Many potential leaders in academic medicine go unidentified, and finding those leaders is key to improving gender equity in academic medicine, said Nancy Spector, MD, in a presentation at the virtual Advance PHM Gender Equity Conference.

“I think it is important to reframe what it means to be a leader, and to empower yourself to think of yourself as a leader,” said Dr. Spector, executive director for executive leadership in academic medicine program at Drexel University, Philadelphia.

“Some of the best leaders I know do not have titles,” she emphasized.

Steps to stimulate the system changes needed to promote gender equity include building policies around the life cycle, revising departmental and division governance, and tracking metrics at the individual, departmental, and organizational level, Dr. Spector said.

Aligning gender-equity efforts with institutional priorities and navigating politics to effect changes in the gender equity landscape are ongoing objectives, she said.

Dr. Spector offered advice to men and women looking to shift the system and promote gender equity. She emphasized the challenge of overcoming psychological associations of men and women in leadership roles. “Men are more often associated with agentic qualities, which convey assertion and control,” she said. Men in leadership are more often described as aggressive, ambitious, dominant, self-confident, forceful, self-reliant, and individualistic.

By contrast, “women are associated with communal qualities, which convey a concern for compassionate treatment of others,” and are more often described as affectionate, helpful, kind, sympathetic, sensitive, gentle, and well spoken, she noted.

Although agentic traits are most often associated with effective leadership, in fact, “the most effective contemporary leaders have both agentic and communal traits,” said Dr. Spector.

However, “if a woman leader is very communal, she may be viewed as not assertive enough, and it she is highly agentic, she is criticized for being too domineering or controlling,” she said.

To help get past these associations, changes are needed at the individual level, leader level, and institutional level, Dr. Spector said.

On the individual level, women seeking to improve the situation for gender equity should engage with male allies and build a pipeline of mentorship and sponsorship to help identify future leaders, she said.

Women and men should obtain leadership training, and “become a student of leadership,” she advised. “Be in a learning mode,” and then think how to apply what you have learned, which may include setting challenging learning goals, experimenting with alternative strategies, learning about different leadership styles, and learning about differences in leaders’ values and attitudes.

For women, being pulled in many directions is the norm. “Are you being strategic with how you serve on committees?” Dr. Spector asked.

Make the most of how you choose to share your time, and “garner the skill of graceful self-promotion, which is often a hard skill for women,” she noted. She also urged women to make the most of professional networking and social capital.

At the leader level, the advice Dr. Spector offered to leaders on building gender equity in their institutions include ensuring a critical mass of women in leadership track positions. “Avoid having a sole woman member of a team,” she said.

Dr. Spector also emphasized the importance of giving employees with family responsibilities more time for promotion, and welcoming back women who step away from the workforce and choose to return. Encourage men to participate in family-friendly benefits. “Standardize processes that support the life cycle of a faculty member or the person you’re hiring,” and ensure inclusive times and venues for major meetings, committee work, and social events, she added.

Dr. Spector’s strategies for institutions include quantifying disparities by using real time dashboards to show both leading and lagging indicators, setting goals, and measuring achievements.

“Create an infrastructure to support women’s leadership,” she said. Such an infrastructure could include not only robust committees for women in science and medicine, but also supporting women to attend leadership training both inside and outside their institutions.

Dr. Spector noted that professional organizations also have a role to play in support of women’s leadership.

“Make a public pledge to gender equity,” she said. She encouraged professional organizations to tie diversity and inclusion metrics to performance reviews, and to prioritize the examination and mitigation of disparities, and report challenges and successes.

When creating policies to promote gender equity, “get out of your silo,” Dr. Spector emphasized. Understand the drivers rather than simply judging the behaviors.

“Even if we disagree on something, we need to work together, and empower everyone to be thoughtful drivers of change,” she concluded.

Dr. Spector disclosed grant funding from the Department of Health & Human Services, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. She also disclosed receiving monetary awards, honoraria, and travel reimbursement from multiple academic and professional organization for teaching and consulting programs. Dr. Spector also cofunded and holds equity interest in the I-PASS Patient Safety Institute, a company created to assist institutions in implementing the I-PASS Handoff Program.

Many potential leaders in academic medicine go unidentified, and finding those leaders is key to improving gender equity in academic medicine, said Nancy Spector, MD, in a presentation at the virtual Advance PHM Gender Equity Conference.

“I think it is important to reframe what it means to be a leader, and to empower yourself to think of yourself as a leader,” said Dr. Spector, executive director for executive leadership in academic medicine program at Drexel University, Philadelphia.

“Some of the best leaders I know do not have titles,” she emphasized.

Steps to stimulate the system changes needed to promote gender equity include building policies around the life cycle, revising departmental and division governance, and tracking metrics at the individual, departmental, and organizational level, Dr. Spector said.

Aligning gender-equity efforts with institutional priorities and navigating politics to effect changes in the gender equity landscape are ongoing objectives, she said.

Dr. Spector offered advice to men and women looking to shift the system and promote gender equity. She emphasized the challenge of overcoming psychological associations of men and women in leadership roles. “Men are more often associated with agentic qualities, which convey assertion and control,” she said. Men in leadership are more often described as aggressive, ambitious, dominant, self-confident, forceful, self-reliant, and individualistic.

By contrast, “women are associated with communal qualities, which convey a concern for compassionate treatment of others,” and are more often described as affectionate, helpful, kind, sympathetic, sensitive, gentle, and well spoken, she noted.

Although agentic traits are most often associated with effective leadership, in fact, “the most effective contemporary leaders have both agentic and communal traits,” said Dr. Spector.

However, “if a woman leader is very communal, she may be viewed as not assertive enough, and it she is highly agentic, she is criticized for being too domineering or controlling,” she said.

To help get past these associations, changes are needed at the individual level, leader level, and institutional level, Dr. Spector said.

On the individual level, women seeking to improve the situation for gender equity should engage with male allies and build a pipeline of mentorship and sponsorship to help identify future leaders, she said.

Women and men should obtain leadership training, and “become a student of leadership,” she advised. “Be in a learning mode,” and then think how to apply what you have learned, which may include setting challenging learning goals, experimenting with alternative strategies, learning about different leadership styles, and learning about differences in leaders’ values and attitudes.

For women, being pulled in many directions is the norm. “Are you being strategic with how you serve on committees?” Dr. Spector asked.

Make the most of how you choose to share your time, and “garner the skill of graceful self-promotion, which is often a hard skill for women,” she noted. She also urged women to make the most of professional networking and social capital.

At the leader level, the advice Dr. Spector offered to leaders on building gender equity in their institutions include ensuring a critical mass of women in leadership track positions. “Avoid having a sole woman member of a team,” she said.

Dr. Spector also emphasized the importance of giving employees with family responsibilities more time for promotion, and welcoming back women who step away from the workforce and choose to return. Encourage men to participate in family-friendly benefits. “Standardize processes that support the life cycle of a faculty member or the person you’re hiring,” and ensure inclusive times and venues for major meetings, committee work, and social events, she added.

Dr. Spector’s strategies for institutions include quantifying disparities by using real time dashboards to show both leading and lagging indicators, setting goals, and measuring achievements.

“Create an infrastructure to support women’s leadership,” she said. Such an infrastructure could include not only robust committees for women in science and medicine, but also supporting women to attend leadership training both inside and outside their institutions.

Dr. Spector noted that professional organizations also have a role to play in support of women’s leadership.

“Make a public pledge to gender equity,” she said. She encouraged professional organizations to tie diversity and inclusion metrics to performance reviews, and to prioritize the examination and mitigation of disparities, and report challenges and successes.

When creating policies to promote gender equity, “get out of your silo,” Dr. Spector emphasized. Understand the drivers rather than simply judging the behaviors.

“Even if we disagree on something, we need to work together, and empower everyone to be thoughtful drivers of change,” she concluded.

Dr. Spector disclosed grant funding from the Department of Health & Human Services, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. She also disclosed receiving monetary awards, honoraria, and travel reimbursement from multiple academic and professional organization for teaching and consulting programs. Dr. Spector also cofunded and holds equity interest in the I-PASS Patient Safety Institute, a company created to assist institutions in implementing the I-PASS Handoff Program.

Many potential leaders in academic medicine go unidentified, and finding those leaders is key to improving gender equity in academic medicine, said Nancy Spector, MD, in a presentation at the virtual Advance PHM Gender Equity Conference.

“I think it is important to reframe what it means to be a leader, and to empower yourself to think of yourself as a leader,” said Dr. Spector, executive director for executive leadership in academic medicine program at Drexel University, Philadelphia.

“Some of the best leaders I know do not have titles,” she emphasized.

Steps to stimulate the system changes needed to promote gender equity include building policies around the life cycle, revising departmental and division governance, and tracking metrics at the individual, departmental, and organizational level, Dr. Spector said.

Aligning gender-equity efforts with institutional priorities and navigating politics to effect changes in the gender equity landscape are ongoing objectives, she said.

Dr. Spector offered advice to men and women looking to shift the system and promote gender equity. She emphasized the challenge of overcoming psychological associations of men and women in leadership roles. “Men are more often associated with agentic qualities, which convey assertion and control,” she said. Men in leadership are more often described as aggressive, ambitious, dominant, self-confident, forceful, self-reliant, and individualistic.

By contrast, “women are associated with communal qualities, which convey a concern for compassionate treatment of others,” and are more often described as affectionate, helpful, kind, sympathetic, sensitive, gentle, and well spoken, she noted.

Although agentic traits are most often associated with effective leadership, in fact, “the most effective contemporary leaders have both agentic and communal traits,” said Dr. Spector.

However, “if a woman leader is very communal, she may be viewed as not assertive enough, and it she is highly agentic, she is criticized for being too domineering or controlling,” she said.

To help get past these associations, changes are needed at the individual level, leader level, and institutional level, Dr. Spector said.

On the individual level, women seeking to improve the situation for gender equity should engage with male allies and build a pipeline of mentorship and sponsorship to help identify future leaders, she said.

Women and men should obtain leadership training, and “become a student of leadership,” she advised. “Be in a learning mode,” and then think how to apply what you have learned, which may include setting challenging learning goals, experimenting with alternative strategies, learning about different leadership styles, and learning about differences in leaders’ values and attitudes.

For women, being pulled in many directions is the norm. “Are you being strategic with how you serve on committees?” Dr. Spector asked.

Make the most of how you choose to share your time, and “garner the skill of graceful self-promotion, which is often a hard skill for women,” she noted. She also urged women to make the most of professional networking and social capital.

At the leader level, the advice Dr. Spector offered to leaders on building gender equity in their institutions include ensuring a critical mass of women in leadership track positions. “Avoid having a sole woman member of a team,” she said.

Dr. Spector also emphasized the importance of giving employees with family responsibilities more time for promotion, and welcoming back women who step away from the workforce and choose to return. Encourage men to participate in family-friendly benefits. “Standardize processes that support the life cycle of a faculty member or the person you’re hiring,” and ensure inclusive times and venues for major meetings, committee work, and social events, she added.

Dr. Spector’s strategies for institutions include quantifying disparities by using real time dashboards to show both leading and lagging indicators, setting goals, and measuring achievements.

“Create an infrastructure to support women’s leadership,” she said. Such an infrastructure could include not only robust committees for women in science and medicine, but also supporting women to attend leadership training both inside and outside their institutions.

Dr. Spector noted that professional organizations also have a role to play in support of women’s leadership.

“Make a public pledge to gender equity,” she said. She encouraged professional organizations to tie diversity and inclusion metrics to performance reviews, and to prioritize the examination and mitigation of disparities, and report challenges and successes.

When creating policies to promote gender equity, “get out of your silo,” Dr. Spector emphasized. Understand the drivers rather than simply judging the behaviors.

“Even if we disagree on something, we need to work together, and empower everyone to be thoughtful drivers of change,” she concluded.

Dr. Spector disclosed grant funding from the Department of Health & Human Services, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. She also disclosed receiving monetary awards, honoraria, and travel reimbursement from multiple academic and professional organization for teaching and consulting programs. Dr. Spector also cofunded and holds equity interest in the I-PASS Patient Safety Institute, a company created to assist institutions in implementing the I-PASS Handoff Program.

Dermatology is an often-underutilized resource in the hospital setting. As the health care landscape has evolved, so has the role of the inpatient dermatologist.^1-3 Structural changes in the health system and advances in therapies have shifted dermatology from an admitting service to an almost exclusively outpatient practice. Improved treatment modalities led to decreases in the number of patients requiring admission for chronic dermatoses, and outpatient clinics began offering therapies once limited to hospitals.^1,4 Inpatient dermatology consultations emerged and continue to have profound effects on hospitalized patients regardless of their reason for admission.^1-11

Inpatient dermatologists supply knowledge in areas primary medical teams lack, and there is evidence that dermatology consultations improve the quality of care while decreasing cost.^2,5-7 Establishing correct diagnoses, preventing exposure to unnecessary medications, and reducing hospitalization duration and readmission rates are a few ways dermatology consultations positively impact hospitalized patients.^2,5-7,9,10 This study highlights the role of the dermatologist in the care of hospitalized patients at a large academic medical center in an urban setting and reveals how consultation supports the efficiency and efficacy of other services.

Materials and Methods

Study Design—This single-institution, cross-sectional retrospective study included all hospitalized patients at the Thomas Jefferson University Hospital (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania), who received an inpatient dermatology consultation completed by physicians of Jefferson Dermatology Associates between January 1, 2019, and December 31, 2019. The institutional review board at Thomas Jefferson University approved this study.

Data Collection—A list of all inpatient dermatology consultations in 2019 was provided by Jefferson Dermatology Associates. Through a retrospective chart review, data regarding the consultations were collected from the electronic medical record (Epic Systems) and recorded into the Research Electronic Data Capture system. Data on patient demographics, the primary medical team, the dermatology evaluation, and the hospital course of the patient were collected.

Results

Patient Characteristics—Dermatology received 253 inpatient consultation requests during this time period; 53% of patients were female and 47% were male, with a mean age of 55 years. Most patients were White (57%), while 34% were Black. Five percent and 4% of patients were Asian and Hispanic or Latino, respectively (Table 1). The mean duration of hospitalization for all patients was 15 days, and the average number of days to discharge following the first encounter with dermatology was 10 days.

Requesting Team and Reason for Consultation—Internal medicine consulted dermatology most frequently (34% of all consultations), followed by emergency medicine (14%) and a variety of other services (Table 1). Most dermatology consultations were placed to assist in achieving a diagnosis of a cutaneous condition (77%), while a minority were to assist in the management of a previously diagnosed disease (22%). A small fraction of consultations (5%) were to complete full-body skin examinations (FBSEs) to rule out infection or malignancy in candidates for organ transplantation, left ventricular assist devices, or certain chemotherapies. One FBSE was conducted to search for a primary tumor in a patient diagnosed with metastatic melanoma.

Most Common Final Diagnoses and Consultation Impact—Table 2 lists the most common final diagnosis categories, as well as the effects of the consultation on diagnosis, management, biopsies, hospitalization, and clinical improvement as documented by the primary medical provider. The most common final diagnoses were inflammatory and autoimmune (39%), such as contact dermatitis and seborrheic dermatitis; infectious (23%), such as varicella (primary or zoster) and bacterial furunculosis; drug reactions (20%), such as morbilliform drug eruptions; vascular (8%), such as vasculitis and calciphylaxis; neoplastic (7%), such as keratinocyte carcinomas and leukemia cutis; and other (15%), such as xerosis, keratosis pilaris, and miliaria rubra.

Impact on Diagnosis—Fifty-six percent of all consultations resulted in a change in diagnosis. When dermatology was consulted specifically to assist in the diagnosis of a patient (195 consultations), the working diagnosis of the primary team was changed 69% of the time. Thirty-five of these consultation requests had no preliminary diagnosis, and the primary team listed the working diagnosis as either rash or a morphologic description of the lesion(s). Sixty-three percent of suspected drug eruptions ended with a diagnosis of a form of drug eruption, while 20% of consultations for suspected cellulitis or bacterial infections were confirmed to be cellulitis or soft tissue infections.

Impact on Management—Regardless of the reason for the consultation, most consultations (86%) resulted in a change in management. The remaining 14% consisted of FBSEs with benign findings; cases of cutaneous metastases and leukemia cutis managed by oncology; as well as select cases of purpura fulminans, postfebrile desquamation, and postinflammatory hyperpigmentation.

Changes in management included alterations in medications, requests for additional laboratory work or imaging, additional consultation requests, biopsies, or specific wound care instructions. Seventy-five percent of all consultations were given specific medication recommendations by dermatology. Most (61%) were recommended to be given a topical steroid, antibiotic, or both. However, 45% of all consultations were recommended to initiate a systemic medication, most commonly antihistamines, antibiotics, steroids, antivirals, or immunomodulators. Dermatology recommended discontinuing specific medications in 16% of all consultations, with antibiotics being the most frequent culprit (17 antibiotics discontinued), owing to drug eruptions or misdiagnosed infections. Vancomycin, piperacillin-tazobactam, and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole were the most frequently discontinued antibiotics.

Dermatology was consulted for assistance in management of previously diagnosed cutaneous conditions 56 times (22% of all consultations), often regarding complicated cases of hidradenitis suppurativa (9 cases), pyoderma gangrenosum (5 cases), bullous pemphigoid (4 cases), or erythroderma (4 cases). Most of these cases required a single dermatology encounter to provide recommendations (71%), and 21% required 1 additional follow-up. Sixty-three percent of patients consulted for management assistance were noted to have improvement in their cutaneous condition by time of discharge, as documented by the primary provider in the medical record.

Twenty-eight percent of all consultations required at least 1 biopsy. Seventy-two percent of all biopsies were consistent with the dermatologist’s working diagnosis or highest-ranked differential diagnosis, and 16% of biopsy results were consistent with the second- or third-ranked diagnosis. The primary teams requested a biopsy 38 times to assist in diagnosis, as documented in the progress note or consultation request. Only 21 of these consultations (55% of requests) received at least 1 biopsy, as the remaining consultations did not require a biopsy to establish a diagnosis. The most common final diagnoses of consultations receiving biopsies included drug eruptions (5), leukemia cutis (4), vasculopathies (4), vasculitis (4), and calciphylaxis (3).

Impact on Hospitalization and Efficacy—Dermatology performed 217 consultations regarding patients already admitted to the hospital, and 92% remained hospitalized either due to comorbidities or complicated cutaneous conditions following the consultation. The remaining 8% were cleared for discharge. Dermatology received 36 consultation requests from emergency medicine physicians. Fifty-three percent of these patients were admitted, while the remaining 47% were discharged from the emergency department or its observation unit following evaluation.

Fifty-one percent of all consultations were noted to have improvement in their cutaneous condition by the time of discharge, as noted in the physical examination, progress note, or discharge summary of the primary team. Thirty percent of cases remained stable, where improvement was not noted in in the medical record. Most of these cases involved keratinocyte carcinomas scheduled for outpatient excision, benign melanocytic nevi found on FBSE, and benign etiologies that led to immediate discharge following consultation. Three percent of all consultations were noted to have worsened following consultation, including cases of calciphylaxis, vasculopathies, and purpura fulminans, as well as patients who elected for palliative care and hospice. The cutaneous condition by the time of discharge could not be determined from the medical record in 16% of all consultations.

Eighty-five percent of all consultations required a single encounter with dermatology. An additional 10% required a single follow-up with dermatology, while only 5% of patients required 3 or more encounters. Notably, these cases included patients with 1 or more severe cutaneous diseases, such as Sweet syndrome, calciphylaxis, Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis, and hidradenitis suppurativa.

Comment

Although dermatology often is viewed as an outpatient specialty, this study provides a glimpse into the ways inpatient dermatology consultations optimize the care of hospitalized patients. Most consultations involved assistance in diagnosing an unknown condition, but several regarded pre-existing skin disorders requiring management aid. As a variety of medical specialties requested consultations, dermatology was able to provide care to a diverse group of patients with conditions varying in complexity and severity. Several specialties benefited from niche dermatologic expertise: hematology and oncology frequently requested dermatology to assist in diagnosis and management of the toxic effects of chemotherapy, cutaneous metastasis, or suspected cutaneous infections in immunocompromised patients. Cardiology patients were frequently evaluated for potential malignancy or infection prior to heart transplantation and initiation of antirejection immunosuppressants. Dermatology was consulted to differentiate cutaneous manifestations of critical illness from underlying systemic disease in the intensive care unit, and patients presenting to the emergency department often were examined to determine if hospital admission was necessary, with 47% of these consultations resulting in a discharge following evaluation by a dermatologist.

Our results were consistent with prior studies^1,5,6 that have reported frequent changes in final diagnosis following dermatology consultation, with 69% of working diagnoses changed in this study when consultation was requested for diagnostic assistance. When dermatology was consulted for diagnostic assistance, several of these cases lacked a preliminary differential diagnosis. Although the absence of a documented differential diagnosis may not necessarily reflect a lack of suspicion for a particular etiology, 86% of all consultations included a ranked differential or working diagnosis either in the consultation request or progress note prior to consultation. The final diagnoses of consultations without a preliminary diagnosis varied from the mild and localized to systemic and severe, further suggesting these cases reflected knowledge gaps of the primary medical team.

Integration of dermatology into the care of hospitalized patients could provide an opportunity for education of primary medical teams. With frequent consultation, primary medical teams may become more comfortable diagnosing and managing common cutaneous conditions specific to their specialty or extended hospitalizations.

Several consultations were requested to aid in management of cases of hidradenitis suppurativa, pyoderma gangrenosum, or bullous pemphigoid that either failed outpatient therapy or were complicated by superinfections. Despite the ranges in complexity, the majority of all consultations required a single encounter and led to improvement by the time of discharge, demonstrating the efficacy and efficiency of inpatient dermatologists.

Dermatology consultations often led to changes in management involving medications and additional workup. Changes in management also extended to specific wound care instructions provided by dermatology, as expected for cases of Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis, Sweet syndrome, hidradenitis suppurativa, and pyoderma gangrenosum. However, patients with the sequelae of extended hospitalizations, such as chronic wounds, pressure ulcers, and edema bullae, also benefited from this expertise.

When patients required a biopsy, the final diagnoses were consistent with the dermatologist’s number one differential diagnosis or top 3 differential diagnoses 72% and 88% of the time, respectively. Only 55% of cases where the primary team requested a biopsy ultimately required a biopsy, as many involved clinical diagnoses such as urticaria. Not only was dermatology accurate in their preliminary diagnoses, but they decreased cost and morbidity by avoiding unnecessary procedures.

This study provided additional evidence to support the integration of dermatology into the hospital setting for the benefit of patients, primary medical teams, and hospital systems. Dermatology offers high-value care through the efficient diagnosis and management of hospitalized patients, which contributes to decreased cost and improved outcomes.^2,5-7,9,10 This study highlighted lesser-known areas of impact, such as the various specialty-specific services dermatology provides as well as the high rates of reported improvement following consultation. Future studies should continue to explore the field’s unique impact on hospitalized medicine as well as other avenues of care delivery, such as telemedicine, that may encourage dermatologists to participate in consultations and increase the volume of patients who may benefit from their care.

Dermatology is an often-underutilized resource in the hospital setting. As the health care landscape has evolved, so has the role of the inpatient dermatologist.^1-3 Structural changes in the health system and advances in therapies have shifted dermatology from an admitting service to an almost exclusively outpatient practice. Improved treatment modalities led to decreases in the number of patients requiring admission for chronic dermatoses, and outpatient clinics began offering therapies once limited to hospitals.^1,4 Inpatient dermatology consultations emerged and continue to have profound effects on hospitalized patients regardless of their reason for admission.^1-11

Inpatient dermatologists supply knowledge in areas primary medical teams lack, and there is evidence that dermatology consultations improve the quality of care while decreasing cost.^2,5-7 Establishing correct diagnoses, preventing exposure to unnecessary medications, and reducing hospitalization duration and readmission rates are a few ways dermatology consultations positively impact hospitalized patients.^2,5-7,9,10 This study highlights the role of the dermatologist in the care of hospitalized patients at a large academic medical center in an urban setting and reveals how consultation supports the efficiency and efficacy of other services.

Materials and Methods

Study Design—This single-institution, cross-sectional retrospective study included all hospitalized patients at the Thomas Jefferson University Hospital (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania), who received an inpatient dermatology consultation completed by physicians of Jefferson Dermatology Associates between January 1, 2019, and December 31, 2019. The institutional review board at Thomas Jefferson University approved this study.

Data Collection—A list of all inpatient dermatology consultations in 2019 was provided by Jefferson Dermatology Associates. Through a retrospective chart review, data regarding the consultations were collected from the electronic medical record (Epic Systems) and recorded into the Research Electronic Data Capture system. Data on patient demographics, the primary medical team, the dermatology evaluation, and the hospital course of the patient were collected.

Results

Patient Characteristics—Dermatology received 253 inpatient consultation requests during this time period; 53% of patients were female and 47% were male, with a mean age of 55 years. Most patients were White (57%), while 34% were Black. Five percent and 4% of patients were Asian and Hispanic or Latino, respectively (Table 1). The mean duration of hospitalization for all patients was 15 days, and the average number of days to discharge following the first encounter with dermatology was 10 days.

Requesting Team and Reason for Consultation—Internal medicine consulted dermatology most frequently (34% of all consultations), followed by emergency medicine (14%) and a variety of other services (Table 1). Most dermatology consultations were placed to assist in achieving a diagnosis of a cutaneous condition (77%), while a minority were to assist in the management of a previously diagnosed disease (22%). A small fraction of consultations (5%) were to complete full-body skin examinations (FBSEs) to rule out infection or malignancy in candidates for organ transplantation, left ventricular assist devices, or certain chemotherapies. One FBSE was conducted to search for a primary tumor in a patient diagnosed with metastatic melanoma.

Most Common Final Diagnoses and Consultation Impact—Table 2 lists the most common final diagnosis categories, as well as the effects of the consultation on diagnosis, management, biopsies, hospitalization, and clinical improvement as documented by the primary medical provider. The most common final diagnoses were inflammatory and autoimmune (39%), such as contact dermatitis and seborrheic dermatitis; infectious (23%), such as varicella (primary or zoster) and bacterial furunculosis; drug reactions (20%), such as morbilliform drug eruptions; vascular (8%), such as vasculitis and calciphylaxis; neoplastic (7%), such as keratinocyte carcinomas and leukemia cutis; and other (15%), such as xerosis, keratosis pilaris, and miliaria rubra.

Impact on Diagnosis—Fifty-six percent of all consultations resulted in a change in diagnosis. When dermatology was consulted specifically to assist in the diagnosis of a patient (195 consultations), the working diagnosis of the primary team was changed 69% of the time. Thirty-five of these consultation requests had no preliminary diagnosis, and the primary team listed the working diagnosis as either rash or a morphologic description of the lesion(s). Sixty-three percent of suspected drug eruptions ended with a diagnosis of a form of drug eruption, while 20% of consultations for suspected cellulitis or bacterial infections were confirmed to be cellulitis or soft tissue infections.

Impact on Management—Regardless of the reason for the consultation, most consultations (86%) resulted in a change in management. The remaining 14% consisted of FBSEs with benign findings; cases of cutaneous metastases and leukemia cutis managed by oncology; as well as select cases of purpura fulminans, postfebrile desquamation, and postinflammatory hyperpigmentation.

Changes in management included alterations in medications, requests for additional laboratory work or imaging, additional consultation requests, biopsies, or specific wound care instructions. Seventy-five percent of all consultations were given specific medication recommendations by dermatology. Most (61%) were recommended to be given a topical steroid, antibiotic, or both. However, 45% of all consultations were recommended to initiate a systemic medication, most commonly antihistamines, antibiotics, steroids, antivirals, or immunomodulators. Dermatology recommended discontinuing specific medications in 16% of all consultations, with antibiotics being the most frequent culprit (17 antibiotics discontinued), owing to drug eruptions or misdiagnosed infections. Vancomycin, piperacillin-tazobactam, and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole were the most frequently discontinued antibiotics.

Dermatology was consulted for assistance in management of previously diagnosed cutaneous conditions 56 times (22% of all consultations), often regarding complicated cases of hidradenitis suppurativa (9 cases), pyoderma gangrenosum (5 cases), bullous pemphigoid (4 cases), or erythroderma (4 cases). Most of these cases required a single dermatology encounter to provide recommendations (71%), and 21% required 1 additional follow-up. Sixty-three percent of patients consulted for management assistance were noted to have improvement in their cutaneous condition by time of discharge, as documented by the primary provider in the medical record.

Twenty-eight percent of all consultations required at least 1 biopsy. Seventy-two percent of all biopsies were consistent with the dermatologist’s working diagnosis or highest-ranked differential diagnosis, and 16% of biopsy results were consistent with the second- or third-ranked diagnosis. The primary teams requested a biopsy 38 times to assist in diagnosis, as documented in the progress note or consultation request. Only 21 of these consultations (55% of requests) received at least 1 biopsy, as the remaining consultations did not require a biopsy to establish a diagnosis. The most common final diagnoses of consultations receiving biopsies included drug eruptions (5), leukemia cutis (4), vasculopathies (4), vasculitis (4), and calciphylaxis (3).

Impact on Hospitalization and Efficacy—Dermatology performed 217 consultations regarding patients already admitted to the hospital, and 92% remained hospitalized either due to comorbidities or complicated cutaneous conditions following the consultation. The remaining 8% were cleared for discharge. Dermatology received 36 consultation requests from emergency medicine physicians. Fifty-three percent of these patients were admitted, while the remaining 47% were discharged from the emergency department or its observation unit following evaluation.

Fifty-one percent of all consultations were noted to have improvement in their cutaneous condition by the time of discharge, as noted in the physical examination, progress note, or discharge summary of the primary team. Thirty percent of cases remained stable, where improvement was not noted in in the medical record. Most of these cases involved keratinocyte carcinomas scheduled for outpatient excision, benign melanocytic nevi found on FBSE, and benign etiologies that led to immediate discharge following consultation. Three percent of all consultations were noted to have worsened following consultation, including cases of calciphylaxis, vasculopathies, and purpura fulminans, as well as patients who elected for palliative care and hospice. The cutaneous condition by the time of discharge could not be determined from the medical record in 16% of all consultations.

Eighty-five percent of all consultations required a single encounter with dermatology. An additional 10% required a single follow-up with dermatology, while only 5% of patients required 3 or more encounters. Notably, these cases included patients with 1 or more severe cutaneous diseases, such as Sweet syndrome, calciphylaxis, Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis, and hidradenitis suppurativa.

Comment

Although dermatology often is viewed as an outpatient specialty, this study provides a glimpse into the ways inpatient dermatology consultations optimize the care of hospitalized patients. Most consultations involved assistance in diagnosing an unknown condition, but several regarded pre-existing skin disorders requiring management aid. As a variety of medical specialties requested consultations, dermatology was able to provide care to a diverse group of patients with conditions varying in complexity and severity. Several specialties benefited from niche dermatologic expertise: hematology and oncology frequently requested dermatology to assist in diagnosis and management of the toxic effects of chemotherapy, cutaneous metastasis, or suspected cutaneous infections in immunocompromised patients. Cardiology patients were frequently evaluated for potential malignancy or infection prior to heart transplantation and initiation of antirejection immunosuppressants. Dermatology was consulted to differentiate cutaneous manifestations of critical illness from underlying systemic disease in the intensive care unit, and patients presenting to the emergency department often were examined to determine if hospital admission was necessary, with 47% of these consultations resulting in a discharge following evaluation by a dermatologist.

Our results were consistent with prior studies^1,5,6 that have reported frequent changes in final diagnosis following dermatology consultation, with 69% of working diagnoses changed in this study when consultation was requested for diagnostic assistance. When dermatology was consulted for diagnostic assistance, several of these cases lacked a preliminary differential diagnosis. Although the absence of a documented differential diagnosis may not necessarily reflect a lack of suspicion for a particular etiology, 86% of all consultations included a ranked differential or working diagnosis either in the consultation request or progress note prior to consultation. The final diagnoses of consultations without a preliminary diagnosis varied from the mild and localized to systemic and severe, further suggesting these cases reflected knowledge gaps of the primary medical team.

Integration of dermatology into the care of hospitalized patients could provide an opportunity for education of primary medical teams. With frequent consultation, primary medical teams may become more comfortable diagnosing and managing common cutaneous conditions specific to their specialty or extended hospitalizations.

Several consultations were requested to aid in management of cases of hidradenitis suppurativa, pyoderma gangrenosum, or bullous pemphigoid that either failed outpatient therapy or were complicated by superinfections. Despite the ranges in complexity, the majority of all consultations required a single encounter and led to improvement by the time of discharge, demonstrating the efficacy and efficiency of inpatient dermatologists.

Dermatology consultations often led to changes in management involving medications and additional workup. Changes in management also extended to specific wound care instructions provided by dermatology, as expected for cases of Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis, Sweet syndrome, hidradenitis suppurativa, and pyoderma gangrenosum. However, patients with the sequelae of extended hospitalizations, such as chronic wounds, pressure ulcers, and edema bullae, also benefited from this expertise.

When patients required a biopsy, the final diagnoses were consistent with the dermatologist’s number one differential diagnosis or top 3 differential diagnoses 72% and 88% of the time, respectively. Only 55% of cases where the primary team requested a biopsy ultimately required a biopsy, as many involved clinical diagnoses such as urticaria. Not only was dermatology accurate in their preliminary diagnoses, but they decreased cost and morbidity by avoiding unnecessary procedures.

This study provided additional evidence to support the integration of dermatology into the hospital setting for the benefit of patients, primary medical teams, and hospital systems. Dermatology offers high-value care through the efficient diagnosis and management of hospitalized patients, which contributes to decreased cost and improved outcomes.^2,5-7,9,10 This study highlighted lesser-known areas of impact, such as the various specialty-specific services dermatology provides as well as the high rates of reported improvement following consultation. Future studies should continue to explore the field’s unique impact on hospitalized medicine as well as other avenues of care delivery, such as telemedicine, that may encourage dermatologists to participate in consultations and increase the volume of patients who may benefit from their care.

Dermatology is an often-underutilized resource in the hospital setting. As the health care landscape has evolved, so has the role of the inpatient dermatologist.^1-3 Structural changes in the health system and advances in therapies have shifted dermatology from an admitting service to an almost exclusively outpatient practice. Improved treatment modalities led to decreases in the number of patients requiring admission for chronic dermatoses, and outpatient clinics began offering therapies once limited to hospitals.^1,4 Inpatient dermatology consultations emerged and continue to have profound effects on hospitalized patients regardless of their reason for admission.^1-11

Inpatient dermatologists supply knowledge in areas primary medical teams lack, and there is evidence that dermatology consultations improve the quality of care while decreasing cost.^2,5-7 Establishing correct diagnoses, preventing exposure to unnecessary medications, and reducing hospitalization duration and readmission rates are a few ways dermatology consultations positively impact hospitalized patients.^2,5-7,9,10 This study highlights the role of the dermatologist in the care of hospitalized patients at a large academic medical center in an urban setting and reveals how consultation supports the efficiency and efficacy of other services.

Materials and Methods

Study Design—This single-institution, cross-sectional retrospective study included all hospitalized patients at the Thomas Jefferson University Hospital (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania), who received an inpatient dermatology consultation completed by physicians of Jefferson Dermatology Associates between January 1, 2019, and December 31, 2019. The institutional review board at Thomas Jefferson University approved this study.

Data Collection—A list of all inpatient dermatology consultations in 2019 was provided by Jefferson Dermatology Associates. Through a retrospective chart review, data regarding the consultations were collected from the electronic medical record (Epic Systems) and recorded into the Research Electronic Data Capture system. Data on patient demographics, the primary medical team, the dermatology evaluation, and the hospital course of the patient were collected.

Results

Patient Characteristics—Dermatology received 253 inpatient consultation requests during this time period; 53% of patients were female and 47% were male, with a mean age of 55 years. Most patients were White (57%), while 34% were Black. Five percent and 4% of patients were Asian and Hispanic or Latino, respectively (Table 1). The mean duration of hospitalization for all patients was 15 days, and the average number of days to discharge following the first encounter with dermatology was 10 days.

Requesting Team and Reason for Consultation—Internal medicine consulted dermatology most frequently (34% of all consultations), followed by emergency medicine (14%) and a variety of other services (Table 1). Most dermatology consultations were placed to assist in achieving a diagnosis of a cutaneous condition (77%), while a minority were to assist in the management of a previously diagnosed disease (22%). A small fraction of consultations (5%) were to complete full-body skin examinations (FBSEs) to rule out infection or malignancy in candidates for organ transplantation, left ventricular assist devices, or certain chemotherapies. One FBSE was conducted to search for a primary tumor in a patient diagnosed with metastatic melanoma.

Most Common Final Diagnoses and Consultation Impact—Table 2 lists the most common final diagnosis categories, as well as the effects of the consultation on diagnosis, management, biopsies, hospitalization, and clinical improvement as documented by the primary medical provider. The most common final diagnoses were inflammatory and autoimmune (39%), such as contact dermatitis and seborrheic dermatitis; infectious (23%), such as varicella (primary or zoster) and bacterial furunculosis; drug reactions (20%), such as morbilliform drug eruptions; vascular (8%), such as vasculitis and calciphylaxis; neoplastic (7%), such as keratinocyte carcinomas and leukemia cutis; and other (15%), such as xerosis, keratosis pilaris, and miliaria rubra.

Impact on Diagnosis—Fifty-six percent of all consultations resulted in a change in diagnosis. When dermatology was consulted specifically to assist in the diagnosis of a patient (195 consultations), the working diagnosis of the primary team was changed 69% of the time. Thirty-five of these consultation requests had no preliminary diagnosis, and the primary team listed the working diagnosis as either rash or a morphologic description of the lesion(s). Sixty-three percent of suspected drug eruptions ended with a diagnosis of a form of drug eruption, while 20% of consultations for suspected cellulitis or bacterial infections were confirmed to be cellulitis or soft tissue infections.

Impact on Management—Regardless of the reason for the consultation, most consultations (86%) resulted in a change in management. The remaining 14% consisted of FBSEs with benign findings; cases of cutaneous metastases and leukemia cutis managed by oncology; as well as select cases of purpura fulminans, postfebrile desquamation, and postinflammatory hyperpigmentation.

Changes in management included alterations in medications, requests for additional laboratory work or imaging, additional consultation requests, biopsies, or specific wound care instructions. Seventy-five percent of all consultations were given specific medication recommendations by dermatology. Most (61%) were recommended to be given a topical steroid, antibiotic, or both. However, 45% of all consultations were recommended to initiate a systemic medication, most commonly antihistamines, antibiotics, steroids, antivirals, or immunomodulators. Dermatology recommended discontinuing specific medications in 16% of all consultations, with antibiotics being the most frequent culprit (17 antibiotics discontinued), owing to drug eruptions or misdiagnosed infections. Vancomycin, piperacillin-tazobactam, and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole were the most frequently discontinued antibiotics.

Dermatology was consulted for assistance in management of previously diagnosed cutaneous conditions 56 times (22% of all consultations), often regarding complicated cases of hidradenitis suppurativa (9 cases), pyoderma gangrenosum (5 cases), bullous pemphigoid (4 cases), or erythroderma (4 cases). Most of these cases required a single dermatology encounter to provide recommendations (71%), and 21% required 1 additional follow-up. Sixty-three percent of patients consulted for management assistance were noted to have improvement in their cutaneous condition by time of discharge, as documented by the primary provider in the medical record.

Twenty-eight percent of all consultations required at least 1 biopsy. Seventy-two percent of all biopsies were consistent with the dermatologist’s working diagnosis or highest-ranked differential diagnosis, and 16% of biopsy results were consistent with the second- or third-ranked diagnosis. The primary teams requested a biopsy 38 times to assist in diagnosis, as documented in the progress note or consultation request. Only 21 of these consultations (55% of requests) received at least 1 biopsy, as the remaining consultations did not require a biopsy to establish a diagnosis. The most common final diagnoses of consultations receiving biopsies included drug eruptions (5), leukemia cutis (4), vasculopathies (4), vasculitis (4), and calciphylaxis (3).

Impact on Hospitalization and Efficacy—Dermatology performed 217 consultations regarding patients already admitted to the hospital, and 92% remained hospitalized either due to comorbidities or complicated cutaneous conditions following the consultation. The remaining 8% were cleared for discharge. Dermatology received 36 consultation requests from emergency medicine physicians. Fifty-three percent of these patients were admitted, while the remaining 47% were discharged from the emergency department or its observation unit following evaluation.

Fifty-one percent of all consultations were noted to have improvement in their cutaneous condition by the time of discharge, as noted in the physical examination, progress note, or discharge summary of the primary team. Thirty percent of cases remained stable, where improvement was not noted in in the medical record. Most of these cases involved keratinocyte carcinomas scheduled for outpatient excision, benign melanocytic nevi found on FBSE, and benign etiologies that led to immediate discharge following consultation. Three percent of all consultations were noted to have worsened following consultation, including cases of calciphylaxis, vasculopathies, and purpura fulminans, as well as patients who elected for palliative care and hospice. The cutaneous condition by the time of discharge could not be determined from the medical record in 16% of all consultations.

Eighty-five percent of all consultations required a single encounter with dermatology. An additional 10% required a single follow-up with dermatology, while only 5% of patients required 3 or more encounters. Notably, these cases included patients with 1 or more severe cutaneous diseases, such as Sweet syndrome, calciphylaxis, Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis, and hidradenitis suppurativa.

Comment

Although dermatology often is viewed as an outpatient specialty, this study provides a glimpse into the ways inpatient dermatology consultations optimize the care of hospitalized patients. Most consultations involved assistance in diagnosing an unknown condition, but several regarded pre-existing skin disorders requiring management aid. As a variety of medical specialties requested consultations, dermatology was able to provide care to a diverse group of patients with conditions varying in complexity and severity. Several specialties benefited from niche dermatologic expertise: hematology and oncology frequently requested dermatology to assist in diagnosis and management of the toxic effects of chemotherapy, cutaneous metastasis, or suspected cutaneous infections in immunocompromised patients. Cardiology patients were frequently evaluated for potential malignancy or infection prior to heart transplantation and initiation of antirejection immunosuppressants. Dermatology was consulted to differentiate cutaneous manifestations of critical illness from underlying systemic disease in the intensive care unit, and patients presenting to the emergency department often were examined to determine if hospital admission was necessary, with 47% of these consultations resulting in a discharge following evaluation by a dermatologist.

Our results were consistent with prior studies^1,5,6 that have reported frequent changes in final diagnosis following dermatology consultation, with 69% of working diagnoses changed in this study when consultation was requested for diagnostic assistance. When dermatology was consulted for diagnostic assistance, several of these cases lacked a preliminary differential diagnosis. Although the absence of a documented differential diagnosis may not necessarily reflect a lack of suspicion for a particular etiology, 86% of all consultations included a ranked differential or working diagnosis either in the consultation request or progress note prior to consultation. The final diagnoses of consultations without a preliminary diagnosis varied from the mild and localized to systemic and severe, further suggesting these cases reflected knowledge gaps of the primary medical team.

Integration of dermatology into the care of hospitalized patients could provide an opportunity for education of primary medical teams. With frequent consultation, primary medical teams may become more comfortable diagnosing and managing common cutaneous conditions specific to their specialty or extended hospitalizations.

Several consultations were requested to aid in management of cases of hidradenitis suppurativa, pyoderma gangrenosum, or bullous pemphigoid that either failed outpatient therapy or were complicated by superinfections. Despite the ranges in complexity, the majority of all consultations required a single encounter and led to improvement by the time of discharge, demonstrating the efficacy and efficiency of inpatient dermatologists.

Dermatology consultations often led to changes in management involving medications and additional workup. Changes in management also extended to specific wound care instructions provided by dermatology, as expected for cases of Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis, Sweet syndrome, hidradenitis suppurativa, and pyoderma gangrenosum. However, patients with the sequelae of extended hospitalizations, such as chronic wounds, pressure ulcers, and edema bullae, also benefited from this expertise.

When patients required a biopsy, the final diagnoses were consistent with the dermatologist’s number one differential diagnosis or top 3 differential diagnoses 72% and 88% of the time, respectively. Only 55% of cases where the primary team requested a biopsy ultimately required a biopsy, as many involved clinical diagnoses such as urticaria. Not only was dermatology accurate in their preliminary diagnoses, but they decreased cost and morbidity by avoiding unnecessary procedures.

This study provided additional evidence to support the integration of dermatology into the hospital setting for the benefit of patients, primary medical teams, and hospital systems. Dermatology offers high-value care through the efficient diagnosis and management of hospitalized patients, which contributes to decreased cost and improved outcomes.^2,5-7,9,10 This study highlighted lesser-known areas of impact, such as the various specialty-specific services dermatology provides as well as the high rates of reported improvement following consultation. Future studies should continue to explore the field’s unique impact on hospitalized medicine as well as other avenues of care delivery, such as telemedicine, that may encourage dermatologists to participate in consultations and increase the volume of patients who may benefit from their care.

The US Department of Defense maintains a presence in several cold weather environments such as North Dakota, Alaska, and South Korea. Although much is known about preventing and caring for cold weather injuries, many of these ailments continue to occur. Therefore, it is vital that both military and civilian physicians who care for patients who are exposed to cold weather conditions have a thorough understanding of the prevention, clinical presentation, and treatment of cold weather injuries.

Although the focus of this article is on cutaneous cold weather injuries that occur in military service, these types of injuries are not limited to this population. Civilians who live, work, or seek recreation in cold climates also may experience these injuries. Classically, cold injuries are classified as freezing and nonfreezing injuries. For the purpose of this article, we also consider a third category: dermatologic conditions that flare upon cold exposure. Specifically, we discuss frostbite, cold-weather immersion foot, pernio, Raynaud phenomenon (RP), and cold urticaria. We also present a case of pernio in an active-duty military service member.

Frostbite

For centuries, frostbite has been well documented as a cold weather injury in military history.¹ Napoleon’s catastrophic invasion of Russia in 1812 started with 612,000 troops and ended with fewer than 10,000 effective soldiers; while many factors contributed to this attrition, exposure to cold weather and frostbite is thought to have been a major factor. The muddy trench warfare of World War I was no kinder to the poorly equipped soldiers across the European theater. Decades later during World War II, frostbite was a serious source of noncombat injuries, as battles were fought in frigid European winters. From 1942 to 1945, there were 13,196 reported cases of frostbite in the European theater, with most of these injuries occurring in 1945.¹

Despite advancements in cold weather clothing and increased knowledge about the causes of and preventative measures for frostbite, cold weather injuries continue to be a relevant topic in today’s military. From 2015 to 2020, there were 1120 reported cases of frostbite in the US military.² When skin is exposed to cold temperatures, the body peripherally vasoconstricts to reduce core heat loss. This autoregulatory vasoconstriction is part of a normal physiologic response that preserves the core body temperature, often at the expense of the extremities; for instance, the hands and feet are equipped with arteriovenous shunts, known as glomus bodies, which consist of vascular smooth muscle centers that control the flow of blood in response to changing external temperatures.³ This is partially mitigated by cold-induced vasodilation of the digits, also known as the Hunting reaction, which generally occurs 5 to 10 minutes after the start of local cold exposure.⁴ Additionally, discomfort from cold exposure warrants behavioral modifications such as going indoors, putting on warmer clothing, or building a fire. If an individual is unable to seek shelter in the face of cold exposure, the cold will inevitably cause injury.

Frostbite is caused by both direct and indirect cellular injury. Direct injury results from the crystallization of intracellular and interstitial fluids, cellular dehydration, and electrolyte disturbances. Indirect cellular injury is the result of a progressive microvascular insult and is caused by microvascular thrombosis, endothelial damage, intravascular sludging, inflammatory mediators, free radicals, and reperfusion injury.⁵

Frostnip is a more superficial injury that does not involve freezing of the skin or underlying tissue and typically does not leave any long-term damage. As severity of injury increases, frostbite is characterized by the depth of injury, presence of tissue loss, and radiotracer uptake on bone scan. There are 2 main classification systems for frostbite: one is based on the severity of the injury outcome, categorized by 4 degrees (1–4), and the other is designed as a predictive model, categorized by 4 grades (1–4).⁶ The first classification system is similar to the system for the severity of burns and ranges from partial-thickness injury (first degree) to full-thickness skin, subcutaneous tissue, muscle, tendon, and bone (fourth degree). The latter classification system uses the presence and characteristics of blisters after rewarming on days 0 and 2 and radiotracer uptake on bone scan on day 2. Severity ranges from no blistering, no indicated bone scan, and no long-term sequelae in grade 1 to hemorrhagic blisters overlying the carpal or tarsal bones and absence of radiotracer uptake with predicted extensive amputation, risk for thrombosis or sepsis, and long-term functional sequelae in grade 4.⁶

Male sex and African descent are associated with increased risk for sustaining frostbite. The ethnic predisposition may be explained by a less robust Hunting reaction in individuals of African descent.^4,7 Other risk factors include alcohol use, smoking, homelessness, history of cold-related injury, use of beta-blockers, and working with equipment that uses nitrogen dioxide or CO₂.⁵ Additionally, a history of systemic lupus erythematosus has been reported as a risk factor for frostbite.⁸

Clinically, frostbite initially may appear pale, blue, or erythematous, and patients may report skin numbness. In severe cases, necrosis can be seen.⁹ The most commonly affected anatomic locations include the fingers, toes, ears, and nose. Prevention is key for frostbite injuries. Steps to avoid injury include wearing appropriate clothing, minimizing the duration of time the skin is exposed to cold temperatures, avoiding alcohol consumption, and avoiding physical exhaustion in cold weather. These steps can help mitigate the effects of wind chill and low temperatures and decrease the risk of frostbite.¹⁰

Management of this condition includes prevention, early diagnosis, prehospital management, hospital management, and long-term sequelae management. Leadership and medical personnel for military units assigned to cold climates should be vigilant in looking for symptoms of frostbite. If any one individual is found to have frostbite or any other cold injury, all other team members should be evaluated.⁵

After identification of frostbite, seeking shelter and evacuation to a treatment facility are vital next steps. Constrictive clothing or jewelry should be removed. Depending on the situation, rewarming can be attempted in the prehospital setting, but it is imperative to avoid refreezing, as this may further damage the affected tissue due to intracellular ice formation with extensive cell destruction.⁶ Gentle warming can be attempted by placing the affected extremity in another person’s armpit or groin for up to 10 minutes or by immersing the affected limb in water that is 37° C to 39° C (98.6° F to 102.2° F). Rubbing the affected area and dry heat should be avoided. It should be noted that the decision to thaw in the field introduces the challenge of dealing with the severe pain associated with thawing in a remote or hostile environment. Ibuprofen (400 mg) can be given as an anti-inflammatory and analgesic agent in the prehospital setting.⁵ Once safely evacuated to the hospital, treatment options expand dramatically, including warming without concern of refreezing, wound care, thrombolytic therapy, and surgical intervention. If local frostbite expertise is not available, there are telemedicine services available.^5,6

Frostbite outcomes range from complete recovery to amputation. Previously frostbitten tissue has increased cold sensitivity and is more susceptible to similar injury in the future. Additionally, there can be functional loss, chronic pain, chronic ulceration, and arthritis.^5,6 As such, a history of frostbite can be disqualifying for military service and requires a medical waiver.¹¹ If a service member experiences frostbite and does not have any residual effects, they can expect to continue their military service, but if there are sequelae, it may prove to be career limiting.^12-14

Immersion Foot

Although frostbite represents a freezing injury, immersion foot (or trench foot) represents a nonfreezing cold injury. It should be noted that in addition to immersion foot associated with cold water exposure, there also are warm-water and tropical variants. For the purpose of this article, we are referring to immersion foot associated with exposure to cold water. Trench foot was described for the first time during Napoleon’s invasion of Russia in 1812 but came to prominence during World War I, where it is thought to have contributed to the deaths of 75,000 British soldiers. During World War II, there were 25,016 cases of immersion foot reported in the US military.¹ More recently, 590 cases of immersion foot were reported in the US military from 2015 to 2020.²

Classically, this condition was seen in individuals whose feet were immersed in cold but not freezing water or mud in trenches or on boats, hence the terms immersion foot and trench foot. The pathogenesis is thought to be related to overhydration of the stratum corneum and repetitive cycles of cold-induced, thermoprotective vasoconstriction, leading to cyclical hypoxic and reperfusion injuries, which eventually damage nerves, muscle, subcutaneous fat, and blood vessels.^9,15

A recent case series of 100 military service members in the United Kingdom showed that cold-induced extremity numbness for more than 30 minutes and painful rewarming after cold exposure were highly correlated with the development of immersion foot. Additionally, this case series showed that patients with repeated cycles of cooling and rewarming were more likely to have long-term symptoms.¹⁶ As with frostbite, prior cold injury and African descent increases the risk for developing immersion foot, possibly due to a less-pronounced Hunting reaction.^4,7

Early reports suggested prehyperemic, hyperemic, and posthyperemic stages. The prehyperemic stage lasts from hours to days and is characterized by cold extremities, discoloration, edema, stocking- or glove-distributed anesthesia, blisters, necrosis, and potential loss of palpable pulses.¹⁷ Of note, in Kuht et al’s¹⁶ more recent case series, edema was not seen as frequently as in prior reports. The hyperemic stage can last for 6 to 10 weeks and is characterized by vascular disturbances. In addition, the affected extremity typically remains warm and red even when exposed to cold temperatures. Sensory disturbances such as paresthesia and hyperalgesia may be seen, as well as motor disturbances, anhidrosis, blisters, ulcers, and gangrene. The posthyperemic stage can last from months to years and is characterized by cold sensitivity, possible digital blanching, edema, hyperhidrosis, and persistent peripheral neuropathy.¹⁶

Prevention is the most important treatment for immersion foot. The first step in preventing this injury is avoiding prolonged cold exposure. When this is not possible due to the demands of training or actual combat conditions, regular hand and foot inspections, frequent sock changes, and regularly rotating out of cold wet conditions can help prevent this injury.¹⁵ Vasodilators also have been considered as a possible treatment modality. Iloprost and nicotinyl alcohol tartrate showed some improvement, while aminophylline and papaverine were ineffective.¹⁵

As with frostbite, a history of immersion foot may be disqualifying for military service.¹¹ If it occurs during military service and there are no residual effects that limit the service member’s capabilities, they may expect to continue their career; however, if there are residual effects that limit activity or deployment, medical retirement may be indicated.

Pernio

Pernio is another important condition that is related to cold exposure; however, unlike the previous 2 conditions, it is not necessarily caused by cold exposure but rather flares with cold exposure.

Case Presentation—A 39-year-old active-duty male service member presented to the dermatology clinic for intermittent painful blistering on the toes of both feet lasting approximately 10 to 14 days about 3 to 4 times per year for the last several years. The patient reported that his symptoms started after spending 2 days in the snow with wet nonwinterized boots while stationed in Germany 10 years prior. He reported cold weather as his only associated trigger and denied other associated symptoms. Physical examination revealed mildly cyanotic toes containing scattered bullae, with the dorsal lesions appearing more superficial compared to the deeper plantar bullae (Figure 1). A complete blood cell count, serum protein electrophoresis, and antinuclear and autoimmune antibodies were within reference range. A punch biopsy was obtained from a lesion on the right dorsal great toe. Hematoxylin and eosin–stained sections revealed lichenoid and vacuolar dermatitis with scattered dyskeratosis and subtle papillary edema (Figure 2). Minimal interstitial mucin was seen on Alcian blue–stained sections. The histologic and clinical findings were most compatible with a diagnosis of chronic pernio. Nifedipine 20 mg once daily was initiated, and he had minimal improvement after a few months of treatment. His condition continued to limit his functionality in cold conditions due to pain. Without improvement of the symptoms, the patient likely will require medical separation from military service, as this condition limits the performance of his duties and his deployability.

Clinical Discussion—Pernio, also known as chilblains, is characterized by cold-induced erythematous patches and plaques, pain, and pruritus on the affected skin.¹⁸ Bullae and ulceration can be seen in more severe and chronic cases.¹⁹ Pernio most commonly is seen in young women but also can be seen in children, men, and older adults. It usually occurs on the tips of toes but also may affect the fingers, nose, and ears. It typically is observed in cold and damp conditions and is thought to be caused by an inflammatory response to vasospasms in the setting of nonfreezing cold. Acute pernio typically resolves after a few weeks; however, it also can persist in a chronic form after repeated cold exposure.¹⁸

Predisposing factors include excessive cold exposure, connective tissue disease, hematologic malignancy, antiphospholipid antibodies in adults, and anorexia nervosa in children.^18,20,21 More recently, perniolike lesions have been associated with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection.²² Histologically, pernio is characterized by a perivascular lymphocytic infiltrate and dermal edema.²³ Cold avoidance, warming, drying, and smoking cessation are primary treatments, while vasodilating medications such as nifedipine have been used with success in more resistant cases.^20,24

Although the prognosis generally is excellent, this condition also can be career limiting for military service members. If it resolves with no residual effects, patients can expect to continue their service; however, if it persists and limits their activity or ability to deploy, a medical retirement may be indicated.^11-14

Raynaud Phenomenon

Raynaud phenomenon (also known as Raynaud’s) is characterized by cold-induced extremity triphasic color changes—initial blanching and pallor that transitions to cyanosis and finally erythema with associated pain during the recovery stage. The fingers are the most commonly involved appendages and can have a symmetric distribution, but RP also has been observed on the feet, lips, nose, and ears. In severe cases, it can cause ulceration.²⁵ The prevalence of RP may be as high as 5% in the general population.²⁶ It more commonly is primary or idiopathic with no underlying cause or secondary with an associated underlying systemic disease.

Cold-induced vasoconstriction is a normal physiologic response, but in RP, the response becomes a vasospasm and is pathological. Autoimmune and connective tissue diseases often are associated with secondary RP. Other risk factors include female sex, smoking, family history in a first-degree relative, and certain medications.²⁵ A study in northern Sweden also identified a history of frostbite as a risk factor for the development of RP.²⁷ This condition can notably restrict mobility and deployability of affected service members as well as the types of manual tasks that they may be required to perform. As such, this condition can be disqualifying for military service.¹¹

Many patients improve with conservative treatment consisting of cold avoidance, smoking cessation, and avoidance of medications that worsen the vasospasm; however, some patients develop pain and chronic disease, which can become so severe and ischemic that digital loss is threatened.²⁵ When needed, calcium channel blockers commonly are used for treatment and can be used prophylactically to reduce flare rates and severity of disease. If this class of medications is ineffective or is not tolerated, there are other medications and treatments to consider, which are beyond the scope of this article.²⁵

Cold Urticaria

Cold urticaria is a subset of physical urticaria in which symptoms occur in response to a cutaneous cold stimulus. It can be primary or secondary, with potential underlying causes including cryoglobulinemia, infections, and some medications. Systemic involvement is possible with extensive cold contact and can include severe anaphylaxis. This condition is diagnosed using a cold stimulation test. Cold exposure avoidance and second-generation antihistamines are considered first-line treatment. Because anaphylaxis is possible, patients should be given an epinephrine pen and should be instructed to avoid swimming in cold water.²⁸ Cold urticaria is disqualifying for military service.¹¹

A 2013 case report described a 29-year-old woman on active duty in the US Air Force whose presenting symptoms included urticaria on the exposed skin on the arms when doing physical training in the rain.²⁹ In this case, secondary causes were eliminated, and she was diagnosed with primary acquired cold urticaria. This patient was eventually medically discharged from the air force because management with antihistamines failed, and her symptoms limited her ability to function in even mildly cold environments.²⁹

Final Thoughts

An understanding of cold weather injuries and other dermatologic conditions that may be flared by cold exposure is important for a medically ready military force, as there are implications for accession, training, and combat operations. Although the focus of this article has been on the military, these conditions also are seen in civilian medicine in patient populations routinely exposed to cold weather. This becomes especially pertinent in high-risk patients such as extreme athletes, homeless individuals, or those who have other predisposing characteristics such as chronic alcohol use. Appropriate cold weather gear, training, and deliberate mission or activity planning are important interventions in preventing cutaneous cold weather injuries within the military.

The US Department of Defense maintains a presence in several cold weather environments such as North Dakota, Alaska, and South Korea. Although much is known about preventing and caring for cold weather injuries, many of these ailments continue to occur. Therefore, it is vital that both military and civilian physicians who care for patients who are exposed to cold weather conditions have a thorough understanding of the prevention, clinical presentation, and treatment of cold weather injuries.

Although the focus of this article is on cutaneous cold weather injuries that occur in military service, these types of injuries are not limited to this population. Civilians who live, work, or seek recreation in cold climates also may experience these injuries. Classically, cold injuries are classified as freezing and nonfreezing injuries. For the purpose of this article, we also consider a third category: dermatologic conditions that flare upon cold exposure. Specifically, we discuss frostbite, cold-weather immersion foot, pernio, Raynaud phenomenon (RP), and cold urticaria. We also present a case of pernio in an active-duty military service member.

Frostbite

For centuries, frostbite has been well documented as a cold weather injury in military history.¹ Napoleon’s catastrophic invasion of Russia in 1812 started with 612,000 troops and ended with fewer than 10,000 effective soldiers; while many factors contributed to this attrition, exposure to cold weather and frostbite is thought to have been a major factor. The muddy trench warfare of World War I was no kinder to the poorly equipped soldiers across the European theater. Decades later during World War II, frostbite was a serious source of noncombat injuries, as battles were fought in frigid European winters. From 1942 to 1945, there were 13,196 reported cases of frostbite in the European theater, with most of these injuries occurring in 1945.¹

Despite advancements in cold weather clothing and increased knowledge about the causes of and preventative measures for frostbite, cold weather injuries continue to be a relevant topic in today’s military. From 2015 to 2020, there were 1120 reported cases of frostbite in the US military.² When skin is exposed to cold temperatures, the body peripherally vasoconstricts to reduce core heat loss. This autoregulatory vasoconstriction is part of a normal physiologic response that preserves the core body temperature, often at the expense of the extremities; for instance, the hands and feet are equipped with arteriovenous shunts, known as glomus bodies, which consist of vascular smooth muscle centers that control the flow of blood in response to changing external temperatures.³ This is partially mitigated by cold-induced vasodilation of the digits, also known as the Hunting reaction, which generally occurs 5 to 10 minutes after the start of local cold exposure.⁴ Additionally, discomfort from cold exposure warrants behavioral modifications such as going indoors, putting on warmer clothing, or building a fire. If an individual is unable to seek shelter in the face of cold exposure, the cold will inevitably cause injury.

Frostbite is caused by both direct and indirect cellular injury. Direct injury results from the crystallization of intracellular and interstitial fluids, cellular dehydration, and electrolyte disturbances. Indirect cellular injury is the result of a progressive microvascular insult and is caused by microvascular thrombosis, endothelial damage, intravascular sludging, inflammatory mediators, free radicals, and reperfusion injury.⁵

Frostnip is a more superficial injury that does not involve freezing of the skin or underlying tissue and typically does not leave any long-term damage. As severity of injury increases, frostbite is characterized by the depth of injury, presence of tissue loss, and radiotracer uptake on bone scan. There are 2 main classification systems for frostbite: one is based on the severity of the injury outcome, categorized by 4 degrees (1–4), and the other is designed as a predictive model, categorized by 4 grades (1–4).⁶ The first classification system is similar to the system for the severity of burns and ranges from partial-thickness injury (first degree) to full-thickness skin, subcutaneous tissue, muscle, tendon, and bone (fourth degree). The latter classification system uses the presence and characteristics of blisters after rewarming on days 0 and 2 and radiotracer uptake on bone scan on day 2. Severity ranges from no blistering, no indicated bone scan, and no long-term sequelae in grade 1 to hemorrhagic blisters overlying the carpal or tarsal bones and absence of radiotracer uptake with predicted extensive amputation, risk for thrombosis or sepsis, and long-term functional sequelae in grade 4.⁶

Male sex and African descent are associated with increased risk for sustaining frostbite. The ethnic predisposition may be explained by a less robust Hunting reaction in individuals of African descent.^4,7 Other risk factors include alcohol use, smoking, homelessness, history of cold-related injury, use of beta-blockers, and working with equipment that uses nitrogen dioxide or CO₂.⁵ Additionally, a history of systemic lupus erythematosus has been reported as a risk factor for frostbite.⁸

Clinically, frostbite initially may appear pale, blue, or erythematous, and patients may report skin numbness. In severe cases, necrosis can be seen.⁹ The most commonly affected anatomic locations include the fingers, toes, ears, and nose. Prevention is key for frostbite injuries. Steps to avoid injury include wearing appropriate clothing, minimizing the duration of time the skin is exposed to cold temperatures, avoiding alcohol consumption, and avoiding physical exhaustion in cold weather. These steps can help mitigate the effects of wind chill and low temperatures and decrease the risk of frostbite.¹⁰

Management of this condition includes prevention, early diagnosis, prehospital management, hospital management, and long-term sequelae management. Leadership and medical personnel for military units assigned to cold climates should be vigilant in looking for symptoms of frostbite. If any one individual is found to have frostbite or any other cold injury, all other team members should be evaluated.⁵

After identification of frostbite, seeking shelter and evacuation to a treatment facility are vital next steps. Constrictive clothing or jewelry should be removed. Depending on the situation, rewarming can be attempted in the prehospital setting, but it is imperative to avoid refreezing, as this may further damage the affected tissue due to intracellular ice formation with extensive cell destruction.⁶ Gentle warming can be attempted by placing the affected extremity in another person’s armpit or groin for up to 10 minutes or by immersing the affected limb in water that is 37° C to 39° C (98.6° F to 102.2° F). Rubbing the affected area and dry heat should be avoided. It should be noted that the decision to thaw in the field introduces the challenge of dealing with the severe pain associated with thawing in a remote or hostile environment. Ibuprofen (400 mg) can be given as an anti-inflammatory and analgesic agent in the prehospital setting.⁵ Once safely evacuated to the hospital, treatment options expand dramatically, including warming without concern of refreezing, wound care, thrombolytic therapy, and surgical intervention. If local frostbite expertise is not available, there are telemedicine services available.^5,6

Frostbite outcomes range from complete recovery to amputation. Previously frostbitten tissue has increased cold sensitivity and is more susceptible to similar injury in the future. Additionally, there can be functional loss, chronic pain, chronic ulceration, and arthritis.^5,6 As such, a history of frostbite can be disqualifying for military service and requires a medical waiver.¹¹ If a service member experiences frostbite and does not have any residual effects, they can expect to continue their military service, but if there are sequelae, it may prove to be career limiting.^12-14

Immersion Foot

Although frostbite represents a freezing injury, immersion foot (or trench foot) represents a nonfreezing cold injury. It should be noted that in addition to immersion foot associated with cold water exposure, there also are warm-water and tropical variants. For the purpose of this article, we are referring to immersion foot associated with exposure to cold water. Trench foot was described for the first time during Napoleon’s invasion of Russia in 1812 but came to prominence during World War I, where it is thought to have contributed to the deaths of 75,000 British soldiers. During World War II, there were 25,016 cases of immersion foot reported in the US military.¹ More recently, 590 cases of immersion foot were reported in the US military from 2015 to 2020.²

Classically, this condition was seen in individuals whose feet were immersed in cold but not freezing water or mud in trenches or on boats, hence the terms immersion foot and trench foot. The pathogenesis is thought to be related to overhydration of the stratum corneum and repetitive cycles of cold-induced, thermoprotective vasoconstriction, leading to cyclical hypoxic and reperfusion injuries, which eventually damage nerves, muscle, subcutaneous fat, and blood vessels.^9,15

A recent case series of 100 military service members in the United Kingdom showed that cold-induced extremity numbness for more than 30 minutes and painful rewarming after cold exposure were highly correlated with the development of immersion foot. Additionally, this case series showed that patients with repeated cycles of cooling and rewarming were more likely to have long-term symptoms.¹⁶ As with frostbite, prior cold injury and African descent increases the risk for developing immersion foot, possibly due to a less-pronounced Hunting reaction.^4,7

Early reports suggested prehyperemic, hyperemic, and posthyperemic stages. The prehyperemic stage lasts from hours to days and is characterized by cold extremities, discoloration, edema, stocking- or glove-distributed anesthesia, blisters, necrosis, and potential loss of palpable pulses.¹⁷ Of note, in Kuht et al’s¹⁶ more recent case series, edema was not seen as frequently as in prior reports. The hyperemic stage can last for 6 to 10 weeks and is characterized by vascular disturbances. In addition, the affected extremity typically remains warm and red even when exposed to cold temperatures. Sensory disturbances such as paresthesia and hyperalgesia may be seen, as well as motor disturbances, anhidrosis, blisters, ulcers, and gangrene. The posthyperemic stage can last from months to years and is characterized by cold sensitivity, possible digital blanching, edema, hyperhidrosis, and persistent peripheral neuropathy.¹⁶

Prevention is the most important treatment for immersion foot. The first step in preventing this injury is avoiding prolonged cold exposure. When this is not possible due to the demands of training or actual combat conditions, regular hand and foot inspections, frequent sock changes, and regularly rotating out of cold wet conditions can help prevent this injury.¹⁵ Vasodilators also have been considered as a possible treatment modality. Iloprost and nicotinyl alcohol tartrate showed some improvement, while aminophylline and papaverine were ineffective.¹⁵

As with frostbite, a history of immersion foot may be disqualifying for military service.¹¹ If it occurs during military service and there are no residual effects that limit the service member’s capabilities, they may expect to continue their career; however, if there are residual effects that limit activity or deployment, medical retirement may be indicated.

Pernio

Pernio is another important condition that is related to cold exposure; however, unlike the previous 2 conditions, it is not necessarily caused by cold exposure but rather flares with cold exposure.

Case Presentation—A 39-year-old active-duty male service member presented to the dermatology clinic for intermittent painful blistering on the toes of both feet lasting approximately 10 to 14 days about 3 to 4 times per year for the last several years. The patient reported that his symptoms started after spending 2 days in the snow with wet nonwinterized boots while stationed in Germany 10 years prior. He reported cold weather as his only associated trigger and denied other associated symptoms. Physical examination revealed mildly cyanotic toes containing scattered bullae, with the dorsal lesions appearing more superficial compared to the deeper plantar bullae (Figure 1). A complete blood cell count, serum protein electrophoresis, and antinuclear and autoimmune antibodies were within reference range. A punch biopsy was obtained from a lesion on the right dorsal great toe. Hematoxylin and eosin–stained sections revealed lichenoid and vacuolar dermatitis with scattered dyskeratosis and subtle papillary edema (Figure 2). Minimal interstitial mucin was seen on Alcian blue–stained sections. The histologic and clinical findings were most compatible with a diagnosis of chronic pernio. Nifedipine 20 mg once daily was initiated, and he had minimal improvement after a few months of treatment. His condition continued to limit his functionality in cold conditions due to pain. Without improvement of the symptoms, the patient likely will require medical separation from military service, as this condition limits the performance of his duties and his deployability.

Clinical Discussion—Pernio, also known as chilblains, is characterized by cold-induced erythematous patches and plaques, pain, and pruritus on the affected skin.¹⁸ Bullae and ulceration can be seen in more severe and chronic cases.¹⁹ Pernio most commonly is seen in young women but also can be seen in children, men, and older adults. It usually occurs on the tips of toes but also may affect the fingers, nose, and ears. It typically is observed in cold and damp conditions and is thought to be caused by an inflammatory response to vasospasms in the setting of nonfreezing cold. Acute pernio typically resolves after a few weeks; however, it also can persist in a chronic form after repeated cold exposure.¹⁸

Predisposing factors include excessive cold exposure, connective tissue disease, hematologic malignancy, antiphospholipid antibodies in adults, and anorexia nervosa in children.^18,20,21 More recently, perniolike lesions have been associated with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection.²² Histologically, pernio is characterized by a perivascular lymphocytic infiltrate and dermal edema.²³ Cold avoidance, warming, drying, and smoking cessation are primary treatments, while vasodilating medications such as nifedipine have been used with success in more resistant cases.^20,24

Although the prognosis generally is excellent, this condition also can be career limiting for military service members. If it resolves with no residual effects, patients can expect to continue their service; however, if it persists and limits their activity or ability to deploy, a medical retirement may be indicated.^11-14

Raynaud Phenomenon

Raynaud phenomenon (also known as Raynaud’s) is characterized by cold-induced extremity triphasic color changes—initial blanching and pallor that transitions to cyanosis and finally erythema with associated pain during the recovery stage. The fingers are the most commonly involved appendages and can have a symmetric distribution, but RP also has been observed on the feet, lips, nose, and ears. In severe cases, it can cause ulceration.²⁵ The prevalence of RP may be as high as 5% in the general population.²⁶ It more commonly is primary or idiopathic with no underlying cause or secondary with an associated underlying systemic disease.

Cold-induced vasoconstriction is a normal physiologic response, but in RP, the response becomes a vasospasm and is pathological. Autoimmune and connective tissue diseases often are associated with secondary RP. Other risk factors include female sex, smoking, family history in a first-degree relative, and certain medications.²⁵ A study in northern Sweden also identified a history of frostbite as a risk factor for the development of RP.²⁷ This condition can notably restrict mobility and deployability of affected service members as well as the types of manual tasks that they may be required to perform. As such, this condition can be disqualifying for military service.¹¹

Many patients improve with conservative treatment consisting of cold avoidance, smoking cessation, and avoidance of medications that worsen the vasospasm; however, some patients develop pain and chronic disease, which can become so severe and ischemic that digital loss is threatened.²⁵ When needed, calcium channel blockers commonly are used for treatment and can be used prophylactically to reduce flare rates and severity of disease. If this class of medications is ineffective or is not tolerated, there are other medications and treatments to consider, which are beyond the scope of this article.²⁵

Cold Urticaria

Cold urticaria is a subset of physical urticaria in which symptoms occur in response to a cutaneous cold stimulus. It can be primary or secondary, with potential underlying causes including cryoglobulinemia, infections, and some medications. Systemic involvement is possible with extensive cold contact and can include severe anaphylaxis. This condition is diagnosed using a cold stimulation test. Cold exposure avoidance and second-generation antihistamines are considered first-line treatment. Because anaphylaxis is possible, patients should be given an epinephrine pen and should be instructed to avoid swimming in cold water.²⁸ Cold urticaria is disqualifying for military service.¹¹

A 2013 case report described a 29-year-old woman on active duty in the US Air Force whose presenting symptoms included urticaria on the exposed skin on the arms when doing physical training in the rain.²⁹ In this case, secondary causes were eliminated, and she was diagnosed with primary acquired cold urticaria. This patient was eventually medically discharged from the air force because management with antihistamines failed, and her symptoms limited her ability to function in even mildly cold environments.²⁹

Final Thoughts

An understanding of cold weather injuries and other dermatologic conditions that may be flared by cold exposure is important for a medically ready military force, as there are implications for accession, training, and combat operations. Although the focus of this article has been on the military, these conditions also are seen in civilian medicine in patient populations routinely exposed to cold weather. This becomes especially pertinent in high-risk patients such as extreme athletes, homeless individuals, or those who have other predisposing characteristics such as chronic alcohol use. Appropriate cold weather gear, training, and deliberate mission or activity planning are important interventions in preventing cutaneous cold weather injuries within the military.

The US Department of Defense maintains a presence in several cold weather environments such as North Dakota, Alaska, and South Korea. Although much is known about preventing and caring for cold weather injuries, many of these ailments continue to occur. Therefore, it is vital that both military and civilian physicians who care for patients who are exposed to cold weather conditions have a thorough understanding of the prevention, clinical presentation, and treatment of cold weather injuries.

Although the focus of this article is on cutaneous cold weather injuries that occur in military service, these types of injuries are not limited to this population. Civilians who live, work, or seek recreation in cold climates also may experience these injuries. Classically, cold injuries are classified as freezing and nonfreezing injuries. For the purpose of this article, we also consider a third category: dermatologic conditions that flare upon cold exposure. Specifically, we discuss frostbite, cold-weather immersion foot, pernio, Raynaud phenomenon (RP), and cold urticaria. We also present a case of pernio in an active-duty military service member.

Frostbite

For centuries, frostbite has been well documented as a cold weather injury in military history.¹ Napoleon’s catastrophic invasion of Russia in 1812 started with 612,000 troops and ended with fewer than 10,000 effective soldiers; while many factors contributed to this attrition, exposure to cold weather and frostbite is thought to have been a major factor. The muddy trench warfare of World War I was no kinder to the poorly equipped soldiers across the European theater. Decades later during World War II, frostbite was a serious source of noncombat injuries, as battles were fought in frigid European winters. From 1942 to 1945, there were 13,196 reported cases of frostbite in the European theater, with most of these injuries occurring in 1945.¹

Despite advancements in cold weather clothing and increased knowledge about the causes of and preventative measures for frostbite, cold weather injuries continue to be a relevant topic in today’s military. From 2015 to 2020, there were 1120 reported cases of frostbite in the US military.² When skin is exposed to cold temperatures, the body peripherally vasoconstricts to reduce core heat loss. This autoregulatory vasoconstriction is part of a normal physiologic response that preserves the core body temperature, often at the expense of the extremities; for instance, the hands and feet are equipped with arteriovenous shunts, known as glomus bodies, which consist of vascular smooth muscle centers that control the flow of blood in response to changing external temperatures.³ This is partially mitigated by cold-induced vasodilation of the digits, also known as the Hunting reaction, which generally occurs 5 to 10 minutes after the start of local cold exposure.⁴ Additionally, discomfort from cold exposure warrants behavioral modifications such as going indoors, putting on warmer clothing, or building a fire. If an individual is unable to seek shelter in the face of cold exposure, the cold will inevitably cause injury.

Frostbite is caused by both direct and indirect cellular injury. Direct injury results from the crystallization of intracellular and interstitial fluids, cellular dehydration, and electrolyte disturbances. Indirect cellular injury is the result of a progressive microvascular insult and is caused by microvascular thrombosis, endothelial damage, intravascular sludging, inflammatory mediators, free radicals, and reperfusion injury.⁵

Frostnip is a more superficial injury that does not involve freezing of the skin or underlying tissue and typically does not leave any long-term damage. As severity of injury increases, frostbite is characterized by the depth of injury, presence of tissue loss, and radiotracer uptake on bone scan. There are 2 main classification systems for frostbite: one is based on the severity of the injury outcome, categorized by 4 degrees (1–4), and the other is designed as a predictive model, categorized by 4 grades (1–4).⁶ The first classification system is similar to the system for the severity of burns and ranges from partial-thickness injury (first degree) to full-thickness skin, subcutaneous tissue, muscle, tendon, and bone (fourth degree). The latter classification system uses the presence and characteristics of blisters after rewarming on days 0 and 2 and radiotracer uptake on bone scan on day 2. Severity ranges from no blistering, no indicated bone scan, and no long-term sequelae in grade 1 to hemorrhagic blisters overlying the carpal or tarsal bones and absence of radiotracer uptake with predicted extensive amputation, risk for thrombosis or sepsis, and long-term functional sequelae in grade 4.⁶

Male sex and African descent are associated with increased risk for sustaining frostbite. The ethnic predisposition may be explained by a less robust Hunting reaction in individuals of African descent.^4,7 Other risk factors include alcohol use, smoking, homelessness, history of cold-related injury, use of beta-blockers, and working with equipment that uses nitrogen dioxide or CO₂.⁵ Additionally, a history of systemic lupus erythematosus has been reported as a risk factor for frostbite.⁸

Clinically, frostbite initially may appear pale, blue, or erythematous, and patients may report skin numbness. In severe cases, necrosis can be seen.⁹ The most commonly affected anatomic locations include the fingers, toes, ears, and nose. Prevention is key for frostbite injuries. Steps to avoid injury include wearing appropriate clothing, minimizing the duration of time the skin is exposed to cold temperatures, avoiding alcohol consumption, and avoiding physical exhaustion in cold weather. These steps can help mitigate the effects of wind chill and low temperatures and decrease the risk of frostbite.¹⁰

Management of this condition includes prevention, early diagnosis, prehospital management, hospital management, and long-term sequelae management. Leadership and medical personnel for military units assigned to cold climates should be vigilant in looking for symptoms of frostbite. If any one individual is found to have frostbite or any other cold injury, all other team members should be evaluated.⁵

After identification of frostbite, seeking shelter and evacuation to a treatment facility are vital next steps. Constrictive clothing or jewelry should be removed. Depending on the situation, rewarming can be attempted in the prehospital setting, but it is imperative to avoid refreezing, as this may further damage the affected tissue due to intracellular ice formation with extensive cell destruction.⁶ Gentle warming can be attempted by placing the affected extremity in another person’s armpit or groin for up to 10 minutes or by immersing the affected limb in water that is 37° C to 39° C (98.6° F to 102.2° F). Rubbing the affected area and dry heat should be avoided. It should be noted that the decision to thaw in the field introduces the challenge of dealing with the severe pain associated with thawing in a remote or hostile environment. Ibuprofen (400 mg) can be given as an anti-inflammatory and analgesic agent in the prehospital setting.⁵ Once safely evacuated to the hospital, treatment options expand dramatically, including warming without concern of refreezing, wound care, thrombolytic therapy, and surgical intervention. If local frostbite expertise is not available, there are telemedicine services available.^5,6

Frostbite outcomes range from complete recovery to amputation. Previously frostbitten tissue has increased cold sensitivity and is more susceptible to similar injury in the future. Additionally, there can be functional loss, chronic pain, chronic ulceration, and arthritis.^5,6 As such, a history of frostbite can be disqualifying for military service and requires a medical waiver.¹¹ If a service member experiences frostbite and does not have any residual effects, they can expect to continue their military service, but if there are sequelae, it may prove to be career limiting.^12-14

Immersion Foot

Although frostbite represents a freezing injury, immersion foot (or trench foot) represents a nonfreezing cold injury. It should be noted that in addition to immersion foot associated with cold water exposure, there also are warm-water and tropical variants. For the purpose of this article, we are referring to immersion foot associated with exposure to cold water. Trench foot was described for the first time during Napoleon’s invasion of Russia in 1812 but came to prominence during World War I, where it is thought to have contributed to the deaths of 75,000 British soldiers. During World War II, there were 25,016 cases of immersion foot reported in the US military.¹ More recently, 590 cases of immersion foot were reported in the US military from 2015 to 2020.²

Classically, this condition was seen in individuals whose feet were immersed in cold but not freezing water or mud in trenches or on boats, hence the terms immersion foot and trench foot. The pathogenesis is thought to be related to overhydration of the stratum corneum and repetitive cycles of cold-induced, thermoprotective vasoconstriction, leading to cyclical hypoxic and reperfusion injuries, which eventually damage nerves, muscle, subcutaneous fat, and blood vessels.^9,15

A recent case series of 100 military service members in the United Kingdom showed that cold-induced extremity numbness for more than 30 minutes and painful rewarming after cold exposure were highly correlated with the development of immersion foot. Additionally, this case series showed that patients with repeated cycles of cooling and rewarming were more likely to have long-term symptoms.¹⁶ As with frostbite, prior cold injury and African descent increases the risk for developing immersion foot, possibly due to a less-pronounced Hunting reaction.^4,7

Early reports suggested prehyperemic, hyperemic, and posthyperemic stages. The prehyperemic stage lasts from hours to days and is characterized by cold extremities, discoloration, edema, stocking- or glove-distributed anesthesia, blisters, necrosis, and potential loss of palpable pulses.¹⁷ Of note, in Kuht et al’s¹⁶ more recent case series, edema was not seen as frequently as in prior reports. The hyperemic stage can last for 6 to 10 weeks and is characterized by vascular disturbances. In addition, the affected extremity typically remains warm and red even when exposed to cold temperatures. Sensory disturbances such as paresthesia and hyperalgesia may be seen, as well as motor disturbances, anhidrosis, blisters, ulcers, and gangrene. The posthyperemic stage can last from months to years and is characterized by cold sensitivity, possible digital blanching, edema, hyperhidrosis, and persistent peripheral neuropathy.¹⁶

Prevention is the most important treatment for immersion foot. The first step in preventing this injury is avoiding prolonged cold exposure. When this is not possible due to the demands of training or actual combat conditions, regular hand and foot inspections, frequent sock changes, and regularly rotating out of cold wet conditions can help prevent this injury.¹⁵ Vasodilators also have been considered as a possible treatment modality. Iloprost and nicotinyl alcohol tartrate showed some improvement, while aminophylline and papaverine were ineffective.¹⁵

As with frostbite, a history of immersion foot may be disqualifying for military service.¹¹ If it occurs during military service and there are no residual effects that limit the service member’s capabilities, they may expect to continue their career; however, if there are residual effects that limit activity or deployment, medical retirement may be indicated.

Pernio

Pernio is another important condition that is related to cold exposure; however, unlike the previous 2 conditions, it is not necessarily caused by cold exposure but rather flares with cold exposure.

Case Presentation—A 39-year-old active-duty male service member presented to the dermatology clinic for intermittent painful blistering on the toes of both feet lasting approximately 10 to 14 days about 3 to 4 times per year for the last several years. The patient reported that his symptoms started after spending 2 days in the snow with wet nonwinterized boots while stationed in Germany 10 years prior. He reported cold weather as his only associated trigger and denied other associated symptoms. Physical examination revealed mildly cyanotic toes containing scattered bullae, with the dorsal lesions appearing more superficial compared to the deeper plantar bullae (Figure 1). A complete blood cell count, serum protein electrophoresis, and antinuclear and autoimmune antibodies were within reference range. A punch biopsy was obtained from a lesion on the right dorsal great toe. Hematoxylin and eosin–stained sections revealed lichenoid and vacuolar dermatitis with scattered dyskeratosis and subtle papillary edema (Figure 2). Minimal interstitial mucin was seen on Alcian blue–stained sections. The histologic and clinical findings were most compatible with a diagnosis of chronic pernio. Nifedipine 20 mg once daily was initiated, and he had minimal improvement after a few months of treatment. His condition continued to limit his functionality in cold conditions due to pain. Without improvement of the symptoms, the patient likely will require medical separation from military service, as this condition limits the performance of his duties and his deployability.

Clinical Discussion—Pernio, also known as chilblains, is characterized by cold-induced erythematous patches and plaques, pain, and pruritus on the affected skin.¹⁸ Bullae and ulceration can be seen in more severe and chronic cases.¹⁹ Pernio most commonly is seen in young women but also can be seen in children, men, and older adults. It usually occurs on the tips of toes but also may affect the fingers, nose, and ears. It typically is observed in cold and damp conditions and is thought to be caused by an inflammatory response to vasospasms in the setting of nonfreezing cold. Acute pernio typically resolves after a few weeks; however, it also can persist in a chronic form after repeated cold exposure.¹⁸

Predisposing factors include excessive cold exposure, connective tissue disease, hematologic malignancy, antiphospholipid antibodies in adults, and anorexia nervosa in children.^18,20,21 More recently, perniolike lesions have been associated with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection.²² Histologically, pernio is characterized by a perivascular lymphocytic infiltrate and dermal edema.²³ Cold avoidance, warming, drying, and smoking cessation are primary treatments, while vasodilating medications such as nifedipine have been used with success in more resistant cases.^20,24

Although the prognosis generally is excellent, this condition also can be career limiting for military service members. If it resolves with no residual effects, patients can expect to continue their service; however, if it persists and limits their activity or ability to deploy, a medical retirement may be indicated.^11-14

Raynaud Phenomenon

Raynaud phenomenon (also known as Raynaud’s) is characterized by cold-induced extremity triphasic color changes—initial blanching and pallor that transitions to cyanosis and finally erythema with associated pain during the recovery stage. The fingers are the most commonly involved appendages and can have a symmetric distribution, but RP also has been observed on the feet, lips, nose, and ears. In severe cases, it can cause ulceration.²⁵ The prevalence of RP may be as high as 5% in the general population.²⁶ It more commonly is primary or idiopathic with no underlying cause or secondary with an associated underlying systemic disease.

Cold-induced vasoconstriction is a normal physiologic response, but in RP, the response becomes a vasospasm and is pathological. Autoimmune and connective tissue diseases often are associated with secondary RP. Other risk factors include female sex, smoking, family history in a first-degree relative, and certain medications.²⁵ A study in northern Sweden also identified a history of frostbite as a risk factor for the development of RP.²⁷ This condition can notably restrict mobility and deployability of affected service members as well as the types of manual tasks that they may be required to perform. As such, this condition can be disqualifying for military service.¹¹

Many patients improve with conservative treatment consisting of cold avoidance, smoking cessation, and avoidance of medications that worsen the vasospasm; however, some patients develop pain and chronic disease, which can become so severe and ischemic that digital loss is threatened.²⁵ When needed, calcium channel blockers commonly are used for treatment and can be used prophylactically to reduce flare rates and severity of disease. If this class of medications is ineffective or is not tolerated, there are other medications and treatments to consider, which are beyond the scope of this article.²⁵

Cold Urticaria

Cold urticaria is a subset of physical urticaria in which symptoms occur in response to a cutaneous cold stimulus. It can be primary or secondary, with potential underlying causes including cryoglobulinemia, infections, and some medications. Systemic involvement is possible with extensive cold contact and can include severe anaphylaxis. This condition is diagnosed using a cold stimulation test. Cold exposure avoidance and second-generation antihistamines are considered first-line treatment. Because anaphylaxis is possible, patients should be given an epinephrine pen and should be instructed to avoid swimming in cold water.²⁸ Cold urticaria is disqualifying for military service.¹¹

A 2013 case report described a 29-year-old woman on active duty in the US Air Force whose presenting symptoms included urticaria on the exposed skin on the arms when doing physical training in the rain.²⁹ In this case, secondary causes were eliminated, and she was diagnosed with primary acquired cold urticaria. This patient was eventually medically discharged from the air force because management with antihistamines failed, and her symptoms limited her ability to function in even mildly cold environments.²⁹

Final Thoughts

An understanding of cold weather injuries and other dermatologic conditions that may be flared by cold exposure is important for a medically ready military force, as there are implications for accession, training, and combat operations. Although the focus of this article has been on the military, these conditions also are seen in civilian medicine in patient populations routinely exposed to cold weather. This becomes especially pertinent in high-risk patients such as extreme athletes, homeless individuals, or those who have other predisposing characteristics such as chronic alcohol use. Appropriate cold weather gear, training, and deliberate mission or activity planning are important interventions in preventing cutaneous cold weather injuries within the military.

Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a debilitating chronic condition that often is recalcitrant to first-line treatments, and mechanisms underlying its pathology remain unclear. Existing data suggest a multifactorial etiology with different pathophysiologic contributors, including genetic, hormonal, and immune dysregulation factors. At this time, only one medication (adalimumab) is US Food and Drug Administration approved for HS, but multiple medical and procedural therapies are available.¹ Herein, we discuss the concept of treatment stacking, or the combination of unique therapeutic modalities—an approach we believe is key to optimizing management of HS patients.

Stacking Treatments for HS

Unlike psoriasis, in which a single biologic agent may provide 100% clearance (psoriasis area and severity index 100 [PASI 100]) without adjuvant treatment,^2,3 the field of HS currently lacks medications that are efficacious to that degree of success as monotherapy. In HS, the benchmark for a positive treatment outcome is Hidradenitis Suppurativa Clinical Response 50 (HiSCR50),⁴ a 50% reduction in inflammatory lesion count—a far less stringent marker for disease improvement. Thus, providers should design HS treatment regimens with a model of combining therapies and shift away from monotherapy. Targeting different pathophysiologic pathways by stacking multiple treatments may provide synergistic benefits for HS patients. Treatment stacking is a familiar concept in acne; for instance, patients who benefit tremendously from isotretinoin may still require a hormone-modulating treatment (eg, spironolactone) to attain optimal results.

Adherence to a rigid treatment algorithm based on disease severity limits the potential to create comprehensive regimens that account for unique patient characteristics and clinical manifestations. When evaluating an HS patient, providers should systematically consider each pathophysiologic factor and target the ones that appear to be most involved in that particular patient. The North American HS guidelines illustrate this point by supporting use of several treatments across different Hurley stages, such as recommending hormonal treatment in patients with Hurley stages 1, 2, or 3.¹ Of note, treatment stacking also includes procedural therapies. Surgeons typically prefer a patient’s disease management to be optimized prior to surgery, including reduced drainage and inflammation. In addition, even after surgery, patients often still require medical management to prevent continued disease worsening.

Treatment Pathways for HS

A multimodal approach with treatment stacking (Figure) can be useful to all HS patients, from those with the mildest to the most severe disease. Modifiable pathophysiologic factors and examples of their targeted treatments include (1) follicular occlusion (eg, oral retinoids), (2) metabolic dysfunction (eg, metformin), (3) hormones (eg, oral contraceptive pills, spironolactone, finasteride), (4) dysbiosis (eg, antibiotics such as clindamycin and rifampin combination therapy), (5) immune dysregulation (eg, biologic agents), and (6) friction/irritation (eg, weight loss, clothing recommendations).

Combining treatments from different pathways enables potentiation of individual treatment efficacies. A female patient with only a few HS nodules that flare with menses may be well controlled with spironolactone as her only systemic agent; however, she still may benefit from use of an antiseptic wash, topical clindamycin, and lifestyle changes such as weight loss and reduction of mechanical irritation. A patient with severe recalcitrant HS could notably benefit from concomitant biologic, systemic antibiotic, and hormonal/metabolic treatments. If disease control is still inadequate, agents within the same class can be switched (eg, choosing a different biologic) or other disease-modifying agents such as colchicine also can be added. The goal is to create an effective treatment toolbox with therapies targeting different pathophysiologic arms of HS and working together in synergy. Each tool can be refined by modifying dosing frequency and duration of use to strive for optimal response. At this time, the literature on HS combination therapy is sparse. A retrospective study of 31 patients reported promising combinations, including isotretinoin with spironolactone for mild disease, isotretinoin or doxycycline with adalimumab for moderate disease, and cyclosporine with adalimumab for severe disease.⁵ Larger prospective studies on clinical response to different combination regimens are warranted.

Optimizing Therapy for HS and Its Comorbidities

Additional considerations may further optimize treatment plans. Some therapies benefit all patients; for example, providers should counsel all HS patients on healthy weight management, optimized clothing choices,⁶ and friction reduction in the intertriginous folds. Providers also may consider adding therapies with faster onset of efficacy as a bridge to long-term, slower-onset therapies. For instance, female HS patients with menstrual flares who are prescribed spironolactone also may benefit from a course of systemic antibiotics, which typically provides more prompt relief. Treatment regimens also can concomitantly treat HS and its comorbidities.⁷ For example, metformin serves a dual purpose in HS patients with diabetes mellitus, and adalimumab in patients with both HS and inflammatory bowel disease.

Final Thoughts

The last decade has seen tremendous growth in HS research⁸ coupled with a remarkable expansion in the therapeutic pipeline.⁹ However, currently no single therapy for HS can guarantee satisfactory disease remission or durability of remission. The contrast between clinical trials and real-world practice should be acknowledged; the former often is restrictive in design with monotherapy and allowance of very limited concomitant treatments, such as topical or oral antibiotics. This limits our ability to draw conclusions regarding the additive synergistic potential of different therapeutics in combination. In clinical practice, we are not restricted by monotherapy trial protocols. As we await new tools, treatment stacking allows for creating a framework to best utilize the tools that are available to us.

Although HS has continued to affect the lives of many patients, improved understanding of underlying pathophysiology and a well-placed sense of urgency from all stakeholders (ie, patients, clinicians, researchers, industry partners) has pushed this field forward. Until our therapeutic armamentarium has expanded to include highly efficacious monotherapy options, providers should consider treatment stacking for every HS patient.

Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a debilitating chronic condition that often is recalcitrant to first-line treatments, and mechanisms underlying its pathology remain unclear. Existing data suggest a multifactorial etiology with different pathophysiologic contributors, including genetic, hormonal, and immune dysregulation factors. At this time, only one medication (adalimumab) is US Food and Drug Administration approved for HS, but multiple medical and procedural therapies are available.¹ Herein, we discuss the concept of treatment stacking, or the combination of unique therapeutic modalities—an approach we believe is key to optimizing management of HS patients.

Stacking Treatments for HS

Unlike psoriasis, in which a single biologic agent may provide 100% clearance (psoriasis area and severity index 100 [PASI 100]) without adjuvant treatment,^2,3 the field of HS currently lacks medications that are efficacious to that degree of success as monotherapy. In HS, the benchmark for a positive treatment outcome is Hidradenitis Suppurativa Clinical Response 50 (HiSCR50),⁴ a 50% reduction in inflammatory lesion count—a far less stringent marker for disease improvement. Thus, providers should design HS treatment regimens with a model of combining therapies and shift away from monotherapy. Targeting different pathophysiologic pathways by stacking multiple treatments may provide synergistic benefits for HS patients. Treatment stacking is a familiar concept in acne; for instance, patients who benefit tremendously from isotretinoin may still require a hormone-modulating treatment (eg, spironolactone) to attain optimal results.

Adherence to a rigid treatment algorithm based on disease severity limits the potential to create comprehensive regimens that account for unique patient characteristics and clinical manifestations. When evaluating an HS patient, providers should systematically consider each pathophysiologic factor and target the ones that appear to be most involved in that particular patient. The North American HS guidelines illustrate this point by supporting use of several treatments across different Hurley stages, such as recommending hormonal treatment in patients with Hurley stages 1, 2, or 3.¹ Of note, treatment stacking also includes procedural therapies. Surgeons typically prefer a patient’s disease management to be optimized prior to surgery, including reduced drainage and inflammation. In addition, even after surgery, patients often still require medical management to prevent continued disease worsening.

Treatment Pathways for HS

A multimodal approach with treatment stacking (Figure) can be useful to all HS patients, from those with the mildest to the most severe disease. Modifiable pathophysiologic factors and examples of their targeted treatments include (1) follicular occlusion (eg, oral retinoids), (2) metabolic dysfunction (eg, metformin), (3) hormones (eg, oral contraceptive pills, spironolactone, finasteride), (4) dysbiosis (eg, antibiotics such as clindamycin and rifampin combination therapy), (5) immune dysregulation (eg, biologic agents), and (6) friction/irritation (eg, weight loss, clothing recommendations).

Combining treatments from different pathways enables potentiation of individual treatment efficacies. A female patient with only a few HS nodules that flare with menses may be well controlled with spironolactone as her only systemic agent; however, she still may benefit from use of an antiseptic wash, topical clindamycin, and lifestyle changes such as weight loss and reduction of mechanical irritation. A patient with severe recalcitrant HS could notably benefit from concomitant biologic, systemic antibiotic, and hormonal/metabolic treatments. If disease control is still inadequate, agents within the same class can be switched (eg, choosing a different biologic) or other disease-modifying agents such as colchicine also can be added. The goal is to create an effective treatment toolbox with therapies targeting different pathophysiologic arms of HS and working together in synergy. Each tool can be refined by modifying dosing frequency and duration of use to strive for optimal response. At this time, the literature on HS combination therapy is sparse. A retrospective study of 31 patients reported promising combinations, including isotretinoin with spironolactone for mild disease, isotretinoin or doxycycline with adalimumab for moderate disease, and cyclosporine with adalimumab for severe disease.⁵ Larger prospective studies on clinical response to different combination regimens are warranted.

Optimizing Therapy for HS and Its Comorbidities

Additional considerations may further optimize treatment plans. Some therapies benefit all patients; for example, providers should counsel all HS patients on healthy weight management, optimized clothing choices,⁶ and friction reduction in the intertriginous folds. Providers also may consider adding therapies with faster onset of efficacy as a bridge to long-term, slower-onset therapies. For instance, female HS patients with menstrual flares who are prescribed spironolactone also may benefit from a course of systemic antibiotics, which typically provides more prompt relief. Treatment regimens also can concomitantly treat HS and its comorbidities.⁷ For example, metformin serves a dual purpose in HS patients with diabetes mellitus, and adalimumab in patients with both HS and inflammatory bowel disease.

Final Thoughts

The last decade has seen tremendous growth in HS research⁸ coupled with a remarkable expansion in the therapeutic pipeline.⁹ However, currently no single therapy for HS can guarantee satisfactory disease remission or durability of remission. The contrast between clinical trials and real-world practice should be acknowledged; the former often is restrictive in design with monotherapy and allowance of very limited concomitant treatments, such as topical or oral antibiotics. This limits our ability to draw conclusions regarding the additive synergistic potential of different therapeutics in combination. In clinical practice, we are not restricted by monotherapy trial protocols. As we await new tools, treatment stacking allows for creating a framework to best utilize the tools that are available to us.

Although HS has continued to affect the lives of many patients, improved understanding of underlying pathophysiology and a well-placed sense of urgency from all stakeholders (ie, patients, clinicians, researchers, industry partners) has pushed this field forward. Until our therapeutic armamentarium has expanded to include highly efficacious monotherapy options, providers should consider treatment stacking for every HS patient.

Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a debilitating chronic condition that often is recalcitrant to first-line treatments, and mechanisms underlying its pathology remain unclear. Existing data suggest a multifactorial etiology with different pathophysiologic contributors, including genetic, hormonal, and immune dysregulation factors. At this time, only one medication (adalimumab) is US Food and Drug Administration approved for HS, but multiple medical and procedural therapies are available.¹ Herein, we discuss the concept of treatment stacking, or the combination of unique therapeutic modalities—an approach we believe is key to optimizing management of HS patients.

Stacking Treatments for HS

Unlike psoriasis, in which a single biologic agent may provide 100% clearance (psoriasis area and severity index 100 [PASI 100]) without adjuvant treatment,^2,3 the field of HS currently lacks medications that are efficacious to that degree of success as monotherapy. In HS, the benchmark for a positive treatment outcome is Hidradenitis Suppurativa Clinical Response 50 (HiSCR50),⁴ a 50% reduction in inflammatory lesion count—a far less stringent marker for disease improvement. Thus, providers should design HS treatment regimens with a model of combining therapies and shift away from monotherapy. Targeting different pathophysiologic pathways by stacking multiple treatments may provide synergistic benefits for HS patients. Treatment stacking is a familiar concept in acne; for instance, patients who benefit tremendously from isotretinoin may still require a hormone-modulating treatment (eg, spironolactone) to attain optimal results.

Adherence to a rigid treatment algorithm based on disease severity limits the potential to create comprehensive regimens that account for unique patient characteristics and clinical manifestations. When evaluating an HS patient, providers should systematically consider each pathophysiologic factor and target the ones that appear to be most involved in that particular patient. The North American HS guidelines illustrate this point by supporting use of several treatments across different Hurley stages, such as recommending hormonal treatment in patients with Hurley stages 1, 2, or 3.¹ Of note, treatment stacking also includes procedural therapies. Surgeons typically prefer a patient’s disease management to be optimized prior to surgery, including reduced drainage and inflammation. In addition, even after surgery, patients often still require medical management to prevent continued disease worsening.

Treatment Pathways for HS

A multimodal approach with treatment stacking (Figure) can be useful to all HS patients, from those with the mildest to the most severe disease. Modifiable pathophysiologic factors and examples of their targeted treatments include (1) follicular occlusion (eg, oral retinoids), (2) metabolic dysfunction (eg, metformin), (3) hormones (eg, oral contraceptive pills, spironolactone, finasteride), (4) dysbiosis (eg, antibiotics such as clindamycin and rifampin combination therapy), (5) immune dysregulation (eg, biologic agents), and (6) friction/irritation (eg, weight loss, clothing recommendations).

Combining treatments from different pathways enables potentiation of individual treatment efficacies. A female patient with only a few HS nodules that flare with menses may be well controlled with spironolactone as her only systemic agent; however, she still may benefit from use of an antiseptic wash, topical clindamycin, and lifestyle changes such as weight loss and reduction of mechanical irritation. A patient with severe recalcitrant HS could notably benefit from concomitant biologic, systemic antibiotic, and hormonal/metabolic treatments. If disease control is still inadequate, agents within the same class can be switched (eg, choosing a different biologic) or other disease-modifying agents such as colchicine also can be added. The goal is to create an effective treatment toolbox with therapies targeting different pathophysiologic arms of HS and working together in synergy. Each tool can be refined by modifying dosing frequency and duration of use to strive for optimal response. At this time, the literature on HS combination therapy is sparse. A retrospective study of 31 patients reported promising combinations, including isotretinoin with spironolactone for mild disease, isotretinoin or doxycycline with adalimumab for moderate disease, and cyclosporine with adalimumab for severe disease.⁵ Larger prospective studies on clinical response to different combination regimens are warranted.

Optimizing Therapy for HS and Its Comorbidities

Additional considerations may further optimize treatment plans. Some therapies benefit all patients; for example, providers should counsel all HS patients on healthy weight management, optimized clothing choices,⁶ and friction reduction in the intertriginous folds. Providers also may consider adding therapies with faster onset of efficacy as a bridge to long-term, slower-onset therapies. For instance, female HS patients with menstrual flares who are prescribed spironolactone also may benefit from a course of systemic antibiotics, which typically provides more prompt relief. Treatment regimens also can concomitantly treat HS and its comorbidities.⁷ For example, metformin serves a dual purpose in HS patients with diabetes mellitus, and adalimumab in patients with both HS and inflammatory bowel disease.

Final Thoughts

The last decade has seen tremendous growth in HS research⁸ coupled with a remarkable expansion in the therapeutic pipeline.⁹ However, currently no single therapy for HS can guarantee satisfactory disease remission or durability of remission. The contrast between clinical trials and real-world practice should be acknowledged; the former often is restrictive in design with monotherapy and allowance of very limited concomitant treatments, such as topical or oral antibiotics. This limits our ability to draw conclusions regarding the additive synergistic potential of different therapeutics in combination. In clinical practice, we are not restricted by monotherapy trial protocols. As we await new tools, treatment stacking allows for creating a framework to best utilize the tools that are available to us.

Although HS has continued to affect the lives of many patients, improved understanding of underlying pathophysiology and a well-placed sense of urgency from all stakeholders (ie, patients, clinicians, researchers, industry partners) has pushed this field forward. Until our therapeutic armamentarium has expanded to include highly efficacious monotherapy options, providers should consider treatment stacking for every HS patient.

“Postmenopausal women with low bone mass should obtain adequate calcium and vitamin D and participate in bone-loading exercises,” researchers noted in a recent study published in Osteoporosis International.

sbm Hotting/Fotolia.com

“Additional use of bisphosphonates will increase bone mineral density (BMD), especially at the spine,” wrote Nancy Waltman, PhD, College of Nursing, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, and colleagues.

The findings are partial results from the Heartland Osteoporosis Prevention Study (HOPS), which randomized women who had entered menopause within the previous 6 months and had osteopenia (low bone mass, T score –1.0 to –2.49) to receive one of three treatments for 12 months:

• Bone-loading and resistance exercise plus calcium and vitamin D supplements.
• Risedronate plus calcium and vitamin D supplements.
• Calcium and vitamin D supplements alone (control).

At 1 year, “risedronate significantly increased BMD at the spine, compared to exercise and control, and serum biomarkers of bone turnover also significantly reduced in the risedronate group,” Laura Bilek, PT, PhD, said during an oral presentation of the research at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

However, the results also showed that, importantly, “in postmenopausal women, exercise appears to improve strength at the hip through changes in structure, not BMD,” stressed Dr. Bilek, of the College of Allied Health Professionals, University of Nebraska Medical Center.
 

Bone health is about more than just bone mineral density

“The key takeaway for clinicians is that bone health is about more than just density!” she noted in an email.

Current guidelines don’t recommend prescribing risedronate until a woman has overt osteoporosis, she said.

On the other hand, many studies have shown that, to be most effective, bone-loading exercises should be a lifelong habit and women should begin to do them at least during menopause and should not wait until bone loss occurs.

Other studies have shown that exercise changes bone structure (size or geometry), which improves bone strength. The current study supports both prior observations.

And exercise also improves muscle strength and decreases the risk of falls and fractures, Dr. Bilek noted.

Invited to comment, Pauline M. Camacho, MD, cochair of the task force for the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE) guidelines for osteoporosis, noted that all three measures – pharmacotherapy, exercise, and calcium/vitamin D – are important in the successful management of osteoporosis.

This study showed that risedronate is superior to calcium/vitamin D supplementation as well as exercise for BMD and for bone turnover in these women with osteopenia, said Dr. Camacho, professor of medicine and director of the Osteoporosis and Metabolic Bone Disease Center, Loyola University Medical Center, Chicago.

“Most women with osteopenia do not receive pharmacologic therapy,” she noted, and receive it only “if there is a history of fractures or they have other features that change that diagnosis to osteoporosis.

“There is no downside to exercise, and this needs to be advised to all patients,” she said. “The other aspect of exercise that was not assessed in this study is its effect on balance. Patients who exercise will have improved balance, which should translate into fewer falls, and thus fewer fractures.”
 

How can women with osteopenia maintain bone health?

In their article, Dr. Waltman and colleagues say the Lifting Intervention for Training Muscle and Osteoporosis Rehabilitation (LIFTMOR) clinical trial is one of the first to address clinician concerns about the safety and effectiveness of exercise to improve bone health.

In that trial of 101 postmenopausal women with low bone mass, 8 months of 30-minute, twice-weekly, supervised high-intensity resistance and impact training was safe and BMD increased by 2.9% at the lumbar spine and 0.3% at the femoral neck.

“Our [HOPS] study,” Dr. Waltman and colleagues explained, “builds on the LIFTMOR clinical trial and adds further data to inform whether postmenopausal women with low bone mass can effectively maintain or even improve BMD with bone-loading exercises prior to prescriptions for medication.

“Our long-term goal is to contribute to the development of clinical practice guidelines for the prevention of fractures in postmenopausal women with low bone mass,” they said.

They randomized 276 postmenopausal women who were a mean age of 54 (range, 44-63); most were White (78%) or Hispanic (6%).

Women were excluded from the study if they had a diagnosis of osteoporosis (T-score < −2.5); had an increased risk of a major fracture or hip fracture; had been on bisphosphonates within the last 6 months; were currently on estrogen, tamoxifen, or aromatase inhibitors; had a serum vitamin D level < 10 mg/mL or > 100 mg/mL; had any conditions that prohibited prescriptions for calcium and vitamin D supplements, risedronate, or exercise; or weighed more than 300 pounds.

All women received 1,200 mg/day of calcium (from supplements or diet) and 1,000-3,000 IU/day of vitamin D supplements, based on their serum 25(OH) vitamin D levels.  

The exercise program consisted of visiting a gym three times a week for 45 minutes of bone-loading exercise – jogging with a weighted vest – and resistance exercises, which were supervised by a trainer for the first 2 weeks.

Women in the risedronate group received a 150-mg tablet of risedronate every 4 weeks.  

At baseline, 6 months, and 12 months, the women had DXA scans to determine BMD and hip structure, and had blood tests to determine levels of serum markers for bone formation (bone specific alkaline phosphatase [Alkphase B]) and bone resorption (N-terminal telopeptide [NTx]).

Compared with baseline, at 12 months, the women had the following changes in BMD at the following sites:

• Spine: +1.9%, +0.9%, and –0.4%, in the risedronate, exercise, and control groups.
• Total hip: +0.9%, +0.5%, and +0.5%, in the risedronate, exercise, and control groups.
• Femoral neck: +0.09%, –0.4%, and –0.5%, in the risedronate, exercise, and control groups.

These improvements in BMD were significantly greater in the risedronate group than in the exercise or control groups (P < .01 for both).

The decreases in serum levels of NtX and Alkphase B were also greater with risedronate than in the exercise or control groups (P < .01 for all).

The most frequent adverse effect with the calcium supplement was constipation (n = 4). Some women taking risedronate had gastrointestinal disturbances (n = 4), muscle or joint pain (n = 11), or chest pain and dizziness (n = 2). None of the women had adverse effects from vitamin D. A few women had muscle soreness from exercise that went away after the exercises were adapted. None of the women had a serious injury or fracture from exercise.

More women in the exercise group withdrew from the study (n = 20), with most citing lack of time as the reason; 13 women withdrew from the risedronate group, and 16 withdrew from the control group.

Of the 276 participants who completed the 12-month study, treatment adherence was 92% for calcium, 94% for vitamin D, 75% for risedronate, and 59% for exercise.

Exercise was associated with positive changes in intertrochanter hip structural analysis measures, which will be described in an upcoming study, Dr. Bilek said.

The study was funded by the National Institute of Nursing Research of the National Institutes of Health. The researchers have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

“Postmenopausal women with low bone mass should obtain adequate calcium and vitamin D and participate in bone-loading exercises,” researchers noted in a recent study published in Osteoporosis International.

sbm Hotting/Fotolia.com

“Additional use of bisphosphonates will increase bone mineral density (BMD), especially at the spine,” wrote Nancy Waltman, PhD, College of Nursing, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, and colleagues.

The findings are partial results from the Heartland Osteoporosis Prevention Study (HOPS), which randomized women who had entered menopause within the previous 6 months and had osteopenia (low bone mass, T score –1.0 to –2.49) to receive one of three treatments for 12 months:

• Bone-loading and resistance exercise plus calcium and vitamin D supplements.
• Risedronate plus calcium and vitamin D supplements.
• Calcium and vitamin D supplements alone (control).

At 1 year, “risedronate significantly increased BMD at the spine, compared to exercise and control, and serum biomarkers of bone turnover also significantly reduced in the risedronate group,” Laura Bilek, PT, PhD, said during an oral presentation of the research at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

However, the results also showed that, importantly, “in postmenopausal women, exercise appears to improve strength at the hip through changes in structure, not BMD,” stressed Dr. Bilek, of the College of Allied Health Professionals, University of Nebraska Medical Center.
 

Bone health is about more than just bone mineral density

“The key takeaway for clinicians is that bone health is about more than just density!” she noted in an email.

Current guidelines don’t recommend prescribing risedronate until a woman has overt osteoporosis, she said.

On the other hand, many studies have shown that, to be most effective, bone-loading exercises should be a lifelong habit and women should begin to do them at least during menopause and should not wait until bone loss occurs.

Other studies have shown that exercise changes bone structure (size or geometry), which improves bone strength. The current study supports both prior observations.

And exercise also improves muscle strength and decreases the risk of falls and fractures, Dr. Bilek noted.

Invited to comment, Pauline M. Camacho, MD, cochair of the task force for the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE) guidelines for osteoporosis, noted that all three measures – pharmacotherapy, exercise, and calcium/vitamin D – are important in the successful management of osteoporosis.

This study showed that risedronate is superior to calcium/vitamin D supplementation as well as exercise for BMD and for bone turnover in these women with osteopenia, said Dr. Camacho, professor of medicine and director of the Osteoporosis and Metabolic Bone Disease Center, Loyola University Medical Center, Chicago.

“Most women with osteopenia do not receive pharmacologic therapy,” she noted, and receive it only “if there is a history of fractures or they have other features that change that diagnosis to osteoporosis.

“There is no downside to exercise, and this needs to be advised to all patients,” she said. “The other aspect of exercise that was not assessed in this study is its effect on balance. Patients who exercise will have improved balance, which should translate into fewer falls, and thus fewer fractures.”
 

How can women with osteopenia maintain bone health?

In their article, Dr. Waltman and colleagues say the Lifting Intervention for Training Muscle and Osteoporosis Rehabilitation (LIFTMOR) clinical trial is one of the first to address clinician concerns about the safety and effectiveness of exercise to improve bone health.

In that trial of 101 postmenopausal women with low bone mass, 8 months of 30-minute, twice-weekly, supervised high-intensity resistance and impact training was safe and BMD increased by 2.9% at the lumbar spine and 0.3% at the femoral neck.

“Our [HOPS] study,” Dr. Waltman and colleagues explained, “builds on the LIFTMOR clinical trial and adds further data to inform whether postmenopausal women with low bone mass can effectively maintain or even improve BMD with bone-loading exercises prior to prescriptions for medication.

“Our long-term goal is to contribute to the development of clinical practice guidelines for the prevention of fractures in postmenopausal women with low bone mass,” they said.

They randomized 276 postmenopausal women who were a mean age of 54 (range, 44-63); most were White (78%) or Hispanic (6%).

Women were excluded from the study if they had a diagnosis of osteoporosis (T-score < −2.5); had an increased risk of a major fracture or hip fracture; had been on bisphosphonates within the last 6 months; were currently on estrogen, tamoxifen, or aromatase inhibitors; had a serum vitamin D level < 10 mg/mL or > 100 mg/mL; had any conditions that prohibited prescriptions for calcium and vitamin D supplements, risedronate, or exercise; or weighed more than 300 pounds.

All women received 1,200 mg/day of calcium (from supplements or diet) and 1,000-3,000 IU/day of vitamin D supplements, based on their serum 25(OH) vitamin D levels.  

The exercise program consisted of visiting a gym three times a week for 45 minutes of bone-loading exercise – jogging with a weighted vest – and resistance exercises, which were supervised by a trainer for the first 2 weeks.

Women in the risedronate group received a 150-mg tablet of risedronate every 4 weeks.  

At baseline, 6 months, and 12 months, the women had DXA scans to determine BMD and hip structure, and had blood tests to determine levels of serum markers for bone formation (bone specific alkaline phosphatase [Alkphase B]) and bone resorption (N-terminal telopeptide [NTx]).

Compared with baseline, at 12 months, the women had the following changes in BMD at the following sites:

• Spine: +1.9%, +0.9%, and –0.4%, in the risedronate, exercise, and control groups.
• Total hip: +0.9%, +0.5%, and +0.5%, in the risedronate, exercise, and control groups.
• Femoral neck: +0.09%, –0.4%, and –0.5%, in the risedronate, exercise, and control groups.

These improvements in BMD were significantly greater in the risedronate group than in the exercise or control groups (P < .01 for both).

The decreases in serum levels of NtX and Alkphase B were also greater with risedronate than in the exercise or control groups (P < .01 for all).

The most frequent adverse effect with the calcium supplement was constipation (n = 4). Some women taking risedronate had gastrointestinal disturbances (n = 4), muscle or joint pain (n = 11), or chest pain and dizziness (n = 2). None of the women had adverse effects from vitamin D. A few women had muscle soreness from exercise that went away after the exercises were adapted. None of the women had a serious injury or fracture from exercise.

More women in the exercise group withdrew from the study (n = 20), with most citing lack of time as the reason; 13 women withdrew from the risedronate group, and 16 withdrew from the control group.

Of the 276 participants who completed the 12-month study, treatment adherence was 92% for calcium, 94% for vitamin D, 75% for risedronate, and 59% for exercise.

Exercise was associated with positive changes in intertrochanter hip structural analysis measures, which will be described in an upcoming study, Dr. Bilek said.

The study was funded by the National Institute of Nursing Research of the National Institutes of Health. The researchers have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

“Postmenopausal women with low bone mass should obtain adequate calcium and vitamin D and participate in bone-loading exercises,” researchers noted in a recent study published in Osteoporosis International.

sbm Hotting/Fotolia.com

“Additional use of bisphosphonates will increase bone mineral density (BMD), especially at the spine,” wrote Nancy Waltman, PhD, College of Nursing, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, and colleagues.

The findings are partial results from the Heartland Osteoporosis Prevention Study (HOPS), which randomized women who had entered menopause within the previous 6 months and had osteopenia (low bone mass, T score –1.0 to –2.49) to receive one of three treatments for 12 months:

• Bone-loading and resistance exercise plus calcium and vitamin D supplements.
• Risedronate plus calcium and vitamin D supplements.
• Calcium and vitamin D supplements alone (control).

At 1 year, “risedronate significantly increased BMD at the spine, compared to exercise and control, and serum biomarkers of bone turnover also significantly reduced in the risedronate group,” Laura Bilek, PT, PhD, said during an oral presentation of the research at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

However, the results also showed that, importantly, “in postmenopausal women, exercise appears to improve strength at the hip through changes in structure, not BMD,” stressed Dr. Bilek, of the College of Allied Health Professionals, University of Nebraska Medical Center.
 

Bone health is about more than just bone mineral density

“The key takeaway for clinicians is that bone health is about more than just density!” she noted in an email.

Current guidelines don’t recommend prescribing risedronate until a woman has overt osteoporosis, she said.

On the other hand, many studies have shown that, to be most effective, bone-loading exercises should be a lifelong habit and women should begin to do them at least during menopause and should not wait until bone loss occurs.

Other studies have shown that exercise changes bone structure (size or geometry), which improves bone strength. The current study supports both prior observations.

And exercise also improves muscle strength and decreases the risk of falls and fractures, Dr. Bilek noted.

Invited to comment, Pauline M. Camacho, MD, cochair of the task force for the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE) guidelines for osteoporosis, noted that all three measures – pharmacotherapy, exercise, and calcium/vitamin D – are important in the successful management of osteoporosis.

This study showed that risedronate is superior to calcium/vitamin D supplementation as well as exercise for BMD and for bone turnover in these women with osteopenia, said Dr. Camacho, professor of medicine and director of the Osteoporosis and Metabolic Bone Disease Center, Loyola University Medical Center, Chicago.

“Most women with osteopenia do not receive pharmacologic therapy,” she noted, and receive it only “if there is a history of fractures or they have other features that change that diagnosis to osteoporosis.

“There is no downside to exercise, and this needs to be advised to all patients,” she said. “The other aspect of exercise that was not assessed in this study is its effect on balance. Patients who exercise will have improved balance, which should translate into fewer falls, and thus fewer fractures.”
 

How can women with osteopenia maintain bone health?

In their article, Dr. Waltman and colleagues say the Lifting Intervention for Training Muscle and Osteoporosis Rehabilitation (LIFTMOR) clinical trial is one of the first to address clinician concerns about the safety and effectiveness of exercise to improve bone health.

In that trial of 101 postmenopausal women with low bone mass, 8 months of 30-minute, twice-weekly, supervised high-intensity resistance and impact training was safe and BMD increased by 2.9% at the lumbar spine and 0.3% at the femoral neck.

“Our [HOPS] study,” Dr. Waltman and colleagues explained, “builds on the LIFTMOR clinical trial and adds further data to inform whether postmenopausal women with low bone mass can effectively maintain or even improve BMD with bone-loading exercises prior to prescriptions for medication.

“Our long-term goal is to contribute to the development of clinical practice guidelines for the prevention of fractures in postmenopausal women with low bone mass,” they said.

They randomized 276 postmenopausal women who were a mean age of 54 (range, 44-63); most were White (78%) or Hispanic (6%).

Women were excluded from the study if they had a diagnosis of osteoporosis (T-score < −2.5); had an increased risk of a major fracture or hip fracture; had been on bisphosphonates within the last 6 months; were currently on estrogen, tamoxifen, or aromatase inhibitors; had a serum vitamin D level < 10 mg/mL or > 100 mg/mL; had any conditions that prohibited prescriptions for calcium and vitamin D supplements, risedronate, or exercise; or weighed more than 300 pounds.

All women received 1,200 mg/day of calcium (from supplements or diet) and 1,000-3,000 IU/day of vitamin D supplements, based on their serum 25(OH) vitamin D levels.  

The exercise program consisted of visiting a gym three times a week for 45 minutes of bone-loading exercise – jogging with a weighted vest – and resistance exercises, which were supervised by a trainer for the first 2 weeks.

Women in the risedronate group received a 150-mg tablet of risedronate every 4 weeks.  

At baseline, 6 months, and 12 months, the women had DXA scans to determine BMD and hip structure, and had blood tests to determine levels of serum markers for bone formation (bone specific alkaline phosphatase [Alkphase B]) and bone resorption (N-terminal telopeptide [NTx]).

Compared with baseline, at 12 months, the women had the following changes in BMD at the following sites:

• Spine: +1.9%, +0.9%, and –0.4%, in the risedronate, exercise, and control groups.
• Total hip: +0.9%, +0.5%, and +0.5%, in the risedronate, exercise, and control groups.
• Femoral neck: +0.09%, –0.4%, and –0.5%, in the risedronate, exercise, and control groups.

These improvements in BMD were significantly greater in the risedronate group than in the exercise or control groups (P < .01 for both).

The decreases in serum levels of NtX and Alkphase B were also greater with risedronate than in the exercise or control groups (P < .01 for all).

The most frequent adverse effect with the calcium supplement was constipation (n = 4). Some women taking risedronate had gastrointestinal disturbances (n = 4), muscle or joint pain (n = 11), or chest pain and dizziness (n = 2). None of the women had adverse effects from vitamin D. A few women had muscle soreness from exercise that went away after the exercises were adapted. None of the women had a serious injury or fracture from exercise.

More women in the exercise group withdrew from the study (n = 20), with most citing lack of time as the reason; 13 women withdrew from the risedronate group, and 16 withdrew from the control group.

Of the 276 participants who completed the 12-month study, treatment adherence was 92% for calcium, 94% for vitamin D, 75% for risedronate, and 59% for exercise.

Exercise was associated with positive changes in intertrochanter hip structural analysis measures, which will be described in an upcoming study, Dr. Bilek said.

The study was funded by the National Institute of Nursing Research of the National Institutes of Health. The researchers have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new contraceptive method should ideally provide improved access or a higher quality and safety option. Although unintended pregnancy rates in the United States are decreasing, significant disparities across race and socioeconomic status remain,¹ and these disparities actually doubled from 1994 to 2011 even though the overall unintended pregnancy rate decreased.^1-3 Specifically, people of color, those with lower income, and people with lower education levels had higher rates of unintended pregnancies than did White people with higher education and income, suggesting disparate access to contraception services.¹ Thus, as new contraceptive methods are introduced, we must assess if they have the potential to address this disparity as well as continue to provide higher quality and safer options.

In this Update, we critically review the phase 3 data on efficacy and safety for 3 new methods that were introduced to the US market over the past year to evaluate their impact on the current contraceptive landscape.

The first method, newly approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), is a combined oral contraceptive (OC) that contains a novel endogenous estrogen, estetrol, or E4 (Nextstellis). E4 is a natural estrogen produced in the fetal liver that has lower potency and a longer half-life than estradiol. Nextstellis is a monophasic 24/4 OC pill that contains E4 14.2 mg and drospirenone 3 mg in each of the 24 hormone-containing pills. Most combined hormonal contraceptives (CHCs) in the United States today contain synthetically made ethinyl estradiol (EE) due to its high potency and oral bioavailability. Outside of the reproductive system, EE upregulates the production of hepatic proteins and alters procoagulant and anticoagulant factors, which results in an overall increase in venous thromboembolic (VTE) risk among CHC users.²

After widespread use of combined oral contraceptives (COCs) started in the 1960s, data emerged regarding increased VTE risk.³ Subsequent research discovered that the type of estrogen used in CHCs directly correlates with the thrombosis risk due to the hepatic upregulation with both first- and second-pass metabolism. Although this risk was reduced as the EE dose decreased below 50 µg and concurrent VTE risk factors were contraindicated, CHC users still faced a 2-fold increase in VTE risk compared with nonusers.^4,5 EE in contraceptive formulations increases VTE risk, likely related to upregulation of procoagulant factors and decreasing anticoagulant proteins.² By contrast, a phase 2 trial of Nextstellis demonstrated more neutral effects of E4/drospirenone on hemostatic parameters compared with EE/levonorgestrel or EE/drospirenone.⁶ Furthermore, E4/drospirenone exhibited lower increases in hepatic proteins, such as angiotensinogen, triglycerides, and sex-hormone binding globulin.⁷ These findings together suggest that this novel CHC pill has a more favorable cardiovascular adverse effect profile compared with currently available CHCs.

The second contraceptive method is a new transdermal patch that contains EE and levonorgestrel (Twirla); this is in contrast to the available EE/norelgestromin contraceptive patch (Xulane). Transdermal contraceptive patches can offer some users easier adherence as compared with a daily OC.⁸ Until this past year, the only transdermal contraceptive available in the United States was Xulane, which contains a daily dose of EE 35 µg and norelgestromin 150 µg. Norelgestromin is eventually metabolized to levonorgestrel derivatives.⁹ Twirla is administered in the same manner as Xulane and contains a daily hormone exposure equivalent to a COC containing EE 30 µg and levonorgestrel 120 µg. Similar to EE/norelgestromin, the EE/levonorgestrel patch also is contraindicated in obese patients (body mass index [BMI] ≥30 kg/m²) due to decreased efficacy and increased risk for VTE. Additionally, phase 3 data demonstrated decreasing efficacy of Twirla in overweight users (BMI ≥25–30 kg/m²), perhaps further limiting the population that may benefit from this contraceptive method.¹⁰ These issues with efficacy and weight likely are related to the fact that levonorgestrel distribution is weight dependent, with evidence of lower plasma levels in obese individuals.^11-13

The third new method is a prescription vaginal contraceptive gel with lactic acid, citric acid, and potassium bitartrate (Phexxi) designed to prevent pregnancy by maintaining an acidic vaginal environment that is inhospitable to sperm. For many decades, vaginal contraceptives, including vaginal spermicidal gels, provided easy access to a nonhormonal and flexible method of moderately effective contraception for many users. Phexxi is a prescription vaginal pH regulator administered as a gel and active for 1 hour after application. All previous vaginal gels sold in the United States are applied similarly, are available over the counter, and include nonoxynol-9, which is a surfactant that damages sperm cell membranes. Recent data from a phase 3 trial demonstrated similar contraceptive effectiveness of Phexxi when compared with available nonoxynol-9 alternatives.¹⁴

Continue to: New OC with the novel estrogen E4 demonstrates good safety profile for VTE...

New OC with the novel estrogen E4 demonstrates good safety profile for VTE

Creinin MD, Westhoff CL, Bouchard C, et al. Estetrol-drospirenone combination oral contraceptive: North American phase 3 efficacy and safety results. Contraception. 2021;104:222-228.

The COC E4/drospirenone was evaluated in 2 parallel multinational studies. Here, we review the North American data that are more relevant for the US population; the European-Russian data also are published.¹⁵

Study examined 1 year’s use of E4/drospirenone

The US–Canadian trial conducted by Creinin and colleagues enrolled 1,864 participants aged 16 to 50 years to evaluate contraceptive efficacy, bleeding patterns, and adverse events with 1-year use (13 cycles) of E4/drospirenone. The primary efficacy group included 1,524 women aged 16 to 35. This study enrolled healthy, heterosexually active participants with a BMI ≤35 kg/m² and regular menses from 70 sites in the United States and 7 sites in Canada. The dropout rate was 45%, comparable to that in other contraceptive studies. Participants used E4/drospirenone cyclically, taking 1 hormone-containing pill daily for 24 days followed by 4 days of placebo pills.

Contraceptive efficacious, no VTE observed

The researchers reported efficacy as a Pearl Index (PI) of 2.65 pregnancies per 100 woman-years in participants aged 16 to 35 and an overall 13-cycle life-table pregnancy rate of 2.06%. The PI did not differ among nonobese and obese participants in multivariable analysis. Most users experienced scheduled withdrawal bleeding; only 13% to 18% reported absence of scheduled bleeding. Unscheduled bleeding was typically spotting (55.2%), and this decreased with treatment duration from 30% in cycle 1 to 15% to 20% in cycle 5 and on.

Overall, 28.9% of participants reported treatment-related adverse events (AEs), which most commonly were headache (5.0%), metrorrhagia (4.6%), and nausea (3.8%). Investigators reported a minimal change in mean (SD) BMI of 0.4 (1.7) kg/m² from baseline after 1 year of E4/drospirenone use, and only 0.5% of participants discontinued use due to weight gain. The most common reasons for AE-related treatment discontinuation included metrorrhagia (0.9%), menorrhagia (0.8%), and vaginal hemorrhage (0.5%). Importantly, no cases of VTE occurred in this study of estetrol despite 23% of participants being obese, a known risk factor for VTE.

Continue to: Efficacy of a new EE/levonorgestrel transdermal patch may be lower in overweight, obese women...

Efficacy of a new EE/levonorgestrel transdermal patch may be lower in overweight, obese women

Nelson AL, Kaunitz AM, Kroll R; SECURE Investigators. Efficacy, safety, and tolerability of a levonorgestrel/ethinyl estradiol transdermal delivery system: phase 3 clinical trial results. Contraception. 2021;103:137-143.

To assess the contraceptive efficacy, tolerability, and safety of the transdermal patch Twirla (EE/levonorgestrel) over 1 year of treatment (13 cycles), Nelson and colleagues conducted an open-label, multicenter, US-based phase 3 trial of participants aged 18 years and older with regular cycles. There were no restrictions based on BMI. On average, the study population was overweight, with a mean BMI of 28.3 kg/m² , and 35% of the population was considered obese (BMI ≥30 kg/m²).

Study design

A total of 2,032 participants enrolled in the study, with separate populations defined for specific analysis on safety, contraceptive efficacy, and cycle control. The primary efficacy group included 1,736 participants. Fifty-one percent discontinued the study, most commonly due to “women’s decision” (15%) and lost to follow-up (11%). Users received bleeding diaries and returned periodically throughout the study for evaluation for efficacy, adherence, and adverse events.

Efficacy associated with BMI

The study results demonstrated an overall PI of 5.8 pregnancies per 100 woman-years for users aged younger than 35. TABLE 2 demonstrates the overall trend of efficacy in relation to BMI.^10,15-19 Participants with a higher BMI were found to have a higher PI, revealing lower contraceptive efficacy in more overweight and obese patients. The overall cumulative pregnancy rate over 13 cycles was 5.3%

Participants reported decreasing frequency of bleeding/spotting days over the treatment duration of 13 cycles, from a mean (SD) of 6.2 (4.5) days in cycle 1 to 4.9 (3.5) days in cycle 13. Unscheduled bleeding episodes remained high throughout the study period. Initially, 60% of users reported 1 or more days of unscheduled bleeding in cycle 1, and 42% still reported unscheduled bleeding in cycle 13. In light of this, only 45 participants (2.2%) discontinued the study due to bleeding issues, suggesting perhaps that the bleeding was light. Overall, users experienced acceptable wearability of the patch, and the rate of detachment decreased over the study period from 9.9% in cycle 1 to 2.4% in cycle 13. There were also low rates (0.5%) of moderate to severe irritation. Itching at the adhesion site decreased slightly from 13.1% in cycle 2 to 9.6% in cycle 13.

In general, 27.2% of patch users experienced a study-related AE, most reported as mild to moderate. Nausea (4.1%) and headaches (3.6%) were the most common hormone-related AE. Importantly, 4 obese users experienced 5 VTEs (deep vein thrombosis, n = 2; pulmonary embolism, n = 3) between cycle 5 and 13. Three of these users had additional VTE risk factors, such as air travel and a family history of clots. No users who were of normal weight or overweight experienced VTE.

Continue to: Novel vaginal pH buffering spermicide is a new Rx-only option...

Novel vaginal pH buffering spermicide is a new Rx-only option

Thomas MA, Chappell BT, Maximos B, et al. A novel vaginal pH regulator: results from the phase 3 AMPOWER contraception clinical trial. Contracept X. 2020;2:100031.

In an open-label phase 3 study, Thomas and colleagues enrolled 1,384 participants aged 18 to 35 with regular cycles at 112 sites in the United States to assess the contraceptive efficacy, safety, and acceptability of Phexxi vaginal gel (lactic acid, citric acid, and potassium bitartrate) over 7 cycles (6 months). Participants were required to have at least 3 episodes of heterosexual vaginal intercourse per cycle and return throughout the treatment duration for study visits. Fifty-three percent of participants did not complete the study, most frequently due to loss to follow-up (18.1%) and participant withdrawal (12.3%). Most participants were White (69%) and had an average (SD) age of 27.7 (4.5) years.

Efficacy and AE rates

The investigators reported a cumulative pregnancy rate of 13.7% over 7 cycles (6 months). In this study, 45.2% of women experienced 1 AE, and most were noted to be mild (23.9%) to moderate (18.7%). The most reported AE was vulvovaginal burning (20.0%), followed by vulvovaginal pruritus (11.2%), urinary tract infection (5.7%), and vulvovaginal pain (3.8%). Less than 2% of participants discontinued the study due to an AE. Burning and itching decreased with time and with decreased frequency of use. When used twice per day compared with once per day, burning rates decreased from 4.6% to 2.1%, and itching rates decreased from 1.0% to 0.7%. Serious AEs were uncommon, occurring in 1.3% of users; only 1, cystitis, was noted to be “probably” related to the treatment. ●

A new contraceptive method should ideally provide improved access or a higher quality and safety option. Although unintended pregnancy rates in the United States are decreasing, significant disparities across race and socioeconomic status remain,¹ and these disparities actually doubled from 1994 to 2011 even though the overall unintended pregnancy rate decreased.^1-3 Specifically, people of color, those with lower income, and people with lower education levels had higher rates of unintended pregnancies than did White people with higher education and income, suggesting disparate access to contraception services.¹ Thus, as new contraceptive methods are introduced, we must assess if they have the potential to address this disparity as well as continue to provide higher quality and safer options.

In this Update, we critically review the phase 3 data on efficacy and safety for 3 new methods that were introduced to the US market over the past year to evaluate their impact on the current contraceptive landscape.

The first method, newly approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), is a combined oral contraceptive (OC) that contains a novel endogenous estrogen, estetrol, or E4 (Nextstellis). E4 is a natural estrogen produced in the fetal liver that has lower potency and a longer half-life than estradiol. Nextstellis is a monophasic 24/4 OC pill that contains E4 14.2 mg and drospirenone 3 mg in each of the 24 hormone-containing pills. Most combined hormonal contraceptives (CHCs) in the United States today contain synthetically made ethinyl estradiol (EE) due to its high potency and oral bioavailability. Outside of the reproductive system, EE upregulates the production of hepatic proteins and alters procoagulant and anticoagulant factors, which results in an overall increase in venous thromboembolic (VTE) risk among CHC users.²

After widespread use of combined oral contraceptives (COCs) started in the 1960s, data emerged regarding increased VTE risk.³ Subsequent research discovered that the type of estrogen used in CHCs directly correlates with the thrombosis risk due to the hepatic upregulation with both first- and second-pass metabolism. Although this risk was reduced as the EE dose decreased below 50 µg and concurrent VTE risk factors were contraindicated, CHC users still faced a 2-fold increase in VTE risk compared with nonusers.^4,5 EE in contraceptive formulations increases VTE risk, likely related to upregulation of procoagulant factors and decreasing anticoagulant proteins.² By contrast, a phase 2 trial of Nextstellis demonstrated more neutral effects of E4/drospirenone on hemostatic parameters compared with EE/levonorgestrel or EE/drospirenone.⁶ Furthermore, E4/drospirenone exhibited lower increases in hepatic proteins, such as angiotensinogen, triglycerides, and sex-hormone binding globulin.⁷ These findings together suggest that this novel CHC pill has a more favorable cardiovascular adverse effect profile compared with currently available CHCs.

The second contraceptive method is a new transdermal patch that contains EE and levonorgestrel (Twirla); this is in contrast to the available EE/norelgestromin contraceptive patch (Xulane). Transdermal contraceptive patches can offer some users easier adherence as compared with a daily OC.⁸ Until this past year, the only transdermal contraceptive available in the United States was Xulane, which contains a daily dose of EE 35 µg and norelgestromin 150 µg. Norelgestromin is eventually metabolized to levonorgestrel derivatives.⁹ Twirla is administered in the same manner as Xulane and contains a daily hormone exposure equivalent to a COC containing EE 30 µg and levonorgestrel 120 µg. Similar to EE/norelgestromin, the EE/levonorgestrel patch also is contraindicated in obese patients (body mass index [BMI] ≥30 kg/m²) due to decreased efficacy and increased risk for VTE. Additionally, phase 3 data demonstrated decreasing efficacy of Twirla in overweight users (BMI ≥25–30 kg/m²), perhaps further limiting the population that may benefit from this contraceptive method.¹⁰ These issues with efficacy and weight likely are related to the fact that levonorgestrel distribution is weight dependent, with evidence of lower plasma levels in obese individuals.^11-13

The third new method is a prescription vaginal contraceptive gel with lactic acid, citric acid, and potassium bitartrate (Phexxi) designed to prevent pregnancy by maintaining an acidic vaginal environment that is inhospitable to sperm. For many decades, vaginal contraceptives, including vaginal spermicidal gels, provided easy access to a nonhormonal and flexible method of moderately effective contraception for many users. Phexxi is a prescription vaginal pH regulator administered as a gel and active for 1 hour after application. All previous vaginal gels sold in the United States are applied similarly, are available over the counter, and include nonoxynol-9, which is a surfactant that damages sperm cell membranes. Recent data from a phase 3 trial demonstrated similar contraceptive effectiveness of Phexxi when compared with available nonoxynol-9 alternatives.¹⁴

Continue to: New OC with the novel estrogen E4 demonstrates good safety profile for VTE...

New OC with the novel estrogen E4 demonstrates good safety profile for VTE

Creinin MD, Westhoff CL, Bouchard C, et al. Estetrol-drospirenone combination oral contraceptive: North American phase 3 efficacy and safety results. Contraception. 2021;104:222-228.

The COC E4/drospirenone was evaluated in 2 parallel multinational studies. Here, we review the North American data that are more relevant for the US population; the European-Russian data also are published.¹⁵

Study examined 1 year’s use of E4/drospirenone

The US–Canadian trial conducted by Creinin and colleagues enrolled 1,864 participants aged 16 to 50 years to evaluate contraceptive efficacy, bleeding patterns, and adverse events with 1-year use (13 cycles) of E4/drospirenone. The primary efficacy group included 1,524 women aged 16 to 35. This study enrolled healthy, heterosexually active participants with a BMI ≤35 kg/m² and regular menses from 70 sites in the United States and 7 sites in Canada. The dropout rate was 45%, comparable to that in other contraceptive studies. Participants used E4/drospirenone cyclically, taking 1 hormone-containing pill daily for 24 days followed by 4 days of placebo pills.

Contraceptive efficacious, no VTE observed

The researchers reported efficacy as a Pearl Index (PI) of 2.65 pregnancies per 100 woman-years in participants aged 16 to 35 and an overall 13-cycle life-table pregnancy rate of 2.06%. The PI did not differ among nonobese and obese participants in multivariable analysis. Most users experienced scheduled withdrawal bleeding; only 13% to 18% reported absence of scheduled bleeding. Unscheduled bleeding was typically spotting (55.2%), and this decreased with treatment duration from 30% in cycle 1 to 15% to 20% in cycle 5 and on.

Overall, 28.9% of participants reported treatment-related adverse events (AEs), which most commonly were headache (5.0%), metrorrhagia (4.6%), and nausea (3.8%). Investigators reported a minimal change in mean (SD) BMI of 0.4 (1.7) kg/m² from baseline after 1 year of E4/drospirenone use, and only 0.5% of participants discontinued use due to weight gain. The most common reasons for AE-related treatment discontinuation included metrorrhagia (0.9%), menorrhagia (0.8%), and vaginal hemorrhage (0.5%). Importantly, no cases of VTE occurred in this study of estetrol despite 23% of participants being obese, a known risk factor for VTE.

Continue to: Efficacy of a new EE/levonorgestrel transdermal patch may be lower in overweight, obese women...

Efficacy of a new EE/levonorgestrel transdermal patch may be lower in overweight, obese women

Nelson AL, Kaunitz AM, Kroll R; SECURE Investigators. Efficacy, safety, and tolerability of a levonorgestrel/ethinyl estradiol transdermal delivery system: phase 3 clinical trial results. Contraception. 2021;103:137-143.

To assess the contraceptive efficacy, tolerability, and safety of the transdermal patch Twirla (EE/levonorgestrel) over 1 year of treatment (13 cycles), Nelson and colleagues conducted an open-label, multicenter, US-based phase 3 trial of participants aged 18 years and older with regular cycles. There were no restrictions based on BMI. On average, the study population was overweight, with a mean BMI of 28.3 kg/m² , and 35% of the population was considered obese (BMI ≥30 kg/m²).

Study design

A total of 2,032 participants enrolled in the study, with separate populations defined for specific analysis on safety, contraceptive efficacy, and cycle control. The primary efficacy group included 1,736 participants. Fifty-one percent discontinued the study, most commonly due to “women’s decision” (15%) and lost to follow-up (11%). Users received bleeding diaries and returned periodically throughout the study for evaluation for efficacy, adherence, and adverse events.

Efficacy associated with BMI

The study results demonstrated an overall PI of 5.8 pregnancies per 100 woman-years for users aged younger than 35. TABLE 2 demonstrates the overall trend of efficacy in relation to BMI.^10,15-19 Participants with a higher BMI were found to have a higher PI, revealing lower contraceptive efficacy in more overweight and obese patients. The overall cumulative pregnancy rate over 13 cycles was 5.3%

Participants reported decreasing frequency of bleeding/spotting days over the treatment duration of 13 cycles, from a mean (SD) of 6.2 (4.5) days in cycle 1 to 4.9 (3.5) days in cycle 13. Unscheduled bleeding episodes remained high throughout the study period. Initially, 60% of users reported 1 or more days of unscheduled bleeding in cycle 1, and 42% still reported unscheduled bleeding in cycle 13. In light of this, only 45 participants (2.2%) discontinued the study due to bleeding issues, suggesting perhaps that the bleeding was light. Overall, users experienced acceptable wearability of the patch, and the rate of detachment decreased over the study period from 9.9% in cycle 1 to 2.4% in cycle 13. There were also low rates (0.5%) of moderate to severe irritation. Itching at the adhesion site decreased slightly from 13.1% in cycle 2 to 9.6% in cycle 13.

In general, 27.2% of patch users experienced a study-related AE, most reported as mild to moderate. Nausea (4.1%) and headaches (3.6%) were the most common hormone-related AE. Importantly, 4 obese users experienced 5 VTEs (deep vein thrombosis, n = 2; pulmonary embolism, n = 3) between cycle 5 and 13. Three of these users had additional VTE risk factors, such as air travel and a family history of clots. No users who were of normal weight or overweight experienced VTE.

Continue to: Novel vaginal pH buffering spermicide is a new Rx-only option...

Novel vaginal pH buffering spermicide is a new Rx-only option

Thomas MA, Chappell BT, Maximos B, et al. A novel vaginal pH regulator: results from the phase 3 AMPOWER contraception clinical trial. Contracept X. 2020;2:100031.

In an open-label phase 3 study, Thomas and colleagues enrolled 1,384 participants aged 18 to 35 with regular cycles at 112 sites in the United States to assess the contraceptive efficacy, safety, and acceptability of Phexxi vaginal gel (lactic acid, citric acid, and potassium bitartrate) over 7 cycles (6 months). Participants were required to have at least 3 episodes of heterosexual vaginal intercourse per cycle and return throughout the treatment duration for study visits. Fifty-three percent of participants did not complete the study, most frequently due to loss to follow-up (18.1%) and participant withdrawal (12.3%). Most participants were White (69%) and had an average (SD) age of 27.7 (4.5) years.

Efficacy and AE rates

The investigators reported a cumulative pregnancy rate of 13.7% over 7 cycles (6 months). In this study, 45.2% of women experienced 1 AE, and most were noted to be mild (23.9%) to moderate (18.7%). The most reported AE was vulvovaginal burning (20.0%), followed by vulvovaginal pruritus (11.2%), urinary tract infection (5.7%), and vulvovaginal pain (3.8%). Less than 2% of participants discontinued the study due to an AE. Burning and itching decreased with time and with decreased frequency of use. When used twice per day compared with once per day, burning rates decreased from 4.6% to 2.1%, and itching rates decreased from 1.0% to 0.7%. Serious AEs were uncommon, occurring in 1.3% of users; only 1, cystitis, was noted to be “probably” related to the treatment. ●

A new contraceptive method should ideally provide improved access or a higher quality and safety option. Although unintended pregnancy rates in the United States are decreasing, significant disparities across race and socioeconomic status remain,¹ and these disparities actually doubled from 1994 to 2011 even though the overall unintended pregnancy rate decreased.^1-3 Specifically, people of color, those with lower income, and people with lower education levels had higher rates of unintended pregnancies than did White people with higher education and income, suggesting disparate access to contraception services.¹ Thus, as new contraceptive methods are introduced, we must assess if they have the potential to address this disparity as well as continue to provide higher quality and safer options.

In this Update, we critically review the phase 3 data on efficacy and safety for 3 new methods that were introduced to the US market over the past year to evaluate their impact on the current contraceptive landscape.

The first method, newly approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), is a combined oral contraceptive (OC) that contains a novel endogenous estrogen, estetrol, or E4 (Nextstellis). E4 is a natural estrogen produced in the fetal liver that has lower potency and a longer half-life than estradiol. Nextstellis is a monophasic 24/4 OC pill that contains E4 14.2 mg and drospirenone 3 mg in each of the 24 hormone-containing pills. Most combined hormonal contraceptives (CHCs) in the United States today contain synthetically made ethinyl estradiol (EE) due to its high potency and oral bioavailability. Outside of the reproductive system, EE upregulates the production of hepatic proteins and alters procoagulant and anticoagulant factors, which results in an overall increase in venous thromboembolic (VTE) risk among CHC users.²

After widespread use of combined oral contraceptives (COCs) started in the 1960s, data emerged regarding increased VTE risk.³ Subsequent research discovered that the type of estrogen used in CHCs directly correlates with the thrombosis risk due to the hepatic upregulation with both first- and second-pass metabolism. Although this risk was reduced as the EE dose decreased below 50 µg and concurrent VTE risk factors were contraindicated, CHC users still faced a 2-fold increase in VTE risk compared with nonusers.^4,5 EE in contraceptive formulations increases VTE risk, likely related to upregulation of procoagulant factors and decreasing anticoagulant proteins.² By contrast, a phase 2 trial of Nextstellis demonstrated more neutral effects of E4/drospirenone on hemostatic parameters compared with EE/levonorgestrel or EE/drospirenone.⁶ Furthermore, E4/drospirenone exhibited lower increases in hepatic proteins, such as angiotensinogen, triglycerides, and sex-hormone binding globulin.⁷ These findings together suggest that this novel CHC pill has a more favorable cardiovascular adverse effect profile compared with currently available CHCs.

The second contraceptive method is a new transdermal patch that contains EE and levonorgestrel (Twirla); this is in contrast to the available EE/norelgestromin contraceptive patch (Xulane). Transdermal contraceptive patches can offer some users easier adherence as compared with a daily OC.⁸ Until this past year, the only transdermal contraceptive available in the United States was Xulane, which contains a daily dose of EE 35 µg and norelgestromin 150 µg. Norelgestromin is eventually metabolized to levonorgestrel derivatives.⁹ Twirla is administered in the same manner as Xulane and contains a daily hormone exposure equivalent to a COC containing EE 30 µg and levonorgestrel 120 µg. Similar to EE/norelgestromin, the EE/levonorgestrel patch also is contraindicated in obese patients (body mass index [BMI] ≥30 kg/m²) due to decreased efficacy and increased risk for VTE. Additionally, phase 3 data demonstrated decreasing efficacy of Twirla in overweight users (BMI ≥25–30 kg/m²), perhaps further limiting the population that may benefit from this contraceptive method.¹⁰ These issues with efficacy and weight likely are related to the fact that levonorgestrel distribution is weight dependent, with evidence of lower plasma levels in obese individuals.^11-13

The third new method is a prescription vaginal contraceptive gel with lactic acid, citric acid, and potassium bitartrate (Phexxi) designed to prevent pregnancy by maintaining an acidic vaginal environment that is inhospitable to sperm. For many decades, vaginal contraceptives, including vaginal spermicidal gels, provided easy access to a nonhormonal and flexible method of moderately effective contraception for many users. Phexxi is a prescription vaginal pH regulator administered as a gel and active for 1 hour after application. All previous vaginal gels sold in the United States are applied similarly, are available over the counter, and include nonoxynol-9, which is a surfactant that damages sperm cell membranes. Recent data from a phase 3 trial demonstrated similar contraceptive effectiveness of Phexxi when compared with available nonoxynol-9 alternatives.¹⁴

Continue to: New OC with the novel estrogen E4 demonstrates good safety profile for VTE...

New OC with the novel estrogen E4 demonstrates good safety profile for VTE

Creinin MD, Westhoff CL, Bouchard C, et al. Estetrol-drospirenone combination oral contraceptive: North American phase 3 efficacy and safety results. Contraception. 2021;104:222-228.

The COC E4/drospirenone was evaluated in 2 parallel multinational studies. Here, we review the North American data that are more relevant for the US population; the European-Russian data also are published.¹⁵

Study examined 1 year’s use of E4/drospirenone

The US–Canadian trial conducted by Creinin and colleagues enrolled 1,864 participants aged 16 to 50 years to evaluate contraceptive efficacy, bleeding patterns, and adverse events with 1-year use (13 cycles) of E4/drospirenone. The primary efficacy group included 1,524 women aged 16 to 35. This study enrolled healthy, heterosexually active participants with a BMI ≤35 kg/m² and regular menses from 70 sites in the United States and 7 sites in Canada. The dropout rate was 45%, comparable to that in other contraceptive studies. Participants used E4/drospirenone cyclically, taking 1 hormone-containing pill daily for 24 days followed by 4 days of placebo pills.

Contraceptive efficacious, no VTE observed

The researchers reported efficacy as a Pearl Index (PI) of 2.65 pregnancies per 100 woman-years in participants aged 16 to 35 and an overall 13-cycle life-table pregnancy rate of 2.06%. The PI did not differ among nonobese and obese participants in multivariable analysis. Most users experienced scheduled withdrawal bleeding; only 13% to 18% reported absence of scheduled bleeding. Unscheduled bleeding was typically spotting (55.2%), and this decreased with treatment duration from 30% in cycle 1 to 15% to 20% in cycle 5 and on.

Overall, 28.9% of participants reported treatment-related adverse events (AEs), which most commonly were headache (5.0%), metrorrhagia (4.6%), and nausea (3.8%). Investigators reported a minimal change in mean (SD) BMI of 0.4 (1.7) kg/m² from baseline after 1 year of E4/drospirenone use, and only 0.5% of participants discontinued use due to weight gain. The most common reasons for AE-related treatment discontinuation included metrorrhagia (0.9%), menorrhagia (0.8%), and vaginal hemorrhage (0.5%). Importantly, no cases of VTE occurred in this study of estetrol despite 23% of participants being obese, a known risk factor for VTE.

Continue to: Efficacy of a new EE/levonorgestrel transdermal patch may be lower in overweight, obese women...

Efficacy of a new EE/levonorgestrel transdermal patch may be lower in overweight, obese women

Nelson AL, Kaunitz AM, Kroll R; SECURE Investigators. Efficacy, safety, and tolerability of a levonorgestrel/ethinyl estradiol transdermal delivery system: phase 3 clinical trial results. Contraception. 2021;103:137-143.

To assess the contraceptive efficacy, tolerability, and safety of the transdermal patch Twirla (EE/levonorgestrel) over 1 year of treatment (13 cycles), Nelson and colleagues conducted an open-label, multicenter, US-based phase 3 trial of participants aged 18 years and older with regular cycles. There were no restrictions based on BMI. On average, the study population was overweight, with a mean BMI of 28.3 kg/m² , and 35% of the population was considered obese (BMI ≥30 kg/m²).

Study design

A total of 2,032 participants enrolled in the study, with separate populations defined for specific analysis on safety, contraceptive efficacy, and cycle control. The primary efficacy group included 1,736 participants. Fifty-one percent discontinued the study, most commonly due to “women’s decision” (15%) and lost to follow-up (11%). Users received bleeding diaries and returned periodically throughout the study for evaluation for efficacy, adherence, and adverse events.

Efficacy associated with BMI

The study results demonstrated an overall PI of 5.8 pregnancies per 100 woman-years for users aged younger than 35. TABLE 2 demonstrates the overall trend of efficacy in relation to BMI.^10,15-19 Participants with a higher BMI were found to have a higher PI, revealing lower contraceptive efficacy in more overweight and obese patients. The overall cumulative pregnancy rate over 13 cycles was 5.3%

Participants reported decreasing frequency of bleeding/spotting days over the treatment duration of 13 cycles, from a mean (SD) of 6.2 (4.5) days in cycle 1 to 4.9 (3.5) days in cycle 13. Unscheduled bleeding episodes remained high throughout the study period. Initially, 60% of users reported 1 or more days of unscheduled bleeding in cycle 1, and 42% still reported unscheduled bleeding in cycle 13. In light of this, only 45 participants (2.2%) discontinued the study due to bleeding issues, suggesting perhaps that the bleeding was light. Overall, users experienced acceptable wearability of the patch, and the rate of detachment decreased over the study period from 9.9% in cycle 1 to 2.4% in cycle 13. There were also low rates (0.5%) of moderate to severe irritation. Itching at the adhesion site decreased slightly from 13.1% in cycle 2 to 9.6% in cycle 13.

In general, 27.2% of patch users experienced a study-related AE, most reported as mild to moderate. Nausea (4.1%) and headaches (3.6%) were the most common hormone-related AE. Importantly, 4 obese users experienced 5 VTEs (deep vein thrombosis, n = 2; pulmonary embolism, n = 3) between cycle 5 and 13. Three of these users had additional VTE risk factors, such as air travel and a family history of clots. No users who were of normal weight or overweight experienced VTE.

Continue to: Novel vaginal pH buffering spermicide is a new Rx-only option...

Novel vaginal pH buffering spermicide is a new Rx-only option

Thomas MA, Chappell BT, Maximos B, et al. A novel vaginal pH regulator: results from the phase 3 AMPOWER contraception clinical trial. Contracept X. 2020;2:100031.

In an open-label phase 3 study, Thomas and colleagues enrolled 1,384 participants aged 18 to 35 with regular cycles at 112 sites in the United States to assess the contraceptive efficacy, safety, and acceptability of Phexxi vaginal gel (lactic acid, citric acid, and potassium bitartrate) over 7 cycles (6 months). Participants were required to have at least 3 episodes of heterosexual vaginal intercourse per cycle and return throughout the treatment duration for study visits. Fifty-three percent of participants did not complete the study, most frequently due to loss to follow-up (18.1%) and participant withdrawal (12.3%). Most participants were White (69%) and had an average (SD) age of 27.7 (4.5) years.

Efficacy and AE rates

The investigators reported a cumulative pregnancy rate of 13.7% over 7 cycles (6 months). In this study, 45.2% of women experienced 1 AE, and most were noted to be mild (23.9%) to moderate (18.7%). The most reported AE was vulvovaginal burning (20.0%), followed by vulvovaginal pruritus (11.2%), urinary tract infection (5.7%), and vulvovaginal pain (3.8%). Less than 2% of participants discontinued the study due to an AE. Burning and itching decreased with time and with decreased frequency of use. When used twice per day compared with once per day, burning rates decreased from 4.6% to 2.1%, and itching rates decreased from 1.0% to 0.7%. Serious AEs were uncommon, occurring in 1.3% of users; only 1, cystitis, was noted to be “probably” related to the treatment. ●

Over the past decade, the use of technology with the focus on optimizing the consumer experience has exploded throughout numerous industries, including education, retail, and entertainment. Within health care, we would be naïve to ignore patient expectations for an optimized consumer experience within our offices. Thus, clinicians across all health care disciplines must remain cognizant of and work to optimize the patient experience in the ever-expanding world of health care.

Reengineering one’s practice will continue to be a work in progress. As medicine and technology continuously advance, clinicians must be able to adapt and implement changes. An excellent example of such adaptation is the use of telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic.¹ We hope that the use of telemedicine remains an integral part of our armamentarium as we move forward.

In this article, we offer perspectives on using telemedicine, improving the patient experience, and implementing the use of social media in your practice. We look for a common denominator when provision of clinical care is the topic of discussion. Knowing the details of your medical practice and addressing its highlights as well as its concerns will benefit patients, staff, and health care providers. We hope that you glean some insights that you can apply in your practice.

Telemedicine: Part of the new normal

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists defines telehealth as a “technology-enhanced health care framework that includes services, such as virtual visits, remote patient monitoring and mobile health care.”² The American Telemedicine Association and the World Health Organization use the terms telemedicine and telehealth interchangeably.³ We live in a relatively new era since the COVID-19 pandemic necessitated that traditional face-to-face meeting(s) with patients be conducted virtually. The good news is that the outcomes with telehealth visits appear to be on par with those of traditional office visits.⁴

Telehealth allows clinicians to deliver medical evaluation and management plans right in a patient’s home and to receive appropriate reimbursement for doing so. This is a result of actions by Congress and the Department of Health and Human Services that removed restrictions related to telemedicine.⁵ The telemedicine approach provides a different perspective on provision of care (FIGURE 1).

While in many circumstances the indications for telemedicine are obvious, some remain less apparent. For example, patients may be more receptive to the use of telemedicine for counseling and education for family planning services and termination of pregnancy.⁶ Psychological counseling lends itself to a telemedicine approach to address levels of anxiety and depression, especially in the postpartum setting.

An initial telemedicine consultation often is complemented by subsequent patient examination when deemed necessary. Pelvic imaging often is ordered to address concerns expressed during the telemedicine visit. Teleradiology is an interesting aspect of telemedicine that is expanding. Telesonography, the use of ultrasonography, is extremely relevant to obstetrics and gynecology. Specifically, the development of self-operated endovaginal telemonitors and 3D as well as 4D imaging incorporates self-operated endovaginal telemonitoring. This technology remains a work in progress.⁷

Another aspect to telemedicine is telesurgery. Although an operative procedure cannot be performed virtually, pre- and postoperative counseling can be provided via telemedicine, offering tremendous convenience to patients.

Understanding the infrastructure of telemedicine and assuring security, adherence with HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act), state licensure, reimbursement, and medical malpractice aspects is well worth the effort.

Continue to: Reengineer your office to enhance the patient experience...

Reengineer your office to enhance the patient experience

Create a hospitable environment. One way to do this is by having your front desk staffer standing up to greet patients. The medical management literature has reported an interesting analogy.⁸ Picture going to a retailer whose job is to sell you the product you are interested in. Where is that person positioned? Standing at the counter, at eye level with you, doing his or her best to convince you to buy a particular product. Having your office front desk personnel standing is analogous to the “atmosphere (when approaching the front desk) that conveys clear energy and a clear tone or readiness,” all of which contribute to a more positive patient experience.⁸

A hospitable environment at the check-in desk sets the stage for the office visit. When a staffer is sitting at the front desk office entrance point, the concept conveyed to the patient is, “You can wait for us because you need us more than we need you.” Changing the staffer’s posture to a standing position conveys, “Welcome, we are glad to see you and address why you are here.”⁸

Conduct a flow analysis of your office procedures. It is clear that the front desk serves as an advertisement of what your practice has to offer. A friendly smile from the receptionist goes a long way. In addition, the total time from patient check-in to checkout should be monitored. Having this type of data aids staff evaluation and patient satisfaction.⁹

Examine your office’s aspects of what the business world calls throughput. In essence, problems related to throughput include that the clinician is chronically late or slow with patients or that inadequate time was allocated per patient visit or per procedure.

It is valuable to allocate staff resources ahead of time, including patient registration and insurance verification details. Staff records review and preparation for the clinician streamlines time with the patient. Having lab tests, other consultations, and so on readily available for the clinician is time well spent by the medical assistants. For procedures, preparation of equipment that is in good working order and having supplies appropriately stocked can help facilitate success and efficiency. Creation of an “electronic on-time board” displays if the clinician is running on time or not.⁹ These practical tips can result in better patient and staff satisfaction. In addition, periodic surveys help engage patients in the process. TABLE 2 provides sample survey questions to ask patients.¹⁰

Taking a careful look at your current office practices and reengineering them as needed is an investment that provides an excellent return.

Continue to: Develop a presence on social media...

Develop a presence on social media

Having a social media presence is becoming one of the most effective strategies for reaching an intended audience. In the United States, more than 70% of the public uses at least one social media platform.¹¹ It can be an effective and efficient tool for clinicians to grow their practice; distribute information about unique areas of the practice; and reach potential patients, referring physicians, and prospective faculty/trainees. Social media also is increasingly being used by clinicians to connect with other health care providers in their own specialty or other specialties. Digital communities have been created where ideas are shared and topics of interest are discussed. Clinicians can listen in on expert opinions, disseminate their research, and discuss practice management challenges or health advocacy. FIGURE 2 provides a snapshot of the social media landscape.

There is a wealth of options when it comes to social media platforms, including but not limited to Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram, YouTube, and blogs (TABLE 3). Facebook has the largest user base of all social media platforms, with approximately 1.7 billion active monthly users; thus, its use creates an opportunity to reach a massive audience.^12,13 People use Facebook for both personal and professional reasons. The platform allows for sharing of photos, live videos, posted text, and comments. It can be used as a helpful resource to engage patients and disseminate accurate medical information. Importantly, remember that content posted should comply with the HIPAA Privacy Rule and that information shared should come from a credible source.

Final thoughts

The practice of medicine has undeniably changed over the years and will continue to evolve. Understanding how to implement change to ensure that high-quality, efficient patient care is being delivered is paramount.

We have highlighted various aspects of practice management that you can use to overcome current obstacles and changing standards. The advent of telemedicine has provided easy access to clinicians. Consultation occurs in the comfort of the patient’s home, and the ability to provide local examination telecast to a clinician allows physicians and advanced practice practitioners to reach a wider range of patients. Social media has established an infrastructure for educating patients and providers while at the same time conveying educational tools to patients. This level of communication will continue to expand as time progresses.

Practitioners have a whole new cadre to add to their toolbox to provide patients with state-of-the-art communication and care. ●

Over the past decade, the use of technology with the focus on optimizing the consumer experience has exploded throughout numerous industries, including education, retail, and entertainment. Within health care, we would be naïve to ignore patient expectations for an optimized consumer experience within our offices. Thus, clinicians across all health care disciplines must remain cognizant of and work to optimize the patient experience in the ever-expanding world of health care.

Reengineering one’s practice will continue to be a work in progress. As medicine and technology continuously advance, clinicians must be able to adapt and implement changes. An excellent example of such adaptation is the use of telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic.¹ We hope that the use of telemedicine remains an integral part of our armamentarium as we move forward.

In this article, we offer perspectives on using telemedicine, improving the patient experience, and implementing the use of social media in your practice. We look for a common denominator when provision of clinical care is the topic of discussion. Knowing the details of your medical practice and addressing its highlights as well as its concerns will benefit patients, staff, and health care providers. We hope that you glean some insights that you can apply in your practice.

Telemedicine: Part of the new normal

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists defines telehealth as a “technology-enhanced health care framework that includes services, such as virtual visits, remote patient monitoring and mobile health care.”² The American Telemedicine Association and the World Health Organization use the terms telemedicine and telehealth interchangeably.³ We live in a relatively new era since the COVID-19 pandemic necessitated that traditional face-to-face meeting(s) with patients be conducted virtually. The good news is that the outcomes with telehealth visits appear to be on par with those of traditional office visits.⁴

Telehealth allows clinicians to deliver medical evaluation and management plans right in a patient’s home and to receive appropriate reimbursement for doing so. This is a result of actions by Congress and the Department of Health and Human Services that removed restrictions related to telemedicine.⁵ The telemedicine approach provides a different perspective on provision of care (FIGURE 1).

While in many circumstances the indications for telemedicine are obvious, some remain less apparent. For example, patients may be more receptive to the use of telemedicine for counseling and education for family planning services and termination of pregnancy.⁶ Psychological counseling lends itself to a telemedicine approach to address levels of anxiety and depression, especially in the postpartum setting.

An initial telemedicine consultation often is complemented by subsequent patient examination when deemed necessary. Pelvic imaging often is ordered to address concerns expressed during the telemedicine visit. Teleradiology is an interesting aspect of telemedicine that is expanding. Telesonography, the use of ultrasonography, is extremely relevant to obstetrics and gynecology. Specifically, the development of self-operated endovaginal telemonitors and 3D as well as 4D imaging incorporates self-operated endovaginal telemonitoring. This technology remains a work in progress.⁷

Another aspect to telemedicine is telesurgery. Although an operative procedure cannot be performed virtually, pre- and postoperative counseling can be provided via telemedicine, offering tremendous convenience to patients.

Understanding the infrastructure of telemedicine and assuring security, adherence with HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act), state licensure, reimbursement, and medical malpractice aspects is well worth the effort.

Continue to: Reengineer your office to enhance the patient experience...

Reengineer your office to enhance the patient experience

Create a hospitable environment. One way to do this is by having your front desk staffer standing up to greet patients. The medical management literature has reported an interesting analogy.⁸ Picture going to a retailer whose job is to sell you the product you are interested in. Where is that person positioned? Standing at the counter, at eye level with you, doing his or her best to convince you to buy a particular product. Having your office front desk personnel standing is analogous to the “atmosphere (when approaching the front desk) that conveys clear energy and a clear tone or readiness,” all of which contribute to a more positive patient experience.⁸

A hospitable environment at the check-in desk sets the stage for the office visit. When a staffer is sitting at the front desk office entrance point, the concept conveyed to the patient is, “You can wait for us because you need us more than we need you.” Changing the staffer’s posture to a standing position conveys, “Welcome, we are glad to see you and address why you are here.”⁸

Conduct a flow analysis of your office procedures. It is clear that the front desk serves as an advertisement of what your practice has to offer. A friendly smile from the receptionist goes a long way. In addition, the total time from patient check-in to checkout should be monitored. Having this type of data aids staff evaluation and patient satisfaction.⁹

Examine your office’s aspects of what the business world calls throughput. In essence, problems related to throughput include that the clinician is chronically late or slow with patients or that inadequate time was allocated per patient visit or per procedure.

It is valuable to allocate staff resources ahead of time, including patient registration and insurance verification details. Staff records review and preparation for the clinician streamlines time with the patient. Having lab tests, other consultations, and so on readily available for the clinician is time well spent by the medical assistants. For procedures, preparation of equipment that is in good working order and having supplies appropriately stocked can help facilitate success and efficiency. Creation of an “electronic on-time board” displays if the clinician is running on time or not.⁹ These practical tips can result in better patient and staff satisfaction. In addition, periodic surveys help engage patients in the process. TABLE 2 provides sample survey questions to ask patients.¹⁰

Taking a careful look at your current office practices and reengineering them as needed is an investment that provides an excellent return.

Continue to: Develop a presence on social media...

Develop a presence on social media

Having a social media presence is becoming one of the most effective strategies for reaching an intended audience. In the United States, more than 70% of the public uses at least one social media platform.¹¹ It can be an effective and efficient tool for clinicians to grow their practice; distribute information about unique areas of the practice; and reach potential patients, referring physicians, and prospective faculty/trainees. Social media also is increasingly being used by clinicians to connect with other health care providers in their own specialty or other specialties. Digital communities have been created where ideas are shared and topics of interest are discussed. Clinicians can listen in on expert opinions, disseminate their research, and discuss practice management challenges or health advocacy. FIGURE 2 provides a snapshot of the social media landscape.

There is a wealth of options when it comes to social media platforms, including but not limited to Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram, YouTube, and blogs (TABLE 3). Facebook has the largest user base of all social media platforms, with approximately 1.7 billion active monthly users; thus, its use creates an opportunity to reach a massive audience.^12,13 People use Facebook for both personal and professional reasons. The platform allows for sharing of photos, live videos, posted text, and comments. It can be used as a helpful resource to engage patients and disseminate accurate medical information. Importantly, remember that content posted should comply with the HIPAA Privacy Rule and that information shared should come from a credible source.

Final thoughts

The practice of medicine has undeniably changed over the years and will continue to evolve. Understanding how to implement change to ensure that high-quality, efficient patient care is being delivered is paramount.

We have highlighted various aspects of practice management that you can use to overcome current obstacles and changing standards. The advent of telemedicine has provided easy access to clinicians. Consultation occurs in the comfort of the patient’s home, and the ability to provide local examination telecast to a clinician allows physicians and advanced practice practitioners to reach a wider range of patients. Social media has established an infrastructure for educating patients and providers while at the same time conveying educational tools to patients. This level of communication will continue to expand as time progresses.

Practitioners have a whole new cadre to add to their toolbox to provide patients with state-of-the-art communication and care. ●

Over the past decade, the use of technology with the focus on optimizing the consumer experience has exploded throughout numerous industries, including education, retail, and entertainment. Within health care, we would be naïve to ignore patient expectations for an optimized consumer experience within our offices. Thus, clinicians across all health care disciplines must remain cognizant of and work to optimize the patient experience in the ever-expanding world of health care.

Reengineering one’s practice will continue to be a work in progress. As medicine and technology continuously advance, clinicians must be able to adapt and implement changes. An excellent example of such adaptation is the use of telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic.¹ We hope that the use of telemedicine remains an integral part of our armamentarium as we move forward.

In this article, we offer perspectives on using telemedicine, improving the patient experience, and implementing the use of social media in your practice. We look for a common denominator when provision of clinical care is the topic of discussion. Knowing the details of your medical practice and addressing its highlights as well as its concerns will benefit patients, staff, and health care providers. We hope that you glean some insights that you can apply in your practice.

Telemedicine: Part of the new normal

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists defines telehealth as a “technology-enhanced health care framework that includes services, such as virtual visits, remote patient monitoring and mobile health care.”² The American Telemedicine Association and the World Health Organization use the terms telemedicine and telehealth interchangeably.³ We live in a relatively new era since the COVID-19 pandemic necessitated that traditional face-to-face meeting(s) with patients be conducted virtually. The good news is that the outcomes with telehealth visits appear to be on par with those of traditional office visits.⁴

Telehealth allows clinicians to deliver medical evaluation and management plans right in a patient’s home and to receive appropriate reimbursement for doing so. This is a result of actions by Congress and the Department of Health and Human Services that removed restrictions related to telemedicine.⁵ The telemedicine approach provides a different perspective on provision of care (FIGURE 1).

While in many circumstances the indications for telemedicine are obvious, some remain less apparent. For example, patients may be more receptive to the use of telemedicine for counseling and education for family planning services and termination of pregnancy.⁶ Psychological counseling lends itself to a telemedicine approach to address levels of anxiety and depression, especially in the postpartum setting.

An initial telemedicine consultation often is complemented by subsequent patient examination when deemed necessary. Pelvic imaging often is ordered to address concerns expressed during the telemedicine visit. Teleradiology is an interesting aspect of telemedicine that is expanding. Telesonography, the use of ultrasonography, is extremely relevant to obstetrics and gynecology. Specifically, the development of self-operated endovaginal telemonitors and 3D as well as 4D imaging incorporates self-operated endovaginal telemonitoring. This technology remains a work in progress.⁷

Another aspect to telemedicine is telesurgery. Although an operative procedure cannot be performed virtually, pre- and postoperative counseling can be provided via telemedicine, offering tremendous convenience to patients.

Understanding the infrastructure of telemedicine and assuring security, adherence with HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act), state licensure, reimbursement, and medical malpractice aspects is well worth the effort.

Continue to: Reengineer your office to enhance the patient experience...

Reengineer your office to enhance the patient experience

Create a hospitable environment. One way to do this is by having your front desk staffer standing up to greet patients. The medical management literature has reported an interesting analogy.⁸ Picture going to a retailer whose job is to sell you the product you are interested in. Where is that person positioned? Standing at the counter, at eye level with you, doing his or her best to convince you to buy a particular product. Having your office front desk personnel standing is analogous to the “atmosphere (when approaching the front desk) that conveys clear energy and a clear tone or readiness,” all of which contribute to a more positive patient experience.⁸

A hospitable environment at the check-in desk sets the stage for the office visit. When a staffer is sitting at the front desk office entrance point, the concept conveyed to the patient is, “You can wait for us because you need us more than we need you.” Changing the staffer’s posture to a standing position conveys, “Welcome, we are glad to see you and address why you are here.”⁸

Conduct a flow analysis of your office procedures. It is clear that the front desk serves as an advertisement of what your practice has to offer. A friendly smile from the receptionist goes a long way. In addition, the total time from patient check-in to checkout should be monitored. Having this type of data aids staff evaluation and patient satisfaction.⁹

Examine your office’s aspects of what the business world calls throughput. In essence, problems related to throughput include that the clinician is chronically late or slow with patients or that inadequate time was allocated per patient visit or per procedure.

It is valuable to allocate staff resources ahead of time, including patient registration and insurance verification details. Staff records review and preparation for the clinician streamlines time with the patient. Having lab tests, other consultations, and so on readily available for the clinician is time well spent by the medical assistants. For procedures, preparation of equipment that is in good working order and having supplies appropriately stocked can help facilitate success and efficiency. Creation of an “electronic on-time board” displays if the clinician is running on time or not.⁹ These practical tips can result in better patient and staff satisfaction. In addition, periodic surveys help engage patients in the process. TABLE 2 provides sample survey questions to ask patients.¹⁰

Taking a careful look at your current office practices and reengineering them as needed is an investment that provides an excellent return.

Continue to: Develop a presence on social media...

Develop a presence on social media

Having a social media presence is becoming one of the most effective strategies for reaching an intended audience. In the United States, more than 70% of the public uses at least one social media platform.¹¹ It can be an effective and efficient tool for clinicians to grow their practice; distribute information about unique areas of the practice; and reach potential patients, referring physicians, and prospective faculty/trainees. Social media also is increasingly being used by clinicians to connect with other health care providers in their own specialty or other specialties. Digital communities have been created where ideas are shared and topics of interest are discussed. Clinicians can listen in on expert opinions, disseminate their research, and discuss practice management challenges or health advocacy. FIGURE 2 provides a snapshot of the social media landscape.

There is a wealth of options when it comes to social media platforms, including but not limited to Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram, YouTube, and blogs (TABLE 3). Facebook has the largest user base of all social media platforms, with approximately 1.7 billion active monthly users; thus, its use creates an opportunity to reach a massive audience.^12,13 People use Facebook for both personal and professional reasons. The platform allows for sharing of photos, live videos, posted text, and comments. It can be used as a helpful resource to engage patients and disseminate accurate medical information. Importantly, remember that content posted should comply with the HIPAA Privacy Rule and that information shared should come from a credible source.

Final thoughts

The practice of medicine has undeniably changed over the years and will continue to evolve. Understanding how to implement change to ensure that high-quality, efficient patient care is being delivered is paramount.

We have highlighted various aspects of practice management that you can use to overcome current obstacles and changing standards. The advent of telemedicine has provided easy access to clinicians. Consultation occurs in the comfort of the patient’s home, and the ability to provide local examination telecast to a clinician allows physicians and advanced practice practitioners to reach a wider range of patients. Social media has established an infrastructure for educating patients and providers while at the same time conveying educational tools to patients. This level of communication will continue to expand as time progresses.

Practitioners have a whole new cadre to add to their toolbox to provide patients with state-of-the-art communication and care. ●

Barnhart K, Hansen KR, Stephenson MD, et al; Reproductive Medicine Network. Effect of an active vs expectant management strategy on successful resolution of pregnancy among patients with a persisting pregnancy of unknown location: the ACT or NOT randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2021;326:390-400.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Among patients with persistent PUL, it can be difficult to distinguish between ectopic pregnancy and an early nonviable intrauterine pregnancy.¹ If untreated, ectopic pregnancy can lead to serious morbidity and mortality.² Management options for persistent PUL include expectant management, empirical methotrexate, or diagnostic uterine evacuation with methotrexate as needed. Data on the potential for these options to achieve pregnancy resolution is valuable for patients and clinicians choosing a treatment plan.

Details of the study

Barnhart and colleagues conducted a multicenter, randomized controlled trial that enrolled 225 women with persistent PUL (defined by transvaginal ultrasound imaging without a definitive intrauterine or extrauterine gestation and at least 2 consecutive human chorionic gonadotropin [hCG] values with less than a 15% rise per day). Participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 treatment groups: expectant management, empirical methotrexate, or uterine evacuation followed by methotrexate if needed.

The primary outcome was pregnancy resolution without a change in management strategy. A secondary outcome was noninferiority of empirical methotrexate compared with uterine evacuation with methotrexate as needed in achieving pregnancy resolution.

Results. The active management groups were significantly more likely to achieve pregnancy resolution without changing strategies than the expectant management group (51.5% vs 36.0%; difference, 15.4%). However, 39% of enrolled participants declined their randomized allocation and crossed over into a different management strategy.

Empirical methotrexate was found to be noninferior to uterine evacuation followed by methotrexate as needed in achieving pregnancy resolution (54.9% vs 48.3%; difference, 6.6%).

Study strengths and limitations

Prior studies of hemodynamically stable patients with persistent PUL or stable tubal ectopic pregnancy and low initial hCG values (<2,000 IU/L) failed to demonstrate that active management with methotrexate or uterine evacuation leads to more successful or faster pregnancy resolution.^3-5 Barnhart and colleagues’ study results, however, found that active management with 2-dose empirical methotrexate or uterine evacuation was more likely to lead to pregnancy resolution without requiring a change in management plan than was expectant management. The authors performed both an intention-to-treat and an as-treated analysis to confirm results.

The 39% crossover rate between the treatment groups likely reflected both patient preference and clinical presentation, potentially biasing the results. The low overall rate of adverse events confirms the safety and acceptability of a patient-centered approach to persistent PUL management. ●

Barnhart K, Hansen KR, Stephenson MD, et al; Reproductive Medicine Network. Effect of an active vs expectant management strategy on successful resolution of pregnancy among patients with a persisting pregnancy of unknown location: the ACT or NOT randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2021;326:390-400.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Among patients with persistent PUL, it can be difficult to distinguish between ectopic pregnancy and an early nonviable intrauterine pregnancy.¹ If untreated, ectopic pregnancy can lead to serious morbidity and mortality.² Management options for persistent PUL include expectant management, empirical methotrexate, or diagnostic uterine evacuation with methotrexate as needed. Data on the potential for these options to achieve pregnancy resolution is valuable for patients and clinicians choosing a treatment plan.

Details of the study

Barnhart and colleagues conducted a multicenter, randomized controlled trial that enrolled 225 women with persistent PUL (defined by transvaginal ultrasound imaging without a definitive intrauterine or extrauterine gestation and at least 2 consecutive human chorionic gonadotropin [hCG] values with less than a 15% rise per day). Participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 treatment groups: expectant management, empirical methotrexate, or uterine evacuation followed by methotrexate if needed.

The primary outcome was pregnancy resolution without a change in management strategy. A secondary outcome was noninferiority of empirical methotrexate compared with uterine evacuation with methotrexate as needed in achieving pregnancy resolution.

Results. The active management groups were significantly more likely to achieve pregnancy resolution without changing strategies than the expectant management group (51.5% vs 36.0%; difference, 15.4%). However, 39% of enrolled participants declined their randomized allocation and crossed over into a different management strategy.

Empirical methotrexate was found to be noninferior to uterine evacuation followed by methotrexate as needed in achieving pregnancy resolution (54.9% vs 48.3%; difference, 6.6%).

Study strengths and limitations

Prior studies of hemodynamically stable patients with persistent PUL or stable tubal ectopic pregnancy and low initial hCG values (<2,000 IU/L) failed to demonstrate that active management with methotrexate or uterine evacuation leads to more successful or faster pregnancy resolution.^3-5 Barnhart and colleagues’ study results, however, found that active management with 2-dose empirical methotrexate or uterine evacuation was more likely to lead to pregnancy resolution without requiring a change in management plan than was expectant management. The authors performed both an intention-to-treat and an as-treated analysis to confirm results.

The 39% crossover rate between the treatment groups likely reflected both patient preference and clinical presentation, potentially biasing the results. The low overall rate of adverse events confirms the safety and acceptability of a patient-centered approach to persistent PUL management. ●

Barnhart K, Hansen KR, Stephenson MD, et al; Reproductive Medicine Network. Effect of an active vs expectant management strategy on successful resolution of pregnancy among patients with a persisting pregnancy of unknown location: the ACT or NOT randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2021;326:390-400.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Among patients with persistent PUL, it can be difficult to distinguish between ectopic pregnancy and an early nonviable intrauterine pregnancy.¹ If untreated, ectopic pregnancy can lead to serious morbidity and mortality.² Management options for persistent PUL include expectant management, empirical methotrexate, or diagnostic uterine evacuation with methotrexate as needed. Data on the potential for these options to achieve pregnancy resolution is valuable for patients and clinicians choosing a treatment plan.

Details of the study

Barnhart and colleagues conducted a multicenter, randomized controlled trial that enrolled 225 women with persistent PUL (defined by transvaginal ultrasound imaging without a definitive intrauterine or extrauterine gestation and at least 2 consecutive human chorionic gonadotropin [hCG] values with less than a 15% rise per day). Participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 treatment groups: expectant management, empirical methotrexate, or uterine evacuation followed by methotrexate if needed.

The primary outcome was pregnancy resolution without a change in management strategy. A secondary outcome was noninferiority of empirical methotrexate compared with uterine evacuation with methotrexate as needed in achieving pregnancy resolution.

Results. The active management groups were significantly more likely to achieve pregnancy resolution without changing strategies than the expectant management group (51.5% vs 36.0%; difference, 15.4%). However, 39% of enrolled participants declined their randomized allocation and crossed over into a different management strategy.

Empirical methotrexate was found to be noninferior to uterine evacuation followed by methotrexate as needed in achieving pregnancy resolution (54.9% vs 48.3%; difference, 6.6%).

Study strengths and limitations

Prior studies of hemodynamically stable patients with persistent PUL or stable tubal ectopic pregnancy and low initial hCG values (<2,000 IU/L) failed to demonstrate that active management with methotrexate or uterine evacuation leads to more successful or faster pregnancy resolution.^3-5 Barnhart and colleagues’ study results, however, found that active management with 2-dose empirical methotrexate or uterine evacuation was more likely to lead to pregnancy resolution without requiring a change in management plan than was expectant management. The authors performed both an intention-to-treat and an as-treated analysis to confirm results.

The 39% crossover rate between the treatment groups likely reflected both patient preference and clinical presentation, potentially biasing the results. The low overall rate of adverse events confirms the safety and acceptability of a patient-centered approach to persistent PUL management. ●

Prior to 1980, medical record notes were generally hand-written, short, and to the point. Senior physicians often wrote their 3-line notes using a fountain pen in an elegant cursive. With the transition to electronic medical records, notes have become bloated with irrelevant information and frequently lack a focus on the critical clinical insights that optimize patient care. The use of smart phrases to pull vast amounts of raw data into the note is a major contributor to note bloat. The unrestrained use of the copy and paste functionality generates a sequence of cloned notes that grow in length as new information is added and little information from prior notes removed. With each subsequent clone the note often becomes less accurate, lengthier, and more difficult for a reader to understand. In one survey of 253 physicians who wrote electronic notes, 90% reported that they used the copy and paste function, with 71% reporting that use of this function caused inconsistencies within and among notes and increased the repetitive presentation of outdated information in the note.¹ Although the surveyed clinicians recognized that the copy and paste function caused problems, 80% reported that they planned to continue to use the copy and paste function.¹

The SOAP note

The problem-oriented SOAP note is written in the classic structure of subjective and objective information, followed by an assessment and plan.² The structure of the SOAP note emphasizes the logical and sequential collection of data followed by data analysis, resulting in a focused assessment and plan. When notes were hand-written and short, the entire SOAP note could be viewed on one page. Like a dashboard, the eye could quickly scan each key component of the note, facilitating the simultaneous integration of all 4 components of the note, facilitating understanding of the patient’s clinical situation. When the SOAP note structure is used to create a multipage electronic note, the result is a note that often confuses rather than enlightens the reader. A 5- to 10-page SOAP note is often useless for patient care but demonstrates the ability of computer-savvy clinicians to quickly generate a note thousands of words in length.

The APSO note, a response to note bloat

When a medical record note becomes a multipage document, clinicians should consider switching from the SOAP note structure to the APSO note, where the assessment and plan are at the top of the note, and the subjective and objective information is below the assessment and plan. The APSO format permits the reader to more quickly grasp the critical thinking of the author and facilitates a focus on key points relevant to the patient’s condition. The note can be written in the SOAP format, but then the assessment and plan are brought to the top of the note. In my clinical experience fewer than 10% of clinicians are using an APSO note structure. I believe that, with a multipage note, the APSO structure improves the experience of the reader and should be more widely utilized, especially by clinicians who are prone to crafting a bloated note. In a survey of more than 3,000 clinicians, approximately two-thirds of the respondents reported that, compared with SOAP notes, APSO notes were easier and faster to read, and APSO notes made it easier to follow the clinical reasoning of the author.³

Continue to: New evaluation and management billing guidelines—An opportunity to reduce note bloat...

New evaluation and management billing guidelines—An opportunity to reduce note bloat

Previous evaluation and management federal billing guidelines emphasized documentation of a myriad of clinically irrelevant details contributing to note bloat. The new federal evaluation and management billing guidelines pivot the focus of the note to the quality and complexity of medical decision making as demonstrated in the assessment and plan.⁴ Prioritizing the assessment and plan as the key feature of the medical record note should help reduce the length of notes. The American College of Physicians recently recommended deleting the complete review of systems and prior histories from most notes unless relevant to medical decision making and the assessment and plan.⁵

The open note

The open note mandate was contained in federal regulations developed to implement the 21st Century Cures Act, which required patients to have access to the information in their medical record. In order to comply with the regulation, health systems are sending most notes and test results to the patient through the health system’s patient gateway. The open note process entered my practice through a stealthy progression, from an initial step of permitting a clinician to easily share their note with a patient to a top-down edict that all notes, except some notes that have a high risk of causing patient harm, must be sent immediately to the patient. Obviously, an open note supports “transparency,” but I am unaware of high quality evidence that open notes improve the health of a population or reduce morbidity or mortality from health problems.

The federal mandate that clinicians share their notes or risk fiscal penalties is coercive and undermines the independence of health professionals. Open notes may have many benefits, including:

• improving a patient’s comprehension and sense of control over their health issues
• increasing patient trust in their health system
• increasing the number of questions patients ask their clinician.⁶

Open notes may also cause unintended adverse emotional trauma to patients, especially when the note communicates “bad news.” In one study of 100 oncology patients, approximately 25% of respondents reported that reading clinical notes was emotionally difficult, and they sometimes regretted having read the note.⁶ One patient reported, “I think MyChart is great but in this whole cancer thing MyChart has not been a good thing.” Another patient reported, “Reading serious stuff like that is just too taxing for me to be honest with you.”⁶ An additional finding of the study was that patients reported their notes were written with too much medical jargon and repetition of information.

Open laboratory, pathology, and imaging data—Helpful or harmful?

A component of the open note mandate is that laboratory, pathology, and imaging data must be shared timely with patients. Some health systems incorporate a 3-day pause prior to sharing such data, in order to provide the clinical team with time to communicate with the patient before the test results are shared. Some health systems, including my health system, have engineered the open note data-sharing system to immediately share the results of most completed laboratory, pathology, and imaging studies with the patient. Immediate sharing of data may result in the patient first learning that they have a serious, life-threatening health problem, such as cancer, from their patient portal rather than from a clinician. As an example, a patient may first learn that they have metastatic cancer from a CT scan that was ordered for a benign indication.

Another example is that a patient may first learn that they have an HIV infection from their patient portal. This can be a shocking and emotionally damaging experience for the patient. For many test results, it would be best if a clinician were able to communicate the result to the patient, providing support and context to the meaning of the result, rather than sending sensitive, life-altering information directly from the laboratory or imaging department to the patient. Leaders in medical education have spent decades teaching clinicians how to communicate “bad news” in a sensitive, supportive, and effective manner. The open sharing of laboratory, pathology, and imaging data short-circuits the superior process of relying on a highly capable clinician to communicate bad news.

Continue to: Crafting the open medical record note...

Building on the advice that “when life gives you lemons, make lemonade,” I have begun to pivot the purpose of my medical notes from a product useful to myself and other clinicians to a product whose primary purpose is to be helpful for the patient. The open note can facilitate building a trusting relationship with the patient. My notes are becoming a series of written conversations with the patient, emphasizing compassion and empathy. I am increasing significantly the amount of educational information in the note to help the patient understand their situation. In addition, I am replacing traditional medical terms with verbiage more appropriate in the context of a conversation with the patient, reducing the use of medical jargon. For example, I have stopped using “chief complaint” and replaced it with “health issues.” I am diligently avoiding the use of medical terms that have negative connotations, including “obese,” “psychosomatic,” “alcoholic,” and “drug addiction.” I include encouragement and positive comments in many of my notes. For example, “Ms. X is successfully managing her health issues and experiencing improved health. It is a pleasure collaborating with her on achieving optimal health.”

Can we bring sanity back to medical note writing?

The primary role of a clinician is to spend as much time as possible listening to patients, understanding their needs, and helping them achieve optimal health. There are many benefits to an electronic medical record, including legibility, accessibility, interoperability, and efficiency. However, in current practice “note bloat” undermines the potential of the electronic medical record and makes many notes ineffective to the process of advancing the patient’s health. We are competent and highly trained clinicians. We can craft notes that are simple, specific, story-driven, compassionate, and empathetic. If we return to the ABCs of note writing, focusing on accuracy, brevity, and clarity, we will make note writing and reading more rewarding and improve patient care. ●

Prior to 1980, medical record notes were generally hand-written, short, and to the point. Senior physicians often wrote their 3-line notes using a fountain pen in an elegant cursive. With the transition to electronic medical records, notes have become bloated with irrelevant information and frequently lack a focus on the critical clinical insights that optimize patient care. The use of smart phrases to pull vast amounts of raw data into the note is a major contributor to note bloat. The unrestrained use of the copy and paste functionality generates a sequence of cloned notes that grow in length as new information is added and little information from prior notes removed. With each subsequent clone the note often becomes less accurate, lengthier, and more difficult for a reader to understand. In one survey of 253 physicians who wrote electronic notes, 90% reported that they used the copy and paste function, with 71% reporting that use of this function caused inconsistencies within and among notes and increased the repetitive presentation of outdated information in the note.¹ Although the surveyed clinicians recognized that the copy and paste function caused problems, 80% reported that they planned to continue to use the copy and paste function.¹

The SOAP note

The problem-oriented SOAP note is written in the classic structure of subjective and objective information, followed by an assessment and plan.² The structure of the SOAP note emphasizes the logical and sequential collection of data followed by data analysis, resulting in a focused assessment and plan. When notes were hand-written and short, the entire SOAP note could be viewed on one page. Like a dashboard, the eye could quickly scan each key component of the note, facilitating the simultaneous integration of all 4 components of the note, facilitating understanding of the patient’s clinical situation. When the SOAP note structure is used to create a multipage electronic note, the result is a note that often confuses rather than enlightens the reader. A 5- to 10-page SOAP note is often useless for patient care but demonstrates the ability of computer-savvy clinicians to quickly generate a note thousands of words in length.

The APSO note, a response to note bloat

When a medical record note becomes a multipage document, clinicians should consider switching from the SOAP note structure to the APSO note, where the assessment and plan are at the top of the note, and the subjective and objective information is below the assessment and plan. The APSO format permits the reader to more quickly grasp the critical thinking of the author and facilitates a focus on key points relevant to the patient’s condition. The note can be written in the SOAP format, but then the assessment and plan are brought to the top of the note. In my clinical experience fewer than 10% of clinicians are using an APSO note structure. I believe that, with a multipage note, the APSO structure improves the experience of the reader and should be more widely utilized, especially by clinicians who are prone to crafting a bloated note. In a survey of more than 3,000 clinicians, approximately two-thirds of the respondents reported that, compared with SOAP notes, APSO notes were easier and faster to read, and APSO notes made it easier to follow the clinical reasoning of the author.³

Continue to: New evaluation and management billing guidelines—An opportunity to reduce note bloat...

New evaluation and management billing guidelines—An opportunity to reduce note bloat

Previous evaluation and management federal billing guidelines emphasized documentation of a myriad of clinically irrelevant details contributing to note bloat. The new federal evaluation and management billing guidelines pivot the focus of the note to the quality and complexity of medical decision making as demonstrated in the assessment and plan.⁴ Prioritizing the assessment and plan as the key feature of the medical record note should help reduce the length of notes. The American College of Physicians recently recommended deleting the complete review of systems and prior histories from most notes unless relevant to medical decision making and the assessment and plan.⁵

The open note

The open note mandate was contained in federal regulations developed to implement the 21st Century Cures Act, which required patients to have access to the information in their medical record. In order to comply with the regulation, health systems are sending most notes and test results to the patient through the health system’s patient gateway. The open note process entered my practice through a stealthy progression, from an initial step of permitting a clinician to easily share their note with a patient to a top-down edict that all notes, except some notes that have a high risk of causing patient harm, must be sent immediately to the patient. Obviously, an open note supports “transparency,” but I am unaware of high quality evidence that open notes improve the health of a population or reduce morbidity or mortality from health problems.

The federal mandate that clinicians share their notes or risk fiscal penalties is coercive and undermines the independence of health professionals. Open notes may have many benefits, including:

• improving a patient’s comprehension and sense of control over their health issues
• increasing patient trust in their health system
• increasing the number of questions patients ask their clinician.⁶

Open notes may also cause unintended adverse emotional trauma to patients, especially when the note communicates “bad news.” In one study of 100 oncology patients, approximately 25% of respondents reported that reading clinical notes was emotionally difficult, and they sometimes regretted having read the note.⁶ One patient reported, “I think MyChart is great but in this whole cancer thing MyChart has not been a good thing.” Another patient reported, “Reading serious stuff like that is just too taxing for me to be honest with you.”⁶ An additional finding of the study was that patients reported their notes were written with too much medical jargon and repetition of information.

Open laboratory, pathology, and imaging data—Helpful or harmful?

A component of the open note mandate is that laboratory, pathology, and imaging data must be shared timely with patients. Some health systems incorporate a 3-day pause prior to sharing such data, in order to provide the clinical team with time to communicate with the patient before the test results are shared. Some health systems, including my health system, have engineered the open note data-sharing system to immediately share the results of most completed laboratory, pathology, and imaging studies with the patient. Immediate sharing of data may result in the patient first learning that they have a serious, life-threatening health problem, such as cancer, from their patient portal rather than from a clinician. As an example, a patient may first learn that they have metastatic cancer from a CT scan that was ordered for a benign indication.

Another example is that a patient may first learn that they have an HIV infection from their patient portal. This can be a shocking and emotionally damaging experience for the patient. For many test results, it would be best if a clinician were able to communicate the result to the patient, providing support and context to the meaning of the result, rather than sending sensitive, life-altering information directly from the laboratory or imaging department to the patient. Leaders in medical education have spent decades teaching clinicians how to communicate “bad news” in a sensitive, supportive, and effective manner. The open sharing of laboratory, pathology, and imaging data short-circuits the superior process of relying on a highly capable clinician to communicate bad news.

Continue to: Crafting the open medical record note...

Building on the advice that “when life gives you lemons, make lemonade,” I have begun to pivot the purpose of my medical notes from a product useful to myself and other clinicians to a product whose primary purpose is to be helpful for the patient. The open note can facilitate building a trusting relationship with the patient. My notes are becoming a series of written conversations with the patient, emphasizing compassion and empathy. I am increasing significantly the amount of educational information in the note to help the patient understand their situation. In addition, I am replacing traditional medical terms with verbiage more appropriate in the context of a conversation with the patient, reducing the use of medical jargon. For example, I have stopped using “chief complaint” and replaced it with “health issues.” I am diligently avoiding the use of medical terms that have negative connotations, including “obese,” “psychosomatic,” “alcoholic,” and “drug addiction.” I include encouragement and positive comments in many of my notes. For example, “Ms. X is successfully managing her health issues and experiencing improved health. It is a pleasure collaborating with her on achieving optimal health.”

Can we bring sanity back to medical note writing?

The primary role of a clinician is to spend as much time as possible listening to patients, understanding their needs, and helping them achieve optimal health. There are many benefits to an electronic medical record, including legibility, accessibility, interoperability, and efficiency. However, in current practice “note bloat” undermines the potential of the electronic medical record and makes many notes ineffective to the process of advancing the patient’s health. We are competent and highly trained clinicians. We can craft notes that are simple, specific, story-driven, compassionate, and empathetic. If we return to the ABCs of note writing, focusing on accuracy, brevity, and clarity, we will make note writing and reading more rewarding and improve patient care. ●

Prior to 1980, medical record notes were generally hand-written, short, and to the point. Senior physicians often wrote their 3-line notes using a fountain pen in an elegant cursive. With the transition to electronic medical records, notes have become bloated with irrelevant information and frequently lack a focus on the critical clinical insights that optimize patient care. The use of smart phrases to pull vast amounts of raw data into the note is a major contributor to note bloat. The unrestrained use of the copy and paste functionality generates a sequence of cloned notes that grow in length as new information is added and little information from prior notes removed. With each subsequent clone the note often becomes less accurate, lengthier, and more difficult for a reader to understand. In one survey of 253 physicians who wrote electronic notes, 90% reported that they used the copy and paste function, with 71% reporting that use of this function caused inconsistencies within and among notes and increased the repetitive presentation of outdated information in the note.¹ Although the surveyed clinicians recognized that the copy and paste function caused problems, 80% reported that they planned to continue to use the copy and paste function.¹

The SOAP note

The problem-oriented SOAP note is written in the classic structure of subjective and objective information, followed by an assessment and plan.² The structure of the SOAP note emphasizes the logical and sequential collection of data followed by data analysis, resulting in a focused assessment and plan. When notes were hand-written and short, the entire SOAP note could be viewed on one page. Like a dashboard, the eye could quickly scan each key component of the note, facilitating the simultaneous integration of all 4 components of the note, facilitating understanding of the patient’s clinical situation. When the SOAP note structure is used to create a multipage electronic note, the result is a note that often confuses rather than enlightens the reader. A 5- to 10-page SOAP note is often useless for patient care but demonstrates the ability of computer-savvy clinicians to quickly generate a note thousands of words in length.

The APSO note, a response to note bloat

When a medical record note becomes a multipage document, clinicians should consider switching from the SOAP note structure to the APSO note, where the assessment and plan are at the top of the note, and the subjective and objective information is below the assessment and plan. The APSO format permits the reader to more quickly grasp the critical thinking of the author and facilitates a focus on key points relevant to the patient’s condition. The note can be written in the SOAP format, but then the assessment and plan are brought to the top of the note. In my clinical experience fewer than 10% of clinicians are using an APSO note structure. I believe that, with a multipage note, the APSO structure improves the experience of the reader and should be more widely utilized, especially by clinicians who are prone to crafting a bloated note. In a survey of more than 3,000 clinicians, approximately two-thirds of the respondents reported that, compared with SOAP notes, APSO notes were easier and faster to read, and APSO notes made it easier to follow the clinical reasoning of the author.³

Continue to: New evaluation and management billing guidelines—An opportunity to reduce note bloat...

New evaluation and management billing guidelines—An opportunity to reduce note bloat

Previous evaluation and management federal billing guidelines emphasized documentation of a myriad of clinically irrelevant details contributing to note bloat. The new federal evaluation and management billing guidelines pivot the focus of the note to the quality and complexity of medical decision making as demonstrated in the assessment and plan.⁴ Prioritizing the assessment and plan as the key feature of the medical record note should help reduce the length of notes. The American College of Physicians recently recommended deleting the complete review of systems and prior histories from most notes unless relevant to medical decision making and the assessment and plan.⁵

The open note

The open note mandate was contained in federal regulations developed to implement the 21st Century Cures Act, which required patients to have access to the information in their medical record. In order to comply with the regulation, health systems are sending most notes and test results to the patient through the health system’s patient gateway. The open note process entered my practice through a stealthy progression, from an initial step of permitting a clinician to easily share their note with a patient to a top-down edict that all notes, except some notes that have a high risk of causing patient harm, must be sent immediately to the patient. Obviously, an open note supports “transparency,” but I am unaware of high quality evidence that open notes improve the health of a population or reduce morbidity or mortality from health problems.

The federal mandate that clinicians share their notes or risk fiscal penalties is coercive and undermines the independence of health professionals. Open notes may have many benefits, including:

• improving a patient’s comprehension and sense of control over their health issues
• increasing patient trust in their health system
• increasing the number of questions patients ask their clinician.⁶

Open notes may also cause unintended adverse emotional trauma to patients, especially when the note communicates “bad news.” In one study of 100 oncology patients, approximately 25% of respondents reported that reading clinical notes was emotionally difficult, and they sometimes regretted having read the note.⁶ One patient reported, “I think MyChart is great but in this whole cancer thing MyChart has not been a good thing.” Another patient reported, “Reading serious stuff like that is just too taxing for me to be honest with you.”⁶ An additional finding of the study was that patients reported their notes were written with too much medical jargon and repetition of information.

Open laboratory, pathology, and imaging data—Helpful or harmful?

A component of the open note mandate is that laboratory, pathology, and imaging data must be shared timely with patients. Some health systems incorporate a 3-day pause prior to sharing such data, in order to provide the clinical team with time to communicate with the patient before the test results are shared. Some health systems, including my health system, have engineered the open note data-sharing system to immediately share the results of most completed laboratory, pathology, and imaging studies with the patient. Immediate sharing of data may result in the patient first learning that they have a serious, life-threatening health problem, such as cancer, from their patient portal rather than from a clinician. As an example, a patient may first learn that they have metastatic cancer from a CT scan that was ordered for a benign indication.

Another example is that a patient may first learn that they have an HIV infection from their patient portal. This can be a shocking and emotionally damaging experience for the patient. For many test results, it would be best if a clinician were able to communicate the result to the patient, providing support and context to the meaning of the result, rather than sending sensitive, life-altering information directly from the laboratory or imaging department to the patient. Leaders in medical education have spent decades teaching clinicians how to communicate “bad news” in a sensitive, supportive, and effective manner. The open sharing of laboratory, pathology, and imaging data short-circuits the superior process of relying on a highly capable clinician to communicate bad news.

Continue to: Crafting the open medical record note...

Building on the advice that “when life gives you lemons, make lemonade,” I have begun to pivot the purpose of my medical notes from a product useful to myself and other clinicians to a product whose primary purpose is to be helpful for the patient. The open note can facilitate building a trusting relationship with the patient. My notes are becoming a series of written conversations with the patient, emphasizing compassion and empathy. I am increasing significantly the amount of educational information in the note to help the patient understand their situation. In addition, I am replacing traditional medical terms with verbiage more appropriate in the context of a conversation with the patient, reducing the use of medical jargon. For example, I have stopped using “chief complaint” and replaced it with “health issues.” I am diligently avoiding the use of medical terms that have negative connotations, including “obese,” “psychosomatic,” “alcoholic,” and “drug addiction.” I include encouragement and positive comments in many of my notes. For example, “Ms. X is successfully managing her health issues and experiencing improved health. It is a pleasure collaborating with her on achieving optimal health.”

Can we bring sanity back to medical note writing?

The primary role of a clinician is to spend as much time as possible listening to patients, understanding their needs, and helping them achieve optimal health. There are many benefits to an electronic medical record, including legibility, accessibility, interoperability, and efficiency. However, in current practice “note bloat” undermines the potential of the electronic medical record and makes many notes ineffective to the process of advancing the patient’s health. We are competent and highly trained clinicians. We can craft notes that are simple, specific, story-driven, compassionate, and empathetic. If we return to the ABCs of note writing, focusing on accuracy, brevity, and clarity, we will make note writing and reading more rewarding and improve patient care. ●

CASE 1st prenatal appointment for young, pregnant migrant

A 21-year-old primigravid woman at 12 weeks’ gestation recently immigrated to the United States from an impoverished rural area of Southeast Asia. On the first prenatal appointment, she is noted to have no evidence of immunity to rubella, measles, or varicella. Her hepatitis B surface antigen and hepatitis C antibody tests are negative. She also has negative test results for gonorrhea, chlamydia, syphilis, and HIV infection. Her pap test is negative.

• What vaccinations should this patient receive during her pregnancy?
• What additional vaccinations are indicated postpartum?

Preventive vaccinations: What to know

As ObGyns, we serve as the primary care physician for many women throughout their early and middle decades of life. Accordingly, we have an obligation to be well informed about preventive health services such as vaccinations. The purpose of this article is to review the principal vaccines with which ObGyns should be familiar. I will discuss the vaccines in alphabetical order and then focus on the indications and timing for each vaccine and the relative cost of each immunization. Key points are summarized in the TABLE.

COVID-19 vaccine

In the latter part of 2020 and early part of 2021, three COVID-19 vaccines received emergency use authorization (EUA) from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for individuals 16 years of age and older (Pfizer-BioNTech) and 18 years of age and older (Moderna and Johnson & Johnson).¹ The cost of their administration is borne by the federal government. Two of the vaccines are mRNA agents—Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech. Both are administered in a 2-dose series, separated by 4 and 3 weeks, respectively. The efficacy of these vaccines in preventing serious or critical illness approaches 95%. The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine has now been fully FDA approved for administration to individuals older than age 16, with EUA for those down to age 12. Full approval of the Moderna vaccine will not be far behind. Because of some evidence suggesting waning immunity over time and because of growing concerns about the increased transmissibility of the delta variant of the virus, the FDA has been strongly considering a recommendation for a third (booster) dose of each of these vaccines, administered 8 months after the second dose for all eligible Americans. On September 17, 2021, the FDA advisory committee recommended a booster for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine for people older than age 65 and for those over the age of 16 at high risk for severe COVID-19. Several days later, full FDA approval was granted for this recommendation. Subsequently, the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) included health care workers and pregnant women in the group for whom the booster is recommended.

The third vaccine formulation is the Johnson & Johnson DNA vaccine, which is prepared with a human adenovirus vector. This vaccine is administered in a single intramuscular dose and has a reported efficacy of 66% to 85%, though it may approach 95% in preventing critical illness. The FDA is expected to announce decisions about booster doses for the Johnson & Johnson and Moderna vaccines in the coming weeks.

Although initial trials of the COVID-19vaccines excluded pregnant and lactating women, the vaccines are safe in pregnancy or postpartum. In fact the vaccines do not contain either a killed or attenuated viral particle that is capable of transmitting infection. Therefore, both the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine now support routine immunization during pregnancy.

A recent report by Shimabukuro and colleagues² demonstrated that the risk of vaccine-related complications in pregnant women receiving the Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna vaccines was no different than in nonpregnant patients and that there was no evidence of teratogenic effects. The trial included more than 35,000 pregnant women; 2.3% were vaccinated in the periconception period, 28.6% in the first trimester, 43.3% in the second trimester, and 25.7% in the third trimester. Given this, and in light of isolated reports of unusual thromboembolic complications associated with the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, I strongly recommend use of either the Moderna or Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine in our prenatal and postpartum patients.

Continue to: Hepatitis A vaccine...

The hepatitis A vaccine is an inactivated vaccine and is safe for use in pregnancy. It is available in two monovalent preparations—Havrix (GlaxoSmithKline) and Vaqta (Merck & Co.) and is administered in a 2-dose intramuscular injection at time zero and 6 to 12 months later.³ The vaccine is also available in a bivalent form with recombinant hepatitis B vaccine—Twinrix (GlaxoSmithKline). When administered in this form, the vaccine should be given at time zero, 1 month, and 6 months. The wholesale cost of the monovalent vaccine is $66 to $119, depending upon whether the provider uses a multi-dose or a single-dose vial. The cost of Twinrix is $149.

The hepatitis A vaccine is indicated for select pregnant and nonpregnant patients:

• international travelers
• intravenous drug users
• those with occupational exposure (eg, individuals who work in a primate laboratory)
• residents and staff in chronic care facilities
• individuals with chronic liver disease
• individuals with clotting factor disorders
• residents in endemic areas.

Hepatitis B vaccine

The hepatitis B vaccine is a recombinant vaccine that contains an inactivated portion of the hepatitis B surface antigen. It was originally produced in two monovalent formulations: Engerix B (GlaxoSmithKline) and Recombivax-HB (Merck & Co.). These original formulations are given in a 3-dose series at time zero, 1 month, and 6 months. Recently, a new and more potent formulation was introduced into clinical practice. Heplisav-B (Dynavax Technologies Co.) is also a recombinant vaccine that contains a boosting adjuvant. It is programed to be administered in a 2-dose series at time zero and 1 month.^4-6

The wholesale cost of the monovalent vaccines varies from $60 to $173, depending upon use of a multi-dose vial versus a single-use vial. The cost of Heplisav-B varies from $146 to $173, depending upon use of a prefilled syringe versus a single-dose vial.

Although the hepatitis B vaccine should be part of the childhood immunization series, it also should be administered to any pregnant woman who has not been vaccinated previously or who does not already have evidence of immunity as a result of natural infection.

Continue to: Herpes zoster vaccine...

Herpes zoster infection (shingles) can be a particularly disabling condition in older patients and results from reactivation of a latent varicella-zoster infection. Shingles can cause extremely painful skin lesions, threaten the patient’s vision, and result in long-lasting postherpetic neuralgia. Both cellular and hormonal immunity are essential to protect against recurrent infection.

The original herpes zoster vaccine (Zoster Vaccine Live; ZVL, Zostavax) is no longer produced in the United States because it is not as effective as the newer vaccine—Recombinant Zoster Vaccine (Shingrix, GlaxoSmithKline).^7,8 The antigen in the new vaccine is a component of the surface glycoprotein E, and it is combined with an adjuvant to enhance immunoreactivity. The vaccine is given intramuscularly in two doses at time zero and again at 2 to 6 months and is indicated for all individuals >50 years, including those who may have had an episode of shingles. This newer vaccine is 97% effective in patients >50 years and 90% effective in patients >70. The wholesale cost of each injection is about $160.

Human papillomavirus vaccine

The HPV vaccine (Gardasil-9, Merck & Co.) is a recombinant 9-valent vaccine directed against the human papillomavirus. It induces immunity to serotypes 6 and 11 (which cause 90% of genital warts), 16 and 18 (which cause 80% of genital cancers), and 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58 (viral strains that are responsible for both genital and oropharyngeal cancers). The vaccine is administered intramuscularly in a 3-dose series at time zero, 1-2 months, and 6 months. The principal target groups for the vaccine are males and females, ages 9 to 45 years. Ideally, children of both sexes should receive this vaccine prior to the onset of sexual activity. The wholesale cost of each vaccine injection is approximately $222.⁹

Influenza vaccine

The inactivated, intramuscular flu vaccine is recommended for anyone over age 2, including pregnant women. Although pregnant women are not more likely to acquire flu compared with those who are not pregnant, if they do become infected, they are likely to become more seriously ill, with higher mortality. Accordingly, all pregnant women should receive, in any trimester, the inactivated flu vaccine beginning in the late summer and early fall of each year and extending through March of the next year.^10,11

Multiple formulations of the inactivated vaccine are marketed, all targeting two strains of influenza A and two strains of influenza B. The components of the vaccine vary each year as scientists try to match the new vaccine with the most highly prevalent strains in the previous flu season. The vaccine should be administered in a single intramuscular dose. The cost varies from approximately $20 to $70.

The intranasal influenza vaccine is a live virus vaccine that is intended primarily for children and should not be administered in pregnancy. In addition, there is a higher dose of the inactivated quadrivalent vaccine that is available for administration to patients over age 65. This higher dose is more likely to cause adverse effects and is not indicated in pregnancy.

Continue to: Measles, mumps, rubella vaccine (MMR)...

Measles, mumps, rubella vaccine (MMR)

The MMR is a standard component of the childhood vaccination series. The trivalent preparation is a live, attenuated vaccine that is typically given subcutaneously in a 2-dose series. The first dose is administered at age 12-15 months, and the second dose at age 4-6 years. The vaccine is highly immunogenic, with vaccine-induced immunity usually life-long. In some patients, however, immunity wanes over time. Accordingly, all pregnant women should be screened for immunity to rubella since, of the 3, this infection poses the greatest risk to the fetus. Women who do not have evidence of immunity should be advised to avoid contact with children who may have a viral exanthem. They should then receive a booster dose of the vaccine immediately postpartum and should practice secure contraception for 1 month. The vaccine cost is approximately $60.

Pneumococcal vaccine

The inactivated pneumococcal vaccine is produced in two forms, both of which are safe for administration in pregnancy.¹² The original vaccine, introduced in 1983, was PPSV23 (Pneumovax 23, Merck & Co), a 23-serovalent vaccine that was intended primarily for adults. This vaccine is administered in a single subcutaneous or intramuscular dose. The newest vaccine, introduced in 2010, is PCV13 (Prevnar 13, Pfizer Inc), a 13-serovalent vaccine. It was intended primarily for children, in whom it is administered in a 4-dose series beginning at 6 to 8 weeks of age. The cost of the former is approximately $98 to $120; the cost of the latter is $228.

Vaccination against pneumococcal infection is routinely indicated for those older than the age of 65 and for the following at-risk patients, including those who are pregnant¹¹:

• individuals who have had a splenectomy or who have a medical illness that produces functional asplenia (eg, sickle cell anemia)
• individuals with chronic cardiac, pulmonic, hepatic, or renal disease
• individuals with immunosuppressive conditions such as HIV infection or a disseminated malignancy
• individuals who have a cochlear implant
• individuals who have a chronic leak of cerebrospinal fluid.

The recommendations for timing of these 2 vaccines in adults can initially appear confusing. Put most simply, if a high-risk patient first receives the PCV13 vaccine, she should receive the PPSV23 vaccine in about 8 weeks. The PPSV23 vaccine should be repeated in 5 years. If an at-risk patient initially receives the PPSV23 vaccine, the PCV13 vaccine should be given 1 year later.¹²

Tdap vaccine

The Tdap vaccine contains tetanus toxoid, reduced diptheria toxoid, and an acellular component of the pertussis bacterium. Although it has long been part of the childhood vaccinations series, immunity to each component, particularly pertussis, tends to wane over time.

Pertussis poses a serious risk to the health of the pregnant woman and the newborn infant. Accordingly, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), CDC, and the ACOG now advise administration of a booster dose of this vaccine in the early third trimester of each pregnancy.^13-15 The vaccine should be administered as a single intramuscular injection. The approximate cost of the vaccine is $64 to $71, depending upon whether the provider uses a single-dose vial or a single-dose prefilled syringe. In nonpregnant patients, the ACIP currently recommends administration of a booster dose of the vaccine every 10 years, primarily to provide durable protection against tetanus.

Continue to: Varicella vaccine...

Varicella vaccine

The varicella vaccine is also one of the main components of the childhood immunization series. This live virus vaccine can be administered subcutaneously as a monovalent agent or as a quadrivalent agent in association with the MMR vaccine.

Pregnant women who do not have a well-documented history of natural infection should be tested for IgG antibody to the varicella-zoster virus at the time of their first prenatal appointment. Interestingly, approximately 70% of patients with an uncertain history actually have immunity when tested. If the patient lacks immunity, she should be vaccinated immediately postpartum.^16,17 The vaccine should be administered in a 2-dose series at time zero and then 4 to 8 weeks later. Patients should adhere to secure contraception from the time of the first dose until 1 month after the second dose. The cost of each dose of the vaccine is approximately $145.

Adverse effects of vaccination

All vaccines have many of the same side effects. The most common is simply a reaction at the site of injection, characterized by pain, increased warmth, erythema, swelling, and tenderness. Other common side effects include systemic manifestations, such as low-grade fever, nausea and vomiting, malaise, fatigue, headache, lymphadenopathy, myalgias, and arthralgias. Some vaccines, notably varicella, herpes zoster, measles, and rubella may cause a disseminated rash. Most of these minor side effects are easily managed by rest, hydration, and administration of an analgesic such as acetaminophen or ibuprofen. More serious side effects include rare complications such as anaphylaxis, Bell palsy, Guillain-Barre syndrome, and venous thromboembolism (Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine). Any of the vaccines discussed above should not be given, or given only with extreme caution, to an individual who has experienced any of these reactions with a previous vaccine.

Barriers to vaccination

Although the vaccines reviewed above are highly effective in preventing serious illness in recipients, the medical profession’s “report card” in ensuring adherence with vaccine protocols is not optimal. In fact, it probably merits a grade no higher than C+, with vaccination rates in the range of 50% to 70%.

One of the major barriers to vaccination is lack of detailed information about vaccine efficacy and safety on the part of both provider and patient. Another is the problem of misinformation (eg, the persistent belief on the part of some individuals that vaccines may cause a serious problem, such as autism).^18,19 Another important barrier to widespread vaccination is the logistical problem associated with proper scheduling of multidose regimens (such as those for hepatitis A and B, varicella, and COVID-19). A final barrier, and in my own university-based practice, the most important obstacle is the expense of vaccination. Most, but not all, private insurance companies provide coverage for vaccines approved by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the US Preventive Services Task Force. However, public insurance agencies often provide disappointingly inconsistent coverage for essential vaccines.

By keeping well informed about the most recent public health recommendations for vaccinations for adults and by leading important initiatives within our own practices, we should be able to overcome the first 3 barriers listed above. For example, Morgan and colleagues²⁰ recently achieved a 97% success rate with Tdap administration in pregnancy by placing a best-practice alert in the patients’ electronic medical records. Surmounting the final barrier will require intense effort on the part of individual practitioners and professional organizations to advocate for coverage for essential vaccinations for our patients.

CASE Resolved

This patient was raised in an area of the world where her family did not have easy access to medical care. Accordingly, she did not receive the usual childhood vaccines, such as measles, mumps, rubella, varicella, hepatitis B, and almost certainly, tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis (Tdap), and the HPV vaccine. The MMR vaccine and the varicella vaccine are live virus vaccines and should not be given during pregnancy. However, these vaccines should be administered postpartum, and the patient should be instructed to practice secure contraception for a minimum of 1 month following vaccination. She also should be offered the HPV vaccine postpartum. During pregnancy, she definitely should receive the COVID-19 vaccine, the 3-dose hepatitis B vaccine series, the influenza vaccine, and Tdap. If her present living conditions place her at risk for hepatitis A, she also should be vaccinated against this illness. ●

CASE 1st prenatal appointment for young, pregnant migrant

A 21-year-old primigravid woman at 12 weeks’ gestation recently immigrated to the United States from an impoverished rural area of Southeast Asia. On the first prenatal appointment, she is noted to have no evidence of immunity to rubella, measles, or varicella. Her hepatitis B surface antigen and hepatitis C antibody tests are negative. She also has negative test results for gonorrhea, chlamydia, syphilis, and HIV infection. Her pap test is negative.

• What vaccinations should this patient receive during her pregnancy?
• What additional vaccinations are indicated postpartum?

Preventive vaccinations: What to know

As ObGyns, we serve as the primary care physician for many women throughout their early and middle decades of life. Accordingly, we have an obligation to be well informed about preventive health services such as vaccinations. The purpose of this article is to review the principal vaccines with which ObGyns should be familiar. I will discuss the vaccines in alphabetical order and then focus on the indications and timing for each vaccine and the relative cost of each immunization. Key points are summarized in the TABLE.

COVID-19 vaccine

In the latter part of 2020 and early part of 2021, three COVID-19 vaccines received emergency use authorization (EUA) from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for individuals 16 years of age and older (Pfizer-BioNTech) and 18 years of age and older (Moderna and Johnson & Johnson).¹ The cost of their administration is borne by the federal government. Two of the vaccines are mRNA agents—Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech. Both are administered in a 2-dose series, separated by 4 and 3 weeks, respectively. The efficacy of these vaccines in preventing serious or critical illness approaches 95%. The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine has now been fully FDA approved for administration to individuals older than age 16, with EUA for those down to age 12. Full approval of the Moderna vaccine will not be far behind. Because of some evidence suggesting waning immunity over time and because of growing concerns about the increased transmissibility of the delta variant of the virus, the FDA has been strongly considering a recommendation for a third (booster) dose of each of these vaccines, administered 8 months after the second dose for all eligible Americans. On September 17, 2021, the FDA advisory committee recommended a booster for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine for people older than age 65 and for those over the age of 16 at high risk for severe COVID-19. Several days later, full FDA approval was granted for this recommendation. Subsequently, the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) included health care workers and pregnant women in the group for whom the booster is recommended.

The third vaccine formulation is the Johnson & Johnson DNA vaccine, which is prepared with a human adenovirus vector. This vaccine is administered in a single intramuscular dose and has a reported efficacy of 66% to 85%, though it may approach 95% in preventing critical illness. The FDA is expected to announce decisions about booster doses for the Johnson & Johnson and Moderna vaccines in the coming weeks.

Although initial trials of the COVID-19vaccines excluded pregnant and lactating women, the vaccines are safe in pregnancy or postpartum. In fact the vaccines do not contain either a killed or attenuated viral particle that is capable of transmitting infection. Therefore, both the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine now support routine immunization during pregnancy.

A recent report by Shimabukuro and colleagues² demonstrated that the risk of vaccine-related complications in pregnant women receiving the Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna vaccines was no different than in nonpregnant patients and that there was no evidence of teratogenic effects. The trial included more than 35,000 pregnant women; 2.3% were vaccinated in the periconception period, 28.6% in the first trimester, 43.3% in the second trimester, and 25.7% in the third trimester. Given this, and in light of isolated reports of unusual thromboembolic complications associated with the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, I strongly recommend use of either the Moderna or Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine in our prenatal and postpartum patients.

Continue to: Hepatitis A vaccine...

The hepatitis A vaccine is an inactivated vaccine and is safe for use in pregnancy. It is available in two monovalent preparations—Havrix (GlaxoSmithKline) and Vaqta (Merck & Co.) and is administered in a 2-dose intramuscular injection at time zero and 6 to 12 months later.³ The vaccine is also available in a bivalent form with recombinant hepatitis B vaccine—Twinrix (GlaxoSmithKline). When administered in this form, the vaccine should be given at time zero, 1 month, and 6 months. The wholesale cost of the monovalent vaccine is $66 to $119, depending upon whether the provider uses a multi-dose or a single-dose vial. The cost of Twinrix is $149.

The hepatitis A vaccine is indicated for select pregnant and nonpregnant patients:

• international travelers
• intravenous drug users
• those with occupational exposure (eg, individuals who work in a primate laboratory)
• residents and staff in chronic care facilities
• individuals with chronic liver disease
• individuals with clotting factor disorders
• residents in endemic areas.

Hepatitis B vaccine

The hepatitis B vaccine is a recombinant vaccine that contains an inactivated portion of the hepatitis B surface antigen. It was originally produced in two monovalent formulations: Engerix B (GlaxoSmithKline) and Recombivax-HB (Merck & Co.). These original formulations are given in a 3-dose series at time zero, 1 month, and 6 months. Recently, a new and more potent formulation was introduced into clinical practice. Heplisav-B (Dynavax Technologies Co.) is also a recombinant vaccine that contains a boosting adjuvant. It is programed to be administered in a 2-dose series at time zero and 1 month.^4-6

The wholesale cost of the monovalent vaccines varies from $60 to $173, depending upon use of a multi-dose vial versus a single-use vial. The cost of Heplisav-B varies from $146 to $173, depending upon use of a prefilled syringe versus a single-dose vial.

Although the hepatitis B vaccine should be part of the childhood immunization series, it also should be administered to any pregnant woman who has not been vaccinated previously or who does not already have evidence of immunity as a result of natural infection.

Continue to: Herpes zoster vaccine...

Herpes zoster infection (shingles) can be a particularly disabling condition in older patients and results from reactivation of a latent varicella-zoster infection. Shingles can cause extremely painful skin lesions, threaten the patient’s vision, and result in long-lasting postherpetic neuralgia. Both cellular and hormonal immunity are essential to protect against recurrent infection.

The original herpes zoster vaccine (Zoster Vaccine Live; ZVL, Zostavax) is no longer produced in the United States because it is not as effective as the newer vaccine—Recombinant Zoster Vaccine (Shingrix, GlaxoSmithKline).^7,8 The antigen in the new vaccine is a component of the surface glycoprotein E, and it is combined with an adjuvant to enhance immunoreactivity. The vaccine is given intramuscularly in two doses at time zero and again at 2 to 6 months and is indicated for all individuals >50 years, including those who may have had an episode of shingles. This newer vaccine is 97% effective in patients >50 years and 90% effective in patients >70. The wholesale cost of each injection is about $160.

Human papillomavirus vaccine

The HPV vaccine (Gardasil-9, Merck & Co.) is a recombinant 9-valent vaccine directed against the human papillomavirus. It induces immunity to serotypes 6 and 11 (which cause 90% of genital warts), 16 and 18 (which cause 80% of genital cancers), and 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58 (viral strains that are responsible for both genital and oropharyngeal cancers). The vaccine is administered intramuscularly in a 3-dose series at time zero, 1-2 months, and 6 months. The principal target groups for the vaccine are males and females, ages 9 to 45 years. Ideally, children of both sexes should receive this vaccine prior to the onset of sexual activity. The wholesale cost of each vaccine injection is approximately $222.⁹

Influenza vaccine

The inactivated, intramuscular flu vaccine is recommended for anyone over age 2, including pregnant women. Although pregnant women are not more likely to acquire flu compared with those who are not pregnant, if they do become infected, they are likely to become more seriously ill, with higher mortality. Accordingly, all pregnant women should receive, in any trimester, the inactivated flu vaccine beginning in the late summer and early fall of each year and extending through March of the next year.^10,11

Multiple formulations of the inactivated vaccine are marketed, all targeting two strains of influenza A and two strains of influenza B. The components of the vaccine vary each year as scientists try to match the new vaccine with the most highly prevalent strains in the previous flu season. The vaccine should be administered in a single intramuscular dose. The cost varies from approximately $20 to $70.

The intranasal influenza vaccine is a live virus vaccine that is intended primarily for children and should not be administered in pregnancy. In addition, there is a higher dose of the inactivated quadrivalent vaccine that is available for administration to patients over age 65. This higher dose is more likely to cause adverse effects and is not indicated in pregnancy.

Continue to: Measles, mumps, rubella vaccine (MMR)...

Measles, mumps, rubella vaccine (MMR)

The MMR is a standard component of the childhood vaccination series. The trivalent preparation is a live, attenuated vaccine that is typically given subcutaneously in a 2-dose series. The first dose is administered at age 12-15 months, and the second dose at age 4-6 years. The vaccine is highly immunogenic, with vaccine-induced immunity usually life-long. In some patients, however, immunity wanes over time. Accordingly, all pregnant women should be screened for immunity to rubella since, of the 3, this infection poses the greatest risk to the fetus. Women who do not have evidence of immunity should be advised to avoid contact with children who may have a viral exanthem. They should then receive a booster dose of the vaccine immediately postpartum and should practice secure contraception for 1 month. The vaccine cost is approximately $60.

Pneumococcal vaccine

The inactivated pneumococcal vaccine is produced in two forms, both of which are safe for administration in pregnancy.¹² The original vaccine, introduced in 1983, was PPSV23 (Pneumovax 23, Merck & Co), a 23-serovalent vaccine that was intended primarily for adults. This vaccine is administered in a single subcutaneous or intramuscular dose. The newest vaccine, introduced in 2010, is PCV13 (Prevnar 13, Pfizer Inc), a 13-serovalent vaccine. It was intended primarily for children, in whom it is administered in a 4-dose series beginning at 6 to 8 weeks of age. The cost of the former is approximately $98 to $120; the cost of the latter is $228.

Vaccination against pneumococcal infection is routinely indicated for those older than the age of 65 and for the following at-risk patients, including those who are pregnant¹¹:

• individuals who have had a splenectomy or who have a medical illness that produces functional asplenia (eg, sickle cell anemia)
• individuals with chronic cardiac, pulmonic, hepatic, or renal disease
• individuals with immunosuppressive conditions such as HIV infection or a disseminated malignancy
• individuals who have a cochlear implant
• individuals who have a chronic leak of cerebrospinal fluid.

The recommendations for timing of these 2 vaccines in adults can initially appear confusing. Put most simply, if a high-risk patient first receives the PCV13 vaccine, she should receive the PPSV23 vaccine in about 8 weeks. The PPSV23 vaccine should be repeated in 5 years. If an at-risk patient initially receives the PPSV23 vaccine, the PCV13 vaccine should be given 1 year later.¹²

Tdap vaccine

The Tdap vaccine contains tetanus toxoid, reduced diptheria toxoid, and an acellular component of the pertussis bacterium. Although it has long been part of the childhood vaccinations series, immunity to each component, particularly pertussis, tends to wane over time.

Pertussis poses a serious risk to the health of the pregnant woman and the newborn infant. Accordingly, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), CDC, and the ACOG now advise administration of a booster dose of this vaccine in the early third trimester of each pregnancy.^13-15 The vaccine should be administered as a single intramuscular injection. The approximate cost of the vaccine is $64 to $71, depending upon whether the provider uses a single-dose vial or a single-dose prefilled syringe. In nonpregnant patients, the ACIP currently recommends administration of a booster dose of the vaccine every 10 years, primarily to provide durable protection against tetanus.

Continue to: Varicella vaccine...

Varicella vaccine

The varicella vaccine is also one of the main components of the childhood immunization series. This live virus vaccine can be administered subcutaneously as a monovalent agent or as a quadrivalent agent in association with the MMR vaccine.

Pregnant women who do not have a well-documented history of natural infection should be tested for IgG antibody to the varicella-zoster virus at the time of their first prenatal appointment. Interestingly, approximately 70% of patients with an uncertain history actually have immunity when tested. If the patient lacks immunity, she should be vaccinated immediately postpartum.^16,17 The vaccine should be administered in a 2-dose series at time zero and then 4 to 8 weeks later. Patients should adhere to secure contraception from the time of the first dose until 1 month after the second dose. The cost of each dose of the vaccine is approximately $145.

Adverse effects of vaccination

All vaccines have many of the same side effects. The most common is simply a reaction at the site of injection, characterized by pain, increased warmth, erythema, swelling, and tenderness. Other common side effects include systemic manifestations, such as low-grade fever, nausea and vomiting, malaise, fatigue, headache, lymphadenopathy, myalgias, and arthralgias. Some vaccines, notably varicella, herpes zoster, measles, and rubella may cause a disseminated rash. Most of these minor side effects are easily managed by rest, hydration, and administration of an analgesic such as acetaminophen or ibuprofen. More serious side effects include rare complications such as anaphylaxis, Bell palsy, Guillain-Barre syndrome, and venous thromboembolism (Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine). Any of the vaccines discussed above should not be given, or given only with extreme caution, to an individual who has experienced any of these reactions with a previous vaccine.

Barriers to vaccination

Although the vaccines reviewed above are highly effective in preventing serious illness in recipients, the medical profession’s “report card” in ensuring adherence with vaccine protocols is not optimal. In fact, it probably merits a grade no higher than C+, with vaccination rates in the range of 50% to 70%.

One of the major barriers to vaccination is lack of detailed information about vaccine efficacy and safety on the part of both provider and patient. Another is the problem of misinformation (eg, the persistent belief on the part of some individuals that vaccines may cause a serious problem, such as autism).^18,19 Another important barrier to widespread vaccination is the logistical problem associated with proper scheduling of multidose regimens (such as those for hepatitis A and B, varicella, and COVID-19). A final barrier, and in my own university-based practice, the most important obstacle is the expense of vaccination. Most, but not all, private insurance companies provide coverage for vaccines approved by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the US Preventive Services Task Force. However, public insurance agencies often provide disappointingly inconsistent coverage for essential vaccines.

By keeping well informed about the most recent public health recommendations for vaccinations for adults and by leading important initiatives within our own practices, we should be able to overcome the first 3 barriers listed above. For example, Morgan and colleagues²⁰ recently achieved a 97% success rate with Tdap administration in pregnancy by placing a best-practice alert in the patients’ electronic medical records. Surmounting the final barrier will require intense effort on the part of individual practitioners and professional organizations to advocate for coverage for essential vaccinations for our patients.

CASE Resolved

This patient was raised in an area of the world where her family did not have easy access to medical care. Accordingly, she did not receive the usual childhood vaccines, such as measles, mumps, rubella, varicella, hepatitis B, and almost certainly, tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis (Tdap), and the HPV vaccine. The MMR vaccine and the varicella vaccine are live virus vaccines and should not be given during pregnancy. However, these vaccines should be administered postpartum, and the patient should be instructed to practice secure contraception for a minimum of 1 month following vaccination. She also should be offered the HPV vaccine postpartum. During pregnancy, she definitely should receive the COVID-19 vaccine, the 3-dose hepatitis B vaccine series, the influenza vaccine, and Tdap. If her present living conditions place her at risk for hepatitis A, she also should be vaccinated against this illness. ●

CASE 1st prenatal appointment for young, pregnant migrant

A 21-year-old primigravid woman at 12 weeks’ gestation recently immigrated to the United States from an impoverished rural area of Southeast Asia. On the first prenatal appointment, she is noted to have no evidence of immunity to rubella, measles, or varicella. Her hepatitis B surface antigen and hepatitis C antibody tests are negative. She also has negative test results for gonorrhea, chlamydia, syphilis, and HIV infection. Her pap test is negative.

• What vaccinations should this patient receive during her pregnancy?
• What additional vaccinations are indicated postpartum?

Preventive vaccinations: What to know

As ObGyns, we serve as the primary care physician for many women throughout their early and middle decades of life. Accordingly, we have an obligation to be well informed about preventive health services such as vaccinations. The purpose of this article is to review the principal vaccines with which ObGyns should be familiar. I will discuss the vaccines in alphabetical order and then focus on the indications and timing for each vaccine and the relative cost of each immunization. Key points are summarized in the TABLE.

COVID-19 vaccine

In the latter part of 2020 and early part of 2021, three COVID-19 vaccines received emergency use authorization (EUA) from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for individuals 16 years of age and older (Pfizer-BioNTech) and 18 years of age and older (Moderna and Johnson & Johnson).¹ The cost of their administration is borne by the federal government. Two of the vaccines are mRNA agents—Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech. Both are administered in a 2-dose series, separated by 4 and 3 weeks, respectively. The efficacy of these vaccines in preventing serious or critical illness approaches 95%. The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine has now been fully FDA approved for administration to individuals older than age 16, with EUA for those down to age 12. Full approval of the Moderna vaccine will not be far behind. Because of some evidence suggesting waning immunity over time and because of growing concerns about the increased transmissibility of the delta variant of the virus, the FDA has been strongly considering a recommendation for a third (booster) dose of each of these vaccines, administered 8 months after the second dose for all eligible Americans. On September 17, 2021, the FDA advisory committee recommended a booster for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine for people older than age 65 and for those over the age of 16 at high risk for severe COVID-19. Several days later, full FDA approval was granted for this recommendation. Subsequently, the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) included health care workers and pregnant women in the group for whom the booster is recommended.

The third vaccine formulation is the Johnson & Johnson DNA vaccine, which is prepared with a human adenovirus vector. This vaccine is administered in a single intramuscular dose and has a reported efficacy of 66% to 85%, though it may approach 95% in preventing critical illness. The FDA is expected to announce decisions about booster doses for the Johnson & Johnson and Moderna vaccines in the coming weeks.

Although initial trials of the COVID-19vaccines excluded pregnant and lactating women, the vaccines are safe in pregnancy or postpartum. In fact the vaccines do not contain either a killed or attenuated viral particle that is capable of transmitting infection. Therefore, both the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine now support routine immunization during pregnancy.

A recent report by Shimabukuro and colleagues² demonstrated that the risk of vaccine-related complications in pregnant women receiving the Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna vaccines was no different than in nonpregnant patients and that there was no evidence of teratogenic effects. The trial included more than 35,000 pregnant women; 2.3% were vaccinated in the periconception period, 28.6% in the first trimester, 43.3% in the second trimester, and 25.7% in the third trimester. Given this, and in light of isolated reports of unusual thromboembolic complications associated with the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, I strongly recommend use of either the Moderna or Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine in our prenatal and postpartum patients.

Continue to: Hepatitis A vaccine...

The hepatitis A vaccine is an inactivated vaccine and is safe for use in pregnancy. It is available in two monovalent preparations—Havrix (GlaxoSmithKline) and Vaqta (Merck & Co.) and is administered in a 2-dose intramuscular injection at time zero and 6 to 12 months later.³ The vaccine is also available in a bivalent form with recombinant hepatitis B vaccine—Twinrix (GlaxoSmithKline). When administered in this form, the vaccine should be given at time zero, 1 month, and 6 months. The wholesale cost of the monovalent vaccine is $66 to $119, depending upon whether the provider uses a multi-dose or a single-dose vial. The cost of Twinrix is $149.

The hepatitis A vaccine is indicated for select pregnant and nonpregnant patients:

• international travelers
• intravenous drug users
• those with occupational exposure (eg, individuals who work in a primate laboratory)
• residents and staff in chronic care facilities
• individuals with chronic liver disease
• individuals with clotting factor disorders
• residents in endemic areas.

Hepatitis B vaccine

The hepatitis B vaccine is a recombinant vaccine that contains an inactivated portion of the hepatitis B surface antigen. It was originally produced in two monovalent formulations: Engerix B (GlaxoSmithKline) and Recombivax-HB (Merck & Co.). These original formulations are given in a 3-dose series at time zero, 1 month, and 6 months. Recently, a new and more potent formulation was introduced into clinical practice. Heplisav-B (Dynavax Technologies Co.) is also a recombinant vaccine that contains a boosting adjuvant. It is programed to be administered in a 2-dose series at time zero and 1 month.^4-6

The wholesale cost of the monovalent vaccines varies from $60 to $173, depending upon use of a multi-dose vial versus a single-use vial. The cost of Heplisav-B varies from $146 to $173, depending upon use of a prefilled syringe versus a single-dose vial.

Although the hepatitis B vaccine should be part of the childhood immunization series, it also should be administered to any pregnant woman who has not been vaccinated previously or who does not already have evidence of immunity as a result of natural infection.

Continue to: Herpes zoster vaccine...

Herpes zoster infection (shingles) can be a particularly disabling condition in older patients and results from reactivation of a latent varicella-zoster infection. Shingles can cause extremely painful skin lesions, threaten the patient’s vision, and result in long-lasting postherpetic neuralgia. Both cellular and hormonal immunity are essential to protect against recurrent infection.

The original herpes zoster vaccine (Zoster Vaccine Live; ZVL, Zostavax) is no longer produced in the United States because it is not as effective as the newer vaccine—Recombinant Zoster Vaccine (Shingrix, GlaxoSmithKline).^7,8 The antigen in the new vaccine is a component of the surface glycoprotein E, and it is combined with an adjuvant to enhance immunoreactivity. The vaccine is given intramuscularly in two doses at time zero and again at 2 to 6 months and is indicated for all individuals >50 years, including those who may have had an episode of shingles. This newer vaccine is 97% effective in patients >50 years and 90% effective in patients >70. The wholesale cost of each injection is about $160.

Human papillomavirus vaccine

The HPV vaccine (Gardasil-9, Merck & Co.) is a recombinant 9-valent vaccine directed against the human papillomavirus. It induces immunity to serotypes 6 and 11 (which cause 90% of genital warts), 16 and 18 (which cause 80% of genital cancers), and 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58 (viral strains that are responsible for both genital and oropharyngeal cancers). The vaccine is administered intramuscularly in a 3-dose series at time zero, 1-2 months, and 6 months. The principal target groups for the vaccine are males and females, ages 9 to 45 years. Ideally, children of both sexes should receive this vaccine prior to the onset of sexual activity. The wholesale cost of each vaccine injection is approximately $222.⁹

Influenza vaccine

The inactivated, intramuscular flu vaccine is recommended for anyone over age 2, including pregnant women. Although pregnant women are not more likely to acquire flu compared with those who are not pregnant, if they do become infected, they are likely to become more seriously ill, with higher mortality. Accordingly, all pregnant women should receive, in any trimester, the inactivated flu vaccine beginning in the late summer and early fall of each year and extending through March of the next year.^10,11

Multiple formulations of the inactivated vaccine are marketed, all targeting two strains of influenza A and two strains of influenza B. The components of the vaccine vary each year as scientists try to match the new vaccine with the most highly prevalent strains in the previous flu season. The vaccine should be administered in a single intramuscular dose. The cost varies from approximately $20 to $70.

The intranasal influenza vaccine is a live virus vaccine that is intended primarily for children and should not be administered in pregnancy. In addition, there is a higher dose of the inactivated quadrivalent vaccine that is available for administration to patients over age 65. This higher dose is more likely to cause adverse effects and is not indicated in pregnancy.

Continue to: Measles, mumps, rubella vaccine (MMR)...

Measles, mumps, rubella vaccine (MMR)

The MMR is a standard component of the childhood vaccination series. The trivalent preparation is a live, attenuated vaccine that is typically given subcutaneously in a 2-dose series. The first dose is administered at age 12-15 months, and the second dose at age 4-6 years. The vaccine is highly immunogenic, with vaccine-induced immunity usually life-long. In some patients, however, immunity wanes over time. Accordingly, all pregnant women should be screened for immunity to rubella since, of the 3, this infection poses the greatest risk to the fetus. Women who do not have evidence of immunity should be advised to avoid contact with children who may have a viral exanthem. They should then receive a booster dose of the vaccine immediately postpartum and should practice secure contraception for 1 month. The vaccine cost is approximately $60.

Pneumococcal vaccine

The inactivated pneumococcal vaccine is produced in two forms, both of which are safe for administration in pregnancy.¹² The original vaccine, introduced in 1983, was PPSV23 (Pneumovax 23, Merck & Co), a 23-serovalent vaccine that was intended primarily for adults. This vaccine is administered in a single subcutaneous or intramuscular dose. The newest vaccine, introduced in 2010, is PCV13 (Prevnar 13, Pfizer Inc), a 13-serovalent vaccine. It was intended primarily for children, in whom it is administered in a 4-dose series beginning at 6 to 8 weeks of age. The cost of the former is approximately $98 to $120; the cost of the latter is $228.

Vaccination against pneumococcal infection is routinely indicated for those older than the age of 65 and for the following at-risk patients, including those who are pregnant¹¹:

• individuals who have had a splenectomy or who have a medical illness that produces functional asplenia (eg, sickle cell anemia)
• individuals with chronic cardiac, pulmonic, hepatic, or renal disease
• individuals with immunosuppressive conditions such as HIV infection or a disseminated malignancy
• individuals who have a cochlear implant
• individuals who have a chronic leak of cerebrospinal fluid.

The recommendations for timing of these 2 vaccines in adults can initially appear confusing. Put most simply, if a high-risk patient first receives the PCV13 vaccine, she should receive the PPSV23 vaccine in about 8 weeks. The PPSV23 vaccine should be repeated in 5 years. If an at-risk patient initially receives the PPSV23 vaccine, the PCV13 vaccine should be given 1 year later.¹²

Tdap vaccine

The Tdap vaccine contains tetanus toxoid, reduced diptheria toxoid, and an acellular component of the pertussis bacterium. Although it has long been part of the childhood vaccinations series, immunity to each component, particularly pertussis, tends to wane over time.

Pertussis poses a serious risk to the health of the pregnant woman and the newborn infant. Accordingly, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), CDC, and the ACOG now advise administration of a booster dose of this vaccine in the early third trimester of each pregnancy.^13-15 The vaccine should be administered as a single intramuscular injection. The approximate cost of the vaccine is $64 to $71, depending upon whether the provider uses a single-dose vial or a single-dose prefilled syringe. In nonpregnant patients, the ACIP currently recommends administration of a booster dose of the vaccine every 10 years, primarily to provide durable protection against tetanus.

Continue to: Varicella vaccine...

Varicella vaccine

The varicella vaccine is also one of the main components of the childhood immunization series. This live virus vaccine can be administered subcutaneously as a monovalent agent or as a quadrivalent agent in association with the MMR vaccine.

Pregnant women who do not have a well-documented history of natural infection should be tested for IgG antibody to the varicella-zoster virus at the time of their first prenatal appointment. Interestingly, approximately 70% of patients with an uncertain history actually have immunity when tested. If the patient lacks immunity, she should be vaccinated immediately postpartum.^16,17 The vaccine should be administered in a 2-dose series at time zero and then 4 to 8 weeks later. Patients should adhere to secure contraception from the time of the first dose until 1 month after the second dose. The cost of each dose of the vaccine is approximately $145.

Adverse effects of vaccination

All vaccines have many of the same side effects. The most common is simply a reaction at the site of injection, characterized by pain, increased warmth, erythema, swelling, and tenderness. Other common side effects include systemic manifestations, such as low-grade fever, nausea and vomiting, malaise, fatigue, headache, lymphadenopathy, myalgias, and arthralgias. Some vaccines, notably varicella, herpes zoster, measles, and rubella may cause a disseminated rash. Most of these minor side effects are easily managed by rest, hydration, and administration of an analgesic such as acetaminophen or ibuprofen. More serious side effects include rare complications such as anaphylaxis, Bell palsy, Guillain-Barre syndrome, and venous thromboembolism (Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine). Any of the vaccines discussed above should not be given, or given only with extreme caution, to an individual who has experienced any of these reactions with a previous vaccine.

Barriers to vaccination

Although the vaccines reviewed above are highly effective in preventing serious illness in recipients, the medical profession’s “report card” in ensuring adherence with vaccine protocols is not optimal. In fact, it probably merits a grade no higher than C+, with vaccination rates in the range of 50% to 70%.

One of the major barriers to vaccination is lack of detailed information about vaccine efficacy and safety on the part of both provider and patient. Another is the problem of misinformation (eg, the persistent belief on the part of some individuals that vaccines may cause a serious problem, such as autism).^18,19 Another important barrier to widespread vaccination is the logistical problem associated with proper scheduling of multidose regimens (such as those for hepatitis A and B, varicella, and COVID-19). A final barrier, and in my own university-based practice, the most important obstacle is the expense of vaccination. Most, but not all, private insurance companies provide coverage for vaccines approved by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the US Preventive Services Task Force. However, public insurance agencies often provide disappointingly inconsistent coverage for essential vaccines.

By keeping well informed about the most recent public health recommendations for vaccinations for adults and by leading important initiatives within our own practices, we should be able to overcome the first 3 barriers listed above. For example, Morgan and colleagues²⁰ recently achieved a 97% success rate with Tdap administration in pregnancy by placing a best-practice alert in the patients’ electronic medical records. Surmounting the final barrier will require intense effort on the part of individual practitioners and professional organizations to advocate for coverage for essential vaccinations for our patients.

CASE Resolved

This patient was raised in an area of the world where her family did not have easy access to medical care. Accordingly, she did not receive the usual childhood vaccines, such as measles, mumps, rubella, varicella, hepatitis B, and almost certainly, tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis (Tdap), and the HPV vaccine. The MMR vaccine and the varicella vaccine are live virus vaccines and should not be given during pregnancy. However, these vaccines should be administered postpartum, and the patient should be instructed to practice secure contraception for a minimum of 1 month following vaccination. She also should be offered the HPV vaccine postpartum. During pregnancy, she definitely should receive the COVID-19 vaccine, the 3-dose hepatitis B vaccine series, the influenza vaccine, and Tdap. If her present living conditions place her at risk for hepatitis A, she also should be vaccinated against this illness. ●