Guidance for Practicing Primary Care

Recommendations, as well as conspiracy theories about COVID-19, have changed at distressing rates over the past year. No disease has ever been more politicized, or more polarizing.

Experts, as well as the least educated, take a stand on what they believe is the most important way to prevent and treat this virus. Many medications have been touted as cures, even when doctors and scientists say they don’t work.

Just recently, a study was published revealing that ivermectin is not effective as a COVID-19 treatment while people continue to claim it works. It has never been more important for doctors, and especially family physicians, to have accurate and updated guidelines.

The NIH and CDC have been publishing recommendations and guidelines for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 since the start of the pandemic. Like any new disease, these have been changing to keep up as new knowledge related to the disease becomes available.
 

NIH updates treatment guidelines

A recent update to the NIH COVID-19 treatment guidelines was published on March 5, 2021. While the complete guidelines are quite extensive, spanning over 200 pages, it’s most important to understand the most recent updates in them.

Since preventative medicine is an integral part of primary care, it is important to note that no medications have been advised to prevent infection with COVID-19. In fact, taking drugs for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEp) is not recommended even in the highest-risk patients, such as health care workers.

In the updated guidelines, tocilizumab in a single IV dose of 8 mg/kg up to a maximum of 800 mg can be given only in combination with dexamethasone (or equivalent corticosteroid) in certain hospitalized patients exhibiting rapid respiratory decompensation. These patients include recently hospitalized patients who have been admitted to the ICU within the previous 24 hours and now require mechanical ventilation or high-flow oxygen via nasal cannula. Those not in the ICU who require rapidly increasing oxygen levels and have significantly increased levels of inflammatory markers should also receive this therapy. In the new guidance, the NIH recommends treating other hospitalized patients who require oxygen with remdesivir, remdesivir + dexamethasone, or dexamethasone alone.

In outpatients, those who have mild to moderate infection and are at increased risk of developing severe disease and/or hospitalization can be treated with bamlanivimab 700 mg + etesevimab 1,400 mg. This should be started as soon as possible after a confirmed diagnosis and within 10 days of symptom onset, according to the NIH recommendations. There is no evidence to support its use in patients hospitalized because of infection. However, it can be used in patients hospitalized for other reasons who have mild to moderate infection, but should be reserved – because of limited supply – for those with the highest risk of complications.
 

Hydroxychloroquine and casirivimab + imdevimab

One medication that has been touted in the media as a tool to treat COVID-19 has been hydroxychloroquine. Past guidelines recommended against this medication as a treatment because it lacked efficacy and posed risks for no therapeutic benefit. The most recent guidelines also recommend against the use of hydroxychloroquine for pre- and postexposure prophylaxis.

Casirivimab + imdevimab has been another talked about therapy. However, current guidelines recommend against its use in hospitalized patients. In addition, it is advised that hospitalized patients be enrolled in a clinical trial to receive it.

Since the pandemic began, the world has seen more than 120 million infections and more than 2 million deaths. Family physicians have a vital role to play as we are often the first ones patients turn to for treatment and advice. It is imperative we stay current with the guidelines and follow the most recent updates as research data are published.
 

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. You can contact her at fpnews@mdedge.com.

Recommendations, as well as conspiracy theories about COVID-19, have changed at distressing rates over the past year. No disease has ever been more politicized, or more polarizing.

Experts, as well as the least educated, take a stand on what they believe is the most important way to prevent and treat this virus. Many medications have been touted as cures, even when doctors and scientists say they don’t work.

Just recently, a study was published revealing that ivermectin is not effective as a COVID-19 treatment while people continue to claim it works. It has never been more important for doctors, and especially family physicians, to have accurate and updated guidelines.

The NIH and CDC have been publishing recommendations and guidelines for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 since the start of the pandemic. Like any new disease, these have been changing to keep up as new knowledge related to the disease becomes available.
 

NIH updates treatment guidelines

A recent update to the NIH COVID-19 treatment guidelines was published on March 5, 2021. While the complete guidelines are quite extensive, spanning over 200 pages, it’s most important to understand the most recent updates in them.

Since preventative medicine is an integral part of primary care, it is important to note that no medications have been advised to prevent infection with COVID-19. In fact, taking drugs for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEp) is not recommended even in the highest-risk patients, such as health care workers.

In the updated guidelines, tocilizumab in a single IV dose of 8 mg/kg up to a maximum of 800 mg can be given only in combination with dexamethasone (or equivalent corticosteroid) in certain hospitalized patients exhibiting rapid respiratory decompensation. These patients include recently hospitalized patients who have been admitted to the ICU within the previous 24 hours and now require mechanical ventilation or high-flow oxygen via nasal cannula. Those not in the ICU who require rapidly increasing oxygen levels and have significantly increased levels of inflammatory markers should also receive this therapy. In the new guidance, the NIH recommends treating other hospitalized patients who require oxygen with remdesivir, remdesivir + dexamethasone, or dexamethasone alone.

In outpatients, those who have mild to moderate infection and are at increased risk of developing severe disease and/or hospitalization can be treated with bamlanivimab 700 mg + etesevimab 1,400 mg. This should be started as soon as possible after a confirmed diagnosis and within 10 days of symptom onset, according to the NIH recommendations. There is no evidence to support its use in patients hospitalized because of infection. However, it can be used in patients hospitalized for other reasons who have mild to moderate infection, but should be reserved – because of limited supply – for those with the highest risk of complications.
 

Hydroxychloroquine and casirivimab + imdevimab

One medication that has been touted in the media as a tool to treat COVID-19 has been hydroxychloroquine. Past guidelines recommended against this medication as a treatment because it lacked efficacy and posed risks for no therapeutic benefit. The most recent guidelines also recommend against the use of hydroxychloroquine for pre- and postexposure prophylaxis.

Casirivimab + imdevimab has been another talked about therapy. However, current guidelines recommend against its use in hospitalized patients. In addition, it is advised that hospitalized patients be enrolled in a clinical trial to receive it.

Since the pandemic began, the world has seen more than 120 million infections and more than 2 million deaths. Family physicians have a vital role to play as we are often the first ones patients turn to for treatment and advice. It is imperative we stay current with the guidelines and follow the most recent updates as research data are published.
 

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. You can contact her at fpnews@mdedge.com.

Recommendations, as well as conspiracy theories about COVID-19, have changed at distressing rates over the past year. No disease has ever been more politicized, or more polarizing.

Experts, as well as the least educated, take a stand on what they believe is the most important way to prevent and treat this virus. Many medications have been touted as cures, even when doctors and scientists say they don’t work.

Just recently, a study was published revealing that ivermectin is not effective as a COVID-19 treatment while people continue to claim it works. It has never been more important for doctors, and especially family physicians, to have accurate and updated guidelines.

The NIH and CDC have been publishing recommendations and guidelines for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 since the start of the pandemic. Like any new disease, these have been changing to keep up as new knowledge related to the disease becomes available.
 

NIH updates treatment guidelines

A recent update to the NIH COVID-19 treatment guidelines was published on March 5, 2021. While the complete guidelines are quite extensive, spanning over 200 pages, it’s most important to understand the most recent updates in them.

Since preventative medicine is an integral part of primary care, it is important to note that no medications have been advised to prevent infection with COVID-19. In fact, taking drugs for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEp) is not recommended even in the highest-risk patients, such as health care workers.

In the updated guidelines, tocilizumab in a single IV dose of 8 mg/kg up to a maximum of 800 mg can be given only in combination with dexamethasone (or equivalent corticosteroid) in certain hospitalized patients exhibiting rapid respiratory decompensation. These patients include recently hospitalized patients who have been admitted to the ICU within the previous 24 hours and now require mechanical ventilation or high-flow oxygen via nasal cannula. Those not in the ICU who require rapidly increasing oxygen levels and have significantly increased levels of inflammatory markers should also receive this therapy. In the new guidance, the NIH recommends treating other hospitalized patients who require oxygen with remdesivir, remdesivir + dexamethasone, or dexamethasone alone.

In outpatients, those who have mild to moderate infection and are at increased risk of developing severe disease and/or hospitalization can be treated with bamlanivimab 700 mg + etesevimab 1,400 mg. This should be started as soon as possible after a confirmed diagnosis and within 10 days of symptom onset, according to the NIH recommendations. There is no evidence to support its use in patients hospitalized because of infection. However, it can be used in patients hospitalized for other reasons who have mild to moderate infection, but should be reserved – because of limited supply – for those with the highest risk of complications.
 

Hydroxychloroquine and casirivimab + imdevimab

One medication that has been touted in the media as a tool to treat COVID-19 has been hydroxychloroquine. Past guidelines recommended against this medication as a treatment because it lacked efficacy and posed risks for no therapeutic benefit. The most recent guidelines also recommend against the use of hydroxychloroquine for pre- and postexposure prophylaxis.

Casirivimab + imdevimab has been another talked about therapy. However, current guidelines recommend against its use in hospitalized patients. In addition, it is advised that hospitalized patients be enrolled in a clinical trial to receive it.

Since the pandemic began, the world has seen more than 120 million infections and more than 2 million deaths. Family physicians have a vital role to play as we are often the first ones patients turn to for treatment and advice. It is imperative we stay current with the guidelines and follow the most recent updates as research data are published.
 

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. You can contact her at fpnews@mdedge.com.

Several updates in the strategy for prevention of and treatment of sexually transmitted infections were recently published in the United States.

Among these are the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ first “Sexually Transmitted Infections (STIs) National Strategic Plan for the United States,” which has a strong encompassing vision.

• Prevent New STIs.
• Improve the health of people by reducing adverse outcomes of STIs.
• Accelerate progress in STI research, technology, and innovation.
• Reduce STI-related health disparities and health inequities.
• Achieve integrated, coordinated efforts that address the STI epidemic.¹

In my opinion, family physicians have important roles to play in order for each of these goals to be achieved.Unfortunately, there are approximately 20 million new cases of STIs each year, and the U.S. has seen increases in the rates of STIs in the past decade.

“Sexually transmitted infections are frequently asymptomatic, which may delay diagnosis and treatment and lead persons to unknowingly transmit STIs to others,” according to a new recommendation statement from the USPSTF.² STIs may lead to serious health consequences for patients, cause harms to a mother and infant during pregnancy, and lead to cases of cancer among other concerning outcomes. As such, following the HHS new national strategic plan is critical for us to address the needs of our communities.
 

Preventing new STIs

Family physicians can be vital in achieving the first goal of the plan by helping to prevent new STIs. In August 2020, the USPSTF updated its guideline on behavioral counseling interventions to prevent STIs. In my opinion, the USPSTF offers some practical improvements from the earlier version of this guideline.

The task force provides a grade B recommendation that all sexually active adolescents and adults at increased risk for STIs be provided with behavioral counseling to prevent STIs. The guideline indicates that behavioral counseling interventions reduce the likelihood of those at increased risk for acquiring STIs.²

The 2014 guideline had recommended intensive interventions with a minimum of 30 minutes of counseling. Many family physicians may have found this previous recommendation impractical to implement. These updated recommendations now include a variety of interventions, such as those that take less than 30 minutes.

Although interventions with more than 120 minutes of contact time had the most effect, those with less than 30 minutes still demonstrated statistically significant fewer acquisitions of STIs during follow-up. These options include in-person counseling, and providing written materials, websites, videos, and telephone and text support to patients. These interventions can be delivered directly by the family physician, or patients may be referred to other settings or the media interventions.

The task force’s updated recommendation statement refers to a variety of resources that can be used to identify these interventions. Many of the studies reviewed for this guideline were conducted in STI clinics, and the guideline authors recommended further studies in primary care as opportunities for more generalizability.

In addition to behavioral counseling for STI prevention, family physicians can help prevent STIs in their patients through HPV vaccination and HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP provision) within their practices. As the first contact for health care for many patients, we have an opportunity to significantly impact this first goal of prevention.
 

Treating STIs

Within the second goal of the national strategic plan is treatment of STIs, which family physicians should include in their practices as well as the diagnosis of STIs.

In December 2020, an update to the CDC’s treatment guideline for gonococcal infection was released. Prior to the publishing of this updated recommendation, the CDC recommended combination therapy of 250 mg intramuscular (IM) dose of ceftriaxone and either doxycycline or azithromycin. This recommendation has been changed to a single 500-mg IM dose of ceftriaxone for uncomplicated urogenital, anorectal, and pharyngeal gonorrhea. If chlamydia cannot be excluded, then the addition of oral doxycycline 100 mg twice daily for 7 days is recommended for nonpregnant persons, and 1 g oral azithromycin for pregnant persons. The previous treatment was recommended based on a concern for gonococcal resistance.

This updated guideline reflects increasing concerns for antimicrobial stewardship and emerging azithromycin resistance. It does not recommend a test-of-cure for urogenital or rectal gonorrhea, though did recommend a test-of-cure 7-14 days after treatment of pharyngeal gonorrhea. The guideline also recommends testing for reinfection 3-12 months after treatment as the rate of reinfection ranges from 7% to 12% among those previously treated.³

For some offices, the provision of the IM injection may be challenging, though having this medication in stock with the possibility of provision can greatly improve access and ease of treatment for patients. Family physicians can incorporate these updated recommendations along with those for other STIs such as chlamydia and syphilis with standing orders for treatment and testing within their offices.
 

Accelerating progress in STI research

Family physicians can also support the national strategic plan by participating in studies looking at the impact of behavioral counseling in the primary care office as opposed to in STI clinics. In addition, by following the STI treatment and screening guidelines, family physicians will contribute to the body of knowledge of prevalence, treatment failure, and reinfection rates of STIs. We can also help advance the research by providing feedback on interventions that have success within our practices.

Reducing STI-related health disparities and inequities

Family physicians are also in important places to support the strategic plan’s fourth goal of reducing health disparities and health inequities.

If we continue to ask the questions to identify those at high risk and ensure that we are offering appropriate STI prevention, care, and treatment services within our clinics, we can expand access to all who need services and improve equity. By offering these services within the primary care office, we may be able to decrease the stigma some may feel going to an STI clinic for services.

By incorporating additional screening and counseling in our practices we may identify some patients who were not aware that they were at risk for an STI and offer them preventive services.
 

Achieving integrated and coordinated efforts

Finally, as many family physicians have integrated practices, we are uniquely poised to support the fifth goal of the strategic plan of achieving integrated and coordinated efforts addressing the STI epidemic. In our practices we can participate in, lead, and refer to programs for substance use disorders, viral hepatitis, STIs, and HIV as part of full scope primary care.

Family physicians and other primary care providers should work to support the entire strategic plan to ensure that we are fully caring for our patients and communities and stopping the past decade’s increase in STIs. We have an opportunity to use this strategy and make a large impact in our communities.
 

Dr. Wheat is a family physician at Erie Family Health Center in Chicago. She is program director of Northwestern’s McGaw Family Medicine residency program at Humboldt Park, Chicago. Dr. Wheat serves on the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News. You can contact her at fpnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2020. Sexually Transmitted Infections National Strategic Plan for the United States: 2021-2025. Washington.

2. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Behavioral counseling interventions to prevent sexually transmitted infections: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA. 2020;324(7):674-81. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.13095.

3. St. Cyr S et al. Update to CDC’s Treatment Guideline for Gonococcal Infection, 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2020;69:1911-6. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6950a6external_icon.

Several updates in the strategy for prevention of and treatment of sexually transmitted infections were recently published in the United States.

Among these are the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ first “Sexually Transmitted Infections (STIs) National Strategic Plan for the United States,” which has a strong encompassing vision.

• Prevent New STIs.
• Improve the health of people by reducing adverse outcomes of STIs.
• Accelerate progress in STI research, technology, and innovation.
• Reduce STI-related health disparities and health inequities.
• Achieve integrated, coordinated efforts that address the STI epidemic.¹

In my opinion, family physicians have important roles to play in order for each of these goals to be achieved.Unfortunately, there are approximately 20 million new cases of STIs each year, and the U.S. has seen increases in the rates of STIs in the past decade.

“Sexually transmitted infections are frequently asymptomatic, which may delay diagnosis and treatment and lead persons to unknowingly transmit STIs to others,” according to a new recommendation statement from the USPSTF.² STIs may lead to serious health consequences for patients, cause harms to a mother and infant during pregnancy, and lead to cases of cancer among other concerning outcomes. As such, following the HHS new national strategic plan is critical for us to address the needs of our communities.
 

Preventing new STIs

Family physicians can be vital in achieving the first goal of the plan by helping to prevent new STIs. In August 2020, the USPSTF updated its guideline on behavioral counseling interventions to prevent STIs. In my opinion, the USPSTF offers some practical improvements from the earlier version of this guideline.

The task force provides a grade B recommendation that all sexually active adolescents and adults at increased risk for STIs be provided with behavioral counseling to prevent STIs. The guideline indicates that behavioral counseling interventions reduce the likelihood of those at increased risk for acquiring STIs.²

The 2014 guideline had recommended intensive interventions with a minimum of 30 minutes of counseling. Many family physicians may have found this previous recommendation impractical to implement. These updated recommendations now include a variety of interventions, such as those that take less than 30 minutes.

Although interventions with more than 120 minutes of contact time had the most effect, those with less than 30 minutes still demonstrated statistically significant fewer acquisitions of STIs during follow-up. These options include in-person counseling, and providing written materials, websites, videos, and telephone and text support to patients. These interventions can be delivered directly by the family physician, or patients may be referred to other settings or the media interventions.

The task force’s updated recommendation statement refers to a variety of resources that can be used to identify these interventions. Many of the studies reviewed for this guideline were conducted in STI clinics, and the guideline authors recommended further studies in primary care as opportunities for more generalizability.

In addition to behavioral counseling for STI prevention, family physicians can help prevent STIs in their patients through HPV vaccination and HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP provision) within their practices. As the first contact for health care for many patients, we have an opportunity to significantly impact this first goal of prevention.
 

Treating STIs

Within the second goal of the national strategic plan is treatment of STIs, which family physicians should include in their practices as well as the diagnosis of STIs.

In December 2020, an update to the CDC’s treatment guideline for gonococcal infection was released. Prior to the publishing of this updated recommendation, the CDC recommended combination therapy of 250 mg intramuscular (IM) dose of ceftriaxone and either doxycycline or azithromycin. This recommendation has been changed to a single 500-mg IM dose of ceftriaxone for uncomplicated urogenital, anorectal, and pharyngeal gonorrhea. If chlamydia cannot be excluded, then the addition of oral doxycycline 100 mg twice daily for 7 days is recommended for nonpregnant persons, and 1 g oral azithromycin for pregnant persons. The previous treatment was recommended based on a concern for gonococcal resistance.

This updated guideline reflects increasing concerns for antimicrobial stewardship and emerging azithromycin resistance. It does not recommend a test-of-cure for urogenital or rectal gonorrhea, though did recommend a test-of-cure 7-14 days after treatment of pharyngeal gonorrhea. The guideline also recommends testing for reinfection 3-12 months after treatment as the rate of reinfection ranges from 7% to 12% among those previously treated.³

For some offices, the provision of the IM injection may be challenging, though having this medication in stock with the possibility of provision can greatly improve access and ease of treatment for patients. Family physicians can incorporate these updated recommendations along with those for other STIs such as chlamydia and syphilis with standing orders for treatment and testing within their offices.
 

Accelerating progress in STI research

Family physicians can also support the national strategic plan by participating in studies looking at the impact of behavioral counseling in the primary care office as opposed to in STI clinics. In addition, by following the STI treatment and screening guidelines, family physicians will contribute to the body of knowledge of prevalence, treatment failure, and reinfection rates of STIs. We can also help advance the research by providing feedback on interventions that have success within our practices.

Reducing STI-related health disparities and inequities

Family physicians are also in important places to support the strategic plan’s fourth goal of reducing health disparities and health inequities.

If we continue to ask the questions to identify those at high risk and ensure that we are offering appropriate STI prevention, care, and treatment services within our clinics, we can expand access to all who need services and improve equity. By offering these services within the primary care office, we may be able to decrease the stigma some may feel going to an STI clinic for services.

By incorporating additional screening and counseling in our practices we may identify some patients who were not aware that they were at risk for an STI and offer them preventive services.
 

Achieving integrated and coordinated efforts

Finally, as many family physicians have integrated practices, we are uniquely poised to support the fifth goal of the strategic plan of achieving integrated and coordinated efforts addressing the STI epidemic. In our practices we can participate in, lead, and refer to programs for substance use disorders, viral hepatitis, STIs, and HIV as part of full scope primary care.

Family physicians and other primary care providers should work to support the entire strategic plan to ensure that we are fully caring for our patients and communities and stopping the past decade’s increase in STIs. We have an opportunity to use this strategy and make a large impact in our communities.
 

Dr. Wheat is a family physician at Erie Family Health Center in Chicago. She is program director of Northwestern’s McGaw Family Medicine residency program at Humboldt Park, Chicago. Dr. Wheat serves on the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News. You can contact her at fpnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2020. Sexually Transmitted Infections National Strategic Plan for the United States: 2021-2025. Washington.

2. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Behavioral counseling interventions to prevent sexually transmitted infections: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA. 2020;324(7):674-81. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.13095.

3. St. Cyr S et al. Update to CDC’s Treatment Guideline for Gonococcal Infection, 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2020;69:1911-6. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6950a6external_icon.

Several updates in the strategy for prevention of and treatment of sexually transmitted infections were recently published in the United States.

Among these are the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ first “Sexually Transmitted Infections (STIs) National Strategic Plan for the United States,” which has a strong encompassing vision.

• Prevent New STIs.
• Improve the health of people by reducing adverse outcomes of STIs.
• Accelerate progress in STI research, technology, and innovation.
• Reduce STI-related health disparities and health inequities.
• Achieve integrated, coordinated efforts that address the STI epidemic.¹

In my opinion, family physicians have important roles to play in order for each of these goals to be achieved.Unfortunately, there are approximately 20 million new cases of STIs each year, and the U.S. has seen increases in the rates of STIs in the past decade.

“Sexually transmitted infections are frequently asymptomatic, which may delay diagnosis and treatment and lead persons to unknowingly transmit STIs to others,” according to a new recommendation statement from the USPSTF.² STIs may lead to serious health consequences for patients, cause harms to a mother and infant during pregnancy, and lead to cases of cancer among other concerning outcomes. As such, following the HHS new national strategic plan is critical for us to address the needs of our communities.
 

Preventing new STIs

Family physicians can be vital in achieving the first goal of the plan by helping to prevent new STIs. In August 2020, the USPSTF updated its guideline on behavioral counseling interventions to prevent STIs. In my opinion, the USPSTF offers some practical improvements from the earlier version of this guideline.

The task force provides a grade B recommendation that all sexually active adolescents and adults at increased risk for STIs be provided with behavioral counseling to prevent STIs. The guideline indicates that behavioral counseling interventions reduce the likelihood of those at increased risk for acquiring STIs.²

The 2014 guideline had recommended intensive interventions with a minimum of 30 minutes of counseling. Many family physicians may have found this previous recommendation impractical to implement. These updated recommendations now include a variety of interventions, such as those that take less than 30 minutes.

Although interventions with more than 120 minutes of contact time had the most effect, those with less than 30 minutes still demonstrated statistically significant fewer acquisitions of STIs during follow-up. These options include in-person counseling, and providing written materials, websites, videos, and telephone and text support to patients. These interventions can be delivered directly by the family physician, or patients may be referred to other settings or the media interventions.

The task force’s updated recommendation statement refers to a variety of resources that can be used to identify these interventions. Many of the studies reviewed for this guideline were conducted in STI clinics, and the guideline authors recommended further studies in primary care as opportunities for more generalizability.

In addition to behavioral counseling for STI prevention, family physicians can help prevent STIs in their patients through HPV vaccination and HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP provision) within their practices. As the first contact for health care for many patients, we have an opportunity to significantly impact this first goal of prevention.
 

Treating STIs

Within the second goal of the national strategic plan is treatment of STIs, which family physicians should include in their practices as well as the diagnosis of STIs.

In December 2020, an update to the CDC’s treatment guideline for gonococcal infection was released. Prior to the publishing of this updated recommendation, the CDC recommended combination therapy of 250 mg intramuscular (IM) dose of ceftriaxone and either doxycycline or azithromycin. This recommendation has been changed to a single 500-mg IM dose of ceftriaxone for uncomplicated urogenital, anorectal, and pharyngeal gonorrhea. If chlamydia cannot be excluded, then the addition of oral doxycycline 100 mg twice daily for 7 days is recommended for nonpregnant persons, and 1 g oral azithromycin for pregnant persons. The previous treatment was recommended based on a concern for gonococcal resistance.

This updated guideline reflects increasing concerns for antimicrobial stewardship and emerging azithromycin resistance. It does not recommend a test-of-cure for urogenital or rectal gonorrhea, though did recommend a test-of-cure 7-14 days after treatment of pharyngeal gonorrhea. The guideline also recommends testing for reinfection 3-12 months after treatment as the rate of reinfection ranges from 7% to 12% among those previously treated.³

For some offices, the provision of the IM injection may be challenging, though having this medication in stock with the possibility of provision can greatly improve access and ease of treatment for patients. Family physicians can incorporate these updated recommendations along with those for other STIs such as chlamydia and syphilis with standing orders for treatment and testing within their offices.
 

Accelerating progress in STI research

Family physicians can also support the national strategic plan by participating in studies looking at the impact of behavioral counseling in the primary care office as opposed to in STI clinics. In addition, by following the STI treatment and screening guidelines, family physicians will contribute to the body of knowledge of prevalence, treatment failure, and reinfection rates of STIs. We can also help advance the research by providing feedback on interventions that have success within our practices.

Reducing STI-related health disparities and inequities

Family physicians are also in important places to support the strategic plan’s fourth goal of reducing health disparities and health inequities.

If we continue to ask the questions to identify those at high risk and ensure that we are offering appropriate STI prevention, care, and treatment services within our clinics, we can expand access to all who need services and improve equity. By offering these services within the primary care office, we may be able to decrease the stigma some may feel going to an STI clinic for services.

By incorporating additional screening and counseling in our practices we may identify some patients who were not aware that they were at risk for an STI and offer them preventive services.
 

Achieving integrated and coordinated efforts

Finally, as many family physicians have integrated practices, we are uniquely poised to support the fifth goal of the strategic plan of achieving integrated and coordinated efforts addressing the STI epidemic. In our practices we can participate in, lead, and refer to programs for substance use disorders, viral hepatitis, STIs, and HIV as part of full scope primary care.

Family physicians and other primary care providers should work to support the entire strategic plan to ensure that we are fully caring for our patients and communities and stopping the past decade’s increase in STIs. We have an opportunity to use this strategy and make a large impact in our communities.
 

Dr. Wheat is a family physician at Erie Family Health Center in Chicago. She is program director of Northwestern’s McGaw Family Medicine residency program at Humboldt Park, Chicago. Dr. Wheat serves on the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News. You can contact her at fpnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2020. Sexually Transmitted Infections National Strategic Plan for the United States: 2021-2025. Washington.

2. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Behavioral counseling interventions to prevent sexually transmitted infections: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA. 2020;324(7):674-81. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.13095.

3. St. Cyr S et al. Update to CDC’s Treatment Guideline for Gonococcal Infection, 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2020;69:1911-6. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6950a6external_icon.

Each year in the United States, approximately one to two out of every thousand people suffer from venous thromboembolism (VTE), including deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. The American Society of Hematology (ASH) issued new guidelines for the management of VTE, including primary treatment, secondary prevention, and treatment of recurrent events, earlier this year.

These guidelines, which were recently published in Blood Advances (Ortel T L et al. Blood Adv 2020 doi: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2020001830), include 28 recommendations.

How to treat uncomplicated patients

For uncomplicated deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and/or pulmonary embolism (PE), the guidelines suggest treating patients at home rather than in the hospital. This is especially important for family physicians to note as many of these patients will now be the responsibility of the primary care doctor to treat and follow. Patients treated at home can avoid the risk of nosocomial infections, especially in the days of COVID-19. Evidence also suggests that being treated at home was shown to reduce the risk of PE versus being treated in the hospital. It is, therefore, crucial that family physicians know which patients are low versus high risk.

Further, the guidelines suggest that these patients with low risk of complications are better treated with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) instead of vitamin K antagonists, such as Coumadin.

Medication-related suggestions

The guidelines also suggest that no DOAC is preferred over another. Since DOACs are relatively newer agents, family doctors need to become comfortable with their use. For proximal DVTs, anticoagulation alone can be used without thrombolytics.

Family physicians are often tasked with the decision on when to stop anticoagulation. The authors recommend against using diagnostic tests such as D-Dimer or ultrasound to decide when to stop these medications in low-risk patients. In patients at risk of recurrent VTE due to chronic medical conditions, it is suggested to continue anti-coagulants indefinitely. While anticoagulant therapy effectively reduces risk of VTE, it does increase the risk of bleeding events.

The guidelines are quite extensive and specific in their recommendations and family physicians need to understand them. We are often the first ones in the medical system to diagnose VTE, and it is quite possible to keep these patients home, thereby eliminating risks they may encounter by being hospitalized. In addition, the recommendation regarding the use of DOACs may ease some of the burden of monitoring patients on long-term Coumadin. These medications do not come without risks, and we must be comfortable evaluating for any complications. In our current health care system, different insurance companies have different formularies making it necessary for us to know all these medications.

In the past, the diagnosis of PE and even a DVT would mean a hospital stay. We now know, and these guidelines reaffirm, that this is not necessary in uncomplicated cases.

In addition to diagnosing VTE, family physicians are also tasked with following up with patients who were hospitalized or started on treatment by other physicians. We need to know the plan on when to stop the medication or when to reevaluate its use. Patients often bring this question to us, and these guidelines will help us answer that question.

Many patients who have more complicated medical conditions often see multiple specialists. The ASH recommendations help standardize the care of these patients across specialties.

What the recommendations are missing

As family doctors, we often treat patients with multiple comorbidities. These guidelines do not make recommendations for patients with cancer, who are at high risk of VTE events. Some patients also have conditions that increase their risk of bleeding or have contraindications to the use of anticoagulants. It would be helpful to have more recommendations for both of these types of patients in addition to the use of inferior vena cava filter in patients with proximal DVT. The document is also missing recommendations for pregnant patients, which would be useful.

Overall, these guidelines include much of what we already do in our practices while doing a great job of incorporating the newer DOACs. These guidelines are easy for family physicians to put into practice.
 

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. You can contact her at fpnews@mdedge.com.

Each year in the United States, approximately one to two out of every thousand people suffer from venous thromboembolism (VTE), including deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. The American Society of Hematology (ASH) issued new guidelines for the management of VTE, including primary treatment, secondary prevention, and treatment of recurrent events, earlier this year.

These guidelines, which were recently published in Blood Advances (Ortel T L et al. Blood Adv 2020 doi: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2020001830), include 28 recommendations.

How to treat uncomplicated patients

For uncomplicated deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and/or pulmonary embolism (PE), the guidelines suggest treating patients at home rather than in the hospital. This is especially important for family physicians to note as many of these patients will now be the responsibility of the primary care doctor to treat and follow. Patients treated at home can avoid the risk of nosocomial infections, especially in the days of COVID-19. Evidence also suggests that being treated at home was shown to reduce the risk of PE versus being treated in the hospital. It is, therefore, crucial that family physicians know which patients are low versus high risk.

Further, the guidelines suggest that these patients with low risk of complications are better treated with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) instead of vitamin K antagonists, such as Coumadin.

Medication-related suggestions

The guidelines also suggest that no DOAC is preferred over another. Since DOACs are relatively newer agents, family doctors need to become comfortable with their use. For proximal DVTs, anticoagulation alone can be used without thrombolytics.

Family physicians are often tasked with the decision on when to stop anticoagulation. The authors recommend against using diagnostic tests such as D-Dimer or ultrasound to decide when to stop these medications in low-risk patients. In patients at risk of recurrent VTE due to chronic medical conditions, it is suggested to continue anti-coagulants indefinitely. While anticoagulant therapy effectively reduces risk of VTE, it does increase the risk of bleeding events.

The guidelines are quite extensive and specific in their recommendations and family physicians need to understand them. We are often the first ones in the medical system to diagnose VTE, and it is quite possible to keep these patients home, thereby eliminating risks they may encounter by being hospitalized. In addition, the recommendation regarding the use of DOACs may ease some of the burden of monitoring patients on long-term Coumadin. These medications do not come without risks, and we must be comfortable evaluating for any complications. In our current health care system, different insurance companies have different formularies making it necessary for us to know all these medications.

In the past, the diagnosis of PE and even a DVT would mean a hospital stay. We now know, and these guidelines reaffirm, that this is not necessary in uncomplicated cases.

In addition to diagnosing VTE, family physicians are also tasked with following up with patients who were hospitalized or started on treatment by other physicians. We need to know the plan on when to stop the medication or when to reevaluate its use. Patients often bring this question to us, and these guidelines will help us answer that question.

Many patients who have more complicated medical conditions often see multiple specialists. The ASH recommendations help standardize the care of these patients across specialties.

What the recommendations are missing

As family doctors, we often treat patients with multiple comorbidities. These guidelines do not make recommendations for patients with cancer, who are at high risk of VTE events. Some patients also have conditions that increase their risk of bleeding or have contraindications to the use of anticoagulants. It would be helpful to have more recommendations for both of these types of patients in addition to the use of inferior vena cava filter in patients with proximal DVT. The document is also missing recommendations for pregnant patients, which would be useful.

Overall, these guidelines include much of what we already do in our practices while doing a great job of incorporating the newer DOACs. These guidelines are easy for family physicians to put into practice.
 

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. You can contact her at fpnews@mdedge.com.

Each year in the United States, approximately one to two out of every thousand people suffer from venous thromboembolism (VTE), including deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. The American Society of Hematology (ASH) issued new guidelines for the management of VTE, including primary treatment, secondary prevention, and treatment of recurrent events, earlier this year.

These guidelines, which were recently published in Blood Advances (Ortel T L et al. Blood Adv 2020 doi: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2020001830), include 28 recommendations.

How to treat uncomplicated patients

For uncomplicated deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and/or pulmonary embolism (PE), the guidelines suggest treating patients at home rather than in the hospital. This is especially important for family physicians to note as many of these patients will now be the responsibility of the primary care doctor to treat and follow. Patients treated at home can avoid the risk of nosocomial infections, especially in the days of COVID-19. Evidence also suggests that being treated at home was shown to reduce the risk of PE versus being treated in the hospital. It is, therefore, crucial that family physicians know which patients are low versus high risk.

Further, the guidelines suggest that these patients with low risk of complications are better treated with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) instead of vitamin K antagonists, such as Coumadin.

Medication-related suggestions

The guidelines also suggest that no DOAC is preferred over another. Since DOACs are relatively newer agents, family doctors need to become comfortable with their use. For proximal DVTs, anticoagulation alone can be used without thrombolytics.

Family physicians are often tasked with the decision on when to stop anticoagulation. The authors recommend against using diagnostic tests such as D-Dimer or ultrasound to decide when to stop these medications in low-risk patients. In patients at risk of recurrent VTE due to chronic medical conditions, it is suggested to continue anti-coagulants indefinitely. While anticoagulant therapy effectively reduces risk of VTE, it does increase the risk of bleeding events.

The guidelines are quite extensive and specific in their recommendations and family physicians need to understand them. We are often the first ones in the medical system to diagnose VTE, and it is quite possible to keep these patients home, thereby eliminating risks they may encounter by being hospitalized. In addition, the recommendation regarding the use of DOACs may ease some of the burden of monitoring patients on long-term Coumadin. These medications do not come without risks, and we must be comfortable evaluating for any complications. In our current health care system, different insurance companies have different formularies making it necessary for us to know all these medications.

In the past, the diagnosis of PE and even a DVT would mean a hospital stay. We now know, and these guidelines reaffirm, that this is not necessary in uncomplicated cases.

In addition to diagnosing VTE, family physicians are also tasked with following up with patients who were hospitalized or started on treatment by other physicians. We need to know the plan on when to stop the medication or when to reevaluate its use. Patients often bring this question to us, and these guidelines will help us answer that question.

Many patients who have more complicated medical conditions often see multiple specialists. The ASH recommendations help standardize the care of these patients across specialties.

What the recommendations are missing

As family doctors, we often treat patients with multiple comorbidities. These guidelines do not make recommendations for patients with cancer, who are at high risk of VTE events. Some patients also have conditions that increase their risk of bleeding or have contraindications to the use of anticoagulants. It would be helpful to have more recommendations for both of these types of patients in addition to the use of inferior vena cava filter in patients with proximal DVT. The document is also missing recommendations for pregnant patients, which would be useful.

Overall, these guidelines include much of what we already do in our practices while doing a great job of incorporating the newer DOACs. These guidelines are easy for family physicians to put into practice.
 

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. You can contact her at fpnews@mdedge.com.

The recent death of “Black Panther” star Chadwick Boseman has resulted in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening guidelines receiving more attention. Mr. Boseman was diagnosed with Stage 3 CRC in 2016 and underwent treatment. He passed away 4 years later at the young age of 44.

Mr. Boseman’s death has highlighted two important concerns about current screening guidelines for CRC. These include racial disparities in patients with colon cancer and the fact that more younger patients are getting this disease.

There are at least three different sets of CRC screening recommendations from different trusted professional organizations that primary care physicians must decide how to follow. These organizations each published their guidelines indicating review of the best available evidence. On first glance there is discrepancy between these guidelines, but a closer look at them reveals they have a lot of similarities.

The U.S. Multi-Society Task Force of Colorectal Cancer (MSTF), which represents the American College of Gastroenterology, the American Gatroenterological Association, and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, is one of the organizations that offers guidelines. The MSTF recommends CRC screening for non-African American average risked persons at the age of 50 years (strong recommendation; moderate quality evidence). The first-tier options for this recommendation are to have a colonoscopy every 10 years or annual fecal immunochemial test. Additionally, the MSTF recommends beginning screening of African Americans at age 45 years (weak recommendation; very-low-quality evidence). This recommendation cites higher incidence rates, earlier mean age at onset, higher proportion of cancers before age 50 years and late-stage presentation. The MSTF indicates that the increased rate of CRC at an earlier age in African Americans is caused by a combination of biologic and societal factors, but do not point to what those are. This earlier screening is not backed by evidence that it in fact improves morbidity or mortality outcomes. The MSTF also address screening among high-risk individuals. Those with first degree relatives with CRC or advanced adenomas diagnosed before the age of 60 years should be screened beginning at age 40 years or 10 years younger than the age the relative was diagnosed, whichever comes first, according to the MSTF recommendations. These individuals should have a colonoscopy every 5 years, the MSTF says. Those with first degree relatives with CRC or advanced adenomas diagnosed at older than 60 years should have CRC beginning at 40 years, though with the same testing intervals as average-risk individuals.¹

The American College of Physicians (ACP) and the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), however, endorse the guidelines set forth by the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). These guidelines were published in 2016 in the JAMA and notably are currently under review. These guidelines recommend routine screening for those at average risk at the age of 50 years. In the publication of these guidelines, the increasing incidence of CRC in those under 50 was acknowledged. It is however stated that the modest benefit of earlier diagnosis made via screening is not better than the increased risk of increased lifetime colonoscopy.²

The publication specifically addresses the disparity among Black adults who have the highest incidence and mortality rates in comparison with other racial/ethnic groups. These guidelines specifically state that there are higher rates of colon cancer among black adults. They however clarify that they think it is because of decreased screening and treatment in this group. When compared with other groups and the screening and treatment is controlled for, there is no longer a difference. Lowering the age for starting screening, therefore, won’t help resolve the disparity because the higher cases in Black adults has resulted from not enough Black adults being screened at the recommended age of 50, according to the USPSTF recommendation statement. As such, rather than changing the age of screening for Black adults, this publication recommends efforts to ensure that screening, follow-up, and treatment are received.

The USPSTF specifically did not include adults with known disorders that have a genetic predisposition to CRC or those with a first degree relative with CRC. They instead refer to other professional organizations for these recommendations.²

The American Cancer Society (ACS) also had a separate guideline published in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians. It provides a qualified recommendation that CRC screening begin at age 45 years for those with average risk. The guideline also includes a strong recommendation for CRC screening beginning at age 50 years. The qualified recommendation for the younger age group is based on the incidence of colorectal cancer being similar between those aged 45-49 and those aged 50-54 years. The ACS also hypothesized that screening at an earlier age will decrease the disparity among population groups with a higher burden. Importantly, this updated guideline prioritized incidence reduction rather than mortality reduction. The ACS also stressed the need for a multipronged approach to mitigate barriers to CRC screening at the individual, provider, organizational, and policy levels. Similar to the USPSTF, the ACS did not address the screening of those with known disorders that have a genetic predisposition to CRC or those with a first degree relative with CRC.³

In all of the publications discussing CRC screening guidelines, it is stressed that there is not sufficient uptake of any of these recommendations. Rather than conduct earlier screening, in my opinion, we should focus on programmatic ways to ensure that the existing screening recommendations are followed. This is a space in which we can help affect the disparity seen among population groups.

The most important screening test is the one that patients are willing to use. Primary care physicians can use any of these guidelines to have conversations with patients about risk and when to start screening. Although these guidelines may seem to be different from each other, each one includes strong recommendations with the same information.

Additional studies should be done to determine the benefits and harms of screening in patients with known risk factors such as obesity, cigarette smoking, diabetes, high consumption of alcohol, high consumption of red meat and processed food, inactivity, and low intake of dietary fiber, fruits, and vegetables. It is possible that the higher burden of disease among Black adults is related to societal factors leading to increased obesity and dietary habits that increase rates of CRC.

Primary care physicians would be better served by a tool that allows for risk stratification to help guide early screening for all patients. For certain patients, such a tool might result in them qualifying for screening that begins at a later age than the current guidelines recommend. Finally, primary care physicians must remember that these are just the guidelines for screening for CRC. They all specifically exclude patients experiencing any symptoms. As such, patients with unexplained bleeding, anemia, weight loss, and other symptoms should be evaluated fully, including being considered for colonoscopy to diagnose CRC. Primary care physicians should use these guidelines to screen their asymptomatic patients and should ensure that they provide evaluation of any of the symptoms of CRC.
 

Dr. Wheat is a family physician at Erie Family Health Center in Chicago. She is also program director of Northwestern’s McGaw Family Medicine residency program at Humboldt Park, Chicago. Dr. Wheat serves on editorial advisory board of Family Practice News.

References

1. Rex DK et al. Gastrointest Endosc. 2017;86(1):18-33.

2. US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2016;315(23):2564-2575.

3. Wolf AMD et al. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018 Jul;68(4):250-281.

fpnews@mdedge.com

The recent death of “Black Panther” star Chadwick Boseman has resulted in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening guidelines receiving more attention. Mr. Boseman was diagnosed with Stage 3 CRC in 2016 and underwent treatment. He passed away 4 years later at the young age of 44.

Mr. Boseman’s death has highlighted two important concerns about current screening guidelines for CRC. These include racial disparities in patients with colon cancer and the fact that more younger patients are getting this disease.

There are at least three different sets of CRC screening recommendations from different trusted professional organizations that primary care physicians must decide how to follow. These organizations each published their guidelines indicating review of the best available evidence. On first glance there is discrepancy between these guidelines, but a closer look at them reveals they have a lot of similarities.

The U.S. Multi-Society Task Force of Colorectal Cancer (MSTF), which represents the American College of Gastroenterology, the American Gatroenterological Association, and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, is one of the organizations that offers guidelines. The MSTF recommends CRC screening for non-African American average risked persons at the age of 50 years (strong recommendation; moderate quality evidence). The first-tier options for this recommendation are to have a colonoscopy every 10 years or annual fecal immunochemial test. Additionally, the MSTF recommends beginning screening of African Americans at age 45 years (weak recommendation; very-low-quality evidence). This recommendation cites higher incidence rates, earlier mean age at onset, higher proportion of cancers before age 50 years and late-stage presentation. The MSTF indicates that the increased rate of CRC at an earlier age in African Americans is caused by a combination of biologic and societal factors, but do not point to what those are. This earlier screening is not backed by evidence that it in fact improves morbidity or mortality outcomes. The MSTF also address screening among high-risk individuals. Those with first degree relatives with CRC or advanced adenomas diagnosed before the age of 60 years should be screened beginning at age 40 years or 10 years younger than the age the relative was diagnosed, whichever comes first, according to the MSTF recommendations. These individuals should have a colonoscopy every 5 years, the MSTF says. Those with first degree relatives with CRC or advanced adenomas diagnosed at older than 60 years should have CRC beginning at 40 years, though with the same testing intervals as average-risk individuals.¹

The American College of Physicians (ACP) and the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), however, endorse the guidelines set forth by the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). These guidelines were published in 2016 in the JAMA and notably are currently under review. These guidelines recommend routine screening for those at average risk at the age of 50 years. In the publication of these guidelines, the increasing incidence of CRC in those under 50 was acknowledged. It is however stated that the modest benefit of earlier diagnosis made via screening is not better than the increased risk of increased lifetime colonoscopy.²

The publication specifically addresses the disparity among Black adults who have the highest incidence and mortality rates in comparison with other racial/ethnic groups. These guidelines specifically state that there are higher rates of colon cancer among black adults. They however clarify that they think it is because of decreased screening and treatment in this group. When compared with other groups and the screening and treatment is controlled for, there is no longer a difference. Lowering the age for starting screening, therefore, won’t help resolve the disparity because the higher cases in Black adults has resulted from not enough Black adults being screened at the recommended age of 50, according to the USPSTF recommendation statement. As such, rather than changing the age of screening for Black adults, this publication recommends efforts to ensure that screening, follow-up, and treatment are received.

The USPSTF specifically did not include adults with known disorders that have a genetic predisposition to CRC or those with a first degree relative with CRC. They instead refer to other professional organizations for these recommendations.²

The American Cancer Society (ACS) also had a separate guideline published in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians. It provides a qualified recommendation that CRC screening begin at age 45 years for those with average risk. The guideline also includes a strong recommendation for CRC screening beginning at age 50 years. The qualified recommendation for the younger age group is based on the incidence of colorectal cancer being similar between those aged 45-49 and those aged 50-54 years. The ACS also hypothesized that screening at an earlier age will decrease the disparity among population groups with a higher burden. Importantly, this updated guideline prioritized incidence reduction rather than mortality reduction. The ACS also stressed the need for a multipronged approach to mitigate barriers to CRC screening at the individual, provider, organizational, and policy levels. Similar to the USPSTF, the ACS did not address the screening of those with known disorders that have a genetic predisposition to CRC or those with a first degree relative with CRC.³

In all of the publications discussing CRC screening guidelines, it is stressed that there is not sufficient uptake of any of these recommendations. Rather than conduct earlier screening, in my opinion, we should focus on programmatic ways to ensure that the existing screening recommendations are followed. This is a space in which we can help affect the disparity seen among population groups.

The most important screening test is the one that patients are willing to use. Primary care physicians can use any of these guidelines to have conversations with patients about risk and when to start screening. Although these guidelines may seem to be different from each other, each one includes strong recommendations with the same information.

Additional studies should be done to determine the benefits and harms of screening in patients with known risk factors such as obesity, cigarette smoking, diabetes, high consumption of alcohol, high consumption of red meat and processed food, inactivity, and low intake of dietary fiber, fruits, and vegetables. It is possible that the higher burden of disease among Black adults is related to societal factors leading to increased obesity and dietary habits that increase rates of CRC.

Primary care physicians would be better served by a tool that allows for risk stratification to help guide early screening for all patients. For certain patients, such a tool might result in them qualifying for screening that begins at a later age than the current guidelines recommend. Finally, primary care physicians must remember that these are just the guidelines for screening for CRC. They all specifically exclude patients experiencing any symptoms. As such, patients with unexplained bleeding, anemia, weight loss, and other symptoms should be evaluated fully, including being considered for colonoscopy to diagnose CRC. Primary care physicians should use these guidelines to screen their asymptomatic patients and should ensure that they provide evaluation of any of the symptoms of CRC.
 

Dr. Wheat is a family physician at Erie Family Health Center in Chicago. She is also program director of Northwestern’s McGaw Family Medicine residency program at Humboldt Park, Chicago. Dr. Wheat serves on editorial advisory board of Family Practice News.

References

1. Rex DK et al. Gastrointest Endosc. 2017;86(1):18-33.

2. US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2016;315(23):2564-2575.

3. Wolf AMD et al. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018 Jul;68(4):250-281.

fpnews@mdedge.com

The recent death of “Black Panther” star Chadwick Boseman has resulted in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening guidelines receiving more attention. Mr. Boseman was diagnosed with Stage 3 CRC in 2016 and underwent treatment. He passed away 4 years later at the young age of 44.

Mr. Boseman’s death has highlighted two important concerns about current screening guidelines for CRC. These include racial disparities in patients with colon cancer and the fact that more younger patients are getting this disease.

There are at least three different sets of CRC screening recommendations from different trusted professional organizations that primary care physicians must decide how to follow. These organizations each published their guidelines indicating review of the best available evidence. On first glance there is discrepancy between these guidelines, but a closer look at them reveals they have a lot of similarities.

The U.S. Multi-Society Task Force of Colorectal Cancer (MSTF), which represents the American College of Gastroenterology, the American Gatroenterological Association, and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, is one of the organizations that offers guidelines. The MSTF recommends CRC screening for non-African American average risked persons at the age of 50 years (strong recommendation; moderate quality evidence). The first-tier options for this recommendation are to have a colonoscopy every 10 years or annual fecal immunochemial test. Additionally, the MSTF recommends beginning screening of African Americans at age 45 years (weak recommendation; very-low-quality evidence). This recommendation cites higher incidence rates, earlier mean age at onset, higher proportion of cancers before age 50 years and late-stage presentation. The MSTF indicates that the increased rate of CRC at an earlier age in African Americans is caused by a combination of biologic and societal factors, but do not point to what those are. This earlier screening is not backed by evidence that it in fact improves morbidity or mortality outcomes. The MSTF also address screening among high-risk individuals. Those with first degree relatives with CRC or advanced adenomas diagnosed before the age of 60 years should be screened beginning at age 40 years or 10 years younger than the age the relative was diagnosed, whichever comes first, according to the MSTF recommendations. These individuals should have a colonoscopy every 5 years, the MSTF says. Those with first degree relatives with CRC or advanced adenomas diagnosed at older than 60 years should have CRC beginning at 40 years, though with the same testing intervals as average-risk individuals.¹

The American College of Physicians (ACP) and the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), however, endorse the guidelines set forth by the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). These guidelines were published in 2016 in the JAMA and notably are currently under review. These guidelines recommend routine screening for those at average risk at the age of 50 years. In the publication of these guidelines, the increasing incidence of CRC in those under 50 was acknowledged. It is however stated that the modest benefit of earlier diagnosis made via screening is not better than the increased risk of increased lifetime colonoscopy.²

The publication specifically addresses the disparity among Black adults who have the highest incidence and mortality rates in comparison with other racial/ethnic groups. These guidelines specifically state that there are higher rates of colon cancer among black adults. They however clarify that they think it is because of decreased screening and treatment in this group. When compared with other groups and the screening and treatment is controlled for, there is no longer a difference. Lowering the age for starting screening, therefore, won’t help resolve the disparity because the higher cases in Black adults has resulted from not enough Black adults being screened at the recommended age of 50, according to the USPSTF recommendation statement. As such, rather than changing the age of screening for Black adults, this publication recommends efforts to ensure that screening, follow-up, and treatment are received.

The USPSTF specifically did not include adults with known disorders that have a genetic predisposition to CRC or those with a first degree relative with CRC. They instead refer to other professional organizations for these recommendations.²

The American Cancer Society (ACS) also had a separate guideline published in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians. It provides a qualified recommendation that CRC screening begin at age 45 years for those with average risk. The guideline also includes a strong recommendation for CRC screening beginning at age 50 years. The qualified recommendation for the younger age group is based on the incidence of colorectal cancer being similar between those aged 45-49 and those aged 50-54 years. The ACS also hypothesized that screening at an earlier age will decrease the disparity among population groups with a higher burden. Importantly, this updated guideline prioritized incidence reduction rather than mortality reduction. The ACS also stressed the need for a multipronged approach to mitigate barriers to CRC screening at the individual, provider, organizational, and policy levels. Similar to the USPSTF, the ACS did not address the screening of those with known disorders that have a genetic predisposition to CRC or those with a first degree relative with CRC.³

In all of the publications discussing CRC screening guidelines, it is stressed that there is not sufficient uptake of any of these recommendations. Rather than conduct earlier screening, in my opinion, we should focus on programmatic ways to ensure that the existing screening recommendations are followed. This is a space in which we can help affect the disparity seen among population groups.

The most important screening test is the one that patients are willing to use. Primary care physicians can use any of these guidelines to have conversations with patients about risk and when to start screening. Although these guidelines may seem to be different from each other, each one includes strong recommendations with the same information.

Additional studies should be done to determine the benefits and harms of screening in patients with known risk factors such as obesity, cigarette smoking, diabetes, high consumption of alcohol, high consumption of red meat and processed food, inactivity, and low intake of dietary fiber, fruits, and vegetables. It is possible that the higher burden of disease among Black adults is related to societal factors leading to increased obesity and dietary habits that increase rates of CRC.

Primary care physicians would be better served by a tool that allows for risk stratification to help guide early screening for all patients. For certain patients, such a tool might result in them qualifying for screening that begins at a later age than the current guidelines recommend. Finally, primary care physicians must remember that these are just the guidelines for screening for CRC. They all specifically exclude patients experiencing any symptoms. As such, patients with unexplained bleeding, anemia, weight loss, and other symptoms should be evaluated fully, including being considered for colonoscopy to diagnose CRC. Primary care physicians should use these guidelines to screen their asymptomatic patients and should ensure that they provide evaluation of any of the symptoms of CRC.
 

Dr. Wheat is a family physician at Erie Family Health Center in Chicago. She is also program director of Northwestern’s McGaw Family Medicine residency program at Humboldt Park, Chicago. Dr. Wheat serves on editorial advisory board of Family Practice News.

References

1. Rex DK et al. Gastrointest Endosc. 2017;86(1):18-33.

2. US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2016;315(23):2564-2575.

3. Wolf AMD et al. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018 Jul;68(4):250-281.

fpnews@mdedge.com

Below is a case involving a patient who is not yet ready to quit smoking. We later provide treatment recommendations for this patient based on a new guideline from the American Thoracic Society.

Case

A 58-year-old female comes into the office for a physical exam. She has been smoking two packs a day since she was 23 years of age. You have tried at previous visits to get her to quit, but she hasn’t been interested. The patient says she has a lot of stress, and that it is still not the right time for her to stop smoking. You tell her she needs to quit and, though the patient understands that quitting would be beneficial for her health, she just isn’t ready to try to kick the habit. How do you proceed?

The Guideline in context

Even though this patient stated that she is not ready to stop smoking, she is still a candidate for pharmacological treatment for her tobacco dependence and can be offered varenicline, according to the ATS guideline.¹

It is imperative that tobacco cessation is addressed with patients in the most effective and comprehensive ways possible. In a previously published column, we have discussed the ATS’ recommended approaches for treating patients who are ready to stop smoking cigarettes. The reality is that many patients, if not most, are not ready to quit when we speak to them during any given office visit. The ATS guideline addresses this critical issue by recommending treatment with varenicline in patients who are not ready to stop smoking. It also states that this is a better strategy than waiting to start treatment until patients say they are ready for it.

This recommendation – to prescribe varenicline to smokers even when they are not ready to quit smoking – is based on solid clinical trial evidence. Research has shown that behavior change is dynamic and that the decision to stop smoking is not always a planned one.¹ Patients often make quit attempts between office visits, and are often successful in those attempts. Because the decision to try to stop smoking is influenced by the satisfaction and physical addiction that comes from smoking, a medication such as varenicline that is a partial agonist/antagonist at the alpha4-beta2 nicotinic receptor might increase the likelihood that a patient would decide to try to stop smoking. This is because taking this type of a drug would lead the patient to no longer experience the reinforcing effects of nicotine.² This hypothesis was examined in five randomized trials.¹

In these studies, regular smokers who were not ready to make a quit attempt were randomized to varenicline versus placebo. Twice as many individuals who took varenicline stopped smoking 6 months after starting treatment.¹

Suggested treatment

This patient should be offered varenicline. This individual meets the criteria for this treatment according to the ATS guideline in that the patient is a regular smoker who doesn’t think she is ready to stop smoking but understands she needs to stop and is open to taking medication to assist her with quitting.

Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Dr. Sprogell is a third-year resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece. For questions or comments, feel free to contact Dr. Skolnik on Twitter @NeilSkolnik.

References

1. Leone F T et al. Initiating pharmacologic treatment in tobacco-dependent adults: An official American Thoracic Society Clinical Practice Guideline. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020 Jul 15;202(2):e5–e31.

2. Ebbert JO et al. Varenicline for smoking cessation: Efficacy, safety, and treatment recommendations. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2010;4:355-62.
 

Below is a case involving a patient who is not yet ready to quit smoking. We later provide treatment recommendations for this patient based on a new guideline from the American Thoracic Society.

Case

A 58-year-old female comes into the office for a physical exam. She has been smoking two packs a day since she was 23 years of age. You have tried at previous visits to get her to quit, but she hasn’t been interested. The patient says she has a lot of stress, and that it is still not the right time for her to stop smoking. You tell her she needs to quit and, though the patient understands that quitting would be beneficial for her health, she just isn’t ready to try to kick the habit. How do you proceed?

The Guideline in context

Even though this patient stated that she is not ready to stop smoking, she is still a candidate for pharmacological treatment for her tobacco dependence and can be offered varenicline, according to the ATS guideline.¹

It is imperative that tobacco cessation is addressed with patients in the most effective and comprehensive ways possible. In a previously published column, we have discussed the ATS’ recommended approaches for treating patients who are ready to stop smoking cigarettes. The reality is that many patients, if not most, are not ready to quit when we speak to them during any given office visit. The ATS guideline addresses this critical issue by recommending treatment with varenicline in patients who are not ready to stop smoking. It also states that this is a better strategy than waiting to start treatment until patients say they are ready for it.

This recommendation – to prescribe varenicline to smokers even when they are not ready to quit smoking – is based on solid clinical trial evidence. Research has shown that behavior change is dynamic and that the decision to stop smoking is not always a planned one.¹ Patients often make quit attempts between office visits, and are often successful in those attempts. Because the decision to try to stop smoking is influenced by the satisfaction and physical addiction that comes from smoking, a medication such as varenicline that is a partial agonist/antagonist at the alpha4-beta2 nicotinic receptor might increase the likelihood that a patient would decide to try to stop smoking. This is because taking this type of a drug would lead the patient to no longer experience the reinforcing effects of nicotine.² This hypothesis was examined in five randomized trials.¹

In these studies, regular smokers who were not ready to make a quit attempt were randomized to varenicline versus placebo. Twice as many individuals who took varenicline stopped smoking 6 months after starting treatment.¹

Suggested treatment

This patient should be offered varenicline. This individual meets the criteria for this treatment according to the ATS guideline in that the patient is a regular smoker who doesn’t think she is ready to stop smoking but understands she needs to stop and is open to taking medication to assist her with quitting.

Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Dr. Sprogell is a third-year resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece. For questions or comments, feel free to contact Dr. Skolnik on Twitter @NeilSkolnik.

References

1. Leone F T et al. Initiating pharmacologic treatment in tobacco-dependent adults: An official American Thoracic Society Clinical Practice Guideline. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020 Jul 15;202(2):e5–e31.

2. Ebbert JO et al. Varenicline for smoking cessation: Efficacy, safety, and treatment recommendations. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2010;4:355-62.
 

Below is a case involving a patient who is not yet ready to quit smoking. We later provide treatment recommendations for this patient based on a new guideline from the American Thoracic Society.

Case

A 58-year-old female comes into the office for a physical exam. She has been smoking two packs a day since she was 23 years of age. You have tried at previous visits to get her to quit, but she hasn’t been interested. The patient says she has a lot of stress, and that it is still not the right time for her to stop smoking. You tell her she needs to quit and, though the patient understands that quitting would be beneficial for her health, she just isn’t ready to try to kick the habit. How do you proceed?

The Guideline in context

Even though this patient stated that she is not ready to stop smoking, she is still a candidate for pharmacological treatment for her tobacco dependence and can be offered varenicline, according to the ATS guideline.¹

It is imperative that tobacco cessation is addressed with patients in the most effective and comprehensive ways possible. In a previously published column, we have discussed the ATS’ recommended approaches for treating patients who are ready to stop smoking cigarettes. The reality is that many patients, if not most, are not ready to quit when we speak to them during any given office visit. The ATS guideline addresses this critical issue by recommending treatment with varenicline in patients who are not ready to stop smoking. It also states that this is a better strategy than waiting to start treatment until patients say they are ready for it.

This recommendation – to prescribe varenicline to smokers even when they are not ready to quit smoking – is based on solid clinical trial evidence. Research has shown that behavior change is dynamic and that the decision to stop smoking is not always a planned one.¹ Patients often make quit attempts between office visits, and are often successful in those attempts. Because the decision to try to stop smoking is influenced by the satisfaction and physical addiction that comes from smoking, a medication such as varenicline that is a partial agonist/antagonist at the alpha4-beta2 nicotinic receptor might increase the likelihood that a patient would decide to try to stop smoking. This is because taking this type of a drug would lead the patient to no longer experience the reinforcing effects of nicotine.² This hypothesis was examined in five randomized trials.¹

In these studies, regular smokers who were not ready to make a quit attempt were randomized to varenicline versus placebo. Twice as many individuals who took varenicline stopped smoking 6 months after starting treatment.¹

Suggested treatment

This patient should be offered varenicline. This individual meets the criteria for this treatment according to the ATS guideline in that the patient is a regular smoker who doesn’t think she is ready to stop smoking but understands she needs to stop and is open to taking medication to assist her with quitting.

Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Dr. Sprogell is a third-year resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece. For questions or comments, feel free to contact Dr. Skolnik on Twitter @NeilSkolnik.

References

1. Leone F T et al. Initiating pharmacologic treatment in tobacco-dependent adults: An official American Thoracic Society Clinical Practice Guideline. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020 Jul 15;202(2):e5–e31.

2. Ebbert JO et al. Varenicline for smoking cessation: Efficacy, safety, and treatment recommendations. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2010;4:355-62.
 

The American College of Physicians and the American Academy of Family Physicians recently authored a guideline regarding the treatment of acute, non–low back, musculoskeletal injuries in adults in the outpatient setting. While their recommendations mirror what most clinicians currently do in their medical practices, they don’t address the multiple components of pain that include sensory, emotional, cognitive, and behavioral processes in addition to the physical discomfort.

According to the authors, musculoskeletal injuries result in more than 65 million medical visits a year with an annual estimated cost of $176.1 billion in 2010.

In summary, the guideline, which was published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, is based on a review of the best available evidence. The research reviewed by the guideline authors showed favorable results with topical NSAIDs, oral NSAIDs, oral acetaminophen, acupressure, and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation in reducing pain and/or improving function. The guideline authors “recommend that clinicians treat patients with acute pain from non–low back, musculoskeletal injuries with topical [NSAIDs] with or without gel as first-line therapy to reduce or relieve symptoms, including pain; improve physical function; and improve the patient’s treatment satisfaction (Grade: strong recommendation; moderate-certainty evidence).” Additionally, the guideline recommends against treating acute pain from non–low back, musculoskeletal injuries with opioids, including tramadol (Grade: conditional recommendation; low-certainty evidence).

The guideline also mentions improving function in relation to decreasing pain, which can be multifactorial.

Treating pain requires a multipronged approach. Many patients require more than one therapy to treat their pain, such as NSAIDs plus physical therapy. The ACP and AAFP did not make any recommendations for combination therapies in this guideline.

When physical therapy is needed

Nonopioid pain medications can do a great job of reducing a patient’s physical discomfort, which the evidence for these guideline demonstrates. However, much of the dysfunction caused by musculoskeletal injuries will not improve by reducing the pain alone. Physical therapy, exercise, and mobilization did not show a significant benefit in reducing symptoms in the systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials that appeared alongside the guideline. The type of pain, however, was not evaluated in relation to the effectiveness of these treatments. A fractured bone, for example, may heal just fine with casting and pain management, without the need for additional therapies. However, the muscles surrounding that bone can atrophy and become weak from not being used. Physical therapy may be needed to restrengthen those muscles. Therefore, a multifaceted approach is often needed, even for uncomplicated conditions.

Mental pain often comes with physical pain, and this is an aspect of care that is often neglected. It can be quite devastating for patients to not be able to do the things they were previously able to do. While this is easily recognized in professional athletes when they can no longer play, it is not so readily apparent with a mother who is just trying to take care of her kids. As doctors, especially those of us in family medicine, we should be addressing more than just physical pain.

Patients can also do activities that exacerbate their pain. As doctors, we need to be asking questions that help us determine whether a patient’s pain is caused by a particular action. Maybe that increase in shoulder pain is due to nothing more than lifting something heavy rather than a failure in a prescribed medication. Pain diaries are helpful, and clinicians don’t use them often enough.
 

How pain affects mental health

Acute injuries can also lead to disability. Many patients become quite distressed about being unable to work. They often need Famiy & Medical Leave Act forms filled out, and this task usually falls to the primary care doctor. In addition to assessing the pain, we need to be evaluating, at each visit, a patient’s level of functioning and their ability to do their job.

Every patient responds to pain differently, and it is important to evaluate patients’ mindsets regarding theirs. A patient may be in severe pain and may try to ignore it for a variety of reasons. A patient may “catastrophize” their pain, believing only the worst outcome will happen to them. Helping patients set appropriate expectations and having a positive mindset can help.

Overall, the new recommendations are a great tool as a guideline, but they are not complete enough to be the only ones used in managing acute, non–low back, musculoskeletal pain in adults.

They are very important for clinicians who may be prescribing opioid medications for patients with this type of pain. Amid an opioid crisis, it is the responsibility of every doctor to prescribe these medications appropriately. The evidence clearly shows they provide little benefit and place patients at risk of addiction.

We should all be following these recommendations as the baseline of care for acute pain. However, we need to delve deeper and manage all the components involved. We would be ignoring very real suffering in our patients if we limited our focus to only the physical discomfort.
 

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Rutgers RWJ Medical School.

SOURCE: Ann Intern Med. 2020 Aug 18. doi: 10.7326/M19-3602.

The American College of Physicians and the American Academy of Family Physicians recently authored a guideline regarding the treatment of acute, non–low back, musculoskeletal injuries in adults in the outpatient setting. While their recommendations mirror what most clinicians currently do in their medical practices, they don’t address the multiple components of pain that include sensory, emotional, cognitive, and behavioral processes in addition to the physical discomfort.

According to the authors, musculoskeletal injuries result in more than 65 million medical visits a year with an annual estimated cost of $176.1 billion in 2010.

In summary, the guideline, which was published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, is based on a review of the best available evidence. The research reviewed by the guideline authors showed favorable results with topical NSAIDs, oral NSAIDs, oral acetaminophen, acupressure, and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation in reducing pain and/or improving function. The guideline authors “recommend that clinicians treat patients with acute pain from non–low back, musculoskeletal injuries with topical [NSAIDs] with or without gel as first-line therapy to reduce or relieve symptoms, including pain; improve physical function; and improve the patient’s treatment satisfaction (Grade: strong recommendation; moderate-certainty evidence).” Additionally, the guideline recommends against treating acute pain from non–low back, musculoskeletal injuries with opioids, including tramadol (Grade: conditional recommendation; low-certainty evidence).

The guideline also mentions improving function in relation to decreasing pain, which can be multifactorial.

Treating pain requires a multipronged approach. Many patients require more than one therapy to treat their pain, such as NSAIDs plus physical therapy. The ACP and AAFP did not make any recommendations for combination therapies in this guideline.

When physical therapy is needed

Nonopioid pain medications can do a great job of reducing a patient’s physical discomfort, which the evidence for these guideline demonstrates. However, much of the dysfunction caused by musculoskeletal injuries will not improve by reducing the pain alone. Physical therapy, exercise, and mobilization did not show a significant benefit in reducing symptoms in the systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials that appeared alongside the guideline. The type of pain, however, was not evaluated in relation to the effectiveness of these treatments. A fractured bone, for example, may heal just fine with casting and pain management, without the need for additional therapies. However, the muscles surrounding that bone can atrophy and become weak from not being used. Physical therapy may be needed to restrengthen those muscles. Therefore, a multifaceted approach is often needed, even for uncomplicated conditions.

Mental pain often comes with physical pain, and this is an aspect of care that is often neglected. It can be quite devastating for patients to not be able to do the things they were previously able to do. While this is easily recognized in professional athletes when they can no longer play, it is not so readily apparent with a mother who is just trying to take care of her kids. As doctors, especially those of us in family medicine, we should be addressing more than just physical pain.

Patients can also do activities that exacerbate their pain. As doctors, we need to be asking questions that help us determine whether a patient’s pain is caused by a particular action. Maybe that increase in shoulder pain is due to nothing more than lifting something heavy rather than a failure in a prescribed medication. Pain diaries are helpful, and clinicians don’t use them often enough.
 

How pain affects mental health

Acute injuries can also lead to disability. Many patients become quite distressed about being unable to work. They often need Famiy & Medical Leave Act forms filled out, and this task usually falls to the primary care doctor. In addition to assessing the pain, we need to be evaluating, at each visit, a patient’s level of functioning and their ability to do their job.

Every patient responds to pain differently, and it is important to evaluate patients’ mindsets regarding theirs. A patient may be in severe pain and may try to ignore it for a variety of reasons. A patient may “catastrophize” their pain, believing only the worst outcome will happen to them. Helping patients set appropriate expectations and having a positive mindset can help.

Overall, the new recommendations are a great tool as a guideline, but they are not complete enough to be the only ones used in managing acute, non–low back, musculoskeletal pain in adults.

They are very important for clinicians who may be prescribing opioid medications for patients with this type of pain. Amid an opioid crisis, it is the responsibility of every doctor to prescribe these medications appropriately. The evidence clearly shows they provide little benefit and place patients at risk of addiction.

We should all be following these recommendations as the baseline of care for acute pain. However, we need to delve deeper and manage all the components involved. We would be ignoring very real suffering in our patients if we limited our focus to only the physical discomfort.
 

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Rutgers RWJ Medical School.

SOURCE: Ann Intern Med. 2020 Aug 18. doi: 10.7326/M19-3602.

The American College of Physicians and the American Academy of Family Physicians recently authored a guideline regarding the treatment of acute, non–low back, musculoskeletal injuries in adults in the outpatient setting. While their recommendations mirror what most clinicians currently do in their medical practices, they don’t address the multiple components of pain that include sensory, emotional, cognitive, and behavioral processes in addition to the physical discomfort.

According to the authors, musculoskeletal injuries result in more than 65 million medical visits a year with an annual estimated cost of $176.1 billion in 2010.

In summary, the guideline, which was published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, is based on a review of the best available evidence. The research reviewed by the guideline authors showed favorable results with topical NSAIDs, oral NSAIDs, oral acetaminophen, acupressure, and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation in reducing pain and/or improving function. The guideline authors “recommend that clinicians treat patients with acute pain from non–low back, musculoskeletal injuries with topical [NSAIDs] with or without gel as first-line therapy to reduce or relieve symptoms, including pain; improve physical function; and improve the patient’s treatment satisfaction (Grade: strong recommendation; moderate-certainty evidence).” Additionally, the guideline recommends against treating acute pain from non–low back, musculoskeletal injuries with opioids, including tramadol (Grade: conditional recommendation; low-certainty evidence).

The guideline also mentions improving function in relation to decreasing pain, which can be multifactorial.

Treating pain requires a multipronged approach. Many patients require more than one therapy to treat their pain, such as NSAIDs plus physical therapy. The ACP and AAFP did not make any recommendations for combination therapies in this guideline.

When physical therapy is needed

Nonopioid pain medications can do a great job of reducing a patient’s physical discomfort, which the evidence for these guideline demonstrates. However, much of the dysfunction caused by musculoskeletal injuries will not improve by reducing the pain alone. Physical therapy, exercise, and mobilization did not show a significant benefit in reducing symptoms in the systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials that appeared alongside the guideline. The type of pain, however, was not evaluated in relation to the effectiveness of these treatments. A fractured bone, for example, may heal just fine with casting and pain management, without the need for additional therapies. However, the muscles surrounding that bone can atrophy and become weak from not being used. Physical therapy may be needed to restrengthen those muscles. Therefore, a multifaceted approach is often needed, even for uncomplicated conditions.

Mental pain often comes with physical pain, and this is an aspect of care that is often neglected. It can be quite devastating for patients to not be able to do the things they were previously able to do. While this is easily recognized in professional athletes when they can no longer play, it is not so readily apparent with a mother who is just trying to take care of her kids. As doctors, especially those of us in family medicine, we should be addressing more than just physical pain.

Patients can also do activities that exacerbate their pain. As doctors, we need to be asking questions that help us determine whether a patient’s pain is caused by a particular action. Maybe that increase in shoulder pain is due to nothing more than lifting something heavy rather than a failure in a prescribed medication. Pain diaries are helpful, and clinicians don’t use them often enough.
 

How pain affects mental health

Acute injuries can also lead to disability. Many patients become quite distressed about being unable to work. They often need Famiy & Medical Leave Act forms filled out, and this task usually falls to the primary care doctor. In addition to assessing the pain, we need to be evaluating, at each visit, a patient’s level of functioning and their ability to do their job.

Every patient responds to pain differently, and it is important to evaluate patients’ mindsets regarding theirs. A patient may be in severe pain and may try to ignore it for a variety of reasons. A patient may “catastrophize” their pain, believing only the worst outcome will happen to them. Helping patients set appropriate expectations and having a positive mindset can help.

Overall, the new recommendations are a great tool as a guideline, but they are not complete enough to be the only ones used in managing acute, non–low back, musculoskeletal pain in adults.

They are very important for clinicians who may be prescribing opioid medications for patients with this type of pain. Amid an opioid crisis, it is the responsibility of every doctor to prescribe these medications appropriately. The evidence clearly shows they provide little benefit and place patients at risk of addiction.

We should all be following these recommendations as the baseline of care for acute pain. However, we need to delve deeper and manage all the components involved. We would be ignoring very real suffering in our patients if we limited our focus to only the physical discomfort.
 

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Rutgers RWJ Medical School.

SOURCE: Ann Intern Med. 2020 Aug 18. doi: 10.7326/M19-3602.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is caused by airway and alveolar abnormalities and is the third most common cause of death worldwide. COPD results in airflow obstruction that is not fully reversible. The diagnosis of COPD should be considered in patients over 40 years who have chronic cough and/or dyspnea, particularly if they have a history of tobacco use. The diagnosis is confirmed by a diminished forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) that is not fully reversible with the use of a bronchodilator and an FEV₁/forced vital capacity ratio of less than or equal to 0.7.¹The American Thoracic Society released a guideline on the pharmacologic management of COPD after formulating specific questions to be answered using rigorous GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology.²

Recommendation 1

Patients with COPD who report dyspnea or exercise intolerance should be treated with both a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) and a long-acting beta agonist (LABA) (dual LAMA/LABA therapy) instead of monotherapy, the guideline says.

This recommendation represents a critical change in care and is based on strong evidence. For years practitioners have been using single bronchodilator therapy, often a LAMA as the entrance to treatment for patients with symptomatic COPD. The recommendation to begin treatment with dual bronchodilator therapy is an important one. This is the only recommendation that received a “strong” grade.

The evidence comes from the compilation of 24 randomized controlled trials that altogether included 45,441 patients. Dual therapy versus monotherapy was evaluated by examining differences in dyspnea, health-related quality of life, exacerbations (which were defined as requiring antibiotics, oral steroids, or hospitalizations), and hospitalizations independently. Marked improvements were observed for exacerbations and hospitalizations in the dual LAMA/LABA group, compared with treatment with use of a single bronchodilator. In 22,733 patients across 15 RCTs, there were 88 fewer exacerbations per 1,000 patients with a rate ratio (RR) of 0.80 (P < .002), the guideline states.

The decrease in exacerbations is a critical factor in treating patients with COPD because each exacerbation can lead to a sustained decrease in airflow and increases the risk of future exacerbations.
 

Recommendation 2

In COPD patients who report dyspnea or exercise intolerance, with an exacerbation in the last year, the guideline recommends triple therapy with an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) instead of just dual LAMA/LABA therapy.

In the past many clinicians have relegated triple therapy to a “last ditch resort.” This recommendation makes it clear that triple therapy is appropriate for a broad range of patients with moderate to severe COPD.
 

Recommendation 3

In patients with COPD who are on triple therapy, the inhaled corticosteroid component can be withdrawn if patients have not had an exacerbation within the last year, according to the guideline.

It should be noted that the committee said that the ICS can be withdrawn, not that it necessarily needs to be withdrawn. The data showed that it would be safe to withdraw the ICS, but the data is limited in time to 1 year’s follow-up.
 

Recommendation 4

ATS was not able to make a recommendation for or against ICS as an additive therapy to LAMA/LABA in those without an exacerbation and elevated blood eosinophilia (defined as ≥2% blood eosinophils or >149 cell/mcL). In those with at least one exacerbation and increased blood eosinophilia, the society does recommend addition of ICS to dual LAMA/LABA therapy.

An area of ongoing discussion is at what point in disease severity, before exacerbations occur, might ICS be useful in preventing a first exacerbation. This awaits further studies and evidence.
 

Recommendation 5

In COPD patients with frequent and severe exacerbations who are otherwise medically optimized, the ATS advises against the use of maintenance oral corticosteroid therapy.

It has been known and accepted for years that oral steroids should be avoided if at all possible because they have little benefit and can cause significant harm. The guideline reinforces this.
 

The Bottom Line

Dual LAMA/LABA therapy in symptomatic patients is the standard of care. If a patient has had an exacerbation within the last year, add an ICS to the LAMA/LABA, most conveniently given in the form of triple therapy in one inhaler. Finally, even in refractory COPD, maintenance oral corticosteroids bring more harm than benefit.

Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at the Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and associate director of the Family Medicine Residency Program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. Dr. Matthews is a second-year resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington Jefferson Health.

References

1. Wells C, Joo MJ. COPD and asthma: Diagnostic accuracy requires spirometry. J Fam Pract. 2019;68(2):76-81.

2. Nici L, Mammen MJ, Charbek E, et al. Pharmacologic management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. An official American Thoracic Society clinical practice guideline. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020;201(9):e56-69.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is caused by airway and alveolar abnormalities and is the third most common cause of death worldwide. COPD results in airflow obstruction that is not fully reversible. The diagnosis of COPD should be considered in patients over 40 years who have chronic cough and/or dyspnea, particularly if they have a history of tobacco use. The diagnosis is confirmed by a diminished forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) that is not fully reversible with the use of a bronchodilator and an FEV₁/forced vital capacity ratio of less than or equal to 0.7.¹The American Thoracic Society released a guideline on the pharmacologic management of COPD after formulating specific questions to be answered using rigorous GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology.²

Recommendation 1

Patients with COPD who report dyspnea or exercise intolerance should be treated with both a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) and a long-acting beta agonist (LABA) (dual LAMA/LABA therapy) instead of monotherapy, the guideline says.

This recommendation represents a critical change in care and is based on strong evidence. For years practitioners have been using single bronchodilator therapy, often a LAMA as the entrance to treatment for patients with symptomatic COPD. The recommendation to begin treatment with dual bronchodilator therapy is an important one. This is the only recommendation that received a “strong” grade.

The evidence comes from the compilation of 24 randomized controlled trials that altogether included 45,441 patients. Dual therapy versus monotherapy was evaluated by examining differences in dyspnea, health-related quality of life, exacerbations (which were defined as requiring antibiotics, oral steroids, or hospitalizations), and hospitalizations independently. Marked improvements were observed for exacerbations and hospitalizations in the dual LAMA/LABA group, compared with treatment with use of a single bronchodilator. In 22,733 patients across 15 RCTs, there were 88 fewer exacerbations per 1,000 patients with a rate ratio (RR) of 0.80 (P < .002), the guideline states.

The decrease in exacerbations is a critical factor in treating patients with COPD because each exacerbation can lead to a sustained decrease in airflow and increases the risk of future exacerbations.
 

Recommendation 2

In COPD patients who report dyspnea or exercise intolerance, with an exacerbation in the last year, the guideline recommends triple therapy with an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) instead of just dual LAMA/LABA therapy.

In the past many clinicians have relegated triple therapy to a “last ditch resort.” This recommendation makes it clear that triple therapy is appropriate for a broad range of patients with moderate to severe COPD.
 

Recommendation 3

In patients with COPD who are on triple therapy, the inhaled corticosteroid component can be withdrawn if patients have not had an exacerbation within the last year, according to the guideline.

It should be noted that the committee said that the ICS can be withdrawn, not that it necessarily needs to be withdrawn. The data showed that it would be safe to withdraw the ICS, but the data is limited in time to 1 year’s follow-up.
 

Recommendation 4

ATS was not able to make a recommendation for or against ICS as an additive therapy to LAMA/LABA in those without an exacerbation and elevated blood eosinophilia (defined as ≥2% blood eosinophils or >149 cell/mcL). In those with at least one exacerbation and increased blood eosinophilia, the society does recommend addition of ICS to dual LAMA/LABA therapy.

An area of ongoing discussion is at what point in disease severity, before exacerbations occur, might ICS be useful in preventing a first exacerbation. This awaits further studies and evidence.
 

Recommendation 5

In COPD patients with frequent and severe exacerbations who are otherwise medically optimized, the ATS advises against the use of maintenance oral corticosteroid therapy.

It has been known and accepted for years that oral steroids should be avoided if at all possible because they have little benefit and can cause significant harm. The guideline reinforces this.
 

The Bottom Line

Dual LAMA/LABA therapy in symptomatic patients is the standard of care. If a patient has had an exacerbation within the last year, add an ICS to the LAMA/LABA, most conveniently given in the form of triple therapy in one inhaler. Finally, even in refractory COPD, maintenance oral corticosteroids bring more harm than benefit.

Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at the Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and associate director of the Family Medicine Residency Program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. Dr. Matthews is a second-year resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington Jefferson Health.

References

1. Wells C, Joo MJ. COPD and asthma: Diagnostic accuracy requires spirometry. J Fam Pract. 2019;68(2):76-81.

2. Nici L, Mammen MJ, Charbek E, et al. Pharmacologic management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. An official American Thoracic Society clinical practice guideline. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020;201(9):e56-69.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is caused by airway and alveolar abnormalities and is the third most common cause of death worldwide. COPD results in airflow obstruction that is not fully reversible. The diagnosis of COPD should be considered in patients over 40 years who have chronic cough and/or dyspnea, particularly if they have a history of tobacco use. The diagnosis is confirmed by a diminished forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) that is not fully reversible with the use of a bronchodilator and an FEV₁/forced vital capacity ratio of less than or equal to 0.7.¹The American Thoracic Society released a guideline on the pharmacologic management of COPD after formulating specific questions to be answered using rigorous GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology.²

Recommendation 1

Patients with COPD who report dyspnea or exercise intolerance should be treated with both a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) and a long-acting beta agonist (LABA) (dual LAMA/LABA therapy) instead of monotherapy, the guideline says.

This recommendation represents a critical change in care and is based on strong evidence. For years practitioners have been using single bronchodilator therapy, often a LAMA as the entrance to treatment for patients with symptomatic COPD. The recommendation to begin treatment with dual bronchodilator therapy is an important one. This is the only recommendation that received a “strong” grade.

The evidence comes from the compilation of 24 randomized controlled trials that altogether included 45,441 patients. Dual therapy versus monotherapy was evaluated by examining differences in dyspnea, health-related quality of life, exacerbations (which were defined as requiring antibiotics, oral steroids, or hospitalizations), and hospitalizations independently. Marked improvements were observed for exacerbations and hospitalizations in the dual LAMA/LABA group, compared with treatment with use of a single bronchodilator. In 22,733 patients across 15 RCTs, there were 88 fewer exacerbations per 1,000 patients with a rate ratio (RR) of 0.80 (P < .002), the guideline states.

The decrease in exacerbations is a critical factor in treating patients with COPD because each exacerbation can lead to a sustained decrease in airflow and increases the risk of future exacerbations.
 

Recommendation 2

In COPD patients who report dyspnea or exercise intolerance, with an exacerbation in the last year, the guideline recommends triple therapy with an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) instead of just dual LAMA/LABA therapy.

In the past many clinicians have relegated triple therapy to a “last ditch resort.” This recommendation makes it clear that triple therapy is appropriate for a broad range of patients with moderate to severe COPD.
 

Recommendation 3

In patients with COPD who are on triple therapy, the inhaled corticosteroid component can be withdrawn if patients have not had an exacerbation within the last year, according to the guideline.

It should be noted that the committee said that the ICS can be withdrawn, not that it necessarily needs to be withdrawn. The data showed that it would be safe to withdraw the ICS, but the data is limited in time to 1 year’s follow-up.
 

Recommendation 4

ATS was not able to make a recommendation for or against ICS as an additive therapy to LAMA/LABA in those without an exacerbation and elevated blood eosinophilia (defined as ≥2% blood eosinophils or >149 cell/mcL). In those with at least one exacerbation and increased blood eosinophilia, the society does recommend addition of ICS to dual LAMA/LABA therapy.

An area of ongoing discussion is at what point in disease severity, before exacerbations occur, might ICS be useful in preventing a first exacerbation. This awaits further studies and evidence.
 

Recommendation 5

In COPD patients with frequent and severe exacerbations who are otherwise medically optimized, the ATS advises against the use of maintenance oral corticosteroid therapy.

It has been known and accepted for years that oral steroids should be avoided if at all possible because they have little benefit and can cause significant harm. The guideline reinforces this.
 

The Bottom Line

Dual LAMA/LABA therapy in symptomatic patients is the standard of care. If a patient has had an exacerbation within the last year, add an ICS to the LAMA/LABA, most conveniently given in the form of triple therapy in one inhaler. Finally, even in refractory COPD, maintenance oral corticosteroids bring more harm than benefit.

Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at the Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and associate director of the Family Medicine Residency Program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. Dr. Matthews is a second-year resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington Jefferson Health.

References

1. Wells C, Joo MJ. COPD and asthma: Diagnostic accuracy requires spirometry. J Fam Pract. 2019;68(2):76-81.

2. Nici L, Mammen MJ, Charbek E, et al. Pharmacologic management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. An official American Thoracic Society clinical practice guideline. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020;201(9):e56-69.

The rising incidence of colorectal cancer in adults younger than 50 years heightens the need to evaluate the colon and rectum of any patient, regardless of age, who presents with symptoms such as rectal bleeding, weight loss, abdominal pain, iron-deficiency anemia, or changes in bowel habits, according to a new American Gastroenterological Association clinical practice update.

In addition to receiving cancer staging or being referred to an oncologist, newly diagnosed patients should be counseled about both germline genetic testing and fertility preservation, wrote Lisa A. Boardman, MD, of Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., with associates in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “Clinicians should present the role of fertility preservation prior to [administering] cancer-directed therapy, including surgery, pelvic radiation, or chemotherapy.”

It remains unclear why the incidence of young adult–onset colorectal cancer is rising, but the trend is not limited to the United States. Implicated risk factors include inflammatory bowel disease, prior irradiation, harboring a pathogenic germline mutation for a known hereditary cancer syndrome, and having a first- or second-degree relative with colorectal cancer. Indeed, the odds of developing young adult–onset disease are nearly 4 times higher if a parent has colorectal cancer and nearly 12 times higher if a sibling is affected.

For newly diagnosed young adults, it is important to collect a family cancer history but vital, regardless of history, to discuss targeted or multiplex germline mutation testing. Detecting hereditary colorectal cancer syndromes is crucial because their nature informs surgical options for treatment. “Roughly one in five young adult–onset colorectal cancers will be caused by a germline mutation, and among those with a detectable hereditary condition, half of those patients with young adult–onset colorectal cancer will have Lynch syndrome,” the experts noted. For these patients (who have mutations involving MSH2, EPCAM, MLH1, MSH6, and PMS2), ileorectostomy (IRA) for colorectal cancer should be considered.

For patients with the classic subtype of familial adenomatous polyposis, ileal pouch anal anastomosis is recommended after the polyp burden can no longer be managed endoscopically, although initial IRA with subsequent conversion to IPAA is an option for women of child-bearing age, according to the clinical practice update. Patients with the attenuated subtype of familial adenomatous polyposis should consider IRA or colectomy if colorectal cancer develops or if the polyp burden exceeds endoscopic control. In contrast, colectomy is the only type of surgery recommended for patients with serrated polyposis syndrome requiring surgical treatment.

Finally, clinicians should offer only screening for hereditary cancer syndromes if young adults cancer have been diagnosed with a hereditary colorectal cancer syndrome. “For patients with sporadic young adult–onset colorectal cancer, extracolonic screening and colorectal cancer surveillance intervals are the same as for patients with older adult–onset colorectal cancer,” the experts wrote. For young patients without an apparent underlying genetic syndrome, molecular studies may eventually help tailor treatment options, “but at this point, more extensive surgery or more aggressive chemotherapy cannot be recommended. As cancer treatments evolve to use patient tumor specific therapeutics, our management of patients with young adult–onset colorectal cancer will improve.”

Dr. Boardman and associates reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Boardman LA et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020 Jun 7. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.05.058.
 

The rising incidence of colorectal cancer in adults younger than 50 years heightens the need to evaluate the colon and rectum of any patient, regardless of age, who presents with symptoms such as rectal bleeding, weight loss, abdominal pain, iron-deficiency anemia, or changes in bowel habits, according to a new American Gastroenterological Association clinical practice update.

In addition to receiving cancer staging or being referred to an oncologist, newly diagnosed patients should be counseled about both germline genetic testing and fertility preservation, wrote Lisa A. Boardman, MD, of Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., with associates in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “Clinicians should present the role of fertility preservation prior to [administering] cancer-directed therapy, including surgery, pelvic radiation, or chemotherapy.”

It remains unclear why the incidence of young adult–onset colorectal cancer is rising, but the trend is not limited to the United States. Implicated risk factors include inflammatory bowel disease, prior irradiation, harboring a pathogenic germline mutation for a known hereditary cancer syndrome, and having a first- or second-degree relative with colorectal cancer. Indeed, the odds of developing young adult–onset disease are nearly 4 times higher if a parent has colorectal cancer and nearly 12 times higher if a sibling is affected.

For newly diagnosed young adults, it is important to collect a family cancer history but vital, regardless of history, to discuss targeted or multiplex germline mutation testing. Detecting hereditary colorectal cancer syndromes is crucial because their nature informs surgical options for treatment. “Roughly one in five young adult–onset colorectal cancers will be caused by a germline mutation, and among those with a detectable hereditary condition, half of those patients with young adult–onset colorectal cancer will have Lynch syndrome,” the experts noted. For these patients (who have mutations involving MSH2, EPCAM, MLH1, MSH6, and PMS2), ileorectostomy (IRA) for colorectal cancer should be considered.

For patients with the classic subtype of familial adenomatous polyposis, ileal pouch anal anastomosis is recommended after the polyp burden can no longer be managed endoscopically, although initial IRA with subsequent conversion to IPAA is an option for women of child-bearing age, according to the clinical practice update. Patients with the attenuated subtype of familial adenomatous polyposis should consider IRA or colectomy if colorectal cancer develops or if the polyp burden exceeds endoscopic control. In contrast, colectomy is the only type of surgery recommended for patients with serrated polyposis syndrome requiring surgical treatment.

Finally, clinicians should offer only screening for hereditary cancer syndromes if young adults cancer have been diagnosed with a hereditary colorectal cancer syndrome. “For patients with sporadic young adult–onset colorectal cancer, extracolonic screening and colorectal cancer surveillance intervals are the same as for patients with older adult–onset colorectal cancer,” the experts wrote. For young patients without an apparent underlying genetic syndrome, molecular studies may eventually help tailor treatment options, “but at this point, more extensive surgery or more aggressive chemotherapy cannot be recommended. As cancer treatments evolve to use patient tumor specific therapeutics, our management of patients with young adult–onset colorectal cancer will improve.”

Dr. Boardman and associates reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Boardman LA et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020 Jun 7. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.05.058.
 

The rising incidence of colorectal cancer in adults younger than 50 years heightens the need to evaluate the colon and rectum of any patient, regardless of age, who presents with symptoms such as rectal bleeding, weight loss, abdominal pain, iron-deficiency anemia, or changes in bowel habits, according to a new American Gastroenterological Association clinical practice update.

In addition to receiving cancer staging or being referred to an oncologist, newly diagnosed patients should be counseled about both germline genetic testing and fertility preservation, wrote Lisa A. Boardman, MD, of Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., with associates in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “Clinicians should present the role of fertility preservation prior to [administering] cancer-directed therapy, including surgery, pelvic radiation, or chemotherapy.”

It remains unclear why the incidence of young adult–onset colorectal cancer is rising, but the trend is not limited to the United States. Implicated risk factors include inflammatory bowel disease, prior irradiation, harboring a pathogenic germline mutation for a known hereditary cancer syndrome, and having a first- or second-degree relative with colorectal cancer. Indeed, the odds of developing young adult–onset disease are nearly 4 times higher if a parent has colorectal cancer and nearly 12 times higher if a sibling is affected.

For newly diagnosed young adults, it is important to collect a family cancer history but vital, regardless of history, to discuss targeted or multiplex germline mutation testing. Detecting hereditary colorectal cancer syndromes is crucial because their nature informs surgical options for treatment. “Roughly one in five young adult–onset colorectal cancers will be caused by a germline mutation, and among those with a detectable hereditary condition, half of those patients with young adult–onset colorectal cancer will have Lynch syndrome,” the experts noted. For these patients (who have mutations involving MSH2, EPCAM, MLH1, MSH6, and PMS2), ileorectostomy (IRA) for colorectal cancer should be considered.

For patients with the classic subtype of familial adenomatous polyposis, ileal pouch anal anastomosis is recommended after the polyp burden can no longer be managed endoscopically, although initial IRA with subsequent conversion to IPAA is an option for women of child-bearing age, according to the clinical practice update. Patients with the attenuated subtype of familial adenomatous polyposis should consider IRA or colectomy if colorectal cancer develops or if the polyp burden exceeds endoscopic control. In contrast, colectomy is the only type of surgery recommended for patients with serrated polyposis syndrome requiring surgical treatment.

Finally, clinicians should offer only screening for hereditary cancer syndromes if young adults cancer have been diagnosed with a hereditary colorectal cancer syndrome. “For patients with sporadic young adult–onset colorectal cancer, extracolonic screening and colorectal cancer surveillance intervals are the same as for patients with older adult–onset colorectal cancer,” the experts wrote. For young patients without an apparent underlying genetic syndrome, molecular studies may eventually help tailor treatment options, “but at this point, more extensive surgery or more aggressive chemotherapy cannot be recommended. As cancer treatments evolve to use patient tumor specific therapeutics, our management of patients with young adult–onset colorectal cancer will improve.”

Dr. Boardman and associates reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Boardman LA et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020 Jun 7. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.05.058.
 

Complications from tobacco use are the most common preventable cause of death, disability, and disease in the United States. Tobacco use causes 480,000 premature deaths every year. In pregnancy, tobacco use causes complications such as premature birth, intrauterine growth restriction, and placental abruption. In the perinatal period, it is associated with sudden infant death syndrome. While cigarette smoking is decreasing in adolescents, e-cigarette use in on the rise. Approximately 1,600 children aged 12-17 smoke their first cigarette every day and it is estimated that 5.6 million children and adolescents will die of a tobacco use–related death.¹ For these reasons it is important to address tobacco use and cessation with patients whenever it is possible. Below is a case and recommendations related to a new American Thoracic Society guideline on initiating pharmacologic treatment in tobacco-dependent adults.

A forty-five-year-old male who rarely comes to the office is here today for a physical exam at the urging of his partner. He has been smoking a pack a day since age 17. You have tried at past visits to discuss quitting, but he had been in the precontemplative stage and had been unwilling to consider any change. This visit, however, he is ready to try to quit. What can you offer him?

Core recommendations from ATS guidelines

This patient can be offered varenicline plus nicotine replacement therapy rather than nicotine replacement therapy, bupropion, e-cigarettes, or varenicline alone. His course of therapy should extend beyond 12 weeks instead of the standard 6- to 12-week therapy. Alternatively, he could be offered varenicline alone, rather than nicotine replacement.²

A change from previous guidelines

What makes this recommendation so interesting and new is the emphasis it places on varenicline. The United States Preventive Services Task Force released a recommendation statement in 2015 that stressed a combination of pharmacological and behavioral interventions. It discussed nicotine replacement therapy, bupropion, and varenicline, but did not recommend any one over any of the others.³ The new recommendation from the American Thoracic Society favors varenicline over other pharmacologic interventions. It is based on an independent systematic review of the literature that showed higher rates of tobacco use abstinence at the 6-month follow-up with varenicline alone versus nicotine replacement therapy alone, bupropion alone, or e-cigarette use only.

A review of 14 randomized controlled trials showed that varenicline improves abstinence rates during treatment by approximately 40% compared with nicotine replacement, and by 20% at the end of 6 months of treatment. The review found that varenicline plus nicotine replacement therapy is more effective than varenicline alone. In this comparison, based on three trials, there was a 36% higher abstinence rate at 6 months using varenicline plus nicotine replacement. When varenicline use was compared with use of a nicotine patch, bupropion, or e-cigarettes, there was a reduction in serious adverse events – changes in mood, suicidal ideation, and neurological side effects such as seizures.² Clinicians may remember a black box warning on the varenicline label citing neuropsychiatric effects and it is important to note that the Food and Drug Administration removed this boxed warning in 2016.⁴

Opinion

This recommendation represents an important, evidence-based change from previous guidelines. It presents the opportunity for better outcomes, but will likely take a while to filter into practice, as clinicians need to become more comfortable with the use of varenicline and insurance supports the cost of varenicline.

The average cost of varenicline for 12 weeks is between $1,220 and $1,584. For comparison, nicotine replacement therapy costs $170 to $240 for the same number of weeks. To put those costs in perspective, the 12-week cost of cigarettes for a two-pack-a-day smoker is approximately $1,000.

For some patients, the motivation to quit smoking comes from the realization of how much they are spending on cigarettes each month. That said, if a patient does not have insurance or their insurance does not cover the cost of varenicline, nicotine replacement therapy might be more appealing. It should be noted that better abstinence rates have been seen in patients taking varenicline plus nicotine replacement therapy versus varenicline alone.

Suggested treatment

Based on a systematic review of randomized controlled trials, the American Thoracic Society’s guideline on pharmacological treatment in tobacco-dependent adults concludes that varenicline plus nicotine patch is the preferred pharmacological treatment for tobacco cessation when compared with varenicline alone, bupropion alone, nicotine replacement therapy alone, and e-cigarettes alone. If the patient does not want to start two medicines at once, then varenicline alone would be the preferred choice.

Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Dr. Sprogell is a third-year resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece. For questions or comments, feel free to contact Dr. Skolnik on Twitter @NeilSkolnik.

References

1. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Primary care interventions for prevention and cessation of tobacco use in children and adolescents: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA.2020;323(16):1590-8. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.4679.

2. Leone FT et al. Initiating pharmacologic treatment in tobacco-dependent adults: An official American Thoracic Society Clinical Practice Guideline. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020;202(2):e5–e31.

3. Tobacco smoking cessation in adults, including pregnant women: Behavioral and pharmacotherapy interventions. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force 2015 Sep 21.

4. FDA Drug Safety Communication: FDA revises description of mental health side effects of the stop-smoking medicines Chantix (varenicline) and Zyban (bupropion) to reflect clinical trial findings. 2016 Dec. 16.

Complications from tobacco use are the most common preventable cause of death, disability, and disease in the United States. Tobacco use causes 480,000 premature deaths every year. In pregnancy, tobacco use causes complications such as premature birth, intrauterine growth restriction, and placental abruption. In the perinatal period, it is associated with sudden infant death syndrome. While cigarette smoking is decreasing in adolescents, e-cigarette use in on the rise. Approximately 1,600 children aged 12-17 smoke their first cigarette every day and it is estimated that 5.6 million children and adolescents will die of a tobacco use–related death.¹ For these reasons it is important to address tobacco use and cessation with patients whenever it is possible. Below is a case and recommendations related to a new American Thoracic Society guideline on initiating pharmacologic treatment in tobacco-dependent adults.

A forty-five-year-old male who rarely comes to the office is here today for a physical exam at the urging of his partner. He has been smoking a pack a day since age 17. You have tried at past visits to discuss quitting, but he had been in the precontemplative stage and had been unwilling to consider any change. This visit, however, he is ready to try to quit. What can you offer him?

Core recommendations from ATS guidelines

This patient can be offered varenicline plus nicotine replacement therapy rather than nicotine replacement therapy, bupropion, e-cigarettes, or varenicline alone. His course of therapy should extend beyond 12 weeks instead of the standard 6- to 12-week therapy. Alternatively, he could be offered varenicline alone, rather than nicotine replacement.²

A change from previous guidelines

What makes this recommendation so interesting and new is the emphasis it places on varenicline. The United States Preventive Services Task Force released a recommendation statement in 2015 that stressed a combination of pharmacological and behavioral interventions. It discussed nicotine replacement therapy, bupropion, and varenicline, but did not recommend any one over any of the others.³ The new recommendation from the American Thoracic Society favors varenicline over other pharmacologic interventions. It is based on an independent systematic review of the literature that showed higher rates of tobacco use abstinence at the 6-month follow-up with varenicline alone versus nicotine replacement therapy alone, bupropion alone, or e-cigarette use only.

A review of 14 randomized controlled trials showed that varenicline improves abstinence rates during treatment by approximately 40% compared with nicotine replacement, and by 20% at the end of 6 months of treatment. The review found that varenicline plus nicotine replacement therapy is more effective than varenicline alone. In this comparison, based on three trials, there was a 36% higher abstinence rate at 6 months using varenicline plus nicotine replacement. When varenicline use was compared with use of a nicotine patch, bupropion, or e-cigarettes, there was a reduction in serious adverse events – changes in mood, suicidal ideation, and neurological side effects such as seizures.² Clinicians may remember a black box warning on the varenicline label citing neuropsychiatric effects and it is important to note that the Food and Drug Administration removed this boxed warning in 2016.⁴

Opinion

This recommendation represents an important, evidence-based change from previous guidelines. It presents the opportunity for better outcomes, but will likely take a while to filter into practice, as clinicians need to become more comfortable with the use of varenicline and insurance supports the cost of varenicline.

The average cost of varenicline for 12 weeks is between $1,220 and $1,584. For comparison, nicotine replacement therapy costs $170 to $240 for the same number of weeks. To put those costs in perspective, the 12-week cost of cigarettes for a two-pack-a-day smoker is approximately $1,000.

For some patients, the motivation to quit smoking comes from the realization of how much they are spending on cigarettes each month. That said, if a patient does not have insurance or their insurance does not cover the cost of varenicline, nicotine replacement therapy might be more appealing. It should be noted that better abstinence rates have been seen in patients taking varenicline plus nicotine replacement therapy versus varenicline alone.

Suggested treatment

Based on a systematic review of randomized controlled trials, the American Thoracic Society’s guideline on pharmacological treatment in tobacco-dependent adults concludes that varenicline plus nicotine patch is the preferred pharmacological treatment for tobacco cessation when compared with varenicline alone, bupropion alone, nicotine replacement therapy alone, and e-cigarettes alone. If the patient does not want to start two medicines at once, then varenicline alone would be the preferred choice.

Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Dr. Sprogell is a third-year resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece. For questions or comments, feel free to contact Dr. Skolnik on Twitter @NeilSkolnik.

References

1. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Primary care interventions for prevention and cessation of tobacco use in children and adolescents: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA.2020;323(16):1590-8. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.4679.

2. Leone FT et al. Initiating pharmacologic treatment in tobacco-dependent adults: An official American Thoracic Society Clinical Practice Guideline. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020;202(2):e5–e31.

3. Tobacco smoking cessation in adults, including pregnant women: Behavioral and pharmacotherapy interventions. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force 2015 Sep 21.

4. FDA Drug Safety Communication: FDA revises description of mental health side effects of the stop-smoking medicines Chantix (varenicline) and Zyban (bupropion) to reflect clinical trial findings. 2016 Dec. 16.

Complications from tobacco use are the most common preventable cause of death, disability, and disease in the United States. Tobacco use causes 480,000 premature deaths every year. In pregnancy, tobacco use causes complications such as premature birth, intrauterine growth restriction, and placental abruption. In the perinatal period, it is associated with sudden infant death syndrome. While cigarette smoking is decreasing in adolescents, e-cigarette use in on the rise. Approximately 1,600 children aged 12-17 smoke their first cigarette every day and it is estimated that 5.6 million children and adolescents will die of a tobacco use–related death.¹ For these reasons it is important to address tobacco use and cessation with patients whenever it is possible. Below is a case and recommendations related to a new American Thoracic Society guideline on initiating pharmacologic treatment in tobacco-dependent adults.

A forty-five-year-old male who rarely comes to the office is here today for a physical exam at the urging of his partner. He has been smoking a pack a day since age 17. You have tried at past visits to discuss quitting, but he had been in the precontemplative stage and had been unwilling to consider any change. This visit, however, he is ready to try to quit. What can you offer him?

Core recommendations from ATS guidelines

This patient can be offered varenicline plus nicotine replacement therapy rather than nicotine replacement therapy, bupropion, e-cigarettes, or varenicline alone. His course of therapy should extend beyond 12 weeks instead of the standard 6- to 12-week therapy. Alternatively, he could be offered varenicline alone, rather than nicotine replacement.²

A change from previous guidelines

What makes this recommendation so interesting and new is the emphasis it places on varenicline. The United States Preventive Services Task Force released a recommendation statement in 2015 that stressed a combination of pharmacological and behavioral interventions. It discussed nicotine replacement therapy, bupropion, and varenicline, but did not recommend any one over any of the others.³ The new recommendation from the American Thoracic Society favors varenicline over other pharmacologic interventions. It is based on an independent systematic review of the literature that showed higher rates of tobacco use abstinence at the 6-month follow-up with varenicline alone versus nicotine replacement therapy alone, bupropion alone, or e-cigarette use only.

A review of 14 randomized controlled trials showed that varenicline improves abstinence rates during treatment by approximately 40% compared with nicotine replacement, and by 20% at the end of 6 months of treatment. The review found that varenicline plus nicotine replacement therapy is more effective than varenicline alone. In this comparison, based on three trials, there was a 36% higher abstinence rate at 6 months using varenicline plus nicotine replacement. When varenicline use was compared with use of a nicotine patch, bupropion, or e-cigarettes, there was a reduction in serious adverse events – changes in mood, suicidal ideation, and neurological side effects such as seizures.² Clinicians may remember a black box warning on the varenicline label citing neuropsychiatric effects and it is important to note that the Food and Drug Administration removed this boxed warning in 2016.⁴

Opinion

This recommendation represents an important, evidence-based change from previous guidelines. It presents the opportunity for better outcomes, but will likely take a while to filter into practice, as clinicians need to become more comfortable with the use of varenicline and insurance supports the cost of varenicline.

The average cost of varenicline for 12 weeks is between $1,220 and $1,584. For comparison, nicotine replacement therapy costs $170 to $240 for the same number of weeks. To put those costs in perspective, the 12-week cost of cigarettes for a two-pack-a-day smoker is approximately $1,000.

For some patients, the motivation to quit smoking comes from the realization of how much they are spending on cigarettes each month. That said, if a patient does not have insurance or their insurance does not cover the cost of varenicline, nicotine replacement therapy might be more appealing. It should be noted that better abstinence rates have been seen in patients taking varenicline plus nicotine replacement therapy versus varenicline alone.

Suggested treatment

Based on a systematic review of randomized controlled trials, the American Thoracic Society’s guideline on pharmacological treatment in tobacco-dependent adults concludes that varenicline plus nicotine patch is the preferred pharmacological treatment for tobacco cessation when compared with varenicline alone, bupropion alone, nicotine replacement therapy alone, and e-cigarettes alone. If the patient does not want to start two medicines at once, then varenicline alone would be the preferred choice.

Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Dr. Sprogell is a third-year resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece. For questions or comments, feel free to contact Dr. Skolnik on Twitter @NeilSkolnik.

References

1. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Primary care interventions for prevention and cessation of tobacco use in children and adolescents: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA.2020;323(16):1590-8. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.4679.

2. Leone FT et al. Initiating pharmacologic treatment in tobacco-dependent adults: An official American Thoracic Society Clinical Practice Guideline. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020;202(2):e5–e31.

3. Tobacco smoking cessation in adults, including pregnant women: Behavioral and pharmacotherapy interventions. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force 2015 Sep 21.

4. FDA Drug Safety Communication: FDA revises description of mental health side effects of the stop-smoking medicines Chantix (varenicline) and Zyban (bupropion) to reflect clinical trial findings. 2016 Dec. 16.

As we reopen our offices we are faced with the challenge of determining the best way to do it safely – protecting ourselves, our staff, and our patients. The Infectious Diseases Society of America recently issued an evidence-based guideline to help clinicians in developing a sound approach to this issue, and this guideline, along with recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, should allow us to move ahead safely.

In this column we will focus on selected details of the recommendations from IDSA and the CDC that may be helpful in primary care offices.
 

Face masks

Many clinicians have asked whether a physician should use a mask while seeing patients without COVID-19 in the office, and if yes, which type. The IDSA guideline states that mask usage is imperative for reducing the risk of health care workers contracting COVID-19.¹ The evidence is derived from a number of sources, including a retrospective study from Wuhan (China) University that examined two groups of health care workers during the outbreak. The first group wore N95 masks and washed their hands frequently, while the second group did not wear masks and washed their hands less frequently. In the group that took greater actions to protect themselves, none of the 493 staff members contracted COVID-19, compared with 10 of 213 staff members in the other group. The decrease in infection rate occurred in the group that wore masks despite the fact that this group had 733% more exposure to COVID-19 patients.² Further evidence came from a case-control study done in hospitals in Hong Kong during the 2003 SARS-CoV outbreak.³ This study showed that mask wearing was the most significant intervention for reducing infection, followed by gowning, and then handwashing. These findings make it clear that mask usage is a must for all health care providers who may be caring for patients who could have COVID-19.

The guideline also reviews evidence about the use of surgical masks versus N95 masks. On reviewing indirect evidence from the SARS-CoV epidemic, IDSA found that wearing any mask – surgical or N95 – led to a large reduction in the risk of developing an infection. In this systematic review of five observational studies in health care personnel, for those wearing surgical masks, the odds ratio for developing an infection was 0.13 (95% CI, 0.03-0.62), and for those wearing N95 masks, the odds ratio was 0.12 (95% CI, 0.06-0.26). There was not a significant difference between risk reductions for those who wore surgical masks and N95 masks, respectively.^1,4 The IDSA guideline panel recommended “that health care personnel caring for patients with suspected or known COVID-19 use either a surgical mask or N95 respirator ... as part of appropriate PPE.” Since there is not a significant difference in outcomes between those who use surgical masks and those who use N95 respirators, and the IDSA guideline states either type of mask is considered appropriate when taking care of patients with suspected or known COVID-19, in our opinion, use of surgical masks rather than N95s is sufficient when performing low-risk activities. Such activities include seeing patients who do not have a high likelihood of COVID-19 in the office setting.

The IDSA recommendation also discusses universal masking, defined as both patients and clinicians wearing masks. The recommendation is supported by the findings of a study in which universal mask usage was used to prevent the spread of H1N 1 during the 2009 outbreak. In this study of staff members and patients exposed to H1N1 who all wore masks, only 0.48% of 836 acquired infection. In the same study, not wearing a mask by either the provider or patient increased the risk of infection.⁵ Also, in a prospective study of hematopoietic stem cell transplant patients, universal masking caused infection rates to drop from 10.3% to 4.4%.⁶

The IDSA guideline states the following: “There may be some, albeit uncertain, benefit to universal masking in the absence of resource constraints. However, the benefits of universal masking with surgical masks should be weighed against the risk of increasing the PPE burn rate and contextualized to the background COVID-19 prevalence rate for asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic HCPs [health care providers] and visitors.”¹

The CDC’s guidance statement says the following: “Continued community transmission has increased the number of individuals potentially exposed to and infectious with SARS-CoV-2. Fever and symptom screening have proven to be relatively ineffective in identifying all infected individuals, including HCPs. Symptom screening also will not identify individuals who are infected but otherwise asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic; additional interventions are needed to limit the unrecognized introduction of SARS-CoV-2 into healthcare settings by these individuals. As part of aggressive source control measures, healthcare facilities should consider implementing policies requiring everyone entering the facility to wear a cloth face covering (if tolerated) while in the building, regardless of symptoms.”⁷

It is our opinion, based on the CDC and IDSA recommendations, that both clinicians and patients should be required to wear masks when patients are seen in the office if possible. Many offices have instituted a policy that says, if a patient refuses to wear a mask during an office visit, then the patient will not be seen.
 

Eye protection

Many clinicians are uncertain about whether eye protection needs to be used when seeing asymptomatic patients. The IDSA acknowledges that there are not studies that have looked critically at eye protection, but the society also acknowledges “appropriate personal protective equipment includes, in addition to a mask or respirator, eye protection, gown and gloves.”¹ In addition, the CDC recommends that, for healthcare workers located in areas with moderate or higher prevalence of COVID-19, HCPs should wear eye protection in addition to facemasks since they may encounter asymptomatic individuals with COVID-19.

Gowns and gloves

Gowns and gloves are recommended as a part of personal protective gear when caring for patients who have COVID-19. The IDSA guideline is clear in its recommendations, but does not cite evidence for having no gloves versus having gloves. Furthermore, they state that the evidence is insufficient to recommend double gloves, with the top glove used to take off a personal protective gown, and the inner glove discarded after the gown is removed. The CDC do not make recommendations for routine use of gloves in the care of patients who do not have COVID-19, even in areas where there may be asymptomatic COVID-19, and recommends standard precautions, specifically practicing hand hygiene before and after patient contact.⁸
 

The Bottom Line

When seeing patients with COVID-19, N-95 masks, goggles or face shields, gowns, and gloves should be used, with hand hygiene routinely practiced before and after seeing patients. For offices seeing patients not suspected of having COVID-19, the IDSA guideline clarifies that there is not a statistical difference in acquisition of infection with the use of surgical face masks vs N95 respirators. According to the CDC recommendations, eye protection in addition to facemasks should be used by the health care provider, and masks should be worn by patients. Hand hygiene should be used routinely before and after all patient contact. With use of these approaches, it should be safe for offices to reopen and see patients.
 

Neil Skolnik, MD, is professor of family and community medicine at the Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and associate director of the Family Medicine Residency Program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. Jeffrey Matthews, DO, is a second-year resident in the Family Medicine Residency at Abington Jefferson Health. For questions or comments, feel free to contact Dr. Skolnik on Twitter @NeilSkolnik.

References

1. Lynch JB, Davitkov P, Anderson DJ, et al. COVID-19 Guideline, Part 2: Infection Prevention. IDSA Home. https://www.idsociety.org/practice-guideline/covid-19-guideline-infection-prevention/. April 27, 2020. Accessed June 10, 2020.

2. J Hosp Infect. 2020 May;105(1):104-5.

3. Lancet. 2003;361(9368):1519-20.

4. Influenza Other Respir Viruses. 2020 Apr 4. doi: 2020;10.1111/irv.12745.

5. J Hosp Infect. 2010;74(3):271-7.

6. Clin Infect Dis. 2016;63(8):999-1006.

7. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Interim Infection Prevention and Control Recommendations for Patients with Suspected or Confirmed Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Healthcare Settings. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/infection-control-recommendations.html. Accessed Jun 16, 2020.

8. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Healthcare Infection Prevention and Control FAQs for COVID-19. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/infection-control-faq.html. Accessed June 15, 2020.
 

As we reopen our offices we are faced with the challenge of determining the best way to do it safely – protecting ourselves, our staff, and our patients. The Infectious Diseases Society of America recently issued an evidence-based guideline to help clinicians in developing a sound approach to this issue, and this guideline, along with recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, should allow us to move ahead safely.

In this column we will focus on selected details of the recommendations from IDSA and the CDC that may be helpful in primary care offices.
 

Face masks

Many clinicians have asked whether a physician should use a mask while seeing patients without COVID-19 in the office, and if yes, which type. The IDSA guideline states that mask usage is imperative for reducing the risk of health care workers contracting COVID-19.¹ The evidence is derived from a number of sources, including a retrospective study from Wuhan (China) University that examined two groups of health care workers during the outbreak. The first group wore N95 masks and washed their hands frequently, while the second group did not wear masks and washed their hands less frequently. In the group that took greater actions to protect themselves, none of the 493 staff members contracted COVID-19, compared with 10 of 213 staff members in the other group. The decrease in infection rate occurred in the group that wore masks despite the fact that this group had 733% more exposure to COVID-19 patients.² Further evidence came from a case-control study done in hospitals in Hong Kong during the 2003 SARS-CoV outbreak.³ This study showed that mask wearing was the most significant intervention for reducing infection, followed by gowning, and then handwashing. These findings make it clear that mask usage is a must for all health care providers who may be caring for patients who could have COVID-19.

The guideline also reviews evidence about the use of surgical masks versus N95 masks. On reviewing indirect evidence from the SARS-CoV epidemic, IDSA found that wearing any mask – surgical or N95 – led to a large reduction in the risk of developing an infection. In this systematic review of five observational studies in health care personnel, for those wearing surgical masks, the odds ratio for developing an infection was 0.13 (95% CI, 0.03-0.62), and for those wearing N95 masks, the odds ratio was 0.12 (95% CI, 0.06-0.26). There was not a significant difference between risk reductions for those who wore surgical masks and N95 masks, respectively.^1,4 The IDSA guideline panel recommended “that health care personnel caring for patients with suspected or known COVID-19 use either a surgical mask or N95 respirator ... as part of appropriate PPE.” Since there is not a significant difference in outcomes between those who use surgical masks and those who use N95 respirators, and the IDSA guideline states either type of mask is considered appropriate when taking care of patients with suspected or known COVID-19, in our opinion, use of surgical masks rather than N95s is sufficient when performing low-risk activities. Such activities include seeing patients who do not have a high likelihood of COVID-19 in the office setting.

The IDSA recommendation also discusses universal masking, defined as both patients and clinicians wearing masks. The recommendation is supported by the findings of a study in which universal mask usage was used to prevent the spread of H1N 1 during the 2009 outbreak. In this study of staff members and patients exposed to H1N1 who all wore masks, only 0.48% of 836 acquired infection. In the same study, not wearing a mask by either the provider or patient increased the risk of infection.⁵ Also, in a prospective study of hematopoietic stem cell transplant patients, universal masking caused infection rates to drop from 10.3% to 4.4%.⁶

The IDSA guideline states the following: “There may be some, albeit uncertain, benefit to universal masking in the absence of resource constraints. However, the benefits of universal masking with surgical masks should be weighed against the risk of increasing the PPE burn rate and contextualized to the background COVID-19 prevalence rate for asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic HCPs [health care providers] and visitors.”¹

The CDC’s guidance statement says the following: “Continued community transmission has increased the number of individuals potentially exposed to and infectious with SARS-CoV-2. Fever and symptom screening have proven to be relatively ineffective in identifying all infected individuals, including HCPs. Symptom screening also will not identify individuals who are infected but otherwise asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic; additional interventions are needed to limit the unrecognized introduction of SARS-CoV-2 into healthcare settings by these individuals. As part of aggressive source control measures, healthcare facilities should consider implementing policies requiring everyone entering the facility to wear a cloth face covering (if tolerated) while in the building, regardless of symptoms.”⁷

It is our opinion, based on the CDC and IDSA recommendations, that both clinicians and patients should be required to wear masks when patients are seen in the office if possible. Many offices have instituted a policy that says, if a patient refuses to wear a mask during an office visit, then the patient will not be seen.
 

Eye protection

Many clinicians are uncertain about whether eye protection needs to be used when seeing asymptomatic patients. The IDSA acknowledges that there are not studies that have looked critically at eye protection, but the society also acknowledges “appropriate personal protective equipment includes, in addition to a mask or respirator, eye protection, gown and gloves.”¹ In addition, the CDC recommends that, for healthcare workers located in areas with moderate or higher prevalence of COVID-19, HCPs should wear eye protection in addition to facemasks since they may encounter asymptomatic individuals with COVID-19.

Gowns and gloves

Gowns and gloves are recommended as a part of personal protective gear when caring for patients who have COVID-19. The IDSA guideline is clear in its recommendations, but does not cite evidence for having no gloves versus having gloves. Furthermore, they state that the evidence is insufficient to recommend double gloves, with the top glove used to take off a personal protective gown, and the inner glove discarded after the gown is removed. The CDC do not make recommendations for routine use of gloves in the care of patients who do not have COVID-19, even in areas where there may be asymptomatic COVID-19, and recommends standard precautions, specifically practicing hand hygiene before and after patient contact.⁸
 

The Bottom Line

When seeing patients with COVID-19, N-95 masks, goggles or face shields, gowns, and gloves should be used, with hand hygiene routinely practiced before and after seeing patients. For offices seeing patients not suspected of having COVID-19, the IDSA guideline clarifies that there is not a statistical difference in acquisition of infection with the use of surgical face masks vs N95 respirators. According to the CDC recommendations, eye protection in addition to facemasks should be used by the health care provider, and masks should be worn by patients. Hand hygiene should be used routinely before and after all patient contact. With use of these approaches, it should be safe for offices to reopen and see patients.
 

Neil Skolnik, MD, is professor of family and community medicine at the Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and associate director of the Family Medicine Residency Program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. Jeffrey Matthews, DO, is a second-year resident in the Family Medicine Residency at Abington Jefferson Health. For questions or comments, feel free to contact Dr. Skolnik on Twitter @NeilSkolnik.

References

1. Lynch JB, Davitkov P, Anderson DJ, et al. COVID-19 Guideline, Part 2: Infection Prevention. IDSA Home. https://www.idsociety.org/practice-guideline/covid-19-guideline-infection-prevention/. April 27, 2020. Accessed June 10, 2020.

2. J Hosp Infect. 2020 May;105(1):104-5.

3. Lancet. 2003;361(9368):1519-20.

4. Influenza Other Respir Viruses. 2020 Apr 4. doi: 2020;10.1111/irv.12745.

5. J Hosp Infect. 2010;74(3):271-7.

6. Clin Infect Dis. 2016;63(8):999-1006.

7. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Interim Infection Prevention and Control Recommendations for Patients with Suspected or Confirmed Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Healthcare Settings. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/infection-control-recommendations.html. Accessed Jun 16, 2020.

8. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Healthcare Infection Prevention and Control FAQs for COVID-19. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/infection-control-faq.html. Accessed June 15, 2020.
 

As we reopen our offices we are faced with the challenge of determining the best way to do it safely – protecting ourselves, our staff, and our patients. The Infectious Diseases Society of America recently issued an evidence-based guideline to help clinicians in developing a sound approach to this issue, and this guideline, along with recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, should allow us to move ahead safely.

In this column we will focus on selected details of the recommendations from IDSA and the CDC that may be helpful in primary care offices.
 

Face masks

Many clinicians have asked whether a physician should use a mask while seeing patients without COVID-19 in the office, and if yes, which type. The IDSA guideline states that mask usage is imperative for reducing the risk of health care workers contracting COVID-19.¹ The evidence is derived from a number of sources, including a retrospective study from Wuhan (China) University that examined two groups of health care workers during the outbreak. The first group wore N95 masks and washed their hands frequently, while the second group did not wear masks and washed their hands less frequently. In the group that took greater actions to protect themselves, none of the 493 staff members contracted COVID-19, compared with 10 of 213 staff members in the other group. The decrease in infection rate occurred in the group that wore masks despite the fact that this group had 733% more exposure to COVID-19 patients.² Further evidence came from a case-control study done in hospitals in Hong Kong during the 2003 SARS-CoV outbreak.³ This study showed that mask wearing was the most significant intervention for reducing infection, followed by gowning, and then handwashing. These findings make it clear that mask usage is a must for all health care providers who may be caring for patients who could have COVID-19.

The guideline also reviews evidence about the use of surgical masks versus N95 masks. On reviewing indirect evidence from the SARS-CoV epidemic, IDSA found that wearing any mask – surgical or N95 – led to a large reduction in the risk of developing an infection. In this systematic review of five observational studies in health care personnel, for those wearing surgical masks, the odds ratio for developing an infection was 0.13 (95% CI, 0.03-0.62), and for those wearing N95 masks, the odds ratio was 0.12 (95% CI, 0.06-0.26). There was not a significant difference between risk reductions for those who wore surgical masks and N95 masks, respectively.^1,4 The IDSA guideline panel recommended “that health care personnel caring for patients with suspected or known COVID-19 use either a surgical mask or N95 respirator ... as part of appropriate PPE.” Since there is not a significant difference in outcomes between those who use surgical masks and those who use N95 respirators, and the IDSA guideline states either type of mask is considered appropriate when taking care of patients with suspected or known COVID-19, in our opinion, use of surgical masks rather than N95s is sufficient when performing low-risk activities. Such activities include seeing patients who do not have a high likelihood of COVID-19 in the office setting.

The IDSA recommendation also discusses universal masking, defined as both patients and clinicians wearing masks. The recommendation is supported by the findings of a study in which universal mask usage was used to prevent the spread of H1N 1 during the 2009 outbreak. In this study of staff members and patients exposed to H1N1 who all wore masks, only 0.48% of 836 acquired infection. In the same study, not wearing a mask by either the provider or patient increased the risk of infection.⁵ Also, in a prospective study of hematopoietic stem cell transplant patients, universal masking caused infection rates to drop from 10.3% to 4.4%.⁶

The IDSA guideline states the following: “There may be some, albeit uncertain, benefit to universal masking in the absence of resource constraints. However, the benefits of universal masking with surgical masks should be weighed against the risk of increasing the PPE burn rate and contextualized to the background COVID-19 prevalence rate for asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic HCPs [health care providers] and visitors.”¹

The CDC’s guidance statement says the following: “Continued community transmission has increased the number of individuals potentially exposed to and infectious with SARS-CoV-2. Fever and symptom screening have proven to be relatively ineffective in identifying all infected individuals, including HCPs. Symptom screening also will not identify individuals who are infected but otherwise asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic; additional interventions are needed to limit the unrecognized introduction of SARS-CoV-2 into healthcare settings by these individuals. As part of aggressive source control measures, healthcare facilities should consider implementing policies requiring everyone entering the facility to wear a cloth face covering (if tolerated) while in the building, regardless of symptoms.”⁷

It is our opinion, based on the CDC and IDSA recommendations, that both clinicians and patients should be required to wear masks when patients are seen in the office if possible. Many offices have instituted a policy that says, if a patient refuses to wear a mask during an office visit, then the patient will not be seen.
 

Eye protection

Many clinicians are uncertain about whether eye protection needs to be used when seeing asymptomatic patients. The IDSA acknowledges that there are not studies that have looked critically at eye protection, but the society also acknowledges “appropriate personal protective equipment includes, in addition to a mask or respirator, eye protection, gown and gloves.”¹ In addition, the CDC recommends that, for healthcare workers located in areas with moderate or higher prevalence of COVID-19, HCPs should wear eye protection in addition to facemasks since they may encounter asymptomatic individuals with COVID-19.

Gowns and gloves

Gowns and gloves are recommended as a part of personal protective gear when caring for patients who have COVID-19. The IDSA guideline is clear in its recommendations, but does not cite evidence for having no gloves versus having gloves. Furthermore, they state that the evidence is insufficient to recommend double gloves, with the top glove used to take off a personal protective gown, and the inner glove discarded after the gown is removed. The CDC do not make recommendations for routine use of gloves in the care of patients who do not have COVID-19, even in areas where there may be asymptomatic COVID-19, and recommends standard precautions, specifically practicing hand hygiene before and after patient contact.⁸
 

The Bottom Line

When seeing patients with COVID-19, N-95 masks, goggles or face shields, gowns, and gloves should be used, with hand hygiene routinely practiced before and after seeing patients. For offices seeing patients not suspected of having COVID-19, the IDSA guideline clarifies that there is not a statistical difference in acquisition of infection with the use of surgical face masks vs N95 respirators. According to the CDC recommendations, eye protection in addition to facemasks should be used by the health care provider, and masks should be worn by patients. Hand hygiene should be used routinely before and after all patient contact. With use of these approaches, it should be safe for offices to reopen and see patients.
 

Neil Skolnik, MD, is professor of family and community medicine at the Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and associate director of the Family Medicine Residency Program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. Jeffrey Matthews, DO, is a second-year resident in the Family Medicine Residency at Abington Jefferson Health. For questions or comments, feel free to contact Dr. Skolnik on Twitter @NeilSkolnik.

References

1. Lynch JB, Davitkov P, Anderson DJ, et al. COVID-19 Guideline, Part 2: Infection Prevention. IDSA Home. https://www.idsociety.org/practice-guideline/covid-19-guideline-infection-prevention/. April 27, 2020. Accessed June 10, 2020.

2. J Hosp Infect. 2020 May;105(1):104-5.

3. Lancet. 2003;361(9368):1519-20.

4. Influenza Other Respir Viruses. 2020 Apr 4. doi: 2020;10.1111/irv.12745.

5. J Hosp Infect. 2010;74(3):271-7.

6. Clin Infect Dis. 2016;63(8):999-1006.

7. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Interim Infection Prevention and Control Recommendations for Patients with Suspected or Confirmed Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Healthcare Settings. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/infection-control-recommendations.html. Accessed Jun 16, 2020.

8. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Healthcare Infection Prevention and Control FAQs for COVID-19. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/infection-control-faq.html. Accessed June 15, 2020.