Delaying bariatric surgery until body mass index is highly elevated may reduce the likelihood of achieving a BMI of less than 30 within a year, according toa paper published online July 26 in JAMA Surgery.

A retrospective study using prospectively gathered clinical data of 27,320 adults who underwent bariatric surgery in Michigan showed around one in three (36%) achieved a BMI below 30 within a year after surgery (JAMA Surgery 2017, July 26. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2017.2348). But obese patients with a body mass index of less than 40 kg/m² before undergoing bariatric surgery are significantly more likely to achieve a postoperative BMI of under 30.

Individuals who had a preoperative BMI of less than 40 had a 12-fold higher chance of getting their BMI below 30, compared to those whose preoperative BMI was 40 or above (95% confidence interval 1.71-14.16, P less than .001). Only 8.5% of individuals with a BMI at or above 50 achieved a postoperative BMI below 30.

Patients with obesity need a multidisciplinary approach to achieve a healthy weight, and AGA believes that gastroenterologists are in a unique position to lead the care team.

To provide gastroenterologists with a comprehensive, multi-disciplinary process to guide and personalize innovative obesity care for safe and effective weight management, including a model for how to operationalize business issues, AGA has created an Obesity Practice Guide. The program includes an obesity program to help gastroenterologists manage their patients with obesity, as well as a framework focused on the business operational issues related to the management of obese patients. Learn more at www.gastro.org/obesity.

Delaying bariatric surgery until body mass index is highly elevated may reduce the likelihood of achieving a BMI of less than 30 within a year, according toa paper published online July 26 in JAMA Surgery.

A retrospective study using prospectively gathered clinical data of 27,320 adults who underwent bariatric surgery in Michigan showed around one in three (36%) achieved a BMI below 30 within a year after surgery (JAMA Surgery 2017, July 26. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2017.2348). But obese patients with a body mass index of less than 40 kg/m² before undergoing bariatric surgery are significantly more likely to achieve a postoperative BMI of under 30.

Individuals who had a preoperative BMI of less than 40 had a 12-fold higher chance of getting their BMI below 30, compared to those whose preoperative BMI was 40 or above (95% confidence interval 1.71-14.16, P less than .001). Only 8.5% of individuals with a BMI at or above 50 achieved a postoperative BMI below 30.

Patients with obesity need a multidisciplinary approach to achieve a healthy weight, and AGA believes that gastroenterologists are in a unique position to lead the care team.

To provide gastroenterologists with a comprehensive, multi-disciplinary process to guide and personalize innovative obesity care for safe and effective weight management, including a model for how to operationalize business issues, AGA has created an Obesity Practice Guide. The program includes an obesity program to help gastroenterologists manage their patients with obesity, as well as a framework focused on the business operational issues related to the management of obese patients. Learn more at www.gastro.org/obesity.

Delaying bariatric surgery until body mass index is highly elevated may reduce the likelihood of achieving a BMI of less than 30 within a year, according toa paper published online July 26 in JAMA Surgery.

A retrospective study using prospectively gathered clinical data of 27,320 adults who underwent bariatric surgery in Michigan showed around one in three (36%) achieved a BMI below 30 within a year after surgery (JAMA Surgery 2017, July 26. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2017.2348). But obese patients with a body mass index of less than 40 kg/m² before undergoing bariatric surgery are significantly more likely to achieve a postoperative BMI of under 30.

Individuals who had a preoperative BMI of less than 40 had a 12-fold higher chance of getting their BMI below 30, compared to those whose preoperative BMI was 40 or above (95% confidence interval 1.71-14.16, P less than .001). Only 8.5% of individuals with a BMI at or above 50 achieved a postoperative BMI below 30.

Patients with obesity need a multidisciplinary approach to achieve a healthy weight, and AGA believes that gastroenterologists are in a unique position to lead the care team.

To provide gastroenterologists with a comprehensive, multi-disciplinary process to guide and personalize innovative obesity care for safe and effective weight management, including a model for how to operationalize business issues, AGA has created an Obesity Practice Guide. The program includes an obesity program to help gastroenterologists manage their patients with obesity, as well as a framework focused on the business operational issues related to the management of obese patients. Learn more at www.gastro.org/obesity.

Emergency open conversion after failed endovascular aortic aneurysm repair shows significantly higher mortality and morbidity, compared with elective conversion, according to the results of a retrospective, observational study of 31 patients at a single institution.

The primary endpoints of the study were 30-day and in-hospital mortality. Secondary endpoints included moderate to severe complications, secondary interventions, length of ICU stay, and length of hospital stay (LOS), according to I. Ben Abdallah, MD, of the Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou and his colleagues.

During the study period, a total of 338 patients received EVAR at the institution. Of these, 31 patients underwent open conversion (19 elective, 12 emergent) after EVAR between August 2008 and September 2016. The median time from the index EVAR to the open conversion was 35 months, with the most common indications for intervention being endoleaks (24 patients, 77%), stent graft infection (3, 10%), thrombosis (3, 10%) and kinking (1, 3%). Stents removed were manufactured by various device makers, according to the report (Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2017;53:831-6).

The patient population had a mean age of 73 years and comprised 84% men. The two groups, elective and emergent, were highly similar in numerous comorbidities, with the only significant difference between them being a greater incidence of chronic renal disease among the emergent group, as compared with the elective (42% vs. 5%).

Overall in-hospital mortality was 10%, and significantly greater in emergent vs. elective conversion (25% vs. 0%). Renal and pulmonary complications were significantly higher in the emergency group (42% vs. 5% and 42% vs. 0%, respectively). There was no significant difference between elective and emergent hospital stay (14 days vs. 20 days), but ICU stay was significantly shorter for elective conversion (2 days vs. 7 days).

There were no late complications or death seen in either group after a mean follow-up of 18 months.

“In this series, open conversion seems to be significantly safer and more effective when performed electively with no mortality, a lower incidence of morbidity (renal and pulmonary), and shorter ICU stay. These results underline that close surveillance, allowing planned elective open conversion, is the key to better outcomes after failed EVAR,” the researchers concluded.

The authors reported that they had no conflicts of interest, and the study received no outside funding.

[email protected]

Emergency open conversion after failed endovascular aortic aneurysm repair shows significantly higher mortality and morbidity, compared with elective conversion, according to the results of a retrospective, observational study of 31 patients at a single institution.

The primary endpoints of the study were 30-day and in-hospital mortality. Secondary endpoints included moderate to severe complications, secondary interventions, length of ICU stay, and length of hospital stay (LOS), according to I. Ben Abdallah, MD, of the Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou and his colleagues.

During the study period, a total of 338 patients received EVAR at the institution. Of these, 31 patients underwent open conversion (19 elective, 12 emergent) after EVAR between August 2008 and September 2016. The median time from the index EVAR to the open conversion was 35 months, with the most common indications for intervention being endoleaks (24 patients, 77%), stent graft infection (3, 10%), thrombosis (3, 10%) and kinking (1, 3%). Stents removed were manufactured by various device makers, according to the report (Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2017;53:831-6).

The patient population had a mean age of 73 years and comprised 84% men. The two groups, elective and emergent, were highly similar in numerous comorbidities, with the only significant difference between them being a greater incidence of chronic renal disease among the emergent group, as compared with the elective (42% vs. 5%).

Overall in-hospital mortality was 10%, and significantly greater in emergent vs. elective conversion (25% vs. 0%). Renal and pulmonary complications were significantly higher in the emergency group (42% vs. 5% and 42% vs. 0%, respectively). There was no significant difference between elective and emergent hospital stay (14 days vs. 20 days), but ICU stay was significantly shorter for elective conversion (2 days vs. 7 days).

There were no late complications or death seen in either group after a mean follow-up of 18 months.

“In this series, open conversion seems to be significantly safer and more effective when performed electively with no mortality, a lower incidence of morbidity (renal and pulmonary), and shorter ICU stay. These results underline that close surveillance, allowing planned elective open conversion, is the key to better outcomes after failed EVAR,” the researchers concluded.

The authors reported that they had no conflicts of interest, and the study received no outside funding.

[email protected]

Emergency open conversion after failed endovascular aortic aneurysm repair shows significantly higher mortality and morbidity, compared with elective conversion, according to the results of a retrospective, observational study of 31 patients at a single institution.

The primary endpoints of the study were 30-day and in-hospital mortality. Secondary endpoints included moderate to severe complications, secondary interventions, length of ICU stay, and length of hospital stay (LOS), according to I. Ben Abdallah, MD, of the Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou and his colleagues.

During the study period, a total of 338 patients received EVAR at the institution. Of these, 31 patients underwent open conversion (19 elective, 12 emergent) after EVAR between August 2008 and September 2016. The median time from the index EVAR to the open conversion was 35 months, with the most common indications for intervention being endoleaks (24 patients, 77%), stent graft infection (3, 10%), thrombosis (3, 10%) and kinking (1, 3%). Stents removed were manufactured by various device makers, according to the report (Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2017;53:831-6).

The patient population had a mean age of 73 years and comprised 84% men. The two groups, elective and emergent, were highly similar in numerous comorbidities, with the only significant difference between them being a greater incidence of chronic renal disease among the emergent group, as compared with the elective (42% vs. 5%).

Overall in-hospital mortality was 10%, and significantly greater in emergent vs. elective conversion (25% vs. 0%). Renal and pulmonary complications were significantly higher in the emergency group (42% vs. 5% and 42% vs. 0%, respectively). There was no significant difference between elective and emergent hospital stay (14 days vs. 20 days), but ICU stay was significantly shorter for elective conversion (2 days vs. 7 days).

There were no late complications or death seen in either group after a mean follow-up of 18 months.

“In this series, open conversion seems to be significantly safer and more effective when performed electively with no mortality, a lower incidence of morbidity (renal and pulmonary), and shorter ICU stay. These results underline that close surveillance, allowing planned elective open conversion, is the key to better outcomes after failed EVAR,” the researchers concluded.

The authors reported that they had no conflicts of interest, and the study received no outside funding.

[email protected]

Fujifilm has issued an Urgent Medical Device Correction and Removal notification for all ED-530XT duodenoscopes, according to a Safety Alert from the Food and Drug Administration.

The recall, initiated voluntarily by Fujifilm, includes replacement of the ED-530XT forceps elevator mechanism including the O-ring seal, replacement of the distal end cap, and new operation manuals. The FDA authorized the changes on July 21, 2017.

The AGA Center for GI Innovation and Technology is committed to working towards zero device-associated infections and will keep you apprised of any future updates. Learn more at www.gastro.org/CGIT.

[email protected]

Fujifilm has issued an Urgent Medical Device Correction and Removal notification for all ED-530XT duodenoscopes, according to a Safety Alert from the Food and Drug Administration.

The recall, initiated voluntarily by Fujifilm, includes replacement of the ED-530XT forceps elevator mechanism including the O-ring seal, replacement of the distal end cap, and new operation manuals. The FDA authorized the changes on July 21, 2017.

The AGA Center for GI Innovation and Technology is committed to working towards zero device-associated infections and will keep you apprised of any future updates. Learn more at www.gastro.org/CGIT.

[email protected]

Fujifilm has issued an Urgent Medical Device Correction and Removal notification for all ED-530XT duodenoscopes, according to a Safety Alert from the Food and Drug Administration.

The recall, initiated voluntarily by Fujifilm, includes replacement of the ED-530XT forceps elevator mechanism including the O-ring seal, replacement of the distal end cap, and new operation manuals. The FDA authorized the changes on July 21, 2017.

The AGA Center for GI Innovation and Technology is committed to working towards zero device-associated infections and will keep you apprised of any future updates. Learn more at www.gastro.org/CGIT.

[email protected]

Editor’s Note: The Society of Hospital Medicine’s (SHM’s) Physician in Training Committee launched a scholarship program in 2015 for medical students to help transform health care and revolutionize patient care. The program has been expanded for the 2017-2018 year, offering two options for students to receive funding and engage in scholarly work during their first, second, and third years of medical school. As a part of the program, recipients are required to write about their experience on a biweekly basis.

When I decided to leave the business world to pursue a career in medicine, I envisioned myself in a clinic or an operating room helping the people in my community with the knowledge and skills acquired in my medical training. The thought of becoming a researcher had never even crossed my mind.

I grew up in Scottsdale, Arizona, a city which has no major academic medical centers. Prior to entering medical school, I was enrolled in a postbaccalaureate program at Johns Hopkins University, where I took the basic science classes necessary to apply. I was quite surprised to learn that, even at this level of education, I was required to participate in a research project. This experience changed the way I envisioned my entire career as a physician.

I am now a fourth year medical student and a pioneer of the “new curriculum” at Weill Cornell Medical College. In contrast to the traditional medical school curriculum, Cornell carved out 6 months of protected research time for all medical students by condensing the preclinical curriculum from 2 years to 1.5 years. I learned how much I enjoyed research at Johns Hopkins, which is one of the main reasons I applied here.

Despite my interest in research, I still struggled with the ultimate career question: What kind of doctor do I want to be?

After completing my medicine clerkship, I remember feeling intellectually stimulated in a way I hadn’t experienced in the previous years. While this may have had to do with the subject matter, I attribute much of this feeling to my clerkship director whose passion for medicine and teaching was contagious. I ultimately chose Ernie Esquivel, MD, to be my research mentor because of how much he impacted my education.

Cole Hirschfeld is originally from Phoenix, Ariz. He received undergraduate degrees in finance and entrepreneurship from the University of Arizona and went on to work in the finance industry for 2 years before deciding to change careers and attend medical school. He is now a fourth year medical student at Weill Cornell Medical College and plans to apply for residency in internal medicine.

Editor’s Note: The Society of Hospital Medicine’s (SHM’s) Physician in Training Committee launched a scholarship program in 2015 for medical students to help transform health care and revolutionize patient care. The program has been expanded for the 2017-2018 year, offering two options for students to receive funding and engage in scholarly work during their first, second, and third years of medical school. As a part of the program, recipients are required to write about their experience on a biweekly basis.

When I decided to leave the business world to pursue a career in medicine, I envisioned myself in a clinic or an operating room helping the people in my community with the knowledge and skills acquired in my medical training. The thought of becoming a researcher had never even crossed my mind.

I grew up in Scottsdale, Arizona, a city which has no major academic medical centers. Prior to entering medical school, I was enrolled in a postbaccalaureate program at Johns Hopkins University, where I took the basic science classes necessary to apply. I was quite surprised to learn that, even at this level of education, I was required to participate in a research project. This experience changed the way I envisioned my entire career as a physician.

I am now a fourth year medical student and a pioneer of the “new curriculum” at Weill Cornell Medical College. In contrast to the traditional medical school curriculum, Cornell carved out 6 months of protected research time for all medical students by condensing the preclinical curriculum from 2 years to 1.5 years. I learned how much I enjoyed research at Johns Hopkins, which is one of the main reasons I applied here.

Despite my interest in research, I still struggled with the ultimate career question: What kind of doctor do I want to be?

After completing my medicine clerkship, I remember feeling intellectually stimulated in a way I hadn’t experienced in the previous years. While this may have had to do with the subject matter, I attribute much of this feeling to my clerkship director whose passion for medicine and teaching was contagious. I ultimately chose Ernie Esquivel, MD, to be my research mentor because of how much he impacted my education.

Cole Hirschfeld is originally from Phoenix, Ariz. He received undergraduate degrees in finance and entrepreneurship from the University of Arizona and went on to work in the finance industry for 2 years before deciding to change careers and attend medical school. He is now a fourth year medical student at Weill Cornell Medical College and plans to apply for residency in internal medicine.

Editor’s Note: The Society of Hospital Medicine’s (SHM’s) Physician in Training Committee launched a scholarship program in 2015 for medical students to help transform health care and revolutionize patient care. The program has been expanded for the 2017-2018 year, offering two options for students to receive funding and engage in scholarly work during their first, second, and third years of medical school. As a part of the program, recipients are required to write about their experience on a biweekly basis.

When I decided to leave the business world to pursue a career in medicine, I envisioned myself in a clinic or an operating room helping the people in my community with the knowledge and skills acquired in my medical training. The thought of becoming a researcher had never even crossed my mind.

I grew up in Scottsdale, Arizona, a city which has no major academic medical centers. Prior to entering medical school, I was enrolled in a postbaccalaureate program at Johns Hopkins University, where I took the basic science classes necessary to apply. I was quite surprised to learn that, even at this level of education, I was required to participate in a research project. This experience changed the way I envisioned my entire career as a physician.

I am now a fourth year medical student and a pioneer of the “new curriculum” at Weill Cornell Medical College. In contrast to the traditional medical school curriculum, Cornell carved out 6 months of protected research time for all medical students by condensing the preclinical curriculum from 2 years to 1.5 years. I learned how much I enjoyed research at Johns Hopkins, which is one of the main reasons I applied here.

Despite my interest in research, I still struggled with the ultimate career question: What kind of doctor do I want to be?

After completing my medicine clerkship, I remember feeling intellectually stimulated in a way I hadn’t experienced in the previous years. While this may have had to do with the subject matter, I attribute much of this feeling to my clerkship director whose passion for medicine and teaching was contagious. I ultimately chose Ernie Esquivel, MD, to be my research mentor because of how much he impacted my education.

Cole Hirschfeld is originally from Phoenix, Ariz. He received undergraduate degrees in finance and entrepreneurship from the University of Arizona and went on to work in the finance industry for 2 years before deciding to change careers and attend medical school. He is now a fourth year medical student at Weill Cornell Medical College and plans to apply for residency in internal medicine.

In frail elderly patients with multiple myeloma, starting lenalidomide at low doses was associated with fewer adverse events and less treatment discontinuation, and did not compromise overall response rates, in a single-center, retrospective study conducted in Japan.

Although most of the 56 study patients received 5-10 mg/day of lenalidomide, not the recommended 25-mg/day dose, their overall response rate was 73% (complete response in 17% of patients, very good partial response in 19%, and partial response in 37%), Aya Nakaya, MD, PhD, of Kansai Medical University, Hirakata, and colleagues wrote (Acta Haematol. 2017;138:55-60). In addition, 23% of patients had stable disease and 4% had disease progression. Nine patients developed other types of malignancies during treatment with lenalidomide.

Starting patients on a reduced dose and increasing it gradually while monitoring carefully for adverse events meant that patients did not have to stop treatment, the researchers said. Continuous treatment may improve survival, and “treatment with lenalidomide for long periods of time, even in small doses, may yield favorable outcomes.”

The 30 men and 26 women, mean age 76.5 years, were consecutively diagnosed as transplant-ineligible patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma; 34%, 32%, and 34% had stages I-III disease, respectively. The M-protein consisted of IgG in 52% of patients and IgA in 30%, with Bence-Jones protein detected in 14%.

They were treated with lenalidomide plus dexamethasone at a starting dose determined by the treating physician; 73% were treated with lenalidomide as a second-line regimen and 14% as a third-line regimen. During each 28-day treatment cycle, patients received lenalidomide on days 1-21 and dexamethasone (20 or 40 mg) on days 1, 8, 15, and 22.

The most common starting lenalidomide dose was 10 mg/day (45%), followed by 5 mg/day (21%), 15 mg/day (20%), 20 mg/day (4%), and 25 mg/day (10%). The treatment dose used for the longest period was 10 mg/day (46% of patients), followed by 5 mg/day (25%), 15 mg/day (16%), 20 mg/day (4%), and 25 mg/day (9%).

The most frequent reasons for dose reduction were renal dysfunction (54%), fatigue (20%), hematologic disorder (14%), and rash (9%).

The median treatment period was 9 months (range 1-60 months) and the median follow-up period was 16 months.

The median time to disease progression was 11.8 months (range 8.4-21.9), and the median overall survival was 39.2 months. For those who took 5-10 mg of lenalidomide, the median time to progression was 14.5 months; for those who took lenalidomide at a dose of more than 10 mg, the median time to progression was 8.9 months. The median overall survival of the patients who received a 5- to 10-mg dose of lenalidomide was 38.9 months; the median overall survival of the patients given a dose of more than 10 mg was not available.

The authors declared no competing financial interests in relation to this work.

[email protected]

On Twitter @maryjodales

In frail elderly patients with multiple myeloma, starting lenalidomide at low doses was associated with fewer adverse events and less treatment discontinuation, and did not compromise overall response rates, in a single-center, retrospective study conducted in Japan.

Although most of the 56 study patients received 5-10 mg/day of lenalidomide, not the recommended 25-mg/day dose, their overall response rate was 73% (complete response in 17% of patients, very good partial response in 19%, and partial response in 37%), Aya Nakaya, MD, PhD, of Kansai Medical University, Hirakata, and colleagues wrote (Acta Haematol. 2017;138:55-60). In addition, 23% of patients had stable disease and 4% had disease progression. Nine patients developed other types of malignancies during treatment with lenalidomide.

Starting patients on a reduced dose and increasing it gradually while monitoring carefully for adverse events meant that patients did not have to stop treatment, the researchers said. Continuous treatment may improve survival, and “treatment with lenalidomide for long periods of time, even in small doses, may yield favorable outcomes.”

The 30 men and 26 women, mean age 76.5 years, were consecutively diagnosed as transplant-ineligible patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma; 34%, 32%, and 34% had stages I-III disease, respectively. The M-protein consisted of IgG in 52% of patients and IgA in 30%, with Bence-Jones protein detected in 14%.

They were treated with lenalidomide plus dexamethasone at a starting dose determined by the treating physician; 73% were treated with lenalidomide as a second-line regimen and 14% as a third-line regimen. During each 28-day treatment cycle, patients received lenalidomide on days 1-21 and dexamethasone (20 or 40 mg) on days 1, 8, 15, and 22.

The most common starting lenalidomide dose was 10 mg/day (45%), followed by 5 mg/day (21%), 15 mg/day (20%), 20 mg/day (4%), and 25 mg/day (10%). The treatment dose used for the longest period was 10 mg/day (46% of patients), followed by 5 mg/day (25%), 15 mg/day (16%), 20 mg/day (4%), and 25 mg/day (9%).

The most frequent reasons for dose reduction were renal dysfunction (54%), fatigue (20%), hematologic disorder (14%), and rash (9%).

The median treatment period was 9 months (range 1-60 months) and the median follow-up period was 16 months.

The median time to disease progression was 11.8 months (range 8.4-21.9), and the median overall survival was 39.2 months. For those who took 5-10 mg of lenalidomide, the median time to progression was 14.5 months; for those who took lenalidomide at a dose of more than 10 mg, the median time to progression was 8.9 months. The median overall survival of the patients who received a 5- to 10-mg dose of lenalidomide was 38.9 months; the median overall survival of the patients given a dose of more than 10 mg was not available.

The authors declared no competing financial interests in relation to this work.

[email protected]

On Twitter @maryjodales

In frail elderly patients with multiple myeloma, starting lenalidomide at low doses was associated with fewer adverse events and less treatment discontinuation, and did not compromise overall response rates, in a single-center, retrospective study conducted in Japan.

Although most of the 56 study patients received 5-10 mg/day of lenalidomide, not the recommended 25-mg/day dose, their overall response rate was 73% (complete response in 17% of patients, very good partial response in 19%, and partial response in 37%), Aya Nakaya, MD, PhD, of Kansai Medical University, Hirakata, and colleagues wrote (Acta Haematol. 2017;138:55-60). In addition, 23% of patients had stable disease and 4% had disease progression. Nine patients developed other types of malignancies during treatment with lenalidomide.

Starting patients on a reduced dose and increasing it gradually while monitoring carefully for adverse events meant that patients did not have to stop treatment, the researchers said. Continuous treatment may improve survival, and “treatment with lenalidomide for long periods of time, even in small doses, may yield favorable outcomes.”

The 30 men and 26 women, mean age 76.5 years, were consecutively diagnosed as transplant-ineligible patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma; 34%, 32%, and 34% had stages I-III disease, respectively. The M-protein consisted of IgG in 52% of patients and IgA in 30%, with Bence-Jones protein detected in 14%.

They were treated with lenalidomide plus dexamethasone at a starting dose determined by the treating physician; 73% were treated with lenalidomide as a second-line regimen and 14% as a third-line regimen. During each 28-day treatment cycle, patients received lenalidomide on days 1-21 and dexamethasone (20 or 40 mg) on days 1, 8, 15, and 22.

The most common starting lenalidomide dose was 10 mg/day (45%), followed by 5 mg/day (21%), 15 mg/day (20%), 20 mg/day (4%), and 25 mg/day (10%). The treatment dose used for the longest period was 10 mg/day (46% of patients), followed by 5 mg/day (25%), 15 mg/day (16%), 20 mg/day (4%), and 25 mg/day (9%).

The most frequent reasons for dose reduction were renal dysfunction (54%), fatigue (20%), hematologic disorder (14%), and rash (9%).

The median treatment period was 9 months (range 1-60 months) and the median follow-up period was 16 months.

The median time to disease progression was 11.8 months (range 8.4-21.9), and the median overall survival was 39.2 months. For those who took 5-10 mg of lenalidomide, the median time to progression was 14.5 months; for those who took lenalidomide at a dose of more than 10 mg, the median time to progression was 8.9 months. The median overall survival of the patients who received a 5- to 10-mg dose of lenalidomide was 38.9 months; the median overall survival of the patients given a dose of more than 10 mg was not available.

The authors declared no competing financial interests in relation to this work.

[email protected]

On Twitter @maryjodales

A) Mirena or Liletta (52 mg LNG-IUD) CORRECT
Mirena (Bayer) and Liletta (Allergan) are progestin-releasing intrauterine devices (IUDs) of similar size and shape. On ultrasonography, both the arms and the distal tip are echogenic. The progestin-containing plastic sleeve surrounding the stem in the middle demonstrates a laminated acoustic shadowing with distinctive parallel lines.^1–4

B) Small-framed LNG-IUDs: Skyla (13.5 mg) or Kyleena (19.5 mg) INCORRECT
Skyla (Bayer) and Kyleena (Bayer) are small-framed LNG-IUDs. The ultrasound appearance of Skyla (LNG 13.5 mg) is similar to that of Mirena but has a markedly echogenic silver ring superiorly just below the crossbar, best seen with 2D (sagittal) views but also imaged with 3D ultrasound.^1,2,5

The Kyleena device (LNG 19.5 mg) uses the same smaller T-shaped frame and metal ring, but the plastic sleeve is longer to accommodate the greater quantity of progestin.⁶

C) Paragard (intrauterine copper contraceptive) INCORRECT
Paragard (Teva Women’s Health) is a nonhormonal IUD containing copper wire wrapped around its stem and solid copper bands on each crossbar. On ultrasonography, the stem is uniformly and markedly echogenic due to the copper wire.^1,2,7

A) Mirena or Liletta (52 mg LNG-IUD) CORRECT
Mirena (Bayer) and Liletta (Allergan) are progestin-releasing intrauterine devices (IUDs) of similar size and shape. On ultrasonography, both the arms and the distal tip are echogenic. The progestin-containing plastic sleeve surrounding the stem in the middle demonstrates a laminated acoustic shadowing with distinctive parallel lines.^1–4

B) Small-framed LNG-IUDs: Skyla (13.5 mg) or Kyleena (19.5 mg) INCORRECT
Skyla (Bayer) and Kyleena (Bayer) are small-framed LNG-IUDs. The ultrasound appearance of Skyla (LNG 13.5 mg) is similar to that of Mirena but has a markedly echogenic silver ring superiorly just below the crossbar, best seen with 2D (sagittal) views but also imaged with 3D ultrasound.^1,2,5

The Kyleena device (LNG 19.5 mg) uses the same smaller T-shaped frame and metal ring, but the plastic sleeve is longer to accommodate the greater quantity of progestin.⁶

C) Paragard (intrauterine copper contraceptive) INCORRECT
Paragard (Teva Women’s Health) is a nonhormonal IUD containing copper wire wrapped around its stem and solid copper bands on each crossbar. On ultrasonography, the stem is uniformly and markedly echogenic due to the copper wire.^1,2,7

A) Mirena or Liletta (52 mg LNG-IUD) CORRECT
Mirena (Bayer) and Liletta (Allergan) are progestin-releasing intrauterine devices (IUDs) of similar size and shape. On ultrasonography, both the arms and the distal tip are echogenic. The progestin-containing plastic sleeve surrounding the stem in the middle demonstrates a laminated acoustic shadowing with distinctive parallel lines.^1–4

B) Small-framed LNG-IUDs: Skyla (13.5 mg) or Kyleena (19.5 mg) INCORRECT
Skyla (Bayer) and Kyleena (Bayer) are small-framed LNG-IUDs. The ultrasound appearance of Skyla (LNG 13.5 mg) is similar to that of Mirena but has a markedly echogenic silver ring superiorly just below the crossbar, best seen with 2D (sagittal) views but also imaged with 3D ultrasound.^1,2,5

The Kyleena device (LNG 19.5 mg) uses the same smaller T-shaped frame and metal ring, but the plastic sleeve is longer to accommodate the greater quantity of progestin.⁶

C) Paragard (intrauterine copper contraceptive) INCORRECT
Paragard (Teva Women’s Health) is a nonhormonal IUD containing copper wire wrapped around its stem and solid copper bands on each crossbar. On ultrasonography, the stem is uniformly and markedly echogenic due to the copper wire.^1,2,7

CHICAGO – The question is not if a physician will face a Medicare or Medicaid billing audit, but when, according to Abby Pendleton, a New York–based health law attorney. That’s why it pays to know how to handle an audit before one probe disrupts your practice. At a recent American Bar Association meeting, Ms. Pendleton and H. Rusty Comley, a Jackson, Mississippi–based health law attorney, offered answers to top audit questions and provided guidance on how physicians can successfully appeal an audit.

When should you appeal?

There are a number of factors to consider when deciding whether to appeal audit findings. For starters, consider the cost of the payback amount and the basis of the findings.

What should you expect from an appeal?

Expect to go through more than one appeals process step to succeed. There are five stages to the appeals process .

“At the redetermination stage, I don’t see a whole lot of movement in terms of great success at that first stage,” Ms. Pendleton said. “So, don’t think, ‘If we get to that first level of appeal, we’re expecting to win.’ If you look at the statistics, it’s not really that realistic.”

Although a provider has 120 days to file an appeal, it’s smarter to file within the first 30 days, Ms. Pendleton advised. If an appeal is filed within 30 days, the government cannot recoup it’s demand from a doctor’s current Medicare payments.

Expect a lengthy time frame for a final outcome. Under federal law, once an appeal gets to the administrative law judge (ALJ) stage (the third stage), the appellant should receive a hearing decision within 90 days. However, because of heavy case backlogs, physicians typically don’t get a hearing for 3 years, Ms. Pendleton said.

“The problem is, your MAC [Medicare administrative contractor] can start taking your money after the [second] stage,” she said. “If it’s a huge dollar amount, you’re probably going to have to enter into a payment plan [with the government]. You will eventually get your money back, if you win, three to four years later.”

Note that physicians generally experience a higher degree of success at the ALJ stage, so it may be worth continuing the appeal through this stage, she noted.

Overall, more than one-third of audit findings are reversed in providers’ favor during the appeals process. Of 170,482 Medicare appeal decisions in 2015, 37% were made in favor of the health provider, an increase from 23% in 2014, according to 2015 Medicare data and 2014 reports.

The cost to appeal varies significantly between Medicaid and Medicare and depends largely on the complexity of the audit, Mr. Comley said. A Medicaid audit appeal, through an ALJ hearing and written appeal to a court, may cost between $20,000 to $60,000 depending on the circumstances, he said. By contrast, a Medicare appeal resolved in the first stage of appeal may only cost a few thousand dollars for a relatively simple audit.

“Of course, the costs will rise at each level of the Medicare appeal process, especially in the third stage involving the ALJ telephonic hearing, but, in most cases, the Medicare appeal costs will still be below a similar Medicaid appeal,” he said.
 

What strategies can help you win?

Consider reaching out to your congressional representative or senators, Mr. Comley advised. Particularly if the issue involves a medical treatment decision or a medically necessary determination, it may be helpful to copy “your favorite Congressman or senator’s office” on correspondence with the MAC. Clearly state your argument against the findings and how/why the medical decision was made. Legislators will often get involved and could help your appeal, Mr. Comley said.

Further, don’t just review the claims that auditors denied. Also evaluate the claims they have approved in the past, he added.

“In almost every case I’ve been involved in, they’ll approve claims that, on the other hand, they deny,” Mr. Comley said. “Under most legal standards, that’s a good way to win – it’s called arbitrary and capricious.”

Find the best experts to back your case, Ms. Pendleton advised. Consider including expert opinions in written responses to the government that support the services provided and/or have medical experts ready to testify during hearings. If the government based its findings on statistics or cited statistics in its review, involve a statistical expert who can argue against the government’s conclusion.

If the case is significant enough, consider skipping steps in the appeals process to get the case before a federal court sooner. Appellants can escalate their appeal through the process at nearly every stage if the government fails to respond within a timely manner. At the second stage, for example, if the qualified independent contractor does not issue a decision within 60 days, an appellant generally has the right to escalate the case to an administrative law judge. If the ALJ does not issue a decision within 90 days, the appeal can generally be escalated to the Appeals Council level, and, if the council does not issue a decision within 90 days, appellants can seek judicial review.

It may be worth it to have your day in court sooner, Ms. Pendleton said.

“It might be an option for providers if you have a large audit with a lot at stake,” she said. “Escalate it through. Get it to federal court and argue it.”

The 5 steps of the Medicare appeals process

There are five stages of the Medicare audit appeals process, according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. They include:

1. Redetermination by the Fiscal Intermediary. A redetermination is an examination of a claim by a Medicare administrative contractor (MAC) separate from the personnel who made the initial claim determination. The appellant has 120 days from the date of initial claim determination receipt to file an appeal.

2. Reconsideration by a Qualified Independent Contractor (QIC). A QIC is an independent contractor who didn’t take part in the level 1 decision. The QIC will review the request for a reconsideration and make a decision. An appellant must file a request for reconsideration within 180 days of Medicare redetermination notice or remittance advice receipt.

3. Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) hearing. Appellants present their case to an ALJ who will review the facts of the appeal and listen to testimony before making a decision. An ALJ hearing is usually held by phone or video conference. Appellants can ask the ALJ to make a decision without a hearing. The ALJ may also issue a decision without holding a hearing if evidence in the record supports a decision that’s fully in the appellant’s favor.

4. Medicare Appeals Council review. If you disagree with the ALJ decision or wish to escalate the appeal because the ALJ ruling time frame has passed, a request for a Medicare Appeals Council review can be made. A request for a Medicare Appeals Council review must be made within 60 days of receipt of the ALJ’s decision or after the ALJ ruling time frame expires.

5. Judicial review in U.S. District Court. A party may file an action in federal district court within 60 calendar days after the date receiving notice of the Medicare Appeals Council’s decision or after a council notice that it is not able to reach a decision. To get a judicial review in federal district court, the case amount must meet a minimum dollar amount ($1,560 in 2017).

Each state has its own Medicaid appeals process. Contact your state’s Medicaid office to find out how to appeal a Medicaid audit finding.

[email protected]

On Twitter @legal_med

CHICAGO – The question is not if a physician will face a Medicare or Medicaid billing audit, but when, according to Abby Pendleton, a New York–based health law attorney. That’s why it pays to know how to handle an audit before one probe disrupts your practice. At a recent American Bar Association meeting, Ms. Pendleton and H. Rusty Comley, a Jackson, Mississippi–based health law attorney, offered answers to top audit questions and provided guidance on how physicians can successfully appeal an audit.

When should you appeal?

There are a number of factors to consider when deciding whether to appeal audit findings. For starters, consider the cost of the payback amount and the basis of the findings.

What should you expect from an appeal?

Expect to go through more than one appeals process step to succeed. There are five stages to the appeals process .

“At the redetermination stage, I don’t see a whole lot of movement in terms of great success at that first stage,” Ms. Pendleton said. “So, don’t think, ‘If we get to that first level of appeal, we’re expecting to win.’ If you look at the statistics, it’s not really that realistic.”

Although a provider has 120 days to file an appeal, it’s smarter to file within the first 30 days, Ms. Pendleton advised. If an appeal is filed within 30 days, the government cannot recoup it’s demand from a doctor’s current Medicare payments.

Expect a lengthy time frame for a final outcome. Under federal law, once an appeal gets to the administrative law judge (ALJ) stage (the third stage), the appellant should receive a hearing decision within 90 days. However, because of heavy case backlogs, physicians typically don’t get a hearing for 3 years, Ms. Pendleton said.

“The problem is, your MAC [Medicare administrative contractor] can start taking your money after the [second] stage,” she said. “If it’s a huge dollar amount, you’re probably going to have to enter into a payment plan [with the government]. You will eventually get your money back, if you win, three to four years later.”

Note that physicians generally experience a higher degree of success at the ALJ stage, so it may be worth continuing the appeal through this stage, she noted.

Overall, more than one-third of audit findings are reversed in providers’ favor during the appeals process. Of 170,482 Medicare appeal decisions in 2015, 37% were made in favor of the health provider, an increase from 23% in 2014, according to 2015 Medicare data and 2014 reports.

The cost to appeal varies significantly between Medicaid and Medicare and depends largely on the complexity of the audit, Mr. Comley said. A Medicaid audit appeal, through an ALJ hearing and written appeal to a court, may cost between $20,000 to $60,000 depending on the circumstances, he said. By contrast, a Medicare appeal resolved in the first stage of appeal may only cost a few thousand dollars for a relatively simple audit.

“Of course, the costs will rise at each level of the Medicare appeal process, especially in the third stage involving the ALJ telephonic hearing, but, in most cases, the Medicare appeal costs will still be below a similar Medicaid appeal,” he said.
 

What strategies can help you win?

Consider reaching out to your congressional representative or senators, Mr. Comley advised. Particularly if the issue involves a medical treatment decision or a medically necessary determination, it may be helpful to copy “your favorite Congressman or senator’s office” on correspondence with the MAC. Clearly state your argument against the findings and how/why the medical decision was made. Legislators will often get involved and could help your appeal, Mr. Comley said.

Further, don’t just review the claims that auditors denied. Also evaluate the claims they have approved in the past, he added.

“In almost every case I’ve been involved in, they’ll approve claims that, on the other hand, they deny,” Mr. Comley said. “Under most legal standards, that’s a good way to win – it’s called arbitrary and capricious.”

Find the best experts to back your case, Ms. Pendleton advised. Consider including expert opinions in written responses to the government that support the services provided and/or have medical experts ready to testify during hearings. If the government based its findings on statistics or cited statistics in its review, involve a statistical expert who can argue against the government’s conclusion.

If the case is significant enough, consider skipping steps in the appeals process to get the case before a federal court sooner. Appellants can escalate their appeal through the process at nearly every stage if the government fails to respond within a timely manner. At the second stage, for example, if the qualified independent contractor does not issue a decision within 60 days, an appellant generally has the right to escalate the case to an administrative law judge. If the ALJ does not issue a decision within 90 days, the appeal can generally be escalated to the Appeals Council level, and, if the council does not issue a decision within 90 days, appellants can seek judicial review.

It may be worth it to have your day in court sooner, Ms. Pendleton said.

“It might be an option for providers if you have a large audit with a lot at stake,” she said. “Escalate it through. Get it to federal court and argue it.”

The 5 steps of the Medicare appeals process

There are five stages of the Medicare audit appeals process, according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. They include:

1. Redetermination by the Fiscal Intermediary. A redetermination is an examination of a claim by a Medicare administrative contractor (MAC) separate from the personnel who made the initial claim determination. The appellant has 120 days from the date of initial claim determination receipt to file an appeal.

2. Reconsideration by a Qualified Independent Contractor (QIC). A QIC is an independent contractor who didn’t take part in the level 1 decision. The QIC will review the request for a reconsideration and make a decision. An appellant must file a request for reconsideration within 180 days of Medicare redetermination notice or remittance advice receipt.

3. Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) hearing. Appellants present their case to an ALJ who will review the facts of the appeal and listen to testimony before making a decision. An ALJ hearing is usually held by phone or video conference. Appellants can ask the ALJ to make a decision without a hearing. The ALJ may also issue a decision without holding a hearing if evidence in the record supports a decision that’s fully in the appellant’s favor.

4. Medicare Appeals Council review. If you disagree with the ALJ decision or wish to escalate the appeal because the ALJ ruling time frame has passed, a request for a Medicare Appeals Council review can be made. A request for a Medicare Appeals Council review must be made within 60 days of receipt of the ALJ’s decision or after the ALJ ruling time frame expires.

5. Judicial review in U.S. District Court. A party may file an action in federal district court within 60 calendar days after the date receiving notice of the Medicare Appeals Council’s decision or after a council notice that it is not able to reach a decision. To get a judicial review in federal district court, the case amount must meet a minimum dollar amount ($1,560 in 2017).

Each state has its own Medicaid appeals process. Contact your state’s Medicaid office to find out how to appeal a Medicaid audit finding.

[email protected]

On Twitter @legal_med

CHICAGO – The question is not if a physician will face a Medicare or Medicaid billing audit, but when, according to Abby Pendleton, a New York–based health law attorney. That’s why it pays to know how to handle an audit before one probe disrupts your practice. At a recent American Bar Association meeting, Ms. Pendleton and H. Rusty Comley, a Jackson, Mississippi–based health law attorney, offered answers to top audit questions and provided guidance on how physicians can successfully appeal an audit.

When should you appeal?

There are a number of factors to consider when deciding whether to appeal audit findings. For starters, consider the cost of the payback amount and the basis of the findings.

What should you expect from an appeal?

Expect to go through more than one appeals process step to succeed. There are five stages to the appeals process .

“At the redetermination stage, I don’t see a whole lot of movement in terms of great success at that first stage,” Ms. Pendleton said. “So, don’t think, ‘If we get to that first level of appeal, we’re expecting to win.’ If you look at the statistics, it’s not really that realistic.”

Although a provider has 120 days to file an appeal, it’s smarter to file within the first 30 days, Ms. Pendleton advised. If an appeal is filed within 30 days, the government cannot recoup it’s demand from a doctor’s current Medicare payments.

Expect a lengthy time frame for a final outcome. Under federal law, once an appeal gets to the administrative law judge (ALJ) stage (the third stage), the appellant should receive a hearing decision within 90 days. However, because of heavy case backlogs, physicians typically don’t get a hearing for 3 years, Ms. Pendleton said.

“The problem is, your MAC [Medicare administrative contractor] can start taking your money after the [second] stage,” she said. “If it’s a huge dollar amount, you’re probably going to have to enter into a payment plan [with the government]. You will eventually get your money back, if you win, three to four years later.”

Note that physicians generally experience a higher degree of success at the ALJ stage, so it may be worth continuing the appeal through this stage, she noted.

Overall, more than one-third of audit findings are reversed in providers’ favor during the appeals process. Of 170,482 Medicare appeal decisions in 2015, 37% were made in favor of the health provider, an increase from 23% in 2014, according to 2015 Medicare data and 2014 reports.

The cost to appeal varies significantly between Medicaid and Medicare and depends largely on the complexity of the audit, Mr. Comley said. A Medicaid audit appeal, through an ALJ hearing and written appeal to a court, may cost between $20,000 to $60,000 depending on the circumstances, he said. By contrast, a Medicare appeal resolved in the first stage of appeal may only cost a few thousand dollars for a relatively simple audit.

“Of course, the costs will rise at each level of the Medicare appeal process, especially in the third stage involving the ALJ telephonic hearing, but, in most cases, the Medicare appeal costs will still be below a similar Medicaid appeal,” he said.
 

What strategies can help you win?

Consider reaching out to your congressional representative or senators, Mr. Comley advised. Particularly if the issue involves a medical treatment decision or a medically necessary determination, it may be helpful to copy “your favorite Congressman or senator’s office” on correspondence with the MAC. Clearly state your argument against the findings and how/why the medical decision was made. Legislators will often get involved and could help your appeal, Mr. Comley said.

Further, don’t just review the claims that auditors denied. Also evaluate the claims they have approved in the past, he added.

“In almost every case I’ve been involved in, they’ll approve claims that, on the other hand, they deny,” Mr. Comley said. “Under most legal standards, that’s a good way to win – it’s called arbitrary and capricious.”

Find the best experts to back your case, Ms. Pendleton advised. Consider including expert opinions in written responses to the government that support the services provided and/or have medical experts ready to testify during hearings. If the government based its findings on statistics or cited statistics in its review, involve a statistical expert who can argue against the government’s conclusion.

If the case is significant enough, consider skipping steps in the appeals process to get the case before a federal court sooner. Appellants can escalate their appeal through the process at nearly every stage if the government fails to respond within a timely manner. At the second stage, for example, if the qualified independent contractor does not issue a decision within 60 days, an appellant generally has the right to escalate the case to an administrative law judge. If the ALJ does not issue a decision within 90 days, the appeal can generally be escalated to the Appeals Council level, and, if the council does not issue a decision within 90 days, appellants can seek judicial review.

It may be worth it to have your day in court sooner, Ms. Pendleton said.

“It might be an option for providers if you have a large audit with a lot at stake,” she said. “Escalate it through. Get it to federal court and argue it.”

The 5 steps of the Medicare appeals process

There are five stages of the Medicare audit appeals process, according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. They include:

1. Redetermination by the Fiscal Intermediary. A redetermination is an examination of a claim by a Medicare administrative contractor (MAC) separate from the personnel who made the initial claim determination. The appellant has 120 days from the date of initial claim determination receipt to file an appeal.

2. Reconsideration by a Qualified Independent Contractor (QIC). A QIC is an independent contractor who didn’t take part in the level 1 decision. The QIC will review the request for a reconsideration and make a decision. An appellant must file a request for reconsideration within 180 days of Medicare redetermination notice or remittance advice receipt.

3. Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) hearing. Appellants present their case to an ALJ who will review the facts of the appeal and listen to testimony before making a decision. An ALJ hearing is usually held by phone or video conference. Appellants can ask the ALJ to make a decision without a hearing. The ALJ may also issue a decision without holding a hearing if evidence in the record supports a decision that’s fully in the appellant’s favor.

4. Medicare Appeals Council review. If you disagree with the ALJ decision or wish to escalate the appeal because the ALJ ruling time frame has passed, a request for a Medicare Appeals Council review can be made. A request for a Medicare Appeals Council review must be made within 60 days of receipt of the ALJ’s decision or after the ALJ ruling time frame expires.

5. Judicial review in U.S. District Court. A party may file an action in federal district court within 60 calendar days after the date receiving notice of the Medicare Appeals Council’s decision or after a council notice that it is not able to reach a decision. To get a judicial review in federal district court, the case amount must meet a minimum dollar amount ($1,560 in 2017).

Each state has its own Medicaid appeals process. Contact your state’s Medicaid office to find out how to appeal a Medicaid audit finding.

[email protected]

On Twitter @legal_med

CHICAGO – Multiple laser and light options are available to treat children with infantile hemangiomas, port wine birthmarks, and angiofibromas, according to Kristen M. Kelly, MD.

“Combination treatments with procedures and medications can improve treatment in many cases,” Dr. Kelly said at the World Congress of Pediatric Dermatology.

Dr. Kelly, professor of dermatology and surgery at the University of California, Irvine, said that the use of lasers and other light sources for infantile hemangiomas has dramatically decreased since propranolol, timolol, and other beta-blockers have become available. Most children are candidates for beta-blocker therapy, she said, but for those who are not, the pulsed dye laser (PDL) may be a good option. She also considers using the PDL for ulcerated lesions. “Of course concern comes up, because lasers can sometimes cause ulcerations, so you have to be aware of that,” she said.

[email protected]

CHICAGO – Multiple laser and light options are available to treat children with infantile hemangiomas, port wine birthmarks, and angiofibromas, according to Kristen M. Kelly, MD.

“Combination treatments with procedures and medications can improve treatment in many cases,” Dr. Kelly said at the World Congress of Pediatric Dermatology.

Dr. Kelly, professor of dermatology and surgery at the University of California, Irvine, said that the use of lasers and other light sources for infantile hemangiomas has dramatically decreased since propranolol, timolol, and other beta-blockers have become available. Most children are candidates for beta-blocker therapy, she said, but for those who are not, the pulsed dye laser (PDL) may be a good option. She also considers using the PDL for ulcerated lesions. “Of course concern comes up, because lasers can sometimes cause ulcerations, so you have to be aware of that,” she said.

[email protected]

CHICAGO – Multiple laser and light options are available to treat children with infantile hemangiomas, port wine birthmarks, and angiofibromas, according to Kristen M. Kelly, MD.

“Combination treatments with procedures and medications can improve treatment in many cases,” Dr. Kelly said at the World Congress of Pediatric Dermatology.

Dr. Kelly, professor of dermatology and surgery at the University of California, Irvine, said that the use of lasers and other light sources for infantile hemangiomas has dramatically decreased since propranolol, timolol, and other beta-blockers have become available. Most children are candidates for beta-blocker therapy, she said, but for those who are not, the pulsed dye laser (PDL) may be a good option. She also considers using the PDL for ulcerated lesions. “Of course concern comes up, because lasers can sometimes cause ulcerations, so you have to be aware of that,” she said.

[email protected]

A standardized scoring system to identify sacroiliitis could enable patients with inflammatory bowel disease to get earlier rheumatology referrals and improve treatment, according to an analysis of IBD patients with pre-existing abdominal CT scans.

Of the 316 patients recruited from an IBD clinic in Toronto, the validated CT scan scoring system identified 49 with sacroiliitis, of whom only 5 had been referred to an outpatient rheumatology clinic in the city. Rates of sacroiliitis were similar between the 233 patients with Crohn’s disease (15%) and the 83 with ulcerative colitis (16.9%). The scoring system indicated sacroiliitis in 6 (5.6%) of the 108 control subjects, who were recruited from a urology clinic and had no prior history of chronic back pain, reported Jonathan Chan, MD, of the University of Toronto and his associates (Arthritis Care Res. 2017 Jul 21. doi: 10.1002/acr.23323).“Previous studies using CT scan to detect sacroiliitis have relied upon an adaptation of the [modified New York] criteria or a radiologist’s gestalt. Such an adaptation may not be appropriate since changes suggestive of sacroiliitis can be found in the healthy population due to the increased sensitivity of CT scans,” the investigators said. They developed a CT-scan scoring system in which the sacroiliac joints are divided into left/right and iliac/sacral segments. The slice with the greatest number of erosions in each of the four segments contributes that value to the total erosion score, with a score of 3 or greater identifying the presence of sacroiliitis.

By demonstrating that sacroiliitis is three times more prevalent among IBD patients and can be reliably detected in CT scans performed in the clinical care of those patients, this study suggests that “more timely referral for rheumatology assessment” could avoid unnecessary treatment with biologics, Dr. Chan and his associates wrote.

The study was supported in part by a fellowship grant from the Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society and in part by Janssen. The investigators reported having no conflicts of interest for the study.

A standardized scoring system to identify sacroiliitis could enable patients with inflammatory bowel disease to get earlier rheumatology referrals and improve treatment, according to an analysis of IBD patients with pre-existing abdominal CT scans.

Of the 316 patients recruited from an IBD clinic in Toronto, the validated CT scan scoring system identified 49 with sacroiliitis, of whom only 5 had been referred to an outpatient rheumatology clinic in the city. Rates of sacroiliitis were similar between the 233 patients with Crohn’s disease (15%) and the 83 with ulcerative colitis (16.9%). The scoring system indicated sacroiliitis in 6 (5.6%) of the 108 control subjects, who were recruited from a urology clinic and had no prior history of chronic back pain, reported Jonathan Chan, MD, of the University of Toronto and his associates (Arthritis Care Res. 2017 Jul 21. doi: 10.1002/acr.23323).“Previous studies using CT scan to detect sacroiliitis have relied upon an adaptation of the [modified New York] criteria or a radiologist’s gestalt. Such an adaptation may not be appropriate since changes suggestive of sacroiliitis can be found in the healthy population due to the increased sensitivity of CT scans,” the investigators said. They developed a CT-scan scoring system in which the sacroiliac joints are divided into left/right and iliac/sacral segments. The slice with the greatest number of erosions in each of the four segments contributes that value to the total erosion score, with a score of 3 or greater identifying the presence of sacroiliitis.

By demonstrating that sacroiliitis is three times more prevalent among IBD patients and can be reliably detected in CT scans performed in the clinical care of those patients, this study suggests that “more timely referral for rheumatology assessment” could avoid unnecessary treatment with biologics, Dr. Chan and his associates wrote.

The study was supported in part by a fellowship grant from the Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society and in part by Janssen. The investigators reported having no conflicts of interest for the study.

A standardized scoring system to identify sacroiliitis could enable patients with inflammatory bowel disease to get earlier rheumatology referrals and improve treatment, according to an analysis of IBD patients with pre-existing abdominal CT scans.

Of the 316 patients recruited from an IBD clinic in Toronto, the validated CT scan scoring system identified 49 with sacroiliitis, of whom only 5 had been referred to an outpatient rheumatology clinic in the city. Rates of sacroiliitis were similar between the 233 patients with Crohn’s disease (15%) and the 83 with ulcerative colitis (16.9%). The scoring system indicated sacroiliitis in 6 (5.6%) of the 108 control subjects, who were recruited from a urology clinic and had no prior history of chronic back pain, reported Jonathan Chan, MD, of the University of Toronto and his associates (Arthritis Care Res. 2017 Jul 21. doi: 10.1002/acr.23323).“Previous studies using CT scan to detect sacroiliitis have relied upon an adaptation of the [modified New York] criteria or a radiologist’s gestalt. Such an adaptation may not be appropriate since changes suggestive of sacroiliitis can be found in the healthy population due to the increased sensitivity of CT scans,” the investigators said. They developed a CT-scan scoring system in which the sacroiliac joints are divided into left/right and iliac/sacral segments. The slice with the greatest number of erosions in each of the four segments contributes that value to the total erosion score, with a score of 3 or greater identifying the presence of sacroiliitis.

By demonstrating that sacroiliitis is three times more prevalent among IBD patients and can be reliably detected in CT scans performed in the clinical care of those patients, this study suggests that “more timely referral for rheumatology assessment” could avoid unnecessary treatment with biologics, Dr. Chan and his associates wrote.

The study was supported in part by a fellowship grant from the Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society and in part by Janssen. The investigators reported having no conflicts of interest for the study.

Paris – Fractional flow reserve is under study for a potential major application: guidance on percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) optimization immediately after stent placement, Roberto Diletti, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions.

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

[email protected]

Paris – Fractional flow reserve is under study for a potential major application: guidance on percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) optimization immediately after stent placement, Roberto Diletti, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions.

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

[email protected]

Paris – Fractional flow reserve is under study for a potential major application: guidance on percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) optimization immediately after stent placement, Roberto Diletti, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions.

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

[email protected]