lack of laboratory data to assess cholesterol levels’ impact on statin use, the researchers said. In addition, the study did not compare lipophilic and hydrophilic statins.

However, the results suggest potential distinct benefits of lipophilic statins to reduce HCC risk and support the need for further research, the researchers concluded.

Dr. Simon had no financial conflicts to disclose, but disclosed support from a North American Training Grant from the American College of Gastroenterology. Several coauthors disclosed relationships with multiple companies including AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Janssen, and Merck Sharp & Dohme. The study was supported in part by the American College of Gastroenterology, the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the Boston Nutrition Obesity Research Center, the National Institutes of Health, Nyckelfonden, Region Orebro (Sweden) County, and the Karolinska Institutet.
 

SOURCE: Simon TG et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019 Aug 19. doi: 10.7326/M18-2753.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends for the first time that primary care clinicians screen adults aged 18 years and older for illicit drug use, according to a draft recommendation statement now available for public comment.

andrewsafonov/Thinkstock

The statement defines illicit drug use as “use of illegal drugs and the nonmedical use of prescription psychoactive medications (i.e., use for reasons, for duration, in amounts, or with frequency other than prescribed or use by persons other than the prescribed individual).”

The guidelines do not apply to individuals younger than 18 years, for whom the USPSTF found insufficient evidence to recommend routine screening, or to adults currently diagnosed or in treatment for a drug use disorder.

In the draft recommendation statement, available online, the USPSTF noted that several screening tools are available for use in primary care practices, including the BSTAD (Brief Screener for Tobacco, Alcohol, and Other Drugs) that consists of six questions. The task force noted that they have found “adequate evidence” that these screening tools can detect illicit drug use. In addition, they wrote that no studies offer evidence of benefits versus harms of these screening tools, and evidence of harms associated with screening are limited.

Screening intervals can be simplified by screening young adults whenever they seek medical services and when clinicians suspect illicit drug use, the USPSTF said.

When the draft recommendation is finalized, it will replace the 2008 recommendation, which found insufficient evidence for screening in adults, as well as in adolescents. New evidence since 2008 supports the value of screening for adults aged 18 years and older, including pregnant and postpartum women.

The draft recommendations are based on the results of two systematic evidence reviews that assessed the accuracy and harms of routine illicit drug use screening. The USPSTF’s review included 12 studies on the accuracy of 15 screening tools. Overall, the sensitivity of direct screening tools to identify “unhealthy use of ‘any drug’ (including illegal drugs and nonmedical use of prescription drugs) in the past month or year” ranged from 0.71 to 0.94, and the specificity ranged from 0.87 to 0.97.

Based on the current evidence, the USPSTF assigned drug screening for adults a grade B recommendation, defined as “high certainty that the net benefit is moderate or there is moderate certainty that the net benefit is moderate to substantial.”

For treatment, the Task Force found evidence to support strategies including pharmacotherapy with naltrexone, buprenorphine, and methadone, as well as for psychosocial interventions.

The USPSTF acknowledged that many factors may affect a clinicians’ decision of whether to implement the drug screening recommendation. “In many communities, affordable, accessible, and timely services for diagnostic assessment and treatment for patients with positive screening results are in limited supply or unaffordable. Providers should be aware of any state requirements for mandatory screening or reporting of screening results to medicolegal authorities and understand the positive and negative implications of reporting,” they wrote.

The draft recommendations also identified several research gaps including the effectiveness of screening for illicit drug use in adolescents, the optimal screening interval for all patients, the accuracy of screening tools for detecting opioids, the accuracy of screening within the same population, the benefits of naloxone as rescue therapy, and nonmedical use of other prescription drugs, as well as ways to improve access to care for those diagnosed with drug use disorders.

The draft recommendation is available for public comment until Sept. 9, 2019, at 8 p.m. EST.

The USPSTF is supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends for the first time that primary care clinicians screen adults aged 18 years and older for illicit drug use, according to a draft recommendation statement now available for public comment.

andrewsafonov/Thinkstock

The statement defines illicit drug use as “use of illegal drugs and the nonmedical use of prescription psychoactive medications (i.e., use for reasons, for duration, in amounts, or with frequency other than prescribed or use by persons other than the prescribed individual).”

The guidelines do not apply to individuals younger than 18 years, for whom the USPSTF found insufficient evidence to recommend routine screening, or to adults currently diagnosed or in treatment for a drug use disorder.

In the draft recommendation statement, available online, the USPSTF noted that several screening tools are available for use in primary care practices, including the BSTAD (Brief Screener for Tobacco, Alcohol, and Other Drugs) that consists of six questions. The task force noted that they have found “adequate evidence” that these screening tools can detect illicit drug use. In addition, they wrote that no studies offer evidence of benefits versus harms of these screening tools, and evidence of harms associated with screening are limited.

Screening intervals can be simplified by screening young adults whenever they seek medical services and when clinicians suspect illicit drug use, the USPSTF said.

When the draft recommendation is finalized, it will replace the 2008 recommendation, which found insufficient evidence for screening in adults, as well as in adolescents. New evidence since 2008 supports the value of screening for adults aged 18 years and older, including pregnant and postpartum women.

The draft recommendations are based on the results of two systematic evidence reviews that assessed the accuracy and harms of routine illicit drug use screening. The USPSTF’s review included 12 studies on the accuracy of 15 screening tools. Overall, the sensitivity of direct screening tools to identify “unhealthy use of ‘any drug’ (including illegal drugs and nonmedical use of prescription drugs) in the past month or year” ranged from 0.71 to 0.94, and the specificity ranged from 0.87 to 0.97.

Based on the current evidence, the USPSTF assigned drug screening for adults a grade B recommendation, defined as “high certainty that the net benefit is moderate or there is moderate certainty that the net benefit is moderate to substantial.”

For treatment, the Task Force found evidence to support strategies including pharmacotherapy with naltrexone, buprenorphine, and methadone, as well as for psychosocial interventions.

The USPSTF acknowledged that many factors may affect a clinicians’ decision of whether to implement the drug screening recommendation. “In many communities, affordable, accessible, and timely services for diagnostic assessment and treatment for patients with positive screening results are in limited supply or unaffordable. Providers should be aware of any state requirements for mandatory screening or reporting of screening results to medicolegal authorities and understand the positive and negative implications of reporting,” they wrote.

The draft recommendations also identified several research gaps including the effectiveness of screening for illicit drug use in adolescents, the optimal screening interval for all patients, the accuracy of screening tools for detecting opioids, the accuracy of screening within the same population, the benefits of naloxone as rescue therapy, and nonmedical use of other prescription drugs, as well as ways to improve access to care for those diagnosed with drug use disorders.

The draft recommendation is available for public comment until Sept. 9, 2019, at 8 p.m. EST.

The USPSTF is supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends for the first time that primary care clinicians screen adults aged 18 years and older for illicit drug use, according to a draft recommendation statement now available for public comment.

andrewsafonov/Thinkstock

The statement defines illicit drug use as “use of illegal drugs and the nonmedical use of prescription psychoactive medications (i.e., use for reasons, for duration, in amounts, or with frequency other than prescribed or use by persons other than the prescribed individual).”

The guidelines do not apply to individuals younger than 18 years, for whom the USPSTF found insufficient evidence to recommend routine screening, or to adults currently diagnosed or in treatment for a drug use disorder.

In the draft recommendation statement, available online, the USPSTF noted that several screening tools are available for use in primary care practices, including the BSTAD (Brief Screener for Tobacco, Alcohol, and Other Drugs) that consists of six questions. The task force noted that they have found “adequate evidence” that these screening tools can detect illicit drug use. In addition, they wrote that no studies offer evidence of benefits versus harms of these screening tools, and evidence of harms associated with screening are limited.

Screening intervals can be simplified by screening young adults whenever they seek medical services and when clinicians suspect illicit drug use, the USPSTF said.

When the draft recommendation is finalized, it will replace the 2008 recommendation, which found insufficient evidence for screening in adults, as well as in adolescents. New evidence since 2008 supports the value of screening for adults aged 18 years and older, including pregnant and postpartum women.

The draft recommendations are based on the results of two systematic evidence reviews that assessed the accuracy and harms of routine illicit drug use screening. The USPSTF’s review included 12 studies on the accuracy of 15 screening tools. Overall, the sensitivity of direct screening tools to identify “unhealthy use of ‘any drug’ (including illegal drugs and nonmedical use of prescription drugs) in the past month or year” ranged from 0.71 to 0.94, and the specificity ranged from 0.87 to 0.97.

Based on the current evidence, the USPSTF assigned drug screening for adults a grade B recommendation, defined as “high certainty that the net benefit is moderate or there is moderate certainty that the net benefit is moderate to substantial.”

For treatment, the Task Force found evidence to support strategies including pharmacotherapy with naltrexone, buprenorphine, and methadone, as well as for psychosocial interventions.

The USPSTF acknowledged that many factors may affect a clinicians’ decision of whether to implement the drug screening recommendation. “In many communities, affordable, accessible, and timely services for diagnostic assessment and treatment for patients with positive screening results are in limited supply or unaffordable. Providers should be aware of any state requirements for mandatory screening or reporting of screening results to medicolegal authorities and understand the positive and negative implications of reporting,” they wrote.

The draft recommendations also identified several research gaps including the effectiveness of screening for illicit drug use in adolescents, the optimal screening interval for all patients, the accuracy of screening tools for detecting opioids, the accuracy of screening within the same population, the benefits of naloxone as rescue therapy, and nonmedical use of other prescription drugs, as well as ways to improve access to care for those diagnosed with drug use disorders.

The draft recommendation is available for public comment until Sept. 9, 2019, at 8 p.m. EST.

The USPSTF is supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Bacteria on children’s skin was similar to their mothers’ and affected by factors that included method of delivery and breastfeeding in a study of 154 children aged 10 years and younger.

Understanding the skin microbiome is important to determine whether certain bacteria may be helpful or harmful, but skin microbiome studies in children are limited, wrote Ting Zhu of Fudan University, Shanghai, China, and colleagues.

In a study published in the Journal of Investigative Dermatology, the researchers compared the skin microbiota of the 158 children aged 1-10 years and 50 mothers using 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing after collecting study samples from three skin areas: face, calf, and ventral forearm. The samples were pooled into 36 groups based on age, gender, and skin site.

“We observed significant differences in alpha diversity and the most prevalent taxa and identified factors that contributed to variation at each site,” the authors reported.

Overall, the “alpha diversity” – a measure of microbial diversity used in microbiome studies – of the skin microbiome increased with age, with the highest alpha diversity seen in the 10-year-olds (n = 28), notably on the face, but differences in alpha diversity between skin sites were seen only in the 1-year-olds (n = 26). Overall, the most commonly identified bacterial phyla at all skin sites in children were Proteobacteria (42%), Firmicutes (25%), Actinobacteria (13%), and Bacteroidetes (11%). In the three sites, the genera with high relative abundance (over 3%) included Streptococcus (13%), Enhydrobacter (6%), and Propionibacterium (5%). Of these, Streptococcus and Granulicatella showed negative linear correlations with age.

The researchers found significant differences between the bacterial communities of 10-year-olds delivered by Cesarean section and those delivered vaginally, particularly in the facial samples; however the difference wasn’t observed among face samples taken from 1-year-olds, according to the authors. They found significant variation in bacteria in calf samples based on whether the children were fed breast milk, formula, or a combination.

When the researchers examined the correlations between mother/child pairs, they found that the relative abundance of most bacteria in the children were more similar to their mothers than to unrelated adults, and they found the strongest correlations for the genera Deinococcus, Microbacterium, Chryseobacterium, Klebsiella, and Enhydrobacter. The relationships between the bacterial communities of mothers and children may be influenced by the shared living environment, topical products, and daily diet, they noted.

The study findings were limited by not controlling for certain variables, including daily diet, choice of topical products, bathing habits, and daily variation in environmental factors, the researchers wrote. However, the results show “that the skin microbiome is strongly affected by the surrounding microenvironment and that the alpha diversity of the skin microbiome increases during childhood,” they concluded.

The study was fully funded by Johnson & Johnson International, and several coauthors are employees of that company. Lead author Ms. Zhu had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Zhu T et al. J Invest Dermatol. 2019 August 13. doi: 10.1016/j.jid.2019.05.018.

Bacteria on children’s skin was similar to their mothers’ and affected by factors that included method of delivery and breastfeeding in a study of 154 children aged 10 years and younger.

Understanding the skin microbiome is important to determine whether certain bacteria may be helpful or harmful, but skin microbiome studies in children are limited, wrote Ting Zhu of Fudan University, Shanghai, China, and colleagues.

In a study published in the Journal of Investigative Dermatology, the researchers compared the skin microbiota of the 158 children aged 1-10 years and 50 mothers using 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing after collecting study samples from three skin areas: face, calf, and ventral forearm. The samples were pooled into 36 groups based on age, gender, and skin site.

“We observed significant differences in alpha diversity and the most prevalent taxa and identified factors that contributed to variation at each site,” the authors reported.

Overall, the “alpha diversity” – a measure of microbial diversity used in microbiome studies – of the skin microbiome increased with age, with the highest alpha diversity seen in the 10-year-olds (n = 28), notably on the face, but differences in alpha diversity between skin sites were seen only in the 1-year-olds (n = 26). Overall, the most commonly identified bacterial phyla at all skin sites in children were Proteobacteria (42%), Firmicutes (25%), Actinobacteria (13%), and Bacteroidetes (11%). In the three sites, the genera with high relative abundance (over 3%) included Streptococcus (13%), Enhydrobacter (6%), and Propionibacterium (5%). Of these, Streptococcus and Granulicatella showed negative linear correlations with age.

The researchers found significant differences between the bacterial communities of 10-year-olds delivered by Cesarean section and those delivered vaginally, particularly in the facial samples; however the difference wasn’t observed among face samples taken from 1-year-olds, according to the authors. They found significant variation in bacteria in calf samples based on whether the children were fed breast milk, formula, or a combination.

When the researchers examined the correlations between mother/child pairs, they found that the relative abundance of most bacteria in the children were more similar to their mothers than to unrelated adults, and they found the strongest correlations for the genera Deinococcus, Microbacterium, Chryseobacterium, Klebsiella, and Enhydrobacter. The relationships between the bacterial communities of mothers and children may be influenced by the shared living environment, topical products, and daily diet, they noted.

The study findings were limited by not controlling for certain variables, including daily diet, choice of topical products, bathing habits, and daily variation in environmental factors, the researchers wrote. However, the results show “that the skin microbiome is strongly affected by the surrounding microenvironment and that the alpha diversity of the skin microbiome increases during childhood,” they concluded.

The study was fully funded by Johnson & Johnson International, and several coauthors are employees of that company. Lead author Ms. Zhu had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Zhu T et al. J Invest Dermatol. 2019 August 13. doi: 10.1016/j.jid.2019.05.018.

Bacteria on children’s skin was similar to their mothers’ and affected by factors that included method of delivery and breastfeeding in a study of 154 children aged 10 years and younger.

Understanding the skin microbiome is important to determine whether certain bacteria may be helpful or harmful, but skin microbiome studies in children are limited, wrote Ting Zhu of Fudan University, Shanghai, China, and colleagues.

In a study published in the Journal of Investigative Dermatology, the researchers compared the skin microbiota of the 158 children aged 1-10 years and 50 mothers using 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing after collecting study samples from three skin areas: face, calf, and ventral forearm. The samples were pooled into 36 groups based on age, gender, and skin site.

“We observed significant differences in alpha diversity and the most prevalent taxa and identified factors that contributed to variation at each site,” the authors reported.

Overall, the “alpha diversity” – a measure of microbial diversity used in microbiome studies – of the skin microbiome increased with age, with the highest alpha diversity seen in the 10-year-olds (n = 28), notably on the face, but differences in alpha diversity between skin sites were seen only in the 1-year-olds (n = 26). Overall, the most commonly identified bacterial phyla at all skin sites in children were Proteobacteria (42%), Firmicutes (25%), Actinobacteria (13%), and Bacteroidetes (11%). In the three sites, the genera with high relative abundance (over 3%) included Streptococcus (13%), Enhydrobacter (6%), and Propionibacterium (5%). Of these, Streptococcus and Granulicatella showed negative linear correlations with age.

The researchers found significant differences between the bacterial communities of 10-year-olds delivered by Cesarean section and those delivered vaginally, particularly in the facial samples; however the difference wasn’t observed among face samples taken from 1-year-olds, according to the authors. They found significant variation in bacteria in calf samples based on whether the children were fed breast milk, formula, or a combination.

When the researchers examined the correlations between mother/child pairs, they found that the relative abundance of most bacteria in the children were more similar to their mothers than to unrelated adults, and they found the strongest correlations for the genera Deinococcus, Microbacterium, Chryseobacterium, Klebsiella, and Enhydrobacter. The relationships between the bacterial communities of mothers and children may be influenced by the shared living environment, topical products, and daily diet, they noted.

The study findings were limited by not controlling for certain variables, including daily diet, choice of topical products, bathing habits, and daily variation in environmental factors, the researchers wrote. However, the results show “that the skin microbiome is strongly affected by the surrounding microenvironment and that the alpha diversity of the skin microbiome increases during childhood,” they concluded.

The study was fully funded by Johnson & Johnson International, and several coauthors are employees of that company. Lead author Ms. Zhu had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Zhu T et al. J Invest Dermatol. 2019 August 13. doi: 10.1016/j.jid.2019.05.018.

Oral semaglutide monotherapy was superior to placebo for improving glycated hemoglobin (HbA_1c) levels at all doses tested in adults with type 2 diabetes who had been previously insufficiently managed with diet and exercise, according to findings from a global, randomized trial.

The drug also showed dose-dependent weight loss, with a statistically significant effect on body weight, compared with placebo, at higher doses.

To date, the glucagon-like peptide–1 receptor agonist has been available as weekly subcutaneous shots for patients with type 2 diabetes, and in that form they have been shown to be effective in reducing HbA_1c, inducing weight loss, and lowering the risk of cardiovascular events in patients with cardiovascular disease or those who are at high risk for it, wrote Vanita R. Aroda, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues. The report is in Diabetes Care.

The novel oral semaglutide tablet is designed to enhance medication absorption, and the pharmacokinetics and dosage were established in phase 2 studies, they noted.

In the phase 3 Peptide Innovation for Early Diabetes Treatment 1 (PIONEER 1) study, Dr. Aroda and colleagues randomized 703 adults with type 2 diabetes to receive either 3 mg, 7 mg, or 14 mg of oral semaglutide daily, or placebo. The average age of the patients was 55 years, about half were women, and the average baseline HbA_1c was 8.0% (64 mmol/mol). The primary endpoint was change in HbA_1c level from baseline to week 26, and the secondary endpoint was change in body weight over the same period.

After 26 weeks of once-daily treatment, patients in semaglutide group showed significant reductions in HbA_1c from baseline with all three doses: –0.6% (3 mg), –0.9% (7 mg), and –1.1% (14 mg), with P less than .001 for all, based on an intention-to-treat analysis. Similar results occurred using an on-treatment analysis, with differences of –0.7%, –1.2%, and –1.4%, respectively, for the three doses.

In addition, patients in all dose groups achieved the secondary endpoint of reduction in body weight, compared with placebo, from baseline to 26 weeks based on both types of analyses. “Significantly more patients achieved body weight loss of at least 5% with oral semaglutide at 7 mg and 14 mg, compared with placebo,” Dr. Aroda and colleagues wrote (intention-to-treat: –0.1 for 3 mg daily [P = .87], –0.9 for 7 mg [P = .09], –2.3 for 14 mg [P less than .001]; and on-treatment: –0.2 for 3 mg [P = .71], –1.0 for 7 mg [P = .01], –2.6 for 14 mg [P less than .001]).

The overall incidence of adverse events and serious adverse events was similar in the treatment and placebo groups, with the most frequent being nausea and diarrhea. No deaths occurred among patients on the medication.

The findings were limited by several factors, including a patient population that had a relatively short duration of diabetes (mean, 3.5 years) and that the oral semaglutide was used as first-line monotherapy, without first using metformin, the researchers noted. However, oral semaglutide “achieved clinically meaningful and superior glucose lowering,” compared with placebo, at all three doses, they wrote.

“Ongoing additional studies in the PIONEER program will further define the effect when used in combination with other glucose-lowering therapies and in other populations of interest, such as those with high cardiovascular risk or renal impairment,” they emphasized

Novo Nordisk funded the study. The lead author disclosed relationships with Novo Nordisk, and several coauthors disclosed relationships with or employment by the company.

SOURCE: Aroda VR et al. Diabetes Care. 2019 Jul. doi: 10.2337/dc19-0749.

Oral semaglutide monotherapy was superior to placebo for improving glycated hemoglobin (HbA_1c) levels at all doses tested in adults with type 2 diabetes who had been previously insufficiently managed with diet and exercise, according to findings from a global, randomized trial.

The drug also showed dose-dependent weight loss, with a statistically significant effect on body weight, compared with placebo, at higher doses.

To date, the glucagon-like peptide–1 receptor agonist has been available as weekly subcutaneous shots for patients with type 2 diabetes, and in that form they have been shown to be effective in reducing HbA_1c, inducing weight loss, and lowering the risk of cardiovascular events in patients with cardiovascular disease or those who are at high risk for it, wrote Vanita R. Aroda, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues. The report is in Diabetes Care.

The novel oral semaglutide tablet is designed to enhance medication absorption, and the pharmacokinetics and dosage were established in phase 2 studies, they noted.

In the phase 3 Peptide Innovation for Early Diabetes Treatment 1 (PIONEER 1) study, Dr. Aroda and colleagues randomized 703 adults with type 2 diabetes to receive either 3 mg, 7 mg, or 14 mg of oral semaglutide daily, or placebo. The average age of the patients was 55 years, about half were women, and the average baseline HbA_1c was 8.0% (64 mmol/mol). The primary endpoint was change in HbA_1c level from baseline to week 26, and the secondary endpoint was change in body weight over the same period.

After 26 weeks of once-daily treatment, patients in semaglutide group showed significant reductions in HbA_1c from baseline with all three doses: –0.6% (3 mg), –0.9% (7 mg), and –1.1% (14 mg), with P less than .001 for all, based on an intention-to-treat analysis. Similar results occurred using an on-treatment analysis, with differences of –0.7%, –1.2%, and –1.4%, respectively, for the three doses.

In addition, patients in all dose groups achieved the secondary endpoint of reduction in body weight, compared with placebo, from baseline to 26 weeks based on both types of analyses. “Significantly more patients achieved body weight loss of at least 5% with oral semaglutide at 7 mg and 14 mg, compared with placebo,” Dr. Aroda and colleagues wrote (intention-to-treat: –0.1 for 3 mg daily [P = .87], –0.9 for 7 mg [P = .09], –2.3 for 14 mg [P less than .001]; and on-treatment: –0.2 for 3 mg [P = .71], –1.0 for 7 mg [P = .01], –2.6 for 14 mg [P less than .001]).

The overall incidence of adverse events and serious adverse events was similar in the treatment and placebo groups, with the most frequent being nausea and diarrhea. No deaths occurred among patients on the medication.

The findings were limited by several factors, including a patient population that had a relatively short duration of diabetes (mean, 3.5 years) and that the oral semaglutide was used as first-line monotherapy, without first using metformin, the researchers noted. However, oral semaglutide “achieved clinically meaningful and superior glucose lowering,” compared with placebo, at all three doses, they wrote.

“Ongoing additional studies in the PIONEER program will further define the effect when used in combination with other glucose-lowering therapies and in other populations of interest, such as those with high cardiovascular risk or renal impairment,” they emphasized

Novo Nordisk funded the study. The lead author disclosed relationships with Novo Nordisk, and several coauthors disclosed relationships with or employment by the company.

SOURCE: Aroda VR et al. Diabetes Care. 2019 Jul. doi: 10.2337/dc19-0749.

Oral semaglutide monotherapy was superior to placebo for improving glycated hemoglobin (HbA_1c) levels at all doses tested in adults with type 2 diabetes who had been previously insufficiently managed with diet and exercise, according to findings from a global, randomized trial.

The drug also showed dose-dependent weight loss, with a statistically significant effect on body weight, compared with placebo, at higher doses.

To date, the glucagon-like peptide–1 receptor agonist has been available as weekly subcutaneous shots for patients with type 2 diabetes, and in that form they have been shown to be effective in reducing HbA_1c, inducing weight loss, and lowering the risk of cardiovascular events in patients with cardiovascular disease or those who are at high risk for it, wrote Vanita R. Aroda, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues. The report is in Diabetes Care.

The novel oral semaglutide tablet is designed to enhance medication absorption, and the pharmacokinetics and dosage were established in phase 2 studies, they noted.

In the phase 3 Peptide Innovation for Early Diabetes Treatment 1 (PIONEER 1) study, Dr. Aroda and colleagues randomized 703 adults with type 2 diabetes to receive either 3 mg, 7 mg, or 14 mg of oral semaglutide daily, or placebo. The average age of the patients was 55 years, about half were women, and the average baseline HbA_1c was 8.0% (64 mmol/mol). The primary endpoint was change in HbA_1c level from baseline to week 26, and the secondary endpoint was change in body weight over the same period.

After 26 weeks of once-daily treatment, patients in semaglutide group showed significant reductions in HbA_1c from baseline with all three doses: –0.6% (3 mg), –0.9% (7 mg), and –1.1% (14 mg), with P less than .001 for all, based on an intention-to-treat analysis. Similar results occurred using an on-treatment analysis, with differences of –0.7%, –1.2%, and –1.4%, respectively, for the three doses.

In addition, patients in all dose groups achieved the secondary endpoint of reduction in body weight, compared with placebo, from baseline to 26 weeks based on both types of analyses. “Significantly more patients achieved body weight loss of at least 5% with oral semaglutide at 7 mg and 14 mg, compared with placebo,” Dr. Aroda and colleagues wrote (intention-to-treat: –0.1 for 3 mg daily [P = .87], –0.9 for 7 mg [P = .09], –2.3 for 14 mg [P less than .001]; and on-treatment: –0.2 for 3 mg [P = .71], –1.0 for 7 mg [P = .01], –2.6 for 14 mg [P less than .001]).

The overall incidence of adverse events and serious adverse events was similar in the treatment and placebo groups, with the most frequent being nausea and diarrhea. No deaths occurred among patients on the medication.

The findings were limited by several factors, including a patient population that had a relatively short duration of diabetes (mean, 3.5 years) and that the oral semaglutide was used as first-line monotherapy, without first using metformin, the researchers noted. However, oral semaglutide “achieved clinically meaningful and superior glucose lowering,” compared with placebo, at all three doses, they wrote.

“Ongoing additional studies in the PIONEER program will further define the effect when used in combination with other glucose-lowering therapies and in other populations of interest, such as those with high cardiovascular risk or renal impairment,” they emphasized

Novo Nordisk funded the study. The lead author disclosed relationships with Novo Nordisk, and several coauthors disclosed relationships with or employment by the company.

SOURCE: Aroda VR et al. Diabetes Care. 2019 Jul. doi: 10.2337/dc19-0749.