Effect of PCSK9 Inhibitors on Coronary Artery Disease Progression

Article Type
Changed
Wed, 09/20/2017 - 16:48
Display Headline
Effect of PCSK9 Inhibitors on Coronary Artery Disease Progression

Nicolls SJ, Puri S, Anderson, T, et al. Effect of evolocumab on progression of coronary disease in statin-treated patients. The GLAGOV randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2016;316:2372–84.

 

To Download a PDF of the Full Article:

Click Here

 

Study Overview

Objective. To determine if evolocumab, a PCSK9 inhibitor, affects the progression of coronary artery disease in patients treated with statins.

Design. Multicenter, international, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial.

Setting and participants. 197 community and academic hospitals worldwide enrolled 978 participants who underwent serial intravascular ultrasounds (IVUS) to measure their burden of coronary atherosclerosis. A total of 2628 patients were screened. Patients were considered for inclusion if they were 18 years of age or older and had at least 1 coronary artery stenosis of at least 20% on a clinically indicated catheterization. Additionally, the target vessel had to meet IVUS imaging quality and visibility standards. Participants were required to have been on stable statin therapy for at least 4 weeks with an LDL level of > 80 mg/dL or between 60–80 mg/dL with either 1 major or 3 minor cardiovascular risk factors. Major risk factors were noncoronary atherosclerotic disease, myocardial infarction (MI) or hospitalization for unstable angina within the past 2 years, or type 2 diabetes. Minor risk factors included current tobacco use, hypertension, low HDL-C levels, family history of early coronary disease, hsCRP level of 2 mg/L or greater, and age older than 50 years for men and 55 years for women. Patients with uncontrolled hypertension, uncontrolled diabetes, heart failure, renal insufficiency, or liver disease were excluded.

Intervention. Patients were randomized to either treatment with monthly subcutaneous injections of 420 mg evolocumab or placebo injections for 76 weeks. Participants attended 7 follow-up visits during the study period and then underwent repeat IVUS imaging at the 78th week. Research staff, who were blinded to both treatment status and imaging sequence, collected and assessed target vessel measurements, including the vessel lumen and external elastic membrane dimensions. IVUS imaging has been used in numerous clinical studies and has been shown to be accurate and reliable [1].

Main outcome measures. The primary outcome was the target artery change in percent atheroma volume (PAV) from baseline to week 78. PAV was calculated from IVUS measurements. Nominal change in PAV was then determined by calculating the difference of the PAV at baseline and at week 78.

The secondary measure was the normalized total atheroma volume (TAV). TAV addresses variability in the length of vessel segments and the number of images collected during IVUS catheter pullback. The nominal change in TAV was then determined by the difference at baseline and at week 78.

Additional secondary efficacy endpoints included number of patients with regression of plaque and change in lipid parameters. Safety outcomes were investigated through evaluation of the incidence of adjudicated clinical events, including all-cause mortality, cardiovascular death, MI, unstable angina requiring hospitalization, coronary revascularization, stroke, transient ischemic attack, and heart failure requiring hospitalization. Post-hoc analysis compared baseline LDL-C level and change in PAV and regression of PAV. The association between LDL lowering and plaque progression was also assessed post hoc.

IVUS measurements were evaluated as least squares means. Comparison of treatment groups was conducted using analysis of covariance on rank transformed data that accounted for baseline value and geographic location. Investigators used a step-down statistical procedure to evaluate primary and secondary endpoints. The statistical model accounted for confounders such as baseline LDL-C, baseline PAV, intensity of statin therapy, geographic region, age, and sex.

Main results. 484 participants were randomized to the evolocumab group and 484 to the placebo group, and 423 participants in both groups completed both baseline and follow-up IVUS imaging. Treatment and control groups contained participants matched for age, gender, ethnicity, cardiovascular risk factors, and baseline medication use, including lipid-lowering agents, ACE inhibitors, ARBs, beta-blockers, and antiplatelet therapies. Both groups consisted of a majority of white (93.4% in placebo and 94.2% in treatment) males (72.3% in placebo and 72.1% in treatment). Approximately 80% of participants had hypertension (83.7% in placebo and 82.2% in treatment), about 35% had prior MIs (35.3% in placebo and 34.9% in treatment), and roughly a fifth of participants had diabetes (21.5% in placebo and 20.2% in treatment). At baseline 98.6% of participants were treated with statins, with 58.9% on high-intensity therapy and 39.4% on moderate-intensity. Mean LDL-C level at baseline was 92.5 (SD, 27.2) mg/dL.

After 76 weeks of treatment, mean LDL-C level in the placebo group was 93.0 mg/dL and 36.6 mg/dL in the treatment group, which corresponds to a 0.2 mg/dL increase in the placebo group and a 56.3 mg/dL reduction in the treatment group. The change in LDL-C level was statistically significant (P < 0.001).

Placebo group participants had no significant change in PAV (0.05%, P = 0.78), but the evolocumab group experienced a 0.95% decrease from baseline (P < 0.001). Similarly, the placebo group had no change in TAV from baseline (–0.9 mm3P = 0.45), but the treatment group had a 5.8 mm3 reduction in TAV from baseline (P < 0.001). The treatment group had a greater proportion of patients who experienced PAV regression (64.3% vs. 47.3%, P < 0.001) and TAV regression (61.5% vs. 48.9%, P < 0.001).

Subgroup analysis did not demonstrate a significant association between change in PAV and specific study participant characteristics (eg, age, gender, ethnicity).

Post-hoc analysis using local regression (LOESS) curve revealed a linear relationship between achieved LDL-C level and change in PAV for LDL-C levels from 110 mg/dL to 20 mg/dL.

The treatment group did not exhibit a significant increase in adverse drug events, which included injection site reactions, myalgias, neurocognitive events, and incidence of diabetes. There was no significant difference in adverse cardiovascular outcomes between groups; however, there were numerically fewer nonfatal MIs and coronary revascularizations in the treatment group.

Conclusion. The use of evolocumab in statin-treated patients resulted in greater reduction of PAV than use of statins alone.

 

Commentary

Evolocumab is a monoclonal antibody that inhibits pro-protein convertase subtilisin-kexin type 9 (PCSK9), which is involved in LDL-C receptor recycling. By reducing removal of LDL-C receptors, evolocumab amplifies LDL-C clearance and has been shown to reduce LDL-C levels by approximately 61% from baseline with 12 weeks oftreatment [2]. Studies have shown that the lipid-lowering potential of evolocumab is superior to statins alone and to combination therapy with statins and ezetimibe [2]. Furthermore, PCSK9 inhibitors have been effective at LDL-lowering in patients who failed or could not tolerate standard of care therapy with statins and ezetimibe [3,4]. PCSK9 inhibitors hold great promise for reducing morbidity and mortality of cardiovascular disease; however, LDL-lowering is not equivalent to improved clinical outcomes.

The GLAGOV study moves toward demonstration of the clinical benefit of evolocumab. The study shows that combined therapy with statins and evolocumab, versus statins alone, not only achieves better stability of atherosclerotic plaque dimensions but actually results in regression of plaque size. In the study, plaque burden is extrapolated from vessel measurements obtained through IVUS, and nominal changes in PAV and TAV serve as markers for atherosclerosis, but these surrogates cannot be equated to a reduction in cardiovascular events. The GLAGOV trial does explore clinical outcomes such as MI, stroke, unstable angina, coronary revascularization, and death; however, the study is not powered to evaluate the statistical significance of these events. We await sufficiently powered phase 3 clinical trials to determine the clinical benefits of PCSK9 inhibitors on cardiovascular disease.

The GLAGOV trial has several strengths, including its design as an international, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial. The intervention is simple and the outcomes are clearly defined. The statistical assessment yields significant results. Nonetheless, there are multiple limitations to the study. The lead author has received research support from Amgen, the maker of evolocumab. Amgen also participated in study design and maintenance of trial databases; however, data analysis was conducted by an independent statistician. Additionally, the majority of study participants were white males with very few minority patients despite inclusion of study sites around the globe. The homogeneity of the study cohort makes the data difficult to generalize to a larger population. Similarly, patients who lacked a clinical indication for coronary catheterization and those with uncontrolled diabetes, hypertension, and heart failure were excluded, which further limits application of this study to many patients with atherosclerosis. Another limitation is study attrition; only 87% of participants completed the 78-week IVUS and were included in the data analysis, and results may have differed if those lost to follow-up had completed the trial. Furthermore, study duration was limited to 76 weeks and the magnitude and durability of study outcomes after this time point remain unknown.

 

Applications for Clinical Practice

Reduction in PAV and TAV are surrogate endpoints and are not indicative of a clinical benefit. Nonetheless, the GLAGOV study demonstrates that evolocumab, when used in conjunction with statins, can promote regression of atherosclerosis greater than treatment with statins alone. More studies are needed to evaluate a clinical benefit of adding evolocumab to the regularly used arsenal of lipid-lowering therapies for the treatment of atherosclerosis. Furthermore, cost-effectiveness of evolocumab has not been shown. In 2015 the yearly wholesale price of evolcumab was $14,350. A cost-effectiveness analysis based on this price estimates that treatment of atherosclerotic coronary vascular disease with evolocumab has a cost of $414,000 per quality-adjusted life year [5]. Evolocumab is well tolerated, but additional studies for cardiovascular and mortality outcomes are needed before it can be considered part of the standard of treatment for coronary artery disease.

 

—Lauren Brooks, MD, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD

 

References

1. Nicholls SJ, Hsu A, Wolski K, et al. Intravascular ultrasound-derived measures of coronary atherosclerotic plaque burden and clinical outcome. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010;55:2399–407.

2. Sabatine MS, Giugliano RP, Wiviolt SD, et al. Efficacy and safety of evolocumab in reducing lipids and cardiovascular events. N Engl J Med 2015;372:1500–9.

3. Giugliano RP, Sabatine MS. Are PCSK9 inhibitors the next breakthrough in the cardiovascular field. J Am Coll Cardiol 2015;65:2639–51.

4. Stroes E, Colquhoun D, Sullivan D, et al. Anti-PCSK9 antibody effectively lowers cholesterol in patients with statin intolerance: the GAUSS-2 randomized, placebo-controlled phase 3 clinical trial of evolocumab. J Am Coll Cardiol 2014;63:2541–8.

5. Dhruv KS, Moran AE, Coxson PG, et al. Cost-effectiveness of PCSK9 inhibitor therapy in patients with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia or atherosclerotic coronary artery disease. JAMA 2016;316:743–53.

Publications
Topics
Sections

Nicolls SJ, Puri S, Anderson, T, et al. Effect of evolocumab on progression of coronary disease in statin-treated patients. The GLAGOV randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2016;316:2372–84.

 

To Download a PDF of the Full Article:

Click Here

 

Study Overview

Objective. To determine if evolocumab, a PCSK9 inhibitor, affects the progression of coronary artery disease in patients treated with statins.

Design. Multicenter, international, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial.

Setting and participants. 197 community and academic hospitals worldwide enrolled 978 participants who underwent serial intravascular ultrasounds (IVUS) to measure their burden of coronary atherosclerosis. A total of 2628 patients were screened. Patients were considered for inclusion if they were 18 years of age or older and had at least 1 coronary artery stenosis of at least 20% on a clinically indicated catheterization. Additionally, the target vessel had to meet IVUS imaging quality and visibility standards. Participants were required to have been on stable statin therapy for at least 4 weeks with an LDL level of > 80 mg/dL or between 60–80 mg/dL with either 1 major or 3 minor cardiovascular risk factors. Major risk factors were noncoronary atherosclerotic disease, myocardial infarction (MI) or hospitalization for unstable angina within the past 2 years, or type 2 diabetes. Minor risk factors included current tobacco use, hypertension, low HDL-C levels, family history of early coronary disease, hsCRP level of 2 mg/L or greater, and age older than 50 years for men and 55 years for women. Patients with uncontrolled hypertension, uncontrolled diabetes, heart failure, renal insufficiency, or liver disease were excluded.

Intervention. Patients were randomized to either treatment with monthly subcutaneous injections of 420 mg evolocumab or placebo injections for 76 weeks. Participants attended 7 follow-up visits during the study period and then underwent repeat IVUS imaging at the 78th week. Research staff, who were blinded to both treatment status and imaging sequence, collected and assessed target vessel measurements, including the vessel lumen and external elastic membrane dimensions. IVUS imaging has been used in numerous clinical studies and has been shown to be accurate and reliable [1].

Main outcome measures. The primary outcome was the target artery change in percent atheroma volume (PAV) from baseline to week 78. PAV was calculated from IVUS measurements. Nominal change in PAV was then determined by calculating the difference of the PAV at baseline and at week 78.

The secondary measure was the normalized total atheroma volume (TAV). TAV addresses variability in the length of vessel segments and the number of images collected during IVUS catheter pullback. The nominal change in TAV was then determined by the difference at baseline and at week 78.

Additional secondary efficacy endpoints included number of patients with regression of plaque and change in lipid parameters. Safety outcomes were investigated through evaluation of the incidence of adjudicated clinical events, including all-cause mortality, cardiovascular death, MI, unstable angina requiring hospitalization, coronary revascularization, stroke, transient ischemic attack, and heart failure requiring hospitalization. Post-hoc analysis compared baseline LDL-C level and change in PAV and regression of PAV. The association between LDL lowering and plaque progression was also assessed post hoc.

IVUS measurements were evaluated as least squares means. Comparison of treatment groups was conducted using analysis of covariance on rank transformed data that accounted for baseline value and geographic location. Investigators used a step-down statistical procedure to evaluate primary and secondary endpoints. The statistical model accounted for confounders such as baseline LDL-C, baseline PAV, intensity of statin therapy, geographic region, age, and sex.

Main results. 484 participants were randomized to the evolocumab group and 484 to the placebo group, and 423 participants in both groups completed both baseline and follow-up IVUS imaging. Treatment and control groups contained participants matched for age, gender, ethnicity, cardiovascular risk factors, and baseline medication use, including lipid-lowering agents, ACE inhibitors, ARBs, beta-blockers, and antiplatelet therapies. Both groups consisted of a majority of white (93.4% in placebo and 94.2% in treatment) males (72.3% in placebo and 72.1% in treatment). Approximately 80% of participants had hypertension (83.7% in placebo and 82.2% in treatment), about 35% had prior MIs (35.3% in placebo and 34.9% in treatment), and roughly a fifth of participants had diabetes (21.5% in placebo and 20.2% in treatment). At baseline 98.6% of participants were treated with statins, with 58.9% on high-intensity therapy and 39.4% on moderate-intensity. Mean LDL-C level at baseline was 92.5 (SD, 27.2) mg/dL.

After 76 weeks of treatment, mean LDL-C level in the placebo group was 93.0 mg/dL and 36.6 mg/dL in the treatment group, which corresponds to a 0.2 mg/dL increase in the placebo group and a 56.3 mg/dL reduction in the treatment group. The change in LDL-C level was statistically significant (P < 0.001).

Placebo group participants had no significant change in PAV (0.05%, P = 0.78), but the evolocumab group experienced a 0.95% decrease from baseline (P < 0.001). Similarly, the placebo group had no change in TAV from baseline (–0.9 mm3P = 0.45), but the treatment group had a 5.8 mm3 reduction in TAV from baseline (P < 0.001). The treatment group had a greater proportion of patients who experienced PAV regression (64.3% vs. 47.3%, P < 0.001) and TAV regression (61.5% vs. 48.9%, P < 0.001).

Subgroup analysis did not demonstrate a significant association between change in PAV and specific study participant characteristics (eg, age, gender, ethnicity).

Post-hoc analysis using local regression (LOESS) curve revealed a linear relationship between achieved LDL-C level and change in PAV for LDL-C levels from 110 mg/dL to 20 mg/dL.

The treatment group did not exhibit a significant increase in adverse drug events, which included injection site reactions, myalgias, neurocognitive events, and incidence of diabetes. There was no significant difference in adverse cardiovascular outcomes between groups; however, there were numerically fewer nonfatal MIs and coronary revascularizations in the treatment group.

Conclusion. The use of evolocumab in statin-treated patients resulted in greater reduction of PAV than use of statins alone.

 

Commentary

Evolocumab is a monoclonal antibody that inhibits pro-protein convertase subtilisin-kexin type 9 (PCSK9), which is involved in LDL-C receptor recycling. By reducing removal of LDL-C receptors, evolocumab amplifies LDL-C clearance and has been shown to reduce LDL-C levels by approximately 61% from baseline with 12 weeks oftreatment [2]. Studies have shown that the lipid-lowering potential of evolocumab is superior to statins alone and to combination therapy with statins and ezetimibe [2]. Furthermore, PCSK9 inhibitors have been effective at LDL-lowering in patients who failed or could not tolerate standard of care therapy with statins and ezetimibe [3,4]. PCSK9 inhibitors hold great promise for reducing morbidity and mortality of cardiovascular disease; however, LDL-lowering is not equivalent to improved clinical outcomes.

The GLAGOV study moves toward demonstration of the clinical benefit of evolocumab. The study shows that combined therapy with statins and evolocumab, versus statins alone, not only achieves better stability of atherosclerotic plaque dimensions but actually results in regression of plaque size. In the study, plaque burden is extrapolated from vessel measurements obtained through IVUS, and nominal changes in PAV and TAV serve as markers for atherosclerosis, but these surrogates cannot be equated to a reduction in cardiovascular events. The GLAGOV trial does explore clinical outcomes such as MI, stroke, unstable angina, coronary revascularization, and death; however, the study is not powered to evaluate the statistical significance of these events. We await sufficiently powered phase 3 clinical trials to determine the clinical benefits of PCSK9 inhibitors on cardiovascular disease.

The GLAGOV trial has several strengths, including its design as an international, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial. The intervention is simple and the outcomes are clearly defined. The statistical assessment yields significant results. Nonetheless, there are multiple limitations to the study. The lead author has received research support from Amgen, the maker of evolocumab. Amgen also participated in study design and maintenance of trial databases; however, data analysis was conducted by an independent statistician. Additionally, the majority of study participants were white males with very few minority patients despite inclusion of study sites around the globe. The homogeneity of the study cohort makes the data difficult to generalize to a larger population. Similarly, patients who lacked a clinical indication for coronary catheterization and those with uncontrolled diabetes, hypertension, and heart failure were excluded, which further limits application of this study to many patients with atherosclerosis. Another limitation is study attrition; only 87% of participants completed the 78-week IVUS and were included in the data analysis, and results may have differed if those lost to follow-up had completed the trial. Furthermore, study duration was limited to 76 weeks and the magnitude and durability of study outcomes after this time point remain unknown.

 

Applications for Clinical Practice

Reduction in PAV and TAV are surrogate endpoints and are not indicative of a clinical benefit. Nonetheless, the GLAGOV study demonstrates that evolocumab, when used in conjunction with statins, can promote regression of atherosclerosis greater than treatment with statins alone. More studies are needed to evaluate a clinical benefit of adding evolocumab to the regularly used arsenal of lipid-lowering therapies for the treatment of atherosclerosis. Furthermore, cost-effectiveness of evolocumab has not been shown. In 2015 the yearly wholesale price of evolcumab was $14,350. A cost-effectiveness analysis based on this price estimates that treatment of atherosclerotic coronary vascular disease with evolocumab has a cost of $414,000 per quality-adjusted life year [5]. Evolocumab is well tolerated, but additional studies for cardiovascular and mortality outcomes are needed before it can be considered part of the standard of treatment for coronary artery disease.

 

—Lauren Brooks, MD, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD

 

References

1. Nicholls SJ, Hsu A, Wolski K, et al. Intravascular ultrasound-derived measures of coronary atherosclerotic plaque burden and clinical outcome. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010;55:2399–407.

2. Sabatine MS, Giugliano RP, Wiviolt SD, et al. Efficacy and safety of evolocumab in reducing lipids and cardiovascular events. N Engl J Med 2015;372:1500–9.

3. Giugliano RP, Sabatine MS. Are PCSK9 inhibitors the next breakthrough in the cardiovascular field. J Am Coll Cardiol 2015;65:2639–51.

4. Stroes E, Colquhoun D, Sullivan D, et al. Anti-PCSK9 antibody effectively lowers cholesterol in patients with statin intolerance: the GAUSS-2 randomized, placebo-controlled phase 3 clinical trial of evolocumab. J Am Coll Cardiol 2014;63:2541–8.

5. Dhruv KS, Moran AE, Coxson PG, et al. Cost-effectiveness of PCSK9 inhibitor therapy in patients with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia or atherosclerotic coronary artery disease. JAMA 2016;316:743–53.

Nicolls SJ, Puri S, Anderson, T, et al. Effect of evolocumab on progression of coronary disease in statin-treated patients. The GLAGOV randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2016;316:2372–84.

 

To Download a PDF of the Full Article:

Click Here

 

Study Overview

Objective. To determine if evolocumab, a PCSK9 inhibitor, affects the progression of coronary artery disease in patients treated with statins.

Design. Multicenter, international, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial.

Setting and participants. 197 community and academic hospitals worldwide enrolled 978 participants who underwent serial intravascular ultrasounds (IVUS) to measure their burden of coronary atherosclerosis. A total of 2628 patients were screened. Patients were considered for inclusion if they were 18 years of age or older and had at least 1 coronary artery stenosis of at least 20% on a clinically indicated catheterization. Additionally, the target vessel had to meet IVUS imaging quality and visibility standards. Participants were required to have been on stable statin therapy for at least 4 weeks with an LDL level of > 80 mg/dL or between 60–80 mg/dL with either 1 major or 3 minor cardiovascular risk factors. Major risk factors were noncoronary atherosclerotic disease, myocardial infarction (MI) or hospitalization for unstable angina within the past 2 years, or type 2 diabetes. Minor risk factors included current tobacco use, hypertension, low HDL-C levels, family history of early coronary disease, hsCRP level of 2 mg/L or greater, and age older than 50 years for men and 55 years for women. Patients with uncontrolled hypertension, uncontrolled diabetes, heart failure, renal insufficiency, or liver disease were excluded.

Intervention. Patients were randomized to either treatment with monthly subcutaneous injections of 420 mg evolocumab or placebo injections for 76 weeks. Participants attended 7 follow-up visits during the study period and then underwent repeat IVUS imaging at the 78th week. Research staff, who were blinded to both treatment status and imaging sequence, collected and assessed target vessel measurements, including the vessel lumen and external elastic membrane dimensions. IVUS imaging has been used in numerous clinical studies and has been shown to be accurate and reliable [1].

Main outcome measures. The primary outcome was the target artery change in percent atheroma volume (PAV) from baseline to week 78. PAV was calculated from IVUS measurements. Nominal change in PAV was then determined by calculating the difference of the PAV at baseline and at week 78.

The secondary measure was the normalized total atheroma volume (TAV). TAV addresses variability in the length of vessel segments and the number of images collected during IVUS catheter pullback. The nominal change in TAV was then determined by the difference at baseline and at week 78.

Additional secondary efficacy endpoints included number of patients with regression of plaque and change in lipid parameters. Safety outcomes were investigated through evaluation of the incidence of adjudicated clinical events, including all-cause mortality, cardiovascular death, MI, unstable angina requiring hospitalization, coronary revascularization, stroke, transient ischemic attack, and heart failure requiring hospitalization. Post-hoc analysis compared baseline LDL-C level and change in PAV and regression of PAV. The association between LDL lowering and plaque progression was also assessed post hoc.

IVUS measurements were evaluated as least squares means. Comparison of treatment groups was conducted using analysis of covariance on rank transformed data that accounted for baseline value and geographic location. Investigators used a step-down statistical procedure to evaluate primary and secondary endpoints. The statistical model accounted for confounders such as baseline LDL-C, baseline PAV, intensity of statin therapy, geographic region, age, and sex.

Main results. 484 participants were randomized to the evolocumab group and 484 to the placebo group, and 423 participants in both groups completed both baseline and follow-up IVUS imaging. Treatment and control groups contained participants matched for age, gender, ethnicity, cardiovascular risk factors, and baseline medication use, including lipid-lowering agents, ACE inhibitors, ARBs, beta-blockers, and antiplatelet therapies. Both groups consisted of a majority of white (93.4% in placebo and 94.2% in treatment) males (72.3% in placebo and 72.1% in treatment). Approximately 80% of participants had hypertension (83.7% in placebo and 82.2% in treatment), about 35% had prior MIs (35.3% in placebo and 34.9% in treatment), and roughly a fifth of participants had diabetes (21.5% in placebo and 20.2% in treatment). At baseline 98.6% of participants were treated with statins, with 58.9% on high-intensity therapy and 39.4% on moderate-intensity. Mean LDL-C level at baseline was 92.5 (SD, 27.2) mg/dL.

After 76 weeks of treatment, mean LDL-C level in the placebo group was 93.0 mg/dL and 36.6 mg/dL in the treatment group, which corresponds to a 0.2 mg/dL increase in the placebo group and a 56.3 mg/dL reduction in the treatment group. The change in LDL-C level was statistically significant (P < 0.001).

Placebo group participants had no significant change in PAV (0.05%, P = 0.78), but the evolocumab group experienced a 0.95% decrease from baseline (P < 0.001). Similarly, the placebo group had no change in TAV from baseline (–0.9 mm3P = 0.45), but the treatment group had a 5.8 mm3 reduction in TAV from baseline (P < 0.001). The treatment group had a greater proportion of patients who experienced PAV regression (64.3% vs. 47.3%, P < 0.001) and TAV regression (61.5% vs. 48.9%, P < 0.001).

Subgroup analysis did not demonstrate a significant association between change in PAV and specific study participant characteristics (eg, age, gender, ethnicity).

Post-hoc analysis using local regression (LOESS) curve revealed a linear relationship between achieved LDL-C level and change in PAV for LDL-C levels from 110 mg/dL to 20 mg/dL.

The treatment group did not exhibit a significant increase in adverse drug events, which included injection site reactions, myalgias, neurocognitive events, and incidence of diabetes. There was no significant difference in adverse cardiovascular outcomes between groups; however, there were numerically fewer nonfatal MIs and coronary revascularizations in the treatment group.

Conclusion. The use of evolocumab in statin-treated patients resulted in greater reduction of PAV than use of statins alone.

 

Commentary

Evolocumab is a monoclonal antibody that inhibits pro-protein convertase subtilisin-kexin type 9 (PCSK9), which is involved in LDL-C receptor recycling. By reducing removal of LDL-C receptors, evolocumab amplifies LDL-C clearance and has been shown to reduce LDL-C levels by approximately 61% from baseline with 12 weeks oftreatment [2]. Studies have shown that the lipid-lowering potential of evolocumab is superior to statins alone and to combination therapy with statins and ezetimibe [2]. Furthermore, PCSK9 inhibitors have been effective at LDL-lowering in patients who failed or could not tolerate standard of care therapy with statins and ezetimibe [3,4]. PCSK9 inhibitors hold great promise for reducing morbidity and mortality of cardiovascular disease; however, LDL-lowering is not equivalent to improved clinical outcomes.

The GLAGOV study moves toward demonstration of the clinical benefit of evolocumab. The study shows that combined therapy with statins and evolocumab, versus statins alone, not only achieves better stability of atherosclerotic plaque dimensions but actually results in regression of plaque size. In the study, plaque burden is extrapolated from vessel measurements obtained through IVUS, and nominal changes in PAV and TAV serve as markers for atherosclerosis, but these surrogates cannot be equated to a reduction in cardiovascular events. The GLAGOV trial does explore clinical outcomes such as MI, stroke, unstable angina, coronary revascularization, and death; however, the study is not powered to evaluate the statistical significance of these events. We await sufficiently powered phase 3 clinical trials to determine the clinical benefits of PCSK9 inhibitors on cardiovascular disease.

The GLAGOV trial has several strengths, including its design as an international, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial. The intervention is simple and the outcomes are clearly defined. The statistical assessment yields significant results. Nonetheless, there are multiple limitations to the study. The lead author has received research support from Amgen, the maker of evolocumab. Amgen also participated in study design and maintenance of trial databases; however, data analysis was conducted by an independent statistician. Additionally, the majority of study participants were white males with very few minority patients despite inclusion of study sites around the globe. The homogeneity of the study cohort makes the data difficult to generalize to a larger population. Similarly, patients who lacked a clinical indication for coronary catheterization and those with uncontrolled diabetes, hypertension, and heart failure were excluded, which further limits application of this study to many patients with atherosclerosis. Another limitation is study attrition; only 87% of participants completed the 78-week IVUS and were included in the data analysis, and results may have differed if those lost to follow-up had completed the trial. Furthermore, study duration was limited to 76 weeks and the magnitude and durability of study outcomes after this time point remain unknown.

 

Applications for Clinical Practice

Reduction in PAV and TAV are surrogate endpoints and are not indicative of a clinical benefit. Nonetheless, the GLAGOV study demonstrates that evolocumab, when used in conjunction with statins, can promote regression of atherosclerosis greater than treatment with statins alone. More studies are needed to evaluate a clinical benefit of adding evolocumab to the regularly used arsenal of lipid-lowering therapies for the treatment of atherosclerosis. Furthermore, cost-effectiveness of evolocumab has not been shown. In 2015 the yearly wholesale price of evolcumab was $14,350. A cost-effectiveness analysis based on this price estimates that treatment of atherosclerotic coronary vascular disease with evolocumab has a cost of $414,000 per quality-adjusted life year [5]. Evolocumab is well tolerated, but additional studies for cardiovascular and mortality outcomes are needed before it can be considered part of the standard of treatment for coronary artery disease.

 

—Lauren Brooks, MD, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD

 

References

1. Nicholls SJ, Hsu A, Wolski K, et al. Intravascular ultrasound-derived measures of coronary atherosclerotic plaque burden and clinical outcome. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010;55:2399–407.

2. Sabatine MS, Giugliano RP, Wiviolt SD, et al. Efficacy and safety of evolocumab in reducing lipids and cardiovascular events. N Engl J Med 2015;372:1500–9.

3. Giugliano RP, Sabatine MS. Are PCSK9 inhibitors the next breakthrough in the cardiovascular field. J Am Coll Cardiol 2015;65:2639–51.

4. Stroes E, Colquhoun D, Sullivan D, et al. Anti-PCSK9 antibody effectively lowers cholesterol in patients with statin intolerance: the GAUSS-2 randomized, placebo-controlled phase 3 clinical trial of evolocumab. J Am Coll Cardiol 2014;63:2541–8.

5. Dhruv KS, Moran AE, Coxson PG, et al. Cost-effectiveness of PCSK9 inhibitor therapy in patients with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia or atherosclerotic coronary artery disease. JAMA 2016;316:743–53.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Effect of PCSK9 Inhibitors on Coronary Artery Disease Progression
Display Headline
Effect of PCSK9 Inhibitors on Coronary Artery Disease Progression
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default

Increase in U.S. drug spending slowed in 2016

Article Type
Changed
Thu, 03/28/2019 - 14:56

 

Prescription drug spending for those with employer-sponsored insurance increased by 3.8% in 2016, compared with a rise of 5.2% in 2015, according to pharmacy benefits manager Express Scripts.

Commercial plans managed by Express Scripts saw the cost of prescription drugs rise by 2.5% per person, while utilization was up by 1.3%, which adds up to the 3.8% overall increase. That represents a 27% drop from 2015, when drug use rose 2.0% and costs went up by 3.2%, Express Scripts said in its “2016 Drug Trend Report.”

Breaking down the cost by drug type, spending on specialty drugs – those that may have “frequent dosing adjustments or intensive clinical monitoring, intensive patient training and compliance assistance, limited distribution, and specialized handling or administration” – increased by 13.3% in 2016, which was the smallest rise since 2003. Spending on traditional drugs, which make up almost two-thirds of total spending, decreased by 1.0% in 2016, the report noted.

For a second consecutive year, patients of pharmacy plans managed by Express Scripts had a smaller out-of-pocket share of their total pharmacy costs, 14.6%, compared with 14.8% in 2015. That smaller share did represent an increase from $11.25 in 2015 to $11.34 in 2016, however, as the adjusted total cost per prescription rose from $75.85 to $77.84, Express Scripts said.

The company is the largest pharmacy benefits manager in the country, according to its corporate overview, processing 1.4 billion prescriptions annually for 85 million people.

Publications
Topics
Sections

 

Prescription drug spending for those with employer-sponsored insurance increased by 3.8% in 2016, compared with a rise of 5.2% in 2015, according to pharmacy benefits manager Express Scripts.

Commercial plans managed by Express Scripts saw the cost of prescription drugs rise by 2.5% per person, while utilization was up by 1.3%, which adds up to the 3.8% overall increase. That represents a 27% drop from 2015, when drug use rose 2.0% and costs went up by 3.2%, Express Scripts said in its “2016 Drug Trend Report.”

Breaking down the cost by drug type, spending on specialty drugs – those that may have “frequent dosing adjustments or intensive clinical monitoring, intensive patient training and compliance assistance, limited distribution, and specialized handling or administration” – increased by 13.3% in 2016, which was the smallest rise since 2003. Spending on traditional drugs, which make up almost two-thirds of total spending, decreased by 1.0% in 2016, the report noted.

For a second consecutive year, patients of pharmacy plans managed by Express Scripts had a smaller out-of-pocket share of their total pharmacy costs, 14.6%, compared with 14.8% in 2015. That smaller share did represent an increase from $11.25 in 2015 to $11.34 in 2016, however, as the adjusted total cost per prescription rose from $75.85 to $77.84, Express Scripts said.

The company is the largest pharmacy benefits manager in the country, according to its corporate overview, processing 1.4 billion prescriptions annually for 85 million people.

 

Prescription drug spending for those with employer-sponsored insurance increased by 3.8% in 2016, compared with a rise of 5.2% in 2015, according to pharmacy benefits manager Express Scripts.

Commercial plans managed by Express Scripts saw the cost of prescription drugs rise by 2.5% per person, while utilization was up by 1.3%, which adds up to the 3.8% overall increase. That represents a 27% drop from 2015, when drug use rose 2.0% and costs went up by 3.2%, Express Scripts said in its “2016 Drug Trend Report.”

Breaking down the cost by drug type, spending on specialty drugs – those that may have “frequent dosing adjustments or intensive clinical monitoring, intensive patient training and compliance assistance, limited distribution, and specialized handling or administration” – increased by 13.3% in 2016, which was the smallest rise since 2003. Spending on traditional drugs, which make up almost two-thirds of total spending, decreased by 1.0% in 2016, the report noted.

For a second consecutive year, patients of pharmacy plans managed by Express Scripts had a smaller out-of-pocket share of their total pharmacy costs, 14.6%, compared with 14.8% in 2015. That smaller share did represent an increase from $11.25 in 2015 to $11.34 in 2016, however, as the adjusted total cost per prescription rose from $75.85 to $77.84, Express Scripts said.

The company is the largest pharmacy benefits manager in the country, according to its corporate overview, processing 1.4 billion prescriptions annually for 85 million people.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME

Fractures in adult osteosarcoma patients presage worse survival

Article Type
Changed
Wed, 05/13/2020 - 11:37

 

– Pathological fractures are prognostic of poor outcomes in adults with osteosarcoma, but not in children with osteosarcoma, investigators have found.

 

 

Lisa Kelley


“It’s important to understand what are the prognostic factors [in osteosarcoma], and while many of the factors have been thoroughly researched, on pathological fractures the data are still fairly inconclusive due to the results of studies contradicting each other, and also having a relatively small patient number due to the fact that osteosarcoma itself is rare, and the pathological fractures occur only in approximately 10% of cases,” she said at an annual congress sponsored by the European Cancer Organisation.

To get a better handle on possible correlations between pathological fractures and prognosis in patients with central high-grade osteosarcoma, Ms. Kelley and her coauthors collected data on consecutive patients treated for localized or metastatic osteosarcoma of the extremities from 1980 through 2010 at one of the member institutions of the Cooperative Osteosarcoma Study Group (COSS).

They identified 2,847 patients, of whom 2,193 (77%) were 18 or younger at the time of diagnosis. Of the entire cohort, 321 patients (11.3%) had a pathological fracture either at presentation or soon after diagnosis.

Comparing patients with and without pathological fractures, the investigators found that factors significantly associated with fracture risk included tumor location, especially the humerus (P less than .001), tumors occurring proximally and in a diaphysis (P less than .001), telangiectatic subtype (P less than .001), the presence of primary metastases (P = .025). and tumors comprising more than one-third of the affected bone (P less than .001).

There were no significant differences in the cohort as a whole between patients with or without fractures in either age in years, sex, body-mass index, history of pain or swelling symptoms, local surgical remission at the main tumor site, total surgical remission including metastases, response to chemotherapy, use of adjuvant chemotherapy rather than neoadjuvant, or type of surgery.

Among adult patients only, however, factors associated with pathological fractures included age (P less than .001). BMI (P = .021), tumor site (P less than .001), histologic subtype (P less than .001), primary metastases (P = .011), relative tumor size (P = .047), and total surgical remission (P = .015).

Among pediatric patients, factors associated with fracture risk were (P less than .001 for all unless otherwise specified) age, BMI (P = .018), history or symptoms (P = .001). tumor site, localization within bone, histologic subtype, and relative tumor size.

In univariate analysis, 5-year OS rates were 70.6% for patients without fractures compared with 63.0% for those with fractures, and respective 10-year OS rates were 64.9% vs. 58.1% (P = .007 for both comparisons).

Among pediatric patients, the Kaplan-Meier survival curves of patients with and without pathological fractures overlapped. But for adult patients, survival of those with fractures was significantly worse, with 5-year OS of 69.3% with no fractures vs. 45.9% with fractures, and respective 10-year OS rates of 62.1% vs. 36.8% (P less than .001 for both comparisons).

Also in univariate analysis, 5-year and 10-year event-free survival (EFS) rates were significantly lower for patients who experienced pathological fractures.

Finally, in multivariable analysis of overall survival by age group, the investigators found that among adults pathological fracture was associated with a nearly twofold risk for death (hazard ratio [HR] 1.893, P = .013). Other factors were primary metastases (HR 2.486, P = .001), response to chemotherapy (P less than .001) and total surgical remission (P less than .001).

As noted before, pathological fracture among pediatric patients was not associated with worse OS. Factors significantly associated with OS in younger patients were primary metastases (HR 2.187, P less than .001), relative tumor size (HR 1.239, P = .024), response to chemotherapy (HR 2.295, P less than .001), total surgical remission (HR 4.253, P less than .001), and type of surgery (HR 1.282, P = .008).

In contrast, pathological fracture was not associated with EFS among either adult or pediatric patients. Factors significantly associated with EFS in both children and adults were primary metastases and response to chemotherapy. Among pediatric patients only, tumor site and relative tumor size were also associated with EFS.

Ms. Kelley acknowledged that the study was limited by the retrospective design.

She said that exploration of the discrepancies between adult and pediatric patients in regard to the influence of pathological fracture on survival and of the role of pathologic fracture as a negative prognostic factor for OS but not EFS in adults is warranted.

The study was funded by the Wilhelm Sander-Stiftung Foundation for cancer research. Ms. Kelley reported having no conflicts of interest.

Meeting/Event
Publications
Topics
Sections
Meeting/Event
Meeting/Event

 

– Pathological fractures are prognostic of poor outcomes in adults with osteosarcoma, but not in children with osteosarcoma, investigators have found.

 

 

Lisa Kelley


“It’s important to understand what are the prognostic factors [in osteosarcoma], and while many of the factors have been thoroughly researched, on pathological fractures the data are still fairly inconclusive due to the results of studies contradicting each other, and also having a relatively small patient number due to the fact that osteosarcoma itself is rare, and the pathological fractures occur only in approximately 10% of cases,” she said at an annual congress sponsored by the European Cancer Organisation.

To get a better handle on possible correlations between pathological fractures and prognosis in patients with central high-grade osteosarcoma, Ms. Kelley and her coauthors collected data on consecutive patients treated for localized or metastatic osteosarcoma of the extremities from 1980 through 2010 at one of the member institutions of the Cooperative Osteosarcoma Study Group (COSS).

They identified 2,847 patients, of whom 2,193 (77%) were 18 or younger at the time of diagnosis. Of the entire cohort, 321 patients (11.3%) had a pathological fracture either at presentation or soon after diagnosis.

Comparing patients with and without pathological fractures, the investigators found that factors significantly associated with fracture risk included tumor location, especially the humerus (P less than .001), tumors occurring proximally and in a diaphysis (P less than .001), telangiectatic subtype (P less than .001), the presence of primary metastases (P = .025). and tumors comprising more than one-third of the affected bone (P less than .001).

There were no significant differences in the cohort as a whole between patients with or without fractures in either age in years, sex, body-mass index, history of pain or swelling symptoms, local surgical remission at the main tumor site, total surgical remission including metastases, response to chemotherapy, use of adjuvant chemotherapy rather than neoadjuvant, or type of surgery.

Among adult patients only, however, factors associated with pathological fractures included age (P less than .001). BMI (P = .021), tumor site (P less than .001), histologic subtype (P less than .001), primary metastases (P = .011), relative tumor size (P = .047), and total surgical remission (P = .015).

Among pediatric patients, factors associated with fracture risk were (P less than .001 for all unless otherwise specified) age, BMI (P = .018), history or symptoms (P = .001). tumor site, localization within bone, histologic subtype, and relative tumor size.

In univariate analysis, 5-year OS rates were 70.6% for patients without fractures compared with 63.0% for those with fractures, and respective 10-year OS rates were 64.9% vs. 58.1% (P = .007 for both comparisons).

Among pediatric patients, the Kaplan-Meier survival curves of patients with and without pathological fractures overlapped. But for adult patients, survival of those with fractures was significantly worse, with 5-year OS of 69.3% with no fractures vs. 45.9% with fractures, and respective 10-year OS rates of 62.1% vs. 36.8% (P less than .001 for both comparisons).

Also in univariate analysis, 5-year and 10-year event-free survival (EFS) rates were significantly lower for patients who experienced pathological fractures.

Finally, in multivariable analysis of overall survival by age group, the investigators found that among adults pathological fracture was associated with a nearly twofold risk for death (hazard ratio [HR] 1.893, P = .013). Other factors were primary metastases (HR 2.486, P = .001), response to chemotherapy (P less than .001) and total surgical remission (P less than .001).

As noted before, pathological fracture among pediatric patients was not associated with worse OS. Factors significantly associated with OS in younger patients were primary metastases (HR 2.187, P less than .001), relative tumor size (HR 1.239, P = .024), response to chemotherapy (HR 2.295, P less than .001), total surgical remission (HR 4.253, P less than .001), and type of surgery (HR 1.282, P = .008).

In contrast, pathological fracture was not associated with EFS among either adult or pediatric patients. Factors significantly associated with EFS in both children and adults were primary metastases and response to chemotherapy. Among pediatric patients only, tumor site and relative tumor size were also associated with EFS.

Ms. Kelley acknowledged that the study was limited by the retrospective design.

She said that exploration of the discrepancies between adult and pediatric patients in regard to the influence of pathological fracture on survival and of the role of pathologic fracture as a negative prognostic factor for OS but not EFS in adults is warranted.

The study was funded by the Wilhelm Sander-Stiftung Foundation for cancer research. Ms. Kelley reported having no conflicts of interest.

 

– Pathological fractures are prognostic of poor outcomes in adults with osteosarcoma, but not in children with osteosarcoma, investigators have found.

 

 

Lisa Kelley


“It’s important to understand what are the prognostic factors [in osteosarcoma], and while many of the factors have been thoroughly researched, on pathological fractures the data are still fairly inconclusive due to the results of studies contradicting each other, and also having a relatively small patient number due to the fact that osteosarcoma itself is rare, and the pathological fractures occur only in approximately 10% of cases,” she said at an annual congress sponsored by the European Cancer Organisation.

To get a better handle on possible correlations between pathological fractures and prognosis in patients with central high-grade osteosarcoma, Ms. Kelley and her coauthors collected data on consecutive patients treated for localized or metastatic osteosarcoma of the extremities from 1980 through 2010 at one of the member institutions of the Cooperative Osteosarcoma Study Group (COSS).

They identified 2,847 patients, of whom 2,193 (77%) were 18 or younger at the time of diagnosis. Of the entire cohort, 321 patients (11.3%) had a pathological fracture either at presentation or soon after diagnosis.

Comparing patients with and without pathological fractures, the investigators found that factors significantly associated with fracture risk included tumor location, especially the humerus (P less than .001), tumors occurring proximally and in a diaphysis (P less than .001), telangiectatic subtype (P less than .001), the presence of primary metastases (P = .025). and tumors comprising more than one-third of the affected bone (P less than .001).

There were no significant differences in the cohort as a whole between patients with or without fractures in either age in years, sex, body-mass index, history of pain or swelling symptoms, local surgical remission at the main tumor site, total surgical remission including metastases, response to chemotherapy, use of adjuvant chemotherapy rather than neoadjuvant, or type of surgery.

Among adult patients only, however, factors associated with pathological fractures included age (P less than .001). BMI (P = .021), tumor site (P less than .001), histologic subtype (P less than .001), primary metastases (P = .011), relative tumor size (P = .047), and total surgical remission (P = .015).

Among pediatric patients, factors associated with fracture risk were (P less than .001 for all unless otherwise specified) age, BMI (P = .018), history or symptoms (P = .001). tumor site, localization within bone, histologic subtype, and relative tumor size.

In univariate analysis, 5-year OS rates were 70.6% for patients without fractures compared with 63.0% for those with fractures, and respective 10-year OS rates were 64.9% vs. 58.1% (P = .007 for both comparisons).

Among pediatric patients, the Kaplan-Meier survival curves of patients with and without pathological fractures overlapped. But for adult patients, survival of those with fractures was significantly worse, with 5-year OS of 69.3% with no fractures vs. 45.9% with fractures, and respective 10-year OS rates of 62.1% vs. 36.8% (P less than .001 for both comparisons).

Also in univariate analysis, 5-year and 10-year event-free survival (EFS) rates were significantly lower for patients who experienced pathological fractures.

Finally, in multivariable analysis of overall survival by age group, the investigators found that among adults pathological fracture was associated with a nearly twofold risk for death (hazard ratio [HR] 1.893, P = .013). Other factors were primary metastases (HR 2.486, P = .001), response to chemotherapy (P less than .001) and total surgical remission (P less than .001).

As noted before, pathological fracture among pediatric patients was not associated with worse OS. Factors significantly associated with OS in younger patients were primary metastases (HR 2.187, P less than .001), relative tumor size (HR 1.239, P = .024), response to chemotherapy (HR 2.295, P less than .001), total surgical remission (HR 4.253, P less than .001), and type of surgery (HR 1.282, P = .008).

In contrast, pathological fracture was not associated with EFS among either adult or pediatric patients. Factors significantly associated with EFS in both children and adults were primary metastases and response to chemotherapy. Among pediatric patients only, tumor site and relative tumor size were also associated with EFS.

Ms. Kelley acknowledged that the study was limited by the retrospective design.

She said that exploration of the discrepancies between adult and pediatric patients in regard to the influence of pathological fracture on survival and of the role of pathologic fracture as a negative prognostic factor for OS but not EFS in adults is warranted.

The study was funded by the Wilhelm Sander-Stiftung Foundation for cancer research. Ms. Kelley reported having no conflicts of interest.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Article Source

AT ECCO2017

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Vitals

 

Key clinical point: Pathological fractures are associated with worse survival of adults but not children with osteosarcoma of the extremities.

Major finding: Among adults pathological fracture was associated with a nearly twofold risk for death (hazard ratio, 1.893, P = .013).

Data source: Retrospective review of data on 2,847 consecutive patients with osteosarcoma.

Disclosures: The study was funded by the Wilhelm Sander-Stiftung Foundation for cancer research. Ms. Kelley reported having no conflicts of interest.

Use ProPublica

Rapid-Cycle Innovation Testing of Text-Based Monitoring for Management of Postpartum Hypertension

Article Type
Changed
Mon, 05/21/2018 - 11:16
Display Headline
Rapid-Cycle Innovation Testing of Text-Based Monitoring for Management of Postpartum Hypertension

From the Maternal and Child Health Research Program, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA (Dr. Hirshberg, Dr. Srinivas); Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Department of Nursing, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Philadelphia, PA (Ms. Bittle); Penn Medicine Center for Health Care Innovation, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA (Mr. Vandertuyn, Ms. Mahraj, Dr. Asch, Mr. Rosin); and the Department of Family Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA (Dr. Bennett).

 

Abstract

  • Objective: To investigate engagement with a bidirectional text messaging system as an alternative to in-person follow-up for postpartum women with hypertensive disorders.
  • Methods: We utilized rapid-cycle innovation processes to implement postpartum SMS text messaging follow-up in women with hypertensive disorders who delivered between September–December 2014. Patients were given electronic blood pressure cuffs and education before discharge. Standard texts reminded patients to send blood pressures daily on each of the 7 days post discharge. The study obstetrician sent text message responses based on a pre-specified management algorithm. Ability to meet ACOG guidelines was defined as receiving at least 1 reading on post-discharge days 1 or 2 and days 5, 6, or 7.
  • Results: We enrolled 32 patients. Six (19%) returned for usual care office blood pressure checks. We received at least 1 blood pressure from 27 (84%) participants. Nearly 20 (65%) texted readings on 5 of the 7 days. 27 (84%) texted at least one reading on day 1 or 2, and 21 (66%) texted at least one pressure on day 5, 6, or 7 (P = 0.001 vs. usual care). Two patients required medications and none were readmitted for hypertension. Patients reported preference for home testing and text messaging over return visits.
  • Conclusion: Remote blood pressure monitoring via text messaging is a patient-centered method for postpartum hypertension surveillance. Further testing is needed prior to widespread adoption within the broader obstetric community.

Key words: postpartum hypertension, remote monitoring, text-based intervention.

 

Hypertensive disease is a leading cause of maternal morbidity and mortality [1,2] and the leading cause of obstetric readmissions, accounting for 27% of obstetric readmissions in the United States in 2009 [3]. The majority of patients readmitted with hypertension have a diagnosis of hypertensive disorder of pregnancy on initial admission for delivery, indicating that these readmissions are the result of disease persistence or progression in contrast to new-onset disease. Peak blood pressure in these patients usually occurs 3 to 6 days postpartum [4–6] and is typically unaccompanied by warning symptoms. For these reasons, identifying patients who are at risk for persistent disease and being proactive in their postpartum care may decrease postpartum stroke and seizure. The recent Hypertension in Pregnancy guidelines provided by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) recommend monitoring blood pressure for at least 72 hours postpartum (inpatient or outpatient) and again 7 to 10 days after delivery in women in whom a hypertensive disease of pregnancy is diagnosed [6].

Although there is a clear need for effective and reliable blood pressure surveillance for high-risk women soon after delivery, significant obstacles exist. Our own high-risk blood pressure transition clinic, which occurred every other week and was staffed by maternal-fetal medicine specialists, had an average attendance of only 30% over a 2-year period. Moreover, all of the hypertension-related readmissions occurred in the first 7 days post discharge, which was before the scheduled clinic visit for approximately 50% of patients. Phone call reminders were also found to be an ineffective strategy, as the women did not answer or return voice messages left by the practice. In fact, a postpartum unit quality improvement project validated that follow-up phone calls after discharge from the postpartum unit were less effective than text messaging when reminding women of their blood pressure follow-up appointment at the clinic [7].

As an alternative to in-person visits or traditional voice telephonic communication, mobile phone “Short Message Service” (SMS) text messaging has been used successfully in health care for appointment reminders, result reporting, support of medication and treatment adherence, and dosage adjustment [8–13]. As of 2014, 90% of American adults own a cell phone and over 79% of those send and receive text messages [14]. Among a young population, which is at high risk for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, data further reveals a preference for text messaging over live calls [15]. Among low-income women under age 30, the rates of cell phone use and text communication are very high [14,15], making text-based surveillance a promising and more patient-centered strategy for a broad population.

We report the results of rapid-cycle innovation and implementation of active, remote surveillance of hypertension with new text message communication strategies in the first 7 days post-discharge. We chose a Plan-Do-Study-Act cycle approach, in which small tests are performed and studied and changes made to accelerate improvement, in order to enhance our ability to acquire blood pressure data [16,17]. The goals of the work were to (1) assess patient engagement using a remote method of blood pressure monitoring, (2) increase ascertainment of postpartum blood pressure data and obtain at least once daily blood pressure readings on all patients on post discharge days 1–2 and 5–7, which is in accordance with the recommended guidelines [6] for blood pressure surveillance, and (3) address all “at risk” severe range blood pressure readings within a short time interval and prior to the need for readmission. We describe a program of remote blood pressure monitoring and communication via text message designed to increase patient engagement and participation, thereby having the potential to result in earlier interventions, reduce readmissions, and decrease overall morbidity.

Methods

We performed a series of 6 rapid-cycle innovation devel-opment and implementation interventions with a cohort of women with chronic hypertension (CHTN), gestational hypertension (GHTN), or preeclampsia (with and without severe features and superimposed) who delivered at our institution between 20 September 2014 and 14 December 2014. All patients were > 18 years old, able to speak and read English, had a hypertension diag-nosis listed above, and had access to a cell phone with unlimited text messaging capabilities. Patients received standard postpartum care and were continued or started on antihypertensive medications based on a standardized postpartum hypertension protocol previously developed at our institution (available on request). This project was undertaken as a quality improvement initiative and as such was exempt from formal review by our institutional review board. However, all patients signed a waiver acknowledging that SMS texting is not a secure communications technology. A single research telephone was used for physician-patient communication to further ensure privacy.

Patients who qualified for the intervention study were recruited on the postpartum unit following delivery. Those who agreed to participate were provided with electronic blood pressure monitors (CVS Pharmacy automatic blood pressure monitor and Omron 3 Series upper arm blood pressure monitor) prior to discharge and instructed on their use. Patients were told to expect their first text message reminder to send in their blood pressure the day after discharge; an example of a text reminder is “Good morning. Please send us a blood pressure reading by 12 pm.” Patients were enrolled for 7 days post discharge and were interviewed regarding their experience at the end of their 7-day enrollment. As this was primarily a feasibility and quality improvement study, patients were also instructed to continue to follow up with the standard of care at the hypertension clinic visit.

For each of the 7 days following discharge from the hospital, patients received a standard text message in the morning and afternoon reminding them to text their blood pressure to the research telephone by a specific time. Reported blood pressures were reviewed and a standard response was sent by the study obstetrician based on an algorithm consistent with the institution’s postpartum hypertension protocol. Patients were sent reminders at all time points whether or not they had texted any BPs.

The ACOG Hypertension in Pregnancy guidelines recommend monitoring blood pressure at 72 hours postpartum (inpatient or outpatient) and again 7 to 10 days postpartum in women diagnosed with a hypertensive disorder of pregnancy [6]. We measured our ability to meet these guidelines by identifying how many patients texted blood pressures on post-discharge days 1 or 2 and post-discharge days 5, 6, or 7, as most patients were discharged home on postpartum day 2 or 3.

Sequential interventions were performed following principles of rapid-cycle validation using a Plan-Do-Study-Act cycle [16,17], each testing new ways to enhance our ability to acquire blood pressure data, but using small samples large enough only to test feasibility and initial responses (Table 1).

Strategies to enhance patient engagement were modified based on patient interviews and results from the immediately preceding cycle (for example, Cycle 1 interview information and results were used to make changes in Cycle 2), as well as studies on telemonitoring adherence in other populations [18]. The program ended after 6 cycles, as the study team felt there was sufficient promise to design an expanded platform suitable for a larger study.

 

 

Results

Overall

We enrolled 32 patients across 6 intervention cycles. Aggregate and individual cycle demographics are listed in Table 2. Three patients (9%) had CHTN, 17 (53%) had GHTN, 8 (25%) had severe preeclampsia, and 4 (13%) had superimposed preeclampsia. The mean maternal age was 27 (± 4.6) years and average gestational age at time of delivery was 38w3d (± 5w4d). Mean day of discharge was postpartum day 2 (± 1d). All but 2 patients had singletons (94%).

At the patient level, we received at least 1 blood pressure during the requested time frame from 27 of the 32 patients enrolled (84%). Nearly 65% of patients (20/32) texted at least 1 blood pressure reading on at least 5 out of the 7 days enrolled. 

Of the 32 patients recruited, 27 (84%) texted at least one blood pressure on cycle day 1 or 2. Twenty-one of the 32 patients (66%) sent in at least 1 blood pressure on day 5, 6, or 7, meeting guideline recommendations for blood pressure measurements on days 7–10 postpartum. Two patients stopped texting blood pressures on cycle day 3 and three stopped responding on cycle 
day 4. However, all patients who texted blood pressures on days 5–7 were engaged since the start of the trial. Trend of engagement by cycle day is depicted in Figure 1. Only 6 patients (19%) returned for their scheduled office blood pressure check (routine care). None of the patients enrolled were readmitted for hypertension or for any other cause within 30 days of discharge.

Patient engagement and cycle outcomes are individually detailed by cycle intervention below and summarized in Table 3. Figure 2 compares patient responses meeting current ACOG recommendations for postpartum hypertension surveillance by cycle.

By Cycle

Cycle 1 - Basic

Cycle 1 tested our basic hypothesis that patients would take their blood pressure at home and transmit the results by text message: 5 of 7 patients responded to our reminders, each transmitting blood pressures on at least 5 of the 7 days requested.

Four severe-range blood pressures, defined as systolic blood pressure ≥ 160 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure ≥ 110 [6], were sent to the physician responder, two times each in 2 patients. All four “at risk” severe blood pressures were addressed within 24 hours of the text message. No medications were initiated, as elevated blood pressures were not persistent and patients were asymptomatic.

 

Cycle 2 - Education

Patients in Cycle 1 reported during their follow-up interview that they became more aware of the possible morbidity associated with persistent postpartum hypertension as the cycle progressed. Therefore, Cycle 2 tested our hypothesis that focused education would improve patient engagement.

All five patients in this cohort sent in at least one blood pressure during the cycle period. All transmitted at least one blood pressure text on post-discharge day 1 or 2. Four of the five patients (80%) also sent in at least one blood pressure on day 5, 6, or 7.

There were no significantly elevated blood pressures sent to the physician responder.

Cycle 3 - Personalization

Patients in Cycle 2 reported during their interview that they felt the text message responses from the provider were too automated. Cycle 3 tested our hypothesis that added personalization, with patient and infant names included in the messages, would improve engagement.

Three of five patients in this cohort sent at least one blood pressure text on post-discharge day 1 or 2 (60%). Only one patient (20%) also sent in at least one blood pressure on day 5, 6, or 7.

One significantly elevated blood pressure was sent to the physician responder. This blood pressure was addressed within 24 hours of the text message. No medications were initiated, as elevated blood pressures were not persistent and patients were asymptomatic.

Cycle 4 - Response Timing

Patients in Cycle 3 had lower response rates than previous cycles and noted that they wanted more flexibility in the time to respond, as their schedules were unpredictable with a newborn at home. Although they enjoyed the personalized aspect, they did not feel it influenced their responses, which is evidenced by the low response rate on days 5, 6, or 7. Therefore, Cycle 4 tested our hypothesis that allowing patients to commit to a time of their choice for receiving the reminder texts would improve their response rate.

All five patients enrolled in this cohort sent in at least one blood pressure. We received at least one blood pressure text on post-discharge day 1 or 2 from all five patients in this cycle (100%). Three of the five patients (60%) also sent in at least one blood pressure on day 5, 6, or 7.

Five severely elevated blood pressures were sent to the physician responder, all from a single patient. This patient had been discharged home on hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg for persistently elevated blood pressures while in the hospital after being diagnosed with severe preeclampsia. All five “at risk” blood pressures were addressed within 24 hours of the text message. On her fifth day of remote surveillance, 5 mg of amlodipine was added to her daily regimen for blood pressures ranging from 150–170/90–110 mm Hg. Her blood pressure at her 6-week postpartum visit was 120/60 mm Hg and she had seen her primary care doctor in the interim for further hypertension management.

Cycle 5 - Snooze and Countdown

Although most of the patients enrolled in Cycle 4 stated that they were very busy in the immediate postpartum period and not always able to respond in a timely fashion, allowing patients to receive the reminder text at their own designated convenient time did not increase engagement. Patients reported that while they always carried their cell phones, they did not always carry their blood pressure cuff, limiting their ability to send in a reading at the time of the reminder. Additionally, patients reported feeling less motivated to continue texting blood pressures towards the end of the cycle. Cycle 5 tested our hypothesis that patient engagement would improve if reminder text messages were sent closer to the morning or evening deadline. Patients were provided with the opportunity to request “snooze” response if they did have their cuff accessible. Additionally, standard responses were accompanied by a countdown message. For example, “Your blood pressure looks good. Four more days of checking your blood pressure to go.”

All five enrolled in this cohort sent in at least one blood pressure, and all (100%) transmitted at least one blood pressure text on post-discharge day 1 or 2 and on day 5, 6, or 7. Only two “snooze” requests were made over the course of the arm by a single patient, who responded both times after the additional reminder.

Four severely elevated blood pressures were sent to the physician responder, all from a single patient. This patient was diagnosed with preeclampsia with severe features on delivery admission, and her blood pressures normalized prior to discharge. All four “at risk” blood pressures were addressed within 24 hours of the text message. Due to persistently elevated diastolic blood pressures ranging from 110–120 mm Hg, she was started on hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg on day 6 of the cycle and monitored for additional days following cycle completion with improved blood pressures.

 

 

Cycle 6 - Snooze and Support Person

The patients in Cycle 5 were overall satisfied with their experience and did not provide any suggestions for change. However, we sought to see if integrating support persons into the protocol would affect engagement. Cycle 6 tested our hypothesis that patients would be more engaged if they had a self-identified support person reminding them to text their blood pressures. Patients provided the name of a support person to contact if a morning blood pressure was not received. Additionally, patients received the same “snooze” option as in Cycle 5. A total of five patients were enrolled in this cohort; one patient enrolled in the trial but did not send in any blood pressures despite daily reminders to both her and her support buddy. Only 2 additional buddy notifications were required in patients who did not send in a morning blood pressure reading and both times a subsequent blood pressure was sent. Two “snooze” requests were made over the course of the cycle by a single patient, who responded both times after the reminder.

Four of five patients in this cohort sent at least one blood pressure text on post-discharge day 1 or 2 (80%). Three patients (60%) also sent in at least one blood pressure on day 5, 6, or 7.

There were no significantly elevated blood pressures sent to the physician responder and no medications were initiated.

 

Post-Cycle Interviews

Overall, patients reported satisfaction with the text messaging system in their post-cycle interviews. The convenience of the intervention was acknowledged by many, including one patient who commented that “this was a lot better than having to pay for the bus and waiting for hours in some waiting room.” One patient also reported that the increased awareness was important, stating that “when [she] got home and realized that [her blood pressure] was still high, [she] did her own research and learned more about hypertension and preeclampsia.” Others reported that they still checked their blood pressure after the cycle, and “would have went longer than a week if they had asked me to.”

Discussions

Our results suggest that remote blood pressure monitoring via text message communication engages patients and shows promise as a convenient and effective means of hypertension surveillance in the immediate postpartum period, in accordance to ACOG guidelines. Additionally, we were able to test this monitoring system using inexpensive, rapid-cycle validation techniques. Although these techniques are insufficiently controlled and of inadequate statistical power for definitive results, they were able to provide quick evidence toward a pragmatic and workable solution to an important clinical problem within the specific clinical context of our practice, though the results are likely to generalize to other settings. We found varied compliance based on the different engagement strategies, and although no single cycle proved superior, overall patient participation was good and provides a basis for different texting options in future work. Developing a method that both engages patients and is streamlined for providers is critical to our ability to translate this recommendation into practice. Although we did not specifically test how the system works from a provider’s point of view, the study obstetricians believe that this would help and can be fit within the existing workflows of the practices at most institutions.

This rapid-cycle intervention study provides several additional lessons, as we were able to rapidly implement this on our unit and test several hypotheses related to patient engagement. Most patients found the text messaging system to be a convenient way to communicate with their obstetrician. Even when patients had prenatal care at other institutions and delivered at our hospital without a prior patient/physician relationship (n = 5), we were able to engage them in text messaging. However, there was some evidence of patient drop out over the course of the week, as patients were more likely to text in blood pressure in the first few days of the cycle than the last few days (Figure 2).

 

 

Other telemedicine interventions have been studied in maternity care and have had inconsistent results. The Cochrane review on telephone support for women during pregnancy and up to 6 weeks after birth found that interventions were mainly aimed at smoking cessation, breastfeeding continuation, preterm birth, and postpartum depression [19]. To date, none of the randomized trials in pregnancy or the postpartum period have focused on postpartum hypertension. The results of our interventions are encouraging and support the use of text messaging in obstetrical care, particularly in the postpartum period. While text messaging cannot provide all the information that can be obtained in a doctor’s visit, such as physical exam, urine dipsticks, and review of symptoms, it can identify the minority of patients that may need to be seen in the office based on the severity of their blood pressures.

While some cases of postpartum preeclampsia occur in the absence of peripartum disease, most readmitted patients are diagnosed with preeclampsia prior to delivery and readmission is due to worsening or persistence of disease and therefore, potentially preventable. These patients are the primary target of our intervention, as remote hypertension surveillance provides an opportunity to start or adjust medications and minimize both patient inconvenience and hospital cost of a readmission.

However, our feasibility study has some limitations. Despite overall patient satisfaction, acceptability, and compliance with text message monitoring of hypertension, the small sample size and qualitative nature of our cycles merits further pursuit and follow-up studies prior to implementation. Overall, we had only a small number of elevated blood pressures requiring intervention; however, this underscores the need to identify patients most at risk for persistent or delayed hypertension and the importance of developing a method of follow-up that engages all patients. Additionally, as patients were asked to both text in blood pressure values and also present for office visits, and therefore acted as their own control, it is not surprising that more patients were compliant with the simple texting method than standard of care; however, even when comparing texting compliance to historical attendance in our clinic of only 30%, our results remain promising.

While our results are encouraging, we believe it is important to test text messaging surveillance and patient compliance in a larger trial prior to implementing within the broader community. This study provides critical data to support the development of a HIPAA-compliant, automated monitoring system that can provide timely responses to patient texts using a provider derived response to blood pressure values. Future work includes the development of an automated hypertension tool as well as a randomized controlled trial to more rigorously compare office blood pressure visits to remote text message surveillance. If effective, use of text messaging technology may allow for an improved patient partnership and more robust follow-up data, especially in patients with less than optimal compliance, as well as the ability to improve maternal care and decrease morbidity and mortality.

 

Corresponding author: Adi Hirshberg, MD, Dept. of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, 2 Silverstein, 3400 Spruce St., Philadelphia, PA 19104, [email protected].

Funding/support: Supported by a Penn Medicine Innovation Accelerator grant.

Financial disclosures. None reported.

References

1. Creanga AA, Berg CJ, Syverson C, et al. Pregnancy-related mortality in the United States, 2006-2010. Obstet Gynecol 2015;125:5–12.

2. Report of the National High Blood Pressure Education Program Working Group on High Blood Pressure in Pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000;183:S1–S22.

3. Muri JH, Crawford N, Jellen BC. Reducing avoidable obstetrical and neonatal readmissions. American Hospital Association. Accessed 20 Sep 2016 at www.aha.org/content/11/PerinatalReadmissionscall1.pdf.

4. Walters BN, Walters T. Hypertension in the puerperium. Lancet 1987;2:330.

5. Sibai BM. Etiology and management of postpartum hypertension-preeclampsia. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012;206:470–5.

6. Executive summary: Hypertension in pregnancy. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol 2013;122:1122–31.

7. Scalise LF, Stringer M. Follow-up text messages for patients at high risk for postpartum hypertension. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 2015;44:S6.

8. Using health text messages to improve consumer health knowledge, behaviors, and outcomes: an environmental scan. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2014.

9. Gurol-Urganci I, de Jongh T, Vodopivec-Jamsek V, et al. Mobile phone messaging reminders for attendance at healthcare appointments. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013;5;12:CD007458.

10. Saffari M, Ghanizadeh G, Koenig HG. Health education via mobile text messaging for glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Prim Care Diabetes 2014;8:275–85.

11. Tran N, Coffma JM, Sumino K, Cabana MD. Patient reminder systems and asthma medication adherence: a systematic review. J Asthma 2014;51:536–43.

12. Horvath T, Azman H, Kennedy GE, Rutherford GW. Mobile phone text messaging for promoting adherence to antiretroviral therapy in patients with HIV infection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012;3:CD009756.

13. Kannisto KA, Koivunen MF, Valimaki MA. Use of mobile phone text message reminders in health care services: a narrative literature review. J Med Internet Res 2010;16:e222.

14. Pew Research Center. Mobile technology fact sheet. Accessed 17 Dec 2014 at www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheets/mobile-technology-fact-sheet/.

15. Duggan M. Cell phone activities 2013. Pew Research Center’s Internet and American Life Project. Available at www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2013/Cell-Activities.aspx.

16. Langley G, Nolan K, Nolan T, et al. The improvement guide: a practical approach to enhancing organizational performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 1996.

17. Brown P, Hare D. Rapid cycle improvement: controlling change. J Ark Med Soc 2003;99:320–1.

18. Aikens JE, Trivedi R, Aron DC, Piette JD. Integrating support persons into diabetes telemonitoring to improve self-management and medication adherence. J Gen Intern Med 2015;30:319–26.

19. Lavender T, Richens Y, Milan SJ, et al. Telephone support for women during pregnancy and the first six weeks postpartum. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013;7:CD009338.

Issue
Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management - February 2017, Vol. 24, No. 2
Publications
Topics
Sections

From the Maternal and Child Health Research Program, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA (Dr. Hirshberg, Dr. Srinivas); Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Department of Nursing, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Philadelphia, PA (Ms. Bittle); Penn Medicine Center for Health Care Innovation, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA (Mr. Vandertuyn, Ms. Mahraj, Dr. Asch, Mr. Rosin); and the Department of Family Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA (Dr. Bennett).

 

Abstract

  • Objective: To investigate engagement with a bidirectional text messaging system as an alternative to in-person follow-up for postpartum women with hypertensive disorders.
  • Methods: We utilized rapid-cycle innovation processes to implement postpartum SMS text messaging follow-up in women with hypertensive disorders who delivered between September–December 2014. Patients were given electronic blood pressure cuffs and education before discharge. Standard texts reminded patients to send blood pressures daily on each of the 7 days post discharge. The study obstetrician sent text message responses based on a pre-specified management algorithm. Ability to meet ACOG guidelines was defined as receiving at least 1 reading on post-discharge days 1 or 2 and days 5, 6, or 7.
  • Results: We enrolled 32 patients. Six (19%) returned for usual care office blood pressure checks. We received at least 1 blood pressure from 27 (84%) participants. Nearly 20 (65%) texted readings on 5 of the 7 days. 27 (84%) texted at least one reading on day 1 or 2, and 21 (66%) texted at least one pressure on day 5, 6, or 7 (P = 0.001 vs. usual care). Two patients required medications and none were readmitted for hypertension. Patients reported preference for home testing and text messaging over return visits.
  • Conclusion: Remote blood pressure monitoring via text messaging is a patient-centered method for postpartum hypertension surveillance. Further testing is needed prior to widespread adoption within the broader obstetric community.

Key words: postpartum hypertension, remote monitoring, text-based intervention.

 

Hypertensive disease is a leading cause of maternal morbidity and mortality [1,2] and the leading cause of obstetric readmissions, accounting for 27% of obstetric readmissions in the United States in 2009 [3]. The majority of patients readmitted with hypertension have a diagnosis of hypertensive disorder of pregnancy on initial admission for delivery, indicating that these readmissions are the result of disease persistence or progression in contrast to new-onset disease. Peak blood pressure in these patients usually occurs 3 to 6 days postpartum [4–6] and is typically unaccompanied by warning symptoms. For these reasons, identifying patients who are at risk for persistent disease and being proactive in their postpartum care may decrease postpartum stroke and seizure. The recent Hypertension in Pregnancy guidelines provided by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) recommend monitoring blood pressure for at least 72 hours postpartum (inpatient or outpatient) and again 7 to 10 days after delivery in women in whom a hypertensive disease of pregnancy is diagnosed [6].

Although there is a clear need for effective and reliable blood pressure surveillance for high-risk women soon after delivery, significant obstacles exist. Our own high-risk blood pressure transition clinic, which occurred every other week and was staffed by maternal-fetal medicine specialists, had an average attendance of only 30% over a 2-year period. Moreover, all of the hypertension-related readmissions occurred in the first 7 days post discharge, which was before the scheduled clinic visit for approximately 50% of patients. Phone call reminders were also found to be an ineffective strategy, as the women did not answer or return voice messages left by the practice. In fact, a postpartum unit quality improvement project validated that follow-up phone calls after discharge from the postpartum unit were less effective than text messaging when reminding women of their blood pressure follow-up appointment at the clinic [7].

As an alternative to in-person visits or traditional voice telephonic communication, mobile phone “Short Message Service” (SMS) text messaging has been used successfully in health care for appointment reminders, result reporting, support of medication and treatment adherence, and dosage adjustment [8–13]. As of 2014, 90% of American adults own a cell phone and over 79% of those send and receive text messages [14]. Among a young population, which is at high risk for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, data further reveals a preference for text messaging over live calls [15]. Among low-income women under age 30, the rates of cell phone use and text communication are very high [14,15], making text-based surveillance a promising and more patient-centered strategy for a broad population.

We report the results of rapid-cycle innovation and implementation of active, remote surveillance of hypertension with new text message communication strategies in the first 7 days post-discharge. We chose a Plan-Do-Study-Act cycle approach, in which small tests are performed and studied and changes made to accelerate improvement, in order to enhance our ability to acquire blood pressure data [16,17]. The goals of the work were to (1) assess patient engagement using a remote method of blood pressure monitoring, (2) increase ascertainment of postpartum blood pressure data and obtain at least once daily blood pressure readings on all patients on post discharge days 1–2 and 5–7, which is in accordance with the recommended guidelines [6] for blood pressure surveillance, and (3) address all “at risk” severe range blood pressure readings within a short time interval and prior to the need for readmission. We describe a program of remote blood pressure monitoring and communication via text message designed to increase patient engagement and participation, thereby having the potential to result in earlier interventions, reduce readmissions, and decrease overall morbidity.

Methods

We performed a series of 6 rapid-cycle innovation devel-opment and implementation interventions with a cohort of women with chronic hypertension (CHTN), gestational hypertension (GHTN), or preeclampsia (with and without severe features and superimposed) who delivered at our institution between 20 September 2014 and 14 December 2014. All patients were > 18 years old, able to speak and read English, had a hypertension diag-nosis listed above, and had access to a cell phone with unlimited text messaging capabilities. Patients received standard postpartum care and were continued or started on antihypertensive medications based on a standardized postpartum hypertension protocol previously developed at our institution (available on request). This project was undertaken as a quality improvement initiative and as such was exempt from formal review by our institutional review board. However, all patients signed a waiver acknowledging that SMS texting is not a secure communications technology. A single research telephone was used for physician-patient communication to further ensure privacy.

Patients who qualified for the intervention study were recruited on the postpartum unit following delivery. Those who agreed to participate were provided with electronic blood pressure monitors (CVS Pharmacy automatic blood pressure monitor and Omron 3 Series upper arm blood pressure monitor) prior to discharge and instructed on their use. Patients were told to expect their first text message reminder to send in their blood pressure the day after discharge; an example of a text reminder is “Good morning. Please send us a blood pressure reading by 12 pm.” Patients were enrolled for 7 days post discharge and were interviewed regarding their experience at the end of their 7-day enrollment. As this was primarily a feasibility and quality improvement study, patients were also instructed to continue to follow up with the standard of care at the hypertension clinic visit.

For each of the 7 days following discharge from the hospital, patients received a standard text message in the morning and afternoon reminding them to text their blood pressure to the research telephone by a specific time. Reported blood pressures were reviewed and a standard response was sent by the study obstetrician based on an algorithm consistent with the institution’s postpartum hypertension protocol. Patients were sent reminders at all time points whether or not they had texted any BPs.

The ACOG Hypertension in Pregnancy guidelines recommend monitoring blood pressure at 72 hours postpartum (inpatient or outpatient) and again 7 to 10 days postpartum in women diagnosed with a hypertensive disorder of pregnancy [6]. We measured our ability to meet these guidelines by identifying how many patients texted blood pressures on post-discharge days 1 or 2 and post-discharge days 5, 6, or 7, as most patients were discharged home on postpartum day 2 or 3.

Sequential interventions were performed following principles of rapid-cycle validation using a Plan-Do-Study-Act cycle [16,17], each testing new ways to enhance our ability to acquire blood pressure data, but using small samples large enough only to test feasibility and initial responses (Table 1).

Strategies to enhance patient engagement were modified based on patient interviews and results from the immediately preceding cycle (for example, Cycle 1 interview information and results were used to make changes in Cycle 2), as well as studies on telemonitoring adherence in other populations [18]. The program ended after 6 cycles, as the study team felt there was sufficient promise to design an expanded platform suitable for a larger study.

 

 

Results

Overall

We enrolled 32 patients across 6 intervention cycles. Aggregate and individual cycle demographics are listed in Table 2. Three patients (9%) had CHTN, 17 (53%) had GHTN, 8 (25%) had severe preeclampsia, and 4 (13%) had superimposed preeclampsia. The mean maternal age was 27 (± 4.6) years and average gestational age at time of delivery was 38w3d (± 5w4d). Mean day of discharge was postpartum day 2 (± 1d). All but 2 patients had singletons (94%).

At the patient level, we received at least 1 blood pressure during the requested time frame from 27 of the 32 patients enrolled (84%). Nearly 65% of patients (20/32) texted at least 1 blood pressure reading on at least 5 out of the 7 days enrolled. 

Of the 32 patients recruited, 27 (84%) texted at least one blood pressure on cycle day 1 or 2. Twenty-one of the 32 patients (66%) sent in at least 1 blood pressure on day 5, 6, or 7, meeting guideline recommendations for blood pressure measurements on days 7–10 postpartum. Two patients stopped texting blood pressures on cycle day 3 and three stopped responding on cycle 
day 4. However, all patients who texted blood pressures on days 5–7 were engaged since the start of the trial. Trend of engagement by cycle day is depicted in Figure 1. Only 6 patients (19%) returned for their scheduled office blood pressure check (routine care). None of the patients enrolled were readmitted for hypertension or for any other cause within 30 days of discharge.

Patient engagement and cycle outcomes are individually detailed by cycle intervention below and summarized in Table 3. Figure 2 compares patient responses meeting current ACOG recommendations for postpartum hypertension surveillance by cycle.

By Cycle

Cycle 1 - Basic

Cycle 1 tested our basic hypothesis that patients would take their blood pressure at home and transmit the results by text message: 5 of 7 patients responded to our reminders, each transmitting blood pressures on at least 5 of the 7 days requested.

Four severe-range blood pressures, defined as systolic blood pressure ≥ 160 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure ≥ 110 [6], were sent to the physician responder, two times each in 2 patients. All four “at risk” severe blood pressures were addressed within 24 hours of the text message. No medications were initiated, as elevated blood pressures were not persistent and patients were asymptomatic.

 

Cycle 2 - Education

Patients in Cycle 1 reported during their follow-up interview that they became more aware of the possible morbidity associated with persistent postpartum hypertension as the cycle progressed. Therefore, Cycle 2 tested our hypothesis that focused education would improve patient engagement.

All five patients in this cohort sent in at least one blood pressure during the cycle period. All transmitted at least one blood pressure text on post-discharge day 1 or 2. Four of the five patients (80%) also sent in at least one blood pressure on day 5, 6, or 7.

There were no significantly elevated blood pressures sent to the physician responder.

Cycle 3 - Personalization

Patients in Cycle 2 reported during their interview that they felt the text message responses from the provider were too automated. Cycle 3 tested our hypothesis that added personalization, with patient and infant names included in the messages, would improve engagement.

Three of five patients in this cohort sent at least one blood pressure text on post-discharge day 1 or 2 (60%). Only one patient (20%) also sent in at least one blood pressure on day 5, 6, or 7.

One significantly elevated blood pressure was sent to the physician responder. This blood pressure was addressed within 24 hours of the text message. No medications were initiated, as elevated blood pressures were not persistent and patients were asymptomatic.

Cycle 4 - Response Timing

Patients in Cycle 3 had lower response rates than previous cycles and noted that they wanted more flexibility in the time to respond, as their schedules were unpredictable with a newborn at home. Although they enjoyed the personalized aspect, they did not feel it influenced their responses, which is evidenced by the low response rate on days 5, 6, or 7. Therefore, Cycle 4 tested our hypothesis that allowing patients to commit to a time of their choice for receiving the reminder texts would improve their response rate.

All five patients enrolled in this cohort sent in at least one blood pressure. We received at least one blood pressure text on post-discharge day 1 or 2 from all five patients in this cycle (100%). Three of the five patients (60%) also sent in at least one blood pressure on day 5, 6, or 7.

Five severely elevated blood pressures were sent to the physician responder, all from a single patient. This patient had been discharged home on hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg for persistently elevated blood pressures while in the hospital after being diagnosed with severe preeclampsia. All five “at risk” blood pressures were addressed within 24 hours of the text message. On her fifth day of remote surveillance, 5 mg of amlodipine was added to her daily regimen for blood pressures ranging from 150–170/90–110 mm Hg. Her blood pressure at her 6-week postpartum visit was 120/60 mm Hg and she had seen her primary care doctor in the interim for further hypertension management.

Cycle 5 - Snooze and Countdown

Although most of the patients enrolled in Cycle 4 stated that they were very busy in the immediate postpartum period and not always able to respond in a timely fashion, allowing patients to receive the reminder text at their own designated convenient time did not increase engagement. Patients reported that while they always carried their cell phones, they did not always carry their blood pressure cuff, limiting their ability to send in a reading at the time of the reminder. Additionally, patients reported feeling less motivated to continue texting blood pressures towards the end of the cycle. Cycle 5 tested our hypothesis that patient engagement would improve if reminder text messages were sent closer to the morning or evening deadline. Patients were provided with the opportunity to request “snooze” response if they did have their cuff accessible. Additionally, standard responses were accompanied by a countdown message. For example, “Your blood pressure looks good. Four more days of checking your blood pressure to go.”

All five enrolled in this cohort sent in at least one blood pressure, and all (100%) transmitted at least one blood pressure text on post-discharge day 1 or 2 and on day 5, 6, or 7. Only two “snooze” requests were made over the course of the arm by a single patient, who responded both times after the additional reminder.

Four severely elevated blood pressures were sent to the physician responder, all from a single patient. This patient was diagnosed with preeclampsia with severe features on delivery admission, and her blood pressures normalized prior to discharge. All four “at risk” blood pressures were addressed within 24 hours of the text message. Due to persistently elevated diastolic blood pressures ranging from 110–120 mm Hg, she was started on hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg on day 6 of the cycle and monitored for additional days following cycle completion with improved blood pressures.

 

 

Cycle 6 - Snooze and Support Person

The patients in Cycle 5 were overall satisfied with their experience and did not provide any suggestions for change. However, we sought to see if integrating support persons into the protocol would affect engagement. Cycle 6 tested our hypothesis that patients would be more engaged if they had a self-identified support person reminding them to text their blood pressures. Patients provided the name of a support person to contact if a morning blood pressure was not received. Additionally, patients received the same “snooze” option as in Cycle 5. A total of five patients were enrolled in this cohort; one patient enrolled in the trial but did not send in any blood pressures despite daily reminders to both her and her support buddy. Only 2 additional buddy notifications were required in patients who did not send in a morning blood pressure reading and both times a subsequent blood pressure was sent. Two “snooze” requests were made over the course of the cycle by a single patient, who responded both times after the reminder.

Four of five patients in this cohort sent at least one blood pressure text on post-discharge day 1 or 2 (80%). Three patients (60%) also sent in at least one blood pressure on day 5, 6, or 7.

There were no significantly elevated blood pressures sent to the physician responder and no medications were initiated.

 

Post-Cycle Interviews

Overall, patients reported satisfaction with the text messaging system in their post-cycle interviews. The convenience of the intervention was acknowledged by many, including one patient who commented that “this was a lot better than having to pay for the bus and waiting for hours in some waiting room.” One patient also reported that the increased awareness was important, stating that “when [she] got home and realized that [her blood pressure] was still high, [she] did her own research and learned more about hypertension and preeclampsia.” Others reported that they still checked their blood pressure after the cycle, and “would have went longer than a week if they had asked me to.”

Discussions

Our results suggest that remote blood pressure monitoring via text message communication engages patients and shows promise as a convenient and effective means of hypertension surveillance in the immediate postpartum period, in accordance to ACOG guidelines. Additionally, we were able to test this monitoring system using inexpensive, rapid-cycle validation techniques. Although these techniques are insufficiently controlled and of inadequate statistical power for definitive results, they were able to provide quick evidence toward a pragmatic and workable solution to an important clinical problem within the specific clinical context of our practice, though the results are likely to generalize to other settings. We found varied compliance based on the different engagement strategies, and although no single cycle proved superior, overall patient participation was good and provides a basis for different texting options in future work. Developing a method that both engages patients and is streamlined for providers is critical to our ability to translate this recommendation into practice. Although we did not specifically test how the system works from a provider’s point of view, the study obstetricians believe that this would help and can be fit within the existing workflows of the practices at most institutions.

This rapid-cycle intervention study provides several additional lessons, as we were able to rapidly implement this on our unit and test several hypotheses related to patient engagement. Most patients found the text messaging system to be a convenient way to communicate with their obstetrician. Even when patients had prenatal care at other institutions and delivered at our hospital without a prior patient/physician relationship (n = 5), we were able to engage them in text messaging. However, there was some evidence of patient drop out over the course of the week, as patients were more likely to text in blood pressure in the first few days of the cycle than the last few days (Figure 2).

 

 

Other telemedicine interventions have been studied in maternity care and have had inconsistent results. The Cochrane review on telephone support for women during pregnancy and up to 6 weeks after birth found that interventions were mainly aimed at smoking cessation, breastfeeding continuation, preterm birth, and postpartum depression [19]. To date, none of the randomized trials in pregnancy or the postpartum period have focused on postpartum hypertension. The results of our interventions are encouraging and support the use of text messaging in obstetrical care, particularly in the postpartum period. While text messaging cannot provide all the information that can be obtained in a doctor’s visit, such as physical exam, urine dipsticks, and review of symptoms, it can identify the minority of patients that may need to be seen in the office based on the severity of their blood pressures.

While some cases of postpartum preeclampsia occur in the absence of peripartum disease, most readmitted patients are diagnosed with preeclampsia prior to delivery and readmission is due to worsening or persistence of disease and therefore, potentially preventable. These patients are the primary target of our intervention, as remote hypertension surveillance provides an opportunity to start or adjust medications and minimize both patient inconvenience and hospital cost of a readmission.

However, our feasibility study has some limitations. Despite overall patient satisfaction, acceptability, and compliance with text message monitoring of hypertension, the small sample size and qualitative nature of our cycles merits further pursuit and follow-up studies prior to implementation. Overall, we had only a small number of elevated blood pressures requiring intervention; however, this underscores the need to identify patients most at risk for persistent or delayed hypertension and the importance of developing a method of follow-up that engages all patients. Additionally, as patients were asked to both text in blood pressure values and also present for office visits, and therefore acted as their own control, it is not surprising that more patients were compliant with the simple texting method than standard of care; however, even when comparing texting compliance to historical attendance in our clinic of only 30%, our results remain promising.

While our results are encouraging, we believe it is important to test text messaging surveillance and patient compliance in a larger trial prior to implementing within the broader community. This study provides critical data to support the development of a HIPAA-compliant, automated monitoring system that can provide timely responses to patient texts using a provider derived response to blood pressure values. Future work includes the development of an automated hypertension tool as well as a randomized controlled trial to more rigorously compare office blood pressure visits to remote text message surveillance. If effective, use of text messaging technology may allow for an improved patient partnership and more robust follow-up data, especially in patients with less than optimal compliance, as well as the ability to improve maternal care and decrease morbidity and mortality.

 

Corresponding author: Adi Hirshberg, MD, Dept. of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, 2 Silverstein, 3400 Spruce St., Philadelphia, PA 19104, [email protected].

Funding/support: Supported by a Penn Medicine Innovation Accelerator grant.

Financial disclosures. None reported.

From the Maternal and Child Health Research Program, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA (Dr. Hirshberg, Dr. Srinivas); Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Department of Nursing, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Philadelphia, PA (Ms. Bittle); Penn Medicine Center for Health Care Innovation, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA (Mr. Vandertuyn, Ms. Mahraj, Dr. Asch, Mr. Rosin); and the Department of Family Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA (Dr. Bennett).

 

Abstract

  • Objective: To investigate engagement with a bidirectional text messaging system as an alternative to in-person follow-up for postpartum women with hypertensive disorders.
  • Methods: We utilized rapid-cycle innovation processes to implement postpartum SMS text messaging follow-up in women with hypertensive disorders who delivered between September–December 2014. Patients were given electronic blood pressure cuffs and education before discharge. Standard texts reminded patients to send blood pressures daily on each of the 7 days post discharge. The study obstetrician sent text message responses based on a pre-specified management algorithm. Ability to meet ACOG guidelines was defined as receiving at least 1 reading on post-discharge days 1 or 2 and days 5, 6, or 7.
  • Results: We enrolled 32 patients. Six (19%) returned for usual care office blood pressure checks. We received at least 1 blood pressure from 27 (84%) participants. Nearly 20 (65%) texted readings on 5 of the 7 days. 27 (84%) texted at least one reading on day 1 or 2, and 21 (66%) texted at least one pressure on day 5, 6, or 7 (P = 0.001 vs. usual care). Two patients required medications and none were readmitted for hypertension. Patients reported preference for home testing and text messaging over return visits.
  • Conclusion: Remote blood pressure monitoring via text messaging is a patient-centered method for postpartum hypertension surveillance. Further testing is needed prior to widespread adoption within the broader obstetric community.

Key words: postpartum hypertension, remote monitoring, text-based intervention.

 

Hypertensive disease is a leading cause of maternal morbidity and mortality [1,2] and the leading cause of obstetric readmissions, accounting for 27% of obstetric readmissions in the United States in 2009 [3]. The majority of patients readmitted with hypertension have a diagnosis of hypertensive disorder of pregnancy on initial admission for delivery, indicating that these readmissions are the result of disease persistence or progression in contrast to new-onset disease. Peak blood pressure in these patients usually occurs 3 to 6 days postpartum [4–6] and is typically unaccompanied by warning symptoms. For these reasons, identifying patients who are at risk for persistent disease and being proactive in their postpartum care may decrease postpartum stroke and seizure. The recent Hypertension in Pregnancy guidelines provided by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) recommend monitoring blood pressure for at least 72 hours postpartum (inpatient or outpatient) and again 7 to 10 days after delivery in women in whom a hypertensive disease of pregnancy is diagnosed [6].

Although there is a clear need for effective and reliable blood pressure surveillance for high-risk women soon after delivery, significant obstacles exist. Our own high-risk blood pressure transition clinic, which occurred every other week and was staffed by maternal-fetal medicine specialists, had an average attendance of only 30% over a 2-year period. Moreover, all of the hypertension-related readmissions occurred in the first 7 days post discharge, which was before the scheduled clinic visit for approximately 50% of patients. Phone call reminders were also found to be an ineffective strategy, as the women did not answer or return voice messages left by the practice. In fact, a postpartum unit quality improvement project validated that follow-up phone calls after discharge from the postpartum unit were less effective than text messaging when reminding women of their blood pressure follow-up appointment at the clinic [7].

As an alternative to in-person visits or traditional voice telephonic communication, mobile phone “Short Message Service” (SMS) text messaging has been used successfully in health care for appointment reminders, result reporting, support of medication and treatment adherence, and dosage adjustment [8–13]. As of 2014, 90% of American adults own a cell phone and over 79% of those send and receive text messages [14]. Among a young population, which is at high risk for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, data further reveals a preference for text messaging over live calls [15]. Among low-income women under age 30, the rates of cell phone use and text communication are very high [14,15], making text-based surveillance a promising and more patient-centered strategy for a broad population.

We report the results of rapid-cycle innovation and implementation of active, remote surveillance of hypertension with new text message communication strategies in the first 7 days post-discharge. We chose a Plan-Do-Study-Act cycle approach, in which small tests are performed and studied and changes made to accelerate improvement, in order to enhance our ability to acquire blood pressure data [16,17]. The goals of the work were to (1) assess patient engagement using a remote method of blood pressure monitoring, (2) increase ascertainment of postpartum blood pressure data and obtain at least once daily blood pressure readings on all patients on post discharge days 1–2 and 5–7, which is in accordance with the recommended guidelines [6] for blood pressure surveillance, and (3) address all “at risk” severe range blood pressure readings within a short time interval and prior to the need for readmission. We describe a program of remote blood pressure monitoring and communication via text message designed to increase patient engagement and participation, thereby having the potential to result in earlier interventions, reduce readmissions, and decrease overall morbidity.

Methods

We performed a series of 6 rapid-cycle innovation devel-opment and implementation interventions with a cohort of women with chronic hypertension (CHTN), gestational hypertension (GHTN), or preeclampsia (with and without severe features and superimposed) who delivered at our institution between 20 September 2014 and 14 December 2014. All patients were > 18 years old, able to speak and read English, had a hypertension diag-nosis listed above, and had access to a cell phone with unlimited text messaging capabilities. Patients received standard postpartum care and were continued or started on antihypertensive medications based on a standardized postpartum hypertension protocol previously developed at our institution (available on request). This project was undertaken as a quality improvement initiative and as such was exempt from formal review by our institutional review board. However, all patients signed a waiver acknowledging that SMS texting is not a secure communications technology. A single research telephone was used for physician-patient communication to further ensure privacy.

Patients who qualified for the intervention study were recruited on the postpartum unit following delivery. Those who agreed to participate were provided with electronic blood pressure monitors (CVS Pharmacy automatic blood pressure monitor and Omron 3 Series upper arm blood pressure monitor) prior to discharge and instructed on their use. Patients were told to expect their first text message reminder to send in their blood pressure the day after discharge; an example of a text reminder is “Good morning. Please send us a blood pressure reading by 12 pm.” Patients were enrolled for 7 days post discharge and were interviewed regarding their experience at the end of their 7-day enrollment. As this was primarily a feasibility and quality improvement study, patients were also instructed to continue to follow up with the standard of care at the hypertension clinic visit.

For each of the 7 days following discharge from the hospital, patients received a standard text message in the morning and afternoon reminding them to text their blood pressure to the research telephone by a specific time. Reported blood pressures were reviewed and a standard response was sent by the study obstetrician based on an algorithm consistent with the institution’s postpartum hypertension protocol. Patients were sent reminders at all time points whether or not they had texted any BPs.

The ACOG Hypertension in Pregnancy guidelines recommend monitoring blood pressure at 72 hours postpartum (inpatient or outpatient) and again 7 to 10 days postpartum in women diagnosed with a hypertensive disorder of pregnancy [6]. We measured our ability to meet these guidelines by identifying how many patients texted blood pressures on post-discharge days 1 or 2 and post-discharge days 5, 6, or 7, as most patients were discharged home on postpartum day 2 or 3.

Sequential interventions were performed following principles of rapid-cycle validation using a Plan-Do-Study-Act cycle [16,17], each testing new ways to enhance our ability to acquire blood pressure data, but using small samples large enough only to test feasibility and initial responses (Table 1).

Strategies to enhance patient engagement were modified based on patient interviews and results from the immediately preceding cycle (for example, Cycle 1 interview information and results were used to make changes in Cycle 2), as well as studies on telemonitoring adherence in other populations [18]. The program ended after 6 cycles, as the study team felt there was sufficient promise to design an expanded platform suitable for a larger study.

 

 

Results

Overall

We enrolled 32 patients across 6 intervention cycles. Aggregate and individual cycle demographics are listed in Table 2. Three patients (9%) had CHTN, 17 (53%) had GHTN, 8 (25%) had severe preeclampsia, and 4 (13%) had superimposed preeclampsia. The mean maternal age was 27 (± 4.6) years and average gestational age at time of delivery was 38w3d (± 5w4d). Mean day of discharge was postpartum day 2 (± 1d). All but 2 patients had singletons (94%).

At the patient level, we received at least 1 blood pressure during the requested time frame from 27 of the 32 patients enrolled (84%). Nearly 65% of patients (20/32) texted at least 1 blood pressure reading on at least 5 out of the 7 days enrolled. 

Of the 32 patients recruited, 27 (84%) texted at least one blood pressure on cycle day 1 or 2. Twenty-one of the 32 patients (66%) sent in at least 1 blood pressure on day 5, 6, or 7, meeting guideline recommendations for blood pressure measurements on days 7–10 postpartum. Two patients stopped texting blood pressures on cycle day 3 and three stopped responding on cycle 
day 4. However, all patients who texted blood pressures on days 5–7 were engaged since the start of the trial. Trend of engagement by cycle day is depicted in Figure 1. Only 6 patients (19%) returned for their scheduled office blood pressure check (routine care). None of the patients enrolled were readmitted for hypertension or for any other cause within 30 days of discharge.

Patient engagement and cycle outcomes are individually detailed by cycle intervention below and summarized in Table 3. Figure 2 compares patient responses meeting current ACOG recommendations for postpartum hypertension surveillance by cycle.

By Cycle

Cycle 1 - Basic

Cycle 1 tested our basic hypothesis that patients would take their blood pressure at home and transmit the results by text message: 5 of 7 patients responded to our reminders, each transmitting blood pressures on at least 5 of the 7 days requested.

Four severe-range blood pressures, defined as systolic blood pressure ≥ 160 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure ≥ 110 [6], were sent to the physician responder, two times each in 2 patients. All four “at risk” severe blood pressures were addressed within 24 hours of the text message. No medications were initiated, as elevated blood pressures were not persistent and patients were asymptomatic.

 

Cycle 2 - Education

Patients in Cycle 1 reported during their follow-up interview that they became more aware of the possible morbidity associated with persistent postpartum hypertension as the cycle progressed. Therefore, Cycle 2 tested our hypothesis that focused education would improve patient engagement.

All five patients in this cohort sent in at least one blood pressure during the cycle period. All transmitted at least one blood pressure text on post-discharge day 1 or 2. Four of the five patients (80%) also sent in at least one blood pressure on day 5, 6, or 7.

There were no significantly elevated blood pressures sent to the physician responder.

Cycle 3 - Personalization

Patients in Cycle 2 reported during their interview that they felt the text message responses from the provider were too automated. Cycle 3 tested our hypothesis that added personalization, with patient and infant names included in the messages, would improve engagement.

Three of five patients in this cohort sent at least one blood pressure text on post-discharge day 1 or 2 (60%). Only one patient (20%) also sent in at least one blood pressure on day 5, 6, or 7.

One significantly elevated blood pressure was sent to the physician responder. This blood pressure was addressed within 24 hours of the text message. No medications were initiated, as elevated blood pressures were not persistent and patients were asymptomatic.

Cycle 4 - Response Timing

Patients in Cycle 3 had lower response rates than previous cycles and noted that they wanted more flexibility in the time to respond, as their schedules were unpredictable with a newborn at home. Although they enjoyed the personalized aspect, they did not feel it influenced their responses, which is evidenced by the low response rate on days 5, 6, or 7. Therefore, Cycle 4 tested our hypothesis that allowing patients to commit to a time of their choice for receiving the reminder texts would improve their response rate.

All five patients enrolled in this cohort sent in at least one blood pressure. We received at least one blood pressure text on post-discharge day 1 or 2 from all five patients in this cycle (100%). Three of the five patients (60%) also sent in at least one blood pressure on day 5, 6, or 7.

Five severely elevated blood pressures were sent to the physician responder, all from a single patient. This patient had been discharged home on hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg for persistently elevated blood pressures while in the hospital after being diagnosed with severe preeclampsia. All five “at risk” blood pressures were addressed within 24 hours of the text message. On her fifth day of remote surveillance, 5 mg of amlodipine was added to her daily regimen for blood pressures ranging from 150–170/90–110 mm Hg. Her blood pressure at her 6-week postpartum visit was 120/60 mm Hg and she had seen her primary care doctor in the interim for further hypertension management.

Cycle 5 - Snooze and Countdown

Although most of the patients enrolled in Cycle 4 stated that they were very busy in the immediate postpartum period and not always able to respond in a timely fashion, allowing patients to receive the reminder text at their own designated convenient time did not increase engagement. Patients reported that while they always carried their cell phones, they did not always carry their blood pressure cuff, limiting their ability to send in a reading at the time of the reminder. Additionally, patients reported feeling less motivated to continue texting blood pressures towards the end of the cycle. Cycle 5 tested our hypothesis that patient engagement would improve if reminder text messages were sent closer to the morning or evening deadline. Patients were provided with the opportunity to request “snooze” response if they did have their cuff accessible. Additionally, standard responses were accompanied by a countdown message. For example, “Your blood pressure looks good. Four more days of checking your blood pressure to go.”

All five enrolled in this cohort sent in at least one blood pressure, and all (100%) transmitted at least one blood pressure text on post-discharge day 1 or 2 and on day 5, 6, or 7. Only two “snooze” requests were made over the course of the arm by a single patient, who responded both times after the additional reminder.

Four severely elevated blood pressures were sent to the physician responder, all from a single patient. This patient was diagnosed with preeclampsia with severe features on delivery admission, and her blood pressures normalized prior to discharge. All four “at risk” blood pressures were addressed within 24 hours of the text message. Due to persistently elevated diastolic blood pressures ranging from 110–120 mm Hg, she was started on hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg on day 6 of the cycle and monitored for additional days following cycle completion with improved blood pressures.

 

 

Cycle 6 - Snooze and Support Person

The patients in Cycle 5 were overall satisfied with their experience and did not provide any suggestions for change. However, we sought to see if integrating support persons into the protocol would affect engagement. Cycle 6 tested our hypothesis that patients would be more engaged if they had a self-identified support person reminding them to text their blood pressures. Patients provided the name of a support person to contact if a morning blood pressure was not received. Additionally, patients received the same “snooze” option as in Cycle 5. A total of five patients were enrolled in this cohort; one patient enrolled in the trial but did not send in any blood pressures despite daily reminders to both her and her support buddy. Only 2 additional buddy notifications were required in patients who did not send in a morning blood pressure reading and both times a subsequent blood pressure was sent. Two “snooze” requests were made over the course of the cycle by a single patient, who responded both times after the reminder.

Four of five patients in this cohort sent at least one blood pressure text on post-discharge day 1 or 2 (80%). Three patients (60%) also sent in at least one blood pressure on day 5, 6, or 7.

There were no significantly elevated blood pressures sent to the physician responder and no medications were initiated.

 

Post-Cycle Interviews

Overall, patients reported satisfaction with the text messaging system in their post-cycle interviews. The convenience of the intervention was acknowledged by many, including one patient who commented that “this was a lot better than having to pay for the bus and waiting for hours in some waiting room.” One patient also reported that the increased awareness was important, stating that “when [she] got home and realized that [her blood pressure] was still high, [she] did her own research and learned more about hypertension and preeclampsia.” Others reported that they still checked their blood pressure after the cycle, and “would have went longer than a week if they had asked me to.”

Discussions

Our results suggest that remote blood pressure monitoring via text message communication engages patients and shows promise as a convenient and effective means of hypertension surveillance in the immediate postpartum period, in accordance to ACOG guidelines. Additionally, we were able to test this monitoring system using inexpensive, rapid-cycle validation techniques. Although these techniques are insufficiently controlled and of inadequate statistical power for definitive results, they were able to provide quick evidence toward a pragmatic and workable solution to an important clinical problem within the specific clinical context of our practice, though the results are likely to generalize to other settings. We found varied compliance based on the different engagement strategies, and although no single cycle proved superior, overall patient participation was good and provides a basis for different texting options in future work. Developing a method that both engages patients and is streamlined for providers is critical to our ability to translate this recommendation into practice. Although we did not specifically test how the system works from a provider’s point of view, the study obstetricians believe that this would help and can be fit within the existing workflows of the practices at most institutions.

This rapid-cycle intervention study provides several additional lessons, as we were able to rapidly implement this on our unit and test several hypotheses related to patient engagement. Most patients found the text messaging system to be a convenient way to communicate with their obstetrician. Even when patients had prenatal care at other institutions and delivered at our hospital without a prior patient/physician relationship (n = 5), we were able to engage them in text messaging. However, there was some evidence of patient drop out over the course of the week, as patients were more likely to text in blood pressure in the first few days of the cycle than the last few days (Figure 2).

 

 

Other telemedicine interventions have been studied in maternity care and have had inconsistent results. The Cochrane review on telephone support for women during pregnancy and up to 6 weeks after birth found that interventions were mainly aimed at smoking cessation, breastfeeding continuation, preterm birth, and postpartum depression [19]. To date, none of the randomized trials in pregnancy or the postpartum period have focused on postpartum hypertension. The results of our interventions are encouraging and support the use of text messaging in obstetrical care, particularly in the postpartum period. While text messaging cannot provide all the information that can be obtained in a doctor’s visit, such as physical exam, urine dipsticks, and review of symptoms, it can identify the minority of patients that may need to be seen in the office based on the severity of their blood pressures.

While some cases of postpartum preeclampsia occur in the absence of peripartum disease, most readmitted patients are diagnosed with preeclampsia prior to delivery and readmission is due to worsening or persistence of disease and therefore, potentially preventable. These patients are the primary target of our intervention, as remote hypertension surveillance provides an opportunity to start or adjust medications and minimize both patient inconvenience and hospital cost of a readmission.

However, our feasibility study has some limitations. Despite overall patient satisfaction, acceptability, and compliance with text message monitoring of hypertension, the small sample size and qualitative nature of our cycles merits further pursuit and follow-up studies prior to implementation. Overall, we had only a small number of elevated blood pressures requiring intervention; however, this underscores the need to identify patients most at risk for persistent or delayed hypertension and the importance of developing a method of follow-up that engages all patients. Additionally, as patients were asked to both text in blood pressure values and also present for office visits, and therefore acted as their own control, it is not surprising that more patients were compliant with the simple texting method than standard of care; however, even when comparing texting compliance to historical attendance in our clinic of only 30%, our results remain promising.

While our results are encouraging, we believe it is important to test text messaging surveillance and patient compliance in a larger trial prior to implementing within the broader community. This study provides critical data to support the development of a HIPAA-compliant, automated monitoring system that can provide timely responses to patient texts using a provider derived response to blood pressure values. Future work includes the development of an automated hypertension tool as well as a randomized controlled trial to more rigorously compare office blood pressure visits to remote text message surveillance. If effective, use of text messaging technology may allow for an improved patient partnership and more robust follow-up data, especially in patients with less than optimal compliance, as well as the ability to improve maternal care and decrease morbidity and mortality.

 

Corresponding author: Adi Hirshberg, MD, Dept. of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, 2 Silverstein, 3400 Spruce St., Philadelphia, PA 19104, [email protected].

Funding/support: Supported by a Penn Medicine Innovation Accelerator grant.

Financial disclosures. None reported.

References

1. Creanga AA, Berg CJ, Syverson C, et al. Pregnancy-related mortality in the United States, 2006-2010. Obstet Gynecol 2015;125:5–12.

2. Report of the National High Blood Pressure Education Program Working Group on High Blood Pressure in Pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000;183:S1–S22.

3. Muri JH, Crawford N, Jellen BC. Reducing avoidable obstetrical and neonatal readmissions. American Hospital Association. Accessed 20 Sep 2016 at www.aha.org/content/11/PerinatalReadmissionscall1.pdf.

4. Walters BN, Walters T. Hypertension in the puerperium. Lancet 1987;2:330.

5. Sibai BM. Etiology and management of postpartum hypertension-preeclampsia. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012;206:470–5.

6. Executive summary: Hypertension in pregnancy. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol 2013;122:1122–31.

7. Scalise LF, Stringer M. Follow-up text messages for patients at high risk for postpartum hypertension. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 2015;44:S6.

8. Using health text messages to improve consumer health knowledge, behaviors, and outcomes: an environmental scan. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2014.

9. Gurol-Urganci I, de Jongh T, Vodopivec-Jamsek V, et al. Mobile phone messaging reminders for attendance at healthcare appointments. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013;5;12:CD007458.

10. Saffari M, Ghanizadeh G, Koenig HG. Health education via mobile text messaging for glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Prim Care Diabetes 2014;8:275–85.

11. Tran N, Coffma JM, Sumino K, Cabana MD. Patient reminder systems and asthma medication adherence: a systematic review. J Asthma 2014;51:536–43.

12. Horvath T, Azman H, Kennedy GE, Rutherford GW. Mobile phone text messaging for promoting adherence to antiretroviral therapy in patients with HIV infection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012;3:CD009756.

13. Kannisto KA, Koivunen MF, Valimaki MA. Use of mobile phone text message reminders in health care services: a narrative literature review. J Med Internet Res 2010;16:e222.

14. Pew Research Center. Mobile technology fact sheet. Accessed 17 Dec 2014 at www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheets/mobile-technology-fact-sheet/.

15. Duggan M. Cell phone activities 2013. Pew Research Center’s Internet and American Life Project. Available at www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2013/Cell-Activities.aspx.

16. Langley G, Nolan K, Nolan T, et al. The improvement guide: a practical approach to enhancing organizational performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 1996.

17. Brown P, Hare D. Rapid cycle improvement: controlling change. J Ark Med Soc 2003;99:320–1.

18. Aikens JE, Trivedi R, Aron DC, Piette JD. Integrating support persons into diabetes telemonitoring to improve self-management and medication adherence. J Gen Intern Med 2015;30:319–26.

19. Lavender T, Richens Y, Milan SJ, et al. Telephone support for women during pregnancy and the first six weeks postpartum. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013;7:CD009338.

References

1. Creanga AA, Berg CJ, Syverson C, et al. Pregnancy-related mortality in the United States, 2006-2010. Obstet Gynecol 2015;125:5–12.

2. Report of the National High Blood Pressure Education Program Working Group on High Blood Pressure in Pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000;183:S1–S22.

3. Muri JH, Crawford N, Jellen BC. Reducing avoidable obstetrical and neonatal readmissions. American Hospital Association. Accessed 20 Sep 2016 at www.aha.org/content/11/PerinatalReadmissionscall1.pdf.

4. Walters BN, Walters T. Hypertension in the puerperium. Lancet 1987;2:330.

5. Sibai BM. Etiology and management of postpartum hypertension-preeclampsia. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012;206:470–5.

6. Executive summary: Hypertension in pregnancy. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol 2013;122:1122–31.

7. Scalise LF, Stringer M. Follow-up text messages for patients at high risk for postpartum hypertension. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 2015;44:S6.

8. Using health text messages to improve consumer health knowledge, behaviors, and outcomes: an environmental scan. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2014.

9. Gurol-Urganci I, de Jongh T, Vodopivec-Jamsek V, et al. Mobile phone messaging reminders for attendance at healthcare appointments. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013;5;12:CD007458.

10. Saffari M, Ghanizadeh G, Koenig HG. Health education via mobile text messaging for glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Prim Care Diabetes 2014;8:275–85.

11. Tran N, Coffma JM, Sumino K, Cabana MD. Patient reminder systems and asthma medication adherence: a systematic review. J Asthma 2014;51:536–43.

12. Horvath T, Azman H, Kennedy GE, Rutherford GW. Mobile phone text messaging for promoting adherence to antiretroviral therapy in patients with HIV infection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012;3:CD009756.

13. Kannisto KA, Koivunen MF, Valimaki MA. Use of mobile phone text message reminders in health care services: a narrative literature review. J Med Internet Res 2010;16:e222.

14. Pew Research Center. Mobile technology fact sheet. Accessed 17 Dec 2014 at www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheets/mobile-technology-fact-sheet/.

15. Duggan M. Cell phone activities 2013. Pew Research Center’s Internet and American Life Project. Available at www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2013/Cell-Activities.aspx.

16. Langley G, Nolan K, Nolan T, et al. The improvement guide: a practical approach to enhancing organizational performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 1996.

17. Brown P, Hare D. Rapid cycle improvement: controlling change. J Ark Med Soc 2003;99:320–1.

18. Aikens JE, Trivedi R, Aron DC, Piette JD. Integrating support persons into diabetes telemonitoring to improve self-management and medication adherence. J Gen Intern Med 2015;30:319–26.

19. Lavender T, Richens Y, Milan SJ, et al. Telephone support for women during pregnancy and the first six weeks postpartum. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013;7:CD009338.

Issue
Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management - February 2017, Vol. 24, No. 2
Issue
Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management - February 2017, Vol. 24, No. 2
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Rapid-Cycle Innovation Testing of Text-Based Monitoring for Management of Postpartum Hypertension
Display Headline
Rapid-Cycle Innovation Testing of Text-Based Monitoring for Management of Postpartum Hypertension
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica

Nurse Jackie and Patrick Kennedy

Article Type
Changed
Fri, 01/18/2019 - 16:31


Nurse Jackie is an amazing woman: She’s a fantastically competent and compassionate ER nurse who will do anything for her patients, and she is far better than the caricature ER docs she works with who all care more about their designer shoes and designer egos then about their jobs. She’s a wife – at least in the early episodes – and mother to two adorable girls with a life that includes Mommy and Me tap dancing classes. She somehow juggles it all.

In her fictional life as the star of a Showtime series, “Jackie Peyton” – played by actress Edie Falco, formerly known for her role as Tony Soprano’s wife, Carmela – manages even more: She does it all while popping pain pills by the handful throughout the work day and snorting whatever there is to snort. The interesting thing about Jackie is that her drug habit never interferes with her ability to function. There are no episodes where she makes mistakes or falls asleep. She doesn’t get too wired and is rarely irritable, and she certainly doesn’t pass out from overdoses. She shows up at work on time and never falls off her tightrope of responsibilities in the busy All Saints Hospital ER of New York City.

Without the drugs, she gets ill, but with them, she just functions. And she doesn’t just hold her own with a busy life; she also juggles the secret life of what it takes to get her daily fix, including daily lunchtime sex with the hospital pharmacist, who provides her with pain medicines for her aching back and doesn’t initially know that she’s married with children.

By Season 6, her personal life has broken down, and her daughter Grace, now an angry teenager with her own difficulties and secret life, notes that mom Jackie is incredibly good at hiding her drug use, and that no one can tell when she’s using.

With each season, Jackie’s personal life unwinds a little more, but it’s not because of the effects constant pill-popping has on her behavior; it’s because of the difficulties she has obtaining the drugs. If she could go to the store and buy large amounts of oxycontin and whatever else she takes, she’d have no problem. Her cauldron, however, is filled with constant lies and deception and the secret lives she lives to obtain drugs and to avoid boiling in her own self-made addictive mess.

Dr. Dinah Miller
Dr. Dinah Miller
I’m only at the end of Season 6, and Jackie already has had a year of sobriety – broken on her 1-year anniversary – and perhaps things will change in the final season, but so far, I’m struck by how well she manages to consistently function while living life high. It’s the perfect series to watch at the gym – entertaining, but it doesn’t ask much of the viewer.

You wouldn’t expect a review of a dark comedy TV series together with a review of a very serious memoir written by former Rep. Patrick J. Kennedy, but somehow, the two fit together for me.

In “A Common Struggle,” Patrick Kennedy and author Stephen Fried march through Kennedy’s long history of mental illness and substance abuse. Kennedy talks about his life in psychotherapy starting in childhood, related to his parents’ separation. He talks about the treatment he received in college and during his time as a state legislator in Providence, R.I., and how he parked far from his psychiatrist’s office so no one would learn he was in treatment.

Unfortunately, while he found treatment to be very helpful, he stopped when his doctor, Peter Kramer, became a celebrity in his own right after the publication of “Listening to Prozac” (New York: Penguin Books, 1997), and Kennedy became “spooked.” He goes on to talk about the many treatments – including lists of medications – he received over the years and his diagnosis of bipolar disorder, type II. But he doesn’t document what symptoms or episodes led to this diagnosis, and I couldn’t help but wonder how much of his mood disorder was part and parcel of his substance abuse problem. I imagine his doctors may have had the same problem.

So while Kennedy is vague about his psychiatric illness, he is much more forthcoming with his substance abuse problem. Like Nurse Jackie, he has the constant flow of pills – prescribed opiates starting with the diagnosis of a spinal tumor, a handful of Adderall here, some benzodiazepines there, and an enormous issue with alcohol on top of all that. Unlike Nurse Jackie, Kennedy wears the results of his addictions openly. He sleeps through mornings, and his schedulers know to accommodate this. He says things he otherwise wouldn’t while intoxicated, and he embarrasses himself and has others on edge. His mentor in the House of Representatives was Dick Gephardt, and Gephardt’s chief of staff summoned Kennedy to ask him to become chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee – a tremendous honor for a 31-year-old congressman.

“There was, however, one catch,” the authors wrote. “ ‘If you do this,’ he said, ‘you can’t drink.’ ” Kennedy notes that he didn’t have the insight to realize how odd this was, and in reflection calls it his first intervention.

While most of his difficulties remained relatively private, one night he mixed Ambien and Phenergan, and in a state of confusion, he went for a drive and crashed into a Capitol Hill concrete barrier – an event that led to media coverage, scandal, and, as his chief of staff put it, “ ‘Patrick,’ he said, ‘we have a problem.’ ” While his father, Sen. Ted Kennedy, dismissed this as “a little fendah bendah,” the son made a public statement and checked himself into a rehab unit at the Mayo Clinic. It was to be the second of many attempts at rehab, his first having been in high school.

What makes “A Common Struggle” (New York: Blue Rider Press, 2015) so special is not just that it is a strikingly candid memoir of addiction and illness in a successful congressman, nor that the congressman happens to be a Kennedy with all the glamour and tragedy that come with being born into that family. What makes it special is the way that Kennedy and Fried weave so much more into this riveting book. It’s the story of one man’s life, taken in the full context of a family bound by tragedies: the assassinations of two of his uncles before his birth, an aunt who’d had a lobotomy and inspired a whole advocacy organization for developmental disabilities, two siblings who struggled with cancer, and two parents with their own addictions and scandalous behaviors. His mother’s psychiatric illness was severe enough that her children obtained guardianship, and that’s just a smattering of all the Kennedy family events that are reported here.

The story unfolds against the backdrop of major news events in America, and combines itself with the complex story of parity legislation and the struggle to legitimize brain diseases as worthy of funding, awareness, and destigmatization. And if that’s not enough for one book to do, it all takes place within Patrick Kennedy’s poignant and powerful desire to gain his father’s approval. Ultimately, the son achieves an extended period of sobriety in the context of falling in love and starting a family, well into his 40s.

Nurse Jackie, despite her drug use and personal woes, is fictional and entertaining. “A Common Struggle” is a serious book and heartfelt look at how addiction and mental illness destroy lives; there is little doubt here that without the Kennedy machine for support and privilege, a 20-year-old compromised college student would not have been able to start or maintain a successful political career. Kudos to Mr. Kennedy for sharing his pain and for helping to break the stereotype that those with mental illness and substance abuse can only be found in jails or under bridges.
 

 

 

Dr. Miller is coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Care,” which was released last fall (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press).

Publications
Topics
Sections
Related Articles


Nurse Jackie is an amazing woman: She’s a fantastically competent and compassionate ER nurse who will do anything for her patients, and she is far better than the caricature ER docs she works with who all care more about their designer shoes and designer egos then about their jobs. She’s a wife – at least in the early episodes – and mother to two adorable girls with a life that includes Mommy and Me tap dancing classes. She somehow juggles it all.

In her fictional life as the star of a Showtime series, “Jackie Peyton” – played by actress Edie Falco, formerly known for her role as Tony Soprano’s wife, Carmela – manages even more: She does it all while popping pain pills by the handful throughout the work day and snorting whatever there is to snort. The interesting thing about Jackie is that her drug habit never interferes with her ability to function. There are no episodes where she makes mistakes or falls asleep. She doesn’t get too wired and is rarely irritable, and she certainly doesn’t pass out from overdoses. She shows up at work on time and never falls off her tightrope of responsibilities in the busy All Saints Hospital ER of New York City.

Without the drugs, she gets ill, but with them, she just functions. And she doesn’t just hold her own with a busy life; she also juggles the secret life of what it takes to get her daily fix, including daily lunchtime sex with the hospital pharmacist, who provides her with pain medicines for her aching back and doesn’t initially know that she’s married with children.

By Season 6, her personal life has broken down, and her daughter Grace, now an angry teenager with her own difficulties and secret life, notes that mom Jackie is incredibly good at hiding her drug use, and that no one can tell when she’s using.

With each season, Jackie’s personal life unwinds a little more, but it’s not because of the effects constant pill-popping has on her behavior; it’s because of the difficulties she has obtaining the drugs. If she could go to the store and buy large amounts of oxycontin and whatever else she takes, she’d have no problem. Her cauldron, however, is filled with constant lies and deception and the secret lives she lives to obtain drugs and to avoid boiling in her own self-made addictive mess.

Dr. Dinah Miller
Dr. Dinah Miller
I’m only at the end of Season 6, and Jackie already has had a year of sobriety – broken on her 1-year anniversary – and perhaps things will change in the final season, but so far, I’m struck by how well she manages to consistently function while living life high. It’s the perfect series to watch at the gym – entertaining, but it doesn’t ask much of the viewer.

You wouldn’t expect a review of a dark comedy TV series together with a review of a very serious memoir written by former Rep. Patrick J. Kennedy, but somehow, the two fit together for me.

In “A Common Struggle,” Patrick Kennedy and author Stephen Fried march through Kennedy’s long history of mental illness and substance abuse. Kennedy talks about his life in psychotherapy starting in childhood, related to his parents’ separation. He talks about the treatment he received in college and during his time as a state legislator in Providence, R.I., and how he parked far from his psychiatrist’s office so no one would learn he was in treatment.

Unfortunately, while he found treatment to be very helpful, he stopped when his doctor, Peter Kramer, became a celebrity in his own right after the publication of “Listening to Prozac” (New York: Penguin Books, 1997), and Kennedy became “spooked.” He goes on to talk about the many treatments – including lists of medications – he received over the years and his diagnosis of bipolar disorder, type II. But he doesn’t document what symptoms or episodes led to this diagnosis, and I couldn’t help but wonder how much of his mood disorder was part and parcel of his substance abuse problem. I imagine his doctors may have had the same problem.

So while Kennedy is vague about his psychiatric illness, he is much more forthcoming with his substance abuse problem. Like Nurse Jackie, he has the constant flow of pills – prescribed opiates starting with the diagnosis of a spinal tumor, a handful of Adderall here, some benzodiazepines there, and an enormous issue with alcohol on top of all that. Unlike Nurse Jackie, Kennedy wears the results of his addictions openly. He sleeps through mornings, and his schedulers know to accommodate this. He says things he otherwise wouldn’t while intoxicated, and he embarrasses himself and has others on edge. His mentor in the House of Representatives was Dick Gephardt, and Gephardt’s chief of staff summoned Kennedy to ask him to become chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee – a tremendous honor for a 31-year-old congressman.

“There was, however, one catch,” the authors wrote. “ ‘If you do this,’ he said, ‘you can’t drink.’ ” Kennedy notes that he didn’t have the insight to realize how odd this was, and in reflection calls it his first intervention.

While most of his difficulties remained relatively private, one night he mixed Ambien and Phenergan, and in a state of confusion, he went for a drive and crashed into a Capitol Hill concrete barrier – an event that led to media coverage, scandal, and, as his chief of staff put it, “ ‘Patrick,’ he said, ‘we have a problem.’ ” While his father, Sen. Ted Kennedy, dismissed this as “a little fendah bendah,” the son made a public statement and checked himself into a rehab unit at the Mayo Clinic. It was to be the second of many attempts at rehab, his first having been in high school.

What makes “A Common Struggle” (New York: Blue Rider Press, 2015) so special is not just that it is a strikingly candid memoir of addiction and illness in a successful congressman, nor that the congressman happens to be a Kennedy with all the glamour and tragedy that come with being born into that family. What makes it special is the way that Kennedy and Fried weave so much more into this riveting book. It’s the story of one man’s life, taken in the full context of a family bound by tragedies: the assassinations of two of his uncles before his birth, an aunt who’d had a lobotomy and inspired a whole advocacy organization for developmental disabilities, two siblings who struggled with cancer, and two parents with their own addictions and scandalous behaviors. His mother’s psychiatric illness was severe enough that her children obtained guardianship, and that’s just a smattering of all the Kennedy family events that are reported here.

The story unfolds against the backdrop of major news events in America, and combines itself with the complex story of parity legislation and the struggle to legitimize brain diseases as worthy of funding, awareness, and destigmatization. And if that’s not enough for one book to do, it all takes place within Patrick Kennedy’s poignant and powerful desire to gain his father’s approval. Ultimately, the son achieves an extended period of sobriety in the context of falling in love and starting a family, well into his 40s.

Nurse Jackie, despite her drug use and personal woes, is fictional and entertaining. “A Common Struggle” is a serious book and heartfelt look at how addiction and mental illness destroy lives; there is little doubt here that without the Kennedy machine for support and privilege, a 20-year-old compromised college student would not have been able to start or maintain a successful political career. Kudos to Mr. Kennedy for sharing his pain and for helping to break the stereotype that those with mental illness and substance abuse can only be found in jails or under bridges.
 

 

 

Dr. Miller is coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Care,” which was released last fall (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press).


Nurse Jackie is an amazing woman: She’s a fantastically competent and compassionate ER nurse who will do anything for her patients, and she is far better than the caricature ER docs she works with who all care more about their designer shoes and designer egos then about their jobs. She’s a wife – at least in the early episodes – and mother to two adorable girls with a life that includes Mommy and Me tap dancing classes. She somehow juggles it all.

In her fictional life as the star of a Showtime series, “Jackie Peyton” – played by actress Edie Falco, formerly known for her role as Tony Soprano’s wife, Carmela – manages even more: She does it all while popping pain pills by the handful throughout the work day and snorting whatever there is to snort. The interesting thing about Jackie is that her drug habit never interferes with her ability to function. There are no episodes where she makes mistakes or falls asleep. She doesn’t get too wired and is rarely irritable, and she certainly doesn’t pass out from overdoses. She shows up at work on time and never falls off her tightrope of responsibilities in the busy All Saints Hospital ER of New York City.

Without the drugs, she gets ill, but with them, she just functions. And she doesn’t just hold her own with a busy life; she also juggles the secret life of what it takes to get her daily fix, including daily lunchtime sex with the hospital pharmacist, who provides her with pain medicines for her aching back and doesn’t initially know that she’s married with children.

By Season 6, her personal life has broken down, and her daughter Grace, now an angry teenager with her own difficulties and secret life, notes that mom Jackie is incredibly good at hiding her drug use, and that no one can tell when she’s using.

With each season, Jackie’s personal life unwinds a little more, but it’s not because of the effects constant pill-popping has on her behavior; it’s because of the difficulties she has obtaining the drugs. If she could go to the store and buy large amounts of oxycontin and whatever else she takes, she’d have no problem. Her cauldron, however, is filled with constant lies and deception and the secret lives she lives to obtain drugs and to avoid boiling in her own self-made addictive mess.

Dr. Dinah Miller
Dr. Dinah Miller
I’m only at the end of Season 6, and Jackie already has had a year of sobriety – broken on her 1-year anniversary – and perhaps things will change in the final season, but so far, I’m struck by how well she manages to consistently function while living life high. It’s the perfect series to watch at the gym – entertaining, but it doesn’t ask much of the viewer.

You wouldn’t expect a review of a dark comedy TV series together with a review of a very serious memoir written by former Rep. Patrick J. Kennedy, but somehow, the two fit together for me.

In “A Common Struggle,” Patrick Kennedy and author Stephen Fried march through Kennedy’s long history of mental illness and substance abuse. Kennedy talks about his life in psychotherapy starting in childhood, related to his parents’ separation. He talks about the treatment he received in college and during his time as a state legislator in Providence, R.I., and how he parked far from his psychiatrist’s office so no one would learn he was in treatment.

Unfortunately, while he found treatment to be very helpful, he stopped when his doctor, Peter Kramer, became a celebrity in his own right after the publication of “Listening to Prozac” (New York: Penguin Books, 1997), and Kennedy became “spooked.” He goes on to talk about the many treatments – including lists of medications – he received over the years and his diagnosis of bipolar disorder, type II. But he doesn’t document what symptoms or episodes led to this diagnosis, and I couldn’t help but wonder how much of his mood disorder was part and parcel of his substance abuse problem. I imagine his doctors may have had the same problem.

So while Kennedy is vague about his psychiatric illness, he is much more forthcoming with his substance abuse problem. Like Nurse Jackie, he has the constant flow of pills – prescribed opiates starting with the diagnosis of a spinal tumor, a handful of Adderall here, some benzodiazepines there, and an enormous issue with alcohol on top of all that. Unlike Nurse Jackie, Kennedy wears the results of his addictions openly. He sleeps through mornings, and his schedulers know to accommodate this. He says things he otherwise wouldn’t while intoxicated, and he embarrasses himself and has others on edge. His mentor in the House of Representatives was Dick Gephardt, and Gephardt’s chief of staff summoned Kennedy to ask him to become chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee – a tremendous honor for a 31-year-old congressman.

“There was, however, one catch,” the authors wrote. “ ‘If you do this,’ he said, ‘you can’t drink.’ ” Kennedy notes that he didn’t have the insight to realize how odd this was, and in reflection calls it his first intervention.

While most of his difficulties remained relatively private, one night he mixed Ambien and Phenergan, and in a state of confusion, he went for a drive and crashed into a Capitol Hill concrete barrier – an event that led to media coverage, scandal, and, as his chief of staff put it, “ ‘Patrick,’ he said, ‘we have a problem.’ ” While his father, Sen. Ted Kennedy, dismissed this as “a little fendah bendah,” the son made a public statement and checked himself into a rehab unit at the Mayo Clinic. It was to be the second of many attempts at rehab, his first having been in high school.

What makes “A Common Struggle” (New York: Blue Rider Press, 2015) so special is not just that it is a strikingly candid memoir of addiction and illness in a successful congressman, nor that the congressman happens to be a Kennedy with all the glamour and tragedy that come with being born into that family. What makes it special is the way that Kennedy and Fried weave so much more into this riveting book. It’s the story of one man’s life, taken in the full context of a family bound by tragedies: the assassinations of two of his uncles before his birth, an aunt who’d had a lobotomy and inspired a whole advocacy organization for developmental disabilities, two siblings who struggled with cancer, and two parents with their own addictions and scandalous behaviors. His mother’s psychiatric illness was severe enough that her children obtained guardianship, and that’s just a smattering of all the Kennedy family events that are reported here.

The story unfolds against the backdrop of major news events in America, and combines itself with the complex story of parity legislation and the struggle to legitimize brain diseases as worthy of funding, awareness, and destigmatization. And if that’s not enough for one book to do, it all takes place within Patrick Kennedy’s poignant and powerful desire to gain his father’s approval. Ultimately, the son achieves an extended period of sobriety in the context of falling in love and starting a family, well into his 40s.

Nurse Jackie, despite her drug use and personal woes, is fictional and entertaining. “A Common Struggle” is a serious book and heartfelt look at how addiction and mental illness destroy lives; there is little doubt here that without the Kennedy machine for support and privilege, a 20-year-old compromised college student would not have been able to start or maintain a successful political career. Kudos to Mr. Kennedy for sharing his pain and for helping to break the stereotype that those with mental illness and substance abuse can only be found in jails or under bridges.
 

 

 

Dr. Miller is coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Care,” which was released last fall (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press).

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME

The last call

Article Type
Changed
Fri, 01/18/2019 - 16:31

 

It’s 7:30 on a Tuesday evening, and you will be on call until 8 o’clock the next morning. You have already been in the office 9 hours. Usual start time is 8 a.m., but that extra hour at home is a perk you have earned by being on call tonight.

A quick glance at the schedule screen suggests that if nothing ugly crops up, you will finish seeing your last patient and be out the door and on your way home by 8:15 p.m. The phone has been quiet for the last half hour, but as you are making your quickstep transition between exam rooms, the nurse tells you that the receptionist has received a call from a very anxious mother who has just discovered that her 6-year-old has a fever of 103° F. The child didn’t eat any dinner and is now complaining that he has a sore throat. The mother is worried because the child had a couple of febrile seizures when he was a toddler, and she has heard of several cases of strep in his class at school.

Dr. William G. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years.
Dr. William G. Wilkoff
Depending on the health care resources, geography, and weather in your community, you could respond to this scenario in any one of a dozen ways, each of which has its drawbacks. You could tell the nurse, whom we will assume will take a more detailed history, to suggest to this mother that if she is very concerned, she should take the child to emergency room. This response could quadruple the cost to the family and possibly entail a 90-minute drive over snow-covered roads. The ED trip will likely mean the child won’t get to bed until midnight or later. It also might result in a midnight call from an inexperienced and nervous ED physician asking for your reassurance or even with a plea that you come to see what turns out to be a mildly ill child.

On the other hand, you could ask the nurse to reassure the mother that a febrile seizure at age 6 is very unlikely and encourage the mother to call you if she continues to be concerned. The problem here hinges on the experience and skills of the nurse. Even if your office has a well-vetted portfolio of clinical algorithms, you may be relying on a nurse with whom you aren’t familiar. Or maybe your past experience makes you uncomfortable with this particular nurse. She or he may have missed some obvious red flags in the past or may be so unskillful at reassurance that it is very likely that you will be getting a 2 a.m. call from this worried parent.

Another option could be to suggest that after reassuring the mother, the nurse offer her a first of the morning appointment tomorrow. There are several problems with this strategy, and I have always discouraged our office staff from making these next morning appointments for sick children. The offer of the appointment seldom reassures the very anxious parents nor does it prevent the middle of the night calls. More importantly, our experience, and I suspect yours, is that half of those newly sick children with fevers will be better by the next morning or their parents ended up going to the emergency room. This will leave you with a wasted appointment slot that you would really like to have available when the phones heat up in the morning. A more efficient strategy is to promise parents that if the child is still sick in the morning, you can guarantee them a timely appointment.

Finally, there are two responses that worked best for me. The first is to have the nurse ask the parents how long it will take them to get to the office. Add 15 minutes to their estimate, and if you can accept that estimated time of arrival, have the nurse tell that family to hustle on in. Send the staff home unless they want the overtime, and see the patient yourself.

The second response is to get on the phone yourself and talk directly to the mother. You were probably going to end up speaking with her in the middle of the night anyway, so you might as well invest the time now in taking your own history. Even if your own version of reassurance fails to prevent a 2 a.m. call, at least you will have some frame of reference when you need to make one of those dangerous middle of the night clinical decisions. A quiet night may depend on how you manage that last call of the day.
 

 

 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].

Publications
Topics
Sections

 

It’s 7:30 on a Tuesday evening, and you will be on call until 8 o’clock the next morning. You have already been in the office 9 hours. Usual start time is 8 a.m., but that extra hour at home is a perk you have earned by being on call tonight.

A quick glance at the schedule screen suggests that if nothing ugly crops up, you will finish seeing your last patient and be out the door and on your way home by 8:15 p.m. The phone has been quiet for the last half hour, but as you are making your quickstep transition between exam rooms, the nurse tells you that the receptionist has received a call from a very anxious mother who has just discovered that her 6-year-old has a fever of 103° F. The child didn’t eat any dinner and is now complaining that he has a sore throat. The mother is worried because the child had a couple of febrile seizures when he was a toddler, and she has heard of several cases of strep in his class at school.

Dr. William G. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years.
Dr. William G. Wilkoff
Depending on the health care resources, geography, and weather in your community, you could respond to this scenario in any one of a dozen ways, each of which has its drawbacks. You could tell the nurse, whom we will assume will take a more detailed history, to suggest to this mother that if she is very concerned, she should take the child to emergency room. This response could quadruple the cost to the family and possibly entail a 90-minute drive over snow-covered roads. The ED trip will likely mean the child won’t get to bed until midnight or later. It also might result in a midnight call from an inexperienced and nervous ED physician asking for your reassurance or even with a plea that you come to see what turns out to be a mildly ill child.

On the other hand, you could ask the nurse to reassure the mother that a febrile seizure at age 6 is very unlikely and encourage the mother to call you if she continues to be concerned. The problem here hinges on the experience and skills of the nurse. Even if your office has a well-vetted portfolio of clinical algorithms, you may be relying on a nurse with whom you aren’t familiar. Or maybe your past experience makes you uncomfortable with this particular nurse. She or he may have missed some obvious red flags in the past or may be so unskillful at reassurance that it is very likely that you will be getting a 2 a.m. call from this worried parent.

Another option could be to suggest that after reassuring the mother, the nurse offer her a first of the morning appointment tomorrow. There are several problems with this strategy, and I have always discouraged our office staff from making these next morning appointments for sick children. The offer of the appointment seldom reassures the very anxious parents nor does it prevent the middle of the night calls. More importantly, our experience, and I suspect yours, is that half of those newly sick children with fevers will be better by the next morning or their parents ended up going to the emergency room. This will leave you with a wasted appointment slot that you would really like to have available when the phones heat up in the morning. A more efficient strategy is to promise parents that if the child is still sick in the morning, you can guarantee them a timely appointment.

Finally, there are two responses that worked best for me. The first is to have the nurse ask the parents how long it will take them to get to the office. Add 15 minutes to their estimate, and if you can accept that estimated time of arrival, have the nurse tell that family to hustle on in. Send the staff home unless they want the overtime, and see the patient yourself.

The second response is to get on the phone yourself and talk directly to the mother. You were probably going to end up speaking with her in the middle of the night anyway, so you might as well invest the time now in taking your own history. Even if your own version of reassurance fails to prevent a 2 a.m. call, at least you will have some frame of reference when you need to make one of those dangerous middle of the night clinical decisions. A quiet night may depend on how you manage that last call of the day.
 

 

 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].

 

It’s 7:30 on a Tuesday evening, and you will be on call until 8 o’clock the next morning. You have already been in the office 9 hours. Usual start time is 8 a.m., but that extra hour at home is a perk you have earned by being on call tonight.

A quick glance at the schedule screen suggests that if nothing ugly crops up, you will finish seeing your last patient and be out the door and on your way home by 8:15 p.m. The phone has been quiet for the last half hour, but as you are making your quickstep transition between exam rooms, the nurse tells you that the receptionist has received a call from a very anxious mother who has just discovered that her 6-year-old has a fever of 103° F. The child didn’t eat any dinner and is now complaining that he has a sore throat. The mother is worried because the child had a couple of febrile seizures when he was a toddler, and she has heard of several cases of strep in his class at school.

Dr. William G. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years.
Dr. William G. Wilkoff
Depending on the health care resources, geography, and weather in your community, you could respond to this scenario in any one of a dozen ways, each of which has its drawbacks. You could tell the nurse, whom we will assume will take a more detailed history, to suggest to this mother that if she is very concerned, she should take the child to emergency room. This response could quadruple the cost to the family and possibly entail a 90-minute drive over snow-covered roads. The ED trip will likely mean the child won’t get to bed until midnight or later. It also might result in a midnight call from an inexperienced and nervous ED physician asking for your reassurance or even with a plea that you come to see what turns out to be a mildly ill child.

On the other hand, you could ask the nurse to reassure the mother that a febrile seizure at age 6 is very unlikely and encourage the mother to call you if she continues to be concerned. The problem here hinges on the experience and skills of the nurse. Even if your office has a well-vetted portfolio of clinical algorithms, you may be relying on a nurse with whom you aren’t familiar. Or maybe your past experience makes you uncomfortable with this particular nurse. She or he may have missed some obvious red flags in the past or may be so unskillful at reassurance that it is very likely that you will be getting a 2 a.m. call from this worried parent.

Another option could be to suggest that after reassuring the mother, the nurse offer her a first of the morning appointment tomorrow. There are several problems with this strategy, and I have always discouraged our office staff from making these next morning appointments for sick children. The offer of the appointment seldom reassures the very anxious parents nor does it prevent the middle of the night calls. More importantly, our experience, and I suspect yours, is that half of those newly sick children with fevers will be better by the next morning or their parents ended up going to the emergency room. This will leave you with a wasted appointment slot that you would really like to have available when the phones heat up in the morning. A more efficient strategy is to promise parents that if the child is still sick in the morning, you can guarantee them a timely appointment.

Finally, there are two responses that worked best for me. The first is to have the nurse ask the parents how long it will take them to get to the office. Add 15 minutes to their estimate, and if you can accept that estimated time of arrival, have the nurse tell that family to hustle on in. Send the staff home unless they want the overtime, and see the patient yourself.

The second response is to get on the phone yourself and talk directly to the mother. You were probably going to end up speaking with her in the middle of the night anyway, so you might as well invest the time now in taking your own history. Even if your own version of reassurance fails to prevent a 2 a.m. call, at least you will have some frame of reference when you need to make one of those dangerous middle of the night clinical decisions. A quiet night may depend on how you manage that last call of the day.
 

 

 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME

Complicated appendicitis outcomes worse with delayed surgery

Article Type
Changed
Wed, 01/02/2019 - 09:47

 

– Contrary to what some recent studies suggest, patients with complicated appendicitis may benefit from immediate surgery, with shorter hospital stays and fewer postoperative complications.

According to findings from a large database review, delaying the surgery for a complicated case is likely to result in worse patient outcomes, Matthew Symer, MD, said at the Association for Academic Surgery/Society of University Surgeons Academic Surgical Congress.

decade3d/Thinkstock
“Overall, we saw that a delayed appendectomy was associated with a longer length of stay, higher hospital charges, more complications, more morbidity, and more unplanned readmissions,” said Dr. Symer, a surgical resident of New York Presbyterian–Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York.

There are no firm guidelines about the timing of surgery for complicated appendicitis, he said. “There is in fact some controversy about the timing of surgery,” with studies coming to conflicting conclusions about the benefits and risks of both immediate and delayed treatment. “We theorized that the potential morbidity of operating at the height of the inflammatory process would be less than the risk of complications associated with delay,” he said.

To investigate the question, Dr. Symer and his colleagues queried the New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative Database, which contains information on all hospital admissions with an ICD-9 code on any patient covered by any payer in the state. Each patient has a unique identifier that allows tracking over time and across facilities.

From 2000 to 2013, the investigators identified 38,840 patients who presented with complicated appendicitis, defined as a perforation. Of these, 31,167 had an appendectomy within 1 year of the index admission. These patients were separated into two groups: those who had surgery within 48 hours of the index admission (28,015) and those who had later surgery (3,152).

The delayed surgery group was further parsed into three: those who had surgery during the index admission, but at least 48 hours after admission (51%); those who had an appendectomy at a subsequent urgent admission (23%); and those who had an elective interval appendectomy sometime within that year (26%).

In comparing the early vs. late surgery groups overall, Dr. Symer noticed some significant initial differences. Patients in the early surgery group were significantly younger (48 vs. 53 years), more likely to be male (55% vs. 47%), white (70% vs. 64%), and to have private insurance (53% vs. 45%).

Comorbidities were more common among the delayed surgery group. These included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, renal failure, coronary artery disease, hypertension, diabetes, and congestive heart failure. Delayed-surgery patients were more likely to be treated at high-volume hospitals (45% vs. 34%).

Abscess was more common among the delayed surgery group (72% vs. 51%). Their median length of stay was significantly longer (9 vs. 5 days).

Delayed-surgery patients experienced significantly more iatrogenic complications (4% vs. 2%), and more urinary and wound complications. Overall, two or more complications occurred in 23% of the delayed surgery group and 14% of the early surgery group. The readmission rate was higher (28% vs. 18%). Significantly more in the delayed group reached the 75th percentile in hospital charges (62% vs. 26%).

In a multivariate regression analysis, patients with delayed surgery were more likely to experience a prolonged length of stay (odds ratio, 6); high hospital charges (OR, 4.8), iatrogenic complications (OR, 1.9), any complications (OR, 1.5) and readmission (OR, 1.5).

These findings were largely recapitulated when Dr. Symer broke the delayed group down into the three subgroups: patients who had surgery late in the index admission, patients who had an urgent later appendectomy, and patients who had a later elective procedure.

“All of these relationships held up, with patients who delayed surgery having worse overall complications, whether iatrogenic or any complications, more readmissions, and a longer stay in the hospital,” Dr. Symer said.

He had no financial disclosures.
 

Meeting/Event
Publications
Topics
Sections
Meeting/Event
Meeting/Event

 

– Contrary to what some recent studies suggest, patients with complicated appendicitis may benefit from immediate surgery, with shorter hospital stays and fewer postoperative complications.

According to findings from a large database review, delaying the surgery for a complicated case is likely to result in worse patient outcomes, Matthew Symer, MD, said at the Association for Academic Surgery/Society of University Surgeons Academic Surgical Congress.

decade3d/Thinkstock
“Overall, we saw that a delayed appendectomy was associated with a longer length of stay, higher hospital charges, more complications, more morbidity, and more unplanned readmissions,” said Dr. Symer, a surgical resident of New York Presbyterian–Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York.

There are no firm guidelines about the timing of surgery for complicated appendicitis, he said. “There is in fact some controversy about the timing of surgery,” with studies coming to conflicting conclusions about the benefits and risks of both immediate and delayed treatment. “We theorized that the potential morbidity of operating at the height of the inflammatory process would be less than the risk of complications associated with delay,” he said.

To investigate the question, Dr. Symer and his colleagues queried the New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative Database, which contains information on all hospital admissions with an ICD-9 code on any patient covered by any payer in the state. Each patient has a unique identifier that allows tracking over time and across facilities.

From 2000 to 2013, the investigators identified 38,840 patients who presented with complicated appendicitis, defined as a perforation. Of these, 31,167 had an appendectomy within 1 year of the index admission. These patients were separated into two groups: those who had surgery within 48 hours of the index admission (28,015) and those who had later surgery (3,152).

The delayed surgery group was further parsed into three: those who had surgery during the index admission, but at least 48 hours after admission (51%); those who had an appendectomy at a subsequent urgent admission (23%); and those who had an elective interval appendectomy sometime within that year (26%).

In comparing the early vs. late surgery groups overall, Dr. Symer noticed some significant initial differences. Patients in the early surgery group were significantly younger (48 vs. 53 years), more likely to be male (55% vs. 47%), white (70% vs. 64%), and to have private insurance (53% vs. 45%).

Comorbidities were more common among the delayed surgery group. These included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, renal failure, coronary artery disease, hypertension, diabetes, and congestive heart failure. Delayed-surgery patients were more likely to be treated at high-volume hospitals (45% vs. 34%).

Abscess was more common among the delayed surgery group (72% vs. 51%). Their median length of stay was significantly longer (9 vs. 5 days).

Delayed-surgery patients experienced significantly more iatrogenic complications (4% vs. 2%), and more urinary and wound complications. Overall, two or more complications occurred in 23% of the delayed surgery group and 14% of the early surgery group. The readmission rate was higher (28% vs. 18%). Significantly more in the delayed group reached the 75th percentile in hospital charges (62% vs. 26%).

In a multivariate regression analysis, patients with delayed surgery were more likely to experience a prolonged length of stay (odds ratio, 6); high hospital charges (OR, 4.8), iatrogenic complications (OR, 1.9), any complications (OR, 1.5) and readmission (OR, 1.5).

These findings were largely recapitulated when Dr. Symer broke the delayed group down into the three subgroups: patients who had surgery late in the index admission, patients who had an urgent later appendectomy, and patients who had a later elective procedure.

“All of these relationships held up, with patients who delayed surgery having worse overall complications, whether iatrogenic or any complications, more readmissions, and a longer stay in the hospital,” Dr. Symer said.

He had no financial disclosures.
 

 

– Contrary to what some recent studies suggest, patients with complicated appendicitis may benefit from immediate surgery, with shorter hospital stays and fewer postoperative complications.

According to findings from a large database review, delaying the surgery for a complicated case is likely to result in worse patient outcomes, Matthew Symer, MD, said at the Association for Academic Surgery/Society of University Surgeons Academic Surgical Congress.

decade3d/Thinkstock
“Overall, we saw that a delayed appendectomy was associated with a longer length of stay, higher hospital charges, more complications, more morbidity, and more unplanned readmissions,” said Dr. Symer, a surgical resident of New York Presbyterian–Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York.

There are no firm guidelines about the timing of surgery for complicated appendicitis, he said. “There is in fact some controversy about the timing of surgery,” with studies coming to conflicting conclusions about the benefits and risks of both immediate and delayed treatment. “We theorized that the potential morbidity of operating at the height of the inflammatory process would be less than the risk of complications associated with delay,” he said.

To investigate the question, Dr. Symer and his colleagues queried the New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative Database, which contains information on all hospital admissions with an ICD-9 code on any patient covered by any payer in the state. Each patient has a unique identifier that allows tracking over time and across facilities.

From 2000 to 2013, the investigators identified 38,840 patients who presented with complicated appendicitis, defined as a perforation. Of these, 31,167 had an appendectomy within 1 year of the index admission. These patients were separated into two groups: those who had surgery within 48 hours of the index admission (28,015) and those who had later surgery (3,152).

The delayed surgery group was further parsed into three: those who had surgery during the index admission, but at least 48 hours after admission (51%); those who had an appendectomy at a subsequent urgent admission (23%); and those who had an elective interval appendectomy sometime within that year (26%).

In comparing the early vs. late surgery groups overall, Dr. Symer noticed some significant initial differences. Patients in the early surgery group were significantly younger (48 vs. 53 years), more likely to be male (55% vs. 47%), white (70% vs. 64%), and to have private insurance (53% vs. 45%).

Comorbidities were more common among the delayed surgery group. These included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, renal failure, coronary artery disease, hypertension, diabetes, and congestive heart failure. Delayed-surgery patients were more likely to be treated at high-volume hospitals (45% vs. 34%).

Abscess was more common among the delayed surgery group (72% vs. 51%). Their median length of stay was significantly longer (9 vs. 5 days).

Delayed-surgery patients experienced significantly more iatrogenic complications (4% vs. 2%), and more urinary and wound complications. Overall, two or more complications occurred in 23% of the delayed surgery group and 14% of the early surgery group. The readmission rate was higher (28% vs. 18%). Significantly more in the delayed group reached the 75th percentile in hospital charges (62% vs. 26%).

In a multivariate regression analysis, patients with delayed surgery were more likely to experience a prolonged length of stay (odds ratio, 6); high hospital charges (OR, 4.8), iatrogenic complications (OR, 1.9), any complications (OR, 1.5) and readmission (OR, 1.5).

These findings were largely recapitulated when Dr. Symer broke the delayed group down into the three subgroups: patients who had surgery late in the index admission, patients who had an urgent later appendectomy, and patients who had a later elective procedure.

“All of these relationships held up, with patients who delayed surgery having worse overall complications, whether iatrogenic or any complications, more readmissions, and a longer stay in the hospital,” Dr. Symer said.

He had no financial disclosures.
 

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Article Source

AT THE ACADEMIC SURGICAL CONGRESS

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Vitals

 

Key clinical point: Delayed surgery for complicated appendicitis was associated with worse patient outcomes than immediate surgery.

Major finding: Patients with delayed surgery were more likely to experience a prolonged length of stay (odds ratio, 6); high hospital charges (OR, 4.8), iatrogenic complications (OR, 1.9), any complications (OR, 1.5) and readmission (OR, 1.5).

Data source: The database review comprised almost 39,000 patients.

Disclosures: Dr. Symer had no financial disclosures.

Trials refine device therapy options for heart failure

Article Type
Changed
Fri, 01/18/2019 - 16:31

 

– The indication for primary prophylactic implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy in patients with nonischemic heart failure is likely to be downgraded in the next iteration of the ACC/AHA heart failure guidelines as a consequence of the negative results of the DANISH trial, William T. Abraham, MD, predicted at the Annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass.

In addition to outlining where the guideline recommendations for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy stand today, and how they’re likely to change in response to the DANISH findings, he highlighted the latest patient selection criteria for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), which have grown considerably more complicated over time.

Dr. William T. Abraham is professor of medicine, physiology, and cell biology and director of the division of cardiovascular medicine at Ohio State University in Columbus.
Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News
Dr. William T. Abraham
During the past 15 or so years, CRT and ICDs have had a remarkable impact on the treatment of heart failure, observed Dr. Abraham, professor of medicine, physiology, and cell biology and director of the division of cardiovascular medicine at Ohio State University in Columbus.

“Following the success of neurohormonal inhibitors and antagonists, our only other breakthroughs for the management of heart failure have been CRT and ICDs,” he noted.

The two device therapies are complementary, and indeed are often employed in combination.

“CRT makes patients feel better and saves lives, while ICDs prolong survival without an effect on improving heart failure per se,” the cardiologist explained.

To put the quality of life benefits of CRT into perspective, studies show that the device therapy results in a placebo-subtracted improvement on the Minnesota Living With Heart Failure Questionnaire of 9-10 points.

“This is a large and clinically meaningful improvement in quality of life. Our best drugs for heart failure – beta blockers and ACE inhibitors – improve this same measure by 4 or 5 points,” Dr. Abraham said.

Current American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association heart failure guidelines give a class I, level of evidence: A, recommendation for prophylactic ICD therapy in patients with an left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of 35% or less and New York Heart Association functional class II or III symptoms despite optimal medical therapy, regardless of whether their heart failure is attributable to ischemic heart disease or nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy.

The DANISH trial investigators looked at the evidence base for primary prevention ICDs in nonischemic heart failure and concluded it needed shoring up. The recommendation relied mainly on subgroup analyses of larger landmark trials done about 15 years ago, before major improvements in medical therapy had occurred. These reservations were the impetus for the DANISH trial, in which more than 1,100 patients with symptomatic systolic heart failure were randomized to an ICD or usual care.

The primary outcome in the DANISH trial – all-cause mortality – occurred in 21.6% of patients in the ICD group and 23.4% of controls during a median follow-up of 68 months, a nonsignificant difference (N Engl J Med. 2016 Sep 29;375[13]:1221-30).

Turning to the CRT guidelines, Dr. Abraham noted that the simple, broad, class I recommendation for this form of device therapy in patients with cardiac dyssynchrony as defined by a QRS duration greater than 120 msec contained in the 2005 ACC/AHA heart failure guidelines has been whittled down over time as new evidence has unfolded. The only class I recommendation in the current guidelines is in patients with an LVEF of 35% or less, sinus rhythm, left bundle branch block with a QRS duration of 150 msec or longer, and NYHA class II, III, or ambulatory IV symptoms while on guideline-directed medical therapy (Circulation. 2012 Oct 1;126:1784-800). “That’s the money group right there. That’s the group for whom we have the greatest confidence of producing the greatest benefit with the application of cardiac resynchronization therapy,” he explained.

Studies examining the use of CRT in heart failure patients with a non–left bundle branch morphology and a QRS duration of less than 150 msec have yielded negative findings. So have attempts to utilize echocardiographic evidence of mechanical dyssynchrony rather than ECG measurement of QRS duration to guide patient selection for CRT.

“In our practice, any patient with a left bundle branch block gets a CRT device. Our confidence in its efficacy is greater in patients with a QRS of at least 150 msec, but the studies demonstrate clear benefit for patients with left bundle branch block and a QRS of 120-149 msec as well,” according to the cardiologist.

Studies also show that patients who are dependent upon ventricular pacing benefit from CRT.

“If you have a patient who requires at least 40% or more ventricular pacing and also has reduced ejection fraction heart failure, that patient should have a CRT device rather than a dual chamber ICD or standard right-sided right ventricular pacemaker,” he said.

All of this presupposes that first and foremost the patient is already on optimized guideline-directed medical therapy.

“With optimal medical therapy, some of these patients may improve their left ventricular ejection fraction above 35%, or they may become asymptomatic and no longer have an indication for CRT,” Dr. Abraham added.

The rationale for utilizing CRT in combination with an ICD is a bit shaky, resting on a single older landmark study, the COMPANION trial (N Engl J Med. 2004; 350:2140-50).

“That study wasn’t powered to answer the question of whether CRT-D [a combined CRT/ICD device] is better than CRT. Really, this remains somewhat of an unanswered question. So where are we today? Essentially, if a patient has an indication for CRT and an indication for an ICD, we implant a combined device,” he said.

Dr. Abraham reported serving as a consultant to Abbott Vascular, Medtronic, Novartis, and St. Jude Medical.

 

 

Meeting/Event
Publications
Topics
Sections
Meeting/Event
Meeting/Event
Related Articles

 

– The indication for primary prophylactic implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy in patients with nonischemic heart failure is likely to be downgraded in the next iteration of the ACC/AHA heart failure guidelines as a consequence of the negative results of the DANISH trial, William T. Abraham, MD, predicted at the Annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass.

In addition to outlining where the guideline recommendations for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy stand today, and how they’re likely to change in response to the DANISH findings, he highlighted the latest patient selection criteria for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), which have grown considerably more complicated over time.

Dr. William T. Abraham is professor of medicine, physiology, and cell biology and director of the division of cardiovascular medicine at Ohio State University in Columbus.
Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News
Dr. William T. Abraham
During the past 15 or so years, CRT and ICDs have had a remarkable impact on the treatment of heart failure, observed Dr. Abraham, professor of medicine, physiology, and cell biology and director of the division of cardiovascular medicine at Ohio State University in Columbus.

“Following the success of neurohormonal inhibitors and antagonists, our only other breakthroughs for the management of heart failure have been CRT and ICDs,” he noted.

The two device therapies are complementary, and indeed are often employed in combination.

“CRT makes patients feel better and saves lives, while ICDs prolong survival without an effect on improving heart failure per se,” the cardiologist explained.

To put the quality of life benefits of CRT into perspective, studies show that the device therapy results in a placebo-subtracted improvement on the Minnesota Living With Heart Failure Questionnaire of 9-10 points.

“This is a large and clinically meaningful improvement in quality of life. Our best drugs for heart failure – beta blockers and ACE inhibitors – improve this same measure by 4 or 5 points,” Dr. Abraham said.

Current American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association heart failure guidelines give a class I, level of evidence: A, recommendation for prophylactic ICD therapy in patients with an left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of 35% or less and New York Heart Association functional class II or III symptoms despite optimal medical therapy, regardless of whether their heart failure is attributable to ischemic heart disease or nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy.

The DANISH trial investigators looked at the evidence base for primary prevention ICDs in nonischemic heart failure and concluded it needed shoring up. The recommendation relied mainly on subgroup analyses of larger landmark trials done about 15 years ago, before major improvements in medical therapy had occurred. These reservations were the impetus for the DANISH trial, in which more than 1,100 patients with symptomatic systolic heart failure were randomized to an ICD or usual care.

The primary outcome in the DANISH trial – all-cause mortality – occurred in 21.6% of patients in the ICD group and 23.4% of controls during a median follow-up of 68 months, a nonsignificant difference (N Engl J Med. 2016 Sep 29;375[13]:1221-30).

Turning to the CRT guidelines, Dr. Abraham noted that the simple, broad, class I recommendation for this form of device therapy in patients with cardiac dyssynchrony as defined by a QRS duration greater than 120 msec contained in the 2005 ACC/AHA heart failure guidelines has been whittled down over time as new evidence has unfolded. The only class I recommendation in the current guidelines is in patients with an LVEF of 35% or less, sinus rhythm, left bundle branch block with a QRS duration of 150 msec or longer, and NYHA class II, III, or ambulatory IV symptoms while on guideline-directed medical therapy (Circulation. 2012 Oct 1;126:1784-800). “That’s the money group right there. That’s the group for whom we have the greatest confidence of producing the greatest benefit with the application of cardiac resynchronization therapy,” he explained.

Studies examining the use of CRT in heart failure patients with a non–left bundle branch morphology and a QRS duration of less than 150 msec have yielded negative findings. So have attempts to utilize echocardiographic evidence of mechanical dyssynchrony rather than ECG measurement of QRS duration to guide patient selection for CRT.

“In our practice, any patient with a left bundle branch block gets a CRT device. Our confidence in its efficacy is greater in patients with a QRS of at least 150 msec, but the studies demonstrate clear benefit for patients with left bundle branch block and a QRS of 120-149 msec as well,” according to the cardiologist.

Studies also show that patients who are dependent upon ventricular pacing benefit from CRT.

“If you have a patient who requires at least 40% or more ventricular pacing and also has reduced ejection fraction heart failure, that patient should have a CRT device rather than a dual chamber ICD or standard right-sided right ventricular pacemaker,” he said.

All of this presupposes that first and foremost the patient is already on optimized guideline-directed medical therapy.

“With optimal medical therapy, some of these patients may improve their left ventricular ejection fraction above 35%, or they may become asymptomatic and no longer have an indication for CRT,” Dr. Abraham added.

The rationale for utilizing CRT in combination with an ICD is a bit shaky, resting on a single older landmark study, the COMPANION trial (N Engl J Med. 2004; 350:2140-50).

“That study wasn’t powered to answer the question of whether CRT-D [a combined CRT/ICD device] is better than CRT. Really, this remains somewhat of an unanswered question. So where are we today? Essentially, if a patient has an indication for CRT and an indication for an ICD, we implant a combined device,” he said.

Dr. Abraham reported serving as a consultant to Abbott Vascular, Medtronic, Novartis, and St. Jude Medical.

 

 

 

– The indication for primary prophylactic implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy in patients with nonischemic heart failure is likely to be downgraded in the next iteration of the ACC/AHA heart failure guidelines as a consequence of the negative results of the DANISH trial, William T. Abraham, MD, predicted at the Annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass.

In addition to outlining where the guideline recommendations for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy stand today, and how they’re likely to change in response to the DANISH findings, he highlighted the latest patient selection criteria for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), which have grown considerably more complicated over time.

Dr. William T. Abraham is professor of medicine, physiology, and cell biology and director of the division of cardiovascular medicine at Ohio State University in Columbus.
Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News
Dr. William T. Abraham
During the past 15 or so years, CRT and ICDs have had a remarkable impact on the treatment of heart failure, observed Dr. Abraham, professor of medicine, physiology, and cell biology and director of the division of cardiovascular medicine at Ohio State University in Columbus.

“Following the success of neurohormonal inhibitors and antagonists, our only other breakthroughs for the management of heart failure have been CRT and ICDs,” he noted.

The two device therapies are complementary, and indeed are often employed in combination.

“CRT makes patients feel better and saves lives, while ICDs prolong survival without an effect on improving heart failure per se,” the cardiologist explained.

To put the quality of life benefits of CRT into perspective, studies show that the device therapy results in a placebo-subtracted improvement on the Minnesota Living With Heart Failure Questionnaire of 9-10 points.

“This is a large and clinically meaningful improvement in quality of life. Our best drugs for heart failure – beta blockers and ACE inhibitors – improve this same measure by 4 or 5 points,” Dr. Abraham said.

Current American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association heart failure guidelines give a class I, level of evidence: A, recommendation for prophylactic ICD therapy in patients with an left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of 35% or less and New York Heart Association functional class II or III symptoms despite optimal medical therapy, regardless of whether their heart failure is attributable to ischemic heart disease or nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy.

The DANISH trial investigators looked at the evidence base for primary prevention ICDs in nonischemic heart failure and concluded it needed shoring up. The recommendation relied mainly on subgroup analyses of larger landmark trials done about 15 years ago, before major improvements in medical therapy had occurred. These reservations were the impetus for the DANISH trial, in which more than 1,100 patients with symptomatic systolic heart failure were randomized to an ICD or usual care.

The primary outcome in the DANISH trial – all-cause mortality – occurred in 21.6% of patients in the ICD group and 23.4% of controls during a median follow-up of 68 months, a nonsignificant difference (N Engl J Med. 2016 Sep 29;375[13]:1221-30).

Turning to the CRT guidelines, Dr. Abraham noted that the simple, broad, class I recommendation for this form of device therapy in patients with cardiac dyssynchrony as defined by a QRS duration greater than 120 msec contained in the 2005 ACC/AHA heart failure guidelines has been whittled down over time as new evidence has unfolded. The only class I recommendation in the current guidelines is in patients with an LVEF of 35% or less, sinus rhythm, left bundle branch block with a QRS duration of 150 msec or longer, and NYHA class II, III, or ambulatory IV symptoms while on guideline-directed medical therapy (Circulation. 2012 Oct 1;126:1784-800). “That’s the money group right there. That’s the group for whom we have the greatest confidence of producing the greatest benefit with the application of cardiac resynchronization therapy,” he explained.

Studies examining the use of CRT in heart failure patients with a non–left bundle branch morphology and a QRS duration of less than 150 msec have yielded negative findings. So have attempts to utilize echocardiographic evidence of mechanical dyssynchrony rather than ECG measurement of QRS duration to guide patient selection for CRT.

“In our practice, any patient with a left bundle branch block gets a CRT device. Our confidence in its efficacy is greater in patients with a QRS of at least 150 msec, but the studies demonstrate clear benefit for patients with left bundle branch block and a QRS of 120-149 msec as well,” according to the cardiologist.

Studies also show that patients who are dependent upon ventricular pacing benefit from CRT.

“If you have a patient who requires at least 40% or more ventricular pacing and also has reduced ejection fraction heart failure, that patient should have a CRT device rather than a dual chamber ICD or standard right-sided right ventricular pacemaker,” he said.

All of this presupposes that first and foremost the patient is already on optimized guideline-directed medical therapy.

“With optimal medical therapy, some of these patients may improve their left ventricular ejection fraction above 35%, or they may become asymptomatic and no longer have an indication for CRT,” Dr. Abraham added.

The rationale for utilizing CRT in combination with an ICD is a bit shaky, resting on a single older landmark study, the COMPANION trial (N Engl J Med. 2004; 350:2140-50).

“That study wasn’t powered to answer the question of whether CRT-D [a combined CRT/ICD device] is better than CRT. Really, this remains somewhat of an unanswered question. So where are we today? Essentially, if a patient has an indication for CRT and an indication for an ICD, we implant a combined device,” he said.

Dr. Abraham reported serving as a consultant to Abbott Vascular, Medtronic, Novartis, and St. Jude Medical.

 

 

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Article Source

EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM THE CARDIOVASCULAR CONFERENCE AT SNOWMASS

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME

Dropping the A-bomb

Article Type
Changed
Fri, 01/18/2019 - 16:31

 

Your first patient of the day is a 2½-year-old who has a runny nose and a cough. His mother has brought him in because his cough is more frequent and persistent than she is accustomed to hearing. He is happy and playful, and has a low-grade fever. You notice that he is slightly tachypneic, and you hear fine wheezes scattered throughout his lung fields. You also recall that at age 6 months, he was diagnosed with bronchiolitis but was never hospitalized.

Will you give him antibiotics and send him home with a nebulizer? Just the nebulizer? Just the antibiotics? Neither? We can debate those answers for hours, and you can plead for more information before you commit to an answer. But let’s skip over the question about what you are going to do and focus on what you are going to say. I want to know what diagnosis you are going to share with this mother.

Dr. William G. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years.
Dr. William G. Wilkoff
Are you going to tell her that her son has bronchitis? A second bout of bronchiolitis? A chest cold? A simple upper respiratory infection with some wheezing? Or are you going to drop the A-bomb on her and tell her that her son has asthma? Will you try to soften the message by telling her it’s just a “touch of asthma”? How about saying he’s got “asthmatic bronchitis?”

Or are you going to try a pseudoscientific smoke screen and tell her that her that her son has “reactive airway disease”? You could soften it even further by reassuring her that his diagnosis is so common that it has an abbreviation: “We usually just call it RAD.”

You may not have trouble telling a parent that her child has asthma, but most clinicians struggle with dropping the A-bomb. Why? It may be that we don’t want the family to freak out. You could end up spending the rest of the morning coaxing them back off the ledge because you have diagnosed their child with a chronic illness that could kill him. This kind of exaggerated reaction is far less of a problem now than it was 30 or 40 years ago. Almost every parent knows at least one family with an asthmatic child who seems to be doing just fine. In my opinion, this apparent increase in prevalence of asthma is primarily the result of an improved awareness and a relabeling phenomenon.

Your own experience probably reflects the national statistics that less than a third of preschoolers with recurrent wheezing still have asthma by the time they finish kindergarten. And you may be hesitant to use the asthma diagnosis because you don’t want to be labeled as a clinician who cries wolf.

It may be that subconsciously you are afraid that by raising the asthma red flag you will be committing yourself to the time gobbling task of managing another patient with a chronic disease. You could gamble that he will only have one or two more episodes of wheezing, and you will be able to treat his illnesses simply as a short series of unconnected events.

Is there any harm in dancing around the asthma diagnosis? The authors of a Perspectives article in the January 2017 issue of Pediatrics argue persuasively that vague descriptive and nondiagnostic terms such as “reactive airways disease” are confusing and should be abandoned (“RAD: Reactive Airway Disease or Really Asthma Disease?” Pediatrics. 2017 Jan. doi: 10.1542/peds.2016-0625). They question why we would treat a condition with asthma medications and not call it asthma just because a child will probably out grow it later.

It’s more than just about sloppy language. Jose A. Castro-Rodriguez, MD, a physician who has pioneered one of the tools than can be used to predict persistent asthma in young children, observes that by failing to signal to parents that the child has a chronic condition, we run the risk that the child will be less adherent to the medication and management program we recommend. (“The Asthma Predictive Index,” Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol. 2011;11[3]:157-61).

If we are going to tighten up our language and drop the vague substitute terms like RAD, and if we are hesitant to drop the A-bomb because it sounds too much like a lifelong disease when the truth is that most young children will outgrow asthma, what should we tell all those parents of wheezing preschoolers? The authors of the article in Pediatrics have several suggestions. Their favorite and the one that appeals most to me is toddler asthma. As they observe, the term “toddler asthma” implies an endpoint and the need for reevaluation to determine if the child is one of the minority who has “real” asthma.

Although it’s almost always about the money. When it's not about the money, it's usually about the labels we use.

 

 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].

Publications
Topics
Sections

 

Your first patient of the day is a 2½-year-old who has a runny nose and a cough. His mother has brought him in because his cough is more frequent and persistent than she is accustomed to hearing. He is happy and playful, and has a low-grade fever. You notice that he is slightly tachypneic, and you hear fine wheezes scattered throughout his lung fields. You also recall that at age 6 months, he was diagnosed with bronchiolitis but was never hospitalized.

Will you give him antibiotics and send him home with a nebulizer? Just the nebulizer? Just the antibiotics? Neither? We can debate those answers for hours, and you can plead for more information before you commit to an answer. But let’s skip over the question about what you are going to do and focus on what you are going to say. I want to know what diagnosis you are going to share with this mother.

Dr. William G. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years.
Dr. William G. Wilkoff
Are you going to tell her that her son has bronchitis? A second bout of bronchiolitis? A chest cold? A simple upper respiratory infection with some wheezing? Or are you going to drop the A-bomb on her and tell her that her son has asthma? Will you try to soften the message by telling her it’s just a “touch of asthma”? How about saying he’s got “asthmatic bronchitis?”

Or are you going to try a pseudoscientific smoke screen and tell her that her that her son has “reactive airway disease”? You could soften it even further by reassuring her that his diagnosis is so common that it has an abbreviation: “We usually just call it RAD.”

You may not have trouble telling a parent that her child has asthma, but most clinicians struggle with dropping the A-bomb. Why? It may be that we don’t want the family to freak out. You could end up spending the rest of the morning coaxing them back off the ledge because you have diagnosed their child with a chronic illness that could kill him. This kind of exaggerated reaction is far less of a problem now than it was 30 or 40 years ago. Almost every parent knows at least one family with an asthmatic child who seems to be doing just fine. In my opinion, this apparent increase in prevalence of asthma is primarily the result of an improved awareness and a relabeling phenomenon.

Your own experience probably reflects the national statistics that less than a third of preschoolers with recurrent wheezing still have asthma by the time they finish kindergarten. And you may be hesitant to use the asthma diagnosis because you don’t want to be labeled as a clinician who cries wolf.

It may be that subconsciously you are afraid that by raising the asthma red flag you will be committing yourself to the time gobbling task of managing another patient with a chronic disease. You could gamble that he will only have one or two more episodes of wheezing, and you will be able to treat his illnesses simply as a short series of unconnected events.

Is there any harm in dancing around the asthma diagnosis? The authors of a Perspectives article in the January 2017 issue of Pediatrics argue persuasively that vague descriptive and nondiagnostic terms such as “reactive airways disease” are confusing and should be abandoned (“RAD: Reactive Airway Disease or Really Asthma Disease?” Pediatrics. 2017 Jan. doi: 10.1542/peds.2016-0625). They question why we would treat a condition with asthma medications and not call it asthma just because a child will probably out grow it later.

It’s more than just about sloppy language. Jose A. Castro-Rodriguez, MD, a physician who has pioneered one of the tools than can be used to predict persistent asthma in young children, observes that by failing to signal to parents that the child has a chronic condition, we run the risk that the child will be less adherent to the medication and management program we recommend. (“The Asthma Predictive Index,” Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol. 2011;11[3]:157-61).

If we are going to tighten up our language and drop the vague substitute terms like RAD, and if we are hesitant to drop the A-bomb because it sounds too much like a lifelong disease when the truth is that most young children will outgrow asthma, what should we tell all those parents of wheezing preschoolers? The authors of the article in Pediatrics have several suggestions. Their favorite and the one that appeals most to me is toddler asthma. As they observe, the term “toddler asthma” implies an endpoint and the need for reevaluation to determine if the child is one of the minority who has “real” asthma.

Although it’s almost always about the money. When it's not about the money, it's usually about the labels we use.

 

 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].

 

Your first patient of the day is a 2½-year-old who has a runny nose and a cough. His mother has brought him in because his cough is more frequent and persistent than she is accustomed to hearing. He is happy and playful, and has a low-grade fever. You notice that he is slightly tachypneic, and you hear fine wheezes scattered throughout his lung fields. You also recall that at age 6 months, he was diagnosed with bronchiolitis but was never hospitalized.

Will you give him antibiotics and send him home with a nebulizer? Just the nebulizer? Just the antibiotics? Neither? We can debate those answers for hours, and you can plead for more information before you commit to an answer. But let’s skip over the question about what you are going to do and focus on what you are going to say. I want to know what diagnosis you are going to share with this mother.

Dr. William G. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years.
Dr. William G. Wilkoff
Are you going to tell her that her son has bronchitis? A second bout of bronchiolitis? A chest cold? A simple upper respiratory infection with some wheezing? Or are you going to drop the A-bomb on her and tell her that her son has asthma? Will you try to soften the message by telling her it’s just a “touch of asthma”? How about saying he’s got “asthmatic bronchitis?”

Or are you going to try a pseudoscientific smoke screen and tell her that her that her son has “reactive airway disease”? You could soften it even further by reassuring her that his diagnosis is so common that it has an abbreviation: “We usually just call it RAD.”

You may not have trouble telling a parent that her child has asthma, but most clinicians struggle with dropping the A-bomb. Why? It may be that we don’t want the family to freak out. You could end up spending the rest of the morning coaxing them back off the ledge because you have diagnosed their child with a chronic illness that could kill him. This kind of exaggerated reaction is far less of a problem now than it was 30 or 40 years ago. Almost every parent knows at least one family with an asthmatic child who seems to be doing just fine. In my opinion, this apparent increase in prevalence of asthma is primarily the result of an improved awareness and a relabeling phenomenon.

Your own experience probably reflects the national statistics that less than a third of preschoolers with recurrent wheezing still have asthma by the time they finish kindergarten. And you may be hesitant to use the asthma diagnosis because you don’t want to be labeled as a clinician who cries wolf.

It may be that subconsciously you are afraid that by raising the asthma red flag you will be committing yourself to the time gobbling task of managing another patient with a chronic disease. You could gamble that he will only have one or two more episodes of wheezing, and you will be able to treat his illnesses simply as a short series of unconnected events.

Is there any harm in dancing around the asthma diagnosis? The authors of a Perspectives article in the January 2017 issue of Pediatrics argue persuasively that vague descriptive and nondiagnostic terms such as “reactive airways disease” are confusing and should be abandoned (“RAD: Reactive Airway Disease or Really Asthma Disease?” Pediatrics. 2017 Jan. doi: 10.1542/peds.2016-0625). They question why we would treat a condition with asthma medications and not call it asthma just because a child will probably out grow it later.

It’s more than just about sloppy language. Jose A. Castro-Rodriguez, MD, a physician who has pioneered one of the tools than can be used to predict persistent asthma in young children, observes that by failing to signal to parents that the child has a chronic condition, we run the risk that the child will be less adherent to the medication and management program we recommend. (“The Asthma Predictive Index,” Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol. 2011;11[3]:157-61).

If we are going to tighten up our language and drop the vague substitute terms like RAD, and if we are hesitant to drop the A-bomb because it sounds too much like a lifelong disease when the truth is that most young children will outgrow asthma, what should we tell all those parents of wheezing preschoolers? The authors of the article in Pediatrics have several suggestions. Their favorite and the one that appeals most to me is toddler asthma. As they observe, the term “toddler asthma” implies an endpoint and the need for reevaluation to determine if the child is one of the minority who has “real” asthma.

Although it’s almost always about the money. When it's not about the money, it's usually about the labels we use.

 

 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME

Essential tips to diagnose and intervene early in hair loss

Article Type
Changed
Fri, 01/18/2019 - 16:31

 

Ask patients about their hair during a general dermatology examination, recommend supplements backed by peer-reviewed studies when appropriate, and watch for a new trend – man bun traction alopecia.

These and other clinical pearls on hair loss come courtesy of Wendy E. Roberts, MD.

“Hair loss can be scary,” but if physicians diagnose the underlying cause and treat early, a number of existing and upcoming treatments can be effective, said Dr. Roberts, a dermatologist in private practice in Rancho Mirage, Calif. “Timing is very critical.”

Dr. Wendy Roberts


A dermatology full body examination is a perfect opportunity to ask patients about their hair because “you’re checking them from head to toe,” Dr. Roberts said. She recommends asking: “How is your hair doing?” This advice prompted a bit of uproar from the ODAC audience, suggesting this may be too sensitive a subject for some to broach with patients. Dr. Roberts responded, “No, not at all. Your patients will be glad you asked.

“That simple question will open up doors of opportunity” for dermatologists, she said. The condition remains very common: About 80 million people in the United States are affected by its No. 1 cause, hereditary hair loss. An Internet search for “hair loss,” in fact, reveals an overwhelming amount of consumer interest in hair loss treatment and management, yielding approximately 35 million results.

Paying attention to hair loss is not just question of appearance or aesthetics; hair loss can also indicate declining health, Dr. Roberts said at the Orlando Dermatology Aesthetic and Clinical Conference.


Suggest supplements backed by science

Given the millions of online searches, it’s apparent that people continue to look for the latest solutions to treat or prevent further hair loss. But as with many “treatments” and “cures” touted online, caution is warranted – not every claim is backed by solid research, she said. “Go with supplements that do have peer review literature.”

For this reason, Dr. Roberts suggests considering the following three supplements for patients with hair loss:

• Nutrafol – “What I like about this supplement is it has ashwagandha, an Indian herb that reduces stress,” she said.

• Viviscal – This supplement has the marine extract AminoMar, which includes shark cartilage and oyster extract powder.

• Vitalize Hair – Its active ingredient, Redensyl, contains two molecules, Dr. Roberts said, one to boost metabolism of the hair follicle and the other to increase hair volume over time.

Application of platelet rich plasma is another option showing promise for hair loss. It works by activating hair bulb cells. “It kind of whispers to the hair: ‘Be young again.’ Many times it comes in at the original hair color – tell your patients to be prepared to see their hair color from childhood.” Dr. Roberts said.


Man bun alert

There is a new consideration in male hair loss based on changing hairstyles. “One thing that is trending: man bun traction alopecia. We see a lot of this in Southern California where I practice,” Dr. Roberts said. She showed meeting attendees the photo of a man with a tight hair bun whose hairline was starting to recede.

EzumeImages/Thinkstock


Basics to remember: differential diagnosis

When a patient presents with hair loss, things to consider in a differential diagnosis include chemical hair treatments, hairstyles that can cause traction alopecia, and behaviors such as compulsive hair pulling. Trichotillomania is on the increase. It affects approximately 2% of the population, but 90% of those are women, Dr. Roberts said. To diagnose, “look at the scalp and lower area near the nape of neck, especially in younger patients.”

She suggested that dermatologists show male patients the Norwood Scale illustrations of hair loss. The illustrations can help them understand when their hair loss is progressing over time, she added. For female patients with hair loss, the Ludwig Scale for hair loss in women can be very illustrative.

In the work-up of the patient, conduct a physical exam and consider overall health and nutritional status. Ask about family history as well, because relatives are the best window for insight into hair loss caused by genetics and aging, Dr. Roberts said.

Review patient medications. Older patients, in particular, often take multiple medications, which increases the likelihood for interactions or side effects leading to hair loss.

In addition, she had a few specific recommendations. “When you have male patient with hair loss taking Propecia [finasteride], talk to them about the dangers of exposure to a female partner and pregnancy in particular.” Also ask patients to bring in any supplements they are taking. Watch out for keratin supplements in patients with renal disease, she added, because elevated levels can be associated with kidney problems.

In terms of laboratory testing, consider checking for thyroid function, hormonal imbalance, and anemia. “The most overlooked is hemoglobin levels,” Dr. Roberts said, although anemia can cause hair loss in some patients.

 

 

Dr. Roberts is a speaker, consultant, investigator for and/or receives honoraria from Allergan, Colorescience, Galderma, Lytera, MDRejuvena, Restorsea, SkinMedica, Theraplex, Top MD Skincare, Valeant Pharmaceutical International, and Viviscal.

Meeting/Event
Publications
Topics
Sections
Meeting/Event
Meeting/Event

 

Ask patients about their hair during a general dermatology examination, recommend supplements backed by peer-reviewed studies when appropriate, and watch for a new trend – man bun traction alopecia.

These and other clinical pearls on hair loss come courtesy of Wendy E. Roberts, MD.

“Hair loss can be scary,” but if physicians diagnose the underlying cause and treat early, a number of existing and upcoming treatments can be effective, said Dr. Roberts, a dermatologist in private practice in Rancho Mirage, Calif. “Timing is very critical.”

Dr. Wendy Roberts


A dermatology full body examination is a perfect opportunity to ask patients about their hair because “you’re checking them from head to toe,” Dr. Roberts said. She recommends asking: “How is your hair doing?” This advice prompted a bit of uproar from the ODAC audience, suggesting this may be too sensitive a subject for some to broach with patients. Dr. Roberts responded, “No, not at all. Your patients will be glad you asked.

“That simple question will open up doors of opportunity” for dermatologists, she said. The condition remains very common: About 80 million people in the United States are affected by its No. 1 cause, hereditary hair loss. An Internet search for “hair loss,” in fact, reveals an overwhelming amount of consumer interest in hair loss treatment and management, yielding approximately 35 million results.

Paying attention to hair loss is not just question of appearance or aesthetics; hair loss can also indicate declining health, Dr. Roberts said at the Orlando Dermatology Aesthetic and Clinical Conference.


Suggest supplements backed by science

Given the millions of online searches, it’s apparent that people continue to look for the latest solutions to treat or prevent further hair loss. But as with many “treatments” and “cures” touted online, caution is warranted – not every claim is backed by solid research, she said. “Go with supplements that do have peer review literature.”

For this reason, Dr. Roberts suggests considering the following three supplements for patients with hair loss:

• Nutrafol – “What I like about this supplement is it has ashwagandha, an Indian herb that reduces stress,” she said.

• Viviscal – This supplement has the marine extract AminoMar, which includes shark cartilage and oyster extract powder.

• Vitalize Hair – Its active ingredient, Redensyl, contains two molecules, Dr. Roberts said, one to boost metabolism of the hair follicle and the other to increase hair volume over time.

Application of platelet rich plasma is another option showing promise for hair loss. It works by activating hair bulb cells. “It kind of whispers to the hair: ‘Be young again.’ Many times it comes in at the original hair color – tell your patients to be prepared to see their hair color from childhood.” Dr. Roberts said.


Man bun alert

There is a new consideration in male hair loss based on changing hairstyles. “One thing that is trending: man bun traction alopecia. We see a lot of this in Southern California where I practice,” Dr. Roberts said. She showed meeting attendees the photo of a man with a tight hair bun whose hairline was starting to recede.

EzumeImages/Thinkstock


Basics to remember: differential diagnosis

When a patient presents with hair loss, things to consider in a differential diagnosis include chemical hair treatments, hairstyles that can cause traction alopecia, and behaviors such as compulsive hair pulling. Trichotillomania is on the increase. It affects approximately 2% of the population, but 90% of those are women, Dr. Roberts said. To diagnose, “look at the scalp and lower area near the nape of neck, especially in younger patients.”

She suggested that dermatologists show male patients the Norwood Scale illustrations of hair loss. The illustrations can help them understand when their hair loss is progressing over time, she added. For female patients with hair loss, the Ludwig Scale for hair loss in women can be very illustrative.

In the work-up of the patient, conduct a physical exam and consider overall health and nutritional status. Ask about family history as well, because relatives are the best window for insight into hair loss caused by genetics and aging, Dr. Roberts said.

Review patient medications. Older patients, in particular, often take multiple medications, which increases the likelihood for interactions or side effects leading to hair loss.

In addition, she had a few specific recommendations. “When you have male patient with hair loss taking Propecia [finasteride], talk to them about the dangers of exposure to a female partner and pregnancy in particular.” Also ask patients to bring in any supplements they are taking. Watch out for keratin supplements in patients with renal disease, she added, because elevated levels can be associated with kidney problems.

In terms of laboratory testing, consider checking for thyroid function, hormonal imbalance, and anemia. “The most overlooked is hemoglobin levels,” Dr. Roberts said, although anemia can cause hair loss in some patients.

 

 

Dr. Roberts is a speaker, consultant, investigator for and/or receives honoraria from Allergan, Colorescience, Galderma, Lytera, MDRejuvena, Restorsea, SkinMedica, Theraplex, Top MD Skincare, Valeant Pharmaceutical International, and Viviscal.

 

Ask patients about their hair during a general dermatology examination, recommend supplements backed by peer-reviewed studies when appropriate, and watch for a new trend – man bun traction alopecia.

These and other clinical pearls on hair loss come courtesy of Wendy E. Roberts, MD.

“Hair loss can be scary,” but if physicians diagnose the underlying cause and treat early, a number of existing and upcoming treatments can be effective, said Dr. Roberts, a dermatologist in private practice in Rancho Mirage, Calif. “Timing is very critical.”

Dr. Wendy Roberts


A dermatology full body examination is a perfect opportunity to ask patients about their hair because “you’re checking them from head to toe,” Dr. Roberts said. She recommends asking: “How is your hair doing?” This advice prompted a bit of uproar from the ODAC audience, suggesting this may be too sensitive a subject for some to broach with patients. Dr. Roberts responded, “No, not at all. Your patients will be glad you asked.

“That simple question will open up doors of opportunity” for dermatologists, she said. The condition remains very common: About 80 million people in the United States are affected by its No. 1 cause, hereditary hair loss. An Internet search for “hair loss,” in fact, reveals an overwhelming amount of consumer interest in hair loss treatment and management, yielding approximately 35 million results.

Paying attention to hair loss is not just question of appearance or aesthetics; hair loss can also indicate declining health, Dr. Roberts said at the Orlando Dermatology Aesthetic and Clinical Conference.


Suggest supplements backed by science

Given the millions of online searches, it’s apparent that people continue to look for the latest solutions to treat or prevent further hair loss. But as with many “treatments” and “cures” touted online, caution is warranted – not every claim is backed by solid research, she said. “Go with supplements that do have peer review literature.”

For this reason, Dr. Roberts suggests considering the following three supplements for patients with hair loss:

• Nutrafol – “What I like about this supplement is it has ashwagandha, an Indian herb that reduces stress,” she said.

• Viviscal – This supplement has the marine extract AminoMar, which includes shark cartilage and oyster extract powder.

• Vitalize Hair – Its active ingredient, Redensyl, contains two molecules, Dr. Roberts said, one to boost metabolism of the hair follicle and the other to increase hair volume over time.

Application of platelet rich plasma is another option showing promise for hair loss. It works by activating hair bulb cells. “It kind of whispers to the hair: ‘Be young again.’ Many times it comes in at the original hair color – tell your patients to be prepared to see their hair color from childhood.” Dr. Roberts said.


Man bun alert

There is a new consideration in male hair loss based on changing hairstyles. “One thing that is trending: man bun traction alopecia. We see a lot of this in Southern California where I practice,” Dr. Roberts said. She showed meeting attendees the photo of a man with a tight hair bun whose hairline was starting to recede.

EzumeImages/Thinkstock


Basics to remember: differential diagnosis

When a patient presents with hair loss, things to consider in a differential diagnosis include chemical hair treatments, hairstyles that can cause traction alopecia, and behaviors such as compulsive hair pulling. Trichotillomania is on the increase. It affects approximately 2% of the population, but 90% of those are women, Dr. Roberts said. To diagnose, “look at the scalp and lower area near the nape of neck, especially in younger patients.”

She suggested that dermatologists show male patients the Norwood Scale illustrations of hair loss. The illustrations can help them understand when their hair loss is progressing over time, she added. For female patients with hair loss, the Ludwig Scale for hair loss in women can be very illustrative.

In the work-up of the patient, conduct a physical exam and consider overall health and nutritional status. Ask about family history as well, because relatives are the best window for insight into hair loss caused by genetics and aging, Dr. Roberts said.

Review patient medications. Older patients, in particular, often take multiple medications, which increases the likelihood for interactions or side effects leading to hair loss.

In addition, she had a few specific recommendations. “When you have male patient with hair loss taking Propecia [finasteride], talk to them about the dangers of exposure to a female partner and pregnancy in particular.” Also ask patients to bring in any supplements they are taking. Watch out for keratin supplements in patients with renal disease, she added, because elevated levels can be associated with kidney problems.

In terms of laboratory testing, consider checking for thyroid function, hormonal imbalance, and anemia. “The most overlooked is hemoglobin levels,” Dr. Roberts said, although anemia can cause hair loss in some patients.

 

 

Dr. Roberts is a speaker, consultant, investigator for and/or receives honoraria from Allergan, Colorescience, Galderma, Lytera, MDRejuvena, Restorsea, SkinMedica, Theraplex, Top MD Skincare, Valeant Pharmaceutical International, and Viviscal.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Click for Credit Status
Ready
Sections
Article Source

EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM ODAC 2017

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME