A treat-to-target approach using total hip T scores could help guide decisions about how long women with osteoporosis should stay on bone-building therapy, according to Serge Ferrari, MD, and his colleagues.

Using 10 years of follow-up data from 1,343 women who took denosumab in the FREEDOM trial, Dr. Ferrari and his colleagues determined that a T score of at least –2.5 would be an appropriate target for this decision.

“A T-score unit increase of 1.0 was associated with a significant reduction in fracture risk for T scores up to, but no greater than, –2.0, suggesting that a T-score threshold of at least –2.0 would be an appropriate target for therapy to maximize treatment,” said Dr. Ferrari of the University of Geneva and his colleagues. “Further improvements in bone mineral density were not associated with major additional changes in 1-year nonvertebral fracture incidence.”

The findings “highlight the importance of the relationship between hip T score and fracture risk, which is maintained during long-term therapy with denosumab. Regular monitoring of bone mineral density during therapy may be useful to determine when fracture risk has reached a minimal threshold; treatment could therefore be suspended and/or consolidated, as in the case of a reversible therapy such as denosumab.”

[email protected]

SOURCE: Ferrari S et al. J Bone Miner Res. 2019 Mar 28. doi: 10.1002/jbmr.3722.

A treat-to-target approach using total hip T scores could help guide decisions about how long women with osteoporosis should stay on bone-building therapy, according to Serge Ferrari, MD, and his colleagues.

Using 10 years of follow-up data from 1,343 women who took denosumab in the FREEDOM trial, Dr. Ferrari and his colleagues determined that a T score of at least –2.5 would be an appropriate target for this decision.

“A T-score unit increase of 1.0 was associated with a significant reduction in fracture risk for T scores up to, but no greater than, –2.0, suggesting that a T-score threshold of at least –2.0 would be an appropriate target for therapy to maximize treatment,” said Dr. Ferrari of the University of Geneva and his colleagues. “Further improvements in bone mineral density were not associated with major additional changes in 1-year nonvertebral fracture incidence.”

The findings “highlight the importance of the relationship between hip T score and fracture risk, which is maintained during long-term therapy with denosumab. Regular monitoring of bone mineral density during therapy may be useful to determine when fracture risk has reached a minimal threshold; treatment could therefore be suspended and/or consolidated, as in the case of a reversible therapy such as denosumab.”

[email protected]

SOURCE: Ferrari S et al. J Bone Miner Res. 2019 Mar 28. doi: 10.1002/jbmr.3722.

A treat-to-target approach using total hip T scores could help guide decisions about how long women with osteoporosis should stay on bone-building therapy, according to Serge Ferrari, MD, and his colleagues.

Using 10 years of follow-up data from 1,343 women who took denosumab in the FREEDOM trial, Dr. Ferrari and his colleagues determined that a T score of at least –2.5 would be an appropriate target for this decision.

“A T-score unit increase of 1.0 was associated with a significant reduction in fracture risk for T scores up to, but no greater than, –2.0, suggesting that a T-score threshold of at least –2.0 would be an appropriate target for therapy to maximize treatment,” said Dr. Ferrari of the University of Geneva and his colleagues. “Further improvements in bone mineral density were not associated with major additional changes in 1-year nonvertebral fracture incidence.”

The findings “highlight the importance of the relationship between hip T score and fracture risk, which is maintained during long-term therapy with denosumab. Regular monitoring of bone mineral density during therapy may be useful to determine when fracture risk has reached a minimal threshold; treatment could therefore be suspended and/or consolidated, as in the case of a reversible therapy such as denosumab.”

[email protected]

SOURCE: Ferrari S et al. J Bone Miner Res. 2019 Mar 28. doi: 10.1002/jbmr.3722.

According to our guest author Marc R. Laufer, MD, the “development of the female genital tract is a complex process that is dependent upon a series of events involving cellular differentiation, migration, fusion, and canalization. Failure of any one of these processes results in a congenital anomaly.”¹

In 1933, A.K. Koff coined the terms sinovaginal bulb and vaginal plate. He proposed that the upper 80% of the vagina is derived from Müllerian epithelium and the lower 20% derived from urogenital sinus epithelium.² In 1957, D. Bulmer proposed that vaginal epithelium derives solely from urogenital sinus epithelium.³ And in 2017, Robboy et al. supported Bulmer’s proposal that human vaginal epithelium derives solely from urogenital sinus epithelium and differs from mouse vaginal development.⁴

Beginning at 3 weeks of embryogenesis and continuing into the second trimester of pregnancy, development of the female genital tract takes place. The sinovaginal bulbs originate in the urogenital sinus at the distal aspect of the Müllerian tubercle. At approximately 13 weeks, these two solid evaginations grow out of the pelvic part of the urogenital sinus and proliferate into the caudal end of the uterovaginal canal to become a solid vaginal plate. Degeneration of the central cells of this vaginal plate, which occur in a cephalad direction, enables creation of the lower vagina. Canalization is generally completed by 20 weeks’ gestation.

Agenesis or absence of the lower vagina is usually associated with normal development of the upper vagina, cervix, uterus, and ovaries. It is the result of abnormal development of the sinovaginal bulbs and vaginal plate.

The hymenal membrane separates the vaginal lumen from the urogenital sinus. Secondary to degeneration of the central epithelial cells, the hymen typically ruptures, leaving a thin fold of mucous membrane around the vaginal introitus. Hymenal anatomic variants include microperforate, septate, or cribriform. They occur secondary to incomplete degeneration of the central portion of the hymen.

Dr. Laufer is chief of the division of gynecology, codirector of the Center for Young Women’s Health, and director of the Boston Center for Endometriosis, all at Boston Children’s Hospital. He also is professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology at Harvard Medical School, Boston. Dr. Laufer is an acclaimed physician, surgeon, clinical researcher, author, and teacher, and it is truly my pleasure to welcome him to this edition of the Master Class in Gynecologic Surgery.

Dr. Miller is a clinical associate professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago and past president of the AAGL. He is a reproductive endocrinologist and minimally invasive gynecologic surgeon in metropolitan Chicago and the director of minimally invasive gynecologic surgery at Advocate Lutheran General Hospital, Park Ridge, Ill. He reported no disclosures relevant to this Master Class. Email him at [email protected].

References

1. Laufer M. Congenital anomalies of the hymen and vagina. Uptodate (accessed April 2019).

2. Contrib Embryol. 1933 Sep;24(140):59-91.

3. J Anat. 1957 Oct;91(4):490-509.

4. Differentiation. 2017 Sep-Oct;97:9-22.

According to our guest author Marc R. Laufer, MD, the “development of the female genital tract is a complex process that is dependent upon a series of events involving cellular differentiation, migration, fusion, and canalization. Failure of any one of these processes results in a congenital anomaly.”¹

In 1933, A.K. Koff coined the terms sinovaginal bulb and vaginal plate. He proposed that the upper 80% of the vagina is derived from Müllerian epithelium and the lower 20% derived from urogenital sinus epithelium.² In 1957, D. Bulmer proposed that vaginal epithelium derives solely from urogenital sinus epithelium.³ And in 2017, Robboy et al. supported Bulmer’s proposal that human vaginal epithelium derives solely from urogenital sinus epithelium and differs from mouse vaginal development.⁴

Beginning at 3 weeks of embryogenesis and continuing into the second trimester of pregnancy, development of the female genital tract takes place. The sinovaginal bulbs originate in the urogenital sinus at the distal aspect of the Müllerian tubercle. At approximately 13 weeks, these two solid evaginations grow out of the pelvic part of the urogenital sinus and proliferate into the caudal end of the uterovaginal canal to become a solid vaginal plate. Degeneration of the central cells of this vaginal plate, which occur in a cephalad direction, enables creation of the lower vagina. Canalization is generally completed by 20 weeks’ gestation.

Agenesis or absence of the lower vagina is usually associated with normal development of the upper vagina, cervix, uterus, and ovaries. It is the result of abnormal development of the sinovaginal bulbs and vaginal plate.

The hymenal membrane separates the vaginal lumen from the urogenital sinus. Secondary to degeneration of the central epithelial cells, the hymen typically ruptures, leaving a thin fold of mucous membrane around the vaginal introitus. Hymenal anatomic variants include microperforate, septate, or cribriform. They occur secondary to incomplete degeneration of the central portion of the hymen.

Dr. Laufer is chief of the division of gynecology, codirector of the Center for Young Women’s Health, and director of the Boston Center for Endometriosis, all at Boston Children’s Hospital. He also is professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology at Harvard Medical School, Boston. Dr. Laufer is an acclaimed physician, surgeon, clinical researcher, author, and teacher, and it is truly my pleasure to welcome him to this edition of the Master Class in Gynecologic Surgery.

Dr. Miller is a clinical associate professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago and past president of the AAGL. He is a reproductive endocrinologist and minimally invasive gynecologic surgeon in metropolitan Chicago and the director of minimally invasive gynecologic surgery at Advocate Lutheran General Hospital, Park Ridge, Ill. He reported no disclosures relevant to this Master Class. Email him at [email protected].

References

1. Laufer M. Congenital anomalies of the hymen and vagina. Uptodate (accessed April 2019).

2. Contrib Embryol. 1933 Sep;24(140):59-91.

3. J Anat. 1957 Oct;91(4):490-509.

4. Differentiation. 2017 Sep-Oct;97:9-22.

According to our guest author Marc R. Laufer, MD, the “development of the female genital tract is a complex process that is dependent upon a series of events involving cellular differentiation, migration, fusion, and canalization. Failure of any one of these processes results in a congenital anomaly.”¹

In 1933, A.K. Koff coined the terms sinovaginal bulb and vaginal plate. He proposed that the upper 80% of the vagina is derived from Müllerian epithelium and the lower 20% derived from urogenital sinus epithelium.² In 1957, D. Bulmer proposed that vaginal epithelium derives solely from urogenital sinus epithelium.³ And in 2017, Robboy et al. supported Bulmer’s proposal that human vaginal epithelium derives solely from urogenital sinus epithelium and differs from mouse vaginal development.⁴

Beginning at 3 weeks of embryogenesis and continuing into the second trimester of pregnancy, development of the female genital tract takes place. The sinovaginal bulbs originate in the urogenital sinus at the distal aspect of the Müllerian tubercle. At approximately 13 weeks, these two solid evaginations grow out of the pelvic part of the urogenital sinus and proliferate into the caudal end of the uterovaginal canal to become a solid vaginal plate. Degeneration of the central cells of this vaginal plate, which occur in a cephalad direction, enables creation of the lower vagina. Canalization is generally completed by 20 weeks’ gestation.

Agenesis or absence of the lower vagina is usually associated with normal development of the upper vagina, cervix, uterus, and ovaries. It is the result of abnormal development of the sinovaginal bulbs and vaginal plate.

The hymenal membrane separates the vaginal lumen from the urogenital sinus. Secondary to degeneration of the central epithelial cells, the hymen typically ruptures, leaving a thin fold of mucous membrane around the vaginal introitus. Hymenal anatomic variants include microperforate, septate, or cribriform. They occur secondary to incomplete degeneration of the central portion of the hymen.

Dr. Laufer is chief of the division of gynecology, codirector of the Center for Young Women’s Health, and director of the Boston Center for Endometriosis, all at Boston Children’s Hospital. He also is professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology at Harvard Medical School, Boston. Dr. Laufer is an acclaimed physician, surgeon, clinical researcher, author, and teacher, and it is truly my pleasure to welcome him to this edition of the Master Class in Gynecologic Surgery.

Dr. Miller is a clinical associate professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago and past president of the AAGL. He is a reproductive endocrinologist and minimally invasive gynecologic surgeon in metropolitan Chicago and the director of minimally invasive gynecologic surgery at Advocate Lutheran General Hospital, Park Ridge, Ill. He reported no disclosures relevant to this Master Class. Email him at [email protected].

References

1. Laufer M. Congenital anomalies of the hymen and vagina. Uptodate (accessed April 2019).

2. Contrib Embryol. 1933 Sep;24(140):59-91.

3. J Anat. 1957 Oct;91(4):490-509.

4. Differentiation. 2017 Sep-Oct;97:9-22.

Congenital obstructive anomalies of the vagina are unusual and can be challenging to diagnose and manage. Two of the most challenging are obstructive hemivagina with ipsilateral renal agenesis (Figure 1a) and agenesis of the lower vagina (Figure 1b), the latter of which must be differentiated most commonly from imperforate hymen (Figure 1c). Evaluation and treatment of these anomalies is dependent upon the age of the patient, as well as the symptoms, and the timing of treatment should be individualized.

Agenesis of the lower vagina

Reproduced with permission from Laufer MR. Structural abnormalities of the female reproductive tract. In Emans, Laufer, Goldstein's Pediatric & Adolescent Gynecology, 6th Ed, Emans SJ, Laufer MD editors. Wolters Kluwer, 2012.]

Agenesis of the lower vagina and imperforate hymen may present either in the newborn period as a bulging introitus caused by mucocolpos from vaginal secretions stimulated by maternal estradiol or during adolescence at the time of menarche. In neonates, it often is best not to intervene when obstructive anomalies are suspected as long as there is no fever; pain; or compromise of respiration, urinary and bowel function, and other functionality. It will be easier to differentiate agenesis of the lower vagina and imperforate hymen – the latter of which is one of the most common obstructive lesions of the female genital tract – later on. And if the hymen remains imperforate, the mucus will be reabsorbed and the patient usually will remain asymptomatic until menarche.

In the adolescent time period, both anomalies often are identified when the patient presents with pelvic pain – usually cyclic pelvic pain with primary amenorrhea. Because the onset of menses typically occurs 2-3 years after the onset of estrogenization and breast development, evaluating breast development can help us to determine the timing of expected menarche. An obstructive anomaly should be suspected in an adolescent who presents with pain during this time period, after evaluation for an acute abdomen (Figure 2a).

Reproduced with permission from Laufer MR. Structural abnormalities of the female reproductive tract. In Emans, Laufer, Goldstein's Pediatric & Adolescent Gynecology, 6th Ed, Emans SJ, Laufer MD editors. Wolters Kluwer, 2012.

When a vaginal orifice is visualized upon evaluation of the external genitalia and separation of the labia, a higher anomaly such as a transverse vaginal septum should be suspected. When an introitus cannot be visualized, evaluation for an imperforate hymen or agenesis of the lower vagina is necessary (Figure 1b and 1c).

The simplest way to differentiate imperforate hymen from agenesis of the lower vagina is with visualization of the obstructing tissue on exam and usage of transperitoneal ultrasound. With the transducer placed on the vulva, we can evaluate the distance from the normal location of an introitus to the level of the obstruction. If the distance is in millimeters, then typically there is an imperforate hymen. If the distance is larger – more than several millimeters – then the differential diagnosis typically is agenesis of the lower vagina, an anomaly that results from abnormal development of the sinovaginal bulbs and vaginal plate.

The distance as measured by transperitoneal ultrasound also will indicate whether or not pull-through vaginoplasty (Figure 2b) – our standard treatment for lower vaginal agenesis – is possible using native vaginal mucosa from the upper vagina. Most commonly, the distance is less than 5 cm and we are able to make a transverse incision where the hymenal ring should be located, carry the dissection to the upper vagina, drain the obstruction, and mobilize the upper vaginal mucosa, suturing it to the newly created introitus to formulate a patent vaginal tract.

Reproduced with permission from Laufer MR. Structural abnormalities of the female reproductive tract. In Emans, Laufer, Goldstein's Pediatric & Adolescent Gynecology, 6th Ed, Emans SJ, Laufer MD editors. Wolters Kluwer, 2012.

A rectoabdominal examination similarly can be helpful in making the diagnosis of lower vaginal agenesis and in determining whether there is enough tissue available for a pull-through procedure (Figures 2a and 2b). Because patients with this anomaly generally have normal cyclic pituitary-ovarian-endometrial function at menarche, the upper vagina will distend with blood products and secretions that can be palpated on the rectoabdominal exam. If the obstructed vaginal tissue is not felt with the rectal finger at midline, the obstructed agenesis of the vagina probably is too high for a straightforward pull-through procedure. Alternatively, the patient may have a unicornuate system with agenesis of the lower vagina; in this case, the obstructed upper vaginal tissue will not be in the midline but off to one side. MRI also may be helpful for defining the pelvic anatomy.

The optimal timing for a pull-through vaginoplasty (Figure 2b) is when a large hematocolpos (Figure 2a) is present, as the blood acts as a natural expander of the native vaginal tissue, increasing the amount of tissue available for a primary reanastomosis. This emphasizes the importance of an accurate initial diagnosis. Too often, obstructions that are actually lower vaginal agenesis are presumed to be imperforate hymen, and the hematocolpos is subsequently evacuated after a transverse incision and dissection of excess tissue, causing the upper vagina to retract and shrink. This mistake can result in the formation of a fistulous tract from the previously obstructed upper vagina to the level of the introitus.

Reproduced with permission from Laufer MR. Structural abnormalities of the female reproductive tract. In Emans, Laufer, Goldstein's Pediatric & Adolescent Gynecology, 6th Ed, Emans SJ, Laufer MD editors. Wolters Kluwer, 2012.]

The vaginoplasty is carried out with the patient in the dorsal lithotomy position. A Foley catheter is placed into the bladder to avoid an inadvertent anterior entry into the posterior wall of the bladder, and the labia are grasped and pulled down and out.

The hymenal tissue should be visible. A transverse incision is made, with electrocautery, where the introitus should be located, and a dissection is carried out to reach the obstructed upper vaginal tissue. Care is needed to keep the dissection in the midline and avoid the bladder above and the rectum below. In cases in which it is difficult to identify the area of obstruction, intraoperative ultrasound can be helpful. A spinal needle with a 10-cc syringe also can be used to identify a track through which to access the fluid.

The linear incision then is made with electrocautery and the obstructed hemivagina is entered. Allis clamps are used to grasp the vaginal mucosa from the previously obstructed upper vagina to help identify the tissue that needs to be mobilized. The tissue then is further dissected to free the upper vagina, and the edges are pulled down to the level of the introitus with Allis clamps. “Relaxing” incisions are made at 1, 5,7, and 11 o’clock to avoid a circumferential scar. The upper vaginal mucosa is sewn to the newly created introitus with a 2-0 vicryl suture on a UR6 (a smaller curved urology needle).

When the distance from normal introitus location to obstruction is greater than 5 cm, we sometimes use vaginal dilators to lessen the distance and reach the obstruction for a pull-through procedure. Alternatively, the upper vagina may be mobilized from above either robotically or laparoscopically so that the upper vaginal mucosa may be pulled down without entering the bladder. Occasionally, with greater distances over 5 cm, the vaginoplasty may require utilization of a buccal mucosal graft or a bowel segment.

Reproduced with permission from Laufer MR. Structural abnormalities of the female reproductive tract. In Emans, Laufer, Goldstein's Pediatric & Adolescent Gynecology, 6th Ed, Emans SJ, Laufer MD editors. Wolters Kluwer, 2012.]

Intraoperative ultrasound can be especially helpful for locating the obstructed vagina in women with a unicornuate system because the upper vagina will not be in the midline and ultrasound can help determine the appropriate angle for dissection.

Prophylactic antibiotics initiated postoperatively are important with pull-through vaginoplasty, because the uterus and fallopian tubes may contain blood (an excellent growth media) and because there is a risk of bacteria ascending into what becomes an open system.

Postoperatively, we guide patients on the use of flexible Milex dilators (CooperSurgical) to ensure that the vagina heals without restenosis. The length of postoperative dilation therapy can vary from 2-12 months, depending on healing. The dilator is worn 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and is removed only for urination, defecation, and cleaning. With adequate postoperative dilation, patients will have normal sexual and reproductive function, and vaginal delivery should be possible.
 

Obstructed hemivagina

An obstructed hemivagina, an uncommon Müllerian duct anomaly, occurs most often with ipsilateral renal agenesis and is commonly referred to as OHVIRA. Because the formation of the reproductive system is closely associated with the development of the urinary system, it is not unusual for renal anomalies to occur alongside Müllerian anomalies and vaginal anomalies. There should be a high index of suspicion for a reproductive tract anomaly in any patient known to have a horseshoe kidney, duplex collecting system, unilateral renal agenesis, or other renal anomaly.

Patients with obstructed hemivagina typically present in adolescence with pelvic pain or dysmenorrhea, and commonly are misdiagnosed as having endometriomas or vaginal cysts. On vaginal examination, the obstructed hemivagina may be visualized as a bulge coming from the lateral vaginal sidewall. While only one cervix is appreciated on a vaginal exam, an ultrasound examination often will show two uteri and two cervices. MRI also is helpful for diagnosis.

Obstructed hemivagina requires surgical correction to open the obstruction, excise the excess vaginal tissue, and create one vagina with access to the second cervix. Great care must be taken to avoid not only the bladder and rectum but the cervices. It is not unusual for the two cervices to be at different levels, with one cervix sharing medial aspects of the vaginal wall of the second vagina (Figure 1a). The tissue between the two cervices should be left in place to avoid compromising their blood supply.

We manage this anomaly primarily through a single-stage vaginoplasty. For the nonobstructed side to be visualized, a longitudinal incision into the obstructed hemivagina should be made at the point at which it is most easily palpated. As with agenesis of the lower vagina, the fluid to be drained tends to be old menstrual blood that is thick and dark brown. It is useful to set up two suction units at the time of surgery because tubing can become clogged.

The use of vaginal side wall retractors helps with visualization. Alternatively, I tend to use malleable abdominal wall retractors vaginally, as they can be bent to conform to the angle needed and come in different widths. When it is difficult to identify the area of obstruction, a spinal needle with a 10-cc syringe again can be used to identify a track for accessing the fluid. The linear incision then is made with electrocautery, and the obstructed hemivagina is entered.

Allis clamps are used to grasp the vaginal mucosa from the previously obstructed hemivagina to help identify the tissue that needs to be excised. Once the fluid is evacuated, a finger also can be placed into the obstructed vagina is help identify excess tissue. This three-dimensional elliptical area is similar to a septum but becomes the obstructed hemivagina as it attaches to the vaginal wall (Figure 1a).

Retrograde menses and endometriosis occur commonly with obstructive anomalies like obstructed hemivagina and agenesis of the lower vagina, but laparoscopy with the goal of treating endometriosis is not indicated. We discourage its use at the time of repair because there is evidence that almost all endometriosis will completely resorb on its own once the anomalies are corrected.1,2

As with repair of lower vagina agenesis, antibiotics to prevent an ascending infection should be taken after surgical correction of obstructed hemivagina. Patients with obstructed hemivagina can have a vaginal delivery if there are no other contraindications. Women with obstructed hemivagina and ipsilateral renal anomaly have essentially two unicornuate systems and thus are at risk of breech presentation and preterm delivery.

Dr. Laufer is chief of the division of gynecology, codirector of the Center for Young Women’s Health, and director of the Boston Center for Endometriosis, all at Boston Children’s Hospital. He also is professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

References

1. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1986;154:39.

2. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol. 2010;23(2):e89.

Congenital obstructive anomalies of the vagina are unusual and can be challenging to diagnose and manage. Two of the most challenging are obstructive hemivagina with ipsilateral renal agenesis (Figure 1a) and agenesis of the lower vagina (Figure 1b), the latter of which must be differentiated most commonly from imperforate hymen (Figure 1c). Evaluation and treatment of these anomalies is dependent upon the age of the patient, as well as the symptoms, and the timing of treatment should be individualized.

Agenesis of the lower vagina

Reproduced with permission from Laufer MR. Structural abnormalities of the female reproductive tract. In Emans, Laufer, Goldstein's Pediatric & Adolescent Gynecology, 6th Ed, Emans SJ, Laufer MD editors. Wolters Kluwer, 2012.]

Agenesis of the lower vagina and imperforate hymen may present either in the newborn period as a bulging introitus caused by mucocolpos from vaginal secretions stimulated by maternal estradiol or during adolescence at the time of menarche. In neonates, it often is best not to intervene when obstructive anomalies are suspected as long as there is no fever; pain; or compromise of respiration, urinary and bowel function, and other functionality. It will be easier to differentiate agenesis of the lower vagina and imperforate hymen – the latter of which is one of the most common obstructive lesions of the female genital tract – later on. And if the hymen remains imperforate, the mucus will be reabsorbed and the patient usually will remain asymptomatic until menarche.

In the adolescent time period, both anomalies often are identified when the patient presents with pelvic pain – usually cyclic pelvic pain with primary amenorrhea. Because the onset of menses typically occurs 2-3 years after the onset of estrogenization and breast development, evaluating breast development can help us to determine the timing of expected menarche. An obstructive anomaly should be suspected in an adolescent who presents with pain during this time period, after evaluation for an acute abdomen (Figure 2a).

Reproduced with permission from Laufer MR. Structural abnormalities of the female reproductive tract. In Emans, Laufer, Goldstein's Pediatric & Adolescent Gynecology, 6th Ed, Emans SJ, Laufer MD editors. Wolters Kluwer, 2012.

When a vaginal orifice is visualized upon evaluation of the external genitalia and separation of the labia, a higher anomaly such as a transverse vaginal septum should be suspected. When an introitus cannot be visualized, evaluation for an imperforate hymen or agenesis of the lower vagina is necessary (Figure 1b and 1c).

The simplest way to differentiate imperforate hymen from agenesis of the lower vagina is with visualization of the obstructing tissue on exam and usage of transperitoneal ultrasound. With the transducer placed on the vulva, we can evaluate the distance from the normal location of an introitus to the level of the obstruction. If the distance is in millimeters, then typically there is an imperforate hymen. If the distance is larger – more than several millimeters – then the differential diagnosis typically is agenesis of the lower vagina, an anomaly that results from abnormal development of the sinovaginal bulbs and vaginal plate.

The distance as measured by transperitoneal ultrasound also will indicate whether or not pull-through vaginoplasty (Figure 2b) – our standard treatment for lower vaginal agenesis – is possible using native vaginal mucosa from the upper vagina. Most commonly, the distance is less than 5 cm and we are able to make a transverse incision where the hymenal ring should be located, carry the dissection to the upper vagina, drain the obstruction, and mobilize the upper vaginal mucosa, suturing it to the newly created introitus to formulate a patent vaginal tract.

Reproduced with permission from Laufer MR. Structural abnormalities of the female reproductive tract. In Emans, Laufer, Goldstein's Pediatric & Adolescent Gynecology, 6th Ed, Emans SJ, Laufer MD editors. Wolters Kluwer, 2012.

A rectoabdominal examination similarly can be helpful in making the diagnosis of lower vaginal agenesis and in determining whether there is enough tissue available for a pull-through procedure (Figures 2a and 2b). Because patients with this anomaly generally have normal cyclic pituitary-ovarian-endometrial function at menarche, the upper vagina will distend with blood products and secretions that can be palpated on the rectoabdominal exam. If the obstructed vaginal tissue is not felt with the rectal finger at midline, the obstructed agenesis of the vagina probably is too high for a straightforward pull-through procedure. Alternatively, the patient may have a unicornuate system with agenesis of the lower vagina; in this case, the obstructed upper vaginal tissue will not be in the midline but off to one side. MRI also may be helpful for defining the pelvic anatomy.

The optimal timing for a pull-through vaginoplasty (Figure 2b) is when a large hematocolpos (Figure 2a) is present, as the blood acts as a natural expander of the native vaginal tissue, increasing the amount of tissue available for a primary reanastomosis. This emphasizes the importance of an accurate initial diagnosis. Too often, obstructions that are actually lower vaginal agenesis are presumed to be imperforate hymen, and the hematocolpos is subsequently evacuated after a transverse incision and dissection of excess tissue, causing the upper vagina to retract and shrink. This mistake can result in the formation of a fistulous tract from the previously obstructed upper vagina to the level of the introitus.

Reproduced with permission from Laufer MR. Structural abnormalities of the female reproductive tract. In Emans, Laufer, Goldstein's Pediatric & Adolescent Gynecology, 6th Ed, Emans SJ, Laufer MD editors. Wolters Kluwer, 2012.]

The vaginoplasty is carried out with the patient in the dorsal lithotomy position. A Foley catheter is placed into the bladder to avoid an inadvertent anterior entry into the posterior wall of the bladder, and the labia are grasped and pulled down and out.

The hymenal tissue should be visible. A transverse incision is made, with electrocautery, where the introitus should be located, and a dissection is carried out to reach the obstructed upper vaginal tissue. Care is needed to keep the dissection in the midline and avoid the bladder above and the rectum below. In cases in which it is difficult to identify the area of obstruction, intraoperative ultrasound can be helpful. A spinal needle with a 10-cc syringe also can be used to identify a track through which to access the fluid.

The linear incision then is made with electrocautery and the obstructed hemivagina is entered. Allis clamps are used to grasp the vaginal mucosa from the previously obstructed upper vagina to help identify the tissue that needs to be mobilized. The tissue then is further dissected to free the upper vagina, and the edges are pulled down to the level of the introitus with Allis clamps. “Relaxing” incisions are made at 1, 5,7, and 11 o’clock to avoid a circumferential scar. The upper vaginal mucosa is sewn to the newly created introitus with a 2-0 vicryl suture on a UR6 (a smaller curved urology needle).

When the distance from normal introitus location to obstruction is greater than 5 cm, we sometimes use vaginal dilators to lessen the distance and reach the obstruction for a pull-through procedure. Alternatively, the upper vagina may be mobilized from above either robotically or laparoscopically so that the upper vaginal mucosa may be pulled down without entering the bladder. Occasionally, with greater distances over 5 cm, the vaginoplasty may require utilization of a buccal mucosal graft or a bowel segment.

Reproduced with permission from Laufer MR. Structural abnormalities of the female reproductive tract. In Emans, Laufer, Goldstein's Pediatric & Adolescent Gynecology, 6th Ed, Emans SJ, Laufer MD editors. Wolters Kluwer, 2012.]

Intraoperative ultrasound can be especially helpful for locating the obstructed vagina in women with a unicornuate system because the upper vagina will not be in the midline and ultrasound can help determine the appropriate angle for dissection.

Prophylactic antibiotics initiated postoperatively are important with pull-through vaginoplasty, because the uterus and fallopian tubes may contain blood (an excellent growth media) and because there is a risk of bacteria ascending into what becomes an open system.

Postoperatively, we guide patients on the use of flexible Milex dilators (CooperSurgical) to ensure that the vagina heals without restenosis. The length of postoperative dilation therapy can vary from 2-12 months, depending on healing. The dilator is worn 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and is removed only for urination, defecation, and cleaning. With adequate postoperative dilation, patients will have normal sexual and reproductive function, and vaginal delivery should be possible.
 

Obstructed hemivagina

An obstructed hemivagina, an uncommon Müllerian duct anomaly, occurs most often with ipsilateral renal agenesis and is commonly referred to as OHVIRA. Because the formation of the reproductive system is closely associated with the development of the urinary system, it is not unusual for renal anomalies to occur alongside Müllerian anomalies and vaginal anomalies. There should be a high index of suspicion for a reproductive tract anomaly in any patient known to have a horseshoe kidney, duplex collecting system, unilateral renal agenesis, or other renal anomaly.

Patients with obstructed hemivagina typically present in adolescence with pelvic pain or dysmenorrhea, and commonly are misdiagnosed as having endometriomas or vaginal cysts. On vaginal examination, the obstructed hemivagina may be visualized as a bulge coming from the lateral vaginal sidewall. While only one cervix is appreciated on a vaginal exam, an ultrasound examination often will show two uteri and two cervices. MRI also is helpful for diagnosis.

Obstructed hemivagina requires surgical correction to open the obstruction, excise the excess vaginal tissue, and create one vagina with access to the second cervix. Great care must be taken to avoid not only the bladder and rectum but the cervices. It is not unusual for the two cervices to be at different levels, with one cervix sharing medial aspects of the vaginal wall of the second vagina (Figure 1a). The tissue between the two cervices should be left in place to avoid compromising their blood supply.

We manage this anomaly primarily through a single-stage vaginoplasty. For the nonobstructed side to be visualized, a longitudinal incision into the obstructed hemivagina should be made at the point at which it is most easily palpated. As with agenesis of the lower vagina, the fluid to be drained tends to be old menstrual blood that is thick and dark brown. It is useful to set up two suction units at the time of surgery because tubing can become clogged.

The use of vaginal side wall retractors helps with visualization. Alternatively, I tend to use malleable abdominal wall retractors vaginally, as they can be bent to conform to the angle needed and come in different widths. When it is difficult to identify the area of obstruction, a spinal needle with a 10-cc syringe again can be used to identify a track for accessing the fluid. The linear incision then is made with electrocautery, and the obstructed hemivagina is entered.

Allis clamps are used to grasp the vaginal mucosa from the previously obstructed hemivagina to help identify the tissue that needs to be excised. Once the fluid is evacuated, a finger also can be placed into the obstructed vagina is help identify excess tissue. This three-dimensional elliptical area is similar to a septum but becomes the obstructed hemivagina as it attaches to the vaginal wall (Figure 1a).

Retrograde menses and endometriosis occur commonly with obstructive anomalies like obstructed hemivagina and agenesis of the lower vagina, but laparoscopy with the goal of treating endometriosis is not indicated. We discourage its use at the time of repair because there is evidence that almost all endometriosis will completely resorb on its own once the anomalies are corrected.1,2

As with repair of lower vagina agenesis, antibiotics to prevent an ascending infection should be taken after surgical correction of obstructed hemivagina. Patients with obstructed hemivagina can have a vaginal delivery if there are no other contraindications. Women with obstructed hemivagina and ipsilateral renal anomaly have essentially two unicornuate systems and thus are at risk of breech presentation and preterm delivery.

Dr. Laufer is chief of the division of gynecology, codirector of the Center for Young Women’s Health, and director of the Boston Center for Endometriosis, all at Boston Children’s Hospital. He also is professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

References

1. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1986;154:39.

2. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol. 2010;23(2):e89.

Congenital obstructive anomalies of the vagina are unusual and can be challenging to diagnose and manage. Two of the most challenging are obstructive hemivagina with ipsilateral renal agenesis (Figure 1a) and agenesis of the lower vagina (Figure 1b), the latter of which must be differentiated most commonly from imperforate hymen (Figure 1c). Evaluation and treatment of these anomalies is dependent upon the age of the patient, as well as the symptoms, and the timing of treatment should be individualized.

Agenesis of the lower vagina

Reproduced with permission from Laufer MR. Structural abnormalities of the female reproductive tract. In Emans, Laufer, Goldstein's Pediatric & Adolescent Gynecology, 6th Ed, Emans SJ, Laufer MD editors. Wolters Kluwer, 2012.]

Agenesis of the lower vagina and imperforate hymen may present either in the newborn period as a bulging introitus caused by mucocolpos from vaginal secretions stimulated by maternal estradiol or during adolescence at the time of menarche. In neonates, it often is best not to intervene when obstructive anomalies are suspected as long as there is no fever; pain; or compromise of respiration, urinary and bowel function, and other functionality. It will be easier to differentiate agenesis of the lower vagina and imperforate hymen – the latter of which is one of the most common obstructive lesions of the female genital tract – later on. And if the hymen remains imperforate, the mucus will be reabsorbed and the patient usually will remain asymptomatic until menarche.

In the adolescent time period, both anomalies often are identified when the patient presents with pelvic pain – usually cyclic pelvic pain with primary amenorrhea. Because the onset of menses typically occurs 2-3 years after the onset of estrogenization and breast development, evaluating breast development can help us to determine the timing of expected menarche. An obstructive anomaly should be suspected in an adolescent who presents with pain during this time period, after evaluation for an acute abdomen (Figure 2a).

Reproduced with permission from Laufer MR. Structural abnormalities of the female reproductive tract. In Emans, Laufer, Goldstein's Pediatric & Adolescent Gynecology, 6th Ed, Emans SJ, Laufer MD editors. Wolters Kluwer, 2012.

When a vaginal orifice is visualized upon evaluation of the external genitalia and separation of the labia, a higher anomaly such as a transverse vaginal septum should be suspected. When an introitus cannot be visualized, evaluation for an imperforate hymen or agenesis of the lower vagina is necessary (Figure 1b and 1c).

The simplest way to differentiate imperforate hymen from agenesis of the lower vagina is with visualization of the obstructing tissue on exam and usage of transperitoneal ultrasound. With the transducer placed on the vulva, we can evaluate the distance from the normal location of an introitus to the level of the obstruction. If the distance is in millimeters, then typically there is an imperforate hymen. If the distance is larger – more than several millimeters – then the differential diagnosis typically is agenesis of the lower vagina, an anomaly that results from abnormal development of the sinovaginal bulbs and vaginal plate.

The distance as measured by transperitoneal ultrasound also will indicate whether or not pull-through vaginoplasty (Figure 2b) – our standard treatment for lower vaginal agenesis – is possible using native vaginal mucosa from the upper vagina. Most commonly, the distance is less than 5 cm and we are able to make a transverse incision where the hymenal ring should be located, carry the dissection to the upper vagina, drain the obstruction, and mobilize the upper vaginal mucosa, suturing it to the newly created introitus to formulate a patent vaginal tract.

Reproduced with permission from Laufer MR. Structural abnormalities of the female reproductive tract. In Emans, Laufer, Goldstein's Pediatric & Adolescent Gynecology, 6th Ed, Emans SJ, Laufer MD editors. Wolters Kluwer, 2012.

A rectoabdominal examination similarly can be helpful in making the diagnosis of lower vaginal agenesis and in determining whether there is enough tissue available for a pull-through procedure (Figures 2a and 2b). Because patients with this anomaly generally have normal cyclic pituitary-ovarian-endometrial function at menarche, the upper vagina will distend with blood products and secretions that can be palpated on the rectoabdominal exam. If the obstructed vaginal tissue is not felt with the rectal finger at midline, the obstructed agenesis of the vagina probably is too high for a straightforward pull-through procedure. Alternatively, the patient may have a unicornuate system with agenesis of the lower vagina; in this case, the obstructed upper vaginal tissue will not be in the midline but off to one side. MRI also may be helpful for defining the pelvic anatomy.

The optimal timing for a pull-through vaginoplasty (Figure 2b) is when a large hematocolpos (Figure 2a) is present, as the blood acts as a natural expander of the native vaginal tissue, increasing the amount of tissue available for a primary reanastomosis. This emphasizes the importance of an accurate initial diagnosis. Too often, obstructions that are actually lower vaginal agenesis are presumed to be imperforate hymen, and the hematocolpos is subsequently evacuated after a transverse incision and dissection of excess tissue, causing the upper vagina to retract and shrink. This mistake can result in the formation of a fistulous tract from the previously obstructed upper vagina to the level of the introitus.

Reproduced with permission from Laufer MR. Structural abnormalities of the female reproductive tract. In Emans, Laufer, Goldstein's Pediatric & Adolescent Gynecology, 6th Ed, Emans SJ, Laufer MD editors. Wolters Kluwer, 2012.]

The vaginoplasty is carried out with the patient in the dorsal lithotomy position. A Foley catheter is placed into the bladder to avoid an inadvertent anterior entry into the posterior wall of the bladder, and the labia are grasped and pulled down and out.

The hymenal tissue should be visible. A transverse incision is made, with electrocautery, where the introitus should be located, and a dissection is carried out to reach the obstructed upper vaginal tissue. Care is needed to keep the dissection in the midline and avoid the bladder above and the rectum below. In cases in which it is difficult to identify the area of obstruction, intraoperative ultrasound can be helpful. A spinal needle with a 10-cc syringe also can be used to identify a track through which to access the fluid.

The linear incision then is made with electrocautery and the obstructed hemivagina is entered. Allis clamps are used to grasp the vaginal mucosa from the previously obstructed upper vagina to help identify the tissue that needs to be mobilized. The tissue then is further dissected to free the upper vagina, and the edges are pulled down to the level of the introitus with Allis clamps. “Relaxing” incisions are made at 1, 5,7, and 11 o’clock to avoid a circumferential scar. The upper vaginal mucosa is sewn to the newly created introitus with a 2-0 vicryl suture on a UR6 (a smaller curved urology needle).

When the distance from normal introitus location to obstruction is greater than 5 cm, we sometimes use vaginal dilators to lessen the distance and reach the obstruction for a pull-through procedure. Alternatively, the upper vagina may be mobilized from above either robotically or laparoscopically so that the upper vaginal mucosa may be pulled down without entering the bladder. Occasionally, with greater distances over 5 cm, the vaginoplasty may require utilization of a buccal mucosal graft or a bowel segment.

Reproduced with permission from Laufer MR. Structural abnormalities of the female reproductive tract. In Emans, Laufer, Goldstein's Pediatric & Adolescent Gynecology, 6th Ed, Emans SJ, Laufer MD editors. Wolters Kluwer, 2012.]

Intraoperative ultrasound can be especially helpful for locating the obstructed vagina in women with a unicornuate system because the upper vagina will not be in the midline and ultrasound can help determine the appropriate angle for dissection.

Prophylactic antibiotics initiated postoperatively are important with pull-through vaginoplasty, because the uterus and fallopian tubes may contain blood (an excellent growth media) and because there is a risk of bacteria ascending into what becomes an open system.

Postoperatively, we guide patients on the use of flexible Milex dilators (CooperSurgical) to ensure that the vagina heals without restenosis. The length of postoperative dilation therapy can vary from 2-12 months, depending on healing. The dilator is worn 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and is removed only for urination, defecation, and cleaning. With adequate postoperative dilation, patients will have normal sexual and reproductive function, and vaginal delivery should be possible.
 

Obstructed hemivagina

An obstructed hemivagina, an uncommon Müllerian duct anomaly, occurs most often with ipsilateral renal agenesis and is commonly referred to as OHVIRA. Because the formation of the reproductive system is closely associated with the development of the urinary system, it is not unusual for renal anomalies to occur alongside Müllerian anomalies and vaginal anomalies. There should be a high index of suspicion for a reproductive tract anomaly in any patient known to have a horseshoe kidney, duplex collecting system, unilateral renal agenesis, or other renal anomaly.

Patients with obstructed hemivagina typically present in adolescence with pelvic pain or dysmenorrhea, and commonly are misdiagnosed as having endometriomas or vaginal cysts. On vaginal examination, the obstructed hemivagina may be visualized as a bulge coming from the lateral vaginal sidewall. While only one cervix is appreciated on a vaginal exam, an ultrasound examination often will show two uteri and two cervices. MRI also is helpful for diagnosis.

Obstructed hemivagina requires surgical correction to open the obstruction, excise the excess vaginal tissue, and create one vagina with access to the second cervix. Great care must be taken to avoid not only the bladder and rectum but the cervices. It is not unusual for the two cervices to be at different levels, with one cervix sharing medial aspects of the vaginal wall of the second vagina (Figure 1a). The tissue between the two cervices should be left in place to avoid compromising their blood supply.

We manage this anomaly primarily through a single-stage vaginoplasty. For the nonobstructed side to be visualized, a longitudinal incision into the obstructed hemivagina should be made at the point at which it is most easily palpated. As with agenesis of the lower vagina, the fluid to be drained tends to be old menstrual blood that is thick and dark brown. It is useful to set up two suction units at the time of surgery because tubing can become clogged.

The use of vaginal side wall retractors helps with visualization. Alternatively, I tend to use malleable abdominal wall retractors vaginally, as they can be bent to conform to the angle needed and come in different widths. When it is difficult to identify the area of obstruction, a spinal needle with a 10-cc syringe again can be used to identify a track for accessing the fluid. The linear incision then is made with electrocautery, and the obstructed hemivagina is entered.

Allis clamps are used to grasp the vaginal mucosa from the previously obstructed hemivagina to help identify the tissue that needs to be excised. Once the fluid is evacuated, a finger also can be placed into the obstructed vagina is help identify excess tissue. This three-dimensional elliptical area is similar to a septum but becomes the obstructed hemivagina as it attaches to the vaginal wall (Figure 1a).

Retrograde menses and endometriosis occur commonly with obstructive anomalies like obstructed hemivagina and agenesis of the lower vagina, but laparoscopy with the goal of treating endometriosis is not indicated. We discourage its use at the time of repair because there is evidence that almost all endometriosis will completely resorb on its own once the anomalies are corrected.1,2

As with repair of lower vagina agenesis, antibiotics to prevent an ascending infection should be taken after surgical correction of obstructed hemivagina. Patients with obstructed hemivagina can have a vaginal delivery if there are no other contraindications. Women with obstructed hemivagina and ipsilateral renal anomaly have essentially two unicornuate systems and thus are at risk of breech presentation and preterm delivery.

Dr. Laufer is chief of the division of gynecology, codirector of the Center for Young Women’s Health, and director of the Boston Center for Endometriosis, all at Boston Children’s Hospital. He also is professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

References

1. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1986;154:39.

2. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol. 2010;23(2):e89.

Patients who have recurrence of cutaneous squamous cell cancer of the head and neck (cSCC-HN) tend to have poor outcomes regardless of immune status, according to investigators.

Patients with surgically unsalvageable recurrent disease had the worst outcomes, reported lead author Lillian Sun, of the Cleveland Clinic, and her colleagues.

These findings support more intensive upfront therapy for patients with cSCC-HN, the investigators wrote in JAMA Dermatology. They noted that most patients with cSCC have good outcomes, with less than 5% experiencing recurrence or distant metastasis; however, “there is a subset of patients with adverse pathologic features and a more aggressive clinical course,” the investigators pointed out, “with substantially higher rates of locoregional recurrence (13%-41%) and distant metastasis (7%-16%) after surgical resection.”

According to the investigators, previous research has identified several patient factors that predict poor outcomes, such as invasiveness and differentiation, as well as chronic immunosuppression. To build on these data, and, in particular, to determine if immune suppression was linked with poor outcomes, the investigators conducted a retrospective analysis of 205 patients with cSCC-HN.

From this cohort, 72 patients had disease recurrence after surgery and radiotherapy. The average age of the patients was 71 years. About half were immunosuppressed (55.6%). On average, disease recurrence occurred slightly earlier in immunosuppressed patients (9.1 months) than in immunocompetent patients (10.1 months). Most patients had locoregional recurrence first, at rates of 65.6% and 77.5% among immunocompetent and immunosuppressed patients, respectively. Irrespective of immune status, median overall survival was 8.4 months and the 1-year overall survival rate was 43.2%. In contrast with previous findings, immune status was not statistically associated with median overall survival; immunocompetent patients did tend to live longer (12.9 months) than immunosuppressed patients (8.0 months), but this difference carried a P value of .90.

The investigators found that surgical candidacy after recurrence had the strongest impact on survival. Patients with surgically salvageable disease had a median overall survival of 26.1 months, compared with just 4.7 months for those who were not amenable to surgical salvage (P = .01). Among patients with unsalvageable disease, again, immune status did not have a significant impact on outcome.

“This study demonstrates that survival in this population is poor,” the investigators concluded. “Although we hypothesized that immunosuppressed status would be a significant contributor to outcomes in these patients, similar to findings in the upfront treatment setting, the current study suggests that this is not the case.”

The investigators reported clinical trial support from Genentech, Merck, and Bristol-Myers Squibb.

SOURCE: Sun et al. JAMA Derm. 27 Feb 2019. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2018.5453.

Patients who have recurrence of cutaneous squamous cell cancer of the head and neck (cSCC-HN) tend to have poor outcomes regardless of immune status, according to investigators.

Patients with surgically unsalvageable recurrent disease had the worst outcomes, reported lead author Lillian Sun, of the Cleveland Clinic, and her colleagues.

These findings support more intensive upfront therapy for patients with cSCC-HN, the investigators wrote in JAMA Dermatology. They noted that most patients with cSCC have good outcomes, with less than 5% experiencing recurrence or distant metastasis; however, “there is a subset of patients with adverse pathologic features and a more aggressive clinical course,” the investigators pointed out, “with substantially higher rates of locoregional recurrence (13%-41%) and distant metastasis (7%-16%) after surgical resection.”

According to the investigators, previous research has identified several patient factors that predict poor outcomes, such as invasiveness and differentiation, as well as chronic immunosuppression. To build on these data, and, in particular, to determine if immune suppression was linked with poor outcomes, the investigators conducted a retrospective analysis of 205 patients with cSCC-HN.

From this cohort, 72 patients had disease recurrence after surgery and radiotherapy. The average age of the patients was 71 years. About half were immunosuppressed (55.6%). On average, disease recurrence occurred slightly earlier in immunosuppressed patients (9.1 months) than in immunocompetent patients (10.1 months). Most patients had locoregional recurrence first, at rates of 65.6% and 77.5% among immunocompetent and immunosuppressed patients, respectively. Irrespective of immune status, median overall survival was 8.4 months and the 1-year overall survival rate was 43.2%. In contrast with previous findings, immune status was not statistically associated with median overall survival; immunocompetent patients did tend to live longer (12.9 months) than immunosuppressed patients (8.0 months), but this difference carried a P value of .90.

The investigators found that surgical candidacy after recurrence had the strongest impact on survival. Patients with surgically salvageable disease had a median overall survival of 26.1 months, compared with just 4.7 months for those who were not amenable to surgical salvage (P = .01). Among patients with unsalvageable disease, again, immune status did not have a significant impact on outcome.

“This study demonstrates that survival in this population is poor,” the investigators concluded. “Although we hypothesized that immunosuppressed status would be a significant contributor to outcomes in these patients, similar to findings in the upfront treatment setting, the current study suggests that this is not the case.”

The investigators reported clinical trial support from Genentech, Merck, and Bristol-Myers Squibb.

SOURCE: Sun et al. JAMA Derm. 27 Feb 2019. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2018.5453.

Patients who have recurrence of cutaneous squamous cell cancer of the head and neck (cSCC-HN) tend to have poor outcomes regardless of immune status, according to investigators.

Patients with surgically unsalvageable recurrent disease had the worst outcomes, reported lead author Lillian Sun, of the Cleveland Clinic, and her colleagues.

These findings support more intensive upfront therapy for patients with cSCC-HN, the investigators wrote in JAMA Dermatology. They noted that most patients with cSCC have good outcomes, with less than 5% experiencing recurrence or distant metastasis; however, “there is a subset of patients with adverse pathologic features and a more aggressive clinical course,” the investigators pointed out, “with substantially higher rates of locoregional recurrence (13%-41%) and distant metastasis (7%-16%) after surgical resection.”

According to the investigators, previous research has identified several patient factors that predict poor outcomes, such as invasiveness and differentiation, as well as chronic immunosuppression. To build on these data, and, in particular, to determine if immune suppression was linked with poor outcomes, the investigators conducted a retrospective analysis of 205 patients with cSCC-HN.

From this cohort, 72 patients had disease recurrence after surgery and radiotherapy. The average age of the patients was 71 years. About half were immunosuppressed (55.6%). On average, disease recurrence occurred slightly earlier in immunosuppressed patients (9.1 months) than in immunocompetent patients (10.1 months). Most patients had locoregional recurrence first, at rates of 65.6% and 77.5% among immunocompetent and immunosuppressed patients, respectively. Irrespective of immune status, median overall survival was 8.4 months and the 1-year overall survival rate was 43.2%. In contrast with previous findings, immune status was not statistically associated with median overall survival; immunocompetent patients did tend to live longer (12.9 months) than immunosuppressed patients (8.0 months), but this difference carried a P value of .90.

The investigators found that surgical candidacy after recurrence had the strongest impact on survival. Patients with surgically salvageable disease had a median overall survival of 26.1 months, compared with just 4.7 months for those who were not amenable to surgical salvage (P = .01). Among patients with unsalvageable disease, again, immune status did not have a significant impact on outcome.

“This study demonstrates that survival in this population is poor,” the investigators concluded. “Although we hypothesized that immunosuppressed status would be a significant contributor to outcomes in these patients, similar to findings in the upfront treatment setting, the current study suggests that this is not the case.”

The investigators reported clinical trial support from Genentech, Merck, and Bristol-Myers Squibb.

SOURCE: Sun et al. JAMA Derm. 27 Feb 2019. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2018.5453.

For many patients with hemophilia A, with or without inhibitors, a monthly emicizumab injection is enough to ensure a high level of bleed control, based on results from the ongoing HAVEN 4 trial.

Most patients reported three or fewer treated bleeds, while slightly more than half had no treated bleeds at all, according to lead author Steven W. Pipe, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and his colleagues. The investigators noted that results from this trial have already led to approval of a monthly dosing schedule in the United States and several other countries.

“This convenient regimen has the potential to improve the care of patients by decreasing their treatment burden, and increasing uptake and adherence to effective prophylaxis, which is known to decrease the development of debilitating secondary complications,” the investigators wrote. The report is in The Lancet Haematology.

The data were collected at 20 centers in 8 countries. Eligibility required that patients have severe congenital hemophilia A (less than 1% normal FVIII activity), or hemophilia A with FVIII inhibitors and concurrent treatment with bypassing agents or FVIII concentrates.

An initial run-in cohort that included seven patients assessed pharmacokinetics and safety. These patients received 6 mg/kg of emicizumab subcutaneously every 4 weeks for at least 24 weeks. After this group showed good responses, 41 additional patients were enrolled in an expansion cohort, which involved an initial loading phase of weekly doses at 3 mg/kg for the first month, followed by monthly dosing at 6 mg/kg for at least 6 months (24 weeks).

The efficacy endpoint of the study was bleed prevention, as measured by treated target joint bleeds, treated joint bleeds, treated spontaneous bleeds, all bleeds (untreated and treated), and annualized bleed rates for treated bleeds.

In the expansion cohort, the median number of bleeds in the 24-week period preceding enrollment was five. In the same group, five patients (12%) had FVIII inhibitors and 61% of patients exhibited at least one target joint.

After a median treatment of 25.6 weeks, the model-based annualized bleed rate for treated bleeds was 2.4, while the median annualized bleed rate was zero.

Slightly more than half of the patients (56.1%) reported no treated bleeds, 90% of patients reported 0-3 treated bleeds, and 85% of patients did not require treatment for targeted joint bleeds.

When untreated bleeds were included, the model-based annualized bleed rate was 4.5, while the median annualized bleed rate was 2.1. Almost one-third of patients (29%) had no bleeding events of any kind and most (80%) had 0-3 treated or untreated bleeds.

Overall, treatment was well tolerated, with no patients withdrawing from the study, discontinuing treatment, or requiring dose modifications. Laboratory parameters remained stable throughout. The most common treatment-related adverse event was injection-site reaction (22%), followed distantly by pre-syncope, chills, rash, and erythema, each of which occurred in 2% of patients.

“Overall, the results of HAVEN 4 are consistent with the findings of other HAVEN studies,” the investigators wrote. “The option of treatment with emicizumab every 4 weeks broadens the range of administration frequencies and allows clinicians to tailor treatment to each patient’s needs and preferences.”

F. Hoffman-La Roche and Chugai funded the study. The investigators reported financial relationships with the study sponsors and other companies.

SOURCE: Pipe SW et al. Lancet Haem. 2019 Apr 16. doi: 10.1016/S2352-3026(19)30054-7.

For many patients with hemophilia A, with or without inhibitors, a monthly emicizumab injection is enough to ensure a high level of bleed control, based on results from the ongoing HAVEN 4 trial.

Most patients reported three or fewer treated bleeds, while slightly more than half had no treated bleeds at all, according to lead author Steven W. Pipe, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and his colleagues. The investigators noted that results from this trial have already led to approval of a monthly dosing schedule in the United States and several other countries.

“This convenient regimen has the potential to improve the care of patients by decreasing their treatment burden, and increasing uptake and adherence to effective prophylaxis, which is known to decrease the development of debilitating secondary complications,” the investigators wrote. The report is in The Lancet Haematology.

The data were collected at 20 centers in 8 countries. Eligibility required that patients have severe congenital hemophilia A (less than 1% normal FVIII activity), or hemophilia A with FVIII inhibitors and concurrent treatment with bypassing agents or FVIII concentrates.

An initial run-in cohort that included seven patients assessed pharmacokinetics and safety. These patients received 6 mg/kg of emicizumab subcutaneously every 4 weeks for at least 24 weeks. After this group showed good responses, 41 additional patients were enrolled in an expansion cohort, which involved an initial loading phase of weekly doses at 3 mg/kg for the first month, followed by monthly dosing at 6 mg/kg for at least 6 months (24 weeks).

The efficacy endpoint of the study was bleed prevention, as measured by treated target joint bleeds, treated joint bleeds, treated spontaneous bleeds, all bleeds (untreated and treated), and annualized bleed rates for treated bleeds.

In the expansion cohort, the median number of bleeds in the 24-week period preceding enrollment was five. In the same group, five patients (12%) had FVIII inhibitors and 61% of patients exhibited at least one target joint.

After a median treatment of 25.6 weeks, the model-based annualized bleed rate for treated bleeds was 2.4, while the median annualized bleed rate was zero.

Slightly more than half of the patients (56.1%) reported no treated bleeds, 90% of patients reported 0-3 treated bleeds, and 85% of patients did not require treatment for targeted joint bleeds.

When untreated bleeds were included, the model-based annualized bleed rate was 4.5, while the median annualized bleed rate was 2.1. Almost one-third of patients (29%) had no bleeding events of any kind and most (80%) had 0-3 treated or untreated bleeds.

Overall, treatment was well tolerated, with no patients withdrawing from the study, discontinuing treatment, or requiring dose modifications. Laboratory parameters remained stable throughout. The most common treatment-related adverse event was injection-site reaction (22%), followed distantly by pre-syncope, chills, rash, and erythema, each of which occurred in 2% of patients.

“Overall, the results of HAVEN 4 are consistent with the findings of other HAVEN studies,” the investigators wrote. “The option of treatment with emicizumab every 4 weeks broadens the range of administration frequencies and allows clinicians to tailor treatment to each patient’s needs and preferences.”

F. Hoffman-La Roche and Chugai funded the study. The investigators reported financial relationships with the study sponsors and other companies.

SOURCE: Pipe SW et al. Lancet Haem. 2019 Apr 16. doi: 10.1016/S2352-3026(19)30054-7.

For many patients with hemophilia A, with or without inhibitors, a monthly emicizumab injection is enough to ensure a high level of bleed control, based on results from the ongoing HAVEN 4 trial.

Most patients reported three or fewer treated bleeds, while slightly more than half had no treated bleeds at all, according to lead author Steven W. Pipe, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and his colleagues. The investigators noted that results from this trial have already led to approval of a monthly dosing schedule in the United States and several other countries.

“This convenient regimen has the potential to improve the care of patients by decreasing their treatment burden, and increasing uptake and adherence to effective prophylaxis, which is known to decrease the development of debilitating secondary complications,” the investigators wrote. The report is in The Lancet Haematology.

The data were collected at 20 centers in 8 countries. Eligibility required that patients have severe congenital hemophilia A (less than 1% normal FVIII activity), or hemophilia A with FVIII inhibitors and concurrent treatment with bypassing agents or FVIII concentrates.

An initial run-in cohort that included seven patients assessed pharmacokinetics and safety. These patients received 6 mg/kg of emicizumab subcutaneously every 4 weeks for at least 24 weeks. After this group showed good responses, 41 additional patients were enrolled in an expansion cohort, which involved an initial loading phase of weekly doses at 3 mg/kg for the first month, followed by monthly dosing at 6 mg/kg for at least 6 months (24 weeks).

The efficacy endpoint of the study was bleed prevention, as measured by treated target joint bleeds, treated joint bleeds, treated spontaneous bleeds, all bleeds (untreated and treated), and annualized bleed rates for treated bleeds.

In the expansion cohort, the median number of bleeds in the 24-week period preceding enrollment was five. In the same group, five patients (12%) had FVIII inhibitors and 61% of patients exhibited at least one target joint.

After a median treatment of 25.6 weeks, the model-based annualized bleed rate for treated bleeds was 2.4, while the median annualized bleed rate was zero.

Slightly more than half of the patients (56.1%) reported no treated bleeds, 90% of patients reported 0-3 treated bleeds, and 85% of patients did not require treatment for targeted joint bleeds.

When untreated bleeds were included, the model-based annualized bleed rate was 4.5, while the median annualized bleed rate was 2.1. Almost one-third of patients (29%) had no bleeding events of any kind and most (80%) had 0-3 treated or untreated bleeds.

Overall, treatment was well tolerated, with no patients withdrawing from the study, discontinuing treatment, or requiring dose modifications. Laboratory parameters remained stable throughout. The most common treatment-related adverse event was injection-site reaction (22%), followed distantly by pre-syncope, chills, rash, and erythema, each of which occurred in 2% of patients.

“Overall, the results of HAVEN 4 are consistent with the findings of other HAVEN studies,” the investigators wrote. “The option of treatment with emicizumab every 4 weeks broadens the range of administration frequencies and allows clinicians to tailor treatment to each patient’s needs and preferences.”

F. Hoffman-La Roche and Chugai funded the study. The investigators reported financial relationships with the study sponsors and other companies.

SOURCE: Pipe SW et al. Lancet Haem. 2019 Apr 16. doi: 10.1016/S2352-3026(19)30054-7.

The prescription of positive airway pressure is associated with reduced all-cause mortality, according to the results of a cohort study published in JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery.

The association becomes evident several years after positive airway pressure (PAP) initiation, according to the researchers. Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is among the top 10 modifiable cardiovascular risk factors, and is associated with increased risks of coronary artery disease, stroke, and death. PAP is the most effective treatment for OSA, but this treatment’s effect on all-cause and cardiovascular mortality is uncertain. Randomized trials have yielded inconclusive answers to this question, and evidence from observational studies has been weak.

To investigate the association between PAP prescription and mortality in patients with obesity and severe OSA, Quentin Lisan, MD, of the Paris Cardiovascular Research Center and his colleagues conducted a multicenter, population-based cohort study. The researchers examined data for 392 participants in the Sleep Heart Health Study, in which adult men and women age 40 years or older were recruited from nine population-based studies between 1995 and 1998 and followed for a mean of 11.1 years. With each participant who had been prescribed PAP, the investigators matched as many as four participants who had not been prescribed PAP, on the basis of age, sex, and apnea-hypopnea index. Of this sample, 81 patients were prescribed PAP, and 311 were not.

All participants had a clinic visit and underwent overnight polysomnography at baseline. At 2-3 years, participants had a follow-up visit or phone call, during which they were asked whether their physicians had prescribed PAP. Participants were monitored for cardiovascular and all-cause mortality.

In all, 319 of the 392 participants were men; the population’s mean age was 63 years. Patients who had received a PAP prescription had a higher body mass index and more education, compared with patients who had not received a prescription. Mean follow-up duration was 11.6 years in the PAP-prescribed group and 10.9 years in the nonprescribed group.

A total of 96 deaths occurred during follow-up: 12 in the PAP-prescribed group and 84 in the nonprescribed PAP group. The crude incidence rate of mortality was 24.7 deaths per 1,000 person-years in the nonprescribed group and 12.8 deaths per 1,000 person-years in the PAP-prescribed group. The difference in survival between the prescribed and nonprescribed groups was evident in survival curves after 6-7 years of follow-up. After adjustments for prevalent cardiovascular disease, hypertension, diabetes, body mass index, education level, smoking status, and alcohol consumption, the hazard ratio of all-cause mortality for the prescribed group was 0.38, compared with the nonprescribed group.

Dr. Lisan and his colleagues identified 27 deaths of cardiovascular origin, one of which occurred in the prescribed group. After adjusting for prevalent cardiovascular disease, the hazard ratio of cardiovascular mortality for the prescribed group was 0.06, compared with the nonprescribed group.

One reason that the reduction in mortality associated with PAP was not found in previous randomized, controlled trials could be that their mean length of follow-up was not long enough, the researchers wrote. For example, the mean length of follow-up in the SAVE trial was 3.7 years, but the survival benefit was not apparent in the present analysis until 6-7 years after treatment initiation.

These results are exploratory and require confirmation in future research, Dr. Lisan and his colleagues wrote. No information on adherence to PAP was available, and the researchers could not account for initiation and interruption of PAP therapy. Nevertheless, “prescribing PAP in patients with OSA should be pursued and encouraged, given its potential major public health implication,” they concluded.

The Sleep Heart Health Study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Lisan Q et al. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2019 Apr 11. doi: 10.1001/jamaoto.2019.0281.

The prescription of positive airway pressure is associated with reduced all-cause mortality, according to the results of a cohort study published in JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery.

The association becomes evident several years after positive airway pressure (PAP) initiation, according to the researchers. Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is among the top 10 modifiable cardiovascular risk factors, and is associated with increased risks of coronary artery disease, stroke, and death. PAP is the most effective treatment for OSA, but this treatment’s effect on all-cause and cardiovascular mortality is uncertain. Randomized trials have yielded inconclusive answers to this question, and evidence from observational studies has been weak.

To investigate the association between PAP prescription and mortality in patients with obesity and severe OSA, Quentin Lisan, MD, of the Paris Cardiovascular Research Center and his colleagues conducted a multicenter, population-based cohort study. The researchers examined data for 392 participants in the Sleep Heart Health Study, in which adult men and women age 40 years or older were recruited from nine population-based studies between 1995 and 1998 and followed for a mean of 11.1 years. With each participant who had been prescribed PAP, the investigators matched as many as four participants who had not been prescribed PAP, on the basis of age, sex, and apnea-hypopnea index. Of this sample, 81 patients were prescribed PAP, and 311 were not.

All participants had a clinic visit and underwent overnight polysomnography at baseline. At 2-3 years, participants had a follow-up visit or phone call, during which they were asked whether their physicians had prescribed PAP. Participants were monitored for cardiovascular and all-cause mortality.

In all, 319 of the 392 participants were men; the population’s mean age was 63 years. Patients who had received a PAP prescription had a higher body mass index and more education, compared with patients who had not received a prescription. Mean follow-up duration was 11.6 years in the PAP-prescribed group and 10.9 years in the nonprescribed group.

A total of 96 deaths occurred during follow-up: 12 in the PAP-prescribed group and 84 in the nonprescribed PAP group. The crude incidence rate of mortality was 24.7 deaths per 1,000 person-years in the nonprescribed group and 12.8 deaths per 1,000 person-years in the PAP-prescribed group. The difference in survival between the prescribed and nonprescribed groups was evident in survival curves after 6-7 years of follow-up. After adjustments for prevalent cardiovascular disease, hypertension, diabetes, body mass index, education level, smoking status, and alcohol consumption, the hazard ratio of all-cause mortality for the prescribed group was 0.38, compared with the nonprescribed group.

Dr. Lisan and his colleagues identified 27 deaths of cardiovascular origin, one of which occurred in the prescribed group. After adjusting for prevalent cardiovascular disease, the hazard ratio of cardiovascular mortality for the prescribed group was 0.06, compared with the nonprescribed group.

One reason that the reduction in mortality associated with PAP was not found in previous randomized, controlled trials could be that their mean length of follow-up was not long enough, the researchers wrote. For example, the mean length of follow-up in the SAVE trial was 3.7 years, but the survival benefit was not apparent in the present analysis until 6-7 years after treatment initiation.

These results are exploratory and require confirmation in future research, Dr. Lisan and his colleagues wrote. No information on adherence to PAP was available, and the researchers could not account for initiation and interruption of PAP therapy. Nevertheless, “prescribing PAP in patients with OSA should be pursued and encouraged, given its potential major public health implication,” they concluded.

The Sleep Heart Health Study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Lisan Q et al. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2019 Apr 11. doi: 10.1001/jamaoto.2019.0281.

The prescription of positive airway pressure is associated with reduced all-cause mortality, according to the results of a cohort study published in JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery.

The association becomes evident several years after positive airway pressure (PAP) initiation, according to the researchers. Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is among the top 10 modifiable cardiovascular risk factors, and is associated with increased risks of coronary artery disease, stroke, and death. PAP is the most effective treatment for OSA, but this treatment’s effect on all-cause and cardiovascular mortality is uncertain. Randomized trials have yielded inconclusive answers to this question, and evidence from observational studies has been weak.

To investigate the association between PAP prescription and mortality in patients with obesity and severe OSA, Quentin Lisan, MD, of the Paris Cardiovascular Research Center and his colleagues conducted a multicenter, population-based cohort study. The researchers examined data for 392 participants in the Sleep Heart Health Study, in which adult men and women age 40 years or older were recruited from nine population-based studies between 1995 and 1998 and followed for a mean of 11.1 years. With each participant who had been prescribed PAP, the investigators matched as many as four participants who had not been prescribed PAP, on the basis of age, sex, and apnea-hypopnea index. Of this sample, 81 patients were prescribed PAP, and 311 were not.

All participants had a clinic visit and underwent overnight polysomnography at baseline. At 2-3 years, participants had a follow-up visit or phone call, during which they were asked whether their physicians had prescribed PAP. Participants were monitored for cardiovascular and all-cause mortality.

In all, 319 of the 392 participants were men; the population’s mean age was 63 years. Patients who had received a PAP prescription had a higher body mass index and more education, compared with patients who had not received a prescription. Mean follow-up duration was 11.6 years in the PAP-prescribed group and 10.9 years in the nonprescribed group.

A total of 96 deaths occurred during follow-up: 12 in the PAP-prescribed group and 84 in the nonprescribed PAP group. The crude incidence rate of mortality was 24.7 deaths per 1,000 person-years in the nonprescribed group and 12.8 deaths per 1,000 person-years in the PAP-prescribed group. The difference in survival between the prescribed and nonprescribed groups was evident in survival curves after 6-7 years of follow-up. After adjustments for prevalent cardiovascular disease, hypertension, diabetes, body mass index, education level, smoking status, and alcohol consumption, the hazard ratio of all-cause mortality for the prescribed group was 0.38, compared with the nonprescribed group.

Dr. Lisan and his colleagues identified 27 deaths of cardiovascular origin, one of which occurred in the prescribed group. After adjusting for prevalent cardiovascular disease, the hazard ratio of cardiovascular mortality for the prescribed group was 0.06, compared with the nonprescribed group.

One reason that the reduction in mortality associated with PAP was not found in previous randomized, controlled trials could be that their mean length of follow-up was not long enough, the researchers wrote. For example, the mean length of follow-up in the SAVE trial was 3.7 years, but the survival benefit was not apparent in the present analysis until 6-7 years after treatment initiation.

These results are exploratory and require confirmation in future research, Dr. Lisan and his colleagues wrote. No information on adherence to PAP was available, and the researchers could not account for initiation and interruption of PAP therapy. Nevertheless, “prescribing PAP in patients with OSA should be pursued and encouraged, given its potential major public health implication,” they concluded.

The Sleep Heart Health Study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Lisan Q et al. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2019 Apr 11. doi: 10.1001/jamaoto.2019.0281.

Just as conflict of interest (COI) disclosure has moved center stage in recent months, so too have certain physician-industry relationships. Some cancer centers and academic medical institutions across the country have reinvigorated or renewed discussions about the participation of leaders on outside corporate boards and about how to best navigate an increasingly complex web of individual and institutional relationships with industry.

Courtesy Cleveland Clinic

Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSK), which was thrust into the spotlight last fall with news coverage of a top leader’s disclosure failures and coverage of other leaders’ financial relationships with start-up companies, has decided that its senior executives may no longer serve on boards of directors of for-profit health- or science-related companies.

MSK officials also decided that its board members may not serve on the boards of MSK-affiliated start-up companies or make any direct investments in them.

Other institutions, such as the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, were also reviewing their conflict of interest policies.

Participation of academic medical center leaders on the boards of public companies is one of the “most important topics” of discussion – along with disclosure – among those who oversee and manage COI through institutional research offices and COI committees, said Raed Dweik, MD, MBA, chair of Cleveland Clinic’s Innovation Management and COI Committee.

Discussions cover “whether [participation on outside boards] should be allowed in the first place, how relationships should be managed if they’re allowed, and whether there should be limits on compensation,” said Dr. Dweik, who also chairs the American Association of Medical Colleges’ Forum on Conflict of Interest in Academe, a group of over 600 representatives from academic health centers, medical schools, teaching hospitals, and other hospitals and centers with substantive research programs.


Institutions have been grappling with these issues for years. But “what was reported [about] MSK has brought these topics into hyperfocus in a way,” he said, along with questions concerning the magnitude of compensation and financial interest more broadly.

Institutional approaches

One of the reports on MSK’s financial ties involved a vice president and expert in technology transfer who was appointed to the board of a biotech company, Y-mAbs, in which MSK had an equity stake; the vice president had stock options that soared when the start-up went public. (He later turned over a nearly $1.4 million windfall profit to the hospital.)

In addition to barring appointments of its leaders to boards of MSK start-ups and any direct investments in them, MSK announced that going forward, “any potential equity that could be attained by employees appointed as MSK designees to outside boards will be returned to the institution and dedicated to research.”

A letter to MSK staff also said that “when profits emerge through the monetization of our research, financial payments to MSK-designated board members should be used for the benefit of the institution.”

Broadly speaking, conflict of interest deliberations within institutions center on how financial relationships with industry can potentially compromise the integrity of research (from patient selection to data analysis and the reporting of findings), the safety of research subjects and other patients, and the protection of public trust in physicians and their institutions.

Public trust is important, said Heather Pierce, JD, MPH, senior director of science policy and regulatory counsel for the Association of American Medical Colleges.

“In some cases, institutions may decide,” she said, “that they can control for any potential bias in research, but they can’t control for a perception that a person should not be engaged, or should not be compensated by a company because of appearance.”

Institutions are guided by federal regulations and institutional considerations that deal mainly with “how to evaluate and assess [potential conflicts] and the types of information needed [to do so] – not with specific delineations on what types of relationships are prohibited or not,” said Ms. Pierce. “There are some bright lines, but most things are a lot more complicated.”

Since 2001, the AAMC has recommended the use of a rebuttable presumption framework, in which individuals with a financial interest are prohibited from participating in related research unless “compelling circumstances” justify an exemption. Institutions typically use a “de minimis threshold” to define what financial interests are significant enough for application of the rebuttable presumptions framework.

Cleveland Clinic’s COI Committee considers anything above $20,000 from one company to be significant for the purposes of rebuttable presumption. Compensation between $5,000 and $20,000 (per company per year) triggers a COI management plan that typically focuses on disclosure, but can also include elements such as limits on compensation or the involvement of nonconflicted individuals in data analysis, Dr. Dweik said.

“Anything above $20,000, or equity, we more deeply scrutinize,” he said. “You have to have a really good reason to participate in research related to that company or product. There have to be compelling circumstances.”

Any amount of equity, he emphasized, “is automatically treated as high compensation, because the potential value is high. We are very keenly aware of this in our decisions about what research goes through and what doesn’t.”

Compensation of $5,000 or less is generally considered low at Cleveland Clinic and other institutions (and not in need of COI management), in keeping with U.S. Department of Health and Human Services regulations designed to promote objectivity in research. Thresholds for rebuttable presumption vary from institution to institution, with some being much higher – around $50,000 – than at the Cleveland Clinic, said Dr. Dweik, a pulmonary and critical care medicine specialist who chairs the clinic’s Respiratory Institute.

The big challenge with industry ties involving key executives and leaders – chief medical officers, deans, department chairs, and division chiefs – is that these ties involve institutional COI (not only individual COI) since an individual’s conflicts can be imputed to the institution.

Institutional COI issues generally are much “trickier” for the AAMC’s COI forum to discuss and guide because institutions have different structures and cultures, Dr. Dweik said. Institutional start-ups, moreover, have no standard structure.

“Some institutions, once a company is spun off, will build a firewall between the institution and the company,” he said. “Some institutions will keep the company embedded within the inventor’s lab, or provide infrastructure. And there’s a lot in between.”

Regarding the participation of academic medical center leaders on outside boards, it appears “that institutions are all over the map” in how they regard and evaluate such relationships, Dr. Dweik said. Some institutions address these relationships in their COI policies, while others don’t. And “some are more liberal,” he said. “Others are stricter.”

The magnitude of personal financial interest among MSK leaders (both in institutional start-ups and other companies) is “way outside the norm,” Dr. Dweik said.

Still, board participation can be quite lucrative. One study described in a research letter in JAMA ( 2014;311[13]:1353-5 ) 5 years ago reported that the mean financial compensation of pharmaceutical company board members who held academic medical center leadership positions was more than $300,000 .

Compensation aside, corporate board participation is “one of the most egregious examples of conflict of interest,” said Vinay Prasad, MD, MPH , a hematologist-oncologist and associate professor of medicine at Oregon Health & Science University, who researches COI and bias. “You have a fiduciary duty to the company’s best interest. … so there will inevitably be a tension between that oath and your other duties,” from responsibilities for institutional oversight to one’s individual research and clinical practices, he said. Physicians at academic medical centers and cancer centers “need to interact with industry,” he said. “But it’s about creating independence.”
 

A muddied field

S. Vincent Rajkumar, MD, a hematologist-oncologist and active researcher at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, agrees. “Being on the board of directors of a pharmaceutical company, particularly by institutional leaders, is one of the genuine COIs” amid a field of COI that’s become increasingly muddied with the shift toward more comprehensive, general disclosure practices.

“It’s important that we don’t lose sight of clarity in what types of financial ties and relationships we’re really concerned about,” he said. “The ties that are really concerning – the significant conflicts of interest – are serving on boards of companies or getting large personal payments for participating in speakers’ bureaus or single, company-sponsored CME lectures, for instance, or having stocks, investments, or significant royalties or large payments to your lab or research program [outside of clinical trial funding].”

Other financial transactions such as “reasonable” payments for participation in data-monitoring committees and steering committees are financial ties that should be disclosed, but generally aren’t concerning, Dr. Rajkumar said.

Dr. Rajkumar serves as an editor-in-chief of the Blood Cancer Journal and is an author of several UptoDate chapters. Because of these roles and in keeping with his own views on COI, he has worked deliberately over the past decade to be free of industry payments.

This has become increasingly difficult given the breadth of payments attributed to individual physicians on the federal Open Payments website – some of which are “not truly personal financial ties.” He cited industry payments to support multicompany-sponsored meetings or to institutions for clinical trials.

“It’s nearly impossible to have zero dollars against your name unless you do no clinical trials,” Dr. Rajkumar said.

Still, he said, transparency and disclosure programs like Open Payments are important. “I do think bias arising from COI is very real. There are people with significant conflicts of interest who are writing influential reviews, speaking at influential meetings, and writing influential guidelines – and you can sense the bias pretty quickly,” he said, with endpoints that aren’t appropriate for the trial at hand, for instance, or with overly rosy assessments and the exclusion of negative results.
 

Collaboration benefits

But Thomas Stossel, MD, American Cancer Society Professor of Medicine Emeritus at Harvard Medical School and founder and chief science advisor at BioAegis Therapeutics, worries that the benefit of physician-industry collaboration is being drowned out with all the attention paid to COI.

His experience on a scientific advisory board in the late 1980s was a “transforming experience that opened my eyes to [the complexities] of product development. … and [later] enabled me to turn my basic research into a potentially life-saving product,” he said.

The “conflict-of-interest narrative” falsely maintains that collaboration causes corruption, he said, and the resultant “hand wringing over [assumed risks]” has slowed innovation by preventing or delaying research and development projects. “It’s like death by a thousand cuts,” said Dr. Stossel, who wrote a book, Pharmacophobia – How the Conflict-of-Interest Myth Undermines American Medical Innovation, to document his concerns.

Dr. Dweik said he has seen the “field move in a good direction” with most academic institutions now deeming physician participation in drug company speakers’ bureaus as “no longer acceptable,” unless physicians discuss drugs in balanced, “disease-specific, not drug-specific” presentations. At this point, it’s unclear exactly how the needle will move on other types of relationships.

“I wouldn’t be surprised if over the next couple of years there is more consistency, more standardization” on issues of participation on outside boards. “The [academic medical center] community is certainly trying to get a better handle on this,” Dr. Dweik said.

Future institutional changes will come, said Ms. Pierce of the AAMC, “but in more subtle ways than we’ve seen in the past, given [progress] already made” through major reports, guidance, and laws and regulations relating to COI. Today, she said, “technology transfer is incrementally more complicated, relationships are more complicated, and corporate structures are more complicated. This makes teasing apart what the issues are a little bit harder.”

Just as conflict of interest (COI) disclosure has moved center stage in recent months, so too have certain physician-industry relationships. Some cancer centers and academic medical institutions across the country have reinvigorated or renewed discussions about the participation of leaders on outside corporate boards and about how to best navigate an increasingly complex web of individual and institutional relationships with industry.

Courtesy Cleveland Clinic

Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSK), which was thrust into the spotlight last fall with news coverage of a top leader’s disclosure failures and coverage of other leaders’ financial relationships with start-up companies, has decided that its senior executives may no longer serve on boards of directors of for-profit health- or science-related companies.

MSK officials also decided that its board members may not serve on the boards of MSK-affiliated start-up companies or make any direct investments in them.

Other institutions, such as the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, were also reviewing their conflict of interest policies.

Participation of academic medical center leaders on the boards of public companies is one of the “most important topics” of discussion – along with disclosure – among those who oversee and manage COI through institutional research offices and COI committees, said Raed Dweik, MD, MBA, chair of Cleveland Clinic’s Innovation Management and COI Committee.

Discussions cover “whether [participation on outside boards] should be allowed in the first place, how relationships should be managed if they’re allowed, and whether there should be limits on compensation,” said Dr. Dweik, who also chairs the American Association of Medical Colleges’ Forum on Conflict of Interest in Academe, a group of over 600 representatives from academic health centers, medical schools, teaching hospitals, and other hospitals and centers with substantive research programs.


Institutions have been grappling with these issues for years. But “what was reported [about] MSK has brought these topics into hyperfocus in a way,” he said, along with questions concerning the magnitude of compensation and financial interest more broadly.

Institutional approaches

One of the reports on MSK’s financial ties involved a vice president and expert in technology transfer who was appointed to the board of a biotech company, Y-mAbs, in which MSK had an equity stake; the vice president had stock options that soared when the start-up went public. (He later turned over a nearly $1.4 million windfall profit to the hospital.)

In addition to barring appointments of its leaders to boards of MSK start-ups and any direct investments in them, MSK announced that going forward, “any potential equity that could be attained by employees appointed as MSK designees to outside boards will be returned to the institution and dedicated to research.”

A letter to MSK staff also said that “when profits emerge through the monetization of our research, financial payments to MSK-designated board members should be used for the benefit of the institution.”

Broadly speaking, conflict of interest deliberations within institutions center on how financial relationships with industry can potentially compromise the integrity of research (from patient selection to data analysis and the reporting of findings), the safety of research subjects and other patients, and the protection of public trust in physicians and their institutions.

Public trust is important, said Heather Pierce, JD, MPH, senior director of science policy and regulatory counsel for the Association of American Medical Colleges.

“In some cases, institutions may decide,” she said, “that they can control for any potential bias in research, but they can’t control for a perception that a person should not be engaged, or should not be compensated by a company because of appearance.”

Institutions are guided by federal regulations and institutional considerations that deal mainly with “how to evaluate and assess [potential conflicts] and the types of information needed [to do so] – not with specific delineations on what types of relationships are prohibited or not,” said Ms. Pierce. “There are some bright lines, but most things are a lot more complicated.”

Since 2001, the AAMC has recommended the use of a rebuttable presumption framework, in which individuals with a financial interest are prohibited from participating in related research unless “compelling circumstances” justify an exemption. Institutions typically use a “de minimis threshold” to define what financial interests are significant enough for application of the rebuttable presumptions framework.

Cleveland Clinic’s COI Committee considers anything above $20,000 from one company to be significant for the purposes of rebuttable presumption. Compensation between $5,000 and $20,000 (per company per year) triggers a COI management plan that typically focuses on disclosure, but can also include elements such as limits on compensation or the involvement of nonconflicted individuals in data analysis, Dr. Dweik said.

“Anything above $20,000, or equity, we more deeply scrutinize,” he said. “You have to have a really good reason to participate in research related to that company or product. There have to be compelling circumstances.”

Any amount of equity, he emphasized, “is automatically treated as high compensation, because the potential value is high. We are very keenly aware of this in our decisions about what research goes through and what doesn’t.”

Compensation of $5,000 or less is generally considered low at Cleveland Clinic and other institutions (and not in need of COI management), in keeping with U.S. Department of Health and Human Services regulations designed to promote objectivity in research. Thresholds for rebuttable presumption vary from institution to institution, with some being much higher – around $50,000 – than at the Cleveland Clinic, said Dr. Dweik, a pulmonary and critical care medicine specialist who chairs the clinic’s Respiratory Institute.

The big challenge with industry ties involving key executives and leaders – chief medical officers, deans, department chairs, and division chiefs – is that these ties involve institutional COI (not only individual COI) since an individual’s conflicts can be imputed to the institution.

Institutional COI issues generally are much “trickier” for the AAMC’s COI forum to discuss and guide because institutions have different structures and cultures, Dr. Dweik said. Institutional start-ups, moreover, have no standard structure.

“Some institutions, once a company is spun off, will build a firewall between the institution and the company,” he said. “Some institutions will keep the company embedded within the inventor’s lab, or provide infrastructure. And there’s a lot in between.”

Regarding the participation of academic medical center leaders on outside boards, it appears “that institutions are all over the map” in how they regard and evaluate such relationships, Dr. Dweik said. Some institutions address these relationships in their COI policies, while others don’t. And “some are more liberal,” he said. “Others are stricter.”

The magnitude of personal financial interest among MSK leaders (both in institutional start-ups and other companies) is “way outside the norm,” Dr. Dweik said.

Still, board participation can be quite lucrative. One study described in a research letter in JAMA ( 2014;311[13]:1353-5 ) 5 years ago reported that the mean financial compensation of pharmaceutical company board members who held academic medical center leadership positions was more than $300,000 .

Compensation aside, corporate board participation is “one of the most egregious examples of conflict of interest,” said Vinay Prasad, MD, MPH , a hematologist-oncologist and associate professor of medicine at Oregon Health & Science University, who researches COI and bias. “You have a fiduciary duty to the company’s best interest. … so there will inevitably be a tension between that oath and your other duties,” from responsibilities for institutional oversight to one’s individual research and clinical practices, he said. Physicians at academic medical centers and cancer centers “need to interact with industry,” he said. “But it’s about creating independence.”
 

A muddied field

S. Vincent Rajkumar, MD, a hematologist-oncologist and active researcher at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, agrees. “Being on the board of directors of a pharmaceutical company, particularly by institutional leaders, is one of the genuine COIs” amid a field of COI that’s become increasingly muddied with the shift toward more comprehensive, general disclosure practices.

“It’s important that we don’t lose sight of clarity in what types of financial ties and relationships we’re really concerned about,” he said. “The ties that are really concerning – the significant conflicts of interest – are serving on boards of companies or getting large personal payments for participating in speakers’ bureaus or single, company-sponsored CME lectures, for instance, or having stocks, investments, or significant royalties or large payments to your lab or research program [outside of clinical trial funding].”

Other financial transactions such as “reasonable” payments for participation in data-monitoring committees and steering committees are financial ties that should be disclosed, but generally aren’t concerning, Dr. Rajkumar said.

Dr. Rajkumar serves as an editor-in-chief of the Blood Cancer Journal and is an author of several UptoDate chapters. Because of these roles and in keeping with his own views on COI, he has worked deliberately over the past decade to be free of industry payments.

This has become increasingly difficult given the breadth of payments attributed to individual physicians on the federal Open Payments website – some of which are “not truly personal financial ties.” He cited industry payments to support multicompany-sponsored meetings or to institutions for clinical trials.

“It’s nearly impossible to have zero dollars against your name unless you do no clinical trials,” Dr. Rajkumar said.

Still, he said, transparency and disclosure programs like Open Payments are important. “I do think bias arising from COI is very real. There are people with significant conflicts of interest who are writing influential reviews, speaking at influential meetings, and writing influential guidelines – and you can sense the bias pretty quickly,” he said, with endpoints that aren’t appropriate for the trial at hand, for instance, or with overly rosy assessments and the exclusion of negative results.
 

Collaboration benefits

But Thomas Stossel, MD, American Cancer Society Professor of Medicine Emeritus at Harvard Medical School and founder and chief science advisor at BioAegis Therapeutics, worries that the benefit of physician-industry collaboration is being drowned out with all the attention paid to COI.

His experience on a scientific advisory board in the late 1980s was a “transforming experience that opened my eyes to [the complexities] of product development. … and [later] enabled me to turn my basic research into a potentially life-saving product,” he said.

The “conflict-of-interest narrative” falsely maintains that collaboration causes corruption, he said, and the resultant “hand wringing over [assumed risks]” has slowed innovation by preventing or delaying research and development projects. “It’s like death by a thousand cuts,” said Dr. Stossel, who wrote a book, Pharmacophobia – How the Conflict-of-Interest Myth Undermines American Medical Innovation, to document his concerns.

Dr. Dweik said he has seen the “field move in a good direction” with most academic institutions now deeming physician participation in drug company speakers’ bureaus as “no longer acceptable,” unless physicians discuss drugs in balanced, “disease-specific, not drug-specific” presentations. At this point, it’s unclear exactly how the needle will move on other types of relationships.

“I wouldn’t be surprised if over the next couple of years there is more consistency, more standardization” on issues of participation on outside boards. “The [academic medical center] community is certainly trying to get a better handle on this,” Dr. Dweik said.

Future institutional changes will come, said Ms. Pierce of the AAMC, “but in more subtle ways than we’ve seen in the past, given [progress] already made” through major reports, guidance, and laws and regulations relating to COI. Today, she said, “technology transfer is incrementally more complicated, relationships are more complicated, and corporate structures are more complicated. This makes teasing apart what the issues are a little bit harder.”

Just as conflict of interest (COI) disclosure has moved center stage in recent months, so too have certain physician-industry relationships. Some cancer centers and academic medical institutions across the country have reinvigorated or renewed discussions about the participation of leaders on outside corporate boards and about how to best navigate an increasingly complex web of individual and institutional relationships with industry.

Courtesy Cleveland Clinic

Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSK), which was thrust into the spotlight last fall with news coverage of a top leader’s disclosure failures and coverage of other leaders’ financial relationships with start-up companies, has decided that its senior executives may no longer serve on boards of directors of for-profit health- or science-related companies.

MSK officials also decided that its board members may not serve on the boards of MSK-affiliated start-up companies or make any direct investments in them.

Other institutions, such as the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, were also reviewing their conflict of interest policies.

Participation of academic medical center leaders on the boards of public companies is one of the “most important topics” of discussion – along with disclosure – among those who oversee and manage COI through institutional research offices and COI committees, said Raed Dweik, MD, MBA, chair of Cleveland Clinic’s Innovation Management and COI Committee.

Discussions cover “whether [participation on outside boards] should be allowed in the first place, how relationships should be managed if they’re allowed, and whether there should be limits on compensation,” said Dr. Dweik, who also chairs the American Association of Medical Colleges’ Forum on Conflict of Interest in Academe, a group of over 600 representatives from academic health centers, medical schools, teaching hospitals, and other hospitals and centers with substantive research programs.


Institutions have been grappling with these issues for years. But “what was reported [about] MSK has brought these topics into hyperfocus in a way,” he said, along with questions concerning the magnitude of compensation and financial interest more broadly.

Institutional approaches

One of the reports on MSK’s financial ties involved a vice president and expert in technology transfer who was appointed to the board of a biotech company, Y-mAbs, in which MSK had an equity stake; the vice president had stock options that soared when the start-up went public. (He later turned over a nearly $1.4 million windfall profit to the hospital.)

In addition to barring appointments of its leaders to boards of MSK start-ups and any direct investments in them, MSK announced that going forward, “any potential equity that could be attained by employees appointed as MSK designees to outside boards will be returned to the institution and dedicated to research.”

A letter to MSK staff also said that “when profits emerge through the monetization of our research, financial payments to MSK-designated board members should be used for the benefit of the institution.”

Broadly speaking, conflict of interest deliberations within institutions center on how financial relationships with industry can potentially compromise the integrity of research (from patient selection to data analysis and the reporting of findings), the safety of research subjects and other patients, and the protection of public trust in physicians and their institutions.

Public trust is important, said Heather Pierce, JD, MPH, senior director of science policy and regulatory counsel for the Association of American Medical Colleges.

“In some cases, institutions may decide,” she said, “that they can control for any potential bias in research, but they can’t control for a perception that a person should not be engaged, or should not be compensated by a company because of appearance.”

Institutions are guided by federal regulations and institutional considerations that deal mainly with “how to evaluate and assess [potential conflicts] and the types of information needed [to do so] – not with specific delineations on what types of relationships are prohibited or not,” said Ms. Pierce. “There are some bright lines, but most things are a lot more complicated.”

Since 2001, the AAMC has recommended the use of a rebuttable presumption framework, in which individuals with a financial interest are prohibited from participating in related research unless “compelling circumstances” justify an exemption. Institutions typically use a “de minimis threshold” to define what financial interests are significant enough for application of the rebuttable presumptions framework.

Cleveland Clinic’s COI Committee considers anything above $20,000 from one company to be significant for the purposes of rebuttable presumption. Compensation between $5,000 and $20,000 (per company per year) triggers a COI management plan that typically focuses on disclosure, but can also include elements such as limits on compensation or the involvement of nonconflicted individuals in data analysis, Dr. Dweik said.

“Anything above $20,000, or equity, we more deeply scrutinize,” he said. “You have to have a really good reason to participate in research related to that company or product. There have to be compelling circumstances.”

Any amount of equity, he emphasized, “is automatically treated as high compensation, because the potential value is high. We are very keenly aware of this in our decisions about what research goes through and what doesn’t.”

Compensation of $5,000 or less is generally considered low at Cleveland Clinic and other institutions (and not in need of COI management), in keeping with U.S. Department of Health and Human Services regulations designed to promote objectivity in research. Thresholds for rebuttable presumption vary from institution to institution, with some being much higher – around $50,000 – than at the Cleveland Clinic, said Dr. Dweik, a pulmonary and critical care medicine specialist who chairs the clinic’s Respiratory Institute.

The big challenge with industry ties involving key executives and leaders – chief medical officers, deans, department chairs, and division chiefs – is that these ties involve institutional COI (not only individual COI) since an individual’s conflicts can be imputed to the institution.

Institutional COI issues generally are much “trickier” for the AAMC’s COI forum to discuss and guide because institutions have different structures and cultures, Dr. Dweik said. Institutional start-ups, moreover, have no standard structure.

“Some institutions, once a company is spun off, will build a firewall between the institution and the company,” he said. “Some institutions will keep the company embedded within the inventor’s lab, or provide infrastructure. And there’s a lot in between.”

Regarding the participation of academic medical center leaders on outside boards, it appears “that institutions are all over the map” in how they regard and evaluate such relationships, Dr. Dweik said. Some institutions address these relationships in their COI policies, while others don’t. And “some are more liberal,” he said. “Others are stricter.”

The magnitude of personal financial interest among MSK leaders (both in institutional start-ups and other companies) is “way outside the norm,” Dr. Dweik said.

Still, board participation can be quite lucrative. One study described in a research letter in JAMA ( 2014;311[13]:1353-5 ) 5 years ago reported that the mean financial compensation of pharmaceutical company board members who held academic medical center leadership positions was more than $300,000 .

Compensation aside, corporate board participation is “one of the most egregious examples of conflict of interest,” said Vinay Prasad, MD, MPH , a hematologist-oncologist and associate professor of medicine at Oregon Health & Science University, who researches COI and bias. “You have a fiduciary duty to the company’s best interest. … so there will inevitably be a tension between that oath and your other duties,” from responsibilities for institutional oversight to one’s individual research and clinical practices, he said. Physicians at academic medical centers and cancer centers “need to interact with industry,” he said. “But it’s about creating independence.”
 

A muddied field

S. Vincent Rajkumar, MD, a hematologist-oncologist and active researcher at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, agrees. “Being on the board of directors of a pharmaceutical company, particularly by institutional leaders, is one of the genuine COIs” amid a field of COI that’s become increasingly muddied with the shift toward more comprehensive, general disclosure practices.

“It’s important that we don’t lose sight of clarity in what types of financial ties and relationships we’re really concerned about,” he said. “The ties that are really concerning – the significant conflicts of interest – are serving on boards of companies or getting large personal payments for participating in speakers’ bureaus or single, company-sponsored CME lectures, for instance, or having stocks, investments, or significant royalties or large payments to your lab or research program [outside of clinical trial funding].”

Other financial transactions such as “reasonable” payments for participation in data-monitoring committees and steering committees are financial ties that should be disclosed, but generally aren’t concerning, Dr. Rajkumar said.

Dr. Rajkumar serves as an editor-in-chief of the Blood Cancer Journal and is an author of several UptoDate chapters. Because of these roles and in keeping with his own views on COI, he has worked deliberately over the past decade to be free of industry payments.

This has become increasingly difficult given the breadth of payments attributed to individual physicians on the federal Open Payments website – some of which are “not truly personal financial ties.” He cited industry payments to support multicompany-sponsored meetings or to institutions for clinical trials.

“It’s nearly impossible to have zero dollars against your name unless you do no clinical trials,” Dr. Rajkumar said.

Still, he said, transparency and disclosure programs like Open Payments are important. “I do think bias arising from COI is very real. There are people with significant conflicts of interest who are writing influential reviews, speaking at influential meetings, and writing influential guidelines – and you can sense the bias pretty quickly,” he said, with endpoints that aren’t appropriate for the trial at hand, for instance, or with overly rosy assessments and the exclusion of negative results.
 

Collaboration benefits

But Thomas Stossel, MD, American Cancer Society Professor of Medicine Emeritus at Harvard Medical School and founder and chief science advisor at BioAegis Therapeutics, worries that the benefit of physician-industry collaboration is being drowned out with all the attention paid to COI.

His experience on a scientific advisory board in the late 1980s was a “transforming experience that opened my eyes to [the complexities] of product development. … and [later] enabled me to turn my basic research into a potentially life-saving product,” he said.

The “conflict-of-interest narrative” falsely maintains that collaboration causes corruption, he said, and the resultant “hand wringing over [assumed risks]” has slowed innovation by preventing or delaying research and development projects. “It’s like death by a thousand cuts,” said Dr. Stossel, who wrote a book, Pharmacophobia – How the Conflict-of-Interest Myth Undermines American Medical Innovation, to document his concerns.

Dr. Dweik said he has seen the “field move in a good direction” with most academic institutions now deeming physician participation in drug company speakers’ bureaus as “no longer acceptable,” unless physicians discuss drugs in balanced, “disease-specific, not drug-specific” presentations. At this point, it’s unclear exactly how the needle will move on other types of relationships.

“I wouldn’t be surprised if over the next couple of years there is more consistency, more standardization” on issues of participation on outside boards. “The [academic medical center] community is certainly trying to get a better handle on this,” Dr. Dweik said.

Future institutional changes will come, said Ms. Pierce of the AAMC, “but in more subtle ways than we’ve seen in the past, given [progress] already made” through major reports, guidance, and laws and regulations relating to COI. Today, she said, “technology transfer is incrementally more complicated, relationships are more complicated, and corporate structures are more complicated. This makes teasing apart what the issues are a little bit harder.”

The severity of traumatic brain injury (TBI) is typically defined at the time of the initial injury, but a diagnosis may not come for months or even years later. Given the complexities of diagnosing what might be a slowly revealed condition, with signs and symptoms that may manifest over time; the need for self-report of symptoms; and the time that might have elapsed since the original injury, a diagnostician needs not only to have experience with TBI but to stay abreast of the state of the science.

As of now, only health care professionals in 4 specialties—neurologist, neurosurgeon, physiatrist, or psychiatrist—are allowed to diagnose TBI in the VA’s disability compensation process. A new congressionally mandated report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, though, is advising that it’s training and experience that count, not necessarily the specialty.

In Evaluation of the Disability Determination Process for Traumatic Brain Injury in Veterans, a committee of experts in emergency medicine, neurology, neurosurgery, psychiatry, psychology, physical medicine and rehabilitation, and epidemiology and biostatistics review the process and current literature on TBI. The committee advises that any health care professional with “pertinent and ongoing brain injury training and experience” and up-to-date knowledge about TBI should be included in the diagnostic process.

The disability compensation is a tax-free benefit paid to veterans with disabilities resulting from disease or injury incurred or aggravated during active military service. The amount is determined in a 6-step process beginning when the veteran (or a proxy) files a claim. An approved clinician typically must diagnose and evaluate the degree of impairment, functional limitation, and disability.

Between 2000 and 2018, an estimated 384,000 incidents of TBI occurred in the military. That increasing prevalence means more medical specialties now include TBI training in their curriculum. The committee notes that at least 18 brain injury programs are accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education to train physicians in many specialties to diagnose, treat, and rehabilitate patients with brain injury. 

Among other recommendations, the committee advised that the VA take specific actions to increase transparency at both individual and systemwide levels, such as providing veterans full access to the details of their examinations, allowing veterans to rate the quality of their evaluations, and providing public access to detailed systemwide data on the outcomes of evaluations and outcome quality. Those changes will represent a “fundamental enhancement” in the quality of disability evaluations, the committee says, which added that shifting from a focus on the consistency of the process and practitioner qualifications to a focus on the accuracy of the outcome of the evaluation will help identify steps or components in the process that warrant improvement.

It also suggested regularly updating the Veteran Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities and the Disability Benefits Questionnaires (DBQs) for residuals of TBI to “better reflect the current state of medical knowledge.” The committee found that 3 important residuals of TBI are not adequately covered by any of the existing DBQs: insomnia, vestibular dysfunction, and near-vision dysfunction. Although 4 DBQs (mental disorder, chronic fatigue syndrome, PTSD, and sleep apnea) contain isolated questions related to insomnia and sleep disruption, no single DBQ, the committee says, combines them all “in a way that captures the full extent of disability associated with post-TBI sleep disruption.” Similarly, no single DBQ captures the full extent of disability associated with post-TBI vestibular dysfunction or the disability associated with near-vision dysfunction.

The committee sums up: “[B]y adopting an explicit learning structure in which the reliability and validity of disability determinations are directly assessed, the VA will be able to devote its resources to those modifications and enhancements … that will have the greatest impact in improving the service provided to injured veterans.”

The severity of traumatic brain injury (TBI) is typically defined at the time of the initial injury, but a diagnosis may not come for months or even years later. Given the complexities of diagnosing what might be a slowly revealed condition, with signs and symptoms that may manifest over time; the need for self-report of symptoms; and the time that might have elapsed since the original injury, a diagnostician needs not only to have experience with TBI but to stay abreast of the state of the science.

As of now, only health care professionals in 4 specialties—neurologist, neurosurgeon, physiatrist, or psychiatrist—are allowed to diagnose TBI in the VA’s disability compensation process. A new congressionally mandated report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, though, is advising that it’s training and experience that count, not necessarily the specialty.

In Evaluation of the Disability Determination Process for Traumatic Brain Injury in Veterans, a committee of experts in emergency medicine, neurology, neurosurgery, psychiatry, psychology, physical medicine and rehabilitation, and epidemiology and biostatistics review the process and current literature on TBI. The committee advises that any health care professional with “pertinent and ongoing brain injury training and experience” and up-to-date knowledge about TBI should be included in the diagnostic process.

The disability compensation is a tax-free benefit paid to veterans with disabilities resulting from disease or injury incurred or aggravated during active military service. The amount is determined in a 6-step process beginning when the veteran (or a proxy) files a claim. An approved clinician typically must diagnose and evaluate the degree of impairment, functional limitation, and disability.

Between 2000 and 2018, an estimated 384,000 incidents of TBI occurred in the military. That increasing prevalence means more medical specialties now include TBI training in their curriculum. The committee notes that at least 18 brain injury programs are accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education to train physicians in many specialties to diagnose, treat, and rehabilitate patients with brain injury. 

Among other recommendations, the committee advised that the VA take specific actions to increase transparency at both individual and systemwide levels, such as providing veterans full access to the details of their examinations, allowing veterans to rate the quality of their evaluations, and providing public access to detailed systemwide data on the outcomes of evaluations and outcome quality. Those changes will represent a “fundamental enhancement” in the quality of disability evaluations, the committee says, which added that shifting from a focus on the consistency of the process and practitioner qualifications to a focus on the accuracy of the outcome of the evaluation will help identify steps or components in the process that warrant improvement.

It also suggested regularly updating the Veteran Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities and the Disability Benefits Questionnaires (DBQs) for residuals of TBI to “better reflect the current state of medical knowledge.” The committee found that 3 important residuals of TBI are not adequately covered by any of the existing DBQs: insomnia, vestibular dysfunction, and near-vision dysfunction. Although 4 DBQs (mental disorder, chronic fatigue syndrome, PTSD, and sleep apnea) contain isolated questions related to insomnia and sleep disruption, no single DBQ, the committee says, combines them all “in a way that captures the full extent of disability associated with post-TBI sleep disruption.” Similarly, no single DBQ captures the full extent of disability associated with post-TBI vestibular dysfunction or the disability associated with near-vision dysfunction.

The committee sums up: “[B]y adopting an explicit learning structure in which the reliability and validity of disability determinations are directly assessed, the VA will be able to devote its resources to those modifications and enhancements … that will have the greatest impact in improving the service provided to injured veterans.”

The severity of traumatic brain injury (TBI) is typically defined at the time of the initial injury, but a diagnosis may not come for months or even years later. Given the complexities of diagnosing what might be a slowly revealed condition, with signs and symptoms that may manifest over time; the need for self-report of symptoms; and the time that might have elapsed since the original injury, a diagnostician needs not only to have experience with TBI but to stay abreast of the state of the science.

As of now, only health care professionals in 4 specialties—neurologist, neurosurgeon, physiatrist, or psychiatrist—are allowed to diagnose TBI in the VA’s disability compensation process. A new congressionally mandated report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, though, is advising that it’s training and experience that count, not necessarily the specialty.

In Evaluation of the Disability Determination Process for Traumatic Brain Injury in Veterans, a committee of experts in emergency medicine, neurology, neurosurgery, psychiatry, psychology, physical medicine and rehabilitation, and epidemiology and biostatistics review the process and current literature on TBI. The committee advises that any health care professional with “pertinent and ongoing brain injury training and experience” and up-to-date knowledge about TBI should be included in the diagnostic process.

The disability compensation is a tax-free benefit paid to veterans with disabilities resulting from disease or injury incurred or aggravated during active military service. The amount is determined in a 6-step process beginning when the veteran (or a proxy) files a claim. An approved clinician typically must diagnose and evaluate the degree of impairment, functional limitation, and disability.

Between 2000 and 2018, an estimated 384,000 incidents of TBI occurred in the military. That increasing prevalence means more medical specialties now include TBI training in their curriculum. The committee notes that at least 18 brain injury programs are accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education to train physicians in many specialties to diagnose, treat, and rehabilitate patients with brain injury. 

Among other recommendations, the committee advised that the VA take specific actions to increase transparency at both individual and systemwide levels, such as providing veterans full access to the details of their examinations, allowing veterans to rate the quality of their evaluations, and providing public access to detailed systemwide data on the outcomes of evaluations and outcome quality. Those changes will represent a “fundamental enhancement” in the quality of disability evaluations, the committee says, which added that shifting from a focus on the consistency of the process and practitioner qualifications to a focus on the accuracy of the outcome of the evaluation will help identify steps or components in the process that warrant improvement.

It also suggested regularly updating the Veteran Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities and the Disability Benefits Questionnaires (DBQs) for residuals of TBI to “better reflect the current state of medical knowledge.” The committee found that 3 important residuals of TBI are not adequately covered by any of the existing DBQs: insomnia, vestibular dysfunction, and near-vision dysfunction. Although 4 DBQs (mental disorder, chronic fatigue syndrome, PTSD, and sleep apnea) contain isolated questions related to insomnia and sleep disruption, no single DBQ, the committee says, combines them all “in a way that captures the full extent of disability associated with post-TBI sleep disruption.” Similarly, no single DBQ captures the full extent of disability associated with post-TBI vestibular dysfunction or the disability associated with near-vision dysfunction.

The committee sums up: “[B]y adopting an explicit learning structure in which the reliability and validity of disability determinations are directly assessed, the VA will be able to devote its resources to those modifications and enhancements … that will have the greatest impact in improving the service provided to injured veterans.”

Sending health information videos via text or email to mothers successfully promoted safe sleep behaviors among mothers by changing their attitudes and perceived social norms related to these practices, according to a new study.

monkeybusinessimages/Thinkstock

In the past, the American Academy of Pediatrics has made safe sleep recommendations regarding infant sleep position and location. According to the new study’s authors, Rachel Y. Moon, MD, and her colleagues, parents had poorly adhered to these recommendations in several studies. However, some improvements with adherence were seen when a mobile health intervention was used in the Social Media and Risk Reduction Training Study (JAMA. 2017;318[4]:351-9). The new study, published in Pediatrics, used the same intervention described in that JAMA paper.

The more recent mobile health project sought to identify which factors, as outlined by a theory of planned behavior, were affected by a mobile health intervention through analysis of survey responses. Of the 1,600 women who provided written consent, 1,263 (78.9%) completed the survey.

According to the results, the intervention did more to affect attitudes (adjusted odds ratio, 2.35; 95% confidence interval, 1.72-3.20) than it did to affect perceived norms (aOR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.27-2.36) regarding supine sleeping position. It had similar effects on attitudes (aOR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.54-2.36) versus perceived norms (aOR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.13-1.66) regarding sleep location as well. The intervention had no significant effect on perceived maternal control regarding either sleeping position or location.

While levels of safe sleep adherence were lower in African Americans and subgroups of low economic status at baseline, the intervention improved the rates of adherence in these groups to levels comparable with other groups included in the study.

“Recognition that these attitudes and social norms may be the main drivers of mothers’ choices regarding infant-sleep practices should inform health messaging strategies, including the use of [mobile heath], to promote [safe sleep],” the researchers concluded.

The study was funded by grants from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the CJ foundation for sudden infant death syndrome. The National Institutes of Health also provided funding.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Moon RY et al. Pediatrics. 2019. doi: 10.1542/peds.2018-2799.

Sending health information videos via text or email to mothers successfully promoted safe sleep behaviors among mothers by changing their attitudes and perceived social norms related to these practices, according to a new study.

monkeybusinessimages/Thinkstock

In the past, the American Academy of Pediatrics has made safe sleep recommendations regarding infant sleep position and location. According to the new study’s authors, Rachel Y. Moon, MD, and her colleagues, parents had poorly adhered to these recommendations in several studies. However, some improvements with adherence were seen when a mobile health intervention was used in the Social Media and Risk Reduction Training Study (JAMA. 2017;318[4]:351-9). The new study, published in Pediatrics, used the same intervention described in that JAMA paper.

The more recent mobile health project sought to identify which factors, as outlined by a theory of planned behavior, were affected by a mobile health intervention through analysis of survey responses. Of the 1,600 women who provided written consent, 1,263 (78.9%) completed the survey.

According to the results, the intervention did more to affect attitudes (adjusted odds ratio, 2.35; 95% confidence interval, 1.72-3.20) than it did to affect perceived norms (aOR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.27-2.36) regarding supine sleeping position. It had similar effects on attitudes (aOR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.54-2.36) versus perceived norms (aOR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.13-1.66) regarding sleep location as well. The intervention had no significant effect on perceived maternal control regarding either sleeping position or location.

While levels of safe sleep adherence were lower in African Americans and subgroups of low economic status at baseline, the intervention improved the rates of adherence in these groups to levels comparable with other groups included in the study.

“Recognition that these attitudes and social norms may be the main drivers of mothers’ choices regarding infant-sleep practices should inform health messaging strategies, including the use of [mobile heath], to promote [safe sleep],” the researchers concluded.

The study was funded by grants from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the CJ foundation for sudden infant death syndrome. The National Institutes of Health also provided funding.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Moon RY et al. Pediatrics. 2019. doi: 10.1542/peds.2018-2799.

Sending health information videos via text or email to mothers successfully promoted safe sleep behaviors among mothers by changing their attitudes and perceived social norms related to these practices, according to a new study.

monkeybusinessimages/Thinkstock

In the past, the American Academy of Pediatrics has made safe sleep recommendations regarding infant sleep position and location. According to the new study’s authors, Rachel Y. Moon, MD, and her colleagues, parents had poorly adhered to these recommendations in several studies. However, some improvements with adherence were seen when a mobile health intervention was used in the Social Media and Risk Reduction Training Study (JAMA. 2017;318[4]:351-9). The new study, published in Pediatrics, used the same intervention described in that JAMA paper.

The more recent mobile health project sought to identify which factors, as outlined by a theory of planned behavior, were affected by a mobile health intervention through analysis of survey responses. Of the 1,600 women who provided written consent, 1,263 (78.9%) completed the survey.

According to the results, the intervention did more to affect attitudes (adjusted odds ratio, 2.35; 95% confidence interval, 1.72-3.20) than it did to affect perceived norms (aOR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.27-2.36) regarding supine sleeping position. It had similar effects on attitudes (aOR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.54-2.36) versus perceived norms (aOR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.13-1.66) regarding sleep location as well. The intervention had no significant effect on perceived maternal control regarding either sleeping position or location.

While levels of safe sleep adherence were lower in African Americans and subgroups of low economic status at baseline, the intervention improved the rates of adherence in these groups to levels comparable with other groups included in the study.

“Recognition that these attitudes and social norms may be the main drivers of mothers’ choices regarding infant-sleep practices should inform health messaging strategies, including the use of [mobile heath], to promote [safe sleep],” the researchers concluded.

The study was funded by grants from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the CJ foundation for sudden infant death syndrome. The National Institutes of Health also provided funding.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Moon RY et al. Pediatrics. 2019. doi: 10.1542/peds.2018-2799.

Prescribing lower quantities of opioids after total joint arthroplasty may not increase prescription refills, patient call-ins, or adverse clinical effects, according to a study in the Journal of Arthroplasty.

©decade3d/Thinkstock

Contrary to concerns that restrictive opioid prescribing might increase the number of patient call-ins and refill requests, one academic institution had significantly fewer call-ins and refills after it implemented a strict postoperative opioid prescribing protocol on Jan. 1, 2018.

“Orthopedic surgeons might be reluctant to change practice without evidence that new, more-restrictive practice will not impede patient care,” the researchers wrote. “As the current study demonstrates, there is room to significantly decrease postoperative opioid prescriptions in total joint arthroplasty. This places patients at lower risk of opioid abuse and diversion without significantly altering the risk of postoperative complications or compromising postoperative pain control.”

Opioid overuse is a major public health concern, and orthopedic surgeons may overprescribe opioids after surgery. The University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics in Iowa City implemented strict postoperative opioid prescription guidelines that are based on the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons Clinical Practice Guidelines. As part of the protocol, patients receive a preoperative education session that emphasizes risks associated with opioid use. Before initiating this protocol, postoperative drug choice and quantity had not been standardized.

To examine changes in opioid prescriptions and the number of call-ins, postoperative complications, and prescription refill requests after the implementation of the restrictive opioid prescribing protocol, investigators at the institution conducted a retrospective study.

Andrew J. Holte, a researcher in the department of orthopedics and rehabilitation, and his colleagues reviewed cases from June 2017 to February 2018. Their analysis included 399 patients who underwent total hip arthroplasty or total knee arthroplasty.

In all, 282 patients underwent surgery before the restrictive protocol (the historical cohort) and 117 after (the restrictive cohort). In the historical cohort, about 48% of the patients underwent total knee arthroplasty. In the restrictive cohort, about 44% underwent total knee arthroplasty. Patients had an average age of about 61 years, and approximately 52% were women.

According to comparisons of morphine mg equivalents (MME), the historical cohort received significantly larger mean initial opioid prescriptions (752 MME vs. 387 MME), significantly more refills per patient (0.5 vs. 0.3), and significantly more medication through refills (253 MME vs. 84 MME).

“For reference, 50 pills of 5 mg oxycodone is equivalent to 300 MMEs,” the authors noted.

A multivariable model found that younger age and total knee arthroplasty, compared with total hip arthroplasty, were associated with increased likelihood of requests for refills and patient call-ins.

“Surprisingly, there were significantly more patient call-ins and requests for refills of opioids in the historical cohort,” Mr. Holte and his colleagues said. “Although this study did not collect direct data on patient pain scores, we believe that call-ins and requests for refills are sufficient surrogate markers for inadequate pain control.”

The study does not account for prescriptions from other providers or whether patients took none, some, or all of their filled prescriptions. Future studies are needed to assess how reduced opioid prescriptions affect pain and functional outcomes in the long term, the researchers said.

One or more study authors disclosed potential conflicts of interest. The disclosures can be found in Appendix A, Supplementary Data, at the end of the journal article.

SOURCE: Holte AJ et al. J Arthroplasty. 2019 Feb 20. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2019.02.022.

Prescribing lower quantities of opioids after total joint arthroplasty may not increase prescription refills, patient call-ins, or adverse clinical effects, according to a study in the Journal of Arthroplasty.

©decade3d/Thinkstock

Contrary to concerns that restrictive opioid prescribing might increase the number of patient call-ins and refill requests, one academic institution had significantly fewer call-ins and refills after it implemented a strict postoperative opioid prescribing protocol on Jan. 1, 2018.

“Orthopedic surgeons might be reluctant to change practice without evidence that new, more-restrictive practice will not impede patient care,” the researchers wrote. “As the current study demonstrates, there is room to significantly decrease postoperative opioid prescriptions in total joint arthroplasty. This places patients at lower risk of opioid abuse and diversion without significantly altering the risk of postoperative complications or compromising postoperative pain control.”

Opioid overuse is a major public health concern, and orthopedic surgeons may overprescribe opioids after surgery. The University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics in Iowa City implemented strict postoperative opioid prescription guidelines that are based on the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons Clinical Practice Guidelines. As part of the protocol, patients receive a preoperative education session that emphasizes risks associated with opioid use. Before initiating this protocol, postoperative drug choice and quantity had not been standardized.

To examine changes in opioid prescriptions and the number of call-ins, postoperative complications, and prescription refill requests after the implementation of the restrictive opioid prescribing protocol, investigators at the institution conducted a retrospective study.

Andrew J. Holte, a researcher in the department of orthopedics and rehabilitation, and his colleagues reviewed cases from June 2017 to February 2018. Their analysis included 399 patients who underwent total hip arthroplasty or total knee arthroplasty.

In all, 282 patients underwent surgery before the restrictive protocol (the historical cohort) and 117 after (the restrictive cohort). In the historical cohort, about 48% of the patients underwent total knee arthroplasty. In the restrictive cohort, about 44% underwent total knee arthroplasty. Patients had an average age of about 61 years, and approximately 52% were women.

According to comparisons of morphine mg equivalents (MME), the historical cohort received significantly larger mean initial opioid prescriptions (752 MME vs. 387 MME), significantly more refills per patient (0.5 vs. 0.3), and significantly more medication through refills (253 MME vs. 84 MME).

“For reference, 50 pills of 5 mg oxycodone is equivalent to 300 MMEs,” the authors noted.

A multivariable model found that younger age and total knee arthroplasty, compared with total hip arthroplasty, were associated with increased likelihood of requests for refills and patient call-ins.

“Surprisingly, there were significantly more patient call-ins and requests for refills of opioids in the historical cohort,” Mr. Holte and his colleagues said. “Although this study did not collect direct data on patient pain scores, we believe that call-ins and requests for refills are sufficient surrogate markers for inadequate pain control.”

The study does not account for prescriptions from other providers or whether patients took none, some, or all of their filled prescriptions. Future studies are needed to assess how reduced opioid prescriptions affect pain and functional outcomes in the long term, the researchers said.

One or more study authors disclosed potential conflicts of interest. The disclosures can be found in Appendix A, Supplementary Data, at the end of the journal article.

SOURCE: Holte AJ et al. J Arthroplasty. 2019 Feb 20. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2019.02.022.

Prescribing lower quantities of opioids after total joint arthroplasty may not increase prescription refills, patient call-ins, or adverse clinical effects, according to a study in the Journal of Arthroplasty.

©decade3d/Thinkstock

Contrary to concerns that restrictive opioid prescribing might increase the number of patient call-ins and refill requests, one academic institution had significantly fewer call-ins and refills after it implemented a strict postoperative opioid prescribing protocol on Jan. 1, 2018.

“Orthopedic surgeons might be reluctant to change practice without evidence that new, more-restrictive practice will not impede patient care,” the researchers wrote. “As the current study demonstrates, there is room to significantly decrease postoperative opioid prescriptions in total joint arthroplasty. This places patients at lower risk of opioid abuse and diversion without significantly altering the risk of postoperative complications or compromising postoperative pain control.”

Opioid overuse is a major public health concern, and orthopedic surgeons may overprescribe opioids after surgery. The University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics in Iowa City implemented strict postoperative opioid prescription guidelines that are based on the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons Clinical Practice Guidelines. As part of the protocol, patients receive a preoperative education session that emphasizes risks associated with opioid use. Before initiating this protocol, postoperative drug choice and quantity had not been standardized.

To examine changes in opioid prescriptions and the number of call-ins, postoperative complications, and prescription refill requests after the implementation of the restrictive opioid prescribing protocol, investigators at the institution conducted a retrospective study.

Andrew J. Holte, a researcher in the department of orthopedics and rehabilitation, and his colleagues reviewed cases from June 2017 to February 2018. Their analysis included 399 patients who underwent total hip arthroplasty or total knee arthroplasty.

In all, 282 patients underwent surgery before the restrictive protocol (the historical cohort) and 117 after (the restrictive cohort). In the historical cohort, about 48% of the patients underwent total knee arthroplasty. In the restrictive cohort, about 44% underwent total knee arthroplasty. Patients had an average age of about 61 years, and approximately 52% were women.

According to comparisons of morphine mg equivalents (MME), the historical cohort received significantly larger mean initial opioid prescriptions (752 MME vs. 387 MME), significantly more refills per patient (0.5 vs. 0.3), and significantly more medication through refills (253 MME vs. 84 MME).

“For reference, 50 pills of 5 mg oxycodone is equivalent to 300 MMEs,” the authors noted.

A multivariable model found that younger age and total knee arthroplasty, compared with total hip arthroplasty, were associated with increased likelihood of requests for refills and patient call-ins.

“Surprisingly, there were significantly more patient call-ins and requests for refills of opioids in the historical cohort,” Mr. Holte and his colleagues said. “Although this study did not collect direct data on patient pain scores, we believe that call-ins and requests for refills are sufficient surrogate markers for inadequate pain control.”

The study does not account for prescriptions from other providers or whether patients took none, some, or all of their filled prescriptions. Future studies are needed to assess how reduced opioid prescriptions affect pain and functional outcomes in the long term, the researchers said.

One or more study authors disclosed potential conflicts of interest. The disclosures can be found in Appendix A, Supplementary Data, at the end of the journal article.

SOURCE: Holte AJ et al. J Arthroplasty. 2019 Feb 20. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2019.02.022.