A colonoscopy screening for colorectal cancer should be covered by commercial health insurance, but a new study reports that some patients receive a “surprise” bill.

The study was published online Oct. 13 as a research letter in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

Nearly 1 in 8 commercially insured patients who had an elective colonoscopy between 2012 and 2017 received an out-of-network bill, resulting in hundreds of dollars more than the typical insurance payment.

The median surprise bill was $418 (range $152-$981).

The findings are “disconcerting” say the authors, “because Section 2713 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act eliminates consumer cost sharing for screening colonoscopy, and because a recent Federal Reserve study reported that 40% of Americans do not have $400 to cover unnecessary expenses.”

Most of these surprise costs were incurred from the use of out-of network anesthesiologists and pathologists, the authors note.

“Doctors need to be aware of these out-of-network bills so that patients know what to expect when they undergo these screening procedures,” said study author Karan R. Chhabra, MD, MSc, a resident in general surgery at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. “Ideally, they should do their colonoscopies at facilities where all providers participate in the same major insurance plans.”

“If gastroenterologists own their endoscopy facility, this is an obvious situation in which they should not be working with anesthesiologists or pathologists who are not in the same networks as them,” he told Medscape Medical News. “And as we point out in our paper, anesthesiology and pathology review are not necessary in every single case — endoscopists can perform their own sedation, and in certain settings, lesions can be discarded without pathological examination.”

But is it really that simple for physicians to make sure that all members of the team are in-network?

It’s not simple at all, and in fact it’s a rather difficult task, said Glenn Melnick, PhD, professor and chair in health care finance at USC and director of USC’s Center for Health Financing, Policy, and Management in Los Angeles.

“It would be really difficult for Dr Smith to know that Dr Jones is out of network, so it’s really hard to hold the doctors responsible,” Melnick told Medscape Medical News. “There are so many insurers and it may be difficult to know who is in-network and who isn’t.”

In this study, anesthesiologists and pathologists were a source of surprise bills, and they are behind the scenes, he pointed out. “The patient doesn’t select them directly and there is no opportunity to even find out who they are,” said Melnick.

Most patients have no idea that there may be other doctors involved with a colonoscopy, and Melnick highlighted his own recent experience. “I just had a colonoscopy and it never would have occurred to me. It never crossed my mind to even ask who is in network and who isn’t,” he said. “And I’m an expert on this.”

“The health plan could bear some responsibility here,” Melnick commented, although he added that patients need to be informed. Patients who are undergoing an elective procedure should be told that other doctors may be involved, and then to ask if these doctors are in the network. “If enough patients do this, maybe then the gastroenterologist will use people in network,” he commented.
 

Details of the surprise bills

Federal regulations eliminate consumer cost-sharing when screening colonoscopies are performed in-network, but there are no stipulations regarding expenses when out-of-network providers are used, the authors note.

To investigate this issue, the authors used a claims database from a large national insurer and identified patients aged 18 to 64 years who had undergone colonoscopy between 2012 and 2017.

The analysis was limited to cases where both the facility and the endoscopist were in-network, and the colonoscopies were stratified into those with visual inspection only and those during which an intervention was done, such as a biopsy. The primary outcome measure was the prevalence of out-of-network claims when the endoscopist and facility were in-network, and the secondary outcome was the amount of the potential surprise bills, which were calculated as the total out-of network charges less the typical in-network price.

A total of 1,118,769 elective colonoscopies with in-network endoscopists and facilities were identified and of these, 12.1% (n = 135,626) were involved with out-of-network claims. Out-of network anesthesiologists accounted for 64% of cases (median potential surprise bill, $488), while out-of-network pathologists were involved in 40% of cases (median potential surprise bill, $248). The likelihood of receiving an out-of-network claim was significantly higher if an intervention was performed during colonoscopy, as compared with those without intervention (13.9% vs. 8.2%; difference, 5.7%).

If an intervention was performed, 56% of potential surprise bills involved anesthesiologists and 51% pathologists. In cases with visual inspection only, 95% of out-of-network claims involved anesthesiologists.

The authors suggest that measures that can be taken to avoid surprise bills include having endoscopists and hospitals partner with anesthesia and pathology providers who are in-network. Another cost-saving strategy is the use of endoscopist-provided sedation rather than use of deeper anesthesia, and the authors also suggest that not all low-risk polyps need to be sent for pathological evaluation.

“Providers must realize many of our patients are at risk for considerable balance bills, and therefore they should provide resources that can provide reliable estimates for out-of-pocket costs relevant to site of service,” said lead author James Scheiman, MD, a professor of medicine at the University of Virginia School of Medicine in Charlottesville.

The study was funded by the University of Michigan. Chhabra reports personal fees from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Inc. Scheiman and Melnick have no disclosures.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Screening colonoscopy is the most cost effective test for prevention of colorectal cancer. The American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) believes that patients should be incentivized, through the elimination of cost sharing, to use colonoscopy as a colorectal cancer screening mechanism. Additionally, the preventive screening benefit has contributed to the decline in colorectal cancer rates in our country and this benefit should be preserved in any health care reform legislation. Learn more about how AGA advocates for patients at http://ow.ly/ULCZ30rf6J8.

Help your patients understand what to expect when paying for their colonoscopy by sharing AGA patient education at http://ow.ly/OteU30rf6HF.

A colonoscopy screening for colorectal cancer should be covered by commercial health insurance, but a new study reports that some patients receive a “surprise” bill.

The study was published online Oct. 13 as a research letter in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

Nearly 1 in 8 commercially insured patients who had an elective colonoscopy between 2012 and 2017 received an out-of-network bill, resulting in hundreds of dollars more than the typical insurance payment.

The median surprise bill was $418 (range $152-$981).

The findings are “disconcerting” say the authors, “because Section 2713 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act eliminates consumer cost sharing for screening colonoscopy, and because a recent Federal Reserve study reported that 40% of Americans do not have $400 to cover unnecessary expenses.”

Most of these surprise costs were incurred from the use of out-of network anesthesiologists and pathologists, the authors note.

“Doctors need to be aware of these out-of-network bills so that patients know what to expect when they undergo these screening procedures,” said study author Karan R. Chhabra, MD, MSc, a resident in general surgery at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. “Ideally, they should do their colonoscopies at facilities where all providers participate in the same major insurance plans.”

“If gastroenterologists own their endoscopy facility, this is an obvious situation in which they should not be working with anesthesiologists or pathologists who are not in the same networks as them,” he told Medscape Medical News. “And as we point out in our paper, anesthesiology and pathology review are not necessary in every single case — endoscopists can perform their own sedation, and in certain settings, lesions can be discarded without pathological examination.”

But is it really that simple for physicians to make sure that all members of the team are in-network?

It’s not simple at all, and in fact it’s a rather difficult task, said Glenn Melnick, PhD, professor and chair in health care finance at USC and director of USC’s Center for Health Financing, Policy, and Management in Los Angeles.

“It would be really difficult for Dr Smith to know that Dr Jones is out of network, so it’s really hard to hold the doctors responsible,” Melnick told Medscape Medical News. “There are so many insurers and it may be difficult to know who is in-network and who isn’t.”

In this study, anesthesiologists and pathologists were a source of surprise bills, and they are behind the scenes, he pointed out. “The patient doesn’t select them directly and there is no opportunity to even find out who they are,” said Melnick.

Most patients have no idea that there may be other doctors involved with a colonoscopy, and Melnick highlighted his own recent experience. “I just had a colonoscopy and it never would have occurred to me. It never crossed my mind to even ask who is in network and who isn’t,” he said. “And I’m an expert on this.”

“The health plan could bear some responsibility here,” Melnick commented, although he added that patients need to be informed. Patients who are undergoing an elective procedure should be told that other doctors may be involved, and then to ask if these doctors are in the network. “If enough patients do this, maybe then the gastroenterologist will use people in network,” he commented.
 

Details of the surprise bills

Federal regulations eliminate consumer cost-sharing when screening colonoscopies are performed in-network, but there are no stipulations regarding expenses when out-of-network providers are used, the authors note.

To investigate this issue, the authors used a claims database from a large national insurer and identified patients aged 18 to 64 years who had undergone colonoscopy between 2012 and 2017.

The analysis was limited to cases where both the facility and the endoscopist were in-network, and the colonoscopies were stratified into those with visual inspection only and those during which an intervention was done, such as a biopsy. The primary outcome measure was the prevalence of out-of-network claims when the endoscopist and facility were in-network, and the secondary outcome was the amount of the potential surprise bills, which were calculated as the total out-of network charges less the typical in-network price.

A total of 1,118,769 elective colonoscopies with in-network endoscopists and facilities were identified and of these, 12.1% (n = 135,626) were involved with out-of-network claims. Out-of network anesthesiologists accounted for 64% of cases (median potential surprise bill, $488), while out-of-network pathologists were involved in 40% of cases (median potential surprise bill, $248). The likelihood of receiving an out-of-network claim was significantly higher if an intervention was performed during colonoscopy, as compared with those without intervention (13.9% vs. 8.2%; difference, 5.7%).

If an intervention was performed, 56% of potential surprise bills involved anesthesiologists and 51% pathologists. In cases with visual inspection only, 95% of out-of-network claims involved anesthesiologists.

The authors suggest that measures that can be taken to avoid surprise bills include having endoscopists and hospitals partner with anesthesia and pathology providers who are in-network. Another cost-saving strategy is the use of endoscopist-provided sedation rather than use of deeper anesthesia, and the authors also suggest that not all low-risk polyps need to be sent for pathological evaluation.

“Providers must realize many of our patients are at risk for considerable balance bills, and therefore they should provide resources that can provide reliable estimates for out-of-pocket costs relevant to site of service,” said lead author James Scheiman, MD, a professor of medicine at the University of Virginia School of Medicine in Charlottesville.

The study was funded by the University of Michigan. Chhabra reports personal fees from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Inc. Scheiman and Melnick have no disclosures.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Screening colonoscopy is the most cost effective test for prevention of colorectal cancer. The American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) believes that patients should be incentivized, through the elimination of cost sharing, to use colonoscopy as a colorectal cancer screening mechanism. Additionally, the preventive screening benefit has contributed to the decline in colorectal cancer rates in our country and this benefit should be preserved in any health care reform legislation. Learn more about how AGA advocates for patients at http://ow.ly/ULCZ30rf6J8.

Help your patients understand what to expect when paying for their colonoscopy by sharing AGA patient education at http://ow.ly/OteU30rf6HF.

A colonoscopy screening for colorectal cancer should be covered by commercial health insurance, but a new study reports that some patients receive a “surprise” bill.

The study was published online Oct. 13 as a research letter in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

Nearly 1 in 8 commercially insured patients who had an elective colonoscopy between 2012 and 2017 received an out-of-network bill, resulting in hundreds of dollars more than the typical insurance payment.

The median surprise bill was $418 (range $152-$981).

The findings are “disconcerting” say the authors, “because Section 2713 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act eliminates consumer cost sharing for screening colonoscopy, and because a recent Federal Reserve study reported that 40% of Americans do not have $400 to cover unnecessary expenses.”

Most of these surprise costs were incurred from the use of out-of network anesthesiologists and pathologists, the authors note.

“Doctors need to be aware of these out-of-network bills so that patients know what to expect when they undergo these screening procedures,” said study author Karan R. Chhabra, MD, MSc, a resident in general surgery at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. “Ideally, they should do their colonoscopies at facilities where all providers participate in the same major insurance plans.”

“If gastroenterologists own their endoscopy facility, this is an obvious situation in which they should not be working with anesthesiologists or pathologists who are not in the same networks as them,” he told Medscape Medical News. “And as we point out in our paper, anesthesiology and pathology review are not necessary in every single case — endoscopists can perform their own sedation, and in certain settings, lesions can be discarded without pathological examination.”

But is it really that simple for physicians to make sure that all members of the team are in-network?

It’s not simple at all, and in fact it’s a rather difficult task, said Glenn Melnick, PhD, professor and chair in health care finance at USC and director of USC’s Center for Health Financing, Policy, and Management in Los Angeles.

“It would be really difficult for Dr Smith to know that Dr Jones is out of network, so it’s really hard to hold the doctors responsible,” Melnick told Medscape Medical News. “There are so many insurers and it may be difficult to know who is in-network and who isn’t.”

In this study, anesthesiologists and pathologists were a source of surprise bills, and they are behind the scenes, he pointed out. “The patient doesn’t select them directly and there is no opportunity to even find out who they are,” said Melnick.

Most patients have no idea that there may be other doctors involved with a colonoscopy, and Melnick highlighted his own recent experience. “I just had a colonoscopy and it never would have occurred to me. It never crossed my mind to even ask who is in network and who isn’t,” he said. “And I’m an expert on this.”

“The health plan could bear some responsibility here,” Melnick commented, although he added that patients need to be informed. Patients who are undergoing an elective procedure should be told that other doctors may be involved, and then to ask if these doctors are in the network. “If enough patients do this, maybe then the gastroenterologist will use people in network,” he commented.
 

Details of the surprise bills

Federal regulations eliminate consumer cost-sharing when screening colonoscopies are performed in-network, but there are no stipulations regarding expenses when out-of-network providers are used, the authors note.

To investigate this issue, the authors used a claims database from a large national insurer and identified patients aged 18 to 64 years who had undergone colonoscopy between 2012 and 2017.

The analysis was limited to cases where both the facility and the endoscopist were in-network, and the colonoscopies were stratified into those with visual inspection only and those during which an intervention was done, such as a biopsy. The primary outcome measure was the prevalence of out-of-network claims when the endoscopist and facility were in-network, and the secondary outcome was the amount of the potential surprise bills, which were calculated as the total out-of network charges less the typical in-network price.

A total of 1,118,769 elective colonoscopies with in-network endoscopists and facilities were identified and of these, 12.1% (n = 135,626) were involved with out-of-network claims. Out-of network anesthesiologists accounted for 64% of cases (median potential surprise bill, $488), while out-of-network pathologists were involved in 40% of cases (median potential surprise bill, $248). The likelihood of receiving an out-of-network claim was significantly higher if an intervention was performed during colonoscopy, as compared with those without intervention (13.9% vs. 8.2%; difference, 5.7%).

If an intervention was performed, 56% of potential surprise bills involved anesthesiologists and 51% pathologists. In cases with visual inspection only, 95% of out-of-network claims involved anesthesiologists.

The authors suggest that measures that can be taken to avoid surprise bills include having endoscopists and hospitals partner with anesthesia and pathology providers who are in-network. Another cost-saving strategy is the use of endoscopist-provided sedation rather than use of deeper anesthesia, and the authors also suggest that not all low-risk polyps need to be sent for pathological evaluation.

“Providers must realize many of our patients are at risk for considerable balance bills, and therefore they should provide resources that can provide reliable estimates for out-of-pocket costs relevant to site of service,” said lead author James Scheiman, MD, a professor of medicine at the University of Virginia School of Medicine in Charlottesville.

The study was funded by the University of Michigan. Chhabra reports personal fees from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Inc. Scheiman and Melnick have no disclosures.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Screening colonoscopy is the most cost effective test for prevention of colorectal cancer. The American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) believes that patients should be incentivized, through the elimination of cost sharing, to use colonoscopy as a colorectal cancer screening mechanism. Additionally, the preventive screening benefit has contributed to the decline in colorectal cancer rates in our country and this benefit should be preserved in any health care reform legislation. Learn more about how AGA advocates for patients at http://ow.ly/ULCZ30rf6J8.

Help your patients understand what to expect when paying for their colonoscopy by sharing AGA patient education at http://ow.ly/OteU30rf6HF.

A 23-month-old girl with a history of well-controlled atopic dermatitis was admitted to the hospital with fever and a widespread vesicular eruption of 2 days’ duration. Two days prior to admission, the patient had 3 episodes of nonbloody diarrhea and redness in the diaper area. The child’s parents reported that the red areas spread to her arms and legs later that day, and that she subsequently developed a fever, cough, and rhinorrhea. She was taken to an urgent care facility where she was diagnosed with vulvovaginitis and an upper respiratory infection; amoxicillin was prescribed. Shortly thereafter, the patient developed more lesions in and around the mouth, as well as on the trunk, prompting the parents to bring her to the emergency department.

The history revealed that the patient had spent time with her aunt and cousins who had “red spots” on their palms and soles. The patient’s sister had a flare of “cold sores,” about 2 weeks prior to the current presentation. The patient had received a varicella zoster virus (VZV) vaccine several months earlier.

Physical examination was notable for an uncomfortable infant with erythematous macules on the bilateral palms and soles and an erythematous hard palate. The child also had scattered vesicles on an erythematous base with confluent crusted plaques on her lips, perioral skin (FIGURE 1A), abdomen, back, buttocks, arms, legs (FIGURE 1B), and dorsal aspects of her hands and feet.

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

Given the history of atopic dermatitis; prodromal diarrhea/rhinorrhea; papulovesicular eruption involving areas of prior dermatitis as well as the palms, soles, and mouth; recent contacts with suspected hand-foot-mouth disease (HFMD); and history of VZV vaccination, the favored diagnosis was eczema coxsackium.

Eczema coxsackium is an atypical form of HFMD that occurs in patients with a history of eczema. Classic HFMD usually is caused by coxsackievirus A16 or enterovirus 71, while atypical HFMD often is caused by coxsackievirus A6.^1,2,3 Patients with HFMD present with painful oral vesicles and ulcers and a papulovesicular eruption on the palms, soles, and sometimes the buttocks and genitalia. Patients may have prodromal fever, fussiness, and diarrhea. Painful oral lesions may result in poor oral intake.^1,2

Differential includes viral eruptions

Other conditions may manifest similarly to eczema coxsackium and must be ruled out before initiating proper treatment.

Eczema herpeticum (EH). In atypical HFMD, the virus can show tropism for active or previously inflamed areas of eczematous skin, leading to a widespread vesicular eruption, which can be difficult to distinguish from EH.¹ Similar to EH, eczema coxsackium does not exclusively affect children with atopic dermatitis. It also has been described in adults and patients with Darier disease, incontinentia pigmenti, and epidermolytic ichthyosis.^4-6

Prompt diagnosis and treatment for eczema coxsackium is critical to prevent unnecessary antiviral therapy.

In cases of vesicular eruptions in eczema patients, it is imperative to rule out EH. One prospective study of atypical HFMD compared similarities of the conditions. Both have a predilection for mucosa during primary infection and develop vesicular eruptions on cutaneous eczematous skin.¹ One key difference between eczema coxsackium and EH is that EH tends to produce intraoral vesicles beyond simple erythema; it also tends to predominate in the area of the head and neck.⁷

Continue to: Eczema varicellicum

Eczema varicellicum has been reported, and it has been suggested that some cases of EH may actually be caused by VZV as the 2 are clinically indistinguishable and less than half of EH cases are diagnosed with laboratory confirmation.⁸

Confirm Dx before you treat

To guide management, cases of suspected eczema coxsackium should be confirmed, and HSV/VZV should be ruled out.⁹ Testing modalities include swabbing vesicular fluid for enterovirus polymerase chain reaction (PCR) analysis (preferred modality), oropharyngeal swab up to 2 weeks after infection, or viral isolate from stool samples up to 3 months after infection.^2,3

Treatment for eczema coxsackium involves supportive care such as intravenous (IV) hydration and antipyretics. Some studies show potential benefit with IV immunoglobulin in treating severe HFMD, while other studies show the exacerbation of widespread HFMD with this treatment.^7,10

Prompt diagnosis and treatment for eczema coxsackium is critical to prevent unnecessary antiviral therapy and to help guide monitoring for associated morbidities including Gianotti-Crosti syndrome–like eruptions, purpuric eruptions, and onychomadesis.

Our patient. Because EH was in the differential, our patient was started on empiric IV acyclovir 10 mg/kg every 8 hours while test results were pending. In addition, she received acetaminophen, IV fluids, gentle sponge baths, and diligent emollient application. Scraping from a vesicle revealed negative herpes simplex virus 1/2 PCR, negative VZV direct fluorescent antibody, and a positive enterovirus PCR—confirming the diagnosis of eczema coxsackium. Interestingly, a viral culture was negative in our patient, consistent with prior reports of enterovirus being difficult to culture.¹¹

With confirmation of the diagnosis of eczema coxsackium, the IV acyclovir was discontinued, and symptoms resolved after 7 days.

CORRESPONDENCE
Shane M. Swink, DO, MS, Division of Dermatology, 1200 South Cedar Crest Boulevard, Allentown, PA 18103; [email protected]

A 23-month-old girl with a history of well-controlled atopic dermatitis was admitted to the hospital with fever and a widespread vesicular eruption of 2 days’ duration. Two days prior to admission, the patient had 3 episodes of nonbloody diarrhea and redness in the diaper area. The child’s parents reported that the red areas spread to her arms and legs later that day, and that she subsequently developed a fever, cough, and rhinorrhea. She was taken to an urgent care facility where she was diagnosed with vulvovaginitis and an upper respiratory infection; amoxicillin was prescribed. Shortly thereafter, the patient developed more lesions in and around the mouth, as well as on the trunk, prompting the parents to bring her to the emergency department.

The history revealed that the patient had spent time with her aunt and cousins who had “red spots” on their palms and soles. The patient’s sister had a flare of “cold sores,” about 2 weeks prior to the current presentation. The patient had received a varicella zoster virus (VZV) vaccine several months earlier.

Physical examination was notable for an uncomfortable infant with erythematous macules on the bilateral palms and soles and an erythematous hard palate. The child also had scattered vesicles on an erythematous base with confluent crusted plaques on her lips, perioral skin (FIGURE 1A), abdomen, back, buttocks, arms, legs (FIGURE 1B), and dorsal aspects of her hands and feet.

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

Given the history of atopic dermatitis; prodromal diarrhea/rhinorrhea; papulovesicular eruption involving areas of prior dermatitis as well as the palms, soles, and mouth; recent contacts with suspected hand-foot-mouth disease (HFMD); and history of VZV vaccination, the favored diagnosis was eczema coxsackium.

Eczema coxsackium is an atypical form of HFMD that occurs in patients with a history of eczema. Classic HFMD usually is caused by coxsackievirus A16 or enterovirus 71, while atypical HFMD often is caused by coxsackievirus A6.^1,2,3 Patients with HFMD present with painful oral vesicles and ulcers and a papulovesicular eruption on the palms, soles, and sometimes the buttocks and genitalia. Patients may have prodromal fever, fussiness, and diarrhea. Painful oral lesions may result in poor oral intake.^1,2

Differential includes viral eruptions

Other conditions may manifest similarly to eczema coxsackium and must be ruled out before initiating proper treatment.

Eczema herpeticum (EH). In atypical HFMD, the virus can show tropism for active or previously inflamed areas of eczematous skin, leading to a widespread vesicular eruption, which can be difficult to distinguish from EH.¹ Similar to EH, eczema coxsackium does not exclusively affect children with atopic dermatitis. It also has been described in adults and patients with Darier disease, incontinentia pigmenti, and epidermolytic ichthyosis.^4-6

Prompt diagnosis and treatment for eczema coxsackium is critical to prevent unnecessary antiviral therapy.

In cases of vesicular eruptions in eczema patients, it is imperative to rule out EH. One prospective study of atypical HFMD compared similarities of the conditions. Both have a predilection for mucosa during primary infection and develop vesicular eruptions on cutaneous eczematous skin.¹ One key difference between eczema coxsackium and EH is that EH tends to produce intraoral vesicles beyond simple erythema; it also tends to predominate in the area of the head and neck.⁷

Continue to: Eczema varicellicum

Eczema varicellicum has been reported, and it has been suggested that some cases of EH may actually be caused by VZV as the 2 are clinically indistinguishable and less than half of EH cases are diagnosed with laboratory confirmation.⁸

Confirm Dx before you treat

To guide management, cases of suspected eczema coxsackium should be confirmed, and HSV/VZV should be ruled out.⁹ Testing modalities include swabbing vesicular fluid for enterovirus polymerase chain reaction (PCR) analysis (preferred modality), oropharyngeal swab up to 2 weeks after infection, or viral isolate from stool samples up to 3 months after infection.^2,3

Treatment for eczema coxsackium involves supportive care such as intravenous (IV) hydration and antipyretics. Some studies show potential benefit with IV immunoglobulin in treating severe HFMD, while other studies show the exacerbation of widespread HFMD with this treatment.^7,10

Prompt diagnosis and treatment for eczema coxsackium is critical to prevent unnecessary antiviral therapy and to help guide monitoring for associated morbidities including Gianotti-Crosti syndrome–like eruptions, purpuric eruptions, and onychomadesis.

Our patient. Because EH was in the differential, our patient was started on empiric IV acyclovir 10 mg/kg every 8 hours while test results were pending. In addition, she received acetaminophen, IV fluids, gentle sponge baths, and diligent emollient application. Scraping from a vesicle revealed negative herpes simplex virus 1/2 PCR, negative VZV direct fluorescent antibody, and a positive enterovirus PCR—confirming the diagnosis of eczema coxsackium. Interestingly, a viral culture was negative in our patient, consistent with prior reports of enterovirus being difficult to culture.¹¹

With confirmation of the diagnosis of eczema coxsackium, the IV acyclovir was discontinued, and symptoms resolved after 7 days.

CORRESPONDENCE
Shane M. Swink, DO, MS, Division of Dermatology, 1200 South Cedar Crest Boulevard, Allentown, PA 18103; [email protected]

A 23-month-old girl with a history of well-controlled atopic dermatitis was admitted to the hospital with fever and a widespread vesicular eruption of 2 days’ duration. Two days prior to admission, the patient had 3 episodes of nonbloody diarrhea and redness in the diaper area. The child’s parents reported that the red areas spread to her arms and legs later that day, and that she subsequently developed a fever, cough, and rhinorrhea. She was taken to an urgent care facility where she was diagnosed with vulvovaginitis and an upper respiratory infection; amoxicillin was prescribed. Shortly thereafter, the patient developed more lesions in and around the mouth, as well as on the trunk, prompting the parents to bring her to the emergency department.

The history revealed that the patient had spent time with her aunt and cousins who had “red spots” on their palms and soles. The patient’s sister had a flare of “cold sores,” about 2 weeks prior to the current presentation. The patient had received a varicella zoster virus (VZV) vaccine several months earlier.

Physical examination was notable for an uncomfortable infant with erythematous macules on the bilateral palms and soles and an erythematous hard palate. The child also had scattered vesicles on an erythematous base with confluent crusted plaques on her lips, perioral skin (FIGURE 1A), abdomen, back, buttocks, arms, legs (FIGURE 1B), and dorsal aspects of her hands and feet.

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

Given the history of atopic dermatitis; prodromal diarrhea/rhinorrhea; papulovesicular eruption involving areas of prior dermatitis as well as the palms, soles, and mouth; recent contacts with suspected hand-foot-mouth disease (HFMD); and history of VZV vaccination, the favored diagnosis was eczema coxsackium.

Eczema coxsackium is an atypical form of HFMD that occurs in patients with a history of eczema. Classic HFMD usually is caused by coxsackievirus A16 or enterovirus 71, while atypical HFMD often is caused by coxsackievirus A6.^1,2,3 Patients with HFMD present with painful oral vesicles and ulcers and a papulovesicular eruption on the palms, soles, and sometimes the buttocks and genitalia. Patients may have prodromal fever, fussiness, and diarrhea. Painful oral lesions may result in poor oral intake.^1,2

Differential includes viral eruptions

Other conditions may manifest similarly to eczema coxsackium and must be ruled out before initiating proper treatment.

Eczema herpeticum (EH). In atypical HFMD, the virus can show tropism for active or previously inflamed areas of eczematous skin, leading to a widespread vesicular eruption, which can be difficult to distinguish from EH.¹ Similar to EH, eczema coxsackium does not exclusively affect children with atopic dermatitis. It also has been described in adults and patients with Darier disease, incontinentia pigmenti, and epidermolytic ichthyosis.^4-6

Prompt diagnosis and treatment for eczema coxsackium is critical to prevent unnecessary antiviral therapy.

In cases of vesicular eruptions in eczema patients, it is imperative to rule out EH. One prospective study of atypical HFMD compared similarities of the conditions. Both have a predilection for mucosa during primary infection and develop vesicular eruptions on cutaneous eczematous skin.¹ One key difference between eczema coxsackium and EH is that EH tends to produce intraoral vesicles beyond simple erythema; it also tends to predominate in the area of the head and neck.⁷

Continue to: Eczema varicellicum

Eczema varicellicum has been reported, and it has been suggested that some cases of EH may actually be caused by VZV as the 2 are clinically indistinguishable and less than half of EH cases are diagnosed with laboratory confirmation.⁸

Confirm Dx before you treat

To guide management, cases of suspected eczema coxsackium should be confirmed, and HSV/VZV should be ruled out.⁹ Testing modalities include swabbing vesicular fluid for enterovirus polymerase chain reaction (PCR) analysis (preferred modality), oropharyngeal swab up to 2 weeks after infection, or viral isolate from stool samples up to 3 months after infection.^2,3

Treatment for eczema coxsackium involves supportive care such as intravenous (IV) hydration and antipyretics. Some studies show potential benefit with IV immunoglobulin in treating severe HFMD, while other studies show the exacerbation of widespread HFMD with this treatment.^7,10

Prompt diagnosis and treatment for eczema coxsackium is critical to prevent unnecessary antiviral therapy and to help guide monitoring for associated morbidities including Gianotti-Crosti syndrome–like eruptions, purpuric eruptions, and onychomadesis.

Our patient. Because EH was in the differential, our patient was started on empiric IV acyclovir 10 mg/kg every 8 hours while test results were pending. In addition, she received acetaminophen, IV fluids, gentle sponge baths, and diligent emollient application. Scraping from a vesicle revealed negative herpes simplex virus 1/2 PCR, negative VZV direct fluorescent antibody, and a positive enterovirus PCR—confirming the diagnosis of eczema coxsackium. Interestingly, a viral culture was negative in our patient, consistent with prior reports of enterovirus being difficult to culture.¹¹

With confirmation of the diagnosis of eczema coxsackium, the IV acyclovir was discontinued, and symptoms resolved after 7 days.

CORRESPONDENCE
Shane M. Swink, DO, MS, Division of Dermatology, 1200 South Cedar Crest Boulevard, Allentown, PA 18103; [email protected]

The characteristic finding of small, scattered vesicular lesions on the hands that sometimes coalesce, and often are itchy or irritated led to the diagnosis of vesicular hand dermatitis, a form of eczema. It also is referred to as dyshidrotic eczema or pompholyx. (Worth noting is the fact that common warts and flat warts usually present as raised papular—not vesicular—lesions on the hands.)

The exact etiology of vesicular hand dermatitis is unknown. It is more common in women than men and often occurs in patients 20 to 40 years of age who tend to have a positive family history of eczema. It usually develops acutely and often is triggered by topical irritants or frequent hand washing. Treatment during the acute phase includes topical steroids. Avoidance of topical irritants, use of mild cleansers instead of harsh soaps, reduction of hand washing frequency (if possible), and frequent application of emollients can reduce recurrence.

This patient’s eczema had been successfully treated with betamethasone dipropionate ointment 0.05% in the past. Since she still had some at home, she was instructed to use it twice daily along with topical emmolients. She reported great improvement within 1 week.

Photo and text courtesy of Daniel Stulberg, MD, FAAFP, Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque.

The characteristic finding of small, scattered vesicular lesions on the hands that sometimes coalesce, and often are itchy or irritated led to the diagnosis of vesicular hand dermatitis, a form of eczema. It also is referred to as dyshidrotic eczema or pompholyx. (Worth noting is the fact that common warts and flat warts usually present as raised papular—not vesicular—lesions on the hands.)

The exact etiology of vesicular hand dermatitis is unknown. It is more common in women than men and often occurs in patients 20 to 40 years of age who tend to have a positive family history of eczema. It usually develops acutely and often is triggered by topical irritants or frequent hand washing. Treatment during the acute phase includes topical steroids. Avoidance of topical irritants, use of mild cleansers instead of harsh soaps, reduction of hand washing frequency (if possible), and frequent application of emollients can reduce recurrence.

This patient’s eczema had been successfully treated with betamethasone dipropionate ointment 0.05% in the past. Since she still had some at home, she was instructed to use it twice daily along with topical emmolients. She reported great improvement within 1 week.

Photo and text courtesy of Daniel Stulberg, MD, FAAFP, Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque.

The characteristic finding of small, scattered vesicular lesions on the hands that sometimes coalesce, and often are itchy or irritated led to the diagnosis of vesicular hand dermatitis, a form of eczema. It also is referred to as dyshidrotic eczema or pompholyx. (Worth noting is the fact that common warts and flat warts usually present as raised papular—not vesicular—lesions on the hands.)

The exact etiology of vesicular hand dermatitis is unknown. It is more common in women than men and often occurs in patients 20 to 40 years of age who tend to have a positive family history of eczema. It usually develops acutely and often is triggered by topical irritants or frequent hand washing. Treatment during the acute phase includes topical steroids. Avoidance of topical irritants, use of mild cleansers instead of harsh soaps, reduction of hand washing frequency (if possible), and frequent application of emollients can reduce recurrence.

This patient’s eczema had been successfully treated with betamethasone dipropionate ointment 0.05% in the past. Since she still had some at home, she was instructed to use it twice daily along with topical emmolients. She reported great improvement within 1 week.

Photo and text courtesy of Daniel Stulberg, MD, FAAFP, Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque.

Upadacitinib (Rinvoq) proved superior to abatacept in both disease activity and remission in rheumatoid arthritis patients yet led to more adverse events, according to a new study that compared the two drugs.

“Additional data from longer and larger trials are needed to better understand long-term outcomes and safety of upadacitinib as compared with other drugs for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis,” wrote Andrea Rubbert-Roth, MD, of the Cantonal Clinic St. Gallen in St. Gallen, Switzerland, and her colleagues. The study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The Food and Drug Administration approved upadacitinib for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in August 2019.

To compare the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor upadacitinib and the biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) abatacept as safe and effective treatments for RA, the researchers launched a randomized, double-blind, phase 3 clinical trial dubbed SELECT-CHOICE at 120 sites in 28 countries. All patients had moderate to severe active disease after previously having inadequate responses to at least one biologic DMARD. Slightly more than 82% of the participants were female, with a mean age of 55 years and mean RA duration of 12 years.

Patients were assigned either 15 mg of oral upadacitinib daily (n = 303) or intravenous abatacept at day 1 and weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 16 and 20 (n = 309) with dosage tied to body weight, each in combination with stable synthetic DMARDs. Disease activity was measured after 12 weeks via the Disease Activity Score for 28 joints using C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP). A DAS28-CRP of more than 5.1 was categorized as high disease activity, while 3.2-5.1 meant moderate disease activity, 2.6-3.2 meant low disease activity, and less than 2.6 indicated remission.

The mean DAS28-CRP at baseline was 5.70 in the upadacitinib group and 5.88 in the abatacept group. After 12 weeks, the mean change from baseline was –2.52 points and –2.00 points, respectively (difference, –0.52 points; 95% confidence interval, –0.69 to –0.35; P < .001 for noninferiority; P < .001 for superiority). In patients with a DAS28-CRP of less than 2.6, the percentage of those having remission was 30% with upadacitinib and 13.3% with abatacept (difference, 16.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 10.4 to 23.2; P < .001 for superiority).

Over the 24-week trial period, the incidence of all adverse events (209 vs. 189) and serious adverse events (10 vs. 5) was higher in the upadacitinib group than in the abatacept group. There were 23 cases of hepatic disorder with upadacitinib, compared with 5 with abatacept; 2 thromboembolic events with upadacitinib, compared with 0 with abatacept; and 2 deaths with upadacitinib, compared with 1 with abatacept.

“The thing that bothers me, actually, is the adverse events,” Daniel E. Furst, MD, professor of medicine (emeritus) and rheumatology at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview. “There were a fair number of them, all of which were a little higher in upadacitinib. They certainly made very little of those.”

He noted several other concerns about the study, including a potential geographic effect stemming from 60% of the study’s centers being in South and Central America and Eastern Europe. “Those patients don’t always have very good medical care,” he said. “They have an inherent, underlying placebo response that can be much different than Western Europe and North America.”

He also questioned their choice of primary endpoint metric.

“I think a much more legitimate way at looking at remission is the CDAI [Clinical Disease Activity Index] rather than the DAS28,” he said. “The DAS28, even at its best, is low disease activity, not true remission.”

“Bottom line,” he added, “this is a legitimate study that supports previous findings. One more important thing that is overlooked, though, is an economic analysis. A true economic analysis would be very important to place this in the armamentarium.”
 

Study affirms upadacitinib’s place in the RA treatment pecking order

By showing that upadacitinib was not only noninferior but superior to abatacept in decreasing disease activity, Rubbert-Roth and colleagues have positioned the JAK inhibitor at “the forefront of treatment for rheumatoid arthritis,” wrote Guro L. Goll, MD, PhD, and Tore K. Kvien, MD, PhD, of Diakonhjemmet Hospital in Oslo, in an accompanying editorial.

Though the authors noted that the 24-week trial was likely too short to make meaningful assumptions about long-term outcomes, they recognized the notably improved treatment outcomes over the study period and stated the importance of “head-to-head trials ... to inform evidence-based clinical decisions.” Similar to Dr. Furst, however, they stated an interest in “detailed data on changes in the CDAI score as a continuous measure.”

They also acknowledged the significant increase in adverse events among patients in the upadacitinib group, underlining the need to learn more in forthcoming, lengthier trials. “Rheumatologists will be looking hard at future data,” they wrote, “to assess whether improved treatment outcomes justify an increased risk of adverse events.”

The study was supported by AbbVie. The authors acknowledged numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving research grants and fees from various pharmaceutical companies for consulting, lectures, and being on advisory boards.

SOURCE: Rubbert-Roth A et al. N Engl J Med. 2020 Oct 14. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2008250.

Upadacitinib (Rinvoq) proved superior to abatacept in both disease activity and remission in rheumatoid arthritis patients yet led to more adverse events, according to a new study that compared the two drugs.

“Additional data from longer and larger trials are needed to better understand long-term outcomes and safety of upadacitinib as compared with other drugs for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis,” wrote Andrea Rubbert-Roth, MD, of the Cantonal Clinic St. Gallen in St. Gallen, Switzerland, and her colleagues. The study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The Food and Drug Administration approved upadacitinib for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in August 2019.

To compare the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor upadacitinib and the biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) abatacept as safe and effective treatments for RA, the researchers launched a randomized, double-blind, phase 3 clinical trial dubbed SELECT-CHOICE at 120 sites in 28 countries. All patients had moderate to severe active disease after previously having inadequate responses to at least one biologic DMARD. Slightly more than 82% of the participants were female, with a mean age of 55 years and mean RA duration of 12 years.

Patients were assigned either 15 mg of oral upadacitinib daily (n = 303) or intravenous abatacept at day 1 and weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 16 and 20 (n = 309) with dosage tied to body weight, each in combination with stable synthetic DMARDs. Disease activity was measured after 12 weeks via the Disease Activity Score for 28 joints using C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP). A DAS28-CRP of more than 5.1 was categorized as high disease activity, while 3.2-5.1 meant moderate disease activity, 2.6-3.2 meant low disease activity, and less than 2.6 indicated remission.

The mean DAS28-CRP at baseline was 5.70 in the upadacitinib group and 5.88 in the abatacept group. After 12 weeks, the mean change from baseline was –2.52 points and –2.00 points, respectively (difference, –0.52 points; 95% confidence interval, –0.69 to –0.35; P < .001 for noninferiority; P < .001 for superiority). In patients with a DAS28-CRP of less than 2.6, the percentage of those having remission was 30% with upadacitinib and 13.3% with abatacept (difference, 16.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 10.4 to 23.2; P < .001 for superiority).

Over the 24-week trial period, the incidence of all adverse events (209 vs. 189) and serious adverse events (10 vs. 5) was higher in the upadacitinib group than in the abatacept group. There were 23 cases of hepatic disorder with upadacitinib, compared with 5 with abatacept; 2 thromboembolic events with upadacitinib, compared with 0 with abatacept; and 2 deaths with upadacitinib, compared with 1 with abatacept.

“The thing that bothers me, actually, is the adverse events,” Daniel E. Furst, MD, professor of medicine (emeritus) and rheumatology at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview. “There were a fair number of them, all of which were a little higher in upadacitinib. They certainly made very little of those.”

He noted several other concerns about the study, including a potential geographic effect stemming from 60% of the study’s centers being in South and Central America and Eastern Europe. “Those patients don’t always have very good medical care,” he said. “They have an inherent, underlying placebo response that can be much different than Western Europe and North America.”

He also questioned their choice of primary endpoint metric.

“I think a much more legitimate way at looking at remission is the CDAI [Clinical Disease Activity Index] rather than the DAS28,” he said. “The DAS28, even at its best, is low disease activity, not true remission.”

“Bottom line,” he added, “this is a legitimate study that supports previous findings. One more important thing that is overlooked, though, is an economic analysis. A true economic analysis would be very important to place this in the armamentarium.”
 

Study affirms upadacitinib’s place in the RA treatment pecking order

By showing that upadacitinib was not only noninferior but superior to abatacept in decreasing disease activity, Rubbert-Roth and colleagues have positioned the JAK inhibitor at “the forefront of treatment for rheumatoid arthritis,” wrote Guro L. Goll, MD, PhD, and Tore K. Kvien, MD, PhD, of Diakonhjemmet Hospital in Oslo, in an accompanying editorial.

Though the authors noted that the 24-week trial was likely too short to make meaningful assumptions about long-term outcomes, they recognized the notably improved treatment outcomes over the study period and stated the importance of “head-to-head trials ... to inform evidence-based clinical decisions.” Similar to Dr. Furst, however, they stated an interest in “detailed data on changes in the CDAI score as a continuous measure.”

They also acknowledged the significant increase in adverse events among patients in the upadacitinib group, underlining the need to learn more in forthcoming, lengthier trials. “Rheumatologists will be looking hard at future data,” they wrote, “to assess whether improved treatment outcomes justify an increased risk of adverse events.”

The study was supported by AbbVie. The authors acknowledged numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving research grants and fees from various pharmaceutical companies for consulting, lectures, and being on advisory boards.

SOURCE: Rubbert-Roth A et al. N Engl J Med. 2020 Oct 14. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2008250.

Upadacitinib (Rinvoq) proved superior to abatacept in both disease activity and remission in rheumatoid arthritis patients yet led to more adverse events, according to a new study that compared the two drugs.

“Additional data from longer and larger trials are needed to better understand long-term outcomes and safety of upadacitinib as compared with other drugs for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis,” wrote Andrea Rubbert-Roth, MD, of the Cantonal Clinic St. Gallen in St. Gallen, Switzerland, and her colleagues. The study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The Food and Drug Administration approved upadacitinib for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in August 2019.

To compare the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor upadacitinib and the biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) abatacept as safe and effective treatments for RA, the researchers launched a randomized, double-blind, phase 3 clinical trial dubbed SELECT-CHOICE at 120 sites in 28 countries. All patients had moderate to severe active disease after previously having inadequate responses to at least one biologic DMARD. Slightly more than 82% of the participants were female, with a mean age of 55 years and mean RA duration of 12 years.

Patients were assigned either 15 mg of oral upadacitinib daily (n = 303) or intravenous abatacept at day 1 and weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 16 and 20 (n = 309) with dosage tied to body weight, each in combination with stable synthetic DMARDs. Disease activity was measured after 12 weeks via the Disease Activity Score for 28 joints using C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP). A DAS28-CRP of more than 5.1 was categorized as high disease activity, while 3.2-5.1 meant moderate disease activity, 2.6-3.2 meant low disease activity, and less than 2.6 indicated remission.

The mean DAS28-CRP at baseline was 5.70 in the upadacitinib group and 5.88 in the abatacept group. After 12 weeks, the mean change from baseline was –2.52 points and –2.00 points, respectively (difference, –0.52 points; 95% confidence interval, –0.69 to –0.35; P < .001 for noninferiority; P < .001 for superiority). In patients with a DAS28-CRP of less than 2.6, the percentage of those having remission was 30% with upadacitinib and 13.3% with abatacept (difference, 16.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 10.4 to 23.2; P < .001 for superiority).

Over the 24-week trial period, the incidence of all adverse events (209 vs. 189) and serious adverse events (10 vs. 5) was higher in the upadacitinib group than in the abatacept group. There were 23 cases of hepatic disorder with upadacitinib, compared with 5 with abatacept; 2 thromboembolic events with upadacitinib, compared with 0 with abatacept; and 2 deaths with upadacitinib, compared with 1 with abatacept.

“The thing that bothers me, actually, is the adverse events,” Daniel E. Furst, MD, professor of medicine (emeritus) and rheumatology at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview. “There were a fair number of them, all of which were a little higher in upadacitinib. They certainly made very little of those.”

He noted several other concerns about the study, including a potential geographic effect stemming from 60% of the study’s centers being in South and Central America and Eastern Europe. “Those patients don’t always have very good medical care,” he said. “They have an inherent, underlying placebo response that can be much different than Western Europe and North America.”

He also questioned their choice of primary endpoint metric.

“I think a much more legitimate way at looking at remission is the CDAI [Clinical Disease Activity Index] rather than the DAS28,” he said. “The DAS28, even at its best, is low disease activity, not true remission.”

“Bottom line,” he added, “this is a legitimate study that supports previous findings. One more important thing that is overlooked, though, is an economic analysis. A true economic analysis would be very important to place this in the armamentarium.”
 

Study affirms upadacitinib’s place in the RA treatment pecking order

By showing that upadacitinib was not only noninferior but superior to abatacept in decreasing disease activity, Rubbert-Roth and colleagues have positioned the JAK inhibitor at “the forefront of treatment for rheumatoid arthritis,” wrote Guro L. Goll, MD, PhD, and Tore K. Kvien, MD, PhD, of Diakonhjemmet Hospital in Oslo, in an accompanying editorial.

Though the authors noted that the 24-week trial was likely too short to make meaningful assumptions about long-term outcomes, they recognized the notably improved treatment outcomes over the study period and stated the importance of “head-to-head trials ... to inform evidence-based clinical decisions.” Similar to Dr. Furst, however, they stated an interest in “detailed data on changes in the CDAI score as a continuous measure.”

They also acknowledged the significant increase in adverse events among patients in the upadacitinib group, underlining the need to learn more in forthcoming, lengthier trials. “Rheumatologists will be looking hard at future data,” they wrote, “to assess whether improved treatment outcomes justify an increased risk of adverse events.”

The study was supported by AbbVie. The authors acknowledged numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving research grants and fees from various pharmaceutical companies for consulting, lectures, and being on advisory boards.

SOURCE: Rubbert-Roth A et al. N Engl J Med. 2020 Oct 14. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2008250.

Picosecond and nanosecond lasers are far more effective for treating individual lentigines, compared with other types of devices, but ultrashort pulses carry a higher risk for postinflammatory hyperpigmentation than intense pulsed light or the long-pulsed laser, according to Mathew M. Avram, MD, JD.

For treating melanosomes with selective photothermolysis, some of the peak wavelengths include 532 nm, 694 nm, 755 nm, and 1064 nm, Dr. Avram, director of laser, cosmetics, and dermatologic surgery at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said during the virtual annual Masters of Aesthetics Symposium. “The ideal target is fair skin with a dark, pigmented lesion,” he said. “That way you’re going to get energy focused to the melanin that’s in the lesion itself.”

Q-switched and picosecond lasers are effective for pigmented lesions. These employ as much energy as the city of Boston for 20-30 billionths of a second, or 750 picoseconds. “This raises the temperature to 1,000° C in that time, which produces the characteristic epidermal whitening,” he said. “This targets pigment cells only, whether it’s exogenous or endogenous pigment.”

Benign pigmented lesions amenable to the Q-switched nanosecond and picosecond laser include lentigines and nevus of Ota/Ito. The mechanism of action for clinical lightening is fragmentation and release of melanin-laden cells and the gradual uptake and removal of fragments by activated macrophages into lymphatic vessels. “For effective results, do not blindly memorize settings or replicate recommended settings from a colleague or a device manufacturer,” advised Dr. Avram, who practiced law prior to becoming a physician. “Some lasers are not externally calibrated, so what you have to do is pay attention to the laser endpoint, which in this case is epidermal whitening. Tissue ‘splatter’ is an unsafe endpoint and may lead to scarring. Safe and unsafe laser endpoints and close clinical observation are the best means to avoid complications and get the best results for your patients. The key finding is the endpoint, not the energy settings.”

Pigmented lesions that should not be treated with a laser include atypical nevi, lentigo maligna, and other forms of melanoma. “When in doubt, perform a biopsy,” he said. “Regardless of who referred the case, you are liable if you treat a melanoma with a laser. This is not only misdiagnosis but it probably delays diagnosis as well. If you cannot recognize basis pigmented lesion morphology, do not treat pigmented lesions. At some point, it’s going to catch up with you.”

Patients with more pigment to their skin face a higher risk for postinflammatory hyperpigmentation, Dr. Avram continued. While longer pulsed lasers produce less hyperpigmentation, they’re also less effective at getting rid of lesions. “You can combine a long-pulsed laser with fractional resurfacing or IPL [intense pulsed light] to optimize improvement,” he said. “If you don’t have two lasers to use, you can just use a longer-pulsed laser. The desired treatment endpoint for this approach is an ashen gray appearance.” Options include a 532-nm Nd:YAG laser with or without cooling, a 595-nm pulsed dye laser without cooling, and a 755-nm alexandrite laser without cooling.

One advance in the treatment of seborrheic keratoses is Nano-Pulse Stimulation (NPS), a novel technology being developed by Pulse Biosciences. With this approach, nanosecond electrical energy pulses cause internal organelle disruption, which leads to regulated cell death. “The cell-specific effect is nonthermal, as a typical nano-pulse delivers 0.1 joules of energy distributed in a volume of tissue,” Dr. Avram said. Early human studies established safe doses and validation of mechanism hypothesis for benign-lesion efficacy. “What you have are tiny nanopores that allow calcium ions to flow into the cell,” he explained. “The nanopores in the endoplasmic reticulum allow calcium ions to flow out of the endoplasmic reticulum, stressing it. These nanopores in the mitochondria disrupt the ability to generate energy, and the cell dies.”

Histology has revealed that within days the procedure causes regulated cell death with no thermal effects. The ability of NPS energy to clear seborrheic keratoses (SK) was confirmed in a study of 58 subjects who had 174 SK lesions treated. The majority of SKs (82%) were rated as clear or mostly clear 106 days post treatment. All results reflected a single treatment session.

Another novel treatment, “cryomodulation,” a technology being developed by R. Rox Anderson, MD, Dieter Manstein, MD, PhD, and Henry Chan, MD, PhD, expresses cold-induced change to the skin as a way to pause melanin production. “You get melanin production paused but melanocyte function is preserved,” Dr. Avram explained. “There is a normal epidermal barrier and no persistent inflammatory response, so there’s no hyperpigmentation.” He characterized it as an ease-of-use clinical procedure for treating benign lesions in all skin types. A mask is applied to confine freezing to the desired treatment area, and hydrated gauze is used to help facilitate ice crystal propagation. A prototype of the device features a parameter selection based on lesion type, anatomical location, and skin type. “It uses between 107 and 166 kJ/m² of extracted energy, and you take photos at baseline and follow-up,” he said. “You get 2-3 days of redness, darkening, and swelling. It’s well tolerated, with minimal discomfort. There’s no long-term dyschromia. This is nice, because patients have little, if any, downtime.”

Dr. Avram disclosed that he has received consulting fees from Allergan, Merz, Sciton, and Soliton. He also reported having ownership and/or shareholder interest in Cytrellis.
 

[email protected]

Picosecond and nanosecond lasers are far more effective for treating individual lentigines, compared with other types of devices, but ultrashort pulses carry a higher risk for postinflammatory hyperpigmentation than intense pulsed light or the long-pulsed laser, according to Mathew M. Avram, MD, JD.

For treating melanosomes with selective photothermolysis, some of the peak wavelengths include 532 nm, 694 nm, 755 nm, and 1064 nm, Dr. Avram, director of laser, cosmetics, and dermatologic surgery at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said during the virtual annual Masters of Aesthetics Symposium. “The ideal target is fair skin with a dark, pigmented lesion,” he said. “That way you’re going to get energy focused to the melanin that’s in the lesion itself.”

Q-switched and picosecond lasers are effective for pigmented lesions. These employ as much energy as the city of Boston for 20-30 billionths of a second, or 750 picoseconds. “This raises the temperature to 1,000° C in that time, which produces the characteristic epidermal whitening,” he said. “This targets pigment cells only, whether it’s exogenous or endogenous pigment.”

Benign pigmented lesions amenable to the Q-switched nanosecond and picosecond laser include lentigines and nevus of Ota/Ito. The mechanism of action for clinical lightening is fragmentation and release of melanin-laden cells and the gradual uptake and removal of fragments by activated macrophages into lymphatic vessels. “For effective results, do not blindly memorize settings or replicate recommended settings from a colleague or a device manufacturer,” advised Dr. Avram, who practiced law prior to becoming a physician. “Some lasers are not externally calibrated, so what you have to do is pay attention to the laser endpoint, which in this case is epidermal whitening. Tissue ‘splatter’ is an unsafe endpoint and may lead to scarring. Safe and unsafe laser endpoints and close clinical observation are the best means to avoid complications and get the best results for your patients. The key finding is the endpoint, not the energy settings.”

Pigmented lesions that should not be treated with a laser include atypical nevi, lentigo maligna, and other forms of melanoma. “When in doubt, perform a biopsy,” he said. “Regardless of who referred the case, you are liable if you treat a melanoma with a laser. This is not only misdiagnosis but it probably delays diagnosis as well. If you cannot recognize basis pigmented lesion morphology, do not treat pigmented lesions. At some point, it’s going to catch up with you.”

Patients with more pigment to their skin face a higher risk for postinflammatory hyperpigmentation, Dr. Avram continued. While longer pulsed lasers produce less hyperpigmentation, they’re also less effective at getting rid of lesions. “You can combine a long-pulsed laser with fractional resurfacing or IPL [intense pulsed light] to optimize improvement,” he said. “If you don’t have two lasers to use, you can just use a longer-pulsed laser. The desired treatment endpoint for this approach is an ashen gray appearance.” Options include a 532-nm Nd:YAG laser with or without cooling, a 595-nm pulsed dye laser without cooling, and a 755-nm alexandrite laser without cooling.

One advance in the treatment of seborrheic keratoses is Nano-Pulse Stimulation (NPS), a novel technology being developed by Pulse Biosciences. With this approach, nanosecond electrical energy pulses cause internal organelle disruption, which leads to regulated cell death. “The cell-specific effect is nonthermal, as a typical nano-pulse delivers 0.1 joules of energy distributed in a volume of tissue,” Dr. Avram said. Early human studies established safe doses and validation of mechanism hypothesis for benign-lesion efficacy. “What you have are tiny nanopores that allow calcium ions to flow into the cell,” he explained. “The nanopores in the endoplasmic reticulum allow calcium ions to flow out of the endoplasmic reticulum, stressing it. These nanopores in the mitochondria disrupt the ability to generate energy, and the cell dies.”

Histology has revealed that within days the procedure causes regulated cell death with no thermal effects. The ability of NPS energy to clear seborrheic keratoses (SK) was confirmed in a study of 58 subjects who had 174 SK lesions treated. The majority of SKs (82%) were rated as clear or mostly clear 106 days post treatment. All results reflected a single treatment session.

Another novel treatment, “cryomodulation,” a technology being developed by R. Rox Anderson, MD, Dieter Manstein, MD, PhD, and Henry Chan, MD, PhD, expresses cold-induced change to the skin as a way to pause melanin production. “You get melanin production paused but melanocyte function is preserved,” Dr. Avram explained. “There is a normal epidermal barrier and no persistent inflammatory response, so there’s no hyperpigmentation.” He characterized it as an ease-of-use clinical procedure for treating benign lesions in all skin types. A mask is applied to confine freezing to the desired treatment area, and hydrated gauze is used to help facilitate ice crystal propagation. A prototype of the device features a parameter selection based on lesion type, anatomical location, and skin type. “It uses between 107 and 166 kJ/m² of extracted energy, and you take photos at baseline and follow-up,” he said. “You get 2-3 days of redness, darkening, and swelling. It’s well tolerated, with minimal discomfort. There’s no long-term dyschromia. This is nice, because patients have little, if any, downtime.”

Dr. Avram disclosed that he has received consulting fees from Allergan, Merz, Sciton, and Soliton. He also reported having ownership and/or shareholder interest in Cytrellis.
 

[email protected]

Picosecond and nanosecond lasers are far more effective for treating individual lentigines, compared with other types of devices, but ultrashort pulses carry a higher risk for postinflammatory hyperpigmentation than intense pulsed light or the long-pulsed laser, according to Mathew M. Avram, MD, JD.

For treating melanosomes with selective photothermolysis, some of the peak wavelengths include 532 nm, 694 nm, 755 nm, and 1064 nm, Dr. Avram, director of laser, cosmetics, and dermatologic surgery at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said during the virtual annual Masters of Aesthetics Symposium. “The ideal target is fair skin with a dark, pigmented lesion,” he said. “That way you’re going to get energy focused to the melanin that’s in the lesion itself.”

Q-switched and picosecond lasers are effective for pigmented lesions. These employ as much energy as the city of Boston for 20-30 billionths of a second, or 750 picoseconds. “This raises the temperature to 1,000° C in that time, which produces the characteristic epidermal whitening,” he said. “This targets pigment cells only, whether it’s exogenous or endogenous pigment.”

Benign pigmented lesions amenable to the Q-switched nanosecond and picosecond laser include lentigines and nevus of Ota/Ito. The mechanism of action for clinical lightening is fragmentation and release of melanin-laden cells and the gradual uptake and removal of fragments by activated macrophages into lymphatic vessels. “For effective results, do not blindly memorize settings or replicate recommended settings from a colleague or a device manufacturer,” advised Dr. Avram, who practiced law prior to becoming a physician. “Some lasers are not externally calibrated, so what you have to do is pay attention to the laser endpoint, which in this case is epidermal whitening. Tissue ‘splatter’ is an unsafe endpoint and may lead to scarring. Safe and unsafe laser endpoints and close clinical observation are the best means to avoid complications and get the best results for your patients. The key finding is the endpoint, not the energy settings.”

Pigmented lesions that should not be treated with a laser include atypical nevi, lentigo maligna, and other forms of melanoma. “When in doubt, perform a biopsy,” he said. “Regardless of who referred the case, you are liable if you treat a melanoma with a laser. This is not only misdiagnosis but it probably delays diagnosis as well. If you cannot recognize basis pigmented lesion morphology, do not treat pigmented lesions. At some point, it’s going to catch up with you.”

Patients with more pigment to their skin face a higher risk for postinflammatory hyperpigmentation, Dr. Avram continued. While longer pulsed lasers produce less hyperpigmentation, they’re also less effective at getting rid of lesions. “You can combine a long-pulsed laser with fractional resurfacing or IPL [intense pulsed light] to optimize improvement,” he said. “If you don’t have two lasers to use, you can just use a longer-pulsed laser. The desired treatment endpoint for this approach is an ashen gray appearance.” Options include a 532-nm Nd:YAG laser with or without cooling, a 595-nm pulsed dye laser without cooling, and a 755-nm alexandrite laser without cooling.

One advance in the treatment of seborrheic keratoses is Nano-Pulse Stimulation (NPS), a novel technology being developed by Pulse Biosciences. With this approach, nanosecond electrical energy pulses cause internal organelle disruption, which leads to regulated cell death. “The cell-specific effect is nonthermal, as a typical nano-pulse delivers 0.1 joules of energy distributed in a volume of tissue,” Dr. Avram said. Early human studies established safe doses and validation of mechanism hypothesis for benign-lesion efficacy. “What you have are tiny nanopores that allow calcium ions to flow into the cell,” he explained. “The nanopores in the endoplasmic reticulum allow calcium ions to flow out of the endoplasmic reticulum, stressing it. These nanopores in the mitochondria disrupt the ability to generate energy, and the cell dies.”

Histology has revealed that within days the procedure causes regulated cell death with no thermal effects. The ability of NPS energy to clear seborrheic keratoses (SK) was confirmed in a study of 58 subjects who had 174 SK lesions treated. The majority of SKs (82%) were rated as clear or mostly clear 106 days post treatment. All results reflected a single treatment session.

Another novel treatment, “cryomodulation,” a technology being developed by R. Rox Anderson, MD, Dieter Manstein, MD, PhD, and Henry Chan, MD, PhD, expresses cold-induced change to the skin as a way to pause melanin production. “You get melanin production paused but melanocyte function is preserved,” Dr. Avram explained. “There is a normal epidermal barrier and no persistent inflammatory response, so there’s no hyperpigmentation.” He characterized it as an ease-of-use clinical procedure for treating benign lesions in all skin types. A mask is applied to confine freezing to the desired treatment area, and hydrated gauze is used to help facilitate ice crystal propagation. A prototype of the device features a parameter selection based on lesion type, anatomical location, and skin type. “It uses between 107 and 166 kJ/m² of extracted energy, and you take photos at baseline and follow-up,” he said. “You get 2-3 days of redness, darkening, and swelling. It’s well tolerated, with minimal discomfort. There’s no long-term dyschromia. This is nice, because patients have little, if any, downtime.”

Dr. Avram disclosed that he has received consulting fees from Allergan, Merz, Sciton, and Soliton. He also reported having ownership and/or shareholder interest in Cytrellis.
 

[email protected]

Stress urinary incontinence (SUI) is the involuntary loss of urine with increased intra-abdominal pressure, such as with physical exertion, sneezing, or coughing.¹ Currently, the gold standard treatment for SUI is surgical repair with the use of a synthetic midurethral sling (MUS), based on long-term data that support its excellent efficacy and durability. The risk-benefit balance of MUS continues to be scrutinized, however, with erosions and pain poorly studied and apparently underreported. 

The medical-legal risks associated with the MUS are a significant concern and have led many patients to reconsider this option for their condition. Many other countries (United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, and European Union) are now re-evaluating the use of the MUS.² In the United Kingdom, for example, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Guideline advises considering the MUS only when another surgical intervention is not suitable for the patient.³ 

In light of the heightened skepticism surrounding the MUS, interest has increased in the use of urethral bulking agents. These agents consist of a material injected into the wall of the urethra to improve urethral coaptation in women with SUI.⁴ 

A brief history of bulking agents 

In 1938, Murless first reported the injection of sodium morrhuate for the management of urinary incontinence.⁴ Other early bulking agents introduced in the 1950s and 1960s included paraffin wax and sclerosing agents. Subsequently, Teflon, collagen, and autologous fat, among other agents, were found to be efficacious for augmenting urethral coaptation; however, only collagen initially demonstrated acceptable safety.⁵ 

Contigen (bovine dermal collagen cross-linked with gluteraldehyde) was approved as a bulking agent by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1993; however, the manufacturing of bovine collagen was halted in 2011. Contigen was the only nonpermanent biodegradable urethral bulking agent, and its use required skin testing prior to use, as 2% to 5% of women experienced allergic reaction.⁴ 

Presently, 3 particle-based urethral bulking agents are FDA approved for marketing in the United States: Macroplastique (Laborie Medical Technologies), Coaptite (Boston Scientific), and Durasphere (Coloplast). In addition, Bulkamid (Contura), which was approved earlier this year, is a nonparticulate agent composed of a nonresorbable polyacrylamide hydrogel.⁵ 

Continue to: Indications for use...

According to the FDA premarket approvals (PMAs) for the particle-based urethral bulking agents, their use is indicated for adult women with SUI primarily due to intrinsic sphincter deficiency (ISD).⁶ The PMA indication for the nonparticulate agent, however, allows it to be used for SUI as well as SUI-predominant mixed urinary incontinence (MUI) due to ISD.⁷ Traditionally, ISD is defined by urodynamic criteria that includes a maximal urethral closure pressure less than 20 to 25 cm of water and/or a Valsalva leak point pressure of less than 60 cm of water.⁴ 

The American Urological Association (AUA) guideline lists bulking agents as an option for women who do not wish to pursue invasive surgical intervention for SUI, are concerned about lengthier recovery after surgery, or have previously undergone anti-incontinence procedures with suboptimal results.⁸ In general, most urologists and urogynecologists who perform urethral bulking agree with the AUA guideline. 

Perceptions of bulking agents have shifted 

Urethral bulking agents traditionally have been thought of as a "salvage therapy." Perceived indications for these agents include use in women with persistent SUI after more invasive treatment options or in women who were medically fragile and thus could not undergo a more invasive procedure.⁹ As mentioned, however, circumstances related to mesh use have shifted the current perception of indications for urethral bulking agents from salvage therapy only to use as a possible first-line treatment in the appropriately selected patient.⁹ 

Recent data that note improved durability and patient satisfaction, as well as better appreciation of the fact that, if the bulking agent fails, a synthetic sling procedure still can be performed without significant concerns, have contributed to this shift in intervention strategy.^10,11 There also has been the perception that urethral bulking agents should not be considered in women who have urethral mobility. However, studies have shown that outcomes are not significantly different in patients with urethral mobility compared with those with a fixed urethra.¹¹ 

Types of bulking agents  

The ideal bulking agent should be made of a material that is biocompatible--with low host reactivity, low carcinogenic potential, low risk of migration--and easy to administer.⁵ Currently available bulking agents are classified as particulate and nonparticulate agents. The TABLE provides summary details of the available agents FDA approved for use.

Particulate bulking agents 

Durasphere, approved by the FDA in 1999, is composed of carbon-coated zirconium oxide in a water-based and beta-glucan carrier. The first generation of this agent had particles that ranged in size from 212 to 500 µm and required an 18-gauge needle for injection.4 The second-generation preparation has a smaller particle size, ranging from 90 to 212 µm, which permits injection with a smaller needle, typically 20 gauge.⁴ Theoretically, the larger bead size reduces the risk of migration as particles larger than 80 µm cannot be engulfed by macrophages.⁴ 

Coaptite is a calcium hydroxylapatite-based product approved by the FDA in 2005. The carrier media is composed of sodium carboxymethylcellulose, sterile water, and glycerin. The particle size ranges from 75 to 125 µm, with an average of 100 µm.⁵ This synthetic material historically has been used in orthopedics and dental applications. The aqueous gel carrier dissipates over months, resulting in tissue growth; thereafter, the particulate beads slowly degrade.¹² 

Macroplastique, a polydimethylsiloxane compound, was approved by the FDA in 2006. It has a long history of use primarily in Europe where it has been used since 1991. It is composed of a nonbiodegradable silicone (polydimethylsiloxane) elastomer suspended in a water-soluble gel. The initial composition was of particles that ranged in size from 5 to 400 µm, with 25% of the particles smaller than 50 µm. Because of the large number of particles smaller than 50 µm, there were concerns for migration.⁵ The agent's current composition contains particles that range from 120 to 600 µm, with an average particle size of 140 µm.⁴ 

Nonparticulate bulking agent 

Bulkamid has been available in Europe since 2003 and was FDA approved in January 2020. It is the only available nonparticulate urethral bulking agent; it is composed uniquely of a nonresorbable polyacrylamide hydrogel made of cross-linked 2.5% polyacrylamide and water. Its bulking effect is achieved through the actual volume of hydrogel injected, which integrates with host tissue by vessel ingrowth, suggestive of a persistent durable effect. Because Bulkamid contains no particles or crystals, the theoretical risk of migration is mitigated.⁴ 

Continue to: The urethral bulking technique...

The urethral bulking technique 

The basic technique for urethral bulking is similar for all agents, with nuances in technique for each agent. 

The procedure typically begins with placement of 2% lidocaine gel in the urethra for 5 to 10 minutes. The disposable needle is primed with the agent.⁴ For Durasphere, an 18- or 21-gauge rigid needle is used; for Coaptite, a 21-gauge rigid side injecting needle called the SideKick is used; and for Macroplastique, an 18- or 20-gauge rigid needle is used.⁴ Bulkamid administration requires the use of a special 23-gauge needle. Durasphere and Coaptite are delivered via a standard cystoscope.⁴ Macroplastique requires a proprietary delivery system4 (FIGURE 1). Bulkamid has a proprietary urethroscope and rotatable sheath to guide accuracy of injection (FIGURE 2).⁴ 

After the needle is primed and the delivery device placed into the urethra, the injection site is selected, approximately 1.5 to 2 cm from the bladder neck. The needle is introduced into the suburethral tissue at a 30- to 45-degree angle.  

The injection site varies by agent. The 4 and 8 o'clock positions are recommended for Coaptite and Durasphere, while the 2, 6, and 10 o'clock positions are recommended for Macroplastique. For Bulkamid, the recommendation is to create 3 cushions at the 2, 6, and 10 o'clock positions.¹³ Regardless of the agent used, the bulking is easily visualized and should result in the various sites meeting in the midline (FIGURE 3). 

Continue to: Evidence-based outcomes...

Evidence-based outcomes 

The published data on outcomes of urethral bulking treatments have used inconsistent measures of efficacy. Most of the FDA trials used subjective success calculated with use of the Stamey Urinary Incontinence Scale (Stamey Grade) and validated questionnaires as well as objective data collected via voiding diaries and pad tests.⁴ 

In 2007, a multicenter prospective randomized controlled trial (RCT) compared Coaptite with Contigen treatment and found that 63.4% versus 57.0% of patients, respectively, experienced an improvement on the Stamey Urinary Incontinence Scale at 12-month follow-up.¹⁴ 

A prospective multicenter RCT in 2009 was conducted to test the durability and efficacy of Macroplastique treatment at 12-month follow-up.¹⁵ The authors noted that at 12 months, 62% of treated women reported significant improvement.¹⁵ Further, a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature (1990-2010) on Macroplastique use was published in 2013.¹⁶ Data from 958 patients from 23 cohorts were analyzed in a random-effects model for 3 time periods: short term (less than 6 months), mid term (6-12 months), and long term (>18 months). Cure/dry rates were reported for short, mid, and long-term follow-up as 43% (95% confidence interval [CI], 33%-54%), 37% (95% CI, 28%-46%), and 36% (95% CI, 27%-46%), respectively.¹⁶ 

The newest bulking product in the United States, Bulkamid, has been available for use in Europe since 2003.¹⁷ In a 3-year follow-up of a prospective nonrandomized single-site study, 212 of 256 (82.8%) participants were subjectively cured or had significant improvement in SUI or MUI, and this result was maintained until the end of the study period (a median of 38 months).¹⁰ In 2014, an 8-year follow-up of 24 women was published.¹⁸ Subjectively, 44% of the women reported cure or significant improvement, and 11 women who presented for objective evaluation all had polyacrylamide hydrogel visible on vaginal ultrasound.¹⁸ 

In addition, an RCT published in 2020 compared surgery with tension-free vaginal tape (TVT) and Bulkamid use in 224 women with SUI. At the 12-month follow-up, TVT was found to be more effective than Bulkamid; the median visual analog scale score for satisfaction was 99 for the TVT-treated group and 85 for the Bulkamid-treated patients.¹¹ Additionally, a cough stress test was negative in 95.0% and 66.4% of participants, respectively, but reoperations occurred only in patients who received the TVT procedure (n = 6). The authors concluded that while TVT treatment provided higher satisfaction rates than did Bulkamid, all major perioperative and follow-up complications were associated with TVT use. The study is ongoing and will eventually report 3-year outcomes.¹¹ 

According to a 2017 Cochrane Review on urethral bulking, treatments with all 3 of the particulate bulking agents resulted in improvements that were no more or less effective than Contigen treatment. The review failed to include publications on Bulkamid treatment.¹⁹ 

Continue to: Complications and safety issues...

Adverse events. Reported adverse effects associated with urethral bulking include mild pain, transient urinary retention (typically resolving within 1-2 days after injection), dysuria, hematuria, and urinary tract infection (UTI).^4,12 

In a 12-month RCT involving 355 women treated with Durasphere or bovine collagen, adverse events were reported in 178 Durasphere-treated women; dysuria (24.7%) and temporary urinary retention (16.9%) were the most commonly reported adverse events.²⁰ 

An RCT of Coaptite injection (n = 296) found that temporary urinary retention (41%) was the most common adverse event.¹⁴ 

In a 12-month comparative study of Macroplastique versus Contigen (n = 122), UTI was reported as the most common adverse event (23.8%), followed by dysuria (9%) and urgency (9%).¹⁵ In addition, in a meta-analysis involving 958 patients in 23 cohorts, Ghoniem and Miller reported that the median rates for adverse events were temporary dysuria, 50%; hematuria, 45%; urge incontinence, 7%; temporary urinary retention, 7%; and UTI, 3%.¹⁶ 

A 3-year summary outcome of 256 patients who received Bulkamid injection reported that only 1 patient developed infection, abscess, or allergic reaction at the injection site and 1 patient had a UTI.¹⁰ In an 8-year follow-up of patients who received Bulkamid injection, 1 patient experienced stranguria and 7 patients had recurrent cystitis.¹⁸ 

It appears that transient dysuria, urgency, and urinary retention occur more frequently after urethral bulking with particulate agents.¹² 

Complications. Few delayed but serious complications after urethral bulking have been reported, including suburethral abscess, urethral prolapse, and particle migration.⁴ Cases of urethral prolapse have been reported with both Coaptite and Durasphere. Notably, all cases of urethral prolapse occurred in patients with a history of pelvic surgery and/or previous urethral bulking.^21,22 Cases also have been reported of Durasphere carbon bead particles migrating to regional and distant lymph nodes, and pseudoabscess also has been reported.^12,23 A single case of periurethral abscess was reported after Bulkamid injection in a patient who had prior vaginal hysterectomy and a transobturator tape procedure after a total vaginal mesh repair.²⁴ 

Bulking agent use: Time to go mainstream? 

Historically, urethral bulking agents have had limited utility, largely due to the inaccurate and unsubstantiated perceptions of them being indicated only in women with ISD and a well-supported urethra. More recently, urethral bulking agents are commonly being used in patients who: have recurrent SUI after a surgical intervention, have infrequent but bothersome SUI symptoms, are not ideal candidates to undergo anesthesia, or wish to avoid mesh. 

Some data suggest that objective and subjective success rates are lower with bulking agent treatment compared with the gold standard MUS procedure. However, in the appropriately selected patient, urethral bulking agents may be considered primary treatment due to their associated low morbidity and, as recently reported with newer nonparticulate agents, high subjective success rates. If the patient is not satisfied with the results of bulking treatment, surgical repair with any type of sling remains a subsequent option. This feature adds to the potential viability and appropriateness of considering a bulking agent as a primary treatment. ●

Stress urinary incontinence (SUI) is the involuntary loss of urine with increased intra-abdominal pressure, such as with physical exertion, sneezing, or coughing.¹ Currently, the gold standard treatment for SUI is surgical repair with the use of a synthetic midurethral sling (MUS), based on long-term data that support its excellent efficacy and durability. The risk-benefit balance of MUS continues to be scrutinized, however, with erosions and pain poorly studied and apparently underreported. 

The medical-legal risks associated with the MUS are a significant concern and have led many patients to reconsider this option for their condition. Many other countries (United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, and European Union) are now re-evaluating the use of the MUS.² In the United Kingdom, for example, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Guideline advises considering the MUS only when another surgical intervention is not suitable for the patient.³ 

In light of the heightened skepticism surrounding the MUS, interest has increased in the use of urethral bulking agents. These agents consist of a material injected into the wall of the urethra to improve urethral coaptation in women with SUI.⁴ 

A brief history of bulking agents 

In 1938, Murless first reported the injection of sodium morrhuate for the management of urinary incontinence.⁴ Other early bulking agents introduced in the 1950s and 1960s included paraffin wax and sclerosing agents. Subsequently, Teflon, collagen, and autologous fat, among other agents, were found to be efficacious for augmenting urethral coaptation; however, only collagen initially demonstrated acceptable safety.⁵ 

Contigen (bovine dermal collagen cross-linked with gluteraldehyde) was approved as a bulking agent by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1993; however, the manufacturing of bovine collagen was halted in 2011. Contigen was the only nonpermanent biodegradable urethral bulking agent, and its use required skin testing prior to use, as 2% to 5% of women experienced allergic reaction.⁴ 

Presently, 3 particle-based urethral bulking agents are FDA approved for marketing in the United States: Macroplastique (Laborie Medical Technologies), Coaptite (Boston Scientific), and Durasphere (Coloplast). In addition, Bulkamid (Contura), which was approved earlier this year, is a nonparticulate agent composed of a nonresorbable polyacrylamide hydrogel.⁵ 

Continue to: Indications for use...

According to the FDA premarket approvals (PMAs) for the particle-based urethral bulking agents, their use is indicated for adult women with SUI primarily due to intrinsic sphincter deficiency (ISD).⁶ The PMA indication for the nonparticulate agent, however, allows it to be used for SUI as well as SUI-predominant mixed urinary incontinence (MUI) due to ISD.⁷ Traditionally, ISD is defined by urodynamic criteria that includes a maximal urethral closure pressure less than 20 to 25 cm of water and/or a Valsalva leak point pressure of less than 60 cm of water.⁴ 

The American Urological Association (AUA) guideline lists bulking agents as an option for women who do not wish to pursue invasive surgical intervention for SUI, are concerned about lengthier recovery after surgery, or have previously undergone anti-incontinence procedures with suboptimal results.⁸ In general, most urologists and urogynecologists who perform urethral bulking agree with the AUA guideline. 

Perceptions of bulking agents have shifted 

Urethral bulking agents traditionally have been thought of as a "salvage therapy." Perceived indications for these agents include use in women with persistent SUI after more invasive treatment options or in women who were medically fragile and thus could not undergo a more invasive procedure.⁹ As mentioned, however, circumstances related to mesh use have shifted the current perception of indications for urethral bulking agents from salvage therapy only to use as a possible first-line treatment in the appropriately selected patient.⁹ 

Recent data that note improved durability and patient satisfaction, as well as better appreciation of the fact that, if the bulking agent fails, a synthetic sling procedure still can be performed without significant concerns, have contributed to this shift in intervention strategy.^10,11 There also has been the perception that urethral bulking agents should not be considered in women who have urethral mobility. However, studies have shown that outcomes are not significantly different in patients with urethral mobility compared with those with a fixed urethra.¹¹ 

Types of bulking agents  

The ideal bulking agent should be made of a material that is biocompatible--with low host reactivity, low carcinogenic potential, low risk of migration--and easy to administer.⁵ Currently available bulking agents are classified as particulate and nonparticulate agents. The TABLE provides summary details of the available agents FDA approved for use.

Particulate bulking agents 

Durasphere, approved by the FDA in 1999, is composed of carbon-coated zirconium oxide in a water-based and beta-glucan carrier. The first generation of this agent had particles that ranged in size from 212 to 500 µm and required an 18-gauge needle for injection.4 The second-generation preparation has a smaller particle size, ranging from 90 to 212 µm, which permits injection with a smaller needle, typically 20 gauge.⁴ Theoretically, the larger bead size reduces the risk of migration as particles larger than 80 µm cannot be engulfed by macrophages.⁴ 

Coaptite is a calcium hydroxylapatite-based product approved by the FDA in 2005. The carrier media is composed of sodium carboxymethylcellulose, sterile water, and glycerin. The particle size ranges from 75 to 125 µm, with an average of 100 µm.⁵ This synthetic material historically has been used in orthopedics and dental applications. The aqueous gel carrier dissipates over months, resulting in tissue growth; thereafter, the particulate beads slowly degrade.¹² 

Macroplastique, a polydimethylsiloxane compound, was approved by the FDA in 2006. It has a long history of use primarily in Europe where it has been used since 1991. It is composed of a nonbiodegradable silicone (polydimethylsiloxane) elastomer suspended in a water-soluble gel. The initial composition was of particles that ranged in size from 5 to 400 µm, with 25% of the particles smaller than 50 µm. Because of the large number of particles smaller than 50 µm, there were concerns for migration.⁵ The agent's current composition contains particles that range from 120 to 600 µm, with an average particle size of 140 µm.⁴ 

Nonparticulate bulking agent 

Bulkamid has been available in Europe since 2003 and was FDA approved in January 2020. It is the only available nonparticulate urethral bulking agent; it is composed uniquely of a nonresorbable polyacrylamide hydrogel made of cross-linked 2.5% polyacrylamide and water. Its bulking effect is achieved through the actual volume of hydrogel injected, which integrates with host tissue by vessel ingrowth, suggestive of a persistent durable effect. Because Bulkamid contains no particles or crystals, the theoretical risk of migration is mitigated.⁴ 

Continue to: The urethral bulking technique...

The urethral bulking technique 

The basic technique for urethral bulking is similar for all agents, with nuances in technique for each agent. 

The procedure typically begins with placement of 2% lidocaine gel in the urethra for 5 to 10 minutes. The disposable needle is primed with the agent.⁴ For Durasphere, an 18- or 21-gauge rigid needle is used; for Coaptite, a 21-gauge rigid side injecting needle called the SideKick is used; and for Macroplastique, an 18- or 20-gauge rigid needle is used.⁴ Bulkamid administration requires the use of a special 23-gauge needle. Durasphere and Coaptite are delivered via a standard cystoscope.⁴ Macroplastique requires a proprietary delivery system4 (FIGURE 1). Bulkamid has a proprietary urethroscope and rotatable sheath to guide accuracy of injection (FIGURE 2).⁴ 

After the needle is primed and the delivery device placed into the urethra, the injection site is selected, approximately 1.5 to 2 cm from the bladder neck. The needle is introduced into the suburethral tissue at a 30- to 45-degree angle.  

The injection site varies by agent. The 4 and 8 o'clock positions are recommended for Coaptite and Durasphere, while the 2, 6, and 10 o'clock positions are recommended for Macroplastique. For Bulkamid, the recommendation is to create 3 cushions at the 2, 6, and 10 o'clock positions.¹³ Regardless of the agent used, the bulking is easily visualized and should result in the various sites meeting in the midline (FIGURE 3). 

Continue to: Evidence-based outcomes...

Evidence-based outcomes 

The published data on outcomes of urethral bulking treatments have used inconsistent measures of efficacy. Most of the FDA trials used subjective success calculated with use of the Stamey Urinary Incontinence Scale (Stamey Grade) and validated questionnaires as well as objective data collected via voiding diaries and pad tests.⁴ 

In 2007, a multicenter prospective randomized controlled trial (RCT) compared Coaptite with Contigen treatment and found that 63.4% versus 57.0% of patients, respectively, experienced an improvement on the Stamey Urinary Incontinence Scale at 12-month follow-up.¹⁴ 

A prospective multicenter RCT in 2009 was conducted to test the durability and efficacy of Macroplastique treatment at 12-month follow-up.¹⁵ The authors noted that at 12 months, 62% of treated women reported significant improvement.¹⁵ Further, a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature (1990-2010) on Macroplastique use was published in 2013.¹⁶ Data from 958 patients from 23 cohorts were analyzed in a random-effects model for 3 time periods: short term (less than 6 months), mid term (6-12 months), and long term (>18 months). Cure/dry rates were reported for short, mid, and long-term follow-up as 43% (95% confidence interval [CI], 33%-54%), 37% (95% CI, 28%-46%), and 36% (95% CI, 27%-46%), respectively.¹⁶ 

The newest bulking product in the United States, Bulkamid, has been available for use in Europe since 2003.¹⁷ In a 3-year follow-up of a prospective nonrandomized single-site study, 212 of 256 (82.8%) participants were subjectively cured or had significant improvement in SUI or MUI, and this result was maintained until the end of the study period (a median of 38 months).¹⁰ In 2014, an 8-year follow-up of 24 women was published.¹⁸ Subjectively, 44% of the women reported cure or significant improvement, and 11 women who presented for objective evaluation all had polyacrylamide hydrogel visible on vaginal ultrasound.¹⁸ 

In addition, an RCT published in 2020 compared surgery with tension-free vaginal tape (TVT) and Bulkamid use in 224 women with SUI. At the 12-month follow-up, TVT was found to be more effective than Bulkamid; the median visual analog scale score for satisfaction was 99 for the TVT-treated group and 85 for the Bulkamid-treated patients.¹¹ Additionally, a cough stress test was negative in 95.0% and 66.4% of participants, respectively, but reoperations occurred only in patients who received the TVT procedure (n = 6). The authors concluded that while TVT treatment provided higher satisfaction rates than did Bulkamid, all major perioperative and follow-up complications were associated with TVT use. The study is ongoing and will eventually report 3-year outcomes.¹¹ 

According to a 2017 Cochrane Review on urethral bulking, treatments with all 3 of the particulate bulking agents resulted in improvements that were no more or less effective than Contigen treatment. The review failed to include publications on Bulkamid treatment.¹⁹ 

Continue to: Complications and safety issues...

Adverse events. Reported adverse effects associated with urethral bulking include mild pain, transient urinary retention (typically resolving within 1-2 days after injection), dysuria, hematuria, and urinary tract infection (UTI).^4,12 

In a 12-month RCT involving 355 women treated with Durasphere or bovine collagen, adverse events were reported in 178 Durasphere-treated women; dysuria (24.7%) and temporary urinary retention (16.9%) were the most commonly reported adverse events.²⁰ 

An RCT of Coaptite injection (n = 296) found that temporary urinary retention (41%) was the most common adverse event.¹⁴ 

In a 12-month comparative study of Macroplastique versus Contigen (n = 122), UTI was reported as the most common adverse event (23.8%), followed by dysuria (9%) and urgency (9%).¹⁵ In addition, in a meta-analysis involving 958 patients in 23 cohorts, Ghoniem and Miller reported that the median rates for adverse events were temporary dysuria, 50%; hematuria, 45%; urge incontinence, 7%; temporary urinary retention, 7%; and UTI, 3%.¹⁶ 

A 3-year summary outcome of 256 patients who received Bulkamid injection reported that only 1 patient developed infection, abscess, or allergic reaction at the injection site and 1 patient had a UTI.¹⁰ In an 8-year follow-up of patients who received Bulkamid injection, 1 patient experienced stranguria and 7 patients had recurrent cystitis.¹⁸ 

It appears that transient dysuria, urgency, and urinary retention occur more frequently after urethral bulking with particulate agents.¹² 

Complications. Few delayed but serious complications after urethral bulking have been reported, including suburethral abscess, urethral prolapse, and particle migration.⁴ Cases of urethral prolapse have been reported with both Coaptite and Durasphere. Notably, all cases of urethral prolapse occurred in patients with a history of pelvic surgery and/or previous urethral bulking.^21,22 Cases also have been reported of Durasphere carbon bead particles migrating to regional and distant lymph nodes, and pseudoabscess also has been reported.^12,23 A single case of periurethral abscess was reported after Bulkamid injection in a patient who had prior vaginal hysterectomy and a transobturator tape procedure after a total vaginal mesh repair.²⁴ 

Bulking agent use: Time to go mainstream? 

Historically, urethral bulking agents have had limited utility, largely due to the inaccurate and unsubstantiated perceptions of them being indicated only in women with ISD and a well-supported urethra. More recently, urethral bulking agents are commonly being used in patients who: have recurrent SUI after a surgical intervention, have infrequent but bothersome SUI symptoms, are not ideal candidates to undergo anesthesia, or wish to avoid mesh. 

Some data suggest that objective and subjective success rates are lower with bulking agent treatment compared with the gold standard MUS procedure. However, in the appropriately selected patient, urethral bulking agents may be considered primary treatment due to their associated low morbidity and, as recently reported with newer nonparticulate agents, high subjective success rates. If the patient is not satisfied with the results of bulking treatment, surgical repair with any type of sling remains a subsequent option. This feature adds to the potential viability and appropriateness of considering a bulking agent as a primary treatment. ●

Stress urinary incontinence (SUI) is the involuntary loss of urine with increased intra-abdominal pressure, such as with physical exertion, sneezing, or coughing.¹ Currently, the gold standard treatment for SUI is surgical repair with the use of a synthetic midurethral sling (MUS), based on long-term data that support its excellent efficacy and durability. The risk-benefit balance of MUS continues to be scrutinized, however, with erosions and pain poorly studied and apparently underreported. 

The medical-legal risks associated with the MUS are a significant concern and have led many patients to reconsider this option for their condition. Many other countries (United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, and European Union) are now re-evaluating the use of the MUS.² In the United Kingdom, for example, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Guideline advises considering the MUS only when another surgical intervention is not suitable for the patient.³ 

In light of the heightened skepticism surrounding the MUS, interest has increased in the use of urethral bulking agents. These agents consist of a material injected into the wall of the urethra to improve urethral coaptation in women with SUI.⁴ 

A brief history of bulking agents 

In 1938, Murless first reported the injection of sodium morrhuate for the management of urinary incontinence.⁴ Other early bulking agents introduced in the 1950s and 1960s included paraffin wax and sclerosing agents. Subsequently, Teflon, collagen, and autologous fat, among other agents, were found to be efficacious for augmenting urethral coaptation; however, only collagen initially demonstrated acceptable safety.⁵ 

Contigen (bovine dermal collagen cross-linked with gluteraldehyde) was approved as a bulking agent by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1993; however, the manufacturing of bovine collagen was halted in 2011. Contigen was the only nonpermanent biodegradable urethral bulking agent, and its use required skin testing prior to use, as 2% to 5% of women experienced allergic reaction.⁴ 

Presently, 3 particle-based urethral bulking agents are FDA approved for marketing in the United States: Macroplastique (Laborie Medical Technologies), Coaptite (Boston Scientific), and Durasphere (Coloplast). In addition, Bulkamid (Contura), which was approved earlier this year, is a nonparticulate agent composed of a nonresorbable polyacrylamide hydrogel.⁵ 

Continue to: Indications for use...

According to the FDA premarket approvals (PMAs) for the particle-based urethral bulking agents, their use is indicated for adult women with SUI primarily due to intrinsic sphincter deficiency (ISD).⁶ The PMA indication for the nonparticulate agent, however, allows it to be used for SUI as well as SUI-predominant mixed urinary incontinence (MUI) due to ISD.⁷ Traditionally, ISD is defined by urodynamic criteria that includes a maximal urethral closure pressure less than 20 to 25 cm of water and/or a Valsalva leak point pressure of less than 60 cm of water.⁴ 

The American Urological Association (AUA) guideline lists bulking agents as an option for women who do not wish to pursue invasive surgical intervention for SUI, are concerned about lengthier recovery after surgery, or have previously undergone anti-incontinence procedures with suboptimal results.⁸ In general, most urologists and urogynecologists who perform urethral bulking agree with the AUA guideline. 

Perceptions of bulking agents have shifted 

Urethral bulking agents traditionally have been thought of as a "salvage therapy." Perceived indications for these agents include use in women with persistent SUI after more invasive treatment options or in women who were medically fragile and thus could not undergo a more invasive procedure.⁹ As mentioned, however, circumstances related to mesh use have shifted the current perception of indications for urethral bulking agents from salvage therapy only to use as a possible first-line treatment in the appropriately selected patient.⁹ 

Recent data that note improved durability and patient satisfaction, as well as better appreciation of the fact that, if the bulking agent fails, a synthetic sling procedure still can be performed without significant concerns, have contributed to this shift in intervention strategy.^10,11 There also has been the perception that urethral bulking agents should not be considered in women who have urethral mobility. However, studies have shown that outcomes are not significantly different in patients with urethral mobility compared with those with a fixed urethra.¹¹ 

Types of bulking agents  

The ideal bulking agent should be made of a material that is biocompatible--with low host reactivity, low carcinogenic potential, low risk of migration--and easy to administer.⁵ Currently available bulking agents are classified as particulate and nonparticulate agents. The TABLE provides summary details of the available agents FDA approved for use.

Particulate bulking agents 

Durasphere, approved by the FDA in 1999, is composed of carbon-coated zirconium oxide in a water-based and beta-glucan carrier. The first generation of this agent had particles that ranged in size from 212 to 500 µm and required an 18-gauge needle for injection.4 The second-generation preparation has a smaller particle size, ranging from 90 to 212 µm, which permits injection with a smaller needle, typically 20 gauge.⁴ Theoretically, the larger bead size reduces the risk of migration as particles larger than 80 µm cannot be engulfed by macrophages.⁴ 

Coaptite is a calcium hydroxylapatite-based product approved by the FDA in 2005. The carrier media is composed of sodium carboxymethylcellulose, sterile water, and glycerin. The particle size ranges from 75 to 125 µm, with an average of 100 µm.⁵ This synthetic material historically has been used in orthopedics and dental applications. The aqueous gel carrier dissipates over months, resulting in tissue growth; thereafter, the particulate beads slowly degrade.¹² 

Macroplastique, a polydimethylsiloxane compound, was approved by the FDA in 2006. It has a long history of use primarily in Europe where it has been used since 1991. It is composed of a nonbiodegradable silicone (polydimethylsiloxane) elastomer suspended in a water-soluble gel. The initial composition was of particles that ranged in size from 5 to 400 µm, with 25% of the particles smaller than 50 µm. Because of the large number of particles smaller than 50 µm, there were concerns for migration.⁵ The agent's current composition contains particles that range from 120 to 600 µm, with an average particle size of 140 µm.⁴ 

Nonparticulate bulking agent 

Bulkamid has been available in Europe since 2003 and was FDA approved in January 2020. It is the only available nonparticulate urethral bulking agent; it is composed uniquely of a nonresorbable polyacrylamide hydrogel made of cross-linked 2.5% polyacrylamide and water. Its bulking effect is achieved through the actual volume of hydrogel injected, which integrates with host tissue by vessel ingrowth, suggestive of a persistent durable effect. Because Bulkamid contains no particles or crystals, the theoretical risk of migration is mitigated.⁴ 

Continue to: The urethral bulking technique...

The urethral bulking technique 

The basic technique for urethral bulking is similar for all agents, with nuances in technique for each agent. 

The procedure typically begins with placement of 2% lidocaine gel in the urethra for 5 to 10 minutes. The disposable needle is primed with the agent.⁴ For Durasphere, an 18- or 21-gauge rigid needle is used; for Coaptite, a 21-gauge rigid side injecting needle called the SideKick is used; and for Macroplastique, an 18- or 20-gauge rigid needle is used.⁴ Bulkamid administration requires the use of a special 23-gauge needle. Durasphere and Coaptite are delivered via a standard cystoscope.⁴ Macroplastique requires a proprietary delivery system4 (FIGURE 1). Bulkamid has a proprietary urethroscope and rotatable sheath to guide accuracy of injection (FIGURE 2).⁴ 

After the needle is primed and the delivery device placed into the urethra, the injection site is selected, approximately 1.5 to 2 cm from the bladder neck. The needle is introduced into the suburethral tissue at a 30- to 45-degree angle.  

The injection site varies by agent. The 4 and 8 o'clock positions are recommended for Coaptite and Durasphere, while the 2, 6, and 10 o'clock positions are recommended for Macroplastique. For Bulkamid, the recommendation is to create 3 cushions at the 2, 6, and 10 o'clock positions.¹³ Regardless of the agent used, the bulking is easily visualized and should result in the various sites meeting in the midline (FIGURE 3). 

Continue to: Evidence-based outcomes...

Evidence-based outcomes 

The published data on outcomes of urethral bulking treatments have used inconsistent measures of efficacy. Most of the FDA trials used subjective success calculated with use of the Stamey Urinary Incontinence Scale (Stamey Grade) and validated questionnaires as well as objective data collected via voiding diaries and pad tests.⁴ 

In 2007, a multicenter prospective randomized controlled trial (RCT) compared Coaptite with Contigen treatment and found that 63.4% versus 57.0% of patients, respectively, experienced an improvement on the Stamey Urinary Incontinence Scale at 12-month follow-up.¹⁴ 

A prospective multicenter RCT in 2009 was conducted to test the durability and efficacy of Macroplastique treatment at 12-month follow-up.¹⁵ The authors noted that at 12 months, 62% of treated women reported significant improvement.¹⁵ Further, a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature (1990-2010) on Macroplastique use was published in 2013.¹⁶ Data from 958 patients from 23 cohorts were analyzed in a random-effects model for 3 time periods: short term (less than 6 months), mid term (6-12 months), and long term (>18 months). Cure/dry rates were reported for short, mid, and long-term follow-up as 43% (95% confidence interval [CI], 33%-54%), 37% (95% CI, 28%-46%), and 36% (95% CI, 27%-46%), respectively.¹⁶ 

The newest bulking product in the United States, Bulkamid, has been available for use in Europe since 2003.¹⁷ In a 3-year follow-up of a prospective nonrandomized single-site study, 212 of 256 (82.8%) participants were subjectively cured or had significant improvement in SUI or MUI, and this result was maintained until the end of the study period (a median of 38 months).¹⁰ In 2014, an 8-year follow-up of 24 women was published.¹⁸ Subjectively, 44% of the women reported cure or significant improvement, and 11 women who presented for objective evaluation all had polyacrylamide hydrogel visible on vaginal ultrasound.¹⁸ 

In addition, an RCT published in 2020 compared surgery with tension-free vaginal tape (TVT) and Bulkamid use in 224 women with SUI. At the 12-month follow-up, TVT was found to be more effective than Bulkamid; the median visual analog scale score for satisfaction was 99 for the TVT-treated group and 85 for the Bulkamid-treated patients.¹¹ Additionally, a cough stress test was negative in 95.0% and 66.4% of participants, respectively, but reoperations occurred only in patients who received the TVT procedure (n = 6). The authors concluded that while TVT treatment provided higher satisfaction rates than did Bulkamid, all major perioperative and follow-up complications were associated with TVT use. The study is ongoing and will eventually report 3-year outcomes.¹¹ 

According to a 2017 Cochrane Review on urethral bulking, treatments with all 3 of the particulate bulking agents resulted in improvements that were no more or less effective than Contigen treatment. The review failed to include publications on Bulkamid treatment.¹⁹ 

Continue to: Complications and safety issues...

Adverse events. Reported adverse effects associated with urethral bulking include mild pain, transient urinary retention (typically resolving within 1-2 days after injection), dysuria, hematuria, and urinary tract infection (UTI).^4,12 

In a 12-month RCT involving 355 women treated with Durasphere or bovine collagen, adverse events were reported in 178 Durasphere-treated women; dysuria (24.7%) and temporary urinary retention (16.9%) were the most commonly reported adverse events.²⁰ 

An RCT of Coaptite injection (n = 296) found that temporary urinary retention (41%) was the most common adverse event.¹⁴ 

In a 12-month comparative study of Macroplastique versus Contigen (n = 122), UTI was reported as the most common adverse event (23.8%), followed by dysuria (9%) and urgency (9%).¹⁵ In addition, in a meta-analysis involving 958 patients in 23 cohorts, Ghoniem and Miller reported that the median rates for adverse events were temporary dysuria, 50%; hematuria, 45%; urge incontinence, 7%; temporary urinary retention, 7%; and UTI, 3%.¹⁶ 

A 3-year summary outcome of 256 patients who received Bulkamid injection reported that only 1 patient developed infection, abscess, or allergic reaction at the injection site and 1 patient had a UTI.¹⁰ In an 8-year follow-up of patients who received Bulkamid injection, 1 patient experienced stranguria and 7 patients had recurrent cystitis.¹⁸ 

It appears that transient dysuria, urgency, and urinary retention occur more frequently after urethral bulking with particulate agents.¹² 

Complications. Few delayed but serious complications after urethral bulking have been reported, including suburethral abscess, urethral prolapse, and particle migration.⁴ Cases of urethral prolapse have been reported with both Coaptite and Durasphere. Notably, all cases of urethral prolapse occurred in patients with a history of pelvic surgery and/or previous urethral bulking.^21,22 Cases also have been reported of Durasphere carbon bead particles migrating to regional and distant lymph nodes, and pseudoabscess also has been reported.^12,23 A single case of periurethral abscess was reported after Bulkamid injection in a patient who had prior vaginal hysterectomy and a transobturator tape procedure after a total vaginal mesh repair.²⁴ 

Bulking agent use: Time to go mainstream? 

Historically, urethral bulking agents have had limited utility, largely due to the inaccurate and unsubstantiated perceptions of them being indicated only in women with ISD and a well-supported urethra. More recently, urethral bulking agents are commonly being used in patients who: have recurrent SUI after a surgical intervention, have infrequent but bothersome SUI symptoms, are not ideal candidates to undergo anesthesia, or wish to avoid mesh. 

Some data suggest that objective and subjective success rates are lower with bulking agent treatment compared with the gold standard MUS procedure. However, in the appropriately selected patient, urethral bulking agents may be considered primary treatment due to their associated low morbidity and, as recently reported with newer nonparticulate agents, high subjective success rates. If the patient is not satisfied with the results of bulking treatment, surgical repair with any type of sling remains a subsequent option. This feature adds to the potential viability and appropriateness of considering a bulking agent as a primary treatment. ●

EVIDENCE SUMMARY

A 2016 systematic review identified 2 RCTs that examined whether early introduction of peanuts affects subsequent allergies.¹ The first RCT recruited 1303 3-month-old infants from the general population in the United Kingdom.² All patients had either a negative skin prick test (SPT) to peanuts or a negative oral peanut challenge (if an initial SPT was positive). The control group breastfed exclusively until age 6 months, at which time allergenic foods could be introduced at parental discretion.

Timing doesn’t affect peanut allergy in nonallergic patients

The intervention group received 6 common allergenic foods (peanuts, eggs, cow’s milk, wheat, sesame, and whitefish) twice weekly between ages 3 and 6 months. Researchers then performed double-blinded, placebo-controlled oral food challenges at ages 12 and 36 months.

More patients in the late-introduction group demonstrated peanut allergies by age 36 months than in the early-introduction group, but the difference wasn’t significant (2.5% vs 1.2%; P = 0.11).A key weakness of the study was combining peanuts with other common food allergens.²

Children with eczema, egg allergy benefit from earlier peanut introduction

The second RCT divided 640 infants with severe eczema, egg allergy, or both into 2 groups according to their response to an SPT to peanuts: patients with no wheal and patients with a positive wheal measuring 1 to 4 mm.³ Researchers then randomized patients to either early exposure (peanut products given from ages 4 to 11 months) or avoidance (no peanuts until age 60 months). The primary endpoint was a positive clinical response to oral peanut allergen at age 60 months.

In the negative SPT group (atopic children expected to have a lower risk for allergy), patients introduced to peanuts later had a higher rate of subsequent allergy than children exposed earlier (14% vs 2%; absolute risk reduction [ARR] = 12%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3%-20%; number needed to treat [NNT] = 9).³

In the positive SPT group (atopic children expected to have a higher risk for allergy), later peanut introduction likewise increased risk compared to earlier introduction (35% vs 11%; ARR = 24%; 95% CI, 5%-43%; NNT = 5). Children in the early-exposure group, however, had more URIs, viral exanthems, gastroenteritis, urticaria, and conjunctivitis (4527 events in the early-exposure group vs 4287 in the avoidance group, P = 0.02; about 1 more event per patient over the course of the study).³

In a general pediatric population, introducing peanuts at ages 3 to 6 months doesn’t alter subsequent peanut allergy rates compared with introduction after age 6 months.

The authors of the systematic review performed a meta-analysis of the 2 RCTs (1793 patients). They concluded that early introduction of peanuts to an infant’s diet (between ages 3 and 11 months) decreased the risk for eventual peanut allergy (relative risk [RR] = 0.29; 95% CI, 0.11-0.74), compared with introduction at or after age 1 year.¹ A key weakness, however, was the researchers’ choice to combine trials with very different inclusion criteria (infants with severe eczema and a general population).

Continue to: RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDATIONS

A 2017 National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases guideline recommends a 3-tiered approach to peanut introduction: ⁴

• For children with severe eczema or egg allergy who aren’t currently allergic to peanuts (per SPT or immunoglobulin E [IgE] test), the guideline advises adding peanuts to the diet between ages 4 and 6 months. (Patients with positive SPT or IgE should be referred to an allergy specialist.)
• Children with mild or moderate eczema can be introduced to peanuts around age 6 months “in accordance with family preferences and cultural practices.”
• Children with no evidence of allergy or eczema can be “freely introduced” to peanut-containing foods with no specific guidance on age.

Editor’s takeaway

Good-quality evidence supports family physicians encouraging introduction of foods containing peanuts at age 4 to 6 months for children at increased risk because of atopy, allergies, or eczema.

EVIDENCE SUMMARY

A 2016 systematic review identified 2 RCTs that examined whether early introduction of peanuts affects subsequent allergies.¹ The first RCT recruited 1303 3-month-old infants from the general population in the United Kingdom.² All patients had either a negative skin prick test (SPT) to peanuts or a negative oral peanut challenge (if an initial SPT was positive). The control group breastfed exclusively until age 6 months, at which time allergenic foods could be introduced at parental discretion.

Timing doesn’t affect peanut allergy in nonallergic patients

The intervention group received 6 common allergenic foods (peanuts, eggs, cow’s milk, wheat, sesame, and whitefish) twice weekly between ages 3 and 6 months. Researchers then performed double-blinded, placebo-controlled oral food challenges at ages 12 and 36 months.

More patients in the late-introduction group demonstrated peanut allergies by age 36 months than in the early-introduction group, but the difference wasn’t significant (2.5% vs 1.2%; P = 0.11).A key weakness of the study was combining peanuts with other common food allergens.²

Children with eczema, egg allergy benefit from earlier peanut introduction

The second RCT divided 640 infants with severe eczema, egg allergy, or both into 2 groups according to their response to an SPT to peanuts: patients with no wheal and patients with a positive wheal measuring 1 to 4 mm.³ Researchers then randomized patients to either early exposure (peanut products given from ages 4 to 11 months) or avoidance (no peanuts until age 60 months). The primary endpoint was a positive clinical response to oral peanut allergen at age 60 months.

In the negative SPT group (atopic children expected to have a lower risk for allergy), patients introduced to peanuts later had a higher rate of subsequent allergy than children exposed earlier (14% vs 2%; absolute risk reduction [ARR] = 12%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3%-20%; number needed to treat [NNT] = 9).³

In the positive SPT group (atopic children expected to have a higher risk for allergy), later peanut introduction likewise increased risk compared to earlier introduction (35% vs 11%; ARR = 24%; 95% CI, 5%-43%; NNT = 5). Children in the early-exposure group, however, had more URIs, viral exanthems, gastroenteritis, urticaria, and conjunctivitis (4527 events in the early-exposure group vs 4287 in the avoidance group, P = 0.02; about 1 more event per patient over the course of the study).³

In a general pediatric population, introducing peanuts at ages 3 to 6 months doesn’t alter subsequent peanut allergy rates compared with introduction after age 6 months.

The authors of the systematic review performed a meta-analysis of the 2 RCTs (1793 patients). They concluded that early introduction of peanuts to an infant’s diet (between ages 3 and 11 months) decreased the risk for eventual peanut allergy (relative risk [RR] = 0.29; 95% CI, 0.11-0.74), compared with introduction at or after age 1 year.¹ A key weakness, however, was the researchers’ choice to combine trials with very different inclusion criteria (infants with severe eczema and a general population).

Continue to: RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDATIONS

A 2017 National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases guideline recommends a 3-tiered approach to peanut introduction: ⁴

• For children with severe eczema or egg allergy who aren’t currently allergic to peanuts (per SPT or immunoglobulin E [IgE] test), the guideline advises adding peanuts to the diet between ages 4 and 6 months. (Patients with positive SPT or IgE should be referred to an allergy specialist.)
• Children with mild or moderate eczema can be introduced to peanuts around age 6 months “in accordance with family preferences and cultural practices.”
• Children with no evidence of allergy or eczema can be “freely introduced” to peanut-containing foods with no specific guidance on age.

Editor’s takeaway

Good-quality evidence supports family physicians encouraging introduction of foods containing peanuts at age 4 to 6 months for children at increased risk because of atopy, allergies, or eczema.

EVIDENCE SUMMARY

A 2016 systematic review identified 2 RCTs that examined whether early introduction of peanuts affects subsequent allergies.¹ The first RCT recruited 1303 3-month-old infants from the general population in the United Kingdom.² All patients had either a negative skin prick test (SPT) to peanuts or a negative oral peanut challenge (if an initial SPT was positive). The control group breastfed exclusively until age 6 months, at which time allergenic foods could be introduced at parental discretion.

Timing doesn’t affect peanut allergy in nonallergic patients

The intervention group received 6 common allergenic foods (peanuts, eggs, cow’s milk, wheat, sesame, and whitefish) twice weekly between ages 3 and 6 months. Researchers then performed double-blinded, placebo-controlled oral food challenges at ages 12 and 36 months.

More patients in the late-introduction group demonstrated peanut allergies by age 36 months than in the early-introduction group, but the difference wasn’t significant (2.5% vs 1.2%; P = 0.11).A key weakness of the study was combining peanuts with other common food allergens.²

Children with eczema, egg allergy benefit from earlier peanut introduction

The second RCT divided 640 infants with severe eczema, egg allergy, or both into 2 groups according to their response to an SPT to peanuts: patients with no wheal and patients with a positive wheal measuring 1 to 4 mm.³ Researchers then randomized patients to either early exposure (peanut products given from ages 4 to 11 months) or avoidance (no peanuts until age 60 months). The primary endpoint was a positive clinical response to oral peanut allergen at age 60 months.

In the negative SPT group (atopic children expected to have a lower risk for allergy), patients introduced to peanuts later had a higher rate of subsequent allergy than children exposed earlier (14% vs 2%; absolute risk reduction [ARR] = 12%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3%-20%; number needed to treat [NNT] = 9).³

In the positive SPT group (atopic children expected to have a higher risk for allergy), later peanut introduction likewise increased risk compared to earlier introduction (35% vs 11%; ARR = 24%; 95% CI, 5%-43%; NNT = 5). Children in the early-exposure group, however, had more URIs, viral exanthems, gastroenteritis, urticaria, and conjunctivitis (4527 events in the early-exposure group vs 4287 in the avoidance group, P = 0.02; about 1 more event per patient over the course of the study).³

In a general pediatric population, introducing peanuts at ages 3 to 6 months doesn’t alter subsequent peanut allergy rates compared with introduction after age 6 months.

The authors of the systematic review performed a meta-analysis of the 2 RCTs (1793 patients). They concluded that early introduction of peanuts to an infant’s diet (between ages 3 and 11 months) decreased the risk for eventual peanut allergy (relative risk [RR] = 0.29; 95% CI, 0.11-0.74), compared with introduction at or after age 1 year.¹ A key weakness, however, was the researchers’ choice to combine trials with very different inclusion criteria (infants with severe eczema and a general population).

Continue to: RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDATIONS

A 2017 National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases guideline recommends a 3-tiered approach to peanut introduction: ⁴

• For children with severe eczema or egg allergy who aren’t currently allergic to peanuts (per SPT or immunoglobulin E [IgE] test), the guideline advises adding peanuts to the diet between ages 4 and 6 months. (Patients with positive SPT or IgE should be referred to an allergy specialist.)
• Children with mild or moderate eczema can be introduced to peanuts around age 6 months “in accordance with family preferences and cultural practices.”
• Children with no evidence of allergy or eczema can be “freely introduced” to peanut-containing foods with no specific guidance on age.

Editor’s takeaway

Good-quality evidence supports family physicians encouraging introduction of foods containing peanuts at age 4 to 6 months for children at increased risk because of atopy, allergies, or eczema.

Treatment-naive HIV patients had similar rates of treatment failure and virologic failure on standard triple therapy and a variety of dual therapy regimens, based on a meta-analysis including data from more than 5,000 patients.

Although triple therapy remains the standard of care, the availability of more potent drugs has revived interest in dual and mono therapies, wrote Pisaturo Mariantonietta, MD, of the University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, Naples, Italy, and colleagues.

In a study published in Clinical Microbiology and Infection, the researchers identified 14 articles including 5,205 treatment-naive HIV adults. The studies were published between 2008 and 2020; 13 were randomized, controlled trials.

The dual therapies used in the studies included atazanavir/r plus maraviroc; lopinavir/r plus lamivudine; raltegravir plus darunavir/r; lopinavir/r plus tenofovir, raltegravir, efavirenz, or maraviroc; atazanavir/r plus raltegravir and darunavir/r plus maraviroc; and dolutegravir plus lamivudine.

Overall, no significant differences occurred in the primary endpoint of treatment failure across 10 studies between dual therapy and triple therapy patients based on data at 48 weeks (relative risk 1.20). “The rate of treatment failure did not differ among the two groups when stratifying the patients according to the drug used in the dual regimen,” the researchers said.

Low viral load’s link to treatment failure

Among 2,398 patients with a low HIV viral load (less than 100,000 copies/mL), dual therapy patients were significantly more likely to experience treatment failure than were triple therapy patients (RR, 1.47, P = .007). No differences were noted between dual and triple therapy failure among patients with high HIV viral loads at baseline. Patterns were similar at 96 weeks, but only three studies included 96-week data, the researchers said.

The rate of discontinuation because of adverse events was not significantly different between the groups at 48 weeks.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the use of different regimens in the dual strategies, some of which are no longer in use, as well as there being insufficient data to fully compare outcomes at 96 weeks, and lack of information on cerebrospinal fluid viral load, the researchers noted.

However, the results suggest that dual therapy might be considered for HIV-naive patients with a low viral load, they said.

“Further RCTs that will evaluate the efficacy of antiretroviral regimens in use today among difficult-to-treat populations, such as patients with high viral load, including both intention-to-treat and per-protocol analysis, are needed to address this topic,” they concluded.

Consider range of patient factors when choosing therapies

Conducting the study at this time was important because of the expanding options for treating HIV patients, Donna E. Sweet, MD, an HIV specialist and professor of medicine at the University of Kansas, Wichita, said in an interview.

“We now have two single tablet formulations that are dual rather than triple therapy, and as treaters we are all trying to know when to use them,” she explained.

Dr. Sweet said she was not surprised by the study findings, given that well-conducted, randomized, controlled trials allowed the combination therapies to be approved.

Some of the key challenges to identifying the optimal treatment for HIV patients include factoring in the use of concomitant medications that could lead to drug-drug interactions, noted Dr. Sweet, who serves an editorial advisory board member of Internal Medicine News.

The take-home message for clinicians, in her opinion, is that “less drugs may mean less toxicity, but we don’t want to sacrifice efficacy,” she said. “There may be patients who are better suited than others for two vs. three drugs,” Dr. Sweet emphasized.

The next steps for research on the value of dual vs. triple therapy should include longer term efficacy studies, especially in those with lower CD4 counts and higher viral loads, said Dr. Sweet. In addition to factors such as CD4 counts and viral load, the food requirements of certain ART regimens could affect adherence and therefore a clinician decision to use two drugs rather than three, she noted.

Dr. Sweet disclosed past relationships with ViiV, Gilead, Merck, and Janssen on their speakers bureaus, and current advisory roles with Gilead and ViiV.

The study received no outside funding. Lead author Dr. Mariantonietta and several coauthors disclosed relationships with companies including ViiV Healthcare, AbbVie, Janssen-Cilag and Gilead Science, and Merck Sharp & Dohme, but no conflicts in connection with this study.

SOURCE: Mariantonietta P et al. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2020 Oct 5. doi: 10.1016/j.cmi.2020.09.048.

Treatment-naive HIV patients had similar rates of treatment failure and virologic failure on standard triple therapy and a variety of dual therapy regimens, based on a meta-analysis including data from more than 5,000 patients.

Although triple therapy remains the standard of care, the availability of more potent drugs has revived interest in dual and mono therapies, wrote Pisaturo Mariantonietta, MD, of the University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, Naples, Italy, and colleagues.

In a study published in Clinical Microbiology and Infection, the researchers identified 14 articles including 5,205 treatment-naive HIV adults. The studies were published between 2008 and 2020; 13 were randomized, controlled trials.

The dual therapies used in the studies included atazanavir/r plus maraviroc; lopinavir/r plus lamivudine; raltegravir plus darunavir/r; lopinavir/r plus tenofovir, raltegravir, efavirenz, or maraviroc; atazanavir/r plus raltegravir and darunavir/r plus maraviroc; and dolutegravir plus lamivudine.

Overall, no significant differences occurred in the primary endpoint of treatment failure across 10 studies between dual therapy and triple therapy patients based on data at 48 weeks (relative risk 1.20). “The rate of treatment failure did not differ among the two groups when stratifying the patients according to the drug used in the dual regimen,” the researchers said.

Low viral load’s link to treatment failure

Among 2,398 patients with a low HIV viral load (less than 100,000 copies/mL), dual therapy patients were significantly more likely to experience treatment failure than were triple therapy patients (RR, 1.47, P = .007). No differences were noted between dual and triple therapy failure among patients with high HIV viral loads at baseline. Patterns were similar at 96 weeks, but only three studies included 96-week data, the researchers said.

The rate of discontinuation because of adverse events was not significantly different between the groups at 48 weeks.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the use of different regimens in the dual strategies, some of which are no longer in use, as well as there being insufficient data to fully compare outcomes at 96 weeks, and lack of information on cerebrospinal fluid viral load, the researchers noted.

However, the results suggest that dual therapy might be considered for HIV-naive patients with a low viral load, they said.

“Further RCTs that will evaluate the efficacy of antiretroviral regimens in use today among difficult-to-treat populations, such as patients with high viral load, including both intention-to-treat and per-protocol analysis, are needed to address this topic,” they concluded.

Consider range of patient factors when choosing therapies

Conducting the study at this time was important because of the expanding options for treating HIV patients, Donna E. Sweet, MD, an HIV specialist and professor of medicine at the University of Kansas, Wichita, said in an interview.

“We now have two single tablet formulations that are dual rather than triple therapy, and as treaters we are all trying to know when to use them,” she explained.

Dr. Sweet said she was not surprised by the study findings, given that well-conducted, randomized, controlled trials allowed the combination therapies to be approved.

Some of the key challenges to identifying the optimal treatment for HIV patients include factoring in the use of concomitant medications that could lead to drug-drug interactions, noted Dr. Sweet, who serves an editorial advisory board member of Internal Medicine News.

The take-home message for clinicians, in her opinion, is that “less drugs may mean less toxicity, but we don’t want to sacrifice efficacy,” she said. “There may be patients who are better suited than others for two vs. three drugs,” Dr. Sweet emphasized.

The next steps for research on the value of dual vs. triple therapy should include longer term efficacy studies, especially in those with lower CD4 counts and higher viral loads, said Dr. Sweet. In addition to factors such as CD4 counts and viral load, the food requirements of certain ART regimens could affect adherence and therefore a clinician decision to use two drugs rather than three, she noted.

Dr. Sweet disclosed past relationships with ViiV, Gilead, Merck, and Janssen on their speakers bureaus, and current advisory roles with Gilead and ViiV.

The study received no outside funding. Lead author Dr. Mariantonietta and several coauthors disclosed relationships with companies including ViiV Healthcare, AbbVie, Janssen-Cilag and Gilead Science, and Merck Sharp & Dohme, but no conflicts in connection with this study.

SOURCE: Mariantonietta P et al. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2020 Oct 5. doi: 10.1016/j.cmi.2020.09.048.

Treatment-naive HIV patients had similar rates of treatment failure and virologic failure on standard triple therapy and a variety of dual therapy regimens, based on a meta-analysis including data from more than 5,000 patients.

Although triple therapy remains the standard of care, the availability of more potent drugs has revived interest in dual and mono therapies, wrote Pisaturo Mariantonietta, MD, of the University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, Naples, Italy, and colleagues.

In a study published in Clinical Microbiology and Infection, the researchers identified 14 articles including 5,205 treatment-naive HIV adults. The studies were published between 2008 and 2020; 13 were randomized, controlled trials.

The dual therapies used in the studies included atazanavir/r plus maraviroc; lopinavir/r plus lamivudine; raltegravir plus darunavir/r; lopinavir/r plus tenofovir, raltegravir, efavirenz, or maraviroc; atazanavir/r plus raltegravir and darunavir/r plus maraviroc; and dolutegravir plus lamivudine.

Overall, no significant differences occurred in the primary endpoint of treatment failure across 10 studies between dual therapy and triple therapy patients based on data at 48 weeks (relative risk 1.20). “The rate of treatment failure did not differ among the two groups when stratifying the patients according to the drug used in the dual regimen,” the researchers said.

Low viral load’s link to treatment failure

Among 2,398 patients with a low HIV viral load (less than 100,000 copies/mL), dual therapy patients were significantly more likely to experience treatment failure than were triple therapy patients (RR, 1.47, P = .007). No differences were noted between dual and triple therapy failure among patients with high HIV viral loads at baseline. Patterns were similar at 96 weeks, but only three studies included 96-week data, the researchers said.

The rate of discontinuation because of adverse events was not significantly different between the groups at 48 weeks.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the use of different regimens in the dual strategies, some of which are no longer in use, as well as there being insufficient data to fully compare outcomes at 96 weeks, and lack of information on cerebrospinal fluid viral load, the researchers noted.

However, the results suggest that dual therapy might be considered for HIV-naive patients with a low viral load, they said.

“Further RCTs that will evaluate the efficacy of antiretroviral regimens in use today among difficult-to-treat populations, such as patients with high viral load, including both intention-to-treat and per-protocol analysis, are needed to address this topic,” they concluded.

Consider range of patient factors when choosing therapies

Conducting the study at this time was important because of the expanding options for treating HIV patients, Donna E. Sweet, MD, an HIV specialist and professor of medicine at the University of Kansas, Wichita, said in an interview.

“We now have two single tablet formulations that are dual rather than triple therapy, and as treaters we are all trying to know when to use them,” she explained.

Dr. Sweet said she was not surprised by the study findings, given that well-conducted, randomized, controlled trials allowed the combination therapies to be approved.

Some of the key challenges to identifying the optimal treatment for HIV patients include factoring in the use of concomitant medications that could lead to drug-drug interactions, noted Dr. Sweet, who serves an editorial advisory board member of Internal Medicine News.

The take-home message for clinicians, in her opinion, is that “less drugs may mean less toxicity, but we don’t want to sacrifice efficacy,” she said. “There may be patients who are better suited than others for two vs. three drugs,” Dr. Sweet emphasized.

The next steps for research on the value of dual vs. triple therapy should include longer term efficacy studies, especially in those with lower CD4 counts and higher viral loads, said Dr. Sweet. In addition to factors such as CD4 counts and viral load, the food requirements of certain ART regimens could affect adherence and therefore a clinician decision to use two drugs rather than three, she noted.

Dr. Sweet disclosed past relationships with ViiV, Gilead, Merck, and Janssen on their speakers bureaus, and current advisory roles with Gilead and ViiV.

The study received no outside funding. Lead author Dr. Mariantonietta and several coauthors disclosed relationships with companies including ViiV Healthcare, AbbVie, Janssen-Cilag and Gilead Science, and Merck Sharp & Dohme, but no conflicts in connection with this study.

SOURCE: Mariantonietta P et al. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2020 Oct 5. doi: 10.1016/j.cmi.2020.09.048.

Starting early intervention (EI) enrollment before age 6 months in children who are deaf or hard of hearing may have a lasting influence on ensuring kindergarten readiness, Jareen Meinzen-Derr, PhD, MPH of Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center and colleagues reported in Pediatrics.

The researchers created a comprehensive, longitudinal, population-based database, which linked hearing screening and diagnostic data to that of early intervention data and educational records for 1,746 infants identified with permanent hearing loss who were born between Jan. 1, 2008 and Dec. 31, 2014 The database was established in partnership with the Ohio Departments of Health, Developmental Disabilities and Education, and with the support of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities.

Of those, 784 children ranging from preschool to fourth grade were evaluated based on education data available for the 2017 and 2018 school year that had been linked by way of an identifier that flagged students enrolled in EI.

All together, 417 students had kindergarten assessment records, and of those, 385 had Kindergarten Readiness Assessments (KRAs) between 2014 and 2018; 222 (58%) had been enrolled in EI before the age of 6 months. Of those who were enrolled early, the median age of EI enrollment was 3.4 months (2.4-4.3 months) and in those enrolled later, the median age was 9.2 months (7.5-15.4 months).
 

The importance of EI prior to 6 months

A total of 109 children (28%) receiving services as part of Ohio’s early intervention programs demonstrated kindergarten readiness on their overall KRA scores. The scores revealed that children receiving EI early (34%, n = 75) were more likely to be ready for kindergarten than were those who entered later (21%, n = 34; P = .005). They also were more likely to have on track language and literacy scores (60% vs. 42%, respectively; P = .0006).

Dr. Meinzen-Derr and colleagues noted that factors identified with “an increased odds of being on track included having private insurance and some college education for the mother.” Conversely, factors identified with a decreased likelihood included having a diagnosed disability and bilateral hearing loss.

The researchers cautioned that children transitioned from EI to academic settings will face challenges that may go underrecognized because a school’s focus often is largely on social and academic performance. Thus, working with linked data systems can provide the data to track outcomes that might otherwise be missed, the researchers noted.

Furthermore, they cautioned that even though kindergarten readiness offers some glimpse into future academic success, these measures alone may not be sufficient predictors for children who are deaf or hard of hearing. Risk for communication, social, and academic delays persist throughout school so it is important to employ alternative methods of reading instruction in order to “achieve more complex skills (e.g., complex syntax and advanced vocabulary) necessary for reading proficiency,” the researchers said.

Collecting data from public health and education systems posed limitations for the study. In addition, the absence of kindergarten language assessments prevented Dr. Meinzen-Derr and colleagues from better elucidating reasons for kindergarten readiness. Also beyond the scope of the study was the ability to evaluate the effect service types may have had on outcomes.

The next step in the research process is to evaluate the link between outcomes and specific EI parameters, they said. “Our study demonstrates that an integrated data system can address relevant and important topics regarding early academic outcomes (kindergarten readiness and reading levels) among children who received EI. The current findings provide a new context by evaluating later outcomes among children who are deaf or hard of hearing,” they added, noting that more research is needed to grasp how various EI services impact outcomes since enrollment age is a marker of EI exposure.
 

Early intervention is everyone’s business

In a separate interview, Amy Hardy M.S. CCC-SLP, speech language pathologist and clinical professor at Idaho State University, emphasized the importance of early intervention, citing reports from the National Center for Hearing Assessment and Management, which credits detection and treatment of hearing loss at birth per child to saving $400,000 in special education costs by the time they graduate from high school (https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/newborn-hearing-screening-state-laws.aspx).

Earliest possible hearing detection is and should be a standard of care for infants and children, and the importance of follow up appointments also cannot be understated,” Ms. Hardy said. Perhaps the biggest challenge for professionals involved with early learning is that many children are delayed in receiving follow up appointments for hearing detection, she added. When families fail to receive a follow-up notice or opt not attend the follow-up appointment, this leaves infants that may be deaf or hard of hearing unidentified, she explained, noting that in some states, lack of consistent and stable state funding needed for effective follow-up with these children and families is a factor.

Ms. Hardy urged that anyone who knows an expectant family can tout the importance of early screenings. Even daycare workers have a responsibility to play a role in early hearing detection, she noted.

Although speech language pathologists routinely advocate for early intervention, “it is never too late to work on skills that will assist children in their everyday lives,” she advised.

The authors had no relevant financial disclosures. The study was funded in part by the Disability Research and Dissemination Center via cooperative agreements with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

SOURCE: Meinzen-Derr J et al. Pediatrics. 2020 October. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-0557.

Starting early intervention (EI) enrollment before age 6 months in children who are deaf or hard of hearing may have a lasting influence on ensuring kindergarten readiness, Jareen Meinzen-Derr, PhD, MPH of Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center and colleagues reported in Pediatrics.

The researchers created a comprehensive, longitudinal, population-based database, which linked hearing screening and diagnostic data to that of early intervention data and educational records for 1,746 infants identified with permanent hearing loss who were born between Jan. 1, 2008 and Dec. 31, 2014 The database was established in partnership with the Ohio Departments of Health, Developmental Disabilities and Education, and with the support of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities.

Of those, 784 children ranging from preschool to fourth grade were evaluated based on education data available for the 2017 and 2018 school year that had been linked by way of an identifier that flagged students enrolled in EI.

All together, 417 students had kindergarten assessment records, and of those, 385 had Kindergarten Readiness Assessments (KRAs) between 2014 and 2018; 222 (58%) had been enrolled in EI before the age of 6 months. Of those who were enrolled early, the median age of EI enrollment was 3.4 months (2.4-4.3 months) and in those enrolled later, the median age was 9.2 months (7.5-15.4 months).
 

The importance of EI prior to 6 months

A total of 109 children (28%) receiving services as part of Ohio’s early intervention programs demonstrated kindergarten readiness on their overall KRA scores. The scores revealed that children receiving EI early (34%, n = 75) were more likely to be ready for kindergarten than were those who entered later (21%, n = 34; P = .005). They also were more likely to have on track language and literacy scores (60% vs. 42%, respectively; P = .0006).

Dr. Meinzen-Derr and colleagues noted that factors identified with “an increased odds of being on track included having private insurance and some college education for the mother.” Conversely, factors identified with a decreased likelihood included having a diagnosed disability and bilateral hearing loss.

The researchers cautioned that children transitioned from EI to academic settings will face challenges that may go underrecognized because a school’s focus often is largely on social and academic performance. Thus, working with linked data systems can provide the data to track outcomes that might otherwise be missed, the researchers noted.

Furthermore, they cautioned that even though kindergarten readiness offers some glimpse into future academic success, these measures alone may not be sufficient predictors for children who are deaf or hard of hearing. Risk for communication, social, and academic delays persist throughout school so it is important to employ alternative methods of reading instruction in order to “achieve more complex skills (e.g., complex syntax and advanced vocabulary) necessary for reading proficiency,” the researchers said.

Collecting data from public health and education systems posed limitations for the study. In addition, the absence of kindergarten language assessments prevented Dr. Meinzen-Derr and colleagues from better elucidating reasons for kindergarten readiness. Also beyond the scope of the study was the ability to evaluate the effect service types may have had on outcomes.

The next step in the research process is to evaluate the link between outcomes and specific EI parameters, they said. “Our study demonstrates that an integrated data system can address relevant and important topics regarding early academic outcomes (kindergarten readiness and reading levels) among children who received EI. The current findings provide a new context by evaluating later outcomes among children who are deaf or hard of hearing,” they added, noting that more research is needed to grasp how various EI services impact outcomes since enrollment age is a marker of EI exposure.
 

Early intervention is everyone’s business

In a separate interview, Amy Hardy M.S. CCC-SLP, speech language pathologist and clinical professor at Idaho State University, emphasized the importance of early intervention, citing reports from the National Center for Hearing Assessment and Management, which credits detection and treatment of hearing loss at birth per child to saving $400,000 in special education costs by the time they graduate from high school (https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/newborn-hearing-screening-state-laws.aspx).

Earliest possible hearing detection is and should be a standard of care for infants and children, and the importance of follow up appointments also cannot be understated,” Ms. Hardy said. Perhaps the biggest challenge for professionals involved with early learning is that many children are delayed in receiving follow up appointments for hearing detection, she added. When families fail to receive a follow-up notice or opt not attend the follow-up appointment, this leaves infants that may be deaf or hard of hearing unidentified, she explained, noting that in some states, lack of consistent and stable state funding needed for effective follow-up with these children and families is a factor.

Ms. Hardy urged that anyone who knows an expectant family can tout the importance of early screenings. Even daycare workers have a responsibility to play a role in early hearing detection, she noted.

Although speech language pathologists routinely advocate for early intervention, “it is never too late to work on skills that will assist children in their everyday lives,” she advised.

The authors had no relevant financial disclosures. The study was funded in part by the Disability Research and Dissemination Center via cooperative agreements with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

SOURCE: Meinzen-Derr J et al. Pediatrics. 2020 October. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-0557.

Starting early intervention (EI) enrollment before age 6 months in children who are deaf or hard of hearing may have a lasting influence on ensuring kindergarten readiness, Jareen Meinzen-Derr, PhD, MPH of Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center and colleagues reported in Pediatrics.

The researchers created a comprehensive, longitudinal, population-based database, which linked hearing screening and diagnostic data to that of early intervention data and educational records for 1,746 infants identified with permanent hearing loss who were born between Jan. 1, 2008 and Dec. 31, 2014 The database was established in partnership with the Ohio Departments of Health, Developmental Disabilities and Education, and with the support of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities.

Of those, 784 children ranging from preschool to fourth grade were evaluated based on education data available for the 2017 and 2018 school year that had been linked by way of an identifier that flagged students enrolled in EI.

All together, 417 students had kindergarten assessment records, and of those, 385 had Kindergarten Readiness Assessments (KRAs) between 2014 and 2018; 222 (58%) had been enrolled in EI before the age of 6 months. Of those who were enrolled early, the median age of EI enrollment was 3.4 months (2.4-4.3 months) and in those enrolled later, the median age was 9.2 months (7.5-15.4 months).
 

The importance of EI prior to 6 months

A total of 109 children (28%) receiving services as part of Ohio’s early intervention programs demonstrated kindergarten readiness on their overall KRA scores. The scores revealed that children receiving EI early (34%, n = 75) were more likely to be ready for kindergarten than were those who entered later (21%, n = 34; P = .005). They also were more likely to have on track language and literacy scores (60% vs. 42%, respectively; P = .0006).

Dr. Meinzen-Derr and colleagues noted that factors identified with “an increased odds of being on track included having private insurance and some college education for the mother.” Conversely, factors identified with a decreased likelihood included having a diagnosed disability and bilateral hearing loss.

The researchers cautioned that children transitioned from EI to academic settings will face challenges that may go underrecognized because a school’s focus often is largely on social and academic performance. Thus, working with linked data systems can provide the data to track outcomes that might otherwise be missed, the researchers noted.

Furthermore, they cautioned that even though kindergarten readiness offers some glimpse into future academic success, these measures alone may not be sufficient predictors for children who are deaf or hard of hearing. Risk for communication, social, and academic delays persist throughout school so it is important to employ alternative methods of reading instruction in order to “achieve more complex skills (e.g., complex syntax and advanced vocabulary) necessary for reading proficiency,” the researchers said.

Collecting data from public health and education systems posed limitations for the study. In addition, the absence of kindergarten language assessments prevented Dr. Meinzen-Derr and colleagues from better elucidating reasons for kindergarten readiness. Also beyond the scope of the study was the ability to evaluate the effect service types may have had on outcomes.

The next step in the research process is to evaluate the link between outcomes and specific EI parameters, they said. “Our study demonstrates that an integrated data system can address relevant and important topics regarding early academic outcomes (kindergarten readiness and reading levels) among children who received EI. The current findings provide a new context by evaluating later outcomes among children who are deaf or hard of hearing,” they added, noting that more research is needed to grasp how various EI services impact outcomes since enrollment age is a marker of EI exposure.
 

Early intervention is everyone’s business

In a separate interview, Amy Hardy M.S. CCC-SLP, speech language pathologist and clinical professor at Idaho State University, emphasized the importance of early intervention, citing reports from the National Center for Hearing Assessment and Management, which credits detection and treatment of hearing loss at birth per child to saving $400,000 in special education costs by the time they graduate from high school (https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/newborn-hearing-screening-state-laws.aspx).

Earliest possible hearing detection is and should be a standard of care for infants and children, and the importance of follow up appointments also cannot be understated,” Ms. Hardy said. Perhaps the biggest challenge for professionals involved with early learning is that many children are delayed in receiving follow up appointments for hearing detection, she added. When families fail to receive a follow-up notice or opt not attend the follow-up appointment, this leaves infants that may be deaf or hard of hearing unidentified, she explained, noting that in some states, lack of consistent and stable state funding needed for effective follow-up with these children and families is a factor.

Ms. Hardy urged that anyone who knows an expectant family can tout the importance of early screenings. Even daycare workers have a responsibility to play a role in early hearing detection, she noted.

Although speech language pathologists routinely advocate for early intervention, “it is never too late to work on skills that will assist children in their everyday lives,” she advised.

The authors had no relevant financial disclosures. The study was funded in part by the Disability Research and Dissemination Center via cooperative agreements with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

SOURCE: Meinzen-Derr J et al. Pediatrics. 2020 October. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-0557.

The first dual-purpose, external trigeminal nerve stimulation device to treat and prevent acute migraine is now available over the counter to adults over age 18. The Food and Drug Administration has cleared Cefaly Dual (Cefaly Technology) which was previously available only by prescription.

Most migraines involve the trigeminal nerve, which can be accessed through the skin on the forehead. Cefaly Dual stimulates the trigeminal nerve using a reusable self-adhesive electrode placed on the forehead.

The device has two settings, ACUTE and PREVENT. In the ACUTE setting, the individual wears the device for 60 minutes at headache onset or during a migraine attack. In the PREVENT setting, the individual wears the device for 20 minutes daily to help prevent future episodes.

At the start of a session, the wearer may feel a slight tingling sensation, which gradually increases and spreads throughout the forehead and the front part of the head. After about 14 minutes, the intensity stabilizes and remains constant until the treatment session is over, according to the company. The device automatically shuts off at the end of each session. It can be used as a stand-alone option or with existing treatment, the company noted.

“For millions of people across the U.S., living with migraine pain and coping with debilitating symptoms are daily realities. It is our mission to provide consumers with increased access to an effective and safe dual modality migraine treatment that is scientifically proven to reduce the number of monthly migraine days by almost half,” Jennifer Trainor McDermott, CEO of Cefaly Technology, said in a news release.

The FDA’s over-the-counter clearance of Cefaly Dual was based on several randomized, controlled clinical trials supporting the efficacy and safety of the device, the company said.

An earlier version of the Cefaly device was approved in the United States in March 2014 to help prevent migraine headache in adults aged 18 or older. The next-generation Cefaly Dual device is “small and sleek in comparison to its older model, which uses bands along the sides to create room for batteries. The newest device is palm-sized, more portable, and uses a battery that is rechargeable via USB,” the company said.

Last spring, the company announced a buyback program where customers in the United States may return their original device and receive a discount of the purchase of the Cefaly Dual device.

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

The first dual-purpose, external trigeminal nerve stimulation device to treat and prevent acute migraine is now available over the counter to adults over age 18. The Food and Drug Administration has cleared Cefaly Dual (Cefaly Technology) which was previously available only by prescription.

Most migraines involve the trigeminal nerve, which can be accessed through the skin on the forehead. Cefaly Dual stimulates the trigeminal nerve using a reusable self-adhesive electrode placed on the forehead.

The device has two settings, ACUTE and PREVENT. In the ACUTE setting, the individual wears the device for 60 minutes at headache onset or during a migraine attack. In the PREVENT setting, the individual wears the device for 20 minutes daily to help prevent future episodes.

At the start of a session, the wearer may feel a slight tingling sensation, which gradually increases and spreads throughout the forehead and the front part of the head. After about 14 minutes, the intensity stabilizes and remains constant until the treatment session is over, according to the company. The device automatically shuts off at the end of each session. It can be used as a stand-alone option or with existing treatment, the company noted.

“For millions of people across the U.S., living with migraine pain and coping with debilitating symptoms are daily realities. It is our mission to provide consumers with increased access to an effective and safe dual modality migraine treatment that is scientifically proven to reduce the number of monthly migraine days by almost half,” Jennifer Trainor McDermott, CEO of Cefaly Technology, said in a news release.

The FDA’s over-the-counter clearance of Cefaly Dual was based on several randomized, controlled clinical trials supporting the efficacy and safety of the device, the company said.

An earlier version of the Cefaly device was approved in the United States in March 2014 to help prevent migraine headache in adults aged 18 or older. The next-generation Cefaly Dual device is “small and sleek in comparison to its older model, which uses bands along the sides to create room for batteries. The newest device is palm-sized, more portable, and uses a battery that is rechargeable via USB,” the company said.

Last spring, the company announced a buyback program where customers in the United States may return their original device and receive a discount of the purchase of the Cefaly Dual device.

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

The first dual-purpose, external trigeminal nerve stimulation device to treat and prevent acute migraine is now available over the counter to adults over age 18. The Food and Drug Administration has cleared Cefaly Dual (Cefaly Technology) which was previously available only by prescription.

Most migraines involve the trigeminal nerve, which can be accessed through the skin on the forehead. Cefaly Dual stimulates the trigeminal nerve using a reusable self-adhesive electrode placed on the forehead.

The device has two settings, ACUTE and PREVENT. In the ACUTE setting, the individual wears the device for 60 minutes at headache onset or during a migraine attack. In the PREVENT setting, the individual wears the device for 20 minutes daily to help prevent future episodes.

At the start of a session, the wearer may feel a slight tingling sensation, which gradually increases and spreads throughout the forehead and the front part of the head. After about 14 minutes, the intensity stabilizes and remains constant until the treatment session is over, according to the company. The device automatically shuts off at the end of each session. It can be used as a stand-alone option or with existing treatment, the company noted.

“For millions of people across the U.S., living with migraine pain and coping with debilitating symptoms are daily realities. It is our mission to provide consumers with increased access to an effective and safe dual modality migraine treatment that is scientifically proven to reduce the number of monthly migraine days by almost half,” Jennifer Trainor McDermott, CEO of Cefaly Technology, said in a news release.

The FDA’s over-the-counter clearance of Cefaly Dual was based on several randomized, controlled clinical trials supporting the efficacy and safety of the device, the company said.

An earlier version of the Cefaly device was approved in the United States in March 2014 to help prevent migraine headache in adults aged 18 or older. The next-generation Cefaly Dual device is “small and sleek in comparison to its older model, which uses bands along the sides to create room for batteries. The newest device is palm-sized, more portable, and uses a battery that is rechargeable via USB,” the company said.

Last spring, the company announced a buyback program where customers in the United States may return their original device and receive a discount of the purchase of the Cefaly Dual device.

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