Deepak Chitnis

WASHINGTON – Practices and clinics should implement cultural humility training and gender protocols for dealing with transgender youth because many of these youth and their parents find health care experiences to be difficult when procedures for treating and interacting with transgender youth are confusing or nonexistent.

The study is part of an ongoing effort to “provide high-quality, respectful health care for transgender youth [because] these youth are at greatly increased risk of issues including substance abuse, depression, anxiety, homelessness, and suicide,” explained Julia M. Crouch of Seattle Children’s Research Institute.

“A growing body of evidence shows improved health outcomes for transgender youth who received support from family, schools, and providers, and there are now an increasing number of multidisciplinary gender clinics throughout the country [that] have been demonstrated to be a feasible and effective way to provide coordinated care to this population,” Ms. Crouch said at the annual meeting of the Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine.

Ms. Crouch and her coinvestigators recruited transgender youth between the ages of 14 and 22 years, along with parents of transgender youth, all of whom were evaluated and enrolled from the Seattle metropolitan area. Both parents and youth were given the option of participating in either a semistructured interview or a focus group discussion, during which investigators learned about the concerns and experiences of both youth and parents when visiting their health care clinics (J Adolesc Health. 2011 Apr;48[4]:351-7; J Adolesc Health. 2011 Apr;48(4):351-7)..

In total, 13 youth and 16 parents – the latter of whom were not made up of 8 pairs of parents, but rather 16 individual parents of transgender youth who were not necessarily the same 13 youth recruited for the study – were eventually selected for inclusion. The parents split evenly between opting for interviews and focus groups, while four of the youth chose interviews and the remaining nine chose focus groups. Seven youth identified themselves as male, three identified as female, and the remaining three identified as “genderqueer or gender fluid.”

Analysis of interview and focus group conversations identified six key “barriers to care” that Ms. Crouch and her coauthors call necessary to rectify in order to improve the quality of health care provided to transgender youth. These are:

• The dearth of health care providers with sufficient knowledge and interest in working with transgender youth.

• The lack of access to pubertal blockers and cross-sex hormones.

• Doctors and their staff who are unable or unwilling to use the names and pronouns that youths prefer to go by.

• Patients being made to feel uncomfortable or “not normal” by health care providers,

• The lack of a set protocol or treatment methodology for dealing with transgender youth.

• The lack of coordination between health care providers and specialties on treating transgender youth – specifically, a lack of cohesive care between mental and medical health care.

“ ‘It was hard enough to find providers who were accepting new patients, worked with adolescents and my insurance, [and] on top of it, finding someone who was transfriendly made it all but impossible,’ ” Ms. Crouch recalled one transgender youth saying during the study.

Ms. Crouch also recounted that providers’ inability to consistently use the correct pronoun when talking about or to a transgender patient was harmful, and despite most instances being dismissed as unintentional, several were said to be intentional and malicious.

“For example, one parent told us [their] doctor said, ‘her, her, her,’ and [her] son, who was 10 years old, said, ‘him, him, him,’ and the doctor got mad, became dismissive and irritated, and kept saying ‘her,’ ” said Ms. Crouch.

The average age of the youth was 18 years, and of the parents was 49 years. The parents were 88% white and 75% female, with 44% holding at least a college degree. Most of the youth were white (69%), and 77% had either completed high school or some college. Youth and parents were recruited in 2015 from local clinics in the Seattle area, as well as through local and national listservs. Thirty-three percent of the parents were from outside the state of Washington.

The study was funded by the Center for Diversity and Health Equity, and the Clinical and Translational Research Faculty Research Support Fund, at Seattle Children’s Research Institute. Ms. Crouch did not report any relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

WASHINGTON – Practices and clinics should implement cultural humility training and gender protocols for dealing with transgender youth because many of these youth and their parents find health care experiences to be difficult when procedures for treating and interacting with transgender youth are confusing or nonexistent.

The study is part of an ongoing effort to “provide high-quality, respectful health care for transgender youth [because] these youth are at greatly increased risk of issues including substance abuse, depression, anxiety, homelessness, and suicide,” explained Julia M. Crouch of Seattle Children’s Research Institute.

“A growing body of evidence shows improved health outcomes for transgender youth who received support from family, schools, and providers, and there are now an increasing number of multidisciplinary gender clinics throughout the country [that] have been demonstrated to be a feasible and effective way to provide coordinated care to this population,” Ms. Crouch said at the annual meeting of the Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine.

Ms. Crouch and her coinvestigators recruited transgender youth between the ages of 14 and 22 years, along with parents of transgender youth, all of whom were evaluated and enrolled from the Seattle metropolitan area. Both parents and youth were given the option of participating in either a semistructured interview or a focus group discussion, during which investigators learned about the concerns and experiences of both youth and parents when visiting their health care clinics (J Adolesc Health. 2011 Apr;48[4]:351-7; J Adolesc Health. 2011 Apr;48(4):351-7)..

In total, 13 youth and 16 parents – the latter of whom were not made up of 8 pairs of parents, but rather 16 individual parents of transgender youth who were not necessarily the same 13 youth recruited for the study – were eventually selected for inclusion. The parents split evenly between opting for interviews and focus groups, while four of the youth chose interviews and the remaining nine chose focus groups. Seven youth identified themselves as male, three identified as female, and the remaining three identified as “genderqueer or gender fluid.”

Analysis of interview and focus group conversations identified six key “barriers to care” that Ms. Crouch and her coauthors call necessary to rectify in order to improve the quality of health care provided to transgender youth. These are:

• The dearth of health care providers with sufficient knowledge and interest in working with transgender youth.

• The lack of access to pubertal blockers and cross-sex hormones.

• Doctors and their staff who are unable or unwilling to use the names and pronouns that youths prefer to go by.

• Patients being made to feel uncomfortable or “not normal” by health care providers,

• The lack of a set protocol or treatment methodology for dealing with transgender youth.

• The lack of coordination between health care providers and specialties on treating transgender youth – specifically, a lack of cohesive care between mental and medical health care.

“ ‘It was hard enough to find providers who were accepting new patients, worked with adolescents and my insurance, [and] on top of it, finding someone who was transfriendly made it all but impossible,’ ” Ms. Crouch recalled one transgender youth saying during the study.

Ms. Crouch also recounted that providers’ inability to consistently use the correct pronoun when talking about or to a transgender patient was harmful, and despite most instances being dismissed as unintentional, several were said to be intentional and malicious.

“For example, one parent told us [their] doctor said, ‘her, her, her,’ and [her] son, who was 10 years old, said, ‘him, him, him,’ and the doctor got mad, became dismissive and irritated, and kept saying ‘her,’ ” said Ms. Crouch.

The average age of the youth was 18 years, and of the parents was 49 years. The parents were 88% white and 75% female, with 44% holding at least a college degree. Most of the youth were white (69%), and 77% had either completed high school or some college. Youth and parents were recruited in 2015 from local clinics in the Seattle area, as well as through local and national listservs. Thirty-three percent of the parents were from outside the state of Washington.

The study was funded by the Center for Diversity and Health Equity, and the Clinical and Translational Research Faculty Research Support Fund, at Seattle Children’s Research Institute. Ms. Crouch did not report any relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

WASHINGTON – Practices and clinics should implement cultural humility training and gender protocols for dealing with transgender youth because many of these youth and their parents find health care experiences to be difficult when procedures for treating and interacting with transgender youth are confusing or nonexistent.

The study is part of an ongoing effort to “provide high-quality, respectful health care for transgender youth [because] these youth are at greatly increased risk of issues including substance abuse, depression, anxiety, homelessness, and suicide,” explained Julia M. Crouch of Seattle Children’s Research Institute.

“A growing body of evidence shows improved health outcomes for transgender youth who received support from family, schools, and providers, and there are now an increasing number of multidisciplinary gender clinics throughout the country [that] have been demonstrated to be a feasible and effective way to provide coordinated care to this population,” Ms. Crouch said at the annual meeting of the Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine.

Ms. Crouch and her coinvestigators recruited transgender youth between the ages of 14 and 22 years, along with parents of transgender youth, all of whom were evaluated and enrolled from the Seattle metropolitan area. Both parents and youth were given the option of participating in either a semistructured interview or a focus group discussion, during which investigators learned about the concerns and experiences of both youth and parents when visiting their health care clinics (J Adolesc Health. 2011 Apr;48[4]:351-7; J Adolesc Health. 2011 Apr;48(4):351-7)..

In total, 13 youth and 16 parents – the latter of whom were not made up of 8 pairs of parents, but rather 16 individual parents of transgender youth who were not necessarily the same 13 youth recruited for the study – were eventually selected for inclusion. The parents split evenly between opting for interviews and focus groups, while four of the youth chose interviews and the remaining nine chose focus groups. Seven youth identified themselves as male, three identified as female, and the remaining three identified as “genderqueer or gender fluid.”

Analysis of interview and focus group conversations identified six key “barriers to care” that Ms. Crouch and her coauthors call necessary to rectify in order to improve the quality of health care provided to transgender youth. These are:

• The dearth of health care providers with sufficient knowledge and interest in working with transgender youth.

• The lack of access to pubertal blockers and cross-sex hormones.

• Doctors and their staff who are unable or unwilling to use the names and pronouns that youths prefer to go by.

• Patients being made to feel uncomfortable or “not normal” by health care providers,

• The lack of a set protocol or treatment methodology for dealing with transgender youth.

• The lack of coordination between health care providers and specialties on treating transgender youth – specifically, a lack of cohesive care between mental and medical health care.

“ ‘It was hard enough to find providers who were accepting new patients, worked with adolescents and my insurance, [and] on top of it, finding someone who was transfriendly made it all but impossible,’ ” Ms. Crouch recalled one transgender youth saying during the study.

Ms. Crouch also recounted that providers’ inability to consistently use the correct pronoun when talking about or to a transgender patient was harmful, and despite most instances being dismissed as unintentional, several were said to be intentional and malicious.

“For example, one parent told us [their] doctor said, ‘her, her, her,’ and [her] son, who was 10 years old, said, ‘him, him, him,’ and the doctor got mad, became dismissive and irritated, and kept saying ‘her,’ ” said Ms. Crouch.

The average age of the youth was 18 years, and of the parents was 49 years. The parents were 88% white and 75% female, with 44% holding at least a college degree. Most of the youth were white (69%), and 77% had either completed high school or some college. Youth and parents were recruited in 2015 from local clinics in the Seattle area, as well as through local and national listservs. Thirty-three percent of the parents were from outside the state of Washington.

The study was funded by the Center for Diversity and Health Equity, and the Clinical and Translational Research Faculty Research Support Fund, at Seattle Children’s Research Institute. Ms. Crouch did not report any relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

Health care providers performing esophageal manometry should keep in mind eight new quality measures listed and validated in a recent study published in the April issue of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology (Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015 Oct 20. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2015.10.006), which researchers believe will significantly improve the performance of esophageal manometry and interpretation of data culled from such procedures.

“Despite its critical importance in the diagnosis and management of esophageal motility disorders, features of a high-quality esophageal manometry [study] have not been formally defined,” said the study authors, led by Dr. Rena Yadlapati of Northwestern University in Chicago. “Standardizing key aspects of esophageal manometry is imperative to ensure the delivery of high-quality care.”

SOURCE: AMERICAN GASTROENTEROLOGICAL ASSOCIATION

Dr. Yadlapati and her coinvestigators carried out the study in accordance with guidelines set out by the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method (RAM), They began by recruiting a panel of 15 esophageal manometry experts with leadership, geographical diversity, and a wide range of practice settings being the key criteria in their selection.

Investigators then conducted a literature review, selecting the 30 most relevant randomized, controlled trials, retrospective studies, and systematic reviews from the past 10 years. From this review, investigators created a list of 30 possible quality measures, all of which were then sent to each member of the expert panel via email for them to rank on a 9-point interval scale, and modify if necessary.

Those rankings were then used to determine the appropriateness of each proposed quality measure at a face-to-face meeting among the investigators and the 15-member expert panel, at which 17 quality measures were determined to be appropriate. In all, 2 measures dealt with competency, 2 pertained to assessment before procedure, 3 were regarding performance of the procedure itself, and 10 were about interpretation of data obtained from esophageal manometry; the 10 measures concerning interpretation of data were compiled into 1 measure, leaving a total of 8 that were ultimately approved.

The quality measures for competency are as follows:

• “If esophageal manometry is performed, then the technician must be competent to perform esophageal manometry.”

• “If a physician is considered competent to interpret esophageal manometry, then the physician must interpret a minimum number of esophageal manometry studies annually.”

For assessment before procedure, the measures state the following:

• “If a patient is referred for esophageal manometry, then the patient should have undergone an evaluation for structural abnormalities before manometry.”

• “If an esophageal manometry is performed, then informed consent must be obtained and documented.”

Quality measures regarding the procedure itself state the following:

• “If an esophageal manometry study is performed, then a time interval of at least 30 seconds should occur between swallows.”

• “If an esophageal manometry study is performed, then at least 10 wet swallows should be attempted.”

• “If an esophageal manometry study is performed, then at least seven evaluable wet swallows should be included.”

Finally, regarding interpretation of data, the single quality measures states that “If an esophageal manometry study is interpreted, then a complete procedure report should document the following:

• “Reason for referral.”

• “Clinical diagnosis.”

• “Diagnosis according to formally validated classification scheme.”

• “Documentation of formally validated classification scheme used.”

• “Summary of results”

• “Tabulated results including upper esophageal sphincter activity, interpretation of esophagogastric junction relaxation, documentation of pressure inversion point if technically feasible, pressurization pattern and contractile pattern.”

• “Technical limitation (if applicable).”

• “Communication to referring provider.”

“These eight appropriate quality measures are considered absolutely necessary in the performance and interpretation of esophageal manometry,” the authors concluded. “In particular, measures 3-8 are clinically feasible and measurable, and should serve as an initial framework to benchmark quality and reduce variability in esophageal manometry practices.”

This study was funded by the Alumnae of Northwestern University, and a grant to Dr. Yadlapati (T32 DK101363-02). Five coinvestigators disclosed consultancy and speaking relationships with Boston Scientific, Cook Endoscopy, EndoStim, Given Imaging, Covidien, and Sandhill Scientific.

[email protected]

Health care providers performing esophageal manometry should keep in mind eight new quality measures listed and validated in a recent study published in the April issue of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology (Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015 Oct 20. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2015.10.006), which researchers believe will significantly improve the performance of esophageal manometry and interpretation of data culled from such procedures.

“Despite its critical importance in the diagnosis and management of esophageal motility disorders, features of a high-quality esophageal manometry [study] have not been formally defined,” said the study authors, led by Dr. Rena Yadlapati of Northwestern University in Chicago. “Standardizing key aspects of esophageal manometry is imperative to ensure the delivery of high-quality care.”

SOURCE: AMERICAN GASTROENTEROLOGICAL ASSOCIATION

Dr. Yadlapati and her coinvestigators carried out the study in accordance with guidelines set out by the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method (RAM), They began by recruiting a panel of 15 esophageal manometry experts with leadership, geographical diversity, and a wide range of practice settings being the key criteria in their selection.

Investigators then conducted a literature review, selecting the 30 most relevant randomized, controlled trials, retrospective studies, and systematic reviews from the past 10 years. From this review, investigators created a list of 30 possible quality measures, all of which were then sent to each member of the expert panel via email for them to rank on a 9-point interval scale, and modify if necessary.

Those rankings were then used to determine the appropriateness of each proposed quality measure at a face-to-face meeting among the investigators and the 15-member expert panel, at which 17 quality measures were determined to be appropriate. In all, 2 measures dealt with competency, 2 pertained to assessment before procedure, 3 were regarding performance of the procedure itself, and 10 were about interpretation of data obtained from esophageal manometry; the 10 measures concerning interpretation of data were compiled into 1 measure, leaving a total of 8 that were ultimately approved.

The quality measures for competency are as follows:

• “If esophageal manometry is performed, then the technician must be competent to perform esophageal manometry.”

• “If a physician is considered competent to interpret esophageal manometry, then the physician must interpret a minimum number of esophageal manometry studies annually.”

For assessment before procedure, the measures state the following:

• “If a patient is referred for esophageal manometry, then the patient should have undergone an evaluation for structural abnormalities before manometry.”

• “If an esophageal manometry is performed, then informed consent must be obtained and documented.”

Quality measures regarding the procedure itself state the following:

• “If an esophageal manometry study is performed, then a time interval of at least 30 seconds should occur between swallows.”

• “If an esophageal manometry study is performed, then at least 10 wet swallows should be attempted.”

• “If an esophageal manometry study is performed, then at least seven evaluable wet swallows should be included.”

Finally, regarding interpretation of data, the single quality measures states that “If an esophageal manometry study is interpreted, then a complete procedure report should document the following:

• “Reason for referral.”

• “Clinical diagnosis.”

• “Diagnosis according to formally validated classification scheme.”

• “Documentation of formally validated classification scheme used.”

• “Summary of results”

• “Tabulated results including upper esophageal sphincter activity, interpretation of esophagogastric junction relaxation, documentation of pressure inversion point if technically feasible, pressurization pattern and contractile pattern.”

• “Technical limitation (if applicable).”

• “Communication to referring provider.”

“These eight appropriate quality measures are considered absolutely necessary in the performance and interpretation of esophageal manometry,” the authors concluded. “In particular, measures 3-8 are clinically feasible and measurable, and should serve as an initial framework to benchmark quality and reduce variability in esophageal manometry practices.”

This study was funded by the Alumnae of Northwestern University, and a grant to Dr. Yadlapati (T32 DK101363-02). Five coinvestigators disclosed consultancy and speaking relationships with Boston Scientific, Cook Endoscopy, EndoStim, Given Imaging, Covidien, and Sandhill Scientific.

[email protected]

Health care providers performing esophageal manometry should keep in mind eight new quality measures listed and validated in a recent study published in the April issue of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology (Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015 Oct 20. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2015.10.006), which researchers believe will significantly improve the performance of esophageal manometry and interpretation of data culled from such procedures.

“Despite its critical importance in the diagnosis and management of esophageal motility disorders, features of a high-quality esophageal manometry [study] have not been formally defined,” said the study authors, led by Dr. Rena Yadlapati of Northwestern University in Chicago. “Standardizing key aspects of esophageal manometry is imperative to ensure the delivery of high-quality care.”

SOURCE: AMERICAN GASTROENTEROLOGICAL ASSOCIATION

Dr. Yadlapati and her coinvestigators carried out the study in accordance with guidelines set out by the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method (RAM), They began by recruiting a panel of 15 esophageal manometry experts with leadership, geographical diversity, and a wide range of practice settings being the key criteria in their selection.

Investigators then conducted a literature review, selecting the 30 most relevant randomized, controlled trials, retrospective studies, and systematic reviews from the past 10 years. From this review, investigators created a list of 30 possible quality measures, all of which were then sent to each member of the expert panel via email for them to rank on a 9-point interval scale, and modify if necessary.

Those rankings were then used to determine the appropriateness of each proposed quality measure at a face-to-face meeting among the investigators and the 15-member expert panel, at which 17 quality measures were determined to be appropriate. In all, 2 measures dealt with competency, 2 pertained to assessment before procedure, 3 were regarding performance of the procedure itself, and 10 were about interpretation of data obtained from esophageal manometry; the 10 measures concerning interpretation of data were compiled into 1 measure, leaving a total of 8 that were ultimately approved.

The quality measures for competency are as follows:

• “If esophageal manometry is performed, then the technician must be competent to perform esophageal manometry.”

• “If a physician is considered competent to interpret esophageal manometry, then the physician must interpret a minimum number of esophageal manometry studies annually.”

For assessment before procedure, the measures state the following:

• “If a patient is referred for esophageal manometry, then the patient should have undergone an evaluation for structural abnormalities before manometry.”

• “If an esophageal manometry is performed, then informed consent must be obtained and documented.”

Quality measures regarding the procedure itself state the following:

• “If an esophageal manometry study is performed, then a time interval of at least 30 seconds should occur between swallows.”

• “If an esophageal manometry study is performed, then at least 10 wet swallows should be attempted.”

• “If an esophageal manometry study is performed, then at least seven evaluable wet swallows should be included.”

Finally, regarding interpretation of data, the single quality measures states that “If an esophageal manometry study is interpreted, then a complete procedure report should document the following:

• “Reason for referral.”

• “Clinical diagnosis.”

• “Diagnosis according to formally validated classification scheme.”

• “Documentation of formally validated classification scheme used.”

• “Summary of results”

• “Tabulated results including upper esophageal sphincter activity, interpretation of esophagogastric junction relaxation, documentation of pressure inversion point if technically feasible, pressurization pattern and contractile pattern.”

• “Technical limitation (if applicable).”

• “Communication to referring provider.”

“These eight appropriate quality measures are considered absolutely necessary in the performance and interpretation of esophageal manometry,” the authors concluded. “In particular, measures 3-8 are clinically feasible and measurable, and should serve as an initial framework to benchmark quality and reduce variability in esophageal manometry practices.”

This study was funded by the Alumnae of Northwestern University, and a grant to Dr. Yadlapati (T32 DK101363-02). Five coinvestigators disclosed consultancy and speaking relationships with Boston Scientific, Cook Endoscopy, EndoStim, Given Imaging, Covidien, and Sandhill Scientific.

[email protected]

Patients who receive rectal indomethacin after undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) are not any less likely to develop pancreatitis than individuals who don’t, according to the findings of a recent study published in Gastroenterology (2016 Jan 9. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2015.12.018).

“These results are in contrast to recent studies highlighting the benefit of rectal NSAIDS to prevent PEP [post-ECRP pancreatitis] in high-risk patients [and] counter the guidelines espoused by the European Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, which recently recommended giving rectal indomethacin to prevent PEP in all patients undergoing ERCP,” said the study authors, led by Dr. John M. Levenick of Penn State University in Hershey, Pa.

SOURCE: AMERICAN GASTROENTEROLOGICAL ASSOCIATION

Dr. Levenick and his coinvestigators screened 604 consecutive patients undergoing ERCP, with and without endoscopic ultrasound, at the Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center between March 2013 and December 2014, eventually enrolling and randomizing 449 subjects into two cohorts: one in which subjects were given indomethacin after undergoing ERCP (n = 223), and one in which subjects were simply given a placebo (n = 226). Randomization happened after subjects’ major papilla had been reached, and cannulation attempts were started.

Individuals were excluded if they had active acute pancreatitis or had undergone ERCP to treat or diagnose acute pancreatitis, if they had any contraindications or allergies to NSAIDs, or were younger than 18 years of age, among other factors. The mean age of the indomethacin cohort was 64.9 years, with 118 (52.9%) females; in the placebo cohort, mean age was 64.3 years and 118 (52.2%) were female.

Pancreatitis occurred in 27 subjects overall, 16 (7.2%) of whom were in the indomethacin cohort and the other 11 (4.9%) were on placebo followed ERCP (P = .33). No subjects receiving indomethacin had severe or moderately severe PEP, but one subject had severe PEP and one had moderately severe PEP in the placebo cohort (P = 1.0). There was no necrotizing pancreatitis in either cohort, nor were there any significant differences in gastrointestinal bleeding (P = .75), death (P = .25), or 30-day hospital readmission (P = .1) between the two cohorts.

“Prophylactic rectal indomethacin did not reduce the incidence or severity of PEP in consecutive patients undergoing ERCP,” Dr. Levenick and his coauthors concluded, adding that “guidelines that recommend the administration of rectal indomethacin in all patients undergoing ERCP should be reconsidered.”

This study was funded by the National Pancreas Foundation and a grant from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Levenick and his coauthors did not report any financial disclosures.

[email protected]

Patients who receive rectal indomethacin after undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) are not any less likely to develop pancreatitis than individuals who don’t, according to the findings of a recent study published in Gastroenterology (2016 Jan 9. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2015.12.018).

“These results are in contrast to recent studies highlighting the benefit of rectal NSAIDS to prevent PEP [post-ECRP pancreatitis] in high-risk patients [and] counter the guidelines espoused by the European Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, which recently recommended giving rectal indomethacin to prevent PEP in all patients undergoing ERCP,” said the study authors, led by Dr. John M. Levenick of Penn State University in Hershey, Pa.

SOURCE: AMERICAN GASTROENTEROLOGICAL ASSOCIATION

Dr. Levenick and his coinvestigators screened 604 consecutive patients undergoing ERCP, with and without endoscopic ultrasound, at the Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center between March 2013 and December 2014, eventually enrolling and randomizing 449 subjects into two cohorts: one in which subjects were given indomethacin after undergoing ERCP (n = 223), and one in which subjects were simply given a placebo (n = 226). Randomization happened after subjects’ major papilla had been reached, and cannulation attempts were started.

Individuals were excluded if they had active acute pancreatitis or had undergone ERCP to treat or diagnose acute pancreatitis, if they had any contraindications or allergies to NSAIDs, or were younger than 18 years of age, among other factors. The mean age of the indomethacin cohort was 64.9 years, with 118 (52.9%) females; in the placebo cohort, mean age was 64.3 years and 118 (52.2%) were female.

Pancreatitis occurred in 27 subjects overall, 16 (7.2%) of whom were in the indomethacin cohort and the other 11 (4.9%) were on placebo followed ERCP (P = .33). No subjects receiving indomethacin had severe or moderately severe PEP, but one subject had severe PEP and one had moderately severe PEP in the placebo cohort (P = 1.0). There was no necrotizing pancreatitis in either cohort, nor were there any significant differences in gastrointestinal bleeding (P = .75), death (P = .25), or 30-day hospital readmission (P = .1) between the two cohorts.

“Prophylactic rectal indomethacin did not reduce the incidence or severity of PEP in consecutive patients undergoing ERCP,” Dr. Levenick and his coauthors concluded, adding that “guidelines that recommend the administration of rectal indomethacin in all patients undergoing ERCP should be reconsidered.”

This study was funded by the National Pancreas Foundation and a grant from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Levenick and his coauthors did not report any financial disclosures.

[email protected]

Patients who receive rectal indomethacin after undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) are not any less likely to develop pancreatitis than individuals who don’t, according to the findings of a recent study published in Gastroenterology (2016 Jan 9. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2015.12.018).

“These results are in contrast to recent studies highlighting the benefit of rectal NSAIDS to prevent PEP [post-ECRP pancreatitis] in high-risk patients [and] counter the guidelines espoused by the European Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, which recently recommended giving rectal indomethacin to prevent PEP in all patients undergoing ERCP,” said the study authors, led by Dr. John M. Levenick of Penn State University in Hershey, Pa.

SOURCE: AMERICAN GASTROENTEROLOGICAL ASSOCIATION

Dr. Levenick and his coinvestigators screened 604 consecutive patients undergoing ERCP, with and without endoscopic ultrasound, at the Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center between March 2013 and December 2014, eventually enrolling and randomizing 449 subjects into two cohorts: one in which subjects were given indomethacin after undergoing ERCP (n = 223), and one in which subjects were simply given a placebo (n = 226). Randomization happened after subjects’ major papilla had been reached, and cannulation attempts were started.

Individuals were excluded if they had active acute pancreatitis or had undergone ERCP to treat or diagnose acute pancreatitis, if they had any contraindications or allergies to NSAIDs, or were younger than 18 years of age, among other factors. The mean age of the indomethacin cohort was 64.9 years, with 118 (52.9%) females; in the placebo cohort, mean age was 64.3 years and 118 (52.2%) were female.

Pancreatitis occurred in 27 subjects overall, 16 (7.2%) of whom were in the indomethacin cohort and the other 11 (4.9%) were on placebo followed ERCP (P = .33). No subjects receiving indomethacin had severe or moderately severe PEP, but one subject had severe PEP and one had moderately severe PEP in the placebo cohort (P = 1.0). There was no necrotizing pancreatitis in either cohort, nor were there any significant differences in gastrointestinal bleeding (P = .75), death (P = .25), or 30-day hospital readmission (P = .1) between the two cohorts.

“Prophylactic rectal indomethacin did not reduce the incidence or severity of PEP in consecutive patients undergoing ERCP,” Dr. Levenick and his coauthors concluded, adding that “guidelines that recommend the administration of rectal indomethacin in all patients undergoing ERCP should be reconsidered.”

This study was funded by the National Pancreas Foundation and a grant from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Levenick and his coauthors did not report any financial disclosures.

[email protected]

As magnetic resonance imaging technology continues to advance year after year, so does MRI’s ability to accurately detect pancreatic cysts, according to a new study published in the April issue of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology (doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2015.08.038).

“To our knowledge, this is the first study to analyze the relationship between the technical improvements in imaging techniques (specifically, MRI) and the presence of incidentally found PCLs [pancreatic cystic lesions],” said the study authors, led by Dr. Michael B. Wallace of the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla.

Dr. Wallace and his coinvestigators launched this retrospective descriptive study selecting the first 50 consecutive abdominal MRI patients at the Jacksonville Mayo Clinic during January and February of each year from 2005 through 2014, for a total of 500 cases who met inclusion criteria included in the study. Patients were excluded if they had preexisting symptomatic or asymptomatic pancreatitis, either acute or chronic, pancreatic masses, pancreatic cysts, pancreatic surgery, pancreatic symptoms, or any pancreas-related indications found by MRI.

The clinic underwent periodic MRI updates over the course of the 10-year study, along with requisite software updates to “take advantage of the new hardware technology,” the study explains. Major hardware improvements, provided by Siemens Medical Solutions USA, were Symphony/Sonata, Espree/Avanto, and Aera/Skyra, while software updates corresponding to each hardware update were VA, VB, and VD, respectively.

SOURCE: AMERICAN GASTROENTEROLOGICAL ASSOCIATION

Furthermore, each software update had other, smaller upgrades, leading to a total of 20 combinations of MRI hardware and software on which MRIs were performed over the 10 years. Every MRI taken included “an axial and a coronal T2-weighted single-shot (HASTE) pulse sequence [with] TR 1400-1500 ms, TE 82-99 ms, and slice thickness 5-7 mm (gap, 0.5-0.7 mm).” Each MRI was analyzed by a pancreatic MRI specialist to find incidental cysts.

The number of patients found with pancreatic cysts increased incrementally from 2005 to 2014, with 2010 being the year with the highest number. A total of 208 subjects (41.6%) were found to have incidental cysts, but only 44 of these cases were discovered in the original MRI. The presence of cysts was associated with older age in patients who had them; only 20% of all subjects under 50 years of age had cysts, compared to 32.4% of those between 50 and 60 years, 54.9% of those between 60 and 70 years, and 61.5% of those over the age of 70 years (P less than .01).

Additionally, 56.4% of all subjects with diabetes (P less than .01), 59.0% of subjects with nonmelanoma skin cancer (P less than .03), and 58.1% of those with hepatocarcinoma (P less than .02) were also found to have cysts. Most striking, however, is that newer hardware and software permutations were able to detect cysts in 56.3% (Skyra) of patients who had them, compared with only 30.3% (Symphony) of patients who underwent MRI on older technology.

“The variable field strength” (1.5 T vs. 3 T) was not significantly related to the presence of PCLs,” Dr. Wallace and his coauthors concluded. “We believe this may be secondary to the lack of power of the analysis, because only 6% of the examinations were 3-T studies. Therefore, we speculate that this relationship may be confirmed if the number of 3-T studies increased.”

Males and females each made up roughly 50% of the study population, with a median age of 60 years and 85% being white. Additionally, 4% of subjects had a family history of pancreatic cancer, 12% had a personal history of solid organ transplant, and 53% had a personal history of smoking.

This study was funded by the Mayo Clinic. Dr. Wallace disclosed that he has received grant funding from Olympus, Boston Scientific, and Cosmo Pharmaceuticals, and travel support from Olympus. No other authors reported any financial disclosures.

[email protected]

As magnetic resonance imaging technology continues to advance year after year, so does MRI’s ability to accurately detect pancreatic cysts, according to a new study published in the April issue of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology (doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2015.08.038).

“To our knowledge, this is the first study to analyze the relationship between the technical improvements in imaging techniques (specifically, MRI) and the presence of incidentally found PCLs [pancreatic cystic lesions],” said the study authors, led by Dr. Michael B. Wallace of the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla.

Dr. Wallace and his coinvestigators launched this retrospective descriptive study selecting the first 50 consecutive abdominal MRI patients at the Jacksonville Mayo Clinic during January and February of each year from 2005 through 2014, for a total of 500 cases who met inclusion criteria included in the study. Patients were excluded if they had preexisting symptomatic or asymptomatic pancreatitis, either acute or chronic, pancreatic masses, pancreatic cysts, pancreatic surgery, pancreatic symptoms, or any pancreas-related indications found by MRI.

The clinic underwent periodic MRI updates over the course of the 10-year study, along with requisite software updates to “take advantage of the new hardware technology,” the study explains. Major hardware improvements, provided by Siemens Medical Solutions USA, were Symphony/Sonata, Espree/Avanto, and Aera/Skyra, while software updates corresponding to each hardware update were VA, VB, and VD, respectively.

SOURCE: AMERICAN GASTROENTEROLOGICAL ASSOCIATION

Furthermore, each software update had other, smaller upgrades, leading to a total of 20 combinations of MRI hardware and software on which MRIs were performed over the 10 years. Every MRI taken included “an axial and a coronal T2-weighted single-shot (HASTE) pulse sequence [with] TR 1400-1500 ms, TE 82-99 ms, and slice thickness 5-7 mm (gap, 0.5-0.7 mm).” Each MRI was analyzed by a pancreatic MRI specialist to find incidental cysts.

The number of patients found with pancreatic cysts increased incrementally from 2005 to 2014, with 2010 being the year with the highest number. A total of 208 subjects (41.6%) were found to have incidental cysts, but only 44 of these cases were discovered in the original MRI. The presence of cysts was associated with older age in patients who had them; only 20% of all subjects under 50 years of age had cysts, compared to 32.4% of those between 50 and 60 years, 54.9% of those between 60 and 70 years, and 61.5% of those over the age of 70 years (P less than .01).

Additionally, 56.4% of all subjects with diabetes (P less than .01), 59.0% of subjects with nonmelanoma skin cancer (P less than .03), and 58.1% of those with hepatocarcinoma (P less than .02) were also found to have cysts. Most striking, however, is that newer hardware and software permutations were able to detect cysts in 56.3% (Skyra) of patients who had them, compared with only 30.3% (Symphony) of patients who underwent MRI on older technology.

“The variable field strength” (1.5 T vs. 3 T) was not significantly related to the presence of PCLs,” Dr. Wallace and his coauthors concluded. “We believe this may be secondary to the lack of power of the analysis, because only 6% of the examinations were 3-T studies. Therefore, we speculate that this relationship may be confirmed if the number of 3-T studies increased.”

Males and females each made up roughly 50% of the study population, with a median age of 60 years and 85% being white. Additionally, 4% of subjects had a family history of pancreatic cancer, 12% had a personal history of solid organ transplant, and 53% had a personal history of smoking.

This study was funded by the Mayo Clinic. Dr. Wallace disclosed that he has received grant funding from Olympus, Boston Scientific, and Cosmo Pharmaceuticals, and travel support from Olympus. No other authors reported any financial disclosures.

[email protected]

As magnetic resonance imaging technology continues to advance year after year, so does MRI’s ability to accurately detect pancreatic cysts, according to a new study published in the April issue of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology (doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2015.08.038).

“To our knowledge, this is the first study to analyze the relationship between the technical improvements in imaging techniques (specifically, MRI) and the presence of incidentally found PCLs [pancreatic cystic lesions],” said the study authors, led by Dr. Michael B. Wallace of the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla.

Dr. Wallace and his coinvestigators launched this retrospective descriptive study selecting the first 50 consecutive abdominal MRI patients at the Jacksonville Mayo Clinic during January and February of each year from 2005 through 2014, for a total of 500 cases who met inclusion criteria included in the study. Patients were excluded if they had preexisting symptomatic or asymptomatic pancreatitis, either acute or chronic, pancreatic masses, pancreatic cysts, pancreatic surgery, pancreatic symptoms, or any pancreas-related indications found by MRI.

The clinic underwent periodic MRI updates over the course of the 10-year study, along with requisite software updates to “take advantage of the new hardware technology,” the study explains. Major hardware improvements, provided by Siemens Medical Solutions USA, were Symphony/Sonata, Espree/Avanto, and Aera/Skyra, while software updates corresponding to each hardware update were VA, VB, and VD, respectively.

SOURCE: AMERICAN GASTROENTEROLOGICAL ASSOCIATION

Furthermore, each software update had other, smaller upgrades, leading to a total of 20 combinations of MRI hardware and software on which MRIs were performed over the 10 years. Every MRI taken included “an axial and a coronal T2-weighted single-shot (HASTE) pulse sequence [with] TR 1400-1500 ms, TE 82-99 ms, and slice thickness 5-7 mm (gap, 0.5-0.7 mm).” Each MRI was analyzed by a pancreatic MRI specialist to find incidental cysts.

The number of patients found with pancreatic cysts increased incrementally from 2005 to 2014, with 2010 being the year with the highest number. A total of 208 subjects (41.6%) were found to have incidental cysts, but only 44 of these cases were discovered in the original MRI. The presence of cysts was associated with older age in patients who had them; only 20% of all subjects under 50 years of age had cysts, compared to 32.4% of those between 50 and 60 years, 54.9% of those between 60 and 70 years, and 61.5% of those over the age of 70 years (P less than .01).

Additionally, 56.4% of all subjects with diabetes (P less than .01), 59.0% of subjects with nonmelanoma skin cancer (P less than .03), and 58.1% of those with hepatocarcinoma (P less than .02) were also found to have cysts. Most striking, however, is that newer hardware and software permutations were able to detect cysts in 56.3% (Skyra) of patients who had them, compared with only 30.3% (Symphony) of patients who underwent MRI on older technology.

“The variable field strength” (1.5 T vs. 3 T) was not significantly related to the presence of PCLs,” Dr. Wallace and his coauthors concluded. “We believe this may be secondary to the lack of power of the analysis, because only 6% of the examinations were 3-T studies. Therefore, we speculate that this relationship may be confirmed if the number of 3-T studies increased.”

Males and females each made up roughly 50% of the study population, with a median age of 60 years and 85% being white. Additionally, 4% of subjects had a family history of pancreatic cancer, 12% had a personal history of solid organ transplant, and 53% had a personal history of smoking.

This study was funded by the Mayo Clinic. Dr. Wallace disclosed that he has received grant funding from Olympus, Boston Scientific, and Cosmo Pharmaceuticals, and travel support from Olympus. No other authors reported any financial disclosures.

[email protected]

Receiving anesthesia services while undergoing a colonoscopy may not be in your patients’ best interest, as doing so could significantly increase the likelihood of patients experiencing serious complications within 30 days of the procedure.

This is according to a new study published in the April issue of Gastroenterology, in which Dr. Karen J. Wernli and her coinvestigators analyzed claims data, collected from the Truven Health MarketScan Research Database, related to 3,168,228 colonoscopy procedures that took place between 2008 and 2011, to determine whether patients who received anesthesia were at a higher risk of developing complications after the procedure (doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2015.12.018).

Source: American Gastroenterological Association

“The involvement of anesthesia services for colonoscopy sedation, mainly to administer propofol, has increased accordingly, from 11.0% of colonoscopies in 2001 to 23.4% in 2006, with projections of more than 50% in 2015,” wrote Dr. Wernli of the Group Health Research Institute in Seattle, and her coauthors. “Whether the use of propofol is associated with higher rates of short-term complications compared with standard sedation is not well understood.”

Men and women whose data was included in the study were between 40 and 64 years of age; men accounted for 46.8% of those receiving standard sedation (53.2% women) and 46.5% of those receiving anesthesia services (53.5% women). A total of 4,939,993 individuals were initially screened for enrollment, with 39,784 excluded because of a previous colorectal cancer diagnosis, 240,038 for “noncancer exclusions,” and 1,491,943 for being enrolled in the study less than 1 year.

Standard sedation was done in 2,079,784 (65.6%) of the procedures included in the study, while the other 1,088,444 (34.4%) colonoscopies involved anesthesia services. Use of anesthesia services resulted in a 13% increase in likelihood for patients to experience some kind of complication within 30 days of colonoscopy (95% confidence interval, 1.12-1.14). The most common complications were perforation (odds ratio, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.00-1.15), hemorrhage (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.27-1.30), abdominal pain (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.05-1.08), complications secondary to anesthesia (OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.05-1.28), and “stroke and other central nervous system events” (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.00-1.08).

Analysis of geographic distribution of colonoscopies performed with and without anesthesia services showed that all areas of the United States had a higher likelihood of postcolonoscopy complications associated with anesthesia except in the Southeast, where there was no association between the two. Additionally, in the western U.S., use of anesthesia services was less common than in any other geographic area, but was associated with a staggering 60% higher chance of complication within 30 days for patients who did opt for it.

“Although the use of anesthesia agents can directly impact colonoscopy outcomes, it is not solely the anesthesia agent that could lead to additional complications,” the study authors wrote. “In the absence of patient feedback, increased colonic-wall tension from colonoscopy pressure may not be identified by the endoscopist, and, consistent with our results, could lead to increased risks of colonic complications, such as perforation and abdominal pain.”

Dr. Wernli and her coauthors did not report any relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

Receiving anesthesia services while undergoing a colonoscopy may not be in your patients’ best interest, as doing so could significantly increase the likelihood of patients experiencing serious complications within 30 days of the procedure.

This is according to a new study published in the April issue of Gastroenterology, in which Dr. Karen J. Wernli and her coinvestigators analyzed claims data, collected from the Truven Health MarketScan Research Database, related to 3,168,228 colonoscopy procedures that took place between 2008 and 2011, to determine whether patients who received anesthesia were at a higher risk of developing complications after the procedure (doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2015.12.018).

Source: American Gastroenterological Association

“The involvement of anesthesia services for colonoscopy sedation, mainly to administer propofol, has increased accordingly, from 11.0% of colonoscopies in 2001 to 23.4% in 2006, with projections of more than 50% in 2015,” wrote Dr. Wernli of the Group Health Research Institute in Seattle, and her coauthors. “Whether the use of propofol is associated with higher rates of short-term complications compared with standard sedation is not well understood.”

Men and women whose data was included in the study were between 40 and 64 years of age; men accounted for 46.8% of those receiving standard sedation (53.2% women) and 46.5% of those receiving anesthesia services (53.5% women). A total of 4,939,993 individuals were initially screened for enrollment, with 39,784 excluded because of a previous colorectal cancer diagnosis, 240,038 for “noncancer exclusions,” and 1,491,943 for being enrolled in the study less than 1 year.

Standard sedation was done in 2,079,784 (65.6%) of the procedures included in the study, while the other 1,088,444 (34.4%) colonoscopies involved anesthesia services. Use of anesthesia services resulted in a 13% increase in likelihood for patients to experience some kind of complication within 30 days of colonoscopy (95% confidence interval, 1.12-1.14). The most common complications were perforation (odds ratio, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.00-1.15), hemorrhage (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.27-1.30), abdominal pain (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.05-1.08), complications secondary to anesthesia (OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.05-1.28), and “stroke and other central nervous system events” (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.00-1.08).

Analysis of geographic distribution of colonoscopies performed with and without anesthesia services showed that all areas of the United States had a higher likelihood of postcolonoscopy complications associated with anesthesia except in the Southeast, where there was no association between the two. Additionally, in the western U.S., use of anesthesia services was less common than in any other geographic area, but was associated with a staggering 60% higher chance of complication within 30 days for patients who did opt for it.

“Although the use of anesthesia agents can directly impact colonoscopy outcomes, it is not solely the anesthesia agent that could lead to additional complications,” the study authors wrote. “In the absence of patient feedback, increased colonic-wall tension from colonoscopy pressure may not be identified by the endoscopist, and, consistent with our results, could lead to increased risks of colonic complications, such as perforation and abdominal pain.”

Dr. Wernli and her coauthors did not report any relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

Receiving anesthesia services while undergoing a colonoscopy may not be in your patients’ best interest, as doing so could significantly increase the likelihood of patients experiencing serious complications within 30 days of the procedure.

This is according to a new study published in the April issue of Gastroenterology, in which Dr. Karen J. Wernli and her coinvestigators analyzed claims data, collected from the Truven Health MarketScan Research Database, related to 3,168,228 colonoscopy procedures that took place between 2008 and 2011, to determine whether patients who received anesthesia were at a higher risk of developing complications after the procedure (doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2015.12.018).

Source: American Gastroenterological Association

“The involvement of anesthesia services for colonoscopy sedation, mainly to administer propofol, has increased accordingly, from 11.0% of colonoscopies in 2001 to 23.4% in 2006, with projections of more than 50% in 2015,” wrote Dr. Wernli of the Group Health Research Institute in Seattle, and her coauthors. “Whether the use of propofol is associated with higher rates of short-term complications compared with standard sedation is not well understood.”

Men and women whose data was included in the study were between 40 and 64 years of age; men accounted for 46.8% of those receiving standard sedation (53.2% women) and 46.5% of those receiving anesthesia services (53.5% women). A total of 4,939,993 individuals were initially screened for enrollment, with 39,784 excluded because of a previous colorectal cancer diagnosis, 240,038 for “noncancer exclusions,” and 1,491,943 for being enrolled in the study less than 1 year.

Standard sedation was done in 2,079,784 (65.6%) of the procedures included in the study, while the other 1,088,444 (34.4%) colonoscopies involved anesthesia services. Use of anesthesia services resulted in a 13% increase in likelihood for patients to experience some kind of complication within 30 days of colonoscopy (95% confidence interval, 1.12-1.14). The most common complications were perforation (odds ratio, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.00-1.15), hemorrhage (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.27-1.30), abdominal pain (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.05-1.08), complications secondary to anesthesia (OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.05-1.28), and “stroke and other central nervous system events” (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.00-1.08).

Analysis of geographic distribution of colonoscopies performed with and without anesthesia services showed that all areas of the United States had a higher likelihood of postcolonoscopy complications associated with anesthesia except in the Southeast, where there was no association between the two. Additionally, in the western U.S., use of anesthesia services was less common than in any other geographic area, but was associated with a staggering 60% higher chance of complication within 30 days for patients who did opt for it.

“Although the use of anesthesia agents can directly impact colonoscopy outcomes, it is not solely the anesthesia agent that could lead to additional complications,” the study authors wrote. “In the absence of patient feedback, increased colonic-wall tension from colonoscopy pressure may not be identified by the endoscopist, and, consistent with our results, could lead to increased risks of colonic complications, such as perforation and abdominal pain.”

Dr. Wernli and her coauthors did not report any relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

WASHINGTON – While use of long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) has steadily been increasing over recent years, a new study shows that adolescent females who use LARC might be neglecting to wear condoms when engaging in sexual intercourse, regardless of their number of partners, thus predisposing them to a high risk of contracting sexually transmitted infections (STIs).

“Like moderately effective methods of contraception, [LARC] does not protect against STIs, and so use of a condom in conjunction with [LARC] is recommended for STI prevention,” lead author Riley J. Steiner of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, explained at the annual meeting of the Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine. The study also was published in JAMA Pediatrics (2016 Mar 14. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2016.0007)

©Florea Marius Catalin/iStockphoto.com

She added that, “We really think that establishing a link between LARC and condom use early on, prior to widespread adolescent uptake of LARC, can help provide a useful reference point for future monitoring and, ultimately, inform STI prevention efforts as LARC is brought to scale.”

Ms. Steiner and her coinvestigators used data from the 2013 national Youth Risk Behavior Survey, a self-administered “paper and pencil” questionnaire conducted every 2 years for students in grades 9-12 in public and private high schools across the United States. Analysis of the data – which looked for age, race, and type of contraceptive used – was conducted in July and August of 2015.

Primary outcome of the analysis was to determine the contraceptive method used the most recent time a female had sexual intercourse: either LARC – via an intrauterine device or an implant – oral contraceptives, Depo-Provera, a patch, or a ring. In total, 2,288 females were included in the study; 41% used condoms, 22% used oral contraceptives, 16% used no contraceptive methods whatsoever, 12% used “withdrawal or other method,” 6% used either Depo-Provera, a patch, or a ring, 2% said they were unsure of what contraceptive, if any, they used, and only 2% of females used LARC.

However, of the 2% that used LARC, adjusted odds ratios revealed that they were significantly more likely not to use condoms (adjusted prevalence ratio [aPR], 0.42; 95% confidence interval, 0.21-0.84) as opposed to females on oral contraceptives. There was no significant difference found in condom use between females on LARC versus those on Depo-Provera, a patch, or a ring (aPR = 0.57; 95% CI, 0.26-1.25).

“Health care professionals may be more likely to offer LARC to adolescents who report not using condoms or using them infrequently, as LARC methods are particularly well suited for adolescents who have difficulty adhering to coitally dependent methods,” Ms. Steiner and her associates said, adding that it is currently unknown “whether the association varies by partnership type; it is possible that the observed differences occur largely among adolescents who consider themselves to be in committed partnerships and thus are less concerned about STIs.”

Females included in the study were 57% white, with just over a third of all 2,288 subjects being in the 12th grade. Condom use was most prevalent among 9th graders (47%), while non-Hispanic blacks and Hispanic females tended to use condoms the most (47% and 46%, respectively). LARC use, though low overall, was highest among 12th graders (3%) and non-Hispanic whites (2%).

The study was funded partly by grants from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Ms. Steiner did not report any relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

WASHINGTON – While use of long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) has steadily been increasing over recent years, a new study shows that adolescent females who use LARC might be neglecting to wear condoms when engaging in sexual intercourse, regardless of their number of partners, thus predisposing them to a high risk of contracting sexually transmitted infections (STIs).

“Like moderately effective methods of contraception, [LARC] does not protect against STIs, and so use of a condom in conjunction with [LARC] is recommended for STI prevention,” lead author Riley J. Steiner of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, explained at the annual meeting of the Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine. The study also was published in JAMA Pediatrics (2016 Mar 14. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2016.0007)

©Florea Marius Catalin/iStockphoto.com

She added that, “We really think that establishing a link between LARC and condom use early on, prior to widespread adolescent uptake of LARC, can help provide a useful reference point for future monitoring and, ultimately, inform STI prevention efforts as LARC is brought to scale.”

Ms. Steiner and her coinvestigators used data from the 2013 national Youth Risk Behavior Survey, a self-administered “paper and pencil” questionnaire conducted every 2 years for students in grades 9-12 in public and private high schools across the United States. Analysis of the data – which looked for age, race, and type of contraceptive used – was conducted in July and August of 2015.

Primary outcome of the analysis was to determine the contraceptive method used the most recent time a female had sexual intercourse: either LARC – via an intrauterine device or an implant – oral contraceptives, Depo-Provera, a patch, or a ring. In total, 2,288 females were included in the study; 41% used condoms, 22% used oral contraceptives, 16% used no contraceptive methods whatsoever, 12% used “withdrawal or other method,” 6% used either Depo-Provera, a patch, or a ring, 2% said they were unsure of what contraceptive, if any, they used, and only 2% of females used LARC.

However, of the 2% that used LARC, adjusted odds ratios revealed that they were significantly more likely not to use condoms (adjusted prevalence ratio [aPR], 0.42; 95% confidence interval, 0.21-0.84) as opposed to females on oral contraceptives. There was no significant difference found in condom use between females on LARC versus those on Depo-Provera, a patch, or a ring (aPR = 0.57; 95% CI, 0.26-1.25).

“Health care professionals may be more likely to offer LARC to adolescents who report not using condoms or using them infrequently, as LARC methods are particularly well suited for adolescents who have difficulty adhering to coitally dependent methods,” Ms. Steiner and her associates said, adding that it is currently unknown “whether the association varies by partnership type; it is possible that the observed differences occur largely among adolescents who consider themselves to be in committed partnerships and thus are less concerned about STIs.”

Females included in the study were 57% white, with just over a third of all 2,288 subjects being in the 12th grade. Condom use was most prevalent among 9th graders (47%), while non-Hispanic blacks and Hispanic females tended to use condoms the most (47% and 46%, respectively). LARC use, though low overall, was highest among 12th graders (3%) and non-Hispanic whites (2%).

The study was funded partly by grants from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Ms. Steiner did not report any relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

WASHINGTON – While use of long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) has steadily been increasing over recent years, a new study shows that adolescent females who use LARC might be neglecting to wear condoms when engaging in sexual intercourse, regardless of their number of partners, thus predisposing them to a high risk of contracting sexually transmitted infections (STIs).

“Like moderately effective methods of contraception, [LARC] does not protect against STIs, and so use of a condom in conjunction with [LARC] is recommended for STI prevention,” lead author Riley J. Steiner of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, explained at the annual meeting of the Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine. The study also was published in JAMA Pediatrics (2016 Mar 14. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2016.0007)

©Florea Marius Catalin/iStockphoto.com

She added that, “We really think that establishing a link between LARC and condom use early on, prior to widespread adolescent uptake of LARC, can help provide a useful reference point for future monitoring and, ultimately, inform STI prevention efforts as LARC is brought to scale.”

Ms. Steiner and her coinvestigators used data from the 2013 national Youth Risk Behavior Survey, a self-administered “paper and pencil” questionnaire conducted every 2 years for students in grades 9-12 in public and private high schools across the United States. Analysis of the data – which looked for age, race, and type of contraceptive used – was conducted in July and August of 2015.

Primary outcome of the analysis was to determine the contraceptive method used the most recent time a female had sexual intercourse: either LARC – via an intrauterine device or an implant – oral contraceptives, Depo-Provera, a patch, or a ring. In total, 2,288 females were included in the study; 41% used condoms, 22% used oral contraceptives, 16% used no contraceptive methods whatsoever, 12% used “withdrawal or other method,” 6% used either Depo-Provera, a patch, or a ring, 2% said they were unsure of what contraceptive, if any, they used, and only 2% of females used LARC.

However, of the 2% that used LARC, adjusted odds ratios revealed that they were significantly more likely not to use condoms (adjusted prevalence ratio [aPR], 0.42; 95% confidence interval, 0.21-0.84) as opposed to females on oral contraceptives. There was no significant difference found in condom use between females on LARC versus those on Depo-Provera, a patch, or a ring (aPR = 0.57; 95% CI, 0.26-1.25).

“Health care professionals may be more likely to offer LARC to adolescents who report not using condoms or using them infrequently, as LARC methods are particularly well suited for adolescents who have difficulty adhering to coitally dependent methods,” Ms. Steiner and her associates said, adding that it is currently unknown “whether the association varies by partnership type; it is possible that the observed differences occur largely among adolescents who consider themselves to be in committed partnerships and thus are less concerned about STIs.”

Females included in the study were 57% white, with just over a third of all 2,288 subjects being in the 12th grade. Condom use was most prevalent among 9th graders (47%), while non-Hispanic blacks and Hispanic females tended to use condoms the most (47% and 46%, respectively). LARC use, though low overall, was highest among 12th graders (3%) and non-Hispanic whites (2%).

The study was funded partly by grants from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Ms. Steiner did not report any relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]