Calling it a landmark initiative, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has launched its “new and improved” Veterans Community Care Program, implementing portions of the Maintaining Internal Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside Networks Act of 2018 (MISSION Act). The initiative both ends the Veterans Choice Program, which expired June 6, and establishes a new Veterans Community Care Program. Senior VA leaders will visit > 30 VA hospitals across the country to support the rollout.

The MISSION Act is intended to provide veterans with more health care options. It also strengthens the VA’s ability to recruit and retain clinicians, authorizes “Anywhere to Anywhere” telehealth across state lines, gives veterans better access to community care, and establishes a new urgent care benefit.

 “The changes not only improve our ability to provide the health care veterans need, but also when and where they need it,” said VA Secretary Robert Wilkie. “It will also put veterans at the center of their care and offer options, including expanded telehealth and urgent care, so they can find the balance in the system that is right for them.”

Eligibility for community care does not require veterans to receive that care in the community; they can still choose to have VA care. A veteran may elect to receive care in the community if he or she:

• needs a service not available at any VA medical facility;
• lives in a US state or territory without a full-service VA medical facility (applies to veterans living in Alaska, Hawaii, New Hampshire, Guam, American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands and the US Virgin Islands);
• qualifies under the “grandfather” provision related to distance eligibility under the Veterans Choice Program; and/or
• meets specific access standards for average drive time or appointment wait times.

The veteran also is eligible if he or she and the referring clinician agree that it is in the best medical interest of the veteran to receive community care based on defined factors, or if the VA has determined that a VA medical service line is not providing care in a manner that complies with VA’s standards for quality based on specific conditions.

In addition to the new eligibility rules, the VA says it has made a variety of improvements that will “make community care work better for veterans.”

One is that existing programs will be combined into a single community care program, to reduce complexity and the “likelihood of errors and problems.” The VA also is streamlining internal processes and modernizing IT systems, aiming to “speed up all aspects of community care—eligibility, authorizations, appointments, care coordination, claims, payments—while improving overall communication between veterans, community providers, and VA staff members.”

 The VA has announced, as well, that 2 final regulations of the Veterans Community Care Program have been published in the Federal Register. One concerns the new urgent care benefit that provides eligible veterans with greater choice and access to timely, high-quality care for minor injuries and illnesses. The second regulation governs how eligible veterans receive necessary hospital care, medical services, and extended-care services from non-VA entities or providers in the community.

The VA will purchase most community care for veterans through its contracted network with third-party administrators (currently TriWest Healthcare Alliance and Optum Public). When the new Community Care Network of community providers is implemented, VA staff will work directly with veterans to schedule appointments and support care coordination.

A complete rollout of all 6 regions of the Community Care Network is expected by 2020. More detailed information is available at www.missionact.va.gov.

Calling it a landmark initiative, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has launched its “new and improved” Veterans Community Care Program, implementing portions of the Maintaining Internal Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside Networks Act of 2018 (MISSION Act). The initiative both ends the Veterans Choice Program, which expired June 6, and establishes a new Veterans Community Care Program. Senior VA leaders will visit > 30 VA hospitals across the country to support the rollout.

The MISSION Act is intended to provide veterans with more health care options. It also strengthens the VA’s ability to recruit and retain clinicians, authorizes “Anywhere to Anywhere” telehealth across state lines, gives veterans better access to community care, and establishes a new urgent care benefit.

 “The changes not only improve our ability to provide the health care veterans need, but also when and where they need it,” said VA Secretary Robert Wilkie. “It will also put veterans at the center of their care and offer options, including expanded telehealth and urgent care, so they can find the balance in the system that is right for them.”

Eligibility for community care does not require veterans to receive that care in the community; they can still choose to have VA care. A veteran may elect to receive care in the community if he or she:

• needs a service not available at any VA medical facility;
• lives in a US state or territory without a full-service VA medical facility (applies to veterans living in Alaska, Hawaii, New Hampshire, Guam, American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands and the US Virgin Islands);
• qualifies under the “grandfather” provision related to distance eligibility under the Veterans Choice Program; and/or
• meets specific access standards for average drive time or appointment wait times.

The veteran also is eligible if he or she and the referring clinician agree that it is in the best medical interest of the veteran to receive community care based on defined factors, or if the VA has determined that a VA medical service line is not providing care in a manner that complies with VA’s standards for quality based on specific conditions.

In addition to the new eligibility rules, the VA says it has made a variety of improvements that will “make community care work better for veterans.”

One is that existing programs will be combined into a single community care program, to reduce complexity and the “likelihood of errors and problems.” The VA also is streamlining internal processes and modernizing IT systems, aiming to “speed up all aspects of community care—eligibility, authorizations, appointments, care coordination, claims, payments—while improving overall communication between veterans, community providers, and VA staff members.”

 The VA has announced, as well, that 2 final regulations of the Veterans Community Care Program have been published in the Federal Register. One concerns the new urgent care benefit that provides eligible veterans with greater choice and access to timely, high-quality care for minor injuries and illnesses. The second regulation governs how eligible veterans receive necessary hospital care, medical services, and extended-care services from non-VA entities or providers in the community.

The VA will purchase most community care for veterans through its contracted network with third-party administrators (currently TriWest Healthcare Alliance and Optum Public). When the new Community Care Network of community providers is implemented, VA staff will work directly with veterans to schedule appointments and support care coordination.

A complete rollout of all 6 regions of the Community Care Network is expected by 2020. More detailed information is available at www.missionact.va.gov.

Calling it a landmark initiative, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has launched its “new and improved” Veterans Community Care Program, implementing portions of the Maintaining Internal Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside Networks Act of 2018 (MISSION Act). The initiative both ends the Veterans Choice Program, which expired June 6, and establishes a new Veterans Community Care Program. Senior VA leaders will visit > 30 VA hospitals across the country to support the rollout.

The MISSION Act is intended to provide veterans with more health care options. It also strengthens the VA’s ability to recruit and retain clinicians, authorizes “Anywhere to Anywhere” telehealth across state lines, gives veterans better access to community care, and establishes a new urgent care benefit.

 “The changes not only improve our ability to provide the health care veterans need, but also when and where they need it,” said VA Secretary Robert Wilkie. “It will also put veterans at the center of their care and offer options, including expanded telehealth and urgent care, so they can find the balance in the system that is right for them.”

Eligibility for community care does not require veterans to receive that care in the community; they can still choose to have VA care. A veteran may elect to receive care in the community if he or she:

• needs a service not available at any VA medical facility;
• lives in a US state or territory without a full-service VA medical facility (applies to veterans living in Alaska, Hawaii, New Hampshire, Guam, American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands and the US Virgin Islands);
• qualifies under the “grandfather” provision related to distance eligibility under the Veterans Choice Program; and/or
• meets specific access standards for average drive time or appointment wait times.

The veteran also is eligible if he or she and the referring clinician agree that it is in the best medical interest of the veteran to receive community care based on defined factors, or if the VA has determined that a VA medical service line is not providing care in a manner that complies with VA’s standards for quality based on specific conditions.

In addition to the new eligibility rules, the VA says it has made a variety of improvements that will “make community care work better for veterans.”

One is that existing programs will be combined into a single community care program, to reduce complexity and the “likelihood of errors and problems.” The VA also is streamlining internal processes and modernizing IT systems, aiming to “speed up all aspects of community care—eligibility, authorizations, appointments, care coordination, claims, payments—while improving overall communication between veterans, community providers, and VA staff members.”

 The VA has announced, as well, that 2 final regulations of the Veterans Community Care Program have been published in the Federal Register. One concerns the new urgent care benefit that provides eligible veterans with greater choice and access to timely, high-quality care for minor injuries and illnesses. The second regulation governs how eligible veterans receive necessary hospital care, medical services, and extended-care services from non-VA entities or providers in the community.

The VA will purchase most community care for veterans through its contracted network with third-party administrators (currently TriWest Healthcare Alliance and Optum Public). When the new Community Care Network of community providers is implemented, VA staff will work directly with veterans to schedule appointments and support care coordination.

A complete rollout of all 6 regions of the Community Care Network is expected by 2020. More detailed information is available at www.missionact.va.gov.

Graphic by National Suicide Prevention Lifeline

Many physicians work long hours and may ignore the fatigue and emotional toll that comes with those pressures. The stress cannot only lead to crippling depression but also to declined mental health and even thoughts of suicide.

Each year, an estimated 400 physicians take their own lives, mostly because of depression and stress, according to the West Journal of Emergency Medicine.

MDedge Internal Medicine recently hosted a Twitter conversation (#MDedgeChats) on how the health care community can address this emerging crisis and help their colleagues understand that they are not alone. Two primary care physicians — Sarah Candler, MD, and Elisabeth Poorman, MD — led the conversation­­­, with guests Michael Rose, MD, Arghavan Salles, MD, Richard M. Wardrop III, MD, Jessica Gold, MD, and Janae Sharp.

Throughout the conversation, physicians encouraged other medical professionals to seek help if it is needed. “If you don’t feel comfortable sharing with your team, feel free to share with folks you met here,” Dr. Candler wrote. “Please seek professional solace with a therapist! That’s what this is about – the support to do what you need for yourself. Good doctors take care of themselves, too.”

These issues are not just important in the medical community “because everyone will get sick, and we are failing each other. We are failing our patients and our communities when we won’t fight for change. The center will not hold here,” said Dr. Elizabeth Poorman.  

The following is an edited version of the discussion.

Question 2: "How can we end stigma against seeking mental health treatment among physicians?" is on the next page.

Question 3: "How can we prevent depression and suicide among medical students and physicians" is on the next page.

Question 4: "Which institutions or programs are exemplars in providing resources to improve mental health?" is on the next page.

Question 5: "What organizational and political changes are likely to reduce physician suicides?" is on the next page.

Graphic by National Suicide Prevention Lifeline

Many physicians work long hours and may ignore the fatigue and emotional toll that comes with those pressures. The stress cannot only lead to crippling depression but also to declined mental health and even thoughts of suicide.

Each year, an estimated 400 physicians take their own lives, mostly because of depression and stress, according to the West Journal of Emergency Medicine.

MDedge Internal Medicine recently hosted a Twitter conversation (#MDedgeChats) on how the health care community can address this emerging crisis and help their colleagues understand that they are not alone. Two primary care physicians — Sarah Candler, MD, and Elisabeth Poorman, MD — led the conversation­­­, with guests Michael Rose, MD, Arghavan Salles, MD, Richard M. Wardrop III, MD, Jessica Gold, MD, and Janae Sharp.

Throughout the conversation, physicians encouraged other medical professionals to seek help if it is needed. “If you don’t feel comfortable sharing with your team, feel free to share with folks you met here,” Dr. Candler wrote. “Please seek professional solace with a therapist! That’s what this is about – the support to do what you need for yourself. Good doctors take care of themselves, too.”

These issues are not just important in the medical community “because everyone will get sick, and we are failing each other. We are failing our patients and our communities when we won’t fight for change. The center will not hold here,” said Dr. Elizabeth Poorman.  

The following is an edited version of the discussion.

Question 2: "How can we end stigma against seeking mental health treatment among physicians?" is on the next page.

Question 3: "How can we prevent depression and suicide among medical students and physicians" is on the next page.

Question 4: "Which institutions or programs are exemplars in providing resources to improve mental health?" is on the next page.

Question 5: "What organizational and political changes are likely to reduce physician suicides?" is on the next page.

Graphic by National Suicide Prevention Lifeline

Many physicians work long hours and may ignore the fatigue and emotional toll that comes with those pressures. The stress cannot only lead to crippling depression but also to declined mental health and even thoughts of suicide.

Each year, an estimated 400 physicians take their own lives, mostly because of depression and stress, according to the West Journal of Emergency Medicine.

MDedge Internal Medicine recently hosted a Twitter conversation (#MDedgeChats) on how the health care community can address this emerging crisis and help their colleagues understand that they are not alone. Two primary care physicians — Sarah Candler, MD, and Elisabeth Poorman, MD — led the conversation­­­, with guests Michael Rose, MD, Arghavan Salles, MD, Richard M. Wardrop III, MD, Jessica Gold, MD, and Janae Sharp.

Throughout the conversation, physicians encouraged other medical professionals to seek help if it is needed. “If you don’t feel comfortable sharing with your team, feel free to share with folks you met here,” Dr. Candler wrote. “Please seek professional solace with a therapist! That’s what this is about – the support to do what you need for yourself. Good doctors take care of themselves, too.”

These issues are not just important in the medical community “because everyone will get sick, and we are failing each other. We are failing our patients and our communities when we won’t fight for change. The center will not hold here,” said Dr. Elizabeth Poorman.  

The following is an edited version of the discussion.

Question 2: "How can we end stigma against seeking mental health treatment among physicians?" is on the next page.

Question 3: "How can we prevent depression and suicide among medical students and physicians" is on the next page.

Question 4: "Which institutions or programs are exemplars in providing resources to improve mental health?" is on the next page.

Question 5: "What organizational and political changes are likely to reduce physician suicides?" is on the next page.

In its inaugural year, the Excellence in Community service award will be presented this Friday at VAM during the ‘Vascular Spectacular’ Gala. This year’s winners are Drs. Richard Lynn, Carlo Dall’Olmo and Joseph Anain. These members have all exhibited outstanding leadership within their community as practicing vascular surgeons and are recognized for their sustained contributions to patients and their communities. Read more about the Excellence in Community Service award here.

In its inaugural year, the Excellence in Community service award will be presented this Friday at VAM during the ‘Vascular Spectacular’ Gala. This year’s winners are Drs. Richard Lynn, Carlo Dall’Olmo and Joseph Anain. These members have all exhibited outstanding leadership within their community as practicing vascular surgeons and are recognized for their sustained contributions to patients and their communities. Read more about the Excellence in Community Service award here.

In its inaugural year, the Excellence in Community service award will be presented this Friday at VAM during the ‘Vascular Spectacular’ Gala. This year’s winners are Drs. Richard Lynn, Carlo Dall’Olmo and Joseph Anain. These members have all exhibited outstanding leadership within their community as practicing vascular surgeons and are recognized for their sustained contributions to patients and their communities. Read more about the Excellence in Community Service award here.

Join others in placing bids on items available in the ‘Vascular Spectacular’ gala’s silent auction. Items include, but are not limited to, artwork, fine wines, travel experiences and sports memorabilia. Bidding will be open until this Friday, June 14, so be sure to bid early and often. The Gala will take place at the Vascular Annual Meeting and all proceeds benefit the work of the SVS Foundation. Sign up to participate here.

Join others in placing bids on items available in the ‘Vascular Spectacular’ gala’s silent auction. Items include, but are not limited to, artwork, fine wines, travel experiences and sports memorabilia. Bidding will be open until this Friday, June 14, so be sure to bid early and often. The Gala will take place at the Vascular Annual Meeting and all proceeds benefit the work of the SVS Foundation. Sign up to participate here.

Join others in placing bids on items available in the ‘Vascular Spectacular’ gala’s silent auction. Items include, but are not limited to, artwork, fine wines, travel experiences and sports memorabilia. Bidding will be open until this Friday, June 14, so be sure to bid early and often. The Gala will take place at the Vascular Annual Meeting and all proceeds benefit the work of the SVS Foundation. Sign up to participate here.

On May 31, new global guidelines on the best ways to treat Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia were co-published in the Journal of Vascular Surgery and the European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery. This comes after four years of collaboration between vascular experts from around the world. According to the SVS’ own Dr. Conte, a co-editor, the group created a unique practice guideline that reflects the spectrum of the diseases and the approaches seen worldwide. Read the guidelines in the JVS here.

On May 31, new global guidelines on the best ways to treat Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia were co-published in the Journal of Vascular Surgery and the European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery. This comes after four years of collaboration between vascular experts from around the world. According to the SVS’ own Dr. Conte, a co-editor, the group created a unique practice guideline that reflects the spectrum of the diseases and the approaches seen worldwide. Read the guidelines in the JVS here.

On May 31, new global guidelines on the best ways to treat Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia were co-published in the Journal of Vascular Surgery and the European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery. This comes after four years of collaboration between vascular experts from around the world. According to the SVS’ own Dr. Conte, a co-editor, the group created a unique practice guideline that reflects the spectrum of the diseases and the approaches seen worldwide. Read the guidelines in the JVS here.

A needs- and barriers-based intervention that addressed psychosocial, physical, cognitive, and environmental barriers to self-management of asthma for older adults was successful in improving asthma outcomes and management, a recent trial has shown.

Medioimages/Photodisc/ThinkStock

“This study demonstrates the value of patient centeredness and care coaching in supporting older adults with asthma and for ongoing efforts to engage patients in care delivery design and personalization,” Alex D. Federman, MD, of the division of general internal medicine at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and colleagues wrote in their study, which was published in JAMA Internal Medicine. “It also highlights the challenges of engaging vulnerable populations in self-management support, including modest retention rates and reduced impact over time despite repeated encounters designed to sustain its effects.”

The researchers said older adults often have difficulty with self-management tasks like inhaler technique and use of inhaled corticosteroids, which can be caused by various psychosocial, physical, cognitive, or environmental barriers. However, an attempt at creating self-management tools around specific problems, rather than generalized training, has not been traditionally attempted, they noted.

For the SAMBA trial, Dr. Federman and colleagues enrolled 391 patients who were randomized to receive a home-based intervention, clinic-based intervention, or usual care, where an asthma care coach would identify the barriers to asthma control, train the patient in areas of improvement, and provide reinforcement when necessary. Patients were at least age 60 years (15.1% men) with uncontrolled asthma in New York City and were enrolled between February 2014 and December 2017. Researchers used the Mini Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire, Asthma Control Test, metered dose inhaler technique, Medication Adherence Rating Scale, and visits to the emergency room to assess outcomes between interventions and usual care, and between home and clinic care. The data was analyzed using the ‘difference in differences’ statistical technique to compare the change differential between the groups.

They found significantly better asthma control scores between the intervention group and the control groups at 3 months (difference-in-differences, 1.2; 95% confidence interval, 0.2-2.2; P = .02), 6 months (D-in-Ds, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.0-2.1; P = .049), and 12 months (D-inDs, 0.6; 95% CI, −0.5 to 1.8; P = .28). Quality of life was significantly improved in the intervention group, compared with control patients (overall effect, chi-squared = 10.5; with 4 degrees of freedom; P = .01), as was adherence to medication (overall effect, chi-squared = 9.5, with 4 degrees of freedom; P = .049), and inhaler technique as measured by correctly completed steps at 12 months (75% vs. 58%). Visits to the emergency room were also lower in the intervention group, compared with the control group (6.2% vs. 12.7%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.6-0.99; both P = .03). The researchers noted there were no significant differences between home care and clinic care.

Potential limitations in the study included a lower-than-planned statistical power, 70% retention in the intervention arms, low generalizability of the findings, and lack of blinding on the part of research assistants as well as some improvement in asthma control and outcomes in the control group.

This study was funded in part by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Coauthors Nandini Shroff reported grants from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute; Michael S. Wolf reported grants from Eli Lilly; and Juan P. Wisnivesky reported personal fees from Sanofi, Quintiles, and Banook, and grants from Sanofi and Quorum. The other authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Federman AD et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2019; doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.1201.

A needs- and barriers-based intervention that addressed psychosocial, physical, cognitive, and environmental barriers to self-management of asthma for older adults was successful in improving asthma outcomes and management, a recent trial has shown.

Medioimages/Photodisc/ThinkStock

“This study demonstrates the value of patient centeredness and care coaching in supporting older adults with asthma and for ongoing efforts to engage patients in care delivery design and personalization,” Alex D. Federman, MD, of the division of general internal medicine at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and colleagues wrote in their study, which was published in JAMA Internal Medicine. “It also highlights the challenges of engaging vulnerable populations in self-management support, including modest retention rates and reduced impact over time despite repeated encounters designed to sustain its effects.”

The researchers said older adults often have difficulty with self-management tasks like inhaler technique and use of inhaled corticosteroids, which can be caused by various psychosocial, physical, cognitive, or environmental barriers. However, an attempt at creating self-management tools around specific problems, rather than generalized training, has not been traditionally attempted, they noted.

For the SAMBA trial, Dr. Federman and colleagues enrolled 391 patients who were randomized to receive a home-based intervention, clinic-based intervention, or usual care, where an asthma care coach would identify the barriers to asthma control, train the patient in areas of improvement, and provide reinforcement when necessary. Patients were at least age 60 years (15.1% men) with uncontrolled asthma in New York City and were enrolled between February 2014 and December 2017. Researchers used the Mini Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire, Asthma Control Test, metered dose inhaler technique, Medication Adherence Rating Scale, and visits to the emergency room to assess outcomes between interventions and usual care, and between home and clinic care. The data was analyzed using the ‘difference in differences’ statistical technique to compare the change differential between the groups.

They found significantly better asthma control scores between the intervention group and the control groups at 3 months (difference-in-differences, 1.2; 95% confidence interval, 0.2-2.2; P = .02), 6 months (D-in-Ds, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.0-2.1; P = .049), and 12 months (D-inDs, 0.6; 95% CI, −0.5 to 1.8; P = .28). Quality of life was significantly improved in the intervention group, compared with control patients (overall effect, chi-squared = 10.5; with 4 degrees of freedom; P = .01), as was adherence to medication (overall effect, chi-squared = 9.5, with 4 degrees of freedom; P = .049), and inhaler technique as measured by correctly completed steps at 12 months (75% vs. 58%). Visits to the emergency room were also lower in the intervention group, compared with the control group (6.2% vs. 12.7%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.6-0.99; both P = .03). The researchers noted there were no significant differences between home care and clinic care.

Potential limitations in the study included a lower-than-planned statistical power, 70% retention in the intervention arms, low generalizability of the findings, and lack of blinding on the part of research assistants as well as some improvement in asthma control and outcomes in the control group.

This study was funded in part by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Coauthors Nandini Shroff reported grants from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute; Michael S. Wolf reported grants from Eli Lilly; and Juan P. Wisnivesky reported personal fees from Sanofi, Quintiles, and Banook, and grants from Sanofi and Quorum. The other authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Federman AD et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2019; doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.1201.

A needs- and barriers-based intervention that addressed psychosocial, physical, cognitive, and environmental barriers to self-management of asthma for older adults was successful in improving asthma outcomes and management, a recent trial has shown.

Medioimages/Photodisc/ThinkStock

“This study demonstrates the value of patient centeredness and care coaching in supporting older adults with asthma and for ongoing efforts to engage patients in care delivery design and personalization,” Alex D. Federman, MD, of the division of general internal medicine at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and colleagues wrote in their study, which was published in JAMA Internal Medicine. “It also highlights the challenges of engaging vulnerable populations in self-management support, including modest retention rates and reduced impact over time despite repeated encounters designed to sustain its effects.”

The researchers said older adults often have difficulty with self-management tasks like inhaler technique and use of inhaled corticosteroids, which can be caused by various psychosocial, physical, cognitive, or environmental barriers. However, an attempt at creating self-management tools around specific problems, rather than generalized training, has not been traditionally attempted, they noted.

For the SAMBA trial, Dr. Federman and colleagues enrolled 391 patients who were randomized to receive a home-based intervention, clinic-based intervention, or usual care, where an asthma care coach would identify the barriers to asthma control, train the patient in areas of improvement, and provide reinforcement when necessary. Patients were at least age 60 years (15.1% men) with uncontrolled asthma in New York City and were enrolled between February 2014 and December 2017. Researchers used the Mini Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire, Asthma Control Test, metered dose inhaler technique, Medication Adherence Rating Scale, and visits to the emergency room to assess outcomes between interventions and usual care, and between home and clinic care. The data was analyzed using the ‘difference in differences’ statistical technique to compare the change differential between the groups.

They found significantly better asthma control scores between the intervention group and the control groups at 3 months (difference-in-differences, 1.2; 95% confidence interval, 0.2-2.2; P = .02), 6 months (D-in-Ds, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.0-2.1; P = .049), and 12 months (D-inDs, 0.6; 95% CI, −0.5 to 1.8; P = .28). Quality of life was significantly improved in the intervention group, compared with control patients (overall effect, chi-squared = 10.5; with 4 degrees of freedom; P = .01), as was adherence to medication (overall effect, chi-squared = 9.5, with 4 degrees of freedom; P = .049), and inhaler technique as measured by correctly completed steps at 12 months (75% vs. 58%). Visits to the emergency room were also lower in the intervention group, compared with the control group (6.2% vs. 12.7%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.6-0.99; both P = .03). The researchers noted there were no significant differences between home care and clinic care.

Potential limitations in the study included a lower-than-planned statistical power, 70% retention in the intervention arms, low generalizability of the findings, and lack of blinding on the part of research assistants as well as some improvement in asthma control and outcomes in the control group.

This study was funded in part by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Coauthors Nandini Shroff reported grants from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute; Michael S. Wolf reported grants from Eli Lilly; and Juan P. Wisnivesky reported personal fees from Sanofi, Quintiles, and Banook, and grants from Sanofi and Quorum. The other authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Federman AD et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2019; doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.1201.

Seizures induced by cortical stimulation are as effective as spontaneous seizures in identifying the epileptogenic zone, according to a study of patients with focal drug-resistant epilepsy.

“This finding might lead to a more time-efficient intracranial presurgical investigation of focal epilepsy by reducing the need to record spontaneous seizures,” wrote Carolina Cuello Oderiz, MD, formerly of McGill University, and her coauthors. The study was published in JAMA Neurology.

To determine if cortical stimulation-induced seizures and subsequent removal of the informed seizure-onset zone (SOZ) could lead to good surgical outcomes, the researchers selected 103 patients with focal drug-resistant epilepsy who underwent stereoelectroencephalography (SEEG). All participants had to have undergone cortical stimulation during SEEG, followed by open epilepsy surgical procedure with a minimum 1-year follow-up. In addition, complete brain imaging for exact localization of individual electrode contacts and resection cavity was also required.

Of the 103 patients, 59 (57.3%) had cortical stimulation-induced seizures. The percentage of these patients in the good outcome group was higher than in the poor outcome group (70.5% versus 47.5%). The median percentage of resected cortical stimulation-informed SOZ contacts was also higher in the good than in the poor outcome group (63.2% versus 33.3%). The results were similar for spontaneous seizures, where the median percentage of resected contacts of the spontaneous SOZ was 57.1% in the good outcome group and 32.7% in the poor outcome group.

The coauthors noted their study’s limitations, including the exclusion of many patients due to the need for hi-resolution neuroimaging and sufficient postsurgical imaging and follow-up. They added that the strict criteria were “key to the main outcome of this study,” however, and noted that generalizability of the data was supported by similar rates in excluded patients.

The study was supported by grants from the Canadian Institute of Health Research and the Savoy Epilepsy Foundation. Numerous authors reported receiving grants, personal fees, and other funding from organizations like the Montreal Neurological Institute and various pharmaceutical companies.

Dr. Cuello Oderiz is now at SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, N.Y.

SOURCE: Cuello Oderiz C et al. JAMA Neurol. 2019 Jun 10. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.1464.

Seizures induced by cortical stimulation are as effective as spontaneous seizures in identifying the epileptogenic zone, according to a study of patients with focal drug-resistant epilepsy.

“This finding might lead to a more time-efficient intracranial presurgical investigation of focal epilepsy by reducing the need to record spontaneous seizures,” wrote Carolina Cuello Oderiz, MD, formerly of McGill University, and her coauthors. The study was published in JAMA Neurology.

To determine if cortical stimulation-induced seizures and subsequent removal of the informed seizure-onset zone (SOZ) could lead to good surgical outcomes, the researchers selected 103 patients with focal drug-resistant epilepsy who underwent stereoelectroencephalography (SEEG). All participants had to have undergone cortical stimulation during SEEG, followed by open epilepsy surgical procedure with a minimum 1-year follow-up. In addition, complete brain imaging for exact localization of individual electrode contacts and resection cavity was also required.

Of the 103 patients, 59 (57.3%) had cortical stimulation-induced seizures. The percentage of these patients in the good outcome group was higher than in the poor outcome group (70.5% versus 47.5%). The median percentage of resected cortical stimulation-informed SOZ contacts was also higher in the good than in the poor outcome group (63.2% versus 33.3%). The results were similar for spontaneous seizures, where the median percentage of resected contacts of the spontaneous SOZ was 57.1% in the good outcome group and 32.7% in the poor outcome group.

The coauthors noted their study’s limitations, including the exclusion of many patients due to the need for hi-resolution neuroimaging and sufficient postsurgical imaging and follow-up. They added that the strict criteria were “key to the main outcome of this study,” however, and noted that generalizability of the data was supported by similar rates in excluded patients.

The study was supported by grants from the Canadian Institute of Health Research and the Savoy Epilepsy Foundation. Numerous authors reported receiving grants, personal fees, and other funding from organizations like the Montreal Neurological Institute and various pharmaceutical companies.

Dr. Cuello Oderiz is now at SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, N.Y.

SOURCE: Cuello Oderiz C et al. JAMA Neurol. 2019 Jun 10. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.1464.

Seizures induced by cortical stimulation are as effective as spontaneous seizures in identifying the epileptogenic zone, according to a study of patients with focal drug-resistant epilepsy.

“This finding might lead to a more time-efficient intracranial presurgical investigation of focal epilepsy by reducing the need to record spontaneous seizures,” wrote Carolina Cuello Oderiz, MD, formerly of McGill University, and her coauthors. The study was published in JAMA Neurology.

To determine if cortical stimulation-induced seizures and subsequent removal of the informed seizure-onset zone (SOZ) could lead to good surgical outcomes, the researchers selected 103 patients with focal drug-resistant epilepsy who underwent stereoelectroencephalography (SEEG). All participants had to have undergone cortical stimulation during SEEG, followed by open epilepsy surgical procedure with a minimum 1-year follow-up. In addition, complete brain imaging for exact localization of individual electrode contacts and resection cavity was also required.

Of the 103 patients, 59 (57.3%) had cortical stimulation-induced seizures. The percentage of these patients in the good outcome group was higher than in the poor outcome group (70.5% versus 47.5%). The median percentage of resected cortical stimulation-informed SOZ contacts was also higher in the good than in the poor outcome group (63.2% versus 33.3%). The results were similar for spontaneous seizures, where the median percentage of resected contacts of the spontaneous SOZ was 57.1% in the good outcome group and 32.7% in the poor outcome group.

The coauthors noted their study’s limitations, including the exclusion of many patients due to the need for hi-resolution neuroimaging and sufficient postsurgical imaging and follow-up. They added that the strict criteria were “key to the main outcome of this study,” however, and noted that generalizability of the data was supported by similar rates in excluded patients.

The study was supported by grants from the Canadian Institute of Health Research and the Savoy Epilepsy Foundation. Numerous authors reported receiving grants, personal fees, and other funding from organizations like the Montreal Neurological Institute and various pharmaceutical companies.

Dr. Cuello Oderiz is now at SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, N.Y.

SOURCE: Cuello Oderiz C et al. JAMA Neurol. 2019 Jun 10. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.1464.

EVIDENCE SUMMARY

A 2017 meta-analysis of 4 RCTs (869 patients) evaluated the effectiveness of prescribing spironolactone for patients with resistant hypertension, defined as above-goal blood pressure (BP) despite treatment with at least 3 BP-lowering drugs (at least 1 of which was a diuretic).¹ All 4 trials compared spironolactone 25 to 50 mg/d with placebo. Follow-up periods ranged from 8 to 16 weeks. The primary outcomes were systolic and diastolic BPs, which were evaluated in the office, at home, or with an ambulatory monitor.

Spironolactone markedly lowers systolic and diastolic BP

A statistically significant reduction in SBP occurred in the spironolactone group compared with the placebo group (weighted mean difference [WMD] = −16.7 mm Hg; 95% confidence interval [CI], −27.5 to −5.8 mm Hg). DBP also decreased (WMD = −6.11 mm Hg; 95% CI, −9.34 to −2.88 mm Hg).

Because significant heterogeneity was found in the initial pooled results (I² = 96% for SBP; I² = 85% for DBP), investigators performed an analysis that excluded a single study with a small sample size. The re-analysis continued to show significant reductions in SBP and DBP for spironolactone compared with placebo (SBP: WMD = −10.8 mm Hg; 95% CI, −13.16 to −8.43 mm Hg; DBP: WMD = −4.62 mm Hg; 95% CI, −6.05 to −3.2 mm Hg; I² = 35%), confirming that the excluded trial was the source of heterogeneity in the initial analysis and that spironolactone continued to significantly lower BP for the treatment group compared with controls.

Add-on treatment with spironolactone also reduces BP

A 2016 meta-analysis of 5 RCTs with a total of 553 patients examined the effectiveness of add-on treatment with spironolactone (25-50 mg/d) for patients with resistant hypertension, defined as failure to achieve BP < 140/90 mm Hg despite treatment with 3 or more BP-lowering drugs, including one diuretic.² Spironolactone was compared with placebo in 4 trials and with ramipril in the remaining study. The follow-up periods were 8 to 16 weeks. Researchers separated BP outcomes into 24-hour ambulatory systolic/diastolic BPs and office systolic/diastolic BPs.

The 24-hour ambulatory BPs were significantly lower in the spironolactone group compared with the control group (24-hour SBP: WMD = −10.5 mm Hg; 95% CI, −12.3 to −8.71 mm Hg; 24-hour DBP: WMD = −4.09 mm Hg; 95% CI, −5.28 to −2.91 mm Hg). No significant heterogeneity was noted in these analyses.

Office-based BPs also were markedly reduced in spironolactone groups compared with controls (office SBP: WMD = −17 mm Hg; 95% CI, −25 to −8.95 mm Hg); office DBP: WMD = −6.18 mm Hg; 95% CI, −9.3 to −3.05 mm Hg). Because the office-based BP data showed significant heterogeneity (I² = 94% for SBP and 84.2% for DBP), 2 studies determined to be of lower quality caused by lack of detailed methodology were excluded from analysis, yielding continued statistically significant reductions in SBP (WMD = −11.7 mm Hg; 95% CI, −14.4 to −8.95 mm Hg) and DBP (WMD = −4.07 mm Hg; 95% CI, −5.6 to −2.54 mm Hg) compared with controls. Heterogeneity also decreased when the 2 studies were excluded (I² = 21% for SBP and I² = 59% for DBP).

How spironolactone compares with alternative drugs

A 2017 meta-analysis of 5 RCTs with 662 patients evaluated the effectiveness of spironolactone (25-50 mg/d) on resistant hypertension in patients taking 3 medications compared with a control group—placebo in 3 trials, placebo or bisoprolol (5-10 mg) in 1 trial, and an alternative treatment (candesartan 8 mg, atenolol 100 mg, or alpha methyldopa 750 mg) in 1 trial.³ Follow-up periods ranged from 4 to 16 weeks. Researchers evaluated changes in office and 24-hour ambulatory or home BP and completed separate analyses of pooled data for spironolactone compared with placebo groups, and spironolactone compared with alternative treatment groups.

Continue to: Investigators found a statistically significant...

Investigators found a statistically significant reduction in office SBP and DBP among patients taking spironolactone compared with control groups (SBP: WMD = −15.7 mm Hg; 95% CI, −20.5 to −11 mm Hg; DBP: WMD = −6.21 mm Hg; 95% CI, −8.33 to −4.1 mm Hg). A significant decrease also occurred in 24-hour ambulatory home SBP and DBP (SBP: MD = −8.7 mm Hg; 95% CI, −8.79 to −8.62 mm Hg; DBP: WMD = −4.12 mm Hg; 95% CI, −4.48 to −3.75 mm Hg).

Spironolactone reduces systolic blood pressure by 11 to 17 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure by up to 6 mm Hg in patients with resistant hypertension taking 3 or more medications.

Patients treated with spironolactone showed a marked decrease in home SBP compared with alternative drug groups (WMD = −4.5 mm Hg; 95% CI, −4.63 to −4.37 mm Hg), but alternative drugs reduced home DBP significantly more than spironolactone (WMD = 0.6 mm Hg; 95% CI, 0.55-0.65 mm Hg). Marked heterogeneity was found in these analyses, and the authors also noted that reductions in SBP are more clinically relevant than decreases in DBP.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The 2017 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology evidence-based guideline recommends considering adding a mineralocorticoid receptor agonist to treatment regimens for resistant hypertension when: office BP remains ≥ 130/80 mm Hg; the patient is prescribed at least 3 antihypertensive agents at optimal doses including a diuretic; pseudoresistance (nonadherence, inaccurate measurements) is excluded; reversible lifestyle factors have been addressed; substances that interfere with BP treatment (such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and oral contraceptive pills) are excluded; and screening for secondary causes of hypertension is complete.⁴

The United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) evidence-based guideline recommends considering spironolactone 25 mg/d to treat resistant hypertension if the patient’s potassium level is 4.5 mmol/L or lower and BP is higher than 140/90 mm Hg despite treatment with an optimal or best-tolerated dose of an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin II receptor blocker plus a calcium-channel blocker and diuretic.⁵

Editor’s takeaway

The evidence from multiple RCTs convincingly shows the effectiveness of spironolactone. Despite the SOR of C because of a disease-oriented outcome, we do treat to blood pressure goals, and therefore, spironolactone is a good option.

EVIDENCE SUMMARY

A 2017 meta-analysis of 4 RCTs (869 patients) evaluated the effectiveness of prescribing spironolactone for patients with resistant hypertension, defined as above-goal blood pressure (BP) despite treatment with at least 3 BP-lowering drugs (at least 1 of which was a diuretic).¹ All 4 trials compared spironolactone 25 to 50 mg/d with placebo. Follow-up periods ranged from 8 to 16 weeks. The primary outcomes were systolic and diastolic BPs, which were evaluated in the office, at home, or with an ambulatory monitor.

Spironolactone markedly lowers systolic and diastolic BP

A statistically significant reduction in SBP occurred in the spironolactone group compared with the placebo group (weighted mean difference [WMD] = −16.7 mm Hg; 95% confidence interval [CI], −27.5 to −5.8 mm Hg). DBP also decreased (WMD = −6.11 mm Hg; 95% CI, −9.34 to −2.88 mm Hg).

Because significant heterogeneity was found in the initial pooled results (I² = 96% for SBP; I² = 85% for DBP), investigators performed an analysis that excluded a single study with a small sample size. The re-analysis continued to show significant reductions in SBP and DBP for spironolactone compared with placebo (SBP: WMD = −10.8 mm Hg; 95% CI, −13.16 to −8.43 mm Hg; DBP: WMD = −4.62 mm Hg; 95% CI, −6.05 to −3.2 mm Hg; I² = 35%), confirming that the excluded trial was the source of heterogeneity in the initial analysis and that spironolactone continued to significantly lower BP for the treatment group compared with controls.

Add-on treatment with spironolactone also reduces BP

A 2016 meta-analysis of 5 RCTs with a total of 553 patients examined the effectiveness of add-on treatment with spironolactone (25-50 mg/d) for patients with resistant hypertension, defined as failure to achieve BP < 140/90 mm Hg despite treatment with 3 or more BP-lowering drugs, including one diuretic.² Spironolactone was compared with placebo in 4 trials and with ramipril in the remaining study. The follow-up periods were 8 to 16 weeks. Researchers separated BP outcomes into 24-hour ambulatory systolic/diastolic BPs and office systolic/diastolic BPs.

The 24-hour ambulatory BPs were significantly lower in the spironolactone group compared with the control group (24-hour SBP: WMD = −10.5 mm Hg; 95% CI, −12.3 to −8.71 mm Hg; 24-hour DBP: WMD = −4.09 mm Hg; 95% CI, −5.28 to −2.91 mm Hg). No significant heterogeneity was noted in these analyses.

Office-based BPs also were markedly reduced in spironolactone groups compared with controls (office SBP: WMD = −17 mm Hg; 95% CI, −25 to −8.95 mm Hg); office DBP: WMD = −6.18 mm Hg; 95% CI, −9.3 to −3.05 mm Hg). Because the office-based BP data showed significant heterogeneity (I² = 94% for SBP and 84.2% for DBP), 2 studies determined to be of lower quality caused by lack of detailed methodology were excluded from analysis, yielding continued statistically significant reductions in SBP (WMD = −11.7 mm Hg; 95% CI, −14.4 to −8.95 mm Hg) and DBP (WMD = −4.07 mm Hg; 95% CI, −5.6 to −2.54 mm Hg) compared with controls. Heterogeneity also decreased when the 2 studies were excluded (I² = 21% for SBP and I² = 59% for DBP).

How spironolactone compares with alternative drugs

A 2017 meta-analysis of 5 RCTs with 662 patients evaluated the effectiveness of spironolactone (25-50 mg/d) on resistant hypertension in patients taking 3 medications compared with a control group—placebo in 3 trials, placebo or bisoprolol (5-10 mg) in 1 trial, and an alternative treatment (candesartan 8 mg, atenolol 100 mg, or alpha methyldopa 750 mg) in 1 trial.³ Follow-up periods ranged from 4 to 16 weeks. Researchers evaluated changes in office and 24-hour ambulatory or home BP and completed separate analyses of pooled data for spironolactone compared with placebo groups, and spironolactone compared with alternative treatment groups.

Continue to: Investigators found a statistically significant...

Investigators found a statistically significant reduction in office SBP and DBP among patients taking spironolactone compared with control groups (SBP: WMD = −15.7 mm Hg; 95% CI, −20.5 to −11 mm Hg; DBP: WMD = −6.21 mm Hg; 95% CI, −8.33 to −4.1 mm Hg). A significant decrease also occurred in 24-hour ambulatory home SBP and DBP (SBP: MD = −8.7 mm Hg; 95% CI, −8.79 to −8.62 mm Hg; DBP: WMD = −4.12 mm Hg; 95% CI, −4.48 to −3.75 mm Hg).

Spironolactone reduces systolic blood pressure by 11 to 17 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure by up to 6 mm Hg in patients with resistant hypertension taking 3 or more medications.

Patients treated with spironolactone showed a marked decrease in home SBP compared with alternative drug groups (WMD = −4.5 mm Hg; 95% CI, −4.63 to −4.37 mm Hg), but alternative drugs reduced home DBP significantly more than spironolactone (WMD = 0.6 mm Hg; 95% CI, 0.55-0.65 mm Hg). Marked heterogeneity was found in these analyses, and the authors also noted that reductions in SBP are more clinically relevant than decreases in DBP.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The 2017 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology evidence-based guideline recommends considering adding a mineralocorticoid receptor agonist to treatment regimens for resistant hypertension when: office BP remains ≥ 130/80 mm Hg; the patient is prescribed at least 3 antihypertensive agents at optimal doses including a diuretic; pseudoresistance (nonadherence, inaccurate measurements) is excluded; reversible lifestyle factors have been addressed; substances that interfere with BP treatment (such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and oral contraceptive pills) are excluded; and screening for secondary causes of hypertension is complete.⁴

The United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) evidence-based guideline recommends considering spironolactone 25 mg/d to treat resistant hypertension if the patient’s potassium level is 4.5 mmol/L or lower and BP is higher than 140/90 mm Hg despite treatment with an optimal or best-tolerated dose of an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin II receptor blocker plus a calcium-channel blocker and diuretic.⁵

Editor’s takeaway

The evidence from multiple RCTs convincingly shows the effectiveness of spironolactone. Despite the SOR of C because of a disease-oriented outcome, we do treat to blood pressure goals, and therefore, spironolactone is a good option.

EVIDENCE SUMMARY

A 2017 meta-analysis of 4 RCTs (869 patients) evaluated the effectiveness of prescribing spironolactone for patients with resistant hypertension, defined as above-goal blood pressure (BP) despite treatment with at least 3 BP-lowering drugs (at least 1 of which was a diuretic).¹ All 4 trials compared spironolactone 25 to 50 mg/d with placebo. Follow-up periods ranged from 8 to 16 weeks. The primary outcomes were systolic and diastolic BPs, which were evaluated in the office, at home, or with an ambulatory monitor.

Spironolactone markedly lowers systolic and diastolic BP

A statistically significant reduction in SBP occurred in the spironolactone group compared with the placebo group (weighted mean difference [WMD] = −16.7 mm Hg; 95% confidence interval [CI], −27.5 to −5.8 mm Hg). DBP also decreased (WMD = −6.11 mm Hg; 95% CI, −9.34 to −2.88 mm Hg).

Because significant heterogeneity was found in the initial pooled results (I² = 96% for SBP; I² = 85% for DBP), investigators performed an analysis that excluded a single study with a small sample size. The re-analysis continued to show significant reductions in SBP and DBP for spironolactone compared with placebo (SBP: WMD = −10.8 mm Hg; 95% CI, −13.16 to −8.43 mm Hg; DBP: WMD = −4.62 mm Hg; 95% CI, −6.05 to −3.2 mm Hg; I² = 35%), confirming that the excluded trial was the source of heterogeneity in the initial analysis and that spironolactone continued to significantly lower BP for the treatment group compared with controls.

Add-on treatment with spironolactone also reduces BP

A 2016 meta-analysis of 5 RCTs with a total of 553 patients examined the effectiveness of add-on treatment with spironolactone (25-50 mg/d) for patients with resistant hypertension, defined as failure to achieve BP < 140/90 mm Hg despite treatment with 3 or more BP-lowering drugs, including one diuretic.² Spironolactone was compared with placebo in 4 trials and with ramipril in the remaining study. The follow-up periods were 8 to 16 weeks. Researchers separated BP outcomes into 24-hour ambulatory systolic/diastolic BPs and office systolic/diastolic BPs.

The 24-hour ambulatory BPs were significantly lower in the spironolactone group compared with the control group (24-hour SBP: WMD = −10.5 mm Hg; 95% CI, −12.3 to −8.71 mm Hg; 24-hour DBP: WMD = −4.09 mm Hg; 95% CI, −5.28 to −2.91 mm Hg). No significant heterogeneity was noted in these analyses.

Office-based BPs also were markedly reduced in spironolactone groups compared with controls (office SBP: WMD = −17 mm Hg; 95% CI, −25 to −8.95 mm Hg); office DBP: WMD = −6.18 mm Hg; 95% CI, −9.3 to −3.05 mm Hg). Because the office-based BP data showed significant heterogeneity (I² = 94% for SBP and 84.2% for DBP), 2 studies determined to be of lower quality caused by lack of detailed methodology were excluded from analysis, yielding continued statistically significant reductions in SBP (WMD = −11.7 mm Hg; 95% CI, −14.4 to −8.95 mm Hg) and DBP (WMD = −4.07 mm Hg; 95% CI, −5.6 to −2.54 mm Hg) compared with controls. Heterogeneity also decreased when the 2 studies were excluded (I² = 21% for SBP and I² = 59% for DBP).

How spironolactone compares with alternative drugs

A 2017 meta-analysis of 5 RCTs with 662 patients evaluated the effectiveness of spironolactone (25-50 mg/d) on resistant hypertension in patients taking 3 medications compared with a control group—placebo in 3 trials, placebo or bisoprolol (5-10 mg) in 1 trial, and an alternative treatment (candesartan 8 mg, atenolol 100 mg, or alpha methyldopa 750 mg) in 1 trial.³ Follow-up periods ranged from 4 to 16 weeks. Researchers evaluated changes in office and 24-hour ambulatory or home BP and completed separate analyses of pooled data for spironolactone compared with placebo groups, and spironolactone compared with alternative treatment groups.

Continue to: Investigators found a statistically significant...

Investigators found a statistically significant reduction in office SBP and DBP among patients taking spironolactone compared with control groups (SBP: WMD = −15.7 mm Hg; 95% CI, −20.5 to −11 mm Hg; DBP: WMD = −6.21 mm Hg; 95% CI, −8.33 to −4.1 mm Hg). A significant decrease also occurred in 24-hour ambulatory home SBP and DBP (SBP: MD = −8.7 mm Hg; 95% CI, −8.79 to −8.62 mm Hg; DBP: WMD = −4.12 mm Hg; 95% CI, −4.48 to −3.75 mm Hg).

Spironolactone reduces systolic blood pressure by 11 to 17 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure by up to 6 mm Hg in patients with resistant hypertension taking 3 or more medications.

Patients treated with spironolactone showed a marked decrease in home SBP compared with alternative drug groups (WMD = −4.5 mm Hg; 95% CI, −4.63 to −4.37 mm Hg), but alternative drugs reduced home DBP significantly more than spironolactone (WMD = 0.6 mm Hg; 95% CI, 0.55-0.65 mm Hg). Marked heterogeneity was found in these analyses, and the authors also noted that reductions in SBP are more clinically relevant than decreases in DBP.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The 2017 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology evidence-based guideline recommends considering adding a mineralocorticoid receptor agonist to treatment regimens for resistant hypertension when: office BP remains ≥ 130/80 mm Hg; the patient is prescribed at least 3 antihypertensive agents at optimal doses including a diuretic; pseudoresistance (nonadherence, inaccurate measurements) is excluded; reversible lifestyle factors have been addressed; substances that interfere with BP treatment (such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and oral contraceptive pills) are excluded; and screening for secondary causes of hypertension is complete.⁴

The United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) evidence-based guideline recommends considering spironolactone 25 mg/d to treat resistant hypertension if the patient’s potassium level is 4.5 mmol/L or lower and BP is higher than 140/90 mm Hg despite treatment with an optimal or best-tolerated dose of an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin II receptor blocker plus a calcium-channel blocker and diuretic.⁵

Editor’s takeaway

The evidence from multiple RCTs convincingly shows the effectiveness of spironolactone. Despite the SOR of C because of a disease-oriented outcome, we do treat to blood pressure goals, and therefore, spironolactone is a good option.

THE CASE

A 4-year-old girl presented to her pediatrician with genital discomfort and dysuria of 6 months’ duration. The patient’s mother said that 3 days earlier, she noticed a tear near the child’s clitoris and a scab on the labia minora that the mother attributed to minor trauma from scratching. The pediatrician was concerned about genital trauma from sexual abuse and referred the patient to the emergency department, where a report with child protective services (CPS) was filed. The mother reported that the patient and her 8-year-old sibling spent 3 to 4 hours a day with a babysitter, who was always supervised, and the parents had no concerns about possible sexual abuse.

Physical examination by our institution’s Child Protection Team revealed clitoral hood swelling with subepithelial hemorrhages, a blood blister on the right labia minora, a fissure and subepithelial hemorrhages on the posterior fourchette, and a thin depigmented figure-of-eight lesion around the vulva and anus.

THE DIAGNOSIS

Since the clinical findings were consistent with prepubertal lichen sclerosus (LS), the CPS case was closed and the patient was referred to Pediatric Gynecology. Treatment with high-potency topical steroids was initiated with clobetasol ointment 0.05% twice daily for 2 weeks, then once daily for 2 weeks. She was then switched to triamcinolone ointment 0.01% twice daily for 2 weeks, then once daily for 2 weeks. These treatments were enough to stop the LS flare and decrease the anogenital itching.

DISCUSSION

Lichen sclerosus is a chronic inflammatory skin disease that primarily presents in the anogenital region; however, extragenital lesions on the upper extremities, thighs, and breasts have been reported in 15% to 20% of patients.¹ Lichen sclerosus most commonly affects females as a result of low estrogen and may occur during puberty or following menopause, but it also is seen in males.^1,2 The estimated prevalence of LS in prepubertal girls is 1 in 900.³ The effects of increased estrogen exposure on LS during puberty are not entirely clear. Lichen sclerosus previously was thought to improve with puberty, since it is not as common in women of reproductive age; however, studies have shown persistent symptoms after menarche in some patients.^4-6

The pathogenesis of LS is multifactorial, likely with an autoimmune component, as it often is associated with other autoimmune findings such as thyroiditis, alopecia, pernicious anemia, and vitiligo.² Diagnosis of prepubertal LS usually is made based on a review of the patient’s history and clinical examination. Presenting symptoms may include pruritus, skin irritation, vulvar pain, dysuria, bleeding from excoriations, fissures, and constipation.^1,3,7

On physical examination, LS can present on the anogenital skin as smooth white spots or wrinkled, blotchy, atrophic patches. The skin around the vaginal opening and anus is thin and often is described as resembling parchment or cigarette paper in a figure-of-eight pattern (FIGURE 1A). Vulvar and anal fissures and subepithelial hemorrhages with the appearance of blood blisters also can be found (FIGURE 1B).⁸ Affected areas are fragile and susceptible to minor trauma, which may result in bruising or bleeding (FIGURE 1C).

Over time, scarring can occur and may result in disruption of the anogenital architecture—specifically loss of the labia minora, narrowing of the introitus, and burying of the clitoris.^1,2 These changes can be similar to the scarring seen in postmenopausal women with LS.

Continue to: The differential diagnosis...

The differential diagnosis for prepubertal LS includes vitiligo, lichen planus, lichen simplex chronicus, psoriasis, eczema, vulvovaginitis, contact dermatitis, and trauma.^2,7 On average, it takes 1 to 2 years after onset of symptoms before a correct diagnosis of prepubertal LS is made, and trauma and/or sexual abuse often are first suspected.^7,9 For clinicians who are unfamiliar with prepubertal LS, the clinical findings of anogenital bruising and bleeding understandably may be suggestive of abuse. It is important to note that diagnosis of LS does not preclude the possibility of sexual abuse; in some cases, LS can be triggered or exacerbated by anogenital trauma, known as the Koebner phenomenon.²

Treatment. After the diagnosis of prepubertal LS is established, the goals of treatment are to provide symptom relief and prevent scarring of the external genitalia. To our knowledge, there have been no randomized controlled trials for treatment of LS in prepubertal girls. In general, acute symptoms are treated with high-potency topical steroids, such as clobetasol propionate or betamethasone valerate, and treatment regimens are variable.⁷

LS has an unpredictable clinical course and there often are recurrences that require repeat courses of topical steroids.⁹ Since concurrent bacterial infection is common,¹⁰ genital cultures should be obtained prior to initiation of topical steroids if an infection is suspected.

Diagnosis of lichen sclerosus should not preclude screening for sexual abuse, as symptoms can be triggered or exacerbated by trauma to the area.

Topical calcineurin inhibitors have been used successfully, but proof of their effectiveness is limited to case reports in the literature.⁷ Surgical treatment of LS typically is reserved for complications associated with symptomatic adhesions that are refractory to medical management.^7,11 Vulvar hygiene is paramount to symptom control, and topical emollients can be used to manage minor irritation.^7,8 In our patient, clobetasol and triamcinolone ointments were enough to stop the LS flare and decrease the anogenital itching.

THE TAKEAWAY

Although LS has very characteristic skin findings, the diagnosis continues to be challenging for physicians who are unfamiliar with this condition. Failure to recognize prepubertal LS not only delays diagnosis and treatment but also may lead to repeated genital examinations and investigation by CPS for suspected sexual abuse. As with any genital complaint in a prepubertal girl, diagnosis of LS should not preclude appropriate screening for sexual abuse. Although providers should be vigilant about potential sexual abuse, familiarity with skin conditions that mimic genital trauma is essential.

CORRESPONDENCE
Monica Rosen, MD, L4000 Women’s Hospital, 1500 E Medical Center Drive, SPC 5276 Ann Arbor, MI 48109; mwoll@med.umich.edu

THE CASE

A 4-year-old girl presented to her pediatrician with genital discomfort and dysuria of 6 months’ duration. The patient’s mother said that 3 days earlier, she noticed a tear near the child’s clitoris and a scab on the labia minora that the mother attributed to minor trauma from scratching. The pediatrician was concerned about genital trauma from sexual abuse and referred the patient to the emergency department, where a report with child protective services (CPS) was filed. The mother reported that the patient and her 8-year-old sibling spent 3 to 4 hours a day with a babysitter, who was always supervised, and the parents had no concerns about possible sexual abuse.

Physical examination by our institution’s Child Protection Team revealed clitoral hood swelling with subepithelial hemorrhages, a blood blister on the right labia minora, a fissure and subepithelial hemorrhages on the posterior fourchette, and a thin depigmented figure-of-eight lesion around the vulva and anus.

THE DIAGNOSIS

Since the clinical findings were consistent with prepubertal lichen sclerosus (LS), the CPS case was closed and the patient was referred to Pediatric Gynecology. Treatment with high-potency topical steroids was initiated with clobetasol ointment 0.05% twice daily for 2 weeks, then once daily for 2 weeks. She was then switched to triamcinolone ointment 0.01% twice daily for 2 weeks, then once daily for 2 weeks. These treatments were enough to stop the LS flare and decrease the anogenital itching.

DISCUSSION

Lichen sclerosus is a chronic inflammatory skin disease that primarily presents in the anogenital region; however, extragenital lesions on the upper extremities, thighs, and breasts have been reported in 15% to 20% of patients.¹ Lichen sclerosus most commonly affects females as a result of low estrogen and may occur during puberty or following menopause, but it also is seen in males.^1,2 The estimated prevalence of LS in prepubertal girls is 1 in 900.³ The effects of increased estrogen exposure on LS during puberty are not entirely clear. Lichen sclerosus previously was thought to improve with puberty, since it is not as common in women of reproductive age; however, studies have shown persistent symptoms after menarche in some patients.^4-6

The pathogenesis of LS is multifactorial, likely with an autoimmune component, as it often is associated with other autoimmune findings such as thyroiditis, alopecia, pernicious anemia, and vitiligo.² Diagnosis of prepubertal LS usually is made based on a review of the patient’s history and clinical examination. Presenting symptoms may include pruritus, skin irritation, vulvar pain, dysuria, bleeding from excoriations, fissures, and constipation.^1,3,7

On physical examination, LS can present on the anogenital skin as smooth white spots or wrinkled, blotchy, atrophic patches. The skin around the vaginal opening and anus is thin and often is described as resembling parchment or cigarette paper in a figure-of-eight pattern (FIGURE 1A). Vulvar and anal fissures and subepithelial hemorrhages with the appearance of blood blisters also can be found (FIGURE 1B).⁸ Affected areas are fragile and susceptible to minor trauma, which may result in bruising or bleeding (FIGURE 1C).

Over time, scarring can occur and may result in disruption of the anogenital architecture—specifically loss of the labia minora, narrowing of the introitus, and burying of the clitoris.^1,2 These changes can be similar to the scarring seen in postmenopausal women with LS.

Continue to: The differential diagnosis...

The differential diagnosis for prepubertal LS includes vitiligo, lichen planus, lichen simplex chronicus, psoriasis, eczema, vulvovaginitis, contact dermatitis, and trauma.^2,7 On average, it takes 1 to 2 years after onset of symptoms before a correct diagnosis of prepubertal LS is made, and trauma and/or sexual abuse often are first suspected.^7,9 For clinicians who are unfamiliar with prepubertal LS, the clinical findings of anogenital bruising and bleeding understandably may be suggestive of abuse. It is important to note that diagnosis of LS does not preclude the possibility of sexual abuse; in some cases, LS can be triggered or exacerbated by anogenital trauma, known as the Koebner phenomenon.²

Treatment. After the diagnosis of prepubertal LS is established, the goals of treatment are to provide symptom relief and prevent scarring of the external genitalia. To our knowledge, there have been no randomized controlled trials for treatment of LS in prepubertal girls. In general, acute symptoms are treated with high-potency topical steroids, such as clobetasol propionate or betamethasone valerate, and treatment regimens are variable.⁷

LS has an unpredictable clinical course and there often are recurrences that require repeat courses of topical steroids.⁹ Since concurrent bacterial infection is common,¹⁰ genital cultures should be obtained prior to initiation of topical steroids if an infection is suspected.

Diagnosis of lichen sclerosus should not preclude screening for sexual abuse, as symptoms can be triggered or exacerbated by trauma to the area.

Topical calcineurin inhibitors have been used successfully, but proof of their effectiveness is limited to case reports in the literature.⁷ Surgical treatment of LS typically is reserved for complications associated with symptomatic adhesions that are refractory to medical management.^7,11 Vulvar hygiene is paramount to symptom control, and topical emollients can be used to manage minor irritation.^7,8 In our patient, clobetasol and triamcinolone ointments were enough to stop the LS flare and decrease the anogenital itching.

THE TAKEAWAY

Although LS has very characteristic skin findings, the diagnosis continues to be challenging for physicians who are unfamiliar with this condition. Failure to recognize prepubertal LS not only delays diagnosis and treatment but also may lead to repeated genital examinations and investigation by CPS for suspected sexual abuse. As with any genital complaint in a prepubertal girl, diagnosis of LS should not preclude appropriate screening for sexual abuse. Although providers should be vigilant about potential sexual abuse, familiarity with skin conditions that mimic genital trauma is essential.

CORRESPONDENCE
Monica Rosen, MD, L4000 Women’s Hospital, 1500 E Medical Center Drive, SPC 5276 Ann Arbor, MI 48109; mwoll@med.umich.edu

THE CASE

A 4-year-old girl presented to her pediatrician with genital discomfort and dysuria of 6 months’ duration. The patient’s mother said that 3 days earlier, she noticed a tear near the child’s clitoris and a scab on the labia minora that the mother attributed to minor trauma from scratching. The pediatrician was concerned about genital trauma from sexual abuse and referred the patient to the emergency department, where a report with child protective services (CPS) was filed. The mother reported that the patient and her 8-year-old sibling spent 3 to 4 hours a day with a babysitter, who was always supervised, and the parents had no concerns about possible sexual abuse.

Physical examination by our institution’s Child Protection Team revealed clitoral hood swelling with subepithelial hemorrhages, a blood blister on the right labia minora, a fissure and subepithelial hemorrhages on the posterior fourchette, and a thin depigmented figure-of-eight lesion around the vulva and anus.

THE DIAGNOSIS

Since the clinical findings were consistent with prepubertal lichen sclerosus (LS), the CPS case was closed and the patient was referred to Pediatric Gynecology. Treatment with high-potency topical steroids was initiated with clobetasol ointment 0.05% twice daily for 2 weeks, then once daily for 2 weeks. She was then switched to triamcinolone ointment 0.01% twice daily for 2 weeks, then once daily for 2 weeks. These treatments were enough to stop the LS flare and decrease the anogenital itching.

DISCUSSION

Lichen sclerosus is a chronic inflammatory skin disease that primarily presents in the anogenital region; however, extragenital lesions on the upper extremities, thighs, and breasts have been reported in 15% to 20% of patients.¹ Lichen sclerosus most commonly affects females as a result of low estrogen and may occur during puberty or following menopause, but it also is seen in males.^1,2 The estimated prevalence of LS in prepubertal girls is 1 in 900.³ The effects of increased estrogen exposure on LS during puberty are not entirely clear. Lichen sclerosus previously was thought to improve with puberty, since it is not as common in women of reproductive age; however, studies have shown persistent symptoms after menarche in some patients.^4-6

The pathogenesis of LS is multifactorial, likely with an autoimmune component, as it often is associated with other autoimmune findings such as thyroiditis, alopecia, pernicious anemia, and vitiligo.² Diagnosis of prepubertal LS usually is made based on a review of the patient’s history and clinical examination. Presenting symptoms may include pruritus, skin irritation, vulvar pain, dysuria, bleeding from excoriations, fissures, and constipation.^1,3,7

On physical examination, LS can present on the anogenital skin as smooth white spots or wrinkled, blotchy, atrophic patches. The skin around the vaginal opening and anus is thin and often is described as resembling parchment or cigarette paper in a figure-of-eight pattern (FIGURE 1A). Vulvar and anal fissures and subepithelial hemorrhages with the appearance of blood blisters also can be found (FIGURE 1B).⁸ Affected areas are fragile and susceptible to minor trauma, which may result in bruising or bleeding (FIGURE 1C).

Over time, scarring can occur and may result in disruption of the anogenital architecture—specifically loss of the labia minora, narrowing of the introitus, and burying of the clitoris.^1,2 These changes can be similar to the scarring seen in postmenopausal women with LS.

Continue to: The differential diagnosis...

The differential diagnosis for prepubertal LS includes vitiligo, lichen planus, lichen simplex chronicus, psoriasis, eczema, vulvovaginitis, contact dermatitis, and trauma.^2,7 On average, it takes 1 to 2 years after onset of symptoms before a correct diagnosis of prepubertal LS is made, and trauma and/or sexual abuse often are first suspected.^7,9 For clinicians who are unfamiliar with prepubertal LS, the clinical findings of anogenital bruising and bleeding understandably may be suggestive of abuse. It is important to note that diagnosis of LS does not preclude the possibility of sexual abuse; in some cases, LS can be triggered or exacerbated by anogenital trauma, known as the Koebner phenomenon.²

Treatment. After the diagnosis of prepubertal LS is established, the goals of treatment are to provide symptom relief and prevent scarring of the external genitalia. To our knowledge, there have been no randomized controlled trials for treatment of LS in prepubertal girls. In general, acute symptoms are treated with high-potency topical steroids, such as clobetasol propionate or betamethasone valerate, and treatment regimens are variable.⁷

LS has an unpredictable clinical course and there often are recurrences that require repeat courses of topical steroids.⁹ Since concurrent bacterial infection is common,¹⁰ genital cultures should be obtained prior to initiation of topical steroids if an infection is suspected.

Diagnosis of lichen sclerosus should not preclude screening for sexual abuse, as symptoms can be triggered or exacerbated by trauma to the area.

Topical calcineurin inhibitors have been used successfully, but proof of their effectiveness is limited to case reports in the literature.⁷ Surgical treatment of LS typically is reserved for complications associated with symptomatic adhesions that are refractory to medical management.^7,11 Vulvar hygiene is paramount to symptom control, and topical emollients can be used to manage minor irritation.^7,8 In our patient, clobetasol and triamcinolone ointments were enough to stop the LS flare and decrease the anogenital itching.

THE TAKEAWAY

Although LS has very characteristic skin findings, the diagnosis continues to be challenging for physicians who are unfamiliar with this condition. Failure to recognize prepubertal LS not only delays diagnosis and treatment but also may lead to repeated genital examinations and investigation by CPS for suspected sexual abuse. As with any genital complaint in a prepubertal girl, diagnosis of LS should not preclude appropriate screening for sexual abuse. Although providers should be vigilant about potential sexual abuse, familiarity with skin conditions that mimic genital trauma is essential.

CORRESPONDENCE
Monica Rosen, MD, L4000 Women’s Hospital, 1500 E Medical Center Drive, SPC 5276 Ann Arbor, MI 48109; mwoll@med.umich.edu

In this issue of JFP, Rajesh and colleagues present a scholarly review that details why it makes sense to integrate behavioral health into primary care. There is strong evidence that the presence of behavioral health care managers in primary care practices improves outcomes for patients with anxiety and depression. The mental health–trained care manager serves as a link between the primary care physician and mental health professional and can provide psychotherapy, as well.

A more integrated model, however, includes a full range of behavioral health services on site. Although not as well studied, co-location is a powerful pairing of physical and mental health treatment. Primary care physicians benefit because referral and feedback are immediate and seamless through warm hand-offs and easy access to medical and mental health notes in a common medical record. Patients benefit because they are more likely to engage with treatment when the physician introduces them to the mental health professional and expresses confidence in his or her abilities.

Patients are more likely to engage with treatment when the physician introduces them to the mental health professional and expresses confidence in his or her abilities.

We know that trust improves treatment outcomes. What better way to encourage trust than with a warm smile and handshake when a patient is most vulnerable? In addition, integrating behavioral health into primary care helps patients avoid the stigma of going to a “mental health clinic.”

Integrating medical and mental health professionals into one practice is hardly a new idea and is spreading quickly in some parts of the country. It is perhaps no coincidence that Rajesh refers to a study of behavioral health integration in Colorado family practice offices. Recently, I (JH) presented a CME program to family physicians in Colorado, and, after reviewing recent studies of anxiety and depression, I asked how many participants had mental health professionals working in their practices. A full third raised their hands.

I (JH) had an excellent psychologist in my practice as far back as 1980, and he was an integral member of the care team. It seems that behavioral health integration has been a long time coming, and as a health care community we would be wise to spread this model of whole-person care to all primary care practices.

In this issue of JFP, Rajesh and colleagues present a scholarly review that details why it makes sense to integrate behavioral health into primary care. There is strong evidence that the presence of behavioral health care managers in primary care practices improves outcomes for patients with anxiety and depression. The mental health–trained care manager serves as a link between the primary care physician and mental health professional and can provide psychotherapy, as well.

A more integrated model, however, includes a full range of behavioral health services on site. Although not as well studied, co-location is a powerful pairing of physical and mental health treatment. Primary care physicians benefit because referral and feedback are immediate and seamless through warm hand-offs and easy access to medical and mental health notes in a common medical record. Patients benefit because they are more likely to engage with treatment when the physician introduces them to the mental health professional and expresses confidence in his or her abilities.

Patients are more likely to engage with treatment when the physician introduces them to the mental health professional and expresses confidence in his or her abilities.

We know that trust improves treatment outcomes. What better way to encourage trust than with a warm smile and handshake when a patient is most vulnerable? In addition, integrating behavioral health into primary care helps patients avoid the stigma of going to a “mental health clinic.”

Integrating medical and mental health professionals into one practice is hardly a new idea and is spreading quickly in some parts of the country. It is perhaps no coincidence that Rajesh refers to a study of behavioral health integration in Colorado family practice offices. Recently, I (JH) presented a CME program to family physicians in Colorado, and, after reviewing recent studies of anxiety and depression, I asked how many participants had mental health professionals working in their practices. A full third raised their hands.

I (JH) had an excellent psychologist in my practice as far back as 1980, and he was an integral member of the care team. It seems that behavioral health integration has been a long time coming, and as a health care community we would be wise to spread this model of whole-person care to all primary care practices.

In this issue of JFP, Rajesh and colleagues present a scholarly review that details why it makes sense to integrate behavioral health into primary care. There is strong evidence that the presence of behavioral health care managers in primary care practices improves outcomes for patients with anxiety and depression. The mental health–trained care manager serves as a link between the primary care physician and mental health professional and can provide psychotherapy, as well.

A more integrated model, however, includes a full range of behavioral health services on site. Although not as well studied, co-location is a powerful pairing of physical and mental health treatment. Primary care physicians benefit because referral and feedback are immediate and seamless through warm hand-offs and easy access to medical and mental health notes in a common medical record. Patients benefit because they are more likely to engage with treatment when the physician introduces them to the mental health professional and expresses confidence in his or her abilities.

Patients are more likely to engage with treatment when the physician introduces them to the mental health professional and expresses confidence in his or her abilities.

We know that trust improves treatment outcomes. What better way to encourage trust than with a warm smile and handshake when a patient is most vulnerable? In addition, integrating behavioral health into primary care helps patients avoid the stigma of going to a “mental health clinic.”

Integrating medical and mental health professionals into one practice is hardly a new idea and is spreading quickly in some parts of the country. It is perhaps no coincidence that Rajesh refers to a study of behavioral health integration in Colorado family practice offices. Recently, I (JH) presented a CME program to family physicians in Colorado, and, after reviewing recent studies of anxiety and depression, I asked how many participants had mental health professionals working in their practices. A full third raised their hands.

I (JH) had an excellent psychologist in my practice as far back as 1980, and he was an integral member of the care team. It seems that behavioral health integration has been a long time coming, and as a health care community we would be wise to spread this model of whole-person care to all primary care practices.