The Journal of Family Practice

Last year’s influenza season was severe enough that hospitals around the United States set up special evaluation areas beyond their emergency departments, at times spilling over to tents or other temporary structures in what otherwise would be parking lots. The scale and potential severity of the annual epidemic can be difficult to convey to our patients, who sometimes say “just the flu” to refer to an illness responsible for more than 170 pediatric deaths in the United States this past year.¹ The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently updated its 5-year estimates of influenza-related deaths in the United States; influenza mortality ranges from about 12,000 deaths in a mild season (such as 2011-2012) to 56,000 in a more severe season (eg, 2012-2013).²

Although influenza cannot be completely prevented, the following strategies can help reduce the risk for the illness and limit its severity if contracted.

Prevention

Strategy 1: Vaccinate against influenza

While the efficacy of vaccines varies from year to year, vaccination remains the core of influenza prevention efforts. In this decade, vaccine effectiveness has ranged from 19% to 60%.³ However, models suggest that even when the vaccine is only 20% effective, vaccinating 140 million people (the average number of doses delivered annually in the United States over the past 5 seasons) prevents 21 million infections, 130,000 hospitalizations, and more than 61,000 deaths.⁴ In a case-control study, Flannery et al found that vaccination was 65% effective in preventing laboratory-confirmed influenza-associated death in children over 4 seasons (July 2010 through June 2014).⁵

Deciding who should be vaccinated is simpler than in prior years: Rather than targeting people who are at higher risk (those ages 65 and older, or those with comorbidities), the current CDC recommendation is to vaccinate nearly everyone ages 6 months or older, with limited exceptions.^6,7 (See Table 1⁸).

Formulations. Many types of influenza vaccine are approved for use in the United States; these differ in the number of strains included (3 or 4), the amount of antigen present for each strain, the presence of an adjuvant, the growth medium used for the virus, and the route of administration (see Table 2⁹). The relative merits of each type are a matter of some debate. There is ongoing research into the comparative efficacy of vaccines comprised of egg- vs cell-based cultures, as well as studies comparing high-dose or adjuvant vaccines to standard-dose inactivated vaccines.

Previously, the CDC has recommended preferential use (or avoidance) of some vaccine types, based on their efficacy. For the 2018-2019 flu season, however, the CDC has rescinded its recommendation against vaccine containing live attenuated virus (LAIV; FluMist brand) and expresses no preference for any vaccine formulation for patients of appropriate age and health status.¹⁰ The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), however, is recommends that LAIV be used only if patients and their families decline injectable vaccines.¹¹

Timing. Influenza vaccines are now distributed as early as July to some locations, raising concerns about waning immunity from early vaccination (July/August) if the influenza season does not peak until February or March.^8,12,13 Currently, the CDC recommends balancing the possible benefit of delayed vaccination against the risks of missed opportunities to vaccinate, a possible early season, and logistical problems related to vaccinating the same number of people in a smaller time interval. Offering vaccination by the end of October, if possible, is recommended in order for immunity to develop by mid-November.⁸ Note: Children ages 6 months to 8 years will need to receive their initial vaccination in 2 half-doses administered at least 28 days apart; completing their vaccination by the end of October would require starting the process weeks earlier.

[polldaddy:10124269]

Continue to: Strategy 2

Strategy 2: Make use of chemoprophylaxis

Preventive use of antiviral medication (chemoprophylaxis) may be a useful adjunct or alternative to vaccination in certain circumstances: if the patient is at high risk for complications, has been exposed to someone with influenza, has contraindications to vaccination, or received the vaccine within the past 2 weeks. The CDC also suggests that chemoprophylaxis be considered for those with immune deficiencies or who are otherwise immunosuppressed after exposure.¹⁴ Antivirals can also be used to control outbreaks in long-term care facilities; in these cases, the recommendedregimen is daily administration for at least 2 weeks, continuing until at least 7 days after the identification of the last case.¹⁴ Oseltamivir (Tamiflu) and zanamivir (Relenza) are the recommended prophylactic agents; a related intravenous medication, peramivir (Rapivab), is recommend for treatment only (see Table 3¹⁴).

Strategy 3: Prevent comorbidities and opportunistic infections

Morbidity associated with influenza often comes from secondary infection. Pneumonia is among the most common complications, so influenza season is a good time to ensure that patients are appropriately vaccinated against pneumococcus, as well. Pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (Prevnar or PCV13) is recommended for children younger than 2 years of age, to be administered in a series of 4 doses: at 2, 4, 6, and 12-15 months. Vaccination with PCV13 is also recommended for those ages 65 or older, to be followed at least one year later with pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (Pneumovax or PPSV23).¹⁵ Additional doses of PCV13, PPSV23, or both may be indicated, depending on health status.

Strategy 4: Encourage good hygiene

The availability of immunizations and anti­virals does not replace good hygiene. Frequent handwashing reduces the transmission of respiratory viruses, including influenza.¹⁶ Few studies have evaluated the use of alcohol-based hand sanitizers, but available evidence suggests they are effective in lowering viral transmission.¹⁶

Barriers, such as masks, gloves, and gowns, are helpful for health care workers.¹⁶ Surgical masks are often considered more comfortable to wear than N95 respirators. It may therefore be welcome news that when a 2009 randomized study assessed their use by hospital-based nurses, masks were non-inferior in protecting these health care workers against influenza.¹⁷

Presenteeism, the practice of going to work while sick, should be discouraged. People at risk for influenza may wish to avoid crowds during flu season; those with symptoms should be encouraged to stay home and limit contact with others.

Continue to: Treatment

 

 

Treatment

Strategy 1: Make prompt use of antivirals

Despite available preventive measures, tens of millions of people in the United States develop influenza every year. Use of antiviral medication, begun early in the course of illness, can reduce the duration of symptoms and may reduce the risk for complications.

The neuraminidase inhibitor (NI) group of antivirals—oseltamivir, zanamivir, and peramivir—is effective against influenza types A and B and current resistance rates are low.

The adamantine family of antivirals, amantadine and rimantadine, treat type A only. Since the circulating influenza strains in the past several seasons have demonstrated resistance >99%, these medications are not currently recommended.¹⁴

NIs reduce the duration of influenza symptoms by 10% to 20%, shortening the illness by 6 to 24 hours.^18,19 In otherwise healthy patients, this benefit must be balanced against the increased risk for nausea and vomiting (oseltamivir), bronchospasm and sinusitis (zanamivir), and diarrhea (peramivir). In adults, NIs reduce the risk for lower respiratory tract complications and hospitalization. A 2015 meta-analysis by Dobson et al found a relative risk for hospitalization among those prescribed oseltamivir vs placebo of 37%.¹⁸

In the past, antivirals were used only in high-risk patients, such as children younger than 2 years, adults older than 65 years, and those with chronic health conditions.¹⁴ Now, antivirals are recommended for those who are at higher risk for complications (see Table 4), those with “severe, complicated, or progressive illness,” and hospitalized patients.¹⁴

Continue to: Antiviral treatment may have some value...

Antiviral treatment may have some value for hospitalized patients when started even 5 days after symptom onset. Treatment may be extended beyond the usual recommendations (5 days for oseltamivir or zanamivir) in immunosuppressed patients or the critically ill. Additionally, recent guidelines include consideration of antiviral treatment in outpatients who are at normal risk if treatment can be started within 48 hours of symptom onset.¹⁴

The CDC currently recommends use of oseltamivir rather than other antivirals for most hospitalized patients, based on the availability of data on its use in this setting.¹⁴ Intravenous peramivir is recommended for patients who cannot tolerate or absorb oral medication; inhaled zanamivir or IV peramivir are preferred for patients with end-stage renal disease who are not undergoing dialysis (see Table 3).¹⁴

Strategy 2: Exercise caution when it comes to supportive care

There are other medications that may offer symptom relief or prevent complications, especially when antivirals are contraindicated or unavailable.

Corticosteroids are recommended as part of the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia,²⁰ but their role in influenza is controversial. A 2016 Cochrane review²¹ found no randomized controlled trials on the topic. Although the balance of available data from observational studies indicated that use of corticosteroids was associated with increased mortality, the authors also noted that all the studies included in their meta-analysis were of “very low quality.” They concluded that “the use of steroids in influenza remains a clinical judgement call.”

Offering vaccination by the end of October, if possible, is recommended in order for immunity to develop by mid-November.

Statins may be associated with improved outcomes in influenza and pneumonia. Studies thus far have given contradictory results,^22,23 and a planned Cochrane review of the question has been withdrawn.²⁴

Continue to: Over-the-counter medications...

Over-the-counter medications, such as aspirin, acetaminophen, and ibuprofen are often used to manage the fever and myalgia associated with influenza. Patients should be cautioned against using the same ingredient in multiple different branded medications. Acetaminophen, for example, is not limited to Tylenol-branded products. To avoid Reye’s syndrome, children and teens with febrile illness, such as influenza, should not use aspirin.

CORRESPONDENCE
Jennifer L. Hamilton, MD, PhD, Drexel Family Medicine, 10 Shurs Lane, Suite 301, Philadelphia, PA 19127; [email protected].

Last year’s influenza season was severe enough that hospitals around the United States set up special evaluation areas beyond their emergency departments, at times spilling over to tents or other temporary structures in what otherwise would be parking lots. The scale and potential severity of the annual epidemic can be difficult to convey to our patients, who sometimes say “just the flu” to refer to an illness responsible for more than 170 pediatric deaths in the United States this past year.¹ The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently updated its 5-year estimates of influenza-related deaths in the United States; influenza mortality ranges from about 12,000 deaths in a mild season (such as 2011-2012) to 56,000 in a more severe season (eg, 2012-2013).²

Although influenza cannot be completely prevented, the following strategies can help reduce the risk for the illness and limit its severity if contracted.

Prevention

Strategy 1: Vaccinate against influenza

While the efficacy of vaccines varies from year to year, vaccination remains the core of influenza prevention efforts. In this decade, vaccine effectiveness has ranged from 19% to 60%.³ However, models suggest that even when the vaccine is only 20% effective, vaccinating 140 million people (the average number of doses delivered annually in the United States over the past 5 seasons) prevents 21 million infections, 130,000 hospitalizations, and more than 61,000 deaths.⁴ In a case-control study, Flannery et al found that vaccination was 65% effective in preventing laboratory-confirmed influenza-associated death in children over 4 seasons (July 2010 through June 2014).⁵

Deciding who should be vaccinated is simpler than in prior years: Rather than targeting people who are at higher risk (those ages 65 and older, or those with comorbidities), the current CDC recommendation is to vaccinate nearly everyone ages 6 months or older, with limited exceptions.^6,7 (See Table 1⁸).

Formulations. Many types of influenza vaccine are approved for use in the United States; these differ in the number of strains included (3 or 4), the amount of antigen present for each strain, the presence of an adjuvant, the growth medium used for the virus, and the route of administration (see Table 2⁹). The relative merits of each type are a matter of some debate. There is ongoing research into the comparative efficacy of vaccines comprised of egg- vs cell-based cultures, as well as studies comparing high-dose or adjuvant vaccines to standard-dose inactivated vaccines.

Previously, the CDC has recommended preferential use (or avoidance) of some vaccine types, based on their efficacy. For the 2018-2019 flu season, however, the CDC has rescinded its recommendation against vaccine containing live attenuated virus (LAIV; FluMist brand) and expresses no preference for any vaccine formulation for patients of appropriate age and health status.¹⁰ The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), however, is recommends that LAIV be used only if patients and their families decline injectable vaccines.¹¹

Timing. Influenza vaccines are now distributed as early as July to some locations, raising concerns about waning immunity from early vaccination (July/August) if the influenza season does not peak until February or March.^8,12,13 Currently, the CDC recommends balancing the possible benefit of delayed vaccination against the risks of missed opportunities to vaccinate, a possible early season, and logistical problems related to vaccinating the same number of people in a smaller time interval. Offering vaccination by the end of October, if possible, is recommended in order for immunity to develop by mid-November.⁸ Note: Children ages 6 months to 8 years will need to receive their initial vaccination in 2 half-doses administered at least 28 days apart; completing their vaccination by the end of October would require starting the process weeks earlier.

[polldaddy:10124269]

Continue to: Strategy 2

Strategy 2: Make use of chemoprophylaxis

Preventive use of antiviral medication (chemoprophylaxis) may be a useful adjunct or alternative to vaccination in certain circumstances: if the patient is at high risk for complications, has been exposed to someone with influenza, has contraindications to vaccination, or received the vaccine within the past 2 weeks. The CDC also suggests that chemoprophylaxis be considered for those with immune deficiencies or who are otherwise immunosuppressed after exposure.¹⁴ Antivirals can also be used to control outbreaks in long-term care facilities; in these cases, the recommendedregimen is daily administration for at least 2 weeks, continuing until at least 7 days after the identification of the last case.¹⁴ Oseltamivir (Tamiflu) and zanamivir (Relenza) are the recommended prophylactic agents; a related intravenous medication, peramivir (Rapivab), is recommend for treatment only (see Table 3¹⁴).

Strategy 3: Prevent comorbidities and opportunistic infections

Morbidity associated with influenza often comes from secondary infection. Pneumonia is among the most common complications, so influenza season is a good time to ensure that patients are appropriately vaccinated against pneumococcus, as well. Pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (Prevnar or PCV13) is recommended for children younger than 2 years of age, to be administered in a series of 4 doses: at 2, 4, 6, and 12-15 months. Vaccination with PCV13 is also recommended for those ages 65 or older, to be followed at least one year later with pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (Pneumovax or PPSV23).¹⁵ Additional doses of PCV13, PPSV23, or both may be indicated, depending on health status.

Strategy 4: Encourage good hygiene

The availability of immunizations and anti­virals does not replace good hygiene. Frequent handwashing reduces the transmission of respiratory viruses, including influenza.¹⁶ Few studies have evaluated the use of alcohol-based hand sanitizers, but available evidence suggests they are effective in lowering viral transmission.¹⁶

Barriers, such as masks, gloves, and gowns, are helpful for health care workers.¹⁶ Surgical masks are often considered more comfortable to wear than N95 respirators. It may therefore be welcome news that when a 2009 randomized study assessed their use by hospital-based nurses, masks were non-inferior in protecting these health care workers against influenza.¹⁷

Presenteeism, the practice of going to work while sick, should be discouraged. People at risk for influenza may wish to avoid crowds during flu season; those with symptoms should be encouraged to stay home and limit contact with others.

Continue to: Treatment

 

 

Treatment

Strategy 1: Make prompt use of antivirals

Despite available preventive measures, tens of millions of people in the United States develop influenza every year. Use of antiviral medication, begun early in the course of illness, can reduce the duration of symptoms and may reduce the risk for complications.

The neuraminidase inhibitor (NI) group of antivirals—oseltamivir, zanamivir, and peramivir—is effective against influenza types A and B and current resistance rates are low.

The adamantine family of antivirals, amantadine and rimantadine, treat type A only. Since the circulating influenza strains in the past several seasons have demonstrated resistance >99%, these medications are not currently recommended.¹⁴

NIs reduce the duration of influenza symptoms by 10% to 20%, shortening the illness by 6 to 24 hours.^18,19 In otherwise healthy patients, this benefit must be balanced against the increased risk for nausea and vomiting (oseltamivir), bronchospasm and sinusitis (zanamivir), and diarrhea (peramivir). In adults, NIs reduce the risk for lower respiratory tract complications and hospitalization. A 2015 meta-analysis by Dobson et al found a relative risk for hospitalization among those prescribed oseltamivir vs placebo of 37%.¹⁸

In the past, antivirals were used only in high-risk patients, such as children younger than 2 years, adults older than 65 years, and those with chronic health conditions.¹⁴ Now, antivirals are recommended for those who are at higher risk for complications (see Table 4), those with “severe, complicated, or progressive illness,” and hospitalized patients.¹⁴

Continue to: Antiviral treatment may have some value...

Antiviral treatment may have some value for hospitalized patients when started even 5 days after symptom onset. Treatment may be extended beyond the usual recommendations (5 days for oseltamivir or zanamivir) in immunosuppressed patients or the critically ill. Additionally, recent guidelines include consideration of antiviral treatment in outpatients who are at normal risk if treatment can be started within 48 hours of symptom onset.¹⁴

The CDC currently recommends use of oseltamivir rather than other antivirals for most hospitalized patients, based on the availability of data on its use in this setting.¹⁴ Intravenous peramivir is recommended for patients who cannot tolerate or absorb oral medication; inhaled zanamivir or IV peramivir are preferred for patients with end-stage renal disease who are not undergoing dialysis (see Table 3).¹⁴

Strategy 2: Exercise caution when it comes to supportive care

There are other medications that may offer symptom relief or prevent complications, especially when antivirals are contraindicated or unavailable.

Corticosteroids are recommended as part of the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia,²⁰ but their role in influenza is controversial. A 2016 Cochrane review²¹ found no randomized controlled trials on the topic. Although the balance of available data from observational studies indicated that use of corticosteroids was associated with increased mortality, the authors also noted that all the studies included in their meta-analysis were of “very low quality.” They concluded that “the use of steroids in influenza remains a clinical judgement call.”

Offering vaccination by the end of October, if possible, is recommended in order for immunity to develop by mid-November.

Statins may be associated with improved outcomes in influenza and pneumonia. Studies thus far have given contradictory results,^22,23 and a planned Cochrane review of the question has been withdrawn.²⁴

Continue to: Over-the-counter medications...

Over-the-counter medications, such as aspirin, acetaminophen, and ibuprofen are often used to manage the fever and myalgia associated with influenza. Patients should be cautioned against using the same ingredient in multiple different branded medications. Acetaminophen, for example, is not limited to Tylenol-branded products. To avoid Reye’s syndrome, children and teens with febrile illness, such as influenza, should not use aspirin.

CORRESPONDENCE
Jennifer L. Hamilton, MD, PhD, Drexel Family Medicine, 10 Shurs Lane, Suite 301, Philadelphia, PA 19127; [email protected].

Last year’s influenza season was severe enough that hospitals around the United States set up special evaluation areas beyond their emergency departments, at times spilling over to tents or other temporary structures in what otherwise would be parking lots. The scale and potential severity of the annual epidemic can be difficult to convey to our patients, who sometimes say “just the flu” to refer to an illness responsible for more than 170 pediatric deaths in the United States this past year.¹ The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently updated its 5-year estimates of influenza-related deaths in the United States; influenza mortality ranges from about 12,000 deaths in a mild season (such as 2011-2012) to 56,000 in a more severe season (eg, 2012-2013).²

Although influenza cannot be completely prevented, the following strategies can help reduce the risk for the illness and limit its severity if contracted.

Prevention

Strategy 1: Vaccinate against influenza

While the efficacy of vaccines varies from year to year, vaccination remains the core of influenza prevention efforts. In this decade, vaccine effectiveness has ranged from 19% to 60%.³ However, models suggest that even when the vaccine is only 20% effective, vaccinating 140 million people (the average number of doses delivered annually in the United States over the past 5 seasons) prevents 21 million infections, 130,000 hospitalizations, and more than 61,000 deaths.⁴ In a case-control study, Flannery et al found that vaccination was 65% effective in preventing laboratory-confirmed influenza-associated death in children over 4 seasons (July 2010 through June 2014).⁵

Deciding who should be vaccinated is simpler than in prior years: Rather than targeting people who are at higher risk (those ages 65 and older, or those with comorbidities), the current CDC recommendation is to vaccinate nearly everyone ages 6 months or older, with limited exceptions.^6,7 (See Table 1⁸).

Formulations. Many types of influenza vaccine are approved for use in the United States; these differ in the number of strains included (3 or 4), the amount of antigen present for each strain, the presence of an adjuvant, the growth medium used for the virus, and the route of administration (see Table 2⁹). The relative merits of each type are a matter of some debate. There is ongoing research into the comparative efficacy of vaccines comprised of egg- vs cell-based cultures, as well as studies comparing high-dose or adjuvant vaccines to standard-dose inactivated vaccines.

Previously, the CDC has recommended preferential use (or avoidance) of some vaccine types, based on their efficacy. For the 2018-2019 flu season, however, the CDC has rescinded its recommendation against vaccine containing live attenuated virus (LAIV; FluMist brand) and expresses no preference for any vaccine formulation for patients of appropriate age and health status.¹⁰ The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), however, is recommends that LAIV be used only if patients and their families decline injectable vaccines.¹¹

Timing. Influenza vaccines are now distributed as early as July to some locations, raising concerns about waning immunity from early vaccination (July/August) if the influenza season does not peak until February or March.^8,12,13 Currently, the CDC recommends balancing the possible benefit of delayed vaccination against the risks of missed opportunities to vaccinate, a possible early season, and logistical problems related to vaccinating the same number of people in a smaller time interval. Offering vaccination by the end of October, if possible, is recommended in order for immunity to develop by mid-November.⁸ Note: Children ages 6 months to 8 years will need to receive their initial vaccination in 2 half-doses administered at least 28 days apart; completing their vaccination by the end of October would require starting the process weeks earlier.

[polldaddy:10124269]

Continue to: Strategy 2

Strategy 2: Make use of chemoprophylaxis

Preventive use of antiviral medication (chemoprophylaxis) may be a useful adjunct or alternative to vaccination in certain circumstances: if the patient is at high risk for complications, has been exposed to someone with influenza, has contraindications to vaccination, or received the vaccine within the past 2 weeks. The CDC also suggests that chemoprophylaxis be considered for those with immune deficiencies or who are otherwise immunosuppressed after exposure.¹⁴ Antivirals can also be used to control outbreaks in long-term care facilities; in these cases, the recommendedregimen is daily administration for at least 2 weeks, continuing until at least 7 days after the identification of the last case.¹⁴ Oseltamivir (Tamiflu) and zanamivir (Relenza) are the recommended prophylactic agents; a related intravenous medication, peramivir (Rapivab), is recommend for treatment only (see Table 3¹⁴).

Strategy 3: Prevent comorbidities and opportunistic infections

Morbidity associated with influenza often comes from secondary infection. Pneumonia is among the most common complications, so influenza season is a good time to ensure that patients are appropriately vaccinated against pneumococcus, as well. Pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (Prevnar or PCV13) is recommended for children younger than 2 years of age, to be administered in a series of 4 doses: at 2, 4, 6, and 12-15 months. Vaccination with PCV13 is also recommended for those ages 65 or older, to be followed at least one year later with pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (Pneumovax or PPSV23).¹⁵ Additional doses of PCV13, PPSV23, or both may be indicated, depending on health status.

Strategy 4: Encourage good hygiene

The availability of immunizations and anti­virals does not replace good hygiene. Frequent handwashing reduces the transmission of respiratory viruses, including influenza.¹⁶ Few studies have evaluated the use of alcohol-based hand sanitizers, but available evidence suggests they are effective in lowering viral transmission.¹⁶

Barriers, such as masks, gloves, and gowns, are helpful for health care workers.¹⁶ Surgical masks are often considered more comfortable to wear than N95 respirators. It may therefore be welcome news that when a 2009 randomized study assessed their use by hospital-based nurses, masks were non-inferior in protecting these health care workers against influenza.¹⁷

Presenteeism, the practice of going to work while sick, should be discouraged. People at risk for influenza may wish to avoid crowds during flu season; those with symptoms should be encouraged to stay home and limit contact with others.

Continue to: Treatment

 

 

Treatment

Strategy 1: Make prompt use of antivirals

Despite available preventive measures, tens of millions of people in the United States develop influenza every year. Use of antiviral medication, begun early in the course of illness, can reduce the duration of symptoms and may reduce the risk for complications.

The neuraminidase inhibitor (NI) group of antivirals—oseltamivir, zanamivir, and peramivir—is effective against influenza types A and B and current resistance rates are low.

The adamantine family of antivirals, amantadine and rimantadine, treat type A only. Since the circulating influenza strains in the past several seasons have demonstrated resistance >99%, these medications are not currently recommended.¹⁴

NIs reduce the duration of influenza symptoms by 10% to 20%, shortening the illness by 6 to 24 hours.^18,19 In otherwise healthy patients, this benefit must be balanced against the increased risk for nausea and vomiting (oseltamivir), bronchospasm and sinusitis (zanamivir), and diarrhea (peramivir). In adults, NIs reduce the risk for lower respiratory tract complications and hospitalization. A 2015 meta-analysis by Dobson et al found a relative risk for hospitalization among those prescribed oseltamivir vs placebo of 37%.¹⁸

In the past, antivirals were used only in high-risk patients, such as children younger than 2 years, adults older than 65 years, and those with chronic health conditions.¹⁴ Now, antivirals are recommended for those who are at higher risk for complications (see Table 4), those with “severe, complicated, or progressive illness,” and hospitalized patients.¹⁴

Continue to: Antiviral treatment may have some value...

Antiviral treatment may have some value for hospitalized patients when started even 5 days after symptom onset. Treatment may be extended beyond the usual recommendations (5 days for oseltamivir or zanamivir) in immunosuppressed patients or the critically ill. Additionally, recent guidelines include consideration of antiviral treatment in outpatients who are at normal risk if treatment can be started within 48 hours of symptom onset.¹⁴

The CDC currently recommends use of oseltamivir rather than other antivirals for most hospitalized patients, based on the availability of data on its use in this setting.¹⁴ Intravenous peramivir is recommended for patients who cannot tolerate or absorb oral medication; inhaled zanamivir or IV peramivir are preferred for patients with end-stage renal disease who are not undergoing dialysis (see Table 3).¹⁴

Strategy 2: Exercise caution when it comes to supportive care

There are other medications that may offer symptom relief or prevent complications, especially when antivirals are contraindicated or unavailable.

Corticosteroids are recommended as part of the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia,²⁰ but their role in influenza is controversial. A 2016 Cochrane review²¹ found no randomized controlled trials on the topic. Although the balance of available data from observational studies indicated that use of corticosteroids was associated with increased mortality, the authors also noted that all the studies included in their meta-analysis were of “very low quality.” They concluded that “the use of steroids in influenza remains a clinical judgement call.”

Offering vaccination by the end of October, if possible, is recommended in order for immunity to develop by mid-November.

Statins may be associated with improved outcomes in influenza and pneumonia. Studies thus far have given contradictory results,^22,23 and a planned Cochrane review of the question has been withdrawn.²⁴

Continue to: Over-the-counter medications...

Over-the-counter medications, such as aspirin, acetaminophen, and ibuprofen are often used to manage the fever and myalgia associated with influenza. Patients should be cautioned against using the same ingredient in multiple different branded medications. Acetaminophen, for example, is not limited to Tylenol-branded products. To avoid Reye’s syndrome, children and teens with febrile illness, such as influenza, should not use aspirin.

CORRESPONDENCE
Jennifer L. Hamilton, MD, PhD, Drexel Family Medicine, 10 Shurs Lane, Suite 301, Philadelphia, PA 19127; [email protected].

Patients with overweight and obesity are at increased risk of multiple morbidities, including cardiovascular disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes (T2D), osteoarthritis, obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), and all-cause mortality.¹ Even modest weight loss—5% to 10%—can lead to a clinically relevant reduction in this risk of disease.^2,3 The American Academy of Family Physicians recognizes obesity as a disease, and recommends screening of all adults for obesity and referral for those with body mass index (BMI)* ≥30 to intensive, multicomponent behavioral interventions.^4,5

For some patients, diet, exercise, and behavioral modifications are sufficient; for the great majority, however, weight loss achieved by lifestyle modification is counteracted by metabolic adaptations that promote weight regain.⁶ For patients with obesity who are unable to achieve or maintain sufficient weight loss to improve health outcomes with lifestyle modification alone, options include pharmacotherapy, devices, endoscopic bariatric therapies, and bariatric surgery.

Bariatric surgery is the most effective of these treatments, due to its association with significant and sustained weight loss, reduction in obesity-related comorbidities, and improved quality of life.^1,7 Furthermore, compared with usual care, bariatric surgery is associated with a reduced number of cardiovascular deaths, a lower incidence of cardiovascular events in adults with obesity, and a long-term reduction in overall mortality.^8-10

What are the options? Who is a candidate?

The 3 most common bariatric procedures in the United States are sleeve gastrectomy (SG), Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), and laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB).¹¹ SG and RYGB are performed more often than the LAGB, consequent to greater efficacy and fewer complications.¹² Weight loss is maximal at 1 to 2 years, and is estimated to be 15% of total body weight for LAGB; 25% for SG; and 35% for RYGB.^13,14

Weight loss is estimated to be 15% of total body weight for the laparoscopic adjustable gastric band, 25% for sleeve gastrectomy, and 35% for Roux-en-Y gastric bypass.

Not all patients are candidates for bariatric surgery. Contraindications include chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or respiratory dysfunction, poor cardiac reserve, nonadherence to medical treatment, and severe psychological disorders.¹⁵ Because some patients have difficulty maintaining weight loss following bariatric surgery and, on average, patients regain at least some weight, patients must understand that long-term lifestyle changes and follow-up are critical to the success of bariatric surgery.¹⁶

When should bariatric surgery be considered?

American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology/The Obesity Society guidelines¹⁶ conceptualize 2 indications for bariatric surgery:

• adults with BMI ≥40
• adults with BMI ≥35 who have obesity-related comorbid conditions and are motivated to lose weight but have not responded to behavioral treatment, with or without pharmacotherapy, to achieve sufficient weight loss for target health goals.

American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists guidelines¹⁷ conceptualize 3 indications for bariatric surgery:

• adults with BMI ≥40
• adults with BMI ≥35 with 1 or more severe obesity-related complications
• adults with BMI 30-34.9 with diabetes or metabolic syndrome (evidence for this recommendation is limited).

Continue to: The 3 illustrative vignettes presented...

The 3 illustrative vignettes presented in this article offer examples of patients with obesity who could benefit from bariatric surgery. Each has been unable to achieve or maintain sufficient weight loss to improve health outcomes with nonsurgical interventions alone.

CASE 1

Sleep apnea persists despite weight loss

Robin W, a 50-year-old woman with class-II obesity (5’8”; 250 lb; BMI, 38 ), OSA requiring continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), hyperlipidemia, hypertension, and iron-deficiency anemia secondary to menorrhagia, and taking an iron supplement, presents for weight management. She has lost 50 lb, reducing her BMI from 45.6 with behavioral modifications and pharmacotherapy, but she has been unsuccessful at achieving further weight loss despite a reduced-calorie diet and at least 30 minutes of physical activity most days.

Long-term lifestyle changes and follow-up are critical to the success of bariatric surgery.

Ms. W is frustrated that she has reached a weight plateau; she is motivated to lose more weight. Her goal is to improve her weight-related comorbid conditions and reduce her medication requirement. Despite the initial weight loss, she continues to require CPAP therapy for OSA and remains on 3 medications for hypertension. She does not have cardiac or respiratory disease, psychiatric diagnoses, or a history of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD).

Is bariatric surgery a reasonable option for Ms. W? If so, which procedure would you recommend?

Good option for Ms. W: Sleeve gastrectomy

It is reasonable to consider bariatric surgery—in particular, SG—for this patient with class-II obesity and multiple weight-related comorbid conditions because she has been unable to achieve further weight loss with more conservative measures.

Continue to: How does the procedure work?

How does the procedure work? SG removes a large portion of the stomach along the greater curvature, reducing the organ to approximately 15% to 25% of its original size.¹⁸ The procedure leaves the pyloric valve intact and does not involve removal or bypass of the intestines.

How appealing and successful is it? The majority of patients who undergo SG experience significant weight loss; studies report approximately 25% total body weight loss after 1 to 2 years.¹⁴ Furthermore, most patients with T2D experience resolution of, or improvement in, disease markers.¹⁹ Because SG leaves the pylorus intact, there are fewer restrictions on what a patient can eat after surgery, compared with RYGB. With further weight loss, Ms. W may experience improvement in, or resolution of, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and OSA.

The SG procedure itself is simpler than some other bariatric procedures and presents less risk of malabsorption because the intestines are left intact. Patients who undergo SG report feeling less hungry because the fundus of the stomach, which secretes ghrelin (the so-called hunger hormone), is removed.^18,20

What are special considerations, including candidacy? Patients with GERD are not ideal candidates for this procedure because exacerbation of the disease is a potential associated adverse event. SG is a reasonable surgical option for Ms. W because the procedure is less likely to exacerbate her nutritional deficiency (iron-deficiency anemia), compared to RYGB, and she does not have a history of GERD.

What are the complications? Complications of SG occur at a lower rate than they do with RYGB, which is associated with a greater risk of nutritional deficiency.¹⁸ Common early complications of SG include leaking, bleeding, stenosis, GERD, and vomiting due to excessive eating. Late complications include stomach expansion by 12 months, leading to decreased restriction.¹⁵ Unlike RYGB and LAGB, SG is not reversible.

Continue to: CASE 2

CASE 2

Severe obesity, polypharmacy for type 2 diabetes

Anne P, a 42-year-old woman with class-III obesity (5’6”; 290 lb; BMI, 46.8 kg/m²), presents to discuss bariatric surgery. Comorbidities include T2D, for which she takes metformin, a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, and a sodium–glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitor; GERD; hypertension, for which she takes an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and a calcium-channel blocker; hyperlipidemia, for which she takes a statin; and osteoarthritis.

Roux-en-Y gastric bypass is effective for weight loss because patients eat smaller portions and cannot absorb all they eat.

Ms. P lost 30 pounds—reducing her BMI from 51.6—when the sulfonylurea and thiazolidinedione she was taking were switched to the GLP-1 receptor agonist and the SGLT2 inhibitor. She also made behavioral modifications, including 30 minutes a day of physical activity and a reduced-calorie meal plan under the guidance of a dietitian.

However, Ms. P has been unable to lose more weight or reduce her hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c) level below 8%. Her goal is to avoid the need to take insulin (which several members of her family take), lower her HbA_1c level, and decrease her medication requirement.

Ms. P does not have cardiac or respiratory disease or psychiatric diagnoses. Which surgical intervention would you recommend for her?

Good option for Ms. P: Roux-en-Y gastric bypass

RYGB is a reasonable option for a patient with class-III obesity and multiple comorbidities, including poorly controlled T2D and GERD, who has failed conservative measures but wants to lose more weight, reduce her HbA_1c, reduce her medication requirement, and avoid the need for insulin.

Continue to: How does the procedure work?

How does the procedure work? RYGB constructs a small pouch from the proximal portion of the stomach and attaches it directly to the jejunum, thus bypassing part of the stomach and duodenum. The procedure is effective for weight loss because it is both restrictive and malabsorptive: patients not only eat smaller portions, but cannot absorb all they eat. Other mechanisms attributed to RYGB that are hypothesized to promote weight loss include²¹:

• alteration of endogenous gut hormones, which promotes postprandial satiety
• increased levels of bile acids, which promotes alteration of the gut microbiome
• intestinal hypertrophy.

How successful is it? RYGB is associated with significant total body weight loss of approximately 35% at 2 years.⁹ The procedure has been shown to produce superior outcomes in reducing comorbid disease compared to other bariatric procedures or medical therapy alone. Of the procedures discussed in this article, RYGB is associated with the greatest reduction in triglycerides, HbA_1c, and use of diabetes medications, including insulin.²²

What are special considerations, including candidacy? For patients with mild or moderate T2D (calculated using the Individualized Metabolic Surgery Score [http://riskcalc.org/Metabolic_Surgery_Score/], which categorizes patients by number of diabetes medications, insulin use, duration of diabetes before surgery, and HbA_1c), RYGB is recommended over SG because it leads to greater long-term remission of T2D.

RYGB is associated with a lower rate of GERD than SG and can even alleviate GERD in patients who have the disease. Furthermore, for patients with limited pancreatic beta cell reserve, RYBG and SG have similarly low efficacy for T2D remission; SG is therefore recommended over RYGB in this specific circumstance, given its slightly lower risk profile.²³

What are the complications? Patients who undergo any bariatric surgical procedure require long-term follow-up and vitamin supplementation, but those who undergo RYGB require stricter dietary adherence after the procedure; lifelong vitamin (D, B₁₂, folic acid, and thiamine), iron, and calcium supplementation; and long-term follow-up to reduce the risk and severity of complications and to monitor for nutritional deficiencies.⁷ As such, patients who have shown poor adherence to medical treatment are not good candidates for the procedure.

Continue to: Early complications include...

Early complications include leak, stricture, obstruction, and failure of the staple partition of the upper stomach. Late complications include nutritional deficiencies, as noted, and ulceration of the anastomosis. Dumping syndrome (overly rapid transit of food from the stomach into the small intestine) can develop early or late; early dumping leads to osmotic diarrhea and abdominal cramping, and late dumping leads to reactive hypoglycemia.¹⁵

Most patients with T2D who undergo sleeve gastrectomy see resolution of, or improvement in, markers of diabetes.

Technically, RYGB is a reversible procedure, although generally it is reversed only in extreme circumstances.

CASE 3

Fatty liver disease, hesitation to undergo surgery

Walt Z, a 35 year-old-man with class-II obesity (5’10”; 265 lb; BMI, 38 kg/m²), T2D, and hepatic steatosis, presents for weight management. He has been able to lose modest weight over the years with behavioral modifications, but has been unsuccessful in maintaining that loss. He requests referral to a bariatric surgeon but is concerned about the permanence and invasiveness of most bariatric procedures.

Which surgical intervention would you recommend for this patient?

Good option for Mr. Z: Laparoscopic adjustable gastric band

Given that Mr. Z is a candidate for a surgical intervention but does not want a permanent or invasive procedure, LAGB is a reasonable option.

Continue to: How does the procedure work?

How does the procedure work? LAGB is a reversible procedure in which an inflatable band is placed around the fundus of the stomach to create a small pouch. The band can be adjusted to regulate food intake by adding or removing saline through a subcutaneous access port.

How appealing and successful is it? LAGB results in approximately 15% total body weight loss at 2 years.¹³ Because the procedure is purely restrictive, it carries a reduced risk of nutritional deficiency associated more commonly with malabsorptive procedures.

What are special considerations, including candidacy? As noted, Mr. Z expressed concern about the permanence and invasiveness of most bariatric procedures, and therefore wants to undergo a reversible procedure; LAGB can be a reasonable option for such a patient. Patients who want a reversible or minimally invasive procedure should also be made aware that endoscopic bariatric therapies and other devices are being developed to fill the treatment gap in the management of obesity.

What are the complications? Although LAGB is the least invasive procedure discussed here, it is associated with the highest rate of complications—most commonly, complications associated with the band itself (eg, nausea, vomiting, obstruction, band erosion or migration, esophageal dysmotility leading to acid reflux) and failure to lose weight.⁷ LAGB also requires more postoperative visits than other procedures, to optimize band tightness. A high number of bands are removed eventually because of complications or inadequate weight loss, or both.^13,24

Shared decision-making and dialogue are essential to overcome obstacles

Despite the known benefits of bariatric surgery, including greater reduction in the risk and severity of obesity-related comorbid conditions than seen with other interventions and a long-term reduction in overall mortality when compared with usual care, fewer than 1% of eligible patients undergo a weight-loss procedure.²⁵ Likely, this is due to:

• limited patient knowledge of the health benefits of surgery
• limited provider comfort recommending surgery
• inadequate insurance coverage, which might, in part, be due to a lack of prospective studies comparing various bariatric procedures.¹⁸

Continue to: Ultimately, the decision whether to undergo a bariatric procedure...

Ultimately, the decision whether to undergo a bariatric procedure, and which one(s) to consider, should be the product of a thorough conversation between patient and provider.

CORRESPONDENCE
Sarah R. Barenbaum, MD, Department of Internal Medicine, New York–Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical College, 530 East 70th Street, M-507, New York, NY 10021; [email protected]

Patients with overweight and obesity are at increased risk of multiple morbidities, including cardiovascular disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes (T2D), osteoarthritis, obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), and all-cause mortality.¹ Even modest weight loss—5% to 10%—can lead to a clinically relevant reduction in this risk of disease.^2,3 The American Academy of Family Physicians recognizes obesity as a disease, and recommends screening of all adults for obesity and referral for those with body mass index (BMI)* ≥30 to intensive, multicomponent behavioral interventions.^4,5

For some patients, diet, exercise, and behavioral modifications are sufficient; for the great majority, however, weight loss achieved by lifestyle modification is counteracted by metabolic adaptations that promote weight regain.⁶ For patients with obesity who are unable to achieve or maintain sufficient weight loss to improve health outcomes with lifestyle modification alone, options include pharmacotherapy, devices, endoscopic bariatric therapies, and bariatric surgery.

Bariatric surgery is the most effective of these treatments, due to its association with significant and sustained weight loss, reduction in obesity-related comorbidities, and improved quality of life.^1,7 Furthermore, compared with usual care, bariatric surgery is associated with a reduced number of cardiovascular deaths, a lower incidence of cardiovascular events in adults with obesity, and a long-term reduction in overall mortality.^8-10

What are the options? Who is a candidate?

The 3 most common bariatric procedures in the United States are sleeve gastrectomy (SG), Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), and laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB).¹¹ SG and RYGB are performed more often than the LAGB, consequent to greater efficacy and fewer complications.¹² Weight loss is maximal at 1 to 2 years, and is estimated to be 15% of total body weight for LAGB; 25% for SG; and 35% for RYGB.^13,14

Weight loss is estimated to be 15% of total body weight for the laparoscopic adjustable gastric band, 25% for sleeve gastrectomy, and 35% for Roux-en-Y gastric bypass.

Not all patients are candidates for bariatric surgery. Contraindications include chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or respiratory dysfunction, poor cardiac reserve, nonadherence to medical treatment, and severe psychological disorders.¹⁵ Because some patients have difficulty maintaining weight loss following bariatric surgery and, on average, patients regain at least some weight, patients must understand that long-term lifestyle changes and follow-up are critical to the success of bariatric surgery.¹⁶

When should bariatric surgery be considered?

American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology/The Obesity Society guidelines¹⁶ conceptualize 2 indications for bariatric surgery:

• adults with BMI ≥40
• adults with BMI ≥35 who have obesity-related comorbid conditions and are motivated to lose weight but have not responded to behavioral treatment, with or without pharmacotherapy, to achieve sufficient weight loss for target health goals.

American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists guidelines¹⁷ conceptualize 3 indications for bariatric surgery:

• adults with BMI ≥40
• adults with BMI ≥35 with 1 or more severe obesity-related complications
• adults with BMI 30-34.9 with diabetes or metabolic syndrome (evidence for this recommendation is limited).

Continue to: The 3 illustrative vignettes presented...

The 3 illustrative vignettes presented in this article offer examples of patients with obesity who could benefit from bariatric surgery. Each has been unable to achieve or maintain sufficient weight loss to improve health outcomes with nonsurgical interventions alone.

CASE 1

Sleep apnea persists despite weight loss

Robin W, a 50-year-old woman with class-II obesity (5’8”; 250 lb; BMI, 38 ), OSA requiring continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), hyperlipidemia, hypertension, and iron-deficiency anemia secondary to menorrhagia, and taking an iron supplement, presents for weight management. She has lost 50 lb, reducing her BMI from 45.6 with behavioral modifications and pharmacotherapy, but she has been unsuccessful at achieving further weight loss despite a reduced-calorie diet and at least 30 minutes of physical activity most days.

Long-term lifestyle changes and follow-up are critical to the success of bariatric surgery.

Ms. W is frustrated that she has reached a weight plateau; she is motivated to lose more weight. Her goal is to improve her weight-related comorbid conditions and reduce her medication requirement. Despite the initial weight loss, she continues to require CPAP therapy for OSA and remains on 3 medications for hypertension. She does not have cardiac or respiratory disease, psychiatric diagnoses, or a history of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD).

Is bariatric surgery a reasonable option for Ms. W? If so, which procedure would you recommend?

Good option for Ms. W: Sleeve gastrectomy

It is reasonable to consider bariatric surgery—in particular, SG—for this patient with class-II obesity and multiple weight-related comorbid conditions because she has been unable to achieve further weight loss with more conservative measures.

Continue to: How does the procedure work?

How does the procedure work? SG removes a large portion of the stomach along the greater curvature, reducing the organ to approximately 15% to 25% of its original size.¹⁸ The procedure leaves the pyloric valve intact and does not involve removal or bypass of the intestines.

How appealing and successful is it? The majority of patients who undergo SG experience significant weight loss; studies report approximately 25% total body weight loss after 1 to 2 years.¹⁴ Furthermore, most patients with T2D experience resolution of, or improvement in, disease markers.¹⁹ Because SG leaves the pylorus intact, there are fewer restrictions on what a patient can eat after surgery, compared with RYGB. With further weight loss, Ms. W may experience improvement in, or resolution of, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and OSA.

The SG procedure itself is simpler than some other bariatric procedures and presents less risk of malabsorption because the intestines are left intact. Patients who undergo SG report feeling less hungry because the fundus of the stomach, which secretes ghrelin (the so-called hunger hormone), is removed.^18,20

What are special considerations, including candidacy? Patients with GERD are not ideal candidates for this procedure because exacerbation of the disease is a potential associated adverse event. SG is a reasonable surgical option for Ms. W because the procedure is less likely to exacerbate her nutritional deficiency (iron-deficiency anemia), compared to RYGB, and she does not have a history of GERD.

What are the complications? Complications of SG occur at a lower rate than they do with RYGB, which is associated with a greater risk of nutritional deficiency.¹⁸ Common early complications of SG include leaking, bleeding, stenosis, GERD, and vomiting due to excessive eating. Late complications include stomach expansion by 12 months, leading to decreased restriction.¹⁵ Unlike RYGB and LAGB, SG is not reversible.

Continue to: CASE 2

CASE 2

Severe obesity, polypharmacy for type 2 diabetes

Anne P, a 42-year-old woman with class-III obesity (5’6”; 290 lb; BMI, 46.8 kg/m²), presents to discuss bariatric surgery. Comorbidities include T2D, for which she takes metformin, a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, and a sodium–glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitor; GERD; hypertension, for which she takes an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and a calcium-channel blocker; hyperlipidemia, for which she takes a statin; and osteoarthritis.

Roux-en-Y gastric bypass is effective for weight loss because patients eat smaller portions and cannot absorb all they eat.

Ms. P lost 30 pounds—reducing her BMI from 51.6—when the sulfonylurea and thiazolidinedione she was taking were switched to the GLP-1 receptor agonist and the SGLT2 inhibitor. She also made behavioral modifications, including 30 minutes a day of physical activity and a reduced-calorie meal plan under the guidance of a dietitian.

However, Ms. P has been unable to lose more weight or reduce her hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c) level below 8%. Her goal is to avoid the need to take insulin (which several members of her family take), lower her HbA_1c level, and decrease her medication requirement.

Ms. P does not have cardiac or respiratory disease or psychiatric diagnoses. Which surgical intervention would you recommend for her?

Good option for Ms. P: Roux-en-Y gastric bypass

RYGB is a reasonable option for a patient with class-III obesity and multiple comorbidities, including poorly controlled T2D and GERD, who has failed conservative measures but wants to lose more weight, reduce her HbA_1c, reduce her medication requirement, and avoid the need for insulin.

Continue to: How does the procedure work?

How does the procedure work? RYGB constructs a small pouch from the proximal portion of the stomach and attaches it directly to the jejunum, thus bypassing part of the stomach and duodenum. The procedure is effective for weight loss because it is both restrictive and malabsorptive: patients not only eat smaller portions, but cannot absorb all they eat. Other mechanisms attributed to RYGB that are hypothesized to promote weight loss include²¹:

• alteration of endogenous gut hormones, which promotes postprandial satiety
• increased levels of bile acids, which promotes alteration of the gut microbiome
• intestinal hypertrophy.

How successful is it? RYGB is associated with significant total body weight loss of approximately 35% at 2 years.⁹ The procedure has been shown to produce superior outcomes in reducing comorbid disease compared to other bariatric procedures or medical therapy alone. Of the procedures discussed in this article, RYGB is associated with the greatest reduction in triglycerides, HbA_1c, and use of diabetes medications, including insulin.²²

What are special considerations, including candidacy? For patients with mild or moderate T2D (calculated using the Individualized Metabolic Surgery Score [http://riskcalc.org/Metabolic_Surgery_Score/], which categorizes patients by number of diabetes medications, insulin use, duration of diabetes before surgery, and HbA_1c), RYGB is recommended over SG because it leads to greater long-term remission of T2D.

RYGB is associated with a lower rate of GERD than SG and can even alleviate GERD in patients who have the disease. Furthermore, for patients with limited pancreatic beta cell reserve, RYBG and SG have similarly low efficacy for T2D remission; SG is therefore recommended over RYGB in this specific circumstance, given its slightly lower risk profile.²³

What are the complications? Patients who undergo any bariatric surgical procedure require long-term follow-up and vitamin supplementation, but those who undergo RYGB require stricter dietary adherence after the procedure; lifelong vitamin (D, B₁₂, folic acid, and thiamine), iron, and calcium supplementation; and long-term follow-up to reduce the risk and severity of complications and to monitor for nutritional deficiencies.⁷ As such, patients who have shown poor adherence to medical treatment are not good candidates for the procedure.

Continue to: Early complications include...

Early complications include leak, stricture, obstruction, and failure of the staple partition of the upper stomach. Late complications include nutritional deficiencies, as noted, and ulceration of the anastomosis. Dumping syndrome (overly rapid transit of food from the stomach into the small intestine) can develop early or late; early dumping leads to osmotic diarrhea and abdominal cramping, and late dumping leads to reactive hypoglycemia.¹⁵

Most patients with T2D who undergo sleeve gastrectomy see resolution of, or improvement in, markers of diabetes.

Technically, RYGB is a reversible procedure, although generally it is reversed only in extreme circumstances.

CASE 3

Fatty liver disease, hesitation to undergo surgery

Walt Z, a 35 year-old-man with class-II obesity (5’10”; 265 lb; BMI, 38 kg/m²), T2D, and hepatic steatosis, presents for weight management. He has been able to lose modest weight over the years with behavioral modifications, but has been unsuccessful in maintaining that loss. He requests referral to a bariatric surgeon but is concerned about the permanence and invasiveness of most bariatric procedures.

Which surgical intervention would you recommend for this patient?

Good option for Mr. Z: Laparoscopic adjustable gastric band

Given that Mr. Z is a candidate for a surgical intervention but does not want a permanent or invasive procedure, LAGB is a reasonable option.

Continue to: How does the procedure work?

How does the procedure work? LAGB is a reversible procedure in which an inflatable band is placed around the fundus of the stomach to create a small pouch. The band can be adjusted to regulate food intake by adding or removing saline through a subcutaneous access port.

How appealing and successful is it? LAGB results in approximately 15% total body weight loss at 2 years.¹³ Because the procedure is purely restrictive, it carries a reduced risk of nutritional deficiency associated more commonly with malabsorptive procedures.

What are special considerations, including candidacy? As noted, Mr. Z expressed concern about the permanence and invasiveness of most bariatric procedures, and therefore wants to undergo a reversible procedure; LAGB can be a reasonable option for such a patient. Patients who want a reversible or minimally invasive procedure should also be made aware that endoscopic bariatric therapies and other devices are being developed to fill the treatment gap in the management of obesity.

What are the complications? Although LAGB is the least invasive procedure discussed here, it is associated with the highest rate of complications—most commonly, complications associated with the band itself (eg, nausea, vomiting, obstruction, band erosion or migration, esophageal dysmotility leading to acid reflux) and failure to lose weight.⁷ LAGB also requires more postoperative visits than other procedures, to optimize band tightness. A high number of bands are removed eventually because of complications or inadequate weight loss, or both.^13,24

Shared decision-making and dialogue are essential to overcome obstacles

Despite the known benefits of bariatric surgery, including greater reduction in the risk and severity of obesity-related comorbid conditions than seen with other interventions and a long-term reduction in overall mortality when compared with usual care, fewer than 1% of eligible patients undergo a weight-loss procedure.²⁵ Likely, this is due to:

• limited patient knowledge of the health benefits of surgery
• limited provider comfort recommending surgery
• inadequate insurance coverage, which might, in part, be due to a lack of prospective studies comparing various bariatric procedures.¹⁸

Continue to: Ultimately, the decision whether to undergo a bariatric procedure...

Ultimately, the decision whether to undergo a bariatric procedure, and which one(s) to consider, should be the product of a thorough conversation between patient and provider.

CORRESPONDENCE
Sarah R. Barenbaum, MD, Department of Internal Medicine, New York–Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical College, 530 East 70th Street, M-507, New York, NY 10021; [email protected]

Patients with overweight and obesity are at increased risk of multiple morbidities, including cardiovascular disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes (T2D), osteoarthritis, obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), and all-cause mortality.¹ Even modest weight loss—5% to 10%—can lead to a clinically relevant reduction in this risk of disease.^2,3 The American Academy of Family Physicians recognizes obesity as a disease, and recommends screening of all adults for obesity and referral for those with body mass index (BMI)* ≥30 to intensive, multicomponent behavioral interventions.^4,5

For some patients, diet, exercise, and behavioral modifications are sufficient; for the great majority, however, weight loss achieved by lifestyle modification is counteracted by metabolic adaptations that promote weight regain.⁶ For patients with obesity who are unable to achieve or maintain sufficient weight loss to improve health outcomes with lifestyle modification alone, options include pharmacotherapy, devices, endoscopic bariatric therapies, and bariatric surgery.

Bariatric surgery is the most effective of these treatments, due to its association with significant and sustained weight loss, reduction in obesity-related comorbidities, and improved quality of life.^1,7 Furthermore, compared with usual care, bariatric surgery is associated with a reduced number of cardiovascular deaths, a lower incidence of cardiovascular events in adults with obesity, and a long-term reduction in overall mortality.^8-10

What are the options? Who is a candidate?

The 3 most common bariatric procedures in the United States are sleeve gastrectomy (SG), Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), and laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB).¹¹ SG and RYGB are performed more often than the LAGB, consequent to greater efficacy and fewer complications.¹² Weight loss is maximal at 1 to 2 years, and is estimated to be 15% of total body weight for LAGB; 25% for SG; and 35% for RYGB.^13,14

Weight loss is estimated to be 15% of total body weight for the laparoscopic adjustable gastric band, 25% for sleeve gastrectomy, and 35% for Roux-en-Y gastric bypass.

Not all patients are candidates for bariatric surgery. Contraindications include chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or respiratory dysfunction, poor cardiac reserve, nonadherence to medical treatment, and severe psychological disorders.¹⁵ Because some patients have difficulty maintaining weight loss following bariatric surgery and, on average, patients regain at least some weight, patients must understand that long-term lifestyle changes and follow-up are critical to the success of bariatric surgery.¹⁶

When should bariatric surgery be considered?

American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology/The Obesity Society guidelines¹⁶ conceptualize 2 indications for bariatric surgery:

• adults with BMI ≥40
• adults with BMI ≥35 who have obesity-related comorbid conditions and are motivated to lose weight but have not responded to behavioral treatment, with or without pharmacotherapy, to achieve sufficient weight loss for target health goals.

American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists guidelines¹⁷ conceptualize 3 indications for bariatric surgery:

• adults with BMI ≥40
• adults with BMI ≥35 with 1 or more severe obesity-related complications
• adults with BMI 30-34.9 with diabetes or metabolic syndrome (evidence for this recommendation is limited).

Continue to: The 3 illustrative vignettes presented...

The 3 illustrative vignettes presented in this article offer examples of patients with obesity who could benefit from bariatric surgery. Each has been unable to achieve or maintain sufficient weight loss to improve health outcomes with nonsurgical interventions alone.

CASE 1

Sleep apnea persists despite weight loss

Robin W, a 50-year-old woman with class-II obesity (5’8”; 250 lb; BMI, 38 ), OSA requiring continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), hyperlipidemia, hypertension, and iron-deficiency anemia secondary to menorrhagia, and taking an iron supplement, presents for weight management. She has lost 50 lb, reducing her BMI from 45.6 with behavioral modifications and pharmacotherapy, but she has been unsuccessful at achieving further weight loss despite a reduced-calorie diet and at least 30 minutes of physical activity most days.

Long-term lifestyle changes and follow-up are critical to the success of bariatric surgery.

Ms. W is frustrated that she has reached a weight plateau; she is motivated to lose more weight. Her goal is to improve her weight-related comorbid conditions and reduce her medication requirement. Despite the initial weight loss, she continues to require CPAP therapy for OSA and remains on 3 medications for hypertension. She does not have cardiac or respiratory disease, psychiatric diagnoses, or a history of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD).

Is bariatric surgery a reasonable option for Ms. W? If so, which procedure would you recommend?

Good option for Ms. W: Sleeve gastrectomy

It is reasonable to consider bariatric surgery—in particular, SG—for this patient with class-II obesity and multiple weight-related comorbid conditions because she has been unable to achieve further weight loss with more conservative measures.

Continue to: How does the procedure work?

How does the procedure work? SG removes a large portion of the stomach along the greater curvature, reducing the organ to approximately 15% to 25% of its original size.¹⁸ The procedure leaves the pyloric valve intact and does not involve removal or bypass of the intestines.

How appealing and successful is it? The majority of patients who undergo SG experience significant weight loss; studies report approximately 25% total body weight loss after 1 to 2 years.¹⁴ Furthermore, most patients with T2D experience resolution of, or improvement in, disease markers.¹⁹ Because SG leaves the pylorus intact, there are fewer restrictions on what a patient can eat after surgery, compared with RYGB. With further weight loss, Ms. W may experience improvement in, or resolution of, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and OSA.

The SG procedure itself is simpler than some other bariatric procedures and presents less risk of malabsorption because the intestines are left intact. Patients who undergo SG report feeling less hungry because the fundus of the stomach, which secretes ghrelin (the so-called hunger hormone), is removed.^18,20

What are special considerations, including candidacy? Patients with GERD are not ideal candidates for this procedure because exacerbation of the disease is a potential associated adverse event. SG is a reasonable surgical option for Ms. W because the procedure is less likely to exacerbate her nutritional deficiency (iron-deficiency anemia), compared to RYGB, and she does not have a history of GERD.

What are the complications? Complications of SG occur at a lower rate than they do with RYGB, which is associated with a greater risk of nutritional deficiency.¹⁸ Common early complications of SG include leaking, bleeding, stenosis, GERD, and vomiting due to excessive eating. Late complications include stomach expansion by 12 months, leading to decreased restriction.¹⁵ Unlike RYGB and LAGB, SG is not reversible.

Continue to: CASE 2

CASE 2

Severe obesity, polypharmacy for type 2 diabetes

Anne P, a 42-year-old woman with class-III obesity (5’6”; 290 lb; BMI, 46.8 kg/m²), presents to discuss bariatric surgery. Comorbidities include T2D, for which she takes metformin, a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, and a sodium–glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitor; GERD; hypertension, for which she takes an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and a calcium-channel blocker; hyperlipidemia, for which she takes a statin; and osteoarthritis.

Roux-en-Y gastric bypass is effective for weight loss because patients eat smaller portions and cannot absorb all they eat.

Ms. P lost 30 pounds—reducing her BMI from 51.6—when the sulfonylurea and thiazolidinedione she was taking were switched to the GLP-1 receptor agonist and the SGLT2 inhibitor. She also made behavioral modifications, including 30 minutes a day of physical activity and a reduced-calorie meal plan under the guidance of a dietitian.

However, Ms. P has been unable to lose more weight or reduce her hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c) level below 8%. Her goal is to avoid the need to take insulin (which several members of her family take), lower her HbA_1c level, and decrease her medication requirement.

Ms. P does not have cardiac or respiratory disease or psychiatric diagnoses. Which surgical intervention would you recommend for her?

Good option for Ms. P: Roux-en-Y gastric bypass

RYGB is a reasonable option for a patient with class-III obesity and multiple comorbidities, including poorly controlled T2D and GERD, who has failed conservative measures but wants to lose more weight, reduce her HbA_1c, reduce her medication requirement, and avoid the need for insulin.

Continue to: How does the procedure work?

How does the procedure work? RYGB constructs a small pouch from the proximal portion of the stomach and attaches it directly to the jejunum, thus bypassing part of the stomach and duodenum. The procedure is effective for weight loss because it is both restrictive and malabsorptive: patients not only eat smaller portions, but cannot absorb all they eat. Other mechanisms attributed to RYGB that are hypothesized to promote weight loss include²¹:

• alteration of endogenous gut hormones, which promotes postprandial satiety
• increased levels of bile acids, which promotes alteration of the gut microbiome
• intestinal hypertrophy.

How successful is it? RYGB is associated with significant total body weight loss of approximately 35% at 2 years.⁹ The procedure has been shown to produce superior outcomes in reducing comorbid disease compared to other bariatric procedures or medical therapy alone. Of the procedures discussed in this article, RYGB is associated with the greatest reduction in triglycerides, HbA_1c, and use of diabetes medications, including insulin.²²

What are special considerations, including candidacy? For patients with mild or moderate T2D (calculated using the Individualized Metabolic Surgery Score [http://riskcalc.org/Metabolic_Surgery_Score/], which categorizes patients by number of diabetes medications, insulin use, duration of diabetes before surgery, and HbA_1c), RYGB is recommended over SG because it leads to greater long-term remission of T2D.

RYGB is associated with a lower rate of GERD than SG and can even alleviate GERD in patients who have the disease. Furthermore, for patients with limited pancreatic beta cell reserve, RYBG and SG have similarly low efficacy for T2D remission; SG is therefore recommended over RYGB in this specific circumstance, given its slightly lower risk profile.²³

What are the complications? Patients who undergo any bariatric surgical procedure require long-term follow-up and vitamin supplementation, but those who undergo RYGB require stricter dietary adherence after the procedure; lifelong vitamin (D, B₁₂, folic acid, and thiamine), iron, and calcium supplementation; and long-term follow-up to reduce the risk and severity of complications and to monitor for nutritional deficiencies.⁷ As such, patients who have shown poor adherence to medical treatment are not good candidates for the procedure.

Continue to: Early complications include...

Early complications include leak, stricture, obstruction, and failure of the staple partition of the upper stomach. Late complications include nutritional deficiencies, as noted, and ulceration of the anastomosis. Dumping syndrome (overly rapid transit of food from the stomach into the small intestine) can develop early or late; early dumping leads to osmotic diarrhea and abdominal cramping, and late dumping leads to reactive hypoglycemia.¹⁵

Most patients with T2D who undergo sleeve gastrectomy see resolution of, or improvement in, markers of diabetes.

Technically, RYGB is a reversible procedure, although generally it is reversed only in extreme circumstances.

CASE 3

Fatty liver disease, hesitation to undergo surgery

Walt Z, a 35 year-old-man with class-II obesity (5’10”; 265 lb; BMI, 38 kg/m²), T2D, and hepatic steatosis, presents for weight management. He has been able to lose modest weight over the years with behavioral modifications, but has been unsuccessful in maintaining that loss. He requests referral to a bariatric surgeon but is concerned about the permanence and invasiveness of most bariatric procedures.

Which surgical intervention would you recommend for this patient?

Good option for Mr. Z: Laparoscopic adjustable gastric band

Given that Mr. Z is a candidate for a surgical intervention but does not want a permanent or invasive procedure, LAGB is a reasonable option.

Continue to: How does the procedure work?

How does the procedure work? LAGB is a reversible procedure in which an inflatable band is placed around the fundus of the stomach to create a small pouch. The band can be adjusted to regulate food intake by adding or removing saline through a subcutaneous access port.

How appealing and successful is it? LAGB results in approximately 15% total body weight loss at 2 years.¹³ Because the procedure is purely restrictive, it carries a reduced risk of nutritional deficiency associated more commonly with malabsorptive procedures.

What are special considerations, including candidacy? As noted, Mr. Z expressed concern about the permanence and invasiveness of most bariatric procedures, and therefore wants to undergo a reversible procedure; LAGB can be a reasonable option for such a patient. Patients who want a reversible or minimally invasive procedure should also be made aware that endoscopic bariatric therapies and other devices are being developed to fill the treatment gap in the management of obesity.

What are the complications? Although LAGB is the least invasive procedure discussed here, it is associated with the highest rate of complications—most commonly, complications associated with the band itself (eg, nausea, vomiting, obstruction, band erosion or migration, esophageal dysmotility leading to acid reflux) and failure to lose weight.⁷ LAGB also requires more postoperative visits than other procedures, to optimize band tightness. A high number of bands are removed eventually because of complications or inadequate weight loss, or both.^13,24

Shared decision-making and dialogue are essential to overcome obstacles

Despite the known benefits of bariatric surgery, including greater reduction in the risk and severity of obesity-related comorbid conditions than seen with other interventions and a long-term reduction in overall mortality when compared with usual care, fewer than 1% of eligible patients undergo a weight-loss procedure.²⁵ Likely, this is due to:

• limited patient knowledge of the health benefits of surgery
• limited provider comfort recommending surgery
• inadequate insurance coverage, which might, in part, be due to a lack of prospective studies comparing various bariatric procedures.¹⁸

Continue to: Ultimately, the decision whether to undergo a bariatric procedure...

Ultimately, the decision whether to undergo a bariatric procedure, and which one(s) to consider, should be the product of a thorough conversation between patient and provider.

CORRESPONDENCE
Sarah R. Barenbaum, MD, Department of Internal Medicine, New York–Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical College, 530 East 70th Street, M-507, New York, NY 10021; [email protected]

The FP noted a horn-like growth on the patient's face with some scaling around it. He recommended a shave biopsy. His differential diagnosis included actinic keratosis and Bowen’s disease (also known as squamous cell carcinoma in situ).

A biopsy was performed with a DermaBlade using a shave technique deep enough to get the base of the horn and a good sampling of the abnormal-looking tissue. (See the Watch & Learn video on “Shave biopsy.”) The pathology report revealed a cutaneous horn in a squamous cell carcinoma in situ.

The patient was referred to Dermatology for further treatment. Options included treatment with topical 5-fluorouracil (over weeks to months), standard excision, or Mohs surgery.

‌

Photos and text for Photo Rounds Friday courtesy of Richard P. Usatine, MD. This case was adapted from: Smith M. Cutaneous horn. In: Usatine R, Smith M, Mayeaux EJ, et al. Color Atlas of Family Medicine. 2nd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2013:985-988.

To learn more about the Color Atlas of Family Medicine, see: www.amazon.com/Color-Family-Medicine-Richard-Usatine/dp/0071769641/.

You can now get the second edition of the Color Atlas of Family Medicine as an app by clicking on this link: usatinemedia.com.

The FP noted a horn-like growth on the patient's face with some scaling around it. He recommended a shave biopsy. His differential diagnosis included actinic keratosis and Bowen’s disease (also known as squamous cell carcinoma in situ).

A biopsy was performed with a DermaBlade using a shave technique deep enough to get the base of the horn and a good sampling of the abnormal-looking tissue. (See the Watch & Learn video on “Shave biopsy.”) The pathology report revealed a cutaneous horn in a squamous cell carcinoma in situ.

The patient was referred to Dermatology for further treatment. Options included treatment with topical 5-fluorouracil (over weeks to months), standard excision, or Mohs surgery.

‌

Photos and text for Photo Rounds Friday courtesy of Richard P. Usatine, MD. This case was adapted from: Smith M. Cutaneous horn. In: Usatine R, Smith M, Mayeaux EJ, et al. Color Atlas of Family Medicine. 2nd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2013:985-988.

To learn more about the Color Atlas of Family Medicine, see: www.amazon.com/Color-Family-Medicine-Richard-Usatine/dp/0071769641/.

You can now get the second edition of the Color Atlas of Family Medicine as an app by clicking on this link: usatinemedia.com.

The FP noted a horn-like growth on the patient's face with some scaling around it. He recommended a shave biopsy. His differential diagnosis included actinic keratosis and Bowen’s disease (also known as squamous cell carcinoma in situ).

A biopsy was performed with a DermaBlade using a shave technique deep enough to get the base of the horn and a good sampling of the abnormal-looking tissue. (See the Watch & Learn video on “Shave biopsy.”) The pathology report revealed a cutaneous horn in a squamous cell carcinoma in situ.

The patient was referred to Dermatology for further treatment. Options included treatment with topical 5-fluorouracil (over weeks to months), standard excision, or Mohs surgery.

‌

Photos and text for Photo Rounds Friday courtesy of Richard P. Usatine, MD. This case was adapted from: Smith M. Cutaneous horn. In: Usatine R, Smith M, Mayeaux EJ, et al. Color Atlas of Family Medicine. 2nd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2013:985-988.

To learn more about the Color Atlas of Family Medicine, see: www.amazon.com/Color-Family-Medicine-Richard-Usatine/dp/0071769641/.

You can now get the second edition of the Color Atlas of Family Medicine as an app by clicking on this link: usatinemedia.com.

The diagnosis of eosinophilic esophagitis no longer needs to include a trial of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy, according to an updated international consensus statement published in the October issue of Gastroenterology.

Dr. Graham Beards/Wikimedia Commons/CC ASA 3.0

“An initial rationale for the PPI trial was to distinguish eosinophilic esophagitis from gastroesophageal reflux disease, but it is now known that these conditions have a complex relationship and are not necessarily mutually exclusive,” wrote Evan S. Dellon, MD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and his associates. According to current evidence, “PPIs are better classified as a treatment for esophageal eosinophilia that may be due to eosinophilic esophagitis than as a diagnostic criterion,” they said.

Diagnostic guidelines for eosinophilic esophagitis were published first in 2007 and were updated in 2011. The guideline authors recommended either pH monitoring or an 8-week trial of high-dose PPI therapy to rule out inflammation from gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD).

But subsequent publications described patients with symptomatic esophageal eosinophilia who responded to PPIs and lacked classic GERD symptoms. Guidelines called this condition “PPI-responsive esophageal eosinophilia” and considered it a separate entity from GERD.

However, an “evolving body of research” shows that eosinophilic esophagitis can overlap with GERD, Dr. Dellon and his associates wrote. Furthermore, each of these conditions can trigger the other. Eosinophilic esophagitis can decrease esophageal compliance, leading to secondary reflux, while gastroesophageal reflux can erode the esophageal epithelium, triggering antigen exposure and eosinophilia.

Therefore, Dr. Dellon and his associates recommended defining eosinophilic esophagitis as signs and symptoms of esophageal dysfunction and an esophageal biopsy showing at least 15 eosinophils per high-power field, or approximately 60 eosinophils per millimeter, with infiltration limited to the esophagus. They stressed the importance of esophageal biopsy even if endoscopy shows normal mucosa. “As per prior guidelines, multiple biopsies from two or more esophageal levels, targeting areas of apparent inflammation, are recommended to increase the diagnostic yield,” they added. “Gastric and duodenal biopsies should be obtained as clinically indicated by symptoms, endoscopic findings in the stomach or duodenum, or high index of suspicion for a mucosal process.”

Physicians should increase their suspicion of eosinophilic esophagitis if patients have other types of atopy or endoscopic findings of “rings, furrows, exudates, edema, stricture, narrowing, and crepe-paper mucosa,” they added. In addition to GERD, they recommended looking carefully for other conditions that can trigger esophageal eosinophilia, such as pemphigus, drug hypersensitivity reactions, achalasia, and Crohn’s disease with esophageal involvement.

To create the guideline, Dr. Dellon and his associates searched PubMed for studies of all designs and sizes published from 1966 through December 2016. Teams of experts on specific topics then reviewed and discussed relevant literature. In May 2017, 43 reviewers met for 8 hours to present and discuss conclusions. There was 100% agreement to remove the PPI trial from the diagnostic criteria, the experts noted.

The authors disclosed financial support from the International Gastrointestinal Eosinophilic Diseases Researchers (TIGERS), The David and Denise Bunning Family, and the Rare Disease Clinical Research Network. Dr. Dellon disclosed consulting relationships and receiving research funding from Adare, Celgene/Receptos, Regeneron, and Shire among others. The majority of his coauthors also disclosed relationships with numerous medical companies.

SOURCE: Dellon ES et al. Gastroenterology. 2018 Jul 12. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2018.07.009.

The diagnosis of eosinophilic esophagitis no longer needs to include a trial of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy, according to an updated international consensus statement published in the October issue of Gastroenterology.

Dr. Graham Beards/Wikimedia Commons/CC ASA 3.0

“An initial rationale for the PPI trial was to distinguish eosinophilic esophagitis from gastroesophageal reflux disease, but it is now known that these conditions have a complex relationship and are not necessarily mutually exclusive,” wrote Evan S. Dellon, MD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and his associates. According to current evidence, “PPIs are better classified as a treatment for esophageal eosinophilia that may be due to eosinophilic esophagitis than as a diagnostic criterion,” they said.

Diagnostic guidelines for eosinophilic esophagitis were published first in 2007 and were updated in 2011. The guideline authors recommended either pH monitoring or an 8-week trial of high-dose PPI therapy to rule out inflammation from gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD).

But subsequent publications described patients with symptomatic esophageal eosinophilia who responded to PPIs and lacked classic GERD symptoms. Guidelines called this condition “PPI-responsive esophageal eosinophilia” and considered it a separate entity from GERD.

However, an “evolving body of research” shows that eosinophilic esophagitis can overlap with GERD, Dr. Dellon and his associates wrote. Furthermore, each of these conditions can trigger the other. Eosinophilic esophagitis can decrease esophageal compliance, leading to secondary reflux, while gastroesophageal reflux can erode the esophageal epithelium, triggering antigen exposure and eosinophilia.

Therefore, Dr. Dellon and his associates recommended defining eosinophilic esophagitis as signs and symptoms of esophageal dysfunction and an esophageal biopsy showing at least 15 eosinophils per high-power field, or approximately 60 eosinophils per millimeter, with infiltration limited to the esophagus. They stressed the importance of esophageal biopsy even if endoscopy shows normal mucosa. “As per prior guidelines, multiple biopsies from two or more esophageal levels, targeting areas of apparent inflammation, are recommended to increase the diagnostic yield,” they added. “Gastric and duodenal biopsies should be obtained as clinically indicated by symptoms, endoscopic findings in the stomach or duodenum, or high index of suspicion for a mucosal process.”

Physicians should increase their suspicion of eosinophilic esophagitis if patients have other types of atopy or endoscopic findings of “rings, furrows, exudates, edema, stricture, narrowing, and crepe-paper mucosa,” they added. In addition to GERD, they recommended looking carefully for other conditions that can trigger esophageal eosinophilia, such as pemphigus, drug hypersensitivity reactions, achalasia, and Crohn’s disease with esophageal involvement.

To create the guideline, Dr. Dellon and his associates searched PubMed for studies of all designs and sizes published from 1966 through December 2016. Teams of experts on specific topics then reviewed and discussed relevant literature. In May 2017, 43 reviewers met for 8 hours to present and discuss conclusions. There was 100% agreement to remove the PPI trial from the diagnostic criteria, the experts noted.

The authors disclosed financial support from the International Gastrointestinal Eosinophilic Diseases Researchers (TIGERS), The David and Denise Bunning Family, and the Rare Disease Clinical Research Network. Dr. Dellon disclosed consulting relationships and receiving research funding from Adare, Celgene/Receptos, Regeneron, and Shire among others. The majority of his coauthors also disclosed relationships with numerous medical companies.

SOURCE: Dellon ES et al. Gastroenterology. 2018 Jul 12. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2018.07.009.

The diagnosis of eosinophilic esophagitis no longer needs to include a trial of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy, according to an updated international consensus statement published in the October issue of Gastroenterology.

Dr. Graham Beards/Wikimedia Commons/CC ASA 3.0

“An initial rationale for the PPI trial was to distinguish eosinophilic esophagitis from gastroesophageal reflux disease, but it is now known that these conditions have a complex relationship and are not necessarily mutually exclusive,” wrote Evan S. Dellon, MD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and his associates. According to current evidence, “PPIs are better classified as a treatment for esophageal eosinophilia that may be due to eosinophilic esophagitis than as a diagnostic criterion,” they said.

Diagnostic guidelines for eosinophilic esophagitis were published first in 2007 and were updated in 2011. The guideline authors recommended either pH monitoring or an 8-week trial of high-dose PPI therapy to rule out inflammation from gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD).

But subsequent publications described patients with symptomatic esophageal eosinophilia who responded to PPIs and lacked classic GERD symptoms. Guidelines called this condition “PPI-responsive esophageal eosinophilia” and considered it a separate entity from GERD.

However, an “evolving body of research” shows that eosinophilic esophagitis can overlap with GERD, Dr. Dellon and his associates wrote. Furthermore, each of these conditions can trigger the other. Eosinophilic esophagitis can decrease esophageal compliance, leading to secondary reflux, while gastroesophageal reflux can erode the esophageal epithelium, triggering antigen exposure and eosinophilia.

Therefore, Dr. Dellon and his associates recommended defining eosinophilic esophagitis as signs and symptoms of esophageal dysfunction and an esophageal biopsy showing at least 15 eosinophils per high-power field, or approximately 60 eosinophils per millimeter, with infiltration limited to the esophagus. They stressed the importance of esophageal biopsy even if endoscopy shows normal mucosa. “As per prior guidelines, multiple biopsies from two or more esophageal levels, targeting areas of apparent inflammation, are recommended to increase the diagnostic yield,” they added. “Gastric and duodenal biopsies should be obtained as clinically indicated by symptoms, endoscopic findings in the stomach or duodenum, or high index of suspicion for a mucosal process.”

Physicians should increase their suspicion of eosinophilic esophagitis if patients have other types of atopy or endoscopic findings of “rings, furrows, exudates, edema, stricture, narrowing, and crepe-paper mucosa,” they added. In addition to GERD, they recommended looking carefully for other conditions that can trigger esophageal eosinophilia, such as pemphigus, drug hypersensitivity reactions, achalasia, and Crohn’s disease with esophageal involvement.

To create the guideline, Dr. Dellon and his associates searched PubMed for studies of all designs and sizes published from 1966 through December 2016. Teams of experts on specific topics then reviewed and discussed relevant literature. In May 2017, 43 reviewers met for 8 hours to present and discuss conclusions. There was 100% agreement to remove the PPI trial from the diagnostic criteria, the experts noted.

The authors disclosed financial support from the International Gastrointestinal Eosinophilic Diseases Researchers (TIGERS), The David and Denise Bunning Family, and the Rare Disease Clinical Research Network. Dr. Dellon disclosed consulting relationships and receiving research funding from Adare, Celgene/Receptos, Regeneron, and Shire among others. The majority of his coauthors also disclosed relationships with numerous medical companies.

SOURCE: Dellon ES et al. Gastroenterology. 2018 Jul 12. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2018.07.009.

The FP noted that the patient had a dominant brown patch on her right cheek that was larger and darker than the other light brown spots found on her face. Fortunately, he had a dermatoscope and examined the spot closely, finding only features of a benign solar lentigo. There were no suspicious features for melanoma.

The FP gave the patient a choice between a broad shave biopsy that day, or having the lesion monitored (safe with a flat lesion) using photography and dermoscopy.

The patient didn’t want a biopsy on her face and was willing to have the area monitored. The clinical and dermoscopic photographs were taken and stored. The patient was given a follow-up appointment in 4 to 6 months and instructions to avoid the sun as much as possible. She was also told to use sunscreen and hats when out in the sun.

After 5 months, the previous photos were compared with the new photos on a computer screen and there were no changes. Everyone was reassured, and the patient indicated that she was being careful about her sun exposure.

‌

Photos and text for Photo Rounds Friday courtesy of Richard P. Usatine, MD. This case was adapted from: Mayeaux, EJ, Usatine, R. Lentigo maligna. In: Usatine R, Smith M, Mayeaux EJ, et al. Color Atlas of Family Medicine. 2nd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2013:981-984.

To learn more about the Color Atlas of Family Medicine, see: www.amazon.com/Color-Family-Medicine-Richard-Usatine/dp/0071769641/.

You can now get the second edition of the Color Atlas of Family Medicine as an app by clicking on this link: usatinemedia.com.

The FP noted that the patient had a dominant brown patch on her right cheek that was larger and darker than the other light brown spots found on her face. Fortunately, he had a dermatoscope and examined the spot closely, finding only features of a benign solar lentigo. There were no suspicious features for melanoma.

The FP gave the patient a choice between a broad shave biopsy that day, or having the lesion monitored (safe with a flat lesion) using photography and dermoscopy.

The patient didn’t want a biopsy on her face and was willing to have the area monitored. The clinical and dermoscopic photographs were taken and stored. The patient was given a follow-up appointment in 4 to 6 months and instructions to avoid the sun as much as possible. She was also told to use sunscreen and hats when out in the sun.

After 5 months, the previous photos were compared with the new photos on a computer screen and there were no changes. Everyone was reassured, and the patient indicated that she was being careful about her sun exposure.

‌

Photos and text for Photo Rounds Friday courtesy of Richard P. Usatine, MD. This case was adapted from: Mayeaux, EJ, Usatine, R. Lentigo maligna. In: Usatine R, Smith M, Mayeaux EJ, et al. Color Atlas of Family Medicine. 2nd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2013:981-984.

To learn more about the Color Atlas of Family Medicine, see: www.amazon.com/Color-Family-Medicine-Richard-Usatine/dp/0071769641/.

You can now get the second edition of the Color Atlas of Family Medicine as an app by clicking on this link: usatinemedia.com.

The FP noted that the patient had a dominant brown patch on her right cheek that was larger and darker than the other light brown spots found on her face. Fortunately, he had a dermatoscope and examined the spot closely, finding only features of a benign solar lentigo. There were no suspicious features for melanoma.

The FP gave the patient a choice between a broad shave biopsy that day, or having the lesion monitored (safe with a flat lesion) using photography and dermoscopy.

The patient didn’t want a biopsy on her face and was willing to have the area monitored. The clinical and dermoscopic photographs were taken and stored. The patient was given a follow-up appointment in 4 to 6 months and instructions to avoid the sun as much as possible. She was also told to use sunscreen and hats when out in the sun.

After 5 months, the previous photos were compared with the new photos on a computer screen and there were no changes. Everyone was reassured, and the patient indicated that she was being careful about her sun exposure.

‌

Photos and text for Photo Rounds Friday courtesy of Richard P. Usatine, MD. This case was adapted from: Mayeaux, EJ, Usatine, R. Lentigo maligna. In: Usatine R, Smith M, Mayeaux EJ, et al. Color Atlas of Family Medicine. 2nd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2013:981-984.

To learn more about the Color Atlas of Family Medicine, see: www.amazon.com/Color-Family-Medicine-Richard-Usatine/dp/0071769641/.

You can now get the second edition of the Color Atlas of Family Medicine as an app by clicking on this link: usatinemedia.com.

The FP explained to the patient that this could be a skin cancer—specifically, a melanoma.

The FP performed a broad shave biopsy, being careful not to cut into the cartilage. (See the Watch & Learn video on “Shave biopsy.”) The FP did his best to include most of the pigmented area involved, but the convex surface made it difficult to biopsy the whole lesion. He was especially careful to include the darker area because it looked most atypical. The diagnosis came back as lentigo maligna.

The patient was referred for Mohs surgery for complete excision and repair. (Mohs surgery is recommended to spare tissue and maximize cure.) After complete excision, the patient learned that the melanoma was not invasive, but in situ. This suggested a very good prognosis.

‌

Photos and text for Photo Rounds Friday courtesy of Richard P. Usatine, MD. This case was adapted from: Mayeaux, EJ, Usatine, R. Lentigo maligna. In: Usatine R, Smith M, Mayeaux EJ, et al. Color Atlas of Family Medicine. 2nd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2013:981-984.

To learn more about the Color Atlas of Family Medicine, see: www.amazon.com/Color-Family-Medicine-Richard-Usatine/dp/0071769641/.

You can now get the second edition of the Color Atlas of Family Medicine as an app by clicking on this link: usatinemedia.com.

The FP explained to the patient that this could be a skin cancer—specifically, a melanoma.

The FP performed a broad shave biopsy, being careful not to cut into the cartilage. (See the Watch & Learn video on “Shave biopsy.”) The FP did his best to include most of the pigmented area involved, but the convex surface made it difficult to biopsy the whole lesion. He was especially careful to include the darker area because it looked most atypical. The diagnosis came back as lentigo maligna.

The patient was referred for Mohs surgery for complete excision and repair. (Mohs surgery is recommended to spare tissue and maximize cure.) After complete excision, the patient learned that the melanoma was not invasive, but in situ. This suggested a very good prognosis.

‌

Photos and text for Photo Rounds Friday courtesy of Richard P. Usatine, MD. This case was adapted from: Mayeaux, EJ, Usatine, R. Lentigo maligna. In: Usatine R, Smith M, Mayeaux EJ, et al. Color Atlas of Family Medicine. 2nd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2013:981-984.

To learn more about the Color Atlas of Family Medicine, see: www.amazon.com/Color-Family-Medicine-Richard-Usatine/dp/0071769641/.

You can now get the second edition of the Color Atlas of Family Medicine as an app by clicking on this link: usatinemedia.com.

The FP explained to the patient that this could be a skin cancer—specifically, a melanoma.

The FP performed a broad shave biopsy, being careful not to cut into the cartilage. (See the Watch & Learn video on “Shave biopsy.”) The FP did his best to include most of the pigmented area involved, but the convex surface made it difficult to biopsy the whole lesion. He was especially careful to include the darker area because it looked most atypical. The diagnosis came back as lentigo maligna.

The patient was referred for Mohs surgery for complete excision and repair. (Mohs surgery is recommended to spare tissue and maximize cure.) After complete excision, the patient learned that the melanoma was not invasive, but in situ. This suggested a very good prognosis.

‌

Photos and text for Photo Rounds Friday courtesy of Richard P. Usatine, MD. This case was adapted from: Mayeaux, EJ, Usatine, R. Lentigo maligna. In: Usatine R, Smith M, Mayeaux EJ, et al. Color Atlas of Family Medicine. 2nd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2013:981-984.

To learn more about the Color Atlas of Family Medicine, see: www.amazon.com/Color-Family-Medicine-Richard-Usatine/dp/0071769641/.

You can now get the second edition of the Color Atlas of Family Medicine as an app by clicking on this link: usatinemedia.com.

Click here to read Hot Topics in Primary Care.

This supplement offers the opportunity to earn a total of 5 CME credits.

Credit is awarded for successful completion of the online evaluations at the links below. These links may also be found within the supplement on the first page of each article. 

• On the Front Lines: Hepatitis C Infection in Primary Care 
  • To complete the online evaluation and receive 1 CME credit for this article: please click on the link at the end of the article or go to www.pceconsortium.org/hepC.

• Long-term Treatment of Gout: New Opportunities for Improved Outcomes 
  • To complete the online evaluation and receive 1 CME credit for this article: please click on the link at the end of the article or go to www.pceconsortium.org/gout.

• Recognition and Management of Orthostatic Hypotension in Primary Care 
  • To complete the online evaluation and receive 1 CME credit for this article: please click on the link at the end of the article or go to www.pceconsortium.org/orthostatic.

• Practical Evaluation and Management of Irritable Bowel Syndrome with Diarrhea: A Case Study Approach  
  • To complete the online evaluation and receive 1 CME credit for this article: please click on the link at the end of the article or go to www.pceconsortium.org/ibs.

• Differentiating Among the SGLT-2 Inhibitors: Considering Cardiovascular and Other Safety Outcomes
  •  To complete the online evaluation and receive 1 CME credit for this article: please click on the link at the end of the article or go www.pceconsortium.org/sglt2.

Click here to read Hot Topics in Primary Care.

This supplement offers the opportunity to earn a total of 5 CME credits.

Credit is awarded for successful completion of the online evaluations at the links below. These links may also be found within the supplement on the first page of each article. 

• On the Front Lines: Hepatitis C Infection in Primary Care 
  • To complete the online evaluation and receive 1 CME credit for this article: please click on the link at the end of the article or go to www.pceconsortium.org/hepC.

• Long-term Treatment of Gout: New Opportunities for Improved Outcomes 
  • To complete the online evaluation and receive 1 CME credit for this article: please click on the link at the end of the article or go to www.pceconsortium.org/gout.

• Recognition and Management of Orthostatic Hypotension in Primary Care 
  • To complete the online evaluation and receive 1 CME credit for this article: please click on the link at the end of the article or go to www.pceconsortium.org/orthostatic.

• Practical Evaluation and Management of Irritable Bowel Syndrome with Diarrhea: A Case Study Approach  
  • To complete the online evaluation and receive 1 CME credit for this article: please click on the link at the end of the article or go to www.pceconsortium.org/ibs.