User login
Naloxone: Difficult conversations about a potential lifesaver
New tools to help minimize the risk of opioid-related adverse events are becoming more widely available, although providers are still struggling over how best to implement them.
A recent study by Shane Mueller, MSW, and Ingrid Binswanger, MD, at Kaiser Permanente Colorado Institute for Health Research, Denver, for instance, found that doctors are frequently uncomfortable prescribing the opioid antagonist naloxone to counteract a potential overdose.1
Although much of the research was conducted in outpatient settings, the researchers say several lessons may be translated to the hospital readily. “Patients were really willing to embrace the idea of naloxone when it was framed to be used in a worst-case scenario,” Mr. Mueller said; some providers, for example, compared it to having a fire extinguisher in the house. “I think one patient said, ‘You know, I don’t plan on starting a fire in my kitchen, but it’s good to have there just in case something goes wrong.’ ”
Another important lesson, Mr. Mueller said, is to consider multiple factors that might heighten the overdose risk, such as a change in the prescription or a medical condition like renal failure. Including those considerations in a conversation might help destigmatize the topic and help patients who are concerned that they might be perceived as misusing the medication.
Ideally, opioid-safety interventions should be more patient centered, emphasizing safer home storage to prevent secondary exposures and educating patients fully about the medication’s downsides, she said. “They may have been on them a long time but never been fully informed of the risks,” she said. Among her group’s future research goals, Dr. Binswanger hopes to investigate how best to communicate such risks to patients.
References
1. Mueller SR, Koester S, Glanz JM, et al. Attitudes toward naloxone prescribing in clinical settings: A qualitative study of patients prescribed high dose opioids for chronic non-cancer pain. J Gen Intern Med. 2017 March;32(3):277-83.
New tools to help minimize the risk of opioid-related adverse events are becoming more widely available, although providers are still struggling over how best to implement them.
A recent study by Shane Mueller, MSW, and Ingrid Binswanger, MD, at Kaiser Permanente Colorado Institute for Health Research, Denver, for instance, found that doctors are frequently uncomfortable prescribing the opioid antagonist naloxone to counteract a potential overdose.1
Although much of the research was conducted in outpatient settings, the researchers say several lessons may be translated to the hospital readily. “Patients were really willing to embrace the idea of naloxone when it was framed to be used in a worst-case scenario,” Mr. Mueller said; some providers, for example, compared it to having a fire extinguisher in the house. “I think one patient said, ‘You know, I don’t plan on starting a fire in my kitchen, but it’s good to have there just in case something goes wrong.’ ”
Another important lesson, Mr. Mueller said, is to consider multiple factors that might heighten the overdose risk, such as a change in the prescription or a medical condition like renal failure. Including those considerations in a conversation might help destigmatize the topic and help patients who are concerned that they might be perceived as misusing the medication.
Ideally, opioid-safety interventions should be more patient centered, emphasizing safer home storage to prevent secondary exposures and educating patients fully about the medication’s downsides, she said. “They may have been on them a long time but never been fully informed of the risks,” she said. Among her group’s future research goals, Dr. Binswanger hopes to investigate how best to communicate such risks to patients.
References
1. Mueller SR, Koester S, Glanz JM, et al. Attitudes toward naloxone prescribing in clinical settings: A qualitative study of patients prescribed high dose opioids for chronic non-cancer pain. J Gen Intern Med. 2017 March;32(3):277-83.
New tools to help minimize the risk of opioid-related adverse events are becoming more widely available, although providers are still struggling over how best to implement them.
A recent study by Shane Mueller, MSW, and Ingrid Binswanger, MD, at Kaiser Permanente Colorado Institute for Health Research, Denver, for instance, found that doctors are frequently uncomfortable prescribing the opioid antagonist naloxone to counteract a potential overdose.1
Although much of the research was conducted in outpatient settings, the researchers say several lessons may be translated to the hospital readily. “Patients were really willing to embrace the idea of naloxone when it was framed to be used in a worst-case scenario,” Mr. Mueller said; some providers, for example, compared it to having a fire extinguisher in the house. “I think one patient said, ‘You know, I don’t plan on starting a fire in my kitchen, but it’s good to have there just in case something goes wrong.’ ”
Another important lesson, Mr. Mueller said, is to consider multiple factors that might heighten the overdose risk, such as a change in the prescription or a medical condition like renal failure. Including those considerations in a conversation might help destigmatize the topic and help patients who are concerned that they might be perceived as misusing the medication.
Ideally, opioid-safety interventions should be more patient centered, emphasizing safer home storage to prevent secondary exposures and educating patients fully about the medication’s downsides, she said. “They may have been on them a long time but never been fully informed of the risks,” she said. Among her group’s future research goals, Dr. Binswanger hopes to investigate how best to communicate such risks to patients.
References
1. Mueller SR, Koester S, Glanz JM, et al. Attitudes toward naloxone prescribing in clinical settings: A qualitative study of patients prescribed high dose opioids for chronic non-cancer pain. J Gen Intern Med. 2017 March;32(3):277-83.
Evidence-backed questions can guide a GERD vs. NERD differential diagnosis
CHICAGO – when doing a differential diagnosis. Fortunately, five questions backed by increasing evidence can help you make the call.
“Everyone in the room knows babies puke, and babies can puke a lot,” Barry K. Wershil, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics. The approach to diagnosing GERD is age specific. “Kids who puke tend to outgrow it over time. With development, 95% or more are no longer refluxing at 18 months of age.”
“So generally there is no reason to initially refer older children and teenagers to a gastroenterologist,” Dr. Wershil said. “One of the essential things [you] do is consider all the causes of vomiting that are not GERD. If your first go-to is GERD, you’re going to miss other issues.”
Dr. Wershil reviewed the definitions: Gastroesophageal reflux is passage of gastric contents into the esophagus. GERD, on the other hand, is defined by the troublesome symptoms or complications associated with reflux of gastric material into the esophagus. In contrast, NERD is the presence of reflux symptoms with no evidence of mucosal erosion or mucosal breaks.
Considerations backed by evidence
Unfortunately, symptoms alone do not always differentiate erosive versus nonerosive esophagitis, Dr. Wershil said, although recurrent vomiting, poor weight gain, anemia, feeding problems, and respiratory problems can be signs of complicated GERD.
He recommended the following five considerations to distinguish GERD from NERD:
- Is the patient exhibiting normal weight gain? If not, ask questions about how the child is being fed. Have the parents started diluting the formula because they think that will take care of the vomiting? Have they begun limiting the amount of formula after observing that the child throws up at 4 ounces but not at 2 ounces?
- Is the patient bleeding or anemic? Hematemesis is rarely the presentation of infants with GERD, but anemia may be.
- Does the patient have respiratory problems (for example, a history of aspiration, recurring wheezing, or cough)?
- Is the patient neurologically normal? If so, that can present a special class of patients in which vomiting may not be just normal infant vomiting.
- Is the patient older than 2 years? We expect 95% of children to outgrow reflux by 18 months, and most children who have physiological reflux will outgrow it by 2 years.
“Those five questions in 1983 had little evidence, but in 2017 there is more evidence that these are the questions to focus on,” Dr. Wershil said.
The role of diagnostic testing
Diagnostic testing, such as pH monitoring, impedance testing, and endoscopy, can be useful in specific situations but carry limitations for widespread use, Dr. Wershil said. “Each test has reasons and limitations.”
An upper GI tract series looks only for anatomic anomalies, for example. pH monitoring is still used in many centers, but in general, impedance monitoring has become more common because it can detect both acid and nonacid reflux: “You can get a very detailed analysis of events happening in the esophagus over time.” One caveat Dr. Wershil added is that, “in some instances, we’re unsure how to define this in the pediatric age ranges we treat.”
Endoscopy has a limited role for the rare patients with mucosal changes or erosive esophagitis, he added. Endoscopy is ordered to detect mucosal changes that confirm esophageal erosion. “In all the kids we scope with positive pH, we rarely find erosive esophagitis,” Dr. Wershil said. “What we find more often is NERD. That really represents more of what we see in our patient population.”
“I hope this information is a good starting point to understand the algorithms that get generated,” Dr. Wershil said.
He recommended an algorithm for gastroesophageal reflux prepared by the American Academy of Pediatrics’ Section on Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition (Pediatrics. 2013 May. doi: 10.1542/peds.2013-0421). “I think this information is really solidly grounded in evidence.”
Dr. Wershil is a consultant for Alexion Pharmaceuticals; is a member of the speakers bureau for Abbott Nutrition, Mead Johnson Nutrition, and Nutricia; and receives funding from the National Institutes of Health Consortium of Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Disease Researchers.
CHICAGO – when doing a differential diagnosis. Fortunately, five questions backed by increasing evidence can help you make the call.
“Everyone in the room knows babies puke, and babies can puke a lot,” Barry K. Wershil, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics. The approach to diagnosing GERD is age specific. “Kids who puke tend to outgrow it over time. With development, 95% or more are no longer refluxing at 18 months of age.”
“So generally there is no reason to initially refer older children and teenagers to a gastroenterologist,” Dr. Wershil said. “One of the essential things [you] do is consider all the causes of vomiting that are not GERD. If your first go-to is GERD, you’re going to miss other issues.”
Dr. Wershil reviewed the definitions: Gastroesophageal reflux is passage of gastric contents into the esophagus. GERD, on the other hand, is defined by the troublesome symptoms or complications associated with reflux of gastric material into the esophagus. In contrast, NERD is the presence of reflux symptoms with no evidence of mucosal erosion or mucosal breaks.
Considerations backed by evidence
Unfortunately, symptoms alone do not always differentiate erosive versus nonerosive esophagitis, Dr. Wershil said, although recurrent vomiting, poor weight gain, anemia, feeding problems, and respiratory problems can be signs of complicated GERD.
He recommended the following five considerations to distinguish GERD from NERD:
- Is the patient exhibiting normal weight gain? If not, ask questions about how the child is being fed. Have the parents started diluting the formula because they think that will take care of the vomiting? Have they begun limiting the amount of formula after observing that the child throws up at 4 ounces but not at 2 ounces?
- Is the patient bleeding or anemic? Hematemesis is rarely the presentation of infants with GERD, but anemia may be.
- Does the patient have respiratory problems (for example, a history of aspiration, recurring wheezing, or cough)?
- Is the patient neurologically normal? If so, that can present a special class of patients in which vomiting may not be just normal infant vomiting.
- Is the patient older than 2 years? We expect 95% of children to outgrow reflux by 18 months, and most children who have physiological reflux will outgrow it by 2 years.
“Those five questions in 1983 had little evidence, but in 2017 there is more evidence that these are the questions to focus on,” Dr. Wershil said.
The role of diagnostic testing
Diagnostic testing, such as pH monitoring, impedance testing, and endoscopy, can be useful in specific situations but carry limitations for widespread use, Dr. Wershil said. “Each test has reasons and limitations.”
An upper GI tract series looks only for anatomic anomalies, for example. pH monitoring is still used in many centers, but in general, impedance monitoring has become more common because it can detect both acid and nonacid reflux: “You can get a very detailed analysis of events happening in the esophagus over time.” One caveat Dr. Wershil added is that, “in some instances, we’re unsure how to define this in the pediatric age ranges we treat.”
Endoscopy has a limited role for the rare patients with mucosal changes or erosive esophagitis, he added. Endoscopy is ordered to detect mucosal changes that confirm esophageal erosion. “In all the kids we scope with positive pH, we rarely find erosive esophagitis,” Dr. Wershil said. “What we find more often is NERD. That really represents more of what we see in our patient population.”
“I hope this information is a good starting point to understand the algorithms that get generated,” Dr. Wershil said.
He recommended an algorithm for gastroesophageal reflux prepared by the American Academy of Pediatrics’ Section on Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition (Pediatrics. 2013 May. doi: 10.1542/peds.2013-0421). “I think this information is really solidly grounded in evidence.”
Dr. Wershil is a consultant for Alexion Pharmaceuticals; is a member of the speakers bureau for Abbott Nutrition, Mead Johnson Nutrition, and Nutricia; and receives funding from the National Institutes of Health Consortium of Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Disease Researchers.
CHICAGO – when doing a differential diagnosis. Fortunately, five questions backed by increasing evidence can help you make the call.
“Everyone in the room knows babies puke, and babies can puke a lot,” Barry K. Wershil, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics. The approach to diagnosing GERD is age specific. “Kids who puke tend to outgrow it over time. With development, 95% or more are no longer refluxing at 18 months of age.”
“So generally there is no reason to initially refer older children and teenagers to a gastroenterologist,” Dr. Wershil said. “One of the essential things [you] do is consider all the causes of vomiting that are not GERD. If your first go-to is GERD, you’re going to miss other issues.”
Dr. Wershil reviewed the definitions: Gastroesophageal reflux is passage of gastric contents into the esophagus. GERD, on the other hand, is defined by the troublesome symptoms or complications associated with reflux of gastric material into the esophagus. In contrast, NERD is the presence of reflux symptoms with no evidence of mucosal erosion or mucosal breaks.
Considerations backed by evidence
Unfortunately, symptoms alone do not always differentiate erosive versus nonerosive esophagitis, Dr. Wershil said, although recurrent vomiting, poor weight gain, anemia, feeding problems, and respiratory problems can be signs of complicated GERD.
He recommended the following five considerations to distinguish GERD from NERD:
- Is the patient exhibiting normal weight gain? If not, ask questions about how the child is being fed. Have the parents started diluting the formula because they think that will take care of the vomiting? Have they begun limiting the amount of formula after observing that the child throws up at 4 ounces but not at 2 ounces?
- Is the patient bleeding or anemic? Hematemesis is rarely the presentation of infants with GERD, but anemia may be.
- Does the patient have respiratory problems (for example, a history of aspiration, recurring wheezing, or cough)?
- Is the patient neurologically normal? If so, that can present a special class of patients in which vomiting may not be just normal infant vomiting.
- Is the patient older than 2 years? We expect 95% of children to outgrow reflux by 18 months, and most children who have physiological reflux will outgrow it by 2 years.
“Those five questions in 1983 had little evidence, but in 2017 there is more evidence that these are the questions to focus on,” Dr. Wershil said.
The role of diagnostic testing
Diagnostic testing, such as pH monitoring, impedance testing, and endoscopy, can be useful in specific situations but carry limitations for widespread use, Dr. Wershil said. “Each test has reasons and limitations.”
An upper GI tract series looks only for anatomic anomalies, for example. pH monitoring is still used in many centers, but in general, impedance monitoring has become more common because it can detect both acid and nonacid reflux: “You can get a very detailed analysis of events happening in the esophagus over time.” One caveat Dr. Wershil added is that, “in some instances, we’re unsure how to define this in the pediatric age ranges we treat.”
Endoscopy has a limited role for the rare patients with mucosal changes or erosive esophagitis, he added. Endoscopy is ordered to detect mucosal changes that confirm esophageal erosion. “In all the kids we scope with positive pH, we rarely find erosive esophagitis,” Dr. Wershil said. “What we find more often is NERD. That really represents more of what we see in our patient population.”
“I hope this information is a good starting point to understand the algorithms that get generated,” Dr. Wershil said.
He recommended an algorithm for gastroesophageal reflux prepared by the American Academy of Pediatrics’ Section on Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition (Pediatrics. 2013 May. doi: 10.1542/peds.2013-0421). “I think this information is really solidly grounded in evidence.”
Dr. Wershil is a consultant for Alexion Pharmaceuticals; is a member of the speakers bureau for Abbott Nutrition, Mead Johnson Nutrition, and Nutricia; and receives funding from the National Institutes of Health Consortium of Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Disease Researchers.
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM AAP 2017
Rheumatoid arthritis increases risk of COPD hospitalizations
Individuals with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) had an increased risk of hospitalizations from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) when compared with the general population in a Canadian retrospective, population-based cohort study.
The risk of COPD hospitalizations was 47% higher in individuals with RA. “This finding emphasizes the need to control inflammation in rheumatoid arthritis, not only to prevent joint damage, but also to prevent complications of systemic inflammation, including the development of comorbidities such as cardiovascular diseases and COPD,” wrote Diane Lacaille, MD, of the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, and her coauthors (Arthritis Care Res. 2017 Oct 19. doi: 10.1002/acr.23410).
Several previous studies have suggested a link between COPD and inflammation, Dr. Lacaille and her colleagues said. Accordingly, they sought to evaluate the risk of COPD hospitalizations in a cohort of 24,625 individuals with RA as compared with 25,396 general population controls randomly selected and matched based on age, sex, and index year. Most subjects in the analysis were female, and the mean age at onset of RA was 57.2 years.
The investigators reported an increased incidence of COPD in individuals with RA, compared with controls, based on an incident rate ratio (IRR) of 1.58 (95% confidence interval, 1.34-1.87) that dropped to 1.47 (95% CI, 1.24-1.74) after adjustment for potential confounders, including comorbidities and health services usage at baseline. The overall incidence rate for COPD was 2.07 per 1,000 patient-years for RA patients and 1.31 per 1,000 patient-years for controls.
When the model was stratified based on sex, COPD hospitalization risk was significantly increased in women (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.61; 95% CI, 1.30-1.98), but not in men (adjusted HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.95-1.66), they said.
Data were not available on smoking, the main COPD risk factor, for the patients in this study; however, the increased risk of COPD hospitalizations in the RA group remained significant after modeling for smoking, according to the investigators.
Combined, these results have “notable implications for the clinical care of RA and COPD,” Dr. Lacaille and her coinvestigators said.
Both clinicians and people living with RA “should be aware of the increased risk of developing COPD and be vigilant in watching for early symptoms of COPD, so that appropriate diagnostic tests can be administered at the onset of early symptoms,” they wrote. “Early detection of COPD is essential so that effective treatments can be initiated before irreversible damage to the lungs occurs, to improve long-term outcomes.”
These findings strengthen the conclusions of two previous cross-sectional studies showing an association between RA and COPD prevalence, according to the investigators. In one study, RA patients in Israel who were receiving disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs had double the prevalence of COPD, compared with general population controls, according to authors of that study (Immunol Res. 2013;56[2-3]:261-6). Similarly, U.K. investigators compared 421 RA patients against controls and reported a twofold increase in obstructive pattern on screening spirometry in the RA group (Ann Rheum Dis. 2013;72:1517-23).
The current study from Dr. Lacaille and her coinvestigators was supported by funding from the Canadian Institute for Health Research. The authors reported that they had no financial disclosures, conflicts of interest, or benefits from commercial sources.
Individuals with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) had an increased risk of hospitalizations from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) when compared with the general population in a Canadian retrospective, population-based cohort study.
The risk of COPD hospitalizations was 47% higher in individuals with RA. “This finding emphasizes the need to control inflammation in rheumatoid arthritis, not only to prevent joint damage, but also to prevent complications of systemic inflammation, including the development of comorbidities such as cardiovascular diseases and COPD,” wrote Diane Lacaille, MD, of the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, and her coauthors (Arthritis Care Res. 2017 Oct 19. doi: 10.1002/acr.23410).
Several previous studies have suggested a link between COPD and inflammation, Dr. Lacaille and her colleagues said. Accordingly, they sought to evaluate the risk of COPD hospitalizations in a cohort of 24,625 individuals with RA as compared with 25,396 general population controls randomly selected and matched based on age, sex, and index year. Most subjects in the analysis were female, and the mean age at onset of RA was 57.2 years.
The investigators reported an increased incidence of COPD in individuals with RA, compared with controls, based on an incident rate ratio (IRR) of 1.58 (95% confidence interval, 1.34-1.87) that dropped to 1.47 (95% CI, 1.24-1.74) after adjustment for potential confounders, including comorbidities and health services usage at baseline. The overall incidence rate for COPD was 2.07 per 1,000 patient-years for RA patients and 1.31 per 1,000 patient-years for controls.
When the model was stratified based on sex, COPD hospitalization risk was significantly increased in women (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.61; 95% CI, 1.30-1.98), but not in men (adjusted HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.95-1.66), they said.
Data were not available on smoking, the main COPD risk factor, for the patients in this study; however, the increased risk of COPD hospitalizations in the RA group remained significant after modeling for smoking, according to the investigators.
Combined, these results have “notable implications for the clinical care of RA and COPD,” Dr. Lacaille and her coinvestigators said.
Both clinicians and people living with RA “should be aware of the increased risk of developing COPD and be vigilant in watching for early symptoms of COPD, so that appropriate diagnostic tests can be administered at the onset of early symptoms,” they wrote. “Early detection of COPD is essential so that effective treatments can be initiated before irreversible damage to the lungs occurs, to improve long-term outcomes.”
These findings strengthen the conclusions of two previous cross-sectional studies showing an association between RA and COPD prevalence, according to the investigators. In one study, RA patients in Israel who were receiving disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs had double the prevalence of COPD, compared with general population controls, according to authors of that study (Immunol Res. 2013;56[2-3]:261-6). Similarly, U.K. investigators compared 421 RA patients against controls and reported a twofold increase in obstructive pattern on screening spirometry in the RA group (Ann Rheum Dis. 2013;72:1517-23).
The current study from Dr. Lacaille and her coinvestigators was supported by funding from the Canadian Institute for Health Research. The authors reported that they had no financial disclosures, conflicts of interest, or benefits from commercial sources.
Individuals with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) had an increased risk of hospitalizations from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) when compared with the general population in a Canadian retrospective, population-based cohort study.
The risk of COPD hospitalizations was 47% higher in individuals with RA. “This finding emphasizes the need to control inflammation in rheumatoid arthritis, not only to prevent joint damage, but also to prevent complications of systemic inflammation, including the development of comorbidities such as cardiovascular diseases and COPD,” wrote Diane Lacaille, MD, of the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, and her coauthors (Arthritis Care Res. 2017 Oct 19. doi: 10.1002/acr.23410).
Several previous studies have suggested a link between COPD and inflammation, Dr. Lacaille and her colleagues said. Accordingly, they sought to evaluate the risk of COPD hospitalizations in a cohort of 24,625 individuals with RA as compared with 25,396 general population controls randomly selected and matched based on age, sex, and index year. Most subjects in the analysis were female, and the mean age at onset of RA was 57.2 years.
The investigators reported an increased incidence of COPD in individuals with RA, compared with controls, based on an incident rate ratio (IRR) of 1.58 (95% confidence interval, 1.34-1.87) that dropped to 1.47 (95% CI, 1.24-1.74) after adjustment for potential confounders, including comorbidities and health services usage at baseline. The overall incidence rate for COPD was 2.07 per 1,000 patient-years for RA patients and 1.31 per 1,000 patient-years for controls.
When the model was stratified based on sex, COPD hospitalization risk was significantly increased in women (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.61; 95% CI, 1.30-1.98), but not in men (adjusted HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.95-1.66), they said.
Data were not available on smoking, the main COPD risk factor, for the patients in this study; however, the increased risk of COPD hospitalizations in the RA group remained significant after modeling for smoking, according to the investigators.
Combined, these results have “notable implications for the clinical care of RA and COPD,” Dr. Lacaille and her coinvestigators said.
Both clinicians and people living with RA “should be aware of the increased risk of developing COPD and be vigilant in watching for early symptoms of COPD, so that appropriate diagnostic tests can be administered at the onset of early symptoms,” they wrote. “Early detection of COPD is essential so that effective treatments can be initiated before irreversible damage to the lungs occurs, to improve long-term outcomes.”
These findings strengthen the conclusions of two previous cross-sectional studies showing an association between RA and COPD prevalence, according to the investigators. In one study, RA patients in Israel who were receiving disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs had double the prevalence of COPD, compared with general population controls, according to authors of that study (Immunol Res. 2013;56[2-3]:261-6). Similarly, U.K. investigators compared 421 RA patients against controls and reported a twofold increase in obstructive pattern on screening spirometry in the RA group (Ann Rheum Dis. 2013;72:1517-23).
The current study from Dr. Lacaille and her coinvestigators was supported by funding from the Canadian Institute for Health Research. The authors reported that they had no financial disclosures, conflicts of interest, or benefits from commercial sources.
FROM Arthritis Care AND Research
Key clinical point:
Major finding: The risk of COPD hospitalizations was 47% higher in individuals with rheumatoid arthritis (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.47; 95% confidence interval, 1.34-1.87).
Data source: A retrospective cohort study including approximately 25,000 RA patients seen in British Columbia and a roughly equal number of controls.
Disclosures: The Canadian Institute for Health Research provided funding for the study. The authors reported that they had no financial disclosures, conflicts of interest, or benefits from commercial sources.
A ‘game changer’ for pediatric HIV
In memory of Anne Marie Regan, CPNP, senior research coordinator, Pediatric HIV Program, Boston City Hospital
Our first child with perinatal HIV presented in 1985 at age 4 weeks with failure to thrive, vomiting, diarrhea, and thrush. Over the next several years, the number of HIV-infected infants grew exponentially, and by 1991, we were caring for more than 50 infants and children at Boston City Hospital.
Antiretrovirals were marginally effective for HIV-infected infants and children at this time. Subsequently, we embarked on a national effort to prevent vertical transmission. We participated first in the study of pharmacokinetics of zidovudine (AZT) in newborns. We enrolled patients in ACTG 076 to test the hypothesis that treatment with AZT during pregnancy and labor, and in the infant, would reduce the risk of vertical transmission. Fifty U.S. and nine French sites enrolled 473 women between April 1991 and December 20, 1993. The results were spectacular; 8 of 100 infants in the AZT treatment group, compared with 25 out of 100 infants in the control group, developed HIV. By 1995, HIV testing was offered to all women at Boston Medical Center (formerly Boston City Hospital), and the promise of prevention of vertical transmission was reaching fruition. Between 1996 and 2016, approximately 500 HIV-infected women delivered at Boston Medical Center with vertical transmission identified in only 6 (1.2%) infants; without ACTG 076, we would have expected 125! In 2013, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that 70% of pregnant HIV-infected women received the complete 076 regimen, and 93% of mothers or infants received some part of the regimen. In 1992, 900 HIV-infected infants were diagnosed in the United States, and as many as 2,000 newborns were estimated to have been born infected with HIV; in 2015, 86 vertical transmissions were identified. This was, and remains, a remarkable accomplishment.
Dr. Pelton is chief of pediatric infectious diseases and coordinator of the maternal-child HIV program at Boston Medical Center. Ms. Moloney is a certified pediatric nurse practitioner in the division of pediatric infectious diseases. Dr. Pelton said he had no relevant financial disclosures, and Ms. Moloney is a speaker (on vaccines) for Sanofi Pasteur. Email them at [email protected].
In memory of Anne Marie Regan, CPNP, senior research coordinator, Pediatric HIV Program, Boston City Hospital
Our first child with perinatal HIV presented in 1985 at age 4 weeks with failure to thrive, vomiting, diarrhea, and thrush. Over the next several years, the number of HIV-infected infants grew exponentially, and by 1991, we were caring for more than 50 infants and children at Boston City Hospital.
Antiretrovirals were marginally effective for HIV-infected infants and children at this time. Subsequently, we embarked on a national effort to prevent vertical transmission. We participated first in the study of pharmacokinetics of zidovudine (AZT) in newborns. We enrolled patients in ACTG 076 to test the hypothesis that treatment with AZT during pregnancy and labor, and in the infant, would reduce the risk of vertical transmission. Fifty U.S. and nine French sites enrolled 473 women between April 1991 and December 20, 1993. The results were spectacular; 8 of 100 infants in the AZT treatment group, compared with 25 out of 100 infants in the control group, developed HIV. By 1995, HIV testing was offered to all women at Boston Medical Center (formerly Boston City Hospital), and the promise of prevention of vertical transmission was reaching fruition. Between 1996 and 2016, approximately 500 HIV-infected women delivered at Boston Medical Center with vertical transmission identified in only 6 (1.2%) infants; without ACTG 076, we would have expected 125! In 2013, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that 70% of pregnant HIV-infected women received the complete 076 regimen, and 93% of mothers or infants received some part of the regimen. In 1992, 900 HIV-infected infants were diagnosed in the United States, and as many as 2,000 newborns were estimated to have been born infected with HIV; in 2015, 86 vertical transmissions were identified. This was, and remains, a remarkable accomplishment.
Dr. Pelton is chief of pediatric infectious diseases and coordinator of the maternal-child HIV program at Boston Medical Center. Ms. Moloney is a certified pediatric nurse practitioner in the division of pediatric infectious diseases. Dr. Pelton said he had no relevant financial disclosures, and Ms. Moloney is a speaker (on vaccines) for Sanofi Pasteur. Email them at [email protected].
In memory of Anne Marie Regan, CPNP, senior research coordinator, Pediatric HIV Program, Boston City Hospital
Our first child with perinatal HIV presented in 1985 at age 4 weeks with failure to thrive, vomiting, diarrhea, and thrush. Over the next several years, the number of HIV-infected infants grew exponentially, and by 1991, we were caring for more than 50 infants and children at Boston City Hospital.
Antiretrovirals were marginally effective for HIV-infected infants and children at this time. Subsequently, we embarked on a national effort to prevent vertical transmission. We participated first in the study of pharmacokinetics of zidovudine (AZT) in newborns. We enrolled patients in ACTG 076 to test the hypothesis that treatment with AZT during pregnancy and labor, and in the infant, would reduce the risk of vertical transmission. Fifty U.S. and nine French sites enrolled 473 women between April 1991 and December 20, 1993. The results were spectacular; 8 of 100 infants in the AZT treatment group, compared with 25 out of 100 infants in the control group, developed HIV. By 1995, HIV testing was offered to all women at Boston Medical Center (formerly Boston City Hospital), and the promise of prevention of vertical transmission was reaching fruition. Between 1996 and 2016, approximately 500 HIV-infected women delivered at Boston Medical Center with vertical transmission identified in only 6 (1.2%) infants; without ACTG 076, we would have expected 125! In 2013, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that 70% of pregnant HIV-infected women received the complete 076 regimen, and 93% of mothers or infants received some part of the regimen. In 1992, 900 HIV-infected infants were diagnosed in the United States, and as many as 2,000 newborns were estimated to have been born infected with HIV; in 2015, 86 vertical transmissions were identified. This was, and remains, a remarkable accomplishment.
Dr. Pelton is chief of pediatric infectious diseases and coordinator of the maternal-child HIV program at Boston Medical Center. Ms. Moloney is a certified pediatric nurse practitioner in the division of pediatric infectious diseases. Dr. Pelton said he had no relevant financial disclosures, and Ms. Moloney is a speaker (on vaccines) for Sanofi Pasteur. Email them at [email protected].
Dermatologists, rheumatologists differ in management of pediatric discoid lupus erythematosus
CHICAGO – With no consensus guidelines, rheumatologists and dermatologists have significant practice-based differences in their treatment of children with discoid lupus erythematosus, according to a survey of the two specialties.
The survey’s results from 57 pediatric dermatologists and 47 pediatric rheumatologists showed a lack of consensus between the two specialties in how to screen for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). The two specialties also differed in identification of which features of discoid lupus erythematosus (DLE) might predispose children to developing SLE, and in some therapy choices for DLE.
Although rare in children, DLE may develop into systemic lupus erythematosus in about 25%-30% of pediatric patients, according to Lisa Arkin, MD, who shared the survey results during a poster presentation at the World Congress of Pediatric Dermatology.
Dr. Arkin and her colleagues conducted a Web-based survey to examine differences in DLE treatment practice patterns between pediatric dermatologists and pediatric rheumatologists. They sent the survey to 292 members of the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance (CARRA), and to 200 members of the Pediatric Dermatology Research Alliance (PeDRA), and received responses from 44% of the rheumatologists and 56% of the dermatologists. Of those, 57 dermatologists and 47 rheumatologists met inclusion criteria for the study.
More than half of the respondents in each specialty had seen fewer than 10 patients with skin-limited DLE, and fewer than 10 patients with SLE and DLE, over the course of their careers, said Dr. Arkin, director of pediatric dermatology at the University of Wisconsin, Madison.
Consensus was defined by Dr. Arkin and her colleagues as greater than 70% agreement from both specialties, and 2-sided P values less than .05 showed practice differences between rheumatologists and dermatologists.
Clinicians reached a consensus that the presence of either arthritis or nephritis in a pediatric patient with DLE put the patient at high risk for SLE. Arthritis was identified as a high-risk feature by 41 of 57 dermatologists (72%) and 36 of 47 rheumatologists (77%), while nephritis was seen as a high-risk feature by 39 dermatologists (68%) and 37 rheumatologists (79%). However, said Dr. Arkin, “no other features from a list of 30 risk factors including demographics, clinical, or laboratory features achieved consensus.”
In deciding which laboratory studies to order to screen for SLE upon DLE diagnosis, 26 dermatologists (46%) and 38 rheumatologists (81%) choose a full screening panel, according to the survey results. That was a significant between-specialty difference (P less than .001). The full panel consisted of obtaining a complete blood count with differential, testing for renal and hepatic function, obtaining the erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) and C-reactive protein (CRP) level, and doing urine studies. The panel also included testing for complements, autoantibodies including anti–double-stranded DNA, single-stranded A and B, ribonucleoprotein, anti-Smith, and antiphospholipid antibodies.
However, when individual laboratory studies were examined, several did achieve consensus for baseline screening. Those included the CBC with differential; urinalysis (but not urine protein creatinine), ESR (but not CRP); complement, renal, and hepatic function testing; and most autoantibody testing (but not antiphospholipid antibody testing). Where there were differences in likelihood to order a test, rheumatologists were more likely to order the test than dermatologists.
In deciding on initial treatment, “rheumatologists were more likely to always initiate hydroxychloroquine than dermatologists,” said Dr. Arkin. Of the rheumatologists, 49% always initiated hydroxychloroquine, compared with 14% of the dermatologists (P less than .001).
In contrast, “dermatologists were more likely to always initiate topical therapy than the rheumatologists,” said Dr. Arkin. Topical therapy was always started by 81% of the dermatologists and 33% of the rheumatologists (P less than .001).
Although the specialties differed in whether they always initiated a certain treatment, “hydroxychloroquine achieved consensus as first-line therapy,” Dr. Arkin noted, with 81% of dermatologists and 87% of rheumatologists choosing hydroxychloroquine when the survey asked for a first-line systemic therapy.
There was no consensus about which agents were best for add-on therapy. Of the dermatologists, 32% would sometimes use methotrexate, which was used by 21% of rheumatologists for refractory skin disease. Quinacrine was used as add-on therapy by 21% of dermatologists and 15% of rheumatologists. Rheumatologists were significantly more likely to add dapsone than dermatologists (28% vs. 5%, P = .002).
The survey points to the need to develop consensus guidelines in the treatment of pediatric DLE, said Dr. Arkin. “Knowledge gaps include risk factors for SLE, optimal screening, and therapy,” she explained. “Collection of robust longitudinal data will aid in developing pediatric consensus guidelines for DLE.”
Dr. Arkin had no conflicts of interest.
[email protected]
On Twitter @karioakes
CHICAGO – With no consensus guidelines, rheumatologists and dermatologists have significant practice-based differences in their treatment of children with discoid lupus erythematosus, according to a survey of the two specialties.
The survey’s results from 57 pediatric dermatologists and 47 pediatric rheumatologists showed a lack of consensus between the two specialties in how to screen for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). The two specialties also differed in identification of which features of discoid lupus erythematosus (DLE) might predispose children to developing SLE, and in some therapy choices for DLE.
Although rare in children, DLE may develop into systemic lupus erythematosus in about 25%-30% of pediatric patients, according to Lisa Arkin, MD, who shared the survey results during a poster presentation at the World Congress of Pediatric Dermatology.
Dr. Arkin and her colleagues conducted a Web-based survey to examine differences in DLE treatment practice patterns between pediatric dermatologists and pediatric rheumatologists. They sent the survey to 292 members of the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance (CARRA), and to 200 members of the Pediatric Dermatology Research Alliance (PeDRA), and received responses from 44% of the rheumatologists and 56% of the dermatologists. Of those, 57 dermatologists and 47 rheumatologists met inclusion criteria for the study.
More than half of the respondents in each specialty had seen fewer than 10 patients with skin-limited DLE, and fewer than 10 patients with SLE and DLE, over the course of their careers, said Dr. Arkin, director of pediatric dermatology at the University of Wisconsin, Madison.
Consensus was defined by Dr. Arkin and her colleagues as greater than 70% agreement from both specialties, and 2-sided P values less than .05 showed practice differences between rheumatologists and dermatologists.
Clinicians reached a consensus that the presence of either arthritis or nephritis in a pediatric patient with DLE put the patient at high risk for SLE. Arthritis was identified as a high-risk feature by 41 of 57 dermatologists (72%) and 36 of 47 rheumatologists (77%), while nephritis was seen as a high-risk feature by 39 dermatologists (68%) and 37 rheumatologists (79%). However, said Dr. Arkin, “no other features from a list of 30 risk factors including demographics, clinical, or laboratory features achieved consensus.”
In deciding which laboratory studies to order to screen for SLE upon DLE diagnosis, 26 dermatologists (46%) and 38 rheumatologists (81%) choose a full screening panel, according to the survey results. That was a significant between-specialty difference (P less than .001). The full panel consisted of obtaining a complete blood count with differential, testing for renal and hepatic function, obtaining the erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) and C-reactive protein (CRP) level, and doing urine studies. The panel also included testing for complements, autoantibodies including anti–double-stranded DNA, single-stranded A and B, ribonucleoprotein, anti-Smith, and antiphospholipid antibodies.
However, when individual laboratory studies were examined, several did achieve consensus for baseline screening. Those included the CBC with differential; urinalysis (but not urine protein creatinine), ESR (but not CRP); complement, renal, and hepatic function testing; and most autoantibody testing (but not antiphospholipid antibody testing). Where there were differences in likelihood to order a test, rheumatologists were more likely to order the test than dermatologists.
In deciding on initial treatment, “rheumatologists were more likely to always initiate hydroxychloroquine than dermatologists,” said Dr. Arkin. Of the rheumatologists, 49% always initiated hydroxychloroquine, compared with 14% of the dermatologists (P less than .001).
In contrast, “dermatologists were more likely to always initiate topical therapy than the rheumatologists,” said Dr. Arkin. Topical therapy was always started by 81% of the dermatologists and 33% of the rheumatologists (P less than .001).
Although the specialties differed in whether they always initiated a certain treatment, “hydroxychloroquine achieved consensus as first-line therapy,” Dr. Arkin noted, with 81% of dermatologists and 87% of rheumatologists choosing hydroxychloroquine when the survey asked for a first-line systemic therapy.
There was no consensus about which agents were best for add-on therapy. Of the dermatologists, 32% would sometimes use methotrexate, which was used by 21% of rheumatologists for refractory skin disease. Quinacrine was used as add-on therapy by 21% of dermatologists and 15% of rheumatologists. Rheumatologists were significantly more likely to add dapsone than dermatologists (28% vs. 5%, P = .002).
The survey points to the need to develop consensus guidelines in the treatment of pediatric DLE, said Dr. Arkin. “Knowledge gaps include risk factors for SLE, optimal screening, and therapy,” she explained. “Collection of robust longitudinal data will aid in developing pediatric consensus guidelines for DLE.”
Dr. Arkin had no conflicts of interest.
[email protected]
On Twitter @karioakes
CHICAGO – With no consensus guidelines, rheumatologists and dermatologists have significant practice-based differences in their treatment of children with discoid lupus erythematosus, according to a survey of the two specialties.
The survey’s results from 57 pediatric dermatologists and 47 pediatric rheumatologists showed a lack of consensus between the two specialties in how to screen for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). The two specialties also differed in identification of which features of discoid lupus erythematosus (DLE) might predispose children to developing SLE, and in some therapy choices for DLE.
Although rare in children, DLE may develop into systemic lupus erythematosus in about 25%-30% of pediatric patients, according to Lisa Arkin, MD, who shared the survey results during a poster presentation at the World Congress of Pediatric Dermatology.
Dr. Arkin and her colleagues conducted a Web-based survey to examine differences in DLE treatment practice patterns between pediatric dermatologists and pediatric rheumatologists. They sent the survey to 292 members of the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance (CARRA), and to 200 members of the Pediatric Dermatology Research Alliance (PeDRA), and received responses from 44% of the rheumatologists and 56% of the dermatologists. Of those, 57 dermatologists and 47 rheumatologists met inclusion criteria for the study.
More than half of the respondents in each specialty had seen fewer than 10 patients with skin-limited DLE, and fewer than 10 patients with SLE and DLE, over the course of their careers, said Dr. Arkin, director of pediatric dermatology at the University of Wisconsin, Madison.
Consensus was defined by Dr. Arkin and her colleagues as greater than 70% agreement from both specialties, and 2-sided P values less than .05 showed practice differences between rheumatologists and dermatologists.
Clinicians reached a consensus that the presence of either arthritis or nephritis in a pediatric patient with DLE put the patient at high risk for SLE. Arthritis was identified as a high-risk feature by 41 of 57 dermatologists (72%) and 36 of 47 rheumatologists (77%), while nephritis was seen as a high-risk feature by 39 dermatologists (68%) and 37 rheumatologists (79%). However, said Dr. Arkin, “no other features from a list of 30 risk factors including demographics, clinical, or laboratory features achieved consensus.”
In deciding which laboratory studies to order to screen for SLE upon DLE diagnosis, 26 dermatologists (46%) and 38 rheumatologists (81%) choose a full screening panel, according to the survey results. That was a significant between-specialty difference (P less than .001). The full panel consisted of obtaining a complete blood count with differential, testing for renal and hepatic function, obtaining the erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) and C-reactive protein (CRP) level, and doing urine studies. The panel also included testing for complements, autoantibodies including anti–double-stranded DNA, single-stranded A and B, ribonucleoprotein, anti-Smith, and antiphospholipid antibodies.
However, when individual laboratory studies were examined, several did achieve consensus for baseline screening. Those included the CBC with differential; urinalysis (but not urine protein creatinine), ESR (but not CRP); complement, renal, and hepatic function testing; and most autoantibody testing (but not antiphospholipid antibody testing). Where there were differences in likelihood to order a test, rheumatologists were more likely to order the test than dermatologists.
In deciding on initial treatment, “rheumatologists were more likely to always initiate hydroxychloroquine than dermatologists,” said Dr. Arkin. Of the rheumatologists, 49% always initiated hydroxychloroquine, compared with 14% of the dermatologists (P less than .001).
In contrast, “dermatologists were more likely to always initiate topical therapy than the rheumatologists,” said Dr. Arkin. Topical therapy was always started by 81% of the dermatologists and 33% of the rheumatologists (P less than .001).
Although the specialties differed in whether they always initiated a certain treatment, “hydroxychloroquine achieved consensus as first-line therapy,” Dr. Arkin noted, with 81% of dermatologists and 87% of rheumatologists choosing hydroxychloroquine when the survey asked for a first-line systemic therapy.
There was no consensus about which agents were best for add-on therapy. Of the dermatologists, 32% would sometimes use methotrexate, which was used by 21% of rheumatologists for refractory skin disease. Quinacrine was used as add-on therapy by 21% of dermatologists and 15% of rheumatologists. Rheumatologists were significantly more likely to add dapsone than dermatologists (28% vs. 5%, P = .002).
The survey points to the need to develop consensus guidelines in the treatment of pediatric DLE, said Dr. Arkin. “Knowledge gaps include risk factors for SLE, optimal screening, and therapy,” she explained. “Collection of robust longitudinal data will aid in developing pediatric consensus guidelines for DLE.”
Dr. Arkin had no conflicts of interest.
[email protected]
On Twitter @karioakes
AT WCPD 2017
Key clinical point:
Major finding: The two specialties reached a consensus in identifying 2 of 30 potential high-risk features for the development of systemic lupus erythematosus.
Data source: Survey results from 57 pediatric dermatologists and 47 pediatric rheumatologists who treat children with DLE.Disclosures: Dr. Arkin had no relevant financial conflicts.
Psychiatric illness, low IQ often co-occur among male inmates
BERLIN – Among inmates in a Mexican federal prison, psychiatric disorders went hand-in-hand with low or extremely low IQ scores, a study showed.
About 86% of the inmates with a mental illness also had an IQ of 67-69. These men were likely to have multiple psychiatric diagnoses compounded by traumatic brain injury and substance dependence. They also were lowest in the hierarchy of organized crime, Isaac S. Carlos, MD, said at the meeting of the World Psychiatric Association.
Outside prison, this combination of mental illness and low intelligence set these men up for manipulation by more intelligent criminals, who used them most frequently as drug mules or henchmen, Dr. Carlos said. Inside, they were still extremely vulnerable to manipulation and abuse by more intelligent inmates who retain their intellectual dominance in the prison social structure.
Dr. Carlos is an attending psychiatrist in a large, maximum security federal prison that houses thousands of men convicted mostly in organized crime rings associated with drug trafficking. About 45% of the country’s federal inmate population overall has been diagnosed with some kind of mental disorder and requires treatment, but there are few options, he said. In Dr. Carlos’s institution, with one psychiatrist, one criminologist, and 20 psychologists to serve more than 5,000 prisoners, there are few opportunities to do rehabilitative therapy, counseling, or any behavioral interventions. Medication is about the best treatment offered, Dr. Carlos said.
He said he is actively trying to establish an integrative care system there. As part of the project, Dr. Carlos and his colleagues looked at the co-occurrence of psychiatric diagnoses and IQ level.
His group comprised 400 inmates who were sent for psychiatric assessment, which included the Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence, Second Edition. Each inmate also received a ranking for his role in organized crime: intellectual (administrative leaders and organizers at the top of the hierarchy), technical (responsible for transportation and transactions), or material (executers of the criminal commands from above).
Of the 400 inmates referred, 300 had at least one ICD-10 mental illness diagnosis. These men were a mean of 30 years old with a mean of 10 years of education. About a third of the group had a triple diagnosis of psychosis, dependence on multiple substances, and dissocial personality disorder (which is comparable to antisocial personality disorder in the DSM-5). These inmates also had the lowest IQ measurements.
Other diagnostic combinations included schizoaffective plus dissocial disorder; substance abuse plus psychosis; dependent personality disorder plus dissocial disorder; traumatic brain injury or posttraumatic stress disorder with psychosis; dependent personality plus dissocial disorder; bipolar disorder plus either dissocial disorder or dependent personality; depression plus borderline personality disorder; depression plus narcissistic disorder; depression plus both personality disorder and dependent personality disorder; adjustment disorder plus dissocial disorder; anxiety plus both dependent and personality disorder, with or without narcissistic disorder; and dependent disorder plus either narcissism or borderline personality disorder.
Only one inmate had a high IQ score. This man had a dual diagnosis of depression and narcissism, and an IQ of 129. He was considered an intellectual offender.
The next highest IQ was 77 – the upper limit of a large group of scores in the 70s. Diagnoses included adjustment disorder plus dissocial disorder; posttraumatic stress disorder plus dissocial disorder; bipolar plus dissocial disorder; and depression plus borderline personality disorder. These men largely fell into the “technical” offender category – the middlemen of organized crime.
At the lower end of the IQ scale were the men categorized as “material” offenders. With IQs ranging from 67 to 69, these men frequently had multiple mental illnesses complicated by brain damage and substance abuse. When psychosis occurred, it was always in conjunction with these lower IQ scores. Low scores were common, Dr. Carlos said: In fact, 45% of the cohort had an IQ of 67; 22%, an IQ of 68; and 19%, an IQ of 69.
“It is necessary to understand the psychiatric comorbidities as well as the IQ in order to get better treatment responses,” Dr. Carlos said. “In some other prisons, this is already understood and a part of therapeutic treatment, but we just don’t have this (in the federal prison system). We have to make the people who run these prisons understand this.”
He had no relevant financial disclosure.
[email protected]
On Twitter @alz_gal
BERLIN – Among inmates in a Mexican federal prison, psychiatric disorders went hand-in-hand with low or extremely low IQ scores, a study showed.
About 86% of the inmates with a mental illness also had an IQ of 67-69. These men were likely to have multiple psychiatric diagnoses compounded by traumatic brain injury and substance dependence. They also were lowest in the hierarchy of organized crime, Isaac S. Carlos, MD, said at the meeting of the World Psychiatric Association.
Outside prison, this combination of mental illness and low intelligence set these men up for manipulation by more intelligent criminals, who used them most frequently as drug mules or henchmen, Dr. Carlos said. Inside, they were still extremely vulnerable to manipulation and abuse by more intelligent inmates who retain their intellectual dominance in the prison social structure.
Dr. Carlos is an attending psychiatrist in a large, maximum security federal prison that houses thousands of men convicted mostly in organized crime rings associated with drug trafficking. About 45% of the country’s federal inmate population overall has been diagnosed with some kind of mental disorder and requires treatment, but there are few options, he said. In Dr. Carlos’s institution, with one psychiatrist, one criminologist, and 20 psychologists to serve more than 5,000 prisoners, there are few opportunities to do rehabilitative therapy, counseling, or any behavioral interventions. Medication is about the best treatment offered, Dr. Carlos said.
He said he is actively trying to establish an integrative care system there. As part of the project, Dr. Carlos and his colleagues looked at the co-occurrence of psychiatric diagnoses and IQ level.
His group comprised 400 inmates who were sent for psychiatric assessment, which included the Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence, Second Edition. Each inmate also received a ranking for his role in organized crime: intellectual (administrative leaders and organizers at the top of the hierarchy), technical (responsible for transportation and transactions), or material (executers of the criminal commands from above).
Of the 400 inmates referred, 300 had at least one ICD-10 mental illness diagnosis. These men were a mean of 30 years old with a mean of 10 years of education. About a third of the group had a triple diagnosis of psychosis, dependence on multiple substances, and dissocial personality disorder (which is comparable to antisocial personality disorder in the DSM-5). These inmates also had the lowest IQ measurements.
Other diagnostic combinations included schizoaffective plus dissocial disorder; substance abuse plus psychosis; dependent personality disorder plus dissocial disorder; traumatic brain injury or posttraumatic stress disorder with psychosis; dependent personality plus dissocial disorder; bipolar disorder plus either dissocial disorder or dependent personality; depression plus borderline personality disorder; depression plus narcissistic disorder; depression plus both personality disorder and dependent personality disorder; adjustment disorder plus dissocial disorder; anxiety plus both dependent and personality disorder, with or without narcissistic disorder; and dependent disorder plus either narcissism or borderline personality disorder.
Only one inmate had a high IQ score. This man had a dual diagnosis of depression and narcissism, and an IQ of 129. He was considered an intellectual offender.
The next highest IQ was 77 – the upper limit of a large group of scores in the 70s. Diagnoses included adjustment disorder plus dissocial disorder; posttraumatic stress disorder plus dissocial disorder; bipolar plus dissocial disorder; and depression plus borderline personality disorder. These men largely fell into the “technical” offender category – the middlemen of organized crime.
At the lower end of the IQ scale were the men categorized as “material” offenders. With IQs ranging from 67 to 69, these men frequently had multiple mental illnesses complicated by brain damage and substance abuse. When psychosis occurred, it was always in conjunction with these lower IQ scores. Low scores were common, Dr. Carlos said: In fact, 45% of the cohort had an IQ of 67; 22%, an IQ of 68; and 19%, an IQ of 69.
“It is necessary to understand the psychiatric comorbidities as well as the IQ in order to get better treatment responses,” Dr. Carlos said. “In some other prisons, this is already understood and a part of therapeutic treatment, but we just don’t have this (in the federal prison system). We have to make the people who run these prisons understand this.”
He had no relevant financial disclosure.
[email protected]
On Twitter @alz_gal
BERLIN – Among inmates in a Mexican federal prison, psychiatric disorders went hand-in-hand with low or extremely low IQ scores, a study showed.
About 86% of the inmates with a mental illness also had an IQ of 67-69. These men were likely to have multiple psychiatric diagnoses compounded by traumatic brain injury and substance dependence. They also were lowest in the hierarchy of organized crime, Isaac S. Carlos, MD, said at the meeting of the World Psychiatric Association.
Outside prison, this combination of mental illness and low intelligence set these men up for manipulation by more intelligent criminals, who used them most frequently as drug mules or henchmen, Dr. Carlos said. Inside, they were still extremely vulnerable to manipulation and abuse by more intelligent inmates who retain their intellectual dominance in the prison social structure.
Dr. Carlos is an attending psychiatrist in a large, maximum security federal prison that houses thousands of men convicted mostly in organized crime rings associated with drug trafficking. About 45% of the country’s federal inmate population overall has been diagnosed with some kind of mental disorder and requires treatment, but there are few options, he said. In Dr. Carlos’s institution, with one psychiatrist, one criminologist, and 20 psychologists to serve more than 5,000 prisoners, there are few opportunities to do rehabilitative therapy, counseling, or any behavioral interventions. Medication is about the best treatment offered, Dr. Carlos said.
He said he is actively trying to establish an integrative care system there. As part of the project, Dr. Carlos and his colleagues looked at the co-occurrence of psychiatric diagnoses and IQ level.
His group comprised 400 inmates who were sent for psychiatric assessment, which included the Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence, Second Edition. Each inmate also received a ranking for his role in organized crime: intellectual (administrative leaders and organizers at the top of the hierarchy), technical (responsible for transportation and transactions), or material (executers of the criminal commands from above).
Of the 400 inmates referred, 300 had at least one ICD-10 mental illness diagnosis. These men were a mean of 30 years old with a mean of 10 years of education. About a third of the group had a triple diagnosis of psychosis, dependence on multiple substances, and dissocial personality disorder (which is comparable to antisocial personality disorder in the DSM-5). These inmates also had the lowest IQ measurements.
Other diagnostic combinations included schizoaffective plus dissocial disorder; substance abuse plus psychosis; dependent personality disorder plus dissocial disorder; traumatic brain injury or posttraumatic stress disorder with psychosis; dependent personality plus dissocial disorder; bipolar disorder plus either dissocial disorder or dependent personality; depression plus borderline personality disorder; depression plus narcissistic disorder; depression plus both personality disorder and dependent personality disorder; adjustment disorder plus dissocial disorder; anxiety plus both dependent and personality disorder, with or without narcissistic disorder; and dependent disorder plus either narcissism or borderline personality disorder.
Only one inmate had a high IQ score. This man had a dual diagnosis of depression and narcissism, and an IQ of 129. He was considered an intellectual offender.
The next highest IQ was 77 – the upper limit of a large group of scores in the 70s. Diagnoses included adjustment disorder plus dissocial disorder; posttraumatic stress disorder plus dissocial disorder; bipolar plus dissocial disorder; and depression plus borderline personality disorder. These men largely fell into the “technical” offender category – the middlemen of organized crime.
At the lower end of the IQ scale were the men categorized as “material” offenders. With IQs ranging from 67 to 69, these men frequently had multiple mental illnesses complicated by brain damage and substance abuse. When psychosis occurred, it was always in conjunction with these lower IQ scores. Low scores were common, Dr. Carlos said: In fact, 45% of the cohort had an IQ of 67; 22%, an IQ of 68; and 19%, an IQ of 69.
“It is necessary to understand the psychiatric comorbidities as well as the IQ in order to get better treatment responses,” Dr. Carlos said. “In some other prisons, this is already understood and a part of therapeutic treatment, but we just don’t have this (in the federal prison system). We have to make the people who run these prisons understand this.”
He had no relevant financial disclosure.
[email protected]
On Twitter @alz_gal
AT WPA 2017
Key clinical point:
Major finding: Almost 90% of inmates in a Mexican federal prison with a mental disorder also had a low or extremely low IQ.
Data source: A prospective study of 400 men; 300 had at least one ICD-10 mental health diagnosis.
Disclosures: Dr. Carlos had no relevant financial disclosures.
#MeToo: Does it help?
I can still hear my mother saying these words: “Sticks and stones will break your bones but names will never hurt you.” It was a call for resilience, in a world that wasn’t always kind, but where the expectation was clear: I was to let insults roll off me.
We live in a different world now, one in which there are divisions between the good and the bad, where children have the right not to be called names by bullies. Our college students want safe spaces where they won’t hear offensive ideologies and trigger warnings if they are to be exposed to anything that may rekindle a past trauma.
If you’ve been following social media, then you might be familiar with the #MeToo topic that traveled after the public was made aware of the despicable, sexually aggressive behavior of acclaimed film executive Harvey Weinstein. Actress Alyssa Milano put out a call on social media: “Suggested by a friend: If all the women who have been sexually harassed or assaulted wrote ‘Me too’ as a status, we might give people a sense of the magnitude of the problem.” Others have noted that in medicine, it might well be that 100% of women have been harassed. The hashtag took off, and millions of people wrote #MeToo on their social media sites, including four female U.S. senators who told their stories.
On my personal Facebook page, I voiced a concern about the #MeToo tag. I noted that there were times when men had said some inappropriate things to me and I’d felt uncomfortable. I went on to write, “I don’t feel I was changed, harmed, or victimized by these uncomfortable advances, and I worry that by turning everyone into a victim of sexual harassment, then we detract from the stories of the women who were raped, molested, and those who were the victims of men who were maliciously taking advantage of a power differential. I don’t think we should dilute the message.” One friend (a woman) responded that if I felt uncomfortable, then I was harassed. Another friend (a man) responded that if I did not feel harmed, then I was not harassed.
With no clear definition, this does lead to the question of whether we might be turning everyone into victims and if that is good for our collective psyches. What we don’t seem to say is that if everyone is a victim of something – if not sexual assault or harassment, then something else – then doesn’t that also make everyone a perpetrator? Cam Newton, for instance, has been an advocate of kneeling to oppose institutional racism and, in terms of his own victimization, I would add that he also is the victim of a sport that now knowingly inflicts permanent and disabling brain damage on healthy young men. And now he is not just a victim, he is also a sexist perpetrator, unworthy of endorsing something as wholesome as yogurt.
Other concerns about the #MeToo campaign have also been expressed on social media. Might those who have been victimized feel pressured to publicly announce their victimization? Might the campaign trigger women to recall troubling events that were safely suppressed? While I would not personally use the terms “victimized,” “triggered,” or “harassed,” to describe myself, I would say that the campaign, like many things I see on social media, left me to think about events I had not considered in many years. That’s not necessarily bad: I like revisiting old memories, but others certainly may not. It does leave us to ask how we can live in a society where we can’t openly address our horrors for fear that the victims might be forced to relive them.
And what do we do about these issues with our patients? As a psychotherapist, I don’t live in a comfortable world. Patients often do and say things that make me personally uneasy, and I never considered the idea that I might be entitled to live without such discomfort. The mandate of psychotherapy for the patient is to talk openly about that which is on his or her mind and for the therapist to provide a safe space for thoughts that might be unacceptable in other settings. Patients talk of behaviors that make me worry for their safety. Some talk of sexual fantasies that are demeaning to others. Others are openly sexist, racist, anti-Semitic, or supportive of political ideologies that I strongly oppose. This can be hard work.
Was my mother right? Or was she dismissive? It was good that I always felt she was in my corner cheering me on. Obviously, it’s not just a saying, but a mindset that gets transmitted, sometimes successfully breeding resilience, and sometimes not. Certainly, I have seen that patients feel helped when I have validated their victimization. I have also seen people reassess their values when I have pointed out alternative ways about thinking about situations. I have not found it particularly helpful to tell people that their wounds are not so bad and others have it worse. While I don’t tell patients that sticks and stones will break their bones and names will never hurt them, I do sometimes gently tell them that I wish I could have them dipped in tin so that they would have stronger armor and so that the insensitive words of others might roll off without injuring them so. And as with all communications in our chaotic world, it’s often not the exact words that matter, but rather the context, the tone, and the intention with which they are said.
Sometimes, there really are clear victims and clear perpetrators, but in our world today, one can be both and the sides can be blurry. We are all trying to negotiate a society where words, spoken or unspoken, well-considered or not, have become weapons. Who gets to be comfortable and protected, we might ask, and who does not? Perhaps, in the end, we are left with the possibility that there are no safe spaces.
With thanks to Dr. Emile Bendit for considering the #MeToo hashtag with me.
Dr. Miller is coauthor with Annette Hanson, MD, of “Committed: The battle over involuntary psychiatric care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016).
I can still hear my mother saying these words: “Sticks and stones will break your bones but names will never hurt you.” It was a call for resilience, in a world that wasn’t always kind, but where the expectation was clear: I was to let insults roll off me.
We live in a different world now, one in which there are divisions between the good and the bad, where children have the right not to be called names by bullies. Our college students want safe spaces where they won’t hear offensive ideologies and trigger warnings if they are to be exposed to anything that may rekindle a past trauma.
If you’ve been following social media, then you might be familiar with the #MeToo topic that traveled after the public was made aware of the despicable, sexually aggressive behavior of acclaimed film executive Harvey Weinstein. Actress Alyssa Milano put out a call on social media: “Suggested by a friend: If all the women who have been sexually harassed or assaulted wrote ‘Me too’ as a status, we might give people a sense of the magnitude of the problem.” Others have noted that in medicine, it might well be that 100% of women have been harassed. The hashtag took off, and millions of people wrote #MeToo on their social media sites, including four female U.S. senators who told their stories.
On my personal Facebook page, I voiced a concern about the #MeToo tag. I noted that there were times when men had said some inappropriate things to me and I’d felt uncomfortable. I went on to write, “I don’t feel I was changed, harmed, or victimized by these uncomfortable advances, and I worry that by turning everyone into a victim of sexual harassment, then we detract from the stories of the women who were raped, molested, and those who were the victims of men who were maliciously taking advantage of a power differential. I don’t think we should dilute the message.” One friend (a woman) responded that if I felt uncomfortable, then I was harassed. Another friend (a man) responded that if I did not feel harmed, then I was not harassed.
With no clear definition, this does lead to the question of whether we might be turning everyone into victims and if that is good for our collective psyches. What we don’t seem to say is that if everyone is a victim of something – if not sexual assault or harassment, then something else – then doesn’t that also make everyone a perpetrator? Cam Newton, for instance, has been an advocate of kneeling to oppose institutional racism and, in terms of his own victimization, I would add that he also is the victim of a sport that now knowingly inflicts permanent and disabling brain damage on healthy young men. And now he is not just a victim, he is also a sexist perpetrator, unworthy of endorsing something as wholesome as yogurt.
Other concerns about the #MeToo campaign have also been expressed on social media. Might those who have been victimized feel pressured to publicly announce their victimization? Might the campaign trigger women to recall troubling events that were safely suppressed? While I would not personally use the terms “victimized,” “triggered,” or “harassed,” to describe myself, I would say that the campaign, like many things I see on social media, left me to think about events I had not considered in many years. That’s not necessarily bad: I like revisiting old memories, but others certainly may not. It does leave us to ask how we can live in a society where we can’t openly address our horrors for fear that the victims might be forced to relive them.
And what do we do about these issues with our patients? As a psychotherapist, I don’t live in a comfortable world. Patients often do and say things that make me personally uneasy, and I never considered the idea that I might be entitled to live without such discomfort. The mandate of psychotherapy for the patient is to talk openly about that which is on his or her mind and for the therapist to provide a safe space for thoughts that might be unacceptable in other settings. Patients talk of behaviors that make me worry for their safety. Some talk of sexual fantasies that are demeaning to others. Others are openly sexist, racist, anti-Semitic, or supportive of political ideologies that I strongly oppose. This can be hard work.
Was my mother right? Or was she dismissive? It was good that I always felt she was in my corner cheering me on. Obviously, it’s not just a saying, but a mindset that gets transmitted, sometimes successfully breeding resilience, and sometimes not. Certainly, I have seen that patients feel helped when I have validated their victimization. I have also seen people reassess their values when I have pointed out alternative ways about thinking about situations. I have not found it particularly helpful to tell people that their wounds are not so bad and others have it worse. While I don’t tell patients that sticks and stones will break their bones and names will never hurt them, I do sometimes gently tell them that I wish I could have them dipped in tin so that they would have stronger armor and so that the insensitive words of others might roll off without injuring them so. And as with all communications in our chaotic world, it’s often not the exact words that matter, but rather the context, the tone, and the intention with which they are said.
Sometimes, there really are clear victims and clear perpetrators, but in our world today, one can be both and the sides can be blurry. We are all trying to negotiate a society where words, spoken or unspoken, well-considered or not, have become weapons. Who gets to be comfortable and protected, we might ask, and who does not? Perhaps, in the end, we are left with the possibility that there are no safe spaces.
With thanks to Dr. Emile Bendit for considering the #MeToo hashtag with me.
Dr. Miller is coauthor with Annette Hanson, MD, of “Committed: The battle over involuntary psychiatric care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016).
I can still hear my mother saying these words: “Sticks and stones will break your bones but names will never hurt you.” It was a call for resilience, in a world that wasn’t always kind, but where the expectation was clear: I was to let insults roll off me.
We live in a different world now, one in which there are divisions between the good and the bad, where children have the right not to be called names by bullies. Our college students want safe spaces where they won’t hear offensive ideologies and trigger warnings if they are to be exposed to anything that may rekindle a past trauma.
If you’ve been following social media, then you might be familiar with the #MeToo topic that traveled after the public was made aware of the despicable, sexually aggressive behavior of acclaimed film executive Harvey Weinstein. Actress Alyssa Milano put out a call on social media: “Suggested by a friend: If all the women who have been sexually harassed or assaulted wrote ‘Me too’ as a status, we might give people a sense of the magnitude of the problem.” Others have noted that in medicine, it might well be that 100% of women have been harassed. The hashtag took off, and millions of people wrote #MeToo on their social media sites, including four female U.S. senators who told their stories.
On my personal Facebook page, I voiced a concern about the #MeToo tag. I noted that there were times when men had said some inappropriate things to me and I’d felt uncomfortable. I went on to write, “I don’t feel I was changed, harmed, or victimized by these uncomfortable advances, and I worry that by turning everyone into a victim of sexual harassment, then we detract from the stories of the women who were raped, molested, and those who were the victims of men who were maliciously taking advantage of a power differential. I don’t think we should dilute the message.” One friend (a woman) responded that if I felt uncomfortable, then I was harassed. Another friend (a man) responded that if I did not feel harmed, then I was not harassed.
With no clear definition, this does lead to the question of whether we might be turning everyone into victims and if that is good for our collective psyches. What we don’t seem to say is that if everyone is a victim of something – if not sexual assault or harassment, then something else – then doesn’t that also make everyone a perpetrator? Cam Newton, for instance, has been an advocate of kneeling to oppose institutional racism and, in terms of his own victimization, I would add that he also is the victim of a sport that now knowingly inflicts permanent and disabling brain damage on healthy young men. And now he is not just a victim, he is also a sexist perpetrator, unworthy of endorsing something as wholesome as yogurt.
Other concerns about the #MeToo campaign have also been expressed on social media. Might those who have been victimized feel pressured to publicly announce their victimization? Might the campaign trigger women to recall troubling events that were safely suppressed? While I would not personally use the terms “victimized,” “triggered,” or “harassed,” to describe myself, I would say that the campaign, like many things I see on social media, left me to think about events I had not considered in many years. That’s not necessarily bad: I like revisiting old memories, but others certainly may not. It does leave us to ask how we can live in a society where we can’t openly address our horrors for fear that the victims might be forced to relive them.
And what do we do about these issues with our patients? As a psychotherapist, I don’t live in a comfortable world. Patients often do and say things that make me personally uneasy, and I never considered the idea that I might be entitled to live without such discomfort. The mandate of psychotherapy for the patient is to talk openly about that which is on his or her mind and for the therapist to provide a safe space for thoughts that might be unacceptable in other settings. Patients talk of behaviors that make me worry for their safety. Some talk of sexual fantasies that are demeaning to others. Others are openly sexist, racist, anti-Semitic, or supportive of political ideologies that I strongly oppose. This can be hard work.
Was my mother right? Or was she dismissive? It was good that I always felt she was in my corner cheering me on. Obviously, it’s not just a saying, but a mindset that gets transmitted, sometimes successfully breeding resilience, and sometimes not. Certainly, I have seen that patients feel helped when I have validated their victimization. I have also seen people reassess their values when I have pointed out alternative ways about thinking about situations. I have not found it particularly helpful to tell people that their wounds are not so bad and others have it worse. While I don’t tell patients that sticks and stones will break their bones and names will never hurt them, I do sometimes gently tell them that I wish I could have them dipped in tin so that they would have stronger armor and so that the insensitive words of others might roll off without injuring them so. And as with all communications in our chaotic world, it’s often not the exact words that matter, but rather the context, the tone, and the intention with which they are said.
Sometimes, there really are clear victims and clear perpetrators, but in our world today, one can be both and the sides can be blurry. We are all trying to negotiate a society where words, spoken or unspoken, well-considered or not, have become weapons. Who gets to be comfortable and protected, we might ask, and who does not? Perhaps, in the end, we are left with the possibility that there are no safe spaces.
With thanks to Dr. Emile Bendit for considering the #MeToo hashtag with me.
Dr. Miller is coauthor with Annette Hanson, MD, of “Committed: The battle over involuntary psychiatric care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016).
Session highlights controversies in diverticulitis management
SAN DIEGO – During the annual clinical congress of the American College of Surgeons, a panel of experts discussed a wide range of evolving controversies in the management of complicated diverticulitis.
John Migaly, MD, kicked off the session by exploring the current evidence for laparoscopic lavage versus primary resection for Hinchey III diverticulitis. “Over the past two decades there has been a growing utilization of primary resection and reanastomoses with or without the use of ileostomy,” said Dr. Migaly, director of the general surgery residency program at Duke University, Durham, N.C. “And most recently over the last 5 or 10 years there’s been growing enthusiasm for laparoscopic lavage for Hinchey III diverticulitis. The enthusiasm for this procedure is based on [its accessibility] to all of us who operate on the colon in the acute setting.”
The DILALA trial makes the best case for laparoscopic lavage, “but it doesn’t make a very good one,” he commented. The trial was conducted in nine surgical departments in Sweden and Denmark (Ann Surg. 2016;263[1]:117-22). Hinchey III patients were randomized 1:1 to laparoscopic lavage or the Hartmann procedure. The primary outcome was reoperations within 12 months. An early analysis of the short-term outcomes in 83 patients found similar 30-day and 90-day mortality and morbidity. Its authors concluded that laparoscopic lavage had equivalent morbidity and mortality compared with radical resection, shorter operative time, shorter time in the recovery unit, a shorter hospital stay, but no difference in the rate of reoperation.
“It was found to be safe and feasible,” Dr. Migaly said. One year later, the researchers presented their 12-month outcomes and came to the same conclusions. Limitations of the data are that it was conducted in nine centers “but they enrolled only 83 patients, so it seems underpowered,” he said. “And there was no mention of the incidence of abdominal abscess requiring percutaneous drainage or episodes of diverticulitis. The data seem a little less granular than the LADIES trial.”
The SCANDIV trial is the largest study on the topic to date, a randomized clinical superiority trial conducted at 21 centers in Sweden and Norway (JAMA 2015;314[13]:1364-75). Of the 509 patients screened, 415 were eligible and 199 were enrolled: 101 to laparoscopic lavage, 98 to colon resection. The primary endpoint was severe postoperative complications within 90 days, defined as a Clavien-Dindo score of over 3. The researchers found no difference in major complications nor in 90-day mortality between the two groups. The rate of reoperation was significantly higher in the lavage group, compared with the resection group (20.3% vs. 5.7%, respectively). Four sigmoid cancers were missed in the lavage group and, while the length of operation was significantly shorter in the lavage group, there were no differences between the two groups in hospital length of stay or quality of life.
A meta-analysis of the three randomized controlled trials that Dr. Migaly reviewed concluded that laparoscopic lavage, compared with resection, for Hinchey III diverticulitis increased the rate of total reoperations, the rate of reoperation for infection, and the rate of subsequent percutaneous drainage (J Gastrointest Surg 2017;21[9]:1491-99). A larger, more recent meta-analysis of 589 patients, including the three randomized controlled trials that Dr. Migaly discussed, concluded that laparoscopic lavage patients, compared with resection patients, had three times the risk of persistent peritonitis, intra-abdominal abscess, and emergency reoperative surgery. “Therefore, a reasonable conclusion would be that data at this point does not support the use of laparoscopic lavage,” he said.
The initial procedure of choice for most patients is abscess drainage via CT-guided percutaneous drainage. “There are some patients who are not candidates for percutaneous drainage, [such as] if the abscess is not accessible to the radiologist, if the patient is anticoagulated, and if the patient requires emergent surgical intervention irrespective of the abscess,” said Dr. Maron, a colorectal surgeon who practices at Cleveland Clinic Florida, Weston. “There is also a question of cavity size. Most authors in the literature use a cut-off of 3-4 cm.”
The goal is complete drainage of the abscess, and sometimes multiple catheters will be required. One study found that predictors of successful abscess drainage included having a well-defined, unilocular abscess. The success rate fell to 63% for patients who presented with more complex abscesses, including those that were loculated, poorly defined, associated with a fistula, and contained feces or semisolid material (Dis Colon Rectum. 1997;40:1009-13).
The 2014 ASCRS Practice Parameters includes the recommendation that elective colectomy should typically be considered after the patient recovers from an episode of complicated diverticulitis, “but some of the data may be calling that into question,” Dr. Maron said. In one series of 18 patients with an abscess treated percutaneously, 11 refused surgery and 7 had significant comorbidity (Dis Colon Rectum. 2014;57:331-6). Three patients died of a pre-existing condition and 7 of the 15 surviving patients had recurrent diverticulitis. Three underwent surgery and four were treated medically. The authors found no association between long-term failure and abscess location or previous episodes of diverticulitis.
In a larger study, researchers identified 218 patients who were initially treated with intravenous antibiotics and percutaneous drain (Dis Colon Rectum. 2013;56:622-6). About 10% of the patients required an urgent operation, while most of the other patients underwent elective resection, but 15% of patients did not undergo a subsequent colectomy. “Most of these patients were medically unfit to undergo surgery,” he noted. Abscess location was more commonly paracolic than pelvic. The mean abscess size was 4.2 cm, and the drain was left in for a median of 20 days. The recurrence rate in this series was only 30%, but none of the recurrences required surgery. The authors found that abscesses greater than 5 cm in size were associated with a greater risk of recurrence (P = .003). They concluded that observation after percutaneous drainage is safe in selected patients.
Based on results from this and other more recent studies, Dr. Maron said that it remains unclear whether surgeons should wait and watch or operate after successful percutaneous drainage of diverticular abscess. The data are “not as robust as we’d like … most of these are retrospective studies,” he said. “There’s quite a bit of inherent selection bias, and there is no standardization with regard to length of time of percutaneous drain, rationale for nonoperative management versus elective colectomy. What we do know is that there are some patients who can be managed safely without surgery. Unfortunately, there is no good algorithm I can offer you: Perhaps larger abscesses can portend a higher recurrence. I don’t think we’ll have a good answer to this until we perform a prospective randomized trial. However, we may learn some data from patients managed by peritoneal lavage and drain placement.”
Next, consider how to perform the procedure: laparoscopic or open? “But again, you’re going to look at how stable your patient is, what your skill set is, what equipment is available, and if the patient has had previous abdominal surgeries,” she advised. “In the traditional Hartmann procedure, you resect the perforated segment. You try not to open any tissue planes that you don’t have to. You do just enough so you can bring up a colostomy; you close the rectum or you make a mucous fistula. The problem with this operation is that up to 80% of these patients have their colostomy closed. That is why there is all this controversy. If there is any question, this [procedure] is always the safest option; there’s no anastomosis.”
What about a performing resection and a colorectal anastomosis? This is usually done more commonly in the elective situation, “when things are perfect, when you have healthy tissue,” Dr. Hull said. “If you do it in the emergent situation you have to think to yourself, ‘Could my patient tolerate a leak?’ You won’t want to do this operation on a 72-year-old who’s on steroids for chronic pulmonary disease and has coronary artery disease, because if they had a leak, they’d probably die.”
The third procedural option is to resect bowel (usually sigmoid) with colorectal anastomosis and diversion (loop ileostomy). “This is always my preferred choice,” Dr. Hull said. “I always am thinking, ‘Why can’t I do this?’ The reason is, closure of ileostomy is much easier than a Hartmann reversal, and 90% of these patients get reversed.” In a multicenter trial conducted by Swedish researchers, 62 patients were randomized to Hartmann’s procedure versus primary anastomosis with diverting ileostomy for perforated left-sided diverticulitis (Ann Surg. 2012;256[5]:819-27). The mortality and complications were similar, but the number of patients who got their stoma reversed was significantly less in the Hartmann’s group, compared with the primary anastomosis group (57% vs. 90%, respectively), and the serious complications were much higher in the Hartmann’s group (20% vs. 0). She cited an article from the World Journal of Emergency Surgery as one of the most comprehensive reviews of the subject.
So what is a surgeon to do? For an anastomosis after resection, “consider patient factors: Are they stable?” Dr. Hull said. “What are their comorbid conditions? You have to think, ‘What is my preference? Am I comfortable putting this back together?’ But a primary anastomosis is feasible, even in the acute setting with or without diverting ileostomy. The laparoscopic approach is typically preferred, but if that’s not in your armamentarium, the open [approach] is just fine. You should always perform a leak test. You can also do on table colonic lavage if feasible, especially if you have a large stool burden.”
None of the speakers reported having financial disclosures.
SAN DIEGO – During the annual clinical congress of the American College of Surgeons, a panel of experts discussed a wide range of evolving controversies in the management of complicated diverticulitis.
John Migaly, MD, kicked off the session by exploring the current evidence for laparoscopic lavage versus primary resection for Hinchey III diverticulitis. “Over the past two decades there has been a growing utilization of primary resection and reanastomoses with or without the use of ileostomy,” said Dr. Migaly, director of the general surgery residency program at Duke University, Durham, N.C. “And most recently over the last 5 or 10 years there’s been growing enthusiasm for laparoscopic lavage for Hinchey III diverticulitis. The enthusiasm for this procedure is based on [its accessibility] to all of us who operate on the colon in the acute setting.”
The DILALA trial makes the best case for laparoscopic lavage, “but it doesn’t make a very good one,” he commented. The trial was conducted in nine surgical departments in Sweden and Denmark (Ann Surg. 2016;263[1]:117-22). Hinchey III patients were randomized 1:1 to laparoscopic lavage or the Hartmann procedure. The primary outcome was reoperations within 12 months. An early analysis of the short-term outcomes in 83 patients found similar 30-day and 90-day mortality and morbidity. Its authors concluded that laparoscopic lavage had equivalent morbidity and mortality compared with radical resection, shorter operative time, shorter time in the recovery unit, a shorter hospital stay, but no difference in the rate of reoperation.
“It was found to be safe and feasible,” Dr. Migaly said. One year later, the researchers presented their 12-month outcomes and came to the same conclusions. Limitations of the data are that it was conducted in nine centers “but they enrolled only 83 patients, so it seems underpowered,” he said. “And there was no mention of the incidence of abdominal abscess requiring percutaneous drainage or episodes of diverticulitis. The data seem a little less granular than the LADIES trial.”
The SCANDIV trial is the largest study on the topic to date, a randomized clinical superiority trial conducted at 21 centers in Sweden and Norway (JAMA 2015;314[13]:1364-75). Of the 509 patients screened, 415 were eligible and 199 were enrolled: 101 to laparoscopic lavage, 98 to colon resection. The primary endpoint was severe postoperative complications within 90 days, defined as a Clavien-Dindo score of over 3. The researchers found no difference in major complications nor in 90-day mortality between the two groups. The rate of reoperation was significantly higher in the lavage group, compared with the resection group (20.3% vs. 5.7%, respectively). Four sigmoid cancers were missed in the lavage group and, while the length of operation was significantly shorter in the lavage group, there were no differences between the two groups in hospital length of stay or quality of life.
A meta-analysis of the three randomized controlled trials that Dr. Migaly reviewed concluded that laparoscopic lavage, compared with resection, for Hinchey III diverticulitis increased the rate of total reoperations, the rate of reoperation for infection, and the rate of subsequent percutaneous drainage (J Gastrointest Surg 2017;21[9]:1491-99). A larger, more recent meta-analysis of 589 patients, including the three randomized controlled trials that Dr. Migaly discussed, concluded that laparoscopic lavage patients, compared with resection patients, had three times the risk of persistent peritonitis, intra-abdominal abscess, and emergency reoperative surgery. “Therefore, a reasonable conclusion would be that data at this point does not support the use of laparoscopic lavage,” he said.
The initial procedure of choice for most patients is abscess drainage via CT-guided percutaneous drainage. “There are some patients who are not candidates for percutaneous drainage, [such as] if the abscess is not accessible to the radiologist, if the patient is anticoagulated, and if the patient requires emergent surgical intervention irrespective of the abscess,” said Dr. Maron, a colorectal surgeon who practices at Cleveland Clinic Florida, Weston. “There is also a question of cavity size. Most authors in the literature use a cut-off of 3-4 cm.”
The goal is complete drainage of the abscess, and sometimes multiple catheters will be required. One study found that predictors of successful abscess drainage included having a well-defined, unilocular abscess. The success rate fell to 63% for patients who presented with more complex abscesses, including those that were loculated, poorly defined, associated with a fistula, and contained feces or semisolid material (Dis Colon Rectum. 1997;40:1009-13).
The 2014 ASCRS Practice Parameters includes the recommendation that elective colectomy should typically be considered after the patient recovers from an episode of complicated diverticulitis, “but some of the data may be calling that into question,” Dr. Maron said. In one series of 18 patients with an abscess treated percutaneously, 11 refused surgery and 7 had significant comorbidity (Dis Colon Rectum. 2014;57:331-6). Three patients died of a pre-existing condition and 7 of the 15 surviving patients had recurrent diverticulitis. Three underwent surgery and four were treated medically. The authors found no association between long-term failure and abscess location or previous episodes of diverticulitis.
In a larger study, researchers identified 218 patients who were initially treated with intravenous antibiotics and percutaneous drain (Dis Colon Rectum. 2013;56:622-6). About 10% of the patients required an urgent operation, while most of the other patients underwent elective resection, but 15% of patients did not undergo a subsequent colectomy. “Most of these patients were medically unfit to undergo surgery,” he noted. Abscess location was more commonly paracolic than pelvic. The mean abscess size was 4.2 cm, and the drain was left in for a median of 20 days. The recurrence rate in this series was only 30%, but none of the recurrences required surgery. The authors found that abscesses greater than 5 cm in size were associated with a greater risk of recurrence (P = .003). They concluded that observation after percutaneous drainage is safe in selected patients.
Based on results from this and other more recent studies, Dr. Maron said that it remains unclear whether surgeons should wait and watch or operate after successful percutaneous drainage of diverticular abscess. The data are “not as robust as we’d like … most of these are retrospective studies,” he said. “There’s quite a bit of inherent selection bias, and there is no standardization with regard to length of time of percutaneous drain, rationale for nonoperative management versus elective colectomy. What we do know is that there are some patients who can be managed safely without surgery. Unfortunately, there is no good algorithm I can offer you: Perhaps larger abscesses can portend a higher recurrence. I don’t think we’ll have a good answer to this until we perform a prospective randomized trial. However, we may learn some data from patients managed by peritoneal lavage and drain placement.”
Next, consider how to perform the procedure: laparoscopic or open? “But again, you’re going to look at how stable your patient is, what your skill set is, what equipment is available, and if the patient has had previous abdominal surgeries,” she advised. “In the traditional Hartmann procedure, you resect the perforated segment. You try not to open any tissue planes that you don’t have to. You do just enough so you can bring up a colostomy; you close the rectum or you make a mucous fistula. The problem with this operation is that up to 80% of these patients have their colostomy closed. That is why there is all this controversy. If there is any question, this [procedure] is always the safest option; there’s no anastomosis.”
What about a performing resection and a colorectal anastomosis? This is usually done more commonly in the elective situation, “when things are perfect, when you have healthy tissue,” Dr. Hull said. “If you do it in the emergent situation you have to think to yourself, ‘Could my patient tolerate a leak?’ You won’t want to do this operation on a 72-year-old who’s on steroids for chronic pulmonary disease and has coronary artery disease, because if they had a leak, they’d probably die.”
The third procedural option is to resect bowel (usually sigmoid) with colorectal anastomosis and diversion (loop ileostomy). “This is always my preferred choice,” Dr. Hull said. “I always am thinking, ‘Why can’t I do this?’ The reason is, closure of ileostomy is much easier than a Hartmann reversal, and 90% of these patients get reversed.” In a multicenter trial conducted by Swedish researchers, 62 patients were randomized to Hartmann’s procedure versus primary anastomosis with diverting ileostomy for perforated left-sided diverticulitis (Ann Surg. 2012;256[5]:819-27). The mortality and complications were similar, but the number of patients who got their stoma reversed was significantly less in the Hartmann’s group, compared with the primary anastomosis group (57% vs. 90%, respectively), and the serious complications were much higher in the Hartmann’s group (20% vs. 0). She cited an article from the World Journal of Emergency Surgery as one of the most comprehensive reviews of the subject.
So what is a surgeon to do? For an anastomosis after resection, “consider patient factors: Are they stable?” Dr. Hull said. “What are their comorbid conditions? You have to think, ‘What is my preference? Am I comfortable putting this back together?’ But a primary anastomosis is feasible, even in the acute setting with or without diverting ileostomy. The laparoscopic approach is typically preferred, but if that’s not in your armamentarium, the open [approach] is just fine. You should always perform a leak test. You can also do on table colonic lavage if feasible, especially if you have a large stool burden.”
None of the speakers reported having financial disclosures.
SAN DIEGO – During the annual clinical congress of the American College of Surgeons, a panel of experts discussed a wide range of evolving controversies in the management of complicated diverticulitis.
John Migaly, MD, kicked off the session by exploring the current evidence for laparoscopic lavage versus primary resection for Hinchey III diverticulitis. “Over the past two decades there has been a growing utilization of primary resection and reanastomoses with or without the use of ileostomy,” said Dr. Migaly, director of the general surgery residency program at Duke University, Durham, N.C. “And most recently over the last 5 or 10 years there’s been growing enthusiasm for laparoscopic lavage for Hinchey III diverticulitis. The enthusiasm for this procedure is based on [its accessibility] to all of us who operate on the colon in the acute setting.”
The DILALA trial makes the best case for laparoscopic lavage, “but it doesn’t make a very good one,” he commented. The trial was conducted in nine surgical departments in Sweden and Denmark (Ann Surg. 2016;263[1]:117-22). Hinchey III patients were randomized 1:1 to laparoscopic lavage or the Hartmann procedure. The primary outcome was reoperations within 12 months. An early analysis of the short-term outcomes in 83 patients found similar 30-day and 90-day mortality and morbidity. Its authors concluded that laparoscopic lavage had equivalent morbidity and mortality compared with radical resection, shorter operative time, shorter time in the recovery unit, a shorter hospital stay, but no difference in the rate of reoperation.
“It was found to be safe and feasible,” Dr. Migaly said. One year later, the researchers presented their 12-month outcomes and came to the same conclusions. Limitations of the data are that it was conducted in nine centers “but they enrolled only 83 patients, so it seems underpowered,” he said. “And there was no mention of the incidence of abdominal abscess requiring percutaneous drainage or episodes of diverticulitis. The data seem a little less granular than the LADIES trial.”
The SCANDIV trial is the largest study on the topic to date, a randomized clinical superiority trial conducted at 21 centers in Sweden and Norway (JAMA 2015;314[13]:1364-75). Of the 509 patients screened, 415 were eligible and 199 were enrolled: 101 to laparoscopic lavage, 98 to colon resection. The primary endpoint was severe postoperative complications within 90 days, defined as a Clavien-Dindo score of over 3. The researchers found no difference in major complications nor in 90-day mortality between the two groups. The rate of reoperation was significantly higher in the lavage group, compared with the resection group (20.3% vs. 5.7%, respectively). Four sigmoid cancers were missed in the lavage group and, while the length of operation was significantly shorter in the lavage group, there were no differences between the two groups in hospital length of stay or quality of life.
A meta-analysis of the three randomized controlled trials that Dr. Migaly reviewed concluded that laparoscopic lavage, compared with resection, for Hinchey III diverticulitis increased the rate of total reoperations, the rate of reoperation for infection, and the rate of subsequent percutaneous drainage (J Gastrointest Surg 2017;21[9]:1491-99). A larger, more recent meta-analysis of 589 patients, including the three randomized controlled trials that Dr. Migaly discussed, concluded that laparoscopic lavage patients, compared with resection patients, had three times the risk of persistent peritonitis, intra-abdominal abscess, and emergency reoperative surgery. “Therefore, a reasonable conclusion would be that data at this point does not support the use of laparoscopic lavage,” he said.
The initial procedure of choice for most patients is abscess drainage via CT-guided percutaneous drainage. “There are some patients who are not candidates for percutaneous drainage, [such as] if the abscess is not accessible to the radiologist, if the patient is anticoagulated, and if the patient requires emergent surgical intervention irrespective of the abscess,” said Dr. Maron, a colorectal surgeon who practices at Cleveland Clinic Florida, Weston. “There is also a question of cavity size. Most authors in the literature use a cut-off of 3-4 cm.”
The goal is complete drainage of the abscess, and sometimes multiple catheters will be required. One study found that predictors of successful abscess drainage included having a well-defined, unilocular abscess. The success rate fell to 63% for patients who presented with more complex abscesses, including those that were loculated, poorly defined, associated with a fistula, and contained feces or semisolid material (Dis Colon Rectum. 1997;40:1009-13).
The 2014 ASCRS Practice Parameters includes the recommendation that elective colectomy should typically be considered after the patient recovers from an episode of complicated diverticulitis, “but some of the data may be calling that into question,” Dr. Maron said. In one series of 18 patients with an abscess treated percutaneously, 11 refused surgery and 7 had significant comorbidity (Dis Colon Rectum. 2014;57:331-6). Three patients died of a pre-existing condition and 7 of the 15 surviving patients had recurrent diverticulitis. Three underwent surgery and four were treated medically. The authors found no association between long-term failure and abscess location or previous episodes of diverticulitis.
In a larger study, researchers identified 218 patients who were initially treated with intravenous antibiotics and percutaneous drain (Dis Colon Rectum. 2013;56:622-6). About 10% of the patients required an urgent operation, while most of the other patients underwent elective resection, but 15% of patients did not undergo a subsequent colectomy. “Most of these patients were medically unfit to undergo surgery,” he noted. Abscess location was more commonly paracolic than pelvic. The mean abscess size was 4.2 cm, and the drain was left in for a median of 20 days. The recurrence rate in this series was only 30%, but none of the recurrences required surgery. The authors found that abscesses greater than 5 cm in size were associated with a greater risk of recurrence (P = .003). They concluded that observation after percutaneous drainage is safe in selected patients.
Based on results from this and other more recent studies, Dr. Maron said that it remains unclear whether surgeons should wait and watch or operate after successful percutaneous drainage of diverticular abscess. The data are “not as robust as we’d like … most of these are retrospective studies,” he said. “There’s quite a bit of inherent selection bias, and there is no standardization with regard to length of time of percutaneous drain, rationale for nonoperative management versus elective colectomy. What we do know is that there are some patients who can be managed safely without surgery. Unfortunately, there is no good algorithm I can offer you: Perhaps larger abscesses can portend a higher recurrence. I don’t think we’ll have a good answer to this until we perform a prospective randomized trial. However, we may learn some data from patients managed by peritoneal lavage and drain placement.”
Next, consider how to perform the procedure: laparoscopic or open? “But again, you’re going to look at how stable your patient is, what your skill set is, what equipment is available, and if the patient has had previous abdominal surgeries,” she advised. “In the traditional Hartmann procedure, you resect the perforated segment. You try not to open any tissue planes that you don’t have to. You do just enough so you can bring up a colostomy; you close the rectum or you make a mucous fistula. The problem with this operation is that up to 80% of these patients have their colostomy closed. That is why there is all this controversy. If there is any question, this [procedure] is always the safest option; there’s no anastomosis.”
What about a performing resection and a colorectal anastomosis? This is usually done more commonly in the elective situation, “when things are perfect, when you have healthy tissue,” Dr. Hull said. “If you do it in the emergent situation you have to think to yourself, ‘Could my patient tolerate a leak?’ You won’t want to do this operation on a 72-year-old who’s on steroids for chronic pulmonary disease and has coronary artery disease, because if they had a leak, they’d probably die.”
The third procedural option is to resect bowel (usually sigmoid) with colorectal anastomosis and diversion (loop ileostomy). “This is always my preferred choice,” Dr. Hull said. “I always am thinking, ‘Why can’t I do this?’ The reason is, closure of ileostomy is much easier than a Hartmann reversal, and 90% of these patients get reversed.” In a multicenter trial conducted by Swedish researchers, 62 patients were randomized to Hartmann’s procedure versus primary anastomosis with diverting ileostomy for perforated left-sided diverticulitis (Ann Surg. 2012;256[5]:819-27). The mortality and complications were similar, but the number of patients who got their stoma reversed was significantly less in the Hartmann’s group, compared with the primary anastomosis group (57% vs. 90%, respectively), and the serious complications were much higher in the Hartmann’s group (20% vs. 0). She cited an article from the World Journal of Emergency Surgery as one of the most comprehensive reviews of the subject.
So what is a surgeon to do? For an anastomosis after resection, “consider patient factors: Are they stable?” Dr. Hull said. “What are their comorbid conditions? You have to think, ‘What is my preference? Am I comfortable putting this back together?’ But a primary anastomosis is feasible, even in the acute setting with or without diverting ileostomy. The laparoscopic approach is typically preferred, but if that’s not in your armamentarium, the open [approach] is just fine. You should always perform a leak test. You can also do on table colonic lavage if feasible, especially if you have a large stool burden.”
None of the speakers reported having financial disclosures.
AT THE ACS CLINICAL CONGRESS
Federal judge skeptical of claims that dropping subsidies hurts consumers
SAN FRANCISCO – A federal judge Monday expressed skepticism that President Donald Trump’s decision to halt certain health law insurance subsidies would cause consumers immediate harm, as California and many other states claim in a lawsuit.
U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria said he would issue a ruling in the case Tuesday.
Earlier this month, Trump announced that the administration would stop payments that compensate insurers for discounts given to low-income consumers to help cover their out-of-pocket expenses under policies sold on the Affordable Care Act’s insurance marketplaces. These subsidies are different from the tax credits many consumers get, depending on their income, to pay Obamacare premiums.
The lawsuit was filed by 18 states and the District of Columbia, led by California Attorney General Xavier Becerra. It seeks an emergency restraining order compelling the Trump administration to resume the Obamacare payments. Nationwide, cost-sharing payments were expected to total $7 billion this year.
Since assuming office in January, Trump has repeatedly threatened to stop the subsidies, known as cost-sharing reduction payments. But he held off while Republicans in Congress were working to replace the ACA. Republicans have argued that the subsidies are illegal because they have not been approved by Congress and that they amount to a bailout for insurers.
Responding to the uncertainty, a number of states have allowed insurers to raise their premiums. California earlier this month ordered insurers to add a surcharge to some policies next year, to offset the potential loss in federal funding and keep the individual insurance market stable. The 12.4% surcharge was added to silver plans only, the second-least-expensive tier.
“California is doing a really good job in responding to the termination of [cost-sharing reduction] payments in a way that is avoiding harm for people and actually benefiting people,” said Judge Chhabria.
He said that the vast majority of states have “seen the writing on the wall” and chosen to respond by increasing premiums for silver plans. That, in turn, will force the federal government to give higher tax credits to most consumers, so they won’t feel any financial pinch.
Under intense questioning by the judge, California Deputy Attorney General Gregory Brown acknowledged that California has done a lot to mitigate the harm to consumers. But he said the administration’s actions are destabilizing the exchanges and the individual insurance market, and causing chaos for states and consumers just eight days before enrollment begins Nov. 1.
Some experts and states are concerned jumpy insurers will bolt from the market and leave some regions with minimal or no choices for coverage. However, a bipartisan bill in Congress would restore the cost-sharing subsidies and aims to stabilize the insurance markets. But it’s not clear the bill will muster the support it needs to pass both the Senate and House or whether Trump would sign it.
In California, 1.4 million people buy their own coverage through the state marketplace, and 90 percent receive federal subsidies that reduce what they pay.
During the hearing, Chhabria read from a Covered California press release that predicts how the changes will affect consumers in 2018. It notes that even though silver plan premiums will rise as a result of the surcharge, the federal tax credits will also increase to cover the rise in premiums. That would leave 4 out of 5 consumers with monthly premiums that stay the same or decrease.
The judge also said ruling in favor of the restraining order would mean insurance companies could essentially “double collect” – benefiting from both the premium increases from the surcharge on silver plans and the cost-sharing subsidies.
Brown said a restraining order to resume the cost-sharing payments would bring back the status quo. If insurance companies double collect, the state would compensate by reducing rates down the line, he said.
“We’re not looking to give insurance companies a windfall ... but the stability is important to insurance companies,” he said.
This story was produced by Kaiser Health News, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation.
SAN FRANCISCO – A federal judge Monday expressed skepticism that President Donald Trump’s decision to halt certain health law insurance subsidies would cause consumers immediate harm, as California and many other states claim in a lawsuit.
U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria said he would issue a ruling in the case Tuesday.
Earlier this month, Trump announced that the administration would stop payments that compensate insurers for discounts given to low-income consumers to help cover their out-of-pocket expenses under policies sold on the Affordable Care Act’s insurance marketplaces. These subsidies are different from the tax credits many consumers get, depending on their income, to pay Obamacare premiums.
The lawsuit was filed by 18 states and the District of Columbia, led by California Attorney General Xavier Becerra. It seeks an emergency restraining order compelling the Trump administration to resume the Obamacare payments. Nationwide, cost-sharing payments were expected to total $7 billion this year.
Since assuming office in January, Trump has repeatedly threatened to stop the subsidies, known as cost-sharing reduction payments. But he held off while Republicans in Congress were working to replace the ACA. Republicans have argued that the subsidies are illegal because they have not been approved by Congress and that they amount to a bailout for insurers.
Responding to the uncertainty, a number of states have allowed insurers to raise their premiums. California earlier this month ordered insurers to add a surcharge to some policies next year, to offset the potential loss in federal funding and keep the individual insurance market stable. The 12.4% surcharge was added to silver plans only, the second-least-expensive tier.
“California is doing a really good job in responding to the termination of [cost-sharing reduction] payments in a way that is avoiding harm for people and actually benefiting people,” said Judge Chhabria.
He said that the vast majority of states have “seen the writing on the wall” and chosen to respond by increasing premiums for silver plans. That, in turn, will force the federal government to give higher tax credits to most consumers, so they won’t feel any financial pinch.
Under intense questioning by the judge, California Deputy Attorney General Gregory Brown acknowledged that California has done a lot to mitigate the harm to consumers. But he said the administration’s actions are destabilizing the exchanges and the individual insurance market, and causing chaos for states and consumers just eight days before enrollment begins Nov. 1.
Some experts and states are concerned jumpy insurers will bolt from the market and leave some regions with minimal or no choices for coverage. However, a bipartisan bill in Congress would restore the cost-sharing subsidies and aims to stabilize the insurance markets. But it’s not clear the bill will muster the support it needs to pass both the Senate and House or whether Trump would sign it.
In California, 1.4 million people buy their own coverage through the state marketplace, and 90 percent receive federal subsidies that reduce what they pay.
During the hearing, Chhabria read from a Covered California press release that predicts how the changes will affect consumers in 2018. It notes that even though silver plan premiums will rise as a result of the surcharge, the federal tax credits will also increase to cover the rise in premiums. That would leave 4 out of 5 consumers with monthly premiums that stay the same or decrease.
The judge also said ruling in favor of the restraining order would mean insurance companies could essentially “double collect” – benefiting from both the premium increases from the surcharge on silver plans and the cost-sharing subsidies.
Brown said a restraining order to resume the cost-sharing payments would bring back the status quo. If insurance companies double collect, the state would compensate by reducing rates down the line, he said.
“We’re not looking to give insurance companies a windfall ... but the stability is important to insurance companies,” he said.
This story was produced by Kaiser Health News, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation.
SAN FRANCISCO – A federal judge Monday expressed skepticism that President Donald Trump’s decision to halt certain health law insurance subsidies would cause consumers immediate harm, as California and many other states claim in a lawsuit.
U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria said he would issue a ruling in the case Tuesday.
Earlier this month, Trump announced that the administration would stop payments that compensate insurers for discounts given to low-income consumers to help cover their out-of-pocket expenses under policies sold on the Affordable Care Act’s insurance marketplaces. These subsidies are different from the tax credits many consumers get, depending on their income, to pay Obamacare premiums.
The lawsuit was filed by 18 states and the District of Columbia, led by California Attorney General Xavier Becerra. It seeks an emergency restraining order compelling the Trump administration to resume the Obamacare payments. Nationwide, cost-sharing payments were expected to total $7 billion this year.
Since assuming office in January, Trump has repeatedly threatened to stop the subsidies, known as cost-sharing reduction payments. But he held off while Republicans in Congress were working to replace the ACA. Republicans have argued that the subsidies are illegal because they have not been approved by Congress and that they amount to a bailout for insurers.
Responding to the uncertainty, a number of states have allowed insurers to raise their premiums. California earlier this month ordered insurers to add a surcharge to some policies next year, to offset the potential loss in federal funding and keep the individual insurance market stable. The 12.4% surcharge was added to silver plans only, the second-least-expensive tier.
“California is doing a really good job in responding to the termination of [cost-sharing reduction] payments in a way that is avoiding harm for people and actually benefiting people,” said Judge Chhabria.
He said that the vast majority of states have “seen the writing on the wall” and chosen to respond by increasing premiums for silver plans. That, in turn, will force the federal government to give higher tax credits to most consumers, so they won’t feel any financial pinch.
Under intense questioning by the judge, California Deputy Attorney General Gregory Brown acknowledged that California has done a lot to mitigate the harm to consumers. But he said the administration’s actions are destabilizing the exchanges and the individual insurance market, and causing chaos for states and consumers just eight days before enrollment begins Nov. 1.
Some experts and states are concerned jumpy insurers will bolt from the market and leave some regions with minimal or no choices for coverage. However, a bipartisan bill in Congress would restore the cost-sharing subsidies and aims to stabilize the insurance markets. But it’s not clear the bill will muster the support it needs to pass both the Senate and House or whether Trump would sign it.
In California, 1.4 million people buy their own coverage through the state marketplace, and 90 percent receive federal subsidies that reduce what they pay.
During the hearing, Chhabria read from a Covered California press release that predicts how the changes will affect consumers in 2018. It notes that even though silver plan premiums will rise as a result of the surcharge, the federal tax credits will also increase to cover the rise in premiums. That would leave 4 out of 5 consumers with monthly premiums that stay the same or decrease.
The judge also said ruling in favor of the restraining order would mean insurance companies could essentially “double collect” – benefiting from both the premium increases from the surcharge on silver plans and the cost-sharing subsidies.
Brown said a restraining order to resume the cost-sharing payments would bring back the status quo. If insurance companies double collect, the state would compensate by reducing rates down the line, he said.
“We’re not looking to give insurance companies a windfall ... but the stability is important to insurance companies,” he said.
This story was produced by Kaiser Health News, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation.
VIDEO: Huge database analysis affirms genes associated with NAFLD
WASHINGTON – A genome-wide association study of the Million Veteran Program confirmed three specific genes associated with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, underscoring the robustness of those loci as well as the clinical phenotyping in the program.
Marina Serper, MD, of the Cpl. Michael J. Crescenz Veterans Affairs Medical Center, and University of Pennsylvania, both in Philadelphia, and her colleagues looked at patients with NAFLD in the Million Veterans Program (MVP), a project of the federal Precision Medicine Initiative designed to leverage the data and experience associated with the Veterans Health Care Administration, Dr. Serper said at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. Currently, more than 600,000 veterans have been enrolled at over 50 sites across the United States, with a goal of 1 million participants by 2020.
About one-third (108,458) of 352,953 MVP enrollees whose DNA has been analyzed met the study definition of NAFLD. In their study, Dr. Serper and her associates defined the clinical phenotype of NAFLD as patients having abnormal alanine aminotransferase levels (greater than 30 U/L for men and greater than 20 U/L for women) detected twice in a 2-year period, plus at least 1 metabolic risk factor, such as body mass index of 30 kg/m2 or greater, type 2 diabetes or prediabetes, hypertension, or dyslipidemia. Further, included patients did not have alcohol misuse disorders or viral hepatitis.
Most patients were male (90%) and white (72%), with a median age of 64 years. More than half (56%) had a BMI of 30 or greater, 30% were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, and 71% with dyslipidemia – aligning the cohort closely with rest of the MVP population, Dr. Serper said.
Logistic regression analysis adjusted for age, sex, and principal components stratified by ancestry (European, African American, and Hispanic). On initial analysis, 21 genetic loci met the criteria for genome-wide significant association; specifically, investigators successfully replicated three key variants that have been previously seen associated with NAFLD – PNPLA3, ERLIN1, and TRIB1.
“We were able to use clinical VA data to come up with a robust and clinically relevant definition and validate that definition because the genes we found associated with our definition of NAFLD have previously been shown by others who used biopsy data and imaging data for steatosis,” Dr. Serper said in a video interview. “This is important because the diagnosis of fatty liver disease is really a clinical diagnosis.”
Panel moderator Elizabeth K. Speliotes, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said, “Really what makes us unique is our genetics and our exposures and the environment, and if we can capture that better, then we can use that to more precisely tailor diagnoses and treatments for patients. That’s really the hope of the next generation.”
The study was supported by the VA Office of Research and Development award 1I01BX003362. Dr. Serper disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
Watch this video interview with Dr. Serper and Dr. Chang for more information on the Million Veteran Program.
[email protected]
On Twitter @denisefulton
WASHINGTON – A genome-wide association study of the Million Veteran Program confirmed three specific genes associated with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, underscoring the robustness of those loci as well as the clinical phenotyping in the program.
Marina Serper, MD, of the Cpl. Michael J. Crescenz Veterans Affairs Medical Center, and University of Pennsylvania, both in Philadelphia, and her colleagues looked at patients with NAFLD in the Million Veterans Program (MVP), a project of the federal Precision Medicine Initiative designed to leverage the data and experience associated with the Veterans Health Care Administration, Dr. Serper said at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. Currently, more than 600,000 veterans have been enrolled at over 50 sites across the United States, with a goal of 1 million participants by 2020.
About one-third (108,458) of 352,953 MVP enrollees whose DNA has been analyzed met the study definition of NAFLD. In their study, Dr. Serper and her associates defined the clinical phenotype of NAFLD as patients having abnormal alanine aminotransferase levels (greater than 30 U/L for men and greater than 20 U/L for women) detected twice in a 2-year period, plus at least 1 metabolic risk factor, such as body mass index of 30 kg/m2 or greater, type 2 diabetes or prediabetes, hypertension, or dyslipidemia. Further, included patients did not have alcohol misuse disorders or viral hepatitis.
Most patients were male (90%) and white (72%), with a median age of 64 years. More than half (56%) had a BMI of 30 or greater, 30% were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, and 71% with dyslipidemia – aligning the cohort closely with rest of the MVP population, Dr. Serper said.
Logistic regression analysis adjusted for age, sex, and principal components stratified by ancestry (European, African American, and Hispanic). On initial analysis, 21 genetic loci met the criteria for genome-wide significant association; specifically, investigators successfully replicated three key variants that have been previously seen associated with NAFLD – PNPLA3, ERLIN1, and TRIB1.
“We were able to use clinical VA data to come up with a robust and clinically relevant definition and validate that definition because the genes we found associated with our definition of NAFLD have previously been shown by others who used biopsy data and imaging data for steatosis,” Dr. Serper said in a video interview. “This is important because the diagnosis of fatty liver disease is really a clinical diagnosis.”
Panel moderator Elizabeth K. Speliotes, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said, “Really what makes us unique is our genetics and our exposures and the environment, and if we can capture that better, then we can use that to more precisely tailor diagnoses and treatments for patients. That’s really the hope of the next generation.”
The study was supported by the VA Office of Research and Development award 1I01BX003362. Dr. Serper disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
Watch this video interview with Dr. Serper and Dr. Chang for more information on the Million Veteran Program.
[email protected]
On Twitter @denisefulton
WASHINGTON – A genome-wide association study of the Million Veteran Program confirmed three specific genes associated with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, underscoring the robustness of those loci as well as the clinical phenotyping in the program.
Marina Serper, MD, of the Cpl. Michael J. Crescenz Veterans Affairs Medical Center, and University of Pennsylvania, both in Philadelphia, and her colleagues looked at patients with NAFLD in the Million Veterans Program (MVP), a project of the federal Precision Medicine Initiative designed to leverage the data and experience associated with the Veterans Health Care Administration, Dr. Serper said at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. Currently, more than 600,000 veterans have been enrolled at over 50 sites across the United States, with a goal of 1 million participants by 2020.
About one-third (108,458) of 352,953 MVP enrollees whose DNA has been analyzed met the study definition of NAFLD. In their study, Dr. Serper and her associates defined the clinical phenotype of NAFLD as patients having abnormal alanine aminotransferase levels (greater than 30 U/L for men and greater than 20 U/L for women) detected twice in a 2-year period, plus at least 1 metabolic risk factor, such as body mass index of 30 kg/m2 or greater, type 2 diabetes or prediabetes, hypertension, or dyslipidemia. Further, included patients did not have alcohol misuse disorders or viral hepatitis.
Most patients were male (90%) and white (72%), with a median age of 64 years. More than half (56%) had a BMI of 30 or greater, 30% were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, and 71% with dyslipidemia – aligning the cohort closely with rest of the MVP population, Dr. Serper said.
Logistic regression analysis adjusted for age, sex, and principal components stratified by ancestry (European, African American, and Hispanic). On initial analysis, 21 genetic loci met the criteria for genome-wide significant association; specifically, investigators successfully replicated three key variants that have been previously seen associated with NAFLD – PNPLA3, ERLIN1, and TRIB1.
“We were able to use clinical VA data to come up with a robust and clinically relevant definition and validate that definition because the genes we found associated with our definition of NAFLD have previously been shown by others who used biopsy data and imaging data for steatosis,” Dr. Serper said in a video interview. “This is important because the diagnosis of fatty liver disease is really a clinical diagnosis.”
Panel moderator Elizabeth K. Speliotes, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said, “Really what makes us unique is our genetics and our exposures and the environment, and if we can capture that better, then we can use that to more precisely tailor diagnoses and treatments for patients. That’s really the hope of the next generation.”
The study was supported by the VA Office of Research and Development award 1I01BX003362. Dr. Serper disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
Watch this video interview with Dr. Serper and Dr. Chang for more information on the Million Veteran Program.
[email protected]
On Twitter @denisefulton
AT THE LIVER MEETING 2017
Key clinical point:
Major finding: About one-third (108,458) of 352,953 Million Veteran Program enrollees whose DNA has been analyzed met the study definition of NAFLD.
Data source: Genome-wide association study of more than 100,000 patients.
Disclosures: The study was supported by the Veterans Administration Office of Research and Development award 1I01BX003362. Dr. Serper disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
