People with HIV who are hospitalized for COVID-19 have a significantly heightened risk of 28-day mortality compared with people without HIV.

A comparison of outcomes of people with HIV to people without HIV who were hospitalized in the United Kingdom with COVID-19 from Jan. 17 to June 4 showed that HIV-positive status was associated with a 63% increased risk of day 28 mortality.

This was especially true for HIV+ patients younger than 70 years of age, said Anna Maria Geretti, MD, PhD, professor of virology and infectious diseases, University of Liverpool, England.

The results are from an analysis of data from the ISARIC World Health Organization (WHO) Clinical Characterisation Protocol (UK) study, and were presented at the HIV Glasgow annual meeting, held virtually this year because of the pandemic.

“We investigated whether HIV status could be important in COVID-19 outcomes because there was anxiety on the part of our patients, and we wanted to gather some evidence-based information in order to help guide them,” Dr. Geretti said in an interview.

“ISARIC is an international protocol and the UK is one of the nations participating. We applied for access to its very large database, which connects data from all patients who are hospitalized with either known or suspected COVID-19. We wanted to see specifically how the presentation and outcomes of patients with HIV compared with the rest of the population without HIV. It afforded us an ideal opportunity to start to answer this question, and this is our first analysis in what will be an ongoing process. Importantly, we showed that there is a need to really look more carefully at the population with HIV,” she said.

Out of a total of 47,539 patients in the database, 115 (0.24%) had confirmed HIV-positive status, and 103 of those 115, or 89.6%, had a record of being on antiretroviral therapy.

On admission, the patients with HIV were younger, with a median age of 55 compared with 74 for patients without HIV (P < .001). They also had a higher prevalence of obesity, moderate to severe liver disease, higher lymphocyte counts and C-reactive protein, as well as more systemic symptoms.

There were no differences in respiratory rate, need for oxygen, or prevalence of chest infiltrates.

The cumulative incidence of mortality at day 28 was 25.2% in HIV-positive patients compared with 32.1% in HIV-negative patients (P = .12).

But when the researchers looked more closely, they noticed that the mortality rate was actually higher in younger HIV+ patients compared with HIV-negative patients.

Stratified by age, 28-day mortality was significantly higher in HIV+ patients aged <50 years (P =.004); and those aged 50 to 59 years (P = .05).

“So below the age of 70, the risk of mortality was double in people with HIV. The people with HIV who died often had diabetes with complications and also more frequent obesity, but this was not the only explanation,” Dr. Geretti said. “There is something to do with the HIV status per se.”

Next steps will be to expand the data set and repeat the analysis with an additional 100 patients “at least” she said.

The researchers also hope to zero in on what about being HIV+ is increasing the mortality risk from COVID-19.

“Right now we need greater numbers and we hope that the research community will be stimulated to take a closer look at this information, and merge other data so that we can strengthen confidence in the data and tease out what factors are causing this increased risk for mortality,” Dr. Geretti said.

She also emphasized that all patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 should be asked about their HIV status.

“It is important that the HIV status be recorded if we want to increase our ability to understand how HIV impacts survival,” she stressed. “In our experience we found that most of the hospital records were not doing that. Since HIV+ patients seem to be at increased risk, HIV status should be factored into the clinical management. Ask patients if they are HIV+, and if it is not known, then do a test. That would be good practice.”

Dr. Geretti reported no relevant financial relationships. The work was supported by grants from the National Institute of Health Research, the Medical Research Council, the Wellcome Trust, the Department for International Development, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
 

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

People with HIV who are hospitalized for COVID-19 have a significantly heightened risk of 28-day mortality compared with people without HIV.

A comparison of outcomes of people with HIV to people without HIV who were hospitalized in the United Kingdom with COVID-19 from Jan. 17 to June 4 showed that HIV-positive status was associated with a 63% increased risk of day 28 mortality.

This was especially true for HIV+ patients younger than 70 years of age, said Anna Maria Geretti, MD, PhD, professor of virology and infectious diseases, University of Liverpool, England.

The results are from an analysis of data from the ISARIC World Health Organization (WHO) Clinical Characterisation Protocol (UK) study, and were presented at the HIV Glasgow annual meeting, held virtually this year because of the pandemic.

“We investigated whether HIV status could be important in COVID-19 outcomes because there was anxiety on the part of our patients, and we wanted to gather some evidence-based information in order to help guide them,” Dr. Geretti said in an interview.

“ISARIC is an international protocol and the UK is one of the nations participating. We applied for access to its very large database, which connects data from all patients who are hospitalized with either known or suspected COVID-19. We wanted to see specifically how the presentation and outcomes of patients with HIV compared with the rest of the population without HIV. It afforded us an ideal opportunity to start to answer this question, and this is our first analysis in what will be an ongoing process. Importantly, we showed that there is a need to really look more carefully at the population with HIV,” she said.

Out of a total of 47,539 patients in the database, 115 (0.24%) had confirmed HIV-positive status, and 103 of those 115, or 89.6%, had a record of being on antiretroviral therapy.

On admission, the patients with HIV were younger, with a median age of 55 compared with 74 for patients without HIV (P < .001). They also had a higher prevalence of obesity, moderate to severe liver disease, higher lymphocyte counts and C-reactive protein, as well as more systemic symptoms.

There were no differences in respiratory rate, need for oxygen, or prevalence of chest infiltrates.

The cumulative incidence of mortality at day 28 was 25.2% in HIV-positive patients compared with 32.1% in HIV-negative patients (P = .12).

But when the researchers looked more closely, they noticed that the mortality rate was actually higher in younger HIV+ patients compared with HIV-negative patients.

Stratified by age, 28-day mortality was significantly higher in HIV+ patients aged <50 years (P =.004); and those aged 50 to 59 years (P = .05).

“So below the age of 70, the risk of mortality was double in people with HIV. The people with HIV who died often had diabetes with complications and also more frequent obesity, but this was not the only explanation,” Dr. Geretti said. “There is something to do with the HIV status per se.”

Next steps will be to expand the data set and repeat the analysis with an additional 100 patients “at least” she said.

The researchers also hope to zero in on what about being HIV+ is increasing the mortality risk from COVID-19.

“Right now we need greater numbers and we hope that the research community will be stimulated to take a closer look at this information, and merge other data so that we can strengthen confidence in the data and tease out what factors are causing this increased risk for mortality,” Dr. Geretti said.

She also emphasized that all patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 should be asked about their HIV status.

“It is important that the HIV status be recorded if we want to increase our ability to understand how HIV impacts survival,” she stressed. “In our experience we found that most of the hospital records were not doing that. Since HIV+ patients seem to be at increased risk, HIV status should be factored into the clinical management. Ask patients if they are HIV+, and if it is not known, then do a test. That would be good practice.”

Dr. Geretti reported no relevant financial relationships. The work was supported by grants from the National Institute of Health Research, the Medical Research Council, the Wellcome Trust, the Department for International Development, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
 

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

People with HIV who are hospitalized for COVID-19 have a significantly heightened risk of 28-day mortality compared with people without HIV.

A comparison of outcomes of people with HIV to people without HIV who were hospitalized in the United Kingdom with COVID-19 from Jan. 17 to June 4 showed that HIV-positive status was associated with a 63% increased risk of day 28 mortality.

This was especially true for HIV+ patients younger than 70 years of age, said Anna Maria Geretti, MD, PhD, professor of virology and infectious diseases, University of Liverpool, England.

The results are from an analysis of data from the ISARIC World Health Organization (WHO) Clinical Characterisation Protocol (UK) study, and were presented at the HIV Glasgow annual meeting, held virtually this year because of the pandemic.

“We investigated whether HIV status could be important in COVID-19 outcomes because there was anxiety on the part of our patients, and we wanted to gather some evidence-based information in order to help guide them,” Dr. Geretti said in an interview.

“ISARIC is an international protocol and the UK is one of the nations participating. We applied for access to its very large database, which connects data from all patients who are hospitalized with either known or suspected COVID-19. We wanted to see specifically how the presentation and outcomes of patients with HIV compared with the rest of the population without HIV. It afforded us an ideal opportunity to start to answer this question, and this is our first analysis in what will be an ongoing process. Importantly, we showed that there is a need to really look more carefully at the population with HIV,” she said.

Out of a total of 47,539 patients in the database, 115 (0.24%) had confirmed HIV-positive status, and 103 of those 115, or 89.6%, had a record of being on antiretroviral therapy.

On admission, the patients with HIV were younger, with a median age of 55 compared with 74 for patients without HIV (P < .001). They also had a higher prevalence of obesity, moderate to severe liver disease, higher lymphocyte counts and C-reactive protein, as well as more systemic symptoms.

There were no differences in respiratory rate, need for oxygen, or prevalence of chest infiltrates.

The cumulative incidence of mortality at day 28 was 25.2% in HIV-positive patients compared with 32.1% in HIV-negative patients (P = .12).

But when the researchers looked more closely, they noticed that the mortality rate was actually higher in younger HIV+ patients compared with HIV-negative patients.

Stratified by age, 28-day mortality was significantly higher in HIV+ patients aged <50 years (P =.004); and those aged 50 to 59 years (P = .05).

“So below the age of 70, the risk of mortality was double in people with HIV. The people with HIV who died often had diabetes with complications and also more frequent obesity, but this was not the only explanation,” Dr. Geretti said. “There is something to do with the HIV status per se.”

Next steps will be to expand the data set and repeat the analysis with an additional 100 patients “at least” she said.

The researchers also hope to zero in on what about being HIV+ is increasing the mortality risk from COVID-19.

“Right now we need greater numbers and we hope that the research community will be stimulated to take a closer look at this information, and merge other data so that we can strengthen confidence in the data and tease out what factors are causing this increased risk for mortality,” Dr. Geretti said.

She also emphasized that all patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 should be asked about their HIV status.

“It is important that the HIV status be recorded if we want to increase our ability to understand how HIV impacts survival,” she stressed. “In our experience we found that most of the hospital records were not doing that. Since HIV+ patients seem to be at increased risk, HIV status should be factored into the clinical management. Ask patients if they are HIV+, and if it is not known, then do a test. That would be good practice.”

Dr. Geretti reported no relevant financial relationships. The work was supported by grants from the National Institute of Health Research, the Medical Research Council, the Wellcome Trust, the Department for International Development, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
 

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

Switching patients with HIV from a protease inhibitor–based antiretroviral therapy regimen to an integrase inhibitor–based regimen can be performed safely, with maintenance of high levels of virologic suppression and improvements in both bone mineral density and renal function biomarkers, data from a randomized trial indicate.

Among 212 women with successful HIV virologic suppression following 48 weeks of treatment with ritonavir-boosted atazanavir plus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (ATV/r +TDF), among those who were switched to continued therapy with an integrase inhibitor–based regimen of elvitegravir/cobicistat/emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide (E/C/F/TAF), mean increases in lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD) were greater and renal function was improved compared with patients who were maintained with ATV/r + TDF, reported Monica Thormann, MD, from Salvador B. Gautier Hospital in Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, and colleagues at the HIV Glasgow drug therapy meeting, which was held online in 2020.

Although the E/C/F/TAF regimen was associated with a significantly greater increase in lipids, there was no significant change in the total cholesterol to high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol ratio.

The patients in the study had previously participated in a blinded randomized trial comparing the integrase inhibitor combination plus TDF with ATV/r + TDF in treatment-naive women.

In the current study, patients were randomly assigned in a 3:1 ratio to maintenance with either E/C/F/TAF (159 patients) or ATV/r + TDF (53 patients).

Forty-eight weeks after the switch, virologic suppression (to fewer than 50 copies/mL) was maintained among 94.3% of those on the integrase inhibitor–based regimen, compared with 86.8% of those on the protease inhibitor–based regimen. Virologic failure was seen in 1.9% of those on the integrase inhibitor–based regimen and in 3.8% of those on the protease inhibitor–based regimen.

In addition, virologic suppression below 20 c/mL at week 48 was more common among women maintained on E/C/F/TAF, at 84.9% vs 71.7% (P = .041). No treatment-emergent resistance was seen with either regimen.

As noted, there were higher mean percentage increases in BMD in the E/C/F/TAF group for both total hip and lumbar spine, but only the latter measure improved significantly in comparison with patients treated with ATV/r + TDF (2.82% vs 0%, P < .001).

Markers of renal tubule damage, including the beta-2 microglobulin to creatinine ratio and the rentinol-binding protein to creatinine ratio, were significantly improved with the integrase inhibitor regimen.

Increases in total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, and HDL cholesterol were 27 vs 5 mg/dL, 16 vs 8 mg/dL, and 5 vs 0 mg/dL in each case comparing the integrase inhibitor–based regimen to the protease inhibitor–based regimen. All of those comparisons were statistically significant.

As noted, however, the total cholesterol to HDL cholesterol ratio was not significantly different between the treatment arms. The rate or initiation of lipid-modifying agents was 1.3% in the E/C/F/TAF group vs 0 in the ATV/r + TDF group, but this difference was not statistically significant.

“These data demonstrate that women who switch to an integrase inhibitor + TAF‐based regimen maintain high levels of virologic suppression with improvement in BMD and renal function biomarkers, as compared with those remaining on their ritonavir boosted atazanavir + TDF‐based regimen,” the authors wrote.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Switching patients with HIV from a protease inhibitor–based antiretroviral therapy regimen to an integrase inhibitor–based regimen can be performed safely, with maintenance of high levels of virologic suppression and improvements in both bone mineral density and renal function biomarkers, data from a randomized trial indicate.

Among 212 women with successful HIV virologic suppression following 48 weeks of treatment with ritonavir-boosted atazanavir plus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (ATV/r +TDF), among those who were switched to continued therapy with an integrase inhibitor–based regimen of elvitegravir/cobicistat/emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide (E/C/F/TAF), mean increases in lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD) were greater and renal function was improved compared with patients who were maintained with ATV/r + TDF, reported Monica Thormann, MD, from Salvador B. Gautier Hospital in Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, and colleagues at the HIV Glasgow drug therapy meeting, which was held online in 2020.

Although the E/C/F/TAF regimen was associated with a significantly greater increase in lipids, there was no significant change in the total cholesterol to high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol ratio.

The patients in the study had previously participated in a blinded randomized trial comparing the integrase inhibitor combination plus TDF with ATV/r + TDF in treatment-naive women.

In the current study, patients were randomly assigned in a 3:1 ratio to maintenance with either E/C/F/TAF (159 patients) or ATV/r + TDF (53 patients).

Forty-eight weeks after the switch, virologic suppression (to fewer than 50 copies/mL) was maintained among 94.3% of those on the integrase inhibitor–based regimen, compared with 86.8% of those on the protease inhibitor–based regimen. Virologic failure was seen in 1.9% of those on the integrase inhibitor–based regimen and in 3.8% of those on the protease inhibitor–based regimen.

In addition, virologic suppression below 20 c/mL at week 48 was more common among women maintained on E/C/F/TAF, at 84.9% vs 71.7% (P = .041). No treatment-emergent resistance was seen with either regimen.

As noted, there were higher mean percentage increases in BMD in the E/C/F/TAF group for both total hip and lumbar spine, but only the latter measure improved significantly in comparison with patients treated with ATV/r + TDF (2.82% vs 0%, P < .001).

Markers of renal tubule damage, including the beta-2 microglobulin to creatinine ratio and the rentinol-binding protein to creatinine ratio, were significantly improved with the integrase inhibitor regimen.

Increases in total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, and HDL cholesterol were 27 vs 5 mg/dL, 16 vs 8 mg/dL, and 5 vs 0 mg/dL in each case comparing the integrase inhibitor–based regimen to the protease inhibitor–based regimen. All of those comparisons were statistically significant.

As noted, however, the total cholesterol to HDL cholesterol ratio was not significantly different between the treatment arms. The rate or initiation of lipid-modifying agents was 1.3% in the E/C/F/TAF group vs 0 in the ATV/r + TDF group, but this difference was not statistically significant.

“These data demonstrate that women who switch to an integrase inhibitor + TAF‐based regimen maintain high levels of virologic suppression with improvement in BMD and renal function biomarkers, as compared with those remaining on their ritonavir boosted atazanavir + TDF‐based regimen,” the authors wrote.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Switching patients with HIV from a protease inhibitor–based antiretroviral therapy regimen to an integrase inhibitor–based regimen can be performed safely, with maintenance of high levels of virologic suppression and improvements in both bone mineral density and renal function biomarkers, data from a randomized trial indicate.

Among 212 women with successful HIV virologic suppression following 48 weeks of treatment with ritonavir-boosted atazanavir plus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (ATV/r +TDF), among those who were switched to continued therapy with an integrase inhibitor–based regimen of elvitegravir/cobicistat/emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide (E/C/F/TAF), mean increases in lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD) were greater and renal function was improved compared with patients who were maintained with ATV/r + TDF, reported Monica Thormann, MD, from Salvador B. Gautier Hospital in Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, and colleagues at the HIV Glasgow drug therapy meeting, which was held online in 2020.

Although the E/C/F/TAF regimen was associated with a significantly greater increase in lipids, there was no significant change in the total cholesterol to high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol ratio.

The patients in the study had previously participated in a blinded randomized trial comparing the integrase inhibitor combination plus TDF with ATV/r + TDF in treatment-naive women.

In the current study, patients were randomly assigned in a 3:1 ratio to maintenance with either E/C/F/TAF (159 patients) or ATV/r + TDF (53 patients).

Forty-eight weeks after the switch, virologic suppression (to fewer than 50 copies/mL) was maintained among 94.3% of those on the integrase inhibitor–based regimen, compared with 86.8% of those on the protease inhibitor–based regimen. Virologic failure was seen in 1.9% of those on the integrase inhibitor–based regimen and in 3.8% of those on the protease inhibitor–based regimen.

In addition, virologic suppression below 20 c/mL at week 48 was more common among women maintained on E/C/F/TAF, at 84.9% vs 71.7% (P = .041). No treatment-emergent resistance was seen with either regimen.

As noted, there were higher mean percentage increases in BMD in the E/C/F/TAF group for both total hip and lumbar spine, but only the latter measure improved significantly in comparison with patients treated with ATV/r + TDF (2.82% vs 0%, P < .001).

Markers of renal tubule damage, including the beta-2 microglobulin to creatinine ratio and the rentinol-binding protein to creatinine ratio, were significantly improved with the integrase inhibitor regimen.

Increases in total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, and HDL cholesterol were 27 vs 5 mg/dL, 16 vs 8 mg/dL, and 5 vs 0 mg/dL in each case comparing the integrase inhibitor–based regimen to the protease inhibitor–based regimen. All of those comparisons were statistically significant.

As noted, however, the total cholesterol to HDL cholesterol ratio was not significantly different between the treatment arms. The rate or initiation of lipid-modifying agents was 1.3% in the E/C/F/TAF group vs 0 in the ATV/r + TDF group, but this difference was not statistically significant.

“These data demonstrate that women who switch to an integrase inhibitor + TAF‐based regimen maintain high levels of virologic suppression with improvement in BMD and renal function biomarkers, as compared with those remaining on their ritonavir boosted atazanavir + TDF‐based regimen,” the authors wrote.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Delays in colorectal cancer screening due to the COVID-19 pandemic could lead to higher rates of advanced-stage cancer and death, according to a new study.

When compared with a delay of less than three months, the longer delay seen this year may result in an 11.9% increase in death rates.

“Across the globe, health care systems are facing serious difficulties while dealing with COVID-19, and it is imperative that support is given to the public and patients throughout the crisis, including for high-impact diseases such as colorectal cancer,” Luigi Ricciardiello, the lead study author and a professor at the University of Bologna in Italy, said in a statement.

Ricciardiello and colleagues presented their research on Monday at UEG Week Virtual 2020, an international conference for gastroenterologists. The study will be published in the UEG Journal .

The researchers created a model to forecast the effects of delayed cancer screening during 2020. A “moderate” delay of 7-12 months caused a 3% increase in advanced-stage colon cancer, and a long delay of more than 12 months caused a 7% increase in advanced cancer.

Based on a survival rate of 5 years for stage 3 or stage 4 colorectal cancer, the death rate would increase nearly 12% when screening is delayed for more than a year, as compared with less than three months of delay.

The research team found similar results when forecasting advanced-stage cancer and deaths earlier this year. In a paper published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology in early September, they projected that deaths could increase 12% if screening is delayed for more than a year.

Throughout the pandemic, screening programs have been delayed in many countries, particularly across Europe.

“Healthcare authorities need to act urgently on how they reorganise activities during COVID-19, without compromising the diagnosis of other high-impact diseases like this research shows,” Ricciardiello said.

United European Gastroenterology, a professional medical organization for digestive health specialists, has called for policymakers to implement colon cancer screening programs across the European Union. Annually, more than 375,000 new cases are diagnosed across the EU, and more than 170,000 people die from colorectal cancer, according to a UEG report.

“Early-stage diagnosis of colorectal cancer is crucial — it’s far easier to treat and enhances optimal patient outcomes,” Ricciardiello said. “It is therefore essential that vital diagnosis tools, like screening programmes, continue and help to prevent mortality rates from rising even further.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Delays in colorectal cancer screening due to the COVID-19 pandemic could lead to higher rates of advanced-stage cancer and death, according to a new study.

When compared with a delay of less than three months, the longer delay seen this year may result in an 11.9% increase in death rates.

“Across the globe, health care systems are facing serious difficulties while dealing with COVID-19, and it is imperative that support is given to the public and patients throughout the crisis, including for high-impact diseases such as colorectal cancer,” Luigi Ricciardiello, the lead study author and a professor at the University of Bologna in Italy, said in a statement.

Ricciardiello and colleagues presented their research on Monday at UEG Week Virtual 2020, an international conference for gastroenterologists. The study will be published in the UEG Journal .

The researchers created a model to forecast the effects of delayed cancer screening during 2020. A “moderate” delay of 7-12 months caused a 3% increase in advanced-stage colon cancer, and a long delay of more than 12 months caused a 7% increase in advanced cancer.

Based on a survival rate of 5 years for stage 3 or stage 4 colorectal cancer, the death rate would increase nearly 12% when screening is delayed for more than a year, as compared with less than three months of delay.

The research team found similar results when forecasting advanced-stage cancer and deaths earlier this year. In a paper published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology in early September, they projected that deaths could increase 12% if screening is delayed for more than a year.

Throughout the pandemic, screening programs have been delayed in many countries, particularly across Europe.

“Healthcare authorities need to act urgently on how they reorganise activities during COVID-19, without compromising the diagnosis of other high-impact diseases like this research shows,” Ricciardiello said.

United European Gastroenterology, a professional medical organization for digestive health specialists, has called for policymakers to implement colon cancer screening programs across the European Union. Annually, more than 375,000 new cases are diagnosed across the EU, and more than 170,000 people die from colorectal cancer, according to a UEG report.

“Early-stage diagnosis of colorectal cancer is crucial — it’s far easier to treat and enhances optimal patient outcomes,” Ricciardiello said. “It is therefore essential that vital diagnosis tools, like screening programmes, continue and help to prevent mortality rates from rising even further.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Delays in colorectal cancer screening due to the COVID-19 pandemic could lead to higher rates of advanced-stage cancer and death, according to a new study.

When compared with a delay of less than three months, the longer delay seen this year may result in an 11.9% increase in death rates.

“Across the globe, health care systems are facing serious difficulties while dealing with COVID-19, and it is imperative that support is given to the public and patients throughout the crisis, including for high-impact diseases such as colorectal cancer,” Luigi Ricciardiello, the lead study author and a professor at the University of Bologna in Italy, said in a statement.

Ricciardiello and colleagues presented their research on Monday at UEG Week Virtual 2020, an international conference for gastroenterologists. The study will be published in the UEG Journal .

The researchers created a model to forecast the effects of delayed cancer screening during 2020. A “moderate” delay of 7-12 months caused a 3% increase in advanced-stage colon cancer, and a long delay of more than 12 months caused a 7% increase in advanced cancer.

Based on a survival rate of 5 years for stage 3 or stage 4 colorectal cancer, the death rate would increase nearly 12% when screening is delayed for more than a year, as compared with less than three months of delay.

The research team found similar results when forecasting advanced-stage cancer and deaths earlier this year. In a paper published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology in early September, they projected that deaths could increase 12% if screening is delayed for more than a year.

Throughout the pandemic, screening programs have been delayed in many countries, particularly across Europe.

“Healthcare authorities need to act urgently on how they reorganise activities during COVID-19, without compromising the diagnosis of other high-impact diseases like this research shows,” Ricciardiello said.

United European Gastroenterology, a professional medical organization for digestive health specialists, has called for policymakers to implement colon cancer screening programs across the European Union. Annually, more than 375,000 new cases are diagnosed across the EU, and more than 170,000 people die from colorectal cancer, according to a UEG report.

“Early-stage diagnosis of colorectal cancer is crucial — it’s far easier to treat and enhances optimal patient outcomes,” Ricciardiello said. “It is therefore essential that vital diagnosis tools, like screening programmes, continue and help to prevent mortality rates from rising even further.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Low back pain in not uncommon in children and adolescents.^1-3 Although the prevalence of low back pain in children < 7 years is low, it increases with age, with studies reporting lifetime prevalence at age 12 years between 16% and 18% and rates as high as 66% by 16 years of age.^4,5 Although children and adolescents usually have pain that is transient and benign without a defined cause, structural causes of low back pain should be considered in school-aged children with pain that persists for > 3 to 6 weeks. ⁴ The most common structural causes of adolescent low back pain are reviewed here.

Etiology: A mixed bag

Back pain in school-aged children is most commonly due to muscular strain, overuse, or poor posture. The pain is often transient in nature and responds to rest and postural education.^4,6 A herniated disc is an uncommon finding in younger school-aged children, but incidence increases slightly among older adolescents, particularly those who are active in collision sports and/or weight-lifting.^7,8 Pain caused by a herniated disc often radiates along the distribution of the sciatic nerve and worsens during lumbar flexion.

Spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis are important causes of back pain in children. Spondylolysis is defined as a defect or abnormality of the pars interarticularis and surrounding lamina and pedicle. Spondylolisthesis, which is less common, is defined as the translation or “slippage” of one vertebral segment in relation to the next caudal segment. These conditions commonly occur as a result of repetitive stress.

In a prospective study of adolescents < 19 years with low back pain for > 2 weeks, the prevalence of spondylolysis was 39.7%.⁹ Adolescent athletes with symptomatic low back pain are more likely to have spondylolysis than nonathletes (32% vs 2%, respectively).^2,10 Pain is often made worse by extension of the spine. Spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis can be congenital or acquired, and both can be asymptomatic. Children and teens who are athletes are at higher risk for symptomatic spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis.^10-12 This is especially true for those involved in gymnastics, dance, football, and/or volleyball, where a repetitive load is placed onto an extended spine.

Idiopathic scoliosis is an abnormal lateral curvature of the spine that usually develops during adolescence and worsens with growth. Historically, painful scoliosis was considered rare, but more recently researchers determined that children with scoliosis have a higher rate of pain compared to their peers.^13,14 School-aged children with scoliosis were found to be at 2 times the risk of low back pain compared to those without scoliosis.¹³ It is important to identify scoliosis in adolescents so that progression can be monitored.

Hyperextension in a single-leg stance, commonly known as the Stork test, is positive for unilateral spondylolysis when it reproduces pain on the ipsilateral side.

Screening for scoliosis in primary care is somewhat controversial. The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) finds insufficient evidence for screening asymptomatic adolescents for scoliosis.¹⁵ This recommendation is based on the fact that there is little evidence on the effect of screening on long-term outcomes. Screening may also lead to unnecessary radiation. Conversely, a position statement released by the Scoliosis Research Society, the Pediatric Orthopedic Society of North America, the American Association of Orthopedic Surgeons, and the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends scoliosis screening during routine pediatric office visits.¹⁶ Screening for girls is recommended at ages 10 and 12 years, and for boys, once between ages 13 and 14 years. The statement highlights evidence showing that focused screening by appropriate personnel has value in detecting a clinically significant curve (> 20°).

Scheuermann disease is a rare cause of back pain in children that usually develops during adolescence and results in increasing thoracic kyphosis. An autosomal dominant mutation plays a role in this disease of the growth cartilage endplate; repetitive strain on the growth cartilage is also a contributing factor.^17,18 An atypical variant manifests with kyphosis in the thoracolumbar region.¹⁷

Continue to: Other causes of low back pain

Other causes of low back pain—including inflammatory arthritis, infection (eg, discitis), and tumor—are rare in children but must always be considered, especially in the setting of persistent symptoms.^4,19-21 More on the features of these conditions is listed in TABLE 1.^{1-7,13-15,17-30}

History: Focus on onset, timing, and duration of symptoms

As with adults, obtaining a history that includes the onset, timing, and duration of symptoms is key in the evaluation of low back pain in children, as is obtaining a history of the patient’s activities; sports that repetitively load the lumbar spine in an extended position increase the risk of injury.¹⁰

Specific risk factors for low back pain in children and adolescents are poorly understood.^4,9,31 Pain can be associated with trauma, or it can have a more progressive or insidious onset. Generally, pain that is present for up to 6 weeks and is intermittent or improving has a self-limited course. Pain that persists beyond 3 to 6 weeks or is worsening is more likely to have an anatomical cause that needs further evaluation.^2,3,10,21

Identifying exacerbating and alleviating factors can provide useful information. Pain that is worse with lumbar flexion is more likely to come from muscular strain or disc pathology. Pain with extension is more likely due to a structural cause such as spondylolysis/spondylolisthesis, scoliosis, or Scheuermann disease.^{2,4,10,17,18,21} See TABLE 2 for red flag symptoms that indicate the need for imaging and further work-up.

The physical exam: Visualize, assess range of motion, and reproduce pain

The physical examination of any patient with low back pain should include direct visualization and inspection of the back, spine, and pelvis; palpation of the spine and paraspinal regions; assessment of lumbar range of motion and of the lumbar nerve roots, including tests of sensation, strength, and deep tendon reflexes; and an evaluation of the patient’s posture, which can provide clues to underlying causes of pain.

Continue to: Increased thoracic kyphosis...

Increased thoracic kyphosis that is not reversible is concerning for Scheuermann disease.^9,17,18 A significant elevation in one shoulder or side of the pelvis can be indicative of scoliosis. Increased lumbar lordosis may predispose a patient to spondylolysis.

In patients with spondylolysis, lumbar extension will usually reproduce pain, which is often unilateral. Hyperextension in a single-leg stance, commonly known as the Stork test, is positive for unilateral spondylolysis when it reproduces pain on the ipsilateral side. The sensitivity of the Stork test for unilateral spondylolysis is approximately 50%.³² (For more information on the Stork test, see www.physio-pedia.com/Stork_test.)

Pain reproduced with lumbar flexion is less concerning for bony pathology and is most often related to soft-tissue strain. Lumbar flexion with concomitant radicular pain is associated with disc pathology.⁸ Pain with a straight-leg raise is also associated with disk pathology, especially if raising the contralateral leg increases pain.⁸

Using a scoliometer. Evaluate the flexed spine for the presence of asymmetry, which can indicate scoliosis.³³ If asymmetry is present, use a scoliometer to determine the degree of asymmetry. Zero to 5° is considered clinically insignificant; monitor and reevaluate these patients at subsequent visits.^34,35 Ten degrees or more of asymmetry with a scoliometer should prompt you to order radiographs.^35,36 A smartphone-based scoliometer for iPhones was evaluated in 1 study and was shown to have reasonable reliability and validity for clinical use.³⁷

Deformity of the lower extremities. Because low back pain may be caused by biomechanical or structural deformity of the lower extremities, examine the flexibility of the hip flexors, gluteal musculature, hamstrings, and the iliotibial band.³⁸ In addition, evaluate for leg-length discrepancy and lower-extremity malalignment, such as femoral anteversion, tibial torsion, or pes planus.

Continue to: Imaging

Imaging: Know when it’s needed

Although imaging of the lumbar spine is often unnecessary in the presence of acute low back pain in children, always consider imaging in the setting of bony tenderness, pain that wakes a patient from sleep, and in the setting of other red flag symptoms (see TABLE 2). Low back pain in children that is reproducible with lumbar extension is concerning for spondylolysis or spondylolisthesis. If the pain with extension persists beyond 3 to 6 weeks, order imaging starting with radiographs.^2,39

Traditionally, 4 views of the spine—­anteroposterior (AP), lateral, and oblique (one right and one left)—were obtained, but recent evidence indicates that 2 views (AP and lateral) have similar sensitivity and specificity to 4 views with significantly reduced radiation exposure.^2,39 Because the sensitivity of plain films is relatively low, consider more advanced imaging if spondylolysis or spondylolisthesis is strongly suspected. Recent studies indicate that magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) may be as effective as computed tomography (CT) or bone scan and has the advantage of lower radiation (FIGURE 1).^2,22

Similarly, order radiographs if there is > 10° of asymmetry noted on physical exam using a scoliometer.^15,23 Calculate the Cobb angle to determine the severity of scoliosis. Refer patients with angles ≥ 20° to a pediatric orthopedist for monitoring of progression and consideration of bracing (FIGURE 2).^23,34 For patients with curvatures between 10° and 19°, repeat imaging every 6 to 12 months. Because scoliosis is a risk factor for spondylolysis, evaluate radiographs in the setting of painful scoliosis for the presence of a spondylolysis.^34,35

Pain reproduced with lumbar flexion is less concerning for bony pathology and is most often related to soft-tissue strain.

If excessive kyphosis is noted on exam, order radiographs to evaluate for Scheuermann disease. Classic imaging findings include Schmorl nodes, vertebral endplate changes, and anterior wedging (FIGURE 3).^17,18

In the absence of the above concerns, defer imaging of the lumbar spine until after adequate rest and rehabilitation have been attempted.

Continue to: Treatment typically involves restor physical therapy

Most cases of low back pain in children and adolescents are benign and self-limited. Many children with low back pain can be treated with relative rest from the offending activity. For children with more persistent pain, physical therapy (PT) is often indicated. Similar to that for adults, there is little evidence for specific PT programs to help children with low back pain. Rehabilitation should be individualized based on the condition being treated.

Medications. There have been no high-quality studies on the benefit of medications to treat low back pain in children. Studies have shown nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have value in adults, and they are likely safe for use in children,⁴⁰ but the risk of opiate abuse is significantly increased in adolescents who have been prescribed opiate pain medication prior to 12th grade.⁴¹

Lumbar disc herniation. Although still relatively rare, lumbar disc herniation is more common in older children and adolescents than in younger children and is treated similarly to that in adults.⁸ Range-of-motion exercise to restore lumbar motion is often first-line treatment. Research has shown that exercises that strengthen the abdominal or “core” musculature help prevent the return of low back pain.^24,25

In the case of spondylolysis or spondylolisthesis, rest from activity is generally required for a minimum of 4 to 6 weeks. Rehabilitation in the form of range of motion, especially into the lumbar extension, and spinal stabilization exercises are effective for both reducing pain and restoring range-­of-motion and strength.⁴² Have patients avoid heavy backpacks, which can reproduce pain. Children often benefit from leaving a second set of schoolbooks at home. For most patients with spondylolysis, conservative treatment with rehabilitation is equal to or better than surgical intervention in returning the patient to his/her pre-injury activity level.^26,43,44 When returning athletes to their sport, aggressive PT, defined as rest for < 10 weeks prior to initiating PT, is superior to delaying PT beyond 10 weeks of rest.²⁷

Idiopathic scoliosis. Much of the literature on the treatment of scoliosis is focused on limiting progression of the scoliotic curvature. Researchers thought that more severe curves were associated with more severe pain, but a recent systematic review showed that back pain can occur in patients with even small curvatures.²⁸ Treatment for patients with smaller degrees of curvature is similar to that for mechanical low back pain. PT may have a role in the treatment of scoliosis, but there is little evidence in the literature of its effectiveness.

Continue to: A Cochrane review showed...

Always consider imaging in the setting of bony tenderness, pain that wakes the patient from sleep, and when there is > 10° of asymmetry on physical exam using a scoliometer.

A Cochrane review showed that PT and exercise-based treatments had no effect on back pain or disability in patients with scoliosis.²⁹ And outpatient PT alone, in the absence of bracing, does not arrest progression of the scoliotic curvature.³⁵ One trial did demonstrate that an intensive inpatient treatment program of 4 to 6 weeks for patients with curvature of at least 40° reduced progression of curvature compared to an untreated control group at 1 year.³⁴ The outcomes of functional mobility and pain were not measured. Follow-up data on curve progression beyond 1 year are not available. Unfortunately, intensive inpatient treatment is not readily available or cost-effective for most patients with scoliosis.

Scheuermann disease. The mainstay of treatment for mild Scheuermann disease is advising the patient to avoid repetitive loading of the spine. Patients should avoid sports such as competitive weight-lifting, gymnastics, and football. Lower impact athletics are encouraged. Refer patients with pain to PT to address posture and core stabilization. Patients with severe kyphosis may require surgery.^17,18

Bracing: Rarely helpful for low back pain

The use of lumbar braces or corsets is rarely helpful for low back pain in children. Bracing in the setting of spondylolysis is controversial.One study indicated that bracing in combination with activity restriction and lumbar extension exercise is superior to activity restriction and lumbar flexion exercises alone.⁴³ But a meta-analysis did not demonstrate a significant difference in recovery when bracing was added.⁴⁴ Bracing may help to reduce pain initially in patients with spondylolysis who have pain at rest. Bracing is not recommended for patients with pain that abates with activity modification.

Scoliosis and Scheuermann kyphosis. Treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis usually consists of observation and periodic reevaluation. Bracing is a mainstay of the nonsurgical management of scoliosis and is appropriate for curves of 20° to 40°; studies have reported successful control of curve progression in > 70% of patients.³⁶ According to 1 study, the number of cases of scoliosis needed to treat with bracing to prevent 1 surgery is 3.³⁰ Surgery is often indicated for patients with curvatures > 40°, although this is also debated.³³

Bracing is used rarely for Scheuermann kyphosis but may be helpful in more severe or painful cases.¹⁷

CORRESPONDENCE
Shawn F. Phillips, MD, MSPT, 500 University Drive H154, Hershey, PA, 17033; [email protected].

Low back pain in not uncommon in children and adolescents.^1-3 Although the prevalence of low back pain in children < 7 years is low, it increases with age, with studies reporting lifetime prevalence at age 12 years between 16% and 18% and rates as high as 66% by 16 years of age.^4,5 Although children and adolescents usually have pain that is transient and benign without a defined cause, structural causes of low back pain should be considered in school-aged children with pain that persists for > 3 to 6 weeks. ⁴ The most common structural causes of adolescent low back pain are reviewed here.

Etiology: A mixed bag

Back pain in school-aged children is most commonly due to muscular strain, overuse, or poor posture. The pain is often transient in nature and responds to rest and postural education.^4,6 A herniated disc is an uncommon finding in younger school-aged children, but incidence increases slightly among older adolescents, particularly those who are active in collision sports and/or weight-lifting.^7,8 Pain caused by a herniated disc often radiates along the distribution of the sciatic nerve and worsens during lumbar flexion.

Spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis are important causes of back pain in children. Spondylolysis is defined as a defect or abnormality of the pars interarticularis and surrounding lamina and pedicle. Spondylolisthesis, which is less common, is defined as the translation or “slippage” of one vertebral segment in relation to the next caudal segment. These conditions commonly occur as a result of repetitive stress.

In a prospective study of adolescents < 19 years with low back pain for > 2 weeks, the prevalence of spondylolysis was 39.7%.⁹ Adolescent athletes with symptomatic low back pain are more likely to have spondylolysis than nonathletes (32% vs 2%, respectively).^2,10 Pain is often made worse by extension of the spine. Spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis can be congenital or acquired, and both can be asymptomatic. Children and teens who are athletes are at higher risk for symptomatic spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis.^10-12 This is especially true for those involved in gymnastics, dance, football, and/or volleyball, where a repetitive load is placed onto an extended spine.

Idiopathic scoliosis is an abnormal lateral curvature of the spine that usually develops during adolescence and worsens with growth. Historically, painful scoliosis was considered rare, but more recently researchers determined that children with scoliosis have a higher rate of pain compared to their peers.^13,14 School-aged children with scoliosis were found to be at 2 times the risk of low back pain compared to those without scoliosis.¹³ It is important to identify scoliosis in adolescents so that progression can be monitored.

Hyperextension in a single-leg stance, commonly known as the Stork test, is positive for unilateral spondylolysis when it reproduces pain on the ipsilateral side.

Screening for scoliosis in primary care is somewhat controversial. The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) finds insufficient evidence for screening asymptomatic adolescents for scoliosis.¹⁵ This recommendation is based on the fact that there is little evidence on the effect of screening on long-term outcomes. Screening may also lead to unnecessary radiation. Conversely, a position statement released by the Scoliosis Research Society, the Pediatric Orthopedic Society of North America, the American Association of Orthopedic Surgeons, and the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends scoliosis screening during routine pediatric office visits.¹⁶ Screening for girls is recommended at ages 10 and 12 years, and for boys, once between ages 13 and 14 years. The statement highlights evidence showing that focused screening by appropriate personnel has value in detecting a clinically significant curve (> 20°).

Scheuermann disease is a rare cause of back pain in children that usually develops during adolescence and results in increasing thoracic kyphosis. An autosomal dominant mutation plays a role in this disease of the growth cartilage endplate; repetitive strain on the growth cartilage is also a contributing factor.^17,18 An atypical variant manifests with kyphosis in the thoracolumbar region.¹⁷

Continue to: Other causes of low back pain

Other causes of low back pain—including inflammatory arthritis, infection (eg, discitis), and tumor—are rare in children but must always be considered, especially in the setting of persistent symptoms.^4,19-21 More on the features of these conditions is listed in TABLE 1.^{1-7,13-15,17-30}

History: Focus on onset, timing, and duration of symptoms

As with adults, obtaining a history that includes the onset, timing, and duration of symptoms is key in the evaluation of low back pain in children, as is obtaining a history of the patient’s activities; sports that repetitively load the lumbar spine in an extended position increase the risk of injury.¹⁰

Specific risk factors for low back pain in children and adolescents are poorly understood.^4,9,31 Pain can be associated with trauma, or it can have a more progressive or insidious onset. Generally, pain that is present for up to 6 weeks and is intermittent or improving has a self-limited course. Pain that persists beyond 3 to 6 weeks or is worsening is more likely to have an anatomical cause that needs further evaluation.^2,3,10,21

Identifying exacerbating and alleviating factors can provide useful information. Pain that is worse with lumbar flexion is more likely to come from muscular strain or disc pathology. Pain with extension is more likely due to a structural cause such as spondylolysis/spondylolisthesis, scoliosis, or Scheuermann disease.^{2,4,10,17,18,21} See TABLE 2 for red flag symptoms that indicate the need for imaging and further work-up.

The physical exam: Visualize, assess range of motion, and reproduce pain

The physical examination of any patient with low back pain should include direct visualization and inspection of the back, spine, and pelvis; palpation of the spine and paraspinal regions; assessment of lumbar range of motion and of the lumbar nerve roots, including tests of sensation, strength, and deep tendon reflexes; and an evaluation of the patient’s posture, which can provide clues to underlying causes of pain.

Continue to: Increased thoracic kyphosis...

Increased thoracic kyphosis that is not reversible is concerning for Scheuermann disease.^9,17,18 A significant elevation in one shoulder or side of the pelvis can be indicative of scoliosis. Increased lumbar lordosis may predispose a patient to spondylolysis.

In patients with spondylolysis, lumbar extension will usually reproduce pain, which is often unilateral. Hyperextension in a single-leg stance, commonly known as the Stork test, is positive for unilateral spondylolysis when it reproduces pain on the ipsilateral side. The sensitivity of the Stork test for unilateral spondylolysis is approximately 50%.³² (For more information on the Stork test, see www.physio-pedia.com/Stork_test.)

Pain reproduced with lumbar flexion is less concerning for bony pathology and is most often related to soft-tissue strain. Lumbar flexion with concomitant radicular pain is associated with disc pathology.⁸ Pain with a straight-leg raise is also associated with disk pathology, especially if raising the contralateral leg increases pain.⁸

Using a scoliometer. Evaluate the flexed spine for the presence of asymmetry, which can indicate scoliosis.³³ If asymmetry is present, use a scoliometer to determine the degree of asymmetry. Zero to 5° is considered clinically insignificant; monitor and reevaluate these patients at subsequent visits.^34,35 Ten degrees or more of asymmetry with a scoliometer should prompt you to order radiographs.^35,36 A smartphone-based scoliometer for iPhones was evaluated in 1 study and was shown to have reasonable reliability and validity for clinical use.³⁷

Deformity of the lower extremities. Because low back pain may be caused by biomechanical or structural deformity of the lower extremities, examine the flexibility of the hip flexors, gluteal musculature, hamstrings, and the iliotibial band.³⁸ In addition, evaluate for leg-length discrepancy and lower-extremity malalignment, such as femoral anteversion, tibial torsion, or pes planus.

Continue to: Imaging

Imaging: Know when it’s needed

Although imaging of the lumbar spine is often unnecessary in the presence of acute low back pain in children, always consider imaging in the setting of bony tenderness, pain that wakes a patient from sleep, and in the setting of other red flag symptoms (see TABLE 2). Low back pain in children that is reproducible with lumbar extension is concerning for spondylolysis or spondylolisthesis. If the pain with extension persists beyond 3 to 6 weeks, order imaging starting with radiographs.^2,39

Traditionally, 4 views of the spine—­anteroposterior (AP), lateral, and oblique (one right and one left)—were obtained, but recent evidence indicates that 2 views (AP and lateral) have similar sensitivity and specificity to 4 views with significantly reduced radiation exposure.^2,39 Because the sensitivity of plain films is relatively low, consider more advanced imaging if spondylolysis or spondylolisthesis is strongly suspected. Recent studies indicate that magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) may be as effective as computed tomography (CT) or bone scan and has the advantage of lower radiation (FIGURE 1).^2,22

Similarly, order radiographs if there is > 10° of asymmetry noted on physical exam using a scoliometer.^15,23 Calculate the Cobb angle to determine the severity of scoliosis. Refer patients with angles ≥ 20° to a pediatric orthopedist for monitoring of progression and consideration of bracing (FIGURE 2).^23,34 For patients with curvatures between 10° and 19°, repeat imaging every 6 to 12 months. Because scoliosis is a risk factor for spondylolysis, evaluate radiographs in the setting of painful scoliosis for the presence of a spondylolysis.^34,35

Pain reproduced with lumbar flexion is less concerning for bony pathology and is most often related to soft-tissue strain.

If excessive kyphosis is noted on exam, order radiographs to evaluate for Scheuermann disease. Classic imaging findings include Schmorl nodes, vertebral endplate changes, and anterior wedging (FIGURE 3).^17,18

In the absence of the above concerns, defer imaging of the lumbar spine until after adequate rest and rehabilitation have been attempted.

Continue to: Treatment typically involves restor physical therapy

Most cases of low back pain in children and adolescents are benign and self-limited. Many children with low back pain can be treated with relative rest from the offending activity. For children with more persistent pain, physical therapy (PT) is often indicated. Similar to that for adults, there is little evidence for specific PT programs to help children with low back pain. Rehabilitation should be individualized based on the condition being treated.

Medications. There have been no high-quality studies on the benefit of medications to treat low back pain in children. Studies have shown nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have value in adults, and they are likely safe for use in children,⁴⁰ but the risk of opiate abuse is significantly increased in adolescents who have been prescribed opiate pain medication prior to 12th grade.⁴¹

Lumbar disc herniation. Although still relatively rare, lumbar disc herniation is more common in older children and adolescents than in younger children and is treated similarly to that in adults.⁸ Range-of-motion exercise to restore lumbar motion is often first-line treatment. Research has shown that exercises that strengthen the abdominal or “core” musculature help prevent the return of low back pain.^24,25

In the case of spondylolysis or spondylolisthesis, rest from activity is generally required for a minimum of 4 to 6 weeks. Rehabilitation in the form of range of motion, especially into the lumbar extension, and spinal stabilization exercises are effective for both reducing pain and restoring range-­of-motion and strength.⁴² Have patients avoid heavy backpacks, which can reproduce pain. Children often benefit from leaving a second set of schoolbooks at home. For most patients with spondylolysis, conservative treatment with rehabilitation is equal to or better than surgical intervention in returning the patient to his/her pre-injury activity level.^26,43,44 When returning athletes to their sport, aggressive PT, defined as rest for < 10 weeks prior to initiating PT, is superior to delaying PT beyond 10 weeks of rest.²⁷

Idiopathic scoliosis. Much of the literature on the treatment of scoliosis is focused on limiting progression of the scoliotic curvature. Researchers thought that more severe curves were associated with more severe pain, but a recent systematic review showed that back pain can occur in patients with even small curvatures.²⁸ Treatment for patients with smaller degrees of curvature is similar to that for mechanical low back pain. PT may have a role in the treatment of scoliosis, but there is little evidence in the literature of its effectiveness.

Continue to: A Cochrane review showed...

Always consider imaging in the setting of bony tenderness, pain that wakes the patient from sleep, and when there is > 10° of asymmetry on physical exam using a scoliometer.

A Cochrane review showed that PT and exercise-based treatments had no effect on back pain or disability in patients with scoliosis.²⁹ And outpatient PT alone, in the absence of bracing, does not arrest progression of the scoliotic curvature.³⁵ One trial did demonstrate that an intensive inpatient treatment program of 4 to 6 weeks for patients with curvature of at least 40° reduced progression of curvature compared to an untreated control group at 1 year.³⁴ The outcomes of functional mobility and pain were not measured. Follow-up data on curve progression beyond 1 year are not available. Unfortunately, intensive inpatient treatment is not readily available or cost-effective for most patients with scoliosis.

Scheuermann disease. The mainstay of treatment for mild Scheuermann disease is advising the patient to avoid repetitive loading of the spine. Patients should avoid sports such as competitive weight-lifting, gymnastics, and football. Lower impact athletics are encouraged. Refer patients with pain to PT to address posture and core stabilization. Patients with severe kyphosis may require surgery.^17,18

Bracing: Rarely helpful for low back pain

The use of lumbar braces or corsets is rarely helpful for low back pain in children. Bracing in the setting of spondylolysis is controversial.One study indicated that bracing in combination with activity restriction and lumbar extension exercise is superior to activity restriction and lumbar flexion exercises alone.⁴³ But a meta-analysis did not demonstrate a significant difference in recovery when bracing was added.⁴⁴ Bracing may help to reduce pain initially in patients with spondylolysis who have pain at rest. Bracing is not recommended for patients with pain that abates with activity modification.

Scoliosis and Scheuermann kyphosis. Treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis usually consists of observation and periodic reevaluation. Bracing is a mainstay of the nonsurgical management of scoliosis and is appropriate for curves of 20° to 40°; studies have reported successful control of curve progression in > 70% of patients.³⁶ According to 1 study, the number of cases of scoliosis needed to treat with bracing to prevent 1 surgery is 3.³⁰ Surgery is often indicated for patients with curvatures > 40°, although this is also debated.³³

Bracing is used rarely for Scheuermann kyphosis but may be helpful in more severe or painful cases.¹⁷

CORRESPONDENCE
Shawn F. Phillips, MD, MSPT, 500 University Drive H154, Hershey, PA, 17033; [email protected].

Low back pain in not uncommon in children and adolescents.^1-3 Although the prevalence of low back pain in children < 7 years is low, it increases with age, with studies reporting lifetime prevalence at age 12 years between 16% and 18% and rates as high as 66% by 16 years of age.^4,5 Although children and adolescents usually have pain that is transient and benign without a defined cause, structural causes of low back pain should be considered in school-aged children with pain that persists for > 3 to 6 weeks. ⁴ The most common structural causes of adolescent low back pain are reviewed here.

Etiology: A mixed bag

Back pain in school-aged children is most commonly due to muscular strain, overuse, or poor posture. The pain is often transient in nature and responds to rest and postural education.^4,6 A herniated disc is an uncommon finding in younger school-aged children, but incidence increases slightly among older adolescents, particularly those who are active in collision sports and/or weight-lifting.^7,8 Pain caused by a herniated disc often radiates along the distribution of the sciatic nerve and worsens during lumbar flexion.

Spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis are important causes of back pain in children. Spondylolysis is defined as a defect or abnormality of the pars interarticularis and surrounding lamina and pedicle. Spondylolisthesis, which is less common, is defined as the translation or “slippage” of one vertebral segment in relation to the next caudal segment. These conditions commonly occur as a result of repetitive stress.

In a prospective study of adolescents < 19 years with low back pain for > 2 weeks, the prevalence of spondylolysis was 39.7%.⁹ Adolescent athletes with symptomatic low back pain are more likely to have spondylolysis than nonathletes (32% vs 2%, respectively).^2,10 Pain is often made worse by extension of the spine. Spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis can be congenital or acquired, and both can be asymptomatic. Children and teens who are athletes are at higher risk for symptomatic spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis.^10-12 This is especially true for those involved in gymnastics, dance, football, and/or volleyball, where a repetitive load is placed onto an extended spine.

Idiopathic scoliosis is an abnormal lateral curvature of the spine that usually develops during adolescence and worsens with growth. Historically, painful scoliosis was considered rare, but more recently researchers determined that children with scoliosis have a higher rate of pain compared to their peers.^13,14 School-aged children with scoliosis were found to be at 2 times the risk of low back pain compared to those without scoliosis.¹³ It is important to identify scoliosis in adolescents so that progression can be monitored.

Hyperextension in a single-leg stance, commonly known as the Stork test, is positive for unilateral spondylolysis when it reproduces pain on the ipsilateral side.

Screening for scoliosis in primary care is somewhat controversial. The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) finds insufficient evidence for screening asymptomatic adolescents for scoliosis.¹⁵ This recommendation is based on the fact that there is little evidence on the effect of screening on long-term outcomes. Screening may also lead to unnecessary radiation. Conversely, a position statement released by the Scoliosis Research Society, the Pediatric Orthopedic Society of North America, the American Association of Orthopedic Surgeons, and the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends scoliosis screening during routine pediatric office visits.¹⁶ Screening for girls is recommended at ages 10 and 12 years, and for boys, once between ages 13 and 14 years. The statement highlights evidence showing that focused screening by appropriate personnel has value in detecting a clinically significant curve (> 20°).

Scheuermann disease is a rare cause of back pain in children that usually develops during adolescence and results in increasing thoracic kyphosis. An autosomal dominant mutation plays a role in this disease of the growth cartilage endplate; repetitive strain on the growth cartilage is also a contributing factor.^17,18 An atypical variant manifests with kyphosis in the thoracolumbar region.¹⁷

Continue to: Other causes of low back pain

Other causes of low back pain—including inflammatory arthritis, infection (eg, discitis), and tumor—are rare in children but must always be considered, especially in the setting of persistent symptoms.^4,19-21 More on the features of these conditions is listed in TABLE 1.^{1-7,13-15,17-30}

History: Focus on onset, timing, and duration of symptoms

As with adults, obtaining a history that includes the onset, timing, and duration of symptoms is key in the evaluation of low back pain in children, as is obtaining a history of the patient’s activities; sports that repetitively load the lumbar spine in an extended position increase the risk of injury.¹⁰

Specific risk factors for low back pain in children and adolescents are poorly understood.^4,9,31 Pain can be associated with trauma, or it can have a more progressive or insidious onset. Generally, pain that is present for up to 6 weeks and is intermittent or improving has a self-limited course. Pain that persists beyond 3 to 6 weeks or is worsening is more likely to have an anatomical cause that needs further evaluation.^2,3,10,21

Identifying exacerbating and alleviating factors can provide useful information. Pain that is worse with lumbar flexion is more likely to come from muscular strain or disc pathology. Pain with extension is more likely due to a structural cause such as spondylolysis/spondylolisthesis, scoliosis, or Scheuermann disease.^{2,4,10,17,18,21} See TABLE 2 for red flag symptoms that indicate the need for imaging and further work-up.

The physical exam: Visualize, assess range of motion, and reproduce pain

The physical examination of any patient with low back pain should include direct visualization and inspection of the back, spine, and pelvis; palpation of the spine and paraspinal regions; assessment of lumbar range of motion and of the lumbar nerve roots, including tests of sensation, strength, and deep tendon reflexes; and an evaluation of the patient’s posture, which can provide clues to underlying causes of pain.

Continue to: Increased thoracic kyphosis...

Increased thoracic kyphosis that is not reversible is concerning for Scheuermann disease.^9,17,18 A significant elevation in one shoulder or side of the pelvis can be indicative of scoliosis. Increased lumbar lordosis may predispose a patient to spondylolysis.

In patients with spondylolysis, lumbar extension will usually reproduce pain, which is often unilateral. Hyperextension in a single-leg stance, commonly known as the Stork test, is positive for unilateral spondylolysis when it reproduces pain on the ipsilateral side. The sensitivity of the Stork test for unilateral spondylolysis is approximately 50%.³² (For more information on the Stork test, see www.physio-pedia.com/Stork_test.)

Pain reproduced with lumbar flexion is less concerning for bony pathology and is most often related to soft-tissue strain. Lumbar flexion with concomitant radicular pain is associated with disc pathology.⁸ Pain with a straight-leg raise is also associated with disk pathology, especially if raising the contralateral leg increases pain.⁸

Using a scoliometer. Evaluate the flexed spine for the presence of asymmetry, which can indicate scoliosis.³³ If asymmetry is present, use a scoliometer to determine the degree of asymmetry. Zero to 5° is considered clinically insignificant; monitor and reevaluate these patients at subsequent visits.^34,35 Ten degrees or more of asymmetry with a scoliometer should prompt you to order radiographs.^35,36 A smartphone-based scoliometer for iPhones was evaluated in 1 study and was shown to have reasonable reliability and validity for clinical use.³⁷

Deformity of the lower extremities. Because low back pain may be caused by biomechanical or structural deformity of the lower extremities, examine the flexibility of the hip flexors, gluteal musculature, hamstrings, and the iliotibial band.³⁸ In addition, evaluate for leg-length discrepancy and lower-extremity malalignment, such as femoral anteversion, tibial torsion, or pes planus.

Continue to: Imaging

Imaging: Know when it’s needed

Although imaging of the lumbar spine is often unnecessary in the presence of acute low back pain in children, always consider imaging in the setting of bony tenderness, pain that wakes a patient from sleep, and in the setting of other red flag symptoms (see TABLE 2). Low back pain in children that is reproducible with lumbar extension is concerning for spondylolysis or spondylolisthesis. If the pain with extension persists beyond 3 to 6 weeks, order imaging starting with radiographs.^2,39

Traditionally, 4 views of the spine—­anteroposterior (AP), lateral, and oblique (one right and one left)—were obtained, but recent evidence indicates that 2 views (AP and lateral) have similar sensitivity and specificity to 4 views with significantly reduced radiation exposure.^2,39 Because the sensitivity of plain films is relatively low, consider more advanced imaging if spondylolysis or spondylolisthesis is strongly suspected. Recent studies indicate that magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) may be as effective as computed tomography (CT) or bone scan and has the advantage of lower radiation (FIGURE 1).^2,22

Similarly, order radiographs if there is > 10° of asymmetry noted on physical exam using a scoliometer.^15,23 Calculate the Cobb angle to determine the severity of scoliosis. Refer patients with angles ≥ 20° to a pediatric orthopedist for monitoring of progression and consideration of bracing (FIGURE 2).^23,34 For patients with curvatures between 10° and 19°, repeat imaging every 6 to 12 months. Because scoliosis is a risk factor for spondylolysis, evaluate radiographs in the setting of painful scoliosis for the presence of a spondylolysis.^34,35

Pain reproduced with lumbar flexion is less concerning for bony pathology and is most often related to soft-tissue strain.

If excessive kyphosis is noted on exam, order radiographs to evaluate for Scheuermann disease. Classic imaging findings include Schmorl nodes, vertebral endplate changes, and anterior wedging (FIGURE 3).^17,18

In the absence of the above concerns, defer imaging of the lumbar spine until after adequate rest and rehabilitation have been attempted.

Continue to: Treatment typically involves restor physical therapy

Most cases of low back pain in children and adolescents are benign and self-limited. Many children with low back pain can be treated with relative rest from the offending activity. For children with more persistent pain, physical therapy (PT) is often indicated. Similar to that for adults, there is little evidence for specific PT programs to help children with low back pain. Rehabilitation should be individualized based on the condition being treated.

Medications. There have been no high-quality studies on the benefit of medications to treat low back pain in children. Studies have shown nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have value in adults, and they are likely safe for use in children,⁴⁰ but the risk of opiate abuse is significantly increased in adolescents who have been prescribed opiate pain medication prior to 12th grade.⁴¹

Lumbar disc herniation. Although still relatively rare, lumbar disc herniation is more common in older children and adolescents than in younger children and is treated similarly to that in adults.⁸ Range-of-motion exercise to restore lumbar motion is often first-line treatment. Research has shown that exercises that strengthen the abdominal or “core” musculature help prevent the return of low back pain.^24,25

In the case of spondylolysis or spondylolisthesis, rest from activity is generally required for a minimum of 4 to 6 weeks. Rehabilitation in the form of range of motion, especially into the lumbar extension, and spinal stabilization exercises are effective for both reducing pain and restoring range-­of-motion and strength.⁴² Have patients avoid heavy backpacks, which can reproduce pain. Children often benefit from leaving a second set of schoolbooks at home. For most patients with spondylolysis, conservative treatment with rehabilitation is equal to or better than surgical intervention in returning the patient to his/her pre-injury activity level.^26,43,44 When returning athletes to their sport, aggressive PT, defined as rest for < 10 weeks prior to initiating PT, is superior to delaying PT beyond 10 weeks of rest.²⁷

Idiopathic scoliosis. Much of the literature on the treatment of scoliosis is focused on limiting progression of the scoliotic curvature. Researchers thought that more severe curves were associated with more severe pain, but a recent systematic review showed that back pain can occur in patients with even small curvatures.²⁸ Treatment for patients with smaller degrees of curvature is similar to that for mechanical low back pain. PT may have a role in the treatment of scoliosis, but there is little evidence in the literature of its effectiveness.

Continue to: A Cochrane review showed...

Always consider imaging in the setting of bony tenderness, pain that wakes the patient from sleep, and when there is > 10° of asymmetry on physical exam using a scoliometer.

A Cochrane review showed that PT and exercise-based treatments had no effect on back pain or disability in patients with scoliosis.²⁹ And outpatient PT alone, in the absence of bracing, does not arrest progression of the scoliotic curvature.³⁵ One trial did demonstrate that an intensive inpatient treatment program of 4 to 6 weeks for patients with curvature of at least 40° reduced progression of curvature compared to an untreated control group at 1 year.³⁴ The outcomes of functional mobility and pain were not measured. Follow-up data on curve progression beyond 1 year are not available. Unfortunately, intensive inpatient treatment is not readily available or cost-effective for most patients with scoliosis.

Scheuermann disease. The mainstay of treatment for mild Scheuermann disease is advising the patient to avoid repetitive loading of the spine. Patients should avoid sports such as competitive weight-lifting, gymnastics, and football. Lower impact athletics are encouraged. Refer patients with pain to PT to address posture and core stabilization. Patients with severe kyphosis may require surgery.^17,18

Bracing: Rarely helpful for low back pain

The use of lumbar braces or corsets is rarely helpful for low back pain in children. Bracing in the setting of spondylolysis is controversial.One study indicated that bracing in combination with activity restriction and lumbar extension exercise is superior to activity restriction and lumbar flexion exercises alone.⁴³ But a meta-analysis did not demonstrate a significant difference in recovery when bracing was added.⁴⁴ Bracing may help to reduce pain initially in patients with spondylolysis who have pain at rest. Bracing is not recommended for patients with pain that abates with activity modification.

Scoliosis and Scheuermann kyphosis. Treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis usually consists of observation and periodic reevaluation. Bracing is a mainstay of the nonsurgical management of scoliosis and is appropriate for curves of 20° to 40°; studies have reported successful control of curve progression in > 70% of patients.³⁶ According to 1 study, the number of cases of scoliosis needed to treat with bracing to prevent 1 surgery is 3.³⁰ Surgery is often indicated for patients with curvatures > 40°, although this is also debated.³³

Bracing is used rarely for Scheuermann kyphosis but may be helpful in more severe or painful cases.¹⁷

CORRESPONDENCE
Shawn F. Phillips, MD, MSPT, 500 University Drive H154, Hershey, PA, 17033; [email protected].

A recently approved agent, burosumab (Crysvita), was better than placebo across a range of efficacy outcomes for 14 predefined subgroups of adults with X-linked hypophosphatemia (XLH), new research shows.

The authors analyzed data from the initial 24-week randomized blinded phase of the pivotal phase 3 trial that led to regulatory approval of this drug in the United States in 2018 for XLH, a rare form of rickets characterized by low serum phosphorus levels, skeletal defects, pain, and stiffness.

As in the main analysis, in the subgroups, among patients who received burosumab, serum phosphorus levels were improved, and outcomes were better on the following measures: Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) stiffness scale, the WOMAC physical function measure, and the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), which were the main efficacy outcomes. Improvements were seen for many other outcomes as well.

Maria-Luisa Brandi, MD, Careggi University Hospital, Florence, Italy, presented the new subanalysis during the virtual American Society of Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) 2020 annual meeting.

The subgroup results were consistent with the overall trial findings, “showing a favorable direction of effect of burosumab relative to placebo” except for results in patients recruited in Asia and non-White patients; those results were considered inconclusive because there were too few participants in those categories, she told Medscape Medical News,.

Lorenz Hofbauer, MD, scientific chair of the ASBMR meeting, said that the take-away message is that the drug “works to reduce pain and disability” in adults with XLH with more severe/less severe symptoms, and “it provides new hope for many patients suffering from this disease,” he told Medscape Medical News.

Burosemab also appears superior to what has previously been considered standard therapy for XLH, phosphate/calcitriol, the experts say.
 

‘Rare is relative,’ burosumab is a ‘transformative therapy’

“The disease prevalence is 1 to 9 in a million,” Brandi said. “Undiagnosed adults are treated by the doctor that makes the diagnosis, usually a nephrologist or a rheumatologist or a bone doctor; this depends on the prevalent complications in a given patient. The endocrinologist who treats this patient is the one expert in bone disorders.”

Hofbauer noted, however, that “[r]are is relative. If you run a bone clinic, you will see four to five patients with XLH; if you are a regional center, 20 to 30 patients. People with rare disease travel more than 1000 miles to see experts.”

The US Food and Drug Administration approved burosumab for use in children and adults with XLH 2 years ago. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) approved it for use in children.

The drug is expected to be approved by the EMA for adults with XLH some time this year, said Hofbauer, who is from Dresden Technical University, Dresden, Germany.

Burosumab is a “game changer” with respect to previous treatments, he stressed.

This study is one of the top five clinical abstracts of the ASBMR meeting, which are selected on the basis of “scientific content/novelty, making a difference in clinical practice,” Hofbauer explained. He noted that “new drugs that work are always in the top ranks.”

Craig Munns, PhD, who was senior author of a recent review about burosumab, agrees.

“Burosumab is transformative, as it is a paradigm shift in the way we manage XLH,” he told Medscape Medical News.

“Standard therapy for children is with oral phosphate and calcitriol, and many adults do not receive any therapy,” said Munns, from the University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.

“Phosphate and calcitriol need to be taken multiple times per day, is an incomplete therapy, and has many complications. Burosumab offers a 2-weekly (children) or 4-weekly (adult) dosing regime with superior outcomes compared to no treatment or phosphate/calcitriol,” he emphasized.
 

Efficacy in 14 predefined subgroups

“Burosumab is an anti-FGF-23 [anti–fibroblast growth factor-23] antibody for a rare genetic disease, XLH, in which the gene for PHEX is defective,” Hofbauer explained.

“PHEX is an enzyme that clears FGF-23; if it does not work, then FGF-23 accumulates in the body and causes phosphate wasting with wide consequences for bone, muscle, and joints. Burosumab is a smart approach, since it blocks these excessive FGF-23 effects.”

Children with XLH have rickets, deformities in the lower skeleton, and short stature, Brandi noted, whereas adults have fractures, pseudofractures, enthesopathy (calcification of joint capsule, tendon insertions, and ligaments), pain, stiffness, and impaired physical function.

However, “treatment with oral phosphate and vitamin D is associated with nephrocalcinosis and hyperparathyroidism,” she said.

In the phase 3 trial, 134 adults (aged 18 to 65 years) with XLH were randomly assigned in a double-blind manner to receive either burosumab or placebo for 24 weeks, followed by 24 weeks of open-label burosumab. The patients’ serum phosphorus levels were <2.5 mg/dL, and they were experiencing measurable bone/joint pain.

Baseline characteristics were similar for the patients who received placebo (66) and those who received burosumab (68). The mean age of the patients was 40 years; 65% were women; and 81% were White.

The current exploratory analysis examined efficacy outcomes in patients grouped according to the following factors and characteristics: sex; age (≤41 years or >41 years); race (non-White, White); region (Asia, North America/Europe); baseline WOMAC pain score; WOMAC total pain; WOMAC stiffness; WOMAC physical function; BPI worst pain; BPI average pain; opioid use; pain medication use; active fractures and pseudofractures; and 6-minute walking test distance.

The efficacy outcomes were as follows: serum phosphorus level (primary outcome), BPI worst pain, WOMAC stiffness, and WOMAC physical function (key secondary outcomes); and WOMAC pain, WOMAC total score, BPI average pain, BPI pain interference, BPI worst fatigue, BPI global score, patient global impression (PGI), and 6-minute walking distance.

In the overall cohort, at 24 weeks, in comparison with patients who received placebo, patients who received burosumab had favorable responses with respect to serum phosphorus level, WOMAC stiffness (P =. 012),WOMAC physical function (P = .048), and BPI worst pain (P = .092, not significant), as well as significant improvements in WOMAC total score and the 6-minute walk test. There were nonsignificant improvements in WOMAC pain and BPI average pain.

In the subgroup analysis, burosumab was superior to placebo for the primary outcome (serum phosphorus) in all subgroups. It was also superior to placebo for the key secondary outcomes (worst pain, stiffness, and physical function) across all subgroups except for patients from Asia (18 patients) and non-White patients (26).

The study was funded by Kyowa Kirin in partnership with Ultragenyx. Brandi receives consultancy and speaker fees as well as research grants from Kyowa Kirin and other pharmaceutical companies. Munns has received research funding from Kyowa Kirin.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A recently approved agent, burosumab (Crysvita), was better than placebo across a range of efficacy outcomes for 14 predefined subgroups of adults with X-linked hypophosphatemia (XLH), new research shows.

The authors analyzed data from the initial 24-week randomized blinded phase of the pivotal phase 3 trial that led to regulatory approval of this drug in the United States in 2018 for XLH, a rare form of rickets characterized by low serum phosphorus levels, skeletal defects, pain, and stiffness.

As in the main analysis, in the subgroups, among patients who received burosumab, serum phosphorus levels were improved, and outcomes were better on the following measures: Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) stiffness scale, the WOMAC physical function measure, and the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), which were the main efficacy outcomes. Improvements were seen for many other outcomes as well.

Maria-Luisa Brandi, MD, Careggi University Hospital, Florence, Italy, presented the new subanalysis during the virtual American Society of Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) 2020 annual meeting.

The subgroup results were consistent with the overall trial findings, “showing a favorable direction of effect of burosumab relative to placebo” except for results in patients recruited in Asia and non-White patients; those results were considered inconclusive because there were too few participants in those categories, she told Medscape Medical News,.

Lorenz Hofbauer, MD, scientific chair of the ASBMR meeting, said that the take-away message is that the drug “works to reduce pain and disability” in adults with XLH with more severe/less severe symptoms, and “it provides new hope for many patients suffering from this disease,” he told Medscape Medical News.

Burosemab also appears superior to what has previously been considered standard therapy for XLH, phosphate/calcitriol, the experts say.
 

‘Rare is relative,’ burosumab is a ‘transformative therapy’

“The disease prevalence is 1 to 9 in a million,” Brandi said. “Undiagnosed adults are treated by the doctor that makes the diagnosis, usually a nephrologist or a rheumatologist or a bone doctor; this depends on the prevalent complications in a given patient. The endocrinologist who treats this patient is the one expert in bone disorders.”

Hofbauer noted, however, that “[r]are is relative. If you run a bone clinic, you will see four to five patients with XLH; if you are a regional center, 20 to 30 patients. People with rare disease travel more than 1000 miles to see experts.”

The US Food and Drug Administration approved burosumab for use in children and adults with XLH 2 years ago. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) approved it for use in children.

The drug is expected to be approved by the EMA for adults with XLH some time this year, said Hofbauer, who is from Dresden Technical University, Dresden, Germany.

Burosumab is a “game changer” with respect to previous treatments, he stressed.

This study is one of the top five clinical abstracts of the ASBMR meeting, which are selected on the basis of “scientific content/novelty, making a difference in clinical practice,” Hofbauer explained. He noted that “new drugs that work are always in the top ranks.”

Craig Munns, PhD, who was senior author of a recent review about burosumab, agrees.

“Burosumab is transformative, as it is a paradigm shift in the way we manage XLH,” he told Medscape Medical News.

“Standard therapy for children is with oral phosphate and calcitriol, and many adults do not receive any therapy,” said Munns, from the University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.

“Phosphate and calcitriol need to be taken multiple times per day, is an incomplete therapy, and has many complications. Burosumab offers a 2-weekly (children) or 4-weekly (adult) dosing regime with superior outcomes compared to no treatment or phosphate/calcitriol,” he emphasized.
 

Efficacy in 14 predefined subgroups

“Burosumab is an anti-FGF-23 [anti–fibroblast growth factor-23] antibody for a rare genetic disease, XLH, in which the gene for PHEX is defective,” Hofbauer explained.

“PHEX is an enzyme that clears FGF-23; if it does not work, then FGF-23 accumulates in the body and causes phosphate wasting with wide consequences for bone, muscle, and joints. Burosumab is a smart approach, since it blocks these excessive FGF-23 effects.”

Children with XLH have rickets, deformities in the lower skeleton, and short stature, Brandi noted, whereas adults have fractures, pseudofractures, enthesopathy (calcification of joint capsule, tendon insertions, and ligaments), pain, stiffness, and impaired physical function.

However, “treatment with oral phosphate and vitamin D is associated with nephrocalcinosis and hyperparathyroidism,” she said.

In the phase 3 trial, 134 adults (aged 18 to 65 years) with XLH were randomly assigned in a double-blind manner to receive either burosumab or placebo for 24 weeks, followed by 24 weeks of open-label burosumab. The patients’ serum phosphorus levels were <2.5 mg/dL, and they were experiencing measurable bone/joint pain.

Baseline characteristics were similar for the patients who received placebo (66) and those who received burosumab (68). The mean age of the patients was 40 years; 65% were women; and 81% were White.

The current exploratory analysis examined efficacy outcomes in patients grouped according to the following factors and characteristics: sex; age (≤41 years or >41 years); race (non-White, White); region (Asia, North America/Europe); baseline WOMAC pain score; WOMAC total pain; WOMAC stiffness; WOMAC physical function; BPI worst pain; BPI average pain; opioid use; pain medication use; active fractures and pseudofractures; and 6-minute walking test distance.

The efficacy outcomes were as follows: serum phosphorus level (primary outcome), BPI worst pain, WOMAC stiffness, and WOMAC physical function (key secondary outcomes); and WOMAC pain, WOMAC total score, BPI average pain, BPI pain interference, BPI worst fatigue, BPI global score, patient global impression (PGI), and 6-minute walking distance.

In the overall cohort, at 24 weeks, in comparison with patients who received placebo, patients who received burosumab had favorable responses with respect to serum phosphorus level, WOMAC stiffness (P =. 012),WOMAC physical function (P = .048), and BPI worst pain (P = .092, not significant), as well as significant improvements in WOMAC total score and the 6-minute walk test. There were nonsignificant improvements in WOMAC pain and BPI average pain.

In the subgroup analysis, burosumab was superior to placebo for the primary outcome (serum phosphorus) in all subgroups. It was also superior to placebo for the key secondary outcomes (worst pain, stiffness, and physical function) across all subgroups except for patients from Asia (18 patients) and non-White patients (26).

The study was funded by Kyowa Kirin in partnership with Ultragenyx. Brandi receives consultancy and speaker fees as well as research grants from Kyowa Kirin and other pharmaceutical companies. Munns has received research funding from Kyowa Kirin.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A recently approved agent, burosumab (Crysvita), was better than placebo across a range of efficacy outcomes for 14 predefined subgroups of adults with X-linked hypophosphatemia (XLH), new research shows.

The authors analyzed data from the initial 24-week randomized blinded phase of the pivotal phase 3 trial that led to regulatory approval of this drug in the United States in 2018 for XLH, a rare form of rickets characterized by low serum phosphorus levels, skeletal defects, pain, and stiffness.

As in the main analysis, in the subgroups, among patients who received burosumab, serum phosphorus levels were improved, and outcomes were better on the following measures: Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) stiffness scale, the WOMAC physical function measure, and the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), which were the main efficacy outcomes. Improvements were seen for many other outcomes as well.

Maria-Luisa Brandi, MD, Careggi University Hospital, Florence, Italy, presented the new subanalysis during the virtual American Society of Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) 2020 annual meeting.

The subgroup results were consistent with the overall trial findings, “showing a favorable direction of effect of burosumab relative to placebo” except for results in patients recruited in Asia and non-White patients; those results were considered inconclusive because there were too few participants in those categories, she told Medscape Medical News,.

Lorenz Hofbauer, MD, scientific chair of the ASBMR meeting, said that the take-away message is that the drug “works to reduce pain and disability” in adults with XLH with more severe/less severe symptoms, and “it provides new hope for many patients suffering from this disease,” he told Medscape Medical News.

Burosemab also appears superior to what has previously been considered standard therapy for XLH, phosphate/calcitriol, the experts say.
 

‘Rare is relative,’ burosumab is a ‘transformative therapy’

“The disease prevalence is 1 to 9 in a million,” Brandi said. “Undiagnosed adults are treated by the doctor that makes the diagnosis, usually a nephrologist or a rheumatologist or a bone doctor; this depends on the prevalent complications in a given patient. The endocrinologist who treats this patient is the one expert in bone disorders.”

Hofbauer noted, however, that “[r]are is relative. If you run a bone clinic, you will see four to five patients with XLH; if you are a regional center, 20 to 30 patients. People with rare disease travel more than 1000 miles to see experts.”

The US Food and Drug Administration approved burosumab for use in children and adults with XLH 2 years ago. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) approved it for use in children.

The drug is expected to be approved by the EMA for adults with XLH some time this year, said Hofbauer, who is from Dresden Technical University, Dresden, Germany.

Burosumab is a “game changer” with respect to previous treatments, he stressed.

This study is one of the top five clinical abstracts of the ASBMR meeting, which are selected on the basis of “scientific content/novelty, making a difference in clinical practice,” Hofbauer explained. He noted that “new drugs that work are always in the top ranks.”

Craig Munns, PhD, who was senior author of a recent review about burosumab, agrees.

“Burosumab is transformative, as it is a paradigm shift in the way we manage XLH,” he told Medscape Medical News.

“Standard therapy for children is with oral phosphate and calcitriol, and many adults do not receive any therapy,” said Munns, from the University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.

“Phosphate and calcitriol need to be taken multiple times per day, is an incomplete therapy, and has many complications. Burosumab offers a 2-weekly (children) or 4-weekly (adult) dosing regime with superior outcomes compared to no treatment or phosphate/calcitriol,” he emphasized.
 

Efficacy in 14 predefined subgroups

“Burosumab is an anti-FGF-23 [anti–fibroblast growth factor-23] antibody for a rare genetic disease, XLH, in which the gene for PHEX is defective,” Hofbauer explained.

“PHEX is an enzyme that clears FGF-23; if it does not work, then FGF-23 accumulates in the body and causes phosphate wasting with wide consequences for bone, muscle, and joints. Burosumab is a smart approach, since it blocks these excessive FGF-23 effects.”

Children with XLH have rickets, deformities in the lower skeleton, and short stature, Brandi noted, whereas adults have fractures, pseudofractures, enthesopathy (calcification of joint capsule, tendon insertions, and ligaments), pain, stiffness, and impaired physical function.

However, “treatment with oral phosphate and vitamin D is associated with nephrocalcinosis and hyperparathyroidism,” she said.

In the phase 3 trial, 134 adults (aged 18 to 65 years) with XLH were randomly assigned in a double-blind manner to receive either burosumab or placebo for 24 weeks, followed by 24 weeks of open-label burosumab. The patients’ serum phosphorus levels were <2.5 mg/dL, and they were experiencing measurable bone/joint pain.

Baseline characteristics were similar for the patients who received placebo (66) and those who received burosumab (68). The mean age of the patients was 40 years; 65% were women; and 81% were White.

The current exploratory analysis examined efficacy outcomes in patients grouped according to the following factors and characteristics: sex; age (≤41 years or >41 years); race (non-White, White); region (Asia, North America/Europe); baseline WOMAC pain score; WOMAC total pain; WOMAC stiffness; WOMAC physical function; BPI worst pain; BPI average pain; opioid use; pain medication use; active fractures and pseudofractures; and 6-minute walking test distance.

The efficacy outcomes were as follows: serum phosphorus level (primary outcome), BPI worst pain, WOMAC stiffness, and WOMAC physical function (key secondary outcomes); and WOMAC pain, WOMAC total score, BPI average pain, BPI pain interference, BPI worst fatigue, BPI global score, patient global impression (PGI), and 6-minute walking distance.

In the overall cohort, at 24 weeks, in comparison with patients who received placebo, patients who received burosumab had favorable responses with respect to serum phosphorus level, WOMAC stiffness (P =. 012),WOMAC physical function (P = .048), and BPI worst pain (P = .092, not significant), as well as significant improvements in WOMAC total score and the 6-minute walk test. There were nonsignificant improvements in WOMAC pain and BPI average pain.

In the subgroup analysis, burosumab was superior to placebo for the primary outcome (serum phosphorus) in all subgroups. It was also superior to placebo for the key secondary outcomes (worst pain, stiffness, and physical function) across all subgroups except for patients from Asia (18 patients) and non-White patients (26).

The study was funded by Kyowa Kirin in partnership with Ultragenyx. Brandi receives consultancy and speaker fees as well as research grants from Kyowa Kirin and other pharmaceutical companies. Munns has received research funding from Kyowa Kirin.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The combination of islatravir (ISL) and doravirine (DOR) maintains HIV-1 viral suppression for at least 96 weeks, according to new data.

ISL is a first-in-class nucleoside reverse transcriptase translocation inhibitor (NRTTI), Jean-Michel Molina, MD, PhD, of Saint‐Louis and Lariboisière Hospitals in Paris, explained at the annual HIV drug therapy meeting in Glasgow, Scotland. The randomized, double-blind, dose‐ranging trial compared ISL+DOR to a fixed‐dose combination of DOR, lamivudine, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (DOR/3TC/TDF) daily in 121 patients.

Patients in the ISL+DOR group initially received 0.25, 0.75, or 2.25 mg of ISL along with 100 mg of DOR and 200 mg of 3TC. Beginning at week 20, participants achieving HIV viral loads of 50 copies/mL or less discontinued 3TC but continued on their assigned dose of ISL+DOR for at least 24 weeks. At that point the investigators noted a greater number of discontinuations in the 2.25-mg group and settled on the 0.75-mg ISL dose. All patients in the ISL group were transitioned to that dose between weeks 60 and 72.

At week 96, 81.1% of the patients in the combined ISL group maintained viral loads <50 copies/mL, comparable to the 80.6% of those in the DOR/3TC/TDF group.

ISL+DOR appeared to be “well tolerated,” the investigators noted. They found drug-related adverse events in 7.8% of the patients in the ISL+DOR group compared with 22.6% of patients in the DOR/3TC/TDF group. In addition, among the 90 patients in the ISL+DOR group, no more than 5% of participants experienced any specific drug-related adverse event.

Source: HIV Glasgow 2020 Virtual Conference: Abstract O415. Oct. 5-8, 2020.

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

The combination of islatravir (ISL) and doravirine (DOR) maintains HIV-1 viral suppression for at least 96 weeks, according to new data.

ISL is a first-in-class nucleoside reverse transcriptase translocation inhibitor (NRTTI), Jean-Michel Molina, MD, PhD, of Saint‐Louis and Lariboisière Hospitals in Paris, explained at the annual HIV drug therapy meeting in Glasgow, Scotland. The randomized, double-blind, dose‐ranging trial compared ISL+DOR to a fixed‐dose combination of DOR, lamivudine, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (DOR/3TC/TDF) daily in 121 patients.

Patients in the ISL+DOR group initially received 0.25, 0.75, or 2.25 mg of ISL along with 100 mg of DOR and 200 mg of 3TC. Beginning at week 20, participants achieving HIV viral loads of 50 copies/mL or less discontinued 3TC but continued on their assigned dose of ISL+DOR for at least 24 weeks. At that point the investigators noted a greater number of discontinuations in the 2.25-mg group and settled on the 0.75-mg ISL dose. All patients in the ISL group were transitioned to that dose between weeks 60 and 72.

At week 96, 81.1% of the patients in the combined ISL group maintained viral loads <50 copies/mL, comparable to the 80.6% of those in the DOR/3TC/TDF group.

ISL+DOR appeared to be “well tolerated,” the investigators noted. They found drug-related adverse events in 7.8% of the patients in the ISL+DOR group compared with 22.6% of patients in the DOR/3TC/TDF group. In addition, among the 90 patients in the ISL+DOR group, no more than 5% of participants experienced any specific drug-related adverse event.

Source: HIV Glasgow 2020 Virtual Conference: Abstract O415. Oct. 5-8, 2020.

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

The combination of islatravir (ISL) and doravirine (DOR) maintains HIV-1 viral suppression for at least 96 weeks, according to new data.

ISL is a first-in-class nucleoside reverse transcriptase translocation inhibitor (NRTTI), Jean-Michel Molina, MD, PhD, of Saint‐Louis and Lariboisière Hospitals in Paris, explained at the annual HIV drug therapy meeting in Glasgow, Scotland. The randomized, double-blind, dose‐ranging trial compared ISL+DOR to a fixed‐dose combination of DOR, lamivudine, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (DOR/3TC/TDF) daily in 121 patients.

Patients in the ISL+DOR group initially received 0.25, 0.75, or 2.25 mg of ISL along with 100 mg of DOR and 200 mg of 3TC. Beginning at week 20, participants achieving HIV viral loads of 50 copies/mL or less discontinued 3TC but continued on their assigned dose of ISL+DOR for at least 24 weeks. At that point the investigators noted a greater number of discontinuations in the 2.25-mg group and settled on the 0.75-mg ISL dose. All patients in the ISL group were transitioned to that dose between weeks 60 and 72.

At week 96, 81.1% of the patients in the combined ISL group maintained viral loads <50 copies/mL, comparable to the 80.6% of those in the DOR/3TC/TDF group.

ISL+DOR appeared to be “well tolerated,” the investigators noted. They found drug-related adverse events in 7.8% of the patients in the ISL+DOR group compared with 22.6% of patients in the DOR/3TC/TDF group. In addition, among the 90 patients in the ISL+DOR group, no more than 5% of participants experienced any specific drug-related adverse event.

Source: HIV Glasgow 2020 Virtual Conference: Abstract O415. Oct. 5-8, 2020.

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

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.

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.

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.

In pediatric Crohn’s disease, a Clostridioides difficile infection detected within the first year after diagnosis is associated with a shorter time to first bowel resection surgery, according to a study that included both a retrospective and prospective analysis. The researchers also found evidence that changes in methionine biosynthesis and depletion of beneficial bacteria may contribute to risk of surgery.

C. difficile infection (CDI) disproportionately affects individuals with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Pediatric IBD patients have a 34% risk of recurrent CDI infection, compared with 7.5% in the general population. Previous research found that adults with ulcerative colitis and CDI are at more risk of colectomy, but the finding has not been replicated in children.

In a study published in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases, researchers led by Jennifer Hellmann and Lee Denson of the University of Cincinnati conducted a single-center retrospective analysis of 75 pediatric Crohn’s disease patients. They also conducted a prospective study of 70 pediatric Crohn’s disease patients, using shotgun metagenome sequencing to examine the relationship between microbiota composition and C. difficile carriage or surgery history.

Nineteen percent of patients tested positive for C. difficile. Use of antibiotics was associated with C. difficile (odds ratio, 7.9; P = .02). Of patients who underwent C. difficile testing in the first year, 23 went on to have surgery: 21% who were C. difficile negative required surgery, compared with 67% of those who were positive (hazard ratio, 4.4; P = .0003). The mean time to surgery was 527 days for C. difficile–positive patients and 1,268 days for those who were negative.

A multivariate regression analysis on 54 patients with complete data sets showed that the presence of C. difficile was associated with increased risk of surgery (OR, 16.2; P = .0006). When the analysis was run on all 73 patients, using null value for missing data, the results were similar (OR, 9.17; P = .008).

Shotgun sequencing found that 47 of 114 bacterial species that were associated with the presence of C. difficile were also associated with prior surgery for Crohn’s disease. Species included some that may play a role in mucosal homeostasis, such as Bifidobacterium breve and several Alistipes and Ruminococcus species. That suggests that a reduction in the numbers of these taxa may be associated with C. difficile presence and surgical risk.

The researchers also found that methionine synthesis pathways were depressed in C. difficile–positive and surgery patients. Methionine may bolster antioxidant capacity and improve villus morphology. IBD patients with dysbiosis and those experiencing Crohn’s disease exacerbations have been shown to have decreased methionine pathway activity, suggesting methionine biosynthesis changes have clinical relevance.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health.

SOURCE: Hellmann J et al. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2020. doi: 10.1093/ibd/izz263.

In pediatric Crohn’s disease, a Clostridioides difficile infection detected within the first year after diagnosis is associated with a shorter time to first bowel resection surgery, according to a study that included both a retrospective and prospective analysis. The researchers also found evidence that changes in methionine biosynthesis and depletion of beneficial bacteria may contribute to risk of surgery.

C. difficile infection (CDI) disproportionately affects individuals with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Pediatric IBD patients have a 34% risk of recurrent CDI infection, compared with 7.5% in the general population. Previous research found that adults with ulcerative colitis and CDI are at more risk of colectomy, but the finding has not been replicated in children.

In a study published in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases, researchers led by Jennifer Hellmann and Lee Denson of the University of Cincinnati conducted a single-center retrospective analysis of 75 pediatric Crohn’s disease patients. They also conducted a prospective study of 70 pediatric Crohn’s disease patients, using shotgun metagenome sequencing to examine the relationship between microbiota composition and C. difficile carriage or surgery history.

Nineteen percent of patients tested positive for C. difficile. Use of antibiotics was associated with C. difficile (odds ratio, 7.9; P = .02). Of patients who underwent C. difficile testing in the first year, 23 went on to have surgery: 21% who were C. difficile negative required surgery, compared with 67% of those who were positive (hazard ratio, 4.4; P = .0003). The mean time to surgery was 527 days for C. difficile–positive patients and 1,268 days for those who were negative.

A multivariate regression analysis on 54 patients with complete data sets showed that the presence of C. difficile was associated with increased risk of surgery (OR, 16.2; P = .0006). When the analysis was run on all 73 patients, using null value for missing data, the results were similar (OR, 9.17; P = .008).

Shotgun sequencing found that 47 of 114 bacterial species that were associated with the presence of C. difficile were also associated with prior surgery for Crohn’s disease. Species included some that may play a role in mucosal homeostasis, such as Bifidobacterium breve and several Alistipes and Ruminococcus species. That suggests that a reduction in the numbers of these taxa may be associated with C. difficile presence and surgical risk.

The researchers also found that methionine synthesis pathways were depressed in C. difficile–positive and surgery patients. Methionine may bolster antioxidant capacity and improve villus morphology. IBD patients with dysbiosis and those experiencing Crohn’s disease exacerbations have been shown to have decreased methionine pathway activity, suggesting methionine biosynthesis changes have clinical relevance.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health.

SOURCE: Hellmann J et al. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2020. doi: 10.1093/ibd/izz263.

In pediatric Crohn’s disease, a Clostridioides difficile infection detected within the first year after diagnosis is associated with a shorter time to first bowel resection surgery, according to a study that included both a retrospective and prospective analysis. The researchers also found evidence that changes in methionine biosynthesis and depletion of beneficial bacteria may contribute to risk of surgery.

C. difficile infection (CDI) disproportionately affects individuals with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Pediatric IBD patients have a 34% risk of recurrent CDI infection, compared with 7.5% in the general population. Previous research found that adults with ulcerative colitis and CDI are at more risk of colectomy, but the finding has not been replicated in children.

In a study published in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases, researchers led by Jennifer Hellmann and Lee Denson of the University of Cincinnati conducted a single-center retrospective analysis of 75 pediatric Crohn’s disease patients. They also conducted a prospective study of 70 pediatric Crohn’s disease patients, using shotgun metagenome sequencing to examine the relationship between microbiota composition and C. difficile carriage or surgery history.

Nineteen percent of patients tested positive for C. difficile. Use of antibiotics was associated with C. difficile (odds ratio, 7.9; P = .02). Of patients who underwent C. difficile testing in the first year, 23 went on to have surgery: 21% who were C. difficile negative required surgery, compared with 67% of those who were positive (hazard ratio, 4.4; P = .0003). The mean time to surgery was 527 days for C. difficile–positive patients and 1,268 days for those who were negative.

A multivariate regression analysis on 54 patients with complete data sets showed that the presence of C. difficile was associated with increased risk of surgery (OR, 16.2; P = .0006). When the analysis was run on all 73 patients, using null value for missing data, the results were similar (OR, 9.17; P = .008).

Shotgun sequencing found that 47 of 114 bacterial species that were associated with the presence of C. difficile were also associated with prior surgery for Crohn’s disease. Species included some that may play a role in mucosal homeostasis, such as Bifidobacterium breve and several Alistipes and Ruminococcus species. That suggests that a reduction in the numbers of these taxa may be associated with C. difficile presence and surgical risk.

The researchers also found that methionine synthesis pathways were depressed in C. difficile–positive and surgery patients. Methionine may bolster antioxidant capacity and improve villus morphology. IBD patients with dysbiosis and those experiencing Crohn’s disease exacerbations have been shown to have decreased methionine pathway activity, suggesting methionine biosynthesis changes have clinical relevance.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health.

SOURCE: Hellmann J et al. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2020. doi: 10.1093/ibd/izz263.

Vancomycin followed by fecal microbiota transplant (FMT) was associated with reduced Clostridioides difficile (C. diff)-related mortality in patients hospitalized with refractory severe or fulminant C. diff infection (CDI) at a single center. The improvements came after Indiana University implemented an FMT option in 2013.

About 8% of C. diff patients develop severe or fulminant CDI (SFCDI), which can lead to toxic colon and multiorgan failure. Surgery is the current recommended treatment for these patients if they are refractory to vancomycin, but 30-day mortality is above 40%. FMT is recommended for recurrent CDI, and it achieves cure rates greater than 80%, along with fewer relapses compared with anti-CDI antibiotic therapy.

FMT has been shown to be effective for SFCDI, with a 91% cure rate for serious CDI and 66% for fulminant CDI.

In the study published in the September issue of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, researchers led by Yao-Wen Cheng, MD, and Monika Fischer, MD, of Indiana University, assessed the effect of FMT on SFCDI after their institution adopted it as a treatment protocol for SFCDI. Patients could receive FMT if there was evidence that their SFCDI was refractory, or if they had two or more CDI recurrences. The treatment includes oral vancomycin and pseudomembrane-driven sequential FMT.

Two hundred five patients were admitted before FMT implementation, 225 after. Fifty patients received FMT because of refractory SFCDI. A median of two FMTs was conducted per patient. 21 other patients received FMT for nonrefractory SFCDI or other conditions, including 18 patients with multiple recurrent CDI.

Thirty-day CDI-related mortality dropped after FMT implementation (4.4% versus 10.2%; P =.02). This was true in both the fulminant subset (9.1% versus 21.3%; P =.015) and the refractory group (12.1% versus 43.2%; P < .001).

The researchers used segmented logistic regression to determine if the improved outcomes could be due to nontreatment factors that varied over time, and found that the difference in CDI-related mortality was eliminated except for refractory SFCDI patients (odds of mortality after FMT implementation, 0.09; P =.023). There was no significant difference between those receiving non-CDI antibiotics (4.8%) and those who did not (6.9%; P =.75).

FMT was associated with lower frequency of CDI-related colectomy overall (2.7% versus 6.8%; P =.041), as well as in the fulminant (5.5% versus 15.7%; P =.017) and refractory subgroups (7.6% versus 31.8%; P =.001).

The findings follow another study that showed improved 3-month mortality for FMT among patients hospitalized with severe CDI (12.1% versus 42.2%; P < .003).

The results underscore the utility of FMT for SFCDI, and suggest it might have the most benefit in refractory SFCDI. The authors believe that FMT should be an alternative to colectomy when first-line anti-CDI antibiotics are partially or completely ineffective. In the absence of FMT, patients who go on to fail vancomycin or fidaxomicin will likely continue to be managed medically, with up to 80% mortality, or through salvage colectomy, with postsurgical morality rates of 30-40%.

Although a randomized trial could answer the question of FMT efficacy more definitively, it is unlikely to be conducted for ethical reasons.

“Further investigation is required to clearly define FMT’s role and timing in the clinical course of severe and fulminant CDI. However, our study suggests that FMT should be offered to patients with severe and fulminant CDI who do not respond to a 5-day course of anti-CDI antibiotics and may be considered in lieu of or before colectomy,” the researchers wrote.

No source of funding was disclosed.

SOURCE: Cheng YW et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020;18:2234-43. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.12.029.

Vancomycin followed by fecal microbiota transplant (FMT) was associated with reduced Clostridioides difficile (C. diff)-related mortality in patients hospitalized with refractory severe or fulminant C. diff infection (CDI) at a single center. The improvements came after Indiana University implemented an FMT option in 2013.

About 8% of C. diff patients develop severe or fulminant CDI (SFCDI), which can lead to toxic colon and multiorgan failure. Surgery is the current recommended treatment for these patients if they are refractory to vancomycin, but 30-day mortality is above 40%. FMT is recommended for recurrent CDI, and it achieves cure rates greater than 80%, along with fewer relapses compared with anti-CDI antibiotic therapy.

FMT has been shown to be effective for SFCDI, with a 91% cure rate for serious CDI and 66% for fulminant CDI.

In the study published in the September issue of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, researchers led by Yao-Wen Cheng, MD, and Monika Fischer, MD, of Indiana University, assessed the effect of FMT on SFCDI after their institution adopted it as a treatment protocol for SFCDI. Patients could receive FMT if there was evidence that their SFCDI was refractory, or if they had two or more CDI recurrences. The treatment includes oral vancomycin and pseudomembrane-driven sequential FMT.

Two hundred five patients were admitted before FMT implementation, 225 after. Fifty patients received FMT because of refractory SFCDI. A median of two FMTs was conducted per patient. 21 other patients received FMT for nonrefractory SFCDI or other conditions, including 18 patients with multiple recurrent CDI.

Thirty-day CDI-related mortality dropped after FMT implementation (4.4% versus 10.2%; P =.02). This was true in both the fulminant subset (9.1% versus 21.3%; P =.015) and the refractory group (12.1% versus 43.2%; P < .001).

The researchers used segmented logistic regression to determine if the improved outcomes could be due to nontreatment factors that varied over time, and found that the difference in CDI-related mortality was eliminated except for refractory SFCDI patients (odds of mortality after FMT implementation, 0.09; P =.023). There was no significant difference between those receiving non-CDI antibiotics (4.8%) and those who did not (6.9%; P =.75).

FMT was associated with lower frequency of CDI-related colectomy overall (2.7% versus 6.8%; P =.041), as well as in the fulminant (5.5% versus 15.7%; P =.017) and refractory subgroups (7.6% versus 31.8%; P =.001).

The findings follow another study that showed improved 3-month mortality for FMT among patients hospitalized with severe CDI (12.1% versus 42.2%; P < .003).

The results underscore the utility of FMT for SFCDI, and suggest it might have the most benefit in refractory SFCDI. The authors believe that FMT should be an alternative to colectomy when first-line anti-CDI antibiotics are partially or completely ineffective. In the absence of FMT, patients who go on to fail vancomycin or fidaxomicin will likely continue to be managed medically, with up to 80% mortality, or through salvage colectomy, with postsurgical morality rates of 30-40%.

Although a randomized trial could answer the question of FMT efficacy more definitively, it is unlikely to be conducted for ethical reasons.

“Further investigation is required to clearly define FMT’s role and timing in the clinical course of severe and fulminant CDI. However, our study suggests that FMT should be offered to patients with severe and fulminant CDI who do not respond to a 5-day course of anti-CDI antibiotics and may be considered in lieu of or before colectomy,” the researchers wrote.

No source of funding was disclosed.

SOURCE: Cheng YW et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020;18:2234-43. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.12.029.

Vancomycin followed by fecal microbiota transplant (FMT) was associated with reduced Clostridioides difficile (C. diff)-related mortality in patients hospitalized with refractory severe or fulminant C. diff infection (CDI) at a single center. The improvements came after Indiana University implemented an FMT option in 2013.

About 8% of C. diff patients develop severe or fulminant CDI (SFCDI), which can lead to toxic colon and multiorgan failure. Surgery is the current recommended treatment for these patients if they are refractory to vancomycin, but 30-day mortality is above 40%. FMT is recommended for recurrent CDI, and it achieves cure rates greater than 80%, along with fewer relapses compared with anti-CDI antibiotic therapy.

FMT has been shown to be effective for SFCDI, with a 91% cure rate for serious CDI and 66% for fulminant CDI.

In the study published in the September issue of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, researchers led by Yao-Wen Cheng, MD, and Monika Fischer, MD, of Indiana University, assessed the effect of FMT on SFCDI after their institution adopted it as a treatment protocol for SFCDI. Patients could receive FMT if there was evidence that their SFCDI was refractory, or if they had two or more CDI recurrences. The treatment includes oral vancomycin and pseudomembrane-driven sequential FMT.

Two hundred five patients were admitted before FMT implementation, 225 after. Fifty patients received FMT because of refractory SFCDI. A median of two FMTs was conducted per patient. 21 other patients received FMT for nonrefractory SFCDI or other conditions, including 18 patients with multiple recurrent CDI.

Thirty-day CDI-related mortality dropped after FMT implementation (4.4% versus 10.2%; P =.02). This was true in both the fulminant subset (9.1% versus 21.3%; P =.015) and the refractory group (12.1% versus 43.2%; P < .001).

The researchers used segmented logistic regression to determine if the improved outcomes could be due to nontreatment factors that varied over time, and found that the difference in CDI-related mortality was eliminated except for refractory SFCDI patients (odds of mortality after FMT implementation, 0.09; P =.023). There was no significant difference between those receiving non-CDI antibiotics (4.8%) and those who did not (6.9%; P =.75).

FMT was associated with lower frequency of CDI-related colectomy overall (2.7% versus 6.8%; P =.041), as well as in the fulminant (5.5% versus 15.7%; P =.017) and refractory subgroups (7.6% versus 31.8%; P =.001).

The findings follow another study that showed improved 3-month mortality for FMT among patients hospitalized with severe CDI (12.1% versus 42.2%; P < .003).

The results underscore the utility of FMT for SFCDI, and suggest it might have the most benefit in refractory SFCDI. The authors believe that FMT should be an alternative to colectomy when first-line anti-CDI antibiotics are partially or completely ineffective. In the absence of FMT, patients who go on to fail vancomycin or fidaxomicin will likely continue to be managed medically, with up to 80% mortality, or through salvage colectomy, with postsurgical morality rates of 30-40%.

Although a randomized trial could answer the question of FMT efficacy more definitively, it is unlikely to be conducted for ethical reasons.

“Further investigation is required to clearly define FMT’s role and timing in the clinical course of severe and fulminant CDI. However, our study suggests that FMT should be offered to patients with severe and fulminant CDI who do not respond to a 5-day course of anti-CDI antibiotics and may be considered in lieu of or before colectomy,” the researchers wrote.

No source of funding was disclosed.

SOURCE: Cheng YW et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020;18:2234-43. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.12.029.

There are many challenges facing modern medicine today. Recent events have highlighted important issues affecting our society as a whole – systemic racism, sexism, and implicit bias. In medicine, we have seen a renewed focus on health equity, health disparities and the implicit systemic bias that affect those who work in the field. It is truly troubling that it has taken the continued loss of black lives to police brutality and a pandemic for this conversation to happen at every level in society.

Systemic bias is present throughout corporate America, and it is no different within the physician workforce. Overall, there has been gradual interest in promoting and teaching diversity. Institutions have been slowly creating policies and administrative positions focused on inclusion and diversity over the last decade. So has diversity training objectively increased representation and advancement of women and minority groups? Do traditionally marginalized groups have better access to health? And are women and people of color (POC) represented equally in leadership positions in medicine?

Clearly, the answers are not straightforward.
 

Diving into the data

A guilty pleasure of mine is to assess how diverse and inclusive an institution is by looking at the wall of pictures recognizing top leadership in hospitals. Despite women accounting for 47.9% of graduates from medical school in 2018-2019, I still see very few women or POC elevated to this level. Of the total women graduates, 22.6% were Asian, 8% were Black and 5.4% were Hispanic.

Being of Indian descent, I am a woman of color (albeit one who may not be as profoundly affected by racism in medicine as my less represented colleagues). It is especially rare for me to see someone I can identify with in the ranks of top leadership. I find encouragement in seeing any woman on any leadership board because to me, it means that there is hope. The literature seems to support this degree of disparity as well. For example, a recent analysis shows that presidential leadership in medical societies are predominantly held by men (82.6% male vs. 17.4% female). Other datasets demonstrate that only 15% of deans and interim deans are women and AAMC’s report shows that women account for only 18% of all department chairs.

Growing up, my parents fueled my interest to pursue medicine. They described it as a noble profession that rewarded true merit and dedication to the cause. However, those that have been traditionally elevated in medicine are men. If merit knows no gender, why does a gender gap exist? If merit is blind to race, why are minorities so poorly represented in the workforce (much less in leadership)? My view of the wall leaves me wondering about the role of both sexism and racism in medicine.

These visual representations of the medical culture reinforce the acceptable norms and values – white and masculine – in medicine. The feminist movement over the last several decades has increased awareness about the need for equality of the sexes. However, it was not until the concept of intersectionality was introduced by Black feminist Professor Kimberle Crenshaw, that feminism become a more inclusive term. Professor Crenshaw’s paper details how every individual has intersecting factors – race, gender, sexual identity, socioeconomic status – that create the sum of their experience be it privilege, oppression, or discrimination.

For example, a White woman has privileges that a woman of color does not. Among non-white women, race and sexual identity are confounding factors – a Black woman, a Black LGBTQ woman, and an Asian woman, for example, will not experience discrimination in the same way. The farther you deviate from the accepted norms and values, the harder it is for you to obtain support and achieve recognition.
 

Addressing the patriarchal structure and systemic bias in medicine

Why do patriarchal structures still exist in medicine? How do we resolve systemic bias? Addressing them in isolation – race or gender or sexual identity – is unlikely to create long-lasting change. For change to occur, organizations and individuals need to be intrinsically motivated. Creating awareness and challenging the status quo is the first step.

Over the last decade, implicit bias training and diversity training have become mandatory in various industries and states. Diversity training has grown to be a multi-billion-dollar industry that corporate America has embraced over the last several years. And yet, research shows that mandating such training may not be the most effective. To get results, organizations need to implement programs that “spark engagement, increase contact between different groups and draw on people’s desire to look good to others.”

Historically, the medical curriculum has not included a discourse on feminist theories and the advancement of women in medicine. Cultural competency training is typically offered on an annual basis once we are in the workforce, but in my experience, it focuses more on our interactions with patients and other health care colleagues, and less with regards to our physician peers and leadership. Is this enough to change deep rooted beliefs and traditions?

We can take our cue from non-medical organizations and consider changing this culture of no culture in medicine – introducing diversity task forces that hold departments accountable for recruiting and promoting women and minorities; employing diversity managers; voluntary training; cross-training to increase contact among different groups and mentoring programs that match senior leadership to women and POC. While some medical institutions have implemented some of these principles, changing century-old traditions will require embracing concepts of organizational change and every available effective tool.
 

Committing to change

Change is especially hard when the target outcome is not accurately quantifiable – even if you can measure attitudes, values, and beliefs, these are subject to reporting bias and tokenism. At the organizational level, change management involves employing a systematic approach to change organizational values, goals, policies, and processes.

Individual change, self-reflection, and personal growth are key components in changing culture. Reflexivity is being aware of your own values, norms, position, and power – an important concept to understand and apply in our everyday interactions. Believing that one’s class, gender, race and sexual orientation are irrelevant to their practice of medicine would not foster the change that we direly need in medicine. Rather, identifying how your own values and professional identity are shaped by your medical training, your organization and the broader cultural context are critically important to developing a greater empathic sense to motivate systemic change.

There has been valuable discussion on bottom-up changes to ensure women and POC have support, encouragement and a pathway to advance in an organization. Some of these include policy and process changes including providing flexible working conditions for women and sponsorship of women and minorities to help them navigate the barriers and microaggressions they encounter at work. While technical (policy) changes form the foundation for any organizational change, it is important to remember that the people side of change – the resistance that you encounter for any change effort in an organization – is equally important to address at the organizational level. A top-down approach is also vital to ensure that change is permanent in an organization and does not end when the individuals responsible for the change leave the organization.

Lewin’s three-stage change management model provides a framework for structural and organizational change in hospital systems. The three-stages of this model are: unfreezing, changing, and refreezing. Unfreezing is the process of determining what needs to change and obtaining leadership support. The actual change process involves getting people on board, empowering them to change and communicating with them frequently. Refreezing cements this change into the organization’s culture by providing support and training to sustain changes. Research has shown that Lewin’s change management model has applicability in the hospital setting.

Industry research in change management methodologies in the business sector has identified sponsorship by CEOs/senior management of an organization and having a structured implementation model for change management as two important factors for ensuring that change efforts are successful and sustainable.

This can be extrapolated to health care organizations – top leadership committed to changing the status quo should solidify organizational commitment by incorporating new attainable and measurable goals into their vision for the organization. Designing a phased implementation of change management methodologies should follow an open discussion to identify an organization’s weaknesses, strengths, capacity, and readiness for change. Lastly, helping busy professionals adapt to change requires innovative and continuous improvement strategies using formal, systematic tools for organization-wide strategic deployment.

Without a concrete commitment at the organizational level, programs such as diversity training may end up being band-aids on wounds that run deep.

I believe that the combination of both individual and organizational commitment to change systemic bias in medicine can be quite powerful. One without the other will fail to permanently change the system. The work to true equality – regardless of the intersecting factors of discrimination – starts with a commitment to change. We may all have different opportunities because of the inequality that is apparent in our systems today, but if we unite around the goal of a bias-free, merit-based equality, it gives us the strength we need to overcome challenges that we once thought insurmountable.

Each one of us is a leader in our own right. Speaking up for those with less power or opportunity than us and supporting talent and hard work solidifies medicine as a meritocracy. Even if the magnitude of change that we fight for may not be realized during our time in medical practice, our commitment to eradicate sexism, racism and discrimination will shape the future of medicine.

Just as our children are a legacy that we leave behind, our work in correcting bias in medicine will pave the path for a better future for the doctors of tomorrow. After all, when I think that my young daughter will be affected by what I do or do not do to address the discrimination, there is no better motivation for me to break down every barrier for her success.

Dr. Kanikkannan is a practicing hospitalist and assistant professor of medicine at Albany Medical College in Albany, NY. This article first appeared on The Hospital Leader, the official blog of SHM.

There are many challenges facing modern medicine today. Recent events have highlighted important issues affecting our society as a whole – systemic racism, sexism, and implicit bias. In medicine, we have seen a renewed focus on health equity, health disparities and the implicit systemic bias that affect those who work in the field. It is truly troubling that it has taken the continued loss of black lives to police brutality and a pandemic for this conversation to happen at every level in society.

Systemic bias is present throughout corporate America, and it is no different within the physician workforce. Overall, there has been gradual interest in promoting and teaching diversity. Institutions have been slowly creating policies and administrative positions focused on inclusion and diversity over the last decade. So has diversity training objectively increased representation and advancement of women and minority groups? Do traditionally marginalized groups have better access to health? And are women and people of color (POC) represented equally in leadership positions in medicine?

Clearly, the answers are not straightforward.
 

Diving into the data

A guilty pleasure of mine is to assess how diverse and inclusive an institution is by looking at the wall of pictures recognizing top leadership in hospitals. Despite women accounting for 47.9% of graduates from medical school in 2018-2019, I still see very few women or POC elevated to this level. Of the total women graduates, 22.6% were Asian, 8% were Black and 5.4% were Hispanic.

Being of Indian descent, I am a woman of color (albeit one who may not be as profoundly affected by racism in medicine as my less represented colleagues). It is especially rare for me to see someone I can identify with in the ranks of top leadership. I find encouragement in seeing any woman on any leadership board because to me, it means that there is hope. The literature seems to support this degree of disparity as well. For example, a recent analysis shows that presidential leadership in medical societies are predominantly held by men (82.6% male vs. 17.4% female). Other datasets demonstrate that only 15% of deans and interim deans are women and AAMC’s report shows that women account for only 18% of all department chairs.

Growing up, my parents fueled my interest to pursue medicine. They described it as a noble profession that rewarded true merit and dedication to the cause. However, those that have been traditionally elevated in medicine are men. If merit knows no gender, why does a gender gap exist? If merit is blind to race, why are minorities so poorly represented in the workforce (much less in leadership)? My view of the wall leaves me wondering about the role of both sexism and racism in medicine.

These visual representations of the medical culture reinforce the acceptable norms and values – white and masculine – in medicine. The feminist movement over the last several decades has increased awareness about the need for equality of the sexes. However, it was not until the concept of intersectionality was introduced by Black feminist Professor Kimberle Crenshaw, that feminism become a more inclusive term. Professor Crenshaw’s paper details how every individual has intersecting factors – race, gender, sexual identity, socioeconomic status – that create the sum of their experience be it privilege, oppression, or discrimination.

For example, a White woman has privileges that a woman of color does not. Among non-white women, race and sexual identity are confounding factors – a Black woman, a Black LGBTQ woman, and an Asian woman, for example, will not experience discrimination in the same way. The farther you deviate from the accepted norms and values, the harder it is for you to obtain support and achieve recognition.
 

Addressing the patriarchal structure and systemic bias in medicine

Why do patriarchal structures still exist in medicine? How do we resolve systemic bias? Addressing them in isolation – race or gender or sexual identity – is unlikely to create long-lasting change. For change to occur, organizations and individuals need to be intrinsically motivated. Creating awareness and challenging the status quo is the first step.

Over the last decade, implicit bias training and diversity training have become mandatory in various industries and states. Diversity training has grown to be a multi-billion-dollar industry that corporate America has embraced over the last several years. And yet, research shows that mandating such training may not be the most effective. To get results, organizations need to implement programs that “spark engagement, increase contact between different groups and draw on people’s desire to look good to others.”

Historically, the medical curriculum has not included a discourse on feminist theories and the advancement of women in medicine. Cultural competency training is typically offered on an annual basis once we are in the workforce, but in my experience, it focuses more on our interactions with patients and other health care colleagues, and less with regards to our physician peers and leadership. Is this enough to change deep rooted beliefs and traditions?

We can take our cue from non-medical organizations and consider changing this culture of no culture in medicine – introducing diversity task forces that hold departments accountable for recruiting and promoting women and minorities; employing diversity managers; voluntary training; cross-training to increase contact among different groups and mentoring programs that match senior leadership to women and POC. While some medical institutions have implemented some of these principles, changing century-old traditions will require embracing concepts of organizational change and every available effective tool.
 

Committing to change

Change is especially hard when the target outcome is not accurately quantifiable – even if you can measure attitudes, values, and beliefs, these are subject to reporting bias and tokenism. At the organizational level, change management involves employing a systematic approach to change organizational values, goals, policies, and processes.

Individual change, self-reflection, and personal growth are key components in changing culture. Reflexivity is being aware of your own values, norms, position, and power – an important concept to understand and apply in our everyday interactions. Believing that one’s class, gender, race and sexual orientation are irrelevant to their practice of medicine would not foster the change that we direly need in medicine. Rather, identifying how your own values and professional identity are shaped by your medical training, your organization and the broader cultural context are critically important to developing a greater empathic sense to motivate systemic change.

There has been valuable discussion on bottom-up changes to ensure women and POC have support, encouragement and a pathway to advance in an organization. Some of these include policy and process changes including providing flexible working conditions for women and sponsorship of women and minorities to help them navigate the barriers and microaggressions they encounter at work. While technical (policy) changes form the foundation for any organizational change, it is important to remember that the people side of change – the resistance that you encounter for any change effort in an organization – is equally important to address at the organizational level. A top-down approach is also vital to ensure that change is permanent in an organization and does not end when the individuals responsible for the change leave the organization.

Lewin’s three-stage change management model provides a framework for structural and organizational change in hospital systems. The three-stages of this model are: unfreezing, changing, and refreezing. Unfreezing is the process of determining what needs to change and obtaining leadership support. The actual change process involves getting people on board, empowering them to change and communicating with them frequently. Refreezing cements this change into the organization’s culture by providing support and training to sustain changes. Research has shown that Lewin’s change management model has applicability in the hospital setting.

Industry research in change management methodologies in the business sector has identified sponsorship by CEOs/senior management of an organization and having a structured implementation model for change management as two important factors for ensuring that change efforts are successful and sustainable.

This can be extrapolated to health care organizations – top leadership committed to changing the status quo should solidify organizational commitment by incorporating new attainable and measurable goals into their vision for the organization. Designing a phased implementation of change management methodologies should follow an open discussion to identify an organization’s weaknesses, strengths, capacity, and readiness for change. Lastly, helping busy professionals adapt to change requires innovative and continuous improvement strategies using formal, systematic tools for organization-wide strategic deployment.

Without a concrete commitment at the organizational level, programs such as diversity training may end up being band-aids on wounds that run deep.

I believe that the combination of both individual and organizational commitment to change systemic bias in medicine can be quite powerful. One without the other will fail to permanently change the system. The work to true equality – regardless of the intersecting factors of discrimination – starts with a commitment to change. We may all have different opportunities because of the inequality that is apparent in our systems today, but if we unite around the goal of a bias-free, merit-based equality, it gives us the strength we need to overcome challenges that we once thought insurmountable.

Each one of us is a leader in our own right. Speaking up for those with less power or opportunity than us and supporting talent and hard work solidifies medicine as a meritocracy. Even if the magnitude of change that we fight for may not be realized during our time in medical practice, our commitment to eradicate sexism, racism and discrimination will shape the future of medicine.

Just as our children are a legacy that we leave behind, our work in correcting bias in medicine will pave the path for a better future for the doctors of tomorrow. After all, when I think that my young daughter will be affected by what I do or do not do to address the discrimination, there is no better motivation for me to break down every barrier for her success.

Dr. Kanikkannan is a practicing hospitalist and assistant professor of medicine at Albany Medical College in Albany, NY. This article first appeared on The Hospital Leader, the official blog of SHM.

There are many challenges facing modern medicine today. Recent events have highlighted important issues affecting our society as a whole – systemic racism, sexism, and implicit bias. In medicine, we have seen a renewed focus on health equity, health disparities and the implicit systemic bias that affect those who work in the field. It is truly troubling that it has taken the continued loss of black lives to police brutality and a pandemic for this conversation to happen at every level in society.

Systemic bias is present throughout corporate America, and it is no different within the physician workforce. Overall, there has been gradual interest in promoting and teaching diversity. Institutions have been slowly creating policies and administrative positions focused on inclusion and diversity over the last decade. So has diversity training objectively increased representation and advancement of women and minority groups? Do traditionally marginalized groups have better access to health? And are women and people of color (POC) represented equally in leadership positions in medicine?

Clearly, the answers are not straightforward.
 

Diving into the data

A guilty pleasure of mine is to assess how diverse and inclusive an institution is by looking at the wall of pictures recognizing top leadership in hospitals. Despite women accounting for 47.9% of graduates from medical school in 2018-2019, I still see very few women or POC elevated to this level. Of the total women graduates, 22.6% were Asian, 8% were Black and 5.4% were Hispanic.

Being of Indian descent, I am a woman of color (albeit one who may not be as profoundly affected by racism in medicine as my less represented colleagues). It is especially rare for me to see someone I can identify with in the ranks of top leadership. I find encouragement in seeing any woman on any leadership board because to me, it means that there is hope. The literature seems to support this degree of disparity as well. For example, a recent analysis shows that presidential leadership in medical societies are predominantly held by men (82.6% male vs. 17.4% female). Other datasets demonstrate that only 15% of deans and interim deans are women and AAMC’s report shows that women account for only 18% of all department chairs.

Growing up, my parents fueled my interest to pursue medicine. They described it as a noble profession that rewarded true merit and dedication to the cause. However, those that have been traditionally elevated in medicine are men. If merit knows no gender, why does a gender gap exist? If merit is blind to race, why are minorities so poorly represented in the workforce (much less in leadership)? My view of the wall leaves me wondering about the role of both sexism and racism in medicine.

These visual representations of the medical culture reinforce the acceptable norms and values – white and masculine – in medicine. The feminist movement over the last several decades has increased awareness about the need for equality of the sexes. However, it was not until the concept of intersectionality was introduced by Black feminist Professor Kimberle Crenshaw, that feminism become a more inclusive term. Professor Crenshaw’s paper details how every individual has intersecting factors – race, gender, sexual identity, socioeconomic status – that create the sum of their experience be it privilege, oppression, or discrimination.

For example, a White woman has privileges that a woman of color does not. Among non-white women, race and sexual identity are confounding factors – a Black woman, a Black LGBTQ woman, and an Asian woman, for example, will not experience discrimination in the same way. The farther you deviate from the accepted norms and values, the harder it is for you to obtain support and achieve recognition.
 

Addressing the patriarchal structure and systemic bias in medicine

Why do patriarchal structures still exist in medicine? How do we resolve systemic bias? Addressing them in isolation – race or gender or sexual identity – is unlikely to create long-lasting change. For change to occur, organizations and individuals need to be intrinsically motivated. Creating awareness and challenging the status quo is the first step.

Over the last decade, implicit bias training and diversity training have become mandatory in various industries and states. Diversity training has grown to be a multi-billion-dollar industry that corporate America has embraced over the last several years. And yet, research shows that mandating such training may not be the most effective. To get results, organizations need to implement programs that “spark engagement, increase contact between different groups and draw on people’s desire to look good to others.”

Historically, the medical curriculum has not included a discourse on feminist theories and the advancement of women in medicine. Cultural competency training is typically offered on an annual basis once we are in the workforce, but in my experience, it focuses more on our interactions with patients and other health care colleagues, and less with regards to our physician peers and leadership. Is this enough to change deep rooted beliefs and traditions?

We can take our cue from non-medical organizations and consider changing this culture of no culture in medicine – introducing diversity task forces that hold departments accountable for recruiting and promoting women and minorities; employing diversity managers; voluntary training; cross-training to increase contact among different groups and mentoring programs that match senior leadership to women and POC. While some medical institutions have implemented some of these principles, changing century-old traditions will require embracing concepts of organizational change and every available effective tool.
 

Committing to change

Change is especially hard when the target outcome is not accurately quantifiable – even if you can measure attitudes, values, and beliefs, these are subject to reporting bias and tokenism. At the organizational level, change management involves employing a systematic approach to change organizational values, goals, policies, and processes.

Individual change, self-reflection, and personal growth are key components in changing culture. Reflexivity is being aware of your own values, norms, position, and power – an important concept to understand and apply in our everyday interactions. Believing that one’s class, gender, race and sexual orientation are irrelevant to their practice of medicine would not foster the change that we direly need in medicine. Rather, identifying how your own values and professional identity are shaped by your medical training, your organization and the broader cultural context are critically important to developing a greater empathic sense to motivate systemic change.

There has been valuable discussion on bottom-up changes to ensure women and POC have support, encouragement and a pathway to advance in an organization. Some of these include policy and process changes including providing flexible working conditions for women and sponsorship of women and minorities to help them navigate the barriers and microaggressions they encounter at work. While technical (policy) changes form the foundation for any organizational change, it is important to remember that the people side of change – the resistance that you encounter for any change effort in an organization – is equally important to address at the organizational level. A top-down approach is also vital to ensure that change is permanent in an organization and does not end when the individuals responsible for the change leave the organization.

Lewin’s three-stage change management model provides a framework for structural and organizational change in hospital systems. The three-stages of this model are: unfreezing, changing, and refreezing. Unfreezing is the process of determining what needs to change and obtaining leadership support. The actual change process involves getting people on board, empowering them to change and communicating with them frequently. Refreezing cements this change into the organization’s culture by providing support and training to sustain changes. Research has shown that Lewin’s change management model has applicability in the hospital setting.

Industry research in change management methodologies in the business sector has identified sponsorship by CEOs/senior management of an organization and having a structured implementation model for change management as two important factors for ensuring that change efforts are successful and sustainable.

This can be extrapolated to health care organizations – top leadership committed to changing the status quo should solidify organizational commitment by incorporating new attainable and measurable goals into their vision for the organization. Designing a phased implementation of change management methodologies should follow an open discussion to identify an organization’s weaknesses, strengths, capacity, and readiness for change. Lastly, helping busy professionals adapt to change requires innovative and continuous improvement strategies using formal, systematic tools for organization-wide strategic deployment.

Without a concrete commitment at the organizational level, programs such as diversity training may end up being band-aids on wounds that run deep.

I believe that the combination of both individual and organizational commitment to change systemic bias in medicine can be quite powerful. One without the other will fail to permanently change the system. The work to true equality – regardless of the intersecting factors of discrimination – starts with a commitment to change. We may all have different opportunities because of the inequality that is apparent in our systems today, but if we unite around the goal of a bias-free, merit-based equality, it gives us the strength we need to overcome challenges that we once thought insurmountable.

Each one of us is a leader in our own right. Speaking up for those with less power or opportunity than us and supporting talent and hard work solidifies medicine as a meritocracy. Even if the magnitude of change that we fight for may not be realized during our time in medical practice, our commitment to eradicate sexism, racism and discrimination will shape the future of medicine.

Just as our children are a legacy that we leave behind, our work in correcting bias in medicine will pave the path for a better future for the doctors of tomorrow. After all, when I think that my young daughter will be affected by what I do or do not do to address the discrimination, there is no better motivation for me to break down every barrier for her success.

Dr. Kanikkannan is a practicing hospitalist and assistant professor of medicine at Albany Medical College in Albany, NY. This article first appeared on The Hospital Leader, the official blog of SHM.