“Postmenopausal women with low bone mass should obtain adequate calcium and vitamin D and participate in bone-loading exercises,” researchers noted in a recent study published in Osteoporosis International.

sbm Hotting/Fotolia.com

“Additional use of bisphosphonates will increase bone mineral density (BMD), especially at the spine,” wrote Nancy Waltman, PhD, College of Nursing, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, and colleagues.

The findings are partial results from the Heartland Osteoporosis Prevention Study (HOPS), which randomized women who had entered menopause within the previous 6 months and had osteopenia (low bone mass, T score –1.0 to –2.49) to receive one of three treatments for 12 months:

• Bone-loading and resistance exercise plus calcium and vitamin D supplements.
• Risedronate plus calcium and vitamin D supplements.
• Calcium and vitamin D supplements alone (control).

At 1 year, “risedronate significantly increased BMD at the spine, compared to exercise and control, and serum biomarkers of bone turnover also significantly reduced in the risedronate group,” Laura Bilek, PT, PhD, said during an oral presentation of the research at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

However, the results also showed that, importantly, “in postmenopausal women, exercise appears to improve strength at the hip through changes in structure, not BMD,” stressed Dr. Bilek, of the College of Allied Health Professionals, University of Nebraska Medical Center.
 

Bone health is about more than just bone mineral density

“The key takeaway for clinicians is that bone health is about more than just density!” she noted in an email.

Current guidelines don’t recommend prescribing risedronate until a woman has overt osteoporosis, she said.

On the other hand, many studies have shown that, to be most effective, bone-loading exercises should be a lifelong habit and women should begin to do them at least during menopause and should not wait until bone loss occurs.

Other studies have shown that exercise changes bone structure (size or geometry), which improves bone strength. The current study supports both prior observations.

And exercise also improves muscle strength and decreases the risk of falls and fractures, Dr. Bilek noted.

Invited to comment, Pauline M. Camacho, MD, cochair of the task force for the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE) guidelines for osteoporosis, noted that all three measures – pharmacotherapy, exercise, and calcium/vitamin D – are important in the successful management of osteoporosis.

This study showed that risedronate is superior to calcium/vitamin D supplementation as well as exercise for BMD and for bone turnover in these women with osteopenia, said Dr. Camacho, professor of medicine and director of the Osteoporosis and Metabolic Bone Disease Center, Loyola University Medical Center, Chicago.

“Most women with osteopenia do not receive pharmacologic therapy,” she noted, and receive it only “if there is a history of fractures or they have other features that change that diagnosis to osteoporosis.

“There is no downside to exercise, and this needs to be advised to all patients,” she said. “The other aspect of exercise that was not assessed in this study is its effect on balance. Patients who exercise will have improved balance, which should translate into fewer falls, and thus fewer fractures.”
 

How can women with osteopenia maintain bone health?

In their article, Dr. Waltman and colleagues say the Lifting Intervention for Training Muscle and Osteoporosis Rehabilitation (LIFTMOR) clinical trial is one of the first to address clinician concerns about the safety and effectiveness of exercise to improve bone health.

In that trial of 101 postmenopausal women with low bone mass, 8 months of 30-minute, twice-weekly, supervised high-intensity resistance and impact training was safe and BMD increased by 2.9% at the lumbar spine and 0.3% at the femoral neck.

“Our [HOPS] study,” Dr. Waltman and colleagues explained, “builds on the LIFTMOR clinical trial and adds further data to inform whether postmenopausal women with low bone mass can effectively maintain or even improve BMD with bone-loading exercises prior to prescriptions for medication.

“Our long-term goal is to contribute to the development of clinical practice guidelines for the prevention of fractures in postmenopausal women with low bone mass,” they said.

They randomized 276 postmenopausal women who were a mean age of 54 (range, 44-63); most were White (78%) or Hispanic (6%).

Women were excluded from the study if they had a diagnosis of osteoporosis (T-score < −2.5); had an increased risk of a major fracture or hip fracture; had been on bisphosphonates within the last 6 months; were currently on estrogen, tamoxifen, or aromatase inhibitors; had a serum vitamin D level < 10 mg/mL or > 100 mg/mL; had any conditions that prohibited prescriptions for calcium and vitamin D supplements, risedronate, or exercise; or weighed more than 300 pounds.

All women received 1,200 mg/day of calcium (from supplements or diet) and 1,000-3,000 IU/day of vitamin D supplements, based on their serum 25(OH) vitamin D levels.  

The exercise program consisted of visiting a gym three times a week for 45 minutes of bone-loading exercise – jogging with a weighted vest – and resistance exercises, which were supervised by a trainer for the first 2 weeks.

Women in the risedronate group received a 150-mg tablet of risedronate every 4 weeks.  

At baseline, 6 months, and 12 months, the women had DXA scans to determine BMD and hip structure, and had blood tests to determine levels of serum markers for bone formation (bone specific alkaline phosphatase [Alkphase B]) and bone resorption (N-terminal telopeptide [NTx]).

Compared with baseline, at 12 months, the women had the following changes in BMD at the following sites:

• Spine: +1.9%, +0.9%, and –0.4%, in the risedronate, exercise, and control groups.
• Total hip: +0.9%, +0.5%, and +0.5%, in the risedronate, exercise, and control groups.
• Femoral neck: +0.09%, –0.4%, and –0.5%, in the risedronate, exercise, and control groups.

These improvements in BMD were significantly greater in the risedronate group than in the exercise or control groups (P < .01 for both).

The decreases in serum levels of NtX and Alkphase B were also greater with risedronate than in the exercise or control groups (P < .01 for all).

The most frequent adverse effect with the calcium supplement was constipation (n = 4). Some women taking risedronate had gastrointestinal disturbances (n = 4), muscle or joint pain (n = 11), or chest pain and dizziness (n = 2). None of the women had adverse effects from vitamin D. A few women had muscle soreness from exercise that went away after the exercises were adapted. None of the women had a serious injury or fracture from exercise.

More women in the exercise group withdrew from the study (n = 20), with most citing lack of time as the reason; 13 women withdrew from the risedronate group, and 16 withdrew from the control group.

Of the 276 participants who completed the 12-month study, treatment adherence was 92% for calcium, 94% for vitamin D, 75% for risedronate, and 59% for exercise.

Exercise was associated with positive changes in intertrochanter hip structural analysis measures, which will be described in an upcoming study, Dr. Bilek said.

The study was funded by the National Institute of Nursing Research of the National Institutes of Health. The researchers have reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

“Postmenopausal women with low bone mass should obtain adequate calcium and vitamin D and participate in bone-loading exercises,” researchers noted in a recent study published in Osteoporosis International.

sbm Hotting/Fotolia.com

“Additional use of bisphosphonates will increase bone mineral density (BMD), especially at the spine,” wrote Nancy Waltman, PhD, College of Nursing, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, and colleagues.

The findings are partial results from the Heartland Osteoporosis Prevention Study (HOPS), which randomized women who had entered menopause within the previous 6 months and had osteopenia (low bone mass, T score –1.0 to –2.49) to receive one of three treatments for 12 months:

• Bone-loading and resistance exercise plus calcium and vitamin D supplements.
• Risedronate plus calcium and vitamin D supplements.
• Calcium and vitamin D supplements alone (control).

At 1 year, “risedronate significantly increased BMD at the spine, compared to exercise and control, and serum biomarkers of bone turnover also significantly reduced in the risedronate group,” Laura Bilek, PT, PhD, said during an oral presentation of the research at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

However, the results also showed that, importantly, “in postmenopausal women, exercise appears to improve strength at the hip through changes in structure, not BMD,” stressed Dr. Bilek, of the College of Allied Health Professionals, University of Nebraska Medical Center.
 

Bone health is about more than just bone mineral density

“The key takeaway for clinicians is that bone health is about more than just density!” she noted in an email.

Current guidelines don’t recommend prescribing risedronate until a woman has overt osteoporosis, she said.

On the other hand, many studies have shown that, to be most effective, bone-loading exercises should be a lifelong habit and women should begin to do them at least during menopause and should not wait until bone loss occurs.

Other studies have shown that exercise changes bone structure (size or geometry), which improves bone strength. The current study supports both prior observations.

And exercise also improves muscle strength and decreases the risk of falls and fractures, Dr. Bilek noted.

Invited to comment, Pauline M. Camacho, MD, cochair of the task force for the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE) guidelines for osteoporosis, noted that all three measures – pharmacotherapy, exercise, and calcium/vitamin D – are important in the successful management of osteoporosis.

This study showed that risedronate is superior to calcium/vitamin D supplementation as well as exercise for BMD and for bone turnover in these women with osteopenia, said Dr. Camacho, professor of medicine and director of the Osteoporosis and Metabolic Bone Disease Center, Loyola University Medical Center, Chicago.

“Most women with osteopenia do not receive pharmacologic therapy,” she noted, and receive it only “if there is a history of fractures or they have other features that change that diagnosis to osteoporosis.

“There is no downside to exercise, and this needs to be advised to all patients,” she said. “The other aspect of exercise that was not assessed in this study is its effect on balance. Patients who exercise will have improved balance, which should translate into fewer falls, and thus fewer fractures.”
 

How can women with osteopenia maintain bone health?

In their article, Dr. Waltman and colleagues say the Lifting Intervention for Training Muscle and Osteoporosis Rehabilitation (LIFTMOR) clinical trial is one of the first to address clinician concerns about the safety and effectiveness of exercise to improve bone health.

In that trial of 101 postmenopausal women with low bone mass, 8 months of 30-minute, twice-weekly, supervised high-intensity resistance and impact training was safe and BMD increased by 2.9% at the lumbar spine and 0.3% at the femoral neck.

“Our [HOPS] study,” Dr. Waltman and colleagues explained, “builds on the LIFTMOR clinical trial and adds further data to inform whether postmenopausal women with low bone mass can effectively maintain or even improve BMD with bone-loading exercises prior to prescriptions for medication.

“Our long-term goal is to contribute to the development of clinical practice guidelines for the prevention of fractures in postmenopausal women with low bone mass,” they said.

They randomized 276 postmenopausal women who were a mean age of 54 (range, 44-63); most were White (78%) or Hispanic (6%).

Women were excluded from the study if they had a diagnosis of osteoporosis (T-score < −2.5); had an increased risk of a major fracture or hip fracture; had been on bisphosphonates within the last 6 months; were currently on estrogen, tamoxifen, or aromatase inhibitors; had a serum vitamin D level < 10 mg/mL or > 100 mg/mL; had any conditions that prohibited prescriptions for calcium and vitamin D supplements, risedronate, or exercise; or weighed more than 300 pounds.

All women received 1,200 mg/day of calcium (from supplements or diet) and 1,000-3,000 IU/day of vitamin D supplements, based on their serum 25(OH) vitamin D levels.  

The exercise program consisted of visiting a gym three times a week for 45 minutes of bone-loading exercise – jogging with a weighted vest – and resistance exercises, which were supervised by a trainer for the first 2 weeks.

Women in the risedronate group received a 150-mg tablet of risedronate every 4 weeks.  

At baseline, 6 months, and 12 months, the women had DXA scans to determine BMD and hip structure, and had blood tests to determine levels of serum markers for bone formation (bone specific alkaline phosphatase [Alkphase B]) and bone resorption (N-terminal telopeptide [NTx]).

Compared with baseline, at 12 months, the women had the following changes in BMD at the following sites:

• Spine: +1.9%, +0.9%, and –0.4%, in the risedronate, exercise, and control groups.
• Total hip: +0.9%, +0.5%, and +0.5%, in the risedronate, exercise, and control groups.
• Femoral neck: +0.09%, –0.4%, and –0.5%, in the risedronate, exercise, and control groups.

These improvements in BMD were significantly greater in the risedronate group than in the exercise or control groups (P < .01 for both).

The decreases in serum levels of NtX and Alkphase B were also greater with risedronate than in the exercise or control groups (P < .01 for all).

The most frequent adverse effect with the calcium supplement was constipation (n = 4). Some women taking risedronate had gastrointestinal disturbances (n = 4), muscle or joint pain (n = 11), or chest pain and dizziness (n = 2). None of the women had adverse effects from vitamin D. A few women had muscle soreness from exercise that went away after the exercises were adapted. None of the women had a serious injury or fracture from exercise.

More women in the exercise group withdrew from the study (n = 20), with most citing lack of time as the reason; 13 women withdrew from the risedronate group, and 16 withdrew from the control group.

Of the 276 participants who completed the 12-month study, treatment adherence was 92% for calcium, 94% for vitamin D, 75% for risedronate, and 59% for exercise.

Exercise was associated with positive changes in intertrochanter hip structural analysis measures, which will be described in an upcoming study, Dr. Bilek said.

The study was funded by the National Institute of Nursing Research of the National Institutes of Health. The researchers have reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

“Postmenopausal women with low bone mass should obtain adequate calcium and vitamin D and participate in bone-loading exercises,” researchers noted in a recent study published in Osteoporosis International.

sbm Hotting/Fotolia.com

“Additional use of bisphosphonates will increase bone mineral density (BMD), especially at the spine,” wrote Nancy Waltman, PhD, College of Nursing, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, and colleagues.

The findings are partial results from the Heartland Osteoporosis Prevention Study (HOPS), which randomized women who had entered menopause within the previous 6 months and had osteopenia (low bone mass, T score –1.0 to –2.49) to receive one of three treatments for 12 months:

• Bone-loading and resistance exercise plus calcium and vitamin D supplements.
• Risedronate plus calcium and vitamin D supplements.
• Calcium and vitamin D supplements alone (control).

At 1 year, “risedronate significantly increased BMD at the spine, compared to exercise and control, and serum biomarkers of bone turnover also significantly reduced in the risedronate group,” Laura Bilek, PT, PhD, said during an oral presentation of the research at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

However, the results also showed that, importantly, “in postmenopausal women, exercise appears to improve strength at the hip through changes in structure, not BMD,” stressed Dr. Bilek, of the College of Allied Health Professionals, University of Nebraska Medical Center.
 

Bone health is about more than just bone mineral density

“The key takeaway for clinicians is that bone health is about more than just density!” she noted in an email.

Current guidelines don’t recommend prescribing risedronate until a woman has overt osteoporosis, she said.

On the other hand, many studies have shown that, to be most effective, bone-loading exercises should be a lifelong habit and women should begin to do them at least during menopause and should not wait until bone loss occurs.

Other studies have shown that exercise changes bone structure (size or geometry), which improves bone strength. The current study supports both prior observations.

And exercise also improves muscle strength and decreases the risk of falls and fractures, Dr. Bilek noted.

Invited to comment, Pauline M. Camacho, MD, cochair of the task force for the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE) guidelines for osteoporosis, noted that all three measures – pharmacotherapy, exercise, and calcium/vitamin D – are important in the successful management of osteoporosis.

This study showed that risedronate is superior to calcium/vitamin D supplementation as well as exercise for BMD and for bone turnover in these women with osteopenia, said Dr. Camacho, professor of medicine and director of the Osteoporosis and Metabolic Bone Disease Center, Loyola University Medical Center, Chicago.

“Most women with osteopenia do not receive pharmacologic therapy,” she noted, and receive it only “if there is a history of fractures or they have other features that change that diagnosis to osteoporosis.

“There is no downside to exercise, and this needs to be advised to all patients,” she said. “The other aspect of exercise that was not assessed in this study is its effect on balance. Patients who exercise will have improved balance, which should translate into fewer falls, and thus fewer fractures.”
 

How can women with osteopenia maintain bone health?

In their article, Dr. Waltman and colleagues say the Lifting Intervention for Training Muscle and Osteoporosis Rehabilitation (LIFTMOR) clinical trial is one of the first to address clinician concerns about the safety and effectiveness of exercise to improve bone health.

In that trial of 101 postmenopausal women with low bone mass, 8 months of 30-minute, twice-weekly, supervised high-intensity resistance and impact training was safe and BMD increased by 2.9% at the lumbar spine and 0.3% at the femoral neck.

“Our [HOPS] study,” Dr. Waltman and colleagues explained, “builds on the LIFTMOR clinical trial and adds further data to inform whether postmenopausal women with low bone mass can effectively maintain or even improve BMD with bone-loading exercises prior to prescriptions for medication.

“Our long-term goal is to contribute to the development of clinical practice guidelines for the prevention of fractures in postmenopausal women with low bone mass,” they said.

They randomized 276 postmenopausal women who were a mean age of 54 (range, 44-63); most were White (78%) or Hispanic (6%).

Women were excluded from the study if they had a diagnosis of osteoporosis (T-score < −2.5); had an increased risk of a major fracture or hip fracture; had been on bisphosphonates within the last 6 months; were currently on estrogen, tamoxifen, or aromatase inhibitors; had a serum vitamin D level < 10 mg/mL or > 100 mg/mL; had any conditions that prohibited prescriptions for calcium and vitamin D supplements, risedronate, or exercise; or weighed more than 300 pounds.

All women received 1,200 mg/day of calcium (from supplements or diet) and 1,000-3,000 IU/day of vitamin D supplements, based on their serum 25(OH) vitamin D levels.  

The exercise program consisted of visiting a gym three times a week for 45 minutes of bone-loading exercise – jogging with a weighted vest – and resistance exercises, which were supervised by a trainer for the first 2 weeks.

Women in the risedronate group received a 150-mg tablet of risedronate every 4 weeks.  

At baseline, 6 months, and 12 months, the women had DXA scans to determine BMD and hip structure, and had blood tests to determine levels of serum markers for bone formation (bone specific alkaline phosphatase [Alkphase B]) and bone resorption (N-terminal telopeptide [NTx]).

Compared with baseline, at 12 months, the women had the following changes in BMD at the following sites:

• Spine: +1.9%, +0.9%, and –0.4%, in the risedronate, exercise, and control groups.
• Total hip: +0.9%, +0.5%, and +0.5%, in the risedronate, exercise, and control groups.
• Femoral neck: +0.09%, –0.4%, and –0.5%, in the risedronate, exercise, and control groups.

These improvements in BMD were significantly greater in the risedronate group than in the exercise or control groups (P < .01 for both).

The decreases in serum levels of NtX and Alkphase B were also greater with risedronate than in the exercise or control groups (P < .01 for all).

The most frequent adverse effect with the calcium supplement was constipation (n = 4). Some women taking risedronate had gastrointestinal disturbances (n = 4), muscle or joint pain (n = 11), or chest pain and dizziness (n = 2). None of the women had adverse effects from vitamin D. A few women had muscle soreness from exercise that went away after the exercises were adapted. None of the women had a serious injury or fracture from exercise.

More women in the exercise group withdrew from the study (n = 20), with most citing lack of time as the reason; 13 women withdrew from the risedronate group, and 16 withdrew from the control group.

Of the 276 participants who completed the 12-month study, treatment adherence was 92% for calcium, 94% for vitamin D, 75% for risedronate, and 59% for exercise.

Exercise was associated with positive changes in intertrochanter hip structural analysis measures, which will be described in an upcoming study, Dr. Bilek said.

The study was funded by the National Institute of Nursing Research of the National Institutes of Health. The researchers have reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A new contraceptive method should ideally provide improved access or a higher quality and safety option. Although unintended pregnancy rates in the United States are decreasing, significant disparities across race and socioeconomic status remain,¹ and these disparities actually doubled from 1994 to 2011 even though the overall unintended pregnancy rate decreased.^1-3 Specifically, people of color, those with lower income, and people with lower education levels had higher rates of unintended pregnancies than did White people with higher education and income, suggesting disparate access to contraception services.¹ Thus, as new contraceptive methods are introduced, we must assess if they have the potential to address this disparity as well as continue to provide higher quality and safer options.

In this Update, we critically review the phase 3 data on efficacy and safety for 3 new methods that were introduced to the US market over the past year to evaluate their impact on the current contraceptive landscape.

The first method, newly approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), is a combined oral contraceptive (OC) that contains a novel endogenous estrogen, estetrol, or E4 (Nextstellis). E4 is a natural estrogen produced in the fetal liver that has lower potency and a longer half-life than estradiol. Nextstellis is a monophasic 24/4 OC pill that contains E4 14.2 mg and drospirenone 3 mg in each of the 24 hormone-containing pills. Most combined hormonal contraceptives (CHCs) in the United States today contain synthetically made ethinyl estradiol (EE) due to its high potency and oral bioavailability. Outside of the reproductive system, EE upregulates the production of hepatic proteins and alters procoagulant and anticoagulant factors, which results in an overall increase in venous thromboembolic (VTE) risk among CHC users.²

After widespread use of combined oral contraceptives (COCs) started in the 1960s, data emerged regarding increased VTE risk.³ Subsequent research discovered that the type of estrogen used in CHCs directly correlates with the thrombosis risk due to the hepatic upregulation with both first- and second-pass metabolism. Although this risk was reduced as the EE dose decreased below 50 µg and concurrent VTE risk factors were contraindicated, CHC users still faced a 2-fold increase in VTE risk compared with nonusers.^4,5 EE in contraceptive formulations increases VTE risk, likely related to upregulation of procoagulant factors and decreasing anticoagulant proteins.² By contrast, a phase 2 trial of Nextstellis demonstrated more neutral effects of E4/drospirenone on hemostatic parameters compared with EE/levonorgestrel or EE/drospirenone.⁶ Furthermore, E4/drospirenone exhibited lower increases in hepatic proteins, such as angiotensinogen, triglycerides, and sex-hormone binding globulin.⁷ These findings together suggest that this novel CHC pill has a more favorable cardiovascular adverse effect profile compared with currently available CHCs.

The second contraceptive method is a new transdermal patch that contains EE and levonorgestrel (Twirla); this is in contrast to the available EE/norelgestromin contraceptive patch (Xulane). Transdermal contraceptive patches can offer some users easier adherence as compared with a daily OC.⁸ Until this past year, the only transdermal contraceptive available in the United States was Xulane, which contains a daily dose of EE 35 µg and norelgestromin 150 µg. Norelgestromin is eventually metabolized to levonorgestrel derivatives.⁹ Twirla is administered in the same manner as Xulane and contains a daily hormone exposure equivalent to a COC containing EE 30 µg and levonorgestrel 120 µg. Similar to EE/norelgestromin, the EE/levonorgestrel patch also is contraindicated in obese patients (body mass index [BMI] ≥30 kg/m²) due to decreased efficacy and increased risk for VTE. Additionally, phase 3 data demonstrated decreasing efficacy of Twirla in overweight users (BMI ≥25–30 kg/m²), perhaps further limiting the population that may benefit from this contraceptive method.¹⁰ These issues with efficacy and weight likely are related to the fact that levonorgestrel distribution is weight dependent, with evidence of lower plasma levels in obese individuals.^11-13

The third new method is a prescription vaginal contraceptive gel with lactic acid, citric acid, and potassium bitartrate (Phexxi) designed to prevent pregnancy by maintaining an acidic vaginal environment that is inhospitable to sperm. For many decades, vaginal contraceptives, including vaginal spermicidal gels, provided easy access to a nonhormonal and flexible method of moderately effective contraception for many users. Phexxi is a prescription vaginal pH regulator administered as a gel and active for 1 hour after application. All previous vaginal gels sold in the United States are applied similarly, are available over the counter, and include nonoxynol-9, which is a surfactant that damages sperm cell membranes. Recent data from a phase 3 trial demonstrated similar contraceptive effectiveness of Phexxi when compared with available nonoxynol-9 alternatives.¹⁴

Continue to: New OC with the novel estrogen E4 demonstrates good safety profile for VTE...

New OC with the novel estrogen E4 demonstrates good safety profile for VTE

Creinin MD, Westhoff CL, Bouchard C, et al. Estetrol-drospirenone combination oral contraceptive: North American phase 3 efficacy and safety results. Contraception. 2021;104:222-228.

The COC E4/drospirenone was evaluated in 2 parallel multinational studies. Here, we review the North American data that are more relevant for the US population; the European-Russian data also are published.¹⁵

Study examined 1 year’s use of E4/drospirenone

The US–Canadian trial conducted by Creinin and colleagues enrolled 1,864 participants aged 16 to 50 years to evaluate contraceptive efficacy, bleeding patterns, and adverse events with 1-year use (13 cycles) of E4/drospirenone. The primary efficacy group included 1,524 women aged 16 to 35. This study enrolled healthy, heterosexually active participants with a BMI ≤35 kg/m² and regular menses from 70 sites in the United States and 7 sites in Canada. The dropout rate was 45%, comparable to that in other contraceptive studies. Participants used E4/drospirenone cyclically, taking 1 hormone-containing pill daily for 24 days followed by 4 days of placebo pills.

Contraceptive efficacious, no VTE observed

The researchers reported efficacy as a Pearl Index (PI) of 2.65 pregnancies per 100 woman-years in participants aged 16 to 35 and an overall 13-cycle life-table pregnancy rate of 2.06%. The PI did not differ among nonobese and obese participants in multivariable analysis. Most users experienced scheduled withdrawal bleeding; only 13% to 18% reported absence of scheduled bleeding. Unscheduled bleeding was typically spotting (55.2%), and this decreased with treatment duration from 30% in cycle 1 to 15% to 20% in cycle 5 and on.

Overall, 28.9% of participants reported treatment-related adverse events (AEs), which most commonly were headache (5.0%), metrorrhagia (4.6%), and nausea (3.8%). Investigators reported a minimal change in mean (SD) BMI of 0.4 (1.7) kg/m² from baseline after 1 year of E4/drospirenone use, and only 0.5% of participants discontinued use due to weight gain. The most common reasons for AE-related treatment discontinuation included metrorrhagia (0.9%), menorrhagia (0.8%), and vaginal hemorrhage (0.5%). Importantly, no cases of VTE occurred in this study of estetrol despite 23% of participants being obese, a known risk factor for VTE.

Continue to: Efficacy of a new EE/levonorgestrel transdermal patch may be lower in overweight, obese women...

Efficacy of a new EE/levonorgestrel transdermal patch may be lower in overweight, obese women

Nelson AL, Kaunitz AM, Kroll R; SECURE Investigators. Efficacy, safety, and tolerability of a levonorgestrel/ethinyl estradiol transdermal delivery system: phase 3 clinical trial results. Contraception. 2021;103:137-143.

To assess the contraceptive efficacy, tolerability, and safety of the transdermal patch Twirla (EE/levonorgestrel) over 1 year of treatment (13 cycles), Nelson and colleagues conducted an open-label, multicenter, US-based phase 3 trial of participants aged 18 years and older with regular cycles. There were no restrictions based on BMI. On average, the study population was overweight, with a mean BMI of 28.3 kg/m² , and 35% of the population was considered obese (BMI ≥30 kg/m²).

Study design

A total of 2,032 participants enrolled in the study, with separate populations defined for specific analysis on safety, contraceptive efficacy, and cycle control. The primary efficacy group included 1,736 participants. Fifty-one percent discontinued the study, most commonly due to “women’s decision” (15%) and lost to follow-up (11%). Users received bleeding diaries and returned periodically throughout the study for evaluation for efficacy, adherence, and adverse events.

Efficacy associated with BMI

The study results demonstrated an overall PI of 5.8 pregnancies per 100 woman-years for users aged younger than 35. TABLE 2 demonstrates the overall trend of efficacy in relation to BMI.^10,15-19 Participants with a higher BMI were found to have a higher PI, revealing lower contraceptive efficacy in more overweight and obese patients. The overall cumulative pregnancy rate over 13 cycles was 5.3%

Participants reported decreasing frequency of bleeding/spotting days over the treatment duration of 13 cycles, from a mean (SD) of 6.2 (4.5) days in cycle 1 to 4.9 (3.5) days in cycle 13. Unscheduled bleeding episodes remained high throughout the study period. Initially, 60% of users reported 1 or more days of unscheduled bleeding in cycle 1, and 42% still reported unscheduled bleeding in cycle 13. In light of this, only 45 participants (2.2%) discontinued the study due to bleeding issues, suggesting perhaps that the bleeding was light. Overall, users experienced acceptable wearability of the patch, and the rate of detachment decreased over the study period from 9.9% in cycle 1 to 2.4% in cycle 13. There were also low rates (0.5%) of moderate to severe irritation. Itching at the adhesion site decreased slightly from 13.1% in cycle 2 to 9.6% in cycle 13.

In general, 27.2% of patch users experienced a study-related AE, most reported as mild to moderate. Nausea (4.1%) and headaches (3.6%) were the most common hormone-related AE. Importantly, 4 obese users experienced 5 VTEs (deep vein thrombosis, n = 2; pulmonary embolism, n = 3) between cycle 5 and 13. Three of these users had additional VTE risk factors, such as air travel and a family history of clots. No users who were of normal weight or overweight experienced VTE.

Continue to: Novel vaginal pH buffering spermicide is a new Rx-only option...

Novel vaginal pH buffering spermicide is a new Rx-only option

Thomas MA, Chappell BT, Maximos B, et al. A novel vaginal pH regulator: results from the phase 3 AMPOWER contraception clinical trial. Contracept X. 2020;2:100031.

In an open-label phase 3 study, Thomas and colleagues enrolled 1,384 participants aged 18 to 35 with regular cycles at 112 sites in the United States to assess the contraceptive efficacy, safety, and acceptability of Phexxi vaginal gel (lactic acid, citric acid, and potassium bitartrate) over 7 cycles (6 months). Participants were required to have at least 3 episodes of heterosexual vaginal intercourse per cycle and return throughout the treatment duration for study visits. Fifty-three percent of participants did not complete the study, most frequently due to loss to follow-up (18.1%) and participant withdrawal (12.3%). Most participants were White (69%) and had an average (SD) age of 27.7 (4.5) years.

Efficacy and AE rates

The investigators reported a cumulative pregnancy rate of 13.7% over 7 cycles (6 months). In this study, 45.2% of women experienced 1 AE, and most were noted to be mild (23.9%) to moderate (18.7%). The most reported AE was vulvovaginal burning (20.0%), followed by vulvovaginal pruritus (11.2%), urinary tract infection (5.7%), and vulvovaginal pain (3.8%). Less than 2% of participants discontinued the study due to an AE. Burning and itching decreased with time and with decreased frequency of use. When used twice per day compared with once per day, burning rates decreased from 4.6% to 2.1%, and itching rates decreased from 1.0% to 0.7%. Serious AEs were uncommon, occurring in 1.3% of users; only 1, cystitis, was noted to be “probably” related to the treatment. ●

A new contraceptive method should ideally provide improved access or a higher quality and safety option. Although unintended pregnancy rates in the United States are decreasing, significant disparities across race and socioeconomic status remain,¹ and these disparities actually doubled from 1994 to 2011 even though the overall unintended pregnancy rate decreased.^1-3 Specifically, people of color, those with lower income, and people with lower education levels had higher rates of unintended pregnancies than did White people with higher education and income, suggesting disparate access to contraception services.¹ Thus, as new contraceptive methods are introduced, we must assess if they have the potential to address this disparity as well as continue to provide higher quality and safer options.

In this Update, we critically review the phase 3 data on efficacy and safety for 3 new methods that were introduced to the US market over the past year to evaluate their impact on the current contraceptive landscape.

The first method, newly approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), is a combined oral contraceptive (OC) that contains a novel endogenous estrogen, estetrol, or E4 (Nextstellis). E4 is a natural estrogen produced in the fetal liver that has lower potency and a longer half-life than estradiol. Nextstellis is a monophasic 24/4 OC pill that contains E4 14.2 mg and drospirenone 3 mg in each of the 24 hormone-containing pills. Most combined hormonal contraceptives (CHCs) in the United States today contain synthetically made ethinyl estradiol (EE) due to its high potency and oral bioavailability. Outside of the reproductive system, EE upregulates the production of hepatic proteins and alters procoagulant and anticoagulant factors, which results in an overall increase in venous thromboembolic (VTE) risk among CHC users.²

After widespread use of combined oral contraceptives (COCs) started in the 1960s, data emerged regarding increased VTE risk.³ Subsequent research discovered that the type of estrogen used in CHCs directly correlates with the thrombosis risk due to the hepatic upregulation with both first- and second-pass metabolism. Although this risk was reduced as the EE dose decreased below 50 µg and concurrent VTE risk factors were contraindicated, CHC users still faced a 2-fold increase in VTE risk compared with nonusers.^4,5 EE in contraceptive formulations increases VTE risk, likely related to upregulation of procoagulant factors and decreasing anticoagulant proteins.² By contrast, a phase 2 trial of Nextstellis demonstrated more neutral effects of E4/drospirenone on hemostatic parameters compared with EE/levonorgestrel or EE/drospirenone.⁶ Furthermore, E4/drospirenone exhibited lower increases in hepatic proteins, such as angiotensinogen, triglycerides, and sex-hormone binding globulin.⁷ These findings together suggest that this novel CHC pill has a more favorable cardiovascular adverse effect profile compared with currently available CHCs.

The second contraceptive method is a new transdermal patch that contains EE and levonorgestrel (Twirla); this is in contrast to the available EE/norelgestromin contraceptive patch (Xulane). Transdermal contraceptive patches can offer some users easier adherence as compared with a daily OC.⁸ Until this past year, the only transdermal contraceptive available in the United States was Xulane, which contains a daily dose of EE 35 µg and norelgestromin 150 µg. Norelgestromin is eventually metabolized to levonorgestrel derivatives.⁹ Twirla is administered in the same manner as Xulane and contains a daily hormone exposure equivalent to a COC containing EE 30 µg and levonorgestrel 120 µg. Similar to EE/norelgestromin, the EE/levonorgestrel patch also is contraindicated in obese patients (body mass index [BMI] ≥30 kg/m²) due to decreased efficacy and increased risk for VTE. Additionally, phase 3 data demonstrated decreasing efficacy of Twirla in overweight users (BMI ≥25–30 kg/m²), perhaps further limiting the population that may benefit from this contraceptive method.¹⁰ These issues with efficacy and weight likely are related to the fact that levonorgestrel distribution is weight dependent, with evidence of lower plasma levels in obese individuals.^11-13

The third new method is a prescription vaginal contraceptive gel with lactic acid, citric acid, and potassium bitartrate (Phexxi) designed to prevent pregnancy by maintaining an acidic vaginal environment that is inhospitable to sperm. For many decades, vaginal contraceptives, including vaginal spermicidal gels, provided easy access to a nonhormonal and flexible method of moderately effective contraception for many users. Phexxi is a prescription vaginal pH regulator administered as a gel and active for 1 hour after application. All previous vaginal gels sold in the United States are applied similarly, are available over the counter, and include nonoxynol-9, which is a surfactant that damages sperm cell membranes. Recent data from a phase 3 trial demonstrated similar contraceptive effectiveness of Phexxi when compared with available nonoxynol-9 alternatives.¹⁴

Continue to: New OC with the novel estrogen E4 demonstrates good safety profile for VTE...

New OC with the novel estrogen E4 demonstrates good safety profile for VTE

Creinin MD, Westhoff CL, Bouchard C, et al. Estetrol-drospirenone combination oral contraceptive: North American phase 3 efficacy and safety results. Contraception. 2021;104:222-228.

The COC E4/drospirenone was evaluated in 2 parallel multinational studies. Here, we review the North American data that are more relevant for the US population; the European-Russian data also are published.¹⁵

Study examined 1 year’s use of E4/drospirenone

The US–Canadian trial conducted by Creinin and colleagues enrolled 1,864 participants aged 16 to 50 years to evaluate contraceptive efficacy, bleeding patterns, and adverse events with 1-year use (13 cycles) of E4/drospirenone. The primary efficacy group included 1,524 women aged 16 to 35. This study enrolled healthy, heterosexually active participants with a BMI ≤35 kg/m² and regular menses from 70 sites in the United States and 7 sites in Canada. The dropout rate was 45%, comparable to that in other contraceptive studies. Participants used E4/drospirenone cyclically, taking 1 hormone-containing pill daily for 24 days followed by 4 days of placebo pills.

Contraceptive efficacious, no VTE observed

The researchers reported efficacy as a Pearl Index (PI) of 2.65 pregnancies per 100 woman-years in participants aged 16 to 35 and an overall 13-cycle life-table pregnancy rate of 2.06%. The PI did not differ among nonobese and obese participants in multivariable analysis. Most users experienced scheduled withdrawal bleeding; only 13% to 18% reported absence of scheduled bleeding. Unscheduled bleeding was typically spotting (55.2%), and this decreased with treatment duration from 30% in cycle 1 to 15% to 20% in cycle 5 and on.

Overall, 28.9% of participants reported treatment-related adverse events (AEs), which most commonly were headache (5.0%), metrorrhagia (4.6%), and nausea (3.8%). Investigators reported a minimal change in mean (SD) BMI of 0.4 (1.7) kg/m² from baseline after 1 year of E4/drospirenone use, and only 0.5% of participants discontinued use due to weight gain. The most common reasons for AE-related treatment discontinuation included metrorrhagia (0.9%), menorrhagia (0.8%), and vaginal hemorrhage (0.5%). Importantly, no cases of VTE occurred in this study of estetrol despite 23% of participants being obese, a known risk factor for VTE.

Continue to: Efficacy of a new EE/levonorgestrel transdermal patch may be lower in overweight, obese women...

Efficacy of a new EE/levonorgestrel transdermal patch may be lower in overweight, obese women

Nelson AL, Kaunitz AM, Kroll R; SECURE Investigators. Efficacy, safety, and tolerability of a levonorgestrel/ethinyl estradiol transdermal delivery system: phase 3 clinical trial results. Contraception. 2021;103:137-143.

To assess the contraceptive efficacy, tolerability, and safety of the transdermal patch Twirla (EE/levonorgestrel) over 1 year of treatment (13 cycles), Nelson and colleagues conducted an open-label, multicenter, US-based phase 3 trial of participants aged 18 years and older with regular cycles. There were no restrictions based on BMI. On average, the study population was overweight, with a mean BMI of 28.3 kg/m² , and 35% of the population was considered obese (BMI ≥30 kg/m²).

Study design

A total of 2,032 participants enrolled in the study, with separate populations defined for specific analysis on safety, contraceptive efficacy, and cycle control. The primary efficacy group included 1,736 participants. Fifty-one percent discontinued the study, most commonly due to “women’s decision” (15%) and lost to follow-up (11%). Users received bleeding diaries and returned periodically throughout the study for evaluation for efficacy, adherence, and adverse events.

Efficacy associated with BMI

The study results demonstrated an overall PI of 5.8 pregnancies per 100 woman-years for users aged younger than 35. TABLE 2 demonstrates the overall trend of efficacy in relation to BMI.^10,15-19 Participants with a higher BMI were found to have a higher PI, revealing lower contraceptive efficacy in more overweight and obese patients. The overall cumulative pregnancy rate over 13 cycles was 5.3%

Participants reported decreasing frequency of bleeding/spotting days over the treatment duration of 13 cycles, from a mean (SD) of 6.2 (4.5) days in cycle 1 to 4.9 (3.5) days in cycle 13. Unscheduled bleeding episodes remained high throughout the study period. Initially, 60% of users reported 1 or more days of unscheduled bleeding in cycle 1, and 42% still reported unscheduled bleeding in cycle 13. In light of this, only 45 participants (2.2%) discontinued the study due to bleeding issues, suggesting perhaps that the bleeding was light. Overall, users experienced acceptable wearability of the patch, and the rate of detachment decreased over the study period from 9.9% in cycle 1 to 2.4% in cycle 13. There were also low rates (0.5%) of moderate to severe irritation. Itching at the adhesion site decreased slightly from 13.1% in cycle 2 to 9.6% in cycle 13.

In general, 27.2% of patch users experienced a study-related AE, most reported as mild to moderate. Nausea (4.1%) and headaches (3.6%) were the most common hormone-related AE. Importantly, 4 obese users experienced 5 VTEs (deep vein thrombosis, n = 2; pulmonary embolism, n = 3) between cycle 5 and 13. Three of these users had additional VTE risk factors, such as air travel and a family history of clots. No users who were of normal weight or overweight experienced VTE.

Continue to: Novel vaginal pH buffering spermicide is a new Rx-only option...

Novel vaginal pH buffering spermicide is a new Rx-only option

Thomas MA, Chappell BT, Maximos B, et al. A novel vaginal pH regulator: results from the phase 3 AMPOWER contraception clinical trial. Contracept X. 2020;2:100031.

In an open-label phase 3 study, Thomas and colleagues enrolled 1,384 participants aged 18 to 35 with regular cycles at 112 sites in the United States to assess the contraceptive efficacy, safety, and acceptability of Phexxi vaginal gel (lactic acid, citric acid, and potassium bitartrate) over 7 cycles (6 months). Participants were required to have at least 3 episodes of heterosexual vaginal intercourse per cycle and return throughout the treatment duration for study visits. Fifty-three percent of participants did not complete the study, most frequently due to loss to follow-up (18.1%) and participant withdrawal (12.3%). Most participants were White (69%) and had an average (SD) age of 27.7 (4.5) years.

Efficacy and AE rates

The investigators reported a cumulative pregnancy rate of 13.7% over 7 cycles (6 months). In this study, 45.2% of women experienced 1 AE, and most were noted to be mild (23.9%) to moderate (18.7%). The most reported AE was vulvovaginal burning (20.0%), followed by vulvovaginal pruritus (11.2%), urinary tract infection (5.7%), and vulvovaginal pain (3.8%). Less than 2% of participants discontinued the study due to an AE. Burning and itching decreased with time and with decreased frequency of use. When used twice per day compared with once per day, burning rates decreased from 4.6% to 2.1%, and itching rates decreased from 1.0% to 0.7%. Serious AEs were uncommon, occurring in 1.3% of users; only 1, cystitis, was noted to be “probably” related to the treatment. ●

A new contraceptive method should ideally provide improved access or a higher quality and safety option. Although unintended pregnancy rates in the United States are decreasing, significant disparities across race and socioeconomic status remain,¹ and these disparities actually doubled from 1994 to 2011 even though the overall unintended pregnancy rate decreased.^1-3 Specifically, people of color, those with lower income, and people with lower education levels had higher rates of unintended pregnancies than did White people with higher education and income, suggesting disparate access to contraception services.¹ Thus, as new contraceptive methods are introduced, we must assess if they have the potential to address this disparity as well as continue to provide higher quality and safer options.

In this Update, we critically review the phase 3 data on efficacy and safety for 3 new methods that were introduced to the US market over the past year to evaluate their impact on the current contraceptive landscape.

The first method, newly approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), is a combined oral contraceptive (OC) that contains a novel endogenous estrogen, estetrol, or E4 (Nextstellis). E4 is a natural estrogen produced in the fetal liver that has lower potency and a longer half-life than estradiol. Nextstellis is a monophasic 24/4 OC pill that contains E4 14.2 mg and drospirenone 3 mg in each of the 24 hormone-containing pills. Most combined hormonal contraceptives (CHCs) in the United States today contain synthetically made ethinyl estradiol (EE) due to its high potency and oral bioavailability. Outside of the reproductive system, EE upregulates the production of hepatic proteins and alters procoagulant and anticoagulant factors, which results in an overall increase in venous thromboembolic (VTE) risk among CHC users.²

After widespread use of combined oral contraceptives (COCs) started in the 1960s, data emerged regarding increased VTE risk.³ Subsequent research discovered that the type of estrogen used in CHCs directly correlates with the thrombosis risk due to the hepatic upregulation with both first- and second-pass metabolism. Although this risk was reduced as the EE dose decreased below 50 µg and concurrent VTE risk factors were contraindicated, CHC users still faced a 2-fold increase in VTE risk compared with nonusers.^4,5 EE in contraceptive formulations increases VTE risk, likely related to upregulation of procoagulant factors and decreasing anticoagulant proteins.² By contrast, a phase 2 trial of Nextstellis demonstrated more neutral effects of E4/drospirenone on hemostatic parameters compared with EE/levonorgestrel or EE/drospirenone.⁶ Furthermore, E4/drospirenone exhibited lower increases in hepatic proteins, such as angiotensinogen, triglycerides, and sex-hormone binding globulin.⁷ These findings together suggest that this novel CHC pill has a more favorable cardiovascular adverse effect profile compared with currently available CHCs.

The second contraceptive method is a new transdermal patch that contains EE and levonorgestrel (Twirla); this is in contrast to the available EE/norelgestromin contraceptive patch (Xulane). Transdermal contraceptive patches can offer some users easier adherence as compared with a daily OC.⁸ Until this past year, the only transdermal contraceptive available in the United States was Xulane, which contains a daily dose of EE 35 µg and norelgestromin 150 µg. Norelgestromin is eventually metabolized to levonorgestrel derivatives.⁹ Twirla is administered in the same manner as Xulane and contains a daily hormone exposure equivalent to a COC containing EE 30 µg and levonorgestrel 120 µg. Similar to EE/norelgestromin, the EE/levonorgestrel patch also is contraindicated in obese patients (body mass index [BMI] ≥30 kg/m²) due to decreased efficacy and increased risk for VTE. Additionally, phase 3 data demonstrated decreasing efficacy of Twirla in overweight users (BMI ≥25–30 kg/m²), perhaps further limiting the population that may benefit from this contraceptive method.¹⁰ These issues with efficacy and weight likely are related to the fact that levonorgestrel distribution is weight dependent, with evidence of lower plasma levels in obese individuals.^11-13

The third new method is a prescription vaginal contraceptive gel with lactic acid, citric acid, and potassium bitartrate (Phexxi) designed to prevent pregnancy by maintaining an acidic vaginal environment that is inhospitable to sperm. For many decades, vaginal contraceptives, including vaginal spermicidal gels, provided easy access to a nonhormonal and flexible method of moderately effective contraception for many users. Phexxi is a prescription vaginal pH regulator administered as a gel and active for 1 hour after application. All previous vaginal gels sold in the United States are applied similarly, are available over the counter, and include nonoxynol-9, which is a surfactant that damages sperm cell membranes. Recent data from a phase 3 trial demonstrated similar contraceptive effectiveness of Phexxi when compared with available nonoxynol-9 alternatives.¹⁴

Continue to: New OC with the novel estrogen E4 demonstrates good safety profile for VTE...

New OC with the novel estrogen E4 demonstrates good safety profile for VTE

Creinin MD, Westhoff CL, Bouchard C, et al. Estetrol-drospirenone combination oral contraceptive: North American phase 3 efficacy and safety results. Contraception. 2021;104:222-228.

The COC E4/drospirenone was evaluated in 2 parallel multinational studies. Here, we review the North American data that are more relevant for the US population; the European-Russian data also are published.¹⁵

Study examined 1 year’s use of E4/drospirenone

The US–Canadian trial conducted by Creinin and colleagues enrolled 1,864 participants aged 16 to 50 years to evaluate contraceptive efficacy, bleeding patterns, and adverse events with 1-year use (13 cycles) of E4/drospirenone. The primary efficacy group included 1,524 women aged 16 to 35. This study enrolled healthy, heterosexually active participants with a BMI ≤35 kg/m² and regular menses from 70 sites in the United States and 7 sites in Canada. The dropout rate was 45%, comparable to that in other contraceptive studies. Participants used E4/drospirenone cyclically, taking 1 hormone-containing pill daily for 24 days followed by 4 days of placebo pills.

Contraceptive efficacious, no VTE observed

The researchers reported efficacy as a Pearl Index (PI) of 2.65 pregnancies per 100 woman-years in participants aged 16 to 35 and an overall 13-cycle life-table pregnancy rate of 2.06%. The PI did not differ among nonobese and obese participants in multivariable analysis. Most users experienced scheduled withdrawal bleeding; only 13% to 18% reported absence of scheduled bleeding. Unscheduled bleeding was typically spotting (55.2%), and this decreased with treatment duration from 30% in cycle 1 to 15% to 20% in cycle 5 and on.

Overall, 28.9% of participants reported treatment-related adverse events (AEs), which most commonly were headache (5.0%), metrorrhagia (4.6%), and nausea (3.8%). Investigators reported a minimal change in mean (SD) BMI of 0.4 (1.7) kg/m² from baseline after 1 year of E4/drospirenone use, and only 0.5% of participants discontinued use due to weight gain. The most common reasons for AE-related treatment discontinuation included metrorrhagia (0.9%), menorrhagia (0.8%), and vaginal hemorrhage (0.5%). Importantly, no cases of VTE occurred in this study of estetrol despite 23% of participants being obese, a known risk factor for VTE.

Continue to: Efficacy of a new EE/levonorgestrel transdermal patch may be lower in overweight, obese women...

Efficacy of a new EE/levonorgestrel transdermal patch may be lower in overweight, obese women

Nelson AL, Kaunitz AM, Kroll R; SECURE Investigators. Efficacy, safety, and tolerability of a levonorgestrel/ethinyl estradiol transdermal delivery system: phase 3 clinical trial results. Contraception. 2021;103:137-143.

To assess the contraceptive efficacy, tolerability, and safety of the transdermal patch Twirla (EE/levonorgestrel) over 1 year of treatment (13 cycles), Nelson and colleagues conducted an open-label, multicenter, US-based phase 3 trial of participants aged 18 years and older with regular cycles. There were no restrictions based on BMI. On average, the study population was overweight, with a mean BMI of 28.3 kg/m² , and 35% of the population was considered obese (BMI ≥30 kg/m²).

Study design

A total of 2,032 participants enrolled in the study, with separate populations defined for specific analysis on safety, contraceptive efficacy, and cycle control. The primary efficacy group included 1,736 participants. Fifty-one percent discontinued the study, most commonly due to “women’s decision” (15%) and lost to follow-up (11%). Users received bleeding diaries and returned periodically throughout the study for evaluation for efficacy, adherence, and adverse events.

Efficacy associated with BMI

The study results demonstrated an overall PI of 5.8 pregnancies per 100 woman-years for users aged younger than 35. TABLE 2 demonstrates the overall trend of efficacy in relation to BMI.^10,15-19 Participants with a higher BMI were found to have a higher PI, revealing lower contraceptive efficacy in more overweight and obese patients. The overall cumulative pregnancy rate over 13 cycles was 5.3%

Participants reported decreasing frequency of bleeding/spotting days over the treatment duration of 13 cycles, from a mean (SD) of 6.2 (4.5) days in cycle 1 to 4.9 (3.5) days in cycle 13. Unscheduled bleeding episodes remained high throughout the study period. Initially, 60% of users reported 1 or more days of unscheduled bleeding in cycle 1, and 42% still reported unscheduled bleeding in cycle 13. In light of this, only 45 participants (2.2%) discontinued the study due to bleeding issues, suggesting perhaps that the bleeding was light. Overall, users experienced acceptable wearability of the patch, and the rate of detachment decreased over the study period from 9.9% in cycle 1 to 2.4% in cycle 13. There were also low rates (0.5%) of moderate to severe irritation. Itching at the adhesion site decreased slightly from 13.1% in cycle 2 to 9.6% in cycle 13.

In general, 27.2% of patch users experienced a study-related AE, most reported as mild to moderate. Nausea (4.1%) and headaches (3.6%) were the most common hormone-related AE. Importantly, 4 obese users experienced 5 VTEs (deep vein thrombosis, n = 2; pulmonary embolism, n = 3) between cycle 5 and 13. Three of these users had additional VTE risk factors, such as air travel and a family history of clots. No users who were of normal weight or overweight experienced VTE.

Continue to: Novel vaginal pH buffering spermicide is a new Rx-only option...

Novel vaginal pH buffering spermicide is a new Rx-only option

Thomas MA, Chappell BT, Maximos B, et al. A novel vaginal pH regulator: results from the phase 3 AMPOWER contraception clinical trial. Contracept X. 2020;2:100031.

In an open-label phase 3 study, Thomas and colleagues enrolled 1,384 participants aged 18 to 35 with regular cycles at 112 sites in the United States to assess the contraceptive efficacy, safety, and acceptability of Phexxi vaginal gel (lactic acid, citric acid, and potassium bitartrate) over 7 cycles (6 months). Participants were required to have at least 3 episodes of heterosexual vaginal intercourse per cycle and return throughout the treatment duration for study visits. Fifty-three percent of participants did not complete the study, most frequently due to loss to follow-up (18.1%) and participant withdrawal (12.3%). Most participants were White (69%) and had an average (SD) age of 27.7 (4.5) years.

Efficacy and AE rates

The investigators reported a cumulative pregnancy rate of 13.7% over 7 cycles (6 months). In this study, 45.2% of women experienced 1 AE, and most were noted to be mild (23.9%) to moderate (18.7%). The most reported AE was vulvovaginal burning (20.0%), followed by vulvovaginal pruritus (11.2%), urinary tract infection (5.7%), and vulvovaginal pain (3.8%). Less than 2% of participants discontinued the study due to an AE. Burning and itching decreased with time and with decreased frequency of use. When used twice per day compared with once per day, burning rates decreased from 4.6% to 2.1%, and itching rates decreased from 1.0% to 0.7%. Serious AEs were uncommon, occurring in 1.3% of users; only 1, cystitis, was noted to be “probably” related to the treatment. ●

Over the past decade, the use of technology with the focus on optimizing the consumer experience has exploded throughout numerous industries, including education, retail, and entertainment. Within health care, we would be naïve to ignore patient expectations for an optimized consumer experience within our offices. Thus, clinicians across all health care disciplines must remain cognizant of and work to optimize the patient experience in the ever-expanding world of health care.

Reengineering one’s practice will continue to be a work in progress. As medicine and technology continuously advance, clinicians must be able to adapt and implement changes. An excellent example of such adaptation is the use of telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic.¹ We hope that the use of telemedicine remains an integral part of our armamentarium as we move forward.

In this article, we offer perspectives on using telemedicine, improving the patient experience, and implementing the use of social media in your practice. We look for a common denominator when provision of clinical care is the topic of discussion. Knowing the details of your medical practice and addressing its highlights as well as its concerns will benefit patients, staff, and health care providers. We hope that you glean some insights that you can apply in your practice.

Telemedicine: Part of the new normal

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists defines telehealth as a “technology-enhanced health care framework that includes services, such as virtual visits, remote patient monitoring and mobile health care.”² The American Telemedicine Association and the World Health Organization use the terms telemedicine and telehealth interchangeably.³ We live in a relatively new era since the COVID-19 pandemic necessitated that traditional face-to-face meeting(s) with patients be conducted virtually. The good news is that the outcomes with telehealth visits appear to be on par with those of traditional office visits.⁴

Telehealth allows clinicians to deliver medical evaluation and management plans right in a patient’s home and to receive appropriate reimbursement for doing so. This is a result of actions by Congress and the Department of Health and Human Services that removed restrictions related to telemedicine.⁵ The telemedicine approach provides a different perspective on provision of care (FIGURE 1).

While in many circumstances the indications for telemedicine are obvious, some remain less apparent. For example, patients may be more receptive to the use of telemedicine for counseling and education for family planning services and termination of pregnancy.⁶ Psychological counseling lends itself to a telemedicine approach to address levels of anxiety and depression, especially in the postpartum setting.

An initial telemedicine consultation often is complemented by subsequent patient examination when deemed necessary. Pelvic imaging often is ordered to address concerns expressed during the telemedicine visit. Teleradiology is an interesting aspect of telemedicine that is expanding. Telesonography, the use of ultrasonography, is extremely relevant to obstetrics and gynecology. Specifically, the development of self-operated endovaginal telemonitors and 3D as well as 4D imaging incorporates self-operated endovaginal telemonitoring. This technology remains a work in progress.⁷

Another aspect to telemedicine is telesurgery. Although an operative procedure cannot be performed virtually, pre- and postoperative counseling can be provided via telemedicine, offering tremendous convenience to patients.

Understanding the infrastructure of telemedicine and assuring security, adherence with HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act), state licensure, reimbursement, and medical malpractice aspects is well worth the effort.

Continue to: Reengineer your office to enhance the patient experience...

Reengineer your office to enhance the patient experience

Create a hospitable environment. One way to do this is by having your front desk staffer standing up to greet patients. The medical management literature has reported an interesting analogy.⁸ Picture going to a retailer whose job is to sell you the product you are interested in. Where is that person positioned? Standing at the counter, at eye level with you, doing his or her best to convince you to buy a particular product. Having your office front desk personnel standing is analogous to the “atmosphere (when approaching the front desk) that conveys clear energy and a clear tone or readiness,” all of which contribute to a more positive patient experience.⁸

A hospitable environment at the check-in desk sets the stage for the office visit. When a staffer is sitting at the front desk office entrance point, the concept conveyed to the patient is, “You can wait for us because you need us more than we need you.” Changing the staffer’s posture to a standing position conveys, “Welcome, we are glad to see you and address why you are here.”⁸

Conduct a flow analysis of your office procedures. It is clear that the front desk serves as an advertisement of what your practice has to offer. A friendly smile from the receptionist goes a long way. In addition, the total time from patient check-in to checkout should be monitored. Having this type of data aids staff evaluation and patient satisfaction.⁹

Examine your office’s aspects of what the business world calls throughput. In essence, problems related to throughput include that the clinician is chronically late or slow with patients or that inadequate time was allocated per patient visit or per procedure.

It is valuable to allocate staff resources ahead of time, including patient registration and insurance verification details. Staff records review and preparation for the clinician streamlines time with the patient. Having lab tests, other consultations, and so on readily available for the clinician is time well spent by the medical assistants. For procedures, preparation of equipment that is in good working order and having supplies appropriately stocked can help facilitate success and efficiency. Creation of an “electronic on-time board” displays if the clinician is running on time or not.⁹ These practical tips can result in better patient and staff satisfaction. In addition, periodic surveys help engage patients in the process. TABLE 2 provides sample survey questions to ask patients.¹⁰

Taking a careful look at your current office practices and reengineering them as needed is an investment that provides an excellent return.

Continue to: Develop a presence on social media...

Develop a presence on social media

Having a social media presence is becoming one of the most effective strategies for reaching an intended audience. In the United States, more than 70% of the public uses at least one social media platform.¹¹ It can be an effective and efficient tool for clinicians to grow their practice; distribute information about unique areas of the practice; and reach potential patients, referring physicians, and prospective faculty/trainees. Social media also is increasingly being used by clinicians to connect with other health care providers in their own specialty or other specialties. Digital communities have been created where ideas are shared and topics of interest are discussed. Clinicians can listen in on expert opinions, disseminate their research, and discuss practice management challenges or health advocacy. FIGURE 2 provides a snapshot of the social media landscape.

There is a wealth of options when it comes to social media platforms, including but not limited to Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram, YouTube, and blogs (TABLE 3). Facebook has the largest user base of all social media platforms, with approximately 1.7 billion active monthly users; thus, its use creates an opportunity to reach a massive audience.^12,13 People use Facebook for both personal and professional reasons. The platform allows for sharing of photos, live videos, posted text, and comments. It can be used as a helpful resource to engage patients and disseminate accurate medical information. Importantly, remember that content posted should comply with the HIPAA Privacy Rule and that information shared should come from a credible source.

Final thoughts

The practice of medicine has undeniably changed over the years and will continue to evolve. Understanding how to implement change to ensure that high-quality, efficient patient care is being delivered is paramount.

We have highlighted various aspects of practice management that you can use to overcome current obstacles and changing standards. The advent of telemedicine has provided easy access to clinicians. Consultation occurs in the comfort of the patient’s home, and the ability to provide local examination telecast to a clinician allows physicians and advanced practice practitioners to reach a wider range of patients. Social media has established an infrastructure for educating patients and providers while at the same time conveying educational tools to patients. This level of communication will continue to expand as time progresses.

Practitioners have a whole new cadre to add to their toolbox to provide patients with state-of-the-art communication and care. ●

Over the past decade, the use of technology with the focus on optimizing the consumer experience has exploded throughout numerous industries, including education, retail, and entertainment. Within health care, we would be naïve to ignore patient expectations for an optimized consumer experience within our offices. Thus, clinicians across all health care disciplines must remain cognizant of and work to optimize the patient experience in the ever-expanding world of health care.

Reengineering one’s practice will continue to be a work in progress. As medicine and technology continuously advance, clinicians must be able to adapt and implement changes. An excellent example of such adaptation is the use of telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic.¹ We hope that the use of telemedicine remains an integral part of our armamentarium as we move forward.

In this article, we offer perspectives on using telemedicine, improving the patient experience, and implementing the use of social media in your practice. We look for a common denominator when provision of clinical care is the topic of discussion. Knowing the details of your medical practice and addressing its highlights as well as its concerns will benefit patients, staff, and health care providers. We hope that you glean some insights that you can apply in your practice.

Telemedicine: Part of the new normal

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists defines telehealth as a “technology-enhanced health care framework that includes services, such as virtual visits, remote patient monitoring and mobile health care.”² The American Telemedicine Association and the World Health Organization use the terms telemedicine and telehealth interchangeably.³ We live in a relatively new era since the COVID-19 pandemic necessitated that traditional face-to-face meeting(s) with patients be conducted virtually. The good news is that the outcomes with telehealth visits appear to be on par with those of traditional office visits.⁴

Telehealth allows clinicians to deliver medical evaluation and management plans right in a patient’s home and to receive appropriate reimbursement for doing so. This is a result of actions by Congress and the Department of Health and Human Services that removed restrictions related to telemedicine.⁵ The telemedicine approach provides a different perspective on provision of care (FIGURE 1).

While in many circumstances the indications for telemedicine are obvious, some remain less apparent. For example, patients may be more receptive to the use of telemedicine for counseling and education for family planning services and termination of pregnancy.⁶ Psychological counseling lends itself to a telemedicine approach to address levels of anxiety and depression, especially in the postpartum setting.

An initial telemedicine consultation often is complemented by subsequent patient examination when deemed necessary. Pelvic imaging often is ordered to address concerns expressed during the telemedicine visit. Teleradiology is an interesting aspect of telemedicine that is expanding. Telesonography, the use of ultrasonography, is extremely relevant to obstetrics and gynecology. Specifically, the development of self-operated endovaginal telemonitors and 3D as well as 4D imaging incorporates self-operated endovaginal telemonitoring. This technology remains a work in progress.⁷

Another aspect to telemedicine is telesurgery. Although an operative procedure cannot be performed virtually, pre- and postoperative counseling can be provided via telemedicine, offering tremendous convenience to patients.

Understanding the infrastructure of telemedicine and assuring security, adherence with HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act), state licensure, reimbursement, and medical malpractice aspects is well worth the effort.

Continue to: Reengineer your office to enhance the patient experience...

Reengineer your office to enhance the patient experience

Create a hospitable environment. One way to do this is by having your front desk staffer standing up to greet patients. The medical management literature has reported an interesting analogy.⁸ Picture going to a retailer whose job is to sell you the product you are interested in. Where is that person positioned? Standing at the counter, at eye level with you, doing his or her best to convince you to buy a particular product. Having your office front desk personnel standing is analogous to the “atmosphere (when approaching the front desk) that conveys clear energy and a clear tone or readiness,” all of which contribute to a more positive patient experience.⁸

A hospitable environment at the check-in desk sets the stage for the office visit. When a staffer is sitting at the front desk office entrance point, the concept conveyed to the patient is, “You can wait for us because you need us more than we need you.” Changing the staffer’s posture to a standing position conveys, “Welcome, we are glad to see you and address why you are here.”⁸

Conduct a flow analysis of your office procedures. It is clear that the front desk serves as an advertisement of what your practice has to offer. A friendly smile from the receptionist goes a long way. In addition, the total time from patient check-in to checkout should be monitored. Having this type of data aids staff evaluation and patient satisfaction.⁹

Examine your office’s aspects of what the business world calls throughput. In essence, problems related to throughput include that the clinician is chronically late or slow with patients or that inadequate time was allocated per patient visit or per procedure.

It is valuable to allocate staff resources ahead of time, including patient registration and insurance verification details. Staff records review and preparation for the clinician streamlines time with the patient. Having lab tests, other consultations, and so on readily available for the clinician is time well spent by the medical assistants. For procedures, preparation of equipment that is in good working order and having supplies appropriately stocked can help facilitate success and efficiency. Creation of an “electronic on-time board” displays if the clinician is running on time or not.⁹ These practical tips can result in better patient and staff satisfaction. In addition, periodic surveys help engage patients in the process. TABLE 2 provides sample survey questions to ask patients.¹⁰

Taking a careful look at your current office practices and reengineering them as needed is an investment that provides an excellent return.

Continue to: Develop a presence on social media...

Develop a presence on social media

Having a social media presence is becoming one of the most effective strategies for reaching an intended audience. In the United States, more than 70% of the public uses at least one social media platform.¹¹ It can be an effective and efficient tool for clinicians to grow their practice; distribute information about unique areas of the practice; and reach potential patients, referring physicians, and prospective faculty/trainees. Social media also is increasingly being used by clinicians to connect with other health care providers in their own specialty or other specialties. Digital communities have been created where ideas are shared and topics of interest are discussed. Clinicians can listen in on expert opinions, disseminate their research, and discuss practice management challenges or health advocacy. FIGURE 2 provides a snapshot of the social media landscape.

There is a wealth of options when it comes to social media platforms, including but not limited to Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram, YouTube, and blogs (TABLE 3). Facebook has the largest user base of all social media platforms, with approximately 1.7 billion active monthly users; thus, its use creates an opportunity to reach a massive audience.^12,13 People use Facebook for both personal and professional reasons. The platform allows for sharing of photos, live videos, posted text, and comments. It can be used as a helpful resource to engage patients and disseminate accurate medical information. Importantly, remember that content posted should comply with the HIPAA Privacy Rule and that information shared should come from a credible source.

Final thoughts

The practice of medicine has undeniably changed over the years and will continue to evolve. Understanding how to implement change to ensure that high-quality, efficient patient care is being delivered is paramount.

We have highlighted various aspects of practice management that you can use to overcome current obstacles and changing standards. The advent of telemedicine has provided easy access to clinicians. Consultation occurs in the comfort of the patient’s home, and the ability to provide local examination telecast to a clinician allows physicians and advanced practice practitioners to reach a wider range of patients. Social media has established an infrastructure for educating patients and providers while at the same time conveying educational tools to patients. This level of communication will continue to expand as time progresses.

Practitioners have a whole new cadre to add to their toolbox to provide patients with state-of-the-art communication and care. ●

Over the past decade, the use of technology with the focus on optimizing the consumer experience has exploded throughout numerous industries, including education, retail, and entertainment. Within health care, we would be naïve to ignore patient expectations for an optimized consumer experience within our offices. Thus, clinicians across all health care disciplines must remain cognizant of and work to optimize the patient experience in the ever-expanding world of health care.

Reengineering one’s practice will continue to be a work in progress. As medicine and technology continuously advance, clinicians must be able to adapt and implement changes. An excellent example of such adaptation is the use of telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic.¹ We hope that the use of telemedicine remains an integral part of our armamentarium as we move forward.

In this article, we offer perspectives on using telemedicine, improving the patient experience, and implementing the use of social media in your practice. We look for a common denominator when provision of clinical care is the topic of discussion. Knowing the details of your medical practice and addressing its highlights as well as its concerns will benefit patients, staff, and health care providers. We hope that you glean some insights that you can apply in your practice.

Telemedicine: Part of the new normal

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists defines telehealth as a “technology-enhanced health care framework that includes services, such as virtual visits, remote patient monitoring and mobile health care.”² The American Telemedicine Association and the World Health Organization use the terms telemedicine and telehealth interchangeably.³ We live in a relatively new era since the COVID-19 pandemic necessitated that traditional face-to-face meeting(s) with patients be conducted virtually. The good news is that the outcomes with telehealth visits appear to be on par with those of traditional office visits.⁴

Telehealth allows clinicians to deliver medical evaluation and management plans right in a patient’s home and to receive appropriate reimbursement for doing so. This is a result of actions by Congress and the Department of Health and Human Services that removed restrictions related to telemedicine.⁵ The telemedicine approach provides a different perspective on provision of care (FIGURE 1).

While in many circumstances the indications for telemedicine are obvious, some remain less apparent. For example, patients may be more receptive to the use of telemedicine for counseling and education for family planning services and termination of pregnancy.⁶ Psychological counseling lends itself to a telemedicine approach to address levels of anxiety and depression, especially in the postpartum setting.

An initial telemedicine consultation often is complemented by subsequent patient examination when deemed necessary. Pelvic imaging often is ordered to address concerns expressed during the telemedicine visit. Teleradiology is an interesting aspect of telemedicine that is expanding. Telesonography, the use of ultrasonography, is extremely relevant to obstetrics and gynecology. Specifically, the development of self-operated endovaginal telemonitors and 3D as well as 4D imaging incorporates self-operated endovaginal telemonitoring. This technology remains a work in progress.⁷

Another aspect to telemedicine is telesurgery. Although an operative procedure cannot be performed virtually, pre- and postoperative counseling can be provided via telemedicine, offering tremendous convenience to patients.

Understanding the infrastructure of telemedicine and assuring security, adherence with HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act), state licensure, reimbursement, and medical malpractice aspects is well worth the effort.

Continue to: Reengineer your office to enhance the patient experience...

Reengineer your office to enhance the patient experience

Create a hospitable environment. One way to do this is by having your front desk staffer standing up to greet patients. The medical management literature has reported an interesting analogy.⁸ Picture going to a retailer whose job is to sell you the product you are interested in. Where is that person positioned? Standing at the counter, at eye level with you, doing his or her best to convince you to buy a particular product. Having your office front desk personnel standing is analogous to the “atmosphere (when approaching the front desk) that conveys clear energy and a clear tone or readiness,” all of which contribute to a more positive patient experience.⁸

A hospitable environment at the check-in desk sets the stage for the office visit. When a staffer is sitting at the front desk office entrance point, the concept conveyed to the patient is, “You can wait for us because you need us more than we need you.” Changing the staffer’s posture to a standing position conveys, “Welcome, we are glad to see you and address why you are here.”⁸

Conduct a flow analysis of your office procedures. It is clear that the front desk serves as an advertisement of what your practice has to offer. A friendly smile from the receptionist goes a long way. In addition, the total time from patient check-in to checkout should be monitored. Having this type of data aids staff evaluation and patient satisfaction.⁹

Examine your office’s aspects of what the business world calls throughput. In essence, problems related to throughput include that the clinician is chronically late or slow with patients or that inadequate time was allocated per patient visit or per procedure.

It is valuable to allocate staff resources ahead of time, including patient registration and insurance verification details. Staff records review and preparation for the clinician streamlines time with the patient. Having lab tests, other consultations, and so on readily available for the clinician is time well spent by the medical assistants. For procedures, preparation of equipment that is in good working order and having supplies appropriately stocked can help facilitate success and efficiency. Creation of an “electronic on-time board” displays if the clinician is running on time or not.⁹ These practical tips can result in better patient and staff satisfaction. In addition, periodic surveys help engage patients in the process. TABLE 2 provides sample survey questions to ask patients.¹⁰

Taking a careful look at your current office practices and reengineering them as needed is an investment that provides an excellent return.

Continue to: Develop a presence on social media...

Develop a presence on social media

Having a social media presence is becoming one of the most effective strategies for reaching an intended audience. In the United States, more than 70% of the public uses at least one social media platform.¹¹ It can be an effective and efficient tool for clinicians to grow their practice; distribute information about unique areas of the practice; and reach potential patients, referring physicians, and prospective faculty/trainees. Social media also is increasingly being used by clinicians to connect with other health care providers in their own specialty or other specialties. Digital communities have been created where ideas are shared and topics of interest are discussed. Clinicians can listen in on expert opinions, disseminate their research, and discuss practice management challenges or health advocacy. FIGURE 2 provides a snapshot of the social media landscape.

There is a wealth of options when it comes to social media platforms, including but not limited to Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram, YouTube, and blogs (TABLE 3). Facebook has the largest user base of all social media platforms, with approximately 1.7 billion active monthly users; thus, its use creates an opportunity to reach a massive audience.^12,13 People use Facebook for both personal and professional reasons. The platform allows for sharing of photos, live videos, posted text, and comments. It can be used as a helpful resource to engage patients and disseminate accurate medical information. Importantly, remember that content posted should comply with the HIPAA Privacy Rule and that information shared should come from a credible source.

Final thoughts

The practice of medicine has undeniably changed over the years and will continue to evolve. Understanding how to implement change to ensure that high-quality, efficient patient care is being delivered is paramount.

We have highlighted various aspects of practice management that you can use to overcome current obstacles and changing standards. The advent of telemedicine has provided easy access to clinicians. Consultation occurs in the comfort of the patient’s home, and the ability to provide local examination telecast to a clinician allows physicians and advanced practice practitioners to reach a wider range of patients. Social media has established an infrastructure for educating patients and providers while at the same time conveying educational tools to patients. This level of communication will continue to expand as time progresses.

Practitioners have a whole new cadre to add to their toolbox to provide patients with state-of-the-art communication and care. ●

Barnhart K, Hansen KR, Stephenson MD, et al; Reproductive Medicine Network. Effect of an active vs expectant management strategy on successful resolution of pregnancy among patients with a persisting pregnancy of unknown location: the ACT or NOT randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2021;326:390-400.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Among patients with persistent PUL, it can be difficult to distinguish between ectopic pregnancy and an early nonviable intrauterine pregnancy.¹ If untreated, ectopic pregnancy can lead to serious morbidity and mortality.² Management options for persistent PUL include expectant management, empirical methotrexate, or diagnostic uterine evacuation with methotrexate as needed. Data on the potential for these options to achieve pregnancy resolution is valuable for patients and clinicians choosing a treatment plan.

Details of the study

Barnhart and colleagues conducted a multicenter, randomized controlled trial that enrolled 225 women with persistent PUL (defined by transvaginal ultrasound imaging without a definitive intrauterine or extrauterine gestation and at least 2 consecutive human chorionic gonadotropin [hCG] values with less than a 15% rise per day). Participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 treatment groups: expectant management, empirical methotrexate, or uterine evacuation followed by methotrexate if needed.

The primary outcome was pregnancy resolution without a change in management strategy. A secondary outcome was noninferiority of empirical methotrexate compared with uterine evacuation with methotrexate as needed in achieving pregnancy resolution.

Results. The active management groups were significantly more likely to achieve pregnancy resolution without changing strategies than the expectant management group (51.5% vs 36.0%; difference, 15.4%). However, 39% of enrolled participants declined their randomized allocation and crossed over into a different management strategy.

Empirical methotrexate was found to be noninferior to uterine evacuation followed by methotrexate as needed in achieving pregnancy resolution (54.9% vs 48.3%; difference, 6.6%).

Study strengths and limitations

Prior studies of hemodynamically stable patients with persistent PUL or stable tubal ectopic pregnancy and low initial hCG values (<2,000 IU/L) failed to demonstrate that active management with methotrexate or uterine evacuation leads to more successful or faster pregnancy resolution.^3-5 Barnhart and colleagues’ study results, however, found that active management with 2-dose empirical methotrexate or uterine evacuation was more likely to lead to pregnancy resolution without requiring a change in management plan than was expectant management. The authors performed both an intention-to-treat and an as-treated analysis to confirm results.

The 39% crossover rate between the treatment groups likely reflected both patient preference and clinical presentation, potentially biasing the results. The low overall rate of adverse events confirms the safety and acceptability of a patient-centered approach to persistent PUL management. ●

Barnhart K, Hansen KR, Stephenson MD, et al; Reproductive Medicine Network. Effect of an active vs expectant management strategy on successful resolution of pregnancy among patients with a persisting pregnancy of unknown location: the ACT or NOT randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2021;326:390-400.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Among patients with persistent PUL, it can be difficult to distinguish between ectopic pregnancy and an early nonviable intrauterine pregnancy.¹ If untreated, ectopic pregnancy can lead to serious morbidity and mortality.² Management options for persistent PUL include expectant management, empirical methotrexate, or diagnostic uterine evacuation with methotrexate as needed. Data on the potential for these options to achieve pregnancy resolution is valuable for patients and clinicians choosing a treatment plan.

Details of the study

Barnhart and colleagues conducted a multicenter, randomized controlled trial that enrolled 225 women with persistent PUL (defined by transvaginal ultrasound imaging without a definitive intrauterine or extrauterine gestation and at least 2 consecutive human chorionic gonadotropin [hCG] values with less than a 15% rise per day). Participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 treatment groups: expectant management, empirical methotrexate, or uterine evacuation followed by methotrexate if needed.

The primary outcome was pregnancy resolution without a change in management strategy. A secondary outcome was noninferiority of empirical methotrexate compared with uterine evacuation with methotrexate as needed in achieving pregnancy resolution.

Results. The active management groups were significantly more likely to achieve pregnancy resolution without changing strategies than the expectant management group (51.5% vs 36.0%; difference, 15.4%). However, 39% of enrolled participants declined their randomized allocation and crossed over into a different management strategy.

Empirical methotrexate was found to be noninferior to uterine evacuation followed by methotrexate as needed in achieving pregnancy resolution (54.9% vs 48.3%; difference, 6.6%).

Study strengths and limitations

Prior studies of hemodynamically stable patients with persistent PUL or stable tubal ectopic pregnancy and low initial hCG values (<2,000 IU/L) failed to demonstrate that active management with methotrexate or uterine evacuation leads to more successful or faster pregnancy resolution.^3-5 Barnhart and colleagues’ study results, however, found that active management with 2-dose empirical methotrexate or uterine evacuation was more likely to lead to pregnancy resolution without requiring a change in management plan than was expectant management. The authors performed both an intention-to-treat and an as-treated analysis to confirm results.

The 39% crossover rate between the treatment groups likely reflected both patient preference and clinical presentation, potentially biasing the results. The low overall rate of adverse events confirms the safety and acceptability of a patient-centered approach to persistent PUL management. ●

Barnhart K, Hansen KR, Stephenson MD, et al; Reproductive Medicine Network. Effect of an active vs expectant management strategy on successful resolution of pregnancy among patients with a persisting pregnancy of unknown location: the ACT or NOT randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2021;326:390-400.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Among patients with persistent PUL, it can be difficult to distinguish between ectopic pregnancy and an early nonviable intrauterine pregnancy.¹ If untreated, ectopic pregnancy can lead to serious morbidity and mortality.² Management options for persistent PUL include expectant management, empirical methotrexate, or diagnostic uterine evacuation with methotrexate as needed. Data on the potential for these options to achieve pregnancy resolution is valuable for patients and clinicians choosing a treatment plan.

Details of the study

Barnhart and colleagues conducted a multicenter, randomized controlled trial that enrolled 225 women with persistent PUL (defined by transvaginal ultrasound imaging without a definitive intrauterine or extrauterine gestation and at least 2 consecutive human chorionic gonadotropin [hCG] values with less than a 15% rise per day). Participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 treatment groups: expectant management, empirical methotrexate, or uterine evacuation followed by methotrexate if needed.

The primary outcome was pregnancy resolution without a change in management strategy. A secondary outcome was noninferiority of empirical methotrexate compared with uterine evacuation with methotrexate as needed in achieving pregnancy resolution.

Results. The active management groups were significantly more likely to achieve pregnancy resolution without changing strategies than the expectant management group (51.5% vs 36.0%; difference, 15.4%). However, 39% of enrolled participants declined their randomized allocation and crossed over into a different management strategy.

Empirical methotrexate was found to be noninferior to uterine evacuation followed by methotrexate as needed in achieving pregnancy resolution (54.9% vs 48.3%; difference, 6.6%).

Study strengths and limitations

Prior studies of hemodynamically stable patients with persistent PUL or stable tubal ectopic pregnancy and low initial hCG values (<2,000 IU/L) failed to demonstrate that active management with methotrexate or uterine evacuation leads to more successful or faster pregnancy resolution.^3-5 Barnhart and colleagues’ study results, however, found that active management with 2-dose empirical methotrexate or uterine evacuation was more likely to lead to pregnancy resolution without requiring a change in management plan than was expectant management. The authors performed both an intention-to-treat and an as-treated analysis to confirm results.

The 39% crossover rate between the treatment groups likely reflected both patient preference and clinical presentation, potentially biasing the results. The low overall rate of adverse events confirms the safety and acceptability of a patient-centered approach to persistent PUL management. ●

Prior to 1980, medical record notes were generally hand-written, short, and to the point. Senior physicians often wrote their 3-line notes using a fountain pen in an elegant cursive. With the transition to electronic medical records, notes have become bloated with irrelevant information and frequently lack a focus on the critical clinical insights that optimize patient care. The use of smart phrases to pull vast amounts of raw data into the note is a major contributor to note bloat. The unrestrained use of the copy and paste functionality generates a sequence of cloned notes that grow in length as new information is added and little information from prior notes removed. With each subsequent clone the note often becomes less accurate, lengthier, and more difficult for a reader to understand. In one survey of 253 physicians who wrote electronic notes, 90% reported that they used the copy and paste function, with 71% reporting that use of this function caused inconsistencies within and among notes and increased the repetitive presentation of outdated information in the note.¹ Although the surveyed clinicians recognized that the copy and paste function caused problems, 80% reported that they planned to continue to use the copy and paste function.¹

The SOAP note

The problem-oriented SOAP note is written in the classic structure of subjective and objective information, followed by an assessment and plan.² The structure of the SOAP note emphasizes the logical and sequential collection of data followed by data analysis, resulting in a focused assessment and plan. When notes were hand-written and short, the entire SOAP note could be viewed on one page. Like a dashboard, the eye could quickly scan each key component of the note, facilitating the simultaneous integration of all 4 components of the note, facilitating understanding of the patient’s clinical situation. When the SOAP note structure is used to create a multipage electronic note, the result is a note that often confuses rather than enlightens the reader. A 5- to 10-page SOAP note is often useless for patient care but demonstrates the ability of computer-savvy clinicians to quickly generate a note thousands of words in length.

The APSO note, a response to note bloat

When a medical record note becomes a multipage document, clinicians should consider switching from the SOAP note structure to the APSO note, where the assessment and plan are at the top of the note, and the subjective and objective information is below the assessment and plan. The APSO format permits the reader to more quickly grasp the critical thinking of the author and facilitates a focus on key points relevant to the patient’s condition. The note can be written in the SOAP format, but then the assessment and plan are brought to the top of the note. In my clinical experience fewer than 10% of clinicians are using an APSO note structure. I believe that, with a multipage note, the APSO structure improves the experience of the reader and should be more widely utilized, especially by clinicians who are prone to crafting a bloated note. In a survey of more than 3,000 clinicians, approximately two-thirds of the respondents reported that, compared with SOAP notes, APSO notes were easier and faster to read, and APSO notes made it easier to follow the clinical reasoning of the author.³

Continue to: New evaluation and management billing guidelines—An opportunity to reduce note bloat...

New evaluation and management billing guidelines—An opportunity to reduce note bloat

Previous evaluation and management federal billing guidelines emphasized documentation of a myriad of clinically irrelevant details contributing to note bloat. The new federal evaluation and management billing guidelines pivot the focus of the note to the quality and complexity of medical decision making as demonstrated in the assessment and plan.⁴ Prioritizing the assessment and plan as the key feature of the medical record note should help reduce the length of notes. The American College of Physicians recently recommended deleting the complete review of systems and prior histories from most notes unless relevant to medical decision making and the assessment and plan.⁵

The open note

The open note mandate was contained in federal regulations developed to implement the 21st Century Cures Act, which required patients to have access to the information in their medical record. In order to comply with the regulation, health systems are sending most notes and test results to the patient through the health system’s patient gateway. The open note process entered my practice through a stealthy progression, from an initial step of permitting a clinician to easily share their note with a patient to a top-down edict that all notes, except some notes that have a high risk of causing patient harm, must be sent immediately to the patient. Obviously, an open note supports “transparency,” but I am unaware of high quality evidence that open notes improve the health of a population or reduce morbidity or mortality from health problems.

The federal mandate that clinicians share their notes or risk fiscal penalties is coercive and undermines the independence of health professionals. Open notes may have many benefits, including:

• improving a patient’s comprehension and sense of control over their health issues
• increasing patient trust in their health system
• increasing the number of questions patients ask their clinician.⁶

Open notes may also cause unintended adverse emotional trauma to patients, especially when the note communicates “bad news.” In one study of 100 oncology patients, approximately 25% of respondents reported that reading clinical notes was emotionally difficult, and they sometimes regretted having read the note.⁶ One patient reported, “I think MyChart is great but in this whole cancer thing MyChart has not been a good thing.” Another patient reported, “Reading serious stuff like that is just too taxing for me to be honest with you.”⁶ An additional finding of the study was that patients reported their notes were written with too much medical jargon and repetition of information.

Open laboratory, pathology, and imaging data—Helpful or harmful?

A component of the open note mandate is that laboratory, pathology, and imaging data must be shared timely with patients. Some health systems incorporate a 3-day pause prior to sharing such data, in order to provide the clinical team with time to communicate with the patient before the test results are shared. Some health systems, including my health system, have engineered the open note data-sharing system to immediately share the results of most completed laboratory, pathology, and imaging studies with the patient. Immediate sharing of data may result in the patient first learning that they have a serious, life-threatening health problem, such as cancer, from their patient portal rather than from a clinician. As an example, a patient may first learn that they have metastatic cancer from a CT scan that was ordered for a benign indication.

Another example is that a patient may first learn that they have an HIV infection from their patient portal. This can be a shocking and emotionally damaging experience for the patient. For many test results, it would be best if a clinician were able to communicate the result to the patient, providing support and context to the meaning of the result, rather than sending sensitive, life-altering information directly from the laboratory or imaging department to the patient. Leaders in medical education have spent decades teaching clinicians how to communicate “bad news” in a sensitive, supportive, and effective manner. The open sharing of laboratory, pathology, and imaging data short-circuits the superior process of relying on a highly capable clinician to communicate bad news.

Continue to: Crafting the open medical record note...

Building on the advice that “when life gives you lemons, make lemonade,” I have begun to pivot the purpose of my medical notes from a product useful to myself and other clinicians to a product whose primary purpose is to be helpful for the patient. The open note can facilitate building a trusting relationship with the patient. My notes are becoming a series of written conversations with the patient, emphasizing compassion and empathy. I am increasing significantly the amount of educational information in the note to help the patient understand their situation. In addition, I am replacing traditional medical terms with verbiage more appropriate in the context of a conversation with the patient, reducing the use of medical jargon. For example, I have stopped using “chief complaint” and replaced it with “health issues.” I am diligently avoiding the use of medical terms that have negative connotations, including “obese,” “psychosomatic,” “alcoholic,” and “drug addiction.” I include encouragement and positive comments in many of my notes. For example, “Ms. X is successfully managing her health issues and experiencing improved health. It is a pleasure collaborating with her on achieving optimal health.”

Can we bring sanity back to medical note writing?

The primary role of a clinician is to spend as much time as possible listening to patients, understanding their needs, and helping them achieve optimal health. There are many benefits to an electronic medical record, including legibility, accessibility, interoperability, and efficiency. However, in current practice “note bloat” undermines the potential of the electronic medical record and makes many notes ineffective to the process of advancing the patient’s health. We are competent and highly trained clinicians. We can craft notes that are simple, specific, story-driven, compassionate, and empathetic. If we return to the ABCs of note writing, focusing on accuracy, brevity, and clarity, we will make note writing and reading more rewarding and improve patient care. ●

Prior to 1980, medical record notes were generally hand-written, short, and to the point. Senior physicians often wrote their 3-line notes using a fountain pen in an elegant cursive. With the transition to electronic medical records, notes have become bloated with irrelevant information and frequently lack a focus on the critical clinical insights that optimize patient care. The use of smart phrases to pull vast amounts of raw data into the note is a major contributor to note bloat. The unrestrained use of the copy and paste functionality generates a sequence of cloned notes that grow in length as new information is added and little information from prior notes removed. With each subsequent clone the note often becomes less accurate, lengthier, and more difficult for a reader to understand. In one survey of 253 physicians who wrote electronic notes, 90% reported that they used the copy and paste function, with 71% reporting that use of this function caused inconsistencies within and among notes and increased the repetitive presentation of outdated information in the note.¹ Although the surveyed clinicians recognized that the copy and paste function caused problems, 80% reported that they planned to continue to use the copy and paste function.¹

The SOAP note

The problem-oriented SOAP note is written in the classic structure of subjective and objective information, followed by an assessment and plan.² The structure of the SOAP note emphasizes the logical and sequential collection of data followed by data analysis, resulting in a focused assessment and plan. When notes were hand-written and short, the entire SOAP note could be viewed on one page. Like a dashboard, the eye could quickly scan each key component of the note, facilitating the simultaneous integration of all 4 components of the note, facilitating understanding of the patient’s clinical situation. When the SOAP note structure is used to create a multipage electronic note, the result is a note that often confuses rather than enlightens the reader. A 5- to 10-page SOAP note is often useless for patient care but demonstrates the ability of computer-savvy clinicians to quickly generate a note thousands of words in length.

The APSO note, a response to note bloat

When a medical record note becomes a multipage document, clinicians should consider switching from the SOAP note structure to the APSO note, where the assessment and plan are at the top of the note, and the subjective and objective information is below the assessment and plan. The APSO format permits the reader to more quickly grasp the critical thinking of the author and facilitates a focus on key points relevant to the patient’s condition. The note can be written in the SOAP format, but then the assessment and plan are brought to the top of the note. In my clinical experience fewer than 10% of clinicians are using an APSO note structure. I believe that, with a multipage note, the APSO structure improves the experience of the reader and should be more widely utilized, especially by clinicians who are prone to crafting a bloated note. In a survey of more than 3,000 clinicians, approximately two-thirds of the respondents reported that, compared with SOAP notes, APSO notes were easier and faster to read, and APSO notes made it easier to follow the clinical reasoning of the author.³

Continue to: New evaluation and management billing guidelines—An opportunity to reduce note bloat...

New evaluation and management billing guidelines—An opportunity to reduce note bloat

Previous evaluation and management federal billing guidelines emphasized documentation of a myriad of clinically irrelevant details contributing to note bloat. The new federal evaluation and management billing guidelines pivot the focus of the note to the quality and complexity of medical decision making as demonstrated in the assessment and plan.⁴ Prioritizing the assessment and plan as the key feature of the medical record note should help reduce the length of notes. The American College of Physicians recently recommended deleting the complete review of systems and prior histories from most notes unless relevant to medical decision making and the assessment and plan.⁵

The open note

The open note mandate was contained in federal regulations developed to implement the 21st Century Cures Act, which required patients to have access to the information in their medical record. In order to comply with the regulation, health systems are sending most notes and test results to the patient through the health system’s patient gateway. The open note process entered my practice through a stealthy progression, from an initial step of permitting a clinician to easily share their note with a patient to a top-down edict that all notes, except some notes that have a high risk of causing patient harm, must be sent immediately to the patient. Obviously, an open note supports “transparency,” but I am unaware of high quality evidence that open notes improve the health of a population or reduce morbidity or mortality from health problems.

The federal mandate that clinicians share their notes or risk fiscal penalties is coercive and undermines the independence of health professionals. Open notes may have many benefits, including:

• improving a patient’s comprehension and sense of control over their health issues
• increasing patient trust in their health system
• increasing the number of questions patients ask their clinician.⁶

Open notes may also cause unintended adverse emotional trauma to patients, especially when the note communicates “bad news.” In one study of 100 oncology patients, approximately 25% of respondents reported that reading clinical notes was emotionally difficult, and they sometimes regretted having read the note.⁶ One patient reported, “I think MyChart is great but in this whole cancer thing MyChart has not been a good thing.” Another patient reported, “Reading serious stuff like that is just too taxing for me to be honest with you.”⁶ An additional finding of the study was that patients reported their notes were written with too much medical jargon and repetition of information.

Open laboratory, pathology, and imaging data—Helpful or harmful?

A component of the open note mandate is that laboratory, pathology, and imaging data must be shared timely with patients. Some health systems incorporate a 3-day pause prior to sharing such data, in order to provide the clinical team with time to communicate with the patient before the test results are shared. Some health systems, including my health system, have engineered the open note data-sharing system to immediately share the results of most completed laboratory, pathology, and imaging studies with the patient. Immediate sharing of data may result in the patient first learning that they have a serious, life-threatening health problem, such as cancer, from their patient portal rather than from a clinician. As an example, a patient may first learn that they have metastatic cancer from a CT scan that was ordered for a benign indication.

Another example is that a patient may first learn that they have an HIV infection from their patient portal. This can be a shocking and emotionally damaging experience for the patient. For many test results, it would be best if a clinician were able to communicate the result to the patient, providing support and context to the meaning of the result, rather than sending sensitive, life-altering information directly from the laboratory or imaging department to the patient. Leaders in medical education have spent decades teaching clinicians how to communicate “bad news” in a sensitive, supportive, and effective manner. The open sharing of laboratory, pathology, and imaging data short-circuits the superior process of relying on a highly capable clinician to communicate bad news.

Continue to: Crafting the open medical record note...

Building on the advice that “when life gives you lemons, make lemonade,” I have begun to pivot the purpose of my medical notes from a product useful to myself and other clinicians to a product whose primary purpose is to be helpful for the patient. The open note can facilitate building a trusting relationship with the patient. My notes are becoming a series of written conversations with the patient, emphasizing compassion and empathy. I am increasing significantly the amount of educational information in the note to help the patient understand their situation. In addition, I am replacing traditional medical terms with verbiage more appropriate in the context of a conversation with the patient, reducing the use of medical jargon. For example, I have stopped using “chief complaint” and replaced it with “health issues.” I am diligently avoiding the use of medical terms that have negative connotations, including “obese,” “psychosomatic,” “alcoholic,” and “drug addiction.” I include encouragement and positive comments in many of my notes. For example, “Ms. X is successfully managing her health issues and experiencing improved health. It is a pleasure collaborating with her on achieving optimal health.”

Can we bring sanity back to medical note writing?

The primary role of a clinician is to spend as much time as possible listening to patients, understanding their needs, and helping them achieve optimal health. There are many benefits to an electronic medical record, including legibility, accessibility, interoperability, and efficiency. However, in current practice “note bloat” undermines the potential of the electronic medical record and makes many notes ineffective to the process of advancing the patient’s health. We are competent and highly trained clinicians. We can craft notes that are simple, specific, story-driven, compassionate, and empathetic. If we return to the ABCs of note writing, focusing on accuracy, brevity, and clarity, we will make note writing and reading more rewarding and improve patient care. ●

Prior to 1980, medical record notes were generally hand-written, short, and to the point. Senior physicians often wrote their 3-line notes using a fountain pen in an elegant cursive. With the transition to electronic medical records, notes have become bloated with irrelevant information and frequently lack a focus on the critical clinical insights that optimize patient care. The use of smart phrases to pull vast amounts of raw data into the note is a major contributor to note bloat. The unrestrained use of the copy and paste functionality generates a sequence of cloned notes that grow in length as new information is added and little information from prior notes removed. With each subsequent clone the note often becomes less accurate, lengthier, and more difficult for a reader to understand. In one survey of 253 physicians who wrote electronic notes, 90% reported that they used the copy and paste function, with 71% reporting that use of this function caused inconsistencies within and among notes and increased the repetitive presentation of outdated information in the note.¹ Although the surveyed clinicians recognized that the copy and paste function caused problems, 80% reported that they planned to continue to use the copy and paste function.¹

The SOAP note

The problem-oriented SOAP note is written in the classic structure of subjective and objective information, followed by an assessment and plan.² The structure of the SOAP note emphasizes the logical and sequential collection of data followed by data analysis, resulting in a focused assessment and plan. When notes were hand-written and short, the entire SOAP note could be viewed on one page. Like a dashboard, the eye could quickly scan each key component of the note, facilitating the simultaneous integration of all 4 components of the note, facilitating understanding of the patient’s clinical situation. When the SOAP note structure is used to create a multipage electronic note, the result is a note that often confuses rather than enlightens the reader. A 5- to 10-page SOAP note is often useless for patient care but demonstrates the ability of computer-savvy clinicians to quickly generate a note thousands of words in length.

The APSO note, a response to note bloat

When a medical record note becomes a multipage document, clinicians should consider switching from the SOAP note structure to the APSO note, where the assessment and plan are at the top of the note, and the subjective and objective information is below the assessment and plan. The APSO format permits the reader to more quickly grasp the critical thinking of the author and facilitates a focus on key points relevant to the patient’s condition. The note can be written in the SOAP format, but then the assessment and plan are brought to the top of the note. In my clinical experience fewer than 10% of clinicians are using an APSO note structure. I believe that, with a multipage note, the APSO structure improves the experience of the reader and should be more widely utilized, especially by clinicians who are prone to crafting a bloated note. In a survey of more than 3,000 clinicians, approximately two-thirds of the respondents reported that, compared with SOAP notes, APSO notes were easier and faster to read, and APSO notes made it easier to follow the clinical reasoning of the author.³

Continue to: New evaluation and management billing guidelines—An opportunity to reduce note bloat...

New evaluation and management billing guidelines—An opportunity to reduce note bloat

Previous evaluation and management federal billing guidelines emphasized documentation of a myriad of clinically irrelevant details contributing to note bloat. The new federal evaluation and management billing guidelines pivot the focus of the note to the quality and complexity of medical decision making as demonstrated in the assessment and plan.⁴ Prioritizing the assessment and plan as the key feature of the medical record note should help reduce the length of notes. The American College of Physicians recently recommended deleting the complete review of systems and prior histories from most notes unless relevant to medical decision making and the assessment and plan.⁵

The open note

The open note mandate was contained in federal regulations developed to implement the 21st Century Cures Act, which required patients to have access to the information in their medical record. In order to comply with the regulation, health systems are sending most notes and test results to the patient through the health system’s patient gateway. The open note process entered my practice through a stealthy progression, from an initial step of permitting a clinician to easily share their note with a patient to a top-down edict that all notes, except some notes that have a high risk of causing patient harm, must be sent immediately to the patient. Obviously, an open note supports “transparency,” but I am unaware of high quality evidence that open notes improve the health of a population or reduce morbidity or mortality from health problems.

The federal mandate that clinicians share their notes or risk fiscal penalties is coercive and undermines the independence of health professionals. Open notes may have many benefits, including:

• improving a patient’s comprehension and sense of control over their health issues
• increasing patient trust in their health system
• increasing the number of questions patients ask their clinician.⁶

Open notes may also cause unintended adverse emotional trauma to patients, especially when the note communicates “bad news.” In one study of 100 oncology patients, approximately 25% of respondents reported that reading clinical notes was emotionally difficult, and they sometimes regretted having read the note.⁶ One patient reported, “I think MyChart is great but in this whole cancer thing MyChart has not been a good thing.” Another patient reported, “Reading serious stuff like that is just too taxing for me to be honest with you.”⁶ An additional finding of the study was that patients reported their notes were written with too much medical jargon and repetition of information.

Open laboratory, pathology, and imaging data—Helpful or harmful?

A component of the open note mandate is that laboratory, pathology, and imaging data must be shared timely with patients. Some health systems incorporate a 3-day pause prior to sharing such data, in order to provide the clinical team with time to communicate with the patient before the test results are shared. Some health systems, including my health system, have engineered the open note data-sharing system to immediately share the results of most completed laboratory, pathology, and imaging studies with the patient. Immediate sharing of data may result in the patient first learning that they have a serious, life-threatening health problem, such as cancer, from their patient portal rather than from a clinician. As an example, a patient may first learn that they have metastatic cancer from a CT scan that was ordered for a benign indication.

Another example is that a patient may first learn that they have an HIV infection from their patient portal. This can be a shocking and emotionally damaging experience for the patient. For many test results, it would be best if a clinician were able to communicate the result to the patient, providing support and context to the meaning of the result, rather than sending sensitive, life-altering information directly from the laboratory or imaging department to the patient. Leaders in medical education have spent decades teaching clinicians how to communicate “bad news” in a sensitive, supportive, and effective manner. The open sharing of laboratory, pathology, and imaging data short-circuits the superior process of relying on a highly capable clinician to communicate bad news.

Continue to: Crafting the open medical record note...

Building on the advice that “when life gives you lemons, make lemonade,” I have begun to pivot the purpose of my medical notes from a product useful to myself and other clinicians to a product whose primary purpose is to be helpful for the patient. The open note can facilitate building a trusting relationship with the patient. My notes are becoming a series of written conversations with the patient, emphasizing compassion and empathy. I am increasing significantly the amount of educational information in the note to help the patient understand their situation. In addition, I am replacing traditional medical terms with verbiage more appropriate in the context of a conversation with the patient, reducing the use of medical jargon. For example, I have stopped using “chief complaint” and replaced it with “health issues.” I am diligently avoiding the use of medical terms that have negative connotations, including “obese,” “psychosomatic,” “alcoholic,” and “drug addiction.” I include encouragement and positive comments in many of my notes. For example, “Ms. X is successfully managing her health issues and experiencing improved health. It is a pleasure collaborating with her on achieving optimal health.”

Can we bring sanity back to medical note writing?

The primary role of a clinician is to spend as much time as possible listening to patients, understanding their needs, and helping them achieve optimal health. There are many benefits to an electronic medical record, including legibility, accessibility, interoperability, and efficiency. However, in current practice “note bloat” undermines the potential of the electronic medical record and makes many notes ineffective to the process of advancing the patient’s health. We are competent and highly trained clinicians. We can craft notes that are simple, specific, story-driven, compassionate, and empathetic. If we return to the ABCs of note writing, focusing on accuracy, brevity, and clarity, we will make note writing and reading more rewarding and improve patient care. ●

CASE 1st prenatal appointment for young, pregnant migrant

A 21-year-old primigravid woman at 12 weeks’ gestation recently immigrated to the United States from an impoverished rural area of Southeast Asia. On the first prenatal appointment, she is noted to have no evidence of immunity to rubella, measles, or varicella. Her hepatitis B surface antigen and hepatitis C antibody tests are negative. She also has negative test results for gonorrhea, chlamydia, syphilis, and HIV infection. Her pap test is negative.

• What vaccinations should this patient receive during her pregnancy?
• What additional vaccinations are indicated postpartum?

Preventive vaccinations: What to know

As ObGyns, we serve as the primary care physician for many women throughout their early and middle decades of life. Accordingly, we have an obligation to be well informed about preventive health services such as vaccinations. The purpose of this article is to review the principal vaccines with which ObGyns should be familiar. I will discuss the vaccines in alphabetical order and then focus on the indications and timing for each vaccine and the relative cost of each immunization. Key points are summarized in the TABLE.

COVID-19 vaccine

In the latter part of 2020 and early part of 2021, three COVID-19 vaccines received emergency use authorization (EUA) from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for individuals 16 years of age and older (Pfizer-BioNTech) and 18 years of age and older (Moderna and Johnson & Johnson).¹ The cost of their administration is borne by the federal government. Two of the vaccines are mRNA agents—Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech. Both are administered in a 2-dose series, separated by 4 and 3 weeks, respectively. The efficacy of these vaccines in preventing serious or critical illness approaches 95%. The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine has now been fully FDA approved for administration to individuals older than age 16, with EUA for those down to age 12. Full approval of the Moderna vaccine will not be far behind. Because of some evidence suggesting waning immunity over time and because of growing concerns about the increased transmissibility of the delta variant of the virus, the FDA has been strongly considering a recommendation for a third (booster) dose of each of these vaccines, administered 8 months after the second dose for all eligible Americans. On September 17, 2021, the FDA advisory committee recommended a booster for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine for people older than age 65 and for those over the age of 16 at high risk for severe COVID-19. Several days later, full FDA approval was granted for this recommendation. Subsequently, the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) included health care workers and pregnant women in the group for whom the booster is recommended.

The third vaccine formulation is the Johnson & Johnson DNA vaccine, which is prepared with a human adenovirus vector. This vaccine is administered in a single intramuscular dose and has a reported efficacy of 66% to 85%, though it may approach 95% in preventing critical illness. The FDA is expected to announce decisions about booster doses for the Johnson & Johnson and Moderna vaccines in the coming weeks.

Although initial trials of the COVID-19vaccines excluded pregnant and lactating women, the vaccines are safe in pregnancy or postpartum. In fact the vaccines do not contain either a killed or attenuated viral particle that is capable of transmitting infection. Therefore, both the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine now support routine immunization during pregnancy.

A recent report by Shimabukuro and colleagues² demonstrated that the risk of vaccine-related complications in pregnant women receiving the Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna vaccines was no different than in nonpregnant patients and that there was no evidence of teratogenic effects. The trial included more than 35,000 pregnant women; 2.3% were vaccinated in the periconception period, 28.6% in the first trimester, 43.3% in the second trimester, and 25.7% in the third trimester. Given this, and in light of isolated reports of unusual thromboembolic complications associated with the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, I strongly recommend use of either the Moderna or Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine in our prenatal and postpartum patients.

Continue to: Hepatitis A vaccine...

The hepatitis A vaccine is an inactivated vaccine and is safe for use in pregnancy. It is available in two monovalent preparations—Havrix (GlaxoSmithKline) and Vaqta (Merck & Co.) and is administered in a 2-dose intramuscular injection at time zero and 6 to 12 months later.³ The vaccine is also available in a bivalent form with recombinant hepatitis B vaccine—Twinrix (GlaxoSmithKline). When administered in this form, the vaccine should be given at time zero, 1 month, and 6 months. The wholesale cost of the monovalent vaccine is $66 to $119, depending upon whether the provider uses a multi-dose or a single-dose vial. The cost of Twinrix is $149.

The hepatitis A vaccine is indicated for select pregnant and nonpregnant patients:

• international travelers
• intravenous drug users
• those with occupational exposure (eg, individuals who work in a primate laboratory)
• residents and staff in chronic care facilities
• individuals with chronic liver disease
• individuals with clotting factor disorders
• residents in endemic areas.

Hepatitis B vaccine

The hepatitis B vaccine is a recombinant vaccine that contains an inactivated portion of the hepatitis B surface antigen. It was originally produced in two monovalent formulations: Engerix B (GlaxoSmithKline) and Recombivax-HB (Merck & Co.). These original formulations are given in a 3-dose series at time zero, 1 month, and 6 months. Recently, a new and more potent formulation was introduced into clinical practice. Heplisav-B (Dynavax Technologies Co.) is also a recombinant vaccine that contains a boosting adjuvant. It is programed to be administered in a 2-dose series at time zero and 1 month.^4-6

The wholesale cost of the monovalent vaccines varies from $60 to $173, depending upon use of a multi-dose vial versus a single-use vial. The cost of Heplisav-B varies from $146 to $173, depending upon use of a prefilled syringe versus a single-dose vial.

Although the hepatitis B vaccine should be part of the childhood immunization series, it also should be administered to any pregnant woman who has not been vaccinated previously or who does not already have evidence of immunity as a result of natural infection.

Continue to: Herpes zoster vaccine...

Herpes zoster infection (shingles) can be a particularly disabling condition in older patients and results from reactivation of a latent varicella-zoster infection. Shingles can cause extremely painful skin lesions, threaten the patient’s vision, and result in long-lasting postherpetic neuralgia. Both cellular and hormonal immunity are essential to protect against recurrent infection.

The original herpes zoster vaccine (Zoster Vaccine Live; ZVL, Zostavax) is no longer produced in the United States because it is not as effective as the newer vaccine—Recombinant Zoster Vaccine (Shingrix, GlaxoSmithKline).^7,8 The antigen in the new vaccine is a component of the surface glycoprotein E, and it is combined with an adjuvant to enhance immunoreactivity. The vaccine is given intramuscularly in two doses at time zero and again at 2 to 6 months and is indicated for all individuals >50 years, including those who may have had an episode of shingles. This newer vaccine is 97% effective in patients >50 years and 90% effective in patients >70. The wholesale cost of each injection is about $160.

Human papillomavirus vaccine

The HPV vaccine (Gardasil-9, Merck & Co.) is a recombinant 9-valent vaccine directed against the human papillomavirus. It induces immunity to serotypes 6 and 11 (which cause 90% of genital warts), 16 and 18 (which cause 80% of genital cancers), and 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58 (viral strains that are responsible for both genital and oropharyngeal cancers). The vaccine is administered intramuscularly in a 3-dose series at time zero, 1-2 months, and 6 months. The principal target groups for the vaccine are males and females, ages 9 to 45 years. Ideally, children of both sexes should receive this vaccine prior to the onset of sexual activity. The wholesale cost of each vaccine injection is approximately $222.⁹

Influenza vaccine

The inactivated, intramuscular flu vaccine is recommended for anyone over age 2, including pregnant women. Although pregnant women are not more likely to acquire flu compared with those who are not pregnant, if they do become infected, they are likely to become more seriously ill, with higher mortality. Accordingly, all pregnant women should receive, in any trimester, the inactivated flu vaccine beginning in the late summer and early fall of each year and extending through March of the next year.^10,11

Multiple formulations of the inactivated vaccine are marketed, all targeting two strains of influenza A and two strains of influenza B. The components of the vaccine vary each year as scientists try to match the new vaccine with the most highly prevalent strains in the previous flu season. The vaccine should be administered in a single intramuscular dose. The cost varies from approximately $20 to $70.

The intranasal influenza vaccine is a live virus vaccine that is intended primarily for children and should not be administered in pregnancy. In addition, there is a higher dose of the inactivated quadrivalent vaccine that is available for administration to patients over age 65. This higher dose is more likely to cause adverse effects and is not indicated in pregnancy.

Continue to: Measles, mumps, rubella vaccine (MMR)...

Measles, mumps, rubella vaccine (MMR)

The MMR is a standard component of the childhood vaccination series. The trivalent preparation is a live, attenuated vaccine that is typically given subcutaneously in a 2-dose series. The first dose is administered at age 12-15 months, and the second dose at age 4-6 years. The vaccine is highly immunogenic, with vaccine-induced immunity usually life-long. In some patients, however, immunity wanes over time. Accordingly, all pregnant women should be screened for immunity to rubella since, of the 3, this infection poses the greatest risk to the fetus. Women who do not have evidence of immunity should be advised to avoid contact with children who may have a viral exanthem. They should then receive a booster dose of the vaccine immediately postpartum and should practice secure contraception for 1 month. The vaccine cost is approximately $60.

Pneumococcal vaccine

The inactivated pneumococcal vaccine is produced in two forms, both of which are safe for administration in pregnancy.¹² The original vaccine, introduced in 1983, was PPSV23 (Pneumovax 23, Merck & Co), a 23-serovalent vaccine that was intended primarily for adults. This vaccine is administered in a single subcutaneous or intramuscular dose. The newest vaccine, introduced in 2010, is PCV13 (Prevnar 13, Pfizer Inc), a 13-serovalent vaccine. It was intended primarily for children, in whom it is administered in a 4-dose series beginning at 6 to 8 weeks of age. The cost of the former is approximately $98 to $120; the cost of the latter is $228.

Vaccination against pneumococcal infection is routinely indicated for those older than the age of 65 and for the following at-risk patients, including those who are pregnant¹¹:

• individuals who have had a splenectomy or who have a medical illness that produces functional asplenia (eg, sickle cell anemia)
• individuals with chronic cardiac, pulmonic, hepatic, or renal disease
• individuals with immunosuppressive conditions such as HIV infection or a disseminated malignancy
• individuals who have a cochlear implant
• individuals who have a chronic leak of cerebrospinal fluid.

The recommendations for timing of these 2 vaccines in adults can initially appear confusing. Put most simply, if a high-risk patient first receives the PCV13 vaccine, she should receive the PPSV23 vaccine in about 8 weeks. The PPSV23 vaccine should be repeated in 5 years. If an at-risk patient initially receives the PPSV23 vaccine, the PCV13 vaccine should be given 1 year later.¹²

Tdap vaccine

The Tdap vaccine contains tetanus toxoid, reduced diptheria toxoid, and an acellular component of the pertussis bacterium. Although it has long been part of the childhood vaccinations series, immunity to each component, particularly pertussis, tends to wane over time.

Pertussis poses a serious risk to the health of the pregnant woman and the newborn infant. Accordingly, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), CDC, and the ACOG now advise administration of a booster dose of this vaccine in the early third trimester of each pregnancy.^13-15 The vaccine should be administered as a single intramuscular injection. The approximate cost of the vaccine is $64 to $71, depending upon whether the provider uses a single-dose vial or a single-dose prefilled syringe. In nonpregnant patients, the ACIP currently recommends administration of a booster dose of the vaccine every 10 years, primarily to provide durable protection against tetanus.

Continue to: Varicella vaccine...

Varicella vaccine

The varicella vaccine is also one of the main components of the childhood immunization series. This live virus vaccine can be administered subcutaneously as a monovalent agent or as a quadrivalent agent in association with the MMR vaccine.

Pregnant women who do not have a well-documented history of natural infection should be tested for IgG antibody to the varicella-zoster virus at the time of their first prenatal appointment. Interestingly, approximately 70% of patients with an uncertain history actually have immunity when tested. If the patient lacks immunity, she should be vaccinated immediately postpartum.^16,17 The vaccine should be administered in a 2-dose series at time zero and then 4 to 8 weeks later. Patients should adhere to secure contraception from the time of the first dose until 1 month after the second dose. The cost of each dose of the vaccine is approximately $145.

Adverse effects of vaccination

All vaccines have many of the same side effects. The most common is simply a reaction at the site of injection, characterized by pain, increased warmth, erythema, swelling, and tenderness. Other common side effects include systemic manifestations, such as low-grade fever, nausea and vomiting, malaise, fatigue, headache, lymphadenopathy, myalgias, and arthralgias. Some vaccines, notably varicella, herpes zoster, measles, and rubella may cause a disseminated rash. Most of these minor side effects are easily managed by rest, hydration, and administration of an analgesic such as acetaminophen or ibuprofen. More serious side effects include rare complications such as anaphylaxis, Bell palsy, Guillain-Barre syndrome, and venous thromboembolism (Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine). Any of the vaccines discussed above should not be given, or given only with extreme caution, to an individual who has experienced any of these reactions with a previous vaccine.

Barriers to vaccination

Although the vaccines reviewed above are highly effective in preventing serious illness in recipients, the medical profession’s “report card” in ensuring adherence with vaccine protocols is not optimal. In fact, it probably merits a grade no higher than C+, with vaccination rates in the range of 50% to 70%.

One of the major barriers to vaccination is lack of detailed information about vaccine efficacy and safety on the part of both provider and patient. Another is the problem of misinformation (eg, the persistent belief on the part of some individuals that vaccines may cause a serious problem, such as autism).^18,19 Another important barrier to widespread vaccination is the logistical problem associated with proper scheduling of multidose regimens (such as those for hepatitis A and B, varicella, and COVID-19). A final barrier, and in my own university-based practice, the most important obstacle is the expense of vaccination. Most, but not all, private insurance companies provide coverage for vaccines approved by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the US Preventive Services Task Force. However, public insurance agencies often provide disappointingly inconsistent coverage for essential vaccines.

By keeping well informed about the most recent public health recommendations for vaccinations for adults and by leading important initiatives within our own practices, we should be able to overcome the first 3 barriers listed above. For example, Morgan and colleagues²⁰ recently achieved a 97% success rate with Tdap administration in pregnancy by placing a best-practice alert in the patients’ electronic medical records. Surmounting the final barrier will require intense effort on the part of individual practitioners and professional organizations to advocate for coverage for essential vaccinations for our patients.

CASE Resolved

This patient was raised in an area of the world where her family did not have easy access to medical care. Accordingly, she did not receive the usual childhood vaccines, such as measles, mumps, rubella, varicella, hepatitis B, and almost certainly, tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis (Tdap), and the HPV vaccine. The MMR vaccine and the varicella vaccine are live virus vaccines and should not be given during pregnancy. However, these vaccines should be administered postpartum, and the patient should be instructed to practice secure contraception for a minimum of 1 month following vaccination. She also should be offered the HPV vaccine postpartum. During pregnancy, she definitely should receive the COVID-19 vaccine, the 3-dose hepatitis B vaccine series, the influenza vaccine, and Tdap. If her present living conditions place her at risk for hepatitis A, she also should be vaccinated against this illness. ●

CASE 1st prenatal appointment for young, pregnant migrant

A 21-year-old primigravid woman at 12 weeks’ gestation recently immigrated to the United States from an impoverished rural area of Southeast Asia. On the first prenatal appointment, she is noted to have no evidence of immunity to rubella, measles, or varicella. Her hepatitis B surface antigen and hepatitis C antibody tests are negative. She also has negative test results for gonorrhea, chlamydia, syphilis, and HIV infection. Her pap test is negative.

• What vaccinations should this patient receive during her pregnancy?
• What additional vaccinations are indicated postpartum?

Preventive vaccinations: What to know

As ObGyns, we serve as the primary care physician for many women throughout their early and middle decades of life. Accordingly, we have an obligation to be well informed about preventive health services such as vaccinations. The purpose of this article is to review the principal vaccines with which ObGyns should be familiar. I will discuss the vaccines in alphabetical order and then focus on the indications and timing for each vaccine and the relative cost of each immunization. Key points are summarized in the TABLE.

COVID-19 vaccine

In the latter part of 2020 and early part of 2021, three COVID-19 vaccines received emergency use authorization (EUA) from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for individuals 16 years of age and older (Pfizer-BioNTech) and 18 years of age and older (Moderna and Johnson & Johnson).¹ The cost of their administration is borne by the federal government. Two of the vaccines are mRNA agents—Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech. Both are administered in a 2-dose series, separated by 4 and 3 weeks, respectively. The efficacy of these vaccines in preventing serious or critical illness approaches 95%. The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine has now been fully FDA approved for administration to individuals older than age 16, with EUA for those down to age 12. Full approval of the Moderna vaccine will not be far behind. Because of some evidence suggesting waning immunity over time and because of growing concerns about the increased transmissibility of the delta variant of the virus, the FDA has been strongly considering a recommendation for a third (booster) dose of each of these vaccines, administered 8 months after the second dose for all eligible Americans. On September 17, 2021, the FDA advisory committee recommended a booster for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine for people older than age 65 and for those over the age of 16 at high risk for severe COVID-19. Several days later, full FDA approval was granted for this recommendation. Subsequently, the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) included health care workers and pregnant women in the group for whom the booster is recommended.

The third vaccine formulation is the Johnson & Johnson DNA vaccine, which is prepared with a human adenovirus vector. This vaccine is administered in a single intramuscular dose and has a reported efficacy of 66% to 85%, though it may approach 95% in preventing critical illness. The FDA is expected to announce decisions about booster doses for the Johnson & Johnson and Moderna vaccines in the coming weeks.

Although initial trials of the COVID-19vaccines excluded pregnant and lactating women, the vaccines are safe in pregnancy or postpartum. In fact the vaccines do not contain either a killed or attenuated viral particle that is capable of transmitting infection. Therefore, both the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine now support routine immunization during pregnancy.

A recent report by Shimabukuro and colleagues² demonstrated that the risk of vaccine-related complications in pregnant women receiving the Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna vaccines was no different than in nonpregnant patients and that there was no evidence of teratogenic effects. The trial included more than 35,000 pregnant women; 2.3% were vaccinated in the periconception period, 28.6% in the first trimester, 43.3% in the second trimester, and 25.7% in the third trimester. Given this, and in light of isolated reports of unusual thromboembolic complications associated with the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, I strongly recommend use of either the Moderna or Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine in our prenatal and postpartum patients.

Continue to: Hepatitis A vaccine...

The hepatitis A vaccine is an inactivated vaccine and is safe for use in pregnancy. It is available in two monovalent preparations—Havrix (GlaxoSmithKline) and Vaqta (Merck & Co.) and is administered in a 2-dose intramuscular injection at time zero and 6 to 12 months later.³ The vaccine is also available in a bivalent form with recombinant hepatitis B vaccine—Twinrix (GlaxoSmithKline). When administered in this form, the vaccine should be given at time zero, 1 month, and 6 months. The wholesale cost of the monovalent vaccine is $66 to $119, depending upon whether the provider uses a multi-dose or a single-dose vial. The cost of Twinrix is $149.

The hepatitis A vaccine is indicated for select pregnant and nonpregnant patients:

• international travelers
• intravenous drug users
• those with occupational exposure (eg, individuals who work in a primate laboratory)
• residents and staff in chronic care facilities
• individuals with chronic liver disease
• individuals with clotting factor disorders
• residents in endemic areas.

Hepatitis B vaccine

The hepatitis B vaccine is a recombinant vaccine that contains an inactivated portion of the hepatitis B surface antigen. It was originally produced in two monovalent formulations: Engerix B (GlaxoSmithKline) and Recombivax-HB (Merck & Co.). These original formulations are given in a 3-dose series at time zero, 1 month, and 6 months. Recently, a new and more potent formulation was introduced into clinical practice. Heplisav-B (Dynavax Technologies Co.) is also a recombinant vaccine that contains a boosting adjuvant. It is programed to be administered in a 2-dose series at time zero and 1 month.^4-6

The wholesale cost of the monovalent vaccines varies from $60 to $173, depending upon use of a multi-dose vial versus a single-use vial. The cost of Heplisav-B varies from $146 to $173, depending upon use of a prefilled syringe versus a single-dose vial.

Although the hepatitis B vaccine should be part of the childhood immunization series, it also should be administered to any pregnant woman who has not been vaccinated previously or who does not already have evidence of immunity as a result of natural infection.

Continue to: Herpes zoster vaccine...

Herpes zoster infection (shingles) can be a particularly disabling condition in older patients and results from reactivation of a latent varicella-zoster infection. Shingles can cause extremely painful skin lesions, threaten the patient’s vision, and result in long-lasting postherpetic neuralgia. Both cellular and hormonal immunity are essential to protect against recurrent infection.

The original herpes zoster vaccine (Zoster Vaccine Live; ZVL, Zostavax) is no longer produced in the United States because it is not as effective as the newer vaccine—Recombinant Zoster Vaccine (Shingrix, GlaxoSmithKline).^7,8 The antigen in the new vaccine is a component of the surface glycoprotein E, and it is combined with an adjuvant to enhance immunoreactivity. The vaccine is given intramuscularly in two doses at time zero and again at 2 to 6 months and is indicated for all individuals >50 years, including those who may have had an episode of shingles. This newer vaccine is 97% effective in patients >50 years and 90% effective in patients >70. The wholesale cost of each injection is about $160.

Human papillomavirus vaccine

The HPV vaccine (Gardasil-9, Merck & Co.) is a recombinant 9-valent vaccine directed against the human papillomavirus. It induces immunity to serotypes 6 and 11 (which cause 90% of genital warts), 16 and 18 (which cause 80% of genital cancers), and 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58 (viral strains that are responsible for both genital and oropharyngeal cancers). The vaccine is administered intramuscularly in a 3-dose series at time zero, 1-2 months, and 6 months. The principal target groups for the vaccine are males and females, ages 9 to 45 years. Ideally, children of both sexes should receive this vaccine prior to the onset of sexual activity. The wholesale cost of each vaccine injection is approximately $222.⁹

Influenza vaccine

The inactivated, intramuscular flu vaccine is recommended for anyone over age 2, including pregnant women. Although pregnant women are not more likely to acquire flu compared with those who are not pregnant, if they do become infected, they are likely to become more seriously ill, with higher mortality. Accordingly, all pregnant women should receive, in any trimester, the inactivated flu vaccine beginning in the late summer and early fall of each year and extending through March of the next year.^10,11

Multiple formulations of the inactivated vaccine are marketed, all targeting two strains of influenza A and two strains of influenza B. The components of the vaccine vary each year as scientists try to match the new vaccine with the most highly prevalent strains in the previous flu season. The vaccine should be administered in a single intramuscular dose. The cost varies from approximately $20 to $70.

The intranasal influenza vaccine is a live virus vaccine that is intended primarily for children and should not be administered in pregnancy. In addition, there is a higher dose of the inactivated quadrivalent vaccine that is available for administration to patients over age 65. This higher dose is more likely to cause adverse effects and is not indicated in pregnancy.

Continue to: Measles, mumps, rubella vaccine (MMR)...

Measles, mumps, rubella vaccine (MMR)

The MMR is a standard component of the childhood vaccination series. The trivalent preparation is a live, attenuated vaccine that is typically given subcutaneously in a 2-dose series. The first dose is administered at age 12-15 months, and the second dose at age 4-6 years. The vaccine is highly immunogenic, with vaccine-induced immunity usually life-long. In some patients, however, immunity wanes over time. Accordingly, all pregnant women should be screened for immunity to rubella since, of the 3, this infection poses the greatest risk to the fetus. Women who do not have evidence of immunity should be advised to avoid contact with children who may have a viral exanthem. They should then receive a booster dose of the vaccine immediately postpartum and should practice secure contraception for 1 month. The vaccine cost is approximately $60.

Pneumococcal vaccine

The inactivated pneumococcal vaccine is produced in two forms, both of which are safe for administration in pregnancy.¹² The original vaccine, introduced in 1983, was PPSV23 (Pneumovax 23, Merck & Co), a 23-serovalent vaccine that was intended primarily for adults. This vaccine is administered in a single subcutaneous or intramuscular dose. The newest vaccine, introduced in 2010, is PCV13 (Prevnar 13, Pfizer Inc), a 13-serovalent vaccine. It was intended primarily for children, in whom it is administered in a 4-dose series beginning at 6 to 8 weeks of age. The cost of the former is approximately $98 to $120; the cost of the latter is $228.

Vaccination against pneumococcal infection is routinely indicated for those older than the age of 65 and for the following at-risk patients, including those who are pregnant¹¹:

• individuals who have had a splenectomy or who have a medical illness that produces functional asplenia (eg, sickle cell anemia)
• individuals with chronic cardiac, pulmonic, hepatic, or renal disease
• individuals with immunosuppressive conditions such as HIV infection or a disseminated malignancy
• individuals who have a cochlear implant
• individuals who have a chronic leak of cerebrospinal fluid.

The recommendations for timing of these 2 vaccines in adults can initially appear confusing. Put most simply, if a high-risk patient first receives the PCV13 vaccine, she should receive the PPSV23 vaccine in about 8 weeks. The PPSV23 vaccine should be repeated in 5 years. If an at-risk patient initially receives the PPSV23 vaccine, the PCV13 vaccine should be given 1 year later.¹²

Tdap vaccine

The Tdap vaccine contains tetanus toxoid, reduced diptheria toxoid, and an acellular component of the pertussis bacterium. Although it has long been part of the childhood vaccinations series, immunity to each component, particularly pertussis, tends to wane over time.

Pertussis poses a serious risk to the health of the pregnant woman and the newborn infant. Accordingly, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), CDC, and the ACOG now advise administration of a booster dose of this vaccine in the early third trimester of each pregnancy.^13-15 The vaccine should be administered as a single intramuscular injection. The approximate cost of the vaccine is $64 to $71, depending upon whether the provider uses a single-dose vial or a single-dose prefilled syringe. In nonpregnant patients, the ACIP currently recommends administration of a booster dose of the vaccine every 10 years, primarily to provide durable protection against tetanus.

Continue to: Varicella vaccine...

Varicella vaccine

The varicella vaccine is also one of the main components of the childhood immunization series. This live virus vaccine can be administered subcutaneously as a monovalent agent or as a quadrivalent agent in association with the MMR vaccine.

Pregnant women who do not have a well-documented history of natural infection should be tested for IgG antibody to the varicella-zoster virus at the time of their first prenatal appointment. Interestingly, approximately 70% of patients with an uncertain history actually have immunity when tested. If the patient lacks immunity, she should be vaccinated immediately postpartum.^16,17 The vaccine should be administered in a 2-dose series at time zero and then 4 to 8 weeks later. Patients should adhere to secure contraception from the time of the first dose until 1 month after the second dose. The cost of each dose of the vaccine is approximately $145.

Adverse effects of vaccination

All vaccines have many of the same side effects. The most common is simply a reaction at the site of injection, characterized by pain, increased warmth, erythema, swelling, and tenderness. Other common side effects include systemic manifestations, such as low-grade fever, nausea and vomiting, malaise, fatigue, headache, lymphadenopathy, myalgias, and arthralgias. Some vaccines, notably varicella, herpes zoster, measles, and rubella may cause a disseminated rash. Most of these minor side effects are easily managed by rest, hydration, and administration of an analgesic such as acetaminophen or ibuprofen. More serious side effects include rare complications such as anaphylaxis, Bell palsy, Guillain-Barre syndrome, and venous thromboembolism (Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine). Any of the vaccines discussed above should not be given, or given only with extreme caution, to an individual who has experienced any of these reactions with a previous vaccine.

Barriers to vaccination

Although the vaccines reviewed above are highly effective in preventing serious illness in recipients, the medical profession’s “report card” in ensuring adherence with vaccine protocols is not optimal. In fact, it probably merits a grade no higher than C+, with vaccination rates in the range of 50% to 70%.

One of the major barriers to vaccination is lack of detailed information about vaccine efficacy and safety on the part of both provider and patient. Another is the problem of misinformation (eg, the persistent belief on the part of some individuals that vaccines may cause a serious problem, such as autism).^18,19 Another important barrier to widespread vaccination is the logistical problem associated with proper scheduling of multidose regimens (such as those for hepatitis A and B, varicella, and COVID-19). A final barrier, and in my own university-based practice, the most important obstacle is the expense of vaccination. Most, but not all, private insurance companies provide coverage for vaccines approved by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the US Preventive Services Task Force. However, public insurance agencies often provide disappointingly inconsistent coverage for essential vaccines.

By keeping well informed about the most recent public health recommendations for vaccinations for adults and by leading important initiatives within our own practices, we should be able to overcome the first 3 barriers listed above. For example, Morgan and colleagues²⁰ recently achieved a 97% success rate with Tdap administration in pregnancy by placing a best-practice alert in the patients’ electronic medical records. Surmounting the final barrier will require intense effort on the part of individual practitioners and professional organizations to advocate for coverage for essential vaccinations for our patients.

CASE Resolved

This patient was raised in an area of the world where her family did not have easy access to medical care. Accordingly, she did not receive the usual childhood vaccines, such as measles, mumps, rubella, varicella, hepatitis B, and almost certainly, tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis (Tdap), and the HPV vaccine. The MMR vaccine and the varicella vaccine are live virus vaccines and should not be given during pregnancy. However, these vaccines should be administered postpartum, and the patient should be instructed to practice secure contraception for a minimum of 1 month following vaccination. She also should be offered the HPV vaccine postpartum. During pregnancy, she definitely should receive the COVID-19 vaccine, the 3-dose hepatitis B vaccine series, the influenza vaccine, and Tdap. If her present living conditions place her at risk for hepatitis A, she also should be vaccinated against this illness. ●

CASE 1st prenatal appointment for young, pregnant migrant

A 21-year-old primigravid woman at 12 weeks’ gestation recently immigrated to the United States from an impoverished rural area of Southeast Asia. On the first prenatal appointment, she is noted to have no evidence of immunity to rubella, measles, or varicella. Her hepatitis B surface antigen and hepatitis C antibody tests are negative. She also has negative test results for gonorrhea, chlamydia, syphilis, and HIV infection. Her pap test is negative.

• What vaccinations should this patient receive during her pregnancy?
• What additional vaccinations are indicated postpartum?

Preventive vaccinations: What to know

As ObGyns, we serve as the primary care physician for many women throughout their early and middle decades of life. Accordingly, we have an obligation to be well informed about preventive health services such as vaccinations. The purpose of this article is to review the principal vaccines with which ObGyns should be familiar. I will discuss the vaccines in alphabetical order and then focus on the indications and timing for each vaccine and the relative cost of each immunization. Key points are summarized in the TABLE.

COVID-19 vaccine

In the latter part of 2020 and early part of 2021, three COVID-19 vaccines received emergency use authorization (EUA) from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for individuals 16 years of age and older (Pfizer-BioNTech) and 18 years of age and older (Moderna and Johnson & Johnson).¹ The cost of their administration is borne by the federal government. Two of the vaccines are mRNA agents—Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech. Both are administered in a 2-dose series, separated by 4 and 3 weeks, respectively. The efficacy of these vaccines in preventing serious or critical illness approaches 95%. The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine has now been fully FDA approved for administration to individuals older than age 16, with EUA for those down to age 12. Full approval of the Moderna vaccine will not be far behind. Because of some evidence suggesting waning immunity over time and because of growing concerns about the increased transmissibility of the delta variant of the virus, the FDA has been strongly considering a recommendation for a third (booster) dose of each of these vaccines, administered 8 months after the second dose for all eligible Americans. On September 17, 2021, the FDA advisory committee recommended a booster for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine for people older than age 65 and for those over the age of 16 at high risk for severe COVID-19. Several days later, full FDA approval was granted for this recommendation. Subsequently, the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) included health care workers and pregnant women in the group for whom the booster is recommended.

The third vaccine formulation is the Johnson & Johnson DNA vaccine, which is prepared with a human adenovirus vector. This vaccine is administered in a single intramuscular dose and has a reported efficacy of 66% to 85%, though it may approach 95% in preventing critical illness. The FDA is expected to announce decisions about booster doses for the Johnson & Johnson and Moderna vaccines in the coming weeks.

Although initial trials of the COVID-19vaccines excluded pregnant and lactating women, the vaccines are safe in pregnancy or postpartum. In fact the vaccines do not contain either a killed or attenuated viral particle that is capable of transmitting infection. Therefore, both the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine now support routine immunization during pregnancy.

A recent report by Shimabukuro and colleagues² demonstrated that the risk of vaccine-related complications in pregnant women receiving the Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna vaccines was no different than in nonpregnant patients and that there was no evidence of teratogenic effects. The trial included more than 35,000 pregnant women; 2.3% were vaccinated in the periconception period, 28.6% in the first trimester, 43.3% in the second trimester, and 25.7% in the third trimester. Given this, and in light of isolated reports of unusual thromboembolic complications associated with the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, I strongly recommend use of either the Moderna or Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine in our prenatal and postpartum patients.

Continue to: Hepatitis A vaccine...

The hepatitis A vaccine is an inactivated vaccine and is safe for use in pregnancy. It is available in two monovalent preparations—Havrix (GlaxoSmithKline) and Vaqta (Merck & Co.) and is administered in a 2-dose intramuscular injection at time zero and 6 to 12 months later.³ The vaccine is also available in a bivalent form with recombinant hepatitis B vaccine—Twinrix (GlaxoSmithKline). When administered in this form, the vaccine should be given at time zero, 1 month, and 6 months. The wholesale cost of the monovalent vaccine is $66 to $119, depending upon whether the provider uses a multi-dose or a single-dose vial. The cost of Twinrix is $149.

The hepatitis A vaccine is indicated for select pregnant and nonpregnant patients:

• international travelers
• intravenous drug users
• those with occupational exposure (eg, individuals who work in a primate laboratory)
• residents and staff in chronic care facilities
• individuals with chronic liver disease
• individuals with clotting factor disorders
• residents in endemic areas.

Hepatitis B vaccine

The hepatitis B vaccine is a recombinant vaccine that contains an inactivated portion of the hepatitis B surface antigen. It was originally produced in two monovalent formulations: Engerix B (GlaxoSmithKline) and Recombivax-HB (Merck & Co.). These original formulations are given in a 3-dose series at time zero, 1 month, and 6 months. Recently, a new and more potent formulation was introduced into clinical practice. Heplisav-B (Dynavax Technologies Co.) is also a recombinant vaccine that contains a boosting adjuvant. It is programed to be administered in a 2-dose series at time zero and 1 month.^4-6

The wholesale cost of the monovalent vaccines varies from $60 to $173, depending upon use of a multi-dose vial versus a single-use vial. The cost of Heplisav-B varies from $146 to $173, depending upon use of a prefilled syringe versus a single-dose vial.

Although the hepatitis B vaccine should be part of the childhood immunization series, it also should be administered to any pregnant woman who has not been vaccinated previously or who does not already have evidence of immunity as a result of natural infection.

Continue to: Herpes zoster vaccine...

Herpes zoster infection (shingles) can be a particularly disabling condition in older patients and results from reactivation of a latent varicella-zoster infection. Shingles can cause extremely painful skin lesions, threaten the patient’s vision, and result in long-lasting postherpetic neuralgia. Both cellular and hormonal immunity are essential to protect against recurrent infection.

The original herpes zoster vaccine (Zoster Vaccine Live; ZVL, Zostavax) is no longer produced in the United States because it is not as effective as the newer vaccine—Recombinant Zoster Vaccine (Shingrix, GlaxoSmithKline).^7,8 The antigen in the new vaccine is a component of the surface glycoprotein E, and it is combined with an adjuvant to enhance immunoreactivity. The vaccine is given intramuscularly in two doses at time zero and again at 2 to 6 months and is indicated for all individuals >50 years, including those who may have had an episode of shingles. This newer vaccine is 97% effective in patients >50 years and 90% effective in patients >70. The wholesale cost of each injection is about $160.

Human papillomavirus vaccine

The HPV vaccine (Gardasil-9, Merck & Co.) is a recombinant 9-valent vaccine directed against the human papillomavirus. It induces immunity to serotypes 6 and 11 (which cause 90% of genital warts), 16 and 18 (which cause 80% of genital cancers), and 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58 (viral strains that are responsible for both genital and oropharyngeal cancers). The vaccine is administered intramuscularly in a 3-dose series at time zero, 1-2 months, and 6 months. The principal target groups for the vaccine are males and females, ages 9 to 45 years. Ideally, children of both sexes should receive this vaccine prior to the onset of sexual activity. The wholesale cost of each vaccine injection is approximately $222.⁹

Influenza vaccine

The inactivated, intramuscular flu vaccine is recommended for anyone over age 2, including pregnant women. Although pregnant women are not more likely to acquire flu compared with those who are not pregnant, if they do become infected, they are likely to become more seriously ill, with higher mortality. Accordingly, all pregnant women should receive, in any trimester, the inactivated flu vaccine beginning in the late summer and early fall of each year and extending through March of the next year.^10,11

Multiple formulations of the inactivated vaccine are marketed, all targeting two strains of influenza A and two strains of influenza B. The components of the vaccine vary each year as scientists try to match the new vaccine with the most highly prevalent strains in the previous flu season. The vaccine should be administered in a single intramuscular dose. The cost varies from approximately $20 to $70.

The intranasal influenza vaccine is a live virus vaccine that is intended primarily for children and should not be administered in pregnancy. In addition, there is a higher dose of the inactivated quadrivalent vaccine that is available for administration to patients over age 65. This higher dose is more likely to cause adverse effects and is not indicated in pregnancy.

Continue to: Measles, mumps, rubella vaccine (MMR)...

Measles, mumps, rubella vaccine (MMR)

The MMR is a standard component of the childhood vaccination series. The trivalent preparation is a live, attenuated vaccine that is typically given subcutaneously in a 2-dose series. The first dose is administered at age 12-15 months, and the second dose at age 4-6 years. The vaccine is highly immunogenic, with vaccine-induced immunity usually life-long. In some patients, however, immunity wanes over time. Accordingly, all pregnant women should be screened for immunity to rubella since, of the 3, this infection poses the greatest risk to the fetus. Women who do not have evidence of immunity should be advised to avoid contact with children who may have a viral exanthem. They should then receive a booster dose of the vaccine immediately postpartum and should practice secure contraception for 1 month. The vaccine cost is approximately $60.

Pneumococcal vaccine

The inactivated pneumococcal vaccine is produced in two forms, both of which are safe for administration in pregnancy.¹² The original vaccine, introduced in 1983, was PPSV23 (Pneumovax 23, Merck & Co), a 23-serovalent vaccine that was intended primarily for adults. This vaccine is administered in a single subcutaneous or intramuscular dose. The newest vaccine, introduced in 2010, is PCV13 (Prevnar 13, Pfizer Inc), a 13-serovalent vaccine. It was intended primarily for children, in whom it is administered in a 4-dose series beginning at 6 to 8 weeks of age. The cost of the former is approximately $98 to $120; the cost of the latter is $228.

Vaccination against pneumococcal infection is routinely indicated for those older than the age of 65 and for the following at-risk patients, including those who are pregnant¹¹:

• individuals who have had a splenectomy or who have a medical illness that produces functional asplenia (eg, sickle cell anemia)
• individuals with chronic cardiac, pulmonic, hepatic, or renal disease
• individuals with immunosuppressive conditions such as HIV infection or a disseminated malignancy
• individuals who have a cochlear implant
• individuals who have a chronic leak of cerebrospinal fluid.

The recommendations for timing of these 2 vaccines in adults can initially appear confusing. Put most simply, if a high-risk patient first receives the PCV13 vaccine, she should receive the PPSV23 vaccine in about 8 weeks. The PPSV23 vaccine should be repeated in 5 years. If an at-risk patient initially receives the PPSV23 vaccine, the PCV13 vaccine should be given 1 year later.¹²

Tdap vaccine

The Tdap vaccine contains tetanus toxoid, reduced diptheria toxoid, and an acellular component of the pertussis bacterium. Although it has long been part of the childhood vaccinations series, immunity to each component, particularly pertussis, tends to wane over time.

Pertussis poses a serious risk to the health of the pregnant woman and the newborn infant. Accordingly, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), CDC, and the ACOG now advise administration of a booster dose of this vaccine in the early third trimester of each pregnancy.^13-15 The vaccine should be administered as a single intramuscular injection. The approximate cost of the vaccine is $64 to $71, depending upon whether the provider uses a single-dose vial or a single-dose prefilled syringe. In nonpregnant patients, the ACIP currently recommends administration of a booster dose of the vaccine every 10 years, primarily to provide durable protection against tetanus.

Continue to: Varicella vaccine...

Varicella vaccine

The varicella vaccine is also one of the main components of the childhood immunization series. This live virus vaccine can be administered subcutaneously as a monovalent agent or as a quadrivalent agent in association with the MMR vaccine.

Pregnant women who do not have a well-documented history of natural infection should be tested for IgG antibody to the varicella-zoster virus at the time of their first prenatal appointment. Interestingly, approximately 70% of patients with an uncertain history actually have immunity when tested. If the patient lacks immunity, she should be vaccinated immediately postpartum.^16,17 The vaccine should be administered in a 2-dose series at time zero and then 4 to 8 weeks later. Patients should adhere to secure contraception from the time of the first dose until 1 month after the second dose. The cost of each dose of the vaccine is approximately $145.

Adverse effects of vaccination

All vaccines have many of the same side effects. The most common is simply a reaction at the site of injection, characterized by pain, increased warmth, erythema, swelling, and tenderness. Other common side effects include systemic manifestations, such as low-grade fever, nausea and vomiting, malaise, fatigue, headache, lymphadenopathy, myalgias, and arthralgias. Some vaccines, notably varicella, herpes zoster, measles, and rubella may cause a disseminated rash. Most of these minor side effects are easily managed by rest, hydration, and administration of an analgesic such as acetaminophen or ibuprofen. More serious side effects include rare complications such as anaphylaxis, Bell palsy, Guillain-Barre syndrome, and venous thromboembolism (Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine). Any of the vaccines discussed above should not be given, or given only with extreme caution, to an individual who has experienced any of these reactions with a previous vaccine.

Barriers to vaccination

Although the vaccines reviewed above are highly effective in preventing serious illness in recipients, the medical profession’s “report card” in ensuring adherence with vaccine protocols is not optimal. In fact, it probably merits a grade no higher than C+, with vaccination rates in the range of 50% to 70%.

One of the major barriers to vaccination is lack of detailed information about vaccine efficacy and safety on the part of both provider and patient. Another is the problem of misinformation (eg, the persistent belief on the part of some individuals that vaccines may cause a serious problem, such as autism).^18,19 Another important barrier to widespread vaccination is the logistical problem associated with proper scheduling of multidose regimens (such as those for hepatitis A and B, varicella, and COVID-19). A final barrier, and in my own university-based practice, the most important obstacle is the expense of vaccination. Most, but not all, private insurance companies provide coverage for vaccines approved by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the US Preventive Services Task Force. However, public insurance agencies often provide disappointingly inconsistent coverage for essential vaccines.

By keeping well informed about the most recent public health recommendations for vaccinations for adults and by leading important initiatives within our own practices, we should be able to overcome the first 3 barriers listed above. For example, Morgan and colleagues²⁰ recently achieved a 97% success rate with Tdap administration in pregnancy by placing a best-practice alert in the patients’ electronic medical records. Surmounting the final barrier will require intense effort on the part of individual practitioners and professional organizations to advocate for coverage for essential vaccinations for our patients.

CASE Resolved

This patient was raised in an area of the world where her family did not have easy access to medical care. Accordingly, she did not receive the usual childhood vaccines, such as measles, mumps, rubella, varicella, hepatitis B, and almost certainly, tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis (Tdap), and the HPV vaccine. The MMR vaccine and the varicella vaccine are live virus vaccines and should not be given during pregnancy. However, these vaccines should be administered postpartum, and the patient should be instructed to practice secure contraception for a minimum of 1 month following vaccination. She also should be offered the HPV vaccine postpartum. During pregnancy, she definitely should receive the COVID-19 vaccine, the 3-dose hepatitis B vaccine series, the influenza vaccine, and Tdap. If her present living conditions place her at risk for hepatitis A, she also should be vaccinated against this illness. ●

Cutaneous amyloidosis encompasses a variety of clinical presentations. Primary localized cutaneous amyloidosis comprises lichen amyloidosis, macular amyloidosis, and nodular amyloidosis.¹ Macular and lichen amyloidosis result from keratin deposits, while nodular amyloidosis results from cutaneous infiltration of plasma cells.² Primary systemic amyloidosis is due to a plasma cell dyscrasia, particularly multiple myeloma, while secondary systemic amyloidosis occurs in the setting of restrictive cardiomyopathy, congestive heart failure, renal dysfunction, or chronic inflammation, as seen with rheumatoid arthritis, tuberculosis, and various autoinflammatory disorders.² Plasma cell proliferative disorders are associated with various skin disorders, which may result from aggregated misfolded monoclonal immunoglobulins, indicating light chain–related systemic amyloidosis. Mucocutaneous lesions can occur in 30% to 40% of cases of primary systemic amyloidosis and may present as purpura, ecchymoses, waxy thickening, plaques, subcutaneous nodules, and/or bullae.^3,4 When blistering is present, the differential diagnosis is broad and includes autoimmune bullous disease, drug eruptions, enoxaparin-induced bullous hemorrhagic dermatosis, deposition diseases, allergic contact dermatitis, bullous cellulitis, bullous bite reactions, neutrophilic dermatosis, and bullous lichen sclerosus.⁵ Herein, we present a case of a woman with a bullous skin eruption who eventually was diagnosed with bullous amyloidosis subsequent to a diagnosis of multiple myeloma.

Case Report

A 70-year-old woman presented to our dermatology clinic for evaluation of well-demarcated, hemorrhagic, flaccid vesicles and focal erosions with a rim of erythema on the distal forearms and hands. A shave biopsy from the right forearm showed cell-poor subepidermal vesicular dermatitis. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays for bullous pemphigoid antigens 1 and 2 as well as urinary porphyrins were negative. Direct immunofluorescence showed granular IgM at the basement membrane zone around vessels and cytoid bodies. At this time, a preliminary diagnosis of pseudoporphyria was suspected, though no classic medications (eg, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, furosemide, antibiotics) or exogenous trigger factors (eg, UV light exposure, dialysis) were temporally related. Three months later, the patient presented with a large hemorrhagic bulla on the distal left forearm (Figure 1) and healing erosions on the dorsal fingers and upper back. Clobetasol ointment was initiated, as an autoimmune bullous dermatosis was suspected.

Approximately 1 year after she was first seen in our outpatient clinic, the patient was hospitalized for induction of chemotherapy—cyclophosphamide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone—for a new diagnosis of stage III multiple myeloma. A workup for back pain revealed multiple compression fractures and a plasma cell neoplasm with elevated λ light chains, which was confirmed with a bone marrow biopsy. During an inpatient dermatology consultation, we noted the development of intraoral hemorrhagic vesicles and worsening generalization of the hemorrhagic bullae, with healing erosions and intact hemorrhagic bullae on the dorsal hands, fingers (Figure 2), and upper back.

A repeat biopsy displayed bullous amyloidosis. Histopathologic examination revealed an ulcerated subepidermal blister with fibrin deposition at the ulcer base. A periadnexal, scant, eosinophilic deposition with extravasated red blood cells was appreciated. Amorphous eosinophilic deposits were found within the detached fragment of the epidermis and inflammatory infiltrate. A Congo red stain highlighted these areas with a salmon pink–colored material. Congo red staining showed a moderate amount of pale, apple green, birefringent deposit within these areas on polarized light examination.

A few months later, the patient was re-admitted, and the amount of skin detachment prompted the primary team to ask for another consultation. Although the extensive skin sloughing resembled toxic epidermal necrolysis, a repeat biopsy confirmed bullous amyloidosis.

Comment

Amyloidosis Histopathology—Amyloidoses represent a wide array of disorders with deposition of β-pleated sheets or amyloid fibrils, often with cutaneous manifestations.^2,3 Primary systemic amyloidosis has been associated with underlying dyscrasia or multiple myeloma.⁶ In such cases, the skin lesions of multiple myeloma may result from a collection of misfolded monoclonal immunoglobulins or their fragments, as in light chain–related systemic amyloidosis.³ Histopathologically, both systemic and cutaneous amyloidosis appear similar and display deposition of amorphous, eosinophilic, fissured amyloid material in the dermis. Congo red stains the material orange-red and will display a characteristic apple green birefringence under polarized light.⁴ Although bullous amyloid lesions are rare, the cutaneous forms of these lesions can be an important sign of plasma cell dyscrasia.⁷

Presentation of Bullous Amyloidosis—Bullous manifestations rarely have been noted in the primary cutaneous forms of amyloidosis.^5,8,9 Importantly, cutaneous blistering more often is linked to systemic forms of amyloidosis with multiorgan involvement, including primary systemic and myeloma-associated amyloidosis.^5,10 However, patients with localized bullous cutaneous amyloidosis without systemic involvement also have been seen.^10,11 Bullae may occur at any time, with contents that frequently are hemorrhagic due to capillary fragility.^12,13 Bullous manifestations raise the differential diagnoses of bullous pemphigoid, epidermolysis bullosa acquisita, linear IgA disease, porphyria cutanea tarda, pseudoporphyria, bullous drug eruption, bullous eruption of renal dialysis, or bullous lupus erythematosus.^5,13-17

In our patient, the acral distribution of bullae, presence of hemorrhage, chronicity of symptoms, and negative enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay initially suggested a diagnosis of pseudoporphyria. However, the presence of intraoral hemorrhagic vesicles and subsequent confirmatory pathology aided in differentiating bullous amyloidosis from pseudoporphyria. Nodular localized primary cutaneous amyloidosis, a rare form of skin-restricted amyloidoses, can coexist with bullous lesions. Of note, reported cases of nodular localized primary cutaneous amyloidosis did not result in development of multiple myeloma.^5,10

Bullae are located either subepidermally or intradermally, and bullous lesions of cutaneous amyloidosis typically demonstrate subepidermal or superficial intradermal clefting on light microscopy.^5,10,12 Histopathology of bullous amyloidosis shows intradermal or subepidermal blister formation and amorphous eosinophilic material showing apple green birefringence with Congo red staining deposited in the dermis and/or around the adipocytes and blood vessel walls.^12,18-20 In prior cases, direct immunofluorescence of bullous amyloidosis revealed absent immunoglobulin (IgG, IgA, IgM) or complement (C3 and C9) deposits in the basement membrane zone or dermis.^13,21,22 In these cases, electron microscopy was useful in diagnosis, as it showed the presence of amyloid deposits.^21,22

Cause of Bullae—Various mechanisms are thought to trigger the blister formation in amyloidosis. Bullae created from trauma or friction often present as tense painful blisters that commonly are hemorrhagic.^10,23 Amyloid deposits in the walls of blood vessels and the affinity of dermal amyloid in blood vessel walls to surrounding collagen likely leads to increased fragility of capillaries and the dermal matrix, hemorrhagic tendency, and infrapapillary blisters, thus creating hemorrhagic bullous eruptions.^24,25 Specifically, close proximity of immunoglobulin-derived amyloid oligomers to epidermal keratinocytes may be toxic and therefore could trigger subepidermal bullous change.⁵ Additionally, alteration in the physicochemical properties of the amyloidal protein might explain bullous eruption.⁹ Trauma or rubbing of the hands and feet may precipitate the acral blister formation in bullous amyloidosis.^5,11

Due to deposition of these amyloid fibrils, skin bleeding in these patients is called amyloid or pinch purpura. Vessel wall fragility and damage by amyloid are the principal causes of periorbital and gastrointestinal tract bleeding.²⁶ Destruction of the lamina densa and widening of the intercellular space between keratinocytes by amyloid globules induce skin fragility.¹¹

Although uncommon, various cases of bullous amyloidosis have been reported in the literature. Multiple myeloma patients represent the majority of those reported to have bullous amyloidosis.^{6,7,13,24,27-30} Plasmacytoma-associated bullous amyloid purpura and paraproteinemia also have been noted.²⁵ Multiple myeloma with secondary AL amyloidosis has been seen with amyloid purpura and atraumatic ecchymoses of the face, highlighting the hemorrhage noted in these patients.²⁶

Management of Amyloidosis—Various treatment options have been attempted for primary cutaneous amyloidosis, including oral retinoids, corticosteroids, cyclophosphamide, cyclosporine, amitriptyline, colchicine, cepharanthin, tacrolimus, dimethyl sulfoxide, vitamin D₃ analogs, capsaicin, menthol, hydrocolloid dressings, surgical modalities, laser treatment, and phototherapy.¹ There is no clear consensus for therapeutic modalities except for treating the underlying plasma cell dyscrasia in primary systemic amyloidosis.

Conclusion

We report the case of a patient displaying signs of pseudoporphyria that ultimately proved to be bullous amyloidosis, or what we termed pseudopseudoporphyria. Bullous amyloidosis should be considered in the differential diagnoses of hemorrhagic bullous skin eruptions. Particular attention should be given to a systemic workup for multiple myeloma when hemorrhagic vesicles/bullae are chronic and coexist with purpura, angina bullosa hemorrhagica, fatigue/weight loss, and/or macroglossia.

Cutaneous amyloidosis encompasses a variety of clinical presentations. Primary localized cutaneous amyloidosis comprises lichen amyloidosis, macular amyloidosis, and nodular amyloidosis.¹ Macular and lichen amyloidosis result from keratin deposits, while nodular amyloidosis results from cutaneous infiltration of plasma cells.² Primary systemic amyloidosis is due to a plasma cell dyscrasia, particularly multiple myeloma, while secondary systemic amyloidosis occurs in the setting of restrictive cardiomyopathy, congestive heart failure, renal dysfunction, or chronic inflammation, as seen with rheumatoid arthritis, tuberculosis, and various autoinflammatory disorders.² Plasma cell proliferative disorders are associated with various skin disorders, which may result from aggregated misfolded monoclonal immunoglobulins, indicating light chain–related systemic amyloidosis. Mucocutaneous lesions can occur in 30% to 40% of cases of primary systemic amyloidosis and may present as purpura, ecchymoses, waxy thickening, plaques, subcutaneous nodules, and/or bullae.^3,4 When blistering is present, the differential diagnosis is broad and includes autoimmune bullous disease, drug eruptions, enoxaparin-induced bullous hemorrhagic dermatosis, deposition diseases, allergic contact dermatitis, bullous cellulitis, bullous bite reactions, neutrophilic dermatosis, and bullous lichen sclerosus.⁵ Herein, we present a case of a woman with a bullous skin eruption who eventually was diagnosed with bullous amyloidosis subsequent to a diagnosis of multiple myeloma.

Case Report

A 70-year-old woman presented to our dermatology clinic for evaluation of well-demarcated, hemorrhagic, flaccid vesicles and focal erosions with a rim of erythema on the distal forearms and hands. A shave biopsy from the right forearm showed cell-poor subepidermal vesicular dermatitis. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays for bullous pemphigoid antigens 1 and 2 as well as urinary porphyrins were negative. Direct immunofluorescence showed granular IgM at the basement membrane zone around vessels and cytoid bodies. At this time, a preliminary diagnosis of pseudoporphyria was suspected, though no classic medications (eg, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, furosemide, antibiotics) or exogenous trigger factors (eg, UV light exposure, dialysis) were temporally related. Three months later, the patient presented with a large hemorrhagic bulla on the distal left forearm (Figure 1) and healing erosions on the dorsal fingers and upper back. Clobetasol ointment was initiated, as an autoimmune bullous dermatosis was suspected.

Approximately 1 year after she was first seen in our outpatient clinic, the patient was hospitalized for induction of chemotherapy—cyclophosphamide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone—for a new diagnosis of stage III multiple myeloma. A workup for back pain revealed multiple compression fractures and a plasma cell neoplasm with elevated λ light chains, which was confirmed with a bone marrow biopsy. During an inpatient dermatology consultation, we noted the development of intraoral hemorrhagic vesicles and worsening generalization of the hemorrhagic bullae, with healing erosions and intact hemorrhagic bullae on the dorsal hands, fingers (Figure 2), and upper back.

A repeat biopsy displayed bullous amyloidosis. Histopathologic examination revealed an ulcerated subepidermal blister with fibrin deposition at the ulcer base. A periadnexal, scant, eosinophilic deposition with extravasated red blood cells was appreciated. Amorphous eosinophilic deposits were found within the detached fragment of the epidermis and inflammatory infiltrate. A Congo red stain highlighted these areas with a salmon pink–colored material. Congo red staining showed a moderate amount of pale, apple green, birefringent deposit within these areas on polarized light examination.

A few months later, the patient was re-admitted, and the amount of skin detachment prompted the primary team to ask for another consultation. Although the extensive skin sloughing resembled toxic epidermal necrolysis, a repeat biopsy confirmed bullous amyloidosis.

Comment

Amyloidosis Histopathology—Amyloidoses represent a wide array of disorders with deposition of β-pleated sheets or amyloid fibrils, often with cutaneous manifestations.^2,3 Primary systemic amyloidosis has been associated with underlying dyscrasia or multiple myeloma.⁶ In such cases, the skin lesions of multiple myeloma may result from a collection of misfolded monoclonal immunoglobulins or their fragments, as in light chain–related systemic amyloidosis.³ Histopathologically, both systemic and cutaneous amyloidosis appear similar and display deposition of amorphous, eosinophilic, fissured amyloid material in the dermis. Congo red stains the material orange-red and will display a characteristic apple green birefringence under polarized light.⁴ Although bullous amyloid lesions are rare, the cutaneous forms of these lesions can be an important sign of plasma cell dyscrasia.⁷

Presentation of Bullous Amyloidosis—Bullous manifestations rarely have been noted in the primary cutaneous forms of amyloidosis.^5,8,9 Importantly, cutaneous blistering more often is linked to systemic forms of amyloidosis with multiorgan involvement, including primary systemic and myeloma-associated amyloidosis.^5,10 However, patients with localized bullous cutaneous amyloidosis without systemic involvement also have been seen.^10,11 Bullae may occur at any time, with contents that frequently are hemorrhagic due to capillary fragility.^12,13 Bullous manifestations raise the differential diagnoses of bullous pemphigoid, epidermolysis bullosa acquisita, linear IgA disease, porphyria cutanea tarda, pseudoporphyria, bullous drug eruption, bullous eruption of renal dialysis, or bullous lupus erythematosus.^5,13-17

In our patient, the acral distribution of bullae, presence of hemorrhage, chronicity of symptoms, and negative enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay initially suggested a diagnosis of pseudoporphyria. However, the presence of intraoral hemorrhagic vesicles and subsequent confirmatory pathology aided in differentiating bullous amyloidosis from pseudoporphyria. Nodular localized primary cutaneous amyloidosis, a rare form of skin-restricted amyloidoses, can coexist with bullous lesions. Of note, reported cases of nodular localized primary cutaneous amyloidosis did not result in development of multiple myeloma.^5,10

Bullae are located either subepidermally or intradermally, and bullous lesions of cutaneous amyloidosis typically demonstrate subepidermal or superficial intradermal clefting on light microscopy.^5,10,12 Histopathology of bullous amyloidosis shows intradermal or subepidermal blister formation and amorphous eosinophilic material showing apple green birefringence with Congo red staining deposited in the dermis and/or around the adipocytes and blood vessel walls.^12,18-20 In prior cases, direct immunofluorescence of bullous amyloidosis revealed absent immunoglobulin (IgG, IgA, IgM) or complement (C3 and C9) deposits in the basement membrane zone or dermis.^13,21,22 In these cases, electron microscopy was useful in diagnosis, as it showed the presence of amyloid deposits.^21,22

Cause of Bullae—Various mechanisms are thought to trigger the blister formation in amyloidosis. Bullae created from trauma or friction often present as tense painful blisters that commonly are hemorrhagic.^10,23 Amyloid deposits in the walls of blood vessels and the affinity of dermal amyloid in blood vessel walls to surrounding collagen likely leads to increased fragility of capillaries and the dermal matrix, hemorrhagic tendency, and infrapapillary blisters, thus creating hemorrhagic bullous eruptions.^24,25 Specifically, close proximity of immunoglobulin-derived amyloid oligomers to epidermal keratinocytes may be toxic and therefore could trigger subepidermal bullous change.⁵ Additionally, alteration in the physicochemical properties of the amyloidal protein might explain bullous eruption.⁹ Trauma or rubbing of the hands and feet may precipitate the acral blister formation in bullous amyloidosis.^5,11

Due to deposition of these amyloid fibrils, skin bleeding in these patients is called amyloid or pinch purpura. Vessel wall fragility and damage by amyloid are the principal causes of periorbital and gastrointestinal tract bleeding.²⁶ Destruction of the lamina densa and widening of the intercellular space between keratinocytes by amyloid globules induce skin fragility.¹¹

Although uncommon, various cases of bullous amyloidosis have been reported in the literature. Multiple myeloma patients represent the majority of those reported to have bullous amyloidosis.^{6,7,13,24,27-30} Plasmacytoma-associated bullous amyloid purpura and paraproteinemia also have been noted.²⁵ Multiple myeloma with secondary AL amyloidosis has been seen with amyloid purpura and atraumatic ecchymoses of the face, highlighting the hemorrhage noted in these patients.²⁶

Management of Amyloidosis—Various treatment options have been attempted for primary cutaneous amyloidosis, including oral retinoids, corticosteroids, cyclophosphamide, cyclosporine, amitriptyline, colchicine, cepharanthin, tacrolimus, dimethyl sulfoxide, vitamin D₃ analogs, capsaicin, menthol, hydrocolloid dressings, surgical modalities, laser treatment, and phototherapy.¹ There is no clear consensus for therapeutic modalities except for treating the underlying plasma cell dyscrasia in primary systemic amyloidosis.

Conclusion

We report the case of a patient displaying signs of pseudoporphyria that ultimately proved to be bullous amyloidosis, or what we termed pseudopseudoporphyria. Bullous amyloidosis should be considered in the differential diagnoses of hemorrhagic bullous skin eruptions. Particular attention should be given to a systemic workup for multiple myeloma when hemorrhagic vesicles/bullae are chronic and coexist with purpura, angina bullosa hemorrhagica, fatigue/weight loss, and/or macroglossia.

Cutaneous amyloidosis encompasses a variety of clinical presentations. Primary localized cutaneous amyloidosis comprises lichen amyloidosis, macular amyloidosis, and nodular amyloidosis.¹ Macular and lichen amyloidosis result from keratin deposits, while nodular amyloidosis results from cutaneous infiltration of plasma cells.² Primary systemic amyloidosis is due to a plasma cell dyscrasia, particularly multiple myeloma, while secondary systemic amyloidosis occurs in the setting of restrictive cardiomyopathy, congestive heart failure, renal dysfunction, or chronic inflammation, as seen with rheumatoid arthritis, tuberculosis, and various autoinflammatory disorders.² Plasma cell proliferative disorders are associated with various skin disorders, which may result from aggregated misfolded monoclonal immunoglobulins, indicating light chain–related systemic amyloidosis. Mucocutaneous lesions can occur in 30% to 40% of cases of primary systemic amyloidosis and may present as purpura, ecchymoses, waxy thickening, plaques, subcutaneous nodules, and/or bullae.^3,4 When blistering is present, the differential diagnosis is broad and includes autoimmune bullous disease, drug eruptions, enoxaparin-induced bullous hemorrhagic dermatosis, deposition diseases, allergic contact dermatitis, bullous cellulitis, bullous bite reactions, neutrophilic dermatosis, and bullous lichen sclerosus.⁵ Herein, we present a case of a woman with a bullous skin eruption who eventually was diagnosed with bullous amyloidosis subsequent to a diagnosis of multiple myeloma.

Case Report

A 70-year-old woman presented to our dermatology clinic for evaluation of well-demarcated, hemorrhagic, flaccid vesicles and focal erosions with a rim of erythema on the distal forearms and hands. A shave biopsy from the right forearm showed cell-poor subepidermal vesicular dermatitis. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays for bullous pemphigoid antigens 1 and 2 as well as urinary porphyrins were negative. Direct immunofluorescence showed granular IgM at the basement membrane zone around vessels and cytoid bodies. At this time, a preliminary diagnosis of pseudoporphyria was suspected, though no classic medications (eg, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, furosemide, antibiotics) or exogenous trigger factors (eg, UV light exposure, dialysis) were temporally related. Three months later, the patient presented with a large hemorrhagic bulla on the distal left forearm (Figure 1) and healing erosions on the dorsal fingers and upper back. Clobetasol ointment was initiated, as an autoimmune bullous dermatosis was suspected.

Approximately 1 year after she was first seen in our outpatient clinic, the patient was hospitalized for induction of chemotherapy—cyclophosphamide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone—for a new diagnosis of stage III multiple myeloma. A workup for back pain revealed multiple compression fractures and a plasma cell neoplasm with elevated λ light chains, which was confirmed with a bone marrow biopsy. During an inpatient dermatology consultation, we noted the development of intraoral hemorrhagic vesicles and worsening generalization of the hemorrhagic bullae, with healing erosions and intact hemorrhagic bullae on the dorsal hands, fingers (Figure 2), and upper back.

A repeat biopsy displayed bullous amyloidosis. Histopathologic examination revealed an ulcerated subepidermal blister with fibrin deposition at the ulcer base. A periadnexal, scant, eosinophilic deposition with extravasated red blood cells was appreciated. Amorphous eosinophilic deposits were found within the detached fragment of the epidermis and inflammatory infiltrate. A Congo red stain highlighted these areas with a salmon pink–colored material. Congo red staining showed a moderate amount of pale, apple green, birefringent deposit within these areas on polarized light examination.

A few months later, the patient was re-admitted, and the amount of skin detachment prompted the primary team to ask for another consultation. Although the extensive skin sloughing resembled toxic epidermal necrolysis, a repeat biopsy confirmed bullous amyloidosis.

Comment

Amyloidosis Histopathology—Amyloidoses represent a wide array of disorders with deposition of β-pleated sheets or amyloid fibrils, often with cutaneous manifestations.^2,3 Primary systemic amyloidosis has been associated with underlying dyscrasia or multiple myeloma.⁶ In such cases, the skin lesions of multiple myeloma may result from a collection of misfolded monoclonal immunoglobulins or their fragments, as in light chain–related systemic amyloidosis.³ Histopathologically, both systemic and cutaneous amyloidosis appear similar and display deposition of amorphous, eosinophilic, fissured amyloid material in the dermis. Congo red stains the material orange-red and will display a characteristic apple green birefringence under polarized light.⁴ Although bullous amyloid lesions are rare, the cutaneous forms of these lesions can be an important sign of plasma cell dyscrasia.⁷

Presentation of Bullous Amyloidosis—Bullous manifestations rarely have been noted in the primary cutaneous forms of amyloidosis.^5,8,9 Importantly, cutaneous blistering more often is linked to systemic forms of amyloidosis with multiorgan involvement, including primary systemic and myeloma-associated amyloidosis.^5,10 However, patients with localized bullous cutaneous amyloidosis without systemic involvement also have been seen.^10,11 Bullae may occur at any time, with contents that frequently are hemorrhagic due to capillary fragility.^12,13 Bullous manifestations raise the differential diagnoses of bullous pemphigoid, epidermolysis bullosa acquisita, linear IgA disease, porphyria cutanea tarda, pseudoporphyria, bullous drug eruption, bullous eruption of renal dialysis, or bullous lupus erythematosus.^5,13-17

In our patient, the acral distribution of bullae, presence of hemorrhage, chronicity of symptoms, and negative enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay initially suggested a diagnosis of pseudoporphyria. However, the presence of intraoral hemorrhagic vesicles and subsequent confirmatory pathology aided in differentiating bullous amyloidosis from pseudoporphyria. Nodular localized primary cutaneous amyloidosis, a rare form of skin-restricted amyloidoses, can coexist with bullous lesions. Of note, reported cases of nodular localized primary cutaneous amyloidosis did not result in development of multiple myeloma.^5,10

Bullae are located either subepidermally or intradermally, and bullous lesions of cutaneous amyloidosis typically demonstrate subepidermal or superficial intradermal clefting on light microscopy.^5,10,12 Histopathology of bullous amyloidosis shows intradermal or subepidermal blister formation and amorphous eosinophilic material showing apple green birefringence with Congo red staining deposited in the dermis and/or around the adipocytes and blood vessel walls.^12,18-20 In prior cases, direct immunofluorescence of bullous amyloidosis revealed absent immunoglobulin (IgG, IgA, IgM) or complement (C3 and C9) deposits in the basement membrane zone or dermis.^13,21,22 In these cases, electron microscopy was useful in diagnosis, as it showed the presence of amyloid deposits.^21,22

Cause of Bullae—Various mechanisms are thought to trigger the blister formation in amyloidosis. Bullae created from trauma or friction often present as tense painful blisters that commonly are hemorrhagic.^10,23 Amyloid deposits in the walls of blood vessels and the affinity of dermal amyloid in blood vessel walls to surrounding collagen likely leads to increased fragility of capillaries and the dermal matrix, hemorrhagic tendency, and infrapapillary blisters, thus creating hemorrhagic bullous eruptions.^24,25 Specifically, close proximity of immunoglobulin-derived amyloid oligomers to epidermal keratinocytes may be toxic and therefore could trigger subepidermal bullous change.⁵ Additionally, alteration in the physicochemical properties of the amyloidal protein might explain bullous eruption.⁹ Trauma or rubbing of the hands and feet may precipitate the acral blister formation in bullous amyloidosis.^5,11

Due to deposition of these amyloid fibrils, skin bleeding in these patients is called amyloid or pinch purpura. Vessel wall fragility and damage by amyloid are the principal causes of periorbital and gastrointestinal tract bleeding.²⁶ Destruction of the lamina densa and widening of the intercellular space between keratinocytes by amyloid globules induce skin fragility.¹¹

Although uncommon, various cases of bullous amyloidosis have been reported in the literature. Multiple myeloma patients represent the majority of those reported to have bullous amyloidosis.^{6,7,13,24,27-30} Plasmacytoma-associated bullous amyloid purpura and paraproteinemia also have been noted.²⁵ Multiple myeloma with secondary AL amyloidosis has been seen with amyloid purpura and atraumatic ecchymoses of the face, highlighting the hemorrhage noted in these patients.²⁶

Management of Amyloidosis—Various treatment options have been attempted for primary cutaneous amyloidosis, including oral retinoids, corticosteroids, cyclophosphamide, cyclosporine, amitriptyline, colchicine, cepharanthin, tacrolimus, dimethyl sulfoxide, vitamin D₃ analogs, capsaicin, menthol, hydrocolloid dressings, surgical modalities, laser treatment, and phototherapy.¹ There is no clear consensus for therapeutic modalities except for treating the underlying plasma cell dyscrasia in primary systemic amyloidosis.

Conclusion

We report the case of a patient displaying signs of pseudoporphyria that ultimately proved to be bullous amyloidosis, or what we termed pseudopseudoporphyria. Bullous amyloidosis should be considered in the differential diagnoses of hemorrhagic bullous skin eruptions. Particular attention should be given to a systemic workup for multiple myeloma when hemorrhagic vesicles/bullae are chronic and coexist with purpura, angina bullosa hemorrhagica, fatigue/weight loss, and/or macroglossia.

To the Editor:

Kikuchi-Fujimoto Disease, also called histiocytic necrotizing lymphadenitis, was described in 1972 by both Kikuchi¹ and Fujimoto et al.² Most cases are reported in Asia, with limited reports in the United States.^3-5 Kikuchi-Fujimoto disease is a rare, self-limiting condition consisting of benign lymphadenopathy and oftentimes fever and systemic symptoms. Lymph node involvement may mimic non-Hodgkin lymphoma or other reactive lymphadenopathy, rendering diagnostic accuracy challenging.⁵ Cutaneous manifestations are reported in only 16% to 40% of patients.^6,7 Herein, we describe the clinical and pathologic features of a case of Kikuchi-Fujimoto disease with cutaneous involvement in an adolescent boy.

A 13-year-old adolescent boy with no notable medical history presented to the pediatric emergency department with cervical lymphadenopathy, weight loss, intermittent fever, and an evolving rash on the face, ears, arms, and thighs of 6 weeks’ duration. The illness began with enlarged lymph nodes and erythematous macules on the face and was diagnosed by his primary care physician as lymphadenitis that was unresponsive to clindamycin. Over the subsequent weeks, the rash worsened, and he developed intermittent fevers, night sweats, abdominal pain, and nausea with a 20-pound weight loss. He presented to the emergency department 3 weeks prior to the current admission and was noted to have elevated cytomegalovirus (CMV) IgM and IgG in addition to lymphopenia and anemia. He was discharged with outpatient follow-up. The rash progressed to involve the face, ears, arms, and thighs. One day prior to the current admission, the patient’s abdominal pain worsened acutely, and he experienced several episodes of emesis. He presented to the pediatric emergency department for further evaluation, and a dermatology consultation was requested at that time.

The patient’s rash was asymptomatic. In addition to the above symptoms, he also noted frequent nosebleeds, gingival bleeding, and diffuse myalgia that was most prominent on the hands and feet; he denied diarrhea, sick contacts, recent travel, or insect bites. His vital signs were normal, and he remained afebrile throughout the hospitalization. Physical examination revealed an ill-appearing patient with sunken eyes and dry lips. He had pink, oval, scaly plaques on the cheeks, ears, and arms (Figure 1). The thighs exhibited folliculocentric erythematous papules. The ocular conjunctivae were clear, but white exudative plaques were noted on the tongue. Tender, bilateral, cervical lymphadenopathy and diffuse abdominal tenderness with guarding and hepatosplenomegaly also were present. The fingers and toes were tender upon palpation.

Laboratory workup at admission revealed the following: low white blood cell count, 2700/μL (reference range, 4500–11,000/μL); low hemoglobin, 9.6 g/dL (reference range, 14.0–17.5 g/dL); elevated aspartate aminotransferase, 91 U/L (reference range, 10–30 U/L); and elevated alanine aminotransferase, 118 U/L (reference range, 10–40 U/L). Lactate dehydrogenase (582 U/L [reference range, 100–200 U/L]), ferritin (1681 ng/mL [reference range, 15–200 ng/mL]), and C-reactive protein (6.0 mg/L [reference range, 0.08–3.1 mg/L]) also were elevated. A respiratory viral panel was unremarkable. Blood cultures were negative, and an HIV 1/2 assay was nonreactive. A chest radiograph demonstrated clear lung fields. Computed tomography of the abdomen and pelvis showed prominent mesenteric, ileocolic, and retroperitoneal lymph nodes.

The differential diagnoses at this time included acute connective tissue disease, a paraneoplastic phenomenon, cutaneous lymphoma, or an infectious etiology. A punch biopsy of the skin as well as tissue cultures were performed from a lesion on the right arm. Quantitative immunoglobulin (IgA, IgG, IgM) levels were checked, all of which were within reference range. An antinuclear antibody (ANA) assay and rheumatoid factor were normal.

The tissue cultures were negative for bacteria, fungi, and mycobacteria. Microscopic examination of the skin biopsy revealed a moderate perivascular and interstitial infiltrate of predominantly histiocytes and lymphocytes with prominent karyorrhectic debris (nuclear dust) in the upper dermis as well as focal vacuolar interface changes with scattered necrotic keratinocytes in the epidermis (Figure 2). Based on these histopathologic findings, a diagnosis of Kikuchi-Fujimoto disease was considered. To confirm the diagnosis and to rule out the possibility of lymphoma, an excisional biopsy of the cervical lymph node was performed, which showed typical histopathologic features of histiocytic necrotizing lymphadenitis.

Given the patient’s clinical presentation with arthralgia, anorexia, lymphadenitis, and hepatosplenomegaly along with histopathologic findings from both the skin and lymph node biopsies, a diagnosis of Kikuchi-Fujimoto disease was made. The patient was conservatively managed with acetaminophen and was discharged with improvement in his appetite and systemic symptoms.

He was seen for follow-up 3 months later in the outpatient clinic. He denied any recurrence of systemic symptoms but endorsed a recent shedding of hair consistent with telogen effluvium. The rash had substantially improved, though residual asymptomatic erythematous plaques remained on the right forehead and right cheek (Figure 3). He was prescribed triamcinolone acetonide cream 0.1% to apply to the active area twice daily for the following 2 to 3 weeks.

Kikuchi-Fujimoto disease presents with a wide clinical spectrum, classically with benign lymphadenopathy and fever of unknown etiology.^5,6 Lymphadenopathy most often is cervical (55%–99%)⁸ and unilateral,^4,7 but patients can present with polyadenopathy (52%).^7,8 Constitutional signs commonly include fever (35%–76%), weight loss, arthritis (5%–34%), and leukopenia (25%–74%).^4,8,9

Cutaneous findings have been described in up to 40% of cases, of which clinical presentation is variable.⁶ Lesions may include blanchable, erythematous, painful, and/or indurated plaques, nodules, or maculopapules with confluence into patches, urticaria, morbilliform lesions, erythema multiforme, eyelid edema, leukocytoclastic vasculitis, papulopustules, ulcerated gingivae, and mucositis.^6,7,10-13 Patients with skin lesions may be at an increased risk for developing systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).⁸ Our patient presented with erythematous scaly plaques with a predominance of lesions in photodistributed locations, which clinically mimicked an underlying connective tissue disease process such as SLE.

Infectious agents such as CMV, parvovirus B19, human herpesvirus 6, human herpesvirus 8 and human T-cell lymphotropic virus 1, HIV, Yersinia enterocolitica, and Toxoplasma have all been implicated as possible causes of Kikuchi-Fujimoto disease, but studies have failed to provide convincing causal evidence.^9,14,15 Our patient had positive IgM and IgG for CMV, which may have incited his disease.

Definitive diagnosis of Kikuchi-Fujimoto disease is made by lymph node excisional biopsy, which histologically exhibits a histiocytic cell proliferation with paracortical foci of necrosis and abundant karyorrhectic debris.⁵ Cutaneous histologic findings that support the diagnosis are variable and may include a dermal histiocytic infiltrate, epidermal change with necrotic keratinocytes, non-neutrophilic karyorrhectic debris, basal vacuolar change, papillary dermal edema, a nonspecific superficial and deep perivascular infiltrate, and a patchy infiltration of histiocytes and lymphocytes.^6,13

Clinical and histopathological features of this disease can mimic other diseases, specifically SLE or lymphoma.⁷ An association with SLE has been suspected, though it is not well defined and more frequently is associated with cases from Asia than from Europe (28% and 9%, respectively).⁹ Patients presenting concomitantly with positive ANA, weight loss, arthralgia, and skin lesions are more likely to develop SLE.⁸ Furthermore, the cutaneous histologic finding of interface change suggests a link between the two diseases. As such, recommendations have been made for ANA screenings and follow-up of patients diagnosed with Kikuchi-Fujimoto disease for clinical evidence of autoimmune disease, particularly SLE.⁶ Although our patient did not have a positive ANA, his biopsy did demonstrate interface change, and he should be monitored for possible progression of disease in the future.

Kikuchi-Fujimoto disease differs from lymphoma, as it initially presents with rapid lymph node enlargement as opposed to the gradual enlargement seen in lymphoma. The lymph nodes in Kikuchi-Fujimoto disease often are firm and moveable compared to hard and immobile in lymphoma.³ Excisional lymph node biopsy is necessary for both confirming the diagnosis of Kikuchi-Fujimoto disease and ruling out lymphoma.⁵

Spontaneous resolution usually occurs in 1 to 4 months.^3,6 As such, observation is the most common approach to management. When patients have symptoms that limit activities or cause undue distress such as fevers, joint pains, or abdominal pain, systemic treatment options may be desired. Symptomatic treatment can be managed with a short duration of oral corticosteroids,^10,11 nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, antimalarials, and/or antipyretics.^8-15 There are no guidelines regarding systemic steroid regimens, and various treatment schedules have been successful. Systemic therapy was considered for our patient for his weight loss and abdominal pain; however, by the time of discharge the patient was tolerating oral intake and his abdominal pain had improved.

To the Editor:

Kikuchi-Fujimoto Disease, also called histiocytic necrotizing lymphadenitis, was described in 1972 by both Kikuchi¹ and Fujimoto et al.² Most cases are reported in Asia, with limited reports in the United States.^3-5 Kikuchi-Fujimoto disease is a rare, self-limiting condition consisting of benign lymphadenopathy and oftentimes fever and systemic symptoms. Lymph node involvement may mimic non-Hodgkin lymphoma or other reactive lymphadenopathy, rendering diagnostic accuracy challenging.⁵ Cutaneous manifestations are reported in only 16% to 40% of patients.^6,7 Herein, we describe the clinical and pathologic features of a case of Kikuchi-Fujimoto disease with cutaneous involvement in an adolescent boy.

A 13-year-old adolescent boy with no notable medical history presented to the pediatric emergency department with cervical lymphadenopathy, weight loss, intermittent fever, and an evolving rash on the face, ears, arms, and thighs of 6 weeks’ duration. The illness began with enlarged lymph nodes and erythematous macules on the face and was diagnosed by his primary care physician as lymphadenitis that was unresponsive to clindamycin. Over the subsequent weeks, the rash worsened, and he developed intermittent fevers, night sweats, abdominal pain, and nausea with a 20-pound weight loss. He presented to the emergency department 3 weeks prior to the current admission and was noted to have elevated cytomegalovirus (CMV) IgM and IgG in addition to lymphopenia and anemia. He was discharged with outpatient follow-up. The rash progressed to involve the face, ears, arms, and thighs. One day prior to the current admission, the patient’s abdominal pain worsened acutely, and he experienced several episodes of emesis. He presented to the pediatric emergency department for further evaluation, and a dermatology consultation was requested at that time.

The patient’s rash was asymptomatic. In addition to the above symptoms, he also noted frequent nosebleeds, gingival bleeding, and diffuse myalgia that was most prominent on the hands and feet; he denied diarrhea, sick contacts, recent travel, or insect bites. His vital signs were normal, and he remained afebrile throughout the hospitalization. Physical examination revealed an ill-appearing patient with sunken eyes and dry lips. He had pink, oval, scaly plaques on the cheeks, ears, and arms (Figure 1). The thighs exhibited folliculocentric erythematous papules. The ocular conjunctivae were clear, but white exudative plaques were noted on the tongue. Tender, bilateral, cervical lymphadenopathy and diffuse abdominal tenderness with guarding and hepatosplenomegaly also were present. The fingers and toes were tender upon palpation.

Laboratory workup at admission revealed the following: low white blood cell count, 2700/μL (reference range, 4500–11,000/μL); low hemoglobin, 9.6 g/dL (reference range, 14.0–17.5 g/dL); elevated aspartate aminotransferase, 91 U/L (reference range, 10–30 U/L); and elevated alanine aminotransferase, 118 U/L (reference range, 10–40 U/L). Lactate dehydrogenase (582 U/L [reference range, 100–200 U/L]), ferritin (1681 ng/mL [reference range, 15–200 ng/mL]), and C-reactive protein (6.0 mg/L [reference range, 0.08–3.1 mg/L]) also were elevated. A respiratory viral panel was unremarkable. Blood cultures were negative, and an HIV 1/2 assay was nonreactive. A chest radiograph demonstrated clear lung fields. Computed tomography of the abdomen and pelvis showed prominent mesenteric, ileocolic, and retroperitoneal lymph nodes.

The differential diagnoses at this time included acute connective tissue disease, a paraneoplastic phenomenon, cutaneous lymphoma, or an infectious etiology. A punch biopsy of the skin as well as tissue cultures were performed from a lesion on the right arm. Quantitative immunoglobulin (IgA, IgG, IgM) levels were checked, all of which were within reference range. An antinuclear antibody (ANA) assay and rheumatoid factor were normal.

The tissue cultures were negative for bacteria, fungi, and mycobacteria. Microscopic examination of the skin biopsy revealed a moderate perivascular and interstitial infiltrate of predominantly histiocytes and lymphocytes with prominent karyorrhectic debris (nuclear dust) in the upper dermis as well as focal vacuolar interface changes with scattered necrotic keratinocytes in the epidermis (Figure 2). Based on these histopathologic findings, a diagnosis of Kikuchi-Fujimoto disease was considered. To confirm the diagnosis and to rule out the possibility of lymphoma, an excisional biopsy of the cervical lymph node was performed, which showed typical histopathologic features of histiocytic necrotizing lymphadenitis.

Given the patient’s clinical presentation with arthralgia, anorexia, lymphadenitis, and hepatosplenomegaly along with histopathologic findings from both the skin and lymph node biopsies, a diagnosis of Kikuchi-Fujimoto disease was made. The patient was conservatively managed with acetaminophen and was discharged with improvement in his appetite and systemic symptoms.

He was seen for follow-up 3 months later in the outpatient clinic. He denied any recurrence of systemic symptoms but endorsed a recent shedding of hair consistent with telogen effluvium. The rash had substantially improved, though residual asymptomatic erythematous plaques remained on the right forehead and right cheek (Figure 3). He was prescribed triamcinolone acetonide cream 0.1% to apply to the active area twice daily for the following 2 to 3 weeks.

Kikuchi-Fujimoto disease presents with a wide clinical spectrum, classically with benign lymphadenopathy and fever of unknown etiology.^5,6 Lymphadenopathy most often is cervical (55%–99%)⁸ and unilateral,^4,7 but patients can present with polyadenopathy (52%).^7,8 Constitutional signs commonly include fever (35%–76%), weight loss, arthritis (5%–34%), and leukopenia (25%–74%).^4,8,9

Cutaneous findings have been described in up to 40% of cases, of which clinical presentation is variable.⁶ Lesions may include blanchable, erythematous, painful, and/or indurated plaques, nodules, or maculopapules with confluence into patches, urticaria, morbilliform lesions, erythema multiforme, eyelid edema, leukocytoclastic vasculitis, papulopustules, ulcerated gingivae, and mucositis.^6,7,10-13 Patients with skin lesions may be at an increased risk for developing systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).⁸ Our patient presented with erythematous scaly plaques with a predominance of lesions in photodistributed locations, which clinically mimicked an underlying connective tissue disease process such as SLE.

Infectious agents such as CMV, parvovirus B19, human herpesvirus 6, human herpesvirus 8 and human T-cell lymphotropic virus 1, HIV, Yersinia enterocolitica, and Toxoplasma have all been implicated as possible causes of Kikuchi-Fujimoto disease, but studies have failed to provide convincing causal evidence.^9,14,15 Our patient had positive IgM and IgG for CMV, which may have incited his disease.

Definitive diagnosis of Kikuchi-Fujimoto disease is made by lymph node excisional biopsy, which histologically exhibits a histiocytic cell proliferation with paracortical foci of necrosis and abundant karyorrhectic debris.⁵ Cutaneous histologic findings that support the diagnosis are variable and may include a dermal histiocytic infiltrate, epidermal change with necrotic keratinocytes, non-neutrophilic karyorrhectic debris, basal vacuolar change, papillary dermal edema, a nonspecific superficial and deep perivascular infiltrate, and a patchy infiltration of histiocytes and lymphocytes.^6,13

Clinical and histopathological features of this disease can mimic other diseases, specifically SLE or lymphoma.⁷ An association with SLE has been suspected, though it is not well defined and more frequently is associated with cases from Asia than from Europe (28% and 9%, respectively).⁹ Patients presenting concomitantly with positive ANA, weight loss, arthralgia, and skin lesions are more likely to develop SLE.⁸ Furthermore, the cutaneous histologic finding of interface change suggests a link between the two diseases. As such, recommendations have been made for ANA screenings and follow-up of patients diagnosed with Kikuchi-Fujimoto disease for clinical evidence of autoimmune disease, particularly SLE.⁶ Although our patient did not have a positive ANA, his biopsy did demonstrate interface change, and he should be monitored for possible progression of disease in the future.

Kikuchi-Fujimoto disease differs from lymphoma, as it initially presents with rapid lymph node enlargement as opposed to the gradual enlargement seen in lymphoma. The lymph nodes in Kikuchi-Fujimoto disease often are firm and moveable compared to hard and immobile in lymphoma.³ Excisional lymph node biopsy is necessary for both confirming the diagnosis of Kikuchi-Fujimoto disease and ruling out lymphoma.⁵

Spontaneous resolution usually occurs in 1 to 4 months.^3,6 As such, observation is the most common approach to management. When patients have symptoms that limit activities or cause undue distress such as fevers, joint pains, or abdominal pain, systemic treatment options may be desired. Symptomatic treatment can be managed with a short duration of oral corticosteroids,^10,11 nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, antimalarials, and/or antipyretics.^8-15 There are no guidelines regarding systemic steroid regimens, and various treatment schedules have been successful. Systemic therapy was considered for our patient for his weight loss and abdominal pain; however, by the time of discharge the patient was tolerating oral intake and his abdominal pain had improved.

To the Editor:

Kikuchi-Fujimoto Disease, also called histiocytic necrotizing lymphadenitis, was described in 1972 by both Kikuchi¹ and Fujimoto et al.² Most cases are reported in Asia, with limited reports in the United States.^3-5 Kikuchi-Fujimoto disease is a rare, self-limiting condition consisting of benign lymphadenopathy and oftentimes fever and systemic symptoms. Lymph node involvement may mimic non-Hodgkin lymphoma or other reactive lymphadenopathy, rendering diagnostic accuracy challenging.⁵ Cutaneous manifestations are reported in only 16% to 40% of patients.^6,7 Herein, we describe the clinical and pathologic features of a case of Kikuchi-Fujimoto disease with cutaneous involvement in an adolescent boy.

A 13-year-old adolescent boy with no notable medical history presented to the pediatric emergency department with cervical lymphadenopathy, weight loss, intermittent fever, and an evolving rash on the face, ears, arms, and thighs of 6 weeks’ duration. The illness began with enlarged lymph nodes and erythematous macules on the face and was diagnosed by his primary care physician as lymphadenitis that was unresponsive to clindamycin. Over the subsequent weeks, the rash worsened, and he developed intermittent fevers, night sweats, abdominal pain, and nausea with a 20-pound weight loss. He presented to the emergency department 3 weeks prior to the current admission and was noted to have elevated cytomegalovirus (CMV) IgM and IgG in addition to lymphopenia and anemia. He was discharged with outpatient follow-up. The rash progressed to involve the face, ears, arms, and thighs. One day prior to the current admission, the patient’s abdominal pain worsened acutely, and he experienced several episodes of emesis. He presented to the pediatric emergency department for further evaluation, and a dermatology consultation was requested at that time.

The patient’s rash was asymptomatic. In addition to the above symptoms, he also noted frequent nosebleeds, gingival bleeding, and diffuse myalgia that was most prominent on the hands and feet; he denied diarrhea, sick contacts, recent travel, or insect bites. His vital signs were normal, and he remained afebrile throughout the hospitalization. Physical examination revealed an ill-appearing patient with sunken eyes and dry lips. He had pink, oval, scaly plaques on the cheeks, ears, and arms (Figure 1). The thighs exhibited folliculocentric erythematous papules. The ocular conjunctivae were clear, but white exudative plaques were noted on the tongue. Tender, bilateral, cervical lymphadenopathy and diffuse abdominal tenderness with guarding and hepatosplenomegaly also were present. The fingers and toes were tender upon palpation.

Laboratory workup at admission revealed the following: low white blood cell count, 2700/μL (reference range, 4500–11,000/μL); low hemoglobin, 9.6 g/dL (reference range, 14.0–17.5 g/dL); elevated aspartate aminotransferase, 91 U/L (reference range, 10–30 U/L); and elevated alanine aminotransferase, 118 U/L (reference range, 10–40 U/L). Lactate dehydrogenase (582 U/L [reference range, 100–200 U/L]), ferritin (1681 ng/mL [reference range, 15–200 ng/mL]), and C-reactive protein (6.0 mg/L [reference range, 0.08–3.1 mg/L]) also were elevated. A respiratory viral panel was unremarkable. Blood cultures were negative, and an HIV 1/2 assay was nonreactive. A chest radiograph demonstrated clear lung fields. Computed tomography of the abdomen and pelvis showed prominent mesenteric, ileocolic, and retroperitoneal lymph nodes.

The differential diagnoses at this time included acute connective tissue disease, a paraneoplastic phenomenon, cutaneous lymphoma, or an infectious etiology. A punch biopsy of the skin as well as tissue cultures were performed from a lesion on the right arm. Quantitative immunoglobulin (IgA, IgG, IgM) levels were checked, all of which were within reference range. An antinuclear antibody (ANA) assay and rheumatoid factor were normal.

The tissue cultures were negative for bacteria, fungi, and mycobacteria. Microscopic examination of the skin biopsy revealed a moderate perivascular and interstitial infiltrate of predominantly histiocytes and lymphocytes with prominent karyorrhectic debris (nuclear dust) in the upper dermis as well as focal vacuolar interface changes with scattered necrotic keratinocytes in the epidermis (Figure 2). Based on these histopathologic findings, a diagnosis of Kikuchi-Fujimoto disease was considered. To confirm the diagnosis and to rule out the possibility of lymphoma, an excisional biopsy of the cervical lymph node was performed, which showed typical histopathologic features of histiocytic necrotizing lymphadenitis.

Given the patient’s clinical presentation with arthralgia, anorexia, lymphadenitis, and hepatosplenomegaly along with histopathologic findings from both the skin and lymph node biopsies, a diagnosis of Kikuchi-Fujimoto disease was made. The patient was conservatively managed with acetaminophen and was discharged with improvement in his appetite and systemic symptoms.

He was seen for follow-up 3 months later in the outpatient clinic. He denied any recurrence of systemic symptoms but endorsed a recent shedding of hair consistent with telogen effluvium. The rash had substantially improved, though residual asymptomatic erythematous plaques remained on the right forehead and right cheek (Figure 3). He was prescribed triamcinolone acetonide cream 0.1% to apply to the active area twice daily for the following 2 to 3 weeks.

Kikuchi-Fujimoto disease presents with a wide clinical spectrum, classically with benign lymphadenopathy and fever of unknown etiology.^5,6 Lymphadenopathy most often is cervical (55%–99%)⁸ and unilateral,^4,7 but patients can present with polyadenopathy (52%).^7,8 Constitutional signs commonly include fever (35%–76%), weight loss, arthritis (5%–34%), and leukopenia (25%–74%).^4,8,9

Cutaneous findings have been described in up to 40% of cases, of which clinical presentation is variable.⁶ Lesions may include blanchable, erythematous, painful, and/or indurated plaques, nodules, or maculopapules with confluence into patches, urticaria, morbilliform lesions, erythema multiforme, eyelid edema, leukocytoclastic vasculitis, papulopustules, ulcerated gingivae, and mucositis.^6,7,10-13 Patients with skin lesions may be at an increased risk for developing systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).⁸ Our patient presented with erythematous scaly plaques with a predominance of lesions in photodistributed locations, which clinically mimicked an underlying connective tissue disease process such as SLE.

Infectious agents such as CMV, parvovirus B19, human herpesvirus 6, human herpesvirus 8 and human T-cell lymphotropic virus 1, HIV, Yersinia enterocolitica, and Toxoplasma have all been implicated as possible causes of Kikuchi-Fujimoto disease, but studies have failed to provide convincing causal evidence.^9,14,15 Our patient had positive IgM and IgG for CMV, which may have incited his disease.

Definitive diagnosis of Kikuchi-Fujimoto disease is made by lymph node excisional biopsy, which histologically exhibits a histiocytic cell proliferation with paracortical foci of necrosis and abundant karyorrhectic debris.⁵ Cutaneous histologic findings that support the diagnosis are variable and may include a dermal histiocytic infiltrate, epidermal change with necrotic keratinocytes, non-neutrophilic karyorrhectic debris, basal vacuolar change, papillary dermal edema, a nonspecific superficial and deep perivascular infiltrate, and a patchy infiltration of histiocytes and lymphocytes.^6,13

Clinical and histopathological features of this disease can mimic other diseases, specifically SLE or lymphoma.⁷ An association with SLE has been suspected, though it is not well defined and more frequently is associated with cases from Asia than from Europe (28% and 9%, respectively).⁹ Patients presenting concomitantly with positive ANA, weight loss, arthralgia, and skin lesions are more likely to develop SLE.⁸ Furthermore, the cutaneous histologic finding of interface change suggests a link between the two diseases. As such, recommendations have been made for ANA screenings and follow-up of patients diagnosed with Kikuchi-Fujimoto disease for clinical evidence of autoimmune disease, particularly SLE.⁶ Although our patient did not have a positive ANA, his biopsy did demonstrate interface change, and he should be monitored for possible progression of disease in the future.

Kikuchi-Fujimoto disease differs from lymphoma, as it initially presents with rapid lymph node enlargement as opposed to the gradual enlargement seen in lymphoma. The lymph nodes in Kikuchi-Fujimoto disease often are firm and moveable compared to hard and immobile in lymphoma.³ Excisional lymph node biopsy is necessary for both confirming the diagnosis of Kikuchi-Fujimoto disease and ruling out lymphoma.⁵

Spontaneous resolution usually occurs in 1 to 4 months.^3,6 As such, observation is the most common approach to management. When patients have symptoms that limit activities or cause undue distress such as fevers, joint pains, or abdominal pain, systemic treatment options may be desired. Symptomatic treatment can be managed with a short duration of oral corticosteroids,^10,11 nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, antimalarials, and/or antipyretics.^8-15 There are no guidelines regarding systemic steroid regimens, and various treatment schedules have been successful. Systemic therapy was considered for our patient for his weight loss and abdominal pain; however, by the time of discharge the patient was tolerating oral intake and his abdominal pain had improved.

Northwell Health, the largest hospital system in New York state, fired 1,400 employees Oct. 3 for not complying with the state’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate.

The employees represented less than 2% of Northwell’s 76,000 employees, who are now all fully vaccinated against COVID-19, Joe Kemp, the assistant vice president of public relations for the company, told The Hill.

“Northwell Health is proud to announce that our workforce -- the largest in New York State -- is 100% vaccinated,” the company said in a statement to several news outlets.

“This allows us to continue to provide exceptional care at all of our facilities, without interruption and remain open and fully operational,” Northwell Health said.

Having a fully vaccinated workforce is part of the health system’s duty to protect others, the company said. Northwell Health includes 23 hospitals and more than 830 outpatient facilities, according to ABC News.

“Northwell regrets losing any employee under such circumstances,” the company said. “We owe it to our staff, our patients, and the communities we serve to be 100% vaccinated against COVID-19.”

Former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced in August that the state would require health care workers to receive at least one COVID-19 vaccine shot by Sept. 27. Employees didn’t have the option for weekly testing or religious exemptions, which is being challenged in several lawsuits, according to The New York Times.

The order went into effect last week, prompting tens of thousands of employees to get vaccinated. As of last week, 87% of hospital staff were fully vaccinated, and 92% of hospital and retirement home workers had received at least one dose, according to state health data.

Northwell announced its own vaccine mandate in August as well, which sparked protests among some workers. The order applied to both clinical and non-clinical staff.

A few thousand Northwell employees got vaccinated as the deadline approached, Mr. Kemp told The New York Times. Some who lost their jobs at first were able to return to work, and those who have been terminated can interview for reinstatement for 30 days. The hospital system is also “openly recruiting” for the vacant positions.

“The goal was to get people vaccinated, not to get people terminated,” Mr. Kemp said.

Hospitalized COVID-19 patients in New York hit a low of 350 in mid-July, according to state hospitalization data. Now, about 2,200 people are hospitalized throughout the state, most of whom are unvaccinated.

As of Oct. 3, nearly 72% of New York residents had received at least one vaccine dose, according to the latest state data. About 64% are fully vaccinated.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Northwell Health, the largest hospital system in New York state, fired 1,400 employees Oct. 3 for not complying with the state’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate.

The employees represented less than 2% of Northwell’s 76,000 employees, who are now all fully vaccinated against COVID-19, Joe Kemp, the assistant vice president of public relations for the company, told The Hill.

“Northwell Health is proud to announce that our workforce -- the largest in New York State -- is 100% vaccinated,” the company said in a statement to several news outlets.

“This allows us to continue to provide exceptional care at all of our facilities, without interruption and remain open and fully operational,” Northwell Health said.

Having a fully vaccinated workforce is part of the health system’s duty to protect others, the company said. Northwell Health includes 23 hospitals and more than 830 outpatient facilities, according to ABC News.

“Northwell regrets losing any employee under such circumstances,” the company said. “We owe it to our staff, our patients, and the communities we serve to be 100% vaccinated against COVID-19.”

Former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced in August that the state would require health care workers to receive at least one COVID-19 vaccine shot by Sept. 27. Employees didn’t have the option for weekly testing or religious exemptions, which is being challenged in several lawsuits, according to The New York Times.

The order went into effect last week, prompting tens of thousands of employees to get vaccinated. As of last week, 87% of hospital staff were fully vaccinated, and 92% of hospital and retirement home workers had received at least one dose, according to state health data.

Northwell announced its own vaccine mandate in August as well, which sparked protests among some workers. The order applied to both clinical and non-clinical staff.

A few thousand Northwell employees got vaccinated as the deadline approached, Mr. Kemp told The New York Times. Some who lost their jobs at first were able to return to work, and those who have been terminated can interview for reinstatement for 30 days. The hospital system is also “openly recruiting” for the vacant positions.

“The goal was to get people vaccinated, not to get people terminated,” Mr. Kemp said.

Hospitalized COVID-19 patients in New York hit a low of 350 in mid-July, according to state hospitalization data. Now, about 2,200 people are hospitalized throughout the state, most of whom are unvaccinated.

As of Oct. 3, nearly 72% of New York residents had received at least one vaccine dose, according to the latest state data. About 64% are fully vaccinated.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Northwell Health, the largest hospital system in New York state, fired 1,400 employees Oct. 3 for not complying with the state’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate.

The employees represented less than 2% of Northwell’s 76,000 employees, who are now all fully vaccinated against COVID-19, Joe Kemp, the assistant vice president of public relations for the company, told The Hill.

“Northwell Health is proud to announce that our workforce -- the largest in New York State -- is 100% vaccinated,” the company said in a statement to several news outlets.

“This allows us to continue to provide exceptional care at all of our facilities, without interruption and remain open and fully operational,” Northwell Health said.

Having a fully vaccinated workforce is part of the health system’s duty to protect others, the company said. Northwell Health includes 23 hospitals and more than 830 outpatient facilities, according to ABC News.

“Northwell regrets losing any employee under such circumstances,” the company said. “We owe it to our staff, our patients, and the communities we serve to be 100% vaccinated against COVID-19.”

Former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced in August that the state would require health care workers to receive at least one COVID-19 vaccine shot by Sept. 27. Employees didn’t have the option for weekly testing or religious exemptions, which is being challenged in several lawsuits, according to The New York Times.

The order went into effect last week, prompting tens of thousands of employees to get vaccinated. As of last week, 87% of hospital staff were fully vaccinated, and 92% of hospital and retirement home workers had received at least one dose, according to state health data.

Northwell announced its own vaccine mandate in August as well, which sparked protests among some workers. The order applied to both clinical and non-clinical staff.

A few thousand Northwell employees got vaccinated as the deadline approached, Mr. Kemp told The New York Times. Some who lost their jobs at first were able to return to work, and those who have been terminated can interview for reinstatement for 30 days. The hospital system is also “openly recruiting” for the vacant positions.

“The goal was to get people vaccinated, not to get people terminated,” Mr. Kemp said.

Hospitalized COVID-19 patients in New York hit a low of 350 in mid-July, according to state hospitalization data. Now, about 2,200 people are hospitalized throughout the state, most of whom are unvaccinated.

As of Oct. 3, nearly 72% of New York residents had received at least one vaccine dose, according to the latest state data. About 64% are fully vaccinated.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

A routine blood test may pack a bigger punch than previously suspected, suggests a recent analysis of over 3 million Canadian patient records.

A finding of thrombocytosis (platelet count >450 x 109/L) was associated with a greatly increased risk for some cancers up to 5 years later.

Overall, a high platelet count increased by 2.7 times the odds of receiving a solid-tumor cancer diagnosis within 2 years (95% confidence interval, 2.6-2.8).

The cancers most likely to be associated with unexpected thrombocytosis were those notorious for late-stage diagnosis due to a lack of early symptoms.

The risk was highest (23.3 times) for ovarian cancer. The risk was 3.8 times higher for pancreatic cancer and 3.5 times higher for cervical cancer.

Lung cancer was 4.4 times more likely within 2 years among patients with thrombocytosis compared to patients with normal platelet counts.

Conversely, breast, prostate, and thyroid cancers were not linked to the finding of thrombocytosis.

The study results were published online in JAMA Network Open on Aug. 12).

One of the authors of the article, Stephen A. Narod, MD, director of the Familial Breast Cancer Research Unit at the Women’s College Research Institute, Toronto, said the results were not unexpected but “very striking.”

“I had a hunch we were going to see this because I’ve seen this in other databases,” said Dr. Narod. “I think what struck me about it was how ubiquitous it was.”

Dr. Narod urged physicians, especially those in primary care, to take note: “If the platelets are high, I would certainly have a concern about lung cancer, colon cancer, and ovarian cancer.”

Dr. Narod and coauthor Vasily Giannakeas, a PhD candidate, pointed out that in their analysis that they were unable to single out cases in which a blood test was performed because the patient complained of symptoms that are associated with cancer. In those cases, thrombocytosis may have been diagnostic, rather than a lifesaving serendipitous finding.

Similar findings were reported recently from the United Kingdom.

A study by Sarah Bailey, PhD, MPH, and colleagues that was published last year in the British Journal of General Practice also found a connection between cancer incidence and platelet count. Dr. Bailey is a senior research fellow at the University of Exeter, England.

However, unlike in the Canadian study, the team led by Dr. Bailey was able to distinguish those patients for whom there were alarm symptoms for cancer. Dr. Bailey and colleagues found that two-thirds of men older than 65 had “no recorded alarm features of cancer in the 21 days before their index platelet count.”

Although this suggests that a routine finding of thrombocytosis could uncover unsuspected cancers, Dr. Bailey is cautious about hailing platelet counts as a new cancer-screening tool.

In emailed comments, Dr. Bailey said, “The crucial part of our study is that it was conducted with patients who were ill enough to see their GP [general practitioner]. Opportunistic measurement in patients who are asymptomatic would be quite a different thing. We would have to study the platelet count and subsequent cancers in asymptomatic patients to know if that was worth doing.”

Perhaps most helpfully, the U.K. study showed that cancer risk was increased even among some patients with normal platelet counts. For example, for men aged 60 and older, lung cancer was 4.7 times more likely among those with high-normal counts (≥326 x 109/L).

Because of this somewhat alarming finding, Dr. Bailey suggested moving away from a focus on absolute values. Rising platelet counts might be more clinically useful, she said.

“Physicians should be on the lookout for any unexplained increase in an individual’s platelet count, irrespective of whether the increased value is over or under the local threshold that is applied to define thrombocytosis,” concluded Dr. Bailey.

Dr. Narod has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Bailey is a research fellow of the CanTest Collaborative.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A routine blood test may pack a bigger punch than previously suspected, suggests a recent analysis of over 3 million Canadian patient records.

A finding of thrombocytosis (platelet count >450 x 109/L) was associated with a greatly increased risk for some cancers up to 5 years later.

Overall, a high platelet count increased by 2.7 times the odds of receiving a solid-tumor cancer diagnosis within 2 years (95% confidence interval, 2.6-2.8).

The cancers most likely to be associated with unexpected thrombocytosis were those notorious for late-stage diagnosis due to a lack of early symptoms.

The risk was highest (23.3 times) for ovarian cancer. The risk was 3.8 times higher for pancreatic cancer and 3.5 times higher for cervical cancer.

Lung cancer was 4.4 times more likely within 2 years among patients with thrombocytosis compared to patients with normal platelet counts.

Conversely, breast, prostate, and thyroid cancers were not linked to the finding of thrombocytosis.

The study results were published online in JAMA Network Open on Aug. 12).

One of the authors of the article, Stephen A. Narod, MD, director of the Familial Breast Cancer Research Unit at the Women’s College Research Institute, Toronto, said the results were not unexpected but “very striking.”

“I had a hunch we were going to see this because I’ve seen this in other databases,” said Dr. Narod. “I think what struck me about it was how ubiquitous it was.”

Dr. Narod urged physicians, especially those in primary care, to take note: “If the platelets are high, I would certainly have a concern about lung cancer, colon cancer, and ovarian cancer.”

Dr. Narod and coauthor Vasily Giannakeas, a PhD candidate, pointed out that in their analysis that they were unable to single out cases in which a blood test was performed because the patient complained of symptoms that are associated with cancer. In those cases, thrombocytosis may have been diagnostic, rather than a lifesaving serendipitous finding.

Similar findings were reported recently from the United Kingdom.

A study by Sarah Bailey, PhD, MPH, and colleagues that was published last year in the British Journal of General Practice also found a connection between cancer incidence and platelet count. Dr. Bailey is a senior research fellow at the University of Exeter, England.

However, unlike in the Canadian study, the team led by Dr. Bailey was able to distinguish those patients for whom there were alarm symptoms for cancer. Dr. Bailey and colleagues found that two-thirds of men older than 65 had “no recorded alarm features of cancer in the 21 days before their index platelet count.”

Although this suggests that a routine finding of thrombocytosis could uncover unsuspected cancers, Dr. Bailey is cautious about hailing platelet counts as a new cancer-screening tool.

In emailed comments, Dr. Bailey said, “The crucial part of our study is that it was conducted with patients who were ill enough to see their GP [general practitioner]. Opportunistic measurement in patients who are asymptomatic would be quite a different thing. We would have to study the platelet count and subsequent cancers in asymptomatic patients to know if that was worth doing.”

Perhaps most helpfully, the U.K. study showed that cancer risk was increased even among some patients with normal platelet counts. For example, for men aged 60 and older, lung cancer was 4.7 times more likely among those with high-normal counts (≥326 x 109/L).

Because of this somewhat alarming finding, Dr. Bailey suggested moving away from a focus on absolute values. Rising platelet counts might be more clinically useful, she said.

“Physicians should be on the lookout for any unexplained increase in an individual’s platelet count, irrespective of whether the increased value is over or under the local threshold that is applied to define thrombocytosis,” concluded Dr. Bailey.

Dr. Narod has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Bailey is a research fellow of the CanTest Collaborative.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A routine blood test may pack a bigger punch than previously suspected, suggests a recent analysis of over 3 million Canadian patient records.

A finding of thrombocytosis (platelet count >450 x 109/L) was associated with a greatly increased risk for some cancers up to 5 years later.

Overall, a high platelet count increased by 2.7 times the odds of receiving a solid-tumor cancer diagnosis within 2 years (95% confidence interval, 2.6-2.8).

The cancers most likely to be associated with unexpected thrombocytosis were those notorious for late-stage diagnosis due to a lack of early symptoms.

The risk was highest (23.3 times) for ovarian cancer. The risk was 3.8 times higher for pancreatic cancer and 3.5 times higher for cervical cancer.

Lung cancer was 4.4 times more likely within 2 years among patients with thrombocytosis compared to patients with normal platelet counts.

Conversely, breast, prostate, and thyroid cancers were not linked to the finding of thrombocytosis.

The study results were published online in JAMA Network Open on Aug. 12).

One of the authors of the article, Stephen A. Narod, MD, director of the Familial Breast Cancer Research Unit at the Women’s College Research Institute, Toronto, said the results were not unexpected but “very striking.”

“I had a hunch we were going to see this because I’ve seen this in other databases,” said Dr. Narod. “I think what struck me about it was how ubiquitous it was.”

Dr. Narod urged physicians, especially those in primary care, to take note: “If the platelets are high, I would certainly have a concern about lung cancer, colon cancer, and ovarian cancer.”

Dr. Narod and coauthor Vasily Giannakeas, a PhD candidate, pointed out that in their analysis that they were unable to single out cases in which a blood test was performed because the patient complained of symptoms that are associated with cancer. In those cases, thrombocytosis may have been diagnostic, rather than a lifesaving serendipitous finding.

Similar findings were reported recently from the United Kingdom.

A study by Sarah Bailey, PhD, MPH, and colleagues that was published last year in the British Journal of General Practice also found a connection between cancer incidence and platelet count. Dr. Bailey is a senior research fellow at the University of Exeter, England.

However, unlike in the Canadian study, the team led by Dr. Bailey was able to distinguish those patients for whom there were alarm symptoms for cancer. Dr. Bailey and colleagues found that two-thirds of men older than 65 had “no recorded alarm features of cancer in the 21 days before their index platelet count.”

Although this suggests that a routine finding of thrombocytosis could uncover unsuspected cancers, Dr. Bailey is cautious about hailing platelet counts as a new cancer-screening tool.

In emailed comments, Dr. Bailey said, “The crucial part of our study is that it was conducted with patients who were ill enough to see their GP [general practitioner]. Opportunistic measurement in patients who are asymptomatic would be quite a different thing. We would have to study the platelet count and subsequent cancers in asymptomatic patients to know if that was worth doing.”

Perhaps most helpfully, the U.K. study showed that cancer risk was increased even among some patients with normal platelet counts. For example, for men aged 60 and older, lung cancer was 4.7 times more likely among those with high-normal counts (≥326 x 109/L).

Because of this somewhat alarming finding, Dr. Bailey suggested moving away from a focus on absolute values. Rising platelet counts might be more clinically useful, she said.

“Physicians should be on the lookout for any unexplained increase in an individual’s platelet count, irrespective of whether the increased value is over or under the local threshold that is applied to define thrombocytosis,” concluded Dr. Bailey.

Dr. Narod has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Bailey is a research fellow of the CanTest Collaborative.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.