Elite American soccer players have, on average, larger, thicker, and heavier hearts than the general population, according to a new study that provides clinicians with normative echocardiogram and electrocardiogram (ECG) cutoffs to use when assessing the heart health of competitive athletes.

Nikada/Getty Images

To provide these age- and sex-specific reference values, a team from Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, led by Timothy W. Churchill, MD, and Aaron L. Baggish, MD, analyzed data from 122 female and 116 male soccer players from the American national teams preparing for World Cup play and undergoing FIFA-mandated preparticipation screening.

The athletes frequently exceeded normal echocardiographic ranges for left ventricular (LV) mass, volume, and wall thickness – structural cardiac parameters responsive to exercise-induced remodeling – but with none showing pathologic findings that might indicate the need to restrict their participation in the sport.

Almost one-third (30%) of female athletes and 41% of male athletes exceeded the American Society of Echocardiography’s upper limit of normal for LV wall thickness, with a measure greater than 12 mm seen in 12% of men and 1% of women.

The majority (51% of females and 59% of males) exceeded normal ranges for body surface area–indexed LV mass, with 77% and 68%, respectively, having LV volumes above the normal range.

Dr. Baggish stressed in an interview, however, that these data tell a story about healthy hearts, not at-risk hearts.

“These are the healthiest, highest-performing elite soccer players that we have in the United States, and this is really a look at how adaptive the heart can be, how much it can grow and change in size, shape, structure, and function in response to sport,” said Dr. Baggish.

The mean age of screened athletes was 20 years (range, 15-40 years). The majority of the female players were White (71%), whereas the male players were more evenly divided between Black (34%), Hispanic (33%), and White (32%).

Screening was performed at U.S. Soccer training sites by experienced clinicians affiliated with the Massachusetts General Hospital cardiovascular performance program.

Interestingly, the study debunks the idea that women, on average, have smaller chamber sizes. “When we did body-size correction, the men and women actually looked pretty similar with respect to their ability to adapt to strenuous exercise,” noted Dr. Baggish.

They did see, however, that women were more likely than men to have abnormal ECG findings. Male athletes showed a higher prevalence of “normal” training-related ECG findings, whereas female athletes were more likely to have abnormal ECG patterns (11.5% vs. 0.0% in the male cohort), most often pathologic T-wave inversions (TWI) confined to the anterior precordial lead distribution.

“This is important because ECGs are the most common screening tool used and we wanted to alert people to the fact that these women who showed some abnormalities on ECG went on to have a total healthy-looking echo, so a false-positive ECG is something to consider,” said Dr. Baggish.

This excess in anterior TWIs has been seen in previous studies and is thought to be benign, although the mechanism remains unclear. Four of the nine female athletes with abnormal ECG findings on initial evaluation had normalized on repeat testing 2-4 years later. Serial data were available in only a subset of athletes.
 

Clarity needed after COVID

The data, published recently in JAMA Cardiology, are particularly valuable these days given concern over the effects of COVID-19 on the heart and return-to-play recommendations.

“Athletes who have had COVID are being sent for echocardiograms before they can return to play to check for COVID-induced heart disease – which is real – but what we’re seeing is that there’s confusion out there in terms of what is a COVID-related abnormality and what is a normal, adapted athletic heart,” said Dr. Baggish.

“In this paper, we provide a dataset of normal values – generated before COVID was on anyone’s radar – to let cardiologists know what’s ‘big good’ and not ‘big bad.’ ”
 

More sport-specific data needed

“Although these numbers are still small, this dataset is an important step forward in our understanding of athletic adaptations,” said Matthew Martinez, MD, in an interview. “Many factors impact physiologic athletic changes, and the study aids in our understanding of gender- and sport-specific changes in athletes.”

Dr. Martinez, who is the director of sports cardiology at Atlantic Health–Morristown (N.J.) Medical Center and the Gagnon Cardiovascular Institute, also in Morristown, and the chair of Sports and Exercise Cardiology Section Leadership Council for the American College of Cardiology, noted the relatively young mean age of screened athletes.

“The data represent collegiate-age athletes with some older groups mixed in, but it does not represent older established elite athlete changes,” he said.

Mean age was 21 years in the female players but only 18 years in the males because the men’s senior national team failed to qualify for the World Cup during the study period and was therefore not screened. The authors acknowledged the “dearth of older men in the cohort.”

There is, overall, little age-, sport-, and sex-specific normative data for differentiating training-related cardiovascular adaptations from potentially pathologic phenotypes, wrote the authors.

It exists for men playing in the National Football League and for both sexes participating in the National Basketball Association, but most other studies have mixed the sports and focused mainly on men. That said, Dr. Baggish does not consider these data to be applicable to all elite athletes.

“Soccer is kind of in a league of its own with respect to the mixed amount of explosive or resistant and aerobic work that these athletes have to do, and also it’s the most popular sport in the world, so we really wanted to focus on them,” said Dr. Baggish.

Although the findings are perhaps applicable to athletes from other team sports characterized by explosive spurts of high-intensity activity – like hockey, lacrosse, and field hockey – he would not suggest they be applied to, say, long-distance runners, cyclists, or other sports that require a similar type of aerobic output.

Dr. Baggish reported no relevant conflict of interest. Dr. Martinez is league cardiologist for Major League Soccer.

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

Elite American soccer players have, on average, larger, thicker, and heavier hearts than the general population, according to a new study that provides clinicians with normative echocardiogram and electrocardiogram (ECG) cutoffs to use when assessing the heart health of competitive athletes.

Nikada/Getty Images

To provide these age- and sex-specific reference values, a team from Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, led by Timothy W. Churchill, MD, and Aaron L. Baggish, MD, analyzed data from 122 female and 116 male soccer players from the American national teams preparing for World Cup play and undergoing FIFA-mandated preparticipation screening.

The athletes frequently exceeded normal echocardiographic ranges for left ventricular (LV) mass, volume, and wall thickness – structural cardiac parameters responsive to exercise-induced remodeling – but with none showing pathologic findings that might indicate the need to restrict their participation in the sport.

Almost one-third (30%) of female athletes and 41% of male athletes exceeded the American Society of Echocardiography’s upper limit of normal for LV wall thickness, with a measure greater than 12 mm seen in 12% of men and 1% of women.

The majority (51% of females and 59% of males) exceeded normal ranges for body surface area–indexed LV mass, with 77% and 68%, respectively, having LV volumes above the normal range.

Dr. Baggish stressed in an interview, however, that these data tell a story about healthy hearts, not at-risk hearts.

“These are the healthiest, highest-performing elite soccer players that we have in the United States, and this is really a look at how adaptive the heart can be, how much it can grow and change in size, shape, structure, and function in response to sport,” said Dr. Baggish.

The mean age of screened athletes was 20 years (range, 15-40 years). The majority of the female players were White (71%), whereas the male players were more evenly divided between Black (34%), Hispanic (33%), and White (32%).

Screening was performed at U.S. Soccer training sites by experienced clinicians affiliated with the Massachusetts General Hospital cardiovascular performance program.

Interestingly, the study debunks the idea that women, on average, have smaller chamber sizes. “When we did body-size correction, the men and women actually looked pretty similar with respect to their ability to adapt to strenuous exercise,” noted Dr. Baggish.

They did see, however, that women were more likely than men to have abnormal ECG findings. Male athletes showed a higher prevalence of “normal” training-related ECG findings, whereas female athletes were more likely to have abnormal ECG patterns (11.5% vs. 0.0% in the male cohort), most often pathologic T-wave inversions (TWI) confined to the anterior precordial lead distribution.

“This is important because ECGs are the most common screening tool used and we wanted to alert people to the fact that these women who showed some abnormalities on ECG went on to have a total healthy-looking echo, so a false-positive ECG is something to consider,” said Dr. Baggish.

This excess in anterior TWIs has been seen in previous studies and is thought to be benign, although the mechanism remains unclear. Four of the nine female athletes with abnormal ECG findings on initial evaluation had normalized on repeat testing 2-4 years later. Serial data were available in only a subset of athletes.
 

Clarity needed after COVID

The data, published recently in JAMA Cardiology, are particularly valuable these days given concern over the effects of COVID-19 on the heart and return-to-play recommendations.

“Athletes who have had COVID are being sent for echocardiograms before they can return to play to check for COVID-induced heart disease – which is real – but what we’re seeing is that there’s confusion out there in terms of what is a COVID-related abnormality and what is a normal, adapted athletic heart,” said Dr. Baggish.

“In this paper, we provide a dataset of normal values – generated before COVID was on anyone’s radar – to let cardiologists know what’s ‘big good’ and not ‘big bad.’ ”
 

More sport-specific data needed

“Although these numbers are still small, this dataset is an important step forward in our understanding of athletic adaptations,” said Matthew Martinez, MD, in an interview. “Many factors impact physiologic athletic changes, and the study aids in our understanding of gender- and sport-specific changes in athletes.”

Dr. Martinez, who is the director of sports cardiology at Atlantic Health–Morristown (N.J.) Medical Center and the Gagnon Cardiovascular Institute, also in Morristown, and the chair of Sports and Exercise Cardiology Section Leadership Council for the American College of Cardiology, noted the relatively young mean age of screened athletes.

“The data represent collegiate-age athletes with some older groups mixed in, but it does not represent older established elite athlete changes,” he said.

Mean age was 21 years in the female players but only 18 years in the males because the men’s senior national team failed to qualify for the World Cup during the study period and was therefore not screened. The authors acknowledged the “dearth of older men in the cohort.”

There is, overall, little age-, sport-, and sex-specific normative data for differentiating training-related cardiovascular adaptations from potentially pathologic phenotypes, wrote the authors.

It exists for men playing in the National Football League and for both sexes participating in the National Basketball Association, but most other studies have mixed the sports and focused mainly on men. That said, Dr. Baggish does not consider these data to be applicable to all elite athletes.

“Soccer is kind of in a league of its own with respect to the mixed amount of explosive or resistant and aerobic work that these athletes have to do, and also it’s the most popular sport in the world, so we really wanted to focus on them,” said Dr. Baggish.

Although the findings are perhaps applicable to athletes from other team sports characterized by explosive spurts of high-intensity activity – like hockey, lacrosse, and field hockey – he would not suggest they be applied to, say, long-distance runners, cyclists, or other sports that require a similar type of aerobic output.

Dr. Baggish reported no relevant conflict of interest. Dr. Martinez is league cardiologist for Major League Soccer.

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

Elite American soccer players have, on average, larger, thicker, and heavier hearts than the general population, according to a new study that provides clinicians with normative echocardiogram and electrocardiogram (ECG) cutoffs to use when assessing the heart health of competitive athletes.

Nikada/Getty Images

To provide these age- and sex-specific reference values, a team from Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, led by Timothy W. Churchill, MD, and Aaron L. Baggish, MD, analyzed data from 122 female and 116 male soccer players from the American national teams preparing for World Cup play and undergoing FIFA-mandated preparticipation screening.

The athletes frequently exceeded normal echocardiographic ranges for left ventricular (LV) mass, volume, and wall thickness – structural cardiac parameters responsive to exercise-induced remodeling – but with none showing pathologic findings that might indicate the need to restrict their participation in the sport.

Almost one-third (30%) of female athletes and 41% of male athletes exceeded the American Society of Echocardiography’s upper limit of normal for LV wall thickness, with a measure greater than 12 mm seen in 12% of men and 1% of women.

The majority (51% of females and 59% of males) exceeded normal ranges for body surface area–indexed LV mass, with 77% and 68%, respectively, having LV volumes above the normal range.

Dr. Baggish stressed in an interview, however, that these data tell a story about healthy hearts, not at-risk hearts.

“These are the healthiest, highest-performing elite soccer players that we have in the United States, and this is really a look at how adaptive the heart can be, how much it can grow and change in size, shape, structure, and function in response to sport,” said Dr. Baggish.

The mean age of screened athletes was 20 years (range, 15-40 years). The majority of the female players were White (71%), whereas the male players were more evenly divided between Black (34%), Hispanic (33%), and White (32%).

Screening was performed at U.S. Soccer training sites by experienced clinicians affiliated with the Massachusetts General Hospital cardiovascular performance program.

Interestingly, the study debunks the idea that women, on average, have smaller chamber sizes. “When we did body-size correction, the men and women actually looked pretty similar with respect to their ability to adapt to strenuous exercise,” noted Dr. Baggish.

They did see, however, that women were more likely than men to have abnormal ECG findings. Male athletes showed a higher prevalence of “normal” training-related ECG findings, whereas female athletes were more likely to have abnormal ECG patterns (11.5% vs. 0.0% in the male cohort), most often pathologic T-wave inversions (TWI) confined to the anterior precordial lead distribution.

“This is important because ECGs are the most common screening tool used and we wanted to alert people to the fact that these women who showed some abnormalities on ECG went on to have a total healthy-looking echo, so a false-positive ECG is something to consider,” said Dr. Baggish.

This excess in anterior TWIs has been seen in previous studies and is thought to be benign, although the mechanism remains unclear. Four of the nine female athletes with abnormal ECG findings on initial evaluation had normalized on repeat testing 2-4 years later. Serial data were available in only a subset of athletes.
 

Clarity needed after COVID

The data, published recently in JAMA Cardiology, are particularly valuable these days given concern over the effects of COVID-19 on the heart and return-to-play recommendations.

“Athletes who have had COVID are being sent for echocardiograms before they can return to play to check for COVID-induced heart disease – which is real – but what we’re seeing is that there’s confusion out there in terms of what is a COVID-related abnormality and what is a normal, adapted athletic heart,” said Dr. Baggish.

“In this paper, we provide a dataset of normal values – generated before COVID was on anyone’s radar – to let cardiologists know what’s ‘big good’ and not ‘big bad.’ ”
 

More sport-specific data needed

“Although these numbers are still small, this dataset is an important step forward in our understanding of athletic adaptations,” said Matthew Martinez, MD, in an interview. “Many factors impact physiologic athletic changes, and the study aids in our understanding of gender- and sport-specific changes in athletes.”

Dr. Martinez, who is the director of sports cardiology at Atlantic Health–Morristown (N.J.) Medical Center and the Gagnon Cardiovascular Institute, also in Morristown, and the chair of Sports and Exercise Cardiology Section Leadership Council for the American College of Cardiology, noted the relatively young mean age of screened athletes.

“The data represent collegiate-age athletes with some older groups mixed in, but it does not represent older established elite athlete changes,” he said.

Mean age was 21 years in the female players but only 18 years in the males because the men’s senior national team failed to qualify for the World Cup during the study period and was therefore not screened. The authors acknowledged the “dearth of older men in the cohort.”

There is, overall, little age-, sport-, and sex-specific normative data for differentiating training-related cardiovascular adaptations from potentially pathologic phenotypes, wrote the authors.

It exists for men playing in the National Football League and for both sexes participating in the National Basketball Association, but most other studies have mixed the sports and focused mainly on men. That said, Dr. Baggish does not consider these data to be applicable to all elite athletes.

“Soccer is kind of in a league of its own with respect to the mixed amount of explosive or resistant and aerobic work that these athletes have to do, and also it’s the most popular sport in the world, so we really wanted to focus on them,” said Dr. Baggish.

Although the findings are perhaps applicable to athletes from other team sports characterized by explosive spurts of high-intensity activity – like hockey, lacrosse, and field hockey – he would not suggest they be applied to, say, long-distance runners, cyclists, or other sports that require a similar type of aerobic output.

Dr. Baggish reported no relevant conflict of interest. Dr. Martinez is league cardiologist for Major League Soccer.

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

Women treated with oral bisphosphonate drugs for osteoporosis for 5 years get no additional benefit – in terms of hip fracture risk – if the treatment is extended for another 5 years, new research shows.

Raycat/Getty Images

“We found that hip fracture risk in women did not differ if women stopped bisphosphonate use after 5 years or stayed on the medication for 10 years,” coauthor Joan C. Lo, MD, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, said in an interview.

The new study, published Dec. 7 in JAMA Network Open, did show a small benefit in continuing the treatment through 7 years vs. 5 years, but it wasn’t clear if this was significant.

“Whether there is a benefit to staying on the drug for 7 years needs to be further studied in randomized trials,” Dr. Lo stressed.

It is well established that oral bisphosphonates are effective in reducing the risk for fracture within the first 3-5 years of treatment; however, evidence on the effects of treatment beyond 5 years is lacking.

The most recent guidance from the American Society of Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) on the issue, which were released in 2015, recommends continuation of bisphosphonates beyond 5 years for high-risk patients, but it recommends a “drug holiday” for low-risk patients.
 

Study adds important new evidence

However, that guidance acknowledges that data are limited regarding long-term use. This large new study adds important new evidence to the discussion, Robert A. Adler, MD, who was a member of the ASBMR Task Force for the recent guidance, said in an interview.

“[With the lack of recent research,] this new study from Kaiser Permanente is of great interest,” said Dr. Adler, chief of endocrinology and metabolism at Central Virginia Veterans Affairs Health Care System and professor of internal medicine and of epidemiology at Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond.

“It is new data and suggests we might temper our enthusiasm for long-term treatment with bisphosphonates,” he said.

“Importantly, it is the first large observational trial and is closer to a real-world setting than a randomized controlled trial,” he said.

But, Dr. Adler emphasized: “The take-home message is that while this suggests that patients can probably be given a drug holiday for a couple of years ... they should be retested, and if they appear to be at an increased risk of fracture, they probably should restart again.

“Osteoporosis is a chronic disorder,” he emphasized. “It isn’t cured by any of our treatments, and as people get older, they are at a higher fracture risk.

“So we really need to follow our patients for a lifetime and reassess their fracture risk every couple of years – whether they are still on therapy or on a drug holiday.”
 

Possible that 7 years is better than 5 but remains to be proven

The new study involved data from Kaiser Permanente Northern and Southern California on 29,685 women who had completed 5 years of treatment with oral bisphosphonates, including alendronate, risedronate, or ibandronate, between 2002 and 2014.

Among the women, 11,105 (37%) continued taking the drugs beyond 5 years to 7 years, and 2,725 (9.2%) completed a total of 10 years of treatment.

Their median age was 71. Among those for whom bone mineral density data were available, 37% had osteoporosis after the first 5 years of treatment.

During these 5 years of treatment, 507 hip fractures occurred.

The cumulative incidence of hip fracture among for those who discontinued study therapy at entry, i.e., those who underwent treatment for 5 years, was 23.0 per 1,000 individuals.

After 7 years of treatment, the rate was 20.8 per 1000. For those who continued therapy for 10 years, the rate was 26.8 per 1000 individuals.

The rate in the 7-year treatment group was based on patients taking a 6-month drug holiday after the initial 5 years, but the results are hard to interpret, Dr. Lo said.

“It’s possible that 7 years is better than 5, but this is not a randomized trial, and some of the data analyses done in the study suggest more research should be done to look at a benefit after 7 years.

“At the end of the day, doctors and women need to decide at 5 years what an individual woman’s risk fracture risk is and determine if she should stay on the drug longer,” Dr. Lo emphasized.
 

Limitations: Subgroups not identified, adherence hard to assess

The uncertainty of any benefit of treatment with bisphosphonates beyond 5 years is further reflected in U.S. recommendations – the Food and Drug Administration has concluded on the basis of pooled data from the extension phase of major clinical trials that any advantages of treatment beyond 3-5 years are unclear.

Key limitations of the current study include the fact that the incidence of hip fracture was not evaluated in low-risk vs. high-risk subgroups; therefore, “these findings may not be applicable to older women at higher risk of osteoporotic fracture,” the authors wrote.

Furthermore, the study did not assess outcomes of fractures other than hip fractures, such as vertebral fractures, they noted.

Dr. Adler pointed out that another limitation is that adherence in the trial was defined as taking 60% of prescribed pills.

“I think this is the biggest weakness with the study,” he said. “Particularly with medications like oral bisphosphonates that don’t really make patients feel any different, it’s a real challenge to make sure patients continue to take these drugs properly.”

The findings should give some reassurance for patients who take a break from the drugs after 5 years. However, reassessment of their risk is critical, Dr. Adler reiterated.

The study was supported by a grant from the National Institute on Aging and the National Institute of Arthritis, Musculoskeletal, and Skin Diseases of the National Institutes of Health. The authors and Adler have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Women treated with oral bisphosphonate drugs for osteoporosis for 5 years get no additional benefit – in terms of hip fracture risk – if the treatment is extended for another 5 years, new research shows.

Raycat/Getty Images

“We found that hip fracture risk in women did not differ if women stopped bisphosphonate use after 5 years or stayed on the medication for 10 years,” coauthor Joan C. Lo, MD, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, said in an interview.

The new study, published Dec. 7 in JAMA Network Open, did show a small benefit in continuing the treatment through 7 years vs. 5 years, but it wasn’t clear if this was significant.

“Whether there is a benefit to staying on the drug for 7 years needs to be further studied in randomized trials,” Dr. Lo stressed.

It is well established that oral bisphosphonates are effective in reducing the risk for fracture within the first 3-5 years of treatment; however, evidence on the effects of treatment beyond 5 years is lacking.

The most recent guidance from the American Society of Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) on the issue, which were released in 2015, recommends continuation of bisphosphonates beyond 5 years for high-risk patients, but it recommends a “drug holiday” for low-risk patients.
 

Study adds important new evidence

However, that guidance acknowledges that data are limited regarding long-term use. This large new study adds important new evidence to the discussion, Robert A. Adler, MD, who was a member of the ASBMR Task Force for the recent guidance, said in an interview.

“[With the lack of recent research,] this new study from Kaiser Permanente is of great interest,” said Dr. Adler, chief of endocrinology and metabolism at Central Virginia Veterans Affairs Health Care System and professor of internal medicine and of epidemiology at Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond.

“It is new data and suggests we might temper our enthusiasm for long-term treatment with bisphosphonates,” he said.

“Importantly, it is the first large observational trial and is closer to a real-world setting than a randomized controlled trial,” he said.

But, Dr. Adler emphasized: “The take-home message is that while this suggests that patients can probably be given a drug holiday for a couple of years ... they should be retested, and if they appear to be at an increased risk of fracture, they probably should restart again.

“Osteoporosis is a chronic disorder,” he emphasized. “It isn’t cured by any of our treatments, and as people get older, they are at a higher fracture risk.

“So we really need to follow our patients for a lifetime and reassess their fracture risk every couple of years – whether they are still on therapy or on a drug holiday.”
 

Possible that 7 years is better than 5 but remains to be proven

The new study involved data from Kaiser Permanente Northern and Southern California on 29,685 women who had completed 5 years of treatment with oral bisphosphonates, including alendronate, risedronate, or ibandronate, between 2002 and 2014.

Among the women, 11,105 (37%) continued taking the drugs beyond 5 years to 7 years, and 2,725 (9.2%) completed a total of 10 years of treatment.

Their median age was 71. Among those for whom bone mineral density data were available, 37% had osteoporosis after the first 5 years of treatment.

During these 5 years of treatment, 507 hip fractures occurred.

The cumulative incidence of hip fracture among for those who discontinued study therapy at entry, i.e., those who underwent treatment for 5 years, was 23.0 per 1,000 individuals.

After 7 years of treatment, the rate was 20.8 per 1000. For those who continued therapy for 10 years, the rate was 26.8 per 1000 individuals.

The rate in the 7-year treatment group was based on patients taking a 6-month drug holiday after the initial 5 years, but the results are hard to interpret, Dr. Lo said.

“It’s possible that 7 years is better than 5, but this is not a randomized trial, and some of the data analyses done in the study suggest more research should be done to look at a benefit after 7 years.

“At the end of the day, doctors and women need to decide at 5 years what an individual woman’s risk fracture risk is and determine if she should stay on the drug longer,” Dr. Lo emphasized.
 

Limitations: Subgroups not identified, adherence hard to assess

The uncertainty of any benefit of treatment with bisphosphonates beyond 5 years is further reflected in U.S. recommendations – the Food and Drug Administration has concluded on the basis of pooled data from the extension phase of major clinical trials that any advantages of treatment beyond 3-5 years are unclear.

Key limitations of the current study include the fact that the incidence of hip fracture was not evaluated in low-risk vs. high-risk subgroups; therefore, “these findings may not be applicable to older women at higher risk of osteoporotic fracture,” the authors wrote.

Furthermore, the study did not assess outcomes of fractures other than hip fractures, such as vertebral fractures, they noted.

Dr. Adler pointed out that another limitation is that adherence in the trial was defined as taking 60% of prescribed pills.

“I think this is the biggest weakness with the study,” he said. “Particularly with medications like oral bisphosphonates that don’t really make patients feel any different, it’s a real challenge to make sure patients continue to take these drugs properly.”

The findings should give some reassurance for patients who take a break from the drugs after 5 years. However, reassessment of their risk is critical, Dr. Adler reiterated.

The study was supported by a grant from the National Institute on Aging and the National Institute of Arthritis, Musculoskeletal, and Skin Diseases of the National Institutes of Health. The authors and Adler have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Women treated with oral bisphosphonate drugs for osteoporosis for 5 years get no additional benefit – in terms of hip fracture risk – if the treatment is extended for another 5 years, new research shows.

Raycat/Getty Images

“We found that hip fracture risk in women did not differ if women stopped bisphosphonate use after 5 years or stayed on the medication for 10 years,” coauthor Joan C. Lo, MD, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, said in an interview.

The new study, published Dec. 7 in JAMA Network Open, did show a small benefit in continuing the treatment through 7 years vs. 5 years, but it wasn’t clear if this was significant.

“Whether there is a benefit to staying on the drug for 7 years needs to be further studied in randomized trials,” Dr. Lo stressed.

It is well established that oral bisphosphonates are effective in reducing the risk for fracture within the first 3-5 years of treatment; however, evidence on the effects of treatment beyond 5 years is lacking.

The most recent guidance from the American Society of Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) on the issue, which were released in 2015, recommends continuation of bisphosphonates beyond 5 years for high-risk patients, but it recommends a “drug holiday” for low-risk patients.
 

Study adds important new evidence

However, that guidance acknowledges that data are limited regarding long-term use. This large new study adds important new evidence to the discussion, Robert A. Adler, MD, who was a member of the ASBMR Task Force for the recent guidance, said in an interview.

“[With the lack of recent research,] this new study from Kaiser Permanente is of great interest,” said Dr. Adler, chief of endocrinology and metabolism at Central Virginia Veterans Affairs Health Care System and professor of internal medicine and of epidemiology at Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond.

“It is new data and suggests we might temper our enthusiasm for long-term treatment with bisphosphonates,” he said.

“Importantly, it is the first large observational trial and is closer to a real-world setting than a randomized controlled trial,” he said.

But, Dr. Adler emphasized: “The take-home message is that while this suggests that patients can probably be given a drug holiday for a couple of years ... they should be retested, and if they appear to be at an increased risk of fracture, they probably should restart again.

“Osteoporosis is a chronic disorder,” he emphasized. “It isn’t cured by any of our treatments, and as people get older, they are at a higher fracture risk.

“So we really need to follow our patients for a lifetime and reassess their fracture risk every couple of years – whether they are still on therapy or on a drug holiday.”
 

Possible that 7 years is better than 5 but remains to be proven

The new study involved data from Kaiser Permanente Northern and Southern California on 29,685 women who had completed 5 years of treatment with oral bisphosphonates, including alendronate, risedronate, or ibandronate, between 2002 and 2014.

Among the women, 11,105 (37%) continued taking the drugs beyond 5 years to 7 years, and 2,725 (9.2%) completed a total of 10 years of treatment.

Their median age was 71. Among those for whom bone mineral density data were available, 37% had osteoporosis after the first 5 years of treatment.

During these 5 years of treatment, 507 hip fractures occurred.

The cumulative incidence of hip fracture among for those who discontinued study therapy at entry, i.e., those who underwent treatment for 5 years, was 23.0 per 1,000 individuals.

After 7 years of treatment, the rate was 20.8 per 1000. For those who continued therapy for 10 years, the rate was 26.8 per 1000 individuals.

The rate in the 7-year treatment group was based on patients taking a 6-month drug holiday after the initial 5 years, but the results are hard to interpret, Dr. Lo said.

“It’s possible that 7 years is better than 5, but this is not a randomized trial, and some of the data analyses done in the study suggest more research should be done to look at a benefit after 7 years.

“At the end of the day, doctors and women need to decide at 5 years what an individual woman’s risk fracture risk is and determine if she should stay on the drug longer,” Dr. Lo emphasized.
 

Limitations: Subgroups not identified, adherence hard to assess

The uncertainty of any benefit of treatment with bisphosphonates beyond 5 years is further reflected in U.S. recommendations – the Food and Drug Administration has concluded on the basis of pooled data from the extension phase of major clinical trials that any advantages of treatment beyond 3-5 years are unclear.

Key limitations of the current study include the fact that the incidence of hip fracture was not evaluated in low-risk vs. high-risk subgroups; therefore, “these findings may not be applicable to older women at higher risk of osteoporotic fracture,” the authors wrote.

Furthermore, the study did not assess outcomes of fractures other than hip fractures, such as vertebral fractures, they noted.

Dr. Adler pointed out that another limitation is that adherence in the trial was defined as taking 60% of prescribed pills.

“I think this is the biggest weakness with the study,” he said. “Particularly with medications like oral bisphosphonates that don’t really make patients feel any different, it’s a real challenge to make sure patients continue to take these drugs properly.”

The findings should give some reassurance for patients who take a break from the drugs after 5 years. However, reassessment of their risk is critical, Dr. Adler reiterated.

The study was supported by a grant from the National Institute on Aging and the National Institute of Arthritis, Musculoskeletal, and Skin Diseases of the National Institutes of Health. The authors and Adler have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Heart transplant recipients infected with SARS-CoV-2 are about twice as likely to die from COVID-19 and should be immediately referred to a transplant center for care, according to transplant experts from Northern Italy.

In a COVID Rapid Report published Dec. 9 in JACC Heart Failure, a group led by Tomaso Bottio, MD, PhD, from the University of Padua, Italy, presented findings on 47 heart transplant recipients who tested positive for SARS-Cov-2 between Feb. 21 and June 30.

The investigators found a case fatality rate of 29.7%, compared with 15.4% in the general population. Prevalence of infection was also much higher at 18 cases (vs. 7) per 1,000 population.

“In our opinion, prompt referral to a heart transplant center is crucial for immunosuppressive therapy optimization and cardiologic follow-up,” Dr. Bottio said in an interview.

Beyond the need for careful adjustment of immunosuppression, graft function should be assessed to “avoid acute rejection or decompensation,” he added.

Dr. Bottio and colleagues tracked COVID-19 cases from among the 2,676 heart transplant recipients alive before the onset of the pandemic at seven heart transplant centers in Northern Italy.

Of the 47 recipients who contracted SARS-CoV-2, 38 required hospitalization while 9 remained at home and 14 died. Mean length of stay in hospital was 17.8 days, much longer in survivors than nonsurvivors (23.2 days vs. 8.5 days; P < .001).  

Nonsurvivors were significantly older than survivors (72 vs. 58 years; P = .002). Nonsurvivors were also more likely to present with diabetes (P = .04), extra-cardiac arteriopathy (P = .04), previous percutaneous coronary intervention (P = .04), more allograft vasculopathy (P = .04), and more symptoms of heart failure (P = .02).

Although the authors said the high case fatality rate was, unfortunately, expected, they did not expect so many patients to do well at home.

“What most surprised us was the proportion of a- or pauci-symptomatic heart transplanted patients who did well being treated at home without any therapy modifications,” Dr. Bottio shared. They were also surprised to see there were no cases of graft failure caused by infection-related myocarditis.

These findings from Northern Italy are not dissimilar from the 25% case fatality rate seen in a cohort of heart transplant recipients who caught COVID-19 in New York City early in the pandemic.

In another study, this time looking at a wider group of solid organ transplant recipients with SARS-CoV-2 infection at two centers during the first 3 weeks of the outbreak in New York City, 16 of 90 patients (18%) died.
 

Treatment recommendations?

Recognizing that there is no randomized trial data informing the treatment of this vulnerable patient population, Dr. Bottio and colleagues suggested that, based on their experience, no change in immunosuppression is needed in those who are “pauci-symptomatic” (mildly symptomatic).

“On the other hand, in hospitalized patients a partial reduction in immunosuppressive therapy avoiding full discontinuation and risk of graft rejection seems to be a common strategy in facing the viral infection,” he said. “In addition, the introduction of corticosteroids could help to suspend the onset of the inflammatory cascade responsible for severe forms of the disease.”

Antibiotic prophylaxis appears to be “fundamental,” he added, particularly in hospitalized patients, but “the role of specific antiviral therapies is still not fully understood in our population.”

Since July 1, they’ve seen an additional six patients with a positive test for SARS-CoV-2. Five were asymptomatic and quarantined at home without changing their immunosuppressive therapy. One patient was hospitalized for pneumonia and had immunosuppressive therapy reduced.

Dr. Bottio and the study coauthors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Heart transplant recipients infected with SARS-CoV-2 are about twice as likely to die from COVID-19 and should be immediately referred to a transplant center for care, according to transplant experts from Northern Italy.

In a COVID Rapid Report published Dec. 9 in JACC Heart Failure, a group led by Tomaso Bottio, MD, PhD, from the University of Padua, Italy, presented findings on 47 heart transplant recipients who tested positive for SARS-Cov-2 between Feb. 21 and June 30.

The investigators found a case fatality rate of 29.7%, compared with 15.4% in the general population. Prevalence of infection was also much higher at 18 cases (vs. 7) per 1,000 population.

“In our opinion, prompt referral to a heart transplant center is crucial for immunosuppressive therapy optimization and cardiologic follow-up,” Dr. Bottio said in an interview.

Beyond the need for careful adjustment of immunosuppression, graft function should be assessed to “avoid acute rejection or decompensation,” he added.

Dr. Bottio and colleagues tracked COVID-19 cases from among the 2,676 heart transplant recipients alive before the onset of the pandemic at seven heart transplant centers in Northern Italy.

Of the 47 recipients who contracted SARS-CoV-2, 38 required hospitalization while 9 remained at home and 14 died. Mean length of stay in hospital was 17.8 days, much longer in survivors than nonsurvivors (23.2 days vs. 8.5 days; P < .001).  

Nonsurvivors were significantly older than survivors (72 vs. 58 years; P = .002). Nonsurvivors were also more likely to present with diabetes (P = .04), extra-cardiac arteriopathy (P = .04), previous percutaneous coronary intervention (P = .04), more allograft vasculopathy (P = .04), and more symptoms of heart failure (P = .02).

Although the authors said the high case fatality rate was, unfortunately, expected, they did not expect so many patients to do well at home.

“What most surprised us was the proportion of a- or pauci-symptomatic heart transplanted patients who did well being treated at home without any therapy modifications,” Dr. Bottio shared. They were also surprised to see there were no cases of graft failure caused by infection-related myocarditis.

These findings from Northern Italy are not dissimilar from the 25% case fatality rate seen in a cohort of heart transplant recipients who caught COVID-19 in New York City early in the pandemic.

In another study, this time looking at a wider group of solid organ transplant recipients with SARS-CoV-2 infection at two centers during the first 3 weeks of the outbreak in New York City, 16 of 90 patients (18%) died.
 

Treatment recommendations?

Recognizing that there is no randomized trial data informing the treatment of this vulnerable patient population, Dr. Bottio and colleagues suggested that, based on their experience, no change in immunosuppression is needed in those who are “pauci-symptomatic” (mildly symptomatic).

“On the other hand, in hospitalized patients a partial reduction in immunosuppressive therapy avoiding full discontinuation and risk of graft rejection seems to be a common strategy in facing the viral infection,” he said. “In addition, the introduction of corticosteroids could help to suspend the onset of the inflammatory cascade responsible for severe forms of the disease.”

Antibiotic prophylaxis appears to be “fundamental,” he added, particularly in hospitalized patients, but “the role of specific antiviral therapies is still not fully understood in our population.”

Since July 1, they’ve seen an additional six patients with a positive test for SARS-CoV-2. Five were asymptomatic and quarantined at home without changing their immunosuppressive therapy. One patient was hospitalized for pneumonia and had immunosuppressive therapy reduced.

Dr. Bottio and the study coauthors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Heart transplant recipients infected with SARS-CoV-2 are about twice as likely to die from COVID-19 and should be immediately referred to a transplant center for care, according to transplant experts from Northern Italy.

In a COVID Rapid Report published Dec. 9 in JACC Heart Failure, a group led by Tomaso Bottio, MD, PhD, from the University of Padua, Italy, presented findings on 47 heart transplant recipients who tested positive for SARS-Cov-2 between Feb. 21 and June 30.

The investigators found a case fatality rate of 29.7%, compared with 15.4% in the general population. Prevalence of infection was also much higher at 18 cases (vs. 7) per 1,000 population.

“In our opinion, prompt referral to a heart transplant center is crucial for immunosuppressive therapy optimization and cardiologic follow-up,” Dr. Bottio said in an interview.

Beyond the need for careful adjustment of immunosuppression, graft function should be assessed to “avoid acute rejection or decompensation,” he added.

Dr. Bottio and colleagues tracked COVID-19 cases from among the 2,676 heart transplant recipients alive before the onset of the pandemic at seven heart transplant centers in Northern Italy.

Of the 47 recipients who contracted SARS-CoV-2, 38 required hospitalization while 9 remained at home and 14 died. Mean length of stay in hospital was 17.8 days, much longer in survivors than nonsurvivors (23.2 days vs. 8.5 days; P < .001).  

Nonsurvivors were significantly older than survivors (72 vs. 58 years; P = .002). Nonsurvivors were also more likely to present with diabetes (P = .04), extra-cardiac arteriopathy (P = .04), previous percutaneous coronary intervention (P = .04), more allograft vasculopathy (P = .04), and more symptoms of heart failure (P = .02).

Although the authors said the high case fatality rate was, unfortunately, expected, they did not expect so many patients to do well at home.

“What most surprised us was the proportion of a- or pauci-symptomatic heart transplanted patients who did well being treated at home without any therapy modifications,” Dr. Bottio shared. They were also surprised to see there were no cases of graft failure caused by infection-related myocarditis.

These findings from Northern Italy are not dissimilar from the 25% case fatality rate seen in a cohort of heart transplant recipients who caught COVID-19 in New York City early in the pandemic.

In another study, this time looking at a wider group of solid organ transplant recipients with SARS-CoV-2 infection at two centers during the first 3 weeks of the outbreak in New York City, 16 of 90 patients (18%) died.
 

Treatment recommendations?

Recognizing that there is no randomized trial data informing the treatment of this vulnerable patient population, Dr. Bottio and colleagues suggested that, based on their experience, no change in immunosuppression is needed in those who are “pauci-symptomatic” (mildly symptomatic).

“On the other hand, in hospitalized patients a partial reduction in immunosuppressive therapy avoiding full discontinuation and risk of graft rejection seems to be a common strategy in facing the viral infection,” he said. “In addition, the introduction of corticosteroids could help to suspend the onset of the inflammatory cascade responsible for severe forms of the disease.”

Antibiotic prophylaxis appears to be “fundamental,” he added, particularly in hospitalized patients, but “the role of specific antiviral therapies is still not fully understood in our population.”

Since July 1, they’ve seen an additional six patients with a positive test for SARS-CoV-2. Five were asymptomatic and quarantined at home without changing their immunosuppressive therapy. One patient was hospitalized for pneumonia and had immunosuppressive therapy reduced.

Dr. Bottio and the study coauthors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Dear colleagues and friends,

Charles Kahi, MD, MS, AGAF, is a professor of medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis. He is also an Associate Editor for GI & Hepatology News.

Yes

But, at a minimum, you should absolutely lean-in, listen, and learn.

The physician leadership team at Atlanta Gastroenterology Associates has been focused on developing strategies and partnerships that strengthen our ability to thrive in our marketplace while also fending off threats to our mission. The path to forming the managed services organization (MSO) United Digestive (UD) through our agreement with the private equity firm Frazier Healthcare Partners was arduous and required a significant investment of resources and time. Like at Atlanta Gastroenterology Associates, many influential leaders within our field, also supported by their physician partners, have concluded that the investment of a private equity firm to build an MSO led by professional business executives will reduce the administrative stresses looming over the traditional independent gastroenterologist business model. Now, and after almost 2 years as a member of UD, I unequivocally believe my ability to provide timely, high-quality, and affordable care to my community is currently more stable and in a stronger position for the future.

Like we did in deciding whether to establish a formal relationship with a private equity–backed platform group, here are some critical questions you should explore and answer:

-What advantages and disadvantages will being a part of a private equity–backed MSO group bring to our patients, our practice, our team, and our providers?

-What forces threaten our practice’s ability to remain viable and pertinent in both the near and long term? And, how can our group ward off these threats?

-There are many private equity firms interested in our practice as well as already established platform groups. How do we decide which is best?

-If remaining completely independent is not a sustainable long-term option, why not just become employed by a hospital, join a strategic partner, or form/join a multi-specialty group or accountable care organization (ACO)?

In the first 2 years, UD has answered many of the questions and executed on desired priorities. Our management team helped us to navigate the chaos of COVID, and UD still remains on target to meet many annual budget goals as well as end of the year financial targets. Processes and enhanced technologies like real-time dashboards provide immediate insight into all aspects of our business, allowing for more analytical decision-making. Our payor and vendor negotiations yielded stronger returns than anticipated leading to material earnings. The revamped patient services center improved clinic utilization rates, reduced patient call wait times, deployed an online patient scheduling option, and employed medical assistants for handling clinical phone matters.

Most importantly, not one change at UD has negatively affected our clinical autonomy and decision-making. The MSO and its management team has steered all medical-related issues to our chief medical officer and physician executive committee. Moreover, there was much less consternation amongst partners when the time arose for significant capital expenditures (i.e., upgrading our endoscopic equipment, instituting a new electronic health record and practice management system, or surviving the cash-flow crunch during the beginning of COVID), as our annual compensation was not affected.

A few broader points to consider that pertain to private equity activity in physician services (i.e., not specific to gastroenterology or UD):

• Private equity firms invest money in private companies with the expectation of superior financial returns. Their principals are searching for opportunities with significant upside and potential to generate the necessary earnings for such returns. In fragmented fields, there is potential to use MSO relationships to consolidate providers into a larger organization. Then, economies of scale will create benefits through sharing and saving costs, increased leverage in contract negotiations, and augmenting organic, de-novo growth through the addition of new lines of services. Make sure you understand the overall business strategy, how your addition impacts the overall MSO, and how you may personally benefit.
• It appears that many groups are overly-focused on the deal multiple, yet understanding the comprehensive value of a deal goes far beyond the multiple. A complete evaluation must also explore the principles of the compensation model, rollover equity, compounding interest, tax deferral strategies, utilization of debt, and potential earn-out terms. Experienced legal counsel can shed light on these issues.
• The timing in one’s professional career may cloud the perspective of whether partnering with a private equity group through an MSO is wise. However, I would argue the more important perspective is the judgement of the trajectory of your current practice versus adopting a new business model. If a practice can skillfully withstand the headwinds of the regulatory challenges, fierce competition for patient referrals from hospitals plus new provider entrants, and continued downward pressure from payors, then remaining independent may be reasonable. On the other hand, there is great value, security and protection of being within an organization with sizeable financial and experiential capital with like-minded colleagues.
• Many independent practices are also often approached by local and national hospitals. Relationships with hospitals are popular as they too offer professional management teams lessening administrative burdens, often secure referral networks and higher contractual rates for services rendered. Unlike with a PE deal, these partnerships may limit patient choice, almost inevitably increase patient cost, and do not include equity for the provider.

While there are many questions that need to be answered for each practice considering joining a PE backed MSO, what is clear from my experience is that there are enough benefits to such a partnership that it should be explored to understand how it might improve your ability to serve your patients and secure a long term “home” for your practice, providers, and employees.
 

Marc Sonenshine, MD, is a partner in United Digestive and the chairman of medicine at Northside Hospital, Atlanta.

A note of caution

Is private equity good for gastroenterology? The answer is not a definitive “yes” or “no”; it is “depends”. That said, private equity is here so you must understand the implications.

Private equity is an alternative investment strategy focused on assets not listed on a public exchange. Capital usually is derived from investors who can tolerate risk with the hope of a high return such as pension funds, university endowments, and high net-worth individuals. Capital is collected within a fund (or funds) managed by a professional team who invests in, or buys private companies using internal capital leveraged with debt (leveraged buy-out or LBO). Assets and governance both are sold to fund managers, who restructure operations, centralize or standardize workflows, acquire similar companies to achieve economies of scale, and eventually resell the new company to another entity (usually a larger private equity fund). Typically, the resale (second bite) occurs 5-7 years after initial acquisition and during that 5-7-year period, Private equity funds expect a substantial (10%-20%) annual return on investment resulting from revenue enhancement, new service lines, and overhead reduction.

Since 2016, private equity has actively courted GI practices and there now have been over 20 closed deals. Private equity fund managers have specific expertise in valuing GI practices, enhancing revenue, reducing overhead, collecting other regional (and sometimes distant) practices, centralizing operations, converting all practices to a single EMR, payer negotiations, and other practice functions, while leaving clinical care decisions to providers. Although this postacquisition scenario sounds attractive, there are downsides.

First, let’s review the upsides. As a mature partner in a highly valued practice, you could expect an acquisition payment in the range of $1 million (subject to capital gains tax). You receive a gross distribution based on a purchase multiple (9-12 times EBITA – a measure of your annual profit), minus investment in the new company, and annual payments to the Management Services Organization or MSO. Your income going forward will be reduced by annual obligations to the private equity fund, about 10%-40% of your production. Typically, a second sale occurs between 5 and 7 years after acquisition (yet to occur in GI), where the new company sells for another EBITA multiple (so it is in your financial interest to keep increasing practice value). Even with a modest EBITA multiple, you might net an amount that is double the initial acquisition payout. A senior partner could benefit financially in ways not readily available through other avenues of retirement.

Another benefit is access to capital to acquire more practices, bring new technology, improve facilities, integrate clinical and practice information, and weather reduced demand (like occurred with COVID-19). Independent practices are struggling to incorporate digital technologies that patients now expect, enhanced (and more expensive) endoscopes, new service lines, and the demand for real patient outcomes data during payer or health system negotiations.

So, what takes private equity from a clear “yes” to a “depends”? During COVID-19, physician incomes dropped substantially, since any revenue went first to pay bank debt, then fund fees, payment of overhead (leases, vendor commitments, residual staff), and finally to the doctors. A recent Medscape survey of 5,000 US physicians, revealed that 62% of MDs saw their income drop (23% by more than 50%). Physicians employed by health systems did not see nearly that income drop.

Once a practice is sold, physicians lose autonomy. When you are acquired by a private equity fund, the primary goal of the fund is a financial target. Long-term staff may be downsized, you may be asked to use equipment or supplies that are not to your standard, relationships with regional payers or health systems may become adversarial, productivity targets may alter your patient care decisions (more procedures, less external referrals), and relations with your partners may be strained (younger versus older).

A young physician who enters a private equity–acquired practice may work for decades at an income level discounted from preacquisition levels. They face a substantial buy-in if they hope to benefit from the second sale. Of course, one might argue that future salaries for all gastroenterologists will be reduced by increasing technology costs (endoscope companies are adding AI – can’t wait to see their pricing), reduced reimbursements, and increasing labor and supply costs. Serious threats to colonoscopy-based cancer screening are here, a development that makes future values of GI practices more tenuous. Finally, our payer mix will be worse than before COVID-19 because of long-term financial strains on the US economy.

We have to reflect on a similar practice acquisition trend that occurred in the 1990s, where practice management companies bought independent practices. While times are different now (for many reasons), all but one of those companies went bankrupt and the acquired practices had to rebuild from the ground up. Private equity funds that are heavily leveraged are especially vulnerable, as can be seen by current bankruptcies of large established companies (Hertz, Neiman-Marcus, and others).

Finally, we have to ask ourselves how patients will view your practice as more of us become acquired by financially driven partners. No matter how we paint private equity acquisitions, people understand that these funds are financially driven and practice sales are an income enhancement play for physicians. In 1986, Arnold Relman (Editor of the New England Journal of Medicine) gave two Tanner Lectures on human values at the University of Utah. He asked the following question:

“Is medical care a consumer good like any other, a commercial service provided by skilled vendors for consumers willing to pay the market price, or is there something fundamentally different about the relation between doctor and patient?”

I am not a Luddite, nor am I Don Quixote jousting at windmills. I do, however, want you to consider carefully before giving up on the traditional practice models that made our specialty what it is.
 

John I. Allen, MD, MBA, AGAF, is clinical professor of medicine, department of internal medicine, division of gastroenterology and hepatology, Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation, University School of Medicine, Chief Clinical Officer, University of Michigan Medical Group, Ann Arbor. He has no disclosures and takes full responsibility for the content.

Dear colleagues and friends,

Charles Kahi, MD, MS, AGAF, is a professor of medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis. He is also an Associate Editor for GI & Hepatology News.

Yes

But, at a minimum, you should absolutely lean-in, listen, and learn.

The physician leadership team at Atlanta Gastroenterology Associates has been focused on developing strategies and partnerships that strengthen our ability to thrive in our marketplace while also fending off threats to our mission. The path to forming the managed services organization (MSO) United Digestive (UD) through our agreement with the private equity firm Frazier Healthcare Partners was arduous and required a significant investment of resources and time. Like at Atlanta Gastroenterology Associates, many influential leaders within our field, also supported by their physician partners, have concluded that the investment of a private equity firm to build an MSO led by professional business executives will reduce the administrative stresses looming over the traditional independent gastroenterologist business model. Now, and after almost 2 years as a member of UD, I unequivocally believe my ability to provide timely, high-quality, and affordable care to my community is currently more stable and in a stronger position for the future.

Like we did in deciding whether to establish a formal relationship with a private equity–backed platform group, here are some critical questions you should explore and answer:

-What advantages and disadvantages will being a part of a private equity–backed MSO group bring to our patients, our practice, our team, and our providers?

-What forces threaten our practice’s ability to remain viable and pertinent in both the near and long term? And, how can our group ward off these threats?

-There are many private equity firms interested in our practice as well as already established platform groups. How do we decide which is best?

-If remaining completely independent is not a sustainable long-term option, why not just become employed by a hospital, join a strategic partner, or form/join a multi-specialty group or accountable care organization (ACO)?

In the first 2 years, UD has answered many of the questions and executed on desired priorities. Our management team helped us to navigate the chaos of COVID, and UD still remains on target to meet many annual budget goals as well as end of the year financial targets. Processes and enhanced technologies like real-time dashboards provide immediate insight into all aspects of our business, allowing for more analytical decision-making. Our payor and vendor negotiations yielded stronger returns than anticipated leading to material earnings. The revamped patient services center improved clinic utilization rates, reduced patient call wait times, deployed an online patient scheduling option, and employed medical assistants for handling clinical phone matters.

Most importantly, not one change at UD has negatively affected our clinical autonomy and decision-making. The MSO and its management team has steered all medical-related issues to our chief medical officer and physician executive committee. Moreover, there was much less consternation amongst partners when the time arose for significant capital expenditures (i.e., upgrading our endoscopic equipment, instituting a new electronic health record and practice management system, or surviving the cash-flow crunch during the beginning of COVID), as our annual compensation was not affected.

A few broader points to consider that pertain to private equity activity in physician services (i.e., not specific to gastroenterology or UD):

• Private equity firms invest money in private companies with the expectation of superior financial returns. Their principals are searching for opportunities with significant upside and potential to generate the necessary earnings for such returns. In fragmented fields, there is potential to use MSO relationships to consolidate providers into a larger organization. Then, economies of scale will create benefits through sharing and saving costs, increased leverage in contract negotiations, and augmenting organic, de-novo growth through the addition of new lines of services. Make sure you understand the overall business strategy, how your addition impacts the overall MSO, and how you may personally benefit.
• It appears that many groups are overly-focused on the deal multiple, yet understanding the comprehensive value of a deal goes far beyond the multiple. A complete evaluation must also explore the principles of the compensation model, rollover equity, compounding interest, tax deferral strategies, utilization of debt, and potential earn-out terms. Experienced legal counsel can shed light on these issues.
• The timing in one’s professional career may cloud the perspective of whether partnering with a private equity group through an MSO is wise. However, I would argue the more important perspective is the judgement of the trajectory of your current practice versus adopting a new business model. If a practice can skillfully withstand the headwinds of the regulatory challenges, fierce competition for patient referrals from hospitals plus new provider entrants, and continued downward pressure from payors, then remaining independent may be reasonable. On the other hand, there is great value, security and protection of being within an organization with sizeable financial and experiential capital with like-minded colleagues.
• Many independent practices are also often approached by local and national hospitals. Relationships with hospitals are popular as they too offer professional management teams lessening administrative burdens, often secure referral networks and higher contractual rates for services rendered. Unlike with a PE deal, these partnerships may limit patient choice, almost inevitably increase patient cost, and do not include equity for the provider.

While there are many questions that need to be answered for each practice considering joining a PE backed MSO, what is clear from my experience is that there are enough benefits to such a partnership that it should be explored to understand how it might improve your ability to serve your patients and secure a long term “home” for your practice, providers, and employees.
 

Marc Sonenshine, MD, is a partner in United Digestive and the chairman of medicine at Northside Hospital, Atlanta.

A note of caution

Is private equity good for gastroenterology? The answer is not a definitive “yes” or “no”; it is “depends”. That said, private equity is here so you must understand the implications.

Private equity is an alternative investment strategy focused on assets not listed on a public exchange. Capital usually is derived from investors who can tolerate risk with the hope of a high return such as pension funds, university endowments, and high net-worth individuals. Capital is collected within a fund (or funds) managed by a professional team who invests in, or buys private companies using internal capital leveraged with debt (leveraged buy-out or LBO). Assets and governance both are sold to fund managers, who restructure operations, centralize or standardize workflows, acquire similar companies to achieve economies of scale, and eventually resell the new company to another entity (usually a larger private equity fund). Typically, the resale (second bite) occurs 5-7 years after initial acquisition and during that 5-7-year period, Private equity funds expect a substantial (10%-20%) annual return on investment resulting from revenue enhancement, new service lines, and overhead reduction.

Since 2016, private equity has actively courted GI practices and there now have been over 20 closed deals. Private equity fund managers have specific expertise in valuing GI practices, enhancing revenue, reducing overhead, collecting other regional (and sometimes distant) practices, centralizing operations, converting all practices to a single EMR, payer negotiations, and other practice functions, while leaving clinical care decisions to providers. Although this postacquisition scenario sounds attractive, there are downsides.

First, let’s review the upsides. As a mature partner in a highly valued practice, you could expect an acquisition payment in the range of $1 million (subject to capital gains tax). You receive a gross distribution based on a purchase multiple (9-12 times EBITA – a measure of your annual profit), minus investment in the new company, and annual payments to the Management Services Organization or MSO. Your income going forward will be reduced by annual obligations to the private equity fund, about 10%-40% of your production. Typically, a second sale occurs between 5 and 7 years after acquisition (yet to occur in GI), where the new company sells for another EBITA multiple (so it is in your financial interest to keep increasing practice value). Even with a modest EBITA multiple, you might net an amount that is double the initial acquisition payout. A senior partner could benefit financially in ways not readily available through other avenues of retirement.

Another benefit is access to capital to acquire more practices, bring new technology, improve facilities, integrate clinical and practice information, and weather reduced demand (like occurred with COVID-19). Independent practices are struggling to incorporate digital technologies that patients now expect, enhanced (and more expensive) endoscopes, new service lines, and the demand for real patient outcomes data during payer or health system negotiations.

So, what takes private equity from a clear “yes” to a “depends”? During COVID-19, physician incomes dropped substantially, since any revenue went first to pay bank debt, then fund fees, payment of overhead (leases, vendor commitments, residual staff), and finally to the doctors. A recent Medscape survey of 5,000 US physicians, revealed that 62% of MDs saw their income drop (23% by more than 50%). Physicians employed by health systems did not see nearly that income drop.

Once a practice is sold, physicians lose autonomy. When you are acquired by a private equity fund, the primary goal of the fund is a financial target. Long-term staff may be downsized, you may be asked to use equipment or supplies that are not to your standard, relationships with regional payers or health systems may become adversarial, productivity targets may alter your patient care decisions (more procedures, less external referrals), and relations with your partners may be strained (younger versus older).

A young physician who enters a private equity–acquired practice may work for decades at an income level discounted from preacquisition levels. They face a substantial buy-in if they hope to benefit from the second sale. Of course, one might argue that future salaries for all gastroenterologists will be reduced by increasing technology costs (endoscope companies are adding AI – can’t wait to see their pricing), reduced reimbursements, and increasing labor and supply costs. Serious threats to colonoscopy-based cancer screening are here, a development that makes future values of GI practices more tenuous. Finally, our payer mix will be worse than before COVID-19 because of long-term financial strains on the US economy.

We have to reflect on a similar practice acquisition trend that occurred in the 1990s, where practice management companies bought independent practices. While times are different now (for many reasons), all but one of those companies went bankrupt and the acquired practices had to rebuild from the ground up. Private equity funds that are heavily leveraged are especially vulnerable, as can be seen by current bankruptcies of large established companies (Hertz, Neiman-Marcus, and others).

Finally, we have to ask ourselves how patients will view your practice as more of us become acquired by financially driven partners. No matter how we paint private equity acquisitions, people understand that these funds are financially driven and practice sales are an income enhancement play for physicians. In 1986, Arnold Relman (Editor of the New England Journal of Medicine) gave two Tanner Lectures on human values at the University of Utah. He asked the following question:

“Is medical care a consumer good like any other, a commercial service provided by skilled vendors for consumers willing to pay the market price, or is there something fundamentally different about the relation between doctor and patient?”

I am not a Luddite, nor am I Don Quixote jousting at windmills. I do, however, want you to consider carefully before giving up on the traditional practice models that made our specialty what it is.
 

John I. Allen, MD, MBA, AGAF, is clinical professor of medicine, department of internal medicine, division of gastroenterology and hepatology, Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation, University School of Medicine, Chief Clinical Officer, University of Michigan Medical Group, Ann Arbor. He has no disclosures and takes full responsibility for the content.

Dear colleagues and friends,

Charles Kahi, MD, MS, AGAF, is a professor of medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis. He is also an Associate Editor for GI & Hepatology News.

Yes

But, at a minimum, you should absolutely lean-in, listen, and learn.

The physician leadership team at Atlanta Gastroenterology Associates has been focused on developing strategies and partnerships that strengthen our ability to thrive in our marketplace while also fending off threats to our mission. The path to forming the managed services organization (MSO) United Digestive (UD) through our agreement with the private equity firm Frazier Healthcare Partners was arduous and required a significant investment of resources and time. Like at Atlanta Gastroenterology Associates, many influential leaders within our field, also supported by their physician partners, have concluded that the investment of a private equity firm to build an MSO led by professional business executives will reduce the administrative stresses looming over the traditional independent gastroenterologist business model. Now, and after almost 2 years as a member of UD, I unequivocally believe my ability to provide timely, high-quality, and affordable care to my community is currently more stable and in a stronger position for the future.

Like we did in deciding whether to establish a formal relationship with a private equity–backed platform group, here are some critical questions you should explore and answer:

-What advantages and disadvantages will being a part of a private equity–backed MSO group bring to our patients, our practice, our team, and our providers?

-What forces threaten our practice’s ability to remain viable and pertinent in both the near and long term? And, how can our group ward off these threats?

-There are many private equity firms interested in our practice as well as already established platform groups. How do we decide which is best?

-If remaining completely independent is not a sustainable long-term option, why not just become employed by a hospital, join a strategic partner, or form/join a multi-specialty group or accountable care organization (ACO)?

In the first 2 years, UD has answered many of the questions and executed on desired priorities. Our management team helped us to navigate the chaos of COVID, and UD still remains on target to meet many annual budget goals as well as end of the year financial targets. Processes and enhanced technologies like real-time dashboards provide immediate insight into all aspects of our business, allowing for more analytical decision-making. Our payor and vendor negotiations yielded stronger returns than anticipated leading to material earnings. The revamped patient services center improved clinic utilization rates, reduced patient call wait times, deployed an online patient scheduling option, and employed medical assistants for handling clinical phone matters.

Most importantly, not one change at UD has negatively affected our clinical autonomy and decision-making. The MSO and its management team has steered all medical-related issues to our chief medical officer and physician executive committee. Moreover, there was much less consternation amongst partners when the time arose for significant capital expenditures (i.e., upgrading our endoscopic equipment, instituting a new electronic health record and practice management system, or surviving the cash-flow crunch during the beginning of COVID), as our annual compensation was not affected.

A few broader points to consider that pertain to private equity activity in physician services (i.e., not specific to gastroenterology or UD):

• Private equity firms invest money in private companies with the expectation of superior financial returns. Their principals are searching for opportunities with significant upside and potential to generate the necessary earnings for such returns. In fragmented fields, there is potential to use MSO relationships to consolidate providers into a larger organization. Then, economies of scale will create benefits through sharing and saving costs, increased leverage in contract negotiations, and augmenting organic, de-novo growth through the addition of new lines of services. Make sure you understand the overall business strategy, how your addition impacts the overall MSO, and how you may personally benefit.
• It appears that many groups are overly-focused on the deal multiple, yet understanding the comprehensive value of a deal goes far beyond the multiple. A complete evaluation must also explore the principles of the compensation model, rollover equity, compounding interest, tax deferral strategies, utilization of debt, and potential earn-out terms. Experienced legal counsel can shed light on these issues.
• The timing in one’s professional career may cloud the perspective of whether partnering with a private equity group through an MSO is wise. However, I would argue the more important perspective is the judgement of the trajectory of your current practice versus adopting a new business model. If a practice can skillfully withstand the headwinds of the regulatory challenges, fierce competition for patient referrals from hospitals plus new provider entrants, and continued downward pressure from payors, then remaining independent may be reasonable. On the other hand, there is great value, security and protection of being within an organization with sizeable financial and experiential capital with like-minded colleagues.
• Many independent practices are also often approached by local and national hospitals. Relationships with hospitals are popular as they too offer professional management teams lessening administrative burdens, often secure referral networks and higher contractual rates for services rendered. Unlike with a PE deal, these partnerships may limit patient choice, almost inevitably increase patient cost, and do not include equity for the provider.

While there are many questions that need to be answered for each practice considering joining a PE backed MSO, what is clear from my experience is that there are enough benefits to such a partnership that it should be explored to understand how it might improve your ability to serve your patients and secure a long term “home” for your practice, providers, and employees.
 

Marc Sonenshine, MD, is a partner in United Digestive and the chairman of medicine at Northside Hospital, Atlanta.

A note of caution

Is private equity good for gastroenterology? The answer is not a definitive “yes” or “no”; it is “depends”. That said, private equity is here so you must understand the implications.

Private equity is an alternative investment strategy focused on assets not listed on a public exchange. Capital usually is derived from investors who can tolerate risk with the hope of a high return such as pension funds, university endowments, and high net-worth individuals. Capital is collected within a fund (or funds) managed by a professional team who invests in, or buys private companies using internal capital leveraged with debt (leveraged buy-out or LBO). Assets and governance both are sold to fund managers, who restructure operations, centralize or standardize workflows, acquire similar companies to achieve economies of scale, and eventually resell the new company to another entity (usually a larger private equity fund). Typically, the resale (second bite) occurs 5-7 years after initial acquisition and during that 5-7-year period, Private equity funds expect a substantial (10%-20%) annual return on investment resulting from revenue enhancement, new service lines, and overhead reduction.

Since 2016, private equity has actively courted GI practices and there now have been over 20 closed deals. Private equity fund managers have specific expertise in valuing GI practices, enhancing revenue, reducing overhead, collecting other regional (and sometimes distant) practices, centralizing operations, converting all practices to a single EMR, payer negotiations, and other practice functions, while leaving clinical care decisions to providers. Although this postacquisition scenario sounds attractive, there are downsides.

First, let’s review the upsides. As a mature partner in a highly valued practice, you could expect an acquisition payment in the range of $1 million (subject to capital gains tax). You receive a gross distribution based on a purchase multiple (9-12 times EBITA – a measure of your annual profit), minus investment in the new company, and annual payments to the Management Services Organization or MSO. Your income going forward will be reduced by annual obligations to the private equity fund, about 10%-40% of your production. Typically, a second sale occurs between 5 and 7 years after acquisition (yet to occur in GI), where the new company sells for another EBITA multiple (so it is in your financial interest to keep increasing practice value). Even with a modest EBITA multiple, you might net an amount that is double the initial acquisition payout. A senior partner could benefit financially in ways not readily available through other avenues of retirement.

Another benefit is access to capital to acquire more practices, bring new technology, improve facilities, integrate clinical and practice information, and weather reduced demand (like occurred with COVID-19). Independent practices are struggling to incorporate digital technologies that patients now expect, enhanced (and more expensive) endoscopes, new service lines, and the demand for real patient outcomes data during payer or health system negotiations.

So, what takes private equity from a clear “yes” to a “depends”? During COVID-19, physician incomes dropped substantially, since any revenue went first to pay bank debt, then fund fees, payment of overhead (leases, vendor commitments, residual staff), and finally to the doctors. A recent Medscape survey of 5,000 US physicians, revealed that 62% of MDs saw their income drop (23% by more than 50%). Physicians employed by health systems did not see nearly that income drop.

Once a practice is sold, physicians lose autonomy. When you are acquired by a private equity fund, the primary goal of the fund is a financial target. Long-term staff may be downsized, you may be asked to use equipment or supplies that are not to your standard, relationships with regional payers or health systems may become adversarial, productivity targets may alter your patient care decisions (more procedures, less external referrals), and relations with your partners may be strained (younger versus older).

A young physician who enters a private equity–acquired practice may work for decades at an income level discounted from preacquisition levels. They face a substantial buy-in if they hope to benefit from the second sale. Of course, one might argue that future salaries for all gastroenterologists will be reduced by increasing technology costs (endoscope companies are adding AI – can’t wait to see their pricing), reduced reimbursements, and increasing labor and supply costs. Serious threats to colonoscopy-based cancer screening are here, a development that makes future values of GI practices more tenuous. Finally, our payer mix will be worse than before COVID-19 because of long-term financial strains on the US economy.

We have to reflect on a similar practice acquisition trend that occurred in the 1990s, where practice management companies bought independent practices. While times are different now (for many reasons), all but one of those companies went bankrupt and the acquired practices had to rebuild from the ground up. Private equity funds that are heavily leveraged are especially vulnerable, as can be seen by current bankruptcies of large established companies (Hertz, Neiman-Marcus, and others).

Finally, we have to ask ourselves how patients will view your practice as more of us become acquired by financially driven partners. No matter how we paint private equity acquisitions, people understand that these funds are financially driven and practice sales are an income enhancement play for physicians. In 1986, Arnold Relman (Editor of the New England Journal of Medicine) gave two Tanner Lectures on human values at the University of Utah. He asked the following question:

“Is medical care a consumer good like any other, a commercial service provided by skilled vendors for consumers willing to pay the market price, or is there something fundamentally different about the relation between doctor and patient?”

I am not a Luddite, nor am I Don Quixote jousting at windmills. I do, however, want you to consider carefully before giving up on the traditional practice models that made our specialty what it is.
 

John I. Allen, MD, MBA, AGAF, is clinical professor of medicine, department of internal medicine, division of gastroenterology and hepatology, Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation, University School of Medicine, Chief Clinical Officer, University of Michigan Medical Group, Ann Arbor. He has no disclosures and takes full responsibility for the content.

The AGA GI Patient Center has released a new brochure entitled “Biologic and biosimilar medicines: What you need to know.” The new brochure includes interactive elements like quizzes, medication sheets, symptom tracker, and the option of audibly listening to the pages.

The brochure provides patients with:

• An overview of the immune system.

• Background on immune-mediated conditions.

• Biologics and biosimilars: What are they?

• Information on biosimilars and generics.

• Cost of biologics and biosimilars.

• The importance of adhering to their treatment plan.

• Tips to start the conversation with their provider.

• Safety of biologics and biosimilars.

Share this new resource with your patients by printing, linking from your practice website, or emailing the link to your patients. Visit the AGA GI Patient Center page dedicated to biosimilars for more at gastro.org/biosimilars.

AGA members will also receive print copies of the new brochure this month. Order additional copies for your practice at http://www.agaresources.com/order_biosimilars.php. The brochure was reviewed by Jami Kinnucan, MD, and Rajeev Jain, MD, AGAF, AGA Patient Education Adviser.

View the interactive brochure at https://bit.ly/2JYE5tI.This brochure was funded by an independent medical education grant from Pfizer Inc.

ginews@gastro.org

The AGA GI Patient Center has released a new brochure entitled “Biologic and biosimilar medicines: What you need to know.” The new brochure includes interactive elements like quizzes, medication sheets, symptom tracker, and the option of audibly listening to the pages.

The brochure provides patients with:

• An overview of the immune system.

• Background on immune-mediated conditions.

• Biologics and biosimilars: What are they?

• Information on biosimilars and generics.

• Cost of biologics and biosimilars.

• The importance of adhering to their treatment plan.

• Tips to start the conversation with their provider.

• Safety of biologics and biosimilars.

Share this new resource with your patients by printing, linking from your practice website, or emailing the link to your patients. Visit the AGA GI Patient Center page dedicated to biosimilars for more at gastro.org/biosimilars.

AGA members will also receive print copies of the new brochure this month. Order additional copies for your practice at http://www.agaresources.com/order_biosimilars.php. The brochure was reviewed by Jami Kinnucan, MD, and Rajeev Jain, MD, AGAF, AGA Patient Education Adviser.

View the interactive brochure at https://bit.ly/2JYE5tI.This brochure was funded by an independent medical education grant from Pfizer Inc.

ginews@gastro.org

The AGA GI Patient Center has released a new brochure entitled “Biologic and biosimilar medicines: What you need to know.” The new brochure includes interactive elements like quizzes, medication sheets, symptom tracker, and the option of audibly listening to the pages.

The brochure provides patients with:

• An overview of the immune system.

• Background on immune-mediated conditions.

• Biologics and biosimilars: What are they?

• Information on biosimilars and generics.

• Cost of biologics and biosimilars.

• The importance of adhering to their treatment plan.

• Tips to start the conversation with their provider.

• Safety of biologics and biosimilars.

Share this new resource with your patients by printing, linking from your practice website, or emailing the link to your patients. Visit the AGA GI Patient Center page dedicated to biosimilars for more at gastro.org/biosimilars.

AGA members will also receive print copies of the new brochure this month. Order additional copies for your practice at http://www.agaresources.com/order_biosimilars.php. The brochure was reviewed by Jami Kinnucan, MD, and Rajeev Jain, MD, AGAF, AGA Patient Education Adviser.

View the interactive brochure at https://bit.ly/2JYE5tI.This brochure was funded by an independent medical education grant from Pfizer Inc.

ginews@gastro.org

The AGA GI Patient Center has released a new resource to support patients infected with C. difficile. The resource includes “Understanding C. diff infection” video and a patient brochure entitled “Navigating Your C. diff Diagnosis.”

C. diff, a bacterium known to cause bad GI symptoms like nausea and watery diarrhea, infects nearly 500,000 Americans every year and often calls for hospitalization. The AGA GI Patient Center has curated a new patient education page to assist and to share directly with your patients to prepare them for their visit. The article includes C. difficile-specific guidance on:

• Symptoms.

• Risk factors.

• Getting tested.

• Treatment.

• Complications.

Share this new resource with your patients by printing, linking from your practice website, or emailing the link to your patients. Visit gastro.org/cdiff to view the new video and brochure.

The “Navigating Your C. diff Diagnosis” brochure was reviewed by Rajeev Jain, MD, AGAF, AGA Patient Education Advisor, Texas Digestive Disease Consultants, Dallas, and Alexander Khoruts, MD, AGA Center for Gut Microbiome Research and Education Scientific Advisory Board, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. AGA members will also receive print copies of the new brochure this month.

This program was supported by an independent educational grant from Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

ginews@gastro.org

The AGA GI Patient Center has released a new resource to support patients infected with C. difficile. The resource includes “Understanding C. diff infection” video and a patient brochure entitled “Navigating Your C. diff Diagnosis.”

C. diff, a bacterium known to cause bad GI symptoms like nausea and watery diarrhea, infects nearly 500,000 Americans every year and often calls for hospitalization. The AGA GI Patient Center has curated a new patient education page to assist and to share directly with your patients to prepare them for their visit. The article includes C. difficile-specific guidance on:

• Symptoms.

• Risk factors.

• Getting tested.

• Treatment.

• Complications.

Share this new resource with your patients by printing, linking from your practice website, or emailing the link to your patients. Visit gastro.org/cdiff to view the new video and brochure.

The “Navigating Your C. diff Diagnosis” brochure was reviewed by Rajeev Jain, MD, AGAF, AGA Patient Education Advisor, Texas Digestive Disease Consultants, Dallas, and Alexander Khoruts, MD, AGA Center for Gut Microbiome Research and Education Scientific Advisory Board, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. AGA members will also receive print copies of the new brochure this month.

This program was supported by an independent educational grant from Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

ginews@gastro.org

The AGA GI Patient Center has released a new resource to support patients infected with C. difficile. The resource includes “Understanding C. diff infection” video and a patient brochure entitled “Navigating Your C. diff Diagnosis.”

C. diff, a bacterium known to cause bad GI symptoms like nausea and watery diarrhea, infects nearly 500,000 Americans every year and often calls for hospitalization. The AGA GI Patient Center has curated a new patient education page to assist and to share directly with your patients to prepare them for their visit. The article includes C. difficile-specific guidance on:

• Symptoms.

• Risk factors.

• Getting tested.

• Treatment.

• Complications.

Share this new resource with your patients by printing, linking from your practice website, or emailing the link to your patients. Visit gastro.org/cdiff to view the new video and brochure.

The “Navigating Your C. diff Diagnosis” brochure was reviewed by Rajeev Jain, MD, AGAF, AGA Patient Education Advisor, Texas Digestive Disease Consultants, Dallas, and Alexander Khoruts, MD, AGA Center for Gut Microbiome Research and Education Scientific Advisory Board, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. AGA members will also receive print copies of the new brochure this month.

This program was supported by an independent educational grant from Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

ginews@gastro.org

As the new year begins, we hope you’ll consider including a gift to the AGA Research Foundation in your will or living trust.

It’s simple – just a few sentences in your will or trust are all that is needed. The official bequest language for the AGA Research Foundation is: “I, [name], of [city, state, ZIP], give, devise and bequeath to the AGA Research Foundation [written amount or percentage of the estate or description of property] for its unrestricted use and purpose.”

Including the AGA Research Foundation in your will is a popular gift to give because it is:

• Affordable. The actual giving of your gift occurs after your lifetime, so your current income is not affected.
• Flexible. Until your will goes into effect, you are free to alter your plans or change your mind.
• Versatile. You can give a specific item, a set amount of money, or a percentage of your estate. You can also make your gift contingent upon certain events.

Want to learn more about including a gift to the AGA Research Foundation in your future plans? Visit our website.

ginews@gastro.org

As the new year begins, we hope you’ll consider including a gift to the AGA Research Foundation in your will or living trust.

It’s simple – just a few sentences in your will or trust are all that is needed. The official bequest language for the AGA Research Foundation is: “I, [name], of [city, state, ZIP], give, devise and bequeath to the AGA Research Foundation [written amount or percentage of the estate or description of property] for its unrestricted use and purpose.”

Including the AGA Research Foundation in your will is a popular gift to give because it is:

• Affordable. The actual giving of your gift occurs after your lifetime, so your current income is not affected.
• Flexible. Until your will goes into effect, you are free to alter your plans or change your mind.
• Versatile. You can give a specific item, a set amount of money, or a percentage of your estate. You can also make your gift contingent upon certain events.

Want to learn more about including a gift to the AGA Research Foundation in your future plans? Visit our website.

ginews@gastro.org

As the new year begins, we hope you’ll consider including a gift to the AGA Research Foundation in your will or living trust.

It’s simple – just a few sentences in your will or trust are all that is needed. The official bequest language for the AGA Research Foundation is: “I, [name], of [city, state, ZIP], give, devise and bequeath to the AGA Research Foundation [written amount or percentage of the estate or description of property] for its unrestricted use and purpose.”

Including the AGA Research Foundation in your will is a popular gift to give because it is:

• Affordable. The actual giving of your gift occurs after your lifetime, so your current income is not affected.
• Flexible. Until your will goes into effect, you are free to alter your plans or change your mind.
• Versatile. You can give a specific item, a set amount of money, or a percentage of your estate. You can also make your gift contingent upon certain events.

Want to learn more about including a gift to the AGA Research Foundation in your future plans? Visit our website.

ginews@gastro.org

Among children with moderate or severe persistent asthma, monitoring daily inhaler use with sensors and a mobile application may improve asthma symptom control and caregiver quality of life, a randomized trial suggests.

But the intervention also may lead to more ED visits and increased hospitalization rates.

“We improved asthma symptom control but did not reduce health care use,” Ruchi S. Gupta, MD, MPH, and colleagues, wrote in a study published in Pediatrics.

The monitoring system alerted clinicians when a patient used a short-acting beta-agonist more than four times in a day. It could be that the “alerts enabled providers to detect asthma exacerbation virtually and refer for clinically appropriate care that included directing children to the ED,” the authors suggested. It also is possible that the intervention led caregivers to be more vigilant about symptoms and more empowered to seek care.
 

Adherence to preventive regimens

Many patients with asthma need to use preventive medications such as daily inhaled corticosteroids to control symptoms. Researchers have developed sensor-based inhaler monitoring interventions to improve treatment adherence, but the effectiveness of these interventions in improving asthma outcomes in urban and minority populations is unclear.

To assess the effectiveness of a clinically integrated, sensor-based inhaler monitoring intervention on improving asthma symptom control and related outcomes in children, Dr. Gupta, of Northwestern University and Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago, and colleagues conducted a randomized, unblinded study, known as the Improving Technology-Assisted Recording of Asthma Control in Children (iTRACC) trial. They included 252 children: 127 in the control group and 125 in the intervention group.

Patients in the intervention group received Propeller Health’s Food and Drug Administration–cleared inhaler sensors for inhaled corticosteroids and short-acting beta-agonists. Caregivers could use a mobile application and clinicians could use a Web portal to track patients’ medication use. The app featured personalized insights, educational content, encouragement, surveys, and care team services.

Researchers recruited caregivers and children from five Chicago clinics for the study, which was conducted between 2016 and 2018. They included children aged 4-17 years who had a prescription for daily inhaled corticosteroids for at least 1 year before enrollment. In addition, participants had at least 1 exacerbation requiring oral corticosteroids in the previous year. They excluded children with other respiratory conditions. They also excluded participants who did not speak English because the app was available only in English.

“Sensors monitored inhaled medication use, capturing the date, time, and number of uses, and transmitted this information via Bluetooth to a paired smartphone and the provider portal in real-time,” the authors said.

Clinicians were alerted to call participants if a patient missed inhaled corticosteroid doses for 4 continuous days or used more than 4 short-acting beta-agonist doses per day. Clinicians could help guide asthma management, schedule an appointment, refill medications, and address technical difficulties with the sensors.

The intervention and control groups had similar baseline characteristics. About one-third of the patients were female, and the mean age was 9.3 years. In the control group, 28% identified as Hispanic, and 33% identified as non-Hispanic Black. In the intervention group, 40% identified as Hispanic, and 23% identified as non-Hispanic Black. About 59% reported Medicaid insurance. The intervention and control arms completed electronic surveys at 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months.

Average Asthma Control Test score increased from 19 to 22 in the intervention group, compared with an increase from 19 to 20 in the control group. Adjusted rates of emergency department visits and hospitalizations were greater in the intervention group (incidence rate ratios, 2.2 and 3.4, respectively). A measure of caregiver quality of life was greater in the intervention group, although the difference was not significant.

During the trial, more caregivers in the intervention group reported asthma attacks for which steroids were prescribed by a medical office (73% vs. 35%).

Some participants had to manually enter the number of daily puffs into the app because their inhalers were incompatible with the sensors. In addition, some data were missing because of incomplete or missing survey responses and sensor failure over time. “The number of intervention participants with actively transmitting sensors decreased from 102 at baseline to 56 at 12 months,” Dr. Gupta and associates noted.
 

Important area of research

“One interesting finding of this study is the increase in health care use in the intervention group to nearly twice as many emergency department (ED) visits and three times as many hospitalizations as the control group over 12 months,” Rachelle R. Ramsey, PhD, and Theresa W. Guilbert, MD, MS, of the University of Cincinnati, wrote in a related commentary. “Although it is plausible that, as the authors suggest, greater asthma knowledge and monitoring may have led to increased vigilance of asthma symptoms, it seems that this would have only led to an increase in ED visits but not hospitalizations.”

The mixture of objective electronic monitoring and subjective self-reported adherence may complicate interpretation of the results, they added.

“Overall, this article underscores the feasibility and importance of sensor-based electronic monitoring of adherence in pediatric asthma and encourages future research in this area,” Dr. Ramsey and Dr. Guilbert said.

The trial was supported by the UnitedHealth Group. Dr. Gupta has received grants from the National Institutes of Health, Rho, and other organizations, and has served as a medical consultant and adviser for a variety of companies. Dr. Ramsey is supported by the NIH. Dr. Guilbert reported fees from the American Board of Pediatrics, the Pediatric Pulmonary Subboard, and some pharmaceutical companies, plus grants from the NIH, grants and personal fees from Sanofi, Regeneron, and AstraZeneca, and royalties from UpToDate.

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Gupta RS et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Dec 22. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-1330.

Among children with moderate or severe persistent asthma, monitoring daily inhaler use with sensors and a mobile application may improve asthma symptom control and caregiver quality of life, a randomized trial suggests.

But the intervention also may lead to more ED visits and increased hospitalization rates.

“We improved asthma symptom control but did not reduce health care use,” Ruchi S. Gupta, MD, MPH, and colleagues, wrote in a study published in Pediatrics.

The monitoring system alerted clinicians when a patient used a short-acting beta-agonist more than four times in a day. It could be that the “alerts enabled providers to detect asthma exacerbation virtually and refer for clinically appropriate care that included directing children to the ED,” the authors suggested. It also is possible that the intervention led caregivers to be more vigilant about symptoms and more empowered to seek care.
 

Adherence to preventive regimens

Many patients with asthma need to use preventive medications such as daily inhaled corticosteroids to control symptoms. Researchers have developed sensor-based inhaler monitoring interventions to improve treatment adherence, but the effectiveness of these interventions in improving asthma outcomes in urban and minority populations is unclear.

To assess the effectiveness of a clinically integrated, sensor-based inhaler monitoring intervention on improving asthma symptom control and related outcomes in children, Dr. Gupta, of Northwestern University and Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago, and colleagues conducted a randomized, unblinded study, known as the Improving Technology-Assisted Recording of Asthma Control in Children (iTRACC) trial. They included 252 children: 127 in the control group and 125 in the intervention group.

Patients in the intervention group received Propeller Health’s Food and Drug Administration–cleared inhaler sensors for inhaled corticosteroids and short-acting beta-agonists. Caregivers could use a mobile application and clinicians could use a Web portal to track patients’ medication use. The app featured personalized insights, educational content, encouragement, surveys, and care team services.

Researchers recruited caregivers and children from five Chicago clinics for the study, which was conducted between 2016 and 2018. They included children aged 4-17 years who had a prescription for daily inhaled corticosteroids for at least 1 year before enrollment. In addition, participants had at least 1 exacerbation requiring oral corticosteroids in the previous year. They excluded children with other respiratory conditions. They also excluded participants who did not speak English because the app was available only in English.

“Sensors monitored inhaled medication use, capturing the date, time, and number of uses, and transmitted this information via Bluetooth to a paired smartphone and the provider portal in real-time,” the authors said.

Clinicians were alerted to call participants if a patient missed inhaled corticosteroid doses for 4 continuous days or used more than 4 short-acting beta-agonist doses per day. Clinicians could help guide asthma management, schedule an appointment, refill medications, and address technical difficulties with the sensors.

The intervention and control groups had similar baseline characteristics. About one-third of the patients were female, and the mean age was 9.3 years. In the control group, 28% identified as Hispanic, and 33% identified as non-Hispanic Black. In the intervention group, 40% identified as Hispanic, and 23% identified as non-Hispanic Black. About 59% reported Medicaid insurance. The intervention and control arms completed electronic surveys at 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months.

Average Asthma Control Test score increased from 19 to 22 in the intervention group, compared with an increase from 19 to 20 in the control group. Adjusted rates of emergency department visits and hospitalizations were greater in the intervention group (incidence rate ratios, 2.2 and 3.4, respectively). A measure of caregiver quality of life was greater in the intervention group, although the difference was not significant.

During the trial, more caregivers in the intervention group reported asthma attacks for which steroids were prescribed by a medical office (73% vs. 35%).

Some participants had to manually enter the number of daily puffs into the app because their inhalers were incompatible with the sensors. In addition, some data were missing because of incomplete or missing survey responses and sensor failure over time. “The number of intervention participants with actively transmitting sensors decreased from 102 at baseline to 56 at 12 months,” Dr. Gupta and associates noted.
 

Important area of research

“One interesting finding of this study is the increase in health care use in the intervention group to nearly twice as many emergency department (ED) visits and three times as many hospitalizations as the control group over 12 months,” Rachelle R. Ramsey, PhD, and Theresa W. Guilbert, MD, MS, of the University of Cincinnati, wrote in a related commentary. “Although it is plausible that, as the authors suggest, greater asthma knowledge and monitoring may have led to increased vigilance of asthma symptoms, it seems that this would have only led to an increase in ED visits but not hospitalizations.”

The mixture of objective electronic monitoring and subjective self-reported adherence may complicate interpretation of the results, they added.

“Overall, this article underscores the feasibility and importance of sensor-based electronic monitoring of adherence in pediatric asthma and encourages future research in this area,” Dr. Ramsey and Dr. Guilbert said.

The trial was supported by the UnitedHealth Group. Dr. Gupta has received grants from the National Institutes of Health, Rho, and other organizations, and has served as a medical consultant and adviser for a variety of companies. Dr. Ramsey is supported by the NIH. Dr. Guilbert reported fees from the American Board of Pediatrics, the Pediatric Pulmonary Subboard, and some pharmaceutical companies, plus grants from the NIH, grants and personal fees from Sanofi, Regeneron, and AstraZeneca, and royalties from UpToDate.

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Gupta RS et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Dec 22. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-1330.

Among children with moderate or severe persistent asthma, monitoring daily inhaler use with sensors and a mobile application may improve asthma symptom control and caregiver quality of life, a randomized trial suggests.

But the intervention also may lead to more ED visits and increased hospitalization rates.

“We improved asthma symptom control but did not reduce health care use,” Ruchi S. Gupta, MD, MPH, and colleagues, wrote in a study published in Pediatrics.

The monitoring system alerted clinicians when a patient used a short-acting beta-agonist more than four times in a day. It could be that the “alerts enabled providers to detect asthma exacerbation virtually and refer for clinically appropriate care that included directing children to the ED,” the authors suggested. It also is possible that the intervention led caregivers to be more vigilant about symptoms and more empowered to seek care.
 

Adherence to preventive regimens

Many patients with asthma need to use preventive medications such as daily inhaled corticosteroids to control symptoms. Researchers have developed sensor-based inhaler monitoring interventions to improve treatment adherence, but the effectiveness of these interventions in improving asthma outcomes in urban and minority populations is unclear.

To assess the effectiveness of a clinically integrated, sensor-based inhaler monitoring intervention on improving asthma symptom control and related outcomes in children, Dr. Gupta, of Northwestern University and Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago, and colleagues conducted a randomized, unblinded study, known as the Improving Technology-Assisted Recording of Asthma Control in Children (iTRACC) trial. They included 252 children: 127 in the control group and 125 in the intervention group.

Patients in the intervention group received Propeller Health’s Food and Drug Administration–cleared inhaler sensors for inhaled corticosteroids and short-acting beta-agonists. Caregivers could use a mobile application and clinicians could use a Web portal to track patients’ medication use. The app featured personalized insights, educational content, encouragement, surveys, and care team services.

Researchers recruited caregivers and children from five Chicago clinics for the study, which was conducted between 2016 and 2018. They included children aged 4-17 years who had a prescription for daily inhaled corticosteroids for at least 1 year before enrollment. In addition, participants had at least 1 exacerbation requiring oral corticosteroids in the previous year. They excluded children with other respiratory conditions. They also excluded participants who did not speak English because the app was available only in English.

“Sensors monitored inhaled medication use, capturing the date, time, and number of uses, and transmitted this information via Bluetooth to a paired smartphone and the provider portal in real-time,” the authors said.

Clinicians were alerted to call participants if a patient missed inhaled corticosteroid doses for 4 continuous days or used more than 4 short-acting beta-agonist doses per day. Clinicians could help guide asthma management, schedule an appointment, refill medications, and address technical difficulties with the sensors.

The intervention and control groups had similar baseline characteristics. About one-third of the patients were female, and the mean age was 9.3 years. In the control group, 28% identified as Hispanic, and 33% identified as non-Hispanic Black. In the intervention group, 40% identified as Hispanic, and 23% identified as non-Hispanic Black. About 59% reported Medicaid insurance. The intervention and control arms completed electronic surveys at 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months.

Average Asthma Control Test score increased from 19 to 22 in the intervention group, compared with an increase from 19 to 20 in the control group. Adjusted rates of emergency department visits and hospitalizations were greater in the intervention group (incidence rate ratios, 2.2 and 3.4, respectively). A measure of caregiver quality of life was greater in the intervention group, although the difference was not significant.

During the trial, more caregivers in the intervention group reported asthma attacks for which steroids were prescribed by a medical office (73% vs. 35%).

Some participants had to manually enter the number of daily puffs into the app because their inhalers were incompatible with the sensors. In addition, some data were missing because of incomplete or missing survey responses and sensor failure over time. “The number of intervention participants with actively transmitting sensors decreased from 102 at baseline to 56 at 12 months,” Dr. Gupta and associates noted.
 

Important area of research

“One interesting finding of this study is the increase in health care use in the intervention group to nearly twice as many emergency department (ED) visits and three times as many hospitalizations as the control group over 12 months,” Rachelle R. Ramsey, PhD, and Theresa W. Guilbert, MD, MS, of the University of Cincinnati, wrote in a related commentary. “Although it is plausible that, as the authors suggest, greater asthma knowledge and monitoring may have led to increased vigilance of asthma symptoms, it seems that this would have only led to an increase in ED visits but not hospitalizations.”

The mixture of objective electronic monitoring and subjective self-reported adherence may complicate interpretation of the results, they added.

“Overall, this article underscores the feasibility and importance of sensor-based electronic monitoring of adherence in pediatric asthma and encourages future research in this area,” Dr. Ramsey and Dr. Guilbert said.

The trial was supported by the UnitedHealth Group. Dr. Gupta has received grants from the National Institutes of Health, Rho, and other organizations, and has served as a medical consultant and adviser for a variety of companies. Dr. Ramsey is supported by the NIH. Dr. Guilbert reported fees from the American Board of Pediatrics, the Pediatric Pulmonary Subboard, and some pharmaceutical companies, plus grants from the NIH, grants and personal fees from Sanofi, Regeneron, and AstraZeneca, and royalties from UpToDate.

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Gupta RS et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Dec 22. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-1330.

Women who use substances during pregnancy need support and education, not judgment, to promote the best outcomes, according to a panel of experts speaking at the 2020 virtual meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The panelists highlighted several key issues for addressing alcohol, opioids, and cannabis use by pregnant women.

No amount of alcohol is safe

Highwaystarz-Photography/Thinkstock

Many women believe that a limited amount of alcohol is safe during pregnancy, in part because of mixed messages in the media suggesting that light drinking is okay, according to Erin Tracy Bradley, MD, MPH, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

“We need to do a better job teaching our patients about the potential dangers of alcohol,” Dr. Bradley said in her presentation.

In fact, data suggest that women more at risk for an alcohol-exposed pregnancy are older and better educated. Dr. Bradley described the pattern of malformation for fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS) that includes small eyes, a thin upper lip, and smooth skin between the upper lip and nose.

“The only cause we know of [for FAS] is alcohol exposure intrauterine for the fetus,” so it is preventable with counseling and care, and thought to be the leading preventable cause of birth defects during pregnancies, she said.

The bottom line is that there is no safe amount of alcohol,” said Dr. Bradley. However, providers are inconsistent in discussing alcohol with their pregnant patients. In addition, universal screening is important because it is difficult to predict which women will be drinking during pregnancy.

Screening allows providers to quickly assess the severity of substance use, offer a brief intervention to raise patient awareness, and refer if necessary. “There should be ‘absolutely no judgment, no shame, no stigma,’ ” Dr. Bradley emphasized. “We are the patient’s partners, and we are trying to help them have a healthy pregnancy. “

Opioid use in pregnancy spiked in recent decades

“Women have always been overrepresented when opioids are involved,” said Tricia E. Wright, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco.

Long-term studies have shown that, overall, women are more likely to be given opioids and given higher doses, compared with men, often for conditions in which opioids are not effective, she noted.

Women use substances differently than men; “they use them to cope with everyday life,” and a history of interpersonal violence and sexual assault are coming among women with opioid use disorders, said Dr. Wright.

The majority of women with opioid use disorders are of childbearing age, which has led to an increase in neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) said Dr. Wright.

She cited 2014 data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report showing an increase in NAS from 1.2 per 1,000 hospital births in 2000 to 5.8 per 1,000 hospital births in 2012. This increase has led to “misguided” efforts to prevent NAS through opioid detoxification, Dr. Wright said. She and colleagues conducted a systematic review in 2018 and found that, in fact, the evidence does not support detoxification as a recommended treatment intervention during pregnancy.

Opioid agonist therapy has multiple benefits for both the mother and fetus, Dr. Wright said. Maternal benefits include reduction in overdose-related deaths; decrease in the risk of HIV, hepatitis B, and hepatitis C; and increased engagement in prenatal care and recovery treatment. Fetal benefits include reduced fetal stress with the reduced fluctuations in maternal opioid levels, as well as decreases in intrauterine fetal death, intrauterine growth restriction, and preterm delivery.

“We know that relapse kills” because patients lose their tolerance, Dr. Wright said. “What we have seen is that overdose deaths are a leading cause of death in the postpartum period.”

When it comes to treatment, both methadone and buprenorphine are safe and effective options in pregnancy, she said. Treatment decisions should be made based on available options, patient preference, and a patient’s previous treatment experiences, as well as disease severity, social support, and the intensity of treatment needed.

“Whatever medicine you choose, it takes a village to coordinate the care,” Dr. Wright said. Maternal dose has no effect on neonatal withdrawal, so women should be encouraged to report any concerns. Either medication is compatible with breastfeeding. In fact, breastfeeding has many benefits in preventing neonatal withdrawal syndrome. Smoking cessation should be encouraged because it improves neonatal withdrawal.

Minimizing stigma is paramount, said Dr. Wright. “Substance use disorders are among the most stigmatized medical conditions, and pregnant women with substance use disorders are even more stigmatized.”

Clinicians can support patients by focusing on appropriate language, patients aren’t “addicts,” they are people with an opioid use disorder, she said.

Compassionate care for cannabis users

Cannabis use has a long history of association with women’s health, said Mishka Terplan, MD, MPH, of Friends Research Institute, Baltimore. Although cannabis use overall has increased steadily in recent years, data indicate that people who are pregnant are less likely to use cannabis than those who aren’t. The exception is that individuals who report using cannabis for medical purposes only remain consistent cannabis users during pregnancy.

“The concern is cannabis and birth outcomes, as well as developmental outcomes,” Dr. Terplan said. Multiple studies on this topic support several systematic reviews, and “depending on which decade you read, the results differ slightly.”

Reviews from the 1990s showed little to no effect on birth weight, but more recent studies, such as a meta-analysis published in BMJ Open in 2015, showed increased risk of neonatal outcomes such as low birth weight, anemia, and odds of admission to the neonatal ICU.

“The difference in these two eras is thought to be caused by the change in the definition of what cannabis is, and the potency has increased, and possibly therefore, as a consequence, we see outcomes we hadn’t seen before,” Dr. Terplan explained.

There is a concern with increased use and increased legalization that, there could be adverse effects on neonatal health, but recent studies in Colorado do not show a significant difference in neonatal outcomes before and after legalization, he said.

Data from pregnant women suggest that with regard to cannabis, they are concerned about their health, but they tend to seek information about cannabis use in pregnancy from family, friends, and the Internet rather than their health providers, said Dr. Terplan.

However, studies also show that providers tend to fall short and do a poor job of talking to pregnant patients about cannabis. When providers do discuss cannabis, they tend to focus on the legal aspects. “We are failing our patients when it comes to cannabis,” Dr. Terplan said. “We don’t provide the information and support they need and desire.” Instead, many providers “deploy urine drug testing, which we misinterpret.”

Dr. Terplan explained that point-of-care cannabis testing that shows “THC” is not measuring tetrahydrocannabinol, the psychoactive compound; rather it captures the nonpsychoactive metabolite of THC, one that sticks around for a long time in the biological compartment.

Dr. Terplan urged clinicians not to use urine tests as a default indicator of cannabis use, but instead, “we need to sit, listen, and work with our patients from a place of empathy.”
 

Questions answered

During a question-and-answer session following the panel, Dr. Bradley was asked about preconception counseling related to alcohol consumption.

“Preconception time is a perfect time to do screening, or offer contraception if a patient is a place where she doesn’t want to become pregnant or if she wants to take advantage of any therapeutic options to get well prior to pregnancy,” she said.

Dr. Wright responded to a question about the impact of punitive actions such as drug testing and incarceration. “These things decrease the chance that patients will get adequate prenatal care,” she said. “We need to advocate for our patients and advocate for changing drug laws.”

Dr. Terplan responded to a question about the impact of substance use on parenting. Parents use nicotine, alcohol, and also cannabis, he said. Data showing an association between substance use and cases of child abuse and neglect, “are of poor quality and do not support this association.”

Overall, “we need to have consistent messaging that we are not there to judge patients,” Dr. Bradley added. “The last thing we want is for patients not to be honest with us.”

Dr. Wright disclosed consulting fees from McKesson and royalties as the coauthor of a book, “Opioid-Use Disorders in Pregnancy.” Dr. Bradley had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Terplan had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Women who use substances during pregnancy need support and education, not judgment, to promote the best outcomes, according to a panel of experts speaking at the 2020 virtual meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The panelists highlighted several key issues for addressing alcohol, opioids, and cannabis use by pregnant women.

No amount of alcohol is safe

Highwaystarz-Photography/Thinkstock

Many women believe that a limited amount of alcohol is safe during pregnancy, in part because of mixed messages in the media suggesting that light drinking is okay, according to Erin Tracy Bradley, MD, MPH, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

“We need to do a better job teaching our patients about the potential dangers of alcohol,” Dr. Bradley said in her presentation.

In fact, data suggest that women more at risk for an alcohol-exposed pregnancy are older and better educated. Dr. Bradley described the pattern of malformation for fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS) that includes small eyes, a thin upper lip, and smooth skin between the upper lip and nose.

“The only cause we know of [for FAS] is alcohol exposure intrauterine for the fetus,” so it is preventable with counseling and care, and thought to be the leading preventable cause of birth defects during pregnancies, she said.

The bottom line is that there is no safe amount of alcohol,” said Dr. Bradley. However, providers are inconsistent in discussing alcohol with their pregnant patients. In addition, universal screening is important because it is difficult to predict which women will be drinking during pregnancy.

Screening allows providers to quickly assess the severity of substance use, offer a brief intervention to raise patient awareness, and refer if necessary. “There should be ‘absolutely no judgment, no shame, no stigma,’ ” Dr. Bradley emphasized. “We are the patient’s partners, and we are trying to help them have a healthy pregnancy. “

Opioid use in pregnancy spiked in recent decades

“Women have always been overrepresented when opioids are involved,” said Tricia E. Wright, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco.

Long-term studies have shown that, overall, women are more likely to be given opioids and given higher doses, compared with men, often for conditions in which opioids are not effective, she noted.

Women use substances differently than men; “they use them to cope with everyday life,” and a history of interpersonal violence and sexual assault are coming among women with opioid use disorders, said Dr. Wright.

The majority of women with opioid use disorders are of childbearing age, which has led to an increase in neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) said Dr. Wright.

She cited 2014 data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report showing an increase in NAS from 1.2 per 1,000 hospital births in 2000 to 5.8 per 1,000 hospital births in 2012. This increase has led to “misguided” efforts to prevent NAS through opioid detoxification, Dr. Wright said. She and colleagues conducted a systematic review in 2018 and found that, in fact, the evidence does not support detoxification as a recommended treatment intervention during pregnancy.

Opioid agonist therapy has multiple benefits for both the mother and fetus, Dr. Wright said. Maternal benefits include reduction in overdose-related deaths; decrease in the risk of HIV, hepatitis B, and hepatitis C; and increased engagement in prenatal care and recovery treatment. Fetal benefits include reduced fetal stress with the reduced fluctuations in maternal opioid levels, as well as decreases in intrauterine fetal death, intrauterine growth restriction, and preterm delivery.

“We know that relapse kills” because patients lose their tolerance, Dr. Wright said. “What we have seen is that overdose deaths are a leading cause of death in the postpartum period.”

When it comes to treatment, both methadone and buprenorphine are safe and effective options in pregnancy, she said. Treatment decisions should be made based on available options, patient preference, and a patient’s previous treatment experiences, as well as disease severity, social support, and the intensity of treatment needed.

“Whatever medicine you choose, it takes a village to coordinate the care,” Dr. Wright said. Maternal dose has no effect on neonatal withdrawal, so women should be encouraged to report any concerns. Either medication is compatible with breastfeeding. In fact, breastfeeding has many benefits in preventing neonatal withdrawal syndrome. Smoking cessation should be encouraged because it improves neonatal withdrawal.

Minimizing stigma is paramount, said Dr. Wright. “Substance use disorders are among the most stigmatized medical conditions, and pregnant women with substance use disorders are even more stigmatized.”

Clinicians can support patients by focusing on appropriate language, patients aren’t “addicts,” they are people with an opioid use disorder, she said.

Compassionate care for cannabis users

Cannabis use has a long history of association with women’s health, said Mishka Terplan, MD, MPH, of Friends Research Institute, Baltimore. Although cannabis use overall has increased steadily in recent years, data indicate that people who are pregnant are less likely to use cannabis than those who aren’t. The exception is that individuals who report using cannabis for medical purposes only remain consistent cannabis users during pregnancy.

“The concern is cannabis and birth outcomes, as well as developmental outcomes,” Dr. Terplan said. Multiple studies on this topic support several systematic reviews, and “depending on which decade you read, the results differ slightly.”

Reviews from the 1990s showed little to no effect on birth weight, but more recent studies, such as a meta-analysis published in BMJ Open in 2015, showed increased risk of neonatal outcomes such as low birth weight, anemia, and odds of admission to the neonatal ICU.

“The difference in these two eras is thought to be caused by the change in the definition of what cannabis is, and the potency has increased, and possibly therefore, as a consequence, we see outcomes we hadn’t seen before,” Dr. Terplan explained.

There is a concern with increased use and increased legalization that, there could be adverse effects on neonatal health, but recent studies in Colorado do not show a significant difference in neonatal outcomes before and after legalization, he said.

Data from pregnant women suggest that with regard to cannabis, they are concerned about their health, but they tend to seek information about cannabis use in pregnancy from family, friends, and the Internet rather than their health providers, said Dr. Terplan.

However, studies also show that providers tend to fall short and do a poor job of talking to pregnant patients about cannabis. When providers do discuss cannabis, they tend to focus on the legal aspects. “We are failing our patients when it comes to cannabis,” Dr. Terplan said. “We don’t provide the information and support they need and desire.” Instead, many providers “deploy urine drug testing, which we misinterpret.”

Dr. Terplan explained that point-of-care cannabis testing that shows “THC” is not measuring tetrahydrocannabinol, the psychoactive compound; rather it captures the nonpsychoactive metabolite of THC, one that sticks around for a long time in the biological compartment.

Dr. Terplan urged clinicians not to use urine tests as a default indicator of cannabis use, but instead, “we need to sit, listen, and work with our patients from a place of empathy.”
 

Questions answered

During a question-and-answer session following the panel, Dr. Bradley was asked about preconception counseling related to alcohol consumption.

“Preconception time is a perfect time to do screening, or offer contraception if a patient is a place where she doesn’t want to become pregnant or if she wants to take advantage of any therapeutic options to get well prior to pregnancy,” she said.

Dr. Wright responded to a question about the impact of punitive actions such as drug testing and incarceration. “These things decrease the chance that patients will get adequate prenatal care,” she said. “We need to advocate for our patients and advocate for changing drug laws.”

Dr. Terplan responded to a question about the impact of substance use on parenting. Parents use nicotine, alcohol, and also cannabis, he said. Data showing an association between substance use and cases of child abuse and neglect, “are of poor quality and do not support this association.”

Overall, “we need to have consistent messaging that we are not there to judge patients,” Dr. Bradley added. “The last thing we want is for patients not to be honest with us.”

Dr. Wright disclosed consulting fees from McKesson and royalties as the coauthor of a book, “Opioid-Use Disorders in Pregnancy.” Dr. Bradley had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Terplan had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Women who use substances during pregnancy need support and education, not judgment, to promote the best outcomes, according to a panel of experts speaking at the 2020 virtual meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The panelists highlighted several key issues for addressing alcohol, opioids, and cannabis use by pregnant women.

No amount of alcohol is safe

Highwaystarz-Photography/Thinkstock

Many women believe that a limited amount of alcohol is safe during pregnancy, in part because of mixed messages in the media suggesting that light drinking is okay, according to Erin Tracy Bradley, MD, MPH, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

“We need to do a better job teaching our patients about the potential dangers of alcohol,” Dr. Bradley said in her presentation.

In fact, data suggest that women more at risk for an alcohol-exposed pregnancy are older and better educated. Dr. Bradley described the pattern of malformation for fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS) that includes small eyes, a thin upper lip, and smooth skin between the upper lip and nose.

“The only cause we know of [for FAS] is alcohol exposure intrauterine for the fetus,” so it is preventable with counseling and care, and thought to be the leading preventable cause of birth defects during pregnancies, she said.

The bottom line is that there is no safe amount of alcohol,” said Dr. Bradley. However, providers are inconsistent in discussing alcohol with their pregnant patients. In addition, universal screening is important because it is difficult to predict which women will be drinking during pregnancy.

Screening allows providers to quickly assess the severity of substance use, offer a brief intervention to raise patient awareness, and refer if necessary. “There should be ‘absolutely no judgment, no shame, no stigma,’ ” Dr. Bradley emphasized. “We are the patient’s partners, and we are trying to help them have a healthy pregnancy. “

Opioid use in pregnancy spiked in recent decades

“Women have always been overrepresented when opioids are involved,” said Tricia E. Wright, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco.

Long-term studies have shown that, overall, women are more likely to be given opioids and given higher doses, compared with men, often for conditions in which opioids are not effective, she noted.

Women use substances differently than men; “they use them to cope with everyday life,” and a history of interpersonal violence and sexual assault are coming among women with opioid use disorders, said Dr. Wright.

The majority of women with opioid use disorders are of childbearing age, which has led to an increase in neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) said Dr. Wright.

She cited 2014 data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report showing an increase in NAS from 1.2 per 1,000 hospital births in 2000 to 5.8 per 1,000 hospital births in 2012. This increase has led to “misguided” efforts to prevent NAS through opioid detoxification, Dr. Wright said. She and colleagues conducted a systematic review in 2018 and found that, in fact, the evidence does not support detoxification as a recommended treatment intervention during pregnancy.

Opioid agonist therapy has multiple benefits for both the mother and fetus, Dr. Wright said. Maternal benefits include reduction in overdose-related deaths; decrease in the risk of HIV, hepatitis B, and hepatitis C; and increased engagement in prenatal care and recovery treatment. Fetal benefits include reduced fetal stress with the reduced fluctuations in maternal opioid levels, as well as decreases in intrauterine fetal death, intrauterine growth restriction, and preterm delivery.

“We know that relapse kills” because patients lose their tolerance, Dr. Wright said. “What we have seen is that overdose deaths are a leading cause of death in the postpartum period.”

When it comes to treatment, both methadone and buprenorphine are safe and effective options in pregnancy, she said. Treatment decisions should be made based on available options, patient preference, and a patient’s previous treatment experiences, as well as disease severity, social support, and the intensity of treatment needed.

“Whatever medicine you choose, it takes a village to coordinate the care,” Dr. Wright said. Maternal dose has no effect on neonatal withdrawal, so women should be encouraged to report any concerns. Either medication is compatible with breastfeeding. In fact, breastfeeding has many benefits in preventing neonatal withdrawal syndrome. Smoking cessation should be encouraged because it improves neonatal withdrawal.

Minimizing stigma is paramount, said Dr. Wright. “Substance use disorders are among the most stigmatized medical conditions, and pregnant women with substance use disorders are even more stigmatized.”

Clinicians can support patients by focusing on appropriate language, patients aren’t “addicts,” they are people with an opioid use disorder, she said.

Compassionate care for cannabis users

Cannabis use has a long history of association with women’s health, said Mishka Terplan, MD, MPH, of Friends Research Institute, Baltimore. Although cannabis use overall has increased steadily in recent years, data indicate that people who are pregnant are less likely to use cannabis than those who aren’t. The exception is that individuals who report using cannabis for medical purposes only remain consistent cannabis users during pregnancy.

“The concern is cannabis and birth outcomes, as well as developmental outcomes,” Dr. Terplan said. Multiple studies on this topic support several systematic reviews, and “depending on which decade you read, the results differ slightly.”

Reviews from the 1990s showed little to no effect on birth weight, but more recent studies, such as a meta-analysis published in BMJ Open in 2015, showed increased risk of neonatal outcomes such as low birth weight, anemia, and odds of admission to the neonatal ICU.

“The difference in these two eras is thought to be caused by the change in the definition of what cannabis is, and the potency has increased, and possibly therefore, as a consequence, we see outcomes we hadn’t seen before,” Dr. Terplan explained.

There is a concern with increased use and increased legalization that, there could be adverse effects on neonatal health, but recent studies in Colorado do not show a significant difference in neonatal outcomes before and after legalization, he said.

Data from pregnant women suggest that with regard to cannabis, they are concerned about their health, but they tend to seek information about cannabis use in pregnancy from family, friends, and the Internet rather than their health providers, said Dr. Terplan.

However, studies also show that providers tend to fall short and do a poor job of talking to pregnant patients about cannabis. When providers do discuss cannabis, they tend to focus on the legal aspects. “We are failing our patients when it comes to cannabis,” Dr. Terplan said. “We don’t provide the information and support they need and desire.” Instead, many providers “deploy urine drug testing, which we misinterpret.”

Dr. Terplan explained that point-of-care cannabis testing that shows “THC” is not measuring tetrahydrocannabinol, the psychoactive compound; rather it captures the nonpsychoactive metabolite of THC, one that sticks around for a long time in the biological compartment.

Dr. Terplan urged clinicians not to use urine tests as a default indicator of cannabis use, but instead, “we need to sit, listen, and work with our patients from a place of empathy.”
 

Questions answered

During a question-and-answer session following the panel, Dr. Bradley was asked about preconception counseling related to alcohol consumption.

“Preconception time is a perfect time to do screening, or offer contraception if a patient is a place where she doesn’t want to become pregnant or if she wants to take advantage of any therapeutic options to get well prior to pregnancy,” she said.

Dr. Wright responded to a question about the impact of punitive actions such as drug testing and incarceration. “These things decrease the chance that patients will get adequate prenatal care,” she said. “We need to advocate for our patients and advocate for changing drug laws.”

Dr. Terplan responded to a question about the impact of substance use on parenting. Parents use nicotine, alcohol, and also cannabis, he said. Data showing an association between substance use and cases of child abuse and neglect, “are of poor quality and do not support this association.”

Overall, “we need to have consistent messaging that we are not there to judge patients,” Dr. Bradley added. “The last thing we want is for patients not to be honest with us.”

Dr. Wright disclosed consulting fees from McKesson and royalties as the coauthor of a book, “Opioid-Use Disorders in Pregnancy.” Dr. Bradley had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Terplan had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for the prevention of HPV-associated genital warts and neoplasia, appears to be an effective and perhaps underappreciated treatment of existing cutaneous warts, according to expert speaking at the annual Coastal Dermatology symposium, held virtually.

The value of HPV vaccine for treating any cutaneous HPV-associated warts, not just genital lesions, has been suggested repeatedly in case reports and small studies, but a recently published review provides strong evidence that this is a practical clinical strategy, according to Theodore Rosen, MD, professor of dermatology at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

“Clearly, if you have someone, particularly a youngster, and you’re having trouble getting rid of their warts and they are age 9 years or above – and they need the vaccine anyhow – that’s a win-win proposition,” Dr. Rosen said.

The current nonavalent HPV vaccine is approved for individuals from age 9 to age 45. Although the CDC recommends routine vaccination at age 11 or 12 years, it allows earlier vaccination within the label.

The recently published and updated evidence of a benefit from treatment comes from a systematic literature review. For the review, 63 articles were drawn from the PubMed and Cochrane databases. The studies yielded 4,439 patients with cutaneous warts at the time they received the HPV vaccine or who specifically received vaccine as a treatment strategy.

As has been suggested previously in the case series and in a limited number of prospective studies, the majority of warts, including cutaneous warts and anogenital warts, resolved following vaccine administration.

“Mostly these were common warts, plantar warts, and flat warts,” Dr. Rosen said, but the paper also reported successful treatment of recurrent respiratory papillomatosis, squamous cell carcinomas, and basal cell carcinomas.

Case reports and small studies associating HPV vaccine with successful resolution of warts are easy to find in the literature. For example, 60% of patients achieved a complete response and 30% a partial response to HPV vaccine in one small prospective study of 26 patients with genital warts. Following vaccination, no recurrences were observed after a median follow-up of more than 8 months.

In the review paper, most of the cases involved patients who received the quadrivalent HPV vaccine, Dr. Rosen noted. Only one received the updated nonavalent vaccine, which, in addition to protection against the 6, 11, 16, and 18 subtypes extends protection to subtypes 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58.

“You would expect the nonavalent vaccine to provide the same protection. It is the same vaccine. It just offers activity against more subtypes,” Dr. Rosen said at the meeting, jointly presented by the University of Louisville and Global Academy for Medical Education. He reported that he personally has used the nonavalent vaccine successfully to treat a cutaneous wart.

The nonavalent vaccine can be administered in just two doses for those who receive the first dose before age 15. In others, it is given in three doses at 1- to 2-month intervals, according to Dr. Rosen. He said the efficacy for preventing genital warts and most HPV-related neoplasia exceeds 90%, although it is lower for penile and anal cancer. The protection extends for at least 10 years, but he said that he believes that it is likely to be longer.

“The HPV vaccine is really, really safe,” Dr. Rosen said. Besides injection-site reactions, the most common adverse event is syncope. For this reason, patients are advised to stay seated for 30 minutes after administration.

There is some evidence for cross-immunity for HPV subtypes not covered by the vaccine, particularly among children, Dr. Rosen commented. Citing the review article, he said that, although almost all HPV-associated warts resolve in children when treated with the vaccine, response is somewhat lower in adolescents and further reduced in adults.

In an interview, the senior author of the recent literature review, Natasha A. Mesinkovska, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology, University of California, Irvine, agreed with Dr. Rosen about the value of HPV vaccine for patients not responding to conventional therapies for HPV-related cutaneous warts.

“I think HPV vaccine is an excellent option for those patients, even older ones at 45 years of age if cost is not an issue,” she said. She did offer a caveat. In a recent statement from the International Papillomavirus Society (IPVS) on a world shortage of HPV vaccine, it was estimated that supplies might be limited for the next 3-5 years.

Given this shortage, “obtaining them currently may prove to be difficult,” she cautioned.

This publication and Global Academy for Medical Education are owned by the same parent company.

The human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for the prevention of HPV-associated genital warts and neoplasia, appears to be an effective and perhaps underappreciated treatment of existing cutaneous warts, according to expert speaking at the annual Coastal Dermatology symposium, held virtually.

The value of HPV vaccine for treating any cutaneous HPV-associated warts, not just genital lesions, has been suggested repeatedly in case reports and small studies, but a recently published review provides strong evidence that this is a practical clinical strategy, according to Theodore Rosen, MD, professor of dermatology at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

“Clearly, if you have someone, particularly a youngster, and you’re having trouble getting rid of their warts and they are age 9 years or above – and they need the vaccine anyhow – that’s a win-win proposition,” Dr. Rosen said.

The current nonavalent HPV vaccine is approved for individuals from age 9 to age 45. Although the CDC recommends routine vaccination at age 11 or 12 years, it allows earlier vaccination within the label.

The recently published and updated evidence of a benefit from treatment comes from a systematic literature review. For the review, 63 articles were drawn from the PubMed and Cochrane databases. The studies yielded 4,439 patients with cutaneous warts at the time they received the HPV vaccine or who specifically received vaccine as a treatment strategy.

As has been suggested previously in the case series and in a limited number of prospective studies, the majority of warts, including cutaneous warts and anogenital warts, resolved following vaccine administration.

“Mostly these were common warts, plantar warts, and flat warts,” Dr. Rosen said, but the paper also reported successful treatment of recurrent respiratory papillomatosis, squamous cell carcinomas, and basal cell carcinomas.

Case reports and small studies associating HPV vaccine with successful resolution of warts are easy to find in the literature. For example, 60% of patients achieved a complete response and 30% a partial response to HPV vaccine in one small prospective study of 26 patients with genital warts. Following vaccination, no recurrences were observed after a median follow-up of more than 8 months.

In the review paper, most of the cases involved patients who received the quadrivalent HPV vaccine, Dr. Rosen noted. Only one received the updated nonavalent vaccine, which, in addition to protection against the 6, 11, 16, and 18 subtypes extends protection to subtypes 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58.

“You would expect the nonavalent vaccine to provide the same protection. It is the same vaccine. It just offers activity against more subtypes,” Dr. Rosen said at the meeting, jointly presented by the University of Louisville and Global Academy for Medical Education. He reported that he personally has used the nonavalent vaccine successfully to treat a cutaneous wart.

The nonavalent vaccine can be administered in just two doses for those who receive the first dose before age 15. In others, it is given in three doses at 1- to 2-month intervals, according to Dr. Rosen. He said the efficacy for preventing genital warts and most HPV-related neoplasia exceeds 90%, although it is lower for penile and anal cancer. The protection extends for at least 10 years, but he said that he believes that it is likely to be longer.

“The HPV vaccine is really, really safe,” Dr. Rosen said. Besides injection-site reactions, the most common adverse event is syncope. For this reason, patients are advised to stay seated for 30 minutes after administration.

There is some evidence for cross-immunity for HPV subtypes not covered by the vaccine, particularly among children, Dr. Rosen commented. Citing the review article, he said that, although almost all HPV-associated warts resolve in children when treated with the vaccine, response is somewhat lower in adolescents and further reduced in adults.

In an interview, the senior author of the recent literature review, Natasha A. Mesinkovska, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology, University of California, Irvine, agreed with Dr. Rosen about the value of HPV vaccine for patients not responding to conventional therapies for HPV-related cutaneous warts.

“I think HPV vaccine is an excellent option for those patients, even older ones at 45 years of age if cost is not an issue,” she said. She did offer a caveat. In a recent statement from the International Papillomavirus Society (IPVS) on a world shortage of HPV vaccine, it was estimated that supplies might be limited for the next 3-5 years.

Given this shortage, “obtaining them currently may prove to be difficult,” she cautioned.

This publication and Global Academy for Medical Education are owned by the same parent company.

The human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for the prevention of HPV-associated genital warts and neoplasia, appears to be an effective and perhaps underappreciated treatment of existing cutaneous warts, according to expert speaking at the annual Coastal Dermatology symposium, held virtually.

The value of HPV vaccine for treating any cutaneous HPV-associated warts, not just genital lesions, has been suggested repeatedly in case reports and small studies, but a recently published review provides strong evidence that this is a practical clinical strategy, according to Theodore Rosen, MD, professor of dermatology at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

“Clearly, if you have someone, particularly a youngster, and you’re having trouble getting rid of their warts and they are age 9 years or above – and they need the vaccine anyhow – that’s a win-win proposition,” Dr. Rosen said.

The current nonavalent HPV vaccine is approved for individuals from age 9 to age 45. Although the CDC recommends routine vaccination at age 11 or 12 years, it allows earlier vaccination within the label.

The recently published and updated evidence of a benefit from treatment comes from a systematic literature review. For the review, 63 articles were drawn from the PubMed and Cochrane databases. The studies yielded 4,439 patients with cutaneous warts at the time they received the HPV vaccine or who specifically received vaccine as a treatment strategy.

As has been suggested previously in the case series and in a limited number of prospective studies, the majority of warts, including cutaneous warts and anogenital warts, resolved following vaccine administration.

“Mostly these were common warts, plantar warts, and flat warts,” Dr. Rosen said, but the paper also reported successful treatment of recurrent respiratory papillomatosis, squamous cell carcinomas, and basal cell carcinomas.

Case reports and small studies associating HPV vaccine with successful resolution of warts are easy to find in the literature. For example, 60% of patients achieved a complete response and 30% a partial response to HPV vaccine in one small prospective study of 26 patients with genital warts. Following vaccination, no recurrences were observed after a median follow-up of more than 8 months.

In the review paper, most of the cases involved patients who received the quadrivalent HPV vaccine, Dr. Rosen noted. Only one received the updated nonavalent vaccine, which, in addition to protection against the 6, 11, 16, and 18 subtypes extends protection to subtypes 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58.

“You would expect the nonavalent vaccine to provide the same protection. It is the same vaccine. It just offers activity against more subtypes,” Dr. Rosen said at the meeting, jointly presented by the University of Louisville and Global Academy for Medical Education. He reported that he personally has used the nonavalent vaccine successfully to treat a cutaneous wart.

The nonavalent vaccine can be administered in just two doses for those who receive the first dose before age 15. In others, it is given in three doses at 1- to 2-month intervals, according to Dr. Rosen. He said the efficacy for preventing genital warts and most HPV-related neoplasia exceeds 90%, although it is lower for penile and anal cancer. The protection extends for at least 10 years, but he said that he believes that it is likely to be longer.

“The HPV vaccine is really, really safe,” Dr. Rosen said. Besides injection-site reactions, the most common adverse event is syncope. For this reason, patients are advised to stay seated for 30 minutes after administration.

There is some evidence for cross-immunity for HPV subtypes not covered by the vaccine, particularly among children, Dr. Rosen commented. Citing the review article, he said that, although almost all HPV-associated warts resolve in children when treated with the vaccine, response is somewhat lower in adolescents and further reduced in adults.

In an interview, the senior author of the recent literature review, Natasha A. Mesinkovska, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology, University of California, Irvine, agreed with Dr. Rosen about the value of HPV vaccine for patients not responding to conventional therapies for HPV-related cutaneous warts.

“I think HPV vaccine is an excellent option for those patients, even older ones at 45 years of age if cost is not an issue,” she said. She did offer a caveat. In a recent statement from the International Papillomavirus Society (IPVS) on a world shortage of HPV vaccine, it was estimated that supplies might be limited for the next 3-5 years.

Given this shortage, “obtaining them currently may prove to be difficult,” she cautioned.

This publication and Global Academy for Medical Education are owned by the same parent company.