Article

THE CASE

A previously healthy 3-year-old girl presented to the emergency department with 4 days of fever and 2 days of right-side neck pain. The maximum temperature at home was 103 °F. The patient was irritable and vomited once. There were no other apparent or reported symptoms.

The neck exam was notable for nonfluctuant, swollen, and tender lymph nodes on the right side. Her sclera and conjunctiva were clear, and her oropharynx was unremarkable. Lab work revealed leukocytosis, with a white blood cell (WBC) count of 15.5 × 10³/µL (normal range, 4.0-10.0 × 10³/µL). She was given one 20 cc/kg normal saline bolus, started on intravenous clindamycin for presumed cervical lymphadenitis, and admitted to the hospital.

On Day 2, the patient developed a fine maculopapular rash on her chest, abdomen, and back. She had spiking fevers—as high as 102.2 °F—despite being on antibiotics for more than 24 hours. The erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) was 39 mm/h (0-20 mm/h), and C-reactive protein (CRP) was 71.4 mg/L (0.0-4.9 mg/L). Due to concern for abscess, a neck ultrasound was performed; it showed a chain of enlarged lymph nodes in the right neck (largest, 2.3 × 1.1 × 1.4 cm) and no abscess.

On Day 3, clindamycin was switched to intravenous ampicillin/sulbactam because a nasal swab for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus was negative. A swab for respiratory viral infections was also negative. The patient then developed notable facial swelling, bilateral bulbar conjunctival injection with limbic sparing, and swelling of her hands and feet.

THE DIAGNOSIS

By the end of Day 3, the patient’s lab studies demonstrated microcytic anemia and low albumin (2.5 g/dL), but no transaminitis, thrombocytosis, or sterile pyuria. An electrocardiogram was unremarkable. A pediatric echocardiogram revealed hyperemic coronaries, indicating inflammation. The coronary arteries were measured in the upper limits of normal, and the patient’s Z-scores were < 2.5. (A Z-score < 2 indicates no involvement, 2 to < 2.5 indicates dilation, and ≥ 2.5 indicates aneurysm abnormality.¹) An ultrasound of the right upper quadrant revealed an enlarged/elongated gallbladder. The patient therefore met clinical criteria for Kawasaki disease.

DISCUSSION

Kawasaki disease is a self-limited vasculitis of childhood and the leading cause of acquired heart disease in children in developed countries.¹ The annual incidence of Kawasaki disease in North America is about 25 cases per 100,000 children < 5 years of age.¹ In the United States, incidence is highest in Asian and Pacific Islander populations (30 per 100,000) and is particularly high among those of Japanese ancestry (~200 per 100,000).² Disease prevalence is also noteworthy in Non-Hispanic African American (17 per 100,000) and Hispanic (16 per 100,000) populations.²

Diagnosis of Kawasaki disease requires presence of fever lasting at least 5 days and at least 4 of the following: bilateral bulbar conjunctival injection, oral mucous membrane changes (erythematous or cracked lips, erythematous pharynx, strawberry tongue), peripheral extremity changes (erythema of palms or soles, edema of hands or feet, and/or periungual desquamation), diffuse maculopapular rash, and cervical lymphadenopathy (≥ 1.5 cm, often unilateral). If ≥ 4 criteria are met, Kawasaki disease can be diagnosed on the fourth day of illness.¹

Continue to: Laboratory findings suggesting...

Laboratory findings suggesting ­Kawasaki disease include a WBC count ≥ 15,000/mcL, normocytic, normochromic anemia, platelets ≥ 450,000/mcL after 7 days of illness, sterile pyuria (≥ 10 WBCs/high-power field), serum alanine aminotransferase level > 50 U/L, and serum albumin ≤ 3 g/dL.

Cardiac abnormalities are not included in the diagnostic criteria for Kawasaki disease but provide evidence in cases of incomplete Kawasaki disease if ≥ 4 criteria are not met and there is strong clinical suspicion.¹ Incomplete Kawasaki disease should be considered in a patient with a CRP level ≥ 3 mg/dL and/or ESR ≥ 40 mm/h, ≥ 3 supplemental laboratory criteria, or a positive echocardiogram.¹

Ultrasound imaging may reveal cervical lymph nodes resembling a “cluster of grapes.”³ The case patient’s imaging showed a “chain of enlarged lymph nodes.” She likely had gallbladder “hydrops” due to its increased longitudinal and horizontal diameter and lack of other anatomic changes.⁴

Prompt treatment is essential

Treatment for complete and incomplete Kawasaki disease is a single high dose of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) along with aspirin. Patients meeting criteria should be treated as soon as the diagnosis is established.⁵ A single high dose of IVIG (2 g/kg), administered over 10 to 12 hours, should be initiated within 5 to 10 days of disease onset. Administering IVIG in the acute phase of Kawasaki disease reduces the prevalence of coronary artery abnormalities.⁶ Corticosteroids may be used as adjunctive therapy for patients with high risk of IVIG resistance.^1,7-9

Our patient was not deemed to be at high risk for IVIG resistance (Non-Japanese patient, age at fever onset > 6 months, absence of coronary artery aneurysm⁹) and was administered IVIG on Day 4. She was also given moderate-dose aspirin, then later transitioned to low-dose aspirin. The patient’s fevers improved, she was less irritable, and she had periods of playfulness. Physical exam then showed erythematous and cracked lips with peeling skin.

Continue to: The patient was discharged...

Untreated children with Kawasaki disease have a 25% chance of developing coronary artery aneurysms.

The patient was discharged home on Day 8, after her fever resolved, with instructions to continue low-dose aspirin and to obtain a repeat echocardiogram, gallbladder ultrasound, and lab work in 2 weeks. At her follow-up appointment, periungual desquamation was noted, and ultrasound showed continued enlarged/elongated gallbladder. A repeat echocardiogram was not available. Overall, the patient recovered from Kawasaki disease after therapeutic intervention.

THE TAKEAWAY

Kawasaki disease can be relatively rare in North American populations, but it is important for physicians to be able to recognize and treat it. Untreated children have a 25% chance of developing coronary artery aneurysms.^1,10,11 Early treatment with IVIG can decrease risk to 5%, resulting in an excellent medium- to long-term prognosis for patients.¹⁰ Thorough physical examination and an appropriate degree of clinical suspicion was key in this case of Kawasaki disease.

CORRESPONDENCE
Taisha Doo, MD, 1401 Madison Street, Suite #100, Seattle, WA 98104; [email protected]

THE CASE

A previously healthy 3-year-old girl presented to the emergency department with 4 days of fever and 2 days of right-side neck pain. The maximum temperature at home was 103 °F. The patient was irritable and vomited once. There were no other apparent or reported symptoms.

The neck exam was notable for nonfluctuant, swollen, and tender lymph nodes on the right side. Her sclera and conjunctiva were clear, and her oropharynx was unremarkable. Lab work revealed leukocytosis, with a white blood cell (WBC) count of 15.5 × 10³/µL (normal range, 4.0-10.0 × 10³/µL). She was given one 20 cc/kg normal saline bolus, started on intravenous clindamycin for presumed cervical lymphadenitis, and admitted to the hospital.

On Day 2, the patient developed a fine maculopapular rash on her chest, abdomen, and back. She had spiking fevers—as high as 102.2 °F—despite being on antibiotics for more than 24 hours. The erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) was 39 mm/h (0-20 mm/h), and C-reactive protein (CRP) was 71.4 mg/L (0.0-4.9 mg/L). Due to concern for abscess, a neck ultrasound was performed; it showed a chain of enlarged lymph nodes in the right neck (largest, 2.3 × 1.1 × 1.4 cm) and no abscess.

On Day 3, clindamycin was switched to intravenous ampicillin/sulbactam because a nasal swab for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus was negative. A swab for respiratory viral infections was also negative. The patient then developed notable facial swelling, bilateral bulbar conjunctival injection with limbic sparing, and swelling of her hands and feet.

THE DIAGNOSIS

By the end of Day 3, the patient’s lab studies demonstrated microcytic anemia and low albumin (2.5 g/dL), but no transaminitis, thrombocytosis, or sterile pyuria. An electrocardiogram was unremarkable. A pediatric echocardiogram revealed hyperemic coronaries, indicating inflammation. The coronary arteries were measured in the upper limits of normal, and the patient’s Z-scores were < 2.5. (A Z-score < 2 indicates no involvement, 2 to < 2.5 indicates dilation, and ≥ 2.5 indicates aneurysm abnormality.¹) An ultrasound of the right upper quadrant revealed an enlarged/elongated gallbladder. The patient therefore met clinical criteria for Kawasaki disease.

DISCUSSION

Kawasaki disease is a self-limited vasculitis of childhood and the leading cause of acquired heart disease in children in developed countries.¹ The annual incidence of Kawasaki disease in North America is about 25 cases per 100,000 children < 5 years of age.¹ In the United States, incidence is highest in Asian and Pacific Islander populations (30 per 100,000) and is particularly high among those of Japanese ancestry (~200 per 100,000).² Disease prevalence is also noteworthy in Non-Hispanic African American (17 per 100,000) and Hispanic (16 per 100,000) populations.²

Diagnosis of Kawasaki disease requires presence of fever lasting at least 5 days and at least 4 of the following: bilateral bulbar conjunctival injection, oral mucous membrane changes (erythematous or cracked lips, erythematous pharynx, strawberry tongue), peripheral extremity changes (erythema of palms or soles, edema of hands or feet, and/or periungual desquamation), diffuse maculopapular rash, and cervical lymphadenopathy (≥ 1.5 cm, often unilateral). If ≥ 4 criteria are met, Kawasaki disease can be diagnosed on the fourth day of illness.¹

Continue to: Laboratory findings suggesting...

Laboratory findings suggesting ­Kawasaki disease include a WBC count ≥ 15,000/mcL, normocytic, normochromic anemia, platelets ≥ 450,000/mcL after 7 days of illness, sterile pyuria (≥ 10 WBCs/high-power field), serum alanine aminotransferase level > 50 U/L, and serum albumin ≤ 3 g/dL.

Cardiac abnormalities are not included in the diagnostic criteria for Kawasaki disease but provide evidence in cases of incomplete Kawasaki disease if ≥ 4 criteria are not met and there is strong clinical suspicion.¹ Incomplete Kawasaki disease should be considered in a patient with a CRP level ≥ 3 mg/dL and/or ESR ≥ 40 mm/h, ≥ 3 supplemental laboratory criteria, or a positive echocardiogram.¹

Ultrasound imaging may reveal cervical lymph nodes resembling a “cluster of grapes.”³ The case patient’s imaging showed a “chain of enlarged lymph nodes.” She likely had gallbladder “hydrops” due to its increased longitudinal and horizontal diameter and lack of other anatomic changes.⁴

Prompt treatment is essential

Treatment for complete and incomplete Kawasaki disease is a single high dose of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) along with aspirin. Patients meeting criteria should be treated as soon as the diagnosis is established.⁵ A single high dose of IVIG (2 g/kg), administered over 10 to 12 hours, should be initiated within 5 to 10 days of disease onset. Administering IVIG in the acute phase of Kawasaki disease reduces the prevalence of coronary artery abnormalities.⁶ Corticosteroids may be used as adjunctive therapy for patients with high risk of IVIG resistance.^1,7-9

Our patient was not deemed to be at high risk for IVIG resistance (Non-Japanese patient, age at fever onset > 6 months, absence of coronary artery aneurysm⁹) and was administered IVIG on Day 4. She was also given moderate-dose aspirin, then later transitioned to low-dose aspirin. The patient’s fevers improved, she was less irritable, and she had periods of playfulness. Physical exam then showed erythematous and cracked lips with peeling skin.

Continue to: The patient was discharged...

Untreated children with Kawasaki disease have a 25% chance of developing coronary artery aneurysms.

The patient was discharged home on Day 8, after her fever resolved, with instructions to continue low-dose aspirin and to obtain a repeat echocardiogram, gallbladder ultrasound, and lab work in 2 weeks. At her follow-up appointment, periungual desquamation was noted, and ultrasound showed continued enlarged/elongated gallbladder. A repeat echocardiogram was not available. Overall, the patient recovered from Kawasaki disease after therapeutic intervention.

THE TAKEAWAY

Kawasaki disease can be relatively rare in North American populations, but it is important for physicians to be able to recognize and treat it. Untreated children have a 25% chance of developing coronary artery aneurysms.^1,10,11 Early treatment with IVIG can decrease risk to 5%, resulting in an excellent medium- to long-term prognosis for patients.¹⁰ Thorough physical examination and an appropriate degree of clinical suspicion was key in this case of Kawasaki disease.

CORRESPONDENCE
Taisha Doo, MD, 1401 Madison Street, Suite #100, Seattle, WA 98104; [email protected]

THE CASE

A previously healthy 3-year-old girl presented to the emergency department with 4 days of fever and 2 days of right-side neck pain. The maximum temperature at home was 103 °F. The patient was irritable and vomited once. There were no other apparent or reported symptoms.

The neck exam was notable for nonfluctuant, swollen, and tender lymph nodes on the right side. Her sclera and conjunctiva were clear, and her oropharynx was unremarkable. Lab work revealed leukocytosis, with a white blood cell (WBC) count of 15.5 × 10³/µL (normal range, 4.0-10.0 × 10³/µL). She was given one 20 cc/kg normal saline bolus, started on intravenous clindamycin for presumed cervical lymphadenitis, and admitted to the hospital.

On Day 2, the patient developed a fine maculopapular rash on her chest, abdomen, and back. She had spiking fevers—as high as 102.2 °F—despite being on antibiotics for more than 24 hours. The erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) was 39 mm/h (0-20 mm/h), and C-reactive protein (CRP) was 71.4 mg/L (0.0-4.9 mg/L). Due to concern for abscess, a neck ultrasound was performed; it showed a chain of enlarged lymph nodes in the right neck (largest, 2.3 × 1.1 × 1.4 cm) and no abscess.

On Day 3, clindamycin was switched to intravenous ampicillin/sulbactam because a nasal swab for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus was negative. A swab for respiratory viral infections was also negative. The patient then developed notable facial swelling, bilateral bulbar conjunctival injection with limbic sparing, and swelling of her hands and feet.

THE DIAGNOSIS

By the end of Day 3, the patient’s lab studies demonstrated microcytic anemia and low albumin (2.5 g/dL), but no transaminitis, thrombocytosis, or sterile pyuria. An electrocardiogram was unremarkable. A pediatric echocardiogram revealed hyperemic coronaries, indicating inflammation. The coronary arteries were measured in the upper limits of normal, and the patient’s Z-scores were < 2.5. (A Z-score < 2 indicates no involvement, 2 to < 2.5 indicates dilation, and ≥ 2.5 indicates aneurysm abnormality.¹) An ultrasound of the right upper quadrant revealed an enlarged/elongated gallbladder. The patient therefore met clinical criteria for Kawasaki disease.

DISCUSSION

Kawasaki disease is a self-limited vasculitis of childhood and the leading cause of acquired heart disease in children in developed countries.¹ The annual incidence of Kawasaki disease in North America is about 25 cases per 100,000 children < 5 years of age.¹ In the United States, incidence is highest in Asian and Pacific Islander populations (30 per 100,000) and is particularly high among those of Japanese ancestry (~200 per 100,000).² Disease prevalence is also noteworthy in Non-Hispanic African American (17 per 100,000) and Hispanic (16 per 100,000) populations.²

Diagnosis of Kawasaki disease requires presence of fever lasting at least 5 days and at least 4 of the following: bilateral bulbar conjunctival injection, oral mucous membrane changes (erythematous or cracked lips, erythematous pharynx, strawberry tongue), peripheral extremity changes (erythema of palms or soles, edema of hands or feet, and/or periungual desquamation), diffuse maculopapular rash, and cervical lymphadenopathy (≥ 1.5 cm, often unilateral). If ≥ 4 criteria are met, Kawasaki disease can be diagnosed on the fourth day of illness.¹

Continue to: Laboratory findings suggesting...

Laboratory findings suggesting ­Kawasaki disease include a WBC count ≥ 15,000/mcL, normocytic, normochromic anemia, platelets ≥ 450,000/mcL after 7 days of illness, sterile pyuria (≥ 10 WBCs/high-power field), serum alanine aminotransferase level > 50 U/L, and serum albumin ≤ 3 g/dL.

Cardiac abnormalities are not included in the diagnostic criteria for Kawasaki disease but provide evidence in cases of incomplete Kawasaki disease if ≥ 4 criteria are not met and there is strong clinical suspicion.¹ Incomplete Kawasaki disease should be considered in a patient with a CRP level ≥ 3 mg/dL and/or ESR ≥ 40 mm/h, ≥ 3 supplemental laboratory criteria, or a positive echocardiogram.¹

Ultrasound imaging may reveal cervical lymph nodes resembling a “cluster of grapes.”³ The case patient’s imaging showed a “chain of enlarged lymph nodes.” She likely had gallbladder “hydrops” due to its increased longitudinal and horizontal diameter and lack of other anatomic changes.⁴

Prompt treatment is essential

Treatment for complete and incomplete Kawasaki disease is a single high dose of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) along with aspirin. Patients meeting criteria should be treated as soon as the diagnosis is established.⁵ A single high dose of IVIG (2 g/kg), administered over 10 to 12 hours, should be initiated within 5 to 10 days of disease onset. Administering IVIG in the acute phase of Kawasaki disease reduces the prevalence of coronary artery abnormalities.⁶ Corticosteroids may be used as adjunctive therapy for patients with high risk of IVIG resistance.^1,7-9

Our patient was not deemed to be at high risk for IVIG resistance (Non-Japanese patient, age at fever onset > 6 months, absence of coronary artery aneurysm⁹) and was administered IVIG on Day 4. She was also given moderate-dose aspirin, then later transitioned to low-dose aspirin. The patient’s fevers improved, she was less irritable, and she had periods of playfulness. Physical exam then showed erythematous and cracked lips with peeling skin.

Continue to: The patient was discharged...

Untreated children with Kawasaki disease have a 25% chance of developing coronary artery aneurysms.

The patient was discharged home on Day 8, after her fever resolved, with instructions to continue low-dose aspirin and to obtain a repeat echocardiogram, gallbladder ultrasound, and lab work in 2 weeks. At her follow-up appointment, periungual desquamation was noted, and ultrasound showed continued enlarged/elongated gallbladder. A repeat echocardiogram was not available. Overall, the patient recovered from Kawasaki disease after therapeutic intervention.

THE TAKEAWAY

Kawasaki disease can be relatively rare in North American populations, but it is important for physicians to be able to recognize and treat it. Untreated children have a 25% chance of developing coronary artery aneurysms.^1,10,11 Early treatment with IVIG can decrease risk to 5%, resulting in an excellent medium- to long-term prognosis for patients.¹⁰ Thorough physical examination and an appropriate degree of clinical suspicion was key in this case of Kawasaki disease.

CORRESPONDENCE
Taisha Doo, MD, 1401 Madison Street, Suite #100, Seattle, WA 98104; [email protected]

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 61-year-old man with hypertension and paroxysmal AF presents to your office shortly after experiencing his third episode of AF in the past 6 months. He describes these episodes, which last for several days, as “just awful,” noting that when he experiences AF, he has fatigue, palpitations, and shortness of breath and “can’t stop paying attention to my heart.” The patient, who has a body mass index of 32, consumes more than 15 alcoholic drinks per week. What can you recommend to him that will decrease his likelihood of experiencing more episodes of AF?

AF is the most common sustained cardiac arrhythmia. It is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Known risk factors include obesity, physical inactivity, sleep apnea, diabetes, and hypertension.²

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, an estimated 12.1 million people in the United States will have AF by 2030. In 2018, AF was mentioned on more than 183,000 death certificates and was the underlying cause of more than 26,000 of those deaths.³ AF is the primary diagnosis in 450,000 hospitalizations annually,⁴ and the death rate from AF as the primary or contributing cause of death has been rising for more than 2 decades.³

More than 50% of Americans report alcohol consumption within the past month.⁵ Although alcohol use is associated with new and recurrent AF, only limited prospective data show a clear and causal association between abstaining from alcohol and decreasing AF recurrence.

STUDY SUMMARY

Reduction in AF recurrence and total AF burden following alcohol abstinence

This multicenter, prospective, open-label, randomized controlled trial (N = 140) from 6 sites in Australia evaluated the impact of alcohol abstinence on both the recurrence of AF and the amount of time in AF. Study participants were ages 18 to 85 years, consumed 10 or more standard alcohol-containing drinks per week, had paroxysmal or persistent AF, and were in sinus rhythm at the time of enrollment, regardless of antiarrhythmic therapy. Exclusion criteria included alcohol dependence or abuse, severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction (ejection fraction < 35%), clinically significant noncardiac illness, and/or coexisting psychiatric disorder.¹

After a 4-week run-in period, patients were randomized to either an abstinence or a control group in a 1:1 fashion. Patients enrolled in the abstinence group were encouraged to abstain from alcohol consumption for 6 months and were provided with written and oral instructions to assist with abstaining. Control group patients continued their same level of alcohol consumption. Comprehensive rhythm monitoring occurred for all patients after randomization.

The largest challenge to implementation of this intervention is most likely the willingness of patients to cut their alcohol consumption.

Alcohol consumption was reported by both groups using a weekly alcohol diary, supplemented with a visual guide showing pictures of standard alcohol drinks. For the abstinence group, random urine testing for ethyl glucuronide (an alcohol metabolite) was possible if no alcohol intake was reported. Primary outcomes during the 6-month study included recurrence of AF and total AF burden (percentage of time in AF).

Continue to: Secondary outcomes included hospitalizations...

Secondary outcomes included hospitalizations for AF, AF symptom severity, and change in weight. Blood pressure, quality-of-life, and depression scores were missing for > 35% of patients.¹

Patients were randomized evenly to the control and abstinence groups. The typical patient was an overweight male in his early 60s with paroxysmal AF, who was taking an antiarrhythmic agent. Patients in the abstinence group decreased their alcohol consumption from 16.8 to 2.1 drinks per week (87.5% reduction; mean difference = –14.7; 95% CI, –12.7 to –16.7). Patients in the control group reduced their intake from 16.4 to 13.2 drinks per week (19.5% reduction; mean difference = –3.2; 95% CI, –1.9 to –4.4).¹

AF recurred in 53% vs 73% of the abstinence and control groups, respectively, with a longer period before recurrence in the abstinence group than in the control group (hazard ratio = 0.55; 95% CI, 0.36-0.84; P = .005; number needed to treat = 5). The AF burden was also lower in the abstinence group (0.5%; interquartile range [IQR] = 0.0-3.0) than in the control group (1.2%; IQR = 0.0-10.3; P = .01). The abstinence group had a lower percentage of AF hospitalizations compared with the control group (9% vs 20%), and fewer patients reporting moderate or severe AF symptoms (10% vs 32%). In addition, the abstinence group lost 3.7 kg more weight than did the control group at 6 months.¹

WHAT’S NEW

Objective new evidence for effective patient counseling

Alcohol consumption and its association with the onset and recurrence of AF has been documented previously.⁶ This study was the first to prospectively examine if abstaining from alcohol reduces paroxysmal AF episodes in moderate drinkers.

The study identified clinically meaningful findings among those who abstained from alcohol, including decreased AF recurrence rates, increased time to recurrence, and lower overall AF burden. This provides objective evidence that can be used for motivational interviewing in patients with paroxysmal AF who may be receptive to reducing or abstaining from alcohol consumption.

Continue to: CAVEATS

The narrow study population may not be widely applicable

The study population was predominantly male, in their seventh decade of life (mean age, 61), and living in Australia. Rates of AF and symptomatology differ by gender and age, making this information challenging to apply to women or older populations. The study excluded patients with alcohol dependence or abuse, left ventricular systolic dysfunction (ejection fraction < 35%), coexisting psychiatric disorders, and clinically significant noncardiac illnesses, limiting the study’s generalizability to these patient populations. Overall, AF recurrence was low in both groups despite the intervention, and the study did not evaluate the efficacy of the counseling method for abstinence.

Since publication of this article, a prospective cohort study of approximately 3800 Swiss patients with AF evaluated the effect of alcohol consumption on the rate of stroke and embolic events. That study did not find statistically significant correlations between patients who drank no alcohol per day, > 0 to < 1, 1 to < 2, or ≥ 2 drinks per day and their rate of stroke.⁷ However, this study did not specifically evaluate the rate of AF recurrence or time spent in AF among the cohort, which is clinically meaningful for patient morbidity.¹

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Patient willingness to cut alcohol consumption may be limited

The largest challenge to implementation of this intervention is most likely the willingness of patients to cut their alcohol consumption. In this study population, 697 patients were screened for enrollment and met inclusion criteria; however, 491 patients (70.4%) were not willing to consider abstinence from alcohol, and after the run-in phase, another 17 declined randomization. Many primary care physicians would likely agree that while it is easy to encourage patients to drink less, patient adherence to these recommendations, particularly abstaining, is likely to be limited.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center for Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center for Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 61-year-old man with hypertension and paroxysmal AF presents to your office shortly after experiencing his third episode of AF in the past 6 months. He describes these episodes, which last for several days, as “just awful,” noting that when he experiences AF, he has fatigue, palpitations, and shortness of breath and “can’t stop paying attention to my heart.” The patient, who has a body mass index of 32, consumes more than 15 alcoholic drinks per week. What can you recommend to him that will decrease his likelihood of experiencing more episodes of AF?

AF is the most common sustained cardiac arrhythmia. It is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Known risk factors include obesity, physical inactivity, sleep apnea, diabetes, and hypertension.²

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, an estimated 12.1 million people in the United States will have AF by 2030. In 2018, AF was mentioned on more than 183,000 death certificates and was the underlying cause of more than 26,000 of those deaths.³ AF is the primary diagnosis in 450,000 hospitalizations annually,⁴ and the death rate from AF as the primary or contributing cause of death has been rising for more than 2 decades.³

More than 50% of Americans report alcohol consumption within the past month.⁵ Although alcohol use is associated with new and recurrent AF, only limited prospective data show a clear and causal association between abstaining from alcohol and decreasing AF recurrence.

STUDY SUMMARY

Reduction in AF recurrence and total AF burden following alcohol abstinence

This multicenter, prospective, open-label, randomized controlled trial (N = 140) from 6 sites in Australia evaluated the impact of alcohol abstinence on both the recurrence of AF and the amount of time in AF. Study participants were ages 18 to 85 years, consumed 10 or more standard alcohol-containing drinks per week, had paroxysmal or persistent AF, and were in sinus rhythm at the time of enrollment, regardless of antiarrhythmic therapy. Exclusion criteria included alcohol dependence or abuse, severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction (ejection fraction < 35%), clinically significant noncardiac illness, and/or coexisting psychiatric disorder.¹

After a 4-week run-in period, patients were randomized to either an abstinence or a control group in a 1:1 fashion. Patients enrolled in the abstinence group were encouraged to abstain from alcohol consumption for 6 months and were provided with written and oral instructions to assist with abstaining. Control group patients continued their same level of alcohol consumption. Comprehensive rhythm monitoring occurred for all patients after randomization.

The largest challenge to implementation of this intervention is most likely the willingness of patients to cut their alcohol consumption.

Alcohol consumption was reported by both groups using a weekly alcohol diary, supplemented with a visual guide showing pictures of standard alcohol drinks. For the abstinence group, random urine testing for ethyl glucuronide (an alcohol metabolite) was possible if no alcohol intake was reported. Primary outcomes during the 6-month study included recurrence of AF and total AF burden (percentage of time in AF).

Continue to: Secondary outcomes included hospitalizations...

Secondary outcomes included hospitalizations for AF, AF symptom severity, and change in weight. Blood pressure, quality-of-life, and depression scores were missing for > 35% of patients.¹

Patients were randomized evenly to the control and abstinence groups. The typical patient was an overweight male in his early 60s with paroxysmal AF, who was taking an antiarrhythmic agent. Patients in the abstinence group decreased their alcohol consumption from 16.8 to 2.1 drinks per week (87.5% reduction; mean difference = –14.7; 95% CI, –12.7 to –16.7). Patients in the control group reduced their intake from 16.4 to 13.2 drinks per week (19.5% reduction; mean difference = –3.2; 95% CI, –1.9 to –4.4).¹

AF recurred in 53% vs 73% of the abstinence and control groups, respectively, with a longer period before recurrence in the abstinence group than in the control group (hazard ratio = 0.55; 95% CI, 0.36-0.84; P = .005; number needed to treat = 5). The AF burden was also lower in the abstinence group (0.5%; interquartile range [IQR] = 0.0-3.0) than in the control group (1.2%; IQR = 0.0-10.3; P = .01). The abstinence group had a lower percentage of AF hospitalizations compared with the control group (9% vs 20%), and fewer patients reporting moderate or severe AF symptoms (10% vs 32%). In addition, the abstinence group lost 3.7 kg more weight than did the control group at 6 months.¹

WHAT’S NEW

Objective new evidence for effective patient counseling

Alcohol consumption and its association with the onset and recurrence of AF has been documented previously.⁶ This study was the first to prospectively examine if abstaining from alcohol reduces paroxysmal AF episodes in moderate drinkers.

The study identified clinically meaningful findings among those who abstained from alcohol, including decreased AF recurrence rates, increased time to recurrence, and lower overall AF burden. This provides objective evidence that can be used for motivational interviewing in patients with paroxysmal AF who may be receptive to reducing or abstaining from alcohol consumption.

Continue to: CAVEATS

The narrow study population may not be widely applicable

The study population was predominantly male, in their seventh decade of life (mean age, 61), and living in Australia. Rates of AF and symptomatology differ by gender and age, making this information challenging to apply to women or older populations. The study excluded patients with alcohol dependence or abuse, left ventricular systolic dysfunction (ejection fraction < 35%), coexisting psychiatric disorders, and clinically significant noncardiac illnesses, limiting the study’s generalizability to these patient populations. Overall, AF recurrence was low in both groups despite the intervention, and the study did not evaluate the efficacy of the counseling method for abstinence.

Since publication of this article, a prospective cohort study of approximately 3800 Swiss patients with AF evaluated the effect of alcohol consumption on the rate of stroke and embolic events. That study did not find statistically significant correlations between patients who drank no alcohol per day, > 0 to < 1, 1 to < 2, or ≥ 2 drinks per day and their rate of stroke.⁷ However, this study did not specifically evaluate the rate of AF recurrence or time spent in AF among the cohort, which is clinically meaningful for patient morbidity.¹

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Patient willingness to cut alcohol consumption may be limited

The largest challenge to implementation of this intervention is most likely the willingness of patients to cut their alcohol consumption. In this study population, 697 patients were screened for enrollment and met inclusion criteria; however, 491 patients (70.4%) were not willing to consider abstinence from alcohol, and after the run-in phase, another 17 declined randomization. Many primary care physicians would likely agree that while it is easy to encourage patients to drink less, patient adherence to these recommendations, particularly abstaining, is likely to be limited.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center for Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center for Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 61-year-old man with hypertension and paroxysmal AF presents to your office shortly after experiencing his third episode of AF in the past 6 months. He describes these episodes, which last for several days, as “just awful,” noting that when he experiences AF, he has fatigue, palpitations, and shortness of breath and “can’t stop paying attention to my heart.” The patient, who has a body mass index of 32, consumes more than 15 alcoholic drinks per week. What can you recommend to him that will decrease his likelihood of experiencing more episodes of AF?

AF is the most common sustained cardiac arrhythmia. It is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Known risk factors include obesity, physical inactivity, sleep apnea, diabetes, and hypertension.²

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, an estimated 12.1 million people in the United States will have AF by 2030. In 2018, AF was mentioned on more than 183,000 death certificates and was the underlying cause of more than 26,000 of those deaths.³ AF is the primary diagnosis in 450,000 hospitalizations annually,⁴ and the death rate from AF as the primary or contributing cause of death has been rising for more than 2 decades.³

More than 50% of Americans report alcohol consumption within the past month.⁵ Although alcohol use is associated with new and recurrent AF, only limited prospective data show a clear and causal association between abstaining from alcohol and decreasing AF recurrence.

STUDY SUMMARY

Reduction in AF recurrence and total AF burden following alcohol abstinence

This multicenter, prospective, open-label, randomized controlled trial (N = 140) from 6 sites in Australia evaluated the impact of alcohol abstinence on both the recurrence of AF and the amount of time in AF. Study participants were ages 18 to 85 years, consumed 10 or more standard alcohol-containing drinks per week, had paroxysmal or persistent AF, and were in sinus rhythm at the time of enrollment, regardless of antiarrhythmic therapy. Exclusion criteria included alcohol dependence or abuse, severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction (ejection fraction < 35%), clinically significant noncardiac illness, and/or coexisting psychiatric disorder.¹

After a 4-week run-in period, patients were randomized to either an abstinence or a control group in a 1:1 fashion. Patients enrolled in the abstinence group were encouraged to abstain from alcohol consumption for 6 months and were provided with written and oral instructions to assist with abstaining. Control group patients continued their same level of alcohol consumption. Comprehensive rhythm monitoring occurred for all patients after randomization.

The largest challenge to implementation of this intervention is most likely the willingness of patients to cut their alcohol consumption.

Alcohol consumption was reported by both groups using a weekly alcohol diary, supplemented with a visual guide showing pictures of standard alcohol drinks. For the abstinence group, random urine testing for ethyl glucuronide (an alcohol metabolite) was possible if no alcohol intake was reported. Primary outcomes during the 6-month study included recurrence of AF and total AF burden (percentage of time in AF).

Continue to: Secondary outcomes included hospitalizations...

Secondary outcomes included hospitalizations for AF, AF symptom severity, and change in weight. Blood pressure, quality-of-life, and depression scores were missing for > 35% of patients.¹

Patients were randomized evenly to the control and abstinence groups. The typical patient was an overweight male in his early 60s with paroxysmal AF, who was taking an antiarrhythmic agent. Patients in the abstinence group decreased their alcohol consumption from 16.8 to 2.1 drinks per week (87.5% reduction; mean difference = –14.7; 95% CI, –12.7 to –16.7). Patients in the control group reduced their intake from 16.4 to 13.2 drinks per week (19.5% reduction; mean difference = –3.2; 95% CI, –1.9 to –4.4).¹

AF recurred in 53% vs 73% of the abstinence and control groups, respectively, with a longer period before recurrence in the abstinence group than in the control group (hazard ratio = 0.55; 95% CI, 0.36-0.84; P = .005; number needed to treat = 5). The AF burden was also lower in the abstinence group (0.5%; interquartile range [IQR] = 0.0-3.0) than in the control group (1.2%; IQR = 0.0-10.3; P = .01). The abstinence group had a lower percentage of AF hospitalizations compared with the control group (9% vs 20%), and fewer patients reporting moderate or severe AF symptoms (10% vs 32%). In addition, the abstinence group lost 3.7 kg more weight than did the control group at 6 months.¹

WHAT’S NEW

Objective new evidence for effective patient counseling

Alcohol consumption and its association with the onset and recurrence of AF has been documented previously.⁶ This study was the first to prospectively examine if abstaining from alcohol reduces paroxysmal AF episodes in moderate drinkers.

The study identified clinically meaningful findings among those who abstained from alcohol, including decreased AF recurrence rates, increased time to recurrence, and lower overall AF burden. This provides objective evidence that can be used for motivational interviewing in patients with paroxysmal AF who may be receptive to reducing or abstaining from alcohol consumption.

Continue to: CAVEATS

The narrow study population may not be widely applicable

The study population was predominantly male, in their seventh decade of life (mean age, 61), and living in Australia. Rates of AF and symptomatology differ by gender and age, making this information challenging to apply to women or older populations. The study excluded patients with alcohol dependence or abuse, left ventricular systolic dysfunction (ejection fraction < 35%), coexisting psychiatric disorders, and clinically significant noncardiac illnesses, limiting the study’s generalizability to these patient populations. Overall, AF recurrence was low in both groups despite the intervention, and the study did not evaluate the efficacy of the counseling method for abstinence.

Since publication of this article, a prospective cohort study of approximately 3800 Swiss patients with AF evaluated the effect of alcohol consumption on the rate of stroke and embolic events. That study did not find statistically significant correlations between patients who drank no alcohol per day, > 0 to < 1, 1 to < 2, or ≥ 2 drinks per day and their rate of stroke.⁷ However, this study did not specifically evaluate the rate of AF recurrence or time spent in AF among the cohort, which is clinically meaningful for patient morbidity.¹

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Patient willingness to cut alcohol consumption may be limited

The largest challenge to implementation of this intervention is most likely the willingness of patients to cut their alcohol consumption. In this study population, 697 patients were screened for enrollment and met inclusion criteria; however, 491 patients (70.4%) were not willing to consider abstinence from alcohol, and after the run-in phase, another 17 declined randomization. Many primary care physicians would likely agree that while it is easy to encourage patients to drink less, patient adherence to these recommendations, particularly abstaining, is likely to be limited.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center for Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center for Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

As the geriatric population continues to grow and treatment advances blur the lines between improving the length of life vs improving its quality, end-of-life (EOL) conversations are becoming increasingly important. These discussions are a crucial part of the advance care planning (ACP) process, in which patients discuss their treatment preferences and values with their caregiver/surrogate decision maker and health care provider to ultimately improve EOL decision-making and care. ^1,2

EOL conversations are most helpful when incorporated in the outpatient setting as part of the patient’s ongoing health care plan or when initiating treatment for a chronic or life-threatening disease. Because family physicians promote general wellness, understand the patient’s health status and medical history, and have an ongoing—and often longstanding—relationship with patients and their families, we are ideally positioned to engage patients in EOL discussions. However, these conversations can be challenging in the outpatient setting, and often clinicians struggle not only to find ways to raise the subject, but also to find the time to have these supportive, meaningful conversations.³

In this article, we will address the importance of having EOL discussions in the outpatient setting, specifically about advance directives (ADs), and the reasons why patients and physicians might avoid these discussions. The role of palliative care in EOL care, along with its benefits and methods for overcoming patient and physician barriers to its successful use, are reviewed. Finally, we examine specific challenges associated with discussing EOL care with patients with decreased mental capacity, such as those with dementia, and provide strategies to successfully facilitate EOL discussions in these populations. 

Moving patients toward completion of advance directives

Although many older patients express a desire to document their wishes before EOL situations arise, they may not fully understand the benefits of an AD or how to complete one. ⁴ Often the family physician is best equipped to address the patient’s concerns and discuss their goals for EOL care, as well as the potential situations that might arise.

Managing an aging population. Projections suggest that primary care physicians will encounter increasing numbers of geriatric patients in the next 2 decades. Thus it is essential for those in primary care to receive proper training during their residency for the care of this group of patients. According to a group of academic educators and geriatricians from internal medicine and family medicine whose goal was to define a set of minimal and essential competencies in the care of older adults, this includes training on how to discuss and document “advance care planning and goals of care with all patients with chronic or complex illness,” as well as how to differentiate among “types of code status, health care proxies, and advanced directives” within the state in which training occurs. ⁵

Educate patients and ease fears. Patients often avoid EOL conversations or wait for their family physician to start the conversation. They may not understand how ADs can help guide care or they may believe they are “too healthy” to have these conversations at this time. ⁴ Simply asking about existing ADs or providing forms to patients during an outpatient visit can open the door to more in-depth discussions. Some examples of opening phrases include:

• Do you have a living will or durable power of attorney for health care?
• Have you ever discussed your health care wishes with your loved ones?
• Who would you want to speak for you regarding your health care if you could not speak for yourself? Have you discussed your health care wishes with that person?

By normalizing the conversation as a routine part of comprehensive, patient-centered care, the family physician can allay patient fears, foster open and honest conversations, and encourage ongoing discussions with loved ones as situations arise.⁶

Continue to: When ADs are executed...

As many as 90% of patients with a life-threatening illness report never having discussed EOL care issues with their clinician.

When ADs are executed, patients often fail to have meaningful conversations with their surrogates about specific treatment wishes or EOL scenarios. As a result, the surrogate may not feel prepared to serve as a proxy decision maker or may find the role extremely stressful.⁷ Physicians should encourage open conversations between patients and their surrogates about potential EOL scenarios when possible. When possible and appropriate, it is also important to encourage the patient to include the surrogate in future outpatient visits so that the surrogate can understand the patient’s health status and potential decisions they may need to make.

Don’t overlook clinician barriers. Family physicians also might avoid AD discussions because they do not understand laws that govern ADs, which vary from state to state. Various online resources for patients and physicians exist that clarify state-specific regulations and provide state-specific forms (TABLE).

Time constraints present another challenge for family physicians. This can be addressed by establishing workflows that include EOL elements. Also, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has provided separate billing codes for AD discussion based on time spent explaining and discussing how to complete forms.⁸ CPT codes 99497 and 99498 are time-based codes that cover the first 30 minutes and each additional 30 minutes, respectively, of time spent explaining and discussing how to complete standard forms in a face-to-face setting (TABLE).⁹ CMS also includes discussion of AD documents as an optional element of the annual Medicare wellness visit.⁸ 

Improve quality of life for patients with any serious illness

Unlike hospice, which focuses on providing comfort rather than cure in the final months of a patient’s life, palliative care strives to prevent and relieve the patient’s suffering from a serious illness that is not immediately life-threatening. Palliative care focuses on the early identification, careful assessment, and treatment of the physical, psychosocial, and spiritual symptoms associated with a patient’s condition(s).^10,11 It has been well established that palliative care has a positive effect on many clinical outcomes including symptom burden, quality of life, satisfaction with care, and survival.^12-14 Patients who receive palliative care consultation also tend to perceive a higher quality of care.¹⁵

Conversations lead to better outcomes. Palliative care consultation is being increasingly used in the outpatient setting and can be introduced early in a disease process. Doing so provides an additional opportunity for the family physician to introduce an EOL discussion. A comparison of outcomes between patients who had initial inpatient palliative care consultation vs outpatient palliative care referral found that outpatient referral improved quality EOL care and was associated with significantly fewer emergency department visits (68% vs 48%; P < .001) and hospital admissions (86% vs 52%; P < .001), as well as shorter hospital stays in the last 30 days of life (3-11 vs 5-14 days; P = .01).¹⁴ Despite these benefits, 60% to 90% of patients with a serious illness report never having discussed EOL care issues with their clinician.^16,17

Continue to: Early EOL discussions...

Early EOL discussions have also been shown to have a positive impact on families. In a US study, family members stated that timely EOL care discussions allowed them to make use of hospice and palliative care services sooner and to make the most of their time with the patient.¹⁸

Timing and communication are key

Logistically it can be difficult to gather the right people (patient, family, etc) in the right place and at the right time. For physicians, the most often cited barriers include inadequate time to conduct an EOL discussion, ¹⁹ a perceived lack of competence in EOL conversations, ^1,20 difficulty navigating patient readiness, ²¹ and a fear of destroying hope due to prognostic uncertainty. ^19,20

A prospective, observational study used the Quality of Communication (QOC) questionnaire to assess life-sustaining treatment preferences, ACP, and the quality of EOL care communication in Dutch outpatients with clinically stable but severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (n = 105) or congestive heart failure (n = 80). The QOC questionnaire is a validated instrument that asks patients to rate their physician on several communication skills from 0 (“the very worst” or “My doctor didn’t do this”) to 10 (“the very best”). In this study, quality communication was identified by patients as one of the most important skills for physicians to provide adequate EOL care. ²² While QOC ratings were high for general communication skills (median, 8.0 points), quality EOL care communication was rated very low (median, 0.0 points). Researchers say that this was primarily because most EOL topics were not discussed—especially spirituality, prognosis, and what dying might be like. ²² In a secondary analysis that evaluated quality of EOL care communication during 1-year follow-up of patients with advanced chronic organ failure (n = 265) with the QOC questionnaire, patient ratings improved to moderate to good (medians, 6-8 points) when these topics were addressed. ²³  

Pick a strategy and prepare. As the older population continues to grow, the demands of palliative care management cannot be met by specialists alone and the responsibility of discussing EOL care with patients and their families will increasingly fall to family physicians as well. ²⁴ Several strategies and approaches have evolved to assist family physicians with acquiring the skills to conduct productive EOL discussions. These include widely referenced resources, such as VitalTalk ²⁵ and the ABCDE Plan. ²⁶ VitalTalk teaches skills to help clinicians navigate difficult conversations, ²⁵ and the “ABCDE” method provides a pneumonic for recommendations for how to deliver bad news ( A dvance preparation; B uild a therapeutic environment/relationship; C ommunicate well; D eal with patient and family reactions; E ncourage and validate emotions). ²⁶

Researchers found that timely EOL care discussions allowed family members to make use of hospice and palliative care services sooner and maximize their time with the patient.

Other strategies include familiarizing oneself with the patient’s medical history and present situation (eg, What are the patient’s symptoms? What do other involved clinicians think and recommend? What therapies have been attempted? What are the relevant social and emotional dynamics?); asking the patient who they want present for the EOL conversation; scheduling the conversation for when you can set aside an appropriate amount of time and in a private place where there will be no interruptions; and going into the meeting with your goal in mind, whether it is to deliver bad news, clarify the prognosis, establish goals of care, or communicate the patient’s goals and wishes for the EOL to those in attendance. ²⁷ It can be very helpful to begin the conversation by clarifying what the patient and their family/surrogate understand about the current diagnosis and prognosis. From there, the family physician can present a “headline” that prepares them for the current conversation (eg, “I have your latest test results, and I need to share some serious news”). This can facilitate a more detailed discussion of the patient’s and surrogate’s goals of care. Using these strategies, family physicians can lead a productive EOL discussion that benefits everyone.  

Continue to: How to navigate EOL discussions with patients with dementia

How to navigate EOL discussions with patients with dementia

EOL discussions with patients with dementia become even more complex and warrant specific discussion because one must consider the timing of such discussions, ^2,28,29 the trajectory of the disease and how that affects the patient’s capacity for EOL conversations, and the critical importance of engaging caregivers/surrogate decision makers in these discussions. ² ACP provides an opportunity for the physician, patient, and caregiver/­surrogate to jointly explore the patient’s values, beliefs, and preferences for care through the EOL as the disease progresses and the patient’s decisional capacity declines.

Ensure meaningful participation with timing. EOL discussions should occur while the patient has the cognitive capacity to actively participate in the planning process. A National Institutes of Health stage I behavioral intervention development trial evaluated a structured psychoeducational intervention, known as SPIRIT (Sharing Patient’s Illness Representation to Increase Trust), that aimed to promote cognitive and emotional preparation for EOL decisions for patients and their surrogates.²⁸ It was found to be effective in patients, including those with end-stage renal disease and advanced heart failure, and their surrogates.²⁸ Preliminary results from the trial confirmed that people with mild-to-­moderate dementia (recent Montreal Cognitive Assessment score ≥ 13) are able to participate meaningfully in EOL discussions and ACP.²⁸

Song et al²⁹ adapted SPIRIT for use with patients with dementia and conducted a feasibility study with 23 patient-surrogate dyads.The mixed-methods study involved an expert panel review of the adapted SPIRIT, followed by a randomized trial with qualitative interviews. All 23 patients with dementia, including 14 with moderate dementia, were able to articulate their values and EOL preferences somewhat or very coherently (91.3% inter-rater reliability).²⁹ In addition, dyad care goal congruence (agreement between patient’s EOL preferences and surrogate’s understanding of those preferences) and surrogate decision-making confidence (comfort in performing as a surrogate) were high and patient decisional conflict (patient difficulty in weighing the benefits and burdens of life-sustaining treatments and decision-making) was low, both at baseline as well as post ­intervention.²⁹ Although preparedness for EOL decision-making outcome measures did not change, people with dementia and their surrogates perceived SPIRIT to be beneficial, particularly in helping them be on the same page.²⁹

Patient ratings of physician communication improved when EOL topics such as spirituality, prognosis, and what dying might be like were discussed.

The randomized trial portion of the study (phase 2) continues to recruit 120 patient-surrogate dyads. Patient and surrogate self-reported preparedness for EOL decision-making are the primary outcomes, measured at baseline and 2 to 3 days post intervention. The estimated study completion date is May 31, 2022.³⁰

Evidence-based clinical guidance can improve the process. Following the Belgian Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine’s procedures as a sample methodology, Piers et al² developed evidence-based clinical recommendations for providers to use in the practical application of ACP in their care of patients with dementia.The researchers searched the literature; developed recommendations based on the evidence obtained, as well as their collective expert opinion; and performed validation using expert and end-user feedback and peer review. The study resulted in 32 recommendations focused on 8 domains that ranged from the beginning of the process (preconditions for optimal implementation of ACP) to later stages (ACP when it is difficult/no longer possible to communicate).²Specific guidance for ACP in dementia care include the following: 

• ACP initiation. Begin conversations around the time of diagnosis, continue them throughout ongoing care, and revisit them when changes occur in the patient’s health, financial, or residential status.
• ACP conversations. Use conversations to identify significant others in the patient’s life (potential caregivers and/or surrogate decision makers) and explore the patient’s awareness of the disease and its trajectory. Discuss the patient’s values and beliefs, as well as their fears about, and preferences for, future care and the EOL.  
• Role of significant others in the ACP process. Involve a patient’s significant others early in the ACP process, educate them about the surrogate ­decision-maker role, assess their disease awareness, and inform them about the disease trajectory and anticipated EOL decisions. ²

Continue to: Incorporate and document patients' values and preferences with LEAD

Incorporate and document patients’ values and preferences with LEAD. Dassel et al³¹ developed the Life-planning in Early Alzheimer’s and Dementia (LEAD) tool, which is a validated dementia-focused EOL planning tool that can be used to promote discussion and document a patient’s care preferences and values within the context of their changing cognitive ability.Dassel et al³¹ used a 4-phase mixed-method design that included (1) focus groups of patients with early-stage dementia and family caregivers, (2) clinical utility evaluation by content experts, (3) instrument completion sampling to evaluate its psychometric properties, and (4) additional focus groups to inform how the instrument should be used by families and in clinical practice.Six scales with high internal consistency and high test-retest reliability were identified: 3 scales represented patient values (concern about being a burden, the importance of quality [vs length] of life, and the preference for autonomy in decision-making) and 3 scales represented patient preferences (use of life-prolonging measures, controlling the timing of death, and the location of EOL care).³¹

When having EOL discussions with patients with dementia, one needs to consider the timing of such discussions and the trajectory of the disease.

The LEAD Guide can be used as a self-­assessment tool that is completed individually and then shared with the surrogate decision maker and health care provider.³² It also can be used to guide conversations with the surrogate and physician, as well as with trusted family and friends. Using this framework, family physicians can facilitate EOL planning with the patient and their surrogate that is based on the patient’s values and preferences for EOL care prior to, and in anticipation of, the patient’s loss of decisional capacity.³¹

Facilitate discussions that improve outcomes

Conversations about EOL care are taking on increased importance as the population ages and treatments advance. Understanding the concerns of patients and their surrogate decision makers, as well as the resources available to guide these difficult discussions ( TABLE ), will help family physicians conduct effective conversations that enhance care, reduce the burden on surrogate decision makers, and have a positive impact on many clinical outcomes.

CORRESPONDENCE
Shirley Bodi, MD, 3000 Arlington Avenue, Department of Family Medicine, Dowling Hall, Suite 2200, University of Toledo College of Medicine and Life Sciences, Toledo, OH 43614; [email protected]

As the geriatric population continues to grow and treatment advances blur the lines between improving the length of life vs improving its quality, end-of-life (EOL) conversations are becoming increasingly important. These discussions are a crucial part of the advance care planning (ACP) process, in which patients discuss their treatment preferences and values with their caregiver/surrogate decision maker and health care provider to ultimately improve EOL decision-making and care. ^1,2

EOL conversations are most helpful when incorporated in the outpatient setting as part of the patient’s ongoing health care plan or when initiating treatment for a chronic or life-threatening disease. Because family physicians promote general wellness, understand the patient’s health status and medical history, and have an ongoing—and often longstanding—relationship with patients and their families, we are ideally positioned to engage patients in EOL discussions. However, these conversations can be challenging in the outpatient setting, and often clinicians struggle not only to find ways to raise the subject, but also to find the time to have these supportive, meaningful conversations.³

In this article, we will address the importance of having EOL discussions in the outpatient setting, specifically about advance directives (ADs), and the reasons why patients and physicians might avoid these discussions. The role of palliative care in EOL care, along with its benefits and methods for overcoming patient and physician barriers to its successful use, are reviewed. Finally, we examine specific challenges associated with discussing EOL care with patients with decreased mental capacity, such as those with dementia, and provide strategies to successfully facilitate EOL discussions in these populations. 

Moving patients toward completion of advance directives

Although many older patients express a desire to document their wishes before EOL situations arise, they may not fully understand the benefits of an AD or how to complete one. ⁴ Often the family physician is best equipped to address the patient’s concerns and discuss their goals for EOL care, as well as the potential situations that might arise.

Managing an aging population. Projections suggest that primary care physicians will encounter increasing numbers of geriatric patients in the next 2 decades. Thus it is essential for those in primary care to receive proper training during their residency for the care of this group of patients. According to a group of academic educators and geriatricians from internal medicine and family medicine whose goal was to define a set of minimal and essential competencies in the care of older adults, this includes training on how to discuss and document “advance care planning and goals of care with all patients with chronic or complex illness,” as well as how to differentiate among “types of code status, health care proxies, and advanced directives” within the state in which training occurs. ⁵

Educate patients and ease fears. Patients often avoid EOL conversations or wait for their family physician to start the conversation. They may not understand how ADs can help guide care or they may believe they are “too healthy” to have these conversations at this time. ⁴ Simply asking about existing ADs or providing forms to patients during an outpatient visit can open the door to more in-depth discussions. Some examples of opening phrases include:

• Do you have a living will or durable power of attorney for health care?
• Have you ever discussed your health care wishes with your loved ones?
• Who would you want to speak for you regarding your health care if you could not speak for yourself? Have you discussed your health care wishes with that person?

By normalizing the conversation as a routine part of comprehensive, patient-centered care, the family physician can allay patient fears, foster open and honest conversations, and encourage ongoing discussions with loved ones as situations arise.⁶

Continue to: When ADs are executed...

As many as 90% of patients with a life-threatening illness report never having discussed EOL care issues with their clinician.

When ADs are executed, patients often fail to have meaningful conversations with their surrogates about specific treatment wishes or EOL scenarios. As a result, the surrogate may not feel prepared to serve as a proxy decision maker or may find the role extremely stressful.⁷ Physicians should encourage open conversations between patients and their surrogates about potential EOL scenarios when possible. When possible and appropriate, it is also important to encourage the patient to include the surrogate in future outpatient visits so that the surrogate can understand the patient’s health status and potential decisions they may need to make.

Don’t overlook clinician barriers. Family physicians also might avoid AD discussions because they do not understand laws that govern ADs, which vary from state to state. Various online resources for patients and physicians exist that clarify state-specific regulations and provide state-specific forms (TABLE).

Time constraints present another challenge for family physicians. This can be addressed by establishing workflows that include EOL elements. Also, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has provided separate billing codes for AD discussion based on time spent explaining and discussing how to complete forms.⁸ CPT codes 99497 and 99498 are time-based codes that cover the first 30 minutes and each additional 30 minutes, respectively, of time spent explaining and discussing how to complete standard forms in a face-to-face setting (TABLE).⁹ CMS also includes discussion of AD documents as an optional element of the annual Medicare wellness visit.⁸ 

Improve quality of life for patients with any serious illness

Unlike hospice, which focuses on providing comfort rather than cure in the final months of a patient’s life, palliative care strives to prevent and relieve the patient’s suffering from a serious illness that is not immediately life-threatening. Palliative care focuses on the early identification, careful assessment, and treatment of the physical, psychosocial, and spiritual symptoms associated with a patient’s condition(s).^10,11 It has been well established that palliative care has a positive effect on many clinical outcomes including symptom burden, quality of life, satisfaction with care, and survival.^12-14 Patients who receive palliative care consultation also tend to perceive a higher quality of care.¹⁵

Conversations lead to better outcomes. Palliative care consultation is being increasingly used in the outpatient setting and can be introduced early in a disease process. Doing so provides an additional opportunity for the family physician to introduce an EOL discussion. A comparison of outcomes between patients who had initial inpatient palliative care consultation vs outpatient palliative care referral found that outpatient referral improved quality EOL care and was associated with significantly fewer emergency department visits (68% vs 48%; P < .001) and hospital admissions (86% vs 52%; P < .001), as well as shorter hospital stays in the last 30 days of life (3-11 vs 5-14 days; P = .01).¹⁴ Despite these benefits, 60% to 90% of patients with a serious illness report never having discussed EOL care issues with their clinician.^16,17

Continue to: Early EOL discussions...

Early EOL discussions have also been shown to have a positive impact on families. In a US study, family members stated that timely EOL care discussions allowed them to make use of hospice and palliative care services sooner and to make the most of their time with the patient.¹⁸

Timing and communication are key

Logistically it can be difficult to gather the right people (patient, family, etc) in the right place and at the right time. For physicians, the most often cited barriers include inadequate time to conduct an EOL discussion, ¹⁹ a perceived lack of competence in EOL conversations, ^1,20 difficulty navigating patient readiness, ²¹ and a fear of destroying hope due to prognostic uncertainty. ^19,20

A prospective, observational study used the Quality of Communication (QOC) questionnaire to assess life-sustaining treatment preferences, ACP, and the quality of EOL care communication in Dutch outpatients with clinically stable but severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (n = 105) or congestive heart failure (n = 80). The QOC questionnaire is a validated instrument that asks patients to rate their physician on several communication skills from 0 (“the very worst” or “My doctor didn’t do this”) to 10 (“the very best”). In this study, quality communication was identified by patients as one of the most important skills for physicians to provide adequate EOL care. ²² While QOC ratings were high for general communication skills (median, 8.0 points), quality EOL care communication was rated very low (median, 0.0 points). Researchers say that this was primarily because most EOL topics were not discussed—especially spirituality, prognosis, and what dying might be like. ²² In a secondary analysis that evaluated quality of EOL care communication during 1-year follow-up of patients with advanced chronic organ failure (n = 265) with the QOC questionnaire, patient ratings improved to moderate to good (medians, 6-8 points) when these topics were addressed. ²³  

Pick a strategy and prepare. As the older population continues to grow, the demands of palliative care management cannot be met by specialists alone and the responsibility of discussing EOL care with patients and their families will increasingly fall to family physicians as well. ²⁴ Several strategies and approaches have evolved to assist family physicians with acquiring the skills to conduct productive EOL discussions. These include widely referenced resources, such as VitalTalk ²⁵ and the ABCDE Plan. ²⁶ VitalTalk teaches skills to help clinicians navigate difficult conversations, ²⁵ and the “ABCDE” method provides a pneumonic for recommendations for how to deliver bad news ( A dvance preparation; B uild a therapeutic environment/relationship; C ommunicate well; D eal with patient and family reactions; E ncourage and validate emotions). ²⁶

Researchers found that timely EOL care discussions allowed family members to make use of hospice and palliative care services sooner and maximize their time with the patient.

Other strategies include familiarizing oneself with the patient’s medical history and present situation (eg, What are the patient’s symptoms? What do other involved clinicians think and recommend? What therapies have been attempted? What are the relevant social and emotional dynamics?); asking the patient who they want present for the EOL conversation; scheduling the conversation for when you can set aside an appropriate amount of time and in a private place where there will be no interruptions; and going into the meeting with your goal in mind, whether it is to deliver bad news, clarify the prognosis, establish goals of care, or communicate the patient’s goals and wishes for the EOL to those in attendance. ²⁷ It can be very helpful to begin the conversation by clarifying what the patient and their family/surrogate understand about the current diagnosis and prognosis. From there, the family physician can present a “headline” that prepares them for the current conversation (eg, “I have your latest test results, and I need to share some serious news”). This can facilitate a more detailed discussion of the patient’s and surrogate’s goals of care. Using these strategies, family physicians can lead a productive EOL discussion that benefits everyone.  

Continue to: How to navigate EOL discussions with patients with dementia

How to navigate EOL discussions with patients with dementia

EOL discussions with patients with dementia become even more complex and warrant specific discussion because one must consider the timing of such discussions, ^2,28,29 the trajectory of the disease and how that affects the patient’s capacity for EOL conversations, and the critical importance of engaging caregivers/surrogate decision makers in these discussions. ² ACP provides an opportunity for the physician, patient, and caregiver/­surrogate to jointly explore the patient’s values, beliefs, and preferences for care through the EOL as the disease progresses and the patient’s decisional capacity declines.

Ensure meaningful participation with timing. EOL discussions should occur while the patient has the cognitive capacity to actively participate in the planning process. A National Institutes of Health stage I behavioral intervention development trial evaluated a structured psychoeducational intervention, known as SPIRIT (Sharing Patient’s Illness Representation to Increase Trust), that aimed to promote cognitive and emotional preparation for EOL decisions for patients and their surrogates.²⁸ It was found to be effective in patients, including those with end-stage renal disease and advanced heart failure, and their surrogates.²⁸ Preliminary results from the trial confirmed that people with mild-to-­moderate dementia (recent Montreal Cognitive Assessment score ≥ 13) are able to participate meaningfully in EOL discussions and ACP.²⁸

Song et al²⁹ adapted SPIRIT for use with patients with dementia and conducted a feasibility study with 23 patient-surrogate dyads.The mixed-methods study involved an expert panel review of the adapted SPIRIT, followed by a randomized trial with qualitative interviews. All 23 patients with dementia, including 14 with moderate dementia, were able to articulate their values and EOL preferences somewhat or very coherently (91.3% inter-rater reliability).²⁹ In addition, dyad care goal congruence (agreement between patient’s EOL preferences and surrogate’s understanding of those preferences) and surrogate decision-making confidence (comfort in performing as a surrogate) were high and patient decisional conflict (patient difficulty in weighing the benefits and burdens of life-sustaining treatments and decision-making) was low, both at baseline as well as post ­intervention.²⁹ Although preparedness for EOL decision-making outcome measures did not change, people with dementia and their surrogates perceived SPIRIT to be beneficial, particularly in helping them be on the same page.²⁹

Patient ratings of physician communication improved when EOL topics such as spirituality, prognosis, and what dying might be like were discussed.

The randomized trial portion of the study (phase 2) continues to recruit 120 patient-surrogate dyads. Patient and surrogate self-reported preparedness for EOL decision-making are the primary outcomes, measured at baseline and 2 to 3 days post intervention. The estimated study completion date is May 31, 2022.³⁰

Evidence-based clinical guidance can improve the process. Following the Belgian Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine’s procedures as a sample methodology, Piers et al² developed evidence-based clinical recommendations for providers to use in the practical application of ACP in their care of patients with dementia.The researchers searched the literature; developed recommendations based on the evidence obtained, as well as their collective expert opinion; and performed validation using expert and end-user feedback and peer review. The study resulted in 32 recommendations focused on 8 domains that ranged from the beginning of the process (preconditions for optimal implementation of ACP) to later stages (ACP when it is difficult/no longer possible to communicate).²Specific guidance for ACP in dementia care include the following: 

• ACP initiation. Begin conversations around the time of diagnosis, continue them throughout ongoing care, and revisit them when changes occur in the patient’s health, financial, or residential status.
• ACP conversations. Use conversations to identify significant others in the patient’s life (potential caregivers and/or surrogate decision makers) and explore the patient’s awareness of the disease and its trajectory. Discuss the patient’s values and beliefs, as well as their fears about, and preferences for, future care and the EOL.  
• Role of significant others in the ACP process. Involve a patient’s significant others early in the ACP process, educate them about the surrogate ­decision-maker role, assess their disease awareness, and inform them about the disease trajectory and anticipated EOL decisions. ²

Continue to: Incorporate and document patients' values and preferences with LEAD

Incorporate and document patients’ values and preferences with LEAD. Dassel et al³¹ developed the Life-planning in Early Alzheimer’s and Dementia (LEAD) tool, which is a validated dementia-focused EOL planning tool that can be used to promote discussion and document a patient’s care preferences and values within the context of their changing cognitive ability.Dassel et al³¹ used a 4-phase mixed-method design that included (1) focus groups of patients with early-stage dementia and family caregivers, (2) clinical utility evaluation by content experts, (3) instrument completion sampling to evaluate its psychometric properties, and (4) additional focus groups to inform how the instrument should be used by families and in clinical practice.Six scales with high internal consistency and high test-retest reliability were identified: 3 scales represented patient values (concern about being a burden, the importance of quality [vs length] of life, and the preference for autonomy in decision-making) and 3 scales represented patient preferences (use of life-prolonging measures, controlling the timing of death, and the location of EOL care).³¹

When having EOL discussions with patients with dementia, one needs to consider the timing of such discussions and the trajectory of the disease.

The LEAD Guide can be used as a self-­assessment tool that is completed individually and then shared with the surrogate decision maker and health care provider.³² It also can be used to guide conversations with the surrogate and physician, as well as with trusted family and friends. Using this framework, family physicians can facilitate EOL planning with the patient and their surrogate that is based on the patient’s values and preferences for EOL care prior to, and in anticipation of, the patient’s loss of decisional capacity.³¹

Facilitate discussions that improve outcomes

Conversations about EOL care are taking on increased importance as the population ages and treatments advance. Understanding the concerns of patients and their surrogate decision makers, as well as the resources available to guide these difficult discussions ( TABLE ), will help family physicians conduct effective conversations that enhance care, reduce the burden on surrogate decision makers, and have a positive impact on many clinical outcomes.

CORRESPONDENCE
Shirley Bodi, MD, 3000 Arlington Avenue, Department of Family Medicine, Dowling Hall, Suite 2200, University of Toledo College of Medicine and Life Sciences, Toledo, OH 43614; [email protected]

As the geriatric population continues to grow and treatment advances blur the lines between improving the length of life vs improving its quality, end-of-life (EOL) conversations are becoming increasingly important. These discussions are a crucial part of the advance care planning (ACP) process, in which patients discuss their treatment preferences and values with their caregiver/surrogate decision maker and health care provider to ultimately improve EOL decision-making and care. ^1,2

EOL conversations are most helpful when incorporated in the outpatient setting as part of the patient’s ongoing health care plan or when initiating treatment for a chronic or life-threatening disease. Because family physicians promote general wellness, understand the patient’s health status and medical history, and have an ongoing—and often longstanding—relationship with patients and their families, we are ideally positioned to engage patients in EOL discussions. However, these conversations can be challenging in the outpatient setting, and often clinicians struggle not only to find ways to raise the subject, but also to find the time to have these supportive, meaningful conversations.³

In this article, we will address the importance of having EOL discussions in the outpatient setting, specifically about advance directives (ADs), and the reasons why patients and physicians might avoid these discussions. The role of palliative care in EOL care, along with its benefits and methods for overcoming patient and physician barriers to its successful use, are reviewed. Finally, we examine specific challenges associated with discussing EOL care with patients with decreased mental capacity, such as those with dementia, and provide strategies to successfully facilitate EOL discussions in these populations. 

Moving patients toward completion of advance directives

Although many older patients express a desire to document their wishes before EOL situations arise, they may not fully understand the benefits of an AD or how to complete one. ⁴ Often the family physician is best equipped to address the patient’s concerns and discuss their goals for EOL care, as well as the potential situations that might arise.

Managing an aging population. Projections suggest that primary care physicians will encounter increasing numbers of geriatric patients in the next 2 decades. Thus it is essential for those in primary care to receive proper training during their residency for the care of this group of patients. According to a group of academic educators and geriatricians from internal medicine and family medicine whose goal was to define a set of minimal and essential competencies in the care of older adults, this includes training on how to discuss and document “advance care planning and goals of care with all patients with chronic or complex illness,” as well as how to differentiate among “types of code status, health care proxies, and advanced directives” within the state in which training occurs. ⁵

Educate patients and ease fears. Patients often avoid EOL conversations or wait for their family physician to start the conversation. They may not understand how ADs can help guide care or they may believe they are “too healthy” to have these conversations at this time. ⁴ Simply asking about existing ADs or providing forms to patients during an outpatient visit can open the door to more in-depth discussions. Some examples of opening phrases include:

• Do you have a living will or durable power of attorney for health care?
• Have you ever discussed your health care wishes with your loved ones?
• Who would you want to speak for you regarding your health care if you could not speak for yourself? Have you discussed your health care wishes with that person?

By normalizing the conversation as a routine part of comprehensive, patient-centered care, the family physician can allay patient fears, foster open and honest conversations, and encourage ongoing discussions with loved ones as situations arise.⁶

Continue to: When ADs are executed...

As many as 90% of patients with a life-threatening illness report never having discussed EOL care issues with their clinician.

When ADs are executed, patients often fail to have meaningful conversations with their surrogates about specific treatment wishes or EOL scenarios. As a result, the surrogate may not feel prepared to serve as a proxy decision maker or may find the role extremely stressful.⁷ Physicians should encourage open conversations between patients and their surrogates about potential EOL scenarios when possible. When possible and appropriate, it is also important to encourage the patient to include the surrogate in future outpatient visits so that the surrogate can understand the patient’s health status and potential decisions they may need to make.

Don’t overlook clinician barriers. Family physicians also might avoid AD discussions because they do not understand laws that govern ADs, which vary from state to state. Various online resources for patients and physicians exist that clarify state-specific regulations and provide state-specific forms (TABLE).

Time constraints present another challenge for family physicians. This can be addressed by establishing workflows that include EOL elements. Also, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has provided separate billing codes for AD discussion based on time spent explaining and discussing how to complete forms.⁸ CPT codes 99497 and 99498 are time-based codes that cover the first 30 minutes and each additional 30 minutes, respectively, of time spent explaining and discussing how to complete standard forms in a face-to-face setting (TABLE).⁹ CMS also includes discussion of AD documents as an optional element of the annual Medicare wellness visit.⁸ 

Improve quality of life for patients with any serious illness

Unlike hospice, which focuses on providing comfort rather than cure in the final months of a patient’s life, palliative care strives to prevent and relieve the patient’s suffering from a serious illness that is not immediately life-threatening. Palliative care focuses on the early identification, careful assessment, and treatment of the physical, psychosocial, and spiritual symptoms associated with a patient’s condition(s).^10,11 It has been well established that palliative care has a positive effect on many clinical outcomes including symptom burden, quality of life, satisfaction with care, and survival.^12-14 Patients who receive palliative care consultation also tend to perceive a higher quality of care.¹⁵

Conversations lead to better outcomes. Palliative care consultation is being increasingly used in the outpatient setting and can be introduced early in a disease process. Doing so provides an additional opportunity for the family physician to introduce an EOL discussion. A comparison of outcomes between patients who had initial inpatient palliative care consultation vs outpatient palliative care referral found that outpatient referral improved quality EOL care and was associated with significantly fewer emergency department visits (68% vs 48%; P < .001) and hospital admissions (86% vs 52%; P < .001), as well as shorter hospital stays in the last 30 days of life (3-11 vs 5-14 days; P = .01).¹⁴ Despite these benefits, 60% to 90% of patients with a serious illness report never having discussed EOL care issues with their clinician.^16,17

Continue to: Early EOL discussions...

Early EOL discussions have also been shown to have a positive impact on families. In a US study, family members stated that timely EOL care discussions allowed them to make use of hospice and palliative care services sooner and to make the most of their time with the patient.¹⁸

Timing and communication are key

Logistically it can be difficult to gather the right people (patient, family, etc) in the right place and at the right time. For physicians, the most often cited barriers include inadequate time to conduct an EOL discussion, ¹⁹ a perceived lack of competence in EOL conversations, ^1,20 difficulty navigating patient readiness, ²¹ and a fear of destroying hope due to prognostic uncertainty. ^19,20

A prospective, observational study used the Quality of Communication (QOC) questionnaire to assess life-sustaining treatment preferences, ACP, and the quality of EOL care communication in Dutch outpatients with clinically stable but severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (n = 105) or congestive heart failure (n = 80). The QOC questionnaire is a validated instrument that asks patients to rate their physician on several communication skills from 0 (“the very worst” or “My doctor didn’t do this”) to 10 (“the very best”). In this study, quality communication was identified by patients as one of the most important skills for physicians to provide adequate EOL care. ²² While QOC ratings were high for general communication skills (median, 8.0 points), quality EOL care communication was rated very low (median, 0.0 points). Researchers say that this was primarily because most EOL topics were not discussed—especially spirituality, prognosis, and what dying might be like. ²² In a secondary analysis that evaluated quality of EOL care communication during 1-year follow-up of patients with advanced chronic organ failure (n = 265) with the QOC questionnaire, patient ratings improved to moderate to good (medians, 6-8 points) when these topics were addressed. ²³  

Pick a strategy and prepare. As the older population continues to grow, the demands of palliative care management cannot be met by specialists alone and the responsibility of discussing EOL care with patients and their families will increasingly fall to family physicians as well. ²⁴ Several strategies and approaches have evolved to assist family physicians with acquiring the skills to conduct productive EOL discussions. These include widely referenced resources, such as VitalTalk ²⁵ and the ABCDE Plan. ²⁶ VitalTalk teaches skills to help clinicians navigate difficult conversations, ²⁵ and the “ABCDE” method provides a pneumonic for recommendations for how to deliver bad news ( A dvance preparation; B uild a therapeutic environment/relationship; C ommunicate well; D eal with patient and family reactions; E ncourage and validate emotions). ²⁶

Researchers found that timely EOL care discussions allowed family members to make use of hospice and palliative care services sooner and maximize their time with the patient.

Other strategies include familiarizing oneself with the patient’s medical history and present situation (eg, What are the patient’s symptoms? What do other involved clinicians think and recommend? What therapies have been attempted? What are the relevant social and emotional dynamics?); asking the patient who they want present for the EOL conversation; scheduling the conversation for when you can set aside an appropriate amount of time and in a private place where there will be no interruptions; and going into the meeting with your goal in mind, whether it is to deliver bad news, clarify the prognosis, establish goals of care, or communicate the patient’s goals and wishes for the EOL to those in attendance. ²⁷ It can be very helpful to begin the conversation by clarifying what the patient and their family/surrogate understand about the current diagnosis and prognosis. From there, the family physician can present a “headline” that prepares them for the current conversation (eg, “I have your latest test results, and I need to share some serious news”). This can facilitate a more detailed discussion of the patient’s and surrogate’s goals of care. Using these strategies, family physicians can lead a productive EOL discussion that benefits everyone.  

Continue to: How to navigate EOL discussions with patients with dementia

How to navigate EOL discussions with patients with dementia

EOL discussions with patients with dementia become even more complex and warrant specific discussion because one must consider the timing of such discussions, ^2,28,29 the trajectory of the disease and how that affects the patient’s capacity for EOL conversations, and the critical importance of engaging caregivers/surrogate decision makers in these discussions. ² ACP provides an opportunity for the physician, patient, and caregiver/­surrogate to jointly explore the patient’s values, beliefs, and preferences for care through the EOL as the disease progresses and the patient’s decisional capacity declines.

Ensure meaningful participation with timing. EOL discussions should occur while the patient has the cognitive capacity to actively participate in the planning process. A National Institutes of Health stage I behavioral intervention development trial evaluated a structured psychoeducational intervention, known as SPIRIT (Sharing Patient’s Illness Representation to Increase Trust), that aimed to promote cognitive and emotional preparation for EOL decisions for patients and their surrogates.²⁸ It was found to be effective in patients, including those with end-stage renal disease and advanced heart failure, and their surrogates.²⁸ Preliminary results from the trial confirmed that people with mild-to-­moderate dementia (recent Montreal Cognitive Assessment score ≥ 13) are able to participate meaningfully in EOL discussions and ACP.²⁸

Song et al²⁹ adapted SPIRIT for use with patients with dementia and conducted a feasibility study with 23 patient-surrogate dyads.The mixed-methods study involved an expert panel review of the adapted SPIRIT, followed by a randomized trial with qualitative interviews. All 23 patients with dementia, including 14 with moderate dementia, were able to articulate their values and EOL preferences somewhat or very coherently (91.3% inter-rater reliability).²⁹ In addition, dyad care goal congruence (agreement between patient’s EOL preferences and surrogate’s understanding of those preferences) and surrogate decision-making confidence (comfort in performing as a surrogate) were high and patient decisional conflict (patient difficulty in weighing the benefits and burdens of life-sustaining treatments and decision-making) was low, both at baseline as well as post ­intervention.²⁹ Although preparedness for EOL decision-making outcome measures did not change, people with dementia and their surrogates perceived SPIRIT to be beneficial, particularly in helping them be on the same page.²⁹

Patient ratings of physician communication improved when EOL topics such as spirituality, prognosis, and what dying might be like were discussed.

The randomized trial portion of the study (phase 2) continues to recruit 120 patient-surrogate dyads. Patient and surrogate self-reported preparedness for EOL decision-making are the primary outcomes, measured at baseline and 2 to 3 days post intervention. The estimated study completion date is May 31, 2022.³⁰

Evidence-based clinical guidance can improve the process. Following the Belgian Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine’s procedures as a sample methodology, Piers et al² developed evidence-based clinical recommendations for providers to use in the practical application of ACP in their care of patients with dementia.The researchers searched the literature; developed recommendations based on the evidence obtained, as well as their collective expert opinion; and performed validation using expert and end-user feedback and peer review. The study resulted in 32 recommendations focused on 8 domains that ranged from the beginning of the process (preconditions for optimal implementation of ACP) to later stages (ACP when it is difficult/no longer possible to communicate).²Specific guidance for ACP in dementia care include the following: 

• ACP initiation. Begin conversations around the time of diagnosis, continue them throughout ongoing care, and revisit them when changes occur in the patient’s health, financial, or residential status.
• ACP conversations. Use conversations to identify significant others in the patient’s life (potential caregivers and/or surrogate decision makers) and explore the patient’s awareness of the disease and its trajectory. Discuss the patient’s values and beliefs, as well as their fears about, and preferences for, future care and the EOL.  
• Role of significant others in the ACP process. Involve a patient’s significant others early in the ACP process, educate them about the surrogate ­decision-maker role, assess their disease awareness, and inform them about the disease trajectory and anticipated EOL decisions. ²

Continue to: Incorporate and document patients' values and preferences with LEAD

Incorporate and document patients’ values and preferences with LEAD. Dassel et al³¹ developed the Life-planning in Early Alzheimer’s and Dementia (LEAD) tool, which is a validated dementia-focused EOL planning tool that can be used to promote discussion and document a patient’s care preferences and values within the context of their changing cognitive ability.Dassel et al³¹ used a 4-phase mixed-method design that included (1) focus groups of patients with early-stage dementia and family caregivers, (2) clinical utility evaluation by content experts, (3) instrument completion sampling to evaluate its psychometric properties, and (4) additional focus groups to inform how the instrument should be used by families and in clinical practice.Six scales with high internal consistency and high test-retest reliability were identified: 3 scales represented patient values (concern about being a burden, the importance of quality [vs length] of life, and the preference for autonomy in decision-making) and 3 scales represented patient preferences (use of life-prolonging measures, controlling the timing of death, and the location of EOL care).³¹

When having EOL discussions with patients with dementia, one needs to consider the timing of such discussions and the trajectory of the disease.

The LEAD Guide can be used as a self-­assessment tool that is completed individually and then shared with the surrogate decision maker and health care provider.³² It also can be used to guide conversations with the surrogate and physician, as well as with trusted family and friends. Using this framework, family physicians can facilitate EOL planning with the patient and their surrogate that is based on the patient’s values and preferences for EOL care prior to, and in anticipation of, the patient’s loss of decisional capacity.³¹

Facilitate discussions that improve outcomes

Conversations about EOL care are taking on increased importance as the population ages and treatments advance. Understanding the concerns of patients and their surrogate decision makers, as well as the resources available to guide these difficult discussions ( TABLE ), will help family physicians conduct effective conversations that enhance care, reduce the burden on surrogate decision makers, and have a positive impact on many clinical outcomes.

CORRESPONDENCE
Shirley Bodi, MD, 3000 Arlington Avenue, Department of Family Medicine, Dowling Hall, Suite 2200, University of Toledo College of Medicine and Life Sciences, Toledo, OH 43614; [email protected]

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), defined as new-onset hyperglycemia detected in a pregnant woman after 24 weeks of gestation, affects 4% to 10% of pregnancies in the United States annually¹ and is a major challenge for health care professionals.² During pregnancy, the body’s physiologic responses are altered to support the growing fetus. One of these changes is an increase in insulin resistance, which suggests that pregnancy alone increases the patient’s risk for type 2 diabetes (T2D). However, several other factors also increase this risk, including maternal age, social barriers to care, obesity, poor weight control, and family history.

Copyright Dave Cutler

If not controlled, GDM results in poor health outcomes for the mother, such as preeclampsia, preterm labor, and maternal T2D.^3-5 For the infant, intrauterine exposure to persistent hyperglycemia is correlated with neonatal macrosomia, hypoglycemia, perinatal complications (eg, preterm delivery, fetal demise), and obesity and insulin resistance later in life.⁴

Primary care physicians (PCPs) are the patient’s main point of contact prior to pregnancy. This relationship makes PCPs a resource for the patient and specialists during and after pregnancy. In this article, we discuss risk factors and how to screen for GDM, provide an update on practice recommendations for treatment and management of GDM in primary care, and describe the effects of uncontrolled GDM.

Know the key risk factors

Prevention begins with identifying the major risk factors that contribute to the development of GDM. These include maternal age, social barriers to care, family history of prediabetes, and obesity and poor weight control.

Older age. A meta-analysis of 24 studies noted strong positive correlation between GDM risk and maternal age.⁶ One of the population-based cohort studies in the meta-analysis examined relationships between maternal age and pregnancy outcomes in women living in British Columbia, Canada (n = 203,414). Data suggested that the relative risk of GDM increased linearly with maternal age to 3.2, 4.2, and 4.4 among women ages ≥ 35, ≥ 40, and ≥ 45 years, respectively.⁷

Social barriers to care. Although the prevalence of GDM has increased over the past few decades,¹ from 2011 to 2019 the increase in GDM in individuals at first live birth was significantly higher in non-Hispanic Asian and Hispanic/Latina women than in non-Hispanic White women.⁸ Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention further suggest that diabetes was more prevalent among individuals with a lower socioeconomic status as indicated by their level of education.⁹ Ogunwole et al¹⁰ suggest that racism is the root cause of these disparities and leads to long-term barriers to care (eg, socioeconomic deprivation, lack of health insurance, limited access to care, and poor health literacy), which ultimately contribute to the development of GDM and progression of diabetes. It is important for PCPs and all health professionals to be aware of these barriers so that they may practice mindfulness and deliver culturally sensitive care to patients from marginalized communities.

Family history of prediabetes. In a population-based cohort study (n = 7020), women with prediabetes (A1C, 5.7%-6.4%) were 2.8 times more likely to develop GDM compared with women with normal A1C (< 5.7%).¹¹ Similar results were seen in a retrospective cohort study (n = 2812), in which women with prediabetes were more likely than women with a normal first trimester A1C to have GDM (29.1% vs 13.7%, respectively; adjusted relative risk = 1.48; 95% CI, 1.15-1.89).¹² In both studies, prediabetes was not associated with a higher risk for adverse maternal or neonatal outcomes.^11,12

Continue to: While there are no current...

Women diagnosed with prediabetes in 1 study were found to have significantly less weight gain during pregnancy compared with patients with normal A1C, suggesting a benefit in early identification and intervention.

While there are no current guidelines for treating prediabetes in pregnancy, women diagnosed with prediabetes in 1 study were found to have significantly less weight gain during pregnancy compared with patients with normal A1C,¹² suggesting there may be a benefit in early identification and intervention, although further research is needed.¹¹ In a separate case-control study (n = 345 women with GDM; n = 800 control), high rates of gestational weight gain (> 0.41 kg/wk) were associated with an increased risk of GDM (odds ratio [OR] = 1.74; 95% CI, 1.16-2.60) compared with women with the lowest rate of gestational weight gain (0.27-0.4 kg/wk [OR = 1.43; 95% CI, 0.96-2.14]).¹³ Thus, it is helpful to have proactive conversations about family planning and adequate weight and glycemic control with high-risk patients to prepare for a healthy pregnancy.

Obesity and weight management. Patients who are overweight (body mass index [BMI], 25-29.9) or obese (BMI > 30) have a substantially increased risk of GDM (adjusted OR = 1.44; 95% CI, 1.04-1.81), as seen in a retrospective cohort study of 1951 pregnant Malaysian women.¹⁴ Several factors have been found to contribute to successful weight control, including calorie prescription, a structured meal plan, high physical activity goals (60-90 min/d), daily weighing and monitoring of food intake, behavior therapy, and continued patient–­provider contact.¹⁵

Most obstetricians use a 2-step method to screen for GDM with an initial 75-g oral glucose tolerance test, followed by a 50-g glucose load test if needed.

The safety, efficacy, and sustainability of weight loss with various dietary plans have been studied in individuals who are overweight and obese.¹⁶ Ultimately, energy expenditure must be greater than energy intake to promote weight loss. Conventional diets with continuous energy restriction (ie, low-fat, low-carbohydrate, and high-protein diets) have proven to be effective for short-term weight loss but data on long-term weight maintenance are limited.¹⁶ The Mediterranean diet, which is comprised mostly of vegetables, fruits, legumes, fish, and grains—with a lower intake of meat and dairy—may reduce gestational weight gain and risk of GDM as suggested by a randomized controlled trial (RCT; n = 1252).¹⁷ Although the choice of diet is up to the patient, it is important to be aware of different diets or refer the patient to a registered dietician who can help the patient if needed.

Reduce risk with adequate weight and glycemic control

Prevention of GDM during pregnancy should focus on weight maintenance and optimal glycemic control. Two systematic reviews, one with 8 RCTs (n = 1792) and another with 5 studies (n = 539), assessed the efficacy and safety of energy-restricted dietary intervention on GDM prevention.¹⁸ The first review found a significant reduction in gestational weight gain and improved glycemic control without increased risk of adverse maternal and fetal outcomes.¹⁸ The second review showed no clear difference between energy-restricted and non–energy-restricted diets on outcomes such as preeclampsia, gestational weight gain, large for gestational age, and macrosomia.¹⁸ These data suggest that while energy-restricted dietary interventions made no difference on maternal and fetal complications, they may still be safely used in pregnancy to reduce gestational weight gain and improve glycemic control.¹⁸

Once a woman is pregnant, it becomes difficult to lose weight because additional calories are needed to support a growing fetus. It is recommended that patients with healthy pregestational BMI consume an extra 200 to 300 calories/d after the first trimester. However, extra caloric intake in a woman with obesity who is pregnant leads to metabolic impairment and increased risk of diabetes for both the mother and fetus.¹⁹ Therefore, it is recommended that patients with obese pregestational BMI not consume additional calories because excess maternal fat is sufficient to support the energy needs of the growing fetus.¹⁹

Continue to: Ultimately, earlier intervention...

Ultimately, earlier intervention—prior to conception—helps patients prepare for a healthier pregnancy, resulting in better long-term outcomes. It is helpful to be familiar with the advantages and disadvantages of common approaches to weight management and to be able to refer patients to nutritionists for optimal planning. When establishing a dietary plan, consider patient-specific factors, such as cultural diets, financial and time constraints, and the patient’s readiness to make and maintain these changes. Consistent ­follow-up and behavioral therapy are necessary to maintain successful weight control.

There are many screening tools, but 1 is preferred in pregnancy

There are several ways to diagnose diabetes in patients who are not pregnant, including A1C, a fasting glucose test, an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT), or random glucose testing (plus symptoms). However, the preferred method for diagnosing GDM is OGTT because it has a higher sensitivity.²⁰ A1C, while a good measure of hyperglycemic stability, does not register hyperglycemia early enough to diagnose GDM and fasting glucose testing is less sensitive because for most women with GDM, that abnormal postprandial glucose level is the first glycemic abnormality.²¹

When to screen. Blood glucose levels should be checked in all pregnant women as part of their metabolic panel at the first prenatal visit. A reflex A1C for high glucose levels can be ordered based on the physician’s preference. This may help you to identify patients with prediabetes who are at risk for GDM and implement early behavioral and lifestyle changes. However, further research is needed to determine if intervention early in pregnancy can truly reduce the risk of GDM.¹¹

The A1C goal for women with GDM is lower (6.0%) after the first trimester because any rise in A1C is risky and increased red blood cell count turnover may lower A1C.

Screening for GDM should be completed at 24 to 28 weeks of gestation²⁰ because it is likely that this is when the hormonal effects of the placenta that contribute to insulin resistance set the woman up for postprandial hyperglycemia. Currently, there are no evidence-based guidelines for the use of continuous glucose monitoring prior to 24 weeks of gestation to identify GDM.²⁰ If persistent hyperglycemia is present before 24 weeks of gestation, it is considered evidence of a pre-existing metabolic abnormality and is diagnosed as “pregestational diabetes.” Treatment should follow guidelines established for women who had diabetes prior to pregnancy.

How to screen? There is ongoing discussion about what is the optimal screening method for GDM: a 1-step strategy with a fasting 75-g OGTT only, or a 2-step strategy with a 50-g non-fasting glucose load test followed by a fasting 100-g OGTT in women who do not meet the plasma glucose cutoff (TABLE 1).^22-24 Hillier et al²⁵ compared the effectiveness of these strategies in diagnosing GDM and identifying pregnancy complications for the mother and infant. They found that while the 1-step strategy resulted in a 2-fold increase in the diagnosis of GDM, it did not lead to better outcomes for mothers and infants when compared with the 2-step method.²⁵ Currently, the majority of obstetricians (95%) prefer to use the 2-step method.²⁴

Continue to: Manage lifestyle, monitor glucose

Manage lifestyle, monitor glucose

Management of GDM in most women starts with diabetes self-management education and support for therapeutic lifestyle changes, such as nutritional interventions that reduce hyperglycemia and contribute to healthy weight gain during pregnancy.²⁰ This may include medical nutrition therapy that focuses on adequate nutrition for the mother and fetus. Currently, the recommended dietary intake for women who are pregnant (regardless of diabetes) includes a minimum of 175 g of carbohydrates, 71 g of daily protein, and at least 28 g of fiber. Further refinement of dietary intake, including carbohydrate restriction, should be done with guidance from a registered dietitian.²⁰ If the obstetrics team does not include a registered dietitian, a referral to one may be necessary. Regular physical activity should be continued throughout pregnancy as tolerated. Social support, stress reduction, and good sleep hygiene should be encouraged as much as possible.

For successful outcomes, therapeutic lifestyle changes should be coupled with glucose monitoring. The Fifth International Workshop-Conference on Gestational Diabetes Mellitus recommends that women with GDM monitor fasting blood glucose and typically 1-hour postprandial glucose. The glucose goals in GDM are as follows²⁶:

• Fasting glucose < 95 mg/dL (5.3 mmol/L), and either
• 1-hour postprandial glucose < 140 mg/dL (7.8 mmol/L), or
• 2-hour postprandial glucose < 120 mg/dL (6.7 mmol/L).

Importantly, in the second and third trimester, the A1C goal for women with GDM is 6.0%. This is lower than the more traditional A1C goal for 2 reasons: (1) increases in A1C, even within the normal range, increase adverse outcomes; and (2) pregnant women will have an increased red blood cell count turnover, which can lower the A1C.²⁷ In a historical cohort study (n = 27,213), Abell et al²⁸ found that women who have an A1C < 6.0% in the second and third trimester have the lowest risk of giving birth to large-for-gestational-age infants and for having preeclampsia.

Add insulin if glucose targets are not met

Most women who engage in therapeutic lifestyle change (70%-85%) can achieve an A1C < 6% and will not need to take medication to manage GDM.²⁹ If pharmacotherapy is needed to manage glucose, insulin is the preferred treatment for all women with GDM.²⁰ Treatment should be individualized based on the glucose trends the woman is experiencing. Common treatments include bedtime NPH if fasting hyperglycemia is most prominent and analogue insulin at mealtimes for women with prominent postprandial hyperglycemia.

Most women who engage in therapeutic lifestyle change (70%-85%) can achieve an A1C < 6% and will not need to take medication to manage GDM.

Noninsulin agents such as metformin and sulfonylureas are not currently recommended by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists or the American Diabetes Association for use in GDM.^20,24 Despite being used for years in women with pregestational diabetes, metabolic syndrome, and polycystic ovary syndrome, there is evidence that metformin crosses the placenta and fetal safety has not yet been established in RCTs. The Metformin in Gestational Diabetes: The Offspring Follow-Up (MiG TOFU) study was a longitudinal follow-up study that evaluated body composition and metabolic outcomes in children (ages 7-9 years) of women with GDM who had received metformin or insulin while pregnant.³⁰ At age 9 years, children who were exposed to metformin weighed more and had a higher waist-to-height ratio and waist circumference than those exposed to insulin.³⁰

Continue to: Sulfonylureas are no longer recommended...

Sulfonylureas are no longer recommended because of the risk of maternal and fetal hypoglycemia and concerns about this medication crossing the placenta.^24,31,32 Specifically, in a 2015 meta-analysis and systematic review of 15 articles (n = 2509), glyburide had a higher risk of neonatal hypoglycemia and macrosomia than insulin or metformin.³³ For women who cannot manage their glucose with therapeutic lifestyle changes and cannot take insulin, oral therapies may be considered if the risk-benefit ratio is balanced for that person.³⁴

Watch for effects of poor glycemic control on mother, infant

Preeclampsia is defined as new-onset hypertension and proteinuria after 20 weeks of gestation. The correlation between GDM and preeclampsia has partly been explained by their shared overlapping risk factors, including maternal obesity, excessive gestational weight gain, and persistent hyperglycemia.³⁵ On a biochemical level, these risk factors contribute to oxidative stress and systemic vascular dysfunction, which have been hypothesized as the underlying pathophysiology for the development of preeclampsia.³⁵

Neonatal macrosomia, defined as a birth weight ≥ 4000 g, is a common complication that develops in 15% to 45% of infants of mothers with GDM.³⁶ Placental transfer of glucose in mothers with hyperglycemia stimulates the secretion of neonatal insulin and the ultimate storage of the excess glucose as body fat. After delivery, the abrupt discontinuation of placental transfer of glucose to an infant who is actively secreting insulin leads to neonatal hypoglycemia, which if not detected or managed, can lead to long-term neurologic deficits, including recurrent seizures and developmental delays.³⁷ Therefore, it is essential to screen for neonatal hypoglycemia immediately after birth and serially up to 12 hours.³⁸

Postpartum T2D. Poor glycemic control increases the risk of increasing insulin resistance developing into T2D postpartum for mothers.³⁹ It also increases the risk of obesity and insulin resistance later in life for the infant.⁴⁰ A retrospective cohort study (n = 461) found a positive correlation between exposure to maternal GDM and elevated BMI in children ages 6 to 13 years.⁴¹ Kamana et al³⁶ further discussed this correlation and suggested that exposure to maternal hyperglycemia in utero contributes to fetal programming of later adipose deposition. Children may develop without a notable increase in BMI until after puberty.⁴²

Partner with specialists to improve outcomes

Although most women with GDM are managed by specialists (obstetricians, endocrinologists, and maternal-fetal medicine specialists),⁴³ these patients are still seeking care from their family physicians for other complaints. These visits provide key touchpoints during pregnancy and are opportunities for PCPs to identify a pregnancy-related complication or provide additional education or referral to the obstetrician.

Continue to: Also, if you work in an area...

Noninsulin agents, such as metformin and sulfonylureas, are not currently recommended by ACOG or the ADA for use in GDM.

Also, if you work in an area where specialists are less accessible, you may be the clinician providing the majority of care to a patient with GDM. If this is the case, you’ll want to watch for the following risk factors, which should prompt a referral to specialty care:

• a previous pregnancy with GDM²⁰
• a previous birth of an infant weighing > 4000 g⁴⁴
• baseline history of hypertension⁴⁵
• evidence of insulin resistance or polycystic ovary syndrome^46,47
• a history of cardiovascular disease²⁰
• a need to treat GDM with pharmacotherapy.⁴⁸

Ensuring a smooth transition after the birth

Optimal communication and hand-offs throughout pregnancy and after delivery will benefit everyone. When the pregnant patient’s care has been managed by an obstetrician, it is important to address the following issues during the hand-off:

• baseline medical problems
• medical screenings and treatments in pregnancy (retinopathy and nephropathy screening)
• aspirin initiation, if indicated
• management of thyroid abnormalities
• management of mental health conditions
• postpartum glucose management and T2D screening postpartum
• management of complications identified during pregnancy (retinopathy and nephropathy).

Timing and other elements of postpartum care. The first postpartum screen should occur at 4 to 12 weeks postpartum. OGTT is recommended instead of A1C at this time because A1C may still be lowered by the increased red blood cell turnover related to pregnancy and blood loss at delivery. Because women with GDM have a 50% to 75% lifetime risk of T2D,²⁰ patients with normal test results should be re-tested every 1 to 3 years using any of the standard screening methods (A1C, fasting glucose, or OGTT).²⁰

Postpartum visits present another opportunity to screen for diabetes and other postpartum complications, including depression and thyroid abnormalities.

After delivery it may be difficult for women to follow-up with their own personal health care because they are focused on the care of their baby. The increased use of telehealth may make postpartum follow-up visits easier to attend.

Visits present opportunities. Postpartum visits present another opportunity for PCPs to screen for diabetes and other postpartum complications, including depression and thyroid abnormalities. Visits are also an opportunity to discuss timely contraception so as to prevent an early, unplanned pregnancy. Other important aspects of postpartum care are outlined in TABLE 2.^20,49

CORRESPONDENCE
Connie L. Ha, BS, OMS IV, Department of Primary Care, 1310 Club Drive, Touro University California, Vallejo, CA 94592; [email protected]

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), defined as new-onset hyperglycemia detected in a pregnant woman after 24 weeks of gestation, affects 4% to 10% of pregnancies in the United States annually¹ and is a major challenge for health care professionals.² During pregnancy, the body’s physiologic responses are altered to support the growing fetus. One of these changes is an increase in insulin resistance, which suggests that pregnancy alone increases the patient’s risk for type 2 diabetes (T2D). However, several other factors also increase this risk, including maternal age, social barriers to care, obesity, poor weight control, and family history.

Copyright Dave Cutler

If not controlled, GDM results in poor health outcomes for the mother, such as preeclampsia, preterm labor, and maternal T2D.^3-5 For the infant, intrauterine exposure to persistent hyperglycemia is correlated with neonatal macrosomia, hypoglycemia, perinatal complications (eg, preterm delivery, fetal demise), and obesity and insulin resistance later in life.⁴

Primary care physicians (PCPs) are the patient’s main point of contact prior to pregnancy. This relationship makes PCPs a resource for the patient and specialists during and after pregnancy. In this article, we discuss risk factors and how to screen for GDM, provide an update on practice recommendations for treatment and management of GDM in primary care, and describe the effects of uncontrolled GDM.

Know the key risk factors

Prevention begins with identifying the major risk factors that contribute to the development of GDM. These include maternal age, social barriers to care, family history of prediabetes, and obesity and poor weight control.

Older age. A meta-analysis of 24 studies noted strong positive correlation between GDM risk and maternal age.⁶ One of the population-based cohort studies in the meta-analysis examined relationships between maternal age and pregnancy outcomes in women living in British Columbia, Canada (n = 203,414). Data suggested that the relative risk of GDM increased linearly with maternal age to 3.2, 4.2, and 4.4 among women ages ≥ 35, ≥ 40, and ≥ 45 years, respectively.⁷

Social barriers to care. Although the prevalence of GDM has increased over the past few decades,¹ from 2011 to 2019 the increase in GDM in individuals at first live birth was significantly higher in non-Hispanic Asian and Hispanic/Latina women than in non-Hispanic White women.⁸ Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention further suggest that diabetes was more prevalent among individuals with a lower socioeconomic status as indicated by their level of education.⁹ Ogunwole et al¹⁰ suggest that racism is the root cause of these disparities and leads to long-term barriers to care (eg, socioeconomic deprivation, lack of health insurance, limited access to care, and poor health literacy), which ultimately contribute to the development of GDM and progression of diabetes. It is important for PCPs and all health professionals to be aware of these barriers so that they may practice mindfulness and deliver culturally sensitive care to patients from marginalized communities.

Family history of prediabetes. In a population-based cohort study (n = 7020), women with prediabetes (A1C, 5.7%-6.4%) were 2.8 times more likely to develop GDM compared with women with normal A1C (< 5.7%).¹¹ Similar results were seen in a retrospective cohort study (n = 2812), in which women with prediabetes were more likely than women with a normal first trimester A1C to have GDM (29.1% vs 13.7%, respectively; adjusted relative risk = 1.48; 95% CI, 1.15-1.89).¹² In both studies, prediabetes was not associated with a higher risk for adverse maternal or neonatal outcomes.^11,12

Continue to: While there are no current...

Women diagnosed with prediabetes in 1 study were found to have significantly less weight gain during pregnancy compared with patients with normal A1C, suggesting a benefit in early identification and intervention.

While there are no current guidelines for treating prediabetes in pregnancy, women diagnosed with prediabetes in 1 study were found to have significantly less weight gain during pregnancy compared with patients with normal A1C,¹² suggesting there may be a benefit in early identification and intervention, although further research is needed.¹¹ In a separate case-control study (n = 345 women with GDM; n = 800 control), high rates of gestational weight gain (> 0.41 kg/wk) were associated with an increased risk of GDM (odds ratio [OR] = 1.74; 95% CI, 1.16-2.60) compared with women with the lowest rate of gestational weight gain (0.27-0.4 kg/wk [OR = 1.43; 95% CI, 0.96-2.14]).¹³ Thus, it is helpful to have proactive conversations about family planning and adequate weight and glycemic control with high-risk patients to prepare for a healthy pregnancy.

Obesity and weight management. Patients who are overweight (body mass index [BMI], 25-29.9) or obese (BMI > 30) have a substantially increased risk of GDM (adjusted OR = 1.44; 95% CI, 1.04-1.81), as seen in a retrospective cohort study of 1951 pregnant Malaysian women.¹⁴ Several factors have been found to contribute to successful weight control, including calorie prescription, a structured meal plan, high physical activity goals (60-90 min/d), daily weighing and monitoring of food intake, behavior therapy, and continued patient–­provider contact.¹⁵

Most obstetricians use a 2-step method to screen for GDM with an initial 75-g oral glucose tolerance test, followed by a 50-g glucose load test if needed.

The safety, efficacy, and sustainability of weight loss with various dietary plans have been studied in individuals who are overweight and obese.¹⁶ Ultimately, energy expenditure must be greater than energy intake to promote weight loss. Conventional diets with continuous energy restriction (ie, low-fat, low-carbohydrate, and high-protein diets) have proven to be effective for short-term weight loss but data on long-term weight maintenance are limited.¹⁶ The Mediterranean diet, which is comprised mostly of vegetables, fruits, legumes, fish, and grains—with a lower intake of meat and dairy—may reduce gestational weight gain and risk of GDM as suggested by a randomized controlled trial (RCT; n = 1252).¹⁷ Although the choice of diet is up to the patient, it is important to be aware of different diets or refer the patient to a registered dietician who can help the patient if needed.

Reduce risk with adequate weight and glycemic control

Prevention of GDM during pregnancy should focus on weight maintenance and optimal glycemic control. Two systematic reviews, one with 8 RCTs (n = 1792) and another with 5 studies (n = 539), assessed the efficacy and safety of energy-restricted dietary intervention on GDM prevention.¹⁸ The first review found a significant reduction in gestational weight gain and improved glycemic control without increased risk of adverse maternal and fetal outcomes.¹⁸ The second review showed no clear difference between energy-restricted and non–energy-restricted diets on outcomes such as preeclampsia, gestational weight gain, large for gestational age, and macrosomia.¹⁸ These data suggest that while energy-restricted dietary interventions made no difference on maternal and fetal complications, they may still be safely used in pregnancy to reduce gestational weight gain and improve glycemic control.¹⁸

Once a woman is pregnant, it becomes difficult to lose weight because additional calories are needed to support a growing fetus. It is recommended that patients with healthy pregestational BMI consume an extra 200 to 300 calories/d after the first trimester. However, extra caloric intake in a woman with obesity who is pregnant leads to metabolic impairment and increased risk of diabetes for both the mother and fetus.¹⁹ Therefore, it is recommended that patients with obese pregestational BMI not consume additional calories because excess maternal fat is sufficient to support the energy needs of the growing fetus.¹⁹

Continue to: Ultimately, earlier intervention...

Ultimately, earlier intervention—prior to conception—helps patients prepare for a healthier pregnancy, resulting in better long-term outcomes. It is helpful to be familiar with the advantages and disadvantages of common approaches to weight management and to be able to refer patients to nutritionists for optimal planning. When establishing a dietary plan, consider patient-specific factors, such as cultural diets, financial and time constraints, and the patient’s readiness to make and maintain these changes. Consistent ­follow-up and behavioral therapy are necessary to maintain successful weight control.

There are many screening tools, but 1 is preferred in pregnancy

There are several ways to diagnose diabetes in patients who are not pregnant, including A1C, a fasting glucose test, an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT), or random glucose testing (plus symptoms). However, the preferred method for diagnosing GDM is OGTT because it has a higher sensitivity.²⁰ A1C, while a good measure of hyperglycemic stability, does not register hyperglycemia early enough to diagnose GDM and fasting glucose testing is less sensitive because for most women with GDM, that abnormal postprandial glucose level is the first glycemic abnormality.²¹

When to screen. Blood glucose levels should be checked in all pregnant women as part of their metabolic panel at the first prenatal visit. A reflex A1C for high glucose levels can be ordered based on the physician’s preference. This may help you to identify patients with prediabetes who are at risk for GDM and implement early behavioral and lifestyle changes. However, further research is needed to determine if intervention early in pregnancy can truly reduce the risk of GDM.¹¹

The A1C goal for women with GDM is lower (6.0%) after the first trimester because any rise in A1C is risky and increased red blood cell count turnover may lower A1C.

Screening for GDM should be completed at 24 to 28 weeks of gestation²⁰ because it is likely that this is when the hormonal effects of the placenta that contribute to insulin resistance set the woman up for postprandial hyperglycemia. Currently, there are no evidence-based guidelines for the use of continuous glucose monitoring prior to 24 weeks of gestation to identify GDM.²⁰ If persistent hyperglycemia is present before 24 weeks of gestation, it is considered evidence of a pre-existing metabolic abnormality and is diagnosed as “pregestational diabetes.” Treatment should follow guidelines established for women who had diabetes prior to pregnancy.

How to screen? There is ongoing discussion about what is the optimal screening method for GDM: a 1-step strategy with a fasting 75-g OGTT only, or a 2-step strategy with a 50-g non-fasting glucose load test followed by a fasting 100-g OGTT in women who do not meet the plasma glucose cutoff (TABLE 1).^22-24 Hillier et al²⁵ compared the effectiveness of these strategies in diagnosing GDM and identifying pregnancy complications for the mother and infant. They found that while the 1-step strategy resulted in a 2-fold increase in the diagnosis of GDM, it did not lead to better outcomes for mothers and infants when compared with the 2-step method.²⁵ Currently, the majority of obstetricians (95%) prefer to use the 2-step method.²⁴

Continue to: Manage lifestyle, monitor glucose

Manage lifestyle, monitor glucose

Management of GDM in most women starts with diabetes self-management education and support for therapeutic lifestyle changes, such as nutritional interventions that reduce hyperglycemia and contribute to healthy weight gain during pregnancy.²⁰ This may include medical nutrition therapy that focuses on adequate nutrition for the mother and fetus. Currently, the recommended dietary intake for women who are pregnant (regardless of diabetes) includes a minimum of 175 g of carbohydrates, 71 g of daily protein, and at least 28 g of fiber. Further refinement of dietary intake, including carbohydrate restriction, should be done with guidance from a registered dietitian.²⁰ If the obstetrics team does not include a registered dietitian, a referral to one may be necessary. Regular physical activity should be continued throughout pregnancy as tolerated. Social support, stress reduction, and good sleep hygiene should be encouraged as much as possible.

For successful outcomes, therapeutic lifestyle changes should be coupled with glucose monitoring. The Fifth International Workshop-Conference on Gestational Diabetes Mellitus recommends that women with GDM monitor fasting blood glucose and typically 1-hour postprandial glucose. The glucose goals in GDM are as follows²⁶:

• Fasting glucose < 95 mg/dL (5.3 mmol/L), and either
• 1-hour postprandial glucose < 140 mg/dL (7.8 mmol/L), or
• 2-hour postprandial glucose < 120 mg/dL (6.7 mmol/L).

Importantly, in the second and third trimester, the A1C goal for women with GDM is 6.0%. This is lower than the more traditional A1C goal for 2 reasons: (1) increases in A1C, even within the normal range, increase adverse outcomes; and (2) pregnant women will have an increased red blood cell count turnover, which can lower the A1C.²⁷ In a historical cohort study (n = 27,213), Abell et al²⁸ found that women who have an A1C < 6.0% in the second and third trimester have the lowest risk of giving birth to large-for-gestational-age infants and for having preeclampsia.

Add insulin if glucose targets are not met

Most women who engage in therapeutic lifestyle change (70%-85%) can achieve an A1C < 6% and will not need to take medication to manage GDM.²⁹ If pharmacotherapy is needed to manage glucose, insulin is the preferred treatment for all women with GDM.²⁰ Treatment should be individualized based on the glucose trends the woman is experiencing. Common treatments include bedtime NPH if fasting hyperglycemia is most prominent and analogue insulin at mealtimes for women with prominent postprandial hyperglycemia.

Most women who engage in therapeutic lifestyle change (70%-85%) can achieve an A1C < 6% and will not need to take medication to manage GDM.

Noninsulin agents such as metformin and sulfonylureas are not currently recommended by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists or the American Diabetes Association for use in GDM.^20,24 Despite being used for years in women with pregestational diabetes, metabolic syndrome, and polycystic ovary syndrome, there is evidence that metformin crosses the placenta and fetal safety has not yet been established in RCTs. The Metformin in Gestational Diabetes: The Offspring Follow-Up (MiG TOFU) study was a longitudinal follow-up study that evaluated body composition and metabolic outcomes in children (ages 7-9 years) of women with GDM who had received metformin or insulin while pregnant.³⁰ At age 9 years, children who were exposed to metformin weighed more and had a higher waist-to-height ratio and waist circumference than those exposed to insulin.³⁰

Continue to: Sulfonylureas are no longer recommended...

Sulfonylureas are no longer recommended because of the risk of maternal and fetal hypoglycemia and concerns about this medication crossing the placenta.^24,31,32 Specifically, in a 2015 meta-analysis and systematic review of 15 articles (n = 2509), glyburide had a higher risk of neonatal hypoglycemia and macrosomia than insulin or metformin.³³ For women who cannot manage their glucose with therapeutic lifestyle changes and cannot take insulin, oral therapies may be considered if the risk-benefit ratio is balanced for that person.³⁴

Watch for effects of poor glycemic control on mother, infant

Preeclampsia is defined as new-onset hypertension and proteinuria after 20 weeks of gestation. The correlation between GDM and preeclampsia has partly been explained by their shared overlapping risk factors, including maternal obesity, excessive gestational weight gain, and persistent hyperglycemia.³⁵ On a biochemical level, these risk factors contribute to oxidative stress and systemic vascular dysfunction, which have been hypothesized as the underlying pathophysiology for the development of preeclampsia.³⁵

Neonatal macrosomia, defined as a birth weight ≥ 4000 g, is a common complication that develops in 15% to 45% of infants of mothers with GDM.³⁶ Placental transfer of glucose in mothers with hyperglycemia stimulates the secretion of neonatal insulin and the ultimate storage of the excess glucose as body fat. After delivery, the abrupt discontinuation of placental transfer of glucose to an infant who is actively secreting insulin leads to neonatal hypoglycemia, which if not detected or managed, can lead to long-term neurologic deficits, including recurrent seizures and developmental delays.³⁷ Therefore, it is essential to screen for neonatal hypoglycemia immediately after birth and serially up to 12 hours.³⁸

Postpartum T2D. Poor glycemic control increases the risk of increasing insulin resistance developing into T2D postpartum for mothers.³⁹ It also increases the risk of obesity and insulin resistance later in life for the infant.⁴⁰ A retrospective cohort study (n = 461) found a positive correlation between exposure to maternal GDM and elevated BMI in children ages 6 to 13 years.⁴¹ Kamana et al³⁶ further discussed this correlation and suggested that exposure to maternal hyperglycemia in utero contributes to fetal programming of later adipose deposition. Children may develop without a notable increase in BMI until after puberty.⁴²

Partner with specialists to improve outcomes

Although most women with GDM are managed by specialists (obstetricians, endocrinologists, and maternal-fetal medicine specialists),⁴³ these patients are still seeking care from their family physicians for other complaints. These visits provide key touchpoints during pregnancy and are opportunities for PCPs to identify a pregnancy-related complication or provide additional education or referral to the obstetrician.

Continue to: Also, if you work in an area...

Noninsulin agents, such as metformin and sulfonylureas, are not currently recommended by ACOG or the ADA for use in GDM.

Also, if you work in an area where specialists are less accessible, you may be the clinician providing the majority of care to a patient with GDM. If this is the case, you’ll want to watch for the following risk factors, which should prompt a referral to specialty care:

• a previous pregnancy with GDM²⁰
• a previous birth of an infant weighing > 4000 g⁴⁴
• baseline history of hypertension⁴⁵
• evidence of insulin resistance or polycystic ovary syndrome^46,47
• a history of cardiovascular disease²⁰
• a need to treat GDM with pharmacotherapy.⁴⁸

Ensuring a smooth transition after the birth

Optimal communication and hand-offs throughout pregnancy and after delivery will benefit everyone. When the pregnant patient’s care has been managed by an obstetrician, it is important to address the following issues during the hand-off:

• baseline medical problems
• medical screenings and treatments in pregnancy (retinopathy and nephropathy screening)
• aspirin initiation, if indicated
• management of thyroid abnormalities
• management of mental health conditions
• postpartum glucose management and T2D screening postpartum
• management of complications identified during pregnancy (retinopathy and nephropathy).

Timing and other elements of postpartum care. The first postpartum screen should occur at 4 to 12 weeks postpartum. OGTT is recommended instead of A1C at this time because A1C may still be lowered by the increased red blood cell turnover related to pregnancy and blood loss at delivery. Because women with GDM have a 50% to 75% lifetime risk of T2D,²⁰ patients with normal test results should be re-tested every 1 to 3 years using any of the standard screening methods (A1C, fasting glucose, or OGTT).²⁰

Postpartum visits present another opportunity to screen for diabetes and other postpartum complications, including depression and thyroid abnormalities.

After delivery it may be difficult for women to follow-up with their own personal health care because they are focused on the care of their baby. The increased use of telehealth may make postpartum follow-up visits easier to attend.

Visits present opportunities. Postpartum visits present another opportunity for PCPs to screen for diabetes and other postpartum complications, including depression and thyroid abnormalities. Visits are also an opportunity to discuss timely contraception so as to prevent an early, unplanned pregnancy. Other important aspects of postpartum care are outlined in TABLE 2.^20,49

CORRESPONDENCE
Connie L. Ha, BS, OMS IV, Department of Primary Care, 1310 Club Drive, Touro University California, Vallejo, CA 94592; [email protected]

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), defined as new-onset hyperglycemia detected in a pregnant woman after 24 weeks of gestation, affects 4% to 10% of pregnancies in the United States annually¹ and is a major challenge for health care professionals.² During pregnancy, the body’s physiologic responses are altered to support the growing fetus. One of these changes is an increase in insulin resistance, which suggests that pregnancy alone increases the patient’s risk for type 2 diabetes (T2D). However, several other factors also increase this risk, including maternal age, social barriers to care, obesity, poor weight control, and family history.

Copyright Dave Cutler

If not controlled, GDM results in poor health outcomes for the mother, such as preeclampsia, preterm labor, and maternal T2D.^3-5 For the infant, intrauterine exposure to persistent hyperglycemia is correlated with neonatal macrosomia, hypoglycemia, perinatal complications (eg, preterm delivery, fetal demise), and obesity and insulin resistance later in life.⁴

Primary care physicians (PCPs) are the patient’s main point of contact prior to pregnancy. This relationship makes PCPs a resource for the patient and specialists during and after pregnancy. In this article, we discuss risk factors and how to screen for GDM, provide an update on practice recommendations for treatment and management of GDM in primary care, and describe the effects of uncontrolled GDM.

Know the key risk factors

Prevention begins with identifying the major risk factors that contribute to the development of GDM. These include maternal age, social barriers to care, family history of prediabetes, and obesity and poor weight control.

Older age. A meta-analysis of 24 studies noted strong positive correlation between GDM risk and maternal age.⁶ One of the population-based cohort studies in the meta-analysis examined relationships between maternal age and pregnancy outcomes in women living in British Columbia, Canada (n = 203,414). Data suggested that the relative risk of GDM increased linearly with maternal age to 3.2, 4.2, and 4.4 among women ages ≥ 35, ≥ 40, and ≥ 45 years, respectively.⁷

Social barriers to care. Although the prevalence of GDM has increased over the past few decades,¹ from 2011 to 2019 the increase in GDM in individuals at first live birth was significantly higher in non-Hispanic Asian and Hispanic/Latina women than in non-Hispanic White women.⁸ Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention further suggest that diabetes was more prevalent among individuals with a lower socioeconomic status as indicated by their level of education.⁹ Ogunwole et al¹⁰ suggest that racism is the root cause of these disparities and leads to long-term barriers to care (eg, socioeconomic deprivation, lack of health insurance, limited access to care, and poor health literacy), which ultimately contribute to the development of GDM and progression of diabetes. It is important for PCPs and all health professionals to be aware of these barriers so that they may practice mindfulness and deliver culturally sensitive care to patients from marginalized communities.

Family history of prediabetes. In a population-based cohort study (n = 7020), women with prediabetes (A1C, 5.7%-6.4%) were 2.8 times more likely to develop GDM compared with women with normal A1C (< 5.7%).¹¹ Similar results were seen in a retrospective cohort study (n = 2812), in which women with prediabetes were more likely than women with a normal first trimester A1C to have GDM (29.1% vs 13.7%, respectively; adjusted relative risk = 1.48; 95% CI, 1.15-1.89).¹² In both studies, prediabetes was not associated with a higher risk for adverse maternal or neonatal outcomes.^11,12

Continue to: While there are no current...

Women diagnosed with prediabetes in 1 study were found to have significantly less weight gain during pregnancy compared with patients with normal A1C, suggesting a benefit in early identification and intervention.

While there are no current guidelines for treating prediabetes in pregnancy, women diagnosed with prediabetes in 1 study were found to have significantly less weight gain during pregnancy compared with patients with normal A1C,¹² suggesting there may be a benefit in early identification and intervention, although further research is needed.¹¹ In a separate case-control study (n = 345 women with GDM; n = 800 control), high rates of gestational weight gain (> 0.41 kg/wk) were associated with an increased risk of GDM (odds ratio [OR] = 1.74; 95% CI, 1.16-2.60) compared with women with the lowest rate of gestational weight gain (0.27-0.4 kg/wk [OR = 1.43; 95% CI, 0.96-2.14]).¹³ Thus, it is helpful to have proactive conversations about family planning and adequate weight and glycemic control with high-risk patients to prepare for a healthy pregnancy.

Obesity and weight management. Patients who are overweight (body mass index [BMI], 25-29.9) or obese (BMI > 30) have a substantially increased risk of GDM (adjusted OR = 1.44; 95% CI, 1.04-1.81), as seen in a retrospective cohort study of 1951 pregnant Malaysian women.¹⁴ Several factors have been found to contribute to successful weight control, including calorie prescription, a structured meal plan, high physical activity goals (60-90 min/d), daily weighing and monitoring of food intake, behavior therapy, and continued patient–­provider contact.¹⁵

Most obstetricians use a 2-step method to screen for GDM with an initial 75-g oral glucose tolerance test, followed by a 50-g glucose load test if needed.

The safety, efficacy, and sustainability of weight loss with various dietary plans have been studied in individuals who are overweight and obese.¹⁶ Ultimately, energy expenditure must be greater than energy intake to promote weight loss. Conventional diets with continuous energy restriction (ie, low-fat, low-carbohydrate, and high-protein diets) have proven to be effective for short-term weight loss but data on long-term weight maintenance are limited.¹⁶ The Mediterranean diet, which is comprised mostly of vegetables, fruits, legumes, fish, and grains—with a lower intake of meat and dairy—may reduce gestational weight gain and risk of GDM as suggested by a randomized controlled trial (RCT; n = 1252).¹⁷ Although the choice of diet is up to the patient, it is important to be aware of different diets or refer the patient to a registered dietician who can help the patient if needed.

Reduce risk with adequate weight and glycemic control

Prevention of GDM during pregnancy should focus on weight maintenance and optimal glycemic control. Two systematic reviews, one with 8 RCTs (n = 1792) and another with 5 studies (n = 539), assessed the efficacy and safety of energy-restricted dietary intervention on GDM prevention.¹⁸ The first review found a significant reduction in gestational weight gain and improved glycemic control without increased risk of adverse maternal and fetal outcomes.¹⁸ The second review showed no clear difference between energy-restricted and non–energy-restricted diets on outcomes such as preeclampsia, gestational weight gain, large for gestational age, and macrosomia.¹⁸ These data suggest that while energy-restricted dietary interventions made no difference on maternal and fetal complications, they may still be safely used in pregnancy to reduce gestational weight gain and improve glycemic control.¹⁸

Once a woman is pregnant, it becomes difficult to lose weight because additional calories are needed to support a growing fetus. It is recommended that patients with healthy pregestational BMI consume an extra 200 to 300 calories/d after the first trimester. However, extra caloric intake in a woman with obesity who is pregnant leads to metabolic impairment and increased risk of diabetes for both the mother and fetus.¹⁹ Therefore, it is recommended that patients with obese pregestational BMI not consume additional calories because excess maternal fat is sufficient to support the energy needs of the growing fetus.¹⁹

Continue to: Ultimately, earlier intervention...

Ultimately, earlier intervention—prior to conception—helps patients prepare for a healthier pregnancy, resulting in better long-term outcomes. It is helpful to be familiar with the advantages and disadvantages of common approaches to weight management and to be able to refer patients to nutritionists for optimal planning. When establishing a dietary plan, consider patient-specific factors, such as cultural diets, financial and time constraints, and the patient’s readiness to make and maintain these changes. Consistent ­follow-up and behavioral therapy are necessary to maintain successful weight control.

There are many screening tools, but 1 is preferred in pregnancy

There are several ways to diagnose diabetes in patients who are not pregnant, including A1C, a fasting glucose test, an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT), or random glucose testing (plus symptoms). However, the preferred method for diagnosing GDM is OGTT because it has a higher sensitivity.²⁰ A1C, while a good measure of hyperglycemic stability, does not register hyperglycemia early enough to diagnose GDM and fasting glucose testing is less sensitive because for most women with GDM, that abnormal postprandial glucose level is the first glycemic abnormality.²¹

When to screen. Blood glucose levels should be checked in all pregnant women as part of their metabolic panel at the first prenatal visit. A reflex A1C for high glucose levels can be ordered based on the physician’s preference. This may help you to identify patients with prediabetes who are at risk for GDM and implement early behavioral and lifestyle changes. However, further research is needed to determine if intervention early in pregnancy can truly reduce the risk of GDM.¹¹

The A1C goal for women with GDM is lower (6.0%) after the first trimester because any rise in A1C is risky and increased red blood cell count turnover may lower A1C.

Screening for GDM should be completed at 24 to 28 weeks of gestation²⁰ because it is likely that this is when the hormonal effects of the placenta that contribute to insulin resistance set the woman up for postprandial hyperglycemia. Currently, there are no evidence-based guidelines for the use of continuous glucose monitoring prior to 24 weeks of gestation to identify GDM.²⁰ If persistent hyperglycemia is present before 24 weeks of gestation, it is considered evidence of a pre-existing metabolic abnormality and is diagnosed as “pregestational diabetes.” Treatment should follow guidelines established for women who had diabetes prior to pregnancy.

How to screen? There is ongoing discussion about what is the optimal screening method for GDM: a 1-step strategy with a fasting 75-g OGTT only, or a 2-step strategy with a 50-g non-fasting glucose load test followed by a fasting 100-g OGTT in women who do not meet the plasma glucose cutoff (TABLE 1).^22-24 Hillier et al²⁵ compared the effectiveness of these strategies in diagnosing GDM and identifying pregnancy complications for the mother and infant. They found that while the 1-step strategy resulted in a 2-fold increase in the diagnosis of GDM, it did not lead to better outcomes for mothers and infants when compared with the 2-step method.²⁵ Currently, the majority of obstetricians (95%) prefer to use the 2-step method.²⁴

Continue to: Manage lifestyle, monitor glucose

Manage lifestyle, monitor glucose

Management of GDM in most women starts with diabetes self-management education and support for therapeutic lifestyle changes, such as nutritional interventions that reduce hyperglycemia and contribute to healthy weight gain during pregnancy.²⁰ This may include medical nutrition therapy that focuses on adequate nutrition for the mother and fetus. Currently, the recommended dietary intake for women who are pregnant (regardless of diabetes) includes a minimum of 175 g of carbohydrates, 71 g of daily protein, and at least 28 g of fiber. Further refinement of dietary intake, including carbohydrate restriction, should be done with guidance from a registered dietitian.²⁰ If the obstetrics team does not include a registered dietitian, a referral to one may be necessary. Regular physical activity should be continued throughout pregnancy as tolerated. Social support, stress reduction, and good sleep hygiene should be encouraged as much as possible.

For successful outcomes, therapeutic lifestyle changes should be coupled with glucose monitoring. The Fifth International Workshop-Conference on Gestational Diabetes Mellitus recommends that women with GDM monitor fasting blood glucose and typically 1-hour postprandial glucose. The glucose goals in GDM are as follows²⁶:

• Fasting glucose < 95 mg/dL (5.3 mmol/L), and either
• 1-hour postprandial glucose < 140 mg/dL (7.8 mmol/L), or
• 2-hour postprandial glucose < 120 mg/dL (6.7 mmol/L).

Importantly, in the second and third trimester, the A1C goal for women with GDM is 6.0%. This is lower than the more traditional A1C goal for 2 reasons: (1) increases in A1C, even within the normal range, increase adverse outcomes; and (2) pregnant women will have an increased red blood cell count turnover, which can lower the A1C.²⁷ In a historical cohort study (n = 27,213), Abell et al²⁸ found that women who have an A1C < 6.0% in the second and third trimester have the lowest risk of giving birth to large-for-gestational-age infants and for having preeclampsia.

Add insulin if glucose targets are not met

Most women who engage in therapeutic lifestyle change (70%-85%) can achieve an A1C < 6% and will not need to take medication to manage GDM.²⁹ If pharmacotherapy is needed to manage glucose, insulin is the preferred treatment for all women with GDM.²⁰ Treatment should be individualized based on the glucose trends the woman is experiencing. Common treatments include bedtime NPH if fasting hyperglycemia is most prominent and analogue insulin at mealtimes for women with prominent postprandial hyperglycemia.

Most women who engage in therapeutic lifestyle change (70%-85%) can achieve an A1C < 6% and will not need to take medication to manage GDM.

Noninsulin agents such as metformin and sulfonylureas are not currently recommended by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists or the American Diabetes Association for use in GDM.^20,24 Despite being used for years in women with pregestational diabetes, metabolic syndrome, and polycystic ovary syndrome, there is evidence that metformin crosses the placenta and fetal safety has not yet been established in RCTs. The Metformin in Gestational Diabetes: The Offspring Follow-Up (MiG TOFU) study was a longitudinal follow-up study that evaluated body composition and metabolic outcomes in children (ages 7-9 years) of women with GDM who had received metformin or insulin while pregnant.³⁰ At age 9 years, children who were exposed to metformin weighed more and had a higher waist-to-height ratio and waist circumference than those exposed to insulin.³⁰

Continue to: Sulfonylureas are no longer recommended...

Sulfonylureas are no longer recommended because of the risk of maternal and fetal hypoglycemia and concerns about this medication crossing the placenta.^24,31,32 Specifically, in a 2015 meta-analysis and systematic review of 15 articles (n = 2509), glyburide had a higher risk of neonatal hypoglycemia and macrosomia than insulin or metformin.³³ For women who cannot manage their glucose with therapeutic lifestyle changes and cannot take insulin, oral therapies may be considered if the risk-benefit ratio is balanced for that person.³⁴

Watch for effects of poor glycemic control on mother, infant

Preeclampsia is defined as new-onset hypertension and proteinuria after 20 weeks of gestation. The correlation between GDM and preeclampsia has partly been explained by their shared overlapping risk factors, including maternal obesity, excessive gestational weight gain, and persistent hyperglycemia.³⁵ On a biochemical level, these risk factors contribute to oxidative stress and systemic vascular dysfunction, which have been hypothesized as the underlying pathophysiology for the development of preeclampsia.³⁵

Neonatal macrosomia, defined as a birth weight ≥ 4000 g, is a common complication that develops in 15% to 45% of infants of mothers with GDM.³⁶ Placental transfer of glucose in mothers with hyperglycemia stimulates the secretion of neonatal insulin and the ultimate storage of the excess glucose as body fat. After delivery, the abrupt discontinuation of placental transfer of glucose to an infant who is actively secreting insulin leads to neonatal hypoglycemia, which if not detected or managed, can lead to long-term neurologic deficits, including recurrent seizures and developmental delays.³⁷ Therefore, it is essential to screen for neonatal hypoglycemia immediately after birth and serially up to 12 hours.³⁸

Postpartum T2D. Poor glycemic control increases the risk of increasing insulin resistance developing into T2D postpartum for mothers.³⁹ It also increases the risk of obesity and insulin resistance later in life for the infant.⁴⁰ A retrospective cohort study (n = 461) found a positive correlation between exposure to maternal GDM and elevated BMI in children ages 6 to 13 years.⁴¹ Kamana et al³⁶ further discussed this correlation and suggested that exposure to maternal hyperglycemia in utero contributes to fetal programming of later adipose deposition. Children may develop without a notable increase in BMI until after puberty.⁴²

Partner with specialists to improve outcomes

Although most women with GDM are managed by specialists (obstetricians, endocrinologists, and maternal-fetal medicine specialists),⁴³ these patients are still seeking care from their family physicians for other complaints. These visits provide key touchpoints during pregnancy and are opportunities for PCPs to identify a pregnancy-related complication or provide additional education or referral to the obstetrician.

Continue to: Also, if you work in an area...

Noninsulin agents, such as metformin and sulfonylureas, are not currently recommended by ACOG or the ADA for use in GDM.

Also, if you work in an area where specialists are less accessible, you may be the clinician providing the majority of care to a patient with GDM. If this is the case, you’ll want to watch for the following risk factors, which should prompt a referral to specialty care:

• a previous pregnancy with GDM²⁰
• a previous birth of an infant weighing > 4000 g⁴⁴
• baseline history of hypertension⁴⁵
• evidence of insulin resistance or polycystic ovary syndrome^46,47
• a history of cardiovascular disease²⁰
• a need to treat GDM with pharmacotherapy.⁴⁸

Ensuring a smooth transition after the birth

Optimal communication and hand-offs throughout pregnancy and after delivery will benefit everyone. When the pregnant patient’s care has been managed by an obstetrician, it is important to address the following issues during the hand-off:

• baseline medical problems
• medical screenings and treatments in pregnancy (retinopathy and nephropathy screening)
• aspirin initiation, if indicated
• management of thyroid abnormalities
• management of mental health conditions
• postpartum glucose management and T2D screening postpartum
• management of complications identified during pregnancy (retinopathy and nephropathy).

Timing and other elements of postpartum care. The first postpartum screen should occur at 4 to 12 weeks postpartum. OGTT is recommended instead of A1C at this time because A1C may still be lowered by the increased red blood cell turnover related to pregnancy and blood loss at delivery. Because women with GDM have a 50% to 75% lifetime risk of T2D,²⁰ patients with normal test results should be re-tested every 1 to 3 years using any of the standard screening methods (A1C, fasting glucose, or OGTT).²⁰

Postpartum visits present another opportunity to screen for diabetes and other postpartum complications, including depression and thyroid abnormalities.

After delivery it may be difficult for women to follow-up with their own personal health care because they are focused on the care of their baby. The increased use of telehealth may make postpartum follow-up visits easier to attend.

Visits present opportunities. Postpartum visits present another opportunity for PCPs to screen for diabetes and other postpartum complications, including depression and thyroid abnormalities. Visits are also an opportunity to discuss timely contraception so as to prevent an early, unplanned pregnancy. Other important aspects of postpartum care are outlined in TABLE 2.^20,49

CORRESPONDENCE
Connie L. Ha, BS, OMS IV, Department of Primary Care, 1310 Club Drive, Touro University California, Vallejo, CA 94592; [email protected]

The Diagnosis: Bullous Pyoderma Gangrenosum

A bone marrow biopsy revealed 60% myeloblasts, leading to a diagnosis of acute myeloid leukemia (AML). A biopsy obtained from the edge of the bullous plaque demonstrated a dense dermal neutrophilic infiltrate with extravasated erythrocytes (Figure). Fite, Gram, and Grocott-Gomori methenamine-silver staining failed to reveal infectious organisms. Tissue and blood cultures were negative. Given the pathologic findings, clinical presentation including recent diagnosis of AML, and exclusion of other underlying disease processes including infection, the diagnosis of bullous pyoderma gangrenosum (PG) was made. The lesion improved with systemic steroids and treatment of the underlying AML with fludarabine and venetoclax chemotherapy.

First recognized in 1916 by French dermatologist Louis Brocq, MD, PG is a sterile neutrophilic dermatosis that predominantly affects women older than 50 years.^1,2 This disorder can develop idiopathically; secondary to trauma; or in association with systemic diseases such as inflammatory bowel disease, rheumatoid arthritis, and hematologic malignancies. The pathogenesis of PG remains unclear; however, overexpression of inflammatory cytokines may mediate its development by stimulating T cells and promoting neutrophilic chemotaxis.³

Pyoderma gangrenosum classically presents as a rapidly enlarging ulcer with cribriform scarring but manifests variably. Four variants of the disorder exist: classic ulcerative, pustular, bullous, and vegetative PG. Ulcerative PG is the most common variant. Bullous PG is associated with hematologic malignancies such as primary myelofibrosis, myelodysplastic disease, and AML. In these patients, hematologic malignancy often exists prior to the development of PG and portends a poorer prognosis. This association underscores the importance of timely diagnosis and thorough hematologic evaluation by obtaining a complete blood cell count with differential, peripheral smear, serum protein electrophoresis with immunofixation, and quantitative immunoglobulins (IgA, IgG, IgM). If any of the results are positive, prompt referral to a hematologist and bone marrow biopsy are paramount.³

The diagnosis of PG remains elusive, as no validated clinical or pathological criteria exist. Histopathologic evaluation may be nonspecific and variable depending on the subtype. Biopsy results for classic ulcerative PG may reveal a neutrophilic infiltrate with leukocytoclasia. Bullous PG may include subepidermal hemorrhagic bullae. Notably, bullous PG appears histologically similar to the superficial bullous variant of Sweet syndrome.

Sweet syndrome (also known as acute febrile neutrophilic dermatosis) is a type of neutrophilic dermatosis characterized by fever, neutrophilia, and the sudden onset of tender erythematous lesions. Variations include idiopathic, subcutaneous, and bullous Sweet syndrome, which present as plaques, nodules, or bullae, respectively.⁴ Similar to PG, Sweet syndrome can manifest in patients with hematologic malignancies. Both PG and Sweet syndrome are thought to exist along a continuum and can be considered intersecting diagnoses in the setting of leukemia or other hematologic malignancies.⁵ There have been reports of the coexistence of distinct PG and Sweet syndrome lesions on a single patient, further supporting the belief that these entities share a common pathologic mechanism.⁶ Sweet syndrome also commonly can be associated with upper respiratory infections; pregnancy; and medications, with culprits including granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, azathioprine, vemurafenib, and isotretinoin.⁷

Other differential diagnoses include brown recluse spider bite, bullous fixed drug eruption (FDE), and necrotizing fasciitis (NF). Venom from the brown recluse spider (Loxosceles reclusa) can trigger toxin-mediated hemolysis, complement-mediated erythrocyte destruction, and basement membrane zone degradation due to the synergistic effects of the toxin’s sphingomyelinase D and protease content.⁸ The inciting bite is painless. After 8 hours, the site becomes painful and pruritic and presents with peripheral erythema and central pallor. After 24 hours, the lesion blisters. The blister ruptures within 3 to 4 days, resulting in eschar formation with the subsequent development of an indurated blue ulcer with a stellate center. Ulcers can take months to heal.⁹ Based on the clinical findings in our patient, this diagnosis was less likely.

Fixed drug eruption is a localized cutaneous reaction that manifests in fixed locations minutes to days after exposure to medications such as trimethoprimsulfamethoxazole, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, salicylates, and oral contraceptives. Commonly affected areas include the hands, legs, genitals, and trunk. Lesions initially present as well-demarcated, erythematous to violaceous, round plaques. A rarer variant manifesting as bullae also has been described. Careful consideration of the patient’s history and physical examination findings is sufficient for establishing this diagnosis; however, a punch biopsy can provide clarity. Histopathology reveals a lichenoid tissue reaction with dyskeratosis, broad epidermal necrosis, and damage to the stratum basalis. A lymphocytic perivascular infiltrate also may appear in the dermis.¹⁰ Both the clinical findings and histopathology of our case were not characteristic of FDE.

Necrotizing fasciitis is a fulminant, life-threatening, soft-tissue infection precipitated by polymicrobial flora. Early recognition of NF is difficult, as in its early stages it can mimic cellulitis. As the infection takes its course, necrosis can extend from the skin and into the subcutaneous tissue. Patients also develop fever, leukocytosis, and signs of sepsis. Histopathology demonstrates neutrophilic infiltration with bacterial invasion as well as necrosis of the superficial fascia and subepidermal edema.¹¹ Pyoderma gangrenosum previously has been reported to mimic NF; however, lack of responsiveness to antibiotic therapy would favor a diagnosis of PG over NF.¹²

Treatment of PG is driven by the extent of cutaneous involvement. In mild cases, wound care and topical therapy with corticosteroids and tacrolimus may suffice. Severe cases necessitate systemic therapy with oral corticosteroids or cyclosporine; biologic therapy also may play a role in treatment.⁴ In patients with hematologic malignancy, chemotherapy alone may partially or completely resolve the lesion; however, systemic corticosteroids commonly are included in management.³

The Diagnosis: Bullous Pyoderma Gangrenosum

A bone marrow biopsy revealed 60% myeloblasts, leading to a diagnosis of acute myeloid leukemia (AML). A biopsy obtained from the edge of the bullous plaque demonstrated a dense dermal neutrophilic infiltrate with extravasated erythrocytes (Figure). Fite, Gram, and Grocott-Gomori methenamine-silver staining failed to reveal infectious organisms. Tissue and blood cultures were negative. Given the pathologic findings, clinical presentation including recent diagnosis of AML, and exclusion of other underlying disease processes including infection, the diagnosis of bullous pyoderma gangrenosum (PG) was made. The lesion improved with systemic steroids and treatment of the underlying AML with fludarabine and venetoclax chemotherapy.

First recognized in 1916 by French dermatologist Louis Brocq, MD, PG is a sterile neutrophilic dermatosis that predominantly affects women older than 50 years.^1,2 This disorder can develop idiopathically; secondary to trauma; or in association with systemic diseases such as inflammatory bowel disease, rheumatoid arthritis, and hematologic malignancies. The pathogenesis of PG remains unclear; however, overexpression of inflammatory cytokines may mediate its development by stimulating T cells and promoting neutrophilic chemotaxis.³

Pyoderma gangrenosum classically presents as a rapidly enlarging ulcer with cribriform scarring but manifests variably. Four variants of the disorder exist: classic ulcerative, pustular, bullous, and vegetative PG. Ulcerative PG is the most common variant. Bullous PG is associated with hematologic malignancies such as primary myelofibrosis, myelodysplastic disease, and AML. In these patients, hematologic malignancy often exists prior to the development of PG and portends a poorer prognosis. This association underscores the importance of timely diagnosis and thorough hematologic evaluation by obtaining a complete blood cell count with differential, peripheral smear, serum protein electrophoresis with immunofixation, and quantitative immunoglobulins (IgA, IgG, IgM). If any of the results are positive, prompt referral to a hematologist and bone marrow biopsy are paramount.³

The diagnosis of PG remains elusive, as no validated clinical or pathological criteria exist. Histopathologic evaluation may be nonspecific and variable depending on the subtype. Biopsy results for classic ulcerative PG may reveal a neutrophilic infiltrate with leukocytoclasia. Bullous PG may include subepidermal hemorrhagic bullae. Notably, bullous PG appears histologically similar to the superficial bullous variant of Sweet syndrome.

Sweet syndrome (also known as acute febrile neutrophilic dermatosis) is a type of neutrophilic dermatosis characterized by fever, neutrophilia, and the sudden onset of tender erythematous lesions. Variations include idiopathic, subcutaneous, and bullous Sweet syndrome, which present as plaques, nodules, or bullae, respectively.⁴ Similar to PG, Sweet syndrome can manifest in patients with hematologic malignancies. Both PG and Sweet syndrome are thought to exist along a continuum and can be considered intersecting diagnoses in the setting of leukemia or other hematologic malignancies.⁵ There have been reports of the coexistence of distinct PG and Sweet syndrome lesions on a single patient, further supporting the belief that these entities share a common pathologic mechanism.⁶ Sweet syndrome also commonly can be associated with upper respiratory infections; pregnancy; and medications, with culprits including granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, azathioprine, vemurafenib, and isotretinoin.⁷

Other differential diagnoses include brown recluse spider bite, bullous fixed drug eruption (FDE), and necrotizing fasciitis (NF). Venom from the brown recluse spider (Loxosceles reclusa) can trigger toxin-mediated hemolysis, complement-mediated erythrocyte destruction, and basement membrane zone degradation due to the synergistic effects of the toxin’s sphingomyelinase D and protease content.⁸ The inciting bite is painless. After 8 hours, the site becomes painful and pruritic and presents with peripheral erythema and central pallor. After 24 hours, the lesion blisters. The blister ruptures within 3 to 4 days, resulting in eschar formation with the subsequent development of an indurated blue ulcer with a stellate center. Ulcers can take months to heal.⁹ Based on the clinical findings in our patient, this diagnosis was less likely.

Fixed drug eruption is a localized cutaneous reaction that manifests in fixed locations minutes to days after exposure to medications such as trimethoprimsulfamethoxazole, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, salicylates, and oral contraceptives. Commonly affected areas include the hands, legs, genitals, and trunk. Lesions initially present as well-demarcated, erythematous to violaceous, round plaques. A rarer variant manifesting as bullae also has been described. Careful consideration of the patient’s history and physical examination findings is sufficient for establishing this diagnosis; however, a punch biopsy can provide clarity. Histopathology reveals a lichenoid tissue reaction with dyskeratosis, broad epidermal necrosis, and damage to the stratum basalis. A lymphocytic perivascular infiltrate also may appear in the dermis.¹⁰ Both the clinical findings and histopathology of our case were not characteristic of FDE.

Necrotizing fasciitis is a fulminant, life-threatening, soft-tissue infection precipitated by polymicrobial flora. Early recognition of NF is difficult, as in its early stages it can mimic cellulitis. As the infection takes its course, necrosis can extend from the skin and into the subcutaneous tissue. Patients also develop fever, leukocytosis, and signs of sepsis. Histopathology demonstrates neutrophilic infiltration with bacterial invasion as well as necrosis of the superficial fascia and subepidermal edema.¹¹ Pyoderma gangrenosum previously has been reported to mimic NF; however, lack of responsiveness to antibiotic therapy would favor a diagnosis of PG over NF.¹²

Treatment of PG is driven by the extent of cutaneous involvement. In mild cases, wound care and topical therapy with corticosteroids and tacrolimus may suffice. Severe cases necessitate systemic therapy with oral corticosteroids or cyclosporine; biologic therapy also may play a role in treatment.⁴ In patients with hematologic malignancy, chemotherapy alone may partially or completely resolve the lesion; however, systemic corticosteroids commonly are included in management.³

The Diagnosis: Bullous Pyoderma Gangrenosum

A bone marrow biopsy revealed 60% myeloblasts, leading to a diagnosis of acute myeloid leukemia (AML). A biopsy obtained from the edge of the bullous plaque demonstrated a dense dermal neutrophilic infiltrate with extravasated erythrocytes (Figure). Fite, Gram, and Grocott-Gomori methenamine-silver staining failed to reveal infectious organisms. Tissue and blood cultures were negative. Given the pathologic findings, clinical presentation including recent diagnosis of AML, and exclusion of other underlying disease processes including infection, the diagnosis of bullous pyoderma gangrenosum (PG) was made. The lesion improved with systemic steroids and treatment of the underlying AML with fludarabine and venetoclax chemotherapy.

First recognized in 1916 by French dermatologist Louis Brocq, MD, PG is a sterile neutrophilic dermatosis that predominantly affects women older than 50 years.^1,2 This disorder can develop idiopathically; secondary to trauma; or in association with systemic diseases such as inflammatory bowel disease, rheumatoid arthritis, and hematologic malignancies. The pathogenesis of PG remains unclear; however, overexpression of inflammatory cytokines may mediate its development by stimulating T cells and promoting neutrophilic chemotaxis.³

Pyoderma gangrenosum classically presents as a rapidly enlarging ulcer with cribriform scarring but manifests variably. Four variants of the disorder exist: classic ulcerative, pustular, bullous, and vegetative PG. Ulcerative PG is the most common variant. Bullous PG is associated with hematologic malignancies such as primary myelofibrosis, myelodysplastic disease, and AML. In these patients, hematologic malignancy often exists prior to the development of PG and portends a poorer prognosis. This association underscores the importance of timely diagnosis and thorough hematologic evaluation by obtaining a complete blood cell count with differential, peripheral smear, serum protein electrophoresis with immunofixation, and quantitative immunoglobulins (IgA, IgG, IgM). If any of the results are positive, prompt referral to a hematologist and bone marrow biopsy are paramount.³

The diagnosis of PG remains elusive, as no validated clinical or pathological criteria exist. Histopathologic evaluation may be nonspecific and variable depending on the subtype. Biopsy results for classic ulcerative PG may reveal a neutrophilic infiltrate with leukocytoclasia. Bullous PG may include subepidermal hemorrhagic bullae. Notably, bullous PG appears histologically similar to the superficial bullous variant of Sweet syndrome.

Sweet syndrome (also known as acute febrile neutrophilic dermatosis) is a type of neutrophilic dermatosis characterized by fever, neutrophilia, and the sudden onset of tender erythematous lesions. Variations include idiopathic, subcutaneous, and bullous Sweet syndrome, which present as plaques, nodules, or bullae, respectively.⁴ Similar to PG, Sweet syndrome can manifest in patients with hematologic malignancies. Both PG and Sweet syndrome are thought to exist along a continuum and can be considered intersecting diagnoses in the setting of leukemia or other hematologic malignancies.⁵ There have been reports of the coexistence of distinct PG and Sweet syndrome lesions on a single patient, further supporting the belief that these entities share a common pathologic mechanism.⁶ Sweet syndrome also commonly can be associated with upper respiratory infections; pregnancy; and medications, with culprits including granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, azathioprine, vemurafenib, and isotretinoin.⁷

Other differential diagnoses include brown recluse spider bite, bullous fixed drug eruption (FDE), and necrotizing fasciitis (NF). Venom from the brown recluse spider (Loxosceles reclusa) can trigger toxin-mediated hemolysis, complement-mediated erythrocyte destruction, and basement membrane zone degradation due to the synergistic effects of the toxin’s sphingomyelinase D and protease content.⁸ The inciting bite is painless. After 8 hours, the site becomes painful and pruritic and presents with peripheral erythema and central pallor. After 24 hours, the lesion blisters. The blister ruptures within 3 to 4 days, resulting in eschar formation with the subsequent development of an indurated blue ulcer with a stellate center. Ulcers can take months to heal.⁹ Based on the clinical findings in our patient, this diagnosis was less likely.

Fixed drug eruption is a localized cutaneous reaction that manifests in fixed locations minutes to days after exposure to medications such as trimethoprimsulfamethoxazole, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, salicylates, and oral contraceptives. Commonly affected areas include the hands, legs, genitals, and trunk. Lesions initially present as well-demarcated, erythematous to violaceous, round plaques. A rarer variant manifesting as bullae also has been described. Careful consideration of the patient’s history and physical examination findings is sufficient for establishing this diagnosis; however, a punch biopsy can provide clarity. Histopathology reveals a lichenoid tissue reaction with dyskeratosis, broad epidermal necrosis, and damage to the stratum basalis. A lymphocytic perivascular infiltrate also may appear in the dermis.¹⁰ Both the clinical findings and histopathology of our case were not characteristic of FDE.

Necrotizing fasciitis is a fulminant, life-threatening, soft-tissue infection precipitated by polymicrobial flora. Early recognition of NF is difficult, as in its early stages it can mimic cellulitis. As the infection takes its course, necrosis can extend from the skin and into the subcutaneous tissue. Patients also develop fever, leukocytosis, and signs of sepsis. Histopathology demonstrates neutrophilic infiltration with bacterial invasion as well as necrosis of the superficial fascia and subepidermal edema.¹¹ Pyoderma gangrenosum previously has been reported to mimic NF; however, lack of responsiveness to antibiotic therapy would favor a diagnosis of PG over NF.¹²

Treatment of PG is driven by the extent of cutaneous involvement. In mild cases, wound care and topical therapy with corticosteroids and tacrolimus may suffice. Severe cases necessitate systemic therapy with oral corticosteroids or cyclosporine; biologic therapy also may play a role in treatment.⁴ In patients with hematologic malignancy, chemotherapy alone may partially or completely resolve the lesion; however, systemic corticosteroids commonly are included in management.³

To the Editor:

Iododerma is a rare dermatologic condition caused by exposure to iodinated contrast media, oral iodine suspensions, or topical povidone-iodine that can manifest as eruptive acneform lesions.^1-3

A 27-year-old woman in septic shock presented for worsening facial lesions that showed no improvement on broad-spectrum antibiotics, antifungals, and antivirals. She initially presented to an outside hospital with abdominal pain and underwent computed tomography (CT) with intravenous (IV) iodinated contrast; 24 hours after this imaging study, the family reported the appearance of “explosive acne overnight.” The lesions first appeared as vegetative and acneform ulcerations on the face. A second abdominal CT scan with IV contrast was performed 4 days after the initial scan, given the concern for spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. Hours after the second study, the lesions progressed to involve the buccal mucosae, tongue, mucosal airway, and distal arms and legs. She became progressively disoriented and developed an altered mentation over the course of the following week. Due to progressive facial edema, she required intubation 5 days after the second CT scan.

The patient had a medical history of end-stage renal disease secondary to crescenteric glomerulonephritis on peritoneal dialysis. Physical examination revealed numerous beefy-red, heaped-up, weepy, crusted nodules clustered on the face (Figure 1) and a few newer bullous-appearing lesions on the hands and feet. She had similar lesions involving the buccal mucosae and tongue with substantial facial edema. Infectious workup was notable for a positive skin culture growing methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus. All blood and tissue cultures as well as serologies for fungal and viral etiologies were negative. A tissue biopsy revealed necrosis with a neutrophilic infiltrate with mixed cell inflammation (Figure 2), and direct immunofluorescence was negative.

The patient initially was thought to be septic due to viral or bacterial infection. She was transferred from an outside hospital 7 days after the initial appearance of the acneform lesions, having already received IV contrast on 2 occasions within the first 48 hours of illness. Infectious disease was consulted and initiated broad-spectrum antiviral, antimicrobial, and antifungal therapy with acyclovir, linezolid, meropenem, and later micafungin without improvement. The diagnosis of iododerma ultimately was established based on the patient’s elevated urinary iodine levels with preceding iodine exposure in the context of renal failure. The preferential involvement of sebaceous areas and pathology findings were supportive of this diagnosis. Aggressive supportive measures including respiratory support, IV fluids, and dialysis were initiated. Topical iodine solutions, iodine-containing medications, and additional contrast subsequently were avoided. Despite these supportive measures, the patient died within 48 hours of admission from acute respiratory failure. Her autopsy attributed “septic complications of multifocal ulcerative cutaneous disease” as the anatomic cause of death.

Iododerma is an extremely rare neutrophilic dermatosis. The proposed mechanism of action involves a cell-mediated hypersensitivity reaction to iodine with induction of neutrophil degranulation.² There have been documented cases with exposure to oral potassium iodide supplements, amiodarone, topical povidone-iodine, and IV iodinated contrast material.^1-3 Iododerma typically presents 1 to 3 days after exposure to iodine. The most common source is IV radiocontrast. Diagnosis is based on the clinical presentation including acneform to vegetative nodular or bullous eruptions involving sebaceous areas in the context of recent iodine exposure. Elevated urinary iodine levels and histologic findings of neutrophilic infiltrate of the dermis support the diagnosis.^3,4

Although there have been reported cases of iododerma in patients with normal renal function, patients with renal failure are much more susceptible due to the decreased clearance of iodine.⁵ The plasma half-life of radiocontrast is 23 hours in patients with end-stage renal disease vs 2 hours in patients with normal kidney function.³ Dosage adjustments for renal impairment have not been well studied, and no specific guidelines exist for the prevention of iododerma in patients with renal failure.

The first step in treating iododerma is to remove the offending iodine-containing agent. In most cases, cutaneous lesions resolve in 4 to 6 weeks after discontinuation of the source of iodine; however, there have been reported fatalities in the literature secondary to pulmonary edema in patients with iododerma.^6,7 Despite the rarity and diagnostically challenging nature of iododerma, early recognition of this disease is crucial. Although our patient showed symptoms of iododerma after 1 dose of radiocontrast, she was not diagnosed at that time and received a second imaging study with contrast less than 48 hours later. These 2 consecutive exposures to iodine as well as the delayed diagnosis unfortunately resulted in rapid clinical deterioration.

The mainstay of therapy for iododerma includes avoidance of iodine-containing materials as soon as the diagnosis is suspected as well as supportive care. Patients have been successfully treated with systemic corticosteroids, with the addition of cyclosporine and hemodialysis in severe cases.³ Patients with a history of iododerma are advised to avoid iodine in their diet, in topical preparations, and in future imaging studies.⁸

To the Editor:

Iododerma is a rare dermatologic condition caused by exposure to iodinated contrast media, oral iodine suspensions, or topical povidone-iodine that can manifest as eruptive acneform lesions.^1-3

A 27-year-old woman in septic shock presented for worsening facial lesions that showed no improvement on broad-spectrum antibiotics, antifungals, and antivirals. She initially presented to an outside hospital with abdominal pain and underwent computed tomography (CT) with intravenous (IV) iodinated contrast; 24 hours after this imaging study, the family reported the appearance of “explosive acne overnight.” The lesions first appeared as vegetative and acneform ulcerations on the face. A second abdominal CT scan with IV contrast was performed 4 days after the initial scan, given the concern for spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. Hours after the second study, the lesions progressed to involve the buccal mucosae, tongue, mucosal airway, and distal arms and legs. She became progressively disoriented and developed an altered mentation over the course of the following week. Due to progressive facial edema, she required intubation 5 days after the second CT scan.

The patient had a medical history of end-stage renal disease secondary to crescenteric glomerulonephritis on peritoneal dialysis. Physical examination revealed numerous beefy-red, heaped-up, weepy, crusted nodules clustered on the face (Figure 1) and a few newer bullous-appearing lesions on the hands and feet. She had similar lesions involving the buccal mucosae and tongue with substantial facial edema. Infectious workup was notable for a positive skin culture growing methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus. All blood and tissue cultures as well as serologies for fungal and viral etiologies were negative. A tissue biopsy revealed necrosis with a neutrophilic infiltrate with mixed cell inflammation (Figure 2), and direct immunofluorescence was negative.

The patient initially was thought to be septic due to viral or bacterial infection. She was transferred from an outside hospital 7 days after the initial appearance of the acneform lesions, having already received IV contrast on 2 occasions within the first 48 hours of illness. Infectious disease was consulted and initiated broad-spectrum antiviral, antimicrobial, and antifungal therapy with acyclovir, linezolid, meropenem, and later micafungin without improvement. The diagnosis of iododerma ultimately was established based on the patient’s elevated urinary iodine levels with preceding iodine exposure in the context of renal failure. The preferential involvement of sebaceous areas and pathology findings were supportive of this diagnosis. Aggressive supportive measures including respiratory support, IV fluids, and dialysis were initiated. Topical iodine solutions, iodine-containing medications, and additional contrast subsequently were avoided. Despite these supportive measures, the patient died within 48 hours of admission from acute respiratory failure. Her autopsy attributed “septic complications of multifocal ulcerative cutaneous disease” as the anatomic cause of death.

Iododerma is an extremely rare neutrophilic dermatosis. The proposed mechanism of action involves a cell-mediated hypersensitivity reaction to iodine with induction of neutrophil degranulation.² There have been documented cases with exposure to oral potassium iodide supplements, amiodarone, topical povidone-iodine, and IV iodinated contrast material.^1-3 Iododerma typically presents 1 to 3 days after exposure to iodine. The most common source is IV radiocontrast. Diagnosis is based on the clinical presentation including acneform to vegetative nodular or bullous eruptions involving sebaceous areas in the context of recent iodine exposure. Elevated urinary iodine levels and histologic findings of neutrophilic infiltrate of the dermis support the diagnosis.^3,4

Although there have been reported cases of iododerma in patients with normal renal function, patients with renal failure are much more susceptible due to the decreased clearance of iodine.⁵ The plasma half-life of radiocontrast is 23 hours in patients with end-stage renal disease vs 2 hours in patients with normal kidney function.³ Dosage adjustments for renal impairment have not been well studied, and no specific guidelines exist for the prevention of iododerma in patients with renal failure.

The first step in treating iododerma is to remove the offending iodine-containing agent. In most cases, cutaneous lesions resolve in 4 to 6 weeks after discontinuation of the source of iodine; however, there have been reported fatalities in the literature secondary to pulmonary edema in patients with iododerma.^6,7 Despite the rarity and diagnostically challenging nature of iododerma, early recognition of this disease is crucial. Although our patient showed symptoms of iododerma after 1 dose of radiocontrast, she was not diagnosed at that time and received a second imaging study with contrast less than 48 hours later. These 2 consecutive exposures to iodine as well as the delayed diagnosis unfortunately resulted in rapid clinical deterioration.

The mainstay of therapy for iododerma includes avoidance of iodine-containing materials as soon as the diagnosis is suspected as well as supportive care. Patients have been successfully treated with systemic corticosteroids, with the addition of cyclosporine and hemodialysis in severe cases.³ Patients with a history of iododerma are advised to avoid iodine in their diet, in topical preparations, and in future imaging studies.⁸

To the Editor:

Iododerma is a rare dermatologic condition caused by exposure to iodinated contrast media, oral iodine suspensions, or topical povidone-iodine that can manifest as eruptive acneform lesions.^1-3

A 27-year-old woman in septic shock presented for worsening facial lesions that showed no improvement on broad-spectrum antibiotics, antifungals, and antivirals. She initially presented to an outside hospital with abdominal pain and underwent computed tomography (CT) with intravenous (IV) iodinated contrast; 24 hours after this imaging study, the family reported the appearance of “explosive acne overnight.” The lesions first appeared as vegetative and acneform ulcerations on the face. A second abdominal CT scan with IV contrast was performed 4 days after the initial scan, given the concern for spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. Hours after the second study, the lesions progressed to involve the buccal mucosae, tongue, mucosal airway, and distal arms and legs. She became progressively disoriented and developed an altered mentation over the course of the following week. Due to progressive facial edema, she required intubation 5 days after the second CT scan.

The patient had a medical history of end-stage renal disease secondary to crescenteric glomerulonephritis on peritoneal dialysis. Physical examination revealed numerous beefy-red, heaped-up, weepy, crusted nodules clustered on the face (Figure 1) and a few newer bullous-appearing lesions on the hands and feet. She had similar lesions involving the buccal mucosae and tongue with substantial facial edema. Infectious workup was notable for a positive skin culture growing methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus. All blood and tissue cultures as well as serologies for fungal and viral etiologies were negative. A tissue biopsy revealed necrosis with a neutrophilic infiltrate with mixed cell inflammation (Figure 2), and direct immunofluorescence was negative.

The patient initially was thought to be septic due to viral or bacterial infection. She was transferred from an outside hospital 7 days after the initial appearance of the acneform lesions, having already received IV contrast on 2 occasions within the first 48 hours of illness. Infectious disease was consulted and initiated broad-spectrum antiviral, antimicrobial, and antifungal therapy with acyclovir, linezolid, meropenem, and later micafungin without improvement. The diagnosis of iododerma ultimately was established based on the patient’s elevated urinary iodine levels with preceding iodine exposure in the context of renal failure. The preferential involvement of sebaceous areas and pathology findings were supportive of this diagnosis. Aggressive supportive measures including respiratory support, IV fluids, and dialysis were initiated. Topical iodine solutions, iodine-containing medications, and additional contrast subsequently were avoided. Despite these supportive measures, the patient died within 48 hours of admission from acute respiratory failure. Her autopsy attributed “septic complications of multifocal ulcerative cutaneous disease” as the anatomic cause of death.

Iododerma is an extremely rare neutrophilic dermatosis. The proposed mechanism of action involves a cell-mediated hypersensitivity reaction to iodine with induction of neutrophil degranulation.² There have been documented cases with exposure to oral potassium iodide supplements, amiodarone, topical povidone-iodine, and IV iodinated contrast material.^1-3 Iododerma typically presents 1 to 3 days after exposure to iodine. The most common source is IV radiocontrast. Diagnosis is based on the clinical presentation including acneform to vegetative nodular or bullous eruptions involving sebaceous areas in the context of recent iodine exposure. Elevated urinary iodine levels and histologic findings of neutrophilic infiltrate of the dermis support the diagnosis.^3,4

Although there have been reported cases of iododerma in patients with normal renal function, patients with renal failure are much more susceptible due to the decreased clearance of iodine.⁵ The plasma half-life of radiocontrast is 23 hours in patients with end-stage renal disease vs 2 hours in patients with normal kidney function.³ Dosage adjustments for renal impairment have not been well studied, and no specific guidelines exist for the prevention of iododerma in patients with renal failure.

The first step in treating iododerma is to remove the offending iodine-containing agent. In most cases, cutaneous lesions resolve in 4 to 6 weeks after discontinuation of the source of iodine; however, there have been reported fatalities in the literature secondary to pulmonary edema in patients with iododerma.^6,7 Despite the rarity and diagnostically challenging nature of iododerma, early recognition of this disease is crucial. Although our patient showed symptoms of iododerma after 1 dose of radiocontrast, she was not diagnosed at that time and received a second imaging study with contrast less than 48 hours later. These 2 consecutive exposures to iodine as well as the delayed diagnosis unfortunately resulted in rapid clinical deterioration.

The mainstay of therapy for iododerma includes avoidance of iodine-containing materials as soon as the diagnosis is suspected as well as supportive care. Patients have been successfully treated with systemic corticosteroids, with the addition of cyclosporine and hemodialysis in severe cases.³ Patients with a history of iododerma are advised to avoid iodine in their diet, in topical preparations, and in future imaging studies.⁸

To the Editor:

Several mole and skin tag removal products are available online and over the counter (OTC).¹ Patients concerned with the cosmetic appearance of nevi may use these products as a do-it-yourself alternative to surgical removal. However, these products have the potential to cause harm.² Beyond the cosmetic adverse effects of skin necrosis and scar formation, these products can mask premalignant and malignant skin lesions.² Herein, we describe a patient with a family history of melanoma who developed facial and chest ulcerations with necrosis after applying an OTC mole and skin tag removal product.

A 45-year-old woman with fair skin presented to a clinic with multiple superficial ulcerations measuring approximately 1 cm in diameter with necrotic black bases and erythematous rims on the face, right side of the upper chest, and left earlobe after using the Ariella Mole Corrector and Skin Tag Remover and Repair Lotion Set, an OTC mole and skin tag removal product. The patient reported using the product 24 hours prior for the cosmetic removal of multiple nevi. After applying the product, she observed that it “immediately melted [her] skin” and the areas where the product was applied “turned black.” She reported that the product was applied to the skin for no longer than 30 seconds, after which she developed the necrotic lesions (Figure). After removing the product, she applied an OTC ointment containing bacitracin, neomycin, and polymyxin B to the lesions.

The patient had no history of nonmelanoma skin cancers or atypical nevi. She had a family history of melanoma in her mother and maternal uncle. The treatment plan was aimed primarily at reducing scar formation. We advised frequent application of petroleum-based ointments for moisture and overlying silicone scar tape to protect the area from photodamage and promote wound healing. We further advocated for sun protection and the use of a physical sunscreen on the lesions as they healed. We discussed potential laser-based scar revision options in the future.

With more than 180 reviews on Amazon and almost 70% of these reviews made within the month prior to compiling this manuscript, the Ariella Mole Corrector and Skin Tag Remover and Repair Lotion Set appeared to be popular; however, the product currently is unavailable on Amazon. Testimonials and before-and-after pictures advertising the product show an all-natural, safe, and effective method as an alternative to surgical removal of skin tags and nevi. The product website claims that skin tags and moles will “fall off naturally within 7 to 10 days” and the product can be used for “almost all skin types.” Users are instructed to apply the removal product and wipe it off when the skin surrounding the mole becomes swollen. The product kit also includes a repair lotion, which claims to help heal the skin after scab formation and scar development.

The ingredients listed on the product packaging are salicylic acid 25%, Melaleuca alternifolia (tea tree) leaf oil, propylene glycol, hydroxyethylcellulose, and alcohol. Salicylic acid 25% is a superficial peeling agent that penetrates the epidermis to the dermoepidermal junction. The potential side effects are mild and include superficial desquamation and epidermolysis.³ The Ariella Mole Corrector and Skin Tag Remover and Repair Lotion Set is not regulated by the US Food and Drug Administration and may contain variable concentrations of salicylic acid and other unknown compounds. Higher concentrations of salicylic acid can penetrate the full thickness of the epidermis into the papillary dermis, which can result in postinflammatory pigmentation, superficial infection, scarring, and deeper desquamation and epidermolysis.³ The product website advertises the use of only natural ingredients and an “advanced blend of concentrated natural ingredients contributing a broad spectrum of healing properties” in the formula. Although these claims are attractive to patients seeking alternatives to surgical approaches to nevi removal, the unfounded claims and unregulated ingredients may pose a threat to unsuspecting consumers.

Other OTC and “all-natural” mole removal products previously have been reported to cause harm.²Sanguinaria canadensis, also known as bloodroot, contains an alkaloid compound (sanguinarine) that has been shown to induce mitochondrial apoptosis and activation of Bcl-2 proteins in keratinocytes.⁴ Some products, such as Wart & Mole Vanish cream, may claim not to contain bloodroot specifically. However, sanguinarine can be extracted from other plants and may be listed as Argemone mexicana, Chelidonium majus, or Macleaya cordata in the ingredients list.⁵ The use of alternative medicine products such as black or yellow salve for the removal of suspected skin cancers also is not recommended because these escharotic treatments have not been proven safe or effective, and the manufacturing process for these compounds is unregulated.^6,7 Self-treatment with alternative remedies for nevi or suspected skin cancers has been associated with progression of disease and even death due to metastatic spread.²

Self-removal of moles is concerning because the nevi are masked by necrotic lesions and can no longer be assessed by dermoscopy or histopathology. Furthermore, the compounds in the Ariella Mole Corrector and Skin Tag Remover and Repair Lotion Set may have unknown effects on the transformation of premalignant cells. They also may mask an underlying process for which clinically proven and effective treatments such as cryotherapy, prescription topical agents, and surgical excision are warranted. Awareness of this product and similar products is important to educate patients on the harmful effects they may cause.

To the Editor:

Several mole and skin tag removal products are available online and over the counter (OTC).¹ Patients concerned with the cosmetic appearance of nevi may use these products as a do-it-yourself alternative to surgical removal. However, these products have the potential to cause harm.² Beyond the cosmetic adverse effects of skin necrosis and scar formation, these products can mask premalignant and malignant skin lesions.² Herein, we describe a patient with a family history of melanoma who developed facial and chest ulcerations with necrosis after applying an OTC mole and skin tag removal product.

A 45-year-old woman with fair skin presented to a clinic with multiple superficial ulcerations measuring approximately 1 cm in diameter with necrotic black bases and erythematous rims on the face, right side of the upper chest, and left earlobe after using the Ariella Mole Corrector and Skin Tag Remover and Repair Lotion Set, an OTC mole and skin tag removal product. The patient reported using the product 24 hours prior for the cosmetic removal of multiple nevi. After applying the product, she observed that it “immediately melted [her] skin” and the areas where the product was applied “turned black.” She reported that the product was applied to the skin for no longer than 30 seconds, after which she developed the necrotic lesions (Figure). After removing the product, she applied an OTC ointment containing bacitracin, neomycin, and polymyxin B to the lesions.

The patient had no history of nonmelanoma skin cancers or atypical nevi. She had a family history of melanoma in her mother and maternal uncle. The treatment plan was aimed primarily at reducing scar formation. We advised frequent application of petroleum-based ointments for moisture and overlying silicone scar tape to protect the area from photodamage and promote wound healing. We further advocated for sun protection and the use of a physical sunscreen on the lesions as they healed. We discussed potential laser-based scar revision options in the future.

With more than 180 reviews on Amazon and almost 70% of these reviews made within the month prior to compiling this manuscript, the Ariella Mole Corrector and Skin Tag Remover and Repair Lotion Set appeared to be popular; however, the product currently is unavailable on Amazon. Testimonials and before-and-after pictures advertising the product show an all-natural, safe, and effective method as an alternative to surgical removal of skin tags and nevi. The product website claims that skin tags and moles will “fall off naturally within 7 to 10 days” and the product can be used for “almost all skin types.” Users are instructed to apply the removal product and wipe it off when the skin surrounding the mole becomes swollen. The product kit also includes a repair lotion, which claims to help heal the skin after scab formation and scar development.

The ingredients listed on the product packaging are salicylic acid 25%, Melaleuca alternifolia (tea tree) leaf oil, propylene glycol, hydroxyethylcellulose, and alcohol. Salicylic acid 25% is a superficial peeling agent that penetrates the epidermis to the dermoepidermal junction. The potential side effects are mild and include superficial desquamation and epidermolysis.³ The Ariella Mole Corrector and Skin Tag Remover and Repair Lotion Set is not regulated by the US Food and Drug Administration and may contain variable concentrations of salicylic acid and other unknown compounds. Higher concentrations of salicylic acid can penetrate the full thickness of the epidermis into the papillary dermis, which can result in postinflammatory pigmentation, superficial infection, scarring, and deeper desquamation and epidermolysis.³ The product website advertises the use of only natural ingredients and an “advanced blend of concentrated natural ingredients contributing a broad spectrum of healing properties” in the formula. Although these claims are attractive to patients seeking alternatives to surgical approaches to nevi removal, the unfounded claims and unregulated ingredients may pose a threat to unsuspecting consumers.

Other OTC and “all-natural” mole removal products previously have been reported to cause harm.²Sanguinaria canadensis, also known as bloodroot, contains an alkaloid compound (sanguinarine) that has been shown to induce mitochondrial apoptosis and activation of Bcl-2 proteins in keratinocytes.⁴ Some products, such as Wart & Mole Vanish cream, may claim not to contain bloodroot specifically. However, sanguinarine can be extracted from other plants and may be listed as Argemone mexicana, Chelidonium majus, or Macleaya cordata in the ingredients list.⁵ The use of alternative medicine products such as black or yellow salve for the removal of suspected skin cancers also is not recommended because these escharotic treatments have not been proven safe or effective, and the manufacturing process for these compounds is unregulated.^6,7 Self-treatment with alternative remedies for nevi or suspected skin cancers has been associated with progression of disease and even death due to metastatic spread.²

Self-removal of moles is concerning because the nevi are masked by necrotic lesions and can no longer be assessed by dermoscopy or histopathology. Furthermore, the compounds in the Ariella Mole Corrector and Skin Tag Remover and Repair Lotion Set may have unknown effects on the transformation of premalignant cells. They also may mask an underlying process for which clinically proven and effective treatments such as cryotherapy, prescription topical agents, and surgical excision are warranted. Awareness of this product and similar products is important to educate patients on the harmful effects they may cause.

To the Editor:

Several mole and skin tag removal products are available online and over the counter (OTC).¹ Patients concerned with the cosmetic appearance of nevi may use these products as a do-it-yourself alternative to surgical removal. However, these products have the potential to cause harm.² Beyond the cosmetic adverse effects of skin necrosis and scar formation, these products can mask premalignant and malignant skin lesions.² Herein, we describe a patient with a family history of melanoma who developed facial and chest ulcerations with necrosis after applying an OTC mole and skin tag removal product.

A 45-year-old woman with fair skin presented to a clinic with multiple superficial ulcerations measuring approximately 1 cm in diameter with necrotic black bases and erythematous rims on the face, right side of the upper chest, and left earlobe after using the Ariella Mole Corrector and Skin Tag Remover and Repair Lotion Set, an OTC mole and skin tag removal product. The patient reported using the product 24 hours prior for the cosmetic removal of multiple nevi. After applying the product, she observed that it “immediately melted [her] skin” and the areas where the product was applied “turned black.” She reported that the product was applied to the skin for no longer than 30 seconds, after which she developed the necrotic lesions (Figure). After removing the product, she applied an OTC ointment containing bacitracin, neomycin, and polymyxin B to the lesions.

The patient had no history of nonmelanoma skin cancers or atypical nevi. She had a family history of melanoma in her mother and maternal uncle. The treatment plan was aimed primarily at reducing scar formation. We advised frequent application of petroleum-based ointments for moisture and overlying silicone scar tape to protect the area from photodamage and promote wound healing. We further advocated for sun protection and the use of a physical sunscreen on the lesions as they healed. We discussed potential laser-based scar revision options in the future.

With more than 180 reviews on Amazon and almost 70% of these reviews made within the month prior to compiling this manuscript, the Ariella Mole Corrector and Skin Tag Remover and Repair Lotion Set appeared to be popular; however, the product currently is unavailable on Amazon. Testimonials and before-and-after pictures advertising the product show an all-natural, safe, and effective method as an alternative to surgical removal of skin tags and nevi. The product website claims that skin tags and moles will “fall off naturally within 7 to 10 days” and the product can be used for “almost all skin types.” Users are instructed to apply the removal product and wipe it off when the skin surrounding the mole becomes swollen. The product kit also includes a repair lotion, which claims to help heal the skin after scab formation and scar development.

The ingredients listed on the product packaging are salicylic acid 25%, Melaleuca alternifolia (tea tree) leaf oil, propylene glycol, hydroxyethylcellulose, and alcohol. Salicylic acid 25% is a superficial peeling agent that penetrates the epidermis to the dermoepidermal junction. The potential side effects are mild and include superficial desquamation and epidermolysis.³ The Ariella Mole Corrector and Skin Tag Remover and Repair Lotion Set is not regulated by the US Food and Drug Administration and may contain variable concentrations of salicylic acid and other unknown compounds. Higher concentrations of salicylic acid can penetrate the full thickness of the epidermis into the papillary dermis, which can result in postinflammatory pigmentation, superficial infection, scarring, and deeper desquamation and epidermolysis.³ The product website advertises the use of only natural ingredients and an “advanced blend of concentrated natural ingredients contributing a broad spectrum of healing properties” in the formula. Although these claims are attractive to patients seeking alternatives to surgical approaches to nevi removal, the unfounded claims and unregulated ingredients may pose a threat to unsuspecting consumers.

Other OTC and “all-natural” mole removal products previously have been reported to cause harm.²Sanguinaria canadensis, also known as bloodroot, contains an alkaloid compound (sanguinarine) that has been shown to induce mitochondrial apoptosis and activation of Bcl-2 proteins in keratinocytes.⁴ Some products, such as Wart & Mole Vanish cream, may claim not to contain bloodroot specifically. However, sanguinarine can be extracted from other plants and may be listed as Argemone mexicana, Chelidonium majus, or Macleaya cordata in the ingredients list.⁵ The use of alternative medicine products such as black or yellow salve for the removal of suspected skin cancers also is not recommended because these escharotic treatments have not been proven safe or effective, and the manufacturing process for these compounds is unregulated.^6,7 Self-treatment with alternative remedies for nevi or suspected skin cancers has been associated with progression of disease and even death due to metastatic spread.²

Self-removal of moles is concerning because the nevi are masked by necrotic lesions and can no longer be assessed by dermoscopy or histopathology. Furthermore, the compounds in the Ariella Mole Corrector and Skin Tag Remover and Repair Lotion Set may have unknown effects on the transformation of premalignant cells. They also may mask an underlying process for which clinically proven and effective treatments such as cryotherapy, prescription topical agents, and surgical excision are warranted. Awareness of this product and similar products is important to educate patients on the harmful effects they may cause.

To the Editor:

Zinc chloride originally was used by Dr. Frederic Mohs as an in vivo tissue fixative during the early phases of Mohs micrographic surgery.¹ Although this technique has since been replaced with fresh frozen tissue fixation, zinc chloride still is found in topical preparations that are readily available to patients. Specifically, black salve describes variably composed topical preparations that share the common ingredients zinc chloride and Sanguinaria canadensis (bloodroot).² Patients self-treat with these unregulated compounds, but the majority do not have their lesions evaluated by a clinician prior to use and are unaware of the potential risks.^3-5 Products containing zinc chloride and S canadensis that are not marketed as black salve present a new problem for the dermatology community.

A 73-year-old man presented to our dermatology clinic for the focused evaluation of scaly lesions on the face and nose. At this visit, it was recommended he undergo a total-body skin examination for skin cancer screening given his age and substantial photodamage.

Physical examination revealed more than 20 superficial, 3- to 10-mm scars predominantly over the trunk. One scar over the left mid-back had a large, 1.2-cm peripheral rim of dark brown pigment that was clinically concerning for a melanocytic neoplasm. Shave removal of this lesion was performed. Histologic examination showed melanoma in situ with a central scar. The central scar spanned the depth of the dermis, and the melanocytic component was absent in this area, raising the question if prior biopsy or treatment had been performed on this lesion. During a discussion of the results with the patient, he was questioned about prior biopsy or treatment of this lesion. He reported prior use of a topical all-natural cream containing zinc chloride and S canadensis that he purchased online, which he had used to treat this lesion as well as numerous presumed moles.

The trend of at-home mole removal products containing the traditional ingredients in black salve seems to be one of rapidly shifting product availability as well as a departure from marketing items as black salve. Many prior black salve products are no longer available.⁴ The product that our patient used is a topical cream marketed as a treatment for moles and skin tags.⁶ Despite not being marketed as black salve, it does contain zinc chloride and S canadensis. The product’s website highlights these ingredients as being a safe and effective treatment for mole removal, with claims that the product will remove the mole or skin tag without irritating the surrounding skin and can be safely used anywhere on the body without scarring.⁶ A Google search at the time this article was written using the term skin tag remover revealed similar products marketed as all-natural “skin tag remover and mole corrector creams.” These similar products containing zinc chloride and S canadensis were available in the United States at the time of our initial research but have since been removed and only are available outside of the United States.⁷

Prior reports of melanoma masked by zinc chloride and S canadensis described the use of topical agents marketed as black salve. This new wave of products marketed as all-natural creams makes continued education on the available products and their associated risks necessary for clinicians. The lack of US Food and Drug Administration oversight for these products and their frequent introduction and discontinuation in the market makes keeping updated even more challenging. Because many patients self-treat without prior evaluation by a health care provider, treatment with these products can lead to a delay in diagnosis or inaccurate staging due to scars from the chemical destruction, both of which may have occurred in our patient.⁵ Until these products become regulated by the US Food and Drug Administration, it is imperative that clinicians continue to educate their patients on the lack of documented benefit and clear risks of their use as well as remain up-to-date on product trends.

To the Editor:

Zinc chloride originally was used by Dr. Frederic Mohs as an in vivo tissue fixative during the early phases of Mohs micrographic surgery.¹ Although this technique has since been replaced with fresh frozen tissue fixation, zinc chloride still is found in topical preparations that are readily available to patients. Specifically, black salve describes variably composed topical preparations that share the common ingredients zinc chloride and Sanguinaria canadensis (bloodroot).² Patients self-treat with these unregulated compounds, but the majority do not have their lesions evaluated by a clinician prior to use and are unaware of the potential risks.^3-5 Products containing zinc chloride and S canadensis that are not marketed as black salve present a new problem for the dermatology community.

A 73-year-old man presented to our dermatology clinic for the focused evaluation of scaly lesions on the face and nose. At this visit, it was recommended he undergo a total-body skin examination for skin cancer screening given his age and substantial photodamage.

Physical examination revealed more than 20 superficial, 3- to 10-mm scars predominantly over the trunk. One scar over the left mid-back had a large, 1.2-cm peripheral rim of dark brown pigment that was clinically concerning for a melanocytic neoplasm. Shave removal of this lesion was performed. Histologic examination showed melanoma in situ with a central scar. The central scar spanned the depth of the dermis, and the melanocytic component was absent in this area, raising the question if prior biopsy or treatment had been performed on this lesion. During a discussion of the results with the patient, he was questioned about prior biopsy or treatment of this lesion. He reported prior use of a topical all-natural cream containing zinc chloride and S canadensis that he purchased online, which he had used to treat this lesion as well as numerous presumed moles.

The trend of at-home mole removal products containing the traditional ingredients in black salve seems to be one of rapidly shifting product availability as well as a departure from marketing items as black salve. Many prior black salve products are no longer available.⁴ The product that our patient used is a topical cream marketed as a treatment for moles and skin tags.⁶ Despite not being marketed as black salve, it does contain zinc chloride and S canadensis. The product’s website highlights these ingredients as being a safe and effective treatment for mole removal, with claims that the product will remove the mole or skin tag without irritating the surrounding skin and can be safely used anywhere on the body without scarring.⁶ A Google search at the time this article was written using the term skin tag remover revealed similar products marketed as all-natural “skin tag remover and mole corrector creams.” These similar products containing zinc chloride and S canadensis were available in the United States at the time of our initial research but have since been removed and only are available outside of the United States.⁷

Prior reports of melanoma masked by zinc chloride and S canadensis described the use of topical agents marketed as black salve. This new wave of products marketed as all-natural creams makes continued education on the available products and their associated risks necessary for clinicians. The lack of US Food and Drug Administration oversight for these products and their frequent introduction and discontinuation in the market makes keeping updated even more challenging. Because many patients self-treat without prior evaluation by a health care provider, treatment with these products can lead to a delay in diagnosis or inaccurate staging due to scars from the chemical destruction, both of which may have occurred in our patient.⁵ Until these products become regulated by the US Food and Drug Administration, it is imperative that clinicians continue to educate their patients on the lack of documented benefit and clear risks of their use as well as remain up-to-date on product trends.

To the Editor:

Zinc chloride originally was used by Dr. Frederic Mohs as an in vivo tissue fixative during the early phases of Mohs micrographic surgery.¹ Although this technique has since been replaced with fresh frozen tissue fixation, zinc chloride still is found in topical preparations that are readily available to patients. Specifically, black salve describes variably composed topical preparations that share the common ingredients zinc chloride and Sanguinaria canadensis (bloodroot).² Patients self-treat with these unregulated compounds, but the majority do not have their lesions evaluated by a clinician prior to use and are unaware of the potential risks.^3-5 Products containing zinc chloride and S canadensis that are not marketed as black salve present a new problem for the dermatology community.

A 73-year-old man presented to our dermatology clinic for the focused evaluation of scaly lesions on the face and nose. At this visit, it was recommended he undergo a total-body skin examination for skin cancer screening given his age and substantial photodamage.

Physical examination revealed more than 20 superficial, 3- to 10-mm scars predominantly over the trunk. One scar over the left mid-back had a large, 1.2-cm peripheral rim of dark brown pigment that was clinically concerning for a melanocytic neoplasm. Shave removal of this lesion was performed. Histologic examination showed melanoma in situ with a central scar. The central scar spanned the depth of the dermis, and the melanocytic component was absent in this area, raising the question if prior biopsy or treatment had been performed on this lesion. During a discussion of the results with the patient, he was questioned about prior biopsy or treatment of this lesion. He reported prior use of a topical all-natural cream containing zinc chloride and S canadensis that he purchased online, which he had used to treat this lesion as well as numerous presumed moles.

The trend of at-home mole removal products containing the traditional ingredients in black salve seems to be one of rapidly shifting product availability as well as a departure from marketing items as black salve. Many prior black salve products are no longer available.⁴ The product that our patient used is a topical cream marketed as a treatment for moles and skin tags.⁶ Despite not being marketed as black salve, it does contain zinc chloride and S canadensis. The product’s website highlights these ingredients as being a safe and effective treatment for mole removal, with claims that the product will remove the mole or skin tag without irritating the surrounding skin and can be safely used anywhere on the body without scarring.⁶ A Google search at the time this article was written using the term skin tag remover revealed similar products marketed as all-natural “skin tag remover and mole corrector creams.” These similar products containing zinc chloride and S canadensis were available in the United States at the time of our initial research but have since been removed and only are available outside of the United States.⁷

Prior reports of melanoma masked by zinc chloride and S canadensis described the use of topical agents marketed as black salve. This new wave of products marketed as all-natural creams makes continued education on the available products and their associated risks necessary for clinicians. The lack of US Food and Drug Administration oversight for these products and their frequent introduction and discontinuation in the market makes keeping updated even more challenging. Because many patients self-treat without prior evaluation by a health care provider, treatment with these products can lead to a delay in diagnosis or inaccurate staging due to scars from the chemical destruction, both of which may have occurred in our patient.⁵ Until these products become regulated by the US Food and Drug Administration, it is imperative that clinicians continue to educate their patients on the lack of documented benefit and clear risks of their use as well as remain up-to-date on product trends.

Cirrhosis is the most common cause of ascites in the United States. In patients with compensated cirrhosis, the 10-year probability of developing ascites is 47%. Developing ascites portends a poor prognosis. Fifteen percent of patients who receive this diagnosis die within 1 year, and 44% within 5 years.¹ First-line treatment of cirrhotic ascites consists of dietary sodium restriction and diuretic therapy. Refractory ascites is defined as ascites that cannot be easily mobilized despite adhering to a dietary sodium intake of ≤ 2 g daily and daily doses of spironolactone 400 mg and furosemide 160 mg.

Patients who cannot tolerate diuretics because of complications are defined as having diuretic intractable ascites. Diuretic-induced complications include hepatic encephalopathy, renal impairment, hyponatremia, and hypo- or hyperkalemia. Because these patients are either unresponsive to or intolerant of diuretics, second-line treatments, such as regular large-volume paracentesis (LVP) or the insertion of a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) are needed to manage their ascites. These patients also should be considered for liver transplantation unless there is a contraindication.²

Serial LVP has been shown to be safe and effective in controlling refractory ascites.³ TIPS will decrease the need for repeated LVP in patients with refractory LVP. However, given the uncertainty as to the effect of TIPS creation on survival and the increased risk of encephalopathy, the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) recommends that TIPS should be used only in those patients who cannot tolerate repeated LVP.⁴ Repeated LVP also has been shown to be safe and effective in controlling malignant ascites.^5,6

LVP can be done in different health care settings. These include the emergency department (ED), interventional radiology suite, inpatient bed, or an outpatient paracentesis clinic. There have been various descriptions of outpatient paracentesis clinics. Reports from the United Kingdom have revealed that paracenteses in these outpatient clinics can be performed safely by nurse practitioners or a liver specialist nurse, that these clinics are highly rated by the patients, and are cost effective.^7-10 Gashau and colleagues describe a clinic in Great Britain run by gastroenterology (GI) fellows using an endoscopy suite.¹¹ A nurse practitioner outpatient paracentesis clinic in the US has been described as well.¹² Grabau and colleagues present a clinic run by GI endoscopy assistants (licensed practical nurses) using a dedicated paracentesis room in the endoscopy suite.¹³ Cheng and colleagues describe an outpatient paracentesis clinic in a radiology department run by a single advanced practitioner with assistance from an ultrasound technologist.¹⁴ Wang and colleagues present outpatient paracenteses in an outpatient transitional care program by a physician or an advanced practitioner supervised by a physician.¹⁵ Sehgal and colleagues describe (in abstract) the creation of a hospitalist-run paracentesis clinic.¹⁶

Traditionally, at Veterans Affairs Pittsburgh Healthcare System (VAPHS) in Pennsylvania, if a patient needed LVP, they were admitted to a medicine bed. LVP is not done in the ED, and interventional radiology cannot accommodate the number of patients requiring LVP because of their caseload. The procedure was done by an attending hospitalist or medical residents under the supervision of an attending hospitalist. To improve patient flow and decrease the number of patients using inpatients beds, we created an outpatient paracentesis clinic in 2014. Here, we present the logistics of the clinic, patient demographics, the amount of ascites removed, and the time required to remove the ascites. As part of ongoing quality assurance, we keep track of any complications and report these as well.

Methods

The setting of the outpatient paracentesis clinic is a room in the VAPHS endoscopy suite. The clinic operates 1 half-day per week with up to 3 patients receiving a paracentesis. We use the existing logistics in the endoscopy suite. There are 1 or 2 registered nurses (RNs) who assist the physician performing the paracentesis. The proceduralist is an academic hospitalist who at the time is not on service with residents. The patients are referred to the clinic by the ED, hepatology clinic, palliative care, primary care physicians, or at hospital discharge. In the clinic consult, patients are required to have at least an estimated 3 L of ascites and systolic blood pressure (SBP) ≥ 90. The patients can eat and take medications the morning of the procedure except diuretics. Patients are checked in to the endoscopy suite and a peripheral IV is placed. Blood tests, such as a complete blood count and coagulation studies, are not checked routinely since the AASLD guidelines state that routine prophylactic use of fresh frozen plasma or platelets before paracentesis is not recommended because bleeding is uncommon.³ The proceduralist can order blood work at their discretion.

After the procedure, patients are brought to the recovery area of the endoscopy suite and discharged. The patients are discharged usually within 15 to 30 minutes from arriving in the recovery area after it is assured that the SBP is within 10% of their baseline. Patient follow-up in the outpatient paracentesis clinic is determined by the proceduralist. Most patients need regularly scheduled paracenteses depending on how quickly they reaccumulate ascites. If a patient does not need a regularly scheduled paracentesis, the proceduralist ensures that the appropriate outpatient clinic visit has been scheduled or requested.

Procedure

Informed consent is obtained, and a time-out is performed before each paracentesis. The patient is attached to a cardiac monitor and pulse oximetry as per the endoscopy suite protocol. The proceduralist does a point-of-care ultrasound to find the optimal site and marks the site of puncture. The skin around the marked site is prepared with 3 chlorhexidine gluconate 2%/isopropyl alcohol 70% applicators. A fenestrated drape is used to form a sterile field. The Avanos Paracentesis Kit is routinely used for LVP at VAPHS. Local anesthesia with 1% lidocaine is used with a 25-gauge × 1-inch needle. Deeper anesthesia is obtained with 1% lidocaine, using a 22-gauge × 1.5-inch needle, injecting and aspirating while advancing the needle until ascites is aspirated.

A 15-gauge 3.3-inch Caldwell cannula with an inner needle is inserted into the peritoneal cavity and ascites is aspirated into a syringe. The inner needle is then removed, and the Caldwell cannula is left in the peritoneal cavity and tubing with a roller clamp is attached to the cannula. The tubing is then attached to a 1-L vacuum suction bottle by the RN. We use the CareFusion PleurX drainage bottle. The proceduralist maintains sterility and assures the cannula remains in place. The RN changes the drainage bottles after being filled with 1 L of ascites.

We drain as much ascites as possible until drainage stops on its own. The cannula is then removed, and pressure is held with a gauze pad. An adhesive bandage is then placed over the site. Consistent with AASLD guideline, 25 g of IV albumin 25% is infused for every 3 L of albumin removed provided > 5 L of ascites is removed.³ The albumin is infused during the procedure and not after to limit the time of the procedure. A sample of ascites is sent for cell count with differential and culture.

Results

Between March 2014 and May 2020, 506 paracenteses were performed on 82 patients. The mean age was 66.4 years, and 80 of 82 patients were male. The etiology of the ascites is presented in the Table. Twelve percent of the patients had concomitant hepatocellular carcinoma. Data on the amount of ascites removed were available for all patients, but data on the amount of time it took to do the LVP were available for 392 of 506 paracenteses. The mean volume removed was 7.9 L (range, 0.2-22.9 L), and the mean time of the procedure was 33.3 minutes. The time of the procedure was the time difference between entering and leaving the procedure room. This does not include IV placement or the recovery area time.

There were 5 episodes of postprocedure hypotension that required IV fluid or admission. In all these events, the patients had received the appropriate amount of IV albumin. Three patients required admission, and 1 patient required IV fluid postparacentesis on 2 occasions and then was discharged home. One abdominal wall hematoma occurred. Two patients with umbilical hernias developed incarceration after the paracentesis; both required surgical repair. There were 3 episodes of leakage at the paracentesis site; a skin adhesive was used in 2 cases, and sutures were applied in the other. There were no deaths.

Possible Infections

Ascitic fluid infection is a risk for patients needing paracentesis. Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) is a bacterial infection of ascites in the absence of a focal contiguous source. The polymorphonuclear leukocyte (PMN) count in the ascites is ≥ 250 cells/mm³ in the presence of a single organism on culture. Culture-negative neutrocytic ascites (CNNA) is an ascitic fluid PMN count ≥ 250 cells/mm³ in the absence of culture growth obtained before the administration of antibiotics. Monomicrobial nonneutrocytic bacterascites (MNB) is an ascitic fluid PMN count < 250 cells/mm³ with growth of a single organism on culture.¹⁷ There was one occasion where a patient developed symptomatic CNNA 3 days after having a therapeutic paracentesis in the clinic at which time his ascites had a normal neutrophil count and a negative culture. He presented with abdominal pain and fever 3 days later, and a diagnostic paracentesis was done in the ED. He was treated as though he had SBP and did well.

Ascites cell count and culture are routinely sent in the clinic, and 1 case of asymptomatic SBP and 3 cases of asymptomatic ascitic fluid infection variants were diagnosed. The patient with SBP grew vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium in his ascites. Two cases were CNNA. These patients were admitted to the hospital and treated with IV antibiotics. One case of MNB occurred that grew Escherichia coli. The patient refused to return to the hospital for IV antibiotics and was treated with a 5-day course of oral ciprofloxacin.

Discussion

We describe an academic hospitalist–run outpatient LVP clinic where large volumes of ascites are removed efficiently and safely. The only other description of a hospitalist-run paracentesis clinic was in abstract form.¹⁶ Without the clinic, the patients would have been admitted to the hospital to get an LVP. Based on VAPHS data from fiscal year 2021, the average cost per day of a nontelemetry medicine admission was $3394. Over 74 months, 506 admissions were prevented, which averages to 82 admissions prevented per year, an approximate annual cost savings of $278,308 in the last fiscal year alone.

Possible Complications

The complications we report are congruent with those reported in the literature. Runyon reported that the rate of an abdominal wall hematoma requiring blood transfusion was 0.9%, and the rate of an abdominal wall hematoma not requiring blood transfusion was also 0.9%.¹⁸ We had 1 patient who developed an abdominal wall hematoma (0.2% of paracenteses). This patient required 4 units of packed red blood cells. The incidence of ascitic fluid leakage after paracentesis has been reported to be between 0.4% and 2.4%.¹² We had 3 episodes of leakage (0.6% of paracenteses). The Z-track technique has been purported to decrease postparacentesis leakage.² This involves creating a pathway that is nonlinear when anesthetizing the soft tissues and inserting the paracentesis needle. The Z-track technique was not used in any of the paracenteses in our clinic.

Postparacentesis hypotension has been reported to be 0.4% to 1.8%.^12,14 We report 5 episodes of hypotension (0.1% of paracenteses) of which 3 patients were admitted to the hospital. Interestingly, 4 of the 5 patients were on β-blockers. Serste and colleagues reported in a crossover trial that paracentesis-induced circulatory dysfunction (PICD) decreased from 80 to 10% when propranolol was discontinued.¹⁹ PICD is characterized by reduction of effective arterial blood volume with subsequent activation of vasoconstrictor and antinatriuretic factors that can cause rapid ascites recurrence rate, development of dilutional hyponatremia, hepatorenal syndrome, and increased mortality. IV albumin is given during LVP to prevent PICD. Discontinuing unnecessary antihypertensive medications, especially β-blockers, may mitigate postparacentesis hypotension. In a study of 515 paracenteses, De Gottardi and colleagues reported a 0.2% rate of iatrogenic percutaneous infection of ascites.²⁰ We had 1 patient return 3 days after LVP with fever, abdominal pain, and neutrocytic ascites. His blood and ascites cultures were negative. The etiology of his infected ascites could have been either a spontaneously developed CNNA infection or an iatrogenic percutaneous infection of ascites.

Two cases of incarceration and strangulation of umbilical hernias postparacentesis that required emergent surgical intervention were unanticipated complications. Incarceration of an existing umbilical hernia postparacentesis is an uncommon but serious complication of LVP described in the past in numerous case reports but whose incidence is otherwise unknown.^21-26 The fluid and pressure shifts before and after LVP are likely responsible for the hernia incarceration. When ascites is present, the umbilical hernia ring is kept patent by the pressure of the ascitic fluid, and the decrease in tension after removal of ascites may lead to decreased size of the hernia ring and trapping of contents in the hernia sac.^25-27 In most reported cases, symptoms and recognition of the incarcerated hernia have occurred within 2 days of the index paracentesis procedure. Most cases were in patients who required serial paracenteses for management of ascites and had relatively regular LVPs.

In both cases, the patients had regular visits for paracentesis, and incarceration occurred 0.5 hours postprocedure, in 1 case and 6 hours in the other. Umbilical hernias are common in patients with cirrhosis, with the prevalence approaching 20%.²⁸ The management of umbilical hernias in patients with ascites is complex and optimal guideline-based management involves elective repair when ascites is adequately controlled to prevent recurrence, with consideration of TIPS at the time of repair.³ However, patients enrolled in outpatient paracentesis clinics are unlikely to have adequate ascites control to be considered optimized for an elective repair. In addition, given the number of serial procedures that they require, it is not surprising that they may be at risk for complications that are otherwise thought to be rare. Although incarceration and strangulation of umbilical hernia is thought to be a rare complication of LVP, patients should be informed of this potential complication so that they are aware to seek medical attention should they develop signs or symptoms.

Guidelines

There are no guidelines on how much ascites can be removed and how quickly the ascites can be removed during LVP. The goal of a therapeutic paracentesis is to remove as much fluid as possible, and there are no limits on the amount that can be removed safely.¹ Concerning paracentesis flow rates, Elsabaawy and colleagues showed that ascites flow rate does not correlate with PICD. They looked at 3 groups with ascites flow rates of 80 mL/min, 180 mL/min and 270 mL/min.²⁹ We had data on the time in the procedure room in 77% of our procedures. Given our average amount of ascites removed (7.9 L) and average time in the procedure room (33.3 minutes), the average flow rate from our clinic was at least 237 mL/min (although the flow rate was likely higher because the average time from needle inserted to needle removed was < 33.3 minutes). Both the mean duration of LVP and the mean volume of ascites removed in an outpatient paracentesis clinic were reported in only 1 other study. In a study of 1100 patients, Grabau and colleagues reported the mean duration, defined as the time between when the patient entered and exited the procedure room (the same time period we reported) as 97 minutes and the mean volume of ascites removed as 8.7 L.¹³

The AASLD guidelines state that patients undergoing serial outpatient LVP should be tested only for cell count and differential without sending a bacterial culture. The reason given is that false positives may exceed true positives from ascites bacterial culture results in asymptomatic patients.³ Mohan and Venkataraman reported a 0.4% rate of SBP, 1.4% rate of CNNA, and 0.7% rate of MNB in asymptomatic patients undergoing LVP in an outpatient clinic.³⁰ We had a 0.2% rate of SBP, 0.4% rate of CNNA, and 0.2% rate of MNB. Given the low rates of SBP in outpatient paracenteses clinics, we will adopt the AASLD suggestions to only send an ascites cell count and not a culture in asymptomatic patients. Noteworthy, our patient with asymptomatic SBP grew vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium, which was resistant to standard SBP antibiotic therapy. However, if ascites culture was not sent, he would have been treated with antibiotics for CNNA, and if he developed symptoms, he would have had a repeat paracentesis with cell count and culture sent.

Training

In 2015, faculty at VAPHS and the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine designed a Mastering Paracentesis for Medical Residents course based on current guidelines on the management of ascites and published procedural guides. The course is mandatory for all postgraduate year-1 internal medicine residents and begins with 2 hours of didactic and simulation-based training with an ultrasound-compatible paracentesis mannequin. In the 3 weeks following simulation-based training, residents rotate through our outpatient paracentesis clinic and perform between 1 and 3 abdominal paracentesis procedures, receiving as-needed coaching and postprocedure feedback from faculty. Since the course’s inception, more than 150 internal medicine residents have been trained in paracentesis through our clinic.

Conclusions

We present a description of a successful outpatient paracentesis clinic at our hospital run by academic hospitalists. The clinic was created to decrease the number of admissions for LVP. We were fortunate to be able to use the GI endoscopy suite and their resources as the clinic setting. To create outpatient LVP clinics at other institutions, administrative support is essential. In conclusion, we have shown that an outpatient paracentesis clinic run by academic hospitalists can safely and quickly remove large volumes of ascites.

Cirrhosis is the most common cause of ascites in the United States. In patients with compensated cirrhosis, the 10-year probability of developing ascites is 47%. Developing ascites portends a poor prognosis. Fifteen percent of patients who receive this diagnosis die within 1 year, and 44% within 5 years.¹ First-line treatment of cirrhotic ascites consists of dietary sodium restriction and diuretic therapy. Refractory ascites is defined as ascites that cannot be easily mobilized despite adhering to a dietary sodium intake of ≤ 2 g daily and daily doses of spironolactone 400 mg and furosemide 160 mg.

Patients who cannot tolerate diuretics because of complications are defined as having diuretic intractable ascites. Diuretic-induced complications include hepatic encephalopathy, renal impairment, hyponatremia, and hypo- or hyperkalemia. Because these patients are either unresponsive to or intolerant of diuretics, second-line treatments, such as regular large-volume paracentesis (LVP) or the insertion of a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) are needed to manage their ascites. These patients also should be considered for liver transplantation unless there is a contraindication.²

Serial LVP has been shown to be safe and effective in controlling refractory ascites.³ TIPS will decrease the need for repeated LVP in patients with refractory LVP. However, given the uncertainty as to the effect of TIPS creation on survival and the increased risk of encephalopathy, the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) recommends that TIPS should be used only in those patients who cannot tolerate repeated LVP.⁴ Repeated LVP also has been shown to be safe and effective in controlling malignant ascites.^5,6

LVP can be done in different health care settings. These include the emergency department (ED), interventional radiology suite, inpatient bed, or an outpatient paracentesis clinic. There have been various descriptions of outpatient paracentesis clinics. Reports from the United Kingdom have revealed that paracenteses in these outpatient clinics can be performed safely by nurse practitioners or a liver specialist nurse, that these clinics are highly rated by the patients, and are cost effective.^7-10 Gashau and colleagues describe a clinic in Great Britain run by gastroenterology (GI) fellows using an endoscopy suite.¹¹ A nurse practitioner outpatient paracentesis clinic in the US has been described as well.¹² Grabau and colleagues present a clinic run by GI endoscopy assistants (licensed practical nurses) using a dedicated paracentesis room in the endoscopy suite.¹³ Cheng and colleagues describe an outpatient paracentesis clinic in a radiology department run by a single advanced practitioner with assistance from an ultrasound technologist.¹⁴ Wang and colleagues present outpatient paracenteses in an outpatient transitional care program by a physician or an advanced practitioner supervised by a physician.¹⁵ Sehgal and colleagues describe (in abstract) the creation of a hospitalist-run paracentesis clinic.¹⁶

Traditionally, at Veterans Affairs Pittsburgh Healthcare System (VAPHS) in Pennsylvania, if a patient needed LVP, they were admitted to a medicine bed. LVP is not done in the ED, and interventional radiology cannot accommodate the number of patients requiring LVP because of their caseload. The procedure was done by an attending hospitalist or medical residents under the supervision of an attending hospitalist. To improve patient flow and decrease the number of patients using inpatients beds, we created an outpatient paracentesis clinic in 2014. Here, we present the logistics of the clinic, patient demographics, the amount of ascites removed, and the time required to remove the ascites. As part of ongoing quality assurance, we keep track of any complications and report these as well.

Methods

The setting of the outpatient paracentesis clinic is a room in the VAPHS endoscopy suite. The clinic operates 1 half-day per week with up to 3 patients receiving a paracentesis. We use the existing logistics in the endoscopy suite. There are 1 or 2 registered nurses (RNs) who assist the physician performing the paracentesis. The proceduralist is an academic hospitalist who at the time is not on service with residents. The patients are referred to the clinic by the ED, hepatology clinic, palliative care, primary care physicians, or at hospital discharge. In the clinic consult, patients are required to have at least an estimated 3 L of ascites and systolic blood pressure (SBP) ≥ 90. The patients can eat and take medications the morning of the procedure except diuretics. Patients are checked in to the endoscopy suite and a peripheral IV is placed. Blood tests, such as a complete blood count and coagulation studies, are not checked routinely since the AASLD guidelines state that routine prophylactic use of fresh frozen plasma or platelets before paracentesis is not recommended because bleeding is uncommon.³ The proceduralist can order blood work at their discretion.

After the procedure, patients are brought to the recovery area of the endoscopy suite and discharged. The patients are discharged usually within 15 to 30 minutes from arriving in the recovery area after it is assured that the SBP is within 10% of their baseline. Patient follow-up in the outpatient paracentesis clinic is determined by the proceduralist. Most patients need regularly scheduled paracenteses depending on how quickly they reaccumulate ascites. If a patient does not need a regularly scheduled paracentesis, the proceduralist ensures that the appropriate outpatient clinic visit has been scheduled or requested.

Procedure

Informed consent is obtained, and a time-out is performed before each paracentesis. The patient is attached to a cardiac monitor and pulse oximetry as per the endoscopy suite protocol. The proceduralist does a point-of-care ultrasound to find the optimal site and marks the site of puncture. The skin around the marked site is prepared with 3 chlorhexidine gluconate 2%/isopropyl alcohol 70% applicators. A fenestrated drape is used to form a sterile field. The Avanos Paracentesis Kit is routinely used for LVP at VAPHS. Local anesthesia with 1% lidocaine is used with a 25-gauge × 1-inch needle. Deeper anesthesia is obtained with 1% lidocaine, using a 22-gauge × 1.5-inch needle, injecting and aspirating while advancing the needle until ascites is aspirated.

A 15-gauge 3.3-inch Caldwell cannula with an inner needle is inserted into the peritoneal cavity and ascites is aspirated into a syringe. The inner needle is then removed, and the Caldwell cannula is left in the peritoneal cavity and tubing with a roller clamp is attached to the cannula. The tubing is then attached to a 1-L vacuum suction bottle by the RN. We use the CareFusion PleurX drainage bottle. The proceduralist maintains sterility and assures the cannula remains in place. The RN changes the drainage bottles after being filled with 1 L of ascites.

We drain as much ascites as possible until drainage stops on its own. The cannula is then removed, and pressure is held with a gauze pad. An adhesive bandage is then placed over the site. Consistent with AASLD guideline, 25 g of IV albumin 25% is infused for every 3 L of albumin removed provided > 5 L of ascites is removed.³ The albumin is infused during the procedure and not after to limit the time of the procedure. A sample of ascites is sent for cell count with differential and culture.

Results

Between March 2014 and May 2020, 506 paracenteses were performed on 82 patients. The mean age was 66.4 years, and 80 of 82 patients were male. The etiology of the ascites is presented in the Table. Twelve percent of the patients had concomitant hepatocellular carcinoma. Data on the amount of ascites removed were available for all patients, but data on the amount of time it took to do the LVP were available for 392 of 506 paracenteses. The mean volume removed was 7.9 L (range, 0.2-22.9 L), and the mean time of the procedure was 33.3 minutes. The time of the procedure was the time difference between entering and leaving the procedure room. This does not include IV placement or the recovery area time.

There were 5 episodes of postprocedure hypotension that required IV fluid or admission. In all these events, the patients had received the appropriate amount of IV albumin. Three patients required admission, and 1 patient required IV fluid postparacentesis on 2 occasions and then was discharged home. One abdominal wall hematoma occurred. Two patients with umbilical hernias developed incarceration after the paracentesis; both required surgical repair. There were 3 episodes of leakage at the paracentesis site; a skin adhesive was used in 2 cases, and sutures were applied in the other. There were no deaths.

Possible Infections

Ascitic fluid infection is a risk for patients needing paracentesis. Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) is a bacterial infection of ascites in the absence of a focal contiguous source. The polymorphonuclear leukocyte (PMN) count in the ascites is ≥ 250 cells/mm³ in the presence of a single organism on culture. Culture-negative neutrocytic ascites (CNNA) is an ascitic fluid PMN count ≥ 250 cells/mm³ in the absence of culture growth obtained before the administration of antibiotics. Monomicrobial nonneutrocytic bacterascites (MNB) is an ascitic fluid PMN count < 250 cells/mm³ with growth of a single organism on culture.¹⁷ There was one occasion where a patient developed symptomatic CNNA 3 days after having a therapeutic paracentesis in the clinic at which time his ascites had a normal neutrophil count and a negative culture. He presented with abdominal pain and fever 3 days later, and a diagnostic paracentesis was done in the ED. He was treated as though he had SBP and did well.

Ascites cell count and culture are routinely sent in the clinic, and 1 case of asymptomatic SBP and 3 cases of asymptomatic ascitic fluid infection variants were diagnosed. The patient with SBP grew vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium in his ascites. Two cases were CNNA. These patients were admitted to the hospital and treated with IV antibiotics. One case of MNB occurred that grew Escherichia coli. The patient refused to return to the hospital for IV antibiotics and was treated with a 5-day course of oral ciprofloxacin.

Discussion

We describe an academic hospitalist–run outpatient LVP clinic where large volumes of ascites are removed efficiently and safely. The only other description of a hospitalist-run paracentesis clinic was in abstract form.¹⁶ Without the clinic, the patients would have been admitted to the hospital to get an LVP. Based on VAPHS data from fiscal year 2021, the average cost per day of a nontelemetry medicine admission was $3394. Over 74 months, 506 admissions were prevented, which averages to 82 admissions prevented per year, an approximate annual cost savings of $278,308 in the last fiscal year alone.

Possible Complications

The complications we report are congruent with those reported in the literature. Runyon reported that the rate of an abdominal wall hematoma requiring blood transfusion was 0.9%, and the rate of an abdominal wall hematoma not requiring blood transfusion was also 0.9%.¹⁸ We had 1 patient who developed an abdominal wall hematoma (0.2% of paracenteses). This patient required 4 units of packed red blood cells. The incidence of ascitic fluid leakage after paracentesis has been reported to be between 0.4% and 2.4%.¹² We had 3 episodes of leakage (0.6% of paracenteses). The Z-track technique has been purported to decrease postparacentesis leakage.² This involves creating a pathway that is nonlinear when anesthetizing the soft tissues and inserting the paracentesis needle. The Z-track technique was not used in any of the paracenteses in our clinic.

Postparacentesis hypotension has been reported to be 0.4% to 1.8%.^12,14 We report 5 episodes of hypotension (0.1% of paracenteses) of which 3 patients were admitted to the hospital. Interestingly, 4 of the 5 patients were on β-blockers. Serste and colleagues reported in a crossover trial that paracentesis-induced circulatory dysfunction (PICD) decreased from 80 to 10% when propranolol was discontinued.¹⁹ PICD is characterized by reduction of effective arterial blood volume with subsequent activation of vasoconstrictor and antinatriuretic factors that can cause rapid ascites recurrence rate, development of dilutional hyponatremia, hepatorenal syndrome, and increased mortality. IV albumin is given during LVP to prevent PICD. Discontinuing unnecessary antihypertensive medications, especially β-blockers, may mitigate postparacentesis hypotension. In a study of 515 paracenteses, De Gottardi and colleagues reported a 0.2% rate of iatrogenic percutaneous infection of ascites.²⁰ We had 1 patient return 3 days after LVP with fever, abdominal pain, and neutrocytic ascites. His blood and ascites cultures were negative. The etiology of his infected ascites could have been either a spontaneously developed CNNA infection or an iatrogenic percutaneous infection of ascites.

Two cases of incarceration and strangulation of umbilical hernias postparacentesis that required emergent surgical intervention were unanticipated complications. Incarceration of an existing umbilical hernia postparacentesis is an uncommon but serious complication of LVP described in the past in numerous case reports but whose incidence is otherwise unknown.^21-26 The fluid and pressure shifts before and after LVP are likely responsible for the hernia incarceration. When ascites is present, the umbilical hernia ring is kept patent by the pressure of the ascitic fluid, and the decrease in tension after removal of ascites may lead to decreased size of the hernia ring and trapping of contents in the hernia sac.^25-27 In most reported cases, symptoms and recognition of the incarcerated hernia have occurred within 2 days of the index paracentesis procedure. Most cases were in patients who required serial paracenteses for management of ascites and had relatively regular LVPs.

In both cases, the patients had regular visits for paracentesis, and incarceration occurred 0.5 hours postprocedure, in 1 case and 6 hours in the other. Umbilical hernias are common in patients with cirrhosis, with the prevalence approaching 20%.²⁸ The management of umbilical hernias in patients with ascites is complex and optimal guideline-based management involves elective repair when ascites is adequately controlled to prevent recurrence, with consideration of TIPS at the time of repair.³ However, patients enrolled in outpatient paracentesis clinics are unlikely to have adequate ascites control to be considered optimized for an elective repair. In addition, given the number of serial procedures that they require, it is not surprising that they may be at risk for complications that are otherwise thought to be rare. Although incarceration and strangulation of umbilical hernia is thought to be a rare complication of LVP, patients should be informed of this potential complication so that they are aware to seek medical attention should they develop signs or symptoms.

Guidelines

There are no guidelines on how much ascites can be removed and how quickly the ascites can be removed during LVP. The goal of a therapeutic paracentesis is to remove as much fluid as possible, and there are no limits on the amount that can be removed safely.¹ Concerning paracentesis flow rates, Elsabaawy and colleagues showed that ascites flow rate does not correlate with PICD. They looked at 3 groups with ascites flow rates of 80 mL/min, 180 mL/min and 270 mL/min.²⁹ We had data on the time in the procedure room in 77% of our procedures. Given our average amount of ascites removed (7.9 L) and average time in the procedure room (33.3 minutes), the average flow rate from our clinic was at least 237 mL/min (although the flow rate was likely higher because the average time from needle inserted to needle removed was < 33.3 minutes). Both the mean duration of LVP and the mean volume of ascites removed in an outpatient paracentesis clinic were reported in only 1 other study. In a study of 1100 patients, Grabau and colleagues reported the mean duration, defined as the time between when the patient entered and exited the procedure room (the same time period we reported) as 97 minutes and the mean volume of ascites removed as 8.7 L.¹³

The AASLD guidelines state that patients undergoing serial outpatient LVP should be tested only for cell count and differential without sending a bacterial culture. The reason given is that false positives may exceed true positives from ascites bacterial culture results in asymptomatic patients.³ Mohan and Venkataraman reported a 0.4% rate of SBP, 1.4% rate of CNNA, and 0.7% rate of MNB in asymptomatic patients undergoing LVP in an outpatient clinic.³⁰ We had a 0.2% rate of SBP, 0.4% rate of CNNA, and 0.2% rate of MNB. Given the low rates of SBP in outpatient paracenteses clinics, we will adopt the AASLD suggestions to only send an ascites cell count and not a culture in asymptomatic patients. Noteworthy, our patient with asymptomatic SBP grew vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium, which was resistant to standard SBP antibiotic therapy. However, if ascites culture was not sent, he would have been treated with antibiotics for CNNA, and if he developed symptoms, he would have had a repeat paracentesis with cell count and culture sent.

Training

In 2015, faculty at VAPHS and the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine designed a Mastering Paracentesis for Medical Residents course based on current guidelines on the management of ascites and published procedural guides. The course is mandatory for all postgraduate year-1 internal medicine residents and begins with 2 hours of didactic and simulation-based training with an ultrasound-compatible paracentesis mannequin. In the 3 weeks following simulation-based training, residents rotate through our outpatient paracentesis clinic and perform between 1 and 3 abdominal paracentesis procedures, receiving as-needed coaching and postprocedure feedback from faculty. Since the course’s inception, more than 150 internal medicine residents have been trained in paracentesis through our clinic.

Conclusions

We present a description of a successful outpatient paracentesis clinic at our hospital run by academic hospitalists. The clinic was created to decrease the number of admissions for LVP. We were fortunate to be able to use the GI endoscopy suite and their resources as the clinic setting. To create outpatient LVP clinics at other institutions, administrative support is essential. In conclusion, we have shown that an outpatient paracentesis clinic run by academic hospitalists can safely and quickly remove large volumes of ascites.

Cirrhosis is the most common cause of ascites in the United States. In patients with compensated cirrhosis, the 10-year probability of developing ascites is 47%. Developing ascites portends a poor prognosis. Fifteen percent of patients who receive this diagnosis die within 1 year, and 44% within 5 years.¹ First-line treatment of cirrhotic ascites consists of dietary sodium restriction and diuretic therapy. Refractory ascites is defined as ascites that cannot be easily mobilized despite adhering to a dietary sodium intake of ≤ 2 g daily and daily doses of spironolactone 400 mg and furosemide 160 mg.

Patients who cannot tolerate diuretics because of complications are defined as having diuretic intractable ascites. Diuretic-induced complications include hepatic encephalopathy, renal impairment, hyponatremia, and hypo- or hyperkalemia. Because these patients are either unresponsive to or intolerant of diuretics, second-line treatments, such as regular large-volume paracentesis (LVP) or the insertion of a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) are needed to manage their ascites. These patients also should be considered for liver transplantation unless there is a contraindication.²

Serial LVP has been shown to be safe and effective in controlling refractory ascites.³ TIPS will decrease the need for repeated LVP in patients with refractory LVP. However, given the uncertainty as to the effect of TIPS creation on survival and the increased risk of encephalopathy, the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) recommends that TIPS should be used only in those patients who cannot tolerate repeated LVP.⁴ Repeated LVP also has been shown to be safe and effective in controlling malignant ascites.^5,6

LVP can be done in different health care settings. These include the emergency department (ED), interventional radiology suite, inpatient bed, or an outpatient paracentesis clinic. There have been various descriptions of outpatient paracentesis clinics. Reports from the United Kingdom have revealed that paracenteses in these outpatient clinics can be performed safely by nurse practitioners or a liver specialist nurse, that these clinics are highly rated by the patients, and are cost effective.^7-10 Gashau and colleagues describe a clinic in Great Britain run by gastroenterology (GI) fellows using an endoscopy suite.¹¹ A nurse practitioner outpatient paracentesis clinic in the US has been described as well.¹² Grabau and colleagues present a clinic run by GI endoscopy assistants (licensed practical nurses) using a dedicated paracentesis room in the endoscopy suite.¹³ Cheng and colleagues describe an outpatient paracentesis clinic in a radiology department run by a single advanced practitioner with assistance from an ultrasound technologist.¹⁴ Wang and colleagues present outpatient paracenteses in an outpatient transitional care program by a physician or an advanced practitioner supervised by a physician.¹⁵ Sehgal and colleagues describe (in abstract) the creation of a hospitalist-run paracentesis clinic.¹⁶

Traditionally, at Veterans Affairs Pittsburgh Healthcare System (VAPHS) in Pennsylvania, if a patient needed LVP, they were admitted to a medicine bed. LVP is not done in the ED, and interventional radiology cannot accommodate the number of patients requiring LVP because of their caseload. The procedure was done by an attending hospitalist or medical residents under the supervision of an attending hospitalist. To improve patient flow and decrease the number of patients using inpatients beds, we created an outpatient paracentesis clinic in 2014. Here, we present the logistics of the clinic, patient demographics, the amount of ascites removed, and the time required to remove the ascites. As part of ongoing quality assurance, we keep track of any complications and report these as well.

Methods

The setting of the outpatient paracentesis clinic is a room in the VAPHS endoscopy suite. The clinic operates 1 half-day per week with up to 3 patients receiving a paracentesis. We use the existing logistics in the endoscopy suite. There are 1 or 2 registered nurses (RNs) who assist the physician performing the paracentesis. The proceduralist is an academic hospitalist who at the time is not on service with residents. The patients are referred to the clinic by the ED, hepatology clinic, palliative care, primary care physicians, or at hospital discharge. In the clinic consult, patients are required to have at least an estimated 3 L of ascites and systolic blood pressure (SBP) ≥ 90. The patients can eat and take medications the morning of the procedure except diuretics. Patients are checked in to the endoscopy suite and a peripheral IV is placed. Blood tests, such as a complete blood count and coagulation studies, are not checked routinely since the AASLD guidelines state that routine prophylactic use of fresh frozen plasma or platelets before paracentesis is not recommended because bleeding is uncommon.³ The proceduralist can order blood work at their discretion.

After the procedure, patients are brought to the recovery area of the endoscopy suite and discharged. The patients are discharged usually within 15 to 30 minutes from arriving in the recovery area after it is assured that the SBP is within 10% of their baseline. Patient follow-up in the outpatient paracentesis clinic is determined by the proceduralist. Most patients need regularly scheduled paracenteses depending on how quickly they reaccumulate ascites. If a patient does not need a regularly scheduled paracentesis, the proceduralist ensures that the appropriate outpatient clinic visit has been scheduled or requested.

Procedure

Informed consent is obtained, and a time-out is performed before each paracentesis. The patient is attached to a cardiac monitor and pulse oximetry as per the endoscopy suite protocol. The proceduralist does a point-of-care ultrasound to find the optimal site and marks the site of puncture. The skin around the marked site is prepared with 3 chlorhexidine gluconate 2%/isopropyl alcohol 70% applicators. A fenestrated drape is used to form a sterile field. The Avanos Paracentesis Kit is routinely used for LVP at VAPHS. Local anesthesia with 1% lidocaine is used with a 25-gauge × 1-inch needle. Deeper anesthesia is obtained with 1% lidocaine, using a 22-gauge × 1.5-inch needle, injecting and aspirating while advancing the needle until ascites is aspirated.

A 15-gauge 3.3-inch Caldwell cannula with an inner needle is inserted into the peritoneal cavity and ascites is aspirated into a syringe. The inner needle is then removed, and the Caldwell cannula is left in the peritoneal cavity and tubing with a roller clamp is attached to the cannula. The tubing is then attached to a 1-L vacuum suction bottle by the RN. We use the CareFusion PleurX drainage bottle. The proceduralist maintains sterility and assures the cannula remains in place. The RN changes the drainage bottles after being filled with 1 L of ascites.

We drain as much ascites as possible until drainage stops on its own. The cannula is then removed, and pressure is held with a gauze pad. An adhesive bandage is then placed over the site. Consistent with AASLD guideline, 25 g of IV albumin 25% is infused for every 3 L of albumin removed provided > 5 L of ascites is removed.³ The albumin is infused during the procedure and not after to limit the time of the procedure. A sample of ascites is sent for cell count with differential and culture.

Results

Between March 2014 and May 2020, 506 paracenteses were performed on 82 patients. The mean age was 66.4 years, and 80 of 82 patients were male. The etiology of the ascites is presented in the Table. Twelve percent of the patients had concomitant hepatocellular carcinoma. Data on the amount of ascites removed were available for all patients, but data on the amount of time it took to do the LVP were available for 392 of 506 paracenteses. The mean volume removed was 7.9 L (range, 0.2-22.9 L), and the mean time of the procedure was 33.3 minutes. The time of the procedure was the time difference between entering and leaving the procedure room. This does not include IV placement or the recovery area time.

There were 5 episodes of postprocedure hypotension that required IV fluid or admission. In all these events, the patients had received the appropriate amount of IV albumin. Three patients required admission, and 1 patient required IV fluid postparacentesis on 2 occasions and then was discharged home. One abdominal wall hematoma occurred. Two patients with umbilical hernias developed incarceration after the paracentesis; both required surgical repair. There were 3 episodes of leakage at the paracentesis site; a skin adhesive was used in 2 cases, and sutures were applied in the other. There were no deaths.

Possible Infections

Ascitic fluid infection is a risk for patients needing paracentesis. Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) is a bacterial infection of ascites in the absence of a focal contiguous source. The polymorphonuclear leukocyte (PMN) count in the ascites is ≥ 250 cells/mm³ in the presence of a single organism on culture. Culture-negative neutrocytic ascites (CNNA) is an ascitic fluid PMN count ≥ 250 cells/mm³ in the absence of culture growth obtained before the administration of antibiotics. Monomicrobial nonneutrocytic bacterascites (MNB) is an ascitic fluid PMN count < 250 cells/mm³ with growth of a single organism on culture.¹⁷ There was one occasion where a patient developed symptomatic CNNA 3 days after having a therapeutic paracentesis in the clinic at which time his ascites had a normal neutrophil count and a negative culture. He presented with abdominal pain and fever 3 days later, and a diagnostic paracentesis was done in the ED. He was treated as though he had SBP and did well.

Ascites cell count and culture are routinely sent in the clinic, and 1 case of asymptomatic SBP and 3 cases of asymptomatic ascitic fluid infection variants were diagnosed. The patient with SBP grew vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium in his ascites. Two cases were CNNA. These patients were admitted to the hospital and treated with IV antibiotics. One case of MNB occurred that grew Escherichia coli. The patient refused to return to the hospital for IV antibiotics and was treated with a 5-day course of oral ciprofloxacin.

Discussion

We describe an academic hospitalist–run outpatient LVP clinic where large volumes of ascites are removed efficiently and safely. The only other description of a hospitalist-run paracentesis clinic was in abstract form.¹⁶ Without the clinic, the patients would have been admitted to the hospital to get an LVP. Based on VAPHS data from fiscal year 2021, the average cost per day of a nontelemetry medicine admission was $3394. Over 74 months, 506 admissions were prevented, which averages to 82 admissions prevented per year, an approximate annual cost savings of $278,308 in the last fiscal year alone.

Possible Complications

The complications we report are congruent with those reported in the literature. Runyon reported that the rate of an abdominal wall hematoma requiring blood transfusion was 0.9%, and the rate of an abdominal wall hematoma not requiring blood transfusion was also 0.9%.¹⁸ We had 1 patient who developed an abdominal wall hematoma (0.2% of paracenteses). This patient required 4 units of packed red blood cells. The incidence of ascitic fluid leakage after paracentesis has been reported to be between 0.4% and 2.4%.¹² We had 3 episodes of leakage (0.6% of paracenteses). The Z-track technique has been purported to decrease postparacentesis leakage.² This involves creating a pathway that is nonlinear when anesthetizing the soft tissues and inserting the paracentesis needle. The Z-track technique was not used in any of the paracenteses in our clinic.

Postparacentesis hypotension has been reported to be 0.4% to 1.8%.^12,14 We report 5 episodes of hypotension (0.1% of paracenteses) of which 3 patients were admitted to the hospital. Interestingly, 4 of the 5 patients were on β-blockers. Serste and colleagues reported in a crossover trial that paracentesis-induced circulatory dysfunction (PICD) decreased from 80 to 10% when propranolol was discontinued.¹⁹ PICD is characterized by reduction of effective arterial blood volume with subsequent activation of vasoconstrictor and antinatriuretic factors that can cause rapid ascites recurrence rate, development of dilutional hyponatremia, hepatorenal syndrome, and increased mortality. IV albumin is given during LVP to prevent PICD. Discontinuing unnecessary antihypertensive medications, especially β-blockers, may mitigate postparacentesis hypotension. In a study of 515 paracenteses, De Gottardi and colleagues reported a 0.2% rate of iatrogenic percutaneous infection of ascites.²⁰ We had 1 patient return 3 days after LVP with fever, abdominal pain, and neutrocytic ascites. His blood and ascites cultures were negative. The etiology of his infected ascites could have been either a spontaneously developed CNNA infection or an iatrogenic percutaneous infection of ascites.

Two cases of incarceration and strangulation of umbilical hernias postparacentesis that required emergent surgical intervention were unanticipated complications. Incarceration of an existing umbilical hernia postparacentesis is an uncommon but serious complication of LVP described in the past in numerous case reports but whose incidence is otherwise unknown.^21-26 The fluid and pressure shifts before and after LVP are likely responsible for the hernia incarceration. When ascites is present, the umbilical hernia ring is kept patent by the pressure of the ascitic fluid, and the decrease in tension after removal of ascites may lead to decreased size of the hernia ring and trapping of contents in the hernia sac.^25-27 In most reported cases, symptoms and recognition of the incarcerated hernia have occurred within 2 days of the index paracentesis procedure. Most cases were in patients who required serial paracenteses for management of ascites and had relatively regular LVPs.

In both cases, the patients had regular visits for paracentesis, and incarceration occurred 0.5 hours postprocedure, in 1 case and 6 hours in the other. Umbilical hernias are common in patients with cirrhosis, with the prevalence approaching 20%.²⁸ The management of umbilical hernias in patients with ascites is complex and optimal guideline-based management involves elective repair when ascites is adequately controlled to prevent recurrence, with consideration of TIPS at the time of repair.³ However, patients enrolled in outpatient paracentesis clinics are unlikely to have adequate ascites control to be considered optimized for an elective repair. In addition, given the number of serial procedures that they require, it is not surprising that they may be at risk for complications that are otherwise thought to be rare. Although incarceration and strangulation of umbilical hernia is thought to be a rare complication of LVP, patients should be informed of this potential complication so that they are aware to seek medical attention should they develop signs or symptoms.

Guidelines

There are no guidelines on how much ascites can be removed and how quickly the ascites can be removed during LVP. The goal of a therapeutic paracentesis is to remove as much fluid as possible, and there are no limits on the amount that can be removed safely.¹ Concerning paracentesis flow rates, Elsabaawy and colleagues showed that ascites flow rate does not correlate with PICD. They looked at 3 groups with ascites flow rates of 80 mL/min, 180 mL/min and 270 mL/min.²⁹ We had data on the time in the procedure room in 77% of our procedures. Given our average amount of ascites removed (7.9 L) and average time in the procedure room (33.3 minutes), the average flow rate from our clinic was at least 237 mL/min (although the flow rate was likely higher because the average time from needle inserted to needle removed was < 33.3 minutes). Both the mean duration of LVP and the mean volume of ascites removed in an outpatient paracentesis clinic were reported in only 1 other study. In a study of 1100 patients, Grabau and colleagues reported the mean duration, defined as the time between when the patient entered and exited the procedure room (the same time period we reported) as 97 minutes and the mean volume of ascites removed as 8.7 L.¹³

The AASLD guidelines state that patients undergoing serial outpatient LVP should be tested only for cell count and differential without sending a bacterial culture. The reason given is that false positives may exceed true positives from ascites bacterial culture results in asymptomatic patients.³ Mohan and Venkataraman reported a 0.4% rate of SBP, 1.4% rate of CNNA, and 0.7% rate of MNB in asymptomatic patients undergoing LVP in an outpatient clinic.³⁰ We had a 0.2% rate of SBP, 0.4% rate of CNNA, and 0.2% rate of MNB. Given the low rates of SBP in outpatient paracenteses clinics, we will adopt the AASLD suggestions to only send an ascites cell count and not a culture in asymptomatic patients. Noteworthy, our patient with asymptomatic SBP grew vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium, which was resistant to standard SBP antibiotic therapy. However, if ascites culture was not sent, he would have been treated with antibiotics for CNNA, and if he developed symptoms, he would have had a repeat paracentesis with cell count and culture sent.

Training

In 2015, faculty at VAPHS and the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine designed a Mastering Paracentesis for Medical Residents course based on current guidelines on the management of ascites and published procedural guides. The course is mandatory for all postgraduate year-1 internal medicine residents and begins with 2 hours of didactic and simulation-based training with an ultrasound-compatible paracentesis mannequin. In the 3 weeks following simulation-based training, residents rotate through our outpatient paracentesis clinic and perform between 1 and 3 abdominal paracentesis procedures, receiving as-needed coaching and postprocedure feedback from faculty. Since the course’s inception, more than 150 internal medicine residents have been trained in paracentesis through our clinic.

Conclusions

We present a description of a successful outpatient paracentesis clinic at our hospital run by academic hospitalists. The clinic was created to decrease the number of admissions for LVP. We were fortunate to be able to use the GI endoscopy suite and their resources as the clinic setting. To create outpatient LVP clinics at other institutions, administrative support is essential. In conclusion, we have shown that an outpatient paracentesis clinic run by academic hospitalists can safely and quickly remove large volumes of ascites.

The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly impacted mental health. Adolescents, adults, and health care professionals (HCPs) report worsening mental health outcomes since the pandemic.^1-3 Anxiety rates have tripled, depression quadrupled, and substance and alcohol use also have increased.³ The World Health Organization (WHO) reported that during the COVID-19 pandemic, 93% of countries worldwide documented disruptions to mental health services.⁴ HCP shortages, worsened by the pandemic, have resulted in a mental health crisis. What can we do?

Over the past 20 years, pharmacists have assumed a more significant role in managing patients’ mental health conditions through multidisciplinary team engagement. Pharmacists’ training includes optimizing pharmacotherapy, identifying and managing adverse effects (AEs), improving medication adherence, and reducing unnecessary health care costs.⁵ Pharmacists have assumed pivotal roles in mental health management, including but not limited to screening, drug selection, medication management, and decision-making support for patients and HCPs. Pharmacist-provided services have led to improved medication therapy outcomes and patient satisfaction.⁶

According to the 2012 National Alliance on Mental Illness national survey, > 50% of patients treated for a mental health condition report having a strong relationship with their pharmacist.⁷ The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has led the charge, engaging pharmacists in patient-oriented mental health care,including those specific to accessing mental health care (eg, fear of stigmatization).⁸ After obtaining a 4-year PharmD degree, psychiatric pharmacists receive additional postgraduate residency training (2 years) focused on direct patient care and then are eligible for board certification. There are about 2000 board-certified psychiatric pharmacists in the United States. Qualified psychiatric pharmacists, especially those in underresourced states, have increased the number of available patient-oriented mental health services.⁷ However, to continue expanding and improving access to care, we need more HCPs and pharmacists.

Mental health clinical pharmacy specialists (CPSs) within the VA work in a variety of settings, including but not limited to, the inpatient psychiatric unit; residential programs for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and substance misuse; as part of the Mental Health Intensive Case Management (MHICM) team; and in pain, telehealth, and other outpatient clinics. The VA’s mental health CPSs operate under an independent scope of practice (SOP) and manage a variety of mental health disorders. The SOP also allows pharmacists to independently manage medications for psychiatric conditions, request laboratory tests, and change therapy as needed based on patient response. The Table describes pharmacist-reported roles in a single VA facility in various mental health practice sites (eg, inpatient, outpatient, substance misuse). Pharmacist involvement in medication management with the interdisciplinary team improved symptoms, medication adherence, and reduced AEs for conditions such as depression.⁹

Within the VA, the outpatient mental health pharmacist works collaboratively with psychiatrists and HCPs to manage common psychiatric conditions on the phone and in person. VA pharmacists also are involved in the monitoring of patients on second-generation antipsychotics. Pharmacists assist with metabolic monitoring and assessing patients for movements disorders, using standardized rating scales. Pharmacists can manage complex psychiatric patients in collaboration with psychiatrists by providing medication management, laboratory test monitoring, medication counseling, and HCP referrals.

Pharmacists’ expertise is used in diverse ways in the VHA. At one facility, pharmacists functioned as interim prescribers when the facility experienced a turnover in behavioral health professionals. Pharmacists’ involvement decreased inappropriate use of psychiatric emergency services.¹⁰ VA pharmacists who manage patients’ mental health needs in primary care help achieve symptom improvement and medication adherence as well as lower referral rates for specialty mental health services.⁹ Pharmacist-managed electronic consult service provided a costs savings of about $40,000 a year.¹¹

Pharmacists have shown that they can expand their roles. Pharmacists are versatile HCPs, currently working and collaborating with other HCPs in various settings to provide mental health services. Health care systems need to continue to use and expand the number of pharmacists. Including pharmacists in the primary and specialty care teams can increase access to care and improve health outcomes during the pandemic and beyond. The American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy in partnership with the American Medical Association established a resource to support and guide institutions interested in embedding pharmacists into different clinical sites.¹² Opportunities for increased services by pharmacists can lead to improved outcomes, timely patient care, appropriate use of psychiatric medications and services, and cost savings.

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the following Boise Veterans Affairs pharmacists: Paul Black, PharmD; Josh Gerving, PharmD; Kristin Helmboldt, PharmD; Samantha Patton, PharmD; Heather Walser, PharmD; and Andrea Winterswyk, PharmD, for contributing information about their practice roles and impact on patient care.

The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly impacted mental health. Adolescents, adults, and health care professionals (HCPs) report worsening mental health outcomes since the pandemic.^1-3 Anxiety rates have tripled, depression quadrupled, and substance and alcohol use also have increased.³ The World Health Organization (WHO) reported that during the COVID-19 pandemic, 93% of countries worldwide documented disruptions to mental health services.⁴ HCP shortages, worsened by the pandemic, have resulted in a mental health crisis. What can we do?

Over the past 20 years, pharmacists have assumed a more significant role in managing patients’ mental health conditions through multidisciplinary team engagement. Pharmacists’ training includes optimizing pharmacotherapy, identifying and managing adverse effects (AEs), improving medication adherence, and reducing unnecessary health care costs.⁵ Pharmacists have assumed pivotal roles in mental health management, including but not limited to screening, drug selection, medication management, and decision-making support for patients and HCPs. Pharmacist-provided services have led to improved medication therapy outcomes and patient satisfaction.⁶

According to the 2012 National Alliance on Mental Illness national survey, > 50% of patients treated for a mental health condition report having a strong relationship with their pharmacist.⁷ The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has led the charge, engaging pharmacists in patient-oriented mental health care,including those specific to accessing mental health care (eg, fear of stigmatization).⁸ After obtaining a 4-year PharmD degree, psychiatric pharmacists receive additional postgraduate residency training (2 years) focused on direct patient care and then are eligible for board certification. There are about 2000 board-certified psychiatric pharmacists in the United States. Qualified psychiatric pharmacists, especially those in underresourced states, have increased the number of available patient-oriented mental health services.⁷ However, to continue expanding and improving access to care, we need more HCPs and pharmacists.

Mental health clinical pharmacy specialists (CPSs) within the VA work in a variety of settings, including but not limited to, the inpatient psychiatric unit; residential programs for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and substance misuse; as part of the Mental Health Intensive Case Management (MHICM) team; and in pain, telehealth, and other outpatient clinics. The VA’s mental health CPSs operate under an independent scope of practice (SOP) and manage a variety of mental health disorders. The SOP also allows pharmacists to independently manage medications for psychiatric conditions, request laboratory tests, and change therapy as needed based on patient response. The Table describes pharmacist-reported roles in a single VA facility in various mental health practice sites (eg, inpatient, outpatient, substance misuse). Pharmacist involvement in medication management with the interdisciplinary team improved symptoms, medication adherence, and reduced AEs for conditions such as depression.⁹

Within the VA, the outpatient mental health pharmacist works collaboratively with psychiatrists and HCPs to manage common psychiatric conditions on the phone and in person. VA pharmacists also are involved in the monitoring of patients on second-generation antipsychotics. Pharmacists assist with metabolic monitoring and assessing patients for movements disorders, using standardized rating scales. Pharmacists can manage complex psychiatric patients in collaboration with psychiatrists by providing medication management, laboratory test monitoring, medication counseling, and HCP referrals.

Pharmacists’ expertise is used in diverse ways in the VHA. At one facility, pharmacists functioned as interim prescribers when the facility experienced a turnover in behavioral health professionals. Pharmacists’ involvement decreased inappropriate use of psychiatric emergency services.¹⁰ VA pharmacists who manage patients’ mental health needs in primary care help achieve symptom improvement and medication adherence as well as lower referral rates for specialty mental health services.⁹ Pharmacist-managed electronic consult service provided a costs savings of about $40,000 a year.¹¹

Pharmacists have shown that they can expand their roles. Pharmacists are versatile HCPs, currently working and collaborating with other HCPs in various settings to provide mental health services. Health care systems need to continue to use and expand the number of pharmacists. Including pharmacists in the primary and specialty care teams can increase access to care and improve health outcomes during the pandemic and beyond. The American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy in partnership with the American Medical Association established a resource to support and guide institutions interested in embedding pharmacists into different clinical sites.¹² Opportunities for increased services by pharmacists can lead to improved outcomes, timely patient care, appropriate use of psychiatric medications and services, and cost savings.

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the following Boise Veterans Affairs pharmacists: Paul Black, PharmD; Josh Gerving, PharmD; Kristin Helmboldt, PharmD; Samantha Patton, PharmD; Heather Walser, PharmD; and Andrea Winterswyk, PharmD, for contributing information about their practice roles and impact on patient care.

The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly impacted mental health. Adolescents, adults, and health care professionals (HCPs) report worsening mental health outcomes since the pandemic.^1-3 Anxiety rates have tripled, depression quadrupled, and substance and alcohol use also have increased.³ The World Health Organization (WHO) reported that during the COVID-19 pandemic, 93% of countries worldwide documented disruptions to mental health services.⁴ HCP shortages, worsened by the pandemic, have resulted in a mental health crisis. What can we do?

Over the past 20 years, pharmacists have assumed a more significant role in managing patients’ mental health conditions through multidisciplinary team engagement. Pharmacists’ training includes optimizing pharmacotherapy, identifying and managing adverse effects (AEs), improving medication adherence, and reducing unnecessary health care costs.⁵ Pharmacists have assumed pivotal roles in mental health management, including but not limited to screening, drug selection, medication management, and decision-making support for patients and HCPs. Pharmacist-provided services have led to improved medication therapy outcomes and patient satisfaction.⁶

According to the 2012 National Alliance on Mental Illness national survey, > 50% of patients treated for a mental health condition report having a strong relationship with their pharmacist.⁷ The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has led the charge, engaging pharmacists in patient-oriented mental health care,including those specific to accessing mental health care (eg, fear of stigmatization).⁸ After obtaining a 4-year PharmD degree, psychiatric pharmacists receive additional postgraduate residency training (2 years) focused on direct patient care and then are eligible for board certification. There are about 2000 board-certified psychiatric pharmacists in the United States. Qualified psychiatric pharmacists, especially those in underresourced states, have increased the number of available patient-oriented mental health services.⁷ However, to continue expanding and improving access to care, we need more HCPs and pharmacists.

Mental health clinical pharmacy specialists (CPSs) within the VA work in a variety of settings, including but not limited to, the inpatient psychiatric unit; residential programs for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and substance misuse; as part of the Mental Health Intensive Case Management (MHICM) team; and in pain, telehealth, and other outpatient clinics. The VA’s mental health CPSs operate under an independent scope of practice (SOP) and manage a variety of mental health disorders. The SOP also allows pharmacists to independently manage medications for psychiatric conditions, request laboratory tests, and change therapy as needed based on patient response. The Table describes pharmacist-reported roles in a single VA facility in various mental health practice sites (eg, inpatient, outpatient, substance misuse). Pharmacist involvement in medication management with the interdisciplinary team improved symptoms, medication adherence, and reduced AEs for conditions such as depression.⁹

Within the VA, the outpatient mental health pharmacist works collaboratively with psychiatrists and HCPs to manage common psychiatric conditions on the phone and in person. VA pharmacists also are involved in the monitoring of patients on second-generation antipsychotics. Pharmacists assist with metabolic monitoring and assessing patients for movements disorders, using standardized rating scales. Pharmacists can manage complex psychiatric patients in collaboration with psychiatrists by providing medication management, laboratory test monitoring, medication counseling, and HCP referrals.

Pharmacists’ expertise is used in diverse ways in the VHA. At one facility, pharmacists functioned as interim prescribers when the facility experienced a turnover in behavioral health professionals. Pharmacists’ involvement decreased inappropriate use of psychiatric emergency services.¹⁰ VA pharmacists who manage patients’ mental health needs in primary care help achieve symptom improvement and medication adherence as well as lower referral rates for specialty mental health services.⁹ Pharmacist-managed electronic consult service provided a costs savings of about $40,000 a year.¹¹

Pharmacists have shown that they can expand their roles. Pharmacists are versatile HCPs, currently working and collaborating with other HCPs in various settings to provide mental health services. Health care systems need to continue to use and expand the number of pharmacists. Including pharmacists in the primary and specialty care teams can increase access to care and improve health outcomes during the pandemic and beyond. The American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy in partnership with the American Medical Association established a resource to support and guide institutions interested in embedding pharmacists into different clinical sites.¹² Opportunities for increased services by pharmacists can lead to improved outcomes, timely patient care, appropriate use of psychiatric medications and services, and cost savings.

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the following Boise Veterans Affairs pharmacists: Paul Black, PharmD; Josh Gerving, PharmD; Kristin Helmboldt, PharmD; Samantha Patton, PharmD; Heather Walser, PharmD; and Andrea Winterswyk, PharmD, for contributing information about their practice roles and impact on patient care.