THE CASE

A 27-year-old woman presented to the family medicine clinic to establish care for a recent onset of seizures, for which she had previously been admitted, 4 months after delivering her first child. Her pregnancy was complicated by type 1 diabetes and poor glycemic control. Labor was induced at 37 weeks; however, vaginal delivery was impeded by arrest of dilation. An emergency cesarean section was performed under general anesthesia, resulting in a healthy newborn male.

Six weeks after giving birth, the patient was started on sertraline 50 mg/d for postpartum depression. Her history was significant for depression 8 years prior that was controlled with psychotherapy, and treated prior to coming to our clinic. She had not experienced any depressive symptoms during pregnancy.

Three months postpartum, she was hospitalized for recurrent syncopal episodes. They lasted about 2 minutes, with prodromal generalized weakness followed by loss of consciousness. There was no post-event confusion, tongue-biting, or incontinence. Physical exam, electroencephalogram (EEG), echocardiogram, and magnetic resonance imaging of the head and neck demonstrated no acute findings.

These episodes escalated in frequency weeks after they began, involving as many as 40 daily attacks, some of which lasted up to 45 minutes. During these events, the patient was nonresponsive but reported reliving the delivery of her child. Upon initial consultation with Neurology, no cause was found, and she was advised to wear a helmet, stop driving, and refrain from carrying her son. No antiepileptic medications were initiated because there were no EEG findings that supported seizure, and her mood had not improved, despite an increase in sertraline dosage, a switch to citalopram, and the addition of bupropion. She described anxiety, nightmares, and intrusive thoughts during psychotherapy sessions. Her psychiatrist gave her an additional diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) secondary to her delivery. The family medicine clinic assisted the patient and her family throughout her care by functioning as a home base for her.

Eight months following initial symptoms, repeat evaluation with a video-EEG revealed no evidence of EEG changes during seizure-like activity.

THE DIAGNOSIS

The patient was given a diagnosis of psychogenic nonepileptic seizure (PNES) by a neurologist experienced in diagnosing both epilepsy and PNES. The physician made the diagnosis after noting that the seizures on video had no corresponding epileptiform activity on EEG. This represents a “documented” diagnosis, the highest level of confidence possible in diagnosing PNES, as reported by the International League Against Epilepsy Nonepileptic Seizures Task Force.¹

DISCUSSION

With a prevalence of 5% to 10% and 20% to 40% in outpatient and inpatient epilepsy clinics respectively, PNES events have become of increasing interest to physicians.² There are few cases of PNES in women during pregnancy reported in the literature.^3,4 This is the first case report of PNES with postpartum onset.

Continue to: Epilepsy vs psychogenic nonepileptic seizures

PNES episodes appear similar to epileptic seizures, but without a definitive neurobiologic source.^2,3 However, recent literature suggests the root cause may be found in abnormalities in neurologic networks, such as dysfunction of frontal and parietal lobe connectivity and increased communication from emotional centers of the brain.^2,5 There are no typical pathognomonic symptoms of PNES, leading to diagnostic difficulty.² A definitive diagnosis may be made when a patient experiences seizures without EEG abnormalities.² Further diagnostic brain imaging is unnecessary.

Trauma may be the underlying cause

A predominance of PNES in both women and young adults, with no definitive associated factors, has been reported in the literature.² Studies suggest childhood sexual abuse, physical abuse, traumatic brain injury, and health-related trauma, such as distressing medical experiences and surgeries, may be risk factors, while depression, misdiagnosis, and mistreatment can heighten seizure activity.^2,3

Treatment requires a multidisciplinary team

Effective management of PNES requires collaboration between the primary care physician, neurologist, psychiatrist, and psychotherapist, with an emphasis on evaluation and control of the underlying trigger(s).³ Randomized controlled trials have demonstrated the efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), supportive care, and patient education in reducing seizure frequency at the 6-month follow-up.^3,6 Additional studies have reported the best prognostic factor in PNES management is patient employment of an internal locus of control—the patient’s belief that they control life events.^7,8 Case series suggest electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is an effective alternative mood stabilization and seizure reduction therapy when tolerated.⁹

Our patient tried several combinations of treatment to manage PNES and comorbid psychiatric conditions, including CBT, antidepressants, and anxiolytics. After about 5 treatment failures, she pursued ECT for treatment-resistant depression and PNES frequency reduction but failed to tolerate therapy. Currently, her PNES has been reduced to 1 to 2 weekly episodes with a 200 mg/d dose of lamotrigine as a mood stabilizer combined with CBT.

THE TAKEAWAY

Providers should investigate a patient’s history and psychologic disposition when the patient presents with seizure-like behavior without a neurobiologic source or with a negative video-EEG study. A history of depression, traumatic experience, PTSD, or other psychosocial triggers must be noted early to prevent a delay in treatment when PNES is part of the differential. Due to a delayed diagnosis of PNES in our patient, she went without full treatment for almost 12 months and experienced worsening episodes. The primary care physician plays an integral role in early identification and intervention through anticipatory guidance, initial work-up, and support for patients with suspected PNES (TABLE).

CORRESPONDENCE
Karim Hanna, MD, 13330 USF Laurel Drive, Tampa, FL; [email protected]

THE CASE

A 27-year-old woman presented to the family medicine clinic to establish care for a recent onset of seizures, for which she had previously been admitted, 4 months after delivering her first child. Her pregnancy was complicated by type 1 diabetes and poor glycemic control. Labor was induced at 37 weeks; however, vaginal delivery was impeded by arrest of dilation. An emergency cesarean section was performed under general anesthesia, resulting in a healthy newborn male.

Six weeks after giving birth, the patient was started on sertraline 50 mg/d for postpartum depression. Her history was significant for depression 8 years prior that was controlled with psychotherapy, and treated prior to coming to our clinic. She had not experienced any depressive symptoms during pregnancy.

Three months postpartum, she was hospitalized for recurrent syncopal episodes. They lasted about 2 minutes, with prodromal generalized weakness followed by loss of consciousness. There was no post-event confusion, tongue-biting, or incontinence. Physical exam, electroencephalogram (EEG), echocardiogram, and magnetic resonance imaging of the head and neck demonstrated no acute findings.

These episodes escalated in frequency weeks after they began, involving as many as 40 daily attacks, some of which lasted up to 45 minutes. During these events, the patient was nonresponsive but reported reliving the delivery of her child. Upon initial consultation with Neurology, no cause was found, and she was advised to wear a helmet, stop driving, and refrain from carrying her son. No antiepileptic medications were initiated because there were no EEG findings that supported seizure, and her mood had not improved, despite an increase in sertraline dosage, a switch to citalopram, and the addition of bupropion. She described anxiety, nightmares, and intrusive thoughts during psychotherapy sessions. Her psychiatrist gave her an additional diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) secondary to her delivery. The family medicine clinic assisted the patient and her family throughout her care by functioning as a home base for her.

Eight months following initial symptoms, repeat evaluation with a video-EEG revealed no evidence of EEG changes during seizure-like activity.

THE DIAGNOSIS

The patient was given a diagnosis of psychogenic nonepileptic seizure (PNES) by a neurologist experienced in diagnosing both epilepsy and PNES. The physician made the diagnosis after noting that the seizures on video had no corresponding epileptiform activity on EEG. This represents a “documented” diagnosis, the highest level of confidence possible in diagnosing PNES, as reported by the International League Against Epilepsy Nonepileptic Seizures Task Force.¹

DISCUSSION

With a prevalence of 5% to 10% and 20% to 40% in outpatient and inpatient epilepsy clinics respectively, PNES events have become of increasing interest to physicians.² There are few cases of PNES in women during pregnancy reported in the literature.^3,4 This is the first case report of PNES with postpartum onset.

Continue to: Epilepsy vs psychogenic nonepileptic seizures

PNES episodes appear similar to epileptic seizures, but without a definitive neurobiologic source.^2,3 However, recent literature suggests the root cause may be found in abnormalities in neurologic networks, such as dysfunction of frontal and parietal lobe connectivity and increased communication from emotional centers of the brain.^2,5 There are no typical pathognomonic symptoms of PNES, leading to diagnostic difficulty.² A definitive diagnosis may be made when a patient experiences seizures without EEG abnormalities.² Further diagnostic brain imaging is unnecessary.

Trauma may be the underlying cause

A predominance of PNES in both women and young adults, with no definitive associated factors, has been reported in the literature.² Studies suggest childhood sexual abuse, physical abuse, traumatic brain injury, and health-related trauma, such as distressing medical experiences and surgeries, may be risk factors, while depression, misdiagnosis, and mistreatment can heighten seizure activity.^2,3

Treatment requires a multidisciplinary team

Effective management of PNES requires collaboration between the primary care physician, neurologist, psychiatrist, and psychotherapist, with an emphasis on evaluation and control of the underlying trigger(s).³ Randomized controlled trials have demonstrated the efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), supportive care, and patient education in reducing seizure frequency at the 6-month follow-up.^3,6 Additional studies have reported the best prognostic factor in PNES management is patient employment of an internal locus of control—the patient’s belief that they control life events.^7,8 Case series suggest electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is an effective alternative mood stabilization and seizure reduction therapy when tolerated.⁹

Our patient tried several combinations of treatment to manage PNES and comorbid psychiatric conditions, including CBT, antidepressants, and anxiolytics. After about 5 treatment failures, she pursued ECT for treatment-resistant depression and PNES frequency reduction but failed to tolerate therapy. Currently, her PNES has been reduced to 1 to 2 weekly episodes with a 200 mg/d dose of lamotrigine as a mood stabilizer combined with CBT.

THE TAKEAWAY

Providers should investigate a patient’s history and psychologic disposition when the patient presents with seizure-like behavior without a neurobiologic source or with a negative video-EEG study. A history of depression, traumatic experience, PTSD, or other psychosocial triggers must be noted early to prevent a delay in treatment when PNES is part of the differential. Due to a delayed diagnosis of PNES in our patient, she went without full treatment for almost 12 months and experienced worsening episodes. The primary care physician plays an integral role in early identification and intervention through anticipatory guidance, initial work-up, and support for patients with suspected PNES (TABLE).

CORRESPONDENCE
Karim Hanna, MD, 13330 USF Laurel Drive, Tampa, FL; [email protected]

THE CASE

A 27-year-old woman presented to the family medicine clinic to establish care for a recent onset of seizures, for which she had previously been admitted, 4 months after delivering her first child. Her pregnancy was complicated by type 1 diabetes and poor glycemic control. Labor was induced at 37 weeks; however, vaginal delivery was impeded by arrest of dilation. An emergency cesarean section was performed under general anesthesia, resulting in a healthy newborn male.

Six weeks after giving birth, the patient was started on sertraline 50 mg/d for postpartum depression. Her history was significant for depression 8 years prior that was controlled with psychotherapy, and treated prior to coming to our clinic. She had not experienced any depressive symptoms during pregnancy.

Three months postpartum, she was hospitalized for recurrent syncopal episodes. They lasted about 2 minutes, with prodromal generalized weakness followed by loss of consciousness. There was no post-event confusion, tongue-biting, or incontinence. Physical exam, electroencephalogram (EEG), echocardiogram, and magnetic resonance imaging of the head and neck demonstrated no acute findings.

These episodes escalated in frequency weeks after they began, involving as many as 40 daily attacks, some of which lasted up to 45 minutes. During these events, the patient was nonresponsive but reported reliving the delivery of her child. Upon initial consultation with Neurology, no cause was found, and she was advised to wear a helmet, stop driving, and refrain from carrying her son. No antiepileptic medications were initiated because there were no EEG findings that supported seizure, and her mood had not improved, despite an increase in sertraline dosage, a switch to citalopram, and the addition of bupropion. She described anxiety, nightmares, and intrusive thoughts during psychotherapy sessions. Her psychiatrist gave her an additional diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) secondary to her delivery. The family medicine clinic assisted the patient and her family throughout her care by functioning as a home base for her.

Eight months following initial symptoms, repeat evaluation with a video-EEG revealed no evidence of EEG changes during seizure-like activity.

THE DIAGNOSIS

The patient was given a diagnosis of psychogenic nonepileptic seizure (PNES) by a neurologist experienced in diagnosing both epilepsy and PNES. The physician made the diagnosis after noting that the seizures on video had no corresponding epileptiform activity on EEG. This represents a “documented” diagnosis, the highest level of confidence possible in diagnosing PNES, as reported by the International League Against Epilepsy Nonepileptic Seizures Task Force.¹

DISCUSSION

With a prevalence of 5% to 10% and 20% to 40% in outpatient and inpatient epilepsy clinics respectively, PNES events have become of increasing interest to physicians.² There are few cases of PNES in women during pregnancy reported in the literature.^3,4 This is the first case report of PNES with postpartum onset.

Continue to: Epilepsy vs psychogenic nonepileptic seizures

PNES episodes appear similar to epileptic seizures, but without a definitive neurobiologic source.^2,3 However, recent literature suggests the root cause may be found in abnormalities in neurologic networks, such as dysfunction of frontal and parietal lobe connectivity and increased communication from emotional centers of the brain.^2,5 There are no typical pathognomonic symptoms of PNES, leading to diagnostic difficulty.² A definitive diagnosis may be made when a patient experiences seizures without EEG abnormalities.² Further diagnostic brain imaging is unnecessary.

Trauma may be the underlying cause

A predominance of PNES in both women and young adults, with no definitive associated factors, has been reported in the literature.² Studies suggest childhood sexual abuse, physical abuse, traumatic brain injury, and health-related trauma, such as distressing medical experiences and surgeries, may be risk factors, while depression, misdiagnosis, and mistreatment can heighten seizure activity.^2,3

Treatment requires a multidisciplinary team

Effective management of PNES requires collaboration between the primary care physician, neurologist, psychiatrist, and psychotherapist, with an emphasis on evaluation and control of the underlying trigger(s).³ Randomized controlled trials have demonstrated the efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), supportive care, and patient education in reducing seizure frequency at the 6-month follow-up.^3,6 Additional studies have reported the best prognostic factor in PNES management is patient employment of an internal locus of control—the patient’s belief that they control life events.^7,8 Case series suggest electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is an effective alternative mood stabilization and seizure reduction therapy when tolerated.⁹

Our patient tried several combinations of treatment to manage PNES and comorbid psychiatric conditions, including CBT, antidepressants, and anxiolytics. After about 5 treatment failures, she pursued ECT for treatment-resistant depression and PNES frequency reduction but failed to tolerate therapy. Currently, her PNES has been reduced to 1 to 2 weekly episodes with a 200 mg/d dose of lamotrigine as a mood stabilizer combined with CBT.

THE TAKEAWAY

Providers should investigate a patient’s history and psychologic disposition when the patient presents with seizure-like behavior without a neurobiologic source or with a negative video-EEG study. A history of depression, traumatic experience, PTSD, or other psychosocial triggers must be noted early to prevent a delay in treatment when PNES is part of the differential. Due to a delayed diagnosis of PNES in our patient, she went without full treatment for almost 12 months and experienced worsening episodes. The primary care physician plays an integral role in early identification and intervention through anticipatory guidance, initial work-up, and support for patients with suspected PNES (TABLE).

CORRESPONDENCE
Karim Hanna, MD, 13330 USF Laurel Drive, Tampa, FL; [email protected]

In April 2021, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) published an updated recommendation on screening for vitamin D deficiency in adults. It reaffirmed an “I” statement first made in 2014: evidence is insufficient to balance the benefits and harms of screening.¹ This recommendation applies to asymptomatic, community-dwelling, nonpregnant adults without conditions treatable with vitamin D. It’s important to remember that screening refers to testing asymptomatic individuals to detect a condition early before it causes illness. Testing performed to determine whether symptoms are evidence of an underlying condition is not screening but diagnostic testing.

The Task Force statement explains the problems they found with the current level of knowledge about screening for vitamin D deficiency. First, while 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] is considered the best test for vitamin D levels, it is hard to measure accurately and test results vary by the method used and laboratories doing the testing. There also is uncertainty about how best to measure vitamin D status in different racial and ethnic groups, especially those with dark skin pigmentation. In addition, 25(OH)D in the blood is predominantly the bound form, with only 10% to 15% being unbound and bioavailable. Current tests do not determine the amount of bound vs unbound 25(OH)D.^1-3

There is no consensus about the optimal blood level of vitamin D or the level that defines deficiency. The Institute of Medicine (now the National Academy of Medicine—NAM) stated that serum 25(OH)D levels ≥ 20 ng/mL are adequate to meet the ­metabolic needs of 97.5% of people, and that levels of 12 to 20 ng/mL pose a risk of deficiency, with levels < 12 considered to be very low.⁴ The Endocrine Society defines deficiency as < 20 ng/mL and insufficiency as 21 to 29 ng/mL.⁵

The rate of testing for vitamin D deficiency in primary care in unknown, but there is evidence that since 2000, it has increased 80 fold at least among those with Medicare.⁶ Data from the 2011-2014 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey showed that 5% of the population had 25(OH)D levels < 12 ng/mL and 18% had levels between 12 and 19 ng/mL.⁷ Some have estimated that as many as half of all adults would be considered vitamin D deficient or insufficient using current less conservative definitions, with higher rates in racial/ethnic minorities.^2,8

There are no firm data on the frequency, or benefits, of screening for vitamin D levels in asymptomatic adults (and treating those found to have vitamin D deficiency). The Task Force looked for indirect evidence by examining the effect of treating vitamin D deficiency in a number of conditions and found that for some, there was adequate evidence of no benefit and for others there was inadequate evidence for possible benefits.⁹ No benefit was found for incidence of fractures, type 2 diabetes, and overall mortality.⁹ Inadequate evidence was found for incidence of cancer, cardiovascular disease, scores on measures of depression and physical functioning, and urinary tract infections in those with impaired fasting glucose.⁹

Known risk factors for low vitamin D levels include low vitamin D intake, older age, obesity, low UVB exposure or absorption due to long winter seasons in northern latitudes, sun avoidance, and dark skin pigmentation.¹ In addition, certain medical conditions contribute to, or are caused by, low vitamin D levels—eg, osteoporosis, chronic kidney disease, malabsorption syndromes, and medication use (ie, glucocorticoids).^1-3

The Task Force recommendation on screening for vitamin D deficiency differs from those of some other organizations. However, none recommend universal population-based screening. The Endocrine Society and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists recommend screening but only in those at risk for vitamin D deficiency.^5,10 The American Academy of Family Physicians endorses the USPSTF recommendation.¹¹

Continue to: Specific USPSTF topics related to vitamin D

The Task Force has specifically addressed 3 topics pertaining to vitamin D. In each instance, the recommendation relates not to providing vitamin D to those who have vitamin D deficiency, but to providing vitamin D supplementation universally to specific groups at risk of a particular condition (TABLE 1).

Prevention of falls in the elderly. In 2018 the Task Force recommended against the use of vitamin D to prevent falls in ­community-dwelling adults ≥ 65 years.¹² This reversed its 2012 recommendation advising vitamin D supplementation to prevent falls. The Task Force re-examined the old evidence and looked at newer studies and concluded that their previous conclusion was wrong and that the evidence showed no benefit from vitamin D in preventing falls in the elderly. The reversal of a prior recommendation is rare for the USPSTF because of the rigor of its evidence reviews and its policy of not making a recommendation unless solid evidence for or against exists.

Prevention of cardiovascular disease and cancer. The Task Force concludes that current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms in the use of single- or paired-nutrient supplements to prevent cardiovascular disease or cancer.¹³ (The exceptions are beta-carotene and vitamin E, which the Task Force recommends against.) This statement is consistent with the lack of evidence the Task Force found regarding prevention of these conditions by vitamin D supplementation in those who are vitamin D deficient.

Prevention of fractures in men and in premenopausal and postmenopausal women. For men and premenopausal women, the Task Force concludes that evidence is insufficient to assess the benefits and harms of vitamin D and calcium supplementation, alone or in combination, to prevent fractures.¹⁴ For prevention of fractures in postmenopausal women, there are 2 recommendations. The first one advises against the use of ≤ 400 IU of vitamin D and ≤ 1000 mg of calcium because the evidence indicates ineffectiveness. The second one is another “I” statement for the use of doses > 400 IU of vitamin D and > 1000 mg of calcium. These 3 recommendations apply to adults who live in the community and not in nursing homes or other institutional care facilities; they do not apply to those who have osteoporosis.

What should the family physician do?

Encourage all patients to take the recommended dietary allowances (RDA) of vitamin D. The RDA is the average daily level of intake sufficient to meet the nutrient requirements of nearly all (97%-98%) healthy individuals. Most professional organizations recommend that adults ≥ 50 years consume 800 to 1000 IU of vitamin D daily. TABLE 2 lists the RDA for vitamin D by age and sex.¹⁵ The amount of vitamin D in selected food products is listed in TABLE 3.¹⁵ Some increase in levels of vitamin D can occur as a result of sun exposure, but current practices of sun avoidance make it difficult to achieve a significant contribution to vitamin D requirements.¹⁵

Continue to: Alternatives to universal screening

Alternatives to universal screening. Screening for vitamin D deficiency might benefit some patients, although there is no evidence to support it. Universal screening will likely lead to overdiagnosis and overtreatment based on what is essentially a poorly understood blood test. This was the concern expressed by the NAM.^4,16 An editorial accompanying publication of the recent USPSTF recommendation suggested not measuring vitamin D levels but instead advising patients to consume the age-based RDA of vitamin D.³ For those at increased risk for vitamin D deficiency, advise a higher dose of vitamin D (eg, 2000 IU/d, which is still lower than the upper daily limit).³

Evidence is insufficient to recommend vitamin D and calcium supplementation, alone or in combination, to prevent fractures in men or premenopausal women.

Other options are to screen for vitamin D deficiency only in those at high risk for low vitamin D levels, and to test for vitamin D deficiency in those with symptoms associated with deficiency such as bone pain and muscle weakness. These options would be consistent with recommendations from the Endocrine Society.⁵ Some have recommended that if testing is ordered, it should be performed by a laboratory that uses liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry because it is the criterion standard.²

Treatment options. Vitamin D deficiency can be treated with either ergocalciferol (vitamin D₂) or cholecalciferol (vitamin D₃). These treatments can also be recommended for those whose diets may not provide the RDA for vitamin D. Both are readily available over the counter and by prescription. The Task Force found that the harms of treating vitamin D deficiency with vitamin D at recommended doses are small to none.¹ There is possibly a small increase in kidney stones with the combined use of 1000 mg/d calcium and 10 mcg (400 IU)/d vitamin D.¹⁷ Large doses of vitamin D can cause toxicity including marked hypercalcemia, nausea, vomiting, muscle weakness, neuropsychiatric disturbances, pain, loss of appetite, dehydration, polyuria, excessive thirst, and kidney stones.¹⁵A cautious evidence-based approach would be to selectively screen for vitamin D deficiency, conduct diagnostic testing when indicated, and advise vitamin D supplementation as needed.

In April 2021, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) published an updated recommendation on screening for vitamin D deficiency in adults. It reaffirmed an “I” statement first made in 2014: evidence is insufficient to balance the benefits and harms of screening.¹ This recommendation applies to asymptomatic, community-dwelling, nonpregnant adults without conditions treatable with vitamin D. It’s important to remember that screening refers to testing asymptomatic individuals to detect a condition early before it causes illness. Testing performed to determine whether symptoms are evidence of an underlying condition is not screening but diagnostic testing.

The Task Force statement explains the problems they found with the current level of knowledge about screening for vitamin D deficiency. First, while 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] is considered the best test for vitamin D levels, it is hard to measure accurately and test results vary by the method used and laboratories doing the testing. There also is uncertainty about how best to measure vitamin D status in different racial and ethnic groups, especially those with dark skin pigmentation. In addition, 25(OH)D in the blood is predominantly the bound form, with only 10% to 15% being unbound and bioavailable. Current tests do not determine the amount of bound vs unbound 25(OH)D.^1-3

There is no consensus about the optimal blood level of vitamin D or the level that defines deficiency. The Institute of Medicine (now the National Academy of Medicine—NAM) stated that serum 25(OH)D levels ≥ 20 ng/mL are adequate to meet the ­metabolic needs of 97.5% of people, and that levels of 12 to 20 ng/mL pose a risk of deficiency, with levels < 12 considered to be very low.⁴ The Endocrine Society defines deficiency as < 20 ng/mL and insufficiency as 21 to 29 ng/mL.⁵

The rate of testing for vitamin D deficiency in primary care in unknown, but there is evidence that since 2000, it has increased 80 fold at least among those with Medicare.⁶ Data from the 2011-2014 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey showed that 5% of the population had 25(OH)D levels < 12 ng/mL and 18% had levels between 12 and 19 ng/mL.⁷ Some have estimated that as many as half of all adults would be considered vitamin D deficient or insufficient using current less conservative definitions, with higher rates in racial/ethnic minorities.^2,8

There are no firm data on the frequency, or benefits, of screening for vitamin D levels in asymptomatic adults (and treating those found to have vitamin D deficiency). The Task Force looked for indirect evidence by examining the effect of treating vitamin D deficiency in a number of conditions and found that for some, there was adequate evidence of no benefit and for others there was inadequate evidence for possible benefits.⁹ No benefit was found for incidence of fractures, type 2 diabetes, and overall mortality.⁹ Inadequate evidence was found for incidence of cancer, cardiovascular disease, scores on measures of depression and physical functioning, and urinary tract infections in those with impaired fasting glucose.⁹

Known risk factors for low vitamin D levels include low vitamin D intake, older age, obesity, low UVB exposure or absorption due to long winter seasons in northern latitudes, sun avoidance, and dark skin pigmentation.¹ In addition, certain medical conditions contribute to, or are caused by, low vitamin D levels—eg, osteoporosis, chronic kidney disease, malabsorption syndromes, and medication use (ie, glucocorticoids).^1-3

The Task Force recommendation on screening for vitamin D deficiency differs from those of some other organizations. However, none recommend universal population-based screening. The Endocrine Society and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists recommend screening but only in those at risk for vitamin D deficiency.^5,10 The American Academy of Family Physicians endorses the USPSTF recommendation.¹¹

Continue to: Specific USPSTF topics related to vitamin D

The Task Force has specifically addressed 3 topics pertaining to vitamin D. In each instance, the recommendation relates not to providing vitamin D to those who have vitamin D deficiency, but to providing vitamin D supplementation universally to specific groups at risk of a particular condition (TABLE 1).

Prevention of falls in the elderly. In 2018 the Task Force recommended against the use of vitamin D to prevent falls in ­community-dwelling adults ≥ 65 years.¹² This reversed its 2012 recommendation advising vitamin D supplementation to prevent falls. The Task Force re-examined the old evidence and looked at newer studies and concluded that their previous conclusion was wrong and that the evidence showed no benefit from vitamin D in preventing falls in the elderly. The reversal of a prior recommendation is rare for the USPSTF because of the rigor of its evidence reviews and its policy of not making a recommendation unless solid evidence for or against exists.

Prevention of cardiovascular disease and cancer. The Task Force concludes that current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms in the use of single- or paired-nutrient supplements to prevent cardiovascular disease or cancer.¹³ (The exceptions are beta-carotene and vitamin E, which the Task Force recommends against.) This statement is consistent with the lack of evidence the Task Force found regarding prevention of these conditions by vitamin D supplementation in those who are vitamin D deficient.

Prevention of fractures in men and in premenopausal and postmenopausal women. For men and premenopausal women, the Task Force concludes that evidence is insufficient to assess the benefits and harms of vitamin D and calcium supplementation, alone or in combination, to prevent fractures.¹⁴ For prevention of fractures in postmenopausal women, there are 2 recommendations. The first one advises against the use of ≤ 400 IU of vitamin D and ≤ 1000 mg of calcium because the evidence indicates ineffectiveness. The second one is another “I” statement for the use of doses > 400 IU of vitamin D and > 1000 mg of calcium. These 3 recommendations apply to adults who live in the community and not in nursing homes or other institutional care facilities; they do not apply to those who have osteoporosis.

What should the family physician do?

Encourage all patients to take the recommended dietary allowances (RDA) of vitamin D. The RDA is the average daily level of intake sufficient to meet the nutrient requirements of nearly all (97%-98%) healthy individuals. Most professional organizations recommend that adults ≥ 50 years consume 800 to 1000 IU of vitamin D daily. TABLE 2 lists the RDA for vitamin D by age and sex.¹⁵ The amount of vitamin D in selected food products is listed in TABLE 3.¹⁵ Some increase in levels of vitamin D can occur as a result of sun exposure, but current practices of sun avoidance make it difficult to achieve a significant contribution to vitamin D requirements.¹⁵

Continue to: Alternatives to universal screening

Alternatives to universal screening. Screening for vitamin D deficiency might benefit some patients, although there is no evidence to support it. Universal screening will likely lead to overdiagnosis and overtreatment based on what is essentially a poorly understood blood test. This was the concern expressed by the NAM.^4,16 An editorial accompanying publication of the recent USPSTF recommendation suggested not measuring vitamin D levels but instead advising patients to consume the age-based RDA of vitamin D.³ For those at increased risk for vitamin D deficiency, advise a higher dose of vitamin D (eg, 2000 IU/d, which is still lower than the upper daily limit).³

Evidence is insufficient to recommend vitamin D and calcium supplementation, alone or in combination, to prevent fractures in men or premenopausal women.

Other options are to screen for vitamin D deficiency only in those at high risk for low vitamin D levels, and to test for vitamin D deficiency in those with symptoms associated with deficiency such as bone pain and muscle weakness. These options would be consistent with recommendations from the Endocrine Society.⁵ Some have recommended that if testing is ordered, it should be performed by a laboratory that uses liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry because it is the criterion standard.²

Treatment options. Vitamin D deficiency can be treated with either ergocalciferol (vitamin D₂) or cholecalciferol (vitamin D₃). These treatments can also be recommended for those whose diets may not provide the RDA for vitamin D. Both are readily available over the counter and by prescription. The Task Force found that the harms of treating vitamin D deficiency with vitamin D at recommended doses are small to none.¹ There is possibly a small increase in kidney stones with the combined use of 1000 mg/d calcium and 10 mcg (400 IU)/d vitamin D.¹⁷ Large doses of vitamin D can cause toxicity including marked hypercalcemia, nausea, vomiting, muscle weakness, neuropsychiatric disturbances, pain, loss of appetite, dehydration, polyuria, excessive thirst, and kidney stones.¹⁵A cautious evidence-based approach would be to selectively screen for vitamin D deficiency, conduct diagnostic testing when indicated, and advise vitamin D supplementation as needed.

In April 2021, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) published an updated recommendation on screening for vitamin D deficiency in adults. It reaffirmed an “I” statement first made in 2014: evidence is insufficient to balance the benefits and harms of screening.¹ This recommendation applies to asymptomatic, community-dwelling, nonpregnant adults without conditions treatable with vitamin D. It’s important to remember that screening refers to testing asymptomatic individuals to detect a condition early before it causes illness. Testing performed to determine whether symptoms are evidence of an underlying condition is not screening but diagnostic testing.

The Task Force statement explains the problems they found with the current level of knowledge about screening for vitamin D deficiency. First, while 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] is considered the best test for vitamin D levels, it is hard to measure accurately and test results vary by the method used and laboratories doing the testing. There also is uncertainty about how best to measure vitamin D status in different racial and ethnic groups, especially those with dark skin pigmentation. In addition, 25(OH)D in the blood is predominantly the bound form, with only 10% to 15% being unbound and bioavailable. Current tests do not determine the amount of bound vs unbound 25(OH)D.^1-3

There is no consensus about the optimal blood level of vitamin D or the level that defines deficiency. The Institute of Medicine (now the National Academy of Medicine—NAM) stated that serum 25(OH)D levels ≥ 20 ng/mL are adequate to meet the ­metabolic needs of 97.5% of people, and that levels of 12 to 20 ng/mL pose a risk of deficiency, with levels < 12 considered to be very low.⁴ The Endocrine Society defines deficiency as < 20 ng/mL and insufficiency as 21 to 29 ng/mL.⁵

The rate of testing for vitamin D deficiency in primary care in unknown, but there is evidence that since 2000, it has increased 80 fold at least among those with Medicare.⁶ Data from the 2011-2014 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey showed that 5% of the population had 25(OH)D levels < 12 ng/mL and 18% had levels between 12 and 19 ng/mL.⁷ Some have estimated that as many as half of all adults would be considered vitamin D deficient or insufficient using current less conservative definitions, with higher rates in racial/ethnic minorities.^2,8

There are no firm data on the frequency, or benefits, of screening for vitamin D levels in asymptomatic adults (and treating those found to have vitamin D deficiency). The Task Force looked for indirect evidence by examining the effect of treating vitamin D deficiency in a number of conditions and found that for some, there was adequate evidence of no benefit and for others there was inadequate evidence for possible benefits.⁹ No benefit was found for incidence of fractures, type 2 diabetes, and overall mortality.⁹ Inadequate evidence was found for incidence of cancer, cardiovascular disease, scores on measures of depression and physical functioning, and urinary tract infections in those with impaired fasting glucose.⁹

Known risk factors for low vitamin D levels include low vitamin D intake, older age, obesity, low UVB exposure or absorption due to long winter seasons in northern latitudes, sun avoidance, and dark skin pigmentation.¹ In addition, certain medical conditions contribute to, or are caused by, low vitamin D levels—eg, osteoporosis, chronic kidney disease, malabsorption syndromes, and medication use (ie, glucocorticoids).^1-3

The Task Force recommendation on screening for vitamin D deficiency differs from those of some other organizations. However, none recommend universal population-based screening. The Endocrine Society and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists recommend screening but only in those at risk for vitamin D deficiency.^5,10 The American Academy of Family Physicians endorses the USPSTF recommendation.¹¹

Continue to: Specific USPSTF topics related to vitamin D

The Task Force has specifically addressed 3 topics pertaining to vitamin D. In each instance, the recommendation relates not to providing vitamin D to those who have vitamin D deficiency, but to providing vitamin D supplementation universally to specific groups at risk of a particular condition (TABLE 1).

Prevention of falls in the elderly. In 2018 the Task Force recommended against the use of vitamin D to prevent falls in ­community-dwelling adults ≥ 65 years.¹² This reversed its 2012 recommendation advising vitamin D supplementation to prevent falls. The Task Force re-examined the old evidence and looked at newer studies and concluded that their previous conclusion was wrong and that the evidence showed no benefit from vitamin D in preventing falls in the elderly. The reversal of a prior recommendation is rare for the USPSTF because of the rigor of its evidence reviews and its policy of not making a recommendation unless solid evidence for or against exists.

Prevention of cardiovascular disease and cancer. The Task Force concludes that current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms in the use of single- or paired-nutrient supplements to prevent cardiovascular disease or cancer.¹³ (The exceptions are beta-carotene and vitamin E, which the Task Force recommends against.) This statement is consistent with the lack of evidence the Task Force found regarding prevention of these conditions by vitamin D supplementation in those who are vitamin D deficient.

Prevention of fractures in men and in premenopausal and postmenopausal women. For men and premenopausal women, the Task Force concludes that evidence is insufficient to assess the benefits and harms of vitamin D and calcium supplementation, alone or in combination, to prevent fractures.¹⁴ For prevention of fractures in postmenopausal women, there are 2 recommendations. The first one advises against the use of ≤ 400 IU of vitamin D and ≤ 1000 mg of calcium because the evidence indicates ineffectiveness. The second one is another “I” statement for the use of doses > 400 IU of vitamin D and > 1000 mg of calcium. These 3 recommendations apply to adults who live in the community and not in nursing homes or other institutional care facilities; they do not apply to those who have osteoporosis.

What should the family physician do?

Encourage all patients to take the recommended dietary allowances (RDA) of vitamin D. The RDA is the average daily level of intake sufficient to meet the nutrient requirements of nearly all (97%-98%) healthy individuals. Most professional organizations recommend that adults ≥ 50 years consume 800 to 1000 IU of vitamin D daily. TABLE 2 lists the RDA for vitamin D by age and sex.¹⁵ The amount of vitamin D in selected food products is listed in TABLE 3.¹⁵ Some increase in levels of vitamin D can occur as a result of sun exposure, but current practices of sun avoidance make it difficult to achieve a significant contribution to vitamin D requirements.¹⁵

Continue to: Alternatives to universal screening

Alternatives to universal screening. Screening for vitamin D deficiency might benefit some patients, although there is no evidence to support it. Universal screening will likely lead to overdiagnosis and overtreatment based on what is essentially a poorly understood blood test. This was the concern expressed by the NAM.^4,16 An editorial accompanying publication of the recent USPSTF recommendation suggested not measuring vitamin D levels but instead advising patients to consume the age-based RDA of vitamin D.³ For those at increased risk for vitamin D deficiency, advise a higher dose of vitamin D (eg, 2000 IU/d, which is still lower than the upper daily limit).³

Evidence is insufficient to recommend vitamin D and calcium supplementation, alone or in combination, to prevent fractures in men or premenopausal women.

Other options are to screen for vitamin D deficiency only in those at high risk for low vitamin D levels, and to test for vitamin D deficiency in those with symptoms associated with deficiency such as bone pain and muscle weakness. These options would be consistent with recommendations from the Endocrine Society.⁵ Some have recommended that if testing is ordered, it should be performed by a laboratory that uses liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry because it is the criterion standard.²

Treatment options. Vitamin D deficiency can be treated with either ergocalciferol (vitamin D₂) or cholecalciferol (vitamin D₃). These treatments can also be recommended for those whose diets may not provide the RDA for vitamin D. Both are readily available over the counter and by prescription. The Task Force found that the harms of treating vitamin D deficiency with vitamin D at recommended doses are small to none.¹ There is possibly a small increase in kidney stones with the combined use of 1000 mg/d calcium and 10 mcg (400 IU)/d vitamin D.¹⁷ Large doses of vitamin D can cause toxicity including marked hypercalcemia, nausea, vomiting, muscle weakness, neuropsychiatric disturbances, pain, loss of appetite, dehydration, polyuria, excessive thirst, and kidney stones.¹⁵A cautious evidence-based approach would be to selectively screen for vitamin D deficiency, conduct diagnostic testing when indicated, and advise vitamin D supplementation as needed.

CASE

A 48-year-old man comes to your clinic with a dark nevus on his right upper arm that appeared 2 months earlier. He says that the lesion has continued to grow and has bled (he thought because he initially picked at it). On exam, there is a 7-mm brown papule with 2 black dots and slightly asymmetric borders.

How would you proceed with this patient?

Melanoma is the fifth leading cause of new cancer cases annually, with > 96,000 new cases in 2019.¹ Overall, melanoma is more common in men and in Whites, with 48% diagnosed in people ages 55 to 74.¹ The past 2 decades have seen numerous developments in the diagnosis, treatment, and surveillance of melanoma. This article covers recommendations, controversies, and issues that require future study. It does not cover uveal or mucosal melanoma.

Evaluating a patient with a new or changing nevus

Known risk factors for melanoma include a changing nevus, indoor tanning, older age, many melanocytic nevi, history of a dysplastic nevus or of blistering sunburns during teen years, red or blonde hair, large congenital nevus, Fitzpatrick skin type I or II, high socioeconomic status, personal or family history of melanoma, and intermittent high-intensity sun exposure.^2-3 Presence of 1 or more of these risk factors should lower the threshold for biopsy.

Worrisome physical exam features (FIGURE) are nevus asymmetry, irregular borders, variegated color, and a diameter > 6 mm (the size of a pencil eraser). Inquire as to whether the nevus’ appearance has evolved and if it has bled without trauma. In a patient with multiple nevi, 1 nevus that looks different than the rest (the so-called “ugly duckling”) is concerning. Accuracy of diagnosis is enhanced with dermoscopy. A Cochrane review showed that skilled use of dermoscopy, in addition to inspection with the naked eye, considerably increases the sensitivity and specificity of diagnosing melanoma.⁴ Yet a 2017 study of 705 US primary care practitioners showed that only 8.3% of them used dermoscopy to evaluate pigmented lesions.⁵

Several published algorithms and checklists can aid clinicians in identifying lesions suggestive of melanoma—eg, ABCDE, CASH, Menzies method, “chaos and clues,” and 2-step and 3- and 7-point checklists.^6-10 A simple 3-step algorithm, the TADA (triage amalgamated dermoscopic algorithm) method is available to novice dermoscopy users.¹¹ Experts in pigmented lesions prefer to use pattern analysis, which requires simultaneously assessing multiple lesion patterns that vary according to body site.^12,13

Dermoscopic features suggesting melanoma are atypical pigment networks, pseudopods, radial streaking, irregular dots or globules, blue-whitish veil, and granularity or peppering.¹⁴ Appropriate and effective use of dermoscopy requires training.^15,16 Available methods for learning dermoscopy include online and in-person courses, mentoring by experienced dermoscopists, books and articles, and free apps and online resources.¹⁷

Continue to: Perform a skin biopsy, but do this first

Skin biopsy is the definitive way to diagnose melanoma. Prior to biopsy, take photographs to document the exact location of the lesion and to ensure that the correct area is removed in wide excision (WE). A complete biopsy should include the full depth and breadth of the lesion to ensure there are clinically negative margins. This can be achieved with an elliptical excision (for larger lesions), punch excision (for small lesions), or saucerization (deep shave with 1- to 2-mm peripheral margins, used for intermediate-size lesions).¹⁸ Saucerization is distinctly different from a superficial shave biopsy, which is not recommended for lesions with features of melanoma.¹⁹

A decision to perform a biopsy on a part of the lesion (partial biopsy) depends on the size of the lesion and its anatomic location, and is best made in agreement with the patient. If the lesion cannot be removed in its entirety and a partial biopsy is necessary, take the sample from the most atypical appearing area and communicate this decision to the pathologist on the biopsy order. There is no evidence that performing a partial biopsy increases the risk of spreading melanoma.^20,21

If you are untrained or uncomfortable performing the biopsy, contact a dermatologist immediately. In many communities, such referrals are subject to long delays, which further supports the advisability of family physicians doing their own biopsies after photographing the suspicious lesion. Many resources are available to help family physicians learn to do biopsies proficiently (www.mdedge.com/familymedicine/article/164358/oncology/biopsies-skin-cancer-detection-dispelling-myths).¹⁹

What to communicate to the pathologist. At a minimum, the biopsy request form should include patient age, sex, biopsy type (punch, excisional, or scoop shave), intention (complete or partial sample), exact site of the biopsy with laterality, and clinical details. These details should include the lesion size and clinical description, the suspected diagnosis, and clinical information, such as whether there is a history of bleeding or changing color, size, or symmetry. In standard biopsy specimens, the pathologist is only examining a portion of the lesion. Communicating clearly to the pathologist may lead to a request for deeper or additional sections or special stains.

Complete biopsy of a concerning pigmented lesion is the standard. If, however, a partial biopsy is necessary, sample the most atypical area.

If the biopsy results do not match the clinical impression, a phone call to the pathologist is warranted. In addition, evaluation by a dermatopathologist may be merited as pathologic diagnosis of melanoma can be quite challenging. Newer molecular tests, such as fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and comparative genomic hybridization (CGH), can assist in the histologic evaluation of complex pigmented lesions.

Continue to: CASE

CASE

You perform an elliptical excisional biopsy on your patient. The biopsy report comes back as a nodular malignant melanoma, Breslow depth 2.5 mm without ulceration, and no evidence of lymphovascular invasion or microsatellitosis. The report states that the biopsy margins appear clear of tumor involvement.

Further evaluation when the biopsy result is positive

Key steps in initial patient care include relaying pathology results to the patient, conducting (as needed) a more extensive evaluation, and obtaining appropriate consultation.

Clearly explain the diagnosis and convey an accurate reading of the pathology report. The vital pieces of information in the biopsy report are the Breslow depth and presence of ulceration, as evidence shows these 2 factors to be important independent predictors of outcome.^22,23 Also important are the presence of microsatellitosis (essential for staging purposes), pathologic stage, and the status of the peripheral and deep biopsy margins. Review Breslow depth with the patient as this largely dictates treatment options and prognosis.

Evaluate for possible metastatic disease. Obtain a complete history from every patient with cutaneous melanoma, looking for any positive review of systems as a harbinger of metastatic disease. A full-body skin and lymph node exam is vital, given that melanoma can arise anywhere including on the scalp, in the gluteal cleft, and beneath nails. If the lymph node exam is worrisome, conduct an ultrasound exam, even while referring to specialty care. Treating a patient with melanoma requires a multidisciplinary approach that may include dermatologists, surgeons, and oncologists based on the stage of disease. A challenge for family physicians is knowing which consultation to prioritize and how to counsel the patient to schedule these for the most cost-effective and timely evaluation.

Expedite a dermatology consultation. If the melanoma is deep or appears advanced based on size or palpable lymph nodes, contact the dermatologist immediately by phone to set up a rapid referral. Delays in the definitive management of thick melanomas can negatively affect outcome. Paper, facsimile, or electronic referrals can get lost in the system and are not reliable methods for referring patients for a melanoma consultation. One benefit of the family physician performing the initial biopsy is that a confirmed melanoma diagnosis will almost certainly get an expedited dermatology appointment.

Continue to: Wide excision and sentinel node biopsy

Wide excision and sentinel node biopsy

Wide excision of a primary melanoma is standard practice, with evidence favoring the following surgical margins: 0.5 to 1 cm for melanoma in situ, 1 cm for tumors up to 1 mm in thickness, 1 to 2 cm for tumors > 1 to 2 mm thick, and 2 cm for tumors > 2 mm thick.¹⁸ WE is often performed by dermatologists for nonulcerated tumors < 0.8 mm thick (T1a) without adverse features. If trained in cutaneous surgery, you can also choose to excise these thin melanomas in your office. Otherwise refer all patients with biopsy-proven melanoma to dermatologists to perform an adequate WE.

Refer patients who have tumors ≥ 0.8 mm thick to the appropriate surgical specialty (surgical oncology, if available) for consultation on sentinel lymph node biopsy. SLNB, when indicated, should be performed prior to WE of the primary tumor, and whenever possible in the same surgical setting, to maximize lymphatic drainage mapping techniques.¹⁸ Medical oncology referral, if needed, is usually made after WE.

SLNB remains the standard for lymph node staging. It is controversial mainly in its use for very thin or very thick lesions. Randomized controlled trials, including the Multicenter Selective Lymphadenectomy Trial,²⁴ have shown no difference in melanoma-­specific survival for patients with intermediate-thickness melanomas who had undergone SLNB.²⁴However, a subgroup analysis did find a significant increase in melanoma survival among patients with positive early SLNB results and immediate lymphadenectomy compared with patients who were observed and subsequently underwent lymphadenectomy only as metastases developed.²⁴

Many professional organizations consider SLNB to be the most significant prognostic indicator of disease recurrence. With a negative SLNB result, the risk of regional node recurrence is 5% or lower.^18,25 In addition, sentinel lymph node status is a critical determinant for systemic adjuvant therapy consideration and clinical trial eligibility. For patients who have primary cutaneous melanoma without clinical lymphadenopathy, an online tool is available for patients to use with their physician in predicting the likelihood of SLNB positivity.²⁶

Recommendations for SLNB, supported by multidisciplinary consensus:¹⁸

• Do not pursue SLNB for melanoma in situ or most cutaneous melanomas < 0.8 mm without ulceration (T1a). (See TABLE 1²⁷)
• Discuss SLNB with patients who have T1a melanoma and additional adverse features: young age, high mitotic rate, lymphovascular invasion, and nevus depth close to 0.8 mm with positive deep biopsy margins.
• Discuss SLNB with patients who have T1b disease (< 0.8 mm with ulceration, or 0.8-1 mm), although rates of SLNB positivity are low.
• Offer SLNB to patients with T2a and higher disease (> 1 mm).¹⁸

Continue to: Patients who have...

Patients who have clinical Stage I or II disease (TABLE 1²⁷) and a negative review of systems and lymph node exam do not require baseline laboratory or radiology tests.^18,28-31 Ultrasonography of the lymph node basin is recommended for any Stage I or II patient with an equivocal lymph node exam.^27,32 Stage III disease warrants computed tomography of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis, and possibly magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the brain. For Stage IV, brain MRI is recommended in all patients. Patients with higher risk disease (IIB - IV) will need consultation with Medical Oncology. The surgery and oncology team will make decisions regarding SLNB, genetic testing, and chemotherapy.

Melanoma in women: Considerations to keep in mind

Hormonal influences of pregnancy, lactation, contraception, and menopause introduce special considerations regarding melanoma, which is the most common cancer occurring during pregnancy, accounting for 31% of new malignancies.³³ Risk of melanoma lessens, however, for women who first give birth at a younger age or who have had > 5 live births.^18,34,35 There is no evidence that nevi darken during pregnancy, although nevi on the breast and abdomen may seem to enlarge due to skin stretching.¹⁸ All changing nevi in pregnancy warrant an examination, preferably with dermoscopy, and patients should be offered biopsy if there are any nevus characteristics associated with melanoma.¹⁸

One benefit of the family physician performing the initial biopsy is that a confirmed melanoma diagnosis will almost certainly get an expedited dermatology appointment.

The effect of pregnancy on an existing melanoma is not fully understood, but evidence from controlled studies shows no negative effect. Recent working group guidelines advise WE with local anesthesia without delay in pregnant patients.¹⁸ Definitive treatment after melanoma diagnosis should take a multidisciplinary approach involving obstetric care coordinated with Dermatology, Surgery, and Medical Oncology.¹⁸

Most recommendations on the timing of pregnancy following a melanoma diagnosis have limited evidence. One meta-­analysis concluded that pregnancy occurring after successful treatment of melanoma did not change a woman’s prognosis.³⁶ Current guidelines do not recommend delaying future pregnancy if a woman had an early-stage melanoma. For melanomas deemed higher risk, a woman could consider a 2- to 3-year delay in the next planned pregnancy, owing to current data on recurrence rates.¹⁸

A systematic review of women who used hormonal contraception or postmenopausal hormone replacement therapy (HRT) showed no associated increased risk of melanoma.³⁵ An additional randomized trial showed no effect of HRT on melanoma risk.³⁷

Continue to: Systemic melanoma treatment and common adverse effects

Multiple systemic therapies have been approved for the treatment of advanced or unresectable cutaneous melanomas. While these treatments are managed primarily by Oncology in concert with Dermatology, an awareness of the medications’ common dermatologic toxicities is important for the primary care provider. The 2 broad categories of FDA-approved systemic medications for advanced melanoma are mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors, each having its own set of adverse cutaneous effects.

MAPK pathway–targeting drugs include the B-Raf proto-oncogene serine/threonine-kinase inhibitors (BRAFIs) vemurafenib and dabrafenib, and the MAPK inhibitors (MEKIs) trametinib and cobimetinib. The most common adverse skin effects in MAPK pathway–targeting drugs are severe ultraviolet photosensitivity, cutaneous epidermal neoplasms (particularly squamous cell carcinoma, keratoacanthoma-type), thick actinic keratosis, wart-like keratosis, painful palmoplantar keratosis, and dry skin.³⁸ These effects are most commonly seen with BRAFI monotherapy and can be abated with the addition of a MEKI. MEKI therapy can cause acneiform eruptions and paronychia.³⁹ Additional adverse effects include diarrhea, pyrexia, arthralgias, and fatigue for BRAFIs and diarrhea, fatigue, and peripheral edema for MEKIs.⁴⁰

Immune checkpoint inhibitors include anti-CTLA-4 (ipilimumab), anti-PD-1 (pembrolizumab and nivolumab), and anti-PDL-1 (atezolizumab). Adverse skin effects include morbilliform rash with or without an associated itch, itch with or without an associated rash, vitiligo, and lichenoid skin rashes. PD-1 and PDL-1 inhibitors have been associated with flares or unmasking of atopic dermatitis, psoriasis, sarcoidosis, and autoimmune bullous disease.¹⁸ Diarrhea, colitis, hepatitis, elevated liver enzymes, hypophysitis, and thyroiditis are some of the more common noncutaneous adverse effects reported with CTLA-4 inhibitors, while fatigue, diarrhea, nausea, pneumonitis, and thyroid disease are seen with anti-PD-1/PDL-1 therapy.³

A look at the prognosis

For patients diagnosed with primary cutaneous melanoma between 2011 and 2017, the 5-year survival rate for localized disease (Stages I-II) was 99%.¹ For regional (Stage III) and distant (Stage IV) disease, the 5-year survival rates were 68% and 30%, respectively.¹ With the advent of adjuvant systemic therapy, 5-year overall survival rates for metastatic melanoma have markedly improved from < 10% to up to 40% to 50%.⁴¹ The 3-year survival rate for patients with high tumor burden, brain metastasis, and elevated lactate dehydrogenase remains at < 10%.⁴² Relative survival decreases with increased age, although survival is higher in women than in men.⁴³ Risk of melanoma recurrence after surgical excision is high in patients with stage IIB, IIC, III and IV (resectable) disease. The most important risk factor for recurrence is primary tumor thickness.⁴⁴ The most common site of first recurrence in stage I-II disease is regional lymph node metastasis (42.8%), closely followed by distant metastasis (37.6%).⁴⁴

Long-term follow-up and surveillance

Recommendations for long-term care of patients with melanoma have evolved with advances in treatment, prognostication, and imaging. Caring for these patients requires a multidisciplinary approach wherein the family physician provides frontline care and team coordination. Since most recurrences are discovered by the patient or the patient’s family, patient education and self-examination are the cost-effective foundation for recurrence screening. In a trial of patients and partners, a 30-minute structured session on skin examination followed by physician reminders every 4 months increased the detection of melanoma recurrence without significant increases in patient visits.⁴⁵

Continue to: Patient education should include sun safety...

Patient education should include sun safety (wearing sun-protective clothing, using broad-spectrum sunscreen, and avoiding sun exposure during peak times of the day). The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) says the level of evidence is insufficient to support routine skin cancer screening in adults.⁴⁶ However, the USPSTF recommends discussing efforts to minimize UV radiation exposure to prevent skin cancer in fair-skinned individuals 10 to 24 years of age.

Current National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines have outlined the follow-up frequency for all melanoma patients. TABLE 2³² outlines those recommendations in addition to self-examination and patient education.

Melanoma epidemic or overdiagnosis?

Over the past 2 decades, a marked rise in the incidence of melanoma has been reported in developed countries worldwide, although melanoma mortality rates have not increased as rapidly, with melanoma-specific survival stable in most groups.^47-50 Due to conflicting evidence, significant disagreement exists as to whether this is an actual epidemic caused by a true rise in disease burden or is merely an artifact stemming from overdiagnosis.⁴⁷

Evidence supporting a true melanoma epidemic includes population-based studies demonstrating greater UV radiation–induced carcinogenesis (from the sun and tanning bed use), a larger aging population, and increased incidence regardless of socioeconomic status.⁴⁷ Those challenging the validity of an epidemic instead attribute the rising incidence to early-detection public awareness campaigns, expanded screenings, improved diagnostic modalities, and increased biopsies. They also credit lower pathologic thresholds that help identify thinner tumors with little to no metastatic potential.⁴⁸ Additionally, multiple studies report an increased incidence in melanomas of all histologic subtypes and thicknesses, not just thinner, more curable tumors.^49,51,52 Although increased screening and biopsies are effective, they alone cannot account for the sharp rise in melanoma cases.⁴⁷ This “melanoma paradox” of increasing incidence without a parallel increase in mortality remains unsettled.⁴⁷

CASE

Your patient had Stage IIA disease and a WE was performed with 1-cm margins. Ultrasound of the axilla identified an enlarged node, which was removed and found not to be diseased. He has now returned to have you look at another lesion identified by his spouse. His review of symptoms is negative. His initial melanoma was removed 2 years earlier, and his last dermatology skin exam was 5 months prior. You look at the lesion using a dermatoscope and do not note any worrisome features. You recommend that the patient photograph the area for reexamination and follow-up with his dermatologist next month for a 6-month follow-up.

CORRESPONDENCE
Jessica Servey, MD, 4301 Jones Bridge Road, Bethesda, MD 20814; [email protected]

CASE

A 48-year-old man comes to your clinic with a dark nevus on his right upper arm that appeared 2 months earlier. He says that the lesion has continued to grow and has bled (he thought because he initially picked at it). On exam, there is a 7-mm brown papule with 2 black dots and slightly asymmetric borders.

How would you proceed with this patient?

Melanoma is the fifth leading cause of new cancer cases annually, with > 96,000 new cases in 2019.¹ Overall, melanoma is more common in men and in Whites, with 48% diagnosed in people ages 55 to 74.¹ The past 2 decades have seen numerous developments in the diagnosis, treatment, and surveillance of melanoma. This article covers recommendations, controversies, and issues that require future study. It does not cover uveal or mucosal melanoma.

Evaluating a patient with a new or changing nevus

Known risk factors for melanoma include a changing nevus, indoor tanning, older age, many melanocytic nevi, history of a dysplastic nevus or of blistering sunburns during teen years, red or blonde hair, large congenital nevus, Fitzpatrick skin type I or II, high socioeconomic status, personal or family history of melanoma, and intermittent high-intensity sun exposure.^2-3 Presence of 1 or more of these risk factors should lower the threshold for biopsy.

Worrisome physical exam features (FIGURE) are nevus asymmetry, irregular borders, variegated color, and a diameter > 6 mm (the size of a pencil eraser). Inquire as to whether the nevus’ appearance has evolved and if it has bled without trauma. In a patient with multiple nevi, 1 nevus that looks different than the rest (the so-called “ugly duckling”) is concerning. Accuracy of diagnosis is enhanced with dermoscopy. A Cochrane review showed that skilled use of dermoscopy, in addition to inspection with the naked eye, considerably increases the sensitivity and specificity of diagnosing melanoma.⁴ Yet a 2017 study of 705 US primary care practitioners showed that only 8.3% of them used dermoscopy to evaluate pigmented lesions.⁵

Several published algorithms and checklists can aid clinicians in identifying lesions suggestive of melanoma—eg, ABCDE, CASH, Menzies method, “chaos and clues,” and 2-step and 3- and 7-point checklists.^6-10 A simple 3-step algorithm, the TADA (triage amalgamated dermoscopic algorithm) method is available to novice dermoscopy users.¹¹ Experts in pigmented lesions prefer to use pattern analysis, which requires simultaneously assessing multiple lesion patterns that vary according to body site.^12,13

Dermoscopic features suggesting melanoma are atypical pigment networks, pseudopods, radial streaking, irregular dots or globules, blue-whitish veil, and granularity or peppering.¹⁴ Appropriate and effective use of dermoscopy requires training.^15,16 Available methods for learning dermoscopy include online and in-person courses, mentoring by experienced dermoscopists, books and articles, and free apps and online resources.¹⁷

Continue to: Perform a skin biopsy, but do this first

Skin biopsy is the definitive way to diagnose melanoma. Prior to biopsy, take photographs to document the exact location of the lesion and to ensure that the correct area is removed in wide excision (WE). A complete biopsy should include the full depth and breadth of the lesion to ensure there are clinically negative margins. This can be achieved with an elliptical excision (for larger lesions), punch excision (for small lesions), or saucerization (deep shave with 1- to 2-mm peripheral margins, used for intermediate-size lesions).¹⁸ Saucerization is distinctly different from a superficial shave biopsy, which is not recommended for lesions with features of melanoma.¹⁹

A decision to perform a biopsy on a part of the lesion (partial biopsy) depends on the size of the lesion and its anatomic location, and is best made in agreement with the patient. If the lesion cannot be removed in its entirety and a partial biopsy is necessary, take the sample from the most atypical appearing area and communicate this decision to the pathologist on the biopsy order. There is no evidence that performing a partial biopsy increases the risk of spreading melanoma.^20,21

If you are untrained or uncomfortable performing the biopsy, contact a dermatologist immediately. In many communities, such referrals are subject to long delays, which further supports the advisability of family physicians doing their own biopsies after photographing the suspicious lesion. Many resources are available to help family physicians learn to do biopsies proficiently (www.mdedge.com/familymedicine/article/164358/oncology/biopsies-skin-cancer-detection-dispelling-myths).¹⁹

What to communicate to the pathologist. At a minimum, the biopsy request form should include patient age, sex, biopsy type (punch, excisional, or scoop shave), intention (complete or partial sample), exact site of the biopsy with laterality, and clinical details. These details should include the lesion size and clinical description, the suspected diagnosis, and clinical information, such as whether there is a history of bleeding or changing color, size, or symmetry. In standard biopsy specimens, the pathologist is only examining a portion of the lesion. Communicating clearly to the pathologist may lead to a request for deeper or additional sections or special stains.

Complete biopsy of a concerning pigmented lesion is the standard. If, however, a partial biopsy is necessary, sample the most atypical area.

If the biopsy results do not match the clinical impression, a phone call to the pathologist is warranted. In addition, evaluation by a dermatopathologist may be merited as pathologic diagnosis of melanoma can be quite challenging. Newer molecular tests, such as fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and comparative genomic hybridization (CGH), can assist in the histologic evaluation of complex pigmented lesions.

Continue to: CASE

CASE

You perform an elliptical excisional biopsy on your patient. The biopsy report comes back as a nodular malignant melanoma, Breslow depth 2.5 mm without ulceration, and no evidence of lymphovascular invasion or microsatellitosis. The report states that the biopsy margins appear clear of tumor involvement.

Further evaluation when the biopsy result is positive

Key steps in initial patient care include relaying pathology results to the patient, conducting (as needed) a more extensive evaluation, and obtaining appropriate consultation.

Clearly explain the diagnosis and convey an accurate reading of the pathology report. The vital pieces of information in the biopsy report are the Breslow depth and presence of ulceration, as evidence shows these 2 factors to be important independent predictors of outcome.^22,23 Also important are the presence of microsatellitosis (essential for staging purposes), pathologic stage, and the status of the peripheral and deep biopsy margins. Review Breslow depth with the patient as this largely dictates treatment options and prognosis.

Evaluate for possible metastatic disease. Obtain a complete history from every patient with cutaneous melanoma, looking for any positive review of systems as a harbinger of metastatic disease. A full-body skin and lymph node exam is vital, given that melanoma can arise anywhere including on the scalp, in the gluteal cleft, and beneath nails. If the lymph node exam is worrisome, conduct an ultrasound exam, even while referring to specialty care. Treating a patient with melanoma requires a multidisciplinary approach that may include dermatologists, surgeons, and oncologists based on the stage of disease. A challenge for family physicians is knowing which consultation to prioritize and how to counsel the patient to schedule these for the most cost-effective and timely evaluation.

Expedite a dermatology consultation. If the melanoma is deep or appears advanced based on size or palpable lymph nodes, contact the dermatologist immediately by phone to set up a rapid referral. Delays in the definitive management of thick melanomas can negatively affect outcome. Paper, facsimile, or electronic referrals can get lost in the system and are not reliable methods for referring patients for a melanoma consultation. One benefit of the family physician performing the initial biopsy is that a confirmed melanoma diagnosis will almost certainly get an expedited dermatology appointment.

Continue to: Wide excision and sentinel node biopsy

Wide excision and sentinel node biopsy

Wide excision of a primary melanoma is standard practice, with evidence favoring the following surgical margins: 0.5 to 1 cm for melanoma in situ, 1 cm for tumors up to 1 mm in thickness, 1 to 2 cm for tumors > 1 to 2 mm thick, and 2 cm for tumors > 2 mm thick.¹⁸ WE is often performed by dermatologists for nonulcerated tumors < 0.8 mm thick (T1a) without adverse features. If trained in cutaneous surgery, you can also choose to excise these thin melanomas in your office. Otherwise refer all patients with biopsy-proven melanoma to dermatologists to perform an adequate WE.

Refer patients who have tumors ≥ 0.8 mm thick to the appropriate surgical specialty (surgical oncology, if available) for consultation on sentinel lymph node biopsy. SLNB, when indicated, should be performed prior to WE of the primary tumor, and whenever possible in the same surgical setting, to maximize lymphatic drainage mapping techniques.¹⁸ Medical oncology referral, if needed, is usually made after WE.

SLNB remains the standard for lymph node staging. It is controversial mainly in its use for very thin or very thick lesions. Randomized controlled trials, including the Multicenter Selective Lymphadenectomy Trial,²⁴ have shown no difference in melanoma-­specific survival for patients with intermediate-thickness melanomas who had undergone SLNB.²⁴However, a subgroup analysis did find a significant increase in melanoma survival among patients with positive early SLNB results and immediate lymphadenectomy compared with patients who were observed and subsequently underwent lymphadenectomy only as metastases developed.²⁴

Many professional organizations consider SLNB to be the most significant prognostic indicator of disease recurrence. With a negative SLNB result, the risk of regional node recurrence is 5% or lower.^18,25 In addition, sentinel lymph node status is a critical determinant for systemic adjuvant therapy consideration and clinical trial eligibility. For patients who have primary cutaneous melanoma without clinical lymphadenopathy, an online tool is available for patients to use with their physician in predicting the likelihood of SLNB positivity.²⁶

Recommendations for SLNB, supported by multidisciplinary consensus:¹⁸

• Do not pursue SLNB for melanoma in situ or most cutaneous melanomas < 0.8 mm without ulceration (T1a). (See TABLE 1²⁷)
• Discuss SLNB with patients who have T1a melanoma and additional adverse features: young age, high mitotic rate, lymphovascular invasion, and nevus depth close to 0.8 mm with positive deep biopsy margins.
• Discuss SLNB with patients who have T1b disease (< 0.8 mm with ulceration, or 0.8-1 mm), although rates of SLNB positivity are low.
• Offer SLNB to patients with T2a and higher disease (> 1 mm).¹⁸

Continue to: Patients who have...

Patients who have clinical Stage I or II disease (TABLE 1²⁷) and a negative review of systems and lymph node exam do not require baseline laboratory or radiology tests.^18,28-31 Ultrasonography of the lymph node basin is recommended for any Stage I or II patient with an equivocal lymph node exam.^27,32 Stage III disease warrants computed tomography of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis, and possibly magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the brain. For Stage IV, brain MRI is recommended in all patients. Patients with higher risk disease (IIB - IV) will need consultation with Medical Oncology. The surgery and oncology team will make decisions regarding SLNB, genetic testing, and chemotherapy.

Melanoma in women: Considerations to keep in mind

Hormonal influences of pregnancy, lactation, contraception, and menopause introduce special considerations regarding melanoma, which is the most common cancer occurring during pregnancy, accounting for 31% of new malignancies.³³ Risk of melanoma lessens, however, for women who first give birth at a younger age or who have had > 5 live births.^18,34,35 There is no evidence that nevi darken during pregnancy, although nevi on the breast and abdomen may seem to enlarge due to skin stretching.¹⁸ All changing nevi in pregnancy warrant an examination, preferably with dermoscopy, and patients should be offered biopsy if there are any nevus characteristics associated with melanoma.¹⁸

One benefit of the family physician performing the initial biopsy is that a confirmed melanoma diagnosis will almost certainly get an expedited dermatology appointment.

The effect of pregnancy on an existing melanoma is not fully understood, but evidence from controlled studies shows no negative effect. Recent working group guidelines advise WE with local anesthesia without delay in pregnant patients.¹⁸ Definitive treatment after melanoma diagnosis should take a multidisciplinary approach involving obstetric care coordinated with Dermatology, Surgery, and Medical Oncology.¹⁸

Most recommendations on the timing of pregnancy following a melanoma diagnosis have limited evidence. One meta-­analysis concluded that pregnancy occurring after successful treatment of melanoma did not change a woman’s prognosis.³⁶ Current guidelines do not recommend delaying future pregnancy if a woman had an early-stage melanoma. For melanomas deemed higher risk, a woman could consider a 2- to 3-year delay in the next planned pregnancy, owing to current data on recurrence rates.¹⁸

A systematic review of women who used hormonal contraception or postmenopausal hormone replacement therapy (HRT) showed no associated increased risk of melanoma.³⁵ An additional randomized trial showed no effect of HRT on melanoma risk.³⁷

Continue to: Systemic melanoma treatment and common adverse effects

Multiple systemic therapies have been approved for the treatment of advanced or unresectable cutaneous melanomas. While these treatments are managed primarily by Oncology in concert with Dermatology, an awareness of the medications’ common dermatologic toxicities is important for the primary care provider. The 2 broad categories of FDA-approved systemic medications for advanced melanoma are mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors, each having its own set of adverse cutaneous effects.

MAPK pathway–targeting drugs include the B-Raf proto-oncogene serine/threonine-kinase inhibitors (BRAFIs) vemurafenib and dabrafenib, and the MAPK inhibitors (MEKIs) trametinib and cobimetinib. The most common adverse skin effects in MAPK pathway–targeting drugs are severe ultraviolet photosensitivity, cutaneous epidermal neoplasms (particularly squamous cell carcinoma, keratoacanthoma-type), thick actinic keratosis, wart-like keratosis, painful palmoplantar keratosis, and dry skin.³⁸ These effects are most commonly seen with BRAFI monotherapy and can be abated with the addition of a MEKI. MEKI therapy can cause acneiform eruptions and paronychia.³⁹ Additional adverse effects include diarrhea, pyrexia, arthralgias, and fatigue for BRAFIs and diarrhea, fatigue, and peripheral edema for MEKIs.⁴⁰

Immune checkpoint inhibitors include anti-CTLA-4 (ipilimumab), anti-PD-1 (pembrolizumab and nivolumab), and anti-PDL-1 (atezolizumab). Adverse skin effects include morbilliform rash with or without an associated itch, itch with or without an associated rash, vitiligo, and lichenoid skin rashes. PD-1 and PDL-1 inhibitors have been associated with flares or unmasking of atopic dermatitis, psoriasis, sarcoidosis, and autoimmune bullous disease.¹⁸ Diarrhea, colitis, hepatitis, elevated liver enzymes, hypophysitis, and thyroiditis are some of the more common noncutaneous adverse effects reported with CTLA-4 inhibitors, while fatigue, diarrhea, nausea, pneumonitis, and thyroid disease are seen with anti-PD-1/PDL-1 therapy.³

A look at the prognosis

For patients diagnosed with primary cutaneous melanoma between 2011 and 2017, the 5-year survival rate for localized disease (Stages I-II) was 99%.¹ For regional (Stage III) and distant (Stage IV) disease, the 5-year survival rates were 68% and 30%, respectively.¹ With the advent of adjuvant systemic therapy, 5-year overall survival rates for metastatic melanoma have markedly improved from < 10% to up to 40% to 50%.⁴¹ The 3-year survival rate for patients with high tumor burden, brain metastasis, and elevated lactate dehydrogenase remains at < 10%.⁴² Relative survival decreases with increased age, although survival is higher in women than in men.⁴³ Risk of melanoma recurrence after surgical excision is high in patients with stage IIB, IIC, III and IV (resectable) disease. The most important risk factor for recurrence is primary tumor thickness.⁴⁴ The most common site of first recurrence in stage I-II disease is regional lymph node metastasis (42.8%), closely followed by distant metastasis (37.6%).⁴⁴

Long-term follow-up and surveillance

Recommendations for long-term care of patients with melanoma have evolved with advances in treatment, prognostication, and imaging. Caring for these patients requires a multidisciplinary approach wherein the family physician provides frontline care and team coordination. Since most recurrences are discovered by the patient or the patient’s family, patient education and self-examination are the cost-effective foundation for recurrence screening. In a trial of patients and partners, a 30-minute structured session on skin examination followed by physician reminders every 4 months increased the detection of melanoma recurrence without significant increases in patient visits.⁴⁵

Continue to: Patient education should include sun safety...

Patient education should include sun safety (wearing sun-protective clothing, using broad-spectrum sunscreen, and avoiding sun exposure during peak times of the day). The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) says the level of evidence is insufficient to support routine skin cancer screening in adults.⁴⁶ However, the USPSTF recommends discussing efforts to minimize UV radiation exposure to prevent skin cancer in fair-skinned individuals 10 to 24 years of age.

Current National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines have outlined the follow-up frequency for all melanoma patients. TABLE 2³² outlines those recommendations in addition to self-examination and patient education.

Melanoma epidemic or overdiagnosis?

Over the past 2 decades, a marked rise in the incidence of melanoma has been reported in developed countries worldwide, although melanoma mortality rates have not increased as rapidly, with melanoma-specific survival stable in most groups.^47-50 Due to conflicting evidence, significant disagreement exists as to whether this is an actual epidemic caused by a true rise in disease burden or is merely an artifact stemming from overdiagnosis.⁴⁷

Evidence supporting a true melanoma epidemic includes population-based studies demonstrating greater UV radiation–induced carcinogenesis (from the sun and tanning bed use), a larger aging population, and increased incidence regardless of socioeconomic status.⁴⁷ Those challenging the validity of an epidemic instead attribute the rising incidence to early-detection public awareness campaigns, expanded screenings, improved diagnostic modalities, and increased biopsies. They also credit lower pathologic thresholds that help identify thinner tumors with little to no metastatic potential.⁴⁸ Additionally, multiple studies report an increased incidence in melanomas of all histologic subtypes and thicknesses, not just thinner, more curable tumors.^49,51,52 Although increased screening and biopsies are effective, they alone cannot account for the sharp rise in melanoma cases.⁴⁷ This “melanoma paradox” of increasing incidence without a parallel increase in mortality remains unsettled.⁴⁷

CASE

Your patient had Stage IIA disease and a WE was performed with 1-cm margins. Ultrasound of the axilla identified an enlarged node, which was removed and found not to be diseased. He has now returned to have you look at another lesion identified by his spouse. His review of symptoms is negative. His initial melanoma was removed 2 years earlier, and his last dermatology skin exam was 5 months prior. You look at the lesion using a dermatoscope and do not note any worrisome features. You recommend that the patient photograph the area for reexamination and follow-up with his dermatologist next month for a 6-month follow-up.

CORRESPONDENCE
Jessica Servey, MD, 4301 Jones Bridge Road, Bethesda, MD 20814; [email protected]

CASE

A 48-year-old man comes to your clinic with a dark nevus on his right upper arm that appeared 2 months earlier. He says that the lesion has continued to grow and has bled (he thought because he initially picked at it). On exam, there is a 7-mm brown papule with 2 black dots and slightly asymmetric borders.

How would you proceed with this patient?

Melanoma is the fifth leading cause of new cancer cases annually, with > 96,000 new cases in 2019.¹ Overall, melanoma is more common in men and in Whites, with 48% diagnosed in people ages 55 to 74.¹ The past 2 decades have seen numerous developments in the diagnosis, treatment, and surveillance of melanoma. This article covers recommendations, controversies, and issues that require future study. It does not cover uveal or mucosal melanoma.

Evaluating a patient with a new or changing nevus

Known risk factors for melanoma include a changing nevus, indoor tanning, older age, many melanocytic nevi, history of a dysplastic nevus or of blistering sunburns during teen years, red or blonde hair, large congenital nevus, Fitzpatrick skin type I or II, high socioeconomic status, personal or family history of melanoma, and intermittent high-intensity sun exposure.^2-3 Presence of 1 or more of these risk factors should lower the threshold for biopsy.

Worrisome physical exam features (FIGURE) are nevus asymmetry, irregular borders, variegated color, and a diameter > 6 mm (the size of a pencil eraser). Inquire as to whether the nevus’ appearance has evolved and if it has bled without trauma. In a patient with multiple nevi, 1 nevus that looks different than the rest (the so-called “ugly duckling”) is concerning. Accuracy of diagnosis is enhanced with dermoscopy. A Cochrane review showed that skilled use of dermoscopy, in addition to inspection with the naked eye, considerably increases the sensitivity and specificity of diagnosing melanoma.⁴ Yet a 2017 study of 705 US primary care practitioners showed that only 8.3% of them used dermoscopy to evaluate pigmented lesions.⁵

Several published algorithms and checklists can aid clinicians in identifying lesions suggestive of melanoma—eg, ABCDE, CASH, Menzies method, “chaos and clues,” and 2-step and 3- and 7-point checklists.^6-10 A simple 3-step algorithm, the TADA (triage amalgamated dermoscopic algorithm) method is available to novice dermoscopy users.¹¹ Experts in pigmented lesions prefer to use pattern analysis, which requires simultaneously assessing multiple lesion patterns that vary according to body site.^12,13

Dermoscopic features suggesting melanoma are atypical pigment networks, pseudopods, radial streaking, irregular dots or globules, blue-whitish veil, and granularity or peppering.¹⁴ Appropriate and effective use of dermoscopy requires training.^15,16 Available methods for learning dermoscopy include online and in-person courses, mentoring by experienced dermoscopists, books and articles, and free apps and online resources.¹⁷

Continue to: Perform a skin biopsy, but do this first

Skin biopsy is the definitive way to diagnose melanoma. Prior to biopsy, take photographs to document the exact location of the lesion and to ensure that the correct area is removed in wide excision (WE). A complete biopsy should include the full depth and breadth of the lesion to ensure there are clinically negative margins. This can be achieved with an elliptical excision (for larger lesions), punch excision (for small lesions), or saucerization (deep shave with 1- to 2-mm peripheral margins, used for intermediate-size lesions).¹⁸ Saucerization is distinctly different from a superficial shave biopsy, which is not recommended for lesions with features of melanoma.¹⁹

A decision to perform a biopsy on a part of the lesion (partial biopsy) depends on the size of the lesion and its anatomic location, and is best made in agreement with the patient. If the lesion cannot be removed in its entirety and a partial biopsy is necessary, take the sample from the most atypical appearing area and communicate this decision to the pathologist on the biopsy order. There is no evidence that performing a partial biopsy increases the risk of spreading melanoma.^20,21

If you are untrained or uncomfortable performing the biopsy, contact a dermatologist immediately. In many communities, such referrals are subject to long delays, which further supports the advisability of family physicians doing their own biopsies after photographing the suspicious lesion. Many resources are available to help family physicians learn to do biopsies proficiently (www.mdedge.com/familymedicine/article/164358/oncology/biopsies-skin-cancer-detection-dispelling-myths).¹⁹

What to communicate to the pathologist. At a minimum, the biopsy request form should include patient age, sex, biopsy type (punch, excisional, or scoop shave), intention (complete or partial sample), exact site of the biopsy with laterality, and clinical details. These details should include the lesion size and clinical description, the suspected diagnosis, and clinical information, such as whether there is a history of bleeding or changing color, size, or symmetry. In standard biopsy specimens, the pathologist is only examining a portion of the lesion. Communicating clearly to the pathologist may lead to a request for deeper or additional sections or special stains.

Complete biopsy of a concerning pigmented lesion is the standard. If, however, a partial biopsy is necessary, sample the most atypical area.

If the biopsy results do not match the clinical impression, a phone call to the pathologist is warranted. In addition, evaluation by a dermatopathologist may be merited as pathologic diagnosis of melanoma can be quite challenging. Newer molecular tests, such as fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and comparative genomic hybridization (CGH), can assist in the histologic evaluation of complex pigmented lesions.

Continue to: CASE

CASE

You perform an elliptical excisional biopsy on your patient. The biopsy report comes back as a nodular malignant melanoma, Breslow depth 2.5 mm without ulceration, and no evidence of lymphovascular invasion or microsatellitosis. The report states that the biopsy margins appear clear of tumor involvement.

Further evaluation when the biopsy result is positive

Key steps in initial patient care include relaying pathology results to the patient, conducting (as needed) a more extensive evaluation, and obtaining appropriate consultation.

Clearly explain the diagnosis and convey an accurate reading of the pathology report. The vital pieces of information in the biopsy report are the Breslow depth and presence of ulceration, as evidence shows these 2 factors to be important independent predictors of outcome.^22,23 Also important are the presence of microsatellitosis (essential for staging purposes), pathologic stage, and the status of the peripheral and deep biopsy margins. Review Breslow depth with the patient as this largely dictates treatment options and prognosis.

Evaluate for possible metastatic disease. Obtain a complete history from every patient with cutaneous melanoma, looking for any positive review of systems as a harbinger of metastatic disease. A full-body skin and lymph node exam is vital, given that melanoma can arise anywhere including on the scalp, in the gluteal cleft, and beneath nails. If the lymph node exam is worrisome, conduct an ultrasound exam, even while referring to specialty care. Treating a patient with melanoma requires a multidisciplinary approach that may include dermatologists, surgeons, and oncologists based on the stage of disease. A challenge for family physicians is knowing which consultation to prioritize and how to counsel the patient to schedule these for the most cost-effective and timely evaluation.

Expedite a dermatology consultation. If the melanoma is deep or appears advanced based on size or palpable lymph nodes, contact the dermatologist immediately by phone to set up a rapid referral. Delays in the definitive management of thick melanomas can negatively affect outcome. Paper, facsimile, or electronic referrals can get lost in the system and are not reliable methods for referring patients for a melanoma consultation. One benefit of the family physician performing the initial biopsy is that a confirmed melanoma diagnosis will almost certainly get an expedited dermatology appointment.

Continue to: Wide excision and sentinel node biopsy

Wide excision and sentinel node biopsy

Wide excision of a primary melanoma is standard practice, with evidence favoring the following surgical margins: 0.5 to 1 cm for melanoma in situ, 1 cm for tumors up to 1 mm in thickness, 1 to 2 cm for tumors > 1 to 2 mm thick, and 2 cm for tumors > 2 mm thick.¹⁸ WE is often performed by dermatologists for nonulcerated tumors < 0.8 mm thick (T1a) without adverse features. If trained in cutaneous surgery, you can also choose to excise these thin melanomas in your office. Otherwise refer all patients with biopsy-proven melanoma to dermatologists to perform an adequate WE.

Refer patients who have tumors ≥ 0.8 mm thick to the appropriate surgical specialty (surgical oncology, if available) for consultation on sentinel lymph node biopsy. SLNB, when indicated, should be performed prior to WE of the primary tumor, and whenever possible in the same surgical setting, to maximize lymphatic drainage mapping techniques.¹⁸ Medical oncology referral, if needed, is usually made after WE.

SLNB remains the standard for lymph node staging. It is controversial mainly in its use for very thin or very thick lesions. Randomized controlled trials, including the Multicenter Selective Lymphadenectomy Trial,²⁴ have shown no difference in melanoma-­specific survival for patients with intermediate-thickness melanomas who had undergone SLNB.²⁴However, a subgroup analysis did find a significant increase in melanoma survival among patients with positive early SLNB results and immediate lymphadenectomy compared with patients who were observed and subsequently underwent lymphadenectomy only as metastases developed.²⁴

Many professional organizations consider SLNB to be the most significant prognostic indicator of disease recurrence. With a negative SLNB result, the risk of regional node recurrence is 5% or lower.^18,25 In addition, sentinel lymph node status is a critical determinant for systemic adjuvant therapy consideration and clinical trial eligibility. For patients who have primary cutaneous melanoma without clinical lymphadenopathy, an online tool is available for patients to use with their physician in predicting the likelihood of SLNB positivity.²⁶

Recommendations for SLNB, supported by multidisciplinary consensus:¹⁸

• Do not pursue SLNB for melanoma in situ or most cutaneous melanomas < 0.8 mm without ulceration (T1a). (See TABLE 1²⁷)
• Discuss SLNB with patients who have T1a melanoma and additional adverse features: young age, high mitotic rate, lymphovascular invasion, and nevus depth close to 0.8 mm with positive deep biopsy margins.
• Discuss SLNB with patients who have T1b disease (< 0.8 mm with ulceration, or 0.8-1 mm), although rates of SLNB positivity are low.
• Offer SLNB to patients with T2a and higher disease (> 1 mm).¹⁸

Continue to: Patients who have...

Patients who have clinical Stage I or II disease (TABLE 1²⁷) and a negative review of systems and lymph node exam do not require baseline laboratory or radiology tests.^18,28-31 Ultrasonography of the lymph node basin is recommended for any Stage I or II patient with an equivocal lymph node exam.^27,32 Stage III disease warrants computed tomography of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis, and possibly magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the brain. For Stage IV, brain MRI is recommended in all patients. Patients with higher risk disease (IIB - IV) will need consultation with Medical Oncology. The surgery and oncology team will make decisions regarding SLNB, genetic testing, and chemotherapy.

Melanoma in women: Considerations to keep in mind

Hormonal influences of pregnancy, lactation, contraception, and menopause introduce special considerations regarding melanoma, which is the most common cancer occurring during pregnancy, accounting for 31% of new malignancies.³³ Risk of melanoma lessens, however, for women who first give birth at a younger age or who have had > 5 live births.^18,34,35 There is no evidence that nevi darken during pregnancy, although nevi on the breast and abdomen may seem to enlarge due to skin stretching.¹⁸ All changing nevi in pregnancy warrant an examination, preferably with dermoscopy, and patients should be offered biopsy if there are any nevus characteristics associated with melanoma.¹⁸

One benefit of the family physician performing the initial biopsy is that a confirmed melanoma diagnosis will almost certainly get an expedited dermatology appointment.

The effect of pregnancy on an existing melanoma is not fully understood, but evidence from controlled studies shows no negative effect. Recent working group guidelines advise WE with local anesthesia without delay in pregnant patients.¹⁸ Definitive treatment after melanoma diagnosis should take a multidisciplinary approach involving obstetric care coordinated with Dermatology, Surgery, and Medical Oncology.¹⁸

Most recommendations on the timing of pregnancy following a melanoma diagnosis have limited evidence. One meta-­analysis concluded that pregnancy occurring after successful treatment of melanoma did not change a woman’s prognosis.³⁶ Current guidelines do not recommend delaying future pregnancy if a woman had an early-stage melanoma. For melanomas deemed higher risk, a woman could consider a 2- to 3-year delay in the next planned pregnancy, owing to current data on recurrence rates.¹⁸

A systematic review of women who used hormonal contraception or postmenopausal hormone replacement therapy (HRT) showed no associated increased risk of melanoma.³⁵ An additional randomized trial showed no effect of HRT on melanoma risk.³⁷

Continue to: Systemic melanoma treatment and common adverse effects

Multiple systemic therapies have been approved for the treatment of advanced or unresectable cutaneous melanomas. While these treatments are managed primarily by Oncology in concert with Dermatology, an awareness of the medications’ common dermatologic toxicities is important for the primary care provider. The 2 broad categories of FDA-approved systemic medications for advanced melanoma are mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors, each having its own set of adverse cutaneous effects.

MAPK pathway–targeting drugs include the B-Raf proto-oncogene serine/threonine-kinase inhibitors (BRAFIs) vemurafenib and dabrafenib, and the MAPK inhibitors (MEKIs) trametinib and cobimetinib. The most common adverse skin effects in MAPK pathway–targeting drugs are severe ultraviolet photosensitivity, cutaneous epidermal neoplasms (particularly squamous cell carcinoma, keratoacanthoma-type), thick actinic keratosis, wart-like keratosis, painful palmoplantar keratosis, and dry skin.³⁸ These effects are most commonly seen with BRAFI monotherapy and can be abated with the addition of a MEKI. MEKI therapy can cause acneiform eruptions and paronychia.³⁹ Additional adverse effects include diarrhea, pyrexia, arthralgias, and fatigue for BRAFIs and diarrhea, fatigue, and peripheral edema for MEKIs.⁴⁰

Immune checkpoint inhibitors include anti-CTLA-4 (ipilimumab), anti-PD-1 (pembrolizumab and nivolumab), and anti-PDL-1 (atezolizumab). Adverse skin effects include morbilliform rash with or without an associated itch, itch with or without an associated rash, vitiligo, and lichenoid skin rashes. PD-1 and PDL-1 inhibitors have been associated with flares or unmasking of atopic dermatitis, psoriasis, sarcoidosis, and autoimmune bullous disease.¹⁸ Diarrhea, colitis, hepatitis, elevated liver enzymes, hypophysitis, and thyroiditis are some of the more common noncutaneous adverse effects reported with CTLA-4 inhibitors, while fatigue, diarrhea, nausea, pneumonitis, and thyroid disease are seen with anti-PD-1/PDL-1 therapy.³

A look at the prognosis

For patients diagnosed with primary cutaneous melanoma between 2011 and 2017, the 5-year survival rate for localized disease (Stages I-II) was 99%.¹ For regional (Stage III) and distant (Stage IV) disease, the 5-year survival rates were 68% and 30%, respectively.¹ With the advent of adjuvant systemic therapy, 5-year overall survival rates for metastatic melanoma have markedly improved from < 10% to up to 40% to 50%.⁴¹ The 3-year survival rate for patients with high tumor burden, brain metastasis, and elevated lactate dehydrogenase remains at < 10%.⁴² Relative survival decreases with increased age, although survival is higher in women than in men.⁴³ Risk of melanoma recurrence after surgical excision is high in patients with stage IIB, IIC, III and IV (resectable) disease. The most important risk factor for recurrence is primary tumor thickness.⁴⁴ The most common site of first recurrence in stage I-II disease is regional lymph node metastasis (42.8%), closely followed by distant metastasis (37.6%).⁴⁴

Long-term follow-up and surveillance

Recommendations for long-term care of patients with melanoma have evolved with advances in treatment, prognostication, and imaging. Caring for these patients requires a multidisciplinary approach wherein the family physician provides frontline care and team coordination. Since most recurrences are discovered by the patient or the patient’s family, patient education and self-examination are the cost-effective foundation for recurrence screening. In a trial of patients and partners, a 30-minute structured session on skin examination followed by physician reminders every 4 months increased the detection of melanoma recurrence without significant increases in patient visits.⁴⁵

Continue to: Patient education should include sun safety...

Patient education should include sun safety (wearing sun-protective clothing, using broad-spectrum sunscreen, and avoiding sun exposure during peak times of the day). The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) says the level of evidence is insufficient to support routine skin cancer screening in adults.⁴⁶ However, the USPSTF recommends discussing efforts to minimize UV radiation exposure to prevent skin cancer in fair-skinned individuals 10 to 24 years of age.

Current National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines have outlined the follow-up frequency for all melanoma patients. TABLE 2³² outlines those recommendations in addition to self-examination and patient education.

Melanoma epidemic or overdiagnosis?

Over the past 2 decades, a marked rise in the incidence of melanoma has been reported in developed countries worldwide, although melanoma mortality rates have not increased as rapidly, with melanoma-specific survival stable in most groups.^47-50 Due to conflicting evidence, significant disagreement exists as to whether this is an actual epidemic caused by a true rise in disease burden or is merely an artifact stemming from overdiagnosis.⁴⁷

Evidence supporting a true melanoma epidemic includes population-based studies demonstrating greater UV radiation–induced carcinogenesis (from the sun and tanning bed use), a larger aging population, and increased incidence regardless of socioeconomic status.⁴⁷ Those challenging the validity of an epidemic instead attribute the rising incidence to early-detection public awareness campaigns, expanded screenings, improved diagnostic modalities, and increased biopsies. They also credit lower pathologic thresholds that help identify thinner tumors with little to no metastatic potential.⁴⁸ Additionally, multiple studies report an increased incidence in melanomas of all histologic subtypes and thicknesses, not just thinner, more curable tumors.^49,51,52 Although increased screening and biopsies are effective, they alone cannot account for the sharp rise in melanoma cases.⁴⁷ This “melanoma paradox” of increasing incidence without a parallel increase in mortality remains unsettled.⁴⁷

CASE

Your patient had Stage IIA disease and a WE was performed with 1-cm margins. Ultrasound of the axilla identified an enlarged node, which was removed and found not to be diseased. He has now returned to have you look at another lesion identified by his spouse. His review of symptoms is negative. His initial melanoma was removed 2 years earlier, and his last dermatology skin exam was 5 months prior. You look at the lesion using a dermatoscope and do not note any worrisome features. You recommend that the patient photograph the area for reexamination and follow-up with his dermatologist next month for a 6-month follow-up.

CORRESPONDENCE
Jessica Servey, MD, 4301 Jones Bridge Road, Bethesda, MD 20814; [email protected]

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 64-year-old overweight White man with a history of hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and HF with an ejection fraction (EF) of 40% presents for primary care follow-up after a recent inpatient admission for worsened HF symptoms. At baseline, he is comfortable at rest but becomes dyspneic upon walking to another room within his home. He is already taking a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, a high-intensity statin, a beta-blocker, and an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor. What other medication should be considered to minimize his cardiovascular (CV)risk?

An estimated 1% to 2% of the world’s adult population has HF.² Although the exact prevalence is difficult to quantify due to variations in definitions and diagnostic methods, the American Heart Association (AHA) estimated that 6.2 million Americans had HF between 2013 and 2016.³ Prevalence increases with age, with an annual incidence of approximately 35 per 1000 by age 85.⁴ Due to the significant morbidity and mortality associated with HF, advancements in treatment are needed.

SGLT2 inhibitors work within the proximal tubule of the kidneys, resulting in increased glucose and sodium excretion with secondary osmotic diuresis and therefore a modest reduction in serum glucose.^1,2,5,6 SGLT2 inhibitors are classically prescribed for hyperglycemia treatment in type 2 diabetes. However, preliminary data suggest that this class of medication also positively impacts cardiac function. The diuresis and natriuresis effects of SGLT2 inhibitors appear to optimize cardiac output and subsequent oxygen consumption through a reduction of afterload and preload.^1,2,5,6 Further, SGLT2 inhibitors may decrease inflammatory pathways and lead to a secondary reduction of cardiac remodeling via a reduction and modulation of inflammatory pathways. This reduction and modulation may also be associated with a reduction in development, and possibly a reversal, of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, cardiac fibrosis, and atherosclerosis.^5,6 Some of the previously reported adverse effects of SGLT2 inhibitors include urinary tract infection, acute kidney injury, lower extremity amputation, bone fracture, and diabetic ketoacidosis.²

In several studies of patients with type 2 diabetes, SGLT2 inhibitors have shown benefit in reducing CV disease–related death and hospitalization for HF.^1,2,5,6 A recent expert consensus from the American College of Cardiology (ACC) states that SGLT2 therapy should be considered for any patient with type 2 diabetes who also has established atherosclerotic CV disease, HF (a clinical syndrome as defined in ACC/AHA guidelines), or diabetic kidney disease, or who is at a high risk for atherosclerotic CV disease (ie, has signs of end-organ damage, such as left ventricular hypertrophy or retinopathy, or multiple risk factors such as advanced age, smoking, hypertension, and family history).^7,8

Dapagliflozin demonstrated decreased HF exacerbations and CV deaths, improved patient-reported HF symptoms, and lower allcause mortality in patients both with and without diabetes.

Additionally, a 2019 randomized controlled trial (RCT) by Nassif et al showed that, compared to placebo, dapagliflozin significantly improved both patient-reported HF symptoms and cardiac natriuretic peptide levels over 12 weeks in patients with and without diabetes.⁹ In September 2020, ­UpToDate added SGLT2 inhibitors as an option for patients with continued symptoms of HF despite use of appropriate primary agents and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, whether or not they have type 2 diabetes; this update was based on 2 studies, 1 of which is reviewed here.¹⁰

STUDY SUMMARY

Dapagliflozin demonstrated better CV outcomes than placebo

The Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Heart Failure (DAPA-HF) study is an RCT that compared dapagliflozin to placebo among 4744 patients ages 18 years and older who had HF with an EF ≤ 40% and NYHA class II, III, or IV symptoms. The study included patients with (41.8%) and without diabetes. Most patients were male (76.2%-77%), White (70%), and European (44.7%-46.1%).

Patients were randomized to receive either dapagliflozin 10 mg/d or a matching placebo in addition to standard HF therapy (including an ACE inhibitor, angiotensin receptor blocker, or sacubitril-valsartan plus a beta-blocker unless contraindicated; mineralocorticoid antagonist use was encouraged). Follow-up occurred at 14 days, 60 days, 4 months, and then every 4 months, for an average of about 18 months. Patients with diabetes continued to use their glucose-lowering therapies, with dose adjustments, as needed.

Continue to: The primary outcome...

The primary outcome was a composite of worsening HF (hospitalization or urgent visit requiring intravenous HF therapy) or death from a CV cause. Secondary outcomes included a composite of hospitalization for HF or CV death; total number of hospitalizations for HF (including repeat admissions) and CV death; a change in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire symptom score; a composite of worsening renal function including a sustained (≥ 28 d) decline in the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of ≥ 50%, end-stage renal disease (defined as sustained eGFR of < 15 mL/min/1.73 m², sustained dialysis, or renal transplantation), or renal death; and death from any cause.

The primary outcome of worsening HF or death from CV causes occurred in 386 of 2373 patients (16.3%) in the dapagliflozin group and in 502 of 2371 patients (21.2%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.74; 95% CI, 0.65-0.85; P < .001). The composite score of hospitalizations for HF plus death from a CV cause was lower in the dapagliflozin group compared to the placebo group (HR = 0.75; 95% CI, 0.65-0.85; P < .001).

Integration of SGLT2 inhibitors into a patient’s medication regimen may require dose adjustments of other medications.

A total of 276 patients (11.6%) in the dapagliflozin group and 329 patients (13.9%) in the placebo group died from any cause (HR = 0.83; 95% CI, 0.71-0.97). More patients in the dapagliflozin group than in the placebo group had an improvement in symptom score (58.3% vs 50.9%; odds ratio = 1.15; 95% CI, 1.08-1.23; P < .001). Renal composite outcome did not differ between the 2 treatment groups. Potential adverse effects included volume depletion, renal adverse event, and major hypoglycemia, which occurred at the same rate in the treatment and placebo groups. There was no difference in outcomes or adverse effects between patients with and without diabetes.¹

WHAT'S NEW

Evidence supports dapagliflozin use in a new patient population

The DAPA-HF study compared dapagliflozin to placebo in HF patients both with and without diabetes and demonstrated decreased HF exacerbations and CV deaths, improved ­patient-reported HF symptoms, and lower all-cause mortality in the treatment group. This study supports use of dapagliflozin in a new patient population—those with HF—rather than solely in patients with diabetes, as the drug was originally marketed.

CAVEATS

Specific study population may limit generalizability

The DAPA-HF study included mostly male, White, European patients followed for an average of 18.2 months as part of initial Phase III studies funded by AstraZeneca (the pharmaceutical company that developed dapagliflozin). Given the potential conflict due to funding, all statistical results were verified by an independent academic group, and analyses were completed with an intention-to-treat model. The outlined benefits described here were only studied in a population of patients with reduced EF (≤ 40%), so the impact remains unclear for patients with preserved EF. Safety and benefits beyond 24 months were not studied in this RCT; therefore long-term data are still unknown.

Continue to: CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Adding an SGLT2 inhibitor may be cost prohibitive for some patients

An SGLT2 inhibitor costs, on average, $500 to $600 for a 30-day supply, which may be prohibitive for some patients.¹¹ Integration of SGLT2 inhibitors into a patient’s medication regimen may require dose adjustments of other medications, particularly glucose-lowering therapies, and the optimal prioritization of medications is not yet known.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

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

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 64-year-old overweight White man with a history of hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and HF with an ejection fraction (EF) of 40% presents for primary care follow-up after a recent inpatient admission for worsened HF symptoms. At baseline, he is comfortable at rest but becomes dyspneic upon walking to another room within his home. He is already taking a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, a high-intensity statin, a beta-blocker, and an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor. What other medication should be considered to minimize his cardiovascular (CV)risk?

An estimated 1% to 2% of the world’s adult population has HF.² Although the exact prevalence is difficult to quantify due to variations in definitions and diagnostic methods, the American Heart Association (AHA) estimated that 6.2 million Americans had HF between 2013 and 2016.³ Prevalence increases with age, with an annual incidence of approximately 35 per 1000 by age 85.⁴ Due to the significant morbidity and mortality associated with HF, advancements in treatment are needed.

SGLT2 inhibitors work within the proximal tubule of the kidneys, resulting in increased glucose and sodium excretion with secondary osmotic diuresis and therefore a modest reduction in serum glucose.^1,2,5,6 SGLT2 inhibitors are classically prescribed for hyperglycemia treatment in type 2 diabetes. However, preliminary data suggest that this class of medication also positively impacts cardiac function. The diuresis and natriuresis effects of SGLT2 inhibitors appear to optimize cardiac output and subsequent oxygen consumption through a reduction of afterload and preload.^1,2,5,6 Further, SGLT2 inhibitors may decrease inflammatory pathways and lead to a secondary reduction of cardiac remodeling via a reduction and modulation of inflammatory pathways. This reduction and modulation may also be associated with a reduction in development, and possibly a reversal, of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, cardiac fibrosis, and atherosclerosis.^5,6 Some of the previously reported adverse effects of SGLT2 inhibitors include urinary tract infection, acute kidney injury, lower extremity amputation, bone fracture, and diabetic ketoacidosis.²

In several studies of patients with type 2 diabetes, SGLT2 inhibitors have shown benefit in reducing CV disease–related death and hospitalization for HF.^1,2,5,6 A recent expert consensus from the American College of Cardiology (ACC) states that SGLT2 therapy should be considered for any patient with type 2 diabetes who also has established atherosclerotic CV disease, HF (a clinical syndrome as defined in ACC/AHA guidelines), or diabetic kidney disease, or who is at a high risk for atherosclerotic CV disease (ie, has signs of end-organ damage, such as left ventricular hypertrophy or retinopathy, or multiple risk factors such as advanced age, smoking, hypertension, and family history).^7,8

Dapagliflozin demonstrated decreased HF exacerbations and CV deaths, improved patient-reported HF symptoms, and lower allcause mortality in patients both with and without diabetes.

Additionally, a 2019 randomized controlled trial (RCT) by Nassif et al showed that, compared to placebo, dapagliflozin significantly improved both patient-reported HF symptoms and cardiac natriuretic peptide levels over 12 weeks in patients with and without diabetes.⁹ In September 2020, ­UpToDate added SGLT2 inhibitors as an option for patients with continued symptoms of HF despite use of appropriate primary agents and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, whether or not they have type 2 diabetes; this update was based on 2 studies, 1 of which is reviewed here.¹⁰

STUDY SUMMARY

Dapagliflozin demonstrated better CV outcomes than placebo

The Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Heart Failure (DAPA-HF) study is an RCT that compared dapagliflozin to placebo among 4744 patients ages 18 years and older who had HF with an EF ≤ 40% and NYHA class II, III, or IV symptoms. The study included patients with (41.8%) and without diabetes. Most patients were male (76.2%-77%), White (70%), and European (44.7%-46.1%).

Patients were randomized to receive either dapagliflozin 10 mg/d or a matching placebo in addition to standard HF therapy (including an ACE inhibitor, angiotensin receptor blocker, or sacubitril-valsartan plus a beta-blocker unless contraindicated; mineralocorticoid antagonist use was encouraged). Follow-up occurred at 14 days, 60 days, 4 months, and then every 4 months, for an average of about 18 months. Patients with diabetes continued to use their glucose-lowering therapies, with dose adjustments, as needed.

Continue to: The primary outcome...

The primary outcome was a composite of worsening HF (hospitalization or urgent visit requiring intravenous HF therapy) or death from a CV cause. Secondary outcomes included a composite of hospitalization for HF or CV death; total number of hospitalizations for HF (including repeat admissions) and CV death; a change in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire symptom score; a composite of worsening renal function including a sustained (≥ 28 d) decline in the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of ≥ 50%, end-stage renal disease (defined as sustained eGFR of < 15 mL/min/1.73 m², sustained dialysis, or renal transplantation), or renal death; and death from any cause.

The primary outcome of worsening HF or death from CV causes occurred in 386 of 2373 patients (16.3%) in the dapagliflozin group and in 502 of 2371 patients (21.2%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.74; 95% CI, 0.65-0.85; P < .001). The composite score of hospitalizations for HF plus death from a CV cause was lower in the dapagliflozin group compared to the placebo group (HR = 0.75; 95% CI, 0.65-0.85; P < .001).

Integration of SGLT2 inhibitors into a patient’s medication regimen may require dose adjustments of other medications.

A total of 276 patients (11.6%) in the dapagliflozin group and 329 patients (13.9%) in the placebo group died from any cause (HR = 0.83; 95% CI, 0.71-0.97). More patients in the dapagliflozin group than in the placebo group had an improvement in symptom score (58.3% vs 50.9%; odds ratio = 1.15; 95% CI, 1.08-1.23; P < .001). Renal composite outcome did not differ between the 2 treatment groups. Potential adverse effects included volume depletion, renal adverse event, and major hypoglycemia, which occurred at the same rate in the treatment and placebo groups. There was no difference in outcomes or adverse effects between patients with and without diabetes.¹

WHAT'S NEW

Evidence supports dapagliflozin use in a new patient population

The DAPA-HF study compared dapagliflozin to placebo in HF patients both with and without diabetes and demonstrated decreased HF exacerbations and CV deaths, improved ­patient-reported HF symptoms, and lower all-cause mortality in the treatment group. This study supports use of dapagliflozin in a new patient population—those with HF—rather than solely in patients with diabetes, as the drug was originally marketed.

CAVEATS

Specific study population may limit generalizability

The DAPA-HF study included mostly male, White, European patients followed for an average of 18.2 months as part of initial Phase III studies funded by AstraZeneca (the pharmaceutical company that developed dapagliflozin). Given the potential conflict due to funding, all statistical results were verified by an independent academic group, and analyses were completed with an intention-to-treat model. The outlined benefits described here were only studied in a population of patients with reduced EF (≤ 40%), so the impact remains unclear for patients with preserved EF. Safety and benefits beyond 24 months were not studied in this RCT; therefore long-term data are still unknown.

Continue to: CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Adding an SGLT2 inhibitor may be cost prohibitive for some patients

An SGLT2 inhibitor costs, on average, $500 to $600 for a 30-day supply, which may be prohibitive for some patients.¹¹ Integration of SGLT2 inhibitors into a patient’s medication regimen may require dose adjustments of other medications, particularly glucose-lowering therapies, and the optimal prioritization of medications is not yet known.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

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

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 64-year-old overweight White man with a history of hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and HF with an ejection fraction (EF) of 40% presents for primary care follow-up after a recent inpatient admission for worsened HF symptoms. At baseline, he is comfortable at rest but becomes dyspneic upon walking to another room within his home. He is already taking a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, a high-intensity statin, a beta-blocker, and an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor. What other medication should be considered to minimize his cardiovascular (CV)risk?

An estimated 1% to 2% of the world’s adult population has HF.² Although the exact prevalence is difficult to quantify due to variations in definitions and diagnostic methods, the American Heart Association (AHA) estimated that 6.2 million Americans had HF between 2013 and 2016.³ Prevalence increases with age, with an annual incidence of approximately 35 per 1000 by age 85.⁴ Due to the significant morbidity and mortality associated with HF, advancements in treatment are needed.

SGLT2 inhibitors work within the proximal tubule of the kidneys, resulting in increased glucose and sodium excretion with secondary osmotic diuresis and therefore a modest reduction in serum glucose.^1,2,5,6 SGLT2 inhibitors are classically prescribed for hyperglycemia treatment in type 2 diabetes. However, preliminary data suggest that this class of medication also positively impacts cardiac function. The diuresis and natriuresis effects of SGLT2 inhibitors appear to optimize cardiac output and subsequent oxygen consumption through a reduction of afterload and preload.^1,2,5,6 Further, SGLT2 inhibitors may decrease inflammatory pathways and lead to a secondary reduction of cardiac remodeling via a reduction and modulation of inflammatory pathways. This reduction and modulation may also be associated with a reduction in development, and possibly a reversal, of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, cardiac fibrosis, and atherosclerosis.^5,6 Some of the previously reported adverse effects of SGLT2 inhibitors include urinary tract infection, acute kidney injury, lower extremity amputation, bone fracture, and diabetic ketoacidosis.²

In several studies of patients with type 2 diabetes, SGLT2 inhibitors have shown benefit in reducing CV disease–related death and hospitalization for HF.^1,2,5,6 A recent expert consensus from the American College of Cardiology (ACC) states that SGLT2 therapy should be considered for any patient with type 2 diabetes who also has established atherosclerotic CV disease, HF (a clinical syndrome as defined in ACC/AHA guidelines), or diabetic kidney disease, or who is at a high risk for atherosclerotic CV disease (ie, has signs of end-organ damage, such as left ventricular hypertrophy or retinopathy, or multiple risk factors such as advanced age, smoking, hypertension, and family history).^7,8

Dapagliflozin demonstrated decreased HF exacerbations and CV deaths, improved patient-reported HF symptoms, and lower allcause mortality in patients both with and without diabetes.

Additionally, a 2019 randomized controlled trial (RCT) by Nassif et al showed that, compared to placebo, dapagliflozin significantly improved both patient-reported HF symptoms and cardiac natriuretic peptide levels over 12 weeks in patients with and without diabetes.⁹ In September 2020, ­UpToDate added SGLT2 inhibitors as an option for patients with continued symptoms of HF despite use of appropriate primary agents and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, whether or not they have type 2 diabetes; this update was based on 2 studies, 1 of which is reviewed here.¹⁰

STUDY SUMMARY

Dapagliflozin demonstrated better CV outcomes than placebo

The Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Heart Failure (DAPA-HF) study is an RCT that compared dapagliflozin to placebo among 4744 patients ages 18 years and older who had HF with an EF ≤ 40% and NYHA class II, III, or IV symptoms. The study included patients with (41.8%) and without diabetes. Most patients were male (76.2%-77%), White (70%), and European (44.7%-46.1%).

Patients were randomized to receive either dapagliflozin 10 mg/d or a matching placebo in addition to standard HF therapy (including an ACE inhibitor, angiotensin receptor blocker, or sacubitril-valsartan plus a beta-blocker unless contraindicated; mineralocorticoid antagonist use was encouraged). Follow-up occurred at 14 days, 60 days, 4 months, and then every 4 months, for an average of about 18 months. Patients with diabetes continued to use their glucose-lowering therapies, with dose adjustments, as needed.

Continue to: The primary outcome...

The primary outcome was a composite of worsening HF (hospitalization or urgent visit requiring intravenous HF therapy) or death from a CV cause. Secondary outcomes included a composite of hospitalization for HF or CV death; total number of hospitalizations for HF (including repeat admissions) and CV death; a change in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire symptom score; a composite of worsening renal function including a sustained (≥ 28 d) decline in the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of ≥ 50%, end-stage renal disease (defined as sustained eGFR of < 15 mL/min/1.73 m², sustained dialysis, or renal transplantation), or renal death; and death from any cause.

The primary outcome of worsening HF or death from CV causes occurred in 386 of 2373 patients (16.3%) in the dapagliflozin group and in 502 of 2371 patients (21.2%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.74; 95% CI, 0.65-0.85; P < .001). The composite score of hospitalizations for HF plus death from a CV cause was lower in the dapagliflozin group compared to the placebo group (HR = 0.75; 95% CI, 0.65-0.85; P < .001).

Integration of SGLT2 inhibitors into a patient’s medication regimen may require dose adjustments of other medications.

A total of 276 patients (11.6%) in the dapagliflozin group and 329 patients (13.9%) in the placebo group died from any cause (HR = 0.83; 95% CI, 0.71-0.97). More patients in the dapagliflozin group than in the placebo group had an improvement in symptom score (58.3% vs 50.9%; odds ratio = 1.15; 95% CI, 1.08-1.23; P < .001). Renal composite outcome did not differ between the 2 treatment groups. Potential adverse effects included volume depletion, renal adverse event, and major hypoglycemia, which occurred at the same rate in the treatment and placebo groups. There was no difference in outcomes or adverse effects between patients with and without diabetes.¹

WHAT'S NEW

Evidence supports dapagliflozin use in a new patient population

The DAPA-HF study compared dapagliflozin to placebo in HF patients both with and without diabetes and demonstrated decreased HF exacerbations and CV deaths, improved ­patient-reported HF symptoms, and lower all-cause mortality in the treatment group. This study supports use of dapagliflozin in a new patient population—those with HF—rather than solely in patients with diabetes, as the drug was originally marketed.

CAVEATS

Specific study population may limit generalizability

The DAPA-HF study included mostly male, White, European patients followed for an average of 18.2 months as part of initial Phase III studies funded by AstraZeneca (the pharmaceutical company that developed dapagliflozin). Given the potential conflict due to funding, all statistical results were verified by an independent academic group, and analyses were completed with an intention-to-treat model. The outlined benefits described here were only studied in a population of patients with reduced EF (≤ 40%), so the impact remains unclear for patients with preserved EF. Safety and benefits beyond 24 months were not studied in this RCT; therefore long-term data are still unknown.

Continue to: CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Adding an SGLT2 inhibitor may be cost prohibitive for some patients

An SGLT2 inhibitor costs, on average, $500 to $600 for a 30-day supply, which may be prohibitive for some patients.¹¹ Integration of SGLT2 inhibitors into a patient’s medication regimen may require dose adjustments of other medications, particularly glucose-lowering therapies, and the optimal prioritization of medications is not yet known.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

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

Some adults who have an intellectual or other developmental disability (IDD) require extensive subspecialty care; many, however, depend primarily on their family physician for the bulk of their health care. With that reliance in mind, this article provides (1) an overview of important services that family physicians can provide for their adult patients with IDD and (2) pragmatic clinical suggestions for tailoring that care. Note: We highlight only some high-impact areas of clinical focus; refer to the 2018 Canadian consensus guidelines for a comprehensive approach to optimizing primary care for this population.¹

CASE

Laura S, a 24-year-old woman with Down syndrome, is visiting your clinic with her mother to establish care. Ms. S has several medical comorbidities, including type 2 diabetes, hyperlipidemia, repaired congenital heart disease, schizoaffective disorder, and hypothyroidism. She is under the care of multiple specialists, including a cardiologist and an endocrinologist. Her medications include the atypical antipsychotic risperidone, which was prescribed for her through the services of a community mental health center.

Ms. S is due for multiple preventive health screenings. She indicates that she feels nervous today talking about these screenings with a new physician.

First step in care: Proficiency in the lexicon of IDD

Three core concepts of IDD are impairment, disability, and handicap. According to the World Health Organization²:

• impairment “is any loss or abnormality of psychological, physiological, or anatomical structure or function.”
• disability “is any restriction or lack (resulting from an impairment) of ability to perform an activity in the manner or within the range considered normal for a human being.”
• handicap therefore “represents socialization of an impairment or disability, and as such it reflects the consequences for the individual—cultural, social, economic, and environmental—that stem from the presence of impairment and disability.”

Essential transition: Pediatric to adult health care

Health care transition (HCT) is the planned process of transferring care from a pediatric to an adult-based health care setting,³ comprising 3 phases:

• preparation
• transfer from pediatric to adult care
• integration into adult-based care.

Two critical components of a smooth HCT include initiating the transition early in adolescence and providing transition-support resources, which are often lacking, even in large, integrated health systems.⁴ Got Transition, created by the National Alliance to Advance Adolescent Health, outlines core elements of an organized HCT process (www.gottransition.org) specific to young adults with IDD, including young adults with autism spectrum disorder.^5,6 

Even young people who are served by a family physician and who intend to remain in that family practice as they age into adulthood require HCT services that include⁶:

• assessment of readiness to transition to adult care
• update of the medical history
• assessment and promotion of self-care skills
• consent discussions and optimized participation in decision-making
• transition of specialty care from pediatric to adult specialists.

Continue to: For an ideal HCT...

For an ideal health care transition, full engagement of the patient, the medical home, and the patient’s family (including the primary caregiver or guardian) is critical.

For an ideal HCT, full engagement of the patient, the medical home (physicians, nursing staff, and care coordinators), and the patient’s family (including the primary caregiver or guardian) is critical. In addition to preventive care visits and management of chronic disease, additional domains that require explicit attention in transitioning young people with IDD include health insurance, transportation, employment, and postsecondary education.

Young people who have special health care needs and receive high-quality HCT demonstrate improvements in adherence to care, disease-specific measures, quality of life, self-care skills, satisfaction with care, and health care utilization.⁷TABLE 1³ lists resources identified by Berens and colleagues that are helpful in facilitating the transition.

Teach and practice disability etiquette

Societal prejudice harms people with IDD—leading to self-deprecation, alienation from the larger community, and isolation from others with IDD.⁸ To promote acceptance and inclusivity in residential communities, the workplace, recreational venues, and clinical settings, disability etiquette should be utilized—a set of guidelines on how to interact with patients with IDD. These include speaking to the patient directly, using clear language in an adult voice, and avoiding stereotypes about people with disabilities.⁹ The entire health care team, including all front-facing staff (receptionists and care and financial coordinators) and clinical staff (physicians, nurses, medical assistants), need to be educated in, and practice, disability etiquette.

Preparing for in-person visits. Pre-­visit preparation, ideally by means of dialogue between health care staff and the patient or caregiver (or both), typically by telephone and in advance of the scheduled visit, is often critical for a successful first face-to-face encounter. (See “Pre-visit telephone questionnaire and script for a new adult patient with IDD,” page 287, which we developed for use in our office practice.) Outcomes of the pre-visit preparation should include identifying:

• words or actions that can trigger anxiety or panic
• de-escalation techniques, such as specific calming words and actions
• strategies for optimal communication, physical access, and physical examination.

Initial appointments should focus on building trust and rapport with the health care team and desensitizing the patient to the clinical environment.¹⁰ Examination techniques used with pediatric patients can be applied to this population: for example, demonstrating an examination maneuver first on the parent or caregiver; beginning the examination with the least invasive or anxiety-­provoking components; and stating what you plan to do next—before you do it.

Continue to: Systematic health checks provide great value

A health check is a systematic and comprehensive health assessment that is provided annually to adults with IDD, and includes:

• specific review of signs and symptoms of health conditions that often co-­occur in adults with IDD (TABLE 2Calibri¹¹)
• screening for changes in adaptive functioning and secondary disability
• lifestyle counseling
• medication review and counseling
• immunization update
• discussion of caregiver concerns.

Successful implementation of preventive health screening tests for a patient with IDD often requires ingenuity and creativity to allay fears and anxieties.

Regarding the last point: Many caregivers are the aging parents of the adult patient with IDD—people who have their own emerging health and support needs. You should initiate conversations about advanced planning for the needs of patients, which often involves engaging siblings and other family members to assume a greater role in caregiving.¹²

Benefits of the health check. A systematic review of 38 studies, comprising more than 5000 patients with IDD, found that health checks increased the detection of serious conditions, improved screening for sensory impairments, and increased the immunization rate.¹³ Although many patients with IDD generally understand the need for a periodic health examination, you can enhance their experience by better explaining the rationale for the health check; scheduling sufficient time for the appointment, based on the individual clinical situation; and discussing the value of laboratory testing and referrals to specialists.¹⁴

Tailoring preventive care

Many of the preventive services recommendations typically utilized by family physicians, such as guidelines from the US Preventive Services Task Force, have been developed for the general population at average risk of conditions of interest.¹⁵ Adults with IDD, depending on the cause of their developmental disability and their behavioral risk profile, might be at significantly higher (or lower) risk of cancer, heart disease, or other conditions than the general population. To address these differences, preventive care guidelines tailored to patients with certain developmental disabilities have been created, including guidelines specific to adults with Down syndrome, fragile X syndrome, Prader-Willi syndrome, Smith-Magenis syndrome, and 22q11.2 deletion (DiGeorge) syndrome.¹⁶

Clarifying the molecular genetic etiology of many developmental disabilities has led to more precise understandings about physical and behavioral health issues associated with specific developmental disabilities. For that reason, patients without a known cause for their IDD might benefit from referral to a geneticist—even in early or middle adulthood. Variables generally associated with a higher likelihood of an abnormal genetic test result include¹⁷:

• a family history of developmental disability
• a congenital malformation or dysmorphic features
• a dual diagnosis of developmental disability and co-occurring mental illness
• hypotonia
• severe or profound IDD.

Continue to: Successful implementation of preventive health screening tests...

Successful implementation of preventive health screening tests often requires ingenuity and the collective creativity of the patient, family members, staff, and family physician to allay fears and anxieties. Examples: Women who have been advised to undergo screening mammography might feel less anxious by undergoing tandem screening with their sister or mother, and colorectal cancer screening might be more easily accomplished using a fecal DNA test rather than by colonoscopy. Procedural desensitization strategies and preventive care instructional materials targeting people with IDD are posted on YouTube (for example, the “DD CARES Best Practices” series [see www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPJy4zvg4io]) and other websites.

Management of chronic disease

Evidence of health disparities in patients with IDD includes suboptimal management of chronic diseases, such as diabetes¹⁸ and hypertension,¹⁹ despite contact with a primary care physician. Nonadherence to a medication regimen might be more common in patients who live with their family or in a residential setting where there is a lower degree of supervision—that is, compared to a residence that maintains 24-hour staffing with daily nursing care and supervision. For a patient who is not so closely supervised, reviewing the medication refill history with the pharmacy, or using the so-called brown-bag technique of counting pill bottles brought to appointments, can ensure medication adherence.

CASE

As you interview Ms. S, you note that she is shy, avoids eye contact, and appears generally anxious. You calm her by noticing and complimenting her jewelry and fingernail polish. Ms. S smiles and talks about her favorite polish colors.

Evaluation of suspected mental and behavioral health issues begins with assessment for medical conditions that might be causing pain and distress or stereotypies.

Her mother reports that, when Ms. S is stressed, she talks to herself alone in her bedroom. However, you do not observe evidence of schizoaffective disorder, and begin to wonder whether she needs to be taking risperidone.

Essentials of mental health care

It is estimated that one-third of adults with IDD have significant mental and behavioral health care needs.²⁰ Patients with IDD suffer the same psychiatric disorders as the general population; some also engage in problematic behaviors, such as self-injurious actions, physical or verbal aggression (or both), property destruction, and resistance to caregiving assistance.

Continue to: Mental and behavioral health problems...

Mental and behavioral health problems can have a profound impact on the quality of life of patients with IDD, their peers, and their family and other caregivers. If untreated, these problems can lead to premature institutionalization, loss of employment or desired program participation, fractured social relationships, and caregiver withdrawal and burnout.

Initial evaluation of suspected mental and behavioral health problems begins with careful assessment for medical conditions that might be causing pain and distress, stereotypies, and other problematic behaviors. Common sources of pain and discomfort include dental and other oral disease, dysphagia, gastroesophageal reflux disease, gastritis, constipation, allergic disease, headache, musculoskeletal pathology, lower urinary tract disease, and gynecologic disorders.¹¹ Identification and optimal treatment of medical conditions might not eliminate problematic behaviors but often decrease their frequency and intensity.

Psychoactive medications are prescribed for many patients with IDD. Many have behavioral adverse effects, such as akathisia, aggression, and disinhibition—leading to a prescribing cascade of psychoactive medication polypharmacy and escalating dosages.²¹ Antipsychotic medications are often initiated without a careful diagnosis, explicit outcome targets, or adequate clinical monitoring for effectiveness; in addition, they often lead to insulin resistance, metabolic syndrome, and massive weight gain.²¹ Even a family physician who is not the prescriber can perform an important advocacy role by critically reviewing psychoactive medications, documenting adverse effects, insisting on a clear therapeutic target, and calling for discontinuation of medications that appear to be ineffective.

Evaluation of mental and behavioral health problems requires a developmental perspective to interpret specific, observable behaviors with a proper clinical lens. For example, many patients with IDD engage in self-talk (soliloquizing) as a means of processing the world around them. This practice might escalate during a time of physical or psychological stress, and the unwary clinician might misinterpret this behavior as psychotic, leading to inappropriate prescribing of antipsychotic medication. Other psychotoform behaviors that, superficially, mimic but are typically not truly psychotic, include talk with or about imaginary friends and repetitive retelling of sometimes elaborate or grandiose tales or assertions. The failure of clinicians to recognize developmentally determined expressions of distress often leads to a misdiagnosis of schizophrenia or other psychotic illness and, consequently, inappropriate psychopharmacotherapy. 

Family physicians, familiar with the use of psychiatric scales for diagnosis and treatment monitoring, should use similar scales that have been developed specifically for patients with IDD (TABLE 3¹¹). In addition, a psychiatric diagnosis manual, the Diagnostic Manual—Intellectual Disability 2, specific to people with IDD (and analogous to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition) provides modification of diagnostic criteria to account for patients who have difficulty articulating their internal emotional state and inner thoughts.²²

Continue to: Problematic behaviors

Problematic behaviors that are not features of a bona fide psychiatric disorder are often best understood through functional behavioral analysis, which examines antecedents and consequences of problematic behaviors and identifies their predictable outcomes, such as gaining attention, avoiding a task, or securing a desired item. Rather than being given a prescription for psychoactive medication, many adult patients with IDD and problematic behaviors might be best served by having you order consultation with a certified behavior analyst. The analyst will conduct an evaluation and, along with family or residential staff and the patient, craft a behavioral support plan to address core drivers of the undesired behavior. Behavioral support plans might be enriched by multidisciplinary input from a speech and language pathologist, habilitation professionals, occupational and physical therapists, a neuropsychologist, and others.²³

Antipsychotic medications are often initiated without a careful diagnosis. In addition, they often lead to insulin resistance, metabolic syndrome, and massive weight gain.

Resources to help you address the physical, mental, and behavioral health problems of these patients are available online through Vanderbilt Kennedy Center’s “Toolkit for primary care providers” (https://iddtoolkit.vkcsites.org).

CASE

During your examination, you review Ms. S’s vital signs, including body mass index (BMI). You calculate that she is morbidly obese—BMI, 37—in the setting of a known comorbidity, diabetes.

Ms. S tells you that she is interested in having a healthy lifestyle, but feels frustrated because she does not know how to make the necessary changes. You discuss with her how some medications, including risperidone, can promote weight gain, and that it is important for her mental health provider to carefully reassess whether she needs to continue the drug.

Weight management in a patient population that tends to be sedentary

Patients with IDD are more likely to live a sedentary lifestyle. Compared to adults who do not have IDD, adults with IDD—especially women and patients with Down syndrome—are reported to have a higher prevalence of obesity.²⁴

Continue to: As in the general population...

Similarly, undesired weight loss demands careful evaluation and management because such loss can reflect a medically significant condition, such as gastroesophageal reflux, constipation, dysphagia, neglect, and cancer.²⁷

Boosting the amount and effectiveness of physical activity

Young people with IDD participate in physical activity less often than their neurotypical peers; as a result, they tend to be less fit and have a higher prevalence of obesity.²⁸ Based on a meta-analysis, interventions that focus on sport and movement skills training, such as soccer, basketball, and ball-throwing programs, might be more effective than general physical activity programs.²⁸ In addition to year-round sports training and athletic competitions, Special Olympics conducts vital health screenings of athletes and supports community-based initiatives that address bias against patients with IDD, promote inclusion, and foster social relationships (www.specialolympics.org/our-work/inclusive-health?locale=en).

Success in weight management involves multidisciplinary treatment, including nutritional support, physical activity, behavioral changes, and close follow-up.

Emphasize regular activity. In adulthood, fewer than 10% of patients with IDD exercise regularly.²¹ According to the second edition of Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans,²⁹ “all adults, with or without a disability, should get at least 150 minutes of aerobic physical activity a week. Activities can be broken down into smaller amounts, such as about 25 minutes a day every day.”³⁰ Supplementation with muscle-strengthening activities (eg, yoga, weight training, and resistance-band training) provides further health benefit, such as improvement in posture and prevention of future injury.³¹ An ideal exercise program proposed by Tyler and Baker is based on a daily, “3-2-1” schedule (ie, of every hour of activity, 30 minutes should be of aerobic exercise; 20 minutes, of strength building; and 10 minutes, of flexibility).¹¹ By participating in any type of physical activity, there is potential for considerable health benefit in reducing psychosocial stressors, improving mental health, counteracting metabolic syndromes, and, ultimately, reducing morbidity and mortality related to physical inactivity.

CASE

With permission from Ms. S, you send your progress notes by fax to her mental health provider at the community mental health center and request a call to discuss her case—in particular, to examine potential alternatives to risperidone. With Ms. S’s input, you also co-create an exercise prescription that includes a daily 20-minute walking program with her mother.

At the follow-up visit that is scheduled in 3 months, you anticipate adding a resistance component and balance activity to the exercise prescription to enrich Ms. S’s physical activity regimen.

CORRESPONDENCE
Carl V. Tyler Jr., MD, 14601 Detroit Avenue, Lakewood, OH, 44107; [email protected]

Some adults who have an intellectual or other developmental disability (IDD) require extensive subspecialty care; many, however, depend primarily on their family physician for the bulk of their health care. With that reliance in mind, this article provides (1) an overview of important services that family physicians can provide for their adult patients with IDD and (2) pragmatic clinical suggestions for tailoring that care. Note: We highlight only some high-impact areas of clinical focus; refer to the 2018 Canadian consensus guidelines for a comprehensive approach to optimizing primary care for this population.¹

CASE

Laura S, a 24-year-old woman with Down syndrome, is visiting your clinic with her mother to establish care. Ms. S has several medical comorbidities, including type 2 diabetes, hyperlipidemia, repaired congenital heart disease, schizoaffective disorder, and hypothyroidism. She is under the care of multiple specialists, including a cardiologist and an endocrinologist. Her medications include the atypical antipsychotic risperidone, which was prescribed for her through the services of a community mental health center.

Ms. S is due for multiple preventive health screenings. She indicates that she feels nervous today talking about these screenings with a new physician.

First step in care: Proficiency in the lexicon of IDD

Three core concepts of IDD are impairment, disability, and handicap. According to the World Health Organization²:

• impairment “is any loss or abnormality of psychological, physiological, or anatomical structure or function.”
• disability “is any restriction or lack (resulting from an impairment) of ability to perform an activity in the manner or within the range considered normal for a human being.”
• handicap therefore “represents socialization of an impairment or disability, and as such it reflects the consequences for the individual—cultural, social, economic, and environmental—that stem from the presence of impairment and disability.”

Essential transition: Pediatric to adult health care

Health care transition (HCT) is the planned process of transferring care from a pediatric to an adult-based health care setting,³ comprising 3 phases:

• preparation
• transfer from pediatric to adult care
• integration into adult-based care.

Two critical components of a smooth HCT include initiating the transition early in adolescence and providing transition-support resources, which are often lacking, even in large, integrated health systems.⁴ Got Transition, created by the National Alliance to Advance Adolescent Health, outlines core elements of an organized HCT process (www.gottransition.org) specific to young adults with IDD, including young adults with autism spectrum disorder.^5,6 

Even young people who are served by a family physician and who intend to remain in that family practice as they age into adulthood require HCT services that include⁶:

• assessment of readiness to transition to adult care
• update of the medical history
• assessment and promotion of self-care skills
• consent discussions and optimized participation in decision-making
• transition of specialty care from pediatric to adult specialists.

Continue to: For an ideal HCT...

For an ideal health care transition, full engagement of the patient, the medical home, and the patient’s family (including the primary caregiver or guardian) is critical.

For an ideal HCT, full engagement of the patient, the medical home (physicians, nursing staff, and care coordinators), and the patient’s family (including the primary caregiver or guardian) is critical. In addition to preventive care visits and management of chronic disease, additional domains that require explicit attention in transitioning young people with IDD include health insurance, transportation, employment, and postsecondary education.

Young people who have special health care needs and receive high-quality HCT demonstrate improvements in adherence to care, disease-specific measures, quality of life, self-care skills, satisfaction with care, and health care utilization.⁷TABLE 1³ lists resources identified by Berens and colleagues that are helpful in facilitating the transition.

Teach and practice disability etiquette

Societal prejudice harms people with IDD—leading to self-deprecation, alienation from the larger community, and isolation from others with IDD.⁸ To promote acceptance and inclusivity in residential communities, the workplace, recreational venues, and clinical settings, disability etiquette should be utilized—a set of guidelines on how to interact with patients with IDD. These include speaking to the patient directly, using clear language in an adult voice, and avoiding stereotypes about people with disabilities.⁹ The entire health care team, including all front-facing staff (receptionists and care and financial coordinators) and clinical staff (physicians, nurses, medical assistants), need to be educated in, and practice, disability etiquette.

Preparing for in-person visits. Pre-­visit preparation, ideally by means of dialogue between health care staff and the patient or caregiver (or both), typically by telephone and in advance of the scheduled visit, is often critical for a successful first face-to-face encounter. (See “Pre-visit telephone questionnaire and script for a new adult patient with IDD,” page 287, which we developed for use in our office practice.) Outcomes of the pre-visit preparation should include identifying:

• words or actions that can trigger anxiety or panic
• de-escalation techniques, such as specific calming words and actions
• strategies for optimal communication, physical access, and physical examination.

Initial appointments should focus on building trust and rapport with the health care team and desensitizing the patient to the clinical environment.¹⁰ Examination techniques used with pediatric patients can be applied to this population: for example, demonstrating an examination maneuver first on the parent or caregiver; beginning the examination with the least invasive or anxiety-­provoking components; and stating what you plan to do next—before you do it.

Continue to: Systematic health checks provide great value

A health check is a systematic and comprehensive health assessment that is provided annually to adults with IDD, and includes:

• specific review of signs and symptoms of health conditions that often co-­occur in adults with IDD (TABLE 2Calibri¹¹)
• screening for changes in adaptive functioning and secondary disability
• lifestyle counseling
• medication review and counseling
• immunization update
• discussion of caregiver concerns.

Successful implementation of preventive health screening tests for a patient with IDD often requires ingenuity and creativity to allay fears and anxieties.

Regarding the last point: Many caregivers are the aging parents of the adult patient with IDD—people who have their own emerging health and support needs. You should initiate conversations about advanced planning for the needs of patients, which often involves engaging siblings and other family members to assume a greater role in caregiving.¹²

Benefits of the health check. A systematic review of 38 studies, comprising more than 5000 patients with IDD, found that health checks increased the detection of serious conditions, improved screening for sensory impairments, and increased the immunization rate.¹³ Although many patients with IDD generally understand the need for a periodic health examination, you can enhance their experience by better explaining the rationale for the health check; scheduling sufficient time for the appointment, based on the individual clinical situation; and discussing the value of laboratory testing and referrals to specialists.¹⁴

Tailoring preventive care

Many of the preventive services recommendations typically utilized by family physicians, such as guidelines from the US Preventive Services Task Force, have been developed for the general population at average risk of conditions of interest.¹⁵ Adults with IDD, depending on the cause of their developmental disability and their behavioral risk profile, might be at significantly higher (or lower) risk of cancer, heart disease, or other conditions than the general population. To address these differences, preventive care guidelines tailored to patients with certain developmental disabilities have been created, including guidelines specific to adults with Down syndrome, fragile X syndrome, Prader-Willi syndrome, Smith-Magenis syndrome, and 22q11.2 deletion (DiGeorge) syndrome.¹⁶

Clarifying the molecular genetic etiology of many developmental disabilities has led to more precise understandings about physical and behavioral health issues associated with specific developmental disabilities. For that reason, patients without a known cause for their IDD might benefit from referral to a geneticist—even in early or middle adulthood. Variables generally associated with a higher likelihood of an abnormal genetic test result include¹⁷:

• a family history of developmental disability
• a congenital malformation or dysmorphic features
• a dual diagnosis of developmental disability and co-occurring mental illness
• hypotonia
• severe or profound IDD.

Continue to: Successful implementation of preventive health screening tests...

Successful implementation of preventive health screening tests often requires ingenuity and the collective creativity of the patient, family members, staff, and family physician to allay fears and anxieties. Examples: Women who have been advised to undergo screening mammography might feel less anxious by undergoing tandem screening with their sister or mother, and colorectal cancer screening might be more easily accomplished using a fecal DNA test rather than by colonoscopy. Procedural desensitization strategies and preventive care instructional materials targeting people with IDD are posted on YouTube (for example, the “DD CARES Best Practices” series [see www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPJy4zvg4io]) and other websites.

Management of chronic disease

Evidence of health disparities in patients with IDD includes suboptimal management of chronic diseases, such as diabetes¹⁸ and hypertension,¹⁹ despite contact with a primary care physician. Nonadherence to a medication regimen might be more common in patients who live with their family or in a residential setting where there is a lower degree of supervision—that is, compared to a residence that maintains 24-hour staffing with daily nursing care and supervision. For a patient who is not so closely supervised, reviewing the medication refill history with the pharmacy, or using the so-called brown-bag technique of counting pill bottles brought to appointments, can ensure medication adherence.

CASE

As you interview Ms. S, you note that she is shy, avoids eye contact, and appears generally anxious. You calm her by noticing and complimenting her jewelry and fingernail polish. Ms. S smiles and talks about her favorite polish colors.

Evaluation of suspected mental and behavioral health issues begins with assessment for medical conditions that might be causing pain and distress or stereotypies.

Her mother reports that, when Ms. S is stressed, she talks to herself alone in her bedroom. However, you do not observe evidence of schizoaffective disorder, and begin to wonder whether she needs to be taking risperidone.

Essentials of mental health care

It is estimated that one-third of adults with IDD have significant mental and behavioral health care needs.²⁰ Patients with IDD suffer the same psychiatric disorders as the general population; some also engage in problematic behaviors, such as self-injurious actions, physical or verbal aggression (or both), property destruction, and resistance to caregiving assistance.

Continue to: Mental and behavioral health problems...

Mental and behavioral health problems can have a profound impact on the quality of life of patients with IDD, their peers, and their family and other caregivers. If untreated, these problems can lead to premature institutionalization, loss of employment or desired program participation, fractured social relationships, and caregiver withdrawal and burnout.

Initial evaluation of suspected mental and behavioral health problems begins with careful assessment for medical conditions that might be causing pain and distress, stereotypies, and other problematic behaviors. Common sources of pain and discomfort include dental and other oral disease, dysphagia, gastroesophageal reflux disease, gastritis, constipation, allergic disease, headache, musculoskeletal pathology, lower urinary tract disease, and gynecologic disorders.¹¹ Identification and optimal treatment of medical conditions might not eliminate problematic behaviors but often decrease their frequency and intensity.

Psychoactive medications are prescribed for many patients with IDD. Many have behavioral adverse effects, such as akathisia, aggression, and disinhibition—leading to a prescribing cascade of psychoactive medication polypharmacy and escalating dosages.²¹ Antipsychotic medications are often initiated without a careful diagnosis, explicit outcome targets, or adequate clinical monitoring for effectiveness; in addition, they often lead to insulin resistance, metabolic syndrome, and massive weight gain.²¹ Even a family physician who is not the prescriber can perform an important advocacy role by critically reviewing psychoactive medications, documenting adverse effects, insisting on a clear therapeutic target, and calling for discontinuation of medications that appear to be ineffective.

Evaluation of mental and behavioral health problems requires a developmental perspective to interpret specific, observable behaviors with a proper clinical lens. For example, many patients with IDD engage in self-talk (soliloquizing) as a means of processing the world around them. This practice might escalate during a time of physical or psychological stress, and the unwary clinician might misinterpret this behavior as psychotic, leading to inappropriate prescribing of antipsychotic medication. Other psychotoform behaviors that, superficially, mimic but are typically not truly psychotic, include talk with or about imaginary friends and repetitive retelling of sometimes elaborate or grandiose tales or assertions. The failure of clinicians to recognize developmentally determined expressions of distress often leads to a misdiagnosis of schizophrenia or other psychotic illness and, consequently, inappropriate psychopharmacotherapy. 

Family physicians, familiar with the use of psychiatric scales for diagnosis and treatment monitoring, should use similar scales that have been developed specifically for patients with IDD (TABLE 3¹¹). In addition, a psychiatric diagnosis manual, the Diagnostic Manual—Intellectual Disability 2, specific to people with IDD (and analogous to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition) provides modification of diagnostic criteria to account for patients who have difficulty articulating their internal emotional state and inner thoughts.²²

Continue to: Problematic behaviors

Problematic behaviors that are not features of a bona fide psychiatric disorder are often best understood through functional behavioral analysis, which examines antecedents and consequences of problematic behaviors and identifies their predictable outcomes, such as gaining attention, avoiding a task, or securing a desired item. Rather than being given a prescription for psychoactive medication, many adult patients with IDD and problematic behaviors might be best served by having you order consultation with a certified behavior analyst. The analyst will conduct an evaluation and, along with family or residential staff and the patient, craft a behavioral support plan to address core drivers of the undesired behavior. Behavioral support plans might be enriched by multidisciplinary input from a speech and language pathologist, habilitation professionals, occupational and physical therapists, a neuropsychologist, and others.²³

Antipsychotic medications are often initiated without a careful diagnosis. In addition, they often lead to insulin resistance, metabolic syndrome, and massive weight gain.

Resources to help you address the physical, mental, and behavioral health problems of these patients are available online through Vanderbilt Kennedy Center’s “Toolkit for primary care providers” (https://iddtoolkit.vkcsites.org).

CASE

During your examination, you review Ms. S’s vital signs, including body mass index (BMI). You calculate that she is morbidly obese—BMI, 37—in the setting of a known comorbidity, diabetes.

Ms. S tells you that she is interested in having a healthy lifestyle, but feels frustrated because she does not know how to make the necessary changes. You discuss with her how some medications, including risperidone, can promote weight gain, and that it is important for her mental health provider to carefully reassess whether she needs to continue the drug.

Weight management in a patient population that tends to be sedentary

Patients with IDD are more likely to live a sedentary lifestyle. Compared to adults who do not have IDD, adults with IDD—especially women and patients with Down syndrome—are reported to have a higher prevalence of obesity.²⁴

Continue to: As in the general population...

Similarly, undesired weight loss demands careful evaluation and management because such loss can reflect a medically significant condition, such as gastroesophageal reflux, constipation, dysphagia, neglect, and cancer.²⁷

Boosting the amount and effectiveness of physical activity

Young people with IDD participate in physical activity less often than their neurotypical peers; as a result, they tend to be less fit and have a higher prevalence of obesity.²⁸ Based on a meta-analysis, interventions that focus on sport and movement skills training, such as soccer, basketball, and ball-throwing programs, might be more effective than general physical activity programs.²⁸ In addition to year-round sports training and athletic competitions, Special Olympics conducts vital health screenings of athletes and supports community-based initiatives that address bias against patients with IDD, promote inclusion, and foster social relationships (www.specialolympics.org/our-work/inclusive-health?locale=en).

Success in weight management involves multidisciplinary treatment, including nutritional support, physical activity, behavioral changes, and close follow-up.

Emphasize regular activity. In adulthood, fewer than 10% of patients with IDD exercise regularly.²¹ According to the second edition of Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans,²⁹ “all adults, with or without a disability, should get at least 150 minutes of aerobic physical activity a week. Activities can be broken down into smaller amounts, such as about 25 minutes a day every day.”³⁰ Supplementation with muscle-strengthening activities (eg, yoga, weight training, and resistance-band training) provides further health benefit, such as improvement in posture and prevention of future injury.³¹ An ideal exercise program proposed by Tyler and Baker is based on a daily, “3-2-1” schedule (ie, of every hour of activity, 30 minutes should be of aerobic exercise; 20 minutes, of strength building; and 10 minutes, of flexibility).¹¹ By participating in any type of physical activity, there is potential for considerable health benefit in reducing psychosocial stressors, improving mental health, counteracting metabolic syndromes, and, ultimately, reducing morbidity and mortality related to physical inactivity.

CASE

With permission from Ms. S, you send your progress notes by fax to her mental health provider at the community mental health center and request a call to discuss her case—in particular, to examine potential alternatives to risperidone. With Ms. S’s input, you also co-create an exercise prescription that includes a daily 20-minute walking program with her mother.

At the follow-up visit that is scheduled in 3 months, you anticipate adding a resistance component and balance activity to the exercise prescription to enrich Ms. S’s physical activity regimen.

CORRESPONDENCE
Carl V. Tyler Jr., MD, 14601 Detroit Avenue, Lakewood, OH, 44107; [email protected]

Some adults who have an intellectual or other developmental disability (IDD) require extensive subspecialty care; many, however, depend primarily on their family physician for the bulk of their health care. With that reliance in mind, this article provides (1) an overview of important services that family physicians can provide for their adult patients with IDD and (2) pragmatic clinical suggestions for tailoring that care. Note: We highlight only some high-impact areas of clinical focus; refer to the 2018 Canadian consensus guidelines for a comprehensive approach to optimizing primary care for this population.¹

CASE

Laura S, a 24-year-old woman with Down syndrome, is visiting your clinic with her mother to establish care. Ms. S has several medical comorbidities, including type 2 diabetes, hyperlipidemia, repaired congenital heart disease, schizoaffective disorder, and hypothyroidism. She is under the care of multiple specialists, including a cardiologist and an endocrinologist. Her medications include the atypical antipsychotic risperidone, which was prescribed for her through the services of a community mental health center.

Ms. S is due for multiple preventive health screenings. She indicates that she feels nervous today talking about these screenings with a new physician.

First step in care: Proficiency in the lexicon of IDD

Three core concepts of IDD are impairment, disability, and handicap. According to the World Health Organization²:

• impairment “is any loss or abnormality of psychological, physiological, or anatomical structure or function.”
• disability “is any restriction or lack (resulting from an impairment) of ability to perform an activity in the manner or within the range considered normal for a human being.”
• handicap therefore “represents socialization of an impairment or disability, and as such it reflects the consequences for the individual—cultural, social, economic, and environmental—that stem from the presence of impairment and disability.”

Essential transition: Pediatric to adult health care

Health care transition (HCT) is the planned process of transferring care from a pediatric to an adult-based health care setting,³ comprising 3 phases:

• preparation
• transfer from pediatric to adult care
• integration into adult-based care.

Two critical components of a smooth HCT include initiating the transition early in adolescence and providing transition-support resources, which are often lacking, even in large, integrated health systems.⁴ Got Transition, created by the National Alliance to Advance Adolescent Health, outlines core elements of an organized HCT process (www.gottransition.org) specific to young adults with IDD, including young adults with autism spectrum disorder.^5,6 

Even young people who are served by a family physician and who intend to remain in that family practice as they age into adulthood require HCT services that include⁶:

• assessment of readiness to transition to adult care
• update of the medical history
• assessment and promotion of self-care skills
• consent discussions and optimized participation in decision-making
• transition of specialty care from pediatric to adult specialists.

Continue to: For an ideal HCT...

For an ideal health care transition, full engagement of the patient, the medical home, and the patient’s family (including the primary caregiver or guardian) is critical.

For an ideal HCT, full engagement of the patient, the medical home (physicians, nursing staff, and care coordinators), and the patient’s family (including the primary caregiver or guardian) is critical. In addition to preventive care visits and management of chronic disease, additional domains that require explicit attention in transitioning young people with IDD include health insurance, transportation, employment, and postsecondary education.

Young people who have special health care needs and receive high-quality HCT demonstrate improvements in adherence to care, disease-specific measures, quality of life, self-care skills, satisfaction with care, and health care utilization.⁷TABLE 1³ lists resources identified by Berens and colleagues that are helpful in facilitating the transition.

Teach and practice disability etiquette

Societal prejudice harms people with IDD—leading to self-deprecation, alienation from the larger community, and isolation from others with IDD.⁸ To promote acceptance and inclusivity in residential communities, the workplace, recreational venues, and clinical settings, disability etiquette should be utilized—a set of guidelines on how to interact with patients with IDD. These include speaking to the patient directly, using clear language in an adult voice, and avoiding stereotypes about people with disabilities.⁹ The entire health care team, including all front-facing staff (receptionists and care and financial coordinators) and clinical staff (physicians, nurses, medical assistants), need to be educated in, and practice, disability etiquette.

Preparing for in-person visits. Pre-­visit preparation, ideally by means of dialogue between health care staff and the patient or caregiver (or both), typically by telephone and in advance of the scheduled visit, is often critical for a successful first face-to-face encounter. (See “Pre-visit telephone questionnaire and script for a new adult patient with IDD,” page 287, which we developed for use in our office practice.) Outcomes of the pre-visit preparation should include identifying:

• words or actions that can trigger anxiety or panic
• de-escalation techniques, such as specific calming words and actions
• strategies for optimal communication, physical access, and physical examination.

Initial appointments should focus on building trust and rapport with the health care team and desensitizing the patient to the clinical environment.¹⁰ Examination techniques used with pediatric patients can be applied to this population: for example, demonstrating an examination maneuver first on the parent or caregiver; beginning the examination with the least invasive or anxiety-­provoking components; and stating what you plan to do next—before you do it.

Continue to: Systematic health checks provide great value

A health check is a systematic and comprehensive health assessment that is provided annually to adults with IDD, and includes:

• specific review of signs and symptoms of health conditions that often co-­occur in adults with IDD (TABLE 2Calibri¹¹)
• screening for changes in adaptive functioning and secondary disability
• lifestyle counseling
• medication review and counseling
• immunization update
• discussion of caregiver concerns.

Successful implementation of preventive health screening tests for a patient with IDD often requires ingenuity and creativity to allay fears and anxieties.

Regarding the last point: Many caregivers are the aging parents of the adult patient with IDD—people who have their own emerging health and support needs. You should initiate conversations about advanced planning for the needs of patients, which often involves engaging siblings and other family members to assume a greater role in caregiving.¹²

Benefits of the health check. A systematic review of 38 studies, comprising more than 5000 patients with IDD, found that health checks increased the detection of serious conditions, improved screening for sensory impairments, and increased the immunization rate.¹³ Although many patients with IDD generally understand the need for a periodic health examination, you can enhance their experience by better explaining the rationale for the health check; scheduling sufficient time for the appointment, based on the individual clinical situation; and discussing the value of laboratory testing and referrals to specialists.¹⁴

Tailoring preventive care

Many of the preventive services recommendations typically utilized by family physicians, such as guidelines from the US Preventive Services Task Force, have been developed for the general population at average risk of conditions of interest.¹⁵ Adults with IDD, depending on the cause of their developmental disability and their behavioral risk profile, might be at significantly higher (or lower) risk of cancer, heart disease, or other conditions than the general population. To address these differences, preventive care guidelines tailored to patients with certain developmental disabilities have been created, including guidelines specific to adults with Down syndrome, fragile X syndrome, Prader-Willi syndrome, Smith-Magenis syndrome, and 22q11.2 deletion (DiGeorge) syndrome.¹⁶

Clarifying the molecular genetic etiology of many developmental disabilities has led to more precise understandings about physical and behavioral health issues associated with specific developmental disabilities. For that reason, patients without a known cause for their IDD might benefit from referral to a geneticist—even in early or middle adulthood. Variables generally associated with a higher likelihood of an abnormal genetic test result include¹⁷:

• a family history of developmental disability
• a congenital malformation or dysmorphic features
• a dual diagnosis of developmental disability and co-occurring mental illness
• hypotonia
• severe or profound IDD.

Continue to: Successful implementation of preventive health screening tests...

Successful implementation of preventive health screening tests often requires ingenuity and the collective creativity of the patient, family members, staff, and family physician to allay fears and anxieties. Examples: Women who have been advised to undergo screening mammography might feel less anxious by undergoing tandem screening with their sister or mother, and colorectal cancer screening might be more easily accomplished using a fecal DNA test rather than by colonoscopy. Procedural desensitization strategies and preventive care instructional materials targeting people with IDD are posted on YouTube (for example, the “DD CARES Best Practices” series [see www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPJy4zvg4io]) and other websites.

Management of chronic disease

Evidence of health disparities in patients with IDD includes suboptimal management of chronic diseases, such as diabetes¹⁸ and hypertension,¹⁹ despite contact with a primary care physician. Nonadherence to a medication regimen might be more common in patients who live with their family or in a residential setting where there is a lower degree of supervision—that is, compared to a residence that maintains 24-hour staffing with daily nursing care and supervision. For a patient who is not so closely supervised, reviewing the medication refill history with the pharmacy, or using the so-called brown-bag technique of counting pill bottles brought to appointments, can ensure medication adherence.

CASE

As you interview Ms. S, you note that she is shy, avoids eye contact, and appears generally anxious. You calm her by noticing and complimenting her jewelry and fingernail polish. Ms. S smiles and talks about her favorite polish colors.

Evaluation of suspected mental and behavioral health issues begins with assessment for medical conditions that might be causing pain and distress or stereotypies.

Her mother reports that, when Ms. S is stressed, she talks to herself alone in her bedroom. However, you do not observe evidence of schizoaffective disorder, and begin to wonder whether she needs to be taking risperidone.

Essentials of mental health care

It is estimated that one-third of adults with IDD have significant mental and behavioral health care needs.²⁰ Patients with IDD suffer the same psychiatric disorders as the general population; some also engage in problematic behaviors, such as self-injurious actions, physical or verbal aggression (or both), property destruction, and resistance to caregiving assistance.

Continue to: Mental and behavioral health problems...

Mental and behavioral health problems can have a profound impact on the quality of life of patients with IDD, their peers, and their family and other caregivers. If untreated, these problems can lead to premature institutionalization, loss of employment or desired program participation, fractured social relationships, and caregiver withdrawal and burnout.

Initial evaluation of suspected mental and behavioral health problems begins with careful assessment for medical conditions that might be causing pain and distress, stereotypies, and other problematic behaviors. Common sources of pain and discomfort include dental and other oral disease, dysphagia, gastroesophageal reflux disease, gastritis, constipation, allergic disease, headache, musculoskeletal pathology, lower urinary tract disease, and gynecologic disorders.¹¹ Identification and optimal treatment of medical conditions might not eliminate problematic behaviors but often decrease their frequency and intensity.

Psychoactive medications are prescribed for many patients with IDD. Many have behavioral adverse effects, such as akathisia, aggression, and disinhibition—leading to a prescribing cascade of psychoactive medication polypharmacy and escalating dosages.²¹ Antipsychotic medications are often initiated without a careful diagnosis, explicit outcome targets, or adequate clinical monitoring for effectiveness; in addition, they often lead to insulin resistance, metabolic syndrome, and massive weight gain.²¹ Even a family physician who is not the prescriber can perform an important advocacy role by critically reviewing psychoactive medications, documenting adverse effects, insisting on a clear therapeutic target, and calling for discontinuation of medications that appear to be ineffective.

Evaluation of mental and behavioral health problems requires a developmental perspective to interpret specific, observable behaviors with a proper clinical lens. For example, many patients with IDD engage in self-talk (soliloquizing) as a means of processing the world around them. This practice might escalate during a time of physical or psychological stress, and the unwary clinician might misinterpret this behavior as psychotic, leading to inappropriate prescribing of antipsychotic medication. Other psychotoform behaviors that, superficially, mimic but are typically not truly psychotic, include talk with or about imaginary friends and repetitive retelling of sometimes elaborate or grandiose tales or assertions. The failure of clinicians to recognize developmentally determined expressions of distress often leads to a misdiagnosis of schizophrenia or other psychotic illness and, consequently, inappropriate psychopharmacotherapy. 

Family physicians, familiar with the use of psychiatric scales for diagnosis and treatment monitoring, should use similar scales that have been developed specifically for patients with IDD (TABLE 3¹¹). In addition, a psychiatric diagnosis manual, the Diagnostic Manual—Intellectual Disability 2, specific to people with IDD (and analogous to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition) provides modification of diagnostic criteria to account for patients who have difficulty articulating their internal emotional state and inner thoughts.²²

Continue to: Problematic behaviors

Problematic behaviors that are not features of a bona fide psychiatric disorder are often best understood through functional behavioral analysis, which examines antecedents and consequences of problematic behaviors and identifies their predictable outcomes, such as gaining attention, avoiding a task, or securing a desired item. Rather than being given a prescription for psychoactive medication, many adult patients with IDD and problematic behaviors might be best served by having you order consultation with a certified behavior analyst. The analyst will conduct an evaluation and, along with family or residential staff and the patient, craft a behavioral support plan to address core drivers of the undesired behavior. Behavioral support plans might be enriched by multidisciplinary input from a speech and language pathologist, habilitation professionals, occupational and physical therapists, a neuropsychologist, and others.²³

Antipsychotic medications are often initiated without a careful diagnosis. In addition, they often lead to insulin resistance, metabolic syndrome, and massive weight gain.

Resources to help you address the physical, mental, and behavioral health problems of these patients are available online through Vanderbilt Kennedy Center’s “Toolkit for primary care providers” (https://iddtoolkit.vkcsites.org).

CASE

During your examination, you review Ms. S’s vital signs, including body mass index (BMI). You calculate that she is morbidly obese—BMI, 37—in the setting of a known comorbidity, diabetes.

Ms. S tells you that she is interested in having a healthy lifestyle, but feels frustrated because she does not know how to make the necessary changes. You discuss with her how some medications, including risperidone, can promote weight gain, and that it is important for her mental health provider to carefully reassess whether she needs to continue the drug.

Weight management in a patient population that tends to be sedentary

Patients with IDD are more likely to live a sedentary lifestyle. Compared to adults who do not have IDD, adults with IDD—especially women and patients with Down syndrome—are reported to have a higher prevalence of obesity.²⁴

Continue to: As in the general population...

Similarly, undesired weight loss demands careful evaluation and management because such loss can reflect a medically significant condition, such as gastroesophageal reflux, constipation, dysphagia, neglect, and cancer.²⁷

Boosting the amount and effectiveness of physical activity

Young people with IDD participate in physical activity less often than their neurotypical peers; as a result, they tend to be less fit and have a higher prevalence of obesity.²⁸ Based on a meta-analysis, interventions that focus on sport and movement skills training, such as soccer, basketball, and ball-throwing programs, might be more effective than general physical activity programs.²⁸ In addition to year-round sports training and athletic competitions, Special Olympics conducts vital health screenings of athletes and supports community-based initiatives that address bias against patients with IDD, promote inclusion, and foster social relationships (www.specialolympics.org/our-work/inclusive-health?locale=en).

Success in weight management involves multidisciplinary treatment, including nutritional support, physical activity, behavioral changes, and close follow-up.

Emphasize regular activity. In adulthood, fewer than 10% of patients with IDD exercise regularly.²¹ According to the second edition of Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans,²⁹ “all adults, with or without a disability, should get at least 150 minutes of aerobic physical activity a week. Activities can be broken down into smaller amounts, such as about 25 minutes a day every day.”³⁰ Supplementation with muscle-strengthening activities (eg, yoga, weight training, and resistance-band training) provides further health benefit, such as improvement in posture and prevention of future injury.³¹ An ideal exercise program proposed by Tyler and Baker is based on a daily, “3-2-1” schedule (ie, of every hour of activity, 30 minutes should be of aerobic exercise; 20 minutes, of strength building; and 10 minutes, of flexibility).¹¹ By participating in any type of physical activity, there is potential for considerable health benefit in reducing psychosocial stressors, improving mental health, counteracting metabolic syndromes, and, ultimately, reducing morbidity and mortality related to physical inactivity.

CASE

With permission from Ms. S, you send your progress notes by fax to her mental health provider at the community mental health center and request a call to discuss her case—in particular, to examine potential alternatives to risperidone. With Ms. S’s input, you also co-create an exercise prescription that includes a daily 20-minute walking program with her mother.

At the follow-up visit that is scheduled in 3 months, you anticipate adding a resistance component and balance activity to the exercise prescription to enrich Ms. S’s physical activity regimen.

CORRESPONDENCE
Carl V. Tyler Jr., MD, 14601 Detroit Avenue, Lakewood, OH, 44107; [email protected]

Headache was the most common adverse event (AE) people experienced in 72 weeks of taking the once-daily investigational two-drug HIV treatment islatravir (ISL; Merck) plus doravirine (DOR; Merck), and those AEs were short-lived and mild, according to a safety analysis presented at the International AIDS Society (IAS) Conference 2021.

That finding, combined with other data showing few changes in metabolic markers, is potentially good news for people living with HIV, inasmuch as two-drug regimens generally have fewer side effects than traditional three- or four-drug regimens, said Jean-Michel Molina, MD, PhD, of Sant-Louis and Lariboisière Hospitals, Paris, who previously presented efficacy data on the combination at the HIV Glasgow 2020 Virtual Conference.

“At this point, it’s encouraging,” Dr. Molina told this news organization. “Safety is good, efficacy seems good. But the data are limited, and it’s too early to tell.”

If it makes it to the clinic, IS/DOR would be the fourth two-drug regimen approved for HIV treatment, following the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval of dolutegravir/lamivudine (Dovato), dolutegravir/rilpivirine (Juluca), and the monthly injectable cabotegravir long-acting/rilpivirine long-acting (Cabenuva).

DOR, a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI), is currently approved and is part of the three-drug single-pill regimen Delstrigo (doravirine/lamivudine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, DOR/3TC/TDF, Merck). ISL is still under development for treatment and prevention. Dr. Molina had previously presented data showing that 81.1% of people living with HIV maintained undetectable viral loads (defined as <50 copies/mL) compared to 80.6% of people who continued treatment with DOR/3TC/TDF. Data on ISL/DOR versus DOR/3TC/TDF for people new to HIV treatment were published May 14 in The Lancet HIV.

The ISL/DOR trial was designed to assess the safety of three doses of ISL with 100 mg of DOR – 0.25 mg, 0.75 mg, and 2.25 mg – as a daily treatment. The investigators randomly assigned 29, 30, and 31 participants, respectively, to each of the dual-therapy arms and 31 people to the DOR/3TC/TDF arm after a 24-week lead-in course of DOR/3TC/TDF. At week 60, everyone in the two-drug arms received 0.75 mg of ISL with DOR.

At HIV Glasgow, Dr. Molina didn’t present details about the safety profile of the two-drug combination. Douglas Cunningham, DO, a primary care provider at Pueblo Family Physicians, Phoenix, presented such data at IAS 2021. What he showed was that over the first 96 weeks of the trial, there were a total of 118 AEs among the 90 participants in the ISL plus DOR arms and 42 among the 31 participants in the three-drug regimen arm, but there were only seven drug-related AEs for people in the ISL plus DOR arm, and all of those occurred during the first 48 weeks. There were none from weeks 48 to 96.

In total, there were no drug-related serious AEs for ISL/DOR; there was one in the DOR/3TC/TDF arm. The most common AE was headache, which occurred in a total of 10 participants in the ISL/DOR arms. There were nine cases of vitamin D deficiency, eight cases of nausea, seven cases of arthralgia, diarrhea, sinus pain, and vomiting, and six cases each of anxiety and rash. Four people experienced pain in their extremities.

In the three-drug combination arm, side effects were far fewer – just 18 occurred in at least 10% of participants. The most common AE among people on the three-drug combination was diarrhea, which occurred in six participants. Nausea occurred in three; vomiting and headache in two; and there was one instance each of vitamin D deficiency, arthralgia, sinus pain, rash, and pain in extremities.

“The majority of these events were mild, transient, and not related to study drug,” Dr. Cunningham said.

Three ISL/DOR participants experienced an increase in fasting triglyceride level of >500-1,000 mg/dL, and six patients experienced grade 4 changes in creatine kinase level of ≥20 IU/L. Dr. Cunningham said that all but one of the cases of an increase in creatinine level were the result of physical exertion by the participants, and all of those changes were found to have resolved at future visits. The bottom line is that the two-drug combination was safe.

“In the islatravir and doravirine arm, there were no serious drug related serious AEs and no discontinuations due to drug-related AEs from week 48 to week 96,” said Dr. Cunningham. “Islatravir in combination with doravirine was generally well tolerated through week 96 with few drug-related AEs.”

Still, the value of this combination is unclear for Laura Waters, MD, consulting physician in HIV and sexual health at Central and Northwest London NHS Trust. She pointed out that the data are preliminary and that islatravir hasn’t yet been shown to lessen the chances of development of treatment-resistant mutations – a big deal for two-drug regimens, inasmuch as early attempts at using only two drugs resulted in incomplete suppression of the virus and resistance. Merck is planning a study of the combination in heavily pretreated individuals.

Merck presented data at IAS on another NNRTI, the investigational MK-8507, in combination with islatravir. MK-8507 has the potential to be used weekly instead of daily. Dr. Waters said she suspects that this trial is just a proof of concept of islatravir in combination with an NNRTI. Merck has signed an agreement with Gilead Sciences to co-develop islatravir with long-acting lenacapravir. Additionally, the two-drug combination of dolutegravir and lamivudine has been very successful.

“I’d be surprised if they developed islatravir/doravirine as a usable combo,” she said. “It’s just too soon to say. My personal view is that people are a bit too overoptimistic about it.”

The study was funded by Merck. Dr. Molina has received grants from Gilead Sciences, Merck, ViiV Healthcare, and Sanofi. Dr. Waters has received speaker or advisory fees during the past 2 years from Gilead Sciences, ViiV Healthcare, Merck, Janssen, Theratech, Sipla, and Mylan.

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

Headache was the most common adverse event (AE) people experienced in 72 weeks of taking the once-daily investigational two-drug HIV treatment islatravir (ISL; Merck) plus doravirine (DOR; Merck), and those AEs were short-lived and mild, according to a safety analysis presented at the International AIDS Society (IAS) Conference 2021.

That finding, combined with other data showing few changes in metabolic markers, is potentially good news for people living with HIV, inasmuch as two-drug regimens generally have fewer side effects than traditional three- or four-drug regimens, said Jean-Michel Molina, MD, PhD, of Sant-Louis and Lariboisière Hospitals, Paris, who previously presented efficacy data on the combination at the HIV Glasgow 2020 Virtual Conference.

“At this point, it’s encouraging,” Dr. Molina told this news organization. “Safety is good, efficacy seems good. But the data are limited, and it’s too early to tell.”

If it makes it to the clinic, IS/DOR would be the fourth two-drug regimen approved for HIV treatment, following the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval of dolutegravir/lamivudine (Dovato), dolutegravir/rilpivirine (Juluca), and the monthly injectable cabotegravir long-acting/rilpivirine long-acting (Cabenuva).

DOR, a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI), is currently approved and is part of the three-drug single-pill regimen Delstrigo (doravirine/lamivudine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, DOR/3TC/TDF, Merck). ISL is still under development for treatment and prevention. Dr. Molina had previously presented data showing that 81.1% of people living with HIV maintained undetectable viral loads (defined as <50 copies/mL) compared to 80.6% of people who continued treatment with DOR/3TC/TDF. Data on ISL/DOR versus DOR/3TC/TDF for people new to HIV treatment were published May 14 in The Lancet HIV.

The ISL/DOR trial was designed to assess the safety of three doses of ISL with 100 mg of DOR – 0.25 mg, 0.75 mg, and 2.25 mg – as a daily treatment. The investigators randomly assigned 29, 30, and 31 participants, respectively, to each of the dual-therapy arms and 31 people to the DOR/3TC/TDF arm after a 24-week lead-in course of DOR/3TC/TDF. At week 60, everyone in the two-drug arms received 0.75 mg of ISL with DOR.

At HIV Glasgow, Dr. Molina didn’t present details about the safety profile of the two-drug combination. Douglas Cunningham, DO, a primary care provider at Pueblo Family Physicians, Phoenix, presented such data at IAS 2021. What he showed was that over the first 96 weeks of the trial, there were a total of 118 AEs among the 90 participants in the ISL plus DOR arms and 42 among the 31 participants in the three-drug regimen arm, but there were only seven drug-related AEs for people in the ISL plus DOR arm, and all of those occurred during the first 48 weeks. There were none from weeks 48 to 96.

In total, there were no drug-related serious AEs for ISL/DOR; there was one in the DOR/3TC/TDF arm. The most common AE was headache, which occurred in a total of 10 participants in the ISL/DOR arms. There were nine cases of vitamin D deficiency, eight cases of nausea, seven cases of arthralgia, diarrhea, sinus pain, and vomiting, and six cases each of anxiety and rash. Four people experienced pain in their extremities.

In the three-drug combination arm, side effects were far fewer – just 18 occurred in at least 10% of participants. The most common AE among people on the three-drug combination was diarrhea, which occurred in six participants. Nausea occurred in three; vomiting and headache in two; and there was one instance each of vitamin D deficiency, arthralgia, sinus pain, rash, and pain in extremities.

“The majority of these events were mild, transient, and not related to study drug,” Dr. Cunningham said.

Three ISL/DOR participants experienced an increase in fasting triglyceride level of >500-1,000 mg/dL, and six patients experienced grade 4 changes in creatine kinase level of ≥20 IU/L. Dr. Cunningham said that all but one of the cases of an increase in creatinine level were the result of physical exertion by the participants, and all of those changes were found to have resolved at future visits. The bottom line is that the two-drug combination was safe.

“In the islatravir and doravirine arm, there were no serious drug related serious AEs and no discontinuations due to drug-related AEs from week 48 to week 96,” said Dr. Cunningham. “Islatravir in combination with doravirine was generally well tolerated through week 96 with few drug-related AEs.”

Still, the value of this combination is unclear for Laura Waters, MD, consulting physician in HIV and sexual health at Central and Northwest London NHS Trust. She pointed out that the data are preliminary and that islatravir hasn’t yet been shown to lessen the chances of development of treatment-resistant mutations – a big deal for two-drug regimens, inasmuch as early attempts at using only two drugs resulted in incomplete suppression of the virus and resistance. Merck is planning a study of the combination in heavily pretreated individuals.

Merck presented data at IAS on another NNRTI, the investigational MK-8507, in combination with islatravir. MK-8507 has the potential to be used weekly instead of daily. Dr. Waters said she suspects that this trial is just a proof of concept of islatravir in combination with an NNRTI. Merck has signed an agreement with Gilead Sciences to co-develop islatravir with long-acting lenacapravir. Additionally, the two-drug combination of dolutegravir and lamivudine has been very successful.

“I’d be surprised if they developed islatravir/doravirine as a usable combo,” she said. “It’s just too soon to say. My personal view is that people are a bit too overoptimistic about it.”

The study was funded by Merck. Dr. Molina has received grants from Gilead Sciences, Merck, ViiV Healthcare, and Sanofi. Dr. Waters has received speaker or advisory fees during the past 2 years from Gilead Sciences, ViiV Healthcare, Merck, Janssen, Theratech, Sipla, and Mylan.

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

Headache was the most common adverse event (AE) people experienced in 72 weeks of taking the once-daily investigational two-drug HIV treatment islatravir (ISL; Merck) plus doravirine (DOR; Merck), and those AEs were short-lived and mild, according to a safety analysis presented at the International AIDS Society (IAS) Conference 2021.

That finding, combined with other data showing few changes in metabolic markers, is potentially good news for people living with HIV, inasmuch as two-drug regimens generally have fewer side effects than traditional three- or four-drug regimens, said Jean-Michel Molina, MD, PhD, of Sant-Louis and Lariboisière Hospitals, Paris, who previously presented efficacy data on the combination at the HIV Glasgow 2020 Virtual Conference.

“At this point, it’s encouraging,” Dr. Molina told this news organization. “Safety is good, efficacy seems good. But the data are limited, and it’s too early to tell.”

If it makes it to the clinic, IS/DOR would be the fourth two-drug regimen approved for HIV treatment, following the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval of dolutegravir/lamivudine (Dovato), dolutegravir/rilpivirine (Juluca), and the monthly injectable cabotegravir long-acting/rilpivirine long-acting (Cabenuva).

DOR, a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI), is currently approved and is part of the three-drug single-pill regimen Delstrigo (doravirine/lamivudine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, DOR/3TC/TDF, Merck). ISL is still under development for treatment and prevention. Dr. Molina had previously presented data showing that 81.1% of people living with HIV maintained undetectable viral loads (defined as <50 copies/mL) compared to 80.6% of people who continued treatment with DOR/3TC/TDF. Data on ISL/DOR versus DOR/3TC/TDF for people new to HIV treatment were published May 14 in The Lancet HIV.

The ISL/DOR trial was designed to assess the safety of three doses of ISL with 100 mg of DOR – 0.25 mg, 0.75 mg, and 2.25 mg – as a daily treatment. The investigators randomly assigned 29, 30, and 31 participants, respectively, to each of the dual-therapy arms and 31 people to the DOR/3TC/TDF arm after a 24-week lead-in course of DOR/3TC/TDF. At week 60, everyone in the two-drug arms received 0.75 mg of ISL with DOR.

At HIV Glasgow, Dr. Molina didn’t present details about the safety profile of the two-drug combination. Douglas Cunningham, DO, a primary care provider at Pueblo Family Physicians, Phoenix, presented such data at IAS 2021. What he showed was that over the first 96 weeks of the trial, there were a total of 118 AEs among the 90 participants in the ISL plus DOR arms and 42 among the 31 participants in the three-drug regimen arm, but there were only seven drug-related AEs for people in the ISL plus DOR arm, and all of those occurred during the first 48 weeks. There were none from weeks 48 to 96.

In total, there were no drug-related serious AEs for ISL/DOR; there was one in the DOR/3TC/TDF arm. The most common AE was headache, which occurred in a total of 10 participants in the ISL/DOR arms. There were nine cases of vitamin D deficiency, eight cases of nausea, seven cases of arthralgia, diarrhea, sinus pain, and vomiting, and six cases each of anxiety and rash. Four people experienced pain in their extremities.

In the three-drug combination arm, side effects were far fewer – just 18 occurred in at least 10% of participants. The most common AE among people on the three-drug combination was diarrhea, which occurred in six participants. Nausea occurred in three; vomiting and headache in two; and there was one instance each of vitamin D deficiency, arthralgia, sinus pain, rash, and pain in extremities.

“The majority of these events were mild, transient, and not related to study drug,” Dr. Cunningham said.

Three ISL/DOR participants experienced an increase in fasting triglyceride level of >500-1,000 mg/dL, and six patients experienced grade 4 changes in creatine kinase level of ≥20 IU/L. Dr. Cunningham said that all but one of the cases of an increase in creatinine level were the result of physical exertion by the participants, and all of those changes were found to have resolved at future visits. The bottom line is that the two-drug combination was safe.

“In the islatravir and doravirine arm, there were no serious drug related serious AEs and no discontinuations due to drug-related AEs from week 48 to week 96,” said Dr. Cunningham. “Islatravir in combination with doravirine was generally well tolerated through week 96 with few drug-related AEs.”

Still, the value of this combination is unclear for Laura Waters, MD, consulting physician in HIV and sexual health at Central and Northwest London NHS Trust. She pointed out that the data are preliminary and that islatravir hasn’t yet been shown to lessen the chances of development of treatment-resistant mutations – a big deal for two-drug regimens, inasmuch as early attempts at using only two drugs resulted in incomplete suppression of the virus and resistance. Merck is planning a study of the combination in heavily pretreated individuals.

Merck presented data at IAS on another NNRTI, the investigational MK-8507, in combination with islatravir. MK-8507 has the potential to be used weekly instead of daily. Dr. Waters said she suspects that this trial is just a proof of concept of islatravir in combination with an NNRTI. Merck has signed an agreement with Gilead Sciences to co-develop islatravir with long-acting lenacapravir. Additionally, the two-drug combination of dolutegravir and lamivudine has been very successful.

“I’d be surprised if they developed islatravir/doravirine as a usable combo,” she said. “It’s just too soon to say. My personal view is that people are a bit too overoptimistic about it.”

The study was funded by Merck. Dr. Molina has received grants from Gilead Sciences, Merck, ViiV Healthcare, and Sanofi. Dr. Waters has received speaker or advisory fees during the past 2 years from Gilead Sciences, ViiV Healthcare, Merck, Janssen, Theratech, Sipla, and Mylan.

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

HIV increases the risk for severe COVID-19 by 6% and the risk of dying of COVID-19 in the hospital by 30%, according to a report from the World Health Organization on COVID-19 outcomes among people living with HIV. The study primarily included people from South Africa but also some data from other parts of the world, including the United States.

However, the report, presented at the 11th IAS Conference on HIV Science (IAS 2021), couldn’t answer some crucial questions clinicians have been wondering about since the COVID-19 pandemic began. For example, was the increase in COVID risk a result of the presence of HIV or because of the immune compromise caused by untreated HIV?

The report didn’t include data on viral load or CD counts, both used to evaluate the health of a person’s immune system. On effective treatment, people living with HIV have a lifespan close to their HIV-negative peers. And effective treatment causes undetectable viral loads which, when maintained for 6 months or more, eliminates transmission of HIV to sexual partners.

What’s clear is that in people with HIV, as in people without HIV, older people, men, and people with diabetes, hypertension, or obesity had the worst outcomes and were most likely to die from COVID-19.

For David Malebranche, MD, MPH, an internal medicine doctor who provides primary care for people in Atlanta, and who was not involved in the study, the WHO study didn’t add anything new. He already recommends the COVID-19 vaccine for all of his patients, HIV-positive or not.

“We don’t have any information from this about the T-cell counts [or] the rates of viral suppression, which I think is tremendously important,” he told this news organization. “To bypass that and not include that in any of the discussion puts the results in a questionable place for me.”

The results come from the WHO Clinical Platform, which culls data from WHO member country surveillance as well as manual case reports from all over the world. By April 29, data on 268,412 people hospitalized with COVID-19 from 37 countries were reported to the platform. Of those, 22,640 people are from the U.S.

A total of 15,522 participants worldwide were living with HIV, 664 in the United States. All U.S. cases were reported from the New York City Health and Hospitals system, Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit, and BronxCare Health System in New York City. Almost all of the remaining participants lived in South Africa – 14,682 of the 15,522, or 94.5%.

Of the 15,522 people living with HIV in the overall group, 37.1% of participants were male, and their median age was 45 years. More than 1 in 3 (36.2%) were admitted with severe or critical COVID-19, and nearly one quarter – 23.1% – with a known outcome died. More than half had one or more chronic conditions, including those that themselves are associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes, such as hypertension (in 33.2% of the participants), diabetes (22.7%), and BMIs above 30 (16.9%). In addition, 8.9% were smokers, 6.6% had chronic pulmonary disease, and 4.3% had chronic heart disease.

After adjusting for those chronic conditions, age, and sex, people living with HIV had a 6% higher rate of severe or critical COVID-19 illness. When investigators adjusted the analysis additionally to differentiate outcomes based on not just the presence of comorbid conditions but the number of them a person had, that increased risk rose to 13%. HIV itself is a comorbid condition, though it wasn’t counted as one in this adjusted analysis.

It didn’t matter whether researchers looked at risk for severe outcomes or deaths after removing the significant co-occurring conditions or if they looked at number of chronic illnesses (aside from HIV), said Silvia Bertagnolio, MD, medical officer at the World Health Organization and co-author of the analysis.

“Both models show almost identical [adjusted odds ratios], meaning that HIV was independently significantly associated with severe/critical presentation,” she told this news organization.

As for death, the analysis showed that, overall, people living with HIV were 30% more likely to die of COVID-19 compared with those not living with HIV. And while this held true even when they adjusted the data for comorbidities, people with HIV were more likely to die if they were over age 65 (risk increased by 82%), male (risk increased by 21%), had diabetes (risk increased by 50%), or had hypertension (risk increased by 26%).

When they broke down the data by WHO region – Africa, Europe, the Americas – investigators found that the increased risk for death held true in Africa. But there were not enough data from the other regions to model mortality risk. What’s more, when they broke the data down by country and excluded South Africa, they found that the elevated risk for death in people living with HIV did not reach statistical significance. Dr. Bertagnolio said she suspects that the small sample sizes from other regions made it impossible to detect a difference, but one could still be present.

One thing conspicuously absent from the analysis was information on viral load, CD4 T-cell count, progression of HIV to AIDS, and whether individuals were in HIV care. The first three factors were not reported in the platform, and the fourth was available for 60% of participants but was not included in the analysis. Dr. Bertagnolio pointed out that, for those 60% of participants, 91.8% were on antiretroviral treatment (ART).

“The majority of patients come from South Africa, and we know that in South Africa, over 90% of people receiving ART are virologically suppressed,” she told this news organization. “So we could speculate that this effect persists despite the use of ART, in a population likely to be virally suppressed, although we cannot assess this with certainty through the data set we had.”

A much smaller study of 749 people living with HIV and diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2, also presented at the conference, found that detectable HIV viral load was significantly associated with a slightly higher risk of severe outcomes (P < .039), but CD4 counts less than 200 cells/mm³ was not (P = .15).

And although both Dr. Bertagnolio and conference organizers presented this data as proof that HIV increases the risk for poor COVID-19 outcomes, Dr. Malebranche isn’t so sure. He estimates that only about half his patients have received the COVID-19 vaccine. But this study is unlikely to make him forcefully recommend a COVID-19 vaccination with young, otherwise healthy, and undetectable people in his care who express particular concern about long-term effects of the vaccine. He also manages a lot of people with HIV who have undetectable viral loads and CD4 counts of up to 1,200 but are older, with diabetes, obesity, and high blood pressure. Those are the people he will target with stronger messages regarding the vaccine.

“The young patients who are healthy, virally suppressed, and doing well may very much argue with me, ‘I’m not going to push it,’ but I will bring it up on the next visit,” he said. The analysis “just helps reinforce in me that I need to have these conversations and be a little bit more persuasive to my older patients with comorbid conditions.”

Dr. Bertagnolio has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Malebranche serves on the pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) speakers bureau for Gilead Sciences and has consulted and advised for ViiV Healthcare. This study was funded by the World Health Organization.

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

HIV increases the risk for severe COVID-19 by 6% and the risk of dying of COVID-19 in the hospital by 30%, according to a report from the World Health Organization on COVID-19 outcomes among people living with HIV. The study primarily included people from South Africa but also some data from other parts of the world, including the United States.

However, the report, presented at the 11th IAS Conference on HIV Science (IAS 2021), couldn’t answer some crucial questions clinicians have been wondering about since the COVID-19 pandemic began. For example, was the increase in COVID risk a result of the presence of HIV or because of the immune compromise caused by untreated HIV?

The report didn’t include data on viral load or CD counts, both used to evaluate the health of a person’s immune system. On effective treatment, people living with HIV have a lifespan close to their HIV-negative peers. And effective treatment causes undetectable viral loads which, when maintained for 6 months or more, eliminates transmission of HIV to sexual partners.

What’s clear is that in people with HIV, as in people without HIV, older people, men, and people with diabetes, hypertension, or obesity had the worst outcomes and were most likely to die from COVID-19.

For David Malebranche, MD, MPH, an internal medicine doctor who provides primary care for people in Atlanta, and who was not involved in the study, the WHO study didn’t add anything new. He already recommends the COVID-19 vaccine for all of his patients, HIV-positive or not.

“We don’t have any information from this about the T-cell counts [or] the rates of viral suppression, which I think is tremendously important,” he told this news organization. “To bypass that and not include that in any of the discussion puts the results in a questionable place for me.”

The results come from the WHO Clinical Platform, which culls data from WHO member country surveillance as well as manual case reports from all over the world. By April 29, data on 268,412 people hospitalized with COVID-19 from 37 countries were reported to the platform. Of those, 22,640 people are from the U.S.

A total of 15,522 participants worldwide were living with HIV, 664 in the United States. All U.S. cases were reported from the New York City Health and Hospitals system, Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit, and BronxCare Health System in New York City. Almost all of the remaining participants lived in South Africa – 14,682 of the 15,522, or 94.5%.

Of the 15,522 people living with HIV in the overall group, 37.1% of participants were male, and their median age was 45 years. More than 1 in 3 (36.2%) were admitted with severe or critical COVID-19, and nearly one quarter – 23.1% – with a known outcome died. More than half had one or more chronic conditions, including those that themselves are associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes, such as hypertension (in 33.2% of the participants), diabetes (22.7%), and BMIs above 30 (16.9%). In addition, 8.9% were smokers, 6.6% had chronic pulmonary disease, and 4.3% had chronic heart disease.

After adjusting for those chronic conditions, age, and sex, people living with HIV had a 6% higher rate of severe or critical COVID-19 illness. When investigators adjusted the analysis additionally to differentiate outcomes based on not just the presence of comorbid conditions but the number of them a person had, that increased risk rose to 13%. HIV itself is a comorbid condition, though it wasn’t counted as one in this adjusted analysis.

It didn’t matter whether researchers looked at risk for severe outcomes or deaths after removing the significant co-occurring conditions or if they looked at number of chronic illnesses (aside from HIV), said Silvia Bertagnolio, MD, medical officer at the World Health Organization and co-author of the analysis.

“Both models show almost identical [adjusted odds ratios], meaning that HIV was independently significantly associated with severe/critical presentation,” she told this news organization.

As for death, the analysis showed that, overall, people living with HIV were 30% more likely to die of COVID-19 compared with those not living with HIV. And while this held true even when they adjusted the data for comorbidities, people with HIV were more likely to die if they were over age 65 (risk increased by 82%), male (risk increased by 21%), had diabetes (risk increased by 50%), or had hypertension (risk increased by 26%).

When they broke down the data by WHO region – Africa, Europe, the Americas – investigators found that the increased risk for death held true in Africa. But there were not enough data from the other regions to model mortality risk. What’s more, when they broke the data down by country and excluded South Africa, they found that the elevated risk for death in people living with HIV did not reach statistical significance. Dr. Bertagnolio said she suspects that the small sample sizes from other regions made it impossible to detect a difference, but one could still be present.

One thing conspicuously absent from the analysis was information on viral load, CD4 T-cell count, progression of HIV to AIDS, and whether individuals were in HIV care. The first three factors were not reported in the platform, and the fourth was available for 60% of participants but was not included in the analysis. Dr. Bertagnolio pointed out that, for those 60% of participants, 91.8% were on antiretroviral treatment (ART).

“The majority of patients come from South Africa, and we know that in South Africa, over 90% of people receiving ART are virologically suppressed,” she told this news organization. “So we could speculate that this effect persists despite the use of ART, in a population likely to be virally suppressed, although we cannot assess this with certainty through the data set we had.”

A much smaller study of 749 people living with HIV and diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2, also presented at the conference, found that detectable HIV viral load was significantly associated with a slightly higher risk of severe outcomes (P < .039), but CD4 counts less than 200 cells/mm³ was not (P = .15).

And although both Dr. Bertagnolio and conference organizers presented this data as proof that HIV increases the risk for poor COVID-19 outcomes, Dr. Malebranche isn’t so sure. He estimates that only about half his patients have received the COVID-19 vaccine. But this study is unlikely to make him forcefully recommend a COVID-19 vaccination with young, otherwise healthy, and undetectable people in his care who express particular concern about long-term effects of the vaccine. He also manages a lot of people with HIV who have undetectable viral loads and CD4 counts of up to 1,200 but are older, with diabetes, obesity, and high blood pressure. Those are the people he will target with stronger messages regarding the vaccine.

“The young patients who are healthy, virally suppressed, and doing well may very much argue with me, ‘I’m not going to push it,’ but I will bring it up on the next visit,” he said. The analysis “just helps reinforce in me that I need to have these conversations and be a little bit more persuasive to my older patients with comorbid conditions.”

Dr. Bertagnolio has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Malebranche serves on the pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) speakers bureau for Gilead Sciences and has consulted and advised for ViiV Healthcare. This study was funded by the World Health Organization.

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

HIV increases the risk for severe COVID-19 by 6% and the risk of dying of COVID-19 in the hospital by 30%, according to a report from the World Health Organization on COVID-19 outcomes among people living with HIV. The study primarily included people from South Africa but also some data from other parts of the world, including the United States.

However, the report, presented at the 11th IAS Conference on HIV Science (IAS 2021), couldn’t answer some crucial questions clinicians have been wondering about since the COVID-19 pandemic began. For example, was the increase in COVID risk a result of the presence of HIV or because of the immune compromise caused by untreated HIV?

The report didn’t include data on viral load or CD counts, both used to evaluate the health of a person’s immune system. On effective treatment, people living with HIV have a lifespan close to their HIV-negative peers. And effective treatment causes undetectable viral loads which, when maintained for 6 months or more, eliminates transmission of HIV to sexual partners.

What’s clear is that in people with HIV, as in people without HIV, older people, men, and people with diabetes, hypertension, or obesity had the worst outcomes and were most likely to die from COVID-19.

For David Malebranche, MD, MPH, an internal medicine doctor who provides primary care for people in Atlanta, and who was not involved in the study, the WHO study didn’t add anything new. He already recommends the COVID-19 vaccine for all of his patients, HIV-positive or not.

“We don’t have any information from this about the T-cell counts [or] the rates of viral suppression, which I think is tremendously important,” he told this news organization. “To bypass that and not include that in any of the discussion puts the results in a questionable place for me.”

The results come from the WHO Clinical Platform, which culls data from WHO member country surveillance as well as manual case reports from all over the world. By April 29, data on 268,412 people hospitalized with COVID-19 from 37 countries were reported to the platform. Of those, 22,640 people are from the U.S.

A total of 15,522 participants worldwide were living with HIV, 664 in the United States. All U.S. cases were reported from the New York City Health and Hospitals system, Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit, and BronxCare Health System in New York City. Almost all of the remaining participants lived in South Africa – 14,682 of the 15,522, or 94.5%.

Of the 15,522 people living with HIV in the overall group, 37.1% of participants were male, and their median age was 45 years. More than 1 in 3 (36.2%) were admitted with severe or critical COVID-19, and nearly one quarter – 23.1% – with a known outcome died. More than half had one or more chronic conditions, including those that themselves are associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes, such as hypertension (in 33.2% of the participants), diabetes (22.7%), and BMIs above 30 (16.9%). In addition, 8.9% were smokers, 6.6% had chronic pulmonary disease, and 4.3% had chronic heart disease.

After adjusting for those chronic conditions, age, and sex, people living with HIV had a 6% higher rate of severe or critical COVID-19 illness. When investigators adjusted the analysis additionally to differentiate outcomes based on not just the presence of comorbid conditions but the number of them a person had, that increased risk rose to 13%. HIV itself is a comorbid condition, though it wasn’t counted as one in this adjusted analysis.

It didn’t matter whether researchers looked at risk for severe outcomes or deaths after removing the significant co-occurring conditions or if they looked at number of chronic illnesses (aside from HIV), said Silvia Bertagnolio, MD, medical officer at the World Health Organization and co-author of the analysis.

“Both models show almost identical [adjusted odds ratios], meaning that HIV was independently significantly associated with severe/critical presentation,” she told this news organization.

As for death, the analysis showed that, overall, people living with HIV were 30% more likely to die of COVID-19 compared with those not living with HIV. And while this held true even when they adjusted the data for comorbidities, people with HIV were more likely to die if they were over age 65 (risk increased by 82%), male (risk increased by 21%), had diabetes (risk increased by 50%), or had hypertension (risk increased by 26%).

When they broke down the data by WHO region – Africa, Europe, the Americas – investigators found that the increased risk for death held true in Africa. But there were not enough data from the other regions to model mortality risk. What’s more, when they broke the data down by country and excluded South Africa, they found that the elevated risk for death in people living with HIV did not reach statistical significance. Dr. Bertagnolio said she suspects that the small sample sizes from other regions made it impossible to detect a difference, but one could still be present.

One thing conspicuously absent from the analysis was information on viral load, CD4 T-cell count, progression of HIV to AIDS, and whether individuals were in HIV care. The first three factors were not reported in the platform, and the fourth was available for 60% of participants but was not included in the analysis. Dr. Bertagnolio pointed out that, for those 60% of participants, 91.8% were on antiretroviral treatment (ART).

“The majority of patients come from South Africa, and we know that in South Africa, over 90% of people receiving ART are virologically suppressed,” she told this news organization. “So we could speculate that this effect persists despite the use of ART, in a population likely to be virally suppressed, although we cannot assess this with certainty through the data set we had.”

A much smaller study of 749 people living with HIV and diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2, also presented at the conference, found that detectable HIV viral load was significantly associated with a slightly higher risk of severe outcomes (P < .039), but CD4 counts less than 200 cells/mm³ was not (P = .15).

And although both Dr. Bertagnolio and conference organizers presented this data as proof that HIV increases the risk for poor COVID-19 outcomes, Dr. Malebranche isn’t so sure. He estimates that only about half his patients have received the COVID-19 vaccine. But this study is unlikely to make him forcefully recommend a COVID-19 vaccination with young, otherwise healthy, and undetectable people in his care who express particular concern about long-term effects of the vaccine. He also manages a lot of people with HIV who have undetectable viral loads and CD4 counts of up to 1,200 but are older, with diabetes, obesity, and high blood pressure. Those are the people he will target with stronger messages regarding the vaccine.

“The young patients who are healthy, virally suppressed, and doing well may very much argue with me, ‘I’m not going to push it,’ but I will bring it up on the next visit,” he said. The analysis “just helps reinforce in me that I need to have these conversations and be a little bit more persuasive to my older patients with comorbid conditions.”

Dr. Bertagnolio has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Malebranche serves on the pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) speakers bureau for Gilead Sciences and has consulted and advised for ViiV Healthcare. This study was funded by the World Health Organization.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a new version of asparaginase for use in children and adults who have developed hypersensitivity to asparaginase derived from Escherichia coli.

The new product is Jazz Pharmaceutical’s Rylaze (asparaginase erwinia chrysanthemi [recombinant]-rywn), and it is approved for use in the treatment of acute lymphoblastic leukemia and lymphoblastic lymphoma.

Asparaginase, an enzyme that helps kill blood cancer cells, is a key component of chemotherapy for both conditions.

The problem is that about 20% of patients become allergic to the standard option, asparaginase derived from Escherichia coli.

The only alternative until now has been Erwinaze (also distributed by Jazz Pharmaceuticals), which, like Rylaze, is derived from Erwinia chrysanthemi, a plant pathogen related to Escherichia coli.

However, Erwinaze has been bedeviled by manufacturing problems and has been in short supply since 2016.

The situation has been “extremely disconcerting to patients, families and providers,” and the hope is that Rylaze will “provide a consistently sourced alternative,” Gregory Reaman, MD, the FDA’s associate director of pediatric oncology, said in a press release.

Rylaze will hit the U.S. market in mid-July. Jazz has been a distributor of Erwinaze as well, but it released its last batch in May, according to a spokesperson.

The key difference between the two products is that the asparaginase in Erwinaze is derived directly from Erwinia chrysanthemi, whereas the asparaginase in Rylaze is a recombinant product produced by different bacteria that have been genetically altered with Erwinia chrysanthemi DNA.

The approval for Rylaze was based on a study involving 102 patients (median age, 10 years) who developed hypersensitivity to Escherichia coli–derived enzyme or “silent inactivation” from neutralizing antibodies. In the study, almost 94% of patients achieved asparaginase target activity levels at the approved dosage of 25 mg/m² IM every 48 hours. The study is ongoing, and investigators are currently evaluating intravenous dosing.

The most common side effects are hypersensitivity reactions, blood clots, hemorrhage, and pancreatic and liver toxicity. There is also a risk for fetal harm, so labeling advises women to use effective nonhormonal contraception during treatment and for 3 months afterward.
 

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a new version of asparaginase for use in children and adults who have developed hypersensitivity to asparaginase derived from Escherichia coli.

The new product is Jazz Pharmaceutical’s Rylaze (asparaginase erwinia chrysanthemi [recombinant]-rywn), and it is approved for use in the treatment of acute lymphoblastic leukemia and lymphoblastic lymphoma.

Asparaginase, an enzyme that helps kill blood cancer cells, is a key component of chemotherapy for both conditions.

The problem is that about 20% of patients become allergic to the standard option, asparaginase derived from Escherichia coli.

The only alternative until now has been Erwinaze (also distributed by Jazz Pharmaceuticals), which, like Rylaze, is derived from Erwinia chrysanthemi, a plant pathogen related to Escherichia coli.

However, Erwinaze has been bedeviled by manufacturing problems and has been in short supply since 2016.

The situation has been “extremely disconcerting to patients, families and providers,” and the hope is that Rylaze will “provide a consistently sourced alternative,” Gregory Reaman, MD, the FDA’s associate director of pediatric oncology, said in a press release.

Rylaze will hit the U.S. market in mid-July. Jazz has been a distributor of Erwinaze as well, but it released its last batch in May, according to a spokesperson.

The key difference between the two products is that the asparaginase in Erwinaze is derived directly from Erwinia chrysanthemi, whereas the asparaginase in Rylaze is a recombinant product produced by different bacteria that have been genetically altered with Erwinia chrysanthemi DNA.

The approval for Rylaze was based on a study involving 102 patients (median age, 10 years) who developed hypersensitivity to Escherichia coli–derived enzyme or “silent inactivation” from neutralizing antibodies. In the study, almost 94% of patients achieved asparaginase target activity levels at the approved dosage of 25 mg/m² IM every 48 hours. The study is ongoing, and investigators are currently evaluating intravenous dosing.

The most common side effects are hypersensitivity reactions, blood clots, hemorrhage, and pancreatic and liver toxicity. There is also a risk for fetal harm, so labeling advises women to use effective nonhormonal contraception during treatment and for 3 months afterward.
 

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a new version of asparaginase for use in children and adults who have developed hypersensitivity to asparaginase derived from Escherichia coli.

The new product is Jazz Pharmaceutical’s Rylaze (asparaginase erwinia chrysanthemi [recombinant]-rywn), and it is approved for use in the treatment of acute lymphoblastic leukemia and lymphoblastic lymphoma.

Asparaginase, an enzyme that helps kill blood cancer cells, is a key component of chemotherapy for both conditions.

The problem is that about 20% of patients become allergic to the standard option, asparaginase derived from Escherichia coli.

The only alternative until now has been Erwinaze (also distributed by Jazz Pharmaceuticals), which, like Rylaze, is derived from Erwinia chrysanthemi, a plant pathogen related to Escherichia coli.

However, Erwinaze has been bedeviled by manufacturing problems and has been in short supply since 2016.

The situation has been “extremely disconcerting to patients, families and providers,” and the hope is that Rylaze will “provide a consistently sourced alternative,” Gregory Reaman, MD, the FDA’s associate director of pediatric oncology, said in a press release.

Rylaze will hit the U.S. market in mid-July. Jazz has been a distributor of Erwinaze as well, but it released its last batch in May, according to a spokesperson.

The key difference between the two products is that the asparaginase in Erwinaze is derived directly from Erwinia chrysanthemi, whereas the asparaginase in Rylaze is a recombinant product produced by different bacteria that have been genetically altered with Erwinia chrysanthemi DNA.

The approval for Rylaze was based on a study involving 102 patients (median age, 10 years) who developed hypersensitivity to Escherichia coli–derived enzyme or “silent inactivation” from neutralizing antibodies. In the study, almost 94% of patients achieved asparaginase target activity levels at the approved dosage of 25 mg/m² IM every 48 hours. The study is ongoing, and investigators are currently evaluating intravenous dosing.

The most common side effects are hypersensitivity reactions, blood clots, hemorrhage, and pancreatic and liver toxicity. There is also a risk for fetal harm, so labeling advises women to use effective nonhormonal contraception during treatment and for 3 months afterward.
 

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

The amount of prescription drugs given to children in the United States decreased by 27.1% between April and December 2020, compared with the same period in 2019, based on data from a national database.

Overall, dispensing of prescription drugs to all patients in the United States decreased in the wake of COVID-19 but has since rebounded, wrote Kao-Ping Chua, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues. “However, whether these same trends occurred for children is unknown.”

In a study published in Pediatrics, the researchers used the IQVIA National Prescription Audit, a database that contains monthly dispensing details from 92% of retail pharmacies in the United States. They compared changes in the dispensing of prescriptions with children aged 0-19 years during 2018-2020.

In the April 2020–December 2020 time period, prescriptions for children aged 1-2 years, 3-9 years, and 10-19 years decreased by 48.7%, 40.6%, and 16.8%, respectively, compared with the same time period in 2019.

The overall dispensing total for children from April 2020 to December 2020 was 160,630,406, representing a 27.1% reduction, compared with the 220,284,613 total from April 2019 to December 2019.

By drug class, prescriptions for antibiotics, ADHD medications, and antidepressants decreased by 55.6%, 11.8%, and 0.1%, respectively, in comparing the two time periods. Prescriptions for drug classes used typically for acute infections decreased by 51.3%, and those used for chronic diseases decreased by 17.4%.

From January 2018 to February 2020, a median of 25,744,758 prescriptions were dispensed to children aged 0-19 years each month. The total prescriptions decreased from 25,684,219 in March 2020 to 16,742,568 in April 2020, increased to 19,657,289 in October 2020, and decreased again to 15,821,914 during December 2020.

In a subgroup analysis, the decline in prescriptions was greater in children aged 0-9 years, compared with those aged 10-19 years. “Because young children have a higher rate of antibiotic use than older children, declines in antibiotic dispensing might affect overall dispensing totals to a greater degree in young children,” the researchers said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of information on clinical outcomes, disease severity, and details of new versus ongoing prescriptions, as well as the possible heterogeneity in indications within drug classes, and lack of data from small pharmacies, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the use of a national all-payer database that including most prescriptions dispensed in the United States, and the use of objective measurements of prescribing practices rather than self-reports.

Despite concerns for the decreased dispensing of chronic disease drugs to children during the pandemic, “declines in dispensing of infection-related drugs, such as antitussives and antibiotics, may be welcome developments,” the researchers said. “These declines reveal that substantial reductions in prescribing of these drugs are possible,” and ongoing monitoring is needed to follow whether the reductions continue long term.
 

COVID precautions contributed to prescription declines

The mask-wearing and social distancing imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic has contributed to reduced rates of other illnesses, Karalyn Kinsella, MD, a pediatrician in private practice in Cheshire, Conn., said in an interview.

“On the surface, with masks and social isolation, we have seen a drastic reduction in infectious disease,” she said. Fewer infections mean a reduced need for prescriptions to treat them. However, Dr. Kinsella expects the situation to change as more venues and activities open. “I expect that, as things continue to open, we will continue to see more infectious disease,” which will likely lead to more prescription drug use.

Part of the study data were provided through the IQVIA Institute’s Human Data Science Research Collaborative. Lead author Dr. Chua was supported by a career development award from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, but had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Kinsella had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves as a member of the Pediatric News editorial advisory board.

The amount of prescription drugs given to children in the United States decreased by 27.1% between April and December 2020, compared with the same period in 2019, based on data from a national database.

Overall, dispensing of prescription drugs to all patients in the United States decreased in the wake of COVID-19 but has since rebounded, wrote Kao-Ping Chua, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues. “However, whether these same trends occurred for children is unknown.”

In a study published in Pediatrics, the researchers used the IQVIA National Prescription Audit, a database that contains monthly dispensing details from 92% of retail pharmacies in the United States. They compared changes in the dispensing of prescriptions with children aged 0-19 years during 2018-2020.

In the April 2020–December 2020 time period, prescriptions for children aged 1-2 years, 3-9 years, and 10-19 years decreased by 48.7%, 40.6%, and 16.8%, respectively, compared with the same time period in 2019.

The overall dispensing total for children from April 2020 to December 2020 was 160,630,406, representing a 27.1% reduction, compared with the 220,284,613 total from April 2019 to December 2019.

By drug class, prescriptions for antibiotics, ADHD medications, and antidepressants decreased by 55.6%, 11.8%, and 0.1%, respectively, in comparing the two time periods. Prescriptions for drug classes used typically for acute infections decreased by 51.3%, and those used for chronic diseases decreased by 17.4%.

From January 2018 to February 2020, a median of 25,744,758 prescriptions were dispensed to children aged 0-19 years each month. The total prescriptions decreased from 25,684,219 in March 2020 to 16,742,568 in April 2020, increased to 19,657,289 in October 2020, and decreased again to 15,821,914 during December 2020.

In a subgroup analysis, the decline in prescriptions was greater in children aged 0-9 years, compared with those aged 10-19 years. “Because young children have a higher rate of antibiotic use than older children, declines in antibiotic dispensing might affect overall dispensing totals to a greater degree in young children,” the researchers said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of information on clinical outcomes, disease severity, and details of new versus ongoing prescriptions, as well as the possible heterogeneity in indications within drug classes, and lack of data from small pharmacies, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the use of a national all-payer database that including most prescriptions dispensed in the United States, and the use of objective measurements of prescribing practices rather than self-reports.

Despite concerns for the decreased dispensing of chronic disease drugs to children during the pandemic, “declines in dispensing of infection-related drugs, such as antitussives and antibiotics, may be welcome developments,” the researchers said. “These declines reveal that substantial reductions in prescribing of these drugs are possible,” and ongoing monitoring is needed to follow whether the reductions continue long term.
 

COVID precautions contributed to prescription declines

The mask-wearing and social distancing imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic has contributed to reduced rates of other illnesses, Karalyn Kinsella, MD, a pediatrician in private practice in Cheshire, Conn., said in an interview.

“On the surface, with masks and social isolation, we have seen a drastic reduction in infectious disease,” she said. Fewer infections mean a reduced need for prescriptions to treat them. However, Dr. Kinsella expects the situation to change as more venues and activities open. “I expect that, as things continue to open, we will continue to see more infectious disease,” which will likely lead to more prescription drug use.

Part of the study data were provided through the IQVIA Institute’s Human Data Science Research Collaborative. Lead author Dr. Chua was supported by a career development award from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, but had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Kinsella had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves as a member of the Pediatric News editorial advisory board.

The amount of prescription drugs given to children in the United States decreased by 27.1% between April and December 2020, compared with the same period in 2019, based on data from a national database.

Overall, dispensing of prescription drugs to all patients in the United States decreased in the wake of COVID-19 but has since rebounded, wrote Kao-Ping Chua, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues. “However, whether these same trends occurred for children is unknown.”

In a study published in Pediatrics, the researchers used the IQVIA National Prescription Audit, a database that contains monthly dispensing details from 92% of retail pharmacies in the United States. They compared changes in the dispensing of prescriptions with children aged 0-19 years during 2018-2020.

In the April 2020–December 2020 time period, prescriptions for children aged 1-2 years, 3-9 years, and 10-19 years decreased by 48.7%, 40.6%, and 16.8%, respectively, compared with the same time period in 2019.

The overall dispensing total for children from April 2020 to December 2020 was 160,630,406, representing a 27.1% reduction, compared with the 220,284,613 total from April 2019 to December 2019.

By drug class, prescriptions for antibiotics, ADHD medications, and antidepressants decreased by 55.6%, 11.8%, and 0.1%, respectively, in comparing the two time periods. Prescriptions for drug classes used typically for acute infections decreased by 51.3%, and those used for chronic diseases decreased by 17.4%.

From January 2018 to February 2020, a median of 25,744,758 prescriptions were dispensed to children aged 0-19 years each month. The total prescriptions decreased from 25,684,219 in March 2020 to 16,742,568 in April 2020, increased to 19,657,289 in October 2020, and decreased again to 15,821,914 during December 2020.

In a subgroup analysis, the decline in prescriptions was greater in children aged 0-9 years, compared with those aged 10-19 years. “Because young children have a higher rate of antibiotic use than older children, declines in antibiotic dispensing might affect overall dispensing totals to a greater degree in young children,” the researchers said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of information on clinical outcomes, disease severity, and details of new versus ongoing prescriptions, as well as the possible heterogeneity in indications within drug classes, and lack of data from small pharmacies, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the use of a national all-payer database that including most prescriptions dispensed in the United States, and the use of objective measurements of prescribing practices rather than self-reports.

Despite concerns for the decreased dispensing of chronic disease drugs to children during the pandemic, “declines in dispensing of infection-related drugs, such as antitussives and antibiotics, may be welcome developments,” the researchers said. “These declines reveal that substantial reductions in prescribing of these drugs are possible,” and ongoing monitoring is needed to follow whether the reductions continue long term.
 

COVID precautions contributed to prescription declines

The mask-wearing and social distancing imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic has contributed to reduced rates of other illnesses, Karalyn Kinsella, MD, a pediatrician in private practice in Cheshire, Conn., said in an interview.

“On the surface, with masks and social isolation, we have seen a drastic reduction in infectious disease,” she said. Fewer infections mean a reduced need for prescriptions to treat them. However, Dr. Kinsella expects the situation to change as more venues and activities open. “I expect that, as things continue to open, we will continue to see more infectious disease,” which will likely lead to more prescription drug use.

Part of the study data were provided through the IQVIA Institute’s Human Data Science Research Collaborative. Lead author Dr. Chua was supported by a career development award from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, but had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Kinsella had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves as a member of the Pediatric News editorial advisory board.

Coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) can be performed successfully after transcatheter aortic valve replacement in most cases, according to data drawn from an international registry that has collected more than 400 such cases.

Overall, reaccess coronary angiography was successful in about 99% of cases with type of prosthesis identified as the most important variable in predicting success, according to a multicenter investigating team led by Won-Keun Kim, MD, director of structural heart disease, Kerckhoff Heart Center, Bad Nauheim, Germany.

By type of prosthesis, Dr. Kim was referring to long versus short stent-frame prostheses (SFP). In the case of angiography of the right coronary artery, for example, success was achieved in 99.6% of those with a short SFP and 95.9% of those with a long SFP (P = .005).

The study was published online in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.

Based on these and previous data, “prosthetic choice will be the main decisive factor that affects coronary reaccess, and this decision is in the hands of the TAVR operator,” said Dr. Kim in an interview.

This does not preclude use of a long SFP in TAVR. For patients with increased likelihood of eventually requiring a coronary intervention after TAVR, such as those undergoing the procedure at a relatively young age, a short device appears to be preferable, but Dr. Kim emphasized that it is not the only consideration.

When performing TAVR, “the highest priority is to accomplish a safe procedure with a good immediate outcome,” he said, pointing out that angiographic reaccess and PCI are successfully achieved in most patients whether fitted with a short or long SFP.

“If for any reason I assume that the immediate outcome [after TAVR] might be better using a long SFP, I would not hesitate to use a long SFP,” said Dr. Kim, giving such examples as a need for resheathing or precise positioning.
 

Coronary reaccess has low relative priority

“Coronary reaccess is an important issue and there is an increasing awareness of this, but it has a lower priority” than optimizing TAVR success,” Dr. Kim explained.

The analysis of coronary angiographic reaccess was based on 449 TAVR patients from 25 sites who required reaccess angiography. The indication in most cases was an acute coronary syndrome, mostly non–ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI, 79%). Of the remaining patients, about half had STEMIs and half had other acute cardiovascular situations. The median time interval from TAVR to need for coronary angiography was 311 days.

In all but 2.7%, diagnostic catheterization was performed initially. It was successful in 98.3% of the procedures in the right coronary artery, 99.3% of the left coronary artery, and 97.3% overall.

Of the 60% who underwent PCI, 9% were considered unsuccessful. The reasons included lack of reflow in eight cases and coronary access issues in six cases. A variety of other issues accounted for the remaining seven cases.

Technical success was achieved in 91.4% of native arteries. In the six cases in which engagement of the culprit vessel with a guiding catheter failed, three were converted to urgent coronary bypass grafting and three died in the hospital. Neither selective versus unselective guiding-catheter engagement nor long versus short SFP related to PCI success, but PCI was performed less commonly in the native coronary arteries of TAVR patients with a long rather than short SFP (49% vs. 57%).

The 30-day all-cause mortality in this series was 12.2%. The independent predictors were a history of diabetes and the occurrence of cardiogenic shock. In the PCI subgroup, these factors plus PCI success predicted 30-day mortality.
 

Strategies to improve reaccess not resolved

When performing TAVR, other factors that might influence subsequent PCI success includes commissural alignment and positioning, according to Dr. Kim. But he cautioned that there are a number of potential controversies when weighing how to improve chances of post-TAVR angiographic reaccess without compromising the success of valve replacement.

“Lower positioning facilitates coronary access, but unfortunately will increase rates of conduction disturbances,” he noted.

Overall, one of the main messages from this analysis is that “the fear of impaired coronary access [after TAVR] may well be disproportionate to the reality,” according to Neal S. Kleiman, MD, an interventional cardiologist at Houston Methodist DeBakey Heart and Vascular Center. Dr. Kleiman wrote an editorial on the registry findings in the same issue of JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions).

Yet, he agreed that the issue of angiographic reaccess after TAVR cannot be ignored. Although reaccess after TAVR has so far been “surprisingly rare,” Dr. Kleiman expects cases to increase as more younger patients undergo TAVR. He suggested that interventionalists will need consider this issue when performing TAVR, a point he reemphasized in an interview.

“It is still a concern when recommending TAVR to a patient and still poses challenges to device manufacturers,” said Dr. Kleiman, suggesting that “a new set of skills” will be required to perform TAVR that will optimize subsequent angiographic access and PCI.

Dr. Kim agreed. Ultimately, other challenges, such as PCI performed after TAVR-in-TAVR placement, are likely to further complicate this issue, but he, too, is looking to new devices to minimize the problems.

“It would be desirable to modify the design, especially of long SFPs, to improve access for PCI, and there are ongoing efforts of the manufacturers to achieve this,” Dr. Kim said.

Dr. Kim reported financial relationships with Abbot, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Meril Lifesciences. Dr. Kleiman reported financial relationships with Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic.

Coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) can be performed successfully after transcatheter aortic valve replacement in most cases, according to data drawn from an international registry that has collected more than 400 such cases.

Overall, reaccess coronary angiography was successful in about 99% of cases with type of prosthesis identified as the most important variable in predicting success, according to a multicenter investigating team led by Won-Keun Kim, MD, director of structural heart disease, Kerckhoff Heart Center, Bad Nauheim, Germany.

By type of prosthesis, Dr. Kim was referring to long versus short stent-frame prostheses (SFP). In the case of angiography of the right coronary artery, for example, success was achieved in 99.6% of those with a short SFP and 95.9% of those with a long SFP (P = .005).

The study was published online in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.

Based on these and previous data, “prosthetic choice will be the main decisive factor that affects coronary reaccess, and this decision is in the hands of the TAVR operator,” said Dr. Kim in an interview.

This does not preclude use of a long SFP in TAVR. For patients with increased likelihood of eventually requiring a coronary intervention after TAVR, such as those undergoing the procedure at a relatively young age, a short device appears to be preferable, but Dr. Kim emphasized that it is not the only consideration.

When performing TAVR, “the highest priority is to accomplish a safe procedure with a good immediate outcome,” he said, pointing out that angiographic reaccess and PCI are successfully achieved in most patients whether fitted with a short or long SFP.

“If for any reason I assume that the immediate outcome [after TAVR] might be better using a long SFP, I would not hesitate to use a long SFP,” said Dr. Kim, giving such examples as a need for resheathing or precise positioning.
 

Coronary reaccess has low relative priority

“Coronary reaccess is an important issue and there is an increasing awareness of this, but it has a lower priority” than optimizing TAVR success,” Dr. Kim explained.

The analysis of coronary angiographic reaccess was based on 449 TAVR patients from 25 sites who required reaccess angiography. The indication in most cases was an acute coronary syndrome, mostly non–ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI, 79%). Of the remaining patients, about half had STEMIs and half had other acute cardiovascular situations. The median time interval from TAVR to need for coronary angiography was 311 days.

In all but 2.7%, diagnostic catheterization was performed initially. It was successful in 98.3% of the procedures in the right coronary artery, 99.3% of the left coronary artery, and 97.3% overall.

Of the 60% who underwent PCI, 9% were considered unsuccessful. The reasons included lack of reflow in eight cases and coronary access issues in six cases. A variety of other issues accounted for the remaining seven cases.

Technical success was achieved in 91.4% of native arteries. In the six cases in which engagement of the culprit vessel with a guiding catheter failed, three were converted to urgent coronary bypass grafting and three died in the hospital. Neither selective versus unselective guiding-catheter engagement nor long versus short SFP related to PCI success, but PCI was performed less commonly in the native coronary arteries of TAVR patients with a long rather than short SFP (49% vs. 57%).

The 30-day all-cause mortality in this series was 12.2%. The independent predictors were a history of diabetes and the occurrence of cardiogenic shock. In the PCI subgroup, these factors plus PCI success predicted 30-day mortality.
 

Strategies to improve reaccess not resolved

When performing TAVR, other factors that might influence subsequent PCI success includes commissural alignment and positioning, according to Dr. Kim. But he cautioned that there are a number of potential controversies when weighing how to improve chances of post-TAVR angiographic reaccess without compromising the success of valve replacement.

“Lower positioning facilitates coronary access, but unfortunately will increase rates of conduction disturbances,” he noted.

Overall, one of the main messages from this analysis is that “the fear of impaired coronary access [after TAVR] may well be disproportionate to the reality,” according to Neal S. Kleiman, MD, an interventional cardiologist at Houston Methodist DeBakey Heart and Vascular Center. Dr. Kleiman wrote an editorial on the registry findings in the same issue of JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions).

Yet, he agreed that the issue of angiographic reaccess after TAVR cannot be ignored. Although reaccess after TAVR has so far been “surprisingly rare,” Dr. Kleiman expects cases to increase as more younger patients undergo TAVR. He suggested that interventionalists will need consider this issue when performing TAVR, a point he reemphasized in an interview.

“It is still a concern when recommending TAVR to a patient and still poses challenges to device manufacturers,” said Dr. Kleiman, suggesting that “a new set of skills” will be required to perform TAVR that will optimize subsequent angiographic access and PCI.

Dr. Kim agreed. Ultimately, other challenges, such as PCI performed after TAVR-in-TAVR placement, are likely to further complicate this issue, but he, too, is looking to new devices to minimize the problems.

“It would be desirable to modify the design, especially of long SFPs, to improve access for PCI, and there are ongoing efforts of the manufacturers to achieve this,” Dr. Kim said.

Dr. Kim reported financial relationships with Abbot, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Meril Lifesciences. Dr. Kleiman reported financial relationships with Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic.

Coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) can be performed successfully after transcatheter aortic valve replacement in most cases, according to data drawn from an international registry that has collected more than 400 such cases.

Overall, reaccess coronary angiography was successful in about 99% of cases with type of prosthesis identified as the most important variable in predicting success, according to a multicenter investigating team led by Won-Keun Kim, MD, director of structural heart disease, Kerckhoff Heart Center, Bad Nauheim, Germany.

By type of prosthesis, Dr. Kim was referring to long versus short stent-frame prostheses (SFP). In the case of angiography of the right coronary artery, for example, success was achieved in 99.6% of those with a short SFP and 95.9% of those with a long SFP (P = .005).

The study was published online in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.

Based on these and previous data, “prosthetic choice will be the main decisive factor that affects coronary reaccess, and this decision is in the hands of the TAVR operator,” said Dr. Kim in an interview.

This does not preclude use of a long SFP in TAVR. For patients with increased likelihood of eventually requiring a coronary intervention after TAVR, such as those undergoing the procedure at a relatively young age, a short device appears to be preferable, but Dr. Kim emphasized that it is not the only consideration.

When performing TAVR, “the highest priority is to accomplish a safe procedure with a good immediate outcome,” he said, pointing out that angiographic reaccess and PCI are successfully achieved in most patients whether fitted with a short or long SFP.

“If for any reason I assume that the immediate outcome [after TAVR] might be better using a long SFP, I would not hesitate to use a long SFP,” said Dr. Kim, giving such examples as a need for resheathing or precise positioning.
 

Coronary reaccess has low relative priority

“Coronary reaccess is an important issue and there is an increasing awareness of this, but it has a lower priority” than optimizing TAVR success,” Dr. Kim explained.

The analysis of coronary angiographic reaccess was based on 449 TAVR patients from 25 sites who required reaccess angiography. The indication in most cases was an acute coronary syndrome, mostly non–ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI, 79%). Of the remaining patients, about half had STEMIs and half had other acute cardiovascular situations. The median time interval from TAVR to need for coronary angiography was 311 days.

In all but 2.7%, diagnostic catheterization was performed initially. It was successful in 98.3% of the procedures in the right coronary artery, 99.3% of the left coronary artery, and 97.3% overall.

Of the 60% who underwent PCI, 9% were considered unsuccessful. The reasons included lack of reflow in eight cases and coronary access issues in six cases. A variety of other issues accounted for the remaining seven cases.

Technical success was achieved in 91.4% of native arteries. In the six cases in which engagement of the culprit vessel with a guiding catheter failed, three were converted to urgent coronary bypass grafting and three died in the hospital. Neither selective versus unselective guiding-catheter engagement nor long versus short SFP related to PCI success, but PCI was performed less commonly in the native coronary arteries of TAVR patients with a long rather than short SFP (49% vs. 57%).

The 30-day all-cause mortality in this series was 12.2%. The independent predictors were a history of diabetes and the occurrence of cardiogenic shock. In the PCI subgroup, these factors plus PCI success predicted 30-day mortality.
 

Strategies to improve reaccess not resolved

When performing TAVR, other factors that might influence subsequent PCI success includes commissural alignment and positioning, according to Dr. Kim. But he cautioned that there are a number of potential controversies when weighing how to improve chances of post-TAVR angiographic reaccess without compromising the success of valve replacement.

“Lower positioning facilitates coronary access, but unfortunately will increase rates of conduction disturbances,” he noted.

Overall, one of the main messages from this analysis is that “the fear of impaired coronary access [after TAVR] may well be disproportionate to the reality,” according to Neal S. Kleiman, MD, an interventional cardiologist at Houston Methodist DeBakey Heart and Vascular Center. Dr. Kleiman wrote an editorial on the registry findings in the same issue of JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions).

Yet, he agreed that the issue of angiographic reaccess after TAVR cannot be ignored. Although reaccess after TAVR has so far been “surprisingly rare,” Dr. Kleiman expects cases to increase as more younger patients undergo TAVR. He suggested that interventionalists will need consider this issue when performing TAVR, a point he reemphasized in an interview.

“It is still a concern when recommending TAVR to a patient and still poses challenges to device manufacturers,” said Dr. Kleiman, suggesting that “a new set of skills” will be required to perform TAVR that will optimize subsequent angiographic access and PCI.

Dr. Kim agreed. Ultimately, other challenges, such as PCI performed after TAVR-in-TAVR placement, are likely to further complicate this issue, but he, too, is looking to new devices to minimize the problems.

“It would be desirable to modify the design, especially of long SFPs, to improve access for PCI, and there are ongoing efforts of the manufacturers to achieve this,” Dr. Kim said.

Dr. Kim reported financial relationships with Abbot, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Meril Lifesciences. Dr. Kleiman reported financial relationships with Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic.