User login
VA-Based Peritoneal Dialysis Program Feasibility Considerations and Process Outline
Compared with hemodialysis (HD), peritoneal dialysis (PD) offers comparable survival and superior patient-centered and health services outcomes.1,2 This has prompted repeated calls over the past 2 decades for policies to increase the use of home dialysis and, more specifically, for PD in the United States.3,4
Veterans comprise nearly 10% of the population with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) burden; > 50,000 US veterans are currently on dialysis.5,6 A majority of these veterans receive their chronic kidney disease (CKD) care through their affiliated US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers (VAMCs).
To address these needs, the VHA National Kidney Disease Program (NKDP) formed a 4-member PD workgroup in 2019. Considering the breadth of challenges involved, the PD workgroup broadly designed its approach based on the I CARE (Integrity, Commitment, Advocacy, Respect, and Excellence) VA Core Values.
This review focuses on the initial deliberations of the PD access subgroup and provides a guide to establishing a new local VA PD program.
Step 1: Prerequisites
A functional nephrology service is a bedrock prerequisite for establishing a new PD program. A clinician champion capable of leading the effort is equally necessary. Occasionally, the prevalent ESKD economic and health care burden prompts local VAMC leadership to consider a new PD program to improve the quality or availability of services. More commonly, though, the nephrology section and the clinician champion are the first to recognize the need. In either scenario, the champion will require support and advocacy at multiple levels of local leadership, ie, the section or department chief, facility chief of staff, VAMC director, and the Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN) director. The foremost task for the champion is to assess local clinical and infrastructure needs.
Goal Alignment
Any new VA nephrology program needs to be evaluated for its overall congruence with the local and national VA missions to improve the accessibility, integration, quality, and innovation of care for veterans. The following considerations are likely to apply to many VA systems.
Accessibility. A VHA directive recommends that all veterans be provided with the opportunity to choose and use any form of dialysis, especially home dialysis.9 Transitioning a veteran seamlessly from advanced CKD to PD requires the execution of multiple sequential processes in the pre-ESKD period, beginning with early identification of advanced CKD, timely referral to nephrology, education for shared dialysis decision making, coordination of care, and PD training and therapy.10 Splitting this sequence between VA and community-based care creates obstacles, including multiple approvals through VA Community Care Services that may substantially increase wait time and effort. This onerous process may be a significant deterrent against pursuing PD and increases the odds of emergency or inpatient initiation. Furthermore, the lack of PD availability limits the knowledge and experience among staff designated to assist veterans, which may result in inappropriate advocacy for HD or delay the transition to PD. Together, these processes can increase morbidity and health care use, and significantly delay or eliminate PD. Finally, many veterans reside in rural or remote areas where the expertise and the availability of PD may be unreliable. Establishing PD services within the local VAMC can improve access to PD, reduce the lead time needed to coordinate the transition to ESKD, and assist individual veterans in making an informed choice about dialysis. The program champion will need to identify and highlight all accessibility barriers within their business plan.
Integration. Many veterans receiving dialysis care at community-based facilities continue to receive nonnephrology care in the VA. This creates a parallel health care system with concerns for duplication of efforts and processes, suboptimal quality of care, and increased risk of medical errors. Establishing VA PD services increases access and integration of nephrology with other VA care.
Excellence. Studies of many chronic diseases have shown superior patient satisfaction and equal or superior quality of care delivered by the VA compared with that of non-VA facilities.11-14 Similarly, mortality rates for veterans receiving CKD and ESKD care in VA are lower compared with those at non-VA facilities.15-17 While these outcomes have not been examined for PD, integration of PD with VA care may lead to an improved overall quality of care and greater loyalty to the VA.
Innovation. Due to its integrated health care infrastructure, the VA is uniquely positioned to implement patient-centered and evidence-based pre-ESKD interventions that may improve outcomes. Prior studies have shown that pre-ESKD kidney disease education (KDE) improves pre- and post-ESKD outcomes, reduces health care costs, and leads to higher selection and use of home dialysis therapies.18-20 The VA recommends that all veterans with advanced CKD be provided access to pre-ESKD care and KDE. Unfortunately, KDE is uncommon among non-VA clinicians. A recent USRDS analysis reported that < 1% of patients with ESKD received pre-ESKD KDE.21 The ongoing Evaluate and Assess the effects of Comprehensive Pre-ESKD kidney disease Education on home dialysis in Veterans Trial (NCT04064086) should provide further evidence.
Step 2: Feasibility
A business plan requires the realistic projections of the costs and accounting for gains of the new clinical program. While there is limited guidance on personnel requirements when planning a PD program, we provide estimated resources needed to successfully establish and run a PD program (eAppendix 1, available online at doi:10.12788/fp.0356).
Clinical Considerations
Secondary or tertiary care VAMCs with multiple medical and surgical specialties routinely provide complex inpatient care. For these facilities, the lack of inpatient PD poses an obstacle to the provision of specialized nonnephrology care to veterans with ESKD, who are frequent users of such complex care. These considerations argue for the need for at least inpatient PD services at VAMCs that provide complex medical care for many veterans receiving PD in the community.
Deliberations for outpatient PD programs should be based on the clinical demands of ESKD care, the number of veterans likely to use PD, and growth projections. While there is no established minimum number that guarantees cost-effectiveness, most existing VA outpatient PD programs provide services for about 5 to 25 veterans. A local census can provide estimations of future PD needs. Travel considerations (ie, distance, terrain, traffic) may affect eligibility for purchased care and the decision where to receive PD. Many veterans may prefer PD from the local VAMC if it is convenient and allows them to maintain centralized VA care. Potential patients can be surveyed to gauge interest in receiving VA-based PD. Facilities providing structured pre-ESKD KDE may hold greater potential for PD growth, and it is important to highlight KDE infrastructure in the business plan.
Infrastructure
Spatial needs including clinic space and storage space for consumables, supplies, and equipment should be part of infrastructure requirements. The program champion may need to examine the available space for suitability and adequacy of the PD program early in the process. Ventilation renovations in the PD rooms should be incorporated into budget calculations. Water access for handwashing and PD effluent drainage should be confirmed, and if the program intends to establish home HD, additional considerations for the storage and water supply may be required. The VHA Handbook outlines the infrastructure requirements for a dialysis program.22 The VA has established national vendor contracts for dialysis equipment and consumables. However, a new PD program may need further guidance regarding the local agencies that provide administrative support and assist patients.
Telehealth technology has enabled many VAMCs to overcome geographical barriers for rural veterans.23 Ongoing expansion of community-based outpatient clinics (CBOCs) to include more rural locations is improving access to specialty care, while the launch of VA Video Connect (VVC) has further improved outreach. Investigators from Minneapolis have demonstrated the feasibility of multidisciplinary home-based telehealth management of veterans with CKD.24 Several existing nephrology sections across the VHA use a combination of VVC and CBOC-facilitated clinic visits to provide some pre-ESKD and ESKD care, including KDE, PD home visits and training, and comprehensive ESKD care visits. Recent changes in the clinical care pattern during the COVID-19 pandemic have further eased ESKD telehealth protocols. Integrating the projected use of telehealth in collaboration with existing resources available through the VHA NKDP can allow the local champion to improve the financial feasibility and long-term success of a new PD program.
Clinicians
Experience and expertise in managing PD vary among nephrologists. A recent survey found that only 11% of second-year nephrology trainees felt fully prepared to manage PD patients and 27% felt that they were minimally prepared.25 Thus, it is important to ensure that adequately trained nephrologists are available locally before initiating a new program, and if needed, coverage across VHS or VISN can be explored. One potential method to enhance practitioner comfort in PD is the use of existing peer-to-peer education through the VA Kidney Specialty Care Access Network-Extension for Community Health care Outcomes program that links health care professionals in rural areas with specialists at a tertiary care center.23 Nurses are a primary pillar for the success of home dialysis programs and the lack of a trained nursing workforce can be a significant limitation. Similarly, while the placement and management of complications related to PD catheters are not technically challenging, the availability of interventionists (either a surgeon or trained interventional radiologist) should be part of the business plan.
Financial Considerations
The financial considerations involving a new PD program within the VHA are complex (eAppendix 2, available online at doi:10.12788/fp.0356). ESKD is one of the most complex and costly comorbidities. It is a major determinant of the expenditure and revenue generation for facilities. The Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation system classifies ESKD on repeated dialysis as price category 10, indicating high complexity and cost. The VAMC workload and facility budget allocation is assessed annually and increases as the population of price group 10 veterans increases. VHA also provides additional Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation funds to VAMCs, which can improve the bottom line for VA-based dialysis units. Providing PD facilitates outpatient and inpatient management of comorbidities, allowing for substantial cost savings while improving the quality of nonrenal care. Outsourcing dialysis care can reduce the administrative burden, although, it deprives the VAMC of all dialysis-associated revenues while bearing the cost of all nonrenal and some renal care. The net effect is reduced facility productivity. In aggregate, establishing a local dialysis program requires greater financial resources for the capital and personnel costs; however, if captured appropriately these funds can be a major source of revenue and savings for the local VAMC.
Indirect costs are important for financial projections. Most community dialysis units operate as outpatient units, whereas all but a handful of the VA dialysis units operate within or near a VAMC. As a result, the VA units providing maintenance dialysis are regularly classified as inpatient centers while providing largely outpatient services, which negatively impacts overhead cost calculations. The predominant use of in-center HD as the default modality further sets an erroneously high baseline for the indirect cost of the VA-based PD services, especially considering that the principal savings of the home dialysis are through the reduction in the labor and capital costs. A rudimentary make-buy model for the in-center HD is available through the NKDP, and establishing a similar model for PD programs may be useful.
Cost considerations also may vary based on the model of ESKD care used locally. Of the 71 hospital-based and free-standing VA HD facilities, only 33 provide PD services, with 5 units providing only inpatient PD. The financial burden of establishing a fully operational outpatient PD program will be based on whether it is targeting a new unit or is expanding. The costs for equipment rental, disposables, and supplies vary based on the VA contract negotiations but are standardized across the nation with approved cost-of-living geographic adjustments. Caution needs to be exercised in employing a phased-hiring approach, as newer programs may require proportionally larger nursing resources due to greater needs for KDE, transitioning services, and training for PD. A target census-based hiring schedule should be negotiated with leadership before launch. If existing labor mapping does not allow for cross-coverage, part-time positions for physicians may be considered. Travel nurses, especially for PD training, can be considered to meet labor needs when long-term projections prohibit permanent full-time hires.
Finally, the balance sheet of a new program needs to account for different scenarios. In addition to nephrology costs, outsourcing veterans for PD services incurs multiple costs (eg, administrative, social work). Facilities with inpatient PD services alone are likely already bearing a component of the medications (including antibiotics) and/or surgical costs for their outsourced patients. These hidden costs are infrequently counted in projections. Facilities without inpatient PD cannot provide complex nonrenal care to ESKD patients on PD, even when the center is well equipped to provide it. These facilities also bear the cost of outsourcing even for complications related to PD. While a full estimation of these services varies, the hidden cost savings of many procedures or inpatient admissions, such as cardiovascular or musculoskeletal surgeries, can exceed those of dialysis in this complex population.
Step 3: proposal
There are no standardized formats for presenting a VHA business proposal; however, this outline provides a template. The business proposal should be designed to effectively communicate the collective data that describe the needs and requirements of a PD program to the local, regional, and national leadership. Not every rationale presented here will apply to an individual proposal and the local champion will need to tailor their rationale for their locale. A sample business plan is shown in eAppendix 3 (available online at doi:10.12788/fp.0356). VHA Handbook of dialysis requires that a PD nurse has a minimum of 12 months of nursing experience with at least 3 months of PD experience.25 Nursing training, education, and support should be discussed with nursing leadership and included in the business plan. Similarly, arrangements for laboratory, pharmacy, and prosthetics services and/or logistics to facilitate procurement of the needed devices, disposables, and supplies are essential and should be highlighted in the business plan.
Approval Process
Postapproval Process
Once approved, the champion will need to work closely with various services and managers to oversee infrastructural renovations and execute the hiring plans, establish standard operating procedures (SOPs), standardize staff proficiencies and functional statements, and finalize quality assessment parameters. Home dialysis standards have been addressed by NKDP and The Joint Commission. While PD requires home visits to assess the appropriateness of the environment, the PD program is accredited under hospital-based therapy. Standards and performance metrics should be incorporated into all the VA PD programs for standardization and assessment. Based on guidance from the VHA Handbook, quality metrics, such as dialysis adequacy, and rates of infection should be monitored and reviewed. The dialysis director may need to consider more frequent program evaluations in the first year to ensure appropriate troubleshooting. The VA infrastructure has developed the resources for a central repository for the PD SOPs and quality metrics, which can be obtained and adapted for the local program. Similarly, veteran satisfaction can be assessed through existing resources. Finally, the dialysis director can join the National VHA Dialysis Director listserv for regular updates on the existing and new VHA policies and NKDP updates.
Conclusions
Establishing a new PD program within a local federal infrastructure can appear daunting, both in terms of planning as well as approvals. However, the provision of home-based dialysis therapies may be beneficial to those in rural settings with limited access to in-center dialysis modalities as well as to those who seek autonomy and lifestyle independence in their medical care. Collaborations with the VHA NKDP or PD workgroup can help overcome many of the procedural hurdles, provide guidance about infrastructure and resource allocation and utilization, and provide easy access to established SOPs and quality parameters.
Acknowledgments
We acknowledge the late Dr. Catherine Do for her significant contribution to this manuscript. We also extend our sincere thanks to Dr. Holly Mattix-Kramer (Edward Hines Jr. Veterans Affairs Hospital and Loyola University Medical Center) for her prompt and valuable feedback on this manuscript.
1. Jung HY, Jeon Y, Park Y, et al. Better quality of life of peritoneal dialysis compared to hemodialysis over a two-year period after dialysis initiation. Sci Rep. 2019;9(1):10266. Published 2019 Jul 16. doi:10.1038/s41598-019-46744-1
2. Wong B, Ravani P, Oliver MJ, et al. Comparison of patient survival between hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis among patients eligible for both modalities. Am J Kidney Dis. 2018;71(3):344-351. doi:10.1053/j.ajkd.2017.08.028
3. Chan CT, Collins K, Ditschman EP, et al. Overcoming barriers for uptake and continued use of home dialysis: an NKF-KDOQI Conference report. Am J Kidney Dis. 2020;75(6):926-934. doi:10.1053/j.ajkd.2019.11.007
4. Executive Order 13879: Advancing American kidney health. Fed Regist. 2019; 84(135):33817-33819. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-07-15/pdf/2019-15159.pdf
5. Patel TG, Pogach LM, Barth RH. CKD screening and management in the Veterans Health Administration: the impact of system organization and an innovative electronic record. Am J Kidney Dis. 2009;53(suppl 3):S78-S85. doi:10.1053/j.ajkd.2008.07.051
6. Saran R, Pearson A, Tilea A, et al. Burden and cost of caring for US veterans with CKD: initial findings from the VA Renal Information System (VA-REINS). Am J Kidney Dis. 2021;77(3):397-405. doi:10.1053/j.ajkd.2020.07.013
7. Sloan CE, Coffman CJ, Sanders LL, et al. Trends in peritoneal dialysis use in the United States after Medicare payment reform. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2019;14(12):1763-1772. doi:10.2215/CJN.05910519
8. VA Maintaining Internal Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside Networks Act of 2018. HR 5674. 115th Congress; Report No. 115-671, Part 1. May 3, 2018. Accessed February 9, 2023. https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/hr5674/BILLS-115hr5674rh.pdf
9. US Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration. Chronic kidney disease prevention, early recognition, and management. VHA Directive 1053. March 17, 2020. Accessed February 9, 2023. https://www.va.gov/vhapublications/ViewPublication.asp?pub_ID=8737
10. Blake PG, Quinn RR, Oliver MJ. Peritoneal dialysis and the process of modality selection. Perit Dial Int. 2013;33(3):233-241. doi:10.3747/pdi.2012.00119
11. Stroupe KT, Hynes DM, Giobbie-Hurder A, et al. Patient satisfaction and use of Veterans Affairs versus non-Veterans Affairs healthcare services by veterans. Med Care. 2005;43(5):453-460. doi:10.1097/01.mlr.0000160377.82164.d3
12. Anhang Price R, Sloss EM, Cefalu M, Farmer CM, Hussey PS. Comparing quality of care in Veterans Affairs and non-Veterans Affairs settings. J Gen Intern Med. 2018;33(10):1631-1638. doi:10.1007/s11606-018-4433-7
13. Blay E Jr, DeLancey JO, Hewitt DB, Chung JW, Bilimoria KY. Initial public reporting of quality at Veterans Affairs vs non-Veterans Affairs hospitals. JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177(6):882-885. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.0605
14. Nuti SV, Qin L, Krumholz HM. Outcome after admission at Veterans Affairs vs non-Veterans Affairs hospitals--reply. JAMA. 2016;316(3):346. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.5394
15. Streja E, Kovesdy CP, Soohoo M, et al. Dialysis provider and outcomes among United States veterans who transition to dialysis. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2018;13(7):1055-1062. doi:10.2215/CJN.12951117
16. Wang V, Coffman CJ, Stechuchak KM, et al. Survival among veterans obtaining dialysis in VA and non-VA settings. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2019;30(1):159-168. doi:10.1681/ASN.2018050521
17. Kurella Tamura M, Thomas IC, Montez-Rath ME, et al. Dialysis initiation and mortality among older veterans with kidney failure treated in Medicare vs the Department of Veterans Affairs. JAMA Intern Med. 2018;178(5):657-664. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.0411
18. Devins GM, Mendelssohn DC, Barré PE, Taub K, Binik YM. Predialysis psychoeducational intervention extends survival in CKD: a 20-year follow-up. Am J Kidney Dis. 2005;46(6):1088-1098. doi:10.1053/j.ajkd.2005.08.017
19. Devoe DJ, Wong B, James MT, et al. Patient education and peritoneal dialysis modality selection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Kidney Dis. 2016;68(3):422-433. doi:10.1053/j.ajkd.2016.02.053
20. Lin E, Chertow GM, Yan B, Malcolm E, Goldhaber-Fiebert JD. Cost-effectiveness of multidisciplinary care in mild to moderate chronic kidney disease in the United States: A modeling study. PLoS Med. 2018;15(3):e1002532. Published 2018 Mar 27. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1002532
21. Shukla AM, Bozorgmehri S, Ruchi R, et al. Utilization of CMS pre-ESRD Kidney Disease Education services and its associations with the home dialysis therapies. Perit Dial Int. 2021;41(5):453-462. doi:10.1177/0896860820975586
22. US Dept of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration. Criteria and standards for VA dialysis programs. VHA Directive 1601. 2016. May 23, 2016. https://www.va.gov/vhapublications/ViewPublication.asp?pub_ID=3205
23. Crowley ST, Belcher J, Choudhury D, et al. Targeting access to kidney care via telehealth: the VA experience. Adv Chronic Kidney Dis. 2017;24(1):22-30. doi:10.1053/j.ackd.2016.11.005
24. Ishani A, Christopher J, Palmer D, et al. Telehealth by an interprofessional team in patients with CKD: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Kidney Dis. 2016;68(1):41-49. doi:10.1053/j.ajkd.2016.01.018
25. Gupta N, Taber-Hight EB, Miller BW. Perceptions of home dialysis training and experience among US nephrology fellows. Am J Kidney Dis. 2021;77(5):713-718.e1. doi:10.1053/j.ajkd.2020.09.014
Compared with hemodialysis (HD), peritoneal dialysis (PD) offers comparable survival and superior patient-centered and health services outcomes.1,2 This has prompted repeated calls over the past 2 decades for policies to increase the use of home dialysis and, more specifically, for PD in the United States.3,4
Veterans comprise nearly 10% of the population with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) burden; > 50,000 US veterans are currently on dialysis.5,6 A majority of these veterans receive their chronic kidney disease (CKD) care through their affiliated US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers (VAMCs).
To address these needs, the VHA National Kidney Disease Program (NKDP) formed a 4-member PD workgroup in 2019. Considering the breadth of challenges involved, the PD workgroup broadly designed its approach based on the I CARE (Integrity, Commitment, Advocacy, Respect, and Excellence) VA Core Values.
This review focuses on the initial deliberations of the PD access subgroup and provides a guide to establishing a new local VA PD program.
Step 1: Prerequisites
A functional nephrology service is a bedrock prerequisite for establishing a new PD program. A clinician champion capable of leading the effort is equally necessary. Occasionally, the prevalent ESKD economic and health care burden prompts local VAMC leadership to consider a new PD program to improve the quality or availability of services. More commonly, though, the nephrology section and the clinician champion are the first to recognize the need. In either scenario, the champion will require support and advocacy at multiple levels of local leadership, ie, the section or department chief, facility chief of staff, VAMC director, and the Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN) director. The foremost task for the champion is to assess local clinical and infrastructure needs.
Goal Alignment
Any new VA nephrology program needs to be evaluated for its overall congruence with the local and national VA missions to improve the accessibility, integration, quality, and innovation of care for veterans. The following considerations are likely to apply to many VA systems.
Accessibility. A VHA directive recommends that all veterans be provided with the opportunity to choose and use any form of dialysis, especially home dialysis.9 Transitioning a veteran seamlessly from advanced CKD to PD requires the execution of multiple sequential processes in the pre-ESKD period, beginning with early identification of advanced CKD, timely referral to nephrology, education for shared dialysis decision making, coordination of care, and PD training and therapy.10 Splitting this sequence between VA and community-based care creates obstacles, including multiple approvals through VA Community Care Services that may substantially increase wait time and effort. This onerous process may be a significant deterrent against pursuing PD and increases the odds of emergency or inpatient initiation. Furthermore, the lack of PD availability limits the knowledge and experience among staff designated to assist veterans, which may result in inappropriate advocacy for HD or delay the transition to PD. Together, these processes can increase morbidity and health care use, and significantly delay or eliminate PD. Finally, many veterans reside in rural or remote areas where the expertise and the availability of PD may be unreliable. Establishing PD services within the local VAMC can improve access to PD, reduce the lead time needed to coordinate the transition to ESKD, and assist individual veterans in making an informed choice about dialysis. The program champion will need to identify and highlight all accessibility barriers within their business plan.
Integration. Many veterans receiving dialysis care at community-based facilities continue to receive nonnephrology care in the VA. This creates a parallel health care system with concerns for duplication of efforts and processes, suboptimal quality of care, and increased risk of medical errors. Establishing VA PD services increases access and integration of nephrology with other VA care.
Excellence. Studies of many chronic diseases have shown superior patient satisfaction and equal or superior quality of care delivered by the VA compared with that of non-VA facilities.11-14 Similarly, mortality rates for veterans receiving CKD and ESKD care in VA are lower compared with those at non-VA facilities.15-17 While these outcomes have not been examined for PD, integration of PD with VA care may lead to an improved overall quality of care and greater loyalty to the VA.
Innovation. Due to its integrated health care infrastructure, the VA is uniquely positioned to implement patient-centered and evidence-based pre-ESKD interventions that may improve outcomes. Prior studies have shown that pre-ESKD kidney disease education (KDE) improves pre- and post-ESKD outcomes, reduces health care costs, and leads to higher selection and use of home dialysis therapies.18-20 The VA recommends that all veterans with advanced CKD be provided access to pre-ESKD care and KDE. Unfortunately, KDE is uncommon among non-VA clinicians. A recent USRDS analysis reported that < 1% of patients with ESKD received pre-ESKD KDE.21 The ongoing Evaluate and Assess the effects of Comprehensive Pre-ESKD kidney disease Education on home dialysis in Veterans Trial (NCT04064086) should provide further evidence.
Step 2: Feasibility
A business plan requires the realistic projections of the costs and accounting for gains of the new clinical program. While there is limited guidance on personnel requirements when planning a PD program, we provide estimated resources needed to successfully establish and run a PD program (eAppendix 1, available online at doi:10.12788/fp.0356).
Clinical Considerations
Secondary or tertiary care VAMCs with multiple medical and surgical specialties routinely provide complex inpatient care. For these facilities, the lack of inpatient PD poses an obstacle to the provision of specialized nonnephrology care to veterans with ESKD, who are frequent users of such complex care. These considerations argue for the need for at least inpatient PD services at VAMCs that provide complex medical care for many veterans receiving PD in the community.
Deliberations for outpatient PD programs should be based on the clinical demands of ESKD care, the number of veterans likely to use PD, and growth projections. While there is no established minimum number that guarantees cost-effectiveness, most existing VA outpatient PD programs provide services for about 5 to 25 veterans. A local census can provide estimations of future PD needs. Travel considerations (ie, distance, terrain, traffic) may affect eligibility for purchased care and the decision where to receive PD. Many veterans may prefer PD from the local VAMC if it is convenient and allows them to maintain centralized VA care. Potential patients can be surveyed to gauge interest in receiving VA-based PD. Facilities providing structured pre-ESKD KDE may hold greater potential for PD growth, and it is important to highlight KDE infrastructure in the business plan.
Infrastructure
Spatial needs including clinic space and storage space for consumables, supplies, and equipment should be part of infrastructure requirements. The program champion may need to examine the available space for suitability and adequacy of the PD program early in the process. Ventilation renovations in the PD rooms should be incorporated into budget calculations. Water access for handwashing and PD effluent drainage should be confirmed, and if the program intends to establish home HD, additional considerations for the storage and water supply may be required. The VHA Handbook outlines the infrastructure requirements for a dialysis program.22 The VA has established national vendor contracts for dialysis equipment and consumables. However, a new PD program may need further guidance regarding the local agencies that provide administrative support and assist patients.
Telehealth technology has enabled many VAMCs to overcome geographical barriers for rural veterans.23 Ongoing expansion of community-based outpatient clinics (CBOCs) to include more rural locations is improving access to specialty care, while the launch of VA Video Connect (VVC) has further improved outreach. Investigators from Minneapolis have demonstrated the feasibility of multidisciplinary home-based telehealth management of veterans with CKD.24 Several existing nephrology sections across the VHA use a combination of VVC and CBOC-facilitated clinic visits to provide some pre-ESKD and ESKD care, including KDE, PD home visits and training, and comprehensive ESKD care visits. Recent changes in the clinical care pattern during the COVID-19 pandemic have further eased ESKD telehealth protocols. Integrating the projected use of telehealth in collaboration with existing resources available through the VHA NKDP can allow the local champion to improve the financial feasibility and long-term success of a new PD program.
Clinicians
Experience and expertise in managing PD vary among nephrologists. A recent survey found that only 11% of second-year nephrology trainees felt fully prepared to manage PD patients and 27% felt that they were minimally prepared.25 Thus, it is important to ensure that adequately trained nephrologists are available locally before initiating a new program, and if needed, coverage across VHS or VISN can be explored. One potential method to enhance practitioner comfort in PD is the use of existing peer-to-peer education through the VA Kidney Specialty Care Access Network-Extension for Community Health care Outcomes program that links health care professionals in rural areas with specialists at a tertiary care center.23 Nurses are a primary pillar for the success of home dialysis programs and the lack of a trained nursing workforce can be a significant limitation. Similarly, while the placement and management of complications related to PD catheters are not technically challenging, the availability of interventionists (either a surgeon or trained interventional radiologist) should be part of the business plan.
Financial Considerations
The financial considerations involving a new PD program within the VHA are complex (eAppendix 2, available online at doi:10.12788/fp.0356). ESKD is one of the most complex and costly comorbidities. It is a major determinant of the expenditure and revenue generation for facilities. The Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation system classifies ESKD on repeated dialysis as price category 10, indicating high complexity and cost. The VAMC workload and facility budget allocation is assessed annually and increases as the population of price group 10 veterans increases. VHA also provides additional Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation funds to VAMCs, which can improve the bottom line for VA-based dialysis units. Providing PD facilitates outpatient and inpatient management of comorbidities, allowing for substantial cost savings while improving the quality of nonrenal care. Outsourcing dialysis care can reduce the administrative burden, although, it deprives the VAMC of all dialysis-associated revenues while bearing the cost of all nonrenal and some renal care. The net effect is reduced facility productivity. In aggregate, establishing a local dialysis program requires greater financial resources for the capital and personnel costs; however, if captured appropriately these funds can be a major source of revenue and savings for the local VAMC.
Indirect costs are important for financial projections. Most community dialysis units operate as outpatient units, whereas all but a handful of the VA dialysis units operate within or near a VAMC. As a result, the VA units providing maintenance dialysis are regularly classified as inpatient centers while providing largely outpatient services, which negatively impacts overhead cost calculations. The predominant use of in-center HD as the default modality further sets an erroneously high baseline for the indirect cost of the VA-based PD services, especially considering that the principal savings of the home dialysis are through the reduction in the labor and capital costs. A rudimentary make-buy model for the in-center HD is available through the NKDP, and establishing a similar model for PD programs may be useful.
Cost considerations also may vary based on the model of ESKD care used locally. Of the 71 hospital-based and free-standing VA HD facilities, only 33 provide PD services, with 5 units providing only inpatient PD. The financial burden of establishing a fully operational outpatient PD program will be based on whether it is targeting a new unit or is expanding. The costs for equipment rental, disposables, and supplies vary based on the VA contract negotiations but are standardized across the nation with approved cost-of-living geographic adjustments. Caution needs to be exercised in employing a phased-hiring approach, as newer programs may require proportionally larger nursing resources due to greater needs for KDE, transitioning services, and training for PD. A target census-based hiring schedule should be negotiated with leadership before launch. If existing labor mapping does not allow for cross-coverage, part-time positions for physicians may be considered. Travel nurses, especially for PD training, can be considered to meet labor needs when long-term projections prohibit permanent full-time hires.
Finally, the balance sheet of a new program needs to account for different scenarios. In addition to nephrology costs, outsourcing veterans for PD services incurs multiple costs (eg, administrative, social work). Facilities with inpatient PD services alone are likely already bearing a component of the medications (including antibiotics) and/or surgical costs for their outsourced patients. These hidden costs are infrequently counted in projections. Facilities without inpatient PD cannot provide complex nonrenal care to ESKD patients on PD, even when the center is well equipped to provide it. These facilities also bear the cost of outsourcing even for complications related to PD. While a full estimation of these services varies, the hidden cost savings of many procedures or inpatient admissions, such as cardiovascular or musculoskeletal surgeries, can exceed those of dialysis in this complex population.
Step 3: proposal
There are no standardized formats for presenting a VHA business proposal; however, this outline provides a template. The business proposal should be designed to effectively communicate the collective data that describe the needs and requirements of a PD program to the local, regional, and national leadership. Not every rationale presented here will apply to an individual proposal and the local champion will need to tailor their rationale for their locale. A sample business plan is shown in eAppendix 3 (available online at doi:10.12788/fp.0356). VHA Handbook of dialysis requires that a PD nurse has a minimum of 12 months of nursing experience with at least 3 months of PD experience.25 Nursing training, education, and support should be discussed with nursing leadership and included in the business plan. Similarly, arrangements for laboratory, pharmacy, and prosthetics services and/or logistics to facilitate procurement of the needed devices, disposables, and supplies are essential and should be highlighted in the business plan.
Approval Process
Postapproval Process
Once approved, the champion will need to work closely with various services and managers to oversee infrastructural renovations and execute the hiring plans, establish standard operating procedures (SOPs), standardize staff proficiencies and functional statements, and finalize quality assessment parameters. Home dialysis standards have been addressed by NKDP and The Joint Commission. While PD requires home visits to assess the appropriateness of the environment, the PD program is accredited under hospital-based therapy. Standards and performance metrics should be incorporated into all the VA PD programs for standardization and assessment. Based on guidance from the VHA Handbook, quality metrics, such as dialysis adequacy, and rates of infection should be monitored and reviewed. The dialysis director may need to consider more frequent program evaluations in the first year to ensure appropriate troubleshooting. The VA infrastructure has developed the resources for a central repository for the PD SOPs and quality metrics, which can be obtained and adapted for the local program. Similarly, veteran satisfaction can be assessed through existing resources. Finally, the dialysis director can join the National VHA Dialysis Director listserv for regular updates on the existing and new VHA policies and NKDP updates.
Conclusions
Establishing a new PD program within a local federal infrastructure can appear daunting, both in terms of planning as well as approvals. However, the provision of home-based dialysis therapies may be beneficial to those in rural settings with limited access to in-center dialysis modalities as well as to those who seek autonomy and lifestyle independence in their medical care. Collaborations with the VHA NKDP or PD workgroup can help overcome many of the procedural hurdles, provide guidance about infrastructure and resource allocation and utilization, and provide easy access to established SOPs and quality parameters.
Acknowledgments
We acknowledge the late Dr. Catherine Do for her significant contribution to this manuscript. We also extend our sincere thanks to Dr. Holly Mattix-Kramer (Edward Hines Jr. Veterans Affairs Hospital and Loyola University Medical Center) for her prompt and valuable feedback on this manuscript.
Compared with hemodialysis (HD), peritoneal dialysis (PD) offers comparable survival and superior patient-centered and health services outcomes.1,2 This has prompted repeated calls over the past 2 decades for policies to increase the use of home dialysis and, more specifically, for PD in the United States.3,4
Veterans comprise nearly 10% of the population with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) burden; > 50,000 US veterans are currently on dialysis.5,6 A majority of these veterans receive their chronic kidney disease (CKD) care through their affiliated US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers (VAMCs).
To address these needs, the VHA National Kidney Disease Program (NKDP) formed a 4-member PD workgroup in 2019. Considering the breadth of challenges involved, the PD workgroup broadly designed its approach based on the I CARE (Integrity, Commitment, Advocacy, Respect, and Excellence) VA Core Values.
This review focuses on the initial deliberations of the PD access subgroup and provides a guide to establishing a new local VA PD program.
Step 1: Prerequisites
A functional nephrology service is a bedrock prerequisite for establishing a new PD program. A clinician champion capable of leading the effort is equally necessary. Occasionally, the prevalent ESKD economic and health care burden prompts local VAMC leadership to consider a new PD program to improve the quality or availability of services. More commonly, though, the nephrology section and the clinician champion are the first to recognize the need. In either scenario, the champion will require support and advocacy at multiple levels of local leadership, ie, the section or department chief, facility chief of staff, VAMC director, and the Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN) director. The foremost task for the champion is to assess local clinical and infrastructure needs.
Goal Alignment
Any new VA nephrology program needs to be evaluated for its overall congruence with the local and national VA missions to improve the accessibility, integration, quality, and innovation of care for veterans. The following considerations are likely to apply to many VA systems.
Accessibility. A VHA directive recommends that all veterans be provided with the opportunity to choose and use any form of dialysis, especially home dialysis.9 Transitioning a veteran seamlessly from advanced CKD to PD requires the execution of multiple sequential processes in the pre-ESKD period, beginning with early identification of advanced CKD, timely referral to nephrology, education for shared dialysis decision making, coordination of care, and PD training and therapy.10 Splitting this sequence between VA and community-based care creates obstacles, including multiple approvals through VA Community Care Services that may substantially increase wait time and effort. This onerous process may be a significant deterrent against pursuing PD and increases the odds of emergency or inpatient initiation. Furthermore, the lack of PD availability limits the knowledge and experience among staff designated to assist veterans, which may result in inappropriate advocacy for HD or delay the transition to PD. Together, these processes can increase morbidity and health care use, and significantly delay or eliminate PD. Finally, many veterans reside in rural or remote areas where the expertise and the availability of PD may be unreliable. Establishing PD services within the local VAMC can improve access to PD, reduce the lead time needed to coordinate the transition to ESKD, and assist individual veterans in making an informed choice about dialysis. The program champion will need to identify and highlight all accessibility barriers within their business plan.
Integration. Many veterans receiving dialysis care at community-based facilities continue to receive nonnephrology care in the VA. This creates a parallel health care system with concerns for duplication of efforts and processes, suboptimal quality of care, and increased risk of medical errors. Establishing VA PD services increases access and integration of nephrology with other VA care.
Excellence. Studies of many chronic diseases have shown superior patient satisfaction and equal or superior quality of care delivered by the VA compared with that of non-VA facilities.11-14 Similarly, mortality rates for veterans receiving CKD and ESKD care in VA are lower compared with those at non-VA facilities.15-17 While these outcomes have not been examined for PD, integration of PD with VA care may lead to an improved overall quality of care and greater loyalty to the VA.
Innovation. Due to its integrated health care infrastructure, the VA is uniquely positioned to implement patient-centered and evidence-based pre-ESKD interventions that may improve outcomes. Prior studies have shown that pre-ESKD kidney disease education (KDE) improves pre- and post-ESKD outcomes, reduces health care costs, and leads to higher selection and use of home dialysis therapies.18-20 The VA recommends that all veterans with advanced CKD be provided access to pre-ESKD care and KDE. Unfortunately, KDE is uncommon among non-VA clinicians. A recent USRDS analysis reported that < 1% of patients with ESKD received pre-ESKD KDE.21 The ongoing Evaluate and Assess the effects of Comprehensive Pre-ESKD kidney disease Education on home dialysis in Veterans Trial (NCT04064086) should provide further evidence.
Step 2: Feasibility
A business plan requires the realistic projections of the costs and accounting for gains of the new clinical program. While there is limited guidance on personnel requirements when planning a PD program, we provide estimated resources needed to successfully establish and run a PD program (eAppendix 1, available online at doi:10.12788/fp.0356).
Clinical Considerations
Secondary or tertiary care VAMCs with multiple medical and surgical specialties routinely provide complex inpatient care. For these facilities, the lack of inpatient PD poses an obstacle to the provision of specialized nonnephrology care to veterans with ESKD, who are frequent users of such complex care. These considerations argue for the need for at least inpatient PD services at VAMCs that provide complex medical care for many veterans receiving PD in the community.
Deliberations for outpatient PD programs should be based on the clinical demands of ESKD care, the number of veterans likely to use PD, and growth projections. While there is no established minimum number that guarantees cost-effectiveness, most existing VA outpatient PD programs provide services for about 5 to 25 veterans. A local census can provide estimations of future PD needs. Travel considerations (ie, distance, terrain, traffic) may affect eligibility for purchased care and the decision where to receive PD. Many veterans may prefer PD from the local VAMC if it is convenient and allows them to maintain centralized VA care. Potential patients can be surveyed to gauge interest in receiving VA-based PD. Facilities providing structured pre-ESKD KDE may hold greater potential for PD growth, and it is important to highlight KDE infrastructure in the business plan.
Infrastructure
Spatial needs including clinic space and storage space for consumables, supplies, and equipment should be part of infrastructure requirements. The program champion may need to examine the available space for suitability and adequacy of the PD program early in the process. Ventilation renovations in the PD rooms should be incorporated into budget calculations. Water access for handwashing and PD effluent drainage should be confirmed, and if the program intends to establish home HD, additional considerations for the storage and water supply may be required. The VHA Handbook outlines the infrastructure requirements for a dialysis program.22 The VA has established national vendor contracts for dialysis equipment and consumables. However, a new PD program may need further guidance regarding the local agencies that provide administrative support and assist patients.
Telehealth technology has enabled many VAMCs to overcome geographical barriers for rural veterans.23 Ongoing expansion of community-based outpatient clinics (CBOCs) to include more rural locations is improving access to specialty care, while the launch of VA Video Connect (VVC) has further improved outreach. Investigators from Minneapolis have demonstrated the feasibility of multidisciplinary home-based telehealth management of veterans with CKD.24 Several existing nephrology sections across the VHA use a combination of VVC and CBOC-facilitated clinic visits to provide some pre-ESKD and ESKD care, including KDE, PD home visits and training, and comprehensive ESKD care visits. Recent changes in the clinical care pattern during the COVID-19 pandemic have further eased ESKD telehealth protocols. Integrating the projected use of telehealth in collaboration with existing resources available through the VHA NKDP can allow the local champion to improve the financial feasibility and long-term success of a new PD program.
Clinicians
Experience and expertise in managing PD vary among nephrologists. A recent survey found that only 11% of second-year nephrology trainees felt fully prepared to manage PD patients and 27% felt that they were minimally prepared.25 Thus, it is important to ensure that adequately trained nephrologists are available locally before initiating a new program, and if needed, coverage across VHS or VISN can be explored. One potential method to enhance practitioner comfort in PD is the use of existing peer-to-peer education through the VA Kidney Specialty Care Access Network-Extension for Community Health care Outcomes program that links health care professionals in rural areas with specialists at a tertiary care center.23 Nurses are a primary pillar for the success of home dialysis programs and the lack of a trained nursing workforce can be a significant limitation. Similarly, while the placement and management of complications related to PD catheters are not technically challenging, the availability of interventionists (either a surgeon or trained interventional radiologist) should be part of the business plan.
Financial Considerations
The financial considerations involving a new PD program within the VHA are complex (eAppendix 2, available online at doi:10.12788/fp.0356). ESKD is one of the most complex and costly comorbidities. It is a major determinant of the expenditure and revenue generation for facilities. The Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation system classifies ESKD on repeated dialysis as price category 10, indicating high complexity and cost. The VAMC workload and facility budget allocation is assessed annually and increases as the population of price group 10 veterans increases. VHA also provides additional Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation funds to VAMCs, which can improve the bottom line for VA-based dialysis units. Providing PD facilitates outpatient and inpatient management of comorbidities, allowing for substantial cost savings while improving the quality of nonrenal care. Outsourcing dialysis care can reduce the administrative burden, although, it deprives the VAMC of all dialysis-associated revenues while bearing the cost of all nonrenal and some renal care. The net effect is reduced facility productivity. In aggregate, establishing a local dialysis program requires greater financial resources for the capital and personnel costs; however, if captured appropriately these funds can be a major source of revenue and savings for the local VAMC.
Indirect costs are important for financial projections. Most community dialysis units operate as outpatient units, whereas all but a handful of the VA dialysis units operate within or near a VAMC. As a result, the VA units providing maintenance dialysis are regularly classified as inpatient centers while providing largely outpatient services, which negatively impacts overhead cost calculations. The predominant use of in-center HD as the default modality further sets an erroneously high baseline for the indirect cost of the VA-based PD services, especially considering that the principal savings of the home dialysis are through the reduction in the labor and capital costs. A rudimentary make-buy model for the in-center HD is available through the NKDP, and establishing a similar model for PD programs may be useful.
Cost considerations also may vary based on the model of ESKD care used locally. Of the 71 hospital-based and free-standing VA HD facilities, only 33 provide PD services, with 5 units providing only inpatient PD. The financial burden of establishing a fully operational outpatient PD program will be based on whether it is targeting a new unit or is expanding. The costs for equipment rental, disposables, and supplies vary based on the VA contract negotiations but are standardized across the nation with approved cost-of-living geographic adjustments. Caution needs to be exercised in employing a phased-hiring approach, as newer programs may require proportionally larger nursing resources due to greater needs for KDE, transitioning services, and training for PD. A target census-based hiring schedule should be negotiated with leadership before launch. If existing labor mapping does not allow for cross-coverage, part-time positions for physicians may be considered. Travel nurses, especially for PD training, can be considered to meet labor needs when long-term projections prohibit permanent full-time hires.
Finally, the balance sheet of a new program needs to account for different scenarios. In addition to nephrology costs, outsourcing veterans for PD services incurs multiple costs (eg, administrative, social work). Facilities with inpatient PD services alone are likely already bearing a component of the medications (including antibiotics) and/or surgical costs for their outsourced patients. These hidden costs are infrequently counted in projections. Facilities without inpatient PD cannot provide complex nonrenal care to ESKD patients on PD, even when the center is well equipped to provide it. These facilities also bear the cost of outsourcing even for complications related to PD. While a full estimation of these services varies, the hidden cost savings of many procedures or inpatient admissions, such as cardiovascular or musculoskeletal surgeries, can exceed those of dialysis in this complex population.
Step 3: proposal
There are no standardized formats for presenting a VHA business proposal; however, this outline provides a template. The business proposal should be designed to effectively communicate the collective data that describe the needs and requirements of a PD program to the local, regional, and national leadership. Not every rationale presented here will apply to an individual proposal and the local champion will need to tailor their rationale for their locale. A sample business plan is shown in eAppendix 3 (available online at doi:10.12788/fp.0356). VHA Handbook of dialysis requires that a PD nurse has a minimum of 12 months of nursing experience with at least 3 months of PD experience.25 Nursing training, education, and support should be discussed with nursing leadership and included in the business plan. Similarly, arrangements for laboratory, pharmacy, and prosthetics services and/or logistics to facilitate procurement of the needed devices, disposables, and supplies are essential and should be highlighted in the business plan.
Approval Process
Postapproval Process
Once approved, the champion will need to work closely with various services and managers to oversee infrastructural renovations and execute the hiring plans, establish standard operating procedures (SOPs), standardize staff proficiencies and functional statements, and finalize quality assessment parameters. Home dialysis standards have been addressed by NKDP and The Joint Commission. While PD requires home visits to assess the appropriateness of the environment, the PD program is accredited under hospital-based therapy. Standards and performance metrics should be incorporated into all the VA PD programs for standardization and assessment. Based on guidance from the VHA Handbook, quality metrics, such as dialysis adequacy, and rates of infection should be monitored and reviewed. The dialysis director may need to consider more frequent program evaluations in the first year to ensure appropriate troubleshooting. The VA infrastructure has developed the resources for a central repository for the PD SOPs and quality metrics, which can be obtained and adapted for the local program. Similarly, veteran satisfaction can be assessed through existing resources. Finally, the dialysis director can join the National VHA Dialysis Director listserv for regular updates on the existing and new VHA policies and NKDP updates.
Conclusions
Establishing a new PD program within a local federal infrastructure can appear daunting, both in terms of planning as well as approvals. However, the provision of home-based dialysis therapies may be beneficial to those in rural settings with limited access to in-center dialysis modalities as well as to those who seek autonomy and lifestyle independence in their medical care. Collaborations with the VHA NKDP or PD workgroup can help overcome many of the procedural hurdles, provide guidance about infrastructure and resource allocation and utilization, and provide easy access to established SOPs and quality parameters.
Acknowledgments
We acknowledge the late Dr. Catherine Do for her significant contribution to this manuscript. We also extend our sincere thanks to Dr. Holly Mattix-Kramer (Edward Hines Jr. Veterans Affairs Hospital and Loyola University Medical Center) for her prompt and valuable feedback on this manuscript.
1. Jung HY, Jeon Y, Park Y, et al. Better quality of life of peritoneal dialysis compared to hemodialysis over a two-year period after dialysis initiation. Sci Rep. 2019;9(1):10266. Published 2019 Jul 16. doi:10.1038/s41598-019-46744-1
2. Wong B, Ravani P, Oliver MJ, et al. Comparison of patient survival between hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis among patients eligible for both modalities. Am J Kidney Dis. 2018;71(3):344-351. doi:10.1053/j.ajkd.2017.08.028
3. Chan CT, Collins K, Ditschman EP, et al. Overcoming barriers for uptake and continued use of home dialysis: an NKF-KDOQI Conference report. Am J Kidney Dis. 2020;75(6):926-934. doi:10.1053/j.ajkd.2019.11.007
4. Executive Order 13879: Advancing American kidney health. Fed Regist. 2019; 84(135):33817-33819. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-07-15/pdf/2019-15159.pdf
5. Patel TG, Pogach LM, Barth RH. CKD screening and management in the Veterans Health Administration: the impact of system organization and an innovative electronic record. Am J Kidney Dis. 2009;53(suppl 3):S78-S85. doi:10.1053/j.ajkd.2008.07.051
6. Saran R, Pearson A, Tilea A, et al. Burden and cost of caring for US veterans with CKD: initial findings from the VA Renal Information System (VA-REINS). Am J Kidney Dis. 2021;77(3):397-405. doi:10.1053/j.ajkd.2020.07.013
7. Sloan CE, Coffman CJ, Sanders LL, et al. Trends in peritoneal dialysis use in the United States after Medicare payment reform. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2019;14(12):1763-1772. doi:10.2215/CJN.05910519
8. VA Maintaining Internal Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside Networks Act of 2018. HR 5674. 115th Congress; Report No. 115-671, Part 1. May 3, 2018. Accessed February 9, 2023. https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/hr5674/BILLS-115hr5674rh.pdf
9. US Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration. Chronic kidney disease prevention, early recognition, and management. VHA Directive 1053. March 17, 2020. Accessed February 9, 2023. https://www.va.gov/vhapublications/ViewPublication.asp?pub_ID=8737
10. Blake PG, Quinn RR, Oliver MJ. Peritoneal dialysis and the process of modality selection. Perit Dial Int. 2013;33(3):233-241. doi:10.3747/pdi.2012.00119
11. Stroupe KT, Hynes DM, Giobbie-Hurder A, et al. Patient satisfaction and use of Veterans Affairs versus non-Veterans Affairs healthcare services by veterans. Med Care. 2005;43(5):453-460. doi:10.1097/01.mlr.0000160377.82164.d3
12. Anhang Price R, Sloss EM, Cefalu M, Farmer CM, Hussey PS. Comparing quality of care in Veterans Affairs and non-Veterans Affairs settings. J Gen Intern Med. 2018;33(10):1631-1638. doi:10.1007/s11606-018-4433-7
13. Blay E Jr, DeLancey JO, Hewitt DB, Chung JW, Bilimoria KY. Initial public reporting of quality at Veterans Affairs vs non-Veterans Affairs hospitals. JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177(6):882-885. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.0605
14. Nuti SV, Qin L, Krumholz HM. Outcome after admission at Veterans Affairs vs non-Veterans Affairs hospitals--reply. JAMA. 2016;316(3):346. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.5394
15. Streja E, Kovesdy CP, Soohoo M, et al. Dialysis provider and outcomes among United States veterans who transition to dialysis. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2018;13(7):1055-1062. doi:10.2215/CJN.12951117
16. Wang V, Coffman CJ, Stechuchak KM, et al. Survival among veterans obtaining dialysis in VA and non-VA settings. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2019;30(1):159-168. doi:10.1681/ASN.2018050521
17. Kurella Tamura M, Thomas IC, Montez-Rath ME, et al. Dialysis initiation and mortality among older veterans with kidney failure treated in Medicare vs the Department of Veterans Affairs. JAMA Intern Med. 2018;178(5):657-664. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.0411
18. Devins GM, Mendelssohn DC, Barré PE, Taub K, Binik YM. Predialysis psychoeducational intervention extends survival in CKD: a 20-year follow-up. Am J Kidney Dis. 2005;46(6):1088-1098. doi:10.1053/j.ajkd.2005.08.017
19. Devoe DJ, Wong B, James MT, et al. Patient education and peritoneal dialysis modality selection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Kidney Dis. 2016;68(3):422-433. doi:10.1053/j.ajkd.2016.02.053
20. Lin E, Chertow GM, Yan B, Malcolm E, Goldhaber-Fiebert JD. Cost-effectiveness of multidisciplinary care in mild to moderate chronic kidney disease in the United States: A modeling study. PLoS Med. 2018;15(3):e1002532. Published 2018 Mar 27. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1002532
21. Shukla AM, Bozorgmehri S, Ruchi R, et al. Utilization of CMS pre-ESRD Kidney Disease Education services and its associations with the home dialysis therapies. Perit Dial Int. 2021;41(5):453-462. doi:10.1177/0896860820975586
22. US Dept of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration. Criteria and standards for VA dialysis programs. VHA Directive 1601. 2016. May 23, 2016. https://www.va.gov/vhapublications/ViewPublication.asp?pub_ID=3205
23. Crowley ST, Belcher J, Choudhury D, et al. Targeting access to kidney care via telehealth: the VA experience. Adv Chronic Kidney Dis. 2017;24(1):22-30. doi:10.1053/j.ackd.2016.11.005
24. Ishani A, Christopher J, Palmer D, et al. Telehealth by an interprofessional team in patients with CKD: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Kidney Dis. 2016;68(1):41-49. doi:10.1053/j.ajkd.2016.01.018
25. Gupta N, Taber-Hight EB, Miller BW. Perceptions of home dialysis training and experience among US nephrology fellows. Am J Kidney Dis. 2021;77(5):713-718.e1. doi:10.1053/j.ajkd.2020.09.014
1. Jung HY, Jeon Y, Park Y, et al. Better quality of life of peritoneal dialysis compared to hemodialysis over a two-year period after dialysis initiation. Sci Rep. 2019;9(1):10266. Published 2019 Jul 16. doi:10.1038/s41598-019-46744-1
2. Wong B, Ravani P, Oliver MJ, et al. Comparison of patient survival between hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis among patients eligible for both modalities. Am J Kidney Dis. 2018;71(3):344-351. doi:10.1053/j.ajkd.2017.08.028
3. Chan CT, Collins K, Ditschman EP, et al. Overcoming barriers for uptake and continued use of home dialysis: an NKF-KDOQI Conference report. Am J Kidney Dis. 2020;75(6):926-934. doi:10.1053/j.ajkd.2019.11.007
4. Executive Order 13879: Advancing American kidney health. Fed Regist. 2019; 84(135):33817-33819. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-07-15/pdf/2019-15159.pdf
5. Patel TG, Pogach LM, Barth RH. CKD screening and management in the Veterans Health Administration: the impact of system organization and an innovative electronic record. Am J Kidney Dis. 2009;53(suppl 3):S78-S85. doi:10.1053/j.ajkd.2008.07.051
6. Saran R, Pearson A, Tilea A, et al. Burden and cost of caring for US veterans with CKD: initial findings from the VA Renal Information System (VA-REINS). Am J Kidney Dis. 2021;77(3):397-405. doi:10.1053/j.ajkd.2020.07.013
7. Sloan CE, Coffman CJ, Sanders LL, et al. Trends in peritoneal dialysis use in the United States after Medicare payment reform. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2019;14(12):1763-1772. doi:10.2215/CJN.05910519
8. VA Maintaining Internal Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside Networks Act of 2018. HR 5674. 115th Congress; Report No. 115-671, Part 1. May 3, 2018. Accessed February 9, 2023. https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/hr5674/BILLS-115hr5674rh.pdf
9. US Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration. Chronic kidney disease prevention, early recognition, and management. VHA Directive 1053. March 17, 2020. Accessed February 9, 2023. https://www.va.gov/vhapublications/ViewPublication.asp?pub_ID=8737
10. Blake PG, Quinn RR, Oliver MJ. Peritoneal dialysis and the process of modality selection. Perit Dial Int. 2013;33(3):233-241. doi:10.3747/pdi.2012.00119
11. Stroupe KT, Hynes DM, Giobbie-Hurder A, et al. Patient satisfaction and use of Veterans Affairs versus non-Veterans Affairs healthcare services by veterans. Med Care. 2005;43(5):453-460. doi:10.1097/01.mlr.0000160377.82164.d3
12. Anhang Price R, Sloss EM, Cefalu M, Farmer CM, Hussey PS. Comparing quality of care in Veterans Affairs and non-Veterans Affairs settings. J Gen Intern Med. 2018;33(10):1631-1638. doi:10.1007/s11606-018-4433-7
13. Blay E Jr, DeLancey JO, Hewitt DB, Chung JW, Bilimoria KY. Initial public reporting of quality at Veterans Affairs vs non-Veterans Affairs hospitals. JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177(6):882-885. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.0605
14. Nuti SV, Qin L, Krumholz HM. Outcome after admission at Veterans Affairs vs non-Veterans Affairs hospitals--reply. JAMA. 2016;316(3):346. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.5394
15. Streja E, Kovesdy CP, Soohoo M, et al. Dialysis provider and outcomes among United States veterans who transition to dialysis. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2018;13(7):1055-1062. doi:10.2215/CJN.12951117
16. Wang V, Coffman CJ, Stechuchak KM, et al. Survival among veterans obtaining dialysis in VA and non-VA settings. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2019;30(1):159-168. doi:10.1681/ASN.2018050521
17. Kurella Tamura M, Thomas IC, Montez-Rath ME, et al. Dialysis initiation and mortality among older veterans with kidney failure treated in Medicare vs the Department of Veterans Affairs. JAMA Intern Med. 2018;178(5):657-664. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.0411
18. Devins GM, Mendelssohn DC, Barré PE, Taub K, Binik YM. Predialysis psychoeducational intervention extends survival in CKD: a 20-year follow-up. Am J Kidney Dis. 2005;46(6):1088-1098. doi:10.1053/j.ajkd.2005.08.017
19. Devoe DJ, Wong B, James MT, et al. Patient education and peritoneal dialysis modality selection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Kidney Dis. 2016;68(3):422-433. doi:10.1053/j.ajkd.2016.02.053
20. Lin E, Chertow GM, Yan B, Malcolm E, Goldhaber-Fiebert JD. Cost-effectiveness of multidisciplinary care in mild to moderate chronic kidney disease in the United States: A modeling study. PLoS Med. 2018;15(3):e1002532. Published 2018 Mar 27. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1002532
21. Shukla AM, Bozorgmehri S, Ruchi R, et al. Utilization of CMS pre-ESRD Kidney Disease Education services and its associations with the home dialysis therapies. Perit Dial Int. 2021;41(5):453-462. doi:10.1177/0896860820975586
22. US Dept of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration. Criteria and standards for VA dialysis programs. VHA Directive 1601. 2016. May 23, 2016. https://www.va.gov/vhapublications/ViewPublication.asp?pub_ID=3205
23. Crowley ST, Belcher J, Choudhury D, et al. Targeting access to kidney care via telehealth: the VA experience. Adv Chronic Kidney Dis. 2017;24(1):22-30. doi:10.1053/j.ackd.2016.11.005
24. Ishani A, Christopher J, Palmer D, et al. Telehealth by an interprofessional team in patients with CKD: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Kidney Dis. 2016;68(1):41-49. doi:10.1053/j.ajkd.2016.01.018
25. Gupta N, Taber-Hight EB, Miller BW. Perceptions of home dialysis training and experience among US nephrology fellows. Am J Kidney Dis. 2021;77(5):713-718.e1. doi:10.1053/j.ajkd.2020.09.014
Oophorectomies continue to dominate torsion treatment
Prompt surgical management is essential in cases of ovarian torsion in order to salvage ovarian function, and recent studies have shown that conservative management with detorsion does not increase postoperative complications, compared with oophorectomy, wrote Hannah Ryles, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists issued practice guidelines in November 2016 that recommended ovarian conservation rather than oophorectomy to manage adnexal torsion in women wishing to preserve fertility. However, the impact of this guideline on clinical practice and surgical patterns remains unclear, the researchers said.
In a study published in Obstetrics and Gynecology, the researchers reviewed data from 402 patients who underwent surgeries before the updated ACOG guidelines (2008-2016) and 1,389 who underwent surgeries after the guidelines (2017-2020). Surgery data came from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database. The study population included women aged 18-50 years who underwent adnexal torsion surgery and were identified as having either oophorectomy or ovarian conservation surgery.
A total of 1,791 surgeries performed for adnexal torsion were included in the study; 542 (30.3%) involved ovarian conservation and 1,249 (69.7%) involved oophorectomy.
The proportion of oophorectomies was similar during the periods before and after the guidelines (71.9% vs. 69.1%; P = .16). However, the proportion of oophorectomies changed significantly across the entire study period, by approximately –1.6% each year.
Factors significantly associated with oophorectomy compared with ovarian conservation included older age (35 years vs. 28 years), higher body mass index (29.2 kg/m2 vs. 27.5 kg/m2), anemia (12.2% vs. 7.2%), hypertension (10.4% vs. 3.1%), and higher American Society of Anesthesiologists classification.
“There remains no defined acceptable rate of oophorectomy; this decision involves multiple factors, such as fertility and other patient desires after a risk and benefit discussion, menopausal status, concern for malignancy, and safety and feasibility of conservative procedures,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. However, in emergency situations, it may be difficult to determine a patient’s preferences, and a lack of desire for future fertility may be presumed, which may contribute to the relatively high oophorectomy rates over time, they said.
The findings were limited by several factors including the retrospective design and lack of data on surgical history, histopathology, and intraoperative appearance of the ovary, as well as lack of clinical data including the time from presentation to diagnosis or surgery, the researchers noted. “Although we were also unable to determine obstetric history and fertility desires, our median age of 32 years reflects a young cohort that was limited to women of reproductive age,” they added.
However, the results reflect studies suggesting that clinical practice often lags behind updated guidelines, and the findings were strengthened by the use of the NSQIP database and reflect a need for greater efforts to promote ovarian conservation in accordance with the current guidelines, the researchers concluded.
Consider unilateral oophorectomy
The current study highlights the discrepancy between the ACOG guidelines and clinical practice, with “disappointingly low” rates of ovarian preservation in the adult population, wrote Riley J. Young, MD, and Kimberly A. Kho, MD, both of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, in an accompanying editorial. The reasons for the discrepancy include clinical concerns for conserving a torsed ovary and the difficulty of assessing fertility desires in an emergency situation, they said.
However, consideration of unilateral oophorectomy as an option should be part of clinical decision-making, according to the editorialists. Previous studies suggest that retention of a single ovarian may still allow for a successful pregnancy, and the effects of unilateral oophorectomy have been studied in infertility and assisted reproductive technology settings.
Women with a single ovary have fewer eggs and require higher amounts of gonadotropins, but pregnancy is possible, the editorialists said. However, the long-term effects of unilateral oophorectomy are uncertain, and potential detrimental outcomes include increased mortality and cognitive impairment; therefore “we aim for premenopausal ovaries simply to be conserved, whether fertility is the stated goal or not,” they noted. This may include consideration of unilateral oophorectomy. “Each ovary conserved at midnight moves us closer to a more acceptable ovarian conservation rate,” they concluded.
The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Kho disclosed funding to her institution from Hologic for being on an investigator-initiated study, Dr. Young had no financial conflicts to disclose.
Prompt surgical management is essential in cases of ovarian torsion in order to salvage ovarian function, and recent studies have shown that conservative management with detorsion does not increase postoperative complications, compared with oophorectomy, wrote Hannah Ryles, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists issued practice guidelines in November 2016 that recommended ovarian conservation rather than oophorectomy to manage adnexal torsion in women wishing to preserve fertility. However, the impact of this guideline on clinical practice and surgical patterns remains unclear, the researchers said.
In a study published in Obstetrics and Gynecology, the researchers reviewed data from 402 patients who underwent surgeries before the updated ACOG guidelines (2008-2016) and 1,389 who underwent surgeries after the guidelines (2017-2020). Surgery data came from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database. The study population included women aged 18-50 years who underwent adnexal torsion surgery and were identified as having either oophorectomy or ovarian conservation surgery.
A total of 1,791 surgeries performed for adnexal torsion were included in the study; 542 (30.3%) involved ovarian conservation and 1,249 (69.7%) involved oophorectomy.
The proportion of oophorectomies was similar during the periods before and after the guidelines (71.9% vs. 69.1%; P = .16). However, the proportion of oophorectomies changed significantly across the entire study period, by approximately –1.6% each year.
Factors significantly associated with oophorectomy compared with ovarian conservation included older age (35 years vs. 28 years), higher body mass index (29.2 kg/m2 vs. 27.5 kg/m2), anemia (12.2% vs. 7.2%), hypertension (10.4% vs. 3.1%), and higher American Society of Anesthesiologists classification.
“There remains no defined acceptable rate of oophorectomy; this decision involves multiple factors, such as fertility and other patient desires after a risk and benefit discussion, menopausal status, concern for malignancy, and safety and feasibility of conservative procedures,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. However, in emergency situations, it may be difficult to determine a patient’s preferences, and a lack of desire for future fertility may be presumed, which may contribute to the relatively high oophorectomy rates over time, they said.
The findings were limited by several factors including the retrospective design and lack of data on surgical history, histopathology, and intraoperative appearance of the ovary, as well as lack of clinical data including the time from presentation to diagnosis or surgery, the researchers noted. “Although we were also unable to determine obstetric history and fertility desires, our median age of 32 years reflects a young cohort that was limited to women of reproductive age,” they added.
However, the results reflect studies suggesting that clinical practice often lags behind updated guidelines, and the findings were strengthened by the use of the NSQIP database and reflect a need for greater efforts to promote ovarian conservation in accordance with the current guidelines, the researchers concluded.
Consider unilateral oophorectomy
The current study highlights the discrepancy between the ACOG guidelines and clinical practice, with “disappointingly low” rates of ovarian preservation in the adult population, wrote Riley J. Young, MD, and Kimberly A. Kho, MD, both of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, in an accompanying editorial. The reasons for the discrepancy include clinical concerns for conserving a torsed ovary and the difficulty of assessing fertility desires in an emergency situation, they said.
However, consideration of unilateral oophorectomy as an option should be part of clinical decision-making, according to the editorialists. Previous studies suggest that retention of a single ovarian may still allow for a successful pregnancy, and the effects of unilateral oophorectomy have been studied in infertility and assisted reproductive technology settings.
Women with a single ovary have fewer eggs and require higher amounts of gonadotropins, but pregnancy is possible, the editorialists said. However, the long-term effects of unilateral oophorectomy are uncertain, and potential detrimental outcomes include increased mortality and cognitive impairment; therefore “we aim for premenopausal ovaries simply to be conserved, whether fertility is the stated goal or not,” they noted. This may include consideration of unilateral oophorectomy. “Each ovary conserved at midnight moves us closer to a more acceptable ovarian conservation rate,” they concluded.
The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Kho disclosed funding to her institution from Hologic for being on an investigator-initiated study, Dr. Young had no financial conflicts to disclose.
Prompt surgical management is essential in cases of ovarian torsion in order to salvage ovarian function, and recent studies have shown that conservative management with detorsion does not increase postoperative complications, compared with oophorectomy, wrote Hannah Ryles, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists issued practice guidelines in November 2016 that recommended ovarian conservation rather than oophorectomy to manage adnexal torsion in women wishing to preserve fertility. However, the impact of this guideline on clinical practice and surgical patterns remains unclear, the researchers said.
In a study published in Obstetrics and Gynecology, the researchers reviewed data from 402 patients who underwent surgeries before the updated ACOG guidelines (2008-2016) and 1,389 who underwent surgeries after the guidelines (2017-2020). Surgery data came from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database. The study population included women aged 18-50 years who underwent adnexal torsion surgery and were identified as having either oophorectomy or ovarian conservation surgery.
A total of 1,791 surgeries performed for adnexal torsion were included in the study; 542 (30.3%) involved ovarian conservation and 1,249 (69.7%) involved oophorectomy.
The proportion of oophorectomies was similar during the periods before and after the guidelines (71.9% vs. 69.1%; P = .16). However, the proportion of oophorectomies changed significantly across the entire study period, by approximately –1.6% each year.
Factors significantly associated with oophorectomy compared with ovarian conservation included older age (35 years vs. 28 years), higher body mass index (29.2 kg/m2 vs. 27.5 kg/m2), anemia (12.2% vs. 7.2%), hypertension (10.4% vs. 3.1%), and higher American Society of Anesthesiologists classification.
“There remains no defined acceptable rate of oophorectomy; this decision involves multiple factors, such as fertility and other patient desires after a risk and benefit discussion, menopausal status, concern for malignancy, and safety and feasibility of conservative procedures,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. However, in emergency situations, it may be difficult to determine a patient’s preferences, and a lack of desire for future fertility may be presumed, which may contribute to the relatively high oophorectomy rates over time, they said.
The findings were limited by several factors including the retrospective design and lack of data on surgical history, histopathology, and intraoperative appearance of the ovary, as well as lack of clinical data including the time from presentation to diagnosis or surgery, the researchers noted. “Although we were also unable to determine obstetric history and fertility desires, our median age of 32 years reflects a young cohort that was limited to women of reproductive age,” they added.
However, the results reflect studies suggesting that clinical practice often lags behind updated guidelines, and the findings were strengthened by the use of the NSQIP database and reflect a need for greater efforts to promote ovarian conservation in accordance with the current guidelines, the researchers concluded.
Consider unilateral oophorectomy
The current study highlights the discrepancy between the ACOG guidelines and clinical practice, with “disappointingly low” rates of ovarian preservation in the adult population, wrote Riley J. Young, MD, and Kimberly A. Kho, MD, both of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, in an accompanying editorial. The reasons for the discrepancy include clinical concerns for conserving a torsed ovary and the difficulty of assessing fertility desires in an emergency situation, they said.
However, consideration of unilateral oophorectomy as an option should be part of clinical decision-making, according to the editorialists. Previous studies suggest that retention of a single ovarian may still allow for a successful pregnancy, and the effects of unilateral oophorectomy have been studied in infertility and assisted reproductive technology settings.
Women with a single ovary have fewer eggs and require higher amounts of gonadotropins, but pregnancy is possible, the editorialists said. However, the long-term effects of unilateral oophorectomy are uncertain, and potential detrimental outcomes include increased mortality and cognitive impairment; therefore “we aim for premenopausal ovaries simply to be conserved, whether fertility is the stated goal or not,” they noted. This may include consideration of unilateral oophorectomy. “Each ovary conserved at midnight moves us closer to a more acceptable ovarian conservation rate,” they concluded.
The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Kho disclosed funding to her institution from Hologic for being on an investigator-initiated study, Dr. Young had no financial conflicts to disclose.
FROM OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Melasma
THE COMPARISON
A Melasma on the face of a Hispanic woman, with hyperpigmentation on the cheeks, bridge of the nose, and upper lip.
B Melasma on the face of a Malaysian woman, with hyperpigmentation on the upper cheeks and bridge of the nose.
C Melasma on the face of an African woman, with hyperpigmentation on the upper cheeks and lateral to the eyes.
Melasma (also known as chloasma) is a pigmentary disorder that causes chronic symmetric hyperpigmentation on the face. In patients with darker skin tones, centrofacial areas are affected.1 Increased deposition of melanin distributed in the dermis leads to dermal melanosis. Newer research suggests that mast cell and keratinocyte interactions, altered gene regulation, neovascularization, and disruptions in the basement membrane cause melasma.2 Patients present with epidermal or dermal melasma or a combination of both (mixed melasma).3 Wood lamp examination is helpful to distinguish between epidermal and dermal melasma. Dermal and mixed melasma can be difficult to treat and require multimodal treatments.
Epidemiology
Melasma commonly affects women ages 20 to 40 years,4 with a female to male ratio of 9:1.5 Potential triggers of melasma include hormones (eg, pregnancy, oral contraceptives, hormone replacement therapy) and exposure to UV light.2,5 Melasma occurs in patients of all racial and ethnic backgrounds; however, the prevalence is higher in patients with darker skin tones.2
Key clinical features in people with darker skin tones
Melasma commonly manifests as symmetrically distributed, reticulated (lacy), dark brown to grayish brown patches on the cheeks, nose, forehead, upper lip, and chin in patients with darker skin tones.5 The pigment can be tan brown in patients with lighter skin tones. Given that postinflammatory hyperpigmentation and other pigmentary disorders can cause a similar appearance, a biopsy sometimes is needed to confirm the diagnosis, but melasma is diagnosed via physical examination in most patients. Melasma can be misdiagnosed as postinflammatory hyperpigmentation, solar lentigines, exogenous ochronosis, and Hori nevus.5
Worth noting
Prevention
- Daily sunscreen use is critical to prevent worsening of melasma. Sunscreen may not appear cosmetically elegant on darker skin tones, which creates a barrier to its use.6 Protection from both sunlight and visible light is necessary. Visible light, including light from light bulbs and device-emitted blue light, can worsen melasma. Iron oxides in tinted sunscreen offer protection from visible light.
- Physicians can recommend sunscreens that are more transparent or tinted for a better cosmetic match.
- Severe flares of melasma can occur with sun exposure despite good control with medications and laser modalities.
Treatment
- First-line therapies include topical hydroquinone 2% to 4%, tretinoin, azelaic acid, kojic acid, or ascorbic acid (vitamin C). A popular topical compound is a steroid, tretinoin, and hydroquinone.1,5 Over-the-counter hydroquinone has been removed from the market due to safety concerns; however, it is still first line in the treatment of melasma. If hydroquinone is prescribed, treatment intervals of 6 to 8 weeks followed by a hydroquinone-free period is advised to reduce the risk for exogenous ochronosis (a paradoxical darkening of the skin).
- Chemical peels are second-line treatments that are effective for melasma. Improvement in epidermal melasma has been shown with chemical peels containing Jessner solution, salicylic acid, or a-hydroxy acid. Patients with dermal and mixed melasma have seen improvement with trichloroacetic acid 25% to 35% with or without Jessner solution.1
- Cysteamine is a topical treatment created from the degradation of coenzyme A. It disrupts the synthesis of melanin to create a more even skin tone. It may be recommended in combination with sunscreen as a first-line or secondline topical therapy.
- Oral tranexamic acid is a third-line treatment that is an analogue for lysine. It decreases prostaglandin production, which leads to a lower number of tyrosine precursors available for the creation of melanin. Tranexamic acid has been shown to lighten the appearance of melasma.7 The most common and dangerous adverse effect of tranexamic acid is blood clots, and this treatment should be avoided in those on combination (estrogen and progestin) contraceptives or those with a personal or family history of clotting disorders.8
- Fourth-line treatments such as lasers (performed by dermatologists) can destroy the deposition of pigment while avoiding destruction of epidermal keratinocytes.1,9,10 They also are commonly employed in refractive melasma. The most common lasers are nonablative fractionated lasers and low-fluence Q-switched lasers. The Q-switched Nd:YAG and picosecond lasers are safe for treating melasma in darker skin tones. Ablative fractionated lasers such as CO2 lasers and erbium:YAG lasers also have been used in the treatment of melasma; however, there is still an extremely high risk for postinflammatory dyspigmentation 1 to 2 months after the procedure.10
- Although there is still a risk for rebound hyperpigmentation after laser treatment, use of topical hydroquinone pretreatment may help decrease postoperative hyperpigmentation.1,5 Patients who are treated with the incorrect laser or overtreated may develop postinflammatory hyperpigmentation, rebound hyperpigmentation, or hypopigmentation.
Health disparity highlight
Melasma, most common in patients with skin of color, is a common chronic pigmentation disorder that is cosmetically and psychologically burdensome,11 leading to decreased quality of life, emotional functioning, and self-esteem.12 Clinicians should counsel patients and work closely on long-term management. The treatment options for melasma are considered cosmetic and may be cost prohibitive for many to cover out of pocket. Topical treatments have been found to be the most cost-effective.13 Some compounding pharmacies and drug discount programs provide more affordable treatment pricing; however, some patients are still unable to afford these options.
1. Cunha PR, Kroumpouzos G. Melasma and vitiligo: novel and experimental therapies. J Clin Exp Derm Res. 2016;7:2. doi:10.4172/2155-9554.1000e106
2. Rajanala S, Maymone MBC, Vashi NA. Melasma pathogenesis: a review of the latest research, pathological findings, and investigational therapies. Dermatol Online J. 2019;25:13030/qt47b7r28c.
3. Grimes PE, Yamada N, Bhawan J. Light microscopic, immunohistochemical, and ultrastructural alterations in patients with melasma. Am J Dermatopathol. 2005;27:96-101.
4. Achar A, Rathi SK. Melasma: a clinico-epidemiological study of 312 cases. Indian J Dermatol. 2011;56:380-382.
5. Ogbechie-Godec OA, Elbuluk N. Melasma: an up-to-date comprehensive review. Dermatol Ther. 2017;7:305-318.
6. Morquette AJ, Waples ER, Heath CR. The importance of cosmetically elegant sunscreen in skin of color populations. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2022;21:1337-1338.
7. Taraz M, Nikham S, Ehsani AH. Tranexamic acid in treatment of melasma: a comprehensive review of clinical studies. Dermatol Ther. 2017;30(3). doi:10.1111/dth.12465
8. Bala HR, Lee S, Wong C, et al. Oral tranexamic acid for the treatment of melasma: a review. Dermatol Surg. 2018;44:814-825.
9. Castanedo-Cazares JP, Hernandez-Blanco D, Carlos-Ortega B, et al. Near-visible light and UV photoprotection in the treatment of melasma: a double-blind randomized trial. Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed. 2014;30:35-42.
10. Trivedi MK, Yang FC, Cho BK. A review of laser and light therapy in melasma. Int J Womens Dermatol. 2017;3:11-20.
11. Dodmani PN, Deshmukh AR. Assessment of quality of life of melasma patients as per melasma quality of life scale (MELASQoL). Pigment Int. 2020;7:75-79.
12. Balkrishnan R, McMichael A, Camacho FT, et al. Development and validation of a health‐related quality of life instrument for women with melasma. Br J Dermatol. 2003;149:572-577.
13. Alikhan A, Daly M, Wu J, et al. Cost-effectiveness of a hydroquinone/tretinoin/fluocinolone acetonide cream combination in treating melasma in the United States. J Dermatolog Treat. 2010;21:276-281.
THE COMPARISON
A Melasma on the face of a Hispanic woman, with hyperpigmentation on the cheeks, bridge of the nose, and upper lip.
B Melasma on the face of a Malaysian woman, with hyperpigmentation on the upper cheeks and bridge of the nose.
C Melasma on the face of an African woman, with hyperpigmentation on the upper cheeks and lateral to the eyes.
Melasma (also known as chloasma) is a pigmentary disorder that causes chronic symmetric hyperpigmentation on the face. In patients with darker skin tones, centrofacial areas are affected.1 Increased deposition of melanin distributed in the dermis leads to dermal melanosis. Newer research suggests that mast cell and keratinocyte interactions, altered gene regulation, neovascularization, and disruptions in the basement membrane cause melasma.2 Patients present with epidermal or dermal melasma or a combination of both (mixed melasma).3 Wood lamp examination is helpful to distinguish between epidermal and dermal melasma. Dermal and mixed melasma can be difficult to treat and require multimodal treatments.
Epidemiology
Melasma commonly affects women ages 20 to 40 years,4 with a female to male ratio of 9:1.5 Potential triggers of melasma include hormones (eg, pregnancy, oral contraceptives, hormone replacement therapy) and exposure to UV light.2,5 Melasma occurs in patients of all racial and ethnic backgrounds; however, the prevalence is higher in patients with darker skin tones.2
Key clinical features in people with darker skin tones
Melasma commonly manifests as symmetrically distributed, reticulated (lacy), dark brown to grayish brown patches on the cheeks, nose, forehead, upper lip, and chin in patients with darker skin tones.5 The pigment can be tan brown in patients with lighter skin tones. Given that postinflammatory hyperpigmentation and other pigmentary disorders can cause a similar appearance, a biopsy sometimes is needed to confirm the diagnosis, but melasma is diagnosed via physical examination in most patients. Melasma can be misdiagnosed as postinflammatory hyperpigmentation, solar lentigines, exogenous ochronosis, and Hori nevus.5
Worth noting
Prevention
- Daily sunscreen use is critical to prevent worsening of melasma. Sunscreen may not appear cosmetically elegant on darker skin tones, which creates a barrier to its use.6 Protection from both sunlight and visible light is necessary. Visible light, including light from light bulbs and device-emitted blue light, can worsen melasma. Iron oxides in tinted sunscreen offer protection from visible light.
- Physicians can recommend sunscreens that are more transparent or tinted for a better cosmetic match.
- Severe flares of melasma can occur with sun exposure despite good control with medications and laser modalities.
Treatment
- First-line therapies include topical hydroquinone 2% to 4%, tretinoin, azelaic acid, kojic acid, or ascorbic acid (vitamin C). A popular topical compound is a steroid, tretinoin, and hydroquinone.1,5 Over-the-counter hydroquinone has been removed from the market due to safety concerns; however, it is still first line in the treatment of melasma. If hydroquinone is prescribed, treatment intervals of 6 to 8 weeks followed by a hydroquinone-free period is advised to reduce the risk for exogenous ochronosis (a paradoxical darkening of the skin).
- Chemical peels are second-line treatments that are effective for melasma. Improvement in epidermal melasma has been shown with chemical peels containing Jessner solution, salicylic acid, or a-hydroxy acid. Patients with dermal and mixed melasma have seen improvement with trichloroacetic acid 25% to 35% with or without Jessner solution.1
- Cysteamine is a topical treatment created from the degradation of coenzyme A. It disrupts the synthesis of melanin to create a more even skin tone. It may be recommended in combination with sunscreen as a first-line or secondline topical therapy.
- Oral tranexamic acid is a third-line treatment that is an analogue for lysine. It decreases prostaglandin production, which leads to a lower number of tyrosine precursors available for the creation of melanin. Tranexamic acid has been shown to lighten the appearance of melasma.7 The most common and dangerous adverse effect of tranexamic acid is blood clots, and this treatment should be avoided in those on combination (estrogen and progestin) contraceptives or those with a personal or family history of clotting disorders.8
- Fourth-line treatments such as lasers (performed by dermatologists) can destroy the deposition of pigment while avoiding destruction of epidermal keratinocytes.1,9,10 They also are commonly employed in refractive melasma. The most common lasers are nonablative fractionated lasers and low-fluence Q-switched lasers. The Q-switched Nd:YAG and picosecond lasers are safe for treating melasma in darker skin tones. Ablative fractionated lasers such as CO2 lasers and erbium:YAG lasers also have been used in the treatment of melasma; however, there is still an extremely high risk for postinflammatory dyspigmentation 1 to 2 months after the procedure.10
- Although there is still a risk for rebound hyperpigmentation after laser treatment, use of topical hydroquinone pretreatment may help decrease postoperative hyperpigmentation.1,5 Patients who are treated with the incorrect laser or overtreated may develop postinflammatory hyperpigmentation, rebound hyperpigmentation, or hypopigmentation.
Health disparity highlight
Melasma, most common in patients with skin of color, is a common chronic pigmentation disorder that is cosmetically and psychologically burdensome,11 leading to decreased quality of life, emotional functioning, and self-esteem.12 Clinicians should counsel patients and work closely on long-term management. The treatment options for melasma are considered cosmetic and may be cost prohibitive for many to cover out of pocket. Topical treatments have been found to be the most cost-effective.13 Some compounding pharmacies and drug discount programs provide more affordable treatment pricing; however, some patients are still unable to afford these options.
THE COMPARISON
A Melasma on the face of a Hispanic woman, with hyperpigmentation on the cheeks, bridge of the nose, and upper lip.
B Melasma on the face of a Malaysian woman, with hyperpigmentation on the upper cheeks and bridge of the nose.
C Melasma on the face of an African woman, with hyperpigmentation on the upper cheeks and lateral to the eyes.
Melasma (also known as chloasma) is a pigmentary disorder that causes chronic symmetric hyperpigmentation on the face. In patients with darker skin tones, centrofacial areas are affected.1 Increased deposition of melanin distributed in the dermis leads to dermal melanosis. Newer research suggests that mast cell and keratinocyte interactions, altered gene regulation, neovascularization, and disruptions in the basement membrane cause melasma.2 Patients present with epidermal or dermal melasma or a combination of both (mixed melasma).3 Wood lamp examination is helpful to distinguish between epidermal and dermal melasma. Dermal and mixed melasma can be difficult to treat and require multimodal treatments.
Epidemiology
Melasma commonly affects women ages 20 to 40 years,4 with a female to male ratio of 9:1.5 Potential triggers of melasma include hormones (eg, pregnancy, oral contraceptives, hormone replacement therapy) and exposure to UV light.2,5 Melasma occurs in patients of all racial and ethnic backgrounds; however, the prevalence is higher in patients with darker skin tones.2
Key clinical features in people with darker skin tones
Melasma commonly manifests as symmetrically distributed, reticulated (lacy), dark brown to grayish brown patches on the cheeks, nose, forehead, upper lip, and chin in patients with darker skin tones.5 The pigment can be tan brown in patients with lighter skin tones. Given that postinflammatory hyperpigmentation and other pigmentary disorders can cause a similar appearance, a biopsy sometimes is needed to confirm the diagnosis, but melasma is diagnosed via physical examination in most patients. Melasma can be misdiagnosed as postinflammatory hyperpigmentation, solar lentigines, exogenous ochronosis, and Hori nevus.5
Worth noting
Prevention
- Daily sunscreen use is critical to prevent worsening of melasma. Sunscreen may not appear cosmetically elegant on darker skin tones, which creates a barrier to its use.6 Protection from both sunlight and visible light is necessary. Visible light, including light from light bulbs and device-emitted blue light, can worsen melasma. Iron oxides in tinted sunscreen offer protection from visible light.
- Physicians can recommend sunscreens that are more transparent or tinted for a better cosmetic match.
- Severe flares of melasma can occur with sun exposure despite good control with medications and laser modalities.
Treatment
- First-line therapies include topical hydroquinone 2% to 4%, tretinoin, azelaic acid, kojic acid, or ascorbic acid (vitamin C). A popular topical compound is a steroid, tretinoin, and hydroquinone.1,5 Over-the-counter hydroquinone has been removed from the market due to safety concerns; however, it is still first line in the treatment of melasma. If hydroquinone is prescribed, treatment intervals of 6 to 8 weeks followed by a hydroquinone-free period is advised to reduce the risk for exogenous ochronosis (a paradoxical darkening of the skin).
- Chemical peels are second-line treatments that are effective for melasma. Improvement in epidermal melasma has been shown with chemical peels containing Jessner solution, salicylic acid, or a-hydroxy acid. Patients with dermal and mixed melasma have seen improvement with trichloroacetic acid 25% to 35% with or without Jessner solution.1
- Cysteamine is a topical treatment created from the degradation of coenzyme A. It disrupts the synthesis of melanin to create a more even skin tone. It may be recommended in combination with sunscreen as a first-line or secondline topical therapy.
- Oral tranexamic acid is a third-line treatment that is an analogue for lysine. It decreases prostaglandin production, which leads to a lower number of tyrosine precursors available for the creation of melanin. Tranexamic acid has been shown to lighten the appearance of melasma.7 The most common and dangerous adverse effect of tranexamic acid is blood clots, and this treatment should be avoided in those on combination (estrogen and progestin) contraceptives or those with a personal or family history of clotting disorders.8
- Fourth-line treatments such as lasers (performed by dermatologists) can destroy the deposition of pigment while avoiding destruction of epidermal keratinocytes.1,9,10 They also are commonly employed in refractive melasma. The most common lasers are nonablative fractionated lasers and low-fluence Q-switched lasers. The Q-switched Nd:YAG and picosecond lasers are safe for treating melasma in darker skin tones. Ablative fractionated lasers such as CO2 lasers and erbium:YAG lasers also have been used in the treatment of melasma; however, there is still an extremely high risk for postinflammatory dyspigmentation 1 to 2 months after the procedure.10
- Although there is still a risk for rebound hyperpigmentation after laser treatment, use of topical hydroquinone pretreatment may help decrease postoperative hyperpigmentation.1,5 Patients who are treated with the incorrect laser or overtreated may develop postinflammatory hyperpigmentation, rebound hyperpigmentation, or hypopigmentation.
Health disparity highlight
Melasma, most common in patients with skin of color, is a common chronic pigmentation disorder that is cosmetically and psychologically burdensome,11 leading to decreased quality of life, emotional functioning, and self-esteem.12 Clinicians should counsel patients and work closely on long-term management. The treatment options for melasma are considered cosmetic and may be cost prohibitive for many to cover out of pocket. Topical treatments have been found to be the most cost-effective.13 Some compounding pharmacies and drug discount programs provide more affordable treatment pricing; however, some patients are still unable to afford these options.
1. Cunha PR, Kroumpouzos G. Melasma and vitiligo: novel and experimental therapies. J Clin Exp Derm Res. 2016;7:2. doi:10.4172/2155-9554.1000e106
2. Rajanala S, Maymone MBC, Vashi NA. Melasma pathogenesis: a review of the latest research, pathological findings, and investigational therapies. Dermatol Online J. 2019;25:13030/qt47b7r28c.
3. Grimes PE, Yamada N, Bhawan J. Light microscopic, immunohistochemical, and ultrastructural alterations in patients with melasma. Am J Dermatopathol. 2005;27:96-101.
4. Achar A, Rathi SK. Melasma: a clinico-epidemiological study of 312 cases. Indian J Dermatol. 2011;56:380-382.
5. Ogbechie-Godec OA, Elbuluk N. Melasma: an up-to-date comprehensive review. Dermatol Ther. 2017;7:305-318.
6. Morquette AJ, Waples ER, Heath CR. The importance of cosmetically elegant sunscreen in skin of color populations. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2022;21:1337-1338.
7. Taraz M, Nikham S, Ehsani AH. Tranexamic acid in treatment of melasma: a comprehensive review of clinical studies. Dermatol Ther. 2017;30(3). doi:10.1111/dth.12465
8. Bala HR, Lee S, Wong C, et al. Oral tranexamic acid for the treatment of melasma: a review. Dermatol Surg. 2018;44:814-825.
9. Castanedo-Cazares JP, Hernandez-Blanco D, Carlos-Ortega B, et al. Near-visible light and UV photoprotection in the treatment of melasma: a double-blind randomized trial. Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed. 2014;30:35-42.
10. Trivedi MK, Yang FC, Cho BK. A review of laser and light therapy in melasma. Int J Womens Dermatol. 2017;3:11-20.
11. Dodmani PN, Deshmukh AR. Assessment of quality of life of melasma patients as per melasma quality of life scale (MELASQoL). Pigment Int. 2020;7:75-79.
12. Balkrishnan R, McMichael A, Camacho FT, et al. Development and validation of a health‐related quality of life instrument for women with melasma. Br J Dermatol. 2003;149:572-577.
13. Alikhan A, Daly M, Wu J, et al. Cost-effectiveness of a hydroquinone/tretinoin/fluocinolone acetonide cream combination in treating melasma in the United States. J Dermatolog Treat. 2010;21:276-281.
1. Cunha PR, Kroumpouzos G. Melasma and vitiligo: novel and experimental therapies. J Clin Exp Derm Res. 2016;7:2. doi:10.4172/2155-9554.1000e106
2. Rajanala S, Maymone MBC, Vashi NA. Melasma pathogenesis: a review of the latest research, pathological findings, and investigational therapies. Dermatol Online J. 2019;25:13030/qt47b7r28c.
3. Grimes PE, Yamada N, Bhawan J. Light microscopic, immunohistochemical, and ultrastructural alterations in patients with melasma. Am J Dermatopathol. 2005;27:96-101.
4. Achar A, Rathi SK. Melasma: a clinico-epidemiological study of 312 cases. Indian J Dermatol. 2011;56:380-382.
5. Ogbechie-Godec OA, Elbuluk N. Melasma: an up-to-date comprehensive review. Dermatol Ther. 2017;7:305-318.
6. Morquette AJ, Waples ER, Heath CR. The importance of cosmetically elegant sunscreen in skin of color populations. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2022;21:1337-1338.
7. Taraz M, Nikham S, Ehsani AH. Tranexamic acid in treatment of melasma: a comprehensive review of clinical studies. Dermatol Ther. 2017;30(3). doi:10.1111/dth.12465
8. Bala HR, Lee S, Wong C, et al. Oral tranexamic acid for the treatment of melasma: a review. Dermatol Surg. 2018;44:814-825.
9. Castanedo-Cazares JP, Hernandez-Blanco D, Carlos-Ortega B, et al. Near-visible light and UV photoprotection in the treatment of melasma: a double-blind randomized trial. Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed. 2014;30:35-42.
10. Trivedi MK, Yang FC, Cho BK. A review of laser and light therapy in melasma. Int J Womens Dermatol. 2017;3:11-20.
11. Dodmani PN, Deshmukh AR. Assessment of quality of life of melasma patients as per melasma quality of life scale (MELASQoL). Pigment Int. 2020;7:75-79.
12. Balkrishnan R, McMichael A, Camacho FT, et al. Development and validation of a health‐related quality of life instrument for women with melasma. Br J Dermatol. 2003;149:572-577.
13. Alikhan A, Daly M, Wu J, et al. Cost-effectiveness of a hydroquinone/tretinoin/fluocinolone acetonide cream combination in treating melasma in the United States. J Dermatolog Treat. 2010;21:276-281.
Study gives new insight into timing of combo treatment in metastatic NSCLC
However, patients still fared poorly on average since overall survival remained low and didn’t change significantly.
While not conclusive, the new research – released at European Lung Cancer Congress 2023 – offers early insight into the best timing for the experimental combination treatment, study coauthor Yanyan Lou, MD, PhD, an oncologist at Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla., said in an interview.
The wide availability of radiation therapy could also allow the therapy to be administered even in regions with poor access to sophisticated medical care, she said. “Radiation is a very feasible approach that pretty much everybody in your community can get.”
Radiotherapy is typically not added to immunotherapy in patients with non–small cell lung cancer. But “there has been recent interest in the combination: Would tumor necrosis from radiation enhance the immunogenicity of the tumor and thus enhance the effect of immunotherapy?” oncologist Toby Campbell, MD, of University of Wisconsin–Madison, said in an interview.
Research has indeed suggested that the treatments may have a synergistic effect, he said, and it’s clear that “strategies to try and increase immunogenicity are an important area to investigate.”
But he cautioned that “we have a long way to go to understanding how immunogenicity works and how the gut microbiome, tumor, immunotherapy, and the immune system interact with one another.”
For the new study, researchers retrospectively analyzed cases of 225 patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (male = 56%, median age = 68, 79% adenocarcinoma) who were treated with immunotherapy at Mayo Clinic–Jacksonville from 2011 to 2022. The study excluded those who received targeted therapy or prior concurrent chemoradiotherapy and durvalumab.
The most common metastases were bone and central nervous system types (41% and 25%, respectively). Fifty-six percent of patients received radiotherapy before or during immunotherapy. Another 27% never received radiotherapy, and 17% received it after immunotherapy was discontinued.
Common types of immunotherapy included pembrolizumab (78%), nivolumab (14%), and atezolizumab (12%).
Overall, the researchers found no statistically significant differences in various outcomes between patients who received radiotherapy before or during immunotherapy compared with those who didn’t get radiotherapy (progression-free survival: 5.9 vs. 5.5 months, P = .66; overall survival: 16.9 vs. 13.1 months, P = .84; immune-related adverse events: 26.2% vs. 34.4%, P = .24).
However, the researchers found that progression-free survival was significantly higher in one group: Those who received radiotherapy 1-12 months before immunotherapy vs. those who received it less than 1 month before (12.6 vs. 4.2 months, hazard ratio [HR], 0.46, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26-0.83, P = .005,) and those who never received radiotherapy (12.6 vs. 5.5 months, HR, 0.56, 95% CI, 0.36-0.89, P = .0197).
There wasn’t a statistically significant difference in overall survival.
The small number of subjects and the variation in treatment protocols may have prevented the study from revealing a survival benefit, Dr. Lou said.
As for adverse effects, she said a preliminary analysis didn’t turn up any.
It’s not clear why a 1- to 12-month gap between radiotherapy and immunotherapy may be most effective, she said. Moving forward, “we need validate this in a large cohort,” she noted.
In regard to cost, immunotherapy is notoriously expensive. Pembrolizumab, for example, has a list price of $10,897 per 200-mg dose given every 3 weeks, and patients may take the drug for a year or two.
Dr. Campbell, who didn’t take part in the new study, said it suggests that research into radiation-immunotherapy combination treatment may be worthwhile.
No funding was reported. The study authors and Dr. Campbell reported no disclosures.
However, patients still fared poorly on average since overall survival remained low and didn’t change significantly.
While not conclusive, the new research – released at European Lung Cancer Congress 2023 – offers early insight into the best timing for the experimental combination treatment, study coauthor Yanyan Lou, MD, PhD, an oncologist at Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla., said in an interview.
The wide availability of radiation therapy could also allow the therapy to be administered even in regions with poor access to sophisticated medical care, she said. “Radiation is a very feasible approach that pretty much everybody in your community can get.”
Radiotherapy is typically not added to immunotherapy in patients with non–small cell lung cancer. But “there has been recent interest in the combination: Would tumor necrosis from radiation enhance the immunogenicity of the tumor and thus enhance the effect of immunotherapy?” oncologist Toby Campbell, MD, of University of Wisconsin–Madison, said in an interview.
Research has indeed suggested that the treatments may have a synergistic effect, he said, and it’s clear that “strategies to try and increase immunogenicity are an important area to investigate.”
But he cautioned that “we have a long way to go to understanding how immunogenicity works and how the gut microbiome, tumor, immunotherapy, and the immune system interact with one another.”
For the new study, researchers retrospectively analyzed cases of 225 patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (male = 56%, median age = 68, 79% adenocarcinoma) who were treated with immunotherapy at Mayo Clinic–Jacksonville from 2011 to 2022. The study excluded those who received targeted therapy or prior concurrent chemoradiotherapy and durvalumab.
The most common metastases were bone and central nervous system types (41% and 25%, respectively). Fifty-six percent of patients received radiotherapy before or during immunotherapy. Another 27% never received radiotherapy, and 17% received it after immunotherapy was discontinued.
Common types of immunotherapy included pembrolizumab (78%), nivolumab (14%), and atezolizumab (12%).
Overall, the researchers found no statistically significant differences in various outcomes between patients who received radiotherapy before or during immunotherapy compared with those who didn’t get radiotherapy (progression-free survival: 5.9 vs. 5.5 months, P = .66; overall survival: 16.9 vs. 13.1 months, P = .84; immune-related adverse events: 26.2% vs. 34.4%, P = .24).
However, the researchers found that progression-free survival was significantly higher in one group: Those who received radiotherapy 1-12 months before immunotherapy vs. those who received it less than 1 month before (12.6 vs. 4.2 months, hazard ratio [HR], 0.46, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26-0.83, P = .005,) and those who never received radiotherapy (12.6 vs. 5.5 months, HR, 0.56, 95% CI, 0.36-0.89, P = .0197).
There wasn’t a statistically significant difference in overall survival.
The small number of subjects and the variation in treatment protocols may have prevented the study from revealing a survival benefit, Dr. Lou said.
As for adverse effects, she said a preliminary analysis didn’t turn up any.
It’s not clear why a 1- to 12-month gap between radiotherapy and immunotherapy may be most effective, she said. Moving forward, “we need validate this in a large cohort,” she noted.
In regard to cost, immunotherapy is notoriously expensive. Pembrolizumab, for example, has a list price of $10,897 per 200-mg dose given every 3 weeks, and patients may take the drug for a year or two.
Dr. Campbell, who didn’t take part in the new study, said it suggests that research into radiation-immunotherapy combination treatment may be worthwhile.
No funding was reported. The study authors and Dr. Campbell reported no disclosures.
However, patients still fared poorly on average since overall survival remained low and didn’t change significantly.
While not conclusive, the new research – released at European Lung Cancer Congress 2023 – offers early insight into the best timing for the experimental combination treatment, study coauthor Yanyan Lou, MD, PhD, an oncologist at Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla., said in an interview.
The wide availability of radiation therapy could also allow the therapy to be administered even in regions with poor access to sophisticated medical care, she said. “Radiation is a very feasible approach that pretty much everybody in your community can get.”
Radiotherapy is typically not added to immunotherapy in patients with non–small cell lung cancer. But “there has been recent interest in the combination: Would tumor necrosis from radiation enhance the immunogenicity of the tumor and thus enhance the effect of immunotherapy?” oncologist Toby Campbell, MD, of University of Wisconsin–Madison, said in an interview.
Research has indeed suggested that the treatments may have a synergistic effect, he said, and it’s clear that “strategies to try and increase immunogenicity are an important area to investigate.”
But he cautioned that “we have a long way to go to understanding how immunogenicity works and how the gut microbiome, tumor, immunotherapy, and the immune system interact with one another.”
For the new study, researchers retrospectively analyzed cases of 225 patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (male = 56%, median age = 68, 79% adenocarcinoma) who were treated with immunotherapy at Mayo Clinic–Jacksonville from 2011 to 2022. The study excluded those who received targeted therapy or prior concurrent chemoradiotherapy and durvalumab.
The most common metastases were bone and central nervous system types (41% and 25%, respectively). Fifty-six percent of patients received radiotherapy before or during immunotherapy. Another 27% never received radiotherapy, and 17% received it after immunotherapy was discontinued.
Common types of immunotherapy included pembrolizumab (78%), nivolumab (14%), and atezolizumab (12%).
Overall, the researchers found no statistically significant differences in various outcomes between patients who received radiotherapy before or during immunotherapy compared with those who didn’t get radiotherapy (progression-free survival: 5.9 vs. 5.5 months, P = .66; overall survival: 16.9 vs. 13.1 months, P = .84; immune-related adverse events: 26.2% vs. 34.4%, P = .24).
However, the researchers found that progression-free survival was significantly higher in one group: Those who received radiotherapy 1-12 months before immunotherapy vs. those who received it less than 1 month before (12.6 vs. 4.2 months, hazard ratio [HR], 0.46, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26-0.83, P = .005,) and those who never received radiotherapy (12.6 vs. 5.5 months, HR, 0.56, 95% CI, 0.36-0.89, P = .0197).
There wasn’t a statistically significant difference in overall survival.
The small number of subjects and the variation in treatment protocols may have prevented the study from revealing a survival benefit, Dr. Lou said.
As for adverse effects, she said a preliminary analysis didn’t turn up any.
It’s not clear why a 1- to 12-month gap between radiotherapy and immunotherapy may be most effective, she said. Moving forward, “we need validate this in a large cohort,” she noted.
In regard to cost, immunotherapy is notoriously expensive. Pembrolizumab, for example, has a list price of $10,897 per 200-mg dose given every 3 weeks, and patients may take the drug for a year or two.
Dr. Campbell, who didn’t take part in the new study, said it suggests that research into radiation-immunotherapy combination treatment may be worthwhile.
No funding was reported. The study authors and Dr. Campbell reported no disclosures.
FROM ELCC 2023
Long-term heavy smoking quadruples likelihood of lung cancer vs. less heavy smoking
People who have smoked an average of 1 pack a day for 20-39 years tripled their tumor risk versus less-heavy smokers and 30-fold versus those who never smoked. For those who smoked the equivalent of 1 pack for 40-60 years, or 2 packs for 20-30 years, the risk levels grew by fourfold and 40-fold, respectively. For those who’ve smoked even more, the likelihood of developing lung cancer is high, but the risk remains stable and doesn’t grow more over time, according to the analysis.
The report, released at the annual European Lung Cancer Congress 2023 meeting, and an earlier related study “underscore the importance of smoking abstinence and early smoking cessation,” said study lead author J. Anthony Nations, MD, MBA, in an interview.
The earlier study, published in JAMA Oncology, relied on a “pack-year” analysis to evaluate the risk of lung cancer in smokers. A pack-year refers to the cigarette use of a person who smoked a pack a day for 1 year. It’s the equivalent of smoking half a pack for 2 years or 2 packs for 6 months.
By this measure, a smoker with 20 pack-years of cigarette use smoked the equivalent of a pack a day for 20 years or 2 packs a day for 10 years. U.S. guidelines recommend annual low-dose CT lung cancer screening in adults who are aged 50-80, have more than 20 pack-years of tobacco exposure, and either currently smoke or quit within the last 15 years.
The JAMA Oncology report “showed that, compared with never-smokers, current heavy and nonheavy smokers had [a] 40 and 10 times higher risk of lung cancer, respectively,” said Dr. Nations, who is also a pulmonologist with Washington D.C. Veterans Affairs Medical Center. “A smoking history of greater than 20 pack-years was considered heavy, but current heavy smokers had a median pack-year smoking history of 50 pack-years. This observation prompted us to want to look more closely at pack-year smoking history.”
For the new analysis, researchers tracked 2,505 older adults (mean age, 73 ± 5.7 years; 69% women, 17% African American) in the Cardiovascular Health Study. Of those, 532 were current smokers (18% less than 20 pack-years, 30% 20-39 pack-years, 34% 40–59 pack-years, and 18% greater than 60 pack-years).
Lung cancer occurred in 0.5% of those who never smoked, 5% of those who smoked less than 20 pack-years, 14.6% of those who smoked 20-39 pack-years, 17.7% of those who smoked 40-59 pack-years, and 16.0% for those who smoked more than 60 pack-years. In an analysis adjusted for age, sex, race, and competing risk of death, researchers found that those who smoked less than 20 pack-years were 9.73 times more likely to develop lung cancer than those who never smoked (hazard ratio, 9.73). The HRs of lung cancer versus never-smokers for the other groups were 30.33 (20-39 pack-years), 42.97 (40-59 pack-years), and 46.02 (greater than 60 pack-years.).
“While it was not surprising that the risk of lung cancer in current heavy smokers would be proportionately greater in smokers with higher pack-year smoking history, we were surprised to see that the risk almost plateaued in the heaviest current smokers,” Dr. Nations said.
As for the clinical message from the findings, Dr. Nations said they reveal that quitting smoking makes a difference in lung cancer risk, even after many years of heavy smoking. “Smokers who quit after a 30–pack-year smoking history will not incur the higher risk of those with a 40– or 50–pack-year smoking history.”
The previous JAMA Oncology paper also showed that quitting pays dividends by reducing lung cancer risk. Subjects with at least 20 pack-years of smoking who quit less than 15 years ago nearly halved their excess risk of lung cancer, compared with similar current smokers who didn’t quit.
In an interview, cancer researcher Robert J. Volk, PhD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, praised the new analysis but noted that it has limitations: “The sample is fairly small – 532 adults who currently smoke – and the subgroups based on pack-years are even smaller.”
No study funding is reported. The study authors and Dr. Volk reported no disclosures.
*This article was updated on 4/17/23.
People who have smoked an average of 1 pack a day for 20-39 years tripled their tumor risk versus less-heavy smokers and 30-fold versus those who never smoked. For those who smoked the equivalent of 1 pack for 40-60 years, or 2 packs for 20-30 years, the risk levels grew by fourfold and 40-fold, respectively. For those who’ve smoked even more, the likelihood of developing lung cancer is high, but the risk remains stable and doesn’t grow more over time, according to the analysis.
The report, released at the annual European Lung Cancer Congress 2023 meeting, and an earlier related study “underscore the importance of smoking abstinence and early smoking cessation,” said study lead author J. Anthony Nations, MD, MBA, in an interview.
The earlier study, published in JAMA Oncology, relied on a “pack-year” analysis to evaluate the risk of lung cancer in smokers. A pack-year refers to the cigarette use of a person who smoked a pack a day for 1 year. It’s the equivalent of smoking half a pack for 2 years or 2 packs for 6 months.
By this measure, a smoker with 20 pack-years of cigarette use smoked the equivalent of a pack a day for 20 years or 2 packs a day for 10 years. U.S. guidelines recommend annual low-dose CT lung cancer screening in adults who are aged 50-80, have more than 20 pack-years of tobacco exposure, and either currently smoke or quit within the last 15 years.
The JAMA Oncology report “showed that, compared with never-smokers, current heavy and nonheavy smokers had [a] 40 and 10 times higher risk of lung cancer, respectively,” said Dr. Nations, who is also a pulmonologist with Washington D.C. Veterans Affairs Medical Center. “A smoking history of greater than 20 pack-years was considered heavy, but current heavy smokers had a median pack-year smoking history of 50 pack-years. This observation prompted us to want to look more closely at pack-year smoking history.”
For the new analysis, researchers tracked 2,505 older adults (mean age, 73 ± 5.7 years; 69% women, 17% African American) in the Cardiovascular Health Study. Of those, 532 were current smokers (18% less than 20 pack-years, 30% 20-39 pack-years, 34% 40–59 pack-years, and 18% greater than 60 pack-years).
Lung cancer occurred in 0.5% of those who never smoked, 5% of those who smoked less than 20 pack-years, 14.6% of those who smoked 20-39 pack-years, 17.7% of those who smoked 40-59 pack-years, and 16.0% for those who smoked more than 60 pack-years. In an analysis adjusted for age, sex, race, and competing risk of death, researchers found that those who smoked less than 20 pack-years were 9.73 times more likely to develop lung cancer than those who never smoked (hazard ratio, 9.73). The HRs of lung cancer versus never-smokers for the other groups were 30.33 (20-39 pack-years), 42.97 (40-59 pack-years), and 46.02 (greater than 60 pack-years.).
“While it was not surprising that the risk of lung cancer in current heavy smokers would be proportionately greater in smokers with higher pack-year smoking history, we were surprised to see that the risk almost plateaued in the heaviest current smokers,” Dr. Nations said.
As for the clinical message from the findings, Dr. Nations said they reveal that quitting smoking makes a difference in lung cancer risk, even after many years of heavy smoking. “Smokers who quit after a 30–pack-year smoking history will not incur the higher risk of those with a 40– or 50–pack-year smoking history.”
The previous JAMA Oncology paper also showed that quitting pays dividends by reducing lung cancer risk. Subjects with at least 20 pack-years of smoking who quit less than 15 years ago nearly halved their excess risk of lung cancer, compared with similar current smokers who didn’t quit.
In an interview, cancer researcher Robert J. Volk, PhD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, praised the new analysis but noted that it has limitations: “The sample is fairly small – 532 adults who currently smoke – and the subgroups based on pack-years are even smaller.”
No study funding is reported. The study authors and Dr. Volk reported no disclosures.
*This article was updated on 4/17/23.
People who have smoked an average of 1 pack a day for 20-39 years tripled their tumor risk versus less-heavy smokers and 30-fold versus those who never smoked. For those who smoked the equivalent of 1 pack for 40-60 years, or 2 packs for 20-30 years, the risk levels grew by fourfold and 40-fold, respectively. For those who’ve smoked even more, the likelihood of developing lung cancer is high, but the risk remains stable and doesn’t grow more over time, according to the analysis.
The report, released at the annual European Lung Cancer Congress 2023 meeting, and an earlier related study “underscore the importance of smoking abstinence and early smoking cessation,” said study lead author J. Anthony Nations, MD, MBA, in an interview.
The earlier study, published in JAMA Oncology, relied on a “pack-year” analysis to evaluate the risk of lung cancer in smokers. A pack-year refers to the cigarette use of a person who smoked a pack a day for 1 year. It’s the equivalent of smoking half a pack for 2 years or 2 packs for 6 months.
By this measure, a smoker with 20 pack-years of cigarette use smoked the equivalent of a pack a day for 20 years or 2 packs a day for 10 years. U.S. guidelines recommend annual low-dose CT lung cancer screening in adults who are aged 50-80, have more than 20 pack-years of tobacco exposure, and either currently smoke or quit within the last 15 years.
The JAMA Oncology report “showed that, compared with never-smokers, current heavy and nonheavy smokers had [a] 40 and 10 times higher risk of lung cancer, respectively,” said Dr. Nations, who is also a pulmonologist with Washington D.C. Veterans Affairs Medical Center. “A smoking history of greater than 20 pack-years was considered heavy, but current heavy smokers had a median pack-year smoking history of 50 pack-years. This observation prompted us to want to look more closely at pack-year smoking history.”
For the new analysis, researchers tracked 2,505 older adults (mean age, 73 ± 5.7 years; 69% women, 17% African American) in the Cardiovascular Health Study. Of those, 532 were current smokers (18% less than 20 pack-years, 30% 20-39 pack-years, 34% 40–59 pack-years, and 18% greater than 60 pack-years).
Lung cancer occurred in 0.5% of those who never smoked, 5% of those who smoked less than 20 pack-years, 14.6% of those who smoked 20-39 pack-years, 17.7% of those who smoked 40-59 pack-years, and 16.0% for those who smoked more than 60 pack-years. In an analysis adjusted for age, sex, race, and competing risk of death, researchers found that those who smoked less than 20 pack-years were 9.73 times more likely to develop lung cancer than those who never smoked (hazard ratio, 9.73). The HRs of lung cancer versus never-smokers for the other groups were 30.33 (20-39 pack-years), 42.97 (40-59 pack-years), and 46.02 (greater than 60 pack-years.).
“While it was not surprising that the risk of lung cancer in current heavy smokers would be proportionately greater in smokers with higher pack-year smoking history, we were surprised to see that the risk almost plateaued in the heaviest current smokers,” Dr. Nations said.
As for the clinical message from the findings, Dr. Nations said they reveal that quitting smoking makes a difference in lung cancer risk, even after many years of heavy smoking. “Smokers who quit after a 30–pack-year smoking history will not incur the higher risk of those with a 40– or 50–pack-year smoking history.”
The previous JAMA Oncology paper also showed that quitting pays dividends by reducing lung cancer risk. Subjects with at least 20 pack-years of smoking who quit less than 15 years ago nearly halved their excess risk of lung cancer, compared with similar current smokers who didn’t quit.
In an interview, cancer researcher Robert J. Volk, PhD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, praised the new analysis but noted that it has limitations: “The sample is fairly small – 532 adults who currently smoke – and the subgroups based on pack-years are even smaller.”
No study funding is reported. The study authors and Dr. Volk reported no disclosures.
*This article was updated on 4/17/23.
FROM ELCC 2023
85-year-old woman • insomnia • abdominal discomfort • urge to move at night • Dx?
THE CASE
An 85-year-old woman with hypertension presented to our hospital with a 10-month history of insomnia along with abdominal discomfort. Several months prior, the patient had undergone an esophagogastroduodenoscopy, the results of which were normal, and had received diagnoses of psychogenic insomnia and abdominal pain from her previous physician. At that time, she was prescribed eszopiclone, but her insomnia did not improve. She did not complain of any other gastrointestinal symptoms.
On examination at our hospital, the patient’s abdomen was soft and nontender. Laboratory results were unremarkable. Abdominal computed tomography was performed to exclude obvious malignancy and showed no remarkable findings.
Additional history taking and physical examination were performed. The patient reported that she could sleep for only about 2 hours per night due to persistent severe discomfort around the umbilicus, which she described as “itching.” The discomfort occurred along with an urge to move while she laid in a state of relaxed wakefulness. This discomfort occurred no matter what position she laid in and improved if she walked or tapped around the umbilicus for a while. She denied any unusual or uncomfortable sensations in her lower extremities.
Her symptoms were absent during the daytime and not related to diet. Furthermore, she did not have any symptoms of anxiety and/or depression; a detailed neurologic examination, including cognitive assessment and extrapyramidal system, yielded unremarkable findings. Additional laboratory tests showed a mild iron deficiency (ferritin, 52.6 µ g/L; iron, 10.7 µ mol/L) without anemia.
THE DIAGNOSIS
Given the patient’s presentation and clinical history, the differential diagnosis included restless abdomen (which is a spectrum or a phenotypic variant of restless legs syndrome [RLS]) and its mimics, which include fibromyalgia and gastrointestinal tract diseases. We considered the characteristic symptoms of this case (ie, irresistible symptoms, lengthy duration of symptoms, and sleep problems) to better support the diagnosis of restless abdomen than its mimics.1 In particular, abdominal discomfort that led to insomnia was characteristic of restless abdomen, helping to pinpoint the diagnosis.
DISCUSSION
RLS is a common sensorimotor disorder that is characterized by an unpleasant urge to move the legs.2 RLS may manifest as an idiopathic condition, or it can be secondary to medical conditions such as iron deficiency and Parkinson disease.3,4 Because the unpleasant symptom is exacerbated in the evenings, patients with RLS frequently complain of sleep disturbance.
Cases of RLS-like sensory disorders, with symptoms involving sites other than the lower extremities (eg, arms, mouth, trunk, and genitals) recently have been reported.5-7 Among them is restless abdomen, a rare disorder that manifests with a restless abdominal sensation and worsens the quality of sleep and life.6
Continue to: Restless abdomen meets all...
Restless abdomen meets all other diagnostic criteria for RLS except for the affected anatomy.6,8 In most cases of restless abdomen, the uncomfortable sensation involves the abdomen, as well as other parts of the body (eg, legs and arms). Cases in which the symptoms are confined to the abdomen are rare, with only 7 reported to date. 6,8-10 All of these cases have involved patients older than 40 years. 6,8-10
Treatment is straightforward, but consider iron supplementation, as well
Because RLS or its variants degrade the quality of life and sleep in patients,3,4 appropriate therapy must be initiated early. Although the optimal treatment strategy for restless abdomen is yet to be established, an oral dopamine agonist—specifically, pramipexole—has been used successfully in almost all cases.6,8-10
Previous clinical research has shown that patients with RLS have low levels of iron in the brain and may benefit from iron supplementation, even if they are not anemic.3,4 Iron replacement is suggested for patients with RLS whose fasting serum ferritin level is ≤ 75 µg/L.4 It is not known to what extent iron deficiency is involved in the pathophysiology of restless abdomen, and further research is required to determine the optimal therapy for it.
Our patient was started on oral supplementation with sodium ferrous citrate (50 mg/d) based on an initial suspicion that iron deficiency was the cause of her restless abdomen. We also suggested that the patient undergo a fecal occult blood test or colonoscopy, but she declined because of her advanced age.
After 2 months of iron supplementation, the patient’s serum ferritin levels improved (100 µg/L) and her insomnia and abdominal discomfort improved a bit. However, 3 months after starting on the iron supplementation, her symptoms flared again.
Continue to: We then prescribed...
We then prescribed pramipexole 0.25 mg/d. The patient’s symptoms subsequently resolved, and she no longer experienced insomnia. This favorable response to dopamine agonist therapy supported the diagnosis of restless abdomen. The patient continues to take the pramipexole to prevent a relapse.
THE TAKEAWAY
Insomnia is a common presenting complaint in primary care and sleeping pills may be prescribed without adequate investigation of the cause. However, some patients may have serious underlying diseases.11
Although restless abdomen is a disorder that causes severe sleep disturbance and impairs the patient’s quality of sleep and life, it is not widely recognized by clinicians and may be misdiagnosed. When recognized, insomnia due to restless abdomen can be relieved by a simple therapy: oral dopamine agonists. Therefore, primary care physicians should consider restless abdomen as a potential cause of insomnia with abdominal symptoms.
CORRESPONDENCE
Hirohisa Fujikawa, MD, Department of Medical Education Studies, International Research Center for Medical Education, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-0033, Japan; [email protected]
1. Hening WA, Allen RP, Washburn M, et al. The four diagnostic criteria for restless legs syndrome are unable to exclude confounding conditions (“mimics”). Sleep Med. 2009;10:976-981. doi: 10.1016/j.sleep.2008.09.015
2. Innes KE, Selfe TK, Agarwal P. Prevalence of restless legs syndrome in North American and Western European populations: a systematic review. Sleep Med. 2011;12:623-634. doi: 10.1016/j.sleep.2010.12.018
3. Bogan RK, Cheray JA. Restless legs syndrome: a review of diagnosis and management in primary care. Postgrad Med. 2013;125:99-111. doi: 10.3810/pgm.2013.05.2636
4. Silber MH, Buchfuhrer MJ, Earley CJ, et al. The management of restless legs syndrome: an updated algorithm. Mayo Clin Proc. 2021;96:1921-1937. doi: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2020.12.026
5. Aquino CC, Mestre T, Lang AE. Restless genital syndrome in Parkinson disease. JAMA Neurol. 2014;71:1559-1561. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2014.1326
6. Pérez-Díaz H, Iranzo A, Rye DB, et al. Restless abdomen: a phenotypic variant of restless legs syndrome. Neurology. 2011;77:1283-1286. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e318230207a
7. Sforza E, Hupin D, Roche F. Restless genital syndrome: differential diagnosis and treatment with pramipexole. J Clin Sleep Med. 2017;13:1109-1110. doi: 10.5664/jcsm.6736
8. Wang XX, Zhu XY, Wang Z, et al. Restless abdomen: a spectrum or a phenotype variant of restless legs syndrome? BMC Neurol. 2020;20:298. doi: 10.1186/s12883-020-01875-1
9. Esaki Y, Kitajima T, Tsuchiya A, et al. Periodic abdominal movements. Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2014;68:167. doi: 10.1111/pcn.12095
10. Baiardi S, La Morgia C, Mondini S, et al. A restless abdomen and propriospinal myoclonus like at sleep onset: an unusual overlap syndrome. BMJ Case Rep. 2015;2015:bcr2014206679. doi: 10.1136/bcr-2014-206679
11. Pavlova MK, Latreille V. Sleep disorders. Am J Med. 2019;132:292-299. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2018.09.021
THE CASE
An 85-year-old woman with hypertension presented to our hospital with a 10-month history of insomnia along with abdominal discomfort. Several months prior, the patient had undergone an esophagogastroduodenoscopy, the results of which were normal, and had received diagnoses of psychogenic insomnia and abdominal pain from her previous physician. At that time, she was prescribed eszopiclone, but her insomnia did not improve. She did not complain of any other gastrointestinal symptoms.
On examination at our hospital, the patient’s abdomen was soft and nontender. Laboratory results were unremarkable. Abdominal computed tomography was performed to exclude obvious malignancy and showed no remarkable findings.
Additional history taking and physical examination were performed. The patient reported that she could sleep for only about 2 hours per night due to persistent severe discomfort around the umbilicus, which she described as “itching.” The discomfort occurred along with an urge to move while she laid in a state of relaxed wakefulness. This discomfort occurred no matter what position she laid in and improved if she walked or tapped around the umbilicus for a while. She denied any unusual or uncomfortable sensations in her lower extremities.
Her symptoms were absent during the daytime and not related to diet. Furthermore, she did not have any symptoms of anxiety and/or depression; a detailed neurologic examination, including cognitive assessment and extrapyramidal system, yielded unremarkable findings. Additional laboratory tests showed a mild iron deficiency (ferritin, 52.6 µ g/L; iron, 10.7 µ mol/L) without anemia.
THE DIAGNOSIS
Given the patient’s presentation and clinical history, the differential diagnosis included restless abdomen (which is a spectrum or a phenotypic variant of restless legs syndrome [RLS]) and its mimics, which include fibromyalgia and gastrointestinal tract diseases. We considered the characteristic symptoms of this case (ie, irresistible symptoms, lengthy duration of symptoms, and sleep problems) to better support the diagnosis of restless abdomen than its mimics.1 In particular, abdominal discomfort that led to insomnia was characteristic of restless abdomen, helping to pinpoint the diagnosis.
DISCUSSION
RLS is a common sensorimotor disorder that is characterized by an unpleasant urge to move the legs.2 RLS may manifest as an idiopathic condition, or it can be secondary to medical conditions such as iron deficiency and Parkinson disease.3,4 Because the unpleasant symptom is exacerbated in the evenings, patients with RLS frequently complain of sleep disturbance.
Cases of RLS-like sensory disorders, with symptoms involving sites other than the lower extremities (eg, arms, mouth, trunk, and genitals) recently have been reported.5-7 Among them is restless abdomen, a rare disorder that manifests with a restless abdominal sensation and worsens the quality of sleep and life.6
Continue to: Restless abdomen meets all...
Restless abdomen meets all other diagnostic criteria for RLS except for the affected anatomy.6,8 In most cases of restless abdomen, the uncomfortable sensation involves the abdomen, as well as other parts of the body (eg, legs and arms). Cases in which the symptoms are confined to the abdomen are rare, with only 7 reported to date. 6,8-10 All of these cases have involved patients older than 40 years. 6,8-10
Treatment is straightforward, but consider iron supplementation, as well
Because RLS or its variants degrade the quality of life and sleep in patients,3,4 appropriate therapy must be initiated early. Although the optimal treatment strategy for restless abdomen is yet to be established, an oral dopamine agonist—specifically, pramipexole—has been used successfully in almost all cases.6,8-10
Previous clinical research has shown that patients with RLS have low levels of iron in the brain and may benefit from iron supplementation, even if they are not anemic.3,4 Iron replacement is suggested for patients with RLS whose fasting serum ferritin level is ≤ 75 µg/L.4 It is not known to what extent iron deficiency is involved in the pathophysiology of restless abdomen, and further research is required to determine the optimal therapy for it.
Our patient was started on oral supplementation with sodium ferrous citrate (50 mg/d) based on an initial suspicion that iron deficiency was the cause of her restless abdomen. We also suggested that the patient undergo a fecal occult blood test or colonoscopy, but she declined because of her advanced age.
After 2 months of iron supplementation, the patient’s serum ferritin levels improved (100 µg/L) and her insomnia and abdominal discomfort improved a bit. However, 3 months after starting on the iron supplementation, her symptoms flared again.
Continue to: We then prescribed...
We then prescribed pramipexole 0.25 mg/d. The patient’s symptoms subsequently resolved, and she no longer experienced insomnia. This favorable response to dopamine agonist therapy supported the diagnosis of restless abdomen. The patient continues to take the pramipexole to prevent a relapse.
THE TAKEAWAY
Insomnia is a common presenting complaint in primary care and sleeping pills may be prescribed without adequate investigation of the cause. However, some patients may have serious underlying diseases.11
Although restless abdomen is a disorder that causes severe sleep disturbance and impairs the patient’s quality of sleep and life, it is not widely recognized by clinicians and may be misdiagnosed. When recognized, insomnia due to restless abdomen can be relieved by a simple therapy: oral dopamine agonists. Therefore, primary care physicians should consider restless abdomen as a potential cause of insomnia with abdominal symptoms.
CORRESPONDENCE
Hirohisa Fujikawa, MD, Department of Medical Education Studies, International Research Center for Medical Education, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-0033, Japan; [email protected]
THE CASE
An 85-year-old woman with hypertension presented to our hospital with a 10-month history of insomnia along with abdominal discomfort. Several months prior, the patient had undergone an esophagogastroduodenoscopy, the results of which were normal, and had received diagnoses of psychogenic insomnia and abdominal pain from her previous physician. At that time, she was prescribed eszopiclone, but her insomnia did not improve. She did not complain of any other gastrointestinal symptoms.
On examination at our hospital, the patient’s abdomen was soft and nontender. Laboratory results were unremarkable. Abdominal computed tomography was performed to exclude obvious malignancy and showed no remarkable findings.
Additional history taking and physical examination were performed. The patient reported that she could sleep for only about 2 hours per night due to persistent severe discomfort around the umbilicus, which she described as “itching.” The discomfort occurred along with an urge to move while she laid in a state of relaxed wakefulness. This discomfort occurred no matter what position she laid in and improved if she walked or tapped around the umbilicus for a while. She denied any unusual or uncomfortable sensations in her lower extremities.
Her symptoms were absent during the daytime and not related to diet. Furthermore, she did not have any symptoms of anxiety and/or depression; a detailed neurologic examination, including cognitive assessment and extrapyramidal system, yielded unremarkable findings. Additional laboratory tests showed a mild iron deficiency (ferritin, 52.6 µ g/L; iron, 10.7 µ mol/L) without anemia.
THE DIAGNOSIS
Given the patient’s presentation and clinical history, the differential diagnosis included restless abdomen (which is a spectrum or a phenotypic variant of restless legs syndrome [RLS]) and its mimics, which include fibromyalgia and gastrointestinal tract diseases. We considered the characteristic symptoms of this case (ie, irresistible symptoms, lengthy duration of symptoms, and sleep problems) to better support the diagnosis of restless abdomen than its mimics.1 In particular, abdominal discomfort that led to insomnia was characteristic of restless abdomen, helping to pinpoint the diagnosis.
DISCUSSION
RLS is a common sensorimotor disorder that is characterized by an unpleasant urge to move the legs.2 RLS may manifest as an idiopathic condition, or it can be secondary to medical conditions such as iron deficiency and Parkinson disease.3,4 Because the unpleasant symptom is exacerbated in the evenings, patients with RLS frequently complain of sleep disturbance.
Cases of RLS-like sensory disorders, with symptoms involving sites other than the lower extremities (eg, arms, mouth, trunk, and genitals) recently have been reported.5-7 Among them is restless abdomen, a rare disorder that manifests with a restless abdominal sensation and worsens the quality of sleep and life.6
Continue to: Restless abdomen meets all...
Restless abdomen meets all other diagnostic criteria for RLS except for the affected anatomy.6,8 In most cases of restless abdomen, the uncomfortable sensation involves the abdomen, as well as other parts of the body (eg, legs and arms). Cases in which the symptoms are confined to the abdomen are rare, with only 7 reported to date. 6,8-10 All of these cases have involved patients older than 40 years. 6,8-10
Treatment is straightforward, but consider iron supplementation, as well
Because RLS or its variants degrade the quality of life and sleep in patients,3,4 appropriate therapy must be initiated early. Although the optimal treatment strategy for restless abdomen is yet to be established, an oral dopamine agonist—specifically, pramipexole—has been used successfully in almost all cases.6,8-10
Previous clinical research has shown that patients with RLS have low levels of iron in the brain and may benefit from iron supplementation, even if they are not anemic.3,4 Iron replacement is suggested for patients with RLS whose fasting serum ferritin level is ≤ 75 µg/L.4 It is not known to what extent iron deficiency is involved in the pathophysiology of restless abdomen, and further research is required to determine the optimal therapy for it.
Our patient was started on oral supplementation with sodium ferrous citrate (50 mg/d) based on an initial suspicion that iron deficiency was the cause of her restless abdomen. We also suggested that the patient undergo a fecal occult blood test or colonoscopy, but she declined because of her advanced age.
After 2 months of iron supplementation, the patient’s serum ferritin levels improved (100 µg/L) and her insomnia and abdominal discomfort improved a bit. However, 3 months after starting on the iron supplementation, her symptoms flared again.
Continue to: We then prescribed...
We then prescribed pramipexole 0.25 mg/d. The patient’s symptoms subsequently resolved, and she no longer experienced insomnia. This favorable response to dopamine agonist therapy supported the diagnosis of restless abdomen. The patient continues to take the pramipexole to prevent a relapse.
THE TAKEAWAY
Insomnia is a common presenting complaint in primary care and sleeping pills may be prescribed without adequate investigation of the cause. However, some patients may have serious underlying diseases.11
Although restless abdomen is a disorder that causes severe sleep disturbance and impairs the patient’s quality of sleep and life, it is not widely recognized by clinicians and may be misdiagnosed. When recognized, insomnia due to restless abdomen can be relieved by a simple therapy: oral dopamine agonists. Therefore, primary care physicians should consider restless abdomen as a potential cause of insomnia with abdominal symptoms.
CORRESPONDENCE
Hirohisa Fujikawa, MD, Department of Medical Education Studies, International Research Center for Medical Education, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-0033, Japan; [email protected]
1. Hening WA, Allen RP, Washburn M, et al. The four diagnostic criteria for restless legs syndrome are unable to exclude confounding conditions (“mimics”). Sleep Med. 2009;10:976-981. doi: 10.1016/j.sleep.2008.09.015
2. Innes KE, Selfe TK, Agarwal P. Prevalence of restless legs syndrome in North American and Western European populations: a systematic review. Sleep Med. 2011;12:623-634. doi: 10.1016/j.sleep.2010.12.018
3. Bogan RK, Cheray JA. Restless legs syndrome: a review of diagnosis and management in primary care. Postgrad Med. 2013;125:99-111. doi: 10.3810/pgm.2013.05.2636
4. Silber MH, Buchfuhrer MJ, Earley CJ, et al. The management of restless legs syndrome: an updated algorithm. Mayo Clin Proc. 2021;96:1921-1937. doi: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2020.12.026
5. Aquino CC, Mestre T, Lang AE. Restless genital syndrome in Parkinson disease. JAMA Neurol. 2014;71:1559-1561. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2014.1326
6. Pérez-Díaz H, Iranzo A, Rye DB, et al. Restless abdomen: a phenotypic variant of restless legs syndrome. Neurology. 2011;77:1283-1286. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e318230207a
7. Sforza E, Hupin D, Roche F. Restless genital syndrome: differential diagnosis and treatment with pramipexole. J Clin Sleep Med. 2017;13:1109-1110. doi: 10.5664/jcsm.6736
8. Wang XX, Zhu XY, Wang Z, et al. Restless abdomen: a spectrum or a phenotype variant of restless legs syndrome? BMC Neurol. 2020;20:298. doi: 10.1186/s12883-020-01875-1
9. Esaki Y, Kitajima T, Tsuchiya A, et al. Periodic abdominal movements. Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2014;68:167. doi: 10.1111/pcn.12095
10. Baiardi S, La Morgia C, Mondini S, et al. A restless abdomen and propriospinal myoclonus like at sleep onset: an unusual overlap syndrome. BMJ Case Rep. 2015;2015:bcr2014206679. doi: 10.1136/bcr-2014-206679
11. Pavlova MK, Latreille V. Sleep disorders. Am J Med. 2019;132:292-299. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2018.09.021
1. Hening WA, Allen RP, Washburn M, et al. The four diagnostic criteria for restless legs syndrome are unable to exclude confounding conditions (“mimics”). Sleep Med. 2009;10:976-981. doi: 10.1016/j.sleep.2008.09.015
2. Innes KE, Selfe TK, Agarwal P. Prevalence of restless legs syndrome in North American and Western European populations: a systematic review. Sleep Med. 2011;12:623-634. doi: 10.1016/j.sleep.2010.12.018
3. Bogan RK, Cheray JA. Restless legs syndrome: a review of diagnosis and management in primary care. Postgrad Med. 2013;125:99-111. doi: 10.3810/pgm.2013.05.2636
4. Silber MH, Buchfuhrer MJ, Earley CJ, et al. The management of restless legs syndrome: an updated algorithm. Mayo Clin Proc. 2021;96:1921-1937. doi: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2020.12.026
5. Aquino CC, Mestre T, Lang AE. Restless genital syndrome in Parkinson disease. JAMA Neurol. 2014;71:1559-1561. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2014.1326
6. Pérez-Díaz H, Iranzo A, Rye DB, et al. Restless abdomen: a phenotypic variant of restless legs syndrome. Neurology. 2011;77:1283-1286. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e318230207a
7. Sforza E, Hupin D, Roche F. Restless genital syndrome: differential diagnosis and treatment with pramipexole. J Clin Sleep Med. 2017;13:1109-1110. doi: 10.5664/jcsm.6736
8. Wang XX, Zhu XY, Wang Z, et al. Restless abdomen: a spectrum or a phenotype variant of restless legs syndrome? BMC Neurol. 2020;20:298. doi: 10.1186/s12883-020-01875-1
9. Esaki Y, Kitajima T, Tsuchiya A, et al. Periodic abdominal movements. Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2014;68:167. doi: 10.1111/pcn.12095
10. Baiardi S, La Morgia C, Mondini S, et al. A restless abdomen and propriospinal myoclonus like at sleep onset: an unusual overlap syndrome. BMJ Case Rep. 2015;2015:bcr2014206679. doi: 10.1136/bcr-2014-206679
11. Pavlova MK, Latreille V. Sleep disorders. Am J Med. 2019;132:292-299. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2018.09.021
Healthy lifestyle mitigates effect of childhood cancer
Although people who survive a childhood cancer are at an increased risk of developing and dying from subsequent cancers, as well as heart disease and stroke, they can reduce this risk by following a healthy lifestyle, say U.S. investigators.
This message comes from a retrospective analysis of more than 34,000 childhood cancer survivors, which found that 40 years after the initial cancer diagnosis, the cumulative all-cause mortality rate was 23.3%, compared with less than 5% in the general population.
However, following a healthy lifestyle was associated with a 20% reduction in health-related mortality, independent of other factors, the analysis showed. This rose even further, up to a 30% reduction, among individuals who did not have hypertension or diabetes.
The study was published online in The Lancet.
“We identified that long-term survivors of childhood cancer are experiencing a large number of deaths in excess of what would be expected for the general, aging population,” first author Stephanie Dixon, MD, MPH, oncology department, St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, Tenn., said in a press release.
“These excess deaths are predominantly due to the same leading causes of death as in the general population,” including subsequent cancers, heart disease, cerebrovascular disease/stroke, chronic liver and kidney disease, and infectious diseases, she noted. However, in these childhood cancer survivors they are occurring “at a younger age and higher rate.”
“What was most exciting to see,” Dr. Dixon added, “was that, independent of prior treatment exposures and sociodemographic factors, a healthy lifestyle and absence of hypertension or diabetes were each associated with a reduced risk of health-related mortality.”
“This is important because our goal is to extend the life span of survivors and to improve their ‘health span’ as well,” said senior author Greg Armstrong, MD, MSCE, chair of the department of epidemiology and cancer control at St. Jude.
As such, “the study highlights the importance of encouraging survivors to practice healthy behaviors and maintain good control of cardiovascular disease risk factors,” emphasized coauthor Melissa M. Hudson, MD, director of the cancer survivorship division at St. Jude.
Future research should focus on interventions for modifiable lifestyle and cardiovascular risk factors that “may need to be specifically tailored to survivors, with the goal of reducing chronic disease development” and extending their lifespan, the researchers said.
Late effects of treatment
Childhood cancer has a tremendous success rate: In the United States, the 5-year survival rate is now more than 85%.
However, long-term survivors experience excess morbidity and late mortality compared with the general population, both of which are “attributable to late effects of treatment,” the team pointed out.
Their study focused on individuals who had been diagnosed with cancer before they were 21 years old and who had survived at least 5 years after the cancer diagnosis.
The median age at diagnosis was 6 years, and the most common diagnoses were acute lymphoblastic leukemia (36%), Hodgkin lymphoma (11%), astrocytoma (10%), and kidney tumors (8%).
The team identified 34,230 survivors who had been treated between Jan. 1, 1970, and Dec. 31, 1999, at 31 institutions in the United States and Canada.
They represented approximately 20% of all childhood cancer survivors in the United States over the study period. The team noted that 56% of the survivors were male, and the majority (64%) were non-Hispanic White.
The date and causes of death through December 2017 were obtained via linkage to the National Death Index, and cancer treatment information was collated for 21,418 survivors who provided consent. Lifestyle factors – including smoking, alcohol use, physical activity, and unhealthy weight – were graded on a score of 0-4.
Over a median follow-up of 29.1 years, there were 5,916 deaths, with 34% attributable to the recurrence or progression of the primary cancer, and 51.2% attributable to other causes, such as subsequent neoplasms, and cardiac, pulmonary, and other health-related causes.
Overall, survivors were at an elevated risk of death compared with the general population, at a standardized mortality ratio of 5.6. This ratio peaked at 5-9 years after diagnosis at an 18.1-fold increased risk of death compared with the general population.
Forty years or more from the initial diagnosis, two-thirds of the 131 per 10,000 person-years excess deaths from health-related causes were due to the top three causes of health-related death in the general population, the team reported.
This included an absolute excess risk of death from cancer of 54 per 10,000 person-years, an excess risk of heart disease mortality of 27 per 10,000 person-years, and an excess risk of cerebrovascular disease mortality of 10 per 10,000 person-years.
The individual cases of death contributing the greatest excess risk were gastrointestinal cancers (11 per 10,000 person-years), cerebrovascular disease (10 per 10,000 person-years), ischemic heart disease (10 per 10,000 person-years), and valvular heart disease (9 per 10,000 person-years).
The good news is that following a healthy lifestyle was associated with a 20% reduction in health-related mortality versus an unhealthy lifestyle (P = .0020).
Moreover, following even a moderately healthy lifestyle was associated with a 10% reduction in health-related mortality, the researchers noted.
The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute, St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital Cancer Center Support, and the American Lebanese-Syrian Associated Charities. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Although people who survive a childhood cancer are at an increased risk of developing and dying from subsequent cancers, as well as heart disease and stroke, they can reduce this risk by following a healthy lifestyle, say U.S. investigators.
This message comes from a retrospective analysis of more than 34,000 childhood cancer survivors, which found that 40 years after the initial cancer diagnosis, the cumulative all-cause mortality rate was 23.3%, compared with less than 5% in the general population.
However, following a healthy lifestyle was associated with a 20% reduction in health-related mortality, independent of other factors, the analysis showed. This rose even further, up to a 30% reduction, among individuals who did not have hypertension or diabetes.
The study was published online in The Lancet.
“We identified that long-term survivors of childhood cancer are experiencing a large number of deaths in excess of what would be expected for the general, aging population,” first author Stephanie Dixon, MD, MPH, oncology department, St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, Tenn., said in a press release.
“These excess deaths are predominantly due to the same leading causes of death as in the general population,” including subsequent cancers, heart disease, cerebrovascular disease/stroke, chronic liver and kidney disease, and infectious diseases, she noted. However, in these childhood cancer survivors they are occurring “at a younger age and higher rate.”
“What was most exciting to see,” Dr. Dixon added, “was that, independent of prior treatment exposures and sociodemographic factors, a healthy lifestyle and absence of hypertension or diabetes were each associated with a reduced risk of health-related mortality.”
“This is important because our goal is to extend the life span of survivors and to improve their ‘health span’ as well,” said senior author Greg Armstrong, MD, MSCE, chair of the department of epidemiology and cancer control at St. Jude.
As such, “the study highlights the importance of encouraging survivors to practice healthy behaviors and maintain good control of cardiovascular disease risk factors,” emphasized coauthor Melissa M. Hudson, MD, director of the cancer survivorship division at St. Jude.
Future research should focus on interventions for modifiable lifestyle and cardiovascular risk factors that “may need to be specifically tailored to survivors, with the goal of reducing chronic disease development” and extending their lifespan, the researchers said.
Late effects of treatment
Childhood cancer has a tremendous success rate: In the United States, the 5-year survival rate is now more than 85%.
However, long-term survivors experience excess morbidity and late mortality compared with the general population, both of which are “attributable to late effects of treatment,” the team pointed out.
Their study focused on individuals who had been diagnosed with cancer before they were 21 years old and who had survived at least 5 years after the cancer diagnosis.
The median age at diagnosis was 6 years, and the most common diagnoses were acute lymphoblastic leukemia (36%), Hodgkin lymphoma (11%), astrocytoma (10%), and kidney tumors (8%).
The team identified 34,230 survivors who had been treated between Jan. 1, 1970, and Dec. 31, 1999, at 31 institutions in the United States and Canada.
They represented approximately 20% of all childhood cancer survivors in the United States over the study period. The team noted that 56% of the survivors were male, and the majority (64%) were non-Hispanic White.
The date and causes of death through December 2017 were obtained via linkage to the National Death Index, and cancer treatment information was collated for 21,418 survivors who provided consent. Lifestyle factors – including smoking, alcohol use, physical activity, and unhealthy weight – were graded on a score of 0-4.
Over a median follow-up of 29.1 years, there were 5,916 deaths, with 34% attributable to the recurrence or progression of the primary cancer, and 51.2% attributable to other causes, such as subsequent neoplasms, and cardiac, pulmonary, and other health-related causes.
Overall, survivors were at an elevated risk of death compared with the general population, at a standardized mortality ratio of 5.6. This ratio peaked at 5-9 years after diagnosis at an 18.1-fold increased risk of death compared with the general population.
Forty years or more from the initial diagnosis, two-thirds of the 131 per 10,000 person-years excess deaths from health-related causes were due to the top three causes of health-related death in the general population, the team reported.
This included an absolute excess risk of death from cancer of 54 per 10,000 person-years, an excess risk of heart disease mortality of 27 per 10,000 person-years, and an excess risk of cerebrovascular disease mortality of 10 per 10,000 person-years.
The individual cases of death contributing the greatest excess risk were gastrointestinal cancers (11 per 10,000 person-years), cerebrovascular disease (10 per 10,000 person-years), ischemic heart disease (10 per 10,000 person-years), and valvular heart disease (9 per 10,000 person-years).
The good news is that following a healthy lifestyle was associated with a 20% reduction in health-related mortality versus an unhealthy lifestyle (P = .0020).
Moreover, following even a moderately healthy lifestyle was associated with a 10% reduction in health-related mortality, the researchers noted.
The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute, St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital Cancer Center Support, and the American Lebanese-Syrian Associated Charities. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Although people who survive a childhood cancer are at an increased risk of developing and dying from subsequent cancers, as well as heart disease and stroke, they can reduce this risk by following a healthy lifestyle, say U.S. investigators.
This message comes from a retrospective analysis of more than 34,000 childhood cancer survivors, which found that 40 years after the initial cancer diagnosis, the cumulative all-cause mortality rate was 23.3%, compared with less than 5% in the general population.
However, following a healthy lifestyle was associated with a 20% reduction in health-related mortality, independent of other factors, the analysis showed. This rose even further, up to a 30% reduction, among individuals who did not have hypertension or diabetes.
The study was published online in The Lancet.
“We identified that long-term survivors of childhood cancer are experiencing a large number of deaths in excess of what would be expected for the general, aging population,” first author Stephanie Dixon, MD, MPH, oncology department, St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, Tenn., said in a press release.
“These excess deaths are predominantly due to the same leading causes of death as in the general population,” including subsequent cancers, heart disease, cerebrovascular disease/stroke, chronic liver and kidney disease, and infectious diseases, she noted. However, in these childhood cancer survivors they are occurring “at a younger age and higher rate.”
“What was most exciting to see,” Dr. Dixon added, “was that, independent of prior treatment exposures and sociodemographic factors, a healthy lifestyle and absence of hypertension or diabetes were each associated with a reduced risk of health-related mortality.”
“This is important because our goal is to extend the life span of survivors and to improve their ‘health span’ as well,” said senior author Greg Armstrong, MD, MSCE, chair of the department of epidemiology and cancer control at St. Jude.
As such, “the study highlights the importance of encouraging survivors to practice healthy behaviors and maintain good control of cardiovascular disease risk factors,” emphasized coauthor Melissa M. Hudson, MD, director of the cancer survivorship division at St. Jude.
Future research should focus on interventions for modifiable lifestyle and cardiovascular risk factors that “may need to be specifically tailored to survivors, with the goal of reducing chronic disease development” and extending their lifespan, the researchers said.
Late effects of treatment
Childhood cancer has a tremendous success rate: In the United States, the 5-year survival rate is now more than 85%.
However, long-term survivors experience excess morbidity and late mortality compared with the general population, both of which are “attributable to late effects of treatment,” the team pointed out.
Their study focused on individuals who had been diagnosed with cancer before they were 21 years old and who had survived at least 5 years after the cancer diagnosis.
The median age at diagnosis was 6 years, and the most common diagnoses were acute lymphoblastic leukemia (36%), Hodgkin lymphoma (11%), astrocytoma (10%), and kidney tumors (8%).
The team identified 34,230 survivors who had been treated between Jan. 1, 1970, and Dec. 31, 1999, at 31 institutions in the United States and Canada.
They represented approximately 20% of all childhood cancer survivors in the United States over the study period. The team noted that 56% of the survivors were male, and the majority (64%) were non-Hispanic White.
The date and causes of death through December 2017 were obtained via linkage to the National Death Index, and cancer treatment information was collated for 21,418 survivors who provided consent. Lifestyle factors – including smoking, alcohol use, physical activity, and unhealthy weight – were graded on a score of 0-4.
Over a median follow-up of 29.1 years, there were 5,916 deaths, with 34% attributable to the recurrence or progression of the primary cancer, and 51.2% attributable to other causes, such as subsequent neoplasms, and cardiac, pulmonary, and other health-related causes.
Overall, survivors were at an elevated risk of death compared with the general population, at a standardized mortality ratio of 5.6. This ratio peaked at 5-9 years after diagnosis at an 18.1-fold increased risk of death compared with the general population.
Forty years or more from the initial diagnosis, two-thirds of the 131 per 10,000 person-years excess deaths from health-related causes were due to the top three causes of health-related death in the general population, the team reported.
This included an absolute excess risk of death from cancer of 54 per 10,000 person-years, an excess risk of heart disease mortality of 27 per 10,000 person-years, and an excess risk of cerebrovascular disease mortality of 10 per 10,000 person-years.
The individual cases of death contributing the greatest excess risk were gastrointestinal cancers (11 per 10,000 person-years), cerebrovascular disease (10 per 10,000 person-years), ischemic heart disease (10 per 10,000 person-years), and valvular heart disease (9 per 10,000 person-years).
The good news is that following a healthy lifestyle was associated with a 20% reduction in health-related mortality versus an unhealthy lifestyle (P = .0020).
Moreover, following even a moderately healthy lifestyle was associated with a 10% reduction in health-related mortality, the researchers noted.
The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute, St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital Cancer Center Support, and the American Lebanese-Syrian Associated Charities. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Antimicrobial resistance requires a manifold response
BUENOS AIRES – Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) has become a global concern. And while one issue to be addressed is the deficit in research and development for new antibiotics, efforts to tackle this public health threat also should be directed toward promoting more rational prescription practices and strengthening the ability to identify the microorganisms responsible for infections, according to the World Health Organization. This was the conclusion reached at the fourth meeting of the WHO AMR Surveillance and Quality Assessment Collaborating Centres Network, which was held in Buenos Aires.
“We have to provide assistance to countries to ensure that the drugs are being used responsibly. We can come up with new antibiotics, but the issue at hand is not simply one of innovation: If nothing is done to correct inappropriate prescription practices and to overcome the lack of diagnostic laboratories at the country level, we’re going to miss out on those drugs as soon as they become available,” Kitty van Weezenbeek, MD, PhD, MPH, director of the AMR Surveillance, Prevention, and Control (AMR/SPC) Department at the WHO’s headquarters in Geneva, told this news organization.
Dr. van Weezenbeek pointed out that although there are currently no shortages of antimicrobials, the development and launch of new drugs that fight multidrug-resistant infections – infections for which there are few therapeutic options – has proceeded slowly. “It takes 10 to 15 years to develop a new antibiotic,” she said, adding that “the majority of pharmaceutical companies that had been engaged in the development of antimicrobials have filed for bankruptcy.”
In 2019, more people died – 1.2 million – from AMR than from malaria, tuberculosis, and HIV combined. Why are there so few market incentives when there is such a great need for those drugs? “One reason is that the pharmaceutical industry makes more money with long-term treatments, such as those for cancer and respiratory diseases. The other problem is that people everywhere are told not to use antibiotics,” said Dr. van Weezenbeek.
“A course of antibiotics lasts a few days, especially because we’re promoting rational use. Therefore, the trend is for the total amount of antimicrobials being used to be lower. So, it’s not as profitable,” added Carmem Lucia Pessoa-Silva, MD, PhD, head of the Surveillance, Evidence, and Laboratory Strengthening Unit of the WHO’s AMR/SPC Department.
On that note, Dr. van Weezenbeek mentioned that member countries are working with pharmaceutical companies and universities to address this problem. The WHO, for its part, has responded by implementing a global mechanism with a public health approach to create a “healthy” and equitable market for these medicines.
AMR is one of the top 10 global threats to human health. But it also has an impact on animal production, agricultural production, and the environment. Strategies to tackle AMR based on the One Health approach should involve all actors, social sectors, and citizens, according to Eva Jané Llopis, PhD, the representative of the Pan American Health Organization/WHO in Argentina.
At the root of the AMR problem is the widespread use of these drugs as growth promoters in animal production – for which several countries have enacted regulations – as well as “misunderstandings” between patients and physicians when there is not sufficient, timely access to laboratory diagnostics, especially in low- and middle-income countries.
“People think that if they’re given broad-spectrum antibiotics, they’re being prescribed the best antibiotics; and doctors, because there are no laboratory services, prescribe broad-spectrum antibiotics because they want to help patients. But that ends up causing more resistance to drugs, and thus, those antibiotics aren’t good for the patients,” said Dr. van Weezenbeek.
The WHO Global AMR and Use Surveillance System (GLASS) was launched in 2015. Its 2022 report, which marked the end of the system’s early implementation period, noted that the reported AMR rates are often lower in countries, territories, and areas with better testing coverage for most pathogen-drug-infection site combinations. However, as Dr. Pessoa-Silva acknowledged, monitoring “has not yet generated representative data,” because in many cases, countries either do not have surveillance systems or have only recently started implementing them.
Even so, the indicators that are available paint an increasingly worrisome picture. “For example, in many countries, resistance rates to first-line antibiotics were around 10%-20% with respect to Escherichia coli urinary tract infections and bloodstream bacteriologically confirmed infections. So, the risk of treatment failure is very high,” explained Dr. Pessoa-Silva.
The latest estimates indicate that every 2 or 3 minutes, somewhere in the world, a child dies from AMR. And the situation is particularly “dramatic” in neonatal intensive care units, where outbreaks of multidrug-resistant infections have a mortality rate of 50%, said Pilar Ramón-Pardo, MD, PhD, lead of the Special Program on AMR at the Pan American Health Organization, the WHO Regional Office for the Americas.
AMR rates also got worse during the pandemic because of the inappropriate prescription of massive amounts of antibiotics to hospitalized patients – something that was not in compliance with guidelines or protocols. Silvia Bertagnolio, MD, is an infectious disease specialist and the head of the Control and Response Strategies Unit in the WHO’s AMR Division. She spoke about the global clinical platform data pertaining to more than 1,500,000 patients who were hospitalized for COVID-19. Since 2020, 85% received antimicrobial treatment, despite the fact that only 5% had a concomitant infection at admission. “It’s easier to give antibiotics than to make a proper diagnosis,” said Dr. Bertagnolio.
This article was translated from Medscape’s Spanish edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.
BUENOS AIRES – Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) has become a global concern. And while one issue to be addressed is the deficit in research and development for new antibiotics, efforts to tackle this public health threat also should be directed toward promoting more rational prescription practices and strengthening the ability to identify the microorganisms responsible for infections, according to the World Health Organization. This was the conclusion reached at the fourth meeting of the WHO AMR Surveillance and Quality Assessment Collaborating Centres Network, which was held in Buenos Aires.
“We have to provide assistance to countries to ensure that the drugs are being used responsibly. We can come up with new antibiotics, but the issue at hand is not simply one of innovation: If nothing is done to correct inappropriate prescription practices and to overcome the lack of diagnostic laboratories at the country level, we’re going to miss out on those drugs as soon as they become available,” Kitty van Weezenbeek, MD, PhD, MPH, director of the AMR Surveillance, Prevention, and Control (AMR/SPC) Department at the WHO’s headquarters in Geneva, told this news organization.
Dr. van Weezenbeek pointed out that although there are currently no shortages of antimicrobials, the development and launch of new drugs that fight multidrug-resistant infections – infections for which there are few therapeutic options – has proceeded slowly. “It takes 10 to 15 years to develop a new antibiotic,” she said, adding that “the majority of pharmaceutical companies that had been engaged in the development of antimicrobials have filed for bankruptcy.”
In 2019, more people died – 1.2 million – from AMR than from malaria, tuberculosis, and HIV combined. Why are there so few market incentives when there is such a great need for those drugs? “One reason is that the pharmaceutical industry makes more money with long-term treatments, such as those for cancer and respiratory diseases. The other problem is that people everywhere are told not to use antibiotics,” said Dr. van Weezenbeek.
“A course of antibiotics lasts a few days, especially because we’re promoting rational use. Therefore, the trend is for the total amount of antimicrobials being used to be lower. So, it’s not as profitable,” added Carmem Lucia Pessoa-Silva, MD, PhD, head of the Surveillance, Evidence, and Laboratory Strengthening Unit of the WHO’s AMR/SPC Department.
On that note, Dr. van Weezenbeek mentioned that member countries are working with pharmaceutical companies and universities to address this problem. The WHO, for its part, has responded by implementing a global mechanism with a public health approach to create a “healthy” and equitable market for these medicines.
AMR is one of the top 10 global threats to human health. But it also has an impact on animal production, agricultural production, and the environment. Strategies to tackle AMR based on the One Health approach should involve all actors, social sectors, and citizens, according to Eva Jané Llopis, PhD, the representative of the Pan American Health Organization/WHO in Argentina.
At the root of the AMR problem is the widespread use of these drugs as growth promoters in animal production – for which several countries have enacted regulations – as well as “misunderstandings” between patients and physicians when there is not sufficient, timely access to laboratory diagnostics, especially in low- and middle-income countries.
“People think that if they’re given broad-spectrum antibiotics, they’re being prescribed the best antibiotics; and doctors, because there are no laboratory services, prescribe broad-spectrum antibiotics because they want to help patients. But that ends up causing more resistance to drugs, and thus, those antibiotics aren’t good for the patients,” said Dr. van Weezenbeek.
The WHO Global AMR and Use Surveillance System (GLASS) was launched in 2015. Its 2022 report, which marked the end of the system’s early implementation period, noted that the reported AMR rates are often lower in countries, territories, and areas with better testing coverage for most pathogen-drug-infection site combinations. However, as Dr. Pessoa-Silva acknowledged, monitoring “has not yet generated representative data,” because in many cases, countries either do not have surveillance systems or have only recently started implementing them.
Even so, the indicators that are available paint an increasingly worrisome picture. “For example, in many countries, resistance rates to first-line antibiotics were around 10%-20% with respect to Escherichia coli urinary tract infections and bloodstream bacteriologically confirmed infections. So, the risk of treatment failure is very high,” explained Dr. Pessoa-Silva.
The latest estimates indicate that every 2 or 3 minutes, somewhere in the world, a child dies from AMR. And the situation is particularly “dramatic” in neonatal intensive care units, where outbreaks of multidrug-resistant infections have a mortality rate of 50%, said Pilar Ramón-Pardo, MD, PhD, lead of the Special Program on AMR at the Pan American Health Organization, the WHO Regional Office for the Americas.
AMR rates also got worse during the pandemic because of the inappropriate prescription of massive amounts of antibiotics to hospitalized patients – something that was not in compliance with guidelines or protocols. Silvia Bertagnolio, MD, is an infectious disease specialist and the head of the Control and Response Strategies Unit in the WHO’s AMR Division. She spoke about the global clinical platform data pertaining to more than 1,500,000 patients who were hospitalized for COVID-19. Since 2020, 85% received antimicrobial treatment, despite the fact that only 5% had a concomitant infection at admission. “It’s easier to give antibiotics than to make a proper diagnosis,” said Dr. Bertagnolio.
This article was translated from Medscape’s Spanish edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.
BUENOS AIRES – Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) has become a global concern. And while one issue to be addressed is the deficit in research and development for new antibiotics, efforts to tackle this public health threat also should be directed toward promoting more rational prescription practices and strengthening the ability to identify the microorganisms responsible for infections, according to the World Health Organization. This was the conclusion reached at the fourth meeting of the WHO AMR Surveillance and Quality Assessment Collaborating Centres Network, which was held in Buenos Aires.
“We have to provide assistance to countries to ensure that the drugs are being used responsibly. We can come up with new antibiotics, but the issue at hand is not simply one of innovation: If nothing is done to correct inappropriate prescription practices and to overcome the lack of diagnostic laboratories at the country level, we’re going to miss out on those drugs as soon as they become available,” Kitty van Weezenbeek, MD, PhD, MPH, director of the AMR Surveillance, Prevention, and Control (AMR/SPC) Department at the WHO’s headquarters in Geneva, told this news organization.
Dr. van Weezenbeek pointed out that although there are currently no shortages of antimicrobials, the development and launch of new drugs that fight multidrug-resistant infections – infections for which there are few therapeutic options – has proceeded slowly. “It takes 10 to 15 years to develop a new antibiotic,” she said, adding that “the majority of pharmaceutical companies that had been engaged in the development of antimicrobials have filed for bankruptcy.”
In 2019, more people died – 1.2 million – from AMR than from malaria, tuberculosis, and HIV combined. Why are there so few market incentives when there is such a great need for those drugs? “One reason is that the pharmaceutical industry makes more money with long-term treatments, such as those for cancer and respiratory diseases. The other problem is that people everywhere are told not to use antibiotics,” said Dr. van Weezenbeek.
“A course of antibiotics lasts a few days, especially because we’re promoting rational use. Therefore, the trend is for the total amount of antimicrobials being used to be lower. So, it’s not as profitable,” added Carmem Lucia Pessoa-Silva, MD, PhD, head of the Surveillance, Evidence, and Laboratory Strengthening Unit of the WHO’s AMR/SPC Department.
On that note, Dr. van Weezenbeek mentioned that member countries are working with pharmaceutical companies and universities to address this problem. The WHO, for its part, has responded by implementing a global mechanism with a public health approach to create a “healthy” and equitable market for these medicines.
AMR is one of the top 10 global threats to human health. But it also has an impact on animal production, agricultural production, and the environment. Strategies to tackle AMR based on the One Health approach should involve all actors, social sectors, and citizens, according to Eva Jané Llopis, PhD, the representative of the Pan American Health Organization/WHO in Argentina.
At the root of the AMR problem is the widespread use of these drugs as growth promoters in animal production – for which several countries have enacted regulations – as well as “misunderstandings” between patients and physicians when there is not sufficient, timely access to laboratory diagnostics, especially in low- and middle-income countries.
“People think that if they’re given broad-spectrum antibiotics, they’re being prescribed the best antibiotics; and doctors, because there are no laboratory services, prescribe broad-spectrum antibiotics because they want to help patients. But that ends up causing more resistance to drugs, and thus, those antibiotics aren’t good for the patients,” said Dr. van Weezenbeek.
The WHO Global AMR and Use Surveillance System (GLASS) was launched in 2015. Its 2022 report, which marked the end of the system’s early implementation period, noted that the reported AMR rates are often lower in countries, territories, and areas with better testing coverage for most pathogen-drug-infection site combinations. However, as Dr. Pessoa-Silva acknowledged, monitoring “has not yet generated representative data,” because in many cases, countries either do not have surveillance systems or have only recently started implementing them.
Even so, the indicators that are available paint an increasingly worrisome picture. “For example, in many countries, resistance rates to first-line antibiotics were around 10%-20% with respect to Escherichia coli urinary tract infections and bloodstream bacteriologically confirmed infections. So, the risk of treatment failure is very high,” explained Dr. Pessoa-Silva.
The latest estimates indicate that every 2 or 3 minutes, somewhere in the world, a child dies from AMR. And the situation is particularly “dramatic” in neonatal intensive care units, where outbreaks of multidrug-resistant infections have a mortality rate of 50%, said Pilar Ramón-Pardo, MD, PhD, lead of the Special Program on AMR at the Pan American Health Organization, the WHO Regional Office for the Americas.
AMR rates also got worse during the pandemic because of the inappropriate prescription of massive amounts of antibiotics to hospitalized patients – something that was not in compliance with guidelines or protocols. Silvia Bertagnolio, MD, is an infectious disease specialist and the head of the Control and Response Strategies Unit in the WHO’s AMR Division. She spoke about the global clinical platform data pertaining to more than 1,500,000 patients who were hospitalized for COVID-19. Since 2020, 85% received antimicrobial treatment, despite the fact that only 5% had a concomitant infection at admission. “It’s easier to give antibiotics than to make a proper diagnosis,” said Dr. Bertagnolio.
This article was translated from Medscape’s Spanish edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.
New Medicare rule streamlines prior authorization in Medicare Advantage plans
A new federal rule seeks to reduce Medicare Advantage insurance plans’ prior authorization burdens on physicians while also ensuring that enrollees have the same access to necessary care that they would receive under traditional fee-for-service Medicare.
The prior authorization changes, announced this week, are part of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ 2024 update of policy changes for Medicare Advantage and Part D pharmacy plans
Medicare Advantage plans’ business practices have raised significant concerns in recent years. More than 28 million Americans were enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan in 2022, which is nearly half of all Medicare enrollees, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.
Medicare pays a fixed amount per enrollee per year to these privately run managed care plans, in contrast to traditional fee-for-service Medicare. Medicare Advantage plans have been criticized for aggressive marketing, for overbilling the federal government for care, and for using prior authorization to inappropriately deny needed care to patients.
About 13% of prior authorization requests that are denied by Medicare Advantage plans actually met Medicare coverage rules and should have been approved, the Office of the Inspector General at the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services reported in 2022.
The newly finalized rule now requires Medicare Advantage plans to do the following.
- Ensure that a prior authorization approval, once granted, remains valid for as long as medically necessary to avoid disruptions in care.
- Conduct an annual review of utilization management policies.
- Ensure that coverage denials based on medical necessity be reviewed by health care professionals with relevant expertise before a denial can be issued.
Physician groups welcomed the changes. In a statement, the American Medical Association said that an initial reading of the rule suggested CMS had “taken important steps toward right-sizing the prior authorization process.”
The Medical Group Management Association praised CMS in a statement for having limited “dangerous disruptions and delays to necessary patient care” resulting from the cumbersome processes of prior approval. With the new rules, CMS will provide greater consistency across Advantage plans as well as traditional Medicare, said Anders Gilberg, MGMA’s senior vice president of government affairs, in a statement.
Peer consideration
The final rule did disappoint physician groups in one key way. CMS rebuffed requests to have CMS require Advantage plans to use reviewers of the same specialty as treating physicians in handling disputes about prior authorization. CMS said it expects plans to exercise judgment in finding reviewers with “sufficient expertise to make an informed and supportable decision.”
“In some instances, we expect that plans will use a physician or other health care professional of the same specialty or subspecialty as the treating physician,” CMS said. “In other instances, we expect that plans will utilize a reviewer with specialized training, certification, or clinical experience in the applicable field of medicine.”
Medicare Advantage marketing ‘sowing confusion’
With this final rule, CMS also sought to protect consumers from “potentially misleading marketing practices” used in promoting Medicare Advantage and Part D prescription drug plans.
The agency said it had received complaints about people who have received official-looking promotional materials for Medicare that directed them not to government sources of information but to Medicare Advantage and Part D plans or their agents and brokers.
Ads now must mention a specific plan name, and they cannot use the Medicare name, CMS logo, Medicare card, or other government information in a misleading way, CMS said.
“CMS can see no value or purpose in a non-governmental entity’s use of the Medicare logo or HHS logo except for the express purpose of sowing confusion and misrepresenting itself as the government,” the agency said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A new federal rule seeks to reduce Medicare Advantage insurance plans’ prior authorization burdens on physicians while also ensuring that enrollees have the same access to necessary care that they would receive under traditional fee-for-service Medicare.
The prior authorization changes, announced this week, are part of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ 2024 update of policy changes for Medicare Advantage and Part D pharmacy plans
Medicare Advantage plans’ business practices have raised significant concerns in recent years. More than 28 million Americans were enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan in 2022, which is nearly half of all Medicare enrollees, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.
Medicare pays a fixed amount per enrollee per year to these privately run managed care plans, in contrast to traditional fee-for-service Medicare. Medicare Advantage plans have been criticized for aggressive marketing, for overbilling the federal government for care, and for using prior authorization to inappropriately deny needed care to patients.
About 13% of prior authorization requests that are denied by Medicare Advantage plans actually met Medicare coverage rules and should have been approved, the Office of the Inspector General at the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services reported in 2022.
The newly finalized rule now requires Medicare Advantage plans to do the following.
- Ensure that a prior authorization approval, once granted, remains valid for as long as medically necessary to avoid disruptions in care.
- Conduct an annual review of utilization management policies.
- Ensure that coverage denials based on medical necessity be reviewed by health care professionals with relevant expertise before a denial can be issued.
Physician groups welcomed the changes. In a statement, the American Medical Association said that an initial reading of the rule suggested CMS had “taken important steps toward right-sizing the prior authorization process.”
The Medical Group Management Association praised CMS in a statement for having limited “dangerous disruptions and delays to necessary patient care” resulting from the cumbersome processes of prior approval. With the new rules, CMS will provide greater consistency across Advantage plans as well as traditional Medicare, said Anders Gilberg, MGMA’s senior vice president of government affairs, in a statement.
Peer consideration
The final rule did disappoint physician groups in one key way. CMS rebuffed requests to have CMS require Advantage plans to use reviewers of the same specialty as treating physicians in handling disputes about prior authorization. CMS said it expects plans to exercise judgment in finding reviewers with “sufficient expertise to make an informed and supportable decision.”
“In some instances, we expect that plans will use a physician or other health care professional of the same specialty or subspecialty as the treating physician,” CMS said. “In other instances, we expect that plans will utilize a reviewer with specialized training, certification, or clinical experience in the applicable field of medicine.”
Medicare Advantage marketing ‘sowing confusion’
With this final rule, CMS also sought to protect consumers from “potentially misleading marketing practices” used in promoting Medicare Advantage and Part D prescription drug plans.
The agency said it had received complaints about people who have received official-looking promotional materials for Medicare that directed them not to government sources of information but to Medicare Advantage and Part D plans or their agents and brokers.
Ads now must mention a specific plan name, and they cannot use the Medicare name, CMS logo, Medicare card, or other government information in a misleading way, CMS said.
“CMS can see no value or purpose in a non-governmental entity’s use of the Medicare logo or HHS logo except for the express purpose of sowing confusion and misrepresenting itself as the government,” the agency said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A new federal rule seeks to reduce Medicare Advantage insurance plans’ prior authorization burdens on physicians while also ensuring that enrollees have the same access to necessary care that they would receive under traditional fee-for-service Medicare.
The prior authorization changes, announced this week, are part of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ 2024 update of policy changes for Medicare Advantage and Part D pharmacy plans
Medicare Advantage plans’ business practices have raised significant concerns in recent years. More than 28 million Americans were enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan in 2022, which is nearly half of all Medicare enrollees, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.
Medicare pays a fixed amount per enrollee per year to these privately run managed care plans, in contrast to traditional fee-for-service Medicare. Medicare Advantage plans have been criticized for aggressive marketing, for overbilling the federal government for care, and for using prior authorization to inappropriately deny needed care to patients.
About 13% of prior authorization requests that are denied by Medicare Advantage plans actually met Medicare coverage rules and should have been approved, the Office of the Inspector General at the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services reported in 2022.
The newly finalized rule now requires Medicare Advantage plans to do the following.
- Ensure that a prior authorization approval, once granted, remains valid for as long as medically necessary to avoid disruptions in care.
- Conduct an annual review of utilization management policies.
- Ensure that coverage denials based on medical necessity be reviewed by health care professionals with relevant expertise before a denial can be issued.
Physician groups welcomed the changes. In a statement, the American Medical Association said that an initial reading of the rule suggested CMS had “taken important steps toward right-sizing the prior authorization process.”
The Medical Group Management Association praised CMS in a statement for having limited “dangerous disruptions and delays to necessary patient care” resulting from the cumbersome processes of prior approval. With the new rules, CMS will provide greater consistency across Advantage plans as well as traditional Medicare, said Anders Gilberg, MGMA’s senior vice president of government affairs, in a statement.
Peer consideration
The final rule did disappoint physician groups in one key way. CMS rebuffed requests to have CMS require Advantage plans to use reviewers of the same specialty as treating physicians in handling disputes about prior authorization. CMS said it expects plans to exercise judgment in finding reviewers with “sufficient expertise to make an informed and supportable decision.”
“In some instances, we expect that plans will use a physician or other health care professional of the same specialty or subspecialty as the treating physician,” CMS said. “In other instances, we expect that plans will utilize a reviewer with specialized training, certification, or clinical experience in the applicable field of medicine.”
Medicare Advantage marketing ‘sowing confusion’
With this final rule, CMS also sought to protect consumers from “potentially misleading marketing practices” used in promoting Medicare Advantage and Part D prescription drug plans.
The agency said it had received complaints about people who have received official-looking promotional materials for Medicare that directed them not to government sources of information but to Medicare Advantage and Part D plans or their agents and brokers.
Ads now must mention a specific plan name, and they cannot use the Medicare name, CMS logo, Medicare card, or other government information in a misleading way, CMS said.
“CMS can see no value or purpose in a non-governmental entity’s use of the Medicare logo or HHS logo except for the express purpose of sowing confusion and misrepresenting itself as the government,” the agency said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Why my independent GI practice started a GI fellowship program
In this video Naresh Gunaratnam, MD, discusses the gastroenterology fellowship program that Huron Gastroenterology developed with Trinity Health in Ann Arbor, Mich. Dr. Gunaratnam helped create the program because he and his colleagues felt that traditional fellowship programs don’t always provide information or guidance about non-academic career pathways in gastroenterology. Hear from Dr. Gunaratnam how the fellowship program at Huron Gastroenterology is training fellows to become excellent clinicians who care for patients in the community setting. He has no financial conflicts relative to the topics in this video.

In this video Naresh Gunaratnam, MD, discusses the gastroenterology fellowship program that Huron Gastroenterology developed with Trinity Health in Ann Arbor, Mich. Dr. Gunaratnam helped create the program because he and his colleagues felt that traditional fellowship programs don’t always provide information or guidance about non-academic career pathways in gastroenterology. Hear from Dr. Gunaratnam how the fellowship program at Huron Gastroenterology is training fellows to become excellent clinicians who care for patients in the community setting. He has no financial conflicts relative to the topics in this video.

In this video Naresh Gunaratnam, MD, discusses the gastroenterology fellowship program that Huron Gastroenterology developed with Trinity Health in Ann Arbor, Mich. Dr. Gunaratnam helped create the program because he and his colleagues felt that traditional fellowship programs don’t always provide information or guidance about non-academic career pathways in gastroenterology. Hear from Dr. Gunaratnam how the fellowship program at Huron Gastroenterology is training fellows to become excellent clinicians who care for patients in the community setting. He has no financial conflicts relative to the topics in this video.
