A low-carbohydrate diet appears to be an effective weight-loss intervention in liver transplant recipients with obesity as compared with a calorie-restrictive diet, according to interim findings presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.

In particular, the intervention showed significant improvements in the metabophenotype profile, including visceral adipose tissue and abdominal subcutaneous adipose tissue, said Mohammad Siddiqui, MD, a gastroenterologist and liver transplant specialist at Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond.

“Weight gain and obesity after liver transplantation is common,” he said. “Posttransplant obesity is associated with increased cardiometabolic risk burden, increased risk of cardiovascular disease and mortality, and overall mortality.”

Previously, Dr. Siddiqui and colleagues have shown that posttransplant weight loss is difficult because of metabolic inflexibility and mitochondrial inefficiency. By specifically targeting carbohydrate utilization, metabolic flexibility could be restored in liver transplant recipients, he noted.

Dr. Siddiqui and colleagues conducted a randomized controlled trial of 27 adult liver transplant recipients with obesity for 24 weeks. The primary endpoint was change in weight, and the secondary endpoints involved metabophenotype, metabolic flexibility, mitochondrial function, and metabolic risk. The research team excluded patients with end-stage disease, terminal disease, use of weight-loss medications, pregnancy, or uncontrolled psychiatric illness that could interfere with adherence.

Among the participants, 13 were randomized to a calorie restrictive diet of less than 1,200-1,500 calories per day, and 14 were randomized to a low-carbohydrate diet of 20 grams or less per day. At enrollment, the participants underwent dietary, activity, skeletal muscle, and body composition assessments, as well as metabophenotype measurements of visceral adipose tissue, abdominal subcutaneous adipose tissue, muscle fat infiltration, fat-free muscle volume, and proton density fat fraction.

All participants were advised to maintain the same level of physical activity, which was measured through 7-day accelerometry. In addition, the patients were contacted every 2 weeks throughout the 24-week study period.

“We wanted to reinforce the dietary advice. We wanted to identify factors that may lead to compliance,” Dr. Siddiqui said. “Multiple studies have documented that the more contact that patients have during weight-loss studies with medical personnel, the more effective those strategies are.”

Overall, the dietary interventions were well tolerated, and neither group showed a significant change in renal function.

The average weight loss was –7.6 kg over 6 months in the low-carbohydrate group, as compared with –0.6 kg in the calorie-restrictive group.

The low carbohydrate diet also positively affected participants’ metabophenotype profile, particularly fat deposits. As compared with the calorie-restrictive group, the low-carbohydrate group showed statistically significant improvements in visceral adipose tissue, abdominal subcutaneous adipose tissue, and muscle fat infiltration.

The liver proton density fat fraction, which is associated with fatty liver disease, decreased by 0.53% in the low-carbohydrate group and increased by 0.46% in the calorie-restrictive group, but the difference didn’t reach statistical significance.

The fat-free muscle volume decreased by about 5% in the low-carbohydrate group. Dr. Siddiqui noted that the researchers don’t know yet whether this translates to a decrease in muscle function.

In terms of metabolic risk, the low-carbohydrate diet did not affect serum lipids (such as triglycerides or cholesterol measures), renal function (such as serum creatinine, glomerular filtration rate, or blood urea nitrogen), or insulin resistance (through glucose or hemoglobin A1c). At the same time, among patients taking insulin at the time of enrollment, about 90% of patients randomized to the low-carbohydrate group were able to reduce insulin to zero during the study.

Upon completion of the current study, Dr. Siddiqui and colleagues hope to provide foundational safety and efficacy data for carbohydrate restriction in liver transplant recipients. In the ongoing study, the researchers are further investigating the dietary intervention impacts on metabolic flexibility, skeletal muscle mitochondrial function, atherogenic lipoproteins, and vascular function.

“Are we actually, on a molecular level, fixing the fundamental problem that liver transplant recipients have to improve outcomes?” he said. “We’re doing very detailed profiling of these patients, so we will have data that shows how this actually affects them.”

Dr. Siddiqui was asked about the sustainability of the low-carbohydrate diet, particularly with a restrictive parameter of 20 grams per day. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Siddiqui noted, the study was slowed and the research team was able to collect follow-up data.

“Surprisingly, we have a high rate of compliance, even after 6 months of therapy, and I think this has to do with a patient population that’s been through cirrhosis and has almost died,” he said. “They’re far more compliant, and we’re seeing that. We’re also changing the physiology and improving mitochondrial function, which improves the weight loss and weight maintenance, though I don’t know how long that’s going to last.”

The study sponsorship was not disclosed. Dr. Siddiqui reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

A low-carbohydrate diet appears to be an effective weight-loss intervention in liver transplant recipients with obesity as compared with a calorie-restrictive diet, according to interim findings presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.

In particular, the intervention showed significant improvements in the metabophenotype profile, including visceral adipose tissue and abdominal subcutaneous adipose tissue, said Mohammad Siddiqui, MD, a gastroenterologist and liver transplant specialist at Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond.

“Weight gain and obesity after liver transplantation is common,” he said. “Posttransplant obesity is associated with increased cardiometabolic risk burden, increased risk of cardiovascular disease and mortality, and overall mortality.”

Previously, Dr. Siddiqui and colleagues have shown that posttransplant weight loss is difficult because of metabolic inflexibility and mitochondrial inefficiency. By specifically targeting carbohydrate utilization, metabolic flexibility could be restored in liver transplant recipients, he noted.

Dr. Siddiqui and colleagues conducted a randomized controlled trial of 27 adult liver transplant recipients with obesity for 24 weeks. The primary endpoint was change in weight, and the secondary endpoints involved metabophenotype, metabolic flexibility, mitochondrial function, and metabolic risk. The research team excluded patients with end-stage disease, terminal disease, use of weight-loss medications, pregnancy, or uncontrolled psychiatric illness that could interfere with adherence.

Among the participants, 13 were randomized to a calorie restrictive diet of less than 1,200-1,500 calories per day, and 14 were randomized to a low-carbohydrate diet of 20 grams or less per day. At enrollment, the participants underwent dietary, activity, skeletal muscle, and body composition assessments, as well as metabophenotype measurements of visceral adipose tissue, abdominal subcutaneous adipose tissue, muscle fat infiltration, fat-free muscle volume, and proton density fat fraction.

All participants were advised to maintain the same level of physical activity, which was measured through 7-day accelerometry. In addition, the patients were contacted every 2 weeks throughout the 24-week study period.

“We wanted to reinforce the dietary advice. We wanted to identify factors that may lead to compliance,” Dr. Siddiqui said. “Multiple studies have documented that the more contact that patients have during weight-loss studies with medical personnel, the more effective those strategies are.”

Overall, the dietary interventions were well tolerated, and neither group showed a significant change in renal function.

The average weight loss was –7.6 kg over 6 months in the low-carbohydrate group, as compared with –0.6 kg in the calorie-restrictive group.

The low carbohydrate diet also positively affected participants’ metabophenotype profile, particularly fat deposits. As compared with the calorie-restrictive group, the low-carbohydrate group showed statistically significant improvements in visceral adipose tissue, abdominal subcutaneous adipose tissue, and muscle fat infiltration.

The liver proton density fat fraction, which is associated with fatty liver disease, decreased by 0.53% in the low-carbohydrate group and increased by 0.46% in the calorie-restrictive group, but the difference didn’t reach statistical significance.

The fat-free muscle volume decreased by about 5% in the low-carbohydrate group. Dr. Siddiqui noted that the researchers don’t know yet whether this translates to a decrease in muscle function.

In terms of metabolic risk, the low-carbohydrate diet did not affect serum lipids (such as triglycerides or cholesterol measures), renal function (such as serum creatinine, glomerular filtration rate, or blood urea nitrogen), or insulin resistance (through glucose or hemoglobin A1c). At the same time, among patients taking insulin at the time of enrollment, about 90% of patients randomized to the low-carbohydrate group were able to reduce insulin to zero during the study.

Upon completion of the current study, Dr. Siddiqui and colleagues hope to provide foundational safety and efficacy data for carbohydrate restriction in liver transplant recipients. In the ongoing study, the researchers are further investigating the dietary intervention impacts on metabolic flexibility, skeletal muscle mitochondrial function, atherogenic lipoproteins, and vascular function.

“Are we actually, on a molecular level, fixing the fundamental problem that liver transplant recipients have to improve outcomes?” he said. “We’re doing very detailed profiling of these patients, so we will have data that shows how this actually affects them.”

Dr. Siddiqui was asked about the sustainability of the low-carbohydrate diet, particularly with a restrictive parameter of 20 grams per day. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Siddiqui noted, the study was slowed and the research team was able to collect follow-up data.

“Surprisingly, we have a high rate of compliance, even after 6 months of therapy, and I think this has to do with a patient population that’s been through cirrhosis and has almost died,” he said. “They’re far more compliant, and we’re seeing that. We’re also changing the physiology and improving mitochondrial function, which improves the weight loss and weight maintenance, though I don’t know how long that’s going to last.”

The study sponsorship was not disclosed. Dr. Siddiqui reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

A low-carbohydrate diet appears to be an effective weight-loss intervention in liver transplant recipients with obesity as compared with a calorie-restrictive diet, according to interim findings presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.

In particular, the intervention showed significant improvements in the metabophenotype profile, including visceral adipose tissue and abdominal subcutaneous adipose tissue, said Mohammad Siddiqui, MD, a gastroenterologist and liver transplant specialist at Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond.

“Weight gain and obesity after liver transplantation is common,” he said. “Posttransplant obesity is associated with increased cardiometabolic risk burden, increased risk of cardiovascular disease and mortality, and overall mortality.”

Previously, Dr. Siddiqui and colleagues have shown that posttransplant weight loss is difficult because of metabolic inflexibility and mitochondrial inefficiency. By specifically targeting carbohydrate utilization, metabolic flexibility could be restored in liver transplant recipients, he noted.

Dr. Siddiqui and colleagues conducted a randomized controlled trial of 27 adult liver transplant recipients with obesity for 24 weeks. The primary endpoint was change in weight, and the secondary endpoints involved metabophenotype, metabolic flexibility, mitochondrial function, and metabolic risk. The research team excluded patients with end-stage disease, terminal disease, use of weight-loss medications, pregnancy, or uncontrolled psychiatric illness that could interfere with adherence.

Among the participants, 13 were randomized to a calorie restrictive diet of less than 1,200-1,500 calories per day, and 14 were randomized to a low-carbohydrate diet of 20 grams or less per day. At enrollment, the participants underwent dietary, activity, skeletal muscle, and body composition assessments, as well as metabophenotype measurements of visceral adipose tissue, abdominal subcutaneous adipose tissue, muscle fat infiltration, fat-free muscle volume, and proton density fat fraction.

All participants were advised to maintain the same level of physical activity, which was measured through 7-day accelerometry. In addition, the patients were contacted every 2 weeks throughout the 24-week study period.

“We wanted to reinforce the dietary advice. We wanted to identify factors that may lead to compliance,” Dr. Siddiqui said. “Multiple studies have documented that the more contact that patients have during weight-loss studies with medical personnel, the more effective those strategies are.”

Overall, the dietary interventions were well tolerated, and neither group showed a significant change in renal function.

The average weight loss was –7.6 kg over 6 months in the low-carbohydrate group, as compared with –0.6 kg in the calorie-restrictive group.

The low carbohydrate diet also positively affected participants’ metabophenotype profile, particularly fat deposits. As compared with the calorie-restrictive group, the low-carbohydrate group showed statistically significant improvements in visceral adipose tissue, abdominal subcutaneous adipose tissue, and muscle fat infiltration.

The liver proton density fat fraction, which is associated with fatty liver disease, decreased by 0.53% in the low-carbohydrate group and increased by 0.46% in the calorie-restrictive group, but the difference didn’t reach statistical significance.

The fat-free muscle volume decreased by about 5% in the low-carbohydrate group. Dr. Siddiqui noted that the researchers don’t know yet whether this translates to a decrease in muscle function.

In terms of metabolic risk, the low-carbohydrate diet did not affect serum lipids (such as triglycerides or cholesterol measures), renal function (such as serum creatinine, glomerular filtration rate, or blood urea nitrogen), or insulin resistance (through glucose or hemoglobin A1c). At the same time, among patients taking insulin at the time of enrollment, about 90% of patients randomized to the low-carbohydrate group were able to reduce insulin to zero during the study.

Upon completion of the current study, Dr. Siddiqui and colleagues hope to provide foundational safety and efficacy data for carbohydrate restriction in liver transplant recipients. In the ongoing study, the researchers are further investigating the dietary intervention impacts on metabolic flexibility, skeletal muscle mitochondrial function, atherogenic lipoproteins, and vascular function.

“Are we actually, on a molecular level, fixing the fundamental problem that liver transplant recipients have to improve outcomes?” he said. “We’re doing very detailed profiling of these patients, so we will have data that shows how this actually affects them.”

Dr. Siddiqui was asked about the sustainability of the low-carbohydrate diet, particularly with a restrictive parameter of 20 grams per day. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Siddiqui noted, the study was slowed and the research team was able to collect follow-up data.

“Surprisingly, we have a high rate of compliance, even after 6 months of therapy, and I think this has to do with a patient population that’s been through cirrhosis and has almost died,” he said. “They’re far more compliant, and we’re seeing that. We’re also changing the physiology and improving mitochondrial function, which improves the weight loss and weight maintenance, though I don’t know how long that’s going to last.”

The study sponsorship was not disclosed. Dr. Siddiqui reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

The Food and Drug Administration has expanded the indication for tenofovir alafenamide (Vemlidy) to children aged 12 years and older with chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection with compensated liver disease, the drug’s manufacturer has announced.

The approval in the pediatric patient population was supported by 24-week data from a phase 2 clinical trial comparing treatment with tenofovir alafenamide (25 mg once daily) with placebo in 70 treatment-naive and treatment-experienced patients aged 12-18 years weighing at least 35 kg.

The study met its primary endpoint of percentage of patients with HBV DNA levels less than 20 IU/mL at 24 weeks of therapy, Gilead Sciences said in a press release.

Overall, 10 of 47 (21%) patients treated with tenofovir alafenamide achieved HBV DNA less than 20 IU/mL at 24 weeks, compared with 0 of 23 (0%) treated with placebo.

The rates of serum ALT normalization were higher with tenofovir alafenamide than with placebo (44% vs 0%).

The mean percent changes in bone mineral density (BMD) from baseline to 24 weeks were numerically similar for tenofovir alafenamide– and placebo-treated patients (2.4% and 1.9% for lumbar spine, and 1.5% and 1.9% for whole body, respectively).

The mean changes from baseline BMD z scores were –0.03 and –0.09 for lumbar spine, and –0.05 and –0.01 for whole body, for tenofovir alafenamide and placebo groups, respectively.

The FDA initially approved the nucleoside analog reverse transcriptase inhibitor in 2016 for adults with chronic HBV.

The drug was approved in Europe in 2017 for chronic HBV infection in adults and adolescents aged 12 years and older weighing at least 35 kg.

Tenofovir alafenamide carries a boxed warning citing risks for lactic acidosis/severe hepatomegaly with steatosis and posttreatment severe acute exacerbation of HBV.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has expanded the indication for tenofovir alafenamide (Vemlidy) to children aged 12 years and older with chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection with compensated liver disease, the drug’s manufacturer has announced.

The approval in the pediatric patient population was supported by 24-week data from a phase 2 clinical trial comparing treatment with tenofovir alafenamide (25 mg once daily) with placebo in 70 treatment-naive and treatment-experienced patients aged 12-18 years weighing at least 35 kg.

The study met its primary endpoint of percentage of patients with HBV DNA levels less than 20 IU/mL at 24 weeks of therapy, Gilead Sciences said in a press release.

Overall, 10 of 47 (21%) patients treated with tenofovir alafenamide achieved HBV DNA less than 20 IU/mL at 24 weeks, compared with 0 of 23 (0%) treated with placebo.

The rates of serum ALT normalization were higher with tenofovir alafenamide than with placebo (44% vs 0%).

The mean percent changes in bone mineral density (BMD) from baseline to 24 weeks were numerically similar for tenofovir alafenamide– and placebo-treated patients (2.4% and 1.9% for lumbar spine, and 1.5% and 1.9% for whole body, respectively).

The mean changes from baseline BMD z scores were –0.03 and –0.09 for lumbar spine, and –0.05 and –0.01 for whole body, for tenofovir alafenamide and placebo groups, respectively.

The FDA initially approved the nucleoside analog reverse transcriptase inhibitor in 2016 for adults with chronic HBV.

The drug was approved in Europe in 2017 for chronic HBV infection in adults and adolescents aged 12 years and older weighing at least 35 kg.

Tenofovir alafenamide carries a boxed warning citing risks for lactic acidosis/severe hepatomegaly with steatosis and posttreatment severe acute exacerbation of HBV.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has expanded the indication for tenofovir alafenamide (Vemlidy) to children aged 12 years and older with chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection with compensated liver disease, the drug’s manufacturer has announced.

The approval in the pediatric patient population was supported by 24-week data from a phase 2 clinical trial comparing treatment with tenofovir alafenamide (25 mg once daily) with placebo in 70 treatment-naive and treatment-experienced patients aged 12-18 years weighing at least 35 kg.

The study met its primary endpoint of percentage of patients with HBV DNA levels less than 20 IU/mL at 24 weeks of therapy, Gilead Sciences said in a press release.

Overall, 10 of 47 (21%) patients treated with tenofovir alafenamide achieved HBV DNA less than 20 IU/mL at 24 weeks, compared with 0 of 23 (0%) treated with placebo.

The rates of serum ALT normalization were higher with tenofovir alafenamide than with placebo (44% vs 0%).

The mean percent changes in bone mineral density (BMD) from baseline to 24 weeks were numerically similar for tenofovir alafenamide– and placebo-treated patients (2.4% and 1.9% for lumbar spine, and 1.5% and 1.9% for whole body, respectively).

The mean changes from baseline BMD z scores were –0.03 and –0.09 for lumbar spine, and –0.05 and –0.01 for whole body, for tenofovir alafenamide and placebo groups, respectively.

The FDA initially approved the nucleoside analog reverse transcriptase inhibitor in 2016 for adults with chronic HBV.

The drug was approved in Europe in 2017 for chronic HBV infection in adults and adolescents aged 12 years and older weighing at least 35 kg.

Tenofovir alafenamide carries a boxed warning citing risks for lactic acidosis/severe hepatomegaly with steatosis and posttreatment severe acute exacerbation of HBV.

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

LAS VEGAS – Acne is a barrier-deficient disorder, and good skin care with over-the-counter products can improve this barrier and increase adherence to prescription medications, Hilary E. Baldwin, MD, of Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical Center, New Brunswick, N.J., said in a presentation at Medscape Live’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar.

In some cases, the use of good-quality over-the -counter skin care products can improve acne without prescription treatment, said Dr. Baldwin, who is medical director of the Acne Treatment and Research Center, New York. Good skin care can enhance the effects of prescription medication by decreasing side effects such as inflammation, pain, and erythema, and improving compliance; and use of OTC products has not been shown to interfere with the efficacy of prescription products, she noted.

However, patient education about OTC products is key, she said. In particular, “cleansers are a double-edged sword,” Dr. Baldwin emphasized.

Cleansing is important to preserve barrier function, but “there is a risk of skin damage” if cleansers are too harsh, she said. The goal is to remove dirt, oils, and bacteria without disrupting the lipids, proteins, and normal flora that keep skin healthy, and to avoid altering pH, she added.

Key considerations for OTC cleansers include surfactants, pH, and patient preferences, Dr. Baldwin said.

Surfactants, the main components of OTC cleansers, can do more harm than good in some cases. Surfactants break down impurities on the skin surface, but not all are created equal, and some may cause skin irritation, she explained.

Surfactants fall into four categories: nonionic (no charge), anionic (negative charge), cationic (positive charge), and amphoteric (dual charge). Of these, cationic surfactants have the highest level of antimicrobial activity.

Many patients with acne seek out antibacterial cleansers, but many of these products have a high pH, which can inhibit healthy skin function and promote inflammation, Dr. Baldwin noted.

The right OTC skin care products can normalize pH, which promotes repair of the skin barrier and reduces inflammation, she said. While some products are labeled as “gentle,” they may have a high pH, and many products don’t list a pH, Dr. Baldwin pointed out. Many antibacterial products have pH levels in the 10-12 range, while true soaps fall in the 9-10 range, and hydrating liquid cleansers often land in the 5-7 range, she said.

“Most of our patients don’t know what ingredients to look for” in a cleanser, she noted. However, data show that a majority of patients prefer a foaming cleanser, enjoy the face-washing experience – and wash their faces at least twice a day, with a range of products including bath soap, said Dr. Baldwin. Consequently, “educate your patient about moisturizing,” she advised.

For patients with greasy or oily skin, Dr. Baldwin recommends lipid-free foaming cleansers, such as those with ceramides or glycerin. For patients with dry, irritated acne, she advises once-daily washing only, without cleansing devices, which includes washcloths, she said. Look for hydrating cleansers that are nonfoaming or slightly foaming for these patients, she added.

Another tip for patients is to remind them that “sebum is not a moisturizer,” said Dr. Baldwin. Acne patients may still need moisturizers, especially if they experience dry skin as a side effect of their acne medication, but finding the right fit can be a challenge requiring some trial and error, she noted.

OTC products for rosacea

Dr. Baldwin also addressed the use of OTC products for patients with rosacea. For cleansers, she recommends the same hydrating, nonfoaming categories as for her acne patients, with a once-daily, no-device regimen. She advises rosacea patients to avoid pure humectants for moisturizing and noted that silicone-based products are often the least irritating.

Seek moisturizers with ceramides, hyaluronic acid, glycerin, or niacinamide, she said. Data have shown that effective moisturization improves the ability of patients with rosacea to use and adhere to their prescription medications, Dr. Baldwin emphasized. Moisturizers also can make the medication more effective by enhancing the penetration of products such as azelaic acid, she added.

No acne or rosacea visit is complete until overall skin care has been discussed, Dr. Baldwin said.

Dr. Baldwin disclosed serving as a consultant or adviser for Almirall, EPI Health, Galderma, La Roche Posay, Ortho Dermatologics, Sun, and Vyne; and serving as a speaker or member of the speakers’ bureau for Almirall, Galderma, La Roche Posay, Ortho Dermatologics, and Sun. MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

LAS VEGAS – Acne is a barrier-deficient disorder, and good skin care with over-the-counter products can improve this barrier and increase adherence to prescription medications, Hilary E. Baldwin, MD, of Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical Center, New Brunswick, N.J., said in a presentation at Medscape Live’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar.

In some cases, the use of good-quality over-the -counter skin care products can improve acne without prescription treatment, said Dr. Baldwin, who is medical director of the Acne Treatment and Research Center, New York. Good skin care can enhance the effects of prescription medication by decreasing side effects such as inflammation, pain, and erythema, and improving compliance; and use of OTC products has not been shown to interfere with the efficacy of prescription products, she noted.

However, patient education about OTC products is key, she said. In particular, “cleansers are a double-edged sword,” Dr. Baldwin emphasized.

Cleansing is important to preserve barrier function, but “there is a risk of skin damage” if cleansers are too harsh, she said. The goal is to remove dirt, oils, and bacteria without disrupting the lipids, proteins, and normal flora that keep skin healthy, and to avoid altering pH, she added.

Key considerations for OTC cleansers include surfactants, pH, and patient preferences, Dr. Baldwin said.

Surfactants, the main components of OTC cleansers, can do more harm than good in some cases. Surfactants break down impurities on the skin surface, but not all are created equal, and some may cause skin irritation, she explained.

Surfactants fall into four categories: nonionic (no charge), anionic (negative charge), cationic (positive charge), and amphoteric (dual charge). Of these, cationic surfactants have the highest level of antimicrobial activity.

Many patients with acne seek out antibacterial cleansers, but many of these products have a high pH, which can inhibit healthy skin function and promote inflammation, Dr. Baldwin noted.

The right OTC skin care products can normalize pH, which promotes repair of the skin barrier and reduces inflammation, she said. While some products are labeled as “gentle,” they may have a high pH, and many products don’t list a pH, Dr. Baldwin pointed out. Many antibacterial products have pH levels in the 10-12 range, while true soaps fall in the 9-10 range, and hydrating liquid cleansers often land in the 5-7 range, she said.

“Most of our patients don’t know what ingredients to look for” in a cleanser, she noted. However, data show that a majority of patients prefer a foaming cleanser, enjoy the face-washing experience – and wash their faces at least twice a day, with a range of products including bath soap, said Dr. Baldwin. Consequently, “educate your patient about moisturizing,” she advised.

For patients with greasy or oily skin, Dr. Baldwin recommends lipid-free foaming cleansers, such as those with ceramides or glycerin. For patients with dry, irritated acne, she advises once-daily washing only, without cleansing devices, which includes washcloths, she said. Look for hydrating cleansers that are nonfoaming or slightly foaming for these patients, she added.

Another tip for patients is to remind them that “sebum is not a moisturizer,” said Dr. Baldwin. Acne patients may still need moisturizers, especially if they experience dry skin as a side effect of their acne medication, but finding the right fit can be a challenge requiring some trial and error, she noted.

OTC products for rosacea

Dr. Baldwin also addressed the use of OTC products for patients with rosacea. For cleansers, she recommends the same hydrating, nonfoaming categories as for her acne patients, with a once-daily, no-device regimen. She advises rosacea patients to avoid pure humectants for moisturizing and noted that silicone-based products are often the least irritating.

Seek moisturizers with ceramides, hyaluronic acid, glycerin, or niacinamide, she said. Data have shown that effective moisturization improves the ability of patients with rosacea to use and adhere to their prescription medications, Dr. Baldwin emphasized. Moisturizers also can make the medication more effective by enhancing the penetration of products such as azelaic acid, she added.

No acne or rosacea visit is complete until overall skin care has been discussed, Dr. Baldwin said.

Dr. Baldwin disclosed serving as a consultant or adviser for Almirall, EPI Health, Galderma, La Roche Posay, Ortho Dermatologics, Sun, and Vyne; and serving as a speaker or member of the speakers’ bureau for Almirall, Galderma, La Roche Posay, Ortho Dermatologics, and Sun. MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

LAS VEGAS – Acne is a barrier-deficient disorder, and good skin care with over-the-counter products can improve this barrier and increase adherence to prescription medications, Hilary E. Baldwin, MD, of Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical Center, New Brunswick, N.J., said in a presentation at Medscape Live’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar.

In some cases, the use of good-quality over-the -counter skin care products can improve acne without prescription treatment, said Dr. Baldwin, who is medical director of the Acne Treatment and Research Center, New York. Good skin care can enhance the effects of prescription medication by decreasing side effects such as inflammation, pain, and erythema, and improving compliance; and use of OTC products has not been shown to interfere with the efficacy of prescription products, she noted.

However, patient education about OTC products is key, she said. In particular, “cleansers are a double-edged sword,” Dr. Baldwin emphasized.

Cleansing is important to preserve barrier function, but “there is a risk of skin damage” if cleansers are too harsh, she said. The goal is to remove dirt, oils, and bacteria without disrupting the lipids, proteins, and normal flora that keep skin healthy, and to avoid altering pH, she added.

Key considerations for OTC cleansers include surfactants, pH, and patient preferences, Dr. Baldwin said.

Surfactants, the main components of OTC cleansers, can do more harm than good in some cases. Surfactants break down impurities on the skin surface, but not all are created equal, and some may cause skin irritation, she explained.

Surfactants fall into four categories: nonionic (no charge), anionic (negative charge), cationic (positive charge), and amphoteric (dual charge). Of these, cationic surfactants have the highest level of antimicrobial activity.

Many patients with acne seek out antibacterial cleansers, but many of these products have a high pH, which can inhibit healthy skin function and promote inflammation, Dr. Baldwin noted.

The right OTC skin care products can normalize pH, which promotes repair of the skin barrier and reduces inflammation, she said. While some products are labeled as “gentle,” they may have a high pH, and many products don’t list a pH, Dr. Baldwin pointed out. Many antibacterial products have pH levels in the 10-12 range, while true soaps fall in the 9-10 range, and hydrating liquid cleansers often land in the 5-7 range, she said.

“Most of our patients don’t know what ingredients to look for” in a cleanser, she noted. However, data show that a majority of patients prefer a foaming cleanser, enjoy the face-washing experience – and wash their faces at least twice a day, with a range of products including bath soap, said Dr. Baldwin. Consequently, “educate your patient about moisturizing,” she advised.

For patients with greasy or oily skin, Dr. Baldwin recommends lipid-free foaming cleansers, such as those with ceramides or glycerin. For patients with dry, irritated acne, she advises once-daily washing only, without cleansing devices, which includes washcloths, she said. Look for hydrating cleansers that are nonfoaming or slightly foaming for these patients, she added.

Another tip for patients is to remind them that “sebum is not a moisturizer,” said Dr. Baldwin. Acne patients may still need moisturizers, especially if they experience dry skin as a side effect of their acne medication, but finding the right fit can be a challenge requiring some trial and error, she noted.

OTC products for rosacea

Dr. Baldwin also addressed the use of OTC products for patients with rosacea. For cleansers, she recommends the same hydrating, nonfoaming categories as for her acne patients, with a once-daily, no-device regimen. She advises rosacea patients to avoid pure humectants for moisturizing and noted that silicone-based products are often the least irritating.

Seek moisturizers with ceramides, hyaluronic acid, glycerin, or niacinamide, she said. Data have shown that effective moisturization improves the ability of patients with rosacea to use and adhere to their prescription medications, Dr. Baldwin emphasized. Moisturizers also can make the medication more effective by enhancing the penetration of products such as azelaic acid, she added.

No acne or rosacea visit is complete until overall skin care has been discussed, Dr. Baldwin said.

Dr. Baldwin disclosed serving as a consultant or adviser for Almirall, EPI Health, Galderma, La Roche Posay, Ortho Dermatologics, Sun, and Vyne; and serving as a speaker or member of the speakers’ bureau for Almirall, Galderma, La Roche Posay, Ortho Dermatologics, and Sun. MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Vaping has become the dominant form of tobacco use by adolescents in the United States immediately after waking up, according to an analysis of a survey on teen tobacco use published in JAMA Network Open.

By 2019, Stanton Glantz, PhD, and associates found, “more e-cigarette users were using their first tobacco product within 5 minutes of waking than users of cigarettes and all other tobacco products combined.” Use upon waking is an indicator of addiction.

That number changed drastically from 2014 when less than 1% of sole-e-cigarette users were using e-cigarettes first thing in the morning to 10.3% by 2021. The numbers did not change for sole cigarette smokers or sole smokeless tobacco users, but did increase by half (odds ratio per year, 1.49) for sole cigar users.

In addition, among adolescents who currently use any tobacco product, the proportion whose first tobacco product was e-cigarettes increased from 27.2% in 2014 to 78.3% in 2019 and remained close to that at 77% in 2021.

Meanwhile, the number of young people using e-cigarettes peaked in 2019 and has been declining.

By 2019, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated that 5.3 million middle and high school students were using e-cigarettes. That number dropped to 3.6 million in 2020 and to 2.1 million in 2021 during the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

Researchers suspect more addictive nicotine

This increasing intensity of use may reflect the higher nicotine delivery and addiction liability of modern e-cigarettes that use protonated nicotine, which makes nicotine easier to inhale than older versions of e-cigarettes, which used freebase nicotine, Dr. Glantz and associates wrote.

The change in nicotine came in 2015 with the introduction of Juul products, they said, “which added benzoic acid to the nicotine e-liquid to lower the pH level and form protonated nicotine.”

The researchers advised: “Clinicians should question all their patients about nicotine and tobacco product use, including e-cigarettes and other new nicotine products.”

Raghu Appasani, MD, a psychiatrist who specializes in adolescent addiction and a clinical fellow at University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview that users often misunderstand the potential health effects of e-cigarettes and mistakenly think of them as a safe alternative to cigarettes.

All medical providers have a responsibility to ask patients about nicotine and tobacco products, Dr. Appasani said.
 

‘Be curious, not judgmental’

Dr. Appasani advised: “Be curious with your approach. This may uncover that maybe they use [e-cigarettes] to fit into a social scene or have stressors at home or in school. Most likely there is an underlying issue that has led to their use. Perhaps there is untreated anxiety and/or depression. Be curious, not judgmental.”

It is also important to ask about social and psychological factors that may be contributing to use and help the user think through how the use is affecting life in their home, school, and social settings, Dr. Appasani said.

He said he was not surprised by the findings as e-cigarettes allow easy access to smoking and it’s easier to hide the habit. The flavoring often get kids hooked originally.

The authors wrote: “These findings suggest that clinicians need to be ready to address youth addiction to these new highly addictive nicotine products during many clinical encounters, and stronger regulation is needed, including comprehensive bans on the sale of flavored tobacco products.”

Just more than half of the survey respondents (51.1%) were male and average age was 14. Researchers analyzed data from the National Youth Tobacco Survey, a nationally representative survey of middle and high school students.

They used the Youth Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System from 2015 to 2019 as a confirmatory analysis.

This study was supported in part by grants from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Glantz received personal fees from the World Health Organization outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported serving as a paid expert witness against the tobacco industry outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported. Dr. Appasani declared no relevant financial relationships.

Vaping has become the dominant form of tobacco use by adolescents in the United States immediately after waking up, according to an analysis of a survey on teen tobacco use published in JAMA Network Open.

By 2019, Stanton Glantz, PhD, and associates found, “more e-cigarette users were using their first tobacco product within 5 minutes of waking than users of cigarettes and all other tobacco products combined.” Use upon waking is an indicator of addiction.

That number changed drastically from 2014 when less than 1% of sole-e-cigarette users were using e-cigarettes first thing in the morning to 10.3% by 2021. The numbers did not change for sole cigarette smokers or sole smokeless tobacco users, but did increase by half (odds ratio per year, 1.49) for sole cigar users.

In addition, among adolescents who currently use any tobacco product, the proportion whose first tobacco product was e-cigarettes increased from 27.2% in 2014 to 78.3% in 2019 and remained close to that at 77% in 2021.

Meanwhile, the number of young people using e-cigarettes peaked in 2019 and has been declining.

By 2019, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated that 5.3 million middle and high school students were using e-cigarettes. That number dropped to 3.6 million in 2020 and to 2.1 million in 2021 during the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

Researchers suspect more addictive nicotine

This increasing intensity of use may reflect the higher nicotine delivery and addiction liability of modern e-cigarettes that use protonated nicotine, which makes nicotine easier to inhale than older versions of e-cigarettes, which used freebase nicotine, Dr. Glantz and associates wrote.

The change in nicotine came in 2015 with the introduction of Juul products, they said, “which added benzoic acid to the nicotine e-liquid to lower the pH level and form protonated nicotine.”

The researchers advised: “Clinicians should question all their patients about nicotine and tobacco product use, including e-cigarettes and other new nicotine products.”

Raghu Appasani, MD, a psychiatrist who specializes in adolescent addiction and a clinical fellow at University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview that users often misunderstand the potential health effects of e-cigarettes and mistakenly think of them as a safe alternative to cigarettes.

All medical providers have a responsibility to ask patients about nicotine and tobacco products, Dr. Appasani said.
 

‘Be curious, not judgmental’

Dr. Appasani advised: “Be curious with your approach. This may uncover that maybe they use [e-cigarettes] to fit into a social scene or have stressors at home or in school. Most likely there is an underlying issue that has led to their use. Perhaps there is untreated anxiety and/or depression. Be curious, not judgmental.”

It is also important to ask about social and psychological factors that may be contributing to use and help the user think through how the use is affecting life in their home, school, and social settings, Dr. Appasani said.

He said he was not surprised by the findings as e-cigarettes allow easy access to smoking and it’s easier to hide the habit. The flavoring often get kids hooked originally.

The authors wrote: “These findings suggest that clinicians need to be ready to address youth addiction to these new highly addictive nicotine products during many clinical encounters, and stronger regulation is needed, including comprehensive bans on the sale of flavored tobacco products.”

Just more than half of the survey respondents (51.1%) were male and average age was 14. Researchers analyzed data from the National Youth Tobacco Survey, a nationally representative survey of middle and high school students.

They used the Youth Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System from 2015 to 2019 as a confirmatory analysis.

This study was supported in part by grants from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Glantz received personal fees from the World Health Organization outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported serving as a paid expert witness against the tobacco industry outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported. Dr. Appasani declared no relevant financial relationships.

Vaping has become the dominant form of tobacco use by adolescents in the United States immediately after waking up, according to an analysis of a survey on teen tobacco use published in JAMA Network Open.

By 2019, Stanton Glantz, PhD, and associates found, “more e-cigarette users were using their first tobacco product within 5 minutes of waking than users of cigarettes and all other tobacco products combined.” Use upon waking is an indicator of addiction.

That number changed drastically from 2014 when less than 1% of sole-e-cigarette users were using e-cigarettes first thing in the morning to 10.3% by 2021. The numbers did not change for sole cigarette smokers or sole smokeless tobacco users, but did increase by half (odds ratio per year, 1.49) for sole cigar users.

In addition, among adolescents who currently use any tobacco product, the proportion whose first tobacco product was e-cigarettes increased from 27.2% in 2014 to 78.3% in 2019 and remained close to that at 77% in 2021.

Meanwhile, the number of young people using e-cigarettes peaked in 2019 and has been declining.

By 2019, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated that 5.3 million middle and high school students were using e-cigarettes. That number dropped to 3.6 million in 2020 and to 2.1 million in 2021 during the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

Researchers suspect more addictive nicotine

This increasing intensity of use may reflect the higher nicotine delivery and addiction liability of modern e-cigarettes that use protonated nicotine, which makes nicotine easier to inhale than older versions of e-cigarettes, which used freebase nicotine, Dr. Glantz and associates wrote.

The change in nicotine came in 2015 with the introduction of Juul products, they said, “which added benzoic acid to the nicotine e-liquid to lower the pH level and form protonated nicotine.”

The researchers advised: “Clinicians should question all their patients about nicotine and tobacco product use, including e-cigarettes and other new nicotine products.”

Raghu Appasani, MD, a psychiatrist who specializes in adolescent addiction and a clinical fellow at University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview that users often misunderstand the potential health effects of e-cigarettes and mistakenly think of them as a safe alternative to cigarettes.

All medical providers have a responsibility to ask patients about nicotine and tobacco products, Dr. Appasani said.
 

‘Be curious, not judgmental’

Dr. Appasani advised: “Be curious with your approach. This may uncover that maybe they use [e-cigarettes] to fit into a social scene or have stressors at home or in school. Most likely there is an underlying issue that has led to their use. Perhaps there is untreated anxiety and/or depression. Be curious, not judgmental.”

It is also important to ask about social and psychological factors that may be contributing to use and help the user think through how the use is affecting life in their home, school, and social settings, Dr. Appasani said.

He said he was not surprised by the findings as e-cigarettes allow easy access to smoking and it’s easier to hide the habit. The flavoring often get kids hooked originally.

The authors wrote: “These findings suggest that clinicians need to be ready to address youth addiction to these new highly addictive nicotine products during many clinical encounters, and stronger regulation is needed, including comprehensive bans on the sale of flavored tobacco products.”

Just more than half of the survey respondents (51.1%) were male and average age was 14. Researchers analyzed data from the National Youth Tobacco Survey, a nationally representative survey of middle and high school students.

They used the Youth Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System from 2015 to 2019 as a confirmatory analysis.

This study was supported in part by grants from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Glantz received personal fees from the World Health Organization outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported serving as a paid expert witness against the tobacco industry outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported. Dr. Appasani declared no relevant financial relationships.

CHICAGO – Treatment with the investigational CRISPR-Cas9 gene-editing therapy, NTLA-2001, led to rapid responses in patients with transthyretin (TTR) amyloidosis with cardiomyopathy (ATTR-CM), interim phase 1 results show.

Serum levels of the disease-causing TTR protein were reduced by at least 90% at day 28 with a single infusion of NTLA-2001 at two different doses, with reductions sustained across 4-6 months’ follow-up.

NTLA-2001 was generally well-tolerated, and the results were similar in patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class I-III heart failure.

“These data further support and extend the early findings demonstrating the promise of CRISPR-based in vivo genome editing in humans,” said Julian Gillmore, MD, PhD, MBBS, who is leading the study at University College London.

“More specifically, the deep TTR reductions observed in patients with ATTR amyloidosis in this study provide a real possibility of genuine clinical improvement in a condition that has hitherto been ultimately progressive and invariably fatal,” he said.

The results were reported in a late-breaking session at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Mutations in the TTR gene and age-related changes in the stability of the TTR protein can cause misfolding of the TTR protein, resulting in amyloid deposits in skin and myocardial tissues.

An estimated 50,000 people worldwide are thought to have hereditary ATTR and up to 500,000 to have wild-type ATTR amyloidosis. Amyloid cardiomyopathy is underdiagnosed and fatal in 3-10 years without treatment. Current treatment options only slow progression and require lifelong administration, he said.

Results reported last year from the polyneuropathy arm of the study were hailed as a breakthrough and further proof-of-concept that CRISPR could be used to treat other diseases

CRISPR gene editing has shown success, for example, in beta-thalassemia and sickle cell disease but involved stem cells extracted from patients’ bone marrow, edited in the lab, and then replaced.

NTLA-2001 (Intellia Therapeutics/Regeneron) is an in vivo treatment that uses lipid nanoparticles containing messenger RNA for Cas9 and a single-guide RNA targeting TTR in the liver, where it’s almost exclusively produced.

The new analysis included 12 patients with heart failure: 3 in NYHA  class I-II and 6 in NYHA class III who received a single dose of NTLA-2001 at 0.7 mg/kg, while the remaining 3 patients in NYHA class I-II received a single dose of 1.0 mg/kg.

During follow-up out to 6 months, TTR reductions averaged:

• 93% in the 0.7 mg/kg NYHA I-II group at 6 months.
• 94% in the 0.7 mg/kg NYHA III group at 4 months.
• 92% in the 1.0 mg/kg NYHA I-II group at 4 months.

Eight patients reported mild or moderate adverse events, and two patients experienced transient infusion reactions, including one grade 3 reaction in the 0.7 mg/kg NYHA class III group that resolved without clinical consequence. This group was expanded to six patients per study protocol. No additional treatment-related adverse events higher than grade 1 were reported, and no further dose escalation was undertaken, Dr. Gillmore reported.

There were no clinically relevant laboratory findings; one patient had a transient grade 1 liver enzyme elevation.

One disadvantage of CRISPR is the potential for off-target effects, but Dr. Gillmore said in an interview that the drug developers went through a “very rigorous process when selecting the guide RNA, which is what really targets the specificity of the TTR gene.”

“That’s a really, really important point,” he said. “When they did various studies using, for example, primary human hepatocytes, they found no evidence of off-target editing at concentrations of NTLA-2001 threefold greater than the EC90, the concentration at which one knocks down the protein by 90%. So, what we can say at the moment, is the specificity of NTLA-2001 for the TTR gene seems to be absolute.”

In terms of other challenges going forward, Dr. Gillmore added, “I think that it’s really to see whether the knockdown that is being achieved is going to translate into greater clinical benefit.”

Invited discussant Kevin M. Alexander, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, said therapies that stabilize or reduce TTR have recently emerged that have improved ATTR amyloidosis outcomes, including tafamidis and patisiran.

Nevertheless, there has been an unmet need to develop therapies that can halt or reverse disease, are effective in advanced ATTR, and have an improved route or frequency of administration, given that this is a chronic disease, he said.

Dr. Alexander noted that the reductions of greater than 90% were achieved with higher doses than used in the polyneuropathy arm reported last year but were well tolerated in patients that for the most part had wild-type ATTR (83%) and reflect the wild-type ATTR population in practice. “The data support consideration for subsequent efficacy trials for this compound.”

Unanswered questions in ongoing ATTR trials are whether TTR reductions translate into improved clinical outcomes, the long-term safety of TTR lowering, and the efficacy of NTLA-2001, particularly in higher-risk patients, such as those in NYHA class III and those with hereditary ATTR, Dr. Alexander said.

During a media briefing earlier in the day, invited discussant Kiran Musunuru, MD, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, pointed out that, in the recent APOLLO-B trial of patisiran, patients with ATTR amyloidosis with cardiomyopathy had an average 87% TTR reduction but need intravenous infusions every 3 weeks for the rest of their lives.

“In contrast, gene editing is a one-and-done proposition,” he said. “You receive a single treatment that turns off the TTR gene permanently and the effects are durable and likely last a lifetime.”

Dr. Musunuru noted that patients who received patisiran also had significantly and substantially better functional capacity and quality of life, compared with those who received placebo. “Based on today’s results, we can expect future clinical trials for gene editing to have the same beneficial effects and possibly a mortality benefit as well.”

Today’s study is also important because it is part of the first wave of putting CRISPR into the body for an array of diseases, he commented.

“TTR gene editing stands out because it’s the very first CRISPR trial to show unequivocal success – you see that with a greater than 90% reduction in TTR,” Dr. Musunuru said. “So, in my view that makes it a milestone for modern medicine.”

Dosing at 55 mg, corresponding to a fixed 0.7 mg/kg dose, is ongoing in the dose-expansion portion of the trial, with enrollment across both arms expected to be completed by the end of 2022, Intellia Therapeutics reported.

The study was funded by Intellia Therapeutics and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Gillmore reports receiving consultancy fees from Alnylam, Ionis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Intellia, ATTRalus, and Novo Nordisk and has received grant support from Alnylam Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Alexander reports serving on advisory boards for Almylam and Arbor Biotechnologies; has consulted  for Eidos, Ionis, Novo Nordisk, and Pfizer; and has received grants from AHA, Alnylam, Eidos, and the National Institutes of Health.

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

CHICAGO – Treatment with the investigational CRISPR-Cas9 gene-editing therapy, NTLA-2001, led to rapid responses in patients with transthyretin (TTR) amyloidosis with cardiomyopathy (ATTR-CM), interim phase 1 results show.

Serum levels of the disease-causing TTR protein were reduced by at least 90% at day 28 with a single infusion of NTLA-2001 at two different doses, with reductions sustained across 4-6 months’ follow-up.

NTLA-2001 was generally well-tolerated, and the results were similar in patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class I-III heart failure.

“These data further support and extend the early findings demonstrating the promise of CRISPR-based in vivo genome editing in humans,” said Julian Gillmore, MD, PhD, MBBS, who is leading the study at University College London.

“More specifically, the deep TTR reductions observed in patients with ATTR amyloidosis in this study provide a real possibility of genuine clinical improvement in a condition that has hitherto been ultimately progressive and invariably fatal,” he said.

The results were reported in a late-breaking session at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Mutations in the TTR gene and age-related changes in the stability of the TTR protein can cause misfolding of the TTR protein, resulting in amyloid deposits in skin and myocardial tissues.

An estimated 50,000 people worldwide are thought to have hereditary ATTR and up to 500,000 to have wild-type ATTR amyloidosis. Amyloid cardiomyopathy is underdiagnosed and fatal in 3-10 years without treatment. Current treatment options only slow progression and require lifelong administration, he said.

Results reported last year from the polyneuropathy arm of the study were hailed as a breakthrough and further proof-of-concept that CRISPR could be used to treat other diseases

CRISPR gene editing has shown success, for example, in beta-thalassemia and sickle cell disease but involved stem cells extracted from patients’ bone marrow, edited in the lab, and then replaced.

NTLA-2001 (Intellia Therapeutics/Regeneron) is an in vivo treatment that uses lipid nanoparticles containing messenger RNA for Cas9 and a single-guide RNA targeting TTR in the liver, where it’s almost exclusively produced.

The new analysis included 12 patients with heart failure: 3 in NYHA  class I-II and 6 in NYHA class III who received a single dose of NTLA-2001 at 0.7 mg/kg, while the remaining 3 patients in NYHA class I-II received a single dose of 1.0 mg/kg.

During follow-up out to 6 months, TTR reductions averaged:

• 93% in the 0.7 mg/kg NYHA I-II group at 6 months.
• 94% in the 0.7 mg/kg NYHA III group at 4 months.
• 92% in the 1.0 mg/kg NYHA I-II group at 4 months.

Eight patients reported mild or moderate adverse events, and two patients experienced transient infusion reactions, including one grade 3 reaction in the 0.7 mg/kg NYHA class III group that resolved without clinical consequence. This group was expanded to six patients per study protocol. No additional treatment-related adverse events higher than grade 1 were reported, and no further dose escalation was undertaken, Dr. Gillmore reported.

There were no clinically relevant laboratory findings; one patient had a transient grade 1 liver enzyme elevation.

One disadvantage of CRISPR is the potential for off-target effects, but Dr. Gillmore said in an interview that the drug developers went through a “very rigorous process when selecting the guide RNA, which is what really targets the specificity of the TTR gene.”

“That’s a really, really important point,” he said. “When they did various studies using, for example, primary human hepatocytes, they found no evidence of off-target editing at concentrations of NTLA-2001 threefold greater than the EC90, the concentration at which one knocks down the protein by 90%. So, what we can say at the moment, is the specificity of NTLA-2001 for the TTR gene seems to be absolute.”

In terms of other challenges going forward, Dr. Gillmore added, “I think that it’s really to see whether the knockdown that is being achieved is going to translate into greater clinical benefit.”

Invited discussant Kevin M. Alexander, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, said therapies that stabilize or reduce TTR have recently emerged that have improved ATTR amyloidosis outcomes, including tafamidis and patisiran.

Nevertheless, there has been an unmet need to develop therapies that can halt or reverse disease, are effective in advanced ATTR, and have an improved route or frequency of administration, given that this is a chronic disease, he said.

Dr. Alexander noted that the reductions of greater than 90% were achieved with higher doses than used in the polyneuropathy arm reported last year but were well tolerated in patients that for the most part had wild-type ATTR (83%) and reflect the wild-type ATTR population in practice. “The data support consideration for subsequent efficacy trials for this compound.”

Unanswered questions in ongoing ATTR trials are whether TTR reductions translate into improved clinical outcomes, the long-term safety of TTR lowering, and the efficacy of NTLA-2001, particularly in higher-risk patients, such as those in NYHA class III and those with hereditary ATTR, Dr. Alexander said.

During a media briefing earlier in the day, invited discussant Kiran Musunuru, MD, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, pointed out that, in the recent APOLLO-B trial of patisiran, patients with ATTR amyloidosis with cardiomyopathy had an average 87% TTR reduction but need intravenous infusions every 3 weeks for the rest of their lives.

“In contrast, gene editing is a one-and-done proposition,” he said. “You receive a single treatment that turns off the TTR gene permanently and the effects are durable and likely last a lifetime.”

Dr. Musunuru noted that patients who received patisiran also had significantly and substantially better functional capacity and quality of life, compared with those who received placebo. “Based on today’s results, we can expect future clinical trials for gene editing to have the same beneficial effects and possibly a mortality benefit as well.”

Today’s study is also important because it is part of the first wave of putting CRISPR into the body for an array of diseases, he commented.

“TTR gene editing stands out because it’s the very first CRISPR trial to show unequivocal success – you see that with a greater than 90% reduction in TTR,” Dr. Musunuru said. “So, in my view that makes it a milestone for modern medicine.”

Dosing at 55 mg, corresponding to a fixed 0.7 mg/kg dose, is ongoing in the dose-expansion portion of the trial, with enrollment across both arms expected to be completed by the end of 2022, Intellia Therapeutics reported.

The study was funded by Intellia Therapeutics and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Gillmore reports receiving consultancy fees from Alnylam, Ionis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Intellia, ATTRalus, and Novo Nordisk and has received grant support from Alnylam Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Alexander reports serving on advisory boards for Almylam and Arbor Biotechnologies; has consulted  for Eidos, Ionis, Novo Nordisk, and Pfizer; and has received grants from AHA, Alnylam, Eidos, and the National Institutes of Health.

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

CHICAGO – Treatment with the investigational CRISPR-Cas9 gene-editing therapy, NTLA-2001, led to rapid responses in patients with transthyretin (TTR) amyloidosis with cardiomyopathy (ATTR-CM), interim phase 1 results show.

Serum levels of the disease-causing TTR protein were reduced by at least 90% at day 28 with a single infusion of NTLA-2001 at two different doses, with reductions sustained across 4-6 months’ follow-up.

NTLA-2001 was generally well-tolerated, and the results were similar in patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class I-III heart failure.

“These data further support and extend the early findings demonstrating the promise of CRISPR-based in vivo genome editing in humans,” said Julian Gillmore, MD, PhD, MBBS, who is leading the study at University College London.

“More specifically, the deep TTR reductions observed in patients with ATTR amyloidosis in this study provide a real possibility of genuine clinical improvement in a condition that has hitherto been ultimately progressive and invariably fatal,” he said.

The results were reported in a late-breaking session at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Mutations in the TTR gene and age-related changes in the stability of the TTR protein can cause misfolding of the TTR protein, resulting in amyloid deposits in skin and myocardial tissues.

An estimated 50,000 people worldwide are thought to have hereditary ATTR and up to 500,000 to have wild-type ATTR amyloidosis. Amyloid cardiomyopathy is underdiagnosed and fatal in 3-10 years without treatment. Current treatment options only slow progression and require lifelong administration, he said.

Results reported last year from the polyneuropathy arm of the study were hailed as a breakthrough and further proof-of-concept that CRISPR could be used to treat other diseases

CRISPR gene editing has shown success, for example, in beta-thalassemia and sickle cell disease but involved stem cells extracted from patients’ bone marrow, edited in the lab, and then replaced.

NTLA-2001 (Intellia Therapeutics/Regeneron) is an in vivo treatment that uses lipid nanoparticles containing messenger RNA for Cas9 and a single-guide RNA targeting TTR in the liver, where it’s almost exclusively produced.

The new analysis included 12 patients with heart failure: 3 in NYHA  class I-II and 6 in NYHA class III who received a single dose of NTLA-2001 at 0.7 mg/kg, while the remaining 3 patients in NYHA class I-II received a single dose of 1.0 mg/kg.

During follow-up out to 6 months, TTR reductions averaged:

• 93% in the 0.7 mg/kg NYHA I-II group at 6 months.
• 94% in the 0.7 mg/kg NYHA III group at 4 months.
• 92% in the 1.0 mg/kg NYHA I-II group at 4 months.

Eight patients reported mild or moderate adverse events, and two patients experienced transient infusion reactions, including one grade 3 reaction in the 0.7 mg/kg NYHA class III group that resolved without clinical consequence. This group was expanded to six patients per study protocol. No additional treatment-related adverse events higher than grade 1 were reported, and no further dose escalation was undertaken, Dr. Gillmore reported.

There were no clinically relevant laboratory findings; one patient had a transient grade 1 liver enzyme elevation.

One disadvantage of CRISPR is the potential for off-target effects, but Dr. Gillmore said in an interview that the drug developers went through a “very rigorous process when selecting the guide RNA, which is what really targets the specificity of the TTR gene.”

“That’s a really, really important point,” he said. “When they did various studies using, for example, primary human hepatocytes, they found no evidence of off-target editing at concentrations of NTLA-2001 threefold greater than the EC90, the concentration at which one knocks down the protein by 90%. So, what we can say at the moment, is the specificity of NTLA-2001 for the TTR gene seems to be absolute.”

In terms of other challenges going forward, Dr. Gillmore added, “I think that it’s really to see whether the knockdown that is being achieved is going to translate into greater clinical benefit.”

Invited discussant Kevin M. Alexander, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, said therapies that stabilize or reduce TTR have recently emerged that have improved ATTR amyloidosis outcomes, including tafamidis and patisiran.

Nevertheless, there has been an unmet need to develop therapies that can halt or reverse disease, are effective in advanced ATTR, and have an improved route or frequency of administration, given that this is a chronic disease, he said.

Dr. Alexander noted that the reductions of greater than 90% were achieved with higher doses than used in the polyneuropathy arm reported last year but were well tolerated in patients that for the most part had wild-type ATTR (83%) and reflect the wild-type ATTR population in practice. “The data support consideration for subsequent efficacy trials for this compound.”

Unanswered questions in ongoing ATTR trials are whether TTR reductions translate into improved clinical outcomes, the long-term safety of TTR lowering, and the efficacy of NTLA-2001, particularly in higher-risk patients, such as those in NYHA class III and those with hereditary ATTR, Dr. Alexander said.

During a media briefing earlier in the day, invited discussant Kiran Musunuru, MD, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, pointed out that, in the recent APOLLO-B trial of patisiran, patients with ATTR amyloidosis with cardiomyopathy had an average 87% TTR reduction but need intravenous infusions every 3 weeks for the rest of their lives.

“In contrast, gene editing is a one-and-done proposition,” he said. “You receive a single treatment that turns off the TTR gene permanently and the effects are durable and likely last a lifetime.”

Dr. Musunuru noted that patients who received patisiran also had significantly and substantially better functional capacity and quality of life, compared with those who received placebo. “Based on today’s results, we can expect future clinical trials for gene editing to have the same beneficial effects and possibly a mortality benefit as well.”

Today’s study is also important because it is part of the first wave of putting CRISPR into the body for an array of diseases, he commented.

“TTR gene editing stands out because it’s the very first CRISPR trial to show unequivocal success – you see that with a greater than 90% reduction in TTR,” Dr. Musunuru said. “So, in my view that makes it a milestone for modern medicine.”

Dosing at 55 mg, corresponding to a fixed 0.7 mg/kg dose, is ongoing in the dose-expansion portion of the trial, with enrollment across both arms expected to be completed by the end of 2022, Intellia Therapeutics reported.

The study was funded by Intellia Therapeutics and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Gillmore reports receiving consultancy fees from Alnylam, Ionis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Intellia, ATTRalus, and Novo Nordisk and has received grant support from Alnylam Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Alexander reports serving on advisory boards for Almylam and Arbor Biotechnologies; has consulted  for Eidos, Ionis, Novo Nordisk, and Pfizer; and has received grants from AHA, Alnylam, Eidos, and the National Institutes of Health.

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

CHICAGO – The choice of loop diuretic for decongestion in patients hospitalized with heart failure (HF) may make little difference to survival or readmission risk over the next year, at least when deciding between furosemide or torsemide, a randomized trial suggests.

Both drugs are old and widely used, but differences between the two loop diuretics in bioavailability, effects on potassium levels, and other features have led some clinicians to sometimes prefer torsemide. Until now, however, no randomized HF trials have compared the two drugs.

The new findings suggest clinicians can continue starting such patients with HF on either agent, at their discretion, without concern that the choice may compromise outcomes, say researchers from the TRANSFORM-HF trial, which compared furosemide-first and torsemide-first diuretic strategies in a diverse population of patients with HF.

Given that the two strategies were similarly effective for survival and rehospitalization, clinicians caring for patients with HF can focus more on “getting patients on the right dose for their loop diuretic, and prioritizing those therapies proven to improve clinical outcomes,” said Robert J. Mentz, MD, of Duke University Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C.

Dr. Mentz, a TRANSFORM-HF principal investigator, presented the primary results November 5 at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

The trial had randomly assigned 2,859 patients hospitalized with HF and with a plan for oral loop diuretic therapy to initiate treatment with furosemide or torsemide. Clinicians were encouraged to maintain patients on the assigned diuretic, but crossovers to the other drug or other diuretic changes were allowed.

Rates of death from any cause, the primary endpoint, were about 26% in both groups over a median 17-month follow-up, regardless of ejection fraction (EF).

The composite rates of all-cause death or hospitalization at 12 months were also not significantly different, about 49% for those started on furosemide and about 47% for patients initially prescribed torsemide.

As a pragmatic comparative effectiveness trial, TRANSFORM-HF entered diverse patients with HF, broadly representative of actual clinical practice, who were managed according to routine practice and a streamlined study protocol at more than 60 U.S. centers, Dr. Mentz observed.

One of the pragmatic design’s advantages, he told this news organization, was “how efficient it was” as a randomized comparison of treatment strategies for clinical outcomes. It was “relatively low cost” and recruited patients quickly, compared with conventional randomized trials, “and we answered the question clearly.” The trial’s results, Dr. Mentz said, reflect “what happens in the real world.”

When might torsemide have the edge?

Although furosemide is the most commonly used loop diuretic in HF, and there are others besides it and torsemide, the latter has both known and theoretical advantages that set it apart. Torsemide is more than twice as potent as furosemide and more bioavailable, and its treatment effect lasts longer, the TRANSFORM-HF investigators have noted.

In addition, preclinical and small clinical studies suggest torsemide may have pleiotropic effects that might be theoretical advantages for patients with HF. For example, it appears to downregulate the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) and reduce myocardial fibrosis and promote reverse ventricular remodeling, the group writes.

In practice, therefore, torsemide may be preferred in patients with furosemide resistance or “challenges with bioavailability, especially those with very advanced heart failure with congestion who may have gut edema, where oral furosemide and other loop diuretics are not effectively absorbed,” Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, told this news organization.  

In such patients, she said, torsemide “is considered to be a better choice  for individuals who have diuretic resistance with advanced congestion.”

The drug’s apparent pleiotropic effects, such as RAAS inhibition, may have less relevance to the TRANSFORM-HF primary endpoint of all-cause mortality than to clinical outcomes more likely associated with successful decongestion, such as HF hospitalization, Dr. Bozkurt proposed.

The trial’s pragmatic design, however, made it more feasible to focus on all-cause mortality and less practical to use measures of successful decongestion, such as volume loss or reduction in natriuretic peptide levels, she observed. Those are endpoints of special interest when diuretics are compared, “especially for the subgroup of patients who are diuretic resistant.”

Over the last 20 years or so, “we’ve learned that hospitalized heart failure is a very different disease process with a different natural history,” observed Clyde W. Yancy, MD, MSc, Northwestern University, Chicago, who was not part of the current study.

“So, the idea that something as nuanced as choice of one loop diuretic over the other, in that setting, would be sufficient to change the natural history, may be still a high bar for us,” he said in an interview.

“Based on these data, one would have to argue that whichever loop diuretic you select for the hospitalized patient – and a lot of that is driven by market exigencies right now – it turns out that the response is indistinguishable,” Dr. Yancy said. “That means  if your hospital happens to have furosemide on the formulary, use it. If furosemide is not available but torsemide is available, use it.”

Dr. Yancy said he’d like to see a trial similar to TRANSFORM-HF but in outpatients receiving today’s guideline-directed medical therapy, which includes the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, drugs that increase the fractional excretion of sodium and have a “diureticlike” effect.

Such a trial, he said, would explore “the combination of not one, or two, but three agents with a diuretic effect – a loop diuretic, a mineralocorticoid antagonist, and an SGLT2 inhibitor – in ambulatory, optimized patients. It might make a difference.”

HF regardless of EF

The trial enrolled patients hospitalized with worsening or new-onset HF with a plan for long-term loop diuretic therapy who had either an EF of 40% or lower or, regardless of EF, elevated natriuretic peptide levels when hospitalized.

Of the 2,859 participants, whose mean age was about 65 years, about 36% were women and 34% African American. Overall, 1,428 were assigned to receive furosemide as their initial oral diuretic and 1,431 patients were assigned to the torsemide-first strategy.

The rate of death from any cause in both groups was 17 per 100 patient-years at a median of 17.4 months. The hazard ratio for torsemide vs. furosemide was 1.02 (95% confidence interval, 0.89-1.18; P = .77).

The corresponding HR at 12 months for all-cause death or hospitalization was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.83-1.02;  P = .11). The relative risk for any hospitalization was 0.94 (95% CI, 0.84-1.07).

Pragmatic design: Other implications

Dosing was left to clinician discretion in the open-label study, as was whether patients maintained their assigned drug or switched over to the other agent. Indeed, 5.4% of patients crossed over to the other loop diuretic, and 2.8% went off loop diuretics entirely between in-hospital randomization and discharge, Dr. Mentz reported. By day 30, 6.7% had crossed over, and 7% had stopped taking loop diuretics.

The diuretic crossovers and discontinuations, Dr. Mentz said, likely biased the trial’s outcomes, such that the two strategies performed about equally well. Efforts were made, however, to at least partially overcome that limitation.

“We put measures in place to support adherence – sending letters to their primary doctors, giving them a wallet card so they would know which therapy they were on, having conversations about the importance of trying to stay on the randomized therapy,” Dr. Mentz said in an interview. Still, some clinicians saw differences between the two agents that prompted them, at some point, to switch patients from one loop diuretic to the other.

But interestingly, Dr. Mentz reported, the two strategies did not significantly differ in all-cause mortality or the composite of all-cause mortality or hospitalization in analysis by intention to treat.

Dr. Mentz discloses receiving honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bayer/Merck, Boehringer Ingelheim/Lilly, Cytokinetics, Pharmacosmos, Respicardia, Windtree Therapeutics, and Zoll; and research grants from American Regent and Novartis. Dr. Bozkurt discloses receiving honoraria from AstraZeneca, Baxter Health Care, and Sanofi Aventis and having other relationships with Renovacor, Respicardia, Abbott Vascular, Liva Nova, Vifor, and Cardurion. Dr. Yancy discloses a modest relationship with Abbott.

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

CHICAGO – The choice of loop diuretic for decongestion in patients hospitalized with heart failure (HF) may make little difference to survival or readmission risk over the next year, at least when deciding between furosemide or torsemide, a randomized trial suggests.

Both drugs are old and widely used, but differences between the two loop diuretics in bioavailability, effects on potassium levels, and other features have led some clinicians to sometimes prefer torsemide. Until now, however, no randomized HF trials have compared the two drugs.

The new findings suggest clinicians can continue starting such patients with HF on either agent, at their discretion, without concern that the choice may compromise outcomes, say researchers from the TRANSFORM-HF trial, which compared furosemide-first and torsemide-first diuretic strategies in a diverse population of patients with HF.

Given that the two strategies were similarly effective for survival and rehospitalization, clinicians caring for patients with HF can focus more on “getting patients on the right dose for their loop diuretic, and prioritizing those therapies proven to improve clinical outcomes,” said Robert J. Mentz, MD, of Duke University Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C.

Dr. Mentz, a TRANSFORM-HF principal investigator, presented the primary results November 5 at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

The trial had randomly assigned 2,859 patients hospitalized with HF and with a plan for oral loop diuretic therapy to initiate treatment with furosemide or torsemide. Clinicians were encouraged to maintain patients on the assigned diuretic, but crossovers to the other drug or other diuretic changes were allowed.

Rates of death from any cause, the primary endpoint, were about 26% in both groups over a median 17-month follow-up, regardless of ejection fraction (EF).

The composite rates of all-cause death or hospitalization at 12 months were also not significantly different, about 49% for those started on furosemide and about 47% for patients initially prescribed torsemide.

As a pragmatic comparative effectiveness trial, TRANSFORM-HF entered diverse patients with HF, broadly representative of actual clinical practice, who were managed according to routine practice and a streamlined study protocol at more than 60 U.S. centers, Dr. Mentz observed.

One of the pragmatic design’s advantages, he told this news organization, was “how efficient it was” as a randomized comparison of treatment strategies for clinical outcomes. It was “relatively low cost” and recruited patients quickly, compared with conventional randomized trials, “and we answered the question clearly.” The trial’s results, Dr. Mentz said, reflect “what happens in the real world.”

When might torsemide have the edge?

Although furosemide is the most commonly used loop diuretic in HF, and there are others besides it and torsemide, the latter has both known and theoretical advantages that set it apart. Torsemide is more than twice as potent as furosemide and more bioavailable, and its treatment effect lasts longer, the TRANSFORM-HF investigators have noted.

In addition, preclinical and small clinical studies suggest torsemide may have pleiotropic effects that might be theoretical advantages for patients with HF. For example, it appears to downregulate the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) and reduce myocardial fibrosis and promote reverse ventricular remodeling, the group writes.

In practice, therefore, torsemide may be preferred in patients with furosemide resistance or “challenges with bioavailability, especially those with very advanced heart failure with congestion who may have gut edema, where oral furosemide and other loop diuretics are not effectively absorbed,” Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, told this news organization.  

In such patients, she said, torsemide “is considered to be a better choice  for individuals who have diuretic resistance with advanced congestion.”

The drug’s apparent pleiotropic effects, such as RAAS inhibition, may have less relevance to the TRANSFORM-HF primary endpoint of all-cause mortality than to clinical outcomes more likely associated with successful decongestion, such as HF hospitalization, Dr. Bozkurt proposed.

The trial’s pragmatic design, however, made it more feasible to focus on all-cause mortality and less practical to use measures of successful decongestion, such as volume loss or reduction in natriuretic peptide levels, she observed. Those are endpoints of special interest when diuretics are compared, “especially for the subgroup of patients who are diuretic resistant.”

Over the last 20 years or so, “we’ve learned that hospitalized heart failure is a very different disease process with a different natural history,” observed Clyde W. Yancy, MD, MSc, Northwestern University, Chicago, who was not part of the current study.

“So, the idea that something as nuanced as choice of one loop diuretic over the other, in that setting, would be sufficient to change the natural history, may be still a high bar for us,” he said in an interview.

“Based on these data, one would have to argue that whichever loop diuretic you select for the hospitalized patient – and a lot of that is driven by market exigencies right now – it turns out that the response is indistinguishable,” Dr. Yancy said. “That means  if your hospital happens to have furosemide on the formulary, use it. If furosemide is not available but torsemide is available, use it.”

Dr. Yancy said he’d like to see a trial similar to TRANSFORM-HF but in outpatients receiving today’s guideline-directed medical therapy, which includes the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, drugs that increase the fractional excretion of sodium and have a “diureticlike” effect.

Such a trial, he said, would explore “the combination of not one, or two, but three agents with a diuretic effect – a loop diuretic, a mineralocorticoid antagonist, and an SGLT2 inhibitor – in ambulatory, optimized patients. It might make a difference.”

HF regardless of EF

The trial enrolled patients hospitalized with worsening or new-onset HF with a plan for long-term loop diuretic therapy who had either an EF of 40% or lower or, regardless of EF, elevated natriuretic peptide levels when hospitalized.

Of the 2,859 participants, whose mean age was about 65 years, about 36% were women and 34% African American. Overall, 1,428 were assigned to receive furosemide as their initial oral diuretic and 1,431 patients were assigned to the torsemide-first strategy.

The rate of death from any cause in both groups was 17 per 100 patient-years at a median of 17.4 months. The hazard ratio for torsemide vs. furosemide was 1.02 (95% confidence interval, 0.89-1.18; P = .77).

The corresponding HR at 12 months for all-cause death or hospitalization was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.83-1.02;  P = .11). The relative risk for any hospitalization was 0.94 (95% CI, 0.84-1.07).

Pragmatic design: Other implications

Dosing was left to clinician discretion in the open-label study, as was whether patients maintained their assigned drug or switched over to the other agent. Indeed, 5.4% of patients crossed over to the other loop diuretic, and 2.8% went off loop diuretics entirely between in-hospital randomization and discharge, Dr. Mentz reported. By day 30, 6.7% had crossed over, and 7% had stopped taking loop diuretics.

The diuretic crossovers and discontinuations, Dr. Mentz said, likely biased the trial’s outcomes, such that the two strategies performed about equally well. Efforts were made, however, to at least partially overcome that limitation.

“We put measures in place to support adherence – sending letters to their primary doctors, giving them a wallet card so they would know which therapy they were on, having conversations about the importance of trying to stay on the randomized therapy,” Dr. Mentz said in an interview. Still, some clinicians saw differences between the two agents that prompted them, at some point, to switch patients from one loop diuretic to the other.

But interestingly, Dr. Mentz reported, the two strategies did not significantly differ in all-cause mortality or the composite of all-cause mortality or hospitalization in analysis by intention to treat.

Dr. Mentz discloses receiving honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bayer/Merck, Boehringer Ingelheim/Lilly, Cytokinetics, Pharmacosmos, Respicardia, Windtree Therapeutics, and Zoll; and research grants from American Regent and Novartis. Dr. Bozkurt discloses receiving honoraria from AstraZeneca, Baxter Health Care, and Sanofi Aventis and having other relationships with Renovacor, Respicardia, Abbott Vascular, Liva Nova, Vifor, and Cardurion. Dr. Yancy discloses a modest relationship with Abbott.

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

CHICAGO – The choice of loop diuretic for decongestion in patients hospitalized with heart failure (HF) may make little difference to survival or readmission risk over the next year, at least when deciding between furosemide or torsemide, a randomized trial suggests.

Both drugs are old and widely used, but differences between the two loop diuretics in bioavailability, effects on potassium levels, and other features have led some clinicians to sometimes prefer torsemide. Until now, however, no randomized HF trials have compared the two drugs.

The new findings suggest clinicians can continue starting such patients with HF on either agent, at their discretion, without concern that the choice may compromise outcomes, say researchers from the TRANSFORM-HF trial, which compared furosemide-first and torsemide-first diuretic strategies in a diverse population of patients with HF.

Given that the two strategies were similarly effective for survival and rehospitalization, clinicians caring for patients with HF can focus more on “getting patients on the right dose for their loop diuretic, and prioritizing those therapies proven to improve clinical outcomes,” said Robert J. Mentz, MD, of Duke University Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C.

Dr. Mentz, a TRANSFORM-HF principal investigator, presented the primary results November 5 at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

The trial had randomly assigned 2,859 patients hospitalized with HF and with a plan for oral loop diuretic therapy to initiate treatment with furosemide or torsemide. Clinicians were encouraged to maintain patients on the assigned diuretic, but crossovers to the other drug or other diuretic changes were allowed.

Rates of death from any cause, the primary endpoint, were about 26% in both groups over a median 17-month follow-up, regardless of ejection fraction (EF).

The composite rates of all-cause death or hospitalization at 12 months were also not significantly different, about 49% for those started on furosemide and about 47% for patients initially prescribed torsemide.

As a pragmatic comparative effectiveness trial, TRANSFORM-HF entered diverse patients with HF, broadly representative of actual clinical practice, who were managed according to routine practice and a streamlined study protocol at more than 60 U.S. centers, Dr. Mentz observed.

One of the pragmatic design’s advantages, he told this news organization, was “how efficient it was” as a randomized comparison of treatment strategies for clinical outcomes. It was “relatively low cost” and recruited patients quickly, compared with conventional randomized trials, “and we answered the question clearly.” The trial’s results, Dr. Mentz said, reflect “what happens in the real world.”

When might torsemide have the edge?

Although furosemide is the most commonly used loop diuretic in HF, and there are others besides it and torsemide, the latter has both known and theoretical advantages that set it apart. Torsemide is more than twice as potent as furosemide and more bioavailable, and its treatment effect lasts longer, the TRANSFORM-HF investigators have noted.

In addition, preclinical and small clinical studies suggest torsemide may have pleiotropic effects that might be theoretical advantages for patients with HF. For example, it appears to downregulate the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) and reduce myocardial fibrosis and promote reverse ventricular remodeling, the group writes.

In practice, therefore, torsemide may be preferred in patients with furosemide resistance or “challenges with bioavailability, especially those with very advanced heart failure with congestion who may have gut edema, where oral furosemide and other loop diuretics are not effectively absorbed,” Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, told this news organization.  

In such patients, she said, torsemide “is considered to be a better choice  for individuals who have diuretic resistance with advanced congestion.”

The drug’s apparent pleiotropic effects, such as RAAS inhibition, may have less relevance to the TRANSFORM-HF primary endpoint of all-cause mortality than to clinical outcomes more likely associated with successful decongestion, such as HF hospitalization, Dr. Bozkurt proposed.

The trial’s pragmatic design, however, made it more feasible to focus on all-cause mortality and less practical to use measures of successful decongestion, such as volume loss or reduction in natriuretic peptide levels, she observed. Those are endpoints of special interest when diuretics are compared, “especially for the subgroup of patients who are diuretic resistant.”

Over the last 20 years or so, “we’ve learned that hospitalized heart failure is a very different disease process with a different natural history,” observed Clyde W. Yancy, MD, MSc, Northwestern University, Chicago, who was not part of the current study.

“So, the idea that something as nuanced as choice of one loop diuretic over the other, in that setting, would be sufficient to change the natural history, may be still a high bar for us,” he said in an interview.

“Based on these data, one would have to argue that whichever loop diuretic you select for the hospitalized patient – and a lot of that is driven by market exigencies right now – it turns out that the response is indistinguishable,” Dr. Yancy said. “That means  if your hospital happens to have furosemide on the formulary, use it. If furosemide is not available but torsemide is available, use it.”

Dr. Yancy said he’d like to see a trial similar to TRANSFORM-HF but in outpatients receiving today’s guideline-directed medical therapy, which includes the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, drugs that increase the fractional excretion of sodium and have a “diureticlike” effect.

Such a trial, he said, would explore “the combination of not one, or two, but three agents with a diuretic effect – a loop diuretic, a mineralocorticoid antagonist, and an SGLT2 inhibitor – in ambulatory, optimized patients. It might make a difference.”

HF regardless of EF

The trial enrolled patients hospitalized with worsening or new-onset HF with a plan for long-term loop diuretic therapy who had either an EF of 40% or lower or, regardless of EF, elevated natriuretic peptide levels when hospitalized.

Of the 2,859 participants, whose mean age was about 65 years, about 36% were women and 34% African American. Overall, 1,428 were assigned to receive furosemide as their initial oral diuretic and 1,431 patients were assigned to the torsemide-first strategy.

The rate of death from any cause in both groups was 17 per 100 patient-years at a median of 17.4 months. The hazard ratio for torsemide vs. furosemide was 1.02 (95% confidence interval, 0.89-1.18; P = .77).

The corresponding HR at 12 months for all-cause death or hospitalization was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.83-1.02;  P = .11). The relative risk for any hospitalization was 0.94 (95% CI, 0.84-1.07).

Pragmatic design: Other implications

Dosing was left to clinician discretion in the open-label study, as was whether patients maintained their assigned drug or switched over to the other agent. Indeed, 5.4% of patients crossed over to the other loop diuretic, and 2.8% went off loop diuretics entirely between in-hospital randomization and discharge, Dr. Mentz reported. By day 30, 6.7% had crossed over, and 7% had stopped taking loop diuretics.

The diuretic crossovers and discontinuations, Dr. Mentz said, likely biased the trial’s outcomes, such that the two strategies performed about equally well. Efforts were made, however, to at least partially overcome that limitation.

“We put measures in place to support adherence – sending letters to their primary doctors, giving them a wallet card so they would know which therapy they were on, having conversations about the importance of trying to stay on the randomized therapy,” Dr. Mentz said in an interview. Still, some clinicians saw differences between the two agents that prompted them, at some point, to switch patients from one loop diuretic to the other.

But interestingly, Dr. Mentz reported, the two strategies did not significantly differ in all-cause mortality or the composite of all-cause mortality or hospitalization in analysis by intention to treat.

Dr. Mentz discloses receiving honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bayer/Merck, Boehringer Ingelheim/Lilly, Cytokinetics, Pharmacosmos, Respicardia, Windtree Therapeutics, and Zoll; and research grants from American Regent and Novartis. Dr. Bozkurt discloses receiving honoraria from AstraZeneca, Baxter Health Care, and Sanofi Aventis and having other relationships with Renovacor, Respicardia, Abbott Vascular, Liva Nova, Vifor, and Cardurion. Dr. Yancy discloses a modest relationship with Abbott.

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

CHICAGO – Systematic mortality-risk assessment of patients who presented to hospital emergency departments for acute heart failure led to better patient outcomes in a controlled Canadian trial with more than 5,000 patients.

Thirty days after patients presented, the incidence of death from any cause or hospitalization for cardiovascular causes – one of two primary endpoints in the COACH study – was 12.1% among patients who underwent acute risk assessment and 14.5% in control patients who did not undergo this assessment, which translated into an adjusted, significant 12% relative risk reduction for the patients who underwent systematic assessment, Douglas S. Lee, MD, PhD, said at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The study’s second primary endpoint, the incidence of the same combined outcome 20 months after initial presentation, was 54.4% among the 2,480 patients assessed with the risk-assessment tool and 56.2% in the 2,972 controls, a significant, adjusted relative risk reduction of 5%.

This benefit was primarily driven by reductions in cardiovascular hospitalizations, which fell by an adjusted 16% in the intervention group compared with controls, and more specifically by hospitalizations for heart failure, which tallied a relative 20% less with the intervention. Both were significant between-group differences.

The other portion of the combined endpoint, all-cause mortality, was not significantly different between the patients who underwent the systematic emergency department assessment and the controls who were managed using usual emergency-department protocols.

Simultaneous with the report, the results also appeared online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

A pathway for early discharge and improved outcomes

“Implementation of this approach may lead to a pathway for early discharge from the hospital or emergency department, and improved patient outcomes,” said Dr. Lee, a professor at the University of Toronto, and a senior core scientist at the ICES Cardiovascular Research Program in Toronto.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“The treatment effect on the primary process outcome – patients admitted or discharged – will add useful insights into how intervention may improve,” commented Harriette Van Spall, MD, who was designated discussant for the report. The findings “fill an important knowledge gap,” added Dr. Van Spall, a cardiologist at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont. The results “have important implications for health resource utilization,” she said.

The risk assessment tool used in the study is called the Emergency Heart failure Mortality Risk Grade for 30-day mortality (EHMRG30-ST), which was devised and validated by Dr. Lee and his associates. The assessment tool uses 11 clinical variables that include age, systolic blood pressure, heart rate, oxygen saturation, potassium and creatinine levels, and presence of ST depression on a 12-lead ECG.

The study design recommended that patients be discharged early and receive standardized transitional care as outpatients if they had a low risk of death within 7 days and within 30 days as estimated by the EHMRG30-ST. The protocol recommended that patients scored as high risk should be admitted to the hospital, and that clinicians use their clinical judgment for intermediate-risk patients but favor admission for intermediate to high risk and discharge for low to intermediate risk. The study ran at 10 hospitals in Ontario. Initially, all 10 hospitals assessed patients by usual care, and then, over time, each hospital began using the tool so that by the end of the study all 10 hospitals employed it. Among the 2,480 patients seen during the active phase, 2,442 actually underwent assessment, with 24% rated as low risk, 32% rated as intermediate risk, and 44% judged to have high risk.

The researchers also ran risk assessments retrospectively on the controls, who showed a roughly similar risk distribution, with 18% low risk, 28% intermediate risk, and 54% high risk.

The patients averaged 78 years of age, 55% were men, about 40% had diabetes, and about 64% had a prior heart failure diagnosis.



Heart failure admissions have become ‘a big deal’

Emergency department clinicians and heart failure cardiologists “have worked together for a long time” when making decisions about which patients with acute heart failure need hospital admission, commented Mary N. Walsh, MD, medical director of the heart failure and cardiac transplantation programs at Ascension St. Vincent Heart Center in Indianapolis. These decisions “became a big deal” a decade ago when the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services launched the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program that began to penalize hospitals for high rates of hospital readmissions for several conditions including heart failure, she said in an interview.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“If a heart failure patient is not admitted, they can’t be readmitted,” Dr. Walsh noted.

“Many risk-assessment tools exist for patients once they are hospitalized, but these tools have not been used in emergency departments. The take-home message is that we need to start risk assessment sooner, in the emergency department,” she said.

But the specific approach tested in the COACH trial needs more study and may need further tweaking to work in the United States, where it is not clear who would pay for a program like the one tested in the trial. Canada’s unified health care payment system makes the COACH approach more financially feasible, Dr. Walsh commented.

COACH received no commercial funding. Dr. Lee, Dr. Van Spall, and Dr. Walsh had no disclosures.

CHICAGO – Systematic mortality-risk assessment of patients who presented to hospital emergency departments for acute heart failure led to better patient outcomes in a controlled Canadian trial with more than 5,000 patients.

Thirty days after patients presented, the incidence of death from any cause or hospitalization for cardiovascular causes – one of two primary endpoints in the COACH study – was 12.1% among patients who underwent acute risk assessment and 14.5% in control patients who did not undergo this assessment, which translated into an adjusted, significant 12% relative risk reduction for the patients who underwent systematic assessment, Douglas S. Lee, MD, PhD, said at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The study’s second primary endpoint, the incidence of the same combined outcome 20 months after initial presentation, was 54.4% among the 2,480 patients assessed with the risk-assessment tool and 56.2% in the 2,972 controls, a significant, adjusted relative risk reduction of 5%.

This benefit was primarily driven by reductions in cardiovascular hospitalizations, which fell by an adjusted 16% in the intervention group compared with controls, and more specifically by hospitalizations for heart failure, which tallied a relative 20% less with the intervention. Both were significant between-group differences.

The other portion of the combined endpoint, all-cause mortality, was not significantly different between the patients who underwent the systematic emergency department assessment and the controls who were managed using usual emergency-department protocols.

Simultaneous with the report, the results also appeared online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

A pathway for early discharge and improved outcomes

“Implementation of this approach may lead to a pathway for early discharge from the hospital or emergency department, and improved patient outcomes,” said Dr. Lee, a professor at the University of Toronto, and a senior core scientist at the ICES Cardiovascular Research Program in Toronto.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“The treatment effect on the primary process outcome – patients admitted or discharged – will add useful insights into how intervention may improve,” commented Harriette Van Spall, MD, who was designated discussant for the report. The findings “fill an important knowledge gap,” added Dr. Van Spall, a cardiologist at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont. The results “have important implications for health resource utilization,” she said.

The risk assessment tool used in the study is called the Emergency Heart failure Mortality Risk Grade for 30-day mortality (EHMRG30-ST), which was devised and validated by Dr. Lee and his associates. The assessment tool uses 11 clinical variables that include age, systolic blood pressure, heart rate, oxygen saturation, potassium and creatinine levels, and presence of ST depression on a 12-lead ECG.

The study design recommended that patients be discharged early and receive standardized transitional care as outpatients if they had a low risk of death within 7 days and within 30 days as estimated by the EHMRG30-ST. The protocol recommended that patients scored as high risk should be admitted to the hospital, and that clinicians use their clinical judgment for intermediate-risk patients but favor admission for intermediate to high risk and discharge for low to intermediate risk. The study ran at 10 hospitals in Ontario. Initially, all 10 hospitals assessed patients by usual care, and then, over time, each hospital began using the tool so that by the end of the study all 10 hospitals employed it. Among the 2,480 patients seen during the active phase, 2,442 actually underwent assessment, with 24% rated as low risk, 32% rated as intermediate risk, and 44% judged to have high risk.

The researchers also ran risk assessments retrospectively on the controls, who showed a roughly similar risk distribution, with 18% low risk, 28% intermediate risk, and 54% high risk.

The patients averaged 78 years of age, 55% were men, about 40% had diabetes, and about 64% had a prior heart failure diagnosis.



Heart failure admissions have become ‘a big deal’

Emergency department clinicians and heart failure cardiologists “have worked together for a long time” when making decisions about which patients with acute heart failure need hospital admission, commented Mary N. Walsh, MD, medical director of the heart failure and cardiac transplantation programs at Ascension St. Vincent Heart Center in Indianapolis. These decisions “became a big deal” a decade ago when the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services launched the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program that began to penalize hospitals for high rates of hospital readmissions for several conditions including heart failure, she said in an interview.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“If a heart failure patient is not admitted, they can’t be readmitted,” Dr. Walsh noted.

“Many risk-assessment tools exist for patients once they are hospitalized, but these tools have not been used in emergency departments. The take-home message is that we need to start risk assessment sooner, in the emergency department,” she said.

But the specific approach tested in the COACH trial needs more study and may need further tweaking to work in the United States, where it is not clear who would pay for a program like the one tested in the trial. Canada’s unified health care payment system makes the COACH approach more financially feasible, Dr. Walsh commented.

COACH received no commercial funding. Dr. Lee, Dr. Van Spall, and Dr. Walsh had no disclosures.

CHICAGO – Systematic mortality-risk assessment of patients who presented to hospital emergency departments for acute heart failure led to better patient outcomes in a controlled Canadian trial with more than 5,000 patients.

Thirty days after patients presented, the incidence of death from any cause or hospitalization for cardiovascular causes – one of two primary endpoints in the COACH study – was 12.1% among patients who underwent acute risk assessment and 14.5% in control patients who did not undergo this assessment, which translated into an adjusted, significant 12% relative risk reduction for the patients who underwent systematic assessment, Douglas S. Lee, MD, PhD, said at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The study’s second primary endpoint, the incidence of the same combined outcome 20 months after initial presentation, was 54.4% among the 2,480 patients assessed with the risk-assessment tool and 56.2% in the 2,972 controls, a significant, adjusted relative risk reduction of 5%.

This benefit was primarily driven by reductions in cardiovascular hospitalizations, which fell by an adjusted 16% in the intervention group compared with controls, and more specifically by hospitalizations for heart failure, which tallied a relative 20% less with the intervention. Both were significant between-group differences.

The other portion of the combined endpoint, all-cause mortality, was not significantly different between the patients who underwent the systematic emergency department assessment and the controls who were managed using usual emergency-department protocols.

Simultaneous with the report, the results also appeared online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

A pathway for early discharge and improved outcomes

“Implementation of this approach may lead to a pathway for early discharge from the hospital or emergency department, and improved patient outcomes,” said Dr. Lee, a professor at the University of Toronto, and a senior core scientist at the ICES Cardiovascular Research Program in Toronto.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“The treatment effect on the primary process outcome – patients admitted or discharged – will add useful insights into how intervention may improve,” commented Harriette Van Spall, MD, who was designated discussant for the report. The findings “fill an important knowledge gap,” added Dr. Van Spall, a cardiologist at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont. The results “have important implications for health resource utilization,” she said.

The risk assessment tool used in the study is called the Emergency Heart failure Mortality Risk Grade for 30-day mortality (EHMRG30-ST), which was devised and validated by Dr. Lee and his associates. The assessment tool uses 11 clinical variables that include age, systolic blood pressure, heart rate, oxygen saturation, potassium and creatinine levels, and presence of ST depression on a 12-lead ECG.

The study design recommended that patients be discharged early and receive standardized transitional care as outpatients if they had a low risk of death within 7 days and within 30 days as estimated by the EHMRG30-ST. The protocol recommended that patients scored as high risk should be admitted to the hospital, and that clinicians use their clinical judgment for intermediate-risk patients but favor admission for intermediate to high risk and discharge for low to intermediate risk. The study ran at 10 hospitals in Ontario. Initially, all 10 hospitals assessed patients by usual care, and then, over time, each hospital began using the tool so that by the end of the study all 10 hospitals employed it. Among the 2,480 patients seen during the active phase, 2,442 actually underwent assessment, with 24% rated as low risk, 32% rated as intermediate risk, and 44% judged to have high risk.

The researchers also ran risk assessments retrospectively on the controls, who showed a roughly similar risk distribution, with 18% low risk, 28% intermediate risk, and 54% high risk.

The patients averaged 78 years of age, 55% were men, about 40% had diabetes, and about 64% had a prior heart failure diagnosis.



Heart failure admissions have become ‘a big deal’

Emergency department clinicians and heart failure cardiologists “have worked together for a long time” when making decisions about which patients with acute heart failure need hospital admission, commented Mary N. Walsh, MD, medical director of the heart failure and cardiac transplantation programs at Ascension St. Vincent Heart Center in Indianapolis. These decisions “became a big deal” a decade ago when the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services launched the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program that began to penalize hospitals for high rates of hospital readmissions for several conditions including heart failure, she said in an interview.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“If a heart failure patient is not admitted, they can’t be readmitted,” Dr. Walsh noted.

“Many risk-assessment tools exist for patients once they are hospitalized, but these tools have not been used in emergency departments. The take-home message is that we need to start risk assessment sooner, in the emergency department,” she said.

But the specific approach tested in the COACH trial needs more study and may need further tweaking to work in the United States, where it is not clear who would pay for a program like the one tested in the trial. Canada’s unified health care payment system makes the COACH approach more financially feasible, Dr. Walsh commented.

COACH received no commercial funding. Dr. Lee, Dr. Van Spall, and Dr. Walsh had no disclosures.

Cesarean birth is one of the most common major surgical procedures performed in developed countries¹ with over 1,170,000 cesarean births in the United States in 2021.² Many surgeons and anesthesiologists believe that Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) pathways improve surgical outcomes.^3,4 Important goals of ERAS include setting patient expectations for the surgical procedure, accelerating patient recovery to full function, and minimizing perioperative complications such as severe nausea, aspiration, surgical site infection, wound complications, and perioperative anemia. The ERAS Society in 2018^5-7 and the Society for Obstetric Anesthesia and Perinatology (SOAP) in 2021⁸ proposed ERAS pathways for cesarean birth. Both societies recommended that obstetric units consider adopting an ERAS pathway compatible with local clinical resources. In addition, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) has provided guidance for implementing ERAS pathways for gynecologic surgery.⁹ The consistent use of standardized protocols to improve surgical care in obstetrics should lead to a reduction in care variation and improve health equity outcomes.

The clinical interventions recommended for ERAS cesarean birth occur sequentially in the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative phases of care. The recommendations associated with each of these phases are reviewed below. It is important to note that each obstetric unit should use a multidisciplinary process to develop an ERAS pathway that best supports local practice given clinician preferences, patient characteristics, and resource availability.
 

Preoperative components of ERAS

Standardized patient education (SPE). SPE is an important component of ERAS, although evidence to support the recommendation is limited. At a minimum a written handout describing steps in the cesarean birth process, or a patient-education video should be part of patient education. The University of Michigan Medical Center has produced a 3-minute video for patients explaining ERAS cesarean birth.¹⁰ The University of Maryland Medical Center has produced a 2.5-minute video in English and Spanish, explaining ERAS cesarean birth for patients.¹¹ Some surgeons place a telephone call to patients the evening before surgery to help orient the patient to ERAS cesarean birth.

Breastfeeding education. An important goal of obstetric care is to optimize the rate of exclusive breastfeeding at birth. Breastfeeding education, including a commitment to support the initiation of breastfeeding within 1 hour of birth, may enhance the rate of exclusive breastfeeding. There are numerous videos available for patients about breastfeeding after cesarean birth (as an example, see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9iOGn85NdTg).

Limit fasting. In the past, surgical guidelines recommended fasting after midnight prior to surgery. The ERAS Society recommends that patients should be encouraged to drink clear fluids up to 2 hours before surgery and may have a light meal up to 6 hours before surgery (Part 1).

Carbohydrate loading. Surgery causes a metabolic stress that is increased by fasting. Carbohydrate loading prior to surgery reduces the magnitude of the catabolic state caused by the combination of surgery and fasting.¹² SOAP and the ERAS Society recommend oral carbohydrate fluid supplementation 2 hours before surgery for nondiabetic patients. SOAP suggests 32 oz of Gatorade or 16 oz of clear apple juice as options for carbohydrate loading. For diabetic patients, the carbohydrate load can be omitted. In fasting pregnant patients at term, gastric emptying was near complete 2 hours after consumption of 400 mL of a carbohydrate drink.¹³ In one study, consumption of 400 mL of a carbohydrate drink 2 hours before cesarean resulted in a 7% increase in the newborn blood glucose level at 20 min after delivery.¹⁴

Minimize preoperative anemia. Approximately 50% of pregnant women are iron deficient and approximately 10% are anemic in the third trimester.^15,16 Cesarean birth is associated with significant blood loss necessitating the need to optimize red blood cell mass before surgery. Measuring ferritin to identify patients with iron deficiency and aggressive iron replacement, including intravenous iron if necessary, will reduce the prevalence of anemia prior to cesarean birth.¹⁷ Another cause of anemia in pregnancy is vitamin B12 (cobalamin) deficiency. Low vitamin B12 is especially common in pregnant patients who have previously had bariatric surgery. One study reported that, of 113 pregnant patients who were, on average, 3 years from a bariatric surgery procedure, 12% had vitamin B12 circulating levels < 130 pg/mL.¹⁸ Among pregnant patients who are anemic, and do not have a hemoglobinopathy, measuring ferritin, folic acid, and vitamin B12 will help identify the cause of anemia and guide treatment.¹⁹

Optimize preoperative physical condition. Improving healthy behaviors and reducing unhealthy behaviors preoperatively may enhance patient recovery to full function. In the weeks before scheduled cesarean birth, cessation of the use of tobacco products, optimizing activity and improving diet quality, including increasing protein intake, may best prepare patients for the metabolic stress of surgery.

Continue to: Intraoperative components of ERAS...

Intraoperative components of ERAS

Reduce the risk of surgical site infection (SSI) and wound complications. Bundles that include antibiotics, chlorhexidine (or an alternative antibacterial soap) and clippers have been shown to reduce SSI.²⁰ Routine administration of preoperative antibiotics is a consensus recommendation and there is high adherence with this recommendation in the United States. Chlorhexidine-alcohol is the preferred solution for skin preparation. Vaginal preparation with povidine-iodine or chlorhexidine may be considered.⁶

Surgical technique. Blunt extension of a transverse hysterotomy may reduce blood loss. Closure of the hysterotomy incision in 2 layers is recommended to reduce uterine scar dehiscence in a subsequent pregnancy. If the patient has ≥2 cm of subcutaneous tissue, this layer should be approximated with sutures. Skin closure should be with subcuticular suture.⁶

Optimize uterotonic administration. Routine use of uterotonics reduces the risk of blood loss, transfusion, and postoperative anemia. There is high adherence with the use of uterotonic administration after birth in the United States.^6,8

Ensure normothermia. Many patients become hypothermic during a cesarean birth. Active warming of the patient with an in-line IV fluid warmer and forced air warming over the patient’s body can reduce the risk of hypothermia.⁸

Initiate multimodal anesthesia. Anesthesiologists often use intrathecal or epidural morphine to enhance analgesia. Ketorolac administration prior to completion of the cesarean procedure and perioperative administration of acetaminophen may reduce postoperative pain.⁸ The use of preoperative antiemetics will reduce intraoperative and postoperative nausea and vomiting.

Initiate VTE prophylaxis. Pneumatic compression stockings are recommended. Anticoagulation should not be routinely used for VTE prophylaxis.⁶

Postoperative components of ERAS

Patient education to prepare for discharge home when ready. Patient education focused on home when ready is important in preparing the patient for discharge home.⁷ Completion of required newborn testing, lactation education, and contraception planning plus coordination of newborn pediatric follow-up is necessary before discharge.

Support early return of bowel function. Early return of bowel function is best supported by a multimodal approach including initiation of clear fluid intake immediately following surgery, encouraging consumption of a regular diet within 2⁷ to 4 hours⁸ following surgery. Gum chewing for at least 5 minutes 3 times daily accelerates return of bowel function.⁸ In a meta-analysis of 10 randomized studies examining the effect of gum chewing after cesarean, the investigators reported that gum chewing shortened the time to passage of flatus and defecation.²¹

Early ambulation.

Sequentially advanced activity, starting with sitting on the edge of the bed, sitting in a chair, and ambulation within 8 hours of surgery, is recommended to facilitate faster recovery, reduce rates of complications, and enable transition to home.⁸

Early removal of the urinary catheter. It is recommended that the urinary catheter be removed within 12 hours after cesarean birth.⁸ Early removal of the urinary catheter increases patient mobility and reduces the length of hospitalization. Early removal of the urinary catheter may be associated with postoperative urinary retention and recatheterization in a small number of patients.

Prescribe routinely scheduled acetaminophen, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and ketorolac. A key component of ERAS cesarean birth is the standardized administration of nonopioid pain medicines, alternating doses of acetaminophen and an NSAID. ERAS cesarean birth is likely to result in a reduction in inpatient and postdischarge opioid use.^22-24

VTE prophylaxis. Pneumatic compression stockings are recommended. Anticoagulation should not be routinely used for VTE prophylaxis.⁸

Auditing and reporting adherence with components of ERAS

In clinical practice there may be a gap between a clinician’s subjective perception of their performance and an independent audit of their clinical performance. ERAS pathways should be implemented with a commitment to performing audits and providing quantitative feedback to clinicians. Consistent use of measurement, feedback, and coaching can improve performance and reduce variation among individual clinicians. As an example, in one study of the use of a surgical safety checklist, 99% of the surgeons reported that they routinely used a surgical safety checklist, but the audit showed that the checklist was used in only 60% of cases.²⁵ Gaps between self-reported performance and audited performance are common in clinical practice. Audits with feedback are critical to improving adherence with the components of an ERAS pathway.

Three independent systematic reviews and meta-analyses report that ERAS pathways reduce hospital length of stay without increasing the readmission rate.^26-28 One meta-analysis reported that ERAS may also reduce time to first mobilization and result in earlier removal of the urinary catheter.²⁶ ERAS pathways also may reduce postoperative complications, lower pain scores, and decrease opioid use.²⁷ The general consensus among quality and safety experts is that reducing variation through standardization of pathways is generally associated with improved quality and enhanced safety. ERAS pathways have been widely accepted in multiple surgical fields. ERAS pathways should become the standard for performing cesarean procedures.●

Cesarean birth is one of the most common major surgical procedures performed in developed countries¹ with over 1,170,000 cesarean births in the United States in 2021.² Many surgeons and anesthesiologists believe that Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) pathways improve surgical outcomes.^3,4 Important goals of ERAS include setting patient expectations for the surgical procedure, accelerating patient recovery to full function, and minimizing perioperative complications such as severe nausea, aspiration, surgical site infection, wound complications, and perioperative anemia. The ERAS Society in 2018^5-7 and the Society for Obstetric Anesthesia and Perinatology (SOAP) in 2021⁸ proposed ERAS pathways for cesarean birth. Both societies recommended that obstetric units consider adopting an ERAS pathway compatible with local clinical resources. In addition, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) has provided guidance for implementing ERAS pathways for gynecologic surgery.⁹ The consistent use of standardized protocols to improve surgical care in obstetrics should lead to a reduction in care variation and improve health equity outcomes.

The clinical interventions recommended for ERAS cesarean birth occur sequentially in the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative phases of care. The recommendations associated with each of these phases are reviewed below. It is important to note that each obstetric unit should use a multidisciplinary process to develop an ERAS pathway that best supports local practice given clinician preferences, patient characteristics, and resource availability.
 

Preoperative components of ERAS

Standardized patient education (SPE). SPE is an important component of ERAS, although evidence to support the recommendation is limited. At a minimum a written handout describing steps in the cesarean birth process, or a patient-education video should be part of patient education. The University of Michigan Medical Center has produced a 3-minute video for patients explaining ERAS cesarean birth.¹⁰ The University of Maryland Medical Center has produced a 2.5-minute video in English and Spanish, explaining ERAS cesarean birth for patients.¹¹ Some surgeons place a telephone call to patients the evening before surgery to help orient the patient to ERAS cesarean birth.

Breastfeeding education. An important goal of obstetric care is to optimize the rate of exclusive breastfeeding at birth. Breastfeeding education, including a commitment to support the initiation of breastfeeding within 1 hour of birth, may enhance the rate of exclusive breastfeeding. There are numerous videos available for patients about breastfeeding after cesarean birth (as an example, see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9iOGn85NdTg).

Limit fasting. In the past, surgical guidelines recommended fasting after midnight prior to surgery. The ERAS Society recommends that patients should be encouraged to drink clear fluids up to 2 hours before surgery and may have a light meal up to 6 hours before surgery (Part 1).

Carbohydrate loading. Surgery causes a metabolic stress that is increased by fasting. Carbohydrate loading prior to surgery reduces the magnitude of the catabolic state caused by the combination of surgery and fasting.¹² SOAP and the ERAS Society recommend oral carbohydrate fluid supplementation 2 hours before surgery for nondiabetic patients. SOAP suggests 32 oz of Gatorade or 16 oz of clear apple juice as options for carbohydrate loading. For diabetic patients, the carbohydrate load can be omitted. In fasting pregnant patients at term, gastric emptying was near complete 2 hours after consumption of 400 mL of a carbohydrate drink.¹³ In one study, consumption of 400 mL of a carbohydrate drink 2 hours before cesarean resulted in a 7% increase in the newborn blood glucose level at 20 min after delivery.¹⁴

Minimize preoperative anemia. Approximately 50% of pregnant women are iron deficient and approximately 10% are anemic in the third trimester.^15,16 Cesarean birth is associated with significant blood loss necessitating the need to optimize red blood cell mass before surgery. Measuring ferritin to identify patients with iron deficiency and aggressive iron replacement, including intravenous iron if necessary, will reduce the prevalence of anemia prior to cesarean birth.¹⁷ Another cause of anemia in pregnancy is vitamin B12 (cobalamin) deficiency. Low vitamin B12 is especially common in pregnant patients who have previously had bariatric surgery. One study reported that, of 113 pregnant patients who were, on average, 3 years from a bariatric surgery procedure, 12% had vitamin B12 circulating levels < 130 pg/mL.¹⁸ Among pregnant patients who are anemic, and do not have a hemoglobinopathy, measuring ferritin, folic acid, and vitamin B12 will help identify the cause of anemia and guide treatment.¹⁹

Optimize preoperative physical condition. Improving healthy behaviors and reducing unhealthy behaviors preoperatively may enhance patient recovery to full function. In the weeks before scheduled cesarean birth, cessation of the use of tobacco products, optimizing activity and improving diet quality, including increasing protein intake, may best prepare patients for the metabolic stress of surgery.

Continue to: Intraoperative components of ERAS...

Intraoperative components of ERAS

Reduce the risk of surgical site infection (SSI) and wound complications. Bundles that include antibiotics, chlorhexidine (or an alternative antibacterial soap) and clippers have been shown to reduce SSI.²⁰ Routine administration of preoperative antibiotics is a consensus recommendation and there is high adherence with this recommendation in the United States. Chlorhexidine-alcohol is the preferred solution for skin preparation. Vaginal preparation with povidine-iodine or chlorhexidine may be considered.⁶

Surgical technique. Blunt extension of a transverse hysterotomy may reduce blood loss. Closure of the hysterotomy incision in 2 layers is recommended to reduce uterine scar dehiscence in a subsequent pregnancy. If the patient has ≥2 cm of subcutaneous tissue, this layer should be approximated with sutures. Skin closure should be with subcuticular suture.⁶

Optimize uterotonic administration. Routine use of uterotonics reduces the risk of blood loss, transfusion, and postoperative anemia. There is high adherence with the use of uterotonic administration after birth in the United States.^6,8

Ensure normothermia. Many patients become hypothermic during a cesarean birth. Active warming of the patient with an in-line IV fluid warmer and forced air warming over the patient’s body can reduce the risk of hypothermia.⁸

Initiate multimodal anesthesia. Anesthesiologists often use intrathecal or epidural morphine to enhance analgesia. Ketorolac administration prior to completion of the cesarean procedure and perioperative administration of acetaminophen may reduce postoperative pain.⁸ The use of preoperative antiemetics will reduce intraoperative and postoperative nausea and vomiting.

Initiate VTE prophylaxis. Pneumatic compression stockings are recommended. Anticoagulation should not be routinely used for VTE prophylaxis.⁶

Postoperative components of ERAS

Patient education to prepare for discharge home when ready. Patient education focused on home when ready is important in preparing the patient for discharge home.⁷ Completion of required newborn testing, lactation education, and contraception planning plus coordination of newborn pediatric follow-up is necessary before discharge.

Support early return of bowel function. Early return of bowel function is best supported by a multimodal approach including initiation of clear fluid intake immediately following surgery, encouraging consumption of a regular diet within 2⁷ to 4 hours⁸ following surgery. Gum chewing for at least 5 minutes 3 times daily accelerates return of bowel function.⁸ In a meta-analysis of 10 randomized studies examining the effect of gum chewing after cesarean, the investigators reported that gum chewing shortened the time to passage of flatus and defecation.²¹

Early ambulation.

Sequentially advanced activity, starting with sitting on the edge of the bed, sitting in a chair, and ambulation within 8 hours of surgery, is recommended to facilitate faster recovery, reduce rates of complications, and enable transition to home.⁸

Early removal of the urinary catheter. It is recommended that the urinary catheter be removed within 12 hours after cesarean birth.⁸ Early removal of the urinary catheter increases patient mobility and reduces the length of hospitalization. Early removal of the urinary catheter may be associated with postoperative urinary retention and recatheterization in a small number of patients.

Prescribe routinely scheduled acetaminophen, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and ketorolac. A key component of ERAS cesarean birth is the standardized administration of nonopioid pain medicines, alternating doses of acetaminophen and an NSAID. ERAS cesarean birth is likely to result in a reduction in inpatient and postdischarge opioid use.^22-24

VTE prophylaxis. Pneumatic compression stockings are recommended. Anticoagulation should not be routinely used for VTE prophylaxis.⁸

Auditing and reporting adherence with components of ERAS

In clinical practice there may be a gap between a clinician’s subjective perception of their performance and an independent audit of their clinical performance. ERAS pathways should be implemented with a commitment to performing audits and providing quantitative feedback to clinicians. Consistent use of measurement, feedback, and coaching can improve performance and reduce variation among individual clinicians. As an example, in one study of the use of a surgical safety checklist, 99% of the surgeons reported that they routinely used a surgical safety checklist, but the audit showed that the checklist was used in only 60% of cases.²⁵ Gaps between self-reported performance and audited performance are common in clinical practice. Audits with feedback are critical to improving adherence with the components of an ERAS pathway.

Three independent systematic reviews and meta-analyses report that ERAS pathways reduce hospital length of stay without increasing the readmission rate.^26-28 One meta-analysis reported that ERAS may also reduce time to first mobilization and result in earlier removal of the urinary catheter.²⁶ ERAS pathways also may reduce postoperative complications, lower pain scores, and decrease opioid use.²⁷ The general consensus among quality and safety experts is that reducing variation through standardization of pathways is generally associated with improved quality and enhanced safety. ERAS pathways have been widely accepted in multiple surgical fields. ERAS pathways should become the standard for performing cesarean procedures.●

Cesarean birth is one of the most common major surgical procedures performed in developed countries¹ with over 1,170,000 cesarean births in the United States in 2021.² Many surgeons and anesthesiologists believe that Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) pathways improve surgical outcomes.^3,4 Important goals of ERAS include setting patient expectations for the surgical procedure, accelerating patient recovery to full function, and minimizing perioperative complications such as severe nausea, aspiration, surgical site infection, wound complications, and perioperative anemia. The ERAS Society in 2018^5-7 and the Society for Obstetric Anesthesia and Perinatology (SOAP) in 2021⁸ proposed ERAS pathways for cesarean birth. Both societies recommended that obstetric units consider adopting an ERAS pathway compatible with local clinical resources. In addition, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) has provided guidance for implementing ERAS pathways for gynecologic surgery.⁹ The consistent use of standardized protocols to improve surgical care in obstetrics should lead to a reduction in care variation and improve health equity outcomes.

The clinical interventions recommended for ERAS cesarean birth occur sequentially in the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative phases of care. The recommendations associated with each of these phases are reviewed below. It is important to note that each obstetric unit should use a multidisciplinary process to develop an ERAS pathway that best supports local practice given clinician preferences, patient characteristics, and resource availability.
 

Preoperative components of ERAS

Standardized patient education (SPE). SPE is an important component of ERAS, although evidence to support the recommendation is limited. At a minimum a written handout describing steps in the cesarean birth process, or a patient-education video should be part of patient education. The University of Michigan Medical Center has produced a 3-minute video for patients explaining ERAS cesarean birth.¹⁰ The University of Maryland Medical Center has produced a 2.5-minute video in English and Spanish, explaining ERAS cesarean birth for patients.¹¹ Some surgeons place a telephone call to patients the evening before surgery to help orient the patient to ERAS cesarean birth.

Breastfeeding education. An important goal of obstetric care is to optimize the rate of exclusive breastfeeding at birth. Breastfeeding education, including a commitment to support the initiation of breastfeeding within 1 hour of birth, may enhance the rate of exclusive breastfeeding. There are numerous videos available for patients about breastfeeding after cesarean birth (as an example, see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9iOGn85NdTg).

Limit fasting. In the past, surgical guidelines recommended fasting after midnight prior to surgery. The ERAS Society recommends that patients should be encouraged to drink clear fluids up to 2 hours before surgery and may have a light meal up to 6 hours before surgery (Part 1).

Carbohydrate loading. Surgery causes a metabolic stress that is increased by fasting. Carbohydrate loading prior to surgery reduces the magnitude of the catabolic state caused by the combination of surgery and fasting.¹² SOAP and the ERAS Society recommend oral carbohydrate fluid supplementation 2 hours before surgery for nondiabetic patients. SOAP suggests 32 oz of Gatorade or 16 oz of clear apple juice as options for carbohydrate loading. For diabetic patients, the carbohydrate load can be omitted. In fasting pregnant patients at term, gastric emptying was near complete 2 hours after consumption of 400 mL of a carbohydrate drink.¹³ In one study, consumption of 400 mL of a carbohydrate drink 2 hours before cesarean resulted in a 7% increase in the newborn blood glucose level at 20 min after delivery.¹⁴

Minimize preoperative anemia. Approximately 50% of pregnant women are iron deficient and approximately 10% are anemic in the third trimester.^15,16 Cesarean birth is associated with significant blood loss necessitating the need to optimize red blood cell mass before surgery. Measuring ferritin to identify patients with iron deficiency and aggressive iron replacement, including intravenous iron if necessary, will reduce the prevalence of anemia prior to cesarean birth.¹⁷ Another cause of anemia in pregnancy is vitamin B12 (cobalamin) deficiency. Low vitamin B12 is especially common in pregnant patients who have previously had bariatric surgery. One study reported that, of 113 pregnant patients who were, on average, 3 years from a bariatric surgery procedure, 12% had vitamin B12 circulating levels < 130 pg/mL.¹⁸ Among pregnant patients who are anemic, and do not have a hemoglobinopathy, measuring ferritin, folic acid, and vitamin B12 will help identify the cause of anemia and guide treatment.¹⁹

Optimize preoperative physical condition. Improving healthy behaviors and reducing unhealthy behaviors preoperatively may enhance patient recovery to full function. In the weeks before scheduled cesarean birth, cessation of the use of tobacco products, optimizing activity and improving diet quality, including increasing protein intake, may best prepare patients for the metabolic stress of surgery.

Continue to: Intraoperative components of ERAS...

Intraoperative components of ERAS

Reduce the risk of surgical site infection (SSI) and wound complications. Bundles that include antibiotics, chlorhexidine (or an alternative antibacterial soap) and clippers have been shown to reduce SSI.²⁰ Routine administration of preoperative antibiotics is a consensus recommendation and there is high adherence with this recommendation in the United States. Chlorhexidine-alcohol is the preferred solution for skin preparation. Vaginal preparation with povidine-iodine or chlorhexidine may be considered.⁶

Surgical technique. Blunt extension of a transverse hysterotomy may reduce blood loss. Closure of the hysterotomy incision in 2 layers is recommended to reduce uterine scar dehiscence in a subsequent pregnancy. If the patient has ≥2 cm of subcutaneous tissue, this layer should be approximated with sutures. Skin closure should be with subcuticular suture.⁶

Optimize uterotonic administration. Routine use of uterotonics reduces the risk of blood loss, transfusion, and postoperative anemia. There is high adherence with the use of uterotonic administration after birth in the United States.^6,8

Ensure normothermia. Many patients become hypothermic during a cesarean birth. Active warming of the patient with an in-line IV fluid warmer and forced air warming over the patient’s body can reduce the risk of hypothermia.⁸

Initiate multimodal anesthesia. Anesthesiologists often use intrathecal or epidural morphine to enhance analgesia. Ketorolac administration prior to completion of the cesarean procedure and perioperative administration of acetaminophen may reduce postoperative pain.⁸ The use of preoperative antiemetics will reduce intraoperative and postoperative nausea and vomiting.

Initiate VTE prophylaxis. Pneumatic compression stockings are recommended. Anticoagulation should not be routinely used for VTE prophylaxis.⁶

Postoperative components of ERAS

Patient education to prepare for discharge home when ready. Patient education focused on home when ready is important in preparing the patient for discharge home.⁷ Completion of required newborn testing, lactation education, and contraception planning plus coordination of newborn pediatric follow-up is necessary before discharge.

Support early return of bowel function. Early return of bowel function is best supported by a multimodal approach including initiation of clear fluid intake immediately following surgery, encouraging consumption of a regular diet within 2⁷ to 4 hours⁸ following surgery. Gum chewing for at least 5 minutes 3 times daily accelerates return of bowel function.⁸ In a meta-analysis of 10 randomized studies examining the effect of gum chewing after cesarean, the investigators reported that gum chewing shortened the time to passage of flatus and defecation.²¹

Early ambulation.

Sequentially advanced activity, starting with sitting on the edge of the bed, sitting in a chair, and ambulation within 8 hours of surgery, is recommended to facilitate faster recovery, reduce rates of complications, and enable transition to home.⁸

Early removal of the urinary catheter. It is recommended that the urinary catheter be removed within 12 hours after cesarean birth.⁸ Early removal of the urinary catheter increases patient mobility and reduces the length of hospitalization. Early removal of the urinary catheter may be associated with postoperative urinary retention and recatheterization in a small number of patients.

Prescribe routinely scheduled acetaminophen, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and ketorolac. A key component of ERAS cesarean birth is the standardized administration of nonopioid pain medicines, alternating doses of acetaminophen and an NSAID. ERAS cesarean birth is likely to result in a reduction in inpatient and postdischarge opioid use.^22-24

VTE prophylaxis. Pneumatic compression stockings are recommended. Anticoagulation should not be routinely used for VTE prophylaxis.⁸

Auditing and reporting adherence with components of ERAS

In clinical practice there may be a gap between a clinician’s subjective perception of their performance and an independent audit of their clinical performance. ERAS pathways should be implemented with a commitment to performing audits and providing quantitative feedback to clinicians. Consistent use of measurement, feedback, and coaching can improve performance and reduce variation among individual clinicians. As an example, in one study of the use of a surgical safety checklist, 99% of the surgeons reported that they routinely used a surgical safety checklist, but the audit showed that the checklist was used in only 60% of cases.²⁵ Gaps between self-reported performance and audited performance are common in clinical practice. Audits with feedback are critical to improving adherence with the components of an ERAS pathway.

Three independent systematic reviews and meta-analyses report that ERAS pathways reduce hospital length of stay without increasing the readmission rate.^26-28 One meta-analysis reported that ERAS may also reduce time to first mobilization and result in earlier removal of the urinary catheter.²⁶ ERAS pathways also may reduce postoperative complications, lower pain scores, and decrease opioid use.²⁷ The general consensus among quality and safety experts is that reducing variation through standardization of pathways is generally associated with improved quality and enhanced safety. ERAS pathways have been widely accepted in multiple surgical fields. ERAS pathways should become the standard for performing cesarean procedures.●

CASE Pregnant woman with a suspected parasitic infection

A 20-year-old, previously healthy, primigravid woman at 24 weeks’ gestation immigrated from Bolivia to the United States 3 days ago. On the morning of her international flight, she awoke to discover a small insect bite just below her left eye. She sought medical evaluation because her eyelid is now significantly swollen, and she has a headache, anorexia, fatigue, and a fever of 38.4° C. The examining physician ordered a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test for Trypanosoma cruzi, and the test is positive.

• How should this patient be treated during, and after, her delivery?


• Does this infection pose a risk to the newborn baby?


• What type of surveillance and treatment is indicated for the baby?

Chagas disease is common in South America, Central America, and Mexico and is well known to physicians in those countries. Clinicians who practice in the United States are much less familiar with the condition, but it is becoming increasingly common as a result of international travel within the Americas.

In this article, we review the interesting microbiology and epidemiology of Chagas disease, focus on its clinical manifestations, and discuss the most useful diagnostic tests for the illness. We conclude with a summary of preventive and treatment measures, with particular emphasis on managing the disease in pregnancy.

How Chagas disease is transmitted and who is at risk

Chagas disease was named in honor of a Brazilian physician, Carlos Chagas, who first described the condition in 1909. The disease is endemic in South America, Central America, and Mexico, and, recently, its prevalence has increased in the southern United States. Approximately 300,000 people in the United States are infected.^1,2

The illness is caused by the parasite Trypanosoma cruzi, and it is also known as American trypanosomiasis. The parasite is spread primarily by the bite of triatomine insects (“kissing bugs”). Approximately 60% of these insects are infected with the parasite. The insects live and thrive in the interspaces of mud walls (adobe homes) and thatched roofs. At night, the insects leave their darkened spaces and feed on the exposed skin of sleeping persons. They are particularly likely to bite the moist skin surfaces near the eye and mouth, and, as they do, they defecate and excrete the parasite into the blood vessels beneath the skin. Within the blood, the trypomastigotes invade various host cells. Inside the host cells, the organism transforms into an amastigote, which is the replicative form of the parasite. After several rounds of replication, the amastigote transforms back into a trypomastigote, bursts from the cell, and goes on to infect other host cells.¹

In addition to transmission by the insect vector, the parasite also can be transmitted by blood transfusion and organ donation. When contaminated blood is transfused, the risk of transmission is approximately 10% to 25% for each unit. Following implementation of effective screening programs by blood banks in Central America, South America, Mexico, and the United States, the risk of transmission from undetected infection is now approximately 1:200,000 per unit.

When a transplant procedure with an infected heart is performed, the risk of transmission is 75% to 100%. For liver transplants, the frequency of transmission is 0% to 29%; for kidney transplants, the risk of transmission is 0% to 19%.

Consumption of contaminated food or drink, particularly nonpasteurized items sold by street vendors, is also an important mechanism of transmission. In addition, transmission can occur as a result of laboratory exposure and by exposure to wild animals (racoons, opossums, marmosets, bats, armadillos) in forested areas. Finally, perinatal transmission now accounts for about 22% of infections. As effective vector control programs have been introduced in endemic areas, the proportion of cases caused by the insect vector has steadily decreased^1-3 (FIGURE 1).

Continue to: Clinical manifestations of Chagas disease...

Clinical manifestations of Chagas disease

Chagas disease occurs in 2 stages, acute and chronic.^1,2,4 In patients who are infected via an insect vector, the acute stage typically begins 1 to 2 weeks after the insect bite. This phase of the illness usually lasts 4 to 8 weeks and almost always resolves without treatment.

Some infected patients will be completely free of symptoms. Others will have manifestations such as:

• fever
• malaise
• headache
• hepatosplenomegaly
• lymphadenopathy
• swollen nodule at the site of infection

—Romaña’s sign, when the lesion is on the eyelid
—Chagoma, when the lesion is elsewhere on the skin.

Fortunately, less than 5% of patients will have severe illness, manifested by myocarditis, pericarditis, encephalitis, or meningitis.

People infected by ingestion of the parasite in food or drink often become more severely ill within 3 weeks. Their clinical manifestations include fever, vomiting, dyspnea, cough, chest pain, abdominal pain, and myalgias. Individuals infected through organ transplant or blood transfusion present more like those infected by the insect vector, but their illness may not develop until several weeks to 5 months after exposure.

In the absence of effective treatment, approximately 40% of patients with acute infection will develop chronic infection, often several decades later. The most common, and most ominous, feature of chronic illness is cardiac disease, experienced by about 30% of patients. Cardiac disease may be manifested as a serious arrhythmia, chest pain, congestive heart failure, or thromboembolism.

The other organ system that is likely to be adversely affected in patients with chronic disease is the gastrointestinal (GI) system, and approximately 10% of chronically infected patients experience this complication. Patients may develop a dilated esophagus, which leads to odynophagia and dysphagia. Diminished motility in other areas of the GI tract also may result in chronic constipation and even bowel obstruction. Chronically infected patients who are immunosuppressed due to HIV infection may become gravely ill as a result of encephalitis and brain abscesses. Cardiac and GI dysfunction is due to the parasite’s massive destruction of nerve endings.

Continue to: Making the diagnosis...

The diagnosis of Chagas disease begins with screening patients who have epidemiologic risk factors that place them at high risk for contracting the infection and at significantly increased risk for morbidity and mortality as a result of either the acute infection or the later chronic stage of infection. A thorough history is vital in the evaluation because the acute illness can have such vague clinical manifestations, and many patients remain asymptomatic until signs of chronic infection appear.

Risk factors that warrant screening include being born in a country endemic for Chagas disease, living in an endemic country for more than 6 months, living with someone who has a confirmed diagnosis, residing in a house made of natural materials (mud walls, thatched roof) in an endemic area, and a history of discovering the triatomine bug in the household.

Screening options include serology, microscopy, and PCR testing. Screening with a single, highly sensitive immunoglobulin G (IgG) serologic test is recommended for nonendemic clinical or community settings. In patients who were born in or who lived in an endemic area for more than 6 months, special consideration should be given to screening women of reproductive age, patients of all ages who were born to a mother with a confirmed diagnosis, individuals who were exposed to a triatomine insect, and people who are immunocompromised.⁵

A positive serologic test should be confirmed with a second assay based on a different antigen. Currently, 4 IgG tests have US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for diagnosis. If a patient has 2 positive serologic tests, the diagnosis is confirmed, regardless of clinical presentation. Discordant results warrant a third test to differentiate between positive and negative results (FIGURE 2).⁵ All patients with a confirmed diagnosis should have an electrocardiogram, echocardiogram, and abdominal computed tomography (CT) scan to assess for cardiac or GI abnormalities.

Organ recipients merit special consideration because, in these individuals, the late stages of Chagas disease may be fatal. In these patients, the preferred diagnostic test is PCR. For transplant patients, monitoring should occur every week for 2 months, bimonthly for the third month, and monthly for 6 months after transplantation. Routine monitoring is not recommended in patients with HIV infection who show no clinical signs of Chagas disease and who are not from endemic areas.

Treatment options

No vaccine or hyperimmune globulin can be used to treat Chagas disease. At this time, 2 antiparasitic drugs are available to treat the condition. One is benznidazole, which inhibits DNA, RNA, and protein synthesis within the microorganism. The medication is given in a dose of 5 to 8 mg/kg per day, divided into 2 doses, for 60 days. Benznidazole is FDA approved for the treatment of individuals older than age 2. It has been used off-label in children younger than 2 years of age. The drug is commercially available at http://www.benznidazoletablets.com.

Benznidazole causes multiple minor side effects and several very serious adverse effects. The serious adverse effects include acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis, toxic epidermal necrolysis, peripheral neuropathy, marrow suppression, and hepatotoxicity. Benznidazole has been teratogenic and carcinogenic in animal studies and should not be used in pregnancy.^1,3,6

The second drug is nifurtimox. This drug is FDA approved for the treatment of Chagas disease in adults and for newborns and young children. It is commercially available for pharmacies to purchase from several drug wholesalers. Nifurtimox produces reactive oxygen species and toxic intermediates that induce DNA damage and cause cell death of the microorganism. The appropriate oral dose is 8 to 10 mg/kg per day, divided into 3 to 4 equal doses. The duration of treatment is 60 to 90 days, depending on the patient’s response. Like benznidazole, nifurtimox also is highly toxic. Severe adverse effects include a hypersensitivity reaction, anaphylaxis, angioedema, syncope, seizures, and psychosis. Nifurtimox also is teratogenic and is contraindicated in pregnancy.^1,3,6

Clinicians who have questions about the use of either of these medications should contact the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Parasitic Diseases public inquiries telephone line at (404) 718-4745.

Potential for cure. When either benznidazole or nifurtimox is administered early in the course of a patient’s acute infection, the chance for complete cure is excellent. The same is true for early treatment of the infected neonate. When treatment is delayed, or if it cannot be completed because of intolerable adverse effects, the prognosis for complete cure is diminished.

In adults who have chronic disease, antiparasitic treatment is unlikely to be effective. In such a situation, secondary treatment is directed toward correction of heart failure, control of cardiac rhythm disturbances, and control of GI motility disorders. For both cardiac and GI conditions, medication and surgery may be indicated. Antiparasitic treatment is more effective in children with chronic disease but it is still not uniformly effective.^1,3,5,6

Preventing infection

Vector control is the key to preventing infection in areas where Chagas disease is endemic. One important, but often financially unaffordable, measure is construction of homes with building materials that do not support the growth of the triatomine insects that transmit the disease. A second critical preventive measure is the spraying of mud and thatched homes and surrounding areas with long-lasting insecticides. Pyrethroids are the preferred agents today. Alternative agents include fenitrothion and bendiocarb.¹

Other important preventive measures include:

• screening the blood supply for T cruzi and eliminating units contaminated with the parasite
• screening for the parasite in organs targeted for transplant
• screening infected women of reproductive age in endemic areas and treating those who are positive before they become pregnant; this measure may be almost 95% effective in preventing congenital infection
• using mosquito netting when housing is insecure and air conditioning is not available
• in endemic areas, avoiding unpasteurized fruit drinks and unwashed fruits and vegetables.

Unique considerations in pregnancy

Chagas disease does not cause specific anatomic birth defects. However, infected women are more likely to experience spontaneous abortion, preterm premature rupture of membranes, preterm labor, and fetal growth restriction. Overall, the risk of perinatal transmission is approximately 5%, but it may be higher in women who have a very high parasite load. Infected neonates who remain untreated are at risk for developing the serious sequelae of chronic infection. At least half of neonates who are infected will initially be asymptomatic. Therefore, screening of at-risk neonates is essential in order to implement effective treatment.^3,6

As noted earlier, the usual drugs used for treating Chagas disease should not be used in pregnancy. Nevertheless, it is still important to screen certain individuals for infection and, subsequently, target them and their neonates for treatment immediately following delivery. The following pregnant patients should be screened^5,6:

• women with clinical manifestations that suggest acute or chronic infection
• women from areas of the world in which Chagas disease is endemic, namely, from the southern United States to northern Chile and Argentina. Although the disease is endemic in 21 countries, the countries with the highest prevalence are Bolivia, Argentina, and Paraguay.
• newborns delivered to mothers who have been identified as infected.

As mentioned, several tests are available for screening: PCR, antibody assays, and examination of peripheral blood smears. At least 2 test results should be positive to confirm the diagnosis of infection. Neonates should be followed for 9 to 12 months after delivery to determine if perinatal transmission has occurred. Treatment with antiparasitic drugs is indicated for all infected children.⁵

CASE Continue surveillance during pregnancy, treat after delivery

This patient should not be treated during pregnancy because the 2 major antiparasitic drugs are teratogenic. Antenatally, she should be followed for evidence of preterm labor and fetal growth restriction. She also should have an electrocardiogram and echocardiogram to evaluate for cardiac disease. Immediately after delivery, the patient should be treated with benznidazole for 60 days. Breastfeeding is acceptable. Her neonate should be screened for infection for up to 9 months, following the algorithm outlined earlier (FIGURE 3), and treated if the surveillance tests are positive. ●

CASE Pregnant woman with a suspected parasitic infection

A 20-year-old, previously healthy, primigravid woman at 24 weeks’ gestation immigrated from Bolivia to the United States 3 days ago. On the morning of her international flight, she awoke to discover a small insect bite just below her left eye. She sought medical evaluation because her eyelid is now significantly swollen, and she has a headache, anorexia, fatigue, and a fever of 38.4° C. The examining physician ordered a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test for Trypanosoma cruzi, and the test is positive.

• How should this patient be treated during, and after, her delivery?


• Does this infection pose a risk to the newborn baby?


• What type of surveillance and treatment is indicated for the baby?

Chagas disease is common in South America, Central America, and Mexico and is well known to physicians in those countries. Clinicians who practice in the United States are much less familiar with the condition, but it is becoming increasingly common as a result of international travel within the Americas.

In this article, we review the interesting microbiology and epidemiology of Chagas disease, focus on its clinical manifestations, and discuss the most useful diagnostic tests for the illness. We conclude with a summary of preventive and treatment measures, with particular emphasis on managing the disease in pregnancy.

How Chagas disease is transmitted and who is at risk

Chagas disease was named in honor of a Brazilian physician, Carlos Chagas, who first described the condition in 1909. The disease is endemic in South America, Central America, and Mexico, and, recently, its prevalence has increased in the southern United States. Approximately 300,000 people in the United States are infected.^1,2

The illness is caused by the parasite Trypanosoma cruzi, and it is also known as American trypanosomiasis. The parasite is spread primarily by the bite of triatomine insects (“kissing bugs”). Approximately 60% of these insects are infected with the parasite. The insects live and thrive in the interspaces of mud walls (adobe homes) and thatched roofs. At night, the insects leave their darkened spaces and feed on the exposed skin of sleeping persons. They are particularly likely to bite the moist skin surfaces near the eye and mouth, and, as they do, they defecate and excrete the parasite into the blood vessels beneath the skin. Within the blood, the trypomastigotes invade various host cells. Inside the host cells, the organism transforms into an amastigote, which is the replicative form of the parasite. After several rounds of replication, the amastigote transforms back into a trypomastigote, bursts from the cell, and goes on to infect other host cells.¹

In addition to transmission by the insect vector, the parasite also can be transmitted by blood transfusion and organ donation. When contaminated blood is transfused, the risk of transmission is approximately 10% to 25% for each unit. Following implementation of effective screening programs by blood banks in Central America, South America, Mexico, and the United States, the risk of transmission from undetected infection is now approximately 1:200,000 per unit.

When a transplant procedure with an infected heart is performed, the risk of transmission is 75% to 100%. For liver transplants, the frequency of transmission is 0% to 29%; for kidney transplants, the risk of transmission is 0% to 19%.

Consumption of contaminated food or drink, particularly nonpasteurized items sold by street vendors, is also an important mechanism of transmission. In addition, transmission can occur as a result of laboratory exposure and by exposure to wild animals (racoons, opossums, marmosets, bats, armadillos) in forested areas. Finally, perinatal transmission now accounts for about 22% of infections. As effective vector control programs have been introduced in endemic areas, the proportion of cases caused by the insect vector has steadily decreased^1-3 (FIGURE 1).

Continue to: Clinical manifestations of Chagas disease...

Clinical manifestations of Chagas disease

Chagas disease occurs in 2 stages, acute and chronic.^1,2,4 In patients who are infected via an insect vector, the acute stage typically begins 1 to 2 weeks after the insect bite. This phase of the illness usually lasts 4 to 8 weeks and almost always resolves without treatment.

Some infected patients will be completely free of symptoms. Others will have manifestations such as:

• fever
• malaise
• headache
• hepatosplenomegaly
• lymphadenopathy
• swollen nodule at the site of infection

—Romaña’s sign, when the lesion is on the eyelid
—Chagoma, when the lesion is elsewhere on the skin.

Fortunately, less than 5% of patients will have severe illness, manifested by myocarditis, pericarditis, encephalitis, or meningitis.

People infected by ingestion of the parasite in food or drink often become more severely ill within 3 weeks. Their clinical manifestations include fever, vomiting, dyspnea, cough, chest pain, abdominal pain, and myalgias. Individuals infected through organ transplant or blood transfusion present more like those infected by the insect vector, but their illness may not develop until several weeks to 5 months after exposure.

In the absence of effective treatment, approximately 40% of patients with acute infection will develop chronic infection, often several decades later. The most common, and most ominous, feature of chronic illness is cardiac disease, experienced by about 30% of patients. Cardiac disease may be manifested as a serious arrhythmia, chest pain, congestive heart failure, or thromboembolism.

The other organ system that is likely to be adversely affected in patients with chronic disease is the gastrointestinal (GI) system, and approximately 10% of chronically infected patients experience this complication. Patients may develop a dilated esophagus, which leads to odynophagia and dysphagia. Diminished motility in other areas of the GI tract also may result in chronic constipation and even bowel obstruction. Chronically infected patients who are immunosuppressed due to HIV infection may become gravely ill as a result of encephalitis and brain abscesses. Cardiac and GI dysfunction is due to the parasite’s massive destruction of nerve endings.

Continue to: Making the diagnosis...

The diagnosis of Chagas disease begins with screening patients who have epidemiologic risk factors that place them at high risk for contracting the infection and at significantly increased risk for morbidity and mortality as a result of either the acute infection or the later chronic stage of infection. A thorough history is vital in the evaluation because the acute illness can have such vague clinical manifestations, and many patients remain asymptomatic until signs of chronic infection appear.

Risk factors that warrant screening include being born in a country endemic for Chagas disease, living in an endemic country for more than 6 months, living with someone who has a confirmed diagnosis, residing in a house made of natural materials (mud walls, thatched roof) in an endemic area, and a history of discovering the triatomine bug in the household.

Screening options include serology, microscopy, and PCR testing. Screening with a single, highly sensitive immunoglobulin G (IgG) serologic test is recommended for nonendemic clinical or community settings. In patients who were born in or who lived in an endemic area for more than 6 months, special consideration should be given to screening women of reproductive age, patients of all ages who were born to a mother with a confirmed diagnosis, individuals who were exposed to a triatomine insect, and people who are immunocompromised.⁵

A positive serologic test should be confirmed with a second assay based on a different antigen. Currently, 4 IgG tests have US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for diagnosis. If a patient has 2 positive serologic tests, the diagnosis is confirmed, regardless of clinical presentation. Discordant results warrant a third test to differentiate between positive and negative results (FIGURE 2).⁵ All patients with a confirmed diagnosis should have an electrocardiogram, echocardiogram, and abdominal computed tomography (CT) scan to assess for cardiac or GI abnormalities.

Organ recipients merit special consideration because, in these individuals, the late stages of Chagas disease may be fatal. In these patients, the preferred diagnostic test is PCR. For transplant patients, monitoring should occur every week for 2 months, bimonthly for the third month, and monthly for 6 months after transplantation. Routine monitoring is not recommended in patients with HIV infection who show no clinical signs of Chagas disease and who are not from endemic areas.

Treatment options

No vaccine or hyperimmune globulin can be used to treat Chagas disease. At this time, 2 antiparasitic drugs are available to treat the condition. One is benznidazole, which inhibits DNA, RNA, and protein synthesis within the microorganism. The medication is given in a dose of 5 to 8 mg/kg per day, divided into 2 doses, for 60 days. Benznidazole is FDA approved for the treatment of individuals older than age 2. It has been used off-label in children younger than 2 years of age. The drug is commercially available at http://www.benznidazoletablets.com.

Benznidazole causes multiple minor side effects and several very serious adverse effects. The serious adverse effects include acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis, toxic epidermal necrolysis, peripheral neuropathy, marrow suppression, and hepatotoxicity. Benznidazole has been teratogenic and carcinogenic in animal studies and should not be used in pregnancy.^1,3,6

The second drug is nifurtimox. This drug is FDA approved for the treatment of Chagas disease in adults and for newborns and young children. It is commercially available for pharmacies to purchase from several drug wholesalers. Nifurtimox produces reactive oxygen species and toxic intermediates that induce DNA damage and cause cell death of the microorganism. The appropriate oral dose is 8 to 10 mg/kg per day, divided into 3 to 4 equal doses. The duration of treatment is 60 to 90 days, depending on the patient’s response. Like benznidazole, nifurtimox also is highly toxic. Severe adverse effects include a hypersensitivity reaction, anaphylaxis, angioedema, syncope, seizures, and psychosis. Nifurtimox also is teratogenic and is contraindicated in pregnancy.^1,3,6

Clinicians who have questions about the use of either of these medications should contact the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Parasitic Diseases public inquiries telephone line at (404) 718-4745.

Potential for cure. When either benznidazole or nifurtimox is administered early in the course of a patient’s acute infection, the chance for complete cure is excellent. The same is true for early treatment of the infected neonate. When treatment is delayed, or if it cannot be completed because of intolerable adverse effects, the prognosis for complete cure is diminished.

In adults who have chronic disease, antiparasitic treatment is unlikely to be effective. In such a situation, secondary treatment is directed toward correction of heart failure, control of cardiac rhythm disturbances, and control of GI motility disorders. For both cardiac and GI conditions, medication and surgery may be indicated. Antiparasitic treatment is more effective in children with chronic disease but it is still not uniformly effective.^1,3,5,6

Preventing infection

Vector control is the key to preventing infection in areas where Chagas disease is endemic. One important, but often financially unaffordable, measure is construction of homes with building materials that do not support the growth of the triatomine insects that transmit the disease. A second critical preventive measure is the spraying of mud and thatched homes and surrounding areas with long-lasting insecticides. Pyrethroids are the preferred agents today. Alternative agents include fenitrothion and bendiocarb.¹

Other important preventive measures include:

• screening the blood supply for T cruzi and eliminating units contaminated with the parasite
• screening for the parasite in organs targeted for transplant
• screening infected women of reproductive age in endemic areas and treating those who are positive before they become pregnant; this measure may be almost 95% effective in preventing congenital infection
• using mosquito netting when housing is insecure and air conditioning is not available
• in endemic areas, avoiding unpasteurized fruit drinks and unwashed fruits and vegetables.

Unique considerations in pregnancy

Chagas disease does not cause specific anatomic birth defects. However, infected women are more likely to experience spontaneous abortion, preterm premature rupture of membranes, preterm labor, and fetal growth restriction. Overall, the risk of perinatal transmission is approximately 5%, but it may be higher in women who have a very high parasite load. Infected neonates who remain untreated are at risk for developing the serious sequelae of chronic infection. At least half of neonates who are infected will initially be asymptomatic. Therefore, screening of at-risk neonates is essential in order to implement effective treatment.^3,6

As noted earlier, the usual drugs used for treating Chagas disease should not be used in pregnancy. Nevertheless, it is still important to screen certain individuals for infection and, subsequently, target them and their neonates for treatment immediately following delivery. The following pregnant patients should be screened^5,6:

• women with clinical manifestations that suggest acute or chronic infection
• women from areas of the world in which Chagas disease is endemic, namely, from the southern United States to northern Chile and Argentina. Although the disease is endemic in 21 countries, the countries with the highest prevalence are Bolivia, Argentina, and Paraguay.
• newborns delivered to mothers who have been identified as infected.

As mentioned, several tests are available for screening: PCR, antibody assays, and examination of peripheral blood smears. At least 2 test results should be positive to confirm the diagnosis of infection. Neonates should be followed for 9 to 12 months after delivery to determine if perinatal transmission has occurred. Treatment with antiparasitic drugs is indicated for all infected children.⁵

CASE Continue surveillance during pregnancy, treat after delivery

This patient should not be treated during pregnancy because the 2 major antiparasitic drugs are teratogenic. Antenatally, she should be followed for evidence of preterm labor and fetal growth restriction. She also should have an electrocardiogram and echocardiogram to evaluate for cardiac disease. Immediately after delivery, the patient should be treated with benznidazole for 60 days. Breastfeeding is acceptable. Her neonate should be screened for infection for up to 9 months, following the algorithm outlined earlier (FIGURE 3), and treated if the surveillance tests are positive. ●

CASE Pregnant woman with a suspected parasitic infection

A 20-year-old, previously healthy, primigravid woman at 24 weeks’ gestation immigrated from Bolivia to the United States 3 days ago. On the morning of her international flight, she awoke to discover a small insect bite just below her left eye. She sought medical evaluation because her eyelid is now significantly swollen, and she has a headache, anorexia, fatigue, and a fever of 38.4° C. The examining physician ordered a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test for Trypanosoma cruzi, and the test is positive.

• How should this patient be treated during, and after, her delivery?


• Does this infection pose a risk to the newborn baby?


• What type of surveillance and treatment is indicated for the baby?

Chagas disease is common in South America, Central America, and Mexico and is well known to physicians in those countries. Clinicians who practice in the United States are much less familiar with the condition, but it is becoming increasingly common as a result of international travel within the Americas.

In this article, we review the interesting microbiology and epidemiology of Chagas disease, focus on its clinical manifestations, and discuss the most useful diagnostic tests for the illness. We conclude with a summary of preventive and treatment measures, with particular emphasis on managing the disease in pregnancy.

How Chagas disease is transmitted and who is at risk

Chagas disease was named in honor of a Brazilian physician, Carlos Chagas, who first described the condition in 1909. The disease is endemic in South America, Central America, and Mexico, and, recently, its prevalence has increased in the southern United States. Approximately 300,000 people in the United States are infected.^1,2

The illness is caused by the parasite Trypanosoma cruzi, and it is also known as American trypanosomiasis. The parasite is spread primarily by the bite of triatomine insects (“kissing bugs”). Approximately 60% of these insects are infected with the parasite. The insects live and thrive in the interspaces of mud walls (adobe homes) and thatched roofs. At night, the insects leave their darkened spaces and feed on the exposed skin of sleeping persons. They are particularly likely to bite the moist skin surfaces near the eye and mouth, and, as they do, they defecate and excrete the parasite into the blood vessels beneath the skin. Within the blood, the trypomastigotes invade various host cells. Inside the host cells, the organism transforms into an amastigote, which is the replicative form of the parasite. After several rounds of replication, the amastigote transforms back into a trypomastigote, bursts from the cell, and goes on to infect other host cells.¹

In addition to transmission by the insect vector, the parasite also can be transmitted by blood transfusion and organ donation. When contaminated blood is transfused, the risk of transmission is approximately 10% to 25% for each unit. Following implementation of effective screening programs by blood banks in Central America, South America, Mexico, and the United States, the risk of transmission from undetected infection is now approximately 1:200,000 per unit.

When a transplant procedure with an infected heart is performed, the risk of transmission is 75% to 100%. For liver transplants, the frequency of transmission is 0% to 29%; for kidney transplants, the risk of transmission is 0% to 19%.

Consumption of contaminated food or drink, particularly nonpasteurized items sold by street vendors, is also an important mechanism of transmission. In addition, transmission can occur as a result of laboratory exposure and by exposure to wild animals (racoons, opossums, marmosets, bats, armadillos) in forested areas. Finally, perinatal transmission now accounts for about 22% of infections. As effective vector control programs have been introduced in endemic areas, the proportion of cases caused by the insect vector has steadily decreased^1-3 (FIGURE 1).

Continue to: Clinical manifestations of Chagas disease...

Clinical manifestations of Chagas disease

Chagas disease occurs in 2 stages, acute and chronic.^1,2,4 In patients who are infected via an insect vector, the acute stage typically begins 1 to 2 weeks after the insect bite. This phase of the illness usually lasts 4 to 8 weeks and almost always resolves without treatment.

Some infected patients will be completely free of symptoms. Others will have manifestations such as:

• fever
• malaise
• headache
• hepatosplenomegaly
• lymphadenopathy
• swollen nodule at the site of infection

—Romaña’s sign, when the lesion is on the eyelid
—Chagoma, when the lesion is elsewhere on the skin.

Fortunately, less than 5% of patients will have severe illness, manifested by myocarditis, pericarditis, encephalitis, or meningitis.

People infected by ingestion of the parasite in food or drink often become more severely ill within 3 weeks. Their clinical manifestations include fever, vomiting, dyspnea, cough, chest pain, abdominal pain, and myalgias. Individuals infected through organ transplant or blood transfusion present more like those infected by the insect vector, but their illness may not develop until several weeks to 5 months after exposure.

In the absence of effective treatment, approximately 40% of patients with acute infection will develop chronic infection, often several decades later. The most common, and most ominous, feature of chronic illness is cardiac disease, experienced by about 30% of patients. Cardiac disease may be manifested as a serious arrhythmia, chest pain, congestive heart failure, or thromboembolism.

The other organ system that is likely to be adversely affected in patients with chronic disease is the gastrointestinal (GI) system, and approximately 10% of chronically infected patients experience this complication. Patients may develop a dilated esophagus, which leads to odynophagia and dysphagia. Diminished motility in other areas of the GI tract also may result in chronic constipation and even bowel obstruction. Chronically infected patients who are immunosuppressed due to HIV infection may become gravely ill as a result of encephalitis and brain abscesses. Cardiac and GI dysfunction is due to the parasite’s massive destruction of nerve endings.

Continue to: Making the diagnosis...

The diagnosis of Chagas disease begins with screening patients who have epidemiologic risk factors that place them at high risk for contracting the infection and at significantly increased risk for morbidity and mortality as a result of either the acute infection or the later chronic stage of infection. A thorough history is vital in the evaluation because the acute illness can have such vague clinical manifestations, and many patients remain asymptomatic until signs of chronic infection appear.

Risk factors that warrant screening include being born in a country endemic for Chagas disease, living in an endemic country for more than 6 months, living with someone who has a confirmed diagnosis, residing in a house made of natural materials (mud walls, thatched roof) in an endemic area, and a history of discovering the triatomine bug in the household.

Screening options include serology, microscopy, and PCR testing. Screening with a single, highly sensitive immunoglobulin G (IgG) serologic test is recommended for nonendemic clinical or community settings. In patients who were born in or who lived in an endemic area for more than 6 months, special consideration should be given to screening women of reproductive age, patients of all ages who were born to a mother with a confirmed diagnosis, individuals who were exposed to a triatomine insect, and people who are immunocompromised.⁵

A positive serologic test should be confirmed with a second assay based on a different antigen. Currently, 4 IgG tests have US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for diagnosis. If a patient has 2 positive serologic tests, the diagnosis is confirmed, regardless of clinical presentation. Discordant results warrant a third test to differentiate between positive and negative results (FIGURE 2).⁵ All patients with a confirmed diagnosis should have an electrocardiogram, echocardiogram, and abdominal computed tomography (CT) scan to assess for cardiac or GI abnormalities.

Organ recipients merit special consideration because, in these individuals, the late stages of Chagas disease may be fatal. In these patients, the preferred diagnostic test is PCR. For transplant patients, monitoring should occur every week for 2 months, bimonthly for the third month, and monthly for 6 months after transplantation. Routine monitoring is not recommended in patients with HIV infection who show no clinical signs of Chagas disease and who are not from endemic areas.

Treatment options

No vaccine or hyperimmune globulin can be used to treat Chagas disease. At this time, 2 antiparasitic drugs are available to treat the condition. One is benznidazole, which inhibits DNA, RNA, and protein synthesis within the microorganism. The medication is given in a dose of 5 to 8 mg/kg per day, divided into 2 doses, for 60 days. Benznidazole is FDA approved for the treatment of individuals older than age 2. It has been used off-label in children younger than 2 years of age. The drug is commercially available at http://www.benznidazoletablets.com.

Benznidazole causes multiple minor side effects and several very serious adverse effects. The serious adverse effects include acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis, toxic epidermal necrolysis, peripheral neuropathy, marrow suppression, and hepatotoxicity. Benznidazole has been teratogenic and carcinogenic in animal studies and should not be used in pregnancy.^1,3,6

The second drug is nifurtimox. This drug is FDA approved for the treatment of Chagas disease in adults and for newborns and young children. It is commercially available for pharmacies to purchase from several drug wholesalers. Nifurtimox produces reactive oxygen species and toxic intermediates that induce DNA damage and cause cell death of the microorganism. The appropriate oral dose is 8 to 10 mg/kg per day, divided into 3 to 4 equal doses. The duration of treatment is 60 to 90 days, depending on the patient’s response. Like benznidazole, nifurtimox also is highly toxic. Severe adverse effects include a hypersensitivity reaction, anaphylaxis, angioedema, syncope, seizures, and psychosis. Nifurtimox also is teratogenic and is contraindicated in pregnancy.^1,3,6

Clinicians who have questions about the use of either of these medications should contact the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Parasitic Diseases public inquiries telephone line at (404) 718-4745.

Potential for cure. When either benznidazole or nifurtimox is administered early in the course of a patient’s acute infection, the chance for complete cure is excellent. The same is true for early treatment of the infected neonate. When treatment is delayed, or if it cannot be completed because of intolerable adverse effects, the prognosis for complete cure is diminished.

In adults who have chronic disease, antiparasitic treatment is unlikely to be effective. In such a situation, secondary treatment is directed toward correction of heart failure, control of cardiac rhythm disturbances, and control of GI motility disorders. For both cardiac and GI conditions, medication and surgery may be indicated. Antiparasitic treatment is more effective in children with chronic disease but it is still not uniformly effective.^1,3,5,6

Preventing infection

Vector control is the key to preventing infection in areas where Chagas disease is endemic. One important, but often financially unaffordable, measure is construction of homes with building materials that do not support the growth of the triatomine insects that transmit the disease. A second critical preventive measure is the spraying of mud and thatched homes and surrounding areas with long-lasting insecticides. Pyrethroids are the preferred agents today. Alternative agents include fenitrothion and bendiocarb.¹

Other important preventive measures include:

• screening the blood supply for T cruzi and eliminating units contaminated with the parasite
• screening for the parasite in organs targeted for transplant
• screening infected women of reproductive age in endemic areas and treating those who are positive before they become pregnant; this measure may be almost 95% effective in preventing congenital infection
• using mosquito netting when housing is insecure and air conditioning is not available
• in endemic areas, avoiding unpasteurized fruit drinks and unwashed fruits and vegetables.

Unique considerations in pregnancy

Chagas disease does not cause specific anatomic birth defects. However, infected women are more likely to experience spontaneous abortion, preterm premature rupture of membranes, preterm labor, and fetal growth restriction. Overall, the risk of perinatal transmission is approximately 5%, but it may be higher in women who have a very high parasite load. Infected neonates who remain untreated are at risk for developing the serious sequelae of chronic infection. At least half of neonates who are infected will initially be asymptomatic. Therefore, screening of at-risk neonates is essential in order to implement effective treatment.^3,6

As noted earlier, the usual drugs used for treating Chagas disease should not be used in pregnancy. Nevertheless, it is still important to screen certain individuals for infection and, subsequently, target them and their neonates for treatment immediately following delivery. The following pregnant patients should be screened^5,6:

• women with clinical manifestations that suggest acute or chronic infection
• women from areas of the world in which Chagas disease is endemic, namely, from the southern United States to northern Chile and Argentina. Although the disease is endemic in 21 countries, the countries with the highest prevalence are Bolivia, Argentina, and Paraguay.
• newborns delivered to mothers who have been identified as infected.

As mentioned, several tests are available for screening: PCR, antibody assays, and examination of peripheral blood smears. At least 2 test results should be positive to confirm the diagnosis of infection. Neonates should be followed for 9 to 12 months after delivery to determine if perinatal transmission has occurred. Treatment with antiparasitic drugs is indicated for all infected children.⁵

CASE Continue surveillance during pregnancy, treat after delivery

This patient should not be treated during pregnancy because the 2 major antiparasitic drugs are teratogenic. Antenatally, she should be followed for evidence of preterm labor and fetal growth restriction. She also should have an electrocardiogram and echocardiogram to evaluate for cardiac disease. Immediately after delivery, the patient should be treated with benznidazole for 60 days. Breastfeeding is acceptable. Her neonate should be screened for infection for up to 9 months, following the algorithm outlined earlier (FIGURE 3), and treated if the surveillance tests are positive. ●

ILLUSTRATION: KATERYNA KON/SCIENCE PHOTO LIBRARY

Recurrent vulvovaginal candidiasis (RVVC) is a common cause of vaginitis and gynecologic morbidity in the United States and globally.¹ RVVC is defined as at least 3 laboratory-confirmed (for example, culture, nucleic acid amplification test [NAAT]) symptomatic episodes in the previous 12 months.² Common symptoms include vulvar pruritus, erythema, local skin and mucosal irritation, and abnormal discharge that may be thick and white or thin and watery.

The true incidence of RVVC is difficult to determine due to clinical diagnostic inaccuracy that results in over- and underdiagnosis of VVC and the general availability of over-the-counter topical antifungal medications that individuals who self-diagnose use to treat VVC.³

Causative organisms

Vulvovaginal yeast infections are caused by Candida species, a family of ubiquitous fungi that are a part of normal genitourinary and gastrointestinal flora.⁴ As such, these infections are commonly termed VVC. The presence of Candida species in the vagina without evidence of inflammation is not considered an infection but rather is more consistent with vaginal colonization. Inflammation in the setting of Candida species is what characterizes a true VVC infection.⁴

Candida albicans is responsible for the vast majority of VVC cases in the United States, with Candida glabrata accounting for most of the remaining infections.⁵ The majority of RVVC infections that are caused by C albicans are due to azole-sensitive strains (85%–95% of infections).²C glabrata, by contrast, is intrinsically resistant to azoles, which is thought primarily to be due to overexpression of drug efflux pumps that remove active drug from the cell.^6,7

Why does VVC reoccur?

The pathogenesis of RVVC is not well understood. Predisposing factors may include frequent or recent antibiotic use, poorly controlled diabetes, immunodeficiency, and other host factors. However, many cases of RVVC are idiopathic and no predisposing or underlying conditions are identified.⁷

The role of genetic factors in predisposing to or triggering RVVC is unclear and is an area of ongoing investigation.² Longitudinal DNA-typing studies suggest that recurrent disease is usually due to relapse from a persistent vaginal reservoir of organisms (that is, vaginal colonization) or endogenous reinfection with identical strains of susceptible C albicans.^8,9 Symptomatic VVC likely results when the symbiotic balance between yeast and the normal vaginal microbiota is disrupted (by either Candida species overgrowth or changes in host immune factors).² Less commonly, “recurrent” infections may in fact be due to azole-resistant Candida and non-Candida species.²

Clinical aspects and diagnosis of VVC

Signs and symptoms suggestive of VVC include vulvovaginal erythema, edema, vaginal discharge, vulvovaginal pruritus, and irritation. Given the lack of specificity of individual clinical findings in diagnosing VVC, or for distinguishing between other common causes of vaginitis (such as bacterial vaginosis and trichomoniasis), laboratory testing (that is, microscopy) should be performed in combination with a clinical exam in order to make a confident diagnosis of VVC.¹⁰ Self-diagnosis of VVC is inaccurate and is not recommended, as misdiagnosis and inappropriate treatment is cost ineffective, delays accurate diagnoses, and may contribute to growing azole resistance.

In patients with signs and symptoms of VVC, saline and potassium hydroxide microscopy should be performed.⁷ TABLE 1 summarizes other major diagnostic techniques for VVC.

Diagnostic considerations

Non-albicans Candida species, such as C glabrata, may be associated with minimally symptomatic or completely asymptomatic infections and may not be identified easily on wet mount as it does not form pseudohyphae or hyphae.¹¹ Therefore, culture and susceptibility or NAAT testing is highly recommended for patients who remain symptomatic and/or have a nondiagnostic microscopy and a normal vaginal pH.⁷

Treatment options

Prior to May 2022, there had been no drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to treat RVVC. The mainstay of treatment is long-term maintenance therapy to achieve mycologic remission (TABLE 2).

In general, recurrent episodes of VVC should be treated with a longer duration of therapy (for example, oral fluconazole 150 mg every 72 hours for a total of 3 doses or topical azole for 7–14 days).⁷ If recurrent maintenance/suppressive therapy is started, the induction phase should be longer as well, at least 10 to 14 days with a topical or oral azole followed by a 6-month or longer course of weekly oral or topical azole therapy (such as 6–12 months).^12,13

Patients with underlying immunodeficiency (such as poorly controlled diabetes, chronic corticosteroid treatment) may need prolonged courses of therapy. Correction of modifiable conditions and optimization of comorbidities should be prioritized—for example, optimized glucose control, weight loss, durable viral suppression, and so on. Of note, symptomatic VVC is more frequent among individuals with HIV and correlates with severity of immunodeficiency. Pharmacologic options for RVVC for individuals with HIV do not differ from standard recommendations.¹⁴

Fluconazole

Fluconazole is a safe, affordable, and convenient prescription oral medication that can be used for initial and maintenance/suppressive therapy.² Fluconazole levels in vaginal secretions remain at therapeutic concentrations for at least 72 hours after a 150-mg dose.¹⁵ Induction therapy consists of oral fluconazole 150 mg every 72 hours for a total of 3 doses, followed by a maintenance regimen of a once-weekly dose of oral fluconazole 150 mg for a total of 6 months. Unfortunately, up to 55% of patients will experience a relapse in symptoms.¹²

Routine liver function test monitoring is not indicated for fluconazole maintenance therapy, but it should be performed if patients are treated with daily or long-term alternative oral azole medications, such as ketoconazole and itraconazole.

During pregnancy, only topical azole therapy is recommended for use, given the potential risk for adverse fetal outcomes, such as spontaneous abortion and congenital malformations, with fetal exposure to oral fluconazole ingested by the pregnant person.¹⁶ Fluconazole is present in breast milk, but it is safe to use during lactation when used at recommended doses.¹⁷

Continue to: Options for fluconazole-resistant C albicans infection...

Options for fluconazole-resistant C albicans infection

Patients who have RVVC with frequent and/or prolonged use of fluconazole are at risk for developing azole-resistant isolates of C albicans.¹² For patients found to have azole-resistant infections, treatment options include increasing the azole dose based on isolate minimal inhibitory concentrations (MIC) to various antifungals, therapy with a non-fluconazole azole regimen, or switching to a different therapeutic drug class altogether.⁷

Options for non- albicans Candida species infection

Given the intrinsic resistance to azole therapy in some non-albicans Candida species (specifically C glabrata and Candida krusei), boric acid or nystatin regimens can be used. An induction course of vaginal boric acid is given as 600 mg per vagina daily for up to 14 days and is associated with a 70% rate of mycologic control.⁷ Boric acid is known to cause local irritation and dermatitis for both the patient and any sexual partners. If ingested orally, boric acid is associated with significant toxicity and even death.⁷

Vaginal nystatin also may be considered, with an induction course of 100,000 U for 14 days, with a similar regimen recommended for maintenance therapy. However, data are limited on maintenance regimens for RVVC due to non-albicans Candida species.²

Gentian violet

Gentian violet is a topical antiseptic agent that is available over the counter. Use of this agent is uncommon given the availability of highly effective azole-based therapy. Although useful due to its antipruritic properties, gentian violet can be messy to use and tends to stain clothing permanently.

Gentian violet use may be considered in cases of refractory RVVC with or without azole-resistant infections; it is applied as a 1% or 2% solution directly to affected areas for 10 to 14 days.¹⁸

Lactobacilli probiotics and dietary changes

Data that support the oral and/or vaginal use of probiotics that contain live lactobacilli are conflicting. In the absence of conclusive evidence to support probiotic use to treat and prevent RVVC, as well as variable quality of available products, use of these agents is not recommended.¹⁹

No controlled studies have evaluated the role of various diets in preventing RVVC; thus, no specific dietary changes are recommended.

Behavioral therapy

Available evidence does not support the treatment of sexual partners of patients with RVVC.⁷

Continue to: What’s new in treatment?...

Until recently, the main standard of care for RVVC has been oral fluconazole-based therapy. For patients whose symptoms do not respond to oral fluconazole therapy, oteseconazole is now available as a noninferior treatment option to fluconazole for both induction and maintenance therapy. Like other azoles, oteseconazole works by inhibiting a fungal enzyme (CYP51) that is essential in fungal cell membrane integrity and fungal growth.²⁰ Oteseconazole is a more selective inhibitor of the fungal CYP51 enzyme and has demonstrated excellent potency against Candida species in in vitro pharmacologic studies.²¹

In a phase 3 study that evaluated the safety and efficacy of oteseconazole in the treatment and prevention of RVVC, oteseconazole was found to be both safe and efficacious in both the induction and maintenance phases of treatment for RVVC.²⁰ In this trial, induction and maintenance with oteseconazole was compared with induction with fluconazole and placebo maintenance. Among the 185 participants with culture-verified RVVC, the oteseconazole regimen (n = 123) was associated with fewer recurrences of culture-verified VVC infections than was the fluconazole induction/placebo maintenance regimen (n = 62) during the 48-week maintenance phase of therapy (5% vs 42%).²⁰

Single- and dual-drug dosing regimens of oteseconazole are recommended based on previous trial data that compared safety and efficacy of oteseconazole versus fluconazole induction therapy and oteseconazole versus placebo maintenance therapy.²² However, widespread use of oteseconazole regimens are limited due to its higher costs and limited access to the drug outside of a research setting.²⁰

Single-drug induction therapy with oteseconazole consists of a single 600-mg oral dose on day 1 followed by a second dose of 450 mg orally on day 2. Starting on day 14, maintenance therapy starts with a single oral dose of 150 mg and is continued weekly for 11 weeks.²²

Dual-drug induction therapy consists of oral fluconazole 150 mg on days 1, 4, and 7 followed by daily dosing of oral oteseconazole 150 mg on days 14 through 20. Then, starting on day 28, weekly dosing of oral oteseconazole 150 mg is continued for 11 weeks.²²

Effects on pregnancy and lactation. Concerns of oteseconazole’s fetal teratogenicity are based on animal reproduction studies that reported ocular abnormalities from in utero exposure. Human data are insufficient to determine if oteseconazole is excreted in breast milk or what its effects are on milk production. Among breastfed infants whose mothers were exposed to oteseconazole during lactation, no adverse outcomes were reported, but follow up of oteseconazole-exposed infants was limited. ²² Therefore, use of oteseconazole among pregnant and/or lactating persons with RVVC is contraindicated at this time. The long-half life (approximately 138 days) of oteseconazole may preclude use among persons attempting pregnancy. ²²

Other therapies. The other common classes of antifungal therapy used in the treatment of RVVC include the polyenes (for example, amphotericin B) and echinocandins (such as caspofungin) drug classes. Emerging azole-resistance among Candida species has been recognized as a significant concern from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. ⁷ Echinocandins, which are generally better tolerated and have a lower adverse side effect profile than polyenes, are a promising therapeutic class, but currently they are limited to intravenous options. SCY-078, a novel oral echinocandin in development, has shown in vitro fungicidal activity against multiple albicans and non-albicans Candida species in pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic studies.²³

Continued development of alternative, non-azole-based therapies for Candida species is needed.●

ILLUSTRATION: KATERYNA KON/SCIENCE PHOTO LIBRARY

Recurrent vulvovaginal candidiasis (RVVC) is a common cause of vaginitis and gynecologic morbidity in the United States and globally.¹ RVVC is defined as at least 3 laboratory-confirmed (for example, culture, nucleic acid amplification test [NAAT]) symptomatic episodes in the previous 12 months.² Common symptoms include vulvar pruritus, erythema, local skin and mucosal irritation, and abnormal discharge that may be thick and white or thin and watery.

The true incidence of RVVC is difficult to determine due to clinical diagnostic inaccuracy that results in over- and underdiagnosis of VVC and the general availability of over-the-counter topical antifungal medications that individuals who self-diagnose use to treat VVC.³

Causative organisms

Vulvovaginal yeast infections are caused by Candida species, a family of ubiquitous fungi that are a part of normal genitourinary and gastrointestinal flora.⁴ As such, these infections are commonly termed VVC. The presence of Candida species in the vagina without evidence of inflammation is not considered an infection but rather is more consistent with vaginal colonization. Inflammation in the setting of Candida species is what characterizes a true VVC infection.⁴

Candida albicans is responsible for the vast majority of VVC cases in the United States, with Candida glabrata accounting for most of the remaining infections.⁵ The majority of RVVC infections that are caused by C albicans are due to azole-sensitive strains (85%–95% of infections).²C glabrata, by contrast, is intrinsically resistant to azoles, which is thought primarily to be due to overexpression of drug efflux pumps that remove active drug from the cell.^6,7

Why does VVC reoccur?

The pathogenesis of RVVC is not well understood. Predisposing factors may include frequent or recent antibiotic use, poorly controlled diabetes, immunodeficiency, and other host factors. However, many cases of RVVC are idiopathic and no predisposing or underlying conditions are identified.⁷

The role of genetic factors in predisposing to or triggering RVVC is unclear and is an area of ongoing investigation.² Longitudinal DNA-typing studies suggest that recurrent disease is usually due to relapse from a persistent vaginal reservoir of organisms (that is, vaginal colonization) or endogenous reinfection with identical strains of susceptible C albicans.^8,9 Symptomatic VVC likely results when the symbiotic balance between yeast and the normal vaginal microbiota is disrupted (by either Candida species overgrowth or changes in host immune factors).² Less commonly, “recurrent” infections may in fact be due to azole-resistant Candida and non-Candida species.²

Clinical aspects and diagnosis of VVC

Signs and symptoms suggestive of VVC include vulvovaginal erythema, edema, vaginal discharge, vulvovaginal pruritus, and irritation. Given the lack of specificity of individual clinical findings in diagnosing VVC, or for distinguishing between other common causes of vaginitis (such as bacterial vaginosis and trichomoniasis), laboratory testing (that is, microscopy) should be performed in combination with a clinical exam in order to make a confident diagnosis of VVC.¹⁰ Self-diagnosis of VVC is inaccurate and is not recommended, as misdiagnosis and inappropriate treatment is cost ineffective, delays accurate diagnoses, and may contribute to growing azole resistance.

In patients with signs and symptoms of VVC, saline and potassium hydroxide microscopy should be performed.⁷ TABLE 1 summarizes other major diagnostic techniques for VVC.

Diagnostic considerations

Non-albicans Candida species, such as C glabrata, may be associated with minimally symptomatic or completely asymptomatic infections and may not be identified easily on wet mount as it does not form pseudohyphae or hyphae.¹¹ Therefore, culture and susceptibility or NAAT testing is highly recommended for patients who remain symptomatic and/or have a nondiagnostic microscopy and a normal vaginal pH.⁷

Treatment options

Prior to May 2022, there had been no drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to treat RVVC. The mainstay of treatment is long-term maintenance therapy to achieve mycologic remission (TABLE 2).

In general, recurrent episodes of VVC should be treated with a longer duration of therapy (for example, oral fluconazole 150 mg every 72 hours for a total of 3 doses or topical azole for 7–14 days).⁷ If recurrent maintenance/suppressive therapy is started, the induction phase should be longer as well, at least 10 to 14 days with a topical or oral azole followed by a 6-month or longer course of weekly oral or topical azole therapy (such as 6–12 months).^12,13

Patients with underlying immunodeficiency (such as poorly controlled diabetes, chronic corticosteroid treatment) may need prolonged courses of therapy. Correction of modifiable conditions and optimization of comorbidities should be prioritized—for example, optimized glucose control, weight loss, durable viral suppression, and so on. Of note, symptomatic VVC is more frequent among individuals with HIV and correlates with severity of immunodeficiency. Pharmacologic options for RVVC for individuals with HIV do not differ from standard recommendations.¹⁴

Fluconazole

Fluconazole is a safe, affordable, and convenient prescription oral medication that can be used for initial and maintenance/suppressive therapy.² Fluconazole levels in vaginal secretions remain at therapeutic concentrations for at least 72 hours after a 150-mg dose.¹⁵ Induction therapy consists of oral fluconazole 150 mg every 72 hours for a total of 3 doses, followed by a maintenance regimen of a once-weekly dose of oral fluconazole 150 mg for a total of 6 months. Unfortunately, up to 55% of patients will experience a relapse in symptoms.¹²

Routine liver function test monitoring is not indicated for fluconazole maintenance therapy, but it should be performed if patients are treated with daily or long-term alternative oral azole medications, such as ketoconazole and itraconazole.

During pregnancy, only topical azole therapy is recommended for use, given the potential risk for adverse fetal outcomes, such as spontaneous abortion and congenital malformations, with fetal exposure to oral fluconazole ingested by the pregnant person.¹⁶ Fluconazole is present in breast milk, but it is safe to use during lactation when used at recommended doses.¹⁷

Continue to: Options for fluconazole-resistant C albicans infection...

Options for fluconazole-resistant C albicans infection

Patients who have RVVC with frequent and/or prolonged use of fluconazole are at risk for developing azole-resistant isolates of C albicans.¹² For patients found to have azole-resistant infections, treatment options include increasing the azole dose based on isolate minimal inhibitory concentrations (MIC) to various antifungals, therapy with a non-fluconazole azole regimen, or switching to a different therapeutic drug class altogether.⁷

Options for non- albicans Candida species infection

Given the intrinsic resistance to azole therapy in some non-albicans Candida species (specifically C glabrata and Candida krusei), boric acid or nystatin regimens can be used. An induction course of vaginal boric acid is given as 600 mg per vagina daily for up to 14 days and is associated with a 70% rate of mycologic control.⁷ Boric acid is known to cause local irritation and dermatitis for both the patient and any sexual partners. If ingested orally, boric acid is associated with significant toxicity and even death.⁷

Vaginal nystatin also may be considered, with an induction course of 100,000 U for 14 days, with a similar regimen recommended for maintenance therapy. However, data are limited on maintenance regimens for RVVC due to non-albicans Candida species.²

Gentian violet

Gentian violet is a topical antiseptic agent that is available over the counter. Use of this agent is uncommon given the availability of highly effective azole-based therapy. Although useful due to its antipruritic properties, gentian violet can be messy to use and tends to stain clothing permanently.

Gentian violet use may be considered in cases of refractory RVVC with or without azole-resistant infections; it is applied as a 1% or 2% solution directly to affected areas for 10 to 14 days.¹⁸

Lactobacilli probiotics and dietary changes

Data that support the oral and/or vaginal use of probiotics that contain live lactobacilli are conflicting. In the absence of conclusive evidence to support probiotic use to treat and prevent RVVC, as well as variable quality of available products, use of these agents is not recommended.¹⁹

No controlled studies have evaluated the role of various diets in preventing RVVC; thus, no specific dietary changes are recommended.

Behavioral therapy

Available evidence does not support the treatment of sexual partners of patients with RVVC.⁷

Continue to: What’s new in treatment?...

Until recently, the main standard of care for RVVC has been oral fluconazole-based therapy. For patients whose symptoms do not respond to oral fluconazole therapy, oteseconazole is now available as a noninferior treatment option to fluconazole for both induction and maintenance therapy. Like other azoles, oteseconazole works by inhibiting a fungal enzyme (CYP51) that is essential in fungal cell membrane integrity and fungal growth.²⁰ Oteseconazole is a more selective inhibitor of the fungal CYP51 enzyme and has demonstrated excellent potency against Candida species in in vitro pharmacologic studies.²¹

In a phase 3 study that evaluated the safety and efficacy of oteseconazole in the treatment and prevention of RVVC, oteseconazole was found to be both safe and efficacious in both the induction and maintenance phases of treatment for RVVC.²⁰ In this trial, induction and maintenance with oteseconazole was compared with induction with fluconazole and placebo maintenance. Among the 185 participants with culture-verified RVVC, the oteseconazole regimen (n = 123) was associated with fewer recurrences of culture-verified VVC infections than was the fluconazole induction/placebo maintenance regimen (n = 62) during the 48-week maintenance phase of therapy (5% vs 42%).²⁰

Single- and dual-drug dosing regimens of oteseconazole are recommended based on previous trial data that compared safety and efficacy of oteseconazole versus fluconazole induction therapy and oteseconazole versus placebo maintenance therapy.²² However, widespread use of oteseconazole regimens are limited due to its higher costs and limited access to the drug outside of a research setting.²⁰

Single-drug induction therapy with oteseconazole consists of a single 600-mg oral dose on day 1 followed by a second dose of 450 mg orally on day 2. Starting on day 14, maintenance therapy starts with a single oral dose of 150 mg and is continued weekly for 11 weeks.²²

Dual-drug induction therapy consists of oral fluconazole 150 mg on days 1, 4, and 7 followed by daily dosing of oral oteseconazole 150 mg on days 14 through 20. Then, starting on day 28, weekly dosing of oral oteseconazole 150 mg is continued for 11 weeks.²²

Effects on pregnancy and lactation. Concerns of oteseconazole’s fetal teratogenicity are based on animal reproduction studies that reported ocular abnormalities from in utero exposure. Human data are insufficient to determine if oteseconazole is excreted in breast milk or what its effects are on milk production. Among breastfed infants whose mothers were exposed to oteseconazole during lactation, no adverse outcomes were reported, but follow up of oteseconazole-exposed infants was limited. ²² Therefore, use of oteseconazole among pregnant and/or lactating persons with RVVC is contraindicated at this time. The long-half life (approximately 138 days) of oteseconazole may preclude use among persons attempting pregnancy. ²²

Other therapies. The other common classes of antifungal therapy used in the treatment of RVVC include the polyenes (for example, amphotericin B) and echinocandins (such as caspofungin) drug classes. Emerging azole-resistance among Candida species has been recognized as a significant concern from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. ⁷ Echinocandins, which are generally better tolerated and have a lower adverse side effect profile than polyenes, are a promising therapeutic class, but currently they are limited to intravenous options. SCY-078, a novel oral echinocandin in development, has shown in vitro fungicidal activity against multiple albicans and non-albicans Candida species in pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic studies.²³

Continued development of alternative, non-azole-based therapies for Candida species is needed.●

ILLUSTRATION: KATERYNA KON/SCIENCE PHOTO LIBRARY

Recurrent vulvovaginal candidiasis (RVVC) is a common cause of vaginitis and gynecologic morbidity in the United States and globally.¹ RVVC is defined as at least 3 laboratory-confirmed (for example, culture, nucleic acid amplification test [NAAT]) symptomatic episodes in the previous 12 months.² Common symptoms include vulvar pruritus, erythema, local skin and mucosal irritation, and abnormal discharge that may be thick and white or thin and watery.

The true incidence of RVVC is difficult to determine due to clinical diagnostic inaccuracy that results in over- and underdiagnosis of VVC and the general availability of over-the-counter topical antifungal medications that individuals who self-diagnose use to treat VVC.³

Causative organisms

Vulvovaginal yeast infections are caused by Candida species, a family of ubiquitous fungi that are a part of normal genitourinary and gastrointestinal flora.⁴ As such, these infections are commonly termed VVC. The presence of Candida species in the vagina without evidence of inflammation is not considered an infection but rather is more consistent with vaginal colonization. Inflammation in the setting of Candida species is what characterizes a true VVC infection.⁴

Candida albicans is responsible for the vast majority of VVC cases in the United States, with Candida glabrata accounting for most of the remaining infections.⁵ The majority of RVVC infections that are caused by C albicans are due to azole-sensitive strains (85%–95% of infections).²C glabrata, by contrast, is intrinsically resistant to azoles, which is thought primarily to be due to overexpression of drug efflux pumps that remove active drug from the cell.^6,7

Why does VVC reoccur?

The pathogenesis of RVVC is not well understood. Predisposing factors may include frequent or recent antibiotic use, poorly controlled diabetes, immunodeficiency, and other host factors. However, many cases of RVVC are idiopathic and no predisposing or underlying conditions are identified.⁷

The role of genetic factors in predisposing to or triggering RVVC is unclear and is an area of ongoing investigation.² Longitudinal DNA-typing studies suggest that recurrent disease is usually due to relapse from a persistent vaginal reservoir of organisms (that is, vaginal colonization) or endogenous reinfection with identical strains of susceptible C albicans.^8,9 Symptomatic VVC likely results when the symbiotic balance between yeast and the normal vaginal microbiota is disrupted (by either Candida species overgrowth or changes in host immune factors).² Less commonly, “recurrent” infections may in fact be due to azole-resistant Candida and non-Candida species.²

Clinical aspects and diagnosis of VVC

Signs and symptoms suggestive of VVC include vulvovaginal erythema, edema, vaginal discharge, vulvovaginal pruritus, and irritation. Given the lack of specificity of individual clinical findings in diagnosing VVC, or for distinguishing between other common causes of vaginitis (such as bacterial vaginosis and trichomoniasis), laboratory testing (that is, microscopy) should be performed in combination with a clinical exam in order to make a confident diagnosis of VVC.¹⁰ Self-diagnosis of VVC is inaccurate and is not recommended, as misdiagnosis and inappropriate treatment is cost ineffective, delays accurate diagnoses, and may contribute to growing azole resistance.

In patients with signs and symptoms of VVC, saline and potassium hydroxide microscopy should be performed.⁷ TABLE 1 summarizes other major diagnostic techniques for VVC.

Diagnostic considerations

Non-albicans Candida species, such as C glabrata, may be associated with minimally symptomatic or completely asymptomatic infections and may not be identified easily on wet mount as it does not form pseudohyphae or hyphae.¹¹ Therefore, culture and susceptibility or NAAT testing is highly recommended for patients who remain symptomatic and/or have a nondiagnostic microscopy and a normal vaginal pH.⁷

Treatment options

Prior to May 2022, there had been no drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to treat RVVC. The mainstay of treatment is long-term maintenance therapy to achieve mycologic remission (TABLE 2).

In general, recurrent episodes of VVC should be treated with a longer duration of therapy (for example, oral fluconazole 150 mg every 72 hours for a total of 3 doses or topical azole for 7–14 days).⁷ If recurrent maintenance/suppressive therapy is started, the induction phase should be longer as well, at least 10 to 14 days with a topical or oral azole followed by a 6-month or longer course of weekly oral or topical azole therapy (such as 6–12 months).^12,13

Patients with underlying immunodeficiency (such as poorly controlled diabetes, chronic corticosteroid treatment) may need prolonged courses of therapy. Correction of modifiable conditions and optimization of comorbidities should be prioritized—for example, optimized glucose control, weight loss, durable viral suppression, and so on. Of note, symptomatic VVC is more frequent among individuals with HIV and correlates with severity of immunodeficiency. Pharmacologic options for RVVC for individuals with HIV do not differ from standard recommendations.¹⁴

Fluconazole

Fluconazole is a safe, affordable, and convenient prescription oral medication that can be used for initial and maintenance/suppressive therapy.² Fluconazole levels in vaginal secretions remain at therapeutic concentrations for at least 72 hours after a 150-mg dose.¹⁵ Induction therapy consists of oral fluconazole 150 mg every 72 hours for a total of 3 doses, followed by a maintenance regimen of a once-weekly dose of oral fluconazole 150 mg for a total of 6 months. Unfortunately, up to 55% of patients will experience a relapse in symptoms.¹²

Routine liver function test monitoring is not indicated for fluconazole maintenance therapy, but it should be performed if patients are treated with daily or long-term alternative oral azole medications, such as ketoconazole and itraconazole.

During pregnancy, only topical azole therapy is recommended for use, given the potential risk for adverse fetal outcomes, such as spontaneous abortion and congenital malformations, with fetal exposure to oral fluconazole ingested by the pregnant person.¹⁶ Fluconazole is present in breast milk, but it is safe to use during lactation when used at recommended doses.¹⁷

Continue to: Options for fluconazole-resistant C albicans infection...

Options for fluconazole-resistant C albicans infection

Patients who have RVVC with frequent and/or prolonged use of fluconazole are at risk for developing azole-resistant isolates of C albicans.¹² For patients found to have azole-resistant infections, treatment options include increasing the azole dose based on isolate minimal inhibitory concentrations (MIC) to various antifungals, therapy with a non-fluconazole azole regimen, or switching to a different therapeutic drug class altogether.⁷

Options for non- albicans Candida species infection

Given the intrinsic resistance to azole therapy in some non-albicans Candida species (specifically C glabrata and Candida krusei), boric acid or nystatin regimens can be used. An induction course of vaginal boric acid is given as 600 mg per vagina daily for up to 14 days and is associated with a 70% rate of mycologic control.⁷ Boric acid is known to cause local irritation and dermatitis for both the patient and any sexual partners. If ingested orally, boric acid is associated with significant toxicity and even death.⁷

Vaginal nystatin also may be considered, with an induction course of 100,000 U for 14 days, with a similar regimen recommended for maintenance therapy. However, data are limited on maintenance regimens for RVVC due to non-albicans Candida species.²

Gentian violet

Gentian violet is a topical antiseptic agent that is available over the counter. Use of this agent is uncommon given the availability of highly effective azole-based therapy. Although useful due to its antipruritic properties, gentian violet can be messy to use and tends to stain clothing permanently.

Gentian violet use may be considered in cases of refractory RVVC with or without azole-resistant infections; it is applied as a 1% or 2% solution directly to affected areas for 10 to 14 days.¹⁸

Lactobacilli probiotics and dietary changes

Data that support the oral and/or vaginal use of probiotics that contain live lactobacilli are conflicting. In the absence of conclusive evidence to support probiotic use to treat and prevent RVVC, as well as variable quality of available products, use of these agents is not recommended.¹⁹

No controlled studies have evaluated the role of various diets in preventing RVVC; thus, no specific dietary changes are recommended.

Behavioral therapy

Available evidence does not support the treatment of sexual partners of patients with RVVC.⁷

Continue to: What’s new in treatment?...

Until recently, the main standard of care for RVVC has been oral fluconazole-based therapy. For patients whose symptoms do not respond to oral fluconazole therapy, oteseconazole is now available as a noninferior treatment option to fluconazole for both induction and maintenance therapy. Like other azoles, oteseconazole works by inhibiting a fungal enzyme (CYP51) that is essential in fungal cell membrane integrity and fungal growth.²⁰ Oteseconazole is a more selective inhibitor of the fungal CYP51 enzyme and has demonstrated excellent potency against Candida species in in vitro pharmacologic studies.²¹

In a phase 3 study that evaluated the safety and efficacy of oteseconazole in the treatment and prevention of RVVC, oteseconazole was found to be both safe and efficacious in both the induction and maintenance phases of treatment for RVVC.²⁰ In this trial, induction and maintenance with oteseconazole was compared with induction with fluconazole and placebo maintenance. Among the 185 participants with culture-verified RVVC, the oteseconazole regimen (n = 123) was associated with fewer recurrences of culture-verified VVC infections than was the fluconazole induction/placebo maintenance regimen (n = 62) during the 48-week maintenance phase of therapy (5% vs 42%).²⁰

Single- and dual-drug dosing regimens of oteseconazole are recommended based on previous trial data that compared safety and efficacy of oteseconazole versus fluconazole induction therapy and oteseconazole versus placebo maintenance therapy.²² However, widespread use of oteseconazole regimens are limited due to its higher costs and limited access to the drug outside of a research setting.²⁰

Single-drug induction therapy with oteseconazole consists of a single 600-mg oral dose on day 1 followed by a second dose of 450 mg orally on day 2. Starting on day 14, maintenance therapy starts with a single oral dose of 150 mg and is continued weekly for 11 weeks.²²

Dual-drug induction therapy consists of oral fluconazole 150 mg on days 1, 4, and 7 followed by daily dosing of oral oteseconazole 150 mg on days 14 through 20. Then, starting on day 28, weekly dosing of oral oteseconazole 150 mg is continued for 11 weeks.²²

Effects on pregnancy and lactation. Concerns of oteseconazole’s fetal teratogenicity are based on animal reproduction studies that reported ocular abnormalities from in utero exposure. Human data are insufficient to determine if oteseconazole is excreted in breast milk or what its effects are on milk production. Among breastfed infants whose mothers were exposed to oteseconazole during lactation, no adverse outcomes were reported, but follow up of oteseconazole-exposed infants was limited. ²² Therefore, use of oteseconazole among pregnant and/or lactating persons with RVVC is contraindicated at this time. The long-half life (approximately 138 days) of oteseconazole may preclude use among persons attempting pregnancy. ²²

Other therapies. The other common classes of antifungal therapy used in the treatment of RVVC include the polyenes (for example, amphotericin B) and echinocandins (such as caspofungin) drug classes. Emerging azole-resistance among Candida species has been recognized as a significant concern from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. ⁷ Echinocandins, which are generally better tolerated and have a lower adverse side effect profile than polyenes, are a promising therapeutic class, but currently they are limited to intravenous options. SCY-078, a novel oral echinocandin in development, has shown in vitro fungicidal activity against multiple albicans and non-albicans Candida species in pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic studies.²³

Continued development of alternative, non-azole-based therapies for Candida species is needed.●