User login
Androgen deficiency in older men: Indications, advantages, and pitfalls of testosterone replacement therapy
Editor’s note: This is the second of two articles on hypogonadism in men and focuses on the appropriate use of testosterone therapy. The first article, published last month, focused in more detail on the differential diagnosis of hypogonadism.
As men age, testosterone production gradually decreases. In our increasingly aged population, clinicians will continue to see an increase in the number of men with seemingly nonspecific symptoms of aging that are possibly due to low serum testosterone (eg, low energy level, depressive symptoms, erectile dysfunction, decreased libido). These clinical symptoms, coupled with low serum testosterone, may adversely affect quality of life and life expectancy. Testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) may improve symptoms and quality of life. Given the nonspecific nature of these symptoms, accurate diagnosis and treatment of clinically significant low testosterone with a goal of symptom and quality of life improvement can prove challenging.
These challenges in diagnosis and treatment result in a lack of standardized nomenclature. The terms male menopause and andropause, although popular, are the least helpful, as they have few correlates with the better-defined female menopause. Late-onset hypogonadism implies a well-defined, later age of decline, which is inaccurate since the decline in serum testosterone in men begins in middle age and is gradual. Testosterone deficiency syndrome implies a set of specific and well-defined symptoms. Androgen deficiency in the aging male (ADAM) and Androgen deficiency in the older male are common terms specifying an age cohort (> 40 years old) and an abnormal laboratory value without mention of symptoms. While all these terms have their limitations, we will primarily use ADAM in this discussion.
PREVALENCE OF LOW TESTOSTERONE
Serum testosterone levels begin to decline in men in their mid-40s, with an approximately 1% to 2% decline annually and a marked decline after age 60.1
Araujo and colleagues2 studied the prevalence of androgen-deficient men, with androgen deficiency defined as at least three signs or symptoms and either a total testosterone less than 200 ng/dL or a total testosterone 200 ng/dL to 400 ng/dL with a free testosterone less than 8.91 ng/dL. The overall prevalence of low testosterone on initial measurement was 6%, which doubled to 12% with repeat measurement.
Serial measures are important: one study that followed untreated men over 15 years found normal testosterone on serial measures in 50%.3 In a multicenter cross-sectional study, 11.8% of men had low testosterone and low or normal luteinizing hormone (LH) levels (secondary hypogonadism/hypothalamic-pituitary failure), with 2% of patients with low testosterone and elevated LH (primary hypogonadism/testicular failure).4
CLINICAL PRESENTATION AND DIAGNOSIS
A biochemical diagnosis of low testosterone is dependent on accurate measurement. Testosterone release is diurnal, with the highest levels in the early morning, and often has week-to-week variability. Thus, it is important to collect blood in the early morning and to confirm a diagnosis of low testosterone with at least one repeat measurement several days later, including LH assessment. LH levels will help differentiate primary hypogonadism from secondary hypogonadism, which may alter diagnosis and treatment in certain patients, with secondary hypogonadism associated with pituitary dysfunction, and primary hypogonadism associated with aging.4
Testosterone binds in the bloodstream to sex hormone-binding globulin (SHBG), and this bound form is generally considered biologically inactive, although there are in vitro and animal studies suggesting SHBG-bound androgen may indeed have biological activity. 5,6 “Bioavailable” testosterone is active and includes both free testosterone and testosterone bound to albumin.
There is no general agreement on the acceptable normal range of testosterone, with variability within the literature and between laboratories. “Normal” total testosterone levels have ranged from more than 280 ng/dL to more than 350 ng/dL (12 nmol/L).7,8 Similarly, there is no generally accepted lower limit of normal, although some studies report a threshold level of testosterone less than 230 ng/dL (8 nmol/L) as “abnormal.” Values between these two upper and lower limits are considered “borderline.”7,8 These intermediate or borderline values coupled with clinical symptoms of testosterone deficiency syndrome or ADAM should be considered abnormal.
When total testosterone is borderline, measurement of free or bioavailable testosterone (free plus albumin-bound) should be considered. Total testosterone is typically measured using automated immunoassay platforms, with method-related differences leading to significant variability in measurement accuracy and precision. This variability is seen most dramatically in those with low total testosterone.9 However, the variability of total testosterone measurements is substantially smaller among mass spectrometry assays than among immunoassays. 10
The gold standards for free testosterone measurement are centrifugal ultrafiltration and equilibrium dialysis.9 However, these techniques are laborious and usually unavailable in local laboratories. Calculated free testosterone values using total testosterone and SHBG are most commonly used and are sufficiently accurate for clinical practice.11
Free testosterone levels can be diagnostic when total testosterone levels do not correspond with clinical presentation. However, the clinical utility of free testosterone is difficult to assess due to the variability among laboratory assays and a lack of consensus on threshold parameters. A threshold free testosterone level of more than 225 pmol/L (65 pg/mL) is generally considered normal.7,8 Before starting a patient on TRT, measurement of hemoglobin and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and digital rectal examination of the prostate (if age is > 39) are essential.
Prolactin levels are recommended when low testosterone is confirmed, especially in patients at high clinical risk for hyperprolactinemia. Once hyperprolactinemia is identified, Endocrine Society guidelines recommend excluding medication use, renal failure, hypothyroidism, and parasellar tumors as possible causes of elevated prolactin levels.12
Low testosterone values should be treated only in patients with clinically significant symptoms that are likely to be caused by the low testosterone itself. Symptoms associated with age-related decline in testosterone that may improve with TRT include low libido,13,14 low energy,14 depressed mood,15–17 low muscle mass, osteoporosis, and hot flashes. Men with erectile dysfunction have also shown a significant improvement with TRT compared with placebo, but with a variable overall response independent of normalization of testosterone. 18,19 This is likely due to the multifactorial nature of erectile dysfunction, including vascular, neurologic, psychogenic, and endocrinologic causes.
Screening questionnaires have been developed for symptoms of low testosterone, but their clinical utility is unclear. The ADAM questionnaire is used as a screening tool for low testosterone but not to monitor response to TRT, and it is highly nonspecific.20 The Aging Male Symptom Scale questionnaire includes psychological, somatovegetative, and sexual components and is used both to screen for low testosterone and to measure outcomes.21 However, a recent observational study comparing the ability of these questionnaires to assess clinical symptoms revealed a low sensitivity and a low specificity to detect androgen deficiency in men with a total testosterone level less than 300 ng/dL.22 Overall, the current data do not conclusively support the use of hypogonadism questionnaires for screening.
The patient history when evaluating for ADAM should include evaluation of sexual and constitutional symptoms as described above and in Table 1. In addition, a history of traumatic, medical, or surgical events that could affect testosterone production should be obtained, including cryptorchidism, scrotal, inguinal, or abdominal surgery, pituitary surgery or radiation, prior issues with infertility, timing of puberty, history of renal or hepatic failure, chemotherapy (for cancer or autoimmune diseases), and prior use of anabolic steroids or opiates.
A complete physical examination should include assessment of virilization, gynecomastia, and the genitalia, including the size, position, and volume of the testes. The size and consistency of the prostate should be assessed on digital rectal examination.
LOW TESTOSTERONE AND ASSOCIATED COMORBIDITIES
Low testosterone is associated with many comorbidities, including metabolic syndrome, depression, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and cardiovascular disease, as discussed later in this section. Low testosterone has also shown associations with osteoporosis, cognitive impairment, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, decreased physical performance, end-stage renal disease, and treatment with steroids or opiates.23–26 However, the studies that found these associations included men younger than 40 years and may not be fully applicable to the ADAM population.
The association of metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes mellitus with low testosterone is well established in multiple studies. Grossman and colleagues27 investigated the association of type 2 diabetes mellitus and low testosterone, with low total testosterone defined as below 10 nmol/L and low calculated free testosterone less than 0.23 nmol/L. The prevalence of low total testosterone was 43%, and the prevalence of low free testosterone was 57%. In addition, a recent meta-analysis comparing total testosterone of men with and without metabolic syndrome revealed an association between a baseline decrease in mean total and free testosterone levels in men with metabolic syndrome compared with controls. This study found a total testosterone mean difference of –2.64 nmol/L (95% confidence interval [CI] –2.95 to –2.32) and a free testosterone mean difference of –0.26 pmol/L (95% CI –0.39 to –0.13), respectively, when comparing men with metabolic syndrome against those without.28
Testosterone has also been suggested to be protective against type 2 diabetes mellitus, with 42% lower risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus in men with testosterone levels ranging from 450 ng/dL to 605 ng/dL.29
Obesity has been specifically linked with secondary hypogonadism.4,23,24 A prospective cohort of 58 men with an average age of 46 years and a body mass index ranging from 30 to 45 kg/m2 were monitored on a low-calorie diet for 9 weeks. Afterward, biochemical analysis revealed an increase in free testosterone from 185 pmol/L ± 66 to 208 ± 70 pmol/L (P = .002) with a mean weight loss of 16.3 kg ± 4.5 kg.30 This emphasizes the importance of lifestyle changes in the management of hypogonadal men.
LOW TESTOSTERONE AND THE OVERALL MORTALITY RATE
Low testosterone is associated unfavorably with the rate of all-cause mortality. A retrospective study in male veterans over age 40 with repeated testosterone levels over a 5-year period found that the risk of death from all causes in men with normal testosterone (> 250 ng/dL or free testosterone > 0.75 ng/dL) was 20% (95% CI 16.2%–241%) vs 35% (95% CI 28.5%–41.4%) in men with low testosterone (< 250 ng/dL or free testosterone < 0.75 ng/dL). In multivariate analysis, men with testosterone less than 250 ng/dL (< 8.7 nmol/L) or free testosterone less than 0.75 ng/dL (< 0.03 nmol/L) had up to an 88% higher death rate than men with normal testosterone levels.31
Low testosterone has also been associated with other end-organ, disease-specific mortality. In men with end-stage renal disease, low testosterone was an independent predictor of death from all causes and from cardiovascular disease.32 A prospective European health study revealed an association between low testosterone and increased risk of death from cardiovascular disease and cancer.33 A recent meta-analysis of population-based studies confirmed this association, despite significant interstudy heterogeneity. 34 Although multiple studies show an independent association of low testosterone and increased mortality rate, causality remains unconfirmed. This may be difficult to prove, given the available study designs and the nonspecific nature of symptoms related to low testosterone and potentially associated comorbidities.
TRT: INDICATIONS AND CONTRAINDICATIONS
The indications, benefits, and risks of TRT are controversial, with current data lacking long-term follow-up and consistent biochemical target values. Treatment of low testosterone is not indicated at the present time in the absence of clinical symptoms.
According to recently published guidelines, TRT is recommended for symptomatic men with low or borderline total testosterone or free testosterone (< 350 ng/dL or < 65 pg/mL).7,8 Patients with borderline biochemical values (total testosterone 200–350 ng/dL, free testosterone 40–65 pg/mL) and possible related symptoms should be treated with TRT for at least 3 months and then reevaluated to verify improved testosterone levels and to assess for symptom amelioration or resolution.35 Dose escalation is recommended in patients with subtherapeutic testosterone levels and limited clinical improvement after 3 months of treatment.
Target maintenance testosterone levels have not been defined, with mid to lower young adult male serum testosterone levels recommended at this time.8 Given that the current literature does not specify a target testosterone replacement range, we recommend monitoring the clinical response along with total testosterone to decide adjustments in TRT. Ultimately, treatment goals of TRT should be the resolution of signs and symptoms, including improvement of sexual function, libido, and preservation of bone mineral density.7,8
Contraindications
TRT is not recommended in men with the following:
- Breast cancer
- Polycythemia (hematocrit > 50%)
- Untreated obstructive sleep apnea
- Lower urinary tract symptoms caused by an enlarged prostate; International Prostate Symptom Score > 19
- Poorly controlled heart failure
- Desire for fertility.
The role of TRT in prostate cancer remains controversial (see below) and remains contraindicated in recent Endocrine Society clinical practice guidelines.7 Guidelines recommend urologic consultation prior to initiation of TRT in patients at increased risk of prostate cancer,7 based on age, race, family history, PSA, PSA velocity, and history of prostate biopsy.
One prominent historic concern about androgen replacement therapy regards the potential for de novo development of prostate cancer. Numerous studies have failed to find elevated risk of new diagnosis, progression, or recurrence of prostate cancer in patients on TRT.36,37 Nevertheless, patients who develop elevated PSA, increased PSA velocity, or an abnormal digital rectal examination while on TRT should undergo prostate biopsy.
TRT FORMULATIONS AND TREATMENT OPTIONS
A number of effective formulations of TRT are available (Table 2). Transdermal and parenteral formulations are most commonly used. Enteric testosterone formulations are not available in the United States and are associated with hepatotoxicity. While buccal testosterone therapy is available, it often leads to local gingival irritation and has not gained widespread popularity.
Parenteral TRT can be administered intramuscularly (IM) or subcutaneously (SQ). Testosterone cypionate (Depo-Testosterone) is the only IM form available in the United States and is given every 2 to 3 weeks. It is the least expensive form of TRT, but it requires frequent administration (by either the clinical practitioner or the patient himself). Testosterone cypionate injections lead to markedly wide swings of testosterone levels, ranging from supraphysiologic levels for a few days after administration to hypogonadal levels before the next injection. This may be mitigated by more-frequent injections. The longer-acting form testosterone undecanoate is available outside the United States and is given every 12 weeks when stable levels are reached.
The other parenteral option is SQ slow-release pellets (Testopel). These pellets have 75 mg of testosterone. Typically 8 to 14 pellets are placed subcutaneously in the buttock area, which will provide coverage for 3 to 6 months.38 The insertion procedure is simple with a short learning curve, limited compliance issues, and elimination of risk of transdermal transmission of drug to others. Disadvantages include wound infection and pellet extrusion, seen in 0.3% to 12% of patients in various studies.38
Another route of TRT is transdermal, including patches, liquids, and gels. Patches are applied daily and are rotated to different sites with minimal risk for skin transmission to others, although use may be limited by site dermatitis. Three hydro-alcoholic gel formulations are currently available in the United States: Androgel (1% or 1.62%), which is applied to the chest or the shoulders; Testim 1%, which is applied to the shoulders; and Fortesta (2%), which is applied to the thighs. A liquid preparation, Axiron, is applied to the axillae. Because secondary transfer to women and children is possible, it is important to thoroughly wash hands after application and to cover the treated skin with clothing. In 3 to 4 hours, all the medication is absorbed, and the area should then be washed before direct skin contact with others (Table 2).
MONITORING PATIENTS ON TRT
Patients starting TRT will require clinical and biochemical monitoring to evaluate response to therapy as well as possible side effects. The first set of laboratory values should be obtained 6 to 12 weeks after initiation of therapy and then typically quarterly for 1 year, every 6 months for the second year, and annually thereafter. Laboratory values monitored should include total testosterone, PSA, and hematocrit.
Men on daily therapy (patch, gel, liquid) should have testosterone drawn approximately 2 hours after application. Current TRT regimen data lack an appropriate target testosterone value, and guidelines suggest a mid to lower young adult male testosterone level.8 Since this is not clearly delineated in the current literature, the authors recommend monitoring clinical symptoms along with testosterone levels when adjusting TRT. It is important to document that serum testosterone was actually increased to the normal range in treated men without clinical improvement.
A rise in PSA of up to 24% would be an acceptable response in a benign prostate gland, but a higher increase or increase above 4.0 ng/dL should prompt consideration of prostate biopsy. 39 Similarly, hemoglobin and hematocrit typically increase, but a hematocrit greater than 55% should prompt dose reduction or cessation.7 Transaminases do not need routine monitoring during parenteral or transdermal therapy. Bone mineral density should be monitored every 1 to 2 years.7,8
CLINICAL BENEFITS OF TRT
There are promising data regarding the clinical benefits of TRT in patients with metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes mellitus. A recent meta-analysis investigating the effect of TRT on metabolic syndrome revealed an improvement in fasting plasma glucose, homeostatic model assessment index, triglycerides, treadmill duration, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and waist circumference.40,41 TRT also decreased insulin resistance and improved glycemic control in type 2 diabetic hypogonadal men.42 Results from a randomized controlled trial comparing 12 weeks of intramuscular testosterone treatment vs placebo in men with metabolic syndrome revealed an improvement in mean waist circumference from 108 cm ± 8 cm to 105.5 cm ± 7.7 cm. Sixty percent of men initially diagnosed with metabolic syndrome and treated with testosterone no longer met diagnostic criteria for metabolic syndrome according to the National Cholesterol Education Program–Third Adult Treatment Panel (NCEP-ATP III) and the International Diabetes Federation (IDF) guidelines.43
Depression has also been associated with low testosterone, with free testosterone levels below 170 pmol/L associated with frank depressive symptoms and levels below 220 pmol/L predictive of future onset of depressive symptoms.15 Testosterone replacement therapy has been shown to improve depressive symptoms in hypogonadal men.16,17 Shores et al16 conducted a randomized placebo-controlled study of testosterone replacement in men older than 50 years with dysthymia or minor depression. Men treated with testosterone gel for 12 weeks showed an improvement of baseline total testosterone levels from 291 ng/dL to 449 ng/dL. Men treated with testosterone also had a 53% rate of depression remission compared with 19% in the placebo group.16
The evidence supporting improved sexual function with TRT is variable. Some studies indicate limited or transient improvement of sexual function after TRT in men with erectile dysfunction,18,19 while others report an improvement in sexual function after 3 months of TRT.44 Because of the multifactorial nature of erectile dysfunction, men with erectile dysfunction and ADAM may require TRT and a phosphodiesterase type 5 (PDE5) inhibitor, as TRT alone may be insufficient. In a prospective observational study of men with erectile dysfunction and an initial testosterone lower than 300 ng/dL, testosterone gel was administered for at least 1 year, and improvement in sexual function was seen. Results revealed a correlation between improvement in sexual function and concurrent therapy with a PDE5 inhibitor.45 In a recent multicenter placebo-controlled study of PDE5 inhibitor nonresponders, the addition of a testosterone gel to tadalafil (Cialis) improved sexual function, again suggesting a synergistic effect when treating erectile dysfunction with both TRT and a PDE5 inhibitor.46
ADVERSE EVENTS RELATED TO TRT
Despite the aforementioned benefits, it must be emphasized that TRT should be used for specific target symptoms related to hypogonadism in older men and that the general health benefits and safety of TRT in an asymptomatic man with a low measured testosterone alone remains unproven.
Cardiovascular events. In a recent study of 209 elderly men with low testosterone and limited mobility associated with other chronic illnesses, 6 months of TRT resulted in the development of cardiovascular-related adverse events in 23 patients compared with 5 men in the placebo group.47 This may have been related to how adverse events were reported, with cumulative adverse events reviewed every 6 months, ranging from peripheral edema, hypertension, arrhythmias, and electrocardiographic changes. Serious adverse events were reviewed as they occurred, including stroke and acute myocardial events.
Other studies41,43 have revealed a favorable effect of TRT on cardiovascular disease and its surrogate markers but have lacked detailed reports and close monitoring of adverse events. Thus, variation of outcome measurement and reporting may obfuscate the detection of adverse cardiovascular events. Outcomes may also depend on the testosterone formulation and the target serum concentration.43
Larger, long-term placebo-controlled trials are needed to elucidate cardiovascular risk as a primary outcome in older androgen-deficient men undergoing TRT.
Other adverse effects related to TRT include erythrocytosis, seen in 3% to 18% of patients with transdermal administration,48,49 and up to 44% of patients undergoing IM therapy.48 Gynecomastia can occur and is more likely to resolve after treatment cessation of transdermal testosterone treatment than IM injections.48 Other potential clinical side effects that should prompt dose-reduction or discontinuation are irritability, bothersome acne, fluid retention, testicular atrophy, worsening of lower urinary tract symptoms from an enlarged prostate, and new or worsening heart failure. Infrequently, obstructive sleep apnea may be worsened by TRT, although currently the data linking sleep apnea and TRT are limited.50
TRT AND PROSTATE CANCER
The relationship between prostate cancer growth and testosterone is well established, with androgen ablation remaining the cornerstone of treatment for metastatic disease. Since androgen deprivation leads to the regression of prostate cancer, there has been concern that TRT may lead to growth or de novo development of prostate cancer. TRT has thus been strongly prohibited in patients with prostate cancer.7 However, recent data challenge this paradigm.
In a retrospective study of 81 men (mean age 56.8 years) treated with TRT, only 4 men (4.9%) developed prostate cancer over a 5-year period.51 This is less than the estimated 16.7% probability of developing prostate cancer in the general US population.52
Recent accumulating data support the concept of testosterone reaching a saturation level when binding androgen receptors within the prostate at extremely low levels. Increases above this level with TRT as with ADAM do not increase the risk of development or progression of prostate cancer.53 In addition, large doses of dihydrotestosterone do not seem to alter PSA, prostate volume, or International Prostate Symptom Score.54 These findings may have implications in future androgen therapies in hypogonadal older men.
Pathologic studies suggest low testosterone is associated with a higher Gleason grade of prostate cancer,55 although this association remains unconfirmed.56
In men with erectile dysfunction after prostate cancer treatment, TRT appears safe after brachytherapy57 or radical prostatectomy.58 A small study of 15 hypogonadal men with castrate-resistant prostate cancer and minimal or no metastatic disease showed only 1 patient had symptomatic progression.59 Moreover, a recent small study of 13 men with known prostate cancer on active surveillance showed that TRT did not lead to local progression or metastatic disease in any of the patients.60
While these data are provocative, it should still be emphasized that the standard of care for prostate cancer screening should be followed in age-appropriate men with ADAM. In addition, hypogonadal men with prostate cancer should only be treated with testosterone in conjunction with careful counseling and ongoing monitoring.
TRT SHOULD NOT REPLACE HEALTHY LIFESTYLE CHANGES
There has been a dramatic increase in TRT initiation for nonspecific symptoms of low testosterone in older androgen-deficient men. With this increase in initiation of TRT, there is a significant risk of overtreating. While there are many encouraging associations between treatment of androgen deficiency and improvement in rates of of morbidity and mortality, much remains unknown about the overall long-term risks and benefits of TRT. It is important to emphasize that TRT should not replace healthy lifestyle changes including regular exercise, weight loss, and diet modifications, which may provide the patient symptom resolution. Thoughtful dialogue with the patient is critical prior to TRT initiation, including thorough disclosure of the risks and benefits of treatment, and the limitations of the data as it evolves.
- Feldman HA, Longcope C, Derby CA, et al. Age trends in the level of serum testosterone and other hormones in middle-aged men: longitudinal results from the Massachusetts male aging study. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2002; 87:589–598.
- Araujo AB, O’Donnell AB, Brambilla DJ, et al. Prevalence and incidence of androgen deficiency in middle-aged and older men: estimates from the Massachusetts Male Aging Study. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2004; 89:5920–5926.
- Travison TG, Shackelton R, Araujo AB, et al. The natural history of symptomatic androgen deficiency in men: onset, progression, and spontaneous remission. J Am Geriatr Soc 2008; 56:831–839.
- Tajar A, Forti G, O’Neill TW, et al; EMAS Group. Characteristics of secondary, primary, and compensated hypogonadism in aging men: evidence from the European Male Ageing Study. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2010; 95:1810–1818.
- Hammes A, Andreassen TK, Spoelgen R, et al. Role of endocytosis in cellular uptake of sex steroids. Cell 2005; 122:751–762.
- Rosner W, Hryb DJ, Kahn SM, Nakhla AM, Romas NA. Interactions of sex hormone-binding globulin with target cells. Mol Cell Endocrinol 2010; 316:79–85.
- Bhasin S, Cunningham GR, Hayes FJ, et al; Task Force, Endocrine Society. Testosterone therapy in men with androgen deficiency syndromes: an Endocrine Society clinical practice guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2010; 95:2536–2559.
- Wang C, Nieschlag E, Swerdloff R, et al; International Society of Andrology (ISA). Investigation, treatment, and monitoring of late-onset hypogonadism in males: ISA, ISSAM, EAU, EAA, and ASA recommendations. J Androl 2009; 30:1–9.
- Morley JE, Patrick P, Perry HM. Evaluation of assays available to measure free testosterone. Metabolism 2002; 51:554–559.
- Vesper HW, Bhasin S, Wang C, et al. Interlaboratory comparison study of serum total testosterone [corrected] measurements performed by mass spectrometry methods. Steroids 2009; 74:498–503.
- Ly LP, Sartorius G, Hull L, et al. Accuracy of calculated free testosterone formulae in men. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) 2010; 73:382–388.
- Melmed S, Casanueva FF, Hoffman AR, et al; Endocrine Society. Diagnosis and treatment of hyperprolactinemia: an Endocrine Society clinical practice guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2011; 96:273–288.
- Wu FC, Tajar A, Beynon JM, et al; EMAS Group. Identification of late-onset hypogonadism in middle-aged and elderly men. N Engl J Med 2010; 363:123–135.
- Kelleher S, Conway AJ, Handelsman DJ. Blood testosterone threshold for androgen deficiency symptoms. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2004; 89:3813–3817.
- Joshi D, van Schoor NM, de Ronde W, et al. Low free testosterone levels are associated with prevalence and incidence of depressive symptoms in older men. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) 2010; 72:232–240.
- Shores MM, Kivlahan DR, Sadak TI, Li EJ, Matsumoto AM. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of testosterone treatment in hypogonadal older men with subthreshold depression (dysthymia or minor depression). J Clin Psychiatry 2009; 70:1009–1016.
- Khera M, Bhattacharya RK, Blick G, Kushner H, Nguyen D, Miner MM. The effect of testosterone supplementation on depression symptoms in hypogonadal men from the Testim Registry in the US (TRiUS). Aging Male 2012; 15:14–21.
- Jain P, Rademaker AW, McVary KT. Testosterone supplementation for erectile dysfunction: results of a meta-analysis. J Urol 2000; 164:371–375.
- Mulhall JP, Valenzuela R, Aviv N, Parker M. Effect of testosterone supplementation on sexual function in hypogonadal men with erectile dysfunction. Urology 2004; 63:348–352.
- Morley JE, Charlton E, Patrick P, et al. Validation of a screening questionnaire for androgen deficiency in aging males. Metabolism 2000; 49:1239–1242.
- Moore C, Huebler D, Zimmermann T, Heinemann LA, Saad F, Thai DM. The Aging Males’ Symptoms scale (AMS) as outcome measure for treatment of androgen deficiency. Eur Urol 2004; 46:80–87.
- Chueh KS, Huang SP, Lee YC, et al. The Comparison of the Aging Male Symptoms (AMS) Scale and Androgen Deficiency in the Aging Male (ADAM) Questionnaire to Detect Androgen Deficiency in Middle-Aged Men. J Androl 2012[Epub ahead of print]
- Mulligan T, Frick MF, Zuraw QC, Stemhagen A, McWhirter C. Prevalence of hypogonadism in males aged at least 45 years: the HIM study. Int J Clin Pract 2006; 60:762–769.
- Dhindsa S, Miller MG, McWhirter CL, et al. Testosterone concentrations in diabetic and nondiabetic obese men. Diabetes Care 2010; 33:1186–1192.
- Krasnoff JB, Basaria S, Pencina MJ, et al. Free testosterone levels are associated with mobility limitation and physical performance in community-dwelling men: the Framingham Offspring Study. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2010; 95:2790–2799.
- Carrero JJ, Qureshi AR, Nakashima A, et al. Prevalence and clinical implications of testosterone deficiency in men with end-stage renal disease. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2011; 26:184–190.
- Grossmann M, Thomas MC, Panagiotopoulos S, et al. Low testosterone levels are common and associated with insulin resistance in men with diabetes. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2008; 93:1834–1840.
- Brand JS, van der Tweel I, Grobbee DE, Emmelot-Vonk MH, van der Schouw YT. Testosterone, sex hormone-binding globulin and the metabolic syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Int J Epidemiol 2011; 40:189–207.
- Ding EL, Song Y, Malik VS, Liu S. Sex differences of endogenous sex hormones and risk of type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA 2006; 295:1288–1299.
- Niskanen L, Laaksonen DE, Punnonen K, Mustajoki P, Kaukua J, Rissanen A. Changes in sex hormone-binding globulin and testosterone during weight loss and weight maintenance in abdominally obese men with the metabolic syndrome. Diabetes Obes Metab 2004; 6:208–215.
- Shores MM, Matsumoto AM, Sloan KL, Kivlahan DR. Low serum testosterone and mortality in male veterans. Arch Intern Med 2006; 166:1660–1665.
- Carrero JJ, Qureshi AR, Parini P, et al. Low serum testosterone increases mortality risk among male dialysis patients. J Am Soc Nephrol 2009; 20:613–620.
- Haring R, Völzke H, Steveling A, et al. Low serum testosterone levels are associated with increased risk of mortality in a population-based cohort of men aged 20–79. Eur Heart J 2010; 31:1494–1501.
- Araujo AB, Dixon JM, Suarez EA, Murad MH, Guey LT, Wittert GA. Clinical review: Endogenous testosterone and mortality in men: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2011; 96:3007–3019.
- Rhoden EL, Morgentaler A. Risks of testosterone-replacement therapy and recommendations for monitoring. N Engl J Med 2004; 350:482–492.
- Isbarn H, Pinthus JH, Marks LS, et al. Testosterone and prostate cancer: revisiting old paradigms. Eur Urol 2009; 56:48–56.
- Traish AM, Miner MM, Morgentaler A, Zitzmann M. Testosterone deficiency. Am J Med 2011; 124:578–587.
- Cavender RK, Fairall M. Subcutaneous testosterone pellet implant (Testopel) therapy for men with testosterone deficiency syndrome: a single-site retrospective safety analysis. J Sex Med 2009; 6:3177–3192.
- Gerstenbluth RE, Maniam PN, Corty EW, Seftel AD. Prostate-specific antigen changes in hypogonadal men treated with testosterone replacement. J Androl 2002; 23:922–926.
- Corona G, Monami M, Rastrelli G, et al. Testosterone and metabolic syndrome: a meta-analysis study. J Sex Med 2011; 8:272–283.
- Corona G, Rastrelli G, Monami M, et al. Hypogonadism as a risk factor for cardiovascular mortality in men: a meta-analytic study. Eur J Endocrinol 2011; 165:687–701.
- Kapoor D, Goodwin E, Channer KS, Jones TH. Testosterone replacement therapy improves insulin resistance, glycaemic control, visceral adiposity and hypercholesterolaemia in hypogonadal men with type 2 diabetes. Eur J Endocrinol 2006; 154:899–906.
- Aversa A, Bruzziches R, Francomano D, et al. Effects of testosterone undecanoate on cardiovascular risk factors and atherosclerosis in middle-aged men with late-onset hypogonadism and metabolic syndrome: results from a 24-month, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. J Sex Med 2010; 7:3495–3503.
- Rhoden EL, Morgentaler A. Symptomatic response rates to testosterone therapy and the likelihood of completing 12 months of therapy in clinical practice. J Sex Med 2010; 7:277–283.
- Khera M, Bhattacharya RK, Blick G, Kushner H, Nguyen D, Miner MM. Improved sexual function with testosterone replacement therapy in hypogonadal men: real-world data from the Testim Registry in the United States (TRiUS). J Sex Med 2011; 8:3204–3213.
- Buvat J, Montorsi F, Maggi M, et al. Hypogonadal men nonresponders to the PDE5 inhibitor tadalafil benefit from normalization of testosterone levels with a 1% hydroalcoholic testosterone gel in the treatment of erectile dysfunction (TADTEST study). J Sex Med 2011; 8:284–293.
- Basaria S, Coviello AD, Travison TG, et al. Adverse events associated with testosterone administration. N Engl J Med 2010; 363:109–122.
- Dobs AS, Meikle AW, Arver S, Sanders SW, Caramelli KE, Mazer NA. Pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and safety of a permeation-enhanced testosterone transdermal system in comparison with bi-weekly injections of testosterone enanthate for the treatment of hypogonadal men. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1999; 84:3469–3478.
- Wang C, Swerdloff RS, Iranmanesh A, et al; Testosterone Gel Study Group. Transdermal testosterone gel improves sexual function, mood, muscle strength, and body composition parameters in hypogonadal men. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2000; 85:2839–2853.
- Hanafy HM. Testosterone therapy and obstructive sleep apnea: is there a real connection? J Sex Med 2007; 4:1241–1246.
- Coward RM, Simhan J, Carson CC. Prostate-specific antigen changes and prostate cancer in hypogonadal men treated with testosterone replacement therapy. BJU Int 2009; 103:1179–1183.
- Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin 2012; 62:10–29.
- Morgentaler A, Traish AM. Shifting the paradigm of testosterone and prostate cancer: the saturation model and the limits of androgen-dependent growth. Eur Urol 2009; 55:310–320.
- Page ST, Lin DW, Mostaghel EA, et al. Dihydrotestosterone administration does not increase intraprostatic androgen concentrations or alter prostate androgen action in healthy men: a randomized-controlled trial. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2011; 96:430–437.
- Botto H, Neuzillet Y, Lebret T, Camparo P, Molinie V, Raynaud JP. High incidence of predominant Gleason pattern 4 localized prostate cancer is associated with low serum testosterone. J Urol 2011; 186:1400–1405.
- Salonia A, Gallina A, Briganti A, et al. Preoperative hypogonadism is not an independent predictor of high-risk disease in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy. Cancer 2011; 117:3953–3962.
- Sarosdy MF. Testosterone replacement for hypogonadism after treatment of early prostate cancer with brachytherapy. Cancer 2007; 109:536–541.
- Khera M. Androgens and erectile function: a case for early androgen use in postprostatectomy hypogonadal men. J Sex Med 2009; 6:(suppl 3):234–238.
- Szmulewitz R, Mohile S, Posadas E, et al. A randomized phase 1 study of testosterone replacement for patients with low-risk castration-resistant prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2009; 56:97–103.
- Morgentaler A, Lipshultz LI, Bennett R, Sweeney M, Avila D, Khera M. Testosterone therapy in men with untreated prostate cancer. J Urol 2011; 185:1256–1260.
Editor’s note: This is the second of two articles on hypogonadism in men and focuses on the appropriate use of testosterone therapy. The first article, published last month, focused in more detail on the differential diagnosis of hypogonadism.
As men age, testosterone production gradually decreases. In our increasingly aged population, clinicians will continue to see an increase in the number of men with seemingly nonspecific symptoms of aging that are possibly due to low serum testosterone (eg, low energy level, depressive symptoms, erectile dysfunction, decreased libido). These clinical symptoms, coupled with low serum testosterone, may adversely affect quality of life and life expectancy. Testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) may improve symptoms and quality of life. Given the nonspecific nature of these symptoms, accurate diagnosis and treatment of clinically significant low testosterone with a goal of symptom and quality of life improvement can prove challenging.
These challenges in diagnosis and treatment result in a lack of standardized nomenclature. The terms male menopause and andropause, although popular, are the least helpful, as they have few correlates with the better-defined female menopause. Late-onset hypogonadism implies a well-defined, later age of decline, which is inaccurate since the decline in serum testosterone in men begins in middle age and is gradual. Testosterone deficiency syndrome implies a set of specific and well-defined symptoms. Androgen deficiency in the aging male (ADAM) and Androgen deficiency in the older male are common terms specifying an age cohort (> 40 years old) and an abnormal laboratory value without mention of symptoms. While all these terms have their limitations, we will primarily use ADAM in this discussion.
PREVALENCE OF LOW TESTOSTERONE
Serum testosterone levels begin to decline in men in their mid-40s, with an approximately 1% to 2% decline annually and a marked decline after age 60.1
Araujo and colleagues2 studied the prevalence of androgen-deficient men, with androgen deficiency defined as at least three signs or symptoms and either a total testosterone less than 200 ng/dL or a total testosterone 200 ng/dL to 400 ng/dL with a free testosterone less than 8.91 ng/dL. The overall prevalence of low testosterone on initial measurement was 6%, which doubled to 12% with repeat measurement.
Serial measures are important: one study that followed untreated men over 15 years found normal testosterone on serial measures in 50%.3 In a multicenter cross-sectional study, 11.8% of men had low testosterone and low or normal luteinizing hormone (LH) levels (secondary hypogonadism/hypothalamic-pituitary failure), with 2% of patients with low testosterone and elevated LH (primary hypogonadism/testicular failure).4
CLINICAL PRESENTATION AND DIAGNOSIS
A biochemical diagnosis of low testosterone is dependent on accurate measurement. Testosterone release is diurnal, with the highest levels in the early morning, and often has week-to-week variability. Thus, it is important to collect blood in the early morning and to confirm a diagnosis of low testosterone with at least one repeat measurement several days later, including LH assessment. LH levels will help differentiate primary hypogonadism from secondary hypogonadism, which may alter diagnosis and treatment in certain patients, with secondary hypogonadism associated with pituitary dysfunction, and primary hypogonadism associated with aging.4
Testosterone binds in the bloodstream to sex hormone-binding globulin (SHBG), and this bound form is generally considered biologically inactive, although there are in vitro and animal studies suggesting SHBG-bound androgen may indeed have biological activity. 5,6 “Bioavailable” testosterone is active and includes both free testosterone and testosterone bound to albumin.
There is no general agreement on the acceptable normal range of testosterone, with variability within the literature and between laboratories. “Normal” total testosterone levels have ranged from more than 280 ng/dL to more than 350 ng/dL (12 nmol/L).7,8 Similarly, there is no generally accepted lower limit of normal, although some studies report a threshold level of testosterone less than 230 ng/dL (8 nmol/L) as “abnormal.” Values between these two upper and lower limits are considered “borderline.”7,8 These intermediate or borderline values coupled with clinical symptoms of testosterone deficiency syndrome or ADAM should be considered abnormal.
When total testosterone is borderline, measurement of free or bioavailable testosterone (free plus albumin-bound) should be considered. Total testosterone is typically measured using automated immunoassay platforms, with method-related differences leading to significant variability in measurement accuracy and precision. This variability is seen most dramatically in those with low total testosterone.9 However, the variability of total testosterone measurements is substantially smaller among mass spectrometry assays than among immunoassays. 10
The gold standards for free testosterone measurement are centrifugal ultrafiltration and equilibrium dialysis.9 However, these techniques are laborious and usually unavailable in local laboratories. Calculated free testosterone values using total testosterone and SHBG are most commonly used and are sufficiently accurate for clinical practice.11
Free testosterone levels can be diagnostic when total testosterone levels do not correspond with clinical presentation. However, the clinical utility of free testosterone is difficult to assess due to the variability among laboratory assays and a lack of consensus on threshold parameters. A threshold free testosterone level of more than 225 pmol/L (65 pg/mL) is generally considered normal.7,8 Before starting a patient on TRT, measurement of hemoglobin and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and digital rectal examination of the prostate (if age is > 39) are essential.
Prolactin levels are recommended when low testosterone is confirmed, especially in patients at high clinical risk for hyperprolactinemia. Once hyperprolactinemia is identified, Endocrine Society guidelines recommend excluding medication use, renal failure, hypothyroidism, and parasellar tumors as possible causes of elevated prolactin levels.12
Low testosterone values should be treated only in patients with clinically significant symptoms that are likely to be caused by the low testosterone itself. Symptoms associated with age-related decline in testosterone that may improve with TRT include low libido,13,14 low energy,14 depressed mood,15–17 low muscle mass, osteoporosis, and hot flashes. Men with erectile dysfunction have also shown a significant improvement with TRT compared with placebo, but with a variable overall response independent of normalization of testosterone. 18,19 This is likely due to the multifactorial nature of erectile dysfunction, including vascular, neurologic, psychogenic, and endocrinologic causes.
Screening questionnaires have been developed for symptoms of low testosterone, but their clinical utility is unclear. The ADAM questionnaire is used as a screening tool for low testosterone but not to monitor response to TRT, and it is highly nonspecific.20 The Aging Male Symptom Scale questionnaire includes psychological, somatovegetative, and sexual components and is used both to screen for low testosterone and to measure outcomes.21 However, a recent observational study comparing the ability of these questionnaires to assess clinical symptoms revealed a low sensitivity and a low specificity to detect androgen deficiency in men with a total testosterone level less than 300 ng/dL.22 Overall, the current data do not conclusively support the use of hypogonadism questionnaires for screening.
The patient history when evaluating for ADAM should include evaluation of sexual and constitutional symptoms as described above and in Table 1. In addition, a history of traumatic, medical, or surgical events that could affect testosterone production should be obtained, including cryptorchidism, scrotal, inguinal, or abdominal surgery, pituitary surgery or radiation, prior issues with infertility, timing of puberty, history of renal or hepatic failure, chemotherapy (for cancer or autoimmune diseases), and prior use of anabolic steroids or opiates.
A complete physical examination should include assessment of virilization, gynecomastia, and the genitalia, including the size, position, and volume of the testes. The size and consistency of the prostate should be assessed on digital rectal examination.
LOW TESTOSTERONE AND ASSOCIATED COMORBIDITIES
Low testosterone is associated with many comorbidities, including metabolic syndrome, depression, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and cardiovascular disease, as discussed later in this section. Low testosterone has also shown associations with osteoporosis, cognitive impairment, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, decreased physical performance, end-stage renal disease, and treatment with steroids or opiates.23–26 However, the studies that found these associations included men younger than 40 years and may not be fully applicable to the ADAM population.
The association of metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes mellitus with low testosterone is well established in multiple studies. Grossman and colleagues27 investigated the association of type 2 diabetes mellitus and low testosterone, with low total testosterone defined as below 10 nmol/L and low calculated free testosterone less than 0.23 nmol/L. The prevalence of low total testosterone was 43%, and the prevalence of low free testosterone was 57%. In addition, a recent meta-analysis comparing total testosterone of men with and without metabolic syndrome revealed an association between a baseline decrease in mean total and free testosterone levels in men with metabolic syndrome compared with controls. This study found a total testosterone mean difference of –2.64 nmol/L (95% confidence interval [CI] –2.95 to –2.32) and a free testosterone mean difference of –0.26 pmol/L (95% CI –0.39 to –0.13), respectively, when comparing men with metabolic syndrome against those without.28
Testosterone has also been suggested to be protective against type 2 diabetes mellitus, with 42% lower risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus in men with testosterone levels ranging from 450 ng/dL to 605 ng/dL.29
Obesity has been specifically linked with secondary hypogonadism.4,23,24 A prospective cohort of 58 men with an average age of 46 years and a body mass index ranging from 30 to 45 kg/m2 were monitored on a low-calorie diet for 9 weeks. Afterward, biochemical analysis revealed an increase in free testosterone from 185 pmol/L ± 66 to 208 ± 70 pmol/L (P = .002) with a mean weight loss of 16.3 kg ± 4.5 kg.30 This emphasizes the importance of lifestyle changes in the management of hypogonadal men.
LOW TESTOSTERONE AND THE OVERALL MORTALITY RATE
Low testosterone is associated unfavorably with the rate of all-cause mortality. A retrospective study in male veterans over age 40 with repeated testosterone levels over a 5-year period found that the risk of death from all causes in men with normal testosterone (> 250 ng/dL or free testosterone > 0.75 ng/dL) was 20% (95% CI 16.2%–241%) vs 35% (95% CI 28.5%–41.4%) in men with low testosterone (< 250 ng/dL or free testosterone < 0.75 ng/dL). In multivariate analysis, men with testosterone less than 250 ng/dL (< 8.7 nmol/L) or free testosterone less than 0.75 ng/dL (< 0.03 nmol/L) had up to an 88% higher death rate than men with normal testosterone levels.31
Low testosterone has also been associated with other end-organ, disease-specific mortality. In men with end-stage renal disease, low testosterone was an independent predictor of death from all causes and from cardiovascular disease.32 A prospective European health study revealed an association between low testosterone and increased risk of death from cardiovascular disease and cancer.33 A recent meta-analysis of population-based studies confirmed this association, despite significant interstudy heterogeneity. 34 Although multiple studies show an independent association of low testosterone and increased mortality rate, causality remains unconfirmed. This may be difficult to prove, given the available study designs and the nonspecific nature of symptoms related to low testosterone and potentially associated comorbidities.
TRT: INDICATIONS AND CONTRAINDICATIONS
The indications, benefits, and risks of TRT are controversial, with current data lacking long-term follow-up and consistent biochemical target values. Treatment of low testosterone is not indicated at the present time in the absence of clinical symptoms.
According to recently published guidelines, TRT is recommended for symptomatic men with low or borderline total testosterone or free testosterone (< 350 ng/dL or < 65 pg/mL).7,8 Patients with borderline biochemical values (total testosterone 200–350 ng/dL, free testosterone 40–65 pg/mL) and possible related symptoms should be treated with TRT for at least 3 months and then reevaluated to verify improved testosterone levels and to assess for symptom amelioration or resolution.35 Dose escalation is recommended in patients with subtherapeutic testosterone levels and limited clinical improvement after 3 months of treatment.
Target maintenance testosterone levels have not been defined, with mid to lower young adult male serum testosterone levels recommended at this time.8 Given that the current literature does not specify a target testosterone replacement range, we recommend monitoring the clinical response along with total testosterone to decide adjustments in TRT. Ultimately, treatment goals of TRT should be the resolution of signs and symptoms, including improvement of sexual function, libido, and preservation of bone mineral density.7,8
Contraindications
TRT is not recommended in men with the following:
- Breast cancer
- Polycythemia (hematocrit > 50%)
- Untreated obstructive sleep apnea
- Lower urinary tract symptoms caused by an enlarged prostate; International Prostate Symptom Score > 19
- Poorly controlled heart failure
- Desire for fertility.
The role of TRT in prostate cancer remains controversial (see below) and remains contraindicated in recent Endocrine Society clinical practice guidelines.7 Guidelines recommend urologic consultation prior to initiation of TRT in patients at increased risk of prostate cancer,7 based on age, race, family history, PSA, PSA velocity, and history of prostate biopsy.
One prominent historic concern about androgen replacement therapy regards the potential for de novo development of prostate cancer. Numerous studies have failed to find elevated risk of new diagnosis, progression, or recurrence of prostate cancer in patients on TRT.36,37 Nevertheless, patients who develop elevated PSA, increased PSA velocity, or an abnormal digital rectal examination while on TRT should undergo prostate biopsy.
TRT FORMULATIONS AND TREATMENT OPTIONS
A number of effective formulations of TRT are available (Table 2). Transdermal and parenteral formulations are most commonly used. Enteric testosterone formulations are not available in the United States and are associated with hepatotoxicity. While buccal testosterone therapy is available, it often leads to local gingival irritation and has not gained widespread popularity.
Parenteral TRT can be administered intramuscularly (IM) or subcutaneously (SQ). Testosterone cypionate (Depo-Testosterone) is the only IM form available in the United States and is given every 2 to 3 weeks. It is the least expensive form of TRT, but it requires frequent administration (by either the clinical practitioner or the patient himself). Testosterone cypionate injections lead to markedly wide swings of testosterone levels, ranging from supraphysiologic levels for a few days after administration to hypogonadal levels before the next injection. This may be mitigated by more-frequent injections. The longer-acting form testosterone undecanoate is available outside the United States and is given every 12 weeks when stable levels are reached.
The other parenteral option is SQ slow-release pellets (Testopel). These pellets have 75 mg of testosterone. Typically 8 to 14 pellets are placed subcutaneously in the buttock area, which will provide coverage for 3 to 6 months.38 The insertion procedure is simple with a short learning curve, limited compliance issues, and elimination of risk of transdermal transmission of drug to others. Disadvantages include wound infection and pellet extrusion, seen in 0.3% to 12% of patients in various studies.38
Another route of TRT is transdermal, including patches, liquids, and gels. Patches are applied daily and are rotated to different sites with minimal risk for skin transmission to others, although use may be limited by site dermatitis. Three hydro-alcoholic gel formulations are currently available in the United States: Androgel (1% or 1.62%), which is applied to the chest or the shoulders; Testim 1%, which is applied to the shoulders; and Fortesta (2%), which is applied to the thighs. A liquid preparation, Axiron, is applied to the axillae. Because secondary transfer to women and children is possible, it is important to thoroughly wash hands after application and to cover the treated skin with clothing. In 3 to 4 hours, all the medication is absorbed, and the area should then be washed before direct skin contact with others (Table 2).
MONITORING PATIENTS ON TRT
Patients starting TRT will require clinical and biochemical monitoring to evaluate response to therapy as well as possible side effects. The first set of laboratory values should be obtained 6 to 12 weeks after initiation of therapy and then typically quarterly for 1 year, every 6 months for the second year, and annually thereafter. Laboratory values monitored should include total testosterone, PSA, and hematocrit.
Men on daily therapy (patch, gel, liquid) should have testosterone drawn approximately 2 hours after application. Current TRT regimen data lack an appropriate target testosterone value, and guidelines suggest a mid to lower young adult male testosterone level.8 Since this is not clearly delineated in the current literature, the authors recommend monitoring clinical symptoms along with testosterone levels when adjusting TRT. It is important to document that serum testosterone was actually increased to the normal range in treated men without clinical improvement.
A rise in PSA of up to 24% would be an acceptable response in a benign prostate gland, but a higher increase or increase above 4.0 ng/dL should prompt consideration of prostate biopsy. 39 Similarly, hemoglobin and hematocrit typically increase, but a hematocrit greater than 55% should prompt dose reduction or cessation.7 Transaminases do not need routine monitoring during parenteral or transdermal therapy. Bone mineral density should be monitored every 1 to 2 years.7,8
CLINICAL BENEFITS OF TRT
There are promising data regarding the clinical benefits of TRT in patients with metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes mellitus. A recent meta-analysis investigating the effect of TRT on metabolic syndrome revealed an improvement in fasting plasma glucose, homeostatic model assessment index, triglycerides, treadmill duration, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and waist circumference.40,41 TRT also decreased insulin resistance and improved glycemic control in type 2 diabetic hypogonadal men.42 Results from a randomized controlled trial comparing 12 weeks of intramuscular testosterone treatment vs placebo in men with metabolic syndrome revealed an improvement in mean waist circumference from 108 cm ± 8 cm to 105.5 cm ± 7.7 cm. Sixty percent of men initially diagnosed with metabolic syndrome and treated with testosterone no longer met diagnostic criteria for metabolic syndrome according to the National Cholesterol Education Program–Third Adult Treatment Panel (NCEP-ATP III) and the International Diabetes Federation (IDF) guidelines.43
Depression has also been associated with low testosterone, with free testosterone levels below 170 pmol/L associated with frank depressive symptoms and levels below 220 pmol/L predictive of future onset of depressive symptoms.15 Testosterone replacement therapy has been shown to improve depressive symptoms in hypogonadal men.16,17 Shores et al16 conducted a randomized placebo-controlled study of testosterone replacement in men older than 50 years with dysthymia or minor depression. Men treated with testosterone gel for 12 weeks showed an improvement of baseline total testosterone levels from 291 ng/dL to 449 ng/dL. Men treated with testosterone also had a 53% rate of depression remission compared with 19% in the placebo group.16
The evidence supporting improved sexual function with TRT is variable. Some studies indicate limited or transient improvement of sexual function after TRT in men with erectile dysfunction,18,19 while others report an improvement in sexual function after 3 months of TRT.44 Because of the multifactorial nature of erectile dysfunction, men with erectile dysfunction and ADAM may require TRT and a phosphodiesterase type 5 (PDE5) inhibitor, as TRT alone may be insufficient. In a prospective observational study of men with erectile dysfunction and an initial testosterone lower than 300 ng/dL, testosterone gel was administered for at least 1 year, and improvement in sexual function was seen. Results revealed a correlation between improvement in sexual function and concurrent therapy with a PDE5 inhibitor.45 In a recent multicenter placebo-controlled study of PDE5 inhibitor nonresponders, the addition of a testosterone gel to tadalafil (Cialis) improved sexual function, again suggesting a synergistic effect when treating erectile dysfunction with both TRT and a PDE5 inhibitor.46
ADVERSE EVENTS RELATED TO TRT
Despite the aforementioned benefits, it must be emphasized that TRT should be used for specific target symptoms related to hypogonadism in older men and that the general health benefits and safety of TRT in an asymptomatic man with a low measured testosterone alone remains unproven.
Cardiovascular events. In a recent study of 209 elderly men with low testosterone and limited mobility associated with other chronic illnesses, 6 months of TRT resulted in the development of cardiovascular-related adverse events in 23 patients compared with 5 men in the placebo group.47 This may have been related to how adverse events were reported, with cumulative adverse events reviewed every 6 months, ranging from peripheral edema, hypertension, arrhythmias, and electrocardiographic changes. Serious adverse events were reviewed as they occurred, including stroke and acute myocardial events.
Other studies41,43 have revealed a favorable effect of TRT on cardiovascular disease and its surrogate markers but have lacked detailed reports and close monitoring of adverse events. Thus, variation of outcome measurement and reporting may obfuscate the detection of adverse cardiovascular events. Outcomes may also depend on the testosterone formulation and the target serum concentration.43
Larger, long-term placebo-controlled trials are needed to elucidate cardiovascular risk as a primary outcome in older androgen-deficient men undergoing TRT.
Other adverse effects related to TRT include erythrocytosis, seen in 3% to 18% of patients with transdermal administration,48,49 and up to 44% of patients undergoing IM therapy.48 Gynecomastia can occur and is more likely to resolve after treatment cessation of transdermal testosterone treatment than IM injections.48 Other potential clinical side effects that should prompt dose-reduction or discontinuation are irritability, bothersome acne, fluid retention, testicular atrophy, worsening of lower urinary tract symptoms from an enlarged prostate, and new or worsening heart failure. Infrequently, obstructive sleep apnea may be worsened by TRT, although currently the data linking sleep apnea and TRT are limited.50
TRT AND PROSTATE CANCER
The relationship between prostate cancer growth and testosterone is well established, with androgen ablation remaining the cornerstone of treatment for metastatic disease. Since androgen deprivation leads to the regression of prostate cancer, there has been concern that TRT may lead to growth or de novo development of prostate cancer. TRT has thus been strongly prohibited in patients with prostate cancer.7 However, recent data challenge this paradigm.
In a retrospective study of 81 men (mean age 56.8 years) treated with TRT, only 4 men (4.9%) developed prostate cancer over a 5-year period.51 This is less than the estimated 16.7% probability of developing prostate cancer in the general US population.52
Recent accumulating data support the concept of testosterone reaching a saturation level when binding androgen receptors within the prostate at extremely low levels. Increases above this level with TRT as with ADAM do not increase the risk of development or progression of prostate cancer.53 In addition, large doses of dihydrotestosterone do not seem to alter PSA, prostate volume, or International Prostate Symptom Score.54 These findings may have implications in future androgen therapies in hypogonadal older men.
Pathologic studies suggest low testosterone is associated with a higher Gleason grade of prostate cancer,55 although this association remains unconfirmed.56
In men with erectile dysfunction after prostate cancer treatment, TRT appears safe after brachytherapy57 or radical prostatectomy.58 A small study of 15 hypogonadal men with castrate-resistant prostate cancer and minimal or no metastatic disease showed only 1 patient had symptomatic progression.59 Moreover, a recent small study of 13 men with known prostate cancer on active surveillance showed that TRT did not lead to local progression or metastatic disease in any of the patients.60
While these data are provocative, it should still be emphasized that the standard of care for prostate cancer screening should be followed in age-appropriate men with ADAM. In addition, hypogonadal men with prostate cancer should only be treated with testosterone in conjunction with careful counseling and ongoing monitoring.
TRT SHOULD NOT REPLACE HEALTHY LIFESTYLE CHANGES
There has been a dramatic increase in TRT initiation for nonspecific symptoms of low testosterone in older androgen-deficient men. With this increase in initiation of TRT, there is a significant risk of overtreating. While there are many encouraging associations between treatment of androgen deficiency and improvement in rates of of morbidity and mortality, much remains unknown about the overall long-term risks and benefits of TRT. It is important to emphasize that TRT should not replace healthy lifestyle changes including regular exercise, weight loss, and diet modifications, which may provide the patient symptom resolution. Thoughtful dialogue with the patient is critical prior to TRT initiation, including thorough disclosure of the risks and benefits of treatment, and the limitations of the data as it evolves.
Editor’s note: This is the second of two articles on hypogonadism in men and focuses on the appropriate use of testosterone therapy. The first article, published last month, focused in more detail on the differential diagnosis of hypogonadism.
As men age, testosterone production gradually decreases. In our increasingly aged population, clinicians will continue to see an increase in the number of men with seemingly nonspecific symptoms of aging that are possibly due to low serum testosterone (eg, low energy level, depressive symptoms, erectile dysfunction, decreased libido). These clinical symptoms, coupled with low serum testosterone, may adversely affect quality of life and life expectancy. Testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) may improve symptoms and quality of life. Given the nonspecific nature of these symptoms, accurate diagnosis and treatment of clinically significant low testosterone with a goal of symptom and quality of life improvement can prove challenging.
These challenges in diagnosis and treatment result in a lack of standardized nomenclature. The terms male menopause and andropause, although popular, are the least helpful, as they have few correlates with the better-defined female menopause. Late-onset hypogonadism implies a well-defined, later age of decline, which is inaccurate since the decline in serum testosterone in men begins in middle age and is gradual. Testosterone deficiency syndrome implies a set of specific and well-defined symptoms. Androgen deficiency in the aging male (ADAM) and Androgen deficiency in the older male are common terms specifying an age cohort (> 40 years old) and an abnormal laboratory value without mention of symptoms. While all these terms have their limitations, we will primarily use ADAM in this discussion.
PREVALENCE OF LOW TESTOSTERONE
Serum testosterone levels begin to decline in men in their mid-40s, with an approximately 1% to 2% decline annually and a marked decline after age 60.1
Araujo and colleagues2 studied the prevalence of androgen-deficient men, with androgen deficiency defined as at least three signs or symptoms and either a total testosterone less than 200 ng/dL or a total testosterone 200 ng/dL to 400 ng/dL with a free testosterone less than 8.91 ng/dL. The overall prevalence of low testosterone on initial measurement was 6%, which doubled to 12% with repeat measurement.
Serial measures are important: one study that followed untreated men over 15 years found normal testosterone on serial measures in 50%.3 In a multicenter cross-sectional study, 11.8% of men had low testosterone and low or normal luteinizing hormone (LH) levels (secondary hypogonadism/hypothalamic-pituitary failure), with 2% of patients with low testosterone and elevated LH (primary hypogonadism/testicular failure).4
CLINICAL PRESENTATION AND DIAGNOSIS
A biochemical diagnosis of low testosterone is dependent on accurate measurement. Testosterone release is diurnal, with the highest levels in the early morning, and often has week-to-week variability. Thus, it is important to collect blood in the early morning and to confirm a diagnosis of low testosterone with at least one repeat measurement several days later, including LH assessment. LH levels will help differentiate primary hypogonadism from secondary hypogonadism, which may alter diagnosis and treatment in certain patients, with secondary hypogonadism associated with pituitary dysfunction, and primary hypogonadism associated with aging.4
Testosterone binds in the bloodstream to sex hormone-binding globulin (SHBG), and this bound form is generally considered biologically inactive, although there are in vitro and animal studies suggesting SHBG-bound androgen may indeed have biological activity. 5,6 “Bioavailable” testosterone is active and includes both free testosterone and testosterone bound to albumin.
There is no general agreement on the acceptable normal range of testosterone, with variability within the literature and between laboratories. “Normal” total testosterone levels have ranged from more than 280 ng/dL to more than 350 ng/dL (12 nmol/L).7,8 Similarly, there is no generally accepted lower limit of normal, although some studies report a threshold level of testosterone less than 230 ng/dL (8 nmol/L) as “abnormal.” Values between these two upper and lower limits are considered “borderline.”7,8 These intermediate or borderline values coupled with clinical symptoms of testosterone deficiency syndrome or ADAM should be considered abnormal.
When total testosterone is borderline, measurement of free or bioavailable testosterone (free plus albumin-bound) should be considered. Total testosterone is typically measured using automated immunoassay platforms, with method-related differences leading to significant variability in measurement accuracy and precision. This variability is seen most dramatically in those with low total testosterone.9 However, the variability of total testosterone measurements is substantially smaller among mass spectrometry assays than among immunoassays. 10
The gold standards for free testosterone measurement are centrifugal ultrafiltration and equilibrium dialysis.9 However, these techniques are laborious and usually unavailable in local laboratories. Calculated free testosterone values using total testosterone and SHBG are most commonly used and are sufficiently accurate for clinical practice.11
Free testosterone levels can be diagnostic when total testosterone levels do not correspond with clinical presentation. However, the clinical utility of free testosterone is difficult to assess due to the variability among laboratory assays and a lack of consensus on threshold parameters. A threshold free testosterone level of more than 225 pmol/L (65 pg/mL) is generally considered normal.7,8 Before starting a patient on TRT, measurement of hemoglobin and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and digital rectal examination of the prostate (if age is > 39) are essential.
Prolactin levels are recommended when low testosterone is confirmed, especially in patients at high clinical risk for hyperprolactinemia. Once hyperprolactinemia is identified, Endocrine Society guidelines recommend excluding medication use, renal failure, hypothyroidism, and parasellar tumors as possible causes of elevated prolactin levels.12
Low testosterone values should be treated only in patients with clinically significant symptoms that are likely to be caused by the low testosterone itself. Symptoms associated with age-related decline in testosterone that may improve with TRT include low libido,13,14 low energy,14 depressed mood,15–17 low muscle mass, osteoporosis, and hot flashes. Men with erectile dysfunction have also shown a significant improvement with TRT compared with placebo, but with a variable overall response independent of normalization of testosterone. 18,19 This is likely due to the multifactorial nature of erectile dysfunction, including vascular, neurologic, psychogenic, and endocrinologic causes.
Screening questionnaires have been developed for symptoms of low testosterone, but their clinical utility is unclear. The ADAM questionnaire is used as a screening tool for low testosterone but not to monitor response to TRT, and it is highly nonspecific.20 The Aging Male Symptom Scale questionnaire includes psychological, somatovegetative, and sexual components and is used both to screen for low testosterone and to measure outcomes.21 However, a recent observational study comparing the ability of these questionnaires to assess clinical symptoms revealed a low sensitivity and a low specificity to detect androgen deficiency in men with a total testosterone level less than 300 ng/dL.22 Overall, the current data do not conclusively support the use of hypogonadism questionnaires for screening.
The patient history when evaluating for ADAM should include evaluation of sexual and constitutional symptoms as described above and in Table 1. In addition, a history of traumatic, medical, or surgical events that could affect testosterone production should be obtained, including cryptorchidism, scrotal, inguinal, or abdominal surgery, pituitary surgery or radiation, prior issues with infertility, timing of puberty, history of renal or hepatic failure, chemotherapy (for cancer or autoimmune diseases), and prior use of anabolic steroids or opiates.
A complete physical examination should include assessment of virilization, gynecomastia, and the genitalia, including the size, position, and volume of the testes. The size and consistency of the prostate should be assessed on digital rectal examination.
LOW TESTOSTERONE AND ASSOCIATED COMORBIDITIES
Low testosterone is associated with many comorbidities, including metabolic syndrome, depression, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and cardiovascular disease, as discussed later in this section. Low testosterone has also shown associations with osteoporosis, cognitive impairment, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, decreased physical performance, end-stage renal disease, and treatment with steroids or opiates.23–26 However, the studies that found these associations included men younger than 40 years and may not be fully applicable to the ADAM population.
The association of metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes mellitus with low testosterone is well established in multiple studies. Grossman and colleagues27 investigated the association of type 2 diabetes mellitus and low testosterone, with low total testosterone defined as below 10 nmol/L and low calculated free testosterone less than 0.23 nmol/L. The prevalence of low total testosterone was 43%, and the prevalence of low free testosterone was 57%. In addition, a recent meta-analysis comparing total testosterone of men with and without metabolic syndrome revealed an association between a baseline decrease in mean total and free testosterone levels in men with metabolic syndrome compared with controls. This study found a total testosterone mean difference of –2.64 nmol/L (95% confidence interval [CI] –2.95 to –2.32) and a free testosterone mean difference of –0.26 pmol/L (95% CI –0.39 to –0.13), respectively, when comparing men with metabolic syndrome against those without.28
Testosterone has also been suggested to be protective against type 2 diabetes mellitus, with 42% lower risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus in men with testosterone levels ranging from 450 ng/dL to 605 ng/dL.29
Obesity has been specifically linked with secondary hypogonadism.4,23,24 A prospective cohort of 58 men with an average age of 46 years and a body mass index ranging from 30 to 45 kg/m2 were monitored on a low-calorie diet for 9 weeks. Afterward, biochemical analysis revealed an increase in free testosterone from 185 pmol/L ± 66 to 208 ± 70 pmol/L (P = .002) with a mean weight loss of 16.3 kg ± 4.5 kg.30 This emphasizes the importance of lifestyle changes in the management of hypogonadal men.
LOW TESTOSTERONE AND THE OVERALL MORTALITY RATE
Low testosterone is associated unfavorably with the rate of all-cause mortality. A retrospective study in male veterans over age 40 with repeated testosterone levels over a 5-year period found that the risk of death from all causes in men with normal testosterone (> 250 ng/dL or free testosterone > 0.75 ng/dL) was 20% (95% CI 16.2%–241%) vs 35% (95% CI 28.5%–41.4%) in men with low testosterone (< 250 ng/dL or free testosterone < 0.75 ng/dL). In multivariate analysis, men with testosterone less than 250 ng/dL (< 8.7 nmol/L) or free testosterone less than 0.75 ng/dL (< 0.03 nmol/L) had up to an 88% higher death rate than men with normal testosterone levels.31
Low testosterone has also been associated with other end-organ, disease-specific mortality. In men with end-stage renal disease, low testosterone was an independent predictor of death from all causes and from cardiovascular disease.32 A prospective European health study revealed an association between low testosterone and increased risk of death from cardiovascular disease and cancer.33 A recent meta-analysis of population-based studies confirmed this association, despite significant interstudy heterogeneity. 34 Although multiple studies show an independent association of low testosterone and increased mortality rate, causality remains unconfirmed. This may be difficult to prove, given the available study designs and the nonspecific nature of symptoms related to low testosterone and potentially associated comorbidities.
TRT: INDICATIONS AND CONTRAINDICATIONS
The indications, benefits, and risks of TRT are controversial, with current data lacking long-term follow-up and consistent biochemical target values. Treatment of low testosterone is not indicated at the present time in the absence of clinical symptoms.
According to recently published guidelines, TRT is recommended for symptomatic men with low or borderline total testosterone or free testosterone (< 350 ng/dL or < 65 pg/mL).7,8 Patients with borderline biochemical values (total testosterone 200–350 ng/dL, free testosterone 40–65 pg/mL) and possible related symptoms should be treated with TRT for at least 3 months and then reevaluated to verify improved testosterone levels and to assess for symptom amelioration or resolution.35 Dose escalation is recommended in patients with subtherapeutic testosterone levels and limited clinical improvement after 3 months of treatment.
Target maintenance testosterone levels have not been defined, with mid to lower young adult male serum testosterone levels recommended at this time.8 Given that the current literature does not specify a target testosterone replacement range, we recommend monitoring the clinical response along with total testosterone to decide adjustments in TRT. Ultimately, treatment goals of TRT should be the resolution of signs and symptoms, including improvement of sexual function, libido, and preservation of bone mineral density.7,8
Contraindications
TRT is not recommended in men with the following:
- Breast cancer
- Polycythemia (hematocrit > 50%)
- Untreated obstructive sleep apnea
- Lower urinary tract symptoms caused by an enlarged prostate; International Prostate Symptom Score > 19
- Poorly controlled heart failure
- Desire for fertility.
The role of TRT in prostate cancer remains controversial (see below) and remains contraindicated in recent Endocrine Society clinical practice guidelines.7 Guidelines recommend urologic consultation prior to initiation of TRT in patients at increased risk of prostate cancer,7 based on age, race, family history, PSA, PSA velocity, and history of prostate biopsy.
One prominent historic concern about androgen replacement therapy regards the potential for de novo development of prostate cancer. Numerous studies have failed to find elevated risk of new diagnosis, progression, or recurrence of prostate cancer in patients on TRT.36,37 Nevertheless, patients who develop elevated PSA, increased PSA velocity, or an abnormal digital rectal examination while on TRT should undergo prostate biopsy.
TRT FORMULATIONS AND TREATMENT OPTIONS
A number of effective formulations of TRT are available (Table 2). Transdermal and parenteral formulations are most commonly used. Enteric testosterone formulations are not available in the United States and are associated with hepatotoxicity. While buccal testosterone therapy is available, it often leads to local gingival irritation and has not gained widespread popularity.
Parenteral TRT can be administered intramuscularly (IM) or subcutaneously (SQ). Testosterone cypionate (Depo-Testosterone) is the only IM form available in the United States and is given every 2 to 3 weeks. It is the least expensive form of TRT, but it requires frequent administration (by either the clinical practitioner or the patient himself). Testosterone cypionate injections lead to markedly wide swings of testosterone levels, ranging from supraphysiologic levels for a few days after administration to hypogonadal levels before the next injection. This may be mitigated by more-frequent injections. The longer-acting form testosterone undecanoate is available outside the United States and is given every 12 weeks when stable levels are reached.
The other parenteral option is SQ slow-release pellets (Testopel). These pellets have 75 mg of testosterone. Typically 8 to 14 pellets are placed subcutaneously in the buttock area, which will provide coverage for 3 to 6 months.38 The insertion procedure is simple with a short learning curve, limited compliance issues, and elimination of risk of transdermal transmission of drug to others. Disadvantages include wound infection and pellet extrusion, seen in 0.3% to 12% of patients in various studies.38
Another route of TRT is transdermal, including patches, liquids, and gels. Patches are applied daily and are rotated to different sites with minimal risk for skin transmission to others, although use may be limited by site dermatitis. Three hydro-alcoholic gel formulations are currently available in the United States: Androgel (1% or 1.62%), which is applied to the chest or the shoulders; Testim 1%, which is applied to the shoulders; and Fortesta (2%), which is applied to the thighs. A liquid preparation, Axiron, is applied to the axillae. Because secondary transfer to women and children is possible, it is important to thoroughly wash hands after application and to cover the treated skin with clothing. In 3 to 4 hours, all the medication is absorbed, and the area should then be washed before direct skin contact with others (Table 2).
MONITORING PATIENTS ON TRT
Patients starting TRT will require clinical and biochemical monitoring to evaluate response to therapy as well as possible side effects. The first set of laboratory values should be obtained 6 to 12 weeks after initiation of therapy and then typically quarterly for 1 year, every 6 months for the second year, and annually thereafter. Laboratory values monitored should include total testosterone, PSA, and hematocrit.
Men on daily therapy (patch, gel, liquid) should have testosterone drawn approximately 2 hours after application. Current TRT regimen data lack an appropriate target testosterone value, and guidelines suggest a mid to lower young adult male testosterone level.8 Since this is not clearly delineated in the current literature, the authors recommend monitoring clinical symptoms along with testosterone levels when adjusting TRT. It is important to document that serum testosterone was actually increased to the normal range in treated men without clinical improvement.
A rise in PSA of up to 24% would be an acceptable response in a benign prostate gland, but a higher increase or increase above 4.0 ng/dL should prompt consideration of prostate biopsy. 39 Similarly, hemoglobin and hematocrit typically increase, but a hematocrit greater than 55% should prompt dose reduction or cessation.7 Transaminases do not need routine monitoring during parenteral or transdermal therapy. Bone mineral density should be monitored every 1 to 2 years.7,8
CLINICAL BENEFITS OF TRT
There are promising data regarding the clinical benefits of TRT in patients with metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes mellitus. A recent meta-analysis investigating the effect of TRT on metabolic syndrome revealed an improvement in fasting plasma glucose, homeostatic model assessment index, triglycerides, treadmill duration, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and waist circumference.40,41 TRT also decreased insulin resistance and improved glycemic control in type 2 diabetic hypogonadal men.42 Results from a randomized controlled trial comparing 12 weeks of intramuscular testosterone treatment vs placebo in men with metabolic syndrome revealed an improvement in mean waist circumference from 108 cm ± 8 cm to 105.5 cm ± 7.7 cm. Sixty percent of men initially diagnosed with metabolic syndrome and treated with testosterone no longer met diagnostic criteria for metabolic syndrome according to the National Cholesterol Education Program–Third Adult Treatment Panel (NCEP-ATP III) and the International Diabetes Federation (IDF) guidelines.43
Depression has also been associated with low testosterone, with free testosterone levels below 170 pmol/L associated with frank depressive symptoms and levels below 220 pmol/L predictive of future onset of depressive symptoms.15 Testosterone replacement therapy has been shown to improve depressive symptoms in hypogonadal men.16,17 Shores et al16 conducted a randomized placebo-controlled study of testosterone replacement in men older than 50 years with dysthymia or minor depression. Men treated with testosterone gel for 12 weeks showed an improvement of baseline total testosterone levels from 291 ng/dL to 449 ng/dL. Men treated with testosterone also had a 53% rate of depression remission compared with 19% in the placebo group.16
The evidence supporting improved sexual function with TRT is variable. Some studies indicate limited or transient improvement of sexual function after TRT in men with erectile dysfunction,18,19 while others report an improvement in sexual function after 3 months of TRT.44 Because of the multifactorial nature of erectile dysfunction, men with erectile dysfunction and ADAM may require TRT and a phosphodiesterase type 5 (PDE5) inhibitor, as TRT alone may be insufficient. In a prospective observational study of men with erectile dysfunction and an initial testosterone lower than 300 ng/dL, testosterone gel was administered for at least 1 year, and improvement in sexual function was seen. Results revealed a correlation between improvement in sexual function and concurrent therapy with a PDE5 inhibitor.45 In a recent multicenter placebo-controlled study of PDE5 inhibitor nonresponders, the addition of a testosterone gel to tadalafil (Cialis) improved sexual function, again suggesting a synergistic effect when treating erectile dysfunction with both TRT and a PDE5 inhibitor.46
ADVERSE EVENTS RELATED TO TRT
Despite the aforementioned benefits, it must be emphasized that TRT should be used for specific target symptoms related to hypogonadism in older men and that the general health benefits and safety of TRT in an asymptomatic man with a low measured testosterone alone remains unproven.
Cardiovascular events. In a recent study of 209 elderly men with low testosterone and limited mobility associated with other chronic illnesses, 6 months of TRT resulted in the development of cardiovascular-related adverse events in 23 patients compared with 5 men in the placebo group.47 This may have been related to how adverse events were reported, with cumulative adverse events reviewed every 6 months, ranging from peripheral edema, hypertension, arrhythmias, and electrocardiographic changes. Serious adverse events were reviewed as they occurred, including stroke and acute myocardial events.
Other studies41,43 have revealed a favorable effect of TRT on cardiovascular disease and its surrogate markers but have lacked detailed reports and close monitoring of adverse events. Thus, variation of outcome measurement and reporting may obfuscate the detection of adverse cardiovascular events. Outcomes may also depend on the testosterone formulation and the target serum concentration.43
Larger, long-term placebo-controlled trials are needed to elucidate cardiovascular risk as a primary outcome in older androgen-deficient men undergoing TRT.
Other adverse effects related to TRT include erythrocytosis, seen in 3% to 18% of patients with transdermal administration,48,49 and up to 44% of patients undergoing IM therapy.48 Gynecomastia can occur and is more likely to resolve after treatment cessation of transdermal testosterone treatment than IM injections.48 Other potential clinical side effects that should prompt dose-reduction or discontinuation are irritability, bothersome acne, fluid retention, testicular atrophy, worsening of lower urinary tract symptoms from an enlarged prostate, and new or worsening heart failure. Infrequently, obstructive sleep apnea may be worsened by TRT, although currently the data linking sleep apnea and TRT are limited.50
TRT AND PROSTATE CANCER
The relationship between prostate cancer growth and testosterone is well established, with androgen ablation remaining the cornerstone of treatment for metastatic disease. Since androgen deprivation leads to the regression of prostate cancer, there has been concern that TRT may lead to growth or de novo development of prostate cancer. TRT has thus been strongly prohibited in patients with prostate cancer.7 However, recent data challenge this paradigm.
In a retrospective study of 81 men (mean age 56.8 years) treated with TRT, only 4 men (4.9%) developed prostate cancer over a 5-year period.51 This is less than the estimated 16.7% probability of developing prostate cancer in the general US population.52
Recent accumulating data support the concept of testosterone reaching a saturation level when binding androgen receptors within the prostate at extremely low levels. Increases above this level with TRT as with ADAM do not increase the risk of development or progression of prostate cancer.53 In addition, large doses of dihydrotestosterone do not seem to alter PSA, prostate volume, or International Prostate Symptom Score.54 These findings may have implications in future androgen therapies in hypogonadal older men.
Pathologic studies suggest low testosterone is associated with a higher Gleason grade of prostate cancer,55 although this association remains unconfirmed.56
In men with erectile dysfunction after prostate cancer treatment, TRT appears safe after brachytherapy57 or radical prostatectomy.58 A small study of 15 hypogonadal men with castrate-resistant prostate cancer and minimal or no metastatic disease showed only 1 patient had symptomatic progression.59 Moreover, a recent small study of 13 men with known prostate cancer on active surveillance showed that TRT did not lead to local progression or metastatic disease in any of the patients.60
While these data are provocative, it should still be emphasized that the standard of care for prostate cancer screening should be followed in age-appropriate men with ADAM. In addition, hypogonadal men with prostate cancer should only be treated with testosterone in conjunction with careful counseling and ongoing monitoring.
TRT SHOULD NOT REPLACE HEALTHY LIFESTYLE CHANGES
There has been a dramatic increase in TRT initiation for nonspecific symptoms of low testosterone in older androgen-deficient men. With this increase in initiation of TRT, there is a significant risk of overtreating. While there are many encouraging associations between treatment of androgen deficiency and improvement in rates of of morbidity and mortality, much remains unknown about the overall long-term risks and benefits of TRT. It is important to emphasize that TRT should not replace healthy lifestyle changes including regular exercise, weight loss, and diet modifications, which may provide the patient symptom resolution. Thoughtful dialogue with the patient is critical prior to TRT initiation, including thorough disclosure of the risks and benefits of treatment, and the limitations of the data as it evolves.
- Feldman HA, Longcope C, Derby CA, et al. Age trends in the level of serum testosterone and other hormones in middle-aged men: longitudinal results from the Massachusetts male aging study. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2002; 87:589–598.
- Araujo AB, O’Donnell AB, Brambilla DJ, et al. Prevalence and incidence of androgen deficiency in middle-aged and older men: estimates from the Massachusetts Male Aging Study. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2004; 89:5920–5926.
- Travison TG, Shackelton R, Araujo AB, et al. The natural history of symptomatic androgen deficiency in men: onset, progression, and spontaneous remission. J Am Geriatr Soc 2008; 56:831–839.
- Tajar A, Forti G, O’Neill TW, et al; EMAS Group. Characteristics of secondary, primary, and compensated hypogonadism in aging men: evidence from the European Male Ageing Study. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2010; 95:1810–1818.
- Hammes A, Andreassen TK, Spoelgen R, et al. Role of endocytosis in cellular uptake of sex steroids. Cell 2005; 122:751–762.
- Rosner W, Hryb DJ, Kahn SM, Nakhla AM, Romas NA. Interactions of sex hormone-binding globulin with target cells. Mol Cell Endocrinol 2010; 316:79–85.
- Bhasin S, Cunningham GR, Hayes FJ, et al; Task Force, Endocrine Society. Testosterone therapy in men with androgen deficiency syndromes: an Endocrine Society clinical practice guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2010; 95:2536–2559.
- Wang C, Nieschlag E, Swerdloff R, et al; International Society of Andrology (ISA). Investigation, treatment, and monitoring of late-onset hypogonadism in males: ISA, ISSAM, EAU, EAA, and ASA recommendations. J Androl 2009; 30:1–9.
- Morley JE, Patrick P, Perry HM. Evaluation of assays available to measure free testosterone. Metabolism 2002; 51:554–559.
- Vesper HW, Bhasin S, Wang C, et al. Interlaboratory comparison study of serum total testosterone [corrected] measurements performed by mass spectrometry methods. Steroids 2009; 74:498–503.
- Ly LP, Sartorius G, Hull L, et al. Accuracy of calculated free testosterone formulae in men. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) 2010; 73:382–388.
- Melmed S, Casanueva FF, Hoffman AR, et al; Endocrine Society. Diagnosis and treatment of hyperprolactinemia: an Endocrine Society clinical practice guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2011; 96:273–288.
- Wu FC, Tajar A, Beynon JM, et al; EMAS Group. Identification of late-onset hypogonadism in middle-aged and elderly men. N Engl J Med 2010; 363:123–135.
- Kelleher S, Conway AJ, Handelsman DJ. Blood testosterone threshold for androgen deficiency symptoms. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2004; 89:3813–3817.
- Joshi D, van Schoor NM, de Ronde W, et al. Low free testosterone levels are associated with prevalence and incidence of depressive symptoms in older men. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) 2010; 72:232–240.
- Shores MM, Kivlahan DR, Sadak TI, Li EJ, Matsumoto AM. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of testosterone treatment in hypogonadal older men with subthreshold depression (dysthymia or minor depression). J Clin Psychiatry 2009; 70:1009–1016.
- Khera M, Bhattacharya RK, Blick G, Kushner H, Nguyen D, Miner MM. The effect of testosterone supplementation on depression symptoms in hypogonadal men from the Testim Registry in the US (TRiUS). Aging Male 2012; 15:14–21.
- Jain P, Rademaker AW, McVary KT. Testosterone supplementation for erectile dysfunction: results of a meta-analysis. J Urol 2000; 164:371–375.
- Mulhall JP, Valenzuela R, Aviv N, Parker M. Effect of testosterone supplementation on sexual function in hypogonadal men with erectile dysfunction. Urology 2004; 63:348–352.
- Morley JE, Charlton E, Patrick P, et al. Validation of a screening questionnaire for androgen deficiency in aging males. Metabolism 2000; 49:1239–1242.
- Moore C, Huebler D, Zimmermann T, Heinemann LA, Saad F, Thai DM. The Aging Males’ Symptoms scale (AMS) as outcome measure for treatment of androgen deficiency. Eur Urol 2004; 46:80–87.
- Chueh KS, Huang SP, Lee YC, et al. The Comparison of the Aging Male Symptoms (AMS) Scale and Androgen Deficiency in the Aging Male (ADAM) Questionnaire to Detect Androgen Deficiency in Middle-Aged Men. J Androl 2012[Epub ahead of print]
- Mulligan T, Frick MF, Zuraw QC, Stemhagen A, McWhirter C. Prevalence of hypogonadism in males aged at least 45 years: the HIM study. Int J Clin Pract 2006; 60:762–769.
- Dhindsa S, Miller MG, McWhirter CL, et al. Testosterone concentrations in diabetic and nondiabetic obese men. Diabetes Care 2010; 33:1186–1192.
- Krasnoff JB, Basaria S, Pencina MJ, et al. Free testosterone levels are associated with mobility limitation and physical performance in community-dwelling men: the Framingham Offspring Study. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2010; 95:2790–2799.
- Carrero JJ, Qureshi AR, Nakashima A, et al. Prevalence and clinical implications of testosterone deficiency in men with end-stage renal disease. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2011; 26:184–190.
- Grossmann M, Thomas MC, Panagiotopoulos S, et al. Low testosterone levels are common and associated with insulin resistance in men with diabetes. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2008; 93:1834–1840.
- Brand JS, van der Tweel I, Grobbee DE, Emmelot-Vonk MH, van der Schouw YT. Testosterone, sex hormone-binding globulin and the metabolic syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Int J Epidemiol 2011; 40:189–207.
- Ding EL, Song Y, Malik VS, Liu S. Sex differences of endogenous sex hormones and risk of type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA 2006; 295:1288–1299.
- Niskanen L, Laaksonen DE, Punnonen K, Mustajoki P, Kaukua J, Rissanen A. Changes in sex hormone-binding globulin and testosterone during weight loss and weight maintenance in abdominally obese men with the metabolic syndrome. Diabetes Obes Metab 2004; 6:208–215.
- Shores MM, Matsumoto AM, Sloan KL, Kivlahan DR. Low serum testosterone and mortality in male veterans. Arch Intern Med 2006; 166:1660–1665.
- Carrero JJ, Qureshi AR, Parini P, et al. Low serum testosterone increases mortality risk among male dialysis patients. J Am Soc Nephrol 2009; 20:613–620.
- Haring R, Völzke H, Steveling A, et al. Low serum testosterone levels are associated with increased risk of mortality in a population-based cohort of men aged 20–79. Eur Heart J 2010; 31:1494–1501.
- Araujo AB, Dixon JM, Suarez EA, Murad MH, Guey LT, Wittert GA. Clinical review: Endogenous testosterone and mortality in men: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2011; 96:3007–3019.
- Rhoden EL, Morgentaler A. Risks of testosterone-replacement therapy and recommendations for monitoring. N Engl J Med 2004; 350:482–492.
- Isbarn H, Pinthus JH, Marks LS, et al. Testosterone and prostate cancer: revisiting old paradigms. Eur Urol 2009; 56:48–56.
- Traish AM, Miner MM, Morgentaler A, Zitzmann M. Testosterone deficiency. Am J Med 2011; 124:578–587.
- Cavender RK, Fairall M. Subcutaneous testosterone pellet implant (Testopel) therapy for men with testosterone deficiency syndrome: a single-site retrospective safety analysis. J Sex Med 2009; 6:3177–3192.
- Gerstenbluth RE, Maniam PN, Corty EW, Seftel AD. Prostate-specific antigen changes in hypogonadal men treated with testosterone replacement. J Androl 2002; 23:922–926.
- Corona G, Monami M, Rastrelli G, et al. Testosterone and metabolic syndrome: a meta-analysis study. J Sex Med 2011; 8:272–283.
- Corona G, Rastrelli G, Monami M, et al. Hypogonadism as a risk factor for cardiovascular mortality in men: a meta-analytic study. Eur J Endocrinol 2011; 165:687–701.
- Kapoor D, Goodwin E, Channer KS, Jones TH. Testosterone replacement therapy improves insulin resistance, glycaemic control, visceral adiposity and hypercholesterolaemia in hypogonadal men with type 2 diabetes. Eur J Endocrinol 2006; 154:899–906.
- Aversa A, Bruzziches R, Francomano D, et al. Effects of testosterone undecanoate on cardiovascular risk factors and atherosclerosis in middle-aged men with late-onset hypogonadism and metabolic syndrome: results from a 24-month, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. J Sex Med 2010; 7:3495–3503.
- Rhoden EL, Morgentaler A. Symptomatic response rates to testosterone therapy and the likelihood of completing 12 months of therapy in clinical practice. J Sex Med 2010; 7:277–283.
- Khera M, Bhattacharya RK, Blick G, Kushner H, Nguyen D, Miner MM. Improved sexual function with testosterone replacement therapy in hypogonadal men: real-world data from the Testim Registry in the United States (TRiUS). J Sex Med 2011; 8:3204–3213.
- Buvat J, Montorsi F, Maggi M, et al. Hypogonadal men nonresponders to the PDE5 inhibitor tadalafil benefit from normalization of testosterone levels with a 1% hydroalcoholic testosterone gel in the treatment of erectile dysfunction (TADTEST study). J Sex Med 2011; 8:284–293.
- Basaria S, Coviello AD, Travison TG, et al. Adverse events associated with testosterone administration. N Engl J Med 2010; 363:109–122.
- Dobs AS, Meikle AW, Arver S, Sanders SW, Caramelli KE, Mazer NA. Pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and safety of a permeation-enhanced testosterone transdermal system in comparison with bi-weekly injections of testosterone enanthate for the treatment of hypogonadal men. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1999; 84:3469–3478.
- Wang C, Swerdloff RS, Iranmanesh A, et al; Testosterone Gel Study Group. Transdermal testosterone gel improves sexual function, mood, muscle strength, and body composition parameters in hypogonadal men. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2000; 85:2839–2853.
- Hanafy HM. Testosterone therapy and obstructive sleep apnea: is there a real connection? J Sex Med 2007; 4:1241–1246.
- Coward RM, Simhan J, Carson CC. Prostate-specific antigen changes and prostate cancer in hypogonadal men treated with testosterone replacement therapy. BJU Int 2009; 103:1179–1183.
- Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin 2012; 62:10–29.
- Morgentaler A, Traish AM. Shifting the paradigm of testosterone and prostate cancer: the saturation model and the limits of androgen-dependent growth. Eur Urol 2009; 55:310–320.
- Page ST, Lin DW, Mostaghel EA, et al. Dihydrotestosterone administration does not increase intraprostatic androgen concentrations or alter prostate androgen action in healthy men: a randomized-controlled trial. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2011; 96:430–437.
- Botto H, Neuzillet Y, Lebret T, Camparo P, Molinie V, Raynaud JP. High incidence of predominant Gleason pattern 4 localized prostate cancer is associated with low serum testosterone. J Urol 2011; 186:1400–1405.
- Salonia A, Gallina A, Briganti A, et al. Preoperative hypogonadism is not an independent predictor of high-risk disease in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy. Cancer 2011; 117:3953–3962.
- Sarosdy MF. Testosterone replacement for hypogonadism after treatment of early prostate cancer with brachytherapy. Cancer 2007; 109:536–541.
- Khera M. Androgens and erectile function: a case for early androgen use in postprostatectomy hypogonadal men. J Sex Med 2009; 6:(suppl 3):234–238.
- Szmulewitz R, Mohile S, Posadas E, et al. A randomized phase 1 study of testosterone replacement for patients with low-risk castration-resistant prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2009; 56:97–103.
- Morgentaler A, Lipshultz LI, Bennett R, Sweeney M, Avila D, Khera M. Testosterone therapy in men with untreated prostate cancer. J Urol 2011; 185:1256–1260.
- Feldman HA, Longcope C, Derby CA, et al. Age trends in the level of serum testosterone and other hormones in middle-aged men: longitudinal results from the Massachusetts male aging study. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2002; 87:589–598.
- Araujo AB, O’Donnell AB, Brambilla DJ, et al. Prevalence and incidence of androgen deficiency in middle-aged and older men: estimates from the Massachusetts Male Aging Study. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2004; 89:5920–5926.
- Travison TG, Shackelton R, Araujo AB, et al. The natural history of symptomatic androgen deficiency in men: onset, progression, and spontaneous remission. J Am Geriatr Soc 2008; 56:831–839.
- Tajar A, Forti G, O’Neill TW, et al; EMAS Group. Characteristics of secondary, primary, and compensated hypogonadism in aging men: evidence from the European Male Ageing Study. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2010; 95:1810–1818.
- Hammes A, Andreassen TK, Spoelgen R, et al. Role of endocytosis in cellular uptake of sex steroids. Cell 2005; 122:751–762.
- Rosner W, Hryb DJ, Kahn SM, Nakhla AM, Romas NA. Interactions of sex hormone-binding globulin with target cells. Mol Cell Endocrinol 2010; 316:79–85.
- Bhasin S, Cunningham GR, Hayes FJ, et al; Task Force, Endocrine Society. Testosterone therapy in men with androgen deficiency syndromes: an Endocrine Society clinical practice guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2010; 95:2536–2559.
- Wang C, Nieschlag E, Swerdloff R, et al; International Society of Andrology (ISA). Investigation, treatment, and monitoring of late-onset hypogonadism in males: ISA, ISSAM, EAU, EAA, and ASA recommendations. J Androl 2009; 30:1–9.
- Morley JE, Patrick P, Perry HM. Evaluation of assays available to measure free testosterone. Metabolism 2002; 51:554–559.
- Vesper HW, Bhasin S, Wang C, et al. Interlaboratory comparison study of serum total testosterone [corrected] measurements performed by mass spectrometry methods. Steroids 2009; 74:498–503.
- Ly LP, Sartorius G, Hull L, et al. Accuracy of calculated free testosterone formulae in men. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) 2010; 73:382–388.
- Melmed S, Casanueva FF, Hoffman AR, et al; Endocrine Society. Diagnosis and treatment of hyperprolactinemia: an Endocrine Society clinical practice guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2011; 96:273–288.
- Wu FC, Tajar A, Beynon JM, et al; EMAS Group. Identification of late-onset hypogonadism in middle-aged and elderly men. N Engl J Med 2010; 363:123–135.
- Kelleher S, Conway AJ, Handelsman DJ. Blood testosterone threshold for androgen deficiency symptoms. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2004; 89:3813–3817.
- Joshi D, van Schoor NM, de Ronde W, et al. Low free testosterone levels are associated with prevalence and incidence of depressive symptoms in older men. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) 2010; 72:232–240.
- Shores MM, Kivlahan DR, Sadak TI, Li EJ, Matsumoto AM. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of testosterone treatment in hypogonadal older men with subthreshold depression (dysthymia or minor depression). J Clin Psychiatry 2009; 70:1009–1016.
- Khera M, Bhattacharya RK, Blick G, Kushner H, Nguyen D, Miner MM. The effect of testosterone supplementation on depression symptoms in hypogonadal men from the Testim Registry in the US (TRiUS). Aging Male 2012; 15:14–21.
- Jain P, Rademaker AW, McVary KT. Testosterone supplementation for erectile dysfunction: results of a meta-analysis. J Urol 2000; 164:371–375.
- Mulhall JP, Valenzuela R, Aviv N, Parker M. Effect of testosterone supplementation on sexual function in hypogonadal men with erectile dysfunction. Urology 2004; 63:348–352.
- Morley JE, Charlton E, Patrick P, et al. Validation of a screening questionnaire for androgen deficiency in aging males. Metabolism 2000; 49:1239–1242.
- Moore C, Huebler D, Zimmermann T, Heinemann LA, Saad F, Thai DM. The Aging Males’ Symptoms scale (AMS) as outcome measure for treatment of androgen deficiency. Eur Urol 2004; 46:80–87.
- Chueh KS, Huang SP, Lee YC, et al. The Comparison of the Aging Male Symptoms (AMS) Scale and Androgen Deficiency in the Aging Male (ADAM) Questionnaire to Detect Androgen Deficiency in Middle-Aged Men. J Androl 2012[Epub ahead of print]
- Mulligan T, Frick MF, Zuraw QC, Stemhagen A, McWhirter C. Prevalence of hypogonadism in males aged at least 45 years: the HIM study. Int J Clin Pract 2006; 60:762–769.
- Dhindsa S, Miller MG, McWhirter CL, et al. Testosterone concentrations in diabetic and nondiabetic obese men. Diabetes Care 2010; 33:1186–1192.
- Krasnoff JB, Basaria S, Pencina MJ, et al. Free testosterone levels are associated with mobility limitation and physical performance in community-dwelling men: the Framingham Offspring Study. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2010; 95:2790–2799.
- Carrero JJ, Qureshi AR, Nakashima A, et al. Prevalence and clinical implications of testosterone deficiency in men with end-stage renal disease. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2011; 26:184–190.
- Grossmann M, Thomas MC, Panagiotopoulos S, et al. Low testosterone levels are common and associated with insulin resistance in men with diabetes. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2008; 93:1834–1840.
- Brand JS, van der Tweel I, Grobbee DE, Emmelot-Vonk MH, van der Schouw YT. Testosterone, sex hormone-binding globulin and the metabolic syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Int J Epidemiol 2011; 40:189–207.
- Ding EL, Song Y, Malik VS, Liu S. Sex differences of endogenous sex hormones and risk of type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA 2006; 295:1288–1299.
- Niskanen L, Laaksonen DE, Punnonen K, Mustajoki P, Kaukua J, Rissanen A. Changes in sex hormone-binding globulin and testosterone during weight loss and weight maintenance in abdominally obese men with the metabolic syndrome. Diabetes Obes Metab 2004; 6:208–215.
- Shores MM, Matsumoto AM, Sloan KL, Kivlahan DR. Low serum testosterone and mortality in male veterans. Arch Intern Med 2006; 166:1660–1665.
- Carrero JJ, Qureshi AR, Parini P, et al. Low serum testosterone increases mortality risk among male dialysis patients. J Am Soc Nephrol 2009; 20:613–620.
- Haring R, Völzke H, Steveling A, et al. Low serum testosterone levels are associated with increased risk of mortality in a population-based cohort of men aged 20–79. Eur Heart J 2010; 31:1494–1501.
- Araujo AB, Dixon JM, Suarez EA, Murad MH, Guey LT, Wittert GA. Clinical review: Endogenous testosterone and mortality in men: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2011; 96:3007–3019.
- Rhoden EL, Morgentaler A. Risks of testosterone-replacement therapy and recommendations for monitoring. N Engl J Med 2004; 350:482–492.
- Isbarn H, Pinthus JH, Marks LS, et al. Testosterone and prostate cancer: revisiting old paradigms. Eur Urol 2009; 56:48–56.
- Traish AM, Miner MM, Morgentaler A, Zitzmann M. Testosterone deficiency. Am J Med 2011; 124:578–587.
- Cavender RK, Fairall M. Subcutaneous testosterone pellet implant (Testopel) therapy for men with testosterone deficiency syndrome: a single-site retrospective safety analysis. J Sex Med 2009; 6:3177–3192.
- Gerstenbluth RE, Maniam PN, Corty EW, Seftel AD. Prostate-specific antigen changes in hypogonadal men treated with testosterone replacement. J Androl 2002; 23:922–926.
- Corona G, Monami M, Rastrelli G, et al. Testosterone and metabolic syndrome: a meta-analysis study. J Sex Med 2011; 8:272–283.
- Corona G, Rastrelli G, Monami M, et al. Hypogonadism as a risk factor for cardiovascular mortality in men: a meta-analytic study. Eur J Endocrinol 2011; 165:687–701.
- Kapoor D, Goodwin E, Channer KS, Jones TH. Testosterone replacement therapy improves insulin resistance, glycaemic control, visceral adiposity and hypercholesterolaemia in hypogonadal men with type 2 diabetes. Eur J Endocrinol 2006; 154:899–906.
- Aversa A, Bruzziches R, Francomano D, et al. Effects of testosterone undecanoate on cardiovascular risk factors and atherosclerosis in middle-aged men with late-onset hypogonadism and metabolic syndrome: results from a 24-month, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. J Sex Med 2010; 7:3495–3503.
- Rhoden EL, Morgentaler A. Symptomatic response rates to testosterone therapy and the likelihood of completing 12 months of therapy in clinical practice. J Sex Med 2010; 7:277–283.
- Khera M, Bhattacharya RK, Blick G, Kushner H, Nguyen D, Miner MM. Improved sexual function with testosterone replacement therapy in hypogonadal men: real-world data from the Testim Registry in the United States (TRiUS). J Sex Med 2011; 8:3204–3213.
- Buvat J, Montorsi F, Maggi M, et al. Hypogonadal men nonresponders to the PDE5 inhibitor tadalafil benefit from normalization of testosterone levels with a 1% hydroalcoholic testosterone gel in the treatment of erectile dysfunction (TADTEST study). J Sex Med 2011; 8:284–293.
- Basaria S, Coviello AD, Travison TG, et al. Adverse events associated with testosterone administration. N Engl J Med 2010; 363:109–122.
- Dobs AS, Meikle AW, Arver S, Sanders SW, Caramelli KE, Mazer NA. Pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and safety of a permeation-enhanced testosterone transdermal system in comparison with bi-weekly injections of testosterone enanthate for the treatment of hypogonadal men. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1999; 84:3469–3478.
- Wang C, Swerdloff RS, Iranmanesh A, et al; Testosterone Gel Study Group. Transdermal testosterone gel improves sexual function, mood, muscle strength, and body composition parameters in hypogonadal men. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2000; 85:2839–2853.
- Hanafy HM. Testosterone therapy and obstructive sleep apnea: is there a real connection? J Sex Med 2007; 4:1241–1246.
- Coward RM, Simhan J, Carson CC. Prostate-specific antigen changes and prostate cancer in hypogonadal men treated with testosterone replacement therapy. BJU Int 2009; 103:1179–1183.
- Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin 2012; 62:10–29.
- Morgentaler A, Traish AM. Shifting the paradigm of testosterone and prostate cancer: the saturation model and the limits of androgen-dependent growth. Eur Urol 2009; 55:310–320.
- Page ST, Lin DW, Mostaghel EA, et al. Dihydrotestosterone administration does not increase intraprostatic androgen concentrations or alter prostate androgen action in healthy men: a randomized-controlled trial. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2011; 96:430–437.
- Botto H, Neuzillet Y, Lebret T, Camparo P, Molinie V, Raynaud JP. High incidence of predominant Gleason pattern 4 localized prostate cancer is associated with low serum testosterone. J Urol 2011; 186:1400–1405.
- Salonia A, Gallina A, Briganti A, et al. Preoperative hypogonadism is not an independent predictor of high-risk disease in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy. Cancer 2011; 117:3953–3962.
- Sarosdy MF. Testosterone replacement for hypogonadism after treatment of early prostate cancer with brachytherapy. Cancer 2007; 109:536–541.
- Khera M. Androgens and erectile function: a case for early androgen use in postprostatectomy hypogonadal men. J Sex Med 2009; 6:(suppl 3):234–238.
- Szmulewitz R, Mohile S, Posadas E, et al. A randomized phase 1 study of testosterone replacement for patients with low-risk castration-resistant prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2009; 56:97–103.
- Morgentaler A, Lipshultz LI, Bennett R, Sweeney M, Avila D, Khera M. Testosterone therapy in men with untreated prostate cancer. J Urol 2011; 185:1256–1260.
KEY POINTS
- General health benefits and safety of TRT in asymptomatic patients are not clearly defined by current data.
- Treatment of low testosterone is discouraged in the absence of clinical symptoms.
- A morning serum testosterone should be obtained after ruling out other causes of symptoms. It should also be repeated to confirm androgen deficiency in older men.
- Androgen deficiency in older men is associated with metabolic syndrome, type 2 diabetes mellitus, obesity, osteoporosis, renal failure, anemia, and previous treatment with steroids or opiates.
- TRT in men with a history of prostate cancer remains controversial. The existing limited data suggest that TRT is safe after curative therapy for prostate cancer. Patients treated should be monitored closely and informed of the risks of cancer progression and recurrence while they are on TRT.
Detecting and managing hereditary colorectal cancer syndromes in your practice
Hereditary colorectal cancer syndromes account for 5% to 10% of cases of colorectal cancer.
Identifying these patients in clinical practice begins by assessing a patient’s personal and family health history. An accurate and comprehensive family history should cover three generations and include ethnic background, ages and causes of death of relatives, and any diagnosis of cancer, including age at onset and history of polyps.
Red flags for a hereditary colorectal cancer syndrome in the personal or family history are:
- Early age of onset of cancer (eg, colorectal cancer before age 50)
- More than 10 colorectal adenomas
- Synchronous (ie, occurring at the same time) or metachronous (occurring at different times) primary cancers
- Multiple relatives in successive generations with the same or related cancers (eg, colon or endometrial cancer)
- A family member with a known hereditary colorectal cancer syndrome (Table 1).
Any of these red flags should prompt a referral for genetic counseling.
SYNDROMES ARE CLASSIFIED AS WITH OR WITHOUT POLYPOSIS
Many hereditary syndromes are associated with a higher risk of colorectal cancer. Generally, they can be divided into two categories (Table 2): polyposis syndromes (in which patients have numerous colorectal polyps) and nonpolyposis syndromes (with few or no polyps).
These two main types are subclassified on the basis of the histology of most of the polyps detected: adenomatous, hamartomatous, serrated, or mixed types.
In this review, we will address the three most common of these syndromes: Lynch syndrome (hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer), familial adenomatous polyposis, and MYH-associated polyposis. However, as noted in Table 2, other hereditary colorectal cancer syndromes exist, and suspicion of these conditions should prompt a referral for further evaluation.
LYNCH SYNDROME (HEREDITARY NONPOLYPOSIS COLORECTAL CANCER)
Lynch syndrome, also known as hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer, predisposes people to a variety of cancers.
Colorectal cancer is the most common type of cancer associated with Lynch syndrome. Recent research suggests that the cumulative risk of developing colorectal cancer by age 80 is 42% for all patients with Lynch syndrome.1 The median age at onset is 45 years.1 For patients who undergo segmental resection of their initial cancer, the cumulative risk of metachronous colorectal cancer (ie, a new tumor arising later) is 16% at 10 years, 41% at 20 years, and up to 62% after 30 years.2
Endometrial cancer occurs in 17% to 57% of women with Lynch syndrome by age 70, with a median age at onset of 49 years.1
Other extracolonic cancers in Lynch syndrome include cancers of the:
- Stomach (1%–10% risk by age 70 years)
- Ovaries (1%–20% risk)
- Hepatobiliary tract (1%–2% risk)
- Urinary tract (1%–12% risk)
- Small bowel (1%–2% risk)
- Brain (1%–8% risk)
- Skin (sebaceous adenomas, adenocarcinomas, and keratoacanthomas).1,3,4
Earlier studies reported higher rates of associated cancer than those shown here. However, their data were largely derived from registries and may be overestimates. The numbers shown above are from population-based studies.
Genetics of Lynch syndrome
Lynch syndrome is caused by a germline mutation in the MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PMS2, or EPCAM genes.5 These genes code for proteins that are responsible DNA mismatch repair—one of the cell’s proofreading mechanisms during DNA replication.
These mutations are inherited in an autosomal dominant manner. Though de novo mutations in these genes have been reported, they are rare and the exact frequency with which they occur is unknown.6
In whom should Lynch syndrome be suspected?
Lynch syndrome can be suspected on the basis of family history and clinical criteria.
In 1991, the same group of experts who coined the term “hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer” developed family history criteria for it1:
- At least three relatives with histologically confirmed colorectal cancer, one of whom is a first-degree relative of the other two
- At least two successive generations involved
- At least one of the cancers diagnosed before age 50
- Familial adenomatous polyposis is excluded.
Known as the Amsterdam criteria, these were to be used in collaborative studies of families with hereditary colorectal cancer.7 In 1999, these criteria were broadened to include extracolonic cancers and became known as the Amsterdam II criteria (Table 3).8
Patients whose families meet the Amsterdam II criteria or who have molecular pathologic evidence of Lynch syndrome (see below) are appropriate candidates for genetic counseling and testing.
Diagnosis of Lynch syndrome
The diagnosis of Lynch syndrome is based on molecular pathologic analysis (performed on tumor samples) and confirmed by genetic testing.
Molecular pathologic evidence of Lynch syndrome includes microsatellite instability and loss of expression of one or more of the DNA mismatch repair proteins (detected using immunohistochemistry) (more on these below). The revised Bethesda guidelines (TABLE 3) were intended to identify individuals whose tumors should be tested for one or both of these phenomena.9
In 2009, the Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention working group recommended that all patients with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer undergo microsatellite instability analysis, immunohistochemistry testing, or both, regardless of whether they meet the Amsterdam II or the Bethesda guideline criteria.10
Microsatellite instability analysis. Microsatellites are short sequences of repeated DNA. The tumor cells of patients who carry defective mismatch repair genes have microsatellites that are longer or shorter than in normal cells, a condition called microsatellite instability (ie, “MSI-high”).
Microsatellite instability testing, using a standardized panel of five DNA markers, is performed on normal and tumor tissue. If more than two of the five microsatellite markers in the tumor show instability, the lesion is considered to have a high level of microsatellite instability. About 15% of colorectal cancers have this high level, although most are not associated with Lynch syndrome and lose MLH1 expression by promoter methylation.11,12
While only 2% of patients with colorectal cancer have Lynch syndrome, from 90% to 95% of colorectal cancers from patients with Lynch syndrome have high levels of microsatellite instability.10 The presence of MLH1 promoter hypermethylation, the BRAF mutation V600E, or both within the tumor suggests that the cancer is not associated with Lynch syndrome.
Some families that meet the Amsterdam I criteria have microsatellite-stable tumors: their condition has been called familial colorectal cancer type X.13 This condition is associated with a higher risk of colorectal cancer but not the other malignancies observed in Lynch syndrome.
Immunohistochemistry is performed to assess for expression of the mismatch repair proteins MSH2, MSH6, MLH1, and PMS2. Absence of expression of the specific protein within tumor cells compared with normal cells within the specimen suggests dysfunction of the specific gene and guides germline mutation testing (Figure 1). For example, a patient who lacks expression of the MSH2 protein in his or her colon cancer most likely has a mutation in the MSH2 gene. Therefore, germ-line genetic testing should initially target the MSH2 gene. Approximately 88% of Lynch syndrome-associated colorectal cancers have abnormal immunohistochemical staining.10
Testing for microsatellite instability and mismatch repair gene expression ideally precedes germline genetic testing and helps to guide which gene or genes should be tested.9,14
Genetic testing for Lynch syndrome is routinely performed on a blood or saliva sample, using DNA from white blood cells and sequencing the gene or genes involved to look for mutations. Positive results from a germline genetic test confirm the diagnosis of Lynch syndrome and allow for predictive testing for relatives at risk. The term Lynch syndrome is used exclusively to describe individuals with evidence of a mutation in one of the mismatch repair genes.15
If a patient’s results are positive, genetic counseling and genetic testing should be offered to at-risk relatives age 18 and over.
Management of Lynch syndrome
Aggressive cancer surveillance is essential for people with Lynch syndrome and for those who are considered at risk but have not pursued genetic testing, such as a sibling of a person with Lynch syndrome.
Colorectal cancer. Colonoscopy is recommended every 1 to 2 years beginning at the age of 20 to 25 years, or 2 to 5 years earlier than the age of the youngest relative affected with colorectal cancer if the initial diagnosis was before age 25. When patients turn 40 years old, colonoscopy is done annually.16–18 A significant reduction in cancer incidence and in the mortality rate has been shown with colonoscopic surveillance.19–21
Chemoprevention may also have a role. Patients with Lynch syndrome who took aspirin 600 mg per day for an average of 25 months had a significantly lower incidence of colorectal cancer during a 55-month follow-up period compared with patients randomized to placebo.22
For patients with Lynch syndrome who are diagnosed with colorectal cancer, the high risk of metachronous cancers after standard segmental colectomy calls for a more extended resection. Retrospective analysis of 382 Lynch syndrome patients found that none of the 50 who underwent total or subtotal colectomy were diagnosed with metachronous colorectal cancer, whereas a metachronous cancer developed in 74 (22%) of the 332 patients who had had segmented resection.2 Annual surveillance of the remaining colon, rectum, or both is indicated postoperatively.
Gynecologic cancers. Women with Lynch syndrome should also consider gynecologic surveillance and risk-reducing surgery. This includes annual gynecologic examination, transvaginal ultrasonography, and endometrial aspiration, beginning at age 30 to 35 years. Although this surveillance does detect premalignant lesions and early symptomatic cancers, its effect on the mortality rate is unknown. Hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy has been shown to significantly reduce endometrial and ovarian cancers in women with Lynch syndrome.23,24
Urothelial cancers. Carriers of MSH2 mutations have a significantly higher risk of urothelial cancers.4 Therefore, MSH2 carriers should consider ultrasonography of the urinary tract, urinary cytology, and urinalysis every 1 to 2 years beginning at age 40.4
Other extracolonic cancers. Poor evidence exists for systematic screening for the other extracolonic tumors associated with Lynch syndrome. However, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network advises considering esophagogastroduodenoscopy with extended duodenoscopy as well as capsule endoscopy every 2 to 3 years beginning at age 30 to 35.14
ADENOMATOUS POLYPOSIS SYNDROMES
Familial adenomatous polyposis and MYH-associated polyposis are the next most common hereditary colorectal cancer syndromes. Each of these accounts for about 1% of cases of colorectal cancer. Clinically, these two syndromes can be challenging to distinguish because they overlap phenotypically to a significant degree.
FAMILIAL ADENOMATOUS POLYPOSIS
Familial adenomatous polyposis is caused by mutations in the APC gene. Its prevalence is 2.29 to 3.2 per 100,000 individuals.25,26
Genetics of familial adenomatous polyposis
APC is the only gene known to cause familial adenomatous polyposis. Mutations in APC are inherited in an autosomal dominant manner. Approximately 25% of cases of familial adenomatous polyposis are due to a de novo mutation in APC.27
Clinical presentation of familial adenomatous polyposis
Familial adenomatous polyposis is classified by the burden of colorectal adenomas.
Patients who have fewer than 100 adenomas have an attenuated form of the disease. In this group, polyps usually begin to form in the late teenage years or early 20s and tend to develop in the proximal colon. The attenuated form is associated with an approximately 70% lifetime risk of colorectal cancer.28
Patients who have more than 100 polyps are considered to have the classic form of the disease, and those with more than 1,000 polyps have profuse familial adenomatous polyposis (Figure 2). In these groups, polyps typically begin to develop in the preteenage to mid-teenage years. Without surgery, there is nearly a 100% risk of colorectal cancer. The average age at diagnosis of colorectal cancer is 39 years for patients with classic disease.
Upper gastrointestinal polyps are common in familial adenomatous polyposis. Nearly 90% of patients develop duodenal adenomas by a mean age of 44, with a cumulative lifetime risk of nearly 100%.29 Fundic gland polyposis occurs in nearly 90% of patients,30 while gastric adenomas are reported in fewer than 15% of patients.
Duodenal and periampullary cancer is the second most common malignancy in familial adenomatous polyposis. The lifetime risk ranges from 2% to 36%, depending on the Spigelman stage. People with Spigelman stage I, II, or III have a 2.5% risk of duodenal cancer, while those with stage IV disease have up to a 36% lifetime risk.
Gastric cancer, arising from fundic gland polyps, has been reported but is rare in Western populations.
In familial adenomatous polyposis, the incidence of jejunal adenomas and cancer is less than 10%, and the risk of ileal adenomas and cancer is less than 1%.31
Familial adenomatous polyposis is also associated with a higher risk of other malignancies, including:
- Pancreatic cancer (2% lifetime risk)
- Thyroid cancer (2% to 3% lifetime risk, typically papillary carcinoma)32
- Hepatoblastoma (1% to 2% lifetime risk)
- Brain tumors (< 1% lifetime risk)
- Biliary cancer (higher risk than in the general population).33
Benign extracolonic manifestations that have been observed include osteomas, dental abnormalities (supernumerary teeth, unerupted or absent teeth, odontomas), congenital hypertrophy of the retinal pigment epithelium, benign cutaneous lesions (epidermoid cysts and fibromas), and desmoid tumors.33 The term “Gardner syndrome” has been used to describe patients who have familial adenomatous polyposis but also have osteomas and soft-tissue tumors.34 These patients carry the same risk of colorectal cancer as other patients with familial adenomatous polyposis.
Diagnosing familial adenomatous polyposis
The diagnosis of familial adenomatous polyposis is suspected when a patient has more than 10 adenomatous polyps.
Seventy-five percent of patients with familial adenomatous polyposis have a family history of the condition. Therefore, most cases are identified at a young age on screening sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy or by predictive gene testing. Patients rarely have cancer at the time of diagnosis.
The other 25% of patients typically are diagnosed when symptoms develop from the polyps or cancer. Over 50% of these symptomatic patients have cancer at the time of diagnosis.
It is recommended that people who have more than 10 adenomas detected on a single colonoscopy or who are first-degree relatives of patients with familial adenomatous polyposis undergo a genetic evaluation and testing for mutations in the APC gene.14 Once an APC mutation is identified in the family, at-risk relatives should be offered testing around age 10 years for families with classic familial adenomatous polyposis or in the mid to late teenage years for those with the attenuated form. It also appropriate to refer patients with desmoid tumors, duodenal adenomas, and bilateral or multifocal congenital hypertrophy of the retinal pigment epithelium for a genetic evaluation.
Management of familial adenomatous polyposis
Flexible sigmoidoscopy every 1 to 2 years beginning at age 10 to 12 years is recommended for individuals and families who have been phenotypically or genetically diagnosed with familial adenomatous polyposis.35–37 If colorectal adenomas are found, surgical options should be discussed and annual colonoscopic surveillance should commence.
For people with the attenuated form, because of the later age of disease onset and the tendency for right-sided disease, colonoscopy every 1 to 2 years should commence at about age 18.35–37 If polyps are found, colonoscopy should be performed every year.
The decision of when to offer colectomy is based on polyp burden (taking into account the number, pathologic appearance, and size of the polyps) and psychosocial factors such as patient maturity. Surgical options include total colectomy and ileorectal anastomosis or total proctocolectomy and ileal pouch anal anastomosis.38 Colonic and extracolonic phenotype as well as genotype should factor into the type of operation recommended. After colectomy, annual endoscopic surveillance of the rectum or ileal pouch is indicated to screen for recurrent polyposis and cancer.
Chemoprevention with sulindac (Clinoril) 150 mg or celecoxib (Celebrex) 400 mg twice a day causes regression of colorectal adenomas in familial adenomatous polyposis and may be useful as an adjunct to endoscopy in managing the colorectal polyp burden.39,40
Forward and side-viewing upper endoscopy should commence at age 20. This should include visualization and biopsy of the papilla and periampulllary region.29 The frequency of endoscopic surveillance depends on the Spigelman stage, which reflects the duodenal polyp burden. It is recommended that patients with Spigelman stage IV duodenal polyposis be seen in consultation with an experienced gastrointestinal surgeon for consideration of a prophylactic, pylorus-preserving, pancreas-sparing duodenectomy. This procedure has been shown to be more effective in polyp control and cancer prevention than endoscopic polyp ablation and local surgical resection.41
Some evidence for the utility of celecoxib 400 mg twice daily for the regression of duodenal polyposis was noted in a 6-month placebo-controlled trial.42 Some experts recommend removal of large duodenal adenomas, with adjunctive celecoxib therapy to control polyposis burden.30
People with familial adenomatous polyposis have been shown to have a 2.6% risk of thyroid cancer, and ultrasonography of the neck with attention to the thyroid is recommended for them.32
MYH-ASSOCIATED POLYPOSIS
Biallelic mutations in the MYH gene result in an adenomatous polyposis syndrome that may be indistinguishable from the attenuated or classic forms of familial adenomatous polyposis. A characteristic autosomal recessive pattern of inheritance in the family can be useful for identifying these patients in the clinic.
Genetics of MYH-associated polyposis
MYH-associated polyposis is the only known autosomal recessive hereditary colorectal cancer syndrome. In white populations, the most commonly reported mutations in MYH are Y179C (previously called Y165C) and G396D (previously called G382D), which account for up to 80% of cases.43 These two mutations are estimated to occur in 1% to 2% of the general population.44
Clinical presentation of MYH-associated polyposis
MYH-associated polyposis typically presents as multiple adenomatous polyps and is diagnosed at a mean age of 47 years. Eleven percent to 42% of affected individuals are reported to have fewer than 100 adenomas, while a minority (7.5% to 29%) of patients present with classic polyposis.45–47 In one study, an estimated 19% of patients presented with colorectal cancer and reported no history of colorectal polyps.48 Synchronous colorectal cancer is seen in more than 60% of patients with biallelic MYH mutations.49 Patients with monoallelic (heterozygous) MYH mutations appear to have the same risk of developing colorectal adenomas and cancer as the general population.49
Upper-gastrointestinal polyps have been reported in MYH-associated polyposis; as many as 17% to 25% of patients have duodenal adenomas.50,51
Diagnosis of MYH-associated polyposis
Genetic testing for biallelic MYH mutations should be performed in patients who test negative for an APC mutation but who have clinical features of familial adenomatous polyposis, a personal history of more than 10 colorectal adenomas, or a recessive family history of polyposis. 14 It has been shown that up to 29% of patients with familial adenomatous polyposis who are APC-negative will have biallelic mutations in the MYH gene.52 The siblings of a patient with biallelic MYH mutations should be offered genetic counseling and testing in their late teens or early 20s. All children of an individual with MYH-associated polyposis will carry one MYH mutation and are only at risk of having the syndrome if the other parent is also a MYH carrier and passed on his or her mutation.
Management of MYH-associated polyposis
The management of patients with MYH-associated polyposis is similar to that recommended for attenuated and classic familial adenomatous polyposis.14 Genetic counseling and testing and colonic and extracolonic surveillance are warranted. There are no data on the use of chemoprevention in MYH-associated polyposis. Surgery should be considered early because of the high risk of colorectal cancer, even in individuals with very few adenomas. Patients with monoallelic MYH mutations should follow the general population screening guidelines for colorectal cancer.49
GENETIC COUNSELING AND GENETIC TESTING
The American College of Gastroenterology advises that patients suspected of having hereditary colorectal cancer syndromes be advised to pursue genetic counseling and, if appropriate, genetic testing.16 They further recommend genetic counseling and informed consent before genetic testing.16
Genetic counseling is a process of working with patients and families whereby:
- A detailed medical and family history is obtained
- A formal risk assessment is performed
- Education about the disease in question and about genetic testing is provided
- Psychosocial concerns are assessed
- Informed consent is obtained when genetic testing is recommended.53
This process is important for helping patients better understand their cancer risks, the benefits and limitations of genetic testing, and the protections that are in place for people who undergo genetic testing, including the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act.
In 1996 the American Society of Clinical Oncology issued a policy statement highlighting the essential elements of informed consent for genetic testing for cancer susceptibility, and this was updated in 2003.54 In particular, it notes that patients should be informed of the implications of positive and negative results and of the possibility that the test may be uninformative.
When a hereditary colorectal cancer syndrome is suspected, a positive genetic test result confirms the diagnosis and allows for predictive testing of the patient’s relatives. However, no genetic test for a hereditary colorectal cancer syndrome is 100% sensitive. Therefore, a negative result does not rule out the syndrome in question.
Further, all cancer susceptibility genes have variants of uncertain significance, which are genetic alterations for which there are insufficient data to determine if the mutation is disease-causing or polymorphic (benign). Both negative and uninformative results can be confusing for patients and providers and can lead to false reassurance or undue worry when patients are not properly educated about these potential outcomes of testing.
Genetic testing is an evolving field, and with additional research and improved testing technologies, appropriate diagnoses can be made over time. That is why it is important for the genetic counseling relationship to continue over time.
- Bonadona V, Bonaïti B, Olschwang S, et al. Cancer risks associated with germline mutations in MLH1, MSH2, and MSH6 genes in Lynch syndrome. JAMA 2011; 305:2304–2310.
- Parry S, Win AK, Parry B, et al. Metachronous colorectal cancer risk for mismatch repair gene mutation carriers: the advantage of more extensive colon surgery. Gut 2011; 60:950–957.
- Barrow E, Robinson L, Alduaij W, et al. Cumulative lifetime incidence of extracolonic cancers in Lynch syndrome: a report of 121 families with proven mutations. Clin Genet 2009; 75:141–149.
- van der Post RS, Kiemeney LA, Ligtenberg MJ, et al. Risk of urothelial bladder cancer in Lynch syndrome is increased, in particular among MSH2 mutation carriers. J Med Genet 2010; 47:464–470.
- Wijnen JT, Vasen HF, Khan PM, et al. Clinical findings with implications for genetic testing in families with clustering of colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 1998; 339:511–518.
- Bisgaard ML, Bernstein I. HNPCC mutation rate. Familial Cancer 2003; 2.
- Vasen HF, Mecklin JP, Khan PM, Lynch HT. The International Collaborative Group on Hereditary Non-Polyposis Colorectal Cancer (ICG-HNPCC). Dis Colon Rectum 1991; 34:424–425.
- Vasen HF, Watson P, Mecklin JP, Lynch HT. New clinical criteria for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC, Lynch syndrome) proposed by the International Collaborative group on HNPCC. Gastroenterology 1999; 116:1453–1456.
- Umar A, Boland CR, Terdiman JP, et al. Revised Bethesda guidelines for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (Lynch syndrome) and microsatellite instability. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004; 96:261–268.
- Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) Working Group. Recommendations from the EGAPP Working Group: can UGT1A1 genotyping reduce morbidity and mortality in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with irinotecan? Genet Med 2009; 11:15–20.
- Aaltonen LA, Peltomäki P, Leach FS, et al. Clues to the pathogenesis of familial colorectal cancer. Science 1993; 260:812–816.
- Kim H, Jen J, Vogelstein B, Hamilton SR. Clinical and pathological characteristics of sporadic colorectal carcinomas with DNA replication errors in microsatellite sequences. Am J Pathol 1994; 145:148–156.
- Lindor NM, Rabe K, Petersen GM, et al. Lower cancer incidence in Amsterdam-I criteria families without mismatch repair deficiency: familial colorectal cancer type X. JAMA 2005; 293:1979–1985.
- National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology (NCCN guidelines) colorectal cancer screening version 2.2011. www.nccn.org. Accessed October 2, 2012.
- Jass JR. Hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer: the rise and fall of a confusing term. World J Gastroenterol 2006; 12:4943–4950.
- Rex DK, Johnson DA, Anderson JC, Schoenfeld PS, Burke CA, Inadomi JM; American College of Gastroenterology. American College of Gastroenterology guidelines for colorectal cancer screening 2009 [corrected]. Am J Gastroenterol 2009; 104:739–750.
- Winawer S, Fletcher R, Rex D, et al; Gastrointestinal Consortium Panel. Colorectal cancer screening and surveillance: clinical guidelines and rationale-update based on new evidence. Gastroenterology 2003; 124:544–560.
- Lindor NM, Petersen GM, Hadley DW, et al. Recommendations for the care of individuals with an inherited predisposition to Lynch syndrome: a systematic review. JAMA 2006; 296:1507–1517.
- de Jong AE, Hendriks YM, Kleibeuker JH, et al. Decrease in mortality in Lynch syndrome families because of surveillance. Gastroenterology 2006; 130:665–671.
- Mecklin JP, Aarnio M, Läärä E, et al. Development of colorectal tumors in colonoscopic surveillance in Lynch syndrome. Gastroenterology 2007; 133:1093–1098.
- Engel C, Rahner N, Schulmann K, et al; German HNPCC Consortium. Efficacy of annual colonoscopic surveillance in individuals with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2010; 8:174–182.
- Burn J, Gerdes AM, Macrae F, et al; CAPP2 Investigators. Long-term effect of aspirin on cancer risk in carriers of hereditary colorectal cancer: an analysis from the CAPP2 randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2011; 378:2081–2087.
- Vasen HF, Möslein G, Alonso A, et al. Guidelines for the clinical management of Lynch syndrome (hereditary non-polyposis cancer). J Med Genet 2007; 44:353–362.
- Manchanda R, Menon U, Michaelson-Cohen R, Beller U, Jacobs I. Hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer or Lynch syndrome: the gynaecological perspective. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2009; 21:31–38.
- Burn J, Chapman P, Delhanty J, et al. The UK Northern region genetic register for familial adenomatous polyposis coli: use of age of onset, congenital hypertrophy of the retinal pigment epithelium, and DNA markers in risk calculations. J Med Genet 1991; 28:289–296.
- Järvinen HJ. Epidemiology of familial adenomatous polyposis in Finland: impact of family screening on the colorectal cancer rate and survival. Gut 1992; 33:357–360.
- Bisgaard ML, Fenger K, Bülow S, Niebuhr E, Mohr J. Familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP): frequency, penetrance, and mutation rate. Hum Mutat 1994; 3:121–125.
- Neklason DW, Stevens J, Boucher KM, et al. American founder mutation for attenuated familial adenomatous polyposis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2008; 6:46–52.
- Burke CA, Beck GJ, Church JM, van Stolk RU. The natural history of untreated duodenal and ampullary adenomas in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis followed in an endoscopic surveillance program. Gastrointest Endosc 1999; 49:358–364.
- Bianchi LK, Burke CA, Bennett AE, Lopez R, Hasson H, Church JM. Fundic gland polyp dysplasia is common in familial adenomatous polyposis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2008; 6:180–185.
- Kadmon M, Tandara A, Herfarth C. Duodenal adenomatosis in familial adenomatous polyposis coli. A review of the literature and results from the Heidelberg Polyposis Register. Int J Colorectal Dis 2001; 16:63–75.
- Jarrar AM, Milas M, Mitchell J, et al. Screening for thyroid cancer in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis. Ann Surg 2011; 253:515–521.
- Jasperson KW, Burt RW. APC-associated polyposis conditions. In:Pagon RA, Bird TD, Dolan CR, et al, eds. GeneReviews (Internet). Seattle, WA: University of Washington; 2011.
- Gardner EJ, Richards RC. Multiple cutaneous and subcutaneous lesions occurring simultaneously with hereditary polyposis and osteomatosis. Am J Hum Genet 1953; 5:139–147.
- Dunlop MG; British Society for Gastroenterology. Guidance on gastrointestinal surveillance for hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer, familial adenomatous polyposis, juvenile polyposis, and Peutz-Jeghers syndrome. Gut 2002; 51(suppl 5):V21–V27.
- Burke W, Petersen G, Lynch P, et al. Recommendations for follow-up care of individuals with an inherited predisposition to cancer. I. Hereditary nonpolyposis colon cancer. Cancer Genetics Studies Consortium. JAMA 1997; 277:915–919.
- Vasen HF, Möslein G, Alonso A, et al. Guidelines for the clinical management of familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP). Gut 2008; 57:704–713.
- Church J. Familial adenomatous polyposis. Surg Oncol Clin N Am 2009; 18:585–598.
- Giardiello FM, Hamilton SR, Krush AJ, et al. Treatment of colonic and rectal adenomas with sulindac in familial adenomatous polyposis. N Engl J Med 1993; 328:1313–1316.
- Steinbach G, Lynch PM, Phillips RK, et al. The effect of celecoxib, a cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor, in familial adenomatous polyposis. N Engl J Med 2000; 342:1946–1952.
- Johnson MD, Mackey R, Brown N, Church J, Burke C, Walsh RM. Outcome based on management for duodenal adenomas: sporadic versus familial disease. J Gastrointest Surg 2010; 14:229–235.
- Phillips RK, Wallace MH, Lynch PM, et al; FAP Study Group. A randomised, double blind, placebo controlled study of celecoxib, a selective cyclooxygenase 2 inhibitor, on duodenal polyposis in familial adenomatous polyposis. Gut 2002; 50:857–860.
- Tenesa A, Campbell H, Barnetson R, Porteous M, Dunlop M, Farrington SM. Association of MUTYH and colorectal cancer. Br J Cancer 2006; 95:239–242.
- Croitoru ME, Cleary SP, Di Nicola N, et al. Association between biallelic and monoallelic germline MYH gene mutations and colorectal cancer risk. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004; 96:1631–1634.
- Croitoru ME, Cleary SP, Berk T, et al. Germline MYH mutations in a clinic-based series of Canadian multiple colorectal adenoma patients. J Surg Oncol 2007; 95:499–506.
- Sampson JR, Dolwani S, Jones S, et al. Autosomal recessive colorectal adenomatous polyposis due to inherited mutations of MYH. Lancet 2003; 362:39–41.
- Nielsen M, Franken PF, Reinards TH, et al. Multiplicity in polyp count and extracolonic manifestations in 40 Dutch patients with MYH associated polyposis coli (MAP). J Med Genet 2005; 42:e54.
- Cleary SP, Cotterchio M, Jenkins MA, et al. Germline MutY human homologue mutations and colorectal cancer: a multisite case-control study. Gastroenterology 2009; 136:1251–1260.
- Lubbe SJ, Di Bernardo MC, Chandler IP, Houlston RS. Clinical implications of the colorectal cancer risk associated with MUTYH mutation. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27:3975–3980.
- Aretz S, Uhlhaas S, Goergens H, et al. MUTYH-associated polyposis: 70 of 71 patients with biallelic mutations present with an attenuated or atypical phenotype. Int J Cancer 2006; 119:807–814.
- Vogt S, Jones N, Christian D, et al. Expanded extracolonic tumor spectrum in MUTYH-associated polyposis. Gastroenterology 2009; 137:1976–1985.e1–e10.
- Gismondi V, Meta M, Bonelli L, et al. Prevalence of the Y165C, G382D and 1395delGGA germline mutations of the MYH gene in Italian patients with adenomatous polyposis coli and colorectal adenomas. Int J Cancer 2004; 109:680–684.
- Trepanier A, Ahrens M, McKinnon W, et al; National Society of Genetic Counselors. Genetic cancer risk assessment and counseling: recommendations of the national society of genetic counselors. J Genet Couns 2004; 13:83–114.
- American Society of Clinical Oncology. American Society of Clinical Oncology policy statement update: genetic testing for cancer susceptibility. J Clin Oncol 2003; 21:2397–2406.
Hereditary colorectal cancer syndromes account for 5% to 10% of cases of colorectal cancer.
Identifying these patients in clinical practice begins by assessing a patient’s personal and family health history. An accurate and comprehensive family history should cover three generations and include ethnic background, ages and causes of death of relatives, and any diagnosis of cancer, including age at onset and history of polyps.
Red flags for a hereditary colorectal cancer syndrome in the personal or family history are:
- Early age of onset of cancer (eg, colorectal cancer before age 50)
- More than 10 colorectal adenomas
- Synchronous (ie, occurring at the same time) or metachronous (occurring at different times) primary cancers
- Multiple relatives in successive generations with the same or related cancers (eg, colon or endometrial cancer)
- A family member with a known hereditary colorectal cancer syndrome (Table 1).
Any of these red flags should prompt a referral for genetic counseling.
SYNDROMES ARE CLASSIFIED AS WITH OR WITHOUT POLYPOSIS
Many hereditary syndromes are associated with a higher risk of colorectal cancer. Generally, they can be divided into two categories (Table 2): polyposis syndromes (in which patients have numerous colorectal polyps) and nonpolyposis syndromes (with few or no polyps).
These two main types are subclassified on the basis of the histology of most of the polyps detected: adenomatous, hamartomatous, serrated, or mixed types.
In this review, we will address the three most common of these syndromes: Lynch syndrome (hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer), familial adenomatous polyposis, and MYH-associated polyposis. However, as noted in Table 2, other hereditary colorectal cancer syndromes exist, and suspicion of these conditions should prompt a referral for further evaluation.
LYNCH SYNDROME (HEREDITARY NONPOLYPOSIS COLORECTAL CANCER)
Lynch syndrome, also known as hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer, predisposes people to a variety of cancers.
Colorectal cancer is the most common type of cancer associated with Lynch syndrome. Recent research suggests that the cumulative risk of developing colorectal cancer by age 80 is 42% for all patients with Lynch syndrome.1 The median age at onset is 45 years.1 For patients who undergo segmental resection of their initial cancer, the cumulative risk of metachronous colorectal cancer (ie, a new tumor arising later) is 16% at 10 years, 41% at 20 years, and up to 62% after 30 years.2
Endometrial cancer occurs in 17% to 57% of women with Lynch syndrome by age 70, with a median age at onset of 49 years.1
Other extracolonic cancers in Lynch syndrome include cancers of the:
- Stomach (1%–10% risk by age 70 years)
- Ovaries (1%–20% risk)
- Hepatobiliary tract (1%–2% risk)
- Urinary tract (1%–12% risk)
- Small bowel (1%–2% risk)
- Brain (1%–8% risk)
- Skin (sebaceous adenomas, adenocarcinomas, and keratoacanthomas).1,3,4
Earlier studies reported higher rates of associated cancer than those shown here. However, their data were largely derived from registries and may be overestimates. The numbers shown above are from population-based studies.
Genetics of Lynch syndrome
Lynch syndrome is caused by a germline mutation in the MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PMS2, or EPCAM genes.5 These genes code for proteins that are responsible DNA mismatch repair—one of the cell’s proofreading mechanisms during DNA replication.
These mutations are inherited in an autosomal dominant manner. Though de novo mutations in these genes have been reported, they are rare and the exact frequency with which they occur is unknown.6
In whom should Lynch syndrome be suspected?
Lynch syndrome can be suspected on the basis of family history and clinical criteria.
In 1991, the same group of experts who coined the term “hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer” developed family history criteria for it1:
- At least three relatives with histologically confirmed colorectal cancer, one of whom is a first-degree relative of the other two
- At least two successive generations involved
- At least one of the cancers diagnosed before age 50
- Familial adenomatous polyposis is excluded.
Known as the Amsterdam criteria, these were to be used in collaborative studies of families with hereditary colorectal cancer.7 In 1999, these criteria were broadened to include extracolonic cancers and became known as the Amsterdam II criteria (Table 3).8
Patients whose families meet the Amsterdam II criteria or who have molecular pathologic evidence of Lynch syndrome (see below) are appropriate candidates for genetic counseling and testing.
Diagnosis of Lynch syndrome
The diagnosis of Lynch syndrome is based on molecular pathologic analysis (performed on tumor samples) and confirmed by genetic testing.
Molecular pathologic evidence of Lynch syndrome includes microsatellite instability and loss of expression of one or more of the DNA mismatch repair proteins (detected using immunohistochemistry) (more on these below). The revised Bethesda guidelines (TABLE 3) were intended to identify individuals whose tumors should be tested for one or both of these phenomena.9
In 2009, the Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention working group recommended that all patients with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer undergo microsatellite instability analysis, immunohistochemistry testing, or both, regardless of whether they meet the Amsterdam II or the Bethesda guideline criteria.10
Microsatellite instability analysis. Microsatellites are short sequences of repeated DNA. The tumor cells of patients who carry defective mismatch repair genes have microsatellites that are longer or shorter than in normal cells, a condition called microsatellite instability (ie, “MSI-high”).
Microsatellite instability testing, using a standardized panel of five DNA markers, is performed on normal and tumor tissue. If more than two of the five microsatellite markers in the tumor show instability, the lesion is considered to have a high level of microsatellite instability. About 15% of colorectal cancers have this high level, although most are not associated with Lynch syndrome and lose MLH1 expression by promoter methylation.11,12
While only 2% of patients with colorectal cancer have Lynch syndrome, from 90% to 95% of colorectal cancers from patients with Lynch syndrome have high levels of microsatellite instability.10 The presence of MLH1 promoter hypermethylation, the BRAF mutation V600E, or both within the tumor suggests that the cancer is not associated with Lynch syndrome.
Some families that meet the Amsterdam I criteria have microsatellite-stable tumors: their condition has been called familial colorectal cancer type X.13 This condition is associated with a higher risk of colorectal cancer but not the other malignancies observed in Lynch syndrome.
Immunohistochemistry is performed to assess for expression of the mismatch repair proteins MSH2, MSH6, MLH1, and PMS2. Absence of expression of the specific protein within tumor cells compared with normal cells within the specimen suggests dysfunction of the specific gene and guides germline mutation testing (Figure 1). For example, a patient who lacks expression of the MSH2 protein in his or her colon cancer most likely has a mutation in the MSH2 gene. Therefore, germ-line genetic testing should initially target the MSH2 gene. Approximately 88% of Lynch syndrome-associated colorectal cancers have abnormal immunohistochemical staining.10
Testing for microsatellite instability and mismatch repair gene expression ideally precedes germline genetic testing and helps to guide which gene or genes should be tested.9,14
Genetic testing for Lynch syndrome is routinely performed on a blood or saliva sample, using DNA from white blood cells and sequencing the gene or genes involved to look for mutations. Positive results from a germline genetic test confirm the diagnosis of Lynch syndrome and allow for predictive testing for relatives at risk. The term Lynch syndrome is used exclusively to describe individuals with evidence of a mutation in one of the mismatch repair genes.15
If a patient’s results are positive, genetic counseling and genetic testing should be offered to at-risk relatives age 18 and over.
Management of Lynch syndrome
Aggressive cancer surveillance is essential for people with Lynch syndrome and for those who are considered at risk but have not pursued genetic testing, such as a sibling of a person with Lynch syndrome.
Colorectal cancer. Colonoscopy is recommended every 1 to 2 years beginning at the age of 20 to 25 years, or 2 to 5 years earlier than the age of the youngest relative affected with colorectal cancer if the initial diagnosis was before age 25. When patients turn 40 years old, colonoscopy is done annually.16–18 A significant reduction in cancer incidence and in the mortality rate has been shown with colonoscopic surveillance.19–21
Chemoprevention may also have a role. Patients with Lynch syndrome who took aspirin 600 mg per day for an average of 25 months had a significantly lower incidence of colorectal cancer during a 55-month follow-up period compared with patients randomized to placebo.22
For patients with Lynch syndrome who are diagnosed with colorectal cancer, the high risk of metachronous cancers after standard segmental colectomy calls for a more extended resection. Retrospective analysis of 382 Lynch syndrome patients found that none of the 50 who underwent total or subtotal colectomy were diagnosed with metachronous colorectal cancer, whereas a metachronous cancer developed in 74 (22%) of the 332 patients who had had segmented resection.2 Annual surveillance of the remaining colon, rectum, or both is indicated postoperatively.
Gynecologic cancers. Women with Lynch syndrome should also consider gynecologic surveillance and risk-reducing surgery. This includes annual gynecologic examination, transvaginal ultrasonography, and endometrial aspiration, beginning at age 30 to 35 years. Although this surveillance does detect premalignant lesions and early symptomatic cancers, its effect on the mortality rate is unknown. Hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy has been shown to significantly reduce endometrial and ovarian cancers in women with Lynch syndrome.23,24
Urothelial cancers. Carriers of MSH2 mutations have a significantly higher risk of urothelial cancers.4 Therefore, MSH2 carriers should consider ultrasonography of the urinary tract, urinary cytology, and urinalysis every 1 to 2 years beginning at age 40.4
Other extracolonic cancers. Poor evidence exists for systematic screening for the other extracolonic tumors associated with Lynch syndrome. However, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network advises considering esophagogastroduodenoscopy with extended duodenoscopy as well as capsule endoscopy every 2 to 3 years beginning at age 30 to 35.14
ADENOMATOUS POLYPOSIS SYNDROMES
Familial adenomatous polyposis and MYH-associated polyposis are the next most common hereditary colorectal cancer syndromes. Each of these accounts for about 1% of cases of colorectal cancer. Clinically, these two syndromes can be challenging to distinguish because they overlap phenotypically to a significant degree.
FAMILIAL ADENOMATOUS POLYPOSIS
Familial adenomatous polyposis is caused by mutations in the APC gene. Its prevalence is 2.29 to 3.2 per 100,000 individuals.25,26
Genetics of familial adenomatous polyposis
APC is the only gene known to cause familial adenomatous polyposis. Mutations in APC are inherited in an autosomal dominant manner. Approximately 25% of cases of familial adenomatous polyposis are due to a de novo mutation in APC.27
Clinical presentation of familial adenomatous polyposis
Familial adenomatous polyposis is classified by the burden of colorectal adenomas.
Patients who have fewer than 100 adenomas have an attenuated form of the disease. In this group, polyps usually begin to form in the late teenage years or early 20s and tend to develop in the proximal colon. The attenuated form is associated with an approximately 70% lifetime risk of colorectal cancer.28
Patients who have more than 100 polyps are considered to have the classic form of the disease, and those with more than 1,000 polyps have profuse familial adenomatous polyposis (Figure 2). In these groups, polyps typically begin to develop in the preteenage to mid-teenage years. Without surgery, there is nearly a 100% risk of colorectal cancer. The average age at diagnosis of colorectal cancer is 39 years for patients with classic disease.
Upper gastrointestinal polyps are common in familial adenomatous polyposis. Nearly 90% of patients develop duodenal adenomas by a mean age of 44, with a cumulative lifetime risk of nearly 100%.29 Fundic gland polyposis occurs in nearly 90% of patients,30 while gastric adenomas are reported in fewer than 15% of patients.
Duodenal and periampullary cancer is the second most common malignancy in familial adenomatous polyposis. The lifetime risk ranges from 2% to 36%, depending on the Spigelman stage. People with Spigelman stage I, II, or III have a 2.5% risk of duodenal cancer, while those with stage IV disease have up to a 36% lifetime risk.
Gastric cancer, arising from fundic gland polyps, has been reported but is rare in Western populations.
In familial adenomatous polyposis, the incidence of jejunal adenomas and cancer is less than 10%, and the risk of ileal adenomas and cancer is less than 1%.31
Familial adenomatous polyposis is also associated with a higher risk of other malignancies, including:
- Pancreatic cancer (2% lifetime risk)
- Thyroid cancer (2% to 3% lifetime risk, typically papillary carcinoma)32
- Hepatoblastoma (1% to 2% lifetime risk)
- Brain tumors (< 1% lifetime risk)
- Biliary cancer (higher risk than in the general population).33
Benign extracolonic manifestations that have been observed include osteomas, dental abnormalities (supernumerary teeth, unerupted or absent teeth, odontomas), congenital hypertrophy of the retinal pigment epithelium, benign cutaneous lesions (epidermoid cysts and fibromas), and desmoid tumors.33 The term “Gardner syndrome” has been used to describe patients who have familial adenomatous polyposis but also have osteomas and soft-tissue tumors.34 These patients carry the same risk of colorectal cancer as other patients with familial adenomatous polyposis.
Diagnosing familial adenomatous polyposis
The diagnosis of familial adenomatous polyposis is suspected when a patient has more than 10 adenomatous polyps.
Seventy-five percent of patients with familial adenomatous polyposis have a family history of the condition. Therefore, most cases are identified at a young age on screening sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy or by predictive gene testing. Patients rarely have cancer at the time of diagnosis.
The other 25% of patients typically are diagnosed when symptoms develop from the polyps or cancer. Over 50% of these symptomatic patients have cancer at the time of diagnosis.
It is recommended that people who have more than 10 adenomas detected on a single colonoscopy or who are first-degree relatives of patients with familial adenomatous polyposis undergo a genetic evaluation and testing for mutations in the APC gene.14 Once an APC mutation is identified in the family, at-risk relatives should be offered testing around age 10 years for families with classic familial adenomatous polyposis or in the mid to late teenage years for those with the attenuated form. It also appropriate to refer patients with desmoid tumors, duodenal adenomas, and bilateral or multifocal congenital hypertrophy of the retinal pigment epithelium for a genetic evaluation.
Management of familial adenomatous polyposis
Flexible sigmoidoscopy every 1 to 2 years beginning at age 10 to 12 years is recommended for individuals and families who have been phenotypically or genetically diagnosed with familial adenomatous polyposis.35–37 If colorectal adenomas are found, surgical options should be discussed and annual colonoscopic surveillance should commence.
For people with the attenuated form, because of the later age of disease onset and the tendency for right-sided disease, colonoscopy every 1 to 2 years should commence at about age 18.35–37 If polyps are found, colonoscopy should be performed every year.
The decision of when to offer colectomy is based on polyp burden (taking into account the number, pathologic appearance, and size of the polyps) and psychosocial factors such as patient maturity. Surgical options include total colectomy and ileorectal anastomosis or total proctocolectomy and ileal pouch anal anastomosis.38 Colonic and extracolonic phenotype as well as genotype should factor into the type of operation recommended. After colectomy, annual endoscopic surveillance of the rectum or ileal pouch is indicated to screen for recurrent polyposis and cancer.
Chemoprevention with sulindac (Clinoril) 150 mg or celecoxib (Celebrex) 400 mg twice a day causes regression of colorectal adenomas in familial adenomatous polyposis and may be useful as an adjunct to endoscopy in managing the colorectal polyp burden.39,40
Forward and side-viewing upper endoscopy should commence at age 20. This should include visualization and biopsy of the papilla and periampulllary region.29 The frequency of endoscopic surveillance depends on the Spigelman stage, which reflects the duodenal polyp burden. It is recommended that patients with Spigelman stage IV duodenal polyposis be seen in consultation with an experienced gastrointestinal surgeon for consideration of a prophylactic, pylorus-preserving, pancreas-sparing duodenectomy. This procedure has been shown to be more effective in polyp control and cancer prevention than endoscopic polyp ablation and local surgical resection.41
Some evidence for the utility of celecoxib 400 mg twice daily for the regression of duodenal polyposis was noted in a 6-month placebo-controlled trial.42 Some experts recommend removal of large duodenal adenomas, with adjunctive celecoxib therapy to control polyposis burden.30
People with familial adenomatous polyposis have been shown to have a 2.6% risk of thyroid cancer, and ultrasonography of the neck with attention to the thyroid is recommended for them.32
MYH-ASSOCIATED POLYPOSIS
Biallelic mutations in the MYH gene result in an adenomatous polyposis syndrome that may be indistinguishable from the attenuated or classic forms of familial adenomatous polyposis. A characteristic autosomal recessive pattern of inheritance in the family can be useful for identifying these patients in the clinic.
Genetics of MYH-associated polyposis
MYH-associated polyposis is the only known autosomal recessive hereditary colorectal cancer syndrome. In white populations, the most commonly reported mutations in MYH are Y179C (previously called Y165C) and G396D (previously called G382D), which account for up to 80% of cases.43 These two mutations are estimated to occur in 1% to 2% of the general population.44
Clinical presentation of MYH-associated polyposis
MYH-associated polyposis typically presents as multiple adenomatous polyps and is diagnosed at a mean age of 47 years. Eleven percent to 42% of affected individuals are reported to have fewer than 100 adenomas, while a minority (7.5% to 29%) of patients present with classic polyposis.45–47 In one study, an estimated 19% of patients presented with colorectal cancer and reported no history of colorectal polyps.48 Synchronous colorectal cancer is seen in more than 60% of patients with biallelic MYH mutations.49 Patients with monoallelic (heterozygous) MYH mutations appear to have the same risk of developing colorectal adenomas and cancer as the general population.49
Upper-gastrointestinal polyps have been reported in MYH-associated polyposis; as many as 17% to 25% of patients have duodenal adenomas.50,51
Diagnosis of MYH-associated polyposis
Genetic testing for biallelic MYH mutations should be performed in patients who test negative for an APC mutation but who have clinical features of familial adenomatous polyposis, a personal history of more than 10 colorectal adenomas, or a recessive family history of polyposis. 14 It has been shown that up to 29% of patients with familial adenomatous polyposis who are APC-negative will have biallelic mutations in the MYH gene.52 The siblings of a patient with biallelic MYH mutations should be offered genetic counseling and testing in their late teens or early 20s. All children of an individual with MYH-associated polyposis will carry one MYH mutation and are only at risk of having the syndrome if the other parent is also a MYH carrier and passed on his or her mutation.
Management of MYH-associated polyposis
The management of patients with MYH-associated polyposis is similar to that recommended for attenuated and classic familial adenomatous polyposis.14 Genetic counseling and testing and colonic and extracolonic surveillance are warranted. There are no data on the use of chemoprevention in MYH-associated polyposis. Surgery should be considered early because of the high risk of colorectal cancer, even in individuals with very few adenomas. Patients with monoallelic MYH mutations should follow the general population screening guidelines for colorectal cancer.49
GENETIC COUNSELING AND GENETIC TESTING
The American College of Gastroenterology advises that patients suspected of having hereditary colorectal cancer syndromes be advised to pursue genetic counseling and, if appropriate, genetic testing.16 They further recommend genetic counseling and informed consent before genetic testing.16
Genetic counseling is a process of working with patients and families whereby:
- A detailed medical and family history is obtained
- A formal risk assessment is performed
- Education about the disease in question and about genetic testing is provided
- Psychosocial concerns are assessed
- Informed consent is obtained when genetic testing is recommended.53
This process is important for helping patients better understand their cancer risks, the benefits and limitations of genetic testing, and the protections that are in place for people who undergo genetic testing, including the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act.
In 1996 the American Society of Clinical Oncology issued a policy statement highlighting the essential elements of informed consent for genetic testing for cancer susceptibility, and this was updated in 2003.54 In particular, it notes that patients should be informed of the implications of positive and negative results and of the possibility that the test may be uninformative.
When a hereditary colorectal cancer syndrome is suspected, a positive genetic test result confirms the diagnosis and allows for predictive testing of the patient’s relatives. However, no genetic test for a hereditary colorectal cancer syndrome is 100% sensitive. Therefore, a negative result does not rule out the syndrome in question.
Further, all cancer susceptibility genes have variants of uncertain significance, which are genetic alterations for which there are insufficient data to determine if the mutation is disease-causing or polymorphic (benign). Both negative and uninformative results can be confusing for patients and providers and can lead to false reassurance or undue worry when patients are not properly educated about these potential outcomes of testing.
Genetic testing is an evolving field, and with additional research and improved testing technologies, appropriate diagnoses can be made over time. That is why it is important for the genetic counseling relationship to continue over time.
Hereditary colorectal cancer syndromes account for 5% to 10% of cases of colorectal cancer.
Identifying these patients in clinical practice begins by assessing a patient’s personal and family health history. An accurate and comprehensive family history should cover three generations and include ethnic background, ages and causes of death of relatives, and any diagnosis of cancer, including age at onset and history of polyps.
Red flags for a hereditary colorectal cancer syndrome in the personal or family history are:
- Early age of onset of cancer (eg, colorectal cancer before age 50)
- More than 10 colorectal adenomas
- Synchronous (ie, occurring at the same time) or metachronous (occurring at different times) primary cancers
- Multiple relatives in successive generations with the same or related cancers (eg, colon or endometrial cancer)
- A family member with a known hereditary colorectal cancer syndrome (Table 1).
Any of these red flags should prompt a referral for genetic counseling.
SYNDROMES ARE CLASSIFIED AS WITH OR WITHOUT POLYPOSIS
Many hereditary syndromes are associated with a higher risk of colorectal cancer. Generally, they can be divided into two categories (Table 2): polyposis syndromes (in which patients have numerous colorectal polyps) and nonpolyposis syndromes (with few or no polyps).
These two main types are subclassified on the basis of the histology of most of the polyps detected: adenomatous, hamartomatous, serrated, or mixed types.
In this review, we will address the three most common of these syndromes: Lynch syndrome (hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer), familial adenomatous polyposis, and MYH-associated polyposis. However, as noted in Table 2, other hereditary colorectal cancer syndromes exist, and suspicion of these conditions should prompt a referral for further evaluation.
LYNCH SYNDROME (HEREDITARY NONPOLYPOSIS COLORECTAL CANCER)
Lynch syndrome, also known as hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer, predisposes people to a variety of cancers.
Colorectal cancer is the most common type of cancer associated with Lynch syndrome. Recent research suggests that the cumulative risk of developing colorectal cancer by age 80 is 42% for all patients with Lynch syndrome.1 The median age at onset is 45 years.1 For patients who undergo segmental resection of their initial cancer, the cumulative risk of metachronous colorectal cancer (ie, a new tumor arising later) is 16% at 10 years, 41% at 20 years, and up to 62% after 30 years.2
Endometrial cancer occurs in 17% to 57% of women with Lynch syndrome by age 70, with a median age at onset of 49 years.1
Other extracolonic cancers in Lynch syndrome include cancers of the:
- Stomach (1%–10% risk by age 70 years)
- Ovaries (1%–20% risk)
- Hepatobiliary tract (1%–2% risk)
- Urinary tract (1%–12% risk)
- Small bowel (1%–2% risk)
- Brain (1%–8% risk)
- Skin (sebaceous adenomas, adenocarcinomas, and keratoacanthomas).1,3,4
Earlier studies reported higher rates of associated cancer than those shown here. However, their data were largely derived from registries and may be overestimates. The numbers shown above are from population-based studies.
Genetics of Lynch syndrome
Lynch syndrome is caused by a germline mutation in the MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PMS2, or EPCAM genes.5 These genes code for proteins that are responsible DNA mismatch repair—one of the cell’s proofreading mechanisms during DNA replication.
These mutations are inherited in an autosomal dominant manner. Though de novo mutations in these genes have been reported, they are rare and the exact frequency with which they occur is unknown.6
In whom should Lynch syndrome be suspected?
Lynch syndrome can be suspected on the basis of family history and clinical criteria.
In 1991, the same group of experts who coined the term “hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer” developed family history criteria for it1:
- At least three relatives with histologically confirmed colorectal cancer, one of whom is a first-degree relative of the other two
- At least two successive generations involved
- At least one of the cancers diagnosed before age 50
- Familial adenomatous polyposis is excluded.
Known as the Amsterdam criteria, these were to be used in collaborative studies of families with hereditary colorectal cancer.7 In 1999, these criteria were broadened to include extracolonic cancers and became known as the Amsterdam II criteria (Table 3).8
Patients whose families meet the Amsterdam II criteria or who have molecular pathologic evidence of Lynch syndrome (see below) are appropriate candidates for genetic counseling and testing.
Diagnosis of Lynch syndrome
The diagnosis of Lynch syndrome is based on molecular pathologic analysis (performed on tumor samples) and confirmed by genetic testing.
Molecular pathologic evidence of Lynch syndrome includes microsatellite instability and loss of expression of one or more of the DNA mismatch repair proteins (detected using immunohistochemistry) (more on these below). The revised Bethesda guidelines (TABLE 3) were intended to identify individuals whose tumors should be tested for one or both of these phenomena.9
In 2009, the Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention working group recommended that all patients with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer undergo microsatellite instability analysis, immunohistochemistry testing, or both, regardless of whether they meet the Amsterdam II or the Bethesda guideline criteria.10
Microsatellite instability analysis. Microsatellites are short sequences of repeated DNA. The tumor cells of patients who carry defective mismatch repair genes have microsatellites that are longer or shorter than in normal cells, a condition called microsatellite instability (ie, “MSI-high”).
Microsatellite instability testing, using a standardized panel of five DNA markers, is performed on normal and tumor tissue. If more than two of the five microsatellite markers in the tumor show instability, the lesion is considered to have a high level of microsatellite instability. About 15% of colorectal cancers have this high level, although most are not associated with Lynch syndrome and lose MLH1 expression by promoter methylation.11,12
While only 2% of patients with colorectal cancer have Lynch syndrome, from 90% to 95% of colorectal cancers from patients with Lynch syndrome have high levels of microsatellite instability.10 The presence of MLH1 promoter hypermethylation, the BRAF mutation V600E, or both within the tumor suggests that the cancer is not associated with Lynch syndrome.
Some families that meet the Amsterdam I criteria have microsatellite-stable tumors: their condition has been called familial colorectal cancer type X.13 This condition is associated with a higher risk of colorectal cancer but not the other malignancies observed in Lynch syndrome.
Immunohistochemistry is performed to assess for expression of the mismatch repair proteins MSH2, MSH6, MLH1, and PMS2. Absence of expression of the specific protein within tumor cells compared with normal cells within the specimen suggests dysfunction of the specific gene and guides germline mutation testing (Figure 1). For example, a patient who lacks expression of the MSH2 protein in his or her colon cancer most likely has a mutation in the MSH2 gene. Therefore, germ-line genetic testing should initially target the MSH2 gene. Approximately 88% of Lynch syndrome-associated colorectal cancers have abnormal immunohistochemical staining.10
Testing for microsatellite instability and mismatch repair gene expression ideally precedes germline genetic testing and helps to guide which gene or genes should be tested.9,14
Genetic testing for Lynch syndrome is routinely performed on a blood or saliva sample, using DNA from white blood cells and sequencing the gene or genes involved to look for mutations. Positive results from a germline genetic test confirm the diagnosis of Lynch syndrome and allow for predictive testing for relatives at risk. The term Lynch syndrome is used exclusively to describe individuals with evidence of a mutation in one of the mismatch repair genes.15
If a patient’s results are positive, genetic counseling and genetic testing should be offered to at-risk relatives age 18 and over.
Management of Lynch syndrome
Aggressive cancer surveillance is essential for people with Lynch syndrome and for those who are considered at risk but have not pursued genetic testing, such as a sibling of a person with Lynch syndrome.
Colorectal cancer. Colonoscopy is recommended every 1 to 2 years beginning at the age of 20 to 25 years, or 2 to 5 years earlier than the age of the youngest relative affected with colorectal cancer if the initial diagnosis was before age 25. When patients turn 40 years old, colonoscopy is done annually.16–18 A significant reduction in cancer incidence and in the mortality rate has been shown with colonoscopic surveillance.19–21
Chemoprevention may also have a role. Patients with Lynch syndrome who took aspirin 600 mg per day for an average of 25 months had a significantly lower incidence of colorectal cancer during a 55-month follow-up period compared with patients randomized to placebo.22
For patients with Lynch syndrome who are diagnosed with colorectal cancer, the high risk of metachronous cancers after standard segmental colectomy calls for a more extended resection. Retrospective analysis of 382 Lynch syndrome patients found that none of the 50 who underwent total or subtotal colectomy were diagnosed with metachronous colorectal cancer, whereas a metachronous cancer developed in 74 (22%) of the 332 patients who had had segmented resection.2 Annual surveillance of the remaining colon, rectum, or both is indicated postoperatively.
Gynecologic cancers. Women with Lynch syndrome should also consider gynecologic surveillance and risk-reducing surgery. This includes annual gynecologic examination, transvaginal ultrasonography, and endometrial aspiration, beginning at age 30 to 35 years. Although this surveillance does detect premalignant lesions and early symptomatic cancers, its effect on the mortality rate is unknown. Hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy has been shown to significantly reduce endometrial and ovarian cancers in women with Lynch syndrome.23,24
Urothelial cancers. Carriers of MSH2 mutations have a significantly higher risk of urothelial cancers.4 Therefore, MSH2 carriers should consider ultrasonography of the urinary tract, urinary cytology, and urinalysis every 1 to 2 years beginning at age 40.4
Other extracolonic cancers. Poor evidence exists for systematic screening for the other extracolonic tumors associated with Lynch syndrome. However, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network advises considering esophagogastroduodenoscopy with extended duodenoscopy as well as capsule endoscopy every 2 to 3 years beginning at age 30 to 35.14
ADENOMATOUS POLYPOSIS SYNDROMES
Familial adenomatous polyposis and MYH-associated polyposis are the next most common hereditary colorectal cancer syndromes. Each of these accounts for about 1% of cases of colorectal cancer. Clinically, these two syndromes can be challenging to distinguish because they overlap phenotypically to a significant degree.
FAMILIAL ADENOMATOUS POLYPOSIS
Familial adenomatous polyposis is caused by mutations in the APC gene. Its prevalence is 2.29 to 3.2 per 100,000 individuals.25,26
Genetics of familial adenomatous polyposis
APC is the only gene known to cause familial adenomatous polyposis. Mutations in APC are inherited in an autosomal dominant manner. Approximately 25% of cases of familial adenomatous polyposis are due to a de novo mutation in APC.27
Clinical presentation of familial adenomatous polyposis
Familial adenomatous polyposis is classified by the burden of colorectal adenomas.
Patients who have fewer than 100 adenomas have an attenuated form of the disease. In this group, polyps usually begin to form in the late teenage years or early 20s and tend to develop in the proximal colon. The attenuated form is associated with an approximately 70% lifetime risk of colorectal cancer.28
Patients who have more than 100 polyps are considered to have the classic form of the disease, and those with more than 1,000 polyps have profuse familial adenomatous polyposis (Figure 2). In these groups, polyps typically begin to develop in the preteenage to mid-teenage years. Without surgery, there is nearly a 100% risk of colorectal cancer. The average age at diagnosis of colorectal cancer is 39 years for patients with classic disease.
Upper gastrointestinal polyps are common in familial adenomatous polyposis. Nearly 90% of patients develop duodenal adenomas by a mean age of 44, with a cumulative lifetime risk of nearly 100%.29 Fundic gland polyposis occurs in nearly 90% of patients,30 while gastric adenomas are reported in fewer than 15% of patients.
Duodenal and periampullary cancer is the second most common malignancy in familial adenomatous polyposis. The lifetime risk ranges from 2% to 36%, depending on the Spigelman stage. People with Spigelman stage I, II, or III have a 2.5% risk of duodenal cancer, while those with stage IV disease have up to a 36% lifetime risk.
Gastric cancer, arising from fundic gland polyps, has been reported but is rare in Western populations.
In familial adenomatous polyposis, the incidence of jejunal adenomas and cancer is less than 10%, and the risk of ileal adenomas and cancer is less than 1%.31
Familial adenomatous polyposis is also associated with a higher risk of other malignancies, including:
- Pancreatic cancer (2% lifetime risk)
- Thyroid cancer (2% to 3% lifetime risk, typically papillary carcinoma)32
- Hepatoblastoma (1% to 2% lifetime risk)
- Brain tumors (< 1% lifetime risk)
- Biliary cancer (higher risk than in the general population).33
Benign extracolonic manifestations that have been observed include osteomas, dental abnormalities (supernumerary teeth, unerupted or absent teeth, odontomas), congenital hypertrophy of the retinal pigment epithelium, benign cutaneous lesions (epidermoid cysts and fibromas), and desmoid tumors.33 The term “Gardner syndrome” has been used to describe patients who have familial adenomatous polyposis but also have osteomas and soft-tissue tumors.34 These patients carry the same risk of colorectal cancer as other patients with familial adenomatous polyposis.
Diagnosing familial adenomatous polyposis
The diagnosis of familial adenomatous polyposis is suspected when a patient has more than 10 adenomatous polyps.
Seventy-five percent of patients with familial adenomatous polyposis have a family history of the condition. Therefore, most cases are identified at a young age on screening sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy or by predictive gene testing. Patients rarely have cancer at the time of diagnosis.
The other 25% of patients typically are diagnosed when symptoms develop from the polyps or cancer. Over 50% of these symptomatic patients have cancer at the time of diagnosis.
It is recommended that people who have more than 10 adenomas detected on a single colonoscopy or who are first-degree relatives of patients with familial adenomatous polyposis undergo a genetic evaluation and testing for mutations in the APC gene.14 Once an APC mutation is identified in the family, at-risk relatives should be offered testing around age 10 years for families with classic familial adenomatous polyposis or in the mid to late teenage years for those with the attenuated form. It also appropriate to refer patients with desmoid tumors, duodenal adenomas, and bilateral or multifocal congenital hypertrophy of the retinal pigment epithelium for a genetic evaluation.
Management of familial adenomatous polyposis
Flexible sigmoidoscopy every 1 to 2 years beginning at age 10 to 12 years is recommended for individuals and families who have been phenotypically or genetically diagnosed with familial adenomatous polyposis.35–37 If colorectal adenomas are found, surgical options should be discussed and annual colonoscopic surveillance should commence.
For people with the attenuated form, because of the later age of disease onset and the tendency for right-sided disease, colonoscopy every 1 to 2 years should commence at about age 18.35–37 If polyps are found, colonoscopy should be performed every year.
The decision of when to offer colectomy is based on polyp burden (taking into account the number, pathologic appearance, and size of the polyps) and psychosocial factors such as patient maturity. Surgical options include total colectomy and ileorectal anastomosis or total proctocolectomy and ileal pouch anal anastomosis.38 Colonic and extracolonic phenotype as well as genotype should factor into the type of operation recommended. After colectomy, annual endoscopic surveillance of the rectum or ileal pouch is indicated to screen for recurrent polyposis and cancer.
Chemoprevention with sulindac (Clinoril) 150 mg or celecoxib (Celebrex) 400 mg twice a day causes regression of colorectal adenomas in familial adenomatous polyposis and may be useful as an adjunct to endoscopy in managing the colorectal polyp burden.39,40
Forward and side-viewing upper endoscopy should commence at age 20. This should include visualization and biopsy of the papilla and periampulllary region.29 The frequency of endoscopic surveillance depends on the Spigelman stage, which reflects the duodenal polyp burden. It is recommended that patients with Spigelman stage IV duodenal polyposis be seen in consultation with an experienced gastrointestinal surgeon for consideration of a prophylactic, pylorus-preserving, pancreas-sparing duodenectomy. This procedure has been shown to be more effective in polyp control and cancer prevention than endoscopic polyp ablation and local surgical resection.41
Some evidence for the utility of celecoxib 400 mg twice daily for the regression of duodenal polyposis was noted in a 6-month placebo-controlled trial.42 Some experts recommend removal of large duodenal adenomas, with adjunctive celecoxib therapy to control polyposis burden.30
People with familial adenomatous polyposis have been shown to have a 2.6% risk of thyroid cancer, and ultrasonography of the neck with attention to the thyroid is recommended for them.32
MYH-ASSOCIATED POLYPOSIS
Biallelic mutations in the MYH gene result in an adenomatous polyposis syndrome that may be indistinguishable from the attenuated or classic forms of familial adenomatous polyposis. A characteristic autosomal recessive pattern of inheritance in the family can be useful for identifying these patients in the clinic.
Genetics of MYH-associated polyposis
MYH-associated polyposis is the only known autosomal recessive hereditary colorectal cancer syndrome. In white populations, the most commonly reported mutations in MYH are Y179C (previously called Y165C) and G396D (previously called G382D), which account for up to 80% of cases.43 These two mutations are estimated to occur in 1% to 2% of the general population.44
Clinical presentation of MYH-associated polyposis
MYH-associated polyposis typically presents as multiple adenomatous polyps and is diagnosed at a mean age of 47 years. Eleven percent to 42% of affected individuals are reported to have fewer than 100 adenomas, while a minority (7.5% to 29%) of patients present with classic polyposis.45–47 In one study, an estimated 19% of patients presented with colorectal cancer and reported no history of colorectal polyps.48 Synchronous colorectal cancer is seen in more than 60% of patients with biallelic MYH mutations.49 Patients with monoallelic (heterozygous) MYH mutations appear to have the same risk of developing colorectal adenomas and cancer as the general population.49
Upper-gastrointestinal polyps have been reported in MYH-associated polyposis; as many as 17% to 25% of patients have duodenal adenomas.50,51
Diagnosis of MYH-associated polyposis
Genetic testing for biallelic MYH mutations should be performed in patients who test negative for an APC mutation but who have clinical features of familial adenomatous polyposis, a personal history of more than 10 colorectal adenomas, or a recessive family history of polyposis. 14 It has been shown that up to 29% of patients with familial adenomatous polyposis who are APC-negative will have biallelic mutations in the MYH gene.52 The siblings of a patient with biallelic MYH mutations should be offered genetic counseling and testing in their late teens or early 20s. All children of an individual with MYH-associated polyposis will carry one MYH mutation and are only at risk of having the syndrome if the other parent is also a MYH carrier and passed on his or her mutation.
Management of MYH-associated polyposis
The management of patients with MYH-associated polyposis is similar to that recommended for attenuated and classic familial adenomatous polyposis.14 Genetic counseling and testing and colonic and extracolonic surveillance are warranted. There are no data on the use of chemoprevention in MYH-associated polyposis. Surgery should be considered early because of the high risk of colorectal cancer, even in individuals with very few adenomas. Patients with monoallelic MYH mutations should follow the general population screening guidelines for colorectal cancer.49
GENETIC COUNSELING AND GENETIC TESTING
The American College of Gastroenterology advises that patients suspected of having hereditary colorectal cancer syndromes be advised to pursue genetic counseling and, if appropriate, genetic testing.16 They further recommend genetic counseling and informed consent before genetic testing.16
Genetic counseling is a process of working with patients and families whereby:
- A detailed medical and family history is obtained
- A formal risk assessment is performed
- Education about the disease in question and about genetic testing is provided
- Psychosocial concerns are assessed
- Informed consent is obtained when genetic testing is recommended.53
This process is important for helping patients better understand their cancer risks, the benefits and limitations of genetic testing, and the protections that are in place for people who undergo genetic testing, including the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act.
In 1996 the American Society of Clinical Oncology issued a policy statement highlighting the essential elements of informed consent for genetic testing for cancer susceptibility, and this was updated in 2003.54 In particular, it notes that patients should be informed of the implications of positive and negative results and of the possibility that the test may be uninformative.
When a hereditary colorectal cancer syndrome is suspected, a positive genetic test result confirms the diagnosis and allows for predictive testing of the patient’s relatives. However, no genetic test for a hereditary colorectal cancer syndrome is 100% sensitive. Therefore, a negative result does not rule out the syndrome in question.
Further, all cancer susceptibility genes have variants of uncertain significance, which are genetic alterations for which there are insufficient data to determine if the mutation is disease-causing or polymorphic (benign). Both negative and uninformative results can be confusing for patients and providers and can lead to false reassurance or undue worry when patients are not properly educated about these potential outcomes of testing.
Genetic testing is an evolving field, and with additional research and improved testing technologies, appropriate diagnoses can be made over time. That is why it is important for the genetic counseling relationship to continue over time.
- Bonadona V, Bonaïti B, Olschwang S, et al. Cancer risks associated with germline mutations in MLH1, MSH2, and MSH6 genes in Lynch syndrome. JAMA 2011; 305:2304–2310.
- Parry S, Win AK, Parry B, et al. Metachronous colorectal cancer risk for mismatch repair gene mutation carriers: the advantage of more extensive colon surgery. Gut 2011; 60:950–957.
- Barrow E, Robinson L, Alduaij W, et al. Cumulative lifetime incidence of extracolonic cancers in Lynch syndrome: a report of 121 families with proven mutations. Clin Genet 2009; 75:141–149.
- van der Post RS, Kiemeney LA, Ligtenberg MJ, et al. Risk of urothelial bladder cancer in Lynch syndrome is increased, in particular among MSH2 mutation carriers. J Med Genet 2010; 47:464–470.
- Wijnen JT, Vasen HF, Khan PM, et al. Clinical findings with implications for genetic testing in families with clustering of colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 1998; 339:511–518.
- Bisgaard ML, Bernstein I. HNPCC mutation rate. Familial Cancer 2003; 2.
- Vasen HF, Mecklin JP, Khan PM, Lynch HT. The International Collaborative Group on Hereditary Non-Polyposis Colorectal Cancer (ICG-HNPCC). Dis Colon Rectum 1991; 34:424–425.
- Vasen HF, Watson P, Mecklin JP, Lynch HT. New clinical criteria for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC, Lynch syndrome) proposed by the International Collaborative group on HNPCC. Gastroenterology 1999; 116:1453–1456.
- Umar A, Boland CR, Terdiman JP, et al. Revised Bethesda guidelines for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (Lynch syndrome) and microsatellite instability. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004; 96:261–268.
- Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) Working Group. Recommendations from the EGAPP Working Group: can UGT1A1 genotyping reduce morbidity and mortality in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with irinotecan? Genet Med 2009; 11:15–20.
- Aaltonen LA, Peltomäki P, Leach FS, et al. Clues to the pathogenesis of familial colorectal cancer. Science 1993; 260:812–816.
- Kim H, Jen J, Vogelstein B, Hamilton SR. Clinical and pathological characteristics of sporadic colorectal carcinomas with DNA replication errors in microsatellite sequences. Am J Pathol 1994; 145:148–156.
- Lindor NM, Rabe K, Petersen GM, et al. Lower cancer incidence in Amsterdam-I criteria families without mismatch repair deficiency: familial colorectal cancer type X. JAMA 2005; 293:1979–1985.
- National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology (NCCN guidelines) colorectal cancer screening version 2.2011. www.nccn.org. Accessed October 2, 2012.
- Jass JR. Hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer: the rise and fall of a confusing term. World J Gastroenterol 2006; 12:4943–4950.
- Rex DK, Johnson DA, Anderson JC, Schoenfeld PS, Burke CA, Inadomi JM; American College of Gastroenterology. American College of Gastroenterology guidelines for colorectal cancer screening 2009 [corrected]. Am J Gastroenterol 2009; 104:739–750.
- Winawer S, Fletcher R, Rex D, et al; Gastrointestinal Consortium Panel. Colorectal cancer screening and surveillance: clinical guidelines and rationale-update based on new evidence. Gastroenterology 2003; 124:544–560.
- Lindor NM, Petersen GM, Hadley DW, et al. Recommendations for the care of individuals with an inherited predisposition to Lynch syndrome: a systematic review. JAMA 2006; 296:1507–1517.
- de Jong AE, Hendriks YM, Kleibeuker JH, et al. Decrease in mortality in Lynch syndrome families because of surveillance. Gastroenterology 2006; 130:665–671.
- Mecklin JP, Aarnio M, Läärä E, et al. Development of colorectal tumors in colonoscopic surveillance in Lynch syndrome. Gastroenterology 2007; 133:1093–1098.
- Engel C, Rahner N, Schulmann K, et al; German HNPCC Consortium. Efficacy of annual colonoscopic surveillance in individuals with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2010; 8:174–182.
- Burn J, Gerdes AM, Macrae F, et al; CAPP2 Investigators. Long-term effect of aspirin on cancer risk in carriers of hereditary colorectal cancer: an analysis from the CAPP2 randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2011; 378:2081–2087.
- Vasen HF, Möslein G, Alonso A, et al. Guidelines for the clinical management of Lynch syndrome (hereditary non-polyposis cancer). J Med Genet 2007; 44:353–362.
- Manchanda R, Menon U, Michaelson-Cohen R, Beller U, Jacobs I. Hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer or Lynch syndrome: the gynaecological perspective. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2009; 21:31–38.
- Burn J, Chapman P, Delhanty J, et al. The UK Northern region genetic register for familial adenomatous polyposis coli: use of age of onset, congenital hypertrophy of the retinal pigment epithelium, and DNA markers in risk calculations. J Med Genet 1991; 28:289–296.
- Järvinen HJ. Epidemiology of familial adenomatous polyposis in Finland: impact of family screening on the colorectal cancer rate and survival. Gut 1992; 33:357–360.
- Bisgaard ML, Fenger K, Bülow S, Niebuhr E, Mohr J. Familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP): frequency, penetrance, and mutation rate. Hum Mutat 1994; 3:121–125.
- Neklason DW, Stevens J, Boucher KM, et al. American founder mutation for attenuated familial adenomatous polyposis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2008; 6:46–52.
- Burke CA, Beck GJ, Church JM, van Stolk RU. The natural history of untreated duodenal and ampullary adenomas in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis followed in an endoscopic surveillance program. Gastrointest Endosc 1999; 49:358–364.
- Bianchi LK, Burke CA, Bennett AE, Lopez R, Hasson H, Church JM. Fundic gland polyp dysplasia is common in familial adenomatous polyposis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2008; 6:180–185.
- Kadmon M, Tandara A, Herfarth C. Duodenal adenomatosis in familial adenomatous polyposis coli. A review of the literature and results from the Heidelberg Polyposis Register. Int J Colorectal Dis 2001; 16:63–75.
- Jarrar AM, Milas M, Mitchell J, et al. Screening for thyroid cancer in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis. Ann Surg 2011; 253:515–521.
- Jasperson KW, Burt RW. APC-associated polyposis conditions. In:Pagon RA, Bird TD, Dolan CR, et al, eds. GeneReviews (Internet). Seattle, WA: University of Washington; 2011.
- Gardner EJ, Richards RC. Multiple cutaneous and subcutaneous lesions occurring simultaneously with hereditary polyposis and osteomatosis. Am J Hum Genet 1953; 5:139–147.
- Dunlop MG; British Society for Gastroenterology. Guidance on gastrointestinal surveillance for hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer, familial adenomatous polyposis, juvenile polyposis, and Peutz-Jeghers syndrome. Gut 2002; 51(suppl 5):V21–V27.
- Burke W, Petersen G, Lynch P, et al. Recommendations for follow-up care of individuals with an inherited predisposition to cancer. I. Hereditary nonpolyposis colon cancer. Cancer Genetics Studies Consortium. JAMA 1997; 277:915–919.
- Vasen HF, Möslein G, Alonso A, et al. Guidelines for the clinical management of familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP). Gut 2008; 57:704–713.
- Church J. Familial adenomatous polyposis. Surg Oncol Clin N Am 2009; 18:585–598.
- Giardiello FM, Hamilton SR, Krush AJ, et al. Treatment of colonic and rectal adenomas with sulindac in familial adenomatous polyposis. N Engl J Med 1993; 328:1313–1316.
- Steinbach G, Lynch PM, Phillips RK, et al. The effect of celecoxib, a cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor, in familial adenomatous polyposis. N Engl J Med 2000; 342:1946–1952.
- Johnson MD, Mackey R, Brown N, Church J, Burke C, Walsh RM. Outcome based on management for duodenal adenomas: sporadic versus familial disease. J Gastrointest Surg 2010; 14:229–235.
- Phillips RK, Wallace MH, Lynch PM, et al; FAP Study Group. A randomised, double blind, placebo controlled study of celecoxib, a selective cyclooxygenase 2 inhibitor, on duodenal polyposis in familial adenomatous polyposis. Gut 2002; 50:857–860.
- Tenesa A, Campbell H, Barnetson R, Porteous M, Dunlop M, Farrington SM. Association of MUTYH and colorectal cancer. Br J Cancer 2006; 95:239–242.
- Croitoru ME, Cleary SP, Di Nicola N, et al. Association between biallelic and monoallelic germline MYH gene mutations and colorectal cancer risk. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004; 96:1631–1634.
- Croitoru ME, Cleary SP, Berk T, et al. Germline MYH mutations in a clinic-based series of Canadian multiple colorectal adenoma patients. J Surg Oncol 2007; 95:499–506.
- Sampson JR, Dolwani S, Jones S, et al. Autosomal recessive colorectal adenomatous polyposis due to inherited mutations of MYH. Lancet 2003; 362:39–41.
- Nielsen M, Franken PF, Reinards TH, et al. Multiplicity in polyp count and extracolonic manifestations in 40 Dutch patients with MYH associated polyposis coli (MAP). J Med Genet 2005; 42:e54.
- Cleary SP, Cotterchio M, Jenkins MA, et al. Germline MutY human homologue mutations and colorectal cancer: a multisite case-control study. Gastroenterology 2009; 136:1251–1260.
- Lubbe SJ, Di Bernardo MC, Chandler IP, Houlston RS. Clinical implications of the colorectal cancer risk associated with MUTYH mutation. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27:3975–3980.
- Aretz S, Uhlhaas S, Goergens H, et al. MUTYH-associated polyposis: 70 of 71 patients with biallelic mutations present with an attenuated or atypical phenotype. Int J Cancer 2006; 119:807–814.
- Vogt S, Jones N, Christian D, et al. Expanded extracolonic tumor spectrum in MUTYH-associated polyposis. Gastroenterology 2009; 137:1976–1985.e1–e10.
- Gismondi V, Meta M, Bonelli L, et al. Prevalence of the Y165C, G382D and 1395delGGA germline mutations of the MYH gene in Italian patients with adenomatous polyposis coli and colorectal adenomas. Int J Cancer 2004; 109:680–684.
- Trepanier A, Ahrens M, McKinnon W, et al; National Society of Genetic Counselors. Genetic cancer risk assessment and counseling: recommendations of the national society of genetic counselors. J Genet Couns 2004; 13:83–114.
- American Society of Clinical Oncology. American Society of Clinical Oncology policy statement update: genetic testing for cancer susceptibility. J Clin Oncol 2003; 21:2397–2406.
- Bonadona V, Bonaïti B, Olschwang S, et al. Cancer risks associated with germline mutations in MLH1, MSH2, and MSH6 genes in Lynch syndrome. JAMA 2011; 305:2304–2310.
- Parry S, Win AK, Parry B, et al. Metachronous colorectal cancer risk for mismatch repair gene mutation carriers: the advantage of more extensive colon surgery. Gut 2011; 60:950–957.
- Barrow E, Robinson L, Alduaij W, et al. Cumulative lifetime incidence of extracolonic cancers in Lynch syndrome: a report of 121 families with proven mutations. Clin Genet 2009; 75:141–149.
- van der Post RS, Kiemeney LA, Ligtenberg MJ, et al. Risk of urothelial bladder cancer in Lynch syndrome is increased, in particular among MSH2 mutation carriers. J Med Genet 2010; 47:464–470.
- Wijnen JT, Vasen HF, Khan PM, et al. Clinical findings with implications for genetic testing in families with clustering of colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 1998; 339:511–518.
- Bisgaard ML, Bernstein I. HNPCC mutation rate. Familial Cancer 2003; 2.
- Vasen HF, Mecklin JP, Khan PM, Lynch HT. The International Collaborative Group on Hereditary Non-Polyposis Colorectal Cancer (ICG-HNPCC). Dis Colon Rectum 1991; 34:424–425.
- Vasen HF, Watson P, Mecklin JP, Lynch HT. New clinical criteria for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC, Lynch syndrome) proposed by the International Collaborative group on HNPCC. Gastroenterology 1999; 116:1453–1456.
- Umar A, Boland CR, Terdiman JP, et al. Revised Bethesda guidelines for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (Lynch syndrome) and microsatellite instability. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004; 96:261–268.
- Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) Working Group. Recommendations from the EGAPP Working Group: can UGT1A1 genotyping reduce morbidity and mortality in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with irinotecan? Genet Med 2009; 11:15–20.
- Aaltonen LA, Peltomäki P, Leach FS, et al. Clues to the pathogenesis of familial colorectal cancer. Science 1993; 260:812–816.
- Kim H, Jen J, Vogelstein B, Hamilton SR. Clinical and pathological characteristics of sporadic colorectal carcinomas with DNA replication errors in microsatellite sequences. Am J Pathol 1994; 145:148–156.
- Lindor NM, Rabe K, Petersen GM, et al. Lower cancer incidence in Amsterdam-I criteria families without mismatch repair deficiency: familial colorectal cancer type X. JAMA 2005; 293:1979–1985.
- National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology (NCCN guidelines) colorectal cancer screening version 2.2011. www.nccn.org. Accessed October 2, 2012.
- Jass JR. Hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer: the rise and fall of a confusing term. World J Gastroenterol 2006; 12:4943–4950.
- Rex DK, Johnson DA, Anderson JC, Schoenfeld PS, Burke CA, Inadomi JM; American College of Gastroenterology. American College of Gastroenterology guidelines for colorectal cancer screening 2009 [corrected]. Am J Gastroenterol 2009; 104:739–750.
- Winawer S, Fletcher R, Rex D, et al; Gastrointestinal Consortium Panel. Colorectal cancer screening and surveillance: clinical guidelines and rationale-update based on new evidence. Gastroenterology 2003; 124:544–560.
- Lindor NM, Petersen GM, Hadley DW, et al. Recommendations for the care of individuals with an inherited predisposition to Lynch syndrome: a systematic review. JAMA 2006; 296:1507–1517.
- de Jong AE, Hendriks YM, Kleibeuker JH, et al. Decrease in mortality in Lynch syndrome families because of surveillance. Gastroenterology 2006; 130:665–671.
- Mecklin JP, Aarnio M, Läärä E, et al. Development of colorectal tumors in colonoscopic surveillance in Lynch syndrome. Gastroenterology 2007; 133:1093–1098.
- Engel C, Rahner N, Schulmann K, et al; German HNPCC Consortium. Efficacy of annual colonoscopic surveillance in individuals with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2010; 8:174–182.
- Burn J, Gerdes AM, Macrae F, et al; CAPP2 Investigators. Long-term effect of aspirin on cancer risk in carriers of hereditary colorectal cancer: an analysis from the CAPP2 randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2011; 378:2081–2087.
- Vasen HF, Möslein G, Alonso A, et al. Guidelines for the clinical management of Lynch syndrome (hereditary non-polyposis cancer). J Med Genet 2007; 44:353–362.
- Manchanda R, Menon U, Michaelson-Cohen R, Beller U, Jacobs I. Hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer or Lynch syndrome: the gynaecological perspective. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2009; 21:31–38.
- Burn J, Chapman P, Delhanty J, et al. The UK Northern region genetic register for familial adenomatous polyposis coli: use of age of onset, congenital hypertrophy of the retinal pigment epithelium, and DNA markers in risk calculations. J Med Genet 1991; 28:289–296.
- Järvinen HJ. Epidemiology of familial adenomatous polyposis in Finland: impact of family screening on the colorectal cancer rate and survival. Gut 1992; 33:357–360.
- Bisgaard ML, Fenger K, Bülow S, Niebuhr E, Mohr J. Familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP): frequency, penetrance, and mutation rate. Hum Mutat 1994; 3:121–125.
- Neklason DW, Stevens J, Boucher KM, et al. American founder mutation for attenuated familial adenomatous polyposis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2008; 6:46–52.
- Burke CA, Beck GJ, Church JM, van Stolk RU. The natural history of untreated duodenal and ampullary adenomas in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis followed in an endoscopic surveillance program. Gastrointest Endosc 1999; 49:358–364.
- Bianchi LK, Burke CA, Bennett AE, Lopez R, Hasson H, Church JM. Fundic gland polyp dysplasia is common in familial adenomatous polyposis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2008; 6:180–185.
- Kadmon M, Tandara A, Herfarth C. Duodenal adenomatosis in familial adenomatous polyposis coli. A review of the literature and results from the Heidelberg Polyposis Register. Int J Colorectal Dis 2001; 16:63–75.
- Jarrar AM, Milas M, Mitchell J, et al. Screening for thyroid cancer in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis. Ann Surg 2011; 253:515–521.
- Jasperson KW, Burt RW. APC-associated polyposis conditions. In:Pagon RA, Bird TD, Dolan CR, et al, eds. GeneReviews (Internet). Seattle, WA: University of Washington; 2011.
- Gardner EJ, Richards RC. Multiple cutaneous and subcutaneous lesions occurring simultaneously with hereditary polyposis and osteomatosis. Am J Hum Genet 1953; 5:139–147.
- Dunlop MG; British Society for Gastroenterology. Guidance on gastrointestinal surveillance for hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer, familial adenomatous polyposis, juvenile polyposis, and Peutz-Jeghers syndrome. Gut 2002; 51(suppl 5):V21–V27.
- Burke W, Petersen G, Lynch P, et al. Recommendations for follow-up care of individuals with an inherited predisposition to cancer. I. Hereditary nonpolyposis colon cancer. Cancer Genetics Studies Consortium. JAMA 1997; 277:915–919.
- Vasen HF, Möslein G, Alonso A, et al. Guidelines for the clinical management of familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP). Gut 2008; 57:704–713.
- Church J. Familial adenomatous polyposis. Surg Oncol Clin N Am 2009; 18:585–598.
- Giardiello FM, Hamilton SR, Krush AJ, et al. Treatment of colonic and rectal adenomas with sulindac in familial adenomatous polyposis. N Engl J Med 1993; 328:1313–1316.
- Steinbach G, Lynch PM, Phillips RK, et al. The effect of celecoxib, a cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor, in familial adenomatous polyposis. N Engl J Med 2000; 342:1946–1952.
- Johnson MD, Mackey R, Brown N, Church J, Burke C, Walsh RM. Outcome based on management for duodenal adenomas: sporadic versus familial disease. J Gastrointest Surg 2010; 14:229–235.
- Phillips RK, Wallace MH, Lynch PM, et al; FAP Study Group. A randomised, double blind, placebo controlled study of celecoxib, a selective cyclooxygenase 2 inhibitor, on duodenal polyposis in familial adenomatous polyposis. Gut 2002; 50:857–860.
- Tenesa A, Campbell H, Barnetson R, Porteous M, Dunlop M, Farrington SM. Association of MUTYH and colorectal cancer. Br J Cancer 2006; 95:239–242.
- Croitoru ME, Cleary SP, Di Nicola N, et al. Association between biallelic and monoallelic germline MYH gene mutations and colorectal cancer risk. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004; 96:1631–1634.
- Croitoru ME, Cleary SP, Berk T, et al. Germline MYH mutations in a clinic-based series of Canadian multiple colorectal adenoma patients. J Surg Oncol 2007; 95:499–506.
- Sampson JR, Dolwani S, Jones S, et al. Autosomal recessive colorectal adenomatous polyposis due to inherited mutations of MYH. Lancet 2003; 362:39–41.
- Nielsen M, Franken PF, Reinards TH, et al. Multiplicity in polyp count and extracolonic manifestations in 40 Dutch patients with MYH associated polyposis coli (MAP). J Med Genet 2005; 42:e54.
- Cleary SP, Cotterchio M, Jenkins MA, et al. Germline MutY human homologue mutations and colorectal cancer: a multisite case-control study. Gastroenterology 2009; 136:1251–1260.
- Lubbe SJ, Di Bernardo MC, Chandler IP, Houlston RS. Clinical implications of the colorectal cancer risk associated with MUTYH mutation. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27:3975–3980.
- Aretz S, Uhlhaas S, Goergens H, et al. MUTYH-associated polyposis: 70 of 71 patients with biallelic mutations present with an attenuated or atypical phenotype. Int J Cancer 2006; 119:807–814.
- Vogt S, Jones N, Christian D, et al. Expanded extracolonic tumor spectrum in MUTYH-associated polyposis. Gastroenterology 2009; 137:1976–1985.e1–e10.
- Gismondi V, Meta M, Bonelli L, et al. Prevalence of the Y165C, G382D and 1395delGGA germline mutations of the MYH gene in Italian patients with adenomatous polyposis coli and colorectal adenomas. Int J Cancer 2004; 109:680–684.
- Trepanier A, Ahrens M, McKinnon W, et al; National Society of Genetic Counselors. Genetic cancer risk assessment and counseling: recommendations of the national society of genetic counselors. J Genet Couns 2004; 13:83–114.
- American Society of Clinical Oncology. American Society of Clinical Oncology policy statement update: genetic testing for cancer susceptibility. J Clin Oncol 2003; 21:2397–2406.
KEY POINTS
- Hereditary colorectal cancer syndromes carry a substantial risk of intestinal and extraintestinal tumors.
- Affected patients need increased cancer surveillance and may benefit from prophylactic surgery.
- Identifying these patients in clinical practice begins by assessing a patient’s personal and family health history.
- Patients suspected of having hereditary colorectal cancer syndromes should be referred for genetic counseling and, if appropriate, for genetic testing.
Nail pigmentation and fatigue
A 49-year-old man presented with pigmentation on the nails of both hands during the past 6 months. He had no history of significant medical conditions, but he complained of generalized asthenia, with no fever, during the previous 6 weeks. He said that he was a volcanologist and had recently returned from an expedition in the mountains of Peru that involved intense physical activity at high altitudes. He was a non-smoker and did not drink alcohol; he was not taking any medications or nutritional supplements. A biochemical profile including a white blood cell count 3 months ago was normal.
On physical examination, he had splenomegaly (about 2 cm below the costal margin) and low systolic blood pressure (90 mm Hg, with the diastolic pressure at 60 mm Hg). Heart and lung examinations, including chest radiography, were normal.
Q: What is the diagnosis?
- Addison disease
- Onychotillomania
- Longitudinal melanonychia in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection
- Systemic lupus erythematosus
A: The patient was diagnosed with longitudinal melanonychia with underlying HIV infection.
In addition to the clinical findings noted above, laboratory testing now revealed a low white blood cell count (2.9 × 109/L, reference range 4.5–11.0) and a low CD4+ T-cell count (182 cells/mL). An enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and a Western blot assay were positive for HIV, and his viral load was 120,000 copies/mL as determined by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction testing. On more detailed questioning, the patient admitted to sexual practices that put him at high risk for HIV infection.
Longitudinal melanonychia is characterized by a tan, brown, or black longitudinal streak, originating in the matrix and resulting from increased synthesis of melanin (by either normal or abnormal melanocytes) and its deposition within the nail plate.1
If the cause is not apparent (eg, trauma, application of chemical agents, concomitant onychomycosis or treatments), this pigmentation usually reflects the presence of a benign lesion within the matrix caused by a melanocytic nevus, simple lentigo, or increased activation of benign melanocytes. This finding has been reported in a US study2 to be more common in people with dark skin, occurring in 77% of blacks over age 20 and in almost 100% of those over age 50.
Melanoma and other nonmelanocytic tumors may present as longitudinal melanonychia, but these rarely involve more than one digit simultaneously, and they are usually detected with specific clinical clues, such as the Hutchinson sign, ie, periungual spread of pigmentation into the proximal and lateral nail folds.
A SIGN OF BENIGN AND MALIGNANT CONDITIONS
Longitudinal melanonychia can have benign causes, and these need to be investigated. It can occur with repeated trauma, friction, or pressure on the nails. The physician should question the patient about habits such as picking or chewing of the finger tips or pushing back the cuticles, as well as about athletic activities or manual work that could affect the nails. In addition, blood thinners can cause nail discoloration via subungual hemorrhage.
A number of pathologic conditions can cause longitudinal discoloration of the nails. Infection with certain dermatophytes can cause discoloration, but this pigmentation is usually wider and more distal at the hyponychium rather than proximal, with a black streak with several pointed extensions proximally.
Adrenocortical insufficiency (Addison disease), nutritional disorders (deficiency of folic acid or vitamin B12), and, more rarely, systemic lupus erythematosus and scleroderma should be ruled out, as they are typically associated with cutaneous and mucosal hyperpigmentation.
Chemotherapeutic agents such as doxorubicin (Adriamycin), hydroxyurea (Droxea), and cyclophosphamide and drugs such as antimalarials and tetracyclines can also cause longitudinal melanonychia.1,3
Nail lesions with a similar pattern are often seen in patients (especially black patients) taking zidovudine (Retrovir), and these lesions seem not to be related to drug dosage, HIV risk group, or severity of the infection. Nail discoloration in HIV patients not taking antiretroviral therapy has not been well documented.
The significance of melanonychia in the course of HIV remains unclear. A key role of overexpression of alpha-melanocyte-stimulating-hormone has been proposed.4 Although rare in fair-skinned people, longitudinal melanonychia represents an important clinical sign of disease progression. In reported cases, however, no significant improvement has been noted with treatment despite favorable virologic and immunologic responses.4,5
- Smith DF, Morgan MB, Bettencourt MS. Longitudinal melanonychia. Arch Dermatol 2003; 139:1209–1214.
- Baran R, Kechijian P. Longitudinal melanonychia (melanonychia striata): diagnosis and management. J Am Acad Dermatol 1989; 21:1165–1175.
- Haneke E, Baran R. Longitudinal melanonychia. Dermatol Surg 2001; 27:580–584.
- Ward HA, Russo GG, Shrum J. Cutaneous manifestations of antiretroviral therapy. J Am Acad Dermatol 2002; 46:284–293.
- Ehnzadeh-Cheemeh P, Grimes RM, Rowan P, Huang YJ, Essien EJ, Lewis ST. Melanonychia in patients infected with human immunodeficiency virus original communication. Adv Infect Dis 2011; 1:15–19.
A 49-year-old man presented with pigmentation on the nails of both hands during the past 6 months. He had no history of significant medical conditions, but he complained of generalized asthenia, with no fever, during the previous 6 weeks. He said that he was a volcanologist and had recently returned from an expedition in the mountains of Peru that involved intense physical activity at high altitudes. He was a non-smoker and did not drink alcohol; he was not taking any medications or nutritional supplements. A biochemical profile including a white blood cell count 3 months ago was normal.
On physical examination, he had splenomegaly (about 2 cm below the costal margin) and low systolic blood pressure (90 mm Hg, with the diastolic pressure at 60 mm Hg). Heart and lung examinations, including chest radiography, were normal.
Q: What is the diagnosis?
- Addison disease
- Onychotillomania
- Longitudinal melanonychia in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection
- Systemic lupus erythematosus
A: The patient was diagnosed with longitudinal melanonychia with underlying HIV infection.
In addition to the clinical findings noted above, laboratory testing now revealed a low white blood cell count (2.9 × 109/L, reference range 4.5–11.0) and a low CD4+ T-cell count (182 cells/mL). An enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and a Western blot assay were positive for HIV, and his viral load was 120,000 copies/mL as determined by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction testing. On more detailed questioning, the patient admitted to sexual practices that put him at high risk for HIV infection.
Longitudinal melanonychia is characterized by a tan, brown, or black longitudinal streak, originating in the matrix and resulting from increased synthesis of melanin (by either normal or abnormal melanocytes) and its deposition within the nail plate.1
If the cause is not apparent (eg, trauma, application of chemical agents, concomitant onychomycosis or treatments), this pigmentation usually reflects the presence of a benign lesion within the matrix caused by a melanocytic nevus, simple lentigo, or increased activation of benign melanocytes. This finding has been reported in a US study2 to be more common in people with dark skin, occurring in 77% of blacks over age 20 and in almost 100% of those over age 50.
Melanoma and other nonmelanocytic tumors may present as longitudinal melanonychia, but these rarely involve more than one digit simultaneously, and they are usually detected with specific clinical clues, such as the Hutchinson sign, ie, periungual spread of pigmentation into the proximal and lateral nail folds.
A SIGN OF BENIGN AND MALIGNANT CONDITIONS
Longitudinal melanonychia can have benign causes, and these need to be investigated. It can occur with repeated trauma, friction, or pressure on the nails. The physician should question the patient about habits such as picking or chewing of the finger tips or pushing back the cuticles, as well as about athletic activities or manual work that could affect the nails. In addition, blood thinners can cause nail discoloration via subungual hemorrhage.
A number of pathologic conditions can cause longitudinal discoloration of the nails. Infection with certain dermatophytes can cause discoloration, but this pigmentation is usually wider and more distal at the hyponychium rather than proximal, with a black streak with several pointed extensions proximally.
Adrenocortical insufficiency (Addison disease), nutritional disorders (deficiency of folic acid or vitamin B12), and, more rarely, systemic lupus erythematosus and scleroderma should be ruled out, as they are typically associated with cutaneous and mucosal hyperpigmentation.
Chemotherapeutic agents such as doxorubicin (Adriamycin), hydroxyurea (Droxea), and cyclophosphamide and drugs such as antimalarials and tetracyclines can also cause longitudinal melanonychia.1,3
Nail lesions with a similar pattern are often seen in patients (especially black patients) taking zidovudine (Retrovir), and these lesions seem not to be related to drug dosage, HIV risk group, or severity of the infection. Nail discoloration in HIV patients not taking antiretroviral therapy has not been well documented.
The significance of melanonychia in the course of HIV remains unclear. A key role of overexpression of alpha-melanocyte-stimulating-hormone has been proposed.4 Although rare in fair-skinned people, longitudinal melanonychia represents an important clinical sign of disease progression. In reported cases, however, no significant improvement has been noted with treatment despite favorable virologic and immunologic responses.4,5
A 49-year-old man presented with pigmentation on the nails of both hands during the past 6 months. He had no history of significant medical conditions, but he complained of generalized asthenia, with no fever, during the previous 6 weeks. He said that he was a volcanologist and had recently returned from an expedition in the mountains of Peru that involved intense physical activity at high altitudes. He was a non-smoker and did not drink alcohol; he was not taking any medications or nutritional supplements. A biochemical profile including a white blood cell count 3 months ago was normal.
On physical examination, he had splenomegaly (about 2 cm below the costal margin) and low systolic blood pressure (90 mm Hg, with the diastolic pressure at 60 mm Hg). Heart and lung examinations, including chest radiography, were normal.
Q: What is the diagnosis?
- Addison disease
- Onychotillomania
- Longitudinal melanonychia in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection
- Systemic lupus erythematosus
A: The patient was diagnosed with longitudinal melanonychia with underlying HIV infection.
In addition to the clinical findings noted above, laboratory testing now revealed a low white blood cell count (2.9 × 109/L, reference range 4.5–11.0) and a low CD4+ T-cell count (182 cells/mL). An enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and a Western blot assay were positive for HIV, and his viral load was 120,000 copies/mL as determined by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction testing. On more detailed questioning, the patient admitted to sexual practices that put him at high risk for HIV infection.
Longitudinal melanonychia is characterized by a tan, brown, or black longitudinal streak, originating in the matrix and resulting from increased synthesis of melanin (by either normal or abnormal melanocytes) and its deposition within the nail plate.1
If the cause is not apparent (eg, trauma, application of chemical agents, concomitant onychomycosis or treatments), this pigmentation usually reflects the presence of a benign lesion within the matrix caused by a melanocytic nevus, simple lentigo, or increased activation of benign melanocytes. This finding has been reported in a US study2 to be more common in people with dark skin, occurring in 77% of blacks over age 20 and in almost 100% of those over age 50.
Melanoma and other nonmelanocytic tumors may present as longitudinal melanonychia, but these rarely involve more than one digit simultaneously, and they are usually detected with specific clinical clues, such as the Hutchinson sign, ie, periungual spread of pigmentation into the proximal and lateral nail folds.
A SIGN OF BENIGN AND MALIGNANT CONDITIONS
Longitudinal melanonychia can have benign causes, and these need to be investigated. It can occur with repeated trauma, friction, or pressure on the nails. The physician should question the patient about habits such as picking or chewing of the finger tips or pushing back the cuticles, as well as about athletic activities or manual work that could affect the nails. In addition, blood thinners can cause nail discoloration via subungual hemorrhage.
A number of pathologic conditions can cause longitudinal discoloration of the nails. Infection with certain dermatophytes can cause discoloration, but this pigmentation is usually wider and more distal at the hyponychium rather than proximal, with a black streak with several pointed extensions proximally.
Adrenocortical insufficiency (Addison disease), nutritional disorders (deficiency of folic acid or vitamin B12), and, more rarely, systemic lupus erythematosus and scleroderma should be ruled out, as they are typically associated with cutaneous and mucosal hyperpigmentation.
Chemotherapeutic agents such as doxorubicin (Adriamycin), hydroxyurea (Droxea), and cyclophosphamide and drugs such as antimalarials and tetracyclines can also cause longitudinal melanonychia.1,3
Nail lesions with a similar pattern are often seen in patients (especially black patients) taking zidovudine (Retrovir), and these lesions seem not to be related to drug dosage, HIV risk group, or severity of the infection. Nail discoloration in HIV patients not taking antiretroviral therapy has not been well documented.
The significance of melanonychia in the course of HIV remains unclear. A key role of overexpression of alpha-melanocyte-stimulating-hormone has been proposed.4 Although rare in fair-skinned people, longitudinal melanonychia represents an important clinical sign of disease progression. In reported cases, however, no significant improvement has been noted with treatment despite favorable virologic and immunologic responses.4,5
- Smith DF, Morgan MB, Bettencourt MS. Longitudinal melanonychia. Arch Dermatol 2003; 139:1209–1214.
- Baran R, Kechijian P. Longitudinal melanonychia (melanonychia striata): diagnosis and management. J Am Acad Dermatol 1989; 21:1165–1175.
- Haneke E, Baran R. Longitudinal melanonychia. Dermatol Surg 2001; 27:580–584.
- Ward HA, Russo GG, Shrum J. Cutaneous manifestations of antiretroviral therapy. J Am Acad Dermatol 2002; 46:284–293.
- Ehnzadeh-Cheemeh P, Grimes RM, Rowan P, Huang YJ, Essien EJ, Lewis ST. Melanonychia in patients infected with human immunodeficiency virus original communication. Adv Infect Dis 2011; 1:15–19.
- Smith DF, Morgan MB, Bettencourt MS. Longitudinal melanonychia. Arch Dermatol 2003; 139:1209–1214.
- Baran R, Kechijian P. Longitudinal melanonychia (melanonychia striata): diagnosis and management. J Am Acad Dermatol 1989; 21:1165–1175.
- Haneke E, Baran R. Longitudinal melanonychia. Dermatol Surg 2001; 27:580–584.
- Ward HA, Russo GG, Shrum J. Cutaneous manifestations of antiretroviral therapy. J Am Acad Dermatol 2002; 46:284–293.
- Ehnzadeh-Cheemeh P, Grimes RM, Rowan P, Huang YJ, Essien EJ, Lewis ST. Melanonychia in patients infected with human immunodeficiency virus original communication. Adv Infect Dis 2011; 1:15–19.
Emergency contraception: Separating fact from fiction
In the United States, nearly 50 million legal abortions were performed between 1973 and 2008.1 About half of pregnancies in American women are unintended, and 4 out of 10 unintended pregnancies are terminated by abortion.2 Of the women who had abortions, 54% had used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant.3
It is hoped that the expanded use of emergency contraception will translate into fewer abortions. However, in a 2006–2008 survey conducted by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, only 9.7% of women ages 15 to 44 reported ever having used emergency contraception.4 (To put this figure in perspective, a similar number—about 10%—of women in this age group become pregnant in any given year, half of them unintentionally.4) Clearly, patients need to be better educated in the methods of contraception and emergency contraception.
Hospitals are not meeting the need. Pretending to be in need of emergency contraception, Harrison5 called the emergency departments of all 597 Catholic hospitals in the United States and 615 (17%) of the non-Catholic hospitals. About half of the staff she spoke to said they do not dispense emergency contraception, even in cases of sexual assault. This was the case for both Catholic and non-Catholic hospitals. Of the people she talked to who said they did not provide emergency contraception under any circumstance, only about half gave her a phone number for another facility to try, and most of these phone numbers were wrong, were for facilities that were not open on weekends, or were for facilities that did not offer emergency contraception either. This is in spite of legal precedent, which indicates that failure to provide complete post-rape counseling, including emergency contraception, constitutes inadequate care and gives a woman the standing to sue the hospital.6
Clearly, better provider education is also needed in the area of emergency contraception. The Association of Reproductive Health Professionals has a helpful Web site for providers and for patients. In addition to up-to-date information about contraceptive and emergency contraceptive choices, it provides advice on how to discuss emergency contraception with patients (www.arhp.org). We can test our own knowledge of this topic by reviewing the following questions.
WHICH PRODUCT IS MOST EFFECTIVE?
Q: True or false? Levonorgestrel monotherapy (Plan B One-Step, Next Choice) is the most effective oral emergency contraceptive.
A: False, although this statement was true before the US approval of ulipristal acetate (ella) in August 2010.
For many years levonorgestrel monotherapy has been the mainstay of emergency contraception, having replaced the combination estrogen-progestin (Yuzpe) regimen because of better tolerability and improved efficacy.7 Its main mechanism of action involves delaying ovulation. Levonorgestrel is given in two doses of 0.75 mg 12 hours apart, or as a single 1.5-mg dose (Table 1). Both formulations of levonorgestrel are available over the counter to women age 17 and older, or by prescription if they are under age 17.
However, a randomized controlled trial showed that women treated with ulipristal had about half the number of pregnancies than in those treated with levonorgestrel, with pregnancy rates of 0.9% vs 1.7%.8
HOW WIDE IS THE WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY?
Q: True or false? Both ulipristal and levonorgestrel can be taken up to 120 hours (5 days) after unprotected intercourse. However, ulipristal maintains its effectiveness throughout this time, whereas levonorgestrel becomes less effective the longer a patient waits to take it.
A: True. Ulipristal is a second-generation selective progesterone receptor modulator. These drugs can function as agonists, antagonists, or mixed agonist-antagonists at the progesterone receptor, depending on the tissue affected. Ulipristal is given as a one-time, 30-mg dose within 120 hours of intercourse.
In a study of 1,696 women, 844 of whom received ulipristal acetate and 852 of whom received levonorgestrel, ulipristal was at least as effective as levonorgestrel when used within 72 hours of intercourse for emergency contraception, with 15 pregnancies in the ulipristal group and 22 pregnancies in the levonorgestrel group (odds ratio [OR] 0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.35–1.31]). However, ulipristal prevented significantly more pregnancies than levonorgestrel at 72 to 120 hours, with no pregnancies in the ulipristal group and three pregnancies in the levonorgestrel group.9
Because ulipristal has a long half-life (32 hours), it can delay ovulation beyond the life span of sperm, thereby extending the window of opportunity for emergency contraception. However, patients should be advised to avoid further unprotected intercourse after the use of emergency contraception. Because emergency contraception works mainly by delaying ovulation, it may increase the likelihood of pregnancy if the patient has unprotected intercourse again several days later.
IS MIFEPRISTONE AN EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTIVE?
Q: True or false? In the United States, mifepristone (Mifeprex), also known as RU-486, is available for use as an emergency contraceptive in addition to its use in abortion.
A: False, even though mifepristone, another selective progesterone receptor modulator, is highly effective when used up to 120 hours after intercourse. In fact, it might be effective up to 17 days after unprotected intercourse.10
Although mifepristone is one of the most effective forms of emergency contraception, social and political controversy has prevented its approval in the United States. However, it is approved for use as an abortifacient, at a higher dose than would be used for emergency contraception.
Unlike levonorgestrel, mifepristone exerts its effect via two potential mechanisms: delaying ovulation and preventing implantation.11
IUDs AS EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION
Q: True or false? Insertion of a 5-year intrauterine device (IUD), ie, the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (Mirena), is 99.8% effective at preventing pregnancy when used within 5 days of unprotected intercourse.
A: False. The Mirena IUD has not been studied as a form of emergency contraception. However, this statement would be true for the 10-year copper IUD ParaGard. Copper-releasing IUDs are considered a very effective method of emergency contraception, with associated pregnancy rates of 0.0% to 0.2% when inserted up until implantation (within 5 days after ovulation).12,13 If desired, the IUD can then be kept in place for up to 10 years as a method of birth control.
However, this method requires the ready availability of a health professional trained to do the insertion. It is also important to make sure that the patient will not be at increased risk of sexually transmitted infections from further unprotected intercourse. The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) recommends that an IUD be placed within 5 days of unprotected intercourse for use as emergency contraception.
A recent review looked at 42 published studies of copper IUDs used for emergency contraception around the world. It found copper IUDs to be a safe and highly effective method of emergency contraception, with the additional advantage of simultaneously offering one of the most reliable and cost-effective contraceptive options.14
EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION AT MID-CYCLE
Q: True or false? When choosing a method of emergency contraception, it is important to consider whether a woman is near ovulation during the time of intercourse.
A: True. Emergency contraception can prevent pregnancy after unprotected intercourse, but it does not always work. The most widely used method, levonorgestrel 1.5 mg orally within 72 hours of intercourse, prevents at least 50% of pregnancies that would have occurred in the absence of its use.15 Glasier et al16 showed that emergency contraception was more likely to fail if a woman had unprotected intercourse around the time of ovulation.16
Though it can be difficult for women to tell if they are in the fertile times of their cycle, it might be helpful to try to identify women who have intercourse at mid-cycle, when the risk of pregnancy is greatest. Because insertion of an IUD and use of ulipristal acetate probably prevent more pregnancies, these methods might be preferred over levonorgestrel-based regimens during these higher-risk situations.
OBESE PATIENTS
Q: True or false? Hormonal emergency contraception is more likely to fail in obese patients.
A: True. Most recent evidence shows that whichever oral emergency contraceptive drug is taken, the risk of pregnancy is more than 3 times greater for obese women (OR 3.60, 95% CI 1.96–6.53) and 1.5 times greater for overweight women (OR 1.53, 95% CI 0.75–2.95).16 Of all covariates tested, those that were shown to increase the odds of failure of the emergency contraception were higher body mass index, further unprotected intercourse, and conception probability (based on time of fertility cycle). In fact, among obese women treated with levonorgestrel, the observed pregnancy rate was 5.8%, which is slightly above the overall pregnancy rate expected in the absence of emergency contraception, suggesting that for obese women levonorgestrel-based emergency contraception may even be ineffective.
This is in line with recent reports suggesting that oral contraceptives are less effective in obese women. More effective regimens such as an IUD or ulipristal might be preferred in these women. However, obesity should not be used as a reason not to offer emergency contraception, as this is the last chance these women have to prevent pregnancy.
IS IT ABORTION?
Q: True or false? Emergency contraception does not cause abortion.
A: True, but patients may ask for more details about this. Hormonal emergency contraception works primarily by delaying or inhibiting ovulation and inhibiting fertilization.
Levonorgestrel or combined estrogen-progestin-based methods would be unlikely to have any adverse effects on the endometrium after fertilization, since they would only serve to enhance the progesterone effect. Therefore, they are unlikely to affect the ability of the embryo to attach to the endometrium.
Ulipristal, on the other hand, can have just the opposite effect on the postovulatory endometrium because of its inhibitory action on progesterone. Ulipristal is structurally similar to mifepristone, and its mechanism of action varies depending on the time of administration during the menstrual cycle. When unprotected intercourse occurs during a time when fertility is not possible, ulipristal behaves like a placebo. When intercourse occurs just before ovulation, ulipristal acts by delaying ovulation and thereby preventing fertilization (similar to levonorgestrel). Ulipristal may have an additional action of affecting the ability of the embryo to either attach to the endometrium or maintain its attachment, by a variety of mechanisms of action.17,18 Because of this, some in the popular press and on the Internet have spoken out against the use of ulipristal.
The ACOG considers pregnancy to begin not with fertilization of the egg but with implantation, as demonstrated by a positive pregnancy test.
Of note, the copper IUD also prevents implantation after fertilization, which likely explains its high efficacy.
Women who have detailed questions about this can be counseled that levonorgestrel works mostly by preventing ovulation, and that ulipristal and the copper IUD might also work via postfertilization mechanisms. However, they are not considered to be abortive, based on standard definitions of pregnancy.
If a woman is pregnant and she takes levonorgestrel-based emergency contraception, this has not been shown to have any adverse effects on the fetus (similar to oral contraceptives).
Ulipristal is classified as pregnancy category X, and therefore its use during pregnancy is contraindicated. Based on information provided by the manufacturer, there are no adequate, well-controlled studies of ulipristal use in pregnant women. Although fetal loss was observed in animal studies after ulipristal administration (during the period of organogenesis), no malformations or adverse events were present in the surviving fetuses. Ulipristal is not indicated for termination of an existing pregnancy.
DO THE USUAL CONTRAINDICATIONS TO HORMONAL CONTRACEPTIVES APPLY?
Q: True or false? Because emergency contraception has such a short duration of exposure, the usual medical contraindications to hormonal therapies do not apply to it.
A: True. The usual contraindications to the use of hormonal contraceptives (eg, migraine with aura, hypertension, history of venous thromboembolism) do not apply to emergency contraception because of the short time of exposure.19 Furthermore, the risks associated with pregnancy in these women would likely outweigh any risks associated with emergency contraception.
However, one must be cognizant of potential drug interactions. According to the manufacturer, the use of ulipristal did not inhibit or induce cytochrome P 450 enzymes in vitro; therefore, in vivo studies were not performed. But because ulipristal is metabolized primarily via CYP3A4, an interaction between agents that induce or inhibit CYP3A4 could occur.20 Thus, concomitant use of drugs such as barbiturates, rifampin (Rifadin), St. John’s wort, or antiseizure drugs such as topiramate (Topamax) may lower ulipristal concentrations. These medications may also affect levonorgestrel levels, similar to their effects on combined hormonal contraception. However, it is not known whether this translates to decreased efficacy.
When a woman is taking medications that can potentially decrease the effectiveness of hormonal emergency contraception, a more effective method such as a copper IUD might be more strongly considered. If a woman is not interested in an IUD, oral emergency contraception should still be offered, given that this is one of the last chances to prevent pregnancy, especially if she is on a potential teratogen.
Oral contraceptive pills have not been studied in combination with ulipristal. However, because ulipristal binds with high affinity to progesterone receptors (thus competing with the contraceptive), use of additional barrier contraceptives is recommended for the remainder of the menstrual cycle.
EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION AND BREASTFEEDING
Q: True of false? Emergency contraceptives can be used if a woman is breastfeeding.
A: That depends on which method is used. Both the ACOG and the World Health Organization state that it is safe for breastfeeding women to use emergency contraception, but these are older guidelines addressing progestin-only regimens (ie, levonorgestrel).19,21 It is unknown whether ulipristal is secreted into human breast milk, although excretion was seen in animal studies. Therefore, ulipristal is not recommended for use by women who are breastfeeding.20,22 To minimize the infant’s exposure to levonorgestrel, mothers should consider not nursing for at least 8 hours after ingestion, but no more than 24 hours is needed.23
- Jones RK, Kooistra K. Abortion incidence and access to services in the United States, 2008. Perspect Sex Reprod Health 2011; 43:41–50.
- Finer LB, Zolna MR. Unintended pregnancy in the United States: incidence and disparities, 2006. Contraception 2011; 84:478–485.
- Jones RK, Darroch JE, Henshaw SK. Contraceptive use among US women having abortions in 2000–2001. Perspect Sex Reprod Health 2002; 34:294–303.
- Mosher WD, Jones J. Use of contraception in the United States: 1982–2008. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat 2010; 23. http://www.cdc.gov/NCHS/data/series/sr_23/sr23_029.pdf. Accessed October 1, 2012.
- Harrison T. Availability of emergency contraception: a survey of hospital emergency department staff. Ann Emerg Med 2005; 46:105–110.
- Goldenring JM, Allred G. Post-rape care in hospital emergency rooms. Am J Public Health 2001; 91:1169–1170.
- Randomised controlled trial of levonorgestrel versus the Yuzpe regimen of combined oral contraceptives for emergency contraception. Task Force on Postovulatory Methods of Fertility Regulation. Lancet 1998; 352:428–433.
- Creinin MD, Schlaff W, Archer DF, et al. Progesterone receptor modulator for emergency contraception: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2006; 108:1089–1097.
- Glasier AF, Cameron ST, Fine PM, et al. Ulipristal acetate versus levonorgestrel for emergency contraception: a randomised non-inferiority trial and meta-analysis. Lancet 2010; 375:555–562.
- Glasier A, Thong KJ, Dewar M, Mackie M, Baird DT. Mifepristone (RU 486) compared with high-dose estrogen and progestogen for emergency postcoital contraception. N Engl J Med 1992; 327:1041–1044.
- Glasier A. Emergency postcoital contraception. N Engl J Med 1997; 337:1058–1064.
- Stanford JB, Mikolajczyk RT. Mechanisms of action of intrauterine devices: update and estimation of postfertilization effects. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002; 187:1699–1708.
- Zhou L, Xiao B. Emergency contraception with Multiload Cu-375 SL IUD: a multicenter clinical trial. Contraception 2001; 64:107–112.
- Cleland K, Zhu H, Goldstuck N, Cheng L, Trussell J. The efficacy of intrauterine devices for emergency contraception: a systematic review of 35 years of experience. Hum Reprod 2012; 27:1994–2000.
- Trussell J, Ellertson C, von Hertzen H, et al. Estimating the effectiveness of emergency contraceptive pills. Contraception 2003; 67:259–265.
- Glasier A, Cameron ST, Blithe D, et al. Can we identify women at risk of pregnancy despite using emergency contraception? Data from randomized trials of ulipristal acetate and levonorgestrel. Contraception 2011; 84:363–367.
- Miech RP. Immunopharmacology of ulipristal as an emergency contraceptive. Int J Womens Health 2011; 3:391–397.
- Keenan JA. Ulipristal acetate: contraceptive or contragestive? Ann Pharmacother 2011; 45:813–815.
- Medical eligibility criteria for contraceptive use. 3rd ed. Geneva: Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization; 2004.
- Ella package insert. Morristown, NJ: Watson Pharmaceuticals; August 2010. http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2010/022474s000lbl.pdf. Accessed July 6, 2012.
- American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 112: emergency contraception. Obstet Gynecol 2010; 115:1100–1109.
- Orleans RJ. Clinical review. NDA22-474. Ella (ulipristal acetate 30 mg). US Food and Drug Administration, July 27, 2010. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/DevelopmentResources/UCM295393.pdf. Accessed October 1, 2012.
- Gainer E, Massai R, Lillo S, et al. Levonorgestrel pharmacokinetics in plasma and milk of lactating women who take 1.5 mg for emergency contraception. Hum Reprod 2007; 22:1578–1584.
In the United States, nearly 50 million legal abortions were performed between 1973 and 2008.1 About half of pregnancies in American women are unintended, and 4 out of 10 unintended pregnancies are terminated by abortion.2 Of the women who had abortions, 54% had used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant.3
It is hoped that the expanded use of emergency contraception will translate into fewer abortions. However, in a 2006–2008 survey conducted by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, only 9.7% of women ages 15 to 44 reported ever having used emergency contraception.4 (To put this figure in perspective, a similar number—about 10%—of women in this age group become pregnant in any given year, half of them unintentionally.4) Clearly, patients need to be better educated in the methods of contraception and emergency contraception.
Hospitals are not meeting the need. Pretending to be in need of emergency contraception, Harrison5 called the emergency departments of all 597 Catholic hospitals in the United States and 615 (17%) of the non-Catholic hospitals. About half of the staff she spoke to said they do not dispense emergency contraception, even in cases of sexual assault. This was the case for both Catholic and non-Catholic hospitals. Of the people she talked to who said they did not provide emergency contraception under any circumstance, only about half gave her a phone number for another facility to try, and most of these phone numbers were wrong, were for facilities that were not open on weekends, or were for facilities that did not offer emergency contraception either. This is in spite of legal precedent, which indicates that failure to provide complete post-rape counseling, including emergency contraception, constitutes inadequate care and gives a woman the standing to sue the hospital.6
Clearly, better provider education is also needed in the area of emergency contraception. The Association of Reproductive Health Professionals has a helpful Web site for providers and for patients. In addition to up-to-date information about contraceptive and emergency contraceptive choices, it provides advice on how to discuss emergency contraception with patients (www.arhp.org). We can test our own knowledge of this topic by reviewing the following questions.
WHICH PRODUCT IS MOST EFFECTIVE?
Q: True or false? Levonorgestrel monotherapy (Plan B One-Step, Next Choice) is the most effective oral emergency contraceptive.
A: False, although this statement was true before the US approval of ulipristal acetate (ella) in August 2010.
For many years levonorgestrel monotherapy has been the mainstay of emergency contraception, having replaced the combination estrogen-progestin (Yuzpe) regimen because of better tolerability and improved efficacy.7 Its main mechanism of action involves delaying ovulation. Levonorgestrel is given in two doses of 0.75 mg 12 hours apart, or as a single 1.5-mg dose (Table 1). Both formulations of levonorgestrel are available over the counter to women age 17 and older, or by prescription if they are under age 17.
However, a randomized controlled trial showed that women treated with ulipristal had about half the number of pregnancies than in those treated with levonorgestrel, with pregnancy rates of 0.9% vs 1.7%.8
HOW WIDE IS THE WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY?
Q: True or false? Both ulipristal and levonorgestrel can be taken up to 120 hours (5 days) after unprotected intercourse. However, ulipristal maintains its effectiveness throughout this time, whereas levonorgestrel becomes less effective the longer a patient waits to take it.
A: True. Ulipristal is a second-generation selective progesterone receptor modulator. These drugs can function as agonists, antagonists, or mixed agonist-antagonists at the progesterone receptor, depending on the tissue affected. Ulipristal is given as a one-time, 30-mg dose within 120 hours of intercourse.
In a study of 1,696 women, 844 of whom received ulipristal acetate and 852 of whom received levonorgestrel, ulipristal was at least as effective as levonorgestrel when used within 72 hours of intercourse for emergency contraception, with 15 pregnancies in the ulipristal group and 22 pregnancies in the levonorgestrel group (odds ratio [OR] 0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.35–1.31]). However, ulipristal prevented significantly more pregnancies than levonorgestrel at 72 to 120 hours, with no pregnancies in the ulipristal group and three pregnancies in the levonorgestrel group.9
Because ulipristal has a long half-life (32 hours), it can delay ovulation beyond the life span of sperm, thereby extending the window of opportunity for emergency contraception. However, patients should be advised to avoid further unprotected intercourse after the use of emergency contraception. Because emergency contraception works mainly by delaying ovulation, it may increase the likelihood of pregnancy if the patient has unprotected intercourse again several days later.
IS MIFEPRISTONE AN EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTIVE?
Q: True or false? In the United States, mifepristone (Mifeprex), also known as RU-486, is available for use as an emergency contraceptive in addition to its use in abortion.
A: False, even though mifepristone, another selective progesterone receptor modulator, is highly effective when used up to 120 hours after intercourse. In fact, it might be effective up to 17 days after unprotected intercourse.10
Although mifepristone is one of the most effective forms of emergency contraception, social and political controversy has prevented its approval in the United States. However, it is approved for use as an abortifacient, at a higher dose than would be used for emergency contraception.
Unlike levonorgestrel, mifepristone exerts its effect via two potential mechanisms: delaying ovulation and preventing implantation.11
IUDs AS EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION
Q: True or false? Insertion of a 5-year intrauterine device (IUD), ie, the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (Mirena), is 99.8% effective at preventing pregnancy when used within 5 days of unprotected intercourse.
A: False. The Mirena IUD has not been studied as a form of emergency contraception. However, this statement would be true for the 10-year copper IUD ParaGard. Copper-releasing IUDs are considered a very effective method of emergency contraception, with associated pregnancy rates of 0.0% to 0.2% when inserted up until implantation (within 5 days after ovulation).12,13 If desired, the IUD can then be kept in place for up to 10 years as a method of birth control.
However, this method requires the ready availability of a health professional trained to do the insertion. It is also important to make sure that the patient will not be at increased risk of sexually transmitted infections from further unprotected intercourse. The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) recommends that an IUD be placed within 5 days of unprotected intercourse for use as emergency contraception.
A recent review looked at 42 published studies of copper IUDs used for emergency contraception around the world. It found copper IUDs to be a safe and highly effective method of emergency contraception, with the additional advantage of simultaneously offering one of the most reliable and cost-effective contraceptive options.14
EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION AT MID-CYCLE
Q: True or false? When choosing a method of emergency contraception, it is important to consider whether a woman is near ovulation during the time of intercourse.
A: True. Emergency contraception can prevent pregnancy after unprotected intercourse, but it does not always work. The most widely used method, levonorgestrel 1.5 mg orally within 72 hours of intercourse, prevents at least 50% of pregnancies that would have occurred in the absence of its use.15 Glasier et al16 showed that emergency contraception was more likely to fail if a woman had unprotected intercourse around the time of ovulation.16
Though it can be difficult for women to tell if they are in the fertile times of their cycle, it might be helpful to try to identify women who have intercourse at mid-cycle, when the risk of pregnancy is greatest. Because insertion of an IUD and use of ulipristal acetate probably prevent more pregnancies, these methods might be preferred over levonorgestrel-based regimens during these higher-risk situations.
OBESE PATIENTS
Q: True or false? Hormonal emergency contraception is more likely to fail in obese patients.
A: True. Most recent evidence shows that whichever oral emergency contraceptive drug is taken, the risk of pregnancy is more than 3 times greater for obese women (OR 3.60, 95% CI 1.96–6.53) and 1.5 times greater for overweight women (OR 1.53, 95% CI 0.75–2.95).16 Of all covariates tested, those that were shown to increase the odds of failure of the emergency contraception were higher body mass index, further unprotected intercourse, and conception probability (based on time of fertility cycle). In fact, among obese women treated with levonorgestrel, the observed pregnancy rate was 5.8%, which is slightly above the overall pregnancy rate expected in the absence of emergency contraception, suggesting that for obese women levonorgestrel-based emergency contraception may even be ineffective.
This is in line with recent reports suggesting that oral contraceptives are less effective in obese women. More effective regimens such as an IUD or ulipristal might be preferred in these women. However, obesity should not be used as a reason not to offer emergency contraception, as this is the last chance these women have to prevent pregnancy.
IS IT ABORTION?
Q: True or false? Emergency contraception does not cause abortion.
A: True, but patients may ask for more details about this. Hormonal emergency contraception works primarily by delaying or inhibiting ovulation and inhibiting fertilization.
Levonorgestrel or combined estrogen-progestin-based methods would be unlikely to have any adverse effects on the endometrium after fertilization, since they would only serve to enhance the progesterone effect. Therefore, they are unlikely to affect the ability of the embryo to attach to the endometrium.
Ulipristal, on the other hand, can have just the opposite effect on the postovulatory endometrium because of its inhibitory action on progesterone. Ulipristal is structurally similar to mifepristone, and its mechanism of action varies depending on the time of administration during the menstrual cycle. When unprotected intercourse occurs during a time when fertility is not possible, ulipristal behaves like a placebo. When intercourse occurs just before ovulation, ulipristal acts by delaying ovulation and thereby preventing fertilization (similar to levonorgestrel). Ulipristal may have an additional action of affecting the ability of the embryo to either attach to the endometrium or maintain its attachment, by a variety of mechanisms of action.17,18 Because of this, some in the popular press and on the Internet have spoken out against the use of ulipristal.
The ACOG considers pregnancy to begin not with fertilization of the egg but with implantation, as demonstrated by a positive pregnancy test.
Of note, the copper IUD also prevents implantation after fertilization, which likely explains its high efficacy.
Women who have detailed questions about this can be counseled that levonorgestrel works mostly by preventing ovulation, and that ulipristal and the copper IUD might also work via postfertilization mechanisms. However, they are not considered to be abortive, based on standard definitions of pregnancy.
If a woman is pregnant and she takes levonorgestrel-based emergency contraception, this has not been shown to have any adverse effects on the fetus (similar to oral contraceptives).
Ulipristal is classified as pregnancy category X, and therefore its use during pregnancy is contraindicated. Based on information provided by the manufacturer, there are no adequate, well-controlled studies of ulipristal use in pregnant women. Although fetal loss was observed in animal studies after ulipristal administration (during the period of organogenesis), no malformations or adverse events were present in the surviving fetuses. Ulipristal is not indicated for termination of an existing pregnancy.
DO THE USUAL CONTRAINDICATIONS TO HORMONAL CONTRACEPTIVES APPLY?
Q: True or false? Because emergency contraception has such a short duration of exposure, the usual medical contraindications to hormonal therapies do not apply to it.
A: True. The usual contraindications to the use of hormonal contraceptives (eg, migraine with aura, hypertension, history of venous thromboembolism) do not apply to emergency contraception because of the short time of exposure.19 Furthermore, the risks associated with pregnancy in these women would likely outweigh any risks associated with emergency contraception.
However, one must be cognizant of potential drug interactions. According to the manufacturer, the use of ulipristal did not inhibit or induce cytochrome P 450 enzymes in vitro; therefore, in vivo studies were not performed. But because ulipristal is metabolized primarily via CYP3A4, an interaction between agents that induce or inhibit CYP3A4 could occur.20 Thus, concomitant use of drugs such as barbiturates, rifampin (Rifadin), St. John’s wort, or antiseizure drugs such as topiramate (Topamax) may lower ulipristal concentrations. These medications may also affect levonorgestrel levels, similar to their effects on combined hormonal contraception. However, it is not known whether this translates to decreased efficacy.
When a woman is taking medications that can potentially decrease the effectiveness of hormonal emergency contraception, a more effective method such as a copper IUD might be more strongly considered. If a woman is not interested in an IUD, oral emergency contraception should still be offered, given that this is one of the last chances to prevent pregnancy, especially if she is on a potential teratogen.
Oral contraceptive pills have not been studied in combination with ulipristal. However, because ulipristal binds with high affinity to progesterone receptors (thus competing with the contraceptive), use of additional barrier contraceptives is recommended for the remainder of the menstrual cycle.
EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION AND BREASTFEEDING
Q: True of false? Emergency contraceptives can be used if a woman is breastfeeding.
A: That depends on which method is used. Both the ACOG and the World Health Organization state that it is safe for breastfeeding women to use emergency contraception, but these are older guidelines addressing progestin-only regimens (ie, levonorgestrel).19,21 It is unknown whether ulipristal is secreted into human breast milk, although excretion was seen in animal studies. Therefore, ulipristal is not recommended for use by women who are breastfeeding.20,22 To minimize the infant’s exposure to levonorgestrel, mothers should consider not nursing for at least 8 hours after ingestion, but no more than 24 hours is needed.23
In the United States, nearly 50 million legal abortions were performed between 1973 and 2008.1 About half of pregnancies in American women are unintended, and 4 out of 10 unintended pregnancies are terminated by abortion.2 Of the women who had abortions, 54% had used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant.3
It is hoped that the expanded use of emergency contraception will translate into fewer abortions. However, in a 2006–2008 survey conducted by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, only 9.7% of women ages 15 to 44 reported ever having used emergency contraception.4 (To put this figure in perspective, a similar number—about 10%—of women in this age group become pregnant in any given year, half of them unintentionally.4) Clearly, patients need to be better educated in the methods of contraception and emergency contraception.
Hospitals are not meeting the need. Pretending to be in need of emergency contraception, Harrison5 called the emergency departments of all 597 Catholic hospitals in the United States and 615 (17%) of the non-Catholic hospitals. About half of the staff she spoke to said they do not dispense emergency contraception, even in cases of sexual assault. This was the case for both Catholic and non-Catholic hospitals. Of the people she talked to who said they did not provide emergency contraception under any circumstance, only about half gave her a phone number for another facility to try, and most of these phone numbers were wrong, were for facilities that were not open on weekends, or were for facilities that did not offer emergency contraception either. This is in spite of legal precedent, which indicates that failure to provide complete post-rape counseling, including emergency contraception, constitutes inadequate care and gives a woman the standing to sue the hospital.6
Clearly, better provider education is also needed in the area of emergency contraception. The Association of Reproductive Health Professionals has a helpful Web site for providers and for patients. In addition to up-to-date information about contraceptive and emergency contraceptive choices, it provides advice on how to discuss emergency contraception with patients (www.arhp.org). We can test our own knowledge of this topic by reviewing the following questions.
WHICH PRODUCT IS MOST EFFECTIVE?
Q: True or false? Levonorgestrel monotherapy (Plan B One-Step, Next Choice) is the most effective oral emergency contraceptive.
A: False, although this statement was true before the US approval of ulipristal acetate (ella) in August 2010.
For many years levonorgestrel monotherapy has been the mainstay of emergency contraception, having replaced the combination estrogen-progestin (Yuzpe) regimen because of better tolerability and improved efficacy.7 Its main mechanism of action involves delaying ovulation. Levonorgestrel is given in two doses of 0.75 mg 12 hours apart, or as a single 1.5-mg dose (Table 1). Both formulations of levonorgestrel are available over the counter to women age 17 and older, or by prescription if they are under age 17.
However, a randomized controlled trial showed that women treated with ulipristal had about half the number of pregnancies than in those treated with levonorgestrel, with pregnancy rates of 0.9% vs 1.7%.8
HOW WIDE IS THE WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY?
Q: True or false? Both ulipristal and levonorgestrel can be taken up to 120 hours (5 days) after unprotected intercourse. However, ulipristal maintains its effectiveness throughout this time, whereas levonorgestrel becomes less effective the longer a patient waits to take it.
A: True. Ulipristal is a second-generation selective progesterone receptor modulator. These drugs can function as agonists, antagonists, or mixed agonist-antagonists at the progesterone receptor, depending on the tissue affected. Ulipristal is given as a one-time, 30-mg dose within 120 hours of intercourse.
In a study of 1,696 women, 844 of whom received ulipristal acetate and 852 of whom received levonorgestrel, ulipristal was at least as effective as levonorgestrel when used within 72 hours of intercourse for emergency contraception, with 15 pregnancies in the ulipristal group and 22 pregnancies in the levonorgestrel group (odds ratio [OR] 0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.35–1.31]). However, ulipristal prevented significantly more pregnancies than levonorgestrel at 72 to 120 hours, with no pregnancies in the ulipristal group and three pregnancies in the levonorgestrel group.9
Because ulipristal has a long half-life (32 hours), it can delay ovulation beyond the life span of sperm, thereby extending the window of opportunity for emergency contraception. However, patients should be advised to avoid further unprotected intercourse after the use of emergency contraception. Because emergency contraception works mainly by delaying ovulation, it may increase the likelihood of pregnancy if the patient has unprotected intercourse again several days later.
IS MIFEPRISTONE AN EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTIVE?
Q: True or false? In the United States, mifepristone (Mifeprex), also known as RU-486, is available for use as an emergency contraceptive in addition to its use in abortion.
A: False, even though mifepristone, another selective progesterone receptor modulator, is highly effective when used up to 120 hours after intercourse. In fact, it might be effective up to 17 days after unprotected intercourse.10
Although mifepristone is one of the most effective forms of emergency contraception, social and political controversy has prevented its approval in the United States. However, it is approved for use as an abortifacient, at a higher dose than would be used for emergency contraception.
Unlike levonorgestrel, mifepristone exerts its effect via two potential mechanisms: delaying ovulation and preventing implantation.11
IUDs AS EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION
Q: True or false? Insertion of a 5-year intrauterine device (IUD), ie, the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (Mirena), is 99.8% effective at preventing pregnancy when used within 5 days of unprotected intercourse.
A: False. The Mirena IUD has not been studied as a form of emergency contraception. However, this statement would be true for the 10-year copper IUD ParaGard. Copper-releasing IUDs are considered a very effective method of emergency contraception, with associated pregnancy rates of 0.0% to 0.2% when inserted up until implantation (within 5 days after ovulation).12,13 If desired, the IUD can then be kept in place for up to 10 years as a method of birth control.
However, this method requires the ready availability of a health professional trained to do the insertion. It is also important to make sure that the patient will not be at increased risk of sexually transmitted infections from further unprotected intercourse. The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) recommends that an IUD be placed within 5 days of unprotected intercourse for use as emergency contraception.
A recent review looked at 42 published studies of copper IUDs used for emergency contraception around the world. It found copper IUDs to be a safe and highly effective method of emergency contraception, with the additional advantage of simultaneously offering one of the most reliable and cost-effective contraceptive options.14
EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION AT MID-CYCLE
Q: True or false? When choosing a method of emergency contraception, it is important to consider whether a woman is near ovulation during the time of intercourse.
A: True. Emergency contraception can prevent pregnancy after unprotected intercourse, but it does not always work. The most widely used method, levonorgestrel 1.5 mg orally within 72 hours of intercourse, prevents at least 50% of pregnancies that would have occurred in the absence of its use.15 Glasier et al16 showed that emergency contraception was more likely to fail if a woman had unprotected intercourse around the time of ovulation.16
Though it can be difficult for women to tell if they are in the fertile times of their cycle, it might be helpful to try to identify women who have intercourse at mid-cycle, when the risk of pregnancy is greatest. Because insertion of an IUD and use of ulipristal acetate probably prevent more pregnancies, these methods might be preferred over levonorgestrel-based regimens during these higher-risk situations.
OBESE PATIENTS
Q: True or false? Hormonal emergency contraception is more likely to fail in obese patients.
A: True. Most recent evidence shows that whichever oral emergency contraceptive drug is taken, the risk of pregnancy is more than 3 times greater for obese women (OR 3.60, 95% CI 1.96–6.53) and 1.5 times greater for overweight women (OR 1.53, 95% CI 0.75–2.95).16 Of all covariates tested, those that were shown to increase the odds of failure of the emergency contraception were higher body mass index, further unprotected intercourse, and conception probability (based on time of fertility cycle). In fact, among obese women treated with levonorgestrel, the observed pregnancy rate was 5.8%, which is slightly above the overall pregnancy rate expected in the absence of emergency contraception, suggesting that for obese women levonorgestrel-based emergency contraception may even be ineffective.
This is in line with recent reports suggesting that oral contraceptives are less effective in obese women. More effective regimens such as an IUD or ulipristal might be preferred in these women. However, obesity should not be used as a reason not to offer emergency contraception, as this is the last chance these women have to prevent pregnancy.
IS IT ABORTION?
Q: True or false? Emergency contraception does not cause abortion.
A: True, but patients may ask for more details about this. Hormonal emergency contraception works primarily by delaying or inhibiting ovulation and inhibiting fertilization.
Levonorgestrel or combined estrogen-progestin-based methods would be unlikely to have any adverse effects on the endometrium after fertilization, since they would only serve to enhance the progesterone effect. Therefore, they are unlikely to affect the ability of the embryo to attach to the endometrium.
Ulipristal, on the other hand, can have just the opposite effect on the postovulatory endometrium because of its inhibitory action on progesterone. Ulipristal is structurally similar to mifepristone, and its mechanism of action varies depending on the time of administration during the menstrual cycle. When unprotected intercourse occurs during a time when fertility is not possible, ulipristal behaves like a placebo. When intercourse occurs just before ovulation, ulipristal acts by delaying ovulation and thereby preventing fertilization (similar to levonorgestrel). Ulipristal may have an additional action of affecting the ability of the embryo to either attach to the endometrium or maintain its attachment, by a variety of mechanisms of action.17,18 Because of this, some in the popular press and on the Internet have spoken out against the use of ulipristal.
The ACOG considers pregnancy to begin not with fertilization of the egg but with implantation, as demonstrated by a positive pregnancy test.
Of note, the copper IUD also prevents implantation after fertilization, which likely explains its high efficacy.
Women who have detailed questions about this can be counseled that levonorgestrel works mostly by preventing ovulation, and that ulipristal and the copper IUD might also work via postfertilization mechanisms. However, they are not considered to be abortive, based on standard definitions of pregnancy.
If a woman is pregnant and she takes levonorgestrel-based emergency contraception, this has not been shown to have any adverse effects on the fetus (similar to oral contraceptives).
Ulipristal is classified as pregnancy category X, and therefore its use during pregnancy is contraindicated. Based on information provided by the manufacturer, there are no adequate, well-controlled studies of ulipristal use in pregnant women. Although fetal loss was observed in animal studies after ulipristal administration (during the period of organogenesis), no malformations or adverse events were present in the surviving fetuses. Ulipristal is not indicated for termination of an existing pregnancy.
DO THE USUAL CONTRAINDICATIONS TO HORMONAL CONTRACEPTIVES APPLY?
Q: True or false? Because emergency contraception has such a short duration of exposure, the usual medical contraindications to hormonal therapies do not apply to it.
A: True. The usual contraindications to the use of hormonal contraceptives (eg, migraine with aura, hypertension, history of venous thromboembolism) do not apply to emergency contraception because of the short time of exposure.19 Furthermore, the risks associated with pregnancy in these women would likely outweigh any risks associated with emergency contraception.
However, one must be cognizant of potential drug interactions. According to the manufacturer, the use of ulipristal did not inhibit or induce cytochrome P 450 enzymes in vitro; therefore, in vivo studies were not performed. But because ulipristal is metabolized primarily via CYP3A4, an interaction between agents that induce or inhibit CYP3A4 could occur.20 Thus, concomitant use of drugs such as barbiturates, rifampin (Rifadin), St. John’s wort, or antiseizure drugs such as topiramate (Topamax) may lower ulipristal concentrations. These medications may also affect levonorgestrel levels, similar to their effects on combined hormonal contraception. However, it is not known whether this translates to decreased efficacy.
When a woman is taking medications that can potentially decrease the effectiveness of hormonal emergency contraception, a more effective method such as a copper IUD might be more strongly considered. If a woman is not interested in an IUD, oral emergency contraception should still be offered, given that this is one of the last chances to prevent pregnancy, especially if she is on a potential teratogen.
Oral contraceptive pills have not been studied in combination with ulipristal. However, because ulipristal binds with high affinity to progesterone receptors (thus competing with the contraceptive), use of additional barrier contraceptives is recommended for the remainder of the menstrual cycle.
EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION AND BREASTFEEDING
Q: True of false? Emergency contraceptives can be used if a woman is breastfeeding.
A: That depends on which method is used. Both the ACOG and the World Health Organization state that it is safe for breastfeeding women to use emergency contraception, but these are older guidelines addressing progestin-only regimens (ie, levonorgestrel).19,21 It is unknown whether ulipristal is secreted into human breast milk, although excretion was seen in animal studies. Therefore, ulipristal is not recommended for use by women who are breastfeeding.20,22 To minimize the infant’s exposure to levonorgestrel, mothers should consider not nursing for at least 8 hours after ingestion, but no more than 24 hours is needed.23
- Jones RK, Kooistra K. Abortion incidence and access to services in the United States, 2008. Perspect Sex Reprod Health 2011; 43:41–50.
- Finer LB, Zolna MR. Unintended pregnancy in the United States: incidence and disparities, 2006. Contraception 2011; 84:478–485.
- Jones RK, Darroch JE, Henshaw SK. Contraceptive use among US women having abortions in 2000–2001. Perspect Sex Reprod Health 2002; 34:294–303.
- Mosher WD, Jones J. Use of contraception in the United States: 1982–2008. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat 2010; 23. http://www.cdc.gov/NCHS/data/series/sr_23/sr23_029.pdf. Accessed October 1, 2012.
- Harrison T. Availability of emergency contraception: a survey of hospital emergency department staff. Ann Emerg Med 2005; 46:105–110.
- Goldenring JM, Allred G. Post-rape care in hospital emergency rooms. Am J Public Health 2001; 91:1169–1170.
- Randomised controlled trial of levonorgestrel versus the Yuzpe regimen of combined oral contraceptives for emergency contraception. Task Force on Postovulatory Methods of Fertility Regulation. Lancet 1998; 352:428–433.
- Creinin MD, Schlaff W, Archer DF, et al. Progesterone receptor modulator for emergency contraception: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2006; 108:1089–1097.
- Glasier AF, Cameron ST, Fine PM, et al. Ulipristal acetate versus levonorgestrel for emergency contraception: a randomised non-inferiority trial and meta-analysis. Lancet 2010; 375:555–562.
- Glasier A, Thong KJ, Dewar M, Mackie M, Baird DT. Mifepristone (RU 486) compared with high-dose estrogen and progestogen for emergency postcoital contraception. N Engl J Med 1992; 327:1041–1044.
- Glasier A. Emergency postcoital contraception. N Engl J Med 1997; 337:1058–1064.
- Stanford JB, Mikolajczyk RT. Mechanisms of action of intrauterine devices: update and estimation of postfertilization effects. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002; 187:1699–1708.
- Zhou L, Xiao B. Emergency contraception with Multiload Cu-375 SL IUD: a multicenter clinical trial. Contraception 2001; 64:107–112.
- Cleland K, Zhu H, Goldstuck N, Cheng L, Trussell J. The efficacy of intrauterine devices for emergency contraception: a systematic review of 35 years of experience. Hum Reprod 2012; 27:1994–2000.
- Trussell J, Ellertson C, von Hertzen H, et al. Estimating the effectiveness of emergency contraceptive pills. Contraception 2003; 67:259–265.
- Glasier A, Cameron ST, Blithe D, et al. Can we identify women at risk of pregnancy despite using emergency contraception? Data from randomized trials of ulipristal acetate and levonorgestrel. Contraception 2011; 84:363–367.
- Miech RP. Immunopharmacology of ulipristal as an emergency contraceptive. Int J Womens Health 2011; 3:391–397.
- Keenan JA. Ulipristal acetate: contraceptive or contragestive? Ann Pharmacother 2011; 45:813–815.
- Medical eligibility criteria for contraceptive use. 3rd ed. Geneva: Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization; 2004.
- Ella package insert. Morristown, NJ: Watson Pharmaceuticals; August 2010. http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2010/022474s000lbl.pdf. Accessed July 6, 2012.
- American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 112: emergency contraception. Obstet Gynecol 2010; 115:1100–1109.
- Orleans RJ. Clinical review. NDA22-474. Ella (ulipristal acetate 30 mg). US Food and Drug Administration, July 27, 2010. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/DevelopmentResources/UCM295393.pdf. Accessed October 1, 2012.
- Gainer E, Massai R, Lillo S, et al. Levonorgestrel pharmacokinetics in plasma and milk of lactating women who take 1.5 mg for emergency contraception. Hum Reprod 2007; 22:1578–1584.
- Jones RK, Kooistra K. Abortion incidence and access to services in the United States, 2008. Perspect Sex Reprod Health 2011; 43:41–50.
- Finer LB, Zolna MR. Unintended pregnancy in the United States: incidence and disparities, 2006. Contraception 2011; 84:478–485.
- Jones RK, Darroch JE, Henshaw SK. Contraceptive use among US women having abortions in 2000–2001. Perspect Sex Reprod Health 2002; 34:294–303.
- Mosher WD, Jones J. Use of contraception in the United States: 1982–2008. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat 2010; 23. http://www.cdc.gov/NCHS/data/series/sr_23/sr23_029.pdf. Accessed October 1, 2012.
- Harrison T. Availability of emergency contraception: a survey of hospital emergency department staff. Ann Emerg Med 2005; 46:105–110.
- Goldenring JM, Allred G. Post-rape care in hospital emergency rooms. Am J Public Health 2001; 91:1169–1170.
- Randomised controlled trial of levonorgestrel versus the Yuzpe regimen of combined oral contraceptives for emergency contraception. Task Force on Postovulatory Methods of Fertility Regulation. Lancet 1998; 352:428–433.
- Creinin MD, Schlaff W, Archer DF, et al. Progesterone receptor modulator for emergency contraception: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2006; 108:1089–1097.
- Glasier AF, Cameron ST, Fine PM, et al. Ulipristal acetate versus levonorgestrel for emergency contraception: a randomised non-inferiority trial and meta-analysis. Lancet 2010; 375:555–562.
- Glasier A, Thong KJ, Dewar M, Mackie M, Baird DT. Mifepristone (RU 486) compared with high-dose estrogen and progestogen for emergency postcoital contraception. N Engl J Med 1992; 327:1041–1044.
- Glasier A. Emergency postcoital contraception. N Engl J Med 1997; 337:1058–1064.
- Stanford JB, Mikolajczyk RT. Mechanisms of action of intrauterine devices: update and estimation of postfertilization effects. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002; 187:1699–1708.
- Zhou L, Xiao B. Emergency contraception with Multiload Cu-375 SL IUD: a multicenter clinical trial. Contraception 2001; 64:107–112.
- Cleland K, Zhu H, Goldstuck N, Cheng L, Trussell J. The efficacy of intrauterine devices for emergency contraception: a systematic review of 35 years of experience. Hum Reprod 2012; 27:1994–2000.
- Trussell J, Ellertson C, von Hertzen H, et al. Estimating the effectiveness of emergency contraceptive pills. Contraception 2003; 67:259–265.
- Glasier A, Cameron ST, Blithe D, et al. Can we identify women at risk of pregnancy despite using emergency contraception? Data from randomized trials of ulipristal acetate and levonorgestrel. Contraception 2011; 84:363–367.
- Miech RP. Immunopharmacology of ulipristal as an emergency contraceptive. Int J Womens Health 2011; 3:391–397.
- Keenan JA. Ulipristal acetate: contraceptive or contragestive? Ann Pharmacother 2011; 45:813–815.
- Medical eligibility criteria for contraceptive use. 3rd ed. Geneva: Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization; 2004.
- Ella package insert. Morristown, NJ: Watson Pharmaceuticals; August 2010. http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2010/022474s000lbl.pdf. Accessed July 6, 2012.
- American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 112: emergency contraception. Obstet Gynecol 2010; 115:1100–1109.
- Orleans RJ. Clinical review. NDA22-474. Ella (ulipristal acetate 30 mg). US Food and Drug Administration, July 27, 2010. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/DevelopmentResources/UCM295393.pdf. Accessed October 1, 2012.
- Gainer E, Massai R, Lillo S, et al. Levonorgestrel pharmacokinetics in plasma and milk of lactating women who take 1.5 mg for emergency contraception. Hum Reprod 2007; 22:1578–1584.
KEY POINTS
- Levonorgestrel-based emergency contraceptives such as Plan B One-Step, Next Choice, and generics are now available over the counter, which has the advantage of avoiding the delays and hassles of calling the doctor’s office and waiting for prescriptions. But patients still need our guidance on how and when to use emergency contraception.
- Even if patients now have easy access to over-the-counter emergency contraceptives, we physicians should take every opportunity to discuss effective contraceptive options with our patients.
- Ulipristal and copper intrauterine devices (ParaGard) are likely to be more effective than levonorgestrel and should be considered in women at highest risk of pregnancy, such as those who are obese.
- Prescribers should feel comfortable addressing tough questions about mechanisms of action, as controversies and myths about emergency contraception are regularly discussed in the media and on the Internet.
Tattooing: Medical uses and problems
People have been marking the skin with pigments for at least 4,000 years.1 Tattoos have been found on Egyptian mummies, and Roman gladiators are known to have used tattoos for identification.2 Tattooing was considered fashionable among royalty in the first half of the 20th century.3 And today it is perhaps more popular than ever.
But tattooing is not confined to popular culture and decoration. It has established uses in medicine, as well as other medically related uses that represent more recent trends. In this review, we explore the range of medical tattooing.
MEDICAL ALERT TATTOOING
Medical alert tattooing is a form of medical identification similar to medical alert jewelry, ie, bracelets and necklaces, to alert first-responders to a medical condition or to specific desires for care, such as do-not-resuscitate (DNR) directives.
Some people choose to have their medical condition tattooed rather than wear medical alert jewelry, which can break or be misplaced. 4–6
This practice is currently unregulated by the medical community, and the few reports of its use published to date include two people with diabetes who had the word “diabetic” tattooed on their bodies,4,5 and a woman with a tattoo warning of a past severe reaction to succinylcholine during anesthesia.6 She had been advised to wear medical alert jewelry, but she instead chose a tattoo.
Blood-type tattooing was briefly used in a few communities in the United States in the early 1950s as part of a program to provide a “walking blood bank.”7 However, the practice fell out of favor as physicians questioned the reliability of tattoos for medical information.7
This type of tattooing could also benefit patients with adrenal insufficiency, O-negative blood type, and allergies, and patients taking an anticoagulant drug (after discussing the risks of bleeding with their primary physician).
Emergency medical technicians are trained to search unresponsive patients for health-related items, including medical alert necklaces and bracelets. Since tattooing for disease identification purposes is not an officially recognized procedure, these personnel need to be aware that this practice is increasing among the general public. Identifying medical alert tattoos in emergency situations is much more difficult in people with extensive decorative tattooing.
Tattoos indicating health directives
Reports of people with tattoos indicating health directives (DNR, do-not-defibrillate) have prompted debate over the validity of tattoos as a type of advance directive.8–13 These types of tattoos pose practical and ethical problems: they may not reflect a person’s current wishes, and they may have even been applied as a joke.13 Furthermore, they are not recognized as meeting any of the legal requirements for advance directives, so they cannot be considered as valid health directives, but only as a way to guide treatment decisions.14
The same is true for the other ways of notifying first-responders to one’s treatment wishes, ie, wallet cards and medical alert bracelets and necklaces. One manufacturer of medical alert bracelets and necklaces offers to engrave that the wearer has a living will and to keep on file a copy of the document, which they can fax or read out loud to paramedics if they are contacted.11
Organ donor tattoo
In the case of a man who had his consent to be an organ donor tattooed on his chest,15 the tattoo was viewed as not equivalent to signed documentation; however, such tattoos can be used to help guide management.15
DIABETIC PATIENTS AND MEDICAL ALERT TATTOOS
Medical alert tattooing is increasingly common in people with diabetes. Discussions on social-networking sites on the Internet indicate that diabetic patients often do this on their own without consulting their physician.
In our clinic, we have encountered patients with tattoos on the wrist (Figure 1), similar to those seen on the Internet, typically displaying a six-pointed star of life, a caduceus (physician’s staff), and the word “diabetic.” Patients we have encountered in the past 3 to 4 years have cited the same rationale for resorting to medical tattooing—ie, the cost of repeatedly replacing broken and lost medical alert jewelry.
We believe there is a convincing rationale for diabetic patients to undergo medical tattooing, and we believe that diabetes organizations need to evaluate this and provide education to patients and clinicians about it, so that patients can discuss it with their care providers before taking action on their own.
Risks of tattooing in diabetic patients
Diabetic patients who ask their physician about getting a diabetes-alert tattoo should be informed about the dangers of tattooing in diabetes. The diabetes should be optimally controlled, as gauged by both hemoglobin A1c and mean blood glucose profile at the time of tattooing, in order to promote healing of the tattooed area and to prevent wound infection.
Also helpful is to advise diabetic patients to avoid tattooing of the feet or lower legs in view of the risk of diabetes-related neurovascular disease that may impair healing or incite infection.
RECONSTRUCTIVE AND COSMETIC TATTOOING
Areolar reconstruction
Breast reconstruction after mastectomy is fundamental to the psychosocial health of the patient and helps her regain a positive body image.16,17 Tattooing of the nipple-areola complex16 is usually the final step of the breast reconstruction process.
Complications of areolar tattooing are rare but can include local erythema and infection. 18 And patients should be informed that the tattoos will likely fade over time and require re-tattooing.18
Tattooing as camouflage
Tattooing is used to repigment the skin in conditions that cause hypopigmentation or hyperpigmentation, 2 including burns.19 It is also used as an alternative to laser treatment in port-wine stain and in cosmetic surgery of the scalp.20
Tattooing is used for micropigmentation of the lips and fingertips in patients who have vitiligo. However, this should be reserved for those with stable vitiligo, since tattooing may trigger another patch of vitiligo at tattoo sites.21
Although medical management exists for vitiligo, it is often ineffective for lip vitiligo since the success of medical therapy depends on the pigment-cell reservoir at the site of depigmentation. The lips lack such a reservoir of melanocytes, so tattooing may be an option.22
Corneal scarring
Perforating injury, measles keratitis, and other conditions can result in cosmetically disfiguring discoloration of the cornea. When microsurgical reconstruction is ineffective or is not an option, corneal tattooing has been reported to provide satisfactory results at up to 4 years.23 Reopacification, increased opacity, fading of the tattoo pigment, and epithelial growth have been reported, and in one series, most patients required reoperation.24
Tattooing to hide surgical scars
Spyropoulou and Fatah25 reported three patients in a plastic surgery practice who underwent decorative tattooing to camouflage cosmetically undesirable scars. The authors suggested this as a valid option, especially in younger patients, among whom tattooing is common and acceptable.25
‘Permanent makeup’
Tattooing is also used to simulate makeup (“permanent makeup”) and may be beneficial to people allergic to conventional makeup or people with disabilities that make applying makeup difficult.26 Complications of this procedure include bleeding, crusting, swelling, infection, allergic reactions, hypertrophic scars, keloid, loss of eyelashes, eyelid necrosis, and ectropion, as well as complications related to magnetic resonance imaging (described further below).
Most pigments used for this purpose do not have an established history of safe use, and patients may experience severe allergic reactions. A recent report described severe allergic reactions resistant to topical or systemic therapy with steroids in combination with topical tacrolimus (Prograf), especially after exposure to red dye 181.27 Researchers have recommended the regulation and control of colorants in permanent makeup.27
RADIATION ONCOLOGY
Tattooing is used in radiation oncology to ensure accurate targeting of radiation therapy. Typically, several small, black marks 1 to 2 mm in size are applied by a medical professional using an 18- or 19-gauge hypodermic needle and india ink.2 The marks are permanent.
Although these markings are clearly helpful during radiation treatment, they can be psychologically upsetting to patients, as they are a constant reminder of the disease and the treatment, both during the treatment course and long after it is finished.
An alternative is to use temporary marks for the 6 to 7 weeks that patients typically need them. However, temporary tattooing is prone to fading, and this is a key limitation.
ENDOSCOPIC TATTOOING
In laparoscopic gastrointestinal surgery, lesions are often difficult to visualize and localize since the surgeon is unable to palpate the bowel directly to identify the diseased segment; this increases the risk of resecting the wrong segment of bowel.28 Endoscopic tattooing of the segment to be resected greatly improves the accuracy of laparoscopic procedures. Endoscopic tattooing is also used to facilitate identification of subtle mucosal lesions or endoscopic resection sites at the time of subsequent endoscopy.29,30
India ink or a similar presterilized commercial preparation is commonly used.31 Complications are rare but include mild chronic inflammation, hyperplastic changes, inflammatory bowel disease, abdominal abscess, inflammatory pseudotumor, focal peritonitis, peritoneal staining, and, very rarely, seeding of tumor via the tattooing needle.30
FORENSIC MEDICINE
Specialists in forensic medicine use primary markers such as fingerprints and dental records and secondary markers such as birthmarks, scarring, and tattoos to identify victims.32 Tattoos are useful for identification when finger-prints or dental records are unavailable,33 as in the tsunami of December 2004 in Southeast Asia34 and the London Paddington train crash of October 1999.35 However, as the body decomposes, tattoos can discolor and fade, making them hard to identify. Application of 3% hydrogen peroxide to the tattoo site has been reported to aid in identification, and infrared imaging has shown promise.32
GENERAL RISKS AND COMPLICATIONS OF TATTOOING
Improper sterilization of tattooing needles and tattoo ink in public tattoo parlors can cause a wide range of diseases and skin reactions.36–44
Infection
Pyodermal infections can include temporary inflammation at the sites of needle punctures, superficial infections such as impetigo and ecthyma, and deeper infections such as cellulitis, erysipelas, and furunculosis.
Other transmissible infections include hepatitis, syphilis, leprosy, tuberculosis cutis, rubella, chancroid, tetanus, and molluscum contagiosum. An outbreak of infection with Mycobacterium chelonae from premixed tattoo ink has also been reported.44
Hepatitis C has been shown in epidemiologic studies to be transmissible via nonsterile needles. Human immunodeficiency virus is also theoretically transmissible this way, but this is difficult to confirm because the virus has a long incubation period.36
Cutaneous reactions
Skin reactions to tattooing include aseptic inflammation and acquired sensitivity to tattoo dyes, especially red dyes, but also to chromium in green dyes, cadmium in yellow dyes, and cobalt in blue dyes.38 The reaction can manifest as either allergic contact dermatitis or photoallergic dermatitis.
Cutaneous conditions that localize in tattooed areas include vaccinia, verruca vulgaris, herpes simplex, herpes zoster, psoriasis, lichen planus, keratosis follicularis (Darier disease), chronic discoid lupus erythematosus, and keratoacanthoma.
Other possible conditions include keloid, sarcoidal granuloma, erythema multiforme, localized scleroderma, and lymphadenopathy.36,37
Malignancy
Malignancies reported to arise within tattoos include squamous cell carcinoma, basal cell carcinoma, malignant melanoma, leiomyosarcoma, primary non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans.39 These malignancies may be considered coincidental, but carcinogenicity of the tattooing colorants is a concern to be addressed. Nevertheless, a malignancy within a tattoo is more difficult to identify on skin examination.
Burns during magnetic resonance imaging
The metallic ferric acid pigments used in tattoos can conduct heat on the skin during magnetic resonance imaging,40 resulting in traumatic burns. This has also been reported to occur with tattoos with nonferrous pigments. 41 Patients should be asked before this procedure if they have tattooing so that this complication can be avoided.
Two other complications
Two interesting complications of tattooing have been described. First, tattoo pigments have been noted within lymph nodes in patients with melanoma.42 This finding during surgery could cause the surgeon to mistake tattoo pigment for disease and to complete a regional lymph node dissection if biopsy of the sentinel node is not performed.
The other involved disseminated hyperalgesia after volar wrist tattooing. The authors speculated that the pain associated with volar tattooing may have been related to the proximity of the tattoo to the palmar cutaneous branch of the median nerve.43
Acknowledgment: The authors would like to acknowledge the patients in Figure 1 for their permission to use their photos and Nicolas Kluger, MD, Departments of Dermatology, Allergology, and Venereology, University of Helsinki, Finland, for his input into an early draft of this manuscript.
- Grumet GW. Psychodynamic implications of tattoos. Am J Orthopsychiatry 1983; 53:482–492.
- Vassileva S, Hristakieva E. Medical applications of tattooing. Clin Dermatol 2007; 25:367–374.
- van der Velden EM, de Jong BD, van der Walle HB, Stolz E, Naafs B. Tattooing and its medical aspects. Int J Dermatol 1993; 32:381–384.
- Nag S, McCulloch A. An informative tattoo. Postgrad Med J 2003; 79:402.
- Aldasouqi S. A medical alert tattoo. Am Fam Physician 2011; 83:796.
- Barclay P, King H. Tattoo medi-alert. Anaesthesia 2002; 57:625.
- Wolf EK, Laumann AE. The use of blood-type tattoos during the Cold War. J Am Acad Dermatol 2008; 58:472–476.
- Lawn A, Bassi D. An unusual resuscitation request. Resuscitation 2008; 78:5–6.
- Gupta D. Tattoo flash: consider “do not resuscitate.” J Palliat Med 2010; 13:1155–1156.
- Sullivan W. The “emergency” DNR order. ED Legal Letter 2005; 16:133–144.
- Polack C. Is a tattoo the answer? BMJ 2001; 323:1063.
- Sokol DK, McFadzean WA, Dickson WA, Whitaker IS. Ethical dilemmas in the acute setting: a framework for clinicians. BMJ 2011; 343:d5528.
- Cooper L, Aronowitz P. DNR tattoos: a cautionary tale. J Gen Intern Med 2012; E-pub ahead of print.
- Iserson KV. The ‘no code’ tattoo—an ethical dilemma. West J Med 1992; 156:309–312.
- Kämäräinen A, Länkimäki S. A tattooed consent for organ donation. Resuscitation 2009; 80:284–285.
- Chen SG, Chiu TF, Su WF, Chou TD, Chen TM, Wang HJ. Nipple-areola complex reconstruction using badge flap and intradermal tattooing. Br J Surg 2005; 92:435–437.
- Hoffman S, Mikell A. Nipple-areola tattooing as part of breast reconstruction. Plast Surg Nurs 2004; 24:155–157.
- Goh SC, Martin NA, Pandya AN, Cutress RI. Patient satisfaction following nipple-areolar complex reconstruction and tattooing. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2011; 64:360–363.
- van der Velden EM, Baruchin AM, Jairath D, Oostrom CA, Ijsselmuiden OE. Dermatography: a method for permanent repigmentation of achromic burn scars. Burns 1995; 21:304–307.
- Traquina AC. Micropigmentation as an adjuvant in cosmetic surgery of the scalp. Dermatol Surg 2001; 27:123–128.
- Whitton ME, Pinart M, Batchelor J, Lushey C, Leonardi-Bee J, González U. Interventions for vitiligo. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010; 1:CD003263.
- Singh AK, Karki D. Micropigmentation: tattooing for the treatment of lip vitiligo. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2010; 63:988–991.
- Pitz S, Jahn R, Frisch L, Duis A, Pfeiffer N. Corneal tattooing: an alternative treatment for disfiguring corneal scars. Br J Ophthalmol 2002; 86:397–399.
- Kim C, Kim KH, Han YK, Wee WR, Lee JH, Kwon JW. Five-year results of corneal tattooing for cosmetic repair in disfigured eyes. Cornea 2011; 30:1135–1139.
- Spyropoulou GA, Fatah F. Decorative tattooing for scar camouflage: patient innovation. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2009; 62:e353–e355.
- De Cuyper C. Permanent makeup: indications and complications. Clin Dermatol 2008; 26:30–34.
- Wenzel SM, Welzel J, Hafner C, Landthaler M, Bäumler W. Permanent make-up colorants may cause severe skin reactions. Contact Dermatitis 2010; 63:223–227.
- Wexner SD, Cohen SM, Ulrich A, Reissman P. Laparoscopic colorectal surgery—are we being honest with our patients? Dis Colon Rectum 1995; 38:723–727.
- ASGE Technology Committee; Kethu SR, Banerjee S, Desilets D, et al. Endoscopic tattooing. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 72:681–685.
- Yeung JM, Maxwell-Armstrong C, Acheson AG. Colonic tattooing in laparoscopic surgery—making the mark? Colorectal Dis 2009; 11:527–530.
- Rockey DC, Paulson E, Niedzwiecki D, et al. Analysis of air contrast barium enema, computed tomographic colonography, and colonoscopy: prospective comparison. Lancet 2005; 365:305–311.
- Starkie A, Birch W, Ferllini R, Thompson TJ. Investigation into the merits of infrared imaging in the investigation of tattoos postmortem. J Forensic Sci 2011; 56:1569–1573.
- Mallon WK, Russell MA. Clinical and forensic significance of tattoos. Top Emerg Med 1999; 21:21–29.
- Lessig R, Grundmann C, Dahlmann F, Rçtzcher K, Edelmann J, Schneider PM. Review article: Tsunami 2004—a review of one year of continuous forensic medical work for victim identification. EXCLI 2006; 5:128–139.
- Sutherland C, Groombridge L. The Paddington rail crash: identification of the deceased following mass disaster. Sci Justice 2001; 41:179–184.
- Sperry K. Tattoos and tattooing. Part II: gross pathology, histopathology, medical complications, and applications. Am J Forensic Med Pathol 1992; 13:7–17.
- Jacob CI. Tattoo-associated dermatoses: a case report and review of the literature. Dermatol Surg 2002; 28:962–965.
- Kaur RR, Kirby W, Maibach H. Cutaneous allergic reactions to tattoo ink. J Cosmet Dermatol 2009; 8:295–300.
- Reddy KK, Hanke CW, Tierney EP. Malignancy arising within cutaneous tattoos: case of dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans and review of literature. J Drugs Dermatol 2011; 10:837–842.
- Price RR. The AAPM/RSNA physics tutorial for residents. MR imaging safety considerations. Radiological Society of North America. Radiographics 1999; 19:1641–1651.
- Franiel T, Schmidt S, Klingebiel R. First-degree burns on MRI due to nonferrous tattoos. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006; 187:W556.
- Chikkamuniyappa S, Sjuve-Scott R, Lancaster-Weiss K, Miller A, Yeh IT. Tattoo pigment in sentinel lymph nodes: a mimicker of metastatic malignant melanoma. Dermatol Online J 2005; 11:14.
- Morte PD, Magee LM. Hyperalgesia after volar wrist tattoo: a case of complex regional pain syndrome? J Clin Neuromuscul Dis 2011; 12:118–121.
- Kennedy BS, Bedard B, Younge M, et al. Outbreak of Mycobacterium chelonae infection associated with tattoo ink. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1205114?query=TOC#t=article. Accessed August 28, 2012.
People have been marking the skin with pigments for at least 4,000 years.1 Tattoos have been found on Egyptian mummies, and Roman gladiators are known to have used tattoos for identification.2 Tattooing was considered fashionable among royalty in the first half of the 20th century.3 And today it is perhaps more popular than ever.
But tattooing is not confined to popular culture and decoration. It has established uses in medicine, as well as other medically related uses that represent more recent trends. In this review, we explore the range of medical tattooing.
MEDICAL ALERT TATTOOING
Medical alert tattooing is a form of medical identification similar to medical alert jewelry, ie, bracelets and necklaces, to alert first-responders to a medical condition or to specific desires for care, such as do-not-resuscitate (DNR) directives.
Some people choose to have their medical condition tattooed rather than wear medical alert jewelry, which can break or be misplaced. 4–6
This practice is currently unregulated by the medical community, and the few reports of its use published to date include two people with diabetes who had the word “diabetic” tattooed on their bodies,4,5 and a woman with a tattoo warning of a past severe reaction to succinylcholine during anesthesia.6 She had been advised to wear medical alert jewelry, but she instead chose a tattoo.
Blood-type tattooing was briefly used in a few communities in the United States in the early 1950s as part of a program to provide a “walking blood bank.”7 However, the practice fell out of favor as physicians questioned the reliability of tattoos for medical information.7
This type of tattooing could also benefit patients with adrenal insufficiency, O-negative blood type, and allergies, and patients taking an anticoagulant drug (after discussing the risks of bleeding with their primary physician).
Emergency medical technicians are trained to search unresponsive patients for health-related items, including medical alert necklaces and bracelets. Since tattooing for disease identification purposes is not an officially recognized procedure, these personnel need to be aware that this practice is increasing among the general public. Identifying medical alert tattoos in emergency situations is much more difficult in people with extensive decorative tattooing.
Tattoos indicating health directives
Reports of people with tattoos indicating health directives (DNR, do-not-defibrillate) have prompted debate over the validity of tattoos as a type of advance directive.8–13 These types of tattoos pose practical and ethical problems: they may not reflect a person’s current wishes, and they may have even been applied as a joke.13 Furthermore, they are not recognized as meeting any of the legal requirements for advance directives, so they cannot be considered as valid health directives, but only as a way to guide treatment decisions.14
The same is true for the other ways of notifying first-responders to one’s treatment wishes, ie, wallet cards and medical alert bracelets and necklaces. One manufacturer of medical alert bracelets and necklaces offers to engrave that the wearer has a living will and to keep on file a copy of the document, which they can fax or read out loud to paramedics if they are contacted.11
Organ donor tattoo
In the case of a man who had his consent to be an organ donor tattooed on his chest,15 the tattoo was viewed as not equivalent to signed documentation; however, such tattoos can be used to help guide management.15
DIABETIC PATIENTS AND MEDICAL ALERT TATTOOS
Medical alert tattooing is increasingly common in people with diabetes. Discussions on social-networking sites on the Internet indicate that diabetic patients often do this on their own without consulting their physician.
In our clinic, we have encountered patients with tattoos on the wrist (Figure 1), similar to those seen on the Internet, typically displaying a six-pointed star of life, a caduceus (physician’s staff), and the word “diabetic.” Patients we have encountered in the past 3 to 4 years have cited the same rationale for resorting to medical tattooing—ie, the cost of repeatedly replacing broken and lost medical alert jewelry.
We believe there is a convincing rationale for diabetic patients to undergo medical tattooing, and we believe that diabetes organizations need to evaluate this and provide education to patients and clinicians about it, so that patients can discuss it with their care providers before taking action on their own.
Risks of tattooing in diabetic patients
Diabetic patients who ask their physician about getting a diabetes-alert tattoo should be informed about the dangers of tattooing in diabetes. The diabetes should be optimally controlled, as gauged by both hemoglobin A1c and mean blood glucose profile at the time of tattooing, in order to promote healing of the tattooed area and to prevent wound infection.
Also helpful is to advise diabetic patients to avoid tattooing of the feet or lower legs in view of the risk of diabetes-related neurovascular disease that may impair healing or incite infection.
RECONSTRUCTIVE AND COSMETIC TATTOOING
Areolar reconstruction
Breast reconstruction after mastectomy is fundamental to the psychosocial health of the patient and helps her regain a positive body image.16,17 Tattooing of the nipple-areola complex16 is usually the final step of the breast reconstruction process.
Complications of areolar tattooing are rare but can include local erythema and infection. 18 And patients should be informed that the tattoos will likely fade over time and require re-tattooing.18
Tattooing as camouflage
Tattooing is used to repigment the skin in conditions that cause hypopigmentation or hyperpigmentation, 2 including burns.19 It is also used as an alternative to laser treatment in port-wine stain and in cosmetic surgery of the scalp.20
Tattooing is used for micropigmentation of the lips and fingertips in patients who have vitiligo. However, this should be reserved for those with stable vitiligo, since tattooing may trigger another patch of vitiligo at tattoo sites.21
Although medical management exists for vitiligo, it is often ineffective for lip vitiligo since the success of medical therapy depends on the pigment-cell reservoir at the site of depigmentation. The lips lack such a reservoir of melanocytes, so tattooing may be an option.22
Corneal scarring
Perforating injury, measles keratitis, and other conditions can result in cosmetically disfiguring discoloration of the cornea. When microsurgical reconstruction is ineffective or is not an option, corneal tattooing has been reported to provide satisfactory results at up to 4 years.23 Reopacification, increased opacity, fading of the tattoo pigment, and epithelial growth have been reported, and in one series, most patients required reoperation.24
Tattooing to hide surgical scars
Spyropoulou and Fatah25 reported three patients in a plastic surgery practice who underwent decorative tattooing to camouflage cosmetically undesirable scars. The authors suggested this as a valid option, especially in younger patients, among whom tattooing is common and acceptable.25
‘Permanent makeup’
Tattooing is also used to simulate makeup (“permanent makeup”) and may be beneficial to people allergic to conventional makeup or people with disabilities that make applying makeup difficult.26 Complications of this procedure include bleeding, crusting, swelling, infection, allergic reactions, hypertrophic scars, keloid, loss of eyelashes, eyelid necrosis, and ectropion, as well as complications related to magnetic resonance imaging (described further below).
Most pigments used for this purpose do not have an established history of safe use, and patients may experience severe allergic reactions. A recent report described severe allergic reactions resistant to topical or systemic therapy with steroids in combination with topical tacrolimus (Prograf), especially after exposure to red dye 181.27 Researchers have recommended the regulation and control of colorants in permanent makeup.27
RADIATION ONCOLOGY
Tattooing is used in radiation oncology to ensure accurate targeting of radiation therapy. Typically, several small, black marks 1 to 2 mm in size are applied by a medical professional using an 18- or 19-gauge hypodermic needle and india ink.2 The marks are permanent.
Although these markings are clearly helpful during radiation treatment, they can be psychologically upsetting to patients, as they are a constant reminder of the disease and the treatment, both during the treatment course and long after it is finished.
An alternative is to use temporary marks for the 6 to 7 weeks that patients typically need them. However, temporary tattooing is prone to fading, and this is a key limitation.
ENDOSCOPIC TATTOOING
In laparoscopic gastrointestinal surgery, lesions are often difficult to visualize and localize since the surgeon is unable to palpate the bowel directly to identify the diseased segment; this increases the risk of resecting the wrong segment of bowel.28 Endoscopic tattooing of the segment to be resected greatly improves the accuracy of laparoscopic procedures. Endoscopic tattooing is also used to facilitate identification of subtle mucosal lesions or endoscopic resection sites at the time of subsequent endoscopy.29,30
India ink or a similar presterilized commercial preparation is commonly used.31 Complications are rare but include mild chronic inflammation, hyperplastic changes, inflammatory bowel disease, abdominal abscess, inflammatory pseudotumor, focal peritonitis, peritoneal staining, and, very rarely, seeding of tumor via the tattooing needle.30
FORENSIC MEDICINE
Specialists in forensic medicine use primary markers such as fingerprints and dental records and secondary markers such as birthmarks, scarring, and tattoos to identify victims.32 Tattoos are useful for identification when finger-prints or dental records are unavailable,33 as in the tsunami of December 2004 in Southeast Asia34 and the London Paddington train crash of October 1999.35 However, as the body decomposes, tattoos can discolor and fade, making them hard to identify. Application of 3% hydrogen peroxide to the tattoo site has been reported to aid in identification, and infrared imaging has shown promise.32
GENERAL RISKS AND COMPLICATIONS OF TATTOOING
Improper sterilization of tattooing needles and tattoo ink in public tattoo parlors can cause a wide range of diseases and skin reactions.36–44
Infection
Pyodermal infections can include temporary inflammation at the sites of needle punctures, superficial infections such as impetigo and ecthyma, and deeper infections such as cellulitis, erysipelas, and furunculosis.
Other transmissible infections include hepatitis, syphilis, leprosy, tuberculosis cutis, rubella, chancroid, tetanus, and molluscum contagiosum. An outbreak of infection with Mycobacterium chelonae from premixed tattoo ink has also been reported.44
Hepatitis C has been shown in epidemiologic studies to be transmissible via nonsterile needles. Human immunodeficiency virus is also theoretically transmissible this way, but this is difficult to confirm because the virus has a long incubation period.36
Cutaneous reactions
Skin reactions to tattooing include aseptic inflammation and acquired sensitivity to tattoo dyes, especially red dyes, but also to chromium in green dyes, cadmium in yellow dyes, and cobalt in blue dyes.38 The reaction can manifest as either allergic contact dermatitis or photoallergic dermatitis.
Cutaneous conditions that localize in tattooed areas include vaccinia, verruca vulgaris, herpes simplex, herpes zoster, psoriasis, lichen planus, keratosis follicularis (Darier disease), chronic discoid lupus erythematosus, and keratoacanthoma.
Other possible conditions include keloid, sarcoidal granuloma, erythema multiforme, localized scleroderma, and lymphadenopathy.36,37
Malignancy
Malignancies reported to arise within tattoos include squamous cell carcinoma, basal cell carcinoma, malignant melanoma, leiomyosarcoma, primary non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans.39 These malignancies may be considered coincidental, but carcinogenicity of the tattooing colorants is a concern to be addressed. Nevertheless, a malignancy within a tattoo is more difficult to identify on skin examination.
Burns during magnetic resonance imaging
The metallic ferric acid pigments used in tattoos can conduct heat on the skin during magnetic resonance imaging,40 resulting in traumatic burns. This has also been reported to occur with tattoos with nonferrous pigments. 41 Patients should be asked before this procedure if they have tattooing so that this complication can be avoided.
Two other complications
Two interesting complications of tattooing have been described. First, tattoo pigments have been noted within lymph nodes in patients with melanoma.42 This finding during surgery could cause the surgeon to mistake tattoo pigment for disease and to complete a regional lymph node dissection if biopsy of the sentinel node is not performed.
The other involved disseminated hyperalgesia after volar wrist tattooing. The authors speculated that the pain associated with volar tattooing may have been related to the proximity of the tattoo to the palmar cutaneous branch of the median nerve.43
Acknowledgment: The authors would like to acknowledge the patients in Figure 1 for their permission to use their photos and Nicolas Kluger, MD, Departments of Dermatology, Allergology, and Venereology, University of Helsinki, Finland, for his input into an early draft of this manuscript.
People have been marking the skin with pigments for at least 4,000 years.1 Tattoos have been found on Egyptian mummies, and Roman gladiators are known to have used tattoos for identification.2 Tattooing was considered fashionable among royalty in the first half of the 20th century.3 And today it is perhaps more popular than ever.
But tattooing is not confined to popular culture and decoration. It has established uses in medicine, as well as other medically related uses that represent more recent trends. In this review, we explore the range of medical tattooing.
MEDICAL ALERT TATTOOING
Medical alert tattooing is a form of medical identification similar to medical alert jewelry, ie, bracelets and necklaces, to alert first-responders to a medical condition or to specific desires for care, such as do-not-resuscitate (DNR) directives.
Some people choose to have their medical condition tattooed rather than wear medical alert jewelry, which can break or be misplaced. 4–6
This practice is currently unregulated by the medical community, and the few reports of its use published to date include two people with diabetes who had the word “diabetic” tattooed on their bodies,4,5 and a woman with a tattoo warning of a past severe reaction to succinylcholine during anesthesia.6 She had been advised to wear medical alert jewelry, but she instead chose a tattoo.
Blood-type tattooing was briefly used in a few communities in the United States in the early 1950s as part of a program to provide a “walking blood bank.”7 However, the practice fell out of favor as physicians questioned the reliability of tattoos for medical information.7
This type of tattooing could also benefit patients with adrenal insufficiency, O-negative blood type, and allergies, and patients taking an anticoagulant drug (after discussing the risks of bleeding with their primary physician).
Emergency medical technicians are trained to search unresponsive patients for health-related items, including medical alert necklaces and bracelets. Since tattooing for disease identification purposes is not an officially recognized procedure, these personnel need to be aware that this practice is increasing among the general public. Identifying medical alert tattoos in emergency situations is much more difficult in people with extensive decorative tattooing.
Tattoos indicating health directives
Reports of people with tattoos indicating health directives (DNR, do-not-defibrillate) have prompted debate over the validity of tattoos as a type of advance directive.8–13 These types of tattoos pose practical and ethical problems: they may not reflect a person’s current wishes, and they may have even been applied as a joke.13 Furthermore, they are not recognized as meeting any of the legal requirements for advance directives, so they cannot be considered as valid health directives, but only as a way to guide treatment decisions.14
The same is true for the other ways of notifying first-responders to one’s treatment wishes, ie, wallet cards and medical alert bracelets and necklaces. One manufacturer of medical alert bracelets and necklaces offers to engrave that the wearer has a living will and to keep on file a copy of the document, which they can fax or read out loud to paramedics if they are contacted.11
Organ donor tattoo
In the case of a man who had his consent to be an organ donor tattooed on his chest,15 the tattoo was viewed as not equivalent to signed documentation; however, such tattoos can be used to help guide management.15
DIABETIC PATIENTS AND MEDICAL ALERT TATTOOS
Medical alert tattooing is increasingly common in people with diabetes. Discussions on social-networking sites on the Internet indicate that diabetic patients often do this on their own without consulting their physician.
In our clinic, we have encountered patients with tattoos on the wrist (Figure 1), similar to those seen on the Internet, typically displaying a six-pointed star of life, a caduceus (physician’s staff), and the word “diabetic.” Patients we have encountered in the past 3 to 4 years have cited the same rationale for resorting to medical tattooing—ie, the cost of repeatedly replacing broken and lost medical alert jewelry.
We believe there is a convincing rationale for diabetic patients to undergo medical tattooing, and we believe that diabetes organizations need to evaluate this and provide education to patients and clinicians about it, so that patients can discuss it with their care providers before taking action on their own.
Risks of tattooing in diabetic patients
Diabetic patients who ask their physician about getting a diabetes-alert tattoo should be informed about the dangers of tattooing in diabetes. The diabetes should be optimally controlled, as gauged by both hemoglobin A1c and mean blood glucose profile at the time of tattooing, in order to promote healing of the tattooed area and to prevent wound infection.
Also helpful is to advise diabetic patients to avoid tattooing of the feet or lower legs in view of the risk of diabetes-related neurovascular disease that may impair healing or incite infection.
RECONSTRUCTIVE AND COSMETIC TATTOOING
Areolar reconstruction
Breast reconstruction after mastectomy is fundamental to the psychosocial health of the patient and helps her regain a positive body image.16,17 Tattooing of the nipple-areola complex16 is usually the final step of the breast reconstruction process.
Complications of areolar tattooing are rare but can include local erythema and infection. 18 And patients should be informed that the tattoos will likely fade over time and require re-tattooing.18
Tattooing as camouflage
Tattooing is used to repigment the skin in conditions that cause hypopigmentation or hyperpigmentation, 2 including burns.19 It is also used as an alternative to laser treatment in port-wine stain and in cosmetic surgery of the scalp.20
Tattooing is used for micropigmentation of the lips and fingertips in patients who have vitiligo. However, this should be reserved for those with stable vitiligo, since tattooing may trigger another patch of vitiligo at tattoo sites.21
Although medical management exists for vitiligo, it is often ineffective for lip vitiligo since the success of medical therapy depends on the pigment-cell reservoir at the site of depigmentation. The lips lack such a reservoir of melanocytes, so tattooing may be an option.22
Corneal scarring
Perforating injury, measles keratitis, and other conditions can result in cosmetically disfiguring discoloration of the cornea. When microsurgical reconstruction is ineffective or is not an option, corneal tattooing has been reported to provide satisfactory results at up to 4 years.23 Reopacification, increased opacity, fading of the tattoo pigment, and epithelial growth have been reported, and in one series, most patients required reoperation.24
Tattooing to hide surgical scars
Spyropoulou and Fatah25 reported three patients in a plastic surgery practice who underwent decorative tattooing to camouflage cosmetically undesirable scars. The authors suggested this as a valid option, especially in younger patients, among whom tattooing is common and acceptable.25
‘Permanent makeup’
Tattooing is also used to simulate makeup (“permanent makeup”) and may be beneficial to people allergic to conventional makeup or people with disabilities that make applying makeup difficult.26 Complications of this procedure include bleeding, crusting, swelling, infection, allergic reactions, hypertrophic scars, keloid, loss of eyelashes, eyelid necrosis, and ectropion, as well as complications related to magnetic resonance imaging (described further below).
Most pigments used for this purpose do not have an established history of safe use, and patients may experience severe allergic reactions. A recent report described severe allergic reactions resistant to topical or systemic therapy with steroids in combination with topical tacrolimus (Prograf), especially after exposure to red dye 181.27 Researchers have recommended the regulation and control of colorants in permanent makeup.27
RADIATION ONCOLOGY
Tattooing is used in radiation oncology to ensure accurate targeting of radiation therapy. Typically, several small, black marks 1 to 2 mm in size are applied by a medical professional using an 18- or 19-gauge hypodermic needle and india ink.2 The marks are permanent.
Although these markings are clearly helpful during radiation treatment, they can be psychologically upsetting to patients, as they are a constant reminder of the disease and the treatment, both during the treatment course and long after it is finished.
An alternative is to use temporary marks for the 6 to 7 weeks that patients typically need them. However, temporary tattooing is prone to fading, and this is a key limitation.
ENDOSCOPIC TATTOOING
In laparoscopic gastrointestinal surgery, lesions are often difficult to visualize and localize since the surgeon is unable to palpate the bowel directly to identify the diseased segment; this increases the risk of resecting the wrong segment of bowel.28 Endoscopic tattooing of the segment to be resected greatly improves the accuracy of laparoscopic procedures. Endoscopic tattooing is also used to facilitate identification of subtle mucosal lesions or endoscopic resection sites at the time of subsequent endoscopy.29,30
India ink or a similar presterilized commercial preparation is commonly used.31 Complications are rare but include mild chronic inflammation, hyperplastic changes, inflammatory bowel disease, abdominal abscess, inflammatory pseudotumor, focal peritonitis, peritoneal staining, and, very rarely, seeding of tumor via the tattooing needle.30
FORENSIC MEDICINE
Specialists in forensic medicine use primary markers such as fingerprints and dental records and secondary markers such as birthmarks, scarring, and tattoos to identify victims.32 Tattoos are useful for identification when finger-prints or dental records are unavailable,33 as in the tsunami of December 2004 in Southeast Asia34 and the London Paddington train crash of October 1999.35 However, as the body decomposes, tattoos can discolor and fade, making them hard to identify. Application of 3% hydrogen peroxide to the tattoo site has been reported to aid in identification, and infrared imaging has shown promise.32
GENERAL RISKS AND COMPLICATIONS OF TATTOOING
Improper sterilization of tattooing needles and tattoo ink in public tattoo parlors can cause a wide range of diseases and skin reactions.36–44
Infection
Pyodermal infections can include temporary inflammation at the sites of needle punctures, superficial infections such as impetigo and ecthyma, and deeper infections such as cellulitis, erysipelas, and furunculosis.
Other transmissible infections include hepatitis, syphilis, leprosy, tuberculosis cutis, rubella, chancroid, tetanus, and molluscum contagiosum. An outbreak of infection with Mycobacterium chelonae from premixed tattoo ink has also been reported.44
Hepatitis C has been shown in epidemiologic studies to be transmissible via nonsterile needles. Human immunodeficiency virus is also theoretically transmissible this way, but this is difficult to confirm because the virus has a long incubation period.36
Cutaneous reactions
Skin reactions to tattooing include aseptic inflammation and acquired sensitivity to tattoo dyes, especially red dyes, but also to chromium in green dyes, cadmium in yellow dyes, and cobalt in blue dyes.38 The reaction can manifest as either allergic contact dermatitis or photoallergic dermatitis.
Cutaneous conditions that localize in tattooed areas include vaccinia, verruca vulgaris, herpes simplex, herpes zoster, psoriasis, lichen planus, keratosis follicularis (Darier disease), chronic discoid lupus erythematosus, and keratoacanthoma.
Other possible conditions include keloid, sarcoidal granuloma, erythema multiforme, localized scleroderma, and lymphadenopathy.36,37
Malignancy
Malignancies reported to arise within tattoos include squamous cell carcinoma, basal cell carcinoma, malignant melanoma, leiomyosarcoma, primary non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans.39 These malignancies may be considered coincidental, but carcinogenicity of the tattooing colorants is a concern to be addressed. Nevertheless, a malignancy within a tattoo is more difficult to identify on skin examination.
Burns during magnetic resonance imaging
The metallic ferric acid pigments used in tattoos can conduct heat on the skin during magnetic resonance imaging,40 resulting in traumatic burns. This has also been reported to occur with tattoos with nonferrous pigments. 41 Patients should be asked before this procedure if they have tattooing so that this complication can be avoided.
Two other complications
Two interesting complications of tattooing have been described. First, tattoo pigments have been noted within lymph nodes in patients with melanoma.42 This finding during surgery could cause the surgeon to mistake tattoo pigment for disease and to complete a regional lymph node dissection if biopsy of the sentinel node is not performed.
The other involved disseminated hyperalgesia after volar wrist tattooing. The authors speculated that the pain associated with volar tattooing may have been related to the proximity of the tattoo to the palmar cutaneous branch of the median nerve.43
Acknowledgment: The authors would like to acknowledge the patients in Figure 1 for their permission to use their photos and Nicolas Kluger, MD, Departments of Dermatology, Allergology, and Venereology, University of Helsinki, Finland, for his input into an early draft of this manuscript.
- Grumet GW. Psychodynamic implications of tattoos. Am J Orthopsychiatry 1983; 53:482–492.
- Vassileva S, Hristakieva E. Medical applications of tattooing. Clin Dermatol 2007; 25:367–374.
- van der Velden EM, de Jong BD, van der Walle HB, Stolz E, Naafs B. Tattooing and its medical aspects. Int J Dermatol 1993; 32:381–384.
- Nag S, McCulloch A. An informative tattoo. Postgrad Med J 2003; 79:402.
- Aldasouqi S. A medical alert tattoo. Am Fam Physician 2011; 83:796.
- Barclay P, King H. Tattoo medi-alert. Anaesthesia 2002; 57:625.
- Wolf EK, Laumann AE. The use of blood-type tattoos during the Cold War. J Am Acad Dermatol 2008; 58:472–476.
- Lawn A, Bassi D. An unusual resuscitation request. Resuscitation 2008; 78:5–6.
- Gupta D. Tattoo flash: consider “do not resuscitate.” J Palliat Med 2010; 13:1155–1156.
- Sullivan W. The “emergency” DNR order. ED Legal Letter 2005; 16:133–144.
- Polack C. Is a tattoo the answer? BMJ 2001; 323:1063.
- Sokol DK, McFadzean WA, Dickson WA, Whitaker IS. Ethical dilemmas in the acute setting: a framework for clinicians. BMJ 2011; 343:d5528.
- Cooper L, Aronowitz P. DNR tattoos: a cautionary tale. J Gen Intern Med 2012; E-pub ahead of print.
- Iserson KV. The ‘no code’ tattoo—an ethical dilemma. West J Med 1992; 156:309–312.
- Kämäräinen A, Länkimäki S. A tattooed consent for organ donation. Resuscitation 2009; 80:284–285.
- Chen SG, Chiu TF, Su WF, Chou TD, Chen TM, Wang HJ. Nipple-areola complex reconstruction using badge flap and intradermal tattooing. Br J Surg 2005; 92:435–437.
- Hoffman S, Mikell A. Nipple-areola tattooing as part of breast reconstruction. Plast Surg Nurs 2004; 24:155–157.
- Goh SC, Martin NA, Pandya AN, Cutress RI. Patient satisfaction following nipple-areolar complex reconstruction and tattooing. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2011; 64:360–363.
- van der Velden EM, Baruchin AM, Jairath D, Oostrom CA, Ijsselmuiden OE. Dermatography: a method for permanent repigmentation of achromic burn scars. Burns 1995; 21:304–307.
- Traquina AC. Micropigmentation as an adjuvant in cosmetic surgery of the scalp. Dermatol Surg 2001; 27:123–128.
- Whitton ME, Pinart M, Batchelor J, Lushey C, Leonardi-Bee J, González U. Interventions for vitiligo. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010; 1:CD003263.
- Singh AK, Karki D. Micropigmentation: tattooing for the treatment of lip vitiligo. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2010; 63:988–991.
- Pitz S, Jahn R, Frisch L, Duis A, Pfeiffer N. Corneal tattooing: an alternative treatment for disfiguring corneal scars. Br J Ophthalmol 2002; 86:397–399.
- Kim C, Kim KH, Han YK, Wee WR, Lee JH, Kwon JW. Five-year results of corneal tattooing for cosmetic repair in disfigured eyes. Cornea 2011; 30:1135–1139.
- Spyropoulou GA, Fatah F. Decorative tattooing for scar camouflage: patient innovation. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2009; 62:e353–e355.
- De Cuyper C. Permanent makeup: indications and complications. Clin Dermatol 2008; 26:30–34.
- Wenzel SM, Welzel J, Hafner C, Landthaler M, Bäumler W. Permanent make-up colorants may cause severe skin reactions. Contact Dermatitis 2010; 63:223–227.
- Wexner SD, Cohen SM, Ulrich A, Reissman P. Laparoscopic colorectal surgery—are we being honest with our patients? Dis Colon Rectum 1995; 38:723–727.
- ASGE Technology Committee; Kethu SR, Banerjee S, Desilets D, et al. Endoscopic tattooing. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 72:681–685.
- Yeung JM, Maxwell-Armstrong C, Acheson AG. Colonic tattooing in laparoscopic surgery—making the mark? Colorectal Dis 2009; 11:527–530.
- Rockey DC, Paulson E, Niedzwiecki D, et al. Analysis of air contrast barium enema, computed tomographic colonography, and colonoscopy: prospective comparison. Lancet 2005; 365:305–311.
- Starkie A, Birch W, Ferllini R, Thompson TJ. Investigation into the merits of infrared imaging in the investigation of tattoos postmortem. J Forensic Sci 2011; 56:1569–1573.
- Mallon WK, Russell MA. Clinical and forensic significance of tattoos. Top Emerg Med 1999; 21:21–29.
- Lessig R, Grundmann C, Dahlmann F, Rçtzcher K, Edelmann J, Schneider PM. Review article: Tsunami 2004—a review of one year of continuous forensic medical work for victim identification. EXCLI 2006; 5:128–139.
- Sutherland C, Groombridge L. The Paddington rail crash: identification of the deceased following mass disaster. Sci Justice 2001; 41:179–184.
- Sperry K. Tattoos and tattooing. Part II: gross pathology, histopathology, medical complications, and applications. Am J Forensic Med Pathol 1992; 13:7–17.
- Jacob CI. Tattoo-associated dermatoses: a case report and review of the literature. Dermatol Surg 2002; 28:962–965.
- Kaur RR, Kirby W, Maibach H. Cutaneous allergic reactions to tattoo ink. J Cosmet Dermatol 2009; 8:295–300.
- Reddy KK, Hanke CW, Tierney EP. Malignancy arising within cutaneous tattoos: case of dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans and review of literature. J Drugs Dermatol 2011; 10:837–842.
- Price RR. The AAPM/RSNA physics tutorial for residents. MR imaging safety considerations. Radiological Society of North America. Radiographics 1999; 19:1641–1651.
- Franiel T, Schmidt S, Klingebiel R. First-degree burns on MRI due to nonferrous tattoos. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006; 187:W556.
- Chikkamuniyappa S, Sjuve-Scott R, Lancaster-Weiss K, Miller A, Yeh IT. Tattoo pigment in sentinel lymph nodes: a mimicker of metastatic malignant melanoma. Dermatol Online J 2005; 11:14.
- Morte PD, Magee LM. Hyperalgesia after volar wrist tattoo: a case of complex regional pain syndrome? J Clin Neuromuscul Dis 2011; 12:118–121.
- Kennedy BS, Bedard B, Younge M, et al. Outbreak of Mycobacterium chelonae infection associated with tattoo ink. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1205114?query=TOC#t=article. Accessed August 28, 2012.
- Grumet GW. Psychodynamic implications of tattoos. Am J Orthopsychiatry 1983; 53:482–492.
- Vassileva S, Hristakieva E. Medical applications of tattooing. Clin Dermatol 2007; 25:367–374.
- van der Velden EM, de Jong BD, van der Walle HB, Stolz E, Naafs B. Tattooing and its medical aspects. Int J Dermatol 1993; 32:381–384.
- Nag S, McCulloch A. An informative tattoo. Postgrad Med J 2003; 79:402.
- Aldasouqi S. A medical alert tattoo. Am Fam Physician 2011; 83:796.
- Barclay P, King H. Tattoo medi-alert. Anaesthesia 2002; 57:625.
- Wolf EK, Laumann AE. The use of blood-type tattoos during the Cold War. J Am Acad Dermatol 2008; 58:472–476.
- Lawn A, Bassi D. An unusual resuscitation request. Resuscitation 2008; 78:5–6.
- Gupta D. Tattoo flash: consider “do not resuscitate.” J Palliat Med 2010; 13:1155–1156.
- Sullivan W. The “emergency” DNR order. ED Legal Letter 2005; 16:133–144.
- Polack C. Is a tattoo the answer? BMJ 2001; 323:1063.
- Sokol DK, McFadzean WA, Dickson WA, Whitaker IS. Ethical dilemmas in the acute setting: a framework for clinicians. BMJ 2011; 343:d5528.
- Cooper L, Aronowitz P. DNR tattoos: a cautionary tale. J Gen Intern Med 2012; E-pub ahead of print.
- Iserson KV. The ‘no code’ tattoo—an ethical dilemma. West J Med 1992; 156:309–312.
- Kämäräinen A, Länkimäki S. A tattooed consent for organ donation. Resuscitation 2009; 80:284–285.
- Chen SG, Chiu TF, Su WF, Chou TD, Chen TM, Wang HJ. Nipple-areola complex reconstruction using badge flap and intradermal tattooing. Br J Surg 2005; 92:435–437.
- Hoffman S, Mikell A. Nipple-areola tattooing as part of breast reconstruction. Plast Surg Nurs 2004; 24:155–157.
- Goh SC, Martin NA, Pandya AN, Cutress RI. Patient satisfaction following nipple-areolar complex reconstruction and tattooing. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2011; 64:360–363.
- van der Velden EM, Baruchin AM, Jairath D, Oostrom CA, Ijsselmuiden OE. Dermatography: a method for permanent repigmentation of achromic burn scars. Burns 1995; 21:304–307.
- Traquina AC. Micropigmentation as an adjuvant in cosmetic surgery of the scalp. Dermatol Surg 2001; 27:123–128.
- Whitton ME, Pinart M, Batchelor J, Lushey C, Leonardi-Bee J, González U. Interventions for vitiligo. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010; 1:CD003263.
- Singh AK, Karki D. Micropigmentation: tattooing for the treatment of lip vitiligo. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2010; 63:988–991.
- Pitz S, Jahn R, Frisch L, Duis A, Pfeiffer N. Corneal tattooing: an alternative treatment for disfiguring corneal scars. Br J Ophthalmol 2002; 86:397–399.
- Kim C, Kim KH, Han YK, Wee WR, Lee JH, Kwon JW. Five-year results of corneal tattooing for cosmetic repair in disfigured eyes. Cornea 2011; 30:1135–1139.
- Spyropoulou GA, Fatah F. Decorative tattooing for scar camouflage: patient innovation. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2009; 62:e353–e355.
- De Cuyper C. Permanent makeup: indications and complications. Clin Dermatol 2008; 26:30–34.
- Wenzel SM, Welzel J, Hafner C, Landthaler M, Bäumler W. Permanent make-up colorants may cause severe skin reactions. Contact Dermatitis 2010; 63:223–227.
- Wexner SD, Cohen SM, Ulrich A, Reissman P. Laparoscopic colorectal surgery—are we being honest with our patients? Dis Colon Rectum 1995; 38:723–727.
- ASGE Technology Committee; Kethu SR, Banerjee S, Desilets D, et al. Endoscopic tattooing. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 72:681–685.
- Yeung JM, Maxwell-Armstrong C, Acheson AG. Colonic tattooing in laparoscopic surgery—making the mark? Colorectal Dis 2009; 11:527–530.
- Rockey DC, Paulson E, Niedzwiecki D, et al. Analysis of air contrast barium enema, computed tomographic colonography, and colonoscopy: prospective comparison. Lancet 2005; 365:305–311.
- Starkie A, Birch W, Ferllini R, Thompson TJ. Investigation into the merits of infrared imaging in the investigation of tattoos postmortem. J Forensic Sci 2011; 56:1569–1573.
- Mallon WK, Russell MA. Clinical and forensic significance of tattoos. Top Emerg Med 1999; 21:21–29.
- Lessig R, Grundmann C, Dahlmann F, Rçtzcher K, Edelmann J, Schneider PM. Review article: Tsunami 2004—a review of one year of continuous forensic medical work for victim identification. EXCLI 2006; 5:128–139.
- Sutherland C, Groombridge L. The Paddington rail crash: identification of the deceased following mass disaster. Sci Justice 2001; 41:179–184.
- Sperry K. Tattoos and tattooing. Part II: gross pathology, histopathology, medical complications, and applications. Am J Forensic Med Pathol 1992; 13:7–17.
- Jacob CI. Tattoo-associated dermatoses: a case report and review of the literature. Dermatol Surg 2002; 28:962–965.
- Kaur RR, Kirby W, Maibach H. Cutaneous allergic reactions to tattoo ink. J Cosmet Dermatol 2009; 8:295–300.
- Reddy KK, Hanke CW, Tierney EP. Malignancy arising within cutaneous tattoos: case of dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans and review of literature. J Drugs Dermatol 2011; 10:837–842.
- Price RR. The AAPM/RSNA physics tutorial for residents. MR imaging safety considerations. Radiological Society of North America. Radiographics 1999; 19:1641–1651.
- Franiel T, Schmidt S, Klingebiel R. First-degree burns on MRI due to nonferrous tattoos. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006; 187:W556.
- Chikkamuniyappa S, Sjuve-Scott R, Lancaster-Weiss K, Miller A, Yeh IT. Tattoo pigment in sentinel lymph nodes: a mimicker of metastatic malignant melanoma. Dermatol Online J 2005; 11:14.
- Morte PD, Magee LM. Hyperalgesia after volar wrist tattoo: a case of complex regional pain syndrome? J Clin Neuromuscul Dis 2011; 12:118–121.
- Kennedy BS, Bedard B, Younge M, et al. Outbreak of Mycobacterium chelonae infection associated with tattoo ink. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1205114?query=TOC#t=article. Accessed August 28, 2012.
KEY POINTS
- Tattoos that state an advance directive for health care are not recognized as meeting the legal requirements for advance directives. They should only be considered as a guide to treatment decisions.
- Tattooing for medical-alert purposes is part of current culture. People with diabetes should avoid tattooing of feet or lower legs in view of impaired healing.
- Endoscopic tattooing is commonly used to aid visualization of diseased bowel segments during laparoscopic surgical procedures. Complications are rare but include mild chronic inflammation, abscesses, inflammatory pseudotumors, focal peritonitis, and peritoneal staining.
- Improper sterilization of tattooing needles can cause a wide range of infectious diseases and skin reactions.
A rash after streptococcal infection
A previously healthy 39-year-old woman presented to the emergency department with 7 days of a gradually worsening rash. One week before the onset of the rash, her primary care physician had diagnosed streptococcal pharyngitis, for which she was treated with oral amoxicillin. She had no history of skin or joint problems and was not currently taking any medications.
She was afebrile and her vital signs were normal. She had mild pharyngeal erythema but no palpable cervical lymph nodes. The skin examination showed well demarcated, erythmatous papules 1 cm in diameter, with overlying scales over the entire body, sparing the palms and the soles of the feet (Figure 1).
Q: Which is the most likely diagnosis?
- Impetigo
- Drug reaction
- Guttate psoriasis
- Nummular eczema
- Pityriasis rosea
A: The most likely diagnosis is guttate psoriasis.
Guttate psoriasis is a relatively uncommon condition that affects less than 2% of patients with psoriasis, primarily children and young adults. It is strongly associated with recent or concomitant beta-hemolytic streptococcal infection.1 The rash usually develops 1 to 2 weeks after the streptococcal pharyngitis or upper respiratory tract infection. Other organisms involved in guttate psoriasis are Staphylococcus aureus, Candida, and viruses such as human papillomavirus, human immunodeficiency virus, and human endogenous retrovirus. 2 Several commonly used drugs are also implicated in psoriasiform eruptions, including beta-blockers, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, lithium, metformin, and digoxin.
Acute onset of skin lesions caused by streptococcal infection can be either the first manifestation in a previously unaffected person or an acute exacerbation of long-standing psoriasis. Skin lesions are usually scaly, erythematous, and guttate (drop-shaped); they primarily involve the trunk but can spread to the rest of the body, sparing the palms and soles.
Throat culture should be done to confirm streptococcal infection. Titers of antistreptolysin O are elevated in more than half of patients with guttate psoriasis. Histopathologic examination can differentiate guttate psoriasis from other psoriasiform conditions, such as pityriasis rosea, secondary syphilis, and lichen simplex chronicus; however, the clinical appearance of the rash is so characteristic that biopsy is not usually needed to confirm the diagnosis.
Guttate psoriasis responds well to phototherapy with ultraviolet B radiation and medium-potency topical corticosteroids.3 And since streptococcal throat infection triggers the condition, it must also be treated for complete recovery.
CASE CONTINUED
Our patient was treated with topical steroid creams. Her rash improved slowly and had completely resolved in 6 weeks.
- England RJ, Strachan DR, Knight LC. Streptococcal tonsillitis and its association with psoriasis: a review. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 1997; 22:532–535.
- Fry L, Baker BS. Triggering psoriasis: the role of infections and medications. Clin Dermatol 2007; 25:606–615.
- Thappa DM, Laxmisha C. Suit PUVA as an effective and safe modality of treatment in guttate psoriasis. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2006; 20:1146–1147.
A previously healthy 39-year-old woman presented to the emergency department with 7 days of a gradually worsening rash. One week before the onset of the rash, her primary care physician had diagnosed streptococcal pharyngitis, for which she was treated with oral amoxicillin. She had no history of skin or joint problems and was not currently taking any medications.
She was afebrile and her vital signs were normal. She had mild pharyngeal erythema but no palpable cervical lymph nodes. The skin examination showed well demarcated, erythmatous papules 1 cm in diameter, with overlying scales over the entire body, sparing the palms and the soles of the feet (Figure 1).
Q: Which is the most likely diagnosis?
- Impetigo
- Drug reaction
- Guttate psoriasis
- Nummular eczema
- Pityriasis rosea
A: The most likely diagnosis is guttate psoriasis.
Guttate psoriasis is a relatively uncommon condition that affects less than 2% of patients with psoriasis, primarily children and young adults. It is strongly associated with recent or concomitant beta-hemolytic streptococcal infection.1 The rash usually develops 1 to 2 weeks after the streptococcal pharyngitis or upper respiratory tract infection. Other organisms involved in guttate psoriasis are Staphylococcus aureus, Candida, and viruses such as human papillomavirus, human immunodeficiency virus, and human endogenous retrovirus. 2 Several commonly used drugs are also implicated in psoriasiform eruptions, including beta-blockers, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, lithium, metformin, and digoxin.
Acute onset of skin lesions caused by streptococcal infection can be either the first manifestation in a previously unaffected person or an acute exacerbation of long-standing psoriasis. Skin lesions are usually scaly, erythematous, and guttate (drop-shaped); they primarily involve the trunk but can spread to the rest of the body, sparing the palms and soles.
Throat culture should be done to confirm streptococcal infection. Titers of antistreptolysin O are elevated in more than half of patients with guttate psoriasis. Histopathologic examination can differentiate guttate psoriasis from other psoriasiform conditions, such as pityriasis rosea, secondary syphilis, and lichen simplex chronicus; however, the clinical appearance of the rash is so characteristic that biopsy is not usually needed to confirm the diagnosis.
Guttate psoriasis responds well to phototherapy with ultraviolet B radiation and medium-potency topical corticosteroids.3 And since streptococcal throat infection triggers the condition, it must also be treated for complete recovery.
CASE CONTINUED
Our patient was treated with topical steroid creams. Her rash improved slowly and had completely resolved in 6 weeks.
A previously healthy 39-year-old woman presented to the emergency department with 7 days of a gradually worsening rash. One week before the onset of the rash, her primary care physician had diagnosed streptococcal pharyngitis, for which she was treated with oral amoxicillin. She had no history of skin or joint problems and was not currently taking any medications.
She was afebrile and her vital signs were normal. She had mild pharyngeal erythema but no palpable cervical lymph nodes. The skin examination showed well demarcated, erythmatous papules 1 cm in diameter, with overlying scales over the entire body, sparing the palms and the soles of the feet (Figure 1).
Q: Which is the most likely diagnosis?
- Impetigo
- Drug reaction
- Guttate psoriasis
- Nummular eczema
- Pityriasis rosea
A: The most likely diagnosis is guttate psoriasis.
Guttate psoriasis is a relatively uncommon condition that affects less than 2% of patients with psoriasis, primarily children and young adults. It is strongly associated with recent or concomitant beta-hemolytic streptococcal infection.1 The rash usually develops 1 to 2 weeks after the streptococcal pharyngitis or upper respiratory tract infection. Other organisms involved in guttate psoriasis are Staphylococcus aureus, Candida, and viruses such as human papillomavirus, human immunodeficiency virus, and human endogenous retrovirus. 2 Several commonly used drugs are also implicated in psoriasiform eruptions, including beta-blockers, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, lithium, metformin, and digoxin.
Acute onset of skin lesions caused by streptococcal infection can be either the first manifestation in a previously unaffected person or an acute exacerbation of long-standing psoriasis. Skin lesions are usually scaly, erythematous, and guttate (drop-shaped); they primarily involve the trunk but can spread to the rest of the body, sparing the palms and soles.
Throat culture should be done to confirm streptococcal infection. Titers of antistreptolysin O are elevated in more than half of patients with guttate psoriasis. Histopathologic examination can differentiate guttate psoriasis from other psoriasiform conditions, such as pityriasis rosea, secondary syphilis, and lichen simplex chronicus; however, the clinical appearance of the rash is so characteristic that biopsy is not usually needed to confirm the diagnosis.
Guttate psoriasis responds well to phototherapy with ultraviolet B radiation and medium-potency topical corticosteroids.3 And since streptococcal throat infection triggers the condition, it must also be treated for complete recovery.
CASE CONTINUED
Our patient was treated with topical steroid creams. Her rash improved slowly and had completely resolved in 6 weeks.
- England RJ, Strachan DR, Knight LC. Streptococcal tonsillitis and its association with psoriasis: a review. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 1997; 22:532–535.
- Fry L, Baker BS. Triggering psoriasis: the role of infections and medications. Clin Dermatol 2007; 25:606–615.
- Thappa DM, Laxmisha C. Suit PUVA as an effective and safe modality of treatment in guttate psoriasis. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2006; 20:1146–1147.
- England RJ, Strachan DR, Knight LC. Streptococcal tonsillitis and its association with psoriasis: a review. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 1997; 22:532–535.
- Fry L, Baker BS. Triggering psoriasis: the role of infections and medications. Clin Dermatol 2007; 25:606–615.
- Thappa DM, Laxmisha C. Suit PUVA as an effective and safe modality of treatment in guttate psoriasis. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2006; 20:1146–1147.
Should N-acetylcysteine be used routinely to prevent contrast-induced acute kidney injury?
No. Using N-acetylcysteine (NAC) routinely to prevent contrast-induced acute kidney injury is not supported by the evidence at this time.1,2 However, there is evidence to suggest using it for patients at high risk, ie, those with significant baseline renal dysfunction.3,4
INCIDENCE AND IMPACT OF ACUTE KIDNEY INJURY
Intraarterial use of contrast is associated with a higher risk of acute kidney injury than intravenous use. Most studies of NAC for the prevention of contrast-induced acute kidney injury have focused on patients receiving contrast intraarterially. The reported rates of contrast-induced acute kidney injury also vary depending on how acute kidney injury was defined.
Although the incidence is low (1% to 2%) in patients with normal renal function, it can be as high as 25% in patients with renal impairment or a chronic condition such as diabetes or congestive heart failure, or in elderly patients.5
The development of acute kidney injury after percutaneous coronary intervention is associated with a longer hospital stay, a higher cost of care, and higher rates of morbidity and death.6
RATIONALE FOR USING N-ACETYLCYSTEINE
Contrast-induced acute kidney injury is thought to involve vasoconstriction and medullary ischemia mediated by reactive oxygen species.5 As an antioxidant and a scavenger of free radicals, NAC showed early promise in reducing the risk of this complication, but subsequent trials raised doubts about its efficacy. 1,2 In clinical practice, the drug is often used to prevent acute kidney injury because it is easy to give, cheap, and has few side effects. Recently, however, there have been suggestions that giving it intravenously may be associated with adverse effects that include anaphylactoid reactions.7
THE POSITIVE TRIALS
Tepel et al3 performed one of the earliest trials that found that NAC prevented contrast-induced acute kidney injury. The trial included 83 patients with stable chronic kidney disease (mean serum creatinine 2.4 mg/dL) who underwent computed tomography with about 75 mL of a nonionic, low-osmolality contrast agent. Participants were randomized to receive either NAC (600 mg orally twice daily) and 0.45% saline intravenously or placebo and saline. Acute kidney injury was defined as an increase of at least 0.5 mg/dL in the serum creatinine level 48 hours after the contrast dye was given.
The rate of acute kidney injury was significantly lower in the treatment group (2% vs 21%, P = .01). None of the patients who developed acute kidney injury needed hemodialysis.
Shyu et al4 studied 121 patients with chronic kidney disease (mean serum creatinine 2.8 mg/dL) who underwent a coronary procedure. Patients were randomized to receive NAC 400 mg orally twice daily or placebo in addition to 0.45% saline in both groups. Two (3.3%) of the 60 patients in the treated group and 15 (24.6%) of the 61 patients in the control group had an increase in creatinine concentration greater than 0.5 mg/dL at 48 hours (P < .001).
Both of these single-center studies were limited by small sample sizes and very short follow-up. Further, the impact of the drug on important clinical outcomes such as death and progression of chronic kidney disease was not reported.
Marenzi et al8 randomized 354 patients undergoing coronary angioplasty as the primary treatment for acute myocardial infarction to one of three treatment groups:
- NAC in a standard dosage (a 600-mg intravenous bolus before the procedure and then 600 mg orally twice daily for 48 hours afterward)
- NAC in a high dosage (a 1,200-mg intravenous bolus and then 1,200 mg orally twice daily for 48 hours)
- Placebo.
The two treatment groups had significantly lower rates of acute kidney injury than the placebo group. In addition, the hospital mortality rate and the rate of a composite end point of death, need for renal replacement therapy, or need for mechanical ventilation were significantly lower in the treated groups. However, the number of events was small, and a beneficial effect on the death rate has not been confirmed by other studies.5
THE NEGATIVE TRIALS
Several studies found that NAC did not prevent contrast-induced acute kidney injury.1,2,9
The Acetylcysteine for Contrast-induced Nephropathy Trial (ACT), published in 2011,1 was the largest of these trials. It included 2,308 patients undergoing an angiographic procedure who had at least one risk factor for contrast-induced acute kidney injury (age > 70, renal failure, diabetes mellitus, heart failure, or hypotension). Patients were randomly assigned to receive the drug (1,200 mg by mouth) or placebo.
The incidence of contrast-induced acute kidney injury was 12.7% in the treated group and 12.7% in the control group (relative risk 1.00; 95% confidence interval 0.81–1.25; P = .97). The rate of a combined end point of death or need for dialysis at 30 days was also similar in both groups (2.2% with treatment vs 2.3% with placebo).
Importantly, only about 15% of patients had a baseline serum creatinine greater than 1.5 mg/dL. Of these, most had an estimated glomerular filtration rate between 45 and 60 mL/min. Indeed, most patients in the ACT were at low risk of contrast-induced acute kidney injury. As a result, there were low event rates and, not surprisingly, no differences between the control and treatment groups.
Subgroup analysis did not suggest a benefit of treatment in those with a baseline serum creatinine greater than 1.5 mg/dL. However, as the authors pointed out, this subgroup was small, so definitive statistically powered conclusions cannot be drawn. There was no significant difference in the primary end point among several other predefined subgroups (age > 70, female sex, diabetes).1
The ACT differed from the “positive” study by Marenzi et al8 in several ways. The ACT patients were at lower risk, the coronary catheterizations were being done mainly for diagnosis rather than intervention, a lower volume of contrast dye was used (100 mL in the ACT vs 250 mL in the Marenzi study), and patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction were excluded. Other weaknesses of the ACT include use of a baseline serum creatinine within 3 months of study entry, variations in the hydration protocol, and the use of a high-osmolar contrast agent in some patients.
Webb et al2 found, in a large, randomized trial, that intravenous NAC did not prevent contrast-induced acute kidney injury. Patients with renal dysfunction (mean serum creatinine around 1.6 mg/dL) undergoing cardiac catheterization were randomly assigned to receive either NAC 500 mg or placebo immediately before the procedure. All patients first received isotonic saline 200 mL, then 1.5 mL/kg per hour for 6 hours, unless contraindicated. The study was terminated early because of a determination of futility.
Gurm et al9 found that a database of 90,578 consecutive patients undergoing nonemergency coronary angiography from 2006 to 2009 did not show differences in the rate of contrast-induced acute kidney injury between patients who received NAC and those who did not (5.5% vs 5.5%, P = .99). There was also no difference in the rate of death or the need for dialysis. These negative findings were consistent across many prespecified subgroups.
MIXED RESULTS IN META-ANALYSES
Results from meta-analyses have been mixed,10,11 mainly because of study heterogeneity (eg, baseline risk, end points, dose of the drug) and publication bias. None of the previous meta-analyses included the recent negative results from the ACT.
CURRENT GUIDELINES
After the publication of the ACT, the joint guidelines of the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association were updated, designating NAC as class III (no benefit) and level of evidence A.12
However, recently published guidelines from the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes Acute Kidney Injury Working Group recommend using the drug together with intravenous isotonic crystalloids in patients at high risk of contrast-induced acute kidney injury, although the level of evidence is 2D (2 = suggestion, D = quality of evidence very low).5
WHAT WE RECOMMEND
The routine use of NAC to prevent contrast-induced acute kidney injury is not supported by the current evidence. However, clarification of its efficacy in high-risk patients is needed, especially those with baseline renal dysfunction and diabetes mellitus.
The Prevention of Serious Adverse Events Following Angiography (PRESERVE) study (ClinTrials.gov identifier NCT01467466) may clarify the role of this drug in a high-risk cohort using the important clinical outcomes of death, need for acute dialysis, or persistent decline in kidney function after angiography. This important study was set to begin in July 2012, with an anticipated enrollment of more than 8,000 patients who have glomerular filtration rates of 15 to 59 mL/min/1.73 m2.
In the meantime, we recommend the following in patients at high risk of contrast-induced acute kidney injury:
- Clarify whether contrast is truly needed
- When possible, limit the volume of contrast, avoid repeated doses over a short time frame, and use an iso-osmolar or low-osmolar contrast agent
- Discontinue nephrotoxic agents
- Provide an evidence-based intravenous crystalloid regimen with isotonic sodium bicarbonate or saline
- Although it is not strictly evidence-based, use NAC in patients with significant baseline renal dysfunction (glomerular filtration rate < 45 mL/min/1.73 m2), multiple concurrent risk factors such as hypotension, diabetes, preexisting kidney injury, or congestive heart failure that limits the use of intravenous fluids, or who need a high volume of contrast dye
- Avoid using intravenous NAC, given its lack of benefit and risk of anaphylactoid reactions.7,13
We do not yet have clear evidence on the optimal dosing regimen. But based on the limited data, we recommend 600 to 1,200 mg twice a day for 1 day before and 1 day after the dye is given.
- ACT Investigators. Acetylcysteine for prevention of renal outcomes in patients undergoing coronary and peripheral vascular angiography: main results from the randomized Acetylcysteine for Contrast-induced nephropathy Trial (ACT). Circulation 2011; 124:1250–1259.
- Webb JG, Pate GE, Humphries KH, et al. A randomized controlled trial of intravenous N-acetylcysteine for the prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy after cardiac catheterization: lack of effect. Am Heart J 2004; 148:422–429.
- Tepel M, van der Giet M, Schwarzfeld C, Laufer U, Liermann D, Zidek W. Prevention of radiographic-contrast-agent-induced reductions in renal function by acetylcysteine. N Engl J Med 2000; 343:180–184.
- Shyu KG, Cheng JJ, Kuan P. Acetylcysteine protects against acute renal damage in patients with abnormal renal function undergoing a coronary procedure. J Am Coll Cardiol 2002; 40:1383–1388.
- Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Acute Kidney Injury Work Group. KDIGO clinical practice guideline for acute kidney injury. Kidney Int 2012; 2(suppl 1):1–138.
- Rihal CS, Textor SC, Grill DE, et al. Incidence and prognostic importance of acute renal failure after percutaneous coronary intervention. Circulation 2002; 105:2259–2264.
- Baker CS, Wragg A, Kumar S, De Palma R, Baker LR, Knight CJ. A rapid protocol for the prevention of contrast-induced renal dysfunction: the RAPPID study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2003; 41:2114–2118.
- Marenzi G, Assanelli E, Marana I, et al. N-acetylcysteine and contrast-induced nephropathy in primary angioplasty. N Engl J Med 2006; 354:2773–2782.
- Gurm HS, Smith DE, Berwanger O, et al; BMC2 (Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Cardiovascular Consortium). Contemporary use and effectiveness of N-acetylcysteine in preventing contrast-induced nephropathy among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2012; 5:98–104.
- Duong MH, MacKenzie TA, Malenka DJ. N-acetylcysteine prophylaxis significantly reduces the risk of radiocontrast-induced nephropathy: comprehensive meta-analysis. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2005; 64:471–479.
- Gonzales DA, Norsworthy KJ, Kern SJ, et al. A meta-analysis of N-acetylcysteine in contrast-induced nephrotoxicity: unsupervised clustering to resolve heterogeneity. BMC Med 2007; 5:32.
- Levine GN, Bates ER, Blankenship JC, et al. 2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions. Circulation 2011; 124:e574–e651.
- Kanter MZ. Comparison of oral and i.v. acetylcysteine in the treatment of acetaminophen poisoning. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2006; 63:1821–1827.
No. Using N-acetylcysteine (NAC) routinely to prevent contrast-induced acute kidney injury is not supported by the evidence at this time.1,2 However, there is evidence to suggest using it for patients at high risk, ie, those with significant baseline renal dysfunction.3,4
INCIDENCE AND IMPACT OF ACUTE KIDNEY INJURY
Intraarterial use of contrast is associated with a higher risk of acute kidney injury than intravenous use. Most studies of NAC for the prevention of contrast-induced acute kidney injury have focused on patients receiving contrast intraarterially. The reported rates of contrast-induced acute kidney injury also vary depending on how acute kidney injury was defined.
Although the incidence is low (1% to 2%) in patients with normal renal function, it can be as high as 25% in patients with renal impairment or a chronic condition such as diabetes or congestive heart failure, or in elderly patients.5
The development of acute kidney injury after percutaneous coronary intervention is associated with a longer hospital stay, a higher cost of care, and higher rates of morbidity and death.6
RATIONALE FOR USING N-ACETYLCYSTEINE
Contrast-induced acute kidney injury is thought to involve vasoconstriction and medullary ischemia mediated by reactive oxygen species.5 As an antioxidant and a scavenger of free radicals, NAC showed early promise in reducing the risk of this complication, but subsequent trials raised doubts about its efficacy. 1,2 In clinical practice, the drug is often used to prevent acute kidney injury because it is easy to give, cheap, and has few side effects. Recently, however, there have been suggestions that giving it intravenously may be associated with adverse effects that include anaphylactoid reactions.7
THE POSITIVE TRIALS
Tepel et al3 performed one of the earliest trials that found that NAC prevented contrast-induced acute kidney injury. The trial included 83 patients with stable chronic kidney disease (mean serum creatinine 2.4 mg/dL) who underwent computed tomography with about 75 mL of a nonionic, low-osmolality contrast agent. Participants were randomized to receive either NAC (600 mg orally twice daily) and 0.45% saline intravenously or placebo and saline. Acute kidney injury was defined as an increase of at least 0.5 mg/dL in the serum creatinine level 48 hours after the contrast dye was given.
The rate of acute kidney injury was significantly lower in the treatment group (2% vs 21%, P = .01). None of the patients who developed acute kidney injury needed hemodialysis.
Shyu et al4 studied 121 patients with chronic kidney disease (mean serum creatinine 2.8 mg/dL) who underwent a coronary procedure. Patients were randomized to receive NAC 400 mg orally twice daily or placebo in addition to 0.45% saline in both groups. Two (3.3%) of the 60 patients in the treated group and 15 (24.6%) of the 61 patients in the control group had an increase in creatinine concentration greater than 0.5 mg/dL at 48 hours (P < .001).
Both of these single-center studies were limited by small sample sizes and very short follow-up. Further, the impact of the drug on important clinical outcomes such as death and progression of chronic kidney disease was not reported.
Marenzi et al8 randomized 354 patients undergoing coronary angioplasty as the primary treatment for acute myocardial infarction to one of three treatment groups:
- NAC in a standard dosage (a 600-mg intravenous bolus before the procedure and then 600 mg orally twice daily for 48 hours afterward)
- NAC in a high dosage (a 1,200-mg intravenous bolus and then 1,200 mg orally twice daily for 48 hours)
- Placebo.
The two treatment groups had significantly lower rates of acute kidney injury than the placebo group. In addition, the hospital mortality rate and the rate of a composite end point of death, need for renal replacement therapy, or need for mechanical ventilation were significantly lower in the treated groups. However, the number of events was small, and a beneficial effect on the death rate has not been confirmed by other studies.5
THE NEGATIVE TRIALS
Several studies found that NAC did not prevent contrast-induced acute kidney injury.1,2,9
The Acetylcysteine for Contrast-induced Nephropathy Trial (ACT), published in 2011,1 was the largest of these trials. It included 2,308 patients undergoing an angiographic procedure who had at least one risk factor for contrast-induced acute kidney injury (age > 70, renal failure, diabetes mellitus, heart failure, or hypotension). Patients were randomly assigned to receive the drug (1,200 mg by mouth) or placebo.
The incidence of contrast-induced acute kidney injury was 12.7% in the treated group and 12.7% in the control group (relative risk 1.00; 95% confidence interval 0.81–1.25; P = .97). The rate of a combined end point of death or need for dialysis at 30 days was also similar in both groups (2.2% with treatment vs 2.3% with placebo).
Importantly, only about 15% of patients had a baseline serum creatinine greater than 1.5 mg/dL. Of these, most had an estimated glomerular filtration rate between 45 and 60 mL/min. Indeed, most patients in the ACT were at low risk of contrast-induced acute kidney injury. As a result, there were low event rates and, not surprisingly, no differences between the control and treatment groups.
Subgroup analysis did not suggest a benefit of treatment in those with a baseline serum creatinine greater than 1.5 mg/dL. However, as the authors pointed out, this subgroup was small, so definitive statistically powered conclusions cannot be drawn. There was no significant difference in the primary end point among several other predefined subgroups (age > 70, female sex, diabetes).1
The ACT differed from the “positive” study by Marenzi et al8 in several ways. The ACT patients were at lower risk, the coronary catheterizations were being done mainly for diagnosis rather than intervention, a lower volume of contrast dye was used (100 mL in the ACT vs 250 mL in the Marenzi study), and patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction were excluded. Other weaknesses of the ACT include use of a baseline serum creatinine within 3 months of study entry, variations in the hydration protocol, and the use of a high-osmolar contrast agent in some patients.
Webb et al2 found, in a large, randomized trial, that intravenous NAC did not prevent contrast-induced acute kidney injury. Patients with renal dysfunction (mean serum creatinine around 1.6 mg/dL) undergoing cardiac catheterization were randomly assigned to receive either NAC 500 mg or placebo immediately before the procedure. All patients first received isotonic saline 200 mL, then 1.5 mL/kg per hour for 6 hours, unless contraindicated. The study was terminated early because of a determination of futility.
Gurm et al9 found that a database of 90,578 consecutive patients undergoing nonemergency coronary angiography from 2006 to 2009 did not show differences in the rate of contrast-induced acute kidney injury between patients who received NAC and those who did not (5.5% vs 5.5%, P = .99). There was also no difference in the rate of death or the need for dialysis. These negative findings were consistent across many prespecified subgroups.
MIXED RESULTS IN META-ANALYSES
Results from meta-analyses have been mixed,10,11 mainly because of study heterogeneity (eg, baseline risk, end points, dose of the drug) and publication bias. None of the previous meta-analyses included the recent negative results from the ACT.
CURRENT GUIDELINES
After the publication of the ACT, the joint guidelines of the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association were updated, designating NAC as class III (no benefit) and level of evidence A.12
However, recently published guidelines from the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes Acute Kidney Injury Working Group recommend using the drug together with intravenous isotonic crystalloids in patients at high risk of contrast-induced acute kidney injury, although the level of evidence is 2D (2 = suggestion, D = quality of evidence very low).5
WHAT WE RECOMMEND
The routine use of NAC to prevent contrast-induced acute kidney injury is not supported by the current evidence. However, clarification of its efficacy in high-risk patients is needed, especially those with baseline renal dysfunction and diabetes mellitus.
The Prevention of Serious Adverse Events Following Angiography (PRESERVE) study (ClinTrials.gov identifier NCT01467466) may clarify the role of this drug in a high-risk cohort using the important clinical outcomes of death, need for acute dialysis, or persistent decline in kidney function after angiography. This important study was set to begin in July 2012, with an anticipated enrollment of more than 8,000 patients who have glomerular filtration rates of 15 to 59 mL/min/1.73 m2.
In the meantime, we recommend the following in patients at high risk of contrast-induced acute kidney injury:
- Clarify whether contrast is truly needed
- When possible, limit the volume of contrast, avoid repeated doses over a short time frame, and use an iso-osmolar or low-osmolar contrast agent
- Discontinue nephrotoxic agents
- Provide an evidence-based intravenous crystalloid regimen with isotonic sodium bicarbonate or saline
- Although it is not strictly evidence-based, use NAC in patients with significant baseline renal dysfunction (glomerular filtration rate < 45 mL/min/1.73 m2), multiple concurrent risk factors such as hypotension, diabetes, preexisting kidney injury, or congestive heart failure that limits the use of intravenous fluids, or who need a high volume of contrast dye
- Avoid using intravenous NAC, given its lack of benefit and risk of anaphylactoid reactions.7,13
We do not yet have clear evidence on the optimal dosing regimen. But based on the limited data, we recommend 600 to 1,200 mg twice a day for 1 day before and 1 day after the dye is given.
No. Using N-acetylcysteine (NAC) routinely to prevent contrast-induced acute kidney injury is not supported by the evidence at this time.1,2 However, there is evidence to suggest using it for patients at high risk, ie, those with significant baseline renal dysfunction.3,4
INCIDENCE AND IMPACT OF ACUTE KIDNEY INJURY
Intraarterial use of contrast is associated with a higher risk of acute kidney injury than intravenous use. Most studies of NAC for the prevention of contrast-induced acute kidney injury have focused on patients receiving contrast intraarterially. The reported rates of contrast-induced acute kidney injury also vary depending on how acute kidney injury was defined.
Although the incidence is low (1% to 2%) in patients with normal renal function, it can be as high as 25% in patients with renal impairment or a chronic condition such as diabetes or congestive heart failure, or in elderly patients.5
The development of acute kidney injury after percutaneous coronary intervention is associated with a longer hospital stay, a higher cost of care, and higher rates of morbidity and death.6
RATIONALE FOR USING N-ACETYLCYSTEINE
Contrast-induced acute kidney injury is thought to involve vasoconstriction and medullary ischemia mediated by reactive oxygen species.5 As an antioxidant and a scavenger of free radicals, NAC showed early promise in reducing the risk of this complication, but subsequent trials raised doubts about its efficacy. 1,2 In clinical practice, the drug is often used to prevent acute kidney injury because it is easy to give, cheap, and has few side effects. Recently, however, there have been suggestions that giving it intravenously may be associated with adverse effects that include anaphylactoid reactions.7
THE POSITIVE TRIALS
Tepel et al3 performed one of the earliest trials that found that NAC prevented contrast-induced acute kidney injury. The trial included 83 patients with stable chronic kidney disease (mean serum creatinine 2.4 mg/dL) who underwent computed tomography with about 75 mL of a nonionic, low-osmolality contrast agent. Participants were randomized to receive either NAC (600 mg orally twice daily) and 0.45% saline intravenously or placebo and saline. Acute kidney injury was defined as an increase of at least 0.5 mg/dL in the serum creatinine level 48 hours after the contrast dye was given.
The rate of acute kidney injury was significantly lower in the treatment group (2% vs 21%, P = .01). None of the patients who developed acute kidney injury needed hemodialysis.
Shyu et al4 studied 121 patients with chronic kidney disease (mean serum creatinine 2.8 mg/dL) who underwent a coronary procedure. Patients were randomized to receive NAC 400 mg orally twice daily or placebo in addition to 0.45% saline in both groups. Two (3.3%) of the 60 patients in the treated group and 15 (24.6%) of the 61 patients in the control group had an increase in creatinine concentration greater than 0.5 mg/dL at 48 hours (P < .001).
Both of these single-center studies were limited by small sample sizes and very short follow-up. Further, the impact of the drug on important clinical outcomes such as death and progression of chronic kidney disease was not reported.
Marenzi et al8 randomized 354 patients undergoing coronary angioplasty as the primary treatment for acute myocardial infarction to one of three treatment groups:
- NAC in a standard dosage (a 600-mg intravenous bolus before the procedure and then 600 mg orally twice daily for 48 hours afterward)
- NAC in a high dosage (a 1,200-mg intravenous bolus and then 1,200 mg orally twice daily for 48 hours)
- Placebo.
The two treatment groups had significantly lower rates of acute kidney injury than the placebo group. In addition, the hospital mortality rate and the rate of a composite end point of death, need for renal replacement therapy, or need for mechanical ventilation were significantly lower in the treated groups. However, the number of events was small, and a beneficial effect on the death rate has not been confirmed by other studies.5
THE NEGATIVE TRIALS
Several studies found that NAC did not prevent contrast-induced acute kidney injury.1,2,9
The Acetylcysteine for Contrast-induced Nephropathy Trial (ACT), published in 2011,1 was the largest of these trials. It included 2,308 patients undergoing an angiographic procedure who had at least one risk factor for contrast-induced acute kidney injury (age > 70, renal failure, diabetes mellitus, heart failure, or hypotension). Patients were randomly assigned to receive the drug (1,200 mg by mouth) or placebo.
The incidence of contrast-induced acute kidney injury was 12.7% in the treated group and 12.7% in the control group (relative risk 1.00; 95% confidence interval 0.81–1.25; P = .97). The rate of a combined end point of death or need for dialysis at 30 days was also similar in both groups (2.2% with treatment vs 2.3% with placebo).
Importantly, only about 15% of patients had a baseline serum creatinine greater than 1.5 mg/dL. Of these, most had an estimated glomerular filtration rate between 45 and 60 mL/min. Indeed, most patients in the ACT were at low risk of contrast-induced acute kidney injury. As a result, there were low event rates and, not surprisingly, no differences between the control and treatment groups.
Subgroup analysis did not suggest a benefit of treatment in those with a baseline serum creatinine greater than 1.5 mg/dL. However, as the authors pointed out, this subgroup was small, so definitive statistically powered conclusions cannot be drawn. There was no significant difference in the primary end point among several other predefined subgroups (age > 70, female sex, diabetes).1
The ACT differed from the “positive” study by Marenzi et al8 in several ways. The ACT patients were at lower risk, the coronary catheterizations were being done mainly for diagnosis rather than intervention, a lower volume of contrast dye was used (100 mL in the ACT vs 250 mL in the Marenzi study), and patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction were excluded. Other weaknesses of the ACT include use of a baseline serum creatinine within 3 months of study entry, variations in the hydration protocol, and the use of a high-osmolar contrast agent in some patients.
Webb et al2 found, in a large, randomized trial, that intravenous NAC did not prevent contrast-induced acute kidney injury. Patients with renal dysfunction (mean serum creatinine around 1.6 mg/dL) undergoing cardiac catheterization were randomly assigned to receive either NAC 500 mg or placebo immediately before the procedure. All patients first received isotonic saline 200 mL, then 1.5 mL/kg per hour for 6 hours, unless contraindicated. The study was terminated early because of a determination of futility.
Gurm et al9 found that a database of 90,578 consecutive patients undergoing nonemergency coronary angiography from 2006 to 2009 did not show differences in the rate of contrast-induced acute kidney injury between patients who received NAC and those who did not (5.5% vs 5.5%, P = .99). There was also no difference in the rate of death or the need for dialysis. These negative findings were consistent across many prespecified subgroups.
MIXED RESULTS IN META-ANALYSES
Results from meta-analyses have been mixed,10,11 mainly because of study heterogeneity (eg, baseline risk, end points, dose of the drug) and publication bias. None of the previous meta-analyses included the recent negative results from the ACT.
CURRENT GUIDELINES
After the publication of the ACT, the joint guidelines of the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association were updated, designating NAC as class III (no benefit) and level of evidence A.12
However, recently published guidelines from the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes Acute Kidney Injury Working Group recommend using the drug together with intravenous isotonic crystalloids in patients at high risk of contrast-induced acute kidney injury, although the level of evidence is 2D (2 = suggestion, D = quality of evidence very low).5
WHAT WE RECOMMEND
The routine use of NAC to prevent contrast-induced acute kidney injury is not supported by the current evidence. However, clarification of its efficacy in high-risk patients is needed, especially those with baseline renal dysfunction and diabetes mellitus.
The Prevention of Serious Adverse Events Following Angiography (PRESERVE) study (ClinTrials.gov identifier NCT01467466) may clarify the role of this drug in a high-risk cohort using the important clinical outcomes of death, need for acute dialysis, or persistent decline in kidney function after angiography. This important study was set to begin in July 2012, with an anticipated enrollment of more than 8,000 patients who have glomerular filtration rates of 15 to 59 mL/min/1.73 m2.
In the meantime, we recommend the following in patients at high risk of contrast-induced acute kidney injury:
- Clarify whether contrast is truly needed
- When possible, limit the volume of contrast, avoid repeated doses over a short time frame, and use an iso-osmolar or low-osmolar contrast agent
- Discontinue nephrotoxic agents
- Provide an evidence-based intravenous crystalloid regimen with isotonic sodium bicarbonate or saline
- Although it is not strictly evidence-based, use NAC in patients with significant baseline renal dysfunction (glomerular filtration rate < 45 mL/min/1.73 m2), multiple concurrent risk factors such as hypotension, diabetes, preexisting kidney injury, or congestive heart failure that limits the use of intravenous fluids, or who need a high volume of contrast dye
- Avoid using intravenous NAC, given its lack of benefit and risk of anaphylactoid reactions.7,13
We do not yet have clear evidence on the optimal dosing regimen. But based on the limited data, we recommend 600 to 1,200 mg twice a day for 1 day before and 1 day after the dye is given.
- ACT Investigators. Acetylcysteine for prevention of renal outcomes in patients undergoing coronary and peripheral vascular angiography: main results from the randomized Acetylcysteine for Contrast-induced nephropathy Trial (ACT). Circulation 2011; 124:1250–1259.
- Webb JG, Pate GE, Humphries KH, et al. A randomized controlled trial of intravenous N-acetylcysteine for the prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy after cardiac catheterization: lack of effect. Am Heart J 2004; 148:422–429.
- Tepel M, van der Giet M, Schwarzfeld C, Laufer U, Liermann D, Zidek W. Prevention of radiographic-contrast-agent-induced reductions in renal function by acetylcysteine. N Engl J Med 2000; 343:180–184.
- Shyu KG, Cheng JJ, Kuan P. Acetylcysteine protects against acute renal damage in patients with abnormal renal function undergoing a coronary procedure. J Am Coll Cardiol 2002; 40:1383–1388.
- Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Acute Kidney Injury Work Group. KDIGO clinical practice guideline for acute kidney injury. Kidney Int 2012; 2(suppl 1):1–138.
- Rihal CS, Textor SC, Grill DE, et al. Incidence and prognostic importance of acute renal failure after percutaneous coronary intervention. Circulation 2002; 105:2259–2264.
- Baker CS, Wragg A, Kumar S, De Palma R, Baker LR, Knight CJ. A rapid protocol for the prevention of contrast-induced renal dysfunction: the RAPPID study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2003; 41:2114–2118.
- Marenzi G, Assanelli E, Marana I, et al. N-acetylcysteine and contrast-induced nephropathy in primary angioplasty. N Engl J Med 2006; 354:2773–2782.
- Gurm HS, Smith DE, Berwanger O, et al; BMC2 (Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Cardiovascular Consortium). Contemporary use and effectiveness of N-acetylcysteine in preventing contrast-induced nephropathy among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2012; 5:98–104.
- Duong MH, MacKenzie TA, Malenka DJ. N-acetylcysteine prophylaxis significantly reduces the risk of radiocontrast-induced nephropathy: comprehensive meta-analysis. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2005; 64:471–479.
- Gonzales DA, Norsworthy KJ, Kern SJ, et al. A meta-analysis of N-acetylcysteine in contrast-induced nephrotoxicity: unsupervised clustering to resolve heterogeneity. BMC Med 2007; 5:32.
- Levine GN, Bates ER, Blankenship JC, et al. 2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions. Circulation 2011; 124:e574–e651.
- Kanter MZ. Comparison of oral and i.v. acetylcysteine in the treatment of acetaminophen poisoning. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2006; 63:1821–1827.
- ACT Investigators. Acetylcysteine for prevention of renal outcomes in patients undergoing coronary and peripheral vascular angiography: main results from the randomized Acetylcysteine for Contrast-induced nephropathy Trial (ACT). Circulation 2011; 124:1250–1259.
- Webb JG, Pate GE, Humphries KH, et al. A randomized controlled trial of intravenous N-acetylcysteine for the prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy after cardiac catheterization: lack of effect. Am Heart J 2004; 148:422–429.
- Tepel M, van der Giet M, Schwarzfeld C, Laufer U, Liermann D, Zidek W. Prevention of radiographic-contrast-agent-induced reductions in renal function by acetylcysteine. N Engl J Med 2000; 343:180–184.
- Shyu KG, Cheng JJ, Kuan P. Acetylcysteine protects against acute renal damage in patients with abnormal renal function undergoing a coronary procedure. J Am Coll Cardiol 2002; 40:1383–1388.
- Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Acute Kidney Injury Work Group. KDIGO clinical practice guideline for acute kidney injury. Kidney Int 2012; 2(suppl 1):1–138.
- Rihal CS, Textor SC, Grill DE, et al. Incidence and prognostic importance of acute renal failure after percutaneous coronary intervention. Circulation 2002; 105:2259–2264.
- Baker CS, Wragg A, Kumar S, De Palma R, Baker LR, Knight CJ. A rapid protocol for the prevention of contrast-induced renal dysfunction: the RAPPID study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2003; 41:2114–2118.
- Marenzi G, Assanelli E, Marana I, et al. N-acetylcysteine and contrast-induced nephropathy in primary angioplasty. N Engl J Med 2006; 354:2773–2782.
- Gurm HS, Smith DE, Berwanger O, et al; BMC2 (Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Cardiovascular Consortium). Contemporary use and effectiveness of N-acetylcysteine in preventing contrast-induced nephropathy among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2012; 5:98–104.
- Duong MH, MacKenzie TA, Malenka DJ. N-acetylcysteine prophylaxis significantly reduces the risk of radiocontrast-induced nephropathy: comprehensive meta-analysis. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2005; 64:471–479.
- Gonzales DA, Norsworthy KJ, Kern SJ, et al. A meta-analysis of N-acetylcysteine in contrast-induced nephrotoxicity: unsupervised clustering to resolve heterogeneity. BMC Med 2007; 5:32.
- Levine GN, Bates ER, Blankenship JC, et al. 2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions. Circulation 2011; 124:e574–e651.
- Kanter MZ. Comparison of oral and i.v. acetylcysteine in the treatment of acetaminophen poisoning. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2006; 63:1821–1827.
Why not a shot of prevention?
As autumn arrives and thoughts turn to pumpkins, football, and Thanks-giving dinner, it is time for health systems and physicians to prepare for the upcoming influenza season. In this issue of the Journal, Drs. Jin and Mossad review some practical virology and remind us why we must continue to encourage our patients and staff to be immunized against the flu.
Last year the flu season was surprisingly mild. The infection incidence seemed to peak late in the season, a reasonable number of people got vaccinated, and the level of viral antigenic drift was low. New hybrid viral strains did appear, but apparently with low prevalence, and the avian strains did not mutate to permit efficient human-to-human infection. But the relatively benign 2011–2012 flu season should not lull us into a lackadaisical approach to offering vaccination to all of our patients.
Ever since my own encounter with the flu a number of years ago, I have been pushing the vaccine with the zeal of a telemarketer. I was pleased that the vaccine arrived early this time, but continue to be surprised by the reasons patients offer for not receiving it—some strike me as akin to “the dog ate my homework.” For example: “I got the vaccine once and I got walking pneumonia.” And the always-popular “I got the vaccine and I got the flu.” Many patients don’t think they need the vaccine because they have never gotten the flu. (To them, I relate my tale of spending a weekend lying curled up on the floor of my bedroom having chills despite a sweatsuit and blanket). Some voice the scientifically irrational but common concern that since their immune system has been weakened by medications, they don’t want to get sick from the shot. And creatively, this year several patients have told me that they heard it is too early to get the vaccine—the effect won’t last all season.
Whatever our patients’ reason for recalcitrance, we should persevere and follow the national recommendation to vaccinate all persons over the age of 6 months. The vaccine may not be perfect, but with an estimated success rate of about 60%, it is better than any alternative approach. Plus, as Drs. Jin and Mossad note in their article, there is concern about emerging strains that are resistant to available antiviral therapies—0.5 mL of prevention trumps a pound of ineffective treatment.
As autumn arrives and thoughts turn to pumpkins, football, and Thanks-giving dinner, it is time for health systems and physicians to prepare for the upcoming influenza season. In this issue of the Journal, Drs. Jin and Mossad review some practical virology and remind us why we must continue to encourage our patients and staff to be immunized against the flu.
Last year the flu season was surprisingly mild. The infection incidence seemed to peak late in the season, a reasonable number of people got vaccinated, and the level of viral antigenic drift was low. New hybrid viral strains did appear, but apparently with low prevalence, and the avian strains did not mutate to permit efficient human-to-human infection. But the relatively benign 2011–2012 flu season should not lull us into a lackadaisical approach to offering vaccination to all of our patients.
Ever since my own encounter with the flu a number of years ago, I have been pushing the vaccine with the zeal of a telemarketer. I was pleased that the vaccine arrived early this time, but continue to be surprised by the reasons patients offer for not receiving it—some strike me as akin to “the dog ate my homework.” For example: “I got the vaccine once and I got walking pneumonia.” And the always-popular “I got the vaccine and I got the flu.” Many patients don’t think they need the vaccine because they have never gotten the flu. (To them, I relate my tale of spending a weekend lying curled up on the floor of my bedroom having chills despite a sweatsuit and blanket). Some voice the scientifically irrational but common concern that since their immune system has been weakened by medications, they don’t want to get sick from the shot. And creatively, this year several patients have told me that they heard it is too early to get the vaccine—the effect won’t last all season.
Whatever our patients’ reason for recalcitrance, we should persevere and follow the national recommendation to vaccinate all persons over the age of 6 months. The vaccine may not be perfect, but with an estimated success rate of about 60%, it is better than any alternative approach. Plus, as Drs. Jin and Mossad note in their article, there is concern about emerging strains that are resistant to available antiviral therapies—0.5 mL of prevention trumps a pound of ineffective treatment.
As autumn arrives and thoughts turn to pumpkins, football, and Thanks-giving dinner, it is time for health systems and physicians to prepare for the upcoming influenza season. In this issue of the Journal, Drs. Jin and Mossad review some practical virology and remind us why we must continue to encourage our patients and staff to be immunized against the flu.
Last year the flu season was surprisingly mild. The infection incidence seemed to peak late in the season, a reasonable number of people got vaccinated, and the level of viral antigenic drift was low. New hybrid viral strains did appear, but apparently with low prevalence, and the avian strains did not mutate to permit efficient human-to-human infection. But the relatively benign 2011–2012 flu season should not lull us into a lackadaisical approach to offering vaccination to all of our patients.
Ever since my own encounter with the flu a number of years ago, I have been pushing the vaccine with the zeal of a telemarketer. I was pleased that the vaccine arrived early this time, but continue to be surprised by the reasons patients offer for not receiving it—some strike me as akin to “the dog ate my homework.” For example: “I got the vaccine once and I got walking pneumonia.” And the always-popular “I got the vaccine and I got the flu.” Many patients don’t think they need the vaccine because they have never gotten the flu. (To them, I relate my tale of spending a weekend lying curled up on the floor of my bedroom having chills despite a sweatsuit and blanket). Some voice the scientifically irrational but common concern that since their immune system has been weakened by medications, they don’t want to get sick from the shot. And creatively, this year several patients have told me that they heard it is too early to get the vaccine—the effect won’t last all season.
Whatever our patients’ reason for recalcitrance, we should persevere and follow the national recommendation to vaccinate all persons over the age of 6 months. The vaccine may not be perfect, but with an estimated success rate of about 60%, it is better than any alternative approach. Plus, as Drs. Jin and Mossad note in their article, there is concern about emerging strains that are resistant to available antiviral therapies—0.5 mL of prevention trumps a pound of ineffective treatment.
2012–2013 Influenza update: Hitting a rapidly moving target
Despite our success in reducing the number of deaths from influenza in the last half-century, we must remain vigilant, since influenza still can kill.1,2 Gene mutations and reassortment among different strains of influenza viruses pose a significant public health threat, especially in an increasingly mobile world.3,4
In this article, we will present an update on influenza to better prepare primary care providers to prevent and treat this ongoing threat.
H3N2v: SWINE FLU DÉJÀ VU?
Outbreaks of swine flu at state and county fairs in 2012 are unprecedented and have raised concerns.
From 1990 to 2010, human infections with swine-origin influenza viruses were sporadic, and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) confirmed a total of only 27 cases during this period.5 However, the number has been increasing since 2011: as of August 31, 2012, a total of 309 cases had been reported.6
Analysis of viral RNA in clinical respiratory specimens from 12 cases in 2011 revealed a variant strain, called H3N2v, which is a hybrid containing genetic material from swine H3N2 and the 2009 human pandemic virus H1N1pdm09. The M gene in this new variant came from the human virus, while the other seven came from the swine virus when a host was infected with both viruses simultaneously (Figure 1). As a result of this genetic reassortment, this variant virus is genetically and antigenically different from seasonal H3N2.
Epidemiologic data showed that children under 10 years of age are especially susceptible to this new variant because they lack immunity, whereas adolescents and adults may have some immunity from cross-reacting antibodies.7 Most infected people had been exposed to swine in agriculture, including county and state fairs. So far, evidence suggests only limited human-to-human transmission.8 The clinical diagnosis of H3N2v infection relies on the epidemiologic link to exposure to pigs in the week before the onset of illness, since the symptoms are indistinguishable from those of seasonal influenza A or B infections.
In suspected cases, the clinician should notify the local or state public health department and arrange for a special test to be performed on respiratory specimens: the CDC Flu Real-Time Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction Dx Panel. The reason is that a negative rapid influenza diagnostic test does not rule out influenza infection, and a positive immunofluorescence assay (direct fluorescent antibody staining) cannot specifically detect H3N2v.7
The current seasonal influenza vaccine will not protect against H3N2v. The isolates tested to date were susceptible to the neuraminidase inhibitor drugs oseltamivir (Tamiflu) and zanamivir (Relenza) but resistant to amantadine (Symmetrel) and rimantadine (Flumadine).9
Whether H3N2v will become a significant problem during the upcoming flu season largely depends on the extent of human-to-human transmission. We need to closely follow updates on this virus.
H5N1: THE LOOMING THREAT OF A BIRD FLU PANDEMIC
Since 2003, influenza A H5N1, a highly pathogenic avian virus, has broken out in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East, killing more than 100 million birds. It also has crossed the species barrier to infect humans, with an unusually high death rate.10
As of August 10, 2012, the World Health Organization had reported 608 confirmed cases of this virus infecting humans and 359 associated deaths.11 Most infected patients had a history of close contact with diseased poultry, but limited, nonsustained human-to-human transmission can occur during very close, unprotected contact with a severely ill patient.12
Molecular studies of this virus revealed further insights into its pathogenesis. Some of the viruses isolated from humans have had mutations that allow them to bind to human-type receptors.13 Amino acid substitutions in the polymerase basic protein 2 (PB2) gene are associated with mammalian adaptation, virulence in mice, and viral replication at temperatures present in the upper respiratory tract.14 Furthermore, higher plasma levels of macrophage- and neutrophil-attractant chemokines and both inflammatory and anti-inflammatory cytokines (interleukin 6, interleukin 10, and interferon gamma) have been observed in patients with H5N1 infection, especially in fatal cases.15 A recent study found that H5N1 causes significant perturbations in the host’s protein synthesis machinery as early as 1 hour after infection, suggesting that this virus gains an early advantage in replication by using the host’s proteome.16 The effects of unrestrained viral infection and inflammatory responses induced by H5N1 infection certainly contributed to the primary pathologic process and to death in human fulminant viral pneumonia. The up-regulation of inflammatory cytokines in these infections contributes to the development of sepsis syndrome, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and an increased risk of death, particularly in pregnant women.
Most experts predict that pandemic influenza is probably inevitable.17 If avian H5N1 and a human influenza virus swap genes in a host such as swine, the new hybrid virus will contain genetic material from both strains and will have surface antigens that the human immune system does not recognize. This could lead to a devastating avian flu pandemic with a very high death rate.18
An inactivated whole-virus H5N1 vaccine has been developed by the US government to prevent H5N1 infection.19 For treatment, the neuraminidase inhibitor oseltamivir is the drug of choice.10 Oseltamivir resistance remains uncommon. 20 Fortunately, zanamivir is still active against oseltamivir-resistant variants that have N1 neuraminidase mutations.21
THE 2009 H1N1 PANDEMIC KILLED MORE PEOPLE THAN WE THOUGHT
The fourth flu pandemic of the last 100 years occurred in 2009. (The other three were in 1918, 1957, and 1968.) It was caused by a novel strain, H1N1 of swine origin.22 This 2009 pandemic strain had six genes from the North American swine flu virus and two genes from the Eurasian swine flu virus. The pandemic affected more children and young people (who completely lacked prior immunity to this virus), while older people, who had cross-reacting antibodies, were less affected.
Worldwide, 18,500 people were reported initially to have died in this pandemic from April 2009 to August 2010.23 However, a recent modeling study estimated the number of respiratory and cardiovascular deaths associated with this pandemic at 283,500—about 15 times higher.24
AN AUSTRALIAN OUTBREAK OF OSELTAMIVIR-RESISTANT H1N1
Many strains of influenza A virus are resistant to amantadine and rimantadine, owing to amino acid substitutions in the M2 protein.25 In contrast, resistance to the neuraminidase inhibitors oseltamivir and zanamivir has been reported only occasionally.26
Until recently, most oseltamivir-resistant viruses were isolated from immunocompromised hosts treated with oseltamivir.27–29 All the resistant viral isolates contained an amino acid substitution of histidine (H) to tyrosine (Y) at position 275 of the viral neuraminidase.30 In general, transmission of these oseltamivir-resistant strains has been limited and unsustained, but it can occur in settings of close contact, such as hospitals, school camps, or long train rides.31–35 Oseltamivir-resistant strains were detected in fewer than 1% of isolates from the community during the 2010–2011 influenza season in the Northern Hemisphere and most countries in the Southern Hemisphere during the 2011 flu season.36,37
However, an outbreak of oseltamivir-resistant H1N1 occurred in Australia between June and August 2011.38 In that outbreak, the isolates from only 15% of the 191 people infected with this virus, designated H1N1pdm09, carried the H257Y neuraminidase substitution.39 Further, only 1 of the 191 patients had received oseltamivir before. More importantly, genetic analysis suggested that the infection spread from a single source.
This was the first reported sustained community transmission of oseltamivir-resistant H1N1 in a community previously unexposed to this drug. As such, it is a warning sign of the potential for a widespread outbreak of this virus. In the event of such an outbreak, inhaled zanamivir would be the only effective treatment available.
THIS SEASON’S TRIVALENT INACTIVATED VACCINE
The trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine for the 2012–2013 season contains three inactivated viruses40:
- Influenza A/California/7/2009(H1N1)-like
- Influenza A/Victoria/361/2011(H3N2)-like
- Influenza B/Wisconsin/1/2010-like (Yamagata lineage).
The influenza A H3N2 and influenza B antigens are different from those in the 2011–2012 vaccine.41 The H1N1 strain is derived from H1N1pdm09, which had been contained in the 2011–2012 seasonal vaccine. This vaccine will not protect against H3N2v or H5N1.
LATEST RECOMMENDATIONS ON VACCINATION
Since 2010, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) has recommended annual flu shots for all people older than 6 months in the United States.42
Vaccination should be done before the onset of influenza activity in the community as soon as vaccine is available for the season. However, one should continue offering vaccination throughout the influenza season as long as influenza viruses are circulating in the community.
Children ages 6 months through 8 years not previously vaccinated against influenza should receive two doses of influenza vaccine at least 4 weeks apart for an optimal immune response. The US-licensed Afluria vaccine (CSL Biotherapies, King of Prussia, PA), a trivalent inactivated vaccine, is not recommended for children under 9 years of age because of concern about febrile seizures.43,44
There is no contraindication to giving inactivated trivalent influenza vaccine to immunosuppressed people.
The live-attenuated influenza vaccine is indicated only for healthy, nonpregnant people age 2 through 49 years and not for people who care for severely immunosuppressed patients who require a protective environment.
For indications for and details about the different available influenza vaccines, see the ACIP’s current recommendations (www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/wk/mm6132.pdf).40
Updated recommendations for people allergic to eggs
All currently available influenza vaccines are made by growing the virus in chicken eggs. Therefore, severe allergic and anaphylactic reactions can occur in people with egg allergy. The ACIP recommends that if people experienced only hives after egg exposure, they should still receive the trivalent inactivated vaccine. Recently, the ACIP reviewed data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System45 and issued the following recommendations for the 2012–2013 influenza season40:
- In people who are allergic to eggs, only trivalent inactivated vaccine should be used, not the live-attenuated vaccine, because of lack of data for use of the latter in this group.
- Vaccine should be given by providers who are familiar with the signs of egg allergy.
- Patients with a history of egg allergy who have experienced only hives after exposure to eggs should be observed for a minimum of 30 minutes after vaccination.
- Patients who experience lightheadedness, respiratory distress, angioedema, or recurrent emesis or who require epinephrine or emergency medical attention after egg exposure should be referred before vaccination to a physician who has expertise in managing allergic conditions.
- Tolerance to egg-containing foods does not exclude the possibility of egg allergy. Egg allergy can be confirmed by a consistent medical history of adverse reactions to eggs or egg-containing foods, plus skin or blood testing for immunoglobulin E antibodies to egg proteins.
A high-dose vaccine is available for people 65 years and older
The rates of hospitalization and death due to seasonal flu in elderly people have increased significantly in the last 20 years despite rising rates of vaccination.46–48 This is largely due to lower serologic response rates and vaccine efficacy in older adults with weaker immune systems.
Several studies have shown that the development of protective antibody titers depends on the dose of antigen.49–53 A randomized, controlled clinical trial compared the immunogenicity of a high-dose vaccine and a standard-dose vaccine in older adults and found that the level of antibody response was significantly higher with the high-dose vaccine, and that the rate of adverse reactions was the same.54
In December 2009, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) licensed a new trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine with high doses of hemagglutinin antigens for adults over the age of 65.55 Postlicensure safety surveillance in 2010 revealed no serious safety concerns.56
At present, the ACIP expresses no preference for standard-dose or high-dose vaccine for adults 65 years of age and older.40 Importantly, if only the standard-dose vaccine is at hand, the opportunity for influenza vaccination should not be missed with the intention of giving high-dose vaccine at a later date.
A NEW QUADRIVALENT LIVE-ATTENUATED INFLUENZA VACCINE FOR THE 2013–2014 SEASON
In February 2012, the FDA approved the first quadrivalent live-attenuated influenza vaccine, which is expected to replace the currently available trivalent live-attenuated influenza vaccine in the 2013–2014 flu season. The quadrivalent vaccine will include both lineages of the circulating influenza B viruses (the Victoria and Yamagata lineages). The reasons for this inclusion is the difficulty in predicting which of these viruses will predominate in any given season, and the limited cross-resistance by immunization against one of the lineages.
A recent analysis57 estimated that such a vaccine is likely to further reduce influenza cases, related hospitalizations, and deaths compared with the current trivalent vaccine. Like the current trivalent live-attenuated vaccine, the quadrivalent vaccine is inhaled.
EVOLVING VACCINATION POLICY IN HEALTH CARE WORKERS
Starting in January 2013, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services will require hospitals to report how many of their health care workers are vaccinated. These rates will be publicly reported as a measure of hospital quality. This has fueled the ongoing debate about mandating influenza vaccination for health care workers. Studies have shown that the most important factors in increasing influenza vaccination rates among health care workers are requiring vaccination as a condition for employment and making vaccination available on-site, for more than 1 day, at no cost to the worker.58
As an alternative, some institutions have implemented a “shot-or-mask” policy whereby a health care worker who elects not to be vaccinated because of medical or religious reasons would be asked to wear a mask during all faceto-face encounters with patients.
NEW ANTIVIRAL DRUGS ON THE HORIZON
The emergence of oseltamivir-resistant strains in recent years caused a great deal of concern in public health regarding the potential for outbreaks of drug-resistant influenza.34,35,59–61
A recent Asian randomized clinical trial reported the efficacy of a long-acting neuraminidase inhibitor, laninamivir octanoate, in the treatment of seasonal influenza.62 This study showed that a single inhalation of this drug is effective in treating seasonal influenza, including that caused by oseltamivir-resistant strains in adults. Laninamivir is currently approved in Japan.
CHALLENGES IN PREVENTING AND TREATING INFLUENZA
Despite the great advances that we have made in preventing and treating influenza in the last half-century, we still face many challenges. Each year in the United States, influenza infection results in an estimated 31 million outpatient visits, 226,000 hospital admissions, and 36,000 deaths.42
Antigenic drift and shift. Influenza viruses circulating among animals and humans vary genetically from season to season and within seasons. As a result of this changing viral antigenicity, the virus can evade the human immune system, causing widespread outbreaks.
One of the unique and most remarkable features of influenza virus is the antigenic variation: antigenic drift and antigenic shift. Antigenic drift is the relatively minor antigenic changes that occur frequently within an influenza subtype, typically resulting from genetic mutation of viral RNA coding for hemagglutinin or neuraminidase. This causes annual regional epidemics. In contrast, antigenic shift is the result of genetic material reassortment: the emerging of new viral RNA from different strains of different species. This often leads to global pandemics.
Therefore, it is challenging to accurately predict the antigenic makeup of influenza viruses for each season and to include new emerging antigens in the vaccine production, as we are facing a moving target. We prepare influenza vaccines each season based on past experience.63
Vaccination rates have hit a plateau of 60% to 70% in adults since the 1990s, in spite of greater vaccine supply and recommendations that all adults, regardless of underlying disease, be vaccinated annually.64 Similarly, only 51% of children age 6 months to 17 years were vaccinated in the 2010–2011 season.65 And vaccination rates are even lower in low-income populations.66,67
The emergence of oseltamivir-resistant strains in recent years, not only in people exposed to oseltamivir but also in those who haven’t been exposed to this drug, with sustained transmission, certainly raises the possibility of a more difficult epidemic to control.38
Global travel, global infection. Our last H1N1 pandemic in 2009 was an example of how easily the influenza virus can spread rapidly in today’s highly mobile global society.22
What we must do
As primary health care providers, we must closely monitor the community outbreak and the emergence of drug-resistant strains and strongly recommend vaccination for all patients older than 6 months, since timely vaccination is the cornerstone of influenza prevention. Although many have questioned the efficacy of influenza vaccination, a recent meta-analysis showed a 59% pooled efficacy of the trivalent inactivated vaccine in adults age 18 to 65 years in preventing virologically confirmed influenza, and 83% pooled efficacy of the live-attenuated influenza vaccine in children age 6 months to 7 years.68 Novel approaches for vaccination reminders, such as text messaging69 in addition to traditional mail or telephone reminders, can improve vaccination compliance in today’s highly mobile world that is more than ever connected.
With the lessons learned from four pandemics in the last century, updated recommendations for prevention, and adequate vaccine supply, we should be ready to face the challenge of another flu season.
- Doshi P. Trends in recorded influenza mortality: United States, 1900–2004. Am J Public Health 2008; 98:939–945.
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Estimates of deaths associated with seasonal influenza — United States, 1976–2007. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2010; 59:1057–1062.
- Reid AH, Taubenberger JK, Fanning TG. Evidence of an absence: the genetic origins of the 1918 pandemic influenza virus. Nat Rev Microbiol 2004; 2:909–914.
- Lindstrom S, Garten R, Balish A, et al. Human infections with novel reassortant influenza A(H3N2)v viruses, United States, 2011. Emerg Infect Dis 2012; 18:834–837.
- Shu B, Garten R, Emery S, et al. Genetic analysis and antigenic characterization of swine origin influenza viruses isolated from humans in the United States, 1990–2010. Virology 2012; 422:151–160.
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). http://www.cdc.gov/flu/swineflu/h3n2v-outbreak.htm. Accessed September 27, 2012.
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Evaluation of rapid influenza diagnostic tests for influenza A (H3N2)v virus and updated case count — United States, 2012. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2012; 61:619–621.
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Update: Influenza A (H3N2)v transmission and guidelines — five states, 2011. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2012; 60:1741–1744.
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Interim information for clinicians about human infections with H3N2v virus. http://www.cdc.gov/flu/swineflu/h3n2v-clinician.htm. Accessed September 27, 2012.
- Writing Committee of the Second World Health Organization Consultation on Clinical Aspects of Human Infection with Avian Influenza A (H5N1) Virus; Abdel-Ghafar AN, Chotpitayasunondh T, Gao Z, et al. Update on avian influenza A (H5N1) virus infection in humans. N Engl J Med 2008; 358:261–273.
- World Health Organization (WHO). http://www.who.int/influenza/human_animal_interface/H5N1_cumulative_table_archives/en/index.html. Accessed September 27, 2012.
- Ungchusak K, Auewarakul P, Dowell SF, et al. Probable person-to-person transmission of avian influenza A (H5N1). N Engl J Med 2005; 352:333–340.
- Yamada S, Suzuki Y, Suzuki T, et al. Haemagglutinin mutations responsible for the binding of H5N1 influenza A viruses to human-type receptors. Nature 2006; 444:378–382.
- Hatta M, Hatta Y, Kim JH, et al. Growth of H5N1 influenza A viruses in the upper respiratory tracts of mice. PLoS Pathog 2007; 3:1374–1379.
- de Jong MD, Simmons CP, Thanh TT, et al. Fatal outcome of human influenza A (H5N1) is associated with high viral load and hypercytokinemia. Nat Med 2006; 12:1203–1207.
- Cheung CY, Chan EY, Krasnoselsky A, et al. H5N1 virus causes significant perturbations in host proteome very early in influenza virus-infected primary human monocyte-derived macrophages. J Infect Dis 2012; 206:640–645.
- Gordon S. Avian influenza: a wake-up call from birds to humans. Cleve Clin J Med 2004; 71:273–274.
- Jin XW, Mossad SB. Avian influenza: an emerging pandemic threat. Cleve Clin J Med 2005; 72:1129–1234.
- Ehrlich HJ, Müller M, Oh HM, et al; Baxter H5N1 Pandemic Influenza Vaccine Clinical Study Team. A clinical trial of a whole-virus H5N1 vaccine derived from cell culture. N Engl J Med 2008; 358:2573–2584.
- de Jong MD, Tran TT, Truong HK, et al. Oseltamivir resistance during treatment of influenza A (H5N1) infection. N Engl J Med 2005; 353:2667–2672.
- Le QM, Kiso M, Someya K, et al. Avian flu: isolation of drug-resistant H5N1 virus. Nature 2005; 437:1108.
- Ison MG, Lee N. Influenza 2010–2011: lessons from the 2009 pandemic. Cleve Clin J Med 2010; 77:812–820.
- World Health Organization (WHO). Pandemic (H1N1) 2009 — update 112. http://www.who.int/csr/don/2010_08_06/en/index.html. Accessed September 27, 2012.
- Dawood FS, Iuliano AD, Reed C, et al. Estimated global mortality associated with the first 12 months of 2009 pandemic influenza A H1N1 virus circulation: a modelling study. Lancet Infect Dis 2012; 12:687–695.
- Bright RA, Shay DK, Shu B, Cox NJ, Klimov AI. Adamantane resistance among influenza A viruses isolated early during the 2005–2006 influenza season in the United States. JAMA 2006; 295:891–894.
- Nguyen HT, Fry AM, Gubareva LV. Neuraminidase inhibitor resistance in influenza viruses and laboratory testing methods. Antivir Ther 2012; 17:159–173.
- Graitcer SB, Gubareva L, Kamimoto L, et al. Characteristics of patients with oseltamivir-resistant pandemic (H1N1) 2009, United States. Emerg Infect Dis 2011; 17:255–257.
- Hurt AC, Deng YM, Ernest J, et al. Oseltamivir-resistant influenza viruses circulating during the first year of the influenza A(H1N1) 2009 pandemic in the Asia-Pacific region, March 2009 to March 2010. Euro Surveill 2011; 16:19770.
- Meijer A, Jonges M, Abbink F, et al. Oseltamivir-resistant pandemic A(H1N1) 2009 influenza viruses detected through enhanced surveillance in the Netherlands, 2009–2010. Antiviral Res 2011; 92:81–89.
- Gubareva LV, Kaiser L, Hayden FG. IInfluenza virus neuraminidase inhibitors. Lancet 2000; 355:827–835.
- Wolfe C, Greenwald I, Chen L. Pandemic (H1N1) 2009 and oseltamivir resistance in hematology/oncology patients. Emerg Infect Dis 2010; 16:1809–1811.
- Moore C, Galiano M, Lackenby A, et al. Evidence of person-to-person transmission of oseltamivir-resistant pandemic influenza A(H1N1) 2009 virus in a hematology unit. J Infect Dis 2011; 203:18–24.
- Chen LF, Dailey NJ, Rao AK, et al. Cluster of oseltamivir-resistant 2009 pandemic influenza A (H1N1) virus infections on a hospital ward among immunocompromised patients — North Carolina, 2009. J Infect Dis 2011; 203:838–846.
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Oseltamivir-resistant 2009 pandemic influenza A (H1N1) virus infection in two summer campers receiving prophylaxis — North Carolina, 2009. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2009; 58:969–972.
- Le QM, Wertheim HF, Tran ND, van Doorn HR, Nguyen TH, Horby P; Vietnam H1N1 Investigation Team. A community cluster of oseltamivir-resistant cases of 2009 H1N1 influenza. N Engl J Med 2010; 362:86–87.
- Lackenby A, Moran Gilad J, Pebody R, et al. Continued emergence and changing epidemiology of oseltamivir-resistant influenza A(H1N1)2009 virus, United Kingdom, winter 2010/11. Euro Surveill 2011; 16:19784.
- World Health Organization (WHO). Summary of influenza antiviral susceptibility surveillance findings, September 2010 – March 2011. http://www.who.int/influenza/gisrs_laboratory/updates/antiviral_susceptibility/en/index.html. Accessed September 27, 2012.
- Hurt AC, Hardie K, Wilson NJ, et al. Community transmission of oseltamivir-resistant A(H1N1)pdm09 influenza. N Engl J Med 2011; 365:2541–2542.
- Hurt AC, Hardie K, Wilson NJ, et al. Characteristics of a widespread community cluster of H275Y oseltamivir-resistant A(H1N1)pdm09 influenza in Australia. J Infect Dis 2012; 206:148–157.
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Prevention and control of influenza with vaccines: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) — United States, 2012–13 Influenza Season. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2012; 61:613–618.
- Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Summary minutes: vaccines and related biological products advisory committee. February 28–29, 2012. Silver Spring, MD. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Advisory-Committees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/BloodVaccinesandOther-Biologics/VaccinesandRelatedBiologicalProductsAdvisoryCommittee/UCM296193.pdf. Accessed September 28, 2012.
- Fiore AE, Uyeki TM, Broder K, et al; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Prevention and control of influenza with vaccines: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), 2010. MMWR Recomm Rep 2010; 59:1–62.
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Update: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) regarding use of CSL seasonal influenza vaccine (Afluria) in the United States during 2010–11. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2010; 59:989–992.
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Prevention and control of influenza with vaccines: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), 2011. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2011; 60:1128–1132.
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices: Update on influenza vaccine safety monitoring. June 20–21, 2012. Atlanta, GA. http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-jun-2012/03-influenza-Shimabukuro.pdf. Accessed September 28, 2012.
- Simonsen L, Reichert TA, Viboud C, Blackwelder WC, Taylor RJ, Miller MA. Impact of influenza vaccination on seasonal mortality in the US elderly population. Arch Intern Med 2005; 165:265–272.
- Thompson WW, Shay DK, Weintraub E, et al. Influenza-associated hospitalizations in the United States. JAMA 2004; 292:1333–1340.
- Thompson WW, Shay DK, Weintraub E, et al. Mortality associated with influenza and respiratory syncytial virus in the United States. JAMA 2003; 289:179–186.
- Mostow SR, Schoenbaum SC, Dowdle WR, Coleman MT, Kaye HS. Inactivated vaccines. 1. Volunteer studies with very high doses of influenza vaccine purified by zonal ultracentrifugation. Postgrad Med J 1973; 49:152–158.
- Keitel WA, Atmar RL, Cate TR, et al. Safety of high doses of influenza vaccine and effect on antibody responses in elderly persons. Arch Intern Med 2006; 166:1121–1127.
- Ruben FL, Jackson GG. A new subunit influenza vaccine: acceptability compared with standard vaccines and effect of dose on antigenicity. J Infect Dis 1972; 125:656–664.
- Palache AM, Beyer WE, Sprenger MJ, et al. Antibody response after influenza immunization with various vaccine doses: a double-blind, placebo-controlled, multi-centre, dose-response study in elderly nursing-home residents and young volunteers. Vaccine 1993; 11:3–9.
- Couch RB, Winokur P, Brady R, et al. Safety and immunogenicity of a high dosage trivalent influenza vaccine among elderly subjects. Vaccine 2007; 25:7656–7663.
- Falsey AR, Treanor JJ, Tornieporth N, Capellan J, Gorse GJ. Randomized, double-blind controlled phase 3 trial comparing the immunogenicity of high-dose and standard-dose influenza vaccine in adults 65 years of age and older. J Infect Dis 2009; 200:172–180.
- US Food and Drug Administration. Vaccines, Blood & Biologics. December 23,2009 approval letter—Fluzone high-dose. http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/ucm195481.htm. Accessed October 1, 2012.
- Moro PL, Arana J, Cano M, et al. Postlicensure safety surveillance for high-dose trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, 1 July 2010–31 December 2010. Clin Infect Dis 2012; 54:1608–1614.
- Reed C, Meltzer MI, Finelli L, Fiore A. Public health impact of including two lineages of influenza B in a quadrivalent seasonal influenza vaccine. Vaccine 2012; 30:1993–1998.
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Influenza vaccination coverage among health-care personnel — United States, 2010–11 influenza season. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2011; 60:1073–1077.
- Meijer A, Lackenby A, Hungnes O, et al; European Influenza Surveillance Scheme. Oseltamivir-resistant influenza virus A (H1N1), Europe, 2007–08 season. Emerg Infect Dis 2009; 15:552–560.
- Moscona A. Global transmission of oseltamivir-resistant influenza. N Engl J Med 2009; 360:953–956.
- World Health Organization (WHO). Influenza A virus resistance to oseltamivir. http://www.who.int/influenza/patient_care/antivirals/oseltamivir_summary/en/. Accessed September 28, 2012.
- Watanabe A, Chang SC, Kim MJ, Chu DW, Ohashi Y; MARVEL Study Group. Long-acting neuraminidase inhibitor laninamivir octanoate versus oseltamivir for treatment of influenza: a double-blind, randomized, noninferiority clinical trial. Clin Infect Dis 2010; 51:1167–1175.
- Deyde VM, Gubareva LV. Influenza genome analysis using pyro-sequencing method: current applications for a moving target. Expert Rev Mol Diagn 2009; 9:493–509.
- Schuchat A, Katz JM. Protecting adults from influenza: tis the season to learn from the pandemic. J Infect Dis 2012; 206:803–805.
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Final state-level influenza vaccination coverage estimates for the 2010–11 season — United States, National Immunization Survey and Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, August 2010 through May 2011. http://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/vaccination/coverage_1011estimates.htm. Accessed September 28, 2012.
- Bhatt P, Block SL, Toback SL, Ambrose CS. Timing of the availability and administration of influenza vaccine through the vaccines for children program. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2011; 30:100–106.
- Lee BY, Brown ST, Bailey RR, et al. The benefits to all of ensuring equal and timely access to influenza vaccines in poor communities. Health Aff (Millwood) 2011; 30:1141–1150.
- Osterholm MT, Kelley NS, Sommer A, Belongia EA. Efficacy and effectiveness of influenza vaccines: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Infect Dis 2012; 12:36–44.
- Stockwell MS, Kharbanda EO, Martinez RA, Vargas CY, Vawdrey DK, Camargo S. Effect of a text messaging intervention on influenza vaccination in an urban, low-income pediatric and adolescent population: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2012; 307:1702–1708.
Despite our success in reducing the number of deaths from influenza in the last half-century, we must remain vigilant, since influenza still can kill.1,2 Gene mutations and reassortment among different strains of influenza viruses pose a significant public health threat, especially in an increasingly mobile world.3,4
In this article, we will present an update on influenza to better prepare primary care providers to prevent and treat this ongoing threat.
H3N2v: SWINE FLU DÉJÀ VU?
Outbreaks of swine flu at state and county fairs in 2012 are unprecedented and have raised concerns.
From 1990 to 2010, human infections with swine-origin influenza viruses were sporadic, and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) confirmed a total of only 27 cases during this period.5 However, the number has been increasing since 2011: as of August 31, 2012, a total of 309 cases had been reported.6
Analysis of viral RNA in clinical respiratory specimens from 12 cases in 2011 revealed a variant strain, called H3N2v, which is a hybrid containing genetic material from swine H3N2 and the 2009 human pandemic virus H1N1pdm09. The M gene in this new variant came from the human virus, while the other seven came from the swine virus when a host was infected with both viruses simultaneously (Figure 1). As a result of this genetic reassortment, this variant virus is genetically and antigenically different from seasonal H3N2.
Epidemiologic data showed that children under 10 years of age are especially susceptible to this new variant because they lack immunity, whereas adolescents and adults may have some immunity from cross-reacting antibodies.7 Most infected people had been exposed to swine in agriculture, including county and state fairs. So far, evidence suggests only limited human-to-human transmission.8 The clinical diagnosis of H3N2v infection relies on the epidemiologic link to exposure to pigs in the week before the onset of illness, since the symptoms are indistinguishable from those of seasonal influenza A or B infections.
In suspected cases, the clinician should notify the local or state public health department and arrange for a special test to be performed on respiratory specimens: the CDC Flu Real-Time Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction Dx Panel. The reason is that a negative rapid influenza diagnostic test does not rule out influenza infection, and a positive immunofluorescence assay (direct fluorescent antibody staining) cannot specifically detect H3N2v.7
The current seasonal influenza vaccine will not protect against H3N2v. The isolates tested to date were susceptible to the neuraminidase inhibitor drugs oseltamivir (Tamiflu) and zanamivir (Relenza) but resistant to amantadine (Symmetrel) and rimantadine (Flumadine).9
Whether H3N2v will become a significant problem during the upcoming flu season largely depends on the extent of human-to-human transmission. We need to closely follow updates on this virus.
H5N1: THE LOOMING THREAT OF A BIRD FLU PANDEMIC
Since 2003, influenza A H5N1, a highly pathogenic avian virus, has broken out in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East, killing more than 100 million birds. It also has crossed the species barrier to infect humans, with an unusually high death rate.10
As of August 10, 2012, the World Health Organization had reported 608 confirmed cases of this virus infecting humans and 359 associated deaths.11 Most infected patients had a history of close contact with diseased poultry, but limited, nonsustained human-to-human transmission can occur during very close, unprotected contact with a severely ill patient.12
Molecular studies of this virus revealed further insights into its pathogenesis. Some of the viruses isolated from humans have had mutations that allow them to bind to human-type receptors.13 Amino acid substitutions in the polymerase basic protein 2 (PB2) gene are associated with mammalian adaptation, virulence in mice, and viral replication at temperatures present in the upper respiratory tract.14 Furthermore, higher plasma levels of macrophage- and neutrophil-attractant chemokines and both inflammatory and anti-inflammatory cytokines (interleukin 6, interleukin 10, and interferon gamma) have been observed in patients with H5N1 infection, especially in fatal cases.15 A recent study found that H5N1 causes significant perturbations in the host’s protein synthesis machinery as early as 1 hour after infection, suggesting that this virus gains an early advantage in replication by using the host’s proteome.16 The effects of unrestrained viral infection and inflammatory responses induced by H5N1 infection certainly contributed to the primary pathologic process and to death in human fulminant viral pneumonia. The up-regulation of inflammatory cytokines in these infections contributes to the development of sepsis syndrome, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and an increased risk of death, particularly in pregnant women.
Most experts predict that pandemic influenza is probably inevitable.17 If avian H5N1 and a human influenza virus swap genes in a host such as swine, the new hybrid virus will contain genetic material from both strains and will have surface antigens that the human immune system does not recognize. This could lead to a devastating avian flu pandemic with a very high death rate.18
An inactivated whole-virus H5N1 vaccine has been developed by the US government to prevent H5N1 infection.19 For treatment, the neuraminidase inhibitor oseltamivir is the drug of choice.10 Oseltamivir resistance remains uncommon. 20 Fortunately, zanamivir is still active against oseltamivir-resistant variants that have N1 neuraminidase mutations.21
THE 2009 H1N1 PANDEMIC KILLED MORE PEOPLE THAN WE THOUGHT
The fourth flu pandemic of the last 100 years occurred in 2009. (The other three were in 1918, 1957, and 1968.) It was caused by a novel strain, H1N1 of swine origin.22 This 2009 pandemic strain had six genes from the North American swine flu virus and two genes from the Eurasian swine flu virus. The pandemic affected more children and young people (who completely lacked prior immunity to this virus), while older people, who had cross-reacting antibodies, were less affected.
Worldwide, 18,500 people were reported initially to have died in this pandemic from April 2009 to August 2010.23 However, a recent modeling study estimated the number of respiratory and cardiovascular deaths associated with this pandemic at 283,500—about 15 times higher.24
AN AUSTRALIAN OUTBREAK OF OSELTAMIVIR-RESISTANT H1N1
Many strains of influenza A virus are resistant to amantadine and rimantadine, owing to amino acid substitutions in the M2 protein.25 In contrast, resistance to the neuraminidase inhibitors oseltamivir and zanamivir has been reported only occasionally.26
Until recently, most oseltamivir-resistant viruses were isolated from immunocompromised hosts treated with oseltamivir.27–29 All the resistant viral isolates contained an amino acid substitution of histidine (H) to tyrosine (Y) at position 275 of the viral neuraminidase.30 In general, transmission of these oseltamivir-resistant strains has been limited and unsustained, but it can occur in settings of close contact, such as hospitals, school camps, or long train rides.31–35 Oseltamivir-resistant strains were detected in fewer than 1% of isolates from the community during the 2010–2011 influenza season in the Northern Hemisphere and most countries in the Southern Hemisphere during the 2011 flu season.36,37
However, an outbreak of oseltamivir-resistant H1N1 occurred in Australia between June and August 2011.38 In that outbreak, the isolates from only 15% of the 191 people infected with this virus, designated H1N1pdm09, carried the H257Y neuraminidase substitution.39 Further, only 1 of the 191 patients had received oseltamivir before. More importantly, genetic analysis suggested that the infection spread from a single source.
This was the first reported sustained community transmission of oseltamivir-resistant H1N1 in a community previously unexposed to this drug. As such, it is a warning sign of the potential for a widespread outbreak of this virus. In the event of such an outbreak, inhaled zanamivir would be the only effective treatment available.
THIS SEASON’S TRIVALENT INACTIVATED VACCINE
The trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine for the 2012–2013 season contains three inactivated viruses40:
- Influenza A/California/7/2009(H1N1)-like
- Influenza A/Victoria/361/2011(H3N2)-like
- Influenza B/Wisconsin/1/2010-like (Yamagata lineage).
The influenza A H3N2 and influenza B antigens are different from those in the 2011–2012 vaccine.41 The H1N1 strain is derived from H1N1pdm09, which had been contained in the 2011–2012 seasonal vaccine. This vaccine will not protect against H3N2v or H5N1.
LATEST RECOMMENDATIONS ON VACCINATION
Since 2010, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) has recommended annual flu shots for all people older than 6 months in the United States.42
Vaccination should be done before the onset of influenza activity in the community as soon as vaccine is available for the season. However, one should continue offering vaccination throughout the influenza season as long as influenza viruses are circulating in the community.
Children ages 6 months through 8 years not previously vaccinated against influenza should receive two doses of influenza vaccine at least 4 weeks apart for an optimal immune response. The US-licensed Afluria vaccine (CSL Biotherapies, King of Prussia, PA), a trivalent inactivated vaccine, is not recommended for children under 9 years of age because of concern about febrile seizures.43,44
There is no contraindication to giving inactivated trivalent influenza vaccine to immunosuppressed people.
The live-attenuated influenza vaccine is indicated only for healthy, nonpregnant people age 2 through 49 years and not for people who care for severely immunosuppressed patients who require a protective environment.
For indications for and details about the different available influenza vaccines, see the ACIP’s current recommendations (www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/wk/mm6132.pdf).40
Updated recommendations for people allergic to eggs
All currently available influenza vaccines are made by growing the virus in chicken eggs. Therefore, severe allergic and anaphylactic reactions can occur in people with egg allergy. The ACIP recommends that if people experienced only hives after egg exposure, they should still receive the trivalent inactivated vaccine. Recently, the ACIP reviewed data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System45 and issued the following recommendations for the 2012–2013 influenza season40:
- In people who are allergic to eggs, only trivalent inactivated vaccine should be used, not the live-attenuated vaccine, because of lack of data for use of the latter in this group.
- Vaccine should be given by providers who are familiar with the signs of egg allergy.
- Patients with a history of egg allergy who have experienced only hives after exposure to eggs should be observed for a minimum of 30 minutes after vaccination.
- Patients who experience lightheadedness, respiratory distress, angioedema, or recurrent emesis or who require epinephrine or emergency medical attention after egg exposure should be referred before vaccination to a physician who has expertise in managing allergic conditions.
- Tolerance to egg-containing foods does not exclude the possibility of egg allergy. Egg allergy can be confirmed by a consistent medical history of adverse reactions to eggs or egg-containing foods, plus skin or blood testing for immunoglobulin E antibodies to egg proteins.
A high-dose vaccine is available for people 65 years and older
The rates of hospitalization and death due to seasonal flu in elderly people have increased significantly in the last 20 years despite rising rates of vaccination.46–48 This is largely due to lower serologic response rates and vaccine efficacy in older adults with weaker immune systems.
Several studies have shown that the development of protective antibody titers depends on the dose of antigen.49–53 A randomized, controlled clinical trial compared the immunogenicity of a high-dose vaccine and a standard-dose vaccine in older adults and found that the level of antibody response was significantly higher with the high-dose vaccine, and that the rate of adverse reactions was the same.54
In December 2009, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) licensed a new trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine with high doses of hemagglutinin antigens for adults over the age of 65.55 Postlicensure safety surveillance in 2010 revealed no serious safety concerns.56
At present, the ACIP expresses no preference for standard-dose or high-dose vaccine for adults 65 years of age and older.40 Importantly, if only the standard-dose vaccine is at hand, the opportunity for influenza vaccination should not be missed with the intention of giving high-dose vaccine at a later date.
A NEW QUADRIVALENT LIVE-ATTENUATED INFLUENZA VACCINE FOR THE 2013–2014 SEASON
In February 2012, the FDA approved the first quadrivalent live-attenuated influenza vaccine, which is expected to replace the currently available trivalent live-attenuated influenza vaccine in the 2013–2014 flu season. The quadrivalent vaccine will include both lineages of the circulating influenza B viruses (the Victoria and Yamagata lineages). The reasons for this inclusion is the difficulty in predicting which of these viruses will predominate in any given season, and the limited cross-resistance by immunization against one of the lineages.
A recent analysis57 estimated that such a vaccine is likely to further reduce influenza cases, related hospitalizations, and deaths compared with the current trivalent vaccine. Like the current trivalent live-attenuated vaccine, the quadrivalent vaccine is inhaled.
EVOLVING VACCINATION POLICY IN HEALTH CARE WORKERS
Starting in January 2013, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services will require hospitals to report how many of their health care workers are vaccinated. These rates will be publicly reported as a measure of hospital quality. This has fueled the ongoing debate about mandating influenza vaccination for health care workers. Studies have shown that the most important factors in increasing influenza vaccination rates among health care workers are requiring vaccination as a condition for employment and making vaccination available on-site, for more than 1 day, at no cost to the worker.58
As an alternative, some institutions have implemented a “shot-or-mask” policy whereby a health care worker who elects not to be vaccinated because of medical or religious reasons would be asked to wear a mask during all faceto-face encounters with patients.
NEW ANTIVIRAL DRUGS ON THE HORIZON
The emergence of oseltamivir-resistant strains in recent years caused a great deal of concern in public health regarding the potential for outbreaks of drug-resistant influenza.34,35,59–61
A recent Asian randomized clinical trial reported the efficacy of a long-acting neuraminidase inhibitor, laninamivir octanoate, in the treatment of seasonal influenza.62 This study showed that a single inhalation of this drug is effective in treating seasonal influenza, including that caused by oseltamivir-resistant strains in adults. Laninamivir is currently approved in Japan.
CHALLENGES IN PREVENTING AND TREATING INFLUENZA
Despite the great advances that we have made in preventing and treating influenza in the last half-century, we still face many challenges. Each year in the United States, influenza infection results in an estimated 31 million outpatient visits, 226,000 hospital admissions, and 36,000 deaths.42
Antigenic drift and shift. Influenza viruses circulating among animals and humans vary genetically from season to season and within seasons. As a result of this changing viral antigenicity, the virus can evade the human immune system, causing widespread outbreaks.
One of the unique and most remarkable features of influenza virus is the antigenic variation: antigenic drift and antigenic shift. Antigenic drift is the relatively minor antigenic changes that occur frequently within an influenza subtype, typically resulting from genetic mutation of viral RNA coding for hemagglutinin or neuraminidase. This causes annual regional epidemics. In contrast, antigenic shift is the result of genetic material reassortment: the emerging of new viral RNA from different strains of different species. This often leads to global pandemics.
Therefore, it is challenging to accurately predict the antigenic makeup of influenza viruses for each season and to include new emerging antigens in the vaccine production, as we are facing a moving target. We prepare influenza vaccines each season based on past experience.63
Vaccination rates have hit a plateau of 60% to 70% in adults since the 1990s, in spite of greater vaccine supply and recommendations that all adults, regardless of underlying disease, be vaccinated annually.64 Similarly, only 51% of children age 6 months to 17 years were vaccinated in the 2010–2011 season.65 And vaccination rates are even lower in low-income populations.66,67
The emergence of oseltamivir-resistant strains in recent years, not only in people exposed to oseltamivir but also in those who haven’t been exposed to this drug, with sustained transmission, certainly raises the possibility of a more difficult epidemic to control.38
Global travel, global infection. Our last H1N1 pandemic in 2009 was an example of how easily the influenza virus can spread rapidly in today’s highly mobile global society.22
What we must do
As primary health care providers, we must closely monitor the community outbreak and the emergence of drug-resistant strains and strongly recommend vaccination for all patients older than 6 months, since timely vaccination is the cornerstone of influenza prevention. Although many have questioned the efficacy of influenza vaccination, a recent meta-analysis showed a 59% pooled efficacy of the trivalent inactivated vaccine in adults age 18 to 65 years in preventing virologically confirmed influenza, and 83% pooled efficacy of the live-attenuated influenza vaccine in children age 6 months to 7 years.68 Novel approaches for vaccination reminders, such as text messaging69 in addition to traditional mail or telephone reminders, can improve vaccination compliance in today’s highly mobile world that is more than ever connected.
With the lessons learned from four pandemics in the last century, updated recommendations for prevention, and adequate vaccine supply, we should be ready to face the challenge of another flu season.
Despite our success in reducing the number of deaths from influenza in the last half-century, we must remain vigilant, since influenza still can kill.1,2 Gene mutations and reassortment among different strains of influenza viruses pose a significant public health threat, especially in an increasingly mobile world.3,4
In this article, we will present an update on influenza to better prepare primary care providers to prevent and treat this ongoing threat.
H3N2v: SWINE FLU DÉJÀ VU?
Outbreaks of swine flu at state and county fairs in 2012 are unprecedented and have raised concerns.
From 1990 to 2010, human infections with swine-origin influenza viruses were sporadic, and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) confirmed a total of only 27 cases during this period.5 However, the number has been increasing since 2011: as of August 31, 2012, a total of 309 cases had been reported.6
Analysis of viral RNA in clinical respiratory specimens from 12 cases in 2011 revealed a variant strain, called H3N2v, which is a hybrid containing genetic material from swine H3N2 and the 2009 human pandemic virus H1N1pdm09. The M gene in this new variant came from the human virus, while the other seven came from the swine virus when a host was infected with both viruses simultaneously (Figure 1). As a result of this genetic reassortment, this variant virus is genetically and antigenically different from seasonal H3N2.
Epidemiologic data showed that children under 10 years of age are especially susceptible to this new variant because they lack immunity, whereas adolescents and adults may have some immunity from cross-reacting antibodies.7 Most infected people had been exposed to swine in agriculture, including county and state fairs. So far, evidence suggests only limited human-to-human transmission.8 The clinical diagnosis of H3N2v infection relies on the epidemiologic link to exposure to pigs in the week before the onset of illness, since the symptoms are indistinguishable from those of seasonal influenza A or B infections.
In suspected cases, the clinician should notify the local or state public health department and arrange for a special test to be performed on respiratory specimens: the CDC Flu Real-Time Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction Dx Panel. The reason is that a negative rapid influenza diagnostic test does not rule out influenza infection, and a positive immunofluorescence assay (direct fluorescent antibody staining) cannot specifically detect H3N2v.7
The current seasonal influenza vaccine will not protect against H3N2v. The isolates tested to date were susceptible to the neuraminidase inhibitor drugs oseltamivir (Tamiflu) and zanamivir (Relenza) but resistant to amantadine (Symmetrel) and rimantadine (Flumadine).9
Whether H3N2v will become a significant problem during the upcoming flu season largely depends on the extent of human-to-human transmission. We need to closely follow updates on this virus.
H5N1: THE LOOMING THREAT OF A BIRD FLU PANDEMIC
Since 2003, influenza A H5N1, a highly pathogenic avian virus, has broken out in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East, killing more than 100 million birds. It also has crossed the species barrier to infect humans, with an unusually high death rate.10
As of August 10, 2012, the World Health Organization had reported 608 confirmed cases of this virus infecting humans and 359 associated deaths.11 Most infected patients had a history of close contact with diseased poultry, but limited, nonsustained human-to-human transmission can occur during very close, unprotected contact with a severely ill patient.12
Molecular studies of this virus revealed further insights into its pathogenesis. Some of the viruses isolated from humans have had mutations that allow them to bind to human-type receptors.13 Amino acid substitutions in the polymerase basic protein 2 (PB2) gene are associated with mammalian adaptation, virulence in mice, and viral replication at temperatures present in the upper respiratory tract.14 Furthermore, higher plasma levels of macrophage- and neutrophil-attractant chemokines and both inflammatory and anti-inflammatory cytokines (interleukin 6, interleukin 10, and interferon gamma) have been observed in patients with H5N1 infection, especially in fatal cases.15 A recent study found that H5N1 causes significant perturbations in the host’s protein synthesis machinery as early as 1 hour after infection, suggesting that this virus gains an early advantage in replication by using the host’s proteome.16 The effects of unrestrained viral infection and inflammatory responses induced by H5N1 infection certainly contributed to the primary pathologic process and to death in human fulminant viral pneumonia. The up-regulation of inflammatory cytokines in these infections contributes to the development of sepsis syndrome, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and an increased risk of death, particularly in pregnant women.
Most experts predict that pandemic influenza is probably inevitable.17 If avian H5N1 and a human influenza virus swap genes in a host such as swine, the new hybrid virus will contain genetic material from both strains and will have surface antigens that the human immune system does not recognize. This could lead to a devastating avian flu pandemic with a very high death rate.18
An inactivated whole-virus H5N1 vaccine has been developed by the US government to prevent H5N1 infection.19 For treatment, the neuraminidase inhibitor oseltamivir is the drug of choice.10 Oseltamivir resistance remains uncommon. 20 Fortunately, zanamivir is still active against oseltamivir-resistant variants that have N1 neuraminidase mutations.21
THE 2009 H1N1 PANDEMIC KILLED MORE PEOPLE THAN WE THOUGHT
The fourth flu pandemic of the last 100 years occurred in 2009. (The other three were in 1918, 1957, and 1968.) It was caused by a novel strain, H1N1 of swine origin.22 This 2009 pandemic strain had six genes from the North American swine flu virus and two genes from the Eurasian swine flu virus. The pandemic affected more children and young people (who completely lacked prior immunity to this virus), while older people, who had cross-reacting antibodies, were less affected.
Worldwide, 18,500 people were reported initially to have died in this pandemic from April 2009 to August 2010.23 However, a recent modeling study estimated the number of respiratory and cardiovascular deaths associated with this pandemic at 283,500—about 15 times higher.24
AN AUSTRALIAN OUTBREAK OF OSELTAMIVIR-RESISTANT H1N1
Many strains of influenza A virus are resistant to amantadine and rimantadine, owing to amino acid substitutions in the M2 protein.25 In contrast, resistance to the neuraminidase inhibitors oseltamivir and zanamivir has been reported only occasionally.26
Until recently, most oseltamivir-resistant viruses were isolated from immunocompromised hosts treated with oseltamivir.27–29 All the resistant viral isolates contained an amino acid substitution of histidine (H) to tyrosine (Y) at position 275 of the viral neuraminidase.30 In general, transmission of these oseltamivir-resistant strains has been limited and unsustained, but it can occur in settings of close contact, such as hospitals, school camps, or long train rides.31–35 Oseltamivir-resistant strains were detected in fewer than 1% of isolates from the community during the 2010–2011 influenza season in the Northern Hemisphere and most countries in the Southern Hemisphere during the 2011 flu season.36,37
However, an outbreak of oseltamivir-resistant H1N1 occurred in Australia between June and August 2011.38 In that outbreak, the isolates from only 15% of the 191 people infected with this virus, designated H1N1pdm09, carried the H257Y neuraminidase substitution.39 Further, only 1 of the 191 patients had received oseltamivir before. More importantly, genetic analysis suggested that the infection spread from a single source.
This was the first reported sustained community transmission of oseltamivir-resistant H1N1 in a community previously unexposed to this drug. As such, it is a warning sign of the potential for a widespread outbreak of this virus. In the event of such an outbreak, inhaled zanamivir would be the only effective treatment available.
THIS SEASON’S TRIVALENT INACTIVATED VACCINE
The trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine for the 2012–2013 season contains three inactivated viruses40:
- Influenza A/California/7/2009(H1N1)-like
- Influenza A/Victoria/361/2011(H3N2)-like
- Influenza B/Wisconsin/1/2010-like (Yamagata lineage).
The influenza A H3N2 and influenza B antigens are different from those in the 2011–2012 vaccine.41 The H1N1 strain is derived from H1N1pdm09, which had been contained in the 2011–2012 seasonal vaccine. This vaccine will not protect against H3N2v or H5N1.
LATEST RECOMMENDATIONS ON VACCINATION
Since 2010, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) has recommended annual flu shots for all people older than 6 months in the United States.42
Vaccination should be done before the onset of influenza activity in the community as soon as vaccine is available for the season. However, one should continue offering vaccination throughout the influenza season as long as influenza viruses are circulating in the community.
Children ages 6 months through 8 years not previously vaccinated against influenza should receive two doses of influenza vaccine at least 4 weeks apart for an optimal immune response. The US-licensed Afluria vaccine (CSL Biotherapies, King of Prussia, PA), a trivalent inactivated vaccine, is not recommended for children under 9 years of age because of concern about febrile seizures.43,44
There is no contraindication to giving inactivated trivalent influenza vaccine to immunosuppressed people.
The live-attenuated influenza vaccine is indicated only for healthy, nonpregnant people age 2 through 49 years and not for people who care for severely immunosuppressed patients who require a protective environment.
For indications for and details about the different available influenza vaccines, see the ACIP’s current recommendations (www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/wk/mm6132.pdf).40
Updated recommendations for people allergic to eggs
All currently available influenza vaccines are made by growing the virus in chicken eggs. Therefore, severe allergic and anaphylactic reactions can occur in people with egg allergy. The ACIP recommends that if people experienced only hives after egg exposure, they should still receive the trivalent inactivated vaccine. Recently, the ACIP reviewed data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System45 and issued the following recommendations for the 2012–2013 influenza season40:
- In people who are allergic to eggs, only trivalent inactivated vaccine should be used, not the live-attenuated vaccine, because of lack of data for use of the latter in this group.
- Vaccine should be given by providers who are familiar with the signs of egg allergy.
- Patients with a history of egg allergy who have experienced only hives after exposure to eggs should be observed for a minimum of 30 minutes after vaccination.
- Patients who experience lightheadedness, respiratory distress, angioedema, or recurrent emesis or who require epinephrine or emergency medical attention after egg exposure should be referred before vaccination to a physician who has expertise in managing allergic conditions.
- Tolerance to egg-containing foods does not exclude the possibility of egg allergy. Egg allergy can be confirmed by a consistent medical history of adverse reactions to eggs or egg-containing foods, plus skin or blood testing for immunoglobulin E antibodies to egg proteins.
A high-dose vaccine is available for people 65 years and older
The rates of hospitalization and death due to seasonal flu in elderly people have increased significantly in the last 20 years despite rising rates of vaccination.46–48 This is largely due to lower serologic response rates and vaccine efficacy in older adults with weaker immune systems.
Several studies have shown that the development of protective antibody titers depends on the dose of antigen.49–53 A randomized, controlled clinical trial compared the immunogenicity of a high-dose vaccine and a standard-dose vaccine in older adults and found that the level of antibody response was significantly higher with the high-dose vaccine, and that the rate of adverse reactions was the same.54
In December 2009, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) licensed a new trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine with high doses of hemagglutinin antigens for adults over the age of 65.55 Postlicensure safety surveillance in 2010 revealed no serious safety concerns.56
At present, the ACIP expresses no preference for standard-dose or high-dose vaccine for adults 65 years of age and older.40 Importantly, if only the standard-dose vaccine is at hand, the opportunity for influenza vaccination should not be missed with the intention of giving high-dose vaccine at a later date.
A NEW QUADRIVALENT LIVE-ATTENUATED INFLUENZA VACCINE FOR THE 2013–2014 SEASON
In February 2012, the FDA approved the first quadrivalent live-attenuated influenza vaccine, which is expected to replace the currently available trivalent live-attenuated influenza vaccine in the 2013–2014 flu season. The quadrivalent vaccine will include both lineages of the circulating influenza B viruses (the Victoria and Yamagata lineages). The reasons for this inclusion is the difficulty in predicting which of these viruses will predominate in any given season, and the limited cross-resistance by immunization against one of the lineages.
A recent analysis57 estimated that such a vaccine is likely to further reduce influenza cases, related hospitalizations, and deaths compared with the current trivalent vaccine. Like the current trivalent live-attenuated vaccine, the quadrivalent vaccine is inhaled.
EVOLVING VACCINATION POLICY IN HEALTH CARE WORKERS
Starting in January 2013, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services will require hospitals to report how many of their health care workers are vaccinated. These rates will be publicly reported as a measure of hospital quality. This has fueled the ongoing debate about mandating influenza vaccination for health care workers. Studies have shown that the most important factors in increasing influenza vaccination rates among health care workers are requiring vaccination as a condition for employment and making vaccination available on-site, for more than 1 day, at no cost to the worker.58
As an alternative, some institutions have implemented a “shot-or-mask” policy whereby a health care worker who elects not to be vaccinated because of medical or religious reasons would be asked to wear a mask during all faceto-face encounters with patients.
NEW ANTIVIRAL DRUGS ON THE HORIZON
The emergence of oseltamivir-resistant strains in recent years caused a great deal of concern in public health regarding the potential for outbreaks of drug-resistant influenza.34,35,59–61
A recent Asian randomized clinical trial reported the efficacy of a long-acting neuraminidase inhibitor, laninamivir octanoate, in the treatment of seasonal influenza.62 This study showed that a single inhalation of this drug is effective in treating seasonal influenza, including that caused by oseltamivir-resistant strains in adults. Laninamivir is currently approved in Japan.
CHALLENGES IN PREVENTING AND TREATING INFLUENZA
Despite the great advances that we have made in preventing and treating influenza in the last half-century, we still face many challenges. Each year in the United States, influenza infection results in an estimated 31 million outpatient visits, 226,000 hospital admissions, and 36,000 deaths.42
Antigenic drift and shift. Influenza viruses circulating among animals and humans vary genetically from season to season and within seasons. As a result of this changing viral antigenicity, the virus can evade the human immune system, causing widespread outbreaks.
One of the unique and most remarkable features of influenza virus is the antigenic variation: antigenic drift and antigenic shift. Antigenic drift is the relatively minor antigenic changes that occur frequently within an influenza subtype, typically resulting from genetic mutation of viral RNA coding for hemagglutinin or neuraminidase. This causes annual regional epidemics. In contrast, antigenic shift is the result of genetic material reassortment: the emerging of new viral RNA from different strains of different species. This often leads to global pandemics.
Therefore, it is challenging to accurately predict the antigenic makeup of influenza viruses for each season and to include new emerging antigens in the vaccine production, as we are facing a moving target. We prepare influenza vaccines each season based on past experience.63
Vaccination rates have hit a plateau of 60% to 70% in adults since the 1990s, in spite of greater vaccine supply and recommendations that all adults, regardless of underlying disease, be vaccinated annually.64 Similarly, only 51% of children age 6 months to 17 years were vaccinated in the 2010–2011 season.65 And vaccination rates are even lower in low-income populations.66,67
The emergence of oseltamivir-resistant strains in recent years, not only in people exposed to oseltamivir but also in those who haven’t been exposed to this drug, with sustained transmission, certainly raises the possibility of a more difficult epidemic to control.38
Global travel, global infection. Our last H1N1 pandemic in 2009 was an example of how easily the influenza virus can spread rapidly in today’s highly mobile global society.22
What we must do
As primary health care providers, we must closely monitor the community outbreak and the emergence of drug-resistant strains and strongly recommend vaccination for all patients older than 6 months, since timely vaccination is the cornerstone of influenza prevention. Although many have questioned the efficacy of influenza vaccination, a recent meta-analysis showed a 59% pooled efficacy of the trivalent inactivated vaccine in adults age 18 to 65 years in preventing virologically confirmed influenza, and 83% pooled efficacy of the live-attenuated influenza vaccine in children age 6 months to 7 years.68 Novel approaches for vaccination reminders, such as text messaging69 in addition to traditional mail or telephone reminders, can improve vaccination compliance in today’s highly mobile world that is more than ever connected.
With the lessons learned from four pandemics in the last century, updated recommendations for prevention, and adequate vaccine supply, we should be ready to face the challenge of another flu season.
- Doshi P. Trends in recorded influenza mortality: United States, 1900–2004. Am J Public Health 2008; 98:939–945.
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Estimates of deaths associated with seasonal influenza — United States, 1976–2007. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2010; 59:1057–1062.
- Reid AH, Taubenberger JK, Fanning TG. Evidence of an absence: the genetic origins of the 1918 pandemic influenza virus. Nat Rev Microbiol 2004; 2:909–914.
- Lindstrom S, Garten R, Balish A, et al. Human infections with novel reassortant influenza A(H3N2)v viruses, United States, 2011. Emerg Infect Dis 2012; 18:834–837.
- Shu B, Garten R, Emery S, et al. Genetic analysis and antigenic characterization of swine origin influenza viruses isolated from humans in the United States, 1990–2010. Virology 2012; 422:151–160.
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). http://www.cdc.gov/flu/swineflu/h3n2v-outbreak.htm. Accessed September 27, 2012.
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Evaluation of rapid influenza diagnostic tests for influenza A (H3N2)v virus and updated case count — United States, 2012. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2012; 61:619–621.
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Update: Influenza A (H3N2)v transmission and guidelines — five states, 2011. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2012; 60:1741–1744.
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Interim information for clinicians about human infections with H3N2v virus. http://www.cdc.gov/flu/swineflu/h3n2v-clinician.htm. Accessed September 27, 2012.
- Writing Committee of the Second World Health Organization Consultation on Clinical Aspects of Human Infection with Avian Influenza A (H5N1) Virus; Abdel-Ghafar AN, Chotpitayasunondh T, Gao Z, et al. Update on avian influenza A (H5N1) virus infection in humans. N Engl J Med 2008; 358:261–273.
- World Health Organization (WHO). http://www.who.int/influenza/human_animal_interface/H5N1_cumulative_table_archives/en/index.html. Accessed September 27, 2012.
- Ungchusak K, Auewarakul P, Dowell SF, et al. Probable person-to-person transmission of avian influenza A (H5N1). N Engl J Med 2005; 352:333–340.
- Yamada S, Suzuki Y, Suzuki T, et al. Haemagglutinin mutations responsible for the binding of H5N1 influenza A viruses to human-type receptors. Nature 2006; 444:378–382.
- Hatta M, Hatta Y, Kim JH, et al. Growth of H5N1 influenza A viruses in the upper respiratory tracts of mice. PLoS Pathog 2007; 3:1374–1379.
- de Jong MD, Simmons CP, Thanh TT, et al. Fatal outcome of human influenza A (H5N1) is associated with high viral load and hypercytokinemia. Nat Med 2006; 12:1203–1207.
- Cheung CY, Chan EY, Krasnoselsky A, et al. H5N1 virus causes significant perturbations in host proteome very early in influenza virus-infected primary human monocyte-derived macrophages. J Infect Dis 2012; 206:640–645.
- Gordon S. Avian influenza: a wake-up call from birds to humans. Cleve Clin J Med 2004; 71:273–274.
- Jin XW, Mossad SB. Avian influenza: an emerging pandemic threat. Cleve Clin J Med 2005; 72:1129–1234.
- Ehrlich HJ, Müller M, Oh HM, et al; Baxter H5N1 Pandemic Influenza Vaccine Clinical Study Team. A clinical trial of a whole-virus H5N1 vaccine derived from cell culture. N Engl J Med 2008; 358:2573–2584.
- de Jong MD, Tran TT, Truong HK, et al. Oseltamivir resistance during treatment of influenza A (H5N1) infection. N Engl J Med 2005; 353:2667–2672.
- Le QM, Kiso M, Someya K, et al. Avian flu: isolation of drug-resistant H5N1 virus. Nature 2005; 437:1108.
- Ison MG, Lee N. Influenza 2010–2011: lessons from the 2009 pandemic. Cleve Clin J Med 2010; 77:812–820.
- World Health Organization (WHO). Pandemic (H1N1) 2009 — update 112. http://www.who.int/csr/don/2010_08_06/en/index.html. Accessed September 27, 2012.
- Dawood FS, Iuliano AD, Reed C, et al. Estimated global mortality associated with the first 12 months of 2009 pandemic influenza A H1N1 virus circulation: a modelling study. Lancet Infect Dis 2012; 12:687–695.
- Bright RA, Shay DK, Shu B, Cox NJ, Klimov AI. Adamantane resistance among influenza A viruses isolated early during the 2005–2006 influenza season in the United States. JAMA 2006; 295:891–894.
- Nguyen HT, Fry AM, Gubareva LV. Neuraminidase inhibitor resistance in influenza viruses and laboratory testing methods. Antivir Ther 2012; 17:159–173.
- Graitcer SB, Gubareva L, Kamimoto L, et al. Characteristics of patients with oseltamivir-resistant pandemic (H1N1) 2009, United States. Emerg Infect Dis 2011; 17:255–257.
- Hurt AC, Deng YM, Ernest J, et al. Oseltamivir-resistant influenza viruses circulating during the first year of the influenza A(H1N1) 2009 pandemic in the Asia-Pacific region, March 2009 to March 2010. Euro Surveill 2011; 16:19770.
- Meijer A, Jonges M, Abbink F, et al. Oseltamivir-resistant pandemic A(H1N1) 2009 influenza viruses detected through enhanced surveillance in the Netherlands, 2009–2010. Antiviral Res 2011; 92:81–89.
- Gubareva LV, Kaiser L, Hayden FG. IInfluenza virus neuraminidase inhibitors. Lancet 2000; 355:827–835.
- Wolfe C, Greenwald I, Chen L. Pandemic (H1N1) 2009 and oseltamivir resistance in hematology/oncology patients. Emerg Infect Dis 2010; 16:1809–1811.
- Moore C, Galiano M, Lackenby A, et al. Evidence of person-to-person transmission of oseltamivir-resistant pandemic influenza A(H1N1) 2009 virus in a hematology unit. J Infect Dis 2011; 203:18–24.
- Chen LF, Dailey NJ, Rao AK, et al. Cluster of oseltamivir-resistant 2009 pandemic influenza A (H1N1) virus infections on a hospital ward among immunocompromised patients — North Carolina, 2009. J Infect Dis 2011; 203:838–846.
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Oseltamivir-resistant 2009 pandemic influenza A (H1N1) virus infection in two summer campers receiving prophylaxis — North Carolina, 2009. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2009; 58:969–972.
- Le QM, Wertheim HF, Tran ND, van Doorn HR, Nguyen TH, Horby P; Vietnam H1N1 Investigation Team. A community cluster of oseltamivir-resistant cases of 2009 H1N1 influenza. N Engl J Med 2010; 362:86–87.
- Lackenby A, Moran Gilad J, Pebody R, et al. Continued emergence and changing epidemiology of oseltamivir-resistant influenza A(H1N1)2009 virus, United Kingdom, winter 2010/11. Euro Surveill 2011; 16:19784.
- World Health Organization (WHO). Summary of influenza antiviral susceptibility surveillance findings, September 2010 – March 2011. http://www.who.int/influenza/gisrs_laboratory/updates/antiviral_susceptibility/en/index.html. Accessed September 27, 2012.
- Hurt AC, Hardie K, Wilson NJ, et al. Community transmission of oseltamivir-resistant A(H1N1)pdm09 influenza. N Engl J Med 2011; 365:2541–2542.
- Hurt AC, Hardie K, Wilson NJ, et al. Characteristics of a widespread community cluster of H275Y oseltamivir-resistant A(H1N1)pdm09 influenza in Australia. J Infect Dis 2012; 206:148–157.
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Prevention and control of influenza with vaccines: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) — United States, 2012–13 Influenza Season. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2012; 61:613–618.
- Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Summary minutes: vaccines and related biological products advisory committee. February 28–29, 2012. Silver Spring, MD. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Advisory-Committees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/BloodVaccinesandOther-Biologics/VaccinesandRelatedBiologicalProductsAdvisoryCommittee/UCM296193.pdf. Accessed September 28, 2012.
- Fiore AE, Uyeki TM, Broder K, et al; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Prevention and control of influenza with vaccines: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), 2010. MMWR Recomm Rep 2010; 59:1–62.
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Update: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) regarding use of CSL seasonal influenza vaccine (Afluria) in the United States during 2010–11. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2010; 59:989–992.
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Prevention and control of influenza with vaccines: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), 2011. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2011; 60:1128–1132.
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices: Update on influenza vaccine safety monitoring. June 20–21, 2012. Atlanta, GA. http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-jun-2012/03-influenza-Shimabukuro.pdf. Accessed September 28, 2012.
- Simonsen L, Reichert TA, Viboud C, Blackwelder WC, Taylor RJ, Miller MA. Impact of influenza vaccination on seasonal mortality in the US elderly population. Arch Intern Med 2005; 165:265–272.
- Thompson WW, Shay DK, Weintraub E, et al. Influenza-associated hospitalizations in the United States. JAMA 2004; 292:1333–1340.
- Thompson WW, Shay DK, Weintraub E, et al. Mortality associated with influenza and respiratory syncytial virus in the United States. JAMA 2003; 289:179–186.
- Mostow SR, Schoenbaum SC, Dowdle WR, Coleman MT, Kaye HS. Inactivated vaccines. 1. Volunteer studies with very high doses of influenza vaccine purified by zonal ultracentrifugation. Postgrad Med J 1973; 49:152–158.
- Keitel WA, Atmar RL, Cate TR, et al. Safety of high doses of influenza vaccine and effect on antibody responses in elderly persons. Arch Intern Med 2006; 166:1121–1127.
- Ruben FL, Jackson GG. A new subunit influenza vaccine: acceptability compared with standard vaccines and effect of dose on antigenicity. J Infect Dis 1972; 125:656–664.
- Palache AM, Beyer WE, Sprenger MJ, et al. Antibody response after influenza immunization with various vaccine doses: a double-blind, placebo-controlled, multi-centre, dose-response study in elderly nursing-home residents and young volunteers. Vaccine 1993; 11:3–9.
- Couch RB, Winokur P, Brady R, et al. Safety and immunogenicity of a high dosage trivalent influenza vaccine among elderly subjects. Vaccine 2007; 25:7656–7663.
- Falsey AR, Treanor JJ, Tornieporth N, Capellan J, Gorse GJ. Randomized, double-blind controlled phase 3 trial comparing the immunogenicity of high-dose and standard-dose influenza vaccine in adults 65 years of age and older. J Infect Dis 2009; 200:172–180.
- US Food and Drug Administration. Vaccines, Blood & Biologics. December 23,2009 approval letter—Fluzone high-dose. http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/ucm195481.htm. Accessed October 1, 2012.
- Moro PL, Arana J, Cano M, et al. Postlicensure safety surveillance for high-dose trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, 1 July 2010–31 December 2010. Clin Infect Dis 2012; 54:1608–1614.
- Reed C, Meltzer MI, Finelli L, Fiore A. Public health impact of including two lineages of influenza B in a quadrivalent seasonal influenza vaccine. Vaccine 2012; 30:1993–1998.
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Influenza vaccination coverage among health-care personnel — United States, 2010–11 influenza season. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2011; 60:1073–1077.
- Meijer A, Lackenby A, Hungnes O, et al; European Influenza Surveillance Scheme. Oseltamivir-resistant influenza virus A (H1N1), Europe, 2007–08 season. Emerg Infect Dis 2009; 15:552–560.
- Moscona A. Global transmission of oseltamivir-resistant influenza. N Engl J Med 2009; 360:953–956.
- World Health Organization (WHO). Influenza A virus resistance to oseltamivir. http://www.who.int/influenza/patient_care/antivirals/oseltamivir_summary/en/. Accessed September 28, 2012.
- Watanabe A, Chang SC, Kim MJ, Chu DW, Ohashi Y; MARVEL Study Group. Long-acting neuraminidase inhibitor laninamivir octanoate versus oseltamivir for treatment of influenza: a double-blind, randomized, noninferiority clinical trial. Clin Infect Dis 2010; 51:1167–1175.
- Deyde VM, Gubareva LV. Influenza genome analysis using pyro-sequencing method: current applications for a moving target. Expert Rev Mol Diagn 2009; 9:493–509.
- Schuchat A, Katz JM. Protecting adults from influenza: tis the season to learn from the pandemic. J Infect Dis 2012; 206:803–805.
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Final state-level influenza vaccination coverage estimates for the 2010–11 season — United States, National Immunization Survey and Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, August 2010 through May 2011. http://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/vaccination/coverage_1011estimates.htm. Accessed September 28, 2012.
- Bhatt P, Block SL, Toback SL, Ambrose CS. Timing of the availability and administration of influenza vaccine through the vaccines for children program. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2011; 30:100–106.
- Lee BY, Brown ST, Bailey RR, et al. The benefits to all of ensuring equal and timely access to influenza vaccines in poor communities. Health Aff (Millwood) 2011; 30:1141–1150.
- Osterholm MT, Kelley NS, Sommer A, Belongia EA. Efficacy and effectiveness of influenza vaccines: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Infect Dis 2012; 12:36–44.
- Stockwell MS, Kharbanda EO, Martinez RA, Vargas CY, Vawdrey DK, Camargo S. Effect of a text messaging intervention on influenza vaccination in an urban, low-income pediatric and adolescent population: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2012; 307:1702–1708.
- Doshi P. Trends in recorded influenza mortality: United States, 1900–2004. Am J Public Health 2008; 98:939–945.
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Estimates of deaths associated with seasonal influenza — United States, 1976–2007. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2010; 59:1057–1062.
- Reid AH, Taubenberger JK, Fanning TG. Evidence of an absence: the genetic origins of the 1918 pandemic influenza virus. Nat Rev Microbiol 2004; 2:909–914.
- Lindstrom S, Garten R, Balish A, et al. Human infections with novel reassortant influenza A(H3N2)v viruses, United States, 2011. Emerg Infect Dis 2012; 18:834–837.
- Shu B, Garten R, Emery S, et al. Genetic analysis and antigenic characterization of swine origin influenza viruses isolated from humans in the United States, 1990–2010. Virology 2012; 422:151–160.
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). http://www.cdc.gov/flu/swineflu/h3n2v-outbreak.htm. Accessed September 27, 2012.
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Evaluation of rapid influenza diagnostic tests for influenza A (H3N2)v virus and updated case count — United States, 2012. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2012; 61:619–621.
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Update: Influenza A (H3N2)v transmission and guidelines — five states, 2011. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2012; 60:1741–1744.
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Interim information for clinicians about human infections with H3N2v virus. http://www.cdc.gov/flu/swineflu/h3n2v-clinician.htm. Accessed September 27, 2012.
- Writing Committee of the Second World Health Organization Consultation on Clinical Aspects of Human Infection with Avian Influenza A (H5N1) Virus; Abdel-Ghafar AN, Chotpitayasunondh T, Gao Z, et al. Update on avian influenza A (H5N1) virus infection in humans. N Engl J Med 2008; 358:261–273.
- World Health Organization (WHO). http://www.who.int/influenza/human_animal_interface/H5N1_cumulative_table_archives/en/index.html. Accessed September 27, 2012.
- Ungchusak K, Auewarakul P, Dowell SF, et al. Probable person-to-person transmission of avian influenza A (H5N1). N Engl J Med 2005; 352:333–340.
- Yamada S, Suzuki Y, Suzuki T, et al. Haemagglutinin mutations responsible for the binding of H5N1 influenza A viruses to human-type receptors. Nature 2006; 444:378–382.
- Hatta M, Hatta Y, Kim JH, et al. Growth of H5N1 influenza A viruses in the upper respiratory tracts of mice. PLoS Pathog 2007; 3:1374–1379.
- de Jong MD, Simmons CP, Thanh TT, et al. Fatal outcome of human influenza A (H5N1) is associated with high viral load and hypercytokinemia. Nat Med 2006; 12:1203–1207.
- Cheung CY, Chan EY, Krasnoselsky A, et al. H5N1 virus causes significant perturbations in host proteome very early in influenza virus-infected primary human monocyte-derived macrophages. J Infect Dis 2012; 206:640–645.
- Gordon S. Avian influenza: a wake-up call from birds to humans. Cleve Clin J Med 2004; 71:273–274.
- Jin XW, Mossad SB. Avian influenza: an emerging pandemic threat. Cleve Clin J Med 2005; 72:1129–1234.
- Ehrlich HJ, Müller M, Oh HM, et al; Baxter H5N1 Pandemic Influenza Vaccine Clinical Study Team. A clinical trial of a whole-virus H5N1 vaccine derived from cell culture. N Engl J Med 2008; 358:2573–2584.
- de Jong MD, Tran TT, Truong HK, et al. Oseltamivir resistance during treatment of influenza A (H5N1) infection. N Engl J Med 2005; 353:2667–2672.
- Le QM, Kiso M, Someya K, et al. Avian flu: isolation of drug-resistant H5N1 virus. Nature 2005; 437:1108.
- Ison MG, Lee N. Influenza 2010–2011: lessons from the 2009 pandemic. Cleve Clin J Med 2010; 77:812–820.
- World Health Organization (WHO). Pandemic (H1N1) 2009 — update 112. http://www.who.int/csr/don/2010_08_06/en/index.html. Accessed September 27, 2012.
- Dawood FS, Iuliano AD, Reed C, et al. Estimated global mortality associated with the first 12 months of 2009 pandemic influenza A H1N1 virus circulation: a modelling study. Lancet Infect Dis 2012; 12:687–695.
- Bright RA, Shay DK, Shu B, Cox NJ, Klimov AI. Adamantane resistance among influenza A viruses isolated early during the 2005–2006 influenza season in the United States. JAMA 2006; 295:891–894.
- Nguyen HT, Fry AM, Gubareva LV. Neuraminidase inhibitor resistance in influenza viruses and laboratory testing methods. Antivir Ther 2012; 17:159–173.
- Graitcer SB, Gubareva L, Kamimoto L, et al. Characteristics of patients with oseltamivir-resistant pandemic (H1N1) 2009, United States. Emerg Infect Dis 2011; 17:255–257.
- Hurt AC, Deng YM, Ernest J, et al. Oseltamivir-resistant influenza viruses circulating during the first year of the influenza A(H1N1) 2009 pandemic in the Asia-Pacific region, March 2009 to March 2010. Euro Surveill 2011; 16:19770.
- Meijer A, Jonges M, Abbink F, et al. Oseltamivir-resistant pandemic A(H1N1) 2009 influenza viruses detected through enhanced surveillance in the Netherlands, 2009–2010. Antiviral Res 2011; 92:81–89.
- Gubareva LV, Kaiser L, Hayden FG. IInfluenza virus neuraminidase inhibitors. Lancet 2000; 355:827–835.
- Wolfe C, Greenwald I, Chen L. Pandemic (H1N1) 2009 and oseltamivir resistance in hematology/oncology patients. Emerg Infect Dis 2010; 16:1809–1811.
- Moore C, Galiano M, Lackenby A, et al. Evidence of person-to-person transmission of oseltamivir-resistant pandemic influenza A(H1N1) 2009 virus in a hematology unit. J Infect Dis 2011; 203:18–24.
- Chen LF, Dailey NJ, Rao AK, et al. Cluster of oseltamivir-resistant 2009 pandemic influenza A (H1N1) virus infections on a hospital ward among immunocompromised patients — North Carolina, 2009. J Infect Dis 2011; 203:838–846.
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Oseltamivir-resistant 2009 pandemic influenza A (H1N1) virus infection in two summer campers receiving prophylaxis — North Carolina, 2009. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2009; 58:969–972.
- Le QM, Wertheim HF, Tran ND, van Doorn HR, Nguyen TH, Horby P; Vietnam H1N1 Investigation Team. A community cluster of oseltamivir-resistant cases of 2009 H1N1 influenza. N Engl J Med 2010; 362:86–87.
- Lackenby A, Moran Gilad J, Pebody R, et al. Continued emergence and changing epidemiology of oseltamivir-resistant influenza A(H1N1)2009 virus, United Kingdom, winter 2010/11. Euro Surveill 2011; 16:19784.
- World Health Organization (WHO). Summary of influenza antiviral susceptibility surveillance findings, September 2010 – March 2011. http://www.who.int/influenza/gisrs_laboratory/updates/antiviral_susceptibility/en/index.html. Accessed September 27, 2012.
- Hurt AC, Hardie K, Wilson NJ, et al. Community transmission of oseltamivir-resistant A(H1N1)pdm09 influenza. N Engl J Med 2011; 365:2541–2542.
- Hurt AC, Hardie K, Wilson NJ, et al. Characteristics of a widespread community cluster of H275Y oseltamivir-resistant A(H1N1)pdm09 influenza in Australia. J Infect Dis 2012; 206:148–157.
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Prevention and control of influenza with vaccines: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) — United States, 2012–13 Influenza Season. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2012; 61:613–618.
- Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Summary minutes: vaccines and related biological products advisory committee. February 28–29, 2012. Silver Spring, MD. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Advisory-Committees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/BloodVaccinesandOther-Biologics/VaccinesandRelatedBiologicalProductsAdvisoryCommittee/UCM296193.pdf. Accessed September 28, 2012.
- Fiore AE, Uyeki TM, Broder K, et al; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Prevention and control of influenza with vaccines: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), 2010. MMWR Recomm Rep 2010; 59:1–62.
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Update: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) regarding use of CSL seasonal influenza vaccine (Afluria) in the United States during 2010–11. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2010; 59:989–992.
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Prevention and control of influenza with vaccines: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), 2011. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2011; 60:1128–1132.
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices: Update on influenza vaccine safety monitoring. June 20–21, 2012. Atlanta, GA. http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-jun-2012/03-influenza-Shimabukuro.pdf. Accessed September 28, 2012.
- Simonsen L, Reichert TA, Viboud C, Blackwelder WC, Taylor RJ, Miller MA. Impact of influenza vaccination on seasonal mortality in the US elderly population. Arch Intern Med 2005; 165:265–272.
- Thompson WW, Shay DK, Weintraub E, et al. Influenza-associated hospitalizations in the United States. JAMA 2004; 292:1333–1340.
- Thompson WW, Shay DK, Weintraub E, et al. Mortality associated with influenza and respiratory syncytial virus in the United States. JAMA 2003; 289:179–186.
- Mostow SR, Schoenbaum SC, Dowdle WR, Coleman MT, Kaye HS. Inactivated vaccines. 1. Volunteer studies with very high doses of influenza vaccine purified by zonal ultracentrifugation. Postgrad Med J 1973; 49:152–158.
- Keitel WA, Atmar RL, Cate TR, et al. Safety of high doses of influenza vaccine and effect on antibody responses in elderly persons. Arch Intern Med 2006; 166:1121–1127.
- Ruben FL, Jackson GG. A new subunit influenza vaccine: acceptability compared with standard vaccines and effect of dose on antigenicity. J Infect Dis 1972; 125:656–664.
- Palache AM, Beyer WE, Sprenger MJ, et al. Antibody response after influenza immunization with various vaccine doses: a double-blind, placebo-controlled, multi-centre, dose-response study in elderly nursing-home residents and young volunteers. Vaccine 1993; 11:3–9.
- Couch RB, Winokur P, Brady R, et al. Safety and immunogenicity of a high dosage trivalent influenza vaccine among elderly subjects. Vaccine 2007; 25:7656–7663.
- Falsey AR, Treanor JJ, Tornieporth N, Capellan J, Gorse GJ. Randomized, double-blind controlled phase 3 trial comparing the immunogenicity of high-dose and standard-dose influenza vaccine in adults 65 years of age and older. J Infect Dis 2009; 200:172–180.
- US Food and Drug Administration. Vaccines, Blood & Biologics. December 23,2009 approval letter—Fluzone high-dose. http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/ucm195481.htm. Accessed October 1, 2012.
- Moro PL, Arana J, Cano M, et al. Postlicensure safety surveillance for high-dose trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, 1 July 2010–31 December 2010. Clin Infect Dis 2012; 54:1608–1614.
- Reed C, Meltzer MI, Finelli L, Fiore A. Public health impact of including two lineages of influenza B in a quadrivalent seasonal influenza vaccine. Vaccine 2012; 30:1993–1998.
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Influenza vaccination coverage among health-care personnel — United States, 2010–11 influenza season. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2011; 60:1073–1077.
- Meijer A, Lackenby A, Hungnes O, et al; European Influenza Surveillance Scheme. Oseltamivir-resistant influenza virus A (H1N1), Europe, 2007–08 season. Emerg Infect Dis 2009; 15:552–560.
- Moscona A. Global transmission of oseltamivir-resistant influenza. N Engl J Med 2009; 360:953–956.
- World Health Organization (WHO). Influenza A virus resistance to oseltamivir. http://www.who.int/influenza/patient_care/antivirals/oseltamivir_summary/en/. Accessed September 28, 2012.
- Watanabe A, Chang SC, Kim MJ, Chu DW, Ohashi Y; MARVEL Study Group. Long-acting neuraminidase inhibitor laninamivir octanoate versus oseltamivir for treatment of influenza: a double-blind, randomized, noninferiority clinical trial. Clin Infect Dis 2010; 51:1167–1175.
- Deyde VM, Gubareva LV. Influenza genome analysis using pyro-sequencing method: current applications for a moving target. Expert Rev Mol Diagn 2009; 9:493–509.
- Schuchat A, Katz JM. Protecting adults from influenza: tis the season to learn from the pandemic. J Infect Dis 2012; 206:803–805.
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Final state-level influenza vaccination coverage estimates for the 2010–11 season — United States, National Immunization Survey and Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, August 2010 through May 2011. http://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/vaccination/coverage_1011estimates.htm. Accessed September 28, 2012.
- Bhatt P, Block SL, Toback SL, Ambrose CS. Timing of the availability and administration of influenza vaccine through the vaccines for children program. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2011; 30:100–106.
- Lee BY, Brown ST, Bailey RR, et al. The benefits to all of ensuring equal and timely access to influenza vaccines in poor communities. Health Aff (Millwood) 2011; 30:1141–1150.
- Osterholm MT, Kelley NS, Sommer A, Belongia EA. Efficacy and effectiveness of influenza vaccines: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Infect Dis 2012; 12:36–44.
- Stockwell MS, Kharbanda EO, Martinez RA, Vargas CY, Vawdrey DK, Camargo S. Effect of a text messaging intervention on influenza vaccination in an urban, low-income pediatric and adolescent population: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2012; 307:1702–1708.
KEY POINTS
- A recent outbreak of swine flu in children exposed to pigs at agricultural fairs is unprecedented. Seasonal influenza vaccine does not protect against this strain, designated H3N2v. The neuraminidase inhibitors oseltamivir (Tamiflu) and zanamivir (Relenza) are the drugs of choice for treatment.
- A highly lethal bird flu, designated H5N1, is still a pandemic threat. In the event of an outbreak, an inactivated whole-virus vaccine is available.
- A community outbreak of oseltamivir-resistant H1N1 in Australia sounded an alarm for a potential drug-resistant flu epidemic. Inhaled zanamivir would be the only effective therapy available in the event of such an epidemic.
- An emerging new antiviral drug is effective against oseltamivir-resistant influenza.
New and Noteworthy Information—November
Hormone therapy may reduce the risk of Alzheimer’s disease for women who take the treatment at a time near menopause, but if hormone therapy is begun after menopause it may not reduce such risk, according to a study in the October 30 Neurology. Researchers followed 1,768 women who were part of a population-based study and found that 176 women developed Alzheimer’s disease between 1995 and 2006. Women who used any type of hormone therapy within five years of menopause had a 30% less risk of Alzheimer’s disease. However, those who began hormone therapy five or more years after menopause did not have a reduced disease risk. In addition, women who began opposed compounds in the three years prior to the baseline assessment had an increased risk of Alzheimer’s disease. The association of hormone therapy use and risk of Alzheimer’s disease may depend on the timing of use and deserves further study, the investigators concluded.
Engaging in physical activity may protect older adults from brain atrophy and white matter lesions, researchers reported in the October 23 Neurology. The study examined self-reported leisure and physical activity at age 70 among a sample of 691 adults. At age 73, participants were assessed for structural brain biomarkers, and the investigators found that a higher level of physical activity was significantly associated with higher fractional anisotropy, less atrophy, lower white matter load, and larger gray and normal-appearing white matter volumes. These associations remained significant after adjustments for age, social class, and health status. The researchers noted that although their results support the role of physical activity as a potential neuroprotective factor, “the direction of causation is unclear from this observational study.”
Poor physical performance is associated with greater odds of dementia in persons age 90 or older, according to a study published in the online October 22 Archives of Neurology. The 629 participants (72.5% women) were from The 90+ Study, a population-based, longitudinal, epidemiologic study of aging and dementia. Participants’ mean age was 94, and all-cause dementia was the main outcome measure. Measures of physical performance included a 4-m walk, five chair stands, standing balance, and grip strength. Researchers found that poor physical performance in all measures was significantly associated with an increased risk of dementia. “Our findings suggest that dementia is a complex neurodegenerative process that may affect physical performance and cognition,” the investigators concluded. “Additional research is necessary to determine the temporal relationship between poor physical activity and cognitive dysfunction.”
Exposure to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) is associated with an increased risk of intracerebral and intracranial hemorrhage, though the absolute risk of those events is low, according to a study published in the October 30 Neurology. In this meta-analysis, investigators searched for controlled observational studies that compared SSRI users with a control group not receiving SSRIs. The researchers found that intracranial and intracerebral hemorrhage were related to SSRI exposure in unadjusted and adjusted analyses. A subset of five studies showed that SSRI exposure combined with oral anticoagulants was linked with an increased risk of bleeding, compared with use of oral anticoagulants alone. “When all studies were analyzed together, increased risk was seen across cohort studies, case-control studies, and case-crossover studies,” the study authors noted.
The herpes zoster vaccine is effective in preventing herpes zoster in older adults, according to research published in the online October 17 Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The study authors conducted a meta-analysis of eight randomized controlled trials of adults who had a mean age older than 60. The trials had a total of 52,269 participants. Patients who received the vaccine had fewer confirmed cases of herpes zoster than those who received placebo. Analysis of age groups showed that vaccine benefits were greatest for patients ages 60 to 69, as well as for those 70 and older. However, persons ages 60 to 69 experienced more frequent side effects than did persons 70 and older. “In general, zoster vaccine is well tolerated; it produces few systemic adverse events and injection site adverse effects of mild to moderate intensity,” wrote the researchers.
Strokes are increasingly occurring in younger patients, researchers reported in the October 23 Neurology. Between 1993 and 1994 and between 1999 and 2005, strokes were recorded in an estimated population of 1.3 million. The investigators used a mixed-model approach to test for differences in age trends over time, and they found that the mean age at stroke decreased by a significant amount, from 71.2 years in 1993/1994 to 69.2 years in 2005. Furthermore, the proportion of all strokes in persons younger than 55 increased from 12.9% in 1993 to 18.6% in 2005. “This is of great public health significance because strokes in younger patients carry the potential for greater lifetime burden of disability and because some potential contributors identified for this trend are modifiable,” the researchers concluded.
The FDA has approved perampanel (Fycompa), an AMPA receptor agonist, as an adjunctive treatment for partial-onset seizures with or without secondarily generalized seizures in patients ages 12 and older with epilepsy. Perampanel is a novel agent that reduces neuronal hyperexcitation associated with seizures by inhibiting glutamate activity at postsynaptic AMPA receptors, and it is the first antiepileptic agent approved in the US to work in this manner. In three phase III, global, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies (1,480 patients), researchers concluded that perampanel significantly reduced seizure frequency in patients with partial-onset seizures with or without secondary generalized seizures. Patients experienced adverse events that included dizziness, somnolence, fatigue, irritability, falls, nausea, ataxia, balance disorder, gait disturbance, vertigo, and weight gain.
Persons who survive an ischemic stroke and continue smoking have a greater risk of heart attack, death, or another stroke, compared with those who have never smoked, researchers reported in the online October 25 Stroke. The study included 1,589 patients who experienced a first or recurrent ischemic stroke between 1996 and 1999. The investigators tracked the cohort for 10 years and found that patients who smoked when they had a stroke were 30% more likely to have a poor outcome and that current smokers who survived the first 28 days after a stroke had a 42% higher risk of poor outcome. In addition, former smokers had an 18% higher risk of poor outcomes. The authors also noted that smoking had the greatest effect on younger male patients, particularly those from a disadvantaged background.
For every 400 to 500 persons with an intermediate risk of cardiovascular disease who undergo screening for C-reactive protein or fibrinogen, one additional event in a period of 10 years may be prevented, researchers reported in the October 4 New England Journal of Medicine. In a meta-analysis of 52 prospective studies of persons without a history of cardiovascular disease, the investigators sought to determine whether assessing C-reactive protein or fibrinogen in addition to conventional cardiovascular risk factors leads to better prediction of cardiovascular risk.
Of 100,000 adults ages 40 and older, 15,025 would be classified as intermediate risk using conventional factors, and 13,199 would remain if statin therapy were initiated in accordance with guidelines. “Additional targeted assessment of C-reactive protein or fibrinogen levels in the 13,199 remaining participants at intermediate risk could help prevent approximately 30 additional cardiovascular events over the course of 10 years,” the researchers stated.
Extradural motor cortex stimulation for patients with Parkinson’s disease is a safe procedure that leads to moderate improvement of motor symptoms and in quality of life, according to a study published in the October Neurosurgery. Researchers assessed the safety and efficacy of one year of unilateral extradural motor cortex stimulation in nine patients with Parkinson’s disease. At baseline, participants were evaluated with the Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale and the Parkinson’s Disease Quality of Life Questionnaire. Quality of life scores increased at months three, six, and 12, and disease scores decreased from baseline during the year. Furthermore, bilateral motor effects were observed after three to four weeks. No surgical complications, adverse events, or cognitive and behavioral changes were observed, the study authors said.
The use of beta blockers is not associated with a lower risk of composite cardiovascular events in patients with either coronary artery disease (CAD) risk factors only, known prior myocardial infarction, or known CAD without myocardial infarction, according to an investigation published in the October 3 JAMA. In this longitudinal, observational study, 44,708 patients were categorized into three cohorts— 14,043 patients with known prior myocardial infarction, 12,012 patients with known CAD but without myocardial infarction, and 18,653 patients with CAD risk factors only. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke. For all outcomes tested, investigators found that event rates were not significantly different in patients with beta-blocker use, compared with those without beta-blocker use, even among those in the prior myocardial infarction cohort.
—Lauren LeBano
Hormone therapy may reduce the risk of Alzheimer’s disease for women who take the treatment at a time near menopause, but if hormone therapy is begun after menopause it may not reduce such risk, according to a study in the October 30 Neurology. Researchers followed 1,768 women who were part of a population-based study and found that 176 women developed Alzheimer’s disease between 1995 and 2006. Women who used any type of hormone therapy within five years of menopause had a 30% less risk of Alzheimer’s disease. However, those who began hormone therapy five or more years after menopause did not have a reduced disease risk. In addition, women who began opposed compounds in the three years prior to the baseline assessment had an increased risk of Alzheimer’s disease. The association of hormone therapy use and risk of Alzheimer’s disease may depend on the timing of use and deserves further study, the investigators concluded.
Engaging in physical activity may protect older adults from brain atrophy and white matter lesions, researchers reported in the October 23 Neurology. The study examined self-reported leisure and physical activity at age 70 among a sample of 691 adults. At age 73, participants were assessed for structural brain biomarkers, and the investigators found that a higher level of physical activity was significantly associated with higher fractional anisotropy, less atrophy, lower white matter load, and larger gray and normal-appearing white matter volumes. These associations remained significant after adjustments for age, social class, and health status. The researchers noted that although their results support the role of physical activity as a potential neuroprotective factor, “the direction of causation is unclear from this observational study.”
Poor physical performance is associated with greater odds of dementia in persons age 90 or older, according to a study published in the online October 22 Archives of Neurology. The 629 participants (72.5% women) were from The 90+ Study, a population-based, longitudinal, epidemiologic study of aging and dementia. Participants’ mean age was 94, and all-cause dementia was the main outcome measure. Measures of physical performance included a 4-m walk, five chair stands, standing balance, and grip strength. Researchers found that poor physical performance in all measures was significantly associated with an increased risk of dementia. “Our findings suggest that dementia is a complex neurodegenerative process that may affect physical performance and cognition,” the investigators concluded. “Additional research is necessary to determine the temporal relationship between poor physical activity and cognitive dysfunction.”
Exposure to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) is associated with an increased risk of intracerebral and intracranial hemorrhage, though the absolute risk of those events is low, according to a study published in the October 30 Neurology. In this meta-analysis, investigators searched for controlled observational studies that compared SSRI users with a control group not receiving SSRIs. The researchers found that intracranial and intracerebral hemorrhage were related to SSRI exposure in unadjusted and adjusted analyses. A subset of five studies showed that SSRI exposure combined with oral anticoagulants was linked with an increased risk of bleeding, compared with use of oral anticoagulants alone. “When all studies were analyzed together, increased risk was seen across cohort studies, case-control studies, and case-crossover studies,” the study authors noted.
The herpes zoster vaccine is effective in preventing herpes zoster in older adults, according to research published in the online October 17 Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The study authors conducted a meta-analysis of eight randomized controlled trials of adults who had a mean age older than 60. The trials had a total of 52,269 participants. Patients who received the vaccine had fewer confirmed cases of herpes zoster than those who received placebo. Analysis of age groups showed that vaccine benefits were greatest for patients ages 60 to 69, as well as for those 70 and older. However, persons ages 60 to 69 experienced more frequent side effects than did persons 70 and older. “In general, zoster vaccine is well tolerated; it produces few systemic adverse events and injection site adverse effects of mild to moderate intensity,” wrote the researchers.
Strokes are increasingly occurring in younger patients, researchers reported in the October 23 Neurology. Between 1993 and 1994 and between 1999 and 2005, strokes were recorded in an estimated population of 1.3 million. The investigators used a mixed-model approach to test for differences in age trends over time, and they found that the mean age at stroke decreased by a significant amount, from 71.2 years in 1993/1994 to 69.2 years in 2005. Furthermore, the proportion of all strokes in persons younger than 55 increased from 12.9% in 1993 to 18.6% in 2005. “This is of great public health significance because strokes in younger patients carry the potential for greater lifetime burden of disability and because some potential contributors identified for this trend are modifiable,” the researchers concluded.
The FDA has approved perampanel (Fycompa), an AMPA receptor agonist, as an adjunctive treatment for partial-onset seizures with or without secondarily generalized seizures in patients ages 12 and older with epilepsy. Perampanel is a novel agent that reduces neuronal hyperexcitation associated with seizures by inhibiting glutamate activity at postsynaptic AMPA receptors, and it is the first antiepileptic agent approved in the US to work in this manner. In three phase III, global, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies (1,480 patients), researchers concluded that perampanel significantly reduced seizure frequency in patients with partial-onset seizures with or without secondary generalized seizures. Patients experienced adverse events that included dizziness, somnolence, fatigue, irritability, falls, nausea, ataxia, balance disorder, gait disturbance, vertigo, and weight gain.
Persons who survive an ischemic stroke and continue smoking have a greater risk of heart attack, death, or another stroke, compared with those who have never smoked, researchers reported in the online October 25 Stroke. The study included 1,589 patients who experienced a first or recurrent ischemic stroke between 1996 and 1999. The investigators tracked the cohort for 10 years and found that patients who smoked when they had a stroke were 30% more likely to have a poor outcome and that current smokers who survived the first 28 days after a stroke had a 42% higher risk of poor outcome. In addition, former smokers had an 18% higher risk of poor outcomes. The authors also noted that smoking had the greatest effect on younger male patients, particularly those from a disadvantaged background.
For every 400 to 500 persons with an intermediate risk of cardiovascular disease who undergo screening for C-reactive protein or fibrinogen, one additional event in a period of 10 years may be prevented, researchers reported in the October 4 New England Journal of Medicine. In a meta-analysis of 52 prospective studies of persons without a history of cardiovascular disease, the investigators sought to determine whether assessing C-reactive protein or fibrinogen in addition to conventional cardiovascular risk factors leads to better prediction of cardiovascular risk.
Of 100,000 adults ages 40 and older, 15,025 would be classified as intermediate risk using conventional factors, and 13,199 would remain if statin therapy were initiated in accordance with guidelines. “Additional targeted assessment of C-reactive protein or fibrinogen levels in the 13,199 remaining participants at intermediate risk could help prevent approximately 30 additional cardiovascular events over the course of 10 years,” the researchers stated.
Extradural motor cortex stimulation for patients with Parkinson’s disease is a safe procedure that leads to moderate improvement of motor symptoms and in quality of life, according to a study published in the October Neurosurgery. Researchers assessed the safety and efficacy of one year of unilateral extradural motor cortex stimulation in nine patients with Parkinson’s disease. At baseline, participants were evaluated with the Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale and the Parkinson’s Disease Quality of Life Questionnaire. Quality of life scores increased at months three, six, and 12, and disease scores decreased from baseline during the year. Furthermore, bilateral motor effects were observed after three to four weeks. No surgical complications, adverse events, or cognitive and behavioral changes were observed, the study authors said.
The use of beta blockers is not associated with a lower risk of composite cardiovascular events in patients with either coronary artery disease (CAD) risk factors only, known prior myocardial infarction, or known CAD without myocardial infarction, according to an investigation published in the October 3 JAMA. In this longitudinal, observational study, 44,708 patients were categorized into three cohorts— 14,043 patients with known prior myocardial infarction, 12,012 patients with known CAD but without myocardial infarction, and 18,653 patients with CAD risk factors only. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke. For all outcomes tested, investigators found that event rates were not significantly different in patients with beta-blocker use, compared with those without beta-blocker use, even among those in the prior myocardial infarction cohort.
—Lauren LeBano
Hormone therapy may reduce the risk of Alzheimer’s disease for women who take the treatment at a time near menopause, but if hormone therapy is begun after menopause it may not reduce such risk, according to a study in the October 30 Neurology. Researchers followed 1,768 women who were part of a population-based study and found that 176 women developed Alzheimer’s disease between 1995 and 2006. Women who used any type of hormone therapy within five years of menopause had a 30% less risk of Alzheimer’s disease. However, those who began hormone therapy five or more years after menopause did not have a reduced disease risk. In addition, women who began opposed compounds in the three years prior to the baseline assessment had an increased risk of Alzheimer’s disease. The association of hormone therapy use and risk of Alzheimer’s disease may depend on the timing of use and deserves further study, the investigators concluded.
Engaging in physical activity may protect older adults from brain atrophy and white matter lesions, researchers reported in the October 23 Neurology. The study examined self-reported leisure and physical activity at age 70 among a sample of 691 adults. At age 73, participants were assessed for structural brain biomarkers, and the investigators found that a higher level of physical activity was significantly associated with higher fractional anisotropy, less atrophy, lower white matter load, and larger gray and normal-appearing white matter volumes. These associations remained significant after adjustments for age, social class, and health status. The researchers noted that although their results support the role of physical activity as a potential neuroprotective factor, “the direction of causation is unclear from this observational study.”
Poor physical performance is associated with greater odds of dementia in persons age 90 or older, according to a study published in the online October 22 Archives of Neurology. The 629 participants (72.5% women) were from The 90+ Study, a population-based, longitudinal, epidemiologic study of aging and dementia. Participants’ mean age was 94, and all-cause dementia was the main outcome measure. Measures of physical performance included a 4-m walk, five chair stands, standing balance, and grip strength. Researchers found that poor physical performance in all measures was significantly associated with an increased risk of dementia. “Our findings suggest that dementia is a complex neurodegenerative process that may affect physical performance and cognition,” the investigators concluded. “Additional research is necessary to determine the temporal relationship between poor physical activity and cognitive dysfunction.”
Exposure to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) is associated with an increased risk of intracerebral and intracranial hemorrhage, though the absolute risk of those events is low, according to a study published in the October 30 Neurology. In this meta-analysis, investigators searched for controlled observational studies that compared SSRI users with a control group not receiving SSRIs. The researchers found that intracranial and intracerebral hemorrhage were related to SSRI exposure in unadjusted and adjusted analyses. A subset of five studies showed that SSRI exposure combined with oral anticoagulants was linked with an increased risk of bleeding, compared with use of oral anticoagulants alone. “When all studies were analyzed together, increased risk was seen across cohort studies, case-control studies, and case-crossover studies,” the study authors noted.
The herpes zoster vaccine is effective in preventing herpes zoster in older adults, according to research published in the online October 17 Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The study authors conducted a meta-analysis of eight randomized controlled trials of adults who had a mean age older than 60. The trials had a total of 52,269 participants. Patients who received the vaccine had fewer confirmed cases of herpes zoster than those who received placebo. Analysis of age groups showed that vaccine benefits were greatest for patients ages 60 to 69, as well as for those 70 and older. However, persons ages 60 to 69 experienced more frequent side effects than did persons 70 and older. “In general, zoster vaccine is well tolerated; it produces few systemic adverse events and injection site adverse effects of mild to moderate intensity,” wrote the researchers.
Strokes are increasingly occurring in younger patients, researchers reported in the October 23 Neurology. Between 1993 and 1994 and between 1999 and 2005, strokes were recorded in an estimated population of 1.3 million. The investigators used a mixed-model approach to test for differences in age trends over time, and they found that the mean age at stroke decreased by a significant amount, from 71.2 years in 1993/1994 to 69.2 years in 2005. Furthermore, the proportion of all strokes in persons younger than 55 increased from 12.9% in 1993 to 18.6% in 2005. “This is of great public health significance because strokes in younger patients carry the potential for greater lifetime burden of disability and because some potential contributors identified for this trend are modifiable,” the researchers concluded.
The FDA has approved perampanel (Fycompa), an AMPA receptor agonist, as an adjunctive treatment for partial-onset seizures with or without secondarily generalized seizures in patients ages 12 and older with epilepsy. Perampanel is a novel agent that reduces neuronal hyperexcitation associated with seizures by inhibiting glutamate activity at postsynaptic AMPA receptors, and it is the first antiepileptic agent approved in the US to work in this manner. In three phase III, global, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies (1,480 patients), researchers concluded that perampanel significantly reduced seizure frequency in patients with partial-onset seizures with or without secondary generalized seizures. Patients experienced adverse events that included dizziness, somnolence, fatigue, irritability, falls, nausea, ataxia, balance disorder, gait disturbance, vertigo, and weight gain.
Persons who survive an ischemic stroke and continue smoking have a greater risk of heart attack, death, or another stroke, compared with those who have never smoked, researchers reported in the online October 25 Stroke. The study included 1,589 patients who experienced a first or recurrent ischemic stroke between 1996 and 1999. The investigators tracked the cohort for 10 years and found that patients who smoked when they had a stroke were 30% more likely to have a poor outcome and that current smokers who survived the first 28 days after a stroke had a 42% higher risk of poor outcome. In addition, former smokers had an 18% higher risk of poor outcomes. The authors also noted that smoking had the greatest effect on younger male patients, particularly those from a disadvantaged background.
For every 400 to 500 persons with an intermediate risk of cardiovascular disease who undergo screening for C-reactive protein or fibrinogen, one additional event in a period of 10 years may be prevented, researchers reported in the October 4 New England Journal of Medicine. In a meta-analysis of 52 prospective studies of persons without a history of cardiovascular disease, the investigators sought to determine whether assessing C-reactive protein or fibrinogen in addition to conventional cardiovascular risk factors leads to better prediction of cardiovascular risk.
Of 100,000 adults ages 40 and older, 15,025 would be classified as intermediate risk using conventional factors, and 13,199 would remain if statin therapy were initiated in accordance with guidelines. “Additional targeted assessment of C-reactive protein or fibrinogen levels in the 13,199 remaining participants at intermediate risk could help prevent approximately 30 additional cardiovascular events over the course of 10 years,” the researchers stated.
Extradural motor cortex stimulation for patients with Parkinson’s disease is a safe procedure that leads to moderate improvement of motor symptoms and in quality of life, according to a study published in the October Neurosurgery. Researchers assessed the safety and efficacy of one year of unilateral extradural motor cortex stimulation in nine patients with Parkinson’s disease. At baseline, participants were evaluated with the Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale and the Parkinson’s Disease Quality of Life Questionnaire. Quality of life scores increased at months three, six, and 12, and disease scores decreased from baseline during the year. Furthermore, bilateral motor effects were observed after three to four weeks. No surgical complications, adverse events, or cognitive and behavioral changes were observed, the study authors said.
The use of beta blockers is not associated with a lower risk of composite cardiovascular events in patients with either coronary artery disease (CAD) risk factors only, known prior myocardial infarction, or known CAD without myocardial infarction, according to an investigation published in the October 3 JAMA. In this longitudinal, observational study, 44,708 patients were categorized into three cohorts— 14,043 patients with known prior myocardial infarction, 12,012 patients with known CAD but without myocardial infarction, and 18,653 patients with CAD risk factors only. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke. For all outcomes tested, investigators found that event rates were not significantly different in patients with beta-blocker use, compared with those without beta-blocker use, even among those in the prior myocardial infarction cohort.
—Lauren LeBano