User login
FDA approves irritable bowel syndrome treatment
(IBS-C).
Plecanatide had previously been approved to treat adults with chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC).
Plecanatide was approved on the findings of two randomized, double-blind, 12-week, placebo-controlled clinical trials. More than 2,100 adult patients across both trials received either a 3-mg or 6-mg once-daily tablet of plecanatide, or a placebo. The primary endpoints of both studies were greater than 30% reduction in worst abdominal pain and an increase of at least one complete spontaneous bowel movement (CSBM) for at least half of the 12 treatment weeks.
Plecanatide met both of its primary endpoints, with reductions in abdominal pain in both studies, compared with placebo (30.2% vs. 17.8% in study 1, P < .001; 21.5% vs. 14.2% in study 2, P = .009).
Plecanatide is the only prescription, once-daily medication that treats both CIC and IBS-C in adults. The drug should be available in the first quarter of 2018.
AGA offers free patient education materials to help your patients better understand how to live with and manage their IBS. Visit www.gastro.org/ibs.
(IBS-C).
Plecanatide had previously been approved to treat adults with chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC).
Plecanatide was approved on the findings of two randomized, double-blind, 12-week, placebo-controlled clinical trials. More than 2,100 adult patients across both trials received either a 3-mg or 6-mg once-daily tablet of plecanatide, or a placebo. The primary endpoints of both studies were greater than 30% reduction in worst abdominal pain and an increase of at least one complete spontaneous bowel movement (CSBM) for at least half of the 12 treatment weeks.
Plecanatide met both of its primary endpoints, with reductions in abdominal pain in both studies, compared with placebo (30.2% vs. 17.8% in study 1, P < .001; 21.5% vs. 14.2% in study 2, P = .009).
Plecanatide is the only prescription, once-daily medication that treats both CIC and IBS-C in adults. The drug should be available in the first quarter of 2018.
AGA offers free patient education materials to help your patients better understand how to live with and manage their IBS. Visit www.gastro.org/ibs.
(IBS-C).
Plecanatide had previously been approved to treat adults with chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC).
Plecanatide was approved on the findings of two randomized, double-blind, 12-week, placebo-controlled clinical trials. More than 2,100 adult patients across both trials received either a 3-mg or 6-mg once-daily tablet of plecanatide, or a placebo. The primary endpoints of both studies were greater than 30% reduction in worst abdominal pain and an increase of at least one complete spontaneous bowel movement (CSBM) for at least half of the 12 treatment weeks.
Plecanatide met both of its primary endpoints, with reductions in abdominal pain in both studies, compared with placebo (30.2% vs. 17.8% in study 1, P < .001; 21.5% vs. 14.2% in study 2, P = .009).
Plecanatide is the only prescription, once-daily medication that treats both CIC and IBS-C in adults. The drug should be available in the first quarter of 2018.
AGA offers free patient education materials to help your patients better understand how to live with and manage their IBS. Visit www.gastro.org/ibs.
Postsurgical pain: Optimizing relief while minimizing use of opioids
CASE Managing pain associated with prolapse and SUI surgery
A 46-year-old woman (G4P4) described 3 years of worsening symptoms related to recurrent stage-3 palpable uterine prolapse. She had associated symptomatic stress urinary incontinence. She had been treated for uterine prolapse 5 years ago with vaginal hysterectomy, bilateral salpingectomy, and high uterosacral-ligament suspension.
After consultation, the patient elected to undergo laparoscopic sacral colpopexy, a mid-urethral sling, and possible anterior and posterior colporrhaphy. Appropriate discussion about the risks and benefits of mesh was provided preoperatively. The surgical team judged her to be highly motivated; she wanted same-day outpatient surgery so that she could go home and then return to work. She had excellent support at home.
How would you counsel this patient about expected postoperative pain? Which medications would you administer to her preoperatively and perioperatively? Which ones would you prescribe for her to manage pain postoperatively?
Adverse impact of prescription opioids in the United States
Although fewer than 5% of the world’s population live in the United States, nearly 80% of the world’s opioids are written for them.1 In 2012, 259 million prescriptions were written for opioids in the United States—more than enough to give every American adult their own bottle of pills.2 Sadly, drug overdose is now a leading cause of accidental death in the United States, with 52,404 lethal drug overdoses in 2015. A startling statistic is that prescription opioid abuse is driving this epidemic, with 20,101 overdose deaths related to prescription pain relievers and 12,990 overdose deaths related to heroin in 2015.3
It is likely that there are multiple reasons prescribing of opioids is epidemic. Surgical pain is a common indication for opioid prescriptions; fewer than half of patients who undergo surgery report adequate postoperative pain relief.4 Recognition of these deficits in pain management has inspired national campaigns to improve patients’ experience with pain and aggressively address pain with drugs such as opioids.5
At the same time, marketing efforts by the pharmaceutical industry sought to reassure the medical community that patients would not become addicted to prescription opioid pain relievers if physical pain was the indication for such prescriptions. In response, health care providers began to prescribe opioids at a greater rate. As providers were encouraged to increase prescriptions, opioid medications began to be misused—and only then did it become clear that these medications are, in fact, highly addictive.6 Opioid abuse and overdose rates began to increase; in 2015, more than 33,000 Americans died because of an opioid overdose, including prescription opioids and heroin7 (FIGURE). In fact, although most people recognize the threat posed by illegal heroin, most of the 2 million who abused opioids in 2015 in the United States suffered from prescription abuse; only about a quarter, or about 600,000, abused heroin.8 In addition, more than 80% of people who abuse heroin initially abused prescription opioids.9
Read about medications and strategies for multimodal pain management.
Multimodal approach to pain management
The goals of postsurgical pain treatment are to relieve suffering, optimize bodily functioning after surgery, limit length of the stay, and optimize patient satisfaction. Pain-control regimens should consider the specific surgical procedure and the patient’s medical, psychological, and physical conditions; age; level of fear or anxiety; personal preference; and response to previous treatments.10
Optimally, postsurgical pain management starts well before the day of surgery. Employing such strategies as Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) protocols does not necessarily mean providing the same care for every patient, every time. Rather, ERAS serves as a checklist to ensure that all applicable categories of pain medication and pain-control strategies are considered, selected, and dosed according to individual needs.11 (See “Preoperative management of pain expectations.”)
Ideally, before surgery, provide the patient with an opportunity to learn that:
- Her expectations about postsurgical pain should be realistic, and that freedom from pain is not realistic.
- Pain-reduction options should optimize her bodily function and mobility, reduce the degree to which pain interferes with activities, and relieve associated psychological stressors.
- Inherent in the pain management plan should be a goal of minimizing the risks of opioid misuse, abuse, and addiction—for the patient and for her family members and friends.
Opioids
Opioids have been employed to treat pain for 700 years.12 They are powerful pain relievers because they target central mechanisms involved in the perception of pain. Regrettably, because of their central action, opioids have many adverse effects in addition to being highly addictive.
Nonopioid alternatives
Expert consensus, including recommendations of the World Health Organization,11 favors using nonopioids as first-line medications to address surgical pain. Nonopioid analgesic options are acetaminophen, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and adjuvant medications. In addition, nonanalgesic medications such as sedatives, sleep aids, and muscle relaxants can relieve postsurgical pain. Optimal use of these nonopioid medications can significantly reduce or eliminate the need for opioid medications to treat pain. Goals are to 1) reserve opioids for the most severe pain and 2) minimize the number of doses/pills of opioids required to control postsurgical pain.
Acetaminophen. At dosages of 325 to 1,000 mg orally every 4 to 6 hours, to a maximum dosage of 4,000 mg/d, acetaminophen can be used to treat mild pain and, in combination with other medications, moderate-to-severe pain. The drug also can be administered intravenously (IV), although use of the IV route is limited in many hospitals because of its significantly higher expense compared to the oral form.
The mechanism of action of acetaminophen is unique among pain relievers; it can therefore be used in combination with other pain relievers to more effectively treat pain with fewer concerns about medication-induced adverse effects or opioid overdose. However, keep in mind when considering combining analgesics, that acetaminophen is an active ingredient in hundreds of over-the-counter (OTC) and prescription formulations, and that a combination of more than one acetaminophen-containing product can create the risk of overdose.
Acetaminophen should be used with caution in patients with liver disease. That being said, multiple trials have documented safe use in normal body weight adults who do not have hepatic disease, at dosages as high as 4,000 mg over a 24-hour period.13
NSAIDs. A combination of an NSAID and acetaminophen has been documented to reduce the amount of opioid medications required to treat postsurgical pain. In most circumstances, especially for minor surgery, acetaminophen and NSAIDS can be administered just before surgery starts. This preoperative treatment, called “preventive analgesia” or “preemptive analgesia,” has been demonstrated in multiple clinical trials to reduce postoperative pain.14
Adjuvant pain medications. Antidepressants, antiepileptic agents, and muscle relaxants—agents that have a primary indication for a condition (or conditions) other than pain and do not directly provide analgesia—have been used as adjuvant pain medications. When employed with traditional analgesics, they have been demonstrated to reduce postsurgical pain scores and the amount of opioids required. These medications need to be used cautiously because some are associated with serious sedation and vertigo (TABLE). Take caution when using adjuvant pain medications in patients older than 65 years; guidance on their use in older patients has been outlined by the American Geriatrics Society and other professional organizations.15
Case Continued
The patient was given the expectation that the 11-mm left lower-quadrant port site would likely be the most bothersome site of pain—a rating of 4 or 5 on a visual analogue scale of 1 to 10, on postoperative day 1, while standing. The other 3 (5-mm) laparoscopic ports, she was told, would, typically, be less bothersome. The patient was educated regarding the role of analgesics and adjuvant medications and cautioned not to exceed 4,000 mg of acetaminophen in any 24-hour period. She was told that gabapentin may make her feel sedated or dizzy, or both; she was encouraged to hold this medication if she found these adverse effects bothersome or limiting.
The following multimodal pain management was established.
Preoperatively, the patient was given:
- Acetaminophen 1.5 g orally (as a liquid, 45 mL of a suspension of 500 mg/15 mL liquid), 2 to 3 hours preoperatively; the surgical suite did not stock IV acetaminophen.
- Gabapentin 600 mg orally, with a sip of water, the morning of surgery.
- Celecoxib 100 mg orally, with a sip of water, the morning of surgery.
Prescriptions for home postoperative pain management were provided preoperatively:
- OTC acetaminophen 1,000 mg (as 2 500-mgtablets) taken as a scheduled dose every 8 hours for the first 48 hours postoperatively.
- Meloxicam 15 mg daily as the NSAID, taken as a scheduled dose once per day for the first 48 hours postoperatively, then as needed.
- Gabapentin 300 mg (in addition to the preoperative dose, above), taken as a scheduled dose every 8 hours for the first 48 hours postoperatively, then as needed.
- Oxycodone 5 mg (without acetaminophen) for breakthrough pain.
Intraoperatively:
- Meticulous attention was paid to patient positioning, to reduce the possibility of back and upper- and lower-extremity injury postoperatively.
- A corticosteroid (dexamethasone 8 mg IV) was administered to minimize postoperative nausea and vomiting and as an adjuvant medication for postoperative pain control.
- Careful attention was paid to limit residual CO2 gas and intraoperative intra-abdominal pressures.
- All laparoscopic port sites were injected with 30 mL of 0.25% bupivacaine with epinephrine, extending to subcutaneous, fascial, and peritoneal layers.
Read about why a multimodal approach is best for postsurgical pain.
Why a multimodal plan to treat pain?
Pain following laparoscopy has been associated with many variables, including patient positioning, port size and placement, amount of port manipulation, and gas retention. After a laparoscopic surgical procedure, patients report pain in the abdomen, back, and shoulders.
Postsurgical pain has 3 components:
- Shoulder pain, thought to result from phrenic nerve irritation caused by lingering CO2 in the abdominal cavity.
- Visceral pain, occurring secondary to stretching of the abdominal cavity.
- Somatic pain, caused by the surgical incision; of the 3 components to pain, somatic pain can have the least impact because laparoscopic incisions are small.
For our patient, prior to the incisions being made, she received local anesthesia intraoperatively to the laparoscopic port sites to include the subcutaneous, fascial, and peritoneal layers. Involving these layers allows for more of a block. An ultrasonography-guided transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block, if available, is highly effective at decreasing postoperative pain, but its efficacy is dependent on the anatomy and the skill of the physician (whether anesthesiologist, gynecologist, or surgeon) who is placing it.16
We used dexamethasone 8 mg IV, intraoperatively because this single dose has been shown to decrease the perception of pain postoperatively. Dexamethasone also has been shown to decrease consumption of oxycodone during the 24 hours after laparoscopic gynecologic surgery.17
CO2 used to insufflate the patient’s abdomen can take as long as 2 days to fully resorb, resulting in increased pain. This discomfort has been described as delayed; the patient might not notice it until she goes home. In a study, 70% of patients had shoulder discomfort following laparoscopy 24 hours after their procedure.18 For this reason, we employed several techniques to reduce this effect:
- We reduced the intra-abdominal pressure limit to 10 mm Hg (from 15 mm Hg) once dissection was complete.
- At the end of the procedure, careful attention was paid to removing as much intra-abdominal gas as possible, including placing the patient in the Trendelenburg position and having the anesthesiologist induce a Valsalva maneuver. This action has been shown to significantly improve pain control compared to placebo intervention.19
- We used humidified CO2, which has been demonstrated to reduce pain in laparoscopic surgery.20
Preemptively, we provided this patient with acetaminophen, celecoxib, and gabapentin, which have been demonstrated to be effective in gynecologic patients to decrease the need for postoperative opioids.21 Also, our patient received counseling, with specific expectations for what to expect following the surgical procedure.
CASE Resolved
Our patient did exceptionally well following surgery. She used only one of the oxycodone pills and did not require unplanned interventions. She took gabapentin, acetaminophen, and meloxicam at their scheduled doses for 2 days. She continued to use meloxicam for 4 more days for mild abdominal pain, then discontinued all medications.She flushed her 9 unused oxycodone pills down the toilet. (See “A word about disposal of ‘excess’ opioids”22) The patient returned to her administrative duties at work 2 weeks after the procedure and reported that she was “very satisfied” with her surgical experience.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recommends disposing of certain drugs through a take-back program or, if such a program is not readily available, by flushing them down a toilet or sink. In a recent study, investigators concluded that opioids on the FDA's so-called flush list include most opioids in clinical use--even if the entire supply prescribed is to be flushed down the drain. Conservative estimates of environmental degradation were employed in the study; the investigators' conclusion was that these drugs pose a "negligible" eco-toxicologic risk.1
Reference
- Khan U, Bloom RA, Nicell JA, Laurenson JP. Risks associated with the environmental release of pharmaceuticals on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration "flush list". Sci Total Environ. 2017;609:1023-1040.
In conclusion
Postoperative pain is a complex entity that must be considered to require individualized strategies and, possibly, multiple interventions. Optimally, thorough education, including pain management options, is provided to the patient prior to surgery. Given the current state of opioid abuse in the United States, all gynecologic surgeons should be familiar with multimodal pain therapy and how to employ nonmedical techniques to reduce postsurgical pain without relying solely on opioids. (See “Online resources for pain management”.)
- Drug Disposal Information
(US Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration)
https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/drug_disposal/index.html - Surgical Pain Consortium
http://surgicalpainconsortium.org/
Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.
- United Nations International Narcotics Control Board. Narcotic drugs: Report 2016: Estimated world requirements for 2017-statistics for 2015. New York, NY. https://www.incb.org/documents/Narcotic-Drugs/Technical-Publications/2016/Narcotic_Drugs_Publication_2016.pdf. Published 2017. Accessed January 7, 2018.
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Opioid painkiller prescribing: Where you live makes a difference. Atlanta, GA. https://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/pdf/2014-07-vitalsigns.pdf. Published July 2014. Accessed January 5, 2018.
- Rudd RA, Seth P, David F, Scholl L. Increases in drug and opioid-involved overdose deaths—United States, 2010–2015. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2016;65(50-51):1445–1452.
- Gan TJ, Habib AS, Miller TE, et al. Incidence, patient satisfaction, and perceptions of post-surgical pain: results from a US national survey. Curr Med Res Opin. 2014;30(1):149–160.
- Kehlet H, Jensen TS, Woolf CJ. Persistent postsurgical pain: risk factors and prevention. Lancet. 2006;367(9522):1618–1625.
- Van Zee A. The promotion and marketing of OxyContin: commercial triumph, public health tragedy. Am J Public Health. 2009;99(2):221–227.
- Rudd RA, Seth P, David F, Scholl L. Increases in drug and opioid-involved overdose deaths—United States, 2010–2015. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2016;65(50-51):1445–1452.
- US Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality. Results from the 2015 national survey on drug use and health: Detailed tables. Rockville, MD. https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/NSDUH-DetTabs-2015/NSDUH-DetTabs-2015/NSDUH-DetTabs-2015.htm. Published 2016. Accessed January 5, 2018.
- Muhuri PK, Gfroerer JC, Davies MC. Associations of nonmedical pain reliever use and initiation of heroin use in the United States. CBHSQ Data Rev. http://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/DR006/DR006/nonmedical-pain-reliever-use-2013.htm. Published August 2013. Accessed January 5, 2018.
- Joshi GP. Multimodal analgesia techniques and postoperative rehabilitation. Anesthesiol Clin North America. 2005;23(1):185–202.
- Oderda G. Challenges in the management of acute postsurgical pain. Pharmacotherapy. 2012;32(9 suppl):6S–11S.
- Brownstein, MJ. A brief history of opiates, opioid peptides, and opioid receptors. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1993;90(12):5391–5393.
- US Food and Drug Administration. Acetaminophen. https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/InformationbyDrugClass/ucm165107.htm. Published November 2017. Accessed January 7, 2018.
- Ong CK, Seymour RA, Lirk P, Merry AF. Combining paracetamol (acetaminophen) with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: a qualitative systematic review of analgesic efficacy for acute postoperative pain. Anesth Analg. 2010;110(4):1170–1179.
- Hanlon JT, Semla TP, Schmader KE. Alternative medications for medications included in the use of high‐risk medications in the elderly and potentially harmful drug–disease interactions in the elderly quality measures. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2015;63(12):e8–e18.
- Joshi GP, Janis JE, Haas EM, et al. Surgical site infiltration for abdominal surgery: A novel neuroanatomical-based approach. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2016;4(12):e1181. https://insights.ovid.com/crossref?an=01720096-201612000-00021. Accessed January 5, 2018.
- Jokela RM, Ahonen JV, Tallgren MK, et al. The effective analgesic dose of dexamethasone after laparoscopic hysterectomy. Anesth Analg. 2009;109(2):607–615.
- Hohlrieder M, Brimacombe J, Eschertzhuber S, et al. A study of airway management using the ProSeal LMA laryngeal mask airway compared with the tracheal tube on postoperative analgesia requirements following gynaecological laparoscopic surgery. Anaesthesia. 2007;62(9):913–918.
- Phelps P, Cakmakkaya OS, Apfel CC, Radke OC. A simple clinical maneuver to reduce laparoscopy-induced shoulder pain: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;111(5):1155–1160.
- Sammour T, Kahokehr A, Hill AG. Meta‐analysis of the effect of warm humidified insufflation on pain after laparoscopy. Br J Surg. 2008;95(8):950–956.
- Reagan KM, O’Sullivan DM, Gannon R, Steinberg AC. Decreasing postoperative narcotics in reconstructive pelvic surgery; A randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;217(3):325.e1–e10.
- Khan U, Bloom RA, Nicell JA, Laurenson JP. Risks associated with the environmental release of pharmaceuticals on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration “flush list”. Sci Total Environ. 2017;609:1023–1040.
CASE Managing pain associated with prolapse and SUI surgery
A 46-year-old woman (G4P4) described 3 years of worsening symptoms related to recurrent stage-3 palpable uterine prolapse. She had associated symptomatic stress urinary incontinence. She had been treated for uterine prolapse 5 years ago with vaginal hysterectomy, bilateral salpingectomy, and high uterosacral-ligament suspension.
After consultation, the patient elected to undergo laparoscopic sacral colpopexy, a mid-urethral sling, and possible anterior and posterior colporrhaphy. Appropriate discussion about the risks and benefits of mesh was provided preoperatively. The surgical team judged her to be highly motivated; she wanted same-day outpatient surgery so that she could go home and then return to work. She had excellent support at home.
How would you counsel this patient about expected postoperative pain? Which medications would you administer to her preoperatively and perioperatively? Which ones would you prescribe for her to manage pain postoperatively?
Adverse impact of prescription opioids in the United States
Although fewer than 5% of the world’s population live in the United States, nearly 80% of the world’s opioids are written for them.1 In 2012, 259 million prescriptions were written for opioids in the United States—more than enough to give every American adult their own bottle of pills.2 Sadly, drug overdose is now a leading cause of accidental death in the United States, with 52,404 lethal drug overdoses in 2015. A startling statistic is that prescription opioid abuse is driving this epidemic, with 20,101 overdose deaths related to prescription pain relievers and 12,990 overdose deaths related to heroin in 2015.3
It is likely that there are multiple reasons prescribing of opioids is epidemic. Surgical pain is a common indication for opioid prescriptions; fewer than half of patients who undergo surgery report adequate postoperative pain relief.4 Recognition of these deficits in pain management has inspired national campaigns to improve patients’ experience with pain and aggressively address pain with drugs such as opioids.5
At the same time, marketing efforts by the pharmaceutical industry sought to reassure the medical community that patients would not become addicted to prescription opioid pain relievers if physical pain was the indication for such prescriptions. In response, health care providers began to prescribe opioids at a greater rate. As providers were encouraged to increase prescriptions, opioid medications began to be misused—and only then did it become clear that these medications are, in fact, highly addictive.6 Opioid abuse and overdose rates began to increase; in 2015, more than 33,000 Americans died because of an opioid overdose, including prescription opioids and heroin7 (FIGURE). In fact, although most people recognize the threat posed by illegal heroin, most of the 2 million who abused opioids in 2015 in the United States suffered from prescription abuse; only about a quarter, or about 600,000, abused heroin.8 In addition, more than 80% of people who abuse heroin initially abused prescription opioids.9
Read about medications and strategies for multimodal pain management.
Multimodal approach to pain management
The goals of postsurgical pain treatment are to relieve suffering, optimize bodily functioning after surgery, limit length of the stay, and optimize patient satisfaction. Pain-control regimens should consider the specific surgical procedure and the patient’s medical, psychological, and physical conditions; age; level of fear or anxiety; personal preference; and response to previous treatments.10
Optimally, postsurgical pain management starts well before the day of surgery. Employing such strategies as Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) protocols does not necessarily mean providing the same care for every patient, every time. Rather, ERAS serves as a checklist to ensure that all applicable categories of pain medication and pain-control strategies are considered, selected, and dosed according to individual needs.11 (See “Preoperative management of pain expectations.”)
Ideally, before surgery, provide the patient with an opportunity to learn that:
- Her expectations about postsurgical pain should be realistic, and that freedom from pain is not realistic.
- Pain-reduction options should optimize her bodily function and mobility, reduce the degree to which pain interferes with activities, and relieve associated psychological stressors.
- Inherent in the pain management plan should be a goal of minimizing the risks of opioid misuse, abuse, and addiction—for the patient and for her family members and friends.
Opioids
Opioids have been employed to treat pain for 700 years.12 They are powerful pain relievers because they target central mechanisms involved in the perception of pain. Regrettably, because of their central action, opioids have many adverse effects in addition to being highly addictive.
Nonopioid alternatives
Expert consensus, including recommendations of the World Health Organization,11 favors using nonopioids as first-line medications to address surgical pain. Nonopioid analgesic options are acetaminophen, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and adjuvant medications. In addition, nonanalgesic medications such as sedatives, sleep aids, and muscle relaxants can relieve postsurgical pain. Optimal use of these nonopioid medications can significantly reduce or eliminate the need for opioid medications to treat pain. Goals are to 1) reserve opioids for the most severe pain and 2) minimize the number of doses/pills of opioids required to control postsurgical pain.
Acetaminophen. At dosages of 325 to 1,000 mg orally every 4 to 6 hours, to a maximum dosage of 4,000 mg/d, acetaminophen can be used to treat mild pain and, in combination with other medications, moderate-to-severe pain. The drug also can be administered intravenously (IV), although use of the IV route is limited in many hospitals because of its significantly higher expense compared to the oral form.
The mechanism of action of acetaminophen is unique among pain relievers; it can therefore be used in combination with other pain relievers to more effectively treat pain with fewer concerns about medication-induced adverse effects or opioid overdose. However, keep in mind when considering combining analgesics, that acetaminophen is an active ingredient in hundreds of over-the-counter (OTC) and prescription formulations, and that a combination of more than one acetaminophen-containing product can create the risk of overdose.
Acetaminophen should be used with caution in patients with liver disease. That being said, multiple trials have documented safe use in normal body weight adults who do not have hepatic disease, at dosages as high as 4,000 mg over a 24-hour period.13
NSAIDs. A combination of an NSAID and acetaminophen has been documented to reduce the amount of opioid medications required to treat postsurgical pain. In most circumstances, especially for minor surgery, acetaminophen and NSAIDS can be administered just before surgery starts. This preoperative treatment, called “preventive analgesia” or “preemptive analgesia,” has been demonstrated in multiple clinical trials to reduce postoperative pain.14
Adjuvant pain medications. Antidepressants, antiepileptic agents, and muscle relaxants—agents that have a primary indication for a condition (or conditions) other than pain and do not directly provide analgesia—have been used as adjuvant pain medications. When employed with traditional analgesics, they have been demonstrated to reduce postsurgical pain scores and the amount of opioids required. These medications need to be used cautiously because some are associated with serious sedation and vertigo (TABLE). Take caution when using adjuvant pain medications in patients older than 65 years; guidance on their use in older patients has been outlined by the American Geriatrics Society and other professional organizations.15
Case Continued
The patient was given the expectation that the 11-mm left lower-quadrant port site would likely be the most bothersome site of pain—a rating of 4 or 5 on a visual analogue scale of 1 to 10, on postoperative day 1, while standing. The other 3 (5-mm) laparoscopic ports, she was told, would, typically, be less bothersome. The patient was educated regarding the role of analgesics and adjuvant medications and cautioned not to exceed 4,000 mg of acetaminophen in any 24-hour period. She was told that gabapentin may make her feel sedated or dizzy, or both; she was encouraged to hold this medication if she found these adverse effects bothersome or limiting.
The following multimodal pain management was established.
Preoperatively, the patient was given:
- Acetaminophen 1.5 g orally (as a liquid, 45 mL of a suspension of 500 mg/15 mL liquid), 2 to 3 hours preoperatively; the surgical suite did not stock IV acetaminophen.
- Gabapentin 600 mg orally, with a sip of water, the morning of surgery.
- Celecoxib 100 mg orally, with a sip of water, the morning of surgery.
Prescriptions for home postoperative pain management were provided preoperatively:
- OTC acetaminophen 1,000 mg (as 2 500-mgtablets) taken as a scheduled dose every 8 hours for the first 48 hours postoperatively.
- Meloxicam 15 mg daily as the NSAID, taken as a scheduled dose once per day for the first 48 hours postoperatively, then as needed.
- Gabapentin 300 mg (in addition to the preoperative dose, above), taken as a scheduled dose every 8 hours for the first 48 hours postoperatively, then as needed.
- Oxycodone 5 mg (without acetaminophen) for breakthrough pain.
Intraoperatively:
- Meticulous attention was paid to patient positioning, to reduce the possibility of back and upper- and lower-extremity injury postoperatively.
- A corticosteroid (dexamethasone 8 mg IV) was administered to minimize postoperative nausea and vomiting and as an adjuvant medication for postoperative pain control.
- Careful attention was paid to limit residual CO2 gas and intraoperative intra-abdominal pressures.
- All laparoscopic port sites were injected with 30 mL of 0.25% bupivacaine with epinephrine, extending to subcutaneous, fascial, and peritoneal layers.
Read about why a multimodal approach is best for postsurgical pain.
Why a multimodal plan to treat pain?
Pain following laparoscopy has been associated with many variables, including patient positioning, port size and placement, amount of port manipulation, and gas retention. After a laparoscopic surgical procedure, patients report pain in the abdomen, back, and shoulders.
Postsurgical pain has 3 components:
- Shoulder pain, thought to result from phrenic nerve irritation caused by lingering CO2 in the abdominal cavity.
- Visceral pain, occurring secondary to stretching of the abdominal cavity.
- Somatic pain, caused by the surgical incision; of the 3 components to pain, somatic pain can have the least impact because laparoscopic incisions are small.
For our patient, prior to the incisions being made, she received local anesthesia intraoperatively to the laparoscopic port sites to include the subcutaneous, fascial, and peritoneal layers. Involving these layers allows for more of a block. An ultrasonography-guided transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block, if available, is highly effective at decreasing postoperative pain, but its efficacy is dependent on the anatomy and the skill of the physician (whether anesthesiologist, gynecologist, or surgeon) who is placing it.16
We used dexamethasone 8 mg IV, intraoperatively because this single dose has been shown to decrease the perception of pain postoperatively. Dexamethasone also has been shown to decrease consumption of oxycodone during the 24 hours after laparoscopic gynecologic surgery.17
CO2 used to insufflate the patient’s abdomen can take as long as 2 days to fully resorb, resulting in increased pain. This discomfort has been described as delayed; the patient might not notice it until she goes home. In a study, 70% of patients had shoulder discomfort following laparoscopy 24 hours after their procedure.18 For this reason, we employed several techniques to reduce this effect:
- We reduced the intra-abdominal pressure limit to 10 mm Hg (from 15 mm Hg) once dissection was complete.
- At the end of the procedure, careful attention was paid to removing as much intra-abdominal gas as possible, including placing the patient in the Trendelenburg position and having the anesthesiologist induce a Valsalva maneuver. This action has been shown to significantly improve pain control compared to placebo intervention.19
- We used humidified CO2, which has been demonstrated to reduce pain in laparoscopic surgery.20
Preemptively, we provided this patient with acetaminophen, celecoxib, and gabapentin, which have been demonstrated to be effective in gynecologic patients to decrease the need for postoperative opioids.21 Also, our patient received counseling, with specific expectations for what to expect following the surgical procedure.
CASE Resolved
Our patient did exceptionally well following surgery. She used only one of the oxycodone pills and did not require unplanned interventions. She took gabapentin, acetaminophen, and meloxicam at their scheduled doses for 2 days. She continued to use meloxicam for 4 more days for mild abdominal pain, then discontinued all medications.She flushed her 9 unused oxycodone pills down the toilet. (See “A word about disposal of ‘excess’ opioids”22) The patient returned to her administrative duties at work 2 weeks after the procedure and reported that she was “very satisfied” with her surgical experience.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recommends disposing of certain drugs through a take-back program or, if such a program is not readily available, by flushing them down a toilet or sink. In a recent study, investigators concluded that opioids on the FDA's so-called flush list include most opioids in clinical use--even if the entire supply prescribed is to be flushed down the drain. Conservative estimates of environmental degradation were employed in the study; the investigators' conclusion was that these drugs pose a "negligible" eco-toxicologic risk.1
Reference
- Khan U, Bloom RA, Nicell JA, Laurenson JP. Risks associated with the environmental release of pharmaceuticals on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration "flush list". Sci Total Environ. 2017;609:1023-1040.
In conclusion
Postoperative pain is a complex entity that must be considered to require individualized strategies and, possibly, multiple interventions. Optimally, thorough education, including pain management options, is provided to the patient prior to surgery. Given the current state of opioid abuse in the United States, all gynecologic surgeons should be familiar with multimodal pain therapy and how to employ nonmedical techniques to reduce postsurgical pain without relying solely on opioids. (See “Online resources for pain management”.)
- Drug Disposal Information
(US Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration)
https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/drug_disposal/index.html - Surgical Pain Consortium
http://surgicalpainconsortium.org/
Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.
CASE Managing pain associated with prolapse and SUI surgery
A 46-year-old woman (G4P4) described 3 years of worsening symptoms related to recurrent stage-3 palpable uterine prolapse. She had associated symptomatic stress urinary incontinence. She had been treated for uterine prolapse 5 years ago with vaginal hysterectomy, bilateral salpingectomy, and high uterosacral-ligament suspension.
After consultation, the patient elected to undergo laparoscopic sacral colpopexy, a mid-urethral sling, and possible anterior and posterior colporrhaphy. Appropriate discussion about the risks and benefits of mesh was provided preoperatively. The surgical team judged her to be highly motivated; she wanted same-day outpatient surgery so that she could go home and then return to work. She had excellent support at home.
How would you counsel this patient about expected postoperative pain? Which medications would you administer to her preoperatively and perioperatively? Which ones would you prescribe for her to manage pain postoperatively?
Adverse impact of prescription opioids in the United States
Although fewer than 5% of the world’s population live in the United States, nearly 80% of the world’s opioids are written for them.1 In 2012, 259 million prescriptions were written for opioids in the United States—more than enough to give every American adult their own bottle of pills.2 Sadly, drug overdose is now a leading cause of accidental death in the United States, with 52,404 lethal drug overdoses in 2015. A startling statistic is that prescription opioid abuse is driving this epidemic, with 20,101 overdose deaths related to prescription pain relievers and 12,990 overdose deaths related to heroin in 2015.3
It is likely that there are multiple reasons prescribing of opioids is epidemic. Surgical pain is a common indication for opioid prescriptions; fewer than half of patients who undergo surgery report adequate postoperative pain relief.4 Recognition of these deficits in pain management has inspired national campaigns to improve patients’ experience with pain and aggressively address pain with drugs such as opioids.5
At the same time, marketing efforts by the pharmaceutical industry sought to reassure the medical community that patients would not become addicted to prescription opioid pain relievers if physical pain was the indication for such prescriptions. In response, health care providers began to prescribe opioids at a greater rate. As providers were encouraged to increase prescriptions, opioid medications began to be misused—and only then did it become clear that these medications are, in fact, highly addictive.6 Opioid abuse and overdose rates began to increase; in 2015, more than 33,000 Americans died because of an opioid overdose, including prescription opioids and heroin7 (FIGURE). In fact, although most people recognize the threat posed by illegal heroin, most of the 2 million who abused opioids in 2015 in the United States suffered from prescription abuse; only about a quarter, or about 600,000, abused heroin.8 In addition, more than 80% of people who abuse heroin initially abused prescription opioids.9
Read about medications and strategies for multimodal pain management.
Multimodal approach to pain management
The goals of postsurgical pain treatment are to relieve suffering, optimize bodily functioning after surgery, limit length of the stay, and optimize patient satisfaction. Pain-control regimens should consider the specific surgical procedure and the patient’s medical, psychological, and physical conditions; age; level of fear or anxiety; personal preference; and response to previous treatments.10
Optimally, postsurgical pain management starts well before the day of surgery. Employing such strategies as Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) protocols does not necessarily mean providing the same care for every patient, every time. Rather, ERAS serves as a checklist to ensure that all applicable categories of pain medication and pain-control strategies are considered, selected, and dosed according to individual needs.11 (See “Preoperative management of pain expectations.”)
Ideally, before surgery, provide the patient with an opportunity to learn that:
- Her expectations about postsurgical pain should be realistic, and that freedom from pain is not realistic.
- Pain-reduction options should optimize her bodily function and mobility, reduce the degree to which pain interferes with activities, and relieve associated psychological stressors.
- Inherent in the pain management plan should be a goal of minimizing the risks of opioid misuse, abuse, and addiction—for the patient and for her family members and friends.
Opioids
Opioids have been employed to treat pain for 700 years.12 They are powerful pain relievers because they target central mechanisms involved in the perception of pain. Regrettably, because of their central action, opioids have many adverse effects in addition to being highly addictive.
Nonopioid alternatives
Expert consensus, including recommendations of the World Health Organization,11 favors using nonopioids as first-line medications to address surgical pain. Nonopioid analgesic options are acetaminophen, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and adjuvant medications. In addition, nonanalgesic medications such as sedatives, sleep aids, and muscle relaxants can relieve postsurgical pain. Optimal use of these nonopioid medications can significantly reduce or eliminate the need for opioid medications to treat pain. Goals are to 1) reserve opioids for the most severe pain and 2) minimize the number of doses/pills of opioids required to control postsurgical pain.
Acetaminophen. At dosages of 325 to 1,000 mg orally every 4 to 6 hours, to a maximum dosage of 4,000 mg/d, acetaminophen can be used to treat mild pain and, in combination with other medications, moderate-to-severe pain. The drug also can be administered intravenously (IV), although use of the IV route is limited in many hospitals because of its significantly higher expense compared to the oral form.
The mechanism of action of acetaminophen is unique among pain relievers; it can therefore be used in combination with other pain relievers to more effectively treat pain with fewer concerns about medication-induced adverse effects or opioid overdose. However, keep in mind when considering combining analgesics, that acetaminophen is an active ingredient in hundreds of over-the-counter (OTC) and prescription formulations, and that a combination of more than one acetaminophen-containing product can create the risk of overdose.
Acetaminophen should be used with caution in patients with liver disease. That being said, multiple trials have documented safe use in normal body weight adults who do not have hepatic disease, at dosages as high as 4,000 mg over a 24-hour period.13
NSAIDs. A combination of an NSAID and acetaminophen has been documented to reduce the amount of opioid medications required to treat postsurgical pain. In most circumstances, especially for minor surgery, acetaminophen and NSAIDS can be administered just before surgery starts. This preoperative treatment, called “preventive analgesia” or “preemptive analgesia,” has been demonstrated in multiple clinical trials to reduce postoperative pain.14
Adjuvant pain medications. Antidepressants, antiepileptic agents, and muscle relaxants—agents that have a primary indication for a condition (or conditions) other than pain and do not directly provide analgesia—have been used as adjuvant pain medications. When employed with traditional analgesics, they have been demonstrated to reduce postsurgical pain scores and the amount of opioids required. These medications need to be used cautiously because some are associated with serious sedation and vertigo (TABLE). Take caution when using adjuvant pain medications in patients older than 65 years; guidance on their use in older patients has been outlined by the American Geriatrics Society and other professional organizations.15
Case Continued
The patient was given the expectation that the 11-mm left lower-quadrant port site would likely be the most bothersome site of pain—a rating of 4 or 5 on a visual analogue scale of 1 to 10, on postoperative day 1, while standing. The other 3 (5-mm) laparoscopic ports, she was told, would, typically, be less bothersome. The patient was educated regarding the role of analgesics and adjuvant medications and cautioned not to exceed 4,000 mg of acetaminophen in any 24-hour period. She was told that gabapentin may make her feel sedated or dizzy, or both; she was encouraged to hold this medication if she found these adverse effects bothersome or limiting.
The following multimodal pain management was established.
Preoperatively, the patient was given:
- Acetaminophen 1.5 g orally (as a liquid, 45 mL of a suspension of 500 mg/15 mL liquid), 2 to 3 hours preoperatively; the surgical suite did not stock IV acetaminophen.
- Gabapentin 600 mg orally, with a sip of water, the morning of surgery.
- Celecoxib 100 mg orally, with a sip of water, the morning of surgery.
Prescriptions for home postoperative pain management were provided preoperatively:
- OTC acetaminophen 1,000 mg (as 2 500-mgtablets) taken as a scheduled dose every 8 hours for the first 48 hours postoperatively.
- Meloxicam 15 mg daily as the NSAID, taken as a scheduled dose once per day for the first 48 hours postoperatively, then as needed.
- Gabapentin 300 mg (in addition to the preoperative dose, above), taken as a scheduled dose every 8 hours for the first 48 hours postoperatively, then as needed.
- Oxycodone 5 mg (without acetaminophen) for breakthrough pain.
Intraoperatively:
- Meticulous attention was paid to patient positioning, to reduce the possibility of back and upper- and lower-extremity injury postoperatively.
- A corticosteroid (dexamethasone 8 mg IV) was administered to minimize postoperative nausea and vomiting and as an adjuvant medication for postoperative pain control.
- Careful attention was paid to limit residual CO2 gas and intraoperative intra-abdominal pressures.
- All laparoscopic port sites were injected with 30 mL of 0.25% bupivacaine with epinephrine, extending to subcutaneous, fascial, and peritoneal layers.
Read about why a multimodal approach is best for postsurgical pain.
Why a multimodal plan to treat pain?
Pain following laparoscopy has been associated with many variables, including patient positioning, port size and placement, amount of port manipulation, and gas retention. After a laparoscopic surgical procedure, patients report pain in the abdomen, back, and shoulders.
Postsurgical pain has 3 components:
- Shoulder pain, thought to result from phrenic nerve irritation caused by lingering CO2 in the abdominal cavity.
- Visceral pain, occurring secondary to stretching of the abdominal cavity.
- Somatic pain, caused by the surgical incision; of the 3 components to pain, somatic pain can have the least impact because laparoscopic incisions are small.
For our patient, prior to the incisions being made, she received local anesthesia intraoperatively to the laparoscopic port sites to include the subcutaneous, fascial, and peritoneal layers. Involving these layers allows for more of a block. An ultrasonography-guided transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block, if available, is highly effective at decreasing postoperative pain, but its efficacy is dependent on the anatomy and the skill of the physician (whether anesthesiologist, gynecologist, or surgeon) who is placing it.16
We used dexamethasone 8 mg IV, intraoperatively because this single dose has been shown to decrease the perception of pain postoperatively. Dexamethasone also has been shown to decrease consumption of oxycodone during the 24 hours after laparoscopic gynecologic surgery.17
CO2 used to insufflate the patient’s abdomen can take as long as 2 days to fully resorb, resulting in increased pain. This discomfort has been described as delayed; the patient might not notice it until she goes home. In a study, 70% of patients had shoulder discomfort following laparoscopy 24 hours after their procedure.18 For this reason, we employed several techniques to reduce this effect:
- We reduced the intra-abdominal pressure limit to 10 mm Hg (from 15 mm Hg) once dissection was complete.
- At the end of the procedure, careful attention was paid to removing as much intra-abdominal gas as possible, including placing the patient in the Trendelenburg position and having the anesthesiologist induce a Valsalva maneuver. This action has been shown to significantly improve pain control compared to placebo intervention.19
- We used humidified CO2, which has been demonstrated to reduce pain in laparoscopic surgery.20
Preemptively, we provided this patient with acetaminophen, celecoxib, and gabapentin, which have been demonstrated to be effective in gynecologic patients to decrease the need for postoperative opioids.21 Also, our patient received counseling, with specific expectations for what to expect following the surgical procedure.
CASE Resolved
Our patient did exceptionally well following surgery. She used only one of the oxycodone pills and did not require unplanned interventions. She took gabapentin, acetaminophen, and meloxicam at their scheduled doses for 2 days. She continued to use meloxicam for 4 more days for mild abdominal pain, then discontinued all medications.She flushed her 9 unused oxycodone pills down the toilet. (See “A word about disposal of ‘excess’ opioids”22) The patient returned to her administrative duties at work 2 weeks after the procedure and reported that she was “very satisfied” with her surgical experience.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recommends disposing of certain drugs through a take-back program or, if such a program is not readily available, by flushing them down a toilet or sink. In a recent study, investigators concluded that opioids on the FDA's so-called flush list include most opioids in clinical use--even if the entire supply prescribed is to be flushed down the drain. Conservative estimates of environmental degradation were employed in the study; the investigators' conclusion was that these drugs pose a "negligible" eco-toxicologic risk.1
Reference
- Khan U, Bloom RA, Nicell JA, Laurenson JP. Risks associated with the environmental release of pharmaceuticals on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration "flush list". Sci Total Environ. 2017;609:1023-1040.
In conclusion
Postoperative pain is a complex entity that must be considered to require individualized strategies and, possibly, multiple interventions. Optimally, thorough education, including pain management options, is provided to the patient prior to surgery. Given the current state of opioid abuse in the United States, all gynecologic surgeons should be familiar with multimodal pain therapy and how to employ nonmedical techniques to reduce postsurgical pain without relying solely on opioids. (See “Online resources for pain management”.)
- Drug Disposal Information
(US Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration)
https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/drug_disposal/index.html - Surgical Pain Consortium
http://surgicalpainconsortium.org/
Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.
- United Nations International Narcotics Control Board. Narcotic drugs: Report 2016: Estimated world requirements for 2017-statistics for 2015. New York, NY. https://www.incb.org/documents/Narcotic-Drugs/Technical-Publications/2016/Narcotic_Drugs_Publication_2016.pdf. Published 2017. Accessed January 7, 2018.
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Opioid painkiller prescribing: Where you live makes a difference. Atlanta, GA. https://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/pdf/2014-07-vitalsigns.pdf. Published July 2014. Accessed January 5, 2018.
- Rudd RA, Seth P, David F, Scholl L. Increases in drug and opioid-involved overdose deaths—United States, 2010–2015. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2016;65(50-51):1445–1452.
- Gan TJ, Habib AS, Miller TE, et al. Incidence, patient satisfaction, and perceptions of post-surgical pain: results from a US national survey. Curr Med Res Opin. 2014;30(1):149–160.
- Kehlet H, Jensen TS, Woolf CJ. Persistent postsurgical pain: risk factors and prevention. Lancet. 2006;367(9522):1618–1625.
- Van Zee A. The promotion and marketing of OxyContin: commercial triumph, public health tragedy. Am J Public Health. 2009;99(2):221–227.
- Rudd RA, Seth P, David F, Scholl L. Increases in drug and opioid-involved overdose deaths—United States, 2010–2015. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2016;65(50-51):1445–1452.
- US Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality. Results from the 2015 national survey on drug use and health: Detailed tables. Rockville, MD. https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/NSDUH-DetTabs-2015/NSDUH-DetTabs-2015/NSDUH-DetTabs-2015.htm. Published 2016. Accessed January 5, 2018.
- Muhuri PK, Gfroerer JC, Davies MC. Associations of nonmedical pain reliever use and initiation of heroin use in the United States. CBHSQ Data Rev. http://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/DR006/DR006/nonmedical-pain-reliever-use-2013.htm. Published August 2013. Accessed January 5, 2018.
- Joshi GP. Multimodal analgesia techniques and postoperative rehabilitation. Anesthesiol Clin North America. 2005;23(1):185–202.
- Oderda G. Challenges in the management of acute postsurgical pain. Pharmacotherapy. 2012;32(9 suppl):6S–11S.
- Brownstein, MJ. A brief history of opiates, opioid peptides, and opioid receptors. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1993;90(12):5391–5393.
- US Food and Drug Administration. Acetaminophen. https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/InformationbyDrugClass/ucm165107.htm. Published November 2017. Accessed January 7, 2018.
- Ong CK, Seymour RA, Lirk P, Merry AF. Combining paracetamol (acetaminophen) with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: a qualitative systematic review of analgesic efficacy for acute postoperative pain. Anesth Analg. 2010;110(4):1170–1179.
- Hanlon JT, Semla TP, Schmader KE. Alternative medications for medications included in the use of high‐risk medications in the elderly and potentially harmful drug–disease interactions in the elderly quality measures. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2015;63(12):e8–e18.
- Joshi GP, Janis JE, Haas EM, et al. Surgical site infiltration for abdominal surgery: A novel neuroanatomical-based approach. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2016;4(12):e1181. https://insights.ovid.com/crossref?an=01720096-201612000-00021. Accessed January 5, 2018.
- Jokela RM, Ahonen JV, Tallgren MK, et al. The effective analgesic dose of dexamethasone after laparoscopic hysterectomy. Anesth Analg. 2009;109(2):607–615.
- Hohlrieder M, Brimacombe J, Eschertzhuber S, et al. A study of airway management using the ProSeal LMA laryngeal mask airway compared with the tracheal tube on postoperative analgesia requirements following gynaecological laparoscopic surgery. Anaesthesia. 2007;62(9):913–918.
- Phelps P, Cakmakkaya OS, Apfel CC, Radke OC. A simple clinical maneuver to reduce laparoscopy-induced shoulder pain: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;111(5):1155–1160.
- Sammour T, Kahokehr A, Hill AG. Meta‐analysis of the effect of warm humidified insufflation on pain after laparoscopy. Br J Surg. 2008;95(8):950–956.
- Reagan KM, O’Sullivan DM, Gannon R, Steinberg AC. Decreasing postoperative narcotics in reconstructive pelvic surgery; A randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;217(3):325.e1–e10.
- Khan U, Bloom RA, Nicell JA, Laurenson JP. Risks associated with the environmental release of pharmaceuticals on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration “flush list”. Sci Total Environ. 2017;609:1023–1040.
- United Nations International Narcotics Control Board. Narcotic drugs: Report 2016: Estimated world requirements for 2017-statistics for 2015. New York, NY. https://www.incb.org/documents/Narcotic-Drugs/Technical-Publications/2016/Narcotic_Drugs_Publication_2016.pdf. Published 2017. Accessed January 7, 2018.
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Opioid painkiller prescribing: Where you live makes a difference. Atlanta, GA. https://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/pdf/2014-07-vitalsigns.pdf. Published July 2014. Accessed January 5, 2018.
- Rudd RA, Seth P, David F, Scholl L. Increases in drug and opioid-involved overdose deaths—United States, 2010–2015. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2016;65(50-51):1445–1452.
- Gan TJ, Habib AS, Miller TE, et al. Incidence, patient satisfaction, and perceptions of post-surgical pain: results from a US national survey. Curr Med Res Opin. 2014;30(1):149–160.
- Kehlet H, Jensen TS, Woolf CJ. Persistent postsurgical pain: risk factors and prevention. Lancet. 2006;367(9522):1618–1625.
- Van Zee A. The promotion and marketing of OxyContin: commercial triumph, public health tragedy. Am J Public Health. 2009;99(2):221–227.
- Rudd RA, Seth P, David F, Scholl L. Increases in drug and opioid-involved overdose deaths—United States, 2010–2015. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2016;65(50-51):1445–1452.
- US Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality. Results from the 2015 national survey on drug use and health: Detailed tables. Rockville, MD. https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/NSDUH-DetTabs-2015/NSDUH-DetTabs-2015/NSDUH-DetTabs-2015.htm. Published 2016. Accessed January 5, 2018.
- Muhuri PK, Gfroerer JC, Davies MC. Associations of nonmedical pain reliever use and initiation of heroin use in the United States. CBHSQ Data Rev. http://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/DR006/DR006/nonmedical-pain-reliever-use-2013.htm. Published August 2013. Accessed January 5, 2018.
- Joshi GP. Multimodal analgesia techniques and postoperative rehabilitation. Anesthesiol Clin North America. 2005;23(1):185–202.
- Oderda G. Challenges in the management of acute postsurgical pain. Pharmacotherapy. 2012;32(9 suppl):6S–11S.
- Brownstein, MJ. A brief history of opiates, opioid peptides, and opioid receptors. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1993;90(12):5391–5393.
- US Food and Drug Administration. Acetaminophen. https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/InformationbyDrugClass/ucm165107.htm. Published November 2017. Accessed January 7, 2018.
- Ong CK, Seymour RA, Lirk P, Merry AF. Combining paracetamol (acetaminophen) with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: a qualitative systematic review of analgesic efficacy for acute postoperative pain. Anesth Analg. 2010;110(4):1170–1179.
- Hanlon JT, Semla TP, Schmader KE. Alternative medications for medications included in the use of high‐risk medications in the elderly and potentially harmful drug–disease interactions in the elderly quality measures. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2015;63(12):e8–e18.
- Joshi GP, Janis JE, Haas EM, et al. Surgical site infiltration for abdominal surgery: A novel neuroanatomical-based approach. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2016;4(12):e1181. https://insights.ovid.com/crossref?an=01720096-201612000-00021. Accessed January 5, 2018.
- Jokela RM, Ahonen JV, Tallgren MK, et al. The effective analgesic dose of dexamethasone after laparoscopic hysterectomy. Anesth Analg. 2009;109(2):607–615.
- Hohlrieder M, Brimacombe J, Eschertzhuber S, et al. A study of airway management using the ProSeal LMA laryngeal mask airway compared with the tracheal tube on postoperative analgesia requirements following gynaecological laparoscopic surgery. Anaesthesia. 2007;62(9):913–918.
- Phelps P, Cakmakkaya OS, Apfel CC, Radke OC. A simple clinical maneuver to reduce laparoscopy-induced shoulder pain: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;111(5):1155–1160.
- Sammour T, Kahokehr A, Hill AG. Meta‐analysis of the effect of warm humidified insufflation on pain after laparoscopy. Br J Surg. 2008;95(8):950–956.
- Reagan KM, O’Sullivan DM, Gannon R, Steinberg AC. Decreasing postoperative narcotics in reconstructive pelvic surgery; A randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;217(3):325.e1–e10.
- Khan U, Bloom RA, Nicell JA, Laurenson JP. Risks associated with the environmental release of pharmaceuticals on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration “flush list”. Sci Total Environ. 2017;609:1023–1040.
Preventing sepsis alert fatigue
If they’re too infrequent, alerts can delay sepsis identification and treatment. If they’re too abundant, the alerts can overwhelm providers. Finding the sweet spot for sepsis alerts, QI leaders say, can require time, technology, patience – and sometimes trial and error.
University Hospital in Salt Lake City wanted to broaden its sepsis recognition system to ensure that decompensating patients were seen and resuscitated quickly, regardless of the cause. Another hospital offered a lesson in what not to do when a staff member cautioned that a sepsis alert system based on SIRS alone had been a “total disaster” and left providers fuming. One report suggested that nearly half of all ward patients meet SIRS criteria at some point during their hospitalization, and that using the criteria for sepsis screening in hospital wards is both “time consuming and impractical.”1
Instead, University Hospital tweaked its MEWS or Modified Early Warning System, based on consultations with hospitalists, ICU physicians, and other providers about the appropriate thresholds for vital signs. “It’s kind of like asking someone, ‘Well, when are you really scared of the heart rate and when are you sort of scared and when are you not scared at all?’ ” said project coleader Devin J. Horton, MD, an academic hospitalist.
The team also analyzed the number of alerts per week per unit and their sensitivity and specificity in detecting sepsis. As junior faculty members, Dr. Horton and his collaborator, academic hospitalist Kencee K. Graves, MD, were mindful to avoid angering other doctors over being alerted too often. For their MEWS scoring system, they sacrificed a bit of sensitivity to ensure that the number of alerts remained manageable.
Before going live with its own new alert system, Middlesex Hospital in Middletown, Conn., had a subgroup spend several weeks testing the system in silent mode and tweaking different parameters such as respiratory rate and heart rate to reduce the potential for too many alerts. “If you look at each and every alert, then you can identify how to make your adjustment so that it’s not overly sensitive,” said Terri Savino, MSN, RN, CPHQ, the hospital’s manager of patient experience and service excellence.
A sepsis task force also shared data showing the hospital’s significant reductions in sepsis mortality, total hospital mortality, and sepsis length of stay. “Medical staff were willing to accept the frequency and high sensitivity of the alert because the data demonstrated that it was making a difference in the lives of our patients,” said David M. Cosentino, MD, the hospital’s chief medical information officer.
Other alert systems’ mixed performances have yielded important lessons. At the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, one prototype detected clinically deteriorating patients and sent an alert to the nurse, physician, and a rapid response team. Alerted providers converged on the patient’s bedside within 30 minutes and decided whether to elevate the level of care. Craig Umscheid, MD, MSCE, of the department of epidemiology and vice chair for quality and safety in the department of medicine, said the system was associated with a suggestion of reduced mortality.2 But it was noisy and less helpful than it could have been, he said, because it didn’t separate out declining patients already known to the team from those who were still unrecognized.
Tools to predict which patients may develop severe sepsis or septic shock have worked even less well, he said. One triggered an alarm before patients showed signs of clinical deterioration. “The team didn’t know what to do with that prediction,” Dr. Umscheid said. As a result, the alert didn’t improve mortality or discharges to home. “If you’re making this prediction too early and providers don’t know what to do with the information, it’s not going to change care or affect patient outcomes,” he said. “It’s just going to frustrate providers.”
References
1. Churpek MM et al. Incidence and prognostic value of the systemic inflammatory response syndrome and organ dysfunctions in ward patients. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2015 Oct 15;192(8):958-64.
2. Umscheid CA et al. Development, implementation, and impact of an automated early warning and response system for sepsis. J Hosp Med. 2015 Jan;10: 26-31.
If they’re too infrequent, alerts can delay sepsis identification and treatment. If they’re too abundant, the alerts can overwhelm providers. Finding the sweet spot for sepsis alerts, QI leaders say, can require time, technology, patience – and sometimes trial and error.
University Hospital in Salt Lake City wanted to broaden its sepsis recognition system to ensure that decompensating patients were seen and resuscitated quickly, regardless of the cause. Another hospital offered a lesson in what not to do when a staff member cautioned that a sepsis alert system based on SIRS alone had been a “total disaster” and left providers fuming. One report suggested that nearly half of all ward patients meet SIRS criteria at some point during their hospitalization, and that using the criteria for sepsis screening in hospital wards is both “time consuming and impractical.”1
Instead, University Hospital tweaked its MEWS or Modified Early Warning System, based on consultations with hospitalists, ICU physicians, and other providers about the appropriate thresholds for vital signs. “It’s kind of like asking someone, ‘Well, when are you really scared of the heart rate and when are you sort of scared and when are you not scared at all?’ ” said project coleader Devin J. Horton, MD, an academic hospitalist.
The team also analyzed the number of alerts per week per unit and their sensitivity and specificity in detecting sepsis. As junior faculty members, Dr. Horton and his collaborator, academic hospitalist Kencee K. Graves, MD, were mindful to avoid angering other doctors over being alerted too often. For their MEWS scoring system, they sacrificed a bit of sensitivity to ensure that the number of alerts remained manageable.
Before going live with its own new alert system, Middlesex Hospital in Middletown, Conn., had a subgroup spend several weeks testing the system in silent mode and tweaking different parameters such as respiratory rate and heart rate to reduce the potential for too many alerts. “If you look at each and every alert, then you can identify how to make your adjustment so that it’s not overly sensitive,” said Terri Savino, MSN, RN, CPHQ, the hospital’s manager of patient experience and service excellence.
A sepsis task force also shared data showing the hospital’s significant reductions in sepsis mortality, total hospital mortality, and sepsis length of stay. “Medical staff were willing to accept the frequency and high sensitivity of the alert because the data demonstrated that it was making a difference in the lives of our patients,” said David M. Cosentino, MD, the hospital’s chief medical information officer.
Other alert systems’ mixed performances have yielded important lessons. At the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, one prototype detected clinically deteriorating patients and sent an alert to the nurse, physician, and a rapid response team. Alerted providers converged on the patient’s bedside within 30 minutes and decided whether to elevate the level of care. Craig Umscheid, MD, MSCE, of the department of epidemiology and vice chair for quality and safety in the department of medicine, said the system was associated with a suggestion of reduced mortality.2 But it was noisy and less helpful than it could have been, he said, because it didn’t separate out declining patients already known to the team from those who were still unrecognized.
Tools to predict which patients may develop severe sepsis or septic shock have worked even less well, he said. One triggered an alarm before patients showed signs of clinical deterioration. “The team didn’t know what to do with that prediction,” Dr. Umscheid said. As a result, the alert didn’t improve mortality or discharges to home. “If you’re making this prediction too early and providers don’t know what to do with the information, it’s not going to change care or affect patient outcomes,” he said. “It’s just going to frustrate providers.”
References
1. Churpek MM et al. Incidence and prognostic value of the systemic inflammatory response syndrome and organ dysfunctions in ward patients. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2015 Oct 15;192(8):958-64.
2. Umscheid CA et al. Development, implementation, and impact of an automated early warning and response system for sepsis. J Hosp Med. 2015 Jan;10: 26-31.
If they’re too infrequent, alerts can delay sepsis identification and treatment. If they’re too abundant, the alerts can overwhelm providers. Finding the sweet spot for sepsis alerts, QI leaders say, can require time, technology, patience – and sometimes trial and error.
University Hospital in Salt Lake City wanted to broaden its sepsis recognition system to ensure that decompensating patients were seen and resuscitated quickly, regardless of the cause. Another hospital offered a lesson in what not to do when a staff member cautioned that a sepsis alert system based on SIRS alone had been a “total disaster” and left providers fuming. One report suggested that nearly half of all ward patients meet SIRS criteria at some point during their hospitalization, and that using the criteria for sepsis screening in hospital wards is both “time consuming and impractical.”1
Instead, University Hospital tweaked its MEWS or Modified Early Warning System, based on consultations with hospitalists, ICU physicians, and other providers about the appropriate thresholds for vital signs. “It’s kind of like asking someone, ‘Well, when are you really scared of the heart rate and when are you sort of scared and when are you not scared at all?’ ” said project coleader Devin J. Horton, MD, an academic hospitalist.
The team also analyzed the number of alerts per week per unit and their sensitivity and specificity in detecting sepsis. As junior faculty members, Dr. Horton and his collaborator, academic hospitalist Kencee K. Graves, MD, were mindful to avoid angering other doctors over being alerted too often. For their MEWS scoring system, they sacrificed a bit of sensitivity to ensure that the number of alerts remained manageable.
Before going live with its own new alert system, Middlesex Hospital in Middletown, Conn., had a subgroup spend several weeks testing the system in silent mode and tweaking different parameters such as respiratory rate and heart rate to reduce the potential for too many alerts. “If you look at each and every alert, then you can identify how to make your adjustment so that it’s not overly sensitive,” said Terri Savino, MSN, RN, CPHQ, the hospital’s manager of patient experience and service excellence.
A sepsis task force also shared data showing the hospital’s significant reductions in sepsis mortality, total hospital mortality, and sepsis length of stay. “Medical staff were willing to accept the frequency and high sensitivity of the alert because the data demonstrated that it was making a difference in the lives of our patients,” said David M. Cosentino, MD, the hospital’s chief medical information officer.
Other alert systems’ mixed performances have yielded important lessons. At the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, one prototype detected clinically deteriorating patients and sent an alert to the nurse, physician, and a rapid response team. Alerted providers converged on the patient’s bedside within 30 minutes and decided whether to elevate the level of care. Craig Umscheid, MD, MSCE, of the department of epidemiology and vice chair for quality and safety in the department of medicine, said the system was associated with a suggestion of reduced mortality.2 But it was noisy and less helpful than it could have been, he said, because it didn’t separate out declining patients already known to the team from those who were still unrecognized.
Tools to predict which patients may develop severe sepsis or septic shock have worked even less well, he said. One triggered an alarm before patients showed signs of clinical deterioration. “The team didn’t know what to do with that prediction,” Dr. Umscheid said. As a result, the alert didn’t improve mortality or discharges to home. “If you’re making this prediction too early and providers don’t know what to do with the information, it’s not going to change care or affect patient outcomes,” he said. “It’s just going to frustrate providers.”
References
1. Churpek MM et al. Incidence and prognostic value of the systemic inflammatory response syndrome and organ dysfunctions in ward patients. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2015 Oct 15;192(8):958-64.
2. Umscheid CA et al. Development, implementation, and impact of an automated early warning and response system for sepsis. J Hosp Med. 2015 Jan;10: 26-31.
Women with acne more likely to have hyperkeratinization, study finds
The finding was seen in women with both types of acne – diffuse and mandibular – and in patients with both inflammatory and hyperkeratinization features, wrote Louise M. Guenot, MD, of the dermatology department at CHU Nantes, France, and her coauthors. In the women with mandibular acne, there were significantly more follicle abnormalities on the mandibular area of the face, compared with the forehead area, with no acne lesions.
The investigators evaluated two groups of women: 15 women with diffuse acne lesions across the forehead, cheeks, and chin (mean age 38 years) and 15 women with mandibular acne only (mean age 31 years). Skin that appeared to be acne free among those in the diffuse acne group was compared with the skin of a control group of six women with no acne history. In the mandibular acne group, patients served as their own controls: Healthy forehead skin was compared with mandibular skin. In the diffuse acne group, 791 forehead follicles were evaluated, and in the mandibular group, 569 mandible follicles and 475 forehead follicles were evaluated.
The investigators studied several features, including diameter of the infundibulum, thickness of the border, onion-like appearance, keratin plugs, signs of inflammation, vascularization, and presence of Demodex mites.
In the diffuse acne group, infundibulum was larger, compared with controls (94.9 mcm vs. 74.9 mcm; P = .047). The follicle border was thicker, was more hyperkeratinized, and had more keratin plugs in the infundibulum compared with controls, all statistically significant differences. Signs of inflammation, vascularization, and the presence of Demodex mites did not differ significantly between those with acne and controls.
In the mandibular acne group, where each patient served as her own control, follicles in the mandibular area were larger than those on the forehead (99 mcm vs. 91 mcm, P = .03), and the follicle border in the mandibular area was significantly thicker, with an “onion-like hyperkeratinized appearance” that was significantly more common in the mandibular area. In addition, images showed a keratin plug in the infundibulum was present more often in the follicles in the mandibular area compared with the forehead (46.7% vs. 36.8%, P = .002). Inflammation and vascularization were also significantly more common in the mandibular area compared with the forehead.
Among controls, though, no differences in infundibulum diameter, follicle thickness, or quantity of keratin plugs were seen on the forehead compared with the mandibular area. There was no more onion-like appearance or keratin plugs on the forehead than in the mandibular area, Dr. Guenot and her coauthors reported. Their findings show that “the follicle morphology on apparently healthy skin of adult women with acne was significantly different from that of follicles on the normal skin of healthy subjects.”
The results also “support the concept that the management of acne with mandibular involvement, even if the main clinical lesions are inflammatory, should take into account the hyperkeratinization process, and the treatment should thus be both comedolytic and anti-inflammatory,” they added.
The authors had no financial disclosures, and there was no funding source.
SOURCE: Guenot et al. Int J Dermatol. 2018 Jan 25. doi: 10.1111/ijd.13910.
The finding was seen in women with both types of acne – diffuse and mandibular – and in patients with both inflammatory and hyperkeratinization features, wrote Louise M. Guenot, MD, of the dermatology department at CHU Nantes, France, and her coauthors. In the women with mandibular acne, there were significantly more follicle abnormalities on the mandibular area of the face, compared with the forehead area, with no acne lesions.
The investigators evaluated two groups of women: 15 women with diffuse acne lesions across the forehead, cheeks, and chin (mean age 38 years) and 15 women with mandibular acne only (mean age 31 years). Skin that appeared to be acne free among those in the diffuse acne group was compared with the skin of a control group of six women with no acne history. In the mandibular acne group, patients served as their own controls: Healthy forehead skin was compared with mandibular skin. In the diffuse acne group, 791 forehead follicles were evaluated, and in the mandibular group, 569 mandible follicles and 475 forehead follicles were evaluated.
The investigators studied several features, including diameter of the infundibulum, thickness of the border, onion-like appearance, keratin plugs, signs of inflammation, vascularization, and presence of Demodex mites.
In the diffuse acne group, infundibulum was larger, compared with controls (94.9 mcm vs. 74.9 mcm; P = .047). The follicle border was thicker, was more hyperkeratinized, and had more keratin plugs in the infundibulum compared with controls, all statistically significant differences. Signs of inflammation, vascularization, and the presence of Demodex mites did not differ significantly between those with acne and controls.
In the mandibular acne group, where each patient served as her own control, follicles in the mandibular area were larger than those on the forehead (99 mcm vs. 91 mcm, P = .03), and the follicle border in the mandibular area was significantly thicker, with an “onion-like hyperkeratinized appearance” that was significantly more common in the mandibular area. In addition, images showed a keratin plug in the infundibulum was present more often in the follicles in the mandibular area compared with the forehead (46.7% vs. 36.8%, P = .002). Inflammation and vascularization were also significantly more common in the mandibular area compared with the forehead.
Among controls, though, no differences in infundibulum diameter, follicle thickness, or quantity of keratin plugs were seen on the forehead compared with the mandibular area. There was no more onion-like appearance or keratin plugs on the forehead than in the mandibular area, Dr. Guenot and her coauthors reported. Their findings show that “the follicle morphology on apparently healthy skin of adult women with acne was significantly different from that of follicles on the normal skin of healthy subjects.”
The results also “support the concept that the management of acne with mandibular involvement, even if the main clinical lesions are inflammatory, should take into account the hyperkeratinization process, and the treatment should thus be both comedolytic and anti-inflammatory,” they added.
The authors had no financial disclosures, and there was no funding source.
SOURCE: Guenot et al. Int J Dermatol. 2018 Jan 25. doi: 10.1111/ijd.13910.
The finding was seen in women with both types of acne – diffuse and mandibular – and in patients with both inflammatory and hyperkeratinization features, wrote Louise M. Guenot, MD, of the dermatology department at CHU Nantes, France, and her coauthors. In the women with mandibular acne, there were significantly more follicle abnormalities on the mandibular area of the face, compared with the forehead area, with no acne lesions.
The investigators evaluated two groups of women: 15 women with diffuse acne lesions across the forehead, cheeks, and chin (mean age 38 years) and 15 women with mandibular acne only (mean age 31 years). Skin that appeared to be acne free among those in the diffuse acne group was compared with the skin of a control group of six women with no acne history. In the mandibular acne group, patients served as their own controls: Healthy forehead skin was compared with mandibular skin. In the diffuse acne group, 791 forehead follicles were evaluated, and in the mandibular group, 569 mandible follicles and 475 forehead follicles were evaluated.
The investigators studied several features, including diameter of the infundibulum, thickness of the border, onion-like appearance, keratin plugs, signs of inflammation, vascularization, and presence of Demodex mites.
In the diffuse acne group, infundibulum was larger, compared with controls (94.9 mcm vs. 74.9 mcm; P = .047). The follicle border was thicker, was more hyperkeratinized, and had more keratin plugs in the infundibulum compared with controls, all statistically significant differences. Signs of inflammation, vascularization, and the presence of Demodex mites did not differ significantly between those with acne and controls.
In the mandibular acne group, where each patient served as her own control, follicles in the mandibular area were larger than those on the forehead (99 mcm vs. 91 mcm, P = .03), and the follicle border in the mandibular area was significantly thicker, with an “onion-like hyperkeratinized appearance” that was significantly more common in the mandibular area. In addition, images showed a keratin plug in the infundibulum was present more often in the follicles in the mandibular area compared with the forehead (46.7% vs. 36.8%, P = .002). Inflammation and vascularization were also significantly more common in the mandibular area compared with the forehead.
Among controls, though, no differences in infundibulum diameter, follicle thickness, or quantity of keratin plugs were seen on the forehead compared with the mandibular area. There was no more onion-like appearance or keratin plugs on the forehead than in the mandibular area, Dr. Guenot and her coauthors reported. Their findings show that “the follicle morphology on apparently healthy skin of adult women with acne was significantly different from that of follicles on the normal skin of healthy subjects.”
The results also “support the concept that the management of acne with mandibular involvement, even if the main clinical lesions are inflammatory, should take into account the hyperkeratinization process, and the treatment should thus be both comedolytic and anti-inflammatory,” they added.
The authors had no financial disclosures, and there was no funding source.
SOURCE: Guenot et al. Int J Dermatol. 2018 Jan 25. doi: 10.1111/ijd.13910.
FROM THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DERMATOLOGY
Key clinical point: Imaging performed with confocal microscopy showed hyperkeratinization and other abnormalities in healthy-looking skin of acne patients.
Major finding: Follicle abnormalities were significantly more common in the healthy appearing skin of adult women with acne, compared with the skin of controls with no acne.
Data source: A study evaluated skin structures with confocal microscopy in 15 women with diffuse acne and 15 with mandibular acne.
Disclosures: The authors had no financial disclosures, and there was no funding source.
Source: Guenot LM et al. Int J Dermatol. 2018 Jan 25. doi: 10.1111/ijd.13910.
Children’s behavioral problems tied to mothers’ postpartum depression
Persistent and severe postpartum depression in mothers may be associated with behavioral problems, poor mathematics grades, and a higher risk of depression in their offspring, research published Jan. 31 in JAMA Psychiatry showed.
In the study, Elena Netsi, DPhil, and her associates presented an analysis of data from 9,848 mothers and 8,287 children enrolled in the observational Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children.
This analysis revealed that postpartum depression of any severity or level of persistence was associated with a two- to fourfold increase in the risk of children showing behavioral problems at age 3.5 years. In women with marked but not persistent postpartum depression, the odds ratio for child behavioral disturbance was 1.91, in mothers with severe but not persistent depression it was 2.39, and in mothers with severe persistent depression, the odds ratio was 4.84 – all of which were highly significant (P less than .001).
However, the authors reported.
It was associated with a 2.65-fold increase in the likelihood of a child having mathematics grades of D or below (P = .01), and a more than sevenfold increase in the prevalence of depression in offspring at 18 years (P less than .001). There also was a 2.3-fold increase in depression at 18 years in the children of mothers who experienced marked but not persistent postpartum depression (P = .04).
Dr. Netsi of the department of psychiatry at the University of Oxford (England) and her coauthors noted that, in women with persistent postpartum depression, mean Edinburgh Postpartum Depression Scale scores remained relatively stable, from 21 months to 11 years, suggesting an increased risk for prolonged depression.
“Identification of women with [postpartum depression] may be associated with increased treatment costs, but the overall cost to the public sector of perinatal mental health problems is five times more than the cost of improving services, further highlighting that early intervention and effective treatment of perinatal depression are a public health priority,” they wrote.
However, they acknowledged that there were mixed findings in the literature with respect to the impact on child outcomes of treating maternal depression.
“Treatments for [postpartum depression] have been relatively brief in duration and moderate in intensity; therefore, it is perhaps unsurprising that such interventions have not shown long-term benefits for either the mother or the child,” the investigators wrote.
The Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children is supported by the U.K. Medical Research Council, the Wellcome Trust, and the University of Bristol. This study was supported by the Wellcome Trust, the National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre, the University of Bristol, and the NIHR Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre. No conflicts of interest were declared.
SOURCE: Netsi E et al. JAMA Psychiatry. 2018 Jan 31. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2017.4363.
This study raises new and interesting questions about the clinical effects of maternal depression on offspring, and identifies a particularly vulnerable group of mothers and their offspring. If anything, the findings are likely an underestimation of the true effect, because of high rates of study attrition, especially within the most vulnerable group.
However, this does not answer the question of what interventions to use, whom to treat, when to do so, and how to treat. Some would argue that clinicians should treat maternal depression first, as a woman with acute depression needs care before she can be helped with parenting. Others suggest that a better approach is to engage the unique mother-infant experience, as this can be a positive therapeutic interaction in itself.
Whatever the approach, the treatment of maternal depression should be evidence based and available early, particularly in new mothers with persistent depression.
Myrna M. Weissman, PhD, is affiliated with the division of epidemiology at Columbia University, New York. These comments are taken from an accompanying editorial (JAMA Psychiatry. 2018 Jan 31. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2017.4265). Dr. Weissman declared funding from a variety of funding bodies and publishing companies outside the submitted work.
This study raises new and interesting questions about the clinical effects of maternal depression on offspring, and identifies a particularly vulnerable group of mothers and their offspring. If anything, the findings are likely an underestimation of the true effect, because of high rates of study attrition, especially within the most vulnerable group.
However, this does not answer the question of what interventions to use, whom to treat, when to do so, and how to treat. Some would argue that clinicians should treat maternal depression first, as a woman with acute depression needs care before she can be helped with parenting. Others suggest that a better approach is to engage the unique mother-infant experience, as this can be a positive therapeutic interaction in itself.
Whatever the approach, the treatment of maternal depression should be evidence based and available early, particularly in new mothers with persistent depression.
Myrna M. Weissman, PhD, is affiliated with the division of epidemiology at Columbia University, New York. These comments are taken from an accompanying editorial (JAMA Psychiatry. 2018 Jan 31. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2017.4265). Dr. Weissman declared funding from a variety of funding bodies and publishing companies outside the submitted work.
This study raises new and interesting questions about the clinical effects of maternal depression on offspring, and identifies a particularly vulnerable group of mothers and their offspring. If anything, the findings are likely an underestimation of the true effect, because of high rates of study attrition, especially within the most vulnerable group.
However, this does not answer the question of what interventions to use, whom to treat, when to do so, and how to treat. Some would argue that clinicians should treat maternal depression first, as a woman with acute depression needs care before she can be helped with parenting. Others suggest that a better approach is to engage the unique mother-infant experience, as this can be a positive therapeutic interaction in itself.
Whatever the approach, the treatment of maternal depression should be evidence based and available early, particularly in new mothers with persistent depression.
Myrna M. Weissman, PhD, is affiliated with the division of epidemiology at Columbia University, New York. These comments are taken from an accompanying editorial (JAMA Psychiatry. 2018 Jan 31. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2017.4265). Dr. Weissman declared funding from a variety of funding bodies and publishing companies outside the submitted work.
Persistent and severe postpartum depression in mothers may be associated with behavioral problems, poor mathematics grades, and a higher risk of depression in their offspring, research published Jan. 31 in JAMA Psychiatry showed.
In the study, Elena Netsi, DPhil, and her associates presented an analysis of data from 9,848 mothers and 8,287 children enrolled in the observational Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children.
This analysis revealed that postpartum depression of any severity or level of persistence was associated with a two- to fourfold increase in the risk of children showing behavioral problems at age 3.5 years. In women with marked but not persistent postpartum depression, the odds ratio for child behavioral disturbance was 1.91, in mothers with severe but not persistent depression it was 2.39, and in mothers with severe persistent depression, the odds ratio was 4.84 – all of which were highly significant (P less than .001).
However, the authors reported.
It was associated with a 2.65-fold increase in the likelihood of a child having mathematics grades of D or below (P = .01), and a more than sevenfold increase in the prevalence of depression in offspring at 18 years (P less than .001). There also was a 2.3-fold increase in depression at 18 years in the children of mothers who experienced marked but not persistent postpartum depression (P = .04).
Dr. Netsi of the department of psychiatry at the University of Oxford (England) and her coauthors noted that, in women with persistent postpartum depression, mean Edinburgh Postpartum Depression Scale scores remained relatively stable, from 21 months to 11 years, suggesting an increased risk for prolonged depression.
“Identification of women with [postpartum depression] may be associated with increased treatment costs, but the overall cost to the public sector of perinatal mental health problems is five times more than the cost of improving services, further highlighting that early intervention and effective treatment of perinatal depression are a public health priority,” they wrote.
However, they acknowledged that there were mixed findings in the literature with respect to the impact on child outcomes of treating maternal depression.
“Treatments for [postpartum depression] have been relatively brief in duration and moderate in intensity; therefore, it is perhaps unsurprising that such interventions have not shown long-term benefits for either the mother or the child,” the investigators wrote.
The Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children is supported by the U.K. Medical Research Council, the Wellcome Trust, and the University of Bristol. This study was supported by the Wellcome Trust, the National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre, the University of Bristol, and the NIHR Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre. No conflicts of interest were declared.
SOURCE: Netsi E et al. JAMA Psychiatry. 2018 Jan 31. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2017.4363.
Persistent and severe postpartum depression in mothers may be associated with behavioral problems, poor mathematics grades, and a higher risk of depression in their offspring, research published Jan. 31 in JAMA Psychiatry showed.
In the study, Elena Netsi, DPhil, and her associates presented an analysis of data from 9,848 mothers and 8,287 children enrolled in the observational Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children.
This analysis revealed that postpartum depression of any severity or level of persistence was associated with a two- to fourfold increase in the risk of children showing behavioral problems at age 3.5 years. In women with marked but not persistent postpartum depression, the odds ratio for child behavioral disturbance was 1.91, in mothers with severe but not persistent depression it was 2.39, and in mothers with severe persistent depression, the odds ratio was 4.84 – all of which were highly significant (P less than .001).
However, the authors reported.
It was associated with a 2.65-fold increase in the likelihood of a child having mathematics grades of D or below (P = .01), and a more than sevenfold increase in the prevalence of depression in offspring at 18 years (P less than .001). There also was a 2.3-fold increase in depression at 18 years in the children of mothers who experienced marked but not persistent postpartum depression (P = .04).
Dr. Netsi of the department of psychiatry at the University of Oxford (England) and her coauthors noted that, in women with persistent postpartum depression, mean Edinburgh Postpartum Depression Scale scores remained relatively stable, from 21 months to 11 years, suggesting an increased risk for prolonged depression.
“Identification of women with [postpartum depression] may be associated with increased treatment costs, but the overall cost to the public sector of perinatal mental health problems is five times more than the cost of improving services, further highlighting that early intervention and effective treatment of perinatal depression are a public health priority,” they wrote.
However, they acknowledged that there were mixed findings in the literature with respect to the impact on child outcomes of treating maternal depression.
“Treatments for [postpartum depression] have been relatively brief in duration and moderate in intensity; therefore, it is perhaps unsurprising that such interventions have not shown long-term benefits for either the mother or the child,” the investigators wrote.
The Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children is supported by the U.K. Medical Research Council, the Wellcome Trust, and the University of Bristol. This study was supported by the Wellcome Trust, the National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre, the University of Bristol, and the NIHR Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre. No conflicts of interest were declared.
SOURCE: Netsi E et al. JAMA Psychiatry. 2018 Jan 31. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2017.4363.
FROM JAMA PSYCHIATRY
Key clinical point: Persistent and severe postpartum depression in mothers is associated with behavioral problems, poor mathematics grades, and a higher risk of depression in their offspring.
Major finding: Maternal postpartum depression of any severity or level of persistence was associated with a two- to fourfold increase in the risk of children showing behavioral problems at age 3.5 years.
Data source: An analysis of data from 9,848 mothers and 8,287 children enrolled in the observational Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children.
Disclosures: The Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children is supported by the U.K. Medical Research Council, the Wellcome Trust, and the University of Bristol. This study was supported by the Wellcome Trust, the National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre, the University of Bristol, and the NIHR Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre. No conflicts of interest were declared.
Source: Netsi E et al. JAMA Psychiatry. 2018 Jan 31. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2017.4363.
Turmeric-, frankincense-derived supplement shows OA benefit
A combination of curcumin extracted from the turmeric rhizome and boswellic acid extracted from Indian frankincense root beat placebo for reducing pain-related symptoms from knee osteoarthritis in a 12-week clinical trial from Armenia with 201 patients 40-70 years old.
The combination (Curamin) also beat a standalone curcumin preparation (CuraMed), according to a report in BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine.
It appears that combining the two “increases the efficacy of treatment of OA presumably due to synergistic effects of curcumin and boswellic acid”; it’s also possible that boswellic acid increases curcumin bioavailability, said investigators led by Armine Haroyan, PhD, head of rheumatology at Erebuni Medical Center in Yerevan, Armenia.
The subjects were randomized evenly to the combination, curcumin alone, or placebo, all in 500-mg capsules taken three times daily. They had been diagnosed with degenerative hypertrophic OA of knee bone joints.
At the end of 12 weeks, patients on the combination outperformed those on placebo in physical performance tests and joint pain scores; curcumin outperformed placebo in only a few of the physical tests.
For instance, patients on the combination were a mean of 2.03 seconds quicker than baseline in a stair-climbing exercise by the end of the study, versus 0.22 seconds in the placebo group and 1.66 seconds in the curcumin group. Combination patients had a mean 7.38-point improvement on the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, versus 2.26 points in the placebo arm and 6.34 points in the curcumin group. The differences versus placebo were statistically significant for the combination, but not for stand-alone curcumin.
The treatments were well tolerated, with only a few patients in each arm reporting nausea, gastroesophageal reflux, and similar problems.
The work was funded in part by EuroPharma USA, maker of the supplements. The authors said they had no competing interests.
SOURCE: Haroyan A et al. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2018 Jan 9;18:7. doi: 10.1186/s12906-017-2062-z
A combination of curcumin extracted from the turmeric rhizome and boswellic acid extracted from Indian frankincense root beat placebo for reducing pain-related symptoms from knee osteoarthritis in a 12-week clinical trial from Armenia with 201 patients 40-70 years old.
The combination (Curamin) also beat a standalone curcumin preparation (CuraMed), according to a report in BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine.
It appears that combining the two “increases the efficacy of treatment of OA presumably due to synergistic effects of curcumin and boswellic acid”; it’s also possible that boswellic acid increases curcumin bioavailability, said investigators led by Armine Haroyan, PhD, head of rheumatology at Erebuni Medical Center in Yerevan, Armenia.
The subjects were randomized evenly to the combination, curcumin alone, or placebo, all in 500-mg capsules taken three times daily. They had been diagnosed with degenerative hypertrophic OA of knee bone joints.
At the end of 12 weeks, patients on the combination outperformed those on placebo in physical performance tests and joint pain scores; curcumin outperformed placebo in only a few of the physical tests.
For instance, patients on the combination were a mean of 2.03 seconds quicker than baseline in a stair-climbing exercise by the end of the study, versus 0.22 seconds in the placebo group and 1.66 seconds in the curcumin group. Combination patients had a mean 7.38-point improvement on the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, versus 2.26 points in the placebo arm and 6.34 points in the curcumin group. The differences versus placebo were statistically significant for the combination, but not for stand-alone curcumin.
The treatments were well tolerated, with only a few patients in each arm reporting nausea, gastroesophageal reflux, and similar problems.
The work was funded in part by EuroPharma USA, maker of the supplements. The authors said they had no competing interests.
SOURCE: Haroyan A et al. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2018 Jan 9;18:7. doi: 10.1186/s12906-017-2062-z
A combination of curcumin extracted from the turmeric rhizome and boswellic acid extracted from Indian frankincense root beat placebo for reducing pain-related symptoms from knee osteoarthritis in a 12-week clinical trial from Armenia with 201 patients 40-70 years old.
The combination (Curamin) also beat a standalone curcumin preparation (CuraMed), according to a report in BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine.
It appears that combining the two “increases the efficacy of treatment of OA presumably due to synergistic effects of curcumin and boswellic acid”; it’s also possible that boswellic acid increases curcumin bioavailability, said investigators led by Armine Haroyan, PhD, head of rheumatology at Erebuni Medical Center in Yerevan, Armenia.
The subjects were randomized evenly to the combination, curcumin alone, or placebo, all in 500-mg capsules taken three times daily. They had been diagnosed with degenerative hypertrophic OA of knee bone joints.
At the end of 12 weeks, patients on the combination outperformed those on placebo in physical performance tests and joint pain scores; curcumin outperformed placebo in only a few of the physical tests.
For instance, patients on the combination were a mean of 2.03 seconds quicker than baseline in a stair-climbing exercise by the end of the study, versus 0.22 seconds in the placebo group and 1.66 seconds in the curcumin group. Combination patients had a mean 7.38-point improvement on the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, versus 2.26 points in the placebo arm and 6.34 points in the curcumin group. The differences versus placebo were statistically significant for the combination, but not for stand-alone curcumin.
The treatments were well tolerated, with only a few patients in each arm reporting nausea, gastroesophageal reflux, and similar problems.
The work was funded in part by EuroPharma USA, maker of the supplements. The authors said they had no competing interests.
SOURCE: Haroyan A et al. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2018 Jan 9;18:7. doi: 10.1186/s12906-017-2062-z
FROM BMC COMPLEMENTARY AND ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE
Cosmetic Corner: Dermatologists Weigh in on Bar Soaps
To improve patient care and outcomes, leading dermatologists offered their recommendations on bar soaps. Consideration must be given to:
- Avène Cold Cream Ultra-Rich Cleansing Bar
Pierre Fabre Dermo-Cosmetique USA
“This gentle cleansing bar is not only hypoallergenic, soap free, and lanolin free, it also has Avène’s soothing Thermal Spring Water, plus white beeswax and a noncomedogenic, pharmaceutical-grade paraffin oil to protect the skin.”—Jeannette Graf, MD, Great Neck, New York
- Hydrating Cleanser Bar
CeraVe
Recommended by Shari Lipner, MD, PhD, New York, New York
- Vanicream Cleansing Bar
Pharmaceutical Specialties, Inc
“This is a great option for patients with eczema or dry, sensitive skin.”—Gary Goldenberg, MD, New York, New York
Cutis invites readers to send us their recommendations. Lip plumpers, shaving lotions for men, and night creams will be featured in upcoming editions of Cosmetic Corner. Please e-mail your recommendation(s) to the Editorial Office.
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Cutis or Frontline Medical Communications Inc. and shall not be used for product endorsement purposes. Any reference made to a specific commercial product does not indicate or imply that Cutis or Frontline Medical Communications Inc. endorses, recommends, or favors the product mentioned. No guarantee is given to the effects of recommended products.
To improve patient care and outcomes, leading dermatologists offered their recommendations on bar soaps. Consideration must be given to:
- Avène Cold Cream Ultra-Rich Cleansing Bar
Pierre Fabre Dermo-Cosmetique USA
“This gentle cleansing bar is not only hypoallergenic, soap free, and lanolin free, it also has Avène’s soothing Thermal Spring Water, plus white beeswax and a noncomedogenic, pharmaceutical-grade paraffin oil to protect the skin.”—Jeannette Graf, MD, Great Neck, New York
- Hydrating Cleanser Bar
CeraVe
Recommended by Shari Lipner, MD, PhD, New York, New York
- Vanicream Cleansing Bar
Pharmaceutical Specialties, Inc
“This is a great option for patients with eczema or dry, sensitive skin.”—Gary Goldenberg, MD, New York, New York
Cutis invites readers to send us their recommendations. Lip plumpers, shaving lotions for men, and night creams will be featured in upcoming editions of Cosmetic Corner. Please e-mail your recommendation(s) to the Editorial Office.
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Cutis or Frontline Medical Communications Inc. and shall not be used for product endorsement purposes. Any reference made to a specific commercial product does not indicate or imply that Cutis or Frontline Medical Communications Inc. endorses, recommends, or favors the product mentioned. No guarantee is given to the effects of recommended products.
To improve patient care and outcomes, leading dermatologists offered their recommendations on bar soaps. Consideration must be given to:
- Avène Cold Cream Ultra-Rich Cleansing Bar
Pierre Fabre Dermo-Cosmetique USA
“This gentle cleansing bar is not only hypoallergenic, soap free, and lanolin free, it also has Avène’s soothing Thermal Spring Water, plus white beeswax and a noncomedogenic, pharmaceutical-grade paraffin oil to protect the skin.”—Jeannette Graf, MD, Great Neck, New York
- Hydrating Cleanser Bar
CeraVe
Recommended by Shari Lipner, MD, PhD, New York, New York
- Vanicream Cleansing Bar
Pharmaceutical Specialties, Inc
“This is a great option for patients with eczema or dry, sensitive skin.”—Gary Goldenberg, MD, New York, New York
Cutis invites readers to send us their recommendations. Lip plumpers, shaving lotions for men, and night creams will be featured in upcoming editions of Cosmetic Corner. Please e-mail your recommendation(s) to the Editorial Office.
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Cutis or Frontline Medical Communications Inc. and shall not be used for product endorsement purposes. Any reference made to a specific commercial product does not indicate or imply that Cutis or Frontline Medical Communications Inc. endorses, recommends, or favors the product mentioned. No guarantee is given to the effects of recommended products.
Expert advice for the corporate titans taking on health care
An announcement Jan. 30 by three of the nation’s corporate titans – Amazon, Berkshire Hathaway, and JPMorgan Chase & Co. – that they are joining forces to address the high costs of employee health care has stirred the health policy pot. It immediately sent shock waves through the health sector of the stock market and reinvigorated talk about health care technology, value, and quality.
Though details regarding the undertaking are thin, the companies said in a statement that their partnership’s intent is to improve employee satisfaction and hold down costs by bringing “their scale and complementary expertise to this long-term effort.”
They plan to create an independent company, “free from profit-making incentives and constraints,” to focus on “technology solutions.”
Berkshire Hathaway CEO Warren Buffett described health care costs as “a hungry tapeworm on the American economy,” and Amazon founder and CEO Jeff Bezos said the partnership was “open-eyed about the degree of difficulty” ahead. Jamie Dimon, chairman and CEO of JPMorgan, said the results could benefit the employees of these companies and possibly all Americans.
But what does all of this mean and how can it be successful when so many other initiatives have fallen short? Kaiser Health News asked a variety of health policy experts for their thoughts on this venture, and what advice they would offer these CEOs as they go forward. Some of the advice has been edited for clarity and length.
Tom Miller, resident fellow, American Enterprise Institute:
“It’s great that someone theoretically with resources would try to build a better mousetrap. But it’s been difficult to do, and part of it is regulatory and competitive barriers are well-constructed in the health care sphere, which tend to make it less receptive or subject to competitive pressures.
“I welcome any new capital trying to disrupt health care. … The incumbents are comfortable and could use disruption. If Amazon has an idea, and is willing to put some money behind it, that’s wonderful. What they are willing to do other than fly low-cost providers for home visits in drones – I don’t know. They’d probably have to miniaturize them, wouldn’t they?”
Stan Dorn, senior fellow, Families USA:
“Number one, look at prices. America doesn’t use more health care than European countries, but we pay a lot more and that’s because of prices more than anything else. Look at hospital prices and prescription drug prices. I would also say, look to eliminate middlemen operating in darkness. I’m thinking in particular of pharmacy benefit managers. Often, the supply chain is hidden and complex, and every step along the way the middlemen are taking their share, and it winds up costing a huge amount of money.”
Bob Kocher, MD, partner, Venrock:
“It has been said that health care is complicated. One thing that is not complicated is that the way to save money is to focus on the sickest patients. And that’s the only thing that has proven to work in great primary care. I hope Amazon realizes this early and does not think that [its smart digital assistant] Alexa and apps are going to make us healthier and save any money.
“It would sure be nice if they invest in a ‘post-CPT-ICD-10-and-many-bills-per-visit’ world where we know prices, can easily know what is known about quality and experience, and have same-day service.”
Tracy Watts, senior partner, Mercer:
“Everyone thinks millennials want to do everything on their phones. But that’s not necessarily the case.
“[There was a recent] survey about this – specifically, millennials are the most interested in new health care offerings, but it wasn’t as much high-tech as it is convenience they are interested in – same-day appointments with a family doctor, guaranteed appointments with specialists, home visits, a wider array of services available at retail clinics. That was kind of an ‘aha’ – this kind of convenience and high-touch experience is what they’re looking for. And when you think of ‘health care of the future,’ that’s not what comes to mind.”
John Rother, president and CEO, National Coalition on Health Care:
“Health care is complex and expensive, so the aim should always be simplicity and affordability. Three keys to success: Manage chronic conditions recognizing the life context of the patient, emphasize primary care-based medical homes, and aggressively negotiate prescription drug costs.”
Suzanne Delbanco, executive director, Catalyst for Payment Reform:
“The biggest driver of health care costs is prices. Those are being driven up by health care providers who have consolidated and will continue to consolidate and amass more market power.
“It sounds like they [the companies] are limiting the use of health plans, but if they’re going to get into that business, they’re going to come up with the same challenges health plans face. What would be really innovative would be to build some provider systems from the ground up where they can truly get a handle on the actual costs and eliminate the market power that drives the prices up, and they can have control over their prices.”
Brian Marcotte, president and CEO, National Business Group on Health:
“They recognize this is [a] long-term play to get involved in this. I’d have to say, this industry is ripe for disruption.
“I think we know technology will continue to play an increasing role in how consumers access and receive health care. We’ve also learned most consumers do not touch the health care delivery system with enough frequency to ever be a sophisticated consumer. What’s intriguing about this partnership is Amazon for many consumers has become part of their day-to-day world, part of their routine. It’s intriguing to consider the possibilities of integrating health care into consumer routine.
“And I think that therein lies the opportunity. Employers offer a lot of resources to their employees to help them maximize their experience, and their No. 1 challenge is engagement.”
Joseph Antos, health economist, American Enterprise Institute:
“My first suggestion is to look at what other employers have done (some unsuccessfully) and consider how to adapt those ideas for the three companies and more broadly. Change incentives for providers. Change incentives for consumers. Work on ways to reduce the effects of market consolidation. The bottom line: Don’t keep doing what we are doing now. I don’t see that these three companies have enough presence in health markets to pull this off anytime soon, but perhaps this should be viewed as the private-sector version of the Affordable Care Act’s Innovation Center – except, this time, there may be some new ideas to test.”
Ceci Connolly, president and CEO, Alliance of Community Health Plans:
“We know that 5% of any population consumes 50% of the health care dollar. I would encourage this group to focus on how to better serve those individuals who need help managing multiple chronic conditions.”
David Lansky, CEO, Pacific Business Group on Health:
“The incumbent providers of services to our members are not doing as much as we need done for affordability and quality. So, we are pleased to see them go down this path. We don’t know what piece of the puzzle they will tackle.
“We know well-intended efforts over the years haven’t added up to material impact on cost and quality. I would suspect they are looking at doing something broader, more disruptive than initiatives we have tried before.
“I think across the board they have the opportunity to set high standards for the health system in whatever platform they use. These companies have a history of raising the bar. Potentially, it could be a help to all of us.”
Staff writers Julie Appleby, Rachel Bluth, Jenny Gold, Jay Hancock, Shefali Luthra, Jordan Rau, Julie Rovner and Chad Terhune contributed to this report. Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of the Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.
An announcement Jan. 30 by three of the nation’s corporate titans – Amazon, Berkshire Hathaway, and JPMorgan Chase & Co. – that they are joining forces to address the high costs of employee health care has stirred the health policy pot. It immediately sent shock waves through the health sector of the stock market and reinvigorated talk about health care technology, value, and quality.
Though details regarding the undertaking are thin, the companies said in a statement that their partnership’s intent is to improve employee satisfaction and hold down costs by bringing “their scale and complementary expertise to this long-term effort.”
They plan to create an independent company, “free from profit-making incentives and constraints,” to focus on “technology solutions.”
Berkshire Hathaway CEO Warren Buffett described health care costs as “a hungry tapeworm on the American economy,” and Amazon founder and CEO Jeff Bezos said the partnership was “open-eyed about the degree of difficulty” ahead. Jamie Dimon, chairman and CEO of JPMorgan, said the results could benefit the employees of these companies and possibly all Americans.
But what does all of this mean and how can it be successful when so many other initiatives have fallen short? Kaiser Health News asked a variety of health policy experts for their thoughts on this venture, and what advice they would offer these CEOs as they go forward. Some of the advice has been edited for clarity and length.
Tom Miller, resident fellow, American Enterprise Institute:
“It’s great that someone theoretically with resources would try to build a better mousetrap. But it’s been difficult to do, and part of it is regulatory and competitive barriers are well-constructed in the health care sphere, which tend to make it less receptive or subject to competitive pressures.
“I welcome any new capital trying to disrupt health care. … The incumbents are comfortable and could use disruption. If Amazon has an idea, and is willing to put some money behind it, that’s wonderful. What they are willing to do other than fly low-cost providers for home visits in drones – I don’t know. They’d probably have to miniaturize them, wouldn’t they?”
Stan Dorn, senior fellow, Families USA:
“Number one, look at prices. America doesn’t use more health care than European countries, but we pay a lot more and that’s because of prices more than anything else. Look at hospital prices and prescription drug prices. I would also say, look to eliminate middlemen operating in darkness. I’m thinking in particular of pharmacy benefit managers. Often, the supply chain is hidden and complex, and every step along the way the middlemen are taking their share, and it winds up costing a huge amount of money.”
Bob Kocher, MD, partner, Venrock:
“It has been said that health care is complicated. One thing that is not complicated is that the way to save money is to focus on the sickest patients. And that’s the only thing that has proven to work in great primary care. I hope Amazon realizes this early and does not think that [its smart digital assistant] Alexa and apps are going to make us healthier and save any money.
“It would sure be nice if they invest in a ‘post-CPT-ICD-10-and-many-bills-per-visit’ world where we know prices, can easily know what is known about quality and experience, and have same-day service.”
Tracy Watts, senior partner, Mercer:
“Everyone thinks millennials want to do everything on their phones. But that’s not necessarily the case.
“[There was a recent] survey about this – specifically, millennials are the most interested in new health care offerings, but it wasn’t as much high-tech as it is convenience they are interested in – same-day appointments with a family doctor, guaranteed appointments with specialists, home visits, a wider array of services available at retail clinics. That was kind of an ‘aha’ – this kind of convenience and high-touch experience is what they’re looking for. And when you think of ‘health care of the future,’ that’s not what comes to mind.”
John Rother, president and CEO, National Coalition on Health Care:
“Health care is complex and expensive, so the aim should always be simplicity and affordability. Three keys to success: Manage chronic conditions recognizing the life context of the patient, emphasize primary care-based medical homes, and aggressively negotiate prescription drug costs.”
Suzanne Delbanco, executive director, Catalyst for Payment Reform:
“The biggest driver of health care costs is prices. Those are being driven up by health care providers who have consolidated and will continue to consolidate and amass more market power.
“It sounds like they [the companies] are limiting the use of health plans, but if they’re going to get into that business, they’re going to come up with the same challenges health plans face. What would be really innovative would be to build some provider systems from the ground up where they can truly get a handle on the actual costs and eliminate the market power that drives the prices up, and they can have control over their prices.”
Brian Marcotte, president and CEO, National Business Group on Health:
“They recognize this is [a] long-term play to get involved in this. I’d have to say, this industry is ripe for disruption.
“I think we know technology will continue to play an increasing role in how consumers access and receive health care. We’ve also learned most consumers do not touch the health care delivery system with enough frequency to ever be a sophisticated consumer. What’s intriguing about this partnership is Amazon for many consumers has become part of their day-to-day world, part of their routine. It’s intriguing to consider the possibilities of integrating health care into consumer routine.
“And I think that therein lies the opportunity. Employers offer a lot of resources to their employees to help them maximize their experience, and their No. 1 challenge is engagement.”
Joseph Antos, health economist, American Enterprise Institute:
“My first suggestion is to look at what other employers have done (some unsuccessfully) and consider how to adapt those ideas for the three companies and more broadly. Change incentives for providers. Change incentives for consumers. Work on ways to reduce the effects of market consolidation. The bottom line: Don’t keep doing what we are doing now. I don’t see that these three companies have enough presence in health markets to pull this off anytime soon, but perhaps this should be viewed as the private-sector version of the Affordable Care Act’s Innovation Center – except, this time, there may be some new ideas to test.”
Ceci Connolly, president and CEO, Alliance of Community Health Plans:
“We know that 5% of any population consumes 50% of the health care dollar. I would encourage this group to focus on how to better serve those individuals who need help managing multiple chronic conditions.”
David Lansky, CEO, Pacific Business Group on Health:
“The incumbent providers of services to our members are not doing as much as we need done for affordability and quality. So, we are pleased to see them go down this path. We don’t know what piece of the puzzle they will tackle.
“We know well-intended efforts over the years haven’t added up to material impact on cost and quality. I would suspect they are looking at doing something broader, more disruptive than initiatives we have tried before.
“I think across the board they have the opportunity to set high standards for the health system in whatever platform they use. These companies have a history of raising the bar. Potentially, it could be a help to all of us.”
Staff writers Julie Appleby, Rachel Bluth, Jenny Gold, Jay Hancock, Shefali Luthra, Jordan Rau, Julie Rovner and Chad Terhune contributed to this report. Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of the Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.
An announcement Jan. 30 by three of the nation’s corporate titans – Amazon, Berkshire Hathaway, and JPMorgan Chase & Co. – that they are joining forces to address the high costs of employee health care has stirred the health policy pot. It immediately sent shock waves through the health sector of the stock market and reinvigorated talk about health care technology, value, and quality.
Though details regarding the undertaking are thin, the companies said in a statement that their partnership’s intent is to improve employee satisfaction and hold down costs by bringing “their scale and complementary expertise to this long-term effort.”
They plan to create an independent company, “free from profit-making incentives and constraints,” to focus on “technology solutions.”
Berkshire Hathaway CEO Warren Buffett described health care costs as “a hungry tapeworm on the American economy,” and Amazon founder and CEO Jeff Bezos said the partnership was “open-eyed about the degree of difficulty” ahead. Jamie Dimon, chairman and CEO of JPMorgan, said the results could benefit the employees of these companies and possibly all Americans.
But what does all of this mean and how can it be successful when so many other initiatives have fallen short? Kaiser Health News asked a variety of health policy experts for their thoughts on this venture, and what advice they would offer these CEOs as they go forward. Some of the advice has been edited for clarity and length.
Tom Miller, resident fellow, American Enterprise Institute:
“It’s great that someone theoretically with resources would try to build a better mousetrap. But it’s been difficult to do, and part of it is regulatory and competitive barriers are well-constructed in the health care sphere, which tend to make it less receptive or subject to competitive pressures.
“I welcome any new capital trying to disrupt health care. … The incumbents are comfortable and could use disruption. If Amazon has an idea, and is willing to put some money behind it, that’s wonderful. What they are willing to do other than fly low-cost providers for home visits in drones – I don’t know. They’d probably have to miniaturize them, wouldn’t they?”
Stan Dorn, senior fellow, Families USA:
“Number one, look at prices. America doesn’t use more health care than European countries, but we pay a lot more and that’s because of prices more than anything else. Look at hospital prices and prescription drug prices. I would also say, look to eliminate middlemen operating in darkness. I’m thinking in particular of pharmacy benefit managers. Often, the supply chain is hidden and complex, and every step along the way the middlemen are taking their share, and it winds up costing a huge amount of money.”
Bob Kocher, MD, partner, Venrock:
“It has been said that health care is complicated. One thing that is not complicated is that the way to save money is to focus on the sickest patients. And that’s the only thing that has proven to work in great primary care. I hope Amazon realizes this early and does not think that [its smart digital assistant] Alexa and apps are going to make us healthier and save any money.
“It would sure be nice if they invest in a ‘post-CPT-ICD-10-and-many-bills-per-visit’ world where we know prices, can easily know what is known about quality and experience, and have same-day service.”
Tracy Watts, senior partner, Mercer:
“Everyone thinks millennials want to do everything on their phones. But that’s not necessarily the case.
“[There was a recent] survey about this – specifically, millennials are the most interested in new health care offerings, but it wasn’t as much high-tech as it is convenience they are interested in – same-day appointments with a family doctor, guaranteed appointments with specialists, home visits, a wider array of services available at retail clinics. That was kind of an ‘aha’ – this kind of convenience and high-touch experience is what they’re looking for. And when you think of ‘health care of the future,’ that’s not what comes to mind.”
John Rother, president and CEO, National Coalition on Health Care:
“Health care is complex and expensive, so the aim should always be simplicity and affordability. Three keys to success: Manage chronic conditions recognizing the life context of the patient, emphasize primary care-based medical homes, and aggressively negotiate prescription drug costs.”
Suzanne Delbanco, executive director, Catalyst for Payment Reform:
“The biggest driver of health care costs is prices. Those are being driven up by health care providers who have consolidated and will continue to consolidate and amass more market power.
“It sounds like they [the companies] are limiting the use of health plans, but if they’re going to get into that business, they’re going to come up with the same challenges health plans face. What would be really innovative would be to build some provider systems from the ground up where they can truly get a handle on the actual costs and eliminate the market power that drives the prices up, and they can have control over their prices.”
Brian Marcotte, president and CEO, National Business Group on Health:
“They recognize this is [a] long-term play to get involved in this. I’d have to say, this industry is ripe for disruption.
“I think we know technology will continue to play an increasing role in how consumers access and receive health care. We’ve also learned most consumers do not touch the health care delivery system with enough frequency to ever be a sophisticated consumer. What’s intriguing about this partnership is Amazon for many consumers has become part of their day-to-day world, part of their routine. It’s intriguing to consider the possibilities of integrating health care into consumer routine.
“And I think that therein lies the opportunity. Employers offer a lot of resources to their employees to help them maximize their experience, and their No. 1 challenge is engagement.”
Joseph Antos, health economist, American Enterprise Institute:
“My first suggestion is to look at what other employers have done (some unsuccessfully) and consider how to adapt those ideas for the three companies and more broadly. Change incentives for providers. Change incentives for consumers. Work on ways to reduce the effects of market consolidation. The bottom line: Don’t keep doing what we are doing now. I don’t see that these three companies have enough presence in health markets to pull this off anytime soon, but perhaps this should be viewed as the private-sector version of the Affordable Care Act’s Innovation Center – except, this time, there may be some new ideas to test.”
Ceci Connolly, president and CEO, Alliance of Community Health Plans:
“We know that 5% of any population consumes 50% of the health care dollar. I would encourage this group to focus on how to better serve those individuals who need help managing multiple chronic conditions.”
David Lansky, CEO, Pacific Business Group on Health:
“The incumbent providers of services to our members are not doing as much as we need done for affordability and quality. So, we are pleased to see them go down this path. We don’t know what piece of the puzzle they will tackle.
“We know well-intended efforts over the years haven’t added up to material impact on cost and quality. I would suspect they are looking at doing something broader, more disruptive than initiatives we have tried before.
“I think across the board they have the opportunity to set high standards for the health system in whatever platform they use. These companies have a history of raising the bar. Potentially, it could be a help to all of us.”
Staff writers Julie Appleby, Rachel Bluth, Jenny Gold, Jay Hancock, Shefali Luthra, Jordan Rau, Julie Rovner and Chad Terhune contributed to this report. Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of the Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.
JAK inhibitors look good for severe alopecia areata treatment
said Lucy Yichu Liu, MD, and Brett Andrew King, MD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
Standard medical therapies for alopecia areata – usually topical or injected corticosteroids and allergic contact sensitization – are not very effective for severe disease, particularly alopecia totalis and alopecia universalis. The Janus kinase (JAK) pathway recently has been suggested as a target for treatment.
Dr. Liu and Dr. King reviewed several studies, including a retrospective cohort study of 13 patients aged 12-17 years, in which 7 patients had 100% hair loss and 6 had 20%-70% scalp hair loss. The adolescents were treated with the JAK1/3 inhibitor tofacitinib citrate 5 mg twice daily for 2-16 months (median, 5 months). That led to 93% median improvement in Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) score (range, 1%-100%) from baseline. Nine patients experienced hair regrowth. There were mild adverse effects, such as upper respiratory infections and headaches.
In a retrospective cohort study of 90 adults taking tofacitinib at a dosage of 5-10 mg twice daily for 4 months or longer with or without prednisone (300 mg once monthly for three doses), patients were divided into those who were more or less likely to respond based on duration of disease. Of 65 patients with alopecia totalis, or alopecia universalis that had lasted 10 years or less, or alopecia areata, 77% had some hair regrowth; 58% had more than 50% improvement from baseline, and 20% achieved full regrowth of hair, Dr. Liu and Dr. King reported in the Journal of Investigative Dermatology Symposium Proceedings.
“Given the finding in adults that complete scalp hair loss for more than 10 years is less likely to respond to treatment, there may be merit to pursuing treatment, even if only intermittently, in adolescents or even younger patients with stable, severe alopecia areata, to prevent irreversible hair loss in the future,” they wrote.
A patient with alopecia universalis achieved partial scalp hair regrowth and complete eyebrow regrowth with compounded ruxolitinib, a topical JAK inhibitor, according to a 2016 case report. Dr. Liu and Dr. King reported that clinical trials with topical JAK inhibitors, including topical tofacitinib and topical ruxolitinib, currently are ongoing.
SOURCE: Liu LY et al. J Investig Dermatol Symp Proc. 2018 Jan. doi: 10.1016/j.jisp.2017.10.003.
said Lucy Yichu Liu, MD, and Brett Andrew King, MD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
Standard medical therapies for alopecia areata – usually topical or injected corticosteroids and allergic contact sensitization – are not very effective for severe disease, particularly alopecia totalis and alopecia universalis. The Janus kinase (JAK) pathway recently has been suggested as a target for treatment.
Dr. Liu and Dr. King reviewed several studies, including a retrospective cohort study of 13 patients aged 12-17 years, in which 7 patients had 100% hair loss and 6 had 20%-70% scalp hair loss. The adolescents were treated with the JAK1/3 inhibitor tofacitinib citrate 5 mg twice daily for 2-16 months (median, 5 months). That led to 93% median improvement in Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) score (range, 1%-100%) from baseline. Nine patients experienced hair regrowth. There were mild adverse effects, such as upper respiratory infections and headaches.
In a retrospective cohort study of 90 adults taking tofacitinib at a dosage of 5-10 mg twice daily for 4 months or longer with or without prednisone (300 mg once monthly for three doses), patients were divided into those who were more or less likely to respond based on duration of disease. Of 65 patients with alopecia totalis, or alopecia universalis that had lasted 10 years or less, or alopecia areata, 77% had some hair regrowth; 58% had more than 50% improvement from baseline, and 20% achieved full regrowth of hair, Dr. Liu and Dr. King reported in the Journal of Investigative Dermatology Symposium Proceedings.
“Given the finding in adults that complete scalp hair loss for more than 10 years is less likely to respond to treatment, there may be merit to pursuing treatment, even if only intermittently, in adolescents or even younger patients with stable, severe alopecia areata, to prevent irreversible hair loss in the future,” they wrote.
A patient with alopecia universalis achieved partial scalp hair regrowth and complete eyebrow regrowth with compounded ruxolitinib, a topical JAK inhibitor, according to a 2016 case report. Dr. Liu and Dr. King reported that clinical trials with topical JAK inhibitors, including topical tofacitinib and topical ruxolitinib, currently are ongoing.
SOURCE: Liu LY et al. J Investig Dermatol Symp Proc. 2018 Jan. doi: 10.1016/j.jisp.2017.10.003.
said Lucy Yichu Liu, MD, and Brett Andrew King, MD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
Standard medical therapies for alopecia areata – usually topical or injected corticosteroids and allergic contact sensitization – are not very effective for severe disease, particularly alopecia totalis and alopecia universalis. The Janus kinase (JAK) pathway recently has been suggested as a target for treatment.
Dr. Liu and Dr. King reviewed several studies, including a retrospective cohort study of 13 patients aged 12-17 years, in which 7 patients had 100% hair loss and 6 had 20%-70% scalp hair loss. The adolescents were treated with the JAK1/3 inhibitor tofacitinib citrate 5 mg twice daily for 2-16 months (median, 5 months). That led to 93% median improvement in Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) score (range, 1%-100%) from baseline. Nine patients experienced hair regrowth. There were mild adverse effects, such as upper respiratory infections and headaches.
In a retrospective cohort study of 90 adults taking tofacitinib at a dosage of 5-10 mg twice daily for 4 months or longer with or without prednisone (300 mg once monthly for three doses), patients were divided into those who were more or less likely to respond based on duration of disease. Of 65 patients with alopecia totalis, or alopecia universalis that had lasted 10 years or less, or alopecia areata, 77% had some hair regrowth; 58% had more than 50% improvement from baseline, and 20% achieved full regrowth of hair, Dr. Liu and Dr. King reported in the Journal of Investigative Dermatology Symposium Proceedings.
“Given the finding in adults that complete scalp hair loss for more than 10 years is less likely to respond to treatment, there may be merit to pursuing treatment, even if only intermittently, in adolescents or even younger patients with stable, severe alopecia areata, to prevent irreversible hair loss in the future,” they wrote.
A patient with alopecia universalis achieved partial scalp hair regrowth and complete eyebrow regrowth with compounded ruxolitinib, a topical JAK inhibitor, according to a 2016 case report. Dr. Liu and Dr. King reported that clinical trials with topical JAK inhibitors, including topical tofacitinib and topical ruxolitinib, currently are ongoing.
SOURCE: Liu LY et al. J Investig Dermatol Symp Proc. 2018 Jan. doi: 10.1016/j.jisp.2017.10.003.
FROM JOURNAL OF INVESTIGATIVE DERMATOLOGY SYMPOSIUM PROCEEDINGS
CDC’s Fitzgerald resigns amid tobacco stock brouhaha
Brenda Fitzgerald, MD, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, resigned Jan. 31 after reports surfaced on the public affairs website Politico that she purchased shares of Japan Tobacco about 1 month after becoming the agency’s director.
Dr. Fitzgerald, an ob.gyn., also bought stock in Merck & Co., Bayer, and Humana after joining the Trump Administration in July 2017, according to the report. Financial disclosure records confirm that she sold the tobacco stock in October and “all of her stock holdings above $1,000 by Nov. 21, more than 4 months after she became CDC director,” according to the Politico report.
According to a spokesperson for the Health and Human Services department, “This morning Secretary Azar accepted Dr. Brenda Fitzgerald’s resignation as Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
“Dr. Fitzgerald owns certain complex financial interests that have imposed a broad recusal limiting her ability to complete all of her duties as the CDC Director. Due to the nature of these financial interests, Dr. Fitzgerald could not divest from them in a definitive time period. After advising Secretary Azar of both the status of the financial interests and the scope of her recusal, Dr. Fitzgerald tendered, and the Secretary accepted, her resignation. The Secretary thanks Dr. Brenda Fitzgerald for her service and wishes her the best in all her endeavors,” according to a report on CNBC.
Brenda Fitzgerald, MD, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, resigned Jan. 31 after reports surfaced on the public affairs website Politico that she purchased shares of Japan Tobacco about 1 month after becoming the agency’s director.
Dr. Fitzgerald, an ob.gyn., also bought stock in Merck & Co., Bayer, and Humana after joining the Trump Administration in July 2017, according to the report. Financial disclosure records confirm that she sold the tobacco stock in October and “all of her stock holdings above $1,000 by Nov. 21, more than 4 months after she became CDC director,” according to the Politico report.
According to a spokesperson for the Health and Human Services department, “This morning Secretary Azar accepted Dr. Brenda Fitzgerald’s resignation as Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
“Dr. Fitzgerald owns certain complex financial interests that have imposed a broad recusal limiting her ability to complete all of her duties as the CDC Director. Due to the nature of these financial interests, Dr. Fitzgerald could not divest from them in a definitive time period. After advising Secretary Azar of both the status of the financial interests and the scope of her recusal, Dr. Fitzgerald tendered, and the Secretary accepted, her resignation. The Secretary thanks Dr. Brenda Fitzgerald for her service and wishes her the best in all her endeavors,” according to a report on CNBC.
Brenda Fitzgerald, MD, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, resigned Jan. 31 after reports surfaced on the public affairs website Politico that she purchased shares of Japan Tobacco about 1 month after becoming the agency’s director.
Dr. Fitzgerald, an ob.gyn., also bought stock in Merck & Co., Bayer, and Humana after joining the Trump Administration in July 2017, according to the report. Financial disclosure records confirm that she sold the tobacco stock in October and “all of her stock holdings above $1,000 by Nov. 21, more than 4 months after she became CDC director,” according to the Politico report.
According to a spokesperson for the Health and Human Services department, “This morning Secretary Azar accepted Dr. Brenda Fitzgerald’s resignation as Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
“Dr. Fitzgerald owns certain complex financial interests that have imposed a broad recusal limiting her ability to complete all of her duties as the CDC Director. Due to the nature of these financial interests, Dr. Fitzgerald could not divest from them in a definitive time period. After advising Secretary Azar of both the status of the financial interests and the scope of her recusal, Dr. Fitzgerald tendered, and the Secretary accepted, her resignation. The Secretary thanks Dr. Brenda Fitzgerald for her service and wishes her the best in all her endeavors,” according to a report on CNBC.