Medicare officials stuck with their plan to increase payments for office visits for primary care and several other specialties that focus on helping patients manage complex conditions such as diabetes. In doing so, Medicare also finalized cuts for other fields, triggering a new wave of protests.

The final version of the 2021 Medicare physician fee schedule was unveiled on the night of Dec. 1. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services posted an unofficial copy of the rule, which will later be published in the Federal Register.

CMS said it completed work on this massive annual review of payments for clinicians later than it usually does because of the demands of the federal response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The 2021 physician fee rule will take effect within a 30-day period instead of the usual 60-day time frame.

The rule, which runs to more than 2,100 pages, makes myriad changes in Medicare policies, including rules on telehealth, and expands the roles of nurse practitioners and physician assistants.

The most contentious item proposed for 2021 was a reshuffling of payments among specialties as part of an overhaul of Medicare’s approach to valuing evaluation and management (E/M) services. There was broader support for other aspects of the E/M overhaul, which are intended to cut some of the administrative hassle clinicians face.

“This finalized policy marks the most significant updates to E/M codes in 30 years, reducing burden on doctors imposed by the coding system and rewarding time spent evaluating and managing their patients’ care,” CMS Administrator Seema Verma said in a statement. “In the past, the system has rewarded interventions and procedures over time spent with patients – time taken preventing disease and managing chronic illnesses.”

In the final rule, CMS summarized these results of the E/M changes in Table 106. CMS largely stuck with the approach outlined in a draft rule released in August, with minor changes in the amounts of cuts and increases.

Specialties in line for increases under the 2021 final physician fee schedule include allergy/immunology (9%), endocrinology (16%), family practice (13%), general practice (7%), geriatrics (3%), hematology/oncology (14%), internal medicine (4%), nephrology (6%), physician assistants (8%), psychiatry (7%), rheumatology (15%), and urology (8%).

In line for cuts would be anesthesiology (–8%), cardiac surgery (–8%), emergency medicine (–6%), general surgery (–6%), infectious disease (–4%), neurosurgery (–6%), physical/occupational therapy (–9%), plastic surgery (–7%), radiology (–10%), and thoracic surgery (–8%).

CMS had initially set these changes in 2021 pay in motion in the 2020 physician fee schedule. The agency subsequently faced significant opposition to its plans. Many physician groups sought to waive a “budget-neutral” approach to the E/M overhaul, which makes the offsetting of cuts necessary. They argued this would allow increased compensation for clinicians whose practices focus on office visits without requiring offsetting cuts from other fields of medicine.

The American Medical Association is among those urging Congress to prevent or postpone the payment reductions resulting from Medicare’s budget neutrality requirement as applied to the E/M overhaul.

In a Tuesday statement, AMA President Susan R. Bailey, MD, noted that many physicians are facing “substantial economic hardships due to COVID-19.”

By AMA’s calculations, CMS’ planned 2021 E/M overhaul could result in “a shocking reduction of 10.2% to Medicare payment rates,” according to Bailey’s statement. The AMA strongly supports other aspects of the E/M changes CMS finalized, which Bailey said will result in “simpler and more flexible” coding and documentation.

The Surgical Care Coalition, which represents about a dozen medical specialty associations, is asking members of Congress to block the full implementation of the E/M overhaul.

In a Dec. 1 statement, the coalition urged the passage of a bill (HR 8702) that has been introduced in the House by a bipartisan duo of physicians, Rep. Ami Bera, MD (D-Calif.), and Rep. Larry Bucshon, MD (R-Ind.). Their bill would effectively block the cuts from going into effect on January 1, 2021. It would provide an additional Medicare payment for certain services in 2021 and 2022 if the otherwise applicable payment is less than it would have been in 2020.

The Medicare E/M overhaul “was a dangerous policy even before the pandemic, and enacting it during the worst health care crisis in a century is unconscionable. If Congress fails to act, it will further strain a health care system that’s already been pushed to the brink due to the COVID-19 pandemic and undermine patient care,” said John A. Wilson, MD, president of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons, in a statement.

Also backing the Bera-Bucshon bill is the American College of Emergency Physicians. In a statement on Tuesday, ACEP President Mark Rosenberg, DO, MBA, urged Congress to act on this measure.

“Emergency physicians and other health care providers battling on the front lines of the ongoing pandemic are already under unprecedented financial strain as they continue to bear the brunt of COVID-19,” Dr. Rosenberg said. “These cuts would have a devastating impact for the future of emergency medicine and could seriously impede patients’ access to emergency care when they need it most.”
 

“Long overdue”

But there also are champions for the approach CMS took in the E/M overhaul. The influential Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) has argued strongly for keeping the budget-neutral approach to the E/M overhaul.

In an Oct. 2 comment to CMS about the draft 2021 physician fee schedule, MedPAC Chairman Michael E. Chernew, PhD, said this approach would “help rebalance the fee schedule from services that have become overvalued to services that have become undervalued.”

This budget-neutral approach also “will go further in reducing the large gap in compensation between primary care physicians (who had a median income of $243,000 in 2018) and specialists such as surgeons (whose median income was $426,000 in 2018),” Dr. Chernew wrote.

In a Tuesday tweet, Robert B. Doherty, senior vice president of governmental affairs and public policy for the American College of Physicians, said CMS had “finalized long overdue payment increases for primary and comprehensive care including an add-in for more complex visits.”

The American Academy of Family Physicians joined ACP in a November 30 letter to congressional leaders, urging them to allow Medicare “to increase investment in primary care, benefiting millions of Medicare patients and the program itself, and reject last minute efforts to prevent these essential and long-overdue changes from going fully into effect on January 1, 2021.”

In the letter, AAFP and ACP and their cosigners argued for a need to address “underinvestment” in primary care by finalizing the E/M overhaul.

“Given that six in ten American adults have a chronic disease and four in ten have two or more chronic conditions, why would we, as a country, accept such an inadequate investment in the very care model that stands to provide maximum value to these patients?” they wrote. “Since we know that individuals with a longitudinal relationship with a primary care physician have better health outcomes and use fewer health care resources, why would we continue to direct money to higher-cost, marginal value services?”

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

Medicare officials stuck with their plan to increase payments for office visits for primary care and several other specialties that focus on helping patients manage complex conditions such as diabetes. In doing so, Medicare also finalized cuts for other fields, triggering a new wave of protests.

The final version of the 2021 Medicare physician fee schedule was unveiled on the night of Dec. 1. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services posted an unofficial copy of the rule, which will later be published in the Federal Register.

CMS said it completed work on this massive annual review of payments for clinicians later than it usually does because of the demands of the federal response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The 2021 physician fee rule will take effect within a 30-day period instead of the usual 60-day time frame.

The rule, which runs to more than 2,100 pages, makes myriad changes in Medicare policies, including rules on telehealth, and expands the roles of nurse practitioners and physician assistants.

The most contentious item proposed for 2021 was a reshuffling of payments among specialties as part of an overhaul of Medicare’s approach to valuing evaluation and management (E/M) services. There was broader support for other aspects of the E/M overhaul, which are intended to cut some of the administrative hassle clinicians face.

“This finalized policy marks the most significant updates to E/M codes in 30 years, reducing burden on doctors imposed by the coding system and rewarding time spent evaluating and managing their patients’ care,” CMS Administrator Seema Verma said in a statement. “In the past, the system has rewarded interventions and procedures over time spent with patients – time taken preventing disease and managing chronic illnesses.”

In the final rule, CMS summarized these results of the E/M changes in Table 106. CMS largely stuck with the approach outlined in a draft rule released in August, with minor changes in the amounts of cuts and increases.

Specialties in line for increases under the 2021 final physician fee schedule include allergy/immunology (9%), endocrinology (16%), family practice (13%), general practice (7%), geriatrics (3%), hematology/oncology (14%), internal medicine (4%), nephrology (6%), physician assistants (8%), psychiatry (7%), rheumatology (15%), and urology (8%).

In line for cuts would be anesthesiology (–8%), cardiac surgery (–8%), emergency medicine (–6%), general surgery (–6%), infectious disease (–4%), neurosurgery (–6%), physical/occupational therapy (–9%), plastic surgery (–7%), radiology (–10%), and thoracic surgery (–8%).

CMS had initially set these changes in 2021 pay in motion in the 2020 physician fee schedule. The agency subsequently faced significant opposition to its plans. Many physician groups sought to waive a “budget-neutral” approach to the E/M overhaul, which makes the offsetting of cuts necessary. They argued this would allow increased compensation for clinicians whose practices focus on office visits without requiring offsetting cuts from other fields of medicine.

The American Medical Association is among those urging Congress to prevent or postpone the payment reductions resulting from Medicare’s budget neutrality requirement as applied to the E/M overhaul.

In a Tuesday statement, AMA President Susan R. Bailey, MD, noted that many physicians are facing “substantial economic hardships due to COVID-19.”

By AMA’s calculations, CMS’ planned 2021 E/M overhaul could result in “a shocking reduction of 10.2% to Medicare payment rates,” according to Bailey’s statement. The AMA strongly supports other aspects of the E/M changes CMS finalized, which Bailey said will result in “simpler and more flexible” coding and documentation.

The Surgical Care Coalition, which represents about a dozen medical specialty associations, is asking members of Congress to block the full implementation of the E/M overhaul.

In a Dec. 1 statement, the coalition urged the passage of a bill (HR 8702) that has been introduced in the House by a bipartisan duo of physicians, Rep. Ami Bera, MD (D-Calif.), and Rep. Larry Bucshon, MD (R-Ind.). Their bill would effectively block the cuts from going into effect on January 1, 2021. It would provide an additional Medicare payment for certain services in 2021 and 2022 if the otherwise applicable payment is less than it would have been in 2020.

The Medicare E/M overhaul “was a dangerous policy even before the pandemic, and enacting it during the worst health care crisis in a century is unconscionable. If Congress fails to act, it will further strain a health care system that’s already been pushed to the brink due to the COVID-19 pandemic and undermine patient care,” said John A. Wilson, MD, president of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons, in a statement.

Also backing the Bera-Bucshon bill is the American College of Emergency Physicians. In a statement on Tuesday, ACEP President Mark Rosenberg, DO, MBA, urged Congress to act on this measure.

“Emergency physicians and other health care providers battling on the front lines of the ongoing pandemic are already under unprecedented financial strain as they continue to bear the brunt of COVID-19,” Dr. Rosenberg said. “These cuts would have a devastating impact for the future of emergency medicine and could seriously impede patients’ access to emergency care when they need it most.”
 

“Long overdue”

But there also are champions for the approach CMS took in the E/M overhaul. The influential Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) has argued strongly for keeping the budget-neutral approach to the E/M overhaul.

In an Oct. 2 comment to CMS about the draft 2021 physician fee schedule, MedPAC Chairman Michael E. Chernew, PhD, said this approach would “help rebalance the fee schedule from services that have become overvalued to services that have become undervalued.”

This budget-neutral approach also “will go further in reducing the large gap in compensation between primary care physicians (who had a median income of $243,000 in 2018) and specialists such as surgeons (whose median income was $426,000 in 2018),” Dr. Chernew wrote.

In a Tuesday tweet, Robert B. Doherty, senior vice president of governmental affairs and public policy for the American College of Physicians, said CMS had “finalized long overdue payment increases for primary and comprehensive care including an add-in for more complex visits.”

The American Academy of Family Physicians joined ACP in a November 30 letter to congressional leaders, urging them to allow Medicare “to increase investment in primary care, benefiting millions of Medicare patients and the program itself, and reject last minute efforts to prevent these essential and long-overdue changes from going fully into effect on January 1, 2021.”

In the letter, AAFP and ACP and their cosigners argued for a need to address “underinvestment” in primary care by finalizing the E/M overhaul.

“Given that six in ten American adults have a chronic disease and four in ten have two or more chronic conditions, why would we, as a country, accept such an inadequate investment in the very care model that stands to provide maximum value to these patients?” they wrote. “Since we know that individuals with a longitudinal relationship with a primary care physician have better health outcomes and use fewer health care resources, why would we continue to direct money to higher-cost, marginal value services?”

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

Medicare officials stuck with their plan to increase payments for office visits for primary care and several other specialties that focus on helping patients manage complex conditions such as diabetes. In doing so, Medicare also finalized cuts for other fields, triggering a new wave of protests.

The final version of the 2021 Medicare physician fee schedule was unveiled on the night of Dec. 1. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services posted an unofficial copy of the rule, which will later be published in the Federal Register.

CMS said it completed work on this massive annual review of payments for clinicians later than it usually does because of the demands of the federal response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The 2021 physician fee rule will take effect within a 30-day period instead of the usual 60-day time frame.

The rule, which runs to more than 2,100 pages, makes myriad changes in Medicare policies, including rules on telehealth, and expands the roles of nurse practitioners and physician assistants.

The most contentious item proposed for 2021 was a reshuffling of payments among specialties as part of an overhaul of Medicare’s approach to valuing evaluation and management (E/M) services. There was broader support for other aspects of the E/M overhaul, which are intended to cut some of the administrative hassle clinicians face.

“This finalized policy marks the most significant updates to E/M codes in 30 years, reducing burden on doctors imposed by the coding system and rewarding time spent evaluating and managing their patients’ care,” CMS Administrator Seema Verma said in a statement. “In the past, the system has rewarded interventions and procedures over time spent with patients – time taken preventing disease and managing chronic illnesses.”

In the final rule, CMS summarized these results of the E/M changes in Table 106. CMS largely stuck with the approach outlined in a draft rule released in August, with minor changes in the amounts of cuts and increases.

Specialties in line for increases under the 2021 final physician fee schedule include allergy/immunology (9%), endocrinology (16%), family practice (13%), general practice (7%), geriatrics (3%), hematology/oncology (14%), internal medicine (4%), nephrology (6%), physician assistants (8%), psychiatry (7%), rheumatology (15%), and urology (8%).

In line for cuts would be anesthesiology (–8%), cardiac surgery (–8%), emergency medicine (–6%), general surgery (–6%), infectious disease (–4%), neurosurgery (–6%), physical/occupational therapy (–9%), plastic surgery (–7%), radiology (–10%), and thoracic surgery (–8%).

CMS had initially set these changes in 2021 pay in motion in the 2020 physician fee schedule. The agency subsequently faced significant opposition to its plans. Many physician groups sought to waive a “budget-neutral” approach to the E/M overhaul, which makes the offsetting of cuts necessary. They argued this would allow increased compensation for clinicians whose practices focus on office visits without requiring offsetting cuts from other fields of medicine.

The American Medical Association is among those urging Congress to prevent or postpone the payment reductions resulting from Medicare’s budget neutrality requirement as applied to the E/M overhaul.

In a Tuesday statement, AMA President Susan R. Bailey, MD, noted that many physicians are facing “substantial economic hardships due to COVID-19.”

By AMA’s calculations, CMS’ planned 2021 E/M overhaul could result in “a shocking reduction of 10.2% to Medicare payment rates,” according to Bailey’s statement. The AMA strongly supports other aspects of the E/M changes CMS finalized, which Bailey said will result in “simpler and more flexible” coding and documentation.

The Surgical Care Coalition, which represents about a dozen medical specialty associations, is asking members of Congress to block the full implementation of the E/M overhaul.

In a Dec. 1 statement, the coalition urged the passage of a bill (HR 8702) that has been introduced in the House by a bipartisan duo of physicians, Rep. Ami Bera, MD (D-Calif.), and Rep. Larry Bucshon, MD (R-Ind.). Their bill would effectively block the cuts from going into effect on January 1, 2021. It would provide an additional Medicare payment for certain services in 2021 and 2022 if the otherwise applicable payment is less than it would have been in 2020.

The Medicare E/M overhaul “was a dangerous policy even before the pandemic, and enacting it during the worst health care crisis in a century is unconscionable. If Congress fails to act, it will further strain a health care system that’s already been pushed to the brink due to the COVID-19 pandemic and undermine patient care,” said John A. Wilson, MD, president of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons, in a statement.

Also backing the Bera-Bucshon bill is the American College of Emergency Physicians. In a statement on Tuesday, ACEP President Mark Rosenberg, DO, MBA, urged Congress to act on this measure.

“Emergency physicians and other health care providers battling on the front lines of the ongoing pandemic are already under unprecedented financial strain as they continue to bear the brunt of COVID-19,” Dr. Rosenberg said. “These cuts would have a devastating impact for the future of emergency medicine and could seriously impede patients’ access to emergency care when they need it most.”
 

“Long overdue”

But there also are champions for the approach CMS took in the E/M overhaul. The influential Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) has argued strongly for keeping the budget-neutral approach to the E/M overhaul.

In an Oct. 2 comment to CMS about the draft 2021 physician fee schedule, MedPAC Chairman Michael E. Chernew, PhD, said this approach would “help rebalance the fee schedule from services that have become overvalued to services that have become undervalued.”

This budget-neutral approach also “will go further in reducing the large gap in compensation between primary care physicians (who had a median income of $243,000 in 2018) and specialists such as surgeons (whose median income was $426,000 in 2018),” Dr. Chernew wrote.

In a Tuesday tweet, Robert B. Doherty, senior vice president of governmental affairs and public policy for the American College of Physicians, said CMS had “finalized long overdue payment increases for primary and comprehensive care including an add-in for more complex visits.”

The American Academy of Family Physicians joined ACP in a November 30 letter to congressional leaders, urging them to allow Medicare “to increase investment in primary care, benefiting millions of Medicare patients and the program itself, and reject last minute efforts to prevent these essential and long-overdue changes from going fully into effect on January 1, 2021.”

In the letter, AAFP and ACP and their cosigners argued for a need to address “underinvestment” in primary care by finalizing the E/M overhaul.

“Given that six in ten American adults have a chronic disease and four in ten have two or more chronic conditions, why would we, as a country, accept such an inadequate investment in the very care model that stands to provide maximum value to these patients?” they wrote. “Since we know that individuals with a longitudinal relationship with a primary care physician have better health outcomes and use fewer health care resources, why would we continue to direct money to higher-cost, marginal value services?”

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

Public spending on colchicine has grown exponentially over the past decade despite generics suggesting an uphill slog for patients seeking access to long-term therapy for gout or cardiac conditions.

Medicaid spending on single-ingredient colchicine jumped 2,833%, from $1.1 million in 2008 to $32.2 million in 2017, new findings show. Medicaid expansion likely played a role in the increase, but 58% was due to price hikes alone.

The centuries-old drug sold for pennies in the United States before increasing 50-fold to about $5 per pill in 2009 after the first FDA-approved colchicine product, Colcrys, was granted 3 years’ market exclusivity for the treatment of acute gout based on a 1-week trial.

If prices had remained at pre-Colcrys levels, Medicaid spending in 2017 would have totaled just $2.1 million rather than $32.2 million according to the analysis, published online Nov. 30 in JAMA Internal Medicine (doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.5017).

The study was motivated by difficulties gout patients have in accessing colchicine, but also last year’s COLCOT trial, which reported fewer ischemic cardiovascular events in patients receiving colchicine after MI, observed Natalie McCormick, PhD, of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

“They were suggesting it could be a cost-effective way for secondary prevention and it is fairly inexpensive in most countries, but not the U.S.,” she said in an interview. “So there’s really a potential to increase public spending if more and more patients are then taking colchicine for prevention of cardiovascular events and the prices don’t change.”

The current pandemic could potentially further increase demand. Results initially slated for September are expected this month from the COLCORONA trial, which is testing whether the anti-inflammatory agent can prevent hospitalizations, lung complications, and death when given early in the course of COVID-19.

University of Oxford (England) researchers also announced last week that colchicine is being added to the massive RECOVERY trial, which is studying treatments for hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Notably, the Canadian-based COLCOT trial did not use Colcrys, but rather a colchicine product that costs just $0.26 a pill in Canada, roughly the price of most generics available worldwide.

Authorized generics typically drive down drug prices when competing with independent generics, but this competition is missing in the United States, where Colcrys holds patents until 2029, Dr. McCormick and colleagues noted. More than a half-dozen independent generics have FDA approval to date, but only authorized generics with price points set by the brand-name companies are available to treat acute gout, pericarditis, and potentially millions with MI.

“One of the key takeaways is this difference between the brand names and the authorized generics and the independents,” she said. “The authorized [generics] have really not saved money. The list prices were just slightly lower and patients can also have more difficulty in getting those covered.”

For this analysis, the investigators used Medicaid and Medicare data to examine prices for all available forms of colchicine from 2008 to 2017, including unregulated/unapproved colchicine (2008-2010), generic combination probenecid-colchicine (2008-2017), Colcrys (2009-2017), brand-name single-ingredient colchicine Mitigare (approved in late 2014 but not marketed until 2015), and their authorized generics (2015-2017). Medicare trends from 2012 to 2017 were analyzed separately because pre-Colcrys Medicare data were not available.

Based on the results, combined spending on Medicare and Medicaid claims for single-ingredient colchicine exceeded $340 million in 2017.

Inflation- and rebate-adjusted Medicaid unit prices rose from $0.24 a pill in 2008, when unapproved formulations were still available, to $4.20 a pill in 2011 (Colcrys only), and peaked at $4.66 a pill in 2015 (Colcrys plus authorized generics).

Prescribing of lower-priced probenecid-colchicine ($0.66/pill in 2017) remained stable throughout. Medicaid rebate-adjusted prices in 2017 were $3.99/pill for all single-ingredient colchicine products, $5.13/pill for Colcrys, $4.49/pill for Mitigare, and $3.88/pill for authorized generics.

Medicare rebate-adjusted 2017 per-pill prices were $5.81 for all single-ingredient colchicine products, $6.78 for Colcrys, $5.68 for Mitigare, $5.16 for authorized generics, and $0.70 for probenecid-colchicine.

“Authorized generics have still driven high spending,” Dr. McCormick said. “We really need to encourage more competition in order to improve access.”

In an accompanying commentary, B. Joseph Guglielmo, PharmD, University of California, San Francisco, pointed out that the estimated median research and development cost to bring a drug to market is between $985 million and $1,335 million, which inevitably translates into a high selling price for the drug. Such investment and its resultant cost, however, should be associated with potential worth to society.

“Only a fraction of an investment was required for Colcrys, a product that has provided no increased value and an unnecessary, long-term cost burden to the health care system,” he wrote. “The current study findings illustrate that we can never allow such an egregious case to take place again.”

Dr. McCormick reported grants from Canadian Institutes of Health Research during the conduct of the study. Dr. Guglielmo reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Public spending on colchicine has grown exponentially over the past decade despite generics suggesting an uphill slog for patients seeking access to long-term therapy for gout or cardiac conditions.

Medicaid spending on single-ingredient colchicine jumped 2,833%, from $1.1 million in 2008 to $32.2 million in 2017, new findings show. Medicaid expansion likely played a role in the increase, but 58% was due to price hikes alone.

The centuries-old drug sold for pennies in the United States before increasing 50-fold to about $5 per pill in 2009 after the first FDA-approved colchicine product, Colcrys, was granted 3 years’ market exclusivity for the treatment of acute gout based on a 1-week trial.

If prices had remained at pre-Colcrys levels, Medicaid spending in 2017 would have totaled just $2.1 million rather than $32.2 million according to the analysis, published online Nov. 30 in JAMA Internal Medicine (doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.5017).

The study was motivated by difficulties gout patients have in accessing colchicine, but also last year’s COLCOT trial, which reported fewer ischemic cardiovascular events in patients receiving colchicine after MI, observed Natalie McCormick, PhD, of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

“They were suggesting it could be a cost-effective way for secondary prevention and it is fairly inexpensive in most countries, but not the U.S.,” she said in an interview. “So there’s really a potential to increase public spending if more and more patients are then taking colchicine for prevention of cardiovascular events and the prices don’t change.”

The current pandemic could potentially further increase demand. Results initially slated for September are expected this month from the COLCORONA trial, which is testing whether the anti-inflammatory agent can prevent hospitalizations, lung complications, and death when given early in the course of COVID-19.

University of Oxford (England) researchers also announced last week that colchicine is being added to the massive RECOVERY trial, which is studying treatments for hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Notably, the Canadian-based COLCOT trial did not use Colcrys, but rather a colchicine product that costs just $0.26 a pill in Canada, roughly the price of most generics available worldwide.

Authorized generics typically drive down drug prices when competing with independent generics, but this competition is missing in the United States, where Colcrys holds patents until 2029, Dr. McCormick and colleagues noted. More than a half-dozen independent generics have FDA approval to date, but only authorized generics with price points set by the brand-name companies are available to treat acute gout, pericarditis, and potentially millions with MI.

“One of the key takeaways is this difference between the brand names and the authorized generics and the independents,” she said. “The authorized [generics] have really not saved money. The list prices were just slightly lower and patients can also have more difficulty in getting those covered.”

For this analysis, the investigators used Medicaid and Medicare data to examine prices for all available forms of colchicine from 2008 to 2017, including unregulated/unapproved colchicine (2008-2010), generic combination probenecid-colchicine (2008-2017), Colcrys (2009-2017), brand-name single-ingredient colchicine Mitigare (approved in late 2014 but not marketed until 2015), and their authorized generics (2015-2017). Medicare trends from 2012 to 2017 were analyzed separately because pre-Colcrys Medicare data were not available.

Based on the results, combined spending on Medicare and Medicaid claims for single-ingredient colchicine exceeded $340 million in 2017.

Inflation- and rebate-adjusted Medicaid unit prices rose from $0.24 a pill in 2008, when unapproved formulations were still available, to $4.20 a pill in 2011 (Colcrys only), and peaked at $4.66 a pill in 2015 (Colcrys plus authorized generics).

Prescribing of lower-priced probenecid-colchicine ($0.66/pill in 2017) remained stable throughout. Medicaid rebate-adjusted prices in 2017 were $3.99/pill for all single-ingredient colchicine products, $5.13/pill for Colcrys, $4.49/pill for Mitigare, and $3.88/pill for authorized generics.

Medicare rebate-adjusted 2017 per-pill prices were $5.81 for all single-ingredient colchicine products, $6.78 for Colcrys, $5.68 for Mitigare, $5.16 for authorized generics, and $0.70 for probenecid-colchicine.

“Authorized generics have still driven high spending,” Dr. McCormick said. “We really need to encourage more competition in order to improve access.”

In an accompanying commentary, B. Joseph Guglielmo, PharmD, University of California, San Francisco, pointed out that the estimated median research and development cost to bring a drug to market is between $985 million and $1,335 million, which inevitably translates into a high selling price for the drug. Such investment and its resultant cost, however, should be associated with potential worth to society.

“Only a fraction of an investment was required for Colcrys, a product that has provided no increased value and an unnecessary, long-term cost burden to the health care system,” he wrote. “The current study findings illustrate that we can never allow such an egregious case to take place again.”

Dr. McCormick reported grants from Canadian Institutes of Health Research during the conduct of the study. Dr. Guglielmo reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Public spending on colchicine has grown exponentially over the past decade despite generics suggesting an uphill slog for patients seeking access to long-term therapy for gout or cardiac conditions.

Medicaid spending on single-ingredient colchicine jumped 2,833%, from $1.1 million in 2008 to $32.2 million in 2017, new findings show. Medicaid expansion likely played a role in the increase, but 58% was due to price hikes alone.

The centuries-old drug sold for pennies in the United States before increasing 50-fold to about $5 per pill in 2009 after the first FDA-approved colchicine product, Colcrys, was granted 3 years’ market exclusivity for the treatment of acute gout based on a 1-week trial.

If prices had remained at pre-Colcrys levels, Medicaid spending in 2017 would have totaled just $2.1 million rather than $32.2 million according to the analysis, published online Nov. 30 in JAMA Internal Medicine (doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.5017).

The study was motivated by difficulties gout patients have in accessing colchicine, but also last year’s COLCOT trial, which reported fewer ischemic cardiovascular events in patients receiving colchicine after MI, observed Natalie McCormick, PhD, of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

“They were suggesting it could be a cost-effective way for secondary prevention and it is fairly inexpensive in most countries, but not the U.S.,” she said in an interview. “So there’s really a potential to increase public spending if more and more patients are then taking colchicine for prevention of cardiovascular events and the prices don’t change.”

The current pandemic could potentially further increase demand. Results initially slated for September are expected this month from the COLCORONA trial, which is testing whether the anti-inflammatory agent can prevent hospitalizations, lung complications, and death when given early in the course of COVID-19.

University of Oxford (England) researchers also announced last week that colchicine is being added to the massive RECOVERY trial, which is studying treatments for hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Notably, the Canadian-based COLCOT trial did not use Colcrys, but rather a colchicine product that costs just $0.26 a pill in Canada, roughly the price of most generics available worldwide.

Authorized generics typically drive down drug prices when competing with independent generics, but this competition is missing in the United States, where Colcrys holds patents until 2029, Dr. McCormick and colleagues noted. More than a half-dozen independent generics have FDA approval to date, but only authorized generics with price points set by the brand-name companies are available to treat acute gout, pericarditis, and potentially millions with MI.

“One of the key takeaways is this difference between the brand names and the authorized generics and the independents,” she said. “The authorized [generics] have really not saved money. The list prices were just slightly lower and patients can also have more difficulty in getting those covered.”

For this analysis, the investigators used Medicaid and Medicare data to examine prices for all available forms of colchicine from 2008 to 2017, including unregulated/unapproved colchicine (2008-2010), generic combination probenecid-colchicine (2008-2017), Colcrys (2009-2017), brand-name single-ingredient colchicine Mitigare (approved in late 2014 but not marketed until 2015), and their authorized generics (2015-2017). Medicare trends from 2012 to 2017 were analyzed separately because pre-Colcrys Medicare data were not available.

Based on the results, combined spending on Medicare and Medicaid claims for single-ingredient colchicine exceeded $340 million in 2017.

Inflation- and rebate-adjusted Medicaid unit prices rose from $0.24 a pill in 2008, when unapproved formulations were still available, to $4.20 a pill in 2011 (Colcrys only), and peaked at $4.66 a pill in 2015 (Colcrys plus authorized generics).

Prescribing of lower-priced probenecid-colchicine ($0.66/pill in 2017) remained stable throughout. Medicaid rebate-adjusted prices in 2017 were $3.99/pill for all single-ingredient colchicine products, $5.13/pill for Colcrys, $4.49/pill for Mitigare, and $3.88/pill for authorized generics.

Medicare rebate-adjusted 2017 per-pill prices were $5.81 for all single-ingredient colchicine products, $6.78 for Colcrys, $5.68 for Mitigare, $5.16 for authorized generics, and $0.70 for probenecid-colchicine.

“Authorized generics have still driven high spending,” Dr. McCormick said. “We really need to encourage more competition in order to improve access.”

In an accompanying commentary, B. Joseph Guglielmo, PharmD, University of California, San Francisco, pointed out that the estimated median research and development cost to bring a drug to market is between $985 million and $1,335 million, which inevitably translates into a high selling price for the drug. Such investment and its resultant cost, however, should be associated with potential worth to society.

“Only a fraction of an investment was required for Colcrys, a product that has provided no increased value and an unnecessary, long-term cost burden to the health care system,” he wrote. “The current study findings illustrate that we can never allow such an egregious case to take place again.”

Dr. McCormick reported grants from Canadian Institutes of Health Research during the conduct of the study. Dr. Guglielmo reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Background: Higher glucose immediately following acute ischemic stroke is known to be associated with poor outcomes. Patients with elevated glucoses in the aftermath of an acute ischemic stroke are more likely to have expansion of ischemic area and are more likely to have hemorrhagic conversion.

Dr. Fritz is assistant professor of medicine and the director of hospitalist operations at St. Louis University School of Medicine.

Background: Higher glucose immediately following acute ischemic stroke is known to be associated with poor outcomes. Patients with elevated glucoses in the aftermath of an acute ischemic stroke are more likely to have expansion of ischemic area and are more likely to have hemorrhagic conversion.

Dr. Fritz is assistant professor of medicine and the director of hospitalist operations at St. Louis University School of Medicine.

Background: Higher glucose immediately following acute ischemic stroke is known to be associated with poor outcomes. Patients with elevated glucoses in the aftermath of an acute ischemic stroke are more likely to have expansion of ischemic area and are more likely to have hemorrhagic conversion.

Dr. Fritz is assistant professor of medicine and the director of hospitalist operations at St. Louis University School of Medicine.

Trial results suggest circulating tumor cell (CTC) counts may be a reliable biomarker for guiding the choice of first-line treatment in patients with hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer, investigators wrote in JAMA Oncology.

However, authors of a related editorial suggested CTC counts are not adequate for guiding treatment choice in this population.

In a phase 3 trial, investigators compared the use of CTC counts and the use of clinical factors to guide the decision between chemotherapy and endocrine therapy. Results showed similar progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) with both methods but more chemotherapy use with the CTC method.

“The results of this trial demonstrate the reliability and clinical utility of CTC count to guide the choice between single-agent endocrine therapy and chemotherapy as first-line treatment,” but “at the cost of a higher proportion of patients treated with chemotherapy,” study author François-Clement Bidard, MD, PhD, of Institut Curie in Saint-Cloud, France, and colleagues wrote.

The investigators explained that endocrine therapy is the preferred first-line treatment option in this patient population, but chemotherapy is used when women are in visceral crisis, with rapidly progressive, symptomatic disease. The decision usually rests on clinical factors, such as tumor subtype and performance status, but there’s interphysician variability.

The team hoped to find a “more reliable, standardized, and reproducible” biomarker to help remove some of the uncertainty from the situation. They tested CTC count, a well-established prognostic indicator of PFS and OS, as a candidate.
 

Study results

The trial included 755 patients with hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative breast cancer in the per-protocol population. The patients’ median age was 63 years (range, 30-88 years).

Among the 377 patients randomized to the CTC arm, those with counts at or above 5 CTCs per 7.5 mL received chemotherapy, while those with a lower count received endocrine therapy.

The 378 patients in the standard-care group received endocrine therapy or chemotherapy based on provider choice guided by clinical factors.

Chemotherapy was given to 37% of patients in the CTC arm and 27% of those in the standard arm.

The median PFS was 15.5 months in the CTC arm and 13.9 months in the standard arm, which meant the primary endpoint of noninferiority was met (hazard ratio, 0.94; 90% confidence interval, 0.81-1.09).

Age older than 60 years was the only baseline characteristic associated with better PFS with CTC-driven decision-making. This may be because of the greater “use of endocrine therapy as the clinically favored treatment, whatever the other clinicopathologic characteristics,” in older subjects, the investigators wrote.

As with PFS, the median OS was similar between the study arms – 47.3 months in the CTC arm and 42.8 months in the standard arm (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.71-1.16).
 

‘Not good enough’

The investigators behind this study had “a worthy goal,” according to authors of a related editorial.

Without “predictive biomarkers, we are left with our clinical knowledge, experience, and intuition. Patients are left with uncertainty, doubt, and fear,” Tarah Ballinger, MD,, of Indiana University, Indianapolis, and colleagues wrote in the editorial.

However, the editorialists had concerns about the findings. For one thing, the investigators hypothesized that relying on CTC would lead to a deescalation from chemotherapy to endocrine therapy, but use of chemotherapy was actually 10% higher in the CTC arm.

“Adding to or replacing the parameters we use to make a clinical decision should help us improve the lives of patients. ... We should demand an improvement in outcomes before accepting a strategy that exposes more patients to more toxic therapy. Not worse simply is not good enough,” the editorialists wrote.

In addition, the trial was completed before CDK4/6 inhibitors became a standard add-on with endocrine therapy for hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative patients.

“The overall response rate to CDK4/6 inhibitor therapy is higher than with traditional chemotherapy, and several randomized trials have failed to show a survival benefit of upfront chemotherapy compared with CDK4/6 inhibitor use. ... Thus, it is even less likely that we can assume that baseline high CTC count corresponds to a need for chemotherapy in a modern treatment landscape that offers more patients more benefit from hormone therapy,” Dr. Ballinger and colleagues wrote.

The editorialists concluded that CTC count “alone at baseline primarily reflects disease bulk, much like anatomic staging, rather than disease biology. As treatments become more rooted in our knowledge of breast cancer biology, decisions based on disease bulk are decidedly out of place.”

Perhaps a better use, they suggested, is for treatment personalization. For instance, patients with persistently elevated CTCs despite standard approaches could consider trials of novel targeted therapies, or CTCs could be sequenced to identify actionable molecular targets, achieving a “clinical utility that merely counting CTCs lacks,” the editorialists wrote.

This study was funded by the Institut Curie, the French National Cancer Institute, and Menarini Silicon Biosystems, the maker of the CTC assay used in the trial. The investigators disclosed relationships with Menarini and many other companies. Dr. Ballinger receives honoraria from Medscape, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.

SOURCE: Bidard FC et al. JAMA Oncol. 2020 Nov 5. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.5660.

Trial results suggest circulating tumor cell (CTC) counts may be a reliable biomarker for guiding the choice of first-line treatment in patients with hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer, investigators wrote in JAMA Oncology.

However, authors of a related editorial suggested CTC counts are not adequate for guiding treatment choice in this population.

In a phase 3 trial, investigators compared the use of CTC counts and the use of clinical factors to guide the decision between chemotherapy and endocrine therapy. Results showed similar progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) with both methods but more chemotherapy use with the CTC method.

“The results of this trial demonstrate the reliability and clinical utility of CTC count to guide the choice between single-agent endocrine therapy and chemotherapy as first-line treatment,” but “at the cost of a higher proportion of patients treated with chemotherapy,” study author François-Clement Bidard, MD, PhD, of Institut Curie in Saint-Cloud, France, and colleagues wrote.

The investigators explained that endocrine therapy is the preferred first-line treatment option in this patient population, but chemotherapy is used when women are in visceral crisis, with rapidly progressive, symptomatic disease. The decision usually rests on clinical factors, such as tumor subtype and performance status, but there’s interphysician variability.

The team hoped to find a “more reliable, standardized, and reproducible” biomarker to help remove some of the uncertainty from the situation. They tested CTC count, a well-established prognostic indicator of PFS and OS, as a candidate.
 

Study results

The trial included 755 patients with hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative breast cancer in the per-protocol population. The patients’ median age was 63 years (range, 30-88 years).

Among the 377 patients randomized to the CTC arm, those with counts at or above 5 CTCs per 7.5 mL received chemotherapy, while those with a lower count received endocrine therapy.

The 378 patients in the standard-care group received endocrine therapy or chemotherapy based on provider choice guided by clinical factors.

Chemotherapy was given to 37% of patients in the CTC arm and 27% of those in the standard arm.

The median PFS was 15.5 months in the CTC arm and 13.9 months in the standard arm, which meant the primary endpoint of noninferiority was met (hazard ratio, 0.94; 90% confidence interval, 0.81-1.09).

Age older than 60 years was the only baseline characteristic associated with better PFS with CTC-driven decision-making. This may be because of the greater “use of endocrine therapy as the clinically favored treatment, whatever the other clinicopathologic characteristics,” in older subjects, the investigators wrote.

As with PFS, the median OS was similar between the study arms – 47.3 months in the CTC arm and 42.8 months in the standard arm (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.71-1.16).
 

‘Not good enough’

The investigators behind this study had “a worthy goal,” according to authors of a related editorial.

Without “predictive biomarkers, we are left with our clinical knowledge, experience, and intuition. Patients are left with uncertainty, doubt, and fear,” Tarah Ballinger, MD,, of Indiana University, Indianapolis, and colleagues wrote in the editorial.

However, the editorialists had concerns about the findings. For one thing, the investigators hypothesized that relying on CTC would lead to a deescalation from chemotherapy to endocrine therapy, but use of chemotherapy was actually 10% higher in the CTC arm.

“Adding to or replacing the parameters we use to make a clinical decision should help us improve the lives of patients. ... We should demand an improvement in outcomes before accepting a strategy that exposes more patients to more toxic therapy. Not worse simply is not good enough,” the editorialists wrote.

In addition, the trial was completed before CDK4/6 inhibitors became a standard add-on with endocrine therapy for hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative patients.

“The overall response rate to CDK4/6 inhibitor therapy is higher than with traditional chemotherapy, and several randomized trials have failed to show a survival benefit of upfront chemotherapy compared with CDK4/6 inhibitor use. ... Thus, it is even less likely that we can assume that baseline high CTC count corresponds to a need for chemotherapy in a modern treatment landscape that offers more patients more benefit from hormone therapy,” Dr. Ballinger and colleagues wrote.

The editorialists concluded that CTC count “alone at baseline primarily reflects disease bulk, much like anatomic staging, rather than disease biology. As treatments become more rooted in our knowledge of breast cancer biology, decisions based on disease bulk are decidedly out of place.”

Perhaps a better use, they suggested, is for treatment personalization. For instance, patients with persistently elevated CTCs despite standard approaches could consider trials of novel targeted therapies, or CTCs could be sequenced to identify actionable molecular targets, achieving a “clinical utility that merely counting CTCs lacks,” the editorialists wrote.

This study was funded by the Institut Curie, the French National Cancer Institute, and Menarini Silicon Biosystems, the maker of the CTC assay used in the trial. The investigators disclosed relationships with Menarini and many other companies. Dr. Ballinger receives honoraria from Medscape, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.

SOURCE: Bidard FC et al. JAMA Oncol. 2020 Nov 5. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.5660.

Trial results suggest circulating tumor cell (CTC) counts may be a reliable biomarker for guiding the choice of first-line treatment in patients with hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer, investigators wrote in JAMA Oncology.

However, authors of a related editorial suggested CTC counts are not adequate for guiding treatment choice in this population.

In a phase 3 trial, investigators compared the use of CTC counts and the use of clinical factors to guide the decision between chemotherapy and endocrine therapy. Results showed similar progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) with both methods but more chemotherapy use with the CTC method.

“The results of this trial demonstrate the reliability and clinical utility of CTC count to guide the choice between single-agent endocrine therapy and chemotherapy as first-line treatment,” but “at the cost of a higher proportion of patients treated with chemotherapy,” study author François-Clement Bidard, MD, PhD, of Institut Curie in Saint-Cloud, France, and colleagues wrote.

The investigators explained that endocrine therapy is the preferred first-line treatment option in this patient population, but chemotherapy is used when women are in visceral crisis, with rapidly progressive, symptomatic disease. The decision usually rests on clinical factors, such as tumor subtype and performance status, but there’s interphysician variability.

The team hoped to find a “more reliable, standardized, and reproducible” biomarker to help remove some of the uncertainty from the situation. They tested CTC count, a well-established prognostic indicator of PFS and OS, as a candidate.
 

Study results

The trial included 755 patients with hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative breast cancer in the per-protocol population. The patients’ median age was 63 years (range, 30-88 years).

Among the 377 patients randomized to the CTC arm, those with counts at or above 5 CTCs per 7.5 mL received chemotherapy, while those with a lower count received endocrine therapy.

The 378 patients in the standard-care group received endocrine therapy or chemotherapy based on provider choice guided by clinical factors.

Chemotherapy was given to 37% of patients in the CTC arm and 27% of those in the standard arm.

The median PFS was 15.5 months in the CTC arm and 13.9 months in the standard arm, which meant the primary endpoint of noninferiority was met (hazard ratio, 0.94; 90% confidence interval, 0.81-1.09).

Age older than 60 years was the only baseline characteristic associated with better PFS with CTC-driven decision-making. This may be because of the greater “use of endocrine therapy as the clinically favored treatment, whatever the other clinicopathologic characteristics,” in older subjects, the investigators wrote.

As with PFS, the median OS was similar between the study arms – 47.3 months in the CTC arm and 42.8 months in the standard arm (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.71-1.16).
 

‘Not good enough’

The investigators behind this study had “a worthy goal,” according to authors of a related editorial.

Without “predictive biomarkers, we are left with our clinical knowledge, experience, and intuition. Patients are left with uncertainty, doubt, and fear,” Tarah Ballinger, MD,, of Indiana University, Indianapolis, and colleagues wrote in the editorial.

However, the editorialists had concerns about the findings. For one thing, the investigators hypothesized that relying on CTC would lead to a deescalation from chemotherapy to endocrine therapy, but use of chemotherapy was actually 10% higher in the CTC arm.

“Adding to or replacing the parameters we use to make a clinical decision should help us improve the lives of patients. ... We should demand an improvement in outcomes before accepting a strategy that exposes more patients to more toxic therapy. Not worse simply is not good enough,” the editorialists wrote.

In addition, the trial was completed before CDK4/6 inhibitors became a standard add-on with endocrine therapy for hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative patients.

“The overall response rate to CDK4/6 inhibitor therapy is higher than with traditional chemotherapy, and several randomized trials have failed to show a survival benefit of upfront chemotherapy compared with CDK4/6 inhibitor use. ... Thus, it is even less likely that we can assume that baseline high CTC count corresponds to a need for chemotherapy in a modern treatment landscape that offers more patients more benefit from hormone therapy,” Dr. Ballinger and colleagues wrote.

The editorialists concluded that CTC count “alone at baseline primarily reflects disease bulk, much like anatomic staging, rather than disease biology. As treatments become more rooted in our knowledge of breast cancer biology, decisions based on disease bulk are decidedly out of place.”

Perhaps a better use, they suggested, is for treatment personalization. For instance, patients with persistently elevated CTCs despite standard approaches could consider trials of novel targeted therapies, or CTCs could be sequenced to identify actionable molecular targets, achieving a “clinical utility that merely counting CTCs lacks,” the editorialists wrote.

This study was funded by the Institut Curie, the French National Cancer Institute, and Menarini Silicon Biosystems, the maker of the CTC assay used in the trial. The investigators disclosed relationships with Menarini and many other companies. Dr. Ballinger receives honoraria from Medscape, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.

SOURCE: Bidard FC et al. JAMA Oncol. 2020 Nov 5. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.5660.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced two shorter quarantine options – 10 days or 7 days – for people exposed to COVID-19. Citing new evidence and an “acceptable risk” of transmission, the agency hopes reducing the 14-day quarantine will increase overall compliance and improve public health and economic constraints.

The agency also suggested people postpone travel during the upcoming winter holidays and stay home because of the pandemic.

These shorter quarantine options do not replace initial CDC guidance. “CDC continues to recommend quarantining for 14 days as the best way to reduce risk for spreading COVID-19,” said Henry Walke, MD, MPH, the CDC’s COVID-19 incident manager, during a media briefing on Wednesday.

However, “after reviewing and analyzing new research and data, CDC has identified two acceptable alternative quarantine periods.”

People can now quarantine for 10 days without a COVID-19 test if they have no symptoms. Alternatively, a quarantine can end after 7 days for someone with a negative test and no symptoms. The agency recommends a polymerase chain reaction test or an antigen assay within 48 hours before the end of a quarantine.

The agency also suggests people still monitor for symptoms for a full 14 days.

Reducing the length of quarantine “may make it easier for people to take this critical public health action, by reducing the economic hardship associated with a longer period, especially if they cannot work during that time,” Dr. Walke said. “In addition, a shorter quarantine period can lessen stress on the public health system and communities, especially when new infections are rapidly rising.”

The federal guidance leaves flexibility for local jurisdictions to make their own quarantine recommendations, as warranted, he added.
 

An ‘acceptable risk’ calculation

Modeling by the CDC and academic and public health partners led to the new quarantine recommendations, said John Brooks, MD, chief medical officer for the CDC’s COVID-19 response. Multiple studies “point in the same direction, which is that we can safely reduce the length of quarantine but accept there is a small residual risk that a person who is leaving quarantine early could transmit to someone else.”

The residual risk is approximately 1%, with an upper limit of 10%, when people quarantine for 10 days. A 7-day quarantine carries a residual risk of about 5% and an upper limit of 12%.

“Ten days is where the risk got into a sweet spot we like, at about 1%,” Dr. Brooks said. “That is a very acceptable risk, I think, for many people.”

Although it remains unknown what proportion of people spending 14 days in quarantine leave early, “we are hearing anecdotally from our partners in public health that many people are discontinuing quarantine ahead of time because there is pressure to go back to work, to get people back into school – and it imposes a burden on the individual,” Dr. Brooks said.

“One of our hopes is that ... if we reduce the amount of time they have to spend in quarantine, people will be more compliant,” he added.

A reporter asked why the CDC is shortening quarantines when the pandemic numbers are increasing nationwide. The timing has to do with capacity, Dr. Brooks said. “We are in situation where the number of cases is rising, the number of contacts is rising and the number of people who require quarantine is rising. That is a lot of burden, not just on the people who have to quarantine, but on public health.”
 

Home for the holidays

Similar to its pre-Thanksgiving advisory, the CDC also recommends people avoid travel during the upcoming winter holidays. “The best way to protect yourself and others is to postpone travel and stay home,” Dr. Walke said.

If people do decide to travel, the agency recommends COVID-19 testing 1-3 days prior to travel and again 3-5 days afterward, as well as reducing nonessential activities for a full 7 days after returning home. Furthermore, if someone does not have follow-up testing, the CDC recommends reducing nonessential activities for 10 days.

Testing does not eliminate all risk, Dr. Walke said, “but when combined with reducing nonessential activities, symptom screening and continuing with precautions like wearing masks, social distancing and hand washing, it can make travel safer.”

“We are trying to reduce the number of infections by postponing travel over the winter holiday,” Cindy Friedman, MD, chief of the CDC Travelers’ Health Branch, said during the media briefing.

“Travel volume was high during Thanksgiving,” she said, “and even if only a small percentage of those travelers were asymptomatically infected, this can translate into hundreds of thousands of additional infections moving from one community to another.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced two shorter quarantine options – 10 days or 7 days – for people exposed to COVID-19. Citing new evidence and an “acceptable risk” of transmission, the agency hopes reducing the 14-day quarantine will increase overall compliance and improve public health and economic constraints.

The agency also suggested people postpone travel during the upcoming winter holidays and stay home because of the pandemic.

These shorter quarantine options do not replace initial CDC guidance. “CDC continues to recommend quarantining for 14 days as the best way to reduce risk for spreading COVID-19,” said Henry Walke, MD, MPH, the CDC’s COVID-19 incident manager, during a media briefing on Wednesday.

However, “after reviewing and analyzing new research and data, CDC has identified two acceptable alternative quarantine periods.”

People can now quarantine for 10 days without a COVID-19 test if they have no symptoms. Alternatively, a quarantine can end after 7 days for someone with a negative test and no symptoms. The agency recommends a polymerase chain reaction test or an antigen assay within 48 hours before the end of a quarantine.

The agency also suggests people still monitor for symptoms for a full 14 days.

Reducing the length of quarantine “may make it easier for people to take this critical public health action, by reducing the economic hardship associated with a longer period, especially if they cannot work during that time,” Dr. Walke said. “In addition, a shorter quarantine period can lessen stress on the public health system and communities, especially when new infections are rapidly rising.”

The federal guidance leaves flexibility for local jurisdictions to make their own quarantine recommendations, as warranted, he added.
 

An ‘acceptable risk’ calculation

Modeling by the CDC and academic and public health partners led to the new quarantine recommendations, said John Brooks, MD, chief medical officer for the CDC’s COVID-19 response. Multiple studies “point in the same direction, which is that we can safely reduce the length of quarantine but accept there is a small residual risk that a person who is leaving quarantine early could transmit to someone else.”

The residual risk is approximately 1%, with an upper limit of 10%, when people quarantine for 10 days. A 7-day quarantine carries a residual risk of about 5% and an upper limit of 12%.

“Ten days is where the risk got into a sweet spot we like, at about 1%,” Dr. Brooks said. “That is a very acceptable risk, I think, for many people.”

Although it remains unknown what proportion of people spending 14 days in quarantine leave early, “we are hearing anecdotally from our partners in public health that many people are discontinuing quarantine ahead of time because there is pressure to go back to work, to get people back into school – and it imposes a burden on the individual,” Dr. Brooks said.

“One of our hopes is that ... if we reduce the amount of time they have to spend in quarantine, people will be more compliant,” he added.

A reporter asked why the CDC is shortening quarantines when the pandemic numbers are increasing nationwide. The timing has to do with capacity, Dr. Brooks said. “We are in situation where the number of cases is rising, the number of contacts is rising and the number of people who require quarantine is rising. That is a lot of burden, not just on the people who have to quarantine, but on public health.”
 

Home for the holidays

Similar to its pre-Thanksgiving advisory, the CDC also recommends people avoid travel during the upcoming winter holidays. “The best way to protect yourself and others is to postpone travel and stay home,” Dr. Walke said.

If people do decide to travel, the agency recommends COVID-19 testing 1-3 days prior to travel and again 3-5 days afterward, as well as reducing nonessential activities for a full 7 days after returning home. Furthermore, if someone does not have follow-up testing, the CDC recommends reducing nonessential activities for 10 days.

Testing does not eliminate all risk, Dr. Walke said, “but when combined with reducing nonessential activities, symptom screening and continuing with precautions like wearing masks, social distancing and hand washing, it can make travel safer.”

“We are trying to reduce the number of infections by postponing travel over the winter holiday,” Cindy Friedman, MD, chief of the CDC Travelers’ Health Branch, said during the media briefing.

“Travel volume was high during Thanksgiving,” she said, “and even if only a small percentage of those travelers were asymptomatically infected, this can translate into hundreds of thousands of additional infections moving from one community to another.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced two shorter quarantine options – 10 days or 7 days – for people exposed to COVID-19. Citing new evidence and an “acceptable risk” of transmission, the agency hopes reducing the 14-day quarantine will increase overall compliance and improve public health and economic constraints.

The agency also suggested people postpone travel during the upcoming winter holidays and stay home because of the pandemic.

These shorter quarantine options do not replace initial CDC guidance. “CDC continues to recommend quarantining for 14 days as the best way to reduce risk for spreading COVID-19,” said Henry Walke, MD, MPH, the CDC’s COVID-19 incident manager, during a media briefing on Wednesday.

However, “after reviewing and analyzing new research and data, CDC has identified two acceptable alternative quarantine periods.”

People can now quarantine for 10 days without a COVID-19 test if they have no symptoms. Alternatively, a quarantine can end after 7 days for someone with a negative test and no symptoms. The agency recommends a polymerase chain reaction test or an antigen assay within 48 hours before the end of a quarantine.

The agency also suggests people still monitor for symptoms for a full 14 days.

Reducing the length of quarantine “may make it easier for people to take this critical public health action, by reducing the economic hardship associated with a longer period, especially if they cannot work during that time,” Dr. Walke said. “In addition, a shorter quarantine period can lessen stress on the public health system and communities, especially when new infections are rapidly rising.”

The federal guidance leaves flexibility for local jurisdictions to make their own quarantine recommendations, as warranted, he added.
 

An ‘acceptable risk’ calculation

Modeling by the CDC and academic and public health partners led to the new quarantine recommendations, said John Brooks, MD, chief medical officer for the CDC’s COVID-19 response. Multiple studies “point in the same direction, which is that we can safely reduce the length of quarantine but accept there is a small residual risk that a person who is leaving quarantine early could transmit to someone else.”

The residual risk is approximately 1%, with an upper limit of 10%, when people quarantine for 10 days. A 7-day quarantine carries a residual risk of about 5% and an upper limit of 12%.

“Ten days is where the risk got into a sweet spot we like, at about 1%,” Dr. Brooks said. “That is a very acceptable risk, I think, for many people.”

Although it remains unknown what proportion of people spending 14 days in quarantine leave early, “we are hearing anecdotally from our partners in public health that many people are discontinuing quarantine ahead of time because there is pressure to go back to work, to get people back into school – and it imposes a burden on the individual,” Dr. Brooks said.

“One of our hopes is that ... if we reduce the amount of time they have to spend in quarantine, people will be more compliant,” he added.

A reporter asked why the CDC is shortening quarantines when the pandemic numbers are increasing nationwide. The timing has to do with capacity, Dr. Brooks said. “We are in situation where the number of cases is rising, the number of contacts is rising and the number of people who require quarantine is rising. That is a lot of burden, not just on the people who have to quarantine, but on public health.”
 

Home for the holidays

Similar to its pre-Thanksgiving advisory, the CDC also recommends people avoid travel during the upcoming winter holidays. “The best way to protect yourself and others is to postpone travel and stay home,” Dr. Walke said.

If people do decide to travel, the agency recommends COVID-19 testing 1-3 days prior to travel and again 3-5 days afterward, as well as reducing nonessential activities for a full 7 days after returning home. Furthermore, if someone does not have follow-up testing, the CDC recommends reducing nonessential activities for 10 days.

Testing does not eliminate all risk, Dr. Walke said, “but when combined with reducing nonessential activities, symptom screening and continuing with precautions like wearing masks, social distancing and hand washing, it can make travel safer.”

“We are trying to reduce the number of infections by postponing travel over the winter holiday,” Cindy Friedman, MD, chief of the CDC Travelers’ Health Branch, said during the media briefing.

“Travel volume was high during Thanksgiving,” she said, “and even if only a small percentage of those travelers were asymptomatically infected, this can translate into hundreds of thousands of additional infections moving from one community to another.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Electro-acupuncture resulted in significant improvement in pain and function, compared with sham acupuncture, in a randomized trial of more than 400 adults with knee OA.

The socioeconomic burden of knee OA (KOA) remains high, and will likely increase with the aging population and rising rates of obesity, wrote first author Jian-Feng Tu, MD, PhD, of Beijing University of Chinese Medicine and colleagues. “Since no disease-modifying pharmaceutical agents have been approved, current KOA treatments are mainly symptomatic,” and identifying new therapies in addition to pharmacological agents or surgery is a research priority, they added. The research on acupuncture as a treatment for KOA has increased, but remains controversial as researchers attempt to determine the number of sessions needed for effectiveness.

In a study published in Arthritis & Rheumatology, the researchers recruited 480 adults aged 45-75 years with confirmed KOA who reported knee pain for longer than 6 months. Participants were randomized to three groups: electroacupuncture (EA), manual acupuncture (MA), or sham acupuncture (SA). Each group received three treatment sessions per week. In all groups, electrodes were attached to selected acupuncture needles, but the current was turned on only in the EA treatment group.

The primary outcome was the response rate after 8 weeks of treatment, defined as patients who achieved the minimal clinically important improvement (MCII) on both the Numeric Rating Scale and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index function subscale.

Overall, response rates at 8 weeks were 60.3%, 58.6%, and 47.3% for the EA, MA, and SA groups, respectively.

Between-group differences were statistically significant for EA versus SA (13%, P = .0234) but not for MA versus SA (11.3%, P = .0507) at 8 weeks; however, both EA and MA groups showed significantly higher response rates, compared with the SA group at 16 and 26 weeks. “Although a clinically meaningful response rate for KOA is not available in the literature, the difference of 11.3%, which indicates the number needed to treat of 9, is acceptable in clinical practices,” the researchers noted.

Adverse events occurred in 11.5% of the EA group, 14.2% of the MA group, and 10.8% of the SA group, and included subcutaneous hematoma, post-needling pain, and pantalgia. All adverse events related to acupuncture resolved within a week and none were serious, the researchers wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the potential burden on patients of three sessions per week, the limited study population of patients with radiologic grades of II or III only, the use of self-reports, and the lack of blinding for outcome assessors, the researchers noted.

However, the results show persistent effects in reducing pain and improving function with EA or MA, compared with SA, the researchers wrote. The findings were strengthened by “adequate dosage of acupuncture, the use of the primary outcome at an individual level, and the rigorous methodology.” The use of the MCII in the primary outcome “can provide patients and policy makers with more straightforward information to decide whether a treatment should be used.”

Optimal dosing questions remain

Current options for managing KOA are limited by factors that include low efficacy and unwanted side effects, while joint replacements increase the burden on health care systems, wrote David J. Hunter, MBBS, PhD, of the University of Sydney, and Richard E. Harris, PhD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, in an accompanying editorial. “In this context, development of new treatments or identification of efficacy of existing therapies to address the huge unmet need of pain are strongly desired.” Acupuncture continues to gain popularity in North and South America, but its efficacy for pain and KOA remain controversial.

The question of dose is challenging when assessing acupuncture because the optimal dose and how to classify it remains unknown. “In this study, the authors used three treatments a week, which is more frequent than typical studies done in the West and potentially may not be feasible in some health care settings. A recent systematic review suggests that treatment frequency matters and a dose of three sessions per week may be superior to less frequent treatment,” they emphasized. Acupuncture is generally considered to be safe, but many health systems do not reimburse for it. Patients may have large out-of-pocket expenses because of the number of visits required, which may be a barrier to further implementation in practice.

“Acupuncture is already widely practiced and readily available in many countries and health care systems,” the editorialists said. However, “more research is needed in the areas of dose-response relationships, effects of blinding the acupuncturist, feasibility of three times weekly regimens, and clarifying the mechanism of effect, particularly given the persistence of benefit.”

The study was funded by Beijing Municipal Science & Technology Commission and Beijing Municipal Administration of Hospitals. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Hunter disclosed support from a National Health and Medical Research Council Investigator Grant and providing consulting advice for Merck Serono, TLC Bio, Tissuegene, Lilly, and Pfizer.

SOURCE: Tu J-F et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020 Nov 10. doi: 10.1002/art.41584.

Electro-acupuncture resulted in significant improvement in pain and function, compared with sham acupuncture, in a randomized trial of more than 400 adults with knee OA.

The socioeconomic burden of knee OA (KOA) remains high, and will likely increase with the aging population and rising rates of obesity, wrote first author Jian-Feng Tu, MD, PhD, of Beijing University of Chinese Medicine and colleagues. “Since no disease-modifying pharmaceutical agents have been approved, current KOA treatments are mainly symptomatic,” and identifying new therapies in addition to pharmacological agents or surgery is a research priority, they added. The research on acupuncture as a treatment for KOA has increased, but remains controversial as researchers attempt to determine the number of sessions needed for effectiveness.

In a study published in Arthritis & Rheumatology, the researchers recruited 480 adults aged 45-75 years with confirmed KOA who reported knee pain for longer than 6 months. Participants were randomized to three groups: electroacupuncture (EA), manual acupuncture (MA), or sham acupuncture (SA). Each group received three treatment sessions per week. In all groups, electrodes were attached to selected acupuncture needles, but the current was turned on only in the EA treatment group.

The primary outcome was the response rate after 8 weeks of treatment, defined as patients who achieved the minimal clinically important improvement (MCII) on both the Numeric Rating Scale and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index function subscale.

Overall, response rates at 8 weeks were 60.3%, 58.6%, and 47.3% for the EA, MA, and SA groups, respectively.

Between-group differences were statistically significant for EA versus SA (13%, P = .0234) but not for MA versus SA (11.3%, P = .0507) at 8 weeks; however, both EA and MA groups showed significantly higher response rates, compared with the SA group at 16 and 26 weeks. “Although a clinically meaningful response rate for KOA is not available in the literature, the difference of 11.3%, which indicates the number needed to treat of 9, is acceptable in clinical practices,” the researchers noted.

Adverse events occurred in 11.5% of the EA group, 14.2% of the MA group, and 10.8% of the SA group, and included subcutaneous hematoma, post-needling pain, and pantalgia. All adverse events related to acupuncture resolved within a week and none were serious, the researchers wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the potential burden on patients of three sessions per week, the limited study population of patients with radiologic grades of II or III only, the use of self-reports, and the lack of blinding for outcome assessors, the researchers noted.

However, the results show persistent effects in reducing pain and improving function with EA or MA, compared with SA, the researchers wrote. The findings were strengthened by “adequate dosage of acupuncture, the use of the primary outcome at an individual level, and the rigorous methodology.” The use of the MCII in the primary outcome “can provide patients and policy makers with more straightforward information to decide whether a treatment should be used.”

Optimal dosing questions remain

Current options for managing KOA are limited by factors that include low efficacy and unwanted side effects, while joint replacements increase the burden on health care systems, wrote David J. Hunter, MBBS, PhD, of the University of Sydney, and Richard E. Harris, PhD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, in an accompanying editorial. “In this context, development of new treatments or identification of efficacy of existing therapies to address the huge unmet need of pain are strongly desired.” Acupuncture continues to gain popularity in North and South America, but its efficacy for pain and KOA remain controversial.

The question of dose is challenging when assessing acupuncture because the optimal dose and how to classify it remains unknown. “In this study, the authors used three treatments a week, which is more frequent than typical studies done in the West and potentially may not be feasible in some health care settings. A recent systematic review suggests that treatment frequency matters and a dose of three sessions per week may be superior to less frequent treatment,” they emphasized. Acupuncture is generally considered to be safe, but many health systems do not reimburse for it. Patients may have large out-of-pocket expenses because of the number of visits required, which may be a barrier to further implementation in practice.

“Acupuncture is already widely practiced and readily available in many countries and health care systems,” the editorialists said. However, “more research is needed in the areas of dose-response relationships, effects of blinding the acupuncturist, feasibility of three times weekly regimens, and clarifying the mechanism of effect, particularly given the persistence of benefit.”

The study was funded by Beijing Municipal Science & Technology Commission and Beijing Municipal Administration of Hospitals. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Hunter disclosed support from a National Health and Medical Research Council Investigator Grant and providing consulting advice for Merck Serono, TLC Bio, Tissuegene, Lilly, and Pfizer.

SOURCE: Tu J-F et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020 Nov 10. doi: 10.1002/art.41584.

Electro-acupuncture resulted in significant improvement in pain and function, compared with sham acupuncture, in a randomized trial of more than 400 adults with knee OA.

The socioeconomic burden of knee OA (KOA) remains high, and will likely increase with the aging population and rising rates of obesity, wrote first author Jian-Feng Tu, MD, PhD, of Beijing University of Chinese Medicine and colleagues. “Since no disease-modifying pharmaceutical agents have been approved, current KOA treatments are mainly symptomatic,” and identifying new therapies in addition to pharmacological agents or surgery is a research priority, they added. The research on acupuncture as a treatment for KOA has increased, but remains controversial as researchers attempt to determine the number of sessions needed for effectiveness.

In a study published in Arthritis & Rheumatology, the researchers recruited 480 adults aged 45-75 years with confirmed KOA who reported knee pain for longer than 6 months. Participants were randomized to three groups: electroacupuncture (EA), manual acupuncture (MA), or sham acupuncture (SA). Each group received three treatment sessions per week. In all groups, electrodes were attached to selected acupuncture needles, but the current was turned on only in the EA treatment group.

The primary outcome was the response rate after 8 weeks of treatment, defined as patients who achieved the minimal clinically important improvement (MCII) on both the Numeric Rating Scale and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index function subscale.

Overall, response rates at 8 weeks were 60.3%, 58.6%, and 47.3% for the EA, MA, and SA groups, respectively.

Between-group differences were statistically significant for EA versus SA (13%, P = .0234) but not for MA versus SA (11.3%, P = .0507) at 8 weeks; however, both EA and MA groups showed significantly higher response rates, compared with the SA group at 16 and 26 weeks. “Although a clinically meaningful response rate for KOA is not available in the literature, the difference of 11.3%, which indicates the number needed to treat of 9, is acceptable in clinical practices,” the researchers noted.

Adverse events occurred in 11.5% of the EA group, 14.2% of the MA group, and 10.8% of the SA group, and included subcutaneous hematoma, post-needling pain, and pantalgia. All adverse events related to acupuncture resolved within a week and none were serious, the researchers wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the potential burden on patients of three sessions per week, the limited study population of patients with radiologic grades of II or III only, the use of self-reports, and the lack of blinding for outcome assessors, the researchers noted.

However, the results show persistent effects in reducing pain and improving function with EA or MA, compared with SA, the researchers wrote. The findings were strengthened by “adequate dosage of acupuncture, the use of the primary outcome at an individual level, and the rigorous methodology.” The use of the MCII in the primary outcome “can provide patients and policy makers with more straightforward information to decide whether a treatment should be used.”

Optimal dosing questions remain

Current options for managing KOA are limited by factors that include low efficacy and unwanted side effects, while joint replacements increase the burden on health care systems, wrote David J. Hunter, MBBS, PhD, of the University of Sydney, and Richard E. Harris, PhD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, in an accompanying editorial. “In this context, development of new treatments or identification of efficacy of existing therapies to address the huge unmet need of pain are strongly desired.” Acupuncture continues to gain popularity in North and South America, but its efficacy for pain and KOA remain controversial.

The question of dose is challenging when assessing acupuncture because the optimal dose and how to classify it remains unknown. “In this study, the authors used three treatments a week, which is more frequent than typical studies done in the West and potentially may not be feasible in some health care settings. A recent systematic review suggests that treatment frequency matters and a dose of three sessions per week may be superior to less frequent treatment,” they emphasized. Acupuncture is generally considered to be safe, but many health systems do not reimburse for it. Patients may have large out-of-pocket expenses because of the number of visits required, which may be a barrier to further implementation in practice.

“Acupuncture is already widely practiced and readily available in many countries and health care systems,” the editorialists said. However, “more research is needed in the areas of dose-response relationships, effects of blinding the acupuncturist, feasibility of three times weekly regimens, and clarifying the mechanism of effect, particularly given the persistence of benefit.”

The study was funded by Beijing Municipal Science & Technology Commission and Beijing Municipal Administration of Hospitals. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Hunter disclosed support from a National Health and Medical Research Council Investigator Grant and providing consulting advice for Merck Serono, TLC Bio, Tissuegene, Lilly, and Pfizer.

SOURCE: Tu J-F et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020 Nov 10. doi: 10.1002/art.41584.

To the Editor:

Symmetric drug-related intertriginous and flexural exanthema (SDRIFE) is a curious disorder that has undergone many clinical transformations since first being described by Andersen et al¹ in 1984 using the term baboon syndrome. Initially described as a mercury hypersensitivity reaction resulting in an eruption resembling the red-bottomed baboon, this exanthema has expanded in definition with inciting agents, clinical features, and diagnostic criteria. Its prognosis, however, has remained stable and favorable throughout the decades. The condition is almost universally benign and self-limited.^1-3 As new cases are reported in the literature and the paradigm of SDRIFE continues to shift, its prognosis also may warrant reconsideration and respect as a potentially destructive reaction.

A 39-year-old woman who was otherwise healthy presented to the emergency department after developing a rapidly evolving and blistering rash on the left flank. Hours later, the rash had progressed to a sharply demarcated, confluent, erythematous plaque with central ulceration and large flaccid bullae peripherally, encompassing 18% of total body surface area and extending from the gluteal cleft to the tip of the scapula along the left flank (Figure 1) with no vaginal or mucosal involvement. The patient recently had completed a 10-day course of amoxicillin–clavulanic acid 2 days prior for a cat bite on the right dorsal wrist. Additional history confirmed the absence of prodromal fever, fatigue, or chills. Inciting trauma, including chemical and thermal burns, was denied. Potential underlying psychosocial cofounders were explored and were unrevealing.

In the undifferentiated patient, categorization of the clinical syndrome proves helpful in prognostication and therapeutic approach. The complexities and commonalities intrinsic to these syndromes, however, may simultaneously preclude certain cases from neatly following the predefined rules. These atypical presentations, while diagnostically challenging, can in turn offer a unique opportunity to reexamine the current state of disease understanding to better allow for appropriate classification.

Despite its rarity, SDRIFE should be considered in the differential of undiagnosed drug eruptions, particularly as new clinical presentations emerge. Careful documentation and timely declaration of future cases will prove invaluable for diagnostic and therapeutic advancements should this once-benign condition develop a more destructive potential.

To the Editor:

Symmetric drug-related intertriginous and flexural exanthema (SDRIFE) is a curious disorder that has undergone many clinical transformations since first being described by Andersen et al¹ in 1984 using the term baboon syndrome. Initially described as a mercury hypersensitivity reaction resulting in an eruption resembling the red-bottomed baboon, this exanthema has expanded in definition with inciting agents, clinical features, and diagnostic criteria. Its prognosis, however, has remained stable and favorable throughout the decades. The condition is almost universally benign and self-limited.^1-3 As new cases are reported in the literature and the paradigm of SDRIFE continues to shift, its prognosis also may warrant reconsideration and respect as a potentially destructive reaction.

A 39-year-old woman who was otherwise healthy presented to the emergency department after developing a rapidly evolving and blistering rash on the left flank. Hours later, the rash had progressed to a sharply demarcated, confluent, erythematous plaque with central ulceration and large flaccid bullae peripherally, encompassing 18% of total body surface area and extending from the gluteal cleft to the tip of the scapula along the left flank (Figure 1) with no vaginal or mucosal involvement. The patient recently had completed a 10-day course of amoxicillin–clavulanic acid 2 days prior for a cat bite on the right dorsal wrist. Additional history confirmed the absence of prodromal fever, fatigue, or chills. Inciting trauma, including chemical and thermal burns, was denied. Potential underlying psychosocial cofounders were explored and were unrevealing.

In the undifferentiated patient, categorization of the clinical syndrome proves helpful in prognostication and therapeutic approach. The complexities and commonalities intrinsic to these syndromes, however, may simultaneously preclude certain cases from neatly following the predefined rules. These atypical presentations, while diagnostically challenging, can in turn offer a unique opportunity to reexamine the current state of disease understanding to better allow for appropriate classification.

Despite its rarity, SDRIFE should be considered in the differential of undiagnosed drug eruptions, particularly as new clinical presentations emerge. Careful documentation and timely declaration of future cases will prove invaluable for diagnostic and therapeutic advancements should this once-benign condition develop a more destructive potential.

To the Editor:

Symmetric drug-related intertriginous and flexural exanthema (SDRIFE) is a curious disorder that has undergone many clinical transformations since first being described by Andersen et al¹ in 1984 using the term baboon syndrome. Initially described as a mercury hypersensitivity reaction resulting in an eruption resembling the red-bottomed baboon, this exanthema has expanded in definition with inciting agents, clinical features, and diagnostic criteria. Its prognosis, however, has remained stable and favorable throughout the decades. The condition is almost universally benign and self-limited.^1-3 As new cases are reported in the literature and the paradigm of SDRIFE continues to shift, its prognosis also may warrant reconsideration and respect as a potentially destructive reaction.

A 39-year-old woman who was otherwise healthy presented to the emergency department after developing a rapidly evolving and blistering rash on the left flank. Hours later, the rash had progressed to a sharply demarcated, confluent, erythematous plaque with central ulceration and large flaccid bullae peripherally, encompassing 18% of total body surface area and extending from the gluteal cleft to the tip of the scapula along the left flank (Figure 1) with no vaginal or mucosal involvement. The patient recently had completed a 10-day course of amoxicillin–clavulanic acid 2 days prior for a cat bite on the right dorsal wrist. Additional history confirmed the absence of prodromal fever, fatigue, or chills. Inciting trauma, including chemical and thermal burns, was denied. Potential underlying psychosocial cofounders were explored and were unrevealing.

In the undifferentiated patient, categorization of the clinical syndrome proves helpful in prognostication and therapeutic approach. The complexities and commonalities intrinsic to these syndromes, however, may simultaneously preclude certain cases from neatly following the predefined rules. These atypical presentations, while diagnostically challenging, can in turn offer a unique opportunity to reexamine the current state of disease understanding to better allow for appropriate classification.

Despite its rarity, SDRIFE should be considered in the differential of undiagnosed drug eruptions, particularly as new clinical presentations emerge. Careful documentation and timely declaration of future cases will prove invaluable for diagnostic and therapeutic advancements should this once-benign condition develop a more destructive potential.

On Dec. 3, AGA brought together the GI community in an effort to fund health disparity research with the goal of improving care for the patients who rely on us.

The patients we serve face racial health disparities daily. It’s our responsibility to take action. With money raised through this campaign, the AGA Research Foundation will fund research projects that help understand health disparities and create strategies for overcoming them.

AGA Giving Day was the opportunity to do something about this important societal issue as it directly relates to our field. We all have a role to play in creating a just world free of health disparities in digestive diseases and free of inequities in access and effective health care delivery.

The AGA Research Foundation’s AGA Giving Day effort will help support state-of-the-art research that aligns with the realities of the current multicultural patient population and disease states to achieve health equity for all.

Learn more at gastro.org/agagivingday.

ginews@gastro.org

On Dec. 3, AGA brought together the GI community in an effort to fund health disparity research with the goal of improving care for the patients who rely on us.

The patients we serve face racial health disparities daily. It’s our responsibility to take action. With money raised through this campaign, the AGA Research Foundation will fund research projects that help understand health disparities and create strategies for overcoming them.

AGA Giving Day was the opportunity to do something about this important societal issue as it directly relates to our field. We all have a role to play in creating a just world free of health disparities in digestive diseases and free of inequities in access and effective health care delivery.

The AGA Research Foundation’s AGA Giving Day effort will help support state-of-the-art research that aligns with the realities of the current multicultural patient population and disease states to achieve health equity for all.

Learn more at gastro.org/agagivingday.

ginews@gastro.org

On Dec. 3, AGA brought together the GI community in an effort to fund health disparity research with the goal of improving care for the patients who rely on us.

The patients we serve face racial health disparities daily. It’s our responsibility to take action. With money raised through this campaign, the AGA Research Foundation will fund research projects that help understand health disparities and create strategies for overcoming them.

AGA Giving Day was the opportunity to do something about this important societal issue as it directly relates to our field. We all have a role to play in creating a just world free of health disparities in digestive diseases and free of inequities in access and effective health care delivery.

The AGA Research Foundation’s AGA Giving Day effort will help support state-of-the-art research that aligns with the realities of the current multicultural patient population and disease states to achieve health equity for all.

Learn more at gastro.org/agagivingday.

ginews@gastro.org

From the University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL.

Abstract

Objective: To review current challenges in the management of peptic ulcer disease.

Methods: Review of the literature.

Results: Peptic ulcer disease affects 5% to 10% of the population worldwide, with recent decreases in lifetime prevalence in high-income countries. Helicobacter pylori infection and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) use are the most important drivers of peptic ulcer disease. Current management strategies for peptic ulcer disease focus on ulcer healing; management of complications such as bleeding, perforation, and obstruction; and prevention of ulcer recurrence. Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are the cornerstone of medical therapy for peptic ulcers, and complement testing for and treatment of H. pylori infection as well as elimination of NSAID use. Although advances have been made in the medical and endoscopic treatment of peptic ulcer disease and the management of ulcer complications, such as bleeding and obstruction, challenges remain.

Conclusion: Peptic ulcer disease is a common health problem globally, with persistent challenges related to refractory ulcers, antiplatelet and anticoagulant use, and continued bleeding in the face of endoscopic therapy. These challenges should be met with PPI therapy of adequate frequency and duration, vigilant attention to and treatment of ulcer etiology, evidence-based handling of antiplatelet and anticoagulant medications, and utilization of novel endoscopic tools to obtain improved clinical outcomes.

Keywords: H. pylori; nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; NSAIDs; proton pump inhibitor; PPI; bleeding; perforation; obstruction; refractory ulcer; salvage endoscopic therapy; transcatheter angiographic embolization.

A peptic ulcer is a fibrin-covered break in the mucosa of the digestive tract extending to the submucosa that is caused by acid injury (Figure 1). Most peptic ulcers occur in the stomach or proximal duodenum, though they may also occur in the esophagus or, less frequently, in a Meckel’s diverticulum.^1,2 The estimated worldwide prevalence of peptic ulcer disease is 5% to 10%, with an annual incidence of 0.1% to 0.3%¹; both rates are declining.³ The annual incidence of peptic ulcer disease requiring medical or surgical treatment is also declining, and currently is estimated to be 0.1% to 0.2%.⁴ The lifetime prevalence of peptic ulcers has been decreasing in high-income countries since the mid-20th century due to both the widespread use of medications that suppress gastric acid secretion and the declining prevalence of Helicobacter pylori infection.^1,3

Peptic ulcer disease in most individuals results from H. pylori infection, chronic use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), including aspirin, or both. A combination of H. pylori factors and host factors lead to mucosal disruption in infected individuals who develop peptic ulcers. H. pylori–specific factors include the expression of virulence factors such as CagA and VacA, which interact with the host inflammatory response to cause mucosal injury. The mucosal inflammatory response is at least partially determined by polymorphisms in the host’s cytokine genes.^1,4 NSAIDs inhibit the production of cyclooxygenase-1-derived prostaglandins, with subsequent decreases in epithelial mucous formation, bicarbonate secretion, cell proliferation, and mucosal blood flow, all of which are key elements in the maintenance of mucosal integrity.^1,5 Less common causes of peptic ulcers include gastrinoma, adenocarcinoma, idiopathic ulcers, use of sympathomimetic drugs (eg, cocaine or methamphetamine), certain anticancer agents, and bariatric surgery.^4,6

This article provides an overview of current management principles for peptic ulcer disease and discusses current challenges in peptic ulcer management, including proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy, refractory ulcers, handling of antiplatelet and anticoagulants during and after peptic ulcer bleeding, and ulcer bleeding that continues despite salvage endoscopic therapy.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE using the term peptic ulcer disease in combination with the terms current challenges, epidemiology, bleeding, anticoagulant, antiplatelet, PPI potency, etiology, treatment, management, and refractory. We selected publications from the past 35 years that we judged to be relevant.

Current Management

The goals of peptic ulcer disease management are ulcer healing and prevention of recurrence. The primary interventions used in the management of peptic ulcer disease are medical therapy and implementation of measures that address the underlying etiology of the disease.

Medical Therapy

Introduced in the late 1980s, PPIs are the cornerstone of medical therapy for peptic ulcer disease.⁶ These agents irreversibly inhibit the H+/K+-ATPase pump in the gastric mucosa and thereby inhibit gastric acid secretion, promoting ulcer healing. PPIs improve rates of ulcer healing compared to H2-receptor antagonists.^4,7

Underlying Causes

The underlying cause of peptic ulcer disease should be addressed, in addition to initiating medical therapy. A detailed history of NSAID use should be obtained, and patients with peptic ulcers caused by NSAIDs should be counseled to avoid them, if possible. Patients with peptic ulcer disease who require long-term use of NSAIDs should be placed on long-term PPI therapy.⁶ Any patient with peptic ulcer disease, regardless of any history of H. pylori infection or treatment, should be tested for infection. Tests that identify active infection, such as urea breath test, stool antigen assay, or mucosal biopsy–based testing, are preferred to IgG antibody testing, although the latter is acceptable in the context of peptic ulcer disease with a high pretest probability of infection.⁸ Any evidence of active infection warrants appropriate treatment to allow ulcer healing and prevent recurrence.¹H. pylori infection is most often treated with clarithromycin triple therapy or bismuth quadruple therapy for 14 days, with regimens selected based on the presence or absence of penicillin allergy, prior antibiotic exposure, and local clarithromycin resistance rates, when known.^4,8

Managing Complications

An additional aspect of care in peptic ulcer disease is managing the complications of bleeding, perforation, and gastric outlet obstruction. Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) is the most common complication of peptic ulcer disease, which accounts for 40% to 60% of nonvariceal acute upper GIB.^1,6 The first step in the management of acute GIB from a peptic ulcer is fluid resuscitation to ensure hemodynamic stability. If there is associated anemia with a hemoglobin level < 8 g/dL, blood transfusion should be undertaken to target a hemoglobin level > 8 g/dL. In patients with peptic ulcer disease–related acute upper GIB and comorbid cardiovascular disease, the transfusion threshold is higher, with the specific cutoff depending on clinical status, type and severity of cardiovascular disease, and degree of bleeding. Endoscopic management should generally be undertaken within 24 hours of presentation and should not be delayed in patients taking anticoagulants.⁹ Combination endoscopic treatment with through-the-scope clips plus thermocoagulation or sclerosant injection is recommended for acutely bleeding peptic ulcers with high-risk stigmata.

Pharmacologic management of patients with bleeding peptic ulcers with high-risk stigmata includes PPI therapy, with an 80 mg intravenous (IV) loading dose followed by continuous infusion of 8 mg/hr for 72 hours to reduce rebleeding and mortality. Following completion of IV therapy, oral PPI therapy should be continued twice daily for 14 days, followed by once-daily dosing thereafter.⁹Patients with peptic ulcer perforation present with sudden-onset epigastric abdominal pain and have tenderness to palpation, guarding, and rigidity on examination, often along with tachycardia and hypotension.^1,4 Computed tomography (CT) of the abdomen is 98% sensitive for identifying and localizing a perforation. Most perforations occur in the duodenum or antrum.

Management of a peptic ulcer perforation requires consultation with a surgeon to determine whether a nonoperative approach may be employed (eg, a stable patient with a contained perforation), or if surgery is indicated. The surgical approach to peptic ulcer perforation has been impacted by the clinical success of gastric acid suppression with PPIs and H. pylori eradication, but a range of surgical approaches are still used to repair perforations, from omental patch repair with peritoneal drain placement, to more extensive surgeries such as wedge resection or partial gastrectomy.⁴ Perforation carries a high mortality risk, up to 20% to 30%, and is the leading cause of death in patients with peptic ulcer disease.^1,4

Gastric outlet obstruction, a rare complication of peptic ulcer disease, results from recurrent ulcer formation and scarring. Obstruction often presents with hypovolemia and metabolic alkalosis from prolonged vomiting. CT imaging with oral contrast is often the first diagnostic test employed to demonstrate obstruction. Upper endoscopy should be performed to evaluate the appearance and degree of obstruction as well as to obtain biopsies to evaluate for a malignant etiology of the ulcer disease. Endoscopic balloon dilation has become the cornerstone of initial therapy for obstruction from peptic ulcer disease, especially in the case of ulcers due to reversible causes. Surgery is now typically reserved for cases of refractory obstruction, after repeated endoscopic balloon dilation has failed to remove the obstruction. However, because nearly all patients with gastric outlet obstruction present with malnutrition, nutritional deficiencies should be addressed prior to the patient undergoing surgical intervention. Surgical options include pyloroplasty, antrectomy, and gastrojejunostomy.⁴

Current Challenges

Rapid Metabolism of PPIs

High-dose PPI therapy is a key component of therapy for peptic ulcer healing. PPIs are metabolized by the cytochrome P450 system, which is comprised of multiple isoenzymes. CYP2C19, an isoenzyme involved in PPI metabolism, has 21 polymorphisms, which have variable effects leading to ultra-rapid, extensive, intermediate, or poor metabolism of PPIs.¹⁰ With rapid metabolism of PPIs, standard dosing can result in inadequate suppression of acid secretion. Despite this knowledge, routine testing of CYP2C19 phenotype is not recommended due to the cost of testing. Instead, inadequate ulcer healing should prompt consideration of increased PPI dosing to 80 mg orally twice daily, which may be sufficient to overcome rapid PPI metabolism.¹¹

Relative Potency of PPIs

In addition to variation in PPI metabolism, the relative potency of various PPIs has been questioned. A review of all available clinical studies of the effects of PPIs on mean 24-hour intragastric pH reported a quantitative difference in the potency of 5 PPIs, with omeprazole as the reference standard. Potencies ranged from 0.23 omeprazole equivalents for pantoprazole to 1.82 omeprazole equivalents for rabeprazole.¹² An additional study of data from 56 randomized clinical trials confirmed that PPIs vary in potency, which was measured as time that gastric pH is less than 4. A linear increase in intragastric pH time less than 4 was observed from 9 to 64 mg omeprazole equivalents; higher doses yielded no additional benefit. An increase in PPI dosing from once daily to twice daily also increased the duration of intragastric pH time less than 4 from 15 to 21 hours.¹³ Earlier modeling of the relationship between duodenal ulcer healing and antisecretory therapy showed a strong correlation of ulcer healing with the duration of acid suppression, length of therapy, and the degree of acid suppression. Additional benefit was not observed after intragastric pH rose above 3.¹⁴ Thus, as the frequency and duration of acid suppression therapy are more important than PPI potency, PPIs can be used interchangeably.^13,14

Addressing Underlying Causes

Continued NSAID Use. Refractory peptic ulcers are defined as those that do not heal despite adherence to 8 to 12 weeks of standard acid-suppression therapy. A cause of refractory peptic ulcer disease that must be considered is continued NSAID use.^1,15 In a study of patients with refractory peptic ulcers, 27% of patients continued NSAID use, as determined by eventual disclosure by the patients or platelet cyclooxygenase activity assay, despite extensive counseling to avoid NSAIDs at the time of the diagnosis of their refractory ulcer and at subsequent visits.¹⁶ Pain may make NSAID cessation difficult for some patients, while others do not realize that over-the-counter preparations they take contain NSAIDs.¹⁵

Another group of patients with continued NSAID exposure are those who require long-term NSAID therapy for control of arthritis or the management of cardiovascular conditions. If NSAID therapy cannot be discontinued, the risk of NSAID-related gastrointestinal injury can be assessed based on the presence of multiple risk factors, including age > 65 years, high-dose NSAID therapy, a history of peptic ulcer, and concurrent use of aspirin, corticosteroids, or anticoagulants. Individuals with 3 or more of the preceding risk factors or a history of a peptic ulcer with a complication, especially if recent, are considered to be at high risk of developing an NSAID-related ulcer and possible subsequent complications.¹⁷ In these individuals, NSAID therapy should be continued with agents that have the lowest risk for gastrointestinal toxicity and at the lowest possible dose. A meta-analysis comparing nonselective NSAIDs to placebo demonstrated naproxen to have the highest risk of gastrointestinal complications, including GIB, perforation, and obstruction (adjusted rate ratio, 4.2), while diclofenac demonstrated the lowest risk (adjusted rate ratio, 1.89). High-dose NSAID therapy demonstrated a 2-fold increase in risk of peptic ulcer formation as compared to low-dose therapy.¹⁸

In addition to selecting the NSAID with the least gastrointestinal toxicity at the lowest possible dose, additional strategies to prevent peptic ulcer disease and its complications in chronic NSAID users include co-administration of a PPI and substitution of a COX-2 selective NSAID for nonselective NSAIDs.^1,9 Prior double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, multicenter trials with patients requiring daily NSAIDs demonstrated an up to 15% absolute reduction in the risk of developing peptic ulcers over 6 months while taking esomeprazole.¹⁹

Persistent Infection. Persistent H. pylori infection, due either to initial false-negative testing or ongoing infection despite first-line therapy, is another cause of refractory peptic ulcer disease.^1,15 Because antibiotics and PPIs can reduce the number of H. pylori bacteria, use of these medications concurrent with H. pylori testing can lead to false-negative results with several testing modalities. When suspicion for H. pylori is high, 2 or more diagnostic tests may be needed to effectively rule out infection.¹⁵

When H. pylori is detected, successful eradication is becoming more difficult due to an increasing prevalence of antibiotic resistance, leading to persistent infection in many cases and maintained risk of peptic ulcer disease, despite appropriate first-line therapy.⁸ Options for salvage therapy for persistent H. pylori, as well as information on the role and best timing of susceptibility testing, are beyond the scope of this review, but are reviewed by Lanas and Chan¹ and in the American College of Gastroenterology guideline on the treatment of H. pylori infection.⁸

Other Causes. In a meta-analysis of rigorously designed studies from North America, 20% of patients experienced ulcer recurrence at 6 months, despite successful H. pylori eradication and no NSAID use.²⁰ In addition, as H. pylori prevalence is decreasing, idiopathic ulcers are increasingly being diagnosed, and such ulcers may be associated with high rates of GIB and mortality.¹ In this subset of patients with non-H. pylori, non-NSAID ulcers, increased effort is required to further evaluate the differential diagnosis for rarer causes of upper GI tract ulcer disease (Table). Certain malignancies, including adenocarcinoma and lymphoma, can cause ulcer formation and should be considered in refractory cases. Repeat biopsy at follow-up endoscopy for persistent ulcers should always be obtained to further evaluate for malignancy.^1,15 Infectious diseases other than H. pylori infection, such as tuberculosis, syphilis, cytomegalovirus, and herpes simplex virus, are also reported as etiologies of refractory ulcers, and require specific antimicrobial treatment over and above PPI monotherapy. Special attention in biopsy sampling and sample processing is often required when infectious etiologies are being considered, as specific histologic stains and cultures may be needed for identification.¹⁵

Systemic conditions, including sarcoidosis,²¹ Behçet disease,²² and polyarteritis nodosa,^15,23 can also cause refractory ulcers. Approximately 15% of patients with Crohn disease have gastroduodenal involvement, which may include ulcers of variable sizes.^1,15,24 The increased gastric acid production seen in Zollinger-Ellison syndrome commonly presents as refractory peptic ulcers in the duodenum beyond the bulb that do not heal with standard doses of PPIs.^1,15 More rare causes of acid hypersecretion leading to refractory ulcers include idiopathic gastric acid hypersecretion and retained gastric antrum syndrome after partial gastrectomy with Billroth II anastomosis.¹⁵ Smoking is a known risk factor for impaired tissue healing throughout the body, and can contribute to impaired healing of peptic ulcers through decreased prostaglandin synthesis²⁵ and reduced gastric mucosal blood flow.²⁶ Smoking should always be addressed in patients with refractory peptic ulcers, and cessation should be strongly encouraged. Other less common causes of refractory upper GI tract ulcers include radiation therapy, crack cocaine use, and mesenteric ischemia.¹⁵

Managing Antiplatelet and Anticoagulant Medications

Use of antiplatelets and anticoagulants, alone or in combination, increases the risk of peptic ulcer bleeding. In patients who continue to take aspirin after a peptic ulcer bleed, recurrent bleeding occurs in up to 300 cases per 1000 person-years. The rate of GIB associated with aspirin use ranges from 1.1% to 2.5%, depending on the dose. Prior peptic ulcer disease, age greater than 70 years, and concurrent NSAID, steroid, anticoagulant, or dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) use increase the risk of bleeding while on aspirin. The rate of GIB while taking a thienopyridine alone is slightly less than that when taking aspirin, ranging from 0.5% to 1.6%. Studies to date have yielded mixed estimates of the effect of DAPT on the risk of GIB. Estimates of the risk of GIB with DAPT range from an odds ratio for serious GIB of 7.4 to an absolute risk increase of only 1.3% when compared to clopidogrel alone.²⁷

Many patients are also on warfarin or a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC). In a study from the United Kingdom, the adjusted rate ratio of GIB with warfarin alone was 1.94, and this increased to 6.48 when warfarin was used with aspirin.²⁸ The use of warfarin and DAPT, often called triple therapy, further increases the risk of GIB, with a hazard ratio of 5.0 compared to DAPT alone, and 5.38 when compared to warfarin alone. DOACs are increasingly prescribed for the treatment and prevention of thromboembolism, and by 2014 were prescribed as often as warfarin for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation in the United States. A meta-analysis showed the risk of major GIB did not differ between DOACs and warfarin or low-molecular-weight heparin, but among DOACs factor Xa inhibitors showed a reduced risk of GIB compared with dabigatran, a direct thrombin inhibitor.²⁹

The use of antiplatelets and anticoagulants in the context of peptic ulcer bleeding is a current management challenge. Data to guide decision-making in patients on antiplatelet and/or anticoagulant therapy who experience peptic ulcer bleeding are scarce. Decision-making in this group of patients requires balancing the severity and risk of bleeding with the risk of thromboembolism.^1,27 In patients on antiplatelet therapy for primary prophylaxis of atherothrombosis who develop bleeding from a peptic ulcer, the antiplatelet should generally be held and the indication for the medication reassessed. In patients on antiplatelet therapy for secondary prevention, the agent may be immediately resumed after endoscopy if bleeding is found to be due to an ulcer with low-risk stigmata. With bleeding resulting from an ulcer with high-risk stigmata, antiplatelet agents employed for secondary prevention may be held initially, with consideration given to early reintroduction, as early as day 3 after endoscopy.¹ In patients at high risk for atherothrombotic events, including those on aspirin for secondary prophylaxis, withholding aspirin leads to a 3-fold increase in the risk of a major adverse cardiac event, with events occurring as early as 5 days after aspirin cessation in some cases.²⁷ A randomized controlled trial of continuing low-dose aspirin versus withholding it for 8 weeks in patients on aspirin for secondary prophylaxis of cardiovascular events who experienced peptic ulcer bleeding that required endoscopic therapy demonstrated lower all-cause mortality (1.3% vs 12.9%), including death from cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events, among those who continued aspirin therapy, with a small increased risk of recurrent ulcer bleeding (10.3% vs 5.4%).³⁰ Thus, it is recommended that antiplatelet therapy, when held, be resumed as early as possible when the risk of a cardiovascular or cerebrovascular event is considered to be higher than the risk of bleeding.²⁷

When patients are on DAPT for a history of drug-eluting stent placement, withholding both antiplatelet medications should be avoided, even for a brief period of time, given the risk of in-stent thrombosis. When DAPT is employed for other reasons, it should be continued, if indicated, after bleeding that is found to be due to peptic ulcers with low-risk stigmata. If bleeding is due to a peptic ulcer with high-risk stigmata at endoscopy, then aspirin monotherapy should be continued and consultation should be obtained with a cardiologist to determine optimal timing to resume the second antiplatelet agent.¹ In patients on anticoagulants, anticoagulation should be resumed once hemostasis is achieved when the risk of withholding anticoagulation is thought to be greater than the risk of rebleeding. For example, anticoagulation should be resumed early in a patient with a mechanical heart valve to prevent thrombosis.^1,27 Following upper GIB from peptic ulcer disease, patients who will require long-term aspirin, DAPT, or anticoagulation with either warfarin or DOACs should be maintained on long-term PPI therapy to reduce the risk of recurrent bleeding.^9,27

Failure of Endoscopic Therapy to Control Peptic Ulcer Bleeding

Bleeding recurs in as many as 10% to 20% of patients after initial endoscopic control of peptic ulcer bleeding.^4,31 In this context, repeat upper endoscopy for hemostasis is preferred to surgery, as it leads to less morbidity while providing long-term control of bleeding in more than 70% of cases.^31,32 Two potential endoscopic rescue therapies that may be employed are over-the-scope clips (OTSCs) and hemostatic powder.^32,33

While through-the-scope (TTS) hemostatic clips are often used during endoscopy to control active peptic ulcer bleeding, their use may be limited in large or fibrotic ulcers due to the smaller size of the clips and method of application. OTSCs have several advantages over TTS clips; notably, their larger size allows the endoscopist to achieve deeper mucosal or submucosal clip attachment via suction of the targeted tissue into the endoscopic cap (Figure 2). In a systematic review of OTSCs, successful hemostasis was achieved in 84% of 761 lesions, including 75% of lesions due to peptic ulcer disease.³⁴ Some have argued that OTSCs may be preferred as first-line therapy over epinephrine with TTS clips for hemostasis in bleeding from high-risk peptic ulcers (ie, those with visualized arterial bleeding or a visible vessel) given observed decreases in rebleeding events.³⁵

Despite the advantages of OTSCs, endoscopists should be mindful of the potential complications of OTSC use, including luminal obstruction, particularly in the duodenum, and perforation, which occurs in 0.3% to 2% of cases. Additionally, retrieval of misplaced OTSCs presents a significant challenge. Careful decision-making with consideration of the location, size, and depth of lesions is required when deciding on OTSC placement.^34,36

A newer endoscopic tool developed for refractory bleeding from peptic ulcers and other causes is hemostatic powder. Hemostatic powders accelerate the coagulation cascade, leading to shortened coagulation times and enhanced clot formation.³⁷ A recent meta-analysis showed that immediate hemostasis could be achieved in 95% of cases of bleeding, including in 96% of cases of bleeding from peptic ulcer disease.³⁸ The primary limitation of hemostatic powders is the temporary nature of hemostasis, which requires the underlying etiology of bleeding to be addressed in order to provide long-term hemostasis. In the above meta-analysis, rebleeding occurred in 17% of cases after 30 days.³⁸

Hypotension and ulcer diameter ≥ 2 cm are independent predictors of failure of endoscopic salvage therapy.³¹ When severe bleeding is not controlled with initial endoscopic therapy or bleeding recurs despite salvage endoscopic therapy, transcatheter angiographic embolization (TAE) is the treatment of choice.⁴ Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that compared TAE to surgery have shown that the rate of rebleeding may be higher with TAE, but with less morbidity and either decreased or equivalent rates of mortality, with no increased need for additional interventions.^4,32 In a case series examining 5 years of experience at a single medical center in China, massive GIB from duodenal ulcers was successfully treated with TAE in 27 of 29 cases (93% clinical success rate), with no mucosal ischemic necrosis observed.³⁹

If repeated endoscopic therapy has not led to hemostasis of a bleeding peptic ulcer and TAE is not available, then surgery is the next best option. Bleeding gastric ulcers may be excised, wedge resected, or oversewn after an anterior gastrostomy. Bleeding duodenal ulcers may require use of a Kocher maneuver and linear incision of the anterior duodenum followed by ligation of the gastroduodenal artery. Fortunately, such surgical management is rarely necessary given the availability of TAE at most centers.⁴

Conclusion

Peptic ulcer disease is a common health problem globally, with persistent challenges related to refractory ulcers, antiplatelet and anticoagulant use, and continued bleeding in the face of endoscopic therapy. These challenges should be met with adequate frequency and duration of PPI therapy, vigilant attention to and treatment of ulcer etiology, evidence-based handling of antiplatelet and anticoagulant medications, and utilization of novel endoscopic tools to obtain improved clinical outcomes.

Acknowledgment: We thank Dr. Nipun Reddy from our institution for providing the endoscopic images used in this article.

Corresponding author: Adam L. Edwards, MD, MS; aledwards@uabmc.edu.

Financial disclosures: None.

From the University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL.

Abstract

Objective: To review current challenges in the management of peptic ulcer disease.

Methods: Review of the literature.

Results: Peptic ulcer disease affects 5% to 10% of the population worldwide, with recent decreases in lifetime prevalence in high-income countries. Helicobacter pylori infection and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) use are the most important drivers of peptic ulcer disease. Current management strategies for peptic ulcer disease focus on ulcer healing; management of complications such as bleeding, perforation, and obstruction; and prevention of ulcer recurrence. Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are the cornerstone of medical therapy for peptic ulcers, and complement testing for and treatment of H. pylori infection as well as elimination of NSAID use. Although advances have been made in the medical and endoscopic treatment of peptic ulcer disease and the management of ulcer complications, such as bleeding and obstruction, challenges remain.

Conclusion: Peptic ulcer disease is a common health problem globally, with persistent challenges related to refractory ulcers, antiplatelet and anticoagulant use, and continued bleeding in the face of endoscopic therapy. These challenges should be met with PPI therapy of adequate frequency and duration, vigilant attention to and treatment of ulcer etiology, evidence-based handling of antiplatelet and anticoagulant medications, and utilization of novel endoscopic tools to obtain improved clinical outcomes.

Keywords: H. pylori; nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; NSAIDs; proton pump inhibitor; PPI; bleeding; perforation; obstruction; refractory ulcer; salvage endoscopic therapy; transcatheter angiographic embolization.

A peptic ulcer is a fibrin-covered break in the mucosa of the digestive tract extending to the submucosa that is caused by acid injury (Figure 1). Most peptic ulcers occur in the stomach or proximal duodenum, though they may also occur in the esophagus or, less frequently, in a Meckel’s diverticulum.^1,2 The estimated worldwide prevalence of peptic ulcer disease is 5% to 10%, with an annual incidence of 0.1% to 0.3%¹; both rates are declining.³ The annual incidence of peptic ulcer disease requiring medical or surgical treatment is also declining, and currently is estimated to be 0.1% to 0.2%.⁴ The lifetime prevalence of peptic ulcers has been decreasing in high-income countries since the mid-20th century due to both the widespread use of medications that suppress gastric acid secretion and the declining prevalence of Helicobacter pylori infection.^1,3

Peptic ulcer disease in most individuals results from H. pylori infection, chronic use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), including aspirin, or both. A combination of H. pylori factors and host factors lead to mucosal disruption in infected individuals who develop peptic ulcers. H. pylori–specific factors include the expression of virulence factors such as CagA and VacA, which interact with the host inflammatory response to cause mucosal injury. The mucosal inflammatory response is at least partially determined by polymorphisms in the host’s cytokine genes.^1,4 NSAIDs inhibit the production of cyclooxygenase-1-derived prostaglandins, with subsequent decreases in epithelial mucous formation, bicarbonate secretion, cell proliferation, and mucosal blood flow, all of which are key elements in the maintenance of mucosal integrity.^1,5 Less common causes of peptic ulcers include gastrinoma, adenocarcinoma, idiopathic ulcers, use of sympathomimetic drugs (eg, cocaine or methamphetamine), certain anticancer agents, and bariatric surgery.^4,6

This article provides an overview of current management principles for peptic ulcer disease and discusses current challenges in peptic ulcer management, including proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy, refractory ulcers, handling of antiplatelet and anticoagulants during and after peptic ulcer bleeding, and ulcer bleeding that continues despite salvage endoscopic therapy.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE using the term peptic ulcer disease in combination with the terms current challenges, epidemiology, bleeding, anticoagulant, antiplatelet, PPI potency, etiology, treatment, management, and refractory. We selected publications from the past 35 years that we judged to be relevant.

Current Management

The goals of peptic ulcer disease management are ulcer healing and prevention of recurrence. The primary interventions used in the management of peptic ulcer disease are medical therapy and implementation of measures that address the underlying etiology of the disease.

Medical Therapy

Introduced in the late 1980s, PPIs are the cornerstone of medical therapy for peptic ulcer disease.⁶ These agents irreversibly inhibit the H+/K+-ATPase pump in the gastric mucosa and thereby inhibit gastric acid secretion, promoting ulcer healing. PPIs improve rates of ulcer healing compared to H2-receptor antagonists.^4,7

Underlying Causes

The underlying cause of peptic ulcer disease should be addressed, in addition to initiating medical therapy. A detailed history of NSAID use should be obtained, and patients with peptic ulcers caused by NSAIDs should be counseled to avoid them, if possible. Patients with peptic ulcer disease who require long-term use of NSAIDs should be placed on long-term PPI therapy.⁶ Any patient with peptic ulcer disease, regardless of any history of H. pylori infection or treatment, should be tested for infection. Tests that identify active infection, such as urea breath test, stool antigen assay, or mucosal biopsy–based testing, are preferred to IgG antibody testing, although the latter is acceptable in the context of peptic ulcer disease with a high pretest probability of infection.⁸ Any evidence of active infection warrants appropriate treatment to allow ulcer healing and prevent recurrence.¹H. pylori infection is most often treated with clarithromycin triple therapy or bismuth quadruple therapy for 14 days, with regimens selected based on the presence or absence of penicillin allergy, prior antibiotic exposure, and local clarithromycin resistance rates, when known.^4,8

Managing Complications

An additional aspect of care in peptic ulcer disease is managing the complications of bleeding, perforation, and gastric outlet obstruction. Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) is the most common complication of peptic ulcer disease, which accounts for 40% to 60% of nonvariceal acute upper GIB.^1,6 The first step in the management of acute GIB from a peptic ulcer is fluid resuscitation to ensure hemodynamic stability. If there is associated anemia with a hemoglobin level < 8 g/dL, blood transfusion should be undertaken to target a hemoglobin level > 8 g/dL. In patients with peptic ulcer disease–related acute upper GIB and comorbid cardiovascular disease, the transfusion threshold is higher, with the specific cutoff depending on clinical status, type and severity of cardiovascular disease, and degree of bleeding. Endoscopic management should generally be undertaken within 24 hours of presentation and should not be delayed in patients taking anticoagulants.⁹ Combination endoscopic treatment with through-the-scope clips plus thermocoagulation or sclerosant injection is recommended for acutely bleeding peptic ulcers with high-risk stigmata.

Pharmacologic management of patients with bleeding peptic ulcers with high-risk stigmata includes PPI therapy, with an 80 mg intravenous (IV) loading dose followed by continuous infusion of 8 mg/hr for 72 hours to reduce rebleeding and mortality. Following completion of IV therapy, oral PPI therapy should be continued twice daily for 14 days, followed by once-daily dosing thereafter.⁹Patients with peptic ulcer perforation present with sudden-onset epigastric abdominal pain and have tenderness to palpation, guarding, and rigidity on examination, often along with tachycardia and hypotension.^1,4 Computed tomography (CT) of the abdomen is 98% sensitive for identifying and localizing a perforation. Most perforations occur in the duodenum or antrum.

Management of a peptic ulcer perforation requires consultation with a surgeon to determine whether a nonoperative approach may be employed (eg, a stable patient with a contained perforation), or if surgery is indicated. The surgical approach to peptic ulcer perforation has been impacted by the clinical success of gastric acid suppression with PPIs and H. pylori eradication, but a range of surgical approaches are still used to repair perforations, from omental patch repair with peritoneal drain placement, to more extensive surgeries such as wedge resection or partial gastrectomy.⁴ Perforation carries a high mortality risk, up to 20% to 30%, and is the leading cause of death in patients with peptic ulcer disease.^1,4

Gastric outlet obstruction, a rare complication of peptic ulcer disease, results from recurrent ulcer formation and scarring. Obstruction often presents with hypovolemia and metabolic alkalosis from prolonged vomiting. CT imaging with oral contrast is often the first diagnostic test employed to demonstrate obstruction. Upper endoscopy should be performed to evaluate the appearance and degree of obstruction as well as to obtain biopsies to evaluate for a malignant etiology of the ulcer disease. Endoscopic balloon dilation has become the cornerstone of initial therapy for obstruction from peptic ulcer disease, especially in the case of ulcers due to reversible causes. Surgery is now typically reserved for cases of refractory obstruction, after repeated endoscopic balloon dilation has failed to remove the obstruction. However, because nearly all patients with gastric outlet obstruction present with malnutrition, nutritional deficiencies should be addressed prior to the patient undergoing surgical intervention. Surgical options include pyloroplasty, antrectomy, and gastrojejunostomy.⁴

Current Challenges

Rapid Metabolism of PPIs

High-dose PPI therapy is a key component of therapy for peptic ulcer healing. PPIs are metabolized by the cytochrome P450 system, which is comprised of multiple isoenzymes. CYP2C19, an isoenzyme involved in PPI metabolism, has 21 polymorphisms, which have variable effects leading to ultra-rapid, extensive, intermediate, or poor metabolism of PPIs.¹⁰ With rapid metabolism of PPIs, standard dosing can result in inadequate suppression of acid secretion. Despite this knowledge, routine testing of CYP2C19 phenotype is not recommended due to the cost of testing. Instead, inadequate ulcer healing should prompt consideration of increased PPI dosing to 80 mg orally twice daily, which may be sufficient to overcome rapid PPI metabolism.¹¹

Relative Potency of PPIs

In addition to variation in PPI metabolism, the relative potency of various PPIs has been questioned. A review of all available clinical studies of the effects of PPIs on mean 24-hour intragastric pH reported a quantitative difference in the potency of 5 PPIs, with omeprazole as the reference standard. Potencies ranged from 0.23 omeprazole equivalents for pantoprazole to 1.82 omeprazole equivalents for rabeprazole.¹² An additional study of data from 56 randomized clinical trials confirmed that PPIs vary in potency, which was measured as time that gastric pH is less than 4. A linear increase in intragastric pH time less than 4 was observed from 9 to 64 mg omeprazole equivalents; higher doses yielded no additional benefit. An increase in PPI dosing from once daily to twice daily also increased the duration of intragastric pH time less than 4 from 15 to 21 hours.¹³ Earlier modeling of the relationship between duodenal ulcer healing and antisecretory therapy showed a strong correlation of ulcer healing with the duration of acid suppression, length of therapy, and the degree of acid suppression. Additional benefit was not observed after intragastric pH rose above 3.¹⁴ Thus, as the frequency and duration of acid suppression therapy are more important than PPI potency, PPIs can be used interchangeably.^13,14

Addressing Underlying Causes

Continued NSAID Use. Refractory peptic ulcers are defined as those that do not heal despite adherence to 8 to 12 weeks of standard acid-suppression therapy. A cause of refractory peptic ulcer disease that must be considered is continued NSAID use.^1,15 In a study of patients with refractory peptic ulcers, 27% of patients continued NSAID use, as determined by eventual disclosure by the patients or platelet cyclooxygenase activity assay, despite extensive counseling to avoid NSAIDs at the time of the diagnosis of their refractory ulcer and at subsequent visits.¹⁶ Pain may make NSAID cessation difficult for some patients, while others do not realize that over-the-counter preparations they take contain NSAIDs.¹⁵

Another group of patients with continued NSAID exposure are those who require long-term NSAID therapy for control of arthritis or the management of cardiovascular conditions. If NSAID therapy cannot be discontinued, the risk of NSAID-related gastrointestinal injury can be assessed based on the presence of multiple risk factors, including age > 65 years, high-dose NSAID therapy, a history of peptic ulcer, and concurrent use of aspirin, corticosteroids, or anticoagulants. Individuals with 3 or more of the preceding risk factors or a history of a peptic ulcer with a complication, especially if recent, are considered to be at high risk of developing an NSAID-related ulcer and possible subsequent complications.¹⁷ In these individuals, NSAID therapy should be continued with agents that have the lowest risk for gastrointestinal toxicity and at the lowest possible dose. A meta-analysis comparing nonselective NSAIDs to placebo demonstrated naproxen to have the highest risk of gastrointestinal complications, including GIB, perforation, and obstruction (adjusted rate ratio, 4.2), while diclofenac demonstrated the lowest risk (adjusted rate ratio, 1.89). High-dose NSAID therapy demonstrated a 2-fold increase in risk of peptic ulcer formation as compared to low-dose therapy.¹⁸

In addition to selecting the NSAID with the least gastrointestinal toxicity at the lowest possible dose, additional strategies to prevent peptic ulcer disease and its complications in chronic NSAID users include co-administration of a PPI and substitution of a COX-2 selective NSAID for nonselective NSAIDs.^1,9 Prior double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, multicenter trials with patients requiring daily NSAIDs demonstrated an up to 15% absolute reduction in the risk of developing peptic ulcers over 6 months while taking esomeprazole.¹⁹

Persistent Infection. Persistent H. pylori infection, due either to initial false-negative testing or ongoing infection despite first-line therapy, is another cause of refractory peptic ulcer disease.^1,15 Because antibiotics and PPIs can reduce the number of H. pylori bacteria, use of these medications concurrent with H. pylori testing can lead to false-negative results with several testing modalities. When suspicion for H. pylori is high, 2 or more diagnostic tests may be needed to effectively rule out infection.¹⁵

When H. pylori is detected, successful eradication is becoming more difficult due to an increasing prevalence of antibiotic resistance, leading to persistent infection in many cases and maintained risk of peptic ulcer disease, despite appropriate first-line therapy.⁸ Options for salvage therapy for persistent H. pylori, as well as information on the role and best timing of susceptibility testing, are beyond the scope of this review, but are reviewed by Lanas and Chan¹ and in the American College of Gastroenterology guideline on the treatment of H. pylori infection.⁸

Other Causes. In a meta-analysis of rigorously designed studies from North America, 20% of patients experienced ulcer recurrence at 6 months, despite successful H. pylori eradication and no NSAID use.²⁰ In addition, as H. pylori prevalence is decreasing, idiopathic ulcers are increasingly being diagnosed, and such ulcers may be associated with high rates of GIB and mortality.¹ In this subset of patients with non-H. pylori, non-NSAID ulcers, increased effort is required to further evaluate the differential diagnosis for rarer causes of upper GI tract ulcer disease (Table). Certain malignancies, including adenocarcinoma and lymphoma, can cause ulcer formation and should be considered in refractory cases. Repeat biopsy at follow-up endoscopy for persistent ulcers should always be obtained to further evaluate for malignancy.^1,15 Infectious diseases other than H. pylori infection, such as tuberculosis, syphilis, cytomegalovirus, and herpes simplex virus, are also reported as etiologies of refractory ulcers, and require specific antimicrobial treatment over and above PPI monotherapy. Special attention in biopsy sampling and sample processing is often required when infectious etiologies are being considered, as specific histologic stains and cultures may be needed for identification.¹⁵

Systemic conditions, including sarcoidosis,²¹ Behçet disease,²² and polyarteritis nodosa,^15,23 can also cause refractory ulcers. Approximately 15% of patients with Crohn disease have gastroduodenal involvement, which may include ulcers of variable sizes.^1,15,24 The increased gastric acid production seen in Zollinger-Ellison syndrome commonly presents as refractory peptic ulcers in the duodenum beyond the bulb that do not heal with standard doses of PPIs.^1,15 More rare causes of acid hypersecretion leading to refractory ulcers include idiopathic gastric acid hypersecretion and retained gastric antrum syndrome after partial gastrectomy with Billroth II anastomosis.¹⁵ Smoking is a known risk factor for impaired tissue healing throughout the body, and can contribute to impaired healing of peptic ulcers through decreased prostaglandin synthesis²⁵ and reduced gastric mucosal blood flow.²⁶ Smoking should always be addressed in patients with refractory peptic ulcers, and cessation should be strongly encouraged. Other less common causes of refractory upper GI tract ulcers include radiation therapy, crack cocaine use, and mesenteric ischemia.¹⁵

Managing Antiplatelet and Anticoagulant Medications

Use of antiplatelets and anticoagulants, alone or in combination, increases the risk of peptic ulcer bleeding. In patients who continue to take aspirin after a peptic ulcer bleed, recurrent bleeding occurs in up to 300 cases per 1000 person-years. The rate of GIB associated with aspirin use ranges from 1.1% to 2.5%, depending on the dose. Prior peptic ulcer disease, age greater than 70 years, and concurrent NSAID, steroid, anticoagulant, or dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) use increase the risk of bleeding while on aspirin. The rate of GIB while taking a thienopyridine alone is slightly less than that when taking aspirin, ranging from 0.5% to 1.6%. Studies to date have yielded mixed estimates of the effect of DAPT on the risk of GIB. Estimates of the risk of GIB with DAPT range from an odds ratio for serious GIB of 7.4 to an absolute risk increase of only 1.3% when compared to clopidogrel alone.²⁷

Many patients are also on warfarin or a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC). In a study from the United Kingdom, the adjusted rate ratio of GIB with warfarin alone was 1.94, and this increased to 6.48 when warfarin was used with aspirin.²⁸ The use of warfarin and DAPT, often called triple therapy, further increases the risk of GIB, with a hazard ratio of 5.0 compared to DAPT alone, and 5.38 when compared to warfarin alone. DOACs are increasingly prescribed for the treatment and prevention of thromboembolism, and by 2014 were prescribed as often as warfarin for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation in the United States. A meta-analysis showed the risk of major GIB did not differ between DOACs and warfarin or low-molecular-weight heparin, but among DOACs factor Xa inhibitors showed a reduced risk of GIB compared with dabigatran, a direct thrombin inhibitor.²⁹

The use of antiplatelets and anticoagulants in the context of peptic ulcer bleeding is a current management challenge. Data to guide decision-making in patients on antiplatelet and/or anticoagulant therapy who experience peptic ulcer bleeding are scarce. Decision-making in this group of patients requires balancing the severity and risk of bleeding with the risk of thromboembolism.^1,27 In patients on antiplatelet therapy for primary prophylaxis of atherothrombosis who develop bleeding from a peptic ulcer, the antiplatelet should generally be held and the indication for the medication reassessed. In patients on antiplatelet therapy for secondary prevention, the agent may be immediately resumed after endoscopy if bleeding is found to be due to an ulcer with low-risk stigmata. With bleeding resulting from an ulcer with high-risk stigmata, antiplatelet agents employed for secondary prevention may be held initially, with consideration given to early reintroduction, as early as day 3 after endoscopy.¹ In patients at high risk for atherothrombotic events, including those on aspirin for secondary prophylaxis, withholding aspirin leads to a 3-fold increase in the risk of a major adverse cardiac event, with events occurring as early as 5 days after aspirin cessation in some cases.²⁷ A randomized controlled trial of continuing low-dose aspirin versus withholding it for 8 weeks in patients on aspirin for secondary prophylaxis of cardiovascular events who experienced peptic ulcer bleeding that required endoscopic therapy demonstrated lower all-cause mortality (1.3% vs 12.9%), including death from cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events, among those who continued aspirin therapy, with a small increased risk of recurrent ulcer bleeding (10.3% vs 5.4%).³⁰ Thus, it is recommended that antiplatelet therapy, when held, be resumed as early as possible when the risk of a cardiovascular or cerebrovascular event is considered to be higher than the risk of bleeding.²⁷

When patients are on DAPT for a history of drug-eluting stent placement, withholding both antiplatelet medications should be avoided, even for a brief period of time, given the risk of in-stent thrombosis. When DAPT is employed for other reasons, it should be continued, if indicated, after bleeding that is found to be due to peptic ulcers with low-risk stigmata. If bleeding is due to a peptic ulcer with high-risk stigmata at endoscopy, then aspirin monotherapy should be continued and consultation should be obtained with a cardiologist to determine optimal timing to resume the second antiplatelet agent.¹ In patients on anticoagulants, anticoagulation should be resumed once hemostasis is achieved when the risk of withholding anticoagulation is thought to be greater than the risk of rebleeding. For example, anticoagulation should be resumed early in a patient with a mechanical heart valve to prevent thrombosis.^1,27 Following upper GIB from peptic ulcer disease, patients who will require long-term aspirin, DAPT, or anticoagulation with either warfarin or DOACs should be maintained on long-term PPI therapy to reduce the risk of recurrent bleeding.^9,27

Failure of Endoscopic Therapy to Control Peptic Ulcer Bleeding

Bleeding recurs in as many as 10% to 20% of patients after initial endoscopic control of peptic ulcer bleeding.^4,31 In this context, repeat upper endoscopy for hemostasis is preferred to surgery, as it leads to less morbidity while providing long-term control of bleeding in more than 70% of cases.^31,32 Two potential endoscopic rescue therapies that may be employed are over-the-scope clips (OTSCs) and hemostatic powder.^32,33

While through-the-scope (TTS) hemostatic clips are often used during endoscopy to control active peptic ulcer bleeding, their use may be limited in large or fibrotic ulcers due to the smaller size of the clips and method of application. OTSCs have several advantages over TTS clips; notably, their larger size allows the endoscopist to achieve deeper mucosal or submucosal clip attachment via suction of the targeted tissue into the endoscopic cap (Figure 2). In a systematic review of OTSCs, successful hemostasis was achieved in 84% of 761 lesions, including 75% of lesions due to peptic ulcer disease.³⁴ Some have argued that OTSCs may be preferred as first-line therapy over epinephrine with TTS clips for hemostasis in bleeding from high-risk peptic ulcers (ie, those with visualized arterial bleeding or a visible vessel) given observed decreases in rebleeding events.³⁵

Despite the advantages of OTSCs, endoscopists should be mindful of the potential complications of OTSC use, including luminal obstruction, particularly in the duodenum, and perforation, which occurs in 0.3% to 2% of cases. Additionally, retrieval of misplaced OTSCs presents a significant challenge. Careful decision-making with consideration of the location, size, and depth of lesions is required when deciding on OTSC placement.^34,36

A newer endoscopic tool developed for refractory bleeding from peptic ulcers and other causes is hemostatic powder. Hemostatic powders accelerate the coagulation cascade, leading to shortened coagulation times and enhanced clot formation.³⁷ A recent meta-analysis showed that immediate hemostasis could be achieved in 95% of cases of bleeding, including in 96% of cases of bleeding from peptic ulcer disease.³⁸ The primary limitation of hemostatic powders is the temporary nature of hemostasis, which requires the underlying etiology of bleeding to be addressed in order to provide long-term hemostasis. In the above meta-analysis, rebleeding occurred in 17% of cases after 30 days.³⁸

Hypotension and ulcer diameter ≥ 2 cm are independent predictors of failure of endoscopic salvage therapy.³¹ When severe bleeding is not controlled with initial endoscopic therapy or bleeding recurs despite salvage endoscopic therapy, transcatheter angiographic embolization (TAE) is the treatment of choice.⁴ Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that compared TAE to surgery have shown that the rate of rebleeding may be higher with TAE, but with less morbidity and either decreased or equivalent rates of mortality, with no increased need for additional interventions.^4,32 In a case series examining 5 years of experience at a single medical center in China, massive GIB from duodenal ulcers was successfully treated with TAE in 27 of 29 cases (93% clinical success rate), with no mucosal ischemic necrosis observed.³⁹

If repeated endoscopic therapy has not led to hemostasis of a bleeding peptic ulcer and TAE is not available, then surgery is the next best option. Bleeding gastric ulcers may be excised, wedge resected, or oversewn after an anterior gastrostomy. Bleeding duodenal ulcers may require use of a Kocher maneuver and linear incision of the anterior duodenum followed by ligation of the gastroduodenal artery. Fortunately, such surgical management is rarely necessary given the availability of TAE at most centers.⁴

Conclusion

Peptic ulcer disease is a common health problem globally, with persistent challenges related to refractory ulcers, antiplatelet and anticoagulant use, and continued bleeding in the face of endoscopic therapy. These challenges should be met with adequate frequency and duration of PPI therapy, vigilant attention to and treatment of ulcer etiology, evidence-based handling of antiplatelet and anticoagulant medications, and utilization of novel endoscopic tools to obtain improved clinical outcomes.

Acknowledgment: We thank Dr. Nipun Reddy from our institution for providing the endoscopic images used in this article.

Corresponding author: Adam L. Edwards, MD, MS; aledwards@uabmc.edu.

Financial disclosures: None.

From the University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL.

Abstract

Objective: To review current challenges in the management of peptic ulcer disease.

Methods: Review of the literature.

Results: Peptic ulcer disease affects 5% to 10% of the population worldwide, with recent decreases in lifetime prevalence in high-income countries. Helicobacter pylori infection and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) use are the most important drivers of peptic ulcer disease. Current management strategies for peptic ulcer disease focus on ulcer healing; management of complications such as bleeding, perforation, and obstruction; and prevention of ulcer recurrence. Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are the cornerstone of medical therapy for peptic ulcers, and complement testing for and treatment of H. pylori infection as well as elimination of NSAID use. Although advances have been made in the medical and endoscopic treatment of peptic ulcer disease and the management of ulcer complications, such as bleeding and obstruction, challenges remain.

Conclusion: Peptic ulcer disease is a common health problem globally, with persistent challenges related to refractory ulcers, antiplatelet and anticoagulant use, and continued bleeding in the face of endoscopic therapy. These challenges should be met with PPI therapy of adequate frequency and duration, vigilant attention to and treatment of ulcer etiology, evidence-based handling of antiplatelet and anticoagulant medications, and utilization of novel endoscopic tools to obtain improved clinical outcomes.

Keywords: H. pylori; nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; NSAIDs; proton pump inhibitor; PPI; bleeding; perforation; obstruction; refractory ulcer; salvage endoscopic therapy; transcatheter angiographic embolization.

A peptic ulcer is a fibrin-covered break in the mucosa of the digestive tract extending to the submucosa that is caused by acid injury (Figure 1). Most peptic ulcers occur in the stomach or proximal duodenum, though they may also occur in the esophagus or, less frequently, in a Meckel’s diverticulum.^1,2 The estimated worldwide prevalence of peptic ulcer disease is 5% to 10%, with an annual incidence of 0.1% to 0.3%¹; both rates are declining.³ The annual incidence of peptic ulcer disease requiring medical or surgical treatment is also declining, and currently is estimated to be 0.1% to 0.2%.⁴ The lifetime prevalence of peptic ulcers has been decreasing in high-income countries since the mid-20th century due to both the widespread use of medications that suppress gastric acid secretion and the declining prevalence of Helicobacter pylori infection.^1,3

Peptic ulcer disease in most individuals results from H. pylori infection, chronic use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), including aspirin, or both. A combination of H. pylori factors and host factors lead to mucosal disruption in infected individuals who develop peptic ulcers. H. pylori–specific factors include the expression of virulence factors such as CagA and VacA, which interact with the host inflammatory response to cause mucosal injury. The mucosal inflammatory response is at least partially determined by polymorphisms in the host’s cytokine genes.^1,4 NSAIDs inhibit the production of cyclooxygenase-1-derived prostaglandins, with subsequent decreases in epithelial mucous formation, bicarbonate secretion, cell proliferation, and mucosal blood flow, all of which are key elements in the maintenance of mucosal integrity.^1,5 Less common causes of peptic ulcers include gastrinoma, adenocarcinoma, idiopathic ulcers, use of sympathomimetic drugs (eg, cocaine or methamphetamine), certain anticancer agents, and bariatric surgery.^4,6

This article provides an overview of current management principles for peptic ulcer disease and discusses current challenges in peptic ulcer management, including proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy, refractory ulcers, handling of antiplatelet and anticoagulants during and after peptic ulcer bleeding, and ulcer bleeding that continues despite salvage endoscopic therapy.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE using the term peptic ulcer disease in combination with the terms current challenges, epidemiology, bleeding, anticoagulant, antiplatelet, PPI potency, etiology, treatment, management, and refractory. We selected publications from the past 35 years that we judged to be relevant.

Current Management

The goals of peptic ulcer disease management are ulcer healing and prevention of recurrence. The primary interventions used in the management of peptic ulcer disease are medical therapy and implementation of measures that address the underlying etiology of the disease.

Medical Therapy

Introduced in the late 1980s, PPIs are the cornerstone of medical therapy for peptic ulcer disease.⁶ These agents irreversibly inhibit the H+/K+-ATPase pump in the gastric mucosa and thereby inhibit gastric acid secretion, promoting ulcer healing. PPIs improve rates of ulcer healing compared to H2-receptor antagonists.^4,7

Underlying Causes

The underlying cause of peptic ulcer disease should be addressed, in addition to initiating medical therapy. A detailed history of NSAID use should be obtained, and patients with peptic ulcers caused by NSAIDs should be counseled to avoid them, if possible. Patients with peptic ulcer disease who require long-term use of NSAIDs should be placed on long-term PPI therapy.⁶ Any patient with peptic ulcer disease, regardless of any history of H. pylori infection or treatment, should be tested for infection. Tests that identify active infection, such as urea breath test, stool antigen assay, or mucosal biopsy–based testing, are preferred to IgG antibody testing, although the latter is acceptable in the context of peptic ulcer disease with a high pretest probability of infection.⁸ Any evidence of active infection warrants appropriate treatment to allow ulcer healing and prevent recurrence.¹H. pylori infection is most often treated with clarithromycin triple therapy or bismuth quadruple therapy for 14 days, with regimens selected based on the presence or absence of penicillin allergy, prior antibiotic exposure, and local clarithromycin resistance rates, when known.^4,8

Managing Complications

An additional aspect of care in peptic ulcer disease is managing the complications of bleeding, perforation, and gastric outlet obstruction. Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) is the most common complication of peptic ulcer disease, which accounts for 40% to 60% of nonvariceal acute upper GIB.^1,6 The first step in the management of acute GIB from a peptic ulcer is fluid resuscitation to ensure hemodynamic stability. If there is associated anemia with a hemoglobin level < 8 g/dL, blood transfusion should be undertaken to target a hemoglobin level > 8 g/dL. In patients with peptic ulcer disease–related acute upper GIB and comorbid cardiovascular disease, the transfusion threshold is higher, with the specific cutoff depending on clinical status, type and severity of cardiovascular disease, and degree of bleeding. Endoscopic management should generally be undertaken within 24 hours of presentation and should not be delayed in patients taking anticoagulants.⁹ Combination endoscopic treatment with through-the-scope clips plus thermocoagulation or sclerosant injection is recommended for acutely bleeding peptic ulcers with high-risk stigmata.

Pharmacologic management of patients with bleeding peptic ulcers with high-risk stigmata includes PPI therapy, with an 80 mg intravenous (IV) loading dose followed by continuous infusion of 8 mg/hr for 72 hours to reduce rebleeding and mortality. Following completion of IV therapy, oral PPI therapy should be continued twice daily for 14 days, followed by once-daily dosing thereafter.⁹Patients with peptic ulcer perforation present with sudden-onset epigastric abdominal pain and have tenderness to palpation, guarding, and rigidity on examination, often along with tachycardia and hypotension.^1,4 Computed tomography (CT) of the abdomen is 98% sensitive for identifying and localizing a perforation. Most perforations occur in the duodenum or antrum.

Management of a peptic ulcer perforation requires consultation with a surgeon to determine whether a nonoperative approach may be employed (eg, a stable patient with a contained perforation), or if surgery is indicated. The surgical approach to peptic ulcer perforation has been impacted by the clinical success of gastric acid suppression with PPIs and H. pylori eradication, but a range of surgical approaches are still used to repair perforations, from omental patch repair with peritoneal drain placement, to more extensive surgeries such as wedge resection or partial gastrectomy.⁴ Perforation carries a high mortality risk, up to 20% to 30%, and is the leading cause of death in patients with peptic ulcer disease.^1,4

Gastric outlet obstruction, a rare complication of peptic ulcer disease, results from recurrent ulcer formation and scarring. Obstruction often presents with hypovolemia and metabolic alkalosis from prolonged vomiting. CT imaging with oral contrast is often the first diagnostic test employed to demonstrate obstruction. Upper endoscopy should be performed to evaluate the appearance and degree of obstruction as well as to obtain biopsies to evaluate for a malignant etiology of the ulcer disease. Endoscopic balloon dilation has become the cornerstone of initial therapy for obstruction from peptic ulcer disease, especially in the case of ulcers due to reversible causes. Surgery is now typically reserved for cases of refractory obstruction, after repeated endoscopic balloon dilation has failed to remove the obstruction. However, because nearly all patients with gastric outlet obstruction present with malnutrition, nutritional deficiencies should be addressed prior to the patient undergoing surgical intervention. Surgical options include pyloroplasty, antrectomy, and gastrojejunostomy.⁴

Current Challenges

Rapid Metabolism of PPIs

High-dose PPI therapy is a key component of therapy for peptic ulcer healing. PPIs are metabolized by the cytochrome P450 system, which is comprised of multiple isoenzymes. CYP2C19, an isoenzyme involved in PPI metabolism, has 21 polymorphisms, which have variable effects leading to ultra-rapid, extensive, intermediate, or poor metabolism of PPIs.¹⁰ With rapid metabolism of PPIs, standard dosing can result in inadequate suppression of acid secretion. Despite this knowledge, routine testing of CYP2C19 phenotype is not recommended due to the cost of testing. Instead, inadequate ulcer healing should prompt consideration of increased PPI dosing to 80 mg orally twice daily, which may be sufficient to overcome rapid PPI metabolism.¹¹

Relative Potency of PPIs

In addition to variation in PPI metabolism, the relative potency of various PPIs has been questioned. A review of all available clinical studies of the effects of PPIs on mean 24-hour intragastric pH reported a quantitative difference in the potency of 5 PPIs, with omeprazole as the reference standard. Potencies ranged from 0.23 omeprazole equivalents for pantoprazole to 1.82 omeprazole equivalents for rabeprazole.¹² An additional study of data from 56 randomized clinical trials confirmed that PPIs vary in potency, which was measured as time that gastric pH is less than 4. A linear increase in intragastric pH time less than 4 was observed from 9 to 64 mg omeprazole equivalents; higher doses yielded no additional benefit. An increase in PPI dosing from once daily to twice daily also increased the duration of intragastric pH time less than 4 from 15 to 21 hours.¹³ Earlier modeling of the relationship between duodenal ulcer healing and antisecretory therapy showed a strong correlation of ulcer healing with the duration of acid suppression, length of therapy, and the degree of acid suppression. Additional benefit was not observed after intragastric pH rose above 3.¹⁴ Thus, as the frequency and duration of acid suppression therapy are more important than PPI potency, PPIs can be used interchangeably.^13,14

Addressing Underlying Causes

Continued NSAID Use. Refractory peptic ulcers are defined as those that do not heal despite adherence to 8 to 12 weeks of standard acid-suppression therapy. A cause of refractory peptic ulcer disease that must be considered is continued NSAID use.^1,15 In a study of patients with refractory peptic ulcers, 27% of patients continued NSAID use, as determined by eventual disclosure by the patients or platelet cyclooxygenase activity assay, despite extensive counseling to avoid NSAIDs at the time of the diagnosis of their refractory ulcer and at subsequent visits.¹⁶ Pain may make NSAID cessation difficult for some patients, while others do not realize that over-the-counter preparations they take contain NSAIDs.¹⁵

Another group of patients with continued NSAID exposure are those who require long-term NSAID therapy for control of arthritis or the management of cardiovascular conditions. If NSAID therapy cannot be discontinued, the risk of NSAID-related gastrointestinal injury can be assessed based on the presence of multiple risk factors, including age > 65 years, high-dose NSAID therapy, a history of peptic ulcer, and concurrent use of aspirin, corticosteroids, or anticoagulants. Individuals with 3 or more of the preceding risk factors or a history of a peptic ulcer with a complication, especially if recent, are considered to be at high risk of developing an NSAID-related ulcer and possible subsequent complications.¹⁷ In these individuals, NSAID therapy should be continued with agents that have the lowest risk for gastrointestinal toxicity and at the lowest possible dose. A meta-analysis comparing nonselective NSAIDs to placebo demonstrated naproxen to have the highest risk of gastrointestinal complications, including GIB, perforation, and obstruction (adjusted rate ratio, 4.2), while diclofenac demonstrated the lowest risk (adjusted rate ratio, 1.89). High-dose NSAID therapy demonstrated a 2-fold increase in risk of peptic ulcer formation as compared to low-dose therapy.¹⁸

In addition to selecting the NSAID with the least gastrointestinal toxicity at the lowest possible dose, additional strategies to prevent peptic ulcer disease and its complications in chronic NSAID users include co-administration of a PPI and substitution of a COX-2 selective NSAID for nonselective NSAIDs.^1,9 Prior double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, multicenter trials with patients requiring daily NSAIDs demonstrated an up to 15% absolute reduction in the risk of developing peptic ulcers over 6 months while taking esomeprazole.¹⁹

Persistent Infection. Persistent H. pylori infection, due either to initial false-negative testing or ongoing infection despite first-line therapy, is another cause of refractory peptic ulcer disease.^1,15 Because antibiotics and PPIs can reduce the number of H. pylori bacteria, use of these medications concurrent with H. pylori testing can lead to false-negative results with several testing modalities. When suspicion for H. pylori is high, 2 or more diagnostic tests may be needed to effectively rule out infection.¹⁵

When H. pylori is detected, successful eradication is becoming more difficult due to an increasing prevalence of antibiotic resistance, leading to persistent infection in many cases and maintained risk of peptic ulcer disease, despite appropriate first-line therapy.⁸ Options for salvage therapy for persistent H. pylori, as well as information on the role and best timing of susceptibility testing, are beyond the scope of this review, but are reviewed by Lanas and Chan¹ and in the American College of Gastroenterology guideline on the treatment of H. pylori infection.⁸

Other Causes. In a meta-analysis of rigorously designed studies from North America, 20% of patients experienced ulcer recurrence at 6 months, despite successful H. pylori eradication and no NSAID use.²⁰ In addition, as H. pylori prevalence is decreasing, idiopathic ulcers are increasingly being diagnosed, and such ulcers may be associated with high rates of GIB and mortality.¹ In this subset of patients with non-H. pylori, non-NSAID ulcers, increased effort is required to further evaluate the differential diagnosis for rarer causes of upper GI tract ulcer disease (Table). Certain malignancies, including adenocarcinoma and lymphoma, can cause ulcer formation and should be considered in refractory cases. Repeat biopsy at follow-up endoscopy for persistent ulcers should always be obtained to further evaluate for malignancy.^1,15 Infectious diseases other than H. pylori infection, such as tuberculosis, syphilis, cytomegalovirus, and herpes simplex virus, are also reported as etiologies of refractory ulcers, and require specific antimicrobial treatment over and above PPI monotherapy. Special attention in biopsy sampling and sample processing is often required when infectious etiologies are being considered, as specific histologic stains and cultures may be needed for identification.¹⁵

Systemic conditions, including sarcoidosis,²¹ Behçet disease,²² and polyarteritis nodosa,^15,23 can also cause refractory ulcers. Approximately 15% of patients with Crohn disease have gastroduodenal involvement, which may include ulcers of variable sizes.^1,15,24 The increased gastric acid production seen in Zollinger-Ellison syndrome commonly presents as refractory peptic ulcers in the duodenum beyond the bulb that do not heal with standard doses of PPIs.^1,15 More rare causes of acid hypersecretion leading to refractory ulcers include idiopathic gastric acid hypersecretion and retained gastric antrum syndrome after partial gastrectomy with Billroth II anastomosis.¹⁵ Smoking is a known risk factor for impaired tissue healing throughout the body, and can contribute to impaired healing of peptic ulcers through decreased prostaglandin synthesis²⁵ and reduced gastric mucosal blood flow.²⁶ Smoking should always be addressed in patients with refractory peptic ulcers, and cessation should be strongly encouraged. Other less common causes of refractory upper GI tract ulcers include radiation therapy, crack cocaine use, and mesenteric ischemia.¹⁵

Managing Antiplatelet and Anticoagulant Medications

Use of antiplatelets and anticoagulants, alone or in combination, increases the risk of peptic ulcer bleeding. In patients who continue to take aspirin after a peptic ulcer bleed, recurrent bleeding occurs in up to 300 cases per 1000 person-years. The rate of GIB associated with aspirin use ranges from 1.1% to 2.5%, depending on the dose. Prior peptic ulcer disease, age greater than 70 years, and concurrent NSAID, steroid, anticoagulant, or dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) use increase the risk of bleeding while on aspirin. The rate of GIB while taking a thienopyridine alone is slightly less than that when taking aspirin, ranging from 0.5% to 1.6%. Studies to date have yielded mixed estimates of the effect of DAPT on the risk of GIB. Estimates of the risk of GIB with DAPT range from an odds ratio for serious GIB of 7.4 to an absolute risk increase of only 1.3% when compared to clopidogrel alone.²⁷

Many patients are also on warfarin or a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC). In a study from the United Kingdom, the adjusted rate ratio of GIB with warfarin alone was 1.94, and this increased to 6.48 when warfarin was used with aspirin.²⁸ The use of warfarin and DAPT, often called triple therapy, further increases the risk of GIB, with a hazard ratio of 5.0 compared to DAPT alone, and 5.38 when compared to warfarin alone. DOACs are increasingly prescribed for the treatment and prevention of thromboembolism, and by 2014 were prescribed as often as warfarin for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation in the United States. A meta-analysis showed the risk of major GIB did not differ between DOACs and warfarin or low-molecular-weight heparin, but among DOACs factor Xa inhibitors showed a reduced risk of GIB compared with dabigatran, a direct thrombin inhibitor.²⁹

The use of antiplatelets and anticoagulants in the context of peptic ulcer bleeding is a current management challenge. Data to guide decision-making in patients on antiplatelet and/or anticoagulant therapy who experience peptic ulcer bleeding are scarce. Decision-making in this group of patients requires balancing the severity and risk of bleeding with the risk of thromboembolism.^1,27 In patients on antiplatelet therapy for primary prophylaxis of atherothrombosis who develop bleeding from a peptic ulcer, the antiplatelet should generally be held and the indication for the medication reassessed. In patients on antiplatelet therapy for secondary prevention, the agent may be immediately resumed after endoscopy if bleeding is found to be due to an ulcer with low-risk stigmata. With bleeding resulting from an ulcer with high-risk stigmata, antiplatelet agents employed for secondary prevention may be held initially, with consideration given to early reintroduction, as early as day 3 after endoscopy.¹ In patients at high risk for atherothrombotic events, including those on aspirin for secondary prophylaxis, withholding aspirin leads to a 3-fold increase in the risk of a major adverse cardiac event, with events occurring as early as 5 days after aspirin cessation in some cases.²⁷ A randomized controlled trial of continuing low-dose aspirin versus withholding it for 8 weeks in patients on aspirin for secondary prophylaxis of cardiovascular events who experienced peptic ulcer bleeding that required endoscopic therapy demonstrated lower all-cause mortality (1.3% vs 12.9%), including death from cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events, among those who continued aspirin therapy, with a small increased risk of recurrent ulcer bleeding (10.3% vs 5.4%).³⁰ Thus, it is recommended that antiplatelet therapy, when held, be resumed as early as possible when the risk of a cardiovascular or cerebrovascular event is considered to be higher than the risk of bleeding.²⁷

When patients are on DAPT for a history of drug-eluting stent placement, withholding both antiplatelet medications should be avoided, even for a brief period of time, given the risk of in-stent thrombosis. When DAPT is employed for other reasons, it should be continued, if indicated, after bleeding that is found to be due to peptic ulcers with low-risk stigmata. If bleeding is due to a peptic ulcer with high-risk stigmata at endoscopy, then aspirin monotherapy should be continued and consultation should be obtained with a cardiologist to determine optimal timing to resume the second antiplatelet agent.¹ In patients on anticoagulants, anticoagulation should be resumed once hemostasis is achieved when the risk of withholding anticoagulation is thought to be greater than the risk of rebleeding. For example, anticoagulation should be resumed early in a patient with a mechanical heart valve to prevent thrombosis.^1,27 Following upper GIB from peptic ulcer disease, patients who will require long-term aspirin, DAPT, or anticoagulation with either warfarin or DOACs should be maintained on long-term PPI therapy to reduce the risk of recurrent bleeding.^9,27

Failure of Endoscopic Therapy to Control Peptic Ulcer Bleeding

Bleeding recurs in as many as 10% to 20% of patients after initial endoscopic control of peptic ulcer bleeding.^4,31 In this context, repeat upper endoscopy for hemostasis is preferred to surgery, as it leads to less morbidity while providing long-term control of bleeding in more than 70% of cases.^31,32 Two potential endoscopic rescue therapies that may be employed are over-the-scope clips (OTSCs) and hemostatic powder.^32,33

While through-the-scope (TTS) hemostatic clips are often used during endoscopy to control active peptic ulcer bleeding, their use may be limited in large or fibrotic ulcers due to the smaller size of the clips and method of application. OTSCs have several advantages over TTS clips; notably, their larger size allows the endoscopist to achieve deeper mucosal or submucosal clip attachment via suction of the targeted tissue into the endoscopic cap (Figure 2). In a systematic review of OTSCs, successful hemostasis was achieved in 84% of 761 lesions, including 75% of lesions due to peptic ulcer disease.³⁴ Some have argued that OTSCs may be preferred as first-line therapy over epinephrine with TTS clips for hemostasis in bleeding from high-risk peptic ulcers (ie, those with visualized arterial bleeding or a visible vessel) given observed decreases in rebleeding events.³⁵

Despite the advantages of OTSCs, endoscopists should be mindful of the potential complications of OTSC use, including luminal obstruction, particularly in the duodenum, and perforation, which occurs in 0.3% to 2% of cases. Additionally, retrieval of misplaced OTSCs presents a significant challenge. Careful decision-making with consideration of the location, size, and depth of lesions is required when deciding on OTSC placement.^34,36

A newer endoscopic tool developed for refractory bleeding from peptic ulcers and other causes is hemostatic powder. Hemostatic powders accelerate the coagulation cascade, leading to shortened coagulation times and enhanced clot formation.³⁷ A recent meta-analysis showed that immediate hemostasis could be achieved in 95% of cases of bleeding, including in 96% of cases of bleeding from peptic ulcer disease.³⁸ The primary limitation of hemostatic powders is the temporary nature of hemostasis, which requires the underlying etiology of bleeding to be addressed in order to provide long-term hemostasis. In the above meta-analysis, rebleeding occurred in 17% of cases after 30 days.³⁸

Hypotension and ulcer diameter ≥ 2 cm are independent predictors of failure of endoscopic salvage therapy.³¹ When severe bleeding is not controlled with initial endoscopic therapy or bleeding recurs despite salvage endoscopic therapy, transcatheter angiographic embolization (TAE) is the treatment of choice.⁴ Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that compared TAE to surgery have shown that the rate of rebleeding may be higher with TAE, but with less morbidity and either decreased or equivalent rates of mortality, with no increased need for additional interventions.^4,32 In a case series examining 5 years of experience at a single medical center in China, massive GIB from duodenal ulcers was successfully treated with TAE in 27 of 29 cases (93% clinical success rate), with no mucosal ischemic necrosis observed.³⁹

If repeated endoscopic therapy has not led to hemostasis of a bleeding peptic ulcer and TAE is not available, then surgery is the next best option. Bleeding gastric ulcers may be excised, wedge resected, or oversewn after an anterior gastrostomy. Bleeding duodenal ulcers may require use of a Kocher maneuver and linear incision of the anterior duodenum followed by ligation of the gastroduodenal artery. Fortunately, such surgical management is rarely necessary given the availability of TAE at most centers.⁴

Conclusion

Peptic ulcer disease is a common health problem globally, with persistent challenges related to refractory ulcers, antiplatelet and anticoagulant use, and continued bleeding in the face of endoscopic therapy. These challenges should be met with adequate frequency and duration of PPI therapy, vigilant attention to and treatment of ulcer etiology, evidence-based handling of antiplatelet and anticoagulant medications, and utilization of novel endoscopic tools to obtain improved clinical outcomes.

Acknowledgment: We thank Dr. Nipun Reddy from our institution for providing the endoscopic images used in this article.

Corresponding author: Adam L. Edwards, MD, MS; aledwards@uabmc.edu.

Financial disclosures: None.

An eye exam may be all that is needed to diagnose Parkinson’s disease, new research shows. Using an advanced machine-learning algorithm and fundus eye images, which depict the small blood vessels and more at the back of the eye, investigators are able to classify patients with Parkinson’s disease compared against a control group. “We discovered that micro blood vessels decreased in both size and number in patients with Parkinson’s disease,” said Maximillian Diaz, a PhD student at the University of Florida, Gainesville.

The simple eye examination may offer a way to diagnose Parkinson’s early in the disease progression.

Mr. Diaz said the test could be incorporated to a patient’s annual physical examination not only to look for Parkinson’s disease but also for other neurological diseases. Researchers at the University of Florida are also looking at whether the same technique can diagnose Alzheimer’s disease.

The beauty of this is that “the technique is simple,” he said. “What surprised us is that we can do this with fundus images, which can be taken in a clinical setting with a lens that attaches to your smartphone. It’s affordable and portable and it takes less than a minute.”
 

Machine learning on fundus eye images

Researchers, under the direction of Ruogu Fang, PhD, director of the J. Crayton Pruitt Department of Biomedical Engineering’s Smart Medical Informatics Learning and Evaluation Lab (SMILE) at the University of Florida, Gainesville, collected fundus eye images from 476 age- and gender-matched individuals, 238 diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease and 238 control group images. Another set of 100 images were collected from the University of Florida database using green color channels (UKB-Green and UF-UKB Green) and used to improve vessel segmentation. Of these, 28 were controls and 72 from patients with Parkinson’s disease. Researchers added 44 more control images from the U.K. Biobank to complete the second age- and gender-matched dataset.

“We used 80% of the images to develop the machine-learning network,” Mr. Diaz said. The other 20% of images, which were new to the algorithm, were used to test it, to determine true or false, Parkinson’s disease or control?

“We were able to achieve an accuracy of 85%,” Mr. Diaz said. Currently, there are no biomarkers to diagnose Parkinson’s disease. The disease is only recognizable once 80% of dopaminergic cells have already decayed. “Clinically, there’s no way to tell how long someone has had it,” Mr. Diaz said. He hopes that by doing additional research and testing earlier – with a longitudinal study of images – a pattern may be detected to better predict disease.
 

Eye vasculature reveals disease

“This concept [studying eye vasculature] is getting a lot of interest right now,” said Anant Madabhushi, PhD, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland. “The eye is the proverbial window to the soul, and in this case, shows what’s happening in rest of the body.”

Dr. Madabhushi, who was not involved in the Parkinson’s research, has also been working with a team in Cleveland to look at how vessels in the eye predict response to drug therapies in diabetic macular edema, including treatment durability. “What we’ve found is the more twisted the vessels, the more constricted, and the less likely the person would respond to therapy,” he said, adding that studying the pathology of the eye makes a lot of sense. “The arrangement of vessels in the eye are likely to have implications in all kinds of diseases.”

Since Parkinson’s disease does not have any biomarkers, this technology could be very useful in diagnosis. “With specific quantitative measurements, we could have computational imaging biomarkers to predict the risk of onset of Parkinson’s, and the prognosis of disease. That’s the true utility of this approach,” he said.

Mr. Diaz disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Madabhushi has consulted for Aiforia and has had research sponsored by AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Boehringer Ingelheim.

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

An eye exam may be all that is needed to diagnose Parkinson’s disease, new research shows. Using an advanced machine-learning algorithm and fundus eye images, which depict the small blood vessels and more at the back of the eye, investigators are able to classify patients with Parkinson’s disease compared against a control group. “We discovered that micro blood vessels decreased in both size and number in patients with Parkinson’s disease,” said Maximillian Diaz, a PhD student at the University of Florida, Gainesville.

The simple eye examination may offer a way to diagnose Parkinson’s early in the disease progression.

Mr. Diaz said the test could be incorporated to a patient’s annual physical examination not only to look for Parkinson’s disease but also for other neurological diseases. Researchers at the University of Florida are also looking at whether the same technique can diagnose Alzheimer’s disease.

The beauty of this is that “the technique is simple,” he said. “What surprised us is that we can do this with fundus images, which can be taken in a clinical setting with a lens that attaches to your smartphone. It’s affordable and portable and it takes less than a minute.”
 

Machine learning on fundus eye images

Researchers, under the direction of Ruogu Fang, PhD, director of the J. Crayton Pruitt Department of Biomedical Engineering’s Smart Medical Informatics Learning and Evaluation Lab (SMILE) at the University of Florida, Gainesville, collected fundus eye images from 476 age- and gender-matched individuals, 238 diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease and 238 control group images. Another set of 100 images were collected from the University of Florida database using green color channels (UKB-Green and UF-UKB Green) and used to improve vessel segmentation. Of these, 28 were controls and 72 from patients with Parkinson’s disease. Researchers added 44 more control images from the U.K. Biobank to complete the second age- and gender-matched dataset.

“We used 80% of the images to develop the machine-learning network,” Mr. Diaz said. The other 20% of images, which were new to the algorithm, were used to test it, to determine true or false, Parkinson’s disease or control?

“We were able to achieve an accuracy of 85%,” Mr. Diaz said. Currently, there are no biomarkers to diagnose Parkinson’s disease. The disease is only recognizable once 80% of dopaminergic cells have already decayed. “Clinically, there’s no way to tell how long someone has had it,” Mr. Diaz said. He hopes that by doing additional research and testing earlier – with a longitudinal study of images – a pattern may be detected to better predict disease.
 

Eye vasculature reveals disease

“This concept [studying eye vasculature] is getting a lot of interest right now,” said Anant Madabhushi, PhD, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland. “The eye is the proverbial window to the soul, and in this case, shows what’s happening in rest of the body.”

Dr. Madabhushi, who was not involved in the Parkinson’s research, has also been working with a team in Cleveland to look at how vessels in the eye predict response to drug therapies in diabetic macular edema, including treatment durability. “What we’ve found is the more twisted the vessels, the more constricted, and the less likely the person would respond to therapy,” he said, adding that studying the pathology of the eye makes a lot of sense. “The arrangement of vessels in the eye are likely to have implications in all kinds of diseases.”

Since Parkinson’s disease does not have any biomarkers, this technology could be very useful in diagnosis. “With specific quantitative measurements, we could have computational imaging biomarkers to predict the risk of onset of Parkinson’s, and the prognosis of disease. That’s the true utility of this approach,” he said.

Mr. Diaz disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Madabhushi has consulted for Aiforia and has had research sponsored by AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Boehringer Ingelheim.

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

An eye exam may be all that is needed to diagnose Parkinson’s disease, new research shows. Using an advanced machine-learning algorithm and fundus eye images, which depict the small blood vessels and more at the back of the eye, investigators are able to classify patients with Parkinson’s disease compared against a control group. “We discovered that micro blood vessels decreased in both size and number in patients with Parkinson’s disease,” said Maximillian Diaz, a PhD student at the University of Florida, Gainesville.

The simple eye examination may offer a way to diagnose Parkinson’s early in the disease progression.

Mr. Diaz said the test could be incorporated to a patient’s annual physical examination not only to look for Parkinson’s disease but also for other neurological diseases. Researchers at the University of Florida are also looking at whether the same technique can diagnose Alzheimer’s disease.

The beauty of this is that “the technique is simple,” he said. “What surprised us is that we can do this with fundus images, which can be taken in a clinical setting with a lens that attaches to your smartphone. It’s affordable and portable and it takes less than a minute.”
 

Machine learning on fundus eye images

Researchers, under the direction of Ruogu Fang, PhD, director of the J. Crayton Pruitt Department of Biomedical Engineering’s Smart Medical Informatics Learning and Evaluation Lab (SMILE) at the University of Florida, Gainesville, collected fundus eye images from 476 age- and gender-matched individuals, 238 diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease and 238 control group images. Another set of 100 images were collected from the University of Florida database using green color channels (UKB-Green and UF-UKB Green) and used to improve vessel segmentation. Of these, 28 were controls and 72 from patients with Parkinson’s disease. Researchers added 44 more control images from the U.K. Biobank to complete the second age- and gender-matched dataset.

“We used 80% of the images to develop the machine-learning network,” Mr. Diaz said. The other 20% of images, which were new to the algorithm, were used to test it, to determine true or false, Parkinson’s disease or control?

“We were able to achieve an accuracy of 85%,” Mr. Diaz said. Currently, there are no biomarkers to diagnose Parkinson’s disease. The disease is only recognizable once 80% of dopaminergic cells have already decayed. “Clinically, there’s no way to tell how long someone has had it,” Mr. Diaz said. He hopes that by doing additional research and testing earlier – with a longitudinal study of images – a pattern may be detected to better predict disease.
 

Eye vasculature reveals disease

“This concept [studying eye vasculature] is getting a lot of interest right now,” said Anant Madabhushi, PhD, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland. “The eye is the proverbial window to the soul, and in this case, shows what’s happening in rest of the body.”

Dr. Madabhushi, who was not involved in the Parkinson’s research, has also been working with a team in Cleveland to look at how vessels in the eye predict response to drug therapies in diabetic macular edema, including treatment durability. “What we’ve found is the more twisted the vessels, the more constricted, and the less likely the person would respond to therapy,” he said, adding that studying the pathology of the eye makes a lot of sense. “The arrangement of vessels in the eye are likely to have implications in all kinds of diseases.”

Since Parkinson’s disease does not have any biomarkers, this technology could be very useful in diagnosis. “With specific quantitative measurements, we could have computational imaging biomarkers to predict the risk of onset of Parkinson’s, and the prognosis of disease. That’s the true utility of this approach,” he said.

Mr. Diaz disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Madabhushi has consulted for Aiforia and has had research sponsored by AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Boehringer Ingelheim.

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