Mixed Topics

What a year it has been in the world of hospital medicine with all the changes, challenges, and uncertainties surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic. Some hospitalist programs were hit hard early on with an early surge, when little was known about COVID-19, and other programs have had more time to plan and adapt to later surges.

As many readers of The Hospitalist know, the Society of Hospital Medicine publishes a biennial State of Hospital Medicine (SoHM) Report – last published in September 2020 using data from 2019. The SoHM Report contains a wealth of information that many groups find useful in evaluating their programs, with topics ranging from compensation to staffing to scheduling. As some prior months’ Survey Insights columns have alluded to, with the rapid pace of change in 2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Society of Hospital Medicine made the decision to publish an addendum highlighting the myriad of adjustments and adaptations that have occurred in such a short period of time. The COVID-19 Addendum is available to all purchasers of the SoHM Report and contains data from survey responses submitted in September 2020.

Let’s take a look at what transpired in 2020, starting with staffing – no doubt a challenge for many groups. During some periods of time, patient volumes may have fallen below historical averages with stay-at-home orders, canceled procedures, and a reluctance by patients to seek medical care. In contrast, for many groups, other parts of the year were all-hands-on-deck scenarios to care for extraordinary surges in patient volume. To compound this, many hospitalist groups had physicians and staff facing quarantine or isolation requirements because of exposures or contracting COVID-19, and locums positions may have been difficult to fill because of travel restrictions and extreme demand.

What operational changes were made in response to these staffing challenges? Perhaps one notable finding from the COVID-19 Addendum was the need for contingency planning and backup systems. From the 2020 SoHM, prior to the pandemic, 47.4% of adult hospital medicine groups had backup systems in place. In our recently published addendum, we found that 61.9% of groups instituted a backup system where none previously existed. In addition, 54.2% of groups modified their existing backup system. Some 39.6% of hospital medicine groups also utilized clinicians from other service lines to help cover service needs.

Aside from staffing, hospitals faced unprecedented financial challenges, and these effects rippled through to hospitalists. Our addendum found that 42.0% of hospitalist groups faced reductions in salary or bonuses, and 35.5% of hospital medicine groups reduced provider compensation by a reduction of work hours or shifts. I’ve personally been struck by these findings – that many hospitalists at the front-lines of COVID-19 received salary reductions, albeit temporary for many groups, during one of the most challenging years of their professional careers. Our addendum, interestingly, also found that a smaller 10.7% of groups instituted hazard pay for clinicians caring for COVID-19 patients.

So, are the changes and challenges your group faced similar to what was experienced by other hospital medicine programs? These findings and many more interesting and useful pieces of data are available in the full COVID-19 Addendum. Perhaps my biggest takeaway is that hospitalists have been perhaps the most uniquely positioned specialty to tackle the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic. We have always been a dynamic, changing field, ready to lead and tackle change – and while change may have happened more quickly and in ways that were unforeseen just a year ago, hospitalists have undoubtedly demonstrated their strengths as leaders ready to adapt and rise to the occasion.

I am optimistic that, as we move beyond the pandemic in the coming months and years, the value that hospitalists have proven yet again will yield long-term recognition and benefits to our programs and our specialty.

Dr. Huang is a physician adviser and clinical professor of medicine in the division of hospital medicine at the University of California, San Diego. He is a member of SHM’s Practice Analysis Committee.

What a year it has been in the world of hospital medicine with all the changes, challenges, and uncertainties surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic. Some hospitalist programs were hit hard early on with an early surge, when little was known about COVID-19, and other programs have had more time to plan and adapt to later surges.

As many readers of The Hospitalist know, the Society of Hospital Medicine publishes a biennial State of Hospital Medicine (SoHM) Report – last published in September 2020 using data from 2019. The SoHM Report contains a wealth of information that many groups find useful in evaluating their programs, with topics ranging from compensation to staffing to scheduling. As some prior months’ Survey Insights columns have alluded to, with the rapid pace of change in 2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Society of Hospital Medicine made the decision to publish an addendum highlighting the myriad of adjustments and adaptations that have occurred in such a short period of time. The COVID-19 Addendum is available to all purchasers of the SoHM Report and contains data from survey responses submitted in September 2020.

Let’s take a look at what transpired in 2020, starting with staffing – no doubt a challenge for many groups. During some periods of time, patient volumes may have fallen below historical averages with stay-at-home orders, canceled procedures, and a reluctance by patients to seek medical care. In contrast, for many groups, other parts of the year were all-hands-on-deck scenarios to care for extraordinary surges in patient volume. To compound this, many hospitalist groups had physicians and staff facing quarantine or isolation requirements because of exposures or contracting COVID-19, and locums positions may have been difficult to fill because of travel restrictions and extreme demand.

What operational changes were made in response to these staffing challenges? Perhaps one notable finding from the COVID-19 Addendum was the need for contingency planning and backup systems. From the 2020 SoHM, prior to the pandemic, 47.4% of adult hospital medicine groups had backup systems in place. In our recently published addendum, we found that 61.9% of groups instituted a backup system where none previously existed. In addition, 54.2% of groups modified their existing backup system. Some 39.6% of hospital medicine groups also utilized clinicians from other service lines to help cover service needs.

Aside from staffing, hospitals faced unprecedented financial challenges, and these effects rippled through to hospitalists. Our addendum found that 42.0% of hospitalist groups faced reductions in salary or bonuses, and 35.5% of hospital medicine groups reduced provider compensation by a reduction of work hours or shifts. I’ve personally been struck by these findings – that many hospitalists at the front-lines of COVID-19 received salary reductions, albeit temporary for many groups, during one of the most challenging years of their professional careers. Our addendum, interestingly, also found that a smaller 10.7% of groups instituted hazard pay for clinicians caring for COVID-19 patients.

So, are the changes and challenges your group faced similar to what was experienced by other hospital medicine programs? These findings and many more interesting and useful pieces of data are available in the full COVID-19 Addendum. Perhaps my biggest takeaway is that hospitalists have been perhaps the most uniquely positioned specialty to tackle the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic. We have always been a dynamic, changing field, ready to lead and tackle change – and while change may have happened more quickly and in ways that were unforeseen just a year ago, hospitalists have undoubtedly demonstrated their strengths as leaders ready to adapt and rise to the occasion.

I am optimistic that, as we move beyond the pandemic in the coming months and years, the value that hospitalists have proven yet again will yield long-term recognition and benefits to our programs and our specialty.

Dr. Huang is a physician adviser and clinical professor of medicine in the division of hospital medicine at the University of California, San Diego. He is a member of SHM’s Practice Analysis Committee.

What a year it has been in the world of hospital medicine with all the changes, challenges, and uncertainties surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic. Some hospitalist programs were hit hard early on with an early surge, when little was known about COVID-19, and other programs have had more time to plan and adapt to later surges.

As many readers of The Hospitalist know, the Society of Hospital Medicine publishes a biennial State of Hospital Medicine (SoHM) Report – last published in September 2020 using data from 2019. The SoHM Report contains a wealth of information that many groups find useful in evaluating their programs, with topics ranging from compensation to staffing to scheduling. As some prior months’ Survey Insights columns have alluded to, with the rapid pace of change in 2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Society of Hospital Medicine made the decision to publish an addendum highlighting the myriad of adjustments and adaptations that have occurred in such a short period of time. The COVID-19 Addendum is available to all purchasers of the SoHM Report and contains data from survey responses submitted in September 2020.

Let’s take a look at what transpired in 2020, starting with staffing – no doubt a challenge for many groups. During some periods of time, patient volumes may have fallen below historical averages with stay-at-home orders, canceled procedures, and a reluctance by patients to seek medical care. In contrast, for many groups, other parts of the year were all-hands-on-deck scenarios to care for extraordinary surges in patient volume. To compound this, many hospitalist groups had physicians and staff facing quarantine or isolation requirements because of exposures or contracting COVID-19, and locums positions may have been difficult to fill because of travel restrictions and extreme demand.

What operational changes were made in response to these staffing challenges? Perhaps one notable finding from the COVID-19 Addendum was the need for contingency planning and backup systems. From the 2020 SoHM, prior to the pandemic, 47.4% of adult hospital medicine groups had backup systems in place. In our recently published addendum, we found that 61.9% of groups instituted a backup system where none previously existed. In addition, 54.2% of groups modified their existing backup system. Some 39.6% of hospital medicine groups also utilized clinicians from other service lines to help cover service needs.

Aside from staffing, hospitals faced unprecedented financial challenges, and these effects rippled through to hospitalists. Our addendum found that 42.0% of hospitalist groups faced reductions in salary or bonuses, and 35.5% of hospital medicine groups reduced provider compensation by a reduction of work hours or shifts. I’ve personally been struck by these findings – that many hospitalists at the front-lines of COVID-19 received salary reductions, albeit temporary for many groups, during one of the most challenging years of their professional careers. Our addendum, interestingly, also found that a smaller 10.7% of groups instituted hazard pay for clinicians caring for COVID-19 patients.

So, are the changes and challenges your group faced similar to what was experienced by other hospital medicine programs? These findings and many more interesting and useful pieces of data are available in the full COVID-19 Addendum. Perhaps my biggest takeaway is that hospitalists have been perhaps the most uniquely positioned specialty to tackle the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic. We have always been a dynamic, changing field, ready to lead and tackle change – and while change may have happened more quickly and in ways that were unforeseen just a year ago, hospitalists have undoubtedly demonstrated their strengths as leaders ready to adapt and rise to the occasion.

I am optimistic that, as we move beyond the pandemic in the coming months and years, the value that hospitalists have proven yet again will yield long-term recognition and benefits to our programs and our specialty.

Dr. Huang is a physician adviser and clinical professor of medicine in the division of hospital medicine at the University of California, San Diego. He is a member of SHM’s Practice Analysis Committee.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An examination of coffee consumption habits of almost 400,000 people suggests that those habits are largely driven by a person’s cardiovascular health.

©Elena Moiseeva/fotolia.com

Data from a large population database showed that people with essential hypertension, angina, or cardiac arrhythmias drank less coffee than people who had none of these conditions. When they did drink coffee, it tended to be decaffeinated.

The investigators, led by Elina Hyppönen, PhD, director of the Australian Centre for Precision Health at the University of South Australia, Adelaide, say that this predilection for avoiding coffee, which is known to produce jitteriness and heart palpitations, is based on genetics.

“If your body is telling you not to drink that extra cup of coffee, there’s likely a reason why,” Dr. Hyppönen said in an interview.

The study was published online in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

“People drink coffee as a pick-me-up when they’re feeling tired, or because it tastes good, or simply because it’s part of their daily routine, but what we don’t recognize is that people subconsciously self-regulate safe levels of caffeine based on how high their blood pressure is, and this is likely a result of a protective genetic mechanism, [meaning] that someone who drinks a lot of coffee is likely more genetically tolerant of caffeine, as compared to someone who drinks very little,” Dr. Hyppönen said.

“In addition, we’ve known from past research that when people feel unwell, they tend to drink less coffee. This type of phenomenon, where disease drives behavior, is called reverse causality,” Dr. Hyppönen said.

For this analysis, she and her team used information on 390,435 individuals of European ancestry from the UK Biobank, a large epidemiologic database. Habitual coffee consumption was self-reported, and systolic and diastolic blood pressure and heart rate were measured at baseline. Cardiovascular symptoms at baseline were gleaned from hospital diagnoses, primary care records, and/or self report, the authors note.

To look at the relationship of systolic BP, diastolic BP, and heart rate with coffee consumption, they used a strategy called Mendelian randomization, which allows genetic information such as variants reflecting higher blood pressures and heart rate to be used to provide evidence for a causal association.

Results showed that participants with essential hypertension, angina, or arrhythmia were “all more likely to drink less caffeinated coffee and to be nonhabitual or decaffeinated coffee drinkers compared with those who did not report related symptoms,” the authors write.

Those with higher systolic and diastolic BP based on their genetics tended to drink less caffeinated coffee at baseline, “with consistent genetic evidence to support a causal explanation across all methods,” they noted.

They also found that those people who have a higher resting heart rate due to their genes were more likely to choose decaffeinated coffee.

“These results have two major implications,” Dr. Hyppönen said. “Firstly, they show that our bodies can regulate behavior in ways that we may not realize, and that if something does not feel good to us, there is a likely to be a reason why.”

“Second, our results show that our health status in part regulates the amount of coffee we drink. This is important, because when disease drives behavior, it can lead to misleading health associations in observational studies, and indeed, create a false impression for health benefits if the group of people who do not drink coffee also includes more people who are unwell,” she said.

For now, doctors can tell their patients that this study provides an explanation as to why research on the health effects of habitual coffee consumption has been conflicting, Dr. Hyppönen said.

“Our study also highlights the uncertainty that underlies the claimed health benefits of coffee, but at the same time, it gives a positive message about the ability of our body to regulate our level of coffee consumption in a way that helps us avoid adverse effects.”

“The most common symptoms of excessive coffee consumption are palpitations and rapid heartbeat, also known as tachycardia,” Nieca Goldberg, MD, medical director of the NYU Women’s Heart Program at NYU Langone Health, said in an interview.

“This study was designed to see if cardiac symptoms affect coffee consumption, and it showed that people with hypertension, angina, history of arrhythmias, and poor health tend to be decaffeinated coffee drinkers or no coffee drinkers,” Dr. Goldberg said.

“People naturally alter their coffee intake base on their blood pressure and symptoms of palpitations and/or rapid heart rate,” she said.

The results also suggest that, “we cannot infer health benefit or harm based on the available coffee studies,” Dr. Goldberg added.

The study was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia. Dr. Hyppönen and Dr. Goldberg have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

An examination of coffee consumption habits of almost 400,000 people suggests that those habits are largely driven by a person’s cardiovascular health.

©Elena Moiseeva/fotolia.com

Data from a large population database showed that people with essential hypertension, angina, or cardiac arrhythmias drank less coffee than people who had none of these conditions. When they did drink coffee, it tended to be decaffeinated.

The investigators, led by Elina Hyppönen, PhD, director of the Australian Centre for Precision Health at the University of South Australia, Adelaide, say that this predilection for avoiding coffee, which is known to produce jitteriness and heart palpitations, is based on genetics.

“If your body is telling you not to drink that extra cup of coffee, there’s likely a reason why,” Dr. Hyppönen said in an interview.

The study was published online in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

“People drink coffee as a pick-me-up when they’re feeling tired, or because it tastes good, or simply because it’s part of their daily routine, but what we don’t recognize is that people subconsciously self-regulate safe levels of caffeine based on how high their blood pressure is, and this is likely a result of a protective genetic mechanism, [meaning] that someone who drinks a lot of coffee is likely more genetically tolerant of caffeine, as compared to someone who drinks very little,” Dr. Hyppönen said.

“In addition, we’ve known from past research that when people feel unwell, they tend to drink less coffee. This type of phenomenon, where disease drives behavior, is called reverse causality,” Dr. Hyppönen said.

For this analysis, she and her team used information on 390,435 individuals of European ancestry from the UK Biobank, a large epidemiologic database. Habitual coffee consumption was self-reported, and systolic and diastolic blood pressure and heart rate were measured at baseline. Cardiovascular symptoms at baseline were gleaned from hospital diagnoses, primary care records, and/or self report, the authors note.

To look at the relationship of systolic BP, diastolic BP, and heart rate with coffee consumption, they used a strategy called Mendelian randomization, which allows genetic information such as variants reflecting higher blood pressures and heart rate to be used to provide evidence for a causal association.

Results showed that participants with essential hypertension, angina, or arrhythmia were “all more likely to drink less caffeinated coffee and to be nonhabitual or decaffeinated coffee drinkers compared with those who did not report related symptoms,” the authors write.

Those with higher systolic and diastolic BP based on their genetics tended to drink less caffeinated coffee at baseline, “with consistent genetic evidence to support a causal explanation across all methods,” they noted.

They also found that those people who have a higher resting heart rate due to their genes were more likely to choose decaffeinated coffee.

“These results have two major implications,” Dr. Hyppönen said. “Firstly, they show that our bodies can regulate behavior in ways that we may not realize, and that if something does not feel good to us, there is a likely to be a reason why.”

“Second, our results show that our health status in part regulates the amount of coffee we drink. This is important, because when disease drives behavior, it can lead to misleading health associations in observational studies, and indeed, create a false impression for health benefits if the group of people who do not drink coffee also includes more people who are unwell,” she said.

For now, doctors can tell their patients that this study provides an explanation as to why research on the health effects of habitual coffee consumption has been conflicting, Dr. Hyppönen said.

“Our study also highlights the uncertainty that underlies the claimed health benefits of coffee, but at the same time, it gives a positive message about the ability of our body to regulate our level of coffee consumption in a way that helps us avoid adverse effects.”

“The most common symptoms of excessive coffee consumption are palpitations and rapid heartbeat, also known as tachycardia,” Nieca Goldberg, MD, medical director of the NYU Women’s Heart Program at NYU Langone Health, said in an interview.

“This study was designed to see if cardiac symptoms affect coffee consumption, and it showed that people with hypertension, angina, history of arrhythmias, and poor health tend to be decaffeinated coffee drinkers or no coffee drinkers,” Dr. Goldberg said.

“People naturally alter their coffee intake base on their blood pressure and symptoms of palpitations and/or rapid heart rate,” she said.

The results also suggest that, “we cannot infer health benefit or harm based on the available coffee studies,” Dr. Goldberg added.

The study was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia. Dr. Hyppönen and Dr. Goldberg have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

An examination of coffee consumption habits of almost 400,000 people suggests that those habits are largely driven by a person’s cardiovascular health.

©Elena Moiseeva/fotolia.com

Data from a large population database showed that people with essential hypertension, angina, or cardiac arrhythmias drank less coffee than people who had none of these conditions. When they did drink coffee, it tended to be decaffeinated.

The investigators, led by Elina Hyppönen, PhD, director of the Australian Centre for Precision Health at the University of South Australia, Adelaide, say that this predilection for avoiding coffee, which is known to produce jitteriness and heart palpitations, is based on genetics.

“If your body is telling you not to drink that extra cup of coffee, there’s likely a reason why,” Dr. Hyppönen said in an interview.

The study was published online in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

“People drink coffee as a pick-me-up when they’re feeling tired, or because it tastes good, or simply because it’s part of their daily routine, but what we don’t recognize is that people subconsciously self-regulate safe levels of caffeine based on how high their blood pressure is, and this is likely a result of a protective genetic mechanism, [meaning] that someone who drinks a lot of coffee is likely more genetically tolerant of caffeine, as compared to someone who drinks very little,” Dr. Hyppönen said.

“In addition, we’ve known from past research that when people feel unwell, they tend to drink less coffee. This type of phenomenon, where disease drives behavior, is called reverse causality,” Dr. Hyppönen said.

For this analysis, she and her team used information on 390,435 individuals of European ancestry from the UK Biobank, a large epidemiologic database. Habitual coffee consumption was self-reported, and systolic and diastolic blood pressure and heart rate were measured at baseline. Cardiovascular symptoms at baseline were gleaned from hospital diagnoses, primary care records, and/or self report, the authors note.

To look at the relationship of systolic BP, diastolic BP, and heart rate with coffee consumption, they used a strategy called Mendelian randomization, which allows genetic information such as variants reflecting higher blood pressures and heart rate to be used to provide evidence for a causal association.

Results showed that participants with essential hypertension, angina, or arrhythmia were “all more likely to drink less caffeinated coffee and to be nonhabitual or decaffeinated coffee drinkers compared with those who did not report related symptoms,” the authors write.

Those with higher systolic and diastolic BP based on their genetics tended to drink less caffeinated coffee at baseline, “with consistent genetic evidence to support a causal explanation across all methods,” they noted.

They also found that those people who have a higher resting heart rate due to their genes were more likely to choose decaffeinated coffee.

“These results have two major implications,” Dr. Hyppönen said. “Firstly, they show that our bodies can regulate behavior in ways that we may not realize, and that if something does not feel good to us, there is a likely to be a reason why.”

“Second, our results show that our health status in part regulates the amount of coffee we drink. This is important, because when disease drives behavior, it can lead to misleading health associations in observational studies, and indeed, create a false impression for health benefits if the group of people who do not drink coffee also includes more people who are unwell,” she said.

For now, doctors can tell their patients that this study provides an explanation as to why research on the health effects of habitual coffee consumption has been conflicting, Dr. Hyppönen said.

“Our study also highlights the uncertainty that underlies the claimed health benefits of coffee, but at the same time, it gives a positive message about the ability of our body to regulate our level of coffee consumption in a way that helps us avoid adverse effects.”

“The most common symptoms of excessive coffee consumption are palpitations and rapid heartbeat, also known as tachycardia,” Nieca Goldberg, MD, medical director of the NYU Women’s Heart Program at NYU Langone Health, said in an interview.

“This study was designed to see if cardiac symptoms affect coffee consumption, and it showed that people with hypertension, angina, history of arrhythmias, and poor health tend to be decaffeinated coffee drinkers or no coffee drinkers,” Dr. Goldberg said.

“People naturally alter their coffee intake base on their blood pressure and symptoms of palpitations and/or rapid heart rate,” she said.

The results also suggest that, “we cannot infer health benefit or harm based on the available coffee studies,” Dr. Goldberg added.

The study was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia. Dr. Hyppönen and Dr. Goldberg have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

William of Ockham would have been proud because, at this year’s American Gastroenterological Association’s Shark Tank pitch competition, one product clearly demonstrated Ockham’s razor – that sometimes the simplest solution is best – and came away as the winner at the 2021 AGA Tech Summit sponsored by the AGA Center for GI Innovation and Technology.

Courtesy Dr. Toufic Kachaamy

Out of five innovative products, ranging from an educational app to a high-tech anorectal sensor, all aimed at improving outcomes in patients with gastrointestinal disorders, the winner was ... drumroll please ...

A needle.

That’s it. A needle. But not like any other needle.


 

Winner: Toufic Kachaamy, MD, FASGE, AGAF – An EUS-guided access needle

This EUS-guided access needle, invented by Dr. Kachaamy, enterprise clinical leader at Cancer Treatment Centers of America, Phoenix, is a simple device that overcomes a longstanding challenge presented by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP): biliary access.

Many “ERCPs are considered difficult, and sometimes fail, depending on the center and the endoscopist,” Dr. Kachaamy said during a virtual presentation. “Most failures are due to failed initial access to the bile duct.”

Indeed, one study cited a failure rate in ductal cannulation of 5%-15% even among experienced hands.

Failure can have several consequences, Dr. Kachaamy noted, including increased complications, higher cost, delayed care, longer hospitalization, and greater likelihood of patient transfer.

He went on to explain why biliary access can be so challenging and how this EUS-guided access needle helps address these issues.

“[The] two main limitations [during endoscopic ultrasound–guided biliary access] are directing the wire into the narrowed areas and the wire shearing as we are manipulating the wire to get it to where we want it,” Dr. Kachaamy said. “[This EUS-guided access needle] is a 19-22 gauge, rotatable needle with a smooth, side exit for the wire to allow wire manipulation and direction without shearing.”

Dr. Kachaamy highlighted the simple design, which will keep the production cost below $300 per unit, and suggested that failed ERCPs are just the first potential indication of many. Future uses may include gallbladder access, peri-GI collection, gastrojejunostomy, and others.

In an interview, Dr. Kachaamy reacted to the win, which follows 2 years of collaborative development with Cancer Treatment Centers of America.

“For people who are innovators, there’s nothing that feels more rewarding than their ideas being recognized as adding something to the field and potentially helping people and patients,” Dr. Kachaamy said. “So [this is] very, very, very exciting. Very rewarding. Pride would probably be the best way I’d describe it.”

Dr. Kachaamy anticipates that this EUS-guided access needle will be commercially available within 1-2 years, pending regulatory approval. In the meantime, he and his colleagues are seeking a strategic partner.


 

A shark speaks

V. Raman Muthusamy, MD, AGAF, immediate past chair of the AGA Center for GI Innovation and Technology and director of endoscopy at UCLA Health System, moderated the Shark Tank session, calling it “the highlight” of the AGA Tech Summit.

Dr. Muthusamy and four other “sharks,” including a gastroenterologist, venture capitalist, regulatory device reviewer, and entrepreneur, scored the pitches using three equally weighted categories: the quality of the pitch, the level of innovation and impact on the field, and the quality of the business plan and overall feasibility.

“We saw a full spectrum [of innovations],” Dr. Muthusamy said. “I think it was an enjoyable session.”

Behind closed doors, the sharks narrowed the field to two top contenders. Ultimately, however, there could be only one winner: Dr. Kachaamy. Their decision aligned with a “Fan Favorite” audience poll.

“A lot of [Dr. Kachaamy’s win] had to do with the potential applications and commonality of the problem,” Dr. Muthusamy said in an interview. He highlighted how the EUS-guided access needle allows for an immediate response to ERCP failure without the need for a second procedure.

Dr. Muthusamy also noted that several product designs previously failed to achieve what the EUS-guided access needle has the potential to do.

“I think the feeling was that this seemed to be a way that may address some of the limitations and challenges that we’ve had with earlier [attempts at solving this problem],” Dr. Muthusamy said.

For innovators who didn’t make the cut this year, or those with products still in development, Dr. Muthusamy suggested applying next year.

“We encourage our colleagues and members of the AGA to continue to apply to this program,” Dr. Muthusamy said.
 

Other fish in the sea

Four other innovators entered the AGA Shark Tank this year. Here are snippets of their pitches:

Hans Gregersen, MD, PhD, MPH – Fecobionics
“Fecobionics is a simulated electronic stool with the consistency and shape of normal stool,” Dr. Gregersen said.

The balloon device, which contains multiple sensors, provides “real-time, quantitative, and mechanistic insights by simulating defecation.”

“It ... is inserted into the rectum,” Dr. Gregersen said. “It measures multiple pressures; it has gyroscopes that measure orientation; we can compute the bending of the device; and we can calculate the shape of the device.”

According to Dr. Gregersen, Fecobionics has “diagnostic potential for patients with fecal incontinence and for subtyping patients with constipation.” He highlighted fewer false-positives than current technology, alongside greater efficiency and lower cost.

Dr. Gregersen is a research professor at California Medical Innovations Institute, San Diego.

Mary J. Pattison, RN – Trans-Abdominal Gastric Surgical System (TAGSS)
TAGSS is a trans-abdominal gastric access device that “represents a novel and exciting means to address multiple gastrointestinal conditions that are without a standardized approach,” Ms. Pattison said. “Placed as simply as a [percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube], TAGSS offers disruptive technology to address [gastroesophageal reflux disease], fundoplication, achalasia, gastroparesis, gastric tumors, and even obesity in a safe, efficient, and cost effective manner. TAGSS offers the first true hybrid approach for endoscopic/laparoscopic collaboration.”

Ms. Pattison is a nurse clinician and endoscopy assistant at WestGlen GI Consultants, Weston, Mo.

Pankaj Rajvanshi, MD, FAASLD – Healthswim App
“At this time, most patient education is provided by Dr. Google,” Dr. Rajvanshi said, “and we want to change that. We have built a platform which allows you, the physician, to create custom, curated, credible content that can be delivered seamlessly to your patients on an ongoing basis.”

Through the Healthswim app, patients subscribe to their providers, allowing access physician-approved content. Subscribers also receive provider updates through their social media feeds.

Dr. Rajvanshi is a gastroenterologist at Swedish Medical Center, Seattle.

Ali S. Karakurum, MD, FACP, FACG – A Device for Removal of Esophageal Food Impactions
“I would like to propose a device which consists of a clear overtube, a collapsible plastic cylindrical basket secured to the distal end of the overtube ... and a snare wire attached to the distal end of the basket which is controlled by the snare handle externally,” Dr. Karakurum said. “The device is ... gradually advanced over the scope for the basket to encompass the food bolus under direct visualization. Once the food bolus is within the basket, the wire loop at the end of the basket is closed via the external handle, securing the food bolus in the basket for safe removal.”

Dr. Karakurum is a gastroenterologist at Advanced Gastroenterology & Endoscopy, Port Jefferson, N.Y.

This article was updated 5/14/21.

William of Ockham would have been proud because, at this year’s American Gastroenterological Association’s Shark Tank pitch competition, one product clearly demonstrated Ockham’s razor – that sometimes the simplest solution is best – and came away as the winner at the 2021 AGA Tech Summit sponsored by the AGA Center for GI Innovation and Technology.

Courtesy Dr. Toufic Kachaamy

Out of five innovative products, ranging from an educational app to a high-tech anorectal sensor, all aimed at improving outcomes in patients with gastrointestinal disorders, the winner was ... drumroll please ...

A needle.

That’s it. A needle. But not like any other needle.


 

Winner: Toufic Kachaamy, MD, FASGE, AGAF – An EUS-guided access needle

This EUS-guided access needle, invented by Dr. Kachaamy, enterprise clinical leader at Cancer Treatment Centers of America, Phoenix, is a simple device that overcomes a longstanding challenge presented by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP): biliary access.

Many “ERCPs are considered difficult, and sometimes fail, depending on the center and the endoscopist,” Dr. Kachaamy said during a virtual presentation. “Most failures are due to failed initial access to the bile duct.”

Indeed, one study cited a failure rate in ductal cannulation of 5%-15% even among experienced hands.

Failure can have several consequences, Dr. Kachaamy noted, including increased complications, higher cost, delayed care, longer hospitalization, and greater likelihood of patient transfer.

He went on to explain why biliary access can be so challenging and how this EUS-guided access needle helps address these issues.

“[The] two main limitations [during endoscopic ultrasound–guided biliary access] are directing the wire into the narrowed areas and the wire shearing as we are manipulating the wire to get it to where we want it,” Dr. Kachaamy said. “[This EUS-guided access needle] is a 19-22 gauge, rotatable needle with a smooth, side exit for the wire to allow wire manipulation and direction without shearing.”

Dr. Kachaamy highlighted the simple design, which will keep the production cost below $300 per unit, and suggested that failed ERCPs are just the first potential indication of many. Future uses may include gallbladder access, peri-GI collection, gastrojejunostomy, and others.

In an interview, Dr. Kachaamy reacted to the win, which follows 2 years of collaborative development with Cancer Treatment Centers of America.

“For people who are innovators, there’s nothing that feels more rewarding than their ideas being recognized as adding something to the field and potentially helping people and patients,” Dr. Kachaamy said. “So [this is] very, very, very exciting. Very rewarding. Pride would probably be the best way I’d describe it.”

Dr. Kachaamy anticipates that this EUS-guided access needle will be commercially available within 1-2 years, pending regulatory approval. In the meantime, he and his colleagues are seeking a strategic partner.


 

A shark speaks

V. Raman Muthusamy, MD, AGAF, immediate past chair of the AGA Center for GI Innovation and Technology and director of endoscopy at UCLA Health System, moderated the Shark Tank session, calling it “the highlight” of the AGA Tech Summit.

Dr. Muthusamy and four other “sharks,” including a gastroenterologist, venture capitalist, regulatory device reviewer, and entrepreneur, scored the pitches using three equally weighted categories: the quality of the pitch, the level of innovation and impact on the field, and the quality of the business plan and overall feasibility.

“We saw a full spectrum [of innovations],” Dr. Muthusamy said. “I think it was an enjoyable session.”

Behind closed doors, the sharks narrowed the field to two top contenders. Ultimately, however, there could be only one winner: Dr. Kachaamy. Their decision aligned with a “Fan Favorite” audience poll.

“A lot of [Dr. Kachaamy’s win] had to do with the potential applications and commonality of the problem,” Dr. Muthusamy said in an interview. He highlighted how the EUS-guided access needle allows for an immediate response to ERCP failure without the need for a second procedure.

Dr. Muthusamy also noted that several product designs previously failed to achieve what the EUS-guided access needle has the potential to do.

“I think the feeling was that this seemed to be a way that may address some of the limitations and challenges that we’ve had with earlier [attempts at solving this problem],” Dr. Muthusamy said.

For innovators who didn’t make the cut this year, or those with products still in development, Dr. Muthusamy suggested applying next year.

“We encourage our colleagues and members of the AGA to continue to apply to this program,” Dr. Muthusamy said.
 

Other fish in the sea

Four other innovators entered the AGA Shark Tank this year. Here are snippets of their pitches:

Hans Gregersen, MD, PhD, MPH – Fecobionics
“Fecobionics is a simulated electronic stool with the consistency and shape of normal stool,” Dr. Gregersen said.

The balloon device, which contains multiple sensors, provides “real-time, quantitative, and mechanistic insights by simulating defecation.”

“It ... is inserted into the rectum,” Dr. Gregersen said. “It measures multiple pressures; it has gyroscopes that measure orientation; we can compute the bending of the device; and we can calculate the shape of the device.”

According to Dr. Gregersen, Fecobionics has “diagnostic potential for patients with fecal incontinence and for subtyping patients with constipation.” He highlighted fewer false-positives than current technology, alongside greater efficiency and lower cost.

Dr. Gregersen is a research professor at California Medical Innovations Institute, San Diego.

Mary J. Pattison, RN – Trans-Abdominal Gastric Surgical System (TAGSS)
TAGSS is a trans-abdominal gastric access device that “represents a novel and exciting means to address multiple gastrointestinal conditions that are without a standardized approach,” Ms. Pattison said. “Placed as simply as a [percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube], TAGSS offers disruptive technology to address [gastroesophageal reflux disease], fundoplication, achalasia, gastroparesis, gastric tumors, and even obesity in a safe, efficient, and cost effective manner. TAGSS offers the first true hybrid approach for endoscopic/laparoscopic collaboration.”

Ms. Pattison is a nurse clinician and endoscopy assistant at WestGlen GI Consultants, Weston, Mo.

Pankaj Rajvanshi, MD, FAASLD – Healthswim App
“At this time, most patient education is provided by Dr. Google,” Dr. Rajvanshi said, “and we want to change that. We have built a platform which allows you, the physician, to create custom, curated, credible content that can be delivered seamlessly to your patients on an ongoing basis.”

Through the Healthswim app, patients subscribe to their providers, allowing access physician-approved content. Subscribers also receive provider updates through their social media feeds.

Dr. Rajvanshi is a gastroenterologist at Swedish Medical Center, Seattle.

Ali S. Karakurum, MD, FACP, FACG – A Device for Removal of Esophageal Food Impactions
“I would like to propose a device which consists of a clear overtube, a collapsible plastic cylindrical basket secured to the distal end of the overtube ... and a snare wire attached to the distal end of the basket which is controlled by the snare handle externally,” Dr. Karakurum said. “The device is ... gradually advanced over the scope for the basket to encompass the food bolus under direct visualization. Once the food bolus is within the basket, the wire loop at the end of the basket is closed via the external handle, securing the food bolus in the basket for safe removal.”

Dr. Karakurum is a gastroenterologist at Advanced Gastroenterology & Endoscopy, Port Jefferson, N.Y.

This article was updated 5/14/21.

William of Ockham would have been proud because, at this year’s American Gastroenterological Association’s Shark Tank pitch competition, one product clearly demonstrated Ockham’s razor – that sometimes the simplest solution is best – and came away as the winner at the 2021 AGA Tech Summit sponsored by the AGA Center for GI Innovation and Technology.

Courtesy Dr. Toufic Kachaamy

Out of five innovative products, ranging from an educational app to a high-tech anorectal sensor, all aimed at improving outcomes in patients with gastrointestinal disorders, the winner was ... drumroll please ...

A needle.

That’s it. A needle. But not like any other needle.


 

Winner: Toufic Kachaamy, MD, FASGE, AGAF – An EUS-guided access needle

This EUS-guided access needle, invented by Dr. Kachaamy, enterprise clinical leader at Cancer Treatment Centers of America, Phoenix, is a simple device that overcomes a longstanding challenge presented by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP): biliary access.

Many “ERCPs are considered difficult, and sometimes fail, depending on the center and the endoscopist,” Dr. Kachaamy said during a virtual presentation. “Most failures are due to failed initial access to the bile duct.”

Indeed, one study cited a failure rate in ductal cannulation of 5%-15% even among experienced hands.

Failure can have several consequences, Dr. Kachaamy noted, including increased complications, higher cost, delayed care, longer hospitalization, and greater likelihood of patient transfer.

He went on to explain why biliary access can be so challenging and how this EUS-guided access needle helps address these issues.

“[The] two main limitations [during endoscopic ultrasound–guided biliary access] are directing the wire into the narrowed areas and the wire shearing as we are manipulating the wire to get it to where we want it,” Dr. Kachaamy said. “[This EUS-guided access needle] is a 19-22 gauge, rotatable needle with a smooth, side exit for the wire to allow wire manipulation and direction without shearing.”

Dr. Kachaamy highlighted the simple design, which will keep the production cost below $300 per unit, and suggested that failed ERCPs are just the first potential indication of many. Future uses may include gallbladder access, peri-GI collection, gastrojejunostomy, and others.

In an interview, Dr. Kachaamy reacted to the win, which follows 2 years of collaborative development with Cancer Treatment Centers of America.

“For people who are innovators, there’s nothing that feels more rewarding than their ideas being recognized as adding something to the field and potentially helping people and patients,” Dr. Kachaamy said. “So [this is] very, very, very exciting. Very rewarding. Pride would probably be the best way I’d describe it.”

Dr. Kachaamy anticipates that this EUS-guided access needle will be commercially available within 1-2 years, pending regulatory approval. In the meantime, he and his colleagues are seeking a strategic partner.


 

A shark speaks

V. Raman Muthusamy, MD, AGAF, immediate past chair of the AGA Center for GI Innovation and Technology and director of endoscopy at UCLA Health System, moderated the Shark Tank session, calling it “the highlight” of the AGA Tech Summit.

Dr. Muthusamy and four other “sharks,” including a gastroenterologist, venture capitalist, regulatory device reviewer, and entrepreneur, scored the pitches using three equally weighted categories: the quality of the pitch, the level of innovation and impact on the field, and the quality of the business plan and overall feasibility.

“We saw a full spectrum [of innovations],” Dr. Muthusamy said. “I think it was an enjoyable session.”

Behind closed doors, the sharks narrowed the field to two top contenders. Ultimately, however, there could be only one winner: Dr. Kachaamy. Their decision aligned with a “Fan Favorite” audience poll.

“A lot of [Dr. Kachaamy’s win] had to do with the potential applications and commonality of the problem,” Dr. Muthusamy said in an interview. He highlighted how the EUS-guided access needle allows for an immediate response to ERCP failure without the need for a second procedure.

Dr. Muthusamy also noted that several product designs previously failed to achieve what the EUS-guided access needle has the potential to do.

“I think the feeling was that this seemed to be a way that may address some of the limitations and challenges that we’ve had with earlier [attempts at solving this problem],” Dr. Muthusamy said.

For innovators who didn’t make the cut this year, or those with products still in development, Dr. Muthusamy suggested applying next year.

“We encourage our colleagues and members of the AGA to continue to apply to this program,” Dr. Muthusamy said.
 

Other fish in the sea

Four other innovators entered the AGA Shark Tank this year. Here are snippets of their pitches:

Hans Gregersen, MD, PhD, MPH – Fecobionics
“Fecobionics is a simulated electronic stool with the consistency and shape of normal stool,” Dr. Gregersen said.

The balloon device, which contains multiple sensors, provides “real-time, quantitative, and mechanistic insights by simulating defecation.”

“It ... is inserted into the rectum,” Dr. Gregersen said. “It measures multiple pressures; it has gyroscopes that measure orientation; we can compute the bending of the device; and we can calculate the shape of the device.”

According to Dr. Gregersen, Fecobionics has “diagnostic potential for patients with fecal incontinence and for subtyping patients with constipation.” He highlighted fewer false-positives than current technology, alongside greater efficiency and lower cost.

Dr. Gregersen is a research professor at California Medical Innovations Institute, San Diego.

Mary J. Pattison, RN – Trans-Abdominal Gastric Surgical System (TAGSS)
TAGSS is a trans-abdominal gastric access device that “represents a novel and exciting means to address multiple gastrointestinal conditions that are without a standardized approach,” Ms. Pattison said. “Placed as simply as a [percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube], TAGSS offers disruptive technology to address [gastroesophageal reflux disease], fundoplication, achalasia, gastroparesis, gastric tumors, and even obesity in a safe, efficient, and cost effective manner. TAGSS offers the first true hybrid approach for endoscopic/laparoscopic collaboration.”

Ms. Pattison is a nurse clinician and endoscopy assistant at WestGlen GI Consultants, Weston, Mo.

Pankaj Rajvanshi, MD, FAASLD – Healthswim App
“At this time, most patient education is provided by Dr. Google,” Dr. Rajvanshi said, “and we want to change that. We have built a platform which allows you, the physician, to create custom, curated, credible content that can be delivered seamlessly to your patients on an ongoing basis.”

Through the Healthswim app, patients subscribe to their providers, allowing access physician-approved content. Subscribers also receive provider updates through their social media feeds.

Dr. Rajvanshi is a gastroenterologist at Swedish Medical Center, Seattle.

Ali S. Karakurum, MD, FACP, FACG – A Device for Removal of Esophageal Food Impactions
“I would like to propose a device which consists of a clear overtube, a collapsible plastic cylindrical basket secured to the distal end of the overtube ... and a snare wire attached to the distal end of the basket which is controlled by the snare handle externally,” Dr. Karakurum said. “The device is ... gradually advanced over the scope for the basket to encompass the food bolus under direct visualization. Once the food bolus is within the basket, the wire loop at the end of the basket is closed via the external handle, securing the food bolus in the basket for safe removal.”

Dr. Karakurum is a gastroenterologist at Advanced Gastroenterology & Endoscopy, Port Jefferson, N.Y.

This article was updated 5/14/21.

The American Heart Association, the American College of Cardiology, and the Obesity Society define overweight as a body mass index (BMI) of 25 to 29.9 and obesity as a BMI ≥ 30. Morbid obesity is defined as a BMI ≥ 35 or 40.^2,3 Based on these BMI cutoffs, the Endocrine Society recommends diet and lifestyle as the foundation of weight management and pharmacotherapy for those with a BMI ≥ 30 without comorbidities. In patients with a BMI ≥ 27, weight management medications may be considered if a patient has comorbid hypertension, T2DM, dyslipidemia, metabolic syndrome, obstructive sleep apnea, or nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Patients with BMI > 40 are eligible for weight loss surgery.⁴

Lifestyle and dietary interventions are the foundation of current weight management guidelines from the Endocrine Society.⁴ At a minimum, guidelines recommended enrolling motivated patients in a high-intensity lifestyle intervention class of at least 14 sessions in the first 6 months to reach a goal weight loss of 5 to 10% from baseline and to maintain a reduction of 3 to 5% from baseline.³ Medications are recommended as an adjunct to lifestyle and dietary changes. Most weight management medications work in the brain to stimulate satiety signaling, which helps motivated patients adhere to their dietary interventions, assist those who have been unsuccessful in earlier weight loss attempts, and help maintain weight.^3,4

Guidelines recommend 7 weight management medications, including orlistat (both prescription strength and over-the-counter), liraglutide, phentermine, phentermine/topiramate, lorcaserin, and naltrexone/bupropion. Using medications to assist with weight loss increases likelihood that patients will achieve 5 to 10% weight loss from baseline.^5,6 Studies looking at long-term effects of these medications on weight loss have found improvements in blood pressure (BP), biomarkers for cardiovascular disease, and T2DM-related comorbidities.^3,5,7

Positive effects on comorbidities have been found to be related to drug class and mechanism of action (MOA); those that also are approved for T2DM have demonstrated the most favorable cardiovascular effects.⁷ Other medications that work as stimulants or as modulators of serotonin pathways are associated with increased risks, prompting the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to remove some medications from the market.^7,8 In January 2020, lorcaserin was taken off the market because of increased risk of cancer found in postmarketing surveillance.⁹ The benefit of weight loss must be weighed against the risk of medication use.

Monthly follow-up is recommended with weight management medications in the beginning to assess safety and efficacy; medications should be discontinued if weight loss is inadequate in the first 3 months.^1,3,4 Limited studies have assessed the long-term use of weight management medications in a real-world setting. Medications are prescribed for weight management at Veteran Health Indiana (VHI) in outpatient clinics, including primary care, endocrinology, and gastrointestinal (GI) specialties. However, prescribing practices, outcomes, and adherence to guideline recommendations have not been studied. Data from this study will be used to better understand how VHI can serve its veterans through diet, lifestyle, and pharmacologic interventions.

Methods

We conducted a single-center, retrospective chart review for patients started on weight management medications at VHI. A patient list was generated based on prescription fills from June 1, 2017 to June 30, 2019. All data were obtained using the Computerized Patient Record System and patients were not contacted. This study was approved by the Indiana University Health Institutional Review Board and the VHI Research and Development Committee.

At the time of study, orlistat, liraglutide, phentermine/topiramate, lorcaserin, and naltrexone/bupropion were available at VHI for patients who met the criteria. All patients must have been enrolled in dietary and lifestyle management to be approved for these medications. The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) MOVE! weight management program, designed by the VA National Center for Health Promotion and Disease Promotion, is available at VA sites throughout the country. After MOVE! orientation, patients can participate in group or individual 12-week programs that include weigh ins, goal-setting strategies, meal planning, and habit modification support. If patients are unable to meet in person, phone and other telehealth opportunities are available.

Patients were included in the study if they received a prescription of any 1 of the 5 available medications during the enrollment period. Patients were excluded if they received a prescription from or were treated by a civilian health care provider, if they never used the medication, or if their weight loss was attributed to a cancer diagnosis. These criteria produced 86 patients of whom 96 unique weight loss prescriptions were generated. Data were collected for each instance of medication use so that some patients were included multiple times. In this case, data collection for the failed medication ended when failure was documented, and new data points began when new medication was prescribed; all data collected were per medication, not per patient. This method was used to account for medication failure and provide accurate weight loss results based on medication choice within this institution.

The primary outcomes included total weight loss and weight loss as a percentage of baseline weight at 3, 6, 12, and > 12 months of therapy. Secondary outcomes included weight loss of 5% from baseline, rate of successful weight maintenance after initial weight loss of 5% from baseline, adverse drug reaction (ADR) monitoring, and use of weight management medications across clinics at VHI.

Demographic data included race, age, sex, baseline weight, BMI, and comorbid medical conditions. Comorbidities were collected based on the most recent primary care clinical note before initiating medication. Medication data collected included medications used to manage comorbidities. Data related to weight management medication included prescribing clinic, reason for medication discontinuation, or bariatric surgery intervention if applicable.

Efficacy outcome data included weight and BMI across therapy duration. Safety outcomes data included heart rate, BP, and ADRs that resulted in medication discontinuation as documented in the electronic health record (EHR).

Results

A total of 86 patients were identified based on prescription fills, which produced 99 unique instances of medication use. Of the 99 identified, 3 met exclusion criteria and were not included in the final analysis. Among included veterans, 16 were female and 80 were male (Table 1). Most of those included identified as White race (86%), male (83%), and mean age 53 years. At baseline, mean weight was 130 kg and mean BMI 41.

Comorbidities and Medication Use

Hypertension (66%), hyperlipidemia (64%), and psychiatric diagnoses (50%) were most common comorbid conditions. Substance use (23%) and T2DM (40%) were the most common comorbidities influencing medication choice. Substance use evaluation included amphetamines and cocaine for this analysis.

Phentermine/topiramate is the preferred first-line agent unless patients have contraindications for use, in which case naltrexone/bupropion is recommended, based on guidelines for weight management medications within the VHI system. However, for patients with comorbid T2DM, liraglutide is preferred because of its beneficial effects for both weight loss and blood glucose control.² Most patients at VHI were started on liraglutide (44%) or phentermine/topiramate (42%), which was in line with recommendations. Our sample included ≥ 1 prescription for each medication available at our facility, although the number of patients on each medication was not equal. Of note, the one patient taking lorcaserin at the time of study discontinued therapy in response to recent FDA guidance.⁹

Medications for comorbid conditions could contribute to weight gain. Of the patient sample, β blockers (n = 24) and anticonvulsants, including gabapentin and pregabalin (n = 22) were the most common Other medications that could have contributed to weight gain included sulfonylureas (n = 5), antipsychotics (n = 4), tricyclic antidepressants (n = 2), and hormone replacement therapies (n = 2).

Primary Outcomes

The mean weight of participants dropped from 129.9 to 114.2 kg over the 12 months of weight management medication therapy for a absolute difference of 15.8 kg (Figure 1 and eTable 1 available at doi:10.12788/fp.0117). Weight loss was recorded at 3, 6, 12, and > 12 months of weight management therapy. At each time point, weight loss was statistically significant (P < .001) compared with baseline (Table 2), even though not every patient had weight loss records at each time point.

When classified by medication choice, mean change in weight was orlistat −25.9 kg (n = 5); lorcaserin −22.5 kg (n = 1); liraglutide −10.3 kg (n = 43); phentermine/topiramate −5.0 kg (n = 42); and naltrexone/ bupropion +2.1 kg (n = 5) over the duration of the study (eTable 2 available at doi:10.12788/fp.0117). Patients receiving orlistat and liraglutide had increasing weight loss across the duration of treatment compared with those on lorcaserin who had initial weight gain before weight loss. Phentermine/topiramate showed initial weight loss that tapered off, and naltrexone/bupropion demonstrated initial weight loss with eventual weight gain at study end point.

Secondary Outcomes

More than one-half of the patients analyzed lost 5 to 10% from baseline while taking weight management medication. Fifty-six (59%) patients lost 5% at any point while on therapy (Table 3). Among those patients, 31 (32%) lost ≥ 10% from baseline. When looking at success related to guideline recommendations, 32 (38%) patients lost 5% from baseline in the first 3 months of medication therapy.

Among patients who lost at least 5% from baseline, we performed further analysis to assess weight maintenance of 3 to 5% from baseline for 12 months. In the 12 months after initial weight loss, the number of patients who were able to maintain their weight loss steadily declined (Figure 2). In the end, 17 (30%) of patients who achieved 5 to 10% weight loss at baseline were able to maintain weight loss. Only 18% of study patients were able to achieve guideline-directed weight loss and maintain that weight for 12 months.

Discussion

This study evaluated the use and outcomes of weight management medication among veterans at VHI. The study aimed to better understand the efficacy and safety of these medications while exposing potential weaknesses in care and to promote avenues to improve weight loss and maintenance.

Clinical trials for weight management medications reported weight loss of 8 to 10 kg over 56 weeks: 21 to 63% of patients losing at least 5% from baseline weight.^10-14 The findings from our study found a higher average weight loss (−15.8 kg) than that reported in trials and a consistent percentage of patients (58.3%) who achieved at least 5% weight loss. It is promising to see that when used in a noncontrolled setting, these medications were able to produce weight loss consistent with results seen in large, controlled trials.

Pi-Sunyer and colleagues found continued weight loss after the initial 5% weight loss to an eventual 10% weight loss in many patients.¹⁰ Additionally, Smith and colleagues found that nearly 68% of their participants who took lorcaserin were able to maintain 3 to 5% weight loss over 12 months.¹³ Sjöström and colleagues acknowledged that many patients taking orlistat for an extended period began to gain weight, although at one-half the rate than that seen in the placebo group.¹² This study found that fewer patients were able to maintain their weight loss over 12 months, with only 30% of patients maintaining 3 to 5% weight loss from baseline. This difference in weight maintenance likely was because of the uncontrolled nature of this study. Once patients reach their initial weight loss goal, even the most motivated patients will have trouble maintaining that weight.⁴ Despite the challenges associated with maintaining weight loss, the quality of life benefits patients gained and potential reductions in health care spending support using resources to improve these outcomes.^2,14,15

Pi-Sunyer and colleagues reported high incidences of nausea (40%), vomiting (16%), diarrhea (21%), and constipation (20%) with liraglutide.¹⁰ Sjöström and colleagues reported 7% of patients experienced GI upset with orlistat.¹² Comparatively, only 17% of our patients reported AEs that required discontinuation, including GI upset. One patient in our study discontinued naltrexone/bupropion because of a significant change in mental status and suicide attempt. Clinical trials did not report a greater risk of depression or suicidality compared with placebo; however, there is a warning on the labeling of naltrexone/bupropion for increased suicidality with the use of antidepressant agents.^16,17 The neurologic AE that required discontinuation of phentermine/topiramate at our institution is unique based on published information.^11,18

The data from this study reinforced the observation that weight maintenance is the most challenging aspect of weight loss. Although our data showed clinically meaningful weight loss from baseline, many patients regained their weight, and some exceeded their baseline weight. Beyond providing these medications, this evidence suggests the need for close, continued follow-up through patients’ weight loss journey.

Limitations

Because this is a retrospective chart review, data collection was influenced by and limited to information that had been recorded in the EHR. AEs that resulted in medication discontinuation were assessed from the patient’s chart, which might not be correct if providers did not update the records. Follow-up was not always scheduled at regular intervals after medication initiation, resulting in varying sample numbers at each time point, potentially interfering with true weight loss averages. Although not included in this analysis, it might be beneficial to evaluate adherence to recommendations for follow-up with laboratory and weight monitoring to better capture where future monitoring can be improved. Second, there was an unbalanced number of patients taking each medication. Specifically, we saw a change in weight with orlistat that exceeded what is consistently seen in larger, more controlled trials. Although this is an effect of the real world, small sample sizes cannot be generalized to the larger population and might result in data reflecting that of an outlier. Last, there is a lack of generalizability because of the veteran population demographic, which is more male and lacks ethnic diversity. This study also was carried out at a single, educational tertiary medical center, which might not apply to all populations.

Conclusions

Despite the limitations discussed, this study shows that the use of weight management medications in a general veteran population produces initial weight loss consistent with previous studies. However, there is room for continued improvement in follow-up strategies to promote greater weight maintenance after initial weight loss. Considering the high health care costs, personal burden, and potential long-term complications associated with obesity, efforts to promote development of programs that support weight management and maintenance are imperative.

Acknowledgment
This material is the result of work supported with resources and the use of facilities at Veteran Health Indiana.

The American Heart Association, the American College of Cardiology, and the Obesity Society define overweight as a body mass index (BMI) of 25 to 29.9 and obesity as a BMI ≥ 30. Morbid obesity is defined as a BMI ≥ 35 or 40.^2,3 Based on these BMI cutoffs, the Endocrine Society recommends diet and lifestyle as the foundation of weight management and pharmacotherapy for those with a BMI ≥ 30 without comorbidities. In patients with a BMI ≥ 27, weight management medications may be considered if a patient has comorbid hypertension, T2DM, dyslipidemia, metabolic syndrome, obstructive sleep apnea, or nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Patients with BMI > 40 are eligible for weight loss surgery.⁴

Lifestyle and dietary interventions are the foundation of current weight management guidelines from the Endocrine Society.⁴ At a minimum, guidelines recommended enrolling motivated patients in a high-intensity lifestyle intervention class of at least 14 sessions in the first 6 months to reach a goal weight loss of 5 to 10% from baseline and to maintain a reduction of 3 to 5% from baseline.³ Medications are recommended as an adjunct to lifestyle and dietary changes. Most weight management medications work in the brain to stimulate satiety signaling, which helps motivated patients adhere to their dietary interventions, assist those who have been unsuccessful in earlier weight loss attempts, and help maintain weight.^3,4

Guidelines recommend 7 weight management medications, including orlistat (both prescription strength and over-the-counter), liraglutide, phentermine, phentermine/topiramate, lorcaserin, and naltrexone/bupropion. Using medications to assist with weight loss increases likelihood that patients will achieve 5 to 10% weight loss from baseline.^5,6 Studies looking at long-term effects of these medications on weight loss have found improvements in blood pressure (BP), biomarkers for cardiovascular disease, and T2DM-related comorbidities.^3,5,7

Positive effects on comorbidities have been found to be related to drug class and mechanism of action (MOA); those that also are approved for T2DM have demonstrated the most favorable cardiovascular effects.⁷ Other medications that work as stimulants or as modulators of serotonin pathways are associated with increased risks, prompting the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to remove some medications from the market.^7,8 In January 2020, lorcaserin was taken off the market because of increased risk of cancer found in postmarketing surveillance.⁹ The benefit of weight loss must be weighed against the risk of medication use.

Monthly follow-up is recommended with weight management medications in the beginning to assess safety and efficacy; medications should be discontinued if weight loss is inadequate in the first 3 months.^1,3,4 Limited studies have assessed the long-term use of weight management medications in a real-world setting. Medications are prescribed for weight management at Veteran Health Indiana (VHI) in outpatient clinics, including primary care, endocrinology, and gastrointestinal (GI) specialties. However, prescribing practices, outcomes, and adherence to guideline recommendations have not been studied. Data from this study will be used to better understand how VHI can serve its veterans through diet, lifestyle, and pharmacologic interventions.

Methods

We conducted a single-center, retrospective chart review for patients started on weight management medications at VHI. A patient list was generated based on prescription fills from June 1, 2017 to June 30, 2019. All data were obtained using the Computerized Patient Record System and patients were not contacted. This study was approved by the Indiana University Health Institutional Review Board and the VHI Research and Development Committee.

At the time of study, orlistat, liraglutide, phentermine/topiramate, lorcaserin, and naltrexone/bupropion were available at VHI for patients who met the criteria. All patients must have been enrolled in dietary and lifestyle management to be approved for these medications. The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) MOVE! weight management program, designed by the VA National Center for Health Promotion and Disease Promotion, is available at VA sites throughout the country. After MOVE! orientation, patients can participate in group or individual 12-week programs that include weigh ins, goal-setting strategies, meal planning, and habit modification support. If patients are unable to meet in person, phone and other telehealth opportunities are available.

Patients were included in the study if they received a prescription of any 1 of the 5 available medications during the enrollment period. Patients were excluded if they received a prescription from or were treated by a civilian health care provider, if they never used the medication, or if their weight loss was attributed to a cancer diagnosis. These criteria produced 86 patients of whom 96 unique weight loss prescriptions were generated. Data were collected for each instance of medication use so that some patients were included multiple times. In this case, data collection for the failed medication ended when failure was documented, and new data points began when new medication was prescribed; all data collected were per medication, not per patient. This method was used to account for medication failure and provide accurate weight loss results based on medication choice within this institution.

The primary outcomes included total weight loss and weight loss as a percentage of baseline weight at 3, 6, 12, and > 12 months of therapy. Secondary outcomes included weight loss of 5% from baseline, rate of successful weight maintenance after initial weight loss of 5% from baseline, adverse drug reaction (ADR) monitoring, and use of weight management medications across clinics at VHI.

Demographic data included race, age, sex, baseline weight, BMI, and comorbid medical conditions. Comorbidities were collected based on the most recent primary care clinical note before initiating medication. Medication data collected included medications used to manage comorbidities. Data related to weight management medication included prescribing clinic, reason for medication discontinuation, or bariatric surgery intervention if applicable.

Efficacy outcome data included weight and BMI across therapy duration. Safety outcomes data included heart rate, BP, and ADRs that resulted in medication discontinuation as documented in the electronic health record (EHR).

Results

A total of 86 patients were identified based on prescription fills, which produced 99 unique instances of medication use. Of the 99 identified, 3 met exclusion criteria and were not included in the final analysis. Among included veterans, 16 were female and 80 were male (Table 1). Most of those included identified as White race (86%), male (83%), and mean age 53 years. At baseline, mean weight was 130 kg and mean BMI 41.

Comorbidities and Medication Use

Hypertension (66%), hyperlipidemia (64%), and psychiatric diagnoses (50%) were most common comorbid conditions. Substance use (23%) and T2DM (40%) were the most common comorbidities influencing medication choice. Substance use evaluation included amphetamines and cocaine for this analysis.

Phentermine/topiramate is the preferred first-line agent unless patients have contraindications for use, in which case naltrexone/bupropion is recommended, based on guidelines for weight management medications within the VHI system. However, for patients with comorbid T2DM, liraglutide is preferred because of its beneficial effects for both weight loss and blood glucose control.² Most patients at VHI were started on liraglutide (44%) or phentermine/topiramate (42%), which was in line with recommendations. Our sample included ≥ 1 prescription for each medication available at our facility, although the number of patients on each medication was not equal. Of note, the one patient taking lorcaserin at the time of study discontinued therapy in response to recent FDA guidance.⁹

Medications for comorbid conditions could contribute to weight gain. Of the patient sample, β blockers (n = 24) and anticonvulsants, including gabapentin and pregabalin (n = 22) were the most common Other medications that could have contributed to weight gain included sulfonylureas (n = 5), antipsychotics (n = 4), tricyclic antidepressants (n = 2), and hormone replacement therapies (n = 2).

Primary Outcomes

The mean weight of participants dropped from 129.9 to 114.2 kg over the 12 months of weight management medication therapy for a absolute difference of 15.8 kg (Figure 1 and eTable 1 available at doi:10.12788/fp.0117). Weight loss was recorded at 3, 6, 12, and > 12 months of weight management therapy. At each time point, weight loss was statistically significant (P < .001) compared with baseline (Table 2), even though not every patient had weight loss records at each time point.

When classified by medication choice, mean change in weight was orlistat −25.9 kg (n = 5); lorcaserin −22.5 kg (n = 1); liraglutide −10.3 kg (n = 43); phentermine/topiramate −5.0 kg (n = 42); and naltrexone/ bupropion +2.1 kg (n = 5) over the duration of the study (eTable 2 available at doi:10.12788/fp.0117). Patients receiving orlistat and liraglutide had increasing weight loss across the duration of treatment compared with those on lorcaserin who had initial weight gain before weight loss. Phentermine/topiramate showed initial weight loss that tapered off, and naltrexone/bupropion demonstrated initial weight loss with eventual weight gain at study end point.

Secondary Outcomes

More than one-half of the patients analyzed lost 5 to 10% from baseline while taking weight management medication. Fifty-six (59%) patients lost 5% at any point while on therapy (Table 3). Among those patients, 31 (32%) lost ≥ 10% from baseline. When looking at success related to guideline recommendations, 32 (38%) patients lost 5% from baseline in the first 3 months of medication therapy.

Among patients who lost at least 5% from baseline, we performed further analysis to assess weight maintenance of 3 to 5% from baseline for 12 months. In the 12 months after initial weight loss, the number of patients who were able to maintain their weight loss steadily declined (Figure 2). In the end, 17 (30%) of patients who achieved 5 to 10% weight loss at baseline were able to maintain weight loss. Only 18% of study patients were able to achieve guideline-directed weight loss and maintain that weight for 12 months.

Discussion

This study evaluated the use and outcomes of weight management medication among veterans at VHI. The study aimed to better understand the efficacy and safety of these medications while exposing potential weaknesses in care and to promote avenues to improve weight loss and maintenance.

Clinical trials for weight management medications reported weight loss of 8 to 10 kg over 56 weeks: 21 to 63% of patients losing at least 5% from baseline weight.^10-14 The findings from our study found a higher average weight loss (−15.8 kg) than that reported in trials and a consistent percentage of patients (58.3%) who achieved at least 5% weight loss. It is promising to see that when used in a noncontrolled setting, these medications were able to produce weight loss consistent with results seen in large, controlled trials.

Pi-Sunyer and colleagues found continued weight loss after the initial 5% weight loss to an eventual 10% weight loss in many patients.¹⁰ Additionally, Smith and colleagues found that nearly 68% of their participants who took lorcaserin were able to maintain 3 to 5% weight loss over 12 months.¹³ Sjöström and colleagues acknowledged that many patients taking orlistat for an extended period began to gain weight, although at one-half the rate than that seen in the placebo group.¹² This study found that fewer patients were able to maintain their weight loss over 12 months, with only 30% of patients maintaining 3 to 5% weight loss from baseline. This difference in weight maintenance likely was because of the uncontrolled nature of this study. Once patients reach their initial weight loss goal, even the most motivated patients will have trouble maintaining that weight.⁴ Despite the challenges associated with maintaining weight loss, the quality of life benefits patients gained and potential reductions in health care spending support using resources to improve these outcomes.^2,14,15

Pi-Sunyer and colleagues reported high incidences of nausea (40%), vomiting (16%), diarrhea (21%), and constipation (20%) with liraglutide.¹⁰ Sjöström and colleagues reported 7% of patients experienced GI upset with orlistat.¹² Comparatively, only 17% of our patients reported AEs that required discontinuation, including GI upset. One patient in our study discontinued naltrexone/bupropion because of a significant change in mental status and suicide attempt. Clinical trials did not report a greater risk of depression or suicidality compared with placebo; however, there is a warning on the labeling of naltrexone/bupropion for increased suicidality with the use of antidepressant agents.^16,17 The neurologic AE that required discontinuation of phentermine/topiramate at our institution is unique based on published information.^11,18

The data from this study reinforced the observation that weight maintenance is the most challenging aspect of weight loss. Although our data showed clinically meaningful weight loss from baseline, many patients regained their weight, and some exceeded their baseline weight. Beyond providing these medications, this evidence suggests the need for close, continued follow-up through patients’ weight loss journey.

Limitations

Because this is a retrospective chart review, data collection was influenced by and limited to information that had been recorded in the EHR. AEs that resulted in medication discontinuation were assessed from the patient’s chart, which might not be correct if providers did not update the records. Follow-up was not always scheduled at regular intervals after medication initiation, resulting in varying sample numbers at each time point, potentially interfering with true weight loss averages. Although not included in this analysis, it might be beneficial to evaluate adherence to recommendations for follow-up with laboratory and weight monitoring to better capture where future monitoring can be improved. Second, there was an unbalanced number of patients taking each medication. Specifically, we saw a change in weight with orlistat that exceeded what is consistently seen in larger, more controlled trials. Although this is an effect of the real world, small sample sizes cannot be generalized to the larger population and might result in data reflecting that of an outlier. Last, there is a lack of generalizability because of the veteran population demographic, which is more male and lacks ethnic diversity. This study also was carried out at a single, educational tertiary medical center, which might not apply to all populations.

Conclusions

Despite the limitations discussed, this study shows that the use of weight management medications in a general veteran population produces initial weight loss consistent with previous studies. However, there is room for continued improvement in follow-up strategies to promote greater weight maintenance after initial weight loss. Considering the high health care costs, personal burden, and potential long-term complications associated with obesity, efforts to promote development of programs that support weight management and maintenance are imperative.

Acknowledgment
This material is the result of work supported with resources and the use of facilities at Veteran Health Indiana.

The American Heart Association, the American College of Cardiology, and the Obesity Society define overweight as a body mass index (BMI) of 25 to 29.9 and obesity as a BMI ≥ 30. Morbid obesity is defined as a BMI ≥ 35 or 40.^2,3 Based on these BMI cutoffs, the Endocrine Society recommends diet and lifestyle as the foundation of weight management and pharmacotherapy for those with a BMI ≥ 30 without comorbidities. In patients with a BMI ≥ 27, weight management medications may be considered if a patient has comorbid hypertension, T2DM, dyslipidemia, metabolic syndrome, obstructive sleep apnea, or nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Patients with BMI > 40 are eligible for weight loss surgery.⁴

Lifestyle and dietary interventions are the foundation of current weight management guidelines from the Endocrine Society.⁴ At a minimum, guidelines recommended enrolling motivated patients in a high-intensity lifestyle intervention class of at least 14 sessions in the first 6 months to reach a goal weight loss of 5 to 10% from baseline and to maintain a reduction of 3 to 5% from baseline.³ Medications are recommended as an adjunct to lifestyle and dietary changes. Most weight management medications work in the brain to stimulate satiety signaling, which helps motivated patients adhere to their dietary interventions, assist those who have been unsuccessful in earlier weight loss attempts, and help maintain weight.^3,4

Guidelines recommend 7 weight management medications, including orlistat (both prescription strength and over-the-counter), liraglutide, phentermine, phentermine/topiramate, lorcaserin, and naltrexone/bupropion. Using medications to assist with weight loss increases likelihood that patients will achieve 5 to 10% weight loss from baseline.^5,6 Studies looking at long-term effects of these medications on weight loss have found improvements in blood pressure (BP), biomarkers for cardiovascular disease, and T2DM-related comorbidities.^3,5,7

Positive effects on comorbidities have been found to be related to drug class and mechanism of action (MOA); those that also are approved for T2DM have demonstrated the most favorable cardiovascular effects.⁷ Other medications that work as stimulants or as modulators of serotonin pathways are associated with increased risks, prompting the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to remove some medications from the market.^7,8 In January 2020, lorcaserin was taken off the market because of increased risk of cancer found in postmarketing surveillance.⁹ The benefit of weight loss must be weighed against the risk of medication use.

Monthly follow-up is recommended with weight management medications in the beginning to assess safety and efficacy; medications should be discontinued if weight loss is inadequate in the first 3 months.^1,3,4 Limited studies have assessed the long-term use of weight management medications in a real-world setting. Medications are prescribed for weight management at Veteran Health Indiana (VHI) in outpatient clinics, including primary care, endocrinology, and gastrointestinal (GI) specialties. However, prescribing practices, outcomes, and adherence to guideline recommendations have not been studied. Data from this study will be used to better understand how VHI can serve its veterans through diet, lifestyle, and pharmacologic interventions.

Methods

We conducted a single-center, retrospective chart review for patients started on weight management medications at VHI. A patient list was generated based on prescription fills from June 1, 2017 to June 30, 2019. All data were obtained using the Computerized Patient Record System and patients were not contacted. This study was approved by the Indiana University Health Institutional Review Board and the VHI Research and Development Committee.

At the time of study, orlistat, liraglutide, phentermine/topiramate, lorcaserin, and naltrexone/bupropion were available at VHI for patients who met the criteria. All patients must have been enrolled in dietary and lifestyle management to be approved for these medications. The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) MOVE! weight management program, designed by the VA National Center for Health Promotion and Disease Promotion, is available at VA sites throughout the country. After MOVE! orientation, patients can participate in group or individual 12-week programs that include weigh ins, goal-setting strategies, meal planning, and habit modification support. If patients are unable to meet in person, phone and other telehealth opportunities are available.

Patients were included in the study if they received a prescription of any 1 of the 5 available medications during the enrollment period. Patients were excluded if they received a prescription from or were treated by a civilian health care provider, if they never used the medication, or if their weight loss was attributed to a cancer diagnosis. These criteria produced 86 patients of whom 96 unique weight loss prescriptions were generated. Data were collected for each instance of medication use so that some patients were included multiple times. In this case, data collection for the failed medication ended when failure was documented, and new data points began when new medication was prescribed; all data collected were per medication, not per patient. This method was used to account for medication failure and provide accurate weight loss results based on medication choice within this institution.

The primary outcomes included total weight loss and weight loss as a percentage of baseline weight at 3, 6, 12, and > 12 months of therapy. Secondary outcomes included weight loss of 5% from baseline, rate of successful weight maintenance after initial weight loss of 5% from baseline, adverse drug reaction (ADR) monitoring, and use of weight management medications across clinics at VHI.

Demographic data included race, age, sex, baseline weight, BMI, and comorbid medical conditions. Comorbidities were collected based on the most recent primary care clinical note before initiating medication. Medication data collected included medications used to manage comorbidities. Data related to weight management medication included prescribing clinic, reason for medication discontinuation, or bariatric surgery intervention if applicable.

Efficacy outcome data included weight and BMI across therapy duration. Safety outcomes data included heart rate, BP, and ADRs that resulted in medication discontinuation as documented in the electronic health record (EHR).

Results

A total of 86 patients were identified based on prescription fills, which produced 99 unique instances of medication use. Of the 99 identified, 3 met exclusion criteria and were not included in the final analysis. Among included veterans, 16 were female and 80 were male (Table 1). Most of those included identified as White race (86%), male (83%), and mean age 53 years. At baseline, mean weight was 130 kg and mean BMI 41.

Comorbidities and Medication Use

Hypertension (66%), hyperlipidemia (64%), and psychiatric diagnoses (50%) were most common comorbid conditions. Substance use (23%) and T2DM (40%) were the most common comorbidities influencing medication choice. Substance use evaluation included amphetamines and cocaine for this analysis.

Phentermine/topiramate is the preferred first-line agent unless patients have contraindications for use, in which case naltrexone/bupropion is recommended, based on guidelines for weight management medications within the VHI system. However, for patients with comorbid T2DM, liraglutide is preferred because of its beneficial effects for both weight loss and blood glucose control.² Most patients at VHI were started on liraglutide (44%) or phentermine/topiramate (42%), which was in line with recommendations. Our sample included ≥ 1 prescription for each medication available at our facility, although the number of patients on each medication was not equal. Of note, the one patient taking lorcaserin at the time of study discontinued therapy in response to recent FDA guidance.⁹

Medications for comorbid conditions could contribute to weight gain. Of the patient sample, β blockers (n = 24) and anticonvulsants, including gabapentin and pregabalin (n = 22) were the most common Other medications that could have contributed to weight gain included sulfonylureas (n = 5), antipsychotics (n = 4), tricyclic antidepressants (n = 2), and hormone replacement therapies (n = 2).

Primary Outcomes

The mean weight of participants dropped from 129.9 to 114.2 kg over the 12 months of weight management medication therapy for a absolute difference of 15.8 kg (Figure 1 and eTable 1 available at doi:10.12788/fp.0117). Weight loss was recorded at 3, 6, 12, and > 12 months of weight management therapy. At each time point, weight loss was statistically significant (P < .001) compared with baseline (Table 2), even though not every patient had weight loss records at each time point.

When classified by medication choice, mean change in weight was orlistat −25.9 kg (n = 5); lorcaserin −22.5 kg (n = 1); liraglutide −10.3 kg (n = 43); phentermine/topiramate −5.0 kg (n = 42); and naltrexone/ bupropion +2.1 kg (n = 5) over the duration of the study (eTable 2 available at doi:10.12788/fp.0117). Patients receiving orlistat and liraglutide had increasing weight loss across the duration of treatment compared with those on lorcaserin who had initial weight gain before weight loss. Phentermine/topiramate showed initial weight loss that tapered off, and naltrexone/bupropion demonstrated initial weight loss with eventual weight gain at study end point.

Secondary Outcomes

More than one-half of the patients analyzed lost 5 to 10% from baseline while taking weight management medication. Fifty-six (59%) patients lost 5% at any point while on therapy (Table 3). Among those patients, 31 (32%) lost ≥ 10% from baseline. When looking at success related to guideline recommendations, 32 (38%) patients lost 5% from baseline in the first 3 months of medication therapy.

Among patients who lost at least 5% from baseline, we performed further analysis to assess weight maintenance of 3 to 5% from baseline for 12 months. In the 12 months after initial weight loss, the number of patients who were able to maintain their weight loss steadily declined (Figure 2). In the end, 17 (30%) of patients who achieved 5 to 10% weight loss at baseline were able to maintain weight loss. Only 18% of study patients were able to achieve guideline-directed weight loss and maintain that weight for 12 months.

Discussion

This study evaluated the use and outcomes of weight management medication among veterans at VHI. The study aimed to better understand the efficacy and safety of these medications while exposing potential weaknesses in care and to promote avenues to improve weight loss and maintenance.

Clinical trials for weight management medications reported weight loss of 8 to 10 kg over 56 weeks: 21 to 63% of patients losing at least 5% from baseline weight.^10-14 The findings from our study found a higher average weight loss (−15.8 kg) than that reported in trials and a consistent percentage of patients (58.3%) who achieved at least 5% weight loss. It is promising to see that when used in a noncontrolled setting, these medications were able to produce weight loss consistent with results seen in large, controlled trials.

Pi-Sunyer and colleagues found continued weight loss after the initial 5% weight loss to an eventual 10% weight loss in many patients.¹⁰ Additionally, Smith and colleagues found that nearly 68% of their participants who took lorcaserin were able to maintain 3 to 5% weight loss over 12 months.¹³ Sjöström and colleagues acknowledged that many patients taking orlistat for an extended period began to gain weight, although at one-half the rate than that seen in the placebo group.¹² This study found that fewer patients were able to maintain their weight loss over 12 months, with only 30% of patients maintaining 3 to 5% weight loss from baseline. This difference in weight maintenance likely was because of the uncontrolled nature of this study. Once patients reach their initial weight loss goal, even the most motivated patients will have trouble maintaining that weight.⁴ Despite the challenges associated with maintaining weight loss, the quality of life benefits patients gained and potential reductions in health care spending support using resources to improve these outcomes.^2,14,15

Pi-Sunyer and colleagues reported high incidences of nausea (40%), vomiting (16%), diarrhea (21%), and constipation (20%) with liraglutide.¹⁰ Sjöström and colleagues reported 7% of patients experienced GI upset with orlistat.¹² Comparatively, only 17% of our patients reported AEs that required discontinuation, including GI upset. One patient in our study discontinued naltrexone/bupropion because of a significant change in mental status and suicide attempt. Clinical trials did not report a greater risk of depression or suicidality compared with placebo; however, there is a warning on the labeling of naltrexone/bupropion for increased suicidality with the use of antidepressant agents.^16,17 The neurologic AE that required discontinuation of phentermine/topiramate at our institution is unique based on published information.^11,18

The data from this study reinforced the observation that weight maintenance is the most challenging aspect of weight loss. Although our data showed clinically meaningful weight loss from baseline, many patients regained their weight, and some exceeded their baseline weight. Beyond providing these medications, this evidence suggests the need for close, continued follow-up through patients’ weight loss journey.

Limitations

Because this is a retrospective chart review, data collection was influenced by and limited to information that had been recorded in the EHR. AEs that resulted in medication discontinuation were assessed from the patient’s chart, which might not be correct if providers did not update the records. Follow-up was not always scheduled at regular intervals after medication initiation, resulting in varying sample numbers at each time point, potentially interfering with true weight loss averages. Although not included in this analysis, it might be beneficial to evaluate adherence to recommendations for follow-up with laboratory and weight monitoring to better capture where future monitoring can be improved. Second, there was an unbalanced number of patients taking each medication. Specifically, we saw a change in weight with orlistat that exceeded what is consistently seen in larger, more controlled trials. Although this is an effect of the real world, small sample sizes cannot be generalized to the larger population and might result in data reflecting that of an outlier. Last, there is a lack of generalizability because of the veteran population demographic, which is more male and lacks ethnic diversity. This study also was carried out at a single, educational tertiary medical center, which might not apply to all populations.

Conclusions

Despite the limitations discussed, this study shows that the use of weight management medications in a general veteran population produces initial weight loss consistent with previous studies. However, there is room for continued improvement in follow-up strategies to promote greater weight maintenance after initial weight loss. Considering the high health care costs, personal burden, and potential long-term complications associated with obesity, efforts to promote development of programs that support weight management and maintenance are imperative.

Acknowledgment
This material is the result of work supported with resources and the use of facilities at Veteran Health Indiana.

Neuropathy is the result of damage to the nervous system. This dysfunction generally occurs in peripheral nerves, which are the circuits that transmit signals to the brain and spinal cord. The peripheral nervous system is responsible for controlling motor and autonomic nerves and conduction of sensory information. Injury to the nervous system can lead to changes in nerve fiber sensitivity and malfunctioning of nerve stimuli pathways. Neuropathy may be a sequela of a wide variety of diseases, including diabetes mellitus (DM), autoimmune disorders, infections, and cancer. Also, neuropathy can be caused by medications, trauma, exposure to toxins, classified idiopathic.^1-5

Peripheral neuropathy is a common condition with an estimated incidence of > 3 million cases in the United States per year.⁴ The burden of neuropathy may be greater among veterans, due to a higher prevalence of type 2 DM (T2DM) and an aging population. Manifestations of neuropathy include weakness, numbness, burning or tingling sensations, and lingering pain.^3,5 This can lead to limited mobility and decreased quality of life. Neuropathy can be debilitating, but several medications can be used to alleviate symptoms—including duloxetine and pregabalin. The American Diabetes Association recommends either agent as initial treatment for neuropathic pain in patients with DM.² As with all medication use, the benefits and risks of treatment must be assessed prior to initiation of therapy.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates > 70% of adults in the United States are overweight or obese.⁶ Excessive weight gain causes a higher risk of developing certain comorbidities, such as coronary artery disease, cerebrovascular accident, T2DM, and cancer, and all can lead to premature death. It is important to avoid excessive weight gain whenever possible, especially in patients already at a high risk for developing these diseases.

The correlation of weight gain in patients taking duloxetine, pregabalin, or both is not well studied. Duloxetine has the potential to cause weight gain or weight loss, with reports of > 1% incidence for either effect.⁷ Clinical significance of weight changes caused by duloxetine is uncertain.Pregabalin is more likely to cause weight gain, with a reported incidence between 2 and 14%.⁸ Weight gain may be associated with dose and duration; 1 study demonstrated an average weight gain of about 11 lb after 2 years of pregabalin treatment.⁸ The medical literature lacks information regarding weight gain associated with combination therapy of duloxetine and pregabalin. The objective of this study was to investigate the association of weight gain in veterans taking duloxetine, pregabalin, or both for the treatment of neuropathy.

Methods 

A retrospective, single-center, chart review was conducted at the Sioux Falls Veterans Affairs Health Care System (SFVAHCS). Data were collected through manual chart review of US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) electronic health records (EHRs). Patients included were veterans aged 18 to 89 years who were initiated on duloxetine and/or pregabalin between October 2015 and September 2018. The monotherapy groups were made equal by randomization based on whichever group had the lesser number of participants. The indication of neuropathy was determined by the presence of neuropathic pain, neuropathy, nerve pain, or otherwise similar terminology in the prescription directions for use in the EHR. Patients were excluded if they did not have an active prescription of the study agent(s) for ≥ 12 months or if there was a lack of documented body weight(s) at baseline and/or at follow-up outpatient visit(s) occurring 12 to 18 months after initiation of therapy. Additional exclusion criteria were health conditions, including active cancer; pregnancy; history of bariatric surgery; if the patient received hospice care; was morbidly obese (body mass index [BMI] > 40; or if estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was < 30 mL/min/1.83m². Patients also were excluded if they were concurrently taking any of the following medications: antipsychotics, tricyclic antidepressants, venlafaxine, divalproex/valproic acid, lithium, mirtazapine, weight loss medications (orlistat, lorcaserin, phentermine-topiramate, naltrexone-bupropion, liraglutide), chronic corticosteroids, or chronic opioids; chronic being defined as receiving more than a 30-day supply.

The primary end point of this study was the change in body weight, expressed in pounds, after 12 to 18 months of treatment. If multiple weights were obtained during the 12- to 18-month period, the weight recorded closest to 12 months was used. The secondary end points included the percent change in body weight and dose effect, which evaluated change in weight at doses of duloxetine > 60 mg/d, and pregabalin at doses > 300 mg/d. Duration of effect was evaluated as a secondary end point; contrary to the primary end point, the weight furthest from 12 months was recorded. The change in hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c) in patients with prediabetes and DM also was investigated as a secondary end point. Last, involvement in the Managing Overweight Veterans Everywhere (MOVE!) weight management program at SFVAHCS and its effect on weight gain was reviewed.

Baseline characteristics were collected to determine the variability between each study group. Data collected during the study included age, sex, race, weight, BMI, HbA_1c, eGFR, DM diagnosis, insulin therapy prescription, duration of use, and MOVE! program participation.

Statistical Analysis

The primary and secondary end points were analyzed using an analysis of variance statistical test. Results were considered statistically significant at P < .05.

Results

A total of 174 participants were included in this study, with 77 in each monotherapy group, and 22 in the combination therapy group. More than 300 patients were excluded from the study due to prespecified inclusion and exclusion criteria. Baseline characteristics were similar among the 3 groups, with no statistically significant differences identified (Table 1).

Primary End Point

The change in body weight after 12 to 18 months of treatment was –0.8 lb in the duloxetine group, +2.9 lb in the pregabalin group, and +5.5 lb in the pregabalin plus duloxetine group (P = .12) (Figure).

Secondary End Points

The percent change in body weight after 12 to 18 months of treatment was −0.3% in the duloxetine group, +1.5% in the pregabalin group, and +2.0% in the duloxetine plus pregabalin group (P = .18). The change in body weight beyond 12 months of treatment was −0.9 lb in the duloxetine group, +3.6 lb in the pregabalin group, and +8.5 lb in the duloxetine plus pregabalin group (P = .05). The change in HbA_1c in patients with DM and pre-DM was −0.1% in the duloxetine group, +0.3% in the pregabalin group, and −0.3% in the duloxetine plus pregabalin group (P = .14). The change in body weight in patients who received increased doses of the study agents was −2.8 lb in the duloxetine group and +6.5 lb in the pregabalin group (P = .05). Among veterans who participated in MOVE!, change in body weight after 12 to 18 months of treatment was +1.5 lb in the duloxetine group, +4.9 lb in the pregabalin group, and +3.4 lb in the pregabalin plus duloxetine group (P = .91)(Table 2).

Discussion

The purpose of this retrospective chart review was to evaluate the association of weight gain in veterans taking duloxetine and/or pregabalin for the treatment of neuropathy. Although the primary end point, weight gain after 12 to 18 months of therapy, was not statistically significant, we found notable trends and associations worthy of discussion.

The secondary end point of the difference in weight gain in veterans taking duloxetine, pregabalin, or both for a treatment duration > 12 months was statistically significant. For this secondary end point, the weight recorded was when the study agent(s) were discontinued or the most recent weight obtained if participants still had an active prescription; the average duration of treatment in the 3 study groups was about 24 months. These weights differed from the primary end point, in which weight closest to 12 months of therapy was recorded.

The other secondary end point that was statistically significant was the difference in weight gain in patients who were on higher doses of duloxetine or pregabalin. This specifically examined participants who were on doses of duloxetine > 60 mg/d and pregabalin > 300 mg/d. Duloxetine was associated with weight loss, whereas pregabalin was associated with weight gain, with a difference of about 10 lb between the groups. The significance of this secondary end point demonstrates that increased doses of duloxetine and pregabalin are more associated with changes in weight compared with standard doses.

The secondary end points of percent change in body weight, change in HBA_1c in patients with DM and prediabetes, and weight gain in patients who participated in the MOVE! weight management program were not statistically significant among the 3 study groups. Given the relatively small sample sizes, more significant differences in the evaluation of the primary and secondary end points may have been observed with a larger patient population.

Study investigators made additional observations beyond the primary and secondary end points. Most notably, > 300 patients were excluded from this study because they did not continue treatment beyond 12 months. The investigators found this number staggering, as it may imply that veterans were not satisfied with treatment agent(s) within 1 year of initiation, which could be due to lack of efficacy or intolerable adverse effects.

The mechanism of why combination therapy of duloxetine and pregabalin may be more associated with weight gain compared with either agent alone is unknown. Since this study found duloxetine to be more associated with weight loss, the mechanism does not seem to be an additive effect. The alternative hypothesis proposed prior to the completion of this study stemmed from an observation seen by health care providers at SFVAHCS.

Limitations

The retrospective nature of the study does not provide proof of causation but does demonstrate association. There was no control group, and the study design did not allow for randomization of participants. Additionally, since the study was completed at a single center, there was potential for selection bias. Future studies could benefit from pursuing a multicenter study design, which may provide a higher level of external validity. There are several confounding factors that have the potential to influence changes in weight, all of which cannot feasibly be accounted for. Since participants were ambulatory veterans, medication adherence could not be confirmed.

Conclusions

There was no difference in weight gain in veterans who took duloxetine, pregabalin, or both for treatment of neuropathy after 12 to 18 months of therapy. However, there was a difference in weight gain between the 3 groups when therapy lasted > 12 months. The combination therapy of pregabalin and duloxetine was associated with the most amount of weight gain, followed by pregabalin alone. Duloxetine monotherapy had minimal impact on weight.

In veterans who took increased doses of duloxetine or pregabalin, there was a statistically significant difference in weight between the monotherapy groups, with pregabalin associated with weight gain and duloxetine associated with weight loss.

For patients in which weight gain may be a concern, it would be reasonable to prefer duloxetine rather than pregabalin for initial treatment of neuropathy. Pregabalin should be used at the lowest effective dose to minimize risk of weight gain. Combination therapy of duloxetine and pregabalin for the treatment of neuropathy seems to be associated with the most amount of weight gain compared with either therapy alone. Association of changes in weight is greater as treatment duration lasts beyond 12 months.

Neuropathy is the result of damage to the nervous system. This dysfunction generally occurs in peripheral nerves, which are the circuits that transmit signals to the brain and spinal cord. The peripheral nervous system is responsible for controlling motor and autonomic nerves and conduction of sensory information. Injury to the nervous system can lead to changes in nerve fiber sensitivity and malfunctioning of nerve stimuli pathways. Neuropathy may be a sequela of a wide variety of diseases, including diabetes mellitus (DM), autoimmune disorders, infections, and cancer. Also, neuropathy can be caused by medications, trauma, exposure to toxins, classified idiopathic.^1-5

Peripheral neuropathy is a common condition with an estimated incidence of > 3 million cases in the United States per year.⁴ The burden of neuropathy may be greater among veterans, due to a higher prevalence of type 2 DM (T2DM) and an aging population. Manifestations of neuropathy include weakness, numbness, burning or tingling sensations, and lingering pain.^3,5 This can lead to limited mobility and decreased quality of life. Neuropathy can be debilitating, but several medications can be used to alleviate symptoms—including duloxetine and pregabalin. The American Diabetes Association recommends either agent as initial treatment for neuropathic pain in patients with DM.² As with all medication use, the benefits and risks of treatment must be assessed prior to initiation of therapy.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates > 70% of adults in the United States are overweight or obese.⁶ Excessive weight gain causes a higher risk of developing certain comorbidities, such as coronary artery disease, cerebrovascular accident, T2DM, and cancer, and all can lead to premature death. It is important to avoid excessive weight gain whenever possible, especially in patients already at a high risk for developing these diseases.

The correlation of weight gain in patients taking duloxetine, pregabalin, or both is not well studied. Duloxetine has the potential to cause weight gain or weight loss, with reports of > 1% incidence for either effect.⁷ Clinical significance of weight changes caused by duloxetine is uncertain.Pregabalin is more likely to cause weight gain, with a reported incidence between 2 and 14%.⁸ Weight gain may be associated with dose and duration; 1 study demonstrated an average weight gain of about 11 lb after 2 years of pregabalin treatment.⁸ The medical literature lacks information regarding weight gain associated with combination therapy of duloxetine and pregabalin. The objective of this study was to investigate the association of weight gain in veterans taking duloxetine, pregabalin, or both for the treatment of neuropathy.

Methods 

A retrospective, single-center, chart review was conducted at the Sioux Falls Veterans Affairs Health Care System (SFVAHCS). Data were collected through manual chart review of US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) electronic health records (EHRs). Patients included were veterans aged 18 to 89 years who were initiated on duloxetine and/or pregabalin between October 2015 and September 2018. The monotherapy groups were made equal by randomization based on whichever group had the lesser number of participants. The indication of neuropathy was determined by the presence of neuropathic pain, neuropathy, nerve pain, or otherwise similar terminology in the prescription directions for use in the EHR. Patients were excluded if they did not have an active prescription of the study agent(s) for ≥ 12 months or if there was a lack of documented body weight(s) at baseline and/or at follow-up outpatient visit(s) occurring 12 to 18 months after initiation of therapy. Additional exclusion criteria were health conditions, including active cancer; pregnancy; history of bariatric surgery; if the patient received hospice care; was morbidly obese (body mass index [BMI] > 40; or if estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was < 30 mL/min/1.83m². Patients also were excluded if they were concurrently taking any of the following medications: antipsychotics, tricyclic antidepressants, venlafaxine, divalproex/valproic acid, lithium, mirtazapine, weight loss medications (orlistat, lorcaserin, phentermine-topiramate, naltrexone-bupropion, liraglutide), chronic corticosteroids, or chronic opioids; chronic being defined as receiving more than a 30-day supply.

The primary end point of this study was the change in body weight, expressed in pounds, after 12 to 18 months of treatment. If multiple weights were obtained during the 12- to 18-month period, the weight recorded closest to 12 months was used. The secondary end points included the percent change in body weight and dose effect, which evaluated change in weight at doses of duloxetine > 60 mg/d, and pregabalin at doses > 300 mg/d. Duration of effect was evaluated as a secondary end point; contrary to the primary end point, the weight furthest from 12 months was recorded. The change in hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c) in patients with prediabetes and DM also was investigated as a secondary end point. Last, involvement in the Managing Overweight Veterans Everywhere (MOVE!) weight management program at SFVAHCS and its effect on weight gain was reviewed.

Baseline characteristics were collected to determine the variability between each study group. Data collected during the study included age, sex, race, weight, BMI, HbA_1c, eGFR, DM diagnosis, insulin therapy prescription, duration of use, and MOVE! program participation.

Statistical Analysis

The primary and secondary end points were analyzed using an analysis of variance statistical test. Results were considered statistically significant at P < .05.

Results

A total of 174 participants were included in this study, with 77 in each monotherapy group, and 22 in the combination therapy group. More than 300 patients were excluded from the study due to prespecified inclusion and exclusion criteria. Baseline characteristics were similar among the 3 groups, with no statistically significant differences identified (Table 1).

Primary End Point

The change in body weight after 12 to 18 months of treatment was –0.8 lb in the duloxetine group, +2.9 lb in the pregabalin group, and +5.5 lb in the pregabalin plus duloxetine group (P = .12) (Figure).

Secondary End Points

The percent change in body weight after 12 to 18 months of treatment was −0.3% in the duloxetine group, +1.5% in the pregabalin group, and +2.0% in the duloxetine plus pregabalin group (P = .18). The change in body weight beyond 12 months of treatment was −0.9 lb in the duloxetine group, +3.6 lb in the pregabalin group, and +8.5 lb in the duloxetine plus pregabalin group (P = .05). The change in HbA_1c in patients with DM and pre-DM was −0.1% in the duloxetine group, +0.3% in the pregabalin group, and −0.3% in the duloxetine plus pregabalin group (P = .14). The change in body weight in patients who received increased doses of the study agents was −2.8 lb in the duloxetine group and +6.5 lb in the pregabalin group (P = .05). Among veterans who participated in MOVE!, change in body weight after 12 to 18 months of treatment was +1.5 lb in the duloxetine group, +4.9 lb in the pregabalin group, and +3.4 lb in the pregabalin plus duloxetine group (P = .91)(Table 2).

Discussion

The purpose of this retrospective chart review was to evaluate the association of weight gain in veterans taking duloxetine and/or pregabalin for the treatment of neuropathy. Although the primary end point, weight gain after 12 to 18 months of therapy, was not statistically significant, we found notable trends and associations worthy of discussion.

The secondary end point of the difference in weight gain in veterans taking duloxetine, pregabalin, or both for a treatment duration > 12 months was statistically significant. For this secondary end point, the weight recorded was when the study agent(s) were discontinued or the most recent weight obtained if participants still had an active prescription; the average duration of treatment in the 3 study groups was about 24 months. These weights differed from the primary end point, in which weight closest to 12 months of therapy was recorded.

The other secondary end point that was statistically significant was the difference in weight gain in patients who were on higher doses of duloxetine or pregabalin. This specifically examined participants who were on doses of duloxetine > 60 mg/d and pregabalin > 300 mg/d. Duloxetine was associated with weight loss, whereas pregabalin was associated with weight gain, with a difference of about 10 lb between the groups. The significance of this secondary end point demonstrates that increased doses of duloxetine and pregabalin are more associated with changes in weight compared with standard doses.

The secondary end points of percent change in body weight, change in HBA_1c in patients with DM and prediabetes, and weight gain in patients who participated in the MOVE! weight management program were not statistically significant among the 3 study groups. Given the relatively small sample sizes, more significant differences in the evaluation of the primary and secondary end points may have been observed with a larger patient population.

Study investigators made additional observations beyond the primary and secondary end points. Most notably, > 300 patients were excluded from this study because they did not continue treatment beyond 12 months. The investigators found this number staggering, as it may imply that veterans were not satisfied with treatment agent(s) within 1 year of initiation, which could be due to lack of efficacy or intolerable adverse effects.

The mechanism of why combination therapy of duloxetine and pregabalin may be more associated with weight gain compared with either agent alone is unknown. Since this study found duloxetine to be more associated with weight loss, the mechanism does not seem to be an additive effect. The alternative hypothesis proposed prior to the completion of this study stemmed from an observation seen by health care providers at SFVAHCS.

Limitations

The retrospective nature of the study does not provide proof of causation but does demonstrate association. There was no control group, and the study design did not allow for randomization of participants. Additionally, since the study was completed at a single center, there was potential for selection bias. Future studies could benefit from pursuing a multicenter study design, which may provide a higher level of external validity. There are several confounding factors that have the potential to influence changes in weight, all of which cannot feasibly be accounted for. Since participants were ambulatory veterans, medication adherence could not be confirmed.

Conclusions

There was no difference in weight gain in veterans who took duloxetine, pregabalin, or both for treatment of neuropathy after 12 to 18 months of therapy. However, there was a difference in weight gain between the 3 groups when therapy lasted > 12 months. The combination therapy of pregabalin and duloxetine was associated with the most amount of weight gain, followed by pregabalin alone. Duloxetine monotherapy had minimal impact on weight.

In veterans who took increased doses of duloxetine or pregabalin, there was a statistically significant difference in weight between the monotherapy groups, with pregabalin associated with weight gain and duloxetine associated with weight loss.

For patients in which weight gain may be a concern, it would be reasonable to prefer duloxetine rather than pregabalin for initial treatment of neuropathy. Pregabalin should be used at the lowest effective dose to minimize risk of weight gain. Combination therapy of duloxetine and pregabalin for the treatment of neuropathy seems to be associated with the most amount of weight gain compared with either therapy alone. Association of changes in weight is greater as treatment duration lasts beyond 12 months.

Neuropathy is the result of damage to the nervous system. This dysfunction generally occurs in peripheral nerves, which are the circuits that transmit signals to the brain and spinal cord. The peripheral nervous system is responsible for controlling motor and autonomic nerves and conduction of sensory information. Injury to the nervous system can lead to changes in nerve fiber sensitivity and malfunctioning of nerve stimuli pathways. Neuropathy may be a sequela of a wide variety of diseases, including diabetes mellitus (DM), autoimmune disorders, infections, and cancer. Also, neuropathy can be caused by medications, trauma, exposure to toxins, classified idiopathic.^1-5

Peripheral neuropathy is a common condition with an estimated incidence of > 3 million cases in the United States per year.⁴ The burden of neuropathy may be greater among veterans, due to a higher prevalence of type 2 DM (T2DM) and an aging population. Manifestations of neuropathy include weakness, numbness, burning or tingling sensations, and lingering pain.^3,5 This can lead to limited mobility and decreased quality of life. Neuropathy can be debilitating, but several medications can be used to alleviate symptoms—including duloxetine and pregabalin. The American Diabetes Association recommends either agent as initial treatment for neuropathic pain in patients with DM.² As with all medication use, the benefits and risks of treatment must be assessed prior to initiation of therapy.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates > 70% of adults in the United States are overweight or obese.⁶ Excessive weight gain causes a higher risk of developing certain comorbidities, such as coronary artery disease, cerebrovascular accident, T2DM, and cancer, and all can lead to premature death. It is important to avoid excessive weight gain whenever possible, especially in patients already at a high risk for developing these diseases.

The correlation of weight gain in patients taking duloxetine, pregabalin, or both is not well studied. Duloxetine has the potential to cause weight gain or weight loss, with reports of > 1% incidence for either effect.⁷ Clinical significance of weight changes caused by duloxetine is uncertain.Pregabalin is more likely to cause weight gain, with a reported incidence between 2 and 14%.⁸ Weight gain may be associated with dose and duration; 1 study demonstrated an average weight gain of about 11 lb after 2 years of pregabalin treatment.⁸ The medical literature lacks information regarding weight gain associated with combination therapy of duloxetine and pregabalin. The objective of this study was to investigate the association of weight gain in veterans taking duloxetine, pregabalin, or both for the treatment of neuropathy.

Methods 

A retrospective, single-center, chart review was conducted at the Sioux Falls Veterans Affairs Health Care System (SFVAHCS). Data were collected through manual chart review of US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) electronic health records (EHRs). Patients included were veterans aged 18 to 89 years who were initiated on duloxetine and/or pregabalin between October 2015 and September 2018. The monotherapy groups were made equal by randomization based on whichever group had the lesser number of participants. The indication of neuropathy was determined by the presence of neuropathic pain, neuropathy, nerve pain, or otherwise similar terminology in the prescription directions for use in the EHR. Patients were excluded if they did not have an active prescription of the study agent(s) for ≥ 12 months or if there was a lack of documented body weight(s) at baseline and/or at follow-up outpatient visit(s) occurring 12 to 18 months after initiation of therapy. Additional exclusion criteria were health conditions, including active cancer; pregnancy; history of bariatric surgery; if the patient received hospice care; was morbidly obese (body mass index [BMI] > 40; or if estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was < 30 mL/min/1.83m². Patients also were excluded if they were concurrently taking any of the following medications: antipsychotics, tricyclic antidepressants, venlafaxine, divalproex/valproic acid, lithium, mirtazapine, weight loss medications (orlistat, lorcaserin, phentermine-topiramate, naltrexone-bupropion, liraglutide), chronic corticosteroids, or chronic opioids; chronic being defined as receiving more than a 30-day supply.

The primary end point of this study was the change in body weight, expressed in pounds, after 12 to 18 months of treatment. If multiple weights were obtained during the 12- to 18-month period, the weight recorded closest to 12 months was used. The secondary end points included the percent change in body weight and dose effect, which evaluated change in weight at doses of duloxetine > 60 mg/d, and pregabalin at doses > 300 mg/d. Duration of effect was evaluated as a secondary end point; contrary to the primary end point, the weight furthest from 12 months was recorded. The change in hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c) in patients with prediabetes and DM also was investigated as a secondary end point. Last, involvement in the Managing Overweight Veterans Everywhere (MOVE!) weight management program at SFVAHCS and its effect on weight gain was reviewed.

Baseline characteristics were collected to determine the variability between each study group. Data collected during the study included age, sex, race, weight, BMI, HbA_1c, eGFR, DM diagnosis, insulin therapy prescription, duration of use, and MOVE! program participation.

Statistical Analysis

The primary and secondary end points were analyzed using an analysis of variance statistical test. Results were considered statistically significant at P < .05.

Results

A total of 174 participants were included in this study, with 77 in each monotherapy group, and 22 in the combination therapy group. More than 300 patients were excluded from the study due to prespecified inclusion and exclusion criteria. Baseline characteristics were similar among the 3 groups, with no statistically significant differences identified (Table 1).

Primary End Point

The change in body weight after 12 to 18 months of treatment was –0.8 lb in the duloxetine group, +2.9 lb in the pregabalin group, and +5.5 lb in the pregabalin plus duloxetine group (P = .12) (Figure).

Secondary End Points

The percent change in body weight after 12 to 18 months of treatment was −0.3% in the duloxetine group, +1.5% in the pregabalin group, and +2.0% in the duloxetine plus pregabalin group (P = .18). The change in body weight beyond 12 months of treatment was −0.9 lb in the duloxetine group, +3.6 lb in the pregabalin group, and +8.5 lb in the duloxetine plus pregabalin group (P = .05). The change in HbA_1c in patients with DM and pre-DM was −0.1% in the duloxetine group, +0.3% in the pregabalin group, and −0.3% in the duloxetine plus pregabalin group (P = .14). The change in body weight in patients who received increased doses of the study agents was −2.8 lb in the duloxetine group and +6.5 lb in the pregabalin group (P = .05). Among veterans who participated in MOVE!, change in body weight after 12 to 18 months of treatment was +1.5 lb in the duloxetine group, +4.9 lb in the pregabalin group, and +3.4 lb in the pregabalin plus duloxetine group (P = .91)(Table 2).

Discussion

The purpose of this retrospective chart review was to evaluate the association of weight gain in veterans taking duloxetine and/or pregabalin for the treatment of neuropathy. Although the primary end point, weight gain after 12 to 18 months of therapy, was not statistically significant, we found notable trends and associations worthy of discussion.

The secondary end point of the difference in weight gain in veterans taking duloxetine, pregabalin, or both for a treatment duration > 12 months was statistically significant. For this secondary end point, the weight recorded was when the study agent(s) were discontinued or the most recent weight obtained if participants still had an active prescription; the average duration of treatment in the 3 study groups was about 24 months. These weights differed from the primary end point, in which weight closest to 12 months of therapy was recorded.

The other secondary end point that was statistically significant was the difference in weight gain in patients who were on higher doses of duloxetine or pregabalin. This specifically examined participants who were on doses of duloxetine > 60 mg/d and pregabalin > 300 mg/d. Duloxetine was associated with weight loss, whereas pregabalin was associated with weight gain, with a difference of about 10 lb between the groups. The significance of this secondary end point demonstrates that increased doses of duloxetine and pregabalin are more associated with changes in weight compared with standard doses.

The secondary end points of percent change in body weight, change in HBA_1c in patients with DM and prediabetes, and weight gain in patients who participated in the MOVE! weight management program were not statistically significant among the 3 study groups. Given the relatively small sample sizes, more significant differences in the evaluation of the primary and secondary end points may have been observed with a larger patient population.

Study investigators made additional observations beyond the primary and secondary end points. Most notably, > 300 patients were excluded from this study because they did not continue treatment beyond 12 months. The investigators found this number staggering, as it may imply that veterans were not satisfied with treatment agent(s) within 1 year of initiation, which could be due to lack of efficacy or intolerable adverse effects.

The mechanism of why combination therapy of duloxetine and pregabalin may be more associated with weight gain compared with either agent alone is unknown. Since this study found duloxetine to be more associated with weight loss, the mechanism does not seem to be an additive effect. The alternative hypothesis proposed prior to the completion of this study stemmed from an observation seen by health care providers at SFVAHCS.

Limitations

The retrospective nature of the study does not provide proof of causation but does demonstrate association. There was no control group, and the study design did not allow for randomization of participants. Additionally, since the study was completed at a single center, there was potential for selection bias. Future studies could benefit from pursuing a multicenter study design, which may provide a higher level of external validity. There are several confounding factors that have the potential to influence changes in weight, all of which cannot feasibly be accounted for. Since participants were ambulatory veterans, medication adherence could not be confirmed.

Conclusions

There was no difference in weight gain in veterans who took duloxetine, pregabalin, or both for treatment of neuropathy after 12 to 18 months of therapy. However, there was a difference in weight gain between the 3 groups when therapy lasted > 12 months. The combination therapy of pregabalin and duloxetine was associated with the most amount of weight gain, followed by pregabalin alone. Duloxetine monotherapy had minimal impact on weight.

In veterans who took increased doses of duloxetine or pregabalin, there was a statistically significant difference in weight between the monotherapy groups, with pregabalin associated with weight gain and duloxetine associated with weight loss.

For patients in which weight gain may be a concern, it would be reasonable to prefer duloxetine rather than pregabalin for initial treatment of neuropathy. Pregabalin should be used at the lowest effective dose to minimize risk of weight gain. Combination therapy of duloxetine and pregabalin for the treatment of neuropathy seems to be associated with the most amount of weight gain compared with either therapy alone. Association of changes in weight is greater as treatment duration lasts beyond 12 months.

Meralgia paresthetica (MP) is a sensory mononeuropathy of the lateral femoral cutaneous nerve (LFCN), clinically characterized by numbness, pain, and paresthesias involving the anterolateral aspect of the thigh. Estimates of MP incidence are derived largely from observational studies and reported to be about 3.2 to 4.3 cases per 10,000 patient-years.^1,2 Although typically arising during midlife and especially in the context of comorbid obesity, diabetes mellitus (DM), and excessive alcohol consumption, MP may occur at any age, and bears a slight predilection for males.^2-4

MP may be divided etiologically into iatrogenic and spontaneous subtypes.⁵ Iatrogenic cases generally are attributable to nerve injury in the setting of direct or indirect trauma (such as with patient malpositioning) arising in the context of multiple forms of procedural or surgical intervention (Table). Spontaneous MP is primarily thought to occur as a result of LFCN compression at the level of the inguinal ligament, wherein internal or external pressures may promote LFCN entrapment and resultant functional disruption (Figure 1).^6,7

Case Presentation

A male Vietnam War veteran aged 69 years presented to a primary care clinic at West Roxbury Veterans Affairs Medical Center (WRVAMC) in Massachusetts with progressive right lower extremity numbness. Three months prior to this visit, he was evaluated in an urgent care clinic at WRVAMC for 6 months of numbness and increasingly painful nocturnal paresthesias involving the same extremity. A targeted physical examination at that visit revealed an obese male wearing tight suspenders, as well as focally diminished sensation to light touch involving the anterolateral aspect of the thigh, extending from just below the right hip to above the knee. Sensation in the medial thigh was spared. Strength and reflexes were normal in the bilateral lower extremities. An abdominal examination was not performed. He received a diagnosis of MP and counseled regarding weight loss, glycemic control, garment optimization, and conservative analgesia with as-needed nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. He was instructed to follow-up closely with his primary care physician for further monitoring.

During the current visit, the patient reported 2 atraumatic falls the prior 2 months, attributed to escalating right leg weakness. The patient reported that ascending stairs had become difficult, and he was unable to cross his right leg over his left while in a seated position. The territory of numbness expanded to his front and inner thigh. Although previously he was able to hike 4 miles, he now was unable to walk more than half of a mile without developing shortness of breath. He reported frequent urination without hematuria and a recent weight gain of 8 pounds despite early satiety.

His medical history included hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, truncal obesity, noninsulin dependent DM, coronary artery disease, atrial flutter, transient ischemic attack, and benign positional paroxysmal vertigo. He was exposed to Agent Orange during his service in Vietnam. Family history was notable for breast cancer (mother), lung cancer (father), and an unspecified form of lymphoma (brother). He had smoked approximately 2 packs of cigarettes daily for 15 years but quit 38 years prior. He reported consuming on average 3 alcohol-containing drinks per week and no illicit drug use. He was adherent with all medications, including furosemide 40 mg daily, losartan 25 mg daily, metoprolol succinate 50 mg daily, atorvastatin 80 mg daily, metformin 500 mg twice daily, and rivaroxaban 20 mg daily with dinner.

His vital signs included a blood pressure of 123/58 mmHg, a pulse of 74 beats per minute, a respiratory rate of 16 breaths per minute, and an oxygen saturation of 94% on ambient air. His temperature was recorded at 96.7°F, and his weight was 234 pounds with a body mass index (BMI) of 34. He was well groomed and in no acute distress. His cardiopulmonary examination was normal. Carotid, radial, and bilateral dorsalis pedis pulsations were 2+ bilaterally, and no jugular venous distension was observed at 30°. The abdomen was protuberant. Nonshifting dullness to percussion and firmness to palpation was observed throughout right upper and lower quadrants, with hyperactive bowel sounds primarily localized to the left upper and lower quadrants.

Neurologic examination revealed symmetric facies with normal phonation and diction. He was spontaneously moving all extremities, and his gait was normal. Sensation to light touch was severely diminished throughout the anterolateral and medial thigh, extending to the level of the knee, and otherwise reduced in a stocking-type pattern over the bilateral feet and toes. His right hip flexion, adduction, as well as internal and external rotation were focally diminished to 4- out of 5. Right knee extension was 4+ out of 5. Strength was otherwise 5 out of 5. The patient exhibited asymmetric Patellar reflexes—absent on the right and 2+ on the left. Achilles reflexes were absent bilaterally. Straight-leg raise test was negative bilaterally and did not clearly exacerbate his right leg numbness or paresthesias. There were no notable fasciculations. There was 2+ bilateral lower extremity pitting edema appreciated to the level of the midshin (right greater than left), without palpable cords or new skin lesions.

Upon referral to the neurology service, the patient underwent electromyography, which revealed complex repetitive discharges in the right tibialis anterior and pattern of reduced recruitment upon activation of the right vastus medialis, collectively suggestive of an L3-4 plexopathy. The patient was admitted for expedited workup.

A complete blood count and metabolic panel that were taken in the emergency department were normal, save for a serum bicarbonate of 30 mEq/L. His hemoglobin A_1c was 6.6%. Computed tomography (CT) of the abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast was obtained, and notable for a 30 cm fat-containing right-sided retroperitoneal mass with associated solid nodular components and calcification (Figure 2). No enhancement of the lesion was observed. There was significant associated mass effect, with superior displacement of the liver and right hemidiaphragm, as well as superomedial deflection of the right kidney, inferior vena cava, and other intraabdominal organs. Subsequent imaging with a CT of the chest, as well as magnetic resonance imaging of the brain, were without evidence of metastatic disease.

Outcome

The patient was treated with external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) delivered simultaneously to both the prostate and high-risk retroperitoneal margins of the DDLPS, as well as concurrent androgen deprivation therapy. Five months after completed radiotherapy, resection of the DDLPS was attempted. However, palliative tumor debulking was instead performed due to extensive locoregional invasion with involvement of the posterior peritoneum and ipsilateral quadratus, iliopsoas, and psoas muscles, as well as the adjacent lumbar nerve roots.

At present, the patient is undergoing surveillance imaging every 3 months to reevaluate his underlying disease burden, which has thus far been radiographically stable. Current management at the primary care level is focused on preserving quality of life, particularly maintaining mobility and functional independence.

Discussion

Although generally a benign entrapment neuropathy, MP bears well-established associations with multiple forms of must-not-miss pathology. Here, we present the case of a veteran in whom MP was the index presentation of a massive retroperitoneal liposarcoma, stressing the importance of a thorough history and physical examination in all patients presenting with MP. The case presented herein highlights many of the red-flag signs and symptoms that primary care physicians might encounter in patients with retroperitoneal pathology, including MP and MP-like syndromes (Figure 4).

In this case, the pretest probability of a spontaneous and uncomplicated MP was high given the patient’s sex, age, body habitus, and DM; however, there important atypia that emerged as the case evolved, including: (1) the progressive course; (2) proximal right lower extremity weakness; (3) asymmetric patellar reflexes; and (4) numerous clinical stigmata of intraabdominal mass effect. The patient exhibited abnormalities on abdominal examination that suggested the presence of an underlying intraabdominal mass, providing key diagnostic insight into this case. Given the slowly progressive nature of liposarcomas, we feel the abnormalities appreciated on abdominal examination were likely apparent during the initial presentation.¹⁸

There are numerous cognitive biases that may explain why an abdominal examination was not prioritized during the initial presentation. Namely, the patient’s numerous risk factors for spontaneous MP, as detailed above, may have contributed to framing bias that limited consideration of alternative diagnoses. In addition, the patient’s physical examination likely contributed to search satisfaction, whereby alternative diagnoses were not further entertained after discovery of findings consistent with spontaneous MP.¹⁹ Finally, it remains conceivable that an abdominal examination was not prioritized as it is often perceived as being distinct from, rather than an integral part of, the neurologic examination.²⁰ Given that numerous neurologic disorders may present with abdominal pathology, we feel a thorough abdominal examination should be considered part of the full neurologic examination, especially in cases presenting with focal neurologic findings involving the lower extremities.²¹

Collectively, this case alludes to the importance of close clinical follow-up, as well as adequate anticipatory patient guidance in cases of suspected MP. In most patients, the clinical course of spontaneous MP is benign and favorable, with up to 85% of patients experiencing resolution within 4 to 6 months of the initial presentation.²² Common conservative measures include weight loss, garment optimization, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs as needed for analgesia. In refractory cases, procedural interventions such as with neurolysis or resection of the lateral femoral cutaneous nerve, may be required after the ruling out of alternative diagnoses.^23,24

Importantly, in even prolonged and resistant cases of MP, patient discomfort remains localized to the territory of the LFCN. Additional lower motor neuron signs, such as an expanding territory of sensory involvement, muscle weakness, or diminished reflexes, should prompt additional testing for alternative diagnoses. In addition, clinical findings concerning for intraabdominal mass effect, many of which were observed in this case, should lead to further evaluation and expeditious cross-sectional imaging. Although this patient’s early satiety, polyuria, bilateral lower extremity edema, weight gain, and lumbar plexopathy each may be explained by direct compression, invasion, or displacement, his report of progressive exertional dyspnea merits further discussion.

Exertional dyspnea is an uncommon complication of soft tissue sarcoma, reported almost exclusively in cases with cardiac, mediastinal, or other thoracic involvement.^25-28 In this case, there was no evidence of thoracic involvement, either through direct extension or metastasis. Instead, the patient’s exertional dyspnea may have been attributable to increased intraabdominal pressure leading to compromised diaphragm excursion and reduced pulmonary reserve. In addition, the radiographic findings also raise the possibility of a potential contribution from preload failure due to IVC compression. Overall, dyspnea is a concerning feature that may suggest advanced disease.

Despite the value of a thorough history and physical examination in patients with MP, major clinical guidelines from neurologic, neurosurgical, and orthopedic organizations do not formally address MP evaluation and management. Further, proposed clinical practice algorithms are inconsistent in their recommendations regarding the identification of red-flag features and ruling out of alternative diagnoses.^22,29,30 To supplement the abdominal examination, it would be reasonable to perform a pelvic compression test (PCT) in patients presenting with suspected MP. The PCT is a highly sensitive and specific provocative maneuver shown to enable reliable differentiation between MP and lumbar radiculopathy, and is performed by placing downward force on the anterior superior iliac spine of the affected extremity for 45 seconds with the patient in the lateral recumbent position.³¹ As this maneuver is intended to force relaxation of the inguinal ligament, thereby relieving pressure on the LFCN, improvement in the patient’s symptoms with the PCT is consistent with MP.

Conclusions

Spontaneous MP is a generally benign condition secondary to LFCN entrapment at the level of the inguinal ligament and is encountered frequently in the context of comorbid obesity and DM. However, MP bears known associations with high-risk pathologies that engender specific diagnostic and therapeutic considerations, including retroperitoneal mass lesions. The case presented herein highlights the utility of: (1) a focused history and review of systems to aid in the identification of red-flag symptoms and signs that might suggest a secondary etiology; and (2) a thorough abdominal examination in all patients who present with MP, especially in atypical presentations, cases with additional focal neurologic findings, or in patients who report progressive symptoms. Given the progressively aging population within the United States, coupled with an expanding prevalence of obesity and diabetes mellitus, recognition of the typical and atypical features of MP may be of progressive importance.

Meralgia paresthetica (MP) is a sensory mononeuropathy of the lateral femoral cutaneous nerve (LFCN), clinically characterized by numbness, pain, and paresthesias involving the anterolateral aspect of the thigh. Estimates of MP incidence are derived largely from observational studies and reported to be about 3.2 to 4.3 cases per 10,000 patient-years.^1,2 Although typically arising during midlife and especially in the context of comorbid obesity, diabetes mellitus (DM), and excessive alcohol consumption, MP may occur at any age, and bears a slight predilection for males.^2-4

MP may be divided etiologically into iatrogenic and spontaneous subtypes.⁵ Iatrogenic cases generally are attributable to nerve injury in the setting of direct or indirect trauma (such as with patient malpositioning) arising in the context of multiple forms of procedural or surgical intervention (Table). Spontaneous MP is primarily thought to occur as a result of LFCN compression at the level of the inguinal ligament, wherein internal or external pressures may promote LFCN entrapment and resultant functional disruption (Figure 1).^6,7

Case Presentation

A male Vietnam War veteran aged 69 years presented to a primary care clinic at West Roxbury Veterans Affairs Medical Center (WRVAMC) in Massachusetts with progressive right lower extremity numbness. Three months prior to this visit, he was evaluated in an urgent care clinic at WRVAMC for 6 months of numbness and increasingly painful nocturnal paresthesias involving the same extremity. A targeted physical examination at that visit revealed an obese male wearing tight suspenders, as well as focally diminished sensation to light touch involving the anterolateral aspect of the thigh, extending from just below the right hip to above the knee. Sensation in the medial thigh was spared. Strength and reflexes were normal in the bilateral lower extremities. An abdominal examination was not performed. He received a diagnosis of MP and counseled regarding weight loss, glycemic control, garment optimization, and conservative analgesia with as-needed nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. He was instructed to follow-up closely with his primary care physician for further monitoring.

During the current visit, the patient reported 2 atraumatic falls the prior 2 months, attributed to escalating right leg weakness. The patient reported that ascending stairs had become difficult, and he was unable to cross his right leg over his left while in a seated position. The territory of numbness expanded to his front and inner thigh. Although previously he was able to hike 4 miles, he now was unable to walk more than half of a mile without developing shortness of breath. He reported frequent urination without hematuria and a recent weight gain of 8 pounds despite early satiety.

His medical history included hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, truncal obesity, noninsulin dependent DM, coronary artery disease, atrial flutter, transient ischemic attack, and benign positional paroxysmal vertigo. He was exposed to Agent Orange during his service in Vietnam. Family history was notable for breast cancer (mother), lung cancer (father), and an unspecified form of lymphoma (brother). He had smoked approximately 2 packs of cigarettes daily for 15 years but quit 38 years prior. He reported consuming on average 3 alcohol-containing drinks per week and no illicit drug use. He was adherent with all medications, including furosemide 40 mg daily, losartan 25 mg daily, metoprolol succinate 50 mg daily, atorvastatin 80 mg daily, metformin 500 mg twice daily, and rivaroxaban 20 mg daily with dinner.

His vital signs included a blood pressure of 123/58 mmHg, a pulse of 74 beats per minute, a respiratory rate of 16 breaths per minute, and an oxygen saturation of 94% on ambient air. His temperature was recorded at 96.7°F, and his weight was 234 pounds with a body mass index (BMI) of 34. He was well groomed and in no acute distress. His cardiopulmonary examination was normal. Carotid, radial, and bilateral dorsalis pedis pulsations were 2+ bilaterally, and no jugular venous distension was observed at 30°. The abdomen was protuberant. Nonshifting dullness to percussion and firmness to palpation was observed throughout right upper and lower quadrants, with hyperactive bowel sounds primarily localized to the left upper and lower quadrants.

Neurologic examination revealed symmetric facies with normal phonation and diction. He was spontaneously moving all extremities, and his gait was normal. Sensation to light touch was severely diminished throughout the anterolateral and medial thigh, extending to the level of the knee, and otherwise reduced in a stocking-type pattern over the bilateral feet and toes. His right hip flexion, adduction, as well as internal and external rotation were focally diminished to 4- out of 5. Right knee extension was 4+ out of 5. Strength was otherwise 5 out of 5. The patient exhibited asymmetric Patellar reflexes—absent on the right and 2+ on the left. Achilles reflexes were absent bilaterally. Straight-leg raise test was negative bilaterally and did not clearly exacerbate his right leg numbness or paresthesias. There were no notable fasciculations. There was 2+ bilateral lower extremity pitting edema appreciated to the level of the midshin (right greater than left), without palpable cords or new skin lesions.

Upon referral to the neurology service, the patient underwent electromyography, which revealed complex repetitive discharges in the right tibialis anterior and pattern of reduced recruitment upon activation of the right vastus medialis, collectively suggestive of an L3-4 plexopathy. The patient was admitted for expedited workup.

A complete blood count and metabolic panel that were taken in the emergency department were normal, save for a serum bicarbonate of 30 mEq/L. His hemoglobin A_1c was 6.6%. Computed tomography (CT) of the abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast was obtained, and notable for a 30 cm fat-containing right-sided retroperitoneal mass with associated solid nodular components and calcification (Figure 2). No enhancement of the lesion was observed. There was significant associated mass effect, with superior displacement of the liver and right hemidiaphragm, as well as superomedial deflection of the right kidney, inferior vena cava, and other intraabdominal organs. Subsequent imaging with a CT of the chest, as well as magnetic resonance imaging of the brain, were without evidence of metastatic disease.

Outcome

The patient was treated with external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) delivered simultaneously to both the prostate and high-risk retroperitoneal margins of the DDLPS, as well as concurrent androgen deprivation therapy. Five months after completed radiotherapy, resection of the DDLPS was attempted. However, palliative tumor debulking was instead performed due to extensive locoregional invasion with involvement of the posterior peritoneum and ipsilateral quadratus, iliopsoas, and psoas muscles, as well as the adjacent lumbar nerve roots.

At present, the patient is undergoing surveillance imaging every 3 months to reevaluate his underlying disease burden, which has thus far been radiographically stable. Current management at the primary care level is focused on preserving quality of life, particularly maintaining mobility and functional independence.

Discussion

Although generally a benign entrapment neuropathy, MP bears well-established associations with multiple forms of must-not-miss pathology. Here, we present the case of a veteran in whom MP was the index presentation of a massive retroperitoneal liposarcoma, stressing the importance of a thorough history and physical examination in all patients presenting with MP. The case presented herein highlights many of the red-flag signs and symptoms that primary care physicians might encounter in patients with retroperitoneal pathology, including MP and MP-like syndromes (Figure 4).

In this case, the pretest probability of a spontaneous and uncomplicated MP was high given the patient’s sex, age, body habitus, and DM; however, there important atypia that emerged as the case evolved, including: (1) the progressive course; (2) proximal right lower extremity weakness; (3) asymmetric patellar reflexes; and (4) numerous clinical stigmata of intraabdominal mass effect. The patient exhibited abnormalities on abdominal examination that suggested the presence of an underlying intraabdominal mass, providing key diagnostic insight into this case. Given the slowly progressive nature of liposarcomas, we feel the abnormalities appreciated on abdominal examination were likely apparent during the initial presentation.¹⁸

There are numerous cognitive biases that may explain why an abdominal examination was not prioritized during the initial presentation. Namely, the patient’s numerous risk factors for spontaneous MP, as detailed above, may have contributed to framing bias that limited consideration of alternative diagnoses. In addition, the patient’s physical examination likely contributed to search satisfaction, whereby alternative diagnoses were not further entertained after discovery of findings consistent with spontaneous MP.¹⁹ Finally, it remains conceivable that an abdominal examination was not prioritized as it is often perceived as being distinct from, rather than an integral part of, the neurologic examination.²⁰ Given that numerous neurologic disorders may present with abdominal pathology, we feel a thorough abdominal examination should be considered part of the full neurologic examination, especially in cases presenting with focal neurologic findings involving the lower extremities.²¹

Collectively, this case alludes to the importance of close clinical follow-up, as well as adequate anticipatory patient guidance in cases of suspected MP. In most patients, the clinical course of spontaneous MP is benign and favorable, with up to 85% of patients experiencing resolution within 4 to 6 months of the initial presentation.²² Common conservative measures include weight loss, garment optimization, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs as needed for analgesia. In refractory cases, procedural interventions such as with neurolysis or resection of the lateral femoral cutaneous nerve, may be required after the ruling out of alternative diagnoses.^23,24

Importantly, in even prolonged and resistant cases of MP, patient discomfort remains localized to the territory of the LFCN. Additional lower motor neuron signs, such as an expanding territory of sensory involvement, muscle weakness, or diminished reflexes, should prompt additional testing for alternative diagnoses. In addition, clinical findings concerning for intraabdominal mass effect, many of which were observed in this case, should lead to further evaluation and expeditious cross-sectional imaging. Although this patient’s early satiety, polyuria, bilateral lower extremity edema, weight gain, and lumbar plexopathy each may be explained by direct compression, invasion, or displacement, his report of progressive exertional dyspnea merits further discussion.

Exertional dyspnea is an uncommon complication of soft tissue sarcoma, reported almost exclusively in cases with cardiac, mediastinal, or other thoracic involvement.^25-28 In this case, there was no evidence of thoracic involvement, either through direct extension or metastasis. Instead, the patient’s exertional dyspnea may have been attributable to increased intraabdominal pressure leading to compromised diaphragm excursion and reduced pulmonary reserve. In addition, the radiographic findings also raise the possibility of a potential contribution from preload failure due to IVC compression. Overall, dyspnea is a concerning feature that may suggest advanced disease.

Despite the value of a thorough history and physical examination in patients with MP, major clinical guidelines from neurologic, neurosurgical, and orthopedic organizations do not formally address MP evaluation and management. Further, proposed clinical practice algorithms are inconsistent in their recommendations regarding the identification of red-flag features and ruling out of alternative diagnoses.^22,29,30 To supplement the abdominal examination, it would be reasonable to perform a pelvic compression test (PCT) in patients presenting with suspected MP. The PCT is a highly sensitive and specific provocative maneuver shown to enable reliable differentiation between MP and lumbar radiculopathy, and is performed by placing downward force on the anterior superior iliac spine of the affected extremity for 45 seconds with the patient in the lateral recumbent position.³¹ As this maneuver is intended to force relaxation of the inguinal ligament, thereby relieving pressure on the LFCN, improvement in the patient’s symptoms with the PCT is consistent with MP.

Conclusions

Spontaneous MP is a generally benign condition secondary to LFCN entrapment at the level of the inguinal ligament and is encountered frequently in the context of comorbid obesity and DM. However, MP bears known associations with high-risk pathologies that engender specific diagnostic and therapeutic considerations, including retroperitoneal mass lesions. The case presented herein highlights the utility of: (1) a focused history and review of systems to aid in the identification of red-flag symptoms and signs that might suggest a secondary etiology; and (2) a thorough abdominal examination in all patients who present with MP, especially in atypical presentations, cases with additional focal neurologic findings, or in patients who report progressive symptoms. Given the progressively aging population within the United States, coupled with an expanding prevalence of obesity and diabetes mellitus, recognition of the typical and atypical features of MP may be of progressive importance.

Meralgia paresthetica (MP) is a sensory mononeuropathy of the lateral femoral cutaneous nerve (LFCN), clinically characterized by numbness, pain, and paresthesias involving the anterolateral aspect of the thigh. Estimates of MP incidence are derived largely from observational studies and reported to be about 3.2 to 4.3 cases per 10,000 patient-years.^1,2 Although typically arising during midlife and especially in the context of comorbid obesity, diabetes mellitus (DM), and excessive alcohol consumption, MP may occur at any age, and bears a slight predilection for males.^2-4

MP may be divided etiologically into iatrogenic and spontaneous subtypes.⁵ Iatrogenic cases generally are attributable to nerve injury in the setting of direct or indirect trauma (such as with patient malpositioning) arising in the context of multiple forms of procedural or surgical intervention (Table). Spontaneous MP is primarily thought to occur as a result of LFCN compression at the level of the inguinal ligament, wherein internal or external pressures may promote LFCN entrapment and resultant functional disruption (Figure 1).^6,7

Case Presentation

A male Vietnam War veteran aged 69 years presented to a primary care clinic at West Roxbury Veterans Affairs Medical Center (WRVAMC) in Massachusetts with progressive right lower extremity numbness. Three months prior to this visit, he was evaluated in an urgent care clinic at WRVAMC for 6 months of numbness and increasingly painful nocturnal paresthesias involving the same extremity. A targeted physical examination at that visit revealed an obese male wearing tight suspenders, as well as focally diminished sensation to light touch involving the anterolateral aspect of the thigh, extending from just below the right hip to above the knee. Sensation in the medial thigh was spared. Strength and reflexes were normal in the bilateral lower extremities. An abdominal examination was not performed. He received a diagnosis of MP and counseled regarding weight loss, glycemic control, garment optimization, and conservative analgesia with as-needed nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. He was instructed to follow-up closely with his primary care physician for further monitoring.

During the current visit, the patient reported 2 atraumatic falls the prior 2 months, attributed to escalating right leg weakness. The patient reported that ascending stairs had become difficult, and he was unable to cross his right leg over his left while in a seated position. The territory of numbness expanded to his front and inner thigh. Although previously he was able to hike 4 miles, he now was unable to walk more than half of a mile without developing shortness of breath. He reported frequent urination without hematuria and a recent weight gain of 8 pounds despite early satiety.

His medical history included hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, truncal obesity, noninsulin dependent DM, coronary artery disease, atrial flutter, transient ischemic attack, and benign positional paroxysmal vertigo. He was exposed to Agent Orange during his service in Vietnam. Family history was notable for breast cancer (mother), lung cancer (father), and an unspecified form of lymphoma (brother). He had smoked approximately 2 packs of cigarettes daily for 15 years but quit 38 years prior. He reported consuming on average 3 alcohol-containing drinks per week and no illicit drug use. He was adherent with all medications, including furosemide 40 mg daily, losartan 25 mg daily, metoprolol succinate 50 mg daily, atorvastatin 80 mg daily, metformin 500 mg twice daily, and rivaroxaban 20 mg daily with dinner.

His vital signs included a blood pressure of 123/58 mmHg, a pulse of 74 beats per minute, a respiratory rate of 16 breaths per minute, and an oxygen saturation of 94% on ambient air. His temperature was recorded at 96.7°F, and his weight was 234 pounds with a body mass index (BMI) of 34. He was well groomed and in no acute distress. His cardiopulmonary examination was normal. Carotid, radial, and bilateral dorsalis pedis pulsations were 2+ bilaterally, and no jugular venous distension was observed at 30°. The abdomen was protuberant. Nonshifting dullness to percussion and firmness to palpation was observed throughout right upper and lower quadrants, with hyperactive bowel sounds primarily localized to the left upper and lower quadrants.

Neurologic examination revealed symmetric facies with normal phonation and diction. He was spontaneously moving all extremities, and his gait was normal. Sensation to light touch was severely diminished throughout the anterolateral and medial thigh, extending to the level of the knee, and otherwise reduced in a stocking-type pattern over the bilateral feet and toes. His right hip flexion, adduction, as well as internal and external rotation were focally diminished to 4- out of 5. Right knee extension was 4+ out of 5. Strength was otherwise 5 out of 5. The patient exhibited asymmetric Patellar reflexes—absent on the right and 2+ on the left. Achilles reflexes were absent bilaterally. Straight-leg raise test was negative bilaterally and did not clearly exacerbate his right leg numbness or paresthesias. There were no notable fasciculations. There was 2+ bilateral lower extremity pitting edema appreciated to the level of the midshin (right greater than left), without palpable cords or new skin lesions.

Upon referral to the neurology service, the patient underwent electromyography, which revealed complex repetitive discharges in the right tibialis anterior and pattern of reduced recruitment upon activation of the right vastus medialis, collectively suggestive of an L3-4 plexopathy. The patient was admitted for expedited workup.

A complete blood count and metabolic panel that were taken in the emergency department were normal, save for a serum bicarbonate of 30 mEq/L. His hemoglobin A_1c was 6.6%. Computed tomography (CT) of the abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast was obtained, and notable for a 30 cm fat-containing right-sided retroperitoneal mass with associated solid nodular components and calcification (Figure 2). No enhancement of the lesion was observed. There was significant associated mass effect, with superior displacement of the liver and right hemidiaphragm, as well as superomedial deflection of the right kidney, inferior vena cava, and other intraabdominal organs. Subsequent imaging with a CT of the chest, as well as magnetic resonance imaging of the brain, were without evidence of metastatic disease.

Outcome

The patient was treated with external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) delivered simultaneously to both the prostate and high-risk retroperitoneal margins of the DDLPS, as well as concurrent androgen deprivation therapy. Five months after completed radiotherapy, resection of the DDLPS was attempted. However, palliative tumor debulking was instead performed due to extensive locoregional invasion with involvement of the posterior peritoneum and ipsilateral quadratus, iliopsoas, and psoas muscles, as well as the adjacent lumbar nerve roots.

At present, the patient is undergoing surveillance imaging every 3 months to reevaluate his underlying disease burden, which has thus far been radiographically stable. Current management at the primary care level is focused on preserving quality of life, particularly maintaining mobility and functional independence.

Discussion

Although generally a benign entrapment neuropathy, MP bears well-established associations with multiple forms of must-not-miss pathology. Here, we present the case of a veteran in whom MP was the index presentation of a massive retroperitoneal liposarcoma, stressing the importance of a thorough history and physical examination in all patients presenting with MP. The case presented herein highlights many of the red-flag signs and symptoms that primary care physicians might encounter in patients with retroperitoneal pathology, including MP and MP-like syndromes (Figure 4).

In this case, the pretest probability of a spontaneous and uncomplicated MP was high given the patient’s sex, age, body habitus, and DM; however, there important atypia that emerged as the case evolved, including: (1) the progressive course; (2) proximal right lower extremity weakness; (3) asymmetric patellar reflexes; and (4) numerous clinical stigmata of intraabdominal mass effect. The patient exhibited abnormalities on abdominal examination that suggested the presence of an underlying intraabdominal mass, providing key diagnostic insight into this case. Given the slowly progressive nature of liposarcomas, we feel the abnormalities appreciated on abdominal examination were likely apparent during the initial presentation.¹⁸

There are numerous cognitive biases that may explain why an abdominal examination was not prioritized during the initial presentation. Namely, the patient’s numerous risk factors for spontaneous MP, as detailed above, may have contributed to framing bias that limited consideration of alternative diagnoses. In addition, the patient’s physical examination likely contributed to search satisfaction, whereby alternative diagnoses were not further entertained after discovery of findings consistent with spontaneous MP.¹⁹ Finally, it remains conceivable that an abdominal examination was not prioritized as it is often perceived as being distinct from, rather than an integral part of, the neurologic examination.²⁰ Given that numerous neurologic disorders may present with abdominal pathology, we feel a thorough abdominal examination should be considered part of the full neurologic examination, especially in cases presenting with focal neurologic findings involving the lower extremities.²¹

Collectively, this case alludes to the importance of close clinical follow-up, as well as adequate anticipatory patient guidance in cases of suspected MP. In most patients, the clinical course of spontaneous MP is benign and favorable, with up to 85% of patients experiencing resolution within 4 to 6 months of the initial presentation.²² Common conservative measures include weight loss, garment optimization, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs as needed for analgesia. In refractory cases, procedural interventions such as with neurolysis or resection of the lateral femoral cutaneous nerve, may be required after the ruling out of alternative diagnoses.^23,24

Importantly, in even prolonged and resistant cases of MP, patient discomfort remains localized to the territory of the LFCN. Additional lower motor neuron signs, such as an expanding territory of sensory involvement, muscle weakness, or diminished reflexes, should prompt additional testing for alternative diagnoses. In addition, clinical findings concerning for intraabdominal mass effect, many of which were observed in this case, should lead to further evaluation and expeditious cross-sectional imaging. Although this patient’s early satiety, polyuria, bilateral lower extremity edema, weight gain, and lumbar plexopathy each may be explained by direct compression, invasion, or displacement, his report of progressive exertional dyspnea merits further discussion.

Exertional dyspnea is an uncommon complication of soft tissue sarcoma, reported almost exclusively in cases with cardiac, mediastinal, or other thoracic involvement.^25-28 In this case, there was no evidence of thoracic involvement, either through direct extension or metastasis. Instead, the patient’s exertional dyspnea may have been attributable to increased intraabdominal pressure leading to compromised diaphragm excursion and reduced pulmonary reserve. In addition, the radiographic findings also raise the possibility of a potential contribution from preload failure due to IVC compression. Overall, dyspnea is a concerning feature that may suggest advanced disease.

Despite the value of a thorough history and physical examination in patients with MP, major clinical guidelines from neurologic, neurosurgical, and orthopedic organizations do not formally address MP evaluation and management. Further, proposed clinical practice algorithms are inconsistent in their recommendations regarding the identification of red-flag features and ruling out of alternative diagnoses.^22,29,30 To supplement the abdominal examination, it would be reasonable to perform a pelvic compression test (PCT) in patients presenting with suspected MP. The PCT is a highly sensitive and specific provocative maneuver shown to enable reliable differentiation between MP and lumbar radiculopathy, and is performed by placing downward force on the anterior superior iliac spine of the affected extremity for 45 seconds with the patient in the lateral recumbent position.³¹ As this maneuver is intended to force relaxation of the inguinal ligament, thereby relieving pressure on the LFCN, improvement in the patient’s symptoms with the PCT is consistent with MP.

Conclusions

Spontaneous MP is a generally benign condition secondary to LFCN entrapment at the level of the inguinal ligament and is encountered frequently in the context of comorbid obesity and DM. However, MP bears known associations with high-risk pathologies that engender specific diagnostic and therapeutic considerations, including retroperitoneal mass lesions. The case presented herein highlights the utility of: (1) a focused history and review of systems to aid in the identification of red-flag symptoms and signs that might suggest a secondary etiology; and (2) a thorough abdominal examination in all patients who present with MP, especially in atypical presentations, cases with additional focal neurologic findings, or in patients who report progressive symptoms. Given the progressively aging population within the United States, coupled with an expanding prevalence of obesity and diabetes mellitus, recognition of the typical and atypical features of MP may be of progressive importance.

An 88-year-old male veteran with a medical history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) on home oxygen, chronic alcohol use, squamous cell carcinoma of the lung status after left upper lobectomy, and a 5.7 cm thoracic aortic aneurysm was admitted to the inpatient medical service for progressive dyspnea and productive cough. The patient was in his usual state of health until 2 days before presentation. A chest computed tomography scan showed a right lower lobe infiltrate, concerning for pneumonia, and stable thoracic aortic aneurysm (Figure). On admission, the patient was started on IV ceftriaxone 2 g daily for pneumonia and nebulizer therapy of combined albuterol 15 mg and ipratropium 1,500 mg every 6 hours for symptomatic treatment of his dyspnea.

The patient responded well to therapy, and his cough and dyspnea improved. However, 72 hours after admission, he developed an asymptomatic acute kidney injury (AKI) and anion-gap metabolic acidosis. His serum creatinine increased from baseline 0.6 mg/dL to 1.2 mg/dL. He also had an anion gap of 21 mmol/L and a decrease in bicarbonate from 23 mmol/L to 17 mmol/L. His condition was further complicated by new-onset hypertension (153/111 mm Hg). His calculated fractional excretion of sodium (FENa) was 0.5%, and his lactate level returned elevated at 3.6 mmol/L. On further investigation, he reported alcohol use the night prior; however, his β-hydroxybutyrate was negative, and serum alcohol level was undetectable. Meanwhile, the patient continued to receive antibiotics and scheduled nebulizer treatments. Although his AKI resolved with initial fluid resuscitation, his repeat lactate levels continued to trend upward to a peak of 4.0 mmol/L.

• What is your diagnosis?
• How would you treat this patient?

Although IV fluids resolved his AKI, prerenal in etiology given the calculated FENa at 0.5%, his lactate levels continued to uptrend to a peak of 4.0 mmol/L complicated by elevated blood pressure (BP) > 150/100 mm Hg. Given his thoracic aneurysm, his BP was treated with metoprolol tartrate and amlodipine 10 mg daily. The patient remained asymptomatic with no evidence of ischemia or sepsis.

We suspected the nebulizer treatments to be the etiology of the patient’s hyperlactatemia and subsequent anion-gap metabolic acidosis. His scheduled albuterol and ipratropium nebulizer treatments were discontinued, and the patient experienced rapid resolution of his anion gap and hyperlactatemia to 1.2 mmol/L over 24 hours. On discontinuation of the nebulization therapy, mild wheezing was noted on physical examination. The patient reported no symptoms and was at his baseline. The patient finished his antibiotic course for his community-acquired pneumonia and was discharged in stable condition with instructions to continue his previously established home COPD medication regimen of umeclidinium/vilanterol 62.5/25 mcg daily and albuterol metered-dose inhaler as needed.

Discussion

Short-acting β-agonists, such as albuterol, are widely used in COPD and are a guideline-recommended treatment in maintenance and exacerbation of asthma and COPD.¹ Short-acting β-agonist adverse effects (AEs) include nausea, vomiting, tremors, headache, and tachycardia; abnormal laboratory results include hypocalcemia, hypokalemia, hypophosphatemia, hypomagnesemia, and hyperglycemia.^2,3 Albuterol-induced hyperlactatemia and lactic acidosis also are known but often overlooked and underreported AEs.

In a randomized control trial, researchers identified a positive correlation between nebulized albuterol use and hyperlactatemia in asthmatics with asthma exacerbation.⁴ One systematic review identified ≤ 20% of patients on either IV or nebulized high-dose treatments with selective β2-agonists may experience hyperlactatemia.⁵ However, aerosolized administration of albuterol as opposed to IV administration is less likely to result in AEs and abnormal laboratory results given decreased systemic absorption.³

Hyperlactatemia and lactic acidosis are associated with increased morbidity and mortality.⁶ Lactic acidosis is classified as either type A or type B. Type A lactic acidosis is characterized by hypoperfusion as subsequent ischemic injuries lead to anaerobic metabolism and elevated lactate. Diseases such as septic, cardiogenic, and hypovolemic shock are often associated with type A lactic acidosis. Type B lactic acidosis, however, encapsulates all nonhypoperfusion-related elevations in lactate, including malignancy, ethanol intoxication, and medication-induced lactic acidosis.^7,8

In this case, the diagnosis was elusive as the patient had multiple comorbidities. His history included COPD, which is associated with elevated lactate levels.⁵ However, his initial laboratory workup did not show an anion gap, confirming a lack of an underlying acidotic process on admission. Because the patient was admitted for pneumonia, a known infectious source, complicated by an acute elevation in lactate, sepsis must be and was effectively ruled out. The patient also reported alcohol use during his admission, which confounded his presentation but was unlikely to impact the etiology of his lactic acidosis, given the unremarkable β-hydroxybutyrate and serum alcohol levels.

Conclusions

We encourage heightened clinical suspicion of albuterol-induced lactic acidosis in acutely ill patients with COPD on albuterol therapy on rule out of life-threatening etiologies and suggest transitioning patients from scheduled to as-needed albuterol treatments on symptomatic improvement in the clinical course. With such, we hope for improved patient outcomes and the prudent use of health care resources.

An 88-year-old male veteran with a medical history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) on home oxygen, chronic alcohol use, squamous cell carcinoma of the lung status after left upper lobectomy, and a 5.7 cm thoracic aortic aneurysm was admitted to the inpatient medical service for progressive dyspnea and productive cough. The patient was in his usual state of health until 2 days before presentation. A chest computed tomography scan showed a right lower lobe infiltrate, concerning for pneumonia, and stable thoracic aortic aneurysm (Figure). On admission, the patient was started on IV ceftriaxone 2 g daily for pneumonia and nebulizer therapy of combined albuterol 15 mg and ipratropium 1,500 mg every 6 hours for symptomatic treatment of his dyspnea.

The patient responded well to therapy, and his cough and dyspnea improved. However, 72 hours after admission, he developed an asymptomatic acute kidney injury (AKI) and anion-gap metabolic acidosis. His serum creatinine increased from baseline 0.6 mg/dL to 1.2 mg/dL. He also had an anion gap of 21 mmol/L and a decrease in bicarbonate from 23 mmol/L to 17 mmol/L. His condition was further complicated by new-onset hypertension (153/111 mm Hg). His calculated fractional excretion of sodium (FENa) was 0.5%, and his lactate level returned elevated at 3.6 mmol/L. On further investigation, he reported alcohol use the night prior; however, his β-hydroxybutyrate was negative, and serum alcohol level was undetectable. Meanwhile, the patient continued to receive antibiotics and scheduled nebulizer treatments. Although his AKI resolved with initial fluid resuscitation, his repeat lactate levels continued to trend upward to a peak of 4.0 mmol/L.

• What is your diagnosis?
• How would you treat this patient?

Although IV fluids resolved his AKI, prerenal in etiology given the calculated FENa at 0.5%, his lactate levels continued to uptrend to a peak of 4.0 mmol/L complicated by elevated blood pressure (BP) > 150/100 mm Hg. Given his thoracic aneurysm, his BP was treated with metoprolol tartrate and amlodipine 10 mg daily. The patient remained asymptomatic with no evidence of ischemia or sepsis.

We suspected the nebulizer treatments to be the etiology of the patient’s hyperlactatemia and subsequent anion-gap metabolic acidosis. His scheduled albuterol and ipratropium nebulizer treatments were discontinued, and the patient experienced rapid resolution of his anion gap and hyperlactatemia to 1.2 mmol/L over 24 hours. On discontinuation of the nebulization therapy, mild wheezing was noted on physical examination. The patient reported no symptoms and was at his baseline. The patient finished his antibiotic course for his community-acquired pneumonia and was discharged in stable condition with instructions to continue his previously established home COPD medication regimen of umeclidinium/vilanterol 62.5/25 mcg daily and albuterol metered-dose inhaler as needed.

Discussion

Short-acting β-agonists, such as albuterol, are widely used in COPD and are a guideline-recommended treatment in maintenance and exacerbation of asthma and COPD.¹ Short-acting β-agonist adverse effects (AEs) include nausea, vomiting, tremors, headache, and tachycardia; abnormal laboratory results include hypocalcemia, hypokalemia, hypophosphatemia, hypomagnesemia, and hyperglycemia.^2,3 Albuterol-induced hyperlactatemia and lactic acidosis also are known but often overlooked and underreported AEs.

In a randomized control trial, researchers identified a positive correlation between nebulized albuterol use and hyperlactatemia in asthmatics with asthma exacerbation.⁴ One systematic review identified ≤ 20% of patients on either IV or nebulized high-dose treatments with selective β2-agonists may experience hyperlactatemia.⁵ However, aerosolized administration of albuterol as opposed to IV administration is less likely to result in AEs and abnormal laboratory results given decreased systemic absorption.³

Hyperlactatemia and lactic acidosis are associated with increased morbidity and mortality.⁶ Lactic acidosis is classified as either type A or type B. Type A lactic acidosis is characterized by hypoperfusion as subsequent ischemic injuries lead to anaerobic metabolism and elevated lactate. Diseases such as septic, cardiogenic, and hypovolemic shock are often associated with type A lactic acidosis. Type B lactic acidosis, however, encapsulates all nonhypoperfusion-related elevations in lactate, including malignancy, ethanol intoxication, and medication-induced lactic acidosis.^7,8

In this case, the diagnosis was elusive as the patient had multiple comorbidities. His history included COPD, which is associated with elevated lactate levels.⁵ However, his initial laboratory workup did not show an anion gap, confirming a lack of an underlying acidotic process on admission. Because the patient was admitted for pneumonia, a known infectious source, complicated by an acute elevation in lactate, sepsis must be and was effectively ruled out. The patient also reported alcohol use during his admission, which confounded his presentation but was unlikely to impact the etiology of his lactic acidosis, given the unremarkable β-hydroxybutyrate and serum alcohol levels.

Conclusions

We encourage heightened clinical suspicion of albuterol-induced lactic acidosis in acutely ill patients with COPD on albuterol therapy on rule out of life-threatening etiologies and suggest transitioning patients from scheduled to as-needed albuterol treatments on symptomatic improvement in the clinical course. With such, we hope for improved patient outcomes and the prudent use of health care resources.

An 88-year-old male veteran with a medical history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) on home oxygen, chronic alcohol use, squamous cell carcinoma of the lung status after left upper lobectomy, and a 5.7 cm thoracic aortic aneurysm was admitted to the inpatient medical service for progressive dyspnea and productive cough. The patient was in his usual state of health until 2 days before presentation. A chest computed tomography scan showed a right lower lobe infiltrate, concerning for pneumonia, and stable thoracic aortic aneurysm (Figure). On admission, the patient was started on IV ceftriaxone 2 g daily for pneumonia and nebulizer therapy of combined albuterol 15 mg and ipratropium 1,500 mg every 6 hours for symptomatic treatment of his dyspnea.

The patient responded well to therapy, and his cough and dyspnea improved. However, 72 hours after admission, he developed an asymptomatic acute kidney injury (AKI) and anion-gap metabolic acidosis. His serum creatinine increased from baseline 0.6 mg/dL to 1.2 mg/dL. He also had an anion gap of 21 mmol/L and a decrease in bicarbonate from 23 mmol/L to 17 mmol/L. His condition was further complicated by new-onset hypertension (153/111 mm Hg). His calculated fractional excretion of sodium (FENa) was 0.5%, and his lactate level returned elevated at 3.6 mmol/L. On further investigation, he reported alcohol use the night prior; however, his β-hydroxybutyrate was negative, and serum alcohol level was undetectable. Meanwhile, the patient continued to receive antibiotics and scheduled nebulizer treatments. Although his AKI resolved with initial fluid resuscitation, his repeat lactate levels continued to trend upward to a peak of 4.0 mmol/L.

• What is your diagnosis?
• How would you treat this patient?

Although IV fluids resolved his AKI, prerenal in etiology given the calculated FENa at 0.5%, his lactate levels continued to uptrend to a peak of 4.0 mmol/L complicated by elevated blood pressure (BP) > 150/100 mm Hg. Given his thoracic aneurysm, his BP was treated with metoprolol tartrate and amlodipine 10 mg daily. The patient remained asymptomatic with no evidence of ischemia or sepsis.

We suspected the nebulizer treatments to be the etiology of the patient’s hyperlactatemia and subsequent anion-gap metabolic acidosis. His scheduled albuterol and ipratropium nebulizer treatments were discontinued, and the patient experienced rapid resolution of his anion gap and hyperlactatemia to 1.2 mmol/L over 24 hours. On discontinuation of the nebulization therapy, mild wheezing was noted on physical examination. The patient reported no symptoms and was at his baseline. The patient finished his antibiotic course for his community-acquired pneumonia and was discharged in stable condition with instructions to continue his previously established home COPD medication regimen of umeclidinium/vilanterol 62.5/25 mcg daily and albuterol metered-dose inhaler as needed.

Discussion

Short-acting β-agonists, such as albuterol, are widely used in COPD and are a guideline-recommended treatment in maintenance and exacerbation of asthma and COPD.¹ Short-acting β-agonist adverse effects (AEs) include nausea, vomiting, tremors, headache, and tachycardia; abnormal laboratory results include hypocalcemia, hypokalemia, hypophosphatemia, hypomagnesemia, and hyperglycemia.^2,3 Albuterol-induced hyperlactatemia and lactic acidosis also are known but often overlooked and underreported AEs.

In a randomized control trial, researchers identified a positive correlation between nebulized albuterol use and hyperlactatemia in asthmatics with asthma exacerbation.⁴ One systematic review identified ≤ 20% of patients on either IV or nebulized high-dose treatments with selective β2-agonists may experience hyperlactatemia.⁵ However, aerosolized administration of albuterol as opposed to IV administration is less likely to result in AEs and abnormal laboratory results given decreased systemic absorption.³

Hyperlactatemia and lactic acidosis are associated with increased morbidity and mortality.⁶ Lactic acidosis is classified as either type A or type B. Type A lactic acidosis is characterized by hypoperfusion as subsequent ischemic injuries lead to anaerobic metabolism and elevated lactate. Diseases such as septic, cardiogenic, and hypovolemic shock are often associated with type A lactic acidosis. Type B lactic acidosis, however, encapsulates all nonhypoperfusion-related elevations in lactate, including malignancy, ethanol intoxication, and medication-induced lactic acidosis.^7,8

In this case, the diagnosis was elusive as the patient had multiple comorbidities. His history included COPD, which is associated with elevated lactate levels.⁵ However, his initial laboratory workup did not show an anion gap, confirming a lack of an underlying acidotic process on admission. Because the patient was admitted for pneumonia, a known infectious source, complicated by an acute elevation in lactate, sepsis must be and was effectively ruled out. The patient also reported alcohol use during his admission, which confounded his presentation but was unlikely to impact the etiology of his lactic acidosis, given the unremarkable β-hydroxybutyrate and serum alcohol levels.

Conclusions

We encourage heightened clinical suspicion of albuterol-induced lactic acidosis in acutely ill patients with COPD on albuterol therapy on rule out of life-threatening etiologies and suggest transitioning patients from scheduled to as-needed albuterol treatments on symptomatic improvement in the clinical course. With such, we hope for improved patient outcomes and the prudent use of health care resources.

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is one of the most common surgical procedures in the United States. The volume of TKAs is projected to substantially increase over the next 30 years.¹ Adequate pain control after TKA is critically important to achieve early mobilization, shorten the length of hospital stay, and reduce postoperative complications. The evolution and inclusion of multimodal pain-management protocols have had a major impact on the clinical outcomes for TKA patients.^2,3

Pain-management protocols typically use several modalities to control pain throughout the perioperative period. Multimodal opioid and nonopioid oral medications are administered during the pre- and postoperative periods and often involve a combination of acetaminophen, gabapentinoids, and cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors.⁴ Peripheral nerve blocks and central neuraxial blockades are widely used and have been shown to be effective in reducing postoperative pain as well as overall opioid consumption.^5,6 Finally, intraoperative periarticular injections have been shown to reduce postoperative pain and opioid consumption as well as improve patient satisfaction scores.^7-9 These strategies are routinely used in TKA with the goal of minimizing overall opioid consumption and adverse events, reducing perioperative complications, and improving patient satisfaction.

Periarticular injections during surgery are an integral part of the multimodal pain-management protocols, though no consensus has been reached on proper injection formulation or technique. Liposomal bupivacaine is a local anesthetic depot formulation approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for surgical patients. The reported results have been discrepant regarding the efficacy of using liposomal bupivacaine injection in patients with TKA. Several studies have reported no added benefit of liposomal bupivacaine in contrast to a mixture of local anesthetics.^10,11 Other studies have demonstrated superior pain relief.¹² Many factors may contribute to the discrepant data, such as injection techniques, infiltration volume, and the assessment tools used to measure efficacy and safety.¹³

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Veterans Health Administration (VHA) provides care to a large patient population. Many of the patients in that system have high-risk profiles, including medical comorbidities; exposure to chronic pain and opioid use; and psychological and central nervous system injuries, including posttraumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury. Hadlandsmyth and colleagues reported increased risk of prolonged opioid use in VA patients after TKA surgery.¹⁴ They found that 20% of the patients were still on long-term opioids more than 90 days after TKA.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of the implementation of a comprehensive enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol at a regional VA medical center. We hypothesize that the addition of liposomal bupivacaine in a multidisciplinary ERAS protocol would reduce the length of hospital stay and opioid consumption without any deleterious effects on postoperative outcomes.

Methods

A postoperative recovery protocol was implemented in 2013 at VA North Texas Health Care System (VANTHCS) in Dallas, and many of the patients continued to have issues with satisfactory pain control, prolonged length of stay, and extended opioid consumption postoperatively. A multimodal pain-management protocol and multidisciplinary perioperative case-management protocol were implemented in 2016 to further improve the clinical outcomes of patients undergoing TKA surgery. The senior surgeon (JM) organized a multidisciplinary team of health care providers to identify and implement potential solutions. This task force met weekly and consisted of surgeons, anesthesiologists, certified registered nurse anesthetists, orthopedic physician assistants, a nurse coordinator, a physical therapist, and an occupational therapist, as well as operating room, postanesthesia care unit (PACU), and surgical ward nurses. In addition, the staff from the home health agencies and social services attended the weekly meetings.

We conducted a retrospective review of all patients who had undergone unilateral TKA from 2013 to 2018 at VANTHCS. This was a consecutive, unselected cohort. All patients were under the care of a single surgeon using identical implant systems and identical surgical techniques. This study was approved by the institutional review board at VANTHCS. Patients were divided into 2 distinct and consecutive cohorts. The standard of care (SOC) group included all patients from 2013 to 2016. The ERAS group included all patients after the institution of the standardized protocol until the end of the study period.

Data on patient demographics, the American Society of Anesthesiologists risk classification, and preoperative functional status were extracted. Anesthesia techniques included either general endotracheal anesthesia or subarachnoid block with monitored anesthesia care. The quantity of the opioids given during surgery, in the PACU, during the inpatient stay, as discharge prescriptions, and as refills of the narcotic prescriptions up to 3 months postsurgery were recorded. All opioids were converted into morphine equivalent dosages (MED) in order to be properly analyzed using the statistical methodologies described in the statistical section.¹⁵ The VHA is a closed health care delivery system; therefore, all of the prescriptions ordered by surgery providers were recorded in the electronic health record.

ERAS Protocol

The SOC cohort was predominantly managed with general endotracheal anesthesia. The ERAS group was predominantly managed with subarachnoid blocks (Table 1). For the ERAS protocol preoperatively, the patients were administered oral gabapentin 300 mg, acetaminophen 650 mg, and oxycodone 20 mg, and IV ondansetron 4 mg. Intraoperatively, minimal opioids were used. In the PACU, the patients received dilaudid 0.25 mg IV as needed every 15 minutes for up to 1 mg/h. The nursing staff was trained to use the visual analog pain scale scores to titrate the medication. During the inpatient stay, patients received 1 g IV acetaminophen every 6 hours for 3 doses. The patients thereafter received oral acetaminophen as needed. Other medications in the multimodal pain-management protocol included gabapentin 300 mg twice daily, meloxicam 15 mg daily, and oxycodone 10 mg every 4 hours as needed. Rescue medication for insufficient pain relief was dilaudid 0.25 mg IV every 15 minutes for visual analog pain scale > 8. On discharge, the patients received a prescription of 30 tablets of hydrocodone 10 mg.

Periarticular Injections

Intraoperatively, all patients in the SOC and ERAS groups received periarticular injections. The liposomal bupivacaine injection was added to the standard injection mixture for the ERAS group. For the SOC group, the total volume of 100 ml was divided into 10 separate 10 cc syringes, and for the ERAS group, the total volume of 140 ml was divided into 14 separate 10 cc syringes. The SOC group injections were performed with an 18-gauge needle and the periarticular soft tissues grossly infiltrated. The ERAS group injections were done with more attention to anatomical detail. Injection sites for the ERAS group included the posterior joint capsule, the medial compartment, the lateral compartment, the tibial fat pad, the quadriceps and the patellar tendon, the femoral and tibial periosteum circumferentially, and the anterior joint capsule. Each needle-stick in the ERAS group delivered 1 to 1.5 ml through a 22-gauge needle to each compartment of the knee.

Outcome Variable

The primary outcome measure was total oral MED intraoperatively, in the PACU, during the hospital inpatient stay, in the hospital discharge prescription, and during the 3-month period after hospital discharge. Incidence of nausea and vomiting during the inpatient stay and any narcotic use at 6 months postsurgery were secondary binary outcomes.

Statistical Analysis

Demographic data and the clinical characteristics for the entire group were described using the sample mean and SD for continuous variables and the frequency and percentage for categorical variables. Differences between the 2 cohorts were analyzed using a 2-independent-sample t test and Fisher exact test.

The estimation of the total oral MED throughout all phases of care was done using a separate Poisson model due to the data being not normally distributed. A log-linear regression model was used to evaluate the main effect of ERAS vs the SOC cohort on the total oral MED used. Finally, a separate multiple logistic regression model was used to estimate the odds of postoperative nausea and vomiting and narcotic use at 6 months postsurgery between the cohorts. The adjusted odds ratio (OR) was estimated from the logistic model. Age, sex, body mass index, preoperative functional independence score, narcotic use within 3 months prior to surgery, anesthesia type used (subarachnoid block with monitored anesthesia care vs general endotracheal anesthesia), and postoperative complications (yes/no) were included as covariates in each model. The length of hospital stay and the above-mentioned factors were also included as covariates in the model estimating the total oral MED during the hospital stay, on hospital discharge, during the 3-month period after hospital discharge, and at 6 months following hospital discharge.

Results

Two hundred forty-nine patients had 296 elective unilateral TKAs in this study from 2013 through 2018. Thirty-one patients had both unilateral TKAs under the SOC protocol; 5 patients had both unilateral TKAs under the ERAS protocol. Eleven of the patients who eventually had both knees replaced had 1 operation under each protocol The SOC group included 196 TKAs and the ERAS group included 100 TKAs. Of the 196 SOC patients, 94% were male. The mean age was 68.2 years (range, 48-86). The length of hospital stay ranged from 36.6 to 664.3 hours. Of the 100 ERAS patients, 96% were male (Table 2). The mean age was 66.7 years (range, 48-85). The length of hospital stay ranged from 12.5 to 45 hours.

Perioperative Opioid Use

Of the SOC patients, 99.0% received narcotics intraoperatively (range, 0-198 mg MED), and 74.5% received narcotics during PACU recovery (range, 0-141 mg MED). The total oral MED during the hospital stay for the SOC patients ranged from 10 to 2,946 mg. Of the ERAS patients, 86% received no narcotics during surgery (range, 0-110 mg MED), and 98% received no narcotics during PACU recovery (range, 0-65 mg MED). The total oral MED during the hospital stay for the ERAS patients ranged from 10 to 240 mg.

The MED used was significantly lower for the ERAS patients than it was for the SOC patients during surgery (10.5 mg vs 57.4 mg, P = .0001, FDR = .0002) and in the PACU (1.3 mg vs 13.6 mg, P = .0002, FDR = .0004), during the inpatient stay (66.7 mg vs 169.5 mg, P = .0001, FDR = .0002), and on hospital discharge (419.3 mg vs 776.7 mg, P = .0001, FDR = .0002). However, there was no significant difference in the total MED prescriptions filled between patients on the ERAS protocol vs those who received SOC during the 3-month period after hospital discharge (858.3 mg vs 1126.1 mg, P = .29, FDR = .29)(Table 3).

Discussion

Orthopedic surgery has been associated with long-term opioid use and misuse. Orthopedic surgeons are frequently among the highest prescribers of narcotics. According to Volkow and colleagues, orthopedic surgeons were the fourth largest prescribers of opioids in 2009, behind primary care physicians, internists, and dentists.¹⁷ The opioid crisis in the United States is well recognized. In 2017, > 70,000 deaths occurred due to drug overdoses, with 68% involving a prescription or illicit opioid. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has estimated a total economic burden of $78.5 billion per year as a direct result of misused prescribed opioids.¹⁸ This includes the cost of health care, lost productivity, addiction treatment, and the impact on the criminal justice system.

The current opioid crisis places further emphasis on opioid-reducing or sparing techniques in patients undergoing TKA. The use of liposomal bupivacaine for intraoperative periarticular injection is debated in the literature regarding its efficacy and whether it should be included in multimodal protocols. Researchers have argued that liposomal bupivacaine is not superior to regular bupivacaine and because of its increased cost is not justified.^19,20 A meta-analysis from Zhao and colleagues showed no difference in pain control and functional recovery when comparing liposomal bupivacaine and control.²¹ In a randomized clinical trial, Schroer and colleagues matched liposomal bupivacaine against regular bupivacaine and found no difference in pain scores and similar narcotic use during hospitalization.²²

Studies evaluating liposomal bupivacaine have demonstrated postoperative benefits in pain relief and potential opioid consumption.²³ In a multicenter randomized controlled trial, Barrington and colleagues noted improved pain control at 6 and 12 hours after surgery with liposomal bupivacaine as a periarticular injection vs ropivacaine, though results were similar when compared with intrathecal morphine.²⁴ Snyder and colleagues reported higher patient satisfaction in pain control and overall experience as well as decreased MED consumption in the PACU and on postoperative days 0 to 2 when using liposomal bupivacaine vs a multidrug cocktail for periarticular injection.²⁵

The PILLAR trial, an industry-sponsored study, was designed to compare the effects of local infiltration anesthesia with and without liposomal bupivacaine with emphasis on a meticulous standardized infiltration technique. In our study, we used a similar technique with an expanded volume of injection solution to 140 ml that was delivered throughout the knee in a series of 14 syringes. Each needle-stick delivered 1 to 1.5 ml through a 22-gauge needle to each compartment of the knee. Infiltration technique has varied among the literature focused on periarticular injections.

In our experience, a standard infiltration technique is critical to the effective delivery of liposomal bupivacaine throughout all compartments of the knee and to obtaining reproducible pain control. The importance of injection technique cannot be overemphasized, and variations can be seen in studies published to date.²⁶ Well-designed trials are needed to address this key component.

There have been limited data focused on the veteran population regarding postoperative pain-management strategies and recovery pathways either with or without liposomal bupivacaine. In a retrospective review, Sakamoto and colleagues found VA patients undergoing TKA had reduced opioid use in the first 24 hours after primary TKA with the use of intraoperative liposomal bupivacaine.²⁷ The VA population has been shown to be at high risk for opioid misuse. The prevalence of comorbidities such as traumatic brain injury, posttraumatic stress disorder, and depression in the VA population also places them at risk for polypharmacy of central nervous system–acting medications.²⁸ This emphasizes the importance of multimodal strategies, which can limit or eliminate narcotics in the perioperative period. The implementation of our ERAS protocol reduced opioid use during intraoperative, PACU, and inpatient hospital stay.

While the financial implications of our recovery protocol were not a primary focus of this study, there are many notable benefits on the overall inpatient cost to the VHA. According to the Health Economics Resource Center, the average daily cost of stay while under VA care for an inpatient surgical bed increased from $4,831 in 2013 to $6,220 in 2018.²⁹ Our reduction in length of stay between our cohorts is 44.5 hours, which translates to a substantial financial savings per patient after protocol implementation. A more detailed look at the financial aspect of our protocol would need to be performed to evaluate the financial impact of other aspects of our protocol, such as the elimination of patient-controlled anesthesia and the reduction in total narcotics prescribed in the postoperative global period.

Limitations

The limitations of this study include its retrospective study design. With the VHA patient population, it may be subject to selection bias, as the population is mostly older and predominantly male compared with that of the general population. This could potentially influence the efficacy of our protocol on a population of patients with more women. In a recent study by Perruccio and colleagues, sex was found to moderate the effects of comorbidities, low back pain, and depressive symptoms on postoperative pain in patients undergoing TKA.³⁰

With regard to outpatient narcotic prescriptions, although we cannot fully know whether these filled prescriptions were used for pain control, it is a reasonable assumption that patients who are dealing with continued postoperative or chronic pain issues will fill these prescriptions or seek refills. It is important to note that the data on prescriptions and refills in the 3-month postoperative period include all narcotic prescriptions filled by any VHA prescriber and are not specifically limited to our orthopedic team. For outpatient narcotic use, we were not able to access accurate pill counts for any discharge prescriptions or subsequent refills that were given throughout the VA system. We were able to report on total prescriptions filled in the first 3 months following TKA.

We calculated total oral MEDs to better understand the amount of narcotics being distributed throughout our population of patients. We believe this provides important information about the overall narcotic burden in the veteran population. There was no significant difference between the SOC and ERAS groups regarding oral MED prescribed in the 3-month postoperative period; however, at the 6-month follow-up visit, only 16% of patients in the ERAS group were taking any type of narcotic vs 37.2% in the SOC group (P = .0002).

Conclusions

A multidisciplinary ERAS protocol implemented at VANTHCS was effective in reducing length of stay and opioid burden throughout all phases of surgical care in our patients undergoing primary TKA. Patient and nursing education seem to be critical components to the implementation of a successful multimodal pain protocol. Reducing the narcotic burden has valuable financial and medical benefits in this at-risk population.

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is one of the most common surgical procedures in the United States. The volume of TKAs is projected to substantially increase over the next 30 years.¹ Adequate pain control after TKA is critically important to achieve early mobilization, shorten the length of hospital stay, and reduce postoperative complications. The evolution and inclusion of multimodal pain-management protocols have had a major impact on the clinical outcomes for TKA patients.^2,3

Pain-management protocols typically use several modalities to control pain throughout the perioperative period. Multimodal opioid and nonopioid oral medications are administered during the pre- and postoperative periods and often involve a combination of acetaminophen, gabapentinoids, and cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors.⁴ Peripheral nerve blocks and central neuraxial blockades are widely used and have been shown to be effective in reducing postoperative pain as well as overall opioid consumption.^5,6 Finally, intraoperative periarticular injections have been shown to reduce postoperative pain and opioid consumption as well as improve patient satisfaction scores.^7-9 These strategies are routinely used in TKA with the goal of minimizing overall opioid consumption and adverse events, reducing perioperative complications, and improving patient satisfaction.

Periarticular injections during surgery are an integral part of the multimodal pain-management protocols, though no consensus has been reached on proper injection formulation or technique. Liposomal bupivacaine is a local anesthetic depot formulation approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for surgical patients. The reported results have been discrepant regarding the efficacy of using liposomal bupivacaine injection in patients with TKA. Several studies have reported no added benefit of liposomal bupivacaine in contrast to a mixture of local anesthetics.^10,11 Other studies have demonstrated superior pain relief.¹² Many factors may contribute to the discrepant data, such as injection techniques, infiltration volume, and the assessment tools used to measure efficacy and safety.¹³

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Veterans Health Administration (VHA) provides care to a large patient population. Many of the patients in that system have high-risk profiles, including medical comorbidities; exposure to chronic pain and opioid use; and psychological and central nervous system injuries, including posttraumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury. Hadlandsmyth and colleagues reported increased risk of prolonged opioid use in VA patients after TKA surgery.¹⁴ They found that 20% of the patients were still on long-term opioids more than 90 days after TKA.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of the implementation of a comprehensive enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol at a regional VA medical center. We hypothesize that the addition of liposomal bupivacaine in a multidisciplinary ERAS protocol would reduce the length of hospital stay and opioid consumption without any deleterious effects on postoperative outcomes.

Methods

A postoperative recovery protocol was implemented in 2013 at VA North Texas Health Care System (VANTHCS) in Dallas, and many of the patients continued to have issues with satisfactory pain control, prolonged length of stay, and extended opioid consumption postoperatively. A multimodal pain-management protocol and multidisciplinary perioperative case-management protocol were implemented in 2016 to further improve the clinical outcomes of patients undergoing TKA surgery. The senior surgeon (JM) organized a multidisciplinary team of health care providers to identify and implement potential solutions. This task force met weekly and consisted of surgeons, anesthesiologists, certified registered nurse anesthetists, orthopedic physician assistants, a nurse coordinator, a physical therapist, and an occupational therapist, as well as operating room, postanesthesia care unit (PACU), and surgical ward nurses. In addition, the staff from the home health agencies and social services attended the weekly meetings.

We conducted a retrospective review of all patients who had undergone unilateral TKA from 2013 to 2018 at VANTHCS. This was a consecutive, unselected cohort. All patients were under the care of a single surgeon using identical implant systems and identical surgical techniques. This study was approved by the institutional review board at VANTHCS. Patients were divided into 2 distinct and consecutive cohorts. The standard of care (SOC) group included all patients from 2013 to 2016. The ERAS group included all patients after the institution of the standardized protocol until the end of the study period.

Data on patient demographics, the American Society of Anesthesiologists risk classification, and preoperative functional status were extracted. Anesthesia techniques included either general endotracheal anesthesia or subarachnoid block with monitored anesthesia care. The quantity of the opioids given during surgery, in the PACU, during the inpatient stay, as discharge prescriptions, and as refills of the narcotic prescriptions up to 3 months postsurgery were recorded. All opioids were converted into morphine equivalent dosages (MED) in order to be properly analyzed using the statistical methodologies described in the statistical section.¹⁵ The VHA is a closed health care delivery system; therefore, all of the prescriptions ordered by surgery providers were recorded in the electronic health record.

ERAS Protocol

The SOC cohort was predominantly managed with general endotracheal anesthesia. The ERAS group was predominantly managed with subarachnoid blocks (Table 1). For the ERAS protocol preoperatively, the patients were administered oral gabapentin 300 mg, acetaminophen 650 mg, and oxycodone 20 mg, and IV ondansetron 4 mg. Intraoperatively, minimal opioids were used. In the PACU, the patients received dilaudid 0.25 mg IV as needed every 15 minutes for up to 1 mg/h. The nursing staff was trained to use the visual analog pain scale scores to titrate the medication. During the inpatient stay, patients received 1 g IV acetaminophen every 6 hours for 3 doses. The patients thereafter received oral acetaminophen as needed. Other medications in the multimodal pain-management protocol included gabapentin 300 mg twice daily, meloxicam 15 mg daily, and oxycodone 10 mg every 4 hours as needed. Rescue medication for insufficient pain relief was dilaudid 0.25 mg IV every 15 minutes for visual analog pain scale > 8. On discharge, the patients received a prescription of 30 tablets of hydrocodone 10 mg.

Periarticular Injections

Intraoperatively, all patients in the SOC and ERAS groups received periarticular injections. The liposomal bupivacaine injection was added to the standard injection mixture for the ERAS group. For the SOC group, the total volume of 100 ml was divided into 10 separate 10 cc syringes, and for the ERAS group, the total volume of 140 ml was divided into 14 separate 10 cc syringes. The SOC group injections were performed with an 18-gauge needle and the periarticular soft tissues grossly infiltrated. The ERAS group injections were done with more attention to anatomical detail. Injection sites for the ERAS group included the posterior joint capsule, the medial compartment, the lateral compartment, the tibial fat pad, the quadriceps and the patellar tendon, the femoral and tibial periosteum circumferentially, and the anterior joint capsule. Each needle-stick in the ERAS group delivered 1 to 1.5 ml through a 22-gauge needle to each compartment of the knee.

Outcome Variable

The primary outcome measure was total oral MED intraoperatively, in the PACU, during the hospital inpatient stay, in the hospital discharge prescription, and during the 3-month period after hospital discharge. Incidence of nausea and vomiting during the inpatient stay and any narcotic use at 6 months postsurgery were secondary binary outcomes.

Statistical Analysis

Demographic data and the clinical characteristics for the entire group were described using the sample mean and SD for continuous variables and the frequency and percentage for categorical variables. Differences between the 2 cohorts were analyzed using a 2-independent-sample t test and Fisher exact test.

The estimation of the total oral MED throughout all phases of care was done using a separate Poisson model due to the data being not normally distributed. A log-linear regression model was used to evaluate the main effect of ERAS vs the SOC cohort on the total oral MED used. Finally, a separate multiple logistic regression model was used to estimate the odds of postoperative nausea and vomiting and narcotic use at 6 months postsurgery between the cohorts. The adjusted odds ratio (OR) was estimated from the logistic model. Age, sex, body mass index, preoperative functional independence score, narcotic use within 3 months prior to surgery, anesthesia type used (subarachnoid block with monitored anesthesia care vs general endotracheal anesthesia), and postoperative complications (yes/no) were included as covariates in each model. The length of hospital stay and the above-mentioned factors were also included as covariates in the model estimating the total oral MED during the hospital stay, on hospital discharge, during the 3-month period after hospital discharge, and at 6 months following hospital discharge.

Results

Two hundred forty-nine patients had 296 elective unilateral TKAs in this study from 2013 through 2018. Thirty-one patients had both unilateral TKAs under the SOC protocol; 5 patients had both unilateral TKAs under the ERAS protocol. Eleven of the patients who eventually had both knees replaced had 1 operation under each protocol The SOC group included 196 TKAs and the ERAS group included 100 TKAs. Of the 196 SOC patients, 94% were male. The mean age was 68.2 years (range, 48-86). The length of hospital stay ranged from 36.6 to 664.3 hours. Of the 100 ERAS patients, 96% were male (Table 2). The mean age was 66.7 years (range, 48-85). The length of hospital stay ranged from 12.5 to 45 hours.

Perioperative Opioid Use

Of the SOC patients, 99.0% received narcotics intraoperatively (range, 0-198 mg MED), and 74.5% received narcotics during PACU recovery (range, 0-141 mg MED). The total oral MED during the hospital stay for the SOC patients ranged from 10 to 2,946 mg. Of the ERAS patients, 86% received no narcotics during surgery (range, 0-110 mg MED), and 98% received no narcotics during PACU recovery (range, 0-65 mg MED). The total oral MED during the hospital stay for the ERAS patients ranged from 10 to 240 mg.

The MED used was significantly lower for the ERAS patients than it was for the SOC patients during surgery (10.5 mg vs 57.4 mg, P = .0001, FDR = .0002) and in the PACU (1.3 mg vs 13.6 mg, P = .0002, FDR = .0004), during the inpatient stay (66.7 mg vs 169.5 mg, P = .0001, FDR = .0002), and on hospital discharge (419.3 mg vs 776.7 mg, P = .0001, FDR = .0002). However, there was no significant difference in the total MED prescriptions filled between patients on the ERAS protocol vs those who received SOC during the 3-month period after hospital discharge (858.3 mg vs 1126.1 mg, P = .29, FDR = .29)(Table 3).

Discussion

Orthopedic surgery has been associated with long-term opioid use and misuse. Orthopedic surgeons are frequently among the highest prescribers of narcotics. According to Volkow and colleagues, orthopedic surgeons were the fourth largest prescribers of opioids in 2009, behind primary care physicians, internists, and dentists.¹⁷ The opioid crisis in the United States is well recognized. In 2017, > 70,000 deaths occurred due to drug overdoses, with 68% involving a prescription or illicit opioid. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has estimated a total economic burden of $78.5 billion per year as a direct result of misused prescribed opioids.¹⁸ This includes the cost of health care, lost productivity, addiction treatment, and the impact on the criminal justice system.

The current opioid crisis places further emphasis on opioid-reducing or sparing techniques in patients undergoing TKA. The use of liposomal bupivacaine for intraoperative periarticular injection is debated in the literature regarding its efficacy and whether it should be included in multimodal protocols. Researchers have argued that liposomal bupivacaine is not superior to regular bupivacaine and because of its increased cost is not justified.^19,20 A meta-analysis from Zhao and colleagues showed no difference in pain control and functional recovery when comparing liposomal bupivacaine and control.²¹ In a randomized clinical trial, Schroer and colleagues matched liposomal bupivacaine against regular bupivacaine and found no difference in pain scores and similar narcotic use during hospitalization.²²

Studies evaluating liposomal bupivacaine have demonstrated postoperative benefits in pain relief and potential opioid consumption.²³ In a multicenter randomized controlled trial, Barrington and colleagues noted improved pain control at 6 and 12 hours after surgery with liposomal bupivacaine as a periarticular injection vs ropivacaine, though results were similar when compared with intrathecal morphine.²⁴ Snyder and colleagues reported higher patient satisfaction in pain control and overall experience as well as decreased MED consumption in the PACU and on postoperative days 0 to 2 when using liposomal bupivacaine vs a multidrug cocktail for periarticular injection.²⁵

The PILLAR trial, an industry-sponsored study, was designed to compare the effects of local infiltration anesthesia with and without liposomal bupivacaine with emphasis on a meticulous standardized infiltration technique. In our study, we used a similar technique with an expanded volume of injection solution to 140 ml that was delivered throughout the knee in a series of 14 syringes. Each needle-stick delivered 1 to 1.5 ml through a 22-gauge needle to each compartment of the knee. Infiltration technique has varied among the literature focused on periarticular injections.

In our experience, a standard infiltration technique is critical to the effective delivery of liposomal bupivacaine throughout all compartments of the knee and to obtaining reproducible pain control. The importance of injection technique cannot be overemphasized, and variations can be seen in studies published to date.²⁶ Well-designed trials are needed to address this key component.

There have been limited data focused on the veteran population regarding postoperative pain-management strategies and recovery pathways either with or without liposomal bupivacaine. In a retrospective review, Sakamoto and colleagues found VA patients undergoing TKA had reduced opioid use in the first 24 hours after primary TKA with the use of intraoperative liposomal bupivacaine.²⁷ The VA population has been shown to be at high risk for opioid misuse. The prevalence of comorbidities such as traumatic brain injury, posttraumatic stress disorder, and depression in the VA population also places them at risk for polypharmacy of central nervous system–acting medications.²⁸ This emphasizes the importance of multimodal strategies, which can limit or eliminate narcotics in the perioperative period. The implementation of our ERAS protocol reduced opioid use during intraoperative, PACU, and inpatient hospital stay.

While the financial implications of our recovery protocol were not a primary focus of this study, there are many notable benefits on the overall inpatient cost to the VHA. According to the Health Economics Resource Center, the average daily cost of stay while under VA care for an inpatient surgical bed increased from $4,831 in 2013 to $6,220 in 2018.²⁹ Our reduction in length of stay between our cohorts is 44.5 hours, which translates to a substantial financial savings per patient after protocol implementation. A more detailed look at the financial aspect of our protocol would need to be performed to evaluate the financial impact of other aspects of our protocol, such as the elimination of patient-controlled anesthesia and the reduction in total narcotics prescribed in the postoperative global period.

Limitations

The limitations of this study include its retrospective study design. With the VHA patient population, it may be subject to selection bias, as the population is mostly older and predominantly male compared with that of the general population. This could potentially influence the efficacy of our protocol on a population of patients with more women. In a recent study by Perruccio and colleagues, sex was found to moderate the effects of comorbidities, low back pain, and depressive symptoms on postoperative pain in patients undergoing TKA.³⁰

With regard to outpatient narcotic prescriptions, although we cannot fully know whether these filled prescriptions were used for pain control, it is a reasonable assumption that patients who are dealing with continued postoperative or chronic pain issues will fill these prescriptions or seek refills. It is important to note that the data on prescriptions and refills in the 3-month postoperative period include all narcotic prescriptions filled by any VHA prescriber and are not specifically limited to our orthopedic team. For outpatient narcotic use, we were not able to access accurate pill counts for any discharge prescriptions or subsequent refills that were given throughout the VA system. We were able to report on total prescriptions filled in the first 3 months following TKA.

We calculated total oral MEDs to better understand the amount of narcotics being distributed throughout our population of patients. We believe this provides important information about the overall narcotic burden in the veteran population. There was no significant difference between the SOC and ERAS groups regarding oral MED prescribed in the 3-month postoperative period; however, at the 6-month follow-up visit, only 16% of patients in the ERAS group were taking any type of narcotic vs 37.2% in the SOC group (P = .0002).

Conclusions

A multidisciplinary ERAS protocol implemented at VANTHCS was effective in reducing length of stay and opioid burden throughout all phases of surgical care in our patients undergoing primary TKA. Patient and nursing education seem to be critical components to the implementation of a successful multimodal pain protocol. Reducing the narcotic burden has valuable financial and medical benefits in this at-risk population.

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is one of the most common surgical procedures in the United States. The volume of TKAs is projected to substantially increase over the next 30 years.¹ Adequate pain control after TKA is critically important to achieve early mobilization, shorten the length of hospital stay, and reduce postoperative complications. The evolution and inclusion of multimodal pain-management protocols have had a major impact on the clinical outcomes for TKA patients.^2,3

Pain-management protocols typically use several modalities to control pain throughout the perioperative period. Multimodal opioid and nonopioid oral medications are administered during the pre- and postoperative periods and often involve a combination of acetaminophen, gabapentinoids, and cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors.⁴ Peripheral nerve blocks and central neuraxial blockades are widely used and have been shown to be effective in reducing postoperative pain as well as overall opioid consumption.^5,6 Finally, intraoperative periarticular injections have been shown to reduce postoperative pain and opioid consumption as well as improve patient satisfaction scores.^7-9 These strategies are routinely used in TKA with the goal of minimizing overall opioid consumption and adverse events, reducing perioperative complications, and improving patient satisfaction.

Periarticular injections during surgery are an integral part of the multimodal pain-management protocols, though no consensus has been reached on proper injection formulation or technique. Liposomal bupivacaine is a local anesthetic depot formulation approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for surgical patients. The reported results have been discrepant regarding the efficacy of using liposomal bupivacaine injection in patients with TKA. Several studies have reported no added benefit of liposomal bupivacaine in contrast to a mixture of local anesthetics.^10,11 Other studies have demonstrated superior pain relief.¹² Many factors may contribute to the discrepant data, such as injection techniques, infiltration volume, and the assessment tools used to measure efficacy and safety.¹³

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Veterans Health Administration (VHA) provides care to a large patient population. Many of the patients in that system have high-risk profiles, including medical comorbidities; exposure to chronic pain and opioid use; and psychological and central nervous system injuries, including posttraumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury. Hadlandsmyth and colleagues reported increased risk of prolonged opioid use in VA patients after TKA surgery.¹⁴ They found that 20% of the patients were still on long-term opioids more than 90 days after TKA.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of the implementation of a comprehensive enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol at a regional VA medical center. We hypothesize that the addition of liposomal bupivacaine in a multidisciplinary ERAS protocol would reduce the length of hospital stay and opioid consumption without any deleterious effects on postoperative outcomes.

Methods

A postoperative recovery protocol was implemented in 2013 at VA North Texas Health Care System (VANTHCS) in Dallas, and many of the patients continued to have issues with satisfactory pain control, prolonged length of stay, and extended opioid consumption postoperatively. A multimodal pain-management protocol and multidisciplinary perioperative case-management protocol were implemented in 2016 to further improve the clinical outcomes of patients undergoing TKA surgery. The senior surgeon (JM) organized a multidisciplinary team of health care providers to identify and implement potential solutions. This task force met weekly and consisted of surgeons, anesthesiologists, certified registered nurse anesthetists, orthopedic physician assistants, a nurse coordinator, a physical therapist, and an occupational therapist, as well as operating room, postanesthesia care unit (PACU), and surgical ward nurses. In addition, the staff from the home health agencies and social services attended the weekly meetings.

We conducted a retrospective review of all patients who had undergone unilateral TKA from 2013 to 2018 at VANTHCS. This was a consecutive, unselected cohort. All patients were under the care of a single surgeon using identical implant systems and identical surgical techniques. This study was approved by the institutional review board at VANTHCS. Patients were divided into 2 distinct and consecutive cohorts. The standard of care (SOC) group included all patients from 2013 to 2016. The ERAS group included all patients after the institution of the standardized protocol until the end of the study period.

Data on patient demographics, the American Society of Anesthesiologists risk classification, and preoperative functional status were extracted. Anesthesia techniques included either general endotracheal anesthesia or subarachnoid block with monitored anesthesia care. The quantity of the opioids given during surgery, in the PACU, during the inpatient stay, as discharge prescriptions, and as refills of the narcotic prescriptions up to 3 months postsurgery were recorded. All opioids were converted into morphine equivalent dosages (MED) in order to be properly analyzed using the statistical methodologies described in the statistical section.¹⁵ The VHA is a closed health care delivery system; therefore, all of the prescriptions ordered by surgery providers were recorded in the electronic health record.

ERAS Protocol

The SOC cohort was predominantly managed with general endotracheal anesthesia. The ERAS group was predominantly managed with subarachnoid blocks (Table 1). For the ERAS protocol preoperatively, the patients were administered oral gabapentin 300 mg, acetaminophen 650 mg, and oxycodone 20 mg, and IV ondansetron 4 mg. Intraoperatively, minimal opioids were used. In the PACU, the patients received dilaudid 0.25 mg IV as needed every 15 minutes for up to 1 mg/h. The nursing staff was trained to use the visual analog pain scale scores to titrate the medication. During the inpatient stay, patients received 1 g IV acetaminophen every 6 hours for 3 doses. The patients thereafter received oral acetaminophen as needed. Other medications in the multimodal pain-management protocol included gabapentin 300 mg twice daily, meloxicam 15 mg daily, and oxycodone 10 mg every 4 hours as needed. Rescue medication for insufficient pain relief was dilaudid 0.25 mg IV every 15 minutes for visual analog pain scale > 8. On discharge, the patients received a prescription of 30 tablets of hydrocodone 10 mg.

Periarticular Injections

Intraoperatively, all patients in the SOC and ERAS groups received periarticular injections. The liposomal bupivacaine injection was added to the standard injection mixture for the ERAS group. For the SOC group, the total volume of 100 ml was divided into 10 separate 10 cc syringes, and for the ERAS group, the total volume of 140 ml was divided into 14 separate 10 cc syringes. The SOC group injections were performed with an 18-gauge needle and the periarticular soft tissues grossly infiltrated. The ERAS group injections were done with more attention to anatomical detail. Injection sites for the ERAS group included the posterior joint capsule, the medial compartment, the lateral compartment, the tibial fat pad, the quadriceps and the patellar tendon, the femoral and tibial periosteum circumferentially, and the anterior joint capsule. Each needle-stick in the ERAS group delivered 1 to 1.5 ml through a 22-gauge needle to each compartment of the knee.

Outcome Variable

The primary outcome measure was total oral MED intraoperatively, in the PACU, during the hospital inpatient stay, in the hospital discharge prescription, and during the 3-month period after hospital discharge. Incidence of nausea and vomiting during the inpatient stay and any narcotic use at 6 months postsurgery were secondary binary outcomes.

Statistical Analysis

Demographic data and the clinical characteristics for the entire group were described using the sample mean and SD for continuous variables and the frequency and percentage for categorical variables. Differences between the 2 cohorts were analyzed using a 2-independent-sample t test and Fisher exact test.

The estimation of the total oral MED throughout all phases of care was done using a separate Poisson model due to the data being not normally distributed. A log-linear regression model was used to evaluate the main effect of ERAS vs the SOC cohort on the total oral MED used. Finally, a separate multiple logistic regression model was used to estimate the odds of postoperative nausea and vomiting and narcotic use at 6 months postsurgery between the cohorts. The adjusted odds ratio (OR) was estimated from the logistic model. Age, sex, body mass index, preoperative functional independence score, narcotic use within 3 months prior to surgery, anesthesia type used (subarachnoid block with monitored anesthesia care vs general endotracheal anesthesia), and postoperative complications (yes/no) were included as covariates in each model. The length of hospital stay and the above-mentioned factors were also included as covariates in the model estimating the total oral MED during the hospital stay, on hospital discharge, during the 3-month period after hospital discharge, and at 6 months following hospital discharge.

Results

Two hundred forty-nine patients had 296 elective unilateral TKAs in this study from 2013 through 2018. Thirty-one patients had both unilateral TKAs under the SOC protocol; 5 patients had both unilateral TKAs under the ERAS protocol. Eleven of the patients who eventually had both knees replaced had 1 operation under each protocol The SOC group included 196 TKAs and the ERAS group included 100 TKAs. Of the 196 SOC patients, 94% were male. The mean age was 68.2 years (range, 48-86). The length of hospital stay ranged from 36.6 to 664.3 hours. Of the 100 ERAS patients, 96% were male (Table 2). The mean age was 66.7 years (range, 48-85). The length of hospital stay ranged from 12.5 to 45 hours.

Perioperative Opioid Use

Of the SOC patients, 99.0% received narcotics intraoperatively (range, 0-198 mg MED), and 74.5% received narcotics during PACU recovery (range, 0-141 mg MED). The total oral MED during the hospital stay for the SOC patients ranged from 10 to 2,946 mg. Of the ERAS patients, 86% received no narcotics during surgery (range, 0-110 mg MED), and 98% received no narcotics during PACU recovery (range, 0-65 mg MED). The total oral MED during the hospital stay for the ERAS patients ranged from 10 to 240 mg.

The MED used was significantly lower for the ERAS patients than it was for the SOC patients during surgery (10.5 mg vs 57.4 mg, P = .0001, FDR = .0002) and in the PACU (1.3 mg vs 13.6 mg, P = .0002, FDR = .0004), during the inpatient stay (66.7 mg vs 169.5 mg, P = .0001, FDR = .0002), and on hospital discharge (419.3 mg vs 776.7 mg, P = .0001, FDR = .0002). However, there was no significant difference in the total MED prescriptions filled between patients on the ERAS protocol vs those who received SOC during the 3-month period after hospital discharge (858.3 mg vs 1126.1 mg, P = .29, FDR = .29)(Table 3).

Discussion

Orthopedic surgery has been associated with long-term opioid use and misuse. Orthopedic surgeons are frequently among the highest prescribers of narcotics. According to Volkow and colleagues, orthopedic surgeons were the fourth largest prescribers of opioids in 2009, behind primary care physicians, internists, and dentists.¹⁷ The opioid crisis in the United States is well recognized. In 2017, > 70,000 deaths occurred due to drug overdoses, with 68% involving a prescription or illicit opioid. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has estimated a total economic burden of $78.5 billion per year as a direct result of misused prescribed opioids.¹⁸ This includes the cost of health care, lost productivity, addiction treatment, and the impact on the criminal justice system.

The current opioid crisis places further emphasis on opioid-reducing or sparing techniques in patients undergoing TKA. The use of liposomal bupivacaine for intraoperative periarticular injection is debated in the literature regarding its efficacy and whether it should be included in multimodal protocols. Researchers have argued that liposomal bupivacaine is not superior to regular bupivacaine and because of its increased cost is not justified.^19,20 A meta-analysis from Zhao and colleagues showed no difference in pain control and functional recovery when comparing liposomal bupivacaine and control.²¹ In a randomized clinical trial, Schroer and colleagues matched liposomal bupivacaine against regular bupivacaine and found no difference in pain scores and similar narcotic use during hospitalization.²²

Studies evaluating liposomal bupivacaine have demonstrated postoperative benefits in pain relief and potential opioid consumption.²³ In a multicenter randomized controlled trial, Barrington and colleagues noted improved pain control at 6 and 12 hours after surgery with liposomal bupivacaine as a periarticular injection vs ropivacaine, though results were similar when compared with intrathecal morphine.²⁴ Snyder and colleagues reported higher patient satisfaction in pain control and overall experience as well as decreased MED consumption in the PACU and on postoperative days 0 to 2 when using liposomal bupivacaine vs a multidrug cocktail for periarticular injection.²⁵

The PILLAR trial, an industry-sponsored study, was designed to compare the effects of local infiltration anesthesia with and without liposomal bupivacaine with emphasis on a meticulous standardized infiltration technique. In our study, we used a similar technique with an expanded volume of injection solution to 140 ml that was delivered throughout the knee in a series of 14 syringes. Each needle-stick delivered 1 to 1.5 ml through a 22-gauge needle to each compartment of the knee. Infiltration technique has varied among the literature focused on periarticular injections.

In our experience, a standard infiltration technique is critical to the effective delivery of liposomal bupivacaine throughout all compartments of the knee and to obtaining reproducible pain control. The importance of injection technique cannot be overemphasized, and variations can be seen in studies published to date.²⁶ Well-designed trials are needed to address this key component.

There have been limited data focused on the veteran population regarding postoperative pain-management strategies and recovery pathways either with or without liposomal bupivacaine. In a retrospective review, Sakamoto and colleagues found VA patients undergoing TKA had reduced opioid use in the first 24 hours after primary TKA with the use of intraoperative liposomal bupivacaine.²⁷ The VA population has been shown to be at high risk for opioid misuse. The prevalence of comorbidities such as traumatic brain injury, posttraumatic stress disorder, and depression in the VA population also places them at risk for polypharmacy of central nervous system–acting medications.²⁸ This emphasizes the importance of multimodal strategies, which can limit or eliminate narcotics in the perioperative period. The implementation of our ERAS protocol reduced opioid use during intraoperative, PACU, and inpatient hospital stay.

While the financial implications of our recovery protocol were not a primary focus of this study, there are many notable benefits on the overall inpatient cost to the VHA. According to the Health Economics Resource Center, the average daily cost of stay while under VA care for an inpatient surgical bed increased from $4,831 in 2013 to $6,220 in 2018.²⁹ Our reduction in length of stay between our cohorts is 44.5 hours, which translates to a substantial financial savings per patient after protocol implementation. A more detailed look at the financial aspect of our protocol would need to be performed to evaluate the financial impact of other aspects of our protocol, such as the elimination of patient-controlled anesthesia and the reduction in total narcotics prescribed in the postoperative global period.

Limitations

The limitations of this study include its retrospective study design. With the VHA patient population, it may be subject to selection bias, as the population is mostly older and predominantly male compared with that of the general population. This could potentially influence the efficacy of our protocol on a population of patients with more women. In a recent study by Perruccio and colleagues, sex was found to moderate the effects of comorbidities, low back pain, and depressive symptoms on postoperative pain in patients undergoing TKA.³⁰

With regard to outpatient narcotic prescriptions, although we cannot fully know whether these filled prescriptions were used for pain control, it is a reasonable assumption that patients who are dealing with continued postoperative or chronic pain issues will fill these prescriptions or seek refills. It is important to note that the data on prescriptions and refills in the 3-month postoperative period include all narcotic prescriptions filled by any VHA prescriber and are not specifically limited to our orthopedic team. For outpatient narcotic use, we were not able to access accurate pill counts for any discharge prescriptions or subsequent refills that were given throughout the VA system. We were able to report on total prescriptions filled in the first 3 months following TKA.

We calculated total oral MEDs to better understand the amount of narcotics being distributed throughout our population of patients. We believe this provides important information about the overall narcotic burden in the veteran population. There was no significant difference between the SOC and ERAS groups regarding oral MED prescribed in the 3-month postoperative period; however, at the 6-month follow-up visit, only 16% of patients in the ERAS group were taking any type of narcotic vs 37.2% in the SOC group (P = .0002).

Conclusions

A multidisciplinary ERAS protocol implemented at VANTHCS was effective in reducing length of stay and opioid burden throughout all phases of surgical care in our patients undergoing primary TKA. Patient and nursing education seem to be critical components to the implementation of a successful multimodal pain protocol. Reducing the narcotic burden has valuable financial and medical benefits in this at-risk population.

Third-generation fluoroquinolones may not pose the same risk to tendon health as earlier-generation agents, the findings of a new study suggest.

If confirmed, this will be good news for patients who are allergic to beta-lactam antibiotics and others in whom fluoroquinolones are the antibiotics of choice because of their favorable pharmacokinetic properties and broad-spectrum activity, according to Dr. Takashi Chinen of Jichi Medical University in Tochigi, Japan, lead investigator of the new study, published in Annals of Family Medicine.

“This is especially notable for patients who are at increased risk for tendon disorders, such as athletes,” Dr. Chinen said in an interview.

To investigate the association between third-generation fluoroquinolones and tendinopathy, Dr. Chinen and colleagues conducted a self-controlled case series analysis using administrative claims data for a single prefecture in Japan, focusing specifically on the risk of Achilles tendon rupture.

From a database of 780,000 residents in the Kumamoto Prefecture enrolled in the country’s National Health Insurance and Elderly Health Insurance from April 2012 to March 2017, the investigators identified 504 patients who experienced Achilles tendon rupture during the 5-year period and were prescribed an antibiotic at some time during that period. They divided the observation period into antibiotic exposure (30 days from prescription) and nonexposure periods based on previous research linking this fluoroquinolone exposure window to an elevated risk of tendon injury. They classified antibiotics into fluoroquinolones and nonfluoroquinolones and further classified the fluoroquinolones by first, second, and third generation, including the following agents:

• First generation: Norfloxacin, nalidixic acid, pipemidic acid
• Second generation: Levofloxacin, tosufloxacin, ciprofloxacin, ofloxacin, lomefloxacin
• Third generation: Garenoxacin, sitafloxacin, prulifloxacin, moxifloxacin, pazufloxacin.

Tendon rupture risk varied based on fluoroquinolone class

Comparing the incidence of Achilles tendon rupture in the exposure period relative to the nonexposure period, the risk of rupture was not elevated during exposure to third-generation fluoroquinolones (incidence rate ratio, 1.05; 95% confidence interval, 0.33-3.37) and nonfluoroquinolones (IRR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.80- 1.47). Contrasting with those findings, the researchers found that the risk of tendon rupture was significantly elevated during exposure to first- and second-generation fluoroquinolones (IRR, 2.94; 95% CI, 1.90-4.54). Similar findings were observed in subgroup analyses by gender and recent corticosteroid use, the authors wrote.

The increased risk associated with exposure to first- and second-generation fluoroquinolones is consistent with the elevated risk observed in previous studies, the majority of which focused on first- and second-generation agents, the authors noted.

“Our study is the first to investigate the risk of Achilles tendon rupture associated with third-generation fluoroquinolones by self-controlled case series analysis and using a large administrative claims database,” they said.

Because the study is based on administrative claims data, it does not support conclusions about differential risks.

“Some preclinical studies suggest that structural differences [in the drugs] may affect the risks,” Dr. Chinen said. In particular, one preclinical study linked methylpiperazinyl substituent with increased risk of tendon injury, and this substituent is more common in first- and second-generation fluoroquinolones.

Outside experts were unable to draw conclusions

The accuracy of the current study is “extremely limited” by its design, according to Dr. Karsten Knobloch, a sports medicine physician in private practice in Hanover, Germany, who has reported on the risk of drug-induced tendon disorders.

“This is a case series only, which is a very strict limitation; therefore, the ability to generalize the data is also very limited,” he said in an interview. “In my view, the study does not add substantial data to support that third-generation [fluoroquinolones] are safer than the prior ones.”

Thomas Lodise, PharmD, PhD, who is a professor at the Albany College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences in New York, pointed out another barrier to determining the value of the new research .

“Without knowing how many received moxifloxacin and descriptors of patients at baseline by each drug, it is hard to draw any definitive results from the paper,” Dr. Lodise noted.

Study design and execution had limitations

The authors acknowledged the limitations in the study design and execution. In particular, reliance on an administrative claims database means that the accuracy of diagnoses cannot be validated. Further, the study sample size may not have been sufficient to estimate the rupture risk for individual fluoroquinolones, they wrote.

Despite these and additional limitations, the findings have merit, according to the authors, who noted that the information may be useful in personalizing antibiotic therapy for individual patients.

“Fluoroquinolone-induced tendon injury is a rare event, and managing risk for even rare adverse events depends on each case,” Dr. Chinen explained. The findings of this study together with previous studies indicate that third-generation fluoroquinolones may be a safer option with respect to risk of Achilles tendon rupture for some patients who can’t be prescribed beta-lactam antibiotics and for some conditions, such as Legionella pneumophila, he said.

To increase internal and external validity of the results, further research including prospective cohort studies in broader populations are necessary, Dr. Chinen stressed.

The authors, Dr. Lodise, and Dr. Knobloch, who is owner of SportPraxis in Hanover, Germany, reported no conflicts.

Third-generation fluoroquinolones may not pose the same risk to tendon health as earlier-generation agents, the findings of a new study suggest.

If confirmed, this will be good news for patients who are allergic to beta-lactam antibiotics and others in whom fluoroquinolones are the antibiotics of choice because of their favorable pharmacokinetic properties and broad-spectrum activity, according to Dr. Takashi Chinen of Jichi Medical University in Tochigi, Japan, lead investigator of the new study, published in Annals of Family Medicine.

“This is especially notable for patients who are at increased risk for tendon disorders, such as athletes,” Dr. Chinen said in an interview.

To investigate the association between third-generation fluoroquinolones and tendinopathy, Dr. Chinen and colleagues conducted a self-controlled case series analysis using administrative claims data for a single prefecture in Japan, focusing specifically on the risk of Achilles tendon rupture.

From a database of 780,000 residents in the Kumamoto Prefecture enrolled in the country’s National Health Insurance and Elderly Health Insurance from April 2012 to March 2017, the investigators identified 504 patients who experienced Achilles tendon rupture during the 5-year period and were prescribed an antibiotic at some time during that period. They divided the observation period into antibiotic exposure (30 days from prescription) and nonexposure periods based on previous research linking this fluoroquinolone exposure window to an elevated risk of tendon injury. They classified antibiotics into fluoroquinolones and nonfluoroquinolones and further classified the fluoroquinolones by first, second, and third generation, including the following agents:

• First generation: Norfloxacin, nalidixic acid, pipemidic acid
• Second generation: Levofloxacin, tosufloxacin, ciprofloxacin, ofloxacin, lomefloxacin
• Third generation: Garenoxacin, sitafloxacin, prulifloxacin, moxifloxacin, pazufloxacin.

Tendon rupture risk varied based on fluoroquinolone class

Comparing the incidence of Achilles tendon rupture in the exposure period relative to the nonexposure period, the risk of rupture was not elevated during exposure to third-generation fluoroquinolones (incidence rate ratio, 1.05; 95% confidence interval, 0.33-3.37) and nonfluoroquinolones (IRR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.80- 1.47). Contrasting with those findings, the researchers found that the risk of tendon rupture was significantly elevated during exposure to first- and second-generation fluoroquinolones (IRR, 2.94; 95% CI, 1.90-4.54). Similar findings were observed in subgroup analyses by gender and recent corticosteroid use, the authors wrote.

The increased risk associated with exposure to first- and second-generation fluoroquinolones is consistent with the elevated risk observed in previous studies, the majority of which focused on first- and second-generation agents, the authors noted.

“Our study is the first to investigate the risk of Achilles tendon rupture associated with third-generation fluoroquinolones by self-controlled case series analysis and using a large administrative claims database,” they said.

Because the study is based on administrative claims data, it does not support conclusions about differential risks.

“Some preclinical studies suggest that structural differences [in the drugs] may affect the risks,” Dr. Chinen said. In particular, one preclinical study linked methylpiperazinyl substituent with increased risk of tendon injury, and this substituent is more common in first- and second-generation fluoroquinolones.

Outside experts were unable to draw conclusions

The accuracy of the current study is “extremely limited” by its design, according to Dr. Karsten Knobloch, a sports medicine physician in private practice in Hanover, Germany, who has reported on the risk of drug-induced tendon disorders.

“This is a case series only, which is a very strict limitation; therefore, the ability to generalize the data is also very limited,” he said in an interview. “In my view, the study does not add substantial data to support that third-generation [fluoroquinolones] are safer than the prior ones.”

Thomas Lodise, PharmD, PhD, who is a professor at the Albany College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences in New York, pointed out another barrier to determining the value of the new research .

“Without knowing how many received moxifloxacin and descriptors of patients at baseline by each drug, it is hard to draw any definitive results from the paper,” Dr. Lodise noted.

Study design and execution had limitations

The authors acknowledged the limitations in the study design and execution. In particular, reliance on an administrative claims database means that the accuracy of diagnoses cannot be validated. Further, the study sample size may not have been sufficient to estimate the rupture risk for individual fluoroquinolones, they wrote.

Despite these and additional limitations, the findings have merit, according to the authors, who noted that the information may be useful in personalizing antibiotic therapy for individual patients.

“Fluoroquinolone-induced tendon injury is a rare event, and managing risk for even rare adverse events depends on each case,” Dr. Chinen explained. The findings of this study together with previous studies indicate that third-generation fluoroquinolones may be a safer option with respect to risk of Achilles tendon rupture for some patients who can’t be prescribed beta-lactam antibiotics and for some conditions, such as Legionella pneumophila, he said.

To increase internal and external validity of the results, further research including prospective cohort studies in broader populations are necessary, Dr. Chinen stressed.

The authors, Dr. Lodise, and Dr. Knobloch, who is owner of SportPraxis in Hanover, Germany, reported no conflicts.

Third-generation fluoroquinolones may not pose the same risk to tendon health as earlier-generation agents, the findings of a new study suggest.

If confirmed, this will be good news for patients who are allergic to beta-lactam antibiotics and others in whom fluoroquinolones are the antibiotics of choice because of their favorable pharmacokinetic properties and broad-spectrum activity, according to Dr. Takashi Chinen of Jichi Medical University in Tochigi, Japan, lead investigator of the new study, published in Annals of Family Medicine.

“This is especially notable for patients who are at increased risk for tendon disorders, such as athletes,” Dr. Chinen said in an interview.

To investigate the association between third-generation fluoroquinolones and tendinopathy, Dr. Chinen and colleagues conducted a self-controlled case series analysis using administrative claims data for a single prefecture in Japan, focusing specifically on the risk of Achilles tendon rupture.

From a database of 780,000 residents in the Kumamoto Prefecture enrolled in the country’s National Health Insurance and Elderly Health Insurance from April 2012 to March 2017, the investigators identified 504 patients who experienced Achilles tendon rupture during the 5-year period and were prescribed an antibiotic at some time during that period. They divided the observation period into antibiotic exposure (30 days from prescription) and nonexposure periods based on previous research linking this fluoroquinolone exposure window to an elevated risk of tendon injury. They classified antibiotics into fluoroquinolones and nonfluoroquinolones and further classified the fluoroquinolones by first, second, and third generation, including the following agents:

• First generation: Norfloxacin, nalidixic acid, pipemidic acid
• Second generation: Levofloxacin, tosufloxacin, ciprofloxacin, ofloxacin, lomefloxacin
• Third generation: Garenoxacin, sitafloxacin, prulifloxacin, moxifloxacin, pazufloxacin.

Tendon rupture risk varied based on fluoroquinolone class

Comparing the incidence of Achilles tendon rupture in the exposure period relative to the nonexposure period, the risk of rupture was not elevated during exposure to third-generation fluoroquinolones (incidence rate ratio, 1.05; 95% confidence interval, 0.33-3.37) and nonfluoroquinolones (IRR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.80- 1.47). Contrasting with those findings, the researchers found that the risk of tendon rupture was significantly elevated during exposure to first- and second-generation fluoroquinolones (IRR, 2.94; 95% CI, 1.90-4.54). Similar findings were observed in subgroup analyses by gender and recent corticosteroid use, the authors wrote.

The increased risk associated with exposure to first- and second-generation fluoroquinolones is consistent with the elevated risk observed in previous studies, the majority of which focused on first- and second-generation agents, the authors noted.

“Our study is the first to investigate the risk of Achilles tendon rupture associated with third-generation fluoroquinolones by self-controlled case series analysis and using a large administrative claims database,” they said.

Because the study is based on administrative claims data, it does not support conclusions about differential risks.

“Some preclinical studies suggest that structural differences [in the drugs] may affect the risks,” Dr. Chinen said. In particular, one preclinical study linked methylpiperazinyl substituent with increased risk of tendon injury, and this substituent is more common in first- and second-generation fluoroquinolones.

Outside experts were unable to draw conclusions

The accuracy of the current study is “extremely limited” by its design, according to Dr. Karsten Knobloch, a sports medicine physician in private practice in Hanover, Germany, who has reported on the risk of drug-induced tendon disorders.

“This is a case series only, which is a very strict limitation; therefore, the ability to generalize the data is also very limited,” he said in an interview. “In my view, the study does not add substantial data to support that third-generation [fluoroquinolones] are safer than the prior ones.”

Thomas Lodise, PharmD, PhD, who is a professor at the Albany College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences in New York, pointed out another barrier to determining the value of the new research .

“Without knowing how many received moxifloxacin and descriptors of patients at baseline by each drug, it is hard to draw any definitive results from the paper,” Dr. Lodise noted.

Study design and execution had limitations

The authors acknowledged the limitations in the study design and execution. In particular, reliance on an administrative claims database means that the accuracy of diagnoses cannot be validated. Further, the study sample size may not have been sufficient to estimate the rupture risk for individual fluoroquinolones, they wrote.

Despite these and additional limitations, the findings have merit, according to the authors, who noted that the information may be useful in personalizing antibiotic therapy for individual patients.

“Fluoroquinolone-induced tendon injury is a rare event, and managing risk for even rare adverse events depends on each case,” Dr. Chinen explained. The findings of this study together with previous studies indicate that third-generation fluoroquinolones may be a safer option with respect to risk of Achilles tendon rupture for some patients who can’t be prescribed beta-lactam antibiotics and for some conditions, such as Legionella pneumophila, he said.

To increase internal and external validity of the results, further research including prospective cohort studies in broader populations are necessary, Dr. Chinen stressed.

The authors, Dr. Lodise, and Dr. Knobloch, who is owner of SportPraxis in Hanover, Germany, reported no conflicts.