The Journal of Family Practice is a peer-reviewed and indexed journal that provides its 95,000 family physician readers with timely, practical, and evidence-based information that they can immediately put into practice. Research and applied evidence articles, plus patient-oriented departments like Practice Alert, PURLs, and Clinical Inquiries can be found in print and at jfponline.com. The Web site, which logs an average of 125,000 visitors every month, also offers audiocasts by physician specialists and interactive features like Instant Polls and Photo Rounds Friday—a weekly diagnostic puzzle.

Theme
medstat_jfp
Top Sections
Case Reports
Clinical Inquiries
HelpDesk
Photo Rounds
Practice Alert
PURLs
jfp
Main menu
JFP Main Menu
Explore menu
JFP Explore Menu
Proclivity ID
18805001
Unpublish
Citation Name
J Fam Pract
Negative Keywords
gaming
gambling
compulsive behaviors
ammunition
assault rifle
black jack
Boko Haram
bondage
child abuse
cocaine
Daech
drug paraphernalia
explosion
gun
human trafficking
ISIL
ISIS
Islamic caliphate
Islamic state
mixed martial arts
MMA
molestation
national rifle association
NRA
nsfw
pedophile
pedophilia
poker
porn
pornography
psychedelic drug
recreational drug
sex slave rings
slot machine
terrorism
terrorist
Texas hold 'em
UFC
substance abuse
abuseed
abuseer
abusees
abuseing
abusely
abuses
aeolus
aeolused
aeoluser
aeoluses
aeolusing
aeolusly
aeoluss
ahole
aholeed
aholeer
aholees
aholeing
aholely
aholes
alcohol
alcoholed
alcoholer
alcoholes
alcoholing
alcoholly
alcohols
allman
allmaned
allmaner
allmanes
allmaning
allmanly
allmans
alted
altes
alting
altly
alts
analed
analer
anales
analing
anally
analprobe
analprobeed
analprobeer
analprobees
analprobeing
analprobely
analprobes
anals
anilingus
anilingused
anilinguser
anilinguses
anilingusing
anilingusly
anilinguss
anus
anused
anuser
anuses
anusing
anusly
anuss
areola
areolaed
areolaer
areolaes
areolaing
areolaly
areolas
areole
areoleed
areoleer
areolees
areoleing
areolely
areoles
arian
arianed
arianer
arianes
arianing
arianly
arians
aryan
aryaned
aryaner
aryanes
aryaning
aryanly
aryans
asiaed
asiaer
asiaes
asiaing
asialy
asias
ass
ass hole
ass lick
ass licked
ass licker
ass lickes
ass licking
ass lickly
ass licks
assbang
assbanged
assbangeded
assbangeder
assbangedes
assbangeding
assbangedly
assbangeds
assbanger
assbanges
assbanging
assbangly
assbangs
assbangsed
assbangser
assbangses
assbangsing
assbangsly
assbangss
assed
asser
asses
assesed
asseser
asseses
assesing
assesly
assess
assfuck
assfucked
assfucker
assfuckered
assfuckerer
assfuckeres
assfuckering
assfuckerly
assfuckers
assfuckes
assfucking
assfuckly
assfucks
asshat
asshated
asshater
asshates
asshating
asshatly
asshats
assholeed
assholeer
assholees
assholeing
assholely
assholes
assholesed
assholeser
assholeses
assholesing
assholesly
assholess
assing
assly
assmaster
assmastered
assmasterer
assmasteres
assmastering
assmasterly
assmasters
assmunch
assmunched
assmuncher
assmunches
assmunching
assmunchly
assmunchs
asss
asswipe
asswipeed
asswipeer
asswipees
asswipeing
asswipely
asswipes
asswipesed
asswipeser
asswipeses
asswipesing
asswipesly
asswipess
azz
azzed
azzer
azzes
azzing
azzly
azzs
babeed
babeer
babees
babeing
babely
babes
babesed
babeser
babeses
babesing
babesly
babess
ballsac
ballsaced
ballsacer
ballsaces
ballsacing
ballsack
ballsacked
ballsacker
ballsackes
ballsacking
ballsackly
ballsacks
ballsacly
ballsacs
ballsed
ballser
ballses
ballsing
ballsly
ballss
barf
barfed
barfer
barfes
barfing
barfly
barfs
bastard
bastarded
bastarder
bastardes
bastarding
bastardly
bastards
bastardsed
bastardser
bastardses
bastardsing
bastardsly
bastardss
bawdy
bawdyed
bawdyer
bawdyes
bawdying
bawdyly
bawdys
beaner
beanered
beanerer
beaneres
beanering
beanerly
beaners
beardedclam
beardedclamed
beardedclamer
beardedclames
beardedclaming
beardedclamly
beardedclams
beastiality
beastialityed
beastialityer
beastialityes
beastialitying
beastialityly
beastialitys
beatch
beatched
beatcher
beatches
beatching
beatchly
beatchs
beater
beatered
beaterer
beateres
beatering
beaterly
beaters
beered
beerer
beeres
beering
beerly
beeyotch
beeyotched
beeyotcher
beeyotches
beeyotching
beeyotchly
beeyotchs
beotch
beotched
beotcher
beotches
beotching
beotchly
beotchs
biatch
biatched
biatcher
biatches
biatching
biatchly
biatchs
big tits
big titsed
big titser
big titses
big titsing
big titsly
big titss
bigtits
bigtitsed
bigtitser
bigtitses
bigtitsing
bigtitsly
bigtitss
bimbo
bimboed
bimboer
bimboes
bimboing
bimboly
bimbos
bisexualed
bisexualer
bisexuales
bisexualing
bisexually
bisexuals
bitch
bitched
bitcheded
bitcheder
bitchedes
bitcheding
bitchedly
bitcheds
bitcher
bitches
bitchesed
bitcheser
bitcheses
bitchesing
bitchesly
bitchess
bitching
bitchly
bitchs
bitchy
bitchyed
bitchyer
bitchyes
bitchying
bitchyly
bitchys
bleached
bleacher
bleaches
bleaching
bleachly
bleachs
blow job
blow jobed
blow jober
blow jobes
blow jobing
blow jobly
blow jobs
blowed
blower
blowes
blowing
blowjob
blowjobed
blowjober
blowjobes
blowjobing
blowjobly
blowjobs
blowjobsed
blowjobser
blowjobses
blowjobsing
blowjobsly
blowjobss
blowly
blows
boink
boinked
boinker
boinkes
boinking
boinkly
boinks
bollock
bollocked
bollocker
bollockes
bollocking
bollockly
bollocks
bollocksed
bollockser
bollockses
bollocksing
bollocksly
bollockss
bollok
bolloked
bolloker
bollokes
bolloking
bollokly
bolloks
boner
bonered
bonerer
boneres
bonering
bonerly
boners
bonersed
bonerser
bonerses
bonersing
bonersly
bonerss
bong
bonged
bonger
bonges
bonging
bongly
bongs
boob
boobed
boober
boobes
boobies
boobiesed
boobieser
boobieses
boobiesing
boobiesly
boobiess
boobing
boobly
boobs
boobsed
boobser
boobses
boobsing
boobsly
boobss
booby
boobyed
boobyer
boobyes
boobying
boobyly
boobys
booger
boogered
boogerer
boogeres
boogering
boogerly
boogers
bookie
bookieed
bookieer
bookiees
bookieing
bookiely
bookies
bootee
booteeed
booteeer
booteees
booteeing
booteely
bootees
bootie
bootieed
bootieer
bootiees
bootieing
bootiely
booties
booty
bootyed
bootyer
bootyes
bootying
bootyly
bootys
boozeed
boozeer
boozees
boozeing
boozely
boozer
boozered
boozerer
boozeres
boozering
boozerly
boozers
boozes
boozy
boozyed
boozyer
boozyes
boozying
boozyly
boozys
bosomed
bosomer
bosomes
bosoming
bosomly
bosoms
bosomy
bosomyed
bosomyer
bosomyes
bosomying
bosomyly
bosomys
bugger
buggered
buggerer
buggeres
buggering
buggerly
buggers
bukkake
bukkakeed
bukkakeer
bukkakees
bukkakeing
bukkakely
bukkakes
bull shit
bull shited
bull shiter
bull shites
bull shiting
bull shitly
bull shits
bullshit
bullshited
bullshiter
bullshites
bullshiting
bullshitly
bullshits
bullshitsed
bullshitser
bullshitses
bullshitsing
bullshitsly
bullshitss
bullshitted
bullshitteded
bullshitteder
bullshittedes
bullshitteding
bullshittedly
bullshitteds
bullturds
bullturdsed
bullturdser
bullturdses
bullturdsing
bullturdsly
bullturdss
bung
bunged
bunger
bunges
bunging
bungly
bungs
busty
bustyed
bustyer
bustyes
bustying
bustyly
bustys
butt
butt fuck
butt fucked
butt fucker
butt fuckes
butt fucking
butt fuckly
butt fucks
butted
buttes
buttfuck
buttfucked
buttfucker
buttfuckered
buttfuckerer
buttfuckeres
buttfuckering
buttfuckerly
buttfuckers
buttfuckes
buttfucking
buttfuckly
buttfucks
butting
buttly
buttplug
buttpluged
buttpluger
buttpluges
buttpluging
buttplugly
buttplugs
butts
caca
cacaed
cacaer
cacaes
cacaing
cacaly
cacas
cahone
cahoneed
cahoneer
cahonees
cahoneing
cahonely
cahones
cameltoe
cameltoeed
cameltoeer
cameltoees
cameltoeing
cameltoely
cameltoes
carpetmuncher
carpetmunchered
carpetmuncherer
carpetmuncheres
carpetmunchering
carpetmuncherly
carpetmunchers
cawk
cawked
cawker
cawkes
cawking
cawkly
cawks
chinc
chinced
chincer
chinces
chincing
chincly
chincs
chincsed
chincser
chincses
chincsing
chincsly
chincss
chink
chinked
chinker
chinkes
chinking
chinkly
chinks
chode
chodeed
chodeer
chodees
chodeing
chodely
chodes
chodesed
chodeser
chodeses
chodesing
chodesly
chodess
clit
clited
cliter
clites
cliting
clitly
clitoris
clitorised
clitoriser
clitorises
clitorising
clitorisly
clitoriss
clitorus
clitorused
clitoruser
clitoruses
clitorusing
clitorusly
clitoruss
clits
clitsed
clitser
clitses
clitsing
clitsly
clitss
clitty
clittyed
clittyer
clittyes
clittying
clittyly
clittys
cocain
cocaine
cocained
cocaineed
cocaineer
cocainees
cocaineing
cocainely
cocainer
cocaines
cocaining
cocainly
cocains
cock
cock sucker
cock suckered
cock suckerer
cock suckeres
cock suckering
cock suckerly
cock suckers
cockblock
cockblocked
cockblocker
cockblockes
cockblocking
cockblockly
cockblocks
cocked
cocker
cockes
cockholster
cockholstered
cockholsterer
cockholsteres
cockholstering
cockholsterly
cockholsters
cocking
cockknocker
cockknockered
cockknockerer
cockknockeres
cockknockering
cockknockerly
cockknockers
cockly
cocks
cocksed
cockser
cockses
cocksing
cocksly
cocksmoker
cocksmokered
cocksmokerer
cocksmokeres
cocksmokering
cocksmokerly
cocksmokers
cockss
cocksucker
cocksuckered
cocksuckerer
cocksuckeres
cocksuckering
cocksuckerly
cocksuckers
coital
coitaled
coitaler
coitales
coitaling
coitally
coitals
commie
commieed
commieer
commiees
commieing
commiely
commies
condomed
condomer
condomes
condoming
condomly
condoms
coon
cooned
cooner
coones
cooning
coonly
coons
coonsed
coonser
coonses
coonsing
coonsly
coonss
corksucker
corksuckered
corksuckerer
corksuckeres
corksuckering
corksuckerly
corksuckers
cracked
crackwhore
crackwhoreed
crackwhoreer
crackwhorees
crackwhoreing
crackwhorely
crackwhores
crap
craped
craper
crapes
craping
craply
crappy
crappyed
crappyer
crappyes
crappying
crappyly
crappys
cum
cumed
cumer
cumes
cuming
cumly
cummin
cummined
cumminer
cummines
cumming
cumminged
cumminger
cumminges
cumminging
cummingly
cummings
cummining
cumminly
cummins
cums
cumshot
cumshoted
cumshoter
cumshotes
cumshoting
cumshotly
cumshots
cumshotsed
cumshotser
cumshotses
cumshotsing
cumshotsly
cumshotss
cumslut
cumsluted
cumsluter
cumslutes
cumsluting
cumslutly
cumsluts
cumstain
cumstained
cumstainer
cumstaines
cumstaining
cumstainly
cumstains
cunilingus
cunilingused
cunilinguser
cunilinguses
cunilingusing
cunilingusly
cunilinguss
cunnilingus
cunnilingused
cunnilinguser
cunnilinguses
cunnilingusing
cunnilingusly
cunnilinguss
cunny
cunnyed
cunnyer
cunnyes
cunnying
cunnyly
cunnys
cunt
cunted
cunter
cuntes
cuntface
cuntfaceed
cuntfaceer
cuntfacees
cuntfaceing
cuntfacely
cuntfaces
cunthunter
cunthuntered
cunthunterer
cunthunteres
cunthuntering
cunthunterly
cunthunters
cunting
cuntlick
cuntlicked
cuntlicker
cuntlickered
cuntlickerer
cuntlickeres
cuntlickering
cuntlickerly
cuntlickers
cuntlickes
cuntlicking
cuntlickly
cuntlicks
cuntly
cunts
cuntsed
cuntser
cuntses
cuntsing
cuntsly
cuntss
dago
dagoed
dagoer
dagoes
dagoing
dagoly
dagos
dagosed
dagoser
dagoses
dagosing
dagosly
dagoss
dammit
dammited
dammiter
dammites
dammiting
dammitly
dammits
damn
damned
damneded
damneder
damnedes
damneding
damnedly
damneds
damner
damnes
damning
damnit
damnited
damniter
damnites
damniting
damnitly
damnits
damnly
damns
dick
dickbag
dickbaged
dickbager
dickbages
dickbaging
dickbagly
dickbags
dickdipper
dickdippered
dickdipperer
dickdipperes
dickdippering
dickdipperly
dickdippers
dicked
dicker
dickes
dickface
dickfaceed
dickfaceer
dickfacees
dickfaceing
dickfacely
dickfaces
dickflipper
dickflippered
dickflipperer
dickflipperes
dickflippering
dickflipperly
dickflippers
dickhead
dickheaded
dickheader
dickheades
dickheading
dickheadly
dickheads
dickheadsed
dickheadser
dickheadses
dickheadsing
dickheadsly
dickheadss
dicking
dickish
dickished
dickisher
dickishes
dickishing
dickishly
dickishs
dickly
dickripper
dickrippered
dickripperer
dickripperes
dickrippering
dickripperly
dickrippers
dicks
dicksipper
dicksippered
dicksipperer
dicksipperes
dicksippering
dicksipperly
dicksippers
dickweed
dickweeded
dickweeder
dickweedes
dickweeding
dickweedly
dickweeds
dickwhipper
dickwhippered
dickwhipperer
dickwhipperes
dickwhippering
dickwhipperly
dickwhippers
dickzipper
dickzippered
dickzipperer
dickzipperes
dickzippering
dickzipperly
dickzippers
diddle
diddleed
diddleer
diddlees
diddleing
diddlely
diddles
dike
dikeed
dikeer
dikees
dikeing
dikely
dikes
dildo
dildoed
dildoer
dildoes
dildoing
dildoly
dildos
dildosed
dildoser
dildoses
dildosing
dildosly
dildoss
diligaf
diligafed
diligafer
diligafes
diligafing
diligafly
diligafs
dillweed
dillweeded
dillweeder
dillweedes
dillweeding
dillweedly
dillweeds
dimwit
dimwited
dimwiter
dimwites
dimwiting
dimwitly
dimwits
dingle
dingleed
dingleer
dinglees
dingleing
dinglely
dingles
dipship
dipshiped
dipshiper
dipshipes
dipshiping
dipshiply
dipships
dizzyed
dizzyer
dizzyes
dizzying
dizzyly
dizzys
doggiestyleed
doggiestyleer
doggiestylees
doggiestyleing
doggiestylely
doggiestyles
doggystyleed
doggystyleer
doggystylees
doggystyleing
doggystylely
doggystyles
dong
donged
donger
donges
donging
dongly
dongs
doofus
doofused
doofuser
doofuses
doofusing
doofusly
doofuss
doosh
dooshed
doosher
dooshes
dooshing
dooshly
dooshs
dopeyed
dopeyer
dopeyes
dopeying
dopeyly
dopeys
douchebag
douchebaged
douchebager
douchebages
douchebaging
douchebagly
douchebags
douchebagsed
douchebagser
douchebagses
douchebagsing
douchebagsly
douchebagss
doucheed
doucheer
douchees
doucheing
douchely
douches
douchey
doucheyed
doucheyer
doucheyes
doucheying
doucheyly
doucheys
drunk
drunked
drunker
drunkes
drunking
drunkly
drunks
dumass
dumassed
dumasser
dumasses
dumassing
dumassly
dumasss
dumbass
dumbassed
dumbasser
dumbasses
dumbassesed
dumbasseser
dumbasseses
dumbassesing
dumbassesly
dumbassess
dumbassing
dumbassly
dumbasss
dummy
dummyed
dummyer
dummyes
dummying
dummyly
dummys
dyke
dykeed
dykeer
dykees
dykeing
dykely
dykes
dykesed
dykeser
dykeses
dykesing
dykesly
dykess
erotic
eroticed
eroticer
erotices
eroticing
eroticly
erotics
extacy
extacyed
extacyer
extacyes
extacying
extacyly
extacys
extasy
extasyed
extasyer
extasyes
extasying
extasyly
extasys
fack
facked
facker
fackes
facking
fackly
facks
fag
faged
fager
fages
fagg
fagged
faggeded
faggeder
faggedes
faggeding
faggedly
faggeds
fagger
fagges
fagging
faggit
faggited
faggiter
faggites
faggiting
faggitly
faggits
faggly
faggot
faggoted
faggoter
faggotes
faggoting
faggotly
faggots
faggs
faging
fagly
fagot
fagoted
fagoter
fagotes
fagoting
fagotly
fagots
fags
fagsed
fagser
fagses
fagsing
fagsly
fagss
faig
faiged
faiger
faiges
faiging
faigly
faigs
faigt
faigted
faigter
faigtes
faigting
faigtly
faigts
fannybandit
fannybandited
fannybanditer
fannybandites
fannybanditing
fannybanditly
fannybandits
farted
farter
fartes
farting
fartknocker
fartknockered
fartknockerer
fartknockeres
fartknockering
fartknockerly
fartknockers
fartly
farts
felch
felched
felcher
felchered
felcherer
felcheres
felchering
felcherly
felchers
felches
felching
felchinged
felchinger
felchinges
felchinging
felchingly
felchings
felchly
felchs
fellate
fellateed
fellateer
fellatees
fellateing
fellately
fellates
fellatio
fellatioed
fellatioer
fellatioes
fellatioing
fellatioly
fellatios
feltch
feltched
feltcher
feltchered
feltcherer
feltcheres
feltchering
feltcherly
feltchers
feltches
feltching
feltchly
feltchs
feom
feomed
feomer
feomes
feoming
feomly
feoms
fisted
fisteded
fisteder
fistedes
fisteding
fistedly
fisteds
fisting
fistinged
fistinger
fistinges
fistinging
fistingly
fistings
fisty
fistyed
fistyer
fistyes
fistying
fistyly
fistys
floozy
floozyed
floozyer
floozyes
floozying
floozyly
floozys
foad
foaded
foader
foades
foading
foadly
foads
fondleed
fondleer
fondlees
fondleing
fondlely
fondles
foobar
foobared
foobarer
foobares
foobaring
foobarly
foobars
freex
freexed
freexer
freexes
freexing
freexly
freexs
frigg
frigga
friggaed
friggaer
friggaes
friggaing
friggaly
friggas
frigged
frigger
frigges
frigging
friggly
friggs
fubar
fubared
fubarer
fubares
fubaring
fubarly
fubars
fuck
fuckass
fuckassed
fuckasser
fuckasses
fuckassing
fuckassly
fuckasss
fucked
fuckeded
fuckeder
fuckedes
fuckeding
fuckedly
fuckeds
fucker
fuckered
fuckerer
fuckeres
fuckering
fuckerly
fuckers
fuckes
fuckface
fuckfaceed
fuckfaceer
fuckfacees
fuckfaceing
fuckfacely
fuckfaces
fuckin
fuckined
fuckiner
fuckines
fucking
fuckinged
fuckinger
fuckinges
fuckinging
fuckingly
fuckings
fuckining
fuckinly
fuckins
fuckly
fucknugget
fucknuggeted
fucknuggeter
fucknuggetes
fucknuggeting
fucknuggetly
fucknuggets
fucknut
fucknuted
fucknuter
fucknutes
fucknuting
fucknutly
fucknuts
fuckoff
fuckoffed
fuckoffer
fuckoffes
fuckoffing
fuckoffly
fuckoffs
fucks
fucksed
fuckser
fuckses
fucksing
fucksly
fuckss
fucktard
fucktarded
fucktarder
fucktardes
fucktarding
fucktardly
fucktards
fuckup
fuckuped
fuckuper
fuckupes
fuckuping
fuckuply
fuckups
fuckwad
fuckwaded
fuckwader
fuckwades
fuckwading
fuckwadly
fuckwads
fuckwit
fuckwited
fuckwiter
fuckwites
fuckwiting
fuckwitly
fuckwits
fudgepacker
fudgepackered
fudgepackerer
fudgepackeres
fudgepackering
fudgepackerly
fudgepackers
fuk
fuked
fuker
fukes
fuking
fukly
fuks
fvck
fvcked
fvcker
fvckes
fvcking
fvckly
fvcks
fxck
fxcked
fxcker
fxckes
fxcking
fxckly
fxcks
gae
gaeed
gaeer
gaees
gaeing
gaely
gaes
gai
gaied
gaier
gaies
gaiing
gaily
gais
ganja
ganjaed
ganjaer
ganjaes
ganjaing
ganjaly
ganjas
gayed
gayer
gayes
gaying
gayly
gays
gaysed
gayser
gayses
gaysing
gaysly
gayss
gey
geyed
geyer
geyes
geying
geyly
geys
gfc
gfced
gfcer
gfces
gfcing
gfcly
gfcs
gfy
gfyed
gfyer
gfyes
gfying
gfyly
gfys
ghay
ghayed
ghayer
ghayes
ghaying
ghayly
ghays
ghey
gheyed
gheyer
gheyes
gheying
gheyly
gheys
gigolo
gigoloed
gigoloer
gigoloes
gigoloing
gigololy
gigolos
goatse
goatseed
goatseer
goatsees
goatseing
goatsely
goatses
godamn
godamned
godamner
godamnes
godamning
godamnit
godamnited
godamniter
godamnites
godamniting
godamnitly
godamnits
godamnly
godamns
goddam
goddamed
goddamer
goddames
goddaming
goddamly
goddammit
goddammited
goddammiter
goddammites
goddammiting
goddammitly
goddammits
goddamn
goddamned
goddamner
goddamnes
goddamning
goddamnly
goddamns
goddams
goldenshower
goldenshowered
goldenshowerer
goldenshoweres
goldenshowering
goldenshowerly
goldenshowers
gonad
gonaded
gonader
gonades
gonading
gonadly
gonads
gonadsed
gonadser
gonadses
gonadsing
gonadsly
gonadss
gook
gooked
gooker
gookes
gooking
gookly
gooks
gooksed
gookser
gookses
gooksing
gooksly
gookss
gringo
gringoed
gringoer
gringoes
gringoing
gringoly
gringos
gspot
gspoted
gspoter
gspotes
gspoting
gspotly
gspots
gtfo
gtfoed
gtfoer
gtfoes
gtfoing
gtfoly
gtfos
guido
guidoed
guidoer
guidoes
guidoing
guidoly
guidos
handjob
handjobed
handjober
handjobes
handjobing
handjobly
handjobs
hard on
hard oned
hard oner
hard ones
hard oning
hard only
hard ons
hardknight
hardknighted
hardknighter
hardknightes
hardknighting
hardknightly
hardknights
hebe
hebeed
hebeer
hebees
hebeing
hebely
hebes
heeb
heebed
heeber
heebes
heebing
heebly
heebs
hell
helled
heller
helles
helling
hellly
hells
hemp
hemped
hemper
hempes
hemping
hemply
hemps
heroined
heroiner
heroines
heroining
heroinly
heroins
herp
herped
herper
herpes
herpesed
herpeser
herpeses
herpesing
herpesly
herpess
herping
herply
herps
herpy
herpyed
herpyer
herpyes
herpying
herpyly
herpys
hitler
hitlered
hitlerer
hitleres
hitlering
hitlerly
hitlers
hived
hiver
hives
hiving
hivly
hivs
hobag
hobaged
hobager
hobages
hobaging
hobagly
hobags
homey
homeyed
homeyer
homeyes
homeying
homeyly
homeys
homo
homoed
homoer
homoes
homoey
homoeyed
homoeyer
homoeyes
homoeying
homoeyly
homoeys
homoing
homoly
homos
honky
honkyed
honkyer
honkyes
honkying
honkyly
honkys
hooch
hooched
hoocher
hooches
hooching
hoochly
hoochs
hookah
hookahed
hookaher
hookahes
hookahing
hookahly
hookahs
hooker
hookered
hookerer
hookeres
hookering
hookerly
hookers
hoor
hoored
hoorer
hoores
hooring
hoorly
hoors
hootch
hootched
hootcher
hootches
hootching
hootchly
hootchs
hooter
hootered
hooterer
hooteres
hootering
hooterly
hooters
hootersed
hooterser
hooterses
hootersing
hootersly
hooterss
horny
hornyed
hornyer
hornyes
hornying
hornyly
hornys
houstoned
houstoner
houstones
houstoning
houstonly
houstons
hump
humped
humpeded
humpeder
humpedes
humpeding
humpedly
humpeds
humper
humpes
humping
humpinged
humpinger
humpinges
humpinging
humpingly
humpings
humply
humps
husbanded
husbander
husbandes
husbanding
husbandly
husbands
hussy
hussyed
hussyer
hussyes
hussying
hussyly
hussys
hymened
hymener
hymenes
hymening
hymenly
hymens
inbred
inbreded
inbreder
inbredes
inbreding
inbredly
inbreds
incest
incested
incester
incestes
incesting
incestly
incests
injun
injuned
injuner
injunes
injuning
injunly
injuns
jackass
jackassed
jackasser
jackasses
jackassing
jackassly
jackasss
jackhole
jackholeed
jackholeer
jackholees
jackholeing
jackholely
jackholes
jackoff
jackoffed
jackoffer
jackoffes
jackoffing
jackoffly
jackoffs
jap
japed
japer
japes
japing
japly
japs
japsed
japser
japses
japsing
japsly
japss
jerkoff
jerkoffed
jerkoffer
jerkoffes
jerkoffing
jerkoffly
jerkoffs
jerks
jism
jismed
jismer
jismes
jisming
jismly
jisms
jiz
jized
jizer
jizes
jizing
jizly
jizm
jizmed
jizmer
jizmes
jizming
jizmly
jizms
jizs
jizz
jizzed
jizzeded
jizzeder
jizzedes
jizzeding
jizzedly
jizzeds
jizzer
jizzes
jizzing
jizzly
jizzs
junkie
junkieed
junkieer
junkiees
junkieing
junkiely
junkies
junky
junkyed
junkyer
junkyes
junkying
junkyly
junkys
kike
kikeed
kikeer
kikees
kikeing
kikely
kikes
kikesed
kikeser
kikeses
kikesing
kikesly
kikess
killed
killer
killes
killing
killly
kills
kinky
kinkyed
kinkyer
kinkyes
kinkying
kinkyly
kinkys
kkk
kkked
kkker
kkkes
kkking
kkkly
kkks
klan
klaned
klaner
klanes
klaning
klanly
klans
knobend
knobended
knobender
knobendes
knobending
knobendly
knobends
kooch
kooched
koocher
kooches
koochesed
koocheser
koocheses
koochesing
koochesly
koochess
kooching
koochly
koochs
kootch
kootched
kootcher
kootches
kootching
kootchly
kootchs
kraut
krauted
krauter
krautes
krauting
krautly
krauts
kyke
kykeed
kykeer
kykees
kykeing
kykely
kykes
lech
leched
lecher
leches
leching
lechly
lechs
leper
lepered
leperer
leperes
lepering
leperly
lepers
lesbiansed
lesbianser
lesbianses
lesbiansing
lesbiansly
lesbianss
lesbo
lesboed
lesboer
lesboes
lesboing
lesboly
lesbos
lesbosed
lesboser
lesboses
lesbosing
lesbosly
lesboss
lez
lezbianed
lezbianer
lezbianes
lezbianing
lezbianly
lezbians
lezbiansed
lezbianser
lezbianses
lezbiansing
lezbiansly
lezbianss
lezbo
lezboed
lezboer
lezboes
lezboing
lezboly
lezbos
lezbosed
lezboser
lezboses
lezbosing
lezbosly
lezboss
lezed
lezer
lezes
lezing
lezly
lezs
lezzie
lezzieed
lezzieer
lezziees
lezzieing
lezziely
lezzies
lezziesed
lezzieser
lezzieses
lezziesing
lezziesly
lezziess
lezzy
lezzyed
lezzyer
lezzyes
lezzying
lezzyly
lezzys
lmaoed
lmaoer
lmaoes
lmaoing
lmaoly
lmaos
lmfao
lmfaoed
lmfaoer
lmfaoes
lmfaoing
lmfaoly
lmfaos
loined
loiner
loines
loining
loinly
loins
loinsed
loinser
loinses
loinsing
loinsly
loinss
lubeed
lubeer
lubees
lubeing
lubely
lubes
lusty
lustyed
lustyer
lustyes
lustying
lustyly
lustys
massa
massaed
massaer
massaes
massaing
massaly
massas
masterbate
masterbateed
masterbateer
masterbatees
masterbateing
masterbately
masterbates
masterbating
masterbatinged
masterbatinger
masterbatinges
masterbatinging
masterbatingly
masterbatings
masterbation
masterbationed
masterbationer
masterbationes
masterbationing
masterbationly
masterbations
masturbate
masturbateed
masturbateer
masturbatees
masturbateing
masturbately
masturbates
masturbating
masturbatinged
masturbatinger
masturbatinges
masturbatinging
masturbatingly
masturbatings
masturbation
masturbationed
masturbationer
masturbationes
masturbationing
masturbationly
masturbations
methed
mether
methes
mething
methly
meths
militaryed
militaryer
militaryes
militarying
militaryly
militarys
mofo
mofoed
mofoer
mofoes
mofoing
mofoly
mofos
molest
molested
molester
molestes
molesting
molestly
molests
moolie
moolieed
moolieer
mooliees
moolieing
mooliely
moolies
moron
moroned
moroner
morones
moroning
moronly
morons
motherfucka
motherfuckaed
motherfuckaer
motherfuckaes
motherfuckaing
motherfuckaly
motherfuckas
motherfucker
motherfuckered
motherfuckerer
motherfuckeres
motherfuckering
motherfuckerly
motherfuckers
motherfucking
motherfuckinged
motherfuckinger
motherfuckinges
motherfuckinging
motherfuckingly
motherfuckings
mtherfucker
mtherfuckered
mtherfuckerer
mtherfuckeres
mtherfuckering
mtherfuckerly
mtherfuckers
mthrfucker
mthrfuckered
mthrfuckerer
mthrfuckeres
mthrfuckering
mthrfuckerly
mthrfuckers
mthrfucking
mthrfuckinged
mthrfuckinger
mthrfuckinges
mthrfuckinging
mthrfuckingly
mthrfuckings
muff
muffdiver
muffdivered
muffdiverer
muffdiveres
muffdivering
muffdiverly
muffdivers
muffed
muffer
muffes
muffing
muffly
muffs
murdered
murderer
murderes
murdering
murderly
murders
muthafuckaz
muthafuckazed
muthafuckazer
muthafuckazes
muthafuckazing
muthafuckazly
muthafuckazs
muthafucker
muthafuckered
muthafuckerer
muthafuckeres
muthafuckering
muthafuckerly
muthafuckers
mutherfucker
mutherfuckered
mutherfuckerer
mutherfuckeres
mutherfuckering
mutherfuckerly
mutherfuckers
mutherfucking
mutherfuckinged
mutherfuckinger
mutherfuckinges
mutherfuckinging
mutherfuckingly
mutherfuckings
muthrfucking
muthrfuckinged
muthrfuckinger
muthrfuckinges
muthrfuckinging
muthrfuckingly
muthrfuckings
nad
naded
nader
nades
nading
nadly
nads
nadsed
nadser
nadses
nadsing
nadsly
nadss
nakeded
nakeder
nakedes
nakeding
nakedly
nakeds
napalm
napalmed
napalmer
napalmes
napalming
napalmly
napalms
nappy
nappyed
nappyer
nappyes
nappying
nappyly
nappys
nazi
nazied
nazier
nazies
naziing
nazily
nazis
nazism
nazismed
nazismer
nazismes
nazisming
nazismly
nazisms
negro
negroed
negroer
negroes
negroing
negroly
negros
nigga
niggaed
niggaer
niggaes
niggah
niggahed
niggaher
niggahes
niggahing
niggahly
niggahs
niggaing
niggaly
niggas
niggased
niggaser
niggases
niggasing
niggasly
niggass
niggaz
niggazed
niggazer
niggazes
niggazing
niggazly
niggazs
nigger
niggered
niggerer
niggeres
niggering
niggerly
niggers
niggersed
niggerser
niggerses
niggersing
niggersly
niggerss
niggle
niggleed
niggleer
nigglees
niggleing
nigglely
niggles
niglet
nigleted
nigleter
nigletes
nigleting
nigletly
niglets
nimrod
nimroded
nimroder
nimrodes
nimroding
nimrodly
nimrods
ninny
ninnyed
ninnyer
ninnyes
ninnying
ninnyly
ninnys
nooky
nookyed
nookyer
nookyes
nookying
nookyly
nookys
nuccitelli
nuccitellied
nuccitellier
nuccitellies
nuccitelliing
nuccitellily
nuccitellis
nympho
nymphoed
nymphoer
nymphoes
nymphoing
nympholy
nymphos
opium
opiumed
opiumer
opiumes
opiuming
opiumly
opiums
orgies
orgiesed
orgieser
orgieses
orgiesing
orgiesly
orgiess
orgy
orgyed
orgyer
orgyes
orgying
orgyly
orgys
paddy
paddyed
paddyer
paddyes
paddying
paddyly
paddys
paki
pakied
pakier
pakies
pakiing
pakily
pakis
pantie
pantieed
pantieer
pantiees
pantieing
pantiely
panties
pantiesed
pantieser
pantieses
pantiesing
pantiesly
pantiess
panty
pantyed
pantyer
pantyes
pantying
pantyly
pantys
pastie
pastieed
pastieer
pastiees
pastieing
pastiely
pasties
pasty
pastyed
pastyer
pastyes
pastying
pastyly
pastys
pecker
peckered
peckerer
peckeres
peckering
peckerly
peckers
pedo
pedoed
pedoer
pedoes
pedoing
pedoly
pedophile
pedophileed
pedophileer
pedophilees
pedophileing
pedophilely
pedophiles
pedophilia
pedophiliac
pedophiliaced
pedophiliacer
pedophiliaces
pedophiliacing
pedophiliacly
pedophiliacs
pedophiliaed
pedophiliaer
pedophiliaes
pedophiliaing
pedophilialy
pedophilias
pedos
penial
penialed
penialer
peniales
penialing
penially
penials
penile
penileed
penileer
penilees
penileing
penilely
peniles
penis
penised
peniser
penises
penising
penisly
peniss
perversion
perversioned
perversioner
perversiones
perversioning
perversionly
perversions
peyote
peyoteed
peyoteer
peyotees
peyoteing
peyotely
peyotes
phuck
phucked
phucker
phuckes
phucking
phuckly
phucks
pillowbiter
pillowbitered
pillowbiterer
pillowbiteres
pillowbitering
pillowbiterly
pillowbiters
pimp
pimped
pimper
pimpes
pimping
pimply
pimps
pinko
pinkoed
pinkoer
pinkoes
pinkoing
pinkoly
pinkos
pissed
pisseded
pisseder
pissedes
pisseding
pissedly
pisseds
pisser
pisses
pissing
pissly
pissoff
pissoffed
pissoffer
pissoffes
pissoffing
pissoffly
pissoffs
pisss
polack
polacked
polacker
polackes
polacking
polackly
polacks
pollock
pollocked
pollocker
pollockes
pollocking
pollockly
pollocks
poon
pooned
pooner
poones
pooning
poonly
poons
poontang
poontanged
poontanger
poontanges
poontanging
poontangly
poontangs
porn
porned
porner
pornes
porning
pornly
porno
pornoed
pornoer
pornoes
pornography
pornographyed
pornographyer
pornographyes
pornographying
pornographyly
pornographys
pornoing
pornoly
pornos
porns
prick
pricked
pricker
prickes
pricking
prickly
pricks
prig
priged
priger
priges
priging
prigly
prigs
prostitute
prostituteed
prostituteer
prostitutees
prostituteing
prostitutely
prostitutes
prude
prudeed
prudeer
prudees
prudeing
prudely
prudes
punkass
punkassed
punkasser
punkasses
punkassing
punkassly
punkasss
punky
punkyed
punkyer
punkyes
punkying
punkyly
punkys
puss
pussed
pusser
pusses
pussies
pussiesed
pussieser
pussieses
pussiesing
pussiesly
pussiess
pussing
pussly
pusss
pussy
pussyed
pussyer
pussyes
pussying
pussyly
pussypounder
pussypoundered
pussypounderer
pussypounderes
pussypoundering
pussypounderly
pussypounders
pussys
puto
putoed
putoer
putoes
putoing
putoly
putos
queaf
queafed
queafer
queafes
queafing
queafly
queafs
queef
queefed
queefer
queefes
queefing
queefly
queefs
queer
queered
queerer
queeres
queering
queerly
queero
queeroed
queeroer
queeroes
queeroing
queeroly
queeros
queers
queersed
queerser
queerses
queersing
queersly
queerss
quicky
quickyed
quickyer
quickyes
quickying
quickyly
quickys
quim
quimed
quimer
quimes
quiming
quimly
quims
racy
racyed
racyer
racyes
racying
racyly
racys
rape
raped
rapeded
rapeder
rapedes
rapeding
rapedly
rapeds
rapeed
rapeer
rapees
rapeing
rapely
raper
rapered
raperer
raperes
rapering
raperly
rapers
rapes
rapist
rapisted
rapister
rapistes
rapisting
rapistly
rapists
raunch
raunched
rauncher
raunches
raunching
raunchly
raunchs
rectus
rectused
rectuser
rectuses
rectusing
rectusly
rectuss
reefer
reefered
reeferer
reeferes
reefering
reeferly
reefers
reetard
reetarded
reetarder
reetardes
reetarding
reetardly
reetards
reich
reiched
reicher
reiches
reiching
reichly
reichs
retard
retarded
retardeded
retardeder
retardedes
retardeding
retardedly
retardeds
retarder
retardes
retarding
retardly
retards
rimjob
rimjobed
rimjober
rimjobes
rimjobing
rimjobly
rimjobs
ritard
ritarded
ritarder
ritardes
ritarding
ritardly
ritards
rtard
rtarded
rtarder
rtardes
rtarding
rtardly
rtards
rum
rumed
rumer
rumes
ruming
rumly
rump
rumped
rumper
rumpes
rumping
rumply
rumprammer
rumprammered
rumprammerer
rumprammeres
rumprammering
rumprammerly
rumprammers
rumps
rums
ruski
ruskied
ruskier
ruskies
ruskiing
ruskily
ruskis
sadism
sadismed
sadismer
sadismes
sadisming
sadismly
sadisms
sadist
sadisted
sadister
sadistes
sadisting
sadistly
sadists
scag
scaged
scager
scages
scaging
scagly
scags
scantily
scantilyed
scantilyer
scantilyes
scantilying
scantilyly
scantilys
schlong
schlonged
schlonger
schlonges
schlonging
schlongly
schlongs
scrog
scroged
scroger
scroges
scroging
scrogly
scrogs
scrot
scrote
scroted
scroteed
scroteer
scrotees
scroteing
scrotely
scroter
scrotes
scroting
scrotly
scrots
scrotum
scrotumed
scrotumer
scrotumes
scrotuming
scrotumly
scrotums
scrud
scruded
scruder
scrudes
scruding
scrudly
scruds
scum
scumed
scumer
scumes
scuming
scumly
scums
seaman
seamaned
seamaner
seamanes
seamaning
seamanly
seamans
seamen
seamened
seamener
seamenes
seamening
seamenly
seamens
seduceed
seduceer
seducees
seduceing
seducely
seduces
semen
semened
semener
semenes
semening
semenly
semens
shamedame
shamedameed
shamedameer
shamedamees
shamedameing
shamedamely
shamedames
shit
shite
shiteater
shiteatered
shiteaterer
shiteateres
shiteatering
shiteaterly
shiteaters
shited
shiteed
shiteer
shitees
shiteing
shitely
shiter
shites
shitface
shitfaceed
shitfaceer
shitfacees
shitfaceing
shitfacely
shitfaces
shithead
shitheaded
shitheader
shitheades
shitheading
shitheadly
shitheads
shithole
shitholeed
shitholeer
shitholees
shitholeing
shitholely
shitholes
shithouse
shithouseed
shithouseer
shithousees
shithouseing
shithousely
shithouses
shiting
shitly
shits
shitsed
shitser
shitses
shitsing
shitsly
shitss
shitt
shitted
shitteded
shitteder
shittedes
shitteding
shittedly
shitteds
shitter
shittered
shitterer
shitteres
shittering
shitterly
shitters
shittes
shitting
shittly
shitts
shitty
shittyed
shittyer
shittyes
shittying
shittyly
shittys
shiz
shized
shizer
shizes
shizing
shizly
shizs
shooted
shooter
shootes
shooting
shootly
shoots
sissy
sissyed
sissyer
sissyes
sissying
sissyly
sissys
skag
skaged
skager
skages
skaging
skagly
skags
skank
skanked
skanker
skankes
skanking
skankly
skanks
slave
slaveed
slaveer
slavees
slaveing
slavely
slaves
sleaze
sleazeed
sleazeer
sleazees
sleazeing
sleazely
sleazes
sleazy
sleazyed
sleazyer
sleazyes
sleazying
sleazyly
sleazys
slut
slutdumper
slutdumpered
slutdumperer
slutdumperes
slutdumpering
slutdumperly
slutdumpers
sluted
sluter
slutes
sluting
slutkiss
slutkissed
slutkisser
slutkisses
slutkissing
slutkissly
slutkisss
slutly
sluts
slutsed
slutser
slutses
slutsing
slutsly
slutss
smegma
smegmaed
smegmaer
smegmaes
smegmaing
smegmaly
smegmas
smut
smuted
smuter
smutes
smuting
smutly
smuts
smutty
smuttyed
smuttyer
smuttyes
smuttying
smuttyly
smuttys
snatch
snatched
snatcher
snatches
snatching
snatchly
snatchs
sniper
snipered
sniperer
sniperes
snipering
sniperly
snipers
snort
snorted
snorter
snortes
snorting
snortly
snorts
snuff
snuffed
snuffer
snuffes
snuffing
snuffly
snuffs
sodom
sodomed
sodomer
sodomes
sodoming
sodomly
sodoms
spic
spiced
spicer
spices
spicing
spick
spicked
spicker
spickes
spicking
spickly
spicks
spicly
spics
spik
spoof
spoofed
spoofer
spoofes
spoofing
spoofly
spoofs
spooge
spoogeed
spoogeer
spoogees
spoogeing
spoogely
spooges
spunk
spunked
spunker
spunkes
spunking
spunkly
spunks
steamyed
steamyer
steamyes
steamying
steamyly
steamys
stfu
stfued
stfuer
stfues
stfuing
stfuly
stfus
stiffy
stiffyed
stiffyer
stiffyes
stiffying
stiffyly
stiffys
stoneded
stoneder
stonedes
stoneding
stonedly
stoneds
stupided
stupider
stupides
stupiding
stupidly
stupids
suckeded
suckeder
suckedes
suckeding
suckedly
suckeds
sucker
suckes
sucking
suckinged
suckinger
suckinges
suckinging
suckingly
suckings
suckly
sucks
sumofabiatch
sumofabiatched
sumofabiatcher
sumofabiatches
sumofabiatching
sumofabiatchly
sumofabiatchs
tard
tarded
tarder
tardes
tarding
tardly
tards
tawdry
tawdryed
tawdryer
tawdryes
tawdrying
tawdryly
tawdrys
teabagging
teabagginged
teabagginger
teabagginges
teabagginging
teabaggingly
teabaggings
terd
terded
terder
terdes
terding
terdly
terds
teste
testee
testeed
testeeed
testeeer
testeees
testeeing
testeely
testeer
testees
testeing
testely
testes
testesed
testeser
testeses
testesing
testesly
testess
testicle
testicleed
testicleer
testiclees
testicleing
testiclely
testicles
testis
testised
testiser
testises
testising
testisly
testiss
thrusted
thruster
thrustes
thrusting
thrustly
thrusts
thug
thuged
thuger
thuges
thuging
thugly
thugs
tinkle
tinkleed
tinkleer
tinklees
tinkleing
tinklely
tinkles
tit
tited
titer
tites
titfuck
titfucked
titfucker
titfuckes
titfucking
titfuckly
titfucks
titi
titied
titier
tities
titiing
titily
titing
titis
titly
tits
titsed
titser
titses
titsing
titsly
titss
tittiefucker
tittiefuckered
tittiefuckerer
tittiefuckeres
tittiefuckering
tittiefuckerly
tittiefuckers
titties
tittiesed
tittieser
tittieses
tittiesing
tittiesly
tittiess
titty
tittyed
tittyer
tittyes
tittyfuck
tittyfucked
tittyfucker
tittyfuckered
tittyfuckerer
tittyfuckeres
tittyfuckering
tittyfuckerly
tittyfuckers
tittyfuckes
tittyfucking
tittyfuckly
tittyfucks
tittying
tittyly
tittys
toke
tokeed
tokeer
tokees
tokeing
tokely
tokes
toots
tootsed
tootser
tootses
tootsing
tootsly
tootss
tramp
tramped
tramper
trampes
tramping
tramply
tramps
transsexualed
transsexualer
transsexuales
transsexualing
transsexually
transsexuals
trashy
trashyed
trashyer
trashyes
trashying
trashyly
trashys
tubgirl
tubgirled
tubgirler
tubgirles
tubgirling
tubgirlly
tubgirls
turd
turded
turder
turdes
turding
turdly
turds
tush
tushed
tusher
tushes
tushing
tushly
tushs
twat
twated
twater
twates
twating
twatly
twats
twatsed
twatser
twatses
twatsing
twatsly
twatss
undies
undiesed
undieser
undieses
undiesing
undiesly
undiess
unweded
unweder
unwedes
unweding
unwedly
unweds
uzi
uzied
uzier
uzies
uziing
uzily
uzis
vag
vaged
vager
vages
vaging
vagly
vags
valium
valiumed
valiumer
valiumes
valiuming
valiumly
valiums
venous
virgined
virginer
virgines
virgining
virginly
virgins
vixen
vixened
vixener
vixenes
vixening
vixenly
vixens
vodkaed
vodkaer
vodkaes
vodkaing
vodkaly
vodkas
voyeur
voyeured
voyeurer
voyeures
voyeuring
voyeurly
voyeurs
vulgar
vulgared
vulgarer
vulgares
vulgaring
vulgarly
vulgars
wang
wanged
wanger
wanges
wanging
wangly
wangs
wank
wanked
wanker
wankered
wankerer
wankeres
wankering
wankerly
wankers
wankes
wanking
wankly
wanks
wazoo
wazooed
wazooer
wazooes
wazooing
wazooly
wazoos
wedgie
wedgieed
wedgieer
wedgiees
wedgieing
wedgiely
wedgies
weeded
weeder
weedes
weeding
weedly
weeds
weenie
weenieed
weenieer
weeniees
weenieing
weeniely
weenies
weewee
weeweeed
weeweeer
weeweees
weeweeing
weeweely
weewees
weiner
weinered
weinerer
weineres
weinering
weinerly
weiners
weirdo
weirdoed
weirdoer
weirdoes
weirdoing
weirdoly
weirdos
wench
wenched
wencher
wenches
wenching
wenchly
wenchs
wetback
wetbacked
wetbacker
wetbackes
wetbacking
wetbackly
wetbacks
whitey
whiteyed
whiteyer
whiteyes
whiteying
whiteyly
whiteys
whiz
whized
whizer
whizes
whizing
whizly
whizs
whoralicious
whoralicioused
whoraliciouser
whoraliciouses
whoraliciousing
whoraliciously
whoraliciouss
whore
whorealicious
whorealicioused
whorealiciouser
whorealiciouses
whorealiciousing
whorealiciously
whorealiciouss
whored
whoreded
whoreder
whoredes
whoreding
whoredly
whoreds
whoreed
whoreer
whorees
whoreface
whorefaceed
whorefaceer
whorefacees
whorefaceing
whorefacely
whorefaces
whorehopper
whorehoppered
whorehopperer
whorehopperes
whorehoppering
whorehopperly
whorehoppers
whorehouse
whorehouseed
whorehouseer
whorehousees
whorehouseing
whorehousely
whorehouses
whoreing
whorely
whores
whoresed
whoreser
whoreses
whoresing
whoresly
whoress
whoring
whoringed
whoringer
whoringes
whoringing
whoringly
whorings
wigger
wiggered
wiggerer
wiggeres
wiggering
wiggerly
wiggers
woody
woodyed
woodyer
woodyes
woodying
woodyly
woodys
wop
woped
woper
wopes
woping
woply
wops
wtf
wtfed
wtfer
wtfes
wtfing
wtfly
wtfs
xxx
xxxed
xxxer
xxxes
xxxing
xxxly
xxxs
yeasty
yeastyed
yeastyer
yeastyes
yeastying
yeastyly
yeastys
yobbo
yobboed
yobboer
yobboes
yobboing
yobboly
yobbos
zoophile
zoophileed
zoophileer
zoophilees
zoophileing
zoophilely
zoophiles
anal
ass
ass lick
balls
ballsac
bisexual
bleach
causas
cheap
cost of miracles
cunt
display network stats
fart
fda and death
fda AND warn
fda AND warning
fda AND warns
feom
fuck
gfc
humira AND expensive
illegal
madvocate
masturbation
nuccitelli
overdose
porn
shit
snort
texarkana
abbvie
AbbVie
acid
addicted
addiction
adolescent
adult sites
Advocacy
advocacy
agitated states
AJO, postsurgical analgesic, knee, replacement, surgery
alcohol
amphetamine
androgen
antibody
apple cider vinegar
assistance
Assistance
association
at home
attorney
audit
ayurvedic
baby
ban
baricitinib
bed bugs
best
bible
bisexual
black
bleach
blog
bulimia nervosa
buy
cannabis
certificate
certification
certified
cervical cancer, concurrent chemoradiotherapy, intravoxel incoherent motion magnetic resonance imaging, MRI, IVIM, diffusion-weighted MRI, DWI
charlie sheen
cheap
cheapest
child
childhood
childlike
children
chronic fatigue syndrome
Cladribine Tablets
cocaine
cock
combination therapies, synergistic antitumor efficacy, pertuzumab, trastuzumab, ipilimumab, nivolumab, palbociclib, letrozole, lapatinib, docetaxel, trametinib, dabrafenib, carflzomib, lenalidomide
contagious
Cortical Lesions
cream
creams
crime
criminal
cure
dangerous
dangers
dasabuvir
Dasabuvir
dead
deadly
death
dementia
dependence
dependent
depression
dermatillomania
die
diet
Disability
Discount
discount
dog
drink
drug abuse
drug-induced
dying
eastern medicine
eat
ect
eczema
electroconvulsive therapy
electromagnetic therapy
electrotherapy
epa
epilepsy
erectile dysfunction
explosive disorder
fake
Fake-ovir
fatal
fatalities
fatality
fibromyalgia
financial
Financial
fish oil
food
foods
foundation
free
Gabriel Pardo
gaston
general hospital
genetic
geriatric
Giancarlo Comi
gilead
Gilead
glaucoma
Glenn S. Williams
Glenn Williams
Gloria Dalla Costa
gonorrhea
Greedy
greedy
guns
hallucinations
harvoni
Harvoni
herbal
herbs
heroin
herpes
Hidradenitis Suppurativa,
holistic
home
home remedies
home remedy
homeopathic
homeopathy
hydrocortisone
ice
image
images
job
kid
kids
kill
killer
laser
lawsuit
lawyer
ledipasvir
Ledipasvir
lesbian
lesions
lights
liver
lupus
marijuana
melancholic
memory loss
menopausal
mental retardation
military
milk
moisturizers
monoamine oxidase inhibitor drugs
MRI
MS
murder
national
natural
natural cure
natural cures
natural medications
natural medicine
natural medicines
natural remedies
natural remedy
natural treatment
natural treatments
naturally
Needy
needy
Neurology Reviews
neuropathic
nightclub massacre
nightclub shooting
nude
nudity
nutraceuticals
OASIS
oasis
off label
ombitasvir
Ombitasvir
ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir with dasabuvir
orlando shooting
overactive thyroid gland
overdose
overdosed
Paolo Preziosa
paritaprevir
Paritaprevir
pediatric
pedophile
photo
photos
picture
post partum
postnatal
pregnancy
pregnant
prenatal
prepartum
prison
program
Program
Protest
protest
psychedelics
pulse nightclub
puppy
purchase
purchasing
rape
recall
recreational drug
Rehabilitation
Retinal Measurements
retrograde ejaculation
risperdal
ritonavir
Ritonavir
ritonavir with dasabuvir
robin williams
sales
sasquatch
schizophrenia
seizure
seizures
sex
sexual
sexy
shock treatment
silver
sleep disorders
smoking
sociopath
sofosbuvir
Sofosbuvir
sovaldi
ssri
store
sue
suicidal
suicide
supplements
support
Support
Support Path
teen
teenage
teenagers
Telerehabilitation
testosterone
Th17
Th17:FoxP3+Treg cell ratio
Th22
toxic
toxin
tragedy
treatment resistant
V Pak
vagina
velpatasvir
Viekira Pa
Viekira Pak
viekira pak
violence
virgin
vitamin
VPak
weight loss
withdrawal
wrinkles
xxx
young adult
young adults
zoloft
financial
sofosbuvir
ritonavir with dasabuvir
discount
support path
program
ritonavir
greedy
ledipasvir
assistance
viekira pak
vpak
advocacy
needy
protest
abbvie
paritaprevir
ombitasvir
direct-acting antivirals
dasabuvir
gilead
fake-ovir
support
v pak
oasis
harvoni
direct\-acting antivirals
Negative Keywords Excluded Elements
header[@id='header']
section[contains(@class, 'nav-hidden')]
footer[@id='footer']
div[contains(@class, 'pane-pub-article-jfp')]
div[contains(@class, 'pane-pub-home-jfp')]
div[contains(@class, 'pane-pub-topic-jfp')]
div[contains(@class, 'panel-panel-inner')]
div[contains(@class, 'pane-node-field-article-topics')]
section[contains(@class, 'footer-nav-section-wrapper')]
Altmetric
DSM Affiliated
Display in offset block
Disqus Exclude
Best Practices
CE/CME
Education Center
Medical Education Library
Enable Disqus
Display Author and Disclosure Link
Publication Type
Clinical
Slot System
Featured Buckets
Disable Sticky Ads
Disable Ad Block Mitigation
Featured Buckets Admin
LayerRx MD-IQ Id
776
Show Ads on this Publication's Homepage
Consolidated Pub
Show Article Page Numbers on TOC
Use larger logo size
Off

An STI upsurge requires a nimble approach to care

Article Type
Changed
Tue, 07/25/2023 - 10:52
Display Headline
An STI upsurge requires a nimble approach to care

Except for a drop in the number of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) early in the COVID-19 pandemic (March and April 2020), the incidence of STIs has been rising throughout this century.1 In 2018, 1 in 5 people in the United States had an STI; 26 million new cases were reported that year, resulting in direct costs of $16 billion—85% of which was for the care of HIV infection.2 Also that year, infection with Chlamydia trachomatis (chlamydia), Trichomonas vaginalis (trichomoniasis), herpesvirus type 2 (genital herpes), and/or human papillomavirus (condylomata acuminata) constituted 97.6% of all prevalent and 93.1% of all incident STIs.3 Almost half (45.5%) of new cases of STIs occur in people between the ages of 15 and 24 years.3

Diagnostic testing for sexually transmitted infections

Three factors—changing social patterns, including the increase of social networking; the ability of antiviral therapy to decrease the spread of HIV, leading to a reduction in condom use; and increasing antibiotic resistance—have converged to force changes in screening and treatment recommendations. In this article, we summarize updated guidance for primary care clinicians from several sources—including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), and the American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology (ASCCP)—on diagnosing STIs (TABLE 14-13) and providing guideline-based treatment ­(Table 214). Because of the breadth and complexity of HIV disease, it is not addressed here.

Treatment options for sexually transmitted infections

Treatment options for sexually transmitted infections

Treatment options for sexually transmitted infections

Chlamydia

Infection with Chlamydia trachomatis—the most commonly reported bacterial STI in the United States—primarily causes cervicitis in women and proctitis in men, and can cause urethritis and pharyngitis in men and women. Prevalence is highest in sexually active people younger than 24 years.15

Because most infected people are asymptomatic and show no signs of illness on physical exam, screening is recommended for all sexually active women younger than 25 years and all men who have sex with men (MSM).4 No studies have established proper screening intervals; a reasonable approach, therefore, is to repeat screening for patients who have a sexual history that confers a new or persistent risk for infection since their last negative result.

Depending on the location of the infection, symptoms of chlamydia can include vaginal or penile irritation or discharge, dysuria, pelvic or rectal pain, and sore throat. Breakthrough bleeding in a patient who is taking an oral contraceptive should raise suspicion for chlamydia.

Untreated chlamydia can lead to pelvic inflammatory disease (PID), tubo-ovarian abscess, tubal factor infertility, ectopic pregnancy, and chronic pelvic pain. Infection can be transmitted vertically (mother to baby) antenatally, which can cause ophthalmia neonatorum and pneumonia in these newborns.

Diagnosis. The diagnosis of chlamydia is made using nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT). Specimens can be collected by the clinician or the patient (self collected) using a vaginal, rectal, or oropharyngeal swab, or a combination of these, and can be obtained from urine or liquid-based cytology material.16

Continue to: Treatment

 

 

Treatment. Recommendations for treating chlamydia were updated by the CDC in its 2021 treatment guidelines (Table 214). Doxycycline 100 mg bid for 7 days is the preferred regimen; alternative regiments are (1) azithromycin 1 g in a single dose and (2) levofloxacin 500 mg daily for 7 days.4 A meta-analysis17 and a Cochrane review18 showed that the rate of treatment failure was higher among men when they were treated with azithromycin instead of doxycycline; furthermore, a randomized controlled trial demonstrated that doxycycline is more effective than azithromycin (cure rate, 100%, compared to 74%) at treating rectal chlamydia in MSM.19

Azithromycin is efficacious for urogenital infection in women; however, there is concern that the 33% to 83% of women who have concomitant rectal infection (despite reporting no receptive anorectal sexual activity) would be insufficiently treated. Outside pregnancy, the CDC does not recommend a test of cure but does recommend follow-up testing for reinfection in 3 months. Patients should abstain from sexual activity until 7 days after all sexual partners have been treated.

Expedited partner therapy (EPT) is the practice of treating sexual partners of patients with known chlamydia (and patients with gonococcal infection). Unless prohibited by law in your state, offer EPT to patients with chlamydia if they cannot ensure that their sexual partners from the past 60 days will seek timely treatment.a

Breakthrough bleeding in a patient who is taking an oral contraceptive should raise suspicion for chlamydia.

Evidence to support EPT comes from 3 US clinical trials, whose subjects comprised heterosexual men and women with chlamydia or gonorrhea.21-23 The role of EPT for MSM is unclear; data are limited. Shared ­decision-making is recommended to determine whether EPT should be provided, to ensure that co-infection with other bacterial STIs (eg, syphilis) or HIV is not missed.24-26

a Visit www.cdc.gov/std/ept to read updated information about laws and regulations regarding EPT in your state.20

Gonorrhea

Gonorrhea is the second most-reported bacterial communicable disease.5 Infection with Neisseria gonorrhoeae causes urethral discharge in men, leading them to seek treatment; infected women, however, are often asymptomatic. Infected men and women might not recognize symptoms until they have transmitted the disease. Women have a slower natural clearance of gonococcal infection, which might explain their higher prevalence.27 Delayed recognition of symptoms can result in complications, including PID.5

Diagnosis. Specimens for NAAT can be obtained from urine, endocervical, vaginal, rectal, pharyngeal, and male urethral specimens. Reported sexual behaviors and exposures of women and transgender or gender-diverse people should be taken into consideration to determine whether rectal or pharyngeal testing, or both, should be performed.28 MSM should be screened annually at sites of contact, including the urethra, rectum, and pharynx.28 All patients with urogenital or rectal gonorrhea should be asked about oral sexual exposure; if reported, pharyngeal testing should be performed.5

NAAT of urine is at least as sensitive as testing of an endocervical specimen; the same specimen can be used to test for chlamydia and gonorrhea. Patient-collected specimens are a reasonable alternative to clinician-collected swab specimens.29

Continue to: Treatment

 

 

Treatment is complicated by the ability of gonorrhea to develop resistance. Intramuscular ceftriaxone 500 mg in a single dose cures 98% to 99% of infections in the United States; however, monitoring local resistance patterns in the community is an important component of treatment.28 (See Table 214 for an alternative regimen for cephalosporin-allergic patients and for treating gonococcal conjunctivitis and disseminated infection.)

Unless prohibited by law in your state, offer expedited partner therapy to patients with chlamydia if they cannot ensure that their sexual partners from the past 60 days will seek timely treatment.

In 2007, the CDC identified widespread quinolone-resistant gonococcal strains; therefore, fluoroquinolones no longer are recommended for treating gonorrhea.30 Cefixime has demonstrated only limited success in treating pharyngeal gonorrhea and does not attain a bactericidal level as high as ceftriaxone does; cefixime therefore is recommended only if ceftriaxone is unavailable.28 The national Gonococcal Isolate Surveillance Project is finding emerging evidence of the reduced susceptibility of N gonorrhoeae to azithromycin—making dual therapy for gonococcal infection no longer a recommendation.28

Patients should abstain from sex until 7 days after all sex partners have been treated for gonorrhea. As with chlamydia, the CDC does not recommend a test of cure for uncomplicated urogenital or rectal gonorrhea unless the patient is pregnant, but does recommend testing for reinfection 3 months after treatment.14 For patients with pharyngeal gonorrhea, a test of cure is recommended 7 to 14 days after initial treatment, due to challenges in treatment and because this site of infection is a potential source of antibiotic resistance.28

Trichomoniasis

T vaginalis, the most common nonviral STI worldwide,31 can manifest as a yellow-green vaginal discharge with or without vaginal discomfort, dysuria, epididymitis, and prostatitis; most cases, however, are asymptomatic. On examination, the cervix might be erythematous with punctate lesions (known as strawberry cervix).

Unlike most STIs, trichomoniasis is as common in women older than 24 years as it is in younger women. Infection is associated with a lower educational level, lower socioeconomic status, and having ≥ 2 sexual partners in the past year.32 Prevalence is approximately 10 times as high in Black women as it is in White women.

T vaginalis infection is associated with an increase in the risk for preterm birth, premature rupture of membranes, cervical cancer, and HIV infection. With a lack of high-quality clinical trials on the efficacy of screening, women with HIV are the only group for whom routine screening is recommended.6

Diagnosis. NAAT for trichomoniasis is now available in conjunction with gonorrhea and chlamydia testing of specimens on vaginal or urethral swabs and of urine specimens and liquid Pap smears.

Continue to: Treatment

 

 

Treatment. Because of greater efficacy, the treatment recommendation for women has changed from a single 2-g dose of oral metronidazole to 500 mg twice daily for 7 days. The 2-g single oral dose is still recommended for men7 (Table 214 lists alternative regimens).

Mycoplasma genitalium

Infection with M genitalium is common and often asymptomatic. The disease causes approximately 20% of all cases of nongonococcal and nonchlamydial urethritis in men and about 40% of persistent or recurrent infections. M genitalium is present in approximately 20% of women with cervicitis and has been associated with PID, preterm delivery, spontaneous abortion, and infertility.

There are limited and conflicting data regarding outcomes in infected patients other than those with persistent or recurrent infection; furthermore, resistance to azithromycin is increasing rapidly, resulting in an increase in treatment failures. Screening therefore is not recommended, and testing is recommended only in men with nongonococcal urethritis.33,34

Diagnosis. NAAT can be performed on urine or on a urethral, penile meatal, endocervical, or vaginal swab; men with recurrent urethritis or women with recurrent cervicitis should be tested. NAAT also can be considered in women with PID. Testing the specimen for the microorganism’s resistance to macrolide antibiotics is recommended (if such testing is available).

Treatment is initiated with doxycycline 100 mg twice daily for 7 days. If the organism is macrolide sensitive, follow with azithromycin 1 g orally on Day 1, then 500 mg/d for 3 more days. If the organism is macrolide resistant or testing is unavailable, follow doxycycline with oral moxifloxacin 400 mg/d for 7 days.33

Genital herpes (mostly herpesvirus type 2)

Genital herpes, characterized by painful, recurrent outbreaks of genital and anal lesions,35 is a lifelong infection that increases in prevalence with age.8 Because many infected people have disease that is undiagnosed or mild or have unrecognizable symptoms during viral shedding, most genital herpes infections are transmitted by people who are unaware that they are contagious.36 Herpesvirus type 2 (HSV-2) causes most cases of genital herpes, although an increasing percentage of cases are attributed to HSV type 1 (HSV-1) through receptive oral sex from a person who has an oral HSV-1 lesion.

Intramuscular ceftriaxone 500 mg in a single dose cures 98% to 99% of gonococcal infections in the United States; monitoring local resistance patterns in the community is important.

Importantly, HSV-2–infected people are 2 to 3 times more likely to become infected with HIV than people who are not HSV-2 infected.37 This is becauseCD4+ T cells concentrate at the site of HSV lesions and express a higher level of cell-surface receptors that HIV uses to enter cells. HIV replicates 3 to 5 times more quickly in HSV-infected tissue.38

Continue to: HSV can become disseminated...

 

 

HSV can become disseminated, particularly in immunosuppressed people, and can manifest as encephalitis, hepatitis, and pneumonitis. Beyond its significant burden on health, HSV carries significant psychosocial consequences.9

Diagnosis. Clinical diagnosis can be challenging if classic lesions are absent at evaluation. If genital lesions are present, HSV can be identified by NAAT or culture of a specimen of those lesions. False-negative antibody results might be more frequent in early stages of infection; repeating antibody testing 12 weeks after presumed time of acquisition might therefore be indicated, based on clinical judgment. HSV-2 antibody positivity implies anogenital infection because almost all HSV-2 infections are sexually acquired.

HSV-1 antibody positivity alone is more difficult to interpret because this finding does not distinguish between oral and genital lesions, and most HSV-1 seropositivity is acquired during childhood.36 HSV polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing of blood should not be performed to diagnose genital herpes infection, except in settings in which there is concern about disseminated infection.

Treatment. Management should address the acute episode and the chronic nature of genital herpes. Antivirals will not eradicate latent virus; rather, the goals of treatment are to:

  • attenuate current infection
  • prevent recurrence
  • improve quality of life
  • suppress the virus to prevent transmission to sexual partners.

All patients experiencing an initial episode of genital herpes should be treated, regardless of symptoms, due to the potential for prolonged or severe symptoms during recurrent episodes.9 Three drugs—acyclovir, valacyclovir, and famciclovir—are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to treat genital herpes and appear equally effective (TABLE 214).

Antiviral therapy for recurrent genital HSV infection can be administered either as suppressive therapy to reduce the frequency of recurrences or episodically to shorten the duration of lesions:

  • Suppressive therapy reduces the frequency of recurrence by 70% to 80% among patients with frequent outbreaks. Long-term safety and efficacy are well established.
  • Episodic therapy is most effective if started within 1 day after onset of lesions or during the prodrome.36

There is no specific recommendation for when to choose suppressive over episodic therapy; most patients prefer suppressive therapy because it improves quality of life. Use shared clinical decision-making to determine the best option for an individual patient.

Continue to: Human papillomavirus

 

 

Human papillomavirus

Condylomata acuminata (genital warts) are caused by human papillomavirus (HPV), most commonly types 6 and 11, which manifest as soft papules or plaques on the external genitalia, perineum, perianal skin, and groin. The warts are usually asymptomatic but can be painful or pruritic, depending on size and location.

Diagnosis is made by visual inspection and can be confirmed by biopsy if lesions are atypical. Lesions can resolve spontaneously, remain unchanged, or grow in size or number.

Treatment. The aim of treatment is relief of symptoms and removal of warts. Treatment does not eradicate HPV infection. Multiple treatments are available that can be applied by the patient as a cream, gel, or ointment or administered by the provider, including cryotherapy, surgical removal, and solutions. The decision on how to treat should be based on the number, size, and location of lesions; patient preference; cost; convenience; and the modality’s adverse effects (TABLE 214).

HPV-associated cancers and precancers. This is a broad (and separate) topic. HPV types 16 and 18 cause most cases of cervical, penile, vulvar, vaginal, anal, and oropharyngeal cancer and precancer.39 The USPSTF, the American Cancer Society, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists all have recommendations for cervical cancer screening in the United States.40 Refer to guidelines of the ASCCP for recommendations on abnormal screening tests.41

Prevention of genital warts. The 9-­valent HPV vaccine available in the United States is safe and effective and helps protect against viral types 6, 11, 16, 18, 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58. Types 6 and 11 are the principal causes of genital warts. Types 16 and 18 cause 66% of cervical cancer. The vaccination series can be started at age 9 years and is recommended for everyone through age 26 years. Only 2 doses are needed if the first dose is given prior to age 15 years; given after that age, a 3-dose series is utilized. Refer to CDC vaccine guidelines42 for details on the exact timing of vaccination.

Trichomoniasis can manifest as a yellowgreen vaginal discharge with or without vaginal discomfort, dysuria, epididymitis, and prostatitis; most cases, however, are asymptomatic.

Vaccination for women ages 27 to 45 years is not universally recommended because most people have been exposed to HPV by that age. However, the vaccine can still be administered, depending on clinical circumstances and the risk for new infection.42

Syphilis

Caused by the spirochete Treponema pallidum, syphilis manifests across a spectrum—from congenital to tertiary. The inability of medical science to develop a method for culturing the spirochete has confounded diagnosis and treatment.

Continue to: Since reaching a historic...

 

 

Since reaching a historic nadir of incidence in 2000 (5979 cases in the United States), there has been an increasingly rapid rise in that number: to 130,000 in 2020. More than 50% of cases are in MSM; however, the number of cases in heterosexual women is rapidly increasing.43

Routine screening for syphilis should be performed in any person who is at risk: all pregnant women in the first trimester (and in the third trimester and at delivery if they are at risk or live in a community where prevalence is high) and annually in sexually active MSM or anyone with HIV infection.10

Diagnosis. Examination by dark-field microscopy, testing by PCR, and direct fluorescent antibody assay for T pallidum from lesion tissue or exudate provide definitive diagnosis for early and congenital syphilis, but are often unavailable.

Presumptive diagnosis requires 2 serologic tests:

  • Nontreponemal tests (the VDRL and rapid plasma reagin tests) identify anticardiolipin antibodies released during syphilis infection, although results also can be elevated in autoimmune disease or after certain immunizations, including the COVID-19 vaccine.
  • Treponemal tests (the fluorescent treponemal antibody absorbed assay, T pallidum particulate agglutination assay, enzyme immunoassay, and chemiluminescence immunoassay) are specific antibody tests.

Historically, reactive nontreponemal tests, which are less expensive and easier to perform, were followed by a treponemal test to confirm the presumptive diagnosis. This method continues to be reasonable when screening patients in a low-prevalence population.11 The reverse sequence screening algorithm (ie, begin with a treponemal test) is now frequently used. With this method, a positive treponemal test must be confirmed with a nontreponemal test. If the treponemal test is positive and the nontreponemal test is negative, another treponemal test must be positive to confirm the diagnosis. This algorithm is useful in high-risk populations because it provides earlier detection of recently acquired syphilis and enhanced detection of late latent syphilis.12,13,44 The CDC has not stated a diagnostic preference.

Once the diagnosis is made, a complete history (including a sexual history and a history of syphilis testing and treatment) and a physical exam are necessary to confirm stage of disease.45

Special circumstances. Neurosyphilis, ocular syphilis, and otosyphilis refer to the site of infection and can occur at any stage of disease. The nervous system usually is infected within hours of initial infection, but symptoms might take weeks or years to ­develop—or might never manifest. Any time a patient develops neurologic, ophthalmologic, or audiologic symptoms, careful neurologic and ophthalmologic evaluation should be performed and the patient should be tested for HIV.

Continue to: Lumbar puncture is warranted...

 

 

Lumbar puncture is warranted for evaluation of cerebrospinal fluid if neurologic symptoms are present but is not necessary for isolated ocular syphilis or otosyphilis without neurologic findings. Treatment should not be delayed for test results if ocular syphilis is suspected because permanent blindness can develop. Any patient at high risk for an STI who presents with neurologic or ophthalmologic symptoms should be tested for syphilis and HIV.45

Pregnant women who have a diagnosis of syphilis should be treated with penicillin immediately because treatment ≥ 30 days prior to delivery is likely to prevent most ­cases of congenital syphilis. However, a course of penicillin might not prevent stillbirth or congenital syphilis in a gravely infected fetus, evidenced by fetal syphilis on a sonogram at the time of treatment. Additional doses of penicillin in pregnant women with early syphilis might be indicated if there is evidence of ­fetal syphilis on ultrasonography. All women who deliver a stillborn infant (≥ 20 weeks’ ­gestation) should be tested for syphilis at ­delivery.46

All patients in whom primary or secondary syphilis has been diagnosed should be tested for HIV at the time of diagnosis and treatment; if the result is negative, they should be offered preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP; discussed shortly). If the incidence of HIV in your community is high, repeat testing for HIV in 3 months. Clinical and serologic evaluation should be performed 6 and 12 months after treatment.47

Treatment. Penicillin remains the standard treatment for syphilis. Primary, secondary, and early tertiary stages (including in pregnancy) are treated with benzathine penicillin G 2.4 million units intramuscular (IM) in a single dose. For pregnant patients, repeating that dose in 1 week generally is recommended. Patients in the late latent (> 1 year) or tertiary stage receive the same dose of penicillin, which is then repeated weekly, for a total of 3 doses. Doxycycline and ceftriaxone are alternatives, except in ­pregnancy.

Antivirals will not eradicate latent herpesvirus; rather, the goals of treatment are to attenuate current infection, prevent recurrence, and improve quality of life.

Warn patients of the Jarisch-Herxheimer reaction: fever, headache, and myalgias associated with initiation of treatment in the presence of the high bacterial load seen in early syphilis. Treatment is symptomatic, but the Jarisch-Herxheimer reaction can cause fetal distress in pregnancy.

Otosyphilis, ocular syphilis, and neurosyphilis require intravenous (IV) aqueous crystalline penicillin G 3 to 4 million U every 4 hours for 10 to 14 days.45 Alternatively, procaine penicillin G 2.4 million U/d IM can be given daily with oral probenecid 500 mg qid, both for 10 to 14 days (TABLE 214).

Screening andprevention of STIs

Screening recommendations

Follow USPSTF screening guidelines for STIs.10,48-54 Screen annually for:

  • gonorrhea and chlamydia in women ages 15 to 24 years and in women older than 25 years if they are at increased risk
  • gonorrhea, chlamydia, syphilis, and HIV in MSM, and hepatitis C if they are HIV positive
  • trichomoniasis in women who are HIV positive.

Continue to: Consider the community in which...

 

 

Vaccination against human papillomavirus is not universally recommended for women ages 27 to 45 years because most people have been exposed to HPV by that age.

Consider the community in which you practice when determining risk; you might want to consult local public health authorities for information about local epidemiology and guidance on determining which of your patients are at increased risk.

Preexposure prophylaxis

According to the CDC, all sexually active adults and adolescents should be informed about the availability of PrEP to prevent HIV infection. PrEP should be (1) available to anyone who requests it and (2) recommended for anyone who is sexually active and who practices sexual behaviors that place them at substantial risk for exposure to or acquisition of HIV, or both.

The recommended treatment protocol for men and women who have either an HIV-positive partner or inconsistent condom use or who have had a bacterial STI in the previous 6 months is oral emtricitabine 200 mg plus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate 300 mg/d (sold as Truvada-F/TDF). Men and transgender women (ie, assigned male at birth) with at-risk behaviors also can use emtricitabine plus tenofovir alafenamide 25 mg/d (sold as Descovy-F/TAF).

In addition, cabotegravir plus rilpirivine (sold as Cabenuva), IM every 2 months, was approved by the FDA for PrEP in 2021.

Pregnant women who have syphilis should be treated with penicillin immediately: Treatment ≥ 30 days prior to delivery is likely to prevent most cases of congenital syphilis.

Creatinine clearance should be assessed at baseline and yearly (every 6 months for those older than 50 years) in patients taking PrEP. All patients must be tested for HIV at initiation of treatment and every 3 months thereafter (every 4 months for cabotegravir plus rilpirivine). Patients should be screened for bacterial STIs every 6 months (every 3 months for MSM and transgender women); screening for chlamydia should be done yearly. For patients being treated with emtricitabine plus tenofovir alafenamide, weight and a lipid profile (cholesterol and triglycerides) should be assessed annually.55

Postexposure prophylaxis

The sharp rise in the incidence of STIs in the past few years has brought renewed interest in postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) for STIs. Although PEP should be standard in cases of sexual assault, this protocol also can be considered in other instances of high-risk exposure.

CDC recommendations for PEP in cases of assault are56:

  • ceftriaxone 500 mg IM in a single dose (1 g if weight is ≥ 150 kg) plus
  • doxycycline 100 mg bid for 7 days plus
  • metronidazole 2 g bid for 7 days (for vaginal exposure)
  • pregnancy evaluation and emergency contraception
  • hepatitis B risk evaluation and vaccination, with or without hepatitis B immune globulin
  • HIV risk evaluation, based on CDC guidelines, and possible HIV prophylaxis (PrEP)
  • HPV vaccination for patients ages 9 to 26 years if they are not already fully vaccinated.

CORRESPONDENCE
Belinda Vail, MD, 3901 Rainbow Boulevard, Mail Stop 4010, Kansas City, KS 66160; [email protected]

References

1. Pagaoa M, Grey J, Torrone E, et al. Trends in nationally notifiable sexually transmitted disease case reports during the US ­COVID-19 pandemic, January to December 2020. Sex Transm Dis. 2021;48:798-804. doi: 10.1097/OLQ.0000000000001506

2. Chesson HW, Spicknall IH; Bingham A, et al. The estimated direct lifetime medical costs of sexually transmitted infections acquired in the United States in 2018. Sex Transm Dis. 2021;48:215-221. doi: 10.1097/OLQ.0000000000001380

3. Kreisel KM, Spicknall IH, Gargano JW, et al. Sexually transmitted infections among US women and men: prevalence and incidence estimates, 2018. Sex Transm Dis. 2021;48:208-214. doi: 10.1097/OLQ.0000000000001355

4. CDC. Sexually transmitted infections treatment guidelines, 2021: Chlamydial infections among adolescents and adults. US Department of Health and Human Services. July 21, 2021. Accessed April 19, 2023. www.cdc.gov/std/treatment-guidelines/chlamydia.htm

5. CDC. Sexually transmitted infections treatment guidelines, 2021: Gonococcal infections among adolescents and adults. US Department of Health and Human Services. September 21, 2022. Accessed April 23, 2023. www.cdc.gov/std/treatment-guidelines/gonorrhea-adults.htm

6. Van Gerwen OT, Muzny CA. Recent advances in the epidemiology, diagnosis, and management of Trichomonas vaginalis infection. F1000Res. 2019;8:F1000 Faculty Rev-1666. Published 2019 Sep 20. doi:10.12688/f1000research.19972.1

7. CDC. Sexually transmitted infections treatment guidelines, 2021. Trichomoniasis. US Department of Health and Human Services. September 21, 2022. Accessed April 23, 2023. December 27, 2021. www.cdc.gov/std/treatment-guidelines/trichomoniasis.htm

8. Spicknall IH, Flagg EW, Torrone EA. Estimates of the prevalence and incidence of genital herpes, United States, 2018. Sex Transm Dis. 2021;48:260-265. doi: 10.1097/OLQ.0000000000001375

9. Mark H, Gilbert L, Nanda J. Psychosocial well-being and quality of life among women newly diagnosed with genital herpes. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2009;38:320-326. doi: 10.1111/j.1552-6909.2009.01026.x

10. Bibbins-Domingo K, Grossman DC, Curry SJ, et al; US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for syphilis infection in nonpregnant adults and adolescents: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA. 2016;315:2321-2327. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.5824

11. Ricco J, Westby A. Syphilis: far from ancient history. Am Fam Physician. 2020;102:91-98.

12. Goza M, Kulwicki B, Akers JM, et al. Syphilis screening: a review of the Syphilis Health Check rapid immunochromatographic test. J Pharm Technol. 2017;33:53-59. doi:10.1177/8755122517691308

13. Henao-Martínez AF, Johnson SC. Diagnostic tests for syphilis: new tests and new algorithms. Neurol Clin Pract. 2014;4:114-122. doi: 10.1212/01.CPJ.0000435752.17621.48

14. Workowski KA, Bachmann LH, Chan PA, et al. Sexually transmitted infections treatment guidelines, 2021. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2021;70:1-187. doi:10.15585/mmwr.rr7004a1

15. CDC. Sexually Transmitted Disease Surveillance 2021. National overview of STDs. US Department of Health and Human Services. April 2023. Accessed May 9, 2023. www.cdc.gov/std/statistics/­2021/overview.htm#Chlamydia

16. CDC. Recommendations for the laboratory-based detection of Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae—2014. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2014;63:1-19.

17. Kong FYS, Tabrizi SN, Law M, et al. Azithromycin versus doxycycline for the treatment of genital chlamydia infection: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Clin Infect Dis. 2014;59:193-205. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciu220

18. Páez-Canro C, Alzate JP, González LM, et al. Antibiotics for treating urogenital Chlamydia trachomatis infection in men and non-pregnant women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;1:CD010871. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010871.pub2

19. Dombrowski JC, Wierzbicki MR, Newman LM, et al. Doxycycline versus azithromycin for the treatment of rectal chlamydia in men who have sex with men: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Infect Dis. 2021;73:824-831. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciab153

20. CDC. Sexually transmitted infections treatment guidelines, 2021: Expedited partner therapy. US Department of Health and Human Services. July 22, 2021. Accessed April 19, 2023. www.cdc.gov/std/treatment-guidelines/clinical-EPT.htm

21. Golden MR, Whittington WLH, Handsfield HH, et al. Effect of expedited treatment of sex partners on recurrent or persistent gonorrhea or chlamydial infection. N Engl J Med. 2005;352:676-685. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa041681

22. Schillinger JA, Kissinger P, Calvet H, et al. Patient-delivered partner treatment with azithromycin to prevent repeated Chlamydia trachomatis infection among women: a randomized, controlled trial. Sex Transm Dis. 2003;30:49-56. doi: 10.1097/00007435-200301000-00011

23. Cameron ST, Glasier A, Scott G, et al. Novel interventions to reduce re-infection in women with chlamydia: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod. 2009;24:888-895. doi: 10.1093/humrep/den475

24. McNulty A, Teh MF, Freedman E. Patient delivered partner ­therapy for chlamydial infection—what would be missed? Sex Transm Dis. 2008;35:834-836. doi: 10.1097/OLQ.0b013e3181761993

25. Stekler J, Bachmann L, Brotman RM, et al. Concurrent sexually transmitted infections (STIs) in sex partners of patients with selected STIs: implications for patient-delivered partner therapy. Clin Infect Dis. 2005;40:787-793. doi: 10.1086/428043

26. Schillinger JA, Kissinger P, Calvet H, et al. Patient-delivered partner treatment with azithromycin to prevent repeated Chlamydia trachomatis infection among women: a randomized, controlled trial. Sex Transm Dis. 2003;30:49-56. doi: 10.1097/00007435-200301000-00011

27. Stupiansky NW, Van der Pol B, Williams JA, et al. The natural history of incident gonococcal infection in adolescent women. Sex Transm Dis. 2011;38:750-754. doi: 10.1097/OLQ.0b013e31820ff9a4

28. CDC. Sexually transmitted infections treatment guidelines, 2021: Screening recommendations and considerations referenced in treatment guidelines and original sources. US Department of Health and Human Services. June 6, 2022. Accessed May 9, 2023. www.cdc.gov/std/treatment-guidelines/screening-recommen dations.htm

29. Cantor A, Dana T, Griffen JC, et al. Screening for chlamydial and gonococcal infections: a systematic review update for the US Preventive Services Task Force. Evidence Synthesis No. 206. AHRQ Report No. 21-05275-EF-1. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. September 2021. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK574045

30. CDC. Update to CDC’s sexually transmitted diseases treatment guidelines, 2006: fluoroquinolones no longer recommended for treatment of gonococcal infections. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2007;56:332-336.

31. Rowley J, Vander Hoorn S, Korenromp E, et al. Chlamydia, gonorrhoea, trichomoniasis and syphilis: global prevalence and incidence estimates, 2016. Bull World Health Organ. 2019:97:548-562P. doi: 10.2471/BLT.18.228486

32. Patel EU, Gaydos CA, Packman ZR, et al. Prevalence and correlates of Trichomonas vaginalis infection among men and women in the United States. Clin Infect Dis. 2018;67:211-217. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciy079

33. CDC. Sexually transmitted infections treatment guidelines, 2021. Mycoplasma genitalium. US Department of Health and Human Services. July 22, 2021. Accessed April 23, 2023. www.cdc.gov/std/treatment-guidelines/mycoplasmagenitalium.htm

34. Manhart LE, Broad JM, Bolden MR. Mycoplasma genitalium: should we treat and how? Clin Infect Dis. 2011;53(suppl 3):S129-S142. doi:10.1093/cid/cir702.

35. Corey L, Wald A. Genital herpes. In: Holmes KK, Sparling PF, Stamm WE, et al, eds. Sexually Transmitted Diseases. 4th ed. ­McGraw-Hill; 2008:399-437.

36. CDC. Sexually transmitted infections treatment guidelines, 2021: Genital herpes. US Department of Health and Human Services. September 21, 2022. Accessed April 23, 2023. www.cdc.gov/std/treatment-guidelines/herpes.htm

37. Looker KJ, Elmes JAR, Gottlieb SL, et al. Effect of HSV-2 infection on subsequent HIV acquisition: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Infect Dis. 2017;17:1303-1316. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(17)30405-X

38. Rollenhagen C, Lathrop M, Macura SL, et al. Herpes simplex virus type-2 stimulates HIV-1 replication in cervical tissues: implications for HIV-1 transmission and efficacy of anti-HIV-1 microbicides. Mucosal Immunol. 2014;7:1165-1174. doi: 10.1038/mi.2014.3

39. Cogliano V, Baan R, Straif K, et al; WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer. Carcinogenicity of human papillomaviruses. Lancet Oncol. 2005;6:204. doi: 10.1016/s1470-2045(05)70086-3

40. Simon MA, Tseng CW, Wong JB. Screening for cervical cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA. 2018;320:674-686. doi:10.1001/jama.2018.10897

41. Perkins RB, Guido RS, Castle PE, et al; 2019 ASCCP Risk-Based Management Consensus Guidelines Committee. 2019 ASCCP risk-based management consensus guidelines for abnormal cervical cancer screening tests and cancer precursors. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2020;24:102-131. doi: 10.1097/LGT.0000000000000525

42. Meites E, Szilagyi PG, Chesson HW, et al. Human papillomavirus vaccination for adults: updated recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019;68:698-702. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6832a3

43. Schmidt R, Carson PJ, Jansen RJ. Resurgence of syphilis in the United States: an assessment of contributing factors. Infect Dis (Auckl). 2019;12:1178633719883282. doi: 10.1177/1178633719883282

44. Boog GHP, Lopes JVZ, Mahler JV, et al. Diagnostic tools for neurosyphilis: a systematic review. BMC Infect Dis. 2021;21:568. doi: 10.1186/s12879-021-06264-8

45. CDC. Sexually transmitted infections treatment guidelines, 2021. Syphilis. US Department of Health and Human Services. April 20, 2023. Accessed April 24, 2023. www.cdc.gov/std/treatment-guidelines/syphilis.htm

46. Matthias JM, Rahman MM, Newman DR, et al. Effectiveness of prenatal screening and treatment to prevent congenital syphilis, Louisiana and Florida, 2013-2014. Sex Transm Dis. 2017;44:498-502. doi: 10.1097/OLQ.0000000000000638

47. Clement ME, Okeke NL, Hicks CB. Treatment of syphilis: a systematic review. JAMA. 2014;312:1905-1917. doi: 10.1001/jama.2014.13259

48. Davidson KW, Barry MJ, Mangione CM, et al; US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for chlamydia and gonorrhea: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA. 2021;326:949-956. doi: 10.1001/jama.2021.14081

49. Krist AH, Davidson KW, Mangione CM, et al; US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for hepatitis B virus infection in adolescents and adults: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA. 2020;324:2415-2422. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.22980

50. Owens DK, Davidson KW, Krist AH, et al; US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for hepatitis C virus infection in adolescents and adults: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA. 2020;323:970-975. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.1123

51. Bibbins-Domingo K, Grossman DC, Curry SJ, et al; US Preventive Services Task Force. Serologic screening for genital herpes infection: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA. 2016;316:2525-2530. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.16776

52. Curry SJ, Krist AH, Owens DK, et al; US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for cervical cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA. 2018;320:674-686. doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.10897

53. Owens DK, Davidson KW, Krist AH, et al; US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for HIV infection: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA. 2019;321:2326-2336. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.6587

54. Farley TA, Cohen DA, Elkins W. Asymptomatic sexually transmitted diseases: the case for screening. Prev Med. 2003;36:502-509. doi: 10.1016/s0091-7435(02)00058-0

55. US Public Health Service. Preexposure prophylaxis for the prevention of HIV infection in the United States—2021 update. A clinical practice guideline. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Accessed April 24, 2023. www.cdc.gov/hiv/pdf/risk/prep/cdc-hiv-prep-guidelines-2021.pdf

56. CDC. Sexually transmitted infections treatment guidelines, 2021: Sexual assault and abuse and STIs—adolescents and adults, 2021. US Department of Health and Human Services. July 22, 2021. Accessed April 24, 2023. www.cdc.gov/std/­treatment-guidelines/sexual-assault-adults.htm

Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Department of Family Medicine & Community Health, University of Kansas School of Medicine, Kansas City
[email protected]

The authors reported no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article.

Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 72(6)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
E1-E12
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Department of Family Medicine & Community Health, University of Kansas School of Medicine, Kansas City
[email protected]

The authors reported no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article.

Author and Disclosure Information

Department of Family Medicine & Community Health, University of Kansas School of Medicine, Kansas City
[email protected]

The authors reported no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article.

Article PDF
Article PDF

Except for a drop in the number of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) early in the COVID-19 pandemic (March and April 2020), the incidence of STIs has been rising throughout this century.1 In 2018, 1 in 5 people in the United States had an STI; 26 million new cases were reported that year, resulting in direct costs of $16 billion—85% of which was for the care of HIV infection.2 Also that year, infection with Chlamydia trachomatis (chlamydia), Trichomonas vaginalis (trichomoniasis), herpesvirus type 2 (genital herpes), and/or human papillomavirus (condylomata acuminata) constituted 97.6% of all prevalent and 93.1% of all incident STIs.3 Almost half (45.5%) of new cases of STIs occur in people between the ages of 15 and 24 years.3

Diagnostic testing for sexually transmitted infections

Three factors—changing social patterns, including the increase of social networking; the ability of antiviral therapy to decrease the spread of HIV, leading to a reduction in condom use; and increasing antibiotic resistance—have converged to force changes in screening and treatment recommendations. In this article, we summarize updated guidance for primary care clinicians from several sources—including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), and the American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology (ASCCP)—on diagnosing STIs (TABLE 14-13) and providing guideline-based treatment ­(Table 214). Because of the breadth and complexity of HIV disease, it is not addressed here.

Treatment options for sexually transmitted infections

Treatment options for sexually transmitted infections

Treatment options for sexually transmitted infections

Chlamydia

Infection with Chlamydia trachomatis—the most commonly reported bacterial STI in the United States—primarily causes cervicitis in women and proctitis in men, and can cause urethritis and pharyngitis in men and women. Prevalence is highest in sexually active people younger than 24 years.15

Because most infected people are asymptomatic and show no signs of illness on physical exam, screening is recommended for all sexually active women younger than 25 years and all men who have sex with men (MSM).4 No studies have established proper screening intervals; a reasonable approach, therefore, is to repeat screening for patients who have a sexual history that confers a new or persistent risk for infection since their last negative result.

Depending on the location of the infection, symptoms of chlamydia can include vaginal or penile irritation or discharge, dysuria, pelvic or rectal pain, and sore throat. Breakthrough bleeding in a patient who is taking an oral contraceptive should raise suspicion for chlamydia.

Untreated chlamydia can lead to pelvic inflammatory disease (PID), tubo-ovarian abscess, tubal factor infertility, ectopic pregnancy, and chronic pelvic pain. Infection can be transmitted vertically (mother to baby) antenatally, which can cause ophthalmia neonatorum and pneumonia in these newborns.

Diagnosis. The diagnosis of chlamydia is made using nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT). Specimens can be collected by the clinician or the patient (self collected) using a vaginal, rectal, or oropharyngeal swab, or a combination of these, and can be obtained from urine or liquid-based cytology material.16

Continue to: Treatment

 

 

Treatment. Recommendations for treating chlamydia were updated by the CDC in its 2021 treatment guidelines (Table 214). Doxycycline 100 mg bid for 7 days is the preferred regimen; alternative regiments are (1) azithromycin 1 g in a single dose and (2) levofloxacin 500 mg daily for 7 days.4 A meta-analysis17 and a Cochrane review18 showed that the rate of treatment failure was higher among men when they were treated with azithromycin instead of doxycycline; furthermore, a randomized controlled trial demonstrated that doxycycline is more effective than azithromycin (cure rate, 100%, compared to 74%) at treating rectal chlamydia in MSM.19

Azithromycin is efficacious for urogenital infection in women; however, there is concern that the 33% to 83% of women who have concomitant rectal infection (despite reporting no receptive anorectal sexual activity) would be insufficiently treated. Outside pregnancy, the CDC does not recommend a test of cure but does recommend follow-up testing for reinfection in 3 months. Patients should abstain from sexual activity until 7 days after all sexual partners have been treated.

Expedited partner therapy (EPT) is the practice of treating sexual partners of patients with known chlamydia (and patients with gonococcal infection). Unless prohibited by law in your state, offer EPT to patients with chlamydia if they cannot ensure that their sexual partners from the past 60 days will seek timely treatment.a

Breakthrough bleeding in a patient who is taking an oral contraceptive should raise suspicion for chlamydia.

Evidence to support EPT comes from 3 US clinical trials, whose subjects comprised heterosexual men and women with chlamydia or gonorrhea.21-23 The role of EPT for MSM is unclear; data are limited. Shared ­decision-making is recommended to determine whether EPT should be provided, to ensure that co-infection with other bacterial STIs (eg, syphilis) or HIV is not missed.24-26

a Visit www.cdc.gov/std/ept to read updated information about laws and regulations regarding EPT in your state.20

Gonorrhea

Gonorrhea is the second most-reported bacterial communicable disease.5 Infection with Neisseria gonorrhoeae causes urethral discharge in men, leading them to seek treatment; infected women, however, are often asymptomatic. Infected men and women might not recognize symptoms until they have transmitted the disease. Women have a slower natural clearance of gonococcal infection, which might explain their higher prevalence.27 Delayed recognition of symptoms can result in complications, including PID.5

Diagnosis. Specimens for NAAT can be obtained from urine, endocervical, vaginal, rectal, pharyngeal, and male urethral specimens. Reported sexual behaviors and exposures of women and transgender or gender-diverse people should be taken into consideration to determine whether rectal or pharyngeal testing, or both, should be performed.28 MSM should be screened annually at sites of contact, including the urethra, rectum, and pharynx.28 All patients with urogenital or rectal gonorrhea should be asked about oral sexual exposure; if reported, pharyngeal testing should be performed.5

NAAT of urine is at least as sensitive as testing of an endocervical specimen; the same specimen can be used to test for chlamydia and gonorrhea. Patient-collected specimens are a reasonable alternative to clinician-collected swab specimens.29

Continue to: Treatment

 

 

Treatment is complicated by the ability of gonorrhea to develop resistance. Intramuscular ceftriaxone 500 mg in a single dose cures 98% to 99% of infections in the United States; however, monitoring local resistance patterns in the community is an important component of treatment.28 (See Table 214 for an alternative regimen for cephalosporin-allergic patients and for treating gonococcal conjunctivitis and disseminated infection.)

Unless prohibited by law in your state, offer expedited partner therapy to patients with chlamydia if they cannot ensure that their sexual partners from the past 60 days will seek timely treatment.

In 2007, the CDC identified widespread quinolone-resistant gonococcal strains; therefore, fluoroquinolones no longer are recommended for treating gonorrhea.30 Cefixime has demonstrated only limited success in treating pharyngeal gonorrhea and does not attain a bactericidal level as high as ceftriaxone does; cefixime therefore is recommended only if ceftriaxone is unavailable.28 The national Gonococcal Isolate Surveillance Project is finding emerging evidence of the reduced susceptibility of N gonorrhoeae to azithromycin—making dual therapy for gonococcal infection no longer a recommendation.28

Patients should abstain from sex until 7 days after all sex partners have been treated for gonorrhea. As with chlamydia, the CDC does not recommend a test of cure for uncomplicated urogenital or rectal gonorrhea unless the patient is pregnant, but does recommend testing for reinfection 3 months after treatment.14 For patients with pharyngeal gonorrhea, a test of cure is recommended 7 to 14 days after initial treatment, due to challenges in treatment and because this site of infection is a potential source of antibiotic resistance.28

Trichomoniasis

T vaginalis, the most common nonviral STI worldwide,31 can manifest as a yellow-green vaginal discharge with or without vaginal discomfort, dysuria, epididymitis, and prostatitis; most cases, however, are asymptomatic. On examination, the cervix might be erythematous with punctate lesions (known as strawberry cervix).

Unlike most STIs, trichomoniasis is as common in women older than 24 years as it is in younger women. Infection is associated with a lower educational level, lower socioeconomic status, and having ≥ 2 sexual partners in the past year.32 Prevalence is approximately 10 times as high in Black women as it is in White women.

T vaginalis infection is associated with an increase in the risk for preterm birth, premature rupture of membranes, cervical cancer, and HIV infection. With a lack of high-quality clinical trials on the efficacy of screening, women with HIV are the only group for whom routine screening is recommended.6

Diagnosis. NAAT for trichomoniasis is now available in conjunction with gonorrhea and chlamydia testing of specimens on vaginal or urethral swabs and of urine specimens and liquid Pap smears.

Continue to: Treatment

 

 

Treatment. Because of greater efficacy, the treatment recommendation for women has changed from a single 2-g dose of oral metronidazole to 500 mg twice daily for 7 days. The 2-g single oral dose is still recommended for men7 (Table 214 lists alternative regimens).

Mycoplasma genitalium

Infection with M genitalium is common and often asymptomatic. The disease causes approximately 20% of all cases of nongonococcal and nonchlamydial urethritis in men and about 40% of persistent or recurrent infections. M genitalium is present in approximately 20% of women with cervicitis and has been associated with PID, preterm delivery, spontaneous abortion, and infertility.

There are limited and conflicting data regarding outcomes in infected patients other than those with persistent or recurrent infection; furthermore, resistance to azithromycin is increasing rapidly, resulting in an increase in treatment failures. Screening therefore is not recommended, and testing is recommended only in men with nongonococcal urethritis.33,34

Diagnosis. NAAT can be performed on urine or on a urethral, penile meatal, endocervical, or vaginal swab; men with recurrent urethritis or women with recurrent cervicitis should be tested. NAAT also can be considered in women with PID. Testing the specimen for the microorganism’s resistance to macrolide antibiotics is recommended (if such testing is available).

Treatment is initiated with doxycycline 100 mg twice daily for 7 days. If the organism is macrolide sensitive, follow with azithromycin 1 g orally on Day 1, then 500 mg/d for 3 more days. If the organism is macrolide resistant or testing is unavailable, follow doxycycline with oral moxifloxacin 400 mg/d for 7 days.33

Genital herpes (mostly herpesvirus type 2)

Genital herpes, characterized by painful, recurrent outbreaks of genital and anal lesions,35 is a lifelong infection that increases in prevalence with age.8 Because many infected people have disease that is undiagnosed or mild or have unrecognizable symptoms during viral shedding, most genital herpes infections are transmitted by people who are unaware that they are contagious.36 Herpesvirus type 2 (HSV-2) causes most cases of genital herpes, although an increasing percentage of cases are attributed to HSV type 1 (HSV-1) through receptive oral sex from a person who has an oral HSV-1 lesion.

Intramuscular ceftriaxone 500 mg in a single dose cures 98% to 99% of gonococcal infections in the United States; monitoring local resistance patterns in the community is important.

Importantly, HSV-2–infected people are 2 to 3 times more likely to become infected with HIV than people who are not HSV-2 infected.37 This is becauseCD4+ T cells concentrate at the site of HSV lesions and express a higher level of cell-surface receptors that HIV uses to enter cells. HIV replicates 3 to 5 times more quickly in HSV-infected tissue.38

Continue to: HSV can become disseminated...

 

 

HSV can become disseminated, particularly in immunosuppressed people, and can manifest as encephalitis, hepatitis, and pneumonitis. Beyond its significant burden on health, HSV carries significant psychosocial consequences.9

Diagnosis. Clinical diagnosis can be challenging if classic lesions are absent at evaluation. If genital lesions are present, HSV can be identified by NAAT or culture of a specimen of those lesions. False-negative antibody results might be more frequent in early stages of infection; repeating antibody testing 12 weeks after presumed time of acquisition might therefore be indicated, based on clinical judgment. HSV-2 antibody positivity implies anogenital infection because almost all HSV-2 infections are sexually acquired.

HSV-1 antibody positivity alone is more difficult to interpret because this finding does not distinguish between oral and genital lesions, and most HSV-1 seropositivity is acquired during childhood.36 HSV polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing of blood should not be performed to diagnose genital herpes infection, except in settings in which there is concern about disseminated infection.

Treatment. Management should address the acute episode and the chronic nature of genital herpes. Antivirals will not eradicate latent virus; rather, the goals of treatment are to:

  • attenuate current infection
  • prevent recurrence
  • improve quality of life
  • suppress the virus to prevent transmission to sexual partners.

All patients experiencing an initial episode of genital herpes should be treated, regardless of symptoms, due to the potential for prolonged or severe symptoms during recurrent episodes.9 Three drugs—acyclovir, valacyclovir, and famciclovir—are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to treat genital herpes and appear equally effective (TABLE 214).

Antiviral therapy for recurrent genital HSV infection can be administered either as suppressive therapy to reduce the frequency of recurrences or episodically to shorten the duration of lesions:

  • Suppressive therapy reduces the frequency of recurrence by 70% to 80% among patients with frequent outbreaks. Long-term safety and efficacy are well established.
  • Episodic therapy is most effective if started within 1 day after onset of lesions or during the prodrome.36

There is no specific recommendation for when to choose suppressive over episodic therapy; most patients prefer suppressive therapy because it improves quality of life. Use shared clinical decision-making to determine the best option for an individual patient.

Continue to: Human papillomavirus

 

 

Human papillomavirus

Condylomata acuminata (genital warts) are caused by human papillomavirus (HPV), most commonly types 6 and 11, which manifest as soft papules or plaques on the external genitalia, perineum, perianal skin, and groin. The warts are usually asymptomatic but can be painful or pruritic, depending on size and location.

Diagnosis is made by visual inspection and can be confirmed by biopsy if lesions are atypical. Lesions can resolve spontaneously, remain unchanged, or grow in size or number.

Treatment. The aim of treatment is relief of symptoms and removal of warts. Treatment does not eradicate HPV infection. Multiple treatments are available that can be applied by the patient as a cream, gel, or ointment or administered by the provider, including cryotherapy, surgical removal, and solutions. The decision on how to treat should be based on the number, size, and location of lesions; patient preference; cost; convenience; and the modality’s adverse effects (TABLE 214).

HPV-associated cancers and precancers. This is a broad (and separate) topic. HPV types 16 and 18 cause most cases of cervical, penile, vulvar, vaginal, anal, and oropharyngeal cancer and precancer.39 The USPSTF, the American Cancer Society, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists all have recommendations for cervical cancer screening in the United States.40 Refer to guidelines of the ASCCP for recommendations on abnormal screening tests.41

Prevention of genital warts. The 9-­valent HPV vaccine available in the United States is safe and effective and helps protect against viral types 6, 11, 16, 18, 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58. Types 6 and 11 are the principal causes of genital warts. Types 16 and 18 cause 66% of cervical cancer. The vaccination series can be started at age 9 years and is recommended for everyone through age 26 years. Only 2 doses are needed if the first dose is given prior to age 15 years; given after that age, a 3-dose series is utilized. Refer to CDC vaccine guidelines42 for details on the exact timing of vaccination.

Trichomoniasis can manifest as a yellowgreen vaginal discharge with or without vaginal discomfort, dysuria, epididymitis, and prostatitis; most cases, however, are asymptomatic.

Vaccination for women ages 27 to 45 years is not universally recommended because most people have been exposed to HPV by that age. However, the vaccine can still be administered, depending on clinical circumstances and the risk for new infection.42

Syphilis

Caused by the spirochete Treponema pallidum, syphilis manifests across a spectrum—from congenital to tertiary. The inability of medical science to develop a method for culturing the spirochete has confounded diagnosis and treatment.

Continue to: Since reaching a historic...

 

 

Since reaching a historic nadir of incidence in 2000 (5979 cases in the United States), there has been an increasingly rapid rise in that number: to 130,000 in 2020. More than 50% of cases are in MSM; however, the number of cases in heterosexual women is rapidly increasing.43

Routine screening for syphilis should be performed in any person who is at risk: all pregnant women in the first trimester (and in the third trimester and at delivery if they are at risk or live in a community where prevalence is high) and annually in sexually active MSM or anyone with HIV infection.10

Diagnosis. Examination by dark-field microscopy, testing by PCR, and direct fluorescent antibody assay for T pallidum from lesion tissue or exudate provide definitive diagnosis for early and congenital syphilis, but are often unavailable.

Presumptive diagnosis requires 2 serologic tests:

  • Nontreponemal tests (the VDRL and rapid plasma reagin tests) identify anticardiolipin antibodies released during syphilis infection, although results also can be elevated in autoimmune disease or after certain immunizations, including the COVID-19 vaccine.
  • Treponemal tests (the fluorescent treponemal antibody absorbed assay, T pallidum particulate agglutination assay, enzyme immunoassay, and chemiluminescence immunoassay) are specific antibody tests.

Historically, reactive nontreponemal tests, which are less expensive and easier to perform, were followed by a treponemal test to confirm the presumptive diagnosis. This method continues to be reasonable when screening patients in a low-prevalence population.11 The reverse sequence screening algorithm (ie, begin with a treponemal test) is now frequently used. With this method, a positive treponemal test must be confirmed with a nontreponemal test. If the treponemal test is positive and the nontreponemal test is negative, another treponemal test must be positive to confirm the diagnosis. This algorithm is useful in high-risk populations because it provides earlier detection of recently acquired syphilis and enhanced detection of late latent syphilis.12,13,44 The CDC has not stated a diagnostic preference.

Once the diagnosis is made, a complete history (including a sexual history and a history of syphilis testing and treatment) and a physical exam are necessary to confirm stage of disease.45

Special circumstances. Neurosyphilis, ocular syphilis, and otosyphilis refer to the site of infection and can occur at any stage of disease. The nervous system usually is infected within hours of initial infection, but symptoms might take weeks or years to ­develop—or might never manifest. Any time a patient develops neurologic, ophthalmologic, or audiologic symptoms, careful neurologic and ophthalmologic evaluation should be performed and the patient should be tested for HIV.

Continue to: Lumbar puncture is warranted...

 

 

Lumbar puncture is warranted for evaluation of cerebrospinal fluid if neurologic symptoms are present but is not necessary for isolated ocular syphilis or otosyphilis without neurologic findings. Treatment should not be delayed for test results if ocular syphilis is suspected because permanent blindness can develop. Any patient at high risk for an STI who presents with neurologic or ophthalmologic symptoms should be tested for syphilis and HIV.45

Pregnant women who have a diagnosis of syphilis should be treated with penicillin immediately because treatment ≥ 30 days prior to delivery is likely to prevent most ­cases of congenital syphilis. However, a course of penicillin might not prevent stillbirth or congenital syphilis in a gravely infected fetus, evidenced by fetal syphilis on a sonogram at the time of treatment. Additional doses of penicillin in pregnant women with early syphilis might be indicated if there is evidence of ­fetal syphilis on ultrasonography. All women who deliver a stillborn infant (≥ 20 weeks’ ­gestation) should be tested for syphilis at ­delivery.46

All patients in whom primary or secondary syphilis has been diagnosed should be tested for HIV at the time of diagnosis and treatment; if the result is negative, they should be offered preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP; discussed shortly). If the incidence of HIV in your community is high, repeat testing for HIV in 3 months. Clinical and serologic evaluation should be performed 6 and 12 months after treatment.47

Treatment. Penicillin remains the standard treatment for syphilis. Primary, secondary, and early tertiary stages (including in pregnancy) are treated with benzathine penicillin G 2.4 million units intramuscular (IM) in a single dose. For pregnant patients, repeating that dose in 1 week generally is recommended. Patients in the late latent (> 1 year) or tertiary stage receive the same dose of penicillin, which is then repeated weekly, for a total of 3 doses. Doxycycline and ceftriaxone are alternatives, except in ­pregnancy.

Antivirals will not eradicate latent herpesvirus; rather, the goals of treatment are to attenuate current infection, prevent recurrence, and improve quality of life.

Warn patients of the Jarisch-Herxheimer reaction: fever, headache, and myalgias associated with initiation of treatment in the presence of the high bacterial load seen in early syphilis. Treatment is symptomatic, but the Jarisch-Herxheimer reaction can cause fetal distress in pregnancy.

Otosyphilis, ocular syphilis, and neurosyphilis require intravenous (IV) aqueous crystalline penicillin G 3 to 4 million U every 4 hours for 10 to 14 days.45 Alternatively, procaine penicillin G 2.4 million U/d IM can be given daily with oral probenecid 500 mg qid, both for 10 to 14 days (TABLE 214).

Screening andprevention of STIs

Screening recommendations

Follow USPSTF screening guidelines for STIs.10,48-54 Screen annually for:

  • gonorrhea and chlamydia in women ages 15 to 24 years and in women older than 25 years if they are at increased risk
  • gonorrhea, chlamydia, syphilis, and HIV in MSM, and hepatitis C if they are HIV positive
  • trichomoniasis in women who are HIV positive.

Continue to: Consider the community in which...

 

 

Vaccination against human papillomavirus is not universally recommended for women ages 27 to 45 years because most people have been exposed to HPV by that age.

Consider the community in which you practice when determining risk; you might want to consult local public health authorities for information about local epidemiology and guidance on determining which of your patients are at increased risk.

Preexposure prophylaxis

According to the CDC, all sexually active adults and adolescents should be informed about the availability of PrEP to prevent HIV infection. PrEP should be (1) available to anyone who requests it and (2) recommended for anyone who is sexually active and who practices sexual behaviors that place them at substantial risk for exposure to or acquisition of HIV, or both.

The recommended treatment protocol for men and women who have either an HIV-positive partner or inconsistent condom use or who have had a bacterial STI in the previous 6 months is oral emtricitabine 200 mg plus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate 300 mg/d (sold as Truvada-F/TDF). Men and transgender women (ie, assigned male at birth) with at-risk behaviors also can use emtricitabine plus tenofovir alafenamide 25 mg/d (sold as Descovy-F/TAF).

In addition, cabotegravir plus rilpirivine (sold as Cabenuva), IM every 2 months, was approved by the FDA for PrEP in 2021.

Pregnant women who have syphilis should be treated with penicillin immediately: Treatment ≥ 30 days prior to delivery is likely to prevent most cases of congenital syphilis.

Creatinine clearance should be assessed at baseline and yearly (every 6 months for those older than 50 years) in patients taking PrEP. All patients must be tested for HIV at initiation of treatment and every 3 months thereafter (every 4 months for cabotegravir plus rilpirivine). Patients should be screened for bacterial STIs every 6 months (every 3 months for MSM and transgender women); screening for chlamydia should be done yearly. For patients being treated with emtricitabine plus tenofovir alafenamide, weight and a lipid profile (cholesterol and triglycerides) should be assessed annually.55

Postexposure prophylaxis

The sharp rise in the incidence of STIs in the past few years has brought renewed interest in postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) for STIs. Although PEP should be standard in cases of sexual assault, this protocol also can be considered in other instances of high-risk exposure.

CDC recommendations for PEP in cases of assault are56:

  • ceftriaxone 500 mg IM in a single dose (1 g if weight is ≥ 150 kg) plus
  • doxycycline 100 mg bid for 7 days plus
  • metronidazole 2 g bid for 7 days (for vaginal exposure)
  • pregnancy evaluation and emergency contraception
  • hepatitis B risk evaluation and vaccination, with or without hepatitis B immune globulin
  • HIV risk evaluation, based on CDC guidelines, and possible HIV prophylaxis (PrEP)
  • HPV vaccination for patients ages 9 to 26 years if they are not already fully vaccinated.

CORRESPONDENCE
Belinda Vail, MD, 3901 Rainbow Boulevard, Mail Stop 4010, Kansas City, KS 66160; [email protected]

Except for a drop in the number of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) early in the COVID-19 pandemic (March and April 2020), the incidence of STIs has been rising throughout this century.1 In 2018, 1 in 5 people in the United States had an STI; 26 million new cases were reported that year, resulting in direct costs of $16 billion—85% of which was for the care of HIV infection.2 Also that year, infection with Chlamydia trachomatis (chlamydia), Trichomonas vaginalis (trichomoniasis), herpesvirus type 2 (genital herpes), and/or human papillomavirus (condylomata acuminata) constituted 97.6% of all prevalent and 93.1% of all incident STIs.3 Almost half (45.5%) of new cases of STIs occur in people between the ages of 15 and 24 years.3

Diagnostic testing for sexually transmitted infections

Three factors—changing social patterns, including the increase of social networking; the ability of antiviral therapy to decrease the spread of HIV, leading to a reduction in condom use; and increasing antibiotic resistance—have converged to force changes in screening and treatment recommendations. In this article, we summarize updated guidance for primary care clinicians from several sources—including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), and the American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology (ASCCP)—on diagnosing STIs (TABLE 14-13) and providing guideline-based treatment ­(Table 214). Because of the breadth and complexity of HIV disease, it is not addressed here.

Treatment options for sexually transmitted infections

Treatment options for sexually transmitted infections

Treatment options for sexually transmitted infections

Chlamydia

Infection with Chlamydia trachomatis—the most commonly reported bacterial STI in the United States—primarily causes cervicitis in women and proctitis in men, and can cause urethritis and pharyngitis in men and women. Prevalence is highest in sexually active people younger than 24 years.15

Because most infected people are asymptomatic and show no signs of illness on physical exam, screening is recommended for all sexually active women younger than 25 years and all men who have sex with men (MSM).4 No studies have established proper screening intervals; a reasonable approach, therefore, is to repeat screening for patients who have a sexual history that confers a new or persistent risk for infection since their last negative result.

Depending on the location of the infection, symptoms of chlamydia can include vaginal or penile irritation or discharge, dysuria, pelvic or rectal pain, and sore throat. Breakthrough bleeding in a patient who is taking an oral contraceptive should raise suspicion for chlamydia.

Untreated chlamydia can lead to pelvic inflammatory disease (PID), tubo-ovarian abscess, tubal factor infertility, ectopic pregnancy, and chronic pelvic pain. Infection can be transmitted vertically (mother to baby) antenatally, which can cause ophthalmia neonatorum and pneumonia in these newborns.

Diagnosis. The diagnosis of chlamydia is made using nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT). Specimens can be collected by the clinician or the patient (self collected) using a vaginal, rectal, or oropharyngeal swab, or a combination of these, and can be obtained from urine or liquid-based cytology material.16

Continue to: Treatment

 

 

Treatment. Recommendations for treating chlamydia were updated by the CDC in its 2021 treatment guidelines (Table 214). Doxycycline 100 mg bid for 7 days is the preferred regimen; alternative regiments are (1) azithromycin 1 g in a single dose and (2) levofloxacin 500 mg daily for 7 days.4 A meta-analysis17 and a Cochrane review18 showed that the rate of treatment failure was higher among men when they were treated with azithromycin instead of doxycycline; furthermore, a randomized controlled trial demonstrated that doxycycline is more effective than azithromycin (cure rate, 100%, compared to 74%) at treating rectal chlamydia in MSM.19

Azithromycin is efficacious for urogenital infection in women; however, there is concern that the 33% to 83% of women who have concomitant rectal infection (despite reporting no receptive anorectal sexual activity) would be insufficiently treated. Outside pregnancy, the CDC does not recommend a test of cure but does recommend follow-up testing for reinfection in 3 months. Patients should abstain from sexual activity until 7 days after all sexual partners have been treated.

Expedited partner therapy (EPT) is the practice of treating sexual partners of patients with known chlamydia (and patients with gonococcal infection). Unless prohibited by law in your state, offer EPT to patients with chlamydia if they cannot ensure that their sexual partners from the past 60 days will seek timely treatment.a

Breakthrough bleeding in a patient who is taking an oral contraceptive should raise suspicion for chlamydia.

Evidence to support EPT comes from 3 US clinical trials, whose subjects comprised heterosexual men and women with chlamydia or gonorrhea.21-23 The role of EPT for MSM is unclear; data are limited. Shared ­decision-making is recommended to determine whether EPT should be provided, to ensure that co-infection with other bacterial STIs (eg, syphilis) or HIV is not missed.24-26

a Visit www.cdc.gov/std/ept to read updated information about laws and regulations regarding EPT in your state.20

Gonorrhea

Gonorrhea is the second most-reported bacterial communicable disease.5 Infection with Neisseria gonorrhoeae causes urethral discharge in men, leading them to seek treatment; infected women, however, are often asymptomatic. Infected men and women might not recognize symptoms until they have transmitted the disease. Women have a slower natural clearance of gonococcal infection, which might explain their higher prevalence.27 Delayed recognition of symptoms can result in complications, including PID.5

Diagnosis. Specimens for NAAT can be obtained from urine, endocervical, vaginal, rectal, pharyngeal, and male urethral specimens. Reported sexual behaviors and exposures of women and transgender or gender-diverse people should be taken into consideration to determine whether rectal or pharyngeal testing, or both, should be performed.28 MSM should be screened annually at sites of contact, including the urethra, rectum, and pharynx.28 All patients with urogenital or rectal gonorrhea should be asked about oral sexual exposure; if reported, pharyngeal testing should be performed.5

NAAT of urine is at least as sensitive as testing of an endocervical specimen; the same specimen can be used to test for chlamydia and gonorrhea. Patient-collected specimens are a reasonable alternative to clinician-collected swab specimens.29

Continue to: Treatment

 

 

Treatment is complicated by the ability of gonorrhea to develop resistance. Intramuscular ceftriaxone 500 mg in a single dose cures 98% to 99% of infections in the United States; however, monitoring local resistance patterns in the community is an important component of treatment.28 (See Table 214 for an alternative regimen for cephalosporin-allergic patients and for treating gonococcal conjunctivitis and disseminated infection.)

Unless prohibited by law in your state, offer expedited partner therapy to patients with chlamydia if they cannot ensure that their sexual partners from the past 60 days will seek timely treatment.

In 2007, the CDC identified widespread quinolone-resistant gonococcal strains; therefore, fluoroquinolones no longer are recommended for treating gonorrhea.30 Cefixime has demonstrated only limited success in treating pharyngeal gonorrhea and does not attain a bactericidal level as high as ceftriaxone does; cefixime therefore is recommended only if ceftriaxone is unavailable.28 The national Gonococcal Isolate Surveillance Project is finding emerging evidence of the reduced susceptibility of N gonorrhoeae to azithromycin—making dual therapy for gonococcal infection no longer a recommendation.28

Patients should abstain from sex until 7 days after all sex partners have been treated for gonorrhea. As with chlamydia, the CDC does not recommend a test of cure for uncomplicated urogenital or rectal gonorrhea unless the patient is pregnant, but does recommend testing for reinfection 3 months after treatment.14 For patients with pharyngeal gonorrhea, a test of cure is recommended 7 to 14 days after initial treatment, due to challenges in treatment and because this site of infection is a potential source of antibiotic resistance.28

Trichomoniasis

T vaginalis, the most common nonviral STI worldwide,31 can manifest as a yellow-green vaginal discharge with or without vaginal discomfort, dysuria, epididymitis, and prostatitis; most cases, however, are asymptomatic. On examination, the cervix might be erythematous with punctate lesions (known as strawberry cervix).

Unlike most STIs, trichomoniasis is as common in women older than 24 years as it is in younger women. Infection is associated with a lower educational level, lower socioeconomic status, and having ≥ 2 sexual partners in the past year.32 Prevalence is approximately 10 times as high in Black women as it is in White women.

T vaginalis infection is associated with an increase in the risk for preterm birth, premature rupture of membranes, cervical cancer, and HIV infection. With a lack of high-quality clinical trials on the efficacy of screening, women with HIV are the only group for whom routine screening is recommended.6

Diagnosis. NAAT for trichomoniasis is now available in conjunction with gonorrhea and chlamydia testing of specimens on vaginal or urethral swabs and of urine specimens and liquid Pap smears.

Continue to: Treatment

 

 

Treatment. Because of greater efficacy, the treatment recommendation for women has changed from a single 2-g dose of oral metronidazole to 500 mg twice daily for 7 days. The 2-g single oral dose is still recommended for men7 (Table 214 lists alternative regimens).

Mycoplasma genitalium

Infection with M genitalium is common and often asymptomatic. The disease causes approximately 20% of all cases of nongonococcal and nonchlamydial urethritis in men and about 40% of persistent or recurrent infections. M genitalium is present in approximately 20% of women with cervicitis and has been associated with PID, preterm delivery, spontaneous abortion, and infertility.

There are limited and conflicting data regarding outcomes in infected patients other than those with persistent or recurrent infection; furthermore, resistance to azithromycin is increasing rapidly, resulting in an increase in treatment failures. Screening therefore is not recommended, and testing is recommended only in men with nongonococcal urethritis.33,34

Diagnosis. NAAT can be performed on urine or on a urethral, penile meatal, endocervical, or vaginal swab; men with recurrent urethritis or women with recurrent cervicitis should be tested. NAAT also can be considered in women with PID. Testing the specimen for the microorganism’s resistance to macrolide antibiotics is recommended (if such testing is available).

Treatment is initiated with doxycycline 100 mg twice daily for 7 days. If the organism is macrolide sensitive, follow with azithromycin 1 g orally on Day 1, then 500 mg/d for 3 more days. If the organism is macrolide resistant or testing is unavailable, follow doxycycline with oral moxifloxacin 400 mg/d for 7 days.33

Genital herpes (mostly herpesvirus type 2)

Genital herpes, characterized by painful, recurrent outbreaks of genital and anal lesions,35 is a lifelong infection that increases in prevalence with age.8 Because many infected people have disease that is undiagnosed or mild or have unrecognizable symptoms during viral shedding, most genital herpes infections are transmitted by people who are unaware that they are contagious.36 Herpesvirus type 2 (HSV-2) causes most cases of genital herpes, although an increasing percentage of cases are attributed to HSV type 1 (HSV-1) through receptive oral sex from a person who has an oral HSV-1 lesion.

Intramuscular ceftriaxone 500 mg in a single dose cures 98% to 99% of gonococcal infections in the United States; monitoring local resistance patterns in the community is important.

Importantly, HSV-2–infected people are 2 to 3 times more likely to become infected with HIV than people who are not HSV-2 infected.37 This is becauseCD4+ T cells concentrate at the site of HSV lesions and express a higher level of cell-surface receptors that HIV uses to enter cells. HIV replicates 3 to 5 times more quickly in HSV-infected tissue.38

Continue to: HSV can become disseminated...

 

 

HSV can become disseminated, particularly in immunosuppressed people, and can manifest as encephalitis, hepatitis, and pneumonitis. Beyond its significant burden on health, HSV carries significant psychosocial consequences.9

Diagnosis. Clinical diagnosis can be challenging if classic lesions are absent at evaluation. If genital lesions are present, HSV can be identified by NAAT or culture of a specimen of those lesions. False-negative antibody results might be more frequent in early stages of infection; repeating antibody testing 12 weeks after presumed time of acquisition might therefore be indicated, based on clinical judgment. HSV-2 antibody positivity implies anogenital infection because almost all HSV-2 infections are sexually acquired.

HSV-1 antibody positivity alone is more difficult to interpret because this finding does not distinguish between oral and genital lesions, and most HSV-1 seropositivity is acquired during childhood.36 HSV polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing of blood should not be performed to diagnose genital herpes infection, except in settings in which there is concern about disseminated infection.

Treatment. Management should address the acute episode and the chronic nature of genital herpes. Antivirals will not eradicate latent virus; rather, the goals of treatment are to:

  • attenuate current infection
  • prevent recurrence
  • improve quality of life
  • suppress the virus to prevent transmission to sexual partners.

All patients experiencing an initial episode of genital herpes should be treated, regardless of symptoms, due to the potential for prolonged or severe symptoms during recurrent episodes.9 Three drugs—acyclovir, valacyclovir, and famciclovir—are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to treat genital herpes and appear equally effective (TABLE 214).

Antiviral therapy for recurrent genital HSV infection can be administered either as suppressive therapy to reduce the frequency of recurrences or episodically to shorten the duration of lesions:

  • Suppressive therapy reduces the frequency of recurrence by 70% to 80% among patients with frequent outbreaks. Long-term safety and efficacy are well established.
  • Episodic therapy is most effective if started within 1 day after onset of lesions or during the prodrome.36

There is no specific recommendation for when to choose suppressive over episodic therapy; most patients prefer suppressive therapy because it improves quality of life. Use shared clinical decision-making to determine the best option for an individual patient.

Continue to: Human papillomavirus

 

 

Human papillomavirus

Condylomata acuminata (genital warts) are caused by human papillomavirus (HPV), most commonly types 6 and 11, which manifest as soft papules or plaques on the external genitalia, perineum, perianal skin, and groin. The warts are usually asymptomatic but can be painful or pruritic, depending on size and location.

Diagnosis is made by visual inspection and can be confirmed by biopsy if lesions are atypical. Lesions can resolve spontaneously, remain unchanged, or grow in size or number.

Treatment. The aim of treatment is relief of symptoms and removal of warts. Treatment does not eradicate HPV infection. Multiple treatments are available that can be applied by the patient as a cream, gel, or ointment or administered by the provider, including cryotherapy, surgical removal, and solutions. The decision on how to treat should be based on the number, size, and location of lesions; patient preference; cost; convenience; and the modality’s adverse effects (TABLE 214).

HPV-associated cancers and precancers. This is a broad (and separate) topic. HPV types 16 and 18 cause most cases of cervical, penile, vulvar, vaginal, anal, and oropharyngeal cancer and precancer.39 The USPSTF, the American Cancer Society, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists all have recommendations for cervical cancer screening in the United States.40 Refer to guidelines of the ASCCP for recommendations on abnormal screening tests.41

Prevention of genital warts. The 9-­valent HPV vaccine available in the United States is safe and effective and helps protect against viral types 6, 11, 16, 18, 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58. Types 6 and 11 are the principal causes of genital warts. Types 16 and 18 cause 66% of cervical cancer. The vaccination series can be started at age 9 years and is recommended for everyone through age 26 years. Only 2 doses are needed if the first dose is given prior to age 15 years; given after that age, a 3-dose series is utilized. Refer to CDC vaccine guidelines42 for details on the exact timing of vaccination.

Trichomoniasis can manifest as a yellowgreen vaginal discharge with or without vaginal discomfort, dysuria, epididymitis, and prostatitis; most cases, however, are asymptomatic.

Vaccination for women ages 27 to 45 years is not universally recommended because most people have been exposed to HPV by that age. However, the vaccine can still be administered, depending on clinical circumstances and the risk for new infection.42

Syphilis

Caused by the spirochete Treponema pallidum, syphilis manifests across a spectrum—from congenital to tertiary. The inability of medical science to develop a method for culturing the spirochete has confounded diagnosis and treatment.

Continue to: Since reaching a historic...

 

 

Since reaching a historic nadir of incidence in 2000 (5979 cases in the United States), there has been an increasingly rapid rise in that number: to 130,000 in 2020. More than 50% of cases are in MSM; however, the number of cases in heterosexual women is rapidly increasing.43

Routine screening for syphilis should be performed in any person who is at risk: all pregnant women in the first trimester (and in the third trimester and at delivery if they are at risk or live in a community where prevalence is high) and annually in sexually active MSM or anyone with HIV infection.10

Diagnosis. Examination by dark-field microscopy, testing by PCR, and direct fluorescent antibody assay for T pallidum from lesion tissue or exudate provide definitive diagnosis for early and congenital syphilis, but are often unavailable.

Presumptive diagnosis requires 2 serologic tests:

  • Nontreponemal tests (the VDRL and rapid plasma reagin tests) identify anticardiolipin antibodies released during syphilis infection, although results also can be elevated in autoimmune disease or after certain immunizations, including the COVID-19 vaccine.
  • Treponemal tests (the fluorescent treponemal antibody absorbed assay, T pallidum particulate agglutination assay, enzyme immunoassay, and chemiluminescence immunoassay) are specific antibody tests.

Historically, reactive nontreponemal tests, which are less expensive and easier to perform, were followed by a treponemal test to confirm the presumptive diagnosis. This method continues to be reasonable when screening patients in a low-prevalence population.11 The reverse sequence screening algorithm (ie, begin with a treponemal test) is now frequently used. With this method, a positive treponemal test must be confirmed with a nontreponemal test. If the treponemal test is positive and the nontreponemal test is negative, another treponemal test must be positive to confirm the diagnosis. This algorithm is useful in high-risk populations because it provides earlier detection of recently acquired syphilis and enhanced detection of late latent syphilis.12,13,44 The CDC has not stated a diagnostic preference.

Once the diagnosis is made, a complete history (including a sexual history and a history of syphilis testing and treatment) and a physical exam are necessary to confirm stage of disease.45

Special circumstances. Neurosyphilis, ocular syphilis, and otosyphilis refer to the site of infection and can occur at any stage of disease. The nervous system usually is infected within hours of initial infection, but symptoms might take weeks or years to ­develop—or might never manifest. Any time a patient develops neurologic, ophthalmologic, or audiologic symptoms, careful neurologic and ophthalmologic evaluation should be performed and the patient should be tested for HIV.

Continue to: Lumbar puncture is warranted...

 

 

Lumbar puncture is warranted for evaluation of cerebrospinal fluid if neurologic symptoms are present but is not necessary for isolated ocular syphilis or otosyphilis without neurologic findings. Treatment should not be delayed for test results if ocular syphilis is suspected because permanent blindness can develop. Any patient at high risk for an STI who presents with neurologic or ophthalmologic symptoms should be tested for syphilis and HIV.45

Pregnant women who have a diagnosis of syphilis should be treated with penicillin immediately because treatment ≥ 30 days prior to delivery is likely to prevent most ­cases of congenital syphilis. However, a course of penicillin might not prevent stillbirth or congenital syphilis in a gravely infected fetus, evidenced by fetal syphilis on a sonogram at the time of treatment. Additional doses of penicillin in pregnant women with early syphilis might be indicated if there is evidence of ­fetal syphilis on ultrasonography. All women who deliver a stillborn infant (≥ 20 weeks’ ­gestation) should be tested for syphilis at ­delivery.46

All patients in whom primary or secondary syphilis has been diagnosed should be tested for HIV at the time of diagnosis and treatment; if the result is negative, they should be offered preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP; discussed shortly). If the incidence of HIV in your community is high, repeat testing for HIV in 3 months. Clinical and serologic evaluation should be performed 6 and 12 months after treatment.47

Treatment. Penicillin remains the standard treatment for syphilis. Primary, secondary, and early tertiary stages (including in pregnancy) are treated with benzathine penicillin G 2.4 million units intramuscular (IM) in a single dose. For pregnant patients, repeating that dose in 1 week generally is recommended. Patients in the late latent (> 1 year) or tertiary stage receive the same dose of penicillin, which is then repeated weekly, for a total of 3 doses. Doxycycline and ceftriaxone are alternatives, except in ­pregnancy.

Antivirals will not eradicate latent herpesvirus; rather, the goals of treatment are to attenuate current infection, prevent recurrence, and improve quality of life.

Warn patients of the Jarisch-Herxheimer reaction: fever, headache, and myalgias associated with initiation of treatment in the presence of the high bacterial load seen in early syphilis. Treatment is symptomatic, but the Jarisch-Herxheimer reaction can cause fetal distress in pregnancy.

Otosyphilis, ocular syphilis, and neurosyphilis require intravenous (IV) aqueous crystalline penicillin G 3 to 4 million U every 4 hours for 10 to 14 days.45 Alternatively, procaine penicillin G 2.4 million U/d IM can be given daily with oral probenecid 500 mg qid, both for 10 to 14 days (TABLE 214).

Screening andprevention of STIs

Screening recommendations

Follow USPSTF screening guidelines for STIs.10,48-54 Screen annually for:

  • gonorrhea and chlamydia in women ages 15 to 24 years and in women older than 25 years if they are at increased risk
  • gonorrhea, chlamydia, syphilis, and HIV in MSM, and hepatitis C if they are HIV positive
  • trichomoniasis in women who are HIV positive.

Continue to: Consider the community in which...

 

 

Vaccination against human papillomavirus is not universally recommended for women ages 27 to 45 years because most people have been exposed to HPV by that age.

Consider the community in which you practice when determining risk; you might want to consult local public health authorities for information about local epidemiology and guidance on determining which of your patients are at increased risk.

Preexposure prophylaxis

According to the CDC, all sexually active adults and adolescents should be informed about the availability of PrEP to prevent HIV infection. PrEP should be (1) available to anyone who requests it and (2) recommended for anyone who is sexually active and who practices sexual behaviors that place them at substantial risk for exposure to or acquisition of HIV, or both.

The recommended treatment protocol for men and women who have either an HIV-positive partner or inconsistent condom use or who have had a bacterial STI in the previous 6 months is oral emtricitabine 200 mg plus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate 300 mg/d (sold as Truvada-F/TDF). Men and transgender women (ie, assigned male at birth) with at-risk behaviors also can use emtricitabine plus tenofovir alafenamide 25 mg/d (sold as Descovy-F/TAF).

In addition, cabotegravir plus rilpirivine (sold as Cabenuva), IM every 2 months, was approved by the FDA for PrEP in 2021.

Pregnant women who have syphilis should be treated with penicillin immediately: Treatment ≥ 30 days prior to delivery is likely to prevent most cases of congenital syphilis.

Creatinine clearance should be assessed at baseline and yearly (every 6 months for those older than 50 years) in patients taking PrEP. All patients must be tested for HIV at initiation of treatment and every 3 months thereafter (every 4 months for cabotegravir plus rilpirivine). Patients should be screened for bacterial STIs every 6 months (every 3 months for MSM and transgender women); screening for chlamydia should be done yearly. For patients being treated with emtricitabine plus tenofovir alafenamide, weight and a lipid profile (cholesterol and triglycerides) should be assessed annually.55

Postexposure prophylaxis

The sharp rise in the incidence of STIs in the past few years has brought renewed interest in postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) for STIs. Although PEP should be standard in cases of sexual assault, this protocol also can be considered in other instances of high-risk exposure.

CDC recommendations for PEP in cases of assault are56:

  • ceftriaxone 500 mg IM in a single dose (1 g if weight is ≥ 150 kg) plus
  • doxycycline 100 mg bid for 7 days plus
  • metronidazole 2 g bid for 7 days (for vaginal exposure)
  • pregnancy evaluation and emergency contraception
  • hepatitis B risk evaluation and vaccination, with or without hepatitis B immune globulin
  • HIV risk evaluation, based on CDC guidelines, and possible HIV prophylaxis (PrEP)
  • HPV vaccination for patients ages 9 to 26 years if they are not already fully vaccinated.

CORRESPONDENCE
Belinda Vail, MD, 3901 Rainbow Boulevard, Mail Stop 4010, Kansas City, KS 66160; [email protected]

References

1. Pagaoa M, Grey J, Torrone E, et al. Trends in nationally notifiable sexually transmitted disease case reports during the US ­COVID-19 pandemic, January to December 2020. Sex Transm Dis. 2021;48:798-804. doi: 10.1097/OLQ.0000000000001506

2. Chesson HW, Spicknall IH; Bingham A, et al. The estimated direct lifetime medical costs of sexually transmitted infections acquired in the United States in 2018. Sex Transm Dis. 2021;48:215-221. doi: 10.1097/OLQ.0000000000001380

3. Kreisel KM, Spicknall IH, Gargano JW, et al. Sexually transmitted infections among US women and men: prevalence and incidence estimates, 2018. Sex Transm Dis. 2021;48:208-214. doi: 10.1097/OLQ.0000000000001355

4. CDC. Sexually transmitted infections treatment guidelines, 2021: Chlamydial infections among adolescents and adults. US Department of Health and Human Services. July 21, 2021. Accessed April 19, 2023. www.cdc.gov/std/treatment-guidelines/chlamydia.htm

5. CDC. Sexually transmitted infections treatment guidelines, 2021: Gonococcal infections among adolescents and adults. US Department of Health and Human Services. September 21, 2022. Accessed April 23, 2023. www.cdc.gov/std/treatment-guidelines/gonorrhea-adults.htm

6. Van Gerwen OT, Muzny CA. Recent advances in the epidemiology, diagnosis, and management of Trichomonas vaginalis infection. F1000Res. 2019;8:F1000 Faculty Rev-1666. Published 2019 Sep 20. doi:10.12688/f1000research.19972.1

7. CDC. Sexually transmitted infections treatment guidelines, 2021. Trichomoniasis. US Department of Health and Human Services. September 21, 2022. Accessed April 23, 2023. December 27, 2021. www.cdc.gov/std/treatment-guidelines/trichomoniasis.htm

8. Spicknall IH, Flagg EW, Torrone EA. Estimates of the prevalence and incidence of genital herpes, United States, 2018. Sex Transm Dis. 2021;48:260-265. doi: 10.1097/OLQ.0000000000001375

9. Mark H, Gilbert L, Nanda J. Psychosocial well-being and quality of life among women newly diagnosed with genital herpes. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2009;38:320-326. doi: 10.1111/j.1552-6909.2009.01026.x

10. Bibbins-Domingo K, Grossman DC, Curry SJ, et al; US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for syphilis infection in nonpregnant adults and adolescents: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA. 2016;315:2321-2327. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.5824

11. Ricco J, Westby A. Syphilis: far from ancient history. Am Fam Physician. 2020;102:91-98.

12. Goza M, Kulwicki B, Akers JM, et al. Syphilis screening: a review of the Syphilis Health Check rapid immunochromatographic test. J Pharm Technol. 2017;33:53-59. doi:10.1177/8755122517691308

13. Henao-Martínez AF, Johnson SC. Diagnostic tests for syphilis: new tests and new algorithms. Neurol Clin Pract. 2014;4:114-122. doi: 10.1212/01.CPJ.0000435752.17621.48

14. Workowski KA, Bachmann LH, Chan PA, et al. Sexually transmitted infections treatment guidelines, 2021. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2021;70:1-187. doi:10.15585/mmwr.rr7004a1

15. CDC. Sexually Transmitted Disease Surveillance 2021. National overview of STDs. US Department of Health and Human Services. April 2023. Accessed May 9, 2023. www.cdc.gov/std/statistics/­2021/overview.htm#Chlamydia

16. CDC. Recommendations for the laboratory-based detection of Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae—2014. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2014;63:1-19.

17. Kong FYS, Tabrizi SN, Law M, et al. Azithromycin versus doxycycline for the treatment of genital chlamydia infection: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Clin Infect Dis. 2014;59:193-205. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciu220

18. Páez-Canro C, Alzate JP, González LM, et al. Antibiotics for treating urogenital Chlamydia trachomatis infection in men and non-pregnant women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;1:CD010871. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010871.pub2

19. Dombrowski JC, Wierzbicki MR, Newman LM, et al. Doxycycline versus azithromycin for the treatment of rectal chlamydia in men who have sex with men: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Infect Dis. 2021;73:824-831. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciab153

20. CDC. Sexually transmitted infections treatment guidelines, 2021: Expedited partner therapy. US Department of Health and Human Services. July 22, 2021. Accessed April 19, 2023. www.cdc.gov/std/treatment-guidelines/clinical-EPT.htm

21. Golden MR, Whittington WLH, Handsfield HH, et al. Effect of expedited treatment of sex partners on recurrent or persistent gonorrhea or chlamydial infection. N Engl J Med. 2005;352:676-685. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa041681

22. Schillinger JA, Kissinger P, Calvet H, et al. Patient-delivered partner treatment with azithromycin to prevent repeated Chlamydia trachomatis infection among women: a randomized, controlled trial. Sex Transm Dis. 2003;30:49-56. doi: 10.1097/00007435-200301000-00011

23. Cameron ST, Glasier A, Scott G, et al. Novel interventions to reduce re-infection in women with chlamydia: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod. 2009;24:888-895. doi: 10.1093/humrep/den475

24. McNulty A, Teh MF, Freedman E. Patient delivered partner ­therapy for chlamydial infection—what would be missed? Sex Transm Dis. 2008;35:834-836. doi: 10.1097/OLQ.0b013e3181761993

25. Stekler J, Bachmann L, Brotman RM, et al. Concurrent sexually transmitted infections (STIs) in sex partners of patients with selected STIs: implications for patient-delivered partner therapy. Clin Infect Dis. 2005;40:787-793. doi: 10.1086/428043

26. Schillinger JA, Kissinger P, Calvet H, et al. Patient-delivered partner treatment with azithromycin to prevent repeated Chlamydia trachomatis infection among women: a randomized, controlled trial. Sex Transm Dis. 2003;30:49-56. doi: 10.1097/00007435-200301000-00011

27. Stupiansky NW, Van der Pol B, Williams JA, et al. The natural history of incident gonococcal infection in adolescent women. Sex Transm Dis. 2011;38:750-754. doi: 10.1097/OLQ.0b013e31820ff9a4

28. CDC. Sexually transmitted infections treatment guidelines, 2021: Screening recommendations and considerations referenced in treatment guidelines and original sources. US Department of Health and Human Services. June 6, 2022. Accessed May 9, 2023. www.cdc.gov/std/treatment-guidelines/screening-recommen dations.htm

29. Cantor A, Dana T, Griffen JC, et al. Screening for chlamydial and gonococcal infections: a systematic review update for the US Preventive Services Task Force. Evidence Synthesis No. 206. AHRQ Report No. 21-05275-EF-1. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. September 2021. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK574045

30. CDC. Update to CDC’s sexually transmitted diseases treatment guidelines, 2006: fluoroquinolones no longer recommended for treatment of gonococcal infections. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2007;56:332-336.

31. Rowley J, Vander Hoorn S, Korenromp E, et al. Chlamydia, gonorrhoea, trichomoniasis and syphilis: global prevalence and incidence estimates, 2016. Bull World Health Organ. 2019:97:548-562P. doi: 10.2471/BLT.18.228486

32. Patel EU, Gaydos CA, Packman ZR, et al. Prevalence and correlates of Trichomonas vaginalis infection among men and women in the United States. Clin Infect Dis. 2018;67:211-217. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciy079

33. CDC. Sexually transmitted infections treatment guidelines, 2021. Mycoplasma genitalium. US Department of Health and Human Services. July 22, 2021. Accessed April 23, 2023. www.cdc.gov/std/treatment-guidelines/mycoplasmagenitalium.htm

34. Manhart LE, Broad JM, Bolden MR. Mycoplasma genitalium: should we treat and how? Clin Infect Dis. 2011;53(suppl 3):S129-S142. doi:10.1093/cid/cir702.

35. Corey L, Wald A. Genital herpes. In: Holmes KK, Sparling PF, Stamm WE, et al, eds. Sexually Transmitted Diseases. 4th ed. ­McGraw-Hill; 2008:399-437.

36. CDC. Sexually transmitted infections treatment guidelines, 2021: Genital herpes. US Department of Health and Human Services. September 21, 2022. Accessed April 23, 2023. www.cdc.gov/std/treatment-guidelines/herpes.htm

37. Looker KJ, Elmes JAR, Gottlieb SL, et al. Effect of HSV-2 infection on subsequent HIV acquisition: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Infect Dis. 2017;17:1303-1316. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(17)30405-X

38. Rollenhagen C, Lathrop M, Macura SL, et al. Herpes simplex virus type-2 stimulates HIV-1 replication in cervical tissues: implications for HIV-1 transmission and efficacy of anti-HIV-1 microbicides. Mucosal Immunol. 2014;7:1165-1174. doi: 10.1038/mi.2014.3

39. Cogliano V, Baan R, Straif K, et al; WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer. Carcinogenicity of human papillomaviruses. Lancet Oncol. 2005;6:204. doi: 10.1016/s1470-2045(05)70086-3

40. Simon MA, Tseng CW, Wong JB. Screening for cervical cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA. 2018;320:674-686. doi:10.1001/jama.2018.10897

41. Perkins RB, Guido RS, Castle PE, et al; 2019 ASCCP Risk-Based Management Consensus Guidelines Committee. 2019 ASCCP risk-based management consensus guidelines for abnormal cervical cancer screening tests and cancer precursors. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2020;24:102-131. doi: 10.1097/LGT.0000000000000525

42. Meites E, Szilagyi PG, Chesson HW, et al. Human papillomavirus vaccination for adults: updated recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019;68:698-702. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6832a3

43. Schmidt R, Carson PJ, Jansen RJ. Resurgence of syphilis in the United States: an assessment of contributing factors. Infect Dis (Auckl). 2019;12:1178633719883282. doi: 10.1177/1178633719883282

44. Boog GHP, Lopes JVZ, Mahler JV, et al. Diagnostic tools for neurosyphilis: a systematic review. BMC Infect Dis. 2021;21:568. doi: 10.1186/s12879-021-06264-8

45. CDC. Sexually transmitted infections treatment guidelines, 2021. Syphilis. US Department of Health and Human Services. April 20, 2023. Accessed April 24, 2023. www.cdc.gov/std/treatment-guidelines/syphilis.htm

46. Matthias JM, Rahman MM, Newman DR, et al. Effectiveness of prenatal screening and treatment to prevent congenital syphilis, Louisiana and Florida, 2013-2014. Sex Transm Dis. 2017;44:498-502. doi: 10.1097/OLQ.0000000000000638

47. Clement ME, Okeke NL, Hicks CB. Treatment of syphilis: a systematic review. JAMA. 2014;312:1905-1917. doi: 10.1001/jama.2014.13259

48. Davidson KW, Barry MJ, Mangione CM, et al; US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for chlamydia and gonorrhea: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA. 2021;326:949-956. doi: 10.1001/jama.2021.14081

49. Krist AH, Davidson KW, Mangione CM, et al; US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for hepatitis B virus infection in adolescents and adults: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA. 2020;324:2415-2422. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.22980

50. Owens DK, Davidson KW, Krist AH, et al; US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for hepatitis C virus infection in adolescents and adults: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA. 2020;323:970-975. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.1123

51. Bibbins-Domingo K, Grossman DC, Curry SJ, et al; US Preventive Services Task Force. Serologic screening for genital herpes infection: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA. 2016;316:2525-2530. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.16776

52. Curry SJ, Krist AH, Owens DK, et al; US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for cervical cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA. 2018;320:674-686. doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.10897

53. Owens DK, Davidson KW, Krist AH, et al; US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for HIV infection: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA. 2019;321:2326-2336. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.6587

54. Farley TA, Cohen DA, Elkins W. Asymptomatic sexually transmitted diseases: the case for screening. Prev Med. 2003;36:502-509. doi: 10.1016/s0091-7435(02)00058-0

55. US Public Health Service. Preexposure prophylaxis for the prevention of HIV infection in the United States—2021 update. A clinical practice guideline. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Accessed April 24, 2023. www.cdc.gov/hiv/pdf/risk/prep/cdc-hiv-prep-guidelines-2021.pdf

56. CDC. Sexually transmitted infections treatment guidelines, 2021: Sexual assault and abuse and STIs—adolescents and adults, 2021. US Department of Health and Human Services. July 22, 2021. Accessed April 24, 2023. www.cdc.gov/std/­treatment-guidelines/sexual-assault-adults.htm

References

1. Pagaoa M, Grey J, Torrone E, et al. Trends in nationally notifiable sexually transmitted disease case reports during the US ­COVID-19 pandemic, January to December 2020. Sex Transm Dis. 2021;48:798-804. doi: 10.1097/OLQ.0000000000001506

2. Chesson HW, Spicknall IH; Bingham A, et al. The estimated direct lifetime medical costs of sexually transmitted infections acquired in the United States in 2018. Sex Transm Dis. 2021;48:215-221. doi: 10.1097/OLQ.0000000000001380

3. Kreisel KM, Spicknall IH, Gargano JW, et al. Sexually transmitted infections among US women and men: prevalence and incidence estimates, 2018. Sex Transm Dis. 2021;48:208-214. doi: 10.1097/OLQ.0000000000001355

4. CDC. Sexually transmitted infections treatment guidelines, 2021: Chlamydial infections among adolescents and adults. US Department of Health and Human Services. July 21, 2021. Accessed April 19, 2023. www.cdc.gov/std/treatment-guidelines/chlamydia.htm

5. CDC. Sexually transmitted infections treatment guidelines, 2021: Gonococcal infections among adolescents and adults. US Department of Health and Human Services. September 21, 2022. Accessed April 23, 2023. www.cdc.gov/std/treatment-guidelines/gonorrhea-adults.htm

6. Van Gerwen OT, Muzny CA. Recent advances in the epidemiology, diagnosis, and management of Trichomonas vaginalis infection. F1000Res. 2019;8:F1000 Faculty Rev-1666. Published 2019 Sep 20. doi:10.12688/f1000research.19972.1

7. CDC. Sexually transmitted infections treatment guidelines, 2021. Trichomoniasis. US Department of Health and Human Services. September 21, 2022. Accessed April 23, 2023. December 27, 2021. www.cdc.gov/std/treatment-guidelines/trichomoniasis.htm

8. Spicknall IH, Flagg EW, Torrone EA. Estimates of the prevalence and incidence of genital herpes, United States, 2018. Sex Transm Dis. 2021;48:260-265. doi: 10.1097/OLQ.0000000000001375

9. Mark H, Gilbert L, Nanda J. Psychosocial well-being and quality of life among women newly diagnosed with genital herpes. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2009;38:320-326. doi: 10.1111/j.1552-6909.2009.01026.x

10. Bibbins-Domingo K, Grossman DC, Curry SJ, et al; US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for syphilis infection in nonpregnant adults and adolescents: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA. 2016;315:2321-2327. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.5824

11. Ricco J, Westby A. Syphilis: far from ancient history. Am Fam Physician. 2020;102:91-98.

12. Goza M, Kulwicki B, Akers JM, et al. Syphilis screening: a review of the Syphilis Health Check rapid immunochromatographic test. J Pharm Technol. 2017;33:53-59. doi:10.1177/8755122517691308

13. Henao-Martínez AF, Johnson SC. Diagnostic tests for syphilis: new tests and new algorithms. Neurol Clin Pract. 2014;4:114-122. doi: 10.1212/01.CPJ.0000435752.17621.48

14. Workowski KA, Bachmann LH, Chan PA, et al. Sexually transmitted infections treatment guidelines, 2021. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2021;70:1-187. doi:10.15585/mmwr.rr7004a1

15. CDC. Sexually Transmitted Disease Surveillance 2021. National overview of STDs. US Department of Health and Human Services. April 2023. Accessed May 9, 2023. www.cdc.gov/std/statistics/­2021/overview.htm#Chlamydia

16. CDC. Recommendations for the laboratory-based detection of Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae—2014. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2014;63:1-19.

17. Kong FYS, Tabrizi SN, Law M, et al. Azithromycin versus doxycycline for the treatment of genital chlamydia infection: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Clin Infect Dis. 2014;59:193-205. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciu220

18. Páez-Canro C, Alzate JP, González LM, et al. Antibiotics for treating urogenital Chlamydia trachomatis infection in men and non-pregnant women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;1:CD010871. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010871.pub2

19. Dombrowski JC, Wierzbicki MR, Newman LM, et al. Doxycycline versus azithromycin for the treatment of rectal chlamydia in men who have sex with men: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Infect Dis. 2021;73:824-831. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciab153

20. CDC. Sexually transmitted infections treatment guidelines, 2021: Expedited partner therapy. US Department of Health and Human Services. July 22, 2021. Accessed April 19, 2023. www.cdc.gov/std/treatment-guidelines/clinical-EPT.htm

21. Golden MR, Whittington WLH, Handsfield HH, et al. Effect of expedited treatment of sex partners on recurrent or persistent gonorrhea or chlamydial infection. N Engl J Med. 2005;352:676-685. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa041681

22. Schillinger JA, Kissinger P, Calvet H, et al. Patient-delivered partner treatment with azithromycin to prevent repeated Chlamydia trachomatis infection among women: a randomized, controlled trial. Sex Transm Dis. 2003;30:49-56. doi: 10.1097/00007435-200301000-00011

23. Cameron ST, Glasier A, Scott G, et al. Novel interventions to reduce re-infection in women with chlamydia: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod. 2009;24:888-895. doi: 10.1093/humrep/den475

24. McNulty A, Teh MF, Freedman E. Patient delivered partner ­therapy for chlamydial infection—what would be missed? Sex Transm Dis. 2008;35:834-836. doi: 10.1097/OLQ.0b013e3181761993

25. Stekler J, Bachmann L, Brotman RM, et al. Concurrent sexually transmitted infections (STIs) in sex partners of patients with selected STIs: implications for patient-delivered partner therapy. Clin Infect Dis. 2005;40:787-793. doi: 10.1086/428043

26. Schillinger JA, Kissinger P, Calvet H, et al. Patient-delivered partner treatment with azithromycin to prevent repeated Chlamydia trachomatis infection among women: a randomized, controlled trial. Sex Transm Dis. 2003;30:49-56. doi: 10.1097/00007435-200301000-00011

27. Stupiansky NW, Van der Pol B, Williams JA, et al. The natural history of incident gonococcal infection in adolescent women. Sex Transm Dis. 2011;38:750-754. doi: 10.1097/OLQ.0b013e31820ff9a4

28. CDC. Sexually transmitted infections treatment guidelines, 2021: Screening recommendations and considerations referenced in treatment guidelines and original sources. US Department of Health and Human Services. June 6, 2022. Accessed May 9, 2023. www.cdc.gov/std/treatment-guidelines/screening-recommen dations.htm

29. Cantor A, Dana T, Griffen JC, et al. Screening for chlamydial and gonococcal infections: a systematic review update for the US Preventive Services Task Force. Evidence Synthesis No. 206. AHRQ Report No. 21-05275-EF-1. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. September 2021. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK574045

30. CDC. Update to CDC’s sexually transmitted diseases treatment guidelines, 2006: fluoroquinolones no longer recommended for treatment of gonococcal infections. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2007;56:332-336.

31. Rowley J, Vander Hoorn S, Korenromp E, et al. Chlamydia, gonorrhoea, trichomoniasis and syphilis: global prevalence and incidence estimates, 2016. Bull World Health Organ. 2019:97:548-562P. doi: 10.2471/BLT.18.228486

32. Patel EU, Gaydos CA, Packman ZR, et al. Prevalence and correlates of Trichomonas vaginalis infection among men and women in the United States. Clin Infect Dis. 2018;67:211-217. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciy079

33. CDC. Sexually transmitted infections treatment guidelines, 2021. Mycoplasma genitalium. US Department of Health and Human Services. July 22, 2021. Accessed April 23, 2023. www.cdc.gov/std/treatment-guidelines/mycoplasmagenitalium.htm

34. Manhart LE, Broad JM, Bolden MR. Mycoplasma genitalium: should we treat and how? Clin Infect Dis. 2011;53(suppl 3):S129-S142. doi:10.1093/cid/cir702.

35. Corey L, Wald A. Genital herpes. In: Holmes KK, Sparling PF, Stamm WE, et al, eds. Sexually Transmitted Diseases. 4th ed. ­McGraw-Hill; 2008:399-437.

36. CDC. Sexually transmitted infections treatment guidelines, 2021: Genital herpes. US Department of Health and Human Services. September 21, 2022. Accessed April 23, 2023. www.cdc.gov/std/treatment-guidelines/herpes.htm

37. Looker KJ, Elmes JAR, Gottlieb SL, et al. Effect of HSV-2 infection on subsequent HIV acquisition: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Infect Dis. 2017;17:1303-1316. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(17)30405-X

38. Rollenhagen C, Lathrop M, Macura SL, et al. Herpes simplex virus type-2 stimulates HIV-1 replication in cervical tissues: implications for HIV-1 transmission and efficacy of anti-HIV-1 microbicides. Mucosal Immunol. 2014;7:1165-1174. doi: 10.1038/mi.2014.3

39. Cogliano V, Baan R, Straif K, et al; WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer. Carcinogenicity of human papillomaviruses. Lancet Oncol. 2005;6:204. doi: 10.1016/s1470-2045(05)70086-3

40. Simon MA, Tseng CW, Wong JB. Screening for cervical cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA. 2018;320:674-686. doi:10.1001/jama.2018.10897

41. Perkins RB, Guido RS, Castle PE, et al; 2019 ASCCP Risk-Based Management Consensus Guidelines Committee. 2019 ASCCP risk-based management consensus guidelines for abnormal cervical cancer screening tests and cancer precursors. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2020;24:102-131. doi: 10.1097/LGT.0000000000000525

42. Meites E, Szilagyi PG, Chesson HW, et al. Human papillomavirus vaccination for adults: updated recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019;68:698-702. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6832a3

43. Schmidt R, Carson PJ, Jansen RJ. Resurgence of syphilis in the United States: an assessment of contributing factors. Infect Dis (Auckl). 2019;12:1178633719883282. doi: 10.1177/1178633719883282

44. Boog GHP, Lopes JVZ, Mahler JV, et al. Diagnostic tools for neurosyphilis: a systematic review. BMC Infect Dis. 2021;21:568. doi: 10.1186/s12879-021-06264-8

45. CDC. Sexually transmitted infections treatment guidelines, 2021. Syphilis. US Department of Health and Human Services. April 20, 2023. Accessed April 24, 2023. www.cdc.gov/std/treatment-guidelines/syphilis.htm

46. Matthias JM, Rahman MM, Newman DR, et al. Effectiveness of prenatal screening and treatment to prevent congenital syphilis, Louisiana and Florida, 2013-2014. Sex Transm Dis. 2017;44:498-502. doi: 10.1097/OLQ.0000000000000638

47. Clement ME, Okeke NL, Hicks CB. Treatment of syphilis: a systematic review. JAMA. 2014;312:1905-1917. doi: 10.1001/jama.2014.13259

48. Davidson KW, Barry MJ, Mangione CM, et al; US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for chlamydia and gonorrhea: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA. 2021;326:949-956. doi: 10.1001/jama.2021.14081

49. Krist AH, Davidson KW, Mangione CM, et al; US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for hepatitis B virus infection in adolescents and adults: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA. 2020;324:2415-2422. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.22980

50. Owens DK, Davidson KW, Krist AH, et al; US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for hepatitis C virus infection in adolescents and adults: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA. 2020;323:970-975. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.1123

51. Bibbins-Domingo K, Grossman DC, Curry SJ, et al; US Preventive Services Task Force. Serologic screening for genital herpes infection: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA. 2016;316:2525-2530. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.16776

52. Curry SJ, Krist AH, Owens DK, et al; US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for cervical cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA. 2018;320:674-686. doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.10897

53. Owens DK, Davidson KW, Krist AH, et al; US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for HIV infection: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA. 2019;321:2326-2336. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.6587

54. Farley TA, Cohen DA, Elkins W. Asymptomatic sexually transmitted diseases: the case for screening. Prev Med. 2003;36:502-509. doi: 10.1016/s0091-7435(02)00058-0

55. US Public Health Service. Preexposure prophylaxis for the prevention of HIV infection in the United States—2021 update. A clinical practice guideline. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Accessed April 24, 2023. www.cdc.gov/hiv/pdf/risk/prep/cdc-hiv-prep-guidelines-2021.pdf

56. CDC. Sexually transmitted infections treatment guidelines, 2021: Sexual assault and abuse and STIs—adolescents and adults, 2021. US Department of Health and Human Services. July 22, 2021. Accessed April 24, 2023. www.cdc.gov/std/­treatment-guidelines/sexual-assault-adults.htm

Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 72(6)
Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 72(6)
Page Number
E1-E12
Page Number
E1-E12
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
An STI upsurge requires a nimble approach to care
Display Headline
An STI upsurge requires a nimble approach to care
Sections
Inside the Article

PRACTICE RECOMMENDATIONS

› Focus efforts to prevent sexually transmitted infections (STIs) on patients ages 15 to 24 years—because half of new STIs in the United States occur in this age group. A

› Screen for other STIs, including HIV infection, if a person tests positive for a single STI. A

› Treat STIs by following updated (2021) guidelines developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. A

Strength of recommendation (SOR)
A Good-quality patient-oriented evidence
B Inconsistent or limited-quality patient-oriented evidence
C Consensus, usual practice, opinion, disease-oriented evidence, case series

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article
Article PDF Media

Does use of continuous or flash glucose monitors decrease hypoglycemia episodes in T2D?

Article Type
Changed
Mon, 07/24/2023 - 13:51
Display Headline
Does use of continuous or flash glucose monitors decrease hypoglycemia episodes in T2D?

Evidence summary

Continuous glucose monitoring: Nonsignificant reductions in event rates

A 2021 multicenter RCT (N = 175) evaluated CGM effectiveness in patients with basal ­insulin–treated T2D.1 Patients (mean age, 57 years; mean A1C, 9.1%) wore a blinded CGM device for baseline glucose measurement (minimum of 168 hours) before being randomly assigned to either CGM (n = 116) or traditional blood glucose monitoring (BGM; n = 59). At 8-month follow-up, patients in the BGM group again had blinded sensors placed. A significant reduction in hypoglycemia duration was observed for the CGM group vs the BGM group at 8 months for glucose values < 70 mg/mL (adjusted mean difference [aMD] = –0.24%; 95% CI, –0.42 to –0.05) and < 54 mg/dL (aMD = –0.10%; 95% CI, –0.15 to –0.04). A nonsignificant decrease in severe hypoglycemic events requiring resuscitative assistance occurred for BGM (2%) vs CGM (1%) patients. Study limitations included virtual visits due to COVID-19 and a short follow-­up period.

A 2022 multicenter prospective study (N = 174) examined CGM effects on hypoglycemia frequency and severity in adults with T2D.2 Patients with insulin-requiring T2D (mean age, 61 years; mean A1C, 8.0%) participated in a 12-month study with 6 months of self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG) followed by 6 months of CGM use. The primary outcome was the rate of severe hypoglycemic events. A nonsignificant decrease was observed in the CGM group compared to the SMBG group for hypoglycemic event rate, per participant per 6-month period (relative risk [RR] = 0.43; 95% CI, 0.07-2.64). Four moderate hypoglycemic adverse events occurred in the SMBG phase vs 2 in the CGM phase. Financial support by the study sponsor decreases the study’s validity.

A 2021 prospective study (N = 90) evaluated the use of CGM to improve glycemic control.3 Patients younger than 66 years with insulin-treated T2D and an A1C > 7.5% participated in a 7-day blinded CGM cycle every 4 months for 1 year. A nonsignificant decrease in hypoglycemia duration was observed for glucose values < 70 mg/dL and < 54 mg/dL at 12 months. No change in hypoglycemic event rate was seen with the use of CGM. Funding by the device manufacturer was a limitation of this study.

Flash glucose monitoring: Mixed results on hypoglycemia events

A 2019 open-label RCT (N = 82) assessed the effectiveness of FGM on diabetes control.4 Patients with insulin-treated T2D were randomly assigned to the intervention or standard­-care groups. The intervention group (n = 46; mean age, 66 years; mean A1C, 8.3%) used the FGM system for 10 weeks, while the standard-care group (n = 36; mean age, 70 years; mean A1C, 8.9%) maintained use of their glucometers. Both groups received similar types and duration of counseling. Treatment satisfaction was the primary outcome; total hypoglycemic events was a secondary outcome. No significant difference in the number of hypoglycemic episodes was observed between the intervention and control groups at 55 to 70 mg/dL (RR = 0.79; 95% CI, 0.44-1.4) or < 54 mg/dL (RR = 1.27; 95% CI, 0.38-4.2). No adverse events of severe hypoglycemia occurred during the study. Funding by the device manufacturer was a limitation of this study.

Continuous glucose monitoring and flash glucose monitoring do not decrease symptomatic hypoglycemia episodes but do lower time in hypoglycemia.

A 2017 open-label, multicenter RCT (N = 224) assessed FGM efficacy.5 Adults (mean age, 59 years; mean A1C, 8.8%) with T2D on intensive insulin therapy were randomized to FGM (n = 149) or SMBG (n = 75) after a 14-day masked baseline period. The 6-month treatment phase was unblinded. The duration of hypoglycemic events (glucose values < 70 mg/dL and < 55 mg/dL) was obtained from the sensors. Compared to the SMBG group, the FGM group spent 43% less time at < 70 mg/dL (aMD = –0.47 ± 0.13 h/d; P = .0006) and 53% less time at < 55 mg/dL (aMD = –0.22 ± 0.068 h/d; P = .0014). Hypoglycemic event rates significantly decreased by 28% (aMD = –0.16 ± 0.065; P = 0.016) and 44% (aMD = –0.12 ± 0.037; P = .0017) for glucose levels < 70 mg/dL and < 55 mg/dL, respectively. A nonsignificant difference occurred in severe hypoglycemic events requiring third-party assistance for the FGM (2%) vs control (1%) groups. Involvement of the device manufacturer and unblinded group allocations are study limitations.

A 2021 single-arm, multicenter prospective study looked at the impact of FGM on glycemic control in adults with insulin-treated T2D (N = 90; mean age, 64 years; mean A1C, 7.5%).6 After a 14-day baseline period consisting of masked sensor readings paired with self-monitored fingerstick tests, participants were followed for 11 weeks using the sensor to monitor glucose levels. The primary outcome was amount of time spent in hypoglycemia (< 70 mg/dL), with secondary outcomes including time and events in hypoglycemia (< 70, < 55, or < 45 mg/dL). No significant decrease in hypoglycemia duration or hypoglycemic event rates at < 70, < 55, or < 45 mg/­dL was observed for FGM compared to baseline. Adverse events were observed in 64% of participants; 94% of the events were hypoglycemia related. Serious adverse events were reported for 5.3% of participants. The single-arm study format, lack of generalizability due to the single-race study population, and sponsor support were study limitations.

Editor’s takeaway

This reasonably good evidence shows a decrease in measured or monitored hypoglycemia, a disease-oriented outcome, but it did not reach statistical significance for symptomatic hypoglycemia (1% vs 2%), a patient-oriented outcome. Nevertheless, in patients reporting symptomatic hypoglycemia, a continuous or flash glucose monitor may allow for more aggressive glucose control.

References

1. Martens T, Beck RW, Bailey R, et al. Effect of continuous glucose monitoring on glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with basal insulin: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2021;325:2262-2272. doi: 10.1001/jama.2021.7444

2. Beck SE, Kelly C, Price DA. Non-adjunctive continuous glucose monitoring for control of hypoglycaemia (COACH): results of a post-approval observational study. Diabet Med. 2022;39:e14739. doi: 10.1111/dme.14739

3. Ribeiro RT, Andrade R, Nascimento do O D, et al. Impact of blinded retrospective continuous glucose monitoring on clinical decision making and glycemic control in persons with type 2 diabetes on insulin therapy. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis. 2021;31:1267-1275. doi: 10.1016/j.numecd.2020.12.024

4. Yaron M, Roitman E, Aharon-Hananel G, et al. Effect of flash glucose monitoring technology on glycemic control and treatment satisfaction in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2019;42:1178-1184. doi: 10.2337/dc18-0166

5. Haak T, Hanaire H, Ajjan R, et al. Flash glucose-sensing technology as a replacement for blood glucose monitoring for the management of insulin-treated type 2 diabetes: a multicenter, open-label randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Ther. 2017;8:55-73. doi: 10.1007/s13300-016-0223-6

6. Ogawa W, Hirota Y, Osonoi T, et al. Effect of the FreeStyle Libre™ flash glucose monitoring system on glycemic control in individuals with type 2 diabetes treated with basal-bolus insulin therapy: an open label, prospective, multicenter trial in Japan. J Diabetes Investig. 2021;12:82-90. doi: 10.1111/jdi.13327

Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Frances K. Wen, PhD
Simone Bigelow, DO
Kimberly Crosby, PharmD
Raye Reeder, MD, MPH

Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Oklahoma School of Community Medicine, Tulsa

Toni Hoberecht, MA, MLIS, AHIP
Emrys Moreau, MFA, MLIS

Schusterman Library, University of Oklahoma–Tulsa

DEPUTY EDITOR
Rick Guthmann, MD, MPH

Advocate Health Care Illinois Masonic Medical Center Program, Chicago

Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 72(6)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
271-272,275
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Frances K. Wen, PhD
Simone Bigelow, DO
Kimberly Crosby, PharmD
Raye Reeder, MD, MPH

Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Oklahoma School of Community Medicine, Tulsa

Toni Hoberecht, MA, MLIS, AHIP
Emrys Moreau, MFA, MLIS

Schusterman Library, University of Oklahoma–Tulsa

DEPUTY EDITOR
Rick Guthmann, MD, MPH

Advocate Health Care Illinois Masonic Medical Center Program, Chicago

Author and Disclosure Information

Frances K. Wen, PhD
Simone Bigelow, DO
Kimberly Crosby, PharmD
Raye Reeder, MD, MPH

Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Oklahoma School of Community Medicine, Tulsa

Toni Hoberecht, MA, MLIS, AHIP
Emrys Moreau, MFA, MLIS

Schusterman Library, University of Oklahoma–Tulsa

DEPUTY EDITOR
Rick Guthmann, MD, MPH

Advocate Health Care Illinois Masonic Medical Center Program, Chicago

Article PDF
Article PDF

Evidence summary

Continuous glucose monitoring: Nonsignificant reductions in event rates

A 2021 multicenter RCT (N = 175) evaluated CGM effectiveness in patients with basal ­insulin–treated T2D.1 Patients (mean age, 57 years; mean A1C, 9.1%) wore a blinded CGM device for baseline glucose measurement (minimum of 168 hours) before being randomly assigned to either CGM (n = 116) or traditional blood glucose monitoring (BGM; n = 59). At 8-month follow-up, patients in the BGM group again had blinded sensors placed. A significant reduction in hypoglycemia duration was observed for the CGM group vs the BGM group at 8 months for glucose values < 70 mg/mL (adjusted mean difference [aMD] = –0.24%; 95% CI, –0.42 to –0.05) and < 54 mg/dL (aMD = –0.10%; 95% CI, –0.15 to –0.04). A nonsignificant decrease in severe hypoglycemic events requiring resuscitative assistance occurred for BGM (2%) vs CGM (1%) patients. Study limitations included virtual visits due to COVID-19 and a short follow-­up period.

A 2022 multicenter prospective study (N = 174) examined CGM effects on hypoglycemia frequency and severity in adults with T2D.2 Patients with insulin-requiring T2D (mean age, 61 years; mean A1C, 8.0%) participated in a 12-month study with 6 months of self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG) followed by 6 months of CGM use. The primary outcome was the rate of severe hypoglycemic events. A nonsignificant decrease was observed in the CGM group compared to the SMBG group for hypoglycemic event rate, per participant per 6-month period (relative risk [RR] = 0.43; 95% CI, 0.07-2.64). Four moderate hypoglycemic adverse events occurred in the SMBG phase vs 2 in the CGM phase. Financial support by the study sponsor decreases the study’s validity.

A 2021 prospective study (N = 90) evaluated the use of CGM to improve glycemic control.3 Patients younger than 66 years with insulin-treated T2D and an A1C > 7.5% participated in a 7-day blinded CGM cycle every 4 months for 1 year. A nonsignificant decrease in hypoglycemia duration was observed for glucose values < 70 mg/dL and < 54 mg/dL at 12 months. No change in hypoglycemic event rate was seen with the use of CGM. Funding by the device manufacturer was a limitation of this study.

Flash glucose monitoring: Mixed results on hypoglycemia events

A 2019 open-label RCT (N = 82) assessed the effectiveness of FGM on diabetes control.4 Patients with insulin-treated T2D were randomly assigned to the intervention or standard­-care groups. The intervention group (n = 46; mean age, 66 years; mean A1C, 8.3%) used the FGM system for 10 weeks, while the standard-care group (n = 36; mean age, 70 years; mean A1C, 8.9%) maintained use of their glucometers. Both groups received similar types and duration of counseling. Treatment satisfaction was the primary outcome; total hypoglycemic events was a secondary outcome. No significant difference in the number of hypoglycemic episodes was observed between the intervention and control groups at 55 to 70 mg/dL (RR = 0.79; 95% CI, 0.44-1.4) or < 54 mg/dL (RR = 1.27; 95% CI, 0.38-4.2). No adverse events of severe hypoglycemia occurred during the study. Funding by the device manufacturer was a limitation of this study.

Continuous glucose monitoring and flash glucose monitoring do not decrease symptomatic hypoglycemia episodes but do lower time in hypoglycemia.

A 2017 open-label, multicenter RCT (N = 224) assessed FGM efficacy.5 Adults (mean age, 59 years; mean A1C, 8.8%) with T2D on intensive insulin therapy were randomized to FGM (n = 149) or SMBG (n = 75) after a 14-day masked baseline period. The 6-month treatment phase was unblinded. The duration of hypoglycemic events (glucose values < 70 mg/dL and < 55 mg/dL) was obtained from the sensors. Compared to the SMBG group, the FGM group spent 43% less time at < 70 mg/dL (aMD = –0.47 ± 0.13 h/d; P = .0006) and 53% less time at < 55 mg/dL (aMD = –0.22 ± 0.068 h/d; P = .0014). Hypoglycemic event rates significantly decreased by 28% (aMD = –0.16 ± 0.065; P = 0.016) and 44% (aMD = –0.12 ± 0.037; P = .0017) for glucose levels < 70 mg/dL and < 55 mg/dL, respectively. A nonsignificant difference occurred in severe hypoglycemic events requiring third-party assistance for the FGM (2%) vs control (1%) groups. Involvement of the device manufacturer and unblinded group allocations are study limitations.

A 2021 single-arm, multicenter prospective study looked at the impact of FGM on glycemic control in adults with insulin-treated T2D (N = 90; mean age, 64 years; mean A1C, 7.5%).6 After a 14-day baseline period consisting of masked sensor readings paired with self-monitored fingerstick tests, participants were followed for 11 weeks using the sensor to monitor glucose levels. The primary outcome was amount of time spent in hypoglycemia (< 70 mg/dL), with secondary outcomes including time and events in hypoglycemia (< 70, < 55, or < 45 mg/dL). No significant decrease in hypoglycemia duration or hypoglycemic event rates at < 70, < 55, or < 45 mg/­dL was observed for FGM compared to baseline. Adverse events were observed in 64% of participants; 94% of the events were hypoglycemia related. Serious adverse events were reported for 5.3% of participants. The single-arm study format, lack of generalizability due to the single-race study population, and sponsor support were study limitations.

Editor’s takeaway

This reasonably good evidence shows a decrease in measured or monitored hypoglycemia, a disease-oriented outcome, but it did not reach statistical significance for symptomatic hypoglycemia (1% vs 2%), a patient-oriented outcome. Nevertheless, in patients reporting symptomatic hypoglycemia, a continuous or flash glucose monitor may allow for more aggressive glucose control.

Evidence summary

Continuous glucose monitoring: Nonsignificant reductions in event rates

A 2021 multicenter RCT (N = 175) evaluated CGM effectiveness in patients with basal ­insulin–treated T2D.1 Patients (mean age, 57 years; mean A1C, 9.1%) wore a blinded CGM device for baseline glucose measurement (minimum of 168 hours) before being randomly assigned to either CGM (n = 116) or traditional blood glucose monitoring (BGM; n = 59). At 8-month follow-up, patients in the BGM group again had blinded sensors placed. A significant reduction in hypoglycemia duration was observed for the CGM group vs the BGM group at 8 months for glucose values < 70 mg/mL (adjusted mean difference [aMD] = –0.24%; 95% CI, –0.42 to –0.05) and < 54 mg/dL (aMD = –0.10%; 95% CI, –0.15 to –0.04). A nonsignificant decrease in severe hypoglycemic events requiring resuscitative assistance occurred for BGM (2%) vs CGM (1%) patients. Study limitations included virtual visits due to COVID-19 and a short follow-­up period.

A 2022 multicenter prospective study (N = 174) examined CGM effects on hypoglycemia frequency and severity in adults with T2D.2 Patients with insulin-requiring T2D (mean age, 61 years; mean A1C, 8.0%) participated in a 12-month study with 6 months of self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG) followed by 6 months of CGM use. The primary outcome was the rate of severe hypoglycemic events. A nonsignificant decrease was observed in the CGM group compared to the SMBG group for hypoglycemic event rate, per participant per 6-month period (relative risk [RR] = 0.43; 95% CI, 0.07-2.64). Four moderate hypoglycemic adverse events occurred in the SMBG phase vs 2 in the CGM phase. Financial support by the study sponsor decreases the study’s validity.

A 2021 prospective study (N = 90) evaluated the use of CGM to improve glycemic control.3 Patients younger than 66 years with insulin-treated T2D and an A1C > 7.5% participated in a 7-day blinded CGM cycle every 4 months for 1 year. A nonsignificant decrease in hypoglycemia duration was observed for glucose values < 70 mg/dL and < 54 mg/dL at 12 months. No change in hypoglycemic event rate was seen with the use of CGM. Funding by the device manufacturer was a limitation of this study.

Flash glucose monitoring: Mixed results on hypoglycemia events

A 2019 open-label RCT (N = 82) assessed the effectiveness of FGM on diabetes control.4 Patients with insulin-treated T2D were randomly assigned to the intervention or standard­-care groups. The intervention group (n = 46; mean age, 66 years; mean A1C, 8.3%) used the FGM system for 10 weeks, while the standard-care group (n = 36; mean age, 70 years; mean A1C, 8.9%) maintained use of their glucometers. Both groups received similar types and duration of counseling. Treatment satisfaction was the primary outcome; total hypoglycemic events was a secondary outcome. No significant difference in the number of hypoglycemic episodes was observed between the intervention and control groups at 55 to 70 mg/dL (RR = 0.79; 95% CI, 0.44-1.4) or < 54 mg/dL (RR = 1.27; 95% CI, 0.38-4.2). No adverse events of severe hypoglycemia occurred during the study. Funding by the device manufacturer was a limitation of this study.

Continuous glucose monitoring and flash glucose monitoring do not decrease symptomatic hypoglycemia episodes but do lower time in hypoglycemia.

A 2017 open-label, multicenter RCT (N = 224) assessed FGM efficacy.5 Adults (mean age, 59 years; mean A1C, 8.8%) with T2D on intensive insulin therapy were randomized to FGM (n = 149) or SMBG (n = 75) after a 14-day masked baseline period. The 6-month treatment phase was unblinded. The duration of hypoglycemic events (glucose values < 70 mg/dL and < 55 mg/dL) was obtained from the sensors. Compared to the SMBG group, the FGM group spent 43% less time at < 70 mg/dL (aMD = –0.47 ± 0.13 h/d; P = .0006) and 53% less time at < 55 mg/dL (aMD = –0.22 ± 0.068 h/d; P = .0014). Hypoglycemic event rates significantly decreased by 28% (aMD = –0.16 ± 0.065; P = 0.016) and 44% (aMD = –0.12 ± 0.037; P = .0017) for glucose levels < 70 mg/dL and < 55 mg/dL, respectively. A nonsignificant difference occurred in severe hypoglycemic events requiring third-party assistance for the FGM (2%) vs control (1%) groups. Involvement of the device manufacturer and unblinded group allocations are study limitations.

A 2021 single-arm, multicenter prospective study looked at the impact of FGM on glycemic control in adults with insulin-treated T2D (N = 90; mean age, 64 years; mean A1C, 7.5%).6 After a 14-day baseline period consisting of masked sensor readings paired with self-monitored fingerstick tests, participants were followed for 11 weeks using the sensor to monitor glucose levels. The primary outcome was amount of time spent in hypoglycemia (< 70 mg/dL), with secondary outcomes including time and events in hypoglycemia (< 70, < 55, or < 45 mg/dL). No significant decrease in hypoglycemia duration or hypoglycemic event rates at < 70, < 55, or < 45 mg/­dL was observed for FGM compared to baseline. Adverse events were observed in 64% of participants; 94% of the events were hypoglycemia related. Serious adverse events were reported for 5.3% of participants. The single-arm study format, lack of generalizability due to the single-race study population, and sponsor support were study limitations.

Editor’s takeaway

This reasonably good evidence shows a decrease in measured or monitored hypoglycemia, a disease-oriented outcome, but it did not reach statistical significance for symptomatic hypoglycemia (1% vs 2%), a patient-oriented outcome. Nevertheless, in patients reporting symptomatic hypoglycemia, a continuous or flash glucose monitor may allow for more aggressive glucose control.

References

1. Martens T, Beck RW, Bailey R, et al. Effect of continuous glucose monitoring on glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with basal insulin: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2021;325:2262-2272. doi: 10.1001/jama.2021.7444

2. Beck SE, Kelly C, Price DA. Non-adjunctive continuous glucose monitoring for control of hypoglycaemia (COACH): results of a post-approval observational study. Diabet Med. 2022;39:e14739. doi: 10.1111/dme.14739

3. Ribeiro RT, Andrade R, Nascimento do O D, et al. Impact of blinded retrospective continuous glucose monitoring on clinical decision making and glycemic control in persons with type 2 diabetes on insulin therapy. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis. 2021;31:1267-1275. doi: 10.1016/j.numecd.2020.12.024

4. Yaron M, Roitman E, Aharon-Hananel G, et al. Effect of flash glucose monitoring technology on glycemic control and treatment satisfaction in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2019;42:1178-1184. doi: 10.2337/dc18-0166

5. Haak T, Hanaire H, Ajjan R, et al. Flash glucose-sensing technology as a replacement for blood glucose monitoring for the management of insulin-treated type 2 diabetes: a multicenter, open-label randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Ther. 2017;8:55-73. doi: 10.1007/s13300-016-0223-6

6. Ogawa W, Hirota Y, Osonoi T, et al. Effect of the FreeStyle Libre™ flash glucose monitoring system on glycemic control in individuals with type 2 diabetes treated with basal-bolus insulin therapy: an open label, prospective, multicenter trial in Japan. J Diabetes Investig. 2021;12:82-90. doi: 10.1111/jdi.13327

References

1. Martens T, Beck RW, Bailey R, et al. Effect of continuous glucose monitoring on glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with basal insulin: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2021;325:2262-2272. doi: 10.1001/jama.2021.7444

2. Beck SE, Kelly C, Price DA. Non-adjunctive continuous glucose monitoring for control of hypoglycaemia (COACH): results of a post-approval observational study. Diabet Med. 2022;39:e14739. doi: 10.1111/dme.14739

3. Ribeiro RT, Andrade R, Nascimento do O D, et al. Impact of blinded retrospective continuous glucose monitoring on clinical decision making and glycemic control in persons with type 2 diabetes on insulin therapy. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis. 2021;31:1267-1275. doi: 10.1016/j.numecd.2020.12.024

4. Yaron M, Roitman E, Aharon-Hananel G, et al. Effect of flash glucose monitoring technology on glycemic control and treatment satisfaction in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2019;42:1178-1184. doi: 10.2337/dc18-0166

5. Haak T, Hanaire H, Ajjan R, et al. Flash glucose-sensing technology as a replacement for blood glucose monitoring for the management of insulin-treated type 2 diabetes: a multicenter, open-label randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Ther. 2017;8:55-73. doi: 10.1007/s13300-016-0223-6

6. Ogawa W, Hirota Y, Osonoi T, et al. Effect of the FreeStyle Libre™ flash glucose monitoring system on glycemic control in individuals with type 2 diabetes treated with basal-bolus insulin therapy: an open label, prospective, multicenter trial in Japan. J Diabetes Investig. 2021;12:82-90. doi: 10.1111/jdi.13327

Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 72(6)
Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 72(6)
Page Number
271-272,275
Page Number
271-272,275
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Does use of continuous or flash glucose monitors decrease hypoglycemia episodes in T2D?
Display Headline
Does use of continuous or flash glucose monitors decrease hypoglycemia episodes in T2D?
Sections
PURLs Copyright
Evidence-based answers from the Family Physicians Inquiries Network
Inside the Article

EVIDENCE-BASED REVIEW:

NO. In adults with insulin-treated type 2 diabetes (T2D), continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and flash glucose monitoring (FGM) do not decrease symptomatic hypoglycemia episodes (strength of recommendation [SOR], B) but do lower time in hypoglycemia (SOR, C; disease-oriented evidence).

CGM, in which glucose levels are sent automatically in numeric and graphic format to a patient’s smart device for their potential action, did not change the hypoglycemic event rate (SOR, B; 2 prospective studies). CGM significantly reduced hypoglycemia duration in an 8-month randomized controlled trial (RCT; SOR, C) but not in a 1-year prospective study (SOR, C).

FGM, in which glucose levels are sent on demand to a device, did not significantly reduce hypoglycemic episodes (SOR, B; 1 small RCT and 1 prospective study). Hypoglycemia duration was reduced significantly with FGM in a 6-month RCT (SOR, B) but not in a 1-year prospective study (SOR, B).

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article
Article PDF Media

Just a simple country doctor

Article Type
Changed
Mon, 07/24/2023 - 14:53
Display Headline
Just a simple country doctor

Whenever someone asks me what I do, I happily reply, “I’m just a simple country doctor.” That is, in part, why I am honored to be granted the opportunity to serve as editor-in-chief of The Journal of Family Practice (JFP). As our late colleague Dr. John Hickner noted in his first JFP editorial, he and the 2 editors-in-chief before him (Drs. Jeff Susman and Mark Ebell) were also of the small-town family doc tradition.1

My goal as this journal’s editorin-chief will be to continue its high academic standing while maintaining its utility for busy clinicians.

My small-town roots trace back to rural South Carolina. I am a first-generation college student and attended medical school on a Navy Health Professions Scholarship. After completing my residency training, I had the privilege of serving for 5 years in the Navy (2 of those years were overseas), where I practiced and taught full-scope family medicine. I saw patients of all ages, attended deliveries, and provided inpatient hospital care, as well as performed a full range of procedures and tests, including colposcopies, skin procedures, vasectomies, flexible sigmoidoscopies, and exercise treadmill testing.

Following military service and completion of a 2-year fellowship and Master of Public Health degree (while working nights at a rural emergency department), I began work at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. I had the good fortune of spending the next 11 years as a faculty member there, where I advanced my research and teaching career. In 2017, I was named the Chair of Family Medicine and Community Health at Duke University School of Medicine, where I continue to have an active outpatient practice.

My experiences have shaped my belief that it is critical that family medicine maintain its presence (and advance its prominence) both in our communities and at our large academic medicine centers, championing service to rural areas, promoting health equity, and advocating for the importance of high-quality primary care delivery and training. No matter where we are, our work is valuable, and we make a difference. Like my predecessors, I have a love of evidence-based medicine. I also have a love of writing, which I can trace back to my days as an intern. I am excited to be able to apply what I have learned over the years to help maintain the rigor, practicality, and relevance of JFP while simultaneously helping to nurture new authors and peer reviewers.

My goal as this journal’s editor-in-chief will be to continue its high academic standing while maintaining its utility for busy clinicians. The provision of evidence-based clinical review articles that are succinct and practical, along with departments (eg, Photo Rounds, Behavioral Health Consult, Practice Alert, PURLs), will remain the journal’s major focus. Within this framework, I also want to share the best evidence and ideas on other aspects of practicing medicine, such as quality improvement, population health, and health equity. I’ll be looking to increase recruitment and mentorship of authors from diverse backgrounds, including those historically ­underrepresented in medicine.

I look forward to working with the editorial board, associate and assistant editors, and staff of JFP to serve the diverse interests and needs of our readers. To that end, we’ll be looking for your guidance. How else can JFP help you in your day-to-day practice? Please let us know your ideas. Drop us a line at [email protected].

Finally, please join me in thanking Drs. Henry Barry and Kate Rowland for all of their work this past year in keeping JFP going strong!

References

1. Hickner J. Meet JFP’s new editor-in-chief. J Fam Pract. 2012;61: 581.

Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Editor-in-Chief
[email protected]

Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 72(6)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
232-243
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Editor-in-Chief
[email protected]

Author and Disclosure Information

Editor-in-Chief
[email protected]

Article PDF
Article PDF

Whenever someone asks me what I do, I happily reply, “I’m just a simple country doctor.” That is, in part, why I am honored to be granted the opportunity to serve as editor-in-chief of The Journal of Family Practice (JFP). As our late colleague Dr. John Hickner noted in his first JFP editorial, he and the 2 editors-in-chief before him (Drs. Jeff Susman and Mark Ebell) were also of the small-town family doc tradition.1

My goal as this journal’s editorin-chief will be to continue its high academic standing while maintaining its utility for busy clinicians.

My small-town roots trace back to rural South Carolina. I am a first-generation college student and attended medical school on a Navy Health Professions Scholarship. After completing my residency training, I had the privilege of serving for 5 years in the Navy (2 of those years were overseas), where I practiced and taught full-scope family medicine. I saw patients of all ages, attended deliveries, and provided inpatient hospital care, as well as performed a full range of procedures and tests, including colposcopies, skin procedures, vasectomies, flexible sigmoidoscopies, and exercise treadmill testing.

Following military service and completion of a 2-year fellowship and Master of Public Health degree (while working nights at a rural emergency department), I began work at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. I had the good fortune of spending the next 11 years as a faculty member there, where I advanced my research and teaching career. In 2017, I was named the Chair of Family Medicine and Community Health at Duke University School of Medicine, where I continue to have an active outpatient practice.

My experiences have shaped my belief that it is critical that family medicine maintain its presence (and advance its prominence) both in our communities and at our large academic medicine centers, championing service to rural areas, promoting health equity, and advocating for the importance of high-quality primary care delivery and training. No matter where we are, our work is valuable, and we make a difference. Like my predecessors, I have a love of evidence-based medicine. I also have a love of writing, which I can trace back to my days as an intern. I am excited to be able to apply what I have learned over the years to help maintain the rigor, practicality, and relevance of JFP while simultaneously helping to nurture new authors and peer reviewers.

My goal as this journal’s editor-in-chief will be to continue its high academic standing while maintaining its utility for busy clinicians. The provision of evidence-based clinical review articles that are succinct and practical, along with departments (eg, Photo Rounds, Behavioral Health Consult, Practice Alert, PURLs), will remain the journal’s major focus. Within this framework, I also want to share the best evidence and ideas on other aspects of practicing medicine, such as quality improvement, population health, and health equity. I’ll be looking to increase recruitment and mentorship of authors from diverse backgrounds, including those historically ­underrepresented in medicine.

I look forward to working with the editorial board, associate and assistant editors, and staff of JFP to serve the diverse interests and needs of our readers. To that end, we’ll be looking for your guidance. How else can JFP help you in your day-to-day practice? Please let us know your ideas. Drop us a line at [email protected].

Finally, please join me in thanking Drs. Henry Barry and Kate Rowland for all of their work this past year in keeping JFP going strong!

Whenever someone asks me what I do, I happily reply, “I’m just a simple country doctor.” That is, in part, why I am honored to be granted the opportunity to serve as editor-in-chief of The Journal of Family Practice (JFP). As our late colleague Dr. John Hickner noted in his first JFP editorial, he and the 2 editors-in-chief before him (Drs. Jeff Susman and Mark Ebell) were also of the small-town family doc tradition.1

My goal as this journal’s editorin-chief will be to continue its high academic standing while maintaining its utility for busy clinicians.

My small-town roots trace back to rural South Carolina. I am a first-generation college student and attended medical school on a Navy Health Professions Scholarship. After completing my residency training, I had the privilege of serving for 5 years in the Navy (2 of those years were overseas), where I practiced and taught full-scope family medicine. I saw patients of all ages, attended deliveries, and provided inpatient hospital care, as well as performed a full range of procedures and tests, including colposcopies, skin procedures, vasectomies, flexible sigmoidoscopies, and exercise treadmill testing.

Following military service and completion of a 2-year fellowship and Master of Public Health degree (while working nights at a rural emergency department), I began work at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. I had the good fortune of spending the next 11 years as a faculty member there, where I advanced my research and teaching career. In 2017, I was named the Chair of Family Medicine and Community Health at Duke University School of Medicine, where I continue to have an active outpatient practice.

My experiences have shaped my belief that it is critical that family medicine maintain its presence (and advance its prominence) both in our communities and at our large academic medicine centers, championing service to rural areas, promoting health equity, and advocating for the importance of high-quality primary care delivery and training. No matter where we are, our work is valuable, and we make a difference. Like my predecessors, I have a love of evidence-based medicine. I also have a love of writing, which I can trace back to my days as an intern. I am excited to be able to apply what I have learned over the years to help maintain the rigor, practicality, and relevance of JFP while simultaneously helping to nurture new authors and peer reviewers.

My goal as this journal’s editor-in-chief will be to continue its high academic standing while maintaining its utility for busy clinicians. The provision of evidence-based clinical review articles that are succinct and practical, along with departments (eg, Photo Rounds, Behavioral Health Consult, Practice Alert, PURLs), will remain the journal’s major focus. Within this framework, I also want to share the best evidence and ideas on other aspects of practicing medicine, such as quality improvement, population health, and health equity. I’ll be looking to increase recruitment and mentorship of authors from diverse backgrounds, including those historically ­underrepresented in medicine.

I look forward to working with the editorial board, associate and assistant editors, and staff of JFP to serve the diverse interests and needs of our readers. To that end, we’ll be looking for your guidance. How else can JFP help you in your day-to-day practice? Please let us know your ideas. Drop us a line at [email protected].

Finally, please join me in thanking Drs. Henry Barry and Kate Rowland for all of their work this past year in keeping JFP going strong!

References

1. Hickner J. Meet JFP’s new editor-in-chief. J Fam Pract. 2012;61: 581.

References

1. Hickner J. Meet JFP’s new editor-in-chief. J Fam Pract. 2012;61: 581.

Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 72(6)
Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 72(6)
Page Number
232-243
Page Number
232-243
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Just a simple country doctor
Display Headline
Just a simple country doctor
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article
Article PDF Media

Generalized maculopapular rash and fever

Article Type
Changed
Tue, 07/25/2023 - 07:14
Display Headline
Generalized maculopapular rash and fever

A 29-YEAR-OLD MAN was referred to the emergency department for fever and rash. Two months prior, he had noticed painful spots on his toes (FIGURE 1). Soon after, a rash of different morphology appeared on his chest and upper extremities. Associated symptoms included hair loss, generalized arthralgias, chills, trouble with balance, and photophobia. The patient denied genital lesions but reported 3 recent cold sores.

Painful lesions on toes

On exam, the patient was febrile (102 °F). Skin exam revealed a generalized maculopapular rash on the trunk, arms, and legs with scattered lesions on the palms ­(FIGURE 2). There were tender purpuric macules on the tips of his toes with areas of blanching. His hands had pink plaques on the dorsal fingers (FIGURE 3). Additionally, there was an erythematous papular rash with scale on his cheeks and nasal bridge, patchy areas of hair loss, and a single oral ulcer.

Maculopapular rash on the trunk and arms

A neurologic exam was notable for mildly unstable gait, an abnormal Babinski reflex on the left side, and a positive Romberg sign. Musculoskeletal exam revealed joint tenderness in his shoulders, elbows, and wrists. Lymphadenopathy was present bilaterally in the axilla.

Plaques on the dorsal fingers

Lab work was ordered, including a VDRL test and a treponemal antibodies test. Skin biopsies also were taken from lesions on his arm and chest.

WHAT IS YOUR DIAGNOSIS?
HOW WOULD YOU TREAT THIS PATIENT?

 

 

Diagnosis: Systemic lupus erythematosus

Our patient’s fever and rash were highly suggestive of either systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) or secondary syphilis (the “great masquerader”).

Dermatologic findings occur in more than 70% of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus.

In addition to the joint tenderness revealed during the musculoskeletal exam, our patient had several nonspecific lupus findings on skin exam: malar rash, discoid rash on hands, subacute vasculitis (generalized rash), alopecia, and an oral ulcer; he also had the specific finding of chilblains vasculitis of the toes. Lab work and pathology results made the diagnosis clear. Lab work revealed leukopenia, an antinuclear antibody (ANA) result of 1:2560 with speckled appearance, and positive anti-SM antibodies. A dipstick was negative for protein; VDRL and treponemal antibodies tests were also negative. Histopathology showed perivascular lymph histiocytic vacuolar dermatitis with a differential of connective tissue disease, including lupus.

Our patient met the criteria

SLE is a systemic autoimmune disease resulting in chronic inflammation in multiple organ systems; it commonly manifests with vague symptoms of fatigue, fever, and weight loss. The prevalence of SLE in the United States has been reported as high as 241 per 100,000 people. 1 Women are more likely to be affected, and the incidence is highest among Black people and lowest among Caucasians.1,2 Risk factors include cigarette smoking and exposure to silica particulate air pollution.

The 2019 European League Against Rheumatism/­American College of Rheumatology criteria for a diagnosis of SLE require that a patient have a positive ANA and some, but not all, additive lab, clinical, and organ-specific findings.3 Findings that clinicians should look for include3,4

  • elevated ANA (≥ 1:80)
  • constitutional symptoms (fever)
  • hematologic findings (leukopenia, thrombocytopenia, autoimmune hemolysis)
  • neuropsychiatric findings (delirium, psychosis, seizure)
  • mucocutaneous findings (alopecia, oral ulcers, others)
  • serosal findings (effusion, acute pericarditis)
  • musculoskeletal findings (joint involvement)
  • renal findings (proteinuria)
  • antiphospholipid antibodies
  • decreased complement proteins
  • SLE-specific antibodies.

Dermatologic findings occur in more than 70% of patients with SLE.5 They can be nonspecific—eg, classic discoid rash, malar rash, alopecia, maculopapular rash (most commonly on sun-exposed areas, mimicking polymorphous light eruption)—or specific (eg, chilblains).5

Continue to: The differential for rash and fever is broad

 

 

The differential for rash and fever is broad

Syphilis also can manifest with rash and fever. The rash of syphilis is nonpainful and affects the torso and face, with concentration on the palms and soles.6,7It manifests during syphilis’s secondary stage, 6 to 8 weeks after an untreated infection. Fatigue, malaise, lymphadenopathy, mucosal lesions, ocular symptoms, and nephritis can occur.8,9 The diagnosis is made through treponemal-specific antibody confirmation of a positive rapid plasma reagin test.9 Neurosyphilis is diagnosed via lumbar puncture.9

Dermatomyositis is a rare disorder of inflammation in both the skin and muscles. Symptoms include rash, muscle aches, and weakness. Lab abnormalities include elevated creatine kinase levels and ANA. Muscle biopsy confirms the diagnosis.

Erythema multiforme is an ­immunologic-mediated rash consisting of firm targetoid erythematous papules distributed symmetrically on the extremities, including palms/soles. It typically appears after a viral infection, immunization, or new medications (eg, antibiotics, nonsteroidal anti-­inflammatory drugs, or phenothiazines) initiated 1 to 3 weeks prior to the appearance of the rash. History and appearance inform the diagnosis.

Polymorphic light eruption is a rash of variable appearance on sun-exposed areas that results from a sensitivity to sunlight after lack of exposure for a period of time. Symptoms include burning and itching.

Treatment and outcome

Treat patients with SLE with hydroxychloroquine (200-400 mg/d) to suppress inflammation and with low-dose oral steroids such as prednisone (7.5 mg/d) for intermittent exacerbations. Higher steroid doses are sometimes needed for signs of organ inflammation. Patients with increased disease activity will require immunosuppressive therapy with ­disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, such as methotrexate (7.5-25 mg/wk), mycophenolate (2-3 g/d), azathioprine (1.5-2.5 mg/kg/d), and biologic infusions.4 Additionally, in 2021, the US Food and Drug Administration approved anifrolumab (Saphnelo) and voclosporin (Lupkynis) for the treatment of SLE.4

Our patient was admitted for further evaluation. A lumbar puncture was performed because of his balance issues; it showed an elevated protein level, but further work-up did not find an infectious or malignant source. Balance improved with hydration. The patient remained hospitalized for 9 days, during which his fever subsided. His pain improved after initiation of hydroxychloroquine 400 mg/d. Follow-up with Rheumatology was arranged for further care.

References

1. Rees F, Doherty M, Grainge MJ, et al. The worldwide incidence and prevalence of systemic lupus erythematosus: a systematic review of epidemiological studies. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2017;56:1945-1961. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kex260

2. CDC. Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Updated July 5, 2022. Accessed April 11, 2023. www.cdc.gov/lupus/facts/detailed.html

3. Aringer M, Costenbader K, Daikh D, et al. 2019 European League Against Rheumatism/American College of Rheumatology classification criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019;71:1400-1412. doi: 10.1002/art.40930

4. Lam NV, Brown JA, Sharma R. Systemic lupus erythematosus: diagnosis and treatment. Am Fam Physician. 2023;107:383-395.

5. Albrecht J, Berlin JA, Braverman IM, et al. Dermatology position paper on revision of the 1982 ACR criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus. Lupus. 2004;13:839-849. doi: 10.1191/0961203304lu2020oa

6. Dylewski J, Duong M. The rash of secondary syphilis. CMAJ. 2007;176:33-35. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.060665

7. Lautenschlager S. Cutaneous manifestations of syphilis: recognition and management. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2006;7:291-304. doi: 10.2165/00128071-200607050-00003:

8. Brown DL, Frank JE. Diagnosis and management of syphilis. Am Fam Physician. 2003;68:283-290.

9. Ricco J, Westby A. Syphilis: far from ancient history. Am Fam Physician. 2020;102:91-98.

Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Oregon Health and Science University, Portland
[email protected]

DEPARTMENT EDITOR
Richard P. Usatine, MD

University of Texas Health, San Antonio

The authors reported no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article.

Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 72(6)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
273-275
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Oregon Health and Science University, Portland
[email protected]

DEPARTMENT EDITOR
Richard P. Usatine, MD

University of Texas Health, San Antonio

The authors reported no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article.

Author and Disclosure Information

Oregon Health and Science University, Portland
[email protected]

DEPARTMENT EDITOR
Richard P. Usatine, MD

University of Texas Health, San Antonio

The authors reported no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article.

Article PDF
Article PDF

A 29-YEAR-OLD MAN was referred to the emergency department for fever and rash. Two months prior, he had noticed painful spots on his toes (FIGURE 1). Soon after, a rash of different morphology appeared on his chest and upper extremities. Associated symptoms included hair loss, generalized arthralgias, chills, trouble with balance, and photophobia. The patient denied genital lesions but reported 3 recent cold sores.

Painful lesions on toes

On exam, the patient was febrile (102 °F). Skin exam revealed a generalized maculopapular rash on the trunk, arms, and legs with scattered lesions on the palms ­(FIGURE 2). There were tender purpuric macules on the tips of his toes with areas of blanching. His hands had pink plaques on the dorsal fingers (FIGURE 3). Additionally, there was an erythematous papular rash with scale on his cheeks and nasal bridge, patchy areas of hair loss, and a single oral ulcer.

Maculopapular rash on the trunk and arms

A neurologic exam was notable for mildly unstable gait, an abnormal Babinski reflex on the left side, and a positive Romberg sign. Musculoskeletal exam revealed joint tenderness in his shoulders, elbows, and wrists. Lymphadenopathy was present bilaterally in the axilla.

Plaques on the dorsal fingers

Lab work was ordered, including a VDRL test and a treponemal antibodies test. Skin biopsies also were taken from lesions on his arm and chest.

WHAT IS YOUR DIAGNOSIS?
HOW WOULD YOU TREAT THIS PATIENT?

 

 

Diagnosis: Systemic lupus erythematosus

Our patient’s fever and rash were highly suggestive of either systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) or secondary syphilis (the “great masquerader”).

Dermatologic findings occur in more than 70% of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus.

In addition to the joint tenderness revealed during the musculoskeletal exam, our patient had several nonspecific lupus findings on skin exam: malar rash, discoid rash on hands, subacute vasculitis (generalized rash), alopecia, and an oral ulcer; he also had the specific finding of chilblains vasculitis of the toes. Lab work and pathology results made the diagnosis clear. Lab work revealed leukopenia, an antinuclear antibody (ANA) result of 1:2560 with speckled appearance, and positive anti-SM antibodies. A dipstick was negative for protein; VDRL and treponemal antibodies tests were also negative. Histopathology showed perivascular lymph histiocytic vacuolar dermatitis with a differential of connective tissue disease, including lupus.

Our patient met the criteria

SLE is a systemic autoimmune disease resulting in chronic inflammation in multiple organ systems; it commonly manifests with vague symptoms of fatigue, fever, and weight loss. The prevalence of SLE in the United States has been reported as high as 241 per 100,000 people. 1 Women are more likely to be affected, and the incidence is highest among Black people and lowest among Caucasians.1,2 Risk factors include cigarette smoking and exposure to silica particulate air pollution.

The 2019 European League Against Rheumatism/­American College of Rheumatology criteria for a diagnosis of SLE require that a patient have a positive ANA and some, but not all, additive lab, clinical, and organ-specific findings.3 Findings that clinicians should look for include3,4

  • elevated ANA (≥ 1:80)
  • constitutional symptoms (fever)
  • hematologic findings (leukopenia, thrombocytopenia, autoimmune hemolysis)
  • neuropsychiatric findings (delirium, psychosis, seizure)
  • mucocutaneous findings (alopecia, oral ulcers, others)
  • serosal findings (effusion, acute pericarditis)
  • musculoskeletal findings (joint involvement)
  • renal findings (proteinuria)
  • antiphospholipid antibodies
  • decreased complement proteins
  • SLE-specific antibodies.

Dermatologic findings occur in more than 70% of patients with SLE.5 They can be nonspecific—eg, classic discoid rash, malar rash, alopecia, maculopapular rash (most commonly on sun-exposed areas, mimicking polymorphous light eruption)—or specific (eg, chilblains).5

Continue to: The differential for rash and fever is broad

 

 

The differential for rash and fever is broad

Syphilis also can manifest with rash and fever. The rash of syphilis is nonpainful and affects the torso and face, with concentration on the palms and soles.6,7It manifests during syphilis’s secondary stage, 6 to 8 weeks after an untreated infection. Fatigue, malaise, lymphadenopathy, mucosal lesions, ocular symptoms, and nephritis can occur.8,9 The diagnosis is made through treponemal-specific antibody confirmation of a positive rapid plasma reagin test.9 Neurosyphilis is diagnosed via lumbar puncture.9

Dermatomyositis is a rare disorder of inflammation in both the skin and muscles. Symptoms include rash, muscle aches, and weakness. Lab abnormalities include elevated creatine kinase levels and ANA. Muscle biopsy confirms the diagnosis.

Erythema multiforme is an ­immunologic-mediated rash consisting of firm targetoid erythematous papules distributed symmetrically on the extremities, including palms/soles. It typically appears after a viral infection, immunization, or new medications (eg, antibiotics, nonsteroidal anti-­inflammatory drugs, or phenothiazines) initiated 1 to 3 weeks prior to the appearance of the rash. History and appearance inform the diagnosis.

Polymorphic light eruption is a rash of variable appearance on sun-exposed areas that results from a sensitivity to sunlight after lack of exposure for a period of time. Symptoms include burning and itching.

Treatment and outcome

Treat patients with SLE with hydroxychloroquine (200-400 mg/d) to suppress inflammation and with low-dose oral steroids such as prednisone (7.5 mg/d) for intermittent exacerbations. Higher steroid doses are sometimes needed for signs of organ inflammation. Patients with increased disease activity will require immunosuppressive therapy with ­disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, such as methotrexate (7.5-25 mg/wk), mycophenolate (2-3 g/d), azathioprine (1.5-2.5 mg/kg/d), and biologic infusions.4 Additionally, in 2021, the US Food and Drug Administration approved anifrolumab (Saphnelo) and voclosporin (Lupkynis) for the treatment of SLE.4

Our patient was admitted for further evaluation. A lumbar puncture was performed because of his balance issues; it showed an elevated protein level, but further work-up did not find an infectious or malignant source. Balance improved with hydration. The patient remained hospitalized for 9 days, during which his fever subsided. His pain improved after initiation of hydroxychloroquine 400 mg/d. Follow-up with Rheumatology was arranged for further care.

A 29-YEAR-OLD MAN was referred to the emergency department for fever and rash. Two months prior, he had noticed painful spots on his toes (FIGURE 1). Soon after, a rash of different morphology appeared on his chest and upper extremities. Associated symptoms included hair loss, generalized arthralgias, chills, trouble with balance, and photophobia. The patient denied genital lesions but reported 3 recent cold sores.

Painful lesions on toes

On exam, the patient was febrile (102 °F). Skin exam revealed a generalized maculopapular rash on the trunk, arms, and legs with scattered lesions on the palms ­(FIGURE 2). There were tender purpuric macules on the tips of his toes with areas of blanching. His hands had pink plaques on the dorsal fingers (FIGURE 3). Additionally, there was an erythematous papular rash with scale on his cheeks and nasal bridge, patchy areas of hair loss, and a single oral ulcer.

Maculopapular rash on the trunk and arms

A neurologic exam was notable for mildly unstable gait, an abnormal Babinski reflex on the left side, and a positive Romberg sign. Musculoskeletal exam revealed joint tenderness in his shoulders, elbows, and wrists. Lymphadenopathy was present bilaterally in the axilla.

Plaques on the dorsal fingers

Lab work was ordered, including a VDRL test and a treponemal antibodies test. Skin biopsies also were taken from lesions on his arm and chest.

WHAT IS YOUR DIAGNOSIS?
HOW WOULD YOU TREAT THIS PATIENT?

 

 

Diagnosis: Systemic lupus erythematosus

Our patient’s fever and rash were highly suggestive of either systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) or secondary syphilis (the “great masquerader”).

Dermatologic findings occur in more than 70% of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus.

In addition to the joint tenderness revealed during the musculoskeletal exam, our patient had several nonspecific lupus findings on skin exam: malar rash, discoid rash on hands, subacute vasculitis (generalized rash), alopecia, and an oral ulcer; he also had the specific finding of chilblains vasculitis of the toes. Lab work and pathology results made the diagnosis clear. Lab work revealed leukopenia, an antinuclear antibody (ANA) result of 1:2560 with speckled appearance, and positive anti-SM antibodies. A dipstick was negative for protein; VDRL and treponemal antibodies tests were also negative. Histopathology showed perivascular lymph histiocytic vacuolar dermatitis with a differential of connective tissue disease, including lupus.

Our patient met the criteria

SLE is a systemic autoimmune disease resulting in chronic inflammation in multiple organ systems; it commonly manifests with vague symptoms of fatigue, fever, and weight loss. The prevalence of SLE in the United States has been reported as high as 241 per 100,000 people. 1 Women are more likely to be affected, and the incidence is highest among Black people and lowest among Caucasians.1,2 Risk factors include cigarette smoking and exposure to silica particulate air pollution.

The 2019 European League Against Rheumatism/­American College of Rheumatology criteria for a diagnosis of SLE require that a patient have a positive ANA and some, but not all, additive lab, clinical, and organ-specific findings.3 Findings that clinicians should look for include3,4

  • elevated ANA (≥ 1:80)
  • constitutional symptoms (fever)
  • hematologic findings (leukopenia, thrombocytopenia, autoimmune hemolysis)
  • neuropsychiatric findings (delirium, psychosis, seizure)
  • mucocutaneous findings (alopecia, oral ulcers, others)
  • serosal findings (effusion, acute pericarditis)
  • musculoskeletal findings (joint involvement)
  • renal findings (proteinuria)
  • antiphospholipid antibodies
  • decreased complement proteins
  • SLE-specific antibodies.

Dermatologic findings occur in more than 70% of patients with SLE.5 They can be nonspecific—eg, classic discoid rash, malar rash, alopecia, maculopapular rash (most commonly on sun-exposed areas, mimicking polymorphous light eruption)—or specific (eg, chilblains).5

Continue to: The differential for rash and fever is broad

 

 

The differential for rash and fever is broad

Syphilis also can manifest with rash and fever. The rash of syphilis is nonpainful and affects the torso and face, with concentration on the palms and soles.6,7It manifests during syphilis’s secondary stage, 6 to 8 weeks after an untreated infection. Fatigue, malaise, lymphadenopathy, mucosal lesions, ocular symptoms, and nephritis can occur.8,9 The diagnosis is made through treponemal-specific antibody confirmation of a positive rapid plasma reagin test.9 Neurosyphilis is diagnosed via lumbar puncture.9

Dermatomyositis is a rare disorder of inflammation in both the skin and muscles. Symptoms include rash, muscle aches, and weakness. Lab abnormalities include elevated creatine kinase levels and ANA. Muscle biopsy confirms the diagnosis.

Erythema multiforme is an ­immunologic-mediated rash consisting of firm targetoid erythematous papules distributed symmetrically on the extremities, including palms/soles. It typically appears after a viral infection, immunization, or new medications (eg, antibiotics, nonsteroidal anti-­inflammatory drugs, or phenothiazines) initiated 1 to 3 weeks prior to the appearance of the rash. History and appearance inform the diagnosis.

Polymorphic light eruption is a rash of variable appearance on sun-exposed areas that results from a sensitivity to sunlight after lack of exposure for a period of time. Symptoms include burning and itching.

Treatment and outcome

Treat patients with SLE with hydroxychloroquine (200-400 mg/d) to suppress inflammation and with low-dose oral steroids such as prednisone (7.5 mg/d) for intermittent exacerbations. Higher steroid doses are sometimes needed for signs of organ inflammation. Patients with increased disease activity will require immunosuppressive therapy with ­disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, such as methotrexate (7.5-25 mg/wk), mycophenolate (2-3 g/d), azathioprine (1.5-2.5 mg/kg/d), and biologic infusions.4 Additionally, in 2021, the US Food and Drug Administration approved anifrolumab (Saphnelo) and voclosporin (Lupkynis) for the treatment of SLE.4

Our patient was admitted for further evaluation. A lumbar puncture was performed because of his balance issues; it showed an elevated protein level, but further work-up did not find an infectious or malignant source. Balance improved with hydration. The patient remained hospitalized for 9 days, during which his fever subsided. His pain improved after initiation of hydroxychloroquine 400 mg/d. Follow-up with Rheumatology was arranged for further care.

References

1. Rees F, Doherty M, Grainge MJ, et al. The worldwide incidence and prevalence of systemic lupus erythematosus: a systematic review of epidemiological studies. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2017;56:1945-1961. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kex260

2. CDC. Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Updated July 5, 2022. Accessed April 11, 2023. www.cdc.gov/lupus/facts/detailed.html

3. Aringer M, Costenbader K, Daikh D, et al. 2019 European League Against Rheumatism/American College of Rheumatology classification criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019;71:1400-1412. doi: 10.1002/art.40930

4. Lam NV, Brown JA, Sharma R. Systemic lupus erythematosus: diagnosis and treatment. Am Fam Physician. 2023;107:383-395.

5. Albrecht J, Berlin JA, Braverman IM, et al. Dermatology position paper on revision of the 1982 ACR criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus. Lupus. 2004;13:839-849. doi: 10.1191/0961203304lu2020oa

6. Dylewski J, Duong M. The rash of secondary syphilis. CMAJ. 2007;176:33-35. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.060665

7. Lautenschlager S. Cutaneous manifestations of syphilis: recognition and management. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2006;7:291-304. doi: 10.2165/00128071-200607050-00003:

8. Brown DL, Frank JE. Diagnosis and management of syphilis. Am Fam Physician. 2003;68:283-290.

9. Ricco J, Westby A. Syphilis: far from ancient history. Am Fam Physician. 2020;102:91-98.

References

1. Rees F, Doherty M, Grainge MJ, et al. The worldwide incidence and prevalence of systemic lupus erythematosus: a systematic review of epidemiological studies. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2017;56:1945-1961. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kex260

2. CDC. Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Updated July 5, 2022. Accessed April 11, 2023. www.cdc.gov/lupus/facts/detailed.html

3. Aringer M, Costenbader K, Daikh D, et al. 2019 European League Against Rheumatism/American College of Rheumatology classification criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019;71:1400-1412. doi: 10.1002/art.40930

4. Lam NV, Brown JA, Sharma R. Systemic lupus erythematosus: diagnosis and treatment. Am Fam Physician. 2023;107:383-395.

5. Albrecht J, Berlin JA, Braverman IM, et al. Dermatology position paper on revision of the 1982 ACR criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus. Lupus. 2004;13:839-849. doi: 10.1191/0961203304lu2020oa

6. Dylewski J, Duong M. The rash of secondary syphilis. CMAJ. 2007;176:33-35. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.060665

7. Lautenschlager S. Cutaneous manifestations of syphilis: recognition and management. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2006;7:291-304. doi: 10.2165/00128071-200607050-00003:

8. Brown DL, Frank JE. Diagnosis and management of syphilis. Am Fam Physician. 2003;68:283-290.

9. Ricco J, Westby A. Syphilis: far from ancient history. Am Fam Physician. 2020;102:91-98.

Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 72(6)
Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 72(6)
Page Number
273-275
Page Number
273-275
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Generalized maculopapular rash and fever
Display Headline
Generalized maculopapular rash and fever
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article
Article PDF Media

Rapid-onset ulcerative hand nodule

Article Type
Changed
Wed, 07/26/2023 - 08:13
Display Headline
Rapid-onset ulcerative hand nodule

A 55-YEAR-OLD WOMAN developed a small red papule on her left hand that, over the course of a week, progressed rapidly into an ulcerated nodule with accompanying swelling and pain. She reported concomitant fatigue, unintentional weight loss, and swollen axillary lymph nodes. Past medical history included rheumatoid arthritis.

A physical examination of her left hand revealed a tender, erythematous to violaceous nodule with ulceration and crust and surrounding diffuse erythema and edema ­(FIGURE). She also had several enlarged, nontender right axillary lymph nodes. Initial lab evaluation was significant for leukocytosis (13.8 K/uL) with increased neutrophils, lymphocytes, and eosinophils. Two punch biopsies were performed and the samples submitted for hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) staining and tissue culture.

Ulcerated nodule with accompanying swelling

WHAT IS YOUR DIAGNOSIS?
HOW WOULD YOU TREAT THIS PATIENT?

 

 

Diagnosis: Neutrophilic dermatosis of the dorsal hands

The results of H&E were consistent with neutrophilic dermatosis of the dorsal hands (NDDH). Tissue culture was negative for fungus, bacteria, and atypical mycobacteria, confirming the diagnosis.

NDDH often is mistaken for an infectious abscess and unsuccessfully treated with antimicrobial agents.

NDDH is a neutrophilic dermatosis and considered a localized variant of Sweet syndrome, manifesting on the dorsal hands as suppurative, erythematous to violaceous papules, plaques, or nodules that often undergo necrosis, blistering, and ulceration. The diagnosis can be made clinically, although a biopsy is usually performed for confirmation. It is characterized histologically by a dense dermal neutrophilic infiltrate along with dermal ­edema.1

The pathogenesis of NDDH is not fully known.2 It is often preceded by trauma and may be associated with recent infection (respiratory, gastrointestinal), inflammatory bowel disease, autoimmune disease (eg, rheumatoid arthritis), or malignancy.1 The most common associated malignancies are hematologic, such as myelodysplastic syndrome, leukemia, or lymphoma, although solid tumors also can be seen.1,3 Therefore, patients who receive a diagnosis of NDDH typically require further work-up to rule out these associated conditions. NDDH is a rare enough entity that incidence/prevalence data aren’t available or likely to be accurate.

The differential includes infection and neoplastic processes

NDDH often is mistaken for an infectious abscess and unsuccessfully treated with antimicrobial agents, such as those commonly used for staphylococcus and streptococcus skin and soft-tissue infections. Thus, wound or tissue culture may be considered to exclude infection from the differential diagnosis. In addition to infectious processes such as sporotrichosis or an atypical mycobacterial infection, the differential includes other neutrophilic dermatoses and neoplastic processes such as lymphoma or leukemia cutis.

Sporotrichosis is caused by Sporothrix schenckii and usually spreads proximally after entering through a wound or cut. Special stains on histology and culture are needed to make the diagnosis.

Continue to: Atypical mycobacterial infections

 

 

Atypical mycobacterial infections usually enter through an area of trauma and spread proximally after inoculation. Atypical mycobacterial infections can be diagnosed via biopsy with special stains, culture, and polymerase chain reaction of the tissue.

Neutrophilic dermatoses are a broad category of dermatoses that include NDDH, pyoderma gangrenosum, and Sweet syndrome. This category of dermatoses is differentiated by morphology and distribution of lesions.

Lymphoma can be primary cutaneous or secondary to a systemic lymphoma. A biopsy will show a collection of atypical lymphocytes.

Treatment begins with steroids

Treatment with topical (eg, 0.05% clobetasol ointment bid), intralesional (10 to 40 mg/mL triamcinolone acetonide), or systemic (eg, prednisone 0.5 to 1 mg/kg tapered over the course of 1-2 months) steroids is considered first-line therapy and often results in rapid clinical improvement. Agents such as dapsone (25 to 150 mg/d) and/or colchicine (0.6 mg bid to tid) may be used in recalcitrant cases or in patients for whom steroids are contra­indicated.2

Our patient’s NDDH was treated with prednisone (~1.0 mg/kg daily tapered over the course of 6 weeks). She was referred to Hematology/­Oncology for further work-up of her constitutional symptoms, lymphadenopathy,­ and leukocytosis. Ultimately, she received a diagnosis of concomitant chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma. The patient required no immediate treatment for her indolent lymphoma and was advised that she would need to get blood work done on a regular basis and have annual check-ups.

References

1. Walling HW, Snipes CJ, Gerami P, et al. The relationship between neutrophilic dermatosis of the dorsal hands and Sweet syndrome: report of 9 cases and comparison to atypical pyoderma gangrenosum. Arch Dermatol. 2006;142:57-63.

2. Micallef D, Bonnici M, Pisani D, et al. Neutrophilic dermatosis of the dorsal hands: a review of 123 Cases. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019;S0190-9622(19)32678-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2019.08.070

3. Mobini N, Sadrolashrafi K, Michaels S. Neutrophilic dermatosis of the dorsal hands: report of a case and review of the literature. Case Rep Dermatol Med. 2019;2019:8301585. doi: 10.1155/2019/8301585

Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Department of Medicine, University of South Florida, Tampa (Dr. Fritsche); Department of Dermatology, Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, PA (Drs. Bazewicz and Helm)
[email protected]

DEPARTMENT EDITOR
Richard P. Usatine, MD

University of Texas Health, San Antonio

The authors reported no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article.

Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 72(6)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
269-270
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Department of Medicine, University of South Florida, Tampa (Dr. Fritsche); Department of Dermatology, Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, PA (Drs. Bazewicz and Helm)
[email protected]

DEPARTMENT EDITOR
Richard P. Usatine, MD

University of Texas Health, San Antonio

The authors reported no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article.

Author and Disclosure Information

Department of Medicine, University of South Florida, Tampa (Dr. Fritsche); Department of Dermatology, Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, PA (Drs. Bazewicz and Helm)
[email protected]

DEPARTMENT EDITOR
Richard P. Usatine, MD

University of Texas Health, San Antonio

The authors reported no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article.

Article PDF
Article PDF

A 55-YEAR-OLD WOMAN developed a small red papule on her left hand that, over the course of a week, progressed rapidly into an ulcerated nodule with accompanying swelling and pain. She reported concomitant fatigue, unintentional weight loss, and swollen axillary lymph nodes. Past medical history included rheumatoid arthritis.

A physical examination of her left hand revealed a tender, erythematous to violaceous nodule with ulceration and crust and surrounding diffuse erythema and edema ­(FIGURE). She also had several enlarged, nontender right axillary lymph nodes. Initial lab evaluation was significant for leukocytosis (13.8 K/uL) with increased neutrophils, lymphocytes, and eosinophils. Two punch biopsies were performed and the samples submitted for hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) staining and tissue culture.

Ulcerated nodule with accompanying swelling

WHAT IS YOUR DIAGNOSIS?
HOW WOULD YOU TREAT THIS PATIENT?

 

 

Diagnosis: Neutrophilic dermatosis of the dorsal hands

The results of H&E were consistent with neutrophilic dermatosis of the dorsal hands (NDDH). Tissue culture was negative for fungus, bacteria, and atypical mycobacteria, confirming the diagnosis.

NDDH often is mistaken for an infectious abscess and unsuccessfully treated with antimicrobial agents.

NDDH is a neutrophilic dermatosis and considered a localized variant of Sweet syndrome, manifesting on the dorsal hands as suppurative, erythematous to violaceous papules, plaques, or nodules that often undergo necrosis, blistering, and ulceration. The diagnosis can be made clinically, although a biopsy is usually performed for confirmation. It is characterized histologically by a dense dermal neutrophilic infiltrate along with dermal ­edema.1

The pathogenesis of NDDH is not fully known.2 It is often preceded by trauma and may be associated with recent infection (respiratory, gastrointestinal), inflammatory bowel disease, autoimmune disease (eg, rheumatoid arthritis), or malignancy.1 The most common associated malignancies are hematologic, such as myelodysplastic syndrome, leukemia, or lymphoma, although solid tumors also can be seen.1,3 Therefore, patients who receive a diagnosis of NDDH typically require further work-up to rule out these associated conditions. NDDH is a rare enough entity that incidence/prevalence data aren’t available or likely to be accurate.

The differential includes infection and neoplastic processes

NDDH often is mistaken for an infectious abscess and unsuccessfully treated with antimicrobial agents, such as those commonly used for staphylococcus and streptococcus skin and soft-tissue infections. Thus, wound or tissue culture may be considered to exclude infection from the differential diagnosis. In addition to infectious processes such as sporotrichosis or an atypical mycobacterial infection, the differential includes other neutrophilic dermatoses and neoplastic processes such as lymphoma or leukemia cutis.

Sporotrichosis is caused by Sporothrix schenckii and usually spreads proximally after entering through a wound or cut. Special stains on histology and culture are needed to make the diagnosis.

Continue to: Atypical mycobacterial infections

 

 

Atypical mycobacterial infections usually enter through an area of trauma and spread proximally after inoculation. Atypical mycobacterial infections can be diagnosed via biopsy with special stains, culture, and polymerase chain reaction of the tissue.

Neutrophilic dermatoses are a broad category of dermatoses that include NDDH, pyoderma gangrenosum, and Sweet syndrome. This category of dermatoses is differentiated by morphology and distribution of lesions.

Lymphoma can be primary cutaneous or secondary to a systemic lymphoma. A biopsy will show a collection of atypical lymphocytes.

Treatment begins with steroids

Treatment with topical (eg, 0.05% clobetasol ointment bid), intralesional (10 to 40 mg/mL triamcinolone acetonide), or systemic (eg, prednisone 0.5 to 1 mg/kg tapered over the course of 1-2 months) steroids is considered first-line therapy and often results in rapid clinical improvement. Agents such as dapsone (25 to 150 mg/d) and/or colchicine (0.6 mg bid to tid) may be used in recalcitrant cases or in patients for whom steroids are contra­indicated.2

Our patient’s NDDH was treated with prednisone (~1.0 mg/kg daily tapered over the course of 6 weeks). She was referred to Hematology/­Oncology for further work-up of her constitutional symptoms, lymphadenopathy,­ and leukocytosis. Ultimately, she received a diagnosis of concomitant chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma. The patient required no immediate treatment for her indolent lymphoma and was advised that she would need to get blood work done on a regular basis and have annual check-ups.

A 55-YEAR-OLD WOMAN developed a small red papule on her left hand that, over the course of a week, progressed rapidly into an ulcerated nodule with accompanying swelling and pain. She reported concomitant fatigue, unintentional weight loss, and swollen axillary lymph nodes. Past medical history included rheumatoid arthritis.

A physical examination of her left hand revealed a tender, erythematous to violaceous nodule with ulceration and crust and surrounding diffuse erythema and edema ­(FIGURE). She also had several enlarged, nontender right axillary lymph nodes. Initial lab evaluation was significant for leukocytosis (13.8 K/uL) with increased neutrophils, lymphocytes, and eosinophils. Two punch biopsies were performed and the samples submitted for hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) staining and tissue culture.

Ulcerated nodule with accompanying swelling

WHAT IS YOUR DIAGNOSIS?
HOW WOULD YOU TREAT THIS PATIENT?

 

 

Diagnosis: Neutrophilic dermatosis of the dorsal hands

The results of H&E were consistent with neutrophilic dermatosis of the dorsal hands (NDDH). Tissue culture was negative for fungus, bacteria, and atypical mycobacteria, confirming the diagnosis.

NDDH often is mistaken for an infectious abscess and unsuccessfully treated with antimicrobial agents.

NDDH is a neutrophilic dermatosis and considered a localized variant of Sweet syndrome, manifesting on the dorsal hands as suppurative, erythematous to violaceous papules, plaques, or nodules that often undergo necrosis, blistering, and ulceration. The diagnosis can be made clinically, although a biopsy is usually performed for confirmation. It is characterized histologically by a dense dermal neutrophilic infiltrate along with dermal ­edema.1

The pathogenesis of NDDH is not fully known.2 It is often preceded by trauma and may be associated with recent infection (respiratory, gastrointestinal), inflammatory bowel disease, autoimmune disease (eg, rheumatoid arthritis), or malignancy.1 The most common associated malignancies are hematologic, such as myelodysplastic syndrome, leukemia, or lymphoma, although solid tumors also can be seen.1,3 Therefore, patients who receive a diagnosis of NDDH typically require further work-up to rule out these associated conditions. NDDH is a rare enough entity that incidence/prevalence data aren’t available or likely to be accurate.

The differential includes infection and neoplastic processes

NDDH often is mistaken for an infectious abscess and unsuccessfully treated with antimicrobial agents, such as those commonly used for staphylococcus and streptococcus skin and soft-tissue infections. Thus, wound or tissue culture may be considered to exclude infection from the differential diagnosis. In addition to infectious processes such as sporotrichosis or an atypical mycobacterial infection, the differential includes other neutrophilic dermatoses and neoplastic processes such as lymphoma or leukemia cutis.

Sporotrichosis is caused by Sporothrix schenckii and usually spreads proximally after entering through a wound or cut. Special stains on histology and culture are needed to make the diagnosis.

Continue to: Atypical mycobacterial infections

 

 

Atypical mycobacterial infections usually enter through an area of trauma and spread proximally after inoculation. Atypical mycobacterial infections can be diagnosed via biopsy with special stains, culture, and polymerase chain reaction of the tissue.

Neutrophilic dermatoses are a broad category of dermatoses that include NDDH, pyoderma gangrenosum, and Sweet syndrome. This category of dermatoses is differentiated by morphology and distribution of lesions.

Lymphoma can be primary cutaneous or secondary to a systemic lymphoma. A biopsy will show a collection of atypical lymphocytes.

Treatment begins with steroids

Treatment with topical (eg, 0.05% clobetasol ointment bid), intralesional (10 to 40 mg/mL triamcinolone acetonide), or systemic (eg, prednisone 0.5 to 1 mg/kg tapered over the course of 1-2 months) steroids is considered first-line therapy and often results in rapid clinical improvement. Agents such as dapsone (25 to 150 mg/d) and/or colchicine (0.6 mg bid to tid) may be used in recalcitrant cases or in patients for whom steroids are contra­indicated.2

Our patient’s NDDH was treated with prednisone (~1.0 mg/kg daily tapered over the course of 6 weeks). She was referred to Hematology/­Oncology for further work-up of her constitutional symptoms, lymphadenopathy,­ and leukocytosis. Ultimately, she received a diagnosis of concomitant chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma. The patient required no immediate treatment for her indolent lymphoma and was advised that she would need to get blood work done on a regular basis and have annual check-ups.

References

1. Walling HW, Snipes CJ, Gerami P, et al. The relationship between neutrophilic dermatosis of the dorsal hands and Sweet syndrome: report of 9 cases and comparison to atypical pyoderma gangrenosum. Arch Dermatol. 2006;142:57-63.

2. Micallef D, Bonnici M, Pisani D, et al. Neutrophilic dermatosis of the dorsal hands: a review of 123 Cases. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019;S0190-9622(19)32678-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2019.08.070

3. Mobini N, Sadrolashrafi K, Michaels S. Neutrophilic dermatosis of the dorsal hands: report of a case and review of the literature. Case Rep Dermatol Med. 2019;2019:8301585. doi: 10.1155/2019/8301585

References

1. Walling HW, Snipes CJ, Gerami P, et al. The relationship between neutrophilic dermatosis of the dorsal hands and Sweet syndrome: report of 9 cases and comparison to atypical pyoderma gangrenosum. Arch Dermatol. 2006;142:57-63.

2. Micallef D, Bonnici M, Pisani D, et al. Neutrophilic dermatosis of the dorsal hands: a review of 123 Cases. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019;S0190-9622(19)32678-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2019.08.070

3. Mobini N, Sadrolashrafi K, Michaels S. Neutrophilic dermatosis of the dorsal hands: report of a case and review of the literature. Case Rep Dermatol Med. 2019;2019:8301585. doi: 10.1155/2019/8301585

Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 72(6)
Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 72(6)
Page Number
269-270
Page Number
269-270
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Rapid-onset ulcerative hand nodule
Display Headline
Rapid-onset ulcerative hand nodule
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article
Article PDF Media

30-year-old woman • progressive dyspnea and peripheral edema • 35th week of gestation with a history of mild preeclampsia • Dx?

Article Type
Changed
Mon, 07/24/2023 - 11:12
Display Headline
30-year-old woman • progressive dyspnea and peripheral edema • 35th week of gestation with a history of mild preeclampsia • Dx?

THE CASE

A 30-year-old woman sought care at her rural family physician’s office for progressive dyspnea and peripheral edema, which she had been experiencing for several weeks. She was G1P0 and in her 35th week of gestation.

Her medical history was remarkable for mild preeclampsia, which was being managed observantly by her obstetrician in consultation with a maternal-fetal medicine specialist. She had been evaluated by her local hospital’s labor and delivery department and her maternal-fetal medicine specialist earlier in the week and seen the previous day by her obstetrician for these signs and symptoms. They all reassured her and told her these symptoms were normal during pregnancy. No diagnostic studies were performed. However, she remained concerned and decided to see her family physician for another opinion.

Upon presentation to her family physician, the patient was afebrile. Her blood pressure was 135/98 mm Hg; heart rate, 96 beats/min; and respiration, 20 breaths/min and slightly labored. Edema of 2 to 3+ was noted in her lower extremities, hands, and face. Bibasilar breath sounds were diminished, and her abdomen was nontender.

The family physician suspected left ventricular systolic dysfunction. He worked in a small office that lacked access to a laboratory or radiographic studies. However, he did have an ultrasound machine available, and although he was not skilled in echocardiography to assess cardiac function, he was able to obtain a bedside lung ultrasound.

THE DIAGNOSIS

While no B-lines were seen on the lung ultrasound, bilateral plural effusions were noted (FIGURE). This finding, paired with the patient’s signs and symptoms, prompted the family physician to suspect a diagnosis of acute ­decompensated heart failure with presumptive peripartum cardiomyopathy. The patient was immediately driven to the hospital by her family physician for emergency admission with stat obstetric and cardiology ­consultations.

Bedside lung ultrasound revealed pleural effusion in both lungs

An in-hospital echocardiogram revealed severe global hypokinesia with a left ventricular ejection fraction of 25% to 30%, which confirmed the family physician’s ­suspicions. Laboratory studies were significant for elevated N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (43,449 pg/mL; normal, < 125 pg/mL), troponin (1.12 ng/mL; normal range, 0-0.10 ng/mL), and white blood cell count (27.6 x 103/µL). She also had evidence of acute renal injury, with blood urea nitrogen of 46 ­mg/dL (normal range, 7-18 mg/dL), creatinine of 2.0 mg/dL (normal range, 0.5-1.0 mg/dL), and potassium of 7.6 mmol/L (normal range, 3.5-5.1 mmol/L). Emergency delivery was induced by amniotomy, resulting in the birth of a baby girl weighing 5 lb 4 oz (Apgar scores 6, 8, and 9).

This case illustrates the successful use of lung ultrasound to identify a potentially fatal, elusive condition.

Following delivery, the patient was placed on a milrinone infusion and required dialysis. She was emergently transferred to a tertiary care hospital, where she was admitted to the cardiac intensive care unit by the cardiology/heart transplant service with nephrology and obstetric consultations. Hematology and infectious disease specialists were consulted to rule out HELLP (hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes, and low platelets) syndrome and sepsis, respectively. Her course of care remained complicated with further testing, including cardiac catheterization and biopsy, which was negative for additional pathology.

Continue to: One week after admission...

 

 

One week after admission, she was ­discharged home with a 24-hour wearable external cardiac defibrillator and a confirmed diagnosis of peripartum cardiomyopathy. Her medication regimen included digoxin (125 µg 3 times/wk), spironolactone (25 mg/d), carvedilol (3.125 mg twice daily), sacubitril/valsartan (24 mg/26 mg twice daily), furosemide (20 mg/d as needed for weight gain > 3-4 lb or leg swelling), magnesium oxide (400 mg twice daily), and ferrous sulfate (325 mg/d).

DISCUSSION

Peripartum cardiomyopathy is a rare, life-threatening, idiopathic cardiomyopathy that is responsible for one-half to two-thirds of cardiovascular disease–related maternal deaths in the United States.1,2 It manifests in late pregnancy or early in the postpartum period and is characterized by left ven­tricular systolic dysfunction with resultant heart failure and an ejection fraction of less than 45%.1,2

Recognized as early as the 1800s by ­Virchow,2,3 the incidence of peripartum cardiomyopathy in the United States ranges from 1 in 1000 to 4000 live births and is increasing worldwide.1,2 While the cause of peripartum cardiomyopathy remains unknown, risk factors include advanced maternal age, African descent, hypertension, preeclampsia, and multiple gestation ­pregnancy.1,2

Early diagnosis of peripartum cardiomyopathy is imperative for survival of both mother and baby.4 This may be difficult because the signs and symptoms of heart failure—such as dyspnea, edema, orthopnea, cough, and chest and abdominal pain—overlap with those of a typical pregnancy, resulting in it ­often being missed on evaluation.1,2

Dx with echocardiography; in a pinch, consider lung ultrasound

Usually a diagnosis of peripartum cardiomyopathy is established with echocardiography.1,2 Thus, this case is of significant importance because it illustrates the successful use of lung ultrasound—a simple and easy test—by a rural family doctor to identify this potentially fatal, elusive condition with no additional studies.

Continue to: Use of lung ultrasound...

 

 

Use of lung ultrasound in the detection of acute decompensated heart failure is accepted in the medical literature.5-7 Given clinical correlation, a positive scan is defined by the presence of at least 3 B-lines on a longitudinal plane between 2 ribs or, as seen in our case, by the presence of pleural effusion.5-8 Lung ultrasound is readily available worldwide, is completely safe in pregnancy, and is considered one of the easiest studies to perform.7-10

At the patient’s 9-month follow-up visit, she had made a full clinical recovery. Her ejection fraction was 59.8%, and she had stopped all medications. The patient and her child did not experience any continued complications.

THE TAKEAWAY

Family physicians should be aware of peripartum cardiomyopathy—one of the most elusive and life-threatening diseases of pregnancy. When managing a pregnant patient, it is imperative to follow up on complaints such as dyspnea, peripheral edema, and chest and/or abdominal pain. While these symptoms are not unusual during pregnancy, they should always prompt a more thorough evaluation. If peripartum cardiomyopathy is suspected, lung ultrasound is a valuable diagnostic tool for family physicians. Further research is needed before the findings of this case report can be universally applied in the routine prenatal care of women at risk for peripartum cardiomyopathy.

Acknowledgement
The authors thank their daughter, Nickel Cielo Abarbanell, for her help in the preparation of this manuscript.

CORRESPONDENCE
Neal Robert Abarbanell, MD, First Choice Healthcare, 1867 20th Avenue, Vero Beach, FL 32960; neal.abarbanell@ gmail.com

References

1. Honigberg MC, Givertz MM. Peripartum cardiomyopathy. BMJ. 2019;364:k5287. doi: 10.1136/bmj.k5287

2. Arany Z, Elkayam U. Peripartum cardiomyopathy. Circulation. 2016;133:1397-1409. doi: 10.1161/­CIRCULATIONAHA.115.020491

3. Porak C. De L’influence reciproque de la grossesse et del maladies du Coceur [thesis]. Medical Faculty of Paris, France: 1880.

4. Lewey J, Levine LD, Elovitz MA, et al. Importance of early diagnosis in peripartum cardiomyopathy. Hypertension. 2020;75:91-97. doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.119.13291

5. Volpicelli G, Caramello V, Cardinale L, et al. Bedside ultrasound of the lung for the monitoring of acute decompensated heart failure. Am J Emerg Med. 2008;26:585-591. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2007.09.014

6. Muniz RT, Mesquita ET, Souza CV Jr, et al. Pulmonary ultrasound in patients with heart failure-systematic review. Arq Bras Cardiol. 2018;110:577-584. doi: 10.5935/abc.20180097

7. Russell FM, Rutz M, Pang PS. Focused ultrasound in the emergency department for patients with acute heart failure. Card Fail Rev. 2015;1:83-86. doi: 10.15420/cfr.2015.1.2.83

8. Gustafsson M, Alehagen U, Johansson P. Imaging congestion with a pocket ultrasound device: prognostic implications in patients with chronic heart failure. J Card Fail. 2015;21:548-554. doi: 10.1016/j.cardfail.2015.02.004

9. Ntusi NA, Samuels P, Moosa S, et al. Diagnosing cardiac disease during pregnancy: imaging modalities. Cardiovasc J Afr. 2016;27:95-103. doi: 10.5830/CVJA-2016-022

10. Kimberly HH, Murray A, Mennicke M, et al. Focused maternal ultrasound by midwives in rural Zambia. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2010;36:1267-1272. doi: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2010.05.017

Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

First Choice Healthcare, Vero Beach, FL
[email protected]

The authors reported no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article.

Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 72(6)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
266-268
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

First Choice Healthcare, Vero Beach, FL
[email protected]

The authors reported no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article.

Author and Disclosure Information

First Choice Healthcare, Vero Beach, FL
[email protected]

The authors reported no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article.

Article PDF
Article PDF

THE CASE

A 30-year-old woman sought care at her rural family physician’s office for progressive dyspnea and peripheral edema, which she had been experiencing for several weeks. She was G1P0 and in her 35th week of gestation.

Her medical history was remarkable for mild preeclampsia, which was being managed observantly by her obstetrician in consultation with a maternal-fetal medicine specialist. She had been evaluated by her local hospital’s labor and delivery department and her maternal-fetal medicine specialist earlier in the week and seen the previous day by her obstetrician for these signs and symptoms. They all reassured her and told her these symptoms were normal during pregnancy. No diagnostic studies were performed. However, she remained concerned and decided to see her family physician for another opinion.

Upon presentation to her family physician, the patient was afebrile. Her blood pressure was 135/98 mm Hg; heart rate, 96 beats/min; and respiration, 20 breaths/min and slightly labored. Edema of 2 to 3+ was noted in her lower extremities, hands, and face. Bibasilar breath sounds were diminished, and her abdomen was nontender.

The family physician suspected left ventricular systolic dysfunction. He worked in a small office that lacked access to a laboratory or radiographic studies. However, he did have an ultrasound machine available, and although he was not skilled in echocardiography to assess cardiac function, he was able to obtain a bedside lung ultrasound.

THE DIAGNOSIS

While no B-lines were seen on the lung ultrasound, bilateral plural effusions were noted (FIGURE). This finding, paired with the patient’s signs and symptoms, prompted the family physician to suspect a diagnosis of acute ­decompensated heart failure with presumptive peripartum cardiomyopathy. The patient was immediately driven to the hospital by her family physician for emergency admission with stat obstetric and cardiology ­consultations.

Bedside lung ultrasound revealed pleural effusion in both lungs

An in-hospital echocardiogram revealed severe global hypokinesia with a left ventricular ejection fraction of 25% to 30%, which confirmed the family physician’s ­suspicions. Laboratory studies were significant for elevated N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (43,449 pg/mL; normal, < 125 pg/mL), troponin (1.12 ng/mL; normal range, 0-0.10 ng/mL), and white blood cell count (27.6 x 103/µL). She also had evidence of acute renal injury, with blood urea nitrogen of 46 ­mg/dL (normal range, 7-18 mg/dL), creatinine of 2.0 mg/dL (normal range, 0.5-1.0 mg/dL), and potassium of 7.6 mmol/L (normal range, 3.5-5.1 mmol/L). Emergency delivery was induced by amniotomy, resulting in the birth of a baby girl weighing 5 lb 4 oz (Apgar scores 6, 8, and 9).

This case illustrates the successful use of lung ultrasound to identify a potentially fatal, elusive condition.

Following delivery, the patient was placed on a milrinone infusion and required dialysis. She was emergently transferred to a tertiary care hospital, where she was admitted to the cardiac intensive care unit by the cardiology/heart transplant service with nephrology and obstetric consultations. Hematology and infectious disease specialists were consulted to rule out HELLP (hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes, and low platelets) syndrome and sepsis, respectively. Her course of care remained complicated with further testing, including cardiac catheterization and biopsy, which was negative for additional pathology.

Continue to: One week after admission...

 

 

One week after admission, she was ­discharged home with a 24-hour wearable external cardiac defibrillator and a confirmed diagnosis of peripartum cardiomyopathy. Her medication regimen included digoxin (125 µg 3 times/wk), spironolactone (25 mg/d), carvedilol (3.125 mg twice daily), sacubitril/valsartan (24 mg/26 mg twice daily), furosemide (20 mg/d as needed for weight gain > 3-4 lb or leg swelling), magnesium oxide (400 mg twice daily), and ferrous sulfate (325 mg/d).

DISCUSSION

Peripartum cardiomyopathy is a rare, life-threatening, idiopathic cardiomyopathy that is responsible for one-half to two-thirds of cardiovascular disease–related maternal deaths in the United States.1,2 It manifests in late pregnancy or early in the postpartum period and is characterized by left ven­tricular systolic dysfunction with resultant heart failure and an ejection fraction of less than 45%.1,2

Recognized as early as the 1800s by ­Virchow,2,3 the incidence of peripartum cardiomyopathy in the United States ranges from 1 in 1000 to 4000 live births and is increasing worldwide.1,2 While the cause of peripartum cardiomyopathy remains unknown, risk factors include advanced maternal age, African descent, hypertension, preeclampsia, and multiple gestation ­pregnancy.1,2

Early diagnosis of peripartum cardiomyopathy is imperative for survival of both mother and baby.4 This may be difficult because the signs and symptoms of heart failure—such as dyspnea, edema, orthopnea, cough, and chest and abdominal pain—overlap with those of a typical pregnancy, resulting in it ­often being missed on evaluation.1,2

Dx with echocardiography; in a pinch, consider lung ultrasound

Usually a diagnosis of peripartum cardiomyopathy is established with echocardiography.1,2 Thus, this case is of significant importance because it illustrates the successful use of lung ultrasound—a simple and easy test—by a rural family doctor to identify this potentially fatal, elusive condition with no additional studies.

Continue to: Use of lung ultrasound...

 

 

Use of lung ultrasound in the detection of acute decompensated heart failure is accepted in the medical literature.5-7 Given clinical correlation, a positive scan is defined by the presence of at least 3 B-lines on a longitudinal plane between 2 ribs or, as seen in our case, by the presence of pleural effusion.5-8 Lung ultrasound is readily available worldwide, is completely safe in pregnancy, and is considered one of the easiest studies to perform.7-10

At the patient’s 9-month follow-up visit, she had made a full clinical recovery. Her ejection fraction was 59.8%, and she had stopped all medications. The patient and her child did not experience any continued complications.

THE TAKEAWAY

Family physicians should be aware of peripartum cardiomyopathy—one of the most elusive and life-threatening diseases of pregnancy. When managing a pregnant patient, it is imperative to follow up on complaints such as dyspnea, peripheral edema, and chest and/or abdominal pain. While these symptoms are not unusual during pregnancy, they should always prompt a more thorough evaluation. If peripartum cardiomyopathy is suspected, lung ultrasound is a valuable diagnostic tool for family physicians. Further research is needed before the findings of this case report can be universally applied in the routine prenatal care of women at risk for peripartum cardiomyopathy.

Acknowledgement
The authors thank their daughter, Nickel Cielo Abarbanell, for her help in the preparation of this manuscript.

CORRESPONDENCE
Neal Robert Abarbanell, MD, First Choice Healthcare, 1867 20th Avenue, Vero Beach, FL 32960; neal.abarbanell@ gmail.com

THE CASE

A 30-year-old woman sought care at her rural family physician’s office for progressive dyspnea and peripheral edema, which she had been experiencing for several weeks. She was G1P0 and in her 35th week of gestation.

Her medical history was remarkable for mild preeclampsia, which was being managed observantly by her obstetrician in consultation with a maternal-fetal medicine specialist. She had been evaluated by her local hospital’s labor and delivery department and her maternal-fetal medicine specialist earlier in the week and seen the previous day by her obstetrician for these signs and symptoms. They all reassured her and told her these symptoms were normal during pregnancy. No diagnostic studies were performed. However, she remained concerned and decided to see her family physician for another opinion.

Upon presentation to her family physician, the patient was afebrile. Her blood pressure was 135/98 mm Hg; heart rate, 96 beats/min; and respiration, 20 breaths/min and slightly labored. Edema of 2 to 3+ was noted in her lower extremities, hands, and face. Bibasilar breath sounds were diminished, and her abdomen was nontender.

The family physician suspected left ventricular systolic dysfunction. He worked in a small office that lacked access to a laboratory or radiographic studies. However, he did have an ultrasound machine available, and although he was not skilled in echocardiography to assess cardiac function, he was able to obtain a bedside lung ultrasound.

THE DIAGNOSIS

While no B-lines were seen on the lung ultrasound, bilateral plural effusions were noted (FIGURE). This finding, paired with the patient’s signs and symptoms, prompted the family physician to suspect a diagnosis of acute ­decompensated heart failure with presumptive peripartum cardiomyopathy. The patient was immediately driven to the hospital by her family physician for emergency admission with stat obstetric and cardiology ­consultations.

Bedside lung ultrasound revealed pleural effusion in both lungs

An in-hospital echocardiogram revealed severe global hypokinesia with a left ventricular ejection fraction of 25% to 30%, which confirmed the family physician’s ­suspicions. Laboratory studies were significant for elevated N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (43,449 pg/mL; normal, < 125 pg/mL), troponin (1.12 ng/mL; normal range, 0-0.10 ng/mL), and white blood cell count (27.6 x 103/µL). She also had evidence of acute renal injury, with blood urea nitrogen of 46 ­mg/dL (normal range, 7-18 mg/dL), creatinine of 2.0 mg/dL (normal range, 0.5-1.0 mg/dL), and potassium of 7.6 mmol/L (normal range, 3.5-5.1 mmol/L). Emergency delivery was induced by amniotomy, resulting in the birth of a baby girl weighing 5 lb 4 oz (Apgar scores 6, 8, and 9).

This case illustrates the successful use of lung ultrasound to identify a potentially fatal, elusive condition.

Following delivery, the patient was placed on a milrinone infusion and required dialysis. She was emergently transferred to a tertiary care hospital, where she was admitted to the cardiac intensive care unit by the cardiology/heart transplant service with nephrology and obstetric consultations. Hematology and infectious disease specialists were consulted to rule out HELLP (hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes, and low platelets) syndrome and sepsis, respectively. Her course of care remained complicated with further testing, including cardiac catheterization and biopsy, which was negative for additional pathology.

Continue to: One week after admission...

 

 

One week after admission, she was ­discharged home with a 24-hour wearable external cardiac defibrillator and a confirmed diagnosis of peripartum cardiomyopathy. Her medication regimen included digoxin (125 µg 3 times/wk), spironolactone (25 mg/d), carvedilol (3.125 mg twice daily), sacubitril/valsartan (24 mg/26 mg twice daily), furosemide (20 mg/d as needed for weight gain > 3-4 lb or leg swelling), magnesium oxide (400 mg twice daily), and ferrous sulfate (325 mg/d).

DISCUSSION

Peripartum cardiomyopathy is a rare, life-threatening, idiopathic cardiomyopathy that is responsible for one-half to two-thirds of cardiovascular disease–related maternal deaths in the United States.1,2 It manifests in late pregnancy or early in the postpartum period and is characterized by left ven­tricular systolic dysfunction with resultant heart failure and an ejection fraction of less than 45%.1,2

Recognized as early as the 1800s by ­Virchow,2,3 the incidence of peripartum cardiomyopathy in the United States ranges from 1 in 1000 to 4000 live births and is increasing worldwide.1,2 While the cause of peripartum cardiomyopathy remains unknown, risk factors include advanced maternal age, African descent, hypertension, preeclampsia, and multiple gestation ­pregnancy.1,2

Early diagnosis of peripartum cardiomyopathy is imperative for survival of both mother and baby.4 This may be difficult because the signs and symptoms of heart failure—such as dyspnea, edema, orthopnea, cough, and chest and abdominal pain—overlap with those of a typical pregnancy, resulting in it ­often being missed on evaluation.1,2

Dx with echocardiography; in a pinch, consider lung ultrasound

Usually a diagnosis of peripartum cardiomyopathy is established with echocardiography.1,2 Thus, this case is of significant importance because it illustrates the successful use of lung ultrasound—a simple and easy test—by a rural family doctor to identify this potentially fatal, elusive condition with no additional studies.

Continue to: Use of lung ultrasound...

 

 

Use of lung ultrasound in the detection of acute decompensated heart failure is accepted in the medical literature.5-7 Given clinical correlation, a positive scan is defined by the presence of at least 3 B-lines on a longitudinal plane between 2 ribs or, as seen in our case, by the presence of pleural effusion.5-8 Lung ultrasound is readily available worldwide, is completely safe in pregnancy, and is considered one of the easiest studies to perform.7-10

At the patient’s 9-month follow-up visit, she had made a full clinical recovery. Her ejection fraction was 59.8%, and she had stopped all medications. The patient and her child did not experience any continued complications.

THE TAKEAWAY

Family physicians should be aware of peripartum cardiomyopathy—one of the most elusive and life-threatening diseases of pregnancy. When managing a pregnant patient, it is imperative to follow up on complaints such as dyspnea, peripheral edema, and chest and/or abdominal pain. While these symptoms are not unusual during pregnancy, they should always prompt a more thorough evaluation. If peripartum cardiomyopathy is suspected, lung ultrasound is a valuable diagnostic tool for family physicians. Further research is needed before the findings of this case report can be universally applied in the routine prenatal care of women at risk for peripartum cardiomyopathy.

Acknowledgement
The authors thank their daughter, Nickel Cielo Abarbanell, for her help in the preparation of this manuscript.

CORRESPONDENCE
Neal Robert Abarbanell, MD, First Choice Healthcare, 1867 20th Avenue, Vero Beach, FL 32960; neal.abarbanell@ gmail.com

References

1. Honigberg MC, Givertz MM. Peripartum cardiomyopathy. BMJ. 2019;364:k5287. doi: 10.1136/bmj.k5287

2. Arany Z, Elkayam U. Peripartum cardiomyopathy. Circulation. 2016;133:1397-1409. doi: 10.1161/­CIRCULATIONAHA.115.020491

3. Porak C. De L’influence reciproque de la grossesse et del maladies du Coceur [thesis]. Medical Faculty of Paris, France: 1880.

4. Lewey J, Levine LD, Elovitz MA, et al. Importance of early diagnosis in peripartum cardiomyopathy. Hypertension. 2020;75:91-97. doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.119.13291

5. Volpicelli G, Caramello V, Cardinale L, et al. Bedside ultrasound of the lung for the monitoring of acute decompensated heart failure. Am J Emerg Med. 2008;26:585-591. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2007.09.014

6. Muniz RT, Mesquita ET, Souza CV Jr, et al. Pulmonary ultrasound in patients with heart failure-systematic review. Arq Bras Cardiol. 2018;110:577-584. doi: 10.5935/abc.20180097

7. Russell FM, Rutz M, Pang PS. Focused ultrasound in the emergency department for patients with acute heart failure. Card Fail Rev. 2015;1:83-86. doi: 10.15420/cfr.2015.1.2.83

8. Gustafsson M, Alehagen U, Johansson P. Imaging congestion with a pocket ultrasound device: prognostic implications in patients with chronic heart failure. J Card Fail. 2015;21:548-554. doi: 10.1016/j.cardfail.2015.02.004

9. Ntusi NA, Samuels P, Moosa S, et al. Diagnosing cardiac disease during pregnancy: imaging modalities. Cardiovasc J Afr. 2016;27:95-103. doi: 10.5830/CVJA-2016-022

10. Kimberly HH, Murray A, Mennicke M, et al. Focused maternal ultrasound by midwives in rural Zambia. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2010;36:1267-1272. doi: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2010.05.017

References

1. Honigberg MC, Givertz MM. Peripartum cardiomyopathy. BMJ. 2019;364:k5287. doi: 10.1136/bmj.k5287

2. Arany Z, Elkayam U. Peripartum cardiomyopathy. Circulation. 2016;133:1397-1409. doi: 10.1161/­CIRCULATIONAHA.115.020491

3. Porak C. De L’influence reciproque de la grossesse et del maladies du Coceur [thesis]. Medical Faculty of Paris, France: 1880.

4. Lewey J, Levine LD, Elovitz MA, et al. Importance of early diagnosis in peripartum cardiomyopathy. Hypertension. 2020;75:91-97. doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.119.13291

5. Volpicelli G, Caramello V, Cardinale L, et al. Bedside ultrasound of the lung for the monitoring of acute decompensated heart failure. Am J Emerg Med. 2008;26:585-591. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2007.09.014

6. Muniz RT, Mesquita ET, Souza CV Jr, et al. Pulmonary ultrasound in patients with heart failure-systematic review. Arq Bras Cardiol. 2018;110:577-584. doi: 10.5935/abc.20180097

7. Russell FM, Rutz M, Pang PS. Focused ultrasound in the emergency department for patients with acute heart failure. Card Fail Rev. 2015;1:83-86. doi: 10.15420/cfr.2015.1.2.83

8. Gustafsson M, Alehagen U, Johansson P. Imaging congestion with a pocket ultrasound device: prognostic implications in patients with chronic heart failure. J Card Fail. 2015;21:548-554. doi: 10.1016/j.cardfail.2015.02.004

9. Ntusi NA, Samuels P, Moosa S, et al. Diagnosing cardiac disease during pregnancy: imaging modalities. Cardiovasc J Afr. 2016;27:95-103. doi: 10.5830/CVJA-2016-022

10. Kimberly HH, Murray A, Mennicke M, et al. Focused maternal ultrasound by midwives in rural Zambia. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2010;36:1267-1272. doi: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2010.05.017

Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 72(6)
Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 72(6)
Page Number
266-268
Page Number
266-268
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
30-year-old woman • progressive dyspnea and peripheral edema • 35th week of gestation with a history of mild preeclampsia • Dx?
Display Headline
30-year-old woman • progressive dyspnea and peripheral edema • 35th week of gestation with a history of mild preeclampsia • Dx?
Sections
Inside the Article

► Progressive dyspnea and peripheral edema
► 35th week of gestation with a history of mild preeclampsia

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article
Article PDF Media

Is injectable PrEP superior to oral therapy for HIV protection?

Article Type
Changed
Tue, 07/25/2023 - 10:31
Display Headline
Is injectable PrEP superior to oral therapy for HIV protection?

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 24-year-old cisgender man with no significant past medical history comes to your office requesting PrEP after starting a new sexual relationship. His partner is a 26-year-old cisgender man with known HIV. The patient reports that balancing graduate school and work has made him very forgetful, and he worries that he won’t remember to take a daily pill. Are there any other PrEP methods you can offer?

The efficacy of PrEP to reduce HIV acquisition has been established across varying populations at high risk for transmission.1 PrEP has been found to reduce the risk for sexual acquisition of HIV by nearly 99%.2

Although the use of PrEP in the United States has increased steadily since 2012, adherence to an oral formulation remains a significant issue. One study of > 13,000 people found that daily oral PrEP was discontinued by 52% of participants, only 60% of whom reinitiated the therapy after discontinuation.2 Although the federal government has required Medicaid and other insurance providers to cover PrEP in an effort to increase access to the medication, this does not necessarily increase adherence to a daily medication in an often otherwise healthy population.

Long-acting injectable forms of PrEP, which have a reduced dosing frequency that may support adherence, have been studied to potentially replace daily oral pills. This latest study compared cabotegravir (CAB-LA), a long-acting IM injection given every 8 weeks, to daily oral PrEP with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate–emtricitabine (TDF-FTC).1

STUDY SUMMARY

Decreased seroconversion without daily pills

This randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, noninferiority trial compared long-acting injectable vs daily oral PrEP formulations for the prevention of HIV across an international population. Patients were randomized to receive either CAB-LA 600 mg IM every 8 weeks or TDF-FTC 300/200 mg orally daily. The double-dummy methodology meant that those patients receiving active CAB-LA also received a daily oral placebo, while those patients receiving active TDF-FTC also received a placebo injection every 8 weeks.

Study participants were cisgender MSM or transgender women who have sex with men; ages 18 years and older; and in good health but considered to be at high risk for HIV infection. To be included, participants had to have a negative HIV serologic test at enrollment, undetectable blood HIV RNA viral load within 14 days of enrollment, and creatinine clearance ≥ 60 mL/min. Exclusion criteria included intravenous (IV) drug use within 90 days of enrollment, coagulopathy, buttock implants or fillers, a seizure disorder, or a QTc interval > 500 ms.1

HIV seroconversion occurred in 0.57% of patients receiving long-acting injectable PrEP vs 1.7% of patients receiving daily oral PrEP.

The intention-to-treat population included 4566 patients: 2282 in the CAB-LA group and 2284 in the TDF-FTC group. Demographic characteristics—including age, race, geographic region, and cohort (MSM vs transgender women)—were not significantly different between groups at baseline. The study lasted 153 weeks, and > 86% of patients were retained at 1 year (median follow-up, 1.4 years; interquartile range, 0.8-1.9).

Continue to: The primary efficacy and safety...

 

 

The primary efficacy and safety outcomes of interest were HIV infection and occurrence of a grade ≥ 2 adverse drug reaction, respectively. HIV seroconversion occurred in 13 of 2282 (0.57%) patients in the CAB-LA group and 39 of 2284 (1.7%) patients in the TDF-FTC group (hazard ratio = 0.34; 95% CI, 0.18-0.62). The rate of severe adverse drug reactions was similar between groups. The study was stopped early due to the superiority of CAB-LA.

WHAT’S NEW

Demonstrated superiority of injectable vs oral PrEP

The results of this study could have a monumental impact on the spread of HIV. Since adherence is a known limitation of daily oral PrEP, a long-acting injectable is an intriguing option. The 8-week period between injections offers convenience, allowing primary care physicians (PCPs) to schedule their patients in advance. And because every injection is administered in the office, this option would help PCPs track adherence. Witnessed adherence to the medication, and its demonstrated superiority, could have a significant effect on HIV prevention.

The limited serious adverse effects reported by both groups may ease some PCPs’ hesitation to prescribe CAB-LA.

CAVEATS

More injection-site reactions (but little impact on adherence)

Notably, 81.4% of patients in the CAB-LA group had injection-site reactions vs 31.3% in the TDF-FTC group. However, only 2.4% of patients in the CAB-LA group opted to stop receiving the injections because of these reactions.

Standard PrEP reduces the risk for HIV acquisition from IV drug use by 74%.2 However, because IV drug use was an exclusion criterion in this study, future research will need to assess CAB-LA’s effectiveness in that population.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Price and storage requirementsof CAB-LA may create issues

CAB-LA is expensive, costing more than $25,000 per year—significantly outpricing TDF-FTC, which costs approximately $8300 per year.3 Insurance coverage for PrEP, including CAB-LA, varies widely. Given the superiority reflected in this study, more efforts should be made to lower the cost of the medication.

Another hurdle for CAB-LA is that it requires refrigeration for storage. Although likely not an issue in most of the United States, it will make adoption of this method difficult in other parts of the world.

Files
References

1. Landovitz RJ, Donnell D, Clement ME, et al; HPTN 083 ­Study Team. Cabotegravir for HIV prevention in cisgender men and transgender women. N Engl J Med. 2021;385:595-608. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2101016

2. Hojilla JC, Hurley LB, Marcus JL, et al. Characterization of HIV preexposure prophylaxis use behaviors and HIV incidence among US adults in an integrated health care system. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4:e2122692. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.­2021.22692

3. Neilan AM, Landovitz RJ, Le MH, et al. Cost-effectiveness of long-acting injectable HIV preexposure prophylaxis in the United States: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2022;175:479-489. doi: 10.7326/M21-1548

Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Medical College of Georgia, Augusta

DEPUTY EDITOR
Jennie Jarrett, PharmD, BCPS, MMedEd, FCCP

University of Illinois at Chicago

Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 72(6)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
264-265
Sections
Files
Files
Author and Disclosure Information

Medical College of Georgia, Augusta

DEPUTY EDITOR
Jennie Jarrett, PharmD, BCPS, MMedEd, FCCP

University of Illinois at Chicago

Author and Disclosure Information

Medical College of Georgia, Augusta

DEPUTY EDITOR
Jennie Jarrett, PharmD, BCPS, MMedEd, FCCP

University of Illinois at Chicago

Article PDF
Article PDF

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 24-year-old cisgender man with no significant past medical history comes to your office requesting PrEP after starting a new sexual relationship. His partner is a 26-year-old cisgender man with known HIV. The patient reports that balancing graduate school and work has made him very forgetful, and he worries that he won’t remember to take a daily pill. Are there any other PrEP methods you can offer?

The efficacy of PrEP to reduce HIV acquisition has been established across varying populations at high risk for transmission.1 PrEP has been found to reduce the risk for sexual acquisition of HIV by nearly 99%.2

Although the use of PrEP in the United States has increased steadily since 2012, adherence to an oral formulation remains a significant issue. One study of > 13,000 people found that daily oral PrEP was discontinued by 52% of participants, only 60% of whom reinitiated the therapy after discontinuation.2 Although the federal government has required Medicaid and other insurance providers to cover PrEP in an effort to increase access to the medication, this does not necessarily increase adherence to a daily medication in an often otherwise healthy population.

Long-acting injectable forms of PrEP, which have a reduced dosing frequency that may support adherence, have been studied to potentially replace daily oral pills. This latest study compared cabotegravir (CAB-LA), a long-acting IM injection given every 8 weeks, to daily oral PrEP with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate–emtricitabine (TDF-FTC).1

STUDY SUMMARY

Decreased seroconversion without daily pills

This randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, noninferiority trial compared long-acting injectable vs daily oral PrEP formulations for the prevention of HIV across an international population. Patients were randomized to receive either CAB-LA 600 mg IM every 8 weeks or TDF-FTC 300/200 mg orally daily. The double-dummy methodology meant that those patients receiving active CAB-LA also received a daily oral placebo, while those patients receiving active TDF-FTC also received a placebo injection every 8 weeks.

Study participants were cisgender MSM or transgender women who have sex with men; ages 18 years and older; and in good health but considered to be at high risk for HIV infection. To be included, participants had to have a negative HIV serologic test at enrollment, undetectable blood HIV RNA viral load within 14 days of enrollment, and creatinine clearance ≥ 60 mL/min. Exclusion criteria included intravenous (IV) drug use within 90 days of enrollment, coagulopathy, buttock implants or fillers, a seizure disorder, or a QTc interval > 500 ms.1

HIV seroconversion occurred in 0.57% of patients receiving long-acting injectable PrEP vs 1.7% of patients receiving daily oral PrEP.

The intention-to-treat population included 4566 patients: 2282 in the CAB-LA group and 2284 in the TDF-FTC group. Demographic characteristics—including age, race, geographic region, and cohort (MSM vs transgender women)—were not significantly different between groups at baseline. The study lasted 153 weeks, and > 86% of patients were retained at 1 year (median follow-up, 1.4 years; interquartile range, 0.8-1.9).

Continue to: The primary efficacy and safety...

 

 

The primary efficacy and safety outcomes of interest were HIV infection and occurrence of a grade ≥ 2 adverse drug reaction, respectively. HIV seroconversion occurred in 13 of 2282 (0.57%) patients in the CAB-LA group and 39 of 2284 (1.7%) patients in the TDF-FTC group (hazard ratio = 0.34; 95% CI, 0.18-0.62). The rate of severe adverse drug reactions was similar between groups. The study was stopped early due to the superiority of CAB-LA.

WHAT’S NEW

Demonstrated superiority of injectable vs oral PrEP

The results of this study could have a monumental impact on the spread of HIV. Since adherence is a known limitation of daily oral PrEP, a long-acting injectable is an intriguing option. The 8-week period between injections offers convenience, allowing primary care physicians (PCPs) to schedule their patients in advance. And because every injection is administered in the office, this option would help PCPs track adherence. Witnessed adherence to the medication, and its demonstrated superiority, could have a significant effect on HIV prevention.

The limited serious adverse effects reported by both groups may ease some PCPs’ hesitation to prescribe CAB-LA.

CAVEATS

More injection-site reactions (but little impact on adherence)

Notably, 81.4% of patients in the CAB-LA group had injection-site reactions vs 31.3% in the TDF-FTC group. However, only 2.4% of patients in the CAB-LA group opted to stop receiving the injections because of these reactions.

Standard PrEP reduces the risk for HIV acquisition from IV drug use by 74%.2 However, because IV drug use was an exclusion criterion in this study, future research will need to assess CAB-LA’s effectiveness in that population.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Price and storage requirementsof CAB-LA may create issues

CAB-LA is expensive, costing more than $25,000 per year—significantly outpricing TDF-FTC, which costs approximately $8300 per year.3 Insurance coverage for PrEP, including CAB-LA, varies widely. Given the superiority reflected in this study, more efforts should be made to lower the cost of the medication.

Another hurdle for CAB-LA is that it requires refrigeration for storage. Although likely not an issue in most of the United States, it will make adoption of this method difficult in other parts of the world.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 24-year-old cisgender man with no significant past medical history comes to your office requesting PrEP after starting a new sexual relationship. His partner is a 26-year-old cisgender man with known HIV. The patient reports that balancing graduate school and work has made him very forgetful, and he worries that he won’t remember to take a daily pill. Are there any other PrEP methods you can offer?

The efficacy of PrEP to reduce HIV acquisition has been established across varying populations at high risk for transmission.1 PrEP has been found to reduce the risk for sexual acquisition of HIV by nearly 99%.2

Although the use of PrEP in the United States has increased steadily since 2012, adherence to an oral formulation remains a significant issue. One study of > 13,000 people found that daily oral PrEP was discontinued by 52% of participants, only 60% of whom reinitiated the therapy after discontinuation.2 Although the federal government has required Medicaid and other insurance providers to cover PrEP in an effort to increase access to the medication, this does not necessarily increase adherence to a daily medication in an often otherwise healthy population.

Long-acting injectable forms of PrEP, which have a reduced dosing frequency that may support adherence, have been studied to potentially replace daily oral pills. This latest study compared cabotegravir (CAB-LA), a long-acting IM injection given every 8 weeks, to daily oral PrEP with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate–emtricitabine (TDF-FTC).1

STUDY SUMMARY

Decreased seroconversion without daily pills

This randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, noninferiority trial compared long-acting injectable vs daily oral PrEP formulations for the prevention of HIV across an international population. Patients were randomized to receive either CAB-LA 600 mg IM every 8 weeks or TDF-FTC 300/200 mg orally daily. The double-dummy methodology meant that those patients receiving active CAB-LA also received a daily oral placebo, while those patients receiving active TDF-FTC also received a placebo injection every 8 weeks.

Study participants were cisgender MSM or transgender women who have sex with men; ages 18 years and older; and in good health but considered to be at high risk for HIV infection. To be included, participants had to have a negative HIV serologic test at enrollment, undetectable blood HIV RNA viral load within 14 days of enrollment, and creatinine clearance ≥ 60 mL/min. Exclusion criteria included intravenous (IV) drug use within 90 days of enrollment, coagulopathy, buttock implants or fillers, a seizure disorder, or a QTc interval > 500 ms.1

HIV seroconversion occurred in 0.57% of patients receiving long-acting injectable PrEP vs 1.7% of patients receiving daily oral PrEP.

The intention-to-treat population included 4566 patients: 2282 in the CAB-LA group and 2284 in the TDF-FTC group. Demographic characteristics—including age, race, geographic region, and cohort (MSM vs transgender women)—were not significantly different between groups at baseline. The study lasted 153 weeks, and > 86% of patients were retained at 1 year (median follow-up, 1.4 years; interquartile range, 0.8-1.9).

Continue to: The primary efficacy and safety...

 

 

The primary efficacy and safety outcomes of interest were HIV infection and occurrence of a grade ≥ 2 adverse drug reaction, respectively. HIV seroconversion occurred in 13 of 2282 (0.57%) patients in the CAB-LA group and 39 of 2284 (1.7%) patients in the TDF-FTC group (hazard ratio = 0.34; 95% CI, 0.18-0.62). The rate of severe adverse drug reactions was similar between groups. The study was stopped early due to the superiority of CAB-LA.

WHAT’S NEW

Demonstrated superiority of injectable vs oral PrEP

The results of this study could have a monumental impact on the spread of HIV. Since adherence is a known limitation of daily oral PrEP, a long-acting injectable is an intriguing option. The 8-week period between injections offers convenience, allowing primary care physicians (PCPs) to schedule their patients in advance. And because every injection is administered in the office, this option would help PCPs track adherence. Witnessed adherence to the medication, and its demonstrated superiority, could have a significant effect on HIV prevention.

The limited serious adverse effects reported by both groups may ease some PCPs’ hesitation to prescribe CAB-LA.

CAVEATS

More injection-site reactions (but little impact on adherence)

Notably, 81.4% of patients in the CAB-LA group had injection-site reactions vs 31.3% in the TDF-FTC group. However, only 2.4% of patients in the CAB-LA group opted to stop receiving the injections because of these reactions.

Standard PrEP reduces the risk for HIV acquisition from IV drug use by 74%.2 However, because IV drug use was an exclusion criterion in this study, future research will need to assess CAB-LA’s effectiveness in that population.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Price and storage requirementsof CAB-LA may create issues

CAB-LA is expensive, costing more than $25,000 per year—significantly outpricing TDF-FTC, which costs approximately $8300 per year.3 Insurance coverage for PrEP, including CAB-LA, varies widely. Given the superiority reflected in this study, more efforts should be made to lower the cost of the medication.

Another hurdle for CAB-LA is that it requires refrigeration for storage. Although likely not an issue in most of the United States, it will make adoption of this method difficult in other parts of the world.

References

1. Landovitz RJ, Donnell D, Clement ME, et al; HPTN 083 ­Study Team. Cabotegravir for HIV prevention in cisgender men and transgender women. N Engl J Med. 2021;385:595-608. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2101016

2. Hojilla JC, Hurley LB, Marcus JL, et al. Characterization of HIV preexposure prophylaxis use behaviors and HIV incidence among US adults in an integrated health care system. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4:e2122692. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.­2021.22692

3. Neilan AM, Landovitz RJ, Le MH, et al. Cost-effectiveness of long-acting injectable HIV preexposure prophylaxis in the United States: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2022;175:479-489. doi: 10.7326/M21-1548

References

1. Landovitz RJ, Donnell D, Clement ME, et al; HPTN 083 ­Study Team. Cabotegravir for HIV prevention in cisgender men and transgender women. N Engl J Med. 2021;385:595-608. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2101016

2. Hojilla JC, Hurley LB, Marcus JL, et al. Characterization of HIV preexposure prophylaxis use behaviors and HIV incidence among US adults in an integrated health care system. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4:e2122692. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.­2021.22692

3. Neilan AM, Landovitz RJ, Le MH, et al. Cost-effectiveness of long-acting injectable HIV preexposure prophylaxis in the United States: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2022;175:479-489. doi: 10.7326/M21-1548

Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 72(6)
Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 72(6)
Page Number
264-265
Page Number
264-265
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Is injectable PrEP superior to oral therapy for HIV protection?
Display Headline
Is injectable PrEP superior to oral therapy for HIV protection?
Sections
PURLs Copyright
Copyright © 2023. The Family Physicians Inquiries Network. All rights reserved.
Inside the Article

PRACTICE CHANGER

Consider intramuscular (IM) injectable cabotegravir every 8 weeks for HIV preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in cisgender men who have sex with men (MSM) and in transgender women.

STRENGTH OF RECOMMENDATION

B: Based on a single randomized controlled trial.1

Landovitz RJ, Donnell D, Clement ME, et al; HPTN 083 Study Team. Cabotegravir for HIV prevention in cisgender men and transgender women. N Engl J Med. 2021;385:595-608. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2101016

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article
Article PDF Media
Media Files

Screening for hepatitis B: Where the CDC and USPSTF diverge

Article Type
Changed
Thu, 12/07/2023 - 13:00
Display Headline
Screening for hepatitis B: Where the CDC and USPSTF diverge

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently published new recommendations on screening for hepatitis B infection.1 They recommend screening all adults (ages 18 years and older) at least once.

These recommendations differ in a few ways from those of the US Preventive Services­ Task Force (USPSTF).2 This Practice Alert will highlight these differences but also point out areas of agreement between the 2 sets of ­recommendations—and discuss why 2 separate agencies in the US Department of Health and Human Services reached different conclusions on some issues.

First, some background on hepatitis B

An estimated 580,000 to 2.4 million people in the United States have chronic hepatitis B (CHB) infection—and as many as two-thirds are unaware of it.3 In 2020, the Department of Health and Human Services published the Viral Hepatitis National Strategic Plan for the United States with a stated goal of increasing awareness of infection status among those with hepatitis B virus (HBV) from 32% to 90% by 2030.4 People living in the United States but born outside the country are at highest risk for CHB; they account for 69% of those with the infection.5

The incidence of acute HBV infection has declined markedly since the HBV vaccine was recommended for high-risk adults in 1982 and universally for infants in 1991.6,7 Overall rates of HBV infection declined fairly steadily starting around 1987—but in 2014, rates began to increase, especially in those ages 40 to 59 years.8,9 In 2019, 3192 cases were reported; but when one factors in underreporting, the CDC estimates that the number is likely closer to 20,700.10 This uptick is one reason the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices changed its HBV vaccination recommendation for adults from a risk-based to a universal recommendation for all unvaccinated adults through age 60 years.10

Chronic hepatitis B infection has serious consequences

The proportion of those infected with HBV who develop CHB differs by age at infection: 80% to 90% if infected during infancy, 30% if infected before age 6 years, and 1% to 12% if infected as an older child or adult.8

CHB infection can lead to chronic liver disease, including cirrhosis of the liver, liver cancer, and liver failure. About 25% of those who develop CHB infection during childhood and 15% of those who develop chronic infection after childhood will die prematurely from cirrhosis or liver cancer.8

The American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) classifies CHB into 4 phases that reflect the rate of viral replication and the patient’s immune response.11 These phases are:

  • immune-tolerant (minimal inflammation and fibrosis)
  • hepatitis B e-antigen (HBeAg)-positive immune-active (moderate-to-severe inflammation or fibrosis)
  • inactive CHB (minimal necroinflammation but variable fibrosis), and
  • HBeAg-negative immune reactivation (moderate-to-severe inflammation or fibrosis).11

Continue to: The progression from one phase...

 

 

The progression from one phase to the next varies by patient, and not all patients will progress through each phase. The AASLD recommends periodically monitoring the HBV DNA and alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels in those with CHB to track the progression from one phase to the next and to guide treatment decisions.

Treatment can be beneficial for those who meet criteria

The evidence report prepared for USPSTF found that antiviral treatment of those with CHB infection resulted in improved intermediate outcomes (histologic improvement, loss of hepatitis B surface antigen [HBsAg], loss of HBeAg, HBeAg seroconversion, virologic suppression, and normalization of ALT levels). The magnitude of benefit varied by location and study design.12

In addition, the evidence review found that antiviral therapy was associated with a decreased risk for overall mortality (relative risk [RR] = 0.15; 95% CI, 0.03-0.69), cirrhosis (RR = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.29-1.77), and hepatocellular carcinoma (RR = 0.60; 95% CI, 0.16-2.33). However, these results came from studies that were “limited due to small numbers of trials, few events, and insufficient duration of follow-up.”12

The USPSTF and the CDC both judged that the intermediate outcome results, as well as findings that improved intermediate outcomes lead to decreases in chronic liver disease, are strong enough evidence for their recommendations.

However, not all patients with CHB infection require treatment; estimates of patients with HBV infection meeting AASLD criteria for treatment range from 24% to 48%.1 The AASLD guideline on the treatment of CHB infection is an excellent resource that makes recommendations on the initial evaluation, ongoing monitoring, and treatment decisions for those with CHB.11

Continue to: How CDC and USPSTF guidance on HBV screeinng differs

 

 

How CDC and USPSTF guidance on HBV screening differs

The CDC and USPSTF recommendations for HBV screening differ in 3 aspects: whom to screen, whom to classify as at high risk for HBV infection, and what tests to use for screening.

Who should be screened?

The USPSTF recommends screening adults and adolescents who are at high risk for HBV. The CDC recommends screening all adults at least once. Both entities agree that those who are at increased risk should be screened periodically, although the optimal frequency has not been established. The USPSTF does not recommend against screening for the general population, so universal screening (as advocated by the CDC) is not in direct conflict with the USPSTF’s recommendations.

Who is at increased risk for HBV infection?

The CDC and the USPSTF differ slightly on the factors they consider to constitute increased risk for HBV infection. These are listed in ­TABLE 1.1,2

Who’s at heightened risk for hepatitis B infection?A CDC vs USPSTF comparison

The CDC lists 6 categories that the ­USPSTF does not mention. However, 4 of these categories are mentioned indirectly in the USPSTF evidence report that accompanies the recommendations, via statements that certain settings have high proportions of people at risk for HBV infection: sexually transmitted infection clinics; HIV testing and treatment centers; health care settings that target services toward people who inject drugs and men who have sex with men; correctional facilities; hemodialysis facilities; and institutions and nonresidential daycare centers for developmentally disabled persons. People who are served at most of these facilities are also at risk for hepatitis C virus infection.

Three categories are listed by the CDC and not by the USPSTF, in either the recommendation or evidence report. These include a history of multiple sex partners; elevated ALT or aspartate aminotransferase levels of unknown origin; and patient request for testing (because they may not want to reveal risk factors).

Continue to: What test(s) should be ordered?

 

 

What test(s) should be ordered? 

The USPSTF recommends screening using HBsAg. The CDC recommends using triple-panel screening: HBsAg, anti-hepatitis B surface antigen (anti-HBs), and total antibody to hepatitis B core antigen (anti-HBc).

HBsAg indicates HBV infection, either acute or chronic, or a recent dose of HBV vaccine. Anti-HBs indicate recovery from HBV infection, response to HBV vaccine, or recent receipt of hepatitis B immune globulin. Total anti-HBc develops in all HBV infections, resolved or current, and usually persists for life. Vaccine-induced immunity does not cause anti-HBc to develop.

The USPSTF’s rationale is that testing for HBsAg is more than 98% sensitive and specific for detecting HBV infections.2 The CDC recommends triple testing because it can detect those with asymptomatic active HBV infections (this would be a rare occurrence); those who have resolved infection and might be susceptible to reactivation (eg, those who are immunosuppressed); and those who are susceptible and need vaccination.

Interpretation of HBV test results and suggested actions are described in TABLE 2.1,8,13

HBV infection screening test results and recommended actions

Why do the CDC and USPSTF differ?

While it would be optimal if the CDC and the USPSTF coordinated and harmonized recommendations, this is difficult to achieve given their different missions. The USPSTF is charged to make evidence-based recommendations about preventive services such as screenings, behavioral counseling, and preventive medications, which are provided by clinicians to individual patients. The Task Force uses a very strict evidence-based process and will not make recommendations unless there is adequate evidence of efficacy and safety. Members of the Task Force are primary care professionals, and their collaborating professional organizations are primary care focused.

Based on practice-specific characteristics, family physicians should decide if they want to screen all adults or only those at increased risk, and whether to use singleor triple-test screening.

The CDC takes a community-wide, public health perspective. The professionals that work there are not always clinicians. They strive to prevent as much illness as possible, using public health measures and making recommendations to clinicians. They collaborate with professional organizations; on topics such as hepatitis and other infectious diseases, they collaborate with specialty-oriented societies. Given the imperative to act with the best evidence available, their evidence assessment process is not as strict.

The result, at times, is slight differences in recommendations. However, the HBV screening recommendations from the CDC and the USPSTF agree more than they do not. Based on practice-specific characteristics, family physicians should decide if they want to screen all adults or only those at increased risk, and whether to use single- or triple-test screening.

References

1. Conners EE, Panagiotakopoulos L, Hofmeister MG, et al. Screening and testing for hepatitis B virus infection: CDC recommendations­—United States, 2023. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2023;72:1-25. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.rr7201a1

2. USPSTF. Hepatitis B virus infection in adolescents and adults: screening. Final recommendation statement. Published December 15, 2020. Access June 21, 2023. www.uspreventiveser vicestaskforce.org/uspstf/recommendation/hepatitis-b-virus-­infection-screening

3. Roberts H, Ly KN, Yin S, et al. Prevalence of HBV infection, ­vaccine-induced immunity, and susceptibility among at-risk populations: US households, 2013-2018. Hepatology. 2021;74:2353-2365. doi: 10.1002/hep.31991

4. US Department of Health and Human Services. Viral hepatitis national strategic plan for the United States: a roadmap to elimination (2021-2025). Published January 7, 2021. Accessed June 21, 2023. www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/Viral-Hepatitis-National-Strategic-Plan-2021-2025.pdf

5. Wong RJ, Brosgart CL, Welch S, et al. An updated assessment of chronic hepatitis B prevalence among foreign-born persons living in the United States. Hepatology. 2021;74:607-626. doi: 10.1002/hep.31782

6. CDC. Recommendation of the Immunization Practices Advisory Committee (ACIP): inactivated hepatitis B virus vaccine. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1982;31:317-318, 327-288.

7. CDC. Hepatitis B virus: a comprehensive strategy for eliminating transmission in the United States through universal childhood vaccination: recommendations of the Immunization Practices Advisory Committee. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1991;40:1-25.

8. Schillie S, Vellozzi C, Reingold A, et al. Prevention of hepatitis B virus infection in the United States: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2018;67:1-31. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.rr6701a1

9. CDC. Viral hepatitis surveillance 2019. Published July 2021. Accessed June 29, 2023. www.cdc.gov/hepatitis/statistics/2019surveillance/

10. Weng MK, Doshani M, Khan MA, et al. Universal hepatitis B vaccination in adults aged 19-59 years: updated recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices—United States, 2022. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2022;71:477-483. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm7113a1

11. Terrault NA, Bzowej NH, Chang KM, et al; American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. AASLD guidelines for treatment of chronic hepatitis B. Hepatology. 2016;63:261-283. doi: 10.1002/hep.28156

12. Chou R, Blazina I, Bougatsos C, et al. Screening for hepatitis B virus infection in nonpregnant adolescents and adults: updated evidence report and systematic review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2020;324:2423-2436. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.19750

13. Abara WE, Qaseem A, Schillie S, et al. Hepatitis B vaccination, screening, and linkage to care: best practice advice from the American College of Physicians and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Ann Intern Med. 2017;167:794-804. doi: 10.7326/M17-110

Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

University of Arizona, Phoenix
[email protected]

The author reported no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article.

Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 72(6)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
260-263
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

University of Arizona, Phoenix
[email protected]

The author reported no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article.

Author and Disclosure Information

University of Arizona, Phoenix
[email protected]

The author reported no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article.

Article PDF
Article PDF

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently published new recommendations on screening for hepatitis B infection.1 They recommend screening all adults (ages 18 years and older) at least once.

These recommendations differ in a few ways from those of the US Preventive Services­ Task Force (USPSTF).2 This Practice Alert will highlight these differences but also point out areas of agreement between the 2 sets of ­recommendations—and discuss why 2 separate agencies in the US Department of Health and Human Services reached different conclusions on some issues.

First, some background on hepatitis B

An estimated 580,000 to 2.4 million people in the United States have chronic hepatitis B (CHB) infection—and as many as two-thirds are unaware of it.3 In 2020, the Department of Health and Human Services published the Viral Hepatitis National Strategic Plan for the United States with a stated goal of increasing awareness of infection status among those with hepatitis B virus (HBV) from 32% to 90% by 2030.4 People living in the United States but born outside the country are at highest risk for CHB; they account for 69% of those with the infection.5

The incidence of acute HBV infection has declined markedly since the HBV vaccine was recommended for high-risk adults in 1982 and universally for infants in 1991.6,7 Overall rates of HBV infection declined fairly steadily starting around 1987—but in 2014, rates began to increase, especially in those ages 40 to 59 years.8,9 In 2019, 3192 cases were reported; but when one factors in underreporting, the CDC estimates that the number is likely closer to 20,700.10 This uptick is one reason the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices changed its HBV vaccination recommendation for adults from a risk-based to a universal recommendation for all unvaccinated adults through age 60 years.10

Chronic hepatitis B infection has serious consequences

The proportion of those infected with HBV who develop CHB differs by age at infection: 80% to 90% if infected during infancy, 30% if infected before age 6 years, and 1% to 12% if infected as an older child or adult.8

CHB infection can lead to chronic liver disease, including cirrhosis of the liver, liver cancer, and liver failure. About 25% of those who develop CHB infection during childhood and 15% of those who develop chronic infection after childhood will die prematurely from cirrhosis or liver cancer.8

The American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) classifies CHB into 4 phases that reflect the rate of viral replication and the patient’s immune response.11 These phases are:

  • immune-tolerant (minimal inflammation and fibrosis)
  • hepatitis B e-antigen (HBeAg)-positive immune-active (moderate-to-severe inflammation or fibrosis)
  • inactive CHB (minimal necroinflammation but variable fibrosis), and
  • HBeAg-negative immune reactivation (moderate-to-severe inflammation or fibrosis).11

Continue to: The progression from one phase...

 

 

The progression from one phase to the next varies by patient, and not all patients will progress through each phase. The AASLD recommends periodically monitoring the HBV DNA and alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels in those with CHB to track the progression from one phase to the next and to guide treatment decisions.

Treatment can be beneficial for those who meet criteria

The evidence report prepared for USPSTF found that antiviral treatment of those with CHB infection resulted in improved intermediate outcomes (histologic improvement, loss of hepatitis B surface antigen [HBsAg], loss of HBeAg, HBeAg seroconversion, virologic suppression, and normalization of ALT levels). The magnitude of benefit varied by location and study design.12

In addition, the evidence review found that antiviral therapy was associated with a decreased risk for overall mortality (relative risk [RR] = 0.15; 95% CI, 0.03-0.69), cirrhosis (RR = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.29-1.77), and hepatocellular carcinoma (RR = 0.60; 95% CI, 0.16-2.33). However, these results came from studies that were “limited due to small numbers of trials, few events, and insufficient duration of follow-up.”12

The USPSTF and the CDC both judged that the intermediate outcome results, as well as findings that improved intermediate outcomes lead to decreases in chronic liver disease, are strong enough evidence for their recommendations.

However, not all patients with CHB infection require treatment; estimates of patients with HBV infection meeting AASLD criteria for treatment range from 24% to 48%.1 The AASLD guideline on the treatment of CHB infection is an excellent resource that makes recommendations on the initial evaluation, ongoing monitoring, and treatment decisions for those with CHB.11

Continue to: How CDC and USPSTF guidance on HBV screeinng differs

 

 

How CDC and USPSTF guidance on HBV screening differs

The CDC and USPSTF recommendations for HBV screening differ in 3 aspects: whom to screen, whom to classify as at high risk for HBV infection, and what tests to use for screening.

Who should be screened?

The USPSTF recommends screening adults and adolescents who are at high risk for HBV. The CDC recommends screening all adults at least once. Both entities agree that those who are at increased risk should be screened periodically, although the optimal frequency has not been established. The USPSTF does not recommend against screening for the general population, so universal screening (as advocated by the CDC) is not in direct conflict with the USPSTF’s recommendations.

Who is at increased risk for HBV infection?

The CDC and the USPSTF differ slightly on the factors they consider to constitute increased risk for HBV infection. These are listed in ­TABLE 1.1,2

Who’s at heightened risk for hepatitis B infection?A CDC vs USPSTF comparison

The CDC lists 6 categories that the ­USPSTF does not mention. However, 4 of these categories are mentioned indirectly in the USPSTF evidence report that accompanies the recommendations, via statements that certain settings have high proportions of people at risk for HBV infection: sexually transmitted infection clinics; HIV testing and treatment centers; health care settings that target services toward people who inject drugs and men who have sex with men; correctional facilities; hemodialysis facilities; and institutions and nonresidential daycare centers for developmentally disabled persons. People who are served at most of these facilities are also at risk for hepatitis C virus infection.

Three categories are listed by the CDC and not by the USPSTF, in either the recommendation or evidence report. These include a history of multiple sex partners; elevated ALT or aspartate aminotransferase levels of unknown origin; and patient request for testing (because they may not want to reveal risk factors).

Continue to: What test(s) should be ordered?

 

 

What test(s) should be ordered? 

The USPSTF recommends screening using HBsAg. The CDC recommends using triple-panel screening: HBsAg, anti-hepatitis B surface antigen (anti-HBs), and total antibody to hepatitis B core antigen (anti-HBc).

HBsAg indicates HBV infection, either acute or chronic, or a recent dose of HBV vaccine. Anti-HBs indicate recovery from HBV infection, response to HBV vaccine, or recent receipt of hepatitis B immune globulin. Total anti-HBc develops in all HBV infections, resolved or current, and usually persists for life. Vaccine-induced immunity does not cause anti-HBc to develop.

The USPSTF’s rationale is that testing for HBsAg is more than 98% sensitive and specific for detecting HBV infections.2 The CDC recommends triple testing because it can detect those with asymptomatic active HBV infections (this would be a rare occurrence); those who have resolved infection and might be susceptible to reactivation (eg, those who are immunosuppressed); and those who are susceptible and need vaccination.

Interpretation of HBV test results and suggested actions are described in TABLE 2.1,8,13

HBV infection screening test results and recommended actions

Why do the CDC and USPSTF differ?

While it would be optimal if the CDC and the USPSTF coordinated and harmonized recommendations, this is difficult to achieve given their different missions. The USPSTF is charged to make evidence-based recommendations about preventive services such as screenings, behavioral counseling, and preventive medications, which are provided by clinicians to individual patients. The Task Force uses a very strict evidence-based process and will not make recommendations unless there is adequate evidence of efficacy and safety. Members of the Task Force are primary care professionals, and their collaborating professional organizations are primary care focused.

Based on practice-specific characteristics, family physicians should decide if they want to screen all adults or only those at increased risk, and whether to use singleor triple-test screening.

The CDC takes a community-wide, public health perspective. The professionals that work there are not always clinicians. They strive to prevent as much illness as possible, using public health measures and making recommendations to clinicians. They collaborate with professional organizations; on topics such as hepatitis and other infectious diseases, they collaborate with specialty-oriented societies. Given the imperative to act with the best evidence available, their evidence assessment process is not as strict.

The result, at times, is slight differences in recommendations. However, the HBV screening recommendations from the CDC and the USPSTF agree more than they do not. Based on practice-specific characteristics, family physicians should decide if they want to screen all adults or only those at increased risk, and whether to use single- or triple-test screening.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently published new recommendations on screening for hepatitis B infection.1 They recommend screening all adults (ages 18 years and older) at least once.

These recommendations differ in a few ways from those of the US Preventive Services­ Task Force (USPSTF).2 This Practice Alert will highlight these differences but also point out areas of agreement between the 2 sets of ­recommendations—and discuss why 2 separate agencies in the US Department of Health and Human Services reached different conclusions on some issues.

First, some background on hepatitis B

An estimated 580,000 to 2.4 million people in the United States have chronic hepatitis B (CHB) infection—and as many as two-thirds are unaware of it.3 In 2020, the Department of Health and Human Services published the Viral Hepatitis National Strategic Plan for the United States with a stated goal of increasing awareness of infection status among those with hepatitis B virus (HBV) from 32% to 90% by 2030.4 People living in the United States but born outside the country are at highest risk for CHB; they account for 69% of those with the infection.5

The incidence of acute HBV infection has declined markedly since the HBV vaccine was recommended for high-risk adults in 1982 and universally for infants in 1991.6,7 Overall rates of HBV infection declined fairly steadily starting around 1987—but in 2014, rates began to increase, especially in those ages 40 to 59 years.8,9 In 2019, 3192 cases were reported; but when one factors in underreporting, the CDC estimates that the number is likely closer to 20,700.10 This uptick is one reason the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices changed its HBV vaccination recommendation for adults from a risk-based to a universal recommendation for all unvaccinated adults through age 60 years.10

Chronic hepatitis B infection has serious consequences

The proportion of those infected with HBV who develop CHB differs by age at infection: 80% to 90% if infected during infancy, 30% if infected before age 6 years, and 1% to 12% if infected as an older child or adult.8

CHB infection can lead to chronic liver disease, including cirrhosis of the liver, liver cancer, and liver failure. About 25% of those who develop CHB infection during childhood and 15% of those who develop chronic infection after childhood will die prematurely from cirrhosis or liver cancer.8

The American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) classifies CHB into 4 phases that reflect the rate of viral replication and the patient’s immune response.11 These phases are:

  • immune-tolerant (minimal inflammation and fibrosis)
  • hepatitis B e-antigen (HBeAg)-positive immune-active (moderate-to-severe inflammation or fibrosis)
  • inactive CHB (minimal necroinflammation but variable fibrosis), and
  • HBeAg-negative immune reactivation (moderate-to-severe inflammation or fibrosis).11

Continue to: The progression from one phase...

 

 

The progression from one phase to the next varies by patient, and not all patients will progress through each phase. The AASLD recommends periodically monitoring the HBV DNA and alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels in those with CHB to track the progression from one phase to the next and to guide treatment decisions.

Treatment can be beneficial for those who meet criteria

The evidence report prepared for USPSTF found that antiviral treatment of those with CHB infection resulted in improved intermediate outcomes (histologic improvement, loss of hepatitis B surface antigen [HBsAg], loss of HBeAg, HBeAg seroconversion, virologic suppression, and normalization of ALT levels). The magnitude of benefit varied by location and study design.12

In addition, the evidence review found that antiviral therapy was associated with a decreased risk for overall mortality (relative risk [RR] = 0.15; 95% CI, 0.03-0.69), cirrhosis (RR = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.29-1.77), and hepatocellular carcinoma (RR = 0.60; 95% CI, 0.16-2.33). However, these results came from studies that were “limited due to small numbers of trials, few events, and insufficient duration of follow-up.”12

The USPSTF and the CDC both judged that the intermediate outcome results, as well as findings that improved intermediate outcomes lead to decreases in chronic liver disease, are strong enough evidence for their recommendations.

However, not all patients with CHB infection require treatment; estimates of patients with HBV infection meeting AASLD criteria for treatment range from 24% to 48%.1 The AASLD guideline on the treatment of CHB infection is an excellent resource that makes recommendations on the initial evaluation, ongoing monitoring, and treatment decisions for those with CHB.11

Continue to: How CDC and USPSTF guidance on HBV screeinng differs

 

 

How CDC and USPSTF guidance on HBV screening differs

The CDC and USPSTF recommendations for HBV screening differ in 3 aspects: whom to screen, whom to classify as at high risk for HBV infection, and what tests to use for screening.

Who should be screened?

The USPSTF recommends screening adults and adolescents who are at high risk for HBV. The CDC recommends screening all adults at least once. Both entities agree that those who are at increased risk should be screened periodically, although the optimal frequency has not been established. The USPSTF does not recommend against screening for the general population, so universal screening (as advocated by the CDC) is not in direct conflict with the USPSTF’s recommendations.

Who is at increased risk for HBV infection?

The CDC and the USPSTF differ slightly on the factors they consider to constitute increased risk for HBV infection. These are listed in ­TABLE 1.1,2

Who’s at heightened risk for hepatitis B infection?A CDC vs USPSTF comparison

The CDC lists 6 categories that the ­USPSTF does not mention. However, 4 of these categories are mentioned indirectly in the USPSTF evidence report that accompanies the recommendations, via statements that certain settings have high proportions of people at risk for HBV infection: sexually transmitted infection clinics; HIV testing and treatment centers; health care settings that target services toward people who inject drugs and men who have sex with men; correctional facilities; hemodialysis facilities; and institutions and nonresidential daycare centers for developmentally disabled persons. People who are served at most of these facilities are also at risk for hepatitis C virus infection.

Three categories are listed by the CDC and not by the USPSTF, in either the recommendation or evidence report. These include a history of multiple sex partners; elevated ALT or aspartate aminotransferase levels of unknown origin; and patient request for testing (because they may not want to reveal risk factors).

Continue to: What test(s) should be ordered?

 

 

What test(s) should be ordered? 

The USPSTF recommends screening using HBsAg. The CDC recommends using triple-panel screening: HBsAg, anti-hepatitis B surface antigen (anti-HBs), and total antibody to hepatitis B core antigen (anti-HBc).

HBsAg indicates HBV infection, either acute or chronic, or a recent dose of HBV vaccine. Anti-HBs indicate recovery from HBV infection, response to HBV vaccine, or recent receipt of hepatitis B immune globulin. Total anti-HBc develops in all HBV infections, resolved or current, and usually persists for life. Vaccine-induced immunity does not cause anti-HBc to develop.

The USPSTF’s rationale is that testing for HBsAg is more than 98% sensitive and specific for detecting HBV infections.2 The CDC recommends triple testing because it can detect those with asymptomatic active HBV infections (this would be a rare occurrence); those who have resolved infection and might be susceptible to reactivation (eg, those who are immunosuppressed); and those who are susceptible and need vaccination.

Interpretation of HBV test results and suggested actions are described in TABLE 2.1,8,13

HBV infection screening test results and recommended actions

Why do the CDC and USPSTF differ?

While it would be optimal if the CDC and the USPSTF coordinated and harmonized recommendations, this is difficult to achieve given their different missions. The USPSTF is charged to make evidence-based recommendations about preventive services such as screenings, behavioral counseling, and preventive medications, which are provided by clinicians to individual patients. The Task Force uses a very strict evidence-based process and will not make recommendations unless there is adequate evidence of efficacy and safety. Members of the Task Force are primary care professionals, and their collaborating professional organizations are primary care focused.

Based on practice-specific characteristics, family physicians should decide if they want to screen all adults or only those at increased risk, and whether to use singleor triple-test screening.

The CDC takes a community-wide, public health perspective. The professionals that work there are not always clinicians. They strive to prevent as much illness as possible, using public health measures and making recommendations to clinicians. They collaborate with professional organizations; on topics such as hepatitis and other infectious diseases, they collaborate with specialty-oriented societies. Given the imperative to act with the best evidence available, their evidence assessment process is not as strict.

The result, at times, is slight differences in recommendations. However, the HBV screening recommendations from the CDC and the USPSTF agree more than they do not. Based on practice-specific characteristics, family physicians should decide if they want to screen all adults or only those at increased risk, and whether to use single- or triple-test screening.

References

1. Conners EE, Panagiotakopoulos L, Hofmeister MG, et al. Screening and testing for hepatitis B virus infection: CDC recommendations­—United States, 2023. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2023;72:1-25. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.rr7201a1

2. USPSTF. Hepatitis B virus infection in adolescents and adults: screening. Final recommendation statement. Published December 15, 2020. Access June 21, 2023. www.uspreventiveser vicestaskforce.org/uspstf/recommendation/hepatitis-b-virus-­infection-screening

3. Roberts H, Ly KN, Yin S, et al. Prevalence of HBV infection, ­vaccine-induced immunity, and susceptibility among at-risk populations: US households, 2013-2018. Hepatology. 2021;74:2353-2365. doi: 10.1002/hep.31991

4. US Department of Health and Human Services. Viral hepatitis national strategic plan for the United States: a roadmap to elimination (2021-2025). Published January 7, 2021. Accessed June 21, 2023. www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/Viral-Hepatitis-National-Strategic-Plan-2021-2025.pdf

5. Wong RJ, Brosgart CL, Welch S, et al. An updated assessment of chronic hepatitis B prevalence among foreign-born persons living in the United States. Hepatology. 2021;74:607-626. doi: 10.1002/hep.31782

6. CDC. Recommendation of the Immunization Practices Advisory Committee (ACIP): inactivated hepatitis B virus vaccine. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1982;31:317-318, 327-288.

7. CDC. Hepatitis B virus: a comprehensive strategy for eliminating transmission in the United States through universal childhood vaccination: recommendations of the Immunization Practices Advisory Committee. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1991;40:1-25.

8. Schillie S, Vellozzi C, Reingold A, et al. Prevention of hepatitis B virus infection in the United States: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2018;67:1-31. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.rr6701a1

9. CDC. Viral hepatitis surveillance 2019. Published July 2021. Accessed June 29, 2023. www.cdc.gov/hepatitis/statistics/2019surveillance/

10. Weng MK, Doshani M, Khan MA, et al. Universal hepatitis B vaccination in adults aged 19-59 years: updated recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices—United States, 2022. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2022;71:477-483. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm7113a1

11. Terrault NA, Bzowej NH, Chang KM, et al; American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. AASLD guidelines for treatment of chronic hepatitis B. Hepatology. 2016;63:261-283. doi: 10.1002/hep.28156

12. Chou R, Blazina I, Bougatsos C, et al. Screening for hepatitis B virus infection in nonpregnant adolescents and adults: updated evidence report and systematic review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2020;324:2423-2436. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.19750

13. Abara WE, Qaseem A, Schillie S, et al. Hepatitis B vaccination, screening, and linkage to care: best practice advice from the American College of Physicians and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Ann Intern Med. 2017;167:794-804. doi: 10.7326/M17-110

References

1. Conners EE, Panagiotakopoulos L, Hofmeister MG, et al. Screening and testing for hepatitis B virus infection: CDC recommendations­—United States, 2023. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2023;72:1-25. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.rr7201a1

2. USPSTF. Hepatitis B virus infection in adolescents and adults: screening. Final recommendation statement. Published December 15, 2020. Access June 21, 2023. www.uspreventiveser vicestaskforce.org/uspstf/recommendation/hepatitis-b-virus-­infection-screening

3. Roberts H, Ly KN, Yin S, et al. Prevalence of HBV infection, ­vaccine-induced immunity, and susceptibility among at-risk populations: US households, 2013-2018. Hepatology. 2021;74:2353-2365. doi: 10.1002/hep.31991

4. US Department of Health and Human Services. Viral hepatitis national strategic plan for the United States: a roadmap to elimination (2021-2025). Published January 7, 2021. Accessed June 21, 2023. www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/Viral-Hepatitis-National-Strategic-Plan-2021-2025.pdf

5. Wong RJ, Brosgart CL, Welch S, et al. An updated assessment of chronic hepatitis B prevalence among foreign-born persons living in the United States. Hepatology. 2021;74:607-626. doi: 10.1002/hep.31782

6. CDC. Recommendation of the Immunization Practices Advisory Committee (ACIP): inactivated hepatitis B virus vaccine. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1982;31:317-318, 327-288.

7. CDC. Hepatitis B virus: a comprehensive strategy for eliminating transmission in the United States through universal childhood vaccination: recommendations of the Immunization Practices Advisory Committee. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1991;40:1-25.

8. Schillie S, Vellozzi C, Reingold A, et al. Prevention of hepatitis B virus infection in the United States: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2018;67:1-31. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.rr6701a1

9. CDC. Viral hepatitis surveillance 2019. Published July 2021. Accessed June 29, 2023. www.cdc.gov/hepatitis/statistics/2019surveillance/

10. Weng MK, Doshani M, Khan MA, et al. Universal hepatitis B vaccination in adults aged 19-59 years: updated recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices—United States, 2022. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2022;71:477-483. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm7113a1

11. Terrault NA, Bzowej NH, Chang KM, et al; American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. AASLD guidelines for treatment of chronic hepatitis B. Hepatology. 2016;63:261-283. doi: 10.1002/hep.28156

12. Chou R, Blazina I, Bougatsos C, et al. Screening for hepatitis B virus infection in nonpregnant adolescents and adults: updated evidence report and systematic review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2020;324:2423-2436. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.19750

13. Abara WE, Qaseem A, Schillie S, et al. Hepatitis B vaccination, screening, and linkage to care: best practice advice from the American College of Physicians and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Ann Intern Med. 2017;167:794-804. doi: 10.7326/M17-110

Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 72(6)
Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 72(6)
Page Number
260-263
Page Number
260-263
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Screening for hepatitis B: Where the CDC and USPSTF diverge
Display Headline
Screening for hepatitis B: Where the CDC and USPSTF diverge
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article
Article PDF Media

Knee pain and injury: When is a surgical consult needed?

Article Type
Changed
Tue, 07/25/2023 - 13:16
Display Headline
Knee pain and injury: When is a surgical consult needed?

Evidence supports what family physicians know to be true: Knee pain is an exceedingly common presenting problem in the primary care office. Estimates of lifetime incidence reach as high as 54%,1 and the prevalence of knee pain in the general population is increasing.2 Knee disability can result from acute or traumatic injuries as well as chronic, degenerative conditions such as osteoarthritis (OA). The decision to pursue orthopedic consultation for a particular injury or painful knee condition can be challenging. To address this, we highlight specific knee diagnoses known to cause pain, with the aim of describing which conditions likely will necessitate surgical consultation—and which won’t.

Acute or nondegenerative knee injuries and pain

Acute knee injuries range in severity from simple contusions and sprains to high-energy, traumatic injuries with resulting joint instability and potential neurovascular compromise. While conservative treatment often is successful for many simple injuries, surgical management—sometimes urgently or emergently—is needed in other cases, as will be detailed shortly.

Neurovascular injury associated with knee dislocations

Acute neurovascular injuries often require emergent surgical intervention. Although rare, tibiofemoral (knee) dislocations pose a significant challenge to the clinician in both diagnosis and management. The reported frequency of popliteal artery injury or rupture following a dislocation varies widely, with rates ranging from 5% to 64%, according to older studies; more recent data, however, suggest the rate is actually as low as 3.3%.3 Vascular injury can lead to irreversible tissue damage and even limb loss if not promptly identified. Identifying a knee dislocation can prove challenging, as spontaneous joint reduction occurs in as many as 50% of cases, potentially shrouding the severity of the injury on initial evaluation.4

Immediate immobilization and emergency department transport for monitoring, orthopedics consultation, and vascular ­studies or vascular surgery consultation is recommended in the case of a suspected knee dislocation. In one cross-sectional cohort study, the surgical management of knee ­dislocations yielded favorable outcomes in > 75% of cases.5

Tibial plateau fracture

This fracture often occurs as a result of high-energy trauma, such as contact sports or motor vehicle accidents, and is characterized by a proximal tibial fracture line with extension to the articular surface. X-rays often are sufficient for initial diagnosis. Computed tomo­graphy can help rule out a fracture line when clinical suspicion is high and x-rays are nondiagnostic. As noted earlier, any suggestion of neurovascular compromise on physical exam requires an emergent orthopedic surgeon consultation for a possible displaced and unstable (or more complex) injury (FIGURE 1).6-8

Displaced tibial plateau fracture

Nondisplaced tibial plateau fractures without supraphysiologic ligamentous laxity on valgus or varus stress testing can be managed safely with protection and early mobilization, gradual progression of weight-bearing, and serial x-rays to ensure fracture healing and stability. Surgical management and fixation are required emergently for open fractures or gross joint instability with vascular or neurologic compromise. Suspicion of these complications is raised by distal neuropathic symptoms of paresthesia or skin anesthesia, progressively worsening pain distal to the knee, or vascular signs of pallor, delayed or lost capillary refill, or decreased or absent distal pulses.

Gross joint instability identified by positive valgus or varus stress testing, positive anterior or posterior drawer testing, or patient inability to tolerate these maneuvers due to pain similarly should raise suspicion for a more significant fracture at risk for concurrent neurovascular injury. Acute compartment syndrome also is a known complication of tibial plateau fractures and similarly requires emergent operative management. Urgent surgical consultation is recommended for fractures with displaced fracture fragments, tibial articular surface step-off or depression, fractures with concurrent joint laxity, or medial plateau fractures.6-8

Continue to: Patella fractures

 

 

Patella fractures

These fractures occur as a direct blow to the front of the knee, such as falling forward onto a hard surface, or indirectly due to a sudden extreme eccentric contraction of the quadriceps muscle. Nondisplaced fractures with an intact knee extension mechanism, which is examined via a supine straight-leg raise or seated knee extension, are managed with weight-bearing as tolerated in strict immobilization in full extension for 4 to 6 weeks, with active range-of-motion and isometric quadriceps exercises beginning in 1 to 2 weeks. Serial x-rays also are obtained to ensure fracture displacement does not occur during the rehabilitation process.9

High-quality evidence guiding follow-up care and comparing outcomes of surgical and nonsurgical management of patella fractures is lacking, and studies comparing different surgical techniques are of lower methodological quality.10 Nevertheless, displaced or comminuted patellar fractures are referred urgently to orthopedic surgical care for fixation, as are those with concurrent loose bodies, chondral surface injuries or articular step-off, or osteochondral fractures.9 Inability to perform a straight-leg raise (ie, clinical loss of the knee extension mechanism) suggests a fracture under tension that likely also requires surgical fixation for successful recovery. Neurovascular injuries are unlikely in most patellar fractures but would require emergent surgical consultation.9

Ligamentous injury

Tibiofemoral joint laxity occurs as a result of ligamentous injury, with or without tibial plateau fracture. The anterior cruciate ligament (ACL), posterior cruciate ligament (PCL), medial collateral ligament (MCL), and lateral collateral ligament (LCL) comprise the 4 main ligaments of the knee. The ACL resists anterior tibial translation and rotational forces, while the PCL resists posterior tibial translation. The MCL and LCL resist valgus and varus stress, respectively.

Ligament injuries are classified as Grades 1 to 311:

  • Grade 1 sprains. The ligament is stretched, but there is no macroscopic tearing; joint stability is maintained.
  • Grade 2 sprains. There are partial macroscopic ligament tears. There is joint laxity due to the partial loss of the ligament’s structural integrity.
  • Grade 3 sprains. The ligament is fully avulsed or ruptured with resultant gross joint instability.

Vascular injury can lead to irreversible tissue damage and even limb loss if not promptly identified.

The decision to pursue surgical repair of a knee sprain depends heavily on the likelihood of keeping or regaining and maintaining functional joint stability during the injury recovery and postinjury time periods. Injuries that do not result in joint instability or injuries with a high likelihood of returning to a stable state with conservative measures often do not require surgical intervention.

Continue to: ACL tears

 

 

ACL tears occur most commonly via a noncontact event, as when an individual plants their foot and suddenly changes direction during sport or other physical activity. Treatment hinges on patient activity levels and participation in sports. Patients who do not plan to engage in athletic movements (that require changes in direction or planting and twisting) and who otherwise maintain satisfactory joint stability during activities of daily living may elect to defer or even altogether avoid surgical reconstruction of isolated ACL tears. One pair of studies demonstrated equivalent outcomes in surgical and nonsurgical management in 121 young, nonelite athletes at 2- and 5-year follow-up, although the crossover from the nonsurgical to surgical groups was high.12,13 Athletes who regain satisfactory function and stability nonoperatively can defer surgical intervention. However, the majority of active patients and athletes will require surgical ACL reconstruction to return to pre-injury functional levels.14

PCL sprains occur as a result of sudden posteriorly directed force on the tibia, such as when the knee is hyperextended or a patient falls directly onto a flexed knee. Patients with Grade 1 and 2 isolated sprains generally will recover with conservative care, as will patients with some Grade 3 complete tears that do not fully compromise joint stability. However, high-grade PCL injuries often are comorbid with posterolateral corner or other injuries, leading to a higher likelihood of joint instability and thus the need for surgical intervention for the best chance at an optimal outcome.15

MCL sprain. Surgical management is not required in an isolated Grade 1 or 2 MCL sprain, as the hallmarks of recovery—return of joint stability, knee strength and range of motion, and pain ­reduction—can be achieved successfully with conservative management. Isolated Grade 3 MCL sprains are also successfully managed nonoperatively16 except in specific cases, such as a concurrent large avulsion fracture.17

LCL sprain. Similarly, isolated Grade 1 and 2 LCL sprains generally do not require surgical intervention. However, Grade 3 LCL injuries usually do, as persistent joint instability and poor functional outcomes are more common with nonsurgical management.18-20 Additionally, high-grade LCL injuries frequently manifest with comorbid meniscus injuries or sprains of the posterolateral corner of the knee, a complex anatomic structure that provides both static and dynamic tibiofemoral joint stability. Surgical repair or reconstruction of the posterolateral corner frequently is necessary for optimal functional outcomes.21

Multiligamentous sprains frequently lead to gross joint instability and necessitate orthopedic surgeon consultation to determine the best treatment plan; this should be done emergently if neurovascular compromise is suspected. A common injury combination is simultaneous ACL and MCL sprains with or without meniscus injury. In these cases, some surgeons will choose to defer ACL reconstruction until after MCL healing is achieved. This allows the patient to regain valgus stability of the joint prior to performing ACL reconstruction to regain rotational and anterior stability.20

Continue to: Patellar dislocations

 

 

Patellar dislocations represent a relatively common knee injury in young active patients, often occurring in a noncontact fashion when a valgus force is applied to an externally rotated and planted lower leg. A chief risk factor for a patellar dislocation is a history of prior dislocation. If rehabilitation following a dislocation is insufficient to regain patellofemoral joint stability, or if certain risk factors for recurrent dislocation are present, surgical intervention, such as medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) reconstruction or tibial tubercle transfer, is considered.22 A systematic review concluded that MPFL reconstruction following a first-time dislocation yielded lower redislocation rates of 7% compared to 30% with nonoperative treatment.23

Major tendon rupture

Patellar tendon ruptures occur when a sudden eccentric force is applied to the knee, such as when landing from a jump with the knee flexed. Patellar tendon ruptures frequently are clinically apparent, with patients demonstrating a high-riding patella and loss of active knee extension. Quadriceps tendon ruptures often result from a similar injury mechanism in older patients, with a similar loss of active knee extension and a palpable gap superior to the patella.24

Partial tears in patients who can maintain full extension of the knee against gravity are treated nonoperatively, but early surgical repair is indicated for complete quadriceps or patellar tendon ruptures to achieve optimal outcomes. Prompt diagnosis and treatment are critical, as repair delayed beyond 1 to 2 weeks postinjury is associated with worse outcomes.25-28

Surgical management and fixation are required emergently for open fractures or gross joint instability with vascular or neurologic compromise.

Even with prompt treatment, return to sport is not guaranteed. According to a recent systematic review, athletes returned to play 88.9% and 89.8% of the time following patellar and quadriceps tendon repairs, respectively. However, returning to the same level of play was less common and achieved 80.8% (patellar tendon repair) and 70% (quadriceps tendon repair) of the time. Return-to-work rates were higher, at 96% for both surgical treatments.29

Locked knee and acute meniscus tears in younger patients

In some acute knee injuries, meniscus tears, loose cartilage bodies or osteochondral defects, or other internal structures can become interposed between the femoral and tibial surfaces, preventing both active and passive knee extension. Such injuries are often severely painful and functionally debilitating. While manipulation under anesthesia can acutely restore joint function,30 diagnostic and therapeutic arthroscopy often is pursued for definitive treatment.31 Compared to the gold standard of diagnostic arthroscopy, preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) carries positive and negative predictive values of 85% and 77%, respectively, in identifying or ruling out the anatomic structure responsible for a locked knee. 32 As such, MRI has been proposed as a method to avoid performing arthroscopy on a patient with a “pseudo-locked” knee, or loss of range of motion due to pain but without a true mechanical block.32

Continue to: Depending on the location...

 

 

Depending on the location, size, and shape of an acute meniscus tear in younger patients, surgical repair may be an option to preserve long-term joint function. In one case series of patients younger than 20 years, 62% of meniscus repairs yielded good outcomes after a mean follow-up period of 16.8 years.33

Osteochondritis dissecans

Osteochondritis dissecans is characterized by subchondral bone osteonecrosis that most often occurs in pediatric patients, potentially causing the separation of a fragment of articular cartilage and subchondral bone into the joint space (FIGURE 2). In early stages, nonoperative treatment consisting of prolonged rest followed by physical therapy to gradually return to activity is recommended to prevent small, low-grade lesions from progressing to unstable or separated fragments. Arthroscopy, which consists of microfracture or other surgical resurfacing techniques to restore joint integrity, is pursued in more advanced cases of unstable or separated fragments.

Unstable and displaced osteochondral lesion

High-quality data guiding the management of osteochondritis dissecans are lacking, and these recommendations are based on consensus guidelines.34

Septic arthritis

Septic arthritis is a medical emergency caused by the hematogenous spread of microorganisms, most often staphylococci and streptococci species. Less commonly, it arises from direct inoculation through an open wound or, rarely, iatrogenically following a joint injection procedure. Clinical signs of septic arthritis include joint pain, joint swelling, and fever. Passive range of motion of the joint is often severely painful. Synovial fluid studies consistent with septic arthritis include an elevated white blood cell count greater than 25,000/mcL with polymorphonuclear cell predominance.35 The knee accounts for more than 50% of septic arthritis cases, and surgical drainage usually is required to achieve infection source control and decrease morbidity and mortality due to destruction of articular cartilage when treatment is delayed.36

Chronic knee injuries and pain

Surgical intervention for chronic knee injuries and pain generally is considered when patients demonstrate significant functional impairment and persistent symptoms despite pursuing numerous nonsurgical treatment options. A significant portion of chronic knee pain is due to degenerative processes such as OA or meniscus injuries, or tears without a history of trauma that do not cause locking of the knee. Treatments for degenerative knee pain include supervised exercise, physical therapy, bracing, offloading with a cane or other equipment, topical or oral ­anti-inflammatories or analgesics, and injectable therapies such as intra-articular ­corticosteroids.37

Continue to: Other common causes...

 

 

Other common causes of chronic knee pain include chronic tendinopathy or biomechanical syndromes such as patellofemoral pain syndrome or iliotibial band syndrome. Surgical treatment of these conditions is pursued in select cases and only after exhausting nonoperative treatment programs, as recommended by international consensus statements,38 societal guidelines,39 and expert opinion.40 High-quality data on the effectiveness, or ineffectiveness, of surgical intervention for these conditions are lacking.

A chief risk factor for a patellar dislocation is a history of prior dislocation.

Despite being one of the most commonly performed surgical procedures in the United States,41 arthroscopic partial meniscectomy treatment of degenerative meniscus tears does not lead to improved outcomes compared to nonsurgical management, according to multiple recent studies.42-45 Evidence does not support routine arthroscopic intervention for degenerative meniscus tears or OA,42 and recent guidelines recommend against it46 or to pursue it only after nonsurgical treatments have failed.37

Surgical management of degenerative knee conditions generally consists of partial or total arthroplasty and is similarly considered after failure of conservative measures. Appropriate use criteria that account for multiple clinical and patient factors are used to enhance patient selection for the procedure.47

Takeaways

Primary care clinicians will treat patients sustaining knee injuries and see many patients with knee pain in the outpatient setting. Treatment options vary considerably depending on the underlying diagnosis and resulting functional losses. Several categories of clinical presentation, including neurovascular injury, unstable or displaced fractures, joint instability, major tendon rupture, significant mechanical symptoms such as a locked knee, certain osteochondral injuries, and septic arthritis, likely or almost always warrant surgical consultation ­(TABLE3-10,12-36). Occasionally, as in the case of neurovascular injury or septic arthritis, such consultation should be emergent.

When to consider surgical intervention for acute or nondegenerative knee pain

CORRESPONDENCE
David M. Siebert, MD, Sports Medicine Center at Husky Stadium, 3800 Montlake Boulevard NE, Seattle, WA 98195; [email protected]

References

1. Baker P, Reading I, Cooper C, et al. Knee disorders in the general population and their relation to occupation. Occup Environ Med. 2003;60:794-797. doi: 10.1136/oem.60.10.794

2. Nguyen UD, Zhang Y, Zhu Y, et al. Increasing prevalence of knee pain and symptomatic knee osteoarthritis: survey and cohort data. Ann Intern Med. 20116;155:725-732. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-155-11-201112060-00004

3. Natsuhara KM, Yeranosian MG, Cohen JR, et al. What is the frequency of vascular injury after knee dislocation? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472:2615-2620. doi: 10.1007/s11999-014-3566-1

4. Seroyer ST, Musahl V, Harner CD. Management of the acute knee dislocation: the Pittsburgh experience. Injury. 2008;39:710-718. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2007.11.022

5. Sinan SM, Elsoe R, Mikkelsen C, et al. Clinical, functional, and patient-reported outcome of traumatic knee dislocations: a retrospective cohort study of 75 patients with 6.5-year follow up. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2023;143:2589-2597. doi: 10.1007/s00402-022-04578-z

6. Schatzker J, Kfuri M. Revisiting the management of tibial plateau fractures. Injury. 2022;53:2207-2218. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.­2022.04.006

7. Rudran B, Little C, Wiik A, et al. Tibial plateau fracture: anatomy, diagnosis and management. Br J Hosp Med (Lond). 2020;81:1-9. doi: 10.12968/hmed.2020.0339

8. Tscherne H, Lobenhoffer P. Tibial plateau fractures: management and expected results. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1993;(292):87-100.

9. Melvin JS, Mehta S. Patellar fractures in adults. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2011;19:198-207. doi: 10.5435/00124635-201104000-00004

10. Filho JS, Lenza M, Tamaoki MJ, et al. Interventions for treating fractures of the patella in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021;2:CD009651. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009651.pub3

11. Palmer W, Bancroft L, Bonar F, et al. Glossary of terms for musculoskeletal radiology. Skeletal Radiol. 2020;49(suppl 1):1-33. doi: 10.1007/s00256-020-03465-1

12. Frobell RB, Roos EM, Roos HP, et al. A randomized trial of treatment for acute anterior cruciate ligament tears. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:331-342. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0907797

13. Frobell RB, Roos HP, Roos EM, et al. Treatment for acute anterior cruciate ligament tear: five year outcome of randomized trial. Br J Sports Med. 2015;49:700. doi: 10.1136/bmj.f232

14. Diermeier TA, Rothrauff BB, Engebretsen L, et al; Panther Symposium ACL Treatment Consensus Group. Treatment after anterior cruciate ligament injury: Panther Symposium ACL Treatment Consensus Group. Br J Sports Med. 2021;55:14-22. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2020-102200

15. Bedi A, Musahl V, Cowan JB. Management of posterior cruciate ligament injuries: an evidence-based review. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2016;24:277-289. doi: 10.5435/JAAOS-D-14-00326

16. Edson CJ. Conservative and postoperative rehabilitation of isolated and combined injuries of the medial collateral ligament. Sports Med Arthrosc Rev. 2006;14:105-110. doi: 10.1097/01.jsa.0000212308.32076.f2

17. Vosoughi F, Dogahe RR, Nuri A, et al. Medial collateral ligament injury of the knee: a review on current concept and management. Arch Bone Jt Surg. 2021;9:255-262. doi: 10.22038/abjs.2021.48458.2401

18. Kannus P. Nonoperative treatment of grade II and III sprains of the lateral ligament compartment of the knee. Am J Sports Med. 1989;17:83-88. doi: 10.1177/036354658901700114

19. Krukhaug Y, Mølster A, Rodt A, et al. Lateral ligament injuries of the knee. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 1998;6:21-25. doi: 10.1007/s001670050067

20. Grawe B, Schroeder AJ, Kakazu R, et al. Lateral collateral ligament injury about the knee: anatomy, evaluation, and management. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2018 15;26:e120-127. doi: 10.5435/JAAOS-D-16-00028

21. Ranawat A, Baker III CL, Henry S, et al. Posterolateral corner injury of the knee: evaluation and management. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2008;16:506-518.

22. Palmu S, Kallio PE, Donell ST, et al. Acute patellar dislocation in children and adolescents: a randomized clinical trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90:463-470. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.G.00072

23. Cohen D, Le N, Zakharia A, et al. MPFL reconstruction results in lower redislocation rates and higher functional outcomes than rehabilitation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2022;30:3784-3795. doi: 10.1007/s00167-022-07003-5

24. Siwek CW, Rao JP. Ruptures of the extensor mechanism of the knee joint. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1981;63:932-937.

25. Konrath GA, Chen D, Lock T, et al. Outcomes following repair of quadriceps tendon ruptures. J Orthop Trauma. 1998;12:273-279. doi: 10.1097/00005131-199805000-00010

26. Rasul Jr. AT, Fischer DA. Primary repair of quadriceps tendon ruptures: results of treatment. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1993;(289):205-207.

27. Rougraff BT, Reeck CC, Essenmacher J. Complete quadriceps tendon ruptures. Orthopedics. 1996;19:509-514.

28. Bui CN, Learned JR, Scolaro JA. Treatment of patellar fractures and injuries to the extensor mechanism of the knee: a critical analysis review. JBJS Rev. 2018;6:e1. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.RVW.17.00172

29. Haskel JD, Fried JW, Hurley ET, et al. High rates of return to play and work follow knee extensor tendon ruptures but low rate of return to pre-injury level of play. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2021;29:2695-2700. doi: 10.1007/s00167-021-06537-4

30. Critchley IJ, Bracey DJ. The acutely locked knee—is a manipulation worth while? Injury. 1985;16:281-283. doi: 10.1016/s0020-1383(85)80020-6

31. Allum RL, Jones JR. The locked knee. Injury. 1986;17:256-258. doi: 10.1016/0020-1383(86)90231-7

32. Helmark IC, Neergaard K, Krogsgaard MR. Traumatic knee extension deficit (the locked knee): can MRI reduce the need for arthroscopy? Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2007;15:863-868. doi: 10.1007/s00167-006-0244-1

33. Noyes FR, Chen RC, Barber-Westin SD, et al. Greater than ­10-year results of red-white longitudinal meniscal repairs in patients 20 years of age or younger. Am J Sports Med. 2011;39:1008-1017. doi: 10.1177/0363546510392014

34. Chambers HG, Shea KG, Anderson AF, et al; American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons. Diagnosis and treatment of osteochondritis dissecans. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2011;19:297-306. doi: 10.5435/00124635-201105000-00007

35. Margaretten ME, Kohlwes J, Moore D, et al. Does this adult patient have septic arthritis? JAMA. 2007;297:1478-1488. doi: 10.1001/jama.297.13.1478

36. Gupta MN, Sturrock RD, Field M. A prospective 2-year study of 75 patients with adult-onset septic arthritis. Rheumatology ­(Oxford). 2001;40:24-30. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/40.1.24

37. Brophy RH, Fillingham YA. AAOS clinical practice guideline summary: management of osteoarthritis of the knee (nonarthroplasty), 3rd edition. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2022;30:e721-729. doi: 10.5435/JAAOS-D-21-01233

38. Collins NJ, Barton CJ, van Middelkoop M, et al. 2018 Consensus statement on exercise therapy and physical interventions (orthoses, taping and manual therapy) to treat patellofemoral pain: recommendations from the 5th International Patellofemoral Pain Research Retreat, Gold Coast, Australia, 2017. Br J Sports Med. 2018;52:1170-1178. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2018-099397

39. Strauss EJ, Kim S, Calcei JG, et al. Iliotibial band syndrome: evaluation and management. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2011;19:728-736. doi: 10.5435/00124635-201112000-00003

40. Millar NL, Murrell GAC, Kirwan P. Time to put down the scalpel? The role of surgery in tendinopathy. Br J Sports Med. 2020;54:441-442. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2019-101084

41. Hall MJ, Schwartzman A, Zhang J, et al. Ambulatory surgery data from hospitals and ambulatory surgery centers: United States, 2010. Natl Health Stat Report. 2017;(102):1-15.

42. Kise NJ, Risberg MA, Stensrud S, et al. Exercise therapy versus arthroscopic partial meniscectomy for degenerative meniscal tear in middle aged patients: randomized controlled trial with two year follow-up. BMJ. 2016;354:i3740. doi: 10.1136/bmj.i3740

43. Sihvonen R, Paavola M, Malmivaara A, et al, FIDELITY (Finnish Degenerative Meniscus Lesion Study) Investigators. Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy for a degenerative meniscus tear: a 5 year follow-up of the placebo-surgery controlled FIDELITY (Finnish Degenerative Meniscus Lesion Study) trial. Br J Sports Med. 2020;54:1332-1339. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2020-102813

44. Pihl K, Ensor J, Peat G, et al. Wild goose chase—no predictable patient subgroups benefit from meniscal surgery: patient-­reported outcomes of 641 patients 1 year after surgery. Br J Sports Med. 2020;54:13-22. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2018-100321

45. O’Connor D, Johnston RV, Brignardello-Petersen R, et al. Athroscopic surgery for degenerative knee disease (osteoarthritis including degenerative meniscal tears). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022;3:CD014328. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD014328

46. Siemieniuk RAC, Harris IA, Agoritsas T, et al. Arthroscopic surgery for degenerative knee arthritis and meniscal tears: a clinical practice guideline. Br J Sports Med. 2018;52:313. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2017-j1982rep

47. Manner PA, Tubb CC, Levine BR. AAOS appropriate use criteria: surgical management of osteoarthritis of the knee. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2018;26:e194-197. doi: 10.5435/JAAOS-D-17-00425

Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Department of Family Medicine (Dr. Siebert) and Department of Orthopedics & Sports Medicine (Dr. Kweon), University of Washington, Seattle
[email protected]

The authors reported no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article.

Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 72(6)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
253-259
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Department of Family Medicine (Dr. Siebert) and Department of Orthopedics & Sports Medicine (Dr. Kweon), University of Washington, Seattle
[email protected]

The authors reported no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article.

Author and Disclosure Information

Department of Family Medicine (Dr. Siebert) and Department of Orthopedics & Sports Medicine (Dr. Kweon), University of Washington, Seattle
[email protected]

The authors reported no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article.

Article PDF
Article PDF

Evidence supports what family physicians know to be true: Knee pain is an exceedingly common presenting problem in the primary care office. Estimates of lifetime incidence reach as high as 54%,1 and the prevalence of knee pain in the general population is increasing.2 Knee disability can result from acute or traumatic injuries as well as chronic, degenerative conditions such as osteoarthritis (OA). The decision to pursue orthopedic consultation for a particular injury or painful knee condition can be challenging. To address this, we highlight specific knee diagnoses known to cause pain, with the aim of describing which conditions likely will necessitate surgical consultation—and which won’t.

Acute or nondegenerative knee injuries and pain

Acute knee injuries range in severity from simple contusions and sprains to high-energy, traumatic injuries with resulting joint instability and potential neurovascular compromise. While conservative treatment often is successful for many simple injuries, surgical management—sometimes urgently or emergently—is needed in other cases, as will be detailed shortly.

Neurovascular injury associated with knee dislocations

Acute neurovascular injuries often require emergent surgical intervention. Although rare, tibiofemoral (knee) dislocations pose a significant challenge to the clinician in both diagnosis and management. The reported frequency of popliteal artery injury or rupture following a dislocation varies widely, with rates ranging from 5% to 64%, according to older studies; more recent data, however, suggest the rate is actually as low as 3.3%.3 Vascular injury can lead to irreversible tissue damage and even limb loss if not promptly identified. Identifying a knee dislocation can prove challenging, as spontaneous joint reduction occurs in as many as 50% of cases, potentially shrouding the severity of the injury on initial evaluation.4

Immediate immobilization and emergency department transport for monitoring, orthopedics consultation, and vascular ­studies or vascular surgery consultation is recommended in the case of a suspected knee dislocation. In one cross-sectional cohort study, the surgical management of knee ­dislocations yielded favorable outcomes in > 75% of cases.5

Tibial plateau fracture

This fracture often occurs as a result of high-energy trauma, such as contact sports or motor vehicle accidents, and is characterized by a proximal tibial fracture line with extension to the articular surface. X-rays often are sufficient for initial diagnosis. Computed tomo­graphy can help rule out a fracture line when clinical suspicion is high and x-rays are nondiagnostic. As noted earlier, any suggestion of neurovascular compromise on physical exam requires an emergent orthopedic surgeon consultation for a possible displaced and unstable (or more complex) injury (FIGURE 1).6-8

Displaced tibial plateau fracture

Nondisplaced tibial plateau fractures without supraphysiologic ligamentous laxity on valgus or varus stress testing can be managed safely with protection and early mobilization, gradual progression of weight-bearing, and serial x-rays to ensure fracture healing and stability. Surgical management and fixation are required emergently for open fractures or gross joint instability with vascular or neurologic compromise. Suspicion of these complications is raised by distal neuropathic symptoms of paresthesia or skin anesthesia, progressively worsening pain distal to the knee, or vascular signs of pallor, delayed or lost capillary refill, or decreased or absent distal pulses.

Gross joint instability identified by positive valgus or varus stress testing, positive anterior or posterior drawer testing, or patient inability to tolerate these maneuvers due to pain similarly should raise suspicion for a more significant fracture at risk for concurrent neurovascular injury. Acute compartment syndrome also is a known complication of tibial plateau fractures and similarly requires emergent operative management. Urgent surgical consultation is recommended for fractures with displaced fracture fragments, tibial articular surface step-off or depression, fractures with concurrent joint laxity, or medial plateau fractures.6-8

Continue to: Patella fractures

 

 

Patella fractures

These fractures occur as a direct blow to the front of the knee, such as falling forward onto a hard surface, or indirectly due to a sudden extreme eccentric contraction of the quadriceps muscle. Nondisplaced fractures with an intact knee extension mechanism, which is examined via a supine straight-leg raise or seated knee extension, are managed with weight-bearing as tolerated in strict immobilization in full extension for 4 to 6 weeks, with active range-of-motion and isometric quadriceps exercises beginning in 1 to 2 weeks. Serial x-rays also are obtained to ensure fracture displacement does not occur during the rehabilitation process.9

High-quality evidence guiding follow-up care and comparing outcomes of surgical and nonsurgical management of patella fractures is lacking, and studies comparing different surgical techniques are of lower methodological quality.10 Nevertheless, displaced or comminuted patellar fractures are referred urgently to orthopedic surgical care for fixation, as are those with concurrent loose bodies, chondral surface injuries or articular step-off, or osteochondral fractures.9 Inability to perform a straight-leg raise (ie, clinical loss of the knee extension mechanism) suggests a fracture under tension that likely also requires surgical fixation for successful recovery. Neurovascular injuries are unlikely in most patellar fractures but would require emergent surgical consultation.9

Ligamentous injury

Tibiofemoral joint laxity occurs as a result of ligamentous injury, with or without tibial plateau fracture. The anterior cruciate ligament (ACL), posterior cruciate ligament (PCL), medial collateral ligament (MCL), and lateral collateral ligament (LCL) comprise the 4 main ligaments of the knee. The ACL resists anterior tibial translation and rotational forces, while the PCL resists posterior tibial translation. The MCL and LCL resist valgus and varus stress, respectively.

Ligament injuries are classified as Grades 1 to 311:

  • Grade 1 sprains. The ligament is stretched, but there is no macroscopic tearing; joint stability is maintained.
  • Grade 2 sprains. There are partial macroscopic ligament tears. There is joint laxity due to the partial loss of the ligament’s structural integrity.
  • Grade 3 sprains. The ligament is fully avulsed or ruptured with resultant gross joint instability.

Vascular injury can lead to irreversible tissue damage and even limb loss if not promptly identified.

The decision to pursue surgical repair of a knee sprain depends heavily on the likelihood of keeping or regaining and maintaining functional joint stability during the injury recovery and postinjury time periods. Injuries that do not result in joint instability or injuries with a high likelihood of returning to a stable state with conservative measures often do not require surgical intervention.

Continue to: ACL tears

 

 

ACL tears occur most commonly via a noncontact event, as when an individual plants their foot and suddenly changes direction during sport or other physical activity. Treatment hinges on patient activity levels and participation in sports. Patients who do not plan to engage in athletic movements (that require changes in direction or planting and twisting) and who otherwise maintain satisfactory joint stability during activities of daily living may elect to defer or even altogether avoid surgical reconstruction of isolated ACL tears. One pair of studies demonstrated equivalent outcomes in surgical and nonsurgical management in 121 young, nonelite athletes at 2- and 5-year follow-up, although the crossover from the nonsurgical to surgical groups was high.12,13 Athletes who regain satisfactory function and stability nonoperatively can defer surgical intervention. However, the majority of active patients and athletes will require surgical ACL reconstruction to return to pre-injury functional levels.14

PCL sprains occur as a result of sudden posteriorly directed force on the tibia, such as when the knee is hyperextended or a patient falls directly onto a flexed knee. Patients with Grade 1 and 2 isolated sprains generally will recover with conservative care, as will patients with some Grade 3 complete tears that do not fully compromise joint stability. However, high-grade PCL injuries often are comorbid with posterolateral corner or other injuries, leading to a higher likelihood of joint instability and thus the need for surgical intervention for the best chance at an optimal outcome.15

MCL sprain. Surgical management is not required in an isolated Grade 1 or 2 MCL sprain, as the hallmarks of recovery—return of joint stability, knee strength and range of motion, and pain ­reduction—can be achieved successfully with conservative management. Isolated Grade 3 MCL sprains are also successfully managed nonoperatively16 except in specific cases, such as a concurrent large avulsion fracture.17

LCL sprain. Similarly, isolated Grade 1 and 2 LCL sprains generally do not require surgical intervention. However, Grade 3 LCL injuries usually do, as persistent joint instability and poor functional outcomes are more common with nonsurgical management.18-20 Additionally, high-grade LCL injuries frequently manifest with comorbid meniscus injuries or sprains of the posterolateral corner of the knee, a complex anatomic structure that provides both static and dynamic tibiofemoral joint stability. Surgical repair or reconstruction of the posterolateral corner frequently is necessary for optimal functional outcomes.21

Multiligamentous sprains frequently lead to gross joint instability and necessitate orthopedic surgeon consultation to determine the best treatment plan; this should be done emergently if neurovascular compromise is suspected. A common injury combination is simultaneous ACL and MCL sprains with or without meniscus injury. In these cases, some surgeons will choose to defer ACL reconstruction until after MCL healing is achieved. This allows the patient to regain valgus stability of the joint prior to performing ACL reconstruction to regain rotational and anterior stability.20

Continue to: Patellar dislocations

 

 

Patellar dislocations represent a relatively common knee injury in young active patients, often occurring in a noncontact fashion when a valgus force is applied to an externally rotated and planted lower leg. A chief risk factor for a patellar dislocation is a history of prior dislocation. If rehabilitation following a dislocation is insufficient to regain patellofemoral joint stability, or if certain risk factors for recurrent dislocation are present, surgical intervention, such as medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) reconstruction or tibial tubercle transfer, is considered.22 A systematic review concluded that MPFL reconstruction following a first-time dislocation yielded lower redislocation rates of 7% compared to 30% with nonoperative treatment.23

Major tendon rupture

Patellar tendon ruptures occur when a sudden eccentric force is applied to the knee, such as when landing from a jump with the knee flexed. Patellar tendon ruptures frequently are clinically apparent, with patients demonstrating a high-riding patella and loss of active knee extension. Quadriceps tendon ruptures often result from a similar injury mechanism in older patients, with a similar loss of active knee extension and a palpable gap superior to the patella.24

Partial tears in patients who can maintain full extension of the knee against gravity are treated nonoperatively, but early surgical repair is indicated for complete quadriceps or patellar tendon ruptures to achieve optimal outcomes. Prompt diagnosis and treatment are critical, as repair delayed beyond 1 to 2 weeks postinjury is associated with worse outcomes.25-28

Surgical management and fixation are required emergently for open fractures or gross joint instability with vascular or neurologic compromise.

Even with prompt treatment, return to sport is not guaranteed. According to a recent systematic review, athletes returned to play 88.9% and 89.8% of the time following patellar and quadriceps tendon repairs, respectively. However, returning to the same level of play was less common and achieved 80.8% (patellar tendon repair) and 70% (quadriceps tendon repair) of the time. Return-to-work rates were higher, at 96% for both surgical treatments.29

Locked knee and acute meniscus tears in younger patients

In some acute knee injuries, meniscus tears, loose cartilage bodies or osteochondral defects, or other internal structures can become interposed between the femoral and tibial surfaces, preventing both active and passive knee extension. Such injuries are often severely painful and functionally debilitating. While manipulation under anesthesia can acutely restore joint function,30 diagnostic and therapeutic arthroscopy often is pursued for definitive treatment.31 Compared to the gold standard of diagnostic arthroscopy, preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) carries positive and negative predictive values of 85% and 77%, respectively, in identifying or ruling out the anatomic structure responsible for a locked knee. 32 As such, MRI has been proposed as a method to avoid performing arthroscopy on a patient with a “pseudo-locked” knee, or loss of range of motion due to pain but without a true mechanical block.32

Continue to: Depending on the location...

 

 

Depending on the location, size, and shape of an acute meniscus tear in younger patients, surgical repair may be an option to preserve long-term joint function. In one case series of patients younger than 20 years, 62% of meniscus repairs yielded good outcomes after a mean follow-up period of 16.8 years.33

Osteochondritis dissecans

Osteochondritis dissecans is characterized by subchondral bone osteonecrosis that most often occurs in pediatric patients, potentially causing the separation of a fragment of articular cartilage and subchondral bone into the joint space (FIGURE 2). In early stages, nonoperative treatment consisting of prolonged rest followed by physical therapy to gradually return to activity is recommended to prevent small, low-grade lesions from progressing to unstable or separated fragments. Arthroscopy, which consists of microfracture or other surgical resurfacing techniques to restore joint integrity, is pursued in more advanced cases of unstable or separated fragments.

Unstable and displaced osteochondral lesion

High-quality data guiding the management of osteochondritis dissecans are lacking, and these recommendations are based on consensus guidelines.34

Septic arthritis

Septic arthritis is a medical emergency caused by the hematogenous spread of microorganisms, most often staphylococci and streptococci species. Less commonly, it arises from direct inoculation through an open wound or, rarely, iatrogenically following a joint injection procedure. Clinical signs of septic arthritis include joint pain, joint swelling, and fever. Passive range of motion of the joint is often severely painful. Synovial fluid studies consistent with septic arthritis include an elevated white blood cell count greater than 25,000/mcL with polymorphonuclear cell predominance.35 The knee accounts for more than 50% of septic arthritis cases, and surgical drainage usually is required to achieve infection source control and decrease morbidity and mortality due to destruction of articular cartilage when treatment is delayed.36

Chronic knee injuries and pain

Surgical intervention for chronic knee injuries and pain generally is considered when patients demonstrate significant functional impairment and persistent symptoms despite pursuing numerous nonsurgical treatment options. A significant portion of chronic knee pain is due to degenerative processes such as OA or meniscus injuries, or tears without a history of trauma that do not cause locking of the knee. Treatments for degenerative knee pain include supervised exercise, physical therapy, bracing, offloading with a cane or other equipment, topical or oral ­anti-inflammatories or analgesics, and injectable therapies such as intra-articular ­corticosteroids.37

Continue to: Other common causes...

 

 

Other common causes of chronic knee pain include chronic tendinopathy or biomechanical syndromes such as patellofemoral pain syndrome or iliotibial band syndrome. Surgical treatment of these conditions is pursued in select cases and only after exhausting nonoperative treatment programs, as recommended by international consensus statements,38 societal guidelines,39 and expert opinion.40 High-quality data on the effectiveness, or ineffectiveness, of surgical intervention for these conditions are lacking.

A chief risk factor for a patellar dislocation is a history of prior dislocation.

Despite being one of the most commonly performed surgical procedures in the United States,41 arthroscopic partial meniscectomy treatment of degenerative meniscus tears does not lead to improved outcomes compared to nonsurgical management, according to multiple recent studies.42-45 Evidence does not support routine arthroscopic intervention for degenerative meniscus tears or OA,42 and recent guidelines recommend against it46 or to pursue it only after nonsurgical treatments have failed.37

Surgical management of degenerative knee conditions generally consists of partial or total arthroplasty and is similarly considered after failure of conservative measures. Appropriate use criteria that account for multiple clinical and patient factors are used to enhance patient selection for the procedure.47

Takeaways

Primary care clinicians will treat patients sustaining knee injuries and see many patients with knee pain in the outpatient setting. Treatment options vary considerably depending on the underlying diagnosis and resulting functional losses. Several categories of clinical presentation, including neurovascular injury, unstable or displaced fractures, joint instability, major tendon rupture, significant mechanical symptoms such as a locked knee, certain osteochondral injuries, and septic arthritis, likely or almost always warrant surgical consultation ­(TABLE3-10,12-36). Occasionally, as in the case of neurovascular injury or septic arthritis, such consultation should be emergent.

When to consider surgical intervention for acute or nondegenerative knee pain

CORRESPONDENCE
David M. Siebert, MD, Sports Medicine Center at Husky Stadium, 3800 Montlake Boulevard NE, Seattle, WA 98195; [email protected]

Evidence supports what family physicians know to be true: Knee pain is an exceedingly common presenting problem in the primary care office. Estimates of lifetime incidence reach as high as 54%,1 and the prevalence of knee pain in the general population is increasing.2 Knee disability can result from acute or traumatic injuries as well as chronic, degenerative conditions such as osteoarthritis (OA). The decision to pursue orthopedic consultation for a particular injury or painful knee condition can be challenging. To address this, we highlight specific knee diagnoses known to cause pain, with the aim of describing which conditions likely will necessitate surgical consultation—and which won’t.

Acute or nondegenerative knee injuries and pain

Acute knee injuries range in severity from simple contusions and sprains to high-energy, traumatic injuries with resulting joint instability and potential neurovascular compromise. While conservative treatment often is successful for many simple injuries, surgical management—sometimes urgently or emergently—is needed in other cases, as will be detailed shortly.

Neurovascular injury associated with knee dislocations

Acute neurovascular injuries often require emergent surgical intervention. Although rare, tibiofemoral (knee) dislocations pose a significant challenge to the clinician in both diagnosis and management. The reported frequency of popliteal artery injury or rupture following a dislocation varies widely, with rates ranging from 5% to 64%, according to older studies; more recent data, however, suggest the rate is actually as low as 3.3%.3 Vascular injury can lead to irreversible tissue damage and even limb loss if not promptly identified. Identifying a knee dislocation can prove challenging, as spontaneous joint reduction occurs in as many as 50% of cases, potentially shrouding the severity of the injury on initial evaluation.4

Immediate immobilization and emergency department transport for monitoring, orthopedics consultation, and vascular ­studies or vascular surgery consultation is recommended in the case of a suspected knee dislocation. In one cross-sectional cohort study, the surgical management of knee ­dislocations yielded favorable outcomes in > 75% of cases.5

Tibial plateau fracture

This fracture often occurs as a result of high-energy trauma, such as contact sports or motor vehicle accidents, and is characterized by a proximal tibial fracture line with extension to the articular surface. X-rays often are sufficient for initial diagnosis. Computed tomo­graphy can help rule out a fracture line when clinical suspicion is high and x-rays are nondiagnostic. As noted earlier, any suggestion of neurovascular compromise on physical exam requires an emergent orthopedic surgeon consultation for a possible displaced and unstable (or more complex) injury (FIGURE 1).6-8

Displaced tibial plateau fracture

Nondisplaced tibial plateau fractures without supraphysiologic ligamentous laxity on valgus or varus stress testing can be managed safely with protection and early mobilization, gradual progression of weight-bearing, and serial x-rays to ensure fracture healing and stability. Surgical management and fixation are required emergently for open fractures or gross joint instability with vascular or neurologic compromise. Suspicion of these complications is raised by distal neuropathic symptoms of paresthesia or skin anesthesia, progressively worsening pain distal to the knee, or vascular signs of pallor, delayed or lost capillary refill, or decreased or absent distal pulses.

Gross joint instability identified by positive valgus or varus stress testing, positive anterior or posterior drawer testing, or patient inability to tolerate these maneuvers due to pain similarly should raise suspicion for a more significant fracture at risk for concurrent neurovascular injury. Acute compartment syndrome also is a known complication of tibial plateau fractures and similarly requires emergent operative management. Urgent surgical consultation is recommended for fractures with displaced fracture fragments, tibial articular surface step-off or depression, fractures with concurrent joint laxity, or medial plateau fractures.6-8

Continue to: Patella fractures

 

 

Patella fractures

These fractures occur as a direct blow to the front of the knee, such as falling forward onto a hard surface, or indirectly due to a sudden extreme eccentric contraction of the quadriceps muscle. Nondisplaced fractures with an intact knee extension mechanism, which is examined via a supine straight-leg raise or seated knee extension, are managed with weight-bearing as tolerated in strict immobilization in full extension for 4 to 6 weeks, with active range-of-motion and isometric quadriceps exercises beginning in 1 to 2 weeks. Serial x-rays also are obtained to ensure fracture displacement does not occur during the rehabilitation process.9

High-quality evidence guiding follow-up care and comparing outcomes of surgical and nonsurgical management of patella fractures is lacking, and studies comparing different surgical techniques are of lower methodological quality.10 Nevertheless, displaced or comminuted patellar fractures are referred urgently to orthopedic surgical care for fixation, as are those with concurrent loose bodies, chondral surface injuries or articular step-off, or osteochondral fractures.9 Inability to perform a straight-leg raise (ie, clinical loss of the knee extension mechanism) suggests a fracture under tension that likely also requires surgical fixation for successful recovery. Neurovascular injuries are unlikely in most patellar fractures but would require emergent surgical consultation.9

Ligamentous injury

Tibiofemoral joint laxity occurs as a result of ligamentous injury, with or without tibial plateau fracture. The anterior cruciate ligament (ACL), posterior cruciate ligament (PCL), medial collateral ligament (MCL), and lateral collateral ligament (LCL) comprise the 4 main ligaments of the knee. The ACL resists anterior tibial translation and rotational forces, while the PCL resists posterior tibial translation. The MCL and LCL resist valgus and varus stress, respectively.

Ligament injuries are classified as Grades 1 to 311:

  • Grade 1 sprains. The ligament is stretched, but there is no macroscopic tearing; joint stability is maintained.
  • Grade 2 sprains. There are partial macroscopic ligament tears. There is joint laxity due to the partial loss of the ligament’s structural integrity.
  • Grade 3 sprains. The ligament is fully avulsed or ruptured with resultant gross joint instability.

Vascular injury can lead to irreversible tissue damage and even limb loss if not promptly identified.

The decision to pursue surgical repair of a knee sprain depends heavily on the likelihood of keeping or regaining and maintaining functional joint stability during the injury recovery and postinjury time periods. Injuries that do not result in joint instability or injuries with a high likelihood of returning to a stable state with conservative measures often do not require surgical intervention.

Continue to: ACL tears

 

 

ACL tears occur most commonly via a noncontact event, as when an individual plants their foot and suddenly changes direction during sport or other physical activity. Treatment hinges on patient activity levels and participation in sports. Patients who do not plan to engage in athletic movements (that require changes in direction or planting and twisting) and who otherwise maintain satisfactory joint stability during activities of daily living may elect to defer or even altogether avoid surgical reconstruction of isolated ACL tears. One pair of studies demonstrated equivalent outcomes in surgical and nonsurgical management in 121 young, nonelite athletes at 2- and 5-year follow-up, although the crossover from the nonsurgical to surgical groups was high.12,13 Athletes who regain satisfactory function and stability nonoperatively can defer surgical intervention. However, the majority of active patients and athletes will require surgical ACL reconstruction to return to pre-injury functional levels.14

PCL sprains occur as a result of sudden posteriorly directed force on the tibia, such as when the knee is hyperextended or a patient falls directly onto a flexed knee. Patients with Grade 1 and 2 isolated sprains generally will recover with conservative care, as will patients with some Grade 3 complete tears that do not fully compromise joint stability. However, high-grade PCL injuries often are comorbid with posterolateral corner or other injuries, leading to a higher likelihood of joint instability and thus the need for surgical intervention for the best chance at an optimal outcome.15

MCL sprain. Surgical management is not required in an isolated Grade 1 or 2 MCL sprain, as the hallmarks of recovery—return of joint stability, knee strength and range of motion, and pain ­reduction—can be achieved successfully with conservative management. Isolated Grade 3 MCL sprains are also successfully managed nonoperatively16 except in specific cases, such as a concurrent large avulsion fracture.17

LCL sprain. Similarly, isolated Grade 1 and 2 LCL sprains generally do not require surgical intervention. However, Grade 3 LCL injuries usually do, as persistent joint instability and poor functional outcomes are more common with nonsurgical management.18-20 Additionally, high-grade LCL injuries frequently manifest with comorbid meniscus injuries or sprains of the posterolateral corner of the knee, a complex anatomic structure that provides both static and dynamic tibiofemoral joint stability. Surgical repair or reconstruction of the posterolateral corner frequently is necessary for optimal functional outcomes.21

Multiligamentous sprains frequently lead to gross joint instability and necessitate orthopedic surgeon consultation to determine the best treatment plan; this should be done emergently if neurovascular compromise is suspected. A common injury combination is simultaneous ACL and MCL sprains with or without meniscus injury. In these cases, some surgeons will choose to defer ACL reconstruction until after MCL healing is achieved. This allows the patient to regain valgus stability of the joint prior to performing ACL reconstruction to regain rotational and anterior stability.20

Continue to: Patellar dislocations

 

 

Patellar dislocations represent a relatively common knee injury in young active patients, often occurring in a noncontact fashion when a valgus force is applied to an externally rotated and planted lower leg. A chief risk factor for a patellar dislocation is a history of prior dislocation. If rehabilitation following a dislocation is insufficient to regain patellofemoral joint stability, or if certain risk factors for recurrent dislocation are present, surgical intervention, such as medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) reconstruction or tibial tubercle transfer, is considered.22 A systematic review concluded that MPFL reconstruction following a first-time dislocation yielded lower redislocation rates of 7% compared to 30% with nonoperative treatment.23

Major tendon rupture

Patellar tendon ruptures occur when a sudden eccentric force is applied to the knee, such as when landing from a jump with the knee flexed. Patellar tendon ruptures frequently are clinically apparent, with patients demonstrating a high-riding patella and loss of active knee extension. Quadriceps tendon ruptures often result from a similar injury mechanism in older patients, with a similar loss of active knee extension and a palpable gap superior to the patella.24

Partial tears in patients who can maintain full extension of the knee against gravity are treated nonoperatively, but early surgical repair is indicated for complete quadriceps or patellar tendon ruptures to achieve optimal outcomes. Prompt diagnosis and treatment are critical, as repair delayed beyond 1 to 2 weeks postinjury is associated with worse outcomes.25-28

Surgical management and fixation are required emergently for open fractures or gross joint instability with vascular or neurologic compromise.

Even with prompt treatment, return to sport is not guaranteed. According to a recent systematic review, athletes returned to play 88.9% and 89.8% of the time following patellar and quadriceps tendon repairs, respectively. However, returning to the same level of play was less common and achieved 80.8% (patellar tendon repair) and 70% (quadriceps tendon repair) of the time. Return-to-work rates were higher, at 96% for both surgical treatments.29

Locked knee and acute meniscus tears in younger patients

In some acute knee injuries, meniscus tears, loose cartilage bodies or osteochondral defects, or other internal structures can become interposed between the femoral and tibial surfaces, preventing both active and passive knee extension. Such injuries are often severely painful and functionally debilitating. While manipulation under anesthesia can acutely restore joint function,30 diagnostic and therapeutic arthroscopy often is pursued for definitive treatment.31 Compared to the gold standard of diagnostic arthroscopy, preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) carries positive and negative predictive values of 85% and 77%, respectively, in identifying or ruling out the anatomic structure responsible for a locked knee. 32 As such, MRI has been proposed as a method to avoid performing arthroscopy on a patient with a “pseudo-locked” knee, or loss of range of motion due to pain but without a true mechanical block.32

Continue to: Depending on the location...

 

 

Depending on the location, size, and shape of an acute meniscus tear in younger patients, surgical repair may be an option to preserve long-term joint function. In one case series of patients younger than 20 years, 62% of meniscus repairs yielded good outcomes after a mean follow-up period of 16.8 years.33

Osteochondritis dissecans

Osteochondritis dissecans is characterized by subchondral bone osteonecrosis that most often occurs in pediatric patients, potentially causing the separation of a fragment of articular cartilage and subchondral bone into the joint space (FIGURE 2). In early stages, nonoperative treatment consisting of prolonged rest followed by physical therapy to gradually return to activity is recommended to prevent small, low-grade lesions from progressing to unstable or separated fragments. Arthroscopy, which consists of microfracture or other surgical resurfacing techniques to restore joint integrity, is pursued in more advanced cases of unstable or separated fragments.

Unstable and displaced osteochondral lesion

High-quality data guiding the management of osteochondritis dissecans are lacking, and these recommendations are based on consensus guidelines.34

Septic arthritis

Septic arthritis is a medical emergency caused by the hematogenous spread of microorganisms, most often staphylococci and streptococci species. Less commonly, it arises from direct inoculation through an open wound or, rarely, iatrogenically following a joint injection procedure. Clinical signs of septic arthritis include joint pain, joint swelling, and fever. Passive range of motion of the joint is often severely painful. Synovial fluid studies consistent with septic arthritis include an elevated white blood cell count greater than 25,000/mcL with polymorphonuclear cell predominance.35 The knee accounts for more than 50% of septic arthritis cases, and surgical drainage usually is required to achieve infection source control and decrease morbidity and mortality due to destruction of articular cartilage when treatment is delayed.36

Chronic knee injuries and pain

Surgical intervention for chronic knee injuries and pain generally is considered when patients demonstrate significant functional impairment and persistent symptoms despite pursuing numerous nonsurgical treatment options. A significant portion of chronic knee pain is due to degenerative processes such as OA or meniscus injuries, or tears without a history of trauma that do not cause locking of the knee. Treatments for degenerative knee pain include supervised exercise, physical therapy, bracing, offloading with a cane or other equipment, topical or oral ­anti-inflammatories or analgesics, and injectable therapies such as intra-articular ­corticosteroids.37

Continue to: Other common causes...

 

 

Other common causes of chronic knee pain include chronic tendinopathy or biomechanical syndromes such as patellofemoral pain syndrome or iliotibial band syndrome. Surgical treatment of these conditions is pursued in select cases and only after exhausting nonoperative treatment programs, as recommended by international consensus statements,38 societal guidelines,39 and expert opinion.40 High-quality data on the effectiveness, or ineffectiveness, of surgical intervention for these conditions are lacking.

A chief risk factor for a patellar dislocation is a history of prior dislocation.

Despite being one of the most commonly performed surgical procedures in the United States,41 arthroscopic partial meniscectomy treatment of degenerative meniscus tears does not lead to improved outcomes compared to nonsurgical management, according to multiple recent studies.42-45 Evidence does not support routine arthroscopic intervention for degenerative meniscus tears or OA,42 and recent guidelines recommend against it46 or to pursue it only after nonsurgical treatments have failed.37

Surgical management of degenerative knee conditions generally consists of partial or total arthroplasty and is similarly considered after failure of conservative measures. Appropriate use criteria that account for multiple clinical and patient factors are used to enhance patient selection for the procedure.47

Takeaways

Primary care clinicians will treat patients sustaining knee injuries and see many patients with knee pain in the outpatient setting. Treatment options vary considerably depending on the underlying diagnosis and resulting functional losses. Several categories of clinical presentation, including neurovascular injury, unstable or displaced fractures, joint instability, major tendon rupture, significant mechanical symptoms such as a locked knee, certain osteochondral injuries, and septic arthritis, likely or almost always warrant surgical consultation ­(TABLE3-10,12-36). Occasionally, as in the case of neurovascular injury or septic arthritis, such consultation should be emergent.

When to consider surgical intervention for acute or nondegenerative knee pain

CORRESPONDENCE
David M. Siebert, MD, Sports Medicine Center at Husky Stadium, 3800 Montlake Boulevard NE, Seattle, WA 98195; [email protected]

References

1. Baker P, Reading I, Cooper C, et al. Knee disorders in the general population and their relation to occupation. Occup Environ Med. 2003;60:794-797. doi: 10.1136/oem.60.10.794

2. Nguyen UD, Zhang Y, Zhu Y, et al. Increasing prevalence of knee pain and symptomatic knee osteoarthritis: survey and cohort data. Ann Intern Med. 20116;155:725-732. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-155-11-201112060-00004

3. Natsuhara KM, Yeranosian MG, Cohen JR, et al. What is the frequency of vascular injury after knee dislocation? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472:2615-2620. doi: 10.1007/s11999-014-3566-1

4. Seroyer ST, Musahl V, Harner CD. Management of the acute knee dislocation: the Pittsburgh experience. Injury. 2008;39:710-718. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2007.11.022

5. Sinan SM, Elsoe R, Mikkelsen C, et al. Clinical, functional, and patient-reported outcome of traumatic knee dislocations: a retrospective cohort study of 75 patients with 6.5-year follow up. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2023;143:2589-2597. doi: 10.1007/s00402-022-04578-z

6. Schatzker J, Kfuri M. Revisiting the management of tibial plateau fractures. Injury. 2022;53:2207-2218. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.­2022.04.006

7. Rudran B, Little C, Wiik A, et al. Tibial plateau fracture: anatomy, diagnosis and management. Br J Hosp Med (Lond). 2020;81:1-9. doi: 10.12968/hmed.2020.0339

8. Tscherne H, Lobenhoffer P. Tibial plateau fractures: management and expected results. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1993;(292):87-100.

9. Melvin JS, Mehta S. Patellar fractures in adults. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2011;19:198-207. doi: 10.5435/00124635-201104000-00004

10. Filho JS, Lenza M, Tamaoki MJ, et al. Interventions for treating fractures of the patella in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021;2:CD009651. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009651.pub3

11. Palmer W, Bancroft L, Bonar F, et al. Glossary of terms for musculoskeletal radiology. Skeletal Radiol. 2020;49(suppl 1):1-33. doi: 10.1007/s00256-020-03465-1

12. Frobell RB, Roos EM, Roos HP, et al. A randomized trial of treatment for acute anterior cruciate ligament tears. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:331-342. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0907797

13. Frobell RB, Roos HP, Roos EM, et al. Treatment for acute anterior cruciate ligament tear: five year outcome of randomized trial. Br J Sports Med. 2015;49:700. doi: 10.1136/bmj.f232

14. Diermeier TA, Rothrauff BB, Engebretsen L, et al; Panther Symposium ACL Treatment Consensus Group. Treatment after anterior cruciate ligament injury: Panther Symposium ACL Treatment Consensus Group. Br J Sports Med. 2021;55:14-22. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2020-102200

15. Bedi A, Musahl V, Cowan JB. Management of posterior cruciate ligament injuries: an evidence-based review. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2016;24:277-289. doi: 10.5435/JAAOS-D-14-00326

16. Edson CJ. Conservative and postoperative rehabilitation of isolated and combined injuries of the medial collateral ligament. Sports Med Arthrosc Rev. 2006;14:105-110. doi: 10.1097/01.jsa.0000212308.32076.f2

17. Vosoughi F, Dogahe RR, Nuri A, et al. Medial collateral ligament injury of the knee: a review on current concept and management. Arch Bone Jt Surg. 2021;9:255-262. doi: 10.22038/abjs.2021.48458.2401

18. Kannus P. Nonoperative treatment of grade II and III sprains of the lateral ligament compartment of the knee. Am J Sports Med. 1989;17:83-88. doi: 10.1177/036354658901700114

19. Krukhaug Y, Mølster A, Rodt A, et al. Lateral ligament injuries of the knee. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 1998;6:21-25. doi: 10.1007/s001670050067

20. Grawe B, Schroeder AJ, Kakazu R, et al. Lateral collateral ligament injury about the knee: anatomy, evaluation, and management. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2018 15;26:e120-127. doi: 10.5435/JAAOS-D-16-00028

21. Ranawat A, Baker III CL, Henry S, et al. Posterolateral corner injury of the knee: evaluation and management. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2008;16:506-518.

22. Palmu S, Kallio PE, Donell ST, et al. Acute patellar dislocation in children and adolescents: a randomized clinical trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90:463-470. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.G.00072

23. Cohen D, Le N, Zakharia A, et al. MPFL reconstruction results in lower redislocation rates and higher functional outcomes than rehabilitation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2022;30:3784-3795. doi: 10.1007/s00167-022-07003-5

24. Siwek CW, Rao JP. Ruptures of the extensor mechanism of the knee joint. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1981;63:932-937.

25. Konrath GA, Chen D, Lock T, et al. Outcomes following repair of quadriceps tendon ruptures. J Orthop Trauma. 1998;12:273-279. doi: 10.1097/00005131-199805000-00010

26. Rasul Jr. AT, Fischer DA. Primary repair of quadriceps tendon ruptures: results of treatment. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1993;(289):205-207.

27. Rougraff BT, Reeck CC, Essenmacher J. Complete quadriceps tendon ruptures. Orthopedics. 1996;19:509-514.

28. Bui CN, Learned JR, Scolaro JA. Treatment of patellar fractures and injuries to the extensor mechanism of the knee: a critical analysis review. JBJS Rev. 2018;6:e1. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.RVW.17.00172

29. Haskel JD, Fried JW, Hurley ET, et al. High rates of return to play and work follow knee extensor tendon ruptures but low rate of return to pre-injury level of play. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2021;29:2695-2700. doi: 10.1007/s00167-021-06537-4

30. Critchley IJ, Bracey DJ. The acutely locked knee—is a manipulation worth while? Injury. 1985;16:281-283. doi: 10.1016/s0020-1383(85)80020-6

31. Allum RL, Jones JR. The locked knee. Injury. 1986;17:256-258. doi: 10.1016/0020-1383(86)90231-7

32. Helmark IC, Neergaard K, Krogsgaard MR. Traumatic knee extension deficit (the locked knee): can MRI reduce the need for arthroscopy? Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2007;15:863-868. doi: 10.1007/s00167-006-0244-1

33. Noyes FR, Chen RC, Barber-Westin SD, et al. Greater than ­10-year results of red-white longitudinal meniscal repairs in patients 20 years of age or younger. Am J Sports Med. 2011;39:1008-1017. doi: 10.1177/0363546510392014

34. Chambers HG, Shea KG, Anderson AF, et al; American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons. Diagnosis and treatment of osteochondritis dissecans. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2011;19:297-306. doi: 10.5435/00124635-201105000-00007

35. Margaretten ME, Kohlwes J, Moore D, et al. Does this adult patient have septic arthritis? JAMA. 2007;297:1478-1488. doi: 10.1001/jama.297.13.1478

36. Gupta MN, Sturrock RD, Field M. A prospective 2-year study of 75 patients with adult-onset septic arthritis. Rheumatology ­(Oxford). 2001;40:24-30. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/40.1.24

37. Brophy RH, Fillingham YA. AAOS clinical practice guideline summary: management of osteoarthritis of the knee (nonarthroplasty), 3rd edition. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2022;30:e721-729. doi: 10.5435/JAAOS-D-21-01233

38. Collins NJ, Barton CJ, van Middelkoop M, et al. 2018 Consensus statement on exercise therapy and physical interventions (orthoses, taping and manual therapy) to treat patellofemoral pain: recommendations from the 5th International Patellofemoral Pain Research Retreat, Gold Coast, Australia, 2017. Br J Sports Med. 2018;52:1170-1178. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2018-099397

39. Strauss EJ, Kim S, Calcei JG, et al. Iliotibial band syndrome: evaluation and management. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2011;19:728-736. doi: 10.5435/00124635-201112000-00003

40. Millar NL, Murrell GAC, Kirwan P. Time to put down the scalpel? The role of surgery in tendinopathy. Br J Sports Med. 2020;54:441-442. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2019-101084

41. Hall MJ, Schwartzman A, Zhang J, et al. Ambulatory surgery data from hospitals and ambulatory surgery centers: United States, 2010. Natl Health Stat Report. 2017;(102):1-15.

42. Kise NJ, Risberg MA, Stensrud S, et al. Exercise therapy versus arthroscopic partial meniscectomy for degenerative meniscal tear in middle aged patients: randomized controlled trial with two year follow-up. BMJ. 2016;354:i3740. doi: 10.1136/bmj.i3740

43. Sihvonen R, Paavola M, Malmivaara A, et al, FIDELITY (Finnish Degenerative Meniscus Lesion Study) Investigators. Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy for a degenerative meniscus tear: a 5 year follow-up of the placebo-surgery controlled FIDELITY (Finnish Degenerative Meniscus Lesion Study) trial. Br J Sports Med. 2020;54:1332-1339. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2020-102813

44. Pihl K, Ensor J, Peat G, et al. Wild goose chase—no predictable patient subgroups benefit from meniscal surgery: patient-­reported outcomes of 641 patients 1 year after surgery. Br J Sports Med. 2020;54:13-22. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2018-100321

45. O’Connor D, Johnston RV, Brignardello-Petersen R, et al. Athroscopic surgery for degenerative knee disease (osteoarthritis including degenerative meniscal tears). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022;3:CD014328. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD014328

46. Siemieniuk RAC, Harris IA, Agoritsas T, et al. Arthroscopic surgery for degenerative knee arthritis and meniscal tears: a clinical practice guideline. Br J Sports Med. 2018;52:313. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2017-j1982rep

47. Manner PA, Tubb CC, Levine BR. AAOS appropriate use criteria: surgical management of osteoarthritis of the knee. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2018;26:e194-197. doi: 10.5435/JAAOS-D-17-00425

References

1. Baker P, Reading I, Cooper C, et al. Knee disorders in the general population and their relation to occupation. Occup Environ Med. 2003;60:794-797. doi: 10.1136/oem.60.10.794

2. Nguyen UD, Zhang Y, Zhu Y, et al. Increasing prevalence of knee pain and symptomatic knee osteoarthritis: survey and cohort data. Ann Intern Med. 20116;155:725-732. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-155-11-201112060-00004

3. Natsuhara KM, Yeranosian MG, Cohen JR, et al. What is the frequency of vascular injury after knee dislocation? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472:2615-2620. doi: 10.1007/s11999-014-3566-1

4. Seroyer ST, Musahl V, Harner CD. Management of the acute knee dislocation: the Pittsburgh experience. Injury. 2008;39:710-718. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2007.11.022

5. Sinan SM, Elsoe R, Mikkelsen C, et al. Clinical, functional, and patient-reported outcome of traumatic knee dislocations: a retrospective cohort study of 75 patients with 6.5-year follow up. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2023;143:2589-2597. doi: 10.1007/s00402-022-04578-z

6. Schatzker J, Kfuri M. Revisiting the management of tibial plateau fractures. Injury. 2022;53:2207-2218. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.­2022.04.006

7. Rudran B, Little C, Wiik A, et al. Tibial plateau fracture: anatomy, diagnosis and management. Br J Hosp Med (Lond). 2020;81:1-9. doi: 10.12968/hmed.2020.0339

8. Tscherne H, Lobenhoffer P. Tibial plateau fractures: management and expected results. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1993;(292):87-100.

9. Melvin JS, Mehta S. Patellar fractures in adults. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2011;19:198-207. doi: 10.5435/00124635-201104000-00004

10. Filho JS, Lenza M, Tamaoki MJ, et al. Interventions for treating fractures of the patella in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021;2:CD009651. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009651.pub3

11. Palmer W, Bancroft L, Bonar F, et al. Glossary of terms for musculoskeletal radiology. Skeletal Radiol. 2020;49(suppl 1):1-33. doi: 10.1007/s00256-020-03465-1

12. Frobell RB, Roos EM, Roos HP, et al. A randomized trial of treatment for acute anterior cruciate ligament tears. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:331-342. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0907797

13. Frobell RB, Roos HP, Roos EM, et al. Treatment for acute anterior cruciate ligament tear: five year outcome of randomized trial. Br J Sports Med. 2015;49:700. doi: 10.1136/bmj.f232

14. Diermeier TA, Rothrauff BB, Engebretsen L, et al; Panther Symposium ACL Treatment Consensus Group. Treatment after anterior cruciate ligament injury: Panther Symposium ACL Treatment Consensus Group. Br J Sports Med. 2021;55:14-22. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2020-102200

15. Bedi A, Musahl V, Cowan JB. Management of posterior cruciate ligament injuries: an evidence-based review. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2016;24:277-289. doi: 10.5435/JAAOS-D-14-00326

16. Edson CJ. Conservative and postoperative rehabilitation of isolated and combined injuries of the medial collateral ligament. Sports Med Arthrosc Rev. 2006;14:105-110. doi: 10.1097/01.jsa.0000212308.32076.f2

17. Vosoughi F, Dogahe RR, Nuri A, et al. Medial collateral ligament injury of the knee: a review on current concept and management. Arch Bone Jt Surg. 2021;9:255-262. doi: 10.22038/abjs.2021.48458.2401

18. Kannus P. Nonoperative treatment of grade II and III sprains of the lateral ligament compartment of the knee. Am J Sports Med. 1989;17:83-88. doi: 10.1177/036354658901700114

19. Krukhaug Y, Mølster A, Rodt A, et al. Lateral ligament injuries of the knee. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 1998;6:21-25. doi: 10.1007/s001670050067

20. Grawe B, Schroeder AJ, Kakazu R, et al. Lateral collateral ligament injury about the knee: anatomy, evaluation, and management. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2018 15;26:e120-127. doi: 10.5435/JAAOS-D-16-00028

21. Ranawat A, Baker III CL, Henry S, et al. Posterolateral corner injury of the knee: evaluation and management. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2008;16:506-518.

22. Palmu S, Kallio PE, Donell ST, et al. Acute patellar dislocation in children and adolescents: a randomized clinical trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90:463-470. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.G.00072

23. Cohen D, Le N, Zakharia A, et al. MPFL reconstruction results in lower redislocation rates and higher functional outcomes than rehabilitation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2022;30:3784-3795. doi: 10.1007/s00167-022-07003-5

24. Siwek CW, Rao JP. Ruptures of the extensor mechanism of the knee joint. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1981;63:932-937.

25. Konrath GA, Chen D, Lock T, et al. Outcomes following repair of quadriceps tendon ruptures. J Orthop Trauma. 1998;12:273-279. doi: 10.1097/00005131-199805000-00010

26. Rasul Jr. AT, Fischer DA. Primary repair of quadriceps tendon ruptures: results of treatment. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1993;(289):205-207.

27. Rougraff BT, Reeck CC, Essenmacher J. Complete quadriceps tendon ruptures. Orthopedics. 1996;19:509-514.

28. Bui CN, Learned JR, Scolaro JA. Treatment of patellar fractures and injuries to the extensor mechanism of the knee: a critical analysis review. JBJS Rev. 2018;6:e1. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.RVW.17.00172

29. Haskel JD, Fried JW, Hurley ET, et al. High rates of return to play and work follow knee extensor tendon ruptures but low rate of return to pre-injury level of play. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2021;29:2695-2700. doi: 10.1007/s00167-021-06537-4

30. Critchley IJ, Bracey DJ. The acutely locked knee—is a manipulation worth while? Injury. 1985;16:281-283. doi: 10.1016/s0020-1383(85)80020-6

31. Allum RL, Jones JR. The locked knee. Injury. 1986;17:256-258. doi: 10.1016/0020-1383(86)90231-7

32. Helmark IC, Neergaard K, Krogsgaard MR. Traumatic knee extension deficit (the locked knee): can MRI reduce the need for arthroscopy? Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2007;15:863-868. doi: 10.1007/s00167-006-0244-1

33. Noyes FR, Chen RC, Barber-Westin SD, et al. Greater than ­10-year results of red-white longitudinal meniscal repairs in patients 20 years of age or younger. Am J Sports Med. 2011;39:1008-1017. doi: 10.1177/0363546510392014

34. Chambers HG, Shea KG, Anderson AF, et al; American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons. Diagnosis and treatment of osteochondritis dissecans. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2011;19:297-306. doi: 10.5435/00124635-201105000-00007

35. Margaretten ME, Kohlwes J, Moore D, et al. Does this adult patient have septic arthritis? JAMA. 2007;297:1478-1488. doi: 10.1001/jama.297.13.1478

36. Gupta MN, Sturrock RD, Field M. A prospective 2-year study of 75 patients with adult-onset septic arthritis. Rheumatology ­(Oxford). 2001;40:24-30. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/40.1.24

37. Brophy RH, Fillingham YA. AAOS clinical practice guideline summary: management of osteoarthritis of the knee (nonarthroplasty), 3rd edition. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2022;30:e721-729. doi: 10.5435/JAAOS-D-21-01233

38. Collins NJ, Barton CJ, van Middelkoop M, et al. 2018 Consensus statement on exercise therapy and physical interventions (orthoses, taping and manual therapy) to treat patellofemoral pain: recommendations from the 5th International Patellofemoral Pain Research Retreat, Gold Coast, Australia, 2017. Br J Sports Med. 2018;52:1170-1178. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2018-099397

39. Strauss EJ, Kim S, Calcei JG, et al. Iliotibial band syndrome: evaluation and management. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2011;19:728-736. doi: 10.5435/00124635-201112000-00003

40. Millar NL, Murrell GAC, Kirwan P. Time to put down the scalpel? The role of surgery in tendinopathy. Br J Sports Med. 2020;54:441-442. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2019-101084

41. Hall MJ, Schwartzman A, Zhang J, et al. Ambulatory surgery data from hospitals and ambulatory surgery centers: United States, 2010. Natl Health Stat Report. 2017;(102):1-15.

42. Kise NJ, Risberg MA, Stensrud S, et al. Exercise therapy versus arthroscopic partial meniscectomy for degenerative meniscal tear in middle aged patients: randomized controlled trial with two year follow-up. BMJ. 2016;354:i3740. doi: 10.1136/bmj.i3740

43. Sihvonen R, Paavola M, Malmivaara A, et al, FIDELITY (Finnish Degenerative Meniscus Lesion Study) Investigators. Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy for a degenerative meniscus tear: a 5 year follow-up of the placebo-surgery controlled FIDELITY (Finnish Degenerative Meniscus Lesion Study) trial. Br J Sports Med. 2020;54:1332-1339. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2020-102813

44. Pihl K, Ensor J, Peat G, et al. Wild goose chase—no predictable patient subgroups benefit from meniscal surgery: patient-­reported outcomes of 641 patients 1 year after surgery. Br J Sports Med. 2020;54:13-22. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2018-100321

45. O’Connor D, Johnston RV, Brignardello-Petersen R, et al. Athroscopic surgery for degenerative knee disease (osteoarthritis including degenerative meniscal tears). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022;3:CD014328. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD014328

46. Siemieniuk RAC, Harris IA, Agoritsas T, et al. Arthroscopic surgery for degenerative knee arthritis and meniscal tears: a clinical practice guideline. Br J Sports Med. 2018;52:313. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2017-j1982rep

47. Manner PA, Tubb CC, Levine BR. AAOS appropriate use criteria: surgical management of osteoarthritis of the knee. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2018;26:e194-197. doi: 10.5435/JAAOS-D-17-00425

Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 72(6)
Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 72(6)
Page Number
253-259
Page Number
253-259
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Knee pain and injury: When is a surgical consult needed?
Display Headline
Knee pain and injury: When is a surgical consult needed?
Sections
Inside the Article

PRACTICE RECOMMENDATIONS

› Consider surgical management, potentially emergently, for acute knee injuries that result in significant joint instability, unstable fractures, or neurovascular compromise. A

› Avoid arthroscopy for chronic, degenerative sources of knee pain, such as osteoarthritis and degenerative meniscus tears, as it is no longer routinely recommended. A

› Treat osteoarthritis surgically after nonsurgical treatments have failed. A

Strength of recommendation (SOR)
A Good-quality patient-oriented evidence
B Inconsistent or limited-quality patient-oriented evidence
C Consensus, usual practice, opinion, disease-oriented evidence, case series

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article
Article PDF Media

Prescribing DOACs with specific patient populations in mind

Article Type
Changed
Tue, 07/25/2023 - 10:50
Display Headline
Prescribing DOACs with specific patient populations in mind

Four medications comprise the drug category known as direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). Dabigatran (Pradaxa)1 was the first to gain approval. It was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2010 for the reduction of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF). This was followed by approvals for rivaroxaban (Xarelto)2 in 2011, apixaban (Eliquis)3 in 2012, and edoxaban (Savaysa)4 in 2015. Betrixaban (Bevyxxa)5 was approved in 2017 for venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in acutely ill hospitalized patients with restricted mobility, but it was removed from the market in 2020.

DOACs
IMAGE: © KO STUDIOS

In addition to stroke prevention in nonvalvular AF, each DOAC has been approved for other indications and has been addressed further in guideline-based recommendations outside FDA-approved indications. This review highlights the evolving use of DOACs and the expansion of applications for multiple adult patient populations.

FDA-approved indications and guideline-based dosing for DOACs

Overview of DOACs

Dabigatran is the only direct thrombin inhibitor; the other agents inhibit factor Xa. TABLE 11-4 summarizes FDA-­approved indications and dosing and guideline-based dosing. Dabigatran and edoxaban require parenteral anticoagulation for 5 to 10 days prior to initiation for acute VTE, limiting their use.1,4TABLE 21-4 highlights pharmacokinetic differences among the agents. For example, dabigatran is 80% renally cleared, is somewhat dialyzable, and can accumulate in patients with renal dysfunction.1 Edoxaban is contraindicated for nonvalvular AF in patients with a creatinine clearance (CrCl) > 95 mL/min because an increased stroke risk was demonstrated.4 Therefore, rivaroxaban and apixaban are prescribed most often in the United States.6,7

DOAC pharmacokinetics

Applications in special patient populations

Obesity

As of 2020, more than 40% of adults in the United States were obese (body mass index [BMI] ≥ 30), with 9% classified as class 3 or severely obese (BMI ≥ 40).8 Altered drug pharmacokinetics in patients with severe obesity raises concern for undertreatment with fixed-dose DOACs. Phase III DOAC approval trials included patients with obesity, but weight cutoffs differed, making extrapolating efficacy and safety data difficult across different obesity stages.9 Although no FDA-labeled dosing adjustments exist for patients with obesity, the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH) does provide such recommendations.

ISTH changes position on measuring drug levels. ISTH previously recommended avoiding DOACs in those with a BMI > 40 or body weight > 120 kg. If a DOAC was used, ISTH advised obtaining peak and trough drug levels.10 However, DOAC drug levels have not been associated with clinical outcomes or sufficient degrees of anticoagulation.11

Men and women are affected equally by fibrolipomas. Prevalence does not differ by race or ethnicity.

In April 2021, ISTH updated guidance on DOACs in obesity, indicating standard doses of rivaroxaban or apixaban can be used for the treatment and prevention of VTE in all patients regardless of weight or BMI. Because data in obesity are lacking for dabigatran and edoxaban, avoid using these agents in patients with a BMI > 40 or weight > 120 kg. Additionally, assessing drug levels is no longer recommended, as there is insufficient evidence that these impact clinical outcomes.12

The 2021 American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) guideline update does not recommend adjustments based on weight,13 and the 2019 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines make no mention of weight when treating acute pulmonary embolism.14

Continue to: Effectiveness of DOACs for AF in patients with obesity isn't clear

 

 

Effectiveness of DOACs for AF in patients with obesity isn’t clear, as most data are from retrospective cohort analyses. In patients weighing > 120 kg, dabigatran has shown efficacy in thrombosis prevention similar to that achieved in those weighing ≤ 120 kg, but it has increased the risk for gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding.15 Another study indicated a 15-mg dose of rivaroxaban may be associated with increased thromboembolic complications in patients with a BMI ≥ 35.16 Alternatively, another retrospective study of rivaroxaban demonstrated a small absolute risk reduction in ischemic stroke among patients in all stages of obesity and no difference in significant bleeding events.17 One further retrospective cohort showed that, in patients with a BMI ≥ 50 kg, the effectiveness of rivaroxaban and apixaban in thrombosis prevention and bleeding safety outcomes was comparable to that seen in those with a BMI < 30.18

As a result of conflicting data, and a lack of prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs), ISTH continued recommending international normalized ratio (INR)–based dosing of warfarin for class 3 or severely obese patients with AF. The 2018 CHEST guidelines19 and the 2020 ESC guidelines20 make no mention of DOAC avoidance in patients with obesity and AF.

Advanced and end-stage renal disease

DOACs are renally dosed based on indication, drug-drug interactions, and degree of renal function (TABLE 31-4). For example, patients with AF who are anticoagulated with apixaban are prescribed 2.5 mg twice daily when 2 of the 3 following criteria are met: age ≥ 80 years, body weight ≤ 60 kg, serum creatinine ≥ 1.5 mg/dL. However, no dosage adjustment is necessary for VTE treatment or prophylaxis with apixaban regardless of renal function.3

Renal dosing of DOACs

Data supporting the safety and efficacy of DOACs in end-stage renal disease (ESRD) are sparse. All DOACs are renally cleared to varying degrees (TABLE 21-4), theoretically increasing bleeding risk as kidney disease progresses. Apixaban is the least renally cleared of the DOACs and has been evaluated in the greatest number of trials for patients with ESRD for both VTE treatment and prevention and nonvalvular AF.21 As a result, the FDA approved standard-dose apixaban (5 mg twice daily) for VTE treatment and prevention and nonvalvular AF in patients with ESRD, even those requiring dialysis. Use the reduced apixaban dose (2.5 mg twice daily) in patients with ESRD and AF only if they are ≥ 80 years of age or their body weight is ≤ 60 kg.3

Patients with cancer

Cancer-associated acute VTE treatment. Cancer is an established risk factor for acute VTE but it also increases the risk for treatment-­associated bleeding compared with patients without cancer.22 Historically, low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) was recommended over warfarin and DOACs for cancer-associated thromboses (CAT).23 Compared with warfarin, LMWH reduced the rate of recurrent VTE and had similar or reduced bleeding rates at 6 to 12 months.24-26 However, clinicians and patients often chose warfarin to avoid subcutaneous injections.27

CHEST guidelines recommend oral Xa inhibitors over LMWH for the treatment of CAT.13 The 2020 guidelines of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommend DOACs as an option for CAT along with LMWH or LMWH transitioned to warfarin.28 The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) recommends rivaroxaban for acute VTE treatment in CAT. No head-to-head trials have evaluated comparative efficacy of DOACs for CAT. However, edoxaban and rivaroxaban are associated with a greater risk for GI bleeding; therefore, apixaban is preferred in patients with GI malignancies.29 Standard DOAC VTE treatment dosing is recommended for all 3 agents.2-4

When using DOACs for patients with CAT, consider potential drug-drug interactions with chemotherapy regimens. All DOACs­ are transported by p-glycoprotein, while rivaroxaban and apixaban are substrates of cytochrome P450, leading to potentially significant drug-drug interactions.30 These interactions could affect the patient’s chemotherapeutic regimen, decrease the efficacy of the DOAC, or increase the risk for bleeding. Therefore, anticoagulation choice should be made in collaboration with the ­hematology/oncology team.

Continue to: Cancer-associated VTE prophylaxis...

 

 

Cancer-associated VTE prophylaxis. VTE prophylaxis for patients with cancer is complex and necessitates a global assessment of cancer location and treatment regimen and setting. Hospitalized patients receiving chemotherapy are at high risk for VTE if mobility is reduced or if other VTE risk factors are present. The International Initiative on Thrombosis and Cancer (ITAC)31 and ISTH32 recommend VTE prophylaxis with unfractionated heparin or LMWH (ISTH recommends LMWH more strongly). The 2020 ASCO Guidelines recommend pharmacologic anticoagulation but make no drug-specific recommendation.29 Parenteral treatment in hospitalized patients is not as burdensome as it is in ambulatory patients; therefore, these recommendations are less likely to elicit inpatient opposition.

In the ambulatory setting, patient avoidance of subcutaneous injections necessitates consideration of DOACs for CAT prophylaxis. The Khorana Risk Score (KRS) is a validated tool (scale, 0-7) to predict VTE risk in ambulatory patients receiving chemotherapy.33 KRS scores ≥ 2 indicate high thrombotic risk and the need for prophylactic anticoagulation. ASCO recommends apixaban, rivaroxaban, or LMWH.29 ISTH and ITAC both recommend apixaban or rivaroxaban over LMWH.31,34 An RCT published in June 2023 confirmed that, for adults with cancer and VTE, DOACs were noninferior to LMWH for preventing recurrent VTE for 6 months.35 The recommended doses for apixaban (2.5 mg twice daily) and rivaroxaban (10 mg daily) for CAT VTE prophylaxis are lower than FDA-approved treatment doses.31

Patients with thrombophilia: VTE prevention

Thrombophilias are broadly categorized as inherited or acquired, with inherited thrombophilia being more prevalent. The Factor V Leiden (FVL) variant affects 2% to 7% of the population, and prothrombin gene mutation (PGM) affects 1% to 2% of the population.36 Other forms of inherited thrombophilia, such as protein C deficiency, protein S deficiency, and antithrombin deficiency, occur less commonly (< 0.7% of the population).36 Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS), the most common acquired thrombophilia, affects approximately 2% of the population.36 APS involves multiple antibodies: anticardiolipin antibodies, lupus anticoagulant, and anti-beta-2 glycoprotein 1 antibodies. Establishing risk for thrombosis across the varying types of thrombophilia has proven difficult, but APS is considered the most thrombogenic thrombophilia apart from extremely rare homozygous inherited thrombophilias.36 Therefore, DOAC recommendations are thrombophilia specific.

Assessing DOAC blood levels is no longer recommended for patients with obesity, as there is insufficient evidence that these measures affect clinical outcomes.

A prospective cohort study evaluated DOACs compared with heparin/warfarin for VTE treatment in patients with inherited thrombophilias.37 Although all 4 available DOACs were included, most patients (61.1%) received rivaroxaban. Patients with an array of inherited thrombophilias, including rare homozygous mutations, were enrolled in this trial. While most patients (66.9%) had a “mild thrombophilia” defined as either FVL or PGM, the remainder had more severe thrombophilias.37 VTE recurrence was similar and uncommon in the DOAC and heparin/warfarin groups, consistent with a previous meta-analysis.38 Surprisingly, an increase in the cumulative risk for bleeding was seen in the DOAC group compared with the warfarin group, a finding inconsistent with prior trials.38 There were no major bleeding events in the DOAC group, but 3 such events occurred in the heparin/warfarin group, including 2 intracranial hemorrhages.

Currently NICE, CHEST, and ISTH do not make a recommendation for a preferred agent in patients with an acute VTE and inherited thrombophilia; however, DOACs would not be inappropriate.23,28,32 The American Society of Hematology (ASH) had planned to release recommendations related to the treatment of thrombophilia in 2020, but they were delayed by the COVID-19 pandemic.39

APS presents challenges for acute VTE anticoagulation. First, it causes a strongly thrombogenic state necessitating therapeutic anticoagulation. Second, for patients with positive lupus anticoagulant, INR monitoring and standardized INR goals may be inadequate.40 Therefore, using fixed-dose DOACs without the need for therapeutic monitoring is appealing, but significant concerns exist for using DOACs in patients with APS.41-45 ISTH and CHEST recommend warfarin for the treatment and prevention of acute VTE in patients with APS, especially those with triple-­positive (anticardiolipin, lupus anticoagulant, and anti-beta-2 glycoprotein 1) APS.13,46 Package labeling for all DOACs recommends avoidance in triple-positive APS.1-4

ASTRO-APS is the most recent RCT to compare apixaban and warfarin for patients with APS,47 and it was terminated early after 6 of 23 patients in the apixaban group had thrombotic events, while no one in the warfarin group had such an event.48 Subsequently, a meta-analysis49 demonstrated that patients with thrombotic APS appear to have a greater risk for arterial thrombosis when treated with DOACs compared with warfarin. These 2 studies may lead to changes in recommendations to avoid DOACs in all patients with APS or may prompt more focused trials for DOAC use in patients with APS plus an antiplatelet to mitigate arterial thrombotic risk.

Continue to: Expanded clinical indications

 

 

Expanded clinical indications

Superficial vein thrombosis

Superficial thrombophlebitis or superficial vein thrombosis (SVT) is estimated to occur 6 times more frequently than VTE.50 Management of patients with isolated, uncomplicated thrombophlebitis who are at low risk for extension of the SVT involves symptomatic treatment with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, topical agents, or compression therapy. However, depending on risk for progression, anticoagulation may be recommended.51

Patients at intermediate risk for extension or propagation of SVT are candidates for anticoagulation. The CHEST guidelines recommend fondaparinux 2.5 mg subcutaneous injections daily for 45 days instead of LMWH or warfarin.13 However, if patients decline 6 weeks of daily injections, the guidelines acknowledge that rivaroxaban 10 mg daily may be an alternative.13

Certain situations should prompt one to consider using a treatment dose of a DOAC for 3 months. These include cases in which the SVT is located within 3 cm of the deep venous system, expands despite an appropriate prophylactic regimen, or recurs after discontinuation of prophylactic anticoagulation.13,50

Acute coronary syndrome

The American College of Cardiology/­American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) recommend combination antiplatelet therapy and anticoagulation for management of acute coronary syndrome in hospitalized patients.52 Data are mixed regarding longer-term anticoagulation in addition to dual antiplatelet therapy in outpatient settings to prevent thrombosis recurrence in the absence of AF.

For patients at intermediate risk for extension of superficial vein thrombosis who decline daily subcutaneous injections of fondaparinux, rivaroxaban 10 mg/d may be an alternative.

The APPRAISE-2 trial enrolled high-risk patients with ACS within 7 days of the event.53 Apixaban 5 mg twice daily was compared with placebo in patients taking aspirin or aspirin plus clopidogrel. The trial was terminated early because major bleeding events increased with apixaban without reduction in recurrent ischemic events. The ATLAS ACS-TIMI 46 trial evaluated different rivaroxaban doses (5-20 mg daily) in ACS patients.54 The study revealed possible thrombosis benefit but also increased risk for bleeding, particularly at higher doses. As a result, another study—ATLAS ACS 2-TIMI 51—was conducted and compared the use of low-dose rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily or 5 mg twice daily) vs placebo for patients with recent ACS.55 All patients were receiving low-dose aspirin, and approximately 93% of patients in each group also were receiving clopidogrel or ticlopidine. As in the APPRAISE-2 trial, rivaroxaban increased the rate of major bleeding and intracranial hemorrhage; however, it did not increase the incidence of fatal bleeding. Unlike APPRAISE-2, rivaroxaban significantly reduced the primary efficacy end point, a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or stroke (absolute risk reduction = 1.8%; number needed to treat = 56 for combined rivaroxaban doses).55

A secondary subgroup analysis combined data from the ATLAS ACMS-TIMI 46 and ATLAS ACS 2-TIMI 51 trials to evaluate outcomes in patients receiving aspirin monotherapy when combined with rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily or 5 mg twice daily or with placebo.56 The primary efficacy end point was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. When the 2 trials were evaluated separately, neither rivaroxaban dose was associated with reduction of the primary efficacy outcomes compared with aspirin alone. However, when the data were pooled, both the combined rivaroxaban doses (particularly the 5-mg dose) were associated with reduced cardiovascular outcomes. From a safety perspective, the 2.5-mg twice-daily dose of rivaroxaban was the only dose not associated with increased major bleeding risk. Thus, the 2.5-mg twice-daily dose of rivaroxaban may not provide sufficient cardiovascular benefit in patients with ACS, while the larger dose may increase the risk for nonfatal major bleeding events.56

The European Medicines Agency57 approved rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily for ACS, and the 2020 ESC guidelines58 consider it an appropriate therapeutic option in addition to aspirin for patients at high ischemic risk and low bleeding risk. ACS is not an FDA-approved indication for DOACs, and the ACC/AHA Guideline for the Management of ACS, last updated in 2014, does not include DOACs for ACS unless patients have AF.52 Ongoing trials are further investigating rivaroxaban for ACS, so the use of DOACs in the post-acute phase of ACS may become clearer in the future.59

Continue to: Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia

 

 

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia

Historically, nonheparin parenteral anticoagulants argatroban, bivalirudin, and fondaparinux were recommended for patients at risk for or who had heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT). Argatroban is the only drug FDA approved for the treatment and prophylaxis of HIT; recommendations for the others are based on guideline recommendations.23,60,61 The nonheparin parenteral anticoagulants cost between $700 and $1500 per day; therefore most patients with HIT are transitioned to warfarin.62 However, protein C and S inhibition and a subsequent prothrombotic state conveyed by warfarin initiation necessitates a minimum 5-day bridge to therapeutic warfarin with a nonheparin parenteral anticoagulant.

In vitro tests show that DOACs do not promote development of HIT antibodies63 or affect platelet activation or aggregation.64 A literature summary of DOACs for HIT determined that in 104 patients, all but 1 achieved platelet recovery (defined as > 150,000/mcL) within a median time of 7 days. Therapeutically, DOACs prevented new or recurrent VTE in 102/104 cases (98%), and only 3% of patients experienced significant bleeding events.62

The ACC/AHA recommend combination antiplatelet therapy and anticoagulation for management of acute coronary syndrome in hospitalized patients.

The 2018 ASH guidelines for VTE management in HIT include (with very low certainty of evidence) dabigatran, rivaroxaban, or apixaban for consideration in addition to previously recommended nonheparin parenteral anticoagulants.61 The dosing of each agent is contingent upon treatment of patients with HIT and an acute thrombosis (HITT) or HIT in the absence of VTE. For patients with HITT, treatment doses for acute VTE should be used for the appropriate duration of therapy (ie, 3 months). Importantly, dabigatran requires a 5-day pretreatment period with a parenteral anticoagulant, so it is not an ideal option. When treating isolated HIT (in the absence of VTE), ASH recommends all agents be dosed twice daily—dabigatran 150 mg twice daily (no 5-day parenteral pretreatment necessary), rivaroxaban 15 mg twice daily, or apixaban 5 mg twice daily—until platelet recovery (≥ 150,000/mcL) is achieved.61

CORRESPONDENCE
Kevin Schleich, PharmD, BCACP, Departments of Pharmaceutical Care and Family Medicine, University of Iowa, 200 Hawkins Drive, 01102-D PFP, Iowa City, IA, 52242; [email protected]

References

1. Dabigatran. Package Insert. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; 2021.

2. Rivaroxaban. Package insert. Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc; 2022.

3. Apixaban. Package insert. Bristol-Myers Squibb; 2021.

4. Edoxaban. Package insert. Daiichi Sankyo, Inc; 2015.

5. Betrixaban. Package insert. Portola Pharmaceuticals, Inc; 2017.

6. Wheelock KM, Ross JS, Murugiah K, et al. Clinician trends in prescribing direct oral anticoagulants for US Medicare beneficiaries. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4:e2137288. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.­2021.37288

7. Colacci M, Tseng EK, Sacks CA, et al. Oral anticoagulant utilization in the United States and United Kingdom. J Gen Intern Med. 2020;35:2505-2507. doi: 10.1007/s11606-020-05904-0

8. CDC. Adult obesity facts. Accessed May 9, 2023. www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html

9. Mocini D, Di Fusco SA, Mocini E, et al. Direct oral anticoagulants in patients with obesity and atrial fibrillation: position paper of Italian National Association of Hospital Cardiologists (ANMCO). J Clin Med. 2021;10:4185. doi: 10.3390/jcm10184185

10. Martin K, Beyer-Westendorf J, Davidson BL, et al. Use of the direct oral anticoagulants in obese patients: guidance from the SSC of the ISTH. J Thromb Haemost. 2016;14:1308-1313. doi: 10.1111/jth.13323

11. Gu TM, Garcia DA, Sabath DE. Assessment of direct oral anticoagulant assay use in clinical practice. J Thromb Thrombolysis. 2019;47:403-408. doi: 10.1007/s11239-018-1793-0

12. Martin KA, Beyer-Westendorf J, Davidson BL, et al. Use of direct oral anticoagulants in patients with obesity for treatment and prevention of venous thromboembolism: updated communication from the ISTH SSC Subcommittee on Control of Anticoagulation. J Thromb Haemost. 2021;19:1874-1882. doi: 10.1111/jth.15358

13. Stevens SM, Woller SC, Kreuziger LB, et al. Antithrombotic therapy for VTE disease: second update of the CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report. Chest. 2021;160:e545-e608. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2021.07.055

14. Konstantinides SV, Meyer G, Becattini C, et al. 2019 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of acute pulmonary embolism developed in collaboration with the European Respiratory Society (ERS). Eur Heart J. 2020;41:543-603. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehz405

15. Coates J, Bitton E, Hendje A, et al. Clinical outcomes of dabigatran use in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation and weight >120 kg. Thromb Res. 2021;208:176-180. doi: 10.1016/j.thromres.2021.11.007

16. Li X, Zuo C, Ji Q, et al. Body mass index influence on the clinical outcomes for nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients admitted to a hospital treated with direct oral anticoagulants: a retrospective cohort study. Drug Des Devel Ther. 2021;15:1931-1943. doi: 10.2147/dddt.S303219

17. Barakat AF, Jain S, Masri A, et al. Outcomes of direct oral anticoagulants in atrial fibrillation patients across different body mass index categories. JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2021;7:649-658. doi: 10.1016/j.jacep.2021.02.002

18. O’Kane CP, Avalon JCO, Lacoste JL, et al. Apixaban and rivaroxaban use for atrial fibrillation in patients with obesity and BMI ≥50 kg/m2. Pharmacotherapy. 2022;42:112-118. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/phar.2651

19. Lip GYH, Banerjee A, Boriani G, et al. Antithrombotic therapy for atrial fibrillation: CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report. Chest. 2018;154:1121-1201. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2018.07.040

20. Sepehri Shamloo A, Dagres N, Hindricks G. [2020 ESC guidelines on atrial fibrillation: summary of the most relevant recommendations and innovations]. Herz. 2021;46:28-37. doi: 10.1007/s00059-020-05005-y

21. Chokesuwattanaskul R, Thongprayoon C, Tanawuttiwat T, et al. Safety and efficacy of apixaban versus warfarin in patients with end-stage renal disease: meta-analysis. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol.­ 2018;41:627-634. doi: 10.1111/pace.13331

22. Wang T-F, Li A, Garcia D. Managing thrombosis in cancer patients. Res Pract Thromb Haemost. 2018;2:429-438. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/rth2.12102

23. Kearon C, Akl EA, Ornelas J, et al. Antithrombotic therapy for VTE disease: CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report. CHEST. 2016;149:315-352. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2015.11.026

24. Lee AY, Levine MN, Baker RI, et al. Low-molecular-weight heparin versus a coumarin for the prevention of recurrent venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer. N Engl J Med. 2003;349:146-153. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa025313

25. Meyer G, Marjanovic Z, Valcke J, et al. Comparison of low-­molecular-weight heparin and warfarin for the secondary prevention of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer: a randomized controlled study. Arch Intern Med. 2002;162:1729-1735. doi: 10.1001/archinte.162.15.1729

26. Hull RD, Pineo GF, Brant RF, et al. Long-term low-molecular-weight heparin versus usual care in proximal-vein thrombosis patients with cancer. Am J Med. 2006;119:1062-1072. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2006.02.022

27. Lee AYY, Kamphuisen PW, Meyer G, et al. Tinzaparin vs warfarin for treatment of acute venous thromboembolism in patients with active cancer: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2015;314:677-686. doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.9243

28. NICE Guideline. Venous thromboembolic diseases: diagnosis, management and thrombophilia testing. Accessed May 9, 2023. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK556698/

29. Key NS, Khorana AA, Kuderer NM, et al. Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis and treatment in patients with cancer: ASCO Clinical Practice Guideline Update. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38:496-520. doi: 10.1200/jco.19.01461

30. Galgani A, Palleria C, Iannone LF, et al. Pharmacokinetic interactions of clinical interest between direct oral anticoagulants and antiepileptic drugs. Front Neurol. 2018;9:1067. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2018.01067

31. Farge D, Frere C, Connors JM, et al. 2019 International clinical practice guidelines for the treatment and prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer. Lancet Oncol. 2019;20:e566-e581. doi: 10.1016/s1470-2045(19)30336-5

32. Di Nisio M, Carrier M, Lyman GH, et al. Prevention of venous thromboembolism in hospitalized medical cancer patients: guidance from the SSC of the ISTH. J Thromb Haemost. 2014;12:1746-1749. doi: 10.1111/jth.12683

33. Khorana AA, Kuderer NM, Culakova E, et al. Development and validation of a predictive model for chemotherapy-associated­ thrombosis. Blood. 2008;111:4902-4907. doi: 10.1182/blood-2007-10-116327

34. Wang TF, Zwicker JI, Ay C, et al. The use of direct oral anticoagulants for primary thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory cancer patients: guidance from the SSC of the ISTH. J Thromb Haemost. 2019;17:1772-1778. doi: 10.1111/jth.14564

35. Schrag D, Uno H, Rosovsky R, et al. Direct oral anticoagulants vs low-molecular-weight heparin and recurrent VTE in patients with cancer: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2023;329:1924-1933. doi: 10.1001/jama.2023.7843

36. Stevens SM, Woller SC, Bauer KA, et al. Guidance for the evaluation and treatment of hereditary and acquired thrombophilia. J Thromb Thrombolysis. 2016;41:154-164. doi: 10.1007/s11239-015-1316-1

37. Campello E, Spiezia L, Simion C, et al. Direct oral anticoagulants in patients with inherited thrombophilia and venous thromboembolism: a prospective cohort study. J Am Heart Assoc. 2020;9:e018917. doi: 10.1161/jaha.120.018917

38. Elsebaie MAT, van Es N, Langston A, et al. Direct oral anticoagulants in patients with venous thromboembolism and thrombophilia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Thromb Haemost. 2019;17:645-656. doi: 10.1111/jth.14398

39. ASH. ASH Clinical Practice Guidelines on Venous Thromboembolism. Accessed May 10, 2023. www.hematology.org/education/­clinicians/guidelines-and-quality-care/clinical-practice-­guidelines/venous-thromboembolism-guidelines

40. Baquero-Salamanca M, Téllez-Arévalo AM, Calderon-Ospina C. Variability in the international normalised ratio (INR) in patients with antiphospholipid syndrome and positive lupus anticoagulant: should the INR targets be higher? BMJ Case Rep. 2015;2015:bcr2014209013. doi: 10.1136/bcr-2014-209013

41. Pengo V, Denas G, Zoppellaro G, et al. Rivaroxaban vs warfarin in high-risk patients with antiphospholipid syndrome. Blood. 2018;132:1365-1371. doi: 10.1182/blood-2018-04-848333

42. Ordi-Ros J, Sáez-Comet L, Pérez-Conesa M, et al. Rivaroxaban versus vitamin K antagonist in antiphospholipid syndrome: a randomized noninferiority trial. Ann Intern Med. 2019;171:685-694. doi: 10.7326/m19-0291

43. Sato T, Nakamura H, Fujieda Y, et al. Factor Xa inhibitors for preventing recurrent thrombosis in patients with antiphospholipid syndrome: a longitudinal cohort study. Lupus. 2019;28:1577-1582. doi: 10.1177/0961203319881200

44. Malec K, Broniatowska E, Undas A. Direct oral anticoagulants in patients with antiphospholipid syndrome: a cohort study. Lupus. 2020;29:37-44. doi: 10.1177/0961203319889156

45. Rivaroxaban versus warfarin to treat patients with thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome. Dr. Hannah Cohen about the results of the RAPS trial (Lancet Haematol 2016; 3: e426-36). Rheumatology (Oxford). 2017;56:e23. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kex290

46. Zuily S, Cohen H, Isenberg D, et al. Use of direct oral anticoagulants in patients with thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome: guidance from the Scientific and Standardization Committee of the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis. J Thromb Haemost. 2020;18:2126-2137. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/jth.14935

47. NIH. ClinicalTrials.gov. Apixaban for the secondary prevention of thromboembolism among patients with antiphospholipid syndrome (ASTRO-APS). Accessed May 10, 2023. https://clinicaltrials.­gov/ct2/show/NCT02295475?term=apixaban&cond=Anti+Phospholipid+Syndrome&draw=2&rank=1

48. Woller SC, Stevens SM, Kaplan D, et al. Apixaban compared with warfarin to prevent thrombosis in thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome: a randomized trial. Blood Adv. 2022;6:1661-1670. doi: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2021005808

49. Khairani CD, Bejjani A, Piazza G, et al. Direct oral anticoagulants vs vitamin K antagonists in patients with antiphospholipid syndromes: meta-analysis of randomized trials. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2023;81:16-30. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2022.10.008

50. Superficial thrombophlebitis, superficial vein thrombosis. 2021. Accessed May 10, 2023. thrombosiscanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/47.-Superficial-Vein-Thrombosis_16July2021.pdf

51. Di Nisio M, Wichers IM, Middeldorp S. Treatment for superficial thrombophlebitis of the leg. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;2:CD004982. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004982.pub6

52. Amsterdam EA, Wenger NK, Brindis RG, et al. 2014 AHA/ACC Guideline for the Management of Patients With Non–ST-Elevation­ Acute Coronary Syndromes: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;64:e139-e228. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2014.09.017

53. Alexander JH, Lopes RD, James S, et al. Apixaban with antiplatelet therapy after acute coronary syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:699-708. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1105819

54. Mega JL, Braunwald E, Mohanavelu S, et al. Rivaroxaban versus placebo in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ATLAS ACS-TIMI 46): a randomised, double-blind, phase II trial. Lancet. 2009;374:29-38. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(09)60738-8

55. Mega JL, Braunwald E, Wiviott SD, et al. Rivaroxaban in patients with a recent acute coronary syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:9-19. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1112277

56. Gibson WJ, Gibson CM, Yee MK, et al. Safety and efficacy of rivaroxaban when added to aspirin monotherapy among stabilized post‐acute coronary syndrome patients: a pooled analysis study of ATLAS ACS‐TIMI 46 and ATLAS ACS 2‐TIMI 51. J Am Heart Assoc. 2019. Accessed May 10, 2023. Doi: 10.1161/JAHA.118.009451

57. European Medicines Agency. Xarelto (rivaroxaban). 2008. Accessed June 23, 2023. www.ema.europa.eu/en/medicines/­human/EPAR/xarelto

58. Collet JP, Thiele H, Barbato E, et al. 2020 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation. Eur Heart J. 2021;42:1289-1367. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehaa575

59. NIH. ClinicalTrials.gov. Accessed May 10, 2023. www.clinicaltrials.­gov/ct2/results?cond=Acute+Coronary+Syndrome&term=rivaroxaban+&cntry=&state=&city=&dist=#

60. Watson H, Davidson S, Keeling D. Guidelines on the diagnosis and management of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia: second edition. Br J Haematol. 2012;159:528-40. doi: 10.1111/bjh.12059

61. Cuker A, Arepally GM, Chong BH, et al. American Society of Hematology 2018 guidelines for management of venous thromboembolism: heparin-induced thrombocytopenia. Blood Adv. 2018;2:3360-3392. doi: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2018024489

62. Momin J, Lee C-S. The role of direct oral anticoagulants in the management of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia US Pharmacist. 2020;45:3-10. Accessed May 10, 2023. www.uspharmacist.­com/article/the-role-of-direct-oral-anticoagulants-in-the-­management-of-heparininduced-thrombocytopenia

63. Warkentin TE, Pai M, Linkins LA. Direct oral anticoagulants for treatment of HIT: update of Hamilton experience and literature review. Blood. 2017;130:1104-1113. doi: 10.1182/blood-2017-04-778993

64. Krauel K, Hackbarth C, Fürll B, et al. Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia: in vitro studies on the interaction of dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and low-sulfated heparin, with platelet factor 4 and anti-PF4/heparin antibodies. Blood. 2012;119:1248-1255. doi: 10.1182/blood-2011-05-353391

Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Department of Pharmaceutical Care (Dr. Schleich) and Department of Family Medicine, Carver College of Medicine (Drs. Schleich and Ray), University of Iowa, Iowa City
[email protected]

The authors reported no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article.

Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 72(6)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
244-252
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Department of Pharmaceutical Care (Dr. Schleich) and Department of Family Medicine, Carver College of Medicine (Drs. Schleich and Ray), University of Iowa, Iowa City
[email protected]

The authors reported no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article.

Author and Disclosure Information

Department of Pharmaceutical Care (Dr. Schleich) and Department of Family Medicine, Carver College of Medicine (Drs. Schleich and Ray), University of Iowa, Iowa City
[email protected]

The authors reported no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article.

Article PDF
Article PDF

Four medications comprise the drug category known as direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). Dabigatran (Pradaxa)1 was the first to gain approval. It was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2010 for the reduction of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF). This was followed by approvals for rivaroxaban (Xarelto)2 in 2011, apixaban (Eliquis)3 in 2012, and edoxaban (Savaysa)4 in 2015. Betrixaban (Bevyxxa)5 was approved in 2017 for venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in acutely ill hospitalized patients with restricted mobility, but it was removed from the market in 2020.

DOACs
IMAGE: © KO STUDIOS

In addition to stroke prevention in nonvalvular AF, each DOAC has been approved for other indications and has been addressed further in guideline-based recommendations outside FDA-approved indications. This review highlights the evolving use of DOACs and the expansion of applications for multiple adult patient populations.

FDA-approved indications and guideline-based dosing for DOACs

Overview of DOACs

Dabigatran is the only direct thrombin inhibitor; the other agents inhibit factor Xa. TABLE 11-4 summarizes FDA-­approved indications and dosing and guideline-based dosing. Dabigatran and edoxaban require parenteral anticoagulation for 5 to 10 days prior to initiation for acute VTE, limiting their use.1,4TABLE 21-4 highlights pharmacokinetic differences among the agents. For example, dabigatran is 80% renally cleared, is somewhat dialyzable, and can accumulate in patients with renal dysfunction.1 Edoxaban is contraindicated for nonvalvular AF in patients with a creatinine clearance (CrCl) > 95 mL/min because an increased stroke risk was demonstrated.4 Therefore, rivaroxaban and apixaban are prescribed most often in the United States.6,7

DOAC pharmacokinetics

Applications in special patient populations

Obesity

As of 2020, more than 40% of adults in the United States were obese (body mass index [BMI] ≥ 30), with 9% classified as class 3 or severely obese (BMI ≥ 40).8 Altered drug pharmacokinetics in patients with severe obesity raises concern for undertreatment with fixed-dose DOACs. Phase III DOAC approval trials included patients with obesity, but weight cutoffs differed, making extrapolating efficacy and safety data difficult across different obesity stages.9 Although no FDA-labeled dosing adjustments exist for patients with obesity, the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH) does provide such recommendations.

ISTH changes position on measuring drug levels. ISTH previously recommended avoiding DOACs in those with a BMI > 40 or body weight > 120 kg. If a DOAC was used, ISTH advised obtaining peak and trough drug levels.10 However, DOAC drug levels have not been associated with clinical outcomes or sufficient degrees of anticoagulation.11

Men and women are affected equally by fibrolipomas. Prevalence does not differ by race or ethnicity.

In April 2021, ISTH updated guidance on DOACs in obesity, indicating standard doses of rivaroxaban or apixaban can be used for the treatment and prevention of VTE in all patients regardless of weight or BMI. Because data in obesity are lacking for dabigatran and edoxaban, avoid using these agents in patients with a BMI > 40 or weight > 120 kg. Additionally, assessing drug levels is no longer recommended, as there is insufficient evidence that these impact clinical outcomes.12

The 2021 American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) guideline update does not recommend adjustments based on weight,13 and the 2019 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines make no mention of weight when treating acute pulmonary embolism.14

Continue to: Effectiveness of DOACs for AF in patients with obesity isn't clear

 

 

Effectiveness of DOACs for AF in patients with obesity isn’t clear, as most data are from retrospective cohort analyses. In patients weighing > 120 kg, dabigatran has shown efficacy in thrombosis prevention similar to that achieved in those weighing ≤ 120 kg, but it has increased the risk for gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding.15 Another study indicated a 15-mg dose of rivaroxaban may be associated with increased thromboembolic complications in patients with a BMI ≥ 35.16 Alternatively, another retrospective study of rivaroxaban demonstrated a small absolute risk reduction in ischemic stroke among patients in all stages of obesity and no difference in significant bleeding events.17 One further retrospective cohort showed that, in patients with a BMI ≥ 50 kg, the effectiveness of rivaroxaban and apixaban in thrombosis prevention and bleeding safety outcomes was comparable to that seen in those with a BMI < 30.18

As a result of conflicting data, and a lack of prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs), ISTH continued recommending international normalized ratio (INR)–based dosing of warfarin for class 3 or severely obese patients with AF. The 2018 CHEST guidelines19 and the 2020 ESC guidelines20 make no mention of DOAC avoidance in patients with obesity and AF.

Advanced and end-stage renal disease

DOACs are renally dosed based on indication, drug-drug interactions, and degree of renal function (TABLE 31-4). For example, patients with AF who are anticoagulated with apixaban are prescribed 2.5 mg twice daily when 2 of the 3 following criteria are met: age ≥ 80 years, body weight ≤ 60 kg, serum creatinine ≥ 1.5 mg/dL. However, no dosage adjustment is necessary for VTE treatment or prophylaxis with apixaban regardless of renal function.3

Renal dosing of DOACs

Data supporting the safety and efficacy of DOACs in end-stage renal disease (ESRD) are sparse. All DOACs are renally cleared to varying degrees (TABLE 21-4), theoretically increasing bleeding risk as kidney disease progresses. Apixaban is the least renally cleared of the DOACs and has been evaluated in the greatest number of trials for patients with ESRD for both VTE treatment and prevention and nonvalvular AF.21 As a result, the FDA approved standard-dose apixaban (5 mg twice daily) for VTE treatment and prevention and nonvalvular AF in patients with ESRD, even those requiring dialysis. Use the reduced apixaban dose (2.5 mg twice daily) in patients with ESRD and AF only if they are ≥ 80 years of age or their body weight is ≤ 60 kg.3

Patients with cancer

Cancer-associated acute VTE treatment. Cancer is an established risk factor for acute VTE but it also increases the risk for treatment-­associated bleeding compared with patients without cancer.22 Historically, low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) was recommended over warfarin and DOACs for cancer-associated thromboses (CAT).23 Compared with warfarin, LMWH reduced the rate of recurrent VTE and had similar or reduced bleeding rates at 6 to 12 months.24-26 However, clinicians and patients often chose warfarin to avoid subcutaneous injections.27

CHEST guidelines recommend oral Xa inhibitors over LMWH for the treatment of CAT.13 The 2020 guidelines of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommend DOACs as an option for CAT along with LMWH or LMWH transitioned to warfarin.28 The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) recommends rivaroxaban for acute VTE treatment in CAT. No head-to-head trials have evaluated comparative efficacy of DOACs for CAT. However, edoxaban and rivaroxaban are associated with a greater risk for GI bleeding; therefore, apixaban is preferred in patients with GI malignancies.29 Standard DOAC VTE treatment dosing is recommended for all 3 agents.2-4

When using DOACs for patients with CAT, consider potential drug-drug interactions with chemotherapy regimens. All DOACs­ are transported by p-glycoprotein, while rivaroxaban and apixaban are substrates of cytochrome P450, leading to potentially significant drug-drug interactions.30 These interactions could affect the patient’s chemotherapeutic regimen, decrease the efficacy of the DOAC, or increase the risk for bleeding. Therefore, anticoagulation choice should be made in collaboration with the ­hematology/oncology team.

Continue to: Cancer-associated VTE prophylaxis...

 

 

Cancer-associated VTE prophylaxis. VTE prophylaxis for patients with cancer is complex and necessitates a global assessment of cancer location and treatment regimen and setting. Hospitalized patients receiving chemotherapy are at high risk for VTE if mobility is reduced or if other VTE risk factors are present. The International Initiative on Thrombosis and Cancer (ITAC)31 and ISTH32 recommend VTE prophylaxis with unfractionated heparin or LMWH (ISTH recommends LMWH more strongly). The 2020 ASCO Guidelines recommend pharmacologic anticoagulation but make no drug-specific recommendation.29 Parenteral treatment in hospitalized patients is not as burdensome as it is in ambulatory patients; therefore, these recommendations are less likely to elicit inpatient opposition.

In the ambulatory setting, patient avoidance of subcutaneous injections necessitates consideration of DOACs for CAT prophylaxis. The Khorana Risk Score (KRS) is a validated tool (scale, 0-7) to predict VTE risk in ambulatory patients receiving chemotherapy.33 KRS scores ≥ 2 indicate high thrombotic risk and the need for prophylactic anticoagulation. ASCO recommends apixaban, rivaroxaban, or LMWH.29 ISTH and ITAC both recommend apixaban or rivaroxaban over LMWH.31,34 An RCT published in June 2023 confirmed that, for adults with cancer and VTE, DOACs were noninferior to LMWH for preventing recurrent VTE for 6 months.35 The recommended doses for apixaban (2.5 mg twice daily) and rivaroxaban (10 mg daily) for CAT VTE prophylaxis are lower than FDA-approved treatment doses.31

Patients with thrombophilia: VTE prevention

Thrombophilias are broadly categorized as inherited or acquired, with inherited thrombophilia being more prevalent. The Factor V Leiden (FVL) variant affects 2% to 7% of the population, and prothrombin gene mutation (PGM) affects 1% to 2% of the population.36 Other forms of inherited thrombophilia, such as protein C deficiency, protein S deficiency, and antithrombin deficiency, occur less commonly (< 0.7% of the population).36 Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS), the most common acquired thrombophilia, affects approximately 2% of the population.36 APS involves multiple antibodies: anticardiolipin antibodies, lupus anticoagulant, and anti-beta-2 glycoprotein 1 antibodies. Establishing risk for thrombosis across the varying types of thrombophilia has proven difficult, but APS is considered the most thrombogenic thrombophilia apart from extremely rare homozygous inherited thrombophilias.36 Therefore, DOAC recommendations are thrombophilia specific.

Assessing DOAC blood levels is no longer recommended for patients with obesity, as there is insufficient evidence that these measures affect clinical outcomes.

A prospective cohort study evaluated DOACs compared with heparin/warfarin for VTE treatment in patients with inherited thrombophilias.37 Although all 4 available DOACs were included, most patients (61.1%) received rivaroxaban. Patients with an array of inherited thrombophilias, including rare homozygous mutations, were enrolled in this trial. While most patients (66.9%) had a “mild thrombophilia” defined as either FVL or PGM, the remainder had more severe thrombophilias.37 VTE recurrence was similar and uncommon in the DOAC and heparin/warfarin groups, consistent with a previous meta-analysis.38 Surprisingly, an increase in the cumulative risk for bleeding was seen in the DOAC group compared with the warfarin group, a finding inconsistent with prior trials.38 There were no major bleeding events in the DOAC group, but 3 such events occurred in the heparin/warfarin group, including 2 intracranial hemorrhages.

Currently NICE, CHEST, and ISTH do not make a recommendation for a preferred agent in patients with an acute VTE and inherited thrombophilia; however, DOACs would not be inappropriate.23,28,32 The American Society of Hematology (ASH) had planned to release recommendations related to the treatment of thrombophilia in 2020, but they were delayed by the COVID-19 pandemic.39

APS presents challenges for acute VTE anticoagulation. First, it causes a strongly thrombogenic state necessitating therapeutic anticoagulation. Second, for patients with positive lupus anticoagulant, INR monitoring and standardized INR goals may be inadequate.40 Therefore, using fixed-dose DOACs without the need for therapeutic monitoring is appealing, but significant concerns exist for using DOACs in patients with APS.41-45 ISTH and CHEST recommend warfarin for the treatment and prevention of acute VTE in patients with APS, especially those with triple-­positive (anticardiolipin, lupus anticoagulant, and anti-beta-2 glycoprotein 1) APS.13,46 Package labeling for all DOACs recommends avoidance in triple-positive APS.1-4

ASTRO-APS is the most recent RCT to compare apixaban and warfarin for patients with APS,47 and it was terminated early after 6 of 23 patients in the apixaban group had thrombotic events, while no one in the warfarin group had such an event.48 Subsequently, a meta-analysis49 demonstrated that patients with thrombotic APS appear to have a greater risk for arterial thrombosis when treated with DOACs compared with warfarin. These 2 studies may lead to changes in recommendations to avoid DOACs in all patients with APS or may prompt more focused trials for DOAC use in patients with APS plus an antiplatelet to mitigate arterial thrombotic risk.

Continue to: Expanded clinical indications

 

 

Expanded clinical indications

Superficial vein thrombosis

Superficial thrombophlebitis or superficial vein thrombosis (SVT) is estimated to occur 6 times more frequently than VTE.50 Management of patients with isolated, uncomplicated thrombophlebitis who are at low risk for extension of the SVT involves symptomatic treatment with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, topical agents, or compression therapy. However, depending on risk for progression, anticoagulation may be recommended.51

Patients at intermediate risk for extension or propagation of SVT are candidates for anticoagulation. The CHEST guidelines recommend fondaparinux 2.5 mg subcutaneous injections daily for 45 days instead of LMWH or warfarin.13 However, if patients decline 6 weeks of daily injections, the guidelines acknowledge that rivaroxaban 10 mg daily may be an alternative.13

Certain situations should prompt one to consider using a treatment dose of a DOAC for 3 months. These include cases in which the SVT is located within 3 cm of the deep venous system, expands despite an appropriate prophylactic regimen, or recurs after discontinuation of prophylactic anticoagulation.13,50

Acute coronary syndrome

The American College of Cardiology/­American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) recommend combination antiplatelet therapy and anticoagulation for management of acute coronary syndrome in hospitalized patients.52 Data are mixed regarding longer-term anticoagulation in addition to dual antiplatelet therapy in outpatient settings to prevent thrombosis recurrence in the absence of AF.

For patients at intermediate risk for extension of superficial vein thrombosis who decline daily subcutaneous injections of fondaparinux, rivaroxaban 10 mg/d may be an alternative.

The APPRAISE-2 trial enrolled high-risk patients with ACS within 7 days of the event.53 Apixaban 5 mg twice daily was compared with placebo in patients taking aspirin or aspirin plus clopidogrel. The trial was terminated early because major bleeding events increased with apixaban without reduction in recurrent ischemic events. The ATLAS ACS-TIMI 46 trial evaluated different rivaroxaban doses (5-20 mg daily) in ACS patients.54 The study revealed possible thrombosis benefit but also increased risk for bleeding, particularly at higher doses. As a result, another study—ATLAS ACS 2-TIMI 51—was conducted and compared the use of low-dose rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily or 5 mg twice daily) vs placebo for patients with recent ACS.55 All patients were receiving low-dose aspirin, and approximately 93% of patients in each group also were receiving clopidogrel or ticlopidine. As in the APPRAISE-2 trial, rivaroxaban increased the rate of major bleeding and intracranial hemorrhage; however, it did not increase the incidence of fatal bleeding. Unlike APPRAISE-2, rivaroxaban significantly reduced the primary efficacy end point, a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or stroke (absolute risk reduction = 1.8%; number needed to treat = 56 for combined rivaroxaban doses).55

A secondary subgroup analysis combined data from the ATLAS ACMS-TIMI 46 and ATLAS ACS 2-TIMI 51 trials to evaluate outcomes in patients receiving aspirin monotherapy when combined with rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily or 5 mg twice daily or with placebo.56 The primary efficacy end point was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. When the 2 trials were evaluated separately, neither rivaroxaban dose was associated with reduction of the primary efficacy outcomes compared with aspirin alone. However, when the data were pooled, both the combined rivaroxaban doses (particularly the 5-mg dose) were associated with reduced cardiovascular outcomes. From a safety perspective, the 2.5-mg twice-daily dose of rivaroxaban was the only dose not associated with increased major bleeding risk. Thus, the 2.5-mg twice-daily dose of rivaroxaban may not provide sufficient cardiovascular benefit in patients with ACS, while the larger dose may increase the risk for nonfatal major bleeding events.56

The European Medicines Agency57 approved rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily for ACS, and the 2020 ESC guidelines58 consider it an appropriate therapeutic option in addition to aspirin for patients at high ischemic risk and low bleeding risk. ACS is not an FDA-approved indication for DOACs, and the ACC/AHA Guideline for the Management of ACS, last updated in 2014, does not include DOACs for ACS unless patients have AF.52 Ongoing trials are further investigating rivaroxaban for ACS, so the use of DOACs in the post-acute phase of ACS may become clearer in the future.59

Continue to: Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia

 

 

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia

Historically, nonheparin parenteral anticoagulants argatroban, bivalirudin, and fondaparinux were recommended for patients at risk for or who had heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT). Argatroban is the only drug FDA approved for the treatment and prophylaxis of HIT; recommendations for the others are based on guideline recommendations.23,60,61 The nonheparin parenteral anticoagulants cost between $700 and $1500 per day; therefore most patients with HIT are transitioned to warfarin.62 However, protein C and S inhibition and a subsequent prothrombotic state conveyed by warfarin initiation necessitates a minimum 5-day bridge to therapeutic warfarin with a nonheparin parenteral anticoagulant.

In vitro tests show that DOACs do not promote development of HIT antibodies63 or affect platelet activation or aggregation.64 A literature summary of DOACs for HIT determined that in 104 patients, all but 1 achieved platelet recovery (defined as > 150,000/mcL) within a median time of 7 days. Therapeutically, DOACs prevented new or recurrent VTE in 102/104 cases (98%), and only 3% of patients experienced significant bleeding events.62

The ACC/AHA recommend combination antiplatelet therapy and anticoagulation for management of acute coronary syndrome in hospitalized patients.

The 2018 ASH guidelines for VTE management in HIT include (with very low certainty of evidence) dabigatran, rivaroxaban, or apixaban for consideration in addition to previously recommended nonheparin parenteral anticoagulants.61 The dosing of each agent is contingent upon treatment of patients with HIT and an acute thrombosis (HITT) or HIT in the absence of VTE. For patients with HITT, treatment doses for acute VTE should be used for the appropriate duration of therapy (ie, 3 months). Importantly, dabigatran requires a 5-day pretreatment period with a parenteral anticoagulant, so it is not an ideal option. When treating isolated HIT (in the absence of VTE), ASH recommends all agents be dosed twice daily—dabigatran 150 mg twice daily (no 5-day parenteral pretreatment necessary), rivaroxaban 15 mg twice daily, or apixaban 5 mg twice daily—until platelet recovery (≥ 150,000/mcL) is achieved.61

CORRESPONDENCE
Kevin Schleich, PharmD, BCACP, Departments of Pharmaceutical Care and Family Medicine, University of Iowa, 200 Hawkins Drive, 01102-D PFP, Iowa City, IA, 52242; [email protected]

Four medications comprise the drug category known as direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). Dabigatran (Pradaxa)1 was the first to gain approval. It was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2010 for the reduction of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF). This was followed by approvals for rivaroxaban (Xarelto)2 in 2011, apixaban (Eliquis)3 in 2012, and edoxaban (Savaysa)4 in 2015. Betrixaban (Bevyxxa)5 was approved in 2017 for venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in acutely ill hospitalized patients with restricted mobility, but it was removed from the market in 2020.

DOACs
IMAGE: © KO STUDIOS

In addition to stroke prevention in nonvalvular AF, each DOAC has been approved for other indications and has been addressed further in guideline-based recommendations outside FDA-approved indications. This review highlights the evolving use of DOACs and the expansion of applications for multiple adult patient populations.

FDA-approved indications and guideline-based dosing for DOACs

Overview of DOACs

Dabigatran is the only direct thrombin inhibitor; the other agents inhibit factor Xa. TABLE 11-4 summarizes FDA-­approved indications and dosing and guideline-based dosing. Dabigatran and edoxaban require parenteral anticoagulation for 5 to 10 days prior to initiation for acute VTE, limiting their use.1,4TABLE 21-4 highlights pharmacokinetic differences among the agents. For example, dabigatran is 80% renally cleared, is somewhat dialyzable, and can accumulate in patients with renal dysfunction.1 Edoxaban is contraindicated for nonvalvular AF in patients with a creatinine clearance (CrCl) > 95 mL/min because an increased stroke risk was demonstrated.4 Therefore, rivaroxaban and apixaban are prescribed most often in the United States.6,7

DOAC pharmacokinetics

Applications in special patient populations

Obesity

As of 2020, more than 40% of adults in the United States were obese (body mass index [BMI] ≥ 30), with 9% classified as class 3 or severely obese (BMI ≥ 40).8 Altered drug pharmacokinetics in patients with severe obesity raises concern for undertreatment with fixed-dose DOACs. Phase III DOAC approval trials included patients with obesity, but weight cutoffs differed, making extrapolating efficacy and safety data difficult across different obesity stages.9 Although no FDA-labeled dosing adjustments exist for patients with obesity, the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH) does provide such recommendations.

ISTH changes position on measuring drug levels. ISTH previously recommended avoiding DOACs in those with a BMI > 40 or body weight > 120 kg. If a DOAC was used, ISTH advised obtaining peak and trough drug levels.10 However, DOAC drug levels have not been associated with clinical outcomes or sufficient degrees of anticoagulation.11

Men and women are affected equally by fibrolipomas. Prevalence does not differ by race or ethnicity.

In April 2021, ISTH updated guidance on DOACs in obesity, indicating standard doses of rivaroxaban or apixaban can be used for the treatment and prevention of VTE in all patients regardless of weight or BMI. Because data in obesity are lacking for dabigatran and edoxaban, avoid using these agents in patients with a BMI > 40 or weight > 120 kg. Additionally, assessing drug levels is no longer recommended, as there is insufficient evidence that these impact clinical outcomes.12

The 2021 American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) guideline update does not recommend adjustments based on weight,13 and the 2019 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines make no mention of weight when treating acute pulmonary embolism.14

Continue to: Effectiveness of DOACs for AF in patients with obesity isn't clear

 

 

Effectiveness of DOACs for AF in patients with obesity isn’t clear, as most data are from retrospective cohort analyses. In patients weighing > 120 kg, dabigatran has shown efficacy in thrombosis prevention similar to that achieved in those weighing ≤ 120 kg, but it has increased the risk for gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding.15 Another study indicated a 15-mg dose of rivaroxaban may be associated with increased thromboembolic complications in patients with a BMI ≥ 35.16 Alternatively, another retrospective study of rivaroxaban demonstrated a small absolute risk reduction in ischemic stroke among patients in all stages of obesity and no difference in significant bleeding events.17 One further retrospective cohort showed that, in patients with a BMI ≥ 50 kg, the effectiveness of rivaroxaban and apixaban in thrombosis prevention and bleeding safety outcomes was comparable to that seen in those with a BMI < 30.18

As a result of conflicting data, and a lack of prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs), ISTH continued recommending international normalized ratio (INR)–based dosing of warfarin for class 3 or severely obese patients with AF. The 2018 CHEST guidelines19 and the 2020 ESC guidelines20 make no mention of DOAC avoidance in patients with obesity and AF.

Advanced and end-stage renal disease

DOACs are renally dosed based on indication, drug-drug interactions, and degree of renal function (TABLE 31-4). For example, patients with AF who are anticoagulated with apixaban are prescribed 2.5 mg twice daily when 2 of the 3 following criteria are met: age ≥ 80 years, body weight ≤ 60 kg, serum creatinine ≥ 1.5 mg/dL. However, no dosage adjustment is necessary for VTE treatment or prophylaxis with apixaban regardless of renal function.3

Renal dosing of DOACs

Data supporting the safety and efficacy of DOACs in end-stage renal disease (ESRD) are sparse. All DOACs are renally cleared to varying degrees (TABLE 21-4), theoretically increasing bleeding risk as kidney disease progresses. Apixaban is the least renally cleared of the DOACs and has been evaluated in the greatest number of trials for patients with ESRD for both VTE treatment and prevention and nonvalvular AF.21 As a result, the FDA approved standard-dose apixaban (5 mg twice daily) for VTE treatment and prevention and nonvalvular AF in patients with ESRD, even those requiring dialysis. Use the reduced apixaban dose (2.5 mg twice daily) in patients with ESRD and AF only if they are ≥ 80 years of age or their body weight is ≤ 60 kg.3

Patients with cancer

Cancer-associated acute VTE treatment. Cancer is an established risk factor for acute VTE but it also increases the risk for treatment-­associated bleeding compared with patients without cancer.22 Historically, low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) was recommended over warfarin and DOACs for cancer-associated thromboses (CAT).23 Compared with warfarin, LMWH reduced the rate of recurrent VTE and had similar or reduced bleeding rates at 6 to 12 months.24-26 However, clinicians and patients often chose warfarin to avoid subcutaneous injections.27

CHEST guidelines recommend oral Xa inhibitors over LMWH for the treatment of CAT.13 The 2020 guidelines of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommend DOACs as an option for CAT along with LMWH or LMWH transitioned to warfarin.28 The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) recommends rivaroxaban for acute VTE treatment in CAT. No head-to-head trials have evaluated comparative efficacy of DOACs for CAT. However, edoxaban and rivaroxaban are associated with a greater risk for GI bleeding; therefore, apixaban is preferred in patients with GI malignancies.29 Standard DOAC VTE treatment dosing is recommended for all 3 agents.2-4

When using DOACs for patients with CAT, consider potential drug-drug interactions with chemotherapy regimens. All DOACs­ are transported by p-glycoprotein, while rivaroxaban and apixaban are substrates of cytochrome P450, leading to potentially significant drug-drug interactions.30 These interactions could affect the patient’s chemotherapeutic regimen, decrease the efficacy of the DOAC, or increase the risk for bleeding. Therefore, anticoagulation choice should be made in collaboration with the ­hematology/oncology team.

Continue to: Cancer-associated VTE prophylaxis...

 

 

Cancer-associated VTE prophylaxis. VTE prophylaxis for patients with cancer is complex and necessitates a global assessment of cancer location and treatment regimen and setting. Hospitalized patients receiving chemotherapy are at high risk for VTE if mobility is reduced or if other VTE risk factors are present. The International Initiative on Thrombosis and Cancer (ITAC)31 and ISTH32 recommend VTE prophylaxis with unfractionated heparin or LMWH (ISTH recommends LMWH more strongly). The 2020 ASCO Guidelines recommend pharmacologic anticoagulation but make no drug-specific recommendation.29 Parenteral treatment in hospitalized patients is not as burdensome as it is in ambulatory patients; therefore, these recommendations are less likely to elicit inpatient opposition.

In the ambulatory setting, patient avoidance of subcutaneous injections necessitates consideration of DOACs for CAT prophylaxis. The Khorana Risk Score (KRS) is a validated tool (scale, 0-7) to predict VTE risk in ambulatory patients receiving chemotherapy.33 KRS scores ≥ 2 indicate high thrombotic risk and the need for prophylactic anticoagulation. ASCO recommends apixaban, rivaroxaban, or LMWH.29 ISTH and ITAC both recommend apixaban or rivaroxaban over LMWH.31,34 An RCT published in June 2023 confirmed that, for adults with cancer and VTE, DOACs were noninferior to LMWH for preventing recurrent VTE for 6 months.35 The recommended doses for apixaban (2.5 mg twice daily) and rivaroxaban (10 mg daily) for CAT VTE prophylaxis are lower than FDA-approved treatment doses.31

Patients with thrombophilia: VTE prevention

Thrombophilias are broadly categorized as inherited or acquired, with inherited thrombophilia being more prevalent. The Factor V Leiden (FVL) variant affects 2% to 7% of the population, and prothrombin gene mutation (PGM) affects 1% to 2% of the population.36 Other forms of inherited thrombophilia, such as protein C deficiency, protein S deficiency, and antithrombin deficiency, occur less commonly (< 0.7% of the population).36 Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS), the most common acquired thrombophilia, affects approximately 2% of the population.36 APS involves multiple antibodies: anticardiolipin antibodies, lupus anticoagulant, and anti-beta-2 glycoprotein 1 antibodies. Establishing risk for thrombosis across the varying types of thrombophilia has proven difficult, but APS is considered the most thrombogenic thrombophilia apart from extremely rare homozygous inherited thrombophilias.36 Therefore, DOAC recommendations are thrombophilia specific.

Assessing DOAC blood levels is no longer recommended for patients with obesity, as there is insufficient evidence that these measures affect clinical outcomes.

A prospective cohort study evaluated DOACs compared with heparin/warfarin for VTE treatment in patients with inherited thrombophilias.37 Although all 4 available DOACs were included, most patients (61.1%) received rivaroxaban. Patients with an array of inherited thrombophilias, including rare homozygous mutations, were enrolled in this trial. While most patients (66.9%) had a “mild thrombophilia” defined as either FVL or PGM, the remainder had more severe thrombophilias.37 VTE recurrence was similar and uncommon in the DOAC and heparin/warfarin groups, consistent with a previous meta-analysis.38 Surprisingly, an increase in the cumulative risk for bleeding was seen in the DOAC group compared with the warfarin group, a finding inconsistent with prior trials.38 There were no major bleeding events in the DOAC group, but 3 such events occurred in the heparin/warfarin group, including 2 intracranial hemorrhages.

Currently NICE, CHEST, and ISTH do not make a recommendation for a preferred agent in patients with an acute VTE and inherited thrombophilia; however, DOACs would not be inappropriate.23,28,32 The American Society of Hematology (ASH) had planned to release recommendations related to the treatment of thrombophilia in 2020, but they were delayed by the COVID-19 pandemic.39

APS presents challenges for acute VTE anticoagulation. First, it causes a strongly thrombogenic state necessitating therapeutic anticoagulation. Second, for patients with positive lupus anticoagulant, INR monitoring and standardized INR goals may be inadequate.40 Therefore, using fixed-dose DOACs without the need for therapeutic monitoring is appealing, but significant concerns exist for using DOACs in patients with APS.41-45 ISTH and CHEST recommend warfarin for the treatment and prevention of acute VTE in patients with APS, especially those with triple-­positive (anticardiolipin, lupus anticoagulant, and anti-beta-2 glycoprotein 1) APS.13,46 Package labeling for all DOACs recommends avoidance in triple-positive APS.1-4

ASTRO-APS is the most recent RCT to compare apixaban and warfarin for patients with APS,47 and it was terminated early after 6 of 23 patients in the apixaban group had thrombotic events, while no one in the warfarin group had such an event.48 Subsequently, a meta-analysis49 demonstrated that patients with thrombotic APS appear to have a greater risk for arterial thrombosis when treated with DOACs compared with warfarin. These 2 studies may lead to changes in recommendations to avoid DOACs in all patients with APS or may prompt more focused trials for DOAC use in patients with APS plus an antiplatelet to mitigate arterial thrombotic risk.

Continue to: Expanded clinical indications

 

 

Expanded clinical indications

Superficial vein thrombosis

Superficial thrombophlebitis or superficial vein thrombosis (SVT) is estimated to occur 6 times more frequently than VTE.50 Management of patients with isolated, uncomplicated thrombophlebitis who are at low risk for extension of the SVT involves symptomatic treatment with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, topical agents, or compression therapy. However, depending on risk for progression, anticoagulation may be recommended.51

Patients at intermediate risk for extension or propagation of SVT are candidates for anticoagulation. The CHEST guidelines recommend fondaparinux 2.5 mg subcutaneous injections daily for 45 days instead of LMWH or warfarin.13 However, if patients decline 6 weeks of daily injections, the guidelines acknowledge that rivaroxaban 10 mg daily may be an alternative.13

Certain situations should prompt one to consider using a treatment dose of a DOAC for 3 months. These include cases in which the SVT is located within 3 cm of the deep venous system, expands despite an appropriate prophylactic regimen, or recurs after discontinuation of prophylactic anticoagulation.13,50

Acute coronary syndrome

The American College of Cardiology/­American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) recommend combination antiplatelet therapy and anticoagulation for management of acute coronary syndrome in hospitalized patients.52 Data are mixed regarding longer-term anticoagulation in addition to dual antiplatelet therapy in outpatient settings to prevent thrombosis recurrence in the absence of AF.

For patients at intermediate risk for extension of superficial vein thrombosis who decline daily subcutaneous injections of fondaparinux, rivaroxaban 10 mg/d may be an alternative.

The APPRAISE-2 trial enrolled high-risk patients with ACS within 7 days of the event.53 Apixaban 5 mg twice daily was compared with placebo in patients taking aspirin or aspirin plus clopidogrel. The trial was terminated early because major bleeding events increased with apixaban without reduction in recurrent ischemic events. The ATLAS ACS-TIMI 46 trial evaluated different rivaroxaban doses (5-20 mg daily) in ACS patients.54 The study revealed possible thrombosis benefit but also increased risk for bleeding, particularly at higher doses. As a result, another study—ATLAS ACS 2-TIMI 51—was conducted and compared the use of low-dose rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily or 5 mg twice daily) vs placebo for patients with recent ACS.55 All patients were receiving low-dose aspirin, and approximately 93% of patients in each group also were receiving clopidogrel or ticlopidine. As in the APPRAISE-2 trial, rivaroxaban increased the rate of major bleeding and intracranial hemorrhage; however, it did not increase the incidence of fatal bleeding. Unlike APPRAISE-2, rivaroxaban significantly reduced the primary efficacy end point, a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or stroke (absolute risk reduction = 1.8%; number needed to treat = 56 for combined rivaroxaban doses).55

A secondary subgroup analysis combined data from the ATLAS ACMS-TIMI 46 and ATLAS ACS 2-TIMI 51 trials to evaluate outcomes in patients receiving aspirin monotherapy when combined with rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily or 5 mg twice daily or with placebo.56 The primary efficacy end point was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. When the 2 trials were evaluated separately, neither rivaroxaban dose was associated with reduction of the primary efficacy outcomes compared with aspirin alone. However, when the data were pooled, both the combined rivaroxaban doses (particularly the 5-mg dose) were associated with reduced cardiovascular outcomes. From a safety perspective, the 2.5-mg twice-daily dose of rivaroxaban was the only dose not associated with increased major bleeding risk. Thus, the 2.5-mg twice-daily dose of rivaroxaban may not provide sufficient cardiovascular benefit in patients with ACS, while the larger dose may increase the risk for nonfatal major bleeding events.56

The European Medicines Agency57 approved rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily for ACS, and the 2020 ESC guidelines58 consider it an appropriate therapeutic option in addition to aspirin for patients at high ischemic risk and low bleeding risk. ACS is not an FDA-approved indication for DOACs, and the ACC/AHA Guideline for the Management of ACS, last updated in 2014, does not include DOACs for ACS unless patients have AF.52 Ongoing trials are further investigating rivaroxaban for ACS, so the use of DOACs in the post-acute phase of ACS may become clearer in the future.59

Continue to: Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia

 

 

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia

Historically, nonheparin parenteral anticoagulants argatroban, bivalirudin, and fondaparinux were recommended for patients at risk for or who had heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT). Argatroban is the only drug FDA approved for the treatment and prophylaxis of HIT; recommendations for the others are based on guideline recommendations.23,60,61 The nonheparin parenteral anticoagulants cost between $700 and $1500 per day; therefore most patients with HIT are transitioned to warfarin.62 However, protein C and S inhibition and a subsequent prothrombotic state conveyed by warfarin initiation necessitates a minimum 5-day bridge to therapeutic warfarin with a nonheparin parenteral anticoagulant.

In vitro tests show that DOACs do not promote development of HIT antibodies63 or affect platelet activation or aggregation.64 A literature summary of DOACs for HIT determined that in 104 patients, all but 1 achieved platelet recovery (defined as > 150,000/mcL) within a median time of 7 days. Therapeutically, DOACs prevented new or recurrent VTE in 102/104 cases (98%), and only 3% of patients experienced significant bleeding events.62

The ACC/AHA recommend combination antiplatelet therapy and anticoagulation for management of acute coronary syndrome in hospitalized patients.

The 2018 ASH guidelines for VTE management in HIT include (with very low certainty of evidence) dabigatran, rivaroxaban, or apixaban for consideration in addition to previously recommended nonheparin parenteral anticoagulants.61 The dosing of each agent is contingent upon treatment of patients with HIT and an acute thrombosis (HITT) or HIT in the absence of VTE. For patients with HITT, treatment doses for acute VTE should be used for the appropriate duration of therapy (ie, 3 months). Importantly, dabigatran requires a 5-day pretreatment period with a parenteral anticoagulant, so it is not an ideal option. When treating isolated HIT (in the absence of VTE), ASH recommends all agents be dosed twice daily—dabigatran 150 mg twice daily (no 5-day parenteral pretreatment necessary), rivaroxaban 15 mg twice daily, or apixaban 5 mg twice daily—until platelet recovery (≥ 150,000/mcL) is achieved.61

CORRESPONDENCE
Kevin Schleich, PharmD, BCACP, Departments of Pharmaceutical Care and Family Medicine, University of Iowa, 200 Hawkins Drive, 01102-D PFP, Iowa City, IA, 52242; [email protected]

References

1. Dabigatran. Package Insert. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; 2021.

2. Rivaroxaban. Package insert. Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc; 2022.

3. Apixaban. Package insert. Bristol-Myers Squibb; 2021.

4. Edoxaban. Package insert. Daiichi Sankyo, Inc; 2015.

5. Betrixaban. Package insert. Portola Pharmaceuticals, Inc; 2017.

6. Wheelock KM, Ross JS, Murugiah K, et al. Clinician trends in prescribing direct oral anticoagulants for US Medicare beneficiaries. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4:e2137288. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.­2021.37288

7. Colacci M, Tseng EK, Sacks CA, et al. Oral anticoagulant utilization in the United States and United Kingdom. J Gen Intern Med. 2020;35:2505-2507. doi: 10.1007/s11606-020-05904-0

8. CDC. Adult obesity facts. Accessed May 9, 2023. www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html

9. Mocini D, Di Fusco SA, Mocini E, et al. Direct oral anticoagulants in patients with obesity and atrial fibrillation: position paper of Italian National Association of Hospital Cardiologists (ANMCO). J Clin Med. 2021;10:4185. doi: 10.3390/jcm10184185

10. Martin K, Beyer-Westendorf J, Davidson BL, et al. Use of the direct oral anticoagulants in obese patients: guidance from the SSC of the ISTH. J Thromb Haemost. 2016;14:1308-1313. doi: 10.1111/jth.13323

11. Gu TM, Garcia DA, Sabath DE. Assessment of direct oral anticoagulant assay use in clinical practice. J Thromb Thrombolysis. 2019;47:403-408. doi: 10.1007/s11239-018-1793-0

12. Martin KA, Beyer-Westendorf J, Davidson BL, et al. Use of direct oral anticoagulants in patients with obesity for treatment and prevention of venous thromboembolism: updated communication from the ISTH SSC Subcommittee on Control of Anticoagulation. J Thromb Haemost. 2021;19:1874-1882. doi: 10.1111/jth.15358

13. Stevens SM, Woller SC, Kreuziger LB, et al. Antithrombotic therapy for VTE disease: second update of the CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report. Chest. 2021;160:e545-e608. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2021.07.055

14. Konstantinides SV, Meyer G, Becattini C, et al. 2019 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of acute pulmonary embolism developed in collaboration with the European Respiratory Society (ERS). Eur Heart J. 2020;41:543-603. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehz405

15. Coates J, Bitton E, Hendje A, et al. Clinical outcomes of dabigatran use in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation and weight >120 kg. Thromb Res. 2021;208:176-180. doi: 10.1016/j.thromres.2021.11.007

16. Li X, Zuo C, Ji Q, et al. Body mass index influence on the clinical outcomes for nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients admitted to a hospital treated with direct oral anticoagulants: a retrospective cohort study. Drug Des Devel Ther. 2021;15:1931-1943. doi: 10.2147/dddt.S303219

17. Barakat AF, Jain S, Masri A, et al. Outcomes of direct oral anticoagulants in atrial fibrillation patients across different body mass index categories. JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2021;7:649-658. doi: 10.1016/j.jacep.2021.02.002

18. O’Kane CP, Avalon JCO, Lacoste JL, et al. Apixaban and rivaroxaban use for atrial fibrillation in patients with obesity and BMI ≥50 kg/m2. Pharmacotherapy. 2022;42:112-118. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/phar.2651

19. Lip GYH, Banerjee A, Boriani G, et al. Antithrombotic therapy for atrial fibrillation: CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report. Chest. 2018;154:1121-1201. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2018.07.040

20. Sepehri Shamloo A, Dagres N, Hindricks G. [2020 ESC guidelines on atrial fibrillation: summary of the most relevant recommendations and innovations]. Herz. 2021;46:28-37. doi: 10.1007/s00059-020-05005-y

21. Chokesuwattanaskul R, Thongprayoon C, Tanawuttiwat T, et al. Safety and efficacy of apixaban versus warfarin in patients with end-stage renal disease: meta-analysis. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol.­ 2018;41:627-634. doi: 10.1111/pace.13331

22. Wang T-F, Li A, Garcia D. Managing thrombosis in cancer patients. Res Pract Thromb Haemost. 2018;2:429-438. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/rth2.12102

23. Kearon C, Akl EA, Ornelas J, et al. Antithrombotic therapy for VTE disease: CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report. CHEST. 2016;149:315-352. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2015.11.026

24. Lee AY, Levine MN, Baker RI, et al. Low-molecular-weight heparin versus a coumarin for the prevention of recurrent venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer. N Engl J Med. 2003;349:146-153. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa025313

25. Meyer G, Marjanovic Z, Valcke J, et al. Comparison of low-­molecular-weight heparin and warfarin for the secondary prevention of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer: a randomized controlled study. Arch Intern Med. 2002;162:1729-1735. doi: 10.1001/archinte.162.15.1729

26. Hull RD, Pineo GF, Brant RF, et al. Long-term low-molecular-weight heparin versus usual care in proximal-vein thrombosis patients with cancer. Am J Med. 2006;119:1062-1072. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2006.02.022

27. Lee AYY, Kamphuisen PW, Meyer G, et al. Tinzaparin vs warfarin for treatment of acute venous thromboembolism in patients with active cancer: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2015;314:677-686. doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.9243

28. NICE Guideline. Venous thromboembolic diseases: diagnosis, management and thrombophilia testing. Accessed May 9, 2023. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK556698/

29. Key NS, Khorana AA, Kuderer NM, et al. Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis and treatment in patients with cancer: ASCO Clinical Practice Guideline Update. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38:496-520. doi: 10.1200/jco.19.01461

30. Galgani A, Palleria C, Iannone LF, et al. Pharmacokinetic interactions of clinical interest between direct oral anticoagulants and antiepileptic drugs. Front Neurol. 2018;9:1067. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2018.01067

31. Farge D, Frere C, Connors JM, et al. 2019 International clinical practice guidelines for the treatment and prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer. Lancet Oncol. 2019;20:e566-e581. doi: 10.1016/s1470-2045(19)30336-5

32. Di Nisio M, Carrier M, Lyman GH, et al. Prevention of venous thromboembolism in hospitalized medical cancer patients: guidance from the SSC of the ISTH. J Thromb Haemost. 2014;12:1746-1749. doi: 10.1111/jth.12683

33. Khorana AA, Kuderer NM, Culakova E, et al. Development and validation of a predictive model for chemotherapy-associated­ thrombosis. Blood. 2008;111:4902-4907. doi: 10.1182/blood-2007-10-116327

34. Wang TF, Zwicker JI, Ay C, et al. The use of direct oral anticoagulants for primary thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory cancer patients: guidance from the SSC of the ISTH. J Thromb Haemost. 2019;17:1772-1778. doi: 10.1111/jth.14564

35. Schrag D, Uno H, Rosovsky R, et al. Direct oral anticoagulants vs low-molecular-weight heparin and recurrent VTE in patients with cancer: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2023;329:1924-1933. doi: 10.1001/jama.2023.7843

36. Stevens SM, Woller SC, Bauer KA, et al. Guidance for the evaluation and treatment of hereditary and acquired thrombophilia. J Thromb Thrombolysis. 2016;41:154-164. doi: 10.1007/s11239-015-1316-1

37. Campello E, Spiezia L, Simion C, et al. Direct oral anticoagulants in patients with inherited thrombophilia and venous thromboembolism: a prospective cohort study. J Am Heart Assoc. 2020;9:e018917. doi: 10.1161/jaha.120.018917

38. Elsebaie MAT, van Es N, Langston A, et al. Direct oral anticoagulants in patients with venous thromboembolism and thrombophilia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Thromb Haemost. 2019;17:645-656. doi: 10.1111/jth.14398

39. ASH. ASH Clinical Practice Guidelines on Venous Thromboembolism. Accessed May 10, 2023. www.hematology.org/education/­clinicians/guidelines-and-quality-care/clinical-practice-­guidelines/venous-thromboembolism-guidelines

40. Baquero-Salamanca M, Téllez-Arévalo AM, Calderon-Ospina C. Variability in the international normalised ratio (INR) in patients with antiphospholipid syndrome and positive lupus anticoagulant: should the INR targets be higher? BMJ Case Rep. 2015;2015:bcr2014209013. doi: 10.1136/bcr-2014-209013

41. Pengo V, Denas G, Zoppellaro G, et al. Rivaroxaban vs warfarin in high-risk patients with antiphospholipid syndrome. Blood. 2018;132:1365-1371. doi: 10.1182/blood-2018-04-848333

42. Ordi-Ros J, Sáez-Comet L, Pérez-Conesa M, et al. Rivaroxaban versus vitamin K antagonist in antiphospholipid syndrome: a randomized noninferiority trial. Ann Intern Med. 2019;171:685-694. doi: 10.7326/m19-0291

43. Sato T, Nakamura H, Fujieda Y, et al. Factor Xa inhibitors for preventing recurrent thrombosis in patients with antiphospholipid syndrome: a longitudinal cohort study. Lupus. 2019;28:1577-1582. doi: 10.1177/0961203319881200

44. Malec K, Broniatowska E, Undas A. Direct oral anticoagulants in patients with antiphospholipid syndrome: a cohort study. Lupus. 2020;29:37-44. doi: 10.1177/0961203319889156

45. Rivaroxaban versus warfarin to treat patients with thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome. Dr. Hannah Cohen about the results of the RAPS trial (Lancet Haematol 2016; 3: e426-36). Rheumatology (Oxford). 2017;56:e23. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kex290

46. Zuily S, Cohen H, Isenberg D, et al. Use of direct oral anticoagulants in patients with thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome: guidance from the Scientific and Standardization Committee of the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis. J Thromb Haemost. 2020;18:2126-2137. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/jth.14935

47. NIH. ClinicalTrials.gov. Apixaban for the secondary prevention of thromboembolism among patients with antiphospholipid syndrome (ASTRO-APS). Accessed May 10, 2023. https://clinicaltrials.­gov/ct2/show/NCT02295475?term=apixaban&cond=Anti+Phospholipid+Syndrome&draw=2&rank=1

48. Woller SC, Stevens SM, Kaplan D, et al. Apixaban compared with warfarin to prevent thrombosis in thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome: a randomized trial. Blood Adv. 2022;6:1661-1670. doi: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2021005808

49. Khairani CD, Bejjani A, Piazza G, et al. Direct oral anticoagulants vs vitamin K antagonists in patients with antiphospholipid syndromes: meta-analysis of randomized trials. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2023;81:16-30. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2022.10.008

50. Superficial thrombophlebitis, superficial vein thrombosis. 2021. Accessed May 10, 2023. thrombosiscanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/47.-Superficial-Vein-Thrombosis_16July2021.pdf

51. Di Nisio M, Wichers IM, Middeldorp S. Treatment for superficial thrombophlebitis of the leg. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;2:CD004982. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004982.pub6

52. Amsterdam EA, Wenger NK, Brindis RG, et al. 2014 AHA/ACC Guideline for the Management of Patients With Non–ST-Elevation­ Acute Coronary Syndromes: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;64:e139-e228. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2014.09.017

53. Alexander JH, Lopes RD, James S, et al. Apixaban with antiplatelet therapy after acute coronary syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:699-708. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1105819

54. Mega JL, Braunwald E, Mohanavelu S, et al. Rivaroxaban versus placebo in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ATLAS ACS-TIMI 46): a randomised, double-blind, phase II trial. Lancet. 2009;374:29-38. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(09)60738-8

55. Mega JL, Braunwald E, Wiviott SD, et al. Rivaroxaban in patients with a recent acute coronary syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:9-19. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1112277

56. Gibson WJ, Gibson CM, Yee MK, et al. Safety and efficacy of rivaroxaban when added to aspirin monotherapy among stabilized post‐acute coronary syndrome patients: a pooled analysis study of ATLAS ACS‐TIMI 46 and ATLAS ACS 2‐TIMI 51. J Am Heart Assoc. 2019. Accessed May 10, 2023. Doi: 10.1161/JAHA.118.009451

57. European Medicines Agency. Xarelto (rivaroxaban). 2008. Accessed June 23, 2023. www.ema.europa.eu/en/medicines/­human/EPAR/xarelto

58. Collet JP, Thiele H, Barbato E, et al. 2020 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation. Eur Heart J. 2021;42:1289-1367. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehaa575

59. NIH. ClinicalTrials.gov. Accessed May 10, 2023. www.clinicaltrials.­gov/ct2/results?cond=Acute+Coronary+Syndrome&term=rivaroxaban+&cntry=&state=&city=&dist=#

60. Watson H, Davidson S, Keeling D. Guidelines on the diagnosis and management of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia: second edition. Br J Haematol. 2012;159:528-40. doi: 10.1111/bjh.12059

61. Cuker A, Arepally GM, Chong BH, et al. American Society of Hematology 2018 guidelines for management of venous thromboembolism: heparin-induced thrombocytopenia. Blood Adv. 2018;2:3360-3392. doi: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2018024489

62. Momin J, Lee C-S. The role of direct oral anticoagulants in the management of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia US Pharmacist. 2020;45:3-10. Accessed May 10, 2023. www.uspharmacist.­com/article/the-role-of-direct-oral-anticoagulants-in-the-­management-of-heparininduced-thrombocytopenia

63. Warkentin TE, Pai M, Linkins LA. Direct oral anticoagulants for treatment of HIT: update of Hamilton experience and literature review. Blood. 2017;130:1104-1113. doi: 10.1182/blood-2017-04-778993

64. Krauel K, Hackbarth C, Fürll B, et al. Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia: in vitro studies on the interaction of dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and low-sulfated heparin, with platelet factor 4 and anti-PF4/heparin antibodies. Blood. 2012;119:1248-1255. doi: 10.1182/blood-2011-05-353391

References

1. Dabigatran. Package Insert. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; 2021.

2. Rivaroxaban. Package insert. Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc; 2022.

3. Apixaban. Package insert. Bristol-Myers Squibb; 2021.

4. Edoxaban. Package insert. Daiichi Sankyo, Inc; 2015.

5. Betrixaban. Package insert. Portola Pharmaceuticals, Inc; 2017.

6. Wheelock KM, Ross JS, Murugiah K, et al. Clinician trends in prescribing direct oral anticoagulants for US Medicare beneficiaries. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4:e2137288. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.­2021.37288

7. Colacci M, Tseng EK, Sacks CA, et al. Oral anticoagulant utilization in the United States and United Kingdom. J Gen Intern Med. 2020;35:2505-2507. doi: 10.1007/s11606-020-05904-0

8. CDC. Adult obesity facts. Accessed May 9, 2023. www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html

9. Mocini D, Di Fusco SA, Mocini E, et al. Direct oral anticoagulants in patients with obesity and atrial fibrillation: position paper of Italian National Association of Hospital Cardiologists (ANMCO). J Clin Med. 2021;10:4185. doi: 10.3390/jcm10184185

10. Martin K, Beyer-Westendorf J, Davidson BL, et al. Use of the direct oral anticoagulants in obese patients: guidance from the SSC of the ISTH. J Thromb Haemost. 2016;14:1308-1313. doi: 10.1111/jth.13323

11. Gu TM, Garcia DA, Sabath DE. Assessment of direct oral anticoagulant assay use in clinical practice. J Thromb Thrombolysis. 2019;47:403-408. doi: 10.1007/s11239-018-1793-0

12. Martin KA, Beyer-Westendorf J, Davidson BL, et al. Use of direct oral anticoagulants in patients with obesity for treatment and prevention of venous thromboembolism: updated communication from the ISTH SSC Subcommittee on Control of Anticoagulation. J Thromb Haemost. 2021;19:1874-1882. doi: 10.1111/jth.15358

13. Stevens SM, Woller SC, Kreuziger LB, et al. Antithrombotic therapy for VTE disease: second update of the CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report. Chest. 2021;160:e545-e608. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2021.07.055

14. Konstantinides SV, Meyer G, Becattini C, et al. 2019 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of acute pulmonary embolism developed in collaboration with the European Respiratory Society (ERS). Eur Heart J. 2020;41:543-603. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehz405

15. Coates J, Bitton E, Hendje A, et al. Clinical outcomes of dabigatran use in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation and weight >120 kg. Thromb Res. 2021;208:176-180. doi: 10.1016/j.thromres.2021.11.007

16. Li X, Zuo C, Ji Q, et al. Body mass index influence on the clinical outcomes for nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients admitted to a hospital treated with direct oral anticoagulants: a retrospective cohort study. Drug Des Devel Ther. 2021;15:1931-1943. doi: 10.2147/dddt.S303219

17. Barakat AF, Jain S, Masri A, et al. Outcomes of direct oral anticoagulants in atrial fibrillation patients across different body mass index categories. JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2021;7:649-658. doi: 10.1016/j.jacep.2021.02.002

18. O’Kane CP, Avalon JCO, Lacoste JL, et al. Apixaban and rivaroxaban use for atrial fibrillation in patients with obesity and BMI ≥50 kg/m2. Pharmacotherapy. 2022;42:112-118. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/phar.2651

19. Lip GYH, Banerjee A, Boriani G, et al. Antithrombotic therapy for atrial fibrillation: CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report. Chest. 2018;154:1121-1201. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2018.07.040

20. Sepehri Shamloo A, Dagres N, Hindricks G. [2020 ESC guidelines on atrial fibrillation: summary of the most relevant recommendations and innovations]. Herz. 2021;46:28-37. doi: 10.1007/s00059-020-05005-y

21. Chokesuwattanaskul R, Thongprayoon C, Tanawuttiwat T, et al. Safety and efficacy of apixaban versus warfarin in patients with end-stage renal disease: meta-analysis. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol.­ 2018;41:627-634. doi: 10.1111/pace.13331

22. Wang T-F, Li A, Garcia D. Managing thrombosis in cancer patients. Res Pract Thromb Haemost. 2018;2:429-438. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/rth2.12102

23. Kearon C, Akl EA, Ornelas J, et al. Antithrombotic therapy for VTE disease: CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report. CHEST. 2016;149:315-352. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2015.11.026

24. Lee AY, Levine MN, Baker RI, et al. Low-molecular-weight heparin versus a coumarin for the prevention of recurrent venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer. N Engl J Med. 2003;349:146-153. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa025313

25. Meyer G, Marjanovic Z, Valcke J, et al. Comparison of low-­molecular-weight heparin and warfarin for the secondary prevention of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer: a randomized controlled study. Arch Intern Med. 2002;162:1729-1735. doi: 10.1001/archinte.162.15.1729

26. Hull RD, Pineo GF, Brant RF, et al. Long-term low-molecular-weight heparin versus usual care in proximal-vein thrombosis patients with cancer. Am J Med. 2006;119:1062-1072. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2006.02.022

27. Lee AYY, Kamphuisen PW, Meyer G, et al. Tinzaparin vs warfarin for treatment of acute venous thromboembolism in patients with active cancer: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2015;314:677-686. doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.9243

28. NICE Guideline. Venous thromboembolic diseases: diagnosis, management and thrombophilia testing. Accessed May 9, 2023. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK556698/

29. Key NS, Khorana AA, Kuderer NM, et al. Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis and treatment in patients with cancer: ASCO Clinical Practice Guideline Update. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38:496-520. doi: 10.1200/jco.19.01461

30. Galgani A, Palleria C, Iannone LF, et al. Pharmacokinetic interactions of clinical interest between direct oral anticoagulants and antiepileptic drugs. Front Neurol. 2018;9:1067. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2018.01067

31. Farge D, Frere C, Connors JM, et al. 2019 International clinical practice guidelines for the treatment and prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer. Lancet Oncol. 2019;20:e566-e581. doi: 10.1016/s1470-2045(19)30336-5

32. Di Nisio M, Carrier M, Lyman GH, et al. Prevention of venous thromboembolism in hospitalized medical cancer patients: guidance from the SSC of the ISTH. J Thromb Haemost. 2014;12:1746-1749. doi: 10.1111/jth.12683

33. Khorana AA, Kuderer NM, Culakova E, et al. Development and validation of a predictive model for chemotherapy-associated­ thrombosis. Blood. 2008;111:4902-4907. doi: 10.1182/blood-2007-10-116327

34. Wang TF, Zwicker JI, Ay C, et al. The use of direct oral anticoagulants for primary thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory cancer patients: guidance from the SSC of the ISTH. J Thromb Haemost. 2019;17:1772-1778. doi: 10.1111/jth.14564

35. Schrag D, Uno H, Rosovsky R, et al. Direct oral anticoagulants vs low-molecular-weight heparin and recurrent VTE in patients with cancer: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2023;329:1924-1933. doi: 10.1001/jama.2023.7843

36. Stevens SM, Woller SC, Bauer KA, et al. Guidance for the evaluation and treatment of hereditary and acquired thrombophilia. J Thromb Thrombolysis. 2016;41:154-164. doi: 10.1007/s11239-015-1316-1

37. Campello E, Spiezia L, Simion C, et al. Direct oral anticoagulants in patients with inherited thrombophilia and venous thromboembolism: a prospective cohort study. J Am Heart Assoc. 2020;9:e018917. doi: 10.1161/jaha.120.018917

38. Elsebaie MAT, van Es N, Langston A, et al. Direct oral anticoagulants in patients with venous thromboembolism and thrombophilia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Thromb Haemost. 2019;17:645-656. doi: 10.1111/jth.14398

39. ASH. ASH Clinical Practice Guidelines on Venous Thromboembolism. Accessed May 10, 2023. www.hematology.org/education/­clinicians/guidelines-and-quality-care/clinical-practice-­guidelines/venous-thromboembolism-guidelines

40. Baquero-Salamanca M, Téllez-Arévalo AM, Calderon-Ospina C. Variability in the international normalised ratio (INR) in patients with antiphospholipid syndrome and positive lupus anticoagulant: should the INR targets be higher? BMJ Case Rep. 2015;2015:bcr2014209013. doi: 10.1136/bcr-2014-209013

41. Pengo V, Denas G, Zoppellaro G, et al. Rivaroxaban vs warfarin in high-risk patients with antiphospholipid syndrome. Blood. 2018;132:1365-1371. doi: 10.1182/blood-2018-04-848333

42. Ordi-Ros J, Sáez-Comet L, Pérez-Conesa M, et al. Rivaroxaban versus vitamin K antagonist in antiphospholipid syndrome: a randomized noninferiority trial. Ann Intern Med. 2019;171:685-694. doi: 10.7326/m19-0291

43. Sato T, Nakamura H, Fujieda Y, et al. Factor Xa inhibitors for preventing recurrent thrombosis in patients with antiphospholipid syndrome: a longitudinal cohort study. Lupus. 2019;28:1577-1582. doi: 10.1177/0961203319881200

44. Malec K, Broniatowska E, Undas A. Direct oral anticoagulants in patients with antiphospholipid syndrome: a cohort study. Lupus. 2020;29:37-44. doi: 10.1177/0961203319889156

45. Rivaroxaban versus warfarin to treat patients with thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome. Dr. Hannah Cohen about the results of the RAPS trial (Lancet Haematol 2016; 3: e426-36). Rheumatology (Oxford). 2017;56:e23. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kex290

46. Zuily S, Cohen H, Isenberg D, et al. Use of direct oral anticoagulants in patients with thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome: guidance from the Scientific and Standardization Committee of the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis. J Thromb Haemost. 2020;18:2126-2137. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/jth.14935

47. NIH. ClinicalTrials.gov. Apixaban for the secondary prevention of thromboembolism among patients with antiphospholipid syndrome (ASTRO-APS). Accessed May 10, 2023. https://clinicaltrials.­gov/ct2/show/NCT02295475?term=apixaban&cond=Anti+Phospholipid+Syndrome&draw=2&rank=1

48. Woller SC, Stevens SM, Kaplan D, et al. Apixaban compared with warfarin to prevent thrombosis in thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome: a randomized trial. Blood Adv. 2022;6:1661-1670. doi: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2021005808

49. Khairani CD, Bejjani A, Piazza G, et al. Direct oral anticoagulants vs vitamin K antagonists in patients with antiphospholipid syndromes: meta-analysis of randomized trials. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2023;81:16-30. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2022.10.008

50. Superficial thrombophlebitis, superficial vein thrombosis. 2021. Accessed May 10, 2023. thrombosiscanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/47.-Superficial-Vein-Thrombosis_16July2021.pdf

51. Di Nisio M, Wichers IM, Middeldorp S. Treatment for superficial thrombophlebitis of the leg. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;2:CD004982. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004982.pub6

52. Amsterdam EA, Wenger NK, Brindis RG, et al. 2014 AHA/ACC Guideline for the Management of Patients With Non–ST-Elevation­ Acute Coronary Syndromes: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;64:e139-e228. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2014.09.017

53. Alexander JH, Lopes RD, James S, et al. Apixaban with antiplatelet therapy after acute coronary syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:699-708. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1105819

54. Mega JL, Braunwald E, Mohanavelu S, et al. Rivaroxaban versus placebo in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ATLAS ACS-TIMI 46): a randomised, double-blind, phase II trial. Lancet. 2009;374:29-38. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(09)60738-8

55. Mega JL, Braunwald E, Wiviott SD, et al. Rivaroxaban in patients with a recent acute coronary syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:9-19. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1112277

56. Gibson WJ, Gibson CM, Yee MK, et al. Safety and efficacy of rivaroxaban when added to aspirin monotherapy among stabilized post‐acute coronary syndrome patients: a pooled analysis study of ATLAS ACS‐TIMI 46 and ATLAS ACS 2‐TIMI 51. J Am Heart Assoc. 2019. Accessed May 10, 2023. Doi: 10.1161/JAHA.118.009451

57. European Medicines Agency. Xarelto (rivaroxaban). 2008. Accessed June 23, 2023. www.ema.europa.eu/en/medicines/­human/EPAR/xarelto

58. Collet JP, Thiele H, Barbato E, et al. 2020 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation. Eur Heart J. 2021;42:1289-1367. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehaa575

59. NIH. ClinicalTrials.gov. Accessed May 10, 2023. www.clinicaltrials.­gov/ct2/results?cond=Acute+Coronary+Syndrome&term=rivaroxaban+&cntry=&state=&city=&dist=#

60. Watson H, Davidson S, Keeling D. Guidelines on the diagnosis and management of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia: second edition. Br J Haematol. 2012;159:528-40. doi: 10.1111/bjh.12059

61. Cuker A, Arepally GM, Chong BH, et al. American Society of Hematology 2018 guidelines for management of venous thromboembolism: heparin-induced thrombocytopenia. Blood Adv. 2018;2:3360-3392. doi: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2018024489

62. Momin J, Lee C-S. The role of direct oral anticoagulants in the management of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia US Pharmacist. 2020;45:3-10. Accessed May 10, 2023. www.uspharmacist.­com/article/the-role-of-direct-oral-anticoagulants-in-the-­management-of-heparininduced-thrombocytopenia

63. Warkentin TE, Pai M, Linkins LA. Direct oral anticoagulants for treatment of HIT: update of Hamilton experience and literature review. Blood. 2017;130:1104-1113. doi: 10.1182/blood-2017-04-778993

64. Krauel K, Hackbarth C, Fürll B, et al. Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia: in vitro studies on the interaction of dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and low-sulfated heparin, with platelet factor 4 and anti-PF4/heparin antibodies. Blood. 2012;119:1248-1255. doi: 10.1182/blood-2011-05-353391

Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 72(6)
Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 72(6)
Page Number
244-252
Page Number
244-252
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Prescribing DOACs with specific patient populations in mind
Display Headline
Prescribing DOACs with specific patient populations in mind
Sections
Inside the Article

PRACTICE RECOMMENDATIONS

› Consider a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) when treating venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with advanced chronic kidney disease or obesity. C

› Select apixaban for treatment of VTE or nonvalvular atrial fibrillation in patients with end-stage renal disease, due to its minimal renal clearance compared with other DOACs. B

› Consider DOACs such as dabigatran, rivaroxaban, or apixaban for treatment of VTE in the context of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia. C

Strength of recommendation (SOR)
A Good-quality patient-oriented evidence
B Inconsistent or limited-quality patient-oriented evidence
C Consensus, usual practice, opinion, disease-oriented evidence, case series

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article
Article PDF Media