Acute liver failure (ALF), a rare life-threatening condition, is potentially reversible if recognized and treated early, according to the latest guidelines from the American College of Gastroenterology.

The guidelines emphasize the need for timely transfer to a transplant center for patients who are at risk for poor outcomes.

“We wanted to produce an updated set of ALF guidelines for general gastroenterologists,” said lead author Alexandra Shingina, MD, MSc, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.

The aim was to “provide a comprehensive review of early evaluation and management of these patients,” she added.

The new guidelines build on previous guidelines produced by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases in 2011. The guidelines were published in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.

In 2017, the American Gastroenterological Association issued guidelines specific to the diagnosis and management of acute liver failure.

Siddharth Singh, MD, a gastroenterologist with UC San Diego Health and an author of the AGA guidelines, said the new guidelines will help inform the treatment of ALF. “It is encouraging to see the recent ACG guidelines building on prior guidelines published by the AGA in 2017,” he said.

ALF is typically defined as severe liver impairment and rapid clinical deterioration that, with few exceptions, “occurs in patients with no pre-existing liver disease,” the authors write. It is critical to distinguish ALF from the more common acutely decompensated cirrhosis or acute on chronic liver failure, the guidelines note, because their management differs significantly.

“ALF has a multitude of etiologies and a variety of clinical presentations that can affect virtually every organ system,” the authors write.

The cause of ALF is an essential indicator for prognosis and treatment strategy, especially for liver transplantation. For example, hyperacute ALF is predominantly seen in the setting of viral hepatitis A and E, acetaminophen toxicity, and ischemic injury, they note. Although the hyperacute subtype “carries a high risk for cerebral edema, it has the best prognosis without transplantation,” compared with other forms of ALF.

Before liver transplants, nearly 80% of patients with ALF died from the condition. In the past 20 years, 1- and 5-year survival rates from liver transplants are about 80% and 75%, respectively.

The authors emphasize that it is “imperative for clinicians to recognize ALF early ... because initiation of treatment and transplant considerations could be life-saving.”
 

Notable new recommendations

To develop the new guidelines, a writing group was assembled that included hepatology experts across a range of practice settings and different stages of their clinical and research careers.

They conducted a literature search of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases for relevant studies published in English up to January 2022, focusing on the highest quality of evidence, where available. Owing to a lack of solid data, the recommendations are based predominantly on expert opinion, the authors note.

ALF “is a rare entity. Literature reporting on outcomes is sparse and limited to retrospective cases series, with almost no randomized controlled trials available,” Dr. Shingina said.

She and her colleagues developed the recommendations to cover all aspects of ALF management, from initial diagnosis through to system- and etiology-specific management of ALF and liver transplantation.

“One of the new recommendations is the early use of CRRT [continuous renal replacement therapy] in patients with ALF and grade 2 encephalopathy, even in the absence of conventional RRT indications,” Dr. Shingina said.

“Although the evidence is limited, we felt that it was an important point in the multidisciplinary management of complex ALF patients, which can potentially save lives by reducing cerebral edema and allowing for more time if a liver transplant is not readily available,” she said.

She also highlighted a recommendation supporting intravenous N-acetylcysteine use in patients with acetaminophen-induced ALF and pointed out that the routine use of intracranial pressure monitors is no longer recommended “given the lack of literature on improved outcomes.”

Dr. Shingina emphasized that living donor liver transplantation can be considered in patients with ALF who are listed as status 1A priority for transplantation in experienced centers, when deceased donor liver transplantation is not readily available, as can ABO-incompatible grafts in patients who are rapidly declining.

The authors also present a timeline of ALF presentation and investigations.

During the first 2-4 hours after presentation at the emergency department, the patient should undergo initial stabilization and investigations, with a transfer to the ICU for those with grade 2 or higher hepatic encephalopathy. The transplant center should also be contacted during this period, the authors write.

After transfer to the ICU or a transplant center and during hours 4-12 After the initial presentation, patients should undergo intensive monitoring.

Psychiatry, social work, and hepatobiliary surgery consults should also be undertaken to determine the patient’s transplant eligibility, and if eligible, they should be put on a list.

Those who are ineligible for transplant or who show improvements should subsequently receive supportive management.

Overall, Dr. Shingina said that risk stratification and contact with a transplant center for potential transfer is of “utmost importance” for general gastroenterologists working in the community.

She said that either the Kings College Criteria or Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score can be used for prognostication, with a MELD score of 25 indicating worse outcomes.

“These are the patients who would benefit from early transfer to the nearest transplant center,” Dr. Shingina said.
 

Guidelines valuable, offer ‘concrete advice’

Approached for comment, Michael P. Curry, MD, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, welcomed the guidelines, saying they are “very well written.”

He said there have been “a lot of changes in the field” since the 2011 guidelines. The current recommendations “provide concrete advice to all physicians on the appropriate assessment of patients with ALF,” he said.

Dr. Curry singled out the new recommendation on the early use of CRRT in patients with encephalopathy. He agreed on the need for gastroenterologists outside of transplant centers to make contact for potential transfer early.

“These are not patients who should, or could, be managed in a small community hospital or in a program that does not have a transplant center with which they work in close collaboration,” he said.

“So, identifying patients who are at highest risk of progressing is really important,” he said.

Dr. Curry hopes the guidelines will be shared widely by colleagues, but he is concerned that they are “not going to make it to some of these intensive care units in community, non-tertiary care centers.”

Nikolaos Pyrsopoulos, MD, PhD, MBA, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, said the guidelines offer a “very comprehensive review of the literature.”

He said they are also a “very thorough evaluation of the quality of the evidence-based publications.”

It was “about time” that there was a set of guidelines of this quality, he added.

As for the recommendations, Dr. Pyrsopoulos believes that they will be “really valuable for the general gastroenterologist practicing in the community,” as well as for pathologists, to help them evaluate patients with ALF “as soon as possible, and in a standardized manner.”

He also emphasized the need for the rapid transfer of patients for transplant “when they are still lucid ... so we have the opportunity to discuss with and evaluate the patient.” This can be problematic in those who have been intubated and in patients with hepatic encephalopathy because they “become really confused.”

“The window of opportunity is closing very rapidly in some of these patients ... and morbidity and mortality is really pretty high” he said, so the transplant centers “appreciate when the referral is made to them earlier.”

No funding declared. No relevant financial relationships declared.

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

Acute liver failure (ALF), a rare life-threatening condition, is potentially reversible if recognized and treated early, according to the latest guidelines from the American College of Gastroenterology.

The guidelines emphasize the need for timely transfer to a transplant center for patients who are at risk for poor outcomes.

“We wanted to produce an updated set of ALF guidelines for general gastroenterologists,” said lead author Alexandra Shingina, MD, MSc, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.

The aim was to “provide a comprehensive review of early evaluation and management of these patients,” she added.

The new guidelines build on previous guidelines produced by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases in 2011. The guidelines were published in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.

In 2017, the American Gastroenterological Association issued guidelines specific to the diagnosis and management of acute liver failure.

Siddharth Singh, MD, a gastroenterologist with UC San Diego Health and an author of the AGA guidelines, said the new guidelines will help inform the treatment of ALF. “It is encouraging to see the recent ACG guidelines building on prior guidelines published by the AGA in 2017,” he said.

ALF is typically defined as severe liver impairment and rapid clinical deterioration that, with few exceptions, “occurs in patients with no pre-existing liver disease,” the authors write. It is critical to distinguish ALF from the more common acutely decompensated cirrhosis or acute on chronic liver failure, the guidelines note, because their management differs significantly.

“ALF has a multitude of etiologies and a variety of clinical presentations that can affect virtually every organ system,” the authors write.

The cause of ALF is an essential indicator for prognosis and treatment strategy, especially for liver transplantation. For example, hyperacute ALF is predominantly seen in the setting of viral hepatitis A and E, acetaminophen toxicity, and ischemic injury, they note. Although the hyperacute subtype “carries a high risk for cerebral edema, it has the best prognosis without transplantation,” compared with other forms of ALF.

Before liver transplants, nearly 80% of patients with ALF died from the condition. In the past 20 years, 1- and 5-year survival rates from liver transplants are about 80% and 75%, respectively.

The authors emphasize that it is “imperative for clinicians to recognize ALF early ... because initiation of treatment and transplant considerations could be life-saving.”
 

Notable new recommendations

To develop the new guidelines, a writing group was assembled that included hepatology experts across a range of practice settings and different stages of their clinical and research careers.

They conducted a literature search of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases for relevant studies published in English up to January 2022, focusing on the highest quality of evidence, where available. Owing to a lack of solid data, the recommendations are based predominantly on expert opinion, the authors note.

ALF “is a rare entity. Literature reporting on outcomes is sparse and limited to retrospective cases series, with almost no randomized controlled trials available,” Dr. Shingina said.

She and her colleagues developed the recommendations to cover all aspects of ALF management, from initial diagnosis through to system- and etiology-specific management of ALF and liver transplantation.

“One of the new recommendations is the early use of CRRT [continuous renal replacement therapy] in patients with ALF and grade 2 encephalopathy, even in the absence of conventional RRT indications,” Dr. Shingina said.

“Although the evidence is limited, we felt that it was an important point in the multidisciplinary management of complex ALF patients, which can potentially save lives by reducing cerebral edema and allowing for more time if a liver transplant is not readily available,” she said.

She also highlighted a recommendation supporting intravenous N-acetylcysteine use in patients with acetaminophen-induced ALF and pointed out that the routine use of intracranial pressure monitors is no longer recommended “given the lack of literature on improved outcomes.”

Dr. Shingina emphasized that living donor liver transplantation can be considered in patients with ALF who are listed as status 1A priority for transplantation in experienced centers, when deceased donor liver transplantation is not readily available, as can ABO-incompatible grafts in patients who are rapidly declining.

The authors also present a timeline of ALF presentation and investigations.

During the first 2-4 hours after presentation at the emergency department, the patient should undergo initial stabilization and investigations, with a transfer to the ICU for those with grade 2 or higher hepatic encephalopathy. The transplant center should also be contacted during this period, the authors write.

After transfer to the ICU or a transplant center and during hours 4-12 After the initial presentation, patients should undergo intensive monitoring.

Psychiatry, social work, and hepatobiliary surgery consults should also be undertaken to determine the patient’s transplant eligibility, and if eligible, they should be put on a list.

Those who are ineligible for transplant or who show improvements should subsequently receive supportive management.

Overall, Dr. Shingina said that risk stratification and contact with a transplant center for potential transfer is of “utmost importance” for general gastroenterologists working in the community.

She said that either the Kings College Criteria or Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score can be used for prognostication, with a MELD score of 25 indicating worse outcomes.

“These are the patients who would benefit from early transfer to the nearest transplant center,” Dr. Shingina said.
 

Guidelines valuable, offer ‘concrete advice’

Approached for comment, Michael P. Curry, MD, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, welcomed the guidelines, saying they are “very well written.”

He said there have been “a lot of changes in the field” since the 2011 guidelines. The current recommendations “provide concrete advice to all physicians on the appropriate assessment of patients with ALF,” he said.

Dr. Curry singled out the new recommendation on the early use of CRRT in patients with encephalopathy. He agreed on the need for gastroenterologists outside of transplant centers to make contact for potential transfer early.

“These are not patients who should, or could, be managed in a small community hospital or in a program that does not have a transplant center with which they work in close collaboration,” he said.

“So, identifying patients who are at highest risk of progressing is really important,” he said.

Dr. Curry hopes the guidelines will be shared widely by colleagues, but he is concerned that they are “not going to make it to some of these intensive care units in community, non-tertiary care centers.”

Nikolaos Pyrsopoulos, MD, PhD, MBA, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, said the guidelines offer a “very comprehensive review of the literature.”

He said they are also a “very thorough evaluation of the quality of the evidence-based publications.”

It was “about time” that there was a set of guidelines of this quality, he added.

As for the recommendations, Dr. Pyrsopoulos believes that they will be “really valuable for the general gastroenterologist practicing in the community,” as well as for pathologists, to help them evaluate patients with ALF “as soon as possible, and in a standardized manner.”

He also emphasized the need for the rapid transfer of patients for transplant “when they are still lucid ... so we have the opportunity to discuss with and evaluate the patient.” This can be problematic in those who have been intubated and in patients with hepatic encephalopathy because they “become really confused.”

“The window of opportunity is closing very rapidly in some of these patients ... and morbidity and mortality is really pretty high” he said, so the transplant centers “appreciate when the referral is made to them earlier.”

No funding declared. No relevant financial relationships declared.

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

Acute liver failure (ALF), a rare life-threatening condition, is potentially reversible if recognized and treated early, according to the latest guidelines from the American College of Gastroenterology.

The guidelines emphasize the need for timely transfer to a transplant center for patients who are at risk for poor outcomes.

“We wanted to produce an updated set of ALF guidelines for general gastroenterologists,” said lead author Alexandra Shingina, MD, MSc, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.

The aim was to “provide a comprehensive review of early evaluation and management of these patients,” she added.

The new guidelines build on previous guidelines produced by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases in 2011. The guidelines were published in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.

In 2017, the American Gastroenterological Association issued guidelines specific to the diagnosis and management of acute liver failure.

Siddharth Singh, MD, a gastroenterologist with UC San Diego Health and an author of the AGA guidelines, said the new guidelines will help inform the treatment of ALF. “It is encouraging to see the recent ACG guidelines building on prior guidelines published by the AGA in 2017,” he said.

ALF is typically defined as severe liver impairment and rapid clinical deterioration that, with few exceptions, “occurs in patients with no pre-existing liver disease,” the authors write. It is critical to distinguish ALF from the more common acutely decompensated cirrhosis or acute on chronic liver failure, the guidelines note, because their management differs significantly.

“ALF has a multitude of etiologies and a variety of clinical presentations that can affect virtually every organ system,” the authors write.

The cause of ALF is an essential indicator for prognosis and treatment strategy, especially for liver transplantation. For example, hyperacute ALF is predominantly seen in the setting of viral hepatitis A and E, acetaminophen toxicity, and ischemic injury, they note. Although the hyperacute subtype “carries a high risk for cerebral edema, it has the best prognosis without transplantation,” compared with other forms of ALF.

Before liver transplants, nearly 80% of patients with ALF died from the condition. In the past 20 years, 1- and 5-year survival rates from liver transplants are about 80% and 75%, respectively.

The authors emphasize that it is “imperative for clinicians to recognize ALF early ... because initiation of treatment and transplant considerations could be life-saving.”
 

Notable new recommendations

To develop the new guidelines, a writing group was assembled that included hepatology experts across a range of practice settings and different stages of their clinical and research careers.

They conducted a literature search of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases for relevant studies published in English up to January 2022, focusing on the highest quality of evidence, where available. Owing to a lack of solid data, the recommendations are based predominantly on expert opinion, the authors note.

ALF “is a rare entity. Literature reporting on outcomes is sparse and limited to retrospective cases series, with almost no randomized controlled trials available,” Dr. Shingina said.

She and her colleagues developed the recommendations to cover all aspects of ALF management, from initial diagnosis through to system- and etiology-specific management of ALF and liver transplantation.

“One of the new recommendations is the early use of CRRT [continuous renal replacement therapy] in patients with ALF and grade 2 encephalopathy, even in the absence of conventional RRT indications,” Dr. Shingina said.

“Although the evidence is limited, we felt that it was an important point in the multidisciplinary management of complex ALF patients, which can potentially save lives by reducing cerebral edema and allowing for more time if a liver transplant is not readily available,” she said.

She also highlighted a recommendation supporting intravenous N-acetylcysteine use in patients with acetaminophen-induced ALF and pointed out that the routine use of intracranial pressure monitors is no longer recommended “given the lack of literature on improved outcomes.”

Dr. Shingina emphasized that living donor liver transplantation can be considered in patients with ALF who are listed as status 1A priority for transplantation in experienced centers, when deceased donor liver transplantation is not readily available, as can ABO-incompatible grafts in patients who are rapidly declining.

The authors also present a timeline of ALF presentation and investigations.

During the first 2-4 hours after presentation at the emergency department, the patient should undergo initial stabilization and investigations, with a transfer to the ICU for those with grade 2 or higher hepatic encephalopathy. The transplant center should also be contacted during this period, the authors write.

After transfer to the ICU or a transplant center and during hours 4-12 After the initial presentation, patients should undergo intensive monitoring.

Psychiatry, social work, and hepatobiliary surgery consults should also be undertaken to determine the patient’s transplant eligibility, and if eligible, they should be put on a list.

Those who are ineligible for transplant or who show improvements should subsequently receive supportive management.

Overall, Dr. Shingina said that risk stratification and contact with a transplant center for potential transfer is of “utmost importance” for general gastroenterologists working in the community.

She said that either the Kings College Criteria or Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score can be used for prognostication, with a MELD score of 25 indicating worse outcomes.

“These are the patients who would benefit from early transfer to the nearest transplant center,” Dr. Shingina said.
 

Guidelines valuable, offer ‘concrete advice’

Approached for comment, Michael P. Curry, MD, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, welcomed the guidelines, saying they are “very well written.”

He said there have been “a lot of changes in the field” since the 2011 guidelines. The current recommendations “provide concrete advice to all physicians on the appropriate assessment of patients with ALF,” he said.

Dr. Curry singled out the new recommendation on the early use of CRRT in patients with encephalopathy. He agreed on the need for gastroenterologists outside of transplant centers to make contact for potential transfer early.

“These are not patients who should, or could, be managed in a small community hospital or in a program that does not have a transplant center with which they work in close collaboration,” he said.

“So, identifying patients who are at highest risk of progressing is really important,” he said.

Dr. Curry hopes the guidelines will be shared widely by colleagues, but he is concerned that they are “not going to make it to some of these intensive care units in community, non-tertiary care centers.”

Nikolaos Pyrsopoulos, MD, PhD, MBA, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, said the guidelines offer a “very comprehensive review of the literature.”

He said they are also a “very thorough evaluation of the quality of the evidence-based publications.”

It was “about time” that there was a set of guidelines of this quality, he added.

As for the recommendations, Dr. Pyrsopoulos believes that they will be “really valuable for the general gastroenterologist practicing in the community,” as well as for pathologists, to help them evaluate patients with ALF “as soon as possible, and in a standardized manner.”

He also emphasized the need for the rapid transfer of patients for transplant “when they are still lucid ... so we have the opportunity to discuss with and evaluate the patient.” This can be problematic in those who have been intubated and in patients with hepatic encephalopathy because they “become really confused.”

“The window of opportunity is closing very rapidly in some of these patients ... and morbidity and mortality is really pretty high” he said, so the transplant centers “appreciate when the referral is made to them earlier.”

No funding declared. No relevant financial relationships declared.

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

Approximately one-quarter of adults who experience long COVID report activity limitations that do not change over time, based on data from national sample of nonhospitalized individuals.

Symptoms of long COVID, an ongoing medical condition that occurs in the wake of COVID-19 infection, include respiratory, neurologic, cardiovascular, or other complications that may last for weeks, months, or years after infection.

Current estimates of the incidence of long COVID in the United States range from 7.5% to 41%, according to Nicole D. Ford, PhD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, and colleagues. Long COVID has shown a significant effect on patients’ quality of life, functional status, and ability to work, but the impact on activity limitation in particular has not been examined, the researchers said.

In a study published in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), the researchers reviewed data from surveys conducted between June 1 and 13, 2022, and June 7 and 19, 2023. The data came from the Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey (HPS), a cross-sectional national survey designed to measure the social and economic effects of COVID-19 on U.S. households. Surveys were conducted in 2-week cycles (2 weeks on, 2 weeks off). Questions about long COVID were added to the survey beginning on June 1, 2022, and questions about activity limitations from long COVID were added on Sept. 14, 2022, including questions about participants’ abilities to perform daily activities before and after COVID-19 infection.

Overall, the prevalence of long COVID decreased from 7.5% to 6.0% in U.S. adults aged 18 years and older during the study period. However, when stratified by age group, the decline was significant only in adults older than 60 years, and 1 in 10 adults with a history of COVID-19 reported long COVID at the end of the study period.

Among respondents with long COVID, 26.4% of respondents for time period of June 7-19, 2023, reported significant activity limitations, which remained unchanged over time, with no clear pattern in activity limitations across age groups, the researchers said.

Prevalence of long COVID was highest for individuals in middle adulthood (aged 30-39 years, 40-49 years, and 50-59 years) and lowest for younger adults (18-29 years) and older adults (aged 60 years and older). The prevalence of long COVID decreased by 1.16% per survey cycle between the June 1-13 and Jan. 4-16 cycles, but then remained stable, with a decrease of 0.01% per cycle between June 1-13, 2022, and Jan. 4-16, 2023.

Previous studies have shown that activity limitations resulting from long COVID can significantly affect quality of life and functional status, as well as the ability to work or care for others. A recent study in the United Kingdom showed that quality of life scores among long COVID patients were similar to those of individuals with advanced cancer, and more than half of the long COVID patients reported moderately severe functional impairment. “The larger economic and societal impact of long COVID could be far-reaching if working-age adults are unable to maintain employment or care for children or aging parents,” the researchers said.

The current study findings were limited by several factors including potential coverage bias in the survey sample, the relatively low survey response rate, and the inability to collect data on duration of symptoms, COVID-19 vaccination status, treatment during acute infection, and time since COVID-19 illness; any of these factors could affect the reported prevalence of long COVID, the researchers noted.

However, the results suggest the need for continued attention to COVID-19 prevention efforts, including not only staying current with recommended COVID-19 vaccination, but also planning for symptom management and health care service needs of long COVID patients, they concluded.
 

More data are needed to tease out patterns

“Physicians and patients are still trying to understand long COVID and its implications for the health of affected individuals,” said Noel Deep, MD, in an interview.

The current study shows a prevalence of long COVID in approximately 11% of COVID patients, which is a significant number, said Dr. Deep, a general internist in private practice in Antigo, Wisc., who was not involved in the study. Dr. Deep also serves as chief medical officer and a staff physician at Aspirus Langlade Hospital in Antigo.

The study also was useful to illustrate a decline in the incidence of people affected by long COVID symptoms in the United States and in other countries, he said.

Dr. Deep noted that despite the persistent prevalence of long COVID symptoms overall, he was encouraged by the findings that older adults “who tend to have other underlying health conditions that could put them at a higher risk for adverse health outcomes” reported fewer long COVID symptoms than younger adults.

However, he noted that the high incidence of long COVID symptoms in able-bodied individuals in their 30s and 40s may affect their the economic situations as well as their ability to care for elderly relatives and children who might be dependent on them.

“Physicians and other clinicians should be aware of the symptoms and impacts caused by long COVID,” Dr. Deep said in an interview. “These individuals usually present with a myriad of vague and varying symptoms. Physicians should be cognizant of this situation, ask about previous infection with COVID-19, and utilize the resources of long COVID clinics where available,” he said.

Several factors can affect the assessment and management of patients with long COVID symptoms in primary care practices, said Dr. Deep. First and foremost are the time constraints of detailed evaluation and testing, he said.

Second, primary care clinicians need to be aware of the different symptoms that may be indicative of long COVID including fatigue, neurocognitive symptoms such as brain fog or memory disturbance, respiratory symptoms, and cardiovascular symptoms, as well as olfactory and gustatory symptoms. “These symptoms can be confounded by underlying health conditions, especially in elderly individuals,” he noted.

“Recommendations and guidelines are evolving regarding the evaluation and management of patients with long COVID that should help physicians and other clinicians in the future,” said Dr. Deep.

In the meantime, having a high index of suspicion, paying attention to the symptoms described by the patient, and taking a proper history with regard to previous COVID-19 infection should help overcome some of these challenges, he said.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Deep had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Internal Medicine News.

Approximately one-quarter of adults who experience long COVID report activity limitations that do not change over time, based on data from national sample of nonhospitalized individuals.

Symptoms of long COVID, an ongoing medical condition that occurs in the wake of COVID-19 infection, include respiratory, neurologic, cardiovascular, or other complications that may last for weeks, months, or years after infection.

Current estimates of the incidence of long COVID in the United States range from 7.5% to 41%, according to Nicole D. Ford, PhD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, and colleagues. Long COVID has shown a significant effect on patients’ quality of life, functional status, and ability to work, but the impact on activity limitation in particular has not been examined, the researchers said.

In a study published in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), the researchers reviewed data from surveys conducted between June 1 and 13, 2022, and June 7 and 19, 2023. The data came from the Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey (HPS), a cross-sectional national survey designed to measure the social and economic effects of COVID-19 on U.S. households. Surveys were conducted in 2-week cycles (2 weeks on, 2 weeks off). Questions about long COVID were added to the survey beginning on June 1, 2022, and questions about activity limitations from long COVID were added on Sept. 14, 2022, including questions about participants’ abilities to perform daily activities before and after COVID-19 infection.

Overall, the prevalence of long COVID decreased from 7.5% to 6.0% in U.S. adults aged 18 years and older during the study period. However, when stratified by age group, the decline was significant only in adults older than 60 years, and 1 in 10 adults with a history of COVID-19 reported long COVID at the end of the study period.

Among respondents with long COVID, 26.4% of respondents for time period of June 7-19, 2023, reported significant activity limitations, which remained unchanged over time, with no clear pattern in activity limitations across age groups, the researchers said.

Prevalence of long COVID was highest for individuals in middle adulthood (aged 30-39 years, 40-49 years, and 50-59 years) and lowest for younger adults (18-29 years) and older adults (aged 60 years and older). The prevalence of long COVID decreased by 1.16% per survey cycle between the June 1-13 and Jan. 4-16 cycles, but then remained stable, with a decrease of 0.01% per cycle between June 1-13, 2022, and Jan. 4-16, 2023.

Previous studies have shown that activity limitations resulting from long COVID can significantly affect quality of life and functional status, as well as the ability to work or care for others. A recent study in the United Kingdom showed that quality of life scores among long COVID patients were similar to those of individuals with advanced cancer, and more than half of the long COVID patients reported moderately severe functional impairment. “The larger economic and societal impact of long COVID could be far-reaching if working-age adults are unable to maintain employment or care for children or aging parents,” the researchers said.

The current study findings were limited by several factors including potential coverage bias in the survey sample, the relatively low survey response rate, and the inability to collect data on duration of symptoms, COVID-19 vaccination status, treatment during acute infection, and time since COVID-19 illness; any of these factors could affect the reported prevalence of long COVID, the researchers noted.

However, the results suggest the need for continued attention to COVID-19 prevention efforts, including not only staying current with recommended COVID-19 vaccination, but also planning for symptom management and health care service needs of long COVID patients, they concluded.
 

More data are needed to tease out patterns

“Physicians and patients are still trying to understand long COVID and its implications for the health of affected individuals,” said Noel Deep, MD, in an interview.

The current study shows a prevalence of long COVID in approximately 11% of COVID patients, which is a significant number, said Dr. Deep, a general internist in private practice in Antigo, Wisc., who was not involved in the study. Dr. Deep also serves as chief medical officer and a staff physician at Aspirus Langlade Hospital in Antigo.

The study also was useful to illustrate a decline in the incidence of people affected by long COVID symptoms in the United States and in other countries, he said.

Dr. Deep noted that despite the persistent prevalence of long COVID symptoms overall, he was encouraged by the findings that older adults “who tend to have other underlying health conditions that could put them at a higher risk for adverse health outcomes” reported fewer long COVID symptoms than younger adults.

However, he noted that the high incidence of long COVID symptoms in able-bodied individuals in their 30s and 40s may affect their the economic situations as well as their ability to care for elderly relatives and children who might be dependent on them.

“Physicians and other clinicians should be aware of the symptoms and impacts caused by long COVID,” Dr. Deep said in an interview. “These individuals usually present with a myriad of vague and varying symptoms. Physicians should be cognizant of this situation, ask about previous infection with COVID-19, and utilize the resources of long COVID clinics where available,” he said.

Several factors can affect the assessment and management of patients with long COVID symptoms in primary care practices, said Dr. Deep. First and foremost are the time constraints of detailed evaluation and testing, he said.

Second, primary care clinicians need to be aware of the different symptoms that may be indicative of long COVID including fatigue, neurocognitive symptoms such as brain fog or memory disturbance, respiratory symptoms, and cardiovascular symptoms, as well as olfactory and gustatory symptoms. “These symptoms can be confounded by underlying health conditions, especially in elderly individuals,” he noted.

“Recommendations and guidelines are evolving regarding the evaluation and management of patients with long COVID that should help physicians and other clinicians in the future,” said Dr. Deep.

In the meantime, having a high index of suspicion, paying attention to the symptoms described by the patient, and taking a proper history with regard to previous COVID-19 infection should help overcome some of these challenges, he said.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Deep had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Internal Medicine News.

Approximately one-quarter of adults who experience long COVID report activity limitations that do not change over time, based on data from national sample of nonhospitalized individuals.

Symptoms of long COVID, an ongoing medical condition that occurs in the wake of COVID-19 infection, include respiratory, neurologic, cardiovascular, or other complications that may last for weeks, months, or years after infection.

Current estimates of the incidence of long COVID in the United States range from 7.5% to 41%, according to Nicole D. Ford, PhD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, and colleagues. Long COVID has shown a significant effect on patients’ quality of life, functional status, and ability to work, but the impact on activity limitation in particular has not been examined, the researchers said.

In a study published in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), the researchers reviewed data from surveys conducted between June 1 and 13, 2022, and June 7 and 19, 2023. The data came from the Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey (HPS), a cross-sectional national survey designed to measure the social and economic effects of COVID-19 on U.S. households. Surveys were conducted in 2-week cycles (2 weeks on, 2 weeks off). Questions about long COVID were added to the survey beginning on June 1, 2022, and questions about activity limitations from long COVID were added on Sept. 14, 2022, including questions about participants’ abilities to perform daily activities before and after COVID-19 infection.

Overall, the prevalence of long COVID decreased from 7.5% to 6.0% in U.S. adults aged 18 years and older during the study period. However, when stratified by age group, the decline was significant only in adults older than 60 years, and 1 in 10 adults with a history of COVID-19 reported long COVID at the end of the study period.

Among respondents with long COVID, 26.4% of respondents for time period of June 7-19, 2023, reported significant activity limitations, which remained unchanged over time, with no clear pattern in activity limitations across age groups, the researchers said.

Prevalence of long COVID was highest for individuals in middle adulthood (aged 30-39 years, 40-49 years, and 50-59 years) and lowest for younger adults (18-29 years) and older adults (aged 60 years and older). The prevalence of long COVID decreased by 1.16% per survey cycle between the June 1-13 and Jan. 4-16 cycles, but then remained stable, with a decrease of 0.01% per cycle between June 1-13, 2022, and Jan. 4-16, 2023.

Previous studies have shown that activity limitations resulting from long COVID can significantly affect quality of life and functional status, as well as the ability to work or care for others. A recent study in the United Kingdom showed that quality of life scores among long COVID patients were similar to those of individuals with advanced cancer, and more than half of the long COVID patients reported moderately severe functional impairment. “The larger economic and societal impact of long COVID could be far-reaching if working-age adults are unable to maintain employment or care for children or aging parents,” the researchers said.

The current study findings were limited by several factors including potential coverage bias in the survey sample, the relatively low survey response rate, and the inability to collect data on duration of symptoms, COVID-19 vaccination status, treatment during acute infection, and time since COVID-19 illness; any of these factors could affect the reported prevalence of long COVID, the researchers noted.

However, the results suggest the need for continued attention to COVID-19 prevention efforts, including not only staying current with recommended COVID-19 vaccination, but also planning for symptom management and health care service needs of long COVID patients, they concluded.
 

More data are needed to tease out patterns

“Physicians and patients are still trying to understand long COVID and its implications for the health of affected individuals,” said Noel Deep, MD, in an interview.

The current study shows a prevalence of long COVID in approximately 11% of COVID patients, which is a significant number, said Dr. Deep, a general internist in private practice in Antigo, Wisc., who was not involved in the study. Dr. Deep also serves as chief medical officer and a staff physician at Aspirus Langlade Hospital in Antigo.

The study also was useful to illustrate a decline in the incidence of people affected by long COVID symptoms in the United States and in other countries, he said.

Dr. Deep noted that despite the persistent prevalence of long COVID symptoms overall, he was encouraged by the findings that older adults “who tend to have other underlying health conditions that could put them at a higher risk for adverse health outcomes” reported fewer long COVID symptoms than younger adults.

However, he noted that the high incidence of long COVID symptoms in able-bodied individuals in their 30s and 40s may affect their the economic situations as well as their ability to care for elderly relatives and children who might be dependent on them.

“Physicians and other clinicians should be aware of the symptoms and impacts caused by long COVID,” Dr. Deep said in an interview. “These individuals usually present with a myriad of vague and varying symptoms. Physicians should be cognizant of this situation, ask about previous infection with COVID-19, and utilize the resources of long COVID clinics where available,” he said.

Several factors can affect the assessment and management of patients with long COVID symptoms in primary care practices, said Dr. Deep. First and foremost are the time constraints of detailed evaluation and testing, he said.

Second, primary care clinicians need to be aware of the different symptoms that may be indicative of long COVID including fatigue, neurocognitive symptoms such as brain fog or memory disturbance, respiratory symptoms, and cardiovascular symptoms, as well as olfactory and gustatory symptoms. “These symptoms can be confounded by underlying health conditions, especially in elderly individuals,” he noted.

“Recommendations and guidelines are evolving regarding the evaluation and management of patients with long COVID that should help physicians and other clinicians in the future,” said Dr. Deep.

In the meantime, having a high index of suspicion, paying attention to the symptoms described by the patient, and taking a proper history with regard to previous COVID-19 infection should help overcome some of these challenges, he said.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Deep had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Internal Medicine News.

In case you are looking for a place to park your discretionary funds, I have recently learned that nonalcoholic beer is the fastest-growing segment of the beer industry. It is just barely outperforming the strong beer market while the standard beer market is flat. The reasons behind this surge in popularity are unclear. While the general population doesn’t seem to grasp the importance of diet and exercise, there seem to be enough folks who are health conscious to support a demand.

Possibly more important has been the emergence of a couple of small breweries that have been able to produce a nonalcoholic product that actually tastes as good as regular beer, and in some cases even better than the real stuff. In Europe, nonalcoholic beer has become popular as a rehydration drink among athletes. We recently found it everywhere we looked while bicycling in France. The large breweries have taken notice and it is hard to find a restaurant here in Maine that doesn’t offer nonalcoholic beer on its menu.

My history with beer goes back to preadolescence, when my father offered me a sip of his beer. I was never sure of his motive but that taste did not immediately whet my appetite for more. However, when I was in high school, New York State’s drinking age was 18 and beer just became part of growing up.

When I went into practice, my routine of having a can or bottle of beer with dinner presented a problem. When I was on call the odds of having to leave the house and see a patient or two was substantial. Back at the beginning I was never much concerned about having alcohol circulating through my brain but I didn’t want to be exhaling its vapors as I interacted with the parents and nurses. As I got older I became more aware that when I was tired, which was always the case at the end of a long office day, even just a glass of beer might impair my decision making. As a result, I drank only nonalcoholic beer when I was on call. Were I still practicing today this wouldn’t have represented a sacrifice on my part. However, until 5 years ago the nonalcoholic beer was not even a close approximation of the alcohol-containing product.

So this brings me to my question. Do you share any of my concerns about practicing under the influence of alcohol (P.U.I.)? And, if you have any concerns, how do you deal with them?

Do you make a distinction between physical and mental impairment? Would you have a drink if you were only fielding phone calls? Would your decision change if you knew you might be called in to perform surgery or start an intravenous on a premie?

Does the prospect of meeting face to face with your patient/parents change your decision? Is practicing telemedicine under the influence any less concerning to you than seeing patients in your office or the emergency room?

Can you imagine any extenuating circumstances? For example, let’s say you are the only pediatric ENT in your county. While you have office hours 4½ days per week, in effect you are on call 24/7 for emergencies. If you made a decision to never practice under the influence, does that mean you will never drink alcohol?

Am I making too big of a thing out of a can of beer or a glass of wine? We have certainly read concerns about patient safety when cared for by house officers working on schedules that leave them practicing while sleep deprived (P.W.S.D.) You don’t hear anything about physicians’ P.U.I. Is it a real problem? Certainly, with marijuana becoming legal in more states alcohol may not be the only influencer to consider.

In the bigger picture I suspect that P.W.S.D. is the bigger problem both for house officers and practicing physicians but it is time we swept away the cloud of silence around P.U.I and had a frank discussion about both among ourselves.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

In case you are looking for a place to park your discretionary funds, I have recently learned that nonalcoholic beer is the fastest-growing segment of the beer industry. It is just barely outperforming the strong beer market while the standard beer market is flat. The reasons behind this surge in popularity are unclear. While the general population doesn’t seem to grasp the importance of diet and exercise, there seem to be enough folks who are health conscious to support a demand.

Possibly more important has been the emergence of a couple of small breweries that have been able to produce a nonalcoholic product that actually tastes as good as regular beer, and in some cases even better than the real stuff. In Europe, nonalcoholic beer has become popular as a rehydration drink among athletes. We recently found it everywhere we looked while bicycling in France. The large breweries have taken notice and it is hard to find a restaurant here in Maine that doesn’t offer nonalcoholic beer on its menu.

My history with beer goes back to preadolescence, when my father offered me a sip of his beer. I was never sure of his motive but that taste did not immediately whet my appetite for more. However, when I was in high school, New York State’s drinking age was 18 and beer just became part of growing up.

When I went into practice, my routine of having a can or bottle of beer with dinner presented a problem. When I was on call the odds of having to leave the house and see a patient or two was substantial. Back at the beginning I was never much concerned about having alcohol circulating through my brain but I didn’t want to be exhaling its vapors as I interacted with the parents and nurses. As I got older I became more aware that when I was tired, which was always the case at the end of a long office day, even just a glass of beer might impair my decision making. As a result, I drank only nonalcoholic beer when I was on call. Were I still practicing today this wouldn’t have represented a sacrifice on my part. However, until 5 years ago the nonalcoholic beer was not even a close approximation of the alcohol-containing product.

So this brings me to my question. Do you share any of my concerns about practicing under the influence of alcohol (P.U.I.)? And, if you have any concerns, how do you deal with them?

Do you make a distinction between physical and mental impairment? Would you have a drink if you were only fielding phone calls? Would your decision change if you knew you might be called in to perform surgery or start an intravenous on a premie?

Does the prospect of meeting face to face with your patient/parents change your decision? Is practicing telemedicine under the influence any less concerning to you than seeing patients in your office or the emergency room?

Can you imagine any extenuating circumstances? For example, let’s say you are the only pediatric ENT in your county. While you have office hours 4½ days per week, in effect you are on call 24/7 for emergencies. If you made a decision to never practice under the influence, does that mean you will never drink alcohol?

Am I making too big of a thing out of a can of beer or a glass of wine? We have certainly read concerns about patient safety when cared for by house officers working on schedules that leave them practicing while sleep deprived (P.W.S.D.) You don’t hear anything about physicians’ P.U.I. Is it a real problem? Certainly, with marijuana becoming legal in more states alcohol may not be the only influencer to consider.

In the bigger picture I suspect that P.W.S.D. is the bigger problem both for house officers and practicing physicians but it is time we swept away the cloud of silence around P.U.I and had a frank discussion about both among ourselves.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

In case you are looking for a place to park your discretionary funds, I have recently learned that nonalcoholic beer is the fastest-growing segment of the beer industry. It is just barely outperforming the strong beer market while the standard beer market is flat. The reasons behind this surge in popularity are unclear. While the general population doesn’t seem to grasp the importance of diet and exercise, there seem to be enough folks who are health conscious to support a demand.

Possibly more important has been the emergence of a couple of small breweries that have been able to produce a nonalcoholic product that actually tastes as good as regular beer, and in some cases even better than the real stuff. In Europe, nonalcoholic beer has become popular as a rehydration drink among athletes. We recently found it everywhere we looked while bicycling in France. The large breweries have taken notice and it is hard to find a restaurant here in Maine that doesn’t offer nonalcoholic beer on its menu.

My history with beer goes back to preadolescence, when my father offered me a sip of his beer. I was never sure of his motive but that taste did not immediately whet my appetite for more. However, when I was in high school, New York State’s drinking age was 18 and beer just became part of growing up.

When I went into practice, my routine of having a can or bottle of beer with dinner presented a problem. When I was on call the odds of having to leave the house and see a patient or two was substantial. Back at the beginning I was never much concerned about having alcohol circulating through my brain but I didn’t want to be exhaling its vapors as I interacted with the parents and nurses. As I got older I became more aware that when I was tired, which was always the case at the end of a long office day, even just a glass of beer might impair my decision making. As a result, I drank only nonalcoholic beer when I was on call. Were I still practicing today this wouldn’t have represented a sacrifice on my part. However, until 5 years ago the nonalcoholic beer was not even a close approximation of the alcohol-containing product.

So this brings me to my question. Do you share any of my concerns about practicing under the influence of alcohol (P.U.I.)? And, if you have any concerns, how do you deal with them?

Do you make a distinction between physical and mental impairment? Would you have a drink if you were only fielding phone calls? Would your decision change if you knew you might be called in to perform surgery or start an intravenous on a premie?

Does the prospect of meeting face to face with your patient/parents change your decision? Is practicing telemedicine under the influence any less concerning to you than seeing patients in your office or the emergency room?

Can you imagine any extenuating circumstances? For example, let’s say you are the only pediatric ENT in your county. While you have office hours 4½ days per week, in effect you are on call 24/7 for emergencies. If you made a decision to never practice under the influence, does that mean you will never drink alcohol?

Am I making too big of a thing out of a can of beer or a glass of wine? We have certainly read concerns about patient safety when cared for by house officers working on schedules that leave them practicing while sleep deprived (P.W.S.D.) You don’t hear anything about physicians’ P.U.I. Is it a real problem? Certainly, with marijuana becoming legal in more states alcohol may not be the only influencer to consider.

In the bigger picture I suspect that P.W.S.D. is the bigger problem both for house officers and practicing physicians but it is time we swept away the cloud of silence around P.U.I and had a frank discussion about both among ourselves.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

Despite the recent uptick in leprosy cases in Central Florida, the disease is very rare, and casual contact with an infected person is likely to not result in transmission, according to Jose A. Lucar, MD.

“Contrary to historical beliefs, leprosy is not highly contagious,” Dr. Lucar, an infectious disease physician and associate professor of medicine at George Washington University, Washington, said in an interview. “For reasons that have to do with the makeup of genes that affect their immune system, most people are not susceptible to acquire leprosy. It’s really a small percentage of the population. It does require prolonged contact with someone with untreated leprosy – over several months – to acquire an infection. So, the risk from any type of casual contact is low.”

Dr. Lucar

According to a research letter published in the CDC’s Emerging Infectious Diseases, the number of reported leprosy cases has more than doubled in the past decade. Of the 159 new cases reported nationwide in 2020, Florida accounted for about one-fifth of cases, with most limited to the central part of the state. “In the U.S., there have been 150-250 cases reported each year over the past several years,” said Dr. Lucar, who was not affiliated with the research letter. “What seems to have changed is that since 2015, there has been a rise in cases in people who are U.S.-born “In the U.S., there have been 150-250 cases reported each year over the past several years,” said Dr. Lucar, who was not affiliated with the research letter. “What seems to have changed is that since 2015, there has been a rise in cases in people who are U.S.-born," and currently, about one-third of leprosy cases are in individuals born in the United States, he noted.

The research letter described a case of leprosy in a 54-year-old man who worked in landscaping, who sought treatment at a dermatology clinic in Central Florida in 2022 for a painful and progressive erythematous rash. The lesions began on his distal extensor extremities and progressed to involve his trunk and face. According to the report, the man denied any domestic or foreign travel, exposure to armadillos (a known source of transmission), prolonged contact with immigrants from leprosy-endemic countries, or connections with someone known to have leprosy. The authors concluded that the case “adds to the growing body of literature suggesting that central Florida represents an endemic location for leprosy. Travel to this area, even in the absence of other risk factors, should prompt consideration of leprosy in the appropriate clinical context.”

Dr. Lucar said that the mechanism of leprosy transmission is not fully understood, but armadillos, which typically traverse the southern United States, are naturally infected with the bacteria that causes leprosy. “It’s possible that they can spread it to people,” he said. “People who have occupations or hobbies that put them in potential contact with wildlife should avoid any close contact with armadillos. There’s also a discussion of whether [the spike in leprosy cases] may have to do with climate change. That is not yet confirmed. It’s not entirely clear why there’s been a recent rise. It remains an area of investigation.”

Meanwhile, clinicians should keep a high level of suspicion in patients who present with skin lesions compatible with leprosy. “These are typically discolored or numb patches on the skin,” Dr. Lucar said. “This can range from a single or a few lesions to very extensive involvement of the skin. The diminished sensation or loss of sensation within those skin patches is an important sign. There’s a loss of skin color but sometimes they can be reddish.” He emphasized that leprosy “does not spread easily from person to person; casual contact will not spread leprosy. It’s important for the public to understand that.”

Dr. Lucar reported no disclosures.

Despite the recent uptick in leprosy cases in Central Florida, the disease is very rare, and casual contact with an infected person is likely to not result in transmission, according to Jose A. Lucar, MD.

“Contrary to historical beliefs, leprosy is not highly contagious,” Dr. Lucar, an infectious disease physician and associate professor of medicine at George Washington University, Washington, said in an interview. “For reasons that have to do with the makeup of genes that affect their immune system, most people are not susceptible to acquire leprosy. It’s really a small percentage of the population. It does require prolonged contact with someone with untreated leprosy – over several months – to acquire an infection. So, the risk from any type of casual contact is low.”

Dr. Lucar

According to a research letter published in the CDC’s Emerging Infectious Diseases, the number of reported leprosy cases has more than doubled in the past decade. Of the 159 new cases reported nationwide in 2020, Florida accounted for about one-fifth of cases, with most limited to the central part of the state. “In the U.S., there have been 150-250 cases reported each year over the past several years,” said Dr. Lucar, who was not affiliated with the research letter. “What seems to have changed is that since 2015, there has been a rise in cases in people who are U.S.-born “In the U.S., there have been 150-250 cases reported each year over the past several years,” said Dr. Lucar, who was not affiliated with the research letter. “What seems to have changed is that since 2015, there has been a rise in cases in people who are U.S.-born," and currently, about one-third of leprosy cases are in individuals born in the United States, he noted.

The research letter described a case of leprosy in a 54-year-old man who worked in landscaping, who sought treatment at a dermatology clinic in Central Florida in 2022 for a painful and progressive erythematous rash. The lesions began on his distal extensor extremities and progressed to involve his trunk and face. According to the report, the man denied any domestic or foreign travel, exposure to armadillos (a known source of transmission), prolonged contact with immigrants from leprosy-endemic countries, or connections with someone known to have leprosy. The authors concluded that the case “adds to the growing body of literature suggesting that central Florida represents an endemic location for leprosy. Travel to this area, even in the absence of other risk factors, should prompt consideration of leprosy in the appropriate clinical context.”

Dr. Lucar said that the mechanism of leprosy transmission is not fully understood, but armadillos, which typically traverse the southern United States, are naturally infected with the bacteria that causes leprosy. “It’s possible that they can spread it to people,” he said. “People who have occupations or hobbies that put them in potential contact with wildlife should avoid any close contact with armadillos. There’s also a discussion of whether [the spike in leprosy cases] may have to do with climate change. That is not yet confirmed. It’s not entirely clear why there’s been a recent rise. It remains an area of investigation.”

Meanwhile, clinicians should keep a high level of suspicion in patients who present with skin lesions compatible with leprosy. “These are typically discolored or numb patches on the skin,” Dr. Lucar said. “This can range from a single or a few lesions to very extensive involvement of the skin. The diminished sensation or loss of sensation within those skin patches is an important sign. There’s a loss of skin color but sometimes they can be reddish.” He emphasized that leprosy “does not spread easily from person to person; casual contact will not spread leprosy. It’s important for the public to understand that.”

Dr. Lucar reported no disclosures.

Despite the recent uptick in leprosy cases in Central Florida, the disease is very rare, and casual contact with an infected person is likely to not result in transmission, according to Jose A. Lucar, MD.

“Contrary to historical beliefs, leprosy is not highly contagious,” Dr. Lucar, an infectious disease physician and associate professor of medicine at George Washington University, Washington, said in an interview. “For reasons that have to do with the makeup of genes that affect their immune system, most people are not susceptible to acquire leprosy. It’s really a small percentage of the population. It does require prolonged contact with someone with untreated leprosy – over several months – to acquire an infection. So, the risk from any type of casual contact is low.”

Dr. Lucar

According to a research letter published in the CDC’s Emerging Infectious Diseases, the number of reported leprosy cases has more than doubled in the past decade. Of the 159 new cases reported nationwide in 2020, Florida accounted for about one-fifth of cases, with most limited to the central part of the state. “In the U.S., there have been 150-250 cases reported each year over the past several years,” said Dr. Lucar, who was not affiliated with the research letter. “What seems to have changed is that since 2015, there has been a rise in cases in people who are U.S.-born “In the U.S., there have been 150-250 cases reported each year over the past several years,” said Dr. Lucar, who was not affiliated with the research letter. “What seems to have changed is that since 2015, there has been a rise in cases in people who are U.S.-born," and currently, about one-third of leprosy cases are in individuals born in the United States, he noted.

The research letter described a case of leprosy in a 54-year-old man who worked in landscaping, who sought treatment at a dermatology clinic in Central Florida in 2022 for a painful and progressive erythematous rash. The lesions began on his distal extensor extremities and progressed to involve his trunk and face. According to the report, the man denied any domestic or foreign travel, exposure to armadillos (a known source of transmission), prolonged contact with immigrants from leprosy-endemic countries, or connections with someone known to have leprosy. The authors concluded that the case “adds to the growing body of literature suggesting that central Florida represents an endemic location for leprosy. Travel to this area, even in the absence of other risk factors, should prompt consideration of leprosy in the appropriate clinical context.”

Dr. Lucar said that the mechanism of leprosy transmission is not fully understood, but armadillos, which typically traverse the southern United States, are naturally infected with the bacteria that causes leprosy. “It’s possible that they can spread it to people,” he said. “People who have occupations or hobbies that put them in potential contact with wildlife should avoid any close contact with armadillos. There’s also a discussion of whether [the spike in leprosy cases] may have to do with climate change. That is not yet confirmed. It’s not entirely clear why there’s been a recent rise. It remains an area of investigation.”

Meanwhile, clinicians should keep a high level of suspicion in patients who present with skin lesions compatible with leprosy. “These are typically discolored or numb patches on the skin,” Dr. Lucar said. “This can range from a single or a few lesions to very extensive involvement of the skin. The diminished sensation or loss of sensation within those skin patches is an important sign. There’s a loss of skin color but sometimes they can be reddish.” He emphasized that leprosy “does not spread easily from person to person; casual contact will not spread leprosy. It’s important for the public to understand that.”

Dr. Lucar reported no disclosures.

Patients with a severe form of ventricular arrhythmia who may be referred for catheter ablation are often first tested for coronary artery disease (CAD) or ischemia. But such testing seldom makes a difference to downstream management or outcomes, researchers conclude based on registry data.

The findings, they say, question such routine CAD/ischemia testing in patients like those studied, who had episodes of monomorphic ventricular tachycardia (VT) storm but not an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and ultimately went to ablation.

Of 97 such patients, about 44% underwent CAD/ischemia testing by invasive angiography, myocardial functional imaging, or both. But the tests didn’t predict important ablation outcomes, including pre- or postablation VT inducibility. Nor did they significantly affect the likelihood or outcomes of preablation revascularization or 2-year survival.

The findings “argue against performing routine evaluations to rule out coronary [disease] or myocardial ischemia as culprits in monomorphic VT storm” in patients without evidence of ACS, write Feras Alkhalaileh, MD, Heart and Vascular Institute, Cleveland Clinic, and colleagues in their report published in JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology.

They suggest it’s “reasonable” not to perform tests for CAD or ischemia in such patients, senior author Ayman A. Hussein, MD, from the same center, said in an interview. Although such tests may be considered “case by case,” performed routinely they “aren’t going to add much to patient care, and as a matter of fact, may delay proper care and expose them to risks,” Dr. Hussein said.

It’s “reasonable” to test for CAD or ischemia in patients with polymorphic VT storm, which is likely ischemia-driven, he observed. In contrast, monomorphic VT storm is likely caused by myocardial scar, which revascularization cannot treat. “Because there’s scar substrate, we find that ischemic evaluations are technically without much yield.”

These issues are “not very controversial” among cardiac electrophysiologists, Dr. Hussein said, but it remains “common practice” for other specialists to order angiography or ischemia testing for patients with monomorphic VT storm, typically in the cardiac care unit (CCU), before considering ablation.

“Sometimes, as electrophysiologists, we don’t get to see them before an ischemic evaluation has already been done,” he added.

It’s “very hard to convince interventional cardiologists, CCU intensivists, or general cardiologists” that a VT may not be caused by ischemia, said electrophysiologist Roderick Tung, MD, University of Arizona College of Medicine, Phoenix, who was not involved in the current study.

In patients with monomorphic VT storm, “by the time we’re consulted, they’ve already had a cath. And it’s probably just not necessary,” Dr. Tung said. “That’s why this is such a great paper, because it has an immediate message [for nonelectrophysiologist clinicians and] the potential to change clinical practice.”

The study included 97 patients with monomorphic VT storm from a prospective VT-ablation registry covering about 7 years at a major referral center. Their mean age was 64 years, and 88% were men. Two-thirds were known to have ischemic cardiomyopathy and were in NYHA functional class II.

As reported, 10% of the cohort underwent coronary angiography after presentation with monomorphic VT storm, 26% had CT or PET myocardial functional imaging, and 9% had both tests.

Only four patients ultimately underwent coronary revascularization; no acute coronary occlusions were involved. Monomorphic VT recurred in all four cases, the report notes.

The 43 and 54 patients who did or did not get the CAD/ischemia tests, respectively, showed no significant procedural differences in extent of scar modification, prevalence of clinical or hemodynamically stable VT, or use of mechanical circulatory support; or in postablation, VT inducibility or overall mortality during follow-up averaging 24.3 months.

To address possible concerns about selection bias in the main cohort, all of whom underwent ablation, a secondary analysis was conducted with 91 patients with known asymptomatic coronary disease and monomorphic VT storm who were selected from the registry without regard to whether they underwent catheter ablation.

Of that cohort, 21 went to invasive angiography and 25 underwent stress testing; six of the latter went on to coronary angiography, the report states. Monomorphic VT later recurred in four of the five patients, who then underwent coronary revascularization.

Such patients with known coronary disease, Dr. Hussein said, are those “possibly more likely to get an ischemic evaluation.” And yet, “regardless of whether they had ablation, the yield of ischemic evaluations in these patients was low.”

By far most of the CAD/ischemia tests in the study’s primary cohort were performed using noninvasive imaging, notes an editorial accompanying the new report. “This raises the possibility of false negatives with very proximal and multivessel CAD, and with balanced ischemia,” write Saurabh Kumar, BSc (Med)/MBBS, PhD, and Ashwin Bhaskaran, MBBS, MSc, University of Sydney.

Ideally, the issues addressed by the study should be tested in large randomized, controlled trials, they state. “Achieving sufficient recruitment to address this clinical question may be difficult, leaving clinicians with the challenge of applying observational data to their patients.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with a severe form of ventricular arrhythmia who may be referred for catheter ablation are often first tested for coronary artery disease (CAD) or ischemia. But such testing seldom makes a difference to downstream management or outcomes, researchers conclude based on registry data.

The findings, they say, question such routine CAD/ischemia testing in patients like those studied, who had episodes of monomorphic ventricular tachycardia (VT) storm but not an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and ultimately went to ablation.

Of 97 such patients, about 44% underwent CAD/ischemia testing by invasive angiography, myocardial functional imaging, or both. But the tests didn’t predict important ablation outcomes, including pre- or postablation VT inducibility. Nor did they significantly affect the likelihood or outcomes of preablation revascularization or 2-year survival.

The findings “argue against performing routine evaluations to rule out coronary [disease] or myocardial ischemia as culprits in monomorphic VT storm” in patients without evidence of ACS, write Feras Alkhalaileh, MD, Heart and Vascular Institute, Cleveland Clinic, and colleagues in their report published in JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology.

They suggest it’s “reasonable” not to perform tests for CAD or ischemia in such patients, senior author Ayman A. Hussein, MD, from the same center, said in an interview. Although such tests may be considered “case by case,” performed routinely they “aren’t going to add much to patient care, and as a matter of fact, may delay proper care and expose them to risks,” Dr. Hussein said.

It’s “reasonable” to test for CAD or ischemia in patients with polymorphic VT storm, which is likely ischemia-driven, he observed. In contrast, monomorphic VT storm is likely caused by myocardial scar, which revascularization cannot treat. “Because there’s scar substrate, we find that ischemic evaluations are technically without much yield.”

These issues are “not very controversial” among cardiac electrophysiologists, Dr. Hussein said, but it remains “common practice” for other specialists to order angiography or ischemia testing for patients with monomorphic VT storm, typically in the cardiac care unit (CCU), before considering ablation.

“Sometimes, as electrophysiologists, we don’t get to see them before an ischemic evaluation has already been done,” he added.

It’s “very hard to convince interventional cardiologists, CCU intensivists, or general cardiologists” that a VT may not be caused by ischemia, said electrophysiologist Roderick Tung, MD, University of Arizona College of Medicine, Phoenix, who was not involved in the current study.

In patients with monomorphic VT storm, “by the time we’re consulted, they’ve already had a cath. And it’s probably just not necessary,” Dr. Tung said. “That’s why this is such a great paper, because it has an immediate message [for nonelectrophysiologist clinicians and] the potential to change clinical practice.”

The study included 97 patients with monomorphic VT storm from a prospective VT-ablation registry covering about 7 years at a major referral center. Their mean age was 64 years, and 88% were men. Two-thirds were known to have ischemic cardiomyopathy and were in NYHA functional class II.

As reported, 10% of the cohort underwent coronary angiography after presentation with monomorphic VT storm, 26% had CT or PET myocardial functional imaging, and 9% had both tests.

Only four patients ultimately underwent coronary revascularization; no acute coronary occlusions were involved. Monomorphic VT recurred in all four cases, the report notes.

The 43 and 54 patients who did or did not get the CAD/ischemia tests, respectively, showed no significant procedural differences in extent of scar modification, prevalence of clinical or hemodynamically stable VT, or use of mechanical circulatory support; or in postablation, VT inducibility or overall mortality during follow-up averaging 24.3 months.

To address possible concerns about selection bias in the main cohort, all of whom underwent ablation, a secondary analysis was conducted with 91 patients with known asymptomatic coronary disease and monomorphic VT storm who were selected from the registry without regard to whether they underwent catheter ablation.

Of that cohort, 21 went to invasive angiography and 25 underwent stress testing; six of the latter went on to coronary angiography, the report states. Monomorphic VT later recurred in four of the five patients, who then underwent coronary revascularization.

Such patients with known coronary disease, Dr. Hussein said, are those “possibly more likely to get an ischemic evaluation.” And yet, “regardless of whether they had ablation, the yield of ischemic evaluations in these patients was low.”

By far most of the CAD/ischemia tests in the study’s primary cohort were performed using noninvasive imaging, notes an editorial accompanying the new report. “This raises the possibility of false negatives with very proximal and multivessel CAD, and with balanced ischemia,” write Saurabh Kumar, BSc (Med)/MBBS, PhD, and Ashwin Bhaskaran, MBBS, MSc, University of Sydney.

Ideally, the issues addressed by the study should be tested in large randomized, controlled trials, they state. “Achieving sufficient recruitment to address this clinical question may be difficult, leaving clinicians with the challenge of applying observational data to their patients.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with a severe form of ventricular arrhythmia who may be referred for catheter ablation are often first tested for coronary artery disease (CAD) or ischemia. But such testing seldom makes a difference to downstream management or outcomes, researchers conclude based on registry data.

The findings, they say, question such routine CAD/ischemia testing in patients like those studied, who had episodes of monomorphic ventricular tachycardia (VT) storm but not an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and ultimately went to ablation.

Of 97 such patients, about 44% underwent CAD/ischemia testing by invasive angiography, myocardial functional imaging, or both. But the tests didn’t predict important ablation outcomes, including pre- or postablation VT inducibility. Nor did they significantly affect the likelihood or outcomes of preablation revascularization or 2-year survival.

The findings “argue against performing routine evaluations to rule out coronary [disease] or myocardial ischemia as culprits in monomorphic VT storm” in patients without evidence of ACS, write Feras Alkhalaileh, MD, Heart and Vascular Institute, Cleveland Clinic, and colleagues in their report published in JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology.

They suggest it’s “reasonable” not to perform tests for CAD or ischemia in such patients, senior author Ayman A. Hussein, MD, from the same center, said in an interview. Although such tests may be considered “case by case,” performed routinely they “aren’t going to add much to patient care, and as a matter of fact, may delay proper care and expose them to risks,” Dr. Hussein said.

It’s “reasonable” to test for CAD or ischemia in patients with polymorphic VT storm, which is likely ischemia-driven, he observed. In contrast, monomorphic VT storm is likely caused by myocardial scar, which revascularization cannot treat. “Because there’s scar substrate, we find that ischemic evaluations are technically without much yield.”

These issues are “not very controversial” among cardiac electrophysiologists, Dr. Hussein said, but it remains “common practice” for other specialists to order angiography or ischemia testing for patients with monomorphic VT storm, typically in the cardiac care unit (CCU), before considering ablation.

“Sometimes, as electrophysiologists, we don’t get to see them before an ischemic evaluation has already been done,” he added.

It’s “very hard to convince interventional cardiologists, CCU intensivists, or general cardiologists” that a VT may not be caused by ischemia, said electrophysiologist Roderick Tung, MD, University of Arizona College of Medicine, Phoenix, who was not involved in the current study.

In patients with monomorphic VT storm, “by the time we’re consulted, they’ve already had a cath. And it’s probably just not necessary,” Dr. Tung said. “That’s why this is such a great paper, because it has an immediate message [for nonelectrophysiologist clinicians and] the potential to change clinical practice.”

The study included 97 patients with monomorphic VT storm from a prospective VT-ablation registry covering about 7 years at a major referral center. Their mean age was 64 years, and 88% were men. Two-thirds were known to have ischemic cardiomyopathy and were in NYHA functional class II.

As reported, 10% of the cohort underwent coronary angiography after presentation with monomorphic VT storm, 26% had CT or PET myocardial functional imaging, and 9% had both tests.

Only four patients ultimately underwent coronary revascularization; no acute coronary occlusions were involved. Monomorphic VT recurred in all four cases, the report notes.

The 43 and 54 patients who did or did not get the CAD/ischemia tests, respectively, showed no significant procedural differences in extent of scar modification, prevalence of clinical or hemodynamically stable VT, or use of mechanical circulatory support; or in postablation, VT inducibility or overall mortality during follow-up averaging 24.3 months.

To address possible concerns about selection bias in the main cohort, all of whom underwent ablation, a secondary analysis was conducted with 91 patients with known asymptomatic coronary disease and monomorphic VT storm who were selected from the registry without regard to whether they underwent catheter ablation.

Of that cohort, 21 went to invasive angiography and 25 underwent stress testing; six of the latter went on to coronary angiography, the report states. Monomorphic VT later recurred in four of the five patients, who then underwent coronary revascularization.

Such patients with known coronary disease, Dr. Hussein said, are those “possibly more likely to get an ischemic evaluation.” And yet, “regardless of whether they had ablation, the yield of ischemic evaluations in these patients was low.”

By far most of the CAD/ischemia tests in the study’s primary cohort were performed using noninvasive imaging, notes an editorial accompanying the new report. “This raises the possibility of false negatives with very proximal and multivessel CAD, and with balanced ischemia,” write Saurabh Kumar, BSc (Med)/MBBS, PhD, and Ashwin Bhaskaran, MBBS, MSc, University of Sydney.

Ideally, the issues addressed by the study should be tested in large randomized, controlled trials, they state. “Achieving sufficient recruitment to address this clinical question may be difficult, leaving clinicians with the challenge of applying observational data to their patients.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The first randomized controlled trial testing the safety and efficacy of long-term antidepressant maintenance therapy after remission of a depressive episode in adults with bipolar I disorder has yielded mixed results.

Continuing antidepressant therapy for 52 weeks, as opposed to stopping it at 8 weeks, was not more beneficial with regard to the primary outcome of occurrence of any mood episode.

However, a prespecified sensitivity analysis of the primary outcome and of the secondary analyses suggests that continuing antidepressant therapy for 52 weeks may prolong the time to a depressive relapse.

“Because the primary outcome is negative and the prespecified sensitivity analysis is positive and the secondary outcomes are positive, some clinicians will pick the position that they work and some that they don’t work,” lead investigator Lakshmi Yatham, MBBS, with University of British Columbia, Vancouver, told this news organization.

University of British Columbia

Controversial issue

Adjunctive antidepressant therapy – alongside mood stabilizers and/or second-generation antipsychotic medications – are often used to treat acute depressive episodes in patients with bipolar I disorder.

Currently, the Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT) and International Society for Bipolar Disorders (ISBD) advise discontinuing antidepressant treatment 8 weeks after remission of depression.

Yet, the duration of antidepressant therapy for bipolar depression is “highly controversial,” due to a lack of evidence and concerns that antidepressants may induce mania, mixed states, or rapid cycling between mania and depression, Dr. Yatham said.

Dr. Yatham and colleagues assessed the safety and efficacy of continuing adjunctive antidepressant treatment (escitalopram or bupropion XL) for 52 weeks after remission, compared with discontinuing antidepressant therapy at 8 weeks after remission.

The final analysis included 177 patients (mean age 41 years, 48% men) with bipolar I disorder who had remission of depression; 90 patients continued treatment with an antidepressant for 52 weeks and 87 were switched to placebo at 8 weeks. All were taking a mood stabilizer or a second-generation antipsychotic or both.

The primary outcome, assessed in a time-to-event analysis, was any mood episode, as defined by scores on scales measuring symptoms of hypomania or mania, depression, suicidality, and mood-episode severity; additional treatment or hospitalization for mood symptoms; or attempted or completed suicide.

At 52 weeks, 28 patients (31%) in the 52-week group had experienced any mood episode (primary outcome), compared with 40 patients (46%) in the 8-week group.

The primary outcome did not reach statistical significance (hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-1.10; P = .12).

The researchers note that the decision by the study team to include relapses that occurred during the first 6 weeks of the study may have affected the primary outcome.

“During the first 6 weeks, both groups were getting the same treatment, and we thought there shouldn’t be any difference in relapse, but sadly, there were more relapses in the 52-week group even though the treatments were identical,” Dr. Yatham said.

However, in a sensitivity analysis of the primary outcome after week 6, when treatment between the two groups differed, patients continuing antidepressant treatment were 40% less likely to experience a relapse of any mood event (HR, 0.60) and 59% less likely to experience a depressive episode (HR, 0.41) relative to the placebo group.

“From the point where the two groups began receiving different treatments, we see a significant benefit for patients who continued treatment with antidepressants,” Dr. Yatham said in a news release.

“Treating depression in bipolar disorder is challenging. Reducing the risk of relapse is important because it can provide patients with a great deal of stability that ultimately lets them get back to the activities they enjoy and can greatly improve their quality of life,” he added.

Although fewer patients in the 52-week group than 8-week group had a depressive episode within 52 weeks (17% vs. 40%; HR, 0.43), more had a manic or hypomanic event (12% vs. 6%; HR, 2.28).

The estimated probability of remaining free of a depressive episode at 52 weeks was 72% in the 52-week group versus 53% in the 8-week group. The estimated probability of remaining free of a manic episode at 52 weeks was 81% and 92%, respectively.

The incidence of adverse events was similar in the two groups, with a low rate of discontinuation due to adverse events and no serious adverse events. Clinically significant weight gain (≥ 7% increase in body weight) was observed in 14% of patients in the 52-week group and 7% of patients in the 8-week group.

Limitations of the trial include the fact that it was stopped early, before the planned sample size was reached, owing to slow recruitment and funding issues.

Other limitations include a lack of ethnic diversity (only 12% were White and < 1% Black) and overrepresentation of patients from India, which may limit generalizability. 

In addition, the findings may not be applicable to treatment with antidepressants other than escitalopram and buproprion XL. Finally, the study population was also enriched for patients who responded to these antidepressants.
 

Need for an individualized approach

Commenting on the study, Roger McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry in pharmacology, University of Toronto, noted the study was not easy to conduct, and the investigators should be credited for conducting a maintenance study in bipolar depression.

“Although the study reports, as it should, that there is no evidence of maintenance effect, the secondary analysis, which was not adjusted for multiplicity, does suggest that there is a benefit,” said Dr. McIntyre, who was not associated with this research.

“However, the authors are also correct in stating that one cannot draw a conclusion because it was not the primary question and was not adjusted for multiplicity,” he added.

“If anything,” said Dr. McIntyre, “what these results do support is the notion that antidepressants are unlikely to destabilize all patients. Instead, the risk of destabilization seems to be largely limited to some persons, and there is a suggestion, based on the secondary outcome of this study, that maintenance antidepressant benefits can be seen in some people. But again that’s a testable hypothesis.”

Also weighing in on the research, Madhukar H. Trivedi, MD, professor of psychiatry and director, Center for Depression Research and Clinical Care, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said the study is “interesting,” adding that it was “unfortunate that the researchers had to curtail recruitment and reduce the size of the trial.”

University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center

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

The first randomized controlled trial testing the safety and efficacy of long-term antidepressant maintenance therapy after remission of a depressive episode in adults with bipolar I disorder has yielded mixed results.

Continuing antidepressant therapy for 52 weeks, as opposed to stopping it at 8 weeks, was not more beneficial with regard to the primary outcome of occurrence of any mood episode.

However, a prespecified sensitivity analysis of the primary outcome and of the secondary analyses suggests that continuing antidepressant therapy for 52 weeks may prolong the time to a depressive relapse.

“Because the primary outcome is negative and the prespecified sensitivity analysis is positive and the secondary outcomes are positive, some clinicians will pick the position that they work and some that they don’t work,” lead investigator Lakshmi Yatham, MBBS, with University of British Columbia, Vancouver, told this news organization.

University of British Columbia

Controversial issue

Adjunctive antidepressant therapy – alongside mood stabilizers and/or second-generation antipsychotic medications – are often used to treat acute depressive episodes in patients with bipolar I disorder.

Currently, the Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT) and International Society for Bipolar Disorders (ISBD) advise discontinuing antidepressant treatment 8 weeks after remission of depression.

Yet, the duration of antidepressant therapy for bipolar depression is “highly controversial,” due to a lack of evidence and concerns that antidepressants may induce mania, mixed states, or rapid cycling between mania and depression, Dr. Yatham said.

Dr. Yatham and colleagues assessed the safety and efficacy of continuing adjunctive antidepressant treatment (escitalopram or bupropion XL) for 52 weeks after remission, compared with discontinuing antidepressant therapy at 8 weeks after remission.

The final analysis included 177 patients (mean age 41 years, 48% men) with bipolar I disorder who had remission of depression; 90 patients continued treatment with an antidepressant for 52 weeks and 87 were switched to placebo at 8 weeks. All were taking a mood stabilizer or a second-generation antipsychotic or both.

The primary outcome, assessed in a time-to-event analysis, was any mood episode, as defined by scores on scales measuring symptoms of hypomania or mania, depression, suicidality, and mood-episode severity; additional treatment or hospitalization for mood symptoms; or attempted or completed suicide.

At 52 weeks, 28 patients (31%) in the 52-week group had experienced any mood episode (primary outcome), compared with 40 patients (46%) in the 8-week group.

The primary outcome did not reach statistical significance (hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-1.10; P = .12).

The researchers note that the decision by the study team to include relapses that occurred during the first 6 weeks of the study may have affected the primary outcome.

“During the first 6 weeks, both groups were getting the same treatment, and we thought there shouldn’t be any difference in relapse, but sadly, there were more relapses in the 52-week group even though the treatments were identical,” Dr. Yatham said.

However, in a sensitivity analysis of the primary outcome after week 6, when treatment between the two groups differed, patients continuing antidepressant treatment were 40% less likely to experience a relapse of any mood event (HR, 0.60) and 59% less likely to experience a depressive episode (HR, 0.41) relative to the placebo group.

“From the point where the two groups began receiving different treatments, we see a significant benefit for patients who continued treatment with antidepressants,” Dr. Yatham said in a news release.

“Treating depression in bipolar disorder is challenging. Reducing the risk of relapse is important because it can provide patients with a great deal of stability that ultimately lets them get back to the activities they enjoy and can greatly improve their quality of life,” he added.

Although fewer patients in the 52-week group than 8-week group had a depressive episode within 52 weeks (17% vs. 40%; HR, 0.43), more had a manic or hypomanic event (12% vs. 6%; HR, 2.28).

The estimated probability of remaining free of a depressive episode at 52 weeks was 72% in the 52-week group versus 53% in the 8-week group. The estimated probability of remaining free of a manic episode at 52 weeks was 81% and 92%, respectively.

The incidence of adverse events was similar in the two groups, with a low rate of discontinuation due to adverse events and no serious adverse events. Clinically significant weight gain (≥ 7% increase in body weight) was observed in 14% of patients in the 52-week group and 7% of patients in the 8-week group.

Limitations of the trial include the fact that it was stopped early, before the planned sample size was reached, owing to slow recruitment and funding issues.

Other limitations include a lack of ethnic diversity (only 12% were White and < 1% Black) and overrepresentation of patients from India, which may limit generalizability. 

In addition, the findings may not be applicable to treatment with antidepressants other than escitalopram and buproprion XL. Finally, the study population was also enriched for patients who responded to these antidepressants.
 

Need for an individualized approach

Commenting on the study, Roger McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry in pharmacology, University of Toronto, noted the study was not easy to conduct, and the investigators should be credited for conducting a maintenance study in bipolar depression.

“Although the study reports, as it should, that there is no evidence of maintenance effect, the secondary analysis, which was not adjusted for multiplicity, does suggest that there is a benefit,” said Dr. McIntyre, who was not associated with this research.

“However, the authors are also correct in stating that one cannot draw a conclusion because it was not the primary question and was not adjusted for multiplicity,” he added.

“If anything,” said Dr. McIntyre, “what these results do support is the notion that antidepressants are unlikely to destabilize all patients. Instead, the risk of destabilization seems to be largely limited to some persons, and there is a suggestion, based on the secondary outcome of this study, that maintenance antidepressant benefits can be seen in some people. But again that’s a testable hypothesis.”

Also weighing in on the research, Madhukar H. Trivedi, MD, professor of psychiatry and director, Center for Depression Research and Clinical Care, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said the study is “interesting,” adding that it was “unfortunate that the researchers had to curtail recruitment and reduce the size of the trial.”

University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center

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

The first randomized controlled trial testing the safety and efficacy of long-term antidepressant maintenance therapy after remission of a depressive episode in adults with bipolar I disorder has yielded mixed results.

Continuing antidepressant therapy for 52 weeks, as opposed to stopping it at 8 weeks, was not more beneficial with regard to the primary outcome of occurrence of any mood episode.

However, a prespecified sensitivity analysis of the primary outcome and of the secondary analyses suggests that continuing antidepressant therapy for 52 weeks may prolong the time to a depressive relapse.

“Because the primary outcome is negative and the prespecified sensitivity analysis is positive and the secondary outcomes are positive, some clinicians will pick the position that they work and some that they don’t work,” lead investigator Lakshmi Yatham, MBBS, with University of British Columbia, Vancouver, told this news organization.

University of British Columbia

Controversial issue

Adjunctive antidepressant therapy – alongside mood stabilizers and/or second-generation antipsychotic medications – are often used to treat acute depressive episodes in patients with bipolar I disorder.

Currently, the Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT) and International Society for Bipolar Disorders (ISBD) advise discontinuing antidepressant treatment 8 weeks after remission of depression.

Yet, the duration of antidepressant therapy for bipolar depression is “highly controversial,” due to a lack of evidence and concerns that antidepressants may induce mania, mixed states, or rapid cycling between mania and depression, Dr. Yatham said.

Dr. Yatham and colleagues assessed the safety and efficacy of continuing adjunctive antidepressant treatment (escitalopram or bupropion XL) for 52 weeks after remission, compared with discontinuing antidepressant therapy at 8 weeks after remission.

The final analysis included 177 patients (mean age 41 years, 48% men) with bipolar I disorder who had remission of depression; 90 patients continued treatment with an antidepressant for 52 weeks and 87 were switched to placebo at 8 weeks. All were taking a mood stabilizer or a second-generation antipsychotic or both.

The primary outcome, assessed in a time-to-event analysis, was any mood episode, as defined by scores on scales measuring symptoms of hypomania or mania, depression, suicidality, and mood-episode severity; additional treatment or hospitalization for mood symptoms; or attempted or completed suicide.

At 52 weeks, 28 patients (31%) in the 52-week group had experienced any mood episode (primary outcome), compared with 40 patients (46%) in the 8-week group.

The primary outcome did not reach statistical significance (hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-1.10; P = .12).

The researchers note that the decision by the study team to include relapses that occurred during the first 6 weeks of the study may have affected the primary outcome.

“During the first 6 weeks, both groups were getting the same treatment, and we thought there shouldn’t be any difference in relapse, but sadly, there were more relapses in the 52-week group even though the treatments were identical,” Dr. Yatham said.

However, in a sensitivity analysis of the primary outcome after week 6, when treatment between the two groups differed, patients continuing antidepressant treatment were 40% less likely to experience a relapse of any mood event (HR, 0.60) and 59% less likely to experience a depressive episode (HR, 0.41) relative to the placebo group.

“From the point where the two groups began receiving different treatments, we see a significant benefit for patients who continued treatment with antidepressants,” Dr. Yatham said in a news release.

“Treating depression in bipolar disorder is challenging. Reducing the risk of relapse is important because it can provide patients with a great deal of stability that ultimately lets them get back to the activities they enjoy and can greatly improve their quality of life,” he added.

Although fewer patients in the 52-week group than 8-week group had a depressive episode within 52 weeks (17% vs. 40%; HR, 0.43), more had a manic or hypomanic event (12% vs. 6%; HR, 2.28).

The estimated probability of remaining free of a depressive episode at 52 weeks was 72% in the 52-week group versus 53% in the 8-week group. The estimated probability of remaining free of a manic episode at 52 weeks was 81% and 92%, respectively.

The incidence of adverse events was similar in the two groups, with a low rate of discontinuation due to adverse events and no serious adverse events. Clinically significant weight gain (≥ 7% increase in body weight) was observed in 14% of patients in the 52-week group and 7% of patients in the 8-week group.

Limitations of the trial include the fact that it was stopped early, before the planned sample size was reached, owing to slow recruitment and funding issues.

Other limitations include a lack of ethnic diversity (only 12% were White and < 1% Black) and overrepresentation of patients from India, which may limit generalizability. 

In addition, the findings may not be applicable to treatment with antidepressants other than escitalopram and buproprion XL. Finally, the study population was also enriched for patients who responded to these antidepressants.
 

Need for an individualized approach

Commenting on the study, Roger McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry in pharmacology, University of Toronto, noted the study was not easy to conduct, and the investigators should be credited for conducting a maintenance study in bipolar depression.

“Although the study reports, as it should, that there is no evidence of maintenance effect, the secondary analysis, which was not adjusted for multiplicity, does suggest that there is a benefit,” said Dr. McIntyre, who was not associated with this research.

“However, the authors are also correct in stating that one cannot draw a conclusion because it was not the primary question and was not adjusted for multiplicity,” he added.

“If anything,” said Dr. McIntyre, “what these results do support is the notion that antidepressants are unlikely to destabilize all patients. Instead, the risk of destabilization seems to be largely limited to some persons, and there is a suggestion, based on the secondary outcome of this study, that maintenance antidepressant benefits can be seen in some people. But again that’s a testable hypothesis.”

Also weighing in on the research, Madhukar H. Trivedi, MD, professor of psychiatry and director, Center for Depression Research and Clinical Care, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said the study is “interesting,” adding that it was “unfortunate that the researchers had to curtail recruitment and reduce the size of the trial.”

University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center

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

A new study suggests that being obese is significantly associated with fecal incontinence, fecal urgency, and vaginal digitation, as well as clinically significant rectocele and increased anal resting and rectal pressures.

The study, which was published in the American Journal of Gastroenterology and led by Pam Chaichanavichkij, MBChB, MRCS, of Queen Mary University, London, included 1,155 patients (84% female, median age 52) who were obese (31.7%), overweight (34.8%), or of normal weight 33.5%).

“These results support the notion that rectal evacuation disorder/incomplete evacuation may be an important underlying mechanism for fecal incontinence in obese patients,” the authors wrote.

Obese patients had higher odds of fecal incontinence to liquid stools (69.9 vs. 47.8%; odds ratio, 1.96 [confidence interval, 1.43-2.70]), use of containment products (54.6% vs. 32.6%; OR, 1.81 [CI, 1.31-2.51]), fecal urgency (74.6% vs. 60.7%; OR, 1.54 [CI, 1.11-2.14]), urge fecal incontinence (63.4% vs. 47.3%, OR, 1.68 [CI, 1.23-2.29]), and vaginal digitation (18.0% vs. 9.7%; OR, 2.18 [CI, 1.26-3.86]).

Obese patients were also more likely to have functional constipation (50.3%), compared with overweight (44.8%) and normal weight patients (41.1%).

There was a positive linear association between body mass index (BMI) and anal resting pressure (beta 0.45; R2, 0.25, P = 0.0003), though the odds of anal hypertension were not significantly higher after Benjamini-Hochberg correction. Obese patients more often had a large clinically significant rectocele (34.4% vs. 20.6%; OR, 2.62 [CI, 1.51-4.55]), compared with normal BMI patients.

The data showed higher rates of gynecological surgery, cholecystectomy, diabetes, and self-reported use of opioids, antidepressants, and anticholinergic medications in the obese group, compared with the others.

In morphological differences measured by x-ray defecography, obese patients had more than two-fold higher odds of having a rectocele and even greater odds of the rectocele being large and clinically significant. Anal and rectal resting pressures were linearly related to increasing BMI, the authors report.

Because most patients in the study were female, the findings may not be generalizable to the general population or male patients. Also, diet and exercise, two factors that may affect defecation disorders, were not accounted for in this study.

Dr. Chaichanavichkij reported no disclosures. Two other authors reported financial relationships with Medtronic Inc. and MMS/Laborie.

A new study suggests that being obese is significantly associated with fecal incontinence, fecal urgency, and vaginal digitation, as well as clinically significant rectocele and increased anal resting and rectal pressures.

The study, which was published in the American Journal of Gastroenterology and led by Pam Chaichanavichkij, MBChB, MRCS, of Queen Mary University, London, included 1,155 patients (84% female, median age 52) who were obese (31.7%), overweight (34.8%), or of normal weight 33.5%).

“These results support the notion that rectal evacuation disorder/incomplete evacuation may be an important underlying mechanism for fecal incontinence in obese patients,” the authors wrote.

Obese patients had higher odds of fecal incontinence to liquid stools (69.9 vs. 47.8%; odds ratio, 1.96 [confidence interval, 1.43-2.70]), use of containment products (54.6% vs. 32.6%; OR, 1.81 [CI, 1.31-2.51]), fecal urgency (74.6% vs. 60.7%; OR, 1.54 [CI, 1.11-2.14]), urge fecal incontinence (63.4% vs. 47.3%, OR, 1.68 [CI, 1.23-2.29]), and vaginal digitation (18.0% vs. 9.7%; OR, 2.18 [CI, 1.26-3.86]).

Obese patients were also more likely to have functional constipation (50.3%), compared with overweight (44.8%) and normal weight patients (41.1%).

There was a positive linear association between body mass index (BMI) and anal resting pressure (beta 0.45; R2, 0.25, P = 0.0003), though the odds of anal hypertension were not significantly higher after Benjamini-Hochberg correction. Obese patients more often had a large clinically significant rectocele (34.4% vs. 20.6%; OR, 2.62 [CI, 1.51-4.55]), compared with normal BMI patients.

The data showed higher rates of gynecological surgery, cholecystectomy, diabetes, and self-reported use of opioids, antidepressants, and anticholinergic medications in the obese group, compared with the others.

In morphological differences measured by x-ray defecography, obese patients had more than two-fold higher odds of having a rectocele and even greater odds of the rectocele being large and clinically significant. Anal and rectal resting pressures were linearly related to increasing BMI, the authors report.

Because most patients in the study were female, the findings may not be generalizable to the general population or male patients. Also, diet and exercise, two factors that may affect defecation disorders, were not accounted for in this study.

Dr. Chaichanavichkij reported no disclosures. Two other authors reported financial relationships with Medtronic Inc. and MMS/Laborie.

A new study suggests that being obese is significantly associated with fecal incontinence, fecal urgency, and vaginal digitation, as well as clinically significant rectocele and increased anal resting and rectal pressures.

The study, which was published in the American Journal of Gastroenterology and led by Pam Chaichanavichkij, MBChB, MRCS, of Queen Mary University, London, included 1,155 patients (84% female, median age 52) who were obese (31.7%), overweight (34.8%), or of normal weight 33.5%).

“These results support the notion that rectal evacuation disorder/incomplete evacuation may be an important underlying mechanism for fecal incontinence in obese patients,” the authors wrote.

Obese patients had higher odds of fecal incontinence to liquid stools (69.9 vs. 47.8%; odds ratio, 1.96 [confidence interval, 1.43-2.70]), use of containment products (54.6% vs. 32.6%; OR, 1.81 [CI, 1.31-2.51]), fecal urgency (74.6% vs. 60.7%; OR, 1.54 [CI, 1.11-2.14]), urge fecal incontinence (63.4% vs. 47.3%, OR, 1.68 [CI, 1.23-2.29]), and vaginal digitation (18.0% vs. 9.7%; OR, 2.18 [CI, 1.26-3.86]).

Obese patients were also more likely to have functional constipation (50.3%), compared with overweight (44.8%) and normal weight patients (41.1%).

There was a positive linear association between body mass index (BMI) and anal resting pressure (beta 0.45; R2, 0.25, P = 0.0003), though the odds of anal hypertension were not significantly higher after Benjamini-Hochberg correction. Obese patients more often had a large clinically significant rectocele (34.4% vs. 20.6%; OR, 2.62 [CI, 1.51-4.55]), compared with normal BMI patients.

The data showed higher rates of gynecological surgery, cholecystectomy, diabetes, and self-reported use of opioids, antidepressants, and anticholinergic medications in the obese group, compared with the others.

In morphological differences measured by x-ray defecography, obese patients had more than two-fold higher odds of having a rectocele and even greater odds of the rectocele being large and clinically significant. Anal and rectal resting pressures were linearly related to increasing BMI, the authors report.

Because most patients in the study were female, the findings may not be generalizable to the general population or male patients. Also, diet and exercise, two factors that may affect defecation disorders, were not accounted for in this study.

Dr. Chaichanavichkij reported no disclosures. Two other authors reported financial relationships with Medtronic Inc. and MMS/Laborie.

Medical education has changed drastically over the years. As theories and practices continue to change, what was once standard 10 or 20 years ago has been replaced with newer ideologies, processes, or technology. It seems likely, then, that you may disagree with some of the things that you learned as medical school has evolved.

This news organization asked physicians what they learned in med school that they now contest. Many of their answers include newer philosophies and practice methods.
 

Treat appropriately for pain

Jacqui O’Kane, DO, a 2013 med school graduate, was taught to avoid prescribing controlled medications whenever possible.

“Initially this attitude made sense to me,” says Dr. O’Kane, “but as I became an experienced physician – and patient – I saw the harm that such an attitude could cause. Patients on controlled medication long-term were often viewed as drug-seekers and treated as such, even if their regimen was largely regarded as appropriate. Likewise, those who could benefit from short-term controlled prescriptions were sometimes denied them because of their clinician’s fear.”

Today, Dr. O’Kane believes controlled medications should seldom be the first option for patients suffering pain, anxiety, or insomnia. But, she says, “they should remain on the table and without judgment for those who fail first-line treatment or for whom alternatives are contraindicated.”

Amy Baxter, MD, believes that the amount of time spent on pain education in school needs to change.

“Doctors in the U.S. get only 12 hours of pain education, and most of it is on pharmacology,” says Dr. Baxter, who graduated from med school in 1995. “In addition to incorrect information on home opioids and addiction, I was left with the impression that medication could treat chronic pain. I now have a completely different understanding of pain as a whole-brain warning system. The goal shouldn’t be pain-free, just more comfortable.”
 

Practice lifestyle and preventive medicine

Dolapo Babalola, MD, went to medical school eager to learn how to care for the human body and her family members’ illnesses, such as the debilitating effects of arthritic pain and other chronic diseases.

“I was taught the pathology behind arthritic pain, symptoms, signs, and treatment – that it has a genetic component and is inevitable to avoid – but nothing about how to prevent it,” says Dr. Babalola, a 2000 graduate.

Twenty years later, she discovered lifestyle medicine when she began to experience knee pain.

“I was introduced to the power of health restoration by discovering the root cause of diseases such as inflammation, hormonal imbalance, and insulin resistance due to poor lifestyle choices such as diet, inactivity, stress, inadequate sleep, and substance abuse,” she says.

Adebisi Alli, DO, who graduated in 2011, remembers being taught to treat type 2 diabetes by delaying progression rather than aiming for remission. But today, “lifestyle-led, team-based approaches are steadily becoming a first prescription across medical training with the goal to put diabetes in remission,” she says.
 

Patient care is at the core of medicine

Tracey O’Connell, MD, recalls her radiology residency in the early to mid-90s, when radiologists were integral to the health care team.

“We interacted with referrers and followed the course of patients’ diseases,” says Dr. O’Connell. “We knew patient histories, their stories. We were connected to other humans, doctors, nurses, teams, and the patients themselves.”

But with the advent of picture archiving and communication systems, high-speed CT and MRI, digital radiography, and voice recognition, the practice of radiology has changed dramatically.

“There’s no time to review or discuss cases anymore,” she says. “Reports went from eloquent and articulate documents with lists of differential diagnoses to short checklists and templates. The whole field of patient care has become dehumanizing, exactly the opposite of what humans need.”

Mache Seibel, MD, who graduated almost 50 years ago, agrees that patient care has lost its focus, to the detriment of patients.

“What I learned in medical school that is forgotten today is how to listen to patients, take a history, and do an examination using my hands and a stethoscope,” says Dr. Seibel. “Today with technology and time constraints, the focus is too much on the symptom without context, ordering a test, and getting the EMR boxes filled out.”
 

Physician, heal thyself

Priya Radhakrishnan, MD, remembers learning that a physician’s well-being was their responsibility. “We now know that well-being is the health system’s responsibility and that we need to diagnose ourselves and support each other, especially our trainees,” says Dr. Radhakrishna. She graduated in 1992. “Destigmatizing mental health is essential to well-being.”

Rachel Miller, MD, a 2009 med school graduate was taught that learning about health care systems and policy wasn’t necessary. Dr. Miller says they learned that policy knowledge would come in time. “I currently disagree. It is vital to understand aspects of health care systems and policy. Not knowing these things has partly contributed to the pervasiveness of burnout among physicians and other health care providers.”
 

Practice with gender at the forefront

Janice L. Werbinski, MD, an ob.gyn., and Elizabeth Anne Comen, MD, a breast cancer oncologist, remember when nearly all medical research was performed on the 140-lb White man. Doctors learned to treat patients through that male lens.

“The majority of the anatomy we saw in medical school was on a male figure,” says Dr. Comen, author of “All in Her Head,” a HarperCollins book slated to be released in February 2024. She graduated from med school in 2004. “The only time we saw anatomy for females was in the female reproductive system. That’s changing for the better.”

Dr. Werbinski chose a residency in obstetrics and gynecology in 1975 because she thought it was the only way she could serve female patients.

“I really thought that was the place for women’s health,” says Dr. Werbinski, cochair of the American Medical Women’s Association Sex & Gender Health Coalition.

“I am happy to say that significant awareness has grown since I graduated from medical school. I hope that when this question is asked of current medical students, they will be able to say that they know to practice with a sex- and gender-focused lens.”
 

Talk about racial disparities

John McHugh, MD, an ob.gyn., recalls learning little about the social determinants of health when he attended med school more than 30 years ago.

“We saw disparities in outcomes based on race and class but assumed that we would overcome them when we were in practice,” says Dr. McHugh, an AMWA Action Coalition for Equity member. “We didn’t understand the root causes of disparities and had never heard of concepts like epigenetics or weathering. I’m hopeful current research will help our understanding and today’s medical students will serve a safer, healthier, and more equitable world.”

Curtiland Deville, MD, an associate professor of radiation oncology, recalls having few conversations around race; racial disparities; and diversity, equity, and inclusion.

“When I went to medical school, it often felt like you weren’t supposed to talk about the differences in race,” says Dr. Deville, who graduated in 2005. But today, in the post-2020 era between COVID, during which health disparities got highlighted, and calls for racial justice taking center stage, Dr. Deville says many of the things they didn’t talk about have come to the forefront in our medical institutions.
 

Information at your fingertips

For Paru David, MD, a 1996 graduate, the most significant change is the amount of health and medical information available today. “Before, the information that was taught in medical school was obtained through textbooks or within journal articles,” says Dr. David.

“Now, we have databases of information. The key to success is being able to navigate the information available to us, digest it with a keen eye, and then apply it to patient care in a timely manner.”

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

Medical education has changed drastically over the years. As theories and practices continue to change, what was once standard 10 or 20 years ago has been replaced with newer ideologies, processes, or technology. It seems likely, then, that you may disagree with some of the things that you learned as medical school has evolved.

This news organization asked physicians what they learned in med school that they now contest. Many of their answers include newer philosophies and practice methods.
 

Treat appropriately for pain

Jacqui O’Kane, DO, a 2013 med school graduate, was taught to avoid prescribing controlled medications whenever possible.

“Initially this attitude made sense to me,” says Dr. O’Kane, “but as I became an experienced physician – and patient – I saw the harm that such an attitude could cause. Patients on controlled medication long-term were often viewed as drug-seekers and treated as such, even if their regimen was largely regarded as appropriate. Likewise, those who could benefit from short-term controlled prescriptions were sometimes denied them because of their clinician’s fear.”

Today, Dr. O’Kane believes controlled medications should seldom be the first option for patients suffering pain, anxiety, or insomnia. But, she says, “they should remain on the table and without judgment for those who fail first-line treatment or for whom alternatives are contraindicated.”

Amy Baxter, MD, believes that the amount of time spent on pain education in school needs to change.

“Doctors in the U.S. get only 12 hours of pain education, and most of it is on pharmacology,” says Dr. Baxter, who graduated from med school in 1995. “In addition to incorrect information on home opioids and addiction, I was left with the impression that medication could treat chronic pain. I now have a completely different understanding of pain as a whole-brain warning system. The goal shouldn’t be pain-free, just more comfortable.”
 

Practice lifestyle and preventive medicine

Dolapo Babalola, MD, went to medical school eager to learn how to care for the human body and her family members’ illnesses, such as the debilitating effects of arthritic pain and other chronic diseases.

“I was taught the pathology behind arthritic pain, symptoms, signs, and treatment – that it has a genetic component and is inevitable to avoid – but nothing about how to prevent it,” says Dr. Babalola, a 2000 graduate.

Twenty years later, she discovered lifestyle medicine when she began to experience knee pain.

“I was introduced to the power of health restoration by discovering the root cause of diseases such as inflammation, hormonal imbalance, and insulin resistance due to poor lifestyle choices such as diet, inactivity, stress, inadequate sleep, and substance abuse,” she says.

Adebisi Alli, DO, who graduated in 2011, remembers being taught to treat type 2 diabetes by delaying progression rather than aiming for remission. But today, “lifestyle-led, team-based approaches are steadily becoming a first prescription across medical training with the goal to put diabetes in remission,” she says.
 

Patient care is at the core of medicine

Tracey O’Connell, MD, recalls her radiology residency in the early to mid-90s, when radiologists were integral to the health care team.

“We interacted with referrers and followed the course of patients’ diseases,” says Dr. O’Connell. “We knew patient histories, their stories. We were connected to other humans, doctors, nurses, teams, and the patients themselves.”

But with the advent of picture archiving and communication systems, high-speed CT and MRI, digital radiography, and voice recognition, the practice of radiology has changed dramatically.

“There’s no time to review or discuss cases anymore,” she says. “Reports went from eloquent and articulate documents with lists of differential diagnoses to short checklists and templates. The whole field of patient care has become dehumanizing, exactly the opposite of what humans need.”

Mache Seibel, MD, who graduated almost 50 years ago, agrees that patient care has lost its focus, to the detriment of patients.

“What I learned in medical school that is forgotten today is how to listen to patients, take a history, and do an examination using my hands and a stethoscope,” says Dr. Seibel. “Today with technology and time constraints, the focus is too much on the symptom without context, ordering a test, and getting the EMR boxes filled out.”
 

Physician, heal thyself

Priya Radhakrishnan, MD, remembers learning that a physician’s well-being was their responsibility. “We now know that well-being is the health system’s responsibility and that we need to diagnose ourselves and support each other, especially our trainees,” says Dr. Radhakrishna. She graduated in 1992. “Destigmatizing mental health is essential to well-being.”

Rachel Miller, MD, a 2009 med school graduate was taught that learning about health care systems and policy wasn’t necessary. Dr. Miller says they learned that policy knowledge would come in time. “I currently disagree. It is vital to understand aspects of health care systems and policy. Not knowing these things has partly contributed to the pervasiveness of burnout among physicians and other health care providers.”
 

Practice with gender at the forefront

Janice L. Werbinski, MD, an ob.gyn., and Elizabeth Anne Comen, MD, a breast cancer oncologist, remember when nearly all medical research was performed on the 140-lb White man. Doctors learned to treat patients through that male lens.

“The majority of the anatomy we saw in medical school was on a male figure,” says Dr. Comen, author of “All in Her Head,” a HarperCollins book slated to be released in February 2024. She graduated from med school in 2004. “The only time we saw anatomy for females was in the female reproductive system. That’s changing for the better.”

Dr. Werbinski chose a residency in obstetrics and gynecology in 1975 because she thought it was the only way she could serve female patients.

“I really thought that was the place for women’s health,” says Dr. Werbinski, cochair of the American Medical Women’s Association Sex & Gender Health Coalition.

“I am happy to say that significant awareness has grown since I graduated from medical school. I hope that when this question is asked of current medical students, they will be able to say that they know to practice with a sex- and gender-focused lens.”
 

Talk about racial disparities

John McHugh, MD, an ob.gyn., recalls learning little about the social determinants of health when he attended med school more than 30 years ago.

“We saw disparities in outcomes based on race and class but assumed that we would overcome them when we were in practice,” says Dr. McHugh, an AMWA Action Coalition for Equity member. “We didn’t understand the root causes of disparities and had never heard of concepts like epigenetics or weathering. I’m hopeful current research will help our understanding and today’s medical students will serve a safer, healthier, and more equitable world.”

Curtiland Deville, MD, an associate professor of radiation oncology, recalls having few conversations around race; racial disparities; and diversity, equity, and inclusion.

“When I went to medical school, it often felt like you weren’t supposed to talk about the differences in race,” says Dr. Deville, who graduated in 2005. But today, in the post-2020 era between COVID, during which health disparities got highlighted, and calls for racial justice taking center stage, Dr. Deville says many of the things they didn’t talk about have come to the forefront in our medical institutions.
 

Information at your fingertips

For Paru David, MD, a 1996 graduate, the most significant change is the amount of health and medical information available today. “Before, the information that was taught in medical school was obtained through textbooks or within journal articles,” says Dr. David.

“Now, we have databases of information. The key to success is being able to navigate the information available to us, digest it with a keen eye, and then apply it to patient care in a timely manner.”

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

Medical education has changed drastically over the years. As theories and practices continue to change, what was once standard 10 or 20 years ago has been replaced with newer ideologies, processes, or technology. It seems likely, then, that you may disagree with some of the things that you learned as medical school has evolved.

This news organization asked physicians what they learned in med school that they now contest. Many of their answers include newer philosophies and practice methods.
 

Treat appropriately for pain

Jacqui O’Kane, DO, a 2013 med school graduate, was taught to avoid prescribing controlled medications whenever possible.

“Initially this attitude made sense to me,” says Dr. O’Kane, “but as I became an experienced physician – and patient – I saw the harm that such an attitude could cause. Patients on controlled medication long-term were often viewed as drug-seekers and treated as such, even if their regimen was largely regarded as appropriate. Likewise, those who could benefit from short-term controlled prescriptions were sometimes denied them because of their clinician’s fear.”

Today, Dr. O’Kane believes controlled medications should seldom be the first option for patients suffering pain, anxiety, or insomnia. But, she says, “they should remain on the table and without judgment for those who fail first-line treatment or for whom alternatives are contraindicated.”

Amy Baxter, MD, believes that the amount of time spent on pain education in school needs to change.

“Doctors in the U.S. get only 12 hours of pain education, and most of it is on pharmacology,” says Dr. Baxter, who graduated from med school in 1995. “In addition to incorrect information on home opioids and addiction, I was left with the impression that medication could treat chronic pain. I now have a completely different understanding of pain as a whole-brain warning system. The goal shouldn’t be pain-free, just more comfortable.”
 

Practice lifestyle and preventive medicine

Dolapo Babalola, MD, went to medical school eager to learn how to care for the human body and her family members’ illnesses, such as the debilitating effects of arthritic pain and other chronic diseases.

“I was taught the pathology behind arthritic pain, symptoms, signs, and treatment – that it has a genetic component and is inevitable to avoid – but nothing about how to prevent it,” says Dr. Babalola, a 2000 graduate.

Twenty years later, she discovered lifestyle medicine when she began to experience knee pain.

“I was introduced to the power of health restoration by discovering the root cause of diseases such as inflammation, hormonal imbalance, and insulin resistance due to poor lifestyle choices such as diet, inactivity, stress, inadequate sleep, and substance abuse,” she says.

Adebisi Alli, DO, who graduated in 2011, remembers being taught to treat type 2 diabetes by delaying progression rather than aiming for remission. But today, “lifestyle-led, team-based approaches are steadily becoming a first prescription across medical training with the goal to put diabetes in remission,” she says.
 

Patient care is at the core of medicine

Tracey O’Connell, MD, recalls her radiology residency in the early to mid-90s, when radiologists were integral to the health care team.

“We interacted with referrers and followed the course of patients’ diseases,” says Dr. O’Connell. “We knew patient histories, their stories. We were connected to other humans, doctors, nurses, teams, and the patients themselves.”

But with the advent of picture archiving and communication systems, high-speed CT and MRI, digital radiography, and voice recognition, the practice of radiology has changed dramatically.

“There’s no time to review or discuss cases anymore,” she says. “Reports went from eloquent and articulate documents with lists of differential diagnoses to short checklists and templates. The whole field of patient care has become dehumanizing, exactly the opposite of what humans need.”

Mache Seibel, MD, who graduated almost 50 years ago, agrees that patient care has lost its focus, to the detriment of patients.

“What I learned in medical school that is forgotten today is how to listen to patients, take a history, and do an examination using my hands and a stethoscope,” says Dr. Seibel. “Today with technology and time constraints, the focus is too much on the symptom without context, ordering a test, and getting the EMR boxes filled out.”
 

Physician, heal thyself

Priya Radhakrishnan, MD, remembers learning that a physician’s well-being was their responsibility. “We now know that well-being is the health system’s responsibility and that we need to diagnose ourselves and support each other, especially our trainees,” says Dr. Radhakrishna. She graduated in 1992. “Destigmatizing mental health is essential to well-being.”

Rachel Miller, MD, a 2009 med school graduate was taught that learning about health care systems and policy wasn’t necessary. Dr. Miller says they learned that policy knowledge would come in time. “I currently disagree. It is vital to understand aspects of health care systems and policy. Not knowing these things has partly contributed to the pervasiveness of burnout among physicians and other health care providers.”
 

Practice with gender at the forefront

Janice L. Werbinski, MD, an ob.gyn., and Elizabeth Anne Comen, MD, a breast cancer oncologist, remember when nearly all medical research was performed on the 140-lb White man. Doctors learned to treat patients through that male lens.

“The majority of the anatomy we saw in medical school was on a male figure,” says Dr. Comen, author of “All in Her Head,” a HarperCollins book slated to be released in February 2024. She graduated from med school in 2004. “The only time we saw anatomy for females was in the female reproductive system. That’s changing for the better.”

Dr. Werbinski chose a residency in obstetrics and gynecology in 1975 because she thought it was the only way she could serve female patients.

“I really thought that was the place for women’s health,” says Dr. Werbinski, cochair of the American Medical Women’s Association Sex & Gender Health Coalition.

“I am happy to say that significant awareness has grown since I graduated from medical school. I hope that when this question is asked of current medical students, they will be able to say that they know to practice with a sex- and gender-focused lens.”
 

Talk about racial disparities

John McHugh, MD, an ob.gyn., recalls learning little about the social determinants of health when he attended med school more than 30 years ago.

“We saw disparities in outcomes based on race and class but assumed that we would overcome them when we were in practice,” says Dr. McHugh, an AMWA Action Coalition for Equity member. “We didn’t understand the root causes of disparities and had never heard of concepts like epigenetics or weathering. I’m hopeful current research will help our understanding and today’s medical students will serve a safer, healthier, and more equitable world.”

Curtiland Deville, MD, an associate professor of radiation oncology, recalls having few conversations around race; racial disparities; and diversity, equity, and inclusion.

“When I went to medical school, it often felt like you weren’t supposed to talk about the differences in race,” says Dr. Deville, who graduated in 2005. But today, in the post-2020 era between COVID, during which health disparities got highlighted, and calls for racial justice taking center stage, Dr. Deville says many of the things they didn’t talk about have come to the forefront in our medical institutions.
 

Information at your fingertips

For Paru David, MD, a 1996 graduate, the most significant change is the amount of health and medical information available today. “Before, the information that was taught in medical school was obtained through textbooks or within journal articles,” says Dr. David.

“Now, we have databases of information. The key to success is being able to navigate the information available to us, digest it with a keen eye, and then apply it to patient care in a timely manner.”

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

CHICAGO – At this year’s AGA Postgraduate Course in May at the annual Digestive Disease Week^®(DDW), we reviewed the latest updates in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

Although it had been thought that incidence rates of IBD were plateauing in high-incidence areas, a Danish study found a steady increase in incidence of Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis (UC).¹ The highest increase in rates occurred in children and young adults, which will have repercussions as people get older and contribute to higher compounding prevalence. We need to get better at dealing with other health conditions as patients get older. A very large prospective Spanish study found that 42% of IBD patients scanned consecutively had MAFLD (metabolic-associated fatty liver disease) – even if they didn’t have high BMI and type 2 diabetes, suggesting that systemic inflammation in IBD contributes to the development of metabolic liver disease.²

University of Miami

The AGA has recently published guidelines for using biomarkers in the management of UC. Patients with very low fecal calprotectin (FCP) are unlikely to have active disease whereas FCP over 150 with significant symptoms may warrant empiric changes in treatment.³

Intestinal ultrasound is gaining wider acceptance as a noninvasive way to monitor IBD.⁴ In a UC study, improvement in bowel wall thickness following tofacitinib treatment correlated well with endoscopic activity.⁵

Brigham and Women&#039;s Hospital

The majority of the presentation focused on the explosion of Food and Drug Administration–-approved medications for IBD in recent years. S1P receptor agonists, such as ozanimod and etrasimod, may work by trapping specific T-cell subsets in peripheral lymph nodes, preventing migration to intestinal tissues. Ozanimod is approved for UC. Etrasimod showed efficacy in UC with clinical remission rates of about 27% at week 12 and 32% at week 52.^6,7

There has been a lot of excitement about JAK inhibitors for IBD. Upadacitinib has recently been approved for both UC and Crohn’s disease. Response rates of 73% and remission rates of 26% were seen in UC patients who had been largely biologic exposed.⁸ Similar results were seen in a biologic-exposed Crohn’s disease population treated with upadacitinib including in endoscopy.⁹ Upadacitinib was effective in maintaining remission at both 15-mg and 30-mg doses; but the higher dose had a greater effect on endoscopic endpoints.¹⁰

Dr. Loftus

For Crohn’s disease, we now have risankizumab, an anti-p19/IL-23 inhibitor. Risankizumab was efficacious at inducing and maintain remission in the pivotal phase 3 studies, even with 75% of patients being biologic exposed. These studies used combined endpoints of clinical remission as well as endoscopic response.¹¹ Guselkumab (anti-p19/IL-23) is also being studied for Crohn’s disease and early trials has appears to be efficacious.¹²

A head-to-head study of naive CD patients treated with ustekinumab or adalimumab (SEAVUE) showed comparable rates of clinical remission. At 52 weeks, the rates of clinical remission were quite high: >60% and endoscopic remission >30% with either therapy.¹³

We now have phase 3 data showing that a biologic is efficacious in patients with chronic pouchitis. The EARNEST trial demonstrated that vedolizumab has efficacy in treating pouchitis with improved clinical symptoms and endoscopy.¹⁴ Future treatment strategies may involve combinations of biologic therapies. The VEGA study showed that combining an anti-TNF, golimumab, with an anti-IL23, guselkumab, was superior than either alone with respect to clinical remission and endoscopic improvement in UC.¹⁵ We will see more studies combining therapies with diverse mechanisms of action.

In summary, there have been many noteworthy advances in treatment and management of IBD in the past year.

DDW is sponsored by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD), the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA), the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) and The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract (SSAT).

Dr. Abreu is director of the Crohn’s and Colitis Center and professor of medicine, microbiology, and immunology at the University of Miami. She is president-elect of AGA. Dr. Allegretti is director of the Crohn’s and Colitis Center and director of the fecal microbiota transplant program at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. She is associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston. Dr. Loftus is the Maxine and Jack Zarrow Family Professor of Gastroenterology, codirector of the advanced IBD fellowship in the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. Dr. Ungaro is associate professor of medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

References

1. Agrawal M et al. Gastroenterology. 2022;163(6):1547-54.e5.

2. Rodriguez-Duque JC et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023;21(2):406-14.e7.

3. Singh S, et al. Gastroenterology. 2023;164(3):344-72.

4. de Voogd F et al. Gastroenterology. 2022;163(6):1569-81.

5. Sandborn WJ et al. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(18):1723-36.

6. Sandborn WJ et al. N Engl J Med. 2021;385(14):1280-91.

7. Sandborn WJ et al. Lancet. 2023 Mar 25;401(10381):1000]. Lancet. 2023;401(10383):1159-71.

8. Danese S et al. Lancet. 2022 Sep 24;400(10357):996]. Lancet. 2022;399(10341):2113-28.

9. Loftus EV Jr et al. N Engl J Med. 2023 May 25;388(21):1966-80.

10. Panes J et al. Am J Gastroenterol 2022;117(S10). Abstract S37.

11. D’Haens G, et al. Lancet. 2022;399(10340):2015-30

12. Sandborn WJ et al. Gastroenterology. 2022;162(6):1650-64.e8.

13. Sands BE, et al. Lancet. 2022;399(10342):2200-11.

14. Travis S et al. N Engl J Med. 2023;388(13):1191-1200.

15. Feagan BG et al. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023;8(4):307-20.

CHICAGO – At this year’s AGA Postgraduate Course in May at the annual Digestive Disease Week^®(DDW), we reviewed the latest updates in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

Although it had been thought that incidence rates of IBD were plateauing in high-incidence areas, a Danish study found a steady increase in incidence of Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis (UC).¹ The highest increase in rates occurred in children and young adults, which will have repercussions as people get older and contribute to higher compounding prevalence. We need to get better at dealing with other health conditions as patients get older. A very large prospective Spanish study found that 42% of IBD patients scanned consecutively had MAFLD (metabolic-associated fatty liver disease) – even if they didn’t have high BMI and type 2 diabetes, suggesting that systemic inflammation in IBD contributes to the development of metabolic liver disease.²

University of Miami

The AGA has recently published guidelines for using biomarkers in the management of UC. Patients with very low fecal calprotectin (FCP) are unlikely to have active disease whereas FCP over 150 with significant symptoms may warrant empiric changes in treatment.³

Intestinal ultrasound is gaining wider acceptance as a noninvasive way to monitor IBD.⁴ In a UC study, improvement in bowel wall thickness following tofacitinib treatment correlated well with endoscopic activity.⁵

Brigham and Women&#039;s Hospital

The majority of the presentation focused on the explosion of Food and Drug Administration–-approved medications for IBD in recent years. S1P receptor agonists, such as ozanimod and etrasimod, may work by trapping specific T-cell subsets in peripheral lymph nodes, preventing migration to intestinal tissues. Ozanimod is approved for UC. Etrasimod showed efficacy in UC with clinical remission rates of about 27% at week 12 and 32% at week 52.^6,7

There has been a lot of excitement about JAK inhibitors for IBD. Upadacitinib has recently been approved for both UC and Crohn’s disease. Response rates of 73% and remission rates of 26% were seen in UC patients who had been largely biologic exposed.⁸ Similar results were seen in a biologic-exposed Crohn’s disease population treated with upadacitinib including in endoscopy.⁹ Upadacitinib was effective in maintaining remission at both 15-mg and 30-mg doses; but the higher dose had a greater effect on endoscopic endpoints.¹⁰

Dr. Loftus

For Crohn’s disease, we now have risankizumab, an anti-p19/IL-23 inhibitor. Risankizumab was efficacious at inducing and maintain remission in the pivotal phase 3 studies, even with 75% of patients being biologic exposed. These studies used combined endpoints of clinical remission as well as endoscopic response.¹¹ Guselkumab (anti-p19/IL-23) is also being studied for Crohn’s disease and early trials has appears to be efficacious.¹²

A head-to-head study of naive CD patients treated with ustekinumab or adalimumab (SEAVUE) showed comparable rates of clinical remission. At 52 weeks, the rates of clinical remission were quite high: >60% and endoscopic remission >30% with either therapy.¹³

We now have phase 3 data showing that a biologic is efficacious in patients with chronic pouchitis. The EARNEST trial demonstrated that vedolizumab has efficacy in treating pouchitis with improved clinical symptoms and endoscopy.¹⁴ Future treatment strategies may involve combinations of biologic therapies. The VEGA study showed that combining an anti-TNF, golimumab, with an anti-IL23, guselkumab, was superior than either alone with respect to clinical remission and endoscopic improvement in UC.¹⁵ We will see more studies combining therapies with diverse mechanisms of action.

In summary, there have been many noteworthy advances in treatment and management of IBD in the past year.

DDW is sponsored by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD), the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA), the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) and The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract (SSAT).

Dr. Abreu is director of the Crohn’s and Colitis Center and professor of medicine, microbiology, and immunology at the University of Miami. She is president-elect of AGA. Dr. Allegretti is director of the Crohn’s and Colitis Center and director of the fecal microbiota transplant program at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. She is associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston. Dr. Loftus is the Maxine and Jack Zarrow Family Professor of Gastroenterology, codirector of the advanced IBD fellowship in the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. Dr. Ungaro is associate professor of medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

References

1. Agrawal M et al. Gastroenterology. 2022;163(6):1547-54.e5.

2. Rodriguez-Duque JC et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023;21(2):406-14.e7.

3. Singh S, et al. Gastroenterology. 2023;164(3):344-72.

4. de Voogd F et al. Gastroenterology. 2022;163(6):1569-81.

5. Sandborn WJ et al. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(18):1723-36.

6. Sandborn WJ et al. N Engl J Med. 2021;385(14):1280-91.

7. Sandborn WJ et al. Lancet. 2023 Mar 25;401(10381):1000]. Lancet. 2023;401(10383):1159-71.

8. Danese S et al. Lancet. 2022 Sep 24;400(10357):996]. Lancet. 2022;399(10341):2113-28.

9. Loftus EV Jr et al. N Engl J Med. 2023 May 25;388(21):1966-80.

10. Panes J et al. Am J Gastroenterol 2022;117(S10). Abstract S37.

11. D’Haens G, et al. Lancet. 2022;399(10340):2015-30

12. Sandborn WJ et al. Gastroenterology. 2022;162(6):1650-64.e8.

13. Sands BE, et al. Lancet. 2022;399(10342):2200-11.

14. Travis S et al. N Engl J Med. 2023;388(13):1191-1200.

15. Feagan BG et al. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023;8(4):307-20.

CHICAGO – At this year’s AGA Postgraduate Course in May at the annual Digestive Disease Week^®(DDW), we reviewed the latest updates in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

Although it had been thought that incidence rates of IBD were plateauing in high-incidence areas, a Danish study found a steady increase in incidence of Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis (UC).¹ The highest increase in rates occurred in children and young adults, which will have repercussions as people get older and contribute to higher compounding prevalence. We need to get better at dealing with other health conditions as patients get older. A very large prospective Spanish study found that 42% of IBD patients scanned consecutively had MAFLD (metabolic-associated fatty liver disease) – even if they didn’t have high BMI and type 2 diabetes, suggesting that systemic inflammation in IBD contributes to the development of metabolic liver disease.²

University of Miami

The AGA has recently published guidelines for using biomarkers in the management of UC. Patients with very low fecal calprotectin (FCP) are unlikely to have active disease whereas FCP over 150 with significant symptoms may warrant empiric changes in treatment.³

Intestinal ultrasound is gaining wider acceptance as a noninvasive way to monitor IBD.⁴ In a UC study, improvement in bowel wall thickness following tofacitinib treatment correlated well with endoscopic activity.⁵

Brigham and Women&#039;s Hospital

The majority of the presentation focused on the explosion of Food and Drug Administration–-approved medications for IBD in recent years. S1P receptor agonists, such as ozanimod and etrasimod, may work by trapping specific T-cell subsets in peripheral lymph nodes, preventing migration to intestinal tissues. Ozanimod is approved for UC. Etrasimod showed efficacy in UC with clinical remission rates of about 27% at week 12 and 32% at week 52.^6,7

There has been a lot of excitement about JAK inhibitors for IBD. Upadacitinib has recently been approved for both UC and Crohn’s disease. Response rates of 73% and remission rates of 26% were seen in UC patients who had been largely biologic exposed.⁸ Similar results were seen in a biologic-exposed Crohn’s disease population treated with upadacitinib including in endoscopy.⁹ Upadacitinib was effective in maintaining remission at both 15-mg and 30-mg doses; but the higher dose had a greater effect on endoscopic endpoints.¹⁰

Dr. Loftus

For Crohn’s disease, we now have risankizumab, an anti-p19/IL-23 inhibitor. Risankizumab was efficacious at inducing and maintain remission in the pivotal phase 3 studies, even with 75% of patients being biologic exposed. These studies used combined endpoints of clinical remission as well as endoscopic response.¹¹ Guselkumab (anti-p19/IL-23) is also being studied for Crohn’s disease and early trials has appears to be efficacious.¹²

A head-to-head study of naive CD patients treated with ustekinumab or adalimumab (SEAVUE) showed comparable rates of clinical remission. At 52 weeks, the rates of clinical remission were quite high: >60% and endoscopic remission >30% with either therapy.¹³

We now have phase 3 data showing that a biologic is efficacious in patients with chronic pouchitis. The EARNEST trial demonstrated that vedolizumab has efficacy in treating pouchitis with improved clinical symptoms and endoscopy.¹⁴ Future treatment strategies may involve combinations of biologic therapies. The VEGA study showed that combining an anti-TNF, golimumab, with an anti-IL23, guselkumab, was superior than either alone with respect to clinical remission and endoscopic improvement in UC.¹⁵ We will see more studies combining therapies with diverse mechanisms of action.

In summary, there have been many noteworthy advances in treatment and management of IBD in the past year.

DDW is sponsored by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD), the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA), the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) and The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract (SSAT).

Dr. Abreu is director of the Crohn’s and Colitis Center and professor of medicine, microbiology, and immunology at the University of Miami. She is president-elect of AGA. Dr. Allegretti is director of the Crohn’s and Colitis Center and director of the fecal microbiota transplant program at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. She is associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston. Dr. Loftus is the Maxine and Jack Zarrow Family Professor of Gastroenterology, codirector of the advanced IBD fellowship in the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. Dr. Ungaro is associate professor of medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

References

1. Agrawal M et al. Gastroenterology. 2022;163(6):1547-54.e5.

2. Rodriguez-Duque JC et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023;21(2):406-14.e7.

3. Singh S, et al. Gastroenterology. 2023;164(3):344-72.

4. de Voogd F et al. Gastroenterology. 2022;163(6):1569-81.

5. Sandborn WJ et al. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(18):1723-36.

6. Sandborn WJ et al. N Engl J Med. 2021;385(14):1280-91.

7. Sandborn WJ et al. Lancet. 2023 Mar 25;401(10381):1000]. Lancet. 2023;401(10383):1159-71.

8. Danese S et al. Lancet. 2022 Sep 24;400(10357):996]. Lancet. 2022;399(10341):2113-28.

9. Loftus EV Jr et al. N Engl J Med. 2023 May 25;388(21):1966-80.

10. Panes J et al. Am J Gastroenterol 2022;117(S10). Abstract S37.

11. D’Haens G, et al. Lancet. 2022;399(10340):2015-30

12. Sandborn WJ et al. Gastroenterology. 2022;162(6):1650-64.e8.

13. Sands BE, et al. Lancet. 2022;399(10342):2200-11.

14. Travis S et al. N Engl J Med. 2023;388(13):1191-1200.

15. Feagan BG et al. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023;8(4):307-20.

CASE Pregnant woman with intense itching

A 28-year-old woman (G1P0) is seen for a routine prenatal visit at 32 3/7 weeks’ gestation. She reports having generalized intense itching, including on her palms and soles, that is most intense at night and has been present for approximately 1 week. Her pregnancy is otherwise uncomplicated to date. Physical exam is within normal limits, with no evidence of a skin rash. Cholestasis of pregnancy is suspected, and laboratory tests are ordered, including bile acids and liver transaminases. Test results show that her aspartate transaminase (AST) and alanine transaminase (ALT) levels are mildly elevated at 55 IU/L and 41 IU/L, respectively, and several days later her bile acid level result is 21 µmol/L.

How should this patient be managed?

Intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy (ICP) affects 0.5% to 0.7% of pregnant individuals and results in maternal pruritus and elevated serum bile acid levels.^1-3 Pruritus in ICP typically is generalized, including occurrence on the palms of the hands and soles of the feet, and it often is reported to be worse at night.⁴ Up to 25% of pregnant women will develop pruritus during pregnancy but the majority will not have ICP.^2,5 Patients with ICP have no associated rash, but clinicians may note excoriations on exam. ICP typically presents in the third trimester of pregnancy but has been reported to occur earlier in gestation.⁶

Making a diagnosis of ICP

The presence of maternal pruritus in the absence of a skin condition along with elevated levels of serum bile acids are required for the diagnosis of ICP.⁷ Thus, a thorough history and physical exam is recommended to rule out another skin condition that could potentially explain the patient’s pruritus.

Some controversy exists regarding the bile acid level cutoff that should be used to make a diagnosis of ICP.⁸ It has been noted that nonfasting serum bile acid levels in pregnancy are considerably higher than those in in the nonpregnant state, and an upper limit of 18 µmol/L has been proposed as a cutoff in pregnancy.⁹ However, nonfasting total serum bile acids also have been shown to vary considerably by race, with levels 25.8% higher in Black women compared with those in White women and 24.3% higher in Black women compared with those in south Asian women.⁹ This raises the question of whether we should be using race-specific bile acid values to make a diagnosis of ICP.

Bile acid levels also vary based on whether a patient is in a fasting or postprandial state.¹⁰ Despite this variation, most guidelines do not recommend testing fasting bile acid levels as the postprandial state effect overall is small.^7,9,11 The Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM) recommends that if a pregnancy-specific bile acid range is available from the laboratory, then the upper limit of normal for pregnancy should be used when making a diagnosis of ICP.⁷ The SMFM guidelines also acknowledge, however, that pregnancy-specific values rarely are available, and in this case, levels above the upper limit of normal—often 10 µmol/L should be considered diagnostic for ICP until further evidence regarding optimal bile acid cutoff levels in pregnancy becomes available.⁷

For patients with suspected ICP, liver transaminase levels should be measured in addition to nonfasting serum bile acid levels.⁷ A thorough history should include assessment for additional symptoms of liver disease, such as changes in weight, appetite, jaundice, excessive fatigue, malaise, and abdominal pain.⁷ Elevated transaminases levels may be associated with ICP, but they are not necessary for diagnosis. In the absence of additional clinical symptoms that suggest underlying liver disease or severe early onset ICP, additional evaluation beyond nonfasting serum bile acids and liver transaminase levels, such as liver ultrasonography or evaluation for viral or autoimmune hepatitis, is not recommended.⁷ Obstetric care clinicians should be aware that there is an increased incidence of preeclampsia among patients with ICP, although no specific guidance regarding further recommendations for screening is provided.⁷

PHOTO: CHAJAMP/SHUTTERSTOCK

Continue to: Risks associated with ICP...

Risks associated with ICP

For both patients and clinicians, the greatest concern among patients with ICP is the increased risk of stillbirth. Stillbirth risk in ICP appears to be related to serum bile acid levels and has been reported to be highest in patients with bile acid levels greater than 100 µmol/L. A systematic review and meta-analysis of ICP studies demonstrated no increased risk of stillbirth among patients with bile acid levels less than 100 µmol/L.¹² These results, however, must be interpreted with extreme caution as the majority of studies included patients with ICP who were actively managed with attempts to mitigate the risk of stillbirth.⁷

In the absence of additional pregnancy risk factors, the risk of stillbirth among patients with ICP and serum bile acid levels between 19 and 39 µmol/L does not appear to be elevated above their baseline risk.¹¹ The same is true for pregnant individuals with ICP and no additional pregnancy risk factors with serum bile acid levels between 40 and 99 µmol/L until approximately 38 weeks’ gestation, when the risk of stillbirth is elevated.¹¹ The risk of stillbirth is elevated in ICP with peak bile acid levels greater than 100 µmol/L, with an absolute risk of 3.44%.¹¹

Management of patients with ICP

Laboratory evaluation

There is no consensus on the need for repeat testing of bile acid levels in patients with ICP. SMFM advises that follow-up testing of bile acid levels may help to guide delivery timing, especially in cases of severe ICP, but the society recommends against serial testing.⁷ By contrast, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) provides a detailed algorithm regarding time intervals between serum bile acid level testing to guide delivery timing.¹¹ The TABLE lists the strategy for reassessment of serum bile acid levels in ICP as recommended by the RCOG.¹¹

In the United States, bile acid testing traditionally takes several days as the testing is commonly performed at reference laboratories. We therefore suggest that clinicians consider repeating bile acid level testing in situations in which the timing of delivery may be altered if further elevations of bile acid levels were noted. This is particularly relevant for patients diagnosed with ICP early in the third trimester when repeat bile acid levels would still allow for an adjustment in delivery timing.

Antepartum fetal surveillance

Unfortunately, antepartum fetal testing for pregnant patients with ICP does not appear to reliably predict or prevent stillbirth as several studies have reported stillbirths within days of normal fetal testing.^13-16 It is therefore important to counsel pregnant patients regarding monitoring of fetal movements and advise them to present for evaluation if concerns arise.

Currently, SMFM recommends that patients with ICP should begin antenatal fetal surveillance at a gestational age when abnormal fetal testing would result in delivery.⁷ Patients should be counseled, however, regarding the unpredictability of stillbirth with ICP in the setting of a low absolute risk of such.

Medications

While SMFM recommends a starting dose of ursodeoxycholic acid 10 to 15 mg/kg per day divided into 2 or 3 daily doses as first-line therapy for the treatment of maternal symptoms of ICP, it is important to acknowledge that the goal of treatment is to alleviate maternal symptoms as there is no evidence that ursodeoxycholic acid improves either maternal serum bile acid levels or perinatal outcomes.^7,17,18 Since publication of the guidelines, ursodeoxycholic acid’s lack of benefit has been further confirmed in a meta-analysis, and thus discontinuation is not unreasonable in the absence of any improvement in maternal symptoms.¹⁸

Timing of delivery

The optimal management of ICP remains unknown. SMFM recommends delivery based on peak serum bile acid levels. Delivery is recommended at 36 weeks’ gestation with ICP and total bile acid levels greater than 100 µmol/L as these patients have the greatest risk of stillbirth.⁷ For patients with ICP and bile acid levels less than 100 µmol/L, delivery is recommended between 36 0/7 and 39 0/7 weeks’ gestation.⁷ This is a wide gestational age window for clinicians to consider timing of delivery, and certainly the risks of stillbirth should be carefully balanced with the morbidity associated with a preterm or early term delivery.

For patients with ICP who have bile acid levels greater than 40 µmol/L, it is reasonable to consider delivery earlier in the gestational age window, given an evidence of increased risk of stillbirth after 38 weeks.^7,12 For patients with ICP who have bile acid levels less than 40 µmol/L, delivery closer to 39 weeks’ gestation is recommended, as the risk of stillbirth does not appear to be increased above the baseline risk.^7,12 Clinicians should be aware that the presence of concomitant morbidities, such as preeclampsia and gestational diabetes, are associated with an increased risk of stillbirth and should be considered for delivery planning.¹⁹

Postpartum follow-up

Routine laboratory evaluation following delivery is not recommended.⁷ However, in the presence of persistent pruritus or other signs and symptoms of hepatobiliary disease, liver function tests should be repeated with referral to hepatology if results are persistently abnormal 4 to 6 weeks postpartum.⁷

CASE Patient follow-up and outcomes

The patient was counseled regarding the diagnosis of ICP. Following shared decision making, the patient opted to undergo twice weekly nonstress tests but was aware to carefully monitor fetal movements due to the unpredictability of stillbirth in ICP. The patient also opted to trial ursodeoxycholic acid for relief of maternal symptoms. Two weeks after her initial diagnosis, repeat total bile acid levels were stable at 22 µmol/L. Therefore, following extensive counseling, the patient opted to undergo induction of labor at 38 weeks’ gestation, with a normal outcome for mother and neonate. ●

CASE Pregnant woman with intense itching

A 28-year-old woman (G1P0) is seen for a routine prenatal visit at 32 3/7 weeks’ gestation. She reports having generalized intense itching, including on her palms and soles, that is most intense at night and has been present for approximately 1 week. Her pregnancy is otherwise uncomplicated to date. Physical exam is within normal limits, with no evidence of a skin rash. Cholestasis of pregnancy is suspected, and laboratory tests are ordered, including bile acids and liver transaminases. Test results show that her aspartate transaminase (AST) and alanine transaminase (ALT) levels are mildly elevated at 55 IU/L and 41 IU/L, respectively, and several days later her bile acid level result is 21 µmol/L.

How should this patient be managed?

Intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy (ICP) affects 0.5% to 0.7% of pregnant individuals and results in maternal pruritus and elevated serum bile acid levels.^1-3 Pruritus in ICP typically is generalized, including occurrence on the palms of the hands and soles of the feet, and it often is reported to be worse at night.⁴ Up to 25% of pregnant women will develop pruritus during pregnancy but the majority will not have ICP.^2,5 Patients with ICP have no associated rash, but clinicians may note excoriations on exam. ICP typically presents in the third trimester of pregnancy but has been reported to occur earlier in gestation.⁶

Making a diagnosis of ICP

The presence of maternal pruritus in the absence of a skin condition along with elevated levels of serum bile acids are required for the diagnosis of ICP.⁷ Thus, a thorough history and physical exam is recommended to rule out another skin condition that could potentially explain the patient’s pruritus.

Some controversy exists regarding the bile acid level cutoff that should be used to make a diagnosis of ICP.⁸ It has been noted that nonfasting serum bile acid levels in pregnancy are considerably higher than those in in the nonpregnant state, and an upper limit of 18 µmol/L has been proposed as a cutoff in pregnancy.⁹ However, nonfasting total serum bile acids also have been shown to vary considerably by race, with levels 25.8% higher in Black women compared with those in White women and 24.3% higher in Black women compared with those in south Asian women.⁹ This raises the question of whether we should be using race-specific bile acid values to make a diagnosis of ICP.

Bile acid levels also vary based on whether a patient is in a fasting or postprandial state.¹⁰ Despite this variation, most guidelines do not recommend testing fasting bile acid levels as the postprandial state effect overall is small.^7,9,11 The Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM) recommends that if a pregnancy-specific bile acid range is available from the laboratory, then the upper limit of normal for pregnancy should be used when making a diagnosis of ICP.⁷ The SMFM guidelines also acknowledge, however, that pregnancy-specific values rarely are available, and in this case, levels above the upper limit of normal—often 10 µmol/L should be considered diagnostic for ICP until further evidence regarding optimal bile acid cutoff levels in pregnancy becomes available.⁷

For patients with suspected ICP, liver transaminase levels should be measured in addition to nonfasting serum bile acid levels.⁷ A thorough history should include assessment for additional symptoms of liver disease, such as changes in weight, appetite, jaundice, excessive fatigue, malaise, and abdominal pain.⁷ Elevated transaminases levels may be associated with ICP, but they are not necessary for diagnosis. In the absence of additional clinical symptoms that suggest underlying liver disease or severe early onset ICP, additional evaluation beyond nonfasting serum bile acids and liver transaminase levels, such as liver ultrasonography or evaluation for viral or autoimmune hepatitis, is not recommended.⁷ Obstetric care clinicians should be aware that there is an increased incidence of preeclampsia among patients with ICP, although no specific guidance regarding further recommendations for screening is provided.⁷

PHOTO: CHAJAMP/SHUTTERSTOCK

Continue to: Risks associated with ICP...

Risks associated with ICP

For both patients and clinicians, the greatest concern among patients with ICP is the increased risk of stillbirth. Stillbirth risk in ICP appears to be related to serum bile acid levels and has been reported to be highest in patients with bile acid levels greater than 100 µmol/L. A systematic review and meta-analysis of ICP studies demonstrated no increased risk of stillbirth among patients with bile acid levels less than 100 µmol/L.¹² These results, however, must be interpreted with extreme caution as the majority of studies included patients with ICP who were actively managed with attempts to mitigate the risk of stillbirth.⁷

In the absence of additional pregnancy risk factors, the risk of stillbirth among patients with ICP and serum bile acid levels between 19 and 39 µmol/L does not appear to be elevated above their baseline risk.¹¹ The same is true for pregnant individuals with ICP and no additional pregnancy risk factors with serum bile acid levels between 40 and 99 µmol/L until approximately 38 weeks’ gestation, when the risk of stillbirth is elevated.¹¹ The risk of stillbirth is elevated in ICP with peak bile acid levels greater than 100 µmol/L, with an absolute risk of 3.44%.¹¹

Management of patients with ICP

Laboratory evaluation

There is no consensus on the need for repeat testing of bile acid levels in patients with ICP. SMFM advises that follow-up testing of bile acid levels may help to guide delivery timing, especially in cases of severe ICP, but the society recommends against serial testing.⁷ By contrast, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) provides a detailed algorithm regarding time intervals between serum bile acid level testing to guide delivery timing.¹¹ The TABLE lists the strategy for reassessment of serum bile acid levels in ICP as recommended by the RCOG.¹¹

In the United States, bile acid testing traditionally takes several days as the testing is commonly performed at reference laboratories. We therefore suggest that clinicians consider repeating bile acid level testing in situations in which the timing of delivery may be altered if further elevations of bile acid levels were noted. This is particularly relevant for patients diagnosed with ICP early in the third trimester when repeat bile acid levels would still allow for an adjustment in delivery timing.

Antepartum fetal surveillance

Unfortunately, antepartum fetal testing for pregnant patients with ICP does not appear to reliably predict or prevent stillbirth as several studies have reported stillbirths within days of normal fetal testing.^13-16 It is therefore important to counsel pregnant patients regarding monitoring of fetal movements and advise them to present for evaluation if concerns arise.

Currently, SMFM recommends that patients with ICP should begin antenatal fetal surveillance at a gestational age when abnormal fetal testing would result in delivery.⁷ Patients should be counseled, however, regarding the unpredictability of stillbirth with ICP in the setting of a low absolute risk of such.

Medications

While SMFM recommends a starting dose of ursodeoxycholic acid 10 to 15 mg/kg per day divided into 2 or 3 daily doses as first-line therapy for the treatment of maternal symptoms of ICP, it is important to acknowledge that the goal of treatment is to alleviate maternal symptoms as there is no evidence that ursodeoxycholic acid improves either maternal serum bile acid levels or perinatal outcomes.^7,17,18 Since publication of the guidelines, ursodeoxycholic acid’s lack of benefit has been further confirmed in a meta-analysis, and thus discontinuation is not unreasonable in the absence of any improvement in maternal symptoms.¹⁸

Timing of delivery

The optimal management of ICP remains unknown. SMFM recommends delivery based on peak serum bile acid levels. Delivery is recommended at 36 weeks’ gestation with ICP and total bile acid levels greater than 100 µmol/L as these patients have the greatest risk of stillbirth.⁷ For patients with ICP and bile acid levels less than 100 µmol/L, delivery is recommended between 36 0/7 and 39 0/7 weeks’ gestation.⁷ This is a wide gestational age window for clinicians to consider timing of delivery, and certainly the risks of stillbirth should be carefully balanced with the morbidity associated with a preterm or early term delivery.

For patients with ICP who have bile acid levels greater than 40 µmol/L, it is reasonable to consider delivery earlier in the gestational age window, given an evidence of increased risk of stillbirth after 38 weeks.^7,12 For patients with ICP who have bile acid levels less than 40 µmol/L, delivery closer to 39 weeks’ gestation is recommended, as the risk of stillbirth does not appear to be increased above the baseline risk.^7,12 Clinicians should be aware that the presence of concomitant morbidities, such as preeclampsia and gestational diabetes, are associated with an increased risk of stillbirth and should be considered for delivery planning.¹⁹

Postpartum follow-up

Routine laboratory evaluation following delivery is not recommended.⁷ However, in the presence of persistent pruritus or other signs and symptoms of hepatobiliary disease, liver function tests should be repeated with referral to hepatology if results are persistently abnormal 4 to 6 weeks postpartum.⁷

CASE Patient follow-up and outcomes

The patient was counseled regarding the diagnosis of ICP. Following shared decision making, the patient opted to undergo twice weekly nonstress tests but was aware to carefully monitor fetal movements due to the unpredictability of stillbirth in ICP. The patient also opted to trial ursodeoxycholic acid for relief of maternal symptoms. Two weeks after her initial diagnosis, repeat total bile acid levels were stable at 22 µmol/L. Therefore, following extensive counseling, the patient opted to undergo induction of labor at 38 weeks’ gestation, with a normal outcome for mother and neonate. ●

CASE Pregnant woman with intense itching

A 28-year-old woman (G1P0) is seen for a routine prenatal visit at 32 3/7 weeks’ gestation. She reports having generalized intense itching, including on her palms and soles, that is most intense at night and has been present for approximately 1 week. Her pregnancy is otherwise uncomplicated to date. Physical exam is within normal limits, with no evidence of a skin rash. Cholestasis of pregnancy is suspected, and laboratory tests are ordered, including bile acids and liver transaminases. Test results show that her aspartate transaminase (AST) and alanine transaminase (ALT) levels are mildly elevated at 55 IU/L and 41 IU/L, respectively, and several days later her bile acid level result is 21 µmol/L.

How should this patient be managed?

Intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy (ICP) affects 0.5% to 0.7% of pregnant individuals and results in maternal pruritus and elevated serum bile acid levels.^1-3 Pruritus in ICP typically is generalized, including occurrence on the palms of the hands and soles of the feet, and it often is reported to be worse at night.⁴ Up to 25% of pregnant women will develop pruritus during pregnancy but the majority will not have ICP.^2,5 Patients with ICP have no associated rash, but clinicians may note excoriations on exam. ICP typically presents in the third trimester of pregnancy but has been reported to occur earlier in gestation.⁶

Making a diagnosis of ICP

The presence of maternal pruritus in the absence of a skin condition along with elevated levels of serum bile acids are required for the diagnosis of ICP.⁷ Thus, a thorough history and physical exam is recommended to rule out another skin condition that could potentially explain the patient’s pruritus.

Some controversy exists regarding the bile acid level cutoff that should be used to make a diagnosis of ICP.⁸ It has been noted that nonfasting serum bile acid levels in pregnancy are considerably higher than those in in the nonpregnant state, and an upper limit of 18 µmol/L has been proposed as a cutoff in pregnancy.⁹ However, nonfasting total serum bile acids also have been shown to vary considerably by race, with levels 25.8% higher in Black women compared with those in White women and 24.3% higher in Black women compared with those in south Asian women.⁹ This raises the question of whether we should be using race-specific bile acid values to make a diagnosis of ICP.

Bile acid levels also vary based on whether a patient is in a fasting or postprandial state.¹⁰ Despite this variation, most guidelines do not recommend testing fasting bile acid levels as the postprandial state effect overall is small.^7,9,11 The Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM) recommends that if a pregnancy-specific bile acid range is available from the laboratory, then the upper limit of normal for pregnancy should be used when making a diagnosis of ICP.⁷ The SMFM guidelines also acknowledge, however, that pregnancy-specific values rarely are available, and in this case, levels above the upper limit of normal—often 10 µmol/L should be considered diagnostic for ICP until further evidence regarding optimal bile acid cutoff levels in pregnancy becomes available.⁷

For patients with suspected ICP, liver transaminase levels should be measured in addition to nonfasting serum bile acid levels.⁷ A thorough history should include assessment for additional symptoms of liver disease, such as changes in weight, appetite, jaundice, excessive fatigue, malaise, and abdominal pain.⁷ Elevated transaminases levels may be associated with ICP, but they are not necessary for diagnosis. In the absence of additional clinical symptoms that suggest underlying liver disease or severe early onset ICP, additional evaluation beyond nonfasting serum bile acids and liver transaminase levels, such as liver ultrasonography or evaluation for viral or autoimmune hepatitis, is not recommended.⁷ Obstetric care clinicians should be aware that there is an increased incidence of preeclampsia among patients with ICP, although no specific guidance regarding further recommendations for screening is provided.⁷

PHOTO: CHAJAMP/SHUTTERSTOCK

Continue to: Risks associated with ICP...

Risks associated with ICP

For both patients and clinicians, the greatest concern among patients with ICP is the increased risk of stillbirth. Stillbirth risk in ICP appears to be related to serum bile acid levels and has been reported to be highest in patients with bile acid levels greater than 100 µmol/L. A systematic review and meta-analysis of ICP studies demonstrated no increased risk of stillbirth among patients with bile acid levels less than 100 µmol/L.¹² These results, however, must be interpreted with extreme caution as the majority of studies included patients with ICP who were actively managed with attempts to mitigate the risk of stillbirth.⁷

In the absence of additional pregnancy risk factors, the risk of stillbirth among patients with ICP and serum bile acid levels between 19 and 39 µmol/L does not appear to be elevated above their baseline risk.¹¹ The same is true for pregnant individuals with ICP and no additional pregnancy risk factors with serum bile acid levels between 40 and 99 µmol/L until approximately 38 weeks’ gestation, when the risk of stillbirth is elevated.¹¹ The risk of stillbirth is elevated in ICP with peak bile acid levels greater than 100 µmol/L, with an absolute risk of 3.44%.¹¹

Management of patients with ICP

Laboratory evaluation

There is no consensus on the need for repeat testing of bile acid levels in patients with ICP. SMFM advises that follow-up testing of bile acid levels may help to guide delivery timing, especially in cases of severe ICP, but the society recommends against serial testing.⁷ By contrast, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) provides a detailed algorithm regarding time intervals between serum bile acid level testing to guide delivery timing.¹¹ The TABLE lists the strategy for reassessment of serum bile acid levels in ICP as recommended by the RCOG.¹¹

In the United States, bile acid testing traditionally takes several days as the testing is commonly performed at reference laboratories. We therefore suggest that clinicians consider repeating bile acid level testing in situations in which the timing of delivery may be altered if further elevations of bile acid levels were noted. This is particularly relevant for patients diagnosed with ICP early in the third trimester when repeat bile acid levels would still allow for an adjustment in delivery timing.

Antepartum fetal surveillance

Unfortunately, antepartum fetal testing for pregnant patients with ICP does not appear to reliably predict or prevent stillbirth as several studies have reported stillbirths within days of normal fetal testing.^13-16 It is therefore important to counsel pregnant patients regarding monitoring of fetal movements and advise them to present for evaluation if concerns arise.

Currently, SMFM recommends that patients with ICP should begin antenatal fetal surveillance at a gestational age when abnormal fetal testing would result in delivery.⁷ Patients should be counseled, however, regarding the unpredictability of stillbirth with ICP in the setting of a low absolute risk of such.

Medications

While SMFM recommends a starting dose of ursodeoxycholic acid 10 to 15 mg/kg per day divided into 2 or 3 daily doses as first-line therapy for the treatment of maternal symptoms of ICP, it is important to acknowledge that the goal of treatment is to alleviate maternal symptoms as there is no evidence that ursodeoxycholic acid improves either maternal serum bile acid levels or perinatal outcomes.^7,17,18 Since publication of the guidelines, ursodeoxycholic acid’s lack of benefit has been further confirmed in a meta-analysis, and thus discontinuation is not unreasonable in the absence of any improvement in maternal symptoms.¹⁸

Timing of delivery

The optimal management of ICP remains unknown. SMFM recommends delivery based on peak serum bile acid levels. Delivery is recommended at 36 weeks’ gestation with ICP and total bile acid levels greater than 100 µmol/L as these patients have the greatest risk of stillbirth.⁷ For patients with ICP and bile acid levels less than 100 µmol/L, delivery is recommended between 36 0/7 and 39 0/7 weeks’ gestation.⁷ This is a wide gestational age window for clinicians to consider timing of delivery, and certainly the risks of stillbirth should be carefully balanced with the morbidity associated with a preterm or early term delivery.

For patients with ICP who have bile acid levels greater than 40 µmol/L, it is reasonable to consider delivery earlier in the gestational age window, given an evidence of increased risk of stillbirth after 38 weeks.^7,12 For patients with ICP who have bile acid levels less than 40 µmol/L, delivery closer to 39 weeks’ gestation is recommended, as the risk of stillbirth does not appear to be increased above the baseline risk.^7,12 Clinicians should be aware that the presence of concomitant morbidities, such as preeclampsia and gestational diabetes, are associated with an increased risk of stillbirth and should be considered for delivery planning.¹⁹

Postpartum follow-up

Routine laboratory evaluation following delivery is not recommended.⁷ However, in the presence of persistent pruritus or other signs and symptoms of hepatobiliary disease, liver function tests should be repeated with referral to hepatology if results are persistently abnormal 4 to 6 weeks postpartum.⁷

CASE Patient follow-up and outcomes

The patient was counseled regarding the diagnosis of ICP. Following shared decision making, the patient opted to undergo twice weekly nonstress tests but was aware to carefully monitor fetal movements due to the unpredictability of stillbirth in ICP. The patient also opted to trial ursodeoxycholic acid for relief of maternal symptoms. Two weeks after her initial diagnosis, repeat total bile acid levels were stable at 22 µmol/L. Therefore, following extensive counseling, the patient opted to undergo induction of labor at 38 weeks’ gestation, with a normal outcome for mother and neonate. ●