*This article has been corrected to include a missing author.

Case Presentation. A 63-year-old male with well-controlled HIV (CD4 count 757, undetectable viral load), epilepsy, and hypertension presented to the VA Boston Healthcare System (VABHS) emergency department with 1 week of bilateral leg swelling and exertional shortness of breath. He reported having no fever, cough, chest pain, pain with inspiration and orthopnea. There was no personal or family history of pulmonary embolism. He reported weight gain but was unable to quantify how much. He also reported flare up of chronic knee pain, without swelling for which he had taken up to 4 tablets of naproxen daily for several weeks. His physical examination was notable for a heart rate of 105 beats per minute and bilateral pitting edema to his knees. Laboratory testing revealed a creatinine level of 2.5 mg/dL, which was increased from a baseline of 1.0 mg/dL (Table 1), and a urine protein-to-creatinine ratio of 7.8 mg/mg (Table 2). A renal ultrasound showed normal-sized kidneys without hydronephrosis or obstructing renal calculi. The patient was admitted for further workup of his dyspnea and acute kidney injury.

► Jonathan Li, MD, Chief Medical Resident, VABHS and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC). Dr. William, based on the degree of proteinuria and edema, a diagnosis of nephrotic syndrome was made. How is nephrotic syndrome defined, and how is it distinguished from glomerulonephritis?

► Jeffrey William, MD, Nephrologist, BIDMC, Assistant Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School. The pathophysiology of nephrotic disease and glomerulonephritis are quite distinct, resulting in symptoms and systemic manifestations that only slightly overlap. Glomerulonephritis is characterized by inflammation of the endothelial cells of the trilayered glomerular capillary, with a resulting active urine sediment with red blood cells, white blood cells, and casts. Nephrotic syndrome mostly affects the visceral epithelial cells of the glomerular capillary, commonly referred to as podocytes, and hence, the urine sediment in nephrotic disease is often inactive. Patients with nephrotic syndrome have nephrotic-range proteinuria (excretion of > 3.5 g per 24 h or a spot urine protein-creatinine ratio > 3.5 g in the steady state) and both hypoalbuminemia (< 3 g/dL) and peripheral edema. Lipiduria and hyperlipidemia are common findings in nephrotic syndrome but are not required for a clinical diagnosis.¹ In contrast, glomerulonephritis is defined by a constellation of findings that include renal insufficiency (often indicated by an elevation in blood urea nitrogen and creatinine), hypertension, hematuria, and subnephrotic range proteinuria. In practice, patients may fulfill criteria of both nephrotic and nephritic syndromes, but the preponderance of clinical evidence often points one way or the other. In this case, nephrotic syndrome was diagnosed based on the urine protein-to-creatinine ratio of 7.8 mg/mg, hypoalbuminemia, and edema.

► Dr. Li. What would be your first-line workup for evaluation of the etiology of this patient’s nephrotic syndrome?

► Dr. William. Rather than memorizing a list of etiologies of nephrotic syndrome, it is essential to consider the pathophysiology of heavy proteinuria. Though the glomerular filtration barrier is extremely complex and defects in any component can cause proteinuria, disruption of the podocyte is often involved. Common disease processes that chiefly target the podocyte include minimal change disease, primary focal and segmental glomerulosclerosis (FSGS), and membranous nephropathy, all by differing mechanisms. Minimal change disease and idiopathic/primary FSGS are increasingly thought to be at differing points on a spectrum of the same disease.² Secondary FSGS, on the other hand, is a progressive disease, commonly resulting from longstanding hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and obesity in adults. Membranous nephropathy can also be either primary or secondary. Primary membranous nephropathy is chiefly caused by a circulating IgG4 antibody to the podocyte membrane antigen PLA2R (M-type phospholipase A2 receptor), whereas secondary membranous nephropathy can be caused by a variety of systemic etiologies, including autoimmune disease (eg, systemic lupus erythematosus), certain malignancies, chronic infections (eg, hepatitis B and C), and many medications, including nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs).^3-5 Paraprotein deposition diseases can also cause glomerular damage leading to nephrotic-range proteinuria.

Given these potential diagnoses, a careful history should be taken to assess exposures and recent medication use. Urine sediment evaluation is essential in the evaluation of nephrotic syndrome to determine if there is an underlying nephritic process. Select serologies may be sent to look for autoimmune disease, such as systemic lupus erythematosus and common viral exposures like hepatitis B or C. Serum and urine protein electrophoreses would be appropriate initial tests of suspected paraprotein-related diseases. Other serologies, such as antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies or antiglomerular basement membrane antibodies, would not necessarily be indicated here given the lack of hematuria and presence of nephrotic-range proteinuria.

► Dr. Li. The initial evaluation was notable for an erythrocyte sedimentation rate > 120 (mm/h) and a weakly positive antinuclear antibody (ANA) titer of 1:40. The remainder of his initial workup did not reveal an etiology for his nephrotic syndrome (Table 3).

Dr. William, is there a role for starting urgent empiric steroids in nephrotic syndrome while workup is ongoing? If so, do the severity of proteinuria and/or symptoms play a role or is this determination based on something else?

► Dr. William. Edema is a primary symptom of nephrotic syndrome and can often be managed with diuretics alone. If a clear medication-mediated cause is suspected, discontinuation of this agent may result in spontaneous improvement without steroid treatment. However,in cases where an etiology is unclear and there are serious thrombotic complications requiring anticoagulation, and a renal biopsy is deemed to be too risky, then empiric steroid therapy may be necessary. Children with new-onset nephrotic syndrome are presumed to have minimal change disease, given its prevalence in this patient population, and are often given empiric steroids without obtaining a renal biopsy. However, in the adult population, a renal biopsy can typically be performed quickly and safely, with pathology results interpreted within days. In this patient, since a diagnosis was unclear and there was no contraindication to renal biopsy, a biopsy should be obtained before consideration of steroids.

► Dr. Li. Steroids were deferred in anticipation of renal biopsy, which showed stage I membranous nephropathy, suggestive of membranous lupus nephritis Class V. The deposits were strongly reactive for immunoglobuline G (IgG), IgA, and complement 1q (C1q), showed co-dominant staining for IgG1, IgG2, and IgG3, and were weakly positive for the PLA2 receptor. Focal intimal arteritis in a small interlobular vessel was seen.

Dr. William, the pathology returned suggestive of lupus nephritis. Does the overall clinical picture fit with lupus nephritis?

► Dr. William. Given the history and a rather low ANA, the diagnosis of lupus nephritis seems unlikely. The lack of IgG4 and PLA2R staining in the biopsy suggests that this membranous pattern on the biopsy is likely to be secondary to a systemic etiology, but further investigation should be pursued.

► Dr. Li. The patient was discharged after the biopsy with a planned outpatient nephrology follow-up to discuss results and treatment. He was prescribed an oral diuretic, and his symptoms improved. Several days after discharge, he developed blurry vision and was evaluated in the Ophthalmology clinic. On fundoscopy, he was found to have acute papillitis, a form of optic neuritis. As part of initial evaluation of infectious etiologies of papillitis, ophthalmology recommended testing for syphilis.

Dr. Strymish, when we are considering secondary syphilis, what is the recommended approach to diagnostic testing?

► Judith Strymish, MD, Infectious Diseases, BIDMC, Assistant Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School. The diagnosis of syphilis is usually made through serologic testing of blood specimens. Methods that detect the spirochete directly like dark-field smears are not readily available. Serologic tests include treponemal tests (eg, Treponema pallidum particle agglutination assay [TPPA]) and nontreponemal tests (eg, rapid plasma reagin [RPR]). One needs a confirmatory test because either test is associated with false positives. Either test can be done first. Most laboratories, including those at VABHS are now performing treponemal tests first as these have become more cost-effective.⁶ The TPPA treponemal test was found to have a lower false negative rate in primary syphilis compared with that of nontreponemal tests.⁷ Nontreponemal tests can be followed for response to therapy. If a patient has a history of treated syphilis, a nontreponemal test should be sent, since the treponemal test will remain positive for life.

If there is clinical concern for neurosyphilis, cerebrospinal fluid fluorescent (CSF) treponemal antibody needs to be sampled and sent for the nontreponemal venereal disease research laboratory (VDRL) test. The VDRL is highly specific for neurosyphilis but not as sensitive. Cerebrospinal fluid fluorescent treponemal antibody (CSF FTA) may also be sent; it is very sensitive but not very specific for neurosyphilis.

► Dr. Li. An RPR returned positive at 1:512 (was negative 14 months prior on a routine screening test), with positive reflex TPPA (Table 4). A diagnosis of secondary syphilis was made. Dr. Strymish, at this point, what additional testing and treatment is necessary?

► Dr. Strymish. With papillitis and a very high RPR, we need to assume that he has ophthalmic syphilis. This can occur in any stage of syphilis, but his eye findings and high RPR are consistent with secondary syphilis. Ophthalmic syphilis has been on the upswing, even more than is expected with recent increases in syphilis cases.⁸ Ophthalmic syphilis is considered a form of neurosyphilis. A lumbar puncture and treatment for neurosyphilis is recommended.^9,10

► Dr. Li. A lumbar puncture was performed, and his CSF was VDRL positive. This confirmed a diagnosis of neurosyphilis (Table 4). The patient was treated for neurosyphilis with IV penicillin. The patient shared that he had episodes of unprotected oral sexual activity within the past year and approximately 1 year ago, he came in close contact (but no sexual activity) with a person who had a rash consistent with syphilis.Dr. William, syphilis would be a potential unifying diagnosis of his renal and ophthalmologic manifestations. Is syphilis known to cause membranous nephropathy?

► Dr. William. Though it is uncommon, the nephrotic syndrome is a well-described complication of secondary syphilis.^11,12 Syphilis has been shown to cause nephrotic syndrome in a variety of ways. Case reports abound linking syphilis to minimal change disease and other glomerular diseases.^13,14 A case report from 1993 shows a membranous pattern of glomerular disease similar to this case.¹⁵ As a form of secondary membranous nephropathy, the immunofluorescence pattern can demonstrate staining similar to the “full house” seen in lupus nephritis (IgA, IgM, and C1q, in addition to IgG and C3).¹⁶ This explains the initial interpretation of this patient’s biopsy, as lupus nephritis would be a much more common etiology of secondary membranous nephropathy than is acute syphilis with this immunofluorescence pattern. However, the data in this case are highly suggestive of a causal relationship between secondary syphilis and membranous nephropathy.

► Dr. Li. Dr. Strymish, how should this patient be screened for syphilis reinfection, and at what intervals would you recommend?

► Dr. Strymish. He will need follow-up testing to make sure that his syphilis is effectively treated. If CSF pleocytosis was present initially, a CSF examination should be repeated every 6 months until the cell count is normal. He will also need follow-up for normalization of his RPR. Persons with HIV infection and primary or secondary syphilis should be evaluated clinically and serologically for treatment failure at 3, 6, 9, 12, and 24 months after therapy according to US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines.⁹

His treponemal test for syphilis will likely stay positive for life. His RPR should decrease significantly with effective treatment. It makes sense to screen with RPR alone as long as he continues to have risk factors for acquiring syphilis. Routine syphilis testing is recommended for pregnant women, sexually active men who have sex with men, sexually active persons with HIV, and persons taking PrEP (pre-exposure prophylaxis) for HIV prevention. He should be screened at least yearly for syphilis.

► Dr. Li. Over the next several months, the patient’s creatinine normalized and his proteinuria resolved. His vision recovered, and he has had no further ophthalmologic complications.

Dr. William, what is his long-term renal prognosis? Do you expect that his acute episode of membranous nephropathy will have permanent effects on his renal function?

► Dr. William. His rapid response to therapy for neurosyphilis provides evidence for this etiology of his renal dysfunction and glomerulonephritis. His long-term prognosis is quite good if the syphilis is the only reason for him to have renal disease. The renal damage is often reversible in these cases. However, given his prior extensive NSAID exposure and history of hypertension, he may be at higher risk for chronic kidney disease than an otherwise healthy patient, especially after an episode of acute kidney injury. Therefore, his renal function should continue to be monitored as an outpatient.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank this veteran for sharing his story and allowing us to learn from this unusual case for the benefit of our future patients.

*This article has been corrected to include a missing author.

Case Presentation. A 63-year-old male with well-controlled HIV (CD4 count 757, undetectable viral load), epilepsy, and hypertension presented to the VA Boston Healthcare System (VABHS) emergency department with 1 week of bilateral leg swelling and exertional shortness of breath. He reported having no fever, cough, chest pain, pain with inspiration and orthopnea. There was no personal or family history of pulmonary embolism. He reported weight gain but was unable to quantify how much. He also reported flare up of chronic knee pain, without swelling for which he had taken up to 4 tablets of naproxen daily for several weeks. His physical examination was notable for a heart rate of 105 beats per minute and bilateral pitting edema to his knees. Laboratory testing revealed a creatinine level of 2.5 mg/dL, which was increased from a baseline of 1.0 mg/dL (Table 1), and a urine protein-to-creatinine ratio of 7.8 mg/mg (Table 2). A renal ultrasound showed normal-sized kidneys without hydronephrosis or obstructing renal calculi. The patient was admitted for further workup of his dyspnea and acute kidney injury.

► Jonathan Li, MD, Chief Medical Resident, VABHS and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC). Dr. William, based on the degree of proteinuria and edema, a diagnosis of nephrotic syndrome was made. How is nephrotic syndrome defined, and how is it distinguished from glomerulonephritis?

► Jeffrey William, MD, Nephrologist, BIDMC, Assistant Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School. The pathophysiology of nephrotic disease and glomerulonephritis are quite distinct, resulting in symptoms and systemic manifestations that only slightly overlap. Glomerulonephritis is characterized by inflammation of the endothelial cells of the trilayered glomerular capillary, with a resulting active urine sediment with red blood cells, white blood cells, and casts. Nephrotic syndrome mostly affects the visceral epithelial cells of the glomerular capillary, commonly referred to as podocytes, and hence, the urine sediment in nephrotic disease is often inactive. Patients with nephrotic syndrome have nephrotic-range proteinuria (excretion of > 3.5 g per 24 h or a spot urine protein-creatinine ratio > 3.5 g in the steady state) and both hypoalbuminemia (< 3 g/dL) and peripheral edema. Lipiduria and hyperlipidemia are common findings in nephrotic syndrome but are not required for a clinical diagnosis.¹ In contrast, glomerulonephritis is defined by a constellation of findings that include renal insufficiency (often indicated by an elevation in blood urea nitrogen and creatinine), hypertension, hematuria, and subnephrotic range proteinuria. In practice, patients may fulfill criteria of both nephrotic and nephritic syndromes, but the preponderance of clinical evidence often points one way or the other. In this case, nephrotic syndrome was diagnosed based on the urine protein-to-creatinine ratio of 7.8 mg/mg, hypoalbuminemia, and edema.

► Dr. Li. What would be your first-line workup for evaluation of the etiology of this patient’s nephrotic syndrome?

► Dr. William. Rather than memorizing a list of etiologies of nephrotic syndrome, it is essential to consider the pathophysiology of heavy proteinuria. Though the glomerular filtration barrier is extremely complex and defects in any component can cause proteinuria, disruption of the podocyte is often involved. Common disease processes that chiefly target the podocyte include minimal change disease, primary focal and segmental glomerulosclerosis (FSGS), and membranous nephropathy, all by differing mechanisms. Minimal change disease and idiopathic/primary FSGS are increasingly thought to be at differing points on a spectrum of the same disease.² Secondary FSGS, on the other hand, is a progressive disease, commonly resulting from longstanding hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and obesity in adults. Membranous nephropathy can also be either primary or secondary. Primary membranous nephropathy is chiefly caused by a circulating IgG4 antibody to the podocyte membrane antigen PLA2R (M-type phospholipase A2 receptor), whereas secondary membranous nephropathy can be caused by a variety of systemic etiologies, including autoimmune disease (eg, systemic lupus erythematosus), certain malignancies, chronic infections (eg, hepatitis B and C), and many medications, including nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs).^3-5 Paraprotein deposition diseases can also cause glomerular damage leading to nephrotic-range proteinuria.

Given these potential diagnoses, a careful history should be taken to assess exposures and recent medication use. Urine sediment evaluation is essential in the evaluation of nephrotic syndrome to determine if there is an underlying nephritic process. Select serologies may be sent to look for autoimmune disease, such as systemic lupus erythematosus and common viral exposures like hepatitis B or C. Serum and urine protein electrophoreses would be appropriate initial tests of suspected paraprotein-related diseases. Other serologies, such as antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies or antiglomerular basement membrane antibodies, would not necessarily be indicated here given the lack of hematuria and presence of nephrotic-range proteinuria.

► Dr. Li. The initial evaluation was notable for an erythrocyte sedimentation rate > 120 (mm/h) and a weakly positive antinuclear antibody (ANA) titer of 1:40. The remainder of his initial workup did not reveal an etiology for his nephrotic syndrome (Table 3).

Dr. William, is there a role for starting urgent empiric steroids in nephrotic syndrome while workup is ongoing? If so, do the severity of proteinuria and/or symptoms play a role or is this determination based on something else?

► Dr. William. Edema is a primary symptom of nephrotic syndrome and can often be managed with diuretics alone. If a clear medication-mediated cause is suspected, discontinuation of this agent may result in spontaneous improvement without steroid treatment. However,in cases where an etiology is unclear and there are serious thrombotic complications requiring anticoagulation, and a renal biopsy is deemed to be too risky, then empiric steroid therapy may be necessary. Children with new-onset nephrotic syndrome are presumed to have minimal change disease, given its prevalence in this patient population, and are often given empiric steroids without obtaining a renal biopsy. However, in the adult population, a renal biopsy can typically be performed quickly and safely, with pathology results interpreted within days. In this patient, since a diagnosis was unclear and there was no contraindication to renal biopsy, a biopsy should be obtained before consideration of steroids.

► Dr. Li. Steroids were deferred in anticipation of renal biopsy, which showed stage I membranous nephropathy, suggestive of membranous lupus nephritis Class V. The deposits were strongly reactive for immunoglobuline G (IgG), IgA, and complement 1q (C1q), showed co-dominant staining for IgG1, IgG2, and IgG3, and were weakly positive for the PLA2 receptor. Focal intimal arteritis in a small interlobular vessel was seen.

Dr. William, the pathology returned suggestive of lupus nephritis. Does the overall clinical picture fit with lupus nephritis?

► Dr. William. Given the history and a rather low ANA, the diagnosis of lupus nephritis seems unlikely. The lack of IgG4 and PLA2R staining in the biopsy suggests that this membranous pattern on the biopsy is likely to be secondary to a systemic etiology, but further investigation should be pursued.

► Dr. Li. The patient was discharged after the biopsy with a planned outpatient nephrology follow-up to discuss results and treatment. He was prescribed an oral diuretic, and his symptoms improved. Several days after discharge, he developed blurry vision and was evaluated in the Ophthalmology clinic. On fundoscopy, he was found to have acute papillitis, a form of optic neuritis. As part of initial evaluation of infectious etiologies of papillitis, ophthalmology recommended testing for syphilis.

Dr. Strymish, when we are considering secondary syphilis, what is the recommended approach to diagnostic testing?

► Judith Strymish, MD, Infectious Diseases, BIDMC, Assistant Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School. The diagnosis of syphilis is usually made through serologic testing of blood specimens. Methods that detect the spirochete directly like dark-field smears are not readily available. Serologic tests include treponemal tests (eg, Treponema pallidum particle agglutination assay [TPPA]) and nontreponemal tests (eg, rapid plasma reagin [RPR]). One needs a confirmatory test because either test is associated with false positives. Either test can be done first. Most laboratories, including those at VABHS are now performing treponemal tests first as these have become more cost-effective.⁶ The TPPA treponemal test was found to have a lower false negative rate in primary syphilis compared with that of nontreponemal tests.⁷ Nontreponemal tests can be followed for response to therapy. If a patient has a history of treated syphilis, a nontreponemal test should be sent, since the treponemal test will remain positive for life.

If there is clinical concern for neurosyphilis, cerebrospinal fluid fluorescent (CSF) treponemal antibody needs to be sampled and sent for the nontreponemal venereal disease research laboratory (VDRL) test. The VDRL is highly specific for neurosyphilis but not as sensitive. Cerebrospinal fluid fluorescent treponemal antibody (CSF FTA) may also be sent; it is very sensitive but not very specific for neurosyphilis.

► Dr. Li. An RPR returned positive at 1:512 (was negative 14 months prior on a routine screening test), with positive reflex TPPA (Table 4). A diagnosis of secondary syphilis was made. Dr. Strymish, at this point, what additional testing and treatment is necessary?

► Dr. Strymish. With papillitis and a very high RPR, we need to assume that he has ophthalmic syphilis. This can occur in any stage of syphilis, but his eye findings and high RPR are consistent with secondary syphilis. Ophthalmic syphilis has been on the upswing, even more than is expected with recent increases in syphilis cases.⁸ Ophthalmic syphilis is considered a form of neurosyphilis. A lumbar puncture and treatment for neurosyphilis is recommended.^9,10

► Dr. Li. A lumbar puncture was performed, and his CSF was VDRL positive. This confirmed a diagnosis of neurosyphilis (Table 4). The patient was treated for neurosyphilis with IV penicillin. The patient shared that he had episodes of unprotected oral sexual activity within the past year and approximately 1 year ago, he came in close contact (but no sexual activity) with a person who had a rash consistent with syphilis.Dr. William, syphilis would be a potential unifying diagnosis of his renal and ophthalmologic manifestations. Is syphilis known to cause membranous nephropathy?

► Dr. William. Though it is uncommon, the nephrotic syndrome is a well-described complication of secondary syphilis.^11,12 Syphilis has been shown to cause nephrotic syndrome in a variety of ways. Case reports abound linking syphilis to minimal change disease and other glomerular diseases.^13,14 A case report from 1993 shows a membranous pattern of glomerular disease similar to this case.¹⁵ As a form of secondary membranous nephropathy, the immunofluorescence pattern can demonstrate staining similar to the “full house” seen in lupus nephritis (IgA, IgM, and C1q, in addition to IgG and C3).¹⁶ This explains the initial interpretation of this patient’s biopsy, as lupus nephritis would be a much more common etiology of secondary membranous nephropathy than is acute syphilis with this immunofluorescence pattern. However, the data in this case are highly suggestive of a causal relationship between secondary syphilis and membranous nephropathy.

► Dr. Li. Dr. Strymish, how should this patient be screened for syphilis reinfection, and at what intervals would you recommend?

► Dr. Strymish. He will need follow-up testing to make sure that his syphilis is effectively treated. If CSF pleocytosis was present initially, a CSF examination should be repeated every 6 months until the cell count is normal. He will also need follow-up for normalization of his RPR. Persons with HIV infection and primary or secondary syphilis should be evaluated clinically and serologically for treatment failure at 3, 6, 9, 12, and 24 months after therapy according to US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines.⁹

His treponemal test for syphilis will likely stay positive for life. His RPR should decrease significantly with effective treatment. It makes sense to screen with RPR alone as long as he continues to have risk factors for acquiring syphilis. Routine syphilis testing is recommended for pregnant women, sexually active men who have sex with men, sexually active persons with HIV, and persons taking PrEP (pre-exposure prophylaxis) for HIV prevention. He should be screened at least yearly for syphilis.

► Dr. Li. Over the next several months, the patient’s creatinine normalized and his proteinuria resolved. His vision recovered, and he has had no further ophthalmologic complications.

Dr. William, what is his long-term renal prognosis? Do you expect that his acute episode of membranous nephropathy will have permanent effects on his renal function?

► Dr. William. His rapid response to therapy for neurosyphilis provides evidence for this etiology of his renal dysfunction and glomerulonephritis. His long-term prognosis is quite good if the syphilis is the only reason for him to have renal disease. The renal damage is often reversible in these cases. However, given his prior extensive NSAID exposure and history of hypertension, he may be at higher risk for chronic kidney disease than an otherwise healthy patient, especially after an episode of acute kidney injury. Therefore, his renal function should continue to be monitored as an outpatient.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank this veteran for sharing his story and allowing us to learn from this unusual case for the benefit of our future patients.

*This article has been corrected to include a missing author.

Case Presentation. A 63-year-old male with well-controlled HIV (CD4 count 757, undetectable viral load), epilepsy, and hypertension presented to the VA Boston Healthcare System (VABHS) emergency department with 1 week of bilateral leg swelling and exertional shortness of breath. He reported having no fever, cough, chest pain, pain with inspiration and orthopnea. There was no personal or family history of pulmonary embolism. He reported weight gain but was unable to quantify how much. He also reported flare up of chronic knee pain, without swelling for which he had taken up to 4 tablets of naproxen daily for several weeks. His physical examination was notable for a heart rate of 105 beats per minute and bilateral pitting edema to his knees. Laboratory testing revealed a creatinine level of 2.5 mg/dL, which was increased from a baseline of 1.0 mg/dL (Table 1), and a urine protein-to-creatinine ratio of 7.8 mg/mg (Table 2). A renal ultrasound showed normal-sized kidneys without hydronephrosis or obstructing renal calculi. The patient was admitted for further workup of his dyspnea and acute kidney injury.

► Jonathan Li, MD, Chief Medical Resident, VABHS and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC). Dr. William, based on the degree of proteinuria and edema, a diagnosis of nephrotic syndrome was made. How is nephrotic syndrome defined, and how is it distinguished from glomerulonephritis?

► Jeffrey William, MD, Nephrologist, BIDMC, Assistant Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School. The pathophysiology of nephrotic disease and glomerulonephritis are quite distinct, resulting in symptoms and systemic manifestations that only slightly overlap. Glomerulonephritis is characterized by inflammation of the endothelial cells of the trilayered glomerular capillary, with a resulting active urine sediment with red blood cells, white blood cells, and casts. Nephrotic syndrome mostly affects the visceral epithelial cells of the glomerular capillary, commonly referred to as podocytes, and hence, the urine sediment in nephrotic disease is often inactive. Patients with nephrotic syndrome have nephrotic-range proteinuria (excretion of > 3.5 g per 24 h or a spot urine protein-creatinine ratio > 3.5 g in the steady state) and both hypoalbuminemia (< 3 g/dL) and peripheral edema. Lipiduria and hyperlipidemia are common findings in nephrotic syndrome but are not required for a clinical diagnosis.¹ In contrast, glomerulonephritis is defined by a constellation of findings that include renal insufficiency (often indicated by an elevation in blood urea nitrogen and creatinine), hypertension, hematuria, and subnephrotic range proteinuria. In practice, patients may fulfill criteria of both nephrotic and nephritic syndromes, but the preponderance of clinical evidence often points one way or the other. In this case, nephrotic syndrome was diagnosed based on the urine protein-to-creatinine ratio of 7.8 mg/mg, hypoalbuminemia, and edema.

► Dr. Li. What would be your first-line workup for evaluation of the etiology of this patient’s nephrotic syndrome?

► Dr. William. Rather than memorizing a list of etiologies of nephrotic syndrome, it is essential to consider the pathophysiology of heavy proteinuria. Though the glomerular filtration barrier is extremely complex and defects in any component can cause proteinuria, disruption of the podocyte is often involved. Common disease processes that chiefly target the podocyte include minimal change disease, primary focal and segmental glomerulosclerosis (FSGS), and membranous nephropathy, all by differing mechanisms. Minimal change disease and idiopathic/primary FSGS are increasingly thought to be at differing points on a spectrum of the same disease.² Secondary FSGS, on the other hand, is a progressive disease, commonly resulting from longstanding hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and obesity in adults. Membranous nephropathy can also be either primary or secondary. Primary membranous nephropathy is chiefly caused by a circulating IgG4 antibody to the podocyte membrane antigen PLA2R (M-type phospholipase A2 receptor), whereas secondary membranous nephropathy can be caused by a variety of systemic etiologies, including autoimmune disease (eg, systemic lupus erythematosus), certain malignancies, chronic infections (eg, hepatitis B and C), and many medications, including nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs).^3-5 Paraprotein deposition diseases can also cause glomerular damage leading to nephrotic-range proteinuria.

Given these potential diagnoses, a careful history should be taken to assess exposures and recent medication use. Urine sediment evaluation is essential in the evaluation of nephrotic syndrome to determine if there is an underlying nephritic process. Select serologies may be sent to look for autoimmune disease, such as systemic lupus erythematosus and common viral exposures like hepatitis B or C. Serum and urine protein electrophoreses would be appropriate initial tests of suspected paraprotein-related diseases. Other serologies, such as antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies or antiglomerular basement membrane antibodies, would not necessarily be indicated here given the lack of hematuria and presence of nephrotic-range proteinuria.

► Dr. Li. The initial evaluation was notable for an erythrocyte sedimentation rate > 120 (mm/h) and a weakly positive antinuclear antibody (ANA) titer of 1:40. The remainder of his initial workup did not reveal an etiology for his nephrotic syndrome (Table 3).

Dr. William, is there a role for starting urgent empiric steroids in nephrotic syndrome while workup is ongoing? If so, do the severity of proteinuria and/or symptoms play a role or is this determination based on something else?

► Dr. William. Edema is a primary symptom of nephrotic syndrome and can often be managed with diuretics alone. If a clear medication-mediated cause is suspected, discontinuation of this agent may result in spontaneous improvement without steroid treatment. However,in cases where an etiology is unclear and there are serious thrombotic complications requiring anticoagulation, and a renal biopsy is deemed to be too risky, then empiric steroid therapy may be necessary. Children with new-onset nephrotic syndrome are presumed to have minimal change disease, given its prevalence in this patient population, and are often given empiric steroids without obtaining a renal biopsy. However, in the adult population, a renal biopsy can typically be performed quickly and safely, with pathology results interpreted within days. In this patient, since a diagnosis was unclear and there was no contraindication to renal biopsy, a biopsy should be obtained before consideration of steroids.

► Dr. Li. Steroids were deferred in anticipation of renal biopsy, which showed stage I membranous nephropathy, suggestive of membranous lupus nephritis Class V. The deposits were strongly reactive for immunoglobuline G (IgG), IgA, and complement 1q (C1q), showed co-dominant staining for IgG1, IgG2, and IgG3, and were weakly positive for the PLA2 receptor. Focal intimal arteritis in a small interlobular vessel was seen.

Dr. William, the pathology returned suggestive of lupus nephritis. Does the overall clinical picture fit with lupus nephritis?

► Dr. William. Given the history and a rather low ANA, the diagnosis of lupus nephritis seems unlikely. The lack of IgG4 and PLA2R staining in the biopsy suggests that this membranous pattern on the biopsy is likely to be secondary to a systemic etiology, but further investigation should be pursued.

► Dr. Li. The patient was discharged after the biopsy with a planned outpatient nephrology follow-up to discuss results and treatment. He was prescribed an oral diuretic, and his symptoms improved. Several days after discharge, he developed blurry vision and was evaluated in the Ophthalmology clinic. On fundoscopy, he was found to have acute papillitis, a form of optic neuritis. As part of initial evaluation of infectious etiologies of papillitis, ophthalmology recommended testing for syphilis.

Dr. Strymish, when we are considering secondary syphilis, what is the recommended approach to diagnostic testing?

► Judith Strymish, MD, Infectious Diseases, BIDMC, Assistant Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School. The diagnosis of syphilis is usually made through serologic testing of blood specimens. Methods that detect the spirochete directly like dark-field smears are not readily available. Serologic tests include treponemal tests (eg, Treponema pallidum particle agglutination assay [TPPA]) and nontreponemal tests (eg, rapid plasma reagin [RPR]). One needs a confirmatory test because either test is associated with false positives. Either test can be done first. Most laboratories, including those at VABHS are now performing treponemal tests first as these have become more cost-effective.⁶ The TPPA treponemal test was found to have a lower false negative rate in primary syphilis compared with that of nontreponemal tests.⁷ Nontreponemal tests can be followed for response to therapy. If a patient has a history of treated syphilis, a nontreponemal test should be sent, since the treponemal test will remain positive for life.

If there is clinical concern for neurosyphilis, cerebrospinal fluid fluorescent (CSF) treponemal antibody needs to be sampled and sent for the nontreponemal venereal disease research laboratory (VDRL) test. The VDRL is highly specific for neurosyphilis but not as sensitive. Cerebrospinal fluid fluorescent treponemal antibody (CSF FTA) may also be sent; it is very sensitive but not very specific for neurosyphilis.

► Dr. Li. An RPR returned positive at 1:512 (was negative 14 months prior on a routine screening test), with positive reflex TPPA (Table 4). A diagnosis of secondary syphilis was made. Dr. Strymish, at this point, what additional testing and treatment is necessary?

► Dr. Strymish. With papillitis and a very high RPR, we need to assume that he has ophthalmic syphilis. This can occur in any stage of syphilis, but his eye findings and high RPR are consistent with secondary syphilis. Ophthalmic syphilis has been on the upswing, even more than is expected with recent increases in syphilis cases.⁸ Ophthalmic syphilis is considered a form of neurosyphilis. A lumbar puncture and treatment for neurosyphilis is recommended.^9,10

► Dr. Li. A lumbar puncture was performed, and his CSF was VDRL positive. This confirmed a diagnosis of neurosyphilis (Table 4). The patient was treated for neurosyphilis with IV penicillin. The patient shared that he had episodes of unprotected oral sexual activity within the past year and approximately 1 year ago, he came in close contact (but no sexual activity) with a person who had a rash consistent with syphilis.Dr. William, syphilis would be a potential unifying diagnosis of his renal and ophthalmologic manifestations. Is syphilis known to cause membranous nephropathy?

► Dr. William. Though it is uncommon, the nephrotic syndrome is a well-described complication of secondary syphilis.^11,12 Syphilis has been shown to cause nephrotic syndrome in a variety of ways. Case reports abound linking syphilis to minimal change disease and other glomerular diseases.^13,14 A case report from 1993 shows a membranous pattern of glomerular disease similar to this case.¹⁵ As a form of secondary membranous nephropathy, the immunofluorescence pattern can demonstrate staining similar to the “full house” seen in lupus nephritis (IgA, IgM, and C1q, in addition to IgG and C3).¹⁶ This explains the initial interpretation of this patient’s biopsy, as lupus nephritis would be a much more common etiology of secondary membranous nephropathy than is acute syphilis with this immunofluorescence pattern. However, the data in this case are highly suggestive of a causal relationship between secondary syphilis and membranous nephropathy.

► Dr. Li. Dr. Strymish, how should this patient be screened for syphilis reinfection, and at what intervals would you recommend?

► Dr. Strymish. He will need follow-up testing to make sure that his syphilis is effectively treated. If CSF pleocytosis was present initially, a CSF examination should be repeated every 6 months until the cell count is normal. He will also need follow-up for normalization of his RPR. Persons with HIV infection and primary or secondary syphilis should be evaluated clinically and serologically for treatment failure at 3, 6, 9, 12, and 24 months after therapy according to US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines.⁹

His treponemal test for syphilis will likely stay positive for life. His RPR should decrease significantly with effective treatment. It makes sense to screen with RPR alone as long as he continues to have risk factors for acquiring syphilis. Routine syphilis testing is recommended for pregnant women, sexually active men who have sex with men, sexually active persons with HIV, and persons taking PrEP (pre-exposure prophylaxis) for HIV prevention. He should be screened at least yearly for syphilis.

► Dr. Li. Over the next several months, the patient’s creatinine normalized and his proteinuria resolved. His vision recovered, and he has had no further ophthalmologic complications.

Dr. William, what is his long-term renal prognosis? Do you expect that his acute episode of membranous nephropathy will have permanent effects on his renal function?

► Dr. William. His rapid response to therapy for neurosyphilis provides evidence for this etiology of his renal dysfunction and glomerulonephritis. His long-term prognosis is quite good if the syphilis is the only reason for him to have renal disease. The renal damage is often reversible in these cases. However, given his prior extensive NSAID exposure and history of hypertension, he may be at higher risk for chronic kidney disease than an otherwise healthy patient, especially after an episode of acute kidney injury. Therefore, his renal function should continue to be monitored as an outpatient.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank this veteran for sharing his story and allowing us to learn from this unusual case for the benefit of our future patients.

Chronic pain significantly affects 100 million Americans.^1,2 Pain accounts for $560 to $635 billion in annual financial costs to society, including health care costs and loss of productivity (ie, days missed from work, hours of work lost, and lower wages).^2,3 Although pain prevalence exceeds other chronic diseases, such as diabetes mellitus, cancer, and heart disease, it lacks a sufficient body of evidence-based research and guidelines on the underlying mechanisms, valid methods of assessment, and comparative effectiveness of treatments to effectively implement into clinical practice.^2,4 Prevention and treatment of pain are often delayed, inaccessible, or inadequate.² Primary care providers (PCPs) are most often sought for pain management and treat about 52% of chronic pain patients.^2,3,5 Veterans are especially vulnerable to chronic pain and are at risk for inadequate treatment.²

Background

There is an epidemic of drug abuse and mortality from opioid prescription medication.⁶ In the US, rates of overdose deaths from prescription opioids were 6.1 per 100,000 for men and 4.2 per 100,000 for women in 2017. Opioids were involved in 47,600 overdose deaths in 2017, accounting for 67.8% of all drug overdose deaths.⁷

A large number of patients on long-term opioids have preexisting substance use disorders and/or psychiatric disease, further complicating chronic pain management.^8-10 Prescription opioid use has been the precursor for about 80% of people who are now heroin addicts.¹¹ Iatrogenic addiction from prescription medications isn’t easily captured by standard addiction criteria. Consequently, in patients who are on opioid therapy for prolonged periods, separating complex opioid dependence from addiction is difficult.¹² Improved addiction screening and risk mitigation strategies are needed along with aggressive treatment monitoring to curb the opioid epidemic.

Opioid Management in Primary Care

The majority of opioid medications are prescribed by PCPs, which is magnified in the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system due to the high prevalence of service-related injuries.^3,13 The VA is at the forefront of addressing the complexities of opioid addiction through several initiatives.¹⁴ The ability to offer the frequent visits needed to safely manage patients prescribed opioids and the integration of mental health and addiction treatment are often lacking in non-VA primary care clinics. Therefore, a key to solving the opioid crisis is developing these capabilities so they can be delivered within the primary care setting. There is substantial evidence in support of nonopioid alternatives to chronic pain management, including other pharmacologic approaches, exercise, physical therapy, acupuncture, weight loss, smoking cessation, chiropractic care, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), and other integrative health modalities.

A 2009 VA directive mandated the development of a comprehensive, integrated, systemwide approach to pain management.¹⁵ The VA Stepped-Care Biopsychosocial Model for Pain Management is dependent on timely access to secondary consultation from pain medicine, behavioral health, physical medicine, and other specialty consultation.¹⁵

History of VHA SCAN-ECHO Model

The Specialty Care Access Network–Extension for Community Health Outcomes (SCAN-ECHO) is a Veterans Health Administration (VHA) adaptation of a program that originated at the University of Mexico.^16,17 The SCAN-ECHO model uses a multisite videoconferencing network to provide specialty care consultations to PCPs and patient aligned care teams (PACTs). During the 60- to 90-minute weekly sessions, case presentations are analyzed in real time so that over time, the PCPs gain knowledge, competency, and confidence in learning how to handle complex chronic conditions.

Since its implementation, the SCAN-ECHO program has been adopted across the VHA in a variety of specialties. One program, the SCAN-ECHO for Pain Management (SCAN-ECHO-PM) was implemented in 7 VHA networks in 31 states, spanning 47 medical centers and 148 community-based outpatient clinics (CBOCs).¹⁸ The SCAN-ECHO-PM program successfully conducted 257 multidisciplinary pain consultations between 2011 and 2013, resulting in increased initiation of nonopioid medications.¹⁸

The aim of this article is to describe the implementation of a multicomponent primary care-based pain clinic with a fully integrated mental health service and addiction service at the North Florida/South Georgia Veterans Health System (NF/SGVHS). A practiced-based intervention of the biopsychosocial model with robust patient engagement has guided the development of the NF/SGVHS pain clinic (Figure 1).^4,19

Pain CLinic

NF/SGVHS comprises the Malcom Randall and Lake City VA medical centers (VAMCs) hospitals, 3 satellite outpatient clinics, and 8 CBOCs. Spanning 33 counties in North Florida and 19 counties in South Georgia, the NF/SGVHS serves more than 140,000 patients. In 2010, the Malcom Randall VAMC established a multidisciplinary primary care pain clinic to manage veterans at high-risk for noncancer chronic pain and addiction. The noncancer pain policy was revised after garnering support from stakeholders who treat chronic pain, including the chiefs of psychiatry, rehabilitation medicine, neurosurgery, psychology, interventional pain, pharmacy, nursing, addiction medicine, and primary care. The clinic is staffed by primary care physicians trained in internal medicine and family medicine and is structured with 1-hour first visits, and 30-minute follow-up visits to allow enough time for comprehensive evaluation while meeting the needs for close follow-up support.

All physicians in the clinic have buprenorphine prescribing credentials to aid in the management of opioid addiction, as some patients feel more comfortable receiving addiction treatment in a primary care setting. The multimodal care model consists of several services that include addiction psychiatrists, interventional pain specialists, pain psychologists, and pain pharmacologists who coordinate the care to the veterans. The addiction psychiatrists offer a full range of services with inpatient residential and outpatient programs. Through recurring meetings with primary care pain clinic staff, the addiction psychiatrists are available to discuss use of buprenorphine and arrange follow-up for patients with complex pain addiction. There is ongoing collaboration to develop the best care plan that meets the patient’s needs for chronic pain, addiction, and/or mental health issues. The interventional pain service has 3 fellowship-trained pain care providers who deliver comprehensive evaluation, pharmacologic recommendations, and a full range of interventional and complementary therapies with an emphasis on objective functional improvement. Pain care providers offer alternatives to patients who are being weaned from opioids and support the multidisciplinary patient engagement model.

The pain psychology program, established in 2011, delivers CBT to 5 onsite locations and 5 telehealth locations. The service includes an advanced CBT program and a couples CBT program. The pharmacy pain fellowship program provides staff for an outpatient e-consult pain management service and an inpatient pharmacy consult service. Harnessing pain specialty pharmacists, the pharmacy service addresses pharmacokinetic issues, urine drug screen (UDS) results, opioid tapering and discharge planning for pain, addiction and mental health needs. The NF/SGVHS Primary Care Pain Clinic was established to support PCPs who did not feel comfortable managing chronic pain patients. These patients were typically on high-dose opioid therapy (> 100-mg morphine equivalent daily doses [MEDDs]); patients with a history of opioid addiction; patients with an addiction to opioids combined with benzodiazepines; and patients with comorbid medical issues (eg, sleep apnea), which complicated their management. The process of addressing opioid safety in these complex pain patients can be labor intensive and generally cannot be accomplished in a brief visit in a primary care setting where many other medical problems often need to be addressed.

Most patients on high-dose opioids are fearful of any changes in their medications. The difficult conversation regarding opioid safety is a lengthy one and frequently will occur over multiple visits. In addition, safely tapering opioids requires frequent follow-up to provide psychological support and to address withdrawal and mental health issues that may arise. As opioids are tapered, the clinic reinforces improved pain care through a multimodal biopsychosocial model. All veterans receiving pain care outside the VA are monitored annually to assure they are receiving evidence-based pain care as defined by the biopsychosocial model.

Education

Since 2011, the NF/SGVHS SCAN-ECHO pain and addiction educational forum has created > 50 hours of approved annual continuing medical education (CME) on pain management and addiction for PCPs. Initially, the 1-hour weekly educational audioconferences presented a pain management case along with related topics and involved specialists from interventional pain, physical therapy, psychiatry, nursing, neurology, and psychology departments. In 2013, in conjunction with the VA SCAN-ECHO program of Hunter Holmes McGuire VAMC in Richmond, Virginia, and Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland, the audioconference was expanded to 2 days each week with additional topics on addiction management. Residency and fellowship rotations were developed that specifically targeted fellows from psychiatry, pharmacology, and interventional pain departments.

Currently, an 8-session pain school is delivered onsite and at 7 telehealth locations. The school is a collaborative effort involving interventional pain, psychology, pharmacy, nutrition, and the primary care pain clinic staff. As the cornerstone of the program, the pain school stresses the biopsychosocial patient engagement model.

Program Evaluation

The VA is equipped with multiple telehealth service networks that allow for the delivery of programs, such as the pain school, a pain psychology program, and a yoga program, onsite or offsite. The VA Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS) manages electronic health records, allowing for rapid chart review and e-consults. The NF/SGVHS Pain Management Program provides about 1500 e-consults yearly. The CPRS includes templates with pain metrics to help PCPs deliver pain care more efficiently and evaluate performance measures. This system also allows for the capture of data to track improvements in the care of the veterans served.

From 2012 to 2017, more than 5000 NF/SGVHS patients were weaned from opioids. Overall, there was an 87% reduction in patients receiving opioids ( ≥ 100-mg MEDDs) within the NF/SGVHS, which is significantly more than the 49% seen nationally across the VHA (Figure 2). Percent reduction was calculated by taking the difference in number of patients receiving opioids in 2012 and 2017, dividing by the number of patients receiving opioids in 2012 and multiplying by 100. The largest proportion of opioid dose reductions for NF/SGVHS and VHA patients, respectively, were seen in 300-mg to 399-mg MEDDs (95% vs 67%, respectively); followed by ≥ 400-mg MEDDs (94% vs 71%, respectively); 200-mg to 299-mg MEDDs (91% vs 58%, respectively); and 100-mg to 199-mg MEDDs (84% vs 40%, respectively). When examining NF/SGVHS trends over time, there has been a consistent decline in patients prescribed opioids (18 223 in 2012 compared with 12 877 in 2017) with similar trends in benzodiazepine-opioid combination therapy (2694 in 2012 compared with 833 in 2017) (Figure 3).

Similar declines are seen when patients are stratified by the MEDD (Figure 4). From 2012 to 2017, 92% of the patients were successfully tapered off doses ≥ 400-mg MEDD (2012, n = 72; 2017, n = 6), and tapered off 300-mg to 399-mg MEDD (2012, n = 107; 2017, n = 5); 95% were tapered off 200-mg to 299-mg MEDD (2012, n = 262; 2017, n = 22); and 86% were tapered off 100-mg to 199-mg MEDD (2012, n = 876; 2017; n = 127).

Conclusion

Successful integration of primary care with mental health and addiction services is paramount to aggressively taper patients with chronic pain from opioids. There is evidence that drug dependence and chronic pain should be treated like other chronic illness.²⁰ Both chronic pain and addiction can be treated with a multidimensional self-management approach. In view of the high incidence of mental health and addiction associated with opioid use, it makes sense that an integrated, 1-stop pain and addiction clinic that understands and addresses both issues is more likely to improve patient outcomes.

Acknowledgments

This material is the result of work supported by the resources and facilities at the North Florida/South Georgia Veterans Health System, Geriatric Research Education Clinical Center in Gainesville, Florida.

Chronic pain significantly affects 100 million Americans.^1,2 Pain accounts for $560 to $635 billion in annual financial costs to society, including health care costs and loss of productivity (ie, days missed from work, hours of work lost, and lower wages).^2,3 Although pain prevalence exceeds other chronic diseases, such as diabetes mellitus, cancer, and heart disease, it lacks a sufficient body of evidence-based research and guidelines on the underlying mechanisms, valid methods of assessment, and comparative effectiveness of treatments to effectively implement into clinical practice.^2,4 Prevention and treatment of pain are often delayed, inaccessible, or inadequate.² Primary care providers (PCPs) are most often sought for pain management and treat about 52% of chronic pain patients.^2,3,5 Veterans are especially vulnerable to chronic pain and are at risk for inadequate treatment.²

Background

There is an epidemic of drug abuse and mortality from opioid prescription medication.⁶ In the US, rates of overdose deaths from prescription opioids were 6.1 per 100,000 for men and 4.2 per 100,000 for women in 2017. Opioids were involved in 47,600 overdose deaths in 2017, accounting for 67.8% of all drug overdose deaths.⁷

A large number of patients on long-term opioids have preexisting substance use disorders and/or psychiatric disease, further complicating chronic pain management.^8-10 Prescription opioid use has been the precursor for about 80% of people who are now heroin addicts.¹¹ Iatrogenic addiction from prescription medications isn’t easily captured by standard addiction criteria. Consequently, in patients who are on opioid therapy for prolonged periods, separating complex opioid dependence from addiction is difficult.¹² Improved addiction screening and risk mitigation strategies are needed along with aggressive treatment monitoring to curb the opioid epidemic.

Opioid Management in Primary Care

The majority of opioid medications are prescribed by PCPs, which is magnified in the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system due to the high prevalence of service-related injuries.^3,13 The VA is at the forefront of addressing the complexities of opioid addiction through several initiatives.¹⁴ The ability to offer the frequent visits needed to safely manage patients prescribed opioids and the integration of mental health and addiction treatment are often lacking in non-VA primary care clinics. Therefore, a key to solving the opioid crisis is developing these capabilities so they can be delivered within the primary care setting. There is substantial evidence in support of nonopioid alternatives to chronic pain management, including other pharmacologic approaches, exercise, physical therapy, acupuncture, weight loss, smoking cessation, chiropractic care, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), and other integrative health modalities.

A 2009 VA directive mandated the development of a comprehensive, integrated, systemwide approach to pain management.¹⁵ The VA Stepped-Care Biopsychosocial Model for Pain Management is dependent on timely access to secondary consultation from pain medicine, behavioral health, physical medicine, and other specialty consultation.¹⁵

History of VHA SCAN-ECHO Model

The Specialty Care Access Network–Extension for Community Health Outcomes (SCAN-ECHO) is a Veterans Health Administration (VHA) adaptation of a program that originated at the University of Mexico.^16,17 The SCAN-ECHO model uses a multisite videoconferencing network to provide specialty care consultations to PCPs and patient aligned care teams (PACTs). During the 60- to 90-minute weekly sessions, case presentations are analyzed in real time so that over time, the PCPs gain knowledge, competency, and confidence in learning how to handle complex chronic conditions.

Since its implementation, the SCAN-ECHO program has been adopted across the VHA in a variety of specialties. One program, the SCAN-ECHO for Pain Management (SCAN-ECHO-PM) was implemented in 7 VHA networks in 31 states, spanning 47 medical centers and 148 community-based outpatient clinics (CBOCs).¹⁸ The SCAN-ECHO-PM program successfully conducted 257 multidisciplinary pain consultations between 2011 and 2013, resulting in increased initiation of nonopioid medications.¹⁸

The aim of this article is to describe the implementation of a multicomponent primary care-based pain clinic with a fully integrated mental health service and addiction service at the North Florida/South Georgia Veterans Health System (NF/SGVHS). A practiced-based intervention of the biopsychosocial model with robust patient engagement has guided the development of the NF/SGVHS pain clinic (Figure 1).^4,19

Pain CLinic

NF/SGVHS comprises the Malcom Randall and Lake City VA medical centers (VAMCs) hospitals, 3 satellite outpatient clinics, and 8 CBOCs. Spanning 33 counties in North Florida and 19 counties in South Georgia, the NF/SGVHS serves more than 140,000 patients. In 2010, the Malcom Randall VAMC established a multidisciplinary primary care pain clinic to manage veterans at high-risk for noncancer chronic pain and addiction. The noncancer pain policy was revised after garnering support from stakeholders who treat chronic pain, including the chiefs of psychiatry, rehabilitation medicine, neurosurgery, psychology, interventional pain, pharmacy, nursing, addiction medicine, and primary care. The clinic is staffed by primary care physicians trained in internal medicine and family medicine and is structured with 1-hour first visits, and 30-minute follow-up visits to allow enough time for comprehensive evaluation while meeting the needs for close follow-up support.

All physicians in the clinic have buprenorphine prescribing credentials to aid in the management of opioid addiction, as some patients feel more comfortable receiving addiction treatment in a primary care setting. The multimodal care model consists of several services that include addiction psychiatrists, interventional pain specialists, pain psychologists, and pain pharmacologists who coordinate the care to the veterans. The addiction psychiatrists offer a full range of services with inpatient residential and outpatient programs. Through recurring meetings with primary care pain clinic staff, the addiction psychiatrists are available to discuss use of buprenorphine and arrange follow-up for patients with complex pain addiction. There is ongoing collaboration to develop the best care plan that meets the patient’s needs for chronic pain, addiction, and/or mental health issues. The interventional pain service has 3 fellowship-trained pain care providers who deliver comprehensive evaluation, pharmacologic recommendations, and a full range of interventional and complementary therapies with an emphasis on objective functional improvement. Pain care providers offer alternatives to patients who are being weaned from opioids and support the multidisciplinary patient engagement model.

The pain psychology program, established in 2011, delivers CBT to 5 onsite locations and 5 telehealth locations. The service includes an advanced CBT program and a couples CBT program. The pharmacy pain fellowship program provides staff for an outpatient e-consult pain management service and an inpatient pharmacy consult service. Harnessing pain specialty pharmacists, the pharmacy service addresses pharmacokinetic issues, urine drug screen (UDS) results, opioid tapering and discharge planning for pain, addiction and mental health needs. The NF/SGVHS Primary Care Pain Clinic was established to support PCPs who did not feel comfortable managing chronic pain patients. These patients were typically on high-dose opioid therapy (> 100-mg morphine equivalent daily doses [MEDDs]); patients with a history of opioid addiction; patients with an addiction to opioids combined with benzodiazepines; and patients with comorbid medical issues (eg, sleep apnea), which complicated their management. The process of addressing opioid safety in these complex pain patients can be labor intensive and generally cannot be accomplished in a brief visit in a primary care setting where many other medical problems often need to be addressed.

Most patients on high-dose opioids are fearful of any changes in their medications. The difficult conversation regarding opioid safety is a lengthy one and frequently will occur over multiple visits. In addition, safely tapering opioids requires frequent follow-up to provide psychological support and to address withdrawal and mental health issues that may arise. As opioids are tapered, the clinic reinforces improved pain care through a multimodal biopsychosocial model. All veterans receiving pain care outside the VA are monitored annually to assure they are receiving evidence-based pain care as defined by the biopsychosocial model.

Education

Since 2011, the NF/SGVHS SCAN-ECHO pain and addiction educational forum has created > 50 hours of approved annual continuing medical education (CME) on pain management and addiction for PCPs. Initially, the 1-hour weekly educational audioconferences presented a pain management case along with related topics and involved specialists from interventional pain, physical therapy, psychiatry, nursing, neurology, and psychology departments. In 2013, in conjunction with the VA SCAN-ECHO program of Hunter Holmes McGuire VAMC in Richmond, Virginia, and Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland, the audioconference was expanded to 2 days each week with additional topics on addiction management. Residency and fellowship rotations were developed that specifically targeted fellows from psychiatry, pharmacology, and interventional pain departments.

Currently, an 8-session pain school is delivered onsite and at 7 telehealth locations. The school is a collaborative effort involving interventional pain, psychology, pharmacy, nutrition, and the primary care pain clinic staff. As the cornerstone of the program, the pain school stresses the biopsychosocial patient engagement model.

Program Evaluation

The VA is equipped with multiple telehealth service networks that allow for the delivery of programs, such as the pain school, a pain psychology program, and a yoga program, onsite or offsite. The VA Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS) manages electronic health records, allowing for rapid chart review and e-consults. The NF/SGVHS Pain Management Program provides about 1500 e-consults yearly. The CPRS includes templates with pain metrics to help PCPs deliver pain care more efficiently and evaluate performance measures. This system also allows for the capture of data to track improvements in the care of the veterans served.

From 2012 to 2017, more than 5000 NF/SGVHS patients were weaned from opioids. Overall, there was an 87% reduction in patients receiving opioids ( ≥ 100-mg MEDDs) within the NF/SGVHS, which is significantly more than the 49% seen nationally across the VHA (Figure 2). Percent reduction was calculated by taking the difference in number of patients receiving opioids in 2012 and 2017, dividing by the number of patients receiving opioids in 2012 and multiplying by 100. The largest proportion of opioid dose reductions for NF/SGVHS and VHA patients, respectively, were seen in 300-mg to 399-mg MEDDs (95% vs 67%, respectively); followed by ≥ 400-mg MEDDs (94% vs 71%, respectively); 200-mg to 299-mg MEDDs (91% vs 58%, respectively); and 100-mg to 199-mg MEDDs (84% vs 40%, respectively). When examining NF/SGVHS trends over time, there has been a consistent decline in patients prescribed opioids (18 223 in 2012 compared with 12 877 in 2017) with similar trends in benzodiazepine-opioid combination therapy (2694 in 2012 compared with 833 in 2017) (Figure 3).

Similar declines are seen when patients are stratified by the MEDD (Figure 4). From 2012 to 2017, 92% of the patients were successfully tapered off doses ≥ 400-mg MEDD (2012, n = 72; 2017, n = 6), and tapered off 300-mg to 399-mg MEDD (2012, n = 107; 2017, n = 5); 95% were tapered off 200-mg to 299-mg MEDD (2012, n = 262; 2017, n = 22); and 86% were tapered off 100-mg to 199-mg MEDD (2012, n = 876; 2017; n = 127).

Conclusion

Successful integration of primary care with mental health and addiction services is paramount to aggressively taper patients with chronic pain from opioids. There is evidence that drug dependence and chronic pain should be treated like other chronic illness.²⁰ Both chronic pain and addiction can be treated with a multidimensional self-management approach. In view of the high incidence of mental health and addiction associated with opioid use, it makes sense that an integrated, 1-stop pain and addiction clinic that understands and addresses both issues is more likely to improve patient outcomes.

Acknowledgments

This material is the result of work supported by the resources and facilities at the North Florida/South Georgia Veterans Health System, Geriatric Research Education Clinical Center in Gainesville, Florida.

Chronic pain significantly affects 100 million Americans.^1,2 Pain accounts for $560 to $635 billion in annual financial costs to society, including health care costs and loss of productivity (ie, days missed from work, hours of work lost, and lower wages).^2,3 Although pain prevalence exceeds other chronic diseases, such as diabetes mellitus, cancer, and heart disease, it lacks a sufficient body of evidence-based research and guidelines on the underlying mechanisms, valid methods of assessment, and comparative effectiveness of treatments to effectively implement into clinical practice.^2,4 Prevention and treatment of pain are often delayed, inaccessible, or inadequate.² Primary care providers (PCPs) are most often sought for pain management and treat about 52% of chronic pain patients.^2,3,5 Veterans are especially vulnerable to chronic pain and are at risk for inadequate treatment.²

Background

There is an epidemic of drug abuse and mortality from opioid prescription medication.⁶ In the US, rates of overdose deaths from prescription opioids were 6.1 per 100,000 for men and 4.2 per 100,000 for women in 2017. Opioids were involved in 47,600 overdose deaths in 2017, accounting for 67.8% of all drug overdose deaths.⁷

A large number of patients on long-term opioids have preexisting substance use disorders and/or psychiatric disease, further complicating chronic pain management.^8-10 Prescription opioid use has been the precursor for about 80% of people who are now heroin addicts.¹¹ Iatrogenic addiction from prescription medications isn’t easily captured by standard addiction criteria. Consequently, in patients who are on opioid therapy for prolonged periods, separating complex opioid dependence from addiction is difficult.¹² Improved addiction screening and risk mitigation strategies are needed along with aggressive treatment monitoring to curb the opioid epidemic.

Opioid Management in Primary Care

The majority of opioid medications are prescribed by PCPs, which is magnified in the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system due to the high prevalence of service-related injuries.^3,13 The VA is at the forefront of addressing the complexities of opioid addiction through several initiatives.¹⁴ The ability to offer the frequent visits needed to safely manage patients prescribed opioids and the integration of mental health and addiction treatment are often lacking in non-VA primary care clinics. Therefore, a key to solving the opioid crisis is developing these capabilities so they can be delivered within the primary care setting. There is substantial evidence in support of nonopioid alternatives to chronic pain management, including other pharmacologic approaches, exercise, physical therapy, acupuncture, weight loss, smoking cessation, chiropractic care, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), and other integrative health modalities.

A 2009 VA directive mandated the development of a comprehensive, integrated, systemwide approach to pain management.¹⁵ The VA Stepped-Care Biopsychosocial Model for Pain Management is dependent on timely access to secondary consultation from pain medicine, behavioral health, physical medicine, and other specialty consultation.¹⁵

History of VHA SCAN-ECHO Model

The Specialty Care Access Network–Extension for Community Health Outcomes (SCAN-ECHO) is a Veterans Health Administration (VHA) adaptation of a program that originated at the University of Mexico.^16,17 The SCAN-ECHO model uses a multisite videoconferencing network to provide specialty care consultations to PCPs and patient aligned care teams (PACTs). During the 60- to 90-minute weekly sessions, case presentations are analyzed in real time so that over time, the PCPs gain knowledge, competency, and confidence in learning how to handle complex chronic conditions.

Since its implementation, the SCAN-ECHO program has been adopted across the VHA in a variety of specialties. One program, the SCAN-ECHO for Pain Management (SCAN-ECHO-PM) was implemented in 7 VHA networks in 31 states, spanning 47 medical centers and 148 community-based outpatient clinics (CBOCs).¹⁸ The SCAN-ECHO-PM program successfully conducted 257 multidisciplinary pain consultations between 2011 and 2013, resulting in increased initiation of nonopioid medications.¹⁸

The aim of this article is to describe the implementation of a multicomponent primary care-based pain clinic with a fully integrated mental health service and addiction service at the North Florida/South Georgia Veterans Health System (NF/SGVHS). A practiced-based intervention of the biopsychosocial model with robust patient engagement has guided the development of the NF/SGVHS pain clinic (Figure 1).^4,19

Pain CLinic

NF/SGVHS comprises the Malcom Randall and Lake City VA medical centers (VAMCs) hospitals, 3 satellite outpatient clinics, and 8 CBOCs. Spanning 33 counties in North Florida and 19 counties in South Georgia, the NF/SGVHS serves more than 140,000 patients. In 2010, the Malcom Randall VAMC established a multidisciplinary primary care pain clinic to manage veterans at high-risk for noncancer chronic pain and addiction. The noncancer pain policy was revised after garnering support from stakeholders who treat chronic pain, including the chiefs of psychiatry, rehabilitation medicine, neurosurgery, psychology, interventional pain, pharmacy, nursing, addiction medicine, and primary care. The clinic is staffed by primary care physicians trained in internal medicine and family medicine and is structured with 1-hour first visits, and 30-minute follow-up visits to allow enough time for comprehensive evaluation while meeting the needs for close follow-up support.

All physicians in the clinic have buprenorphine prescribing credentials to aid in the management of opioid addiction, as some patients feel more comfortable receiving addiction treatment in a primary care setting. The multimodal care model consists of several services that include addiction psychiatrists, interventional pain specialists, pain psychologists, and pain pharmacologists who coordinate the care to the veterans. The addiction psychiatrists offer a full range of services with inpatient residential and outpatient programs. Through recurring meetings with primary care pain clinic staff, the addiction psychiatrists are available to discuss use of buprenorphine and arrange follow-up for patients with complex pain addiction. There is ongoing collaboration to develop the best care plan that meets the patient’s needs for chronic pain, addiction, and/or mental health issues. The interventional pain service has 3 fellowship-trained pain care providers who deliver comprehensive evaluation, pharmacologic recommendations, and a full range of interventional and complementary therapies with an emphasis on objective functional improvement. Pain care providers offer alternatives to patients who are being weaned from opioids and support the multidisciplinary patient engagement model.

The pain psychology program, established in 2011, delivers CBT to 5 onsite locations and 5 telehealth locations. The service includes an advanced CBT program and a couples CBT program. The pharmacy pain fellowship program provides staff for an outpatient e-consult pain management service and an inpatient pharmacy consult service. Harnessing pain specialty pharmacists, the pharmacy service addresses pharmacokinetic issues, urine drug screen (UDS) results, opioid tapering and discharge planning for pain, addiction and mental health needs. The NF/SGVHS Primary Care Pain Clinic was established to support PCPs who did not feel comfortable managing chronic pain patients. These patients were typically on high-dose opioid therapy (> 100-mg morphine equivalent daily doses [MEDDs]); patients with a history of opioid addiction; patients with an addiction to opioids combined with benzodiazepines; and patients with comorbid medical issues (eg, sleep apnea), which complicated their management. The process of addressing opioid safety in these complex pain patients can be labor intensive and generally cannot be accomplished in a brief visit in a primary care setting where many other medical problems often need to be addressed.

Most patients on high-dose opioids are fearful of any changes in their medications. The difficult conversation regarding opioid safety is a lengthy one and frequently will occur over multiple visits. In addition, safely tapering opioids requires frequent follow-up to provide psychological support and to address withdrawal and mental health issues that may arise. As opioids are tapered, the clinic reinforces improved pain care through a multimodal biopsychosocial model. All veterans receiving pain care outside the VA are monitored annually to assure they are receiving evidence-based pain care as defined by the biopsychosocial model.

Education

Since 2011, the NF/SGVHS SCAN-ECHO pain and addiction educational forum has created > 50 hours of approved annual continuing medical education (CME) on pain management and addiction for PCPs. Initially, the 1-hour weekly educational audioconferences presented a pain management case along with related topics and involved specialists from interventional pain, physical therapy, psychiatry, nursing, neurology, and psychology departments. In 2013, in conjunction with the VA SCAN-ECHO program of Hunter Holmes McGuire VAMC in Richmond, Virginia, and Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland, the audioconference was expanded to 2 days each week with additional topics on addiction management. Residency and fellowship rotations were developed that specifically targeted fellows from psychiatry, pharmacology, and interventional pain departments.

Currently, an 8-session pain school is delivered onsite and at 7 telehealth locations. The school is a collaborative effort involving interventional pain, psychology, pharmacy, nutrition, and the primary care pain clinic staff. As the cornerstone of the program, the pain school stresses the biopsychosocial patient engagement model.

Program Evaluation

The VA is equipped with multiple telehealth service networks that allow for the delivery of programs, such as the pain school, a pain psychology program, and a yoga program, onsite or offsite. The VA Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS) manages electronic health records, allowing for rapid chart review and e-consults. The NF/SGVHS Pain Management Program provides about 1500 e-consults yearly. The CPRS includes templates with pain metrics to help PCPs deliver pain care more efficiently and evaluate performance measures. This system also allows for the capture of data to track improvements in the care of the veterans served.

From 2012 to 2017, more than 5000 NF/SGVHS patients were weaned from opioids. Overall, there was an 87% reduction in patients receiving opioids ( ≥ 100-mg MEDDs) within the NF/SGVHS, which is significantly more than the 49% seen nationally across the VHA (Figure 2). Percent reduction was calculated by taking the difference in number of patients receiving opioids in 2012 and 2017, dividing by the number of patients receiving opioids in 2012 and multiplying by 100. The largest proportion of opioid dose reductions for NF/SGVHS and VHA patients, respectively, were seen in 300-mg to 399-mg MEDDs (95% vs 67%, respectively); followed by ≥ 400-mg MEDDs (94% vs 71%, respectively); 200-mg to 299-mg MEDDs (91% vs 58%, respectively); and 100-mg to 199-mg MEDDs (84% vs 40%, respectively). When examining NF/SGVHS trends over time, there has been a consistent decline in patients prescribed opioids (18 223 in 2012 compared with 12 877 in 2017) with similar trends in benzodiazepine-opioid combination therapy (2694 in 2012 compared with 833 in 2017) (Figure 3).

Similar declines are seen when patients are stratified by the MEDD (Figure 4). From 2012 to 2017, 92% of the patients were successfully tapered off doses ≥ 400-mg MEDD (2012, n = 72; 2017, n = 6), and tapered off 300-mg to 399-mg MEDD (2012, n = 107; 2017, n = 5); 95% were tapered off 200-mg to 299-mg MEDD (2012, n = 262; 2017, n = 22); and 86% were tapered off 100-mg to 199-mg MEDD (2012, n = 876; 2017; n = 127).

Conclusion

Successful integration of primary care with mental health and addiction services is paramount to aggressively taper patients with chronic pain from opioids. There is evidence that drug dependence and chronic pain should be treated like other chronic illness.²⁰ Both chronic pain and addiction can be treated with a multidimensional self-management approach. In view of the high incidence of mental health and addiction associated with opioid use, it makes sense that an integrated, 1-stop pain and addiction clinic that understands and addresses both issues is more likely to improve patient outcomes.

Acknowledgments

This material is the result of work supported by the resources and facilities at the North Florida/South Georgia Veterans Health System, Geriatric Research Education Clinical Center in Gainesville, Florida.

Fecal incontinence (FI), also known as accidental bowel leakage, is the involuntary loss of feces, which includes both liquid and solid stool as defined by the International Continence Society (ICS) and the International Urogynecological Association (IUGA).^1,2 Fecal incontinence is common, occurring in 7% to 25% of community-dwelling women, and it increases with age.^2-6 The condition is rarely addressed, with only 30% of women seeking care.^6-8 This is due to patient embarrassment and the lack of a reliable screening tool. However, FI affects quality of life and mental health, and the associated economic burden likely will rise given the increased prevalence of FI among older women.^2,4,7,9

Fecal incontinence occurs due to poor stool consistency, anal and pelvic muscle weakness, reduced rectal compliance, reduced or increased rectal sensation, or bowel inflammation or dysfunction. Many conditions can cause FI (TABLE 1).^5,10,11 It is therefore important to elicit a full medical history with a focus on specific bowel symptoms, such as stool consistency type (TABLE 2),¹² FI frequency, and duration of symptoms, as well as to perform a complete examination to identify any readily reversible or malignant causes. A colonoscopy is recommended for individuals who meet screening criteria or present with a change in bowel symptoms, such as diarrhea, bleeding, or obstruction.^13,14

Fecal incontinence treatments include a range of approaches categorized from conservative, or first-line therapy, to fourth-line surgical managements (FIGURE 1).^1,10,13,14 In this Update, we review the results of 3 well-designed trials that enrolled women with frequent nonneurogenic FI. 

Common first- and second-line treatments produce equivalent improvements in FI symptoms at
6 months 

Jelovsek JE, Markland AD, Whitehead WE, et al; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Pelvic Floor Disorders Network. Controlling faecal incontinence in women by performing anal exercises with biofeedback or loperamide: a randomized clinical trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019;4:698-710. 

In a multicenter, randomized trial of first- and second-line treatments for FI, Jelovsek and colleagues evaluated the efficacy of oral placebo, loperamide, pelvic floor physical therapy (PFPT) with biofeedback using anorectal manometry, or combination therapy over a 24-week period. 

Continue to: Four treatments compared...

Three hundred women with FI occurring monthly for 3 months were included in the trial. Women were excluded if they had a stool classification of type 1 or type 7 on the Bristol Stool Scale, inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), history of rectovaginal fistula or cloacal defect, rectal prolapse, prior bowel diversion, fecal impaction, neurologic disorder leading to incontinence, use of loperamide or diphenoxylate within the last 30 days, childbirth within the last 3 months, need for antiretroviral drugs, hepatic impairment, or chronic abdominal pain without diarrhea. 

Baseline characteristics and symptoms severity were similar among participants. The average age of the women was 63 years, with 79% white and 85% postmenopausal. Participants had a mean (SD) of 1.6 (1.8) leaks per day. 

Participants were randomly assigned in a 0.5:1:1:1 fashion to receive oral placebo, loperamide, oral placebo with PFPT/biofeedback, or loperamide with PFPT/biofeedback. All participants received a standardized educational pamphlet that outlined dietary and behavioral recommendations. 

Women assigned to PFPT/biofeedback received 6 sessions every other week. Loperamide was started at a dosage of 2 mg per day with the possibility of dose maintenance, escalation, reduction, or discontinuation. 

Study outcomes. The primary outcome was a change from baseline to 24 weeks in the Vaizey FI symptom severity score, which assesses fecal frequency, urgency, and use of pads and medications. Secondary outcomes included assessment of a 7-day bowel diary and other quality-of-life measures. Data at 24 weeks were available for 89% of the women. 

All treatment groups experienced improved FI symptoms 

Based on changes in Vaizey scores after 24 weeks of treatment, women in all treatment groups had similar improvement in symptoms severity. However, those who received loperamide and PFPT/biofeedback had decreased pad changes per week and more accident-free days compared with women treated with placebo and biofeedback. Quality of life at 24 weeks was not statistically different between treatment groups as improvement was seen in all groups, including those who received oral placebo and patient education. 

Adverse events. The proportion of gastrointestinal adverse effects was similar between treatment groups, ranging from 45% to 63%. Constipation was the most common adverse event overall and was more common in those taking loperamide, occurring in 51% of the loperamide plus PFPT/biofeedback group, 38% of those who received loperamide alone, 23% of the biofeedback with placebo group, and 12% of the placebo-alone group. 

Strengths and limitations. Strengths of this study include its multisite, large sample size, low dropout rate, and sufficiently powered design to compare various combinations of first- and second-line therapies in women with a mean baseline FI of 1.6 leaks per day. Another strength is the robustness of the PFPT/biofeedback sessions that used anorectal manometry. This may, however, limit the study's external validity given that clinical use of this device is likely rare. Additionally, the population was comprised largely of postmenopausal and white women, which may make the findings less generalizable to other populations. 

Continue to: Novel vaginal bowel control system...

Novel vaginal bowel control system is effective, durable over 12 months for FI treatment 

Richter HE, Dunivan G, Brown HW, et al. A 12-month clinical durability of effectiveness and safety evaluation of a vaginal bowel control system for the nonsurgical treatment of fecal incontinence. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2019;25:113-119. 

Richter and colleagues characterized clinical success, effect on quality of life, and durability over 12 months of a novel vaginal bowel control device (Eclipse System; Pelvalon) for FI in a prospective cohort study. The device is a silicone-coated vaginal insert with a detachable pump and balloon that deflects the rectovaginal septum posteriorly, thus impeding the passage of stool in the rectum (FIGURE 2). 

Study eligibility criteria and treatment protocol 

Women were eligible for the study if they had 4 or more episodes of fecal soiling on a 2-week bowel diary and had FI for at least 6 months. Participants were excluded if they had prolapse outside the hymen, rectovaginal fistula, IBD, congenital anorectal malformation, urinary or colorectal infection, chronic pelvic or anorectal pain, pregnancy or planning pregnancy in the next 5 months, unmanaged chronic watery diarrhea, presence of an open wound or tear in the vagina, significant urogenital atrophy, or any psychiatric or neurologic disorder that would hinder the ability to participate. 

Participants successfully fitted with the device (3 attempts were allowed) were entered into the study's run-in phase. Those who were successfully fitted and had a 50% or greater reduction in FI continued into the treatment phase with 12 months of follow-up. 

Of the 137 women eligible for device fitting, 62% were successfully fitted. The 73 (86%) women who had a 50% or greater reduction in FI during the run-in period comprised the intent-to-treat study population. On average, these women were 61.3 years of age, with 70% white and 82% postmenopausal. At baseline, they had a mean of 14.1 episodes of FI over 2 weeks. (Prior to enrollment, 97.3% of women attempted self-management strategies, 17.8% to 23% failed conservative therapy, and 7.8% to 13.7% failed surgical therapy.) The follow-up rate at 12 months was 74%. 

Study outcomes. The primary outcome was treatment success, defined as proportion of subjects with a 50% or greater reduction in FI episodes at 3 months; this outcome also was evaluated at 6 and 12 months. Secondary outcomes were the number of FI episodes and quality-of-life measures at 3, 6, and 12 months. 

Treatment success, patient satisfaction high 

In the treatment phase, women had sustained improvements in symptom severity and quality-of-life measures over 12 months. Treatment success was 73% at 3 months, 71% at 6 months, and 70% at 12 months. Complete continence was achieved in 46% of participants at 12 months, and major FI episodes (requiring immediate change of undergarments) decreased from 5.0 at baseline to 0.5 at 12 months. Quality-of-life measures were improved at 3 months, and improvement was sustained over 12 months. Satisfaction was 94% at 12 months. 

Adverse events. No serious device-related adverse events occurred. Mild device-related adverse events were experienced by 45% of women during the fitting process and by 38% during treatment period. These included vaginal wall injury such as hyperemia and erosion; vaginal or pelvic discomfort; vaginal infection; constipation; and lower urinary tract issues such as urinary tract infection, urinary incontinence, and voiding dysfunction. No adverse events led to treatment discontinuation. 

Strengths and limitations. Strengths of this study include that it was conducted at multiple clinical sites, had a large sample size, and had a 1-year follow-up period in a population with daily FI. A limitation was that only women who had a 50% or greater reduction in FI episodes during the run-in period were followed for 12 months; however, this was 86% of the original cohort. The use of a comparative group using other devices, such as anal plugs, would have strengthened this study. 

Continue to: Sacroneuromodulation for FI…

Sacral neuromodulation for FI is effective long-term 

Hull T, Giese C, Wexner SD, et al; for the SNS Study Group. Long-term durability of sacral nerve stimulation therapy for chronic fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum. 2013;56:234-245. 

In this multicenter, prospective cohort study, Hull and colleagues evaluated the 5-year efficacy of sacral neuromodulation (SNM), also known as sacral nerve stimulation, for treatment of FI. This study followed an earlier investigation by Wexner and colleagues, which reported that 83% of 120 patients treated with SNM had a 50% or greater improvement in FI episodes at 12 months.¹⁶ 

Details of the study 

The investigators enrolled 133 participants (92% female) who had more than 2 episodes of FI per week for longer than 6 months (12 months after vaginal delivery). Participants were excluded if they had congenital anorectal malformations, prior rectal surgery within the past 12 months (or 24 months if due to cancer), defects greater than 120° of the external anal sphincter (EAS), IBD, unmanaged chronic watery diarrhea, stool consistency type 6 or type 7 on the Bristol Stool Scale, sequela of pelvic radiation, active anal abscess or fistula, pregnancy, or planned pregnancy. 

Eligible participants underwent a 2-stage procedure with the InterStim bowel control device (Medtronic). If participants experienced a 50% or greater reduction in incontinence episodes with a wearable external SNM device in the test stimulation (stage 1), they received the chronic SNM implant device (stage 2). 

Participants who underwent device implantation were followed at 1, 3, and 6 months and annually for 5 years or until they exited the study. Bowel diaries and quality of life assessments were completed at baseline and at follow-up. 

The primary outcome was therapeutic success, defined as 50% or greater improvement in FI episodes per week. 

A total of 120 participants (90%) underwent implantation of the chronic lead and neuromodulator, and 76 (63%) were followed for 5 years. Baseline characteristics available in the initial study of 133 participants showed that the mean age was 60.5 years; 25% had undergone a prior anal sphincteroplasty; and 16.5% and 10.5% had EAS or internal anal sphincter (IAS) defects, respectively, on endoanal ultrasonography.¹⁶ 

Therapeutic success was high at 5 years 

At the 5-year follow-up, 89% (64/72) of participants met therapeutic success, with a reduction in weekly FI episodes from 9.1 at baseline to 1.7 at 5 years. The number of incontinence pads required decreased, and more participants wore no pads at 5 years. In the intention-to-treat analysis, carrying forward the baseline FI rate in participants who lacked follow-up data, the therapeutic success rate was 69%. Quality-of-life measures improved at 5 years, both statistically and by minimal clinical difference. 

Adverse events. Sixty-eight percent of participants experienced device-related adverse events, including implant site pain, change in sensation of stimulation, change in efficacy, implant site infection, or neurostimulator battery depletion (neurostimulator use commonly expires after 3 to 5 years). Of these events, 80% were successfully treated with medications, reprogramming, or no intervention. The 5-year probability of device revision or replacement was 24.4%, and the 5-year probability of device explant was 19.0%. 

Strengths and limitations. Overall, this study was a well-designed, multicenter trial with long-term follow-up that showed significant improvement in FI with the use of SNM. Its strengths include the enrollment of postmenopausal women who had current defects in EAS and/or IAS on endoanal ultrasonography and 25% who had a prior sphincteroplasty. The findings therefore are relevant to the gynecologic population in whom anal sphincteroplasty would not be recommended. The study also accounted for dropouts and reported the adjusted success rate of 69% at 5 years in that group. 

The lack of a control arm to rule out the placebo effect is a limitation of this study, although randomized trials comparing the effect of SNM "on" versus "off" showed greater improvement with the device "on."¹⁷ 

Fecal incontinence (FI), also known as accidental bowel leakage, is the involuntary loss of feces, which includes both liquid and solid stool as defined by the International Continence Society (ICS) and the International Urogynecological Association (IUGA).^1,2 Fecal incontinence is common, occurring in 7% to 25% of community-dwelling women, and it increases with age.^2-6 The condition is rarely addressed, with only 30% of women seeking care.^6-8 This is due to patient embarrassment and the lack of a reliable screening tool. However, FI affects quality of life and mental health, and the associated economic burden likely will rise given the increased prevalence of FI among older women.^2,4,7,9

Fecal incontinence occurs due to poor stool consistency, anal and pelvic muscle weakness, reduced rectal compliance, reduced or increased rectal sensation, or bowel inflammation or dysfunction. Many conditions can cause FI (TABLE 1).^5,10,11 It is therefore important to elicit a full medical history with a focus on specific bowel symptoms, such as stool consistency type (TABLE 2),¹² FI frequency, and duration of symptoms, as well as to perform a complete examination to identify any readily reversible or malignant causes. A colonoscopy is recommended for individuals who meet screening criteria or present with a change in bowel symptoms, such as diarrhea, bleeding, or obstruction.^13,14

Fecal incontinence treatments include a range of approaches categorized from conservative, or first-line therapy, to fourth-line surgical managements (FIGURE 1).^1,10,13,14 In this Update, we review the results of 3 well-designed trials that enrolled women with frequent nonneurogenic FI. 

Common first- and second-line treatments produce equivalent improvements in FI symptoms at
6 months 

Jelovsek JE, Markland AD, Whitehead WE, et al; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Pelvic Floor Disorders Network. Controlling faecal incontinence in women by performing anal exercises with biofeedback or loperamide: a randomized clinical trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019;4:698-710. 

In a multicenter, randomized trial of first- and second-line treatments for FI, Jelovsek and colleagues evaluated the efficacy of oral placebo, loperamide, pelvic floor physical therapy (PFPT) with biofeedback using anorectal manometry, or combination therapy over a 24-week period. 

Continue to: Four treatments compared...

Three hundred women with FI occurring monthly for 3 months were included in the trial. Women were excluded if they had a stool classification of type 1 or type 7 on the Bristol Stool Scale, inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), history of rectovaginal fistula or cloacal defect, rectal prolapse, prior bowel diversion, fecal impaction, neurologic disorder leading to incontinence, use of loperamide or diphenoxylate within the last 30 days, childbirth within the last 3 months, need for antiretroviral drugs, hepatic impairment, or chronic abdominal pain without diarrhea. 

Baseline characteristics and symptoms severity were similar among participants. The average age of the women was 63 years, with 79% white and 85% postmenopausal. Participants had a mean (SD) of 1.6 (1.8) leaks per day. 

Participants were randomly assigned in a 0.5:1:1:1 fashion to receive oral placebo, loperamide, oral placebo with PFPT/biofeedback, or loperamide with PFPT/biofeedback. All participants received a standardized educational pamphlet that outlined dietary and behavioral recommendations. 

Women assigned to PFPT/biofeedback received 6 sessions every other week. Loperamide was started at a dosage of 2 mg per day with the possibility of dose maintenance, escalation, reduction, or discontinuation. 

Study outcomes. The primary outcome was a change from baseline to 24 weeks in the Vaizey FI symptom severity score, which assesses fecal frequency, urgency, and use of pads and medications. Secondary outcomes included assessment of a 7-day bowel diary and other quality-of-life measures. Data at 24 weeks were available for 89% of the women. 

All treatment groups experienced improved FI symptoms 

Based on changes in Vaizey scores after 24 weeks of treatment, women in all treatment groups had similar improvement in symptoms severity. However, those who received loperamide and PFPT/biofeedback had decreased pad changes per week and more accident-free days compared with women treated with placebo and biofeedback. Quality of life at 24 weeks was not statistically different between treatment groups as improvement was seen in all groups, including those who received oral placebo and patient education. 

Adverse events. The proportion of gastrointestinal adverse effects was similar between treatment groups, ranging from 45% to 63%. Constipation was the most common adverse event overall and was more common in those taking loperamide, occurring in 51% of the loperamide plus PFPT/biofeedback group, 38% of those who received loperamide alone, 23% of the biofeedback with placebo group, and 12% of the placebo-alone group. 

Strengths and limitations. Strengths of this study include its multisite, large sample size, low dropout rate, and sufficiently powered design to compare various combinations of first- and second-line therapies in women with a mean baseline FI of 1.6 leaks per day. Another strength is the robustness of the PFPT/biofeedback sessions that used anorectal manometry. This may, however, limit the study's external validity given that clinical use of this device is likely rare. Additionally, the population was comprised largely of postmenopausal and white women, which may make the findings less generalizable to other populations. 

Continue to: Novel vaginal bowel control system...

Novel vaginal bowel control system is effective, durable over 12 months for FI treatment 

Richter HE, Dunivan G, Brown HW, et al. A 12-month clinical durability of effectiveness and safety evaluation of a vaginal bowel control system for the nonsurgical treatment of fecal incontinence. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2019;25:113-119. 

Richter and colleagues characterized clinical success, effect on quality of life, and durability over 12 months of a novel vaginal bowel control device (Eclipse System; Pelvalon) for FI in a prospective cohort study. The device is a silicone-coated vaginal insert with a detachable pump and balloon that deflects the rectovaginal septum posteriorly, thus impeding the passage of stool in the rectum (FIGURE 2). 

Study eligibility criteria and treatment protocol 

Women were eligible for the study if they had 4 or more episodes of fecal soiling on a 2-week bowel diary and had FI for at least 6 months. Participants were excluded if they had prolapse outside the hymen, rectovaginal fistula, IBD, congenital anorectal malformation, urinary or colorectal infection, chronic pelvic or anorectal pain, pregnancy or planning pregnancy in the next 5 months, unmanaged chronic watery diarrhea, presence of an open wound or tear in the vagina, significant urogenital atrophy, or any psychiatric or neurologic disorder that would hinder the ability to participate. 

Participants successfully fitted with the device (3 attempts were allowed) were entered into the study's run-in phase. Those who were successfully fitted and had a 50% or greater reduction in FI continued into the treatment phase with 12 months of follow-up. 

Of the 137 women eligible for device fitting, 62% were successfully fitted. The 73 (86%) women who had a 50% or greater reduction in FI during the run-in period comprised the intent-to-treat study population. On average, these women were 61.3 years of age, with 70% white and 82% postmenopausal. At baseline, they had a mean of 14.1 episodes of FI over 2 weeks. (Prior to enrollment, 97.3% of women attempted self-management strategies, 17.8% to 23% failed conservative therapy, and 7.8% to 13.7% failed surgical therapy.) The follow-up rate at 12 months was 74%. 

Study outcomes. The primary outcome was treatment success, defined as proportion of subjects with a 50% or greater reduction in FI episodes at 3 months; this outcome also was evaluated at 6 and 12 months. Secondary outcomes were the number of FI episodes and quality-of-life measures at 3, 6, and 12 months. 

Treatment success, patient satisfaction high 

In the treatment phase, women had sustained improvements in symptom severity and quality-of-life measures over 12 months. Treatment success was 73% at 3 months, 71% at 6 months, and 70% at 12 months. Complete continence was achieved in 46% of participants at 12 months, and major FI episodes (requiring immediate change of undergarments) decreased from 5.0 at baseline to 0.5 at 12 months. Quality-of-life measures were improved at 3 months, and improvement was sustained over 12 months. Satisfaction was 94% at 12 months. 

Adverse events. No serious device-related adverse events occurred. Mild device-related adverse events were experienced by 45% of women during the fitting process and by 38% during treatment period. These included vaginal wall injury such as hyperemia and erosion; vaginal or pelvic discomfort; vaginal infection; constipation; and lower urinary tract issues such as urinary tract infection, urinary incontinence, and voiding dysfunction. No adverse events led to treatment discontinuation. 

Strengths and limitations. Strengths of this study include that it was conducted at multiple clinical sites, had a large sample size, and had a 1-year follow-up period in a population with daily FI. A limitation was that only women who had a 50% or greater reduction in FI episodes during the run-in period were followed for 12 months; however, this was 86% of the original cohort. The use of a comparative group using other devices, such as anal plugs, would have strengthened this study. 

Continue to: Sacroneuromodulation for FI…

Sacral neuromodulation for FI is effective long-term 

Hull T, Giese C, Wexner SD, et al; for the SNS Study Group. Long-term durability of sacral nerve stimulation therapy for chronic fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum. 2013;56:234-245. 

In this multicenter, prospective cohort study, Hull and colleagues evaluated the 5-year efficacy of sacral neuromodulation (SNM), also known as sacral nerve stimulation, for treatment of FI. This study followed an earlier investigation by Wexner and colleagues, which reported that 83% of 120 patients treated with SNM had a 50% or greater improvement in FI episodes at 12 months.¹⁶ 

Details of the study 

The investigators enrolled 133 participants (92% female) who had more than 2 episodes of FI per week for longer than 6 months (12 months after vaginal delivery). Participants were excluded if they had congenital anorectal malformations, prior rectal surgery within the past 12 months (or 24 months if due to cancer), defects greater than 120° of the external anal sphincter (EAS), IBD, unmanaged chronic watery diarrhea, stool consistency type 6 or type 7 on the Bristol Stool Scale, sequela of pelvic radiation, active anal abscess or fistula, pregnancy, or planned pregnancy. 

Eligible participants underwent a 2-stage procedure with the InterStim bowel control device (Medtronic). If participants experienced a 50% or greater reduction in incontinence episodes with a wearable external SNM device in the test stimulation (stage 1), they received the chronic SNM implant device (stage 2). 

Participants who underwent device implantation were followed at 1, 3, and 6 months and annually for 5 years or until they exited the study. Bowel diaries and quality of life assessments were completed at baseline and at follow-up. 

The primary outcome was therapeutic success, defined as 50% or greater improvement in FI episodes per week. 

A total of 120 participants (90%) underwent implantation of the chronic lead and neuromodulator, and 76 (63%) were followed for 5 years. Baseline characteristics available in the initial study of 133 participants showed that the mean age was 60.5 years; 25% had undergone a prior anal sphincteroplasty; and 16.5% and 10.5% had EAS or internal anal sphincter (IAS) defects, respectively, on endoanal ultrasonography.¹⁶ 

Therapeutic success was high at 5 years 

At the 5-year follow-up, 89% (64/72) of participants met therapeutic success, with a reduction in weekly FI episodes from 9.1 at baseline to 1.7 at 5 years. The number of incontinence pads required decreased, and more participants wore no pads at 5 years. In the intention-to-treat analysis, carrying forward the baseline FI rate in participants who lacked follow-up data, the therapeutic success rate was 69%. Quality-of-life measures improved at 5 years, both statistically and by minimal clinical difference. 

Adverse events. Sixty-eight percent of participants experienced device-related adverse events, including implant site pain, change in sensation of stimulation, change in efficacy, implant site infection, or neurostimulator battery depletion (neurostimulator use commonly expires after 3 to 5 years). Of these events, 80% were successfully treated with medications, reprogramming, or no intervention. The 5-year probability of device revision or replacement was 24.4%, and the 5-year probability of device explant was 19.0%. 

Strengths and limitations. Overall, this study was a well-designed, multicenter trial with long-term follow-up that showed significant improvement in FI with the use of SNM. Its strengths include the enrollment of postmenopausal women who had current defects in EAS and/or IAS on endoanal ultrasonography and 25% who had a prior sphincteroplasty. The findings therefore are relevant to the gynecologic population in whom anal sphincteroplasty would not be recommended. The study also accounted for dropouts and reported the adjusted success rate of 69% at 5 years in that group. 

The lack of a control arm to rule out the placebo effect is a limitation of this study, although randomized trials comparing the effect of SNM "on" versus "off" showed greater improvement with the device "on."¹⁷ 

Fecal incontinence (FI), also known as accidental bowel leakage, is the involuntary loss of feces, which includes both liquid and solid stool as defined by the International Continence Society (ICS) and the International Urogynecological Association (IUGA).^1,2 Fecal incontinence is common, occurring in 7% to 25% of community-dwelling women, and it increases with age.^2-6 The condition is rarely addressed, with only 30% of women seeking care.^6-8 This is due to patient embarrassment and the lack of a reliable screening tool. However, FI affects quality of life and mental health, and the associated economic burden likely will rise given the increased prevalence of FI among older women.^2,4,7,9

Fecal incontinence occurs due to poor stool consistency, anal and pelvic muscle weakness, reduced rectal compliance, reduced or increased rectal sensation, or bowel inflammation or dysfunction. Many conditions can cause FI (TABLE 1).^5,10,11 It is therefore important to elicit a full medical history with a focus on specific bowel symptoms, such as stool consistency type (TABLE 2),¹² FI frequency, and duration of symptoms, as well as to perform a complete examination to identify any readily reversible or malignant causes. A colonoscopy is recommended for individuals who meet screening criteria or present with a change in bowel symptoms, such as diarrhea, bleeding, or obstruction.^13,14

Fecal incontinence treatments include a range of approaches categorized from conservative, or first-line therapy, to fourth-line surgical managements (FIGURE 1).^1,10,13,14 In this Update, we review the results of 3 well-designed trials that enrolled women with frequent nonneurogenic FI. 

Common first- and second-line treatments produce equivalent improvements in FI symptoms at
6 months 

Jelovsek JE, Markland AD, Whitehead WE, et al; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Pelvic Floor Disorders Network. Controlling faecal incontinence in women by performing anal exercises with biofeedback or loperamide: a randomized clinical trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019;4:698-710. 

In a multicenter, randomized trial of first- and second-line treatments for FI, Jelovsek and colleagues evaluated the efficacy of oral placebo, loperamide, pelvic floor physical therapy (PFPT) with biofeedback using anorectal manometry, or combination therapy over a 24-week period. 

Continue to: Four treatments compared...

Three hundred women with FI occurring monthly for 3 months were included in the trial. Women were excluded if they had a stool classification of type 1 or type 7 on the Bristol Stool Scale, inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), history of rectovaginal fistula or cloacal defect, rectal prolapse, prior bowel diversion, fecal impaction, neurologic disorder leading to incontinence, use of loperamide or diphenoxylate within the last 30 days, childbirth within the last 3 months, need for antiretroviral drugs, hepatic impairment, or chronic abdominal pain without diarrhea. 

Baseline characteristics and symptoms severity were similar among participants. The average age of the women was 63 years, with 79% white and 85% postmenopausal. Participants had a mean (SD) of 1.6 (1.8) leaks per day. 

Participants were randomly assigned in a 0.5:1:1:1 fashion to receive oral placebo, loperamide, oral placebo with PFPT/biofeedback, or loperamide with PFPT/biofeedback. All participants received a standardized educational pamphlet that outlined dietary and behavioral recommendations. 

Women assigned to PFPT/biofeedback received 6 sessions every other week. Loperamide was started at a dosage of 2 mg per day with the possibility of dose maintenance, escalation, reduction, or discontinuation. 

Study outcomes. The primary outcome was a change from baseline to 24 weeks in the Vaizey FI symptom severity score, which assesses fecal frequency, urgency, and use of pads and medications. Secondary outcomes included assessment of a 7-day bowel diary and other quality-of-life measures. Data at 24 weeks were available for 89% of the women. 

All treatment groups experienced improved FI symptoms 

Based on changes in Vaizey scores after 24 weeks of treatment, women in all treatment groups had similar improvement in symptoms severity. However, those who received loperamide and PFPT/biofeedback had decreased pad changes per week and more accident-free days compared with women treated with placebo and biofeedback. Quality of life at 24 weeks was not statistically different between treatment groups as improvement was seen in all groups, including those who received oral placebo and patient education. 

Adverse events. The proportion of gastrointestinal adverse effects was similar between treatment groups, ranging from 45% to 63%. Constipation was the most common adverse event overall and was more common in those taking loperamide, occurring in 51% of the loperamide plus PFPT/biofeedback group, 38% of those who received loperamide alone, 23% of the biofeedback with placebo group, and 12% of the placebo-alone group. 

Strengths and limitations. Strengths of this study include its multisite, large sample size, low dropout rate, and sufficiently powered design to compare various combinations of first- and second-line therapies in women with a mean baseline FI of 1.6 leaks per day. Another strength is the robustness of the PFPT/biofeedback sessions that used anorectal manometry. This may, however, limit the study's external validity given that clinical use of this device is likely rare. Additionally, the population was comprised largely of postmenopausal and white women, which may make the findings less generalizable to other populations. 

Continue to: Novel vaginal bowel control system...

Novel vaginal bowel control system is effective, durable over 12 months for FI treatment 

Richter HE, Dunivan G, Brown HW, et al. A 12-month clinical durability of effectiveness and safety evaluation of a vaginal bowel control system for the nonsurgical treatment of fecal incontinence. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2019;25:113-119. 

Richter and colleagues characterized clinical success, effect on quality of life, and durability over 12 months of a novel vaginal bowel control device (Eclipse System; Pelvalon) for FI in a prospective cohort study. The device is a silicone-coated vaginal insert with a detachable pump and balloon that deflects the rectovaginal septum posteriorly, thus impeding the passage of stool in the rectum (FIGURE 2). 

Study eligibility criteria and treatment protocol 

Women were eligible for the study if they had 4 or more episodes of fecal soiling on a 2-week bowel diary and had FI for at least 6 months. Participants were excluded if they had prolapse outside the hymen, rectovaginal fistula, IBD, congenital anorectal malformation, urinary or colorectal infection, chronic pelvic or anorectal pain, pregnancy or planning pregnancy in the next 5 months, unmanaged chronic watery diarrhea, presence of an open wound or tear in the vagina, significant urogenital atrophy, or any psychiatric or neurologic disorder that would hinder the ability to participate. 

Participants successfully fitted with the device (3 attempts were allowed) were entered into the study's run-in phase. Those who were successfully fitted and had a 50% or greater reduction in FI continued into the treatment phase with 12 months of follow-up. 

Of the 137 women eligible for device fitting, 62% were successfully fitted. The 73 (86%) women who had a 50% or greater reduction in FI during the run-in period comprised the intent-to-treat study population. On average, these women were 61.3 years of age, with 70% white and 82% postmenopausal. At baseline, they had a mean of 14.1 episodes of FI over 2 weeks. (Prior to enrollment, 97.3% of women attempted self-management strategies, 17.8% to 23% failed conservative therapy, and 7.8% to 13.7% failed surgical therapy.) The follow-up rate at 12 months was 74%. 

Study outcomes. The primary outcome was treatment success, defined as proportion of subjects with a 50% or greater reduction in FI episodes at 3 months; this outcome also was evaluated at 6 and 12 months. Secondary outcomes were the number of FI episodes and quality-of-life measures at 3, 6, and 12 months. 

Treatment success, patient satisfaction high 

In the treatment phase, women had sustained improvements in symptom severity and quality-of-life measures over 12 months. Treatment success was 73% at 3 months, 71% at 6 months, and 70% at 12 months. Complete continence was achieved in 46% of participants at 12 months, and major FI episodes (requiring immediate change of undergarments) decreased from 5.0 at baseline to 0.5 at 12 months. Quality-of-life measures were improved at 3 months, and improvement was sustained over 12 months. Satisfaction was 94% at 12 months. 

Adverse events. No serious device-related adverse events occurred. Mild device-related adverse events were experienced by 45% of women during the fitting process and by 38% during treatment period. These included vaginal wall injury such as hyperemia and erosion; vaginal or pelvic discomfort; vaginal infection; constipation; and lower urinary tract issues such as urinary tract infection, urinary incontinence, and voiding dysfunction. No adverse events led to treatment discontinuation. 

Strengths and limitations. Strengths of this study include that it was conducted at multiple clinical sites, had a large sample size, and had a 1-year follow-up period in a population with daily FI. A limitation was that only women who had a 50% or greater reduction in FI episodes during the run-in period were followed for 12 months; however, this was 86% of the original cohort. The use of a comparative group using other devices, such as anal plugs, would have strengthened this study. 

Continue to: Sacroneuromodulation for FI…

Sacral neuromodulation for FI is effective long-term 

Hull T, Giese C, Wexner SD, et al; for the SNS Study Group. Long-term durability of sacral nerve stimulation therapy for chronic fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum. 2013;56:234-245. 

In this multicenter, prospective cohort study, Hull and colleagues evaluated the 5-year efficacy of sacral neuromodulation (SNM), also known as sacral nerve stimulation, for treatment of FI. This study followed an earlier investigation by Wexner and colleagues, which reported that 83% of 120 patients treated with SNM had a 50% or greater improvement in FI episodes at 12 months.¹⁶ 

Details of the study 

The investigators enrolled 133 participants (92% female) who had more than 2 episodes of FI per week for longer than 6 months (12 months after vaginal delivery). Participants were excluded if they had congenital anorectal malformations, prior rectal surgery within the past 12 months (or 24 months if due to cancer), defects greater than 120° of the external anal sphincter (EAS), IBD, unmanaged chronic watery diarrhea, stool consistency type 6 or type 7 on the Bristol Stool Scale, sequela of pelvic radiation, active anal abscess or fistula, pregnancy, or planned pregnancy. 

Eligible participants underwent a 2-stage procedure with the InterStim bowel control device (Medtronic). If participants experienced a 50% or greater reduction in incontinence episodes with a wearable external SNM device in the test stimulation (stage 1), they received the chronic SNM implant device (stage 2). 

Participants who underwent device implantation were followed at 1, 3, and 6 months and annually for 5 years or until they exited the study. Bowel diaries and quality of life assessments were completed at baseline and at follow-up. 

The primary outcome was therapeutic success, defined as 50% or greater improvement in FI episodes per week. 

A total of 120 participants (90%) underwent implantation of the chronic lead and neuromodulator, and 76 (63%) were followed for 5 years. Baseline characteristics available in the initial study of 133 participants showed that the mean age was 60.5 years; 25% had undergone a prior anal sphincteroplasty; and 16.5% and 10.5% had EAS or internal anal sphincter (IAS) defects, respectively, on endoanal ultrasonography.¹⁶ 

Therapeutic success was high at 5 years 

At the 5-year follow-up, 89% (64/72) of participants met therapeutic success, with a reduction in weekly FI episodes from 9.1 at baseline to 1.7 at 5 years. The number of incontinence pads required decreased, and more participants wore no pads at 5 years. In the intention-to-treat analysis, carrying forward the baseline FI rate in participants who lacked follow-up data, the therapeutic success rate was 69%. Quality-of-life measures improved at 5 years, both statistically and by minimal clinical difference. 

Adverse events. Sixty-eight percent of participants experienced device-related adverse events, including implant site pain, change in sensation of stimulation, change in efficacy, implant site infection, or neurostimulator battery depletion (neurostimulator use commonly expires after 3 to 5 years). Of these events, 80% were successfully treated with medications, reprogramming, or no intervention. The 5-year probability of device revision or replacement was 24.4%, and the 5-year probability of device explant was 19.0%. 

Strengths and limitations. Overall, this study was a well-designed, multicenter trial with long-term follow-up that showed significant improvement in FI with the use of SNM. Its strengths include the enrollment of postmenopausal women who had current defects in EAS and/or IAS on endoanal ultrasonography and 25% who had a prior sphincteroplasty. The findings therefore are relevant to the gynecologic population in whom anal sphincteroplasty would not be recommended. The study also accounted for dropouts and reported the adjusted success rate of 69% at 5 years in that group. 

The lack of a control arm to rule out the placebo effect is a limitation of this study, although randomized trials comparing the effect of SNM "on" versus "off" showed greater improvement with the device "on."¹⁷ 

*This version has been corrected. In the original version the first sentence incorrectly referred to moral injury instead of burnout.

For more than a decade, the term burnout has been used to describe clinician distress.^1,2 Although some clinicians in federal health care systems may be protected from some of the drivers of burnout, other federal practitioners suffer from rule-driven health care practices and distant, top-down administration. The demand for health care is expanding, driven by the aging of the US population.³ Massive information technology investments, which promised efficiency for health care providers,⁴ have instead delivered a triple blow: They have diverted capital resources that might have been used to hire additional caregivers,⁵ diverted the time and attention of those already engaged in patient care,⁶ and done little to improve patient outcomes.⁷ Reimbursements are falling, and the only way for health systems to maintain their revenue is to increase the number of patients each clinician sees per day.⁸ As the resources of time and attention shrink, and as spending continues with no improvement in patient outcomes, clinician distress is on the rise.⁹ It will be important to understand exactly what the drivers of the problem are for federal clinicians so that solutions can be appropriately targeted. The first step in addressing the epidemic of physician distress is using the most accurate terminology to describe it.

Freudenberger defined burnout in 1975 as a constellation of symptoms—malaise, fatigue, frustration, cynicism, and inefficacy—that arise from “making excessive demands on energy, strength, or resources” in the workplace.¹⁰ The term was borrowed from other fields and applied to health care in the hopes of readily transferring the solutions that had worked in other industries to address a growing crisis among physicians. Unfortunately, the crisis in health care has proven resistant to solutions that have worked elsewhere, and many clinicians have resisted being characterized as burned out, citing a subtle, elusive disconnect between what they have experienced and what burnout encapsulates.

In July 2018, the conversation about clinician distress shifted with an article we wrote in STAT that described the moral injury of health care.¹¹ The concept of moral injury was first described in service members who returned from the Vietnam War with symptoms that loosely fit a diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), but which did not respond to standard PTSD treatment and contained symptoms outside the PTSD constellation.¹² On closer assessment, what these service members were experiencing had a different driver. Whereas those with PTSD experienced a real and imminent threat to their mortality and had come back deeply concerned for their individual, physical safety, those with this different presentation experienced repeated insults to their morality and had returned questioning whether they were still, at their core, moral beings. They had been forced, in some way, to act contrary to what their beliefs dictated was right by killing civilians on orders from their superiors, for example. This was a different category of psychological injury that required different treatment.

Moral injury occurs when we perpetrate, bear witness to, or fail to prevent an act that transgresses our deeply held moral beliefs. In the health care context, that deeply held moral belief is the oath each of us took when embarking on our paths as health care providers: Put the needs of patients first. That oath is the lynchpin of our working lives and our guiding principle when searching for the right course of action. But as clinicians, we are increasingly forced to consider the demands of other stakeholders—the electronic medical record (EMR), the insurers, the hospital, the health care system, even our own financial security—before the needs of our patients. Every time we are forced to make a decision that contravenes our patients’ best interests, we feel a sting of moral injustice. Over time, these repetitive insults amass into moral injury.

The difference between burnout and moral injury is important because using different terminology reframes the problem and the solutions. Burnout suggests that the problem resides within the individual, who is in some way deficient. It implies that the individual lacks the resources or resilience to withstand the work environment. Since the problem is in the individual, the solutions to burnout must be in the individual, too, and therefore, it is the individual’s responsibility to find and implement them. Many of the solutions to physician distress posited to date revolve around this conception; hence, the focus on yoga, mindfulness, wellness retreats, and meditation.¹³ While there is nothing inherently wrong with any of those practices, it is absurd to believe that yoga will solve the problems of treating a cancer patient with a declined preauthorization for chemotherapy, having no time to discuss a complex diagnosis, or relying on a computer system that places metrics ahead of communication. These problems are not the result of some failing on the part of the individual clinician.

Moral injury, on the other hand, describes the challenge of simultaneously knowing what care patients need but being unable to provide it due to constraints that are beyond our control. Moral injury is the consequence of the ever-present double binds in health care: Do we take care of our patient, the hospital, the insurer, the EMR, the health care system, or our productivity metrics first? There should be only 1 answer to that question, but the current business framework of medicine pressures us to serve all these masters at once. Moral injury locates the source of distress in a broken system, not a broken individual, and allows us to direct solutions at the causes of distress. And in the end, addressing the drivers of moral injury on a large scale may be the most effective preventive treatment for its cumulative effects among health care providers.

The long-term solutions to moral injury demand changes in the business framework of health care. The solutions reside not in promoting mindfulness or resilience among individual physicians, but in creating a health care environment that finally acknowledges the value of the time clinicians and patients spend together developing the trust, understanding, and compassion that accompany a true relationship. The long-term solutions to moral injury include a health care system that prioritizes healing over profit and that trusts its clinicians to always put their patients’ best interests first.

Treating moral injury will not be simple. It cannot happen quickly, and it will not happen without widespread clinician engagement. Change can begin when clinicians identify the double binds they face every day and convey those challenges to their administrators. If administrators and clinicians are willing to work together to resolve these double binds, health care will improve for everyone.

The following are our recommendations for how you can bring change both locally and on a broader scale.

Bring together the 2 sides of the health care house: administrators and clinicians. Invite administrators to join you on rounds, in clinic, or in the operating room. Ask them to follow you during a night of call or to spend an overnight shift with you in the emergency department. The majority of people, including health care administrators, have had only glancing encounters with the medical system. They see their primary care doctor, have regular screening procedures, and maybe get treated for a routine illness or injury. None of those encounters expose them to the depth of challenge in the system.

It takes exposure over a longer duration, or with greater intensity, to appreciate the tensions and double binds that patients and clinicians face regularly.^14,15 Whether or not the administrators accept your invitation, you must also ask to see the challenges from their side. Block out an afternoon, a day, or a week to follow them and learn where they struggle in their work. Only when we understand the other party’s perspective can we truly begin to empathize and communicate meaningfully. That profound understanding is the place where commonality and compromises are found.

Make clinician satisfaction a financial priority. Although care team well-being is now part of the quadruple aim (patient experience, population health, reducing costs, and provider experience), organizations must be held accountable to ensure it is a priority. If we choose to link patient satisfaction with clinician compensation, why not link clinician satisfaction with executive compensation?

Make sure every physician leader has and uses the cell phone number of his or her legislators. Hospitals and big pharma have nearly bottomless lobbying budgets, which makes competing with them for lawmakers’ attention a formidable prospect. Despite this, physician leaders (ie, chief wellness officer, department chairperson, medical society president, etc) have a responsibility to communicate with legislators about the needs of patients (their constituents) and what role our legislators can play in fulfilling those needs. We must understand how policy, regulation, and legislation work, and we need to find seats at every table where the decisions that impact clinical care are made. The first step is opening lines of communication with those who have the power to enact large-scale change.

Reestablish a sense of community among clinicians. Too often clinicians are pitted against one another as resources shrink. Doctors compete with each other for referrals, advanced practitioners and nurses compete with doctors, and everyone feels overstressed. What we tend to forget is that we are all working toward the same goal: To give patients the best care possible. It’s time to view each other with the presumption of charity and to have each other’s backs. Uniting for support, camaraderie, mentorship, and activism is a necessary step in making change.

*This version has been corrected. In the original version the first sentence incorrectly referred to moral injury instead of burnout.

For more than a decade, the term burnout has been used to describe clinician distress.^1,2 Although some clinicians in federal health care systems may be protected from some of the drivers of burnout, other federal practitioners suffer from rule-driven health care practices and distant, top-down administration. The demand for health care is expanding, driven by the aging of the US population.³ Massive information technology investments, which promised efficiency for health care providers,⁴ have instead delivered a triple blow: They have diverted capital resources that might have been used to hire additional caregivers,⁵ diverted the time and attention of those already engaged in patient care,⁶ and done little to improve patient outcomes.⁷ Reimbursements are falling, and the only way for health systems to maintain their revenue is to increase the number of patients each clinician sees per day.⁸ As the resources of time and attention shrink, and as spending continues with no improvement in patient outcomes, clinician distress is on the rise.⁹ It will be important to understand exactly what the drivers of the problem are for federal clinicians so that solutions can be appropriately targeted. The first step in addressing the epidemic of physician distress is using the most accurate terminology to describe it.

Freudenberger defined burnout in 1975 as a constellation of symptoms—malaise, fatigue, frustration, cynicism, and inefficacy—that arise from “making excessive demands on energy, strength, or resources” in the workplace.¹⁰ The term was borrowed from other fields and applied to health care in the hopes of readily transferring the solutions that had worked in other industries to address a growing crisis among physicians. Unfortunately, the crisis in health care has proven resistant to solutions that have worked elsewhere, and many clinicians have resisted being characterized as burned out, citing a subtle, elusive disconnect between what they have experienced and what burnout encapsulates.

In July 2018, the conversation about clinician distress shifted with an article we wrote in STAT that described the moral injury of health care.¹¹ The concept of moral injury was first described in service members who returned from the Vietnam War with symptoms that loosely fit a diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), but which did not respond to standard PTSD treatment and contained symptoms outside the PTSD constellation.¹² On closer assessment, what these service members were experiencing had a different driver. Whereas those with PTSD experienced a real and imminent threat to their mortality and had come back deeply concerned for their individual, physical safety, those with this different presentation experienced repeated insults to their morality and had returned questioning whether they were still, at their core, moral beings. They had been forced, in some way, to act contrary to what their beliefs dictated was right by killing civilians on orders from their superiors, for example. This was a different category of psychological injury that required different treatment.

Moral injury occurs when we perpetrate, bear witness to, or fail to prevent an act that transgresses our deeply held moral beliefs. In the health care context, that deeply held moral belief is the oath each of us took when embarking on our paths as health care providers: Put the needs of patients first. That oath is the lynchpin of our working lives and our guiding principle when searching for the right course of action. But as clinicians, we are increasingly forced to consider the demands of other stakeholders—the electronic medical record (EMR), the insurers, the hospital, the health care system, even our own financial security—before the needs of our patients. Every time we are forced to make a decision that contravenes our patients’ best interests, we feel a sting of moral injustice. Over time, these repetitive insults amass into moral injury.

The difference between burnout and moral injury is important because using different terminology reframes the problem and the solutions. Burnout suggests that the problem resides within the individual, who is in some way deficient. It implies that the individual lacks the resources or resilience to withstand the work environment. Since the problem is in the individual, the solutions to burnout must be in the individual, too, and therefore, it is the individual’s responsibility to find and implement them. Many of the solutions to physician distress posited to date revolve around this conception; hence, the focus on yoga, mindfulness, wellness retreats, and meditation.¹³ While there is nothing inherently wrong with any of those practices, it is absurd to believe that yoga will solve the problems of treating a cancer patient with a declined preauthorization for chemotherapy, having no time to discuss a complex diagnosis, or relying on a computer system that places metrics ahead of communication. These problems are not the result of some failing on the part of the individual clinician.

Moral injury, on the other hand, describes the challenge of simultaneously knowing what care patients need but being unable to provide it due to constraints that are beyond our control. Moral injury is the consequence of the ever-present double binds in health care: Do we take care of our patient, the hospital, the insurer, the EMR, the health care system, or our productivity metrics first? There should be only 1 answer to that question, but the current business framework of medicine pressures us to serve all these masters at once. Moral injury locates the source of distress in a broken system, not a broken individual, and allows us to direct solutions at the causes of distress. And in the end, addressing the drivers of moral injury on a large scale may be the most effective preventive treatment for its cumulative effects among health care providers.

The long-term solutions to moral injury demand changes in the business framework of health care. The solutions reside not in promoting mindfulness or resilience among individual physicians, but in creating a health care environment that finally acknowledges the value of the time clinicians and patients spend together developing the trust, understanding, and compassion that accompany a true relationship. The long-term solutions to moral injury include a health care system that prioritizes healing over profit and that trusts its clinicians to always put their patients’ best interests first.

Treating moral injury will not be simple. It cannot happen quickly, and it will not happen without widespread clinician engagement. Change can begin when clinicians identify the double binds they face every day and convey those challenges to their administrators. If administrators and clinicians are willing to work together to resolve these double binds, health care will improve for everyone.

The following are our recommendations for how you can bring change both locally and on a broader scale.

Bring together the 2 sides of the health care house: administrators and clinicians. Invite administrators to join you on rounds, in clinic, or in the operating room. Ask them to follow you during a night of call or to spend an overnight shift with you in the emergency department. The majority of people, including health care administrators, have had only glancing encounters with the medical system. They see their primary care doctor, have regular screening procedures, and maybe get treated for a routine illness or injury. None of those encounters expose them to the depth of challenge in the system.

It takes exposure over a longer duration, or with greater intensity, to appreciate the tensions and double binds that patients and clinicians face regularly.^14,15 Whether or not the administrators accept your invitation, you must also ask to see the challenges from their side. Block out an afternoon, a day, or a week to follow them and learn where they struggle in their work. Only when we understand the other party’s perspective can we truly begin to empathize and communicate meaningfully. That profound understanding is the place where commonality and compromises are found.

Make clinician satisfaction a financial priority. Although care team well-being is now part of the quadruple aim (patient experience, population health, reducing costs, and provider experience), organizations must be held accountable to ensure it is a priority. If we choose to link patient satisfaction with clinician compensation, why not link clinician satisfaction with executive compensation?

Make sure every physician leader has and uses the cell phone number of his or her legislators. Hospitals and big pharma have nearly bottomless lobbying budgets, which makes competing with them for lawmakers’ attention a formidable prospect. Despite this, physician leaders (ie, chief wellness officer, department chairperson, medical society president, etc) have a responsibility to communicate with legislators about the needs of patients (their constituents) and what role our legislators can play in fulfilling those needs. We must understand how policy, regulation, and legislation work, and we need to find seats at every table where the decisions that impact clinical care are made. The first step is opening lines of communication with those who have the power to enact large-scale change.

Reestablish a sense of community among clinicians. Too often clinicians are pitted against one another as resources shrink. Doctors compete with each other for referrals, advanced practitioners and nurses compete with doctors, and everyone feels overstressed. What we tend to forget is that we are all working toward the same goal: To give patients the best care possible. It’s time to view each other with the presumption of charity and to have each other’s backs. Uniting for support, camaraderie, mentorship, and activism is a necessary step in making change.

*This version has been corrected. In the original version the first sentence incorrectly referred to moral injury instead of burnout.

For more than a decade, the term burnout has been used to describe clinician distress.^1,2 Although some clinicians in federal health care systems may be protected from some of the drivers of burnout, other federal practitioners suffer from rule-driven health care practices and distant, top-down administration. The demand for health care is expanding, driven by the aging of the US population.³ Massive information technology investments, which promised efficiency for health care providers,⁴ have instead delivered a triple blow: They have diverted capital resources that might have been used to hire additional caregivers,⁵ diverted the time and attention of those already engaged in patient care,⁶ and done little to improve patient outcomes.⁷ Reimbursements are falling, and the only way for health systems to maintain their revenue is to increase the number of patients each clinician sees per day.⁸ As the resources of time and attention shrink, and as spending continues with no improvement in patient outcomes, clinician distress is on the rise.⁹ It will be important to understand exactly what the drivers of the problem are for federal clinicians so that solutions can be appropriately targeted. The first step in addressing the epidemic of physician distress is using the most accurate terminology to describe it.

Freudenberger defined burnout in 1975 as a constellation of symptoms—malaise, fatigue, frustration, cynicism, and inefficacy—that arise from “making excessive demands on energy, strength, or resources” in the workplace.¹⁰ The term was borrowed from other fields and applied to health care in the hopes of readily transferring the solutions that had worked in other industries to address a growing crisis among physicians. Unfortunately, the crisis in health care has proven resistant to solutions that have worked elsewhere, and many clinicians have resisted being characterized as burned out, citing a subtle, elusive disconnect between what they have experienced and what burnout encapsulates.

In July 2018, the conversation about clinician distress shifted with an article we wrote in STAT that described the moral injury of health care.¹¹ The concept of moral injury was first described in service members who returned from the Vietnam War with symptoms that loosely fit a diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), but which did not respond to standard PTSD treatment and contained symptoms outside the PTSD constellation.¹² On closer assessment, what these service members were experiencing had a different driver. Whereas those with PTSD experienced a real and imminent threat to their mortality and had come back deeply concerned for their individual, physical safety, those with this different presentation experienced repeated insults to their morality and had returned questioning whether they were still, at their core, moral beings. They had been forced, in some way, to act contrary to what their beliefs dictated was right by killing civilians on orders from their superiors, for example. This was a different category of psychological injury that required different treatment.

Moral injury occurs when we perpetrate, bear witness to, or fail to prevent an act that transgresses our deeply held moral beliefs. In the health care context, that deeply held moral belief is the oath each of us took when embarking on our paths as health care providers: Put the needs of patients first. That oath is the lynchpin of our working lives and our guiding principle when searching for the right course of action. But as clinicians, we are increasingly forced to consider the demands of other stakeholders—the electronic medical record (EMR), the insurers, the hospital, the health care system, even our own financial security—before the needs of our patients. Every time we are forced to make a decision that contravenes our patients’ best interests, we feel a sting of moral injustice. Over time, these repetitive insults amass into moral injury.

The difference between burnout and moral injury is important because using different terminology reframes the problem and the solutions. Burnout suggests that the problem resides within the individual, who is in some way deficient. It implies that the individual lacks the resources or resilience to withstand the work environment. Since the problem is in the individual, the solutions to burnout must be in the individual, too, and therefore, it is the individual’s responsibility to find and implement them. Many of the solutions to physician distress posited to date revolve around this conception; hence, the focus on yoga, mindfulness, wellness retreats, and meditation.¹³ While there is nothing inherently wrong with any of those practices, it is absurd to believe that yoga will solve the problems of treating a cancer patient with a declined preauthorization for chemotherapy, having no time to discuss a complex diagnosis, or relying on a computer system that places metrics ahead of communication. These problems are not the result of some failing on the part of the individual clinician.

Moral injury, on the other hand, describes the challenge of simultaneously knowing what care patients need but being unable to provide it due to constraints that are beyond our control. Moral injury is the consequence of the ever-present double binds in health care: Do we take care of our patient, the hospital, the insurer, the EMR, the health care system, or our productivity metrics first? There should be only 1 answer to that question, but the current business framework of medicine pressures us to serve all these masters at once. Moral injury locates the source of distress in a broken system, not a broken individual, and allows us to direct solutions at the causes of distress. And in the end, addressing the drivers of moral injury on a large scale may be the most effective preventive treatment for its cumulative effects among health care providers.

The long-term solutions to moral injury demand changes in the business framework of health care. The solutions reside not in promoting mindfulness or resilience among individual physicians, but in creating a health care environment that finally acknowledges the value of the time clinicians and patients spend together developing the trust, understanding, and compassion that accompany a true relationship. The long-term solutions to moral injury include a health care system that prioritizes healing over profit and that trusts its clinicians to always put their patients’ best interests first.

Treating moral injury will not be simple. It cannot happen quickly, and it will not happen without widespread clinician engagement. Change can begin when clinicians identify the double binds they face every day and convey those challenges to their administrators. If administrators and clinicians are willing to work together to resolve these double binds, health care will improve for everyone.

The following are our recommendations for how you can bring change both locally and on a broader scale.

Bring together the 2 sides of the health care house: administrators and clinicians. Invite administrators to join you on rounds, in clinic, or in the operating room. Ask them to follow you during a night of call or to spend an overnight shift with you in the emergency department. The majority of people, including health care administrators, have had only glancing encounters with the medical system. They see their primary care doctor, have regular screening procedures, and maybe get treated for a routine illness or injury. None of those encounters expose them to the depth of challenge in the system.

It takes exposure over a longer duration, or with greater intensity, to appreciate the tensions and double binds that patients and clinicians face regularly.^14,15 Whether or not the administrators accept your invitation, you must also ask to see the challenges from their side. Block out an afternoon, a day, or a week to follow them and learn where they struggle in their work. Only when we understand the other party’s perspective can we truly begin to empathize and communicate meaningfully. That profound understanding is the place where commonality and compromises are found.

Make clinician satisfaction a financial priority. Although care team well-being is now part of the quadruple aim (patient experience, population health, reducing costs, and provider experience), organizations must be held accountable to ensure it is a priority. If we choose to link patient satisfaction with clinician compensation, why not link clinician satisfaction with executive compensation?

Make sure every physician leader has and uses the cell phone number of his or her legislators. Hospitals and big pharma have nearly bottomless lobbying budgets, which makes competing with them for lawmakers’ attention a formidable prospect. Despite this, physician leaders (ie, chief wellness officer, department chairperson, medical society president, etc) have a responsibility to communicate with legislators about the needs of patients (their constituents) and what role our legislators can play in fulfilling those needs. We must understand how policy, regulation, and legislation work, and we need to find seats at every table where the decisions that impact clinical care are made. The first step is opening lines of communication with those who have the power to enact large-scale change.

Reestablish a sense of community among clinicians. Too often clinicians are pitted against one another as resources shrink. Doctors compete with each other for referrals, advanced practitioners and nurses compete with doctors, and everyone feels overstressed. What we tend to forget is that we are all working toward the same goal: To give patients the best care possible. It’s time to view each other with the presumption of charity and to have each other’s backs. Uniting for support, camaraderie, mentorship, and activism is a necessary step in making change.

Among women with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer enrolled in a phase 2 randomized trial, the pan-ErbB inhibitor pyrotinib plus capecitabine had manageable toxicity and a significantly higher overall response rate (ORR) than lapatinib plus capecitabine, investigators reported.

The pyrotinib/capecitabine combination also led to significantly longer progression-free survival (PFS) versus that of standard lapatinib/capecitabine treatment in these women, who had previously received treatment with taxanes, anthracyclines, and in some cases trastuzumab, the investigators wrote in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

“To our knowledge, this is the first trial to demonstrate that a novel epidermal growth factor receptor/HER2–targeting tyrosine kinase inhibitor provides ORR and PFS benefits over lapatinib,” wrote Fei Ma, MD, of the National Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Molecular Oncology, Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking, and colleagues.

In the phase 2 study, a total of 128 Chinese women with histologically confirmed relapsed or metastatic breast cancer were randomized to receive the pyrotinib- or lapatinib-containing regimens given in 21-day cycles.

Overall response rates, the primary end point, were 78% (51 of 65 patients) in the pyrotinib arm and 57.1% (36 of 63 patients) in the lapatinib arm (P = .01), Dr. Yu and colleagues reported.

Median PFS was 18.1 months versus 7.0 months in the pyrotinib and lapatinib arms, respectively (P less than .001). A “potential trend” toward improved overall survival was noted in the pyrotinib arm, though the data were premature and not statistically significant at the time of data analysis, according to the investigators.

Altogether, these efficacy results tracked with those of an earlier phase 1 investigation, and currently, a randomized phase 3 study is underway to confirm the findings, reported Dr. Yu and coauthors.

Hand-foot syndrome and diarrhea were the most common grade 3 adverse events seen with pyrotinib. The rate of grade 3 hand-foot syndrome wit pyrotinib was 24.6% versus 20.6% for the lapatinib group, and the rate of grade 3 diarrhea for the two groups was 15.4% and 4.8%, respectively.

Overall, grade 3 or 4 adverse events were seen in 61% of patients receiving pyrotinib, of which 3.1% were grade 4; they were seen in 47.6% of patients receiving lapatinib, of which 3.2% were grade 4.

Diarrhea of grade 3 severity occurred mainly in the first treatment cycle for both the pyrotinib and lapatinib groups, investigators said.

While the protocol for this randomized phase 2 study did not permit diarrhea prophylaxis, the use of prophylactic loperamide is being studied in a phase 3 study of pyrotinib plus trastuzumab and docetaxel in women with HER2-positive metastatic disease and no prior systemic therapy

Investigators said patients are told to interrupt capecitabine if they experience ongoing grade 3 diarrhea or grade 1 or 2 diarrhea with complications such as dehydration, nausea, vomiting, or fever. If the diarrhea persists after 3 days, pyrotinib should then be interrupted, they said.

Similar advice was given for hand-foot syndrome.

“To date, the only method proven to effectively manage hand-foot syndrome is interruption of treatment and, if necessary, dose reduction,” said the investigators, who recommended first interrupting capecitabine and later pyrotinib.

The study was sponsored by Jiangsu Hengrui Medicine and supported by the CAMS Initiative for Innovative Medicine and the National Science and Technology Major Project of the Ministry of Science and Technology in China. The corresponding author of this study, Binghe Xu, MD, PHD, reported institutional research funding from Jiangsu Hengrui Medicine and other disclosures related to AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Roche, and Eisai. Two study coauthors reported employment with Jiangsu Hengrui Medicine.

SOURCE: Ma F et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Aug 20. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.00108.

Among women with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer enrolled in a phase 2 randomized trial, the pan-ErbB inhibitor pyrotinib plus capecitabine had manageable toxicity and a significantly higher overall response rate (ORR) than lapatinib plus capecitabine, investigators reported.

The pyrotinib/capecitabine combination also led to significantly longer progression-free survival (PFS) versus that of standard lapatinib/capecitabine treatment in these women, who had previously received treatment with taxanes, anthracyclines, and in some cases trastuzumab, the investigators wrote in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

“To our knowledge, this is the first trial to demonstrate that a novel epidermal growth factor receptor/HER2–targeting tyrosine kinase inhibitor provides ORR and PFS benefits over lapatinib,” wrote Fei Ma, MD, of the National Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Molecular Oncology, Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking, and colleagues.

In the phase 2 study, a total of 128 Chinese women with histologically confirmed relapsed or metastatic breast cancer were randomized to receive the pyrotinib- or lapatinib-containing regimens given in 21-day cycles.

Overall response rates, the primary end point, were 78% (51 of 65 patients) in the pyrotinib arm and 57.1% (36 of 63 patients) in the lapatinib arm (P = .01), Dr. Yu and colleagues reported.

Median PFS was 18.1 months versus 7.0 months in the pyrotinib and lapatinib arms, respectively (P less than .001). A “potential trend” toward improved overall survival was noted in the pyrotinib arm, though the data were premature and not statistically significant at the time of data analysis, according to the investigators.

Altogether, these efficacy results tracked with those of an earlier phase 1 investigation, and currently, a randomized phase 3 study is underway to confirm the findings, reported Dr. Yu and coauthors.

Hand-foot syndrome and diarrhea were the most common grade 3 adverse events seen with pyrotinib. The rate of grade 3 hand-foot syndrome wit pyrotinib was 24.6% versus 20.6% for the lapatinib group, and the rate of grade 3 diarrhea for the two groups was 15.4% and 4.8%, respectively.

Overall, grade 3 or 4 adverse events were seen in 61% of patients receiving pyrotinib, of which 3.1% were grade 4; they were seen in 47.6% of patients receiving lapatinib, of which 3.2% were grade 4.

Diarrhea of grade 3 severity occurred mainly in the first treatment cycle for both the pyrotinib and lapatinib groups, investigators said.

While the protocol for this randomized phase 2 study did not permit diarrhea prophylaxis, the use of prophylactic loperamide is being studied in a phase 3 study of pyrotinib plus trastuzumab and docetaxel in women with HER2-positive metastatic disease and no prior systemic therapy

Investigators said patients are told to interrupt capecitabine if they experience ongoing grade 3 diarrhea or grade 1 or 2 diarrhea with complications such as dehydration, nausea, vomiting, or fever. If the diarrhea persists after 3 days, pyrotinib should then be interrupted, they said.

Similar advice was given for hand-foot syndrome.

“To date, the only method proven to effectively manage hand-foot syndrome is interruption of treatment and, if necessary, dose reduction,” said the investigators, who recommended first interrupting capecitabine and later pyrotinib.

The study was sponsored by Jiangsu Hengrui Medicine and supported by the CAMS Initiative for Innovative Medicine and the National Science and Technology Major Project of the Ministry of Science and Technology in China. The corresponding author of this study, Binghe Xu, MD, PHD, reported institutional research funding from Jiangsu Hengrui Medicine and other disclosures related to AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Roche, and Eisai. Two study coauthors reported employment with Jiangsu Hengrui Medicine.

SOURCE: Ma F et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Aug 20. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.00108.

Among women with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer enrolled in a phase 2 randomized trial, the pan-ErbB inhibitor pyrotinib plus capecitabine had manageable toxicity and a significantly higher overall response rate (ORR) than lapatinib plus capecitabine, investigators reported.

The pyrotinib/capecitabine combination also led to significantly longer progression-free survival (PFS) versus that of standard lapatinib/capecitabine treatment in these women, who had previously received treatment with taxanes, anthracyclines, and in some cases trastuzumab, the investigators wrote in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

“To our knowledge, this is the first trial to demonstrate that a novel epidermal growth factor receptor/HER2–targeting tyrosine kinase inhibitor provides ORR and PFS benefits over lapatinib,” wrote Fei Ma, MD, of the National Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Molecular Oncology, Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking, and colleagues.

In the phase 2 study, a total of 128 Chinese women with histologically confirmed relapsed or metastatic breast cancer were randomized to receive the pyrotinib- or lapatinib-containing regimens given in 21-day cycles.

Overall response rates, the primary end point, were 78% (51 of 65 patients) in the pyrotinib arm and 57.1% (36 of 63 patients) in the lapatinib arm (P = .01), Dr. Yu and colleagues reported.

Median PFS was 18.1 months versus 7.0 months in the pyrotinib and lapatinib arms, respectively (P less than .001). A “potential trend” toward improved overall survival was noted in the pyrotinib arm, though the data were premature and not statistically significant at the time of data analysis, according to the investigators.

Altogether, these efficacy results tracked with those of an earlier phase 1 investigation, and currently, a randomized phase 3 study is underway to confirm the findings, reported Dr. Yu and coauthors.

Hand-foot syndrome and diarrhea were the most common grade 3 adverse events seen with pyrotinib. The rate of grade 3 hand-foot syndrome wit pyrotinib was 24.6% versus 20.6% for the lapatinib group, and the rate of grade 3 diarrhea for the two groups was 15.4% and 4.8%, respectively.

Overall, grade 3 or 4 adverse events were seen in 61% of patients receiving pyrotinib, of which 3.1% were grade 4; they were seen in 47.6% of patients receiving lapatinib, of which 3.2% were grade 4.

Diarrhea of grade 3 severity occurred mainly in the first treatment cycle for both the pyrotinib and lapatinib groups, investigators said.

While the protocol for this randomized phase 2 study did not permit diarrhea prophylaxis, the use of prophylactic loperamide is being studied in a phase 3 study of pyrotinib plus trastuzumab and docetaxel in women with HER2-positive metastatic disease and no prior systemic therapy

Investigators said patients are told to interrupt capecitabine if they experience ongoing grade 3 diarrhea or grade 1 or 2 diarrhea with complications such as dehydration, nausea, vomiting, or fever. If the diarrhea persists after 3 days, pyrotinib should then be interrupted, they said.

Similar advice was given for hand-foot syndrome.

“To date, the only method proven to effectively manage hand-foot syndrome is interruption of treatment and, if necessary, dose reduction,” said the investigators, who recommended first interrupting capecitabine and later pyrotinib.

The study was sponsored by Jiangsu Hengrui Medicine and supported by the CAMS Initiative for Innovative Medicine and the National Science and Technology Major Project of the Ministry of Science and Technology in China. The corresponding author of this study, Binghe Xu, MD, PHD, reported institutional research funding from Jiangsu Hengrui Medicine and other disclosures related to AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Roche, and Eisai. Two study coauthors reported employment with Jiangsu Hengrui Medicine.

SOURCE: Ma F et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Aug 20. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.00108.

The measles outbreak in New York City, the largest in the nation this year, has officially ended, Mayor Bill de Blasio and city health officials announced Sept. 3.

CDC/ Cynthia S. Goldsmith; William Bellini, Ph.D.

“Ending the measles outbreak required extensive collaboration with community organizations and Jewish leaders. They helped encourage vaccinations and achieve record immunization levels in parts of Brooklyn,” Mayor de Blasio said in a written statement. “As we head back to school this week, we just remain vigilant. To keep our children and communities safe, I urge all New Yorkers to get vaccinated. It’s the best defense we have.”

A measles outbreak is considered to be over when 42 days, or two incubation periods, have elapsed since the last affected persons in the area were no longer infectious. “That time period has now passed for the people most recently infected with measles and reported,” the city health department said in the statement.

Since the outbreak began in October of last year, 654 individuals were diagnosed with measles in the five boroughs of New York, although 72% occurred in the Williamsburg neighborhood of Brooklyn. Of those 654 cases, there have been 52 hospitalizations and 16 admissions to intensive care, according to the health department. The majority of affected people were under 18 years of age (80%), and most were either unvaccinated (73%) or incompletely vaccinated (7%).

The end of the measles outbreak also brings an end to the public health emergency that was declared on April 9 for parts of Brooklyn, the statement noted.

“Vaccination coverage has increased significantly since the emergency order, which has been supported by community-led efforts. We are grateful to the New Yorkers who shared the truth about vaccines and protected the health of their friends and neighbors through this outbreak,” city health commissioner Dr. Oxiris Barbot said in the statement.

[email protected]

The measles outbreak in New York City, the largest in the nation this year, has officially ended, Mayor Bill de Blasio and city health officials announced Sept. 3.

CDC/ Cynthia S. Goldsmith; William Bellini, Ph.D.

“Ending the measles outbreak required extensive collaboration with community organizations and Jewish leaders. They helped encourage vaccinations and achieve record immunization levels in parts of Brooklyn,” Mayor de Blasio said in a written statement. “As we head back to school this week, we just remain vigilant. To keep our children and communities safe, I urge all New Yorkers to get vaccinated. It’s the best defense we have.”

A measles outbreak is considered to be over when 42 days, or two incubation periods, have elapsed since the last affected persons in the area were no longer infectious. “That time period has now passed for the people most recently infected with measles and reported,” the city health department said in the statement.

Since the outbreak began in October of last year, 654 individuals were diagnosed with measles in the five boroughs of New York, although 72% occurred in the Williamsburg neighborhood of Brooklyn. Of those 654 cases, there have been 52 hospitalizations and 16 admissions to intensive care, according to the health department. The majority of affected people were under 18 years of age (80%), and most were either unvaccinated (73%) or incompletely vaccinated (7%).

The end of the measles outbreak also brings an end to the public health emergency that was declared on April 9 for parts of Brooklyn, the statement noted.

“Vaccination coverage has increased significantly since the emergency order, which has been supported by community-led efforts. We are grateful to the New Yorkers who shared the truth about vaccines and protected the health of their friends and neighbors through this outbreak,” city health commissioner Dr. Oxiris Barbot said in the statement.

[email protected]

The measles outbreak in New York City, the largest in the nation this year, has officially ended, Mayor Bill de Blasio and city health officials announced Sept. 3.

CDC/ Cynthia S. Goldsmith; William Bellini, Ph.D.

“Ending the measles outbreak required extensive collaboration with community organizations and Jewish leaders. They helped encourage vaccinations and achieve record immunization levels in parts of Brooklyn,” Mayor de Blasio said in a written statement. “As we head back to school this week, we just remain vigilant. To keep our children and communities safe, I urge all New Yorkers to get vaccinated. It’s the best defense we have.”

A measles outbreak is considered to be over when 42 days, or two incubation periods, have elapsed since the last affected persons in the area were no longer infectious. “That time period has now passed for the people most recently infected with measles and reported,” the city health department said in the statement.

Since the outbreak began in October of last year, 654 individuals were diagnosed with measles in the five boroughs of New York, although 72% occurred in the Williamsburg neighborhood of Brooklyn. Of those 654 cases, there have been 52 hospitalizations and 16 admissions to intensive care, according to the health department. The majority of affected people were under 18 years of age (80%), and most were either unvaccinated (73%) or incompletely vaccinated (7%).

The end of the measles outbreak also brings an end to the public health emergency that was declared on April 9 for parts of Brooklyn, the statement noted.

“Vaccination coverage has increased significantly since the emergency order, which has been supported by community-led efforts. We are grateful to the New Yorkers who shared the truth about vaccines and protected the health of their friends and neighbors through this outbreak,” city health commissioner Dr. Oxiris Barbot said in the statement.

[email protected]

Though exposure to the obesogen bisphenol A (BPA) is decreasing, a new study has linked substitute chemicals bisphenol S (BPS) and bisphenol F (BPF) to obesity as well.

“The potential health effects of BPS and other BPA replacement compounds should be monitored going forward, given that human exposure to these compounds is likely to continue to increase in the future,” wrote Melanie H. Jacobson, PhD, of New York University, and coauthors. Their report is in the Journal of the Endocrine Society.

BPA is one of the best known synthetic chemical obesogens, the authors noted. “It enlarges adipocytes and enhances differentiation from mesenchymal cells to adipocytes, inhibits adiponectin function, and is a synthetic estrogen and thereby can have sex-specific effects on body mass,” they explained.

To determine if the BPA analogues, BPS and BPF, could also induce obesity, the researchers analyzed data from 1,831 children and adolescents gathered through the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys from 2013 to 2016. Concentrations of BPA, BPS, and BPF were measured in spot urine samples and they were detected in 97.5%, 87.8%, and 55.2% of samples, respectively.

Log-transformed BPS concentrations were associated with an increased prevalence of general obesity (odds ratio, 1.16; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.32), which was defined as being greater than or equal to the 95th percentile of standardized body mass index z scores. BPS concentrations were also associated with an increased prevalence of abdominal obesity (OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.02-1.27), as was BPF detection (OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.01-1.64).

BPA and total bisphenols were not significantly associated with general or abdominal obesity.

“Though tissue and animal studies of the replacements are lacking, [BPS and BPF] have shown estrogenic activity. Further, BPS has been shown to promote preadipocyte differentiation, raising the possibility that these BPA replacements may induce the same obesogenic effects in humans,” the authors wrote.

They acknowledged that their results should be interpreted cautiously, because they were not able to determine if exposure to bisphenols influences weight gain or if obese children are merely more exposed to those compounds. In addition, because BPS and BPF are metabolized rapidly, spot urine samples cannot accurately reflect long-term exposure levels. Finally, because a good deal of food and beverage packaging contains bisphenols, “those who consume more of these products are more likely to have higher exposure levels,” they wrote.

The study was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Jacobson MH et al. J Endocr Soc. 2019 Jul 25. doi: 10.1210/js.2019-00201.

Though exposure to the obesogen bisphenol A (BPA) is decreasing, a new study has linked substitute chemicals bisphenol S (BPS) and bisphenol F (BPF) to obesity as well.

“The potential health effects of BPS and other BPA replacement compounds should be monitored going forward, given that human exposure to these compounds is likely to continue to increase in the future,” wrote Melanie H. Jacobson, PhD, of New York University, and coauthors. Their report is in the Journal of the Endocrine Society.

BPA is one of the best known synthetic chemical obesogens, the authors noted. “It enlarges adipocytes and enhances differentiation from mesenchymal cells to adipocytes, inhibits adiponectin function, and is a synthetic estrogen and thereby can have sex-specific effects on body mass,” they explained.

To determine if the BPA analogues, BPS and BPF, could also induce obesity, the researchers analyzed data from 1,831 children and adolescents gathered through the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys from 2013 to 2016. Concentrations of BPA, BPS, and BPF were measured in spot urine samples and they were detected in 97.5%, 87.8%, and 55.2% of samples, respectively.

Log-transformed BPS concentrations were associated with an increased prevalence of general obesity (odds ratio, 1.16; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.32), which was defined as being greater than or equal to the 95th percentile of standardized body mass index z scores. BPS concentrations were also associated with an increased prevalence of abdominal obesity (OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.02-1.27), as was BPF detection (OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.01-1.64).

BPA and total bisphenols were not significantly associated with general or abdominal obesity.

“Though tissue and animal studies of the replacements are lacking, [BPS and BPF] have shown estrogenic activity. Further, BPS has been shown to promote preadipocyte differentiation, raising the possibility that these BPA replacements may induce the same obesogenic effects in humans,” the authors wrote.

They acknowledged that their results should be interpreted cautiously, because they were not able to determine if exposure to bisphenols influences weight gain or if obese children are merely more exposed to those compounds. In addition, because BPS and BPF are metabolized rapidly, spot urine samples cannot accurately reflect long-term exposure levels. Finally, because a good deal of food and beverage packaging contains bisphenols, “those who consume more of these products are more likely to have higher exposure levels,” they wrote.

The study was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Jacobson MH et al. J Endocr Soc. 2019 Jul 25. doi: 10.1210/js.2019-00201.

Though exposure to the obesogen bisphenol A (BPA) is decreasing, a new study has linked substitute chemicals bisphenol S (BPS) and bisphenol F (BPF) to obesity as well.

“The potential health effects of BPS and other BPA replacement compounds should be monitored going forward, given that human exposure to these compounds is likely to continue to increase in the future,” wrote Melanie H. Jacobson, PhD, of New York University, and coauthors. Their report is in the Journal of the Endocrine Society.

BPA is one of the best known synthetic chemical obesogens, the authors noted. “It enlarges adipocytes and enhances differentiation from mesenchymal cells to adipocytes, inhibits adiponectin function, and is a synthetic estrogen and thereby can have sex-specific effects on body mass,” they explained.

To determine if the BPA analogues, BPS and BPF, could also induce obesity, the researchers analyzed data from 1,831 children and adolescents gathered through the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys from 2013 to 2016. Concentrations of BPA, BPS, and BPF were measured in spot urine samples and they were detected in 97.5%, 87.8%, and 55.2% of samples, respectively.

Log-transformed BPS concentrations were associated with an increased prevalence of general obesity (odds ratio, 1.16; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.32), which was defined as being greater than or equal to the 95th percentile of standardized body mass index z scores. BPS concentrations were also associated with an increased prevalence of abdominal obesity (OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.02-1.27), as was BPF detection (OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.01-1.64).

BPA and total bisphenols were not significantly associated with general or abdominal obesity.

“Though tissue and animal studies of the replacements are lacking, [BPS and BPF] have shown estrogenic activity. Further, BPS has been shown to promote preadipocyte differentiation, raising the possibility that these BPA replacements may induce the same obesogenic effects in humans,” the authors wrote.

They acknowledged that their results should be interpreted cautiously, because they were not able to determine if exposure to bisphenols influences weight gain or if obese children are merely more exposed to those compounds. In addition, because BPS and BPF are metabolized rapidly, spot urine samples cannot accurately reflect long-term exposure levels. Finally, because a good deal of food and beverage packaging contains bisphenols, “those who consume more of these products are more likely to have higher exposure levels,” they wrote.

The study was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Jacobson MH et al. J Endocr Soc. 2019 Jul 25. doi: 10.1210/js.2019-00201.

The “opioid epidemic” has become, perhaps, the most talked-about health crisis of the 21st century. It is a pervasive topic of discussion in the health literature and beyond, written about on the front pages of national newspapers and even mentioned in presidential state-of-the-union addresses.

As practicing physicians, we are all too familiar with the ills of chronic opioid use and have dealt with the implications of the crisis long before the issue attracted the public’s attention. In many ways, we have felt alone in bearing the burdens of caring for patients on chronic controlled substances. Until this point it has been our sacred duty to determine which patients are truly in need of those medications, and which are merely dependent on or – even worse – abusing them.

Health care providers have been largely blamed for the creation of this crisis, but we are not alone. Responsibility must also be shared by the pharmaceutical industry, health insurers, and even the government. Marketing practices, inadequate coverage of pain-relieving procedures and rehabilitation, and poorly-conceived drug policies have created an environment where it has been far too difficult to provide appropriate care for patients with chronic pain. As a result, patients who may have had an alternative to opioids were still started on these medications, and we – their physicians – have been left alone to manage the outcome.

Recently, however, health policy and public awareness have signaled a dramatic shift in the management of long-term pain medication. Suddenly, prevention of opioid use and abuse has become a national priority. Significant legislation has been enacted on national, state, and local levels, and parties who are perceived to be responsible for the crisis are being held to task. For example, in August a landmark legal case was decided in an Oklahoma district court. Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceuticals was found guilty of promoting drug addiction through false and misleading marketing and was thus ordered to pay $572 million to the state to fund drug rehabilitation programs. This is likely a harbinger of many more such decisions to come, and the industry as a whole is bracing for the worst.

Physician prescribing practices are also being carefully scrutinized by the DEA, and a significant number of new “checks and balances” have been put in place to address dependence and addiction concerns. Unfortunately, as with all sweeping reform programs, there are good – and not-so-good – aspects to these changes. In many ways, the new tools at our disposal are a powerful way of mitigating drug dependence and diversion while protecting the sanctity of our “prescription pads.” Yet, as with so many other government mandates, we are burdened with the onus of complying with the new mandates for each and every opioid prescription, while our EHRs provide little help. This means more “clicks” for us, which can feel quite burdensome. It doesn’t need to be this way. Below are two straightforward things that can and should occur in order for providers to feel unburdened and to fully embrace the changes.
 

PDMP integration

One of the major ways of controlling prescription opioid abuse is through effective monitoring. Forty-nine of the 50 U.S. states have developed Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs (PDMPs), with Missouri being the only holdout (due to the politics of individual privacy concerns and conflation with gun control legislation). Most – though not all – of the states with a PDMP also mandate that physicians query a database prior to prescribing controlled substances. While noble and helpful in principle, querying a PDMP can be cumbersome, and the process is rarely integrated into the EHR workflow. Instead, physicians typically need to login to a separate website and manually transpose patient data to search the database. While most states have offered to subsidize PDMP integration with electronic records, EHR vendors have been very slow to develop the capability, leaving most physicians with no choice but to continue the aforementioned workflow. That is, if they comply at all; many well-meaning physicians have told us that they find themselves too harried to use the PDMP consistently. This reduces the value of these databases and places the physicians at significant risk. In some states, failure to query the database can lead to loss of a doctor’s medical license. It is high time that EHR vendors step up and integrate with every state’s prescription drug database.

Electronic prescribing of controlled substances

The other major milestone in prescription opioid management is the electronic prescribing of controlled substances (EPCS). This received national priority when the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act was signed into federal law in October of 2018. Included in this act is a requirement that, by January of 2021, all controlled substance prescriptions covered under Medicare Part D be sent electronically. Taking this as inspiration, many states and private companies have adopted more aggressive policies, choosing to implement electronic prescription requirements prior to the 2021 deadline. In Pennsylvania, where we practice, an EPCS requirement goes into effect in October of this year (2019). National pharmacy chains have also taken a more proactive approach. Walmart, for example, has decided that it will require EPCS nationwide in all of its stores beginning in January of 2020.

Essentially physicians have no choice – if they plan to continue to prescribe controlled substances, they will need to begin doing so electronically. Unfortunately, this may not be a straightforward process. While most EHRs offer some sort of EPCS solution, it is typically far from user friendly. Setting up EPCS can be costly and incredibly time consuming, and the procedure of actually submitting controlled prescriptions can be onerous and add many extra clicks. If vendors are serious about assisting in solving the opioid crisis, they need to make streamlining the steps of EPCS a high priority.
 

A prescription for success

As with so many other topics we’ve written about, we face an ever-increasing burden to provide quality patient care while complying with cumbersome and often unfunded external mandates. In the case of the opioid crisis, we believe we can do better. Our prescription for success? Streamlined workflow, smarter EHRs, and fewer clicks. There is no question that physicians and patients will benefit from effective implementation of the new tools at our disposal, but we need EHR vendors to step up and help carry the load.

Dr. Notte is a family physician and associate chief medical information officer for Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. Follow him on Twitter @doctornotte. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, and an associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health.

The “opioid epidemic” has become, perhaps, the most talked-about health crisis of the 21st century. It is a pervasive topic of discussion in the health literature and beyond, written about on the front pages of national newspapers and even mentioned in presidential state-of-the-union addresses.

As practicing physicians, we are all too familiar with the ills of chronic opioid use and have dealt with the implications of the crisis long before the issue attracted the public’s attention. In many ways, we have felt alone in bearing the burdens of caring for patients on chronic controlled substances. Until this point it has been our sacred duty to determine which patients are truly in need of those medications, and which are merely dependent on or – even worse – abusing them.

Health care providers have been largely blamed for the creation of this crisis, but we are not alone. Responsibility must also be shared by the pharmaceutical industry, health insurers, and even the government. Marketing practices, inadequate coverage of pain-relieving procedures and rehabilitation, and poorly-conceived drug policies have created an environment where it has been far too difficult to provide appropriate care for patients with chronic pain. As a result, patients who may have had an alternative to opioids were still started on these medications, and we – their physicians – have been left alone to manage the outcome.

Recently, however, health policy and public awareness have signaled a dramatic shift in the management of long-term pain medication. Suddenly, prevention of opioid use and abuse has become a national priority. Significant legislation has been enacted on national, state, and local levels, and parties who are perceived to be responsible for the crisis are being held to task. For example, in August a landmark legal case was decided in an Oklahoma district court. Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceuticals was found guilty of promoting drug addiction through false and misleading marketing and was thus ordered to pay $572 million to the state to fund drug rehabilitation programs. This is likely a harbinger of many more such decisions to come, and the industry as a whole is bracing for the worst.

Physician prescribing practices are also being carefully scrutinized by the DEA, and a significant number of new “checks and balances” have been put in place to address dependence and addiction concerns. Unfortunately, as with all sweeping reform programs, there are good – and not-so-good – aspects to these changes. In many ways, the new tools at our disposal are a powerful way of mitigating drug dependence and diversion while protecting the sanctity of our “prescription pads.” Yet, as with so many other government mandates, we are burdened with the onus of complying with the new mandates for each and every opioid prescription, while our EHRs provide little help. This means more “clicks” for us, which can feel quite burdensome. It doesn’t need to be this way. Below are two straightforward things that can and should occur in order for providers to feel unburdened and to fully embrace the changes.
 

PDMP integration

One of the major ways of controlling prescription opioid abuse is through effective monitoring. Forty-nine of the 50 U.S. states have developed Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs (PDMPs), with Missouri being the only holdout (due to the politics of individual privacy concerns and conflation with gun control legislation). Most – though not all – of the states with a PDMP also mandate that physicians query a database prior to prescribing controlled substances. While noble and helpful in principle, querying a PDMP can be cumbersome, and the process is rarely integrated into the EHR workflow. Instead, physicians typically need to login to a separate website and manually transpose patient data to search the database. While most states have offered to subsidize PDMP integration with electronic records, EHR vendors have been very slow to develop the capability, leaving most physicians with no choice but to continue the aforementioned workflow. That is, if they comply at all; many well-meaning physicians have told us that they find themselves too harried to use the PDMP consistently. This reduces the value of these databases and places the physicians at significant risk. In some states, failure to query the database can lead to loss of a doctor’s medical license. It is high time that EHR vendors step up and integrate with every state’s prescription drug database.

Electronic prescribing of controlled substances

The other major milestone in prescription opioid management is the electronic prescribing of controlled substances (EPCS). This received national priority when the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act was signed into federal law in October of 2018. Included in this act is a requirement that, by January of 2021, all controlled substance prescriptions covered under Medicare Part D be sent electronically. Taking this as inspiration, many states and private companies have adopted more aggressive policies, choosing to implement electronic prescription requirements prior to the 2021 deadline. In Pennsylvania, where we practice, an EPCS requirement goes into effect in October of this year (2019). National pharmacy chains have also taken a more proactive approach. Walmart, for example, has decided that it will require EPCS nationwide in all of its stores beginning in January of 2020.

Essentially physicians have no choice – if they plan to continue to prescribe controlled substances, they will need to begin doing so electronically. Unfortunately, this may not be a straightforward process. While most EHRs offer some sort of EPCS solution, it is typically far from user friendly. Setting up EPCS can be costly and incredibly time consuming, and the procedure of actually submitting controlled prescriptions can be onerous and add many extra clicks. If vendors are serious about assisting in solving the opioid crisis, they need to make streamlining the steps of EPCS a high priority.
 

A prescription for success

As with so many other topics we’ve written about, we face an ever-increasing burden to provide quality patient care while complying with cumbersome and often unfunded external mandates. In the case of the opioid crisis, we believe we can do better. Our prescription for success? Streamlined workflow, smarter EHRs, and fewer clicks. There is no question that physicians and patients will benefit from effective implementation of the new tools at our disposal, but we need EHR vendors to step up and help carry the load.

Dr. Notte is a family physician and associate chief medical information officer for Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. Follow him on Twitter @doctornotte. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, and an associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health.

The “opioid epidemic” has become, perhaps, the most talked-about health crisis of the 21st century. It is a pervasive topic of discussion in the health literature and beyond, written about on the front pages of national newspapers and even mentioned in presidential state-of-the-union addresses.

As practicing physicians, we are all too familiar with the ills of chronic opioid use and have dealt with the implications of the crisis long before the issue attracted the public’s attention. In many ways, we have felt alone in bearing the burdens of caring for patients on chronic controlled substances. Until this point it has been our sacred duty to determine which patients are truly in need of those medications, and which are merely dependent on or – even worse – abusing them.

Health care providers have been largely blamed for the creation of this crisis, but we are not alone. Responsibility must also be shared by the pharmaceutical industry, health insurers, and even the government. Marketing practices, inadequate coverage of pain-relieving procedures and rehabilitation, and poorly-conceived drug policies have created an environment where it has been far too difficult to provide appropriate care for patients with chronic pain. As a result, patients who may have had an alternative to opioids were still started on these medications, and we – their physicians – have been left alone to manage the outcome.

Recently, however, health policy and public awareness have signaled a dramatic shift in the management of long-term pain medication. Suddenly, prevention of opioid use and abuse has become a national priority. Significant legislation has been enacted on national, state, and local levels, and parties who are perceived to be responsible for the crisis are being held to task. For example, in August a landmark legal case was decided in an Oklahoma district court. Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceuticals was found guilty of promoting drug addiction through false and misleading marketing and was thus ordered to pay $572 million to the state to fund drug rehabilitation programs. This is likely a harbinger of many more such decisions to come, and the industry as a whole is bracing for the worst.

Physician prescribing practices are also being carefully scrutinized by the DEA, and a significant number of new “checks and balances” have been put in place to address dependence and addiction concerns. Unfortunately, as with all sweeping reform programs, there are good – and not-so-good – aspects to these changes. In many ways, the new tools at our disposal are a powerful way of mitigating drug dependence and diversion while protecting the sanctity of our “prescription pads.” Yet, as with so many other government mandates, we are burdened with the onus of complying with the new mandates for each and every opioid prescription, while our EHRs provide little help. This means more “clicks” for us, which can feel quite burdensome. It doesn’t need to be this way. Below are two straightforward things that can and should occur in order for providers to feel unburdened and to fully embrace the changes.
 

PDMP integration

One of the major ways of controlling prescription opioid abuse is through effective monitoring. Forty-nine of the 50 U.S. states have developed Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs (PDMPs), with Missouri being the only holdout (due to the politics of individual privacy concerns and conflation with gun control legislation). Most – though not all – of the states with a PDMP also mandate that physicians query a database prior to prescribing controlled substances. While noble and helpful in principle, querying a PDMP can be cumbersome, and the process is rarely integrated into the EHR workflow. Instead, physicians typically need to login to a separate website and manually transpose patient data to search the database. While most states have offered to subsidize PDMP integration with electronic records, EHR vendors have been very slow to develop the capability, leaving most physicians with no choice but to continue the aforementioned workflow. That is, if they comply at all; many well-meaning physicians have told us that they find themselves too harried to use the PDMP consistently. This reduces the value of these databases and places the physicians at significant risk. In some states, failure to query the database can lead to loss of a doctor’s medical license. It is high time that EHR vendors step up and integrate with every state’s prescription drug database.

Electronic prescribing of controlled substances

The other major milestone in prescription opioid management is the electronic prescribing of controlled substances (EPCS). This received national priority when the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act was signed into federal law in October of 2018. Included in this act is a requirement that, by January of 2021, all controlled substance prescriptions covered under Medicare Part D be sent electronically. Taking this as inspiration, many states and private companies have adopted more aggressive policies, choosing to implement electronic prescription requirements prior to the 2021 deadline. In Pennsylvania, where we practice, an EPCS requirement goes into effect in October of this year (2019). National pharmacy chains have also taken a more proactive approach. Walmart, for example, has decided that it will require EPCS nationwide in all of its stores beginning in January of 2020.

Essentially physicians have no choice – if they plan to continue to prescribe controlled substances, they will need to begin doing so electronically. Unfortunately, this may not be a straightforward process. While most EHRs offer some sort of EPCS solution, it is typically far from user friendly. Setting up EPCS can be costly and incredibly time consuming, and the procedure of actually submitting controlled prescriptions can be onerous and add many extra clicks. If vendors are serious about assisting in solving the opioid crisis, they need to make streamlining the steps of EPCS a high priority.
 

A prescription for success

As with so many other topics we’ve written about, we face an ever-increasing burden to provide quality patient care while complying with cumbersome and often unfunded external mandates. In the case of the opioid crisis, we believe we can do better. Our prescription for success? Streamlined workflow, smarter EHRs, and fewer clicks. There is no question that physicians and patients will benefit from effective implementation of the new tools at our disposal, but we need EHR vendors to step up and help carry the load.

Dr. Notte is a family physician and associate chief medical information officer for Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. Follow him on Twitter @doctornotte. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, and an associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health.

Background: Inclusion of noninvasive ventilation in weaning among chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients has been shown to reduce total duration of ventilation and invasive ventilator days with an associated reduction in morbidity and mortality. It is not well studied whether these results apply to general ICU patients.

Not all secondary outcomes were powered to detect treatment differences. Hospitalists should consider noninvasive ventilation as an adjunct in weaning, especially in COPD patients, to reduce ventilator-associated complications and ICU resources when appropriate.

Bottom line: Protocolized early extubation to noninvasive ventilation was not associated with earlier liberation from all types of ventilation in the general ICU population.

Citation: Perkins GD et al. Effect of protocolized weaning with early extubation to noninvasive ventilation vs invasive weaning on time to liberation from mechanical ventilation among patients with respiratory failure: The breathe randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2018;320(18):1881-8.

Dr. Vuong is an associate physician in the division of hospital medicine at the University of California, San Diego.

Background: Inclusion of noninvasive ventilation in weaning among chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients has been shown to reduce total duration of ventilation and invasive ventilator days with an associated reduction in morbidity and mortality. It is not well studied whether these results apply to general ICU patients.

Not all secondary outcomes were powered to detect treatment differences. Hospitalists should consider noninvasive ventilation as an adjunct in weaning, especially in COPD patients, to reduce ventilator-associated complications and ICU resources when appropriate.

Bottom line: Protocolized early extubation to noninvasive ventilation was not associated with earlier liberation from all types of ventilation in the general ICU population.

Citation: Perkins GD et al. Effect of protocolized weaning with early extubation to noninvasive ventilation vs invasive weaning on time to liberation from mechanical ventilation among patients with respiratory failure: The breathe randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2018;320(18):1881-8.

Dr. Vuong is an associate physician in the division of hospital medicine at the University of California, San Diego.

Background: Inclusion of noninvasive ventilation in weaning among chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients has been shown to reduce total duration of ventilation and invasive ventilator days with an associated reduction in morbidity and mortality. It is not well studied whether these results apply to general ICU patients.

Not all secondary outcomes were powered to detect treatment differences. Hospitalists should consider noninvasive ventilation as an adjunct in weaning, especially in COPD patients, to reduce ventilator-associated complications and ICU resources when appropriate.

Bottom line: Protocolized early extubation to noninvasive ventilation was not associated with earlier liberation from all types of ventilation in the general ICU population.

Citation: Perkins GD et al. Effect of protocolized weaning with early extubation to noninvasive ventilation vs invasive weaning on time to liberation from mechanical ventilation among patients with respiratory failure: The breathe randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2018;320(18):1881-8.

Dr. Vuong is an associate physician in the division of hospital medicine at the University of California, San Diego.

Single-cell sequencing of tissues from patients with Crohn’s disease has revealed a new pathogenic cellular module associated with failure of anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy.

A paper published in the Aug. 29 online edition of Cell presented the results of a study that mapped the transcriptome – the RNA activity that reveals the patterns of gene expression for a cell – of lamina propria cells taken from biopsies of uninflamed and inflamed ileal tissues from 11 patients with ileal Crohn’s disease.

Jérôme C. Martin, PharmD, PhD, from the Precision Immunology Institute at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, and coauthors wrote that while genome-wide association studies, tissue analyses, and animal models have revealed much about the immune and inflammatory processes that contribute to inflammatory bowel disease, there still remain unanswered questions about why some patients don’t respond to immune biotherapies.

“Current approaches restricted to well-established antibody panels based on prior knowledge preclude the identification of novel pathogenic cell populations in the diseased intestine,” they wrote.

Analysis of gene expression revealed significant cellular differences in the immune and stromal cells from inflamed compared to uninflamed ileum tissues. Researchers identified a group of cell subtypes that were highly correlated across inflamed ileums, and which included activated dendritic cells, activated fibroblasts, highly activated T cells, IgG plasma cells, inflammatory macrophages, inflammatory mononuclear phagocytes, and atypical chemokine receptor 1⁺-activated endothelial cells.

This so-called GIMATS module was present in only five of the patients, but it was independent of pathology severity, disease duration, and systemic markers of inflammation. The authors suggested that the module was associated with a positive feedback loop that increased the clustering of inflammatory mononuclear phagocytes in inflamed tissues.

“Taken together, our results identified a unique cellular organization in inflamed tissues of a subset of patients, thus revealing different pathogenic responses between patients despite similar pathological severity and systemic inflammatory markers,” the authors wrote.

The authors then looked for GIMATS expression in a larger cohort of 441 patients with ileal Crohn’s disease – including children aged over 2 years but excluding individuals with mutations that are associated with development of anti-TNF–resistant lesions early in life.

Given that 20%-30% of patients with ileal Crohn’s disease never respond to anti-TNF therapy, and require surgical intervention for uncontrolled bowel disease, the authors examined whether the GIMATs module might affect patient response to anti-TNF therapy.

They found that enrichment of this module was evident in the early stages of the disease, before the use of biologics therapy, and there were significant differences between treatment responders and nonresponders in their GIMATS module score at baseline. The authors said this suggested TNF blockade might not be enough to affect the inflammatory response associated with the GIMATS module.

“It is interesting that TNF was produced mainly by T cells in patients with low GIMATS module scores, while it was produced both by T cells and inflammatory [mononuclear phagocytes] in patients with a high module scores,” they wrote. “By providing a comprehensive network of the cellular and molecular basis for resistance to anti-TNF blockade, our study thus opens novel opportunities for therapeutic discoveries tailored for combination with anti-TNF antibody blockade.”

They also found that the GIMATs score did not correlate with disease activity in pediatric patients at diagnosis.

“As was observed in the discovery cohort, patients with high or low GIMATS module score had similar markers of systemic inflammation, indicating that the GIMATS score conveys information regarding response to biologic therapy that is not provided by standard [Crohn’s disease] biomarkers,” they wrote.

The study was partly supported by an author grant from Boehringer Ingelheim. Three authors also declared advisory board positions, consultancies, and research funding from the pharmaceutical industry, including Boehringer Ingelheim. No other conflicts of interest were declared.

SOURCE: Martin J et al. Cell. 2019 Aug 29. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2019.08.008.

Single-cell sequencing of tissues from patients with Crohn’s disease has revealed a new pathogenic cellular module associated with failure of anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy.

A paper published in the Aug. 29 online edition of Cell presented the results of a study that mapped the transcriptome – the RNA activity that reveals the patterns of gene expression for a cell – of lamina propria cells taken from biopsies of uninflamed and inflamed ileal tissues from 11 patients with ileal Crohn’s disease.

Jérôme C. Martin, PharmD, PhD, from the Precision Immunology Institute at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, and coauthors wrote that while genome-wide association studies, tissue analyses, and animal models have revealed much about the immune and inflammatory processes that contribute to inflammatory bowel disease, there still remain unanswered questions about why some patients don’t respond to immune biotherapies.

“Current approaches restricted to well-established antibody panels based on prior knowledge preclude the identification of novel pathogenic cell populations in the diseased intestine,” they wrote.

Analysis of gene expression revealed significant cellular differences in the immune and stromal cells from inflamed compared to uninflamed ileum tissues. Researchers identified a group of cell subtypes that were highly correlated across inflamed ileums, and which included activated dendritic cells, activated fibroblasts, highly activated T cells, IgG plasma cells, inflammatory macrophages, inflammatory mononuclear phagocytes, and atypical chemokine receptor 1⁺-activated endothelial cells.

This so-called GIMATS module was present in only five of the patients, but it was independent of pathology severity, disease duration, and systemic markers of inflammation. The authors suggested that the module was associated with a positive feedback loop that increased the clustering of inflammatory mononuclear phagocytes in inflamed tissues.

“Taken together, our results identified a unique cellular organization in inflamed tissues of a subset of patients, thus revealing different pathogenic responses between patients despite similar pathological severity and systemic inflammatory markers,” the authors wrote.

The authors then looked for GIMATS expression in a larger cohort of 441 patients with ileal Crohn’s disease – including children aged over 2 years but excluding individuals with mutations that are associated with development of anti-TNF–resistant lesions early in life.

Given that 20%-30% of patients with ileal Crohn’s disease never respond to anti-TNF therapy, and require surgical intervention for uncontrolled bowel disease, the authors examined whether the GIMATs module might affect patient response to anti-TNF therapy.

They found that enrichment of this module was evident in the early stages of the disease, before the use of biologics therapy, and there were significant differences between treatment responders and nonresponders in their GIMATS module score at baseline. The authors said this suggested TNF blockade might not be enough to affect the inflammatory response associated with the GIMATS module.

“It is interesting that TNF was produced mainly by T cells in patients with low GIMATS module scores, while it was produced both by T cells and inflammatory [mononuclear phagocytes] in patients with a high module scores,” they wrote. “By providing a comprehensive network of the cellular and molecular basis for resistance to anti-TNF blockade, our study thus opens novel opportunities for therapeutic discoveries tailored for combination with anti-TNF antibody blockade.”

They also found that the GIMATs score did not correlate with disease activity in pediatric patients at diagnosis.

“As was observed in the discovery cohort, patients with high or low GIMATS module score had similar markers of systemic inflammation, indicating that the GIMATS score conveys information regarding response to biologic therapy that is not provided by standard [Crohn’s disease] biomarkers,” they wrote.

The study was partly supported by an author grant from Boehringer Ingelheim. Three authors also declared advisory board positions, consultancies, and research funding from the pharmaceutical industry, including Boehringer Ingelheim. No other conflicts of interest were declared.

SOURCE: Martin J et al. Cell. 2019 Aug 29. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2019.08.008.

Single-cell sequencing of tissues from patients with Crohn’s disease has revealed a new pathogenic cellular module associated with failure of anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy.

A paper published in the Aug. 29 online edition of Cell presented the results of a study that mapped the transcriptome – the RNA activity that reveals the patterns of gene expression for a cell – of lamina propria cells taken from biopsies of uninflamed and inflamed ileal tissues from 11 patients with ileal Crohn’s disease.

Jérôme C. Martin, PharmD, PhD, from the Precision Immunology Institute at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, and coauthors wrote that while genome-wide association studies, tissue analyses, and animal models have revealed much about the immune and inflammatory processes that contribute to inflammatory bowel disease, there still remain unanswered questions about why some patients don’t respond to immune biotherapies.

“Current approaches restricted to well-established antibody panels based on prior knowledge preclude the identification of novel pathogenic cell populations in the diseased intestine,” they wrote.

Analysis of gene expression revealed significant cellular differences in the immune and stromal cells from inflamed compared to uninflamed ileum tissues. Researchers identified a group of cell subtypes that were highly correlated across inflamed ileums, and which included activated dendritic cells, activated fibroblasts, highly activated T cells, IgG plasma cells, inflammatory macrophages, inflammatory mononuclear phagocytes, and atypical chemokine receptor 1⁺-activated endothelial cells.

This so-called GIMATS module was present in only five of the patients, but it was independent of pathology severity, disease duration, and systemic markers of inflammation. The authors suggested that the module was associated with a positive feedback loop that increased the clustering of inflammatory mononuclear phagocytes in inflamed tissues.

“Taken together, our results identified a unique cellular organization in inflamed tissues of a subset of patients, thus revealing different pathogenic responses between patients despite similar pathological severity and systemic inflammatory markers,” the authors wrote.

The authors then looked for GIMATS expression in a larger cohort of 441 patients with ileal Crohn’s disease – including children aged over 2 years but excluding individuals with mutations that are associated with development of anti-TNF–resistant lesions early in life.

Given that 20%-30% of patients with ileal Crohn’s disease never respond to anti-TNF therapy, and require surgical intervention for uncontrolled bowel disease, the authors examined whether the GIMATs module might affect patient response to anti-TNF therapy.

They found that enrichment of this module was evident in the early stages of the disease, before the use of biologics therapy, and there were significant differences between treatment responders and nonresponders in their GIMATS module score at baseline. The authors said this suggested TNF blockade might not be enough to affect the inflammatory response associated with the GIMATS module.

“It is interesting that TNF was produced mainly by T cells in patients with low GIMATS module scores, while it was produced both by T cells and inflammatory [mononuclear phagocytes] in patients with a high module scores,” they wrote. “By providing a comprehensive network of the cellular and molecular basis for resistance to anti-TNF blockade, our study thus opens novel opportunities for therapeutic discoveries tailored for combination with anti-TNF antibody blockade.”

They also found that the GIMATs score did not correlate with disease activity in pediatric patients at diagnosis.

“As was observed in the discovery cohort, patients with high or low GIMATS module score had similar markers of systemic inflammation, indicating that the GIMATS score conveys information regarding response to biologic therapy that is not provided by standard [Crohn’s disease] biomarkers,” they wrote.

The study was partly supported by an author grant from Boehringer Ingelheim. Three authors also declared advisory board positions, consultancies, and research funding from the pharmaceutical industry, including Boehringer Ingelheim. No other conflicts of interest were declared.

SOURCE: Martin J et al. Cell. 2019 Aug 29. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2019.08.008.