Men's Health

A 37-year-old woman presents to her primary care clinic with a chief complaint of depression. She was diagnosed with relapsing multiple sclerosis (MS) at age 29 and is currently taking an injectable preventive therapy. Over the past 6 months, she has had increased marital strain secondary to losing her job because “I couldn’t mentally keep up with the work anymore.” This has caused financial difficulties for her family. In addition, she tires easily and has been napping in the afternoon. She and her husband are experiencing intimacy difficulties, and she confirms problems with vaginal dryness and a general loss of her sexual drive.

Sexual dysfunction in MS is common, affecting 40% to 80% of women and 50% to 90% of men with MS. It is an “invisible” symptom, similar to fatigue, cognitive dysfunction, and pain.^1-3

There are three ways that MS patients can be affected by sexual dysfunction, and they are categorized as primary, secondary, and tertiary. Primary sexual dysfunction results from demyelination/axonal destruction of the central nervous system, which potentially leads to altered genital sensation or paresthesia. Secondary sexual dysfunction stems from nonsexual MS symptoms, such as fatigue, spasticity, tremor, impairments in concentration/attention, and iatrogenic causes (eg, adverse effects of medication). Tertiary sexual dysfunction involves the psychosocial/cultural aspects of the disease that can impact a patient’s sexual drive.

SYMPTOMS

Like many other symptoms associated with MS, the symptoms of sexual dysfunction are highly variable. In women, the most common complaints are fatigue, decrease in genital sensation (27%-47%), decrease in libido (31%-74%) and vaginal lubrication (36%-48%), and difficulty with orgasm.⁴ In men with MS, in addition to erectile problems, surveys have identified decreased genital sensation, fatigue (75%), difficulty with ejaculation (18%-50%), decreased interest or arousal (39%), and anorgasmia (37%) as fairly common complaints.²

TREATMENT

Managing sexual dysfunction in a patient with MS is dependent on the underlying problem. Some examples include

• For many patients, their disease causes significant anxiety and worry about current and potentially future disability—which can make intimacy more difficult. Sometimes, referral to a mental health professional may be required to help the patient with individual and/or couples counseling to further elucidate underlying intimacy issues.
• For patients experiencing MS-associated fatigue, suggest planning for sexual activity in the morning, since fatigue is known to worsen throughout the day.
• For those who qualify for antidepressant medications, remember that some (eg, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors) can further decrease libido and therefore should be avoided if possible.
• For women who have difficulty with lubrication, a nonpetroleum-based lubricant may reduce vaginal dryness, while use of a vibrator may assist with genital stimulation.
• For men who cannot maintain erection, phosphodiesterase inhibitor drugs (eg, sildenafil) can be helpful; other options include alprostadil urethral suppositories and intracavernous injections.

The patient is screened for depression using the Patient Health Questionnaire, which yields a score of 17 (moderately severe). You discuss the need for active treatment with her, and she agrees to start an antidepressant medication. Bupropion is chosen, given its effectiveness and lack of adverse effects (including sexual dysfunction). The patient also is encouraged to use nonpetroleum-based lubricants. Finally, a referral is made for couples counseling, and a 6-week follow-up appointment is scheduled.

CONCLUSION

Sexual dysfunction in MS is quite common in both women and men, and the related symptoms are often multifactorial. Strategies to address sexual dysfunction in MS require a tailored approach. Fortunately, any treatments for sexual dysfunction initiated by the patient’s primary care provider will not have an adverse effect on the patient’s outcome with MS. For more complicated cases of MS-associated sexual dysfunction, urology referral is recommended.

A 37-year-old woman presents to her primary care clinic with a chief complaint of depression. She was diagnosed with relapsing multiple sclerosis (MS) at age 29 and is currently taking an injectable preventive therapy. Over the past 6 months, she has had increased marital strain secondary to losing her job because “I couldn’t mentally keep up with the work anymore.” This has caused financial difficulties for her family. In addition, she tires easily and has been napping in the afternoon. She and her husband are experiencing intimacy difficulties, and she confirms problems with vaginal dryness and a general loss of her sexual drive.

Sexual dysfunction in MS is common, affecting 40% to 80% of women and 50% to 90% of men with MS. It is an “invisible” symptom, similar to fatigue, cognitive dysfunction, and pain.^1-3

There are three ways that MS patients can be affected by sexual dysfunction, and they are categorized as primary, secondary, and tertiary. Primary sexual dysfunction results from demyelination/axonal destruction of the central nervous system, which potentially leads to altered genital sensation or paresthesia. Secondary sexual dysfunction stems from nonsexual MS symptoms, such as fatigue, spasticity, tremor, impairments in concentration/attention, and iatrogenic causes (eg, adverse effects of medication). Tertiary sexual dysfunction involves the psychosocial/cultural aspects of the disease that can impact a patient’s sexual drive.

SYMPTOMS

Like many other symptoms associated with MS, the symptoms of sexual dysfunction are highly variable. In women, the most common complaints are fatigue, decrease in genital sensation (27%-47%), decrease in libido (31%-74%) and vaginal lubrication (36%-48%), and difficulty with orgasm.⁴ In men with MS, in addition to erectile problems, surveys have identified decreased genital sensation, fatigue (75%), difficulty with ejaculation (18%-50%), decreased interest or arousal (39%), and anorgasmia (37%) as fairly common complaints.²

TREATMENT

Managing sexual dysfunction in a patient with MS is dependent on the underlying problem. Some examples include

• For many patients, their disease causes significant anxiety and worry about current and potentially future disability—which can make intimacy more difficult. Sometimes, referral to a mental health professional may be required to help the patient with individual and/or couples counseling to further elucidate underlying intimacy issues.
• For patients experiencing MS-associated fatigue, suggest planning for sexual activity in the morning, since fatigue is known to worsen throughout the day.
• For those who qualify for antidepressant medications, remember that some (eg, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors) can further decrease libido and therefore should be avoided if possible.
• For women who have difficulty with lubrication, a nonpetroleum-based lubricant may reduce vaginal dryness, while use of a vibrator may assist with genital stimulation.
• For men who cannot maintain erection, phosphodiesterase inhibitor drugs (eg, sildenafil) can be helpful; other options include alprostadil urethral suppositories and intracavernous injections.

The patient is screened for depression using the Patient Health Questionnaire, which yields a score of 17 (moderately severe). You discuss the need for active treatment with her, and she agrees to start an antidepressant medication. Bupropion is chosen, given its effectiveness and lack of adverse effects (including sexual dysfunction). The patient also is encouraged to use nonpetroleum-based lubricants. Finally, a referral is made for couples counseling, and a 6-week follow-up appointment is scheduled.

CONCLUSION

Sexual dysfunction in MS is quite common in both women and men, and the related symptoms are often multifactorial. Strategies to address sexual dysfunction in MS require a tailored approach. Fortunately, any treatments for sexual dysfunction initiated by the patient’s primary care provider will not have an adverse effect on the patient’s outcome with MS. For more complicated cases of MS-associated sexual dysfunction, urology referral is recommended.

A 37-year-old woman presents to her primary care clinic with a chief complaint of depression. She was diagnosed with relapsing multiple sclerosis (MS) at age 29 and is currently taking an injectable preventive therapy. Over the past 6 months, she has had increased marital strain secondary to losing her job because “I couldn’t mentally keep up with the work anymore.” This has caused financial difficulties for her family. In addition, she tires easily and has been napping in the afternoon. She and her husband are experiencing intimacy difficulties, and she confirms problems with vaginal dryness and a general loss of her sexual drive.

Sexual dysfunction in MS is common, affecting 40% to 80% of women and 50% to 90% of men with MS. It is an “invisible” symptom, similar to fatigue, cognitive dysfunction, and pain.^1-3

There are three ways that MS patients can be affected by sexual dysfunction, and they are categorized as primary, secondary, and tertiary. Primary sexual dysfunction results from demyelination/axonal destruction of the central nervous system, which potentially leads to altered genital sensation or paresthesia. Secondary sexual dysfunction stems from nonsexual MS symptoms, such as fatigue, spasticity, tremor, impairments in concentration/attention, and iatrogenic causes (eg, adverse effects of medication). Tertiary sexual dysfunction involves the psychosocial/cultural aspects of the disease that can impact a patient’s sexual drive.

SYMPTOMS

Like many other symptoms associated with MS, the symptoms of sexual dysfunction are highly variable. In women, the most common complaints are fatigue, decrease in genital sensation (27%-47%), decrease in libido (31%-74%) and vaginal lubrication (36%-48%), and difficulty with orgasm.⁴ In men with MS, in addition to erectile problems, surveys have identified decreased genital sensation, fatigue (75%), difficulty with ejaculation (18%-50%), decreased interest or arousal (39%), and anorgasmia (37%) as fairly common complaints.²

TREATMENT

Managing sexual dysfunction in a patient with MS is dependent on the underlying problem. Some examples include

• For many patients, their disease causes significant anxiety and worry about current and potentially future disability—which can make intimacy more difficult. Sometimes, referral to a mental health professional may be required to help the patient with individual and/or couples counseling to further elucidate underlying intimacy issues.
• For patients experiencing MS-associated fatigue, suggest planning for sexual activity in the morning, since fatigue is known to worsen throughout the day.
• For those who qualify for antidepressant medications, remember that some (eg, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors) can further decrease libido and therefore should be avoided if possible.
• For women who have difficulty with lubrication, a nonpetroleum-based lubricant may reduce vaginal dryness, while use of a vibrator may assist with genital stimulation.
• For men who cannot maintain erection, phosphodiesterase inhibitor drugs (eg, sildenafil) can be helpful; other options include alprostadil urethral suppositories and intracavernous injections.

The patient is screened for depression using the Patient Health Questionnaire, which yields a score of 17 (moderately severe). You discuss the need for active treatment with her, and she agrees to start an antidepressant medication. Bupropion is chosen, given its effectiveness and lack of adverse effects (including sexual dysfunction). The patient also is encouraged to use nonpetroleum-based lubricants. Finally, a referral is made for couples counseling, and a 6-week follow-up appointment is scheduled.

CONCLUSION

Sexual dysfunction in MS is quite common in both women and men, and the related symptoms are often multifactorial. Strategies to address sexual dysfunction in MS require a tailored approach. Fortunately, any treatments for sexual dysfunction initiated by the patient’s primary care provider will not have an adverse effect on the patient’s outcome with MS. For more complicated cases of MS-associated sexual dysfunction, urology referral is recommended.

First-time fathers may be at risk of experiencing depressive symptoms as they transition to parenthood – especially if risk factors such as poor sleep are present, results of a prospective study of more than 600 new fathers show.

Wavebreakmedia/Thinkstock

“Strategies to promote better sleep, mobilize social support, and strengthen the couple relationship may be important to address in innovative interventions tailored to new fathers at risk for depression during the perinatal period,” wrote Deborah Da Costa, PhD, of McGill University, Montreal, and colleagues. The study was published in the Journal of Affective Disorders.

To determine the prevalence of depressive symptoms in first-time fathers and identify notable risk factors, the researchers surveyed 622 Canadian men during their partner’s third trimester. The same group was surveyed again at 2 and 6 months postpartum. Depression was assessed via the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS), and additional variables such as sleep quality, social support, and stress were gathered as well.

Of the initial 622 men surveyed, 487 (78.3%) and 375 (60.3%) completed the questionnaires at 2 and 6 months postpartum, respectively. The prevalence of paternal depressive symptoms was 13.76% (95% confidence interval, 10.70-16.82) at 2 months and 13.6% (95% CI, 10.13-17.07) at 6 months. Of the men who reported depressive symptoms at 2 months postpartum, 40.3% also experienced symptoms during the third trimester. Of the men who reported depressive symptoms at 6 months postpartum, 24% experienced symptoms during the third trimester and after 2 months.

At 2 months, the risk of depressive symptoms increased for men with worse sleep quality (odds ratio, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.10-1.42), poorer couple relationship adjustment (OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.94-0.99), and higher parenting stress (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.02-1.11). At 6 months, there was a significant association between paternal depressive symptoms and unemployment (OR, 3.75; 95% CI, 1.00-13.72), poorer sleep quality (OR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.16-1.65), lower social support (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.84-1.00), poorer couple relationship adjustment (OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.92-0.98), and higher financial stress (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.04-1.42).

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including a middling response rate that could affect the accuracy of prevalence estimates and a well-educated, largely middle-class sample that could limit generalizability. In addition, they assessed depressive symptoms by self-report and not diagnostic clinical interviews. However, they also noted that “the EPDS is the most widely used tool to assess depressive symptoms in parents during the perinatal period and was validated in expectant and new fathers.”

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. No conflicts of interest were reported.

SOURCE: Da Costa D et al. J Affect Disord. 2019 Apr 15;249:371-7.

First-time fathers may be at risk of experiencing depressive symptoms as they transition to parenthood – especially if risk factors such as poor sleep are present, results of a prospective study of more than 600 new fathers show.

Wavebreakmedia/Thinkstock

“Strategies to promote better sleep, mobilize social support, and strengthen the couple relationship may be important to address in innovative interventions tailored to new fathers at risk for depression during the perinatal period,” wrote Deborah Da Costa, PhD, of McGill University, Montreal, and colleagues. The study was published in the Journal of Affective Disorders.

To determine the prevalence of depressive symptoms in first-time fathers and identify notable risk factors, the researchers surveyed 622 Canadian men during their partner’s third trimester. The same group was surveyed again at 2 and 6 months postpartum. Depression was assessed via the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS), and additional variables such as sleep quality, social support, and stress were gathered as well.

Of the initial 622 men surveyed, 487 (78.3%) and 375 (60.3%) completed the questionnaires at 2 and 6 months postpartum, respectively. The prevalence of paternal depressive symptoms was 13.76% (95% confidence interval, 10.70-16.82) at 2 months and 13.6% (95% CI, 10.13-17.07) at 6 months. Of the men who reported depressive symptoms at 2 months postpartum, 40.3% also experienced symptoms during the third trimester. Of the men who reported depressive symptoms at 6 months postpartum, 24% experienced symptoms during the third trimester and after 2 months.

At 2 months, the risk of depressive symptoms increased for men with worse sleep quality (odds ratio, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.10-1.42), poorer couple relationship adjustment (OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.94-0.99), and higher parenting stress (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.02-1.11). At 6 months, there was a significant association between paternal depressive symptoms and unemployment (OR, 3.75; 95% CI, 1.00-13.72), poorer sleep quality (OR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.16-1.65), lower social support (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.84-1.00), poorer couple relationship adjustment (OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.92-0.98), and higher financial stress (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.04-1.42).

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including a middling response rate that could affect the accuracy of prevalence estimates and a well-educated, largely middle-class sample that could limit generalizability. In addition, they assessed depressive symptoms by self-report and not diagnostic clinical interviews. However, they also noted that “the EPDS is the most widely used tool to assess depressive symptoms in parents during the perinatal period and was validated in expectant and new fathers.”

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. No conflicts of interest were reported.

SOURCE: Da Costa D et al. J Affect Disord. 2019 Apr 15;249:371-7.

First-time fathers may be at risk of experiencing depressive symptoms as they transition to parenthood – especially if risk factors such as poor sleep are present, results of a prospective study of more than 600 new fathers show.

Wavebreakmedia/Thinkstock

“Strategies to promote better sleep, mobilize social support, and strengthen the couple relationship may be important to address in innovative interventions tailored to new fathers at risk for depression during the perinatal period,” wrote Deborah Da Costa, PhD, of McGill University, Montreal, and colleagues. The study was published in the Journal of Affective Disorders.

To determine the prevalence of depressive symptoms in first-time fathers and identify notable risk factors, the researchers surveyed 622 Canadian men during their partner’s third trimester. The same group was surveyed again at 2 and 6 months postpartum. Depression was assessed via the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS), and additional variables such as sleep quality, social support, and stress were gathered as well.

Of the initial 622 men surveyed, 487 (78.3%) and 375 (60.3%) completed the questionnaires at 2 and 6 months postpartum, respectively. The prevalence of paternal depressive symptoms was 13.76% (95% confidence interval, 10.70-16.82) at 2 months and 13.6% (95% CI, 10.13-17.07) at 6 months. Of the men who reported depressive symptoms at 2 months postpartum, 40.3% also experienced symptoms during the third trimester. Of the men who reported depressive symptoms at 6 months postpartum, 24% experienced symptoms during the third trimester and after 2 months.

At 2 months, the risk of depressive symptoms increased for men with worse sleep quality (odds ratio, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.10-1.42), poorer couple relationship adjustment (OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.94-0.99), and higher parenting stress (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.02-1.11). At 6 months, there was a significant association between paternal depressive symptoms and unemployment (OR, 3.75; 95% CI, 1.00-13.72), poorer sleep quality (OR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.16-1.65), lower social support (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.84-1.00), poorer couple relationship adjustment (OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.92-0.98), and higher financial stress (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.04-1.42).

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including a middling response rate that could affect the accuracy of prevalence estimates and a well-educated, largely middle-class sample that could limit generalizability. In addition, they assessed depressive symptoms by self-report and not diagnostic clinical interviews. However, they also noted that “the EPDS is the most widely used tool to assess depressive symptoms in parents during the perinatal period and was validated in expectant and new fathers.”

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. No conflicts of interest were reported.

SOURCE: Da Costa D et al. J Affect Disord. 2019 Apr 15;249:371-7.

For millions of couples, a primary care physician may be the first point of contact for fertility concerns. Statistics from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate that 12% of women ages 15 to 44 received fertility services from 2006 to 2010.¹ Despite seeking services, most couples requested only advice or testing rather than treatments such as ovulation-inducing medications, surgery, or, rarely, assisted reproductive technologies including in vitro fertilization. Based on these data, primary care physicians are in a unique position to offer guidance and provide fertility services in most circumstances without the need for referral.

This article reviews the answers to questions patients frequently ask, and outlines a practical framework for the evaluation and management of the infertile couple.

MANY PATIENTS SEEK INFORMATION

At least 1 million medical visits per year are for women seeking help in becoming pregnant, with the number increasing over the last several decades.¹ Reasons for the increase include delayed childbearing and the effects of aging on the female reproductive system (“female reproductive aging”), as well as the availability of increasingly effective treatments for infertility.

While the prevalence of infertility in US couples is widely quoted as 10% to 15%,² there is no estimate for the number of fertility-related questions patients routinely pose to care providers. These questions often relate to coital timing, use of lubricants, positioning, and the use of fertility trackers and ovulation predictors.

A 2017 study of women with 12 months of infertility found that only 8% sought subspecialist care vs care from a general physician or provider, indicating that generalists are most often the first point of contact.³ The majority (92%) of women responding to a survey regarding fertility-awareness education indicated a preference for immediate counseling from their general practitioner.⁴

Although some healthcare providers may consider infertility simply a quality-of-life issue, the World Health Organization classifies it as a disease, and as such it warrants identification, assessment, and intervention.⁵ Further, patients with infertility are known to experience considerable psychological distress related to their condition. In a comparison study, women with infertility experienced levels of psychological distress similar to the level in patients with cancer and patients with chronic medical illness.⁶

In the current era, general practitioners and women’s health specialists may also now address patients’ questions about reproductive aging and egg-freezing, which is now an established technology.⁷

FAILURE TO CONCEIVE AFTER 1 YEAR

As women approach age 40, the potential for fertility decreases rapidly and significantly. Women in their later 30s have only half the fertility of women in their early 20s.¹⁰ Misperceptions of aging and female fertility have been fueled by widely publicized celebrity births from women in their 40s and even 50s, without disclosing the use of frozen or donor eggs. This unfortunate fact affects women actively trying to conceive as well as women who wish to delay childbearing due to lack of a partner or for personal or professional reasons. Primary care physicians should be able to provide counseling relevant to female reproductive aging and make suitable and timely referrals for fertility preservation if indicated.

AN EMOTIONAL ISSUE

In approaching the couple with infertility, it is important to proceed with great sensitivity for the socioemotional context of this diagnosis. For both the male and female partner, infertility can be highly stigmatizing, and can be viewed as a personal or relationship failure.

Couples should be encouraged to ask embarrassing or uncomfortable questions. Although this may not be feasible in many circumstances, interviews should ideally be conducted with both partners individually as well as together, to allow sensitive issues to be shared. In some cases, a partner may be unaware of a history of a sexually transmitted infection, a prior abortion, the use of testosterone supplements or medications to enhance male sexual performance, or a vasectomy or tubal ligation during a previous relationship.

It is not unusual that the anxiety of infertility can cause decreased libido and sexual and erectile dysfunction. These issues can further complicate the problem of conceiving, and couples counseling is not uncommonly required.11 Patients are often reassured to know that they are not alone in their diagnosis.

Before embarking on a series of tests, the primary care physician can carefully evaluate for clues that may guide the diagnostic evaluation. The approach can be individualized based on the patient’s age, duration of subfertility (ie, how long they have been trying to become pregnant), and risk factors. But as a general rule, regardless of age, couples who have been trying to conceive for more than 1 year should be encouraged to pursue additional testing.

Because each month presents a new cycle of hope (often followed by intense disappointment), the prevailing sentiment to “just give it a little more time” must be countered by education and counseling. The primary care physician must increase awareness that lack of pregnancy in the stated time periods is a compelling reason for evaluation.

History-taking in the infertile couple should include a complete gynecologic and menstrual history. A history of sexually transmitted diseases that can cause tubal disease, such as gonorrhea and Chlamydia, is significant. Both partners should be assessed for a history of prior conceptions, past medical or surgical problems, medications, and exposures to environmental toxins including alcohol, tobacco, and drugs.

A detailed physical examination can provide clues to the cause of subfertility, especially if signs of obesity, androgen excess, or insulin resistance are present.

QUESTIONS OFTEN ASKED BY COUPLES TRYING TO CONCEIVE

Clinicians are frequently asked questions related to sexual practices and lifestyle in relation to fertility and should be comfortable responding to questions in these areas.

Does frequent ejaculation ‘use up’ my sperm?

Men should be reassured that frequent ejaculations do not decrease sperm counts; even daily ejaculation does not deplete the concentration of sperm. Male partners can be reassured that “saving up” is not an effective strategy; in fact, abstinence periods of greater than 5 days can adversely affect semen parameters.¹²

How often should we have sex?

Infrequent intercourse (< 1 time per week) reduces the monthly chance of conceiving.¹³ There does not seem to be a significant improvement in fecundity with daily intercourse vs intercourse on alternate days. Strict schedules surrounding intercourse may increase stress, and reassurance should be offered that intercourse need not be regimented. Every 1 to 2 days should suffice.

Are any sexual positions better for conception?

There is no evidence that particular coital positioning or remaining supine after intercourse improves fertility. Sperm can be found within the endocervix within seconds of ejaculation, irrespective of sexual position.

What is the window of fertility?

There is good evidence that the fertile window lasts approximately 6 days and closes after ovulation.^13,14 Women with regular cycles can determine their typical day of ovulation based on menstrual tracking. Intercourse should begin about 6 days before ovulation and should continue every 1 to 2 days for 1 week to fully capture this window.

Should we change our lifestyle?

Couples seeking pregnancy should be advised to limit alcohol and caffeine use, completely abstain from cigarette smoking or illicit drug use, and maintain a healthy body mass index.

Very few data exist to support particular diets or supplements to promote fertility, including antioxidants and herbal remedies. Folic acid supplementation is recommended in all women attempting to conceive to reduce the incidence of birth defects.

Do lubricants reduce fertility?

Although there seem to be no differences in fecundity rates in couples using commercial lubricants, most water-based lubricants are best avoided in couples with infertility, as adverse effects on sperm have been demonstrated in vitro.¹⁵ If lubrication is needed, couples may try mineral oil, canola oil, or hydroxyetyl­cellulose-based lubricants (eg, Pre-seed).

Do fertility trackers work?

Many couples with primary infertility perceive that coital timing is critical and worry that their infertility is due to poorly timed intercourse; in fact, this is seldom the case.

Despite widespread marketing of urinary luteinizing hormone (LH) detection kits and electronic trackers and monitors, there is no clear evidence that these methods improve monthly rates of conception.

Women with a regular menstrual cycle should be encouraged to take notice when their cervical mucus appears clear and slippery (a sign of ovulation). Not all women are able to detect these fluctuations; however, for those who can, observing cervical mucus changes appears to be equivalent or superior to predictor kits in predicting conception.¹⁶

A PRACTICAL FRAMEWORK FOR EVALUATING THE INFERTILE COUPLE

To assess for the common factors identified in Table 1, the essential investigation of the infertile couple includes:

• Semen analysis
• Confirmation of ovulation
• Hysterosalpingography.

Consideration can also be given to ovarian reserve testing in women at risk of diminished ovarian reserve. The above investigation can be performed simultaneously to allow for prompt identification of any issues. Further, infertility is often a combination of problems (eg, anovulation in the woman together with a problem in the man), so an incomplete evaluation may overlook a coexisting diagnosis and lead to delays in treatment and pregnancy.

Tests that are no longer typically used in clinical practice are outlined in Table 2.

Ovarian reserve refers to the number of fertilizable oocytes that remain in the ovary. This reserve changes over time, and changes occur rapidly as women approach and enter their 30s. Though not the case in men, the age of the female partner is an independent risk factor for infertility. This discrepancy is due to loss of ovarian reserve, chromosome abnormalities in embryos, and the development of medical conditions with age that affect fertility.

Testing for ovarian reserve does not necessarily predict an overall inability to achieve a live birth,¹⁷ but it can predict response to exogenous gonadotropins and, to some degree, the chance for successful pregnancy with assisted reproductive technology.¹⁸

The ASRM states that testing for diminished ovarian reserve may provide useful information in women who have had a previous poor response to gonadotropins and in women planning assisted reproductive technology.¹⁹ The ASRM also indicates that the following are risk factors for diminished ovarian reserve, and clinicians may target the assessment accordingly¹⁹:

• Age 35 or older
• History of exposure to chemotherapy or pelvic radiation
• Family history of early menopause (age < 40)
• History of ovarian surgery
• Unexplained or idiopathic fertility.

Although several tests of ovarian reserve exist, either an antimullerian hormone (AMH) test or a combined cycle day-3 follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) and estradiol level are the 2 tests commonly used in clinical practice. Antral follicle counts are an ultrasonographic measure used by infertility specialists but rarely by primary care physicians. Assays such as inhibin are rarely ordered and have limited clinical utility.

The AMH test

Many reproductive endocrinologists rely on the AMH level as a single test of ovarian reserve as it is easy to obtain, has a relatively low cost, and offers stable results. AMH is produced by the granulosa cells of the ovarian antral follicles and is readily detected in serum samples.

Conveniently for the clinician, levels of this hormone remain stable throughout the menstrual cycle and therefore can be tested on any day and at any time of day. Lower serum AMH levels (< 1 ng/mL) have been shown to correspond to diminished ovarian stimulation with gonadotropins as well as decreased embryo quality and poor pregnancy outcomes with assisted reproductive technology.¹⁹

Nevertheless, despite overall stability, AMH levels can be falsely lowered in women using exogenous hormones or with a diagnosis of hypogonadotropic hypogonadism. Levels may be higher than expected in women with polycystic ovary syndrome due to higher numbers of antral and preantral follicles in the polycystic ovary.

The day-3 follicle-stimulating hormone test

FSH and 17-beta estradiol testing can be ordered in combination to assess function of the hypothalamic-pituitary-ovarian axis on day 3 of the menstrual cycle. There is some flexibility, however, and testing obtained on cycle day 2, 3, or 4 yields equivalent results.

Although there are no strict cutoffs, FSH levels that appear elevated (> 10–20 IU/L) are associated with lower chances of conceiving with in vitro fertilization in multiple studies.²⁰

The test is limited by levels that may fluctuate cycle to cycle, and reassuring test results do not necessarily indicate that a woman will achieve a pregnancy. Although a serum estradiol value alone is not a useful test, it can be used in combination with day-3 FSH to screen for diminished ovarian reserve.

As premature recruitment of a follicle can cause an early follicular rise in estradiol, FSH may be falsely suppressed on day 3. For example, a “normal” day-3 FSH combined with an elevated day-3 17-beta estradiol level of 60 to 80 pg/mL is associated with a poor response to medical treatments for infertility.

Female reproductive aging

Aging of the female reproductive system is a central threat to fertility, and prompt assessment and referral are warranted for women age 35 or older who have been trying to conceive for more than 6 months. The ASRM recommends that women over age 40 be evaluated immediately.²¹

A prevailing misconception is that regular menstrual cycles correspond with normal fertility. In reality, women lose their ability to achieve a healthy live birth in the 5 to 10 years preceding menopause. Although all women who do not desire pregnancy should still use appropriate contraception to avoid unintended pregnancy, women who do desire pregnancy should be aware of these physiologic changes.

Classic age-related changes in ovarian reserve are accompanied by a steep rise in aneuploidy and miscarriage risk.²² This is particularly relevant as women increasingly delay childbearing in modern society. Loss of fertility begins at 32 and abruptly accelerates at age 37²¹; this fact is poorly communicated to and understood by patients. In a 2018 study of highly educated women, most respondents failed to identify that 45-year-old women can only rarely achieve a successful pregnancy.²³

In recent decades, the percentage of women who delay childbearing until after age 35 has steadily increased. There is a widespread misconception that fertility treatments and assisted reproductive technology can compensate for female reproductive aging. Primary care physicians can play a central role in reminding couples that age remains the single greatest predictor of natural fertility and the chance of success with assisted reproduction.

Further, for women who desire future fertility and are without a partner, primary care physicians can counsel them regarding the availability of donor insemination or egg freezing. Studies confirm that women want clinicians to initiate information on reproductive health, and 80% of women undergoing elective egg-freezing for fertility preservation wished that they had done so at an earlier age.^24,25

Women with endometriosis, fibroids, or a history of tubal disease have impaired fecundity. Pelvic imaging is an essential component of their evaluation. Although hysterosalpingography is the mainstay of tubal assessment, in select cases ultrasonography or hysteroscopy may be indicated.

Tubal disease and hysterosalpingography

Tubal disease remains one of the most common causes of infertility in the US females. In most cases, tubal damage is secondary to pelvic inflammatory disease from infection with gonorrhea or Chlamydia, or both.

Rates of confirmed tubal-factor infertility have been shown to increase with both the severity of the infection and the number of past infections.²⁶ In a landmark study, 1 episode of pelvic inflammatory disease was associated with a 12% risk of tubal-factor infertility, whereas 3 infections carried a risk as high as 54%. Pelvic inflammatory disease is also known to increase the risk of ectopic pregnancy.

To assess tubal patency, hysterosalpingography, a radiographic procedure, is typically performed using fluoroscopy and injected contrast material. Some centers may offer sonohysterography as a radiation-free alternative, depending on sonographic skill and experience. Both tests are best scheduled in the window between the end of menstrual bleeding and ovulation. In practice, patients with regular cycles can typically schedule hysterosalpingography between cycle days 5 and 12.

In patients with known hydrosalpinx (a distended fallopian tube due to blockage) or a history of pelvic infection, doxycycline should be given before the procedure.²⁷ Patients with demonstrated hydrosalpinx on hysterosalpingography should receive doxycycline 100 mg twice daily for 5 days to prevent posthysterosalpingography pelvic inflammatory disease.²⁷ Patients with active pelvic or cervical infection should not undergo hysterosalpingography .

Women with confirmed hydrosalpinx or tubal obstruction can be referred for laparoscopy. Gynecologic surgeons will plan their approach based on whether the obstruction is proximal (near the uterus) or distal (near the ovary) as well as whether hydrosalpinx, abnormal tubal architecture, salpingitis isthmica nodosa, or peritubal adhesions are noted. Tubal surgery can be effective in mild cases of tubal disease; however, as in vitro fertilization is becoming more effective, patients with moderate or severe tubal disease are increasingly being referred directly for assisted reproductive technology. Before undergoing assisted reproductive technology, hydrosalpinx will need to be addressed, as it can decrease clinical pregnancy rates with in vitro fertilization.

Endometriosis

Endometriosis is found in 21% to 47% of women with subfertility²⁸ and commonly causes pain, ovarian cysts, and tubal disease. There is often a delay of 7 to 8 years for diagnosis due to the misapprehension that severe dysmenorrhea is normal. Women with an affected first-degree family member are at substantially increased risk.

Although endometriosis is commonly thought to result from reflux of endometrial tissue into the peritoneal cavity with menses, there are multiple proposed mechanisms for the disease.²⁹ The pathogenesis of endometriosis is enigmatic, and there are likely as yet undetermined immunologic and genetic predispositions that confer increased risk.

Common symptoms of endometriosis are dysmenorrhea, dyspareunia, and pelvic pain, and these are sometimes accompanied by bowel and bladder symptoms. Pelvic examination classically demonstrates an immobile uterus and uterosacral nodularity; palpation of these nodules can elicit pain. On laparoscopy, endometriosis can range from minimal to severe; however, stage of endometriosis correlates poorly with reported symptoms.³⁰

Consideration of surgery is based on clinical history, results of the pelvic examination, and possible findings on ultrasonography or hysterosalpingography. Although positive findings on imaging can support a plan for intervention, endometriosis is largely a peritoneal disease, and evidence of tubal damage or ovarian cysts is rarely evident on ultrasonography. In women with menstrual complaints (eg, dysmenorrhea, heavy menstrual bleeding, abnormal uterine bleeding) and a history of infertility, ultrasonography may be useful in determining the presence of uterine pathology such as ovarian cyst or endometrioma, large hydrosalpinx, polyp, or substantial fibroid burden—any of which may have a significant impact on female fertility.

In the absence of a reliable blood test or imaging study, the gold standard for the diagnosis of endometriosis continues to be laparoscopic surgery. Hormonal treatments for endometriosis symptoms are not effective in improving infertility and will preclude pregnancy. Laparoscopic surgery is more successful in improving pregnancy rates in women with advanced disease: pregnancy rates after surgery can be as high as 60% in women with ovarian endometriomas but are significantly lower in women with removal of minimal to mild disease.^30,31 Women over age 35 or who present with low ovarian reserve and whose male partner has semen abnormalities should consider moving directly to assisted reproductive technology rather than pursuing endometriosis surgery.

Although male partners are often highly engaged in and supportive of the fertility evaluation, some are reluctant to undergo testing, and some wish to undergo semen analysis only after female factors have been ruled out. Our practice is to evaluate male factors immediately, due to the high contribution of male factors (up to 40% of cases) either alone or in combination with female factors.³²

Men at particularly increased risk of semen abnormalities include those with a history of chemotherapy or radiation or exposure to toxins (eg, environmental exposures, alcohol, tobacco, illicit substances) and prescribed medications.

At a minimum, for the male partner, a reproductive history should be taken and a semen analysis ordered. Men should be directly queried about testosterone use, as this often-used anabolic steroid hormone can severely impair sperm production.

Men who have low sperm counts, motility, or morphology scores based on World Health Organization criteria should not be deemed “infertile,” as there is significant variation from one analysis to the next, and normal fertility has been reported in men with notably low sperm counts. Particular caution should be exercised in interpreting low morphology scores in men with normal counts and motility, as this parameter appears to have the least prognostic value in this context. Men with abnormal semen analyses should be referred to a specialist for further urologic evaluation and treatment.

Treatments for male factor infertility include surgery, steroid hormones, and possibly intrauterine insemination or assisted reproductive technology. In even the most challenging cases, male infertility is now largely treatable with intracytoplasmic sperm injection with assisted reproductive technology. While most advances in in vitro fertilization have been evolutionary, intracytoplasmic sperm injection was revolutionary. This breakthrough technology allows a single sperm to be injected directly into the oocyte. Sperm for this procedure can be obtained either from the ejaculate or from microsurgical testicular sperm extraction.

ANOVULATION

A thorough menstrual history can be informative, as most females of reproductive age have a fairly predictable 25-to-35-day monthly menstrual cycle. Women presenting with menstrual charting with this pattern do not require laboratory confirmation of ovulation. Basal body temperatures are rarely used currently, as they are time-consuming, can induce stress, and are confirmatory rather than predictive of ovulation. Endometrial biopsy for endometrial “dating” is no longer performed in infertile women.

If laboratory confirmation is desired, LH kit testing with a commercially available test or a luteal phase serum progesterone obtained 7 days after suspected ovulation can be obtained. A serum progesterone level higher than 3 ng/mL is indicative of ovulation.¹⁹ Due to the notable fluctuations in ovulatory-appearing progesterone levels over several hours, caution must be taken in interpreting a lower-normal level as indicative of a luteal phase insufficiency.

Polycystic ovary syndrome

Polycystic ovary syndrome is important to understand because it is a metabolic condition that predisposes patients to a variety of health risks. Along with gynecologic consequences such as infertility, abnormal uterine bleeding, and endometrial pathology, it is often accompanied by alterations in glucose and lipid metabolism, obesity, hypertension, and cardiovascular disease.³⁵

Despite its name, the syndrome does not involve the presence of classic ovarian cysts. In fact, the cysts associated with polycystic ovary syndrome are dense accumulations of antral follicles arranged peripherally in the ovarian cortex; they should not be removed surgically as they represent the ovarian reserve.

Although ovaries that appear polycystic on transvaginal ultrasonography are often associated with the syndrome, they are not invariably present and are not absolutely required for the diagnosis of polycystic ovary syndrome based on the most commonly used criteria.³⁵ Several diagnostic criteria have been proposed for polycystic ovary syndrome and its phenotypes. The 2003 revised Rotterdam criteria require 2 out of the following 3 features:

• Oligo-ovulation or anovulation
• Evidence of hyperandrogenism, whether clinical (eg, acne or hirsutism) or based on laboratory testing
• Polycystic-appearing ovaries on ultrasonography.

There is no single test that can diagnose the disease. Although polycystic ovary syndrome is often characterized by elevated LH levels, LH–FSH ratios, and fasting insulin levels, these are not diagnostic criteria. The diagnosis hinges on excluding other causes of anovulation such as thyroid disease, hyperprolactinemia, 21-hydroxylase deficiency, androgen-producing neoplasms, and Cushing syndrome. In addition to checking serum testosterone levels, irregular menstrual cycles and infertility should be assessed at minimum with measurement of TSH, prolactin, and day-3 FSH. Obese women should be screened for metabolic syndrome, which should include an assessment of impaired glucose tolerance with a 2-hour oral glucose tolerance test.³⁶

Women with polycystic ovary syndrome are known to have insulin resistance, which is difficult to assess and is independent of their body mass index.³⁷ They often report a family history of diabetes or a personal history of gestational diabetes or giving birth to infants who are large for gestational age. Although most women diagnosed with insulin resistance and anovulatory infertility will not yet have a diagnosis of diabetes, women with polycystic ovary syndrome are 3 to 7 times more likely to develop type 2 diabetes later in life³⁷ and are at increased risk of lipid abnormalities, cardiovascular disease, and stroke. Therefore, interventions to address the compounding influences of polycystic ovary syndrome and obesity can improve fertility outcomes and help prevent long-term sequelae that accompany the syndrome.

Treatment for women with polycystic ovary syndrome attempting conception includes lifestyle modifications, medications for ovulation induction, and possible use of insulin sensitizers. Metformin alone is not effective as a single agent for achieving pregnancy.³⁸ Diet, weight loss, and exercise can have dramatic effects on ovulation and pregnancy and should be highly encouraged.

Ovulation induction is often required in anovulatory women, either in combination with lifestyle modifications or used subsequently if modifications are not successful. Letrozole is advised as the initial agent in women with obesity and anovulatory infertility rather than clomiphene citrate; a side-by-side comparison demonstrated increased rates of ovulation and live birth with letrozole.³⁹

Once-daily letrozole 2.5 mg or clomiphene 50 mg can be prescribed for 5 days, from cycle days 3 through 7 to cycle days 5 through 9. If this initial dosing fails to result in ovulation, the dose can be increased. Known adverse effects are hot flashes, headaches, ovarian cysts, and increased risk of multiple gestation.

Metformin should be considered as an adjunct to fertility treatments in women with polycystic ovary syndrome, especially those with obesity or impaired glucose tolerance, or if there is no response to standard ovulation induction.

Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (cystic enlargement of the ovaries with potentially dangerous fluid and electrolyte imbalances) can occur in women with polycystic ovary syndrome; however, it rarely occurs with oral medications.

For millions of couples, a primary care physician may be the first point of contact for fertility concerns. Statistics from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate that 12% of women ages 15 to 44 received fertility services from 2006 to 2010.¹ Despite seeking services, most couples requested only advice or testing rather than treatments such as ovulation-inducing medications, surgery, or, rarely, assisted reproductive technologies including in vitro fertilization. Based on these data, primary care physicians are in a unique position to offer guidance and provide fertility services in most circumstances without the need for referral.

This article reviews the answers to questions patients frequently ask, and outlines a practical framework for the evaluation and management of the infertile couple.

MANY PATIENTS SEEK INFORMATION

At least 1 million medical visits per year are for women seeking help in becoming pregnant, with the number increasing over the last several decades.¹ Reasons for the increase include delayed childbearing and the effects of aging on the female reproductive system (“female reproductive aging”), as well as the availability of increasingly effective treatments for infertility.

While the prevalence of infertility in US couples is widely quoted as 10% to 15%,² there is no estimate for the number of fertility-related questions patients routinely pose to care providers. These questions often relate to coital timing, use of lubricants, positioning, and the use of fertility trackers and ovulation predictors.

A 2017 study of women with 12 months of infertility found that only 8% sought subspecialist care vs care from a general physician or provider, indicating that generalists are most often the first point of contact.³ The majority (92%) of women responding to a survey regarding fertility-awareness education indicated a preference for immediate counseling from their general practitioner.⁴

Although some healthcare providers may consider infertility simply a quality-of-life issue, the World Health Organization classifies it as a disease, and as such it warrants identification, assessment, and intervention.⁵ Further, patients with infertility are known to experience considerable psychological distress related to their condition. In a comparison study, women with infertility experienced levels of psychological distress similar to the level in patients with cancer and patients with chronic medical illness.⁶

In the current era, general practitioners and women’s health specialists may also now address patients’ questions about reproductive aging and egg-freezing, which is now an established technology.⁷

FAILURE TO CONCEIVE AFTER 1 YEAR

As women approach age 40, the potential for fertility decreases rapidly and significantly. Women in their later 30s have only half the fertility of women in their early 20s.¹⁰ Misperceptions of aging and female fertility have been fueled by widely publicized celebrity births from women in their 40s and even 50s, without disclosing the use of frozen or donor eggs. This unfortunate fact affects women actively trying to conceive as well as women who wish to delay childbearing due to lack of a partner or for personal or professional reasons. Primary care physicians should be able to provide counseling relevant to female reproductive aging and make suitable and timely referrals for fertility preservation if indicated.

AN EMOTIONAL ISSUE

In approaching the couple with infertility, it is important to proceed with great sensitivity for the socioemotional context of this diagnosis. For both the male and female partner, infertility can be highly stigmatizing, and can be viewed as a personal or relationship failure.

Couples should be encouraged to ask embarrassing or uncomfortable questions. Although this may not be feasible in many circumstances, interviews should ideally be conducted with both partners individually as well as together, to allow sensitive issues to be shared. In some cases, a partner may be unaware of a history of a sexually transmitted infection, a prior abortion, the use of testosterone supplements or medications to enhance male sexual performance, or a vasectomy or tubal ligation during a previous relationship.

It is not unusual that the anxiety of infertility can cause decreased libido and sexual and erectile dysfunction. These issues can further complicate the problem of conceiving, and couples counseling is not uncommonly required.11 Patients are often reassured to know that they are not alone in their diagnosis.

Before embarking on a series of tests, the primary care physician can carefully evaluate for clues that may guide the diagnostic evaluation. The approach can be individualized based on the patient’s age, duration of subfertility (ie, how long they have been trying to become pregnant), and risk factors. But as a general rule, regardless of age, couples who have been trying to conceive for more than 1 year should be encouraged to pursue additional testing.

Because each month presents a new cycle of hope (often followed by intense disappointment), the prevailing sentiment to “just give it a little more time” must be countered by education and counseling. The primary care physician must increase awareness that lack of pregnancy in the stated time periods is a compelling reason for evaluation.

History-taking in the infertile couple should include a complete gynecologic and menstrual history. A history of sexually transmitted diseases that can cause tubal disease, such as gonorrhea and Chlamydia, is significant. Both partners should be assessed for a history of prior conceptions, past medical or surgical problems, medications, and exposures to environmental toxins including alcohol, tobacco, and drugs.

A detailed physical examination can provide clues to the cause of subfertility, especially if signs of obesity, androgen excess, or insulin resistance are present.

QUESTIONS OFTEN ASKED BY COUPLES TRYING TO CONCEIVE

Clinicians are frequently asked questions related to sexual practices and lifestyle in relation to fertility and should be comfortable responding to questions in these areas.

Does frequent ejaculation ‘use up’ my sperm?

Men should be reassured that frequent ejaculations do not decrease sperm counts; even daily ejaculation does not deplete the concentration of sperm. Male partners can be reassured that “saving up” is not an effective strategy; in fact, abstinence periods of greater than 5 days can adversely affect semen parameters.¹²

How often should we have sex?

Infrequent intercourse (< 1 time per week) reduces the monthly chance of conceiving.¹³ There does not seem to be a significant improvement in fecundity with daily intercourse vs intercourse on alternate days. Strict schedules surrounding intercourse may increase stress, and reassurance should be offered that intercourse need not be regimented. Every 1 to 2 days should suffice.

Are any sexual positions better for conception?

There is no evidence that particular coital positioning or remaining supine after intercourse improves fertility. Sperm can be found within the endocervix within seconds of ejaculation, irrespective of sexual position.

What is the window of fertility?

There is good evidence that the fertile window lasts approximately 6 days and closes after ovulation.^13,14 Women with regular cycles can determine their typical day of ovulation based on menstrual tracking. Intercourse should begin about 6 days before ovulation and should continue every 1 to 2 days for 1 week to fully capture this window.

Should we change our lifestyle?

Couples seeking pregnancy should be advised to limit alcohol and caffeine use, completely abstain from cigarette smoking or illicit drug use, and maintain a healthy body mass index.

Very few data exist to support particular diets or supplements to promote fertility, including antioxidants and herbal remedies. Folic acid supplementation is recommended in all women attempting to conceive to reduce the incidence of birth defects.

Do lubricants reduce fertility?

Although there seem to be no differences in fecundity rates in couples using commercial lubricants, most water-based lubricants are best avoided in couples with infertility, as adverse effects on sperm have been demonstrated in vitro.¹⁵ If lubrication is needed, couples may try mineral oil, canola oil, or hydroxyetyl­cellulose-based lubricants (eg, Pre-seed).

Do fertility trackers work?

Many couples with primary infertility perceive that coital timing is critical and worry that their infertility is due to poorly timed intercourse; in fact, this is seldom the case.

Despite widespread marketing of urinary luteinizing hormone (LH) detection kits and electronic trackers and monitors, there is no clear evidence that these methods improve monthly rates of conception.

Women with a regular menstrual cycle should be encouraged to take notice when their cervical mucus appears clear and slippery (a sign of ovulation). Not all women are able to detect these fluctuations; however, for those who can, observing cervical mucus changes appears to be equivalent or superior to predictor kits in predicting conception.¹⁶

A PRACTICAL FRAMEWORK FOR EVALUATING THE INFERTILE COUPLE

To assess for the common factors identified in Table 1, the essential investigation of the infertile couple includes:

• Semen analysis
• Confirmation of ovulation
• Hysterosalpingography.

Consideration can also be given to ovarian reserve testing in women at risk of diminished ovarian reserve. The above investigation can be performed simultaneously to allow for prompt identification of any issues. Further, infertility is often a combination of problems (eg, anovulation in the woman together with a problem in the man), so an incomplete evaluation may overlook a coexisting diagnosis and lead to delays in treatment and pregnancy.

Tests that are no longer typically used in clinical practice are outlined in Table 2.

Ovarian reserve refers to the number of fertilizable oocytes that remain in the ovary. This reserve changes over time, and changes occur rapidly as women approach and enter their 30s. Though not the case in men, the age of the female partner is an independent risk factor for infertility. This discrepancy is due to loss of ovarian reserve, chromosome abnormalities in embryos, and the development of medical conditions with age that affect fertility.

Testing for ovarian reserve does not necessarily predict an overall inability to achieve a live birth,¹⁷ but it can predict response to exogenous gonadotropins and, to some degree, the chance for successful pregnancy with assisted reproductive technology.¹⁸

The ASRM states that testing for diminished ovarian reserve may provide useful information in women who have had a previous poor response to gonadotropins and in women planning assisted reproductive technology.¹⁹ The ASRM also indicates that the following are risk factors for diminished ovarian reserve, and clinicians may target the assessment accordingly¹⁹:

• Age 35 or older
• History of exposure to chemotherapy or pelvic radiation
• Family history of early menopause (age < 40)
• History of ovarian surgery
• Unexplained or idiopathic fertility.

Although several tests of ovarian reserve exist, either an antimullerian hormone (AMH) test or a combined cycle day-3 follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) and estradiol level are the 2 tests commonly used in clinical practice. Antral follicle counts are an ultrasonographic measure used by infertility specialists but rarely by primary care physicians. Assays such as inhibin are rarely ordered and have limited clinical utility.

The AMH test

Many reproductive endocrinologists rely on the AMH level as a single test of ovarian reserve as it is easy to obtain, has a relatively low cost, and offers stable results. AMH is produced by the granulosa cells of the ovarian antral follicles and is readily detected in serum samples.

Conveniently for the clinician, levels of this hormone remain stable throughout the menstrual cycle and therefore can be tested on any day and at any time of day. Lower serum AMH levels (< 1 ng/mL) have been shown to correspond to diminished ovarian stimulation with gonadotropins as well as decreased embryo quality and poor pregnancy outcomes with assisted reproductive technology.¹⁹

Nevertheless, despite overall stability, AMH levels can be falsely lowered in women using exogenous hormones or with a diagnosis of hypogonadotropic hypogonadism. Levels may be higher than expected in women with polycystic ovary syndrome due to higher numbers of antral and preantral follicles in the polycystic ovary.

The day-3 follicle-stimulating hormone test

FSH and 17-beta estradiol testing can be ordered in combination to assess function of the hypothalamic-pituitary-ovarian axis on day 3 of the menstrual cycle. There is some flexibility, however, and testing obtained on cycle day 2, 3, or 4 yields equivalent results.

Although there are no strict cutoffs, FSH levels that appear elevated (> 10–20 IU/L) are associated with lower chances of conceiving with in vitro fertilization in multiple studies.²⁰

The test is limited by levels that may fluctuate cycle to cycle, and reassuring test results do not necessarily indicate that a woman will achieve a pregnancy. Although a serum estradiol value alone is not a useful test, it can be used in combination with day-3 FSH to screen for diminished ovarian reserve.

As premature recruitment of a follicle can cause an early follicular rise in estradiol, FSH may be falsely suppressed on day 3. For example, a “normal” day-3 FSH combined with an elevated day-3 17-beta estradiol level of 60 to 80 pg/mL is associated with a poor response to medical treatments for infertility.

Female reproductive aging

Aging of the female reproductive system is a central threat to fertility, and prompt assessment and referral are warranted for women age 35 or older who have been trying to conceive for more than 6 months. The ASRM recommends that women over age 40 be evaluated immediately.²¹

A prevailing misconception is that regular menstrual cycles correspond with normal fertility. In reality, women lose their ability to achieve a healthy live birth in the 5 to 10 years preceding menopause. Although all women who do not desire pregnancy should still use appropriate contraception to avoid unintended pregnancy, women who do desire pregnancy should be aware of these physiologic changes.

Classic age-related changes in ovarian reserve are accompanied by a steep rise in aneuploidy and miscarriage risk.²² This is particularly relevant as women increasingly delay childbearing in modern society. Loss of fertility begins at 32 and abruptly accelerates at age 37²¹; this fact is poorly communicated to and understood by patients. In a 2018 study of highly educated women, most respondents failed to identify that 45-year-old women can only rarely achieve a successful pregnancy.²³

In recent decades, the percentage of women who delay childbearing until after age 35 has steadily increased. There is a widespread misconception that fertility treatments and assisted reproductive technology can compensate for female reproductive aging. Primary care physicians can play a central role in reminding couples that age remains the single greatest predictor of natural fertility and the chance of success with assisted reproduction.

Further, for women who desire future fertility and are without a partner, primary care physicians can counsel them regarding the availability of donor insemination or egg freezing. Studies confirm that women want clinicians to initiate information on reproductive health, and 80% of women undergoing elective egg-freezing for fertility preservation wished that they had done so at an earlier age.^24,25

Women with endometriosis, fibroids, or a history of tubal disease have impaired fecundity. Pelvic imaging is an essential component of their evaluation. Although hysterosalpingography is the mainstay of tubal assessment, in select cases ultrasonography or hysteroscopy may be indicated.

Tubal disease and hysterosalpingography

Tubal disease remains one of the most common causes of infertility in the US females. In most cases, tubal damage is secondary to pelvic inflammatory disease from infection with gonorrhea or Chlamydia, or both.

Rates of confirmed tubal-factor infertility have been shown to increase with both the severity of the infection and the number of past infections.²⁶ In a landmark study, 1 episode of pelvic inflammatory disease was associated with a 12% risk of tubal-factor infertility, whereas 3 infections carried a risk as high as 54%. Pelvic inflammatory disease is also known to increase the risk of ectopic pregnancy.

To assess tubal patency, hysterosalpingography, a radiographic procedure, is typically performed using fluoroscopy and injected contrast material. Some centers may offer sonohysterography as a radiation-free alternative, depending on sonographic skill and experience. Both tests are best scheduled in the window between the end of menstrual bleeding and ovulation. In practice, patients with regular cycles can typically schedule hysterosalpingography between cycle days 5 and 12.

In patients with known hydrosalpinx (a distended fallopian tube due to blockage) or a history of pelvic infection, doxycycline should be given before the procedure.²⁷ Patients with demonstrated hydrosalpinx on hysterosalpingography should receive doxycycline 100 mg twice daily for 5 days to prevent posthysterosalpingography pelvic inflammatory disease.²⁷ Patients with active pelvic or cervical infection should not undergo hysterosalpingography .

Women with confirmed hydrosalpinx or tubal obstruction can be referred for laparoscopy. Gynecologic surgeons will plan their approach based on whether the obstruction is proximal (near the uterus) or distal (near the ovary) as well as whether hydrosalpinx, abnormal tubal architecture, salpingitis isthmica nodosa, or peritubal adhesions are noted. Tubal surgery can be effective in mild cases of tubal disease; however, as in vitro fertilization is becoming more effective, patients with moderate or severe tubal disease are increasingly being referred directly for assisted reproductive technology. Before undergoing assisted reproductive technology, hydrosalpinx will need to be addressed, as it can decrease clinical pregnancy rates with in vitro fertilization.

Endometriosis

Endometriosis is found in 21% to 47% of women with subfertility²⁸ and commonly causes pain, ovarian cysts, and tubal disease. There is often a delay of 7 to 8 years for diagnosis due to the misapprehension that severe dysmenorrhea is normal. Women with an affected first-degree family member are at substantially increased risk.

Although endometriosis is commonly thought to result from reflux of endometrial tissue into the peritoneal cavity with menses, there are multiple proposed mechanisms for the disease.²⁹ The pathogenesis of endometriosis is enigmatic, and there are likely as yet undetermined immunologic and genetic predispositions that confer increased risk.

Common symptoms of endometriosis are dysmenorrhea, dyspareunia, and pelvic pain, and these are sometimes accompanied by bowel and bladder symptoms. Pelvic examination classically demonstrates an immobile uterus and uterosacral nodularity; palpation of these nodules can elicit pain. On laparoscopy, endometriosis can range from minimal to severe; however, stage of endometriosis correlates poorly with reported symptoms.³⁰

Consideration of surgery is based on clinical history, results of the pelvic examination, and possible findings on ultrasonography or hysterosalpingography. Although positive findings on imaging can support a plan for intervention, endometriosis is largely a peritoneal disease, and evidence of tubal damage or ovarian cysts is rarely evident on ultrasonography. In women with menstrual complaints (eg, dysmenorrhea, heavy menstrual bleeding, abnormal uterine bleeding) and a history of infertility, ultrasonography may be useful in determining the presence of uterine pathology such as ovarian cyst or endometrioma, large hydrosalpinx, polyp, or substantial fibroid burden—any of which may have a significant impact on female fertility.

In the absence of a reliable blood test or imaging study, the gold standard for the diagnosis of endometriosis continues to be laparoscopic surgery. Hormonal treatments for endometriosis symptoms are not effective in improving infertility and will preclude pregnancy. Laparoscopic surgery is more successful in improving pregnancy rates in women with advanced disease: pregnancy rates after surgery can be as high as 60% in women with ovarian endometriomas but are significantly lower in women with removal of minimal to mild disease.^30,31 Women over age 35 or who present with low ovarian reserve and whose male partner has semen abnormalities should consider moving directly to assisted reproductive technology rather than pursuing endometriosis surgery.

Although male partners are often highly engaged in and supportive of the fertility evaluation, some are reluctant to undergo testing, and some wish to undergo semen analysis only after female factors have been ruled out. Our practice is to evaluate male factors immediately, due to the high contribution of male factors (up to 40% of cases) either alone or in combination with female factors.³²

Men at particularly increased risk of semen abnormalities include those with a history of chemotherapy or radiation or exposure to toxins (eg, environmental exposures, alcohol, tobacco, illicit substances) and prescribed medications.

At a minimum, for the male partner, a reproductive history should be taken and a semen analysis ordered. Men should be directly queried about testosterone use, as this often-used anabolic steroid hormone can severely impair sperm production.

Men who have low sperm counts, motility, or morphology scores based on World Health Organization criteria should not be deemed “infertile,” as there is significant variation from one analysis to the next, and normal fertility has been reported in men with notably low sperm counts. Particular caution should be exercised in interpreting low morphology scores in men with normal counts and motility, as this parameter appears to have the least prognostic value in this context. Men with abnormal semen analyses should be referred to a specialist for further urologic evaluation and treatment.

Treatments for male factor infertility include surgery, steroid hormones, and possibly intrauterine insemination or assisted reproductive technology. In even the most challenging cases, male infertility is now largely treatable with intracytoplasmic sperm injection with assisted reproductive technology. While most advances in in vitro fertilization have been evolutionary, intracytoplasmic sperm injection was revolutionary. This breakthrough technology allows a single sperm to be injected directly into the oocyte. Sperm for this procedure can be obtained either from the ejaculate or from microsurgical testicular sperm extraction.

ANOVULATION

A thorough menstrual history can be informative, as most females of reproductive age have a fairly predictable 25-to-35-day monthly menstrual cycle. Women presenting with menstrual charting with this pattern do not require laboratory confirmation of ovulation. Basal body temperatures are rarely used currently, as they are time-consuming, can induce stress, and are confirmatory rather than predictive of ovulation. Endometrial biopsy for endometrial “dating” is no longer performed in infertile women.

If laboratory confirmation is desired, LH kit testing with a commercially available test or a luteal phase serum progesterone obtained 7 days after suspected ovulation can be obtained. A serum progesterone level higher than 3 ng/mL is indicative of ovulation.¹⁹ Due to the notable fluctuations in ovulatory-appearing progesterone levels over several hours, caution must be taken in interpreting a lower-normal level as indicative of a luteal phase insufficiency.

Polycystic ovary syndrome

Polycystic ovary syndrome is important to understand because it is a metabolic condition that predisposes patients to a variety of health risks. Along with gynecologic consequences such as infertility, abnormal uterine bleeding, and endometrial pathology, it is often accompanied by alterations in glucose and lipid metabolism, obesity, hypertension, and cardiovascular disease.³⁵

Despite its name, the syndrome does not involve the presence of classic ovarian cysts. In fact, the cysts associated with polycystic ovary syndrome are dense accumulations of antral follicles arranged peripherally in the ovarian cortex; they should not be removed surgically as they represent the ovarian reserve.

Although ovaries that appear polycystic on transvaginal ultrasonography are often associated with the syndrome, they are not invariably present and are not absolutely required for the diagnosis of polycystic ovary syndrome based on the most commonly used criteria.³⁵ Several diagnostic criteria have been proposed for polycystic ovary syndrome and its phenotypes. The 2003 revised Rotterdam criteria require 2 out of the following 3 features:

• Oligo-ovulation or anovulation
• Evidence of hyperandrogenism, whether clinical (eg, acne or hirsutism) or based on laboratory testing
• Polycystic-appearing ovaries on ultrasonography.

There is no single test that can diagnose the disease. Although polycystic ovary syndrome is often characterized by elevated LH levels, LH–FSH ratios, and fasting insulin levels, these are not diagnostic criteria. The diagnosis hinges on excluding other causes of anovulation such as thyroid disease, hyperprolactinemia, 21-hydroxylase deficiency, androgen-producing neoplasms, and Cushing syndrome. In addition to checking serum testosterone levels, irregular menstrual cycles and infertility should be assessed at minimum with measurement of TSH, prolactin, and day-3 FSH. Obese women should be screened for metabolic syndrome, which should include an assessment of impaired glucose tolerance with a 2-hour oral glucose tolerance test.³⁶

Women with polycystic ovary syndrome are known to have insulin resistance, which is difficult to assess and is independent of their body mass index.³⁷ They often report a family history of diabetes or a personal history of gestational diabetes or giving birth to infants who are large for gestational age. Although most women diagnosed with insulin resistance and anovulatory infertility will not yet have a diagnosis of diabetes, women with polycystic ovary syndrome are 3 to 7 times more likely to develop type 2 diabetes later in life³⁷ and are at increased risk of lipid abnormalities, cardiovascular disease, and stroke. Therefore, interventions to address the compounding influences of polycystic ovary syndrome and obesity can improve fertility outcomes and help prevent long-term sequelae that accompany the syndrome.

Treatment for women with polycystic ovary syndrome attempting conception includes lifestyle modifications, medications for ovulation induction, and possible use of insulin sensitizers. Metformin alone is not effective as a single agent for achieving pregnancy.³⁸ Diet, weight loss, and exercise can have dramatic effects on ovulation and pregnancy and should be highly encouraged.

Ovulation induction is often required in anovulatory women, either in combination with lifestyle modifications or used subsequently if modifications are not successful. Letrozole is advised as the initial agent in women with obesity and anovulatory infertility rather than clomiphene citrate; a side-by-side comparison demonstrated increased rates of ovulation and live birth with letrozole.³⁹

Once-daily letrozole 2.5 mg or clomiphene 50 mg can be prescribed for 5 days, from cycle days 3 through 7 to cycle days 5 through 9. If this initial dosing fails to result in ovulation, the dose can be increased. Known adverse effects are hot flashes, headaches, ovarian cysts, and increased risk of multiple gestation.

Metformin should be considered as an adjunct to fertility treatments in women with polycystic ovary syndrome, especially those with obesity or impaired glucose tolerance, or if there is no response to standard ovulation induction.

Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (cystic enlargement of the ovaries with potentially dangerous fluid and electrolyte imbalances) can occur in women with polycystic ovary syndrome; however, it rarely occurs with oral medications.

For millions of couples, a primary care physician may be the first point of contact for fertility concerns. Statistics from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate that 12% of women ages 15 to 44 received fertility services from 2006 to 2010.¹ Despite seeking services, most couples requested only advice or testing rather than treatments such as ovulation-inducing medications, surgery, or, rarely, assisted reproductive technologies including in vitro fertilization. Based on these data, primary care physicians are in a unique position to offer guidance and provide fertility services in most circumstances without the need for referral.

This article reviews the answers to questions patients frequently ask, and outlines a practical framework for the evaluation and management of the infertile couple.

MANY PATIENTS SEEK INFORMATION

At least 1 million medical visits per year are for women seeking help in becoming pregnant, with the number increasing over the last several decades.¹ Reasons for the increase include delayed childbearing and the effects of aging on the female reproductive system (“female reproductive aging”), as well as the availability of increasingly effective treatments for infertility.

While the prevalence of infertility in US couples is widely quoted as 10% to 15%,² there is no estimate for the number of fertility-related questions patients routinely pose to care providers. These questions often relate to coital timing, use of lubricants, positioning, and the use of fertility trackers and ovulation predictors.

A 2017 study of women with 12 months of infertility found that only 8% sought subspecialist care vs care from a general physician or provider, indicating that generalists are most often the first point of contact.³ The majority (92%) of women responding to a survey regarding fertility-awareness education indicated a preference for immediate counseling from their general practitioner.⁴

Although some healthcare providers may consider infertility simply a quality-of-life issue, the World Health Organization classifies it as a disease, and as such it warrants identification, assessment, and intervention.⁵ Further, patients with infertility are known to experience considerable psychological distress related to their condition. In a comparison study, women with infertility experienced levels of psychological distress similar to the level in patients with cancer and patients with chronic medical illness.⁶

In the current era, general practitioners and women’s health specialists may also now address patients’ questions about reproductive aging and egg-freezing, which is now an established technology.⁷

FAILURE TO CONCEIVE AFTER 1 YEAR

As women approach age 40, the potential for fertility decreases rapidly and significantly. Women in their later 30s have only half the fertility of women in their early 20s.¹⁰ Misperceptions of aging and female fertility have been fueled by widely publicized celebrity births from women in their 40s and even 50s, without disclosing the use of frozen or donor eggs. This unfortunate fact affects women actively trying to conceive as well as women who wish to delay childbearing due to lack of a partner or for personal or professional reasons. Primary care physicians should be able to provide counseling relevant to female reproductive aging and make suitable and timely referrals for fertility preservation if indicated.

AN EMOTIONAL ISSUE

In approaching the couple with infertility, it is important to proceed with great sensitivity for the socioemotional context of this diagnosis. For both the male and female partner, infertility can be highly stigmatizing, and can be viewed as a personal or relationship failure.

Couples should be encouraged to ask embarrassing or uncomfortable questions. Although this may not be feasible in many circumstances, interviews should ideally be conducted with both partners individually as well as together, to allow sensitive issues to be shared. In some cases, a partner may be unaware of a history of a sexually transmitted infection, a prior abortion, the use of testosterone supplements or medications to enhance male sexual performance, or a vasectomy or tubal ligation during a previous relationship.

It is not unusual that the anxiety of infertility can cause decreased libido and sexual and erectile dysfunction. These issues can further complicate the problem of conceiving, and couples counseling is not uncommonly required.11 Patients are often reassured to know that they are not alone in their diagnosis.

Before embarking on a series of tests, the primary care physician can carefully evaluate for clues that may guide the diagnostic evaluation. The approach can be individualized based on the patient’s age, duration of subfertility (ie, how long they have been trying to become pregnant), and risk factors. But as a general rule, regardless of age, couples who have been trying to conceive for more than 1 year should be encouraged to pursue additional testing.

Because each month presents a new cycle of hope (often followed by intense disappointment), the prevailing sentiment to “just give it a little more time” must be countered by education and counseling. The primary care physician must increase awareness that lack of pregnancy in the stated time periods is a compelling reason for evaluation.

History-taking in the infertile couple should include a complete gynecologic and menstrual history. A history of sexually transmitted diseases that can cause tubal disease, such as gonorrhea and Chlamydia, is significant. Both partners should be assessed for a history of prior conceptions, past medical or surgical problems, medications, and exposures to environmental toxins including alcohol, tobacco, and drugs.

A detailed physical examination can provide clues to the cause of subfertility, especially if signs of obesity, androgen excess, or insulin resistance are present.

QUESTIONS OFTEN ASKED BY COUPLES TRYING TO CONCEIVE

Clinicians are frequently asked questions related to sexual practices and lifestyle in relation to fertility and should be comfortable responding to questions in these areas.

Does frequent ejaculation ‘use up’ my sperm?

Men should be reassured that frequent ejaculations do not decrease sperm counts; even daily ejaculation does not deplete the concentration of sperm. Male partners can be reassured that “saving up” is not an effective strategy; in fact, abstinence periods of greater than 5 days can adversely affect semen parameters.¹²

How often should we have sex?

Infrequent intercourse (< 1 time per week) reduces the monthly chance of conceiving.¹³ There does not seem to be a significant improvement in fecundity with daily intercourse vs intercourse on alternate days. Strict schedules surrounding intercourse may increase stress, and reassurance should be offered that intercourse need not be regimented. Every 1 to 2 days should suffice.

Are any sexual positions better for conception?

There is no evidence that particular coital positioning or remaining supine after intercourse improves fertility. Sperm can be found within the endocervix within seconds of ejaculation, irrespective of sexual position.

What is the window of fertility?

There is good evidence that the fertile window lasts approximately 6 days and closes after ovulation.^13,14 Women with regular cycles can determine their typical day of ovulation based on menstrual tracking. Intercourse should begin about 6 days before ovulation and should continue every 1 to 2 days for 1 week to fully capture this window.

Should we change our lifestyle?

Couples seeking pregnancy should be advised to limit alcohol and caffeine use, completely abstain from cigarette smoking or illicit drug use, and maintain a healthy body mass index.

Very few data exist to support particular diets or supplements to promote fertility, including antioxidants and herbal remedies. Folic acid supplementation is recommended in all women attempting to conceive to reduce the incidence of birth defects.

Do lubricants reduce fertility?

Although there seem to be no differences in fecundity rates in couples using commercial lubricants, most water-based lubricants are best avoided in couples with infertility, as adverse effects on sperm have been demonstrated in vitro.¹⁵ If lubrication is needed, couples may try mineral oil, canola oil, or hydroxyetyl­cellulose-based lubricants (eg, Pre-seed).

Do fertility trackers work?

Many couples with primary infertility perceive that coital timing is critical and worry that their infertility is due to poorly timed intercourse; in fact, this is seldom the case.

Despite widespread marketing of urinary luteinizing hormone (LH) detection kits and electronic trackers and monitors, there is no clear evidence that these methods improve monthly rates of conception.

Women with a regular menstrual cycle should be encouraged to take notice when their cervical mucus appears clear and slippery (a sign of ovulation). Not all women are able to detect these fluctuations; however, for those who can, observing cervical mucus changes appears to be equivalent or superior to predictor kits in predicting conception.¹⁶

A PRACTICAL FRAMEWORK FOR EVALUATING THE INFERTILE COUPLE

To assess for the common factors identified in Table 1, the essential investigation of the infertile couple includes:

• Semen analysis
• Confirmation of ovulation
• Hysterosalpingography.

Consideration can also be given to ovarian reserve testing in women at risk of diminished ovarian reserve. The above investigation can be performed simultaneously to allow for prompt identification of any issues. Further, infertility is often a combination of problems (eg, anovulation in the woman together with a problem in the man), so an incomplete evaluation may overlook a coexisting diagnosis and lead to delays in treatment and pregnancy.

Tests that are no longer typically used in clinical practice are outlined in Table 2.

Ovarian reserve refers to the number of fertilizable oocytes that remain in the ovary. This reserve changes over time, and changes occur rapidly as women approach and enter their 30s. Though not the case in men, the age of the female partner is an independent risk factor for infertility. This discrepancy is due to loss of ovarian reserve, chromosome abnormalities in embryos, and the development of medical conditions with age that affect fertility.

Testing for ovarian reserve does not necessarily predict an overall inability to achieve a live birth,¹⁷ but it can predict response to exogenous gonadotropins and, to some degree, the chance for successful pregnancy with assisted reproductive technology.¹⁸

The ASRM states that testing for diminished ovarian reserve may provide useful information in women who have had a previous poor response to gonadotropins and in women planning assisted reproductive technology.¹⁹ The ASRM also indicates that the following are risk factors for diminished ovarian reserve, and clinicians may target the assessment accordingly¹⁹:

• Age 35 or older
• History of exposure to chemotherapy or pelvic radiation
• Family history of early menopause (age < 40)
• History of ovarian surgery
• Unexplained or idiopathic fertility.

Although several tests of ovarian reserve exist, either an antimullerian hormone (AMH) test or a combined cycle day-3 follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) and estradiol level are the 2 tests commonly used in clinical practice. Antral follicle counts are an ultrasonographic measure used by infertility specialists but rarely by primary care physicians. Assays such as inhibin are rarely ordered and have limited clinical utility.

The AMH test

Many reproductive endocrinologists rely on the AMH level as a single test of ovarian reserve as it is easy to obtain, has a relatively low cost, and offers stable results. AMH is produced by the granulosa cells of the ovarian antral follicles and is readily detected in serum samples.

Conveniently for the clinician, levels of this hormone remain stable throughout the menstrual cycle and therefore can be tested on any day and at any time of day. Lower serum AMH levels (< 1 ng/mL) have been shown to correspond to diminished ovarian stimulation with gonadotropins as well as decreased embryo quality and poor pregnancy outcomes with assisted reproductive technology.¹⁹

Nevertheless, despite overall stability, AMH levels can be falsely lowered in women using exogenous hormones or with a diagnosis of hypogonadotropic hypogonadism. Levels may be higher than expected in women with polycystic ovary syndrome due to higher numbers of antral and preantral follicles in the polycystic ovary.

The day-3 follicle-stimulating hormone test

FSH and 17-beta estradiol testing can be ordered in combination to assess function of the hypothalamic-pituitary-ovarian axis on day 3 of the menstrual cycle. There is some flexibility, however, and testing obtained on cycle day 2, 3, or 4 yields equivalent results.

Although there are no strict cutoffs, FSH levels that appear elevated (> 10–20 IU/L) are associated with lower chances of conceiving with in vitro fertilization in multiple studies.²⁰

The test is limited by levels that may fluctuate cycle to cycle, and reassuring test results do not necessarily indicate that a woman will achieve a pregnancy. Although a serum estradiol value alone is not a useful test, it can be used in combination with day-3 FSH to screen for diminished ovarian reserve.

As premature recruitment of a follicle can cause an early follicular rise in estradiol, FSH may be falsely suppressed on day 3. For example, a “normal” day-3 FSH combined with an elevated day-3 17-beta estradiol level of 60 to 80 pg/mL is associated with a poor response to medical treatments for infertility.

Female reproductive aging

Aging of the female reproductive system is a central threat to fertility, and prompt assessment and referral are warranted for women age 35 or older who have been trying to conceive for more than 6 months. The ASRM recommends that women over age 40 be evaluated immediately.²¹

A prevailing misconception is that regular menstrual cycles correspond with normal fertility. In reality, women lose their ability to achieve a healthy live birth in the 5 to 10 years preceding menopause. Although all women who do not desire pregnancy should still use appropriate contraception to avoid unintended pregnancy, women who do desire pregnancy should be aware of these physiologic changes.

Classic age-related changes in ovarian reserve are accompanied by a steep rise in aneuploidy and miscarriage risk.²² This is particularly relevant as women increasingly delay childbearing in modern society. Loss of fertility begins at 32 and abruptly accelerates at age 37²¹; this fact is poorly communicated to and understood by patients. In a 2018 study of highly educated women, most respondents failed to identify that 45-year-old women can only rarely achieve a successful pregnancy.²³

In recent decades, the percentage of women who delay childbearing until after age 35 has steadily increased. There is a widespread misconception that fertility treatments and assisted reproductive technology can compensate for female reproductive aging. Primary care physicians can play a central role in reminding couples that age remains the single greatest predictor of natural fertility and the chance of success with assisted reproduction.

Further, for women who desire future fertility and are without a partner, primary care physicians can counsel them regarding the availability of donor insemination or egg freezing. Studies confirm that women want clinicians to initiate information on reproductive health, and 80% of women undergoing elective egg-freezing for fertility preservation wished that they had done so at an earlier age.^24,25

Women with endometriosis, fibroids, or a history of tubal disease have impaired fecundity. Pelvic imaging is an essential component of their evaluation. Although hysterosalpingography is the mainstay of tubal assessment, in select cases ultrasonography or hysteroscopy may be indicated.

Tubal disease and hysterosalpingography

Tubal disease remains one of the most common causes of infertility in the US females. In most cases, tubal damage is secondary to pelvic inflammatory disease from infection with gonorrhea or Chlamydia, or both.

Rates of confirmed tubal-factor infertility have been shown to increase with both the severity of the infection and the number of past infections.²⁶ In a landmark study, 1 episode of pelvic inflammatory disease was associated with a 12% risk of tubal-factor infertility, whereas 3 infections carried a risk as high as 54%. Pelvic inflammatory disease is also known to increase the risk of ectopic pregnancy.

To assess tubal patency, hysterosalpingography, a radiographic procedure, is typically performed using fluoroscopy and injected contrast material. Some centers may offer sonohysterography as a radiation-free alternative, depending on sonographic skill and experience. Both tests are best scheduled in the window between the end of menstrual bleeding and ovulation. In practice, patients with regular cycles can typically schedule hysterosalpingography between cycle days 5 and 12.

In patients with known hydrosalpinx (a distended fallopian tube due to blockage) or a history of pelvic infection, doxycycline should be given before the procedure.²⁷ Patients with demonstrated hydrosalpinx on hysterosalpingography should receive doxycycline 100 mg twice daily for 5 days to prevent posthysterosalpingography pelvic inflammatory disease.²⁷ Patients with active pelvic or cervical infection should not undergo hysterosalpingography .

Women with confirmed hydrosalpinx or tubal obstruction can be referred for laparoscopy. Gynecologic surgeons will plan their approach based on whether the obstruction is proximal (near the uterus) or distal (near the ovary) as well as whether hydrosalpinx, abnormal tubal architecture, salpingitis isthmica nodosa, or peritubal adhesions are noted. Tubal surgery can be effective in mild cases of tubal disease; however, as in vitro fertilization is becoming more effective, patients with moderate or severe tubal disease are increasingly being referred directly for assisted reproductive technology. Before undergoing assisted reproductive technology, hydrosalpinx will need to be addressed, as it can decrease clinical pregnancy rates with in vitro fertilization.

Endometriosis

Endometriosis is found in 21% to 47% of women with subfertility²⁸ and commonly causes pain, ovarian cysts, and tubal disease. There is often a delay of 7 to 8 years for diagnosis due to the misapprehension that severe dysmenorrhea is normal. Women with an affected first-degree family member are at substantially increased risk.

Although endometriosis is commonly thought to result from reflux of endometrial tissue into the peritoneal cavity with menses, there are multiple proposed mechanisms for the disease.²⁹ The pathogenesis of endometriosis is enigmatic, and there are likely as yet undetermined immunologic and genetic predispositions that confer increased risk.

Common symptoms of endometriosis are dysmenorrhea, dyspareunia, and pelvic pain, and these are sometimes accompanied by bowel and bladder symptoms. Pelvic examination classically demonstrates an immobile uterus and uterosacral nodularity; palpation of these nodules can elicit pain. On laparoscopy, endometriosis can range from minimal to severe; however, stage of endometriosis correlates poorly with reported symptoms.³⁰

Consideration of surgery is based on clinical history, results of the pelvic examination, and possible findings on ultrasonography or hysterosalpingography. Although positive findings on imaging can support a plan for intervention, endometriosis is largely a peritoneal disease, and evidence of tubal damage or ovarian cysts is rarely evident on ultrasonography. In women with menstrual complaints (eg, dysmenorrhea, heavy menstrual bleeding, abnormal uterine bleeding) and a history of infertility, ultrasonography may be useful in determining the presence of uterine pathology such as ovarian cyst or endometrioma, large hydrosalpinx, polyp, or substantial fibroid burden—any of which may have a significant impact on female fertility.

In the absence of a reliable blood test or imaging study, the gold standard for the diagnosis of endometriosis continues to be laparoscopic surgery. Hormonal treatments for endometriosis symptoms are not effective in improving infertility and will preclude pregnancy. Laparoscopic surgery is more successful in improving pregnancy rates in women with advanced disease: pregnancy rates after surgery can be as high as 60% in women with ovarian endometriomas but are significantly lower in women with removal of minimal to mild disease.^30,31 Women over age 35 or who present with low ovarian reserve and whose male partner has semen abnormalities should consider moving directly to assisted reproductive technology rather than pursuing endometriosis surgery.

Although male partners are often highly engaged in and supportive of the fertility evaluation, some are reluctant to undergo testing, and some wish to undergo semen analysis only after female factors have been ruled out. Our practice is to evaluate male factors immediately, due to the high contribution of male factors (up to 40% of cases) either alone or in combination with female factors.³²

Men at particularly increased risk of semen abnormalities include those with a history of chemotherapy or radiation or exposure to toxins (eg, environmental exposures, alcohol, tobacco, illicit substances) and prescribed medications.

At a minimum, for the male partner, a reproductive history should be taken and a semen analysis ordered. Men should be directly queried about testosterone use, as this often-used anabolic steroid hormone can severely impair sperm production.

Men who have low sperm counts, motility, or morphology scores based on World Health Organization criteria should not be deemed “infertile,” as there is significant variation from one analysis to the next, and normal fertility has been reported in men with notably low sperm counts. Particular caution should be exercised in interpreting low morphology scores in men with normal counts and motility, as this parameter appears to have the least prognostic value in this context. Men with abnormal semen analyses should be referred to a specialist for further urologic evaluation and treatment.

Treatments for male factor infertility include surgery, steroid hormones, and possibly intrauterine insemination or assisted reproductive technology. In even the most challenging cases, male infertility is now largely treatable with intracytoplasmic sperm injection with assisted reproductive technology. While most advances in in vitro fertilization have been evolutionary, intracytoplasmic sperm injection was revolutionary. This breakthrough technology allows a single sperm to be injected directly into the oocyte. Sperm for this procedure can be obtained either from the ejaculate or from microsurgical testicular sperm extraction.

ANOVULATION

A thorough menstrual history can be informative, as most females of reproductive age have a fairly predictable 25-to-35-day monthly menstrual cycle. Women presenting with menstrual charting with this pattern do not require laboratory confirmation of ovulation. Basal body temperatures are rarely used currently, as they are time-consuming, can induce stress, and are confirmatory rather than predictive of ovulation. Endometrial biopsy for endometrial “dating” is no longer performed in infertile women.

If laboratory confirmation is desired, LH kit testing with a commercially available test or a luteal phase serum progesterone obtained 7 days after suspected ovulation can be obtained. A serum progesterone level higher than 3 ng/mL is indicative of ovulation.¹⁹ Due to the notable fluctuations in ovulatory-appearing progesterone levels over several hours, caution must be taken in interpreting a lower-normal level as indicative of a luteal phase insufficiency.

Polycystic ovary syndrome

Polycystic ovary syndrome is important to understand because it is a metabolic condition that predisposes patients to a variety of health risks. Along with gynecologic consequences such as infertility, abnormal uterine bleeding, and endometrial pathology, it is often accompanied by alterations in glucose and lipid metabolism, obesity, hypertension, and cardiovascular disease.³⁵

Despite its name, the syndrome does not involve the presence of classic ovarian cysts. In fact, the cysts associated with polycystic ovary syndrome are dense accumulations of antral follicles arranged peripherally in the ovarian cortex; they should not be removed surgically as they represent the ovarian reserve.

Although ovaries that appear polycystic on transvaginal ultrasonography are often associated with the syndrome, they are not invariably present and are not absolutely required for the diagnosis of polycystic ovary syndrome based on the most commonly used criteria.³⁵ Several diagnostic criteria have been proposed for polycystic ovary syndrome and its phenotypes. The 2003 revised Rotterdam criteria require 2 out of the following 3 features:

• Oligo-ovulation or anovulation
• Evidence of hyperandrogenism, whether clinical (eg, acne or hirsutism) or based on laboratory testing
• Polycystic-appearing ovaries on ultrasonography.

There is no single test that can diagnose the disease. Although polycystic ovary syndrome is often characterized by elevated LH levels, LH–FSH ratios, and fasting insulin levels, these are not diagnostic criteria. The diagnosis hinges on excluding other causes of anovulation such as thyroid disease, hyperprolactinemia, 21-hydroxylase deficiency, androgen-producing neoplasms, and Cushing syndrome. In addition to checking serum testosterone levels, irregular menstrual cycles and infertility should be assessed at minimum with measurement of TSH, prolactin, and day-3 FSH. Obese women should be screened for metabolic syndrome, which should include an assessment of impaired glucose tolerance with a 2-hour oral glucose tolerance test.³⁶

Women with polycystic ovary syndrome are known to have insulin resistance, which is difficult to assess and is independent of their body mass index.³⁷ They often report a family history of diabetes or a personal history of gestational diabetes or giving birth to infants who are large for gestational age. Although most women diagnosed with insulin resistance and anovulatory infertility will not yet have a diagnosis of diabetes, women with polycystic ovary syndrome are 3 to 7 times more likely to develop type 2 diabetes later in life³⁷ and are at increased risk of lipid abnormalities, cardiovascular disease, and stroke. Therefore, interventions to address the compounding influences of polycystic ovary syndrome and obesity can improve fertility outcomes and help prevent long-term sequelae that accompany the syndrome.

Treatment for women with polycystic ovary syndrome attempting conception includes lifestyle modifications, medications for ovulation induction, and possible use of insulin sensitizers. Metformin alone is not effective as a single agent for achieving pregnancy.³⁸ Diet, weight loss, and exercise can have dramatic effects on ovulation and pregnancy and should be highly encouraged.

Ovulation induction is often required in anovulatory women, either in combination with lifestyle modifications or used subsequently if modifications are not successful. Letrozole is advised as the initial agent in women with obesity and anovulatory infertility rather than clomiphene citrate; a side-by-side comparison demonstrated increased rates of ovulation and live birth with letrozole.³⁹

Once-daily letrozole 2.5 mg or clomiphene 50 mg can be prescribed for 5 days, from cycle days 3 through 7 to cycle days 5 through 9. If this initial dosing fails to result in ovulation, the dose can be increased. Known adverse effects are hot flashes, headaches, ovarian cysts, and increased risk of multiple gestation.

Metformin should be considered as an adjunct to fertility treatments in women with polycystic ovary syndrome, especially those with obesity or impaired glucose tolerance, or if there is no response to standard ovulation induction.

Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (cystic enlargement of the ovaries with potentially dangerous fluid and electrolyte imbalances) can occur in women with polycystic ovary syndrome; however, it rarely occurs with oral medications.

Pneumococcal vaccination with the 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13) based on shared clinical decision making is recommended for immunocompetent adults aged 65 years and older who have not previously received PCV13, and all adults aged 65 years and older should continue to receive the pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23), according to a vote at a meeting of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.

bowdenimages/iStock/Getty Images

The motion passed with an 11-1 vote after members voted down two other options to either discontinue or continue the current recommendation of PCV13 for all immunocompetent adults aged 65 years and older. The current recommendation for PCV13 for adults aged 65 years and older has been in place since 2014.

The pneumococcal work group assessed indirect effects of the pediatric PCV vaccination on older adults prior to 2014 and since 2014, and what additional benefits might be expected if routine vaccination of older adults continued.

“Indirect effects have been observed in all age groups” said Almea Matanock, MD, of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. Although there were no safety concerns, the public health impact of continued vaccination of adults was minimal.

Although PCV13 resulted in a 75% reduction in vaccine-type invasive pneumococcal disease and a 45% reduction in vaccine-type nonbacteremic pneumonia in 2014, the annual number needed to vaccinate to prevent a single case of outpatient pneumonia was 2,600, said Dr. Matanock.

Dr. Matanock presented key issues from the Evidence to Recommendations Framework for and against the recommendation for PCV13 in older adults. Work group comments in favor of continuing the recommendation for PCV13 in older adults included effective disease prevention and the potential negative impact on the importance of adult vaccines if the vaccine was no longer recommended. However, some work group members and committee members expressed concern about resource allocation and steering vaccines away from younger age groups in whom they have been more consistently effective.

Paul Hunter, MD, of the City of Milwaukee Health Department, voted against the shared clinical decision making, and instead favored discontinuing the recommendation for PCV13 for older adults. “I think clinicians need a clear message,” he said, adding that “the public health bang for the buck is with the kids.”

“I think there was a recognition that the population level benefit is minimal,” said work group chair Grace Lee, MD.

Although the work group recognized some benefit for older adults, the burden of disease for PCV-specific disease is low, compared with all-cause pneumonia, said Dr. Lee of Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital at Stanford, Calif. However, the recommendation for shared clinical decision making allows for potential insurance coverage of the vaccine for adults who decide after discussion with their health care provider that they would benefit.

“We are still unpacking this construct” of shared clinical decision making, which in this case applies to adults without immunocompromising conditions, and is more of a provider assessment than a risk assessment, she said.

The ACIP members had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Pneumococcal vaccination with the 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13) based on shared clinical decision making is recommended for immunocompetent adults aged 65 years and older who have not previously received PCV13, and all adults aged 65 years and older should continue to receive the pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23), according to a vote at a meeting of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.

bowdenimages/iStock/Getty Images

The motion passed with an 11-1 vote after members voted down two other options to either discontinue or continue the current recommendation of PCV13 for all immunocompetent adults aged 65 years and older. The current recommendation for PCV13 for adults aged 65 years and older has been in place since 2014.

The pneumococcal work group assessed indirect effects of the pediatric PCV vaccination on older adults prior to 2014 and since 2014, and what additional benefits might be expected if routine vaccination of older adults continued.

“Indirect effects have been observed in all age groups” said Almea Matanock, MD, of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. Although there were no safety concerns, the public health impact of continued vaccination of adults was minimal.

Although PCV13 resulted in a 75% reduction in vaccine-type invasive pneumococcal disease and a 45% reduction in vaccine-type nonbacteremic pneumonia in 2014, the annual number needed to vaccinate to prevent a single case of outpatient pneumonia was 2,600, said Dr. Matanock.

Dr. Matanock presented key issues from the Evidence to Recommendations Framework for and against the recommendation for PCV13 in older adults. Work group comments in favor of continuing the recommendation for PCV13 in older adults included effective disease prevention and the potential negative impact on the importance of adult vaccines if the vaccine was no longer recommended. However, some work group members and committee members expressed concern about resource allocation and steering vaccines away from younger age groups in whom they have been more consistently effective.

Paul Hunter, MD, of the City of Milwaukee Health Department, voted against the shared clinical decision making, and instead favored discontinuing the recommendation for PCV13 for older adults. “I think clinicians need a clear message,” he said, adding that “the public health bang for the buck is with the kids.”

“I think there was a recognition that the population level benefit is minimal,” said work group chair Grace Lee, MD.

Although the work group recognized some benefit for older adults, the burden of disease for PCV-specific disease is low, compared with all-cause pneumonia, said Dr. Lee of Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital at Stanford, Calif. However, the recommendation for shared clinical decision making allows for potential insurance coverage of the vaccine for adults who decide after discussion with their health care provider that they would benefit.

“We are still unpacking this construct” of shared clinical decision making, which in this case applies to adults without immunocompromising conditions, and is more of a provider assessment than a risk assessment, she said.

The ACIP members had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Pneumococcal vaccination with the 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13) based on shared clinical decision making is recommended for immunocompetent adults aged 65 years and older who have not previously received PCV13, and all adults aged 65 years and older should continue to receive the pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23), according to a vote at a meeting of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.

bowdenimages/iStock/Getty Images

The motion passed with an 11-1 vote after members voted down two other options to either discontinue or continue the current recommendation of PCV13 for all immunocompetent adults aged 65 years and older. The current recommendation for PCV13 for adults aged 65 years and older has been in place since 2014.

The pneumococcal work group assessed indirect effects of the pediatric PCV vaccination on older adults prior to 2014 and since 2014, and what additional benefits might be expected if routine vaccination of older adults continued.

“Indirect effects have been observed in all age groups” said Almea Matanock, MD, of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. Although there were no safety concerns, the public health impact of continued vaccination of adults was minimal.

Although PCV13 resulted in a 75% reduction in vaccine-type invasive pneumococcal disease and a 45% reduction in vaccine-type nonbacteremic pneumonia in 2014, the annual number needed to vaccinate to prevent a single case of outpatient pneumonia was 2,600, said Dr. Matanock.

Dr. Matanock presented key issues from the Evidence to Recommendations Framework for and against the recommendation for PCV13 in older adults. Work group comments in favor of continuing the recommendation for PCV13 in older adults included effective disease prevention and the potential negative impact on the importance of adult vaccines if the vaccine was no longer recommended. However, some work group members and committee members expressed concern about resource allocation and steering vaccines away from younger age groups in whom they have been more consistently effective.

Paul Hunter, MD, of the City of Milwaukee Health Department, voted against the shared clinical decision making, and instead favored discontinuing the recommendation for PCV13 for older adults. “I think clinicians need a clear message,” he said, adding that “the public health bang for the buck is with the kids.”

“I think there was a recognition that the population level benefit is minimal,” said work group chair Grace Lee, MD.

Although the work group recognized some benefit for older adults, the burden of disease for PCV-specific disease is low, compared with all-cause pneumonia, said Dr. Lee of Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital at Stanford, Calif. However, the recommendation for shared clinical decision making allows for potential insurance coverage of the vaccine for adults who decide after discussion with their health care provider that they would benefit.

“We are still unpacking this construct” of shared clinical decision making, which in this case applies to adults without immunocompromising conditions, and is more of a provider assessment than a risk assessment, she said.

The ACIP members had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Catch-up human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination should be harmonized to include all individuals through 26 years of age, according to a unanimous vote at a meeting of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.

This change affects males aged 22 through 26 years; the HPV vaccine is currently recommended for males and females aged 11 or 12 years, with catch-up vaccination through age 21 for males and age 26 for females.

copyright DesignPics/Thinkstock

The change was supported in part by increased interest in simplifying and harmonizing the vaccine schedule, said Lauri Markowitz, MD, of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases (NCIRD), who presented the HPV work group’s considerations.

In addition, the committee voted 10-4 in favor of catch-up HPV vaccination, based on shared clinical decision making, for all adults aged 27 through 45 years.

Although the current program of HPV vaccination for youth has demonstrated effectiveness, data from multiple models suggest that widespread HPV vaccination for adults older than 26 years is much less cost effective, and would yield relatively small additional health benefits, Dr. Markowitz said.

The HPV work group reviewed data from a range of clinical trials, epidemiology, and natural history, as well as results from five different health economic models. They concluded that an assessment of benefits and harms favors expanding the catch-up vaccination to all individuals through 26 years, said Elissa Meites, MD, of the CDC, who presented the official work group opinion. The group’s opinion on the second question was that the additional population level benefit of expanding HPV vaccination to all adults would be minimal and not a reasonable and effective allocation of resources, but that shared clinical decision making would allow flexibility.

The committee expressed strong opinions about the potential for shared clinical decision making as a policy for vaccination for adults older than 26 years. Some felt that this option was a way to include adults at risk for HPV, such as divorced women with new partners, or women getting married for the first time later in life who might not have been exposed to HPV through other relationships. In addition, supporters noted that the shared clinical decision-making option would allow for potential insurance coverage, and would involve discussion between doctors and patients to assess risk.

However, other committee members felt that any recommendation for older adult vaccination would distract clinicians from the importance and value of HPV vaccination for the target age group of 11- and 12-year-olds, and might divert resources from the younger age group in whom it has shown the most benefit.

Resource allocation was a concern voiced by many committee members. Kelly Moore, MD, MPH, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., said she voted no on expanding vaccination to older adults because “we didn’t have details on shared clinical decision making, in the absence of information on what that meant, and in the presence of supply questions, I didn’t feel comfortable expanding vaccination to a huge population,” she said.

Paul Hunter, MD, of the City of Milwaukee Health Department, also voted no, and expressed concern that expanding the HPV vaccination recommendations to older adults would send the message that vaccination for children and teens is not effective or important.

The text of the new recommendations for routine and catch-up vaccination states that the recommendations “also apply to MSM [men who have sex with men], transgender people, and people with immunocompromising conditions.”

The ACIP members had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Catch-up human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination should be harmonized to include all individuals through 26 years of age, according to a unanimous vote at a meeting of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.

This change affects males aged 22 through 26 years; the HPV vaccine is currently recommended for males and females aged 11 or 12 years, with catch-up vaccination through age 21 for males and age 26 for females.

copyright DesignPics/Thinkstock

The change was supported in part by increased interest in simplifying and harmonizing the vaccine schedule, said Lauri Markowitz, MD, of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases (NCIRD), who presented the HPV work group’s considerations.

In addition, the committee voted 10-4 in favor of catch-up HPV vaccination, based on shared clinical decision making, for all adults aged 27 through 45 years.

Although the current program of HPV vaccination for youth has demonstrated effectiveness, data from multiple models suggest that widespread HPV vaccination for adults older than 26 years is much less cost effective, and would yield relatively small additional health benefits, Dr. Markowitz said.

The HPV work group reviewed data from a range of clinical trials, epidemiology, and natural history, as well as results from five different health economic models. They concluded that an assessment of benefits and harms favors expanding the catch-up vaccination to all individuals through 26 years, said Elissa Meites, MD, of the CDC, who presented the official work group opinion. The group’s opinion on the second question was that the additional population level benefit of expanding HPV vaccination to all adults would be minimal and not a reasonable and effective allocation of resources, but that shared clinical decision making would allow flexibility.

The committee expressed strong opinions about the potential for shared clinical decision making as a policy for vaccination for adults older than 26 years. Some felt that this option was a way to include adults at risk for HPV, such as divorced women with new partners, or women getting married for the first time later in life who might not have been exposed to HPV through other relationships. In addition, supporters noted that the shared clinical decision-making option would allow for potential insurance coverage, and would involve discussion between doctors and patients to assess risk.

However, other committee members felt that any recommendation for older adult vaccination would distract clinicians from the importance and value of HPV vaccination for the target age group of 11- and 12-year-olds, and might divert resources from the younger age group in whom it has shown the most benefit.

Resource allocation was a concern voiced by many committee members. Kelly Moore, MD, MPH, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., said she voted no on expanding vaccination to older adults because “we didn’t have details on shared clinical decision making, in the absence of information on what that meant, and in the presence of supply questions, I didn’t feel comfortable expanding vaccination to a huge population,” she said.

Paul Hunter, MD, of the City of Milwaukee Health Department, also voted no, and expressed concern that expanding the HPV vaccination recommendations to older adults would send the message that vaccination for children and teens is not effective or important.

The text of the new recommendations for routine and catch-up vaccination states that the recommendations “also apply to MSM [men who have sex with men], transgender people, and people with immunocompromising conditions.”

The ACIP members had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Catch-up human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination should be harmonized to include all individuals through 26 years of age, according to a unanimous vote at a meeting of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.

This change affects males aged 22 through 26 years; the HPV vaccine is currently recommended for males and females aged 11 or 12 years, with catch-up vaccination through age 21 for males and age 26 for females.

copyright DesignPics/Thinkstock

The change was supported in part by increased interest in simplifying and harmonizing the vaccine schedule, said Lauri Markowitz, MD, of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases (NCIRD), who presented the HPV work group’s considerations.

In addition, the committee voted 10-4 in favor of catch-up HPV vaccination, based on shared clinical decision making, for all adults aged 27 through 45 years.

Although the current program of HPV vaccination for youth has demonstrated effectiveness, data from multiple models suggest that widespread HPV vaccination for adults older than 26 years is much less cost effective, and would yield relatively small additional health benefits, Dr. Markowitz said.

The HPV work group reviewed data from a range of clinical trials, epidemiology, and natural history, as well as results from five different health economic models. They concluded that an assessment of benefits and harms favors expanding the catch-up vaccination to all individuals through 26 years, said Elissa Meites, MD, of the CDC, who presented the official work group opinion. The group’s opinion on the second question was that the additional population level benefit of expanding HPV vaccination to all adults would be minimal and not a reasonable and effective allocation of resources, but that shared clinical decision making would allow flexibility.

The committee expressed strong opinions about the potential for shared clinical decision making as a policy for vaccination for adults older than 26 years. Some felt that this option was a way to include adults at risk for HPV, such as divorced women with new partners, or women getting married for the first time later in life who might not have been exposed to HPV through other relationships. In addition, supporters noted that the shared clinical decision-making option would allow for potential insurance coverage, and would involve discussion between doctors and patients to assess risk.

However, other committee members felt that any recommendation for older adult vaccination would distract clinicians from the importance and value of HPV vaccination for the target age group of 11- and 12-year-olds, and might divert resources from the younger age group in whom it has shown the most benefit.

Resource allocation was a concern voiced by many committee members. Kelly Moore, MD, MPH, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., said she voted no on expanding vaccination to older adults because “we didn’t have details on shared clinical decision making, in the absence of information on what that meant, and in the presence of supply questions, I didn’t feel comfortable expanding vaccination to a huge population,” she said.

Paul Hunter, MD, of the City of Milwaukee Health Department, also voted no, and expressed concern that expanding the HPV vaccination recommendations to older adults would send the message that vaccination for children and teens is not effective or important.

The text of the new recommendations for routine and catch-up vaccination states that the recommendations “also apply to MSM [men who have sex with men], transgender people, and people with immunocompromising conditions.”

The ACIP members had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The safety profile of combination abiraterone acetate (Zytiga) and glucocorticoid therapy in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) hinged on the specific steroid regimen, according to a phase 2 open-label randomized controlled trial.

alexdans/Thinkstock

Glucocorticoids are added to abiraterone in part to prevent mineralocorticoid excess, but can also have adverse effects of their own, noted lead investigator Gerhardt Attard, MD, of the University College London Cancer Institute, London, and colleagues. Understanding of the comparative physiologic effects of various regimens is limited.

In the trial, the investigators randomized 164 men with mCRPC from 22 centers in 5 countries (median age 70 years) to 4 glucocorticoid regimens, each combined with abiraterone acetate, 1,000 mg, daily: prednisone, 5 mg, twice daily; prednisone, 5 mg, once daily; prednisone, 2.5 mg, twice daily; and dexamethasone, 0.5 mg, once daily.

Results reported in JAMA Oncology showed that the proportion of patients who had not developed toxicity (hypotension or hypokalemia) from mineralocorticoid excess during the first 24 weeks of treatment was highest, at about 70%, with prednisone, 5 mg, twice daily, and with dexamethasone, and only these regimens had confidence intervals excluding occurrence of this toxicity in at least half of patients. However, patients in the dexamethasone group had significantly heightened risks of insulin resistance and bone mineral density loss at the end of follow-up.

The median radiographic progression-free survival was 18.5 months in the group given prednisone, 5 mg, twice daily; 15.3 months in the group given prednisone, 5 mg, once daily; 12.8 months in the group given prednisone, 2.5 mg, twice daily; and 26.6 months in the group given dexamethasone, 0.5 mg, once daily.

“Different glucocorticoid regimens make distinct compromises on control of mineralocorticoid excess, changes in body composition, and development of insulin resistance,” Dr. Attard and coinvestigators summarized. “This trial provides results consistent with the approved use of abiraterone acetate with prednisone, 5 mg, twice daily for the treatment of mCRPC. Long-term adverse metabolic and musculoskeletal changes are small and do not appear to have a detrimental effect on patient-reported quality of life.”

At the same time, lower-dose prednisone regimens – with their more modest long-term risks of insulin resistance, increased body fat, and bone mineral density loss – can still be used, with caution. “With careful monitoring, the risk of hypokalemia with lower glucocorticoid doses can be mitigated, as demonstrated in the LATITUDE and STAMPEDE trials where no major safety concerns were raised,” they elaborated.

Dr. Attard disclosed personal fees, research support, and travel support from Janssen during the conduct of the study; as well as personal fees research, and/or travel support from numerous other pharmaceutical companies. The study was funded by Janssen EMEA.

SOURCE: Attard G et al. JAMA Oncol. Published online June 27, 2019. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.1011.

The safety profile of combination abiraterone acetate (Zytiga) and glucocorticoid therapy in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) hinged on the specific steroid regimen, according to a phase 2 open-label randomized controlled trial.

alexdans/Thinkstock

Glucocorticoids are added to abiraterone in part to prevent mineralocorticoid excess, but can also have adverse effects of their own, noted lead investigator Gerhardt Attard, MD, of the University College London Cancer Institute, London, and colleagues. Understanding of the comparative physiologic effects of various regimens is limited.

In the trial, the investigators randomized 164 men with mCRPC from 22 centers in 5 countries (median age 70 years) to 4 glucocorticoid regimens, each combined with abiraterone acetate, 1,000 mg, daily: prednisone, 5 mg, twice daily; prednisone, 5 mg, once daily; prednisone, 2.5 mg, twice daily; and dexamethasone, 0.5 mg, once daily.

Results reported in JAMA Oncology showed that the proportion of patients who had not developed toxicity (hypotension or hypokalemia) from mineralocorticoid excess during the first 24 weeks of treatment was highest, at about 70%, with prednisone, 5 mg, twice daily, and with dexamethasone, and only these regimens had confidence intervals excluding occurrence of this toxicity in at least half of patients. However, patients in the dexamethasone group had significantly heightened risks of insulin resistance and bone mineral density loss at the end of follow-up.

The median radiographic progression-free survival was 18.5 months in the group given prednisone, 5 mg, twice daily; 15.3 months in the group given prednisone, 5 mg, once daily; 12.8 months in the group given prednisone, 2.5 mg, twice daily; and 26.6 months in the group given dexamethasone, 0.5 mg, once daily.

“Different glucocorticoid regimens make distinct compromises on control of mineralocorticoid excess, changes in body composition, and development of insulin resistance,” Dr. Attard and coinvestigators summarized. “This trial provides results consistent with the approved use of abiraterone acetate with prednisone, 5 mg, twice daily for the treatment of mCRPC. Long-term adverse metabolic and musculoskeletal changes are small and do not appear to have a detrimental effect on patient-reported quality of life.”

At the same time, lower-dose prednisone regimens – with their more modest long-term risks of insulin resistance, increased body fat, and bone mineral density loss – can still be used, with caution. “With careful monitoring, the risk of hypokalemia with lower glucocorticoid doses can be mitigated, as demonstrated in the LATITUDE and STAMPEDE trials where no major safety concerns were raised,” they elaborated.

Dr. Attard disclosed personal fees, research support, and travel support from Janssen during the conduct of the study; as well as personal fees research, and/or travel support from numerous other pharmaceutical companies. The study was funded by Janssen EMEA.

SOURCE: Attard G et al. JAMA Oncol. Published online June 27, 2019. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.1011.

The safety profile of combination abiraterone acetate (Zytiga) and glucocorticoid therapy in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) hinged on the specific steroid regimen, according to a phase 2 open-label randomized controlled trial.

alexdans/Thinkstock

Glucocorticoids are added to abiraterone in part to prevent mineralocorticoid excess, but can also have adverse effects of their own, noted lead investigator Gerhardt Attard, MD, of the University College London Cancer Institute, London, and colleagues. Understanding of the comparative physiologic effects of various regimens is limited.

In the trial, the investigators randomized 164 men with mCRPC from 22 centers in 5 countries (median age 70 years) to 4 glucocorticoid regimens, each combined with abiraterone acetate, 1,000 mg, daily: prednisone, 5 mg, twice daily; prednisone, 5 mg, once daily; prednisone, 2.5 mg, twice daily; and dexamethasone, 0.5 mg, once daily.

Results reported in JAMA Oncology showed that the proportion of patients who had not developed toxicity (hypotension or hypokalemia) from mineralocorticoid excess during the first 24 weeks of treatment was highest, at about 70%, with prednisone, 5 mg, twice daily, and with dexamethasone, and only these regimens had confidence intervals excluding occurrence of this toxicity in at least half of patients. However, patients in the dexamethasone group had significantly heightened risks of insulin resistance and bone mineral density loss at the end of follow-up.

The median radiographic progression-free survival was 18.5 months in the group given prednisone, 5 mg, twice daily; 15.3 months in the group given prednisone, 5 mg, once daily; 12.8 months in the group given prednisone, 2.5 mg, twice daily; and 26.6 months in the group given dexamethasone, 0.5 mg, once daily.

“Different glucocorticoid regimens make distinct compromises on control of mineralocorticoid excess, changes in body composition, and development of insulin resistance,” Dr. Attard and coinvestigators summarized. “This trial provides results consistent with the approved use of abiraterone acetate with prednisone, 5 mg, twice daily for the treatment of mCRPC. Long-term adverse metabolic and musculoskeletal changes are small and do not appear to have a detrimental effect on patient-reported quality of life.”

At the same time, lower-dose prednisone regimens – with their more modest long-term risks of insulin resistance, increased body fat, and bone mineral density loss – can still be used, with caution. “With careful monitoring, the risk of hypokalemia with lower glucocorticoid doses can be mitigated, as demonstrated in the LATITUDE and STAMPEDE trials where no major safety concerns were raised,” they elaborated.

Dr. Attard disclosed personal fees, research support, and travel support from Janssen during the conduct of the study; as well as personal fees research, and/or travel support from numerous other pharmaceutical companies. The study was funded by Janssen EMEA.

SOURCE: Attard G et al. JAMA Oncol. Published online June 27, 2019. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.1011.

The 2012 US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of daily emtricitabine plus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate as HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) re-energized the field of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevention. In subsequent years, PrEP uptake has increased, particularly in people at high risk of HIV infection.

However, since 2012, progress in controlling the HIV epidemic has been uneven across communities and populations. For instance, in 2014, the southern United States accounted for an estimated 50% of infections, but PrEP uptake has remained low there, with only 1% of the estimated number of eligible people taking PrEP.^1,2 Among African American men who have sex with men (MSM), it is predicted that 1 of every 2 will become infected in his lifetime; among Latino MSM, the prediction is 1 of every 5.³ The expanding opioid epidemic is further jeopardizing the progress made in reducing HIV infection among people who inject drugs.

A “test and treat” strategy is insufficient. Mathematical modeling suggests that “test and treat” without a higher level of coverage is insufficient to control the HIV epidemic.⁴ In the absence of an HIV vaccine, these models find that widespread uptake of PrEP among people at risk of HIV acquisition is needed—in combination with HIV treatment as prevention, condom promotion, and needle exchange—to realize the potential to end the HIV epidemic.⁴

A recent proposal by the US Department of Health and Human Services would establish an initiative to address the continuing HIV public health crisis, with a goal of reducing the numbers of incident HIV infections in the United States by 75% in 5 years and then by 90% in 10 years. That strategic initiative includes 4 “pillars” for preventing HIV acquisition—one of which is the use of PrEP by at-risk people.⁵

Although PrEP is often prescribed by HIV specialists and in sexually transmitted infection (STI) clinics, many patients seek PrEP from family physicians (and other primary care clinicians), who are now also being called on to identify patients in their practice at risk of HIV infection⁶ and to offer them PrEP. In this article, we provide an overview of PrEP and discuss how best to integrate PrEP into a family medicine practice.

Understanding PrEP and how it is used

PrEP is one of 2 related biomedical interventions to prevent HIV acquisition. Many clinicians are familiar with postexposure prophylaxis, a regimen of 3 anti-HIV medications given for 1 month to patients who are within 72 hours of a possible exposure. In contrast, PrEP is a once-daily, fixed-dose combination of 2 medications commonly used in the treatment of HIV infection: emtricitabine, 200 mg, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, 300 mg. This combination is the only FDA-approved regimen for daily use as PrEP in the United States.

At-risk patients should take PrEP daily—regardless of how often they engage in risky behaviors.

PrEP is indicated for people whose ongoing sexual or drug injection behaviors put them at substantial risk of HIV infection, and should be taken daily regardless of the frequency of risk-taking behavior. Since 2010, several randomized placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) have reported that, when medication adherence is high (measured by drug levels in blood), PrEP can reduce new HIV infections by more than 90% in high-risk populations.⁷ In clinical practice, HIV infection is uncommon because of the effectiveness of daily PrEP; when infections have occurred, almost all have been in patients not taking the medications as prescribed.⁸

Continue to: Infection with HIV...

Infection with HIV in which viral mutations are associated with emtricitabine or tenofovir resistance is rare among the few people infected with HIV after starting PrEP.⁹ In RCTs, most drug resistance occurred among people who started PrEP when they were already HIV-positive (because they were screened with antibody-only HIV tests that did not detect recent infection).¹⁰

Other medications, routes of administration, and dosing schedules are being studied for safety and efficacy as PrEP for HIV infection.^11,12

For whom should PrEP be prescribed? There are 2 ways to identify candidates for PrEP:

• Passive prescribing relies on patients self-identifying as being at risk of HIV infection and asking about PrEP. Many at-risk patients do not recognize their need for PrEP, however.¹³
• Active screening requires that physicians, or their staff, take a sexual history from all patients. However, reviewing detailed sexual histories with every patient in a busy practice can be overwhelming. One way to begin identifying patients for whom PrEP is appropriate is to commit to talking to subsets of potentially high-risk patients, such as MSM or transgender patients.⁶ Sexual orientation and gender identity are not direct risk factors; a nuanced sexual history is often needed to understand potential exposures. A diagnosis of syphilis or other bacterial STI is a marker of high risk of HIV acquisition.¹⁴

To help identify which of your patients might benefit from PrEP, the PrEP guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)¹⁵ and tools developed by other sources^16,17 recommend several key screening questions about sexual behavior and substance abuse (TABLE 1^15-17).

Familiarity with PrEP and comfort taking a sexual history to screen for risk of HIV acquisition are essential first steps in prescribing PrEP under CDC guidelines.^6,18 In primary care, female patients are routinely questioned to assess their need for contraception; similarly, screening questions to assess PrEP eligibility can be easily incorporated into practice.

Continue to: What are the indications for PrEP?

Patients in whom PrEP is indicated include sexually active adults and adolescents (> 35 kg)¹⁹ whose use of a condom is inconsistent or who have had multiple recent sex partners; those with a recent bacterial STI; and men or women with a sexual or injection partner known to be HIV-infected (TABLE 2).¹⁵

What steps should be taken before and after initiating PrEP?

Providing PrEP is a harm-reduction strategy similar to prescribing other common preventive medications, such as statins to reduce hyperlipidemia and prevent myocardial infarction; oral contraceptives to prevent unwanted pregnancy; and metformin to prevent complications of diabetes. There are a few screening criteria prior to initiating PrEP (TABLE 3)¹⁰:

• A patient starting PrEP should be (1) HIV-negative, ideally screened by a laboratory-based antigen–antibody (ie, fourth-generation) HIV test or HIV RNA test, and (2) without symptoms of acute HIV infection.²⁰ (Note: Do not hold off PrEP and HIV testing until the patient has achieved a period of sexual abstinence.)
• A patient starting PrEP should have normal renal function and should not be taking contraindicated medications, such as long-term high-dose nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents.
• Hepatitis B virus (HBV) surface antigen, surface antibody, and core antibody should be tested because both emtricitabine and tenofovir are active against HBV. For a patient who has active HBV infection, particularly with cirrhosis, there is a theoretical concern that starting and stopping PrEP can lead to flares of HBV infection. Patients who are not HBV-immune should be vaccinated.
• Baseline hepatitis C virus testing is recommended for patients who inject drugs, MSM, or those who were born between 1945 and 1965; annual hepatitis C virus testing is recommended for patients who inject drugs.¹⁵

When it has been determined that a patient is eligible for PrEP, a prescription is written for no longer than 90 days to ensure regular monitoring for HIV infection, STIs, and renal function.

Adherence counseling is a key component of PrEP delivery—as it is with oral contraception, antihypertensive medical therapy, and other medications. As noted, HIV acquisition in PrEP users is most often reported in patients with poor adherence,⁸ especially among adolescents.²¹ PrEP is part of comprehensive sexual health care, and safer sex behaviors, such as condom use, should be encouraged to reduce the risk of acquiring other STIs. Condom use should not, however, be a requirement for continuing to receive PrEP.

Is PrEP safe?

Although PrEP might be new to many family physicians and their patients, trials and observational studies have repeatedly shown that for people without HIV infection, taking daily emtricitabine and tenofovir for prevention of HIV infection is safe. No clinically significant renal, bone, or other toxicity has been reported, although there is concern about potential toxicity after decades of use.^22,23 A recent narrative review from the David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California Los Angeles compared safety findings from 5 major studies on PrEP with 2 major studies on aspirin safety and found that PrEP is as safe as aspirin, although the authors cautioned that more study on long-term use is needed.²⁴

Continue to: What to tell patients

What to tell patients. Tell patients that within the first weeks of starting PrEP, they might experience a start-up syndrome that typically manifests as gastrointestinal symptoms, headache, and fatigue. These symptoms usually resolve without the need to discontinue the medications.²⁵

Any other concerns about PrEP?

When PrEP was first approved by the FDA, many physicians raised concern about the possibility that PrEP use would lead to increased community-level HIV drug resistance and that behavioral disinhibition might diminish the benefit of PrEP and lead to rampant STIs.²⁶ To date, these fears have not been borne out.

When medication adherence is high, PrEP can reduce new HIV infections by more than 90% in high-risk populations.

Acquired drug resistance, which happens after a person becomes HIV-positive, is a real concern, particularly among people who are screened with antibody-only HIV tests that cannot detect HIV in the so-called window period and who then start PrEP during acute HIV infection. If a person is truly HIV-negative when he (she) starts PrEP, the risk of either acquired or transmitted HIV drug resistance is low and is far outweighed by the preventive benefit of PrEP.²⁷

Similarly, there is a suggestion that syphilis infection is increasing among HIV-negative MSM due to decreased HIV-related stigma and increased mixing between HIV-negative and HIV-positive people. The evidence that PrEP has led to an increase in STI rates²⁸ is mixed, however, and is confounded by temporal increases in STI rates and increased detection of asymptomatic STIs among people on PrEP as a result of regular screening.²⁹

Who pays for PrEP?

The cost of PrEP medications and associated clinical care is covered by nearly all private, employer, and public health insurance. Prior authorization might be required to ensure that testing has excluded HIV infection before prescribing and then refilling prescriptions.

Continue to: For patients who have health insurance...

For patients who have health insurance, assistance with copays or coinsurance is available through the producer of PrEP (Gilead Sciences, Inc.) and other national foundations. Many people who seek PrEP might be eligible for Medicaid if they are otherwise uninsured. Other low-income and uninsured people, including those who are not legal residents or US citizens, usually qualify for the PrEP medication assistance program; the application for this benefit must be completed by the physician.

One way to identify patients for whom PrEP might be appropriate is to talk to subsets of potentially high-risk patients, such as men who have sex with men and transgender patients.

A billing guide on PrEP for physicians is available to assist with International Classification of Disease (ICD)-10 coding.^30,31 If a patient has difficulty with laboratory copays, free HIV and STI testing might be available at local STI clinics and acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) service organizations.

Providing PrEP within a primary care setting

The unmet need for PrEP highlights how important it is for family medicine and other primary care practices to incorporate HIV prevention into their suite of services.³²

Patients are most likely to experience adverse effects during the first month of taking PrEP—the same period in which they are establishing their pattern of adherence. It might be helpful to check in with patients at the end of the first month to assess their symptoms and adherence. After this phase, quarterly follow-up is simple, with routine lab monitoring and check-in about continued risk of HIV and adherence challenges (TABLE 3¹⁰).

At our local Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program-funded HIV clinic, which also provides PrEP, computer-ordering checklists (so-called smartsets) for the PrEP initial visit and follow-up visits are programmed into the records system (TABLE 4¹⁵). Other clinics also have developed templates for PrEP visit notes. Adherence monitoring, behavioral counseling, and other preventive services can be integrated into the regular paper- or computer-based intake survey, so that conversations are focused on areas of need.⁶ Family physicians in large practices can develop in-office protocols, based on CDC PrEP guidelines, to assign roles (eg, paperwork assistant, behavioral counselor, prescriber) to staff members.

Continue to: Partnering with HIV specialists, organizations, and pharmacists

Family physicians who are unsure about initiating PrEP might consider referring complex patients, such as those with unclear eligibility or active HBV infection, to an infectious disease or HIV specialist or clinic for the initial evaluation. Once a patient has been started on PrEP, quarterly monitoring is simple and can be easily completed in a family medicine practice.

Depending on location and available services, pharmacists and local HIV and AIDS organizations might provide behavioral and adherence counseling and repeat testing during follow-up appointments. In our experience, working with a primary pharmacy that is familiar with patient assistance programs and prior authorization requirements facilitates smoother prescribing. The result? Lower cost to patients because of knowledge of copays and other assistance programs and willingness to use these secondary payers.

Bringing PrEP into the practice is workable

Providing PrEP is well within your scope of practice as a family physician. To assist you in making PrEP an effective component of your practice, we provide a list of sources of PrEP support in TABLE 5.

Because some physicians might still be reluctant to prescribe PrEP for patients who maintain their risk of HIV acquisition, we recommend that you think of PrEP as you do about statins. Discussing diet and exercise as a means of reducing cardiovascular events for every patient with hyperlipidemia is often insufficient; most physicians therefore also prescribe medication for patients who cannot change behaviors sufficiently to modify their cardiovascular risk factors. Similarly, you now have a preventive for HIV—a costly, lifelong infection—that is as cost-effective as statins are.^26,33

CORRESPONDENCE
Joanne D. Stekler, MD, MPH, Box 359931, Harborview Medical Center, 325 9th Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104; [email protected].

The 2012 US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of daily emtricitabine plus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate as HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) re-energized the field of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevention. In subsequent years, PrEP uptake has increased, particularly in people at high risk of HIV infection.

However, since 2012, progress in controlling the HIV epidemic has been uneven across communities and populations. For instance, in 2014, the southern United States accounted for an estimated 50% of infections, but PrEP uptake has remained low there, with only 1% of the estimated number of eligible people taking PrEP.^1,2 Among African American men who have sex with men (MSM), it is predicted that 1 of every 2 will become infected in his lifetime; among Latino MSM, the prediction is 1 of every 5.³ The expanding opioid epidemic is further jeopardizing the progress made in reducing HIV infection among people who inject drugs.

A “test and treat” strategy is insufficient. Mathematical modeling suggests that “test and treat” without a higher level of coverage is insufficient to control the HIV epidemic.⁴ In the absence of an HIV vaccine, these models find that widespread uptake of PrEP among people at risk of HIV acquisition is needed—in combination with HIV treatment as prevention, condom promotion, and needle exchange—to realize the potential to end the HIV epidemic.⁴

A recent proposal by the US Department of Health and Human Services would establish an initiative to address the continuing HIV public health crisis, with a goal of reducing the numbers of incident HIV infections in the United States by 75% in 5 years and then by 90% in 10 years. That strategic initiative includes 4 “pillars” for preventing HIV acquisition—one of which is the use of PrEP by at-risk people.⁵

Although PrEP is often prescribed by HIV specialists and in sexually transmitted infection (STI) clinics, many patients seek PrEP from family physicians (and other primary care clinicians), who are now also being called on to identify patients in their practice at risk of HIV infection⁶ and to offer them PrEP. In this article, we provide an overview of PrEP and discuss how best to integrate PrEP into a family medicine practice.

Understanding PrEP and how it is used

PrEP is one of 2 related biomedical interventions to prevent HIV acquisition. Many clinicians are familiar with postexposure prophylaxis, a regimen of 3 anti-HIV medications given for 1 month to patients who are within 72 hours of a possible exposure. In contrast, PrEP is a once-daily, fixed-dose combination of 2 medications commonly used in the treatment of HIV infection: emtricitabine, 200 mg, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, 300 mg. This combination is the only FDA-approved regimen for daily use as PrEP in the United States.

At-risk patients should take PrEP daily—regardless of how often they engage in risky behaviors.

PrEP is indicated for people whose ongoing sexual or drug injection behaviors put them at substantial risk of HIV infection, and should be taken daily regardless of the frequency of risk-taking behavior. Since 2010, several randomized placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) have reported that, when medication adherence is high (measured by drug levels in blood), PrEP can reduce new HIV infections by more than 90% in high-risk populations.⁷ In clinical practice, HIV infection is uncommon because of the effectiveness of daily PrEP; when infections have occurred, almost all have been in patients not taking the medications as prescribed.⁸

Continue to: Infection with HIV...

Infection with HIV in which viral mutations are associated with emtricitabine or tenofovir resistance is rare among the few people infected with HIV after starting PrEP.⁹ In RCTs, most drug resistance occurred among people who started PrEP when they were already HIV-positive (because they were screened with antibody-only HIV tests that did not detect recent infection).¹⁰

Other medications, routes of administration, and dosing schedules are being studied for safety and efficacy as PrEP for HIV infection.^11,12

For whom should PrEP be prescribed? There are 2 ways to identify candidates for PrEP:

• Passive prescribing relies on patients self-identifying as being at risk of HIV infection and asking about PrEP. Many at-risk patients do not recognize their need for PrEP, however.¹³
• Active screening requires that physicians, or their staff, take a sexual history from all patients. However, reviewing detailed sexual histories with every patient in a busy practice can be overwhelming. One way to begin identifying patients for whom PrEP is appropriate is to commit to talking to subsets of potentially high-risk patients, such as MSM or transgender patients.⁶ Sexual orientation and gender identity are not direct risk factors; a nuanced sexual history is often needed to understand potential exposures. A diagnosis of syphilis or other bacterial STI is a marker of high risk of HIV acquisition.¹⁴

To help identify which of your patients might benefit from PrEP, the PrEP guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)¹⁵ and tools developed by other sources^16,17 recommend several key screening questions about sexual behavior and substance abuse (TABLE 1^15-17).

Familiarity with PrEP and comfort taking a sexual history to screen for risk of HIV acquisition are essential first steps in prescribing PrEP under CDC guidelines.^6,18 In primary care, female patients are routinely questioned to assess their need for contraception; similarly, screening questions to assess PrEP eligibility can be easily incorporated into practice.

Continue to: What are the indications for PrEP?

Patients in whom PrEP is indicated include sexually active adults and adolescents (> 35 kg)¹⁹ whose use of a condom is inconsistent or who have had multiple recent sex partners; those with a recent bacterial STI; and men or women with a sexual or injection partner known to be HIV-infected (TABLE 2).¹⁵

What steps should be taken before and after initiating PrEP?

Providing PrEP is a harm-reduction strategy similar to prescribing other common preventive medications, such as statins to reduce hyperlipidemia and prevent myocardial infarction; oral contraceptives to prevent unwanted pregnancy; and metformin to prevent complications of diabetes. There are a few screening criteria prior to initiating PrEP (TABLE 3)¹⁰:

• A patient starting PrEP should be (1) HIV-negative, ideally screened by a laboratory-based antigen–antibody (ie, fourth-generation) HIV test or HIV RNA test, and (2) without symptoms of acute HIV infection.²⁰ (Note: Do not hold off PrEP and HIV testing until the patient has achieved a period of sexual abstinence.)
• A patient starting PrEP should have normal renal function and should not be taking contraindicated medications, such as long-term high-dose nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents.
• Hepatitis B virus (HBV) surface antigen, surface antibody, and core antibody should be tested because both emtricitabine and tenofovir are active against HBV. For a patient who has active HBV infection, particularly with cirrhosis, there is a theoretical concern that starting and stopping PrEP can lead to flares of HBV infection. Patients who are not HBV-immune should be vaccinated.
• Baseline hepatitis C virus testing is recommended for patients who inject drugs, MSM, or those who were born between 1945 and 1965; annual hepatitis C virus testing is recommended for patients who inject drugs.¹⁵

When it has been determined that a patient is eligible for PrEP, a prescription is written for no longer than 90 days to ensure regular monitoring for HIV infection, STIs, and renal function.

Adherence counseling is a key component of PrEP delivery—as it is with oral contraception, antihypertensive medical therapy, and other medications. As noted, HIV acquisition in PrEP users is most often reported in patients with poor adherence,⁸ especially among adolescents.²¹ PrEP is part of comprehensive sexual health care, and safer sex behaviors, such as condom use, should be encouraged to reduce the risk of acquiring other STIs. Condom use should not, however, be a requirement for continuing to receive PrEP.

Is PrEP safe?

Although PrEP might be new to many family physicians and their patients, trials and observational studies have repeatedly shown that for people without HIV infection, taking daily emtricitabine and tenofovir for prevention of HIV infection is safe. No clinically significant renal, bone, or other toxicity has been reported, although there is concern about potential toxicity after decades of use.^22,23 A recent narrative review from the David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California Los Angeles compared safety findings from 5 major studies on PrEP with 2 major studies on aspirin safety and found that PrEP is as safe as aspirin, although the authors cautioned that more study on long-term use is needed.²⁴

Continue to: What to tell patients

What to tell patients. Tell patients that within the first weeks of starting PrEP, they might experience a start-up syndrome that typically manifests as gastrointestinal symptoms, headache, and fatigue. These symptoms usually resolve without the need to discontinue the medications.²⁵

Any other concerns about PrEP?

When PrEP was first approved by the FDA, many physicians raised concern about the possibility that PrEP use would lead to increased community-level HIV drug resistance and that behavioral disinhibition might diminish the benefit of PrEP and lead to rampant STIs.²⁶ To date, these fears have not been borne out.

When medication adherence is high, PrEP can reduce new HIV infections by more than 90% in high-risk populations.

Acquired drug resistance, which happens after a person becomes HIV-positive, is a real concern, particularly among people who are screened with antibody-only HIV tests that cannot detect HIV in the so-called window period and who then start PrEP during acute HIV infection. If a person is truly HIV-negative when he (she) starts PrEP, the risk of either acquired or transmitted HIV drug resistance is low and is far outweighed by the preventive benefit of PrEP.²⁷

Similarly, there is a suggestion that syphilis infection is increasing among HIV-negative MSM due to decreased HIV-related stigma and increased mixing between HIV-negative and HIV-positive people. The evidence that PrEP has led to an increase in STI rates²⁸ is mixed, however, and is confounded by temporal increases in STI rates and increased detection of asymptomatic STIs among people on PrEP as a result of regular screening.²⁹

Who pays for PrEP?

The cost of PrEP medications and associated clinical care is covered by nearly all private, employer, and public health insurance. Prior authorization might be required to ensure that testing has excluded HIV infection before prescribing and then refilling prescriptions.

Continue to: For patients who have health insurance...

For patients who have health insurance, assistance with copays or coinsurance is available through the producer of PrEP (Gilead Sciences, Inc.) and other national foundations. Many people who seek PrEP might be eligible for Medicaid if they are otherwise uninsured. Other low-income and uninsured people, including those who are not legal residents or US citizens, usually qualify for the PrEP medication assistance program; the application for this benefit must be completed by the physician.

One way to identify patients for whom PrEP might be appropriate is to talk to subsets of potentially high-risk patients, such as men who have sex with men and transgender patients.

A billing guide on PrEP for physicians is available to assist with International Classification of Disease (ICD)-10 coding.^30,31 If a patient has difficulty with laboratory copays, free HIV and STI testing might be available at local STI clinics and acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) service organizations.

Providing PrEP within a primary care setting

The unmet need for PrEP highlights how important it is for family medicine and other primary care practices to incorporate HIV prevention into their suite of services.³²

Patients are most likely to experience adverse effects during the first month of taking PrEP—the same period in which they are establishing their pattern of adherence. It might be helpful to check in with patients at the end of the first month to assess their symptoms and adherence. After this phase, quarterly follow-up is simple, with routine lab monitoring and check-in about continued risk of HIV and adherence challenges (TABLE 3¹⁰).

At our local Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program-funded HIV clinic, which also provides PrEP, computer-ordering checklists (so-called smartsets) for the PrEP initial visit and follow-up visits are programmed into the records system (TABLE 4¹⁵). Other clinics also have developed templates for PrEP visit notes. Adherence monitoring, behavioral counseling, and other preventive services can be integrated into the regular paper- or computer-based intake survey, so that conversations are focused on areas of need.⁶ Family physicians in large practices can develop in-office protocols, based on CDC PrEP guidelines, to assign roles (eg, paperwork assistant, behavioral counselor, prescriber) to staff members.

Continue to: Partnering with HIV specialists, organizations, and pharmacists

Family physicians who are unsure about initiating PrEP might consider referring complex patients, such as those with unclear eligibility or active HBV infection, to an infectious disease or HIV specialist or clinic for the initial evaluation. Once a patient has been started on PrEP, quarterly monitoring is simple and can be easily completed in a family medicine practice.

Depending on location and available services, pharmacists and local HIV and AIDS organizations might provide behavioral and adherence counseling and repeat testing during follow-up appointments. In our experience, working with a primary pharmacy that is familiar with patient assistance programs and prior authorization requirements facilitates smoother prescribing. The result? Lower cost to patients because of knowledge of copays and other assistance programs and willingness to use these secondary payers.

Bringing PrEP into the practice is workable

Providing PrEP is well within your scope of practice as a family physician. To assist you in making PrEP an effective component of your practice, we provide a list of sources of PrEP support in TABLE 5.

Because some physicians might still be reluctant to prescribe PrEP for patients who maintain their risk of HIV acquisition, we recommend that you think of PrEP as you do about statins. Discussing diet and exercise as a means of reducing cardiovascular events for every patient with hyperlipidemia is often insufficient; most physicians therefore also prescribe medication for patients who cannot change behaviors sufficiently to modify their cardiovascular risk factors. Similarly, you now have a preventive for HIV—a costly, lifelong infection—that is as cost-effective as statins are.^26,33

CORRESPONDENCE
Joanne D. Stekler, MD, MPH, Box 359931, Harborview Medical Center, 325 9th Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104; [email protected].

The 2012 US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of daily emtricitabine plus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate as HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) re-energized the field of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevention. In subsequent years, PrEP uptake has increased, particularly in people at high risk of HIV infection.

However, since 2012, progress in controlling the HIV epidemic has been uneven across communities and populations. For instance, in 2014, the southern United States accounted for an estimated 50% of infections, but PrEP uptake has remained low there, with only 1% of the estimated number of eligible people taking PrEP.^1,2 Among African American men who have sex with men (MSM), it is predicted that 1 of every 2 will become infected in his lifetime; among Latino MSM, the prediction is 1 of every 5.³ The expanding opioid epidemic is further jeopardizing the progress made in reducing HIV infection among people who inject drugs.

A “test and treat” strategy is insufficient. Mathematical modeling suggests that “test and treat” without a higher level of coverage is insufficient to control the HIV epidemic.⁴ In the absence of an HIV vaccine, these models find that widespread uptake of PrEP among people at risk of HIV acquisition is needed—in combination with HIV treatment as prevention, condom promotion, and needle exchange—to realize the potential to end the HIV epidemic.⁴

A recent proposal by the US Department of Health and Human Services would establish an initiative to address the continuing HIV public health crisis, with a goal of reducing the numbers of incident HIV infections in the United States by 75% in 5 years and then by 90% in 10 years. That strategic initiative includes 4 “pillars” for preventing HIV acquisition—one of which is the use of PrEP by at-risk people.⁵

Although PrEP is often prescribed by HIV specialists and in sexually transmitted infection (STI) clinics, many patients seek PrEP from family physicians (and other primary care clinicians), who are now also being called on to identify patients in their practice at risk of HIV infection⁶ and to offer them PrEP. In this article, we provide an overview of PrEP and discuss how best to integrate PrEP into a family medicine practice.

Understanding PrEP and how it is used

PrEP is one of 2 related biomedical interventions to prevent HIV acquisition. Many clinicians are familiar with postexposure prophylaxis, a regimen of 3 anti-HIV medications given for 1 month to patients who are within 72 hours of a possible exposure. In contrast, PrEP is a once-daily, fixed-dose combination of 2 medications commonly used in the treatment of HIV infection: emtricitabine, 200 mg, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, 300 mg. This combination is the only FDA-approved regimen for daily use as PrEP in the United States.

At-risk patients should take PrEP daily—regardless of how often they engage in risky behaviors.

PrEP is indicated for people whose ongoing sexual or drug injection behaviors put them at substantial risk of HIV infection, and should be taken daily regardless of the frequency of risk-taking behavior. Since 2010, several randomized placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) have reported that, when medication adherence is high (measured by drug levels in blood), PrEP can reduce new HIV infections by more than 90% in high-risk populations.⁷ In clinical practice, HIV infection is uncommon because of the effectiveness of daily PrEP; when infections have occurred, almost all have been in patients not taking the medications as prescribed.⁸

Continue to: Infection with HIV...

Infection with HIV in which viral mutations are associated with emtricitabine or tenofovir resistance is rare among the few people infected with HIV after starting PrEP.⁹ In RCTs, most drug resistance occurred among people who started PrEP when they were already HIV-positive (because they were screened with antibody-only HIV tests that did not detect recent infection).¹⁰

Other medications, routes of administration, and dosing schedules are being studied for safety and efficacy as PrEP for HIV infection.^11,12

For whom should PrEP be prescribed? There are 2 ways to identify candidates for PrEP:

• Passive prescribing relies on patients self-identifying as being at risk of HIV infection and asking about PrEP. Many at-risk patients do not recognize their need for PrEP, however.¹³
• Active screening requires that physicians, or their staff, take a sexual history from all patients. However, reviewing detailed sexual histories with every patient in a busy practice can be overwhelming. One way to begin identifying patients for whom PrEP is appropriate is to commit to talking to subsets of potentially high-risk patients, such as MSM or transgender patients.⁶ Sexual orientation and gender identity are not direct risk factors; a nuanced sexual history is often needed to understand potential exposures. A diagnosis of syphilis or other bacterial STI is a marker of high risk of HIV acquisition.¹⁴

To help identify which of your patients might benefit from PrEP, the PrEP guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)¹⁵ and tools developed by other sources^16,17 recommend several key screening questions about sexual behavior and substance abuse (TABLE 1^15-17).

Familiarity with PrEP and comfort taking a sexual history to screen for risk of HIV acquisition are essential first steps in prescribing PrEP under CDC guidelines.^6,18 In primary care, female patients are routinely questioned to assess their need for contraception; similarly, screening questions to assess PrEP eligibility can be easily incorporated into practice.

Continue to: What are the indications for PrEP?

Patients in whom PrEP is indicated include sexually active adults and adolescents (> 35 kg)¹⁹ whose use of a condom is inconsistent or who have had multiple recent sex partners; those with a recent bacterial STI; and men or women with a sexual or injection partner known to be HIV-infected (TABLE 2).¹⁵

What steps should be taken before and after initiating PrEP?

Providing PrEP is a harm-reduction strategy similar to prescribing other common preventive medications, such as statins to reduce hyperlipidemia and prevent myocardial infarction; oral contraceptives to prevent unwanted pregnancy; and metformin to prevent complications of diabetes. There are a few screening criteria prior to initiating PrEP (TABLE 3)¹⁰:

• A patient starting PrEP should be (1) HIV-negative, ideally screened by a laboratory-based antigen–antibody (ie, fourth-generation) HIV test or HIV RNA test, and (2) without symptoms of acute HIV infection.²⁰ (Note: Do not hold off PrEP and HIV testing until the patient has achieved a period of sexual abstinence.)
• A patient starting PrEP should have normal renal function and should not be taking contraindicated medications, such as long-term high-dose nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents.
• Hepatitis B virus (HBV) surface antigen, surface antibody, and core antibody should be tested because both emtricitabine and tenofovir are active against HBV. For a patient who has active HBV infection, particularly with cirrhosis, there is a theoretical concern that starting and stopping PrEP can lead to flares of HBV infection. Patients who are not HBV-immune should be vaccinated.
• Baseline hepatitis C virus testing is recommended for patients who inject drugs, MSM, or those who were born between 1945 and 1965; annual hepatitis C virus testing is recommended for patients who inject drugs.¹⁵

When it has been determined that a patient is eligible for PrEP, a prescription is written for no longer than 90 days to ensure regular monitoring for HIV infection, STIs, and renal function.

Adherence counseling is a key component of PrEP delivery—as it is with oral contraception, antihypertensive medical therapy, and other medications. As noted, HIV acquisition in PrEP users is most often reported in patients with poor adherence,⁸ especially among adolescents.²¹ PrEP is part of comprehensive sexual health care, and safer sex behaviors, such as condom use, should be encouraged to reduce the risk of acquiring other STIs. Condom use should not, however, be a requirement for continuing to receive PrEP.

Is PrEP safe?

Although PrEP might be new to many family physicians and their patients, trials and observational studies have repeatedly shown that for people without HIV infection, taking daily emtricitabine and tenofovir for prevention of HIV infection is safe. No clinically significant renal, bone, or other toxicity has been reported, although there is concern about potential toxicity after decades of use.^22,23 A recent narrative review from the David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California Los Angeles compared safety findings from 5 major studies on PrEP with 2 major studies on aspirin safety and found that PrEP is as safe as aspirin, although the authors cautioned that more study on long-term use is needed.²⁴

Continue to: What to tell patients

What to tell patients. Tell patients that within the first weeks of starting PrEP, they might experience a start-up syndrome that typically manifests as gastrointestinal symptoms, headache, and fatigue. These symptoms usually resolve without the need to discontinue the medications.²⁵

Any other concerns about PrEP?

When PrEP was first approved by the FDA, many physicians raised concern about the possibility that PrEP use would lead to increased community-level HIV drug resistance and that behavioral disinhibition might diminish the benefit of PrEP and lead to rampant STIs.²⁶ To date, these fears have not been borne out.

When medication adherence is high, PrEP can reduce new HIV infections by more than 90% in high-risk populations.

Acquired drug resistance, which happens after a person becomes HIV-positive, is a real concern, particularly among people who are screened with antibody-only HIV tests that cannot detect HIV in the so-called window period and who then start PrEP during acute HIV infection. If a person is truly HIV-negative when he (she) starts PrEP, the risk of either acquired or transmitted HIV drug resistance is low and is far outweighed by the preventive benefit of PrEP.²⁷

Similarly, there is a suggestion that syphilis infection is increasing among HIV-negative MSM due to decreased HIV-related stigma and increased mixing between HIV-negative and HIV-positive people. The evidence that PrEP has led to an increase in STI rates²⁸ is mixed, however, and is confounded by temporal increases in STI rates and increased detection of asymptomatic STIs among people on PrEP as a result of regular screening.²⁹

Who pays for PrEP?

The cost of PrEP medications and associated clinical care is covered by nearly all private, employer, and public health insurance. Prior authorization might be required to ensure that testing has excluded HIV infection before prescribing and then refilling prescriptions.

Continue to: For patients who have health insurance...

For patients who have health insurance, assistance with copays or coinsurance is available through the producer of PrEP (Gilead Sciences, Inc.) and other national foundations. Many people who seek PrEP might be eligible for Medicaid if they are otherwise uninsured. Other low-income and uninsured people, including those who are not legal residents or US citizens, usually qualify for the PrEP medication assistance program; the application for this benefit must be completed by the physician.

One way to identify patients for whom PrEP might be appropriate is to talk to subsets of potentially high-risk patients, such as men who have sex with men and transgender patients.

A billing guide on PrEP for physicians is available to assist with International Classification of Disease (ICD)-10 coding.^30,31 If a patient has difficulty with laboratory copays, free HIV and STI testing might be available at local STI clinics and acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) service organizations.

Providing PrEP within a primary care setting

The unmet need for PrEP highlights how important it is for family medicine and other primary care practices to incorporate HIV prevention into their suite of services.³²

Patients are most likely to experience adverse effects during the first month of taking PrEP—the same period in which they are establishing their pattern of adherence. It might be helpful to check in with patients at the end of the first month to assess their symptoms and adherence. After this phase, quarterly follow-up is simple, with routine lab monitoring and check-in about continued risk of HIV and adherence challenges (TABLE 3¹⁰).

At our local Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program-funded HIV clinic, which also provides PrEP, computer-ordering checklists (so-called smartsets) for the PrEP initial visit and follow-up visits are programmed into the records system (TABLE 4¹⁵). Other clinics also have developed templates for PrEP visit notes. Adherence monitoring, behavioral counseling, and other preventive services can be integrated into the regular paper- or computer-based intake survey, so that conversations are focused on areas of need.⁶ Family physicians in large practices can develop in-office protocols, based on CDC PrEP guidelines, to assign roles (eg, paperwork assistant, behavioral counselor, prescriber) to staff members.

Continue to: Partnering with HIV specialists, organizations, and pharmacists

Family physicians who are unsure about initiating PrEP might consider referring complex patients, such as those with unclear eligibility or active HBV infection, to an infectious disease or HIV specialist or clinic for the initial evaluation. Once a patient has been started on PrEP, quarterly monitoring is simple and can be easily completed in a family medicine practice.

Depending on location and available services, pharmacists and local HIV and AIDS organizations might provide behavioral and adherence counseling and repeat testing during follow-up appointments. In our experience, working with a primary pharmacy that is familiar with patient assistance programs and prior authorization requirements facilitates smoother prescribing. The result? Lower cost to patients because of knowledge of copays and other assistance programs and willingness to use these secondary payers.

Bringing PrEP into the practice is workable

Providing PrEP is well within your scope of practice as a family physician. To assist you in making PrEP an effective component of your practice, we provide a list of sources of PrEP support in TABLE 5.

Because some physicians might still be reluctant to prescribe PrEP for patients who maintain their risk of HIV acquisition, we recommend that you think of PrEP as you do about statins. Discussing diet and exercise as a means of reducing cardiovascular events for every patient with hyperlipidemia is often insufficient; most physicians therefore also prescribe medication for patients who cannot change behaviors sufficiently to modify their cardiovascular risk factors. Similarly, you now have a preventive for HIV—a costly, lifelong infection—that is as cost-effective as statins are.^26,33

CORRESPONDENCE
Joanne D. Stekler, MD, MPH, Box 359931, Harborview Medical Center, 325 9th Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104; [email protected].

Screening can help prevent colorectal cancer. The United States has seen a steady decline in colorectal cancer incidence and mortality, thanks in large part to screening. Screening rates can be increased with good patient-physician dialogue and by choosing a method the patient prefers and is most likely to complete.

In this article, we review a general approach to screening, focusing on the most commonly used methods in the United States, ie, the guaiac-based fecal occult blood test (FOBT), the fecal immunochemical test (FIT), and colonoscopy. We discuss current colorectal cancer incidence rates, screening recommendations, and how to choose the appropriate screening test.

This article does not discuss patients at high risk of polyps or cancer due to hereditary colon cancer syndromes, a personal history of colorectal neoplasia, inflammatory bowel disease, or primary sclerosing cholangitis.

TRENDS IN INCIDENCE

Colorectal cancer is the second most common type of cancer and cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States, responsible for an estimated 50,000 deaths in 2017. The lifetime risk of its occurrence is estimated to be 1 in 21 men and 1 in 23 women.¹ Encouragingly, the incidence has declined by 24% over the last 30 years,² and by 3% per year from 2004 to 2013.¹ Also, as a result of screening and advances in treatment, 5-year survival rates for patients with colorectal cancer have increased, from 48.6% in 1975 to 66.4% in 2009.²

When detected at a localized stage, the 5-year survival rate in colorectal cancer is greater than 90%. Unfortunately, it is diagnosed early in only 39% of patients. And despite advances in treatment and a doubling of the 5-year survival rate in patients with advanced cancers since 1990,³ the latter is only 14%. In most patients, cancer is diagnosed when it has spread to the lymph nodes (36%) or to distant organs (22%), and the survival rate declines to 71% after lymph-node spread, and 14% after metastasis to distant organs.

It is essential to screen people who have no symptoms, as symptoms such as gastrointestinal bleeding, unexplained abdominal pain or weight loss, a persistent change in bowel movements, and bowel obstruction typically do not arise until the disease is advanced and less amenable to cure.

Increasing prevalence in younger adults

Curiously, the incidence of colorectal cancer is increasing in white US adults under age 50. Over the last 30 years, incidence rates have increased from 1.0% to 2.4% annually in adults ages 20 to 39.⁴ Based on current trends, colon cancer rates are expected to increase by 90% for patients ages 20 to 34 and by 28% for patients 35 to 49 by 2030.⁵

Although recommendations vary for colorectal cancer screening in patients under age 50, clinicians should investigate symptoms such as rectal bleeding, unexplained iron deficiency anemia, progressive abdominal pain, and persistent changes in bowel movements.

Other challenges

Despite the benefits of screening, it is underutilized. Although rates of compliance with screening recommendations have increased 10% over the last 10 years, only 65% of eligible adults currently comply.^1,6

Additionally, certain areas of the country such as Appalachia and the Mississippi Delta have not benefited from the decline in the national rate of colorectal cancer.⁷

SCREENING GUIDELINES

Most guidelines say that colorectal cancer screening should begin at age 50 in people at average risk with no symptoms. However, the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) recommends beginning screening at age 45 in African Americans, as this group has higher incidence and mortality rates of colorectal cancer.⁸ Also, the American Cancer Society recently recommended beginning screening at age 45 for all individuals.⁹

Screening can stop at age 75 for most patients, according to the ACG,⁸ the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer,¹⁰ and the US Preventive Services Task Force  (USPSTF).¹¹ However, the decision should be individualized for patients ages 76 to 85. Patients within that age group who are in good health and have not previously been screened are more likely to benefit than those who have previously been screened and had a negative screening test. Patients over age 85 should not begin or continue screening, because of diminished benefit of screening in this age group, shorter life expectancy, advanced comorbid conditions, and the risks of colonoscopy and cancer treatment.

Patients and clinicians are encouraged to collaborate in deciding which screening method is appropriate. Patients adhere better when they are given a choice in the matter.^12–14 And adherence is the key to effective colorectal cancer screening.

Familiarity with the key characteristics of currently available colorectal cancer screening tests will facilitate discussion with patients.

Opportunistic vs programmatic screening

Screening can be classified according to the approach to the patient or population and the intent of the test. Most screening in the United States is opportunistic rather than programmatic—that is, the physician offers the patient screening at the point of service without systematic follow-up or patient re-engagement.

In a programmatic approach, the patient is offered screening through an organized program that streamlines services, reduces overscreening, and provides systematic follow-up of testing.

Stool studies such as FOBT and FIT do not reliably detect cancer precursors such as adenomas and serrated neoplasms. If an FOBT is positive, follow-up diagnostic colonoscopy is required. Unlike screening colonoscopy, diagnostic colonoscopy requires a copayment for Medicare patients, and this should be explained to the patient.

FIT and FOBT detect hemolyzed blood within a stool sample, FOBT by a chemical reaction, and FIT by detecting a globin-specific antibody. Colorectal cancer and some large adenomatous polyps may intermittently bleed and result in occult blood in the stool, iron deficiency anemia, or hematochezia.¹⁵

Fecal occult blood testing

Historically, FOBT was the stool test of choice for screening. It uses an indirect enzymatic reaction to detect hemolyzed blood in the stool. When a specimen containing hemoglobin is added to guaiac paper and a drop of hydrogen peroxide is added to “develop” it, the peroxidase activity of hemoglobin turns the guaiac blue.

Screening with FOBT involves annual testing of 3 consecutively passed stools from different days; FOBT should not be performed at the time of digital rectal examination or if the patient is having overt rectal, urinary, or menstrual bleeding.

Dietary and medication restrictions before and during the testing period are critical, as red meat contains hemoglobin, and certain vegetables (eg, radishes, turnips, cauliflower, cucumbers) contain peroxidase, all of which can cause a false-positive result. Waiting 3 days after the stool sample is collected to develop it can mitigate the peroxidase activity of vegetables.¹⁶ Vitamin C inhibits heme peroxidase activity and leads to false-negative results. Aspirin and high-dose nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs can promote bleeding throughout the intestinal tract.¹⁷

In randomized controlled trials,^18–21 screening with FOBT reduced colorectal cancer mortality rates by 15% to 33%. The 30-year follow-up of a large US trial²² found a 32% relative reduction in mortality rates in patients randomized to annual screening, and a 22% relative reduction in those randomized to screening every 2 years. Despite the many possibilities for false-positive results, the specificity for detecting cancer has ranged from 86.7% to 97.3%, and the sensitivity from 37.1% to 79.4%, highlighting the benefit of colorectal cancer screening programs in unscreened populations.^23–26

FIT vs FOBT in current practice

FIT should replace FOBT as the preferred stool screening method. Instead of an enzymatic reaction that can be altered by food or medication, FIT utilizes an antibody specific to human globin to directly detect hemolyzed blood, thus eliminating the need to modify the diet or medications.²⁷ Additionally, only 1 stool specimen is needed, which may explain why the adherence rate was about 20% higher with FIT than with FOBT in most studies.^28–30

FIT has a sensitivity of 69% to 86% for colorectal cancer and a specificity of 92% to 95%.³¹ The sensitivity can be improved by lowering the threshold value for a positive test, but this is associated with a decrease in specificity. A single FIT has the same sensitivity and specificity as several samples.³²

In a large retrospective US cohort study of programmatic screening with FIT, Jensen et al³³ reported that 48% of 670,841 people who were offered testing actually did the test. Of the 48% who participated in the first round and remained eligible, 75% to 86% participated in subsequent rounds over 4 years. Those who had a positive result on FIT were supposed to undergo colonoscopy, but 22% did not.

The US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer³⁴ suggests that FIT-based screening programs aim for a target FIT completion rate of more than 60% and a target colonoscopy completion rate of more than 80% of patients with positive FITs. These benchmarks were derived from adherence rates in international FIT screening studies in average-risk populations.^35–39 (Note that the large US cohort described above³³ did not meet these goals.) Ideally, every patient with a positive FIT should undergo diagnostic colonoscopy, but in reality only 50% to 83% actually do. Methods shown to improve adherence include structured screening programs with routine performance reports, provider feedback, and involvement of patient navigators.^40–42

Accordingly, several aspects of stool-based testing need to be stressed with patients. Understanding that FOBT is recommended yearly is integral for optimal impact on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality rates.

Additionally, patients should be advised to undergo colonoscopy soon after a positive FIT, because delaying colonoscopy could give precancerous lesions time to progress in stage. The acceptable time between a positive FIT and colonoscopy has yet to be determined. However, a retrospective cohort study of 1.26 million screened patients with 107,000 positive FIT results demonstrated that the rates of cancer discovered on colonoscopy were similar when performed within 30 days or up to 10 months after a positive test. Detection rates increased from 3% to 4.8% at 10 months and to 7.9% at 12 months.⁴³

In modeling studies, Meester et al⁴⁴ showed the estimated lifetime risk and mortality rates from colorectal cancer and life-years gained from screening are significantly better when colonoscopy is completed within 2 weeks rather than 1 year after a positive FIT. Each additional month after 2 weeks incrementally affected these outcomes, with a 1.4% increase in cancer mortality. These data suggest that colonoscopy should be done soon after a positive FIT result and at a maximum of 10 months.^43,44

Screening with FOBT is a multistep process for patients that includes receiving the test kit, collecting the sample, preparing it, returning it, undergoing colonoscopy after a positive test, and repeating in 1 year if negative. The screening program should identify patients at average risk in whom screening is appropriate, ensure delivery of the test, verify the quality of collected samples for laboratory testing against the manufacturer’s recommendations, and report results. Report of a positive FOBT result should provide recommendations for follow-up.

Though evidence clearly supports screening annually or biennially (every 2 years) with FOBT, the ideal interval for FIT is undetermined. Modeling studies utilized by the USPSTF and Multi-Society Task Force demonstrate that colonoscopy and annual FIT result in similar life-years gained, while 2 population-based screening programs have demonstrated that a 2- or 3-year interval may be equally efficacious by lowering the threshold for a positive test.^38,45

Randomized controlled trials of screening colonoscopy vs annual and biennial FIT are currently under way. Cost-effectiveness analysis has shown that offering single-sample FITs at more frequent (annual) intervals performs better than multisample testing at less frequent intervals.^45–47

Compared with stool-based screening, colonoscopy has advantages, including a 10-year screening interval if bowel preparation is adequate and the examination shows no neoplasia, the ability to inspect the entire colon, and the ability to diagnose and treat lesions in the same session.

Screening colonoscopy visualizes the entire colon in more than 98% of cases, although it requires adequate bowel preparation for maximal polyp detection. It can be done safely with or without sedation.⁴⁸

While there are no available randomized controlled trial data on the impact of screening colonoscopy on cancer incidence or mortality, extensive case-control and cohort studies consistently show that screening colonoscopy reduces cancer incidence and mortality rates.^49–54 A US Veterans Administration study of more than 32,000 patients reported a 50% reduction in overall colorectal cancer mortality.⁵⁵ In a microsimulation modeling study that assumed 100% adherence, colonoscopy every 10 years and annual FIT in individuals ages 50 to 75 provided similar life-years gained per 1,000 people screened (270 for colonoscopy, 244 for FIT).⁵⁶

Well-established metrics for maximizing the effectiveness and quality of colonoscopy have been established (Table 2). The most important include the mucosa inspection time (withdrawal time) and adenoma detection rate.⁵⁷ Withdrawal time is directly correlated with adenoma detection, and a 6-minute minimum withdrawal time is recommended in screening colonoscopy examinations of patients at average risk when no polyps are found.⁵⁸ The adenoma detection rate is the strongest evidence-based metric, as each 1% increase in the adenoma detection rate over 19% is associated with a 3% decrease in the risk of colorectal cancer and a 5% decrease in death rate.⁵⁹ The average-risk screening adenoma detection rate differs based on sex: the rate is greater than 20% for women and greater than 30% for men.

Complications from screening, diagnostic, or therapeutic colonoscopy are infrequent but include perforation (4/10,000) and significant intestinal bleeding (8/10,000).^56–62

Patients with a first-degree relative under age 60 with advanced adenomas or colorectal cancer are considered at high risk and should begin screening colonoscopy at age 40, with repeat colonoscopy at 5-year intervals, given a trend toward advanced neoplasia detection compared with FIT.⁶³

Guidelines recently published by the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology and endorsed by the American Gastroenterological Association also support starting screening in high-risk individuals at age 40, with a surveillance interval of 5 to 10 years based on the number of first-degree relatives with colorectal cancer or adenomas.⁶⁴ Consensus statements were based on retrospective cohort, prospective case-controlled, and cross-sectional studies comparing the risk of colorectal cancer in individuals with a family history against those without a family history.

Randomized clinical trials comparing colonoscopy and FIT are under way. Interim analysis of a European trial in which asymptomatic adults ages 50 to 69 were randomized to 1-time colonoscopy (26,703 patients) vs FIT every 2 years (26,599 patients) found significantly higher participation rates in the FIT arm (34.2% vs 24.6%) but higher rates of nonadvanced adenomas (4.2% vs 0.4%) and advanced neoplasia (1.9% vs 0.9%) in the colonoscopy arm.⁶⁵ Cancer was detected in 0.1% in each arm. These findings correlate with those of another study showing higher participation with FIT but higher advanced neoplasia detection rates with colonoscopy.⁶⁶

Detection of precursor lesions is vital, as removing neoplasms is the main strategy to reduce colorectal cancer incidence. Accordingly, the advantage of colonoscopy was illustrated by a study that determined that 53 patients would need to undergo screening colonoscopy to detect 1 advanced adenoma or cancerous lesion, compared with 264 for FIT.⁶⁷

STARTING SCREEING AT AGE 45

The American Cancer Society recently provided a qualified recommendation to start colorectal cancer screening in all individuals at age 45 rather than 50.⁹ This recommendation was based on modeling studies demonstrating that starting screening at age 45 with colonoscopy every 10 years resulted in 25 life-years gained at the cost of 610 colonoscopies per 1,000 individuals. Alternative strategies included FIT, which resulted in an additional 26 life-years gained per 1,000 individuals screened, flexible sigmoidoscopy (23 life-years gained), and computed tomographic colonoscopy (22 life-years gained).

Rates of colorectal cancer are rising in adults under age 50, and 10,000 new cases are anticipated this year.^2,3 Currently, 22 million US adults are between the ages of 45 and 50. The system and support needed to perform screening in all adults over age 45 and a lack of direct evidence to support its benefits in the young population need to be considered before widespread acceptance of the American Cancer Society recommendations. However, if screening is considered, FIT with or without sigmoidoscopy may be appropriate, given that most cancers diagnosed in individuals under age 50 are left-sided.^4,5

Screening has not been proven to reduce all-cause mortality. Randomized controlled trials of FOBT and observational studies of colonoscopy show that screening reduces cancer incidence and mortality. Until the currently ongoing randomized controlled trials comparing colonoscopy with FIT are completed, their comparative impact on colorectal cancer end points is unknown.

PATIENT ADHERENCE IS KEY

FIT and colonoscopy are the most prevalent screening methods in the United States. Careful attention should be given to offer the screening option the patient is most likely to complete, as adherence is key to the benefit from colorectal cancer screening.

The National Colorectal Cancer Roundtable (nccrt.org), established in 1997 by the American Cancer Society and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, is a national coalition of public and private organizations dedicated to reducing colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. The Roundtable waged a national campaign to achieve a colorectal cancer screening rate of 80% in eligible adults by 2018, a goal that was not met. Still, the potential for a substantial impact is a compelling reason to endorse adherence to colorectal cancer screening. The Roundtable provides many resources for physicians to enhance screening in their practice.

The United States has seen a steady decline in colorectal cancer incidence and mortality, mainly as a result of screening. Colorectal cancer is preventable with ensuring patients’ adherence to screening. Screening rates have been shown to increase with patient-provider dialogue and with selection of a screening program the patient prefers and is most likely to complete.

Screening can help prevent colorectal cancer. The United States has seen a steady decline in colorectal cancer incidence and mortality, thanks in large part to screening. Screening rates can be increased with good patient-physician dialogue and by choosing a method the patient prefers and is most likely to complete.

In this article, we review a general approach to screening, focusing on the most commonly used methods in the United States, ie, the guaiac-based fecal occult blood test (FOBT), the fecal immunochemical test (FIT), and colonoscopy. We discuss current colorectal cancer incidence rates, screening recommendations, and how to choose the appropriate screening test.

This article does not discuss patients at high risk of polyps or cancer due to hereditary colon cancer syndromes, a personal history of colorectal neoplasia, inflammatory bowel disease, or primary sclerosing cholangitis.

TRENDS IN INCIDENCE

Colorectal cancer is the second most common type of cancer and cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States, responsible for an estimated 50,000 deaths in 2017. The lifetime risk of its occurrence is estimated to be 1 in 21 men and 1 in 23 women.¹ Encouragingly, the incidence has declined by 24% over the last 30 years,² and by 3% per year from 2004 to 2013.¹ Also, as a result of screening and advances in treatment, 5-year survival rates for patients with colorectal cancer have increased, from 48.6% in 1975 to 66.4% in 2009.²

When detected at a localized stage, the 5-year survival rate in colorectal cancer is greater than 90%. Unfortunately, it is diagnosed early in only 39% of patients. And despite advances in treatment and a doubling of the 5-year survival rate in patients with advanced cancers since 1990,³ the latter is only 14%. In most patients, cancer is diagnosed when it has spread to the lymph nodes (36%) or to distant organs (22%), and the survival rate declines to 71% after lymph-node spread, and 14% after metastasis to distant organs.

It is essential to screen people who have no symptoms, as symptoms such as gastrointestinal bleeding, unexplained abdominal pain or weight loss, a persistent change in bowel movements, and bowel obstruction typically do not arise until the disease is advanced and less amenable to cure.

Increasing prevalence in younger adults

Curiously, the incidence of colorectal cancer is increasing in white US adults under age 50. Over the last 30 years, incidence rates have increased from 1.0% to 2.4% annually in adults ages 20 to 39.⁴ Based on current trends, colon cancer rates are expected to increase by 90% for patients ages 20 to 34 and by 28% for patients 35 to 49 by 2030.⁵

Although recommendations vary for colorectal cancer screening in patients under age 50, clinicians should investigate symptoms such as rectal bleeding, unexplained iron deficiency anemia, progressive abdominal pain, and persistent changes in bowel movements.

Other challenges

Despite the benefits of screening, it is underutilized. Although rates of compliance with screening recommendations have increased 10% over the last 10 years, only 65% of eligible adults currently comply.^1,6

Additionally, certain areas of the country such as Appalachia and the Mississippi Delta have not benefited from the decline in the national rate of colorectal cancer.⁷

SCREENING GUIDELINES

Most guidelines say that colorectal cancer screening should begin at age 50 in people at average risk with no symptoms. However, the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) recommends beginning screening at age 45 in African Americans, as this group has higher incidence and mortality rates of colorectal cancer.⁸ Also, the American Cancer Society recently recommended beginning screening at age 45 for all individuals.⁹

Screening can stop at age 75 for most patients, according to the ACG,⁸ the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer,¹⁰ and the US Preventive Services Task Force  (USPSTF).¹¹ However, the decision should be individualized for patients ages 76 to 85. Patients within that age group who are in good health and have not previously been screened are more likely to benefit than those who have previously been screened and had a negative screening test. Patients over age 85 should not begin or continue screening, because of diminished benefit of screening in this age group, shorter life expectancy, advanced comorbid conditions, and the risks of colonoscopy and cancer treatment.

Patients and clinicians are encouraged to collaborate in deciding which screening method is appropriate. Patients adhere better when they are given a choice in the matter.^12–14 And adherence is the key to effective colorectal cancer screening.

Familiarity with the key characteristics of currently available colorectal cancer screening tests will facilitate discussion with patients.

Opportunistic vs programmatic screening

Screening can be classified according to the approach to the patient or population and the intent of the test. Most screening in the United States is opportunistic rather than programmatic—that is, the physician offers the patient screening at the point of service without systematic follow-up or patient re-engagement.

In a programmatic approach, the patient is offered screening through an organized program that streamlines services, reduces overscreening, and provides systematic follow-up of testing.

Stool studies such as FOBT and FIT do not reliably detect cancer precursors such as adenomas and serrated neoplasms. If an FOBT is positive, follow-up diagnostic colonoscopy is required. Unlike screening colonoscopy, diagnostic colonoscopy requires a copayment for Medicare patients, and this should be explained to the patient.

FIT and FOBT detect hemolyzed blood within a stool sample, FOBT by a chemical reaction, and FIT by detecting a globin-specific antibody. Colorectal cancer and some large adenomatous polyps may intermittently bleed and result in occult blood in the stool, iron deficiency anemia, or hematochezia.¹⁵

Fecal occult blood testing

Historically, FOBT was the stool test of choice for screening. It uses an indirect enzymatic reaction to detect hemolyzed blood in the stool. When a specimen containing hemoglobin is added to guaiac paper and a drop of hydrogen peroxide is added to “develop” it, the peroxidase activity of hemoglobin turns the guaiac blue.

Screening with FOBT involves annual testing of 3 consecutively passed stools from different days; FOBT should not be performed at the time of digital rectal examination or if the patient is having overt rectal, urinary, or menstrual bleeding.

Dietary and medication restrictions before and during the testing period are critical, as red meat contains hemoglobin, and certain vegetables (eg, radishes, turnips, cauliflower, cucumbers) contain peroxidase, all of which can cause a false-positive result. Waiting 3 days after the stool sample is collected to develop it can mitigate the peroxidase activity of vegetables.¹⁶ Vitamin C inhibits heme peroxidase activity and leads to false-negative results. Aspirin and high-dose nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs can promote bleeding throughout the intestinal tract.¹⁷

In randomized controlled trials,^18–21 screening with FOBT reduced colorectal cancer mortality rates by 15% to 33%. The 30-year follow-up of a large US trial²² found a 32% relative reduction in mortality rates in patients randomized to annual screening, and a 22% relative reduction in those randomized to screening every 2 years. Despite the many possibilities for false-positive results, the specificity for detecting cancer has ranged from 86.7% to 97.3%, and the sensitivity from 37.1% to 79.4%, highlighting the benefit of colorectal cancer screening programs in unscreened populations.^23–26

FIT vs FOBT in current practice

FIT should replace FOBT as the preferred stool screening method. Instead of an enzymatic reaction that can be altered by food or medication, FIT utilizes an antibody specific to human globin to directly detect hemolyzed blood, thus eliminating the need to modify the diet or medications.²⁷ Additionally, only 1 stool specimen is needed, which may explain why the adherence rate was about 20% higher with FIT than with FOBT in most studies.^28–30

FIT has a sensitivity of 69% to 86% for colorectal cancer and a specificity of 92% to 95%.³¹ The sensitivity can be improved by lowering the threshold value for a positive test, but this is associated with a decrease in specificity. A single FIT has the same sensitivity and specificity as several samples.³²

In a large retrospective US cohort study of programmatic screening with FIT, Jensen et al³³ reported that 48% of 670,841 people who were offered testing actually did the test. Of the 48% who participated in the first round and remained eligible, 75% to 86% participated in subsequent rounds over 4 years. Those who had a positive result on FIT were supposed to undergo colonoscopy, but 22% did not.

The US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer³⁴ suggests that FIT-based screening programs aim for a target FIT completion rate of more than 60% and a target colonoscopy completion rate of more than 80% of patients with positive FITs. These benchmarks were derived from adherence rates in international FIT screening studies in average-risk populations.^35–39 (Note that the large US cohort described above³³ did not meet these goals.) Ideally, every patient with a positive FIT should undergo diagnostic colonoscopy, but in reality only 50% to 83% actually do. Methods shown to improve adherence include structured screening programs with routine performance reports, provider feedback, and involvement of patient navigators.^40–42

Accordingly, several aspects of stool-based testing need to be stressed with patients. Understanding that FOBT is recommended yearly is integral for optimal impact on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality rates.

Additionally, patients should be advised to undergo colonoscopy soon after a positive FIT, because delaying colonoscopy could give precancerous lesions time to progress in stage. The acceptable time between a positive FIT and colonoscopy has yet to be determined. However, a retrospective cohort study of 1.26 million screened patients with 107,000 positive FIT results demonstrated that the rates of cancer discovered on colonoscopy were similar when performed within 30 days or up to 10 months after a positive test. Detection rates increased from 3% to 4.8% at 10 months and to 7.9% at 12 months.⁴³

In modeling studies, Meester et al⁴⁴ showed the estimated lifetime risk and mortality rates from colorectal cancer and life-years gained from screening are significantly better when colonoscopy is completed within 2 weeks rather than 1 year after a positive FIT. Each additional month after 2 weeks incrementally affected these outcomes, with a 1.4% increase in cancer mortality. These data suggest that colonoscopy should be done soon after a positive FIT result and at a maximum of 10 months.^43,44

Screening with FOBT is a multistep process for patients that includes receiving the test kit, collecting the sample, preparing it, returning it, undergoing colonoscopy after a positive test, and repeating in 1 year if negative. The screening program should identify patients at average risk in whom screening is appropriate, ensure delivery of the test, verify the quality of collected samples for laboratory testing against the manufacturer’s recommendations, and report results. Report of a positive FOBT result should provide recommendations for follow-up.

Though evidence clearly supports screening annually or biennially (every 2 years) with FOBT, the ideal interval for FIT is undetermined. Modeling studies utilized by the USPSTF and Multi-Society Task Force demonstrate that colonoscopy and annual FIT result in similar life-years gained, while 2 population-based screening programs have demonstrated that a 2- or 3-year interval may be equally efficacious by lowering the threshold for a positive test.^38,45

Randomized controlled trials of screening colonoscopy vs annual and biennial FIT are currently under way. Cost-effectiveness analysis has shown that offering single-sample FITs at more frequent (annual) intervals performs better than multisample testing at less frequent intervals.^45–47

Compared with stool-based screening, colonoscopy has advantages, including a 10-year screening interval if bowel preparation is adequate and the examination shows no neoplasia, the ability to inspect the entire colon, and the ability to diagnose and treat lesions in the same session.

Screening colonoscopy visualizes the entire colon in more than 98% of cases, although it requires adequate bowel preparation for maximal polyp detection. It can be done safely with or without sedation.⁴⁸

While there are no available randomized controlled trial data on the impact of screening colonoscopy on cancer incidence or mortality, extensive case-control and cohort studies consistently show that screening colonoscopy reduces cancer incidence and mortality rates.^49–54 A US Veterans Administration study of more than 32,000 patients reported a 50% reduction in overall colorectal cancer mortality.⁵⁵ In a microsimulation modeling study that assumed 100% adherence, colonoscopy every 10 years and annual FIT in individuals ages 50 to 75 provided similar life-years gained per 1,000 people screened (270 for colonoscopy, 244 for FIT).⁵⁶

Well-established metrics for maximizing the effectiveness and quality of colonoscopy have been established (Table 2). The most important include the mucosa inspection time (withdrawal time) and adenoma detection rate.⁵⁷ Withdrawal time is directly correlated with adenoma detection, and a 6-minute minimum withdrawal time is recommended in screening colonoscopy examinations of patients at average risk when no polyps are found.⁵⁸ The adenoma detection rate is the strongest evidence-based metric, as each 1% increase in the adenoma detection rate over 19% is associated with a 3% decrease in the risk of colorectal cancer and a 5% decrease in death rate.⁵⁹ The average-risk screening adenoma detection rate differs based on sex: the rate is greater than 20% for women and greater than 30% for men.

Complications from screening, diagnostic, or therapeutic colonoscopy are infrequent but include perforation (4/10,000) and significant intestinal bleeding (8/10,000).^56–62

Patients with a first-degree relative under age 60 with advanced adenomas or colorectal cancer are considered at high risk and should begin screening colonoscopy at age 40, with repeat colonoscopy at 5-year intervals, given a trend toward advanced neoplasia detection compared with FIT.⁶³

Guidelines recently published by the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology and endorsed by the American Gastroenterological Association also support starting screening in high-risk individuals at age 40, with a surveillance interval of 5 to 10 years based on the number of first-degree relatives with colorectal cancer or adenomas.⁶⁴ Consensus statements were based on retrospective cohort, prospective case-controlled, and cross-sectional studies comparing the risk of colorectal cancer in individuals with a family history against those without a family history.

Randomized clinical trials comparing colonoscopy and FIT are under way. Interim analysis of a European trial in which asymptomatic adults ages 50 to 69 were randomized to 1-time colonoscopy (26,703 patients) vs FIT every 2 years (26,599 patients) found significantly higher participation rates in the FIT arm (34.2% vs 24.6%) but higher rates of nonadvanced adenomas (4.2% vs 0.4%) and advanced neoplasia (1.9% vs 0.9%) in the colonoscopy arm.⁶⁵ Cancer was detected in 0.1% in each arm. These findings correlate with those of another study showing higher participation with FIT but higher advanced neoplasia detection rates with colonoscopy.⁶⁶

Detection of precursor lesions is vital, as removing neoplasms is the main strategy to reduce colorectal cancer incidence. Accordingly, the advantage of colonoscopy was illustrated by a study that determined that 53 patients would need to undergo screening colonoscopy to detect 1 advanced adenoma or cancerous lesion, compared with 264 for FIT.⁶⁷

STARTING SCREEING AT AGE 45

The American Cancer Society recently provided a qualified recommendation to start colorectal cancer screening in all individuals at age 45 rather than 50.⁹ This recommendation was based on modeling studies demonstrating that starting screening at age 45 with colonoscopy every 10 years resulted in 25 life-years gained at the cost of 610 colonoscopies per 1,000 individuals. Alternative strategies included FIT, which resulted in an additional 26 life-years gained per 1,000 individuals screened, flexible sigmoidoscopy (23 life-years gained), and computed tomographic colonoscopy (22 life-years gained).

Rates of colorectal cancer are rising in adults under age 50, and 10,000 new cases are anticipated this year.^2,3 Currently, 22 million US adults are between the ages of 45 and 50. The system and support needed to perform screening in all adults over age 45 and a lack of direct evidence to support its benefits in the young population need to be considered before widespread acceptance of the American Cancer Society recommendations. However, if screening is considered, FIT with or without sigmoidoscopy may be appropriate, given that most cancers diagnosed in individuals under age 50 are left-sided.^4,5

Screening has not been proven to reduce all-cause mortality. Randomized controlled trials of FOBT and observational studies of colonoscopy show that screening reduces cancer incidence and mortality. Until the currently ongoing randomized controlled trials comparing colonoscopy with FIT are completed, their comparative impact on colorectal cancer end points is unknown.

PATIENT ADHERENCE IS KEY

FIT and colonoscopy are the most prevalent screening methods in the United States. Careful attention should be given to offer the screening option the patient is most likely to complete, as adherence is key to the benefit from colorectal cancer screening.

The National Colorectal Cancer Roundtable (nccrt.org), established in 1997 by the American Cancer Society and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, is a national coalition of public and private organizations dedicated to reducing colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. The Roundtable waged a national campaign to achieve a colorectal cancer screening rate of 80% in eligible adults by 2018, a goal that was not met. Still, the potential for a substantial impact is a compelling reason to endorse adherence to colorectal cancer screening. The Roundtable provides many resources for physicians to enhance screening in their practice.

The United States has seen a steady decline in colorectal cancer incidence and mortality, mainly as a result of screening. Colorectal cancer is preventable with ensuring patients’ adherence to screening. Screening rates have been shown to increase with patient-provider dialogue and with selection of a screening program the patient prefers and is most likely to complete.

Screening can help prevent colorectal cancer. The United States has seen a steady decline in colorectal cancer incidence and mortality, thanks in large part to screening. Screening rates can be increased with good patient-physician dialogue and by choosing a method the patient prefers and is most likely to complete.

In this article, we review a general approach to screening, focusing on the most commonly used methods in the United States, ie, the guaiac-based fecal occult blood test (FOBT), the fecal immunochemical test (FIT), and colonoscopy. We discuss current colorectal cancer incidence rates, screening recommendations, and how to choose the appropriate screening test.

This article does not discuss patients at high risk of polyps or cancer due to hereditary colon cancer syndromes, a personal history of colorectal neoplasia, inflammatory bowel disease, or primary sclerosing cholangitis.

TRENDS IN INCIDENCE

Colorectal cancer is the second most common type of cancer and cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States, responsible for an estimated 50,000 deaths in 2017. The lifetime risk of its occurrence is estimated to be 1 in 21 men and 1 in 23 women.¹ Encouragingly, the incidence has declined by 24% over the last 30 years,² and by 3% per year from 2004 to 2013.¹ Also, as a result of screening and advances in treatment, 5-year survival rates for patients with colorectal cancer have increased, from 48.6% in 1975 to 66.4% in 2009.²

When detected at a localized stage, the 5-year survival rate in colorectal cancer is greater than 90%. Unfortunately, it is diagnosed early in only 39% of patients. And despite advances in treatment and a doubling of the 5-year survival rate in patients with advanced cancers since 1990,³ the latter is only 14%. In most patients, cancer is diagnosed when it has spread to the lymph nodes (36%) or to distant organs (22%), and the survival rate declines to 71% after lymph-node spread, and 14% after metastasis to distant organs.

It is essential to screen people who have no symptoms, as symptoms such as gastrointestinal bleeding, unexplained abdominal pain or weight loss, a persistent change in bowel movements, and bowel obstruction typically do not arise until the disease is advanced and less amenable to cure.

Increasing prevalence in younger adults

Curiously, the incidence of colorectal cancer is increasing in white US adults under age 50. Over the last 30 years, incidence rates have increased from 1.0% to 2.4% annually in adults ages 20 to 39.⁴ Based on current trends, colon cancer rates are expected to increase by 90% for patients ages 20 to 34 and by 28% for patients 35 to 49 by 2030.⁵

Although recommendations vary for colorectal cancer screening in patients under age 50, clinicians should investigate symptoms such as rectal bleeding, unexplained iron deficiency anemia, progressive abdominal pain, and persistent changes in bowel movements.

Other challenges

Despite the benefits of screening, it is underutilized. Although rates of compliance with screening recommendations have increased 10% over the last 10 years, only 65% of eligible adults currently comply.^1,6

Additionally, certain areas of the country such as Appalachia and the Mississippi Delta have not benefited from the decline in the national rate of colorectal cancer.⁷

SCREENING GUIDELINES

Most guidelines say that colorectal cancer screening should begin at age 50 in people at average risk with no symptoms. However, the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) recommends beginning screening at age 45 in African Americans, as this group has higher incidence and mortality rates of colorectal cancer.⁸ Also, the American Cancer Society recently recommended beginning screening at age 45 for all individuals.⁹

Screening can stop at age 75 for most patients, according to the ACG,⁸ the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer,¹⁰ and the US Preventive Services Task Force  (USPSTF).¹¹ However, the decision should be individualized for patients ages 76 to 85. Patients within that age group who are in good health and have not previously been screened are more likely to benefit than those who have previously been screened and had a negative screening test. Patients over age 85 should not begin or continue screening, because of diminished benefit of screening in this age group, shorter life expectancy, advanced comorbid conditions, and the risks of colonoscopy and cancer treatment.

Patients and clinicians are encouraged to collaborate in deciding which screening method is appropriate. Patients adhere better when they are given a choice in the matter.^12–14 And adherence is the key to effective colorectal cancer screening.

Familiarity with the key characteristics of currently available colorectal cancer screening tests will facilitate discussion with patients.

Opportunistic vs programmatic screening

Screening can be classified according to the approach to the patient or population and the intent of the test. Most screening in the United States is opportunistic rather than programmatic—that is, the physician offers the patient screening at the point of service without systematic follow-up or patient re-engagement.

In a programmatic approach, the patient is offered screening through an organized program that streamlines services, reduces overscreening, and provides systematic follow-up of testing.

Stool studies such as FOBT and FIT do not reliably detect cancer precursors such as adenomas and serrated neoplasms. If an FOBT is positive, follow-up diagnostic colonoscopy is required. Unlike screening colonoscopy, diagnostic colonoscopy requires a copayment for Medicare patients, and this should be explained to the patient.

FIT and FOBT detect hemolyzed blood within a stool sample, FOBT by a chemical reaction, and FIT by detecting a globin-specific antibody. Colorectal cancer and some large adenomatous polyps may intermittently bleed and result in occult blood in the stool, iron deficiency anemia, or hematochezia.¹⁵

Fecal occult blood testing

Historically, FOBT was the stool test of choice for screening. It uses an indirect enzymatic reaction to detect hemolyzed blood in the stool. When a specimen containing hemoglobin is added to guaiac paper and a drop of hydrogen peroxide is added to “develop” it, the peroxidase activity of hemoglobin turns the guaiac blue.

Screening with FOBT involves annual testing of 3 consecutively passed stools from different days; FOBT should not be performed at the time of digital rectal examination or if the patient is having overt rectal, urinary, or menstrual bleeding.

Dietary and medication restrictions before and during the testing period are critical, as red meat contains hemoglobin, and certain vegetables (eg, radishes, turnips, cauliflower, cucumbers) contain peroxidase, all of which can cause a false-positive result. Waiting 3 days after the stool sample is collected to develop it can mitigate the peroxidase activity of vegetables.¹⁶ Vitamin C inhibits heme peroxidase activity and leads to false-negative results. Aspirin and high-dose nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs can promote bleeding throughout the intestinal tract.¹⁷

In randomized controlled trials,^18–21 screening with FOBT reduced colorectal cancer mortality rates by 15% to 33%. The 30-year follow-up of a large US trial²² found a 32% relative reduction in mortality rates in patients randomized to annual screening, and a 22% relative reduction in those randomized to screening every 2 years. Despite the many possibilities for false-positive results, the specificity for detecting cancer has ranged from 86.7% to 97.3%, and the sensitivity from 37.1% to 79.4%, highlighting the benefit of colorectal cancer screening programs in unscreened populations.^23–26

FIT vs FOBT in current practice

FIT should replace FOBT as the preferred stool screening method. Instead of an enzymatic reaction that can be altered by food or medication, FIT utilizes an antibody specific to human globin to directly detect hemolyzed blood, thus eliminating the need to modify the diet or medications.²⁷ Additionally, only 1 stool specimen is needed, which may explain why the adherence rate was about 20% higher with FIT than with FOBT in most studies.^28–30

FIT has a sensitivity of 69% to 86% for colorectal cancer and a specificity of 92% to 95%.³¹ The sensitivity can be improved by lowering the threshold value for a positive test, but this is associated with a decrease in specificity. A single FIT has the same sensitivity and specificity as several samples.³²

In a large retrospective US cohort study of programmatic screening with FIT, Jensen et al³³ reported that 48% of 670,841 people who were offered testing actually did the test. Of the 48% who participated in the first round and remained eligible, 75% to 86% participated in subsequent rounds over 4 years. Those who had a positive result on FIT were supposed to undergo colonoscopy, but 22% did not.

The US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer³⁴ suggests that FIT-based screening programs aim for a target FIT completion rate of more than 60% and a target colonoscopy completion rate of more than 80% of patients with positive FITs. These benchmarks were derived from adherence rates in international FIT screening studies in average-risk populations.^35–39 (Note that the large US cohort described above³³ did not meet these goals.) Ideally, every patient with a positive FIT should undergo diagnostic colonoscopy, but in reality only 50% to 83% actually do. Methods shown to improve adherence include structured screening programs with routine performance reports, provider feedback, and involvement of patient navigators.^40–42

Accordingly, several aspects of stool-based testing need to be stressed with patients. Understanding that FOBT is recommended yearly is integral for optimal impact on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality rates.

Additionally, patients should be advised to undergo colonoscopy soon after a positive FIT, because delaying colonoscopy could give precancerous lesions time to progress in stage. The acceptable time between a positive FIT and colonoscopy has yet to be determined. However, a retrospective cohort study of 1.26 million screened patients with 107,000 positive FIT results demonstrated that the rates of cancer discovered on colonoscopy were similar when performed within 30 days or up to 10 months after a positive test. Detection rates increased from 3% to 4.8% at 10 months and to 7.9% at 12 months.⁴³

In modeling studies, Meester et al⁴⁴ showed the estimated lifetime risk and mortality rates from colorectal cancer and life-years gained from screening are significantly better when colonoscopy is completed within 2 weeks rather than 1 year after a positive FIT. Each additional month after 2 weeks incrementally affected these outcomes, with a 1.4% increase in cancer mortality. These data suggest that colonoscopy should be done soon after a positive FIT result and at a maximum of 10 months.^43,44

Screening with FOBT is a multistep process for patients that includes receiving the test kit, collecting the sample, preparing it, returning it, undergoing colonoscopy after a positive test, and repeating in 1 year if negative. The screening program should identify patients at average risk in whom screening is appropriate, ensure delivery of the test, verify the quality of collected samples for laboratory testing against the manufacturer’s recommendations, and report results. Report of a positive FOBT result should provide recommendations for follow-up.

Though evidence clearly supports screening annually or biennially (every 2 years) with FOBT, the ideal interval for FIT is undetermined. Modeling studies utilized by the USPSTF and Multi-Society Task Force demonstrate that colonoscopy and annual FIT result in similar life-years gained, while 2 population-based screening programs have demonstrated that a 2- or 3-year interval may be equally efficacious by lowering the threshold for a positive test.^38,45

Randomized controlled trials of screening colonoscopy vs annual and biennial FIT are currently under way. Cost-effectiveness analysis has shown that offering single-sample FITs at more frequent (annual) intervals performs better than multisample testing at less frequent intervals.^45–47

Compared with stool-based screening, colonoscopy has advantages, including a 10-year screening interval if bowel preparation is adequate and the examination shows no neoplasia, the ability to inspect the entire colon, and the ability to diagnose and treat lesions in the same session.

Screening colonoscopy visualizes the entire colon in more than 98% of cases, although it requires adequate bowel preparation for maximal polyp detection. It can be done safely with or without sedation.⁴⁸

While there are no available randomized controlled trial data on the impact of screening colonoscopy on cancer incidence or mortality, extensive case-control and cohort studies consistently show that screening colonoscopy reduces cancer incidence and mortality rates.^49–54 A US Veterans Administration study of more than 32,000 patients reported a 50% reduction in overall colorectal cancer mortality.⁵⁵ In a microsimulation modeling study that assumed 100% adherence, colonoscopy every 10 years and annual FIT in individuals ages 50 to 75 provided similar life-years gained per 1,000 people screened (270 for colonoscopy, 244 for FIT).⁵⁶

Well-established metrics for maximizing the effectiveness and quality of colonoscopy have been established (Table 2). The most important include the mucosa inspection time (withdrawal time) and adenoma detection rate.⁵⁷ Withdrawal time is directly correlated with adenoma detection, and a 6-minute minimum withdrawal time is recommended in screening colonoscopy examinations of patients at average risk when no polyps are found.⁵⁸ The adenoma detection rate is the strongest evidence-based metric, as each 1% increase in the adenoma detection rate over 19% is associated with a 3% decrease in the risk of colorectal cancer and a 5% decrease in death rate.⁵⁹ The average-risk screening adenoma detection rate differs based on sex: the rate is greater than 20% for women and greater than 30% for men.

Complications from screening, diagnostic, or therapeutic colonoscopy are infrequent but include perforation (4/10,000) and significant intestinal bleeding (8/10,000).^56–62

Patients with a first-degree relative under age 60 with advanced adenomas or colorectal cancer are considered at high risk and should begin screening colonoscopy at age 40, with repeat colonoscopy at 5-year intervals, given a trend toward advanced neoplasia detection compared with FIT.⁶³

Guidelines recently published by the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology and endorsed by the American Gastroenterological Association also support starting screening in high-risk individuals at age 40, with a surveillance interval of 5 to 10 years based on the number of first-degree relatives with colorectal cancer or adenomas.⁶⁴ Consensus statements were based on retrospective cohort, prospective case-controlled, and cross-sectional studies comparing the risk of colorectal cancer in individuals with a family history against those without a family history.

Randomized clinical trials comparing colonoscopy and FIT are under way. Interim analysis of a European trial in which asymptomatic adults ages 50 to 69 were randomized to 1-time colonoscopy (26,703 patients) vs FIT every 2 years (26,599 patients) found significantly higher participation rates in the FIT arm (34.2% vs 24.6%) but higher rates of nonadvanced adenomas (4.2% vs 0.4%) and advanced neoplasia (1.9% vs 0.9%) in the colonoscopy arm.⁶⁵ Cancer was detected in 0.1% in each arm. These findings correlate with those of another study showing higher participation with FIT but higher advanced neoplasia detection rates with colonoscopy.⁶⁶

Detection of precursor lesions is vital, as removing neoplasms is the main strategy to reduce colorectal cancer incidence. Accordingly, the advantage of colonoscopy was illustrated by a study that determined that 53 patients would need to undergo screening colonoscopy to detect 1 advanced adenoma or cancerous lesion, compared with 264 for FIT.⁶⁷

STARTING SCREEING AT AGE 45

The American Cancer Society recently provided a qualified recommendation to start colorectal cancer screening in all individuals at age 45 rather than 50.⁹ This recommendation was based on modeling studies demonstrating that starting screening at age 45 with colonoscopy every 10 years resulted in 25 life-years gained at the cost of 610 colonoscopies per 1,000 individuals. Alternative strategies included FIT, which resulted in an additional 26 life-years gained per 1,000 individuals screened, flexible sigmoidoscopy (23 life-years gained), and computed tomographic colonoscopy (22 life-years gained).

Rates of colorectal cancer are rising in adults under age 50, and 10,000 new cases are anticipated this year.^2,3 Currently, 22 million US adults are between the ages of 45 and 50. The system and support needed to perform screening in all adults over age 45 and a lack of direct evidence to support its benefits in the young population need to be considered before widespread acceptance of the American Cancer Society recommendations. However, if screening is considered, FIT with or without sigmoidoscopy may be appropriate, given that most cancers diagnosed in individuals under age 50 are left-sided.^4,5

Screening has not been proven to reduce all-cause mortality. Randomized controlled trials of FOBT and observational studies of colonoscopy show that screening reduces cancer incidence and mortality. Until the currently ongoing randomized controlled trials comparing colonoscopy with FIT are completed, their comparative impact on colorectal cancer end points is unknown.

PATIENT ADHERENCE IS KEY

FIT and colonoscopy are the most prevalent screening methods in the United States. Careful attention should be given to offer the screening option the patient is most likely to complete, as adherence is key to the benefit from colorectal cancer screening.

The National Colorectal Cancer Roundtable (nccrt.org), established in 1997 by the American Cancer Society and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, is a national coalition of public and private organizations dedicated to reducing colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. The Roundtable waged a national campaign to achieve a colorectal cancer screening rate of 80% in eligible adults by 2018, a goal that was not met. Still, the potential for a substantial impact is a compelling reason to endorse adherence to colorectal cancer screening. The Roundtable provides many resources for physicians to enhance screening in their practice.

The United States has seen a steady decline in colorectal cancer incidence and mortality, mainly as a result of screening. Colorectal cancer is preventable with ensuring patients’ adherence to screening. Screening rates have been shown to increase with patient-provider dialogue and with selection of a screening program the patient prefers and is most likely to complete.

CHICAGO – Adding the androgen-binding inhibitor apalutamide to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) significantly increased radiographic progression-free survival and overall survival in men with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) compared with ADT alone in the phase 3 TITAN trial.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

Among 1052 patients randomized to apalutamide (Erleada) plus either ADT or placebo, the overall survival rate at 24 months was 82.4% in the apalutamide group, compared with 73.5% in the placebo group, translating into a hazard ratio for death with apalutamide of 0.67 (P = .005), reported Kim N. Chi, MD, from the BC Cancer and Vancouver Prostate Centre in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

“The TITAN study met its dual primary end points, demonstrating significant benefits with apalutamide plus ADT in an all-comer mCSPC population. There were significant improvements in overall survival with a 33% reduction in the risk of death. There was also a significant improvement in radiographic progression-free survival with a 52% reduction in the risk of progression or death,” he said at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting.

The study was also published online in the New England Journal of Medicine to coincide with Dr. Chi’s presentation.

The TITAN (Targeted Investigational Treatment Analysis of Novel Anti-androgen) study was designed to evaluate apalutamide vs. placebo in a broad population of patients with mCSPC treated with continuous ADT.

“The rationale behind the TITAN study was that direct inhibition of the androgen receptor by apalutamide will provide a more complete reduction of androgen signaling than ADT alone, leading to improved clinical outcomes,” Dr. Chi said.

The investigators enrolled a total of 1052 men with castration-sensitive prostate cancer, distant metastatic disease manifested as one or more lesions on bone scans, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1.

All patients were on continuous ADT. Prior therapies allowed under the protocol included docetaxel for a maximum of 6 cycles with no evidence of progression during treatment or before randomization, ADT for not more than 6 months for mCSPC or not more than 3 years for localized prostate cancer, one course of radiation of surgery for symptoms associated with metastatic disease, or other localized treatments completed at least 1 year before randomization.

The median patient age was 68 years. In all 62.7% of patients had high-volume disease, and the remainder had low-volume disease.

In this, the first interim analysis conducted at a median follow-up of 22.7 months, the 68.2% of patients in the apalutamide group had radiographic PFS, compared with 47.5% in the placebo group. The hazard ratio for progression or death with apalutamide was 0.48 (P less than .001).

As noted before, 24-month overall survival rates were 82.4% vs. 73.5%, respectively.

The secondary endpoint of median time to cytotoxic chemotherapy also significantly favored apalutamide, with a hazard ratio of 0.39 (P less than .0001). Other secondary endpoints, including median time to pain progression, median time to chronic opioid use, and median time to skeletal-related events trended in favor of apalutamide but were not statistically significant.

Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 42.2% of patients in the apalutamide arm and 40.8% in the placebo arm. The incidence of any serious adverse event was 19.8% with apalutamide and 20.3% with placebo. Adverse events leading to discontinuation occurred in 8% and 5.3%, respectively, and adverse events leading to death occurred in 1.9% vs. 3.0%.

Apalutamide was associated with higher incidences of rash, fatigue, hypothyroidism, and fracture.

The study results show that “androgen deprivation therapy and apalutamide for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer improves survival, and thus reinforces the current practice of ADT plus a single agent, whether it be docetaxel, abiraterone, enzalutamide, and now apalutamide,” commented Michael A. Carducci, MD, from the Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center in Baltimore, the invited discussant.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

Metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer is a broadly heterogeneous disease state, and the treatment benefits offered with various drugs is not consistent in subsets of patients. Investigators need to develop better molecularly based methods, combined with cliniopathologic factors, to better determine which subgroups of patients can benefit from specific drugs, he said.

The TITAN trial was supported by Aragon Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Chi disclosed grants and personal fees from multiple companies, not including Aragon. Dr. Carducci disclosed consulting or advisory roles and institutional research funding from multiple companies, not including Aragon.

SOURCE: Chi KN, ASCO 2019 Abstract 5006. N Engl J Med doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1903307 .

CHICAGO – Adding the androgen-binding inhibitor apalutamide to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) significantly increased radiographic progression-free survival and overall survival in men with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) compared with ADT alone in the phase 3 TITAN trial.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

Among 1052 patients randomized to apalutamide (Erleada) plus either ADT or placebo, the overall survival rate at 24 months was 82.4% in the apalutamide group, compared with 73.5% in the placebo group, translating into a hazard ratio for death with apalutamide of 0.67 (P = .005), reported Kim N. Chi, MD, from the BC Cancer and Vancouver Prostate Centre in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

“The TITAN study met its dual primary end points, demonstrating significant benefits with apalutamide plus ADT in an all-comer mCSPC population. There were significant improvements in overall survival with a 33% reduction in the risk of death. There was also a significant improvement in radiographic progression-free survival with a 52% reduction in the risk of progression or death,” he said at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting.

The study was also published online in the New England Journal of Medicine to coincide with Dr. Chi’s presentation.

The TITAN (Targeted Investigational Treatment Analysis of Novel Anti-androgen) study was designed to evaluate apalutamide vs. placebo in a broad population of patients with mCSPC treated with continuous ADT.

“The rationale behind the TITAN study was that direct inhibition of the androgen receptor by apalutamide will provide a more complete reduction of androgen signaling than ADT alone, leading to improved clinical outcomes,” Dr. Chi said.

The investigators enrolled a total of 1052 men with castration-sensitive prostate cancer, distant metastatic disease manifested as one or more lesions on bone scans, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1.

All patients were on continuous ADT. Prior therapies allowed under the protocol included docetaxel for a maximum of 6 cycles with no evidence of progression during treatment or before randomization, ADT for not more than 6 months for mCSPC or not more than 3 years for localized prostate cancer, one course of radiation of surgery for symptoms associated with metastatic disease, or other localized treatments completed at least 1 year before randomization.

The median patient age was 68 years. In all 62.7% of patients had high-volume disease, and the remainder had low-volume disease.

In this, the first interim analysis conducted at a median follow-up of 22.7 months, the 68.2% of patients in the apalutamide group had radiographic PFS, compared with 47.5% in the placebo group. The hazard ratio for progression or death with apalutamide was 0.48 (P less than .001).

As noted before, 24-month overall survival rates were 82.4% vs. 73.5%, respectively.

The secondary endpoint of median time to cytotoxic chemotherapy also significantly favored apalutamide, with a hazard ratio of 0.39 (P less than .0001). Other secondary endpoints, including median time to pain progression, median time to chronic opioid use, and median time to skeletal-related events trended in favor of apalutamide but were not statistically significant.

Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 42.2% of patients in the apalutamide arm and 40.8% in the placebo arm. The incidence of any serious adverse event was 19.8% with apalutamide and 20.3% with placebo. Adverse events leading to discontinuation occurred in 8% and 5.3%, respectively, and adverse events leading to death occurred in 1.9% vs. 3.0%.

Apalutamide was associated with higher incidences of rash, fatigue, hypothyroidism, and fracture.

The study results show that “androgen deprivation therapy and apalutamide for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer improves survival, and thus reinforces the current practice of ADT plus a single agent, whether it be docetaxel, abiraterone, enzalutamide, and now apalutamide,” commented Michael A. Carducci, MD, from the Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center in Baltimore, the invited discussant.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

Metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer is a broadly heterogeneous disease state, and the treatment benefits offered with various drugs is not consistent in subsets of patients. Investigators need to develop better molecularly based methods, combined with cliniopathologic factors, to better determine which subgroups of patients can benefit from specific drugs, he said.

The TITAN trial was supported by Aragon Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Chi disclosed grants and personal fees from multiple companies, not including Aragon. Dr. Carducci disclosed consulting or advisory roles and institutional research funding from multiple companies, not including Aragon.

SOURCE: Chi KN, ASCO 2019 Abstract 5006. N Engl J Med doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1903307 .

CHICAGO – Adding the androgen-binding inhibitor apalutamide to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) significantly increased radiographic progression-free survival and overall survival in men with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) compared with ADT alone in the phase 3 TITAN trial.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

Among 1052 patients randomized to apalutamide (Erleada) plus either ADT or placebo, the overall survival rate at 24 months was 82.4% in the apalutamide group, compared with 73.5% in the placebo group, translating into a hazard ratio for death with apalutamide of 0.67 (P = .005), reported Kim N. Chi, MD, from the BC Cancer and Vancouver Prostate Centre in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

“The TITAN study met its dual primary end points, demonstrating significant benefits with apalutamide plus ADT in an all-comer mCSPC population. There were significant improvements in overall survival with a 33% reduction in the risk of death. There was also a significant improvement in radiographic progression-free survival with a 52% reduction in the risk of progression or death,” he said at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting.

The study was also published online in the New England Journal of Medicine to coincide with Dr. Chi’s presentation.

The TITAN (Targeted Investigational Treatment Analysis of Novel Anti-androgen) study was designed to evaluate apalutamide vs. placebo in a broad population of patients with mCSPC treated with continuous ADT.

“The rationale behind the TITAN study was that direct inhibition of the androgen receptor by apalutamide will provide a more complete reduction of androgen signaling than ADT alone, leading to improved clinical outcomes,” Dr. Chi said.

The investigators enrolled a total of 1052 men with castration-sensitive prostate cancer, distant metastatic disease manifested as one or more lesions on bone scans, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1.

All patients were on continuous ADT. Prior therapies allowed under the protocol included docetaxel for a maximum of 6 cycles with no evidence of progression during treatment or before randomization, ADT for not more than 6 months for mCSPC or not more than 3 years for localized prostate cancer, one course of radiation of surgery for symptoms associated with metastatic disease, or other localized treatments completed at least 1 year before randomization.

The median patient age was 68 years. In all 62.7% of patients had high-volume disease, and the remainder had low-volume disease.

In this, the first interim analysis conducted at a median follow-up of 22.7 months, the 68.2% of patients in the apalutamide group had radiographic PFS, compared with 47.5% in the placebo group. The hazard ratio for progression or death with apalutamide was 0.48 (P less than .001).

As noted before, 24-month overall survival rates were 82.4% vs. 73.5%, respectively.

The secondary endpoint of median time to cytotoxic chemotherapy also significantly favored apalutamide, with a hazard ratio of 0.39 (P less than .0001). Other secondary endpoints, including median time to pain progression, median time to chronic opioid use, and median time to skeletal-related events trended in favor of apalutamide but were not statistically significant.

Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 42.2% of patients in the apalutamide arm and 40.8% in the placebo arm. The incidence of any serious adverse event was 19.8% with apalutamide and 20.3% with placebo. Adverse events leading to discontinuation occurred in 8% and 5.3%, respectively, and adverse events leading to death occurred in 1.9% vs. 3.0%.

Apalutamide was associated with higher incidences of rash, fatigue, hypothyroidism, and fracture.

The study results show that “androgen deprivation therapy and apalutamide for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer improves survival, and thus reinforces the current practice of ADT plus a single agent, whether it be docetaxel, abiraterone, enzalutamide, and now apalutamide,” commented Michael A. Carducci, MD, from the Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center in Baltimore, the invited discussant.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

Metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer is a broadly heterogeneous disease state, and the treatment benefits offered with various drugs is not consistent in subsets of patients. Investigators need to develop better molecularly based methods, combined with cliniopathologic factors, to better determine which subgroups of patients can benefit from specific drugs, he said.

The TITAN trial was supported by Aragon Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Chi disclosed grants and personal fees from multiple companies, not including Aragon. Dr. Carducci disclosed consulting or advisory roles and institutional research funding from multiple companies, not including Aragon.

SOURCE: Chi KN, ASCO 2019 Abstract 5006. N Engl J Med doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1903307 .

NEW ORLEANS – About two thirds of men who chronically use opioids have low testosterone levels, based on a literature search of more than 50 randomized and observational studies that examined endocrine function in patients on chronic opioid therapy.

Hypocortisolism, seen in about 20% of the men in these studies, was among the other potentially significant deficiencies in endocrine function, Amir H. Zamanipoor Najafabadi, PhD, reported at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

Dr. Najafabadi of Leiden University in the Netherlands, and Friso de Vries, PhD, analyzed the link between opioid use and changes in the gonadal axis. Most of the subjects in their study were men (J Endocr Soc. 2019. doi. 10.1210/js.2019-SUN-489).

While the data do not support firm conclusions on the health consequences of these endocrine observations, Dr. Najafabadi said that a prospective trial is needed to determine whether there is a potential benefit from screening patients on chronic opioids for potentially treatable endocrine deficiencies.

NEW ORLEANS – About two thirds of men who chronically use opioids have low testosterone levels, based on a literature search of more than 50 randomized and observational studies that examined endocrine function in patients on chronic opioid therapy.

Hypocortisolism, seen in about 20% of the men in these studies, was among the other potentially significant deficiencies in endocrine function, Amir H. Zamanipoor Najafabadi, PhD, reported at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

Dr. Najafabadi of Leiden University in the Netherlands, and Friso de Vries, PhD, analyzed the link between opioid use and changes in the gonadal axis. Most of the subjects in their study were men (J Endocr Soc. 2019. doi. 10.1210/js.2019-SUN-489).

While the data do not support firm conclusions on the health consequences of these endocrine observations, Dr. Najafabadi said that a prospective trial is needed to determine whether there is a potential benefit from screening patients on chronic opioids for potentially treatable endocrine deficiencies.

NEW ORLEANS – About two thirds of men who chronically use opioids have low testosterone levels, based on a literature search of more than 50 randomized and observational studies that examined endocrine function in patients on chronic opioid therapy.

Hypocortisolism, seen in about 20% of the men in these studies, was among the other potentially significant deficiencies in endocrine function, Amir H. Zamanipoor Najafabadi, PhD, reported at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

Dr. Najafabadi of Leiden University in the Netherlands, and Friso de Vries, PhD, analyzed the link between opioid use and changes in the gonadal axis. Most of the subjects in their study were men (J Endocr Soc. 2019. doi. 10.1210/js.2019-SUN-489).

While the data do not support firm conclusions on the health consequences of these endocrine observations, Dr. Najafabadi said that a prospective trial is needed to determine whether there is a potential benefit from screening patients on chronic opioids for potentially treatable endocrine deficiencies.