User login
What to do when a patient is not ready to stop smoking
Recommendations from the American Thoracic Society
Below is a case involving a patient who is not yet ready to quit smoking. We later provide treatment recommendations for this patient based on a new guideline from the American Thoracic Society.
Case
A 58-year-old female comes into the office for a physical exam. She has been smoking two packs a day since she was 23 years of age. You have tried at previous visits to get her to quit, but she hasn’t been interested. The patient says she has a lot of stress, and that it is still not the right time for her to stop smoking. You tell her she needs to quit and, though the patient understands that quitting would be beneficial for her health, she just isn’t ready to try to kick the habit. How do you proceed?
The Guideline in context
Even though this patient stated that she is not ready to stop smoking, she is still a candidate for pharmacological treatment for her tobacco dependence and can be offered varenicline, according to the ATS guideline.1
In a previously published column, we have discussed the ATS’ recommended approaches for treating patients who are ready to stop smoking cigarettes. The reality is that many patients, if not most, are not ready to quit when we speak to them during any given office visit. The ATS guideline addresses this critical issue by recommending treatment with varenicline in patients who are not ready to stop smoking. It also states that this is a better strategy than waiting to start treatment until patients say they are ready for it.
This recommendation – to prescribe varenicline to smokers even when they are not ready to quit smoking – is based on solid clinical trial evidence. Research has shown that behavior change is dynamic and that the decision to stop smoking is not always a planned one.1 Patients often make quit attempts between office visits, and are often successful in those attempts. Because the decision to try to stop smoking is influenced by the satisfaction and physical addiction that comes from smoking, a medication such as varenicline that is a partial agonist/antagonist at the alpha4-beta2 nicotinic receptor might increase the likelihood that a patient would decide to try to stop smoking. This is because taking this type of a drug would lead the patient to no longer experience the reinforcing effects of nicotine.2 This hypothesis was examined in five randomized trials.1
In these studies, regular smokers who were not ready to make a quit attempt were randomized to varenicline versus placebo. Twice as many individuals who took varenicline stopped smoking 6 months after starting treatment.1
Suggested treatment
This patient should be offered varenicline. This individual meets the criteria for this treatment according to the ATS guideline in that the patient is a regular smoker who doesn’t think she is ready to stop smoking but understands she needs to stop and is open to taking medication to assist her with quitting.
Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Dr. Sprogell is a third-year resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece. For questions or comments, feel free to contact Dr. Skolnik on Twitter @NeilSkolnik.
References
1. Leone F T et al. Initiating pharmacologic treatment in tobacco-dependent adults: An official American Thoracic Society Clinical Practice Guideline. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020 Jul 15;202(2):e5–e31.
2. Ebbert JO et al. Varenicline for smoking cessation: Efficacy, safety, and treatment recommendations. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2010;4:355-62.
Recommendations from the American Thoracic Society
Recommendations from the American Thoracic Society
Below is a case involving a patient who is not yet ready to quit smoking. We later provide treatment recommendations for this patient based on a new guideline from the American Thoracic Society.
Case
A 58-year-old female comes into the office for a physical exam. She has been smoking two packs a day since she was 23 years of age. You have tried at previous visits to get her to quit, but she hasn’t been interested. The patient says she has a lot of stress, and that it is still not the right time for her to stop smoking. You tell her she needs to quit and, though the patient understands that quitting would be beneficial for her health, she just isn’t ready to try to kick the habit. How do you proceed?
The Guideline in context
Even though this patient stated that she is not ready to stop smoking, she is still a candidate for pharmacological treatment for her tobacco dependence and can be offered varenicline, according to the ATS guideline.1
In a previously published column, we have discussed the ATS’ recommended approaches for treating patients who are ready to stop smoking cigarettes. The reality is that many patients, if not most, are not ready to quit when we speak to them during any given office visit. The ATS guideline addresses this critical issue by recommending treatment with varenicline in patients who are not ready to stop smoking. It also states that this is a better strategy than waiting to start treatment until patients say they are ready for it.
This recommendation – to prescribe varenicline to smokers even when they are not ready to quit smoking – is based on solid clinical trial evidence. Research has shown that behavior change is dynamic and that the decision to stop smoking is not always a planned one.1 Patients often make quit attempts between office visits, and are often successful in those attempts. Because the decision to try to stop smoking is influenced by the satisfaction and physical addiction that comes from smoking, a medication such as varenicline that is a partial agonist/antagonist at the alpha4-beta2 nicotinic receptor might increase the likelihood that a patient would decide to try to stop smoking. This is because taking this type of a drug would lead the patient to no longer experience the reinforcing effects of nicotine.2 This hypothesis was examined in five randomized trials.1
In these studies, regular smokers who were not ready to make a quit attempt were randomized to varenicline versus placebo. Twice as many individuals who took varenicline stopped smoking 6 months after starting treatment.1
Suggested treatment
This patient should be offered varenicline. This individual meets the criteria for this treatment according to the ATS guideline in that the patient is a regular smoker who doesn’t think she is ready to stop smoking but understands she needs to stop and is open to taking medication to assist her with quitting.
Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Dr. Sprogell is a third-year resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece. For questions or comments, feel free to contact Dr. Skolnik on Twitter @NeilSkolnik.
References
1. Leone F T et al. Initiating pharmacologic treatment in tobacco-dependent adults: An official American Thoracic Society Clinical Practice Guideline. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020 Jul 15;202(2):e5–e31.
2. Ebbert JO et al. Varenicline for smoking cessation: Efficacy, safety, and treatment recommendations. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2010;4:355-62.
Below is a case involving a patient who is not yet ready to quit smoking. We later provide treatment recommendations for this patient based on a new guideline from the American Thoracic Society.
Case
A 58-year-old female comes into the office for a physical exam. She has been smoking two packs a day since she was 23 years of age. You have tried at previous visits to get her to quit, but she hasn’t been interested. The patient says she has a lot of stress, and that it is still not the right time for her to stop smoking. You tell her she needs to quit and, though the patient understands that quitting would be beneficial for her health, she just isn’t ready to try to kick the habit. How do you proceed?
The Guideline in context
Even though this patient stated that she is not ready to stop smoking, she is still a candidate for pharmacological treatment for her tobacco dependence and can be offered varenicline, according to the ATS guideline.1
In a previously published column, we have discussed the ATS’ recommended approaches for treating patients who are ready to stop smoking cigarettes. The reality is that many patients, if not most, are not ready to quit when we speak to them during any given office visit. The ATS guideline addresses this critical issue by recommending treatment with varenicline in patients who are not ready to stop smoking. It also states that this is a better strategy than waiting to start treatment until patients say they are ready for it.
This recommendation – to prescribe varenicline to smokers even when they are not ready to quit smoking – is based on solid clinical trial evidence. Research has shown that behavior change is dynamic and that the decision to stop smoking is not always a planned one.1 Patients often make quit attempts between office visits, and are often successful in those attempts. Because the decision to try to stop smoking is influenced by the satisfaction and physical addiction that comes from smoking, a medication such as varenicline that is a partial agonist/antagonist at the alpha4-beta2 nicotinic receptor might increase the likelihood that a patient would decide to try to stop smoking. This is because taking this type of a drug would lead the patient to no longer experience the reinforcing effects of nicotine.2 This hypothesis was examined in five randomized trials.1
In these studies, regular smokers who were not ready to make a quit attempt were randomized to varenicline versus placebo. Twice as many individuals who took varenicline stopped smoking 6 months after starting treatment.1
Suggested treatment
This patient should be offered varenicline. This individual meets the criteria for this treatment according to the ATS guideline in that the patient is a regular smoker who doesn’t think she is ready to stop smoking but understands she needs to stop and is open to taking medication to assist her with quitting.
Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Dr. Sprogell is a third-year resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece. For questions or comments, feel free to contact Dr. Skolnik on Twitter @NeilSkolnik.
References
1. Leone F T et al. Initiating pharmacologic treatment in tobacco-dependent adults: An official American Thoracic Society Clinical Practice Guideline. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020 Jul 15;202(2):e5–e31.
2. Ebbert JO et al. Varenicline for smoking cessation: Efficacy, safety, and treatment recommendations. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2010;4:355-62.
New acute pain guidelines from the ACP and AAFP have limitations
The American College of Physicians and the American Academy of Family Physicians recently authored a guideline regarding the treatment of acute, non–low back, musculoskeletal injuries in adults in the outpatient setting.
According to the authors, musculoskeletal injuries result in more than 65 million medical visits a year with an annual estimated cost of $176.1 billion in 2010.
In summary, the guideline, which was published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, is based on a review of the best available evidence. The research reviewed by the guideline authors showed favorable results with topical NSAIDs, oral NSAIDs, oral acetaminophen, acupressure, and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation in reducing pain and/or improving function. The guideline authors “recommend that clinicians treat patients with acute pain from non–low back, musculoskeletal injuries with topical [NSAIDs] with or without gel as first-line therapy to reduce or relieve symptoms, including pain; improve physical function; and improve the patient’s treatment satisfaction (Grade: strong recommendation; moderate-certainty evidence).” Additionally, the guideline recommends against treating acute pain from non–low back, musculoskeletal injuries with opioids, including tramadol (Grade: conditional recommendation; low-certainty evidence).
The guideline also mentions improving function in relation to decreasing pain, which can be multifactorial.
Treating pain requires a multipronged approach. Many patients require more than one therapy to treat their pain, such as NSAIDs plus physical therapy. The ACP and AAFP did not make any recommendations for combination therapies in this guideline.
When physical therapy is needed
Nonopioid pain medications can do a great job of reducing a patient’s physical discomfort, which the evidence for these guideline demonstrates. However, much of the dysfunction caused by musculoskeletal injuries will not improve by reducing the pain alone. Physical therapy, exercise, and mobilization did not show a significant benefit in reducing symptoms in the systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials that appeared alongside the guideline. The type of pain, however, was not evaluated in relation to the effectiveness of these treatments. A fractured bone, for example, may heal just fine with casting and pain management, without the need for additional therapies. However, the muscles surrounding that bone can atrophy and become weak from not being used. Physical therapy may be needed to restrengthen those muscles. Therefore, a multifaceted approach is often needed, even for uncomplicated conditions.
Mental pain often comes with physical pain, and this is an aspect of care that is often neglected. It can be quite devastating for patients to not be able to do the things they were previously able to do. While this is easily recognized in professional athletes when they can no longer play, it is not so readily apparent with a mother who is just trying to take care of her kids. As doctors, especially those of us in family medicine, we should be addressing more than just physical pain.
Patients can also do activities that exacerbate their pain. As doctors, we need to be asking questions that help us determine whether a patient’s pain is caused by a particular action. Maybe that increase in shoulder pain is due to nothing more than lifting something heavy rather than a failure in a prescribed medication. Pain diaries are helpful, and clinicians don’t use them often enough.
How pain affects mental health
Acute injuries can also lead to disability. Many patients become quite distressed about being unable to work. They often need Famiy & Medical Leave Act forms filled out, and this task usually falls to the primary care doctor. In addition to assessing the pain, we need to be evaluating, at each visit, a patient’s level of functioning and their ability to do their job.
Every patient responds to pain differently, and it is important to evaluate patients’ mindsets regarding theirs. A patient may be in severe pain and may try to ignore it for a variety of reasons. A patient may “catastrophize” their pain, believing only the worst outcome will happen to them. Helping patients set appropriate expectations and having a positive mindset can help.
Overall, the new recommendations are a great tool as a guideline, but they are not complete enough to be the only ones used in managing acute, non–low back, musculoskeletal pain in adults.
They are very important for clinicians who may be prescribing opioid medications for patients with this type of pain. Amid an opioid crisis, it is the responsibility of every doctor to prescribe these medications appropriately. The evidence clearly shows they provide little benefit and place patients at risk of addiction.
We should all be following these recommendations as the baseline of care for acute pain. However, we need to delve deeper and manage all the components involved. We would be ignoring very real suffering in our patients if we limited our focus to only the physical discomfort.
Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Rutgers RWJ Medical School.
SOURCE: Ann Intern Med. 2020 Aug 18. doi: 10.7326/M19-3602.
The American College of Physicians and the American Academy of Family Physicians recently authored a guideline regarding the treatment of acute, non–low back, musculoskeletal injuries in adults in the outpatient setting.
According to the authors, musculoskeletal injuries result in more than 65 million medical visits a year with an annual estimated cost of $176.1 billion in 2010.
In summary, the guideline, which was published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, is based on a review of the best available evidence. The research reviewed by the guideline authors showed favorable results with topical NSAIDs, oral NSAIDs, oral acetaminophen, acupressure, and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation in reducing pain and/or improving function. The guideline authors “recommend that clinicians treat patients with acute pain from non–low back, musculoskeletal injuries with topical [NSAIDs] with or without gel as first-line therapy to reduce or relieve symptoms, including pain; improve physical function; and improve the patient’s treatment satisfaction (Grade: strong recommendation; moderate-certainty evidence).” Additionally, the guideline recommends against treating acute pain from non–low back, musculoskeletal injuries with opioids, including tramadol (Grade: conditional recommendation; low-certainty evidence).
The guideline also mentions improving function in relation to decreasing pain, which can be multifactorial.
Treating pain requires a multipronged approach. Many patients require more than one therapy to treat their pain, such as NSAIDs plus physical therapy. The ACP and AAFP did not make any recommendations for combination therapies in this guideline.
When physical therapy is needed
Nonopioid pain medications can do a great job of reducing a patient’s physical discomfort, which the evidence for these guideline demonstrates. However, much of the dysfunction caused by musculoskeletal injuries will not improve by reducing the pain alone. Physical therapy, exercise, and mobilization did not show a significant benefit in reducing symptoms in the systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials that appeared alongside the guideline. The type of pain, however, was not evaluated in relation to the effectiveness of these treatments. A fractured bone, for example, may heal just fine with casting and pain management, without the need for additional therapies. However, the muscles surrounding that bone can atrophy and become weak from not being used. Physical therapy may be needed to restrengthen those muscles. Therefore, a multifaceted approach is often needed, even for uncomplicated conditions.
Mental pain often comes with physical pain, and this is an aspect of care that is often neglected. It can be quite devastating for patients to not be able to do the things they were previously able to do. While this is easily recognized in professional athletes when they can no longer play, it is not so readily apparent with a mother who is just trying to take care of her kids. As doctors, especially those of us in family medicine, we should be addressing more than just physical pain.
Patients can also do activities that exacerbate their pain. As doctors, we need to be asking questions that help us determine whether a patient’s pain is caused by a particular action. Maybe that increase in shoulder pain is due to nothing more than lifting something heavy rather than a failure in a prescribed medication. Pain diaries are helpful, and clinicians don’t use them often enough.
How pain affects mental health
Acute injuries can also lead to disability. Many patients become quite distressed about being unable to work. They often need Famiy & Medical Leave Act forms filled out, and this task usually falls to the primary care doctor. In addition to assessing the pain, we need to be evaluating, at each visit, a patient’s level of functioning and their ability to do their job.
Every patient responds to pain differently, and it is important to evaluate patients’ mindsets regarding theirs. A patient may be in severe pain and may try to ignore it for a variety of reasons. A patient may “catastrophize” their pain, believing only the worst outcome will happen to them. Helping patients set appropriate expectations and having a positive mindset can help.
Overall, the new recommendations are a great tool as a guideline, but they are not complete enough to be the only ones used in managing acute, non–low back, musculoskeletal pain in adults.
They are very important for clinicians who may be prescribing opioid medications for patients with this type of pain. Amid an opioid crisis, it is the responsibility of every doctor to prescribe these medications appropriately. The evidence clearly shows they provide little benefit and place patients at risk of addiction.
We should all be following these recommendations as the baseline of care for acute pain. However, we need to delve deeper and manage all the components involved. We would be ignoring very real suffering in our patients if we limited our focus to only the physical discomfort.
Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Rutgers RWJ Medical School.
SOURCE: Ann Intern Med. 2020 Aug 18. doi: 10.7326/M19-3602.
The American College of Physicians and the American Academy of Family Physicians recently authored a guideline regarding the treatment of acute, non–low back, musculoskeletal injuries in adults in the outpatient setting.
According to the authors, musculoskeletal injuries result in more than 65 million medical visits a year with an annual estimated cost of $176.1 billion in 2010.
In summary, the guideline, which was published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, is based on a review of the best available evidence. The research reviewed by the guideline authors showed favorable results with topical NSAIDs, oral NSAIDs, oral acetaminophen, acupressure, and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation in reducing pain and/or improving function. The guideline authors “recommend that clinicians treat patients with acute pain from non–low back, musculoskeletal injuries with topical [NSAIDs] with or without gel as first-line therapy to reduce or relieve symptoms, including pain; improve physical function; and improve the patient’s treatment satisfaction (Grade: strong recommendation; moderate-certainty evidence).” Additionally, the guideline recommends against treating acute pain from non–low back, musculoskeletal injuries with opioids, including tramadol (Grade: conditional recommendation; low-certainty evidence).
The guideline also mentions improving function in relation to decreasing pain, which can be multifactorial.
Treating pain requires a multipronged approach. Many patients require more than one therapy to treat their pain, such as NSAIDs plus physical therapy. The ACP and AAFP did not make any recommendations for combination therapies in this guideline.
When physical therapy is needed
Nonopioid pain medications can do a great job of reducing a patient’s physical discomfort, which the evidence for these guideline demonstrates. However, much of the dysfunction caused by musculoskeletal injuries will not improve by reducing the pain alone. Physical therapy, exercise, and mobilization did not show a significant benefit in reducing symptoms in the systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials that appeared alongside the guideline. The type of pain, however, was not evaluated in relation to the effectiveness of these treatments. A fractured bone, for example, may heal just fine with casting and pain management, without the need for additional therapies. However, the muscles surrounding that bone can atrophy and become weak from not being used. Physical therapy may be needed to restrengthen those muscles. Therefore, a multifaceted approach is often needed, even for uncomplicated conditions.
Mental pain often comes with physical pain, and this is an aspect of care that is often neglected. It can be quite devastating for patients to not be able to do the things they were previously able to do. While this is easily recognized in professional athletes when they can no longer play, it is not so readily apparent with a mother who is just trying to take care of her kids. As doctors, especially those of us in family medicine, we should be addressing more than just physical pain.
Patients can also do activities that exacerbate their pain. As doctors, we need to be asking questions that help us determine whether a patient’s pain is caused by a particular action. Maybe that increase in shoulder pain is due to nothing more than lifting something heavy rather than a failure in a prescribed medication. Pain diaries are helpful, and clinicians don’t use them often enough.
How pain affects mental health
Acute injuries can also lead to disability. Many patients become quite distressed about being unable to work. They often need Famiy & Medical Leave Act forms filled out, and this task usually falls to the primary care doctor. In addition to assessing the pain, we need to be evaluating, at each visit, a patient’s level of functioning and their ability to do their job.
Every patient responds to pain differently, and it is important to evaluate patients’ mindsets regarding theirs. A patient may be in severe pain and may try to ignore it for a variety of reasons. A patient may “catastrophize” their pain, believing only the worst outcome will happen to them. Helping patients set appropriate expectations and having a positive mindset can help.
Overall, the new recommendations are a great tool as a guideline, but they are not complete enough to be the only ones used in managing acute, non–low back, musculoskeletal pain in adults.
They are very important for clinicians who may be prescribing opioid medications for patients with this type of pain. Amid an opioid crisis, it is the responsibility of every doctor to prescribe these medications appropriately. The evidence clearly shows they provide little benefit and place patients at risk of addiction.
We should all be following these recommendations as the baseline of care for acute pain. However, we need to delve deeper and manage all the components involved. We would be ignoring very real suffering in our patients if we limited our focus to only the physical discomfort.
Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Rutgers RWJ Medical School.
SOURCE: Ann Intern Med. 2020 Aug 18. doi: 10.7326/M19-3602.
Pharmacologic Management of COPD
A Discussion of the new American Thoracic Society Clinical Practice Guideline
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is caused by airway and alveolar abnormalities and is the third most common cause of death worldwide. COPD results in airflow obstruction that is not fully reversible. The diagnosis of COPD should be considered in patients over 40 years who have chronic cough and/or dyspnea, particularly if they have a history of tobacco use. The diagnosis is confirmed by a diminished forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) that is not fully reversible with the use of a bronchodilator and an FEV1/forced vital capacity ratio of less than or equal to 0.7.1
Recommendation 1
Patients with COPD who report dyspnea or exercise intolerance should be treated with both a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) and a long-acting beta agonist (LABA) (dual LAMA/LABA therapy) instead of monotherapy, the guideline says.
This recommendation represents a critical change in care and is based on strong evidence. For years practitioners have been using single bronchodilator therapy, often a LAMA as the entrance to treatment for patients with symptomatic COPD. The recommendation to begin treatment with dual bronchodilator therapy is an important one. This is the only recommendation that received a “strong” grade.
The evidence comes from the compilation of 24 randomized controlled trials that altogether included 45,441 patients. Dual therapy versus monotherapy was evaluated by examining differences in dyspnea, health-related quality of life, exacerbations (which were defined as requiring antibiotics, oral steroids, or hospitalizations), and hospitalizations independently. Marked improvements were observed for exacerbations and hospitalizations in the dual LAMA/LABA group, compared with treatment with use of a single bronchodilator. In 22,733 patients across 15 RCTs, there were 88 fewer exacerbations per 1,000 patients with a rate ratio (RR) of 0.80 (P < .002), the guideline states.
The decrease in exacerbations is a critical factor in treating patients with COPD because each exacerbation can lead to a sustained decrease in airflow and increases the risk of future exacerbations.
Recommendation 2
In COPD patients who report dyspnea or exercise intolerance, with an exacerbation in the last year, the guideline recommends triple therapy with an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) instead of just dual LAMA/LABA therapy.
In the past many clinicians have relegated triple therapy to a “last ditch resort.” This recommendation makes it clear that triple therapy is appropriate for a broad range of patients with moderate to severe COPD.
Recommendation 3
In patients with COPD who are on triple therapy, the inhaled corticosteroid component can be withdrawn if patients have not had an exacerbation within the last year, according to the guideline.
It should be noted that the committee said that the ICS can be withdrawn, not that it necessarily needs to be withdrawn. The data showed that it would be safe to withdraw the ICS, but the data is limited in time to 1 year’s follow-up.
Recommendation 4
ATS was not able to make a recommendation for or against ICS as an additive therapy to LAMA/LABA in those without an exacerbation and elevated blood eosinophilia (defined as ≥2% blood eosinophils or >149 cell/mcL). In those with at least one exacerbation and increased blood eosinophilia, the society does recommend addition of ICS to dual LAMA/LABA therapy.
An area of ongoing discussion is at what point in disease severity, before exacerbations occur, might ICS be useful in preventing a first exacerbation. This awaits further studies and evidence.
Recommendation 5
In COPD patients with frequent and severe exacerbations who are otherwise medically optimized, the ATS advises against the use of maintenance oral corticosteroid therapy.
It has been known and accepted for years that oral steroids should be avoided if at all possible because they have little benefit and can cause significant harm. The guideline reinforces this.
The Bottom Line
Dual LAMA/LABA therapy in symptomatic patients is the standard of care. If a patient has had an exacerbation within the last year, add an ICS to the LAMA/LABA, most conveniently given in the form of triple therapy in one inhaler. Finally, even in refractory COPD, maintenance oral corticosteroids bring more harm than benefit.
Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at the Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and associate director of the Family Medicine Residency Program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. Dr. Matthews is a second-year resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington Jefferson Health.
References
1. Wells C, Joo MJ. COPD and asthma: Diagnostic accuracy requires spirometry. J Fam Pract. 2019;68(2):76-81.
2. Nici L, Mammen MJ, Charbek E, et al. Pharmacologic management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. An official American Thoracic Society clinical practice guideline. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020;201(9):e56-69.
A Discussion of the new American Thoracic Society Clinical Practice Guideline
A Discussion of the new American Thoracic Society Clinical Practice Guideline
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is caused by airway and alveolar abnormalities and is the third most common cause of death worldwide. COPD results in airflow obstruction that is not fully reversible. The diagnosis of COPD should be considered in patients over 40 years who have chronic cough and/or dyspnea, particularly if they have a history of tobacco use. The diagnosis is confirmed by a diminished forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) that is not fully reversible with the use of a bronchodilator and an FEV1/forced vital capacity ratio of less than or equal to 0.7.1
Recommendation 1
Patients with COPD who report dyspnea or exercise intolerance should be treated with both a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) and a long-acting beta agonist (LABA) (dual LAMA/LABA therapy) instead of monotherapy, the guideline says.
This recommendation represents a critical change in care and is based on strong evidence. For years practitioners have been using single bronchodilator therapy, often a LAMA as the entrance to treatment for patients with symptomatic COPD. The recommendation to begin treatment with dual bronchodilator therapy is an important one. This is the only recommendation that received a “strong” grade.
The evidence comes from the compilation of 24 randomized controlled trials that altogether included 45,441 patients. Dual therapy versus monotherapy was evaluated by examining differences in dyspnea, health-related quality of life, exacerbations (which were defined as requiring antibiotics, oral steroids, or hospitalizations), and hospitalizations independently. Marked improvements were observed for exacerbations and hospitalizations in the dual LAMA/LABA group, compared with treatment with use of a single bronchodilator. In 22,733 patients across 15 RCTs, there were 88 fewer exacerbations per 1,000 patients with a rate ratio (RR) of 0.80 (P < .002), the guideline states.
The decrease in exacerbations is a critical factor in treating patients with COPD because each exacerbation can lead to a sustained decrease in airflow and increases the risk of future exacerbations.
Recommendation 2
In COPD patients who report dyspnea or exercise intolerance, with an exacerbation in the last year, the guideline recommends triple therapy with an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) instead of just dual LAMA/LABA therapy.
In the past many clinicians have relegated triple therapy to a “last ditch resort.” This recommendation makes it clear that triple therapy is appropriate for a broad range of patients with moderate to severe COPD.
Recommendation 3
In patients with COPD who are on triple therapy, the inhaled corticosteroid component can be withdrawn if patients have not had an exacerbation within the last year, according to the guideline.
It should be noted that the committee said that the ICS can be withdrawn, not that it necessarily needs to be withdrawn. The data showed that it would be safe to withdraw the ICS, but the data is limited in time to 1 year’s follow-up.
Recommendation 4
ATS was not able to make a recommendation for or against ICS as an additive therapy to LAMA/LABA in those without an exacerbation and elevated blood eosinophilia (defined as ≥2% blood eosinophils or >149 cell/mcL). In those with at least one exacerbation and increased blood eosinophilia, the society does recommend addition of ICS to dual LAMA/LABA therapy.
An area of ongoing discussion is at what point in disease severity, before exacerbations occur, might ICS be useful in preventing a first exacerbation. This awaits further studies and evidence.
Recommendation 5
In COPD patients with frequent and severe exacerbations who are otherwise medically optimized, the ATS advises against the use of maintenance oral corticosteroid therapy.
It has been known and accepted for years that oral steroids should be avoided if at all possible because they have little benefit and can cause significant harm. The guideline reinforces this.
The Bottom Line
Dual LAMA/LABA therapy in symptomatic patients is the standard of care. If a patient has had an exacerbation within the last year, add an ICS to the LAMA/LABA, most conveniently given in the form of triple therapy in one inhaler. Finally, even in refractory COPD, maintenance oral corticosteroids bring more harm than benefit.
Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at the Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and associate director of the Family Medicine Residency Program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. Dr. Matthews is a second-year resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington Jefferson Health.
References
1. Wells C, Joo MJ. COPD and asthma: Diagnostic accuracy requires spirometry. J Fam Pract. 2019;68(2):76-81.
2. Nici L, Mammen MJ, Charbek E, et al. Pharmacologic management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. An official American Thoracic Society clinical practice guideline. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020;201(9):e56-69.
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is caused by airway and alveolar abnormalities and is the third most common cause of death worldwide. COPD results in airflow obstruction that is not fully reversible. The diagnosis of COPD should be considered in patients over 40 years who have chronic cough and/or dyspnea, particularly if they have a history of tobacco use. The diagnosis is confirmed by a diminished forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) that is not fully reversible with the use of a bronchodilator and an FEV1/forced vital capacity ratio of less than or equal to 0.7.1
Recommendation 1
Patients with COPD who report dyspnea or exercise intolerance should be treated with both a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) and a long-acting beta agonist (LABA) (dual LAMA/LABA therapy) instead of monotherapy, the guideline says.
This recommendation represents a critical change in care and is based on strong evidence. For years practitioners have been using single bronchodilator therapy, often a LAMA as the entrance to treatment for patients with symptomatic COPD. The recommendation to begin treatment with dual bronchodilator therapy is an important one. This is the only recommendation that received a “strong” grade.
The evidence comes from the compilation of 24 randomized controlled trials that altogether included 45,441 patients. Dual therapy versus monotherapy was evaluated by examining differences in dyspnea, health-related quality of life, exacerbations (which were defined as requiring antibiotics, oral steroids, or hospitalizations), and hospitalizations independently. Marked improvements were observed for exacerbations and hospitalizations in the dual LAMA/LABA group, compared with treatment with use of a single bronchodilator. In 22,733 patients across 15 RCTs, there were 88 fewer exacerbations per 1,000 patients with a rate ratio (RR) of 0.80 (P < .002), the guideline states.
The decrease in exacerbations is a critical factor in treating patients with COPD because each exacerbation can lead to a sustained decrease in airflow and increases the risk of future exacerbations.
Recommendation 2
In COPD patients who report dyspnea or exercise intolerance, with an exacerbation in the last year, the guideline recommends triple therapy with an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) instead of just dual LAMA/LABA therapy.
In the past many clinicians have relegated triple therapy to a “last ditch resort.” This recommendation makes it clear that triple therapy is appropriate for a broad range of patients with moderate to severe COPD.
Recommendation 3
In patients with COPD who are on triple therapy, the inhaled corticosteroid component can be withdrawn if patients have not had an exacerbation within the last year, according to the guideline.
It should be noted that the committee said that the ICS can be withdrawn, not that it necessarily needs to be withdrawn. The data showed that it would be safe to withdraw the ICS, but the data is limited in time to 1 year’s follow-up.
Recommendation 4
ATS was not able to make a recommendation for or against ICS as an additive therapy to LAMA/LABA in those without an exacerbation and elevated blood eosinophilia (defined as ≥2% blood eosinophils or >149 cell/mcL). In those with at least one exacerbation and increased blood eosinophilia, the society does recommend addition of ICS to dual LAMA/LABA therapy.
An area of ongoing discussion is at what point in disease severity, before exacerbations occur, might ICS be useful in preventing a first exacerbation. This awaits further studies and evidence.
Recommendation 5
In COPD patients with frequent and severe exacerbations who are otherwise medically optimized, the ATS advises against the use of maintenance oral corticosteroid therapy.
It has been known and accepted for years that oral steroids should be avoided if at all possible because they have little benefit and can cause significant harm. The guideline reinforces this.
The Bottom Line
Dual LAMA/LABA therapy in symptomatic patients is the standard of care. If a patient has had an exacerbation within the last year, add an ICS to the LAMA/LABA, most conveniently given in the form of triple therapy in one inhaler. Finally, even in refractory COPD, maintenance oral corticosteroids bring more harm than benefit.
Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at the Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and associate director of the Family Medicine Residency Program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. Dr. Matthews is a second-year resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington Jefferson Health.
References
1. Wells C, Joo MJ. COPD and asthma: Diagnostic accuracy requires spirometry. J Fam Pract. 2019;68(2):76-81.
2. Nici L, Mammen MJ, Charbek E, et al. Pharmacologic management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. An official American Thoracic Society clinical practice guideline. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020;201(9):e56-69.
Many providers don’t follow hypertension guidelines
Many health care professionals are not following current, evidence-based guidelines to screen for and diagnose hypertension, and appear to have substantial gaps in knowledge, beliefs, and use of recommended practices, results from a large survey suggest.
“One surprising finding was that there was so much trust in the stethoscope, because the automated monitors are a better way to take blood pressure,” lead author Beverly Green, MD, of Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, said in an interview.
The results of the survey were presented Sept. 10 at the virtual joint scientific sessions of the American Heart Association Council on Hypertension, AHA Council on Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease, and American Society of Hypertension.
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) and the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology recommend out-of-office blood pressure measurements – via ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) or home BP monitoring – before making a new diagnosis of hypertension.
To gauge provider knowledge, beliefs, and practices related to BP diagnostic tests, the researchers surveyed 282 providers: 102 medical assistants (MA), 28 licensed practical nurses (LPNs), 33 registered nurses (RNs), 86 primary care physicians, and 33 advanced practitioners (APs).
More than three-quarters of providers (79%) felt that BP measured manually with a stethoscope and ABPM were “very or highly” accurate ways to measure BP when making a new diagnosis of hypertension.
Most did not think that automated clinic BPs, home BP, or kiosk BP measurements were very or highly accurate.
Nearly all providers surveyed (96%) reported that they “always or almost always” rely on clinic BP measurements when diagnosing hypertension, but the majority of physicians/APs would prefer using ABPM (61%) if available.
The problem with ABPM, said Dr. Green, is “it’s just not very available or convenient for patients, and a lot of providers think that patients won’t tolerate it.” Yet, without it, there is a risk for misclassification, she said.
Karen A. Griffin, MD, who chairs the AHA Council on Hypertension, said it became “customary to use clinic BP since ABPM was not previously reimbursed for the routine diagnosis of hypertension.
“Now that the payment for ABPM has been expanded, the number of machines at most institutions is not adequate for the need. Consequently, it will take some time to catch up with the current guidelines for diagnosing hypertension,” she said in an interview.
The provider survey by Dr. Green and colleagues also shows slow uptake of updated thresholds for high blood pressure.
Eighty-four percent of physicians/APs and 68% of MA/LPN/RNs said they used a clinic BP threshold of at least 140/90 mm Hg for making a new diagnosis of hypertension.
Only 3.5% and 9.0%, respectively, reported using the updated threshold of at least 130/80 mm Hg put forth in 2017.
Dr. Griffin said part of this stems from the fact that the survey began before the updated guidelines were released in 2017, “not to mention the fact that some societies have opposed the new threshold of 130/80 mm Hg.”
“I think, with time, the data on morbidity and mortality associated with the goal of 130/80 mm Hg will hopefully convince those who have not yet implemented these new guidelines that it is a safe and effective BP goal,” Dr. Griffin said.
This research had no specific funding. Dr. Green and Dr. Griffin have no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Many health care professionals are not following current, evidence-based guidelines to screen for and diagnose hypertension, and appear to have substantial gaps in knowledge, beliefs, and use of recommended practices, results from a large survey suggest.
“One surprising finding was that there was so much trust in the stethoscope, because the automated monitors are a better way to take blood pressure,” lead author Beverly Green, MD, of Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, said in an interview.
The results of the survey were presented Sept. 10 at the virtual joint scientific sessions of the American Heart Association Council on Hypertension, AHA Council on Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease, and American Society of Hypertension.
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) and the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology recommend out-of-office blood pressure measurements – via ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) or home BP monitoring – before making a new diagnosis of hypertension.
To gauge provider knowledge, beliefs, and practices related to BP diagnostic tests, the researchers surveyed 282 providers: 102 medical assistants (MA), 28 licensed practical nurses (LPNs), 33 registered nurses (RNs), 86 primary care physicians, and 33 advanced practitioners (APs).
More than three-quarters of providers (79%) felt that BP measured manually with a stethoscope and ABPM were “very or highly” accurate ways to measure BP when making a new diagnosis of hypertension.
Most did not think that automated clinic BPs, home BP, or kiosk BP measurements were very or highly accurate.
Nearly all providers surveyed (96%) reported that they “always or almost always” rely on clinic BP measurements when diagnosing hypertension, but the majority of physicians/APs would prefer using ABPM (61%) if available.
The problem with ABPM, said Dr. Green, is “it’s just not very available or convenient for patients, and a lot of providers think that patients won’t tolerate it.” Yet, without it, there is a risk for misclassification, she said.
Karen A. Griffin, MD, who chairs the AHA Council on Hypertension, said it became “customary to use clinic BP since ABPM was not previously reimbursed for the routine diagnosis of hypertension.
“Now that the payment for ABPM has been expanded, the number of machines at most institutions is not adequate for the need. Consequently, it will take some time to catch up with the current guidelines for diagnosing hypertension,” she said in an interview.
The provider survey by Dr. Green and colleagues also shows slow uptake of updated thresholds for high blood pressure.
Eighty-four percent of physicians/APs and 68% of MA/LPN/RNs said they used a clinic BP threshold of at least 140/90 mm Hg for making a new diagnosis of hypertension.
Only 3.5% and 9.0%, respectively, reported using the updated threshold of at least 130/80 mm Hg put forth in 2017.
Dr. Griffin said part of this stems from the fact that the survey began before the updated guidelines were released in 2017, “not to mention the fact that some societies have opposed the new threshold of 130/80 mm Hg.”
“I think, with time, the data on morbidity and mortality associated with the goal of 130/80 mm Hg will hopefully convince those who have not yet implemented these new guidelines that it is a safe and effective BP goal,” Dr. Griffin said.
This research had no specific funding. Dr. Green and Dr. Griffin have no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Many health care professionals are not following current, evidence-based guidelines to screen for and diagnose hypertension, and appear to have substantial gaps in knowledge, beliefs, and use of recommended practices, results from a large survey suggest.
“One surprising finding was that there was so much trust in the stethoscope, because the automated monitors are a better way to take blood pressure,” lead author Beverly Green, MD, of Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, said in an interview.
The results of the survey were presented Sept. 10 at the virtual joint scientific sessions of the American Heart Association Council on Hypertension, AHA Council on Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease, and American Society of Hypertension.
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) and the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology recommend out-of-office blood pressure measurements – via ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) or home BP monitoring – before making a new diagnosis of hypertension.
To gauge provider knowledge, beliefs, and practices related to BP diagnostic tests, the researchers surveyed 282 providers: 102 medical assistants (MA), 28 licensed practical nurses (LPNs), 33 registered nurses (RNs), 86 primary care physicians, and 33 advanced practitioners (APs).
More than three-quarters of providers (79%) felt that BP measured manually with a stethoscope and ABPM were “very or highly” accurate ways to measure BP when making a new diagnosis of hypertension.
Most did not think that automated clinic BPs, home BP, or kiosk BP measurements were very or highly accurate.
Nearly all providers surveyed (96%) reported that they “always or almost always” rely on clinic BP measurements when diagnosing hypertension, but the majority of physicians/APs would prefer using ABPM (61%) if available.
The problem with ABPM, said Dr. Green, is “it’s just not very available or convenient for patients, and a lot of providers think that patients won’t tolerate it.” Yet, without it, there is a risk for misclassification, she said.
Karen A. Griffin, MD, who chairs the AHA Council on Hypertension, said it became “customary to use clinic BP since ABPM was not previously reimbursed for the routine diagnosis of hypertension.
“Now that the payment for ABPM has been expanded, the number of machines at most institutions is not adequate for the need. Consequently, it will take some time to catch up with the current guidelines for diagnosing hypertension,” she said in an interview.
The provider survey by Dr. Green and colleagues also shows slow uptake of updated thresholds for high blood pressure.
Eighty-four percent of physicians/APs and 68% of MA/LPN/RNs said they used a clinic BP threshold of at least 140/90 mm Hg for making a new diagnosis of hypertension.
Only 3.5% and 9.0%, respectively, reported using the updated threshold of at least 130/80 mm Hg put forth in 2017.
Dr. Griffin said part of this stems from the fact that the survey began before the updated guidelines were released in 2017, “not to mention the fact that some societies have opposed the new threshold of 130/80 mm Hg.”
“I think, with time, the data on morbidity and mortality associated with the goal of 130/80 mm Hg will hopefully convince those who have not yet implemented these new guidelines that it is a safe and effective BP goal,” Dr. Griffin said.
This research had no specific funding. Dr. Green and Dr. Griffin have no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
AGA addresses postendoscopy esophageal adenocarcinoma
The American Gastroenterological Association has published a clinical practice update that characterizes postendoscopy esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) and offers recommendations to improve endoscopic detection of dysplastic and neoplastic lesions in patients with Barrett’s esophagus.
While emerging technologies may improve detection rates in the future, short-term progress will depend on human expertise, reported lead author Sachin Wani, MD, of the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and colleagues.
Writing in Gastroenterology, Dr. Wani and colleagues noted that EAC incidence has increased sevenfold over the past 4 decades, and 40% of patients with EAC have advanced disease at diagnosis, with a “dismal” 5-year survival rate.
Attempts to catch EAC earlier through Barrett’s esophagus surveillance endoscopy have been generally fallen short, the investigators added. They discussed a variety of obstacles to success, including divergence from recommended screening timelines, nonadherence to the Seattle biopsy protocol, sampling errors, and variability of dysplastic tissue interpretation between pathologists.
“Even in the face of suboptimal impact of current strategies on population-based EAC mortality, medical societies consistently recommend [Barrett’s esophagus] screening and surveillance,” the investigators wrote. “In this context, similar to postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer, the concept of missed EAC is gaining importance in endoscopic Barrett’s esophagus screening and surveillance.”
In the present update, the investigators first aimed to standardize definitions of postendoscopy and interval EAC.
“We propose that postendoscopy EAC be defined as EAC and/or [Barrett’s esophagus]–related high-grade dysplasia identified within a finite time period (typically 1 year) following a nondiagnostic endoscopy,” the investigators wrote. “Interval EAC may be defined as EAC or [Barrett’s esophagus]–related high-grade dysplasia diagnosed after a negative screening or surveillance endoscopy before the date of the next recommended test.”
The latter definition, the investigators noted, was written with acknowledgment of emerging, noninvasive, nonendoscopic screening tools.
Next, Dr. Wani and colleagues dove deeper into the incidence of postendoscopy EAC in the Barrett’s esophagus population. Across multiple cohort studies and meta-analyses, incidence within 1 year of screening endoscopy ranged widely, from 3% to 25%. Data from Barrett’s esophagus patients undergoing endoscopic eradication therapy suggest that incidence of postendoscopy EAC may be greatest within 1-2 years of complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia; one meta-analysis involving 22 studies reported that the risk of EAC was 92% higher within the first year of eradication, compared with subsequent years.
“These data support that high-grade dysplasia/EAC identified within 1 year after complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia likely represents missed and/or incompletely treated prevalent disease rather than recurrent or incident neoplasia,” the investigators wrote.
In support of this conclusion, Dr. Wani and colleagues drew upon data from colorectal cancer screening programs, which suggest that 89% of postcolonoscopy colorectal cancers “may be avoidable, attributable to technical endoscopic factors, compromised decision-making, and administrative factors.”
Regulatory agencies measure quality of colorectal cancer screening programs with adenoma detection rate, which has been shown to correlate inversely with colorectal cancer and mortality; but no analogous measure has been established for Barrett’s esophagus screening. Candidate quality markers include neoplasia detection rate and dysplasia detection rate, though more work is needed to confirm their reliability.
“While easier to measure, compared to postendoscopy EAC rates, neoplasia detection rate remains a surrogate endoscopy quality marker in Barrett’s esophagus surveillance, while postendoscopy EAC rates serve as a true outcome measure that matters clinically,” the investigators wrote.
Dr. Wani and colleagues proposed four clinical strategies that may immediately improve quality of Barrett’s esophagus screening.
- First, they recommended “assiduous identification and photo-documentation of esophageal landmarks” coupled with lesion descriptions that adhere to Prague and Paris classification schemes, along with resection or referral upon identification.
- Second, they called for consistent use of high-definition white-light endoscopy and virtual chromoendoscopy.
- Third, they suggested that endoscopists “spend adequate time for inspection,” with biopsies taken in accordance with the Seattle protocol.
- Fourth, Dr. Wani and colleagues suggested that all practices conducting Barrett’s esophagus screening and surveillance establish continuously active quality control programs.
The investigators concluded the clinical practice update with a discussion of future directions.
“Prospective trials are needed to evaluate the impact of better dissemination of guidelines and quality indicators, improved endoscopic dysplasia detection using interactive web-based educational tools, advanced imaging techniques with artificial intelligence, and improved sampling modalities that reduce sampling errors,” they wrote. “Finally, increased emphasis is needed on improving training in both the cognitive and procedural aspects of [Barrett’s esophagus] endoscopy through structured educational programs among trainees and practicing endoscopists.”
The study was supported by the University of Colorado department of medicine’s Outstanding Early Scholars Program. The investigators disclosed relationships with Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Ironwood, and others.
SOURCE: Wani S et al. Gastroenterology. 2020 Jul 13. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.06.089.
The American Gastroenterological Association has published a clinical practice update that characterizes postendoscopy esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) and offers recommendations to improve endoscopic detection of dysplastic and neoplastic lesions in patients with Barrett’s esophagus.
While emerging technologies may improve detection rates in the future, short-term progress will depend on human expertise, reported lead author Sachin Wani, MD, of the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and colleagues.
Writing in Gastroenterology, Dr. Wani and colleagues noted that EAC incidence has increased sevenfold over the past 4 decades, and 40% of patients with EAC have advanced disease at diagnosis, with a “dismal” 5-year survival rate.
Attempts to catch EAC earlier through Barrett’s esophagus surveillance endoscopy have been generally fallen short, the investigators added. They discussed a variety of obstacles to success, including divergence from recommended screening timelines, nonadherence to the Seattle biopsy protocol, sampling errors, and variability of dysplastic tissue interpretation between pathologists.
“Even in the face of suboptimal impact of current strategies on population-based EAC mortality, medical societies consistently recommend [Barrett’s esophagus] screening and surveillance,” the investigators wrote. “In this context, similar to postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer, the concept of missed EAC is gaining importance in endoscopic Barrett’s esophagus screening and surveillance.”
In the present update, the investigators first aimed to standardize definitions of postendoscopy and interval EAC.
“We propose that postendoscopy EAC be defined as EAC and/or [Barrett’s esophagus]–related high-grade dysplasia identified within a finite time period (typically 1 year) following a nondiagnostic endoscopy,” the investigators wrote. “Interval EAC may be defined as EAC or [Barrett’s esophagus]–related high-grade dysplasia diagnosed after a negative screening or surveillance endoscopy before the date of the next recommended test.”
The latter definition, the investigators noted, was written with acknowledgment of emerging, noninvasive, nonendoscopic screening tools.
Next, Dr. Wani and colleagues dove deeper into the incidence of postendoscopy EAC in the Barrett’s esophagus population. Across multiple cohort studies and meta-analyses, incidence within 1 year of screening endoscopy ranged widely, from 3% to 25%. Data from Barrett’s esophagus patients undergoing endoscopic eradication therapy suggest that incidence of postendoscopy EAC may be greatest within 1-2 years of complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia; one meta-analysis involving 22 studies reported that the risk of EAC was 92% higher within the first year of eradication, compared with subsequent years.
“These data support that high-grade dysplasia/EAC identified within 1 year after complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia likely represents missed and/or incompletely treated prevalent disease rather than recurrent or incident neoplasia,” the investigators wrote.
In support of this conclusion, Dr. Wani and colleagues drew upon data from colorectal cancer screening programs, which suggest that 89% of postcolonoscopy colorectal cancers “may be avoidable, attributable to technical endoscopic factors, compromised decision-making, and administrative factors.”
Regulatory agencies measure quality of colorectal cancer screening programs with adenoma detection rate, which has been shown to correlate inversely with colorectal cancer and mortality; but no analogous measure has been established for Barrett’s esophagus screening. Candidate quality markers include neoplasia detection rate and dysplasia detection rate, though more work is needed to confirm their reliability.
“While easier to measure, compared to postendoscopy EAC rates, neoplasia detection rate remains a surrogate endoscopy quality marker in Barrett’s esophagus surveillance, while postendoscopy EAC rates serve as a true outcome measure that matters clinically,” the investigators wrote.
Dr. Wani and colleagues proposed four clinical strategies that may immediately improve quality of Barrett’s esophagus screening.
- First, they recommended “assiduous identification and photo-documentation of esophageal landmarks” coupled with lesion descriptions that adhere to Prague and Paris classification schemes, along with resection or referral upon identification.
- Second, they called for consistent use of high-definition white-light endoscopy and virtual chromoendoscopy.
- Third, they suggested that endoscopists “spend adequate time for inspection,” with biopsies taken in accordance with the Seattle protocol.
- Fourth, Dr. Wani and colleagues suggested that all practices conducting Barrett’s esophagus screening and surveillance establish continuously active quality control programs.
The investigators concluded the clinical practice update with a discussion of future directions.
“Prospective trials are needed to evaluate the impact of better dissemination of guidelines and quality indicators, improved endoscopic dysplasia detection using interactive web-based educational tools, advanced imaging techniques with artificial intelligence, and improved sampling modalities that reduce sampling errors,” they wrote. “Finally, increased emphasis is needed on improving training in both the cognitive and procedural aspects of [Barrett’s esophagus] endoscopy through structured educational programs among trainees and practicing endoscopists.”
The study was supported by the University of Colorado department of medicine’s Outstanding Early Scholars Program. The investigators disclosed relationships with Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Ironwood, and others.
SOURCE: Wani S et al. Gastroenterology. 2020 Jul 13. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.06.089.
The American Gastroenterological Association has published a clinical practice update that characterizes postendoscopy esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) and offers recommendations to improve endoscopic detection of dysplastic and neoplastic lesions in patients with Barrett’s esophagus.
While emerging technologies may improve detection rates in the future, short-term progress will depend on human expertise, reported lead author Sachin Wani, MD, of the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and colleagues.
Writing in Gastroenterology, Dr. Wani and colleagues noted that EAC incidence has increased sevenfold over the past 4 decades, and 40% of patients with EAC have advanced disease at diagnosis, with a “dismal” 5-year survival rate.
Attempts to catch EAC earlier through Barrett’s esophagus surveillance endoscopy have been generally fallen short, the investigators added. They discussed a variety of obstacles to success, including divergence from recommended screening timelines, nonadherence to the Seattle biopsy protocol, sampling errors, and variability of dysplastic tissue interpretation between pathologists.
“Even in the face of suboptimal impact of current strategies on population-based EAC mortality, medical societies consistently recommend [Barrett’s esophagus] screening and surveillance,” the investigators wrote. “In this context, similar to postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer, the concept of missed EAC is gaining importance in endoscopic Barrett’s esophagus screening and surveillance.”
In the present update, the investigators first aimed to standardize definitions of postendoscopy and interval EAC.
“We propose that postendoscopy EAC be defined as EAC and/or [Barrett’s esophagus]–related high-grade dysplasia identified within a finite time period (typically 1 year) following a nondiagnostic endoscopy,” the investigators wrote. “Interval EAC may be defined as EAC or [Barrett’s esophagus]–related high-grade dysplasia diagnosed after a negative screening or surveillance endoscopy before the date of the next recommended test.”
The latter definition, the investigators noted, was written with acknowledgment of emerging, noninvasive, nonendoscopic screening tools.
Next, Dr. Wani and colleagues dove deeper into the incidence of postendoscopy EAC in the Barrett’s esophagus population. Across multiple cohort studies and meta-analyses, incidence within 1 year of screening endoscopy ranged widely, from 3% to 25%. Data from Barrett’s esophagus patients undergoing endoscopic eradication therapy suggest that incidence of postendoscopy EAC may be greatest within 1-2 years of complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia; one meta-analysis involving 22 studies reported that the risk of EAC was 92% higher within the first year of eradication, compared with subsequent years.
“These data support that high-grade dysplasia/EAC identified within 1 year after complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia likely represents missed and/or incompletely treated prevalent disease rather than recurrent or incident neoplasia,” the investigators wrote.
In support of this conclusion, Dr. Wani and colleagues drew upon data from colorectal cancer screening programs, which suggest that 89% of postcolonoscopy colorectal cancers “may be avoidable, attributable to technical endoscopic factors, compromised decision-making, and administrative factors.”
Regulatory agencies measure quality of colorectal cancer screening programs with adenoma detection rate, which has been shown to correlate inversely with colorectal cancer and mortality; but no analogous measure has been established for Barrett’s esophagus screening. Candidate quality markers include neoplasia detection rate and dysplasia detection rate, though more work is needed to confirm their reliability.
“While easier to measure, compared to postendoscopy EAC rates, neoplasia detection rate remains a surrogate endoscopy quality marker in Barrett’s esophagus surveillance, while postendoscopy EAC rates serve as a true outcome measure that matters clinically,” the investigators wrote.
Dr. Wani and colleagues proposed four clinical strategies that may immediately improve quality of Barrett’s esophagus screening.
- First, they recommended “assiduous identification and photo-documentation of esophageal landmarks” coupled with lesion descriptions that adhere to Prague and Paris classification schemes, along with resection or referral upon identification.
- Second, they called for consistent use of high-definition white-light endoscopy and virtual chromoendoscopy.
- Third, they suggested that endoscopists “spend adequate time for inspection,” with biopsies taken in accordance with the Seattle protocol.
- Fourth, Dr. Wani and colleagues suggested that all practices conducting Barrett’s esophagus screening and surveillance establish continuously active quality control programs.
The investigators concluded the clinical practice update with a discussion of future directions.
“Prospective trials are needed to evaluate the impact of better dissemination of guidelines and quality indicators, improved endoscopic dysplasia detection using interactive web-based educational tools, advanced imaging techniques with artificial intelligence, and improved sampling modalities that reduce sampling errors,” they wrote. “Finally, increased emphasis is needed on improving training in both the cognitive and procedural aspects of [Barrett’s esophagus] endoscopy through structured educational programs among trainees and practicing endoscopists.”
The study was supported by the University of Colorado department of medicine’s Outstanding Early Scholars Program. The investigators disclosed relationships with Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Ironwood, and others.
SOURCE: Wani S et al. Gastroenterology. 2020 Jul 13. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.06.089.
FROM GASTROENTEROLOGY
AGA Clinical Practice Update: Diagnosis and treatment of small intestinal bacterial overgrowth
Unexplained diarrhea may be the most reliable symptom of small intestinal bacterial overgrowth (SIBO) in at-risk patients, according to a new clinical practice update from the American Gastroenterological Association.
“In those predisposed to SIBO due to anatomical, pathological, pharmacological or other changes that promote stasis or recirculation of colonic contents and/or impaired resistance to bacteria, SIBO will lead to diarrhea and can progress to a full-blown malabsorption syndrome” marked by steatorrhea and vitamin deficiencies, wrote Eamonn M.M. Quigley, MD, of Houston Methodist Hospital and Weill Cornell Medical College in Houston together with his fellow experts in Gastroenterology. But malabsorption is uncommon in patients whose SIBO is not caused by structural abnormalities, and gastrointestinal symptoms are “weakly predictive at best” if patients lack clear risk factors for SIBO, the experts cautioned.
The growing availability of breath testing has fueled diagnoses of SIBO, which the lay press often implicates in various disorders even though SIBO has no clear clinical or laboratory definition. Recent progress in techniques to measure bacterial populations and their metabolic products “should provide much needed clarity,” but for now, a SIBO diagnosis simply means that a patient’s presenting symptoms or laboratory findings are attributed to bacterial changes in the small intestine, the experts wrote.
Detecting SIBO also remains challenging. Most patients have normal results on routine laboratory tests, and there is not enough evidence to support testing for inflammatory markers such as fecal calprotectin. Patients with SIBO may have increased folate levels because of bacterial production of folic acid. Vitamin B12 and other nutrient deficiencies also occur but are less common. The preferred diagnostic method is culture of a duodenal aspirate, and recent research supports a cutoff value of greater than 103 CFUs of coliform bacteria per mL. Breath testing is less invasive but “more complex than simply measuring hydrogen,” the experts stressed. Methane-producing microorganisms (methanogens) suppress hydrogen on a breath test (fortunately, standard breath tests measure methane). Furthermore, a positive methane breath test also has been linked to constipation-predominant irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). Recent studies also suggest that lactulose breath testing is more sensitive than glucose for identifying SIBO in patients with IBS.
Antibiotic therapy is the treatment mainstay but remains largely empiric. The goal is to improve SIBO symptoms, not eradicate bacteria from the small intestine. Ideally, the antimicrobial regimen should cover both aerobic and anaerobic bacteria, but clinicians should be mindful of the risks of chronic broad-spectrum antibiotic exposure. In studies, a single 7- to 10-day antibiotic course improved symptoms in approximately 45%-90% of patients with SIBO (rates of breath test response were lower). For patients with IBS and SIBO, rifaximin (which is poorly absorbed) produced encouraging results in two phase 3 studies, but most patients did not receive breath testing, the experts noted. Patients with recurrent SIBO symptoms may need multiple courses of antibiotics with specific regimens rotated to help prevent resistance. “Decisions on management should be individualized and also [should factor in] such risks as diarrhea, Clostridiodes difficile infection, intolerance, and cost,” the experts wrote. “It is not necessary to repeat diagnostic tests for SIBO following antibiotic therapy [if] gastrointestinal symptoms respond.”
Dr. Quigley disclosed financial ties to 4D Pharma, Alimentary Health, Allergan, Biocodex, Biomerica, Ironwood, Salix, Takeda, Vibrant, and Zealand. He also disclosed patents with and equity in Alimentary Health. Both of his coauthors also disclosed ties to various pharmaceutical companies.
SOURCE: Quigley EMM et al. Gastroenterology. 2020 Jun 1. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.06.090.
Unexplained diarrhea may be the most reliable symptom of small intestinal bacterial overgrowth (SIBO) in at-risk patients, according to a new clinical practice update from the American Gastroenterological Association.
“In those predisposed to SIBO due to anatomical, pathological, pharmacological or other changes that promote stasis or recirculation of colonic contents and/or impaired resistance to bacteria, SIBO will lead to diarrhea and can progress to a full-blown malabsorption syndrome” marked by steatorrhea and vitamin deficiencies, wrote Eamonn M.M. Quigley, MD, of Houston Methodist Hospital and Weill Cornell Medical College in Houston together with his fellow experts in Gastroenterology. But malabsorption is uncommon in patients whose SIBO is not caused by structural abnormalities, and gastrointestinal symptoms are “weakly predictive at best” if patients lack clear risk factors for SIBO, the experts cautioned.
The growing availability of breath testing has fueled diagnoses of SIBO, which the lay press often implicates in various disorders even though SIBO has no clear clinical or laboratory definition. Recent progress in techniques to measure bacterial populations and their metabolic products “should provide much needed clarity,” but for now, a SIBO diagnosis simply means that a patient’s presenting symptoms or laboratory findings are attributed to bacterial changes in the small intestine, the experts wrote.
Detecting SIBO also remains challenging. Most patients have normal results on routine laboratory tests, and there is not enough evidence to support testing for inflammatory markers such as fecal calprotectin. Patients with SIBO may have increased folate levels because of bacterial production of folic acid. Vitamin B12 and other nutrient deficiencies also occur but are less common. The preferred diagnostic method is culture of a duodenal aspirate, and recent research supports a cutoff value of greater than 103 CFUs of coliform bacteria per mL. Breath testing is less invasive but “more complex than simply measuring hydrogen,” the experts stressed. Methane-producing microorganisms (methanogens) suppress hydrogen on a breath test (fortunately, standard breath tests measure methane). Furthermore, a positive methane breath test also has been linked to constipation-predominant irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). Recent studies also suggest that lactulose breath testing is more sensitive than glucose for identifying SIBO in patients with IBS.
Antibiotic therapy is the treatment mainstay but remains largely empiric. The goal is to improve SIBO symptoms, not eradicate bacteria from the small intestine. Ideally, the antimicrobial regimen should cover both aerobic and anaerobic bacteria, but clinicians should be mindful of the risks of chronic broad-spectrum antibiotic exposure. In studies, a single 7- to 10-day antibiotic course improved symptoms in approximately 45%-90% of patients with SIBO (rates of breath test response were lower). For patients with IBS and SIBO, rifaximin (which is poorly absorbed) produced encouraging results in two phase 3 studies, but most patients did not receive breath testing, the experts noted. Patients with recurrent SIBO symptoms may need multiple courses of antibiotics with specific regimens rotated to help prevent resistance. “Decisions on management should be individualized and also [should factor in] such risks as diarrhea, Clostridiodes difficile infection, intolerance, and cost,” the experts wrote. “It is not necessary to repeat diagnostic tests for SIBO following antibiotic therapy [if] gastrointestinal symptoms respond.”
Dr. Quigley disclosed financial ties to 4D Pharma, Alimentary Health, Allergan, Biocodex, Biomerica, Ironwood, Salix, Takeda, Vibrant, and Zealand. He also disclosed patents with and equity in Alimentary Health. Both of his coauthors also disclosed ties to various pharmaceutical companies.
SOURCE: Quigley EMM et al. Gastroenterology. 2020 Jun 1. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.06.090.
Unexplained diarrhea may be the most reliable symptom of small intestinal bacterial overgrowth (SIBO) in at-risk patients, according to a new clinical practice update from the American Gastroenterological Association.
“In those predisposed to SIBO due to anatomical, pathological, pharmacological or other changes that promote stasis or recirculation of colonic contents and/or impaired resistance to bacteria, SIBO will lead to diarrhea and can progress to a full-blown malabsorption syndrome” marked by steatorrhea and vitamin deficiencies, wrote Eamonn M.M. Quigley, MD, of Houston Methodist Hospital and Weill Cornell Medical College in Houston together with his fellow experts in Gastroenterology. But malabsorption is uncommon in patients whose SIBO is not caused by structural abnormalities, and gastrointestinal symptoms are “weakly predictive at best” if patients lack clear risk factors for SIBO, the experts cautioned.
The growing availability of breath testing has fueled diagnoses of SIBO, which the lay press often implicates in various disorders even though SIBO has no clear clinical or laboratory definition. Recent progress in techniques to measure bacterial populations and their metabolic products “should provide much needed clarity,” but for now, a SIBO diagnosis simply means that a patient’s presenting symptoms or laboratory findings are attributed to bacterial changes in the small intestine, the experts wrote.
Detecting SIBO also remains challenging. Most patients have normal results on routine laboratory tests, and there is not enough evidence to support testing for inflammatory markers such as fecal calprotectin. Patients with SIBO may have increased folate levels because of bacterial production of folic acid. Vitamin B12 and other nutrient deficiencies also occur but are less common. The preferred diagnostic method is culture of a duodenal aspirate, and recent research supports a cutoff value of greater than 103 CFUs of coliform bacteria per mL. Breath testing is less invasive but “more complex than simply measuring hydrogen,” the experts stressed. Methane-producing microorganisms (methanogens) suppress hydrogen on a breath test (fortunately, standard breath tests measure methane). Furthermore, a positive methane breath test also has been linked to constipation-predominant irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). Recent studies also suggest that lactulose breath testing is more sensitive than glucose for identifying SIBO in patients with IBS.
Antibiotic therapy is the treatment mainstay but remains largely empiric. The goal is to improve SIBO symptoms, not eradicate bacteria from the small intestine. Ideally, the antimicrobial regimen should cover both aerobic and anaerobic bacteria, but clinicians should be mindful of the risks of chronic broad-spectrum antibiotic exposure. In studies, a single 7- to 10-day antibiotic course improved symptoms in approximately 45%-90% of patients with SIBO (rates of breath test response were lower). For patients with IBS and SIBO, rifaximin (which is poorly absorbed) produced encouraging results in two phase 3 studies, but most patients did not receive breath testing, the experts noted. Patients with recurrent SIBO symptoms may need multiple courses of antibiotics with specific regimens rotated to help prevent resistance. “Decisions on management should be individualized and also [should factor in] such risks as diarrhea, Clostridiodes difficile infection, intolerance, and cost,” the experts wrote. “It is not necessary to repeat diagnostic tests for SIBO following antibiotic therapy [if] gastrointestinal symptoms respond.”
Dr. Quigley disclosed financial ties to 4D Pharma, Alimentary Health, Allergan, Biocodex, Biomerica, Ironwood, Salix, Takeda, Vibrant, and Zealand. He also disclosed patents with and equity in Alimentary Health. Both of his coauthors also disclosed ties to various pharmaceutical companies.
SOURCE: Quigley EMM et al. Gastroenterology. 2020 Jun 1. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.06.090.
FROM GASTROENTEROLOGY
AGA Clinical Practice Update: Young adult–onset colorectal cancer diagnosis and management
The rising incidence of colorectal cancer in adults younger than 50 years heightens the need to evaluate the colon and rectum of any patient, regardless of age, who presents with symptoms such as rectal bleeding, weight loss, abdominal pain, iron-deficiency anemia, or changes in bowel habits, according to a new American Gastroenterological Association clinical practice update.
In addition to receiving cancer staging or being referred to an oncologist, newly diagnosed patients should be counseled about both germline genetic testing and fertility preservation, wrote Lisa A. Boardman, MD, of Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., with associates in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “Clinicians should present the role of fertility preservation prior to [administering] cancer-directed therapy, including surgery, pelvic radiation, or chemotherapy.”
It remains unclear why the incidence of young adult–onset colorectal cancer is rising, but the trend is not limited to the United States. Implicated risk factors include inflammatory bowel disease, prior irradiation, harboring a pathogenic germline mutation for a known hereditary cancer syndrome, and having a first- or second-degree relative with colorectal cancer. Indeed, the odds of developing young adult–onset disease are nearly 4 times higher if a parent has colorectal cancer and nearly 12 times higher if a sibling is affected.
For newly diagnosed young adults, it is important to collect a family cancer history but vital, regardless of history, to discuss targeted or multiplex germline mutation testing. Detecting hereditary colorectal cancer syndromes is crucial because their nature informs surgical options for treatment. “Roughly one in five young adult–onset colorectal cancers will be caused by a germline mutation, and among those with a detectable hereditary condition, half of those patients with young adult–onset colorectal cancer will have Lynch syndrome,” the experts noted. For these patients (who have mutations involving MSH2, EPCAM, MLH1, MSH6, and PMS2), ileorectostomy (IRA) for colorectal cancer should be considered.
For patients with the classic subtype of familial adenomatous polyposis, ileal pouch anal anastomosis is recommended after the polyp burden can no longer be managed endoscopically, although initial IRA with subsequent conversion to IPAA is an option for women of child-bearing age, according to the clinical practice update. Patients with the attenuated subtype of familial adenomatous polyposis should consider IRA or colectomy if colorectal cancer develops or if the polyp burden exceeds endoscopic control. In contrast, colectomy is the only type of surgery recommended for patients with serrated polyposis syndrome requiring surgical treatment.
Finally, clinicians should offer only screening for hereditary cancer syndromes if young adults cancer have been diagnosed with a hereditary colorectal cancer syndrome. “For patients with sporadic young adult–onset colorectal cancer, extracolonic screening and colorectal cancer surveillance intervals are the same as for patients with older adult–onset colorectal cancer,” the experts wrote. For young patients without an apparent underlying genetic syndrome, molecular studies may eventually help tailor treatment options, “but at this point, more extensive surgery or more aggressive chemotherapy cannot be recommended. As cancer treatments evolve to use patient tumor specific therapeutics, our management of patients with young adult–onset colorectal cancer will improve.”
Dr. Boardman and associates reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Boardman LA et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020 Jun 7. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.05.058.
The rising incidence of colorectal cancer in adults younger than 50 years heightens the need to evaluate the colon and rectum of any patient, regardless of age, who presents with symptoms such as rectal bleeding, weight loss, abdominal pain, iron-deficiency anemia, or changes in bowel habits, according to a new American Gastroenterological Association clinical practice update.
In addition to receiving cancer staging or being referred to an oncologist, newly diagnosed patients should be counseled about both germline genetic testing and fertility preservation, wrote Lisa A. Boardman, MD, of Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., with associates in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “Clinicians should present the role of fertility preservation prior to [administering] cancer-directed therapy, including surgery, pelvic radiation, or chemotherapy.”
It remains unclear why the incidence of young adult–onset colorectal cancer is rising, but the trend is not limited to the United States. Implicated risk factors include inflammatory bowel disease, prior irradiation, harboring a pathogenic germline mutation for a known hereditary cancer syndrome, and having a first- or second-degree relative with colorectal cancer. Indeed, the odds of developing young adult–onset disease are nearly 4 times higher if a parent has colorectal cancer and nearly 12 times higher if a sibling is affected.
For newly diagnosed young adults, it is important to collect a family cancer history but vital, regardless of history, to discuss targeted or multiplex germline mutation testing. Detecting hereditary colorectal cancer syndromes is crucial because their nature informs surgical options for treatment. “Roughly one in five young adult–onset colorectal cancers will be caused by a germline mutation, and among those with a detectable hereditary condition, half of those patients with young adult–onset colorectal cancer will have Lynch syndrome,” the experts noted. For these patients (who have mutations involving MSH2, EPCAM, MLH1, MSH6, and PMS2), ileorectostomy (IRA) for colorectal cancer should be considered.
For patients with the classic subtype of familial adenomatous polyposis, ileal pouch anal anastomosis is recommended after the polyp burden can no longer be managed endoscopically, although initial IRA with subsequent conversion to IPAA is an option for women of child-bearing age, according to the clinical practice update. Patients with the attenuated subtype of familial adenomatous polyposis should consider IRA or colectomy if colorectal cancer develops or if the polyp burden exceeds endoscopic control. In contrast, colectomy is the only type of surgery recommended for patients with serrated polyposis syndrome requiring surgical treatment.
Finally, clinicians should offer only screening for hereditary cancer syndromes if young adults cancer have been diagnosed with a hereditary colorectal cancer syndrome. “For patients with sporadic young adult–onset colorectal cancer, extracolonic screening and colorectal cancer surveillance intervals are the same as for patients with older adult–onset colorectal cancer,” the experts wrote. For young patients without an apparent underlying genetic syndrome, molecular studies may eventually help tailor treatment options, “but at this point, more extensive surgery or more aggressive chemotherapy cannot be recommended. As cancer treatments evolve to use patient tumor specific therapeutics, our management of patients with young adult–onset colorectal cancer will improve.”
Dr. Boardman and associates reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Boardman LA et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020 Jun 7. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.05.058.
The rising incidence of colorectal cancer in adults younger than 50 years heightens the need to evaluate the colon and rectum of any patient, regardless of age, who presents with symptoms such as rectal bleeding, weight loss, abdominal pain, iron-deficiency anemia, or changes in bowel habits, according to a new American Gastroenterological Association clinical practice update.
In addition to receiving cancer staging or being referred to an oncologist, newly diagnosed patients should be counseled about both germline genetic testing and fertility preservation, wrote Lisa A. Boardman, MD, of Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., with associates in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “Clinicians should present the role of fertility preservation prior to [administering] cancer-directed therapy, including surgery, pelvic radiation, or chemotherapy.”
It remains unclear why the incidence of young adult–onset colorectal cancer is rising, but the trend is not limited to the United States. Implicated risk factors include inflammatory bowel disease, prior irradiation, harboring a pathogenic germline mutation for a known hereditary cancer syndrome, and having a first- or second-degree relative with colorectal cancer. Indeed, the odds of developing young adult–onset disease are nearly 4 times higher if a parent has colorectal cancer and nearly 12 times higher if a sibling is affected.
For newly diagnosed young adults, it is important to collect a family cancer history but vital, regardless of history, to discuss targeted or multiplex germline mutation testing. Detecting hereditary colorectal cancer syndromes is crucial because their nature informs surgical options for treatment. “Roughly one in five young adult–onset colorectal cancers will be caused by a germline mutation, and among those with a detectable hereditary condition, half of those patients with young adult–onset colorectal cancer will have Lynch syndrome,” the experts noted. For these patients (who have mutations involving MSH2, EPCAM, MLH1, MSH6, and PMS2), ileorectostomy (IRA) for colorectal cancer should be considered.
For patients with the classic subtype of familial adenomatous polyposis, ileal pouch anal anastomosis is recommended after the polyp burden can no longer be managed endoscopically, although initial IRA with subsequent conversion to IPAA is an option for women of child-bearing age, according to the clinical practice update. Patients with the attenuated subtype of familial adenomatous polyposis should consider IRA or colectomy if colorectal cancer develops or if the polyp burden exceeds endoscopic control. In contrast, colectomy is the only type of surgery recommended for patients with serrated polyposis syndrome requiring surgical treatment.
Finally, clinicians should offer only screening for hereditary cancer syndromes if young adults cancer have been diagnosed with a hereditary colorectal cancer syndrome. “For patients with sporadic young adult–onset colorectal cancer, extracolonic screening and colorectal cancer surveillance intervals are the same as for patients with older adult–onset colorectal cancer,” the experts wrote. For young patients without an apparent underlying genetic syndrome, molecular studies may eventually help tailor treatment options, “but at this point, more extensive surgery or more aggressive chemotherapy cannot be recommended. As cancer treatments evolve to use patient tumor specific therapeutics, our management of patients with young adult–onset colorectal cancer will improve.”
Dr. Boardman and associates reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Boardman LA et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020 Jun 7. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.05.058.
FROM CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY
GERD: Endoscopic therapies may offer alternative to PPIs
For patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), endoscopic and minimally invasive surgical techniques may be viable alternatives to proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy, according to investigators.
Still, their exact role in the treatment process remains undetermined, reported Michael F. Vaezi, MD, PhD, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., and colleagues.
“The frequent incomplete response to PPI therapy, in addition to recent studies suggesting chronic complications with PPI therapy, have fueled discussion of alternative strategies for treating patients with GERD,” the investigators wrote in Gastroenterology. “For a substantial number of patients and providers with the above concerns who are unwilling to pursue the traditional surgical gastric fundoplication, endoscopic or less invasive surgical strategies have gained some traction.”
Dr. Vaezi and colleagues noted that they conducted the scoping review with intentions of being more descriptive than prescriptive.
“Our goal is not to recommend the utility of any of the discussed techniques in specific clinical scenarios,” they wrote. “Rather, it is to summarize the currently available evidence and identify where more research may be helpful.”
Across 22 randomized, controlled trials and observational studies, objective and symptomatic improvement varied between modalities. Measured outcomes also varied; most studies reported symptoms, health-related quality of life, and PPI use; fewer studies (but still a majority) reported intraesophageal acid exposure and/or lower esophageal sphincter (LES) pressure. Conclusions drawn by Dr. Vaezi and colleagues are summarized below.
Magnetic sphincter augmentation of the LES
In multiple trials, magnetic sphincter augmentation demonstrated a “high degree of efficacy” in the short or midterm, and a favorable safety profile. Dr. Vaezi and colleagues highlighted significant improvements in disease-related quality of life, with “a substantial proportion” of patients achieving normalization or at least 50% improvement in acid exposure. While some patients required esophageal dilation after the procedure, this was not needed any more frequently than after surgical fundoplication.
Radiofrequency ablation
Across five trials, radiofrequency ablation, which involves delivery of energy to the LES and gastric cardia, improved GERD-related quality of life, and reduced, but did not normalize, acid exposure. The technique lessened short-term need for PPIs, but long-term relief was not observed. Compared with observational studies, efficacy signals were weaker in randomized, controlled trials. The procedure was generally safe.
Surgical implantation of LES pacemaker
Limited data were available for LES sphincter stimulation among patients with GERD, and the most recent study, involving a comparison of device placement with or without stimulation, was terminated early. Still, available data suggest that the technique is generally well tolerated, with reduced need for PPIs, improved symptoms, and lessened acid exposure. Dr. Vaezi and colleagues noted that the manufacturing company, EndoStim, is in receivership, putting U.S. availability in question.
Full-thickness fundoplication
Endoscopic full-thickness fundoplication was associated with improvement of symptoms and quality of life, and a favorable safety profile. Although the procedure generally reduced PPI use, most patients still needed PPIs long-term. Reflux improved after the procedure, but not to the same degree as laparoscopic plication.
Transoral incisionless fundoplication
Based on a number of studies, including five randomized, controlled trials, transoral incisionless fundoplication appears safe and effective, with reduced need for PPIs up to 5 years. According to Dr. Vaezi and colleagues, variable results across studies are likely explained by variations in the technique over time and heterogeneous patient populations. Recent studies in which the “TIF 2.0 technique” has been performed on patients with hiatal hernias less than 2 cm have met objective efficacy outcomes.
Incisionless fundoplication with magnetic ultrasonic surgical endostapler
The magnetic ultrasonic surgical endostapler, which allows for incisionless fundoplication, had more limited data. Only two studies have been conducted, and neither had sham-controlled nor comparative-trial data. Furthermore, multiple safety signals have been encountered, with “substantial” complication rates and serious adverse events that were “noticeable and concerning,” according to Dr. Vaezi and colleagues.
Concluding their discussion, the investigators suggested that some endoscopic and minimally invasive approaches to GERD are “promising” alternatives to PPI therapy.
“However, their place in the treatment algorithm for GERD will be better defined when important clinical parameters, especially the durability of their effect, are understood,” they wrote.
The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Vaezi MF et al. Gastroenterology. 2020 Jul 1. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.05.097.
For patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), endoscopic and minimally invasive surgical techniques may be viable alternatives to proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy, according to investigators.
Still, their exact role in the treatment process remains undetermined, reported Michael F. Vaezi, MD, PhD, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., and colleagues.
“The frequent incomplete response to PPI therapy, in addition to recent studies suggesting chronic complications with PPI therapy, have fueled discussion of alternative strategies for treating patients with GERD,” the investigators wrote in Gastroenterology. “For a substantial number of patients and providers with the above concerns who are unwilling to pursue the traditional surgical gastric fundoplication, endoscopic or less invasive surgical strategies have gained some traction.”
Dr. Vaezi and colleagues noted that they conducted the scoping review with intentions of being more descriptive than prescriptive.
“Our goal is not to recommend the utility of any of the discussed techniques in specific clinical scenarios,” they wrote. “Rather, it is to summarize the currently available evidence and identify where more research may be helpful.”
Across 22 randomized, controlled trials and observational studies, objective and symptomatic improvement varied between modalities. Measured outcomes also varied; most studies reported symptoms, health-related quality of life, and PPI use; fewer studies (but still a majority) reported intraesophageal acid exposure and/or lower esophageal sphincter (LES) pressure. Conclusions drawn by Dr. Vaezi and colleagues are summarized below.
Magnetic sphincter augmentation of the LES
In multiple trials, magnetic sphincter augmentation demonstrated a “high degree of efficacy” in the short or midterm, and a favorable safety profile. Dr. Vaezi and colleagues highlighted significant improvements in disease-related quality of life, with “a substantial proportion” of patients achieving normalization or at least 50% improvement in acid exposure. While some patients required esophageal dilation after the procedure, this was not needed any more frequently than after surgical fundoplication.
Radiofrequency ablation
Across five trials, radiofrequency ablation, which involves delivery of energy to the LES and gastric cardia, improved GERD-related quality of life, and reduced, but did not normalize, acid exposure. The technique lessened short-term need for PPIs, but long-term relief was not observed. Compared with observational studies, efficacy signals were weaker in randomized, controlled trials. The procedure was generally safe.
Surgical implantation of LES pacemaker
Limited data were available for LES sphincter stimulation among patients with GERD, and the most recent study, involving a comparison of device placement with or without stimulation, was terminated early. Still, available data suggest that the technique is generally well tolerated, with reduced need for PPIs, improved symptoms, and lessened acid exposure. Dr. Vaezi and colleagues noted that the manufacturing company, EndoStim, is in receivership, putting U.S. availability in question.
Full-thickness fundoplication
Endoscopic full-thickness fundoplication was associated with improvement of symptoms and quality of life, and a favorable safety profile. Although the procedure generally reduced PPI use, most patients still needed PPIs long-term. Reflux improved after the procedure, but not to the same degree as laparoscopic plication.
Transoral incisionless fundoplication
Based on a number of studies, including five randomized, controlled trials, transoral incisionless fundoplication appears safe and effective, with reduced need for PPIs up to 5 years. According to Dr. Vaezi and colleagues, variable results across studies are likely explained by variations in the technique over time and heterogeneous patient populations. Recent studies in which the “TIF 2.0 technique” has been performed on patients with hiatal hernias less than 2 cm have met objective efficacy outcomes.
Incisionless fundoplication with magnetic ultrasonic surgical endostapler
The magnetic ultrasonic surgical endostapler, which allows for incisionless fundoplication, had more limited data. Only two studies have been conducted, and neither had sham-controlled nor comparative-trial data. Furthermore, multiple safety signals have been encountered, with “substantial” complication rates and serious adverse events that were “noticeable and concerning,” according to Dr. Vaezi and colleagues.
Concluding their discussion, the investigators suggested that some endoscopic and minimally invasive approaches to GERD are “promising” alternatives to PPI therapy.
“However, their place in the treatment algorithm for GERD will be better defined when important clinical parameters, especially the durability of their effect, are understood,” they wrote.
The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Vaezi MF et al. Gastroenterology. 2020 Jul 1. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.05.097.
For patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), endoscopic and minimally invasive surgical techniques may be viable alternatives to proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy, according to investigators.
Still, their exact role in the treatment process remains undetermined, reported Michael F. Vaezi, MD, PhD, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., and colleagues.
“The frequent incomplete response to PPI therapy, in addition to recent studies suggesting chronic complications with PPI therapy, have fueled discussion of alternative strategies for treating patients with GERD,” the investigators wrote in Gastroenterology. “For a substantial number of patients and providers with the above concerns who are unwilling to pursue the traditional surgical gastric fundoplication, endoscopic or less invasive surgical strategies have gained some traction.”
Dr. Vaezi and colleagues noted that they conducted the scoping review with intentions of being more descriptive than prescriptive.
“Our goal is not to recommend the utility of any of the discussed techniques in specific clinical scenarios,” they wrote. “Rather, it is to summarize the currently available evidence and identify where more research may be helpful.”
Across 22 randomized, controlled trials and observational studies, objective and symptomatic improvement varied between modalities. Measured outcomes also varied; most studies reported symptoms, health-related quality of life, and PPI use; fewer studies (but still a majority) reported intraesophageal acid exposure and/or lower esophageal sphincter (LES) pressure. Conclusions drawn by Dr. Vaezi and colleagues are summarized below.
Magnetic sphincter augmentation of the LES
In multiple trials, magnetic sphincter augmentation demonstrated a “high degree of efficacy” in the short or midterm, and a favorable safety profile. Dr. Vaezi and colleagues highlighted significant improvements in disease-related quality of life, with “a substantial proportion” of patients achieving normalization or at least 50% improvement in acid exposure. While some patients required esophageal dilation after the procedure, this was not needed any more frequently than after surgical fundoplication.
Radiofrequency ablation
Across five trials, radiofrequency ablation, which involves delivery of energy to the LES and gastric cardia, improved GERD-related quality of life, and reduced, but did not normalize, acid exposure. The technique lessened short-term need for PPIs, but long-term relief was not observed. Compared with observational studies, efficacy signals were weaker in randomized, controlled trials. The procedure was generally safe.
Surgical implantation of LES pacemaker
Limited data were available for LES sphincter stimulation among patients with GERD, and the most recent study, involving a comparison of device placement with or without stimulation, was terminated early. Still, available data suggest that the technique is generally well tolerated, with reduced need for PPIs, improved symptoms, and lessened acid exposure. Dr. Vaezi and colleagues noted that the manufacturing company, EndoStim, is in receivership, putting U.S. availability in question.
Full-thickness fundoplication
Endoscopic full-thickness fundoplication was associated with improvement of symptoms and quality of life, and a favorable safety profile. Although the procedure generally reduced PPI use, most patients still needed PPIs long-term. Reflux improved after the procedure, but not to the same degree as laparoscopic plication.
Transoral incisionless fundoplication
Based on a number of studies, including five randomized, controlled trials, transoral incisionless fundoplication appears safe and effective, with reduced need for PPIs up to 5 years. According to Dr. Vaezi and colleagues, variable results across studies are likely explained by variations in the technique over time and heterogeneous patient populations. Recent studies in which the “TIF 2.0 technique” has been performed on patients with hiatal hernias less than 2 cm have met objective efficacy outcomes.
Incisionless fundoplication with magnetic ultrasonic surgical endostapler
The magnetic ultrasonic surgical endostapler, which allows for incisionless fundoplication, had more limited data. Only two studies have been conducted, and neither had sham-controlled nor comparative-trial data. Furthermore, multiple safety signals have been encountered, with “substantial” complication rates and serious adverse events that were “noticeable and concerning,” according to Dr. Vaezi and colleagues.
Concluding their discussion, the investigators suggested that some endoscopic and minimally invasive approaches to GERD are “promising” alternatives to PPI therapy.
“However, their place in the treatment algorithm for GERD will be better defined when important clinical parameters, especially the durability of their effect, are understood,” they wrote.
The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Vaezi MF et al. Gastroenterology. 2020 Jul 1. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.05.097.
FROM GASTROENTEROLOGY
New schizophrenia treatment guideline released
The American Psychiatric Association has released a new evidence-based practice guideline for the treatment of schizophrenia.
The guideline focuses on assessment and treatment planning, which are integral to patient-centered care, and includes recommendations regarding pharmacotherapy, with particular focus on clozapine, as well as previously recommended and new psychosocial interventions.
“Our intention was to make recommendations to treat the whole person and take into account their family and other significant people in their lives,” George Keepers, MD, chair of the guideline writing group, said in an interview.
‘State-of-the-art methodology’
Dr. Keepers, professor of psychiatry at Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, explained the rigorous process that informs the current guideline, which was “based not solely on expert consensus but was preceded by an evidence-based review of the literature that was then discussed, digested, and distilled into specific recommendations.”
Many current recommendations are “similar to previous recommendations, but there are a few important differences,” he said.
Two experts in schizophrenia who were not involved in guideline authorship praised it for its usefulness and methodology.
Philip D. Harvey, PhD, Leonard M. Miller Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Miami, said in an interview that the guideline “clarified the typical treatment algorithm from first episode to treatment resistance [which is] very clearly laid out for the first time.”
Christoph Correll, MD, professor of psychiatry and molecular medicine, Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Hempstead, N.Y., said in an interview that the guideline “followed state-of-the-art methodology.”
First steps
The guideline recommends beginning with assessment of the patient and determination of the treatment plan.
Patients should be “treated with an antipsychotic medication and monitored for effectiveness and side effects.” Even after the patient’s symptoms have improved, antipsychotic treatment should continue.
For patients whose symptoms have improved, treatment should continue with the same antipsychotic and should not be switched.
“The problem we’re addressing in this recommendation is that patients are often treated with an effective medication and then forced, by circumstances or their insurance company, to switch to another that may not be effective for them, resulting in unnecessary relapses of the illness,” said Dr. Keepers.
“ and do what’s in the best interest of the patient,” he said.
“The guideline called out that antipsychotics that are effective and tolerated should be continued, without specifying a duration of treatment, thereby indicating indirectly that there is no clear end of the recommendation for ongoing maintenance treatment in individuals with schizophrenia,” said Dr. Correll.
Clozapine underutilized
The guideline highlights the role of clozapine and recommends its use for patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia and those at risk for suicide. Clozapine is also recommended for patients at “substantial” risk for aggressive behavior, regardless of other treatments.
“Clozapine is underutilized for treatment of schizophrenia in the U.S. and a number of other countries, but it is a really important treatment for patients who don’t respond to other antipsychotic agents,” said Dr. Keepers.
“With this recommendation, we hope that more patients will wind up receiving the medication and benefiting from it,” he added.
In addition, patients should receive treatment with a long-acting injectable antipsychotic “if they prefer such treatment or if they have a history of poor or uncertain adherence” (level of evidence, 2B).
The guideline authors “are recommending long-acting injectable medications for people who want them, not just people with poor prior adherence, which is a critical step,” said Dr. Harvey, director of the division of psychology at the University of Miami.
Managing antipsychotic side effects
The guideline offers recommendations for patients experiencing antipsychotic-induced side effects.
VMAT2s, which represent a “class of drugs that have become available since the last schizophrenia guidelines, are effective in tardive dyskinesia. It is important that patients with tardive dyskinesia have access to these drugs because they do work,” Dr. Keepers said.
Adequate funding needed
Recommended psychosocial interventions include treatment in a specialty care program for patients with schizophrenia who are experiencing a first episode of psychosis, use of cognitive-behavioral therapy for psychosis, psychoeducation, and supported employment services (2B).
“We reviewed very good data showing that patients who receive these services are more likely to be able to be employed and less likely to be rehospitalized or have a relapse,” Dr. Keepers observed.
In addition, patients with schizophrenia should receive assertive community treatment interventions if there is a “history of poor engagement with services leading to frequent relapse or social disruption.”
Family interventions are recommended for patients who have ongoing contact with their families (2B), and patients should also receive interventions “aimed at developing self-management skills and enhancing person-oriented recovery.” They should receive cognitive remediation, social skills training, and supportive psychotherapy.
Dr. Keepers pointed to “major barriers” to providing some of these psychosocial treatments. “They are beyond the scope of someone in an individual private practice situation, so they need to be delivered within the context of treatment programs that are either publicly or privately based,” he said.
“Psychiatrists can and do work closely with community and mental health centers, psychologists, and social workers who can provide these kinds of treatments,” but “many [treatments] require specialized skills and training before they can be offered, and there is a shortage of personnel to deliver them,” he noted.
“Both the national and state governments have not provided adequate funding for treatment of individuals with this condition [schizophrenia],” he added.
Dr. Keepers reports no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the original article. Dr. Harvey reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Correll disclosed ties to Acadia, Alkermes, Allergan, Angelini, Axsome, Gedeon Richter, Gerson Lehrman Group, Indivior, IntraCellular Therapies, Janssen/J&J, LB Pharma, Lundbeck, MedAvante-ProPhase, Medscape, Merck, Mylan, Neurocrine, Noven, Otsuka, Pfizer, Recordati, Rovi, Servier, Sumitomo Dainippon, Sunovion, Supernus, Takeda, and Teva. He has received grant support from Janssen and Takeda. He is also a stock option holder of LB Pharma.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
The American Psychiatric Association has released a new evidence-based practice guideline for the treatment of schizophrenia.
The guideline focuses on assessment and treatment planning, which are integral to patient-centered care, and includes recommendations regarding pharmacotherapy, with particular focus on clozapine, as well as previously recommended and new psychosocial interventions.
“Our intention was to make recommendations to treat the whole person and take into account their family and other significant people in their lives,” George Keepers, MD, chair of the guideline writing group, said in an interview.
‘State-of-the-art methodology’
Dr. Keepers, professor of psychiatry at Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, explained the rigorous process that informs the current guideline, which was “based not solely on expert consensus but was preceded by an evidence-based review of the literature that was then discussed, digested, and distilled into specific recommendations.”
Many current recommendations are “similar to previous recommendations, but there are a few important differences,” he said.
Two experts in schizophrenia who were not involved in guideline authorship praised it for its usefulness and methodology.
Philip D. Harvey, PhD, Leonard M. Miller Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Miami, said in an interview that the guideline “clarified the typical treatment algorithm from first episode to treatment resistance [which is] very clearly laid out for the first time.”
Christoph Correll, MD, professor of psychiatry and molecular medicine, Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Hempstead, N.Y., said in an interview that the guideline “followed state-of-the-art methodology.”
First steps
The guideline recommends beginning with assessment of the patient and determination of the treatment plan.
Patients should be “treated with an antipsychotic medication and monitored for effectiveness and side effects.” Even after the patient’s symptoms have improved, antipsychotic treatment should continue.
For patients whose symptoms have improved, treatment should continue with the same antipsychotic and should not be switched.
“The problem we’re addressing in this recommendation is that patients are often treated with an effective medication and then forced, by circumstances or their insurance company, to switch to another that may not be effective for them, resulting in unnecessary relapses of the illness,” said Dr. Keepers.
“ and do what’s in the best interest of the patient,” he said.
“The guideline called out that antipsychotics that are effective and tolerated should be continued, without specifying a duration of treatment, thereby indicating indirectly that there is no clear end of the recommendation for ongoing maintenance treatment in individuals with schizophrenia,” said Dr. Correll.
Clozapine underutilized
The guideline highlights the role of clozapine and recommends its use for patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia and those at risk for suicide. Clozapine is also recommended for patients at “substantial” risk for aggressive behavior, regardless of other treatments.
“Clozapine is underutilized for treatment of schizophrenia in the U.S. and a number of other countries, but it is a really important treatment for patients who don’t respond to other antipsychotic agents,” said Dr. Keepers.
“With this recommendation, we hope that more patients will wind up receiving the medication and benefiting from it,” he added.
In addition, patients should receive treatment with a long-acting injectable antipsychotic “if they prefer such treatment or if they have a history of poor or uncertain adherence” (level of evidence, 2B).
The guideline authors “are recommending long-acting injectable medications for people who want them, not just people with poor prior adherence, which is a critical step,” said Dr. Harvey, director of the division of psychology at the University of Miami.
Managing antipsychotic side effects
The guideline offers recommendations for patients experiencing antipsychotic-induced side effects.
VMAT2s, which represent a “class of drugs that have become available since the last schizophrenia guidelines, are effective in tardive dyskinesia. It is important that patients with tardive dyskinesia have access to these drugs because they do work,” Dr. Keepers said.
Adequate funding needed
Recommended psychosocial interventions include treatment in a specialty care program for patients with schizophrenia who are experiencing a first episode of psychosis, use of cognitive-behavioral therapy for psychosis, psychoeducation, and supported employment services (2B).
“We reviewed very good data showing that patients who receive these services are more likely to be able to be employed and less likely to be rehospitalized or have a relapse,” Dr. Keepers observed.
In addition, patients with schizophrenia should receive assertive community treatment interventions if there is a “history of poor engagement with services leading to frequent relapse or social disruption.”
Family interventions are recommended for patients who have ongoing contact with their families (2B), and patients should also receive interventions “aimed at developing self-management skills and enhancing person-oriented recovery.” They should receive cognitive remediation, social skills training, and supportive psychotherapy.
Dr. Keepers pointed to “major barriers” to providing some of these psychosocial treatments. “They are beyond the scope of someone in an individual private practice situation, so they need to be delivered within the context of treatment programs that are either publicly or privately based,” he said.
“Psychiatrists can and do work closely with community and mental health centers, psychologists, and social workers who can provide these kinds of treatments,” but “many [treatments] require specialized skills and training before they can be offered, and there is a shortage of personnel to deliver them,” he noted.
“Both the national and state governments have not provided adequate funding for treatment of individuals with this condition [schizophrenia],” he added.
Dr. Keepers reports no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the original article. Dr. Harvey reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Correll disclosed ties to Acadia, Alkermes, Allergan, Angelini, Axsome, Gedeon Richter, Gerson Lehrman Group, Indivior, IntraCellular Therapies, Janssen/J&J, LB Pharma, Lundbeck, MedAvante-ProPhase, Medscape, Merck, Mylan, Neurocrine, Noven, Otsuka, Pfizer, Recordati, Rovi, Servier, Sumitomo Dainippon, Sunovion, Supernus, Takeda, and Teva. He has received grant support from Janssen and Takeda. He is also a stock option holder of LB Pharma.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
The American Psychiatric Association has released a new evidence-based practice guideline for the treatment of schizophrenia.
The guideline focuses on assessment and treatment planning, which are integral to patient-centered care, and includes recommendations regarding pharmacotherapy, with particular focus on clozapine, as well as previously recommended and new psychosocial interventions.
“Our intention was to make recommendations to treat the whole person and take into account their family and other significant people in their lives,” George Keepers, MD, chair of the guideline writing group, said in an interview.
‘State-of-the-art methodology’
Dr. Keepers, professor of psychiatry at Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, explained the rigorous process that informs the current guideline, which was “based not solely on expert consensus but was preceded by an evidence-based review of the literature that was then discussed, digested, and distilled into specific recommendations.”
Many current recommendations are “similar to previous recommendations, but there are a few important differences,” he said.
Two experts in schizophrenia who were not involved in guideline authorship praised it for its usefulness and methodology.
Philip D. Harvey, PhD, Leonard M. Miller Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Miami, said in an interview that the guideline “clarified the typical treatment algorithm from first episode to treatment resistance [which is] very clearly laid out for the first time.”
Christoph Correll, MD, professor of psychiatry and molecular medicine, Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Hempstead, N.Y., said in an interview that the guideline “followed state-of-the-art methodology.”
First steps
The guideline recommends beginning with assessment of the patient and determination of the treatment plan.
Patients should be “treated with an antipsychotic medication and monitored for effectiveness and side effects.” Even after the patient’s symptoms have improved, antipsychotic treatment should continue.
For patients whose symptoms have improved, treatment should continue with the same antipsychotic and should not be switched.
“The problem we’re addressing in this recommendation is that patients are often treated with an effective medication and then forced, by circumstances or their insurance company, to switch to another that may not be effective for them, resulting in unnecessary relapses of the illness,” said Dr. Keepers.
“ and do what’s in the best interest of the patient,” he said.
“The guideline called out that antipsychotics that are effective and tolerated should be continued, without specifying a duration of treatment, thereby indicating indirectly that there is no clear end of the recommendation for ongoing maintenance treatment in individuals with schizophrenia,” said Dr. Correll.
Clozapine underutilized
The guideline highlights the role of clozapine and recommends its use for patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia and those at risk for suicide. Clozapine is also recommended for patients at “substantial” risk for aggressive behavior, regardless of other treatments.
“Clozapine is underutilized for treatment of schizophrenia in the U.S. and a number of other countries, but it is a really important treatment for patients who don’t respond to other antipsychotic agents,” said Dr. Keepers.
“With this recommendation, we hope that more patients will wind up receiving the medication and benefiting from it,” he added.
In addition, patients should receive treatment with a long-acting injectable antipsychotic “if they prefer such treatment or if they have a history of poor or uncertain adherence” (level of evidence, 2B).
The guideline authors “are recommending long-acting injectable medications for people who want them, not just people with poor prior adherence, which is a critical step,” said Dr. Harvey, director of the division of psychology at the University of Miami.
Managing antipsychotic side effects
The guideline offers recommendations for patients experiencing antipsychotic-induced side effects.
VMAT2s, which represent a “class of drugs that have become available since the last schizophrenia guidelines, are effective in tardive dyskinesia. It is important that patients with tardive dyskinesia have access to these drugs because they do work,” Dr. Keepers said.
Adequate funding needed
Recommended psychosocial interventions include treatment in a specialty care program for patients with schizophrenia who are experiencing a first episode of psychosis, use of cognitive-behavioral therapy for psychosis, psychoeducation, and supported employment services (2B).
“We reviewed very good data showing that patients who receive these services are more likely to be able to be employed and less likely to be rehospitalized or have a relapse,” Dr. Keepers observed.
In addition, patients with schizophrenia should receive assertive community treatment interventions if there is a “history of poor engagement with services leading to frequent relapse or social disruption.”
Family interventions are recommended for patients who have ongoing contact with their families (2B), and patients should also receive interventions “aimed at developing self-management skills and enhancing person-oriented recovery.” They should receive cognitive remediation, social skills training, and supportive psychotherapy.
Dr. Keepers pointed to “major barriers” to providing some of these psychosocial treatments. “They are beyond the scope of someone in an individual private practice situation, so they need to be delivered within the context of treatment programs that are either publicly or privately based,” he said.
“Psychiatrists can and do work closely with community and mental health centers, psychologists, and social workers who can provide these kinds of treatments,” but “many [treatments] require specialized skills and training before they can be offered, and there is a shortage of personnel to deliver them,” he noted.
“Both the national and state governments have not provided adequate funding for treatment of individuals with this condition [schizophrenia],” he added.
Dr. Keepers reports no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the original article. Dr. Harvey reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Correll disclosed ties to Acadia, Alkermes, Allergan, Angelini, Axsome, Gedeon Richter, Gerson Lehrman Group, Indivior, IntraCellular Therapies, Janssen/J&J, LB Pharma, Lundbeck, MedAvante-ProPhase, Medscape, Merck, Mylan, Neurocrine, Noven, Otsuka, Pfizer, Recordati, Rovi, Servier, Sumitomo Dainippon, Sunovion, Supernus, Takeda, and Teva. He has received grant support from Janssen and Takeda. He is also a stock option holder of LB Pharma.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
AGA updates endoscopic management of nonvariceal upper GI bleeding
The American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) has published a clinical practice update for endoscopic management of nonvariceal upper GI bleeding (NVUGIB).
The update includes 10 best practice recommendations based on clinical experience and a comprehensive literature review, reported lead author Daniel K. Mullady, MD, of Washington University in St. Louis.
“Numerous endoscopic devices have been developed over the past 30 years with demonstrated effectiveness in treating NVUGIB,” Dr. Mullady and colleagues wrote in Gastroenterology. “The purpose of this clinical practice update is to review the key concepts, new devices, and therapeutic strategies in endoscopically combating this age-old clinical dilemma.”
According to the investigators, endoscopy is central to management of NVUGIB, but only after patients are appropriately triaged and stabilized.
“[E]ndoscopy should be performed to determine the source of bleeding, to assess rebleeding risk, and to treat lesions at high risk for rebleeding,” they wrote. “Exactly when the endoscopy should be performed is a clinical judgment made by the gastroenterologist in consultation with the primary service.”
The investigators recommended that endoscopy be performed within 12 hours for emergent cases and within 24 hours for urgent cases, whereas elective cases could wait longer.
They noted that NVUGIB can range from mild and self-limiting, allowing for outpatient management, to severe and life-threatening, necessitating intensive care. Because of this broad range, the investigators recommended familiarity with triage scoring systems, including the Glasgow-Blatchford Score, the Rockall Score, and AIMS-65.
“A common decision is deciding whether or not to wait until the next morning to perform endoscopy on a patient presenting after hours with suspected NVUGIB,” the investigators wrote.
The investigators cautioned that emergent endoscopy may actually be associated with poorer outcomes because of “inadequate resuscitation,” and suggested that “[p]atients who are hemodynamically stable, do not have ongoing hematemesis, and have melena only can generally be deferred to the following morning.”
Concerning hemostatic technique, Dr. Mullady and colleagues recommended familiarity with conventional thermal therapy and placement of hemoclips. If these approaches are unsuccessful, or deemed unlikely to succeed, they recommended an over-the-scope clip.
For ulcers “with a rigid and fibrotic base,” or those that are hard to reach, the investigators recommended monopolar hemostatic forceps with low-voltage coagulation.
According to the update, hemostatic powder should be reserved for scenarios in which bleeding is diffuse and difficult to locate.
“In most instances, hemostatic powder should be preferentially used as a rescue therapy and not for primary hemostasis, except in cases of malignant bleeding or massive bleeding with inability to perform thermal therapy or hemoclip placement,” the investigators wrote.
They noted that hemostatic powder generally dissolves in less than 24 hours, so additional treatment approaches should be considered, particular when there is a high risk of rebleeding.
When deciding between transcatheter arterial embolization (TAE) and surgery after endoscopic failure, the update calls for a comprehensive clinical assessment that incorporates patient factors, such as coagulopathy, hemodynamic instability, and multiorgan failure; bleeding etiology; potential adverse effects; and rebleeding risk.
“An important point is that prophylactic TAE of high-risk ulcers after successful endoscopic therapy is not recommended,” the investigators wrote.
Beyond these recommendations, the update includes a comprehensive discussion of relevant literature and strategies for effective clinical decision making. The discussion concludes with global remarks about the evolving role of endoscopy in managing NVUGIB, including a note about cost-effectiveness despite up-front expenses associated with some methods.
“With this expanded endoscopic armamentarium, endoscopic therapy should achieve hemostasis in the majority of patients with NVUGIB,” the investigators wrote. “Despite the increased costs of newer devices or multimodal therapy, effective hemostasis to preventing rebleeding and the need for hospital readmission is likely to be a dominant cost-saving strategy.”
Dr. Mullady disclosed relationships with Boston Scientific, ConMed, and Cook Medical.
This story was updated on 9/9/2020.
SOURCE: Mullady DK et al. Gastro. 2020 Jun 20. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.05.095.
The American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) has published a clinical practice update for endoscopic management of nonvariceal upper GI bleeding (NVUGIB).
The update includes 10 best practice recommendations based on clinical experience and a comprehensive literature review, reported lead author Daniel K. Mullady, MD, of Washington University in St. Louis.
“Numerous endoscopic devices have been developed over the past 30 years with demonstrated effectiveness in treating NVUGIB,” Dr. Mullady and colleagues wrote in Gastroenterology. “The purpose of this clinical practice update is to review the key concepts, new devices, and therapeutic strategies in endoscopically combating this age-old clinical dilemma.”
According to the investigators, endoscopy is central to management of NVUGIB, but only after patients are appropriately triaged and stabilized.
“[E]ndoscopy should be performed to determine the source of bleeding, to assess rebleeding risk, and to treat lesions at high risk for rebleeding,” they wrote. “Exactly when the endoscopy should be performed is a clinical judgment made by the gastroenterologist in consultation with the primary service.”
The investigators recommended that endoscopy be performed within 12 hours for emergent cases and within 24 hours for urgent cases, whereas elective cases could wait longer.
They noted that NVUGIB can range from mild and self-limiting, allowing for outpatient management, to severe and life-threatening, necessitating intensive care. Because of this broad range, the investigators recommended familiarity with triage scoring systems, including the Glasgow-Blatchford Score, the Rockall Score, and AIMS-65.
“A common decision is deciding whether or not to wait until the next morning to perform endoscopy on a patient presenting after hours with suspected NVUGIB,” the investigators wrote.
The investigators cautioned that emergent endoscopy may actually be associated with poorer outcomes because of “inadequate resuscitation,” and suggested that “[p]atients who are hemodynamically stable, do not have ongoing hematemesis, and have melena only can generally be deferred to the following morning.”
Concerning hemostatic technique, Dr. Mullady and colleagues recommended familiarity with conventional thermal therapy and placement of hemoclips. If these approaches are unsuccessful, or deemed unlikely to succeed, they recommended an over-the-scope clip.
For ulcers “with a rigid and fibrotic base,” or those that are hard to reach, the investigators recommended monopolar hemostatic forceps with low-voltage coagulation.
According to the update, hemostatic powder should be reserved for scenarios in which bleeding is diffuse and difficult to locate.
“In most instances, hemostatic powder should be preferentially used as a rescue therapy and not for primary hemostasis, except in cases of malignant bleeding or massive bleeding with inability to perform thermal therapy or hemoclip placement,” the investigators wrote.
They noted that hemostatic powder generally dissolves in less than 24 hours, so additional treatment approaches should be considered, particular when there is a high risk of rebleeding.
When deciding between transcatheter arterial embolization (TAE) and surgery after endoscopic failure, the update calls for a comprehensive clinical assessment that incorporates patient factors, such as coagulopathy, hemodynamic instability, and multiorgan failure; bleeding etiology; potential adverse effects; and rebleeding risk.
“An important point is that prophylactic TAE of high-risk ulcers after successful endoscopic therapy is not recommended,” the investigators wrote.
Beyond these recommendations, the update includes a comprehensive discussion of relevant literature and strategies for effective clinical decision making. The discussion concludes with global remarks about the evolving role of endoscopy in managing NVUGIB, including a note about cost-effectiveness despite up-front expenses associated with some methods.
“With this expanded endoscopic armamentarium, endoscopic therapy should achieve hemostasis in the majority of patients with NVUGIB,” the investigators wrote. “Despite the increased costs of newer devices or multimodal therapy, effective hemostasis to preventing rebleeding and the need for hospital readmission is likely to be a dominant cost-saving strategy.”
Dr. Mullady disclosed relationships with Boston Scientific, ConMed, and Cook Medical.
This story was updated on 9/9/2020.
SOURCE: Mullady DK et al. Gastro. 2020 Jun 20. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.05.095.
The American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) has published a clinical practice update for endoscopic management of nonvariceal upper GI bleeding (NVUGIB).
The update includes 10 best practice recommendations based on clinical experience and a comprehensive literature review, reported lead author Daniel K. Mullady, MD, of Washington University in St. Louis.
“Numerous endoscopic devices have been developed over the past 30 years with demonstrated effectiveness in treating NVUGIB,” Dr. Mullady and colleagues wrote in Gastroenterology. “The purpose of this clinical practice update is to review the key concepts, new devices, and therapeutic strategies in endoscopically combating this age-old clinical dilemma.”
According to the investigators, endoscopy is central to management of NVUGIB, but only after patients are appropriately triaged and stabilized.
“[E]ndoscopy should be performed to determine the source of bleeding, to assess rebleeding risk, and to treat lesions at high risk for rebleeding,” they wrote. “Exactly when the endoscopy should be performed is a clinical judgment made by the gastroenterologist in consultation with the primary service.”
The investigators recommended that endoscopy be performed within 12 hours for emergent cases and within 24 hours for urgent cases, whereas elective cases could wait longer.
They noted that NVUGIB can range from mild and self-limiting, allowing for outpatient management, to severe and life-threatening, necessitating intensive care. Because of this broad range, the investigators recommended familiarity with triage scoring systems, including the Glasgow-Blatchford Score, the Rockall Score, and AIMS-65.
“A common decision is deciding whether or not to wait until the next morning to perform endoscopy on a patient presenting after hours with suspected NVUGIB,” the investigators wrote.
The investigators cautioned that emergent endoscopy may actually be associated with poorer outcomes because of “inadequate resuscitation,” and suggested that “[p]atients who are hemodynamically stable, do not have ongoing hematemesis, and have melena only can generally be deferred to the following morning.”
Concerning hemostatic technique, Dr. Mullady and colleagues recommended familiarity with conventional thermal therapy and placement of hemoclips. If these approaches are unsuccessful, or deemed unlikely to succeed, they recommended an over-the-scope clip.
For ulcers “with a rigid and fibrotic base,” or those that are hard to reach, the investigators recommended monopolar hemostatic forceps with low-voltage coagulation.
According to the update, hemostatic powder should be reserved for scenarios in which bleeding is diffuse and difficult to locate.
“In most instances, hemostatic powder should be preferentially used as a rescue therapy and not for primary hemostasis, except in cases of malignant bleeding or massive bleeding with inability to perform thermal therapy or hemoclip placement,” the investigators wrote.
They noted that hemostatic powder generally dissolves in less than 24 hours, so additional treatment approaches should be considered, particular when there is a high risk of rebleeding.
When deciding between transcatheter arterial embolization (TAE) and surgery after endoscopic failure, the update calls for a comprehensive clinical assessment that incorporates patient factors, such as coagulopathy, hemodynamic instability, and multiorgan failure; bleeding etiology; potential adverse effects; and rebleeding risk.
“An important point is that prophylactic TAE of high-risk ulcers after successful endoscopic therapy is not recommended,” the investigators wrote.
Beyond these recommendations, the update includes a comprehensive discussion of relevant literature and strategies for effective clinical decision making. The discussion concludes with global remarks about the evolving role of endoscopy in managing NVUGIB, including a note about cost-effectiveness despite up-front expenses associated with some methods.
“With this expanded endoscopic armamentarium, endoscopic therapy should achieve hemostasis in the majority of patients with NVUGIB,” the investigators wrote. “Despite the increased costs of newer devices or multimodal therapy, effective hemostasis to preventing rebleeding and the need for hospital readmission is likely to be a dominant cost-saving strategy.”
Dr. Mullady disclosed relationships with Boston Scientific, ConMed, and Cook Medical.
This story was updated on 9/9/2020.
SOURCE: Mullady DK et al. Gastro. 2020 Jun 20. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.05.095.
FROM GASTROENTEROLOGY