At its October 2011 meeting, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended to the CDC that quadrivalent human papilloma virus vaccine (HPV4, Gardasil) be routinely given to all males ages 11 to 21 and to men ages 22 to 26 who have sex with men or who are HIV positive, if they have not been previously vaccinated. This replaces a 2009 recommendation that stated HPV4 vaccine could be used in males to prevent genital warts, but stopped short of advocating routine use for all males.¹

There were 3 reasons the previous recommendation did not include HPV4 for routine vaccination of males:

1. The vaccine had been shown to be effective only for prevention of genital warts.
2. The cost effectiveness of the vaccine for use in boys was poor and, in modeling, it yielded less benefit as more females were vaccinated.
3. It was thought that a more effective approach to preventing HPV disease would be to emphasize high rates of vaccination of females.

The new recommendation takes into account recent evidence demonstrating that the vaccine prevents anal intraepithelial neoplasia (AIN) in males, in addition to genital warts. Moreover, vaccination rates in females remain low, which makes vaccinating males more cost effective and additionally protective for females.

Female vaccination rates lower than expected

Despite its effectiveness and safety record, HPV vaccination has had a slow rate of acceptance among females ages 13 to 17 years. Coverage for this group documented in the last national vaccine survey was 48.7% for one dose and 32% for the recommended 3 doses.²

The vaccine is effective in preventing cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (TABLE 1),³ condyloma, and vaginal intraepithelial neoplasia in women ~15 to 26 years of age. Large studies of vaccine safety have documented no serious adverse reactions, other than syncope, which could occur as frequently as 17.9/10,000 females and 12.5/10,000 males.⁴ Another study that involved post-licensure safety data from >600,000 HPV4 doses found no increased risk for a variety of outcomes, including Guillain-Barré syndrome, stroke, venous thromboembolism, appendicitis, seizures, syncope, allergic reactions, and anaphylaxis.^5,6

TABLE 1
HPV vaccine efficacy against HPV type-related CIN2+ in females ages ~15 to 26 years³

HPV-associated disease in males

HPV causes anal, penile, and oropharyngeal cancers in males, with about 7500 cancers occurring each year in the United States.³ In addition, about 1% of sexually active males in America have genital warts at any one time.⁷ HPV types 6 and 11 cause about 90% of cases.¹

The HPV4 vaccine—when all 3 doses are given—is 89.3% effective in preventing genital warts related to HPV types 6 and 11. Even a single dose is 68.1% effective (95% CI, 48.8–80.7).¹ New evidence shows that HPV4 prevents AIN, which can lead to anal cancer.⁸ Effectiveness in preventing AIN 2/3 is 74.9% (95% CI, 8.8–95.4) in those completing 3 doses before onset of infection with one of the HPV types contained in vaccine. Notably, these results were obtained in a subgroup analysis of men who have sex with men. And although the reduction in AIN is expected to lower the incidence of anal cancer, ongoing studies require time to confirm this. If such a reduction is confirmed (and vaccination is started at age 12 in the general male population), the number-needed-to-vaccinate to prevent one case of genital warts would be 18, and to prevent one case of anal cancer, 1581.⁶

No studies have evaluated efficacy of HPV4 in preventing penile or oropharyngeal cancers.

Men who have sex with men at high risk
Men who have sex with men have higher rates of AIN, anal cancers, and genital warts than the general male population.³ Those who are additionally HIV positive have higher rates of genital warts, which are also more difficult to treat.³ AIN is also more common in HIV-infected males.³ The HPV4 vaccine is immunogenic in those who are HIV infected, although the resulting antibody titers are lower than in other populations.

A look at the 2 HPV vaccines
Two HPV vaccines are available (TABLE 2).³ HPV4 vaccine protects against HPV 6, 11, 16, and 18. Bivalent (HPV2, Cervarix) vaccine contains antigens from HPV 16 and 18. Both vaccines are approved for use in females for the prevention of cervical cancer; HPV4 is preferred if protection against genital warts is also desired. Only HPV4 has been licensed for use in males.

TABLE 2
A look at the human papillomavirus vaccines³

HPV vaccine is effective, but costly

A major consideration with HPV vaccines is their cost. With 3 doses required and each dose costing about $130,⁹ cost effectiveness is poor when preventing uncommon diseases such as cervical and anal cancer, and a relatively benign disease such as genital warts. Male vaccination at age 12 years, when added to a female vaccination program, costs about $20,000 to $40,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) if all potential HPV morbidity is included, not just that which has been proven to be prevented by the vaccine (assuming oral and penile cancer will also be prevented). Counting only HPV disease demonstrated to be prevented by the vaccine, the result is $75,000 to $250,000+ per QALY.⁶ Vaccinating males older than 21 years results in a cost per QALY 2 to 4 times that of vaccinating males younger than 18 years.¹⁰

A final decision. After considering these factors, ACIP approved a set of recommendations at its October 2011 meeting that will become official once they are published in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. (See “ACIP recommendations for HPV vaccine use in males”.)

At its October 2011 meeting, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended to the CDC that quadrivalent human papilloma virus vaccine (HPV4, Gardasil) be routinely given to all males ages 11 to 21 and to men ages 22 to 26 who have sex with men or who are HIV positive, if they have not been previously vaccinated. This replaces a 2009 recommendation that stated HPV4 vaccine could be used in males to prevent genital warts, but stopped short of advocating routine use for all males.¹

There were 3 reasons the previous recommendation did not include HPV4 for routine vaccination of males:

1. The vaccine had been shown to be effective only for prevention of genital warts.
2. The cost effectiveness of the vaccine for use in boys was poor and, in modeling, it yielded less benefit as more females were vaccinated.
3. It was thought that a more effective approach to preventing HPV disease would be to emphasize high rates of vaccination of females.

The new recommendation takes into account recent evidence demonstrating that the vaccine prevents anal intraepithelial neoplasia (AIN) in males, in addition to genital warts. Moreover, vaccination rates in females remain low, which makes vaccinating males more cost effective and additionally protective for females.

Female vaccination rates lower than expected

Despite its effectiveness and safety record, HPV vaccination has had a slow rate of acceptance among females ages 13 to 17 years. Coverage for this group documented in the last national vaccine survey was 48.7% for one dose and 32% for the recommended 3 doses.²

The vaccine is effective in preventing cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (TABLE 1),³ condyloma, and vaginal intraepithelial neoplasia in women ~15 to 26 years of age. Large studies of vaccine safety have documented no serious adverse reactions, other than syncope, which could occur as frequently as 17.9/10,000 females and 12.5/10,000 males.⁴ Another study that involved post-licensure safety data from >600,000 HPV4 doses found no increased risk for a variety of outcomes, including Guillain-Barré syndrome, stroke, venous thromboembolism, appendicitis, seizures, syncope, allergic reactions, and anaphylaxis.^5,6

TABLE 1
HPV vaccine efficacy against HPV type-related CIN2+ in females ages ~15 to 26 years³

HPV-associated disease in males

HPV causes anal, penile, and oropharyngeal cancers in males, with about 7500 cancers occurring each year in the United States.³ In addition, about 1% of sexually active males in America have genital warts at any one time.⁷ HPV types 6 and 11 cause about 90% of cases.¹

The HPV4 vaccine—when all 3 doses are given—is 89.3% effective in preventing genital warts related to HPV types 6 and 11. Even a single dose is 68.1% effective (95% CI, 48.8–80.7).¹ New evidence shows that HPV4 prevents AIN, which can lead to anal cancer.⁸ Effectiveness in preventing AIN 2/3 is 74.9% (95% CI, 8.8–95.4) in those completing 3 doses before onset of infection with one of the HPV types contained in vaccine. Notably, these results were obtained in a subgroup analysis of men who have sex with men. And although the reduction in AIN is expected to lower the incidence of anal cancer, ongoing studies require time to confirm this. If such a reduction is confirmed (and vaccination is started at age 12 in the general male population), the number-needed-to-vaccinate to prevent one case of genital warts would be 18, and to prevent one case of anal cancer, 1581.⁶

No studies have evaluated efficacy of HPV4 in preventing penile or oropharyngeal cancers.

Men who have sex with men at high risk
Men who have sex with men have higher rates of AIN, anal cancers, and genital warts than the general male population.³ Those who are additionally HIV positive have higher rates of genital warts, which are also more difficult to treat.³ AIN is also more common in HIV-infected males.³ The HPV4 vaccine is immunogenic in those who are HIV infected, although the resulting antibody titers are lower than in other populations.

A look at the 2 HPV vaccines
Two HPV vaccines are available (TABLE 2).³ HPV4 vaccine protects against HPV 6, 11, 16, and 18. Bivalent (HPV2, Cervarix) vaccine contains antigens from HPV 16 and 18. Both vaccines are approved for use in females for the prevention of cervical cancer; HPV4 is preferred if protection against genital warts is also desired. Only HPV4 has been licensed for use in males.

TABLE 2
A look at the human papillomavirus vaccines³

HPV vaccine is effective, but costly

A major consideration with HPV vaccines is their cost. With 3 doses required and each dose costing about $130,⁹ cost effectiveness is poor when preventing uncommon diseases such as cervical and anal cancer, and a relatively benign disease such as genital warts. Male vaccination at age 12 years, when added to a female vaccination program, costs about $20,000 to $40,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) if all potential HPV morbidity is included, not just that which has been proven to be prevented by the vaccine (assuming oral and penile cancer will also be prevented). Counting only HPV disease demonstrated to be prevented by the vaccine, the result is $75,000 to $250,000+ per QALY.⁶ Vaccinating males older than 21 years results in a cost per QALY 2 to 4 times that of vaccinating males younger than 18 years.¹⁰

A final decision. After considering these factors, ACIP approved a set of recommendations at its October 2011 meeting that will become official once they are published in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. (See “ACIP recommendations for HPV vaccine use in males”.)

At its October 2011 meeting, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended to the CDC that quadrivalent human papilloma virus vaccine (HPV4, Gardasil) be routinely given to all males ages 11 to 21 and to men ages 22 to 26 who have sex with men or who are HIV positive, if they have not been previously vaccinated. This replaces a 2009 recommendation that stated HPV4 vaccine could be used in males to prevent genital warts, but stopped short of advocating routine use for all males.¹

There were 3 reasons the previous recommendation did not include HPV4 for routine vaccination of males:

1. The vaccine had been shown to be effective only for prevention of genital warts.
2. The cost effectiveness of the vaccine for use in boys was poor and, in modeling, it yielded less benefit as more females were vaccinated.
3. It was thought that a more effective approach to preventing HPV disease would be to emphasize high rates of vaccination of females.

The new recommendation takes into account recent evidence demonstrating that the vaccine prevents anal intraepithelial neoplasia (AIN) in males, in addition to genital warts. Moreover, vaccination rates in females remain low, which makes vaccinating males more cost effective and additionally protective for females.

Female vaccination rates lower than expected

Despite its effectiveness and safety record, HPV vaccination has had a slow rate of acceptance among females ages 13 to 17 years. Coverage for this group documented in the last national vaccine survey was 48.7% for one dose and 32% for the recommended 3 doses.²

The vaccine is effective in preventing cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (TABLE 1),³ condyloma, and vaginal intraepithelial neoplasia in women ~15 to 26 years of age. Large studies of vaccine safety have documented no serious adverse reactions, other than syncope, which could occur as frequently as 17.9/10,000 females and 12.5/10,000 males.⁴ Another study that involved post-licensure safety data from >600,000 HPV4 doses found no increased risk for a variety of outcomes, including Guillain-Barré syndrome, stroke, venous thromboembolism, appendicitis, seizures, syncope, allergic reactions, and anaphylaxis.^5,6

TABLE 1
HPV vaccine efficacy against HPV type-related CIN2+ in females ages ~15 to 26 years³

HPV-associated disease in males

HPV causes anal, penile, and oropharyngeal cancers in males, with about 7500 cancers occurring each year in the United States.³ In addition, about 1% of sexually active males in America have genital warts at any one time.⁷ HPV types 6 and 11 cause about 90% of cases.¹

The HPV4 vaccine—when all 3 doses are given—is 89.3% effective in preventing genital warts related to HPV types 6 and 11. Even a single dose is 68.1% effective (95% CI, 48.8–80.7).¹ New evidence shows that HPV4 prevents AIN, which can lead to anal cancer.⁸ Effectiveness in preventing AIN 2/3 is 74.9% (95% CI, 8.8–95.4) in those completing 3 doses before onset of infection with one of the HPV types contained in vaccine. Notably, these results were obtained in a subgroup analysis of men who have sex with men. And although the reduction in AIN is expected to lower the incidence of anal cancer, ongoing studies require time to confirm this. If such a reduction is confirmed (and vaccination is started at age 12 in the general male population), the number-needed-to-vaccinate to prevent one case of genital warts would be 18, and to prevent one case of anal cancer, 1581.⁶

No studies have evaluated efficacy of HPV4 in preventing penile or oropharyngeal cancers.

Men who have sex with men at high risk
Men who have sex with men have higher rates of AIN, anal cancers, and genital warts than the general male population.³ Those who are additionally HIV positive have higher rates of genital warts, which are also more difficult to treat.³ AIN is also more common in HIV-infected males.³ The HPV4 vaccine is immunogenic in those who are HIV infected, although the resulting antibody titers are lower than in other populations.

A look at the 2 HPV vaccines
Two HPV vaccines are available (TABLE 2).³ HPV4 vaccine protects against HPV 6, 11, 16, and 18. Bivalent (HPV2, Cervarix) vaccine contains antigens from HPV 16 and 18. Both vaccines are approved for use in females for the prevention of cervical cancer; HPV4 is preferred if protection against genital warts is also desired. Only HPV4 has been licensed for use in males.

TABLE 2
A look at the human papillomavirus vaccines³

HPV vaccine is effective, but costly

A major consideration with HPV vaccines is their cost. With 3 doses required and each dose costing about $130,⁹ cost effectiveness is poor when preventing uncommon diseases such as cervical and anal cancer, and a relatively benign disease such as genital warts. Male vaccination at age 12 years, when added to a female vaccination program, costs about $20,000 to $40,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) if all potential HPV morbidity is included, not just that which has been proven to be prevented by the vaccine (assuming oral and penile cancer will also be prevented). Counting only HPV disease demonstrated to be prevented by the vaccine, the result is $75,000 to $250,000+ per QALY.⁶ Vaccinating males older than 21 years results in a cost per QALY 2 to 4 times that of vaccinating males younger than 18 years.¹⁰

A final decision. After considering these factors, ACIP approved a set of recommendations at its October 2011 meeting that will become official once they are published in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. (See “ACIP recommendations for HPV vaccine use in males”.)

CASE As part of a routine physical examination, urinalysis reveals that a patient new to your practice is excreting an excessive level of protein. The patient is physically fit and shared during the history taking that he is an avid runner. The physical examination and other laboratory values were unremarkable. How concerned should you be about the finding of proteinuria?

Exercise-induced proteinuria is generally benign and a function of the intensity—rather than the duration—of exercise.¹ It occurs most often among athletes participating in such sports as running, swimming, rowing, football, or boxing.² It’s also transient—lasting 24 to 48 hours.¹ Recognizing exercise-induced proteinuria is fairly straightforward—once you know what to look for.

But first, a word about the processes at work.

Diverse processes that work alone—or together

The normal range of protein excretion in healthy individuals is 150 to 200 mg of protein per day, of which albumin constitutes 10 to 20 mg.³ Individuals with proteinuria persistently higher than this level need further evaluation.

Diverse processes leading to proteinuria—working alone or concomitantly—occur at the level of the nephron.³

Glomerular proteinuria results from increased filtration of macromolecules such as albumin across the glomerular capillary barrier. This type of proteinuria can occur with different glomerulopathies, upright posture, or exercise.⁴

Researchers have not identified the mechanisms leading to postexercise proteinuria, but there are several theories. (For more on this, see “Why does exercise increase protein excretion?”.)

Tubular proteinuria is due to a deranged tubular apparatus with an intact glomerulus. This results in the escape of β2-microglobulin and immunoglobulin light chains from proximal tubular reabsorption. It is often missed on dipstick testing, which detects only albumin. This type of proteinuria is usually seen in tubulointerstitial diseases or in patients with idiopathic nephrotic syndrome.⁵

Overflow proteinuria occurs when small molecular light chains escape the glomerular filtration barrier and overwhelm the tubular reabsorptive capacity. This type of proteinuria can be seen in multiple myeloma, and is detectable by protein-to-creatinine ratio or urine protein electrophoresis.

The surest means of detecting proteinuria
Albumin excretion >300 mg/d is called macroalbuminuria, overt proteinuria, or dipstick-positive proteinuria. Albumin persistently excreted in the urine between 30 and 300 mg/d is referred to as microalbuminuria.

Because microalbuminuria is not detectable by a standard urine dipstick test, some providers routinely screen for protein with the microalbumin-to-creatinine ratio. A first-voided morning urine specimen is recommended, but random urine samples are an acceptable alternative.⁶ The microalbumin-to-creatinine ratio is recommended as a screen for early diabetic nephropathy and other kidney diseases. And a positive test result may also suggest increased risk of cardiovascular disease.⁶ Microalbuminuria is defined as persistent albumin excretion between 30 and 300 mg/d.⁷

When exercise is a factor, here’s what to look for

As noted earlier, exercise-induced proteinuria is a function of the intensity of the exercise. Moderate and strenuous (vigorous) exercise are the 2 types of exercise that come into play when discussing proteinuria. Differentiating them is not precise, but is often defined by maximal oxygen consumption (vigorous=60% of VO₂max; moderate <60% VO₂max); metabolic equivalents (vigorous=6 METS; moderate <6 METS); walking/running speeds (various); and heart rate reserve (vigorous=60% HRR; moderate <60% HRR).⁸

Moderate exercise produces glomerular proteinuria, with an increase in macromolecular (albumin) filtration across the glomerular barrier. Strenuous exercise increases glomerular filtration of low-molecular-weight proteins (β2-microglobulin), which overwhelm the reabsorbing capacity of the tubular apparatus, causing temporary dysfunction and tubular proteinuria.⁹ Thus, the pathophysiology is mixed, with a major contribution from glomerular proteinuria.¹⁰

Strenuous exercise can cause protein excretion to exceed 1.5 mg/min.¹¹ However, it seldom rises beyond 1 to 2 g/d,⁴ and this increase usually reverts to normal physiologic levels within 24 to 48 hours after exercise.¹²

Exercise-induced proteinuria is biphasic.¹³ Increased protein excretion occurs 30 minutes after exercise and is related to changes in intraglomerular hemodynamics and the resulting saturation of the renal tubules. Around 24 hours after exercise, oxidative stress on the glomeruli causes another slight elevation in albumin excretion without changes in β2-microglobulin, thereby indicating glomerular proteinuria exclusively.

Even the pros aren’t exempt. Exercise-induced proteinuria does not decrease with regular physical training. This was demonstrated in a study of 10 well-trained professional cyclists for whom strenuous exercise increased overnight protein excretion of both tubular and glomerular origin despite ongoing regular physical training.¹⁴

Creatine supplements do not increase proteinuria. A study of creatine supplementation in animal models noted no changes in 24-hour proteinuria or albumin excretion in both normal and two-thirds-nephrectomized animals.¹⁵ Another study compared creatine use with nonuse in athletes who had been training regularly and strenuously (12- 18 h/wk) for 5 to 10 years. They were evaluated for 10 months to 5 years. The groups exhibited equivalent urine excretion rates for albumin and creatinine, with no deleterious effect on kidney function.¹⁶

What happens when chronic disease is factored into the exercise equation?
Patients with a 2- to 20-year history of insulin-dependent diabetes without chronic kidney disease (CKD) who exhibited normal albumin excretion at baseline were more likely to develop proteinuria after exercise than healthy controls.^17,18 The postulated cause was undetected glomerular changes due to diabetes. An exercise-provocation test may one day be useful in predicting future development of nephropathy, but further studies are needed.^19-21

Exercise increases proteinuria immediately in individuals with metabolic disorders like obesity, through a mechanism different from diabetes mellitus. Proteinuria in the obese population is thought to be glomerular in origin, as opposed to both tubular and glomerular proteinuria in diabetic nephropathy.^22,23

In CKD, low-intensity exercise long term does not promote proteinuria or lead to rapid progression of CKD. In one study, obese patients (body mass index >30 kg/m²) with diabetes and CKD stage II to IV who exercised 3 times weekly (aerobic training for 6 weeks, followed by 18 weeks of supervised home exercise) increased their stamina and exhibited slight, statistically insignificant decreases in resting systolic blood pressure and 24-hour proteinuria.²⁴ A 12-week low-intensity aquatic exercise program for 26 patients with mild to moderate CKD decreased blood pressure and proteinuria and slightly improved glomerular filtration rate (GFR).²⁵ These results for proteinuria and GFR were shown previously in rats with subtotal nephrectomy.²⁶

Elevated urinary albumin excretion with exercise is significantly higher in patients with acromegaly when compared with normal healthy subjects. The underlying pathology is thought to occur at the glomerular filtration barrier with intact tubular function. Somatostatin analog treatment for acromegaly leads to reductions in postexercise albuminuria.^27,28

How to manage suspected exercise-induced proteinuria

When interpreting the meaning of proteinuria detected on routine urinalysis, keep in mind the temporal relevance between exercise and urine collection. If urine is found to have been collected within 24 hours of intense exercise, repeat testing in the absence of prior exercise on at least one other occasion to differentiate between transient and persistent proteinuria. In confirming transient proteinuria after exercise, reassure the patient that it is a benign condition. This holds true as well for routine microalbumin-to-creatinine urine testing in patients with diabetes who exercise. If the result of a repeat test is high, turn your attention to another possible cause of proteinuria, such as diabetic nephropathy.

Screening for proteinuria during sports preparticipation examinations is not recommended because the diagnostic utility is low.²⁹ Researchers performed urine dipstick testing for protein, blood, and glucose in preparticipation assessments of 701 students.²⁹ They detected proteinuria in 40 students and glucosuria in one. Follow-up testing with first-voided morning urine specimens and glucose tolerance testing was normal in all students.

CORRESPONDENCE Fahad Saeed, MD, 313 Brook Hollow, Hanover, NH 03755; [email protected]

CASE As part of a routine physical examination, urinalysis reveals that a patient new to your practice is excreting an excessive level of protein. The patient is physically fit and shared during the history taking that he is an avid runner. The physical examination and other laboratory values were unremarkable. How concerned should you be about the finding of proteinuria?

Exercise-induced proteinuria is generally benign and a function of the intensity—rather than the duration—of exercise.¹ It occurs most often among athletes participating in such sports as running, swimming, rowing, football, or boxing.² It’s also transient—lasting 24 to 48 hours.¹ Recognizing exercise-induced proteinuria is fairly straightforward—once you know what to look for.

But first, a word about the processes at work.

Diverse processes that work alone—or together

The normal range of protein excretion in healthy individuals is 150 to 200 mg of protein per day, of which albumin constitutes 10 to 20 mg.³ Individuals with proteinuria persistently higher than this level need further evaluation.

Diverse processes leading to proteinuria—working alone or concomitantly—occur at the level of the nephron.³

Glomerular proteinuria results from increased filtration of macromolecules such as albumin across the glomerular capillary barrier. This type of proteinuria can occur with different glomerulopathies, upright posture, or exercise.⁴

Researchers have not identified the mechanisms leading to postexercise proteinuria, but there are several theories. (For more on this, see “Why does exercise increase protein excretion?”.)

Tubular proteinuria is due to a deranged tubular apparatus with an intact glomerulus. This results in the escape of β2-microglobulin and immunoglobulin light chains from proximal tubular reabsorption. It is often missed on dipstick testing, which detects only albumin. This type of proteinuria is usually seen in tubulointerstitial diseases or in patients with idiopathic nephrotic syndrome.⁵

Overflow proteinuria occurs when small molecular light chains escape the glomerular filtration barrier and overwhelm the tubular reabsorptive capacity. This type of proteinuria can be seen in multiple myeloma, and is detectable by protein-to-creatinine ratio or urine protein electrophoresis.

The surest means of detecting proteinuria
Albumin excretion >300 mg/d is called macroalbuminuria, overt proteinuria, or dipstick-positive proteinuria. Albumin persistently excreted in the urine between 30 and 300 mg/d is referred to as microalbuminuria.

Because microalbuminuria is not detectable by a standard urine dipstick test, some providers routinely screen for protein with the microalbumin-to-creatinine ratio. A first-voided morning urine specimen is recommended, but random urine samples are an acceptable alternative.⁶ The microalbumin-to-creatinine ratio is recommended as a screen for early diabetic nephropathy and other kidney diseases. And a positive test result may also suggest increased risk of cardiovascular disease.⁶ Microalbuminuria is defined as persistent albumin excretion between 30 and 300 mg/d.⁷

When exercise is a factor, here’s what to look for

As noted earlier, exercise-induced proteinuria is a function of the intensity of the exercise. Moderate and strenuous (vigorous) exercise are the 2 types of exercise that come into play when discussing proteinuria. Differentiating them is not precise, but is often defined by maximal oxygen consumption (vigorous=60% of VO₂max; moderate <60% VO₂max); metabolic equivalents (vigorous=6 METS; moderate <6 METS); walking/running speeds (various); and heart rate reserve (vigorous=60% HRR; moderate <60% HRR).⁸

Moderate exercise produces glomerular proteinuria, with an increase in macromolecular (albumin) filtration across the glomerular barrier. Strenuous exercise increases glomerular filtration of low-molecular-weight proteins (β2-microglobulin), which overwhelm the reabsorbing capacity of the tubular apparatus, causing temporary dysfunction and tubular proteinuria.⁹ Thus, the pathophysiology is mixed, with a major contribution from glomerular proteinuria.¹⁰

Strenuous exercise can cause protein excretion to exceed 1.5 mg/min.¹¹ However, it seldom rises beyond 1 to 2 g/d,⁴ and this increase usually reverts to normal physiologic levels within 24 to 48 hours after exercise.¹²

Exercise-induced proteinuria is biphasic.¹³ Increased protein excretion occurs 30 minutes after exercise and is related to changes in intraglomerular hemodynamics and the resulting saturation of the renal tubules. Around 24 hours after exercise, oxidative stress on the glomeruli causes another slight elevation in albumin excretion without changes in β2-microglobulin, thereby indicating glomerular proteinuria exclusively.

Even the pros aren’t exempt. Exercise-induced proteinuria does not decrease with regular physical training. This was demonstrated in a study of 10 well-trained professional cyclists for whom strenuous exercise increased overnight protein excretion of both tubular and glomerular origin despite ongoing regular physical training.¹⁴

Creatine supplements do not increase proteinuria. A study of creatine supplementation in animal models noted no changes in 24-hour proteinuria or albumin excretion in both normal and two-thirds-nephrectomized animals.¹⁵ Another study compared creatine use with nonuse in athletes who had been training regularly and strenuously (12- 18 h/wk) for 5 to 10 years. They were evaluated for 10 months to 5 years. The groups exhibited equivalent urine excretion rates for albumin and creatinine, with no deleterious effect on kidney function.¹⁶

What happens when chronic disease is factored into the exercise equation?
Patients with a 2- to 20-year history of insulin-dependent diabetes without chronic kidney disease (CKD) who exhibited normal albumin excretion at baseline were more likely to develop proteinuria after exercise than healthy controls.^17,18 The postulated cause was undetected glomerular changes due to diabetes. An exercise-provocation test may one day be useful in predicting future development of nephropathy, but further studies are needed.^19-21

Exercise increases proteinuria immediately in individuals with metabolic disorders like obesity, through a mechanism different from diabetes mellitus. Proteinuria in the obese population is thought to be glomerular in origin, as opposed to both tubular and glomerular proteinuria in diabetic nephropathy.^22,23

In CKD, low-intensity exercise long term does not promote proteinuria or lead to rapid progression of CKD. In one study, obese patients (body mass index >30 kg/m²) with diabetes and CKD stage II to IV who exercised 3 times weekly (aerobic training for 6 weeks, followed by 18 weeks of supervised home exercise) increased their stamina and exhibited slight, statistically insignificant decreases in resting systolic blood pressure and 24-hour proteinuria.²⁴ A 12-week low-intensity aquatic exercise program for 26 patients with mild to moderate CKD decreased blood pressure and proteinuria and slightly improved glomerular filtration rate (GFR).²⁵ These results for proteinuria and GFR were shown previously in rats with subtotal nephrectomy.²⁶

Elevated urinary albumin excretion with exercise is significantly higher in patients with acromegaly when compared with normal healthy subjects. The underlying pathology is thought to occur at the glomerular filtration barrier with intact tubular function. Somatostatin analog treatment for acromegaly leads to reductions in postexercise albuminuria.^27,28

How to manage suspected exercise-induced proteinuria

When interpreting the meaning of proteinuria detected on routine urinalysis, keep in mind the temporal relevance between exercise and urine collection. If urine is found to have been collected within 24 hours of intense exercise, repeat testing in the absence of prior exercise on at least one other occasion to differentiate between transient and persistent proteinuria. In confirming transient proteinuria after exercise, reassure the patient that it is a benign condition. This holds true as well for routine microalbumin-to-creatinine urine testing in patients with diabetes who exercise. If the result of a repeat test is high, turn your attention to another possible cause of proteinuria, such as diabetic nephropathy.

Screening for proteinuria during sports preparticipation examinations is not recommended because the diagnostic utility is low.²⁹ Researchers performed urine dipstick testing for protein, blood, and glucose in preparticipation assessments of 701 students.²⁹ They detected proteinuria in 40 students and glucosuria in one. Follow-up testing with first-voided morning urine specimens and glucose tolerance testing was normal in all students.

CORRESPONDENCE Fahad Saeed, MD, 313 Brook Hollow, Hanover, NH 03755; [email protected]

CASE As part of a routine physical examination, urinalysis reveals that a patient new to your practice is excreting an excessive level of protein. The patient is physically fit and shared during the history taking that he is an avid runner. The physical examination and other laboratory values were unremarkable. How concerned should you be about the finding of proteinuria?

Exercise-induced proteinuria is generally benign and a function of the intensity—rather than the duration—of exercise.¹ It occurs most often among athletes participating in such sports as running, swimming, rowing, football, or boxing.² It’s also transient—lasting 24 to 48 hours.¹ Recognizing exercise-induced proteinuria is fairly straightforward—once you know what to look for.

But first, a word about the processes at work.

Diverse processes that work alone—or together

The normal range of protein excretion in healthy individuals is 150 to 200 mg of protein per day, of which albumin constitutes 10 to 20 mg.³ Individuals with proteinuria persistently higher than this level need further evaluation.

Diverse processes leading to proteinuria—working alone or concomitantly—occur at the level of the nephron.³

Glomerular proteinuria results from increased filtration of macromolecules such as albumin across the glomerular capillary barrier. This type of proteinuria can occur with different glomerulopathies, upright posture, or exercise.⁴

Researchers have not identified the mechanisms leading to postexercise proteinuria, but there are several theories. (For more on this, see “Why does exercise increase protein excretion?”.)

Tubular proteinuria is due to a deranged tubular apparatus with an intact glomerulus. This results in the escape of β2-microglobulin and immunoglobulin light chains from proximal tubular reabsorption. It is often missed on dipstick testing, which detects only albumin. This type of proteinuria is usually seen in tubulointerstitial diseases or in patients with idiopathic nephrotic syndrome.⁵

Overflow proteinuria occurs when small molecular light chains escape the glomerular filtration barrier and overwhelm the tubular reabsorptive capacity. This type of proteinuria can be seen in multiple myeloma, and is detectable by protein-to-creatinine ratio or urine protein electrophoresis.

The surest means of detecting proteinuria
Albumin excretion >300 mg/d is called macroalbuminuria, overt proteinuria, or dipstick-positive proteinuria. Albumin persistently excreted in the urine between 30 and 300 mg/d is referred to as microalbuminuria.

Because microalbuminuria is not detectable by a standard urine dipstick test, some providers routinely screen for protein with the microalbumin-to-creatinine ratio. A first-voided morning urine specimen is recommended, but random urine samples are an acceptable alternative.⁶ The microalbumin-to-creatinine ratio is recommended as a screen for early diabetic nephropathy and other kidney diseases. And a positive test result may also suggest increased risk of cardiovascular disease.⁶ Microalbuminuria is defined as persistent albumin excretion between 30 and 300 mg/d.⁷

When exercise is a factor, here’s what to look for

As noted earlier, exercise-induced proteinuria is a function of the intensity of the exercise. Moderate and strenuous (vigorous) exercise are the 2 types of exercise that come into play when discussing proteinuria. Differentiating them is not precise, but is often defined by maximal oxygen consumption (vigorous=60% of VO₂max; moderate <60% VO₂max); metabolic equivalents (vigorous=6 METS; moderate <6 METS); walking/running speeds (various); and heart rate reserve (vigorous=60% HRR; moderate <60% HRR).⁸

Moderate exercise produces glomerular proteinuria, with an increase in macromolecular (albumin) filtration across the glomerular barrier. Strenuous exercise increases glomerular filtration of low-molecular-weight proteins (β2-microglobulin), which overwhelm the reabsorbing capacity of the tubular apparatus, causing temporary dysfunction and tubular proteinuria.⁹ Thus, the pathophysiology is mixed, with a major contribution from glomerular proteinuria.¹⁰

Strenuous exercise can cause protein excretion to exceed 1.5 mg/min.¹¹ However, it seldom rises beyond 1 to 2 g/d,⁴ and this increase usually reverts to normal physiologic levels within 24 to 48 hours after exercise.¹²

Exercise-induced proteinuria is biphasic.¹³ Increased protein excretion occurs 30 minutes after exercise and is related to changes in intraglomerular hemodynamics and the resulting saturation of the renal tubules. Around 24 hours after exercise, oxidative stress on the glomeruli causes another slight elevation in albumin excretion without changes in β2-microglobulin, thereby indicating glomerular proteinuria exclusively.

Even the pros aren’t exempt. Exercise-induced proteinuria does not decrease with regular physical training. This was demonstrated in a study of 10 well-trained professional cyclists for whom strenuous exercise increased overnight protein excretion of both tubular and glomerular origin despite ongoing regular physical training.¹⁴

Creatine supplements do not increase proteinuria. A study of creatine supplementation in animal models noted no changes in 24-hour proteinuria or albumin excretion in both normal and two-thirds-nephrectomized animals.¹⁵ Another study compared creatine use with nonuse in athletes who had been training regularly and strenuously (12- 18 h/wk) for 5 to 10 years. They were evaluated for 10 months to 5 years. The groups exhibited equivalent urine excretion rates for albumin and creatinine, with no deleterious effect on kidney function.¹⁶

What happens when chronic disease is factored into the exercise equation?
Patients with a 2- to 20-year history of insulin-dependent diabetes without chronic kidney disease (CKD) who exhibited normal albumin excretion at baseline were more likely to develop proteinuria after exercise than healthy controls.^17,18 The postulated cause was undetected glomerular changes due to diabetes. An exercise-provocation test may one day be useful in predicting future development of nephropathy, but further studies are needed.^19-21

Exercise increases proteinuria immediately in individuals with metabolic disorders like obesity, through a mechanism different from diabetes mellitus. Proteinuria in the obese population is thought to be glomerular in origin, as opposed to both tubular and glomerular proteinuria in diabetic nephropathy.^22,23

In CKD, low-intensity exercise long term does not promote proteinuria or lead to rapid progression of CKD. In one study, obese patients (body mass index >30 kg/m²) with diabetes and CKD stage II to IV who exercised 3 times weekly (aerobic training for 6 weeks, followed by 18 weeks of supervised home exercise) increased their stamina and exhibited slight, statistically insignificant decreases in resting systolic blood pressure and 24-hour proteinuria.²⁴ A 12-week low-intensity aquatic exercise program for 26 patients with mild to moderate CKD decreased blood pressure and proteinuria and slightly improved glomerular filtration rate (GFR).²⁵ These results for proteinuria and GFR were shown previously in rats with subtotal nephrectomy.²⁶

Elevated urinary albumin excretion with exercise is significantly higher in patients with acromegaly when compared with normal healthy subjects. The underlying pathology is thought to occur at the glomerular filtration barrier with intact tubular function. Somatostatin analog treatment for acromegaly leads to reductions in postexercise albuminuria.^27,28

How to manage suspected exercise-induced proteinuria

When interpreting the meaning of proteinuria detected on routine urinalysis, keep in mind the temporal relevance between exercise and urine collection. If urine is found to have been collected within 24 hours of intense exercise, repeat testing in the absence of prior exercise on at least one other occasion to differentiate between transient and persistent proteinuria. In confirming transient proteinuria after exercise, reassure the patient that it is a benign condition. This holds true as well for routine microalbumin-to-creatinine urine testing in patients with diabetes who exercise. If the result of a repeat test is high, turn your attention to another possible cause of proteinuria, such as diabetic nephropathy.

Screening for proteinuria during sports preparticipation examinations is not recommended because the diagnostic utility is low.²⁹ Researchers performed urine dipstick testing for protein, blood, and glucose in preparticipation assessments of 701 students.²⁹ They detected proteinuria in 40 students and glucosuria in one. Follow-up testing with first-voided morning urine specimens and glucose tolerance testing was normal in all students.

CORRESPONDENCE Fahad Saeed, MD, 313 Brook Hollow, Hanover, NH 03755; [email protected]

Shoulder pain is a common reason for visits to primary care physicians, who are most likely to diagnose it as rotator cuff tendinitis^1,2—often erroneously. The complexity of the joint and the overlapping pathologies that may present as shoulder pain highlight the need to take a closer look when dealing with this diagnostic challenge.

Often, a targeted medical history—including the mechanism of injury and pain-provoking and pain-relieving factors—and a problem-based physical examination (incorporating many of the maneuvers highlighted in the text and tables that follow) will lead to an accurate diagnosis without the need for imaging studies. We recommend that imaging be reserved for patients who don’t respond to conventional treatments, cases in which the diagnosis is in doubt, and instances in which surgical intervention is being considered.

The 3 cases* that follow, and the take-away message incorporated in each, will give you an opportunity to test—and to hone—your shoulder pain diagnostic skill.

CASE 1 The history: Jesse, a 17-year-old student who’s active in football and track, came in during track season complaining of severe left shoulder pain. He denied any traumatic event or previous injury to the shoulder, but reported that any motion involving the shoulder caused pain. It hurt at night, the patient said, when he lay on his left side.

The physical: No muscle atrophy, redness, or swelling was evident, nor was there any indication of asymmetry or ecchymosis in the affected area. Jesse’s neck range of motion was normal; he had a very hard time with any active motion of the shoulder, however, because of the pain.

Evaluation of scapular motion demonstrated scapular dyskinesis^3,4 without winging. Passive motion of the glenohumeral joint was much better than active motion. Strength testing appeared to be grossly intact but was limited by the pain. Shoulder impingement testing was positive. Sensation and deep tendon reflexes were intact.

Patients' names have been changed to protect their privacy

What’s the diagnosis?

Subacromial bursitis, suggested by the patient’s pain and altered scapular motion, was our working diagnosis, and we administered a subacromial injection of corticosteroid with lidocaine, for diagnostic as well as therapeutic purposes. Reexamination after the injection revealed immediate partial improvement in resting pain, range of motion, and strength. We referred Jesse to physical therapy with a focus on scapular stabilization and rotator cuff strength.

Three months later, Jesse returned to our office, complaining of weakness in his left shoulder. The pain had subsided a week after his first appointment, so he’d never gone to physical therapy. The weakness, which he had first noticed about 2 months after starting a lifting program in preparation for football season, was limited to resistance exercises, especially overhead shoulder presses and bench press. There were no other changes in his history, and he reported no reinjuries.

Physical examination revealed atrophy of the supraspinatus and infraspinatus muscles (FIGURE 1) and external rotation and shoulder abduction (in the scapular plane) resistance tests revealed weakness of these muscles. There was no scapular winging. The cervical spine exam was normal, and neurovascular status was intact in both upper extremities.

FIGURE 1
Severe shoulder pain, followed by weakness

New evidence points to nerve injury. Based on Jesse’s current history and physical, nerve injury was our new working diagnosis. (We considered the possibility of a rotator cuff tear, but this was not corroborated by the history.)

We ordered an electromyogram/nerve conduction velocity study to localize the lesion. The test revealed a brachial plexitis/neuritis (also known as Parsonage-Turner syndrome or brachial amyotrophy). The etiology of most atraumatic brachial plexopathies is unknown, and most are thought to be viral or autoimmune in nature.^5,6

A classic case of Parsonage-Turner syndrome. The typical presentation of Parsonage-Turner syndrome (like Jesse’s) is one of acute, intense shoulder pain for no known reason. After 1 to 3 weeks, the pain resolves and the patient is left with weakness, usually of the supraspinatus and infraspinatus muscles. The weakness typically resolves with time, but full resolution may take 6 to 9 months.^5,6 (In Jesse’s case, it took about 6 months.)

The take-away message: Look beyond the shoulder
As this case illustrates, not all shoulder pain originates in the shoulder. When evaluating shoulder pain, it is essential to consider other causes. The differential diagnosis for shoulder pain includes cervical spine disorders, cholecystitis (right shoulder), diaphragmatic irritation (eg, in the case of splenic rupture, usually involving the left shoulder), cardiac disease, and thoracic outlet syndrome.⁷

Evaluation of the cervical spine should be part of a complete shoulder examination. It is vital to follow a systematic approach that carefully assesses the cervical region for the possibility of nerve root impingement and radicular dysfunction masquerading as a primary shoulder disorder. (TABLE 1^8,9 details pain and sensory distribution patterns, reflex involvement, and potential motor impairments associated with various spinal nerve root levels.)

TABLE 1
Assessing the cervical spine

Practitioners should develop their own approach to “clearing the neck.” A logical order is to note posture of the head/neck/shoulders, observe active motion, perform palpation and provocative tests, and then assess neurologic function with sensation/reflex/strength testing. Provocative tests that can help to identify cervical involvement relating to shoulder pain include Spurling’s maneuver, axial compression test, abduction relief sign, and Lhermitte’s sign.^10,11

CASE 2 The history: Mark, a 17-year-old, right-handed volleyball player, presented with right shoulder pain, which he felt whenever he spiked or served the ball. The pain started last season, Mark said, diminished during the months when he wasn’t playing, then got progressively worse as his activity level increased. The pain was in the posterior aspect of the shoulder.

The physical: Physical examination revealed a well-developed, but thin (6’4”, 170 pounds) young man who was not in distress. The general examination was benign, and a joint-specific exam showed no asymmetry or atrophy on inspection and no tenderness to palpation over the posterior and anterior soft tissues of the right shoulder. Rotator cuff testing yielded intact strength for all 4 muscles, but external rotation and supraspinatus testing elicited pain. The crank test, drawer sign, load and shift test, relocation test, and sulcus sign, detailed in TABLE 2,^12-14 were all positive for shoulder instability; the Clunk and O’Brien tests were negative, and the contralateral shoulder exam was within normal limits. General joint laxity was observed, with the ability to oppose the thumb to the volar forearm and hyperextension noted in both elbows and knees. There were no outward signs of connective tissue disease.

Because of the chronicity of Mark’s pain and the progressive nature of his symptoms, we ordered radiographs, including anterior-posterior, lateral axillary, and scapular Y views. These films showed a nearly skeletally mature male without bony abnormalities; the humeral head was well located in the glenoid.

TABLE 2
Testing for shoulder instability^12-14

What’s the diagnosis?

Multidirectional instability with recurrent subluxations and probable acute rotator cuff tendinitis was our provisional diagnosis. Treatment focused on physical therapy, with a concentration on scapular stabilization and rotator cuff strengthening.

Shoulder instability is relatively common and represents a spectrum of disorders ranging from dislocation to subluxation to simple laxity.^12,13 A complete loss of humeral articulation within the glenoid fossa is evidence of dislocation, whereas subluxation includes approximation of the humeral head to the limits of the glenoid rim. Dislocation typically results from trauma, whereas subluxation can be the result of microtrauma and repetitive overuse injury. Anterior instability is the most common type and is reported in as many as 95% of all dislocations.¹³

The take-away message: Rule out instability
The shoulder is one of the most complex joints in the body. The rotator cuff structures, the glenoid labrum, and the collective capsular ligaments provide structural stability to the glenohumeral joint.^12,13 The shoulder is vulnerable to instability because the shallow glenoid fossa offers little bony support for the humeral head. Thus, instability should always be included in an assessment of shoulder pain.

Key factors to consider in identifying shoulder instability include the location of the pain, the direction of traumatic force applied, the presence of a known complete dislocation vs apprehension with specific movement, the position of the arm in which pain is elicited, a previous occurrence of instability (subluxation or dislocation), and the presence of tingling or numbness.^12-14 The maneuvers detailed in TABLE 2^12-14 can help identify instability, as they did in this case. Patients with hypermobility are at increased risk for shoulder instability, so a targeted exam and patient history aimed at identifying signs and symptoms of hypermobility is needed, as well.

Ask the patient to attempt to:

• bend the thumb to the volar forearm
• place hands to the floor with hyperextended knees
• perform maximal hyperextension of the fifth metacarpophalangeal joint (>90° is a positive result).

Findings from the medical history that indicate a predisposition to instability include generalized joint laxity, Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, Marfan syndrome, osteogenesis imperfecta, hyperhomocysteinuria, hyperlysinemia, benign joint hypermobility syndrome, juvenile rheumatoid arthritis, and previous shoulder or patellar dislocations.

Imaging tips: Scapular Y and/or axillary lateral views should always be included when ordering imaging studies for suspected instability/dislocations, as 50% of posterior dislocations are missed on standard shoulder x-rays that do not include them.¹² In reviewing the x-rays, it is important to look for signs of a compression fracture of the posterior humeral head (known as a Hill-Sachs lesion) for anterior shoulder dislocations, and fractures to the anterior glenoid rim (known as a Bankart lesion).^12-14

CASE 3 The history: Robert, a right-handed, 50-year-old motorcycle instructor, came to our office because of chronic right shoulder pain. The pain, located over the anterior portion of the glenohumeral joint, developed insidiously about 3 or 4 years ago, the patient reported. He had finally decided to seek help because he’d recently experienced an acute exacerbation of pain brought on by shoveling snow, after which he also noticed associated weakness, a clicking/popping on active motion, and mild loss of motion.

The physical: Robert’s cervical spine exam was unremarkable. He demonstrated full active range of motion (ROM) without exacerbation of right shoulder symptoms, and special tests for disc pathology at the neck were negative. Active ROM testing of the right shoulder revealed full abduction, with only minimal pain; full flexion, with moderate pain noted initially at 49°; full extension, with a painful arc noted at 50°; and full horizontal adduction, with a painful arc noted at the halfway point. The testing also revealed that his right thumb was 3 inches lower than the left on reaching for the opposite scapula. At the superior aspect of the acromioclavicular (AC) joint, 2+ tenderness was noted; 3+ tenderness was noted at the greater tubercle of the humerus.

After inspecting the shoulder region for alterations in bony landmarks, muscle bulk, carrying position, and movement characteristics, palpation of the region was performed.

When assessing shoulder strength, there are a variety of tests for each functioning component of the rotator cuff structures (TABLE 3).^15-17 Manual muscle tests revealed: 4-/5 on external rotation (French horn test), 3+/5 on the lift-off test, and 5-/5 on all other tests for right shoulder function. Impingement testing was slightly positive, or pain producing, on Hawkins and Neer tests.^18,19 For the Hawkins test, the examiner flexes the arm to 90° of shoulder flexion with the elbow flexed at 90°, then internally rotates the shoulder. For the Neer test, the arm is fully elevated in the scapular plane and internally rotated by the examiner.

The subscapularis muscle, which functions primarily in internal rotation, is tested by the French horn and lift-off tests. The teres minor muscle, which performs external rotation, is tested by the French horn test of external rotation. And the supraspinatus muscle, which performs abduction and external rotation, is tested by the empty can (also known as the Jobe) and full can tests. Some researchers suggest that the empty can test is better for diagnosing impingement, based on evidence showing that the full can test is better at diagnosing supraspinatus tears because it causes less pain during testing.²⁰

TABLE 3
Suspect rotator cuff involvement?^7,15-17

What’s the diagnosis?

Rotator cuff tear was suspected because Robert had positive elements of the “rotator cuff triad”—supraspinatus weakness (as indicated by a positive empty can test), external rotation weakness (revealed by the French horn test), and a positive Hawkins impingement test. We ordered diagnostic studies, including plain radiographs, which revealed degenerative changes at the acromioclavicular joint, decreased acromiohumeral interval, and no significant changes at the glenohumeral joint (FIGURE 2), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the right shoulder. The MRI revealed a large, full-thickness rotator cuff tear of the supraspinatus tendon with retraction. A torn and retracted biceps tendon and AC joint osteoarthritis were also shown, likely causing a mass effect on the supraspinatus. The patient underwent surgery to repair the torn rotator cuff, with excellent results.

FIGURE 2
Chronic right shoulder pain

The take-away message: Keep the rotator-cuff triad in mind
Because none of the tests that comprise the triad is specific enough alone to diagnose a rotator cuff tear,^15,20,21 Murrell and Walton¹⁶ suggested that the 3 tests be considered together for diagnostic purposes. If all 3 are positive, there is a 98% chance of a rotator cuff tear; if 2 tests are positive and the patient is older than 60 years, the findings are suggestive of a tear; and if all 3 tests (plus the drop arm test) are negative, there is less than a 5% chance of a major rotator cuff tear.¹⁶

CORRESPONDENCE Nilesh Shah, MD, Summa Center for Sports Health, 20 Olive Street, Suite 201, Akron, OH 44310; [email protected]

Shoulder pain is a common reason for visits to primary care physicians, who are most likely to diagnose it as rotator cuff tendinitis^1,2—often erroneously. The complexity of the joint and the overlapping pathologies that may present as shoulder pain highlight the need to take a closer look when dealing with this diagnostic challenge.

Often, a targeted medical history—including the mechanism of injury and pain-provoking and pain-relieving factors—and a problem-based physical examination (incorporating many of the maneuvers highlighted in the text and tables that follow) will lead to an accurate diagnosis without the need for imaging studies. We recommend that imaging be reserved for patients who don’t respond to conventional treatments, cases in which the diagnosis is in doubt, and instances in which surgical intervention is being considered.

The 3 cases* that follow, and the take-away message incorporated in each, will give you an opportunity to test—and to hone—your shoulder pain diagnostic skill.

CASE 1 The history: Jesse, a 17-year-old student who’s active in football and track, came in during track season complaining of severe left shoulder pain. He denied any traumatic event or previous injury to the shoulder, but reported that any motion involving the shoulder caused pain. It hurt at night, the patient said, when he lay on his left side.

The physical: No muscle atrophy, redness, or swelling was evident, nor was there any indication of asymmetry or ecchymosis in the affected area. Jesse’s neck range of motion was normal; he had a very hard time with any active motion of the shoulder, however, because of the pain.

Evaluation of scapular motion demonstrated scapular dyskinesis^3,4 without winging. Passive motion of the glenohumeral joint was much better than active motion. Strength testing appeared to be grossly intact but was limited by the pain. Shoulder impingement testing was positive. Sensation and deep tendon reflexes were intact.

Patients' names have been changed to protect their privacy

What’s the diagnosis?

Subacromial bursitis, suggested by the patient’s pain and altered scapular motion, was our working diagnosis, and we administered a subacromial injection of corticosteroid with lidocaine, for diagnostic as well as therapeutic purposes. Reexamination after the injection revealed immediate partial improvement in resting pain, range of motion, and strength. We referred Jesse to physical therapy with a focus on scapular stabilization and rotator cuff strength.

Three months later, Jesse returned to our office, complaining of weakness in his left shoulder. The pain had subsided a week after his first appointment, so he’d never gone to physical therapy. The weakness, which he had first noticed about 2 months after starting a lifting program in preparation for football season, was limited to resistance exercises, especially overhead shoulder presses and bench press. There were no other changes in his history, and he reported no reinjuries.

Physical examination revealed atrophy of the supraspinatus and infraspinatus muscles (FIGURE 1) and external rotation and shoulder abduction (in the scapular plane) resistance tests revealed weakness of these muscles. There was no scapular winging. The cervical spine exam was normal, and neurovascular status was intact in both upper extremities.

FIGURE 1
Severe shoulder pain, followed by weakness

New evidence points to nerve injury. Based on Jesse’s current history and physical, nerve injury was our new working diagnosis. (We considered the possibility of a rotator cuff tear, but this was not corroborated by the history.)

We ordered an electromyogram/nerve conduction velocity study to localize the lesion. The test revealed a brachial plexitis/neuritis (also known as Parsonage-Turner syndrome or brachial amyotrophy). The etiology of most atraumatic brachial plexopathies is unknown, and most are thought to be viral or autoimmune in nature.^5,6

A classic case of Parsonage-Turner syndrome. The typical presentation of Parsonage-Turner syndrome (like Jesse’s) is one of acute, intense shoulder pain for no known reason. After 1 to 3 weeks, the pain resolves and the patient is left with weakness, usually of the supraspinatus and infraspinatus muscles. The weakness typically resolves with time, but full resolution may take 6 to 9 months.^5,6 (In Jesse’s case, it took about 6 months.)

The take-away message: Look beyond the shoulder
As this case illustrates, not all shoulder pain originates in the shoulder. When evaluating shoulder pain, it is essential to consider other causes. The differential diagnosis for shoulder pain includes cervical spine disorders, cholecystitis (right shoulder), diaphragmatic irritation (eg, in the case of splenic rupture, usually involving the left shoulder), cardiac disease, and thoracic outlet syndrome.⁷

Evaluation of the cervical spine should be part of a complete shoulder examination. It is vital to follow a systematic approach that carefully assesses the cervical region for the possibility of nerve root impingement and radicular dysfunction masquerading as a primary shoulder disorder. (TABLE 1^8,9 details pain and sensory distribution patterns, reflex involvement, and potential motor impairments associated with various spinal nerve root levels.)

TABLE 1
Assessing the cervical spine

Practitioners should develop their own approach to “clearing the neck.” A logical order is to note posture of the head/neck/shoulders, observe active motion, perform palpation and provocative tests, and then assess neurologic function with sensation/reflex/strength testing. Provocative tests that can help to identify cervical involvement relating to shoulder pain include Spurling’s maneuver, axial compression test, abduction relief sign, and Lhermitte’s sign.^10,11

CASE 2 The history: Mark, a 17-year-old, right-handed volleyball player, presented with right shoulder pain, which he felt whenever he spiked or served the ball. The pain started last season, Mark said, diminished during the months when he wasn’t playing, then got progressively worse as his activity level increased. The pain was in the posterior aspect of the shoulder.

The physical: Physical examination revealed a well-developed, but thin (6’4”, 170 pounds) young man who was not in distress. The general examination was benign, and a joint-specific exam showed no asymmetry or atrophy on inspection and no tenderness to palpation over the posterior and anterior soft tissues of the right shoulder. Rotator cuff testing yielded intact strength for all 4 muscles, but external rotation and supraspinatus testing elicited pain. The crank test, drawer sign, load and shift test, relocation test, and sulcus sign, detailed in TABLE 2,^12-14 were all positive for shoulder instability; the Clunk and O’Brien tests were negative, and the contralateral shoulder exam was within normal limits. General joint laxity was observed, with the ability to oppose the thumb to the volar forearm and hyperextension noted in both elbows and knees. There were no outward signs of connective tissue disease.

Because of the chronicity of Mark’s pain and the progressive nature of his symptoms, we ordered radiographs, including anterior-posterior, lateral axillary, and scapular Y views. These films showed a nearly skeletally mature male without bony abnormalities; the humeral head was well located in the glenoid.

TABLE 2
Testing for shoulder instability^12-14

What’s the diagnosis?

Multidirectional instability with recurrent subluxations and probable acute rotator cuff tendinitis was our provisional diagnosis. Treatment focused on physical therapy, with a concentration on scapular stabilization and rotator cuff strengthening.

Shoulder instability is relatively common and represents a spectrum of disorders ranging from dislocation to subluxation to simple laxity.^12,13 A complete loss of humeral articulation within the glenoid fossa is evidence of dislocation, whereas subluxation includes approximation of the humeral head to the limits of the glenoid rim. Dislocation typically results from trauma, whereas subluxation can be the result of microtrauma and repetitive overuse injury. Anterior instability is the most common type and is reported in as many as 95% of all dislocations.¹³

The take-away message: Rule out instability
The shoulder is one of the most complex joints in the body. The rotator cuff structures, the glenoid labrum, and the collective capsular ligaments provide structural stability to the glenohumeral joint.^12,13 The shoulder is vulnerable to instability because the shallow glenoid fossa offers little bony support for the humeral head. Thus, instability should always be included in an assessment of shoulder pain.

Key factors to consider in identifying shoulder instability include the location of the pain, the direction of traumatic force applied, the presence of a known complete dislocation vs apprehension with specific movement, the position of the arm in which pain is elicited, a previous occurrence of instability (subluxation or dislocation), and the presence of tingling or numbness.^12-14 The maneuvers detailed in TABLE 2^12-14 can help identify instability, as they did in this case. Patients with hypermobility are at increased risk for shoulder instability, so a targeted exam and patient history aimed at identifying signs and symptoms of hypermobility is needed, as well.

Ask the patient to attempt to:

• bend the thumb to the volar forearm
• place hands to the floor with hyperextended knees
• perform maximal hyperextension of the fifth metacarpophalangeal joint (>90° is a positive result).

Findings from the medical history that indicate a predisposition to instability include generalized joint laxity, Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, Marfan syndrome, osteogenesis imperfecta, hyperhomocysteinuria, hyperlysinemia, benign joint hypermobility syndrome, juvenile rheumatoid arthritis, and previous shoulder or patellar dislocations.

Imaging tips: Scapular Y and/or axillary lateral views should always be included when ordering imaging studies for suspected instability/dislocations, as 50% of posterior dislocations are missed on standard shoulder x-rays that do not include them.¹² In reviewing the x-rays, it is important to look for signs of a compression fracture of the posterior humeral head (known as a Hill-Sachs lesion) for anterior shoulder dislocations, and fractures to the anterior glenoid rim (known as a Bankart lesion).^12-14

CASE 3 The history: Robert, a right-handed, 50-year-old motorcycle instructor, came to our office because of chronic right shoulder pain. The pain, located over the anterior portion of the glenohumeral joint, developed insidiously about 3 or 4 years ago, the patient reported. He had finally decided to seek help because he’d recently experienced an acute exacerbation of pain brought on by shoveling snow, after which he also noticed associated weakness, a clicking/popping on active motion, and mild loss of motion.

The physical: Robert’s cervical spine exam was unremarkable. He demonstrated full active range of motion (ROM) without exacerbation of right shoulder symptoms, and special tests for disc pathology at the neck were negative. Active ROM testing of the right shoulder revealed full abduction, with only minimal pain; full flexion, with moderate pain noted initially at 49°; full extension, with a painful arc noted at 50°; and full horizontal adduction, with a painful arc noted at the halfway point. The testing also revealed that his right thumb was 3 inches lower than the left on reaching for the opposite scapula. At the superior aspect of the acromioclavicular (AC) joint, 2+ tenderness was noted; 3+ tenderness was noted at the greater tubercle of the humerus.

After inspecting the shoulder region for alterations in bony landmarks, muscle bulk, carrying position, and movement characteristics, palpation of the region was performed.

When assessing shoulder strength, there are a variety of tests for each functioning component of the rotator cuff structures (TABLE 3).^15-17 Manual muscle tests revealed: 4-/5 on external rotation (French horn test), 3+/5 on the lift-off test, and 5-/5 on all other tests for right shoulder function. Impingement testing was slightly positive, or pain producing, on Hawkins and Neer tests.^18,19 For the Hawkins test, the examiner flexes the arm to 90° of shoulder flexion with the elbow flexed at 90°, then internally rotates the shoulder. For the Neer test, the arm is fully elevated in the scapular plane and internally rotated by the examiner.

The subscapularis muscle, which functions primarily in internal rotation, is tested by the French horn and lift-off tests. The teres minor muscle, which performs external rotation, is tested by the French horn test of external rotation. And the supraspinatus muscle, which performs abduction and external rotation, is tested by the empty can (also known as the Jobe) and full can tests. Some researchers suggest that the empty can test is better for diagnosing impingement, based on evidence showing that the full can test is better at diagnosing supraspinatus tears because it causes less pain during testing.²⁰

TABLE 3
Suspect rotator cuff involvement?^7,15-17

What’s the diagnosis?

Rotator cuff tear was suspected because Robert had positive elements of the “rotator cuff triad”—supraspinatus weakness (as indicated by a positive empty can test), external rotation weakness (revealed by the French horn test), and a positive Hawkins impingement test. We ordered diagnostic studies, including plain radiographs, which revealed degenerative changes at the acromioclavicular joint, decreased acromiohumeral interval, and no significant changes at the glenohumeral joint (FIGURE 2), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the right shoulder. The MRI revealed a large, full-thickness rotator cuff tear of the supraspinatus tendon with retraction. A torn and retracted biceps tendon and AC joint osteoarthritis were also shown, likely causing a mass effect on the supraspinatus. The patient underwent surgery to repair the torn rotator cuff, with excellent results.

FIGURE 2
Chronic right shoulder pain

The take-away message: Keep the rotator-cuff triad in mind
Because none of the tests that comprise the triad is specific enough alone to diagnose a rotator cuff tear,^15,20,21 Murrell and Walton¹⁶ suggested that the 3 tests be considered together for diagnostic purposes. If all 3 are positive, there is a 98% chance of a rotator cuff tear; if 2 tests are positive and the patient is older than 60 years, the findings are suggestive of a tear; and if all 3 tests (plus the drop arm test) are negative, there is less than a 5% chance of a major rotator cuff tear.¹⁶

CORRESPONDENCE Nilesh Shah, MD, Summa Center for Sports Health, 20 Olive Street, Suite 201, Akron, OH 44310; [email protected]

Shoulder pain is a common reason for visits to primary care physicians, who are most likely to diagnose it as rotator cuff tendinitis^1,2—often erroneously. The complexity of the joint and the overlapping pathologies that may present as shoulder pain highlight the need to take a closer look when dealing with this diagnostic challenge.

Often, a targeted medical history—including the mechanism of injury and pain-provoking and pain-relieving factors—and a problem-based physical examination (incorporating many of the maneuvers highlighted in the text and tables that follow) will lead to an accurate diagnosis without the need for imaging studies. We recommend that imaging be reserved for patients who don’t respond to conventional treatments, cases in which the diagnosis is in doubt, and instances in which surgical intervention is being considered.

The 3 cases* that follow, and the take-away message incorporated in each, will give you an opportunity to test—and to hone—your shoulder pain diagnostic skill.

CASE 1 The history: Jesse, a 17-year-old student who’s active in football and track, came in during track season complaining of severe left shoulder pain. He denied any traumatic event or previous injury to the shoulder, but reported that any motion involving the shoulder caused pain. It hurt at night, the patient said, when he lay on his left side.

The physical: No muscle atrophy, redness, or swelling was evident, nor was there any indication of asymmetry or ecchymosis in the affected area. Jesse’s neck range of motion was normal; he had a very hard time with any active motion of the shoulder, however, because of the pain.

Evaluation of scapular motion demonstrated scapular dyskinesis^3,4 without winging. Passive motion of the glenohumeral joint was much better than active motion. Strength testing appeared to be grossly intact but was limited by the pain. Shoulder impingement testing was positive. Sensation and deep tendon reflexes were intact.

Patients' names have been changed to protect their privacy

What’s the diagnosis?

Subacromial bursitis, suggested by the patient’s pain and altered scapular motion, was our working diagnosis, and we administered a subacromial injection of corticosteroid with lidocaine, for diagnostic as well as therapeutic purposes. Reexamination after the injection revealed immediate partial improvement in resting pain, range of motion, and strength. We referred Jesse to physical therapy with a focus on scapular stabilization and rotator cuff strength.

Three months later, Jesse returned to our office, complaining of weakness in his left shoulder. The pain had subsided a week after his first appointment, so he’d never gone to physical therapy. The weakness, which he had first noticed about 2 months after starting a lifting program in preparation for football season, was limited to resistance exercises, especially overhead shoulder presses and bench press. There were no other changes in his history, and he reported no reinjuries.

Physical examination revealed atrophy of the supraspinatus and infraspinatus muscles (FIGURE 1) and external rotation and shoulder abduction (in the scapular plane) resistance tests revealed weakness of these muscles. There was no scapular winging. The cervical spine exam was normal, and neurovascular status was intact in both upper extremities.

FIGURE 1
Severe shoulder pain, followed by weakness

New evidence points to nerve injury. Based on Jesse’s current history and physical, nerve injury was our new working diagnosis. (We considered the possibility of a rotator cuff tear, but this was not corroborated by the history.)

We ordered an electromyogram/nerve conduction velocity study to localize the lesion. The test revealed a brachial plexitis/neuritis (also known as Parsonage-Turner syndrome or brachial amyotrophy). The etiology of most atraumatic brachial plexopathies is unknown, and most are thought to be viral or autoimmune in nature.^5,6

A classic case of Parsonage-Turner syndrome. The typical presentation of Parsonage-Turner syndrome (like Jesse’s) is one of acute, intense shoulder pain for no known reason. After 1 to 3 weeks, the pain resolves and the patient is left with weakness, usually of the supraspinatus and infraspinatus muscles. The weakness typically resolves with time, but full resolution may take 6 to 9 months.^5,6 (In Jesse’s case, it took about 6 months.)

The take-away message: Look beyond the shoulder
As this case illustrates, not all shoulder pain originates in the shoulder. When evaluating shoulder pain, it is essential to consider other causes. The differential diagnosis for shoulder pain includes cervical spine disorders, cholecystitis (right shoulder), diaphragmatic irritation (eg, in the case of splenic rupture, usually involving the left shoulder), cardiac disease, and thoracic outlet syndrome.⁷

Evaluation of the cervical spine should be part of a complete shoulder examination. It is vital to follow a systematic approach that carefully assesses the cervical region for the possibility of nerve root impingement and radicular dysfunction masquerading as a primary shoulder disorder. (TABLE 1^8,9 details pain and sensory distribution patterns, reflex involvement, and potential motor impairments associated with various spinal nerve root levels.)

TABLE 1
Assessing the cervical spine

Practitioners should develop their own approach to “clearing the neck.” A logical order is to note posture of the head/neck/shoulders, observe active motion, perform palpation and provocative tests, and then assess neurologic function with sensation/reflex/strength testing. Provocative tests that can help to identify cervical involvement relating to shoulder pain include Spurling’s maneuver, axial compression test, abduction relief sign, and Lhermitte’s sign.^10,11

CASE 2 The history: Mark, a 17-year-old, right-handed volleyball player, presented with right shoulder pain, which he felt whenever he spiked or served the ball. The pain started last season, Mark said, diminished during the months when he wasn’t playing, then got progressively worse as his activity level increased. The pain was in the posterior aspect of the shoulder.

The physical: Physical examination revealed a well-developed, but thin (6’4”, 170 pounds) young man who was not in distress. The general examination was benign, and a joint-specific exam showed no asymmetry or atrophy on inspection and no tenderness to palpation over the posterior and anterior soft tissues of the right shoulder. Rotator cuff testing yielded intact strength for all 4 muscles, but external rotation and supraspinatus testing elicited pain. The crank test, drawer sign, load and shift test, relocation test, and sulcus sign, detailed in TABLE 2,^12-14 were all positive for shoulder instability; the Clunk and O’Brien tests were negative, and the contralateral shoulder exam was within normal limits. General joint laxity was observed, with the ability to oppose the thumb to the volar forearm and hyperextension noted in both elbows and knees. There were no outward signs of connective tissue disease.

Because of the chronicity of Mark’s pain and the progressive nature of his symptoms, we ordered radiographs, including anterior-posterior, lateral axillary, and scapular Y views. These films showed a nearly skeletally mature male without bony abnormalities; the humeral head was well located in the glenoid.

TABLE 2
Testing for shoulder instability^12-14

What’s the diagnosis?

Multidirectional instability with recurrent subluxations and probable acute rotator cuff tendinitis was our provisional diagnosis. Treatment focused on physical therapy, with a concentration on scapular stabilization and rotator cuff strengthening.

Shoulder instability is relatively common and represents a spectrum of disorders ranging from dislocation to subluxation to simple laxity.^12,13 A complete loss of humeral articulation within the glenoid fossa is evidence of dislocation, whereas subluxation includes approximation of the humeral head to the limits of the glenoid rim. Dislocation typically results from trauma, whereas subluxation can be the result of microtrauma and repetitive overuse injury. Anterior instability is the most common type and is reported in as many as 95% of all dislocations.¹³

The take-away message: Rule out instability
The shoulder is one of the most complex joints in the body. The rotator cuff structures, the glenoid labrum, and the collective capsular ligaments provide structural stability to the glenohumeral joint.^12,13 The shoulder is vulnerable to instability because the shallow glenoid fossa offers little bony support for the humeral head. Thus, instability should always be included in an assessment of shoulder pain.

Key factors to consider in identifying shoulder instability include the location of the pain, the direction of traumatic force applied, the presence of a known complete dislocation vs apprehension with specific movement, the position of the arm in which pain is elicited, a previous occurrence of instability (subluxation or dislocation), and the presence of tingling or numbness.^12-14 The maneuvers detailed in TABLE 2^12-14 can help identify instability, as they did in this case. Patients with hypermobility are at increased risk for shoulder instability, so a targeted exam and patient history aimed at identifying signs and symptoms of hypermobility is needed, as well.

Ask the patient to attempt to:

• bend the thumb to the volar forearm
• place hands to the floor with hyperextended knees
• perform maximal hyperextension of the fifth metacarpophalangeal joint (>90° is a positive result).

Findings from the medical history that indicate a predisposition to instability include generalized joint laxity, Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, Marfan syndrome, osteogenesis imperfecta, hyperhomocysteinuria, hyperlysinemia, benign joint hypermobility syndrome, juvenile rheumatoid arthritis, and previous shoulder or patellar dislocations.

Imaging tips: Scapular Y and/or axillary lateral views should always be included when ordering imaging studies for suspected instability/dislocations, as 50% of posterior dislocations are missed on standard shoulder x-rays that do not include them.¹² In reviewing the x-rays, it is important to look for signs of a compression fracture of the posterior humeral head (known as a Hill-Sachs lesion) for anterior shoulder dislocations, and fractures to the anterior glenoid rim (known as a Bankart lesion).^12-14

CASE 3 The history: Robert, a right-handed, 50-year-old motorcycle instructor, came to our office because of chronic right shoulder pain. The pain, located over the anterior portion of the glenohumeral joint, developed insidiously about 3 or 4 years ago, the patient reported. He had finally decided to seek help because he’d recently experienced an acute exacerbation of pain brought on by shoveling snow, after which he also noticed associated weakness, a clicking/popping on active motion, and mild loss of motion.

The physical: Robert’s cervical spine exam was unremarkable. He demonstrated full active range of motion (ROM) without exacerbation of right shoulder symptoms, and special tests for disc pathology at the neck were negative. Active ROM testing of the right shoulder revealed full abduction, with only minimal pain; full flexion, with moderate pain noted initially at 49°; full extension, with a painful arc noted at 50°; and full horizontal adduction, with a painful arc noted at the halfway point. The testing also revealed that his right thumb was 3 inches lower than the left on reaching for the opposite scapula. At the superior aspect of the acromioclavicular (AC) joint, 2+ tenderness was noted; 3+ tenderness was noted at the greater tubercle of the humerus.

After inspecting the shoulder region for alterations in bony landmarks, muscle bulk, carrying position, and movement characteristics, palpation of the region was performed.

When assessing shoulder strength, there are a variety of tests for each functioning component of the rotator cuff structures (TABLE 3).^15-17 Manual muscle tests revealed: 4-/5 on external rotation (French horn test), 3+/5 on the lift-off test, and 5-/5 on all other tests for right shoulder function. Impingement testing was slightly positive, or pain producing, on Hawkins and Neer tests.^18,19 For the Hawkins test, the examiner flexes the arm to 90° of shoulder flexion with the elbow flexed at 90°, then internally rotates the shoulder. For the Neer test, the arm is fully elevated in the scapular plane and internally rotated by the examiner.

The subscapularis muscle, which functions primarily in internal rotation, is tested by the French horn and lift-off tests. The teres minor muscle, which performs external rotation, is tested by the French horn test of external rotation. And the supraspinatus muscle, which performs abduction and external rotation, is tested by the empty can (also known as the Jobe) and full can tests. Some researchers suggest that the empty can test is better for diagnosing impingement, based on evidence showing that the full can test is better at diagnosing supraspinatus tears because it causes less pain during testing.²⁰

TABLE 3
Suspect rotator cuff involvement?^7,15-17

What’s the diagnosis?

Rotator cuff tear was suspected because Robert had positive elements of the “rotator cuff triad”—supraspinatus weakness (as indicated by a positive empty can test), external rotation weakness (revealed by the French horn test), and a positive Hawkins impingement test. We ordered diagnostic studies, including plain radiographs, which revealed degenerative changes at the acromioclavicular joint, decreased acromiohumeral interval, and no significant changes at the glenohumeral joint (FIGURE 2), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the right shoulder. The MRI revealed a large, full-thickness rotator cuff tear of the supraspinatus tendon with retraction. A torn and retracted biceps tendon and AC joint osteoarthritis were also shown, likely causing a mass effect on the supraspinatus. The patient underwent surgery to repair the torn rotator cuff, with excellent results.

FIGURE 2
Chronic right shoulder pain

The take-away message: Keep the rotator-cuff triad in mind
Because none of the tests that comprise the triad is specific enough alone to diagnose a rotator cuff tear,^15,20,21 Murrell and Walton¹⁶ suggested that the 3 tests be considered together for diagnostic purposes. If all 3 are positive, there is a 98% chance of a rotator cuff tear; if 2 tests are positive and the patient is older than 60 years, the findings are suggestive of a tear; and if all 3 tests (plus the drop arm test) are negative, there is less than a 5% chance of a major rotator cuff tear.¹⁶

CORRESPONDENCE Nilesh Shah, MD, Summa Center for Sports Health, 20 Olive Street, Suite 201, Akron, OH 44310; [email protected]

At his wife’s urging, Mr. L, age 34, presents to the local emergency room (ER). Approximately 1 week ago, he woke up in the middle of the night and told her he was afraid he would die because he had heart palpitations, a choking sensation, dizziness, and shortness of breath.

The ER physician rules out an acute medical illness and requests a psychiatric consultation. Mr. L is reluctant to talk to the psychiatrist, saying he has just had a difficult couple of weeks because of problems at work. With Mr. L’s permission, the psychiatrist speaks with his wife and learns that for several weeks Mr. L has been having problems falling asleep and has been waking up early. Mrs. L noticed her husband is unable to sit still, not enjoying his favorite television shows, and drinking more alcohol at night.

The clinical picture became clearer after Mr. L tells the psychiatrist that approximately 1 month ago, he lost his appetite, had low energy and concentration, and began to feel depressed. He denies having suicidal thoughts or plans, but says his suffering is increasing and he doesn’t know what to do.

Suicide is our worst outcome; at times it can seem like we are helpless to change its frequency or evaluate its likelihood. As clinicians, we are not expected to predict who will commit suicide, but are expected to perform an adequate suicide risk assessment and determine who is at high risk. We need to clearly document a patient’s suicide risk level in his or her chart, and our subsequent actions need to be consistent with that assessment. For instance, arranging for additional supports—including psychiatric hospitalization when necessary—for a patient deemed to be at high risk for suicide is considered the standard of care. In this article, I:

• discuss demographic factors related to suicide
• explore the importance of time-related suicide risk factors and the few treatments shown to reduce suicide risk
• review protective and preventive factors.

Sobering statistics

Over the past decade, suicide rates in the United States have remained fixed at slightly more than 30,000 per year. In 2009—the most recent year for which statistics are available from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention—there were 36,547 suicides in the United States, making it the 10^th leading cause of death.¹ The rates of suicide completions and attempts vary by sex and age. Males complete suicide 4 times more often than females, whereas females attempt suicide 3 times more often. Among individuals age 15 to 24, 86% of those who completed suicide were male; in older persons (age >65), 85% were male.² Although rates of completed suicide are highest among older adults, rates of suicide attempts are greatest among young persons. The ratio of attempted-to-completed suicide is 100 to 200:1 in individuals age 15 to 24 but 4:1 in those age >65.²

Whites and Native Americans have the highest suicide rates (12.3 and 12.9 per 100,000, respectively).² Guns are the most common method of completed suicide in all age groups in the United States: they are used in 53% of all suicides and 76% of those among persons age >70.³ In >90% of completed suicides, the decedent had been diagnosed with ≥1 psychiatric disorder.³ By far, the most common psychiatric illness is major depressive disorder, present in 75% of those who commit suicide.³

Understanding intent

Many physicians believe that patients will tell them if they are feeling worse and are starting to think more seriously about suicide. There is no better example of this than the “contract for safety” or “no-harm contract,” in which a patient signs a paper agreeing to notify a clinician if he begins to develop more intense suicidal feelings. Studies have shown that these “no-harm contracts” do not prevent suicide; this makes sense because if a patient decides to kill himself, telling a clinician puts up an obstacle.^4-6

Patients who commit suicide often communicate their suicidal intent, but usually tell family members rather than clinicians. In 1 study, 78% of patients who committed suicide on an inpatient unit denied suicidal ideation at their last communication with staff; although 60% told their spouse and 50% told other relatives, only 18% told their physician.⁷ In this study, precautions provided a false sense of security: 51% of patients were receiving 15-minute suicide checks or 1-to-1 observation at the time of suicide.⁷

Who is at risk?

The most recent American Psychiatric Association Task Force Report on Suicide identified 57 risk factors for suicide.^8,9 This has led to confusion among clinicians and may have led some clinicians to repeatedly ask patients about suicidal ideation rather than conduct a suicide risk assessment.

Although a history of suicide attempts and a family history of suicide are well-established risk factors,⁹ these are not acute factors. It is important to differentiate between suicide attempts and suicide completions. Although many suicide attempts are accurate substitutes for actual suicides, there is a spectrum of intent in suicide attempts that differentiates them in terms of lethality.¹⁰ Clinicians need a more thorough understanding of who is at acute risk for suicide, which will help them make decisions about patients’ imminent risk to themselves.

In the only study that examined time-related predictors of suicide, Fawcett et al¹¹ used the Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia (SADS) to evaluate 954 patients with major affective disorders over 10 years. Raters were blinded to treatment, and clinicians could use any combination of psychotherapy or pharmacotherapy. These researchers found that acute risk factors—those associated with suicide within 1 year—were psychic anxiety, anhedonia, diminished concentration, insomnia, panic attacks, and active alcohol abuse (Table 1).¹¹ These factors were present in the context of an underlying depressive disorder. Hopelessness, suicidal ideation, and a history of suicide attempts were linked to suicide between 2 and 10 years.

Busch et al¹² performed a retrospective study on an inpatient unit using the SADS to evaluate symptoms present the week before patients’ suicides. They found that 79% of patients had extreme psychic anxiety, agitation, or both, and that 54% had active psychosis. The same authors studied an additional 12 cases of inpatient suicide and found 9 patients had severe anxiety, agitation, or both, and insomnia. The median time to suicide from admission was 3.5 days and none of the 12 patients had been started on an antidepressant, antipsychotic, or anxiolytic. This underscores the need to initiate symptomatic treatment quickly, even before reaching a definitive diagnosis.

The Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS), which evaluates suicide ideation and behavior in the past week and lifetime, has predictive validity in determining those at highest risk for making a suicide attempt within up to 24 weeks of follow-up.¹³ A limitation of the C-SSRS is that it has predictive validity for suicide attempts only, and not suicide completions.

Table 1

Acute suicide risk factors: 3 A’s + 3 P’s

Treatments to lower risk

Although identifying risk factors such as older age, being unmarried, male sex, experiencing a recent loss, a family history of completed suicide, and being white or Native American are helpful in evaluating a patient’s suicide risk, they are not time-sensitive or modifiable, which limits their value.

In contrast, most of the acute risk factors identified by Fawcett et al potentially are treatable. Psychic anxiety, insomnia, and panic attacks can be treated with benzodiazepines or other anxiolytics and sedative/hypnotics. Active psychosis, which Busch et al identified as a risk factor for inpatient suicide, may respond to antipsychotics.

Other medications have been identified as modifying suicide risk (Table 2).^14-20 Among patients with major affective disorders, lithium has been shown to reduce suicidal acts by 93%, suicide attempts by 93%, and suicide completions by 82%.¹⁴ Lithium produces the largest suicide risk reduction in unipolar depression, at 100%, followed by bipolar II disorder (82%) and bipolar I disorder (67%).¹⁵ Several studies have demonstrated that lithium can reduce the mortality rate from suicide for patients with affective disorders, and that this effect persists.^16,17

Clozapine has been associated with reduced rates of suicide attempts and completed suicides in patients with chronic psychosis. In a meta-analysis, long-term clozapine treatment was associated with an approximately 3-fold overall reduction of risk of suicidal behaviors,¹⁸ although a prospective study found no reduction in risk of completed suicide in patients with schizophrenia treated with clozapine.¹⁹

In one study, electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) reduced suicidal thoughts and acts by 38% after 1 week and 80% overall.²⁰ There have been reports of amelioration of suicidal thoughts after just 1 ECT treatment.²¹ There are no published studies that show a reduction in suicide completions with ECT; however, this may be due to the relatively small number of patients who receive ECT and the infrequency of completed suicides.

Protective factors. The balance between protective factors and risk factors determines appropriate clinical decision making when attempting to evaluate a patient’s suicide risk. Perhaps the best measure of protective factors is the Reasons for Living Inventory, developed by Linehan et al,²² which has been validated in some populations, including adolescents and young adults.²³ This inventory delineates protective factors against suicidal ideation and behavior rather than completed suicides.

Similar to suicide protection, suicide prevention focuses on factors that can serve as obstacles to a patient’s desire or ability to commit suicide. A large systematic literature review by Mann et al²⁴ found that only primary care physician education and restricting access to lethal means prevented suicide. When working to remove lethal means from a suicidal patient’s home, it is critical to verify that this has been done rather than merely making a suggestion to a family member. It is necessary to follow up with a phone call and document the completion of this task.

When a patient commits suicide, it is common for psychiatrists to feel like there must have been something they could have done to prevent such a tragedy. Although typically that is not the case, there is more we can do to improve our suicide risk assessment skills. Focusing on acute, modifiable suicide risk factors may help us lower a patient’s risk. Also, shortening the time frame now considered acute (within 1 year) to hours and days and looking for additional risk factors may improve mental health professionals’ ability to accurately assess acute suicide risk.

Table 2

Treatments to lower suicide risk

CASE CONTINUED: Hospitalization and improvement

The psychiatrist determines Mr. L is at high risk for suicide and recommends psychiatric hospitalization. She starts him on citalopram, 10 mg/d, and clonazepam, 0.5 mg twice daily and 1 mg at bedtime, to help with anxiety and insomnia. After 3 days, Mr. L tolerates the medications, sleeps better, and feels more hopeful about the future. The psychiatrist increases citalopram to 20 mg/d.

Four days later, Mr. L is eating better, can concentrate, and denies further episodes of dizziness or anxiety. The inpatient psychiatrist assesses his acute suicide risk as low and discharges him to a week-long partial hospitalization program.

Related Resources

• American Association of Suicidology. www.suicidology.org.
• Harvard School of Public Health. Means Matter. www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter.
• Simon RI. Preventing patient suicide: clinical assessment and management. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing; 2011.

Drug Brand Names

• Citalopram • Celexa
• Clonazepam • Klonopin
• Clozapine • Clozaril
• Lithium • Eskalith, Lithobid
• Trazodone • Desyrel, Oleptro

Disclosure

Dr. Freeman reports no financial relationship with any company whose products are mentioned in this article or with manufacturers of competing products.

At his wife’s urging, Mr. L, age 34, presents to the local emergency room (ER). Approximately 1 week ago, he woke up in the middle of the night and told her he was afraid he would die because he had heart palpitations, a choking sensation, dizziness, and shortness of breath.

The ER physician rules out an acute medical illness and requests a psychiatric consultation. Mr. L is reluctant to talk to the psychiatrist, saying he has just had a difficult couple of weeks because of problems at work. With Mr. L’s permission, the psychiatrist speaks with his wife and learns that for several weeks Mr. L has been having problems falling asleep and has been waking up early. Mrs. L noticed her husband is unable to sit still, not enjoying his favorite television shows, and drinking more alcohol at night.

The clinical picture became clearer after Mr. L tells the psychiatrist that approximately 1 month ago, he lost his appetite, had low energy and concentration, and began to feel depressed. He denies having suicidal thoughts or plans, but says his suffering is increasing and he doesn’t know what to do.

Suicide is our worst outcome; at times it can seem like we are helpless to change its frequency or evaluate its likelihood. As clinicians, we are not expected to predict who will commit suicide, but are expected to perform an adequate suicide risk assessment and determine who is at high risk. We need to clearly document a patient’s suicide risk level in his or her chart, and our subsequent actions need to be consistent with that assessment. For instance, arranging for additional supports—including psychiatric hospitalization when necessary—for a patient deemed to be at high risk for suicide is considered the standard of care. In this article, I:

• discuss demographic factors related to suicide
• explore the importance of time-related suicide risk factors and the few treatments shown to reduce suicide risk
• review protective and preventive factors.

Sobering statistics

Over the past decade, suicide rates in the United States have remained fixed at slightly more than 30,000 per year. In 2009—the most recent year for which statistics are available from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention—there were 36,547 suicides in the United States, making it the 10^th leading cause of death.¹ The rates of suicide completions and attempts vary by sex and age. Males complete suicide 4 times more often than females, whereas females attempt suicide 3 times more often. Among individuals age 15 to 24, 86% of those who completed suicide were male; in older persons (age >65), 85% were male.² Although rates of completed suicide are highest among older adults, rates of suicide attempts are greatest among young persons. The ratio of attempted-to-completed suicide is 100 to 200:1 in individuals age 15 to 24 but 4:1 in those age >65.²

Whites and Native Americans have the highest suicide rates (12.3 and 12.9 per 100,000, respectively).² Guns are the most common method of completed suicide in all age groups in the United States: they are used in 53% of all suicides and 76% of those among persons age >70.³ In >90% of completed suicides, the decedent had been diagnosed with ≥1 psychiatric disorder.³ By far, the most common psychiatric illness is major depressive disorder, present in 75% of those who commit suicide.³

Understanding intent

Many physicians believe that patients will tell them if they are feeling worse and are starting to think more seriously about suicide. There is no better example of this than the “contract for safety” or “no-harm contract,” in which a patient signs a paper agreeing to notify a clinician if he begins to develop more intense suicidal feelings. Studies have shown that these “no-harm contracts” do not prevent suicide; this makes sense because if a patient decides to kill himself, telling a clinician puts up an obstacle.^4-6

Patients who commit suicide often communicate their suicidal intent, but usually tell family members rather than clinicians. In 1 study, 78% of patients who committed suicide on an inpatient unit denied suicidal ideation at their last communication with staff; although 60% told their spouse and 50% told other relatives, only 18% told their physician.⁷ In this study, precautions provided a false sense of security: 51% of patients were receiving 15-minute suicide checks or 1-to-1 observation at the time of suicide.⁷

Who is at risk?

The most recent American Psychiatric Association Task Force Report on Suicide identified 57 risk factors for suicide.^8,9 This has led to confusion among clinicians and may have led some clinicians to repeatedly ask patients about suicidal ideation rather than conduct a suicide risk assessment.

Although a history of suicide attempts and a family history of suicide are well-established risk factors,⁹ these are not acute factors. It is important to differentiate between suicide attempts and suicide completions. Although many suicide attempts are accurate substitutes for actual suicides, there is a spectrum of intent in suicide attempts that differentiates them in terms of lethality.¹⁰ Clinicians need a more thorough understanding of who is at acute risk for suicide, which will help them make decisions about patients’ imminent risk to themselves.

In the only study that examined time-related predictors of suicide, Fawcett et al¹¹ used the Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia (SADS) to evaluate 954 patients with major affective disorders over 10 years. Raters were blinded to treatment, and clinicians could use any combination of psychotherapy or pharmacotherapy. These researchers found that acute risk factors—those associated with suicide within 1 year—were psychic anxiety, anhedonia, diminished concentration, insomnia, panic attacks, and active alcohol abuse (Table 1).¹¹ These factors were present in the context of an underlying depressive disorder. Hopelessness, suicidal ideation, and a history of suicide attempts were linked to suicide between 2 and 10 years.

Busch et al¹² performed a retrospective study on an inpatient unit using the SADS to evaluate symptoms present the week before patients’ suicides. They found that 79% of patients had extreme psychic anxiety, agitation, or both, and that 54% had active psychosis. The same authors studied an additional 12 cases of inpatient suicide and found 9 patients had severe anxiety, agitation, or both, and insomnia. The median time to suicide from admission was 3.5 days and none of the 12 patients had been started on an antidepressant, antipsychotic, or anxiolytic. This underscores the need to initiate symptomatic treatment quickly, even before reaching a definitive diagnosis.

The Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS), which evaluates suicide ideation and behavior in the past week and lifetime, has predictive validity in determining those at highest risk for making a suicide attempt within up to 24 weeks of follow-up.¹³ A limitation of the C-SSRS is that it has predictive validity for suicide attempts only, and not suicide completions.

Table 1

Acute suicide risk factors: 3 A’s + 3 P’s

Treatments to lower risk

Although identifying risk factors such as older age, being unmarried, male sex, experiencing a recent loss, a family history of completed suicide, and being white or Native American are helpful in evaluating a patient’s suicide risk, they are not time-sensitive or modifiable, which limits their value.

In contrast, most of the acute risk factors identified by Fawcett et al potentially are treatable. Psychic anxiety, insomnia, and panic attacks can be treated with benzodiazepines or other anxiolytics and sedative/hypnotics. Active psychosis, which Busch et al identified as a risk factor for inpatient suicide, may respond to antipsychotics.

Other medications have been identified as modifying suicide risk (Table 2).^14-20 Among patients with major affective disorders, lithium has been shown to reduce suicidal acts by 93%, suicide attempts by 93%, and suicide completions by 82%.¹⁴ Lithium produces the largest suicide risk reduction in unipolar depression, at 100%, followed by bipolar II disorder (82%) and bipolar I disorder (67%).¹⁵ Several studies have demonstrated that lithium can reduce the mortality rate from suicide for patients with affective disorders, and that this effect persists.^16,17

Clozapine has been associated with reduced rates of suicide attempts and completed suicides in patients with chronic psychosis. In a meta-analysis, long-term clozapine treatment was associated with an approximately 3-fold overall reduction of risk of suicidal behaviors,¹⁸ although a prospective study found no reduction in risk of completed suicide in patients with schizophrenia treated with clozapine.¹⁹

In one study, electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) reduced suicidal thoughts and acts by 38% after 1 week and 80% overall.²⁰ There have been reports of amelioration of suicidal thoughts after just 1 ECT treatment.²¹ There are no published studies that show a reduction in suicide completions with ECT; however, this may be due to the relatively small number of patients who receive ECT and the infrequency of completed suicides.

Protective factors. The balance between protective factors and risk factors determines appropriate clinical decision making when attempting to evaluate a patient’s suicide risk. Perhaps the best measure of protective factors is the Reasons for Living Inventory, developed by Linehan et al,²² which has been validated in some populations, including adolescents and young adults.²³ This inventory delineates protective factors against suicidal ideation and behavior rather than completed suicides.

Similar to suicide protection, suicide prevention focuses on factors that can serve as obstacles to a patient’s desire or ability to commit suicide. A large systematic literature review by Mann et al²⁴ found that only primary care physician education and restricting access to lethal means prevented suicide. When working to remove lethal means from a suicidal patient’s home, it is critical to verify that this has been done rather than merely making a suggestion to a family member. It is necessary to follow up with a phone call and document the completion of this task.

When a patient commits suicide, it is common for psychiatrists to feel like there must have been something they could have done to prevent such a tragedy. Although typically that is not the case, there is more we can do to improve our suicide risk assessment skills. Focusing on acute, modifiable suicide risk factors may help us lower a patient’s risk. Also, shortening the time frame now considered acute (within 1 year) to hours and days and looking for additional risk factors may improve mental health professionals’ ability to accurately assess acute suicide risk.

Table 2

Treatments to lower suicide risk

CASE CONTINUED: Hospitalization and improvement

The psychiatrist determines Mr. L is at high risk for suicide and recommends psychiatric hospitalization. She starts him on citalopram, 10 mg/d, and clonazepam, 0.5 mg twice daily and 1 mg at bedtime, to help with anxiety and insomnia. After 3 days, Mr. L tolerates the medications, sleeps better, and feels more hopeful about the future. The psychiatrist increases citalopram to 20 mg/d.

Four days later, Mr. L is eating better, can concentrate, and denies further episodes of dizziness or anxiety. The inpatient psychiatrist assesses his acute suicide risk as low and discharges him to a week-long partial hospitalization program.

Related Resources

• American Association of Suicidology. www.suicidology.org.
• Harvard School of Public Health. Means Matter. www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter.
• Simon RI. Preventing patient suicide: clinical assessment and management. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing; 2011.

Drug Brand Names

• Citalopram • Celexa
• Clonazepam • Klonopin
• Clozapine • Clozaril
• Lithium • Eskalith, Lithobid
• Trazodone • Desyrel, Oleptro

Disclosure

Dr. Freeman reports no financial relationship with any company whose products are mentioned in this article or with manufacturers of competing products.

At his wife’s urging, Mr. L, age 34, presents to the local emergency room (ER). Approximately 1 week ago, he woke up in the middle of the night and told her he was afraid he would die because he had heart palpitations, a choking sensation, dizziness, and shortness of breath.

The ER physician rules out an acute medical illness and requests a psychiatric consultation. Mr. L is reluctant to talk to the psychiatrist, saying he has just had a difficult couple of weeks because of problems at work. With Mr. L’s permission, the psychiatrist speaks with his wife and learns that for several weeks Mr. L has been having problems falling asleep and has been waking up early. Mrs. L noticed her husband is unable to sit still, not enjoying his favorite television shows, and drinking more alcohol at night.

The clinical picture became clearer after Mr. L tells the psychiatrist that approximately 1 month ago, he lost his appetite, had low energy and concentration, and began to feel depressed. He denies having suicidal thoughts or plans, but says his suffering is increasing and he doesn’t know what to do.

Suicide is our worst outcome; at times it can seem like we are helpless to change its frequency or evaluate its likelihood. As clinicians, we are not expected to predict who will commit suicide, but are expected to perform an adequate suicide risk assessment and determine who is at high risk. We need to clearly document a patient’s suicide risk level in his or her chart, and our subsequent actions need to be consistent with that assessment. For instance, arranging for additional supports—including psychiatric hospitalization when necessary—for a patient deemed to be at high risk for suicide is considered the standard of care. In this article, I:

• discuss demographic factors related to suicide
• explore the importance of time-related suicide risk factors and the few treatments shown to reduce suicide risk
• review protective and preventive factors.

Sobering statistics

Over the past decade, suicide rates in the United States have remained fixed at slightly more than 30,000 per year. In 2009—the most recent year for which statistics are available from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention—there were 36,547 suicides in the United States, making it the 10^th leading cause of death.¹ The rates of suicide completions and attempts vary by sex and age. Males complete suicide 4 times more often than females, whereas females attempt suicide 3 times more often. Among individuals age 15 to 24, 86% of those who completed suicide were male; in older persons (age >65), 85% were male.² Although rates of completed suicide are highest among older adults, rates of suicide attempts are greatest among young persons. The ratio of attempted-to-completed suicide is 100 to 200:1 in individuals age 15 to 24 but 4:1 in those age >65.²

Whites and Native Americans have the highest suicide rates (12.3 and 12.9 per 100,000, respectively).² Guns are the most common method of completed suicide in all age groups in the United States: they are used in 53% of all suicides and 76% of those among persons age >70.³ In >90% of completed suicides, the decedent had been diagnosed with ≥1 psychiatric disorder.³ By far, the most common psychiatric illness is major depressive disorder, present in 75% of those who commit suicide.³

Understanding intent

Many physicians believe that patients will tell them if they are feeling worse and are starting to think more seriously about suicide. There is no better example of this than the “contract for safety” or “no-harm contract,” in which a patient signs a paper agreeing to notify a clinician if he begins to develop more intense suicidal feelings. Studies have shown that these “no-harm contracts” do not prevent suicide; this makes sense because if a patient decides to kill himself, telling a clinician puts up an obstacle.^4-6

Patients who commit suicide often communicate their suicidal intent, but usually tell family members rather than clinicians. In 1 study, 78% of patients who committed suicide on an inpatient unit denied suicidal ideation at their last communication with staff; although 60% told their spouse and 50% told other relatives, only 18% told their physician.⁷ In this study, precautions provided a false sense of security: 51% of patients were receiving 15-minute suicide checks or 1-to-1 observation at the time of suicide.⁷

Who is at risk?

The most recent American Psychiatric Association Task Force Report on Suicide identified 57 risk factors for suicide.^8,9 This has led to confusion among clinicians and may have led some clinicians to repeatedly ask patients about suicidal ideation rather than conduct a suicide risk assessment.

Although a history of suicide attempts and a family history of suicide are well-established risk factors,⁹ these are not acute factors. It is important to differentiate between suicide attempts and suicide completions. Although many suicide attempts are accurate substitutes for actual suicides, there is a spectrum of intent in suicide attempts that differentiates them in terms of lethality.¹⁰ Clinicians need a more thorough understanding of who is at acute risk for suicide, which will help them make decisions about patients’ imminent risk to themselves.

In the only study that examined time-related predictors of suicide, Fawcett et al¹¹ used the Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia (SADS) to evaluate 954 patients with major affective disorders over 10 years. Raters were blinded to treatment, and clinicians could use any combination of psychotherapy or pharmacotherapy. These researchers found that acute risk factors—those associated with suicide within 1 year—were psychic anxiety, anhedonia, diminished concentration, insomnia, panic attacks, and active alcohol abuse (Table 1).¹¹ These factors were present in the context of an underlying depressive disorder. Hopelessness, suicidal ideation, and a history of suicide attempts were linked to suicide between 2 and 10 years.

Busch et al¹² performed a retrospective study on an inpatient unit using the SADS to evaluate symptoms present the week before patients’ suicides. They found that 79% of patients had extreme psychic anxiety, agitation, or both, and that 54% had active psychosis. The same authors studied an additional 12 cases of inpatient suicide and found 9 patients had severe anxiety, agitation, or both, and insomnia. The median time to suicide from admission was 3.5 days and none of the 12 patients had been started on an antidepressant, antipsychotic, or anxiolytic. This underscores the need to initiate symptomatic treatment quickly, even before reaching a definitive diagnosis.

The Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS), which evaluates suicide ideation and behavior in the past week and lifetime, has predictive validity in determining those at highest risk for making a suicide attempt within up to 24 weeks of follow-up.¹³ A limitation of the C-SSRS is that it has predictive validity for suicide attempts only, and not suicide completions.

Table 1

Acute suicide risk factors: 3 A’s + 3 P’s

Treatments to lower risk

Although identifying risk factors such as older age, being unmarried, male sex, experiencing a recent loss, a family history of completed suicide, and being white or Native American are helpful in evaluating a patient’s suicide risk, they are not time-sensitive or modifiable, which limits their value.

In contrast, most of the acute risk factors identified by Fawcett et al potentially are treatable. Psychic anxiety, insomnia, and panic attacks can be treated with benzodiazepines or other anxiolytics and sedative/hypnotics. Active psychosis, which Busch et al identified as a risk factor for inpatient suicide, may respond to antipsychotics.

Other medications have been identified as modifying suicide risk (Table 2).^14-20 Among patients with major affective disorders, lithium has been shown to reduce suicidal acts by 93%, suicide attempts by 93%, and suicide completions by 82%.¹⁴ Lithium produces the largest suicide risk reduction in unipolar depression, at 100%, followed by bipolar II disorder (82%) and bipolar I disorder (67%).¹⁵ Several studies have demonstrated that lithium can reduce the mortality rate from suicide for patients with affective disorders, and that this effect persists.^16,17

Clozapine has been associated with reduced rates of suicide attempts and completed suicides in patients with chronic psychosis. In a meta-analysis, long-term clozapine treatment was associated with an approximately 3-fold overall reduction of risk of suicidal behaviors,¹⁸ although a prospective study found no reduction in risk of completed suicide in patients with schizophrenia treated with clozapine.¹⁹

In one study, electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) reduced suicidal thoughts and acts by 38% after 1 week and 80% overall.²⁰ There have been reports of amelioration of suicidal thoughts after just 1 ECT treatment.²¹ There are no published studies that show a reduction in suicide completions with ECT; however, this may be due to the relatively small number of patients who receive ECT and the infrequency of completed suicides.

Protective factors. The balance between protective factors and risk factors determines appropriate clinical decision making when attempting to evaluate a patient’s suicide risk. Perhaps the best measure of protective factors is the Reasons for Living Inventory, developed by Linehan et al,²² which has been validated in some populations, including adolescents and young adults.²³ This inventory delineates protective factors against suicidal ideation and behavior rather than completed suicides.

Similar to suicide protection, suicide prevention focuses on factors that can serve as obstacles to a patient’s desire or ability to commit suicide. A large systematic literature review by Mann et al²⁴ found that only primary care physician education and restricting access to lethal means prevented suicide. When working to remove lethal means from a suicidal patient’s home, it is critical to verify that this has been done rather than merely making a suggestion to a family member. It is necessary to follow up with a phone call and document the completion of this task.

When a patient commits suicide, it is common for psychiatrists to feel like there must have been something they could have done to prevent such a tragedy. Although typically that is not the case, there is more we can do to improve our suicide risk assessment skills. Focusing on acute, modifiable suicide risk factors may help us lower a patient’s risk. Also, shortening the time frame now considered acute (within 1 year) to hours and days and looking for additional risk factors may improve mental health professionals’ ability to accurately assess acute suicide risk.

Table 2

Treatments to lower suicide risk

CASE CONTINUED: Hospitalization and improvement

The psychiatrist determines Mr. L is at high risk for suicide and recommends psychiatric hospitalization. She starts him on citalopram, 10 mg/d, and clonazepam, 0.5 mg twice daily and 1 mg at bedtime, to help with anxiety and insomnia. After 3 days, Mr. L tolerates the medications, sleeps better, and feels more hopeful about the future. The psychiatrist increases citalopram to 20 mg/d.

Four days later, Mr. L is eating better, can concentrate, and denies further episodes of dizziness or anxiety. The inpatient psychiatrist assesses his acute suicide risk as low and discharges him to a week-long partial hospitalization program.

Related Resources

• American Association of Suicidology. www.suicidology.org.
• Harvard School of Public Health. Means Matter. www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter.
• Simon RI. Preventing patient suicide: clinical assessment and management. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing; 2011.

Drug Brand Names

• Citalopram • Celexa
• Clonazepam • Klonopin
• Clozapine • Clozaril
• Lithium • Eskalith, Lithobid
• Trazodone • Desyrel, Oleptro

Disclosure

Dr. Freeman reports no financial relationship with any company whose products are mentioned in this article or with manufacturers of competing products.

Objective: Although depression is prevalent among cancer patients, it remains underdiagnosed and undertreated. Quality of life is an important outcome in cancer patients and can be measured by questionnaires such as the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General version (FACT-G). The purpose of our study was to establish whether or not a group of items in FACT-G could be used as a screening tool for depression as well as for assessing quality of life.

Methods: A total of 62 chemotherapy patients (median age, 62 years [range, 22-81 years]; 55% women) completed Zung Self-Rating Depression Scale (ZSDS) and FACT-G questionnaires. Patients with ZSDS scores of 40 or more underwent clinical interviews for major depression. Pearson’s correlation was used to examine the relationship between the ZSDS and FACT-G scores. FACT-G score results were then analyzed to evaluate if subsets of the FACT-G can be used as a screening tool for major depression.

Results: In all, 30 of 62 patients (48%) had ZSDS scores   40 and were ruled out for major depression, and 30 of the 32 patients with ZSDS scores   40 participated clinical interviews. Of those who were interviewed, 7 patients (23%) were confirmed to have major depression. Overall, the prevalence of major depression was 7 of 60 patients (12%; 95% CI: 5%-23%). The ZSDS and FACT-G scores had strong correlation (r   -0.75). The composite score of six statements in FACT-G were found to have sensitivity of 100% and specificity of 81% in predicting major depression, using a cut-off value of 12 (range, 0-24). The six statements were, I have a lack of energy; I feel sad; I feel nervous; I am able to enjoy life; I am sleeping well; and I am enjoying the things I usually do for fun.

Conclusions: The prevalence of major depression among all participants was 12%. The ZSDS score and FACT-G score had strong correlation; the subsets of FACT-G may be useful as a screening tool for depression.

*For a PDF of the full article, click on the link to the left of this introduction.

Objective: Although depression is prevalent among cancer patients, it remains underdiagnosed and undertreated. Quality of life is an important outcome in cancer patients and can be measured by questionnaires such as the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General version (FACT-G). The purpose of our study was to establish whether or not a group of items in FACT-G could be used as a screening tool for depression as well as for assessing quality of life.

Methods: A total of 62 chemotherapy patients (median age, 62 years [range, 22-81 years]; 55% women) completed Zung Self-Rating Depression Scale (ZSDS) and FACT-G questionnaires. Patients with ZSDS scores of 40 or more underwent clinical interviews for major depression. Pearson’s correlation was used to examine the relationship between the ZSDS and FACT-G scores. FACT-G score results were then analyzed to evaluate if subsets of the FACT-G can be used as a screening tool for major depression.

Results: In all, 30 of 62 patients (48%) had ZSDS scores   40 and were ruled out for major depression, and 30 of the 32 patients with ZSDS scores   40 participated clinical interviews. Of those who were interviewed, 7 patients (23%) were confirmed to have major depression. Overall, the prevalence of major depression was 7 of 60 patients (12%; 95% CI: 5%-23%). The ZSDS and FACT-G scores had strong correlation (r   -0.75). The composite score of six statements in FACT-G were found to have sensitivity of 100% and specificity of 81% in predicting major depression, using a cut-off value of 12 (range, 0-24). The six statements were, I have a lack of energy; I feel sad; I feel nervous; I am able to enjoy life; I am sleeping well; and I am enjoying the things I usually do for fun.

Conclusions: The prevalence of major depression among all participants was 12%. The ZSDS score and FACT-G score had strong correlation; the subsets of FACT-G may be useful as a screening tool for depression.

*For a PDF of the full article, click on the link to the left of this introduction.

Objective: Although depression is prevalent among cancer patients, it remains underdiagnosed and undertreated. Quality of life is an important outcome in cancer patients and can be measured by questionnaires such as the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General version (FACT-G). The purpose of our study was to establish whether or not a group of items in FACT-G could be used as a screening tool for depression as well as for assessing quality of life.

Methods: A total of 62 chemotherapy patients (median age, 62 years [range, 22-81 years]; 55% women) completed Zung Self-Rating Depression Scale (ZSDS) and FACT-G questionnaires. Patients with ZSDS scores of 40 or more underwent clinical interviews for major depression. Pearson’s correlation was used to examine the relationship between the ZSDS and FACT-G scores. FACT-G score results were then analyzed to evaluate if subsets of the FACT-G can be used as a screening tool for major depression.

Results: In all, 30 of 62 patients (48%) had ZSDS scores   40 and were ruled out for major depression, and 30 of the 32 patients with ZSDS scores   40 participated clinical interviews. Of those who were interviewed, 7 patients (23%) were confirmed to have major depression. Overall, the prevalence of major depression was 7 of 60 patients (12%; 95% CI: 5%-23%). The ZSDS and FACT-G scores had strong correlation (r   -0.75). The composite score of six statements in FACT-G were found to have sensitivity of 100% and specificity of 81% in predicting major depression, using a cut-off value of 12 (range, 0-24). The six statements were, I have a lack of energy; I feel sad; I feel nervous; I am able to enjoy life; I am sleeping well; and I am enjoying the things I usually do for fun.

Conclusions: The prevalence of major depression among all participants was 12%. The ZSDS score and FACT-G score had strong correlation; the subsets of FACT-G may be useful as a screening tool for depression.

*For a PDF of the full article, click on the link to the left of this introduction.

The Food and Drug Administration's warning last summer of the risks associated with transvaginal placement of mesh for repair of pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence – and its overall, ongoing review of how mesh products are cleared for use–have changed the climate for ob.gyns. and patients. It has upped the ante for comprehensive patient counseling and brought to the fore the fact that pelvic floor repair is a combination of art, science, judgment, skill, training, and experience.

In July 2011, the FDA issued a “safety communication” to physicians and patients, which was based on an analysis of adverse event reports and a systematic literature review, warning that the transvaginal placement of mesh to treat pelvic organ prolapse (POP) appears to be riskier than traditional repairs without any evidence of greater effectiveness. While an earlier FDA notice issued in 2008 had said in essence that there may be a problem with transvaginal mesh, the most recent warning said there is a problem – that serious complications associated with surgical mesh used for transvaginal repair of POP are not rare.

The agency made a distinction between apical and posterior repair, and anterior repair, concluding that there is no evidence that either apical or posterior repair done with mesh provides any added benefit compared with traditional surgery without mesh.

With regard to anterior repair, the FDA concluded that mesh augmentation may provide an anatomic benefit compared with traditional nonmesh repair, although this anatomic benefit may not necessarily lead to better symptomatic results.

The FDA also reviewed all types of midurethral sling (MUS) devices used to treat stress urinary incontinence (SUI), grouping retropubic and transobturator slings as first-generation and mini-slings as second-generation devices.

Whereas these devices were deemed to be as effective as or better than traditional repairs, the FDA stated its concerns about the potential for long-term problems including mesh erosion and pelvic pain. Moreover, the agency stated the need for more data to better evaluate mini-slings for comparative efficacy and complications.

More broadly, the FDA is reevaluating how transvaginal mesh products should be regulated and brought to market. Unlike other devices that are widely used by ob.gyns., not one of the pelvic floor mesh kits for POP or midurethral slings for SUI has been evaluated by way of an independent, FDA-mandated randomized clinical trial. This is because transvaginal meshes are currently classified as class II devices and, as such, have been cleared for market by the less rigorous 510(k) notification process rather than a more rigorous premarket approval (PMA) process.

While the FDA considers the 510(k) pathway still suitable for MUS devices used to treat SUI, the agency is taking a harder look at transvaginal mesh used to repair POP and has recommended reclassification of these devices into class III. This switch would require the more onerous PMA process and allow the FDA to require clinical trials comparing procedures that involve mesh with those in which mesh is not used.

How the FDA Regulates Devices

That transvaginal mesh devices are embroiled in a broader and ongoing controversy over how best to regulate or approve medical devices is important to understand. Innovation and potential market share continue to drive a steady stream of new medical devices for gynecologic surgery.

Until 36 years ago there was no federal regulation of medical devices. The Medical Device Amendments of 1976 established three device classes, based on risk levels and the ability of postmarketing controls to manage those risks. The law then identified pathways, based largely on this classification system, for bringing devices to the market.

Class I devices are generally those for which general postmarketing controls such as good manufacturing processes and record keeping are deemed sufficient to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness. Devices in class II, which are “moderate risk,” need special controls such as performance standards and postmarketing surveillance to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness. In class III are life-sustaining or life-supporting “high-risk” devices that cannot be placed in class I or II because there is insufficient information to establish requisite assurance with postmarketing controls.

While FDA-approved randomized and controlled clinical trials are required for class III devices as part of the standard PMA process, class II devices are cleared for the market based on the substantially less rigorous 510(k) Premarket Notification Program process, which requires manufacturers to demonstrate safety and effectiveness by proving “substantial equivalence” to another device that is already cleared by the FDA based on intended use and product design.

Whereas clinical data are not required, this review of substantial equivalence requires labeling and performance data, including material safety, mechanical performance, and animal testing. Approval of the first surgical mesh for repair of POP was judged to be substantially equivalent to surgical mesh used for hernia repair.

In recent years there has been growing concern about this process of clearing medical devices based simply on substantial equivalence with a predicate. New products should not necessarily be assumed to have equal or improved safety and efficacy. The Institute of Medicine weighed in this past summer with a report on the 510(k) clearance process, calling it flawed in its ability to provide determinations about each device's safety and effectiveness.

The future of transvaginal mesh products is now entangled in these concerns. Unlike devices for endometrial ablation and transcervical hysteroscopic sterilization, which are justifiably classified as class III devices, all transvaginal mesh devices to date have been cleared as class II devices.

Since 2001, the FDA has cleared via the 510(k) approval process more than 100 synthetic mesh devices or kits indicated for POP repair, and more than 75 mesh devices to treat SUI (including 7 second-generation mini-slings), using the 510(k) notification process. None of the clearances were based on clinical data.

While there have indeed been some randomized clinical trials (in its recent review, FDA officials reported having looked at 22 randomized controlled trials and 38 observational studies on the use of mesh to treat POP), many of these trials have been designed and conducted with industry sponsorship.

The FDA typically calls upon its advisory panels to provide independent expert advice when specific issues or problems arise and when regulatory decisions need to be made both before and after approval of medical devices.

After issuing its “safety communication” last July, the FDA convened the Obstetrics and Gynecology Devices Advisory Panel in September to make recommendations regarding the safety and effectiveness of surgical mesh for repair of POP and SUI. Ironically, transvaginal mesh devices had previously been regulated by the FDA's Plastic Surgery Devices Panel.

The 2-day public hearing included presentations regarding adverse events and effectiveness of transvaginal mesh for POP and then SUI by FDA staff reviewers, key medical organizations, related industry as a consortium, and public advocacy groups as well as personal testimony by patients having undergone these procedures.

After hearing the testimony and an exhaustive discussion, the majority of panel members supported reclassifying mesh devices for POP from class II to class III. On the other hand, while the majority did not recommend the reclassification of devices for SUI, the panel concurred that more clinical data was warranted to establish the safety and efficacy of second-generation mini-slings.

The FDA's final regulatory decisions will slowly evolve as the issues of safety and effectiveness are balanced with reducing the burden for industry and continuing to foster a hospitable climate for medical innovation.

Adverse Event Reports

The FDA's safety communication released in July, which updated the 2008 FDA Public Health Notification, was generated by continuing concerns raised by rising reports of adverse events as well as concern voiced by the American Urogynecologic Society.

The adverse event reports have been compiled via the FDA's Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database, which collects both mandated reporting by manufacturers and voluntary reports by physicians, patients, and any interested party. It is presumed that complications are generally underreported.

From 2008 to 2010, the FDA received 2,874 adverse event reports associated with urogynecologic mesh – about three times the number of reports filed from 2005 to 2007. Of these, 1,503 were associated with products for POP, and 1,371 were associated with products for SUI.

It is unclear, of course, how much of this increase reflects an increase in actual adverse events and how much stems from the increased use of mesh, an increased awareness of adverse events, possible duplication of reporting, and other factors that are inherent limitations of the reporting process. Moreover, the complication rate is not known because the total number of adverse events and the total number of implanted delivery systems are not known.

Erosion, exposure, and extrusion continue to be the most frequent and concerning adverse events associated with mesh used for POP and SUI. With its more recent review, the FDA has new concerns about the delayed appearances of erosion and mesh exposure. While there are few treatment cohorts to evaluate after 36 months, there have been a number of reports of long-term adverse outcomes – some at time points up to 60 months post procedure.

Moreover, the FDA is concerned about the risk for later development of dyspareunia and new pelvic pain from mesh contraction, retraction, vaginal shrinkage, and subsequent reoperation – problems not identified or flagged when the agency completed its last comprehensive review before issuing the 2008 notification.

Current State of Transvaginal Mesh

In the most recent safety communication, the FDA instructs patients to be aware of the risks associated with surgical mesh for transvaginal repair of POP and SUI. It warns patients that having transvaginal mesh surgery may increase their risk of needing additional surgery due to mesh-related complications, and it advises patients to ask their surgeons about all POP treatment options.

The alert also tells patients to notify their physicians regarding vaginal or pain symptoms after surgery with transvaginal mesh, and to let their health care providers know they have implanted mesh – advice that, in and of itself, can create fear. Any patient doing diligent research will see the statement and related discussion.

In issuing the communication, the FDA has set the bar at a higher level of expectation for patient counseling and informed consent.

While the FDA does not regulate the practice of medicine by regulating how or which physicians can use devices, the agency indirectly is regulating the use of transvaginal mesh devices through its alerts.

And without question, the probability for medical-legal conflict has been substantially heightened. Propelled by the FDA warnings, a cursory Internet search for “pelvic mesh lawyers” or “vaginal mesh lawsuit attorneys” yields a list of firms encouraging free case reviews.

Patients should be counseled that transvaginal mesh procedures are considered innovative techniques for pelvic floor repair that demonstrate high rates of anatomic cure in shorter-term series.

Preoperative counseling should cover the following principles and guidelines:

▸ There are potential adverse sequelae of transvaginal mesh repairs.

▸ There are limited data comparing transvaginal mesh systems with traditional vaginal prolapse repairs or with traditional use of graft material in the form of augmented colporrhaphy and sacrocolpopexy.

▸ The placement of surgical mesh for POP by sacrocolpopexy for apical prolapse is a well established clinical practice and may result in lower rates of mesh complications.

▸ Transvaginal apical or posterior repair with mesh does not appear to provide any added benefit compared with traditional surgery without mesh.

The main role for mesh with POP repair is in the anterior compartment, where a higher risk of recurrence with traditional repairs has been documented.

Overall, transvaginal mesh repair of POP is best suited to women who are high risk due to medical conditions and in those with recurrent prolapse, particularly of the anterior compartment.

▸ The effectiveness of retropubic and transobturator suburethral slings for SUI has been demonstrated, while the safety and effectiveness of single-incision mini-slings is less well established.

Rather than the fault of the device or method, the failure or success of transvaginal mesh repairs may rely far more on the skill and judgment of the surgeon.

All surgery incorporates an intricate blend of art and science. We must be realistic in evaluating our skills, experience, and expertise in performing transvaginal mesh procedures.

Even in the best of circumstances, factors such as obesity, hypoestrogenism, advanced age, poor nutrition, extreme life activity, multiparity, Northern European descent, smoking, prior reparative surgery, and diabetes may reduce the success of transvaginal mesh procedures and increase complications.

While patient concerns will be heightened, the decision to perform a particular type of restorative or reparative surgery for POP, with or without mesh, should always favor reduced risk along with optimal and durable outcome that is both anatomic and functional in nature. And clinical decision making, as always, must be guided by our Hippocratic vow “primum non nocere”!

Vitals

Source Elsevier Global Medical News

Source Elsevier Global Medical News

To Mesh or Not to Mesh?

www.isge.org

www.aagl.org

On July 13, 2011, the Food and Drug Administration issued a safety communication, “Update on Serious Complications Associated with Transvaginal Placement of Surgical Mesh for Pelvic Organ Prolapse,” intended for health care providers and patients. Previously, on Oct. 20, 2008, the FDA issued a Public Health Notification and Additional Patient Information statement on serious complications associated with surgical mesh placed transvaginally to treat pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI).

In the July 2011 bulletin, the FDA stated that “serious complications associated with surgical mesh for transvaginal repair of pelvic organ prolapse are not rare. … Furthermore, it is not clear that transvaginal pelvic organ prolapse repair with mesh is more effective than traditional nonmesh repair in all patients with pelvic organ prolapse and it may expose patients to greater risk.”

In its bulletin, the FDA noted a marked increase in reported adverse events related to surgical mesh devices used to repair POP and SUI in reporting years 2005-2007 vs. 2008-2010. The most frequent complications reported to the FDA regarding transvaginal mesh placement for POP were mesh erosion through the vagina, pain, infection, bleeding, dyspareunia, organ perforation, and urinary problems. Also noted were recurrent prolapse, neuromuscular problems, vaginal scarring/shrinkage, and emotional problems. Moreover, men may experience irritation and pain to the penis during intercourse secondary to exposed mesh.

The FDA also reported on its systematic review of literature from the period of 1996-2011 to evaluate transvaginal mesh safety and effectiveness. In particular, the FDA noted the following:

▸ Potential for additional risk when mesh is utilized in POP surgery.

▸ Greater rate of complications in POP surgery when mesh placed transvaginally, rather than transabdominally.

▸ No advantage of mesh for either apical or posterior repair, compared with traditional surgery without mesh.

▸ Although mesh may be beneficial anatomically for anterior repair, symptoms may not improve over conventional anterior repair.

The FDA then went on to make recommendations to both health care workers and patients.

Health care workers are advised to obtain specialized training for each mesh placement technique. Mesh should be considered only after weighing the risks and benefits, as well as considering other nonsurgical and surgical options including nonmesh and transabdominal mesh techniques.

Patients must be made aware that surgical mesh is a permanent implant, which may make future surgical repair more challenging.

Moreover, mesh may place the patient at greater risk for requiring additional surgery for the development of additional complications. Removal of mesh when complications arise may involve multiple surgeries and may negatively impact the patient's quality of life. Complete removal of the mesh may not be possible, and even if it is removed, symptoms may continue. Patients also must realize the lack of long-term data.

To understand how this latest FDA bulletin will impact the surgical treatment of POP and SUI, I have called upon Dr. Andrew I. Brill, director of minimally invasive surgery and reparative pelvic surgery at California Pacific Medical Center, San Francisco. He also is a voting member of the FDA Obstetrics and Gynecology Device Panel. Prior to moving to the Bay Area in 2006, Dr. Brill was professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Illinois at Chicago, where he directed one of the first accredited fellowships in minimally invasive gynecology. Dr. Brill is a past president of both the AAGL and the board of directors of the AAGL/Society of Reproductive Surgeons Fellowship in Minimally Invasive Gynecology. Widely recognized in the United States and abroad as a leading educator in the field of minimally invasive gynecology, Dr. Brill is a frequent lecturer and telesurgeon, and he continues to be a regular contributor to peer literature and textbooks, having coauthored a leading textbook and more than 50 articles and book chapters.

The Food and Drug Administration's warning last summer of the risks associated with transvaginal placement of mesh for repair of pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence – and its overall, ongoing review of how mesh products are cleared for use–have changed the climate for ob.gyns. and patients. It has upped the ante for comprehensive patient counseling and brought to the fore the fact that pelvic floor repair is a combination of art, science, judgment, skill, training, and experience.

In July 2011, the FDA issued a “safety communication” to physicians and patients, which was based on an analysis of adverse event reports and a systematic literature review, warning that the transvaginal placement of mesh to treat pelvic organ prolapse (POP) appears to be riskier than traditional repairs without any evidence of greater effectiveness. While an earlier FDA notice issued in 2008 had said in essence that there may be a problem with transvaginal mesh, the most recent warning said there is a problem – that serious complications associated with surgical mesh used for transvaginal repair of POP are not rare.

The agency made a distinction between apical and posterior repair, and anterior repair, concluding that there is no evidence that either apical or posterior repair done with mesh provides any added benefit compared with traditional surgery without mesh.

With regard to anterior repair, the FDA concluded that mesh augmentation may provide an anatomic benefit compared with traditional nonmesh repair, although this anatomic benefit may not necessarily lead to better symptomatic results.

The FDA also reviewed all types of midurethral sling (MUS) devices used to treat stress urinary incontinence (SUI), grouping retropubic and transobturator slings as first-generation and mini-slings as second-generation devices.

Whereas these devices were deemed to be as effective as or better than traditional repairs, the FDA stated its concerns about the potential for long-term problems including mesh erosion and pelvic pain. Moreover, the agency stated the need for more data to better evaluate mini-slings for comparative efficacy and complications.

More broadly, the FDA is reevaluating how transvaginal mesh products should be regulated and brought to market. Unlike other devices that are widely used by ob.gyns., not one of the pelvic floor mesh kits for POP or midurethral slings for SUI has been evaluated by way of an independent, FDA-mandated randomized clinical trial. This is because transvaginal meshes are currently classified as class II devices and, as such, have been cleared for market by the less rigorous 510(k) notification process rather than a more rigorous premarket approval (PMA) process.

While the FDA considers the 510(k) pathway still suitable for MUS devices used to treat SUI, the agency is taking a harder look at transvaginal mesh used to repair POP and has recommended reclassification of these devices into class III. This switch would require the more onerous PMA process and allow the FDA to require clinical trials comparing procedures that involve mesh with those in which mesh is not used.

How the FDA Regulates Devices

That transvaginal mesh devices are embroiled in a broader and ongoing controversy over how best to regulate or approve medical devices is important to understand. Innovation and potential market share continue to drive a steady stream of new medical devices for gynecologic surgery.

Until 36 years ago there was no federal regulation of medical devices. The Medical Device Amendments of 1976 established three device classes, based on risk levels and the ability of postmarketing controls to manage those risks. The law then identified pathways, based largely on this classification system, for bringing devices to the market.

Class I devices are generally those for which general postmarketing controls such as good manufacturing processes and record keeping are deemed sufficient to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness. Devices in class II, which are “moderate risk,” need special controls such as performance standards and postmarketing surveillance to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness. In class III are life-sustaining or life-supporting “high-risk” devices that cannot be placed in class I or II because there is insufficient information to establish requisite assurance with postmarketing controls.

While FDA-approved randomized and controlled clinical trials are required for class III devices as part of the standard PMA process, class II devices are cleared for the market based on the substantially less rigorous 510(k) Premarket Notification Program process, which requires manufacturers to demonstrate safety and effectiveness by proving “substantial equivalence” to another device that is already cleared by the FDA based on intended use and product design.

Whereas clinical data are not required, this review of substantial equivalence requires labeling and performance data, including material safety, mechanical performance, and animal testing. Approval of the first surgical mesh for repair of POP was judged to be substantially equivalent to surgical mesh used for hernia repair.

In recent years there has been growing concern about this process of clearing medical devices based simply on substantial equivalence with a predicate. New products should not necessarily be assumed to have equal or improved safety and efficacy. The Institute of Medicine weighed in this past summer with a report on the 510(k) clearance process, calling it flawed in its ability to provide determinations about each device's safety and effectiveness.

The future of transvaginal mesh products is now entangled in these concerns. Unlike devices for endometrial ablation and transcervical hysteroscopic sterilization, which are justifiably classified as class III devices, all transvaginal mesh devices to date have been cleared as class II devices.

Since 2001, the FDA has cleared via the 510(k) approval process more than 100 synthetic mesh devices or kits indicated for POP repair, and more than 75 mesh devices to treat SUI (including 7 second-generation mini-slings), using the 510(k) notification process. None of the clearances were based on clinical data.

While there have indeed been some randomized clinical trials (in its recent review, FDA officials reported having looked at 22 randomized controlled trials and 38 observational studies on the use of mesh to treat POP), many of these trials have been designed and conducted with industry sponsorship.

The FDA typically calls upon its advisory panels to provide independent expert advice when specific issues or problems arise and when regulatory decisions need to be made both before and after approval of medical devices.

After issuing its “safety communication” last July, the FDA convened the Obstetrics and Gynecology Devices Advisory Panel in September to make recommendations regarding the safety and effectiveness of surgical mesh for repair of POP and SUI. Ironically, transvaginal mesh devices had previously been regulated by the FDA's Plastic Surgery Devices Panel.

The 2-day public hearing included presentations regarding adverse events and effectiveness of transvaginal mesh for POP and then SUI by FDA staff reviewers, key medical organizations, related industry as a consortium, and public advocacy groups as well as personal testimony by patients having undergone these procedures.

After hearing the testimony and an exhaustive discussion, the majority of panel members supported reclassifying mesh devices for POP from class II to class III. On the other hand, while the majority did not recommend the reclassification of devices for SUI, the panel concurred that more clinical data was warranted to establish the safety and efficacy of second-generation mini-slings.

The FDA's final regulatory decisions will slowly evolve as the issues of safety and effectiveness are balanced with reducing the burden for industry and continuing to foster a hospitable climate for medical innovation.

Adverse Event Reports

The FDA's safety communication released in July, which updated the 2008 FDA Public Health Notification, was generated by continuing concerns raised by rising reports of adverse events as well as concern voiced by the American Urogynecologic Society.

The adverse event reports have been compiled via the FDA's Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database, which collects both mandated reporting by manufacturers and voluntary reports by physicians, patients, and any interested party. It is presumed that complications are generally underreported.

From 2008 to 2010, the FDA received 2,874 adverse event reports associated with urogynecologic mesh – about three times the number of reports filed from 2005 to 2007. Of these, 1,503 were associated with products for POP, and 1,371 were associated with products for SUI.

It is unclear, of course, how much of this increase reflects an increase in actual adverse events and how much stems from the increased use of mesh, an increased awareness of adverse events, possible duplication of reporting, and other factors that are inherent limitations of the reporting process. Moreover, the complication rate is not known because the total number of adverse events and the total number of implanted delivery systems are not known.

Erosion, exposure, and extrusion continue to be the most frequent and concerning adverse events associated with mesh used for POP and SUI. With its more recent review, the FDA has new concerns about the delayed appearances of erosion and mesh exposure. While there are few treatment cohorts to evaluate after 36 months, there have been a number of reports of long-term adverse outcomes – some at time points up to 60 months post procedure.

Moreover, the FDA is concerned about the risk for later development of dyspareunia and new pelvic pain from mesh contraction, retraction, vaginal shrinkage, and subsequent reoperation – problems not identified or flagged when the agency completed its last comprehensive review before issuing the 2008 notification.

Current State of Transvaginal Mesh

In the most recent safety communication, the FDA instructs patients to be aware of the risks associated with surgical mesh for transvaginal repair of POP and SUI. It warns patients that having transvaginal mesh surgery may increase their risk of needing additional surgery due to mesh-related complications, and it advises patients to ask their surgeons about all POP treatment options.

The alert also tells patients to notify their physicians regarding vaginal or pain symptoms after surgery with transvaginal mesh, and to let their health care providers know they have implanted mesh – advice that, in and of itself, can create fear. Any patient doing diligent research will see the statement and related discussion.

In issuing the communication, the FDA has set the bar at a higher level of expectation for patient counseling and informed consent.

While the FDA does not regulate the practice of medicine by regulating how or which physicians can use devices, the agency indirectly is regulating the use of transvaginal mesh devices through its alerts.

And without question, the probability for medical-legal conflict has been substantially heightened. Propelled by the FDA warnings, a cursory Internet search for “pelvic mesh lawyers” or “vaginal mesh lawsuit attorneys” yields a list of firms encouraging free case reviews.

Patients should be counseled that transvaginal mesh procedures are considered innovative techniques for pelvic floor repair that demonstrate high rates of anatomic cure in shorter-term series.

Preoperative counseling should cover the following principles and guidelines:

▸ There are potential adverse sequelae of transvaginal mesh repairs.

▸ There are limited data comparing transvaginal mesh systems with traditional vaginal prolapse repairs or with traditional use of graft material in the form of augmented colporrhaphy and sacrocolpopexy.

▸ The placement of surgical mesh for POP by sacrocolpopexy for apical prolapse is a well established clinical practice and may result in lower rates of mesh complications.

▸ Transvaginal apical or posterior repair with mesh does not appear to provide any added benefit compared with traditional surgery without mesh.

The main role for mesh with POP repair is in the anterior compartment, where a higher risk of recurrence with traditional repairs has been documented.

Overall, transvaginal mesh repair of POP is best suited to women who are high risk due to medical conditions and in those with recurrent prolapse, particularly of the anterior compartment.

▸ The effectiveness of retropubic and transobturator suburethral slings for SUI has been demonstrated, while the safety and effectiveness of single-incision mini-slings is less well established.

Rather than the fault of the device or method, the failure or success of transvaginal mesh repairs may rely far more on the skill and judgment of the surgeon.

All surgery incorporates an intricate blend of art and science. We must be realistic in evaluating our skills, experience, and expertise in performing transvaginal mesh procedures.

Even in the best of circumstances, factors such as obesity, hypoestrogenism, advanced age, poor nutrition, extreme life activity, multiparity, Northern European descent, smoking, prior reparative surgery, and diabetes may reduce the success of transvaginal mesh procedures and increase complications.

While patient concerns will be heightened, the decision to perform a particular type of restorative or reparative surgery for POP, with or without mesh, should always favor reduced risk along with optimal and durable outcome that is both anatomic and functional in nature. And clinical decision making, as always, must be guided by our Hippocratic vow “primum non nocere”!

Vitals

Source Elsevier Global Medical News

Source Elsevier Global Medical News

To Mesh or Not to Mesh?

www.isge.org

www.aagl.org

On July 13, 2011, the Food and Drug Administration issued a safety communication, “Update on Serious Complications Associated with Transvaginal Placement of Surgical Mesh for Pelvic Organ Prolapse,” intended for health care providers and patients. Previously, on Oct. 20, 2008, the FDA issued a Public Health Notification and Additional Patient Information statement on serious complications associated with surgical mesh placed transvaginally to treat pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI).

In the July 2011 bulletin, the FDA stated that “serious complications associated with surgical mesh for transvaginal repair of pelvic organ prolapse are not rare. … Furthermore, it is not clear that transvaginal pelvic organ prolapse repair with mesh is more effective than traditional nonmesh repair in all patients with pelvic organ prolapse and it may expose patients to greater risk.”

In its bulletin, the FDA noted a marked increase in reported adverse events related to surgical mesh devices used to repair POP and SUI in reporting years 2005-2007 vs. 2008-2010. The most frequent complications reported to the FDA regarding transvaginal mesh placement for POP were mesh erosion through the vagina, pain, infection, bleeding, dyspareunia, organ perforation, and urinary problems. Also noted were recurrent prolapse, neuromuscular problems, vaginal scarring/shrinkage, and emotional problems. Moreover, men may experience irritation and pain to the penis during intercourse secondary to exposed mesh.

The FDA also reported on its systematic review of literature from the period of 1996-2011 to evaluate transvaginal mesh safety and effectiveness. In particular, the FDA noted the following:

▸ Potential for additional risk when mesh is utilized in POP surgery.

▸ Greater rate of complications in POP surgery when mesh placed transvaginally, rather than transabdominally.

▸ No advantage of mesh for either apical or posterior repair, compared with traditional surgery without mesh.

▸ Although mesh may be beneficial anatomically for anterior repair, symptoms may not improve over conventional anterior repair.

The FDA then went on to make recommendations to both health care workers and patients.

Health care workers are advised to obtain specialized training for each mesh placement technique. Mesh should be considered only after weighing the risks and benefits, as well as considering other nonsurgical and surgical options including nonmesh and transabdominal mesh techniques.

Patients must be made aware that surgical mesh is a permanent implant, which may make future surgical repair more challenging.

Moreover, mesh may place the patient at greater risk for requiring additional surgery for the development of additional complications. Removal of mesh when complications arise may involve multiple surgeries and may negatively impact the patient's quality of life. Complete removal of the mesh may not be possible, and even if it is removed, symptoms may continue. Patients also must realize the lack of long-term data.

To understand how this latest FDA bulletin will impact the surgical treatment of POP and SUI, I have called upon Dr. Andrew I. Brill, director of minimally invasive surgery and reparative pelvic surgery at California Pacific Medical Center, San Francisco. He also is a voting member of the FDA Obstetrics and Gynecology Device Panel. Prior to moving to the Bay Area in 2006, Dr. Brill was professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Illinois at Chicago, where he directed one of the first accredited fellowships in minimally invasive gynecology. Dr. Brill is a past president of both the AAGL and the board of directors of the AAGL/Society of Reproductive Surgeons Fellowship in Minimally Invasive Gynecology. Widely recognized in the United States and abroad as a leading educator in the field of minimally invasive gynecology, Dr. Brill is a frequent lecturer and telesurgeon, and he continues to be a regular contributor to peer literature and textbooks, having coauthored a leading textbook and more than 50 articles and book chapters.

The Food and Drug Administration's warning last summer of the risks associated with transvaginal placement of mesh for repair of pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence – and its overall, ongoing review of how mesh products are cleared for use–have changed the climate for ob.gyns. and patients. It has upped the ante for comprehensive patient counseling and brought to the fore the fact that pelvic floor repair is a combination of art, science, judgment, skill, training, and experience.

In July 2011, the FDA issued a “safety communication” to physicians and patients, which was based on an analysis of adverse event reports and a systematic literature review, warning that the transvaginal placement of mesh to treat pelvic organ prolapse (POP) appears to be riskier than traditional repairs without any evidence of greater effectiveness. While an earlier FDA notice issued in 2008 had said in essence that there may be a problem with transvaginal mesh, the most recent warning said there is a problem – that serious complications associated with surgical mesh used for transvaginal repair of POP are not rare.

The agency made a distinction between apical and posterior repair, and anterior repair, concluding that there is no evidence that either apical or posterior repair done with mesh provides any added benefit compared with traditional surgery without mesh.

With regard to anterior repair, the FDA concluded that mesh augmentation may provide an anatomic benefit compared with traditional nonmesh repair, although this anatomic benefit may not necessarily lead to better symptomatic results.

The FDA also reviewed all types of midurethral sling (MUS) devices used to treat stress urinary incontinence (SUI), grouping retropubic and transobturator slings as first-generation and mini-slings as second-generation devices.

Whereas these devices were deemed to be as effective as or better than traditional repairs, the FDA stated its concerns about the potential for long-term problems including mesh erosion and pelvic pain. Moreover, the agency stated the need for more data to better evaluate mini-slings for comparative efficacy and complications.

More broadly, the FDA is reevaluating how transvaginal mesh products should be regulated and brought to market. Unlike other devices that are widely used by ob.gyns., not one of the pelvic floor mesh kits for POP or midurethral slings for SUI has been evaluated by way of an independent, FDA-mandated randomized clinical trial. This is because transvaginal meshes are currently classified as class II devices and, as such, have been cleared for market by the less rigorous 510(k) notification process rather than a more rigorous premarket approval (PMA) process.

While the FDA considers the 510(k) pathway still suitable for MUS devices used to treat SUI, the agency is taking a harder look at transvaginal mesh used to repair POP and has recommended reclassification of these devices into class III. This switch would require the more onerous PMA process and allow the FDA to require clinical trials comparing procedures that involve mesh with those in which mesh is not used.

How the FDA Regulates Devices

That transvaginal mesh devices are embroiled in a broader and ongoing controversy over how best to regulate or approve medical devices is important to understand. Innovation and potential market share continue to drive a steady stream of new medical devices for gynecologic surgery.

Until 36 years ago there was no federal regulation of medical devices. The Medical Device Amendments of 1976 established three device classes, based on risk levels and the ability of postmarketing controls to manage those risks. The law then identified pathways, based largely on this classification system, for bringing devices to the market.

Class I devices are generally those for which general postmarketing controls such as good manufacturing processes and record keeping are deemed sufficient to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness. Devices in class II, which are “moderate risk,” need special controls such as performance standards and postmarketing surveillance to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness. In class III are life-sustaining or life-supporting “high-risk” devices that cannot be placed in class I or II because there is insufficient information to establish requisite assurance with postmarketing controls.

While FDA-approved randomized and controlled clinical trials are required for class III devices as part of the standard PMA process, class II devices are cleared for the market based on the substantially less rigorous 510(k) Premarket Notification Program process, which requires manufacturers to demonstrate safety and effectiveness by proving “substantial equivalence” to another device that is already cleared by the FDA based on intended use and product design.

Whereas clinical data are not required, this review of substantial equivalence requires labeling and performance data, including material safety, mechanical performance, and animal testing. Approval of the first surgical mesh for repair of POP was judged to be substantially equivalent to surgical mesh used for hernia repair.

In recent years there has been growing concern about this process of clearing medical devices based simply on substantial equivalence with a predicate. New products should not necessarily be assumed to have equal or improved safety and efficacy. The Institute of Medicine weighed in this past summer with a report on the 510(k) clearance process, calling it flawed in its ability to provide determinations about each device's safety and effectiveness.

The future of transvaginal mesh products is now entangled in these concerns. Unlike devices for endometrial ablation and transcervical hysteroscopic sterilization, which are justifiably classified as class III devices, all transvaginal mesh devices to date have been cleared as class II devices.

Since 2001, the FDA has cleared via the 510(k) approval process more than 100 synthetic mesh devices or kits indicated for POP repair, and more than 75 mesh devices to treat SUI (including 7 second-generation mini-slings), using the 510(k) notification process. None of the clearances were based on clinical data.

While there have indeed been some randomized clinical trials (in its recent review, FDA officials reported having looked at 22 randomized controlled trials and 38 observational studies on the use of mesh to treat POP), many of these trials have been designed and conducted with industry sponsorship.

The FDA typically calls upon its advisory panels to provide independent expert advice when specific issues or problems arise and when regulatory decisions need to be made both before and after approval of medical devices.

After issuing its “safety communication” last July, the FDA convened the Obstetrics and Gynecology Devices Advisory Panel in September to make recommendations regarding the safety and effectiveness of surgical mesh for repair of POP and SUI. Ironically, transvaginal mesh devices had previously been regulated by the FDA's Plastic Surgery Devices Panel.

The 2-day public hearing included presentations regarding adverse events and effectiveness of transvaginal mesh for POP and then SUI by FDA staff reviewers, key medical organizations, related industry as a consortium, and public advocacy groups as well as personal testimony by patients having undergone these procedures.

After hearing the testimony and an exhaustive discussion, the majority of panel members supported reclassifying mesh devices for POP from class II to class III. On the other hand, while the majority did not recommend the reclassification of devices for SUI, the panel concurred that more clinical data was warranted to establish the safety and efficacy of second-generation mini-slings.

The FDA's final regulatory decisions will slowly evolve as the issues of safety and effectiveness are balanced with reducing the burden for industry and continuing to foster a hospitable climate for medical innovation.

Adverse Event Reports

The FDA's safety communication released in July, which updated the 2008 FDA Public Health Notification, was generated by continuing concerns raised by rising reports of adverse events as well as concern voiced by the American Urogynecologic Society.

The adverse event reports have been compiled via the FDA's Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database, which collects both mandated reporting by manufacturers and voluntary reports by physicians, patients, and any interested party. It is presumed that complications are generally underreported.

From 2008 to 2010, the FDA received 2,874 adverse event reports associated with urogynecologic mesh – about three times the number of reports filed from 2005 to 2007. Of these, 1,503 were associated with products for POP, and 1,371 were associated with products for SUI.

It is unclear, of course, how much of this increase reflects an increase in actual adverse events and how much stems from the increased use of mesh, an increased awareness of adverse events, possible duplication of reporting, and other factors that are inherent limitations of the reporting process. Moreover, the complication rate is not known because the total number of adverse events and the total number of implanted delivery systems are not known.

Erosion, exposure, and extrusion continue to be the most frequent and concerning adverse events associated with mesh used for POP and SUI. With its more recent review, the FDA has new concerns about the delayed appearances of erosion and mesh exposure. While there are few treatment cohorts to evaluate after 36 months, there have been a number of reports of long-term adverse outcomes – some at time points up to 60 months post procedure.

Moreover, the FDA is concerned about the risk for later development of dyspareunia and new pelvic pain from mesh contraction, retraction, vaginal shrinkage, and subsequent reoperation – problems not identified or flagged when the agency completed its last comprehensive review before issuing the 2008 notification.

Current State of Transvaginal Mesh

In the most recent safety communication, the FDA instructs patients to be aware of the risks associated with surgical mesh for transvaginal repair of POP and SUI. It warns patients that having transvaginal mesh surgery may increase their risk of needing additional surgery due to mesh-related complications, and it advises patients to ask their surgeons about all POP treatment options.

The alert also tells patients to notify their physicians regarding vaginal or pain symptoms after surgery with transvaginal mesh, and to let their health care providers know they have implanted mesh – advice that, in and of itself, can create fear. Any patient doing diligent research will see the statement and related discussion.

In issuing the communication, the FDA has set the bar at a higher level of expectation for patient counseling and informed consent.

While the FDA does not regulate the practice of medicine by regulating how or which physicians can use devices, the agency indirectly is regulating the use of transvaginal mesh devices through its alerts.

And without question, the probability for medical-legal conflict has been substantially heightened. Propelled by the FDA warnings, a cursory Internet search for “pelvic mesh lawyers” or “vaginal mesh lawsuit attorneys” yields a list of firms encouraging free case reviews.

Patients should be counseled that transvaginal mesh procedures are considered innovative techniques for pelvic floor repair that demonstrate high rates of anatomic cure in shorter-term series.

Preoperative counseling should cover the following principles and guidelines:

▸ There are potential adverse sequelae of transvaginal mesh repairs.

▸ There are limited data comparing transvaginal mesh systems with traditional vaginal prolapse repairs or with traditional use of graft material in the form of augmented colporrhaphy and sacrocolpopexy.

▸ The placement of surgical mesh for POP by sacrocolpopexy for apical prolapse is a well established clinical practice and may result in lower rates of mesh complications.

▸ Transvaginal apical or posterior repair with mesh does not appear to provide any added benefit compared with traditional surgery without mesh.

The main role for mesh with POP repair is in the anterior compartment, where a higher risk of recurrence with traditional repairs has been documented.

Overall, transvaginal mesh repair of POP is best suited to women who are high risk due to medical conditions and in those with recurrent prolapse, particularly of the anterior compartment.

▸ The effectiveness of retropubic and transobturator suburethral slings for SUI has been demonstrated, while the safety and effectiveness of single-incision mini-slings is less well established.

Rather than the fault of the device or method, the failure or success of transvaginal mesh repairs may rely far more on the skill and judgment of the surgeon.

All surgery incorporates an intricate blend of art and science. We must be realistic in evaluating our skills, experience, and expertise in performing transvaginal mesh procedures.

Even in the best of circumstances, factors such as obesity, hypoestrogenism, advanced age, poor nutrition, extreme life activity, multiparity, Northern European descent, smoking, prior reparative surgery, and diabetes may reduce the success of transvaginal mesh procedures and increase complications.

While patient concerns will be heightened, the decision to perform a particular type of restorative or reparative surgery for POP, with or without mesh, should always favor reduced risk along with optimal and durable outcome that is both anatomic and functional in nature. And clinical decision making, as always, must be guided by our Hippocratic vow “primum non nocere”!

Vitals

Source Elsevier Global Medical News

Source Elsevier Global Medical News

To Mesh or Not to Mesh?

www.isge.org

www.aagl.org

On July 13, 2011, the Food and Drug Administration issued a safety communication, “Update on Serious Complications Associated with Transvaginal Placement of Surgical Mesh for Pelvic Organ Prolapse,” intended for health care providers and patients. Previously, on Oct. 20, 2008, the FDA issued a Public Health Notification and Additional Patient Information statement on serious complications associated with surgical mesh placed transvaginally to treat pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI).

In the July 2011 bulletin, the FDA stated that “serious complications associated with surgical mesh for transvaginal repair of pelvic organ prolapse are not rare. … Furthermore, it is not clear that transvaginal pelvic organ prolapse repair with mesh is more effective than traditional nonmesh repair in all patients with pelvic organ prolapse and it may expose patients to greater risk.”

In its bulletin, the FDA noted a marked increase in reported adverse events related to surgical mesh devices used to repair POP and SUI in reporting years 2005-2007 vs. 2008-2010. The most frequent complications reported to the FDA regarding transvaginal mesh placement for POP were mesh erosion through the vagina, pain, infection, bleeding, dyspareunia, organ perforation, and urinary problems. Also noted were recurrent prolapse, neuromuscular problems, vaginal scarring/shrinkage, and emotional problems. Moreover, men may experience irritation and pain to the penis during intercourse secondary to exposed mesh.

The FDA also reported on its systematic review of literature from the period of 1996-2011 to evaluate transvaginal mesh safety and effectiveness. In particular, the FDA noted the following:

▸ Potential for additional risk when mesh is utilized in POP surgery.

▸ Greater rate of complications in POP surgery when mesh placed transvaginally, rather than transabdominally.

▸ No advantage of mesh for either apical or posterior repair, compared with traditional surgery without mesh.

▸ Although mesh may be beneficial anatomically for anterior repair, symptoms may not improve over conventional anterior repair.

The FDA then went on to make recommendations to both health care workers and patients.

Health care workers are advised to obtain specialized training for each mesh placement technique. Mesh should be considered only after weighing the risks and benefits, as well as considering other nonsurgical and surgical options including nonmesh and transabdominal mesh techniques.

Patients must be made aware that surgical mesh is a permanent implant, which may make future surgical repair more challenging.

Moreover, mesh may place the patient at greater risk for requiring additional surgery for the development of additional complications. Removal of mesh when complications arise may involve multiple surgeries and may negatively impact the patient's quality of life. Complete removal of the mesh may not be possible, and even if it is removed, symptoms may continue. Patients also must realize the lack of long-term data.

To understand how this latest FDA bulletin will impact the surgical treatment of POP and SUI, I have called upon Dr. Andrew I. Brill, director of minimally invasive surgery and reparative pelvic surgery at California Pacific Medical Center, San Francisco. He also is a voting member of the FDA Obstetrics and Gynecology Device Panel. Prior to moving to the Bay Area in 2006, Dr. Brill was professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Illinois at Chicago, where he directed one of the first accredited fellowships in minimally invasive gynecology. Dr. Brill is a past president of both the AAGL and the board of directors of the AAGL/Society of Reproductive Surgeons Fellowship in Minimally Invasive Gynecology. Widely recognized in the United States and abroad as a leading educator in the field of minimally invasive gynecology, Dr. Brill is a frequent lecturer and telesurgeon, and he continues to be a regular contributor to peer literature and textbooks, having coauthored a leading textbook and more than 50 articles and book chapters.

Hodgkin lymphoma represents one of the major successes of modern oncology. Several decades ago, it was fatal in most patients. With the development of the combination therapy mechlorethamine, vincristine, prednisone, and procarbazine (MOPP), many patients were cured of this disease. However, the regimen was associated with an unacceptable risk of acute toxicities, infertility, and secondary malignancies.1 Several subsequent studies established adriamycin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD) as the standard treatment because of its greater efficacy and less toxicity compared with MOPP.2 As a result, about 90% of patients with limited-stage disease are now cured, as are 60% of those with advanced disease. Newer regimens such as bleomycin, etoposide, adriamycin, cyclophosphamide, prednisone, and procarbazine (BEACOPP) seem to prolong time to treatment failure, but with considerably greater toxicity,3 and with no clear improvement in overall survival. A minority of patients who are either refractory to initial treatment or who subsequently relapse can be cured with such modalities as stem-cell transplantation. However, few effective options are available for the remainder of patients...

*For a PDF of the full article, click in the link to the left of this article.

(See Community Translations, “Bretuximab vedotin in Hodgkin lymphoma and systemic anaplastic large-cell lymphoma”)

Hodgkin lymphoma represents one of the major successes of modern oncology. Several decades ago, it was fatal in most patients. With the development of the combination therapy mechlorethamine, vincristine, prednisone, and procarbazine (MOPP), many patients were cured of this disease. However, the regimen was associated with an unacceptable risk of acute toxicities, infertility, and secondary malignancies.1 Several subsequent studies established adriamycin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD) as the standard treatment because of its greater efficacy and less toxicity compared with MOPP.2 As a result, about 90% of patients with limited-stage disease are now cured, as are 60% of those with advanced disease. Newer regimens such as bleomycin, etoposide, adriamycin, cyclophosphamide, prednisone, and procarbazine (BEACOPP) seem to prolong time to treatment failure, but with considerably greater toxicity,3 and with no clear improvement in overall survival. A minority of patients who are either refractory to initial treatment or who subsequently relapse can be cured with such modalities as stem-cell transplantation. However, few effective options are available for the remainder of patients...

*For a PDF of the full article, click in the link to the left of this article.

(See Community Translations, “Bretuximab vedotin in Hodgkin lymphoma and systemic anaplastic large-cell lymphoma”)

Hodgkin lymphoma represents one of the major successes of modern oncology. Several decades ago, it was fatal in most patients. With the development of the combination therapy mechlorethamine, vincristine, prednisone, and procarbazine (MOPP), many patients were cured of this disease. However, the regimen was associated with an unacceptable risk of acute toxicities, infertility, and secondary malignancies.1 Several subsequent studies established adriamycin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD) as the standard treatment because of its greater efficacy and less toxicity compared with MOPP.2 As a result, about 90% of patients with limited-stage disease are now cured, as are 60% of those with advanced disease. Newer regimens such as bleomycin, etoposide, adriamycin, cyclophosphamide, prednisone, and procarbazine (BEACOPP) seem to prolong time to treatment failure, but with considerably greater toxicity,3 and with no clear improvement in overall survival. A minority of patients who are either refractory to initial treatment or who subsequently relapse can be cured with such modalities as stem-cell transplantation. However, few effective options are available for the remainder of patients...

*For a PDF of the full article, click in the link to the left of this article.

(See Community Translations, “Bretuximab vedotin in Hodgkin lymphoma and systemic anaplastic large-cell lymphoma”)

Since 1971, when President Richard M. Nixon announced the “war on cancer” with the signing of the National Cancer Act, we have seen an increase of 300% in the number of survivors, which is now reaching more than 12 million in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control. By 2020, that number will likely approach 20 million. Investment in research, early detection, and prevention has contributed to making these numbers a reality, and community-based oncology centers have played a critical role in delivering quality care and improved survival numbers based on the findings of that research. Therefore, it is logical that these same networks of community-based providers that have helped create survivors now help take the next step in addressing the needs of cancer patients on their journey to a life beyond cancer.

*For a PDF of the full article, click in the link to the left of this introduction.

Since 1971, when President Richard M. Nixon announced the “war on cancer” with the signing of the National Cancer Act, we have seen an increase of 300% in the number of survivors, which is now reaching more than 12 million in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control. By 2020, that number will likely approach 20 million. Investment in research, early detection, and prevention has contributed to making these numbers a reality, and community-based oncology centers have played a critical role in delivering quality care and improved survival numbers based on the findings of that research. Therefore, it is logical that these same networks of community-based providers that have helped create survivors now help take the next step in addressing the needs of cancer patients on their journey to a life beyond cancer.

*For a PDF of the full article, click in the link to the left of this introduction.

Since 1971, when President Richard M. Nixon announced the “war on cancer” with the signing of the National Cancer Act, we have seen an increase of 300% in the number of survivors, which is now reaching more than 12 million in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control. By 2020, that number will likely approach 20 million. Investment in research, early detection, and prevention has contributed to making these numbers a reality, and community-based oncology centers have played a critical role in delivering quality care and improved survival numbers based on the findings of that research. Therefore, it is logical that these same networks of community-based providers that have helped create survivors now help take the next step in addressing the needs of cancer patients on their journey to a life beyond cancer.

*For a PDF of the full article, click in the link to the left of this introduction.

Background: Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is a subset of breast cancer. Health care cost and utilization data for TNBC are lacking.

Objective: We examined differences between metastatic TNBC and metastatic non-TNBC in survival and health care costs and utilization.

Methods: This retrospective analysis of metastatic TNBC (134 patients) and metastatic non-TNBC (445 patients) used a proprietary oncology registry, the Impact Intelligence Oncology Management registry database, linked with health insurance claims and social security mortality data.

Results: We found metastatic patients whose breast cancer is triple negative to be younger (56.49 vs 59.24 years), to be more likely to have recurrent disease (64.93 vs 45.39%), and to have greater mortality vs metastatic non-TNBC patients (67.16 vs 50.79%) (all P less than .05). Recurrent patients with metastatic TNBC have the highest risk of death (HR, 1.9; P less than .001), whereas survival was greatest for de novo metastatic non-TNBC. Patients with metastatic TNBC had more all-cause annual hospitalizations, more hospitalized days, and higher total costs vs metastatic non-TNBC. Annual payer’s total costs, annual payer’s inpatient costs, cancer-related hospitalizations, and cancer-related inpatient costs also were greater among patients with metastatic TNBC.

Limitations: While the study spans slightly more than 2 years, 5-10 years would have been preferable to achieve a full clinical profile of indexed patients. The database also omitted factors that potentially confound the results, such as race and socioeconomic status.

Conclusions: Metastatic TNBC is associated with significant burden of disease and higher health care utilization vs metastatic non-TNBC, which may be due in part to the aggressive clinical course of the disease...

* For a PDF of the full article, click in the link to the left of this introduction.

Background: Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is a subset of breast cancer. Health care cost and utilization data for TNBC are lacking.

Objective: We examined differences between metastatic TNBC and metastatic non-TNBC in survival and health care costs and utilization.

Methods: This retrospective analysis of metastatic TNBC (134 patients) and metastatic non-TNBC (445 patients) used a proprietary oncology registry, the Impact Intelligence Oncology Management registry database, linked with health insurance claims and social security mortality data.

Results: We found metastatic patients whose breast cancer is triple negative to be younger (56.49 vs 59.24 years), to be more likely to have recurrent disease (64.93 vs 45.39%), and to have greater mortality vs metastatic non-TNBC patients (67.16 vs 50.79%) (all P less than .05). Recurrent patients with metastatic TNBC have the highest risk of death (HR, 1.9; P less than .001), whereas survival was greatest for de novo metastatic non-TNBC. Patients with metastatic TNBC had more all-cause annual hospitalizations, more hospitalized days, and higher total costs vs metastatic non-TNBC. Annual payer’s total costs, annual payer’s inpatient costs, cancer-related hospitalizations, and cancer-related inpatient costs also were greater among patients with metastatic TNBC.

Limitations: While the study spans slightly more than 2 years, 5-10 years would have been preferable to achieve a full clinical profile of indexed patients. The database also omitted factors that potentially confound the results, such as race and socioeconomic status.

Conclusions: Metastatic TNBC is associated with significant burden of disease and higher health care utilization vs metastatic non-TNBC, which may be due in part to the aggressive clinical course of the disease...

* For a PDF of the full article, click in the link to the left of this introduction.

Background: Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is a subset of breast cancer. Health care cost and utilization data for TNBC are lacking.

Objective: We examined differences between metastatic TNBC and metastatic non-TNBC in survival and health care costs and utilization.

Methods: This retrospective analysis of metastatic TNBC (134 patients) and metastatic non-TNBC (445 patients) used a proprietary oncology registry, the Impact Intelligence Oncology Management registry database, linked with health insurance claims and social security mortality data.

Results: We found metastatic patients whose breast cancer is triple negative to be younger (56.49 vs 59.24 years), to be more likely to have recurrent disease (64.93 vs 45.39%), and to have greater mortality vs metastatic non-TNBC patients (67.16 vs 50.79%) (all P less than .05). Recurrent patients with metastatic TNBC have the highest risk of death (HR, 1.9; P less than .001), whereas survival was greatest for de novo metastatic non-TNBC. Patients with metastatic TNBC had more all-cause annual hospitalizations, more hospitalized days, and higher total costs vs metastatic non-TNBC. Annual payer’s total costs, annual payer’s inpatient costs, cancer-related hospitalizations, and cancer-related inpatient costs also were greater among patients with metastatic TNBC.

Limitations: While the study spans slightly more than 2 years, 5-10 years would have been preferable to achieve a full clinical profile of indexed patients. The database also omitted factors that potentially confound the results, such as race and socioeconomic status.

Conclusions: Metastatic TNBC is associated with significant burden of disease and higher health care utilization vs metastatic non-TNBC, which may be due in part to the aggressive clinical course of the disease...

* For a PDF of the full article, click in the link to the left of this introduction.

According to the Association of American Medical Colleges, the average debt for a young physician graduating from medical school in 2010 was $158,000. How do you keep that debt in perspective as you plot your career path?

Look at the Bigger Picture

Making plans for repaying medical school debt should start before your job search, says Danielle Salovich, president of the American Medical Student Association in Sterling, Va. “Part of your medical school exit interview should include campus financial advisors who give you options for loan repayment,” she says.

Consider what payment schedule will work best with your projected budget. Many medical students do not have financial or business backgrounds, so she advises enlisting the services of a trusted financial advisor.

Variety of Options

Recruitment packages for early-career hospitalists vary from region to region, based on an area’s appeal and marketplace pressures, says Kent McMackin, senior vice president of Physician Services for Cogent HMG in Brentwood, Tenn. Hospitals are looking to control costs in the wake of regulatory and reimbursement pressures. One alternative is to investigate loan repayment and scholarship programs.

Bonuses and Benefits

Many young physicians are especially interested in the size of signing bonuses, which can be a plus, Salovich says, if they’re planning on making a down payment on a house or taking a chunk out of their school loan principal. Joel Greenwald, MD, CFP, partner at Sterling Retirement Resources in St. Louis Park, Minn., cautions against the “lure” of a big signing bonus. More important, he says, is the total compensation and benefits package. Comprehensive disability insurance should be at the top of the list, he says, since your ability to work is your most important asset.

Another factor to consider, McMackin says, is the type of mentoring available when you start that first job.

“Physicians work so hard in medical school, where they are not taught about how to develop and understand the inter-relationships between executives in the C-suite, X-ray, dietary, and other services in the hospital,” he says. “We need to make sure that physicians have access to national networks of mentors and to best practices and information-sharing.”

Those principles—taught at Cogent HMG Academy, SHM’s Leadership Academy, and others—help build career sustainability, he says.

Above all, keep your individual goals in mind and make a decision that works best with your particular situation. “I still believe,” Salovich says, “that a medical education is a wise investment.”

Gretchen Henkel is a freelance writer based in California. 

According to the Association of American Medical Colleges, the average debt for a young physician graduating from medical school in 2010 was $158,000. How do you keep that debt in perspective as you plot your career path?

Look at the Bigger Picture

Making plans for repaying medical school debt should start before your job search, says Danielle Salovich, president of the American Medical Student Association in Sterling, Va. “Part of your medical school exit interview should include campus financial advisors who give you options for loan repayment,” she says.

Consider what payment schedule will work best with your projected budget. Many medical students do not have financial or business backgrounds, so she advises enlisting the services of a trusted financial advisor.

Variety of Options

Recruitment packages for early-career hospitalists vary from region to region, based on an area’s appeal and marketplace pressures, says Kent McMackin, senior vice president of Physician Services for Cogent HMG in Brentwood, Tenn. Hospitals are looking to control costs in the wake of regulatory and reimbursement pressures. One alternative is to investigate loan repayment and scholarship programs.

Bonuses and Benefits

Many young physicians are especially interested in the size of signing bonuses, which can be a plus, Salovich says, if they’re planning on making a down payment on a house or taking a chunk out of their school loan principal. Joel Greenwald, MD, CFP, partner at Sterling Retirement Resources in St. Louis Park, Minn., cautions against the “lure” of a big signing bonus. More important, he says, is the total compensation and benefits package. Comprehensive disability insurance should be at the top of the list, he says, since your ability to work is your most important asset.

Another factor to consider, McMackin says, is the type of mentoring available when you start that first job.

“Physicians work so hard in medical school, where they are not taught about how to develop and understand the inter-relationships between executives in the C-suite, X-ray, dietary, and other services in the hospital,” he says. “We need to make sure that physicians have access to national networks of mentors and to best practices and information-sharing.”

Those principles—taught at Cogent HMG Academy, SHM’s Leadership Academy, and others—help build career sustainability, he says.

Above all, keep your individual goals in mind and make a decision that works best with your particular situation. “I still believe,” Salovich says, “that a medical education is a wise investment.”

Gretchen Henkel is a freelance writer based in California. 

According to the Association of American Medical Colleges, the average debt for a young physician graduating from medical school in 2010 was $158,000. How do you keep that debt in perspective as you plot your career path?

Look at the Bigger Picture

Making plans for repaying medical school debt should start before your job search, says Danielle Salovich, president of the American Medical Student Association in Sterling, Va. “Part of your medical school exit interview should include campus financial advisors who give you options for loan repayment,” she says.

Consider what payment schedule will work best with your projected budget. Many medical students do not have financial or business backgrounds, so she advises enlisting the services of a trusted financial advisor.

Variety of Options

Recruitment packages for early-career hospitalists vary from region to region, based on an area’s appeal and marketplace pressures, says Kent McMackin, senior vice president of Physician Services for Cogent HMG in Brentwood, Tenn. Hospitals are looking to control costs in the wake of regulatory and reimbursement pressures. One alternative is to investigate loan repayment and scholarship programs.

Bonuses and Benefits

Many young physicians are especially interested in the size of signing bonuses, which can be a plus, Salovich says, if they’re planning on making a down payment on a house or taking a chunk out of their school loan principal. Joel Greenwald, MD, CFP, partner at Sterling Retirement Resources in St. Louis Park, Minn., cautions against the “lure” of a big signing bonus. More important, he says, is the total compensation and benefits package. Comprehensive disability insurance should be at the top of the list, he says, since your ability to work is your most important asset.

Another factor to consider, McMackin says, is the type of mentoring available when you start that first job.

“Physicians work so hard in medical school, where they are not taught about how to develop and understand the inter-relationships between executives in the C-suite, X-ray, dietary, and other services in the hospital,” he says. “We need to make sure that physicians have access to national networks of mentors and to best practices and information-sharing.”

Those principles—taught at Cogent HMG Academy, SHM’s Leadership Academy, and others—help build career sustainability, he says.

Above all, keep your individual goals in mind and make a decision that works best with your particular situation. “I still believe,” Salovich says, “that a medical education is a wise investment.”

Gretchen Henkel is a freelance writer based in California.