CASE Concern for surgical management after repeat miscarriage

A 34-year-old woman (G3P0030) with a history of recurrent pregnancy loss was recently diagnosed with a 7-week missed abortion. After her second miscarriage, she had an evaluation for recurrent pregnancy loss which was unremarkable. Both prior miscarriages were managed with dilation & curettage (D&C), but cytogenetic testing of the tissue did not yield a result in either case. The karyotype from the first pregnancy resulted as 46, XX but was confirmed to be due to maternal cell contamination, and the karyotype from the second pregnancy resulted in cell culture failure. The patient is interested in surgical management for her current missed abortion to help with tissue collection for cytogenetic testing, she but is concerned about her risk of intrauterine adhesions with repeated uterine instrumentation given 2 prior D&Cs, one of which was complicated by retained products of conception.

How do you approach the surgical management of this patient with recurrent pregnancy loss?

Approximately 1 in every 8 recognized pregnancies results in miscarriage. The risk of loss is lowest in women with no history of miscarriage (11%), and increases by about 10% for each additional miscarriage, reaching 42% in women with 3 or more previous losses. The population prevalence of women who have had 1 miscarriage is 11%, 2 miscarriages is 2%, and 3 or more is <1%.¹ While 90% of miscarriages occur in the first trimester, their etiology can be quite varied.² A woman’s age is the most strongly associated risk factor, with both very young (<20 years) and older age (>35 years) groups at highest risk. This association is largely attributed to an age-related increase in embryonic chromosomal aneuploidies, of which trisomies, particularly trisomy 16, are the most common.³ Maternal anatomic anomalies such as leiomyomas, intrauterine adhesions, Müllerian anomalies, and adenomyosis have been linked to an increased risk of miscarriage in addition to several lifestyle and environmental factor exposures.¹

Regardless of the etiology, women with recurrent miscarriage are exposed to the potential for iatrogenic harm from the management of their pregnancy loss, including intrauterine adhesions and retained products, which may negatively impact future reproductive attempts. The management of patients with recurrent miscarriages demands special attention to reduce the risk of iatrogenic harm, maximize diagnostic evaluation of the products of conception, and improve future reproductive outcomes.

Management strategies

First trimester pregnancy loss may be managed expectantly, medically, or surgically. Approximately 76% of women who opt for expectant management will successfully pass pregnancy tissue, but for 1 out of every 6 women it may take longer than 14 days.⁴ For patients who prefer to expedite this process, medication abortion is a highly effective and safe option. According to Schreiber and colleagues, a combination of mifepristone and misoprostol together resulted in expulsion in approximately 91% of 148 patients, although 9% still required surgical intervention for incomplete passage of tissue.⁵ Both expectant management and medical management strategies are associated with the potential for retained products of conception requiring subsequent instrumentation as well as tissue that is often unsuitable or contaminated for cytogenetic analysis.

The most definitive treatment option is surgical management via manual or electric vacuum aspiration or curettage, with efficacy approaching 99.6% in some series.⁶ While highly effective, even ultrasound-guided evacuation carries with it procedure-related risks that are of particular consequence for patients of reproductive age, including adhesion formation and retained products of conception.

In 1997, Goldenberg and colleagues reported on the use of hysteroscopy for the management of retained products of conception as a strategy to minimize trauma to the uterus and maximize excision of retained tissue, both of which reduce potential for adhesion formation.⁷ Based on these data, several groups have extended the use of hysteroscopic resection for retained tissue to upfront evacuation following pregnancy loss, in lieu of D&C.^8,9 This approach allows for the direct visualization of the focal removal of the implanted pregnancy tissue, which can:

• decrease the risk of intrauterine adhesion formation
• decrease the risk of retained products of conception
• allow for directed tissue sampling to improve the accuracy of cytogenetic testing
• allow for detection of embryo anatomic anomalies that often go undetected on traditional cytogenetic analysis.

For the remainder of this article, we will discuss the advantages of hysteroscopic management of a missed abortion in greater detail.

Continue to: Hysteroscopic management...

Hysteroscopic management

Like aspiration or curettage, hysteroscopic management may be offered once the diagnosis of fetal demise is confirmed on ultrasonography. The procedure may be accomplished in the office setting or in the operative room with either morcellation or resectoscopic instruments. Morcellation allows for improved visibility during the procedure given the ability of continuous suction to manage tissue fragments in the surgical field, while resectoscopic instruments offer the added benefit of electrosurgery should bleeding that is unresponsive to increased distention pressure be encountered. Use of the cold loop of the resectoscope to accomplish evacuation is advocated to avoid the thermal damage to the endometrium with electrosurgery. Regardless of the chosen instrument, there are several potential benefits for a hysteroscopic approach over the traditional ultrasound-guided or blind D&C.

Reducing risk of iatrogenic harm

Intrauterine adhesions form secondary to trauma to the endometrial basalis layer, where a population of adult progenitor stem cells continuously work to regenerate the overlying functionalis layer. Once damaged, adhesions may form and range from thin, filmy adhesions to dense, cavity obliterating bands of scar tissue (FIGURE). The degree of severity and location of the adhesions account for the variable presentation that range from menstrual abnormalities to infertility and recurrent pregnancy loss. While several classification systems exist for scoring severity of adhesions, the American Fertility Society (now American Society for Reproductive Medicine) Classification system from 1988 is still commonly utilized (TABLE 1).

ILLUSTRATIONS: MARCIA HARTSOCK FOR OBG MANAGEMENT

Intrauterine adhesions from D&C after pregnancy loss are not uncommon. A 2014 meta-analysis of 10 prospective studies including 912 women reported a pooled prevalence for intrauterine adhesions of 19.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 12.8–27.5) on hysteroscopic evaluation within 12 months following curettage.¹⁰ Once formed, these adhesions are associated with long-term impairment in reproductive outcomes, regardless of if they were treated or not. In a long-term follow-up study of women with and without adhesions after recurrent D&C for miscarriage, women with treated adhesions reported lower live birth rates, longer time to pregnancy, higher rates of preterm birth and higher rates of peripartum complications compared with those without adhesions.¹¹

Compared with curettage, hysteroscopy affords the surgeon complete visualization of the uterine cavity and tissue to be resected. This, in turn, minimizes trauma to the surrounding uterine cavity, minimizes the potential for post-procedural adhesion formation and their associated sequelae, and maximizes complete resection of tissue. Those treated with D&C appear to be significantly more likely to have adhesions than those treated via a hysteroscopic approach (30% vs 13%).¹²

Retained products of conception. Classically, a “gritty” sensation of the endometrium following evacuation of the uterus with a sharp curette has been used to indicate complete removal of tissue. The evolution from a nonvisualized procedure to ultrasound-guided vacuum aspiration of 1st trimester pregnancy tissue has been associated with a decreased risk of procedural complications and retained products of conception.¹³ However, even with intraoperative imaging, the risk of retained products of conception remains because it can be difficult to distinguish a small blood clot from retained pregnancy tissue on ultrasonography.

Retained pregnancy tissue can result in abnormal or heavy bleeding, require additional medical or surgical intervention, and is associated with endometrial inflammation and infection. Approximately 1 in every 4 women undergoing hysteroscopic resection of retained products are found to have evidence of endometritis in the resected tissue.¹⁴ This number is even higher in women with a diagnosis of recurrent pregnancy loss (62%).¹⁵

These complications from retained products of conception can be avoided with the hysteroscopic approach due to the direct visualization of the tissue removal. This benefit may be particularly beneficial in patients with known abnormal uterine cavities, such as those with Müllerian anomalies, uterine leiomyomas, preexisting adhesions, and history of placenta accreta spectrum disorder.

Continue to: Maximizing diagnostic yield...

Maximizing diagnostic yield

Many patients prefer surgical management of a missed abortion not for the procedural advantages, but to assist with tissue collection for cytogenetic testing of the pregnancy tissue. Given that embryonic chromosomal aneuploidy is implicated in 70% of miscarriages prior to 20 weeks’ gestation, genetic evaluation of the products of conception is commonly performed to identify a potential cause for the miscarriage.¹⁶ G-band karyotype is the most commonly performed genetic evaluation. Karyotype requires culturing of pregnancy tissue for 7-14 days to produce metaphase cells that are then chemically treated to arrest them at their maximally contracted stage. Cytogenetic evaluation is often curtailed when nonviable cells from products of conception fail to culture due to either time elapsed from diagnosis to demise or damage from tissue handling. Careful, directly observed tissue handling via a hysteroscopic approach may alleviate culture failure secondary to tissue damage.

Another concern with cultures of products of conception is the potential for maternal cell contamination. Early studies from the 1970s noted a significant skew toward 46, XX karyotype results in miscarried tissue as compared with 46, XY results. It was not until microsatellite analysis technology was available that it was determined that the result was due to analysis of maternal cells instead of products of conception.¹⁷ A 2014 study by Levy and colleagues and another by Lathi and colleagues that utilized single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) microarray found that maternal cell contamination affected 22% of all miscarriage samples analyzed and over half of karyotypes with a 46, XX result.^18,19

Traditional “blind” suction and curettage may inadvertently collect maternal endometrial tissue and contaminate the culture of fetal cells, limiting the validity of karyotype for products of conception.²⁰ The hysteroscopic approach may provide a higher diagnostic yield for karyotype analysis of fetal tissue by the nature of targeted tissue sampling under direct visualization, minimizing maternal cell contamination. One retrospective study by Cholkeri-Singh and colleagues evaluated rates of fetal chromosome detection without maternal contamination in a total of 264 patients undergoing either suction curettage or hysteroscopic resection. They found that fetal chromosomal detection without contamination was significantly higher in the hysteroscopy group compared with the suction curettage group (88.5 vs 64.8%, P< .001).²¹ Additionally, biopsies of tissue under direct visualization may enable the diagnosis of a true placental mosaicism and the study of the individual karyotype of each embryo in dizygotic twin missed abortions.

Finally, a hysteroscopic approach may afford the opportunity to also perform morphologic evaluation of the intact early fetus furthering the diagnostic utility of the procedure. With hysteroscopy, the gestational sac is identified and carefully entered, allowing for complete visualization of the early fetus and assessment of anatomic malformations that may provide insight into the pregnancy loss (ie, embryoscopy). In one series of 272 patients with missed abortions, while nearly 75% of conceptuses had abnormal karyotypes, 18% were found to have gross morphologic defects with a normal karyotype.²²

Bottom line

When faced with a patient with an early pregnancy loss, physicians should consider the decreased iatrogenic risks and improved diagnostic yield when deciding between D&C versus hysteroscopy for surgical management. There are certain patients with pre-existing risk factors that may stand to benefit the most (TABLE 2). Much like the opening case, those at risk for intrauterine adhesions, retained products of conception, or in whom a successful and accurate cytogenetic analysis is essential are the most likely to benefit from a hysteroscopic approach. The hysteroscopic approach also affords concurrent diagnosis and treatment of intrauterine pathology, such as leiomyomas and uterine septum, which are encountered approximately 12.5% of the time after one miscarriage and 29.4% of the time in patients with a history of more than one miscarriage.¹⁰ In the appropriately counseled patient and clinical setting, clinicians could also perform definitive surgical management during the same hysteroscopy. Finally, evaluation of the morphology of the demised fetus may provide additional information for patient counseling in those with euploid pregnancy losses.

CASE Resolved

Ultimately, our patient underwent complete hysteroscopic resection of the pregnancy tissue, which confirmed both a morphologically abnormal fetus and a 45, X karyotype of the products of conception. ●

CASE Concern for surgical management after repeat miscarriage

A 34-year-old woman (G3P0030) with a history of recurrent pregnancy loss was recently diagnosed with a 7-week missed abortion. After her second miscarriage, she had an evaluation for recurrent pregnancy loss which was unremarkable. Both prior miscarriages were managed with dilation & curettage (D&C), but cytogenetic testing of the tissue did not yield a result in either case. The karyotype from the first pregnancy resulted as 46, XX but was confirmed to be due to maternal cell contamination, and the karyotype from the second pregnancy resulted in cell culture failure. The patient is interested in surgical management for her current missed abortion to help with tissue collection for cytogenetic testing, she but is concerned about her risk of intrauterine adhesions with repeated uterine instrumentation given 2 prior D&Cs, one of which was complicated by retained products of conception.

How do you approach the surgical management of this patient with recurrent pregnancy loss?

Approximately 1 in every 8 recognized pregnancies results in miscarriage. The risk of loss is lowest in women with no history of miscarriage (11%), and increases by about 10% for each additional miscarriage, reaching 42% in women with 3 or more previous losses. The population prevalence of women who have had 1 miscarriage is 11%, 2 miscarriages is 2%, and 3 or more is <1%.¹ While 90% of miscarriages occur in the first trimester, their etiology can be quite varied.² A woman’s age is the most strongly associated risk factor, with both very young (<20 years) and older age (>35 years) groups at highest risk. This association is largely attributed to an age-related increase in embryonic chromosomal aneuploidies, of which trisomies, particularly trisomy 16, are the most common.³ Maternal anatomic anomalies such as leiomyomas, intrauterine adhesions, Müllerian anomalies, and adenomyosis have been linked to an increased risk of miscarriage in addition to several lifestyle and environmental factor exposures.¹

Regardless of the etiology, women with recurrent miscarriage are exposed to the potential for iatrogenic harm from the management of their pregnancy loss, including intrauterine adhesions and retained products, which may negatively impact future reproductive attempts. The management of patients with recurrent miscarriages demands special attention to reduce the risk of iatrogenic harm, maximize diagnostic evaluation of the products of conception, and improve future reproductive outcomes.

Management strategies

First trimester pregnancy loss may be managed expectantly, medically, or surgically. Approximately 76% of women who opt for expectant management will successfully pass pregnancy tissue, but for 1 out of every 6 women it may take longer than 14 days.⁴ For patients who prefer to expedite this process, medication abortion is a highly effective and safe option. According to Schreiber and colleagues, a combination of mifepristone and misoprostol together resulted in expulsion in approximately 91% of 148 patients, although 9% still required surgical intervention for incomplete passage of tissue.⁵ Both expectant management and medical management strategies are associated with the potential for retained products of conception requiring subsequent instrumentation as well as tissue that is often unsuitable or contaminated for cytogenetic analysis.

The most definitive treatment option is surgical management via manual or electric vacuum aspiration or curettage, with efficacy approaching 99.6% in some series.⁶ While highly effective, even ultrasound-guided evacuation carries with it procedure-related risks that are of particular consequence for patients of reproductive age, including adhesion formation and retained products of conception.

In 1997, Goldenberg and colleagues reported on the use of hysteroscopy for the management of retained products of conception as a strategy to minimize trauma to the uterus and maximize excision of retained tissue, both of which reduce potential for adhesion formation.⁷ Based on these data, several groups have extended the use of hysteroscopic resection for retained tissue to upfront evacuation following pregnancy loss, in lieu of D&C.^8,9 This approach allows for the direct visualization of the focal removal of the implanted pregnancy tissue, which can:

• decrease the risk of intrauterine adhesion formation
• decrease the risk of retained products of conception
• allow for directed tissue sampling to improve the accuracy of cytogenetic testing
• allow for detection of embryo anatomic anomalies that often go undetected on traditional cytogenetic analysis.

For the remainder of this article, we will discuss the advantages of hysteroscopic management of a missed abortion in greater detail.

Continue to: Hysteroscopic management...

Hysteroscopic management

Like aspiration or curettage, hysteroscopic management may be offered once the diagnosis of fetal demise is confirmed on ultrasonography. The procedure may be accomplished in the office setting or in the operative room with either morcellation or resectoscopic instruments. Morcellation allows for improved visibility during the procedure given the ability of continuous suction to manage tissue fragments in the surgical field, while resectoscopic instruments offer the added benefit of electrosurgery should bleeding that is unresponsive to increased distention pressure be encountered. Use of the cold loop of the resectoscope to accomplish evacuation is advocated to avoid the thermal damage to the endometrium with electrosurgery. Regardless of the chosen instrument, there are several potential benefits for a hysteroscopic approach over the traditional ultrasound-guided or blind D&C.

Reducing risk of iatrogenic harm

Intrauterine adhesions form secondary to trauma to the endometrial basalis layer, where a population of adult progenitor stem cells continuously work to regenerate the overlying functionalis layer. Once damaged, adhesions may form and range from thin, filmy adhesions to dense, cavity obliterating bands of scar tissue (FIGURE). The degree of severity and location of the adhesions account for the variable presentation that range from menstrual abnormalities to infertility and recurrent pregnancy loss. While several classification systems exist for scoring severity of adhesions, the American Fertility Society (now American Society for Reproductive Medicine) Classification system from 1988 is still commonly utilized (TABLE 1).

ILLUSTRATIONS: MARCIA HARTSOCK FOR OBG MANAGEMENT

Intrauterine adhesions from D&C after pregnancy loss are not uncommon. A 2014 meta-analysis of 10 prospective studies including 912 women reported a pooled prevalence for intrauterine adhesions of 19.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 12.8–27.5) on hysteroscopic evaluation within 12 months following curettage.¹⁰ Once formed, these adhesions are associated with long-term impairment in reproductive outcomes, regardless of if they were treated or not. In a long-term follow-up study of women with and without adhesions after recurrent D&C for miscarriage, women with treated adhesions reported lower live birth rates, longer time to pregnancy, higher rates of preterm birth and higher rates of peripartum complications compared with those without adhesions.¹¹

Compared with curettage, hysteroscopy affords the surgeon complete visualization of the uterine cavity and tissue to be resected. This, in turn, minimizes trauma to the surrounding uterine cavity, minimizes the potential for post-procedural adhesion formation and their associated sequelae, and maximizes complete resection of tissue. Those treated with D&C appear to be significantly more likely to have adhesions than those treated via a hysteroscopic approach (30% vs 13%).¹²

Retained products of conception. Classically, a “gritty” sensation of the endometrium following evacuation of the uterus with a sharp curette has been used to indicate complete removal of tissue. The evolution from a nonvisualized procedure to ultrasound-guided vacuum aspiration of 1st trimester pregnancy tissue has been associated with a decreased risk of procedural complications and retained products of conception.¹³ However, even with intraoperative imaging, the risk of retained products of conception remains because it can be difficult to distinguish a small blood clot from retained pregnancy tissue on ultrasonography.

Retained pregnancy tissue can result in abnormal or heavy bleeding, require additional medical or surgical intervention, and is associated with endometrial inflammation and infection. Approximately 1 in every 4 women undergoing hysteroscopic resection of retained products are found to have evidence of endometritis in the resected tissue.¹⁴ This number is even higher in women with a diagnosis of recurrent pregnancy loss (62%).¹⁵

These complications from retained products of conception can be avoided with the hysteroscopic approach due to the direct visualization of the tissue removal. This benefit may be particularly beneficial in patients with known abnormal uterine cavities, such as those with Müllerian anomalies, uterine leiomyomas, preexisting adhesions, and history of placenta accreta spectrum disorder.

Continue to: Maximizing diagnostic yield...

Maximizing diagnostic yield

Many patients prefer surgical management of a missed abortion not for the procedural advantages, but to assist with tissue collection for cytogenetic testing of the pregnancy tissue. Given that embryonic chromosomal aneuploidy is implicated in 70% of miscarriages prior to 20 weeks’ gestation, genetic evaluation of the products of conception is commonly performed to identify a potential cause for the miscarriage.¹⁶ G-band karyotype is the most commonly performed genetic evaluation. Karyotype requires culturing of pregnancy tissue for 7-14 days to produce metaphase cells that are then chemically treated to arrest them at their maximally contracted stage. Cytogenetic evaluation is often curtailed when nonviable cells from products of conception fail to culture due to either time elapsed from diagnosis to demise or damage from tissue handling. Careful, directly observed tissue handling via a hysteroscopic approach may alleviate culture failure secondary to tissue damage.

Another concern with cultures of products of conception is the potential for maternal cell contamination. Early studies from the 1970s noted a significant skew toward 46, XX karyotype results in miscarried tissue as compared with 46, XY results. It was not until microsatellite analysis technology was available that it was determined that the result was due to analysis of maternal cells instead of products of conception.¹⁷ A 2014 study by Levy and colleagues and another by Lathi and colleagues that utilized single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) microarray found that maternal cell contamination affected 22% of all miscarriage samples analyzed and over half of karyotypes with a 46, XX result.^18,19

Traditional “blind” suction and curettage may inadvertently collect maternal endometrial tissue and contaminate the culture of fetal cells, limiting the validity of karyotype for products of conception.²⁰ The hysteroscopic approach may provide a higher diagnostic yield for karyotype analysis of fetal tissue by the nature of targeted tissue sampling under direct visualization, minimizing maternal cell contamination. One retrospective study by Cholkeri-Singh and colleagues evaluated rates of fetal chromosome detection without maternal contamination in a total of 264 patients undergoing either suction curettage or hysteroscopic resection. They found that fetal chromosomal detection without contamination was significantly higher in the hysteroscopy group compared with the suction curettage group (88.5 vs 64.8%, P< .001).²¹ Additionally, biopsies of tissue under direct visualization may enable the diagnosis of a true placental mosaicism and the study of the individual karyotype of each embryo in dizygotic twin missed abortions.

Finally, a hysteroscopic approach may afford the opportunity to also perform morphologic evaluation of the intact early fetus furthering the diagnostic utility of the procedure. With hysteroscopy, the gestational sac is identified and carefully entered, allowing for complete visualization of the early fetus and assessment of anatomic malformations that may provide insight into the pregnancy loss (ie, embryoscopy). In one series of 272 patients with missed abortions, while nearly 75% of conceptuses had abnormal karyotypes, 18% were found to have gross morphologic defects with a normal karyotype.²²

Bottom line

When faced with a patient with an early pregnancy loss, physicians should consider the decreased iatrogenic risks and improved diagnostic yield when deciding between D&C versus hysteroscopy for surgical management. There are certain patients with pre-existing risk factors that may stand to benefit the most (TABLE 2). Much like the opening case, those at risk for intrauterine adhesions, retained products of conception, or in whom a successful and accurate cytogenetic analysis is essential are the most likely to benefit from a hysteroscopic approach. The hysteroscopic approach also affords concurrent diagnosis and treatment of intrauterine pathology, such as leiomyomas and uterine septum, which are encountered approximately 12.5% of the time after one miscarriage and 29.4% of the time in patients with a history of more than one miscarriage.¹⁰ In the appropriately counseled patient and clinical setting, clinicians could also perform definitive surgical management during the same hysteroscopy. Finally, evaluation of the morphology of the demised fetus may provide additional information for patient counseling in those with euploid pregnancy losses.

CASE Resolved

Ultimately, our patient underwent complete hysteroscopic resection of the pregnancy tissue, which confirmed both a morphologically abnormal fetus and a 45, X karyotype of the products of conception. ●

CASE Concern for surgical management after repeat miscarriage

A 34-year-old woman (G3P0030) with a history of recurrent pregnancy loss was recently diagnosed with a 7-week missed abortion. After her second miscarriage, she had an evaluation for recurrent pregnancy loss which was unremarkable. Both prior miscarriages were managed with dilation & curettage (D&C), but cytogenetic testing of the tissue did not yield a result in either case. The karyotype from the first pregnancy resulted as 46, XX but was confirmed to be due to maternal cell contamination, and the karyotype from the second pregnancy resulted in cell culture failure. The patient is interested in surgical management for her current missed abortion to help with tissue collection for cytogenetic testing, she but is concerned about her risk of intrauterine adhesions with repeated uterine instrumentation given 2 prior D&Cs, one of which was complicated by retained products of conception.

How do you approach the surgical management of this patient with recurrent pregnancy loss?

Approximately 1 in every 8 recognized pregnancies results in miscarriage. The risk of loss is lowest in women with no history of miscarriage (11%), and increases by about 10% for each additional miscarriage, reaching 42% in women with 3 or more previous losses. The population prevalence of women who have had 1 miscarriage is 11%, 2 miscarriages is 2%, and 3 or more is <1%.¹ While 90% of miscarriages occur in the first trimester, their etiology can be quite varied.² A woman’s age is the most strongly associated risk factor, with both very young (<20 years) and older age (>35 years) groups at highest risk. This association is largely attributed to an age-related increase in embryonic chromosomal aneuploidies, of which trisomies, particularly trisomy 16, are the most common.³ Maternal anatomic anomalies such as leiomyomas, intrauterine adhesions, Müllerian anomalies, and adenomyosis have been linked to an increased risk of miscarriage in addition to several lifestyle and environmental factor exposures.¹

Regardless of the etiology, women with recurrent miscarriage are exposed to the potential for iatrogenic harm from the management of their pregnancy loss, including intrauterine adhesions and retained products, which may negatively impact future reproductive attempts. The management of patients with recurrent miscarriages demands special attention to reduce the risk of iatrogenic harm, maximize diagnostic evaluation of the products of conception, and improve future reproductive outcomes.

Management strategies

First trimester pregnancy loss may be managed expectantly, medically, or surgically. Approximately 76% of women who opt for expectant management will successfully pass pregnancy tissue, but for 1 out of every 6 women it may take longer than 14 days.⁴ For patients who prefer to expedite this process, medication abortion is a highly effective and safe option. According to Schreiber and colleagues, a combination of mifepristone and misoprostol together resulted in expulsion in approximately 91% of 148 patients, although 9% still required surgical intervention for incomplete passage of tissue.⁵ Both expectant management and medical management strategies are associated with the potential for retained products of conception requiring subsequent instrumentation as well as tissue that is often unsuitable or contaminated for cytogenetic analysis.

The most definitive treatment option is surgical management via manual or electric vacuum aspiration or curettage, with efficacy approaching 99.6% in some series.⁶ While highly effective, even ultrasound-guided evacuation carries with it procedure-related risks that are of particular consequence for patients of reproductive age, including adhesion formation and retained products of conception.

In 1997, Goldenberg and colleagues reported on the use of hysteroscopy for the management of retained products of conception as a strategy to minimize trauma to the uterus and maximize excision of retained tissue, both of which reduce potential for adhesion formation.⁷ Based on these data, several groups have extended the use of hysteroscopic resection for retained tissue to upfront evacuation following pregnancy loss, in lieu of D&C.^8,9 This approach allows for the direct visualization of the focal removal of the implanted pregnancy tissue, which can:

• decrease the risk of intrauterine adhesion formation
• decrease the risk of retained products of conception
• allow for directed tissue sampling to improve the accuracy of cytogenetic testing
• allow for detection of embryo anatomic anomalies that often go undetected on traditional cytogenetic analysis.

For the remainder of this article, we will discuss the advantages of hysteroscopic management of a missed abortion in greater detail.

Continue to: Hysteroscopic management...

Hysteroscopic management

Like aspiration or curettage, hysteroscopic management may be offered once the diagnosis of fetal demise is confirmed on ultrasonography. The procedure may be accomplished in the office setting or in the operative room with either morcellation or resectoscopic instruments. Morcellation allows for improved visibility during the procedure given the ability of continuous suction to manage tissue fragments in the surgical field, while resectoscopic instruments offer the added benefit of electrosurgery should bleeding that is unresponsive to increased distention pressure be encountered. Use of the cold loop of the resectoscope to accomplish evacuation is advocated to avoid the thermal damage to the endometrium with electrosurgery. Regardless of the chosen instrument, there are several potential benefits for a hysteroscopic approach over the traditional ultrasound-guided or blind D&C.

Reducing risk of iatrogenic harm

Intrauterine adhesions form secondary to trauma to the endometrial basalis layer, where a population of adult progenitor stem cells continuously work to regenerate the overlying functionalis layer. Once damaged, adhesions may form and range from thin, filmy adhesions to dense, cavity obliterating bands of scar tissue (FIGURE). The degree of severity and location of the adhesions account for the variable presentation that range from menstrual abnormalities to infertility and recurrent pregnancy loss. While several classification systems exist for scoring severity of adhesions, the American Fertility Society (now American Society for Reproductive Medicine) Classification system from 1988 is still commonly utilized (TABLE 1).

ILLUSTRATIONS: MARCIA HARTSOCK FOR OBG MANAGEMENT

Intrauterine adhesions from D&C after pregnancy loss are not uncommon. A 2014 meta-analysis of 10 prospective studies including 912 women reported a pooled prevalence for intrauterine adhesions of 19.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 12.8–27.5) on hysteroscopic evaluation within 12 months following curettage.¹⁰ Once formed, these adhesions are associated with long-term impairment in reproductive outcomes, regardless of if they were treated or not. In a long-term follow-up study of women with and without adhesions after recurrent D&C for miscarriage, women with treated adhesions reported lower live birth rates, longer time to pregnancy, higher rates of preterm birth and higher rates of peripartum complications compared with those without adhesions.¹¹

Compared with curettage, hysteroscopy affords the surgeon complete visualization of the uterine cavity and tissue to be resected. This, in turn, minimizes trauma to the surrounding uterine cavity, minimizes the potential for post-procedural adhesion formation and their associated sequelae, and maximizes complete resection of tissue. Those treated with D&C appear to be significantly more likely to have adhesions than those treated via a hysteroscopic approach (30% vs 13%).¹²

Retained products of conception. Classically, a “gritty” sensation of the endometrium following evacuation of the uterus with a sharp curette has been used to indicate complete removal of tissue. The evolution from a nonvisualized procedure to ultrasound-guided vacuum aspiration of 1st trimester pregnancy tissue has been associated with a decreased risk of procedural complications and retained products of conception.¹³ However, even with intraoperative imaging, the risk of retained products of conception remains because it can be difficult to distinguish a small blood clot from retained pregnancy tissue on ultrasonography.

Retained pregnancy tissue can result in abnormal or heavy bleeding, require additional medical or surgical intervention, and is associated with endometrial inflammation and infection. Approximately 1 in every 4 women undergoing hysteroscopic resection of retained products are found to have evidence of endometritis in the resected tissue.¹⁴ This number is even higher in women with a diagnosis of recurrent pregnancy loss (62%).¹⁵

These complications from retained products of conception can be avoided with the hysteroscopic approach due to the direct visualization of the tissue removal. This benefit may be particularly beneficial in patients with known abnormal uterine cavities, such as those with Müllerian anomalies, uterine leiomyomas, preexisting adhesions, and history of placenta accreta spectrum disorder.

Continue to: Maximizing diagnostic yield...

Maximizing diagnostic yield

Many patients prefer surgical management of a missed abortion not for the procedural advantages, but to assist with tissue collection for cytogenetic testing of the pregnancy tissue. Given that embryonic chromosomal aneuploidy is implicated in 70% of miscarriages prior to 20 weeks’ gestation, genetic evaluation of the products of conception is commonly performed to identify a potential cause for the miscarriage.¹⁶ G-band karyotype is the most commonly performed genetic evaluation. Karyotype requires culturing of pregnancy tissue for 7-14 days to produce metaphase cells that are then chemically treated to arrest them at their maximally contracted stage. Cytogenetic evaluation is often curtailed when nonviable cells from products of conception fail to culture due to either time elapsed from diagnosis to demise or damage from tissue handling. Careful, directly observed tissue handling via a hysteroscopic approach may alleviate culture failure secondary to tissue damage.

Another concern with cultures of products of conception is the potential for maternal cell contamination. Early studies from the 1970s noted a significant skew toward 46, XX karyotype results in miscarried tissue as compared with 46, XY results. It was not until microsatellite analysis technology was available that it was determined that the result was due to analysis of maternal cells instead of products of conception.¹⁷ A 2014 study by Levy and colleagues and another by Lathi and colleagues that utilized single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) microarray found that maternal cell contamination affected 22% of all miscarriage samples analyzed and over half of karyotypes with a 46, XX result.^18,19

Traditional “blind” suction and curettage may inadvertently collect maternal endometrial tissue and contaminate the culture of fetal cells, limiting the validity of karyotype for products of conception.²⁰ The hysteroscopic approach may provide a higher diagnostic yield for karyotype analysis of fetal tissue by the nature of targeted tissue sampling under direct visualization, minimizing maternal cell contamination. One retrospective study by Cholkeri-Singh and colleagues evaluated rates of fetal chromosome detection without maternal contamination in a total of 264 patients undergoing either suction curettage or hysteroscopic resection. They found that fetal chromosomal detection without contamination was significantly higher in the hysteroscopy group compared with the suction curettage group (88.5 vs 64.8%, P< .001).²¹ Additionally, biopsies of tissue under direct visualization may enable the diagnosis of a true placental mosaicism and the study of the individual karyotype of each embryo in dizygotic twin missed abortions.

Finally, a hysteroscopic approach may afford the opportunity to also perform morphologic evaluation of the intact early fetus furthering the diagnostic utility of the procedure. With hysteroscopy, the gestational sac is identified and carefully entered, allowing for complete visualization of the early fetus and assessment of anatomic malformations that may provide insight into the pregnancy loss (ie, embryoscopy). In one series of 272 patients with missed abortions, while nearly 75% of conceptuses had abnormal karyotypes, 18% were found to have gross morphologic defects with a normal karyotype.²²

Bottom line

When faced with a patient with an early pregnancy loss, physicians should consider the decreased iatrogenic risks and improved diagnostic yield when deciding between D&C versus hysteroscopy for surgical management. There are certain patients with pre-existing risk factors that may stand to benefit the most (TABLE 2). Much like the opening case, those at risk for intrauterine adhesions, retained products of conception, or in whom a successful and accurate cytogenetic analysis is essential are the most likely to benefit from a hysteroscopic approach. The hysteroscopic approach also affords concurrent diagnosis and treatment of intrauterine pathology, such as leiomyomas and uterine septum, which are encountered approximately 12.5% of the time after one miscarriage and 29.4% of the time in patients with a history of more than one miscarriage.¹⁰ In the appropriately counseled patient and clinical setting, clinicians could also perform definitive surgical management during the same hysteroscopy. Finally, evaluation of the morphology of the demised fetus may provide additional information for patient counseling in those with euploid pregnancy losses.

CASE Resolved

Ultimately, our patient underwent complete hysteroscopic resection of the pregnancy tissue, which confirmed both a morphologically abnormal fetus and a 45, X karyotype of the products of conception. ●

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved etranacogene dezaparvovec (Hemgenix), the first gene therapy option for adults with hemophilia B who currently use factor IX prophylaxis therapy, have current or historical life-threatening hemorrhage, or have repeated, serious spontaneous bleeding episodes.*

“Gene therapy for hemophilia has been on the horizon for more than 2 decades. Despite advancements in the treatment of hemophilia, the prevention and treatment of bleeding episodes can adversely impact individuals’ quality of life,” said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. “Today’s approval provides a new treatment option for patients with hemophilia B and represents important progress in the development of innovative therapies for those experiencing a high burden of disease associated with this form of hemophilia.”

Hemophilia B is caused by a deficiency in clotting factor IX attributable to a faulty gene. The newly approved IV infusion delivers a functional gene to liver cells via an adeno-associated virus that instructs them to make the clotting factor. The genetic instructions remain in the cell but aren’t incorporated into the patient’s own DNA, according to a press release from maker CSL Behring.

The gene therapy will cost $3.5 million, making it the most expensive treatment to date -- more than Bluebird's recently approved gene therapies. A recent analysis from the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review said charging $2.93-$2.96 million would be justified because etranacogene dezaparvovec would offset the need for ongoing factor IX replacement, which can top $20 million over a lifetime.

Approval was based on the single-arm, open-label HOPE-B trial in 54 men who relied on factor IX replacement therapy; most patients with hemophilia B are male.

Over the 18 months after infusion, their adjusted annualized bleeding rate fell 64% compared with baseline (P = .0002), and factor IX–treated bleeds fell 77% (P < .0001); 98% of subjects treated with a full dose of etranacogene dezaparvovec discontinued factor IX prophylaxis.

Durability of the effect remains a concern, but data have been reassuring, with subjects having a mean factor IX activity of 39 IU/dL at 6 months – 39% of normal – and 36.9 IU/dL at 18 months, about 37% of normal. There’s been no sign so far of patients developing inhibitors against the infusion.

Adverse events were common but largely mild and included headache and influenza-like illness, both in 13% of subjects. Nine patients needed steroids for liver enzyme elevations.

The trial was temporarily halted due to a case of liver cancer, but it was ultimately deemed not to be related to treatment, based on molecular tumor characterization and vector integration analysis. A death in the trial was also not considered treatment related.

Other gene therapies are in the pipeline for hemophilia, including valoctocogene roxaparvovec (Roctavian, BioMarin) for hemophilia A. FDA’s approval decision is expected in March 2023.

This article was updated 11/23/22.

Correction, 11/23/22: The brand name Hemgenix was misstated in an earlier version of this article.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved etranacogene dezaparvovec (Hemgenix), the first gene therapy option for adults with hemophilia B who currently use factor IX prophylaxis therapy, have current or historical life-threatening hemorrhage, or have repeated, serious spontaneous bleeding episodes.*

“Gene therapy for hemophilia has been on the horizon for more than 2 decades. Despite advancements in the treatment of hemophilia, the prevention and treatment of bleeding episodes can adversely impact individuals’ quality of life,” said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. “Today’s approval provides a new treatment option for patients with hemophilia B and represents important progress in the development of innovative therapies for those experiencing a high burden of disease associated with this form of hemophilia.”

Hemophilia B is caused by a deficiency in clotting factor IX attributable to a faulty gene. The newly approved IV infusion delivers a functional gene to liver cells via an adeno-associated virus that instructs them to make the clotting factor. The genetic instructions remain in the cell but aren’t incorporated into the patient’s own DNA, according to a press release from maker CSL Behring.

The gene therapy will cost $3.5 million, making it the most expensive treatment to date -- more than Bluebird's recently approved gene therapies. A recent analysis from the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review said charging $2.93-$2.96 million would be justified because etranacogene dezaparvovec would offset the need for ongoing factor IX replacement, which can top $20 million over a lifetime.

Approval was based on the single-arm, open-label HOPE-B trial in 54 men who relied on factor IX replacement therapy; most patients with hemophilia B are male.

Over the 18 months after infusion, their adjusted annualized bleeding rate fell 64% compared with baseline (P = .0002), and factor IX–treated bleeds fell 77% (P < .0001); 98% of subjects treated with a full dose of etranacogene dezaparvovec discontinued factor IX prophylaxis.

Durability of the effect remains a concern, but data have been reassuring, with subjects having a mean factor IX activity of 39 IU/dL at 6 months – 39% of normal – and 36.9 IU/dL at 18 months, about 37% of normal. There’s been no sign so far of patients developing inhibitors against the infusion.

Adverse events were common but largely mild and included headache and influenza-like illness, both in 13% of subjects. Nine patients needed steroids for liver enzyme elevations.

The trial was temporarily halted due to a case of liver cancer, but it was ultimately deemed not to be related to treatment, based on molecular tumor characterization and vector integration analysis. A death in the trial was also not considered treatment related.

Other gene therapies are in the pipeline for hemophilia, including valoctocogene roxaparvovec (Roctavian, BioMarin) for hemophilia A. FDA’s approval decision is expected in March 2023.

This article was updated 11/23/22.

Correction, 11/23/22: The brand name Hemgenix was misstated in an earlier version of this article.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved etranacogene dezaparvovec (Hemgenix), the first gene therapy option for adults with hemophilia B who currently use factor IX prophylaxis therapy, have current or historical life-threatening hemorrhage, or have repeated, serious spontaneous bleeding episodes.*

“Gene therapy for hemophilia has been on the horizon for more than 2 decades. Despite advancements in the treatment of hemophilia, the prevention and treatment of bleeding episodes can adversely impact individuals’ quality of life,” said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. “Today’s approval provides a new treatment option for patients with hemophilia B and represents important progress in the development of innovative therapies for those experiencing a high burden of disease associated with this form of hemophilia.”

Hemophilia B is caused by a deficiency in clotting factor IX attributable to a faulty gene. The newly approved IV infusion delivers a functional gene to liver cells via an adeno-associated virus that instructs them to make the clotting factor. The genetic instructions remain in the cell but aren’t incorporated into the patient’s own DNA, according to a press release from maker CSL Behring.

The gene therapy will cost $3.5 million, making it the most expensive treatment to date -- more than Bluebird's recently approved gene therapies. A recent analysis from the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review said charging $2.93-$2.96 million would be justified because etranacogene dezaparvovec would offset the need for ongoing factor IX replacement, which can top $20 million over a lifetime.

Approval was based on the single-arm, open-label HOPE-B trial in 54 men who relied on factor IX replacement therapy; most patients with hemophilia B are male.

Over the 18 months after infusion, their adjusted annualized bleeding rate fell 64% compared with baseline (P = .0002), and factor IX–treated bleeds fell 77% (P < .0001); 98% of subjects treated with a full dose of etranacogene dezaparvovec discontinued factor IX prophylaxis.

Durability of the effect remains a concern, but data have been reassuring, with subjects having a mean factor IX activity of 39 IU/dL at 6 months – 39% of normal – and 36.9 IU/dL at 18 months, about 37% of normal. There’s been no sign so far of patients developing inhibitors against the infusion.

Adverse events were common but largely mild and included headache and influenza-like illness, both in 13% of subjects. Nine patients needed steroids for liver enzyme elevations.

The trial was temporarily halted due to a case of liver cancer, but it was ultimately deemed not to be related to treatment, based on molecular tumor characterization and vector integration analysis. A death in the trial was also not considered treatment related.

Other gene therapies are in the pipeline for hemophilia, including valoctocogene roxaparvovec (Roctavian, BioMarin) for hemophilia A. FDA’s approval decision is expected in March 2023.

This article was updated 11/23/22.

Correction, 11/23/22: The brand name Hemgenix was misstated in an earlier version of this article.

High-density lipoprotein cholesterol may not be as effective a biomarker of cardiovascular disease risk as once thought, particularly in Black adults, according to results from a large biracial cohort study that also raised questions about the validity of high HDL cholesterol as a potentially protective factor in White and Black adults alike.

“I think this opens the door to suggest that every biomarker we use might have a race-specific association with disease outcome,” Nathalie Pamir, PhD, an associate professor at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, said in an interview. “So, something as basic as HDL cholesterol – we’ve known about it since 1970 – has a race signature.”

Dr. Pamir and colleagues reported their findings from the REGARDS (Reasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke) cohort study that recruited 30,239 Black and White individuals aged 45 years and older from the contiguous United States from 2003 to 2007.

The study found that LDL cholesterol “modestly” predicted coronary heart disease (CHD) risk in Black and White adults. However, low HDL cholesterol, while associated with an increased risk in White patients (hazard ratio, 1.22; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.43), did not have a similar association in Blacks (HR, 0.94; 95% CI: 0.78-1.14). And high HDL cholesterol wasn’t found to be predictive in either group (HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.79-1.16 for White participants: HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.74-1.12 for Black participants).

Among 23,901 study participants who were CHD-risk free over a 10-year follow-up, 664 and 951 CHD events occurred in Black and White participants, respectively. The study cohort was 57.8% White and 58.4% women, with a mean age of 65 years.

The study noted that LDL cholesterol and triglycerides conferred similar risks for CHD in both White and Black participants.

Acknowledging that this study focused on Blacks, Dr. Pamir added that “we need to know about Asian Americans; we need to know about Hispanic Americans.”
 

Change of approach to lipid management called for

Dr. Pamir noted that the current understanding about HDL cholesterol and CHD risk comes from the Framingham heart study in the 1970s, whose population was 100% White.

Care algorithms derived from the Framingham study as well as the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis incorporate that association between HDL cholesterol and CHD risk, she noted, but these findings from REGARDS should change how cardiologists approach lipid management in Black and White patients.

“The conversation would go something like: High HDL cholesterol levels put you in a higher risk [bracket] but HDL cholesterol levels are not something we treat; we have no drugs for that,” Dr. Pamir said.

“The conversation would continue along the lines that: ‘You need to do more exercise, you need to change your diet, incorporate healthy fats, walnuts, and omega 3s.’

“But what might the conversation be for Black patients? ‘We don’t see the association that we see for White patients. Do adopt the good habits to exercise and dietary changes, but don’t get too worried about it.’ ”

The study report raises “caution” about using the Framingham, MESA, and other algorithms for evaluating CHD risk. Dr. Pamir explained what that means. “We might be underestimating risk, because what our study showed was that, when we looked at clinically high HDL cholesterol, about 60 mg/dL, it has no benefit for White and Black patients.”

She added, “So that pat on the back we get for patients that have high HDL-C levels? Maybe that pat on the back shouldn’t be there.”

In an invited commentary, Keith C. Ferdinand, MD, of Tulane University in New Orleans, wrote that using HDL cholesterol in risk calculations could inaccurately assess atherosclerotic cardiovascular risk in Black adults “and become a barrier to optimal care.”

In an interview, he said the REGARDS findings call for consideration of other biomarkers for evaluating CHD risk and point to the importance of socioeconomic factors in health outcomes.

“Physicians and other clinicians need to recognize the powerful impact of the social determinants of health and to also recognize the limits of HDL itself as either protective if it’s high or a definitive predictor of risk if it’s low, and focus on some more modern approaches, including coronary artery calcium scoring.”

He also said risk evaluation should include lipoprotein(a), which, he noted in the editorial, the European Atherosclerosis Society recommends measuring. “One of the reasons it’s underutilized is that we really don’t have a specific treatment for it,” he said of Lp(a) in the United States.

In his editorial comment, Dr. Ferdinand called for future research aimed at eliminating health disparities. “Regardless of the development of better tools for the assessment of risk, newer drugs to treat CVD, the use of coronary artery calcium, if we don’t apply evidence-based medicine equally across the population based on race, ethnicity, sex, gender, socioeconomic status, or geography, then the disparities are going to persist,” he said.

The National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and the National Institute on Aging provided funding for the study. Dr. Pamir has no relevant relationships to disclose. Dr. Ferdinand disclosed relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Janssen, and Lilly.

High-density lipoprotein cholesterol may not be as effective a biomarker of cardiovascular disease risk as once thought, particularly in Black adults, according to results from a large biracial cohort study that also raised questions about the validity of high HDL cholesterol as a potentially protective factor in White and Black adults alike.

“I think this opens the door to suggest that every biomarker we use might have a race-specific association with disease outcome,” Nathalie Pamir, PhD, an associate professor at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, said in an interview. “So, something as basic as HDL cholesterol – we’ve known about it since 1970 – has a race signature.”

Dr. Pamir and colleagues reported their findings from the REGARDS (Reasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke) cohort study that recruited 30,239 Black and White individuals aged 45 years and older from the contiguous United States from 2003 to 2007.

The study found that LDL cholesterol “modestly” predicted coronary heart disease (CHD) risk in Black and White adults. However, low HDL cholesterol, while associated with an increased risk in White patients (hazard ratio, 1.22; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.43), did not have a similar association in Blacks (HR, 0.94; 95% CI: 0.78-1.14). And high HDL cholesterol wasn’t found to be predictive in either group (HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.79-1.16 for White participants: HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.74-1.12 for Black participants).

Among 23,901 study participants who were CHD-risk free over a 10-year follow-up, 664 and 951 CHD events occurred in Black and White participants, respectively. The study cohort was 57.8% White and 58.4% women, with a mean age of 65 years.

The study noted that LDL cholesterol and triglycerides conferred similar risks for CHD in both White and Black participants.

Acknowledging that this study focused on Blacks, Dr. Pamir added that “we need to know about Asian Americans; we need to know about Hispanic Americans.”
 

Change of approach to lipid management called for

Dr. Pamir noted that the current understanding about HDL cholesterol and CHD risk comes from the Framingham heart study in the 1970s, whose population was 100% White.

Care algorithms derived from the Framingham study as well as the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis incorporate that association between HDL cholesterol and CHD risk, she noted, but these findings from REGARDS should change how cardiologists approach lipid management in Black and White patients.

“The conversation would go something like: High HDL cholesterol levels put you in a higher risk [bracket] but HDL cholesterol levels are not something we treat; we have no drugs for that,” Dr. Pamir said.

“The conversation would continue along the lines that: ‘You need to do more exercise, you need to change your diet, incorporate healthy fats, walnuts, and omega 3s.’

“But what might the conversation be for Black patients? ‘We don’t see the association that we see for White patients. Do adopt the good habits to exercise and dietary changes, but don’t get too worried about it.’ ”

The study report raises “caution” about using the Framingham, MESA, and other algorithms for evaluating CHD risk. Dr. Pamir explained what that means. “We might be underestimating risk, because what our study showed was that, when we looked at clinically high HDL cholesterol, about 60 mg/dL, it has no benefit for White and Black patients.”

She added, “So that pat on the back we get for patients that have high HDL-C levels? Maybe that pat on the back shouldn’t be there.”

In an invited commentary, Keith C. Ferdinand, MD, of Tulane University in New Orleans, wrote that using HDL cholesterol in risk calculations could inaccurately assess atherosclerotic cardiovascular risk in Black adults “and become a barrier to optimal care.”

In an interview, he said the REGARDS findings call for consideration of other biomarkers for evaluating CHD risk and point to the importance of socioeconomic factors in health outcomes.

“Physicians and other clinicians need to recognize the powerful impact of the social determinants of health and to also recognize the limits of HDL itself as either protective if it’s high or a definitive predictor of risk if it’s low, and focus on some more modern approaches, including coronary artery calcium scoring.”

He also said risk evaluation should include lipoprotein(a), which, he noted in the editorial, the European Atherosclerosis Society recommends measuring. “One of the reasons it’s underutilized is that we really don’t have a specific treatment for it,” he said of Lp(a) in the United States.

In his editorial comment, Dr. Ferdinand called for future research aimed at eliminating health disparities. “Regardless of the development of better tools for the assessment of risk, newer drugs to treat CVD, the use of coronary artery calcium, if we don’t apply evidence-based medicine equally across the population based on race, ethnicity, sex, gender, socioeconomic status, or geography, then the disparities are going to persist,” he said.

The National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and the National Institute on Aging provided funding for the study. Dr. Pamir has no relevant relationships to disclose. Dr. Ferdinand disclosed relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Janssen, and Lilly.

High-density lipoprotein cholesterol may not be as effective a biomarker of cardiovascular disease risk as once thought, particularly in Black adults, according to results from a large biracial cohort study that also raised questions about the validity of high HDL cholesterol as a potentially protective factor in White and Black adults alike.

“I think this opens the door to suggest that every biomarker we use might have a race-specific association with disease outcome,” Nathalie Pamir, PhD, an associate professor at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, said in an interview. “So, something as basic as HDL cholesterol – we’ve known about it since 1970 – has a race signature.”

Dr. Pamir and colleagues reported their findings from the REGARDS (Reasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke) cohort study that recruited 30,239 Black and White individuals aged 45 years and older from the contiguous United States from 2003 to 2007.

The study found that LDL cholesterol “modestly” predicted coronary heart disease (CHD) risk in Black and White adults. However, low HDL cholesterol, while associated with an increased risk in White patients (hazard ratio, 1.22; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.43), did not have a similar association in Blacks (HR, 0.94; 95% CI: 0.78-1.14). And high HDL cholesterol wasn’t found to be predictive in either group (HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.79-1.16 for White participants: HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.74-1.12 for Black participants).

Among 23,901 study participants who were CHD-risk free over a 10-year follow-up, 664 and 951 CHD events occurred in Black and White participants, respectively. The study cohort was 57.8% White and 58.4% women, with a mean age of 65 years.

The study noted that LDL cholesterol and triglycerides conferred similar risks for CHD in both White and Black participants.

Acknowledging that this study focused on Blacks, Dr. Pamir added that “we need to know about Asian Americans; we need to know about Hispanic Americans.”
 

Change of approach to lipid management called for

Dr. Pamir noted that the current understanding about HDL cholesterol and CHD risk comes from the Framingham heart study in the 1970s, whose population was 100% White.

Care algorithms derived from the Framingham study as well as the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis incorporate that association between HDL cholesterol and CHD risk, she noted, but these findings from REGARDS should change how cardiologists approach lipid management in Black and White patients.

“The conversation would go something like: High HDL cholesterol levels put you in a higher risk [bracket] but HDL cholesterol levels are not something we treat; we have no drugs for that,” Dr. Pamir said.

“The conversation would continue along the lines that: ‘You need to do more exercise, you need to change your diet, incorporate healthy fats, walnuts, and omega 3s.’

“But what might the conversation be for Black patients? ‘We don’t see the association that we see for White patients. Do adopt the good habits to exercise and dietary changes, but don’t get too worried about it.’ ”

The study report raises “caution” about using the Framingham, MESA, and other algorithms for evaluating CHD risk. Dr. Pamir explained what that means. “We might be underestimating risk, because what our study showed was that, when we looked at clinically high HDL cholesterol, about 60 mg/dL, it has no benefit for White and Black patients.”

She added, “So that pat on the back we get for patients that have high HDL-C levels? Maybe that pat on the back shouldn’t be there.”

In an invited commentary, Keith C. Ferdinand, MD, of Tulane University in New Orleans, wrote that using HDL cholesterol in risk calculations could inaccurately assess atherosclerotic cardiovascular risk in Black adults “and become a barrier to optimal care.”

In an interview, he said the REGARDS findings call for consideration of other biomarkers for evaluating CHD risk and point to the importance of socioeconomic factors in health outcomes.

“Physicians and other clinicians need to recognize the powerful impact of the social determinants of health and to also recognize the limits of HDL itself as either protective if it’s high or a definitive predictor of risk if it’s low, and focus on some more modern approaches, including coronary artery calcium scoring.”

He also said risk evaluation should include lipoprotein(a), which, he noted in the editorial, the European Atherosclerosis Society recommends measuring. “One of the reasons it’s underutilized is that we really don’t have a specific treatment for it,” he said of Lp(a) in the United States.

In his editorial comment, Dr. Ferdinand called for future research aimed at eliminating health disparities. “Regardless of the development of better tools for the assessment of risk, newer drugs to treat CVD, the use of coronary artery calcium, if we don’t apply evidence-based medicine equally across the population based on race, ethnicity, sex, gender, socioeconomic status, or geography, then the disparities are going to persist,” he said.

The National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and the National Institute on Aging provided funding for the study. Dr. Pamir has no relevant relationships to disclose. Dr. Ferdinand disclosed relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Janssen, and Lilly.

A drug used in the treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) is in the process of being pulled off the U.S. market by its manufacturer.

The drug is belantamab mafodotin-blmf (Blenrep), an antibody drug conjugate that targets B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA).

The manufacturer, GSK, announced that it has started the process of withdrawing this drug from the market at the request of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

This request follows disappointing results from a large confirmatory trial, known as DREAMM-3, in which the drug failed to meet the primary endpoint of showing an improvement in progression-free survival (PFS).

The company was obliged to carry out this confirmatory trial after the FDA granted an accelerated approval for the drug in August 2020.

The accelerated approval was based on response data, and it was dependent on later trials’ confirming a clinical benefit. In this case, those trials did not confirm a clinical benefit.

“We respect the Agency’s approach to the accelerated approval regulations and associated process,” commented the GSK Chief Medical Officer Sabine Luik.

The company will continue to “work with the U.S. FDA on a path forward for this important treatment option for patients with multiple myeloma.”

Further clinical trials in the DREAMM program are still underway. Results from the DREAMM-7 and DREAMM-8 trials are expected in early 2023.

The company had high hopes for the drug when it was launched. At that time, belanatamab mafodotin-blmf was the only drug on the market that targeted BCMA, and so it was the first drug in its class.

However, it is no longer unique. In the 2 years that it has been available, several other products that target BCMA have been launched for use in the treatment of multiple myeloma. These include the two chimeric antigen receptor T-cell products, idecabtagene vicleucel (Abecma) and ciltacabtagene autoleucel (Carvykti), as well as the bispecific antibody teclistamab (Tecvayli).
 

For relapsed/refractory disease

Belantamab mafodotin-blmf was approved for use in patients with RRMM who had already undergone treatment with one of the three major classes of drugs, namely, an immunomodulatory agent, a proteasome inhibitor, and a CD-38 monoclonal antibody.

Patients who are currently taking the drug and would like to continue doing so will have the option to enroll in a compassionate use program to retain their access to treatment, the company said.

“GSK continues to believe, based on the totality of data available from the DREAMM (DRiving Excellence in Approaches to Multiple Myeloma) development program, that the benefit-risk profile of belantamab mafodotin remains favorable in this hard-to-treat RRMM patient population. Patients responding to belantamab mafodotin experienced durable clinical benefit, and safety remains consistent with the known safety profile,” the company said.
 

Details of DREAMM-3 results

DREAMM-3 was a phase 3 trial that compared single-agent belantamab mafodotin to pomalidomide (Pomalyst) in combination with low-dose dexamethasone (PomDex) for patients with RRMM.

The results for the primary endpoint of PFS did not reach statistical significance: median PFS was 11.2 vs. 7 months with PomDex (hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-1.47).

At the time of the primary analysis, the overall survival (OS) data had only achieved 37.5% overall maturity. The median OS was 21.2 vs. 21.1 months with PomDex (HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.77-1.68).

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A drug used in the treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) is in the process of being pulled off the U.S. market by its manufacturer.

The drug is belantamab mafodotin-blmf (Blenrep), an antibody drug conjugate that targets B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA).

The manufacturer, GSK, announced that it has started the process of withdrawing this drug from the market at the request of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

This request follows disappointing results from a large confirmatory trial, known as DREAMM-3, in which the drug failed to meet the primary endpoint of showing an improvement in progression-free survival (PFS).

The company was obliged to carry out this confirmatory trial after the FDA granted an accelerated approval for the drug in August 2020.

The accelerated approval was based on response data, and it was dependent on later trials’ confirming a clinical benefit. In this case, those trials did not confirm a clinical benefit.

“We respect the Agency’s approach to the accelerated approval regulations and associated process,” commented the GSK Chief Medical Officer Sabine Luik.

The company will continue to “work with the U.S. FDA on a path forward for this important treatment option for patients with multiple myeloma.”

Further clinical trials in the DREAMM program are still underway. Results from the DREAMM-7 and DREAMM-8 trials are expected in early 2023.

The company had high hopes for the drug when it was launched. At that time, belanatamab mafodotin-blmf was the only drug on the market that targeted BCMA, and so it was the first drug in its class.

However, it is no longer unique. In the 2 years that it has been available, several other products that target BCMA have been launched for use in the treatment of multiple myeloma. These include the two chimeric antigen receptor T-cell products, idecabtagene vicleucel (Abecma) and ciltacabtagene autoleucel (Carvykti), as well as the bispecific antibody teclistamab (Tecvayli).
 

For relapsed/refractory disease

Belantamab mafodotin-blmf was approved for use in patients with RRMM who had already undergone treatment with one of the three major classes of drugs, namely, an immunomodulatory agent, a proteasome inhibitor, and a CD-38 monoclonal antibody.

Patients who are currently taking the drug and would like to continue doing so will have the option to enroll in a compassionate use program to retain their access to treatment, the company said.

“GSK continues to believe, based on the totality of data available from the DREAMM (DRiving Excellence in Approaches to Multiple Myeloma) development program, that the benefit-risk profile of belantamab mafodotin remains favorable in this hard-to-treat RRMM patient population. Patients responding to belantamab mafodotin experienced durable clinical benefit, and safety remains consistent with the known safety profile,” the company said.
 

Details of DREAMM-3 results

DREAMM-3 was a phase 3 trial that compared single-agent belantamab mafodotin to pomalidomide (Pomalyst) in combination with low-dose dexamethasone (PomDex) for patients with RRMM.

The results for the primary endpoint of PFS did not reach statistical significance: median PFS was 11.2 vs. 7 months with PomDex (hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-1.47).

At the time of the primary analysis, the overall survival (OS) data had only achieved 37.5% overall maturity. The median OS was 21.2 vs. 21.1 months with PomDex (HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.77-1.68).

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A drug used in the treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) is in the process of being pulled off the U.S. market by its manufacturer.

The drug is belantamab mafodotin-blmf (Blenrep), an antibody drug conjugate that targets B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA).

The manufacturer, GSK, announced that it has started the process of withdrawing this drug from the market at the request of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

This request follows disappointing results from a large confirmatory trial, known as DREAMM-3, in which the drug failed to meet the primary endpoint of showing an improvement in progression-free survival (PFS).

The company was obliged to carry out this confirmatory trial after the FDA granted an accelerated approval for the drug in August 2020.

The accelerated approval was based on response data, and it was dependent on later trials’ confirming a clinical benefit. In this case, those trials did not confirm a clinical benefit.

“We respect the Agency’s approach to the accelerated approval regulations and associated process,” commented the GSK Chief Medical Officer Sabine Luik.

The company will continue to “work with the U.S. FDA on a path forward for this important treatment option for patients with multiple myeloma.”

Further clinical trials in the DREAMM program are still underway. Results from the DREAMM-7 and DREAMM-8 trials are expected in early 2023.

The company had high hopes for the drug when it was launched. At that time, belanatamab mafodotin-blmf was the only drug on the market that targeted BCMA, and so it was the first drug in its class.

However, it is no longer unique. In the 2 years that it has been available, several other products that target BCMA have been launched for use in the treatment of multiple myeloma. These include the two chimeric antigen receptor T-cell products, idecabtagene vicleucel (Abecma) and ciltacabtagene autoleucel (Carvykti), as well as the bispecific antibody teclistamab (Tecvayli).
 

For relapsed/refractory disease

Belantamab mafodotin-blmf was approved for use in patients with RRMM who had already undergone treatment with one of the three major classes of drugs, namely, an immunomodulatory agent, a proteasome inhibitor, and a CD-38 monoclonal antibody.

Patients who are currently taking the drug and would like to continue doing so will have the option to enroll in a compassionate use program to retain their access to treatment, the company said.

“GSK continues to believe, based on the totality of data available from the DREAMM (DRiving Excellence in Approaches to Multiple Myeloma) development program, that the benefit-risk profile of belantamab mafodotin remains favorable in this hard-to-treat RRMM patient population. Patients responding to belantamab mafodotin experienced durable clinical benefit, and safety remains consistent with the known safety profile,” the company said.
 

Details of DREAMM-3 results

DREAMM-3 was a phase 3 trial that compared single-agent belantamab mafodotin to pomalidomide (Pomalyst) in combination with low-dose dexamethasone (PomDex) for patients with RRMM.

The results for the primary endpoint of PFS did not reach statistical significance: median PFS was 11.2 vs. 7 months with PomDex (hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-1.47).

At the time of the primary analysis, the overall survival (OS) data had only achieved 37.5% overall maturity. The median OS was 21.2 vs. 21.1 months with PomDex (HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.77-1.68).

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Updated clinical guidelines for the early diagnosis and management of cerebral palsy have been issued by the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Coauthored with the American Academy for Cerebral Palsy and Developmental Medicine, the report builds on new evidence for improved care and outcomes since the 2006 consensus guidelines.

Cerebral palsy, the most common neuromotor disorder of childhood, is often accompanied by cognitive impairments, epilepsy, sensory impairments, behavioral problems, communication difficulties, breathing and sleep problems, gastrointestinal and nutritional problems, and bone and orthopedic problems.

In the United States, the estimated prevalence of cerebral palsy ranges from 1.5 to 4 per 1,000 live births.

“Early identification and initiation of evidence-based motor therapies can improve outcomes by taking advantage of the neuroplasticity in the infant brain,” said the guideline authors in an executive summary.

The guideline, published in Pediatrics, is directed to primary care physicians with pediatrics, family practice, or internal medicine training. “It’s a much more comprehensive overview of the important role that primary care providers play in the lifetime care of people with cerebral palsy,” explained Garey Noritz, MD, chair of the 2021-2022 Executive Committee of the Council on Children with Disabilities. Dr. Noritz, a professor of pediatrics at Ohio State University and division chief of the complex health care program at Nationwide Children’s Hospital, both in Columbus, said: “The combined efforts of the primary care physician and specialty providers are needed to achieve the best outcomes.”

The AAP recommends that primary care pediatricians, neonatologists, and other specialists caring for hospitalized newborns recognize those at high risk of cerebral palsy, diagnose them as early as possible, and promptly refer them for therapy. Primary care physicians are advised to identify motor delays early by formalizing standardized developmental surveillance and screening at 9, 18, and 30 months, and to implement family-centered care across multiple specialists.

“If a motor disorder is suspected, primary care physicians should simultaneously begin a medical evaluation, refer to a specialist for definitive diagnosis, and to therapists for treatment,” Dr. Noritz emphasized.

“The earlier any possible movement disorder is recognized and intervention begins, the better a child can develop a gait pattern and work toward living an independent life, said Manish N. Shah, MD, associate professor of pediatric neurosurgery at the University of Texas, Houston, who was not involved in developing the guidelines.

For children in whom physical therapy and medication have not reduced leg spasticity, a minimally invasive spinal procedure can help release contracted tendons and encourage independent walking. The optimal age for selective dorsal rhizotomy is about 4 years, said Dr. Shah, who is director of the Texas Comprehensive Spasticity Center at Children’s Memorial Hermann Hospital in Houston. “You can turn these children into walkers. As adults, they can get jobs, have their own families. It’s life-changing.”

Importantly, the guidelines address the health care disparities leading to a higher prevalence of cerebral palsy in Black children and in those from families with lower socioeconomic status. “Efforts to combat racism and eliminate barriers to culturally sensitive prenatal, perinatal, and later pediatric care may help to improve outcomes for all children with cerebral palsy,” the authors said.

“Every child with cerebral palsy needs an individual plan, but only 30% or 40% are getting interventions,” said Dr. Shah. The updated guidelines could help payers rethink the 15-20 visits a year that are often approved, compared with the 2-3 visits per week that are needed for speech, physical, and occupational therapy, he pointed out.

“Financial issues often compromise the interdisciplinary and coordinated care associated with favorable outcomes in children with cerebral palsy,” said Heidi Feldman, MD, PhD, a developmental and behavioral pediatric specialist at Stanford (Calif.) Medicine Children’s Health’s Johnson Center for Pregnancy and Newborn Services. “With a new guideline, there may be greater willingness to fund these essential services.”

In the meantime, the AAP recommends that pediatricians advise families about available medical, social, and educational services, such as early intervention services, the Title V Maternal and Child Health block grant program, and special education services through the public school system.

Children with cerebral palsy need the same standardized primary care as any child, including the full schedule of recommended vaccinations and vision and hearing testing. They also need to be monitored and treated for the many problems that commonly co-occur, including chronic pain.

When secondary complications arise, the frequency of visits should increase.

Pneumonia, the leading cause of death in children and adolescents with cerebral palsy, can be prevented or minimized through immunization against respiratory diseases and screening for signs and symptoms of aspiration and sleep-disordered breathing.

The AAP also recommends that symptoms or functional declines undergo full investigation into other potential causes.

Since the sedentary lifestyle associated with cerebral palsy is now known to be related to the higher rates of cardiovascular complications in this patient population, the AAP recommends more attention be paid to physical activity and a healthy diet early in life. Pediatricians are advised to help families locate suitable opportunities for adaptive sports and recreation.

Almost 50% of children and adolescents with cerebral palsy have intellectual disability, 60%-80% have difficulty speaking, and about 25% are nonverbal. To address this, pediatricians should maximize the use of augmentative and alternative communication devices and involve experts in speech and language pathology, according to the guidelines.

“Many individuals with cerebral palsy and severe motor limitations have active, creative minds, and may need assistive technology, such as electronic talking devices, to demonstrate that mental life,” said Dr. Feldman. “Primary care clinicians should advocate for assistive technology.”

For challenging behavior, especially in the patient with limited verbal skills, potential nonbehavioral culprits such as constipation, esophageal reflux disease, and musculoskeletal or dental pain must be ruled out.

In the lead-up to adolescence, youth with cerebral palsy must be prepared for puberty, menstruation, and healthy, safe sexual relationships, much like their nonaffected peers. Since a disproportionate number of children with cerebral palsy experience neglect and physical, sexual, and emotional abuse, however, family stressors should be identified and caregivers referred for support services.

For the transition from pediatric to adult health care, the AAP recommends that structured planning begin between 12 and 14 years of age. Before transfer, the pediatrician should prepare a comprehensive medical summary with the input of the patient, parent/guardian, and pediatric subspecialists.

Without a proper handoff, “there is an increased risk of morbidity, medical complications, unnecessary emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and procedures,” the authors warned.

Transitions are likely to run more smoothly when youth are given the opportunity to understand their medical condition and be involved in decisions about their health. With this in mind, the AAP recommends that pediatricians actively discourage overprotective parents from getting in the way of their child developing “maximal independence.”

No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed by the authors, Dr. Shah, or Dr. Feldman.

*This story was updated on Nov. 28, 2022.
 

Updated clinical guidelines for the early diagnosis and management of cerebral palsy have been issued by the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Coauthored with the American Academy for Cerebral Palsy and Developmental Medicine, the report builds on new evidence for improved care and outcomes since the 2006 consensus guidelines.

Cerebral palsy, the most common neuromotor disorder of childhood, is often accompanied by cognitive impairments, epilepsy, sensory impairments, behavioral problems, communication difficulties, breathing and sleep problems, gastrointestinal and nutritional problems, and bone and orthopedic problems.

In the United States, the estimated prevalence of cerebral palsy ranges from 1.5 to 4 per 1,000 live births.

“Early identification and initiation of evidence-based motor therapies can improve outcomes by taking advantage of the neuroplasticity in the infant brain,” said the guideline authors in an executive summary.

The guideline, published in Pediatrics, is directed to primary care physicians with pediatrics, family practice, or internal medicine training. “It’s a much more comprehensive overview of the important role that primary care providers play in the lifetime care of people with cerebral palsy,” explained Garey Noritz, MD, chair of the 2021-2022 Executive Committee of the Council on Children with Disabilities. Dr. Noritz, a professor of pediatrics at Ohio State University and division chief of the complex health care program at Nationwide Children’s Hospital, both in Columbus, said: “The combined efforts of the primary care physician and specialty providers are needed to achieve the best outcomes.”

The AAP recommends that primary care pediatricians, neonatologists, and other specialists caring for hospitalized newborns recognize those at high risk of cerebral palsy, diagnose them as early as possible, and promptly refer them for therapy. Primary care physicians are advised to identify motor delays early by formalizing standardized developmental surveillance and screening at 9, 18, and 30 months, and to implement family-centered care across multiple specialists.

“If a motor disorder is suspected, primary care physicians should simultaneously begin a medical evaluation, refer to a specialist for definitive diagnosis, and to therapists for treatment,” Dr. Noritz emphasized.

“The earlier any possible movement disorder is recognized and intervention begins, the better a child can develop a gait pattern and work toward living an independent life, said Manish N. Shah, MD, associate professor of pediatric neurosurgery at the University of Texas, Houston, who was not involved in developing the guidelines.

For children in whom physical therapy and medication have not reduced leg spasticity, a minimally invasive spinal procedure can help release contracted tendons and encourage independent walking. The optimal age for selective dorsal rhizotomy is about 4 years, said Dr. Shah, who is director of the Texas Comprehensive Spasticity Center at Children’s Memorial Hermann Hospital in Houston. “You can turn these children into walkers. As adults, they can get jobs, have their own families. It’s life-changing.”

Importantly, the guidelines address the health care disparities leading to a higher prevalence of cerebral palsy in Black children and in those from families with lower socioeconomic status. “Efforts to combat racism and eliminate barriers to culturally sensitive prenatal, perinatal, and later pediatric care may help to improve outcomes for all children with cerebral palsy,” the authors said.

“Every child with cerebral palsy needs an individual plan, but only 30% or 40% are getting interventions,” said Dr. Shah. The updated guidelines could help payers rethink the 15-20 visits a year that are often approved, compared with the 2-3 visits per week that are needed for speech, physical, and occupational therapy, he pointed out.

“Financial issues often compromise the interdisciplinary and coordinated care associated with favorable outcomes in children with cerebral palsy,” said Heidi Feldman, MD, PhD, a developmental and behavioral pediatric specialist at Stanford (Calif.) Medicine Children’s Health’s Johnson Center for Pregnancy and Newborn Services. “With a new guideline, there may be greater willingness to fund these essential services.”

In the meantime, the AAP recommends that pediatricians advise families about available medical, social, and educational services, such as early intervention services, the Title V Maternal and Child Health block grant program, and special education services through the public school system.

Children with cerebral palsy need the same standardized primary care as any child, including the full schedule of recommended vaccinations and vision and hearing testing. They also need to be monitored and treated for the many problems that commonly co-occur, including chronic pain.

When secondary complications arise, the frequency of visits should increase.

Pneumonia, the leading cause of death in children and adolescents with cerebral palsy, can be prevented or minimized through immunization against respiratory diseases and screening for signs and symptoms of aspiration and sleep-disordered breathing.

The AAP also recommends that symptoms or functional declines undergo full investigation into other potential causes.

Since the sedentary lifestyle associated with cerebral palsy is now known to be related to the higher rates of cardiovascular complications in this patient population, the AAP recommends more attention be paid to physical activity and a healthy diet early in life. Pediatricians are advised to help families locate suitable opportunities for adaptive sports and recreation.

Almost 50% of children and adolescents with cerebral palsy have intellectual disability, 60%-80% have difficulty speaking, and about 25% are nonverbal. To address this, pediatricians should maximize the use of augmentative and alternative communication devices and involve experts in speech and language pathology, according to the guidelines.

“Many individuals with cerebral palsy and severe motor limitations have active, creative minds, and may need assistive technology, such as electronic talking devices, to demonstrate that mental life,” said Dr. Feldman. “Primary care clinicians should advocate for assistive technology.”

For challenging behavior, especially in the patient with limited verbal skills, potential nonbehavioral culprits such as constipation, esophageal reflux disease, and musculoskeletal or dental pain must be ruled out.

In the lead-up to adolescence, youth with cerebral palsy must be prepared for puberty, menstruation, and healthy, safe sexual relationships, much like their nonaffected peers. Since a disproportionate number of children with cerebral palsy experience neglect and physical, sexual, and emotional abuse, however, family stressors should be identified and caregivers referred for support services.

For the transition from pediatric to adult health care, the AAP recommends that structured planning begin between 12 and 14 years of age. Before transfer, the pediatrician should prepare a comprehensive medical summary with the input of the patient, parent/guardian, and pediatric subspecialists.

Without a proper handoff, “there is an increased risk of morbidity, medical complications, unnecessary emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and procedures,” the authors warned.

Transitions are likely to run more smoothly when youth are given the opportunity to understand their medical condition and be involved in decisions about their health. With this in mind, the AAP recommends that pediatricians actively discourage overprotective parents from getting in the way of their child developing “maximal independence.”

No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed by the authors, Dr. Shah, or Dr. Feldman.

*This story was updated on Nov. 28, 2022.
 

Updated clinical guidelines for the early diagnosis and management of cerebral palsy have been issued by the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Coauthored with the American Academy for Cerebral Palsy and Developmental Medicine, the report builds on new evidence for improved care and outcomes since the 2006 consensus guidelines.

Cerebral palsy, the most common neuromotor disorder of childhood, is often accompanied by cognitive impairments, epilepsy, sensory impairments, behavioral problems, communication difficulties, breathing and sleep problems, gastrointestinal and nutritional problems, and bone and orthopedic problems.

In the United States, the estimated prevalence of cerebral palsy ranges from 1.5 to 4 per 1,000 live births.

“Early identification and initiation of evidence-based motor therapies can improve outcomes by taking advantage of the neuroplasticity in the infant brain,” said the guideline authors in an executive summary.

The guideline, published in Pediatrics, is directed to primary care physicians with pediatrics, family practice, or internal medicine training. “It’s a much more comprehensive overview of the important role that primary care providers play in the lifetime care of people with cerebral palsy,” explained Garey Noritz, MD, chair of the 2021-2022 Executive Committee of the Council on Children with Disabilities. Dr. Noritz, a professor of pediatrics at Ohio State University and division chief of the complex health care program at Nationwide Children’s Hospital, both in Columbus, said: “The combined efforts of the primary care physician and specialty providers are needed to achieve the best outcomes.”

The AAP recommends that primary care pediatricians, neonatologists, and other specialists caring for hospitalized newborns recognize those at high risk of cerebral palsy, diagnose them as early as possible, and promptly refer them for therapy. Primary care physicians are advised to identify motor delays early by formalizing standardized developmental surveillance and screening at 9, 18, and 30 months, and to implement family-centered care across multiple specialists.

“If a motor disorder is suspected, primary care physicians should simultaneously begin a medical evaluation, refer to a specialist for definitive diagnosis, and to therapists for treatment,” Dr. Noritz emphasized.

“The earlier any possible movement disorder is recognized and intervention begins, the better a child can develop a gait pattern and work toward living an independent life, said Manish N. Shah, MD, associate professor of pediatric neurosurgery at the University of Texas, Houston, who was not involved in developing the guidelines.

For children in whom physical therapy and medication have not reduced leg spasticity, a minimally invasive spinal procedure can help release contracted tendons and encourage independent walking. The optimal age for selective dorsal rhizotomy is about 4 years, said Dr. Shah, who is director of the Texas Comprehensive Spasticity Center at Children’s Memorial Hermann Hospital in Houston. “You can turn these children into walkers. As adults, they can get jobs, have their own families. It’s life-changing.”

Importantly, the guidelines address the health care disparities leading to a higher prevalence of cerebral palsy in Black children and in those from families with lower socioeconomic status. “Efforts to combat racism and eliminate barriers to culturally sensitive prenatal, perinatal, and later pediatric care may help to improve outcomes for all children with cerebral palsy,” the authors said.

“Every child with cerebral palsy needs an individual plan, but only 30% or 40% are getting interventions,” said Dr. Shah. The updated guidelines could help payers rethink the 15-20 visits a year that are often approved, compared with the 2-3 visits per week that are needed for speech, physical, and occupational therapy, he pointed out.

“Financial issues often compromise the interdisciplinary and coordinated care associated with favorable outcomes in children with cerebral palsy,” said Heidi Feldman, MD, PhD, a developmental and behavioral pediatric specialist at Stanford (Calif.) Medicine Children’s Health’s Johnson Center for Pregnancy and Newborn Services. “With a new guideline, there may be greater willingness to fund these essential services.”

In the meantime, the AAP recommends that pediatricians advise families about available medical, social, and educational services, such as early intervention services, the Title V Maternal and Child Health block grant program, and special education services through the public school system.

Children with cerebral palsy need the same standardized primary care as any child, including the full schedule of recommended vaccinations and vision and hearing testing. They also need to be monitored and treated for the many problems that commonly co-occur, including chronic pain.

When secondary complications arise, the frequency of visits should increase.

Pneumonia, the leading cause of death in children and adolescents with cerebral palsy, can be prevented or minimized through immunization against respiratory diseases and screening for signs and symptoms of aspiration and sleep-disordered breathing.

The AAP also recommends that symptoms or functional declines undergo full investigation into other potential causes.

Since the sedentary lifestyle associated with cerebral palsy is now known to be related to the higher rates of cardiovascular complications in this patient population, the AAP recommends more attention be paid to physical activity and a healthy diet early in life. Pediatricians are advised to help families locate suitable opportunities for adaptive sports and recreation.

Almost 50% of children and adolescents with cerebral palsy have intellectual disability, 60%-80% have difficulty speaking, and about 25% are nonverbal. To address this, pediatricians should maximize the use of augmentative and alternative communication devices and involve experts in speech and language pathology, according to the guidelines.

“Many individuals with cerebral palsy and severe motor limitations have active, creative minds, and may need assistive technology, such as electronic talking devices, to demonstrate that mental life,” said Dr. Feldman. “Primary care clinicians should advocate for assistive technology.”

For challenging behavior, especially in the patient with limited verbal skills, potential nonbehavioral culprits such as constipation, esophageal reflux disease, and musculoskeletal or dental pain must be ruled out.

In the lead-up to adolescence, youth with cerebral palsy must be prepared for puberty, menstruation, and healthy, safe sexual relationships, much like their nonaffected peers. Since a disproportionate number of children with cerebral palsy experience neglect and physical, sexual, and emotional abuse, however, family stressors should be identified and caregivers referred for support services.

For the transition from pediatric to adult health care, the AAP recommends that structured planning begin between 12 and 14 years of age. Before transfer, the pediatrician should prepare a comprehensive medical summary with the input of the patient, parent/guardian, and pediatric subspecialists.

Without a proper handoff, “there is an increased risk of morbidity, medical complications, unnecessary emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and procedures,” the authors warned.

Transitions are likely to run more smoothly when youth are given the opportunity to understand their medical condition and be involved in decisions about their health. With this in mind, the AAP recommends that pediatricians actively discourage overprotective parents from getting in the way of their child developing “maximal independence.”

No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed by the authors, Dr. Shah, or Dr. Feldman.

*This story was updated on Nov. 28, 2022.
 

PHILADELPHIA – Treatment with the interleukin-6 receptor antagonist sarilumab (Kevzara), along with a 14-week taper of glucocorticoids, proved to have significant efficacy in patients with relapsing polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR) who were resistant to glucocorticoids in a phase 3 trial.

No new safety concerns were found with sarilumab in the multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled SAPHYR trial. Sarilumab is approved in the United States for the treatment of moderate to severe active rheumatoid arthritis in adults who have had an inadequate response or intolerance to one or more disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.

The results, presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology by Robert Spiera, MD, director of the Scleroderma, Vasculitis, and Myositis Center at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, included clinically meaningful improvement in quality-of-life scores.

The disease, which primarily affects people over age 65, can cause widespread aching and stiffness. It’s one of the most common inflammatory diseases among older adults.

PMR is relatively easy to treat with glucocorticoids, but relapses are common, which means long courses of glucocorticoid therapy and the side effects that come with them.
 

Need for a steroid-sparing therapy

“We recognize that a steroid-sparing drug in polymyalgia rheumatica seems to be an unmet need,” Dr. Spiera said at the meeting.

The trial, sponsored by Sanofi, included active, refractory PMR patients who flared within 3 months of study entry while on at least 7.5 mg/day of prednisone or the equivalent. They were randomly assigned (1:1) to 52 weeks of treatment with subcutaneous sarilumab 200 mg every 2 weeks plus the rapid 14-week glucocorticoid tapering regimen or were given placebo every 2 weeks plus a more traditional 52-week tapering of glucocorticoids.
 

COVID hampered recruitment

Recruitment was stopped early because of complications during the COVID-19 pandemic, so between October 2018 and July 2020, 118 of the intended 280 patients were recruited, and 117 were treated (sarilumab = 59, placebo = 58). Median age was 69 years in the treatment group and 70 among those taking placebo.

Of the 117 treated, only 78 patients (67%) completed treatment (sarilumab = 42, placebo = 36). The main reasons for stopping treatment were adverse events – including seven with sarilumab and four with placebo – and lack of efficacy (sarilumab = four, placebo = nine).

The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who reached sustained remission at 52 weeks, defined as disease remission by week 12 and no disease flare, normal C-reactive protein (CRP), and adherence to the glucocorticoid taper during weeks 12-52.

The researchers found that sustained remission was significantly higher in the sarilumab arm versus the control group (28.3% versus 10.3%; P = .0193).

IL-6 inhibitors lower CRP, but if you take CRP out of the definition, Dr. Spiera said, “we still saw this difference: 31.7% of patients treated with sarilumab and 13.8% treated with placebo and a longer taper achieved that endpoint.”
 

Forty-four percent lower risk of flare with sarilumab

Patients in the sarilumab group also had 44% lower risk of having a flare after achieving clinical remission versus the comparator group (16.7% versus 29.3%; hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.35-0.90; P = .0153).

Patient-reported outcomes, which included physical and mental health scores and disability index results, favored sarilumab.

The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) was numerically higher in the sarilumab group, compared with the control group (94.9% versus 84.5%). TEAEs included neutropenia (15.3%) and arthralgia (15.3%) in the sarilumab group and insomnia (15.5%) in the comparator arm.

However, the frequency of serious AEs was higher in the control group, compared with the sarilumab arm (20.7% versus 13.6%). No deaths were reported, and, importantly in this age group treated with concurrent glucocorticoids and an IL-6 inhibitor, Dr. Spiera said, “there were no cases of diverticulitis requiring intervention.”

Dr. Spiera was asked about a seemingly low remission rate. He answered that the bar was very high for remission in this study.

Patients had to achieve remission by week 12 and with the rapid 14-week taper. “That means by week 12 the sarilumab arm patients were only on 2 mg of daily prednisone or its equivalent,” he said.

Patients had to maintain that for another 40 weeks, he noted, adding, “I think especially in the context of quality of life and function indices, these were important results.”

Sebastian E. Sattui, MD, director of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center vasculitis clinic, told this news organization that prolonged use of glucocorticoids in patients with PMR remains an important concern and the need for other options is critical.

“Around 30% of patients with PMR remain on prednisone 5 years after diagnosis,” he said. “Low-dose glucocorticoids are still associated with significant morbidity. Until recently, there has been a paucity of high-quality data regarding the use of steroid-sparing agents in PMR. “

He noted that the SAPHYR trial data are promising “with sarilumab being successful in achieving remission while minimizing glucocorticoids in patients with relapsing PMR.” The clinically meaningful improvement in patient-reported outcomes was just as important, he added.

The main unanswered question is whether the disease-modifying ability of sarilumab will continue after it is stopped, Dr. Sattui said.

Dr. Spiera is a consultant for Sanofi, which funded the trial. He also disclosed financial relationships with GlaxoSmithKline, Boehringer Ingelheim, Corbus, InflaRx, AbbVie/Abbott, Novartis, Chemocentryx, Roche, and Vera. Dr. Sattui has received research support from AstraZeneca and has done unpaid consulting work for Sanofi.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

PHILADELPHIA – Treatment with the interleukin-6 receptor antagonist sarilumab (Kevzara), along with a 14-week taper of glucocorticoids, proved to have significant efficacy in patients with relapsing polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR) who were resistant to glucocorticoids in a phase 3 trial.

No new safety concerns were found with sarilumab in the multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled SAPHYR trial. Sarilumab is approved in the United States for the treatment of moderate to severe active rheumatoid arthritis in adults who have had an inadequate response or intolerance to one or more disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.

The results, presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology by Robert Spiera, MD, director of the Scleroderma, Vasculitis, and Myositis Center at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, included clinically meaningful improvement in quality-of-life scores.

The disease, which primarily affects people over age 65, can cause widespread aching and stiffness. It’s one of the most common inflammatory diseases among older adults.

PMR is relatively easy to treat with glucocorticoids, but relapses are common, which means long courses of glucocorticoid therapy and the side effects that come with them.
 

Need for a steroid-sparing therapy

“We recognize that a steroid-sparing drug in polymyalgia rheumatica seems to be an unmet need,” Dr. Spiera said at the meeting.

The trial, sponsored by Sanofi, included active, refractory PMR patients who flared within 3 months of study entry while on at least 7.5 mg/day of prednisone or the equivalent. They were randomly assigned (1:1) to 52 weeks of treatment with subcutaneous sarilumab 200 mg every 2 weeks plus the rapid 14-week glucocorticoid tapering regimen or were given placebo every 2 weeks plus a more traditional 52-week tapering of glucocorticoids.
 

COVID hampered recruitment

Recruitment was stopped early because of complications during the COVID-19 pandemic, so between October 2018 and July 2020, 118 of the intended 280 patients were recruited, and 117 were treated (sarilumab = 59, placebo = 58). Median age was 69 years in the treatment group and 70 among those taking placebo.

Of the 117 treated, only 78 patients (67%) completed treatment (sarilumab = 42, placebo = 36). The main reasons for stopping treatment were adverse events – including seven with sarilumab and four with placebo – and lack of efficacy (sarilumab = four, placebo = nine).

The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who reached sustained remission at 52 weeks, defined as disease remission by week 12 and no disease flare, normal C-reactive protein (CRP), and adherence to the glucocorticoid taper during weeks 12-52.

The researchers found that sustained remission was significantly higher in the sarilumab arm versus the control group (28.3% versus 10.3%; P = .0193).

IL-6 inhibitors lower CRP, but if you take CRP out of the definition, Dr. Spiera said, “we still saw this difference: 31.7% of patients treated with sarilumab and 13.8% treated with placebo and a longer taper achieved that endpoint.”
 

Forty-four percent lower risk of flare with sarilumab

Patients in the sarilumab group also had 44% lower risk of having a flare after achieving clinical remission versus the comparator group (16.7% versus 29.3%; hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.35-0.90; P = .0153).

Patient-reported outcomes, which included physical and mental health scores and disability index results, favored sarilumab.

The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) was numerically higher in the sarilumab group, compared with the control group (94.9% versus 84.5%). TEAEs included neutropenia (15.3%) and arthralgia (15.3%) in the sarilumab group and insomnia (15.5%) in the comparator arm.

However, the frequency of serious AEs was higher in the control group, compared with the sarilumab arm (20.7% versus 13.6%). No deaths were reported, and, importantly in this age group treated with concurrent glucocorticoids and an IL-6 inhibitor, Dr. Spiera said, “there were no cases of diverticulitis requiring intervention.”

Dr. Spiera was asked about a seemingly low remission rate. He answered that the bar was very high for remission in this study.

Patients had to achieve remission by week 12 and with the rapid 14-week taper. “That means by week 12 the sarilumab arm patients were only on 2 mg of daily prednisone or its equivalent,” he said.

Patients had to maintain that for another 40 weeks, he noted, adding, “I think especially in the context of quality of life and function indices, these were important results.”

Sebastian E. Sattui, MD, director of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center vasculitis clinic, told this news organization that prolonged use of glucocorticoids in patients with PMR remains an important concern and the need for other options is critical.

“Around 30% of patients with PMR remain on prednisone 5 years after diagnosis,” he said. “Low-dose glucocorticoids are still associated with significant morbidity. Until recently, there has been a paucity of high-quality data regarding the use of steroid-sparing agents in PMR. “

He noted that the SAPHYR trial data are promising “with sarilumab being successful in achieving remission while minimizing glucocorticoids in patients with relapsing PMR.” The clinically meaningful improvement in patient-reported outcomes was just as important, he added.

The main unanswered question is whether the disease-modifying ability of sarilumab will continue after it is stopped, Dr. Sattui said.

Dr. Spiera is a consultant for Sanofi, which funded the trial. He also disclosed financial relationships with GlaxoSmithKline, Boehringer Ingelheim, Corbus, InflaRx, AbbVie/Abbott, Novartis, Chemocentryx, Roche, and Vera. Dr. Sattui has received research support from AstraZeneca and has done unpaid consulting work for Sanofi.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

PHILADELPHIA – Treatment with the interleukin-6 receptor antagonist sarilumab (Kevzara), along with a 14-week taper of glucocorticoids, proved to have significant efficacy in patients with relapsing polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR) who were resistant to glucocorticoids in a phase 3 trial.

No new safety concerns were found with sarilumab in the multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled SAPHYR trial. Sarilumab is approved in the United States for the treatment of moderate to severe active rheumatoid arthritis in adults who have had an inadequate response or intolerance to one or more disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.

The results, presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology by Robert Spiera, MD, director of the Scleroderma, Vasculitis, and Myositis Center at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, included clinically meaningful improvement in quality-of-life scores.

The disease, which primarily affects people over age 65, can cause widespread aching and stiffness. It’s one of the most common inflammatory diseases among older adults.

PMR is relatively easy to treat with glucocorticoids, but relapses are common, which means long courses of glucocorticoid therapy and the side effects that come with them.
 

Need for a steroid-sparing therapy

“We recognize that a steroid-sparing drug in polymyalgia rheumatica seems to be an unmet need,” Dr. Spiera said at the meeting.

The trial, sponsored by Sanofi, included active, refractory PMR patients who flared within 3 months of study entry while on at least 7.5 mg/day of prednisone or the equivalent. They were randomly assigned (1:1) to 52 weeks of treatment with subcutaneous sarilumab 200 mg every 2 weeks plus the rapid 14-week glucocorticoid tapering regimen or were given placebo every 2 weeks plus a more traditional 52-week tapering of glucocorticoids.
 

COVID hampered recruitment

Recruitment was stopped early because of complications during the COVID-19 pandemic, so between October 2018 and July 2020, 118 of the intended 280 patients were recruited, and 117 were treated (sarilumab = 59, placebo = 58). Median age was 69 years in the treatment group and 70 among those taking placebo.

Of the 117 treated, only 78 patients (67%) completed treatment (sarilumab = 42, placebo = 36). The main reasons for stopping treatment were adverse events – including seven with sarilumab and four with placebo – and lack of efficacy (sarilumab = four, placebo = nine).

The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who reached sustained remission at 52 weeks, defined as disease remission by week 12 and no disease flare, normal C-reactive protein (CRP), and adherence to the glucocorticoid taper during weeks 12-52.

The researchers found that sustained remission was significantly higher in the sarilumab arm versus the control group (28.3% versus 10.3%; P = .0193).

IL-6 inhibitors lower CRP, but if you take CRP out of the definition, Dr. Spiera said, “we still saw this difference: 31.7% of patients treated with sarilumab and 13.8% treated with placebo and a longer taper achieved that endpoint.”
 

Forty-four percent lower risk of flare with sarilumab

Patients in the sarilumab group also had 44% lower risk of having a flare after achieving clinical remission versus the comparator group (16.7% versus 29.3%; hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.35-0.90; P = .0153).

Patient-reported outcomes, which included physical and mental health scores and disability index results, favored sarilumab.

The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) was numerically higher in the sarilumab group, compared with the control group (94.9% versus 84.5%). TEAEs included neutropenia (15.3%) and arthralgia (15.3%) in the sarilumab group and insomnia (15.5%) in the comparator arm.

However, the frequency of serious AEs was higher in the control group, compared with the sarilumab arm (20.7% versus 13.6%). No deaths were reported, and, importantly in this age group treated with concurrent glucocorticoids and an IL-6 inhibitor, Dr. Spiera said, “there were no cases of diverticulitis requiring intervention.”

Dr. Spiera was asked about a seemingly low remission rate. He answered that the bar was very high for remission in this study.

Patients had to achieve remission by week 12 and with the rapid 14-week taper. “That means by week 12 the sarilumab arm patients were only on 2 mg of daily prednisone or its equivalent,” he said.

Patients had to maintain that for another 40 weeks, he noted, adding, “I think especially in the context of quality of life and function indices, these were important results.”

Sebastian E. Sattui, MD, director of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center vasculitis clinic, told this news organization that prolonged use of glucocorticoids in patients with PMR remains an important concern and the need for other options is critical.

“Around 30% of patients with PMR remain on prednisone 5 years after diagnosis,” he said. “Low-dose glucocorticoids are still associated with significant morbidity. Until recently, there has been a paucity of high-quality data regarding the use of steroid-sparing agents in PMR. “

He noted that the SAPHYR trial data are promising “with sarilumab being successful in achieving remission while minimizing glucocorticoids in patients with relapsing PMR.” The clinically meaningful improvement in patient-reported outcomes was just as important, he added.

The main unanswered question is whether the disease-modifying ability of sarilumab will continue after it is stopped, Dr. Sattui said.

Dr. Spiera is a consultant for Sanofi, which funded the trial. He also disclosed financial relationships with GlaxoSmithKline, Boehringer Ingelheim, Corbus, InflaRx, AbbVie/Abbott, Novartis, Chemocentryx, Roche, and Vera. Dr. Sattui has received research support from AstraZeneca and has done unpaid consulting work for Sanofi.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In September, the World Professional Association for Transgender Health released its much-anticipated standards of care (SOC8). While this update has unfortunately received intense scrutiny for its guidance about gender-diverse adolescents and youth, the SOC8 is their most evidence-based version to date. Recommendations were developed based on data from independent systematic literature reviews, background reviews, and expert opinions.¹ These guidelines also recognize knowledge deficits and are intended to be flexible to meet the individual needs of transgender patients. While the scope of this column will not delve into all 258 pages of these new standards, it will highlight pertinent information on hormonal management.

Ever since the original publication of the standards of care in 1979, gender-affirming hormone therapy (GAHT) has been considered medically necessary. The approach to GAHT depends on the patient’s goals and the age at which the patient is seeking to medically transition. Given the complexity of GAHT for transgender youth and adolescents, this article will focus primarily on adult patients.

There are a few pertinent differences in the management and monitoring of GAHT in adults. For patients assigned female at birth, testosterone is the primary modality by which patients can achieve masculinizing features. GAHT for patients assigned male at birth often consists of estrogen and an androgen-lowering medication. Like its predecessor, SOC8 recommends against prescribing ethinyl estradiol because of its marked association with thromboembolic events.

While the formulations of estrogen (oral, injectable, and patches) and hormone blockers (finasteride, spironolactone, gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists, and bicalutamide) are discussed in prior standards of care, SOC8 further delineates their utilization. It suggests that transdermal estrogen should be considered in transgender women over the age of 45 who are at high risk for developing a venous thromboembolism or have a previous history of thromboembolism. Furthermore, SOC8 establishes spironolactone as the mainstay for androgen blockage and discourages routine usage of bicalutamide and finasteride because of a lack of safety data and questionable efficacy.¹ Even though some patients anecdotally report increased breast growth with progesterone supplementation, there is insufficient evidence to regularly prescribe progesterone for breast development.¹

Both WPATH and the Endocrine Society recommend checking serum levels of sex hormones every 3 months during the first year until stable levels are achieved, then once or twice a year thereafter.¹ Hormone levels should be maintained at physiologic concentrations of the targeted gender. Some patients on feminizing GAHT often request evaluation of estrone/estradiol ratios as there was an assumption that higher ratios were associated with antagonistic effects on breast development. However, recent published evidence refutes this claim and estrone/estradiol ratios need not be measured.¹

In addition to monitoring sex hormone levels, providers should check the metabolic effects that can be associated with GAHT. Both testosterone and estrogen can influence lipid panels: Testosterone can increase the red blood cell count, and spironolactone may cause hyperkalemia. While the SOC7 previously encouraged assessment of these laboratory values every 3 months, the new guidelines are more flexible in the frequency of testing of asymptomatic individuals as there is no strong evidence from published studies that supports these 3-month intervals.¹

Providers are responsible for informing patients about the possible effects of GAHT on fertility. Estrogen often will cause a reduction in spermatogenesis, which may be irreversible. Patients who plan on taking estrogen should be counseled regarding sperm cryopreservation prior to starting GAHT. Even though testosterone inhibits ovulation and induces menstrual suppression, patients often regain their fertility after cessation of testosterone therapy. However, given the significant knowledge deficit about long-term fertility in transmasculine patients, providers should still offer oocyte or embryo cryopreservation.

Health care providers should collaborate with surgeons regarding preoperative and postoperative GAHT. To mitigate the risk of thromboembolism, many surgeons would stop hormones 1-4 weeks before and after gender-affirming surgery. Recent evidence does not support this practice, as studies indicate no increased risk for venous thromboembolism in individuals on GAHT undergoing surgery. These studies are consistent with other well-established guidelines on preoperative management of cisgender women taking estrogen or progestins. As exogenous sex steroids are necessary for bone health in patients who undergo gonadectomy, surgeons and other health care providers should educate patients on the importance of continuing GAHT.

There are many procedures available for gender-affirming surgery. Many of these surgeries involve three regions: the face, chest/breast, and/or genitalia (both internal and external). Prior to making a surgical referral, providers should be familiar with the surgeon’s scope of practice, performance measures, and surgical outcomes.¹ For the first time, the SOC8 also addresses the surgical training of the providers who offer these procedures. While gender-affirming surgery can be performed by a variety of different specialists, training and documented supervision (often by an existing expert in gender-affirming surgery) is essential. Maintaining an active practice in these procedures, tracking surgical outcomes, and continuing education within the field of gender-affirming surgery are additional requirements for surgeons performing these complex operations.¹

As their name implies, the SOC8 attempts to create a standardized guide to assist practitioners caring for gender-diverse patients. It’s important for providers to be familiar with updates while also recognizing the evolving nature of this rapidly growing field.

Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa.

Reference

1. World Professional Association for Transgender Health. Standards of care for the health of transgender and gender diverse people, Version 8. Int J Transgend Health. 2022 Sep 15. doi: 10.1080/26895269.2022.2100644.

In September, the World Professional Association for Transgender Health released its much-anticipated standards of care (SOC8). While this update has unfortunately received intense scrutiny for its guidance about gender-diverse adolescents and youth, the SOC8 is their most evidence-based version to date. Recommendations were developed based on data from independent systematic literature reviews, background reviews, and expert opinions.¹ These guidelines also recognize knowledge deficits and are intended to be flexible to meet the individual needs of transgender patients. While the scope of this column will not delve into all 258 pages of these new standards, it will highlight pertinent information on hormonal management.

Ever since the original publication of the standards of care in 1979, gender-affirming hormone therapy (GAHT) has been considered medically necessary. The approach to GAHT depends on the patient’s goals and the age at which the patient is seeking to medically transition. Given the complexity of GAHT for transgender youth and adolescents, this article will focus primarily on adult patients.

There are a few pertinent differences in the management and monitoring of GAHT in adults. For patients assigned female at birth, testosterone is the primary modality by which patients can achieve masculinizing features. GAHT for patients assigned male at birth often consists of estrogen and an androgen-lowering medication. Like its predecessor, SOC8 recommends against prescribing ethinyl estradiol because of its marked association with thromboembolic events.

While the formulations of estrogen (oral, injectable, and patches) and hormone blockers (finasteride, spironolactone, gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists, and bicalutamide) are discussed in prior standards of care, SOC8 further delineates their utilization. It suggests that transdermal estrogen should be considered in transgender women over the age of 45 who are at high risk for developing a venous thromboembolism or have a previous history of thromboembolism. Furthermore, SOC8 establishes spironolactone as the mainstay for androgen blockage and discourages routine usage of bicalutamide and finasteride because of a lack of safety data and questionable efficacy.¹ Even though some patients anecdotally report increased breast growth with progesterone supplementation, there is insufficient evidence to regularly prescribe progesterone for breast development.¹

Both WPATH and the Endocrine Society recommend checking serum levels of sex hormones every 3 months during the first year until stable levels are achieved, then once or twice a year thereafter.¹ Hormone levels should be maintained at physiologic concentrations of the targeted gender. Some patients on feminizing GAHT often request evaluation of estrone/estradiol ratios as there was an assumption that higher ratios were associated with antagonistic effects on breast development. However, recent published evidence refutes this claim and estrone/estradiol ratios need not be measured.¹

In addition to monitoring sex hormone levels, providers should check the metabolic effects that can be associated with GAHT. Both testosterone and estrogen can influence lipid panels: Testosterone can increase the red blood cell count, and spironolactone may cause hyperkalemia. While the SOC7 previously encouraged assessment of these laboratory values every 3 months, the new guidelines are more flexible in the frequency of testing of asymptomatic individuals as there is no strong evidence from published studies that supports these 3-month intervals.¹

Providers are responsible for informing patients about the possible effects of GAHT on fertility. Estrogen often will cause a reduction in spermatogenesis, which may be irreversible. Patients who plan on taking estrogen should be counseled regarding sperm cryopreservation prior to starting GAHT. Even though testosterone inhibits ovulation and induces menstrual suppression, patients often regain their fertility after cessation of testosterone therapy. However, given the significant knowledge deficit about long-term fertility in transmasculine patients, providers should still offer oocyte or embryo cryopreservation.

Health care providers should collaborate with surgeons regarding preoperative and postoperative GAHT. To mitigate the risk of thromboembolism, many surgeons would stop hormones 1-4 weeks before and after gender-affirming surgery. Recent evidence does not support this practice, as studies indicate no increased risk for venous thromboembolism in individuals on GAHT undergoing surgery. These studies are consistent with other well-established guidelines on preoperative management of cisgender women taking estrogen or progestins. As exogenous sex steroids are necessary for bone health in patients who undergo gonadectomy, surgeons and other health care providers should educate patients on the importance of continuing GAHT.

There are many procedures available for gender-affirming surgery. Many of these surgeries involve three regions: the face, chest/breast, and/or genitalia (both internal and external). Prior to making a surgical referral, providers should be familiar with the surgeon’s scope of practice, performance measures, and surgical outcomes.¹ For the first time, the SOC8 also addresses the surgical training of the providers who offer these procedures. While gender-affirming surgery can be performed by a variety of different specialists, training and documented supervision (often by an existing expert in gender-affirming surgery) is essential. Maintaining an active practice in these procedures, tracking surgical outcomes, and continuing education within the field of gender-affirming surgery are additional requirements for surgeons performing these complex operations.¹

As their name implies, the SOC8 attempts to create a standardized guide to assist practitioners caring for gender-diverse patients. It’s important for providers to be familiar with updates while also recognizing the evolving nature of this rapidly growing field.

Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa.

Reference

1. World Professional Association for Transgender Health. Standards of care for the health of transgender and gender diverse people, Version 8. Int J Transgend Health. 2022 Sep 15. doi: 10.1080/26895269.2022.2100644.

In September, the World Professional Association for Transgender Health released its much-anticipated standards of care (SOC8). While this update has unfortunately received intense scrutiny for its guidance about gender-diverse adolescents and youth, the SOC8 is their most evidence-based version to date. Recommendations were developed based on data from independent systematic literature reviews, background reviews, and expert opinions.¹ These guidelines also recognize knowledge deficits and are intended to be flexible to meet the individual needs of transgender patients. While the scope of this column will not delve into all 258 pages of these new standards, it will highlight pertinent information on hormonal management.

Ever since the original publication of the standards of care in 1979, gender-affirming hormone therapy (GAHT) has been considered medically necessary. The approach to GAHT depends on the patient’s goals and the age at which the patient is seeking to medically transition. Given the complexity of GAHT for transgender youth and adolescents, this article will focus primarily on adult patients.

There are a few pertinent differences in the management and monitoring of GAHT in adults. For patients assigned female at birth, testosterone is the primary modality by which patients can achieve masculinizing features. GAHT for patients assigned male at birth often consists of estrogen and an androgen-lowering medication. Like its predecessor, SOC8 recommends against prescribing ethinyl estradiol because of its marked association with thromboembolic events.

While the formulations of estrogen (oral, injectable, and patches) and hormone blockers (finasteride, spironolactone, gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists, and bicalutamide) are discussed in prior standards of care, SOC8 further delineates their utilization. It suggests that transdermal estrogen should be considered in transgender women over the age of 45 who are at high risk for developing a venous thromboembolism or have a previous history of thromboembolism. Furthermore, SOC8 establishes spironolactone as the mainstay for androgen blockage and discourages routine usage of bicalutamide and finasteride because of a lack of safety data and questionable efficacy.¹ Even though some patients anecdotally report increased breast growth with progesterone supplementation, there is insufficient evidence to regularly prescribe progesterone for breast development.¹

Both WPATH and the Endocrine Society recommend checking serum levels of sex hormones every 3 months during the first year until stable levels are achieved, then once or twice a year thereafter.¹ Hormone levels should be maintained at physiologic concentrations of the targeted gender. Some patients on feminizing GAHT often request evaluation of estrone/estradiol ratios as there was an assumption that higher ratios were associated with antagonistic effects on breast development. However, recent published evidence refutes this claim and estrone/estradiol ratios need not be measured.¹

In addition to monitoring sex hormone levels, providers should check the metabolic effects that can be associated with GAHT. Both testosterone and estrogen can influence lipid panels: Testosterone can increase the red blood cell count, and spironolactone may cause hyperkalemia. While the SOC7 previously encouraged assessment of these laboratory values every 3 months, the new guidelines are more flexible in the frequency of testing of asymptomatic individuals as there is no strong evidence from published studies that supports these 3-month intervals.¹

Providers are responsible for informing patients about the possible effects of GAHT on fertility. Estrogen often will cause a reduction in spermatogenesis, which may be irreversible. Patients who plan on taking estrogen should be counseled regarding sperm cryopreservation prior to starting GAHT. Even though testosterone inhibits ovulation and induces menstrual suppression, patients often regain their fertility after cessation of testosterone therapy. However, given the significant knowledge deficit about long-term fertility in transmasculine patients, providers should still offer oocyte or embryo cryopreservation.

Health care providers should collaborate with surgeons regarding preoperative and postoperative GAHT. To mitigate the risk of thromboembolism, many surgeons would stop hormones 1-4 weeks before and after gender-affirming surgery. Recent evidence does not support this practice, as studies indicate no increased risk for venous thromboembolism in individuals on GAHT undergoing surgery. These studies are consistent with other well-established guidelines on preoperative management of cisgender women taking estrogen or progestins. As exogenous sex steroids are necessary for bone health in patients who undergo gonadectomy, surgeons and other health care providers should educate patients on the importance of continuing GAHT.

There are many procedures available for gender-affirming surgery. Many of these surgeries involve three regions: the face, chest/breast, and/or genitalia (both internal and external). Prior to making a surgical referral, providers should be familiar with the surgeon’s scope of practice, performance measures, and surgical outcomes.¹ For the first time, the SOC8 also addresses the surgical training of the providers who offer these procedures. While gender-affirming surgery can be performed by a variety of different specialists, training and documented supervision (often by an existing expert in gender-affirming surgery) is essential. Maintaining an active practice in these procedures, tracking surgical outcomes, and continuing education within the field of gender-affirming surgery are additional requirements for surgeons performing these complex operations.¹

As their name implies, the SOC8 attempts to create a standardized guide to assist practitioners caring for gender-diverse patients. It’s important for providers to be familiar with updates while also recognizing the evolving nature of this rapidly growing field.

Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa.

Reference

1. World Professional Association for Transgender Health. Standards of care for the health of transgender and gender diverse people, Version 8. Int J Transgend Health. 2022 Sep 15. doi: 10.1080/26895269.2022.2100644.

To the Editor:

An 82-year-old man presented to our dermatology clinic for a total-body skin examination due to a recently diagnosed primary melanoma of the left middle ear. He reported pain of the left ear and water behind the left eardrum of 1 year’s duration. An otorhinolaryngologist performed surgery due to the severe mastoiditis. A biopsy of the contents of the left middle ear revealed malignant melanoma. Positron emission tomography–computed tomography revealed the mass was mainly located in the anterior aspect of the left middle ear with suspicion of tumor extension into the bony portion of the eustachian tube. No other disease was present. Prior to presentation to dermatology, gross excision of the left middle ear with removal of additional melanoma was confirmed by biopsy, and further analysis revealed v-Raf murine sarcoma viral oncogene (BRAF) was not detected while cellular proto-oncogene receptor kinase (KIT) mutation was detected on exon 13p (K642E).

The patient had no family history of melanoma. He never smoked and did not have contact with hazardous material. Initial examination at our clinic revealed no other suspicious pigmented lesions. After additional negative workup by the oncologist, the patient was presented to the tumor board, and postoperative radiotherapy was recommended to improve local control. Eight months after the patient’s initial diagnosis of the primary middle ear melanoma, a computed tomography–guided right lung biopsy showed metastatic melanoma. After various treatment modalities were discussed with the patient and his family, he was started on pembrolizumab. After 6 months on pembrolizumab, the patient developed autoimmune pneumonitis and pembrolizumab was discontinued. The patient elected to discontinue treatment and died 6 months later.

Malignant melanoma with primary involvement of the middle ear and mastoid mucosa rarely has been reported.^1-3 Primary malignant melanoma of the middle ear mucosa is difficult to diagnose clinically. Difficulty and delay in diagnosis occur because of the location and frequent lack of pathognomonic symptoms of the disease.² A comprehensive literature review by Maxwell et al³ in 2018 of the 10 reported primary middle ear mucosal melanomas found that patients most commonly presented with otorrhea, aural fullness, and hearing loss. Less common symptoms included otalgia, tinnitus, and facial weakness. Clinical examination revealed patients presented with serous otitis and/or a visible mass within the middle ear or external auditory canal. These melanomas demonstrated particularly poor outcomes, with 70% mortality, 20% local recurrence, and 50% distant metastasis. Distant metastases that occurred with primary middle ear mucosal melanoma include lung, liver, intraparotid, abdomen, and cutaneous metastasis.³

The specific pathophysiologic factors underlying the development of primary malignant melanoma of the middle ear mucosa are not known.² The middle ear and its components develop from the first and second pharyngeal arches.⁴ Melanocyte precursors from the neural crest migrate during the seventh or eighth week of embryogenesis. These precursors migrate to the epidermis, various mucosal epithelial, hair follicles, dermis, retina, uveal tract, leptomeninges, inner ear, and other tissues.⁵ The ossicles of the middle ear develop from the neural crest⁶ and remain in the mesenchyme until the eighth month, when the surrounding tissue dissolves.⁴ Cutaneous melanomas arise from the malignant transformation of melanocytes in the skin of neural crest lineage. Noncutaneous melanomas are hypothesized to arise from melanoblasts migrating to noncutaneous organs after neural crest cells undergo an epithelial-mesenchymal translation.⁷

Melanoma 5-year survival rates vary based on the melanoma disease stage: 98% for stage 1, 90% for stage 2, 70% for stage 3, and 10% for stage 4. Although early-stage disease mainly is treated with surgery, advanced and unresectable disease is managed with different therapeutic options, including BRAF inhibitors such as vemurafenib, dabrafenib mesylate, and encorafenib; immune checkpoint inhibitors such as ipilimumab, nivolumab, and pembrolizumab; and oncolytic virus such as talimogene laherparepvec.^8,9

Ninety percent of melanomas are of cutaneous origin. Extracutaneous melanomas may be derived from the uvea, leptomeninges, mucous membranes, and gastrointestinal tract.¹⁰ Mucosal melanomas are rare and represent only approximately 1% of all melanomas.¹¹ In order of frequency, primary mucosal melanomas include the head and neck, anorectal region, vulvovaginal region, and urinary tract. UV radiation exposure is an important risk factor for cutaneous melanoma but has not been associated with the development of mucosal melanoma.⁷ In 2019, Altieri et al¹¹ analyzed 1824 cases of mucosal melanoma and found that anatomic site influences survival because mucosal melanomas in the most occult anatomic sites—spinal/central nervous system, lung and pleura, liver, and pancreas—have the worst prognosis, likely because they have already metastasized by the time they are diagnosed. Due to their occult anatomic location and lack of early presenting signs and symptoms, mucosal melanomas are difficult to diagnose at an early stage, resulting in a poorer prognosis compared with cutaneous melanomas. The most important prognostic indicator for cutaneous melanomas of tumor thickness (ie, Breslow depth) provides less prognostic value for patients with mucosal melanoma. Limitations also include the lack of a standardized staging system for mucosal melanoma, but Altieri et al¹¹ found that poorer survival in patients with mucosal melanoma was observed in relation to stage based on the clinical and pathologic tumor-node-metastasis staging system of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program. An aggregate 5-year survival estimate of patients diagnosed with mucosal melanoma is 28%, underscoring that mucosal melanoma is an aggressive melanoma that carries a poor prognosis and warrants a more aggressive treatment approach at the time of diagnosis.¹¹

Common treatment of primary middle ear mucosal melanoma involves a multimodality therapy including surgical oncological resection for most patients. Currently, radiation is in use for adjuvant treatment and definitive therapy in unresectable tumors or patients who are poor surgical candidates. Malignant melanoma traditionally was considered radioresistant, yet considerable variability in responsiveness has been observed both within and between tumors. Although there are no defined indications for adjuvant therapy, it is often administered in advanced or recurrent cases and those with positive or close margins. Chemotherapy generally is reserved for patients with systemic disease. The chemotherapeutic agents that have been used in the treatment of patients with melanoma of the middle ear include the alkylating agents dacarbazine, cisplatin, nimustine, paclitaxel, and temozolomide. Also, chemotherapeutic agents that have been reported in the treatment of melanoma of the middle ear include tamoxifen, the selective estrogen receptor inhibitor, and interferon. Most recently, programed cell death protein 1 inhibitors pembrolizumab and nivolumab have been used in the treatment of middle ear melanoma. Outcomes remain poor with a high rate of mortality. Novel immunotherapeutic agents combined with adjuvant radiotherapy have been proposed to improve disease control and survival rates.³

Data on systemic therapies for mucosal melanomas are limited due to the rarity of the disease. Even with the development of novel therapies, outcomes remain poor for mucosal melanomas, and additional treatment strategies are needed. Although proto-oncogene BRAF mutations occur in 50% to 70% of cutaneous melanomas, these mutations are rare in mucosal melanomas.³ In mucosal melanomas, activating mutations of the cell receptor KIT are identified more frequently.⁷ Alterations in proto-oncogene KIT have been found in acral, mucosal, and cutaneous melanoma. KIT mutations were found on exons 11 and 13.¹² Variability in the biology of KIT is suggested. Treatment of melanomas with the KIT mutations with tyrosine inhibitors imatinib and nilotinib have shown variable benefits.¹⁰ In a 2019 study of 44 patients with mucosal melanoma, Moya-Plana et al¹³ found that in cases of unresectable and/or metastatic disease, immunotherapy with pembrolizumab had a better benefit-risk ratio than immune treatment with ipilimumab, a cytotoxic T-cell lymphocyte-associated protein 4 inhibitor.

Primary malignant melanoma of the middle ear is unusual and difficult to diagnose clinically. These melanomas have a poor prognosis and can have distant metastasis including cutaneous metastasis. We present this case to emphasize the need to be aware that melanoma can arise in the middle ear.

To the Editor:

An 82-year-old man presented to our dermatology clinic for a total-body skin examination due to a recently diagnosed primary melanoma of the left middle ear. He reported pain of the left ear and water behind the left eardrum of 1 year’s duration. An otorhinolaryngologist performed surgery due to the severe mastoiditis. A biopsy of the contents of the left middle ear revealed malignant melanoma. Positron emission tomography–computed tomography revealed the mass was mainly located in the anterior aspect of the left middle ear with suspicion of tumor extension into the bony portion of the eustachian tube. No other disease was present. Prior to presentation to dermatology, gross excision of the left middle ear with removal of additional melanoma was confirmed by biopsy, and further analysis revealed v-Raf murine sarcoma viral oncogene (BRAF) was not detected while cellular proto-oncogene receptor kinase (KIT) mutation was detected on exon 13p (K642E).

The patient had no family history of melanoma. He never smoked and did not have contact with hazardous material. Initial examination at our clinic revealed no other suspicious pigmented lesions. After additional negative workup by the oncologist, the patient was presented to the tumor board, and postoperative radiotherapy was recommended to improve local control. Eight months after the patient’s initial diagnosis of the primary middle ear melanoma, a computed tomography–guided right lung biopsy showed metastatic melanoma. After various treatment modalities were discussed with the patient and his family, he was started on pembrolizumab. After 6 months on pembrolizumab, the patient developed autoimmune pneumonitis and pembrolizumab was discontinued. The patient elected to discontinue treatment and died 6 months later.

Malignant melanoma with primary involvement of the middle ear and mastoid mucosa rarely has been reported.^1-3 Primary malignant melanoma of the middle ear mucosa is difficult to diagnose clinically. Difficulty and delay in diagnosis occur because of the location and frequent lack of pathognomonic symptoms of the disease.² A comprehensive literature review by Maxwell et al³ in 2018 of the 10 reported primary middle ear mucosal melanomas found that patients most commonly presented with otorrhea, aural fullness, and hearing loss. Less common symptoms included otalgia, tinnitus, and facial weakness. Clinical examination revealed patients presented with serous otitis and/or a visible mass within the middle ear or external auditory canal. These melanomas demonstrated particularly poor outcomes, with 70% mortality, 20% local recurrence, and 50% distant metastasis. Distant metastases that occurred with primary middle ear mucosal melanoma include lung, liver, intraparotid, abdomen, and cutaneous metastasis.³

The specific pathophysiologic factors underlying the development of primary malignant melanoma of the middle ear mucosa are not known.² The middle ear and its components develop from the first and second pharyngeal arches.⁴ Melanocyte precursors from the neural crest migrate during the seventh or eighth week of embryogenesis. These precursors migrate to the epidermis, various mucosal epithelial, hair follicles, dermis, retina, uveal tract, leptomeninges, inner ear, and other tissues.⁵ The ossicles of the middle ear develop from the neural crest⁶ and remain in the mesenchyme until the eighth month, when the surrounding tissue dissolves.⁴ Cutaneous melanomas arise from the malignant transformation of melanocytes in the skin of neural crest lineage. Noncutaneous melanomas are hypothesized to arise from melanoblasts migrating to noncutaneous organs after neural crest cells undergo an epithelial-mesenchymal translation.⁷

Melanoma 5-year survival rates vary based on the melanoma disease stage: 98% for stage 1, 90% for stage 2, 70% for stage 3, and 10% for stage 4. Although early-stage disease mainly is treated with surgery, advanced and unresectable disease is managed with different therapeutic options, including BRAF inhibitors such as vemurafenib, dabrafenib mesylate, and encorafenib; immune checkpoint inhibitors such as ipilimumab, nivolumab, and pembrolizumab; and oncolytic virus such as talimogene laherparepvec.^8,9

Ninety percent of melanomas are of cutaneous origin. Extracutaneous melanomas may be derived from the uvea, leptomeninges, mucous membranes, and gastrointestinal tract.¹⁰ Mucosal melanomas are rare and represent only approximately 1% of all melanomas.¹¹ In order of frequency, primary mucosal melanomas include the head and neck, anorectal region, vulvovaginal region, and urinary tract. UV radiation exposure is an important risk factor for cutaneous melanoma but has not been associated with the development of mucosal melanoma.⁷ In 2019, Altieri et al¹¹ analyzed 1824 cases of mucosal melanoma and found that anatomic site influences survival because mucosal melanomas in the most occult anatomic sites—spinal/central nervous system, lung and pleura, liver, and pancreas—have the worst prognosis, likely because they have already metastasized by the time they are diagnosed. Due to their occult anatomic location and lack of early presenting signs and symptoms, mucosal melanomas are difficult to diagnose at an early stage, resulting in a poorer prognosis compared with cutaneous melanomas. The most important prognostic indicator for cutaneous melanomas of tumor thickness (ie, Breslow depth) provides less prognostic value for patients with mucosal melanoma. Limitations also include the lack of a standardized staging system for mucosal melanoma, but Altieri et al¹¹ found that poorer survival in patients with mucosal melanoma was observed in relation to stage based on the clinical and pathologic tumor-node-metastasis staging system of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program. An aggregate 5-year survival estimate of patients diagnosed with mucosal melanoma is 28%, underscoring that mucosal melanoma is an aggressive melanoma that carries a poor prognosis and warrants a more aggressive treatment approach at the time of diagnosis.¹¹

Common treatment of primary middle ear mucosal melanoma involves a multimodality therapy including surgical oncological resection for most patients. Currently, radiation is in use for adjuvant treatment and definitive therapy in unresectable tumors or patients who are poor surgical candidates. Malignant melanoma traditionally was considered radioresistant, yet considerable variability in responsiveness has been observed both within and between tumors. Although there are no defined indications for adjuvant therapy, it is often administered in advanced or recurrent cases and those with positive or close margins. Chemotherapy generally is reserved for patients with systemic disease. The chemotherapeutic agents that have been used in the treatment of patients with melanoma of the middle ear include the alkylating agents dacarbazine, cisplatin, nimustine, paclitaxel, and temozolomide. Also, chemotherapeutic agents that have been reported in the treatment of melanoma of the middle ear include tamoxifen, the selective estrogen receptor inhibitor, and interferon. Most recently, programed cell death protein 1 inhibitors pembrolizumab and nivolumab have been used in the treatment of middle ear melanoma. Outcomes remain poor with a high rate of mortality. Novel immunotherapeutic agents combined with adjuvant radiotherapy have been proposed to improve disease control and survival rates.³

Data on systemic therapies for mucosal melanomas are limited due to the rarity of the disease. Even with the development of novel therapies, outcomes remain poor for mucosal melanomas, and additional treatment strategies are needed. Although proto-oncogene BRAF mutations occur in 50% to 70% of cutaneous melanomas, these mutations are rare in mucosal melanomas.³ In mucosal melanomas, activating mutations of the cell receptor KIT are identified more frequently.⁷ Alterations in proto-oncogene KIT have been found in acral, mucosal, and cutaneous melanoma. KIT mutations were found on exons 11 and 13.¹² Variability in the biology of KIT is suggested. Treatment of melanomas with the KIT mutations with tyrosine inhibitors imatinib and nilotinib have shown variable benefits.¹⁰ In a 2019 study of 44 patients with mucosal melanoma, Moya-Plana et al¹³ found that in cases of unresectable and/or metastatic disease, immunotherapy with pembrolizumab had a better benefit-risk ratio than immune treatment with ipilimumab, a cytotoxic T-cell lymphocyte-associated protein 4 inhibitor.

Primary malignant melanoma of the middle ear is unusual and difficult to diagnose clinically. These melanomas have a poor prognosis and can have distant metastasis including cutaneous metastasis. We present this case to emphasize the need to be aware that melanoma can arise in the middle ear.

To the Editor:

An 82-year-old man presented to our dermatology clinic for a total-body skin examination due to a recently diagnosed primary melanoma of the left middle ear. He reported pain of the left ear and water behind the left eardrum of 1 year’s duration. An otorhinolaryngologist performed surgery due to the severe mastoiditis. A biopsy of the contents of the left middle ear revealed malignant melanoma. Positron emission tomography–computed tomography revealed the mass was mainly located in the anterior aspect of the left middle ear with suspicion of tumor extension into the bony portion of the eustachian tube. No other disease was present. Prior to presentation to dermatology, gross excision of the left middle ear with removal of additional melanoma was confirmed by biopsy, and further analysis revealed v-Raf murine sarcoma viral oncogene (BRAF) was not detected while cellular proto-oncogene receptor kinase (KIT) mutation was detected on exon 13p (K642E).

The patient had no family history of melanoma. He never smoked and did not have contact with hazardous material. Initial examination at our clinic revealed no other suspicious pigmented lesions. After additional negative workup by the oncologist, the patient was presented to the tumor board, and postoperative radiotherapy was recommended to improve local control. Eight months after the patient’s initial diagnosis of the primary middle ear melanoma, a computed tomography–guided right lung biopsy showed metastatic melanoma. After various treatment modalities were discussed with the patient and his family, he was started on pembrolizumab. After 6 months on pembrolizumab, the patient developed autoimmune pneumonitis and pembrolizumab was discontinued. The patient elected to discontinue treatment and died 6 months later.

Malignant melanoma with primary involvement of the middle ear and mastoid mucosa rarely has been reported.^1-3 Primary malignant melanoma of the middle ear mucosa is difficult to diagnose clinically. Difficulty and delay in diagnosis occur because of the location and frequent lack of pathognomonic symptoms of the disease.² A comprehensive literature review by Maxwell et al³ in 2018 of the 10 reported primary middle ear mucosal melanomas found that patients most commonly presented with otorrhea, aural fullness, and hearing loss. Less common symptoms included otalgia, tinnitus, and facial weakness. Clinical examination revealed patients presented with serous otitis and/or a visible mass within the middle ear or external auditory canal. These melanomas demonstrated particularly poor outcomes, with 70% mortality, 20% local recurrence, and 50% distant metastasis. Distant metastases that occurred with primary middle ear mucosal melanoma include lung, liver, intraparotid, abdomen, and cutaneous metastasis.³

The specific pathophysiologic factors underlying the development of primary malignant melanoma of the middle ear mucosa are not known.² The middle ear and its components develop from the first and second pharyngeal arches.⁴ Melanocyte precursors from the neural crest migrate during the seventh or eighth week of embryogenesis. These precursors migrate to the epidermis, various mucosal epithelial, hair follicles, dermis, retina, uveal tract, leptomeninges, inner ear, and other tissues.⁵ The ossicles of the middle ear develop from the neural crest⁶ and remain in the mesenchyme until the eighth month, when the surrounding tissue dissolves.⁴ Cutaneous melanomas arise from the malignant transformation of melanocytes in the skin of neural crest lineage. Noncutaneous melanomas are hypothesized to arise from melanoblasts migrating to noncutaneous organs after neural crest cells undergo an epithelial-mesenchymal translation.⁷

Melanoma 5-year survival rates vary based on the melanoma disease stage: 98% for stage 1, 90% for stage 2, 70% for stage 3, and 10% for stage 4. Although early-stage disease mainly is treated with surgery, advanced and unresectable disease is managed with different therapeutic options, including BRAF inhibitors such as vemurafenib, dabrafenib mesylate, and encorafenib; immune checkpoint inhibitors such as ipilimumab, nivolumab, and pembrolizumab; and oncolytic virus such as talimogene laherparepvec.^8,9

Ninety percent of melanomas are of cutaneous origin. Extracutaneous melanomas may be derived from the uvea, leptomeninges, mucous membranes, and gastrointestinal tract.¹⁰ Mucosal melanomas are rare and represent only approximately 1% of all melanomas.¹¹ In order of frequency, primary mucosal melanomas include the head and neck, anorectal region, vulvovaginal region, and urinary tract. UV radiation exposure is an important risk factor for cutaneous melanoma but has not been associated with the development of mucosal melanoma.⁷ In 2019, Altieri et al¹¹ analyzed 1824 cases of mucosal melanoma and found that anatomic site influences survival because mucosal melanomas in the most occult anatomic sites—spinal/central nervous system, lung and pleura, liver, and pancreas—have the worst prognosis, likely because they have already metastasized by the time they are diagnosed. Due to their occult anatomic location and lack of early presenting signs and symptoms, mucosal melanomas are difficult to diagnose at an early stage, resulting in a poorer prognosis compared with cutaneous melanomas. The most important prognostic indicator for cutaneous melanomas of tumor thickness (ie, Breslow depth) provides less prognostic value for patients with mucosal melanoma. Limitations also include the lack of a standardized staging system for mucosal melanoma, but Altieri et al¹¹ found that poorer survival in patients with mucosal melanoma was observed in relation to stage based on the clinical and pathologic tumor-node-metastasis staging system of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program. An aggregate 5-year survival estimate of patients diagnosed with mucosal melanoma is 28%, underscoring that mucosal melanoma is an aggressive melanoma that carries a poor prognosis and warrants a more aggressive treatment approach at the time of diagnosis.¹¹

Common treatment of primary middle ear mucosal melanoma involves a multimodality therapy including surgical oncological resection for most patients. Currently, radiation is in use for adjuvant treatment and definitive therapy in unresectable tumors or patients who are poor surgical candidates. Malignant melanoma traditionally was considered radioresistant, yet considerable variability in responsiveness has been observed both within and between tumors. Although there are no defined indications for adjuvant therapy, it is often administered in advanced or recurrent cases and those with positive or close margins. Chemotherapy generally is reserved for patients with systemic disease. The chemotherapeutic agents that have been used in the treatment of patients with melanoma of the middle ear include the alkylating agents dacarbazine, cisplatin, nimustine, paclitaxel, and temozolomide. Also, chemotherapeutic agents that have been reported in the treatment of melanoma of the middle ear include tamoxifen, the selective estrogen receptor inhibitor, and interferon. Most recently, programed cell death protein 1 inhibitors pembrolizumab and nivolumab have been used in the treatment of middle ear melanoma. Outcomes remain poor with a high rate of mortality. Novel immunotherapeutic agents combined with adjuvant radiotherapy have been proposed to improve disease control and survival rates.³

Data on systemic therapies for mucosal melanomas are limited due to the rarity of the disease. Even with the development of novel therapies, outcomes remain poor for mucosal melanomas, and additional treatment strategies are needed. Although proto-oncogene BRAF mutations occur in 50% to 70% of cutaneous melanomas, these mutations are rare in mucosal melanomas.³ In mucosal melanomas, activating mutations of the cell receptor KIT are identified more frequently.⁷ Alterations in proto-oncogene KIT have been found in acral, mucosal, and cutaneous melanoma. KIT mutations were found on exons 11 and 13.¹² Variability in the biology of KIT is suggested. Treatment of melanomas with the KIT mutations with tyrosine inhibitors imatinib and nilotinib have shown variable benefits.¹⁰ In a 2019 study of 44 patients with mucosal melanoma, Moya-Plana et al¹³ found that in cases of unresectable and/or metastatic disease, immunotherapy with pembrolizumab had a better benefit-risk ratio than immune treatment with ipilimumab, a cytotoxic T-cell lymphocyte-associated protein 4 inhibitor.

Primary malignant melanoma of the middle ear is unusual and difficult to diagnose clinically. These melanomas have a poor prognosis and can have distant metastasis including cutaneous metastasis. We present this case to emphasize the need to be aware that melanoma can arise in the middle ear.