Clinical Review

I recently heard a lecture where the speaker quoted this statistic: “A 50-year-old woman who does not currently have heart disease or cancer has a life expectancy of 91.” Hopefully, anyone reading this article already is aware of the fact that as our patients age, hip fracture results in greater morbidity and mortality than early breast cancer. It should be well known to clinicians (and, ultimately, to our patients) that localized breast cancer has a survival rate of 99%,¹ whereas hip fracture carries a 21% mortality in the first year after the event.² In addition, approximately one-third of women who fracture their hip do not have osteoporosis.³ Furthermore, the role of muscle mass, strength, and performance in bone health has become well established.⁴

With this in mind, a recent encounter with a patient in my clinical practice illustrates what I believe is an increasing problem today. The patient had been on long-term prednisone systemically for polymyalgia rheumatica. Her dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) bone mass measurements were among the worst osteoporotic numbers I have witnessed. She related to me the “argument” that occurred between her rheumatologist and endocrinologist. One wanted her to use injectable parathyroid hormone analog daily, while the other advised yearly infusion of zoledronic acid. She chose the yearly infusion. I inquired if either physician had mentioned anything to her about using nonskid rugs in the bathroom, grab bars, being careful of black ice, a calcium-rich diet, vitamin D supplementation, good eyesight, illumination so she does not miss a step, mindful walking, and maintaining optimal balance, muscle mass, strength, and performance-enhancing exercise? She replied, “No, just which drug I should take.”

Realize that the goal for our patients should be to avoid the morbidity and mortality associated especially with hip fracture. The goal is not to have a better bone mass measurement on your DXA scan as you age. This is exactly why the name of this column, years ago, was changed from “Update on osteoporosis” to “Update on bone health.” Similarly, in 2021, the NOF (National Osteoporosis Foundation) became the BHOF (Bone Health and Osteoporosis Foundation). Thus, our understanding and interest in bone health should and must go beyond simply bone mass measurement with DXA technology. The articles highlighted in this year’s Update reflect the importance of this concept.

Know SERMs’ effects on bone health for appropriate prescribing

Goldstein SR. Selective estrogen receptor modulators and bone health. Climacteric. 2022;25:56-59.

Selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) are synthetic molecules that bind to the estrogen receptor and can have agonistic activity in some tissues and antagonistic activity in others. In a recent article, I reviewed the known data regarding the effects of various SERMs on bone health.⁵

A rundown on 4 SERMs and their effects on bone

Tamoxifen is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the prevention and treatment of breast cancer in women with estrogen receptor–positive tumors. The only prospective study of tamoxifen versus placebo in which fracture risk was studied in women at risk for but not diagnosed with breast cancer was the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) P-1 trial. In this study, more than 13,000 women were randomly assigned to treatment with tamoxifen or placebo, with a primary objective of studying the incidence of invasive breast cancer in these high-risk women. With 7 years of follow-up, women receiving tamoxifen had significantly fewer fractures of the hip, radius, and spine (80 vs 116 in the placebo group), resulting in a combined relative risk (RR) of 0.68 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.51–0.92).⁶

Raloxifene, another SERM, was extensively studied in the MORE (Multiple Outcomes of Raloxifene Evaluation) trial.⁷ This study involved more than 7,700 postmenopausal women with osteoporosis, average age 67. The incidence of first vertebral fracture was decreased from 4.3% with placebo to 1.9% with raloxifene (RR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.29–0.71), and subsequent vertebral fractures were decreased from 20.2% with placebo to 14.1% with raloxifene (RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.60–0.90). In 2007, the FDA approved raloxifene for “reduction in risk of invasive breast cancer in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis” as well as for “postmenopausal women at high risk for invasive breast cancer” based on the Study of Tamoxifen and Raloxifene (STAR) trial that involved almost 20,000 postmenopausal women deemed at high risk for breast cancer.⁸

The concept of combining an estrogen with a SERM, known as a TSEC (tissue selective estrogen complex) was studied and brought to market as conjugated equine estrogen (CEE) 0.45 mg and bazedoxifene (BZA) 20 mg. CEE and BZA individually have been shown to prevent vertebral fracture.^9,10 The combination of BZA and CEE has been shown to improve bone density compared with placebo.¹¹ There are, however, no fracture prevention data for this combination therapy. This was the basis on which the combination agent received regulatory approval for prevention of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women. This combination drug is also FDA approved for treating moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms of menopause.

Ospemifene is yet another SERM that is clinically available, at an oral dose of 60 mg, and is indicated for the treatment of moderate to severe dyspareunia secondary to vulvovaginal atrophy, or genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM). Ospemifene effectively reduced bone loss in ovariectomized rats, with activity comparable to estradiol and raloxifene.¹² Clinical data from three phase 1 or phase 2 clinical trials revealed that ospemifene 60 mg/day had a positive effect on biochemical markers for bone turnover in healthy postmenopausal women, with significant improvements relative to placebo and effects comparable to those of raloxifene.¹³ While actual fracture or bone mineral density (BMD) data in postmenopausal women are lacking, there is a good correlation between biochemical markers for bone turnover and occurrence of fracture.¹⁴ Women who need treatment for osteoporosis should not be treated with ospemifene, but women who use ospemifene for dyspareunia can expect positive activity on bone metabolism.

Continue to: Gut microbiome constituents may influence the development of osteoporosis: A potential treatment target?...

Cronin O, Lanham-New SA, Corfe BM, et al. Role of the microbiome in regulating bone metabolism and susceptibility to osteoporosis. Calcif Tissue Int. 2022;110:273-284.

Yang X, Chang T, Yuan Q, et al. Changes in the composition of gut and vaginal microbiota in patients with postmenopausal osteoporosis. Front Immunol. 2022;13:930244.

The role of the microbiome in many arenas is rapidly emerging. Apparently, its relationship in bone metabolism is still in its infancy. A review of PubMed articles showed that 1 paper was published in 2012, none until 2 more in 2015, with a total of 221 published through November 1, 2022. A recent review by Cronin and colleagues on the microbiome’s role in regulating bone metabolism came out of a workshop held by the Osteoporosis and Bone Research Academy of the Royal Osteoporosis Society in the United Kingdom.¹⁵

The gut microbiome’s relationship with bone health

The authors noted that the human microbiota functions at the interface between diet, medication use, lifestyle, host immune development, and health. Hence, it is closely aligned with many of the recognized modifiable factors that influence bone mass accrual in the young and bone maintenance and skeletal decline in older populations. Microbiome research and discovery supports a role of the human gut microbiome in the regulation of bone metabolism and the pathogenesis of osteoporosis as well as its prevention and treatment.

Numerous factors which influence the gut microbiome and the development of osteoporosis overlap. These include body mass index (BMI), vitamin D, alcohol intake, diet, corticosteroid use, physical activity, sex hormone deficiency, genetic variability, and chronic inflammatory disorders.

Cronin and colleagues reviewed a number of clinical studies and concluded that “the available evidence suggests that probiotic supplements can attenuate bone loss in postmenopausal women, although the studies investigating this have been short term and individually have had small sample sizes. Moving forward, it will be important to conduct larger scale studies to evaluate if the skeletal response differs with different types of probiotic and also to determine if the effects are sustained in the longer term.”¹⁵

Composition of the microbiota

A recent study by Yang and colleagues focused on changes in gut and vaginal microbiota composition in patients with postmenopausal osteoporosis. They analyzed data from 132 postmenopausal women with osteoporosis (n = 34), osteopenia (n = 47), and controls (n = 51) based on their T-scores.¹⁶

Significant differences were observed in the microbial compositions of fecal samples between groups (P<.05), with some species enhanced in the control group whereas other species were higher in the osteoporosis group. Similar but less pronounced differences were seen in the vaginal microbiome but of different species.

The authors concluded that “The results show that changes in BMD in postmenopausal women are associated with the changes in gut microbiome and vaginal microbiome; however, changes in gut microbiome are more closely correlated with postmenopausal osteoporosis than vaginal microbiome.”¹⁶

Continue to: Sarcopenia, osteoporosis, and frailty: A fracture risk triple play...

Laskou F, Fuggle NR, Patel HP, et al. Associations of osteoporosis and sarcopenia with frailty and multimorbidity among participants of the Hertfordshire Cohort Study. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2022;13:220-229.

Laskou and colleagues aimed to explore the relationship between sarcopenia, osteoporosis, and frailty in community-dwelling adults participating in a cohort study in the United Kingdom and to determine if the coexistence of osteoporosis and sarcopenia is associated with a significantly heavier health burden.¹⁷

Study details

The authors examined data from 206 women with an average age of 75.5 years. Sarcopenia was defined using the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People (EWGSOP) criteria, which includes low grip strength or slow chair rise and low muscle quantity. Osteoporosis was defined by standard measurements as a T-score of less than or equal to -2.5 standard deviations at the femoral neck or use of any osteoporosis medications. Frailty was defined using the Fried definition, which includes having 3 or more of the following 5 domains: weakness, slowness, exhaustion, low physical activity, and unintentional weight loss. Having 1 or 2 domains is “prefrailty” and no domains signifies nonfrail.

Frailty confers additional risk

The study results showed that among the 206 women, the prevalence of frailty and prefrailty was 9.2% and 60.7%, respectively. Of the 5 Fried frailty components, low walking speed and low physical activity followed by self-reported exhaustion were the most prevalent (96.6%, 87.5%, and 75.8%, respectively) among frail participants. Having sarcopenia only was strongly associated with frailty (odds ratio [OR], 8.28; 95% CI, 1.27–54.03; P=.027]). The likelihood of being frail was substantially higher with the presence of coexisting sarcopenia and osteoporosis (OR, 26.15; 95% CI, 3.31–218.76; P=.003).

Thus, both these conditions confer a high health burden for the individual as well as for health care systems. Osteosarcopenia is the term given when low bone mass and sarcopenia occur in consort. Previous data have shown that when osteoporosis or even osteopenia is combined with sarcopenia, it can result in a 3-fold increase in the risk of falls and a 4-fold increase in the risk of fracture compared with women who have osteopenia or osteoporosis alone.¹⁸

Continue to: Denosumab effective in reducing falls, strengthening muscle...

Rupp T, von Vopelius E, Strahl A, et al. Beneficial effects of denosumab on muscle performance in patients with low BMD: a retrospective, propensity score-matched study. Osteoporos Int. 2022;33:2177-2184.

Results of a previous study showed that denosumab treatment significantly decreased falls and resulted in significant improvement in all sarcopenic measures.¹⁹ Furthermore, 1 year after denosumab was discontinued, a significant worsening occurred in both falls and sarcopenic measures. In that study, the control group, treated with alendronate or zoledronate, also showed improvement on some tests of muscle performance but no improvement in the risk of falls.

Those results agreed with the outcomes of the FREEDOM (Fracture Reduction Evaluation of Denosumab in Osteoporosis) trial.²⁰ This study revealed that denosumab treatment not only reduced the risk of vertebral, nonvertebral, and hip fracture over 36 months but also that the denosumab-treated group had fewer falls compared with the placebo-treated group (4.5% vs 5.7%; P = .02).

Denosumab found to increase muscle strength

More recently, Rupp and colleagues conducted a retrospective cohort study that included women with osteoporosis or osteopenia who received vitamin D only (n = 52), alendronate 70 mg/week (n = 26), or denosumab (n = 52).²¹

After a mean follow-up period of 17.6 (SD, 9.0) months, the authors observed a significantly higher increase in grip force in both the denosumab (P<.001) and bisphosphonate groups (P = .001) compared with the vitamin D group. In addition, the denosumab group showed a significantly higher increase in chair rising test performance compared with the bisphosphonate group (denosumab vs bisphosphonate, P = 0.03). They concluded that denosumab resulted in increased muscle strength in the upper and lower limbs, indicating systemic rather than site-specific effects as compared with the bisphosphonate.

The authors concluded that based on these findings, denosumab might be favored over other osteoporosis treatments in patients with low BMD coexisting with poor muscle strength. ●

I recently heard a lecture where the speaker quoted this statistic: “A 50-year-old woman who does not currently have heart disease or cancer has a life expectancy of 91.” Hopefully, anyone reading this article already is aware of the fact that as our patients age, hip fracture results in greater morbidity and mortality than early breast cancer. It should be well known to clinicians (and, ultimately, to our patients) that localized breast cancer has a survival rate of 99%,¹ whereas hip fracture carries a 21% mortality in the first year after the event.² In addition, approximately one-third of women who fracture their hip do not have osteoporosis.³ Furthermore, the role of muscle mass, strength, and performance in bone health has become well established.⁴

With this in mind, a recent encounter with a patient in my clinical practice illustrates what I believe is an increasing problem today. The patient had been on long-term prednisone systemically for polymyalgia rheumatica. Her dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) bone mass measurements were among the worst osteoporotic numbers I have witnessed. She related to me the “argument” that occurred between her rheumatologist and endocrinologist. One wanted her to use injectable parathyroid hormone analog daily, while the other advised yearly infusion of zoledronic acid. She chose the yearly infusion. I inquired if either physician had mentioned anything to her about using nonskid rugs in the bathroom, grab bars, being careful of black ice, a calcium-rich diet, vitamin D supplementation, good eyesight, illumination so she does not miss a step, mindful walking, and maintaining optimal balance, muscle mass, strength, and performance-enhancing exercise? She replied, “No, just which drug I should take.”

Realize that the goal for our patients should be to avoid the morbidity and mortality associated especially with hip fracture. The goal is not to have a better bone mass measurement on your DXA scan as you age. This is exactly why the name of this column, years ago, was changed from “Update on osteoporosis” to “Update on bone health.” Similarly, in 2021, the NOF (National Osteoporosis Foundation) became the BHOF (Bone Health and Osteoporosis Foundation). Thus, our understanding and interest in bone health should and must go beyond simply bone mass measurement with DXA technology. The articles highlighted in this year’s Update reflect the importance of this concept.

Know SERMs’ effects on bone health for appropriate prescribing

Goldstein SR. Selective estrogen receptor modulators and bone health. Climacteric. 2022;25:56-59.

Selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) are synthetic molecules that bind to the estrogen receptor and can have agonistic activity in some tissues and antagonistic activity in others. In a recent article, I reviewed the known data regarding the effects of various SERMs on bone health.⁵

A rundown on 4 SERMs and their effects on bone

Tamoxifen is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the prevention and treatment of breast cancer in women with estrogen receptor–positive tumors. The only prospective study of tamoxifen versus placebo in which fracture risk was studied in women at risk for but not diagnosed with breast cancer was the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) P-1 trial. In this study, more than 13,000 women were randomly assigned to treatment with tamoxifen or placebo, with a primary objective of studying the incidence of invasive breast cancer in these high-risk women. With 7 years of follow-up, women receiving tamoxifen had significantly fewer fractures of the hip, radius, and spine (80 vs 116 in the placebo group), resulting in a combined relative risk (RR) of 0.68 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.51–0.92).⁶

Raloxifene, another SERM, was extensively studied in the MORE (Multiple Outcomes of Raloxifene Evaluation) trial.⁷ This study involved more than 7,700 postmenopausal women with osteoporosis, average age 67. The incidence of first vertebral fracture was decreased from 4.3% with placebo to 1.9% with raloxifene (RR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.29–0.71), and subsequent vertebral fractures were decreased from 20.2% with placebo to 14.1% with raloxifene (RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.60–0.90). In 2007, the FDA approved raloxifene for “reduction in risk of invasive breast cancer in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis” as well as for “postmenopausal women at high risk for invasive breast cancer” based on the Study of Tamoxifen and Raloxifene (STAR) trial that involved almost 20,000 postmenopausal women deemed at high risk for breast cancer.⁸

The concept of combining an estrogen with a SERM, known as a TSEC (tissue selective estrogen complex) was studied and brought to market as conjugated equine estrogen (CEE) 0.45 mg and bazedoxifene (BZA) 20 mg. CEE and BZA individually have been shown to prevent vertebral fracture.^9,10 The combination of BZA and CEE has been shown to improve bone density compared with placebo.¹¹ There are, however, no fracture prevention data for this combination therapy. This was the basis on which the combination agent received regulatory approval for prevention of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women. This combination drug is also FDA approved for treating moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms of menopause.

Ospemifene is yet another SERM that is clinically available, at an oral dose of 60 mg, and is indicated for the treatment of moderate to severe dyspareunia secondary to vulvovaginal atrophy, or genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM). Ospemifene effectively reduced bone loss in ovariectomized rats, with activity comparable to estradiol and raloxifene.¹² Clinical data from three phase 1 or phase 2 clinical trials revealed that ospemifene 60 mg/day had a positive effect on biochemical markers for bone turnover in healthy postmenopausal women, with significant improvements relative to placebo and effects comparable to those of raloxifene.¹³ While actual fracture or bone mineral density (BMD) data in postmenopausal women are lacking, there is a good correlation between biochemical markers for bone turnover and occurrence of fracture.¹⁴ Women who need treatment for osteoporosis should not be treated with ospemifene, but women who use ospemifene for dyspareunia can expect positive activity on bone metabolism.

Continue to: Gut microbiome constituents may influence the development of osteoporosis: A potential treatment target?...

Cronin O, Lanham-New SA, Corfe BM, et al. Role of the microbiome in regulating bone metabolism and susceptibility to osteoporosis. Calcif Tissue Int. 2022;110:273-284.

Yang X, Chang T, Yuan Q, et al. Changes in the composition of gut and vaginal microbiota in patients with postmenopausal osteoporosis. Front Immunol. 2022;13:930244.

The role of the microbiome in many arenas is rapidly emerging. Apparently, its relationship in bone metabolism is still in its infancy. A review of PubMed articles showed that 1 paper was published in 2012, none until 2 more in 2015, with a total of 221 published through November 1, 2022. A recent review by Cronin and colleagues on the microbiome’s role in regulating bone metabolism came out of a workshop held by the Osteoporosis and Bone Research Academy of the Royal Osteoporosis Society in the United Kingdom.¹⁵

The gut microbiome’s relationship with bone health

The authors noted that the human microbiota functions at the interface between diet, medication use, lifestyle, host immune development, and health. Hence, it is closely aligned with many of the recognized modifiable factors that influence bone mass accrual in the young and bone maintenance and skeletal decline in older populations. Microbiome research and discovery supports a role of the human gut microbiome in the regulation of bone metabolism and the pathogenesis of osteoporosis as well as its prevention and treatment.

Numerous factors which influence the gut microbiome and the development of osteoporosis overlap. These include body mass index (BMI), vitamin D, alcohol intake, diet, corticosteroid use, physical activity, sex hormone deficiency, genetic variability, and chronic inflammatory disorders.

Cronin and colleagues reviewed a number of clinical studies and concluded that “the available evidence suggests that probiotic supplements can attenuate bone loss in postmenopausal women, although the studies investigating this have been short term and individually have had small sample sizes. Moving forward, it will be important to conduct larger scale studies to evaluate if the skeletal response differs with different types of probiotic and also to determine if the effects are sustained in the longer term.”¹⁵

Composition of the microbiota

A recent study by Yang and colleagues focused on changes in gut and vaginal microbiota composition in patients with postmenopausal osteoporosis. They analyzed data from 132 postmenopausal women with osteoporosis (n = 34), osteopenia (n = 47), and controls (n = 51) based on their T-scores.¹⁶

Significant differences were observed in the microbial compositions of fecal samples between groups (P<.05), with some species enhanced in the control group whereas other species were higher in the osteoporosis group. Similar but less pronounced differences were seen in the vaginal microbiome but of different species.

The authors concluded that “The results show that changes in BMD in postmenopausal women are associated with the changes in gut microbiome and vaginal microbiome; however, changes in gut microbiome are more closely correlated with postmenopausal osteoporosis than vaginal microbiome.”¹⁶

Continue to: Sarcopenia, osteoporosis, and frailty: A fracture risk triple play...

Laskou F, Fuggle NR, Patel HP, et al. Associations of osteoporosis and sarcopenia with frailty and multimorbidity among participants of the Hertfordshire Cohort Study. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2022;13:220-229.

Laskou and colleagues aimed to explore the relationship between sarcopenia, osteoporosis, and frailty in community-dwelling adults participating in a cohort study in the United Kingdom and to determine if the coexistence of osteoporosis and sarcopenia is associated with a significantly heavier health burden.¹⁷

Study details

The authors examined data from 206 women with an average age of 75.5 years. Sarcopenia was defined using the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People (EWGSOP) criteria, which includes low grip strength or slow chair rise and low muscle quantity. Osteoporosis was defined by standard measurements as a T-score of less than or equal to -2.5 standard deviations at the femoral neck or use of any osteoporosis medications. Frailty was defined using the Fried definition, which includes having 3 or more of the following 5 domains: weakness, slowness, exhaustion, low physical activity, and unintentional weight loss. Having 1 or 2 domains is “prefrailty” and no domains signifies nonfrail.

Frailty confers additional risk

The study results showed that among the 206 women, the prevalence of frailty and prefrailty was 9.2% and 60.7%, respectively. Of the 5 Fried frailty components, low walking speed and low physical activity followed by self-reported exhaustion were the most prevalent (96.6%, 87.5%, and 75.8%, respectively) among frail participants. Having sarcopenia only was strongly associated with frailty (odds ratio [OR], 8.28; 95% CI, 1.27–54.03; P=.027]). The likelihood of being frail was substantially higher with the presence of coexisting sarcopenia and osteoporosis (OR, 26.15; 95% CI, 3.31–218.76; P=.003).

Thus, both these conditions confer a high health burden for the individual as well as for health care systems. Osteosarcopenia is the term given when low bone mass and sarcopenia occur in consort. Previous data have shown that when osteoporosis or even osteopenia is combined with sarcopenia, it can result in a 3-fold increase in the risk of falls and a 4-fold increase in the risk of fracture compared with women who have osteopenia or osteoporosis alone.¹⁸

Continue to: Denosumab effective in reducing falls, strengthening muscle...

Rupp T, von Vopelius E, Strahl A, et al. Beneficial effects of denosumab on muscle performance in patients with low BMD: a retrospective, propensity score-matched study. Osteoporos Int. 2022;33:2177-2184.

Results of a previous study showed that denosumab treatment significantly decreased falls and resulted in significant improvement in all sarcopenic measures.¹⁹ Furthermore, 1 year after denosumab was discontinued, a significant worsening occurred in both falls and sarcopenic measures. In that study, the control group, treated with alendronate or zoledronate, also showed improvement on some tests of muscle performance but no improvement in the risk of falls.

Those results agreed with the outcomes of the FREEDOM (Fracture Reduction Evaluation of Denosumab in Osteoporosis) trial.²⁰ This study revealed that denosumab treatment not only reduced the risk of vertebral, nonvertebral, and hip fracture over 36 months but also that the denosumab-treated group had fewer falls compared with the placebo-treated group (4.5% vs 5.7%; P = .02).

Denosumab found to increase muscle strength

More recently, Rupp and colleagues conducted a retrospective cohort study that included women with osteoporosis or osteopenia who received vitamin D only (n = 52), alendronate 70 mg/week (n = 26), or denosumab (n = 52).²¹

After a mean follow-up period of 17.6 (SD, 9.0) months, the authors observed a significantly higher increase in grip force in both the denosumab (P<.001) and bisphosphonate groups (P = .001) compared with the vitamin D group. In addition, the denosumab group showed a significantly higher increase in chair rising test performance compared with the bisphosphonate group (denosumab vs bisphosphonate, P = 0.03). They concluded that denosumab resulted in increased muscle strength in the upper and lower limbs, indicating systemic rather than site-specific effects as compared with the bisphosphonate.

The authors concluded that based on these findings, denosumab might be favored over other osteoporosis treatments in patients with low BMD coexisting with poor muscle strength. ●

I recently heard a lecture where the speaker quoted this statistic: “A 50-year-old woman who does not currently have heart disease or cancer has a life expectancy of 91.” Hopefully, anyone reading this article already is aware of the fact that as our patients age, hip fracture results in greater morbidity and mortality than early breast cancer. It should be well known to clinicians (and, ultimately, to our patients) that localized breast cancer has a survival rate of 99%,¹ whereas hip fracture carries a 21% mortality in the first year after the event.² In addition, approximately one-third of women who fracture their hip do not have osteoporosis.³ Furthermore, the role of muscle mass, strength, and performance in bone health has become well established.⁴

With this in mind, a recent encounter with a patient in my clinical practice illustrates what I believe is an increasing problem today. The patient had been on long-term prednisone systemically for polymyalgia rheumatica. Her dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) bone mass measurements were among the worst osteoporotic numbers I have witnessed. She related to me the “argument” that occurred between her rheumatologist and endocrinologist. One wanted her to use injectable parathyroid hormone analog daily, while the other advised yearly infusion of zoledronic acid. She chose the yearly infusion. I inquired if either physician had mentioned anything to her about using nonskid rugs in the bathroom, grab bars, being careful of black ice, a calcium-rich diet, vitamin D supplementation, good eyesight, illumination so she does not miss a step, mindful walking, and maintaining optimal balance, muscle mass, strength, and performance-enhancing exercise? She replied, “No, just which drug I should take.”

Realize that the goal for our patients should be to avoid the morbidity and mortality associated especially with hip fracture. The goal is not to have a better bone mass measurement on your DXA scan as you age. This is exactly why the name of this column, years ago, was changed from “Update on osteoporosis” to “Update on bone health.” Similarly, in 2021, the NOF (National Osteoporosis Foundation) became the BHOF (Bone Health and Osteoporosis Foundation). Thus, our understanding and interest in bone health should and must go beyond simply bone mass measurement with DXA technology. The articles highlighted in this year’s Update reflect the importance of this concept.

Know SERMs’ effects on bone health for appropriate prescribing

Goldstein SR. Selective estrogen receptor modulators and bone health. Climacteric. 2022;25:56-59.

Selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) are synthetic molecules that bind to the estrogen receptor and can have agonistic activity in some tissues and antagonistic activity in others. In a recent article, I reviewed the known data regarding the effects of various SERMs on bone health.⁵

A rundown on 4 SERMs and their effects on bone

Tamoxifen is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the prevention and treatment of breast cancer in women with estrogen receptor–positive tumors. The only prospective study of tamoxifen versus placebo in which fracture risk was studied in women at risk for but not diagnosed with breast cancer was the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) P-1 trial. In this study, more than 13,000 women were randomly assigned to treatment with tamoxifen or placebo, with a primary objective of studying the incidence of invasive breast cancer in these high-risk women. With 7 years of follow-up, women receiving tamoxifen had significantly fewer fractures of the hip, radius, and spine (80 vs 116 in the placebo group), resulting in a combined relative risk (RR) of 0.68 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.51–0.92).⁶

Raloxifene, another SERM, was extensively studied in the MORE (Multiple Outcomes of Raloxifene Evaluation) trial.⁷ This study involved more than 7,700 postmenopausal women with osteoporosis, average age 67. The incidence of first vertebral fracture was decreased from 4.3% with placebo to 1.9% with raloxifene (RR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.29–0.71), and subsequent vertebral fractures were decreased from 20.2% with placebo to 14.1% with raloxifene (RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.60–0.90). In 2007, the FDA approved raloxifene for “reduction in risk of invasive breast cancer in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis” as well as for “postmenopausal women at high risk for invasive breast cancer” based on the Study of Tamoxifen and Raloxifene (STAR) trial that involved almost 20,000 postmenopausal women deemed at high risk for breast cancer.⁸

The concept of combining an estrogen with a SERM, known as a TSEC (tissue selective estrogen complex) was studied and brought to market as conjugated equine estrogen (CEE) 0.45 mg and bazedoxifene (BZA) 20 mg. CEE and BZA individually have been shown to prevent vertebral fracture.^9,10 The combination of BZA and CEE has been shown to improve bone density compared with placebo.¹¹ There are, however, no fracture prevention data for this combination therapy. This was the basis on which the combination agent received regulatory approval for prevention of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women. This combination drug is also FDA approved for treating moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms of menopause.

Ospemifene is yet another SERM that is clinically available, at an oral dose of 60 mg, and is indicated for the treatment of moderate to severe dyspareunia secondary to vulvovaginal atrophy, or genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM). Ospemifene effectively reduced bone loss in ovariectomized rats, with activity comparable to estradiol and raloxifene.¹² Clinical data from three phase 1 or phase 2 clinical trials revealed that ospemifene 60 mg/day had a positive effect on biochemical markers for bone turnover in healthy postmenopausal women, with significant improvements relative to placebo and effects comparable to those of raloxifene.¹³ While actual fracture or bone mineral density (BMD) data in postmenopausal women are lacking, there is a good correlation between biochemical markers for bone turnover and occurrence of fracture.¹⁴ Women who need treatment for osteoporosis should not be treated with ospemifene, but women who use ospemifene for dyspareunia can expect positive activity on bone metabolism.

Continue to: Gut microbiome constituents may influence the development of osteoporosis: A potential treatment target?...

Cronin O, Lanham-New SA, Corfe BM, et al. Role of the microbiome in regulating bone metabolism and susceptibility to osteoporosis. Calcif Tissue Int. 2022;110:273-284.

Yang X, Chang T, Yuan Q, et al. Changes in the composition of gut and vaginal microbiota in patients with postmenopausal osteoporosis. Front Immunol. 2022;13:930244.

The role of the microbiome in many arenas is rapidly emerging. Apparently, its relationship in bone metabolism is still in its infancy. A review of PubMed articles showed that 1 paper was published in 2012, none until 2 more in 2015, with a total of 221 published through November 1, 2022. A recent review by Cronin and colleagues on the microbiome’s role in regulating bone metabolism came out of a workshop held by the Osteoporosis and Bone Research Academy of the Royal Osteoporosis Society in the United Kingdom.¹⁵

The gut microbiome’s relationship with bone health

The authors noted that the human microbiota functions at the interface between diet, medication use, lifestyle, host immune development, and health. Hence, it is closely aligned with many of the recognized modifiable factors that influence bone mass accrual in the young and bone maintenance and skeletal decline in older populations. Microbiome research and discovery supports a role of the human gut microbiome in the regulation of bone metabolism and the pathogenesis of osteoporosis as well as its prevention and treatment.

Numerous factors which influence the gut microbiome and the development of osteoporosis overlap. These include body mass index (BMI), vitamin D, alcohol intake, diet, corticosteroid use, physical activity, sex hormone deficiency, genetic variability, and chronic inflammatory disorders.

Cronin and colleagues reviewed a number of clinical studies and concluded that “the available evidence suggests that probiotic supplements can attenuate bone loss in postmenopausal women, although the studies investigating this have been short term and individually have had small sample sizes. Moving forward, it will be important to conduct larger scale studies to evaluate if the skeletal response differs with different types of probiotic and also to determine if the effects are sustained in the longer term.”¹⁵

Composition of the microbiota

A recent study by Yang and colleagues focused on changes in gut and vaginal microbiota composition in patients with postmenopausal osteoporosis. They analyzed data from 132 postmenopausal women with osteoporosis (n = 34), osteopenia (n = 47), and controls (n = 51) based on their T-scores.¹⁶

Significant differences were observed in the microbial compositions of fecal samples between groups (P<.05), with some species enhanced in the control group whereas other species were higher in the osteoporosis group. Similar but less pronounced differences were seen in the vaginal microbiome but of different species.

The authors concluded that “The results show that changes in BMD in postmenopausal women are associated with the changes in gut microbiome and vaginal microbiome; however, changes in gut microbiome are more closely correlated with postmenopausal osteoporosis than vaginal microbiome.”¹⁶

Continue to: Sarcopenia, osteoporosis, and frailty: A fracture risk triple play...

Laskou F, Fuggle NR, Patel HP, et al. Associations of osteoporosis and sarcopenia with frailty and multimorbidity among participants of the Hertfordshire Cohort Study. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2022;13:220-229.

Laskou and colleagues aimed to explore the relationship between sarcopenia, osteoporosis, and frailty in community-dwelling adults participating in a cohort study in the United Kingdom and to determine if the coexistence of osteoporosis and sarcopenia is associated with a significantly heavier health burden.¹⁷

Study details

The authors examined data from 206 women with an average age of 75.5 years. Sarcopenia was defined using the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People (EWGSOP) criteria, which includes low grip strength or slow chair rise and low muscle quantity. Osteoporosis was defined by standard measurements as a T-score of less than or equal to -2.5 standard deviations at the femoral neck or use of any osteoporosis medications. Frailty was defined using the Fried definition, which includes having 3 or more of the following 5 domains: weakness, slowness, exhaustion, low physical activity, and unintentional weight loss. Having 1 or 2 domains is “prefrailty” and no domains signifies nonfrail.

Frailty confers additional risk

The study results showed that among the 206 women, the prevalence of frailty and prefrailty was 9.2% and 60.7%, respectively. Of the 5 Fried frailty components, low walking speed and low physical activity followed by self-reported exhaustion were the most prevalent (96.6%, 87.5%, and 75.8%, respectively) among frail participants. Having sarcopenia only was strongly associated with frailty (odds ratio [OR], 8.28; 95% CI, 1.27–54.03; P=.027]). The likelihood of being frail was substantially higher with the presence of coexisting sarcopenia and osteoporosis (OR, 26.15; 95% CI, 3.31–218.76; P=.003).

Thus, both these conditions confer a high health burden for the individual as well as for health care systems. Osteosarcopenia is the term given when low bone mass and sarcopenia occur in consort. Previous data have shown that when osteoporosis or even osteopenia is combined with sarcopenia, it can result in a 3-fold increase in the risk of falls and a 4-fold increase in the risk of fracture compared with women who have osteopenia or osteoporosis alone.¹⁸

Continue to: Denosumab effective in reducing falls, strengthening muscle...

Rupp T, von Vopelius E, Strahl A, et al. Beneficial effects of denosumab on muscle performance in patients with low BMD: a retrospective, propensity score-matched study. Osteoporos Int. 2022;33:2177-2184.

Results of a previous study showed that denosumab treatment significantly decreased falls and resulted in significant improvement in all sarcopenic measures.¹⁹ Furthermore, 1 year after denosumab was discontinued, a significant worsening occurred in both falls and sarcopenic measures. In that study, the control group, treated with alendronate or zoledronate, also showed improvement on some tests of muscle performance but no improvement in the risk of falls.

Those results agreed with the outcomes of the FREEDOM (Fracture Reduction Evaluation of Denosumab in Osteoporosis) trial.²⁰ This study revealed that denosumab treatment not only reduced the risk of vertebral, nonvertebral, and hip fracture over 36 months but also that the denosumab-treated group had fewer falls compared with the placebo-treated group (4.5% vs 5.7%; P = .02).

Denosumab found to increase muscle strength

More recently, Rupp and colleagues conducted a retrospective cohort study that included women with osteoporosis or osteopenia who received vitamin D only (n = 52), alendronate 70 mg/week (n = 26), or denosumab (n = 52).²¹

After a mean follow-up period of 17.6 (SD, 9.0) months, the authors observed a significantly higher increase in grip force in both the denosumab (P<.001) and bisphosphonate groups (P = .001) compared with the vitamin D group. In addition, the denosumab group showed a significantly higher increase in chair rising test performance compared with the bisphosphonate group (denosumab vs bisphosphonate, P = 0.03). They concluded that denosumab resulted in increased muscle strength in the upper and lower limbs, indicating systemic rather than site-specific effects as compared with the bisphosphonate.

The authors concluded that based on these findings, denosumab might be favored over other osteoporosis treatments in patients with low BMD coexisting with poor muscle strength. ●

Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) is a delayed type IV hypersensitivity reaction that usually manifests with eczematous lesions within hours to days after exposure to a contact allergen. The primary treatment of ACD consists of allergen avoidance, but medications also may be necessary to manage symptoms, particularly in cases where avoidance alone does not lead to resolution of dermatitis. At present, no medical therapies are explicitly approved for use in the management of ACD. Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors are a class of small molecule inhibitors that are used for the treatment of a range of inflammatory diseases, such as rheumatoid arthritis and psoriatic arthritis. Several oral and topical JAK inhibitors also have recently been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for atopic dermatitis (AD). In this article, we discuss this important class of medications and the role that they may play in the off-label management of refractory ACD.

JAK/STAT Signaling Pathway

The JAK/signal transducer and activator of transcription (STAT) pathway plays a crucial role in many biologic processes. Notably, JAK/STAT signaling is involved in the development and regulation of the immune system.¹ The cascade begins when a particular transmembrane receptor binds a ligand, such as an interferon or interleukin.² Upon ligand binding, the receptor dimerizes or oligomerizes, bringing the relevant JAK proteins into close approximation to each other.³ This allows the JAK proteins to autophosphorylate or transphosphorylate.^2-4 Phosphorylation activates the JAK proteins and increases their kinase activity.³ In humans, there are 4 JAK proteins: JAK1, JAK2, JAK3, and tyrosine kinase 2.⁴ When activated, the JAK proteins phosphorylate specific tyrosine residues on the receptor, which creates a docking site for STAT proteins. After binding, the STAT proteins then are phosphorylated, leading to their dimerization and translocation to the nucleus.^2,3 Once in the nucleus, the STAT proteins act as transcription factors for target genes.³

JAK Inhibitors

Janus kinase inhibitors are immunomodulatory medications that work through inhibition of 1 or more of the JAK proteins in the JAK/STAT pathway. Through this mechanism, JAK inhibitors can impede the activity of proinflammatory cytokines and T cells.⁴ A brief overview of the commercially available JAK inhibitors in Europe, Japan, and the United States is provided in the Table.^5-29

Of the approved JAK inhibitors, more than 40% are indicated for AD. The first JAK inhibitor to be approved in the topical form was delgocitinib in 2020 in Japan.⁵ In a phase 3 trial, delgocitinib demonstrated significant reductions in modified Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) score (P<.001) as well as Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (P<.001) when compared with vehicle.³⁰ Topical ruxolitinib soon followed when its approval for AD was announced by the FDA in 2021.³¹ Results from 2 phase 3 trials found that significantly more patients achieved investigator global assessment (IGA) treatment success (P<.0001) and a significant reduction in itch as measured by the Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (P<.001) with topical ruxolitinib vs vehicle.³²

The first oral JAK inhibitor to attain approval for AD was baricitinib in Europe and Japan, but it is not currently approved for this indication in the United States by the FDA.^11,12,33 Consistent findings across phase 3 trials revealed that baricitinib was more effective at achieving IGA treatment success and improved EASI scores compared with placebo.³³

Upadacitinib, another oral JAK inhibitor, was subsequently approved for AD in Europe and Japan in 2021 and in the United States in early 2022.^5,9,26,27 Two replicate phase 3 trials demonstrated significant improvement in EASI score, itch, and quality of life with upadacitinib compared with placebo (P<.0001).³⁴ Abrocitinib was granted FDA approval for AD in the same time period, with phase 3 trials exhibiting greater responses in IGA and EASI scores vs placebo.³⁵

Potential for Use in ACD

Given the successful use of JAK inhibitors in the management of AD, there is optimism that these medications also may have potential application in ACD. Recent literature suggests that the 2 conditions may be more closely related mechanistically than previously understood. As a result, AD and ACD often are managed with the same therapeutic agents.³⁶

Although the exact etiology of ACD is still being elucidated, activation of T cells and cytokines plays an important role.³⁷ Notably, more than 40 cytokines exert their effects through the JAK/STAT signaling pathway, including IL-2, IL-6, IL-17, IL-22, and IFN-γ.^37,38 A study on nickel contact allergy revealed that JAK/STAT activation may regulate the balance between IL-12 and IL-23 and increase type 1 T-helper (T_H1) polarization.³⁹ Skin inflammation and chronic pruritus, which are major components of ACD, also are thought to be mediated in part by JAK signaling.^34,40

Animal studies have suggested that JAK inhibitors may show benefit in the management of ACD. Rats with oxazolone-induced ACD were found to have less swelling and epidermal thickening in the area of induced dermatitis after treatment with oral tofacitinib, comparable to the effects of cyclosporine. Tofacitinib was presumed to exert its effects through cytokine suppression, particularly that of IFN-γ, IL-22, and tumor necrosis factor α.⁴¹ In a separate study on mice with toluene-2,4-diisocyanate–induced ACD, both tofacitinib and another JAK inhibitor, oclacitinib, demonstrated inhibition of cytokine production, migration, and maturation of bone marrow–derived dendritic cells. Both topical and oral formulations of these 2 JAK inhibitors also were found to decrease scratching behavior; only the topicals improved ear thickness (used as a marker of skin inflammation), suggesting potential benefits to local application.⁴² In a murine model, oral delgocitinib also attenuated contact hypersensitivity via inhibition of antigen-specific T-cell proliferation and cytokine production.³⁷ Finally, in a randomized clinical trial conducted on dogs with allergic dermatitis (of which 10% were presumed to be from contact allergy), oral oclacitinib significantly reduced pruritus and clinical severity scores vs placebo (P<.0001).⁴³

There also are early clinical studies and case reports highlighting the effective use of JAK inhibitors in the management of ACD in humans. A 37-year-old man with occupational airborne ACD to Compositae saw full clearance of his dermatitis with daily oral abrocitinib after topical corticosteroids and dupilumab failed.⁴⁴ Another patient, a 57-year-old woman, had near-complete resolution of chronic Parthenium-induced airborne ACD after starting twice-daily oral tofacitinib. Allergen avoidance, as well as multiple medications, including topical and oral corticosteroids, topical calcineurin inhibitors, and azathioprine, previously failed in this patient.⁴⁵ Finally, a phase 2 study on patients with irritant and nonirritant chronic hand eczema found that significantly more patients achieved treatment success (as measured by the physician global assessment) with topical delgocitinib vs vehicle (P=.009).⁴⁶ Chronic hand eczema may be due to a variety of causes, including AD, irritant contact dermatitis, and ACD. Thus, these studies begin to highlight the potential role for JAK inhibitors in the management of refractory ACD.

Side Effects of JAK Inhibitors

The safety profile of JAK inhibitors must be taken into consideration. In general, topical JAK inhibitors are safe and well tolerated, with the majority of adverse events (AEs) seen in clinical trials considered mild or unrelated to the medication.^30,32 Nasopharyngitis, local skin infection, and acne were reported; a systematic review found no increased risk of AEs with topical JAK inhibitors compared with placebo.^30,32,47 Application-site reactions, a common concern among the existing topical calcineurin and phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitors, were rare (approximately 2% of patients).⁴⁷ The most frequent AEs seen in clinical trials of oral JAK inhibitors included acne, nasopharyngitis/upper respiratory tract infections, nausea, and headache.^33-35 Herpes simplex virus infection and worsening of AD also were seen. Although elevations in creatine phosphokinase levels were reported, patients often were asymptomatic and elevations were related to exercise or resolved without treatment interruption.^33-35

As a class, JAK inhibitors carry a boxed warning for serious infections, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular events, thrombosis, and mortality. The FDA placed this label on JAK inhibitors because of the results of a randomized controlled trial of oral tofacitinib vs tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors in RA.^48,49 Notably, participants in the trial had to be 50 years or older and have at least 1 additional cardiovascular risk factor. Postmarket safety data are still being collected for patients with AD and other dermatologic conditions, but the findings of safety analyses have been reassuring to date.^50,51 Regular follow-up and routine laboratory monitoring are recommended for any patient started on an oral JAK inhibitor, which often includes monitoring of the complete blood cell count, comprehensive metabolic panel, and lipids, as well as baseline screening for tuberculosis and hepatitis.^52,53 For topical JAK inhibitors, no specific laboratory monitoring is recommended.

Finally, it must be considered that the challenges of off-label prescribing combined with high costs may limit access to JAK inhibitors for use in ACD.

Final Interpretation

Early investigations, including studies on animals and humans, suggest that JAK inhibitors are a promising option in the management of treatment-refractory ACD. Patients and providers should be aware of both the benefits and known side effects of JAK inhibitors prior to treatment initiation.

Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) is a delayed type IV hypersensitivity reaction that usually manifests with eczematous lesions within hours to days after exposure to a contact allergen. The primary treatment of ACD consists of allergen avoidance, but medications also may be necessary to manage symptoms, particularly in cases where avoidance alone does not lead to resolution of dermatitis. At present, no medical therapies are explicitly approved for use in the management of ACD. Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors are a class of small molecule inhibitors that are used for the treatment of a range of inflammatory diseases, such as rheumatoid arthritis and psoriatic arthritis. Several oral and topical JAK inhibitors also have recently been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for atopic dermatitis (AD). In this article, we discuss this important class of medications and the role that they may play in the off-label management of refractory ACD.

JAK/STAT Signaling Pathway

The JAK/signal transducer and activator of transcription (STAT) pathway plays a crucial role in many biologic processes. Notably, JAK/STAT signaling is involved in the development and regulation of the immune system.¹ The cascade begins when a particular transmembrane receptor binds a ligand, such as an interferon or interleukin.² Upon ligand binding, the receptor dimerizes or oligomerizes, bringing the relevant JAK proteins into close approximation to each other.³ This allows the JAK proteins to autophosphorylate or transphosphorylate.^2-4 Phosphorylation activates the JAK proteins and increases their kinase activity.³ In humans, there are 4 JAK proteins: JAK1, JAK2, JAK3, and tyrosine kinase 2.⁴ When activated, the JAK proteins phosphorylate specific tyrosine residues on the receptor, which creates a docking site for STAT proteins. After binding, the STAT proteins then are phosphorylated, leading to their dimerization and translocation to the nucleus.^2,3 Once in the nucleus, the STAT proteins act as transcription factors for target genes.³

JAK Inhibitors

Janus kinase inhibitors are immunomodulatory medications that work through inhibition of 1 or more of the JAK proteins in the JAK/STAT pathway. Through this mechanism, JAK inhibitors can impede the activity of proinflammatory cytokines and T cells.⁴ A brief overview of the commercially available JAK inhibitors in Europe, Japan, and the United States is provided in the Table.^5-29

Of the approved JAK inhibitors, more than 40% are indicated for AD. The first JAK inhibitor to be approved in the topical form was delgocitinib in 2020 in Japan.⁵ In a phase 3 trial, delgocitinib demonstrated significant reductions in modified Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) score (P<.001) as well as Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (P<.001) when compared with vehicle.³⁰ Topical ruxolitinib soon followed when its approval for AD was announced by the FDA in 2021.³¹ Results from 2 phase 3 trials found that significantly more patients achieved investigator global assessment (IGA) treatment success (P<.0001) and a significant reduction in itch as measured by the Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (P<.001) with topical ruxolitinib vs vehicle.³²

The first oral JAK inhibitor to attain approval for AD was baricitinib in Europe and Japan, but it is not currently approved for this indication in the United States by the FDA.^11,12,33 Consistent findings across phase 3 trials revealed that baricitinib was more effective at achieving IGA treatment success and improved EASI scores compared with placebo.³³

Upadacitinib, another oral JAK inhibitor, was subsequently approved for AD in Europe and Japan in 2021 and in the United States in early 2022.^5,9,26,27 Two replicate phase 3 trials demonstrated significant improvement in EASI score, itch, and quality of life with upadacitinib compared with placebo (P<.0001).³⁴ Abrocitinib was granted FDA approval for AD in the same time period, with phase 3 trials exhibiting greater responses in IGA and EASI scores vs placebo.³⁵

Potential for Use in ACD

Given the successful use of JAK inhibitors in the management of AD, there is optimism that these medications also may have potential application in ACD. Recent literature suggests that the 2 conditions may be more closely related mechanistically than previously understood. As a result, AD and ACD often are managed with the same therapeutic agents.³⁶

Although the exact etiology of ACD is still being elucidated, activation of T cells and cytokines plays an important role.³⁷ Notably, more than 40 cytokines exert their effects through the JAK/STAT signaling pathway, including IL-2, IL-6, IL-17, IL-22, and IFN-γ.^37,38 A study on nickel contact allergy revealed that JAK/STAT activation may regulate the balance between IL-12 and IL-23 and increase type 1 T-helper (T_H1) polarization.³⁹ Skin inflammation and chronic pruritus, which are major components of ACD, also are thought to be mediated in part by JAK signaling.^34,40

Animal studies have suggested that JAK inhibitors may show benefit in the management of ACD. Rats with oxazolone-induced ACD were found to have less swelling and epidermal thickening in the area of induced dermatitis after treatment with oral tofacitinib, comparable to the effects of cyclosporine. Tofacitinib was presumed to exert its effects through cytokine suppression, particularly that of IFN-γ, IL-22, and tumor necrosis factor α.⁴¹ In a separate study on mice with toluene-2,4-diisocyanate–induced ACD, both tofacitinib and another JAK inhibitor, oclacitinib, demonstrated inhibition of cytokine production, migration, and maturation of bone marrow–derived dendritic cells. Both topical and oral formulations of these 2 JAK inhibitors also were found to decrease scratching behavior; only the topicals improved ear thickness (used as a marker of skin inflammation), suggesting potential benefits to local application.⁴² In a murine model, oral delgocitinib also attenuated contact hypersensitivity via inhibition of antigen-specific T-cell proliferation and cytokine production.³⁷ Finally, in a randomized clinical trial conducted on dogs with allergic dermatitis (of which 10% were presumed to be from contact allergy), oral oclacitinib significantly reduced pruritus and clinical severity scores vs placebo (P<.0001).⁴³

There also are early clinical studies and case reports highlighting the effective use of JAK inhibitors in the management of ACD in humans. A 37-year-old man with occupational airborne ACD to Compositae saw full clearance of his dermatitis with daily oral abrocitinib after topical corticosteroids and dupilumab failed.⁴⁴ Another patient, a 57-year-old woman, had near-complete resolution of chronic Parthenium-induced airborne ACD after starting twice-daily oral tofacitinib. Allergen avoidance, as well as multiple medications, including topical and oral corticosteroids, topical calcineurin inhibitors, and azathioprine, previously failed in this patient.⁴⁵ Finally, a phase 2 study on patients with irritant and nonirritant chronic hand eczema found that significantly more patients achieved treatment success (as measured by the physician global assessment) with topical delgocitinib vs vehicle (P=.009).⁴⁶ Chronic hand eczema may be due to a variety of causes, including AD, irritant contact dermatitis, and ACD. Thus, these studies begin to highlight the potential role for JAK inhibitors in the management of refractory ACD.

Side Effects of JAK Inhibitors

The safety profile of JAK inhibitors must be taken into consideration. In general, topical JAK inhibitors are safe and well tolerated, with the majority of adverse events (AEs) seen in clinical trials considered mild or unrelated to the medication.^30,32 Nasopharyngitis, local skin infection, and acne were reported; a systematic review found no increased risk of AEs with topical JAK inhibitors compared with placebo.^30,32,47 Application-site reactions, a common concern among the existing topical calcineurin and phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitors, were rare (approximately 2% of patients).⁴⁷ The most frequent AEs seen in clinical trials of oral JAK inhibitors included acne, nasopharyngitis/upper respiratory tract infections, nausea, and headache.^33-35 Herpes simplex virus infection and worsening of AD also were seen. Although elevations in creatine phosphokinase levels were reported, patients often were asymptomatic and elevations were related to exercise or resolved without treatment interruption.^33-35

As a class, JAK inhibitors carry a boxed warning for serious infections, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular events, thrombosis, and mortality. The FDA placed this label on JAK inhibitors because of the results of a randomized controlled trial of oral tofacitinib vs tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors in RA.^48,49 Notably, participants in the trial had to be 50 years or older and have at least 1 additional cardiovascular risk factor. Postmarket safety data are still being collected for patients with AD and other dermatologic conditions, but the findings of safety analyses have been reassuring to date.^50,51 Regular follow-up and routine laboratory monitoring are recommended for any patient started on an oral JAK inhibitor, which often includes monitoring of the complete blood cell count, comprehensive metabolic panel, and lipids, as well as baseline screening for tuberculosis and hepatitis.^52,53 For topical JAK inhibitors, no specific laboratory monitoring is recommended.

Finally, it must be considered that the challenges of off-label prescribing combined with high costs may limit access to JAK inhibitors for use in ACD.

Final Interpretation

Early investigations, including studies on animals and humans, suggest that JAK inhibitors are a promising option in the management of treatment-refractory ACD. Patients and providers should be aware of both the benefits and known side effects of JAK inhibitors prior to treatment initiation.

Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) is a delayed type IV hypersensitivity reaction that usually manifests with eczematous lesions within hours to days after exposure to a contact allergen. The primary treatment of ACD consists of allergen avoidance, but medications also may be necessary to manage symptoms, particularly in cases where avoidance alone does not lead to resolution of dermatitis. At present, no medical therapies are explicitly approved for use in the management of ACD. Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors are a class of small molecule inhibitors that are used for the treatment of a range of inflammatory diseases, such as rheumatoid arthritis and psoriatic arthritis. Several oral and topical JAK inhibitors also have recently been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for atopic dermatitis (AD). In this article, we discuss this important class of medications and the role that they may play in the off-label management of refractory ACD.

JAK/STAT Signaling Pathway

The JAK/signal transducer and activator of transcription (STAT) pathway plays a crucial role in many biologic processes. Notably, JAK/STAT signaling is involved in the development and regulation of the immune system.¹ The cascade begins when a particular transmembrane receptor binds a ligand, such as an interferon or interleukin.² Upon ligand binding, the receptor dimerizes or oligomerizes, bringing the relevant JAK proteins into close approximation to each other.³ This allows the JAK proteins to autophosphorylate or transphosphorylate.^2-4 Phosphorylation activates the JAK proteins and increases their kinase activity.³ In humans, there are 4 JAK proteins: JAK1, JAK2, JAK3, and tyrosine kinase 2.⁴ When activated, the JAK proteins phosphorylate specific tyrosine residues on the receptor, which creates a docking site for STAT proteins. After binding, the STAT proteins then are phosphorylated, leading to their dimerization and translocation to the nucleus.^2,3 Once in the nucleus, the STAT proteins act as transcription factors for target genes.³

JAK Inhibitors

Janus kinase inhibitors are immunomodulatory medications that work through inhibition of 1 or more of the JAK proteins in the JAK/STAT pathway. Through this mechanism, JAK inhibitors can impede the activity of proinflammatory cytokines and T cells.⁴ A brief overview of the commercially available JAK inhibitors in Europe, Japan, and the United States is provided in the Table.^5-29

Of the approved JAK inhibitors, more than 40% are indicated for AD. The first JAK inhibitor to be approved in the topical form was delgocitinib in 2020 in Japan.⁵ In a phase 3 trial, delgocitinib demonstrated significant reductions in modified Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) score (P<.001) as well as Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (P<.001) when compared with vehicle.³⁰ Topical ruxolitinib soon followed when its approval for AD was announced by the FDA in 2021.³¹ Results from 2 phase 3 trials found that significantly more patients achieved investigator global assessment (IGA) treatment success (P<.0001) and a significant reduction in itch as measured by the Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (P<.001) with topical ruxolitinib vs vehicle.³²

The first oral JAK inhibitor to attain approval for AD was baricitinib in Europe and Japan, but it is not currently approved for this indication in the United States by the FDA.^11,12,33 Consistent findings across phase 3 trials revealed that baricitinib was more effective at achieving IGA treatment success and improved EASI scores compared with placebo.³³

Upadacitinib, another oral JAK inhibitor, was subsequently approved for AD in Europe and Japan in 2021 and in the United States in early 2022.^5,9,26,27 Two replicate phase 3 trials demonstrated significant improvement in EASI score, itch, and quality of life with upadacitinib compared with placebo (P<.0001).³⁴ Abrocitinib was granted FDA approval for AD in the same time period, with phase 3 trials exhibiting greater responses in IGA and EASI scores vs placebo.³⁵

Potential for Use in ACD

Given the successful use of JAK inhibitors in the management of AD, there is optimism that these medications also may have potential application in ACD. Recent literature suggests that the 2 conditions may be more closely related mechanistically than previously understood. As a result, AD and ACD often are managed with the same therapeutic agents.³⁶

Although the exact etiology of ACD is still being elucidated, activation of T cells and cytokines plays an important role.³⁷ Notably, more than 40 cytokines exert their effects through the JAK/STAT signaling pathway, including IL-2, IL-6, IL-17, IL-22, and IFN-γ.^37,38 A study on nickel contact allergy revealed that JAK/STAT activation may regulate the balance between IL-12 and IL-23 and increase type 1 T-helper (T_H1) polarization.³⁹ Skin inflammation and chronic pruritus, which are major components of ACD, also are thought to be mediated in part by JAK signaling.^34,40

Animal studies have suggested that JAK inhibitors may show benefit in the management of ACD. Rats with oxazolone-induced ACD were found to have less swelling and epidermal thickening in the area of induced dermatitis after treatment with oral tofacitinib, comparable to the effects of cyclosporine. Tofacitinib was presumed to exert its effects through cytokine suppression, particularly that of IFN-γ, IL-22, and tumor necrosis factor α.⁴¹ In a separate study on mice with toluene-2,4-diisocyanate–induced ACD, both tofacitinib and another JAK inhibitor, oclacitinib, demonstrated inhibition of cytokine production, migration, and maturation of bone marrow–derived dendritic cells. Both topical and oral formulations of these 2 JAK inhibitors also were found to decrease scratching behavior; only the topicals improved ear thickness (used as a marker of skin inflammation), suggesting potential benefits to local application.⁴² In a murine model, oral delgocitinib also attenuated contact hypersensitivity via inhibition of antigen-specific T-cell proliferation and cytokine production.³⁷ Finally, in a randomized clinical trial conducted on dogs with allergic dermatitis (of which 10% were presumed to be from contact allergy), oral oclacitinib significantly reduced pruritus and clinical severity scores vs placebo (P<.0001).⁴³

There also are early clinical studies and case reports highlighting the effective use of JAK inhibitors in the management of ACD in humans. A 37-year-old man with occupational airborne ACD to Compositae saw full clearance of his dermatitis with daily oral abrocitinib after topical corticosteroids and dupilumab failed.⁴⁴ Another patient, a 57-year-old woman, had near-complete resolution of chronic Parthenium-induced airborne ACD after starting twice-daily oral tofacitinib. Allergen avoidance, as well as multiple medications, including topical and oral corticosteroids, topical calcineurin inhibitors, and azathioprine, previously failed in this patient.⁴⁵ Finally, a phase 2 study on patients with irritant and nonirritant chronic hand eczema found that significantly more patients achieved treatment success (as measured by the physician global assessment) with topical delgocitinib vs vehicle (P=.009).⁴⁶ Chronic hand eczema may be due to a variety of causes, including AD, irritant contact dermatitis, and ACD. Thus, these studies begin to highlight the potential role for JAK inhibitors in the management of refractory ACD.

Side Effects of JAK Inhibitors

The safety profile of JAK inhibitors must be taken into consideration. In general, topical JAK inhibitors are safe and well tolerated, with the majority of adverse events (AEs) seen in clinical trials considered mild or unrelated to the medication.^30,32 Nasopharyngitis, local skin infection, and acne were reported; a systematic review found no increased risk of AEs with topical JAK inhibitors compared with placebo.^30,32,47 Application-site reactions, a common concern among the existing topical calcineurin and phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitors, were rare (approximately 2% of patients).⁴⁷ The most frequent AEs seen in clinical trials of oral JAK inhibitors included acne, nasopharyngitis/upper respiratory tract infections, nausea, and headache.^33-35 Herpes simplex virus infection and worsening of AD also were seen. Although elevations in creatine phosphokinase levels were reported, patients often were asymptomatic and elevations were related to exercise or resolved without treatment interruption.^33-35

As a class, JAK inhibitors carry a boxed warning for serious infections, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular events, thrombosis, and mortality. The FDA placed this label on JAK inhibitors because of the results of a randomized controlled trial of oral tofacitinib vs tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors in RA.^48,49 Notably, participants in the trial had to be 50 years or older and have at least 1 additional cardiovascular risk factor. Postmarket safety data are still being collected for patients with AD and other dermatologic conditions, but the findings of safety analyses have been reassuring to date.^50,51 Regular follow-up and routine laboratory monitoring are recommended for any patient started on an oral JAK inhibitor, which often includes monitoring of the complete blood cell count, comprehensive metabolic panel, and lipids, as well as baseline screening for tuberculosis and hepatitis.^52,53 For topical JAK inhibitors, no specific laboratory monitoring is recommended.

Finally, it must be considered that the challenges of off-label prescribing combined with high costs may limit access to JAK inhibitors for use in ACD.

Final Interpretation

Early investigations, including studies on animals and humans, suggest that JAK inhibitors are a promising option in the management of treatment-refractory ACD. Patients and providers should be aware of both the benefits and known side effects of JAK inhibitors prior to treatment initiation.

The landscape of psoriasis treatments has undergone rapid change within the last decade, and the dizzying speed of drug development has not slowed, with 4 notable entries into the psoriasis treatment armamentarium within the last year: tapinarof, roflumilast, deucravacitinib, and spesolimab. Several others are in late-stage development, and these therapies represent new mechanisms, pathways, and delivery systems that will meaningfully broaden the spectrum of treatment choices for our patients. However, it can be quite difficult to keep track of all of the medication options. This review aims to present the mechanisms and data on both newly available therapeutics for psoriasis and products in the pipeline that may have a major impact on our treatment paradigm for psoriasis in the near future.

Topical Treatments

Tapinarof—Tapinarof is a topical aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AhR)–modulating agent derived from a secondary metabolite produced by a bacterial symbiont of entomopathogenic nematodes.¹ Tapinarof binds and activates AhR, inducing a signaling cascade that suppresses the expression of helper T cells T_H17 and T_H22, upregulates skin barrier protein expression, and reduces epidermal oxidative stress.² This is a familiar mechanism, as AhR agonism is one of the pathways modulated by coal tar. Tapinarof’s overall effects on immune function, skin barrier integrity, and antioxidant activity show great promise for the treatment of plaque psoriasis.

Two phase 3 trials (N=1025) evaluated the efficacy and safety of once-daily tapinarof cream 1% for plaque psoriasis.³ A physician global assessment (PGA) score of 0/1 occurred in 35.4% to 40.2% of patients in the tapinarof group and in 6.0% of patients in the vehicle group. At week 12, 36.1% to 47.6% of patients treated with daily applications of tapinarof cream achieved a 75% reduction in their baseline psoriasis area and severity index (PASI 75) score compared with 6.9% to 10.2% in the vehicle group.³ In a long-term extension study, a substantial remittive effect of at least 4 months off tapinarof therapy was observed in patients who achieved complete clearance (PGA=0).⁴ Use of tapinarof cream was associated with folliculitis in up to 23.5% of patients.^3,4

Roflumilast—Phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE-4) is an intracellular enzyme involved in the regulation of cell proliferation, differentiation, and immune responses.⁵ The inhibition of PDE-4 decreases the expression of proinflammatory cytokines implicated in the pathogenesis of plaque psoriasis, such as tumor necrosis factor α, IFN-γ, and IL-2, IL-12, and IL-23.⁶ Phosphodiesterase 4–targeted therapies have been thoroughly explored to treat various inflammatory conditions, including atopic dermatitis and plaque psoriasis. The oral PDE-4 inhibitor apremilast was shown to achieve PASI 75 in approximately 30% of 562 patients, accompanied by severe gastrointestinal adverse events (AEs) including diarrhea and nausea associated with treatment.⁷ Local irritation from the topical PDE-4 inhibitor crisaborole for atopic dermatitis and psoriasis (where it only completed phase 2 trials) limits its widespread use. The lack of tolerable and effective treatment alternatives for psoriasis prompted the investigation of new PDE-4–targeted therapies.

Topical roflumilast is a selective, highly potent PDE-4 inhibitor with greater affinity for PDE-4 compared to crisaborole and apremilast.⁸ Two phase 3 trials (N=881) evaluated the efficacy and safety profile of roflumilast cream for plaque psoriasis, with a particular interest in its use for intertriginous areas.⁹ At week 8, 37.5% to 42.4% of roflumilast-treated patients achieved investigator global assessment (IGA) success compared with 6.1% to 6.9% of vehicle-treated patients. Intertriginous IGA success was observed in 68.1% to 71.2% of patients treated with roflumilast cream compared with 13.8% to 18.5% of vehicle-treated patients. At 8-week follow-up, 39.0% to 41.6% of roflumilast-treated patients achieved PASI 75 vs 5.3% to 7.6% of patients in the vehicle group. Few stinging, burning, or application-site reactions were reported with roflumilast, along with rare instances of gastrointestinal AEs (<4%).⁹

Oral Therapy

Deucravacitinib—Tyrosine kinase 2 (TYK2) mediates the intracellular signaling of the T_H17 and T_H1 inflammatory cytokines IL-12/IL-23 and type I interferons, respectively, the former of which are critical in the development of psoriasis via the Janus kinase (JAK) signal transducer and activator of transcription pathway.¹⁰ Deucravacitinib is an oral selective TYK2 allosteric inhibitor that binds to the regulatory domain of the enzyme rather than the active catalytic domain, where other TYK2 and JAK1, JAK2, and JAK3 inhibitors bind.¹¹ This unique inhibitory mechanism accounts for the high functional selectivity of deucravacitinib for TYK2 vs the closely related JAK1, JAK2, and JAK3 kinases, thus avoiding the pitfall of prior JAK inhibitors that were associated with major AEs, including an increased risk for serious infections, malignancies, and thrombosis.¹² The selective suppression of the inflammatory TYK2 pathway has the potential to shift future therapeutic targets to a narrower range of receptors that may contribute to favorable benefit-risk profiles.

Two phase 3 trials (N=1686) compared the efficacy and safety of deucravacitinib vs placebo and apremilast in adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis.^13,14 At week 16, 53.0% to 58.4% of deucravacitinib-treated patients achieved PASI 75 compared with 35.1% to 39.8% of apremilast-treated patients. At 16-week follow-up, static PGA response was observed in 49.5% to 53.6% of patients in the deucravacitinib group and 32.1% to 33.9% of the apremilast group. The most frequent AEs associated with deucravacitinib therapy were nasopharyngitis and upper respiratory tract infection, whereas headache, diarrhea, and nausea were more common with apremilast. Treatment with deucravacitinib caused no meaningful changes in laboratory parameters, which are known to change with JAK1, JAK2, and JAK3 inhibitors.^13,14 A long-term extension study demonstrated that deucravacitinib had persistent efficacy and consistent safety for up to 2 years.¹⁵

Novel oral allosteric TYK2 inhibitors—VTX958 and NDI-034858—and the competitive TYK2 inhibitor PF-06826647 are being developed. Theoretically, these new allosteric inhibitors possess unique structural properties to provide greater TYK2 suppression while bypassing JAK1, JAK2, and JAK3 pathways that may contribute to improved efficacy and safety profiles compared with other TYK2 inhibitors such as deucravacitinib. The results of a phase 1b trial (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT04999839) showed a dose-dependent reduction of disease severity associated with NDI-034858 treatment for patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, albeit in only 26 patients. At week 4, PASI 50 was achieved in 13%, 57%, and 40% of patients in the 5-, 10-, and 30-mg groups, respectively, compared with 0% in the placebo group.¹⁶ In a phase 2 trial of 179 patients, 46.5% and 33.0% of patients treated with 400 and 200 mg of PF-06826647, respectively, achieved PASI 90 at week 16. Conversely, dose-dependent laboratory abnormalities were observed with PF-06826647, including anemia, neutropenia, and increases in creatine phosphokinase.¹⁷ At high concentrations, PF-06826647 may disrupt JAK signaling pathways involved in hematopoiesis and renal functions owing to its mode of action as a competitive inhibitor. Overall, these agents are much farther from market, and long-term studies with larger diverse patient cohorts are required to adequately assess the efficacy and safety data of these novel oral TYK2 inhibitors for patients with psoriasis.

EDP1815—EDP1815 is an oral preparation of a single strain of Prevotella histicola being developed for the treatment of inflammatory diseases, including psoriasis. EDP1815 interacts with host intestinal immune cells through the small intestinal axis (SINTAX) to suppress systemic inflammation across the T_H1, T_H2, and T_H17 pathways. Therapy triggers broad immunomodulatory effects without causing systemic absorption, colonic colonization, or modification of the gut microbiome.¹⁸ In a phase 2 study (NCT04603027), the primary end point analysis, mean percentage change in PASI between treatment and placebo, demonstrated that at week 16, EDP1815 was superior to placebo with 80% to 90% probability across each cohort. At week 16, 25% to 32% of patients across the 3 cohorts treated with EDP1815 achieved PASI 50 compared with 12% of patients receiving placebo. Gastrointestinal AEs were comparable between treatment and placebo groups. These results suggest that SINTAX-targeted therapies may provide efficacious and safe immunomodulatory effects for patients with mild to moderate psoriasis, who often have limited treatment options. Although improvements may be mild, SINTAX-targeted therapies can be seen as a particularly attractive adjunctive treatment for patients with severe psoriasis taking other medications or as part of a treatment approach for a patient with milder psoriasis.

Biologics

Bimekizumab—Bimekizumab is a monoclonal IgG1 antibody that selectively inhibits IL-17A and IL-17F. Although IL-17A is a more potent cytokine, IL-17F may be more highly expressed in psoriatic lesional skin and independently contribute to the activation of proinflammatory signaling pathways implicated in the pathophysiology of psoriasis.¹⁹ Evidence suggests that dual inhibition of IL-17A and IL-17F may provide more complete suppression of inflammation and improved clinical responses than IL-17A inhibition alone.²⁰

Prior bimekizumab phase 3 clinical studies have shown both rapid and durable clinical improvements in skin clearance compared with placebo.²¹ Three phase 3 trials—BE VIVID (N=567),²² BE SURE (N=478),²³ and BE RADIANT (N=743)²⁴—assessed the efficacy and safety of bimekizumab vs the IL-12/IL-23 inhibitor ustekinumab, the tumor necrosis factor inhibitor adalimumab, and the selective IL-17A inhibitor secukinumab, respectively. At week 4, significantly more patients treated with bimekizumab (71%–77%) achieved PASI 75 than patients treated with ustekinumab (15%; P<.0001), adalimumab (31.4%; P<.001), or secukinumab (47.3%; P<.001).^22-24 After 16 weeks of treatment, PASI 90 was achieved by 85% to 86.2%, 50%, and 47.2% of patients treated with bimekizumab, ustekinumab, and adalimumab, respectively.^22,23 At week 16, PASI 100 was observed in 59% to 61.7%, 21%, 23.9%, and 48.9% of patients treated with bimekizumab, ustekinumab, adalimumab, and secukinumab, respectively. An IGA response (score of 0/1) at week 16 was achieved by 84% to 85.5%, 53%, 57.2%, and 78.6% of patients receiving bimekizumab, ustekinumab, adalimumab, and secukinumab, respectively.^22-24

The most common AEs in bimekizumab-treated patients were nasopharyngitis, oral candidiasis, and upper respiratory tract infection.^22-24 The dual inhibition of IL-17A and IL-17F suppresses host defenses against Candida at the oral mucosa, increasing the incidence of bimekizumab-associated oral candidiasis.²⁵ Despite the increased risk of Candida infections, these data suggest that inhibition of both IL-17A and IL-17F with bimekizumab may provide faster and greater clinical benefit for patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis than inhibition of IL-17A alone and other biologic therapies, as the PASI 100 clearance rates across the multiple comparator trials and the placebo-controlled pivotal trial are consistently the highest among any biologic for the treatment of psoriasis.

Spesolimab—The IL-36 pathway and IL-36 receptor genes have been linked to the pathogenesis of generalized pustular psoriasis.²⁶ In a phase 2 trial, 19 of 35 patients (54%) receiving an intravenous dose of spesolimab, an IL-36 receptor inhibitor, had a generalized pustular psoriasis PGA pustulation subscore of 0 (no visible pustules) at the end of week 1 vs 6% of patients in the placebo group.²⁷ A generalized pustular psoriasis PGA total score of 0 or 1 was observed in 43% (15/35) of spesolimab-treated patients compared with 11% (2/18) of patients in the placebo group. The most common AEs in patients treated with spesolimab were minor infections.²⁷ Two open-label phase 3 trials—NCT05200247 and NCT05239039—are underway to determine the long-term efficacy and safety of spesolimab in patients with generalized pustular psoriasis.

Conclusion

Although we have seen a renaissance in psoriasis therapies with the advent of biologics in the last 20 years, recent evidence shows that more innovation is underway. Just in the last year, 2 new mechanisms for treating psoriasis topically without steroids have come to fruition, and there have not been truly novel mechanisms for treating psoriasis topically since approvals for tazarotene and calcipotriene in the 1990s. An entirely new class—TYK2 inhibitors—was developed and landed in psoriasis first, greatly improving the efficacy measures attained with oral medications in general. Finally, an orphan diagnosis got its due with an ambitiously designed study looking at a previously unheard-of 1-week end point, but it comes for one of the few true dermatologic emergencies we encounter, generalized pustular psoriasis. We are fortunate to have so many meaningful new treatments available to us, and it is invigorating to see that even more efficacious biologics and treatments are coming, along with novel concepts such as a treatment affecting the microbiome. Now, we just need to make sure that our patients have the access they deserve to the wide array of available treatments.

The landscape of psoriasis treatments has undergone rapid change within the last decade, and the dizzying speed of drug development has not slowed, with 4 notable entries into the psoriasis treatment armamentarium within the last year: tapinarof, roflumilast, deucravacitinib, and spesolimab. Several others are in late-stage development, and these therapies represent new mechanisms, pathways, and delivery systems that will meaningfully broaden the spectrum of treatment choices for our patients. However, it can be quite difficult to keep track of all of the medication options. This review aims to present the mechanisms and data on both newly available therapeutics for psoriasis and products in the pipeline that may have a major impact on our treatment paradigm for psoriasis in the near future.

Topical Treatments

Tapinarof—Tapinarof is a topical aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AhR)–modulating agent derived from a secondary metabolite produced by a bacterial symbiont of entomopathogenic nematodes.¹ Tapinarof binds and activates AhR, inducing a signaling cascade that suppresses the expression of helper T cells T_H17 and T_H22, upregulates skin barrier protein expression, and reduces epidermal oxidative stress.² This is a familiar mechanism, as AhR agonism is one of the pathways modulated by coal tar. Tapinarof’s overall effects on immune function, skin barrier integrity, and antioxidant activity show great promise for the treatment of plaque psoriasis.

Two phase 3 trials (N=1025) evaluated the efficacy and safety of once-daily tapinarof cream 1% for plaque psoriasis.³ A physician global assessment (PGA) score of 0/1 occurred in 35.4% to 40.2% of patients in the tapinarof group and in 6.0% of patients in the vehicle group. At week 12, 36.1% to 47.6% of patients treated with daily applications of tapinarof cream achieved a 75% reduction in their baseline psoriasis area and severity index (PASI 75) score compared with 6.9% to 10.2% in the vehicle group.³ In a long-term extension study, a substantial remittive effect of at least 4 months off tapinarof therapy was observed in patients who achieved complete clearance (PGA=0).⁴ Use of tapinarof cream was associated with folliculitis in up to 23.5% of patients.^3,4

Roflumilast—Phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE-4) is an intracellular enzyme involved in the regulation of cell proliferation, differentiation, and immune responses.⁵ The inhibition of PDE-4 decreases the expression of proinflammatory cytokines implicated in the pathogenesis of plaque psoriasis, such as tumor necrosis factor α, IFN-γ, and IL-2, IL-12, and IL-23.⁶ Phosphodiesterase 4–targeted therapies have been thoroughly explored to treat various inflammatory conditions, including atopic dermatitis and plaque psoriasis. The oral PDE-4 inhibitor apremilast was shown to achieve PASI 75 in approximately 30% of 562 patients, accompanied by severe gastrointestinal adverse events (AEs) including diarrhea and nausea associated with treatment.⁷ Local irritation from the topical PDE-4 inhibitor crisaborole for atopic dermatitis and psoriasis (where it only completed phase 2 trials) limits its widespread use. The lack of tolerable and effective treatment alternatives for psoriasis prompted the investigation of new PDE-4–targeted therapies.

Topical roflumilast is a selective, highly potent PDE-4 inhibitor with greater affinity for PDE-4 compared to crisaborole and apremilast.⁸ Two phase 3 trials (N=881) evaluated the efficacy and safety profile of roflumilast cream for plaque psoriasis, with a particular interest in its use for intertriginous areas.⁹ At week 8, 37.5% to 42.4% of roflumilast-treated patients achieved investigator global assessment (IGA) success compared with 6.1% to 6.9% of vehicle-treated patients. Intertriginous IGA success was observed in 68.1% to 71.2% of patients treated with roflumilast cream compared with 13.8% to 18.5% of vehicle-treated patients. At 8-week follow-up, 39.0% to 41.6% of roflumilast-treated patients achieved PASI 75 vs 5.3% to 7.6% of patients in the vehicle group. Few stinging, burning, or application-site reactions were reported with roflumilast, along with rare instances of gastrointestinal AEs (<4%).⁹

Oral Therapy

Deucravacitinib—Tyrosine kinase 2 (TYK2) mediates the intracellular signaling of the T_H17 and T_H1 inflammatory cytokines IL-12/IL-23 and type I interferons, respectively, the former of which are critical in the development of psoriasis via the Janus kinase (JAK) signal transducer and activator of transcription pathway.¹⁰ Deucravacitinib is an oral selective TYK2 allosteric inhibitor that binds to the regulatory domain of the enzyme rather than the active catalytic domain, where other TYK2 and JAK1, JAK2, and JAK3 inhibitors bind.¹¹ This unique inhibitory mechanism accounts for the high functional selectivity of deucravacitinib for TYK2 vs the closely related JAK1, JAK2, and JAK3 kinases, thus avoiding the pitfall of prior JAK inhibitors that were associated with major AEs, including an increased risk for serious infections, malignancies, and thrombosis.¹² The selective suppression of the inflammatory TYK2 pathway has the potential to shift future therapeutic targets to a narrower range of receptors that may contribute to favorable benefit-risk profiles.

Two phase 3 trials (N=1686) compared the efficacy and safety of deucravacitinib vs placebo and apremilast in adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis.^13,14 At week 16, 53.0% to 58.4% of deucravacitinib-treated patients achieved PASI 75 compared with 35.1% to 39.8% of apremilast-treated patients. At 16-week follow-up, static PGA response was observed in 49.5% to 53.6% of patients in the deucravacitinib group and 32.1% to 33.9% of the apremilast group. The most frequent AEs associated with deucravacitinib therapy were nasopharyngitis and upper respiratory tract infection, whereas headache, diarrhea, and nausea were more common with apremilast. Treatment with deucravacitinib caused no meaningful changes in laboratory parameters, which are known to change with JAK1, JAK2, and JAK3 inhibitors.^13,14 A long-term extension study demonstrated that deucravacitinib had persistent efficacy and consistent safety for up to 2 years.¹⁵

Novel oral allosteric TYK2 inhibitors—VTX958 and NDI-034858—and the competitive TYK2 inhibitor PF-06826647 are being developed. Theoretically, these new allosteric inhibitors possess unique structural properties to provide greater TYK2 suppression while bypassing JAK1, JAK2, and JAK3 pathways that may contribute to improved efficacy and safety profiles compared with other TYK2 inhibitors such as deucravacitinib. The results of a phase 1b trial (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT04999839) showed a dose-dependent reduction of disease severity associated with NDI-034858 treatment for patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, albeit in only 26 patients. At week 4, PASI 50 was achieved in 13%, 57%, and 40% of patients in the 5-, 10-, and 30-mg groups, respectively, compared with 0% in the placebo group.¹⁶ In a phase 2 trial of 179 patients, 46.5% and 33.0% of patients treated with 400 and 200 mg of PF-06826647, respectively, achieved PASI 90 at week 16. Conversely, dose-dependent laboratory abnormalities were observed with PF-06826647, including anemia, neutropenia, and increases in creatine phosphokinase.¹⁷ At high concentrations, PF-06826647 may disrupt JAK signaling pathways involved in hematopoiesis and renal functions owing to its mode of action as a competitive inhibitor. Overall, these agents are much farther from market, and long-term studies with larger diverse patient cohorts are required to adequately assess the efficacy and safety data of these novel oral TYK2 inhibitors for patients with psoriasis.

EDP1815—EDP1815 is an oral preparation of a single strain of Prevotella histicola being developed for the treatment of inflammatory diseases, including psoriasis. EDP1815 interacts with host intestinal immune cells through the small intestinal axis (SINTAX) to suppress systemic inflammation across the T_H1, T_H2, and T_H17 pathways. Therapy triggers broad immunomodulatory effects without causing systemic absorption, colonic colonization, or modification of the gut microbiome.¹⁸ In a phase 2 study (NCT04603027), the primary end point analysis, mean percentage change in PASI between treatment and placebo, demonstrated that at week 16, EDP1815 was superior to placebo with 80% to 90% probability across each cohort. At week 16, 25% to 32% of patients across the 3 cohorts treated with EDP1815 achieved PASI 50 compared with 12% of patients receiving placebo. Gastrointestinal AEs were comparable between treatment and placebo groups. These results suggest that SINTAX-targeted therapies may provide efficacious and safe immunomodulatory effects for patients with mild to moderate psoriasis, who often have limited treatment options. Although improvements may be mild, SINTAX-targeted therapies can be seen as a particularly attractive adjunctive treatment for patients with severe psoriasis taking other medications or as part of a treatment approach for a patient with milder psoriasis.

Biologics

Bimekizumab—Bimekizumab is a monoclonal IgG1 antibody that selectively inhibits IL-17A and IL-17F. Although IL-17A is a more potent cytokine, IL-17F may be more highly expressed in psoriatic lesional skin and independently contribute to the activation of proinflammatory signaling pathways implicated in the pathophysiology of psoriasis.¹⁹ Evidence suggests that dual inhibition of IL-17A and IL-17F may provide more complete suppression of inflammation and improved clinical responses than IL-17A inhibition alone.²⁰

Prior bimekizumab phase 3 clinical studies have shown both rapid and durable clinical improvements in skin clearance compared with placebo.²¹ Three phase 3 trials—BE VIVID (N=567),²² BE SURE (N=478),²³ and BE RADIANT (N=743)²⁴—assessed the efficacy and safety of bimekizumab vs the IL-12/IL-23 inhibitor ustekinumab, the tumor necrosis factor inhibitor adalimumab, and the selective IL-17A inhibitor secukinumab, respectively. At week 4, significantly more patients treated with bimekizumab (71%–77%) achieved PASI 75 than patients treated with ustekinumab (15%; P<.0001), adalimumab (31.4%; P<.001), or secukinumab (47.3%; P<.001).^22-24 After 16 weeks of treatment, PASI 90 was achieved by 85% to 86.2%, 50%, and 47.2% of patients treated with bimekizumab, ustekinumab, and adalimumab, respectively.^22,23 At week 16, PASI 100 was observed in 59% to 61.7%, 21%, 23.9%, and 48.9% of patients treated with bimekizumab, ustekinumab, adalimumab, and secukinumab, respectively. An IGA response (score of 0/1) at week 16 was achieved by 84% to 85.5%, 53%, 57.2%, and 78.6% of patients receiving bimekizumab, ustekinumab, adalimumab, and secukinumab, respectively.^22-24

The most common AEs in bimekizumab-treated patients were nasopharyngitis, oral candidiasis, and upper respiratory tract infection.^22-24 The dual inhibition of IL-17A and IL-17F suppresses host defenses against Candida at the oral mucosa, increasing the incidence of bimekizumab-associated oral candidiasis.²⁵ Despite the increased risk of Candida infections, these data suggest that inhibition of both IL-17A and IL-17F with bimekizumab may provide faster and greater clinical benefit for patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis than inhibition of IL-17A alone and other biologic therapies, as the PASI 100 clearance rates across the multiple comparator trials and the placebo-controlled pivotal trial are consistently the highest among any biologic for the treatment of psoriasis.

Spesolimab—The IL-36 pathway and IL-36 receptor genes have been linked to the pathogenesis of generalized pustular psoriasis.²⁶ In a phase 2 trial, 19 of 35 patients (54%) receiving an intravenous dose of spesolimab, an IL-36 receptor inhibitor, had a generalized pustular psoriasis PGA pustulation subscore of 0 (no visible pustules) at the end of week 1 vs 6% of patients in the placebo group.²⁷ A generalized pustular psoriasis PGA total score of 0 or 1 was observed in 43% (15/35) of spesolimab-treated patients compared with 11% (2/18) of patients in the placebo group. The most common AEs in patients treated with spesolimab were minor infections.²⁷ Two open-label phase 3 trials—NCT05200247 and NCT05239039—are underway to determine the long-term efficacy and safety of spesolimab in patients with generalized pustular psoriasis.

Conclusion

Although we have seen a renaissance in psoriasis therapies with the advent of biologics in the last 20 years, recent evidence shows that more innovation is underway. Just in the last year, 2 new mechanisms for treating psoriasis topically without steroids have come to fruition, and there have not been truly novel mechanisms for treating psoriasis topically since approvals for tazarotene and calcipotriene in the 1990s. An entirely new class—TYK2 inhibitors—was developed and landed in psoriasis first, greatly improving the efficacy measures attained with oral medications in general. Finally, an orphan diagnosis got its due with an ambitiously designed study looking at a previously unheard-of 1-week end point, but it comes for one of the few true dermatologic emergencies we encounter, generalized pustular psoriasis. We are fortunate to have so many meaningful new treatments available to us, and it is invigorating to see that even more efficacious biologics and treatments are coming, along with novel concepts such as a treatment affecting the microbiome. Now, we just need to make sure that our patients have the access they deserve to the wide array of available treatments.

The landscape of psoriasis treatments has undergone rapid change within the last decade, and the dizzying speed of drug development has not slowed, with 4 notable entries into the psoriasis treatment armamentarium within the last year: tapinarof, roflumilast, deucravacitinib, and spesolimab. Several others are in late-stage development, and these therapies represent new mechanisms, pathways, and delivery systems that will meaningfully broaden the spectrum of treatment choices for our patients. However, it can be quite difficult to keep track of all of the medication options. This review aims to present the mechanisms and data on both newly available therapeutics for psoriasis and products in the pipeline that may have a major impact on our treatment paradigm for psoriasis in the near future.

Topical Treatments

Tapinarof—Tapinarof is a topical aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AhR)–modulating agent derived from a secondary metabolite produced by a bacterial symbiont of entomopathogenic nematodes.¹ Tapinarof binds and activates AhR, inducing a signaling cascade that suppresses the expression of helper T cells T_H17 and T_H22, upregulates skin barrier protein expression, and reduces epidermal oxidative stress.² This is a familiar mechanism, as AhR agonism is one of the pathways modulated by coal tar. Tapinarof’s overall effects on immune function, skin barrier integrity, and antioxidant activity show great promise for the treatment of plaque psoriasis.

Two phase 3 trials (N=1025) evaluated the efficacy and safety of once-daily tapinarof cream 1% for plaque psoriasis.³ A physician global assessment (PGA) score of 0/1 occurred in 35.4% to 40.2% of patients in the tapinarof group and in 6.0% of patients in the vehicle group. At week 12, 36.1% to 47.6% of patients treated with daily applications of tapinarof cream achieved a 75% reduction in their baseline psoriasis area and severity index (PASI 75) score compared with 6.9% to 10.2% in the vehicle group.³ In a long-term extension study, a substantial remittive effect of at least 4 months off tapinarof therapy was observed in patients who achieved complete clearance (PGA=0).⁴ Use of tapinarof cream was associated with folliculitis in up to 23.5% of patients.^3,4

Roflumilast—Phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE-4) is an intracellular enzyme involved in the regulation of cell proliferation, differentiation, and immune responses.⁵ The inhibition of PDE-4 decreases the expression of proinflammatory cytokines implicated in the pathogenesis of plaque psoriasis, such as tumor necrosis factor α, IFN-γ, and IL-2, IL-12, and IL-23.⁶ Phosphodiesterase 4–targeted therapies have been thoroughly explored to treat various inflammatory conditions, including atopic dermatitis and plaque psoriasis. The oral PDE-4 inhibitor apremilast was shown to achieve PASI 75 in approximately 30% of 562 patients, accompanied by severe gastrointestinal adverse events (AEs) including diarrhea and nausea associated with treatment.⁷ Local irritation from the topical PDE-4 inhibitor crisaborole for atopic dermatitis and psoriasis (where it only completed phase 2 trials) limits its widespread use. The lack of tolerable and effective treatment alternatives for psoriasis prompted the investigation of new PDE-4–targeted therapies.

Topical roflumilast is a selective, highly potent PDE-4 inhibitor with greater affinity for PDE-4 compared to crisaborole and apremilast.⁸ Two phase 3 trials (N=881) evaluated the efficacy and safety profile of roflumilast cream for plaque psoriasis, with a particular interest in its use for intertriginous areas.⁹ At week 8, 37.5% to 42.4% of roflumilast-treated patients achieved investigator global assessment (IGA) success compared with 6.1% to 6.9% of vehicle-treated patients. Intertriginous IGA success was observed in 68.1% to 71.2% of patients treated with roflumilast cream compared with 13.8% to 18.5% of vehicle-treated patients. At 8-week follow-up, 39.0% to 41.6% of roflumilast-treated patients achieved PASI 75 vs 5.3% to 7.6% of patients in the vehicle group. Few stinging, burning, or application-site reactions were reported with roflumilast, along with rare instances of gastrointestinal AEs (<4%).⁹

Oral Therapy

Deucravacitinib—Tyrosine kinase 2 (TYK2) mediates the intracellular signaling of the T_H17 and T_H1 inflammatory cytokines IL-12/IL-23 and type I interferons, respectively, the former of which are critical in the development of psoriasis via the Janus kinase (JAK) signal transducer and activator of transcription pathway.¹⁰ Deucravacitinib is an oral selective TYK2 allosteric inhibitor that binds to the regulatory domain of the enzyme rather than the active catalytic domain, where other TYK2 and JAK1, JAK2, and JAK3 inhibitors bind.¹¹ This unique inhibitory mechanism accounts for the high functional selectivity of deucravacitinib for TYK2 vs the closely related JAK1, JAK2, and JAK3 kinases, thus avoiding the pitfall of prior JAK inhibitors that were associated with major AEs, including an increased risk for serious infections, malignancies, and thrombosis.¹² The selective suppression of the inflammatory TYK2 pathway has the potential to shift future therapeutic targets to a narrower range of receptors that may contribute to favorable benefit-risk profiles.

Two phase 3 trials (N=1686) compared the efficacy and safety of deucravacitinib vs placebo and apremilast in adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis.^13,14 At week 16, 53.0% to 58.4% of deucravacitinib-treated patients achieved PASI 75 compared with 35.1% to 39.8% of apremilast-treated patients. At 16-week follow-up, static PGA response was observed in 49.5% to 53.6% of patients in the deucravacitinib group and 32.1% to 33.9% of the apremilast group. The most frequent AEs associated with deucravacitinib therapy were nasopharyngitis and upper respiratory tract infection, whereas headache, diarrhea, and nausea were more common with apremilast. Treatment with deucravacitinib caused no meaningful changes in laboratory parameters, which are known to change with JAK1, JAK2, and JAK3 inhibitors.^13,14 A long-term extension study demonstrated that deucravacitinib had persistent efficacy and consistent safety for up to 2 years.¹⁵

Novel oral allosteric TYK2 inhibitors—VTX958 and NDI-034858—and the competitive TYK2 inhibitor PF-06826647 are being developed. Theoretically, these new allosteric inhibitors possess unique structural properties to provide greater TYK2 suppression while bypassing JAK1, JAK2, and JAK3 pathways that may contribute to improved efficacy and safety profiles compared with other TYK2 inhibitors such as deucravacitinib. The results of a phase 1b trial (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT04999839) showed a dose-dependent reduction of disease severity associated with NDI-034858 treatment for patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, albeit in only 26 patients. At week 4, PASI 50 was achieved in 13%, 57%, and 40% of patients in the 5-, 10-, and 30-mg groups, respectively, compared with 0% in the placebo group.¹⁶ In a phase 2 trial of 179 patients, 46.5% and 33.0% of patients treated with 400 and 200 mg of PF-06826647, respectively, achieved PASI 90 at week 16. Conversely, dose-dependent laboratory abnormalities were observed with PF-06826647, including anemia, neutropenia, and increases in creatine phosphokinase.¹⁷ At high concentrations, PF-06826647 may disrupt JAK signaling pathways involved in hematopoiesis and renal functions owing to its mode of action as a competitive inhibitor. Overall, these agents are much farther from market, and long-term studies with larger diverse patient cohorts are required to adequately assess the efficacy and safety data of these novel oral TYK2 inhibitors for patients with psoriasis.

EDP1815—EDP1815 is an oral preparation of a single strain of Prevotella histicola being developed for the treatment of inflammatory diseases, including psoriasis. EDP1815 interacts with host intestinal immune cells through the small intestinal axis (SINTAX) to suppress systemic inflammation across the T_H1, T_H2, and T_H17 pathways. Therapy triggers broad immunomodulatory effects without causing systemic absorption, colonic colonization, or modification of the gut microbiome.¹⁸ In a phase 2 study (NCT04603027), the primary end point analysis, mean percentage change in PASI between treatment and placebo, demonstrated that at week 16, EDP1815 was superior to placebo with 80% to 90% probability across each cohort. At week 16, 25% to 32% of patients across the 3 cohorts treated with EDP1815 achieved PASI 50 compared with 12% of patients receiving placebo. Gastrointestinal AEs were comparable between treatment and placebo groups. These results suggest that SINTAX-targeted therapies may provide efficacious and safe immunomodulatory effects for patients with mild to moderate psoriasis, who often have limited treatment options. Although improvements may be mild, SINTAX-targeted therapies can be seen as a particularly attractive adjunctive treatment for patients with severe psoriasis taking other medications or as part of a treatment approach for a patient with milder psoriasis.

Biologics

Bimekizumab—Bimekizumab is a monoclonal IgG1 antibody that selectively inhibits IL-17A and IL-17F. Although IL-17A is a more potent cytokine, IL-17F may be more highly expressed in psoriatic lesional skin and independently contribute to the activation of proinflammatory signaling pathways implicated in the pathophysiology of psoriasis.¹⁹ Evidence suggests that dual inhibition of IL-17A and IL-17F may provide more complete suppression of inflammation and improved clinical responses than IL-17A inhibition alone.²⁰

Prior bimekizumab phase 3 clinical studies have shown both rapid and durable clinical improvements in skin clearance compared with placebo.²¹ Three phase 3 trials—BE VIVID (N=567),²² BE SURE (N=478),²³ and BE RADIANT (N=743)²⁴—assessed the efficacy and safety of bimekizumab vs the IL-12/IL-23 inhibitor ustekinumab, the tumor necrosis factor inhibitor adalimumab, and the selective IL-17A inhibitor secukinumab, respectively. At week 4, significantly more patients treated with bimekizumab (71%–77%) achieved PASI 75 than patients treated with ustekinumab (15%; P<.0001), adalimumab (31.4%; P<.001), or secukinumab (47.3%; P<.001).^22-24 After 16 weeks of treatment, PASI 90 was achieved by 85% to 86.2%, 50%, and 47.2% of patients treated with bimekizumab, ustekinumab, and adalimumab, respectively.^22,23 At week 16, PASI 100 was observed in 59% to 61.7%, 21%, 23.9%, and 48.9% of patients treated with bimekizumab, ustekinumab, adalimumab, and secukinumab, respectively. An IGA response (score of 0/1) at week 16 was achieved by 84% to 85.5%, 53%, 57.2%, and 78.6% of patients receiving bimekizumab, ustekinumab, adalimumab, and secukinumab, respectively.^22-24

The most common AEs in bimekizumab-treated patients were nasopharyngitis, oral candidiasis, and upper respiratory tract infection.^22-24 The dual inhibition of IL-17A and IL-17F suppresses host defenses against Candida at the oral mucosa, increasing the incidence of bimekizumab-associated oral candidiasis.²⁵ Despite the increased risk of Candida infections, these data suggest that inhibition of both IL-17A and IL-17F with bimekizumab may provide faster and greater clinical benefit for patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis than inhibition of IL-17A alone and other biologic therapies, as the PASI 100 clearance rates across the multiple comparator trials and the placebo-controlled pivotal trial are consistently the highest among any biologic for the treatment of psoriasis.

Spesolimab—The IL-36 pathway and IL-36 receptor genes have been linked to the pathogenesis of generalized pustular psoriasis.²⁶ In a phase 2 trial, 19 of 35 patients (54%) receiving an intravenous dose of spesolimab, an IL-36 receptor inhibitor, had a generalized pustular psoriasis PGA pustulation subscore of 0 (no visible pustules) at the end of week 1 vs 6% of patients in the placebo group.²⁷ A generalized pustular psoriasis PGA total score of 0 or 1 was observed in 43% (15/35) of spesolimab-treated patients compared with 11% (2/18) of patients in the placebo group. The most common AEs in patients treated with spesolimab were minor infections.²⁷ Two open-label phase 3 trials—NCT05200247 and NCT05239039—are underway to determine the long-term efficacy and safety of spesolimab in patients with generalized pustular psoriasis.

Conclusion

Although we have seen a renaissance in psoriasis therapies with the advent of biologics in the last 20 years, recent evidence shows that more innovation is underway. Just in the last year, 2 new mechanisms for treating psoriasis topically without steroids have come to fruition, and there have not been truly novel mechanisms for treating psoriasis topically since approvals for tazarotene and calcipotriene in the 1990s. An entirely new class—TYK2 inhibitors—was developed and landed in psoriasis first, greatly improving the efficacy measures attained with oral medications in general. Finally, an orphan diagnosis got its due with an ambitiously designed study looking at a previously unheard-of 1-week end point, but it comes for one of the few true dermatologic emergencies we encounter, generalized pustular psoriasis. We are fortunate to have so many meaningful new treatments available to us, and it is invigorating to see that even more efficacious biologics and treatments are coming, along with novel concepts such as a treatment affecting the microbiome. Now, we just need to make sure that our patients have the access they deserve to the wide array of available treatments.

Abstract

Diagnostic errors in hospitalized patients are a leading cause of preventable morbidity and mortality. Significant challenges in defining and measuring diagnostic errors and underlying process failure points have led to considerable variability in reported rates of diagnostic errors and adverse outcomes. In this article, we explore the diagnostic process and its discrete components, emphasizing the centrality of the patient in decision-making as well as the continuous nature of the process. We review the incidence of diagnostic errors in hospitalized patients and different methodological approaches that have been used to arrive at these estimates. We discuss different but interdependent provider- and system-related process-failure points that lead to diagnostic errors. We examine specific challenges related to measurement of diagnostic errors and describe traditional and novel approaches that are being used to obtain the most precise estimates. Finally, we examine various patient-, provider-, and organizational-level interventions that have been proposed to improve diagnostic safety in hospitalized patients.

Keywords: diagnostic error, hospital medicine, patient safety.

Diagnosis is defined as a “pre-existing set of categories agreed upon by the medical profession to designate a specific condition.”¹ The diagnostic process involves obtaining a clinical history, performing a physical examination, conducting diagnostic testing, and consulting with other clinical providers to gather data that are relevant to understanding the underlying disease processes. This exercise involves generating hypotheses and updating prior probabilities as more information and evidence become available. Throughout this process of information gathering, integration, and interpretation, there is an ongoing assessment of whether sufficient and necessary knowledge has been obtained to make an accurate diagnosis and provide appropriate treatment.²

Diagnostic error is defined as a missed opportunity to make a timely diagnosis as part of this iterative process, including the failure of communicating the diagnosis to the patient in a timely manner.³ It can be categorized as a missed, delayed, or incorrect diagnosis based on available evidence at the time. Establishing the correct diagnosis has important implications. A timely and precise diagnosis ensures the patient the highest probability of having a positive health outcome that reflects an appropriate understanding of underlying disease processes and is consistent with their overall goals of care.³ When diagnostic errors occur, they can cause patient harm. Adverse events due to medical errors, including diagnostic errors, are estimated to be the third leading cause of death in the United States.⁴ Most people will experience at least 1 diagnostic error in their lifetime. In the 2015 National Academy of Medicine report Improving Diagnosis in Healthcare, diagnostic errors were identified as a major hazard as well as an opportunity to improve patient outcomes.²

Diagnostic errors during hospitalizations are especially concerning, as they are more likely to be implicated in a wider spectrum of harm, including permanent disability and death. This has become even more relevant for hospital medicine physicians and other clinical providers as they encounter increasing cognitive and administrative workloads, rising dissatisfaction and burnout, and unique obstacles such as night-time scheduling.⁵

Incidence of Diagnostic Errors in Hospitalized Patients

Several methodological approaches have been used to estimate the incidence of diagnostic errors in hospitalized patients. These include retrospective reviews of a sample of all hospital admissions, evaluations of selected adverse outcomes including autopsy studies, patient and provider surveys, and malpractice claims. Laboratory testing audits and secondary reviews in other diagnostic subspecialities (eg, radiology, pathology, and microbiology) are also essential to improving diagnostic performance in these specialized fields, which in turn affects overall hospital diagnostic error rates.^6-8 These diverse approaches provide unique insights regarding our ability to assess the degree to which potential harms, ranging from temporary impairment to permanent disability, to death, are attributable to different failure points in the diagnostic process.

Large retrospective chart reviews of random hospital admissions remain the most accurate way to determine the overall incidence of diagnostic errors in hospitalized patients.⁹ The Harvard Medical Practice Study, published in 1991, laid the groundwork for measuring the incidence of adverse events in hospitalized patients and assessing their relation to medical error, negligence, and disability. Reviewing 30,121 randomly selected records from 51 randomly selected acute care hospitals in New York State, the study found that adverse events occurred in 3.7% of hospitalizations, diagnostic errors accounted for 13.8% of these events, and these errors were likely attributable to negligence in 74.7% of cases. The study not only outlined individual-level process failures, but also focused attention on some of the systemic causes, setting the agenda for quality improvement research in hospital-based care for years to come.^10-12 A recent systematic review and meta-analysis of 22 hospital admission studies found a pooled rate of 0.7% (95% CI, 0.5%-1.1%) for harmful diagnostic errors.⁹ It found significant variations in the rates of adverse events, diagnostic errors, and range of diagnoses that were missed. This was primarily because of variabilities in pre-test probabilities in detecting diagnostic errors in these specific cohorts, as well as due to heterogeneity in study definitions and methodologies, especially regarding how they defined and measured “diagnostic error.” The analysis, however, did not account for diagnostic errors that were not related to patient harm (missed opportunities); therefore, it likely significantly underestimated the true incidence of diagnostic errors in these study populations. Table 1 summarizes some of key studies that have examined the incidence of harmful diagnostic errors in hospitalized patients.^9-21

The chief limitation of reviewing random hospital admissions is that, since overall rates of diagnostic errors are still relatively low, a large number of case reviews are required to identify a sufficient sample of adverse outcomes to gain a meaningful understanding of the underlying process failure points and develop tools for remediation. Patient and provider surveys or data from malpractice claims can be high-yield starting points for research on process errors.^22,23 Reviews of enriched cohorts of adverse outcomes, such as rapid-response events, intensive care unit (ICU) transfers, deaths, and hospital readmissions, can be an efficient way to identify process failures that lead to greatest harm. Depending on the research approach and the types of underlying patient populations sampled, rates of diagnostic errors in these high-risk groups have been estimated to be approximately 5% to 20%, or even higher.^6,24-31 For example, a retrospective study of 391 cases of unplanned 7-day readmissions found that 5.6% of cases contained at least 1 diagnostic error during the index admission.³² In a study conducted at 6 Belgian acute-care hospitals, 56% of patients requiring an unplanned transfer to a higher level of care were determined to have had an adverse event, and of these adverse events, 12.4% of cases were associated with errors in diagnosis.²⁹ A systematic review of 16 hospital-based studies estimated that 3.1% of all inpatient deaths were likely preventable, which corresponded to 22,165 deaths annually in the United States.³⁰ Another such review of 31 autopsy studies reported that 28% of autopsied ICU patients had at least 1 misdiagnosis; of these diagnostic errors, 8% were classified as potentially lethal, and 15% were considered major but not lethal.³¹ Significant drawbacks of such enriched cohort studies, however, are their poor generalizability and inability to detect failure points that do not lead to patient harm (near-miss events).³³

Causes of Diagnostic Errors in Hospitalized Patients

All aspects of the diagnostic process are susceptible to errors. These errors stem from a variety of faulty processes, including failure of the patient to engage with the health care system (eg, due to lack of insurance or transportation, or delay in seeking care); failure in information gathering (eg, missed history or exam findings, ordering wrong tests, laboratory errors); failure in information interpretation (eg, exam finding or test result misinterpretation); inaccurate hypothesis generation (eg, due to suboptimal prioritization or weighing of supporting evidence); and failure in communication (eg, with other team members or with the patient).^2,34 Reasons for diagnostic process failures vary widely across different health care settings. While clinician assessment errors (eg, failure to consider or alternatively overweigh competing diagnoses) and errors in testing and the monitoring phase (eg, failure to order or follow up diagnostic tests) can lead to a majority of diagnostic errors in some patient populations, in other settings, social (eg, poor health literacy, punitive cultural practices) and economic factors (eg, lack of access to appropriate diagnostic tests or to specialty expertise) play a more prominent role.^34,35

The Figure describes the relationship between components of the diagnostic process and subsequent outcomes, including diagnostic process failures, diagnostic errors, and absence or presence of patient harm.^2,36,37 It reemphasizes the centrality of the patient in decision-making and the continuous nature of the process. The Figure also illustrates that only a minority of process failures result in diagnostic errors, and a smaller proportion of diagnostic errors actually lead to patient harm. Conversely, it also shows that diagnostic errors can happen without any obvious process-failure points, and, similarly, patient harm can take place in the absence of any evident diagnostic errors.^36-38 Finally, it highlights the need to incorporate feedback from process failures, diagnostic errors, and favorable and unfavorable patient outcomes in order to inform future quality improvement efforts and research.

A significant proportion of diagnostic errors are due to system-related vulnerabilities, such as limitations in availability, adoption or quality of work force training, health informatics resources, and diagnostic capabilities. Lack of institutional culture that promotes safety and transparency also predisposes to diagnostic errors.^39,40 The other major domain of process failures is related to cognitive errors in clinician decision-making. Anchoring, confirmation bias, availability bias, and base-rate neglect are some of the common cognitive biases that, along with personality traits (aversion to risk or ambiguity, overconfidence) and affective biases (influence of emotion on decision-making), often determine the degree of utilization of resources and the possibility of suboptimal diagnostic performance.^41,42 Further, implicit biases related to age, race, gender, and sexual orientation contribute to disparities in access to health care and outcomes.⁴³ In a large number of cases of preventable adverse outcomes, however, there are multiple interdependent individual and system-related failure points that lead to diagnostic error and patient harm.^6,32

Challenges in Defining and Measuring Diagnostic Errors

In order to develop effective, evidence-based interventions to reduce diagnostic errors in hospitalized patients, it is essential to be able to first operationally define, and then accurately measure, diagnostic errors and the process failures that contribute to these errors in a standardized way that is reproducible across different settings.^6,44 There are a number of obstacles in this endeavor.

A fundamental problem is that establishing a diagnosis is not a single act but a process. Patterns of symptoms and clinical presentations often differ for the same disease. Information required to make a diagnosis is usually gathered in stages, where the clinician obtains additional data, while considering many possibilities, of which 1 may be ultimately correct. Diagnoses evolve over time and in different care settings. “The most likely diagnosis” is not always the same as “the final correct diagnosis.” Moreover, the diagnostic process is influenced by patients’ individual clinical courses and preferences over time. This makes determination of missed, delayed, or incorrect diagnoses challenging.^45,46

For hospitalized patients, generally the goal is to first rule out more serious and acute conditions (eg, pulmonary embolism or stroke), even if their probability is rather low. Conversely, a diagnosis that appears less consequential if delayed (eg, chronic anemia of unclear etiology) might not be pursued on an urgent basis, and is often left to outpatient providers to examine, but still may manifest in downstream harm (eg, delayed diagnosis of gastrointestinal malignancy or recurrent admissions for heart failure due to missed iron-deficiency anemia). Therefore, coming up with disease diagnosis likelihoods in hindsight may turn out to be highly subjective and not always accurate. This can be particularly difficult when clinician and other team deliberations are not recorded in their entirety.⁴⁷

Another hurdle in the practice of diagnostic medicine is to preserve the balance between underdiagnosing versus pursuing overly aggressive diagnostic approaches. Conducting laboratory, imaging, or other diagnostic studies without a clear shared understanding of how they would affect clinical decision-making (eg, use of prostate-specific antigen to detect prostate cancer) not only leads to increased costs but can also delay appropriate care. Worse, subsequent unnecessary diagnostic tests and treatments can sometimes lead to serious harm.^48,49

Finally, retrospective reviews by clinicians are subject to multiple potential limitations that include failure to create well-defined research questions, poorly developed inclusion and exclusion criteria, and issues related to inter- and intra-rater reliability.⁵⁰ These methodological deficiencies can occur despite following "best practice" guidelines during the study planning, execution, and analysis phases. They further add to the challenge of defining and measuring diagnostic errors.⁴⁷

Strategies to Improve Measurement of Diagnostic Errors

Development of new methodologies to reliably measure diagnostic errors is an area of active research. The advancement of uniform and universally agreed-upon frameworks to define and identify process failure points and diagnostic errors would help reduce measurement error and support development and testing of interventions that could be generalizable across different health care settings. To more accurately define and measure diagnostic errors, several novel approaches have been proposed (Table 2).

The Safer Dx framework is an all-round tool developed to advance the discipline of measuring diagnostic errors. For an episode of care under review, the instrument scores various items to determine the likelihood of a diagnostic error. These items evaluate multiple dimensions affecting diagnostic performance and measurements across 3 broad domains: structure (provider and organizational characteristics—from everyone involved with patient care, to computing infrastructure, to policies and regulations), process (elements of the patient-provider encounter, diagnostic test performance and follow-up, and subspecialty- and referral-specific factors), and outcome (establishing accurate and timely diagnosis as opposed to missed, delayed, or incorrect diagnosis). This instrument has been revised and can be further modified by a variety of stakeholders, including clinicians, health care organizations, and policymakers, to identify potential diagnostic errors in a standardized way for patient safety and quality improvement research.^51,52

Use of standardized tools, such as the Diagnosis Error Evaluation and Research (DEER) taxonomy, can help to identify and classify specific failure points across different diagnostic process dimensions.³⁷ These failure points can be classified into: issues related to patient presentation or access to health care; failure to obtain or misinterpretation of history or physical exam findings; errors in use of diagnostics tests due to technical or clinician-related factors; failures in appropriate weighing of evidence and hypothesis generation; errors associated with referral or consultation process; and failure to monitor the patient or obtain timely follow-up.³⁴ The DEER taxonomy can also be modified based on specific research questions and study populations. Further, it can be recategorized to correspond to Safer Dx framework diagnostic process dimensions to provide insights into reasons for specific process failures and to develop new interventions to mitigate errors and patient harm.⁶

Since a majority of diagnostic errors do not lead to actual harm, use of “triggers” or clues (eg, procedure-related complications, patient falls, transfers to a higher level of care, readmissions within 30 days) can be a more efficient method to identify diagnostic errors and adverse events that do cause harm. The Global Trigger Tool, developed by the Institute for Healthcare Improvement, uses this strategy. This tool has been shown to identify a significantly higher number of serious adverse events than comparable methods.⁵³ This facilitates selection and development of strategies at the institutional level that are most likely to improve patient outcomes.²⁴

Encouraging and facilitating voluntary or prompted reporting from patients and clinicians can also play an important role in capturing diagnostic errors. Patients and clinicians are not only the key stakeholders but are also uniquely placed within the diagnostic process to detect and report potential errors.^25,54 Patient-safety-event reporting systems, such as RL6, play a vital role in reporting near-misses and adverse events. These systems provide a mechanism for team members at all levels within the hospital to contribute toward reporting patient adverse events, including those arising from diagnostic errors.⁵⁵ The Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey is the first standardized, nationally reported patient survey designed to measure patients’ perceptions of their hospital experience. The US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) publishes HCAHPS results on its website 4 times a year, which serves as an important incentive for hospitals to improve patient safety and quality of health care delivery.⁵⁶

Another novel approach links multiple symptoms to a range of target diseases using the Symptom-Disease Pair Analysis of Diagnostic Error (SPADE) framework. Using “big data” technologies, this technique can help discover otherwise hidden symptom-disease links and improve overall diagnostic performance. This approach is proposed for both case-control (look-back) and cohort (look-forward) studies assessing diagnostic errors and misdiagnosis-related harms. For example, starting with a known diagnosis with high potential for harm (eg, stroke), the “look-back” approach can be used to identify high-risk symptoms (eg, dizziness, vertigo). In the “look-forward” approach, a single symptom or exposure risk factor known to be frequently misdiagnosed (eg, dizziness) can be analyzed to identify potential adverse disease outcomes (eg, stroke, migraine).⁵⁷

Many large ongoing studies looking at diagnostic errors among hospitalized patients, such as Utility of Predictive Systems to identify Inpatient Diagnostic Errors (UPSIDE),⁵⁸Patient Safety Learning Lab (PSLL),⁵⁹ and Achieving Diagnostic Excellence through Prevention and Teamwork (ADEPT),⁶⁰ are using structured chart review methodologies incorporating many of the above strategies in combination. Cases triggered by certain events (eg, ICU transfer, death, rapid response event, new or worsening acute kidney injury) are reviewed using validated tools, including Safer Dx framework and DEER taxonomy, to provide the most precise estimates of the burden of diagnostic errors in hospitalized patients. These estimates may be much higher than previously predicted using traditional chart review approaches.^6,24 For example, a recently published study of 2809 random admissions in 11 Massachusetts hospitals identified 978 adverse events but only 10 diagnostic errors (diagnostic error rate, 0.4%).¹⁹ This was likely because the trigger method used in the study did not specifically examine the diagnostic process as critically as done by the Safer Dx framework and DEER taxonomy tools, thereby underestimating the total number of diagnostic errors. Further, these ongoing studies (eg, UPSIDE, ADEPT) aim to employ new and upcoming advanced machine-learning methods to create models that can improve overall diagnostic performance. This would pave the way to test and build novel, efficient, and scalable interventions to reduce diagnostic errors and improve patient outcomes.

Strategies to Improve Diagnostic Safety in Hospitalized Patients

Disease-specific biomedical research, as well as advances in laboratory, imaging, and other technologies, play a critical role in improving diagnostic accuracy. However, these technical approaches do not address many of the broader clinician- and system-level failure points and opportunities for improvement. Various patient-, provider-, and organizational-level interventions that could make diagnostic processes more resilient and reduce the risk of error and patient harm have been proposed.⁶¹

Among these strategies are approaches to empower patients and their families. Fostering therapeutic relationships between patients and members of the care team is essential to reducing diagnostic errors.⁶² Facilitating timely access to health records, ensuring transparency in decision making, and tailoring communication strategies to patients’ cultural and educational backgrounds can reduce harm.⁶³ Similarly, at the system level, enhancing communication among different providers by use of tools such as structured handoffs can prevent communication breakdowns and facilitate positive outcomes.⁶⁴

Interventions targeted at individual health care providers, such as educational programs to improve content-specific knowledge, can enhance diagnostic performance. Regular feedback, strategies to enhance equity, and fostering an environment where all providers are actively encouraged to think critically and participate in the diagnostic process (training programs to use “diagnostic time-outs” and making it a “team sport”) can improve clinical reasoning.^65,66 Use of standardized patients can help identify individual-level cognitive failure points and facilitate creation of new interventions to improve clinical decision-making processes.⁶⁷

Novel health information technologies can further augment these efforts. These include effective documentation by maintaining dynamic and accurate patient histories, problem lists, and medication lists^68-70; use of electronic health record–based algorithms to identify potential diagnostic delays for serious conditions^71,72; use of telemedicine technologies to improve accessibility and coordination⁷³;application of mobile health and wearable technologies to facilitate data-gathering and care delivery^74,75; and use of computerized decision-support tools, including applications to interpret electrocardiograms, imaging studies, and other diagnostic tests.⁷⁶

Use of precision medicine, powered by new artificial intelligence (AI) tools, is becoming more widespread. Algorithms powered by AI can augment and sometimes even outperform clinician decision-making in areas such as oncology, radiology, and primary care.⁷⁷ Creation of large biobanks like the All of Us research program can be used to study thousands of environmental and genetic risk factors and health conditions simultaneously, and help identify specific treatments that work best for people of different backgrounds.⁷⁸ Active research in these areas holds great promise in terms of how and when we diagnose diseases and make appropriate preventative and treatment decisions. Significant scientific, ethical, and regulatory challenges will need to be overcome before these technologies can address some of the most complex problems in health care.⁷⁹

Finally, diagnostic performance is affected by the external environment, including the functioning of the medical liability system. Diagnostic errors that lead to patient harm are a leading cause of malpractice claims.⁸⁰ Developing a legal environment, in collaboration with patient advocacy groups and health care organizations, that promotes and facilitates timely disclosure of diagnostic errors could decrease the incentive to hide errors, advance care processes, and improve outcomes.^81,82

Conclusion

The burden of diagnostic errors in hospitalized patients is unacceptably high and remains an underemphasized cause of preventable morbidity and mortality. Diagnostic errors often result from a breakdown in multiple interdependent processes that involve patient-, provider-, and system-level factors. Significant challenges remain in defining and identifying diagnostic errors as well as underlying process-failure points. The most effective interventions to reduce diagnostic errors will require greater patient participation in the diagnostic process and a mix of evidence-based interventions that promote individual-provider excellence as well as system-level changes. Further research and collaboration among various stakeholders should help improve diagnostic safety for hospitalized patients.

Corresponding author: Abhishek Goyal, MD, MPH; [email protected]

Disclosures: Dr. Dalal disclosed receiving income ≥ $250 from MayaMD.

Abstract

Diagnostic errors in hospitalized patients are a leading cause of preventable morbidity and mortality. Significant challenges in defining and measuring diagnostic errors and underlying process failure points have led to considerable variability in reported rates of diagnostic errors and adverse outcomes. In this article, we explore the diagnostic process and its discrete components, emphasizing the centrality of the patient in decision-making as well as the continuous nature of the process. We review the incidence of diagnostic errors in hospitalized patients and different methodological approaches that have been used to arrive at these estimates. We discuss different but interdependent provider- and system-related process-failure points that lead to diagnostic errors. We examine specific challenges related to measurement of diagnostic errors and describe traditional and novel approaches that are being used to obtain the most precise estimates. Finally, we examine various patient-, provider-, and organizational-level interventions that have been proposed to improve diagnostic safety in hospitalized patients.

Keywords: diagnostic error, hospital medicine, patient safety.

Diagnosis is defined as a “pre-existing set of categories agreed upon by the medical profession to designate a specific condition.”¹ The diagnostic process involves obtaining a clinical history, performing a physical examination, conducting diagnostic testing, and consulting with other clinical providers to gather data that are relevant to understanding the underlying disease processes. This exercise involves generating hypotheses and updating prior probabilities as more information and evidence become available. Throughout this process of information gathering, integration, and interpretation, there is an ongoing assessment of whether sufficient and necessary knowledge has been obtained to make an accurate diagnosis and provide appropriate treatment.²

Diagnostic error is defined as a missed opportunity to make a timely diagnosis as part of this iterative process, including the failure of communicating the diagnosis to the patient in a timely manner.³ It can be categorized as a missed, delayed, or incorrect diagnosis based on available evidence at the time. Establishing the correct diagnosis has important implications. A timely and precise diagnosis ensures the patient the highest probability of having a positive health outcome that reflects an appropriate understanding of underlying disease processes and is consistent with their overall goals of care.³ When diagnostic errors occur, they can cause patient harm. Adverse events due to medical errors, including diagnostic errors, are estimated to be the third leading cause of death in the United States.⁴ Most people will experience at least 1 diagnostic error in their lifetime. In the 2015 National Academy of Medicine report Improving Diagnosis in Healthcare, diagnostic errors were identified as a major hazard as well as an opportunity to improve patient outcomes.²

Diagnostic errors during hospitalizations are especially concerning, as they are more likely to be implicated in a wider spectrum of harm, including permanent disability and death. This has become even more relevant for hospital medicine physicians and other clinical providers as they encounter increasing cognitive and administrative workloads, rising dissatisfaction and burnout, and unique obstacles such as night-time scheduling.⁵

Incidence of Diagnostic Errors in Hospitalized Patients

Several methodological approaches have been used to estimate the incidence of diagnostic errors in hospitalized patients. These include retrospective reviews of a sample of all hospital admissions, evaluations of selected adverse outcomes including autopsy studies, patient and provider surveys, and malpractice claims. Laboratory testing audits and secondary reviews in other diagnostic subspecialities (eg, radiology, pathology, and microbiology) are also essential to improving diagnostic performance in these specialized fields, which in turn affects overall hospital diagnostic error rates.^6-8 These diverse approaches provide unique insights regarding our ability to assess the degree to which potential harms, ranging from temporary impairment to permanent disability, to death, are attributable to different failure points in the diagnostic process.

Large retrospective chart reviews of random hospital admissions remain the most accurate way to determine the overall incidence of diagnostic errors in hospitalized patients.⁹ The Harvard Medical Practice Study, published in 1991, laid the groundwork for measuring the incidence of adverse events in hospitalized patients and assessing their relation to medical error, negligence, and disability. Reviewing 30,121 randomly selected records from 51 randomly selected acute care hospitals in New York State, the study found that adverse events occurred in 3.7% of hospitalizations, diagnostic errors accounted for 13.8% of these events, and these errors were likely attributable to negligence in 74.7% of cases. The study not only outlined individual-level process failures, but also focused attention on some of the systemic causes, setting the agenda for quality improvement research in hospital-based care for years to come.^10-12 A recent systematic review and meta-analysis of 22 hospital admission studies found a pooled rate of 0.7% (95% CI, 0.5%-1.1%) for harmful diagnostic errors.⁹ It found significant variations in the rates of adverse events, diagnostic errors, and range of diagnoses that were missed. This was primarily because of variabilities in pre-test probabilities in detecting diagnostic errors in these specific cohorts, as well as due to heterogeneity in study definitions and methodologies, especially regarding how they defined and measured “diagnostic error.” The analysis, however, did not account for diagnostic errors that were not related to patient harm (missed opportunities); therefore, it likely significantly underestimated the true incidence of diagnostic errors in these study populations. Table 1 summarizes some of key studies that have examined the incidence of harmful diagnostic errors in hospitalized patients.^9-21

The chief limitation of reviewing random hospital admissions is that, since overall rates of diagnostic errors are still relatively low, a large number of case reviews are required to identify a sufficient sample of adverse outcomes to gain a meaningful understanding of the underlying process failure points and develop tools for remediation. Patient and provider surveys or data from malpractice claims can be high-yield starting points for research on process errors.^22,23 Reviews of enriched cohorts of adverse outcomes, such as rapid-response events, intensive care unit (ICU) transfers, deaths, and hospital readmissions, can be an efficient way to identify process failures that lead to greatest harm. Depending on the research approach and the types of underlying patient populations sampled, rates of diagnostic errors in these high-risk groups have been estimated to be approximately 5% to 20%, or even higher.^6,24-31 For example, a retrospective study of 391 cases of unplanned 7-day readmissions found that 5.6% of cases contained at least 1 diagnostic error during the index admission.³² In a study conducted at 6 Belgian acute-care hospitals, 56% of patients requiring an unplanned transfer to a higher level of care were determined to have had an adverse event, and of these adverse events, 12.4% of cases were associated with errors in diagnosis.²⁹ A systematic review of 16 hospital-based studies estimated that 3.1% of all inpatient deaths were likely preventable, which corresponded to 22,165 deaths annually in the United States.³⁰ Another such review of 31 autopsy studies reported that 28% of autopsied ICU patients had at least 1 misdiagnosis; of these diagnostic errors, 8% were classified as potentially lethal, and 15% were considered major but not lethal.³¹ Significant drawbacks of such enriched cohort studies, however, are their poor generalizability and inability to detect failure points that do not lead to patient harm (near-miss events).³³

Causes of Diagnostic Errors in Hospitalized Patients

All aspects of the diagnostic process are susceptible to errors. These errors stem from a variety of faulty processes, including failure of the patient to engage with the health care system (eg, due to lack of insurance or transportation, or delay in seeking care); failure in information gathering (eg, missed history or exam findings, ordering wrong tests, laboratory errors); failure in information interpretation (eg, exam finding or test result misinterpretation); inaccurate hypothesis generation (eg, due to suboptimal prioritization or weighing of supporting evidence); and failure in communication (eg, with other team members or with the patient).^2,34 Reasons for diagnostic process failures vary widely across different health care settings. While clinician assessment errors (eg, failure to consider or alternatively overweigh competing diagnoses) and errors in testing and the monitoring phase (eg, failure to order or follow up diagnostic tests) can lead to a majority of diagnostic errors in some patient populations, in other settings, social (eg, poor health literacy, punitive cultural practices) and economic factors (eg, lack of access to appropriate diagnostic tests or to specialty expertise) play a more prominent role.^34,35

The Figure describes the relationship between components of the diagnostic process and subsequent outcomes, including diagnostic process failures, diagnostic errors, and absence or presence of patient harm.^2,36,37 It reemphasizes the centrality of the patient in decision-making and the continuous nature of the process. The Figure also illustrates that only a minority of process failures result in diagnostic errors, and a smaller proportion of diagnostic errors actually lead to patient harm. Conversely, it also shows that diagnostic errors can happen without any obvious process-failure points, and, similarly, patient harm can take place in the absence of any evident diagnostic errors.^36-38 Finally, it highlights the need to incorporate feedback from process failures, diagnostic errors, and favorable and unfavorable patient outcomes in order to inform future quality improvement efforts and research.

A significant proportion of diagnostic errors are due to system-related vulnerabilities, such as limitations in availability, adoption or quality of work force training, health informatics resources, and diagnostic capabilities. Lack of institutional culture that promotes safety and transparency also predisposes to diagnostic errors.^39,40 The other major domain of process failures is related to cognitive errors in clinician decision-making. Anchoring, confirmation bias, availability bias, and base-rate neglect are some of the common cognitive biases that, along with personality traits (aversion to risk or ambiguity, overconfidence) and affective biases (influence of emotion on decision-making), often determine the degree of utilization of resources and the possibility of suboptimal diagnostic performance.^41,42 Further, implicit biases related to age, race, gender, and sexual orientation contribute to disparities in access to health care and outcomes.⁴³ In a large number of cases of preventable adverse outcomes, however, there are multiple interdependent individual and system-related failure points that lead to diagnostic error and patient harm.^6,32

Challenges in Defining and Measuring Diagnostic Errors

In order to develop effective, evidence-based interventions to reduce diagnostic errors in hospitalized patients, it is essential to be able to first operationally define, and then accurately measure, diagnostic errors and the process failures that contribute to these errors in a standardized way that is reproducible across different settings.^6,44 There are a number of obstacles in this endeavor.

A fundamental problem is that establishing a diagnosis is not a single act but a process. Patterns of symptoms and clinical presentations often differ for the same disease. Information required to make a diagnosis is usually gathered in stages, where the clinician obtains additional data, while considering many possibilities, of which 1 may be ultimately correct. Diagnoses evolve over time and in different care settings. “The most likely diagnosis” is not always the same as “the final correct diagnosis.” Moreover, the diagnostic process is influenced by patients’ individual clinical courses and preferences over time. This makes determination of missed, delayed, or incorrect diagnoses challenging.^45,46

For hospitalized patients, generally the goal is to first rule out more serious and acute conditions (eg, pulmonary embolism or stroke), even if their probability is rather low. Conversely, a diagnosis that appears less consequential if delayed (eg, chronic anemia of unclear etiology) might not be pursued on an urgent basis, and is often left to outpatient providers to examine, but still may manifest in downstream harm (eg, delayed diagnosis of gastrointestinal malignancy or recurrent admissions for heart failure due to missed iron-deficiency anemia). Therefore, coming up with disease diagnosis likelihoods in hindsight may turn out to be highly subjective and not always accurate. This can be particularly difficult when clinician and other team deliberations are not recorded in their entirety.⁴⁷

Another hurdle in the practice of diagnostic medicine is to preserve the balance between underdiagnosing versus pursuing overly aggressive diagnostic approaches. Conducting laboratory, imaging, or other diagnostic studies without a clear shared understanding of how they would affect clinical decision-making (eg, use of prostate-specific antigen to detect prostate cancer) not only leads to increased costs but can also delay appropriate care. Worse, subsequent unnecessary diagnostic tests and treatments can sometimes lead to serious harm.^48,49

Finally, retrospective reviews by clinicians are subject to multiple potential limitations that include failure to create well-defined research questions, poorly developed inclusion and exclusion criteria, and issues related to inter- and intra-rater reliability.⁵⁰ These methodological deficiencies can occur despite following "best practice" guidelines during the study planning, execution, and analysis phases. They further add to the challenge of defining and measuring diagnostic errors.⁴⁷

Strategies to Improve Measurement of Diagnostic Errors

Development of new methodologies to reliably measure diagnostic errors is an area of active research. The advancement of uniform and universally agreed-upon frameworks to define and identify process failure points and diagnostic errors would help reduce measurement error and support development and testing of interventions that could be generalizable across different health care settings. To more accurately define and measure diagnostic errors, several novel approaches have been proposed (Table 2).

The Safer Dx framework is an all-round tool developed to advance the discipline of measuring diagnostic errors. For an episode of care under review, the instrument scores various items to determine the likelihood of a diagnostic error. These items evaluate multiple dimensions affecting diagnostic performance and measurements across 3 broad domains: structure (provider and organizational characteristics—from everyone involved with patient care, to computing infrastructure, to policies and regulations), process (elements of the patient-provider encounter, diagnostic test performance and follow-up, and subspecialty- and referral-specific factors), and outcome (establishing accurate and timely diagnosis as opposed to missed, delayed, or incorrect diagnosis). This instrument has been revised and can be further modified by a variety of stakeholders, including clinicians, health care organizations, and policymakers, to identify potential diagnostic errors in a standardized way for patient safety and quality improvement research.^51,52

Use of standardized tools, such as the Diagnosis Error Evaluation and Research (DEER) taxonomy, can help to identify and classify specific failure points across different diagnostic process dimensions.³⁷ These failure points can be classified into: issues related to patient presentation or access to health care; failure to obtain or misinterpretation of history or physical exam findings; errors in use of diagnostics tests due to technical or clinician-related factors; failures in appropriate weighing of evidence and hypothesis generation; errors associated with referral or consultation process; and failure to monitor the patient or obtain timely follow-up.³⁴ The DEER taxonomy can also be modified based on specific research questions and study populations. Further, it can be recategorized to correspond to Safer Dx framework diagnostic process dimensions to provide insights into reasons for specific process failures and to develop new interventions to mitigate errors and patient harm.⁶

Since a majority of diagnostic errors do not lead to actual harm, use of “triggers” or clues (eg, procedure-related complications, patient falls, transfers to a higher level of care, readmissions within 30 days) can be a more efficient method to identify diagnostic errors and adverse events that do cause harm. The Global Trigger Tool, developed by the Institute for Healthcare Improvement, uses this strategy. This tool has been shown to identify a significantly higher number of serious adverse events than comparable methods.⁵³ This facilitates selection and development of strategies at the institutional level that are most likely to improve patient outcomes.²⁴

Encouraging and facilitating voluntary or prompted reporting from patients and clinicians can also play an important role in capturing diagnostic errors. Patients and clinicians are not only the key stakeholders but are also uniquely placed within the diagnostic process to detect and report potential errors.^25,54 Patient-safety-event reporting systems, such as RL6, play a vital role in reporting near-misses and adverse events. These systems provide a mechanism for team members at all levels within the hospital to contribute toward reporting patient adverse events, including those arising from diagnostic errors.⁵⁵ The Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey is the first standardized, nationally reported patient survey designed to measure patients’ perceptions of their hospital experience. The US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) publishes HCAHPS results on its website 4 times a year, which serves as an important incentive for hospitals to improve patient safety and quality of health care delivery.⁵⁶

Another novel approach links multiple symptoms to a range of target diseases using the Symptom-Disease Pair Analysis of Diagnostic Error (SPADE) framework. Using “big data” technologies, this technique can help discover otherwise hidden symptom-disease links and improve overall diagnostic performance. This approach is proposed for both case-control (look-back) and cohort (look-forward) studies assessing diagnostic errors and misdiagnosis-related harms. For example, starting with a known diagnosis with high potential for harm (eg, stroke), the “look-back” approach can be used to identify high-risk symptoms (eg, dizziness, vertigo). In the “look-forward” approach, a single symptom or exposure risk factor known to be frequently misdiagnosed (eg, dizziness) can be analyzed to identify potential adverse disease outcomes (eg, stroke, migraine).⁵⁷

Many large ongoing studies looking at diagnostic errors among hospitalized patients, such as Utility of Predictive Systems to identify Inpatient Diagnostic Errors (UPSIDE),⁵⁸Patient Safety Learning Lab (PSLL),⁵⁹ and Achieving Diagnostic Excellence through Prevention and Teamwork (ADEPT),⁶⁰ are using structured chart review methodologies incorporating many of the above strategies in combination. Cases triggered by certain events (eg, ICU transfer, death, rapid response event, new or worsening acute kidney injury) are reviewed using validated tools, including Safer Dx framework and DEER taxonomy, to provide the most precise estimates of the burden of diagnostic errors in hospitalized patients. These estimates may be much higher than previously predicted using traditional chart review approaches.^6,24 For example, a recently published study of 2809 random admissions in 11 Massachusetts hospitals identified 978 adverse events but only 10 diagnostic errors (diagnostic error rate, 0.4%).¹⁹ This was likely because the trigger method used in the study did not specifically examine the diagnostic process as critically as done by the Safer Dx framework and DEER taxonomy tools, thereby underestimating the total number of diagnostic errors. Further, these ongoing studies (eg, UPSIDE, ADEPT) aim to employ new and upcoming advanced machine-learning methods to create models that can improve overall diagnostic performance. This would pave the way to test and build novel, efficient, and scalable interventions to reduce diagnostic errors and improve patient outcomes.

Strategies to Improve Diagnostic Safety in Hospitalized Patients

Disease-specific biomedical research, as well as advances in laboratory, imaging, and other technologies, play a critical role in improving diagnostic accuracy. However, these technical approaches do not address many of the broader clinician- and system-level failure points and opportunities for improvement. Various patient-, provider-, and organizational-level interventions that could make diagnostic processes more resilient and reduce the risk of error and patient harm have been proposed.⁶¹

Among these strategies are approaches to empower patients and their families. Fostering therapeutic relationships between patients and members of the care team is essential to reducing diagnostic errors.⁶² Facilitating timely access to health records, ensuring transparency in decision making, and tailoring communication strategies to patients’ cultural and educational backgrounds can reduce harm.⁶³ Similarly, at the system level, enhancing communication among different providers by use of tools such as structured handoffs can prevent communication breakdowns and facilitate positive outcomes.⁶⁴

Interventions targeted at individual health care providers, such as educational programs to improve content-specific knowledge, can enhance diagnostic performance. Regular feedback, strategies to enhance equity, and fostering an environment where all providers are actively encouraged to think critically and participate in the diagnostic process (training programs to use “diagnostic time-outs” and making it a “team sport”) can improve clinical reasoning.^65,66 Use of standardized patients can help identify individual-level cognitive failure points and facilitate creation of new interventions to improve clinical decision-making processes.⁶⁷

Novel health information technologies can further augment these efforts. These include effective documentation by maintaining dynamic and accurate patient histories, problem lists, and medication lists^68-70; use of electronic health record–based algorithms to identify potential diagnostic delays for serious conditions^71,72; use of telemedicine technologies to improve accessibility and coordination⁷³;application of mobile health and wearable technologies to facilitate data-gathering and care delivery^74,75; and use of computerized decision-support tools, including applications to interpret electrocardiograms, imaging studies, and other diagnostic tests.⁷⁶

Use of precision medicine, powered by new artificial intelligence (AI) tools, is becoming more widespread. Algorithms powered by AI can augment and sometimes even outperform clinician decision-making in areas such as oncology, radiology, and primary care.⁷⁷ Creation of large biobanks like the All of Us research program can be used to study thousands of environmental and genetic risk factors and health conditions simultaneously, and help identify specific treatments that work best for people of different backgrounds.⁷⁸ Active research in these areas holds great promise in terms of how and when we diagnose diseases and make appropriate preventative and treatment decisions. Significant scientific, ethical, and regulatory challenges will need to be overcome before these technologies can address some of the most complex problems in health care.⁷⁹

Finally, diagnostic performance is affected by the external environment, including the functioning of the medical liability system. Diagnostic errors that lead to patient harm are a leading cause of malpractice claims.⁸⁰ Developing a legal environment, in collaboration with patient advocacy groups and health care organizations, that promotes and facilitates timely disclosure of diagnostic errors could decrease the incentive to hide errors, advance care processes, and improve outcomes.^81,82

Conclusion

The burden of diagnostic errors in hospitalized patients is unacceptably high and remains an underemphasized cause of preventable morbidity and mortality. Diagnostic errors often result from a breakdown in multiple interdependent processes that involve patient-, provider-, and system-level factors. Significant challenges remain in defining and identifying diagnostic errors as well as underlying process-failure points. The most effective interventions to reduce diagnostic errors will require greater patient participation in the diagnostic process and a mix of evidence-based interventions that promote individual-provider excellence as well as system-level changes. Further research and collaboration among various stakeholders should help improve diagnostic safety for hospitalized patients.

Corresponding author: Abhishek Goyal, MD, MPH; [email protected]

Disclosures: Dr. Dalal disclosed receiving income ≥ $250 from MayaMD.

Abstract

Diagnostic errors in hospitalized patients are a leading cause of preventable morbidity and mortality. Significant challenges in defining and measuring diagnostic errors and underlying process failure points have led to considerable variability in reported rates of diagnostic errors and adverse outcomes. In this article, we explore the diagnostic process and its discrete components, emphasizing the centrality of the patient in decision-making as well as the continuous nature of the process. We review the incidence of diagnostic errors in hospitalized patients and different methodological approaches that have been used to arrive at these estimates. We discuss different but interdependent provider- and system-related process-failure points that lead to diagnostic errors. We examine specific challenges related to measurement of diagnostic errors and describe traditional and novel approaches that are being used to obtain the most precise estimates. Finally, we examine various patient-, provider-, and organizational-level interventions that have been proposed to improve diagnostic safety in hospitalized patients.

Keywords: diagnostic error, hospital medicine, patient safety.

Diagnosis is defined as a “pre-existing set of categories agreed upon by the medical profession to designate a specific condition.”¹ The diagnostic process involves obtaining a clinical history, performing a physical examination, conducting diagnostic testing, and consulting with other clinical providers to gather data that are relevant to understanding the underlying disease processes. This exercise involves generating hypotheses and updating prior probabilities as more information and evidence become available. Throughout this process of information gathering, integration, and interpretation, there is an ongoing assessment of whether sufficient and necessary knowledge has been obtained to make an accurate diagnosis and provide appropriate treatment.²

Diagnostic error is defined as a missed opportunity to make a timely diagnosis as part of this iterative process, including the failure of communicating the diagnosis to the patient in a timely manner.³ It can be categorized as a missed, delayed, or incorrect diagnosis based on available evidence at the time. Establishing the correct diagnosis has important implications. A timely and precise diagnosis ensures the patient the highest probability of having a positive health outcome that reflects an appropriate understanding of underlying disease processes and is consistent with their overall goals of care.³ When diagnostic errors occur, they can cause patient harm. Adverse events due to medical errors, including diagnostic errors, are estimated to be the third leading cause of death in the United States.⁴ Most people will experience at least 1 diagnostic error in their lifetime. In the 2015 National Academy of Medicine report Improving Diagnosis in Healthcare, diagnostic errors were identified as a major hazard as well as an opportunity to improve patient outcomes.²

Diagnostic errors during hospitalizations are especially concerning, as they are more likely to be implicated in a wider spectrum of harm, including permanent disability and death. This has become even more relevant for hospital medicine physicians and other clinical providers as they encounter increasing cognitive and administrative workloads, rising dissatisfaction and burnout, and unique obstacles such as night-time scheduling.⁵

Incidence of Diagnostic Errors in Hospitalized Patients

Several methodological approaches have been used to estimate the incidence of diagnostic errors in hospitalized patients. These include retrospective reviews of a sample of all hospital admissions, evaluations of selected adverse outcomes including autopsy studies, patient and provider surveys, and malpractice claims. Laboratory testing audits and secondary reviews in other diagnostic subspecialities (eg, radiology, pathology, and microbiology) are also essential to improving diagnostic performance in these specialized fields, which in turn affects overall hospital diagnostic error rates.^6-8 These diverse approaches provide unique insights regarding our ability to assess the degree to which potential harms, ranging from temporary impairment to permanent disability, to death, are attributable to different failure points in the diagnostic process.

Large retrospective chart reviews of random hospital admissions remain the most accurate way to determine the overall incidence of diagnostic errors in hospitalized patients.⁹ The Harvard Medical Practice Study, published in 1991, laid the groundwork for measuring the incidence of adverse events in hospitalized patients and assessing their relation to medical error, negligence, and disability. Reviewing 30,121 randomly selected records from 51 randomly selected acute care hospitals in New York State, the study found that adverse events occurred in 3.7% of hospitalizations, diagnostic errors accounted for 13.8% of these events, and these errors were likely attributable to negligence in 74.7% of cases. The study not only outlined individual-level process failures, but also focused attention on some of the systemic causes, setting the agenda for quality improvement research in hospital-based care for years to come.^10-12 A recent systematic review and meta-analysis of 22 hospital admission studies found a pooled rate of 0.7% (95% CI, 0.5%-1.1%) for harmful diagnostic errors.⁹ It found significant variations in the rates of adverse events, diagnostic errors, and range of diagnoses that were missed. This was primarily because of variabilities in pre-test probabilities in detecting diagnostic errors in these specific cohorts, as well as due to heterogeneity in study definitions and methodologies, especially regarding how they defined and measured “diagnostic error.” The analysis, however, did not account for diagnostic errors that were not related to patient harm (missed opportunities); therefore, it likely significantly underestimated the true incidence of diagnostic errors in these study populations. Table 1 summarizes some of key studies that have examined the incidence of harmful diagnostic errors in hospitalized patients.^9-21

The chief limitation of reviewing random hospital admissions is that, since overall rates of diagnostic errors are still relatively low, a large number of case reviews are required to identify a sufficient sample of adverse outcomes to gain a meaningful understanding of the underlying process failure points and develop tools for remediation. Patient and provider surveys or data from malpractice claims can be high-yield starting points for research on process errors.^22,23 Reviews of enriched cohorts of adverse outcomes, such as rapid-response events, intensive care unit (ICU) transfers, deaths, and hospital readmissions, can be an efficient way to identify process failures that lead to greatest harm. Depending on the research approach and the types of underlying patient populations sampled, rates of diagnostic errors in these high-risk groups have been estimated to be approximately 5% to 20%, or even higher.^6,24-31 For example, a retrospective study of 391 cases of unplanned 7-day readmissions found that 5.6% of cases contained at least 1 diagnostic error during the index admission.³² In a study conducted at 6 Belgian acute-care hospitals, 56% of patients requiring an unplanned transfer to a higher level of care were determined to have had an adverse event, and of these adverse events, 12.4% of cases were associated with errors in diagnosis.²⁹ A systematic review of 16 hospital-based studies estimated that 3.1% of all inpatient deaths were likely preventable, which corresponded to 22,165 deaths annually in the United States.³⁰ Another such review of 31 autopsy studies reported that 28% of autopsied ICU patients had at least 1 misdiagnosis; of these diagnostic errors, 8% were classified as potentially lethal, and 15% were considered major but not lethal.³¹ Significant drawbacks of such enriched cohort studies, however, are their poor generalizability and inability to detect failure points that do not lead to patient harm (near-miss events).³³

Causes of Diagnostic Errors in Hospitalized Patients

All aspects of the diagnostic process are susceptible to errors. These errors stem from a variety of faulty processes, including failure of the patient to engage with the health care system (eg, due to lack of insurance or transportation, or delay in seeking care); failure in information gathering (eg, missed history or exam findings, ordering wrong tests, laboratory errors); failure in information interpretation (eg, exam finding or test result misinterpretation); inaccurate hypothesis generation (eg, due to suboptimal prioritization or weighing of supporting evidence); and failure in communication (eg, with other team members or with the patient).^2,34 Reasons for diagnostic process failures vary widely across different health care settings. While clinician assessment errors (eg, failure to consider or alternatively overweigh competing diagnoses) and errors in testing and the monitoring phase (eg, failure to order or follow up diagnostic tests) can lead to a majority of diagnostic errors in some patient populations, in other settings, social (eg, poor health literacy, punitive cultural practices) and economic factors (eg, lack of access to appropriate diagnostic tests or to specialty expertise) play a more prominent role.^34,35

The Figure describes the relationship between components of the diagnostic process and subsequent outcomes, including diagnostic process failures, diagnostic errors, and absence or presence of patient harm.^2,36,37 It reemphasizes the centrality of the patient in decision-making and the continuous nature of the process. The Figure also illustrates that only a minority of process failures result in diagnostic errors, and a smaller proportion of diagnostic errors actually lead to patient harm. Conversely, it also shows that diagnostic errors can happen without any obvious process-failure points, and, similarly, patient harm can take place in the absence of any evident diagnostic errors.^36-38 Finally, it highlights the need to incorporate feedback from process failures, diagnostic errors, and favorable and unfavorable patient outcomes in order to inform future quality improvement efforts and research.

A significant proportion of diagnostic errors are due to system-related vulnerabilities, such as limitations in availability, adoption or quality of work force training, health informatics resources, and diagnostic capabilities. Lack of institutional culture that promotes safety and transparency also predisposes to diagnostic errors.^39,40 The other major domain of process failures is related to cognitive errors in clinician decision-making. Anchoring, confirmation bias, availability bias, and base-rate neglect are some of the common cognitive biases that, along with personality traits (aversion to risk or ambiguity, overconfidence) and affective biases (influence of emotion on decision-making), often determine the degree of utilization of resources and the possibility of suboptimal diagnostic performance.^41,42 Further, implicit biases related to age, race, gender, and sexual orientation contribute to disparities in access to health care and outcomes.⁴³ In a large number of cases of preventable adverse outcomes, however, there are multiple interdependent individual and system-related failure points that lead to diagnostic error and patient harm.^6,32

Challenges in Defining and Measuring Diagnostic Errors

In order to develop effective, evidence-based interventions to reduce diagnostic errors in hospitalized patients, it is essential to be able to first operationally define, and then accurately measure, diagnostic errors and the process failures that contribute to these errors in a standardized way that is reproducible across different settings.^6,44 There are a number of obstacles in this endeavor.

A fundamental problem is that establishing a diagnosis is not a single act but a process. Patterns of symptoms and clinical presentations often differ for the same disease. Information required to make a diagnosis is usually gathered in stages, where the clinician obtains additional data, while considering many possibilities, of which 1 may be ultimately correct. Diagnoses evolve over time and in different care settings. “The most likely diagnosis” is not always the same as “the final correct diagnosis.” Moreover, the diagnostic process is influenced by patients’ individual clinical courses and preferences over time. This makes determination of missed, delayed, or incorrect diagnoses challenging.^45,46

For hospitalized patients, generally the goal is to first rule out more serious and acute conditions (eg, pulmonary embolism or stroke), even if their probability is rather low. Conversely, a diagnosis that appears less consequential if delayed (eg, chronic anemia of unclear etiology) might not be pursued on an urgent basis, and is often left to outpatient providers to examine, but still may manifest in downstream harm (eg, delayed diagnosis of gastrointestinal malignancy or recurrent admissions for heart failure due to missed iron-deficiency anemia). Therefore, coming up with disease diagnosis likelihoods in hindsight may turn out to be highly subjective and not always accurate. This can be particularly difficult when clinician and other team deliberations are not recorded in their entirety.⁴⁷

Another hurdle in the practice of diagnostic medicine is to preserve the balance between underdiagnosing versus pursuing overly aggressive diagnostic approaches. Conducting laboratory, imaging, or other diagnostic studies without a clear shared understanding of how they would affect clinical decision-making (eg, use of prostate-specific antigen to detect prostate cancer) not only leads to increased costs but can also delay appropriate care. Worse, subsequent unnecessary diagnostic tests and treatments can sometimes lead to serious harm.^48,49

Finally, retrospective reviews by clinicians are subject to multiple potential limitations that include failure to create well-defined research questions, poorly developed inclusion and exclusion criteria, and issues related to inter- and intra-rater reliability.⁵⁰ These methodological deficiencies can occur despite following "best practice" guidelines during the study planning, execution, and analysis phases. They further add to the challenge of defining and measuring diagnostic errors.⁴⁷

Strategies to Improve Measurement of Diagnostic Errors

Development of new methodologies to reliably measure diagnostic errors is an area of active research. The advancement of uniform and universally agreed-upon frameworks to define and identify process failure points and diagnostic errors would help reduce measurement error and support development and testing of interventions that could be generalizable across different health care settings. To more accurately define and measure diagnostic errors, several novel approaches have been proposed (Table 2).

The Safer Dx framework is an all-round tool developed to advance the discipline of measuring diagnostic errors. For an episode of care under review, the instrument scores various items to determine the likelihood of a diagnostic error. These items evaluate multiple dimensions affecting diagnostic performance and measurements across 3 broad domains: structure (provider and organizational characteristics—from everyone involved with patient care, to computing infrastructure, to policies and regulations), process (elements of the patient-provider encounter, diagnostic test performance and follow-up, and subspecialty- and referral-specific factors), and outcome (establishing accurate and timely diagnosis as opposed to missed, delayed, or incorrect diagnosis). This instrument has been revised and can be further modified by a variety of stakeholders, including clinicians, health care organizations, and policymakers, to identify potential diagnostic errors in a standardized way for patient safety and quality improvement research.^51,52

Use of standardized tools, such as the Diagnosis Error Evaluation and Research (DEER) taxonomy, can help to identify and classify specific failure points across different diagnostic process dimensions.³⁷ These failure points can be classified into: issues related to patient presentation or access to health care; failure to obtain or misinterpretation of history or physical exam findings; errors in use of diagnostics tests due to technical or clinician-related factors; failures in appropriate weighing of evidence and hypothesis generation; errors associated with referral or consultation process; and failure to monitor the patient or obtain timely follow-up.³⁴ The DEER taxonomy can also be modified based on specific research questions and study populations. Further, it can be recategorized to correspond to Safer Dx framework diagnostic process dimensions to provide insights into reasons for specific process failures and to develop new interventions to mitigate errors and patient harm.⁶

Since a majority of diagnostic errors do not lead to actual harm, use of “triggers” or clues (eg, procedure-related complications, patient falls, transfers to a higher level of care, readmissions within 30 days) can be a more efficient method to identify diagnostic errors and adverse events that do cause harm. The Global Trigger Tool, developed by the Institute for Healthcare Improvement, uses this strategy. This tool has been shown to identify a significantly higher number of serious adverse events than comparable methods.⁵³ This facilitates selection and development of strategies at the institutional level that are most likely to improve patient outcomes.²⁴

Encouraging and facilitating voluntary or prompted reporting from patients and clinicians can also play an important role in capturing diagnostic errors. Patients and clinicians are not only the key stakeholders but are also uniquely placed within the diagnostic process to detect and report potential errors.^25,54 Patient-safety-event reporting systems, such as RL6, play a vital role in reporting near-misses and adverse events. These systems provide a mechanism for team members at all levels within the hospital to contribute toward reporting patient adverse events, including those arising from diagnostic errors.⁵⁵ The Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey is the first standardized, nationally reported patient survey designed to measure patients’ perceptions of their hospital experience. The US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) publishes HCAHPS results on its website 4 times a year, which serves as an important incentive for hospitals to improve patient safety and quality of health care delivery.⁵⁶

Another novel approach links multiple symptoms to a range of target diseases using the Symptom-Disease Pair Analysis of Diagnostic Error (SPADE) framework. Using “big data” technologies, this technique can help discover otherwise hidden symptom-disease links and improve overall diagnostic performance. This approach is proposed for both case-control (look-back) and cohort (look-forward) studies assessing diagnostic errors and misdiagnosis-related harms. For example, starting with a known diagnosis with high potential for harm (eg, stroke), the “look-back” approach can be used to identify high-risk symptoms (eg, dizziness, vertigo). In the “look-forward” approach, a single symptom or exposure risk factor known to be frequently misdiagnosed (eg, dizziness) can be analyzed to identify potential adverse disease outcomes (eg, stroke, migraine).⁵⁷

Many large ongoing studies looking at diagnostic errors among hospitalized patients, such as Utility of Predictive Systems to identify Inpatient Diagnostic Errors (UPSIDE),⁵⁸Patient Safety Learning Lab (PSLL),⁵⁹ and Achieving Diagnostic Excellence through Prevention and Teamwork (ADEPT),⁶⁰ are using structured chart review methodologies incorporating many of the above strategies in combination. Cases triggered by certain events (eg, ICU transfer, death, rapid response event, new or worsening acute kidney injury) are reviewed using validated tools, including Safer Dx framework and DEER taxonomy, to provide the most precise estimates of the burden of diagnostic errors in hospitalized patients. These estimates may be much higher than previously predicted using traditional chart review approaches.^6,24 For example, a recently published study of 2809 random admissions in 11 Massachusetts hospitals identified 978 adverse events but only 10 diagnostic errors (diagnostic error rate, 0.4%).¹⁹ This was likely because the trigger method used in the study did not specifically examine the diagnostic process as critically as done by the Safer Dx framework and DEER taxonomy tools, thereby underestimating the total number of diagnostic errors. Further, these ongoing studies (eg, UPSIDE, ADEPT) aim to employ new and upcoming advanced machine-learning methods to create models that can improve overall diagnostic performance. This would pave the way to test and build novel, efficient, and scalable interventions to reduce diagnostic errors and improve patient outcomes.

Strategies to Improve Diagnostic Safety in Hospitalized Patients

Disease-specific biomedical research, as well as advances in laboratory, imaging, and other technologies, play a critical role in improving diagnostic accuracy. However, these technical approaches do not address many of the broader clinician- and system-level failure points and opportunities for improvement. Various patient-, provider-, and organizational-level interventions that could make diagnostic processes more resilient and reduce the risk of error and patient harm have been proposed.⁶¹

Among these strategies are approaches to empower patients and their families. Fostering therapeutic relationships between patients and members of the care team is essential to reducing diagnostic errors.⁶² Facilitating timely access to health records, ensuring transparency in decision making, and tailoring communication strategies to patients’ cultural and educational backgrounds can reduce harm.⁶³ Similarly, at the system level, enhancing communication among different providers by use of tools such as structured handoffs can prevent communication breakdowns and facilitate positive outcomes.⁶⁴

Interventions targeted at individual health care providers, such as educational programs to improve content-specific knowledge, can enhance diagnostic performance. Regular feedback, strategies to enhance equity, and fostering an environment where all providers are actively encouraged to think critically and participate in the diagnostic process (training programs to use “diagnostic time-outs” and making it a “team sport”) can improve clinical reasoning.^65,66 Use of standardized patients can help identify individual-level cognitive failure points and facilitate creation of new interventions to improve clinical decision-making processes.⁶⁷

Novel health information technologies can further augment these efforts. These include effective documentation by maintaining dynamic and accurate patient histories, problem lists, and medication lists^68-70; use of electronic health record–based algorithms to identify potential diagnostic delays for serious conditions^71,72; use of telemedicine technologies to improve accessibility and coordination⁷³;application of mobile health and wearable technologies to facilitate data-gathering and care delivery^74,75; and use of computerized decision-support tools, including applications to interpret electrocardiograms, imaging studies, and other diagnostic tests.⁷⁶

Use of precision medicine, powered by new artificial intelligence (AI) tools, is becoming more widespread. Algorithms powered by AI can augment and sometimes even outperform clinician decision-making in areas such as oncology, radiology, and primary care.⁷⁷ Creation of large biobanks like the All of Us research program can be used to study thousands of environmental and genetic risk factors and health conditions simultaneously, and help identify specific treatments that work best for people of different backgrounds.⁷⁸ Active research in these areas holds great promise in terms of how and when we diagnose diseases and make appropriate preventative and treatment decisions. Significant scientific, ethical, and regulatory challenges will need to be overcome before these technologies can address some of the most complex problems in health care.⁷⁹

Finally, diagnostic performance is affected by the external environment, including the functioning of the medical liability system. Diagnostic errors that lead to patient harm are a leading cause of malpractice claims.⁸⁰ Developing a legal environment, in collaboration with patient advocacy groups and health care organizations, that promotes and facilitates timely disclosure of diagnostic errors could decrease the incentive to hide errors, advance care processes, and improve outcomes.^81,82

Conclusion

The burden of diagnostic errors in hospitalized patients is unacceptably high and remains an underemphasized cause of preventable morbidity and mortality. Diagnostic errors often result from a breakdown in multiple interdependent processes that involve patient-, provider-, and system-level factors. Significant challenges remain in defining and identifying diagnostic errors as well as underlying process-failure points. The most effective interventions to reduce diagnostic errors will require greater patient participation in the diagnostic process and a mix of evidence-based interventions that promote individual-provider excellence as well as system-level changes. Further research and collaboration among various stakeholders should help improve diagnostic safety for hospitalized patients.

Corresponding author: Abhishek Goyal, MD, MPH; [email protected]

Disclosures: Dr. Dalal disclosed receiving income ≥ $250 from MayaMD.

Photo: Shutterstock

Six months after the Supreme Court decision that overturned the constitutional right to abortion, trainees across the United States are asking a critical question in the current resident recruitment season: How will the restrictions on abortion access affect my training as an obstetrician-gynecologist, and will they impact my ability to be the kind of provider I want to be in the future?

Among the myriad of downstream effects to patient care, the Dobbs decision will indisputably impact the scope of residency training for those that provide reproductive health services. Almost half of ObGyn residents train in states that have abortion restrictions in place.¹ New educational milestones for abortion training, which are a requirement by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME), were proposed quickly after Dobbs, guiding programs to offer opportunities for training in nonrestricted areas or the “combination of didactic activities, including simulation” to meet the training requirement in abortion care.²

Like many providers, residents already are grappling with precarious and risky circumstances, balancing patient safety and patient-driven care amidst pre-existing and newly enforced abortion restrictions. Whether managing a patient with an undesired pregnancy, severe medical comorbidities, unexpected pregnancy complications such as preterm premature rupture of membranes, or bleeding, or substantial fetal anomalies, ObGyn residents cannot gain the experience of providing the full scope of reproductive health care without the ability to offer all possible management options. While some enacted abortion restrictions have exceptions for the health of or life-saving measures for the mother, there is no standard guidance for timing of interventions, leaving providers confused and in fear of legal retribution. At a time when trainees should be learning to provide patient-centered, evidence-based care, they are instead paralyzed by the legal or professional consequences they may face for offering their best medical judgements.

Furthermore, the lack of exposure to dilation and evacuation procedures for residents in restricted practice areas will undoubtably decrease their confidence in managing acute complications, which is one of the critical facets of residency training. In a surgical field where repetition is crucial for technical competence, highlighted by ACGME minimum case requirements, the decreased volume of abortion procedures is a disadvantage for trainees and a disservice for patients. While anti-choice promoters may argue that involvement in surgical management of early pregnancy loss should suffice for ObGyn training in family planning, this piecemeal approach will leave gaps in technical skills.

The fear of legal ramifications, moral injury, and inadequate surgical training may lead to the siphoning of talented trainees to areas in the country with fewer restrictions.³Dobbs already has demonstrated how limiting abortion access will deepen inequities in reproductive health care service delivery. Approximately 55% of ObGyn trainees and nearly two-thirds of maternal-fetal medicine graduates join the workforce in the state where they received their training.⁴ Medical students will seek opportunities for high-quality ObGyn training in areas that will help them to be well-prepared, competent physicians—and more often than not, stay in the area or region that they trained in. This will lead to provider shortages in areas where access to reproductive health care and subspecialist providers already is limited, further exacerbating existing health disparities.

During this recruitment season, trainees and residency programs alike will need to reckon with how the ramifications of Dobbs will alter both the immediate and long-term training in comprehensive reproductive health care for the ObGyn workforce. ObGyn trainees have taken a stand in response to the Dobbs decision, and nearly 750 current residents signed onto the statement below as a commitment to high-quality training and patient-centered care. Clinical experience in performing abortions is essential to the provision of comprehensive evidence-based reproductive health care, and access to these procedures is as important for physicians-in-training as it is for patients.

Actions to take to ensure high-quality abortion training in ObGyn residencies include the following:

• Connect with and stay involved with organizations such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), Physicians for Reproductive Health (PRH), and Medical Students for Choice (MSFC) for initiatives, toolkits, and resources for training at your institutions.
• Seek specific abortion training opportunities through the Leadership Training Academy (offered through PRH) or the Abortion Training Institute (offered through MSFC).
• Ensure that your residency program meets the ACGME criteria of providing opportunities for clinical experiences for abortion care and work with program leadership at a program, state, or regional level to enforce these competencies.
• Reach out to your local American Civil Liberties Union or other local reproductive legal rights organizations if you want to be involved with advocacy around abortion access and training but have concerns about legal protections.
• Have a voice at the table for empowering training opportunities by seeking leadership positions through ACOG, ACGME, Council on Resident Education in Obstetrics and Gynecology and the Association of Professors of Gynecology and Obstetrics, American Medical Association, Student National Medical Association, and subspecialty organizations.
• Vote in every election and promote voting registration and access to your patients, colleagues, and communities. ●

Continue to: The implications of the Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision on the health care and wellbeing of our patients...

Photo: Shutterstock

Six months after the Supreme Court decision that overturned the constitutional right to abortion, trainees across the United States are asking a critical question in the current resident recruitment season: How will the restrictions on abortion access affect my training as an obstetrician-gynecologist, and will they impact my ability to be the kind of provider I want to be in the future?

Among the myriad of downstream effects to patient care, the Dobbs decision will indisputably impact the scope of residency training for those that provide reproductive health services. Almost half of ObGyn residents train in states that have abortion restrictions in place.¹ New educational milestones for abortion training, which are a requirement by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME), were proposed quickly after Dobbs, guiding programs to offer opportunities for training in nonrestricted areas or the “combination of didactic activities, including simulation” to meet the training requirement in abortion care.²

Like many providers, residents already are grappling with precarious and risky circumstances, balancing patient safety and patient-driven care amidst pre-existing and newly enforced abortion restrictions. Whether managing a patient with an undesired pregnancy, severe medical comorbidities, unexpected pregnancy complications such as preterm premature rupture of membranes, or bleeding, or substantial fetal anomalies, ObGyn residents cannot gain the experience of providing the full scope of reproductive health care without the ability to offer all possible management options. While some enacted abortion restrictions have exceptions for the health of or life-saving measures for the mother, there is no standard guidance for timing of interventions, leaving providers confused and in fear of legal retribution. At a time when trainees should be learning to provide patient-centered, evidence-based care, they are instead paralyzed by the legal or professional consequences they may face for offering their best medical judgements.

Furthermore, the lack of exposure to dilation and evacuation procedures for residents in restricted practice areas will undoubtably decrease their confidence in managing acute complications, which is one of the critical facets of residency training. In a surgical field where repetition is crucial for technical competence, highlighted by ACGME minimum case requirements, the decreased volume of abortion procedures is a disadvantage for trainees and a disservice for patients. While anti-choice promoters may argue that involvement in surgical management of early pregnancy loss should suffice for ObGyn training in family planning, this piecemeal approach will leave gaps in technical skills.

The fear of legal ramifications, moral injury, and inadequate surgical training may lead to the siphoning of talented trainees to areas in the country with fewer restrictions.³Dobbs already has demonstrated how limiting abortion access will deepen inequities in reproductive health care service delivery. Approximately 55% of ObGyn trainees and nearly two-thirds of maternal-fetal medicine graduates join the workforce in the state where they received their training.⁴ Medical students will seek opportunities for high-quality ObGyn training in areas that will help them to be well-prepared, competent physicians—and more often than not, stay in the area or region that they trained in. This will lead to provider shortages in areas where access to reproductive health care and subspecialist providers already is limited, further exacerbating existing health disparities.

During this recruitment season, trainees and residency programs alike will need to reckon with how the ramifications of Dobbs will alter both the immediate and long-term training in comprehensive reproductive health care for the ObGyn workforce. ObGyn trainees have taken a stand in response to the Dobbs decision, and nearly 750 current residents signed onto the statement below as a commitment to high-quality training and patient-centered care. Clinical experience in performing abortions is essential to the provision of comprehensive evidence-based reproductive health care, and access to these procedures is as important for physicians-in-training as it is for patients.

Actions to take to ensure high-quality abortion training in ObGyn residencies include the following:

• Connect with and stay involved with organizations such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), Physicians for Reproductive Health (PRH), and Medical Students for Choice (MSFC) for initiatives, toolkits, and resources for training at your institutions.
• Seek specific abortion training opportunities through the Leadership Training Academy (offered through PRH) or the Abortion Training Institute (offered through MSFC).
• Ensure that your residency program meets the ACGME criteria of providing opportunities for clinical experiences for abortion care and work with program leadership at a program, state, or regional level to enforce these competencies.
• Reach out to your local American Civil Liberties Union or other local reproductive legal rights organizations if you want to be involved with advocacy around abortion access and training but have concerns about legal protections.
• Have a voice at the table for empowering training opportunities by seeking leadership positions through ACOG, ACGME, Council on Resident Education in Obstetrics and Gynecology and the Association of Professors of Gynecology and Obstetrics, American Medical Association, Student National Medical Association, and subspecialty organizations.
• Vote in every election and promote voting registration and access to your patients, colleagues, and communities. ●

Continue to: The implications of the Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision on the health care and wellbeing of our patients...

Photo: Shutterstock

Six months after the Supreme Court decision that overturned the constitutional right to abortion, trainees across the United States are asking a critical question in the current resident recruitment season: How will the restrictions on abortion access affect my training as an obstetrician-gynecologist, and will they impact my ability to be the kind of provider I want to be in the future?

Among the myriad of downstream effects to patient care, the Dobbs decision will indisputably impact the scope of residency training for those that provide reproductive health services. Almost half of ObGyn residents train in states that have abortion restrictions in place.¹ New educational milestones for abortion training, which are a requirement by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME), were proposed quickly after Dobbs, guiding programs to offer opportunities for training in nonrestricted areas or the “combination of didactic activities, including simulation” to meet the training requirement in abortion care.²

Like many providers, residents already are grappling with precarious and risky circumstances, balancing patient safety and patient-driven care amidst pre-existing and newly enforced abortion restrictions. Whether managing a patient with an undesired pregnancy, severe medical comorbidities, unexpected pregnancy complications such as preterm premature rupture of membranes, or bleeding, or substantial fetal anomalies, ObGyn residents cannot gain the experience of providing the full scope of reproductive health care without the ability to offer all possible management options. While some enacted abortion restrictions have exceptions for the health of or life-saving measures for the mother, there is no standard guidance for timing of interventions, leaving providers confused and in fear of legal retribution. At a time when trainees should be learning to provide patient-centered, evidence-based care, they are instead paralyzed by the legal or professional consequences they may face for offering their best medical judgements.

Furthermore, the lack of exposure to dilation and evacuation procedures for residents in restricted practice areas will undoubtably decrease their confidence in managing acute complications, which is one of the critical facets of residency training. In a surgical field where repetition is crucial for technical competence, highlighted by ACGME minimum case requirements, the decreased volume of abortion procedures is a disadvantage for trainees and a disservice for patients. While anti-choice promoters may argue that involvement in surgical management of early pregnancy loss should suffice for ObGyn training in family planning, this piecemeal approach will leave gaps in technical skills.

The fear of legal ramifications, moral injury, and inadequate surgical training may lead to the siphoning of talented trainees to areas in the country with fewer restrictions.³Dobbs already has demonstrated how limiting abortion access will deepen inequities in reproductive health care service delivery. Approximately 55% of ObGyn trainees and nearly two-thirds of maternal-fetal medicine graduates join the workforce in the state where they received their training.⁴ Medical students will seek opportunities for high-quality ObGyn training in areas that will help them to be well-prepared, competent physicians—and more often than not, stay in the area or region that they trained in. This will lead to provider shortages in areas where access to reproductive health care and subspecialist providers already is limited, further exacerbating existing health disparities.

During this recruitment season, trainees and residency programs alike will need to reckon with how the ramifications of Dobbs will alter both the immediate and long-term training in comprehensive reproductive health care for the ObGyn workforce. ObGyn trainees have taken a stand in response to the Dobbs decision, and nearly 750 current residents signed onto the statement below as a commitment to high-quality training and patient-centered care. Clinical experience in performing abortions is essential to the provision of comprehensive evidence-based reproductive health care, and access to these procedures is as important for physicians-in-training as it is for patients.

Actions to take to ensure high-quality abortion training in ObGyn residencies include the following:

• Connect with and stay involved with organizations such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), Physicians for Reproductive Health (PRH), and Medical Students for Choice (MSFC) for initiatives, toolkits, and resources for training at your institutions.
• Seek specific abortion training opportunities through the Leadership Training Academy (offered through PRH) or the Abortion Training Institute (offered through MSFC).
• Ensure that your residency program meets the ACGME criteria of providing opportunities for clinical experiences for abortion care and work with program leadership at a program, state, or regional level to enforce these competencies.
• Reach out to your local American Civil Liberties Union or other local reproductive legal rights organizations if you want to be involved with advocacy around abortion access and training but have concerns about legal protections.
• Have a voice at the table for empowering training opportunities by seeking leadership positions through ACOG, ACGME, Council on Resident Education in Obstetrics and Gynecology and the Association of Professors of Gynecology and Obstetrics, American Medical Association, Student National Medical Association, and subspecialty organizations.
• Vote in every election and promote voting registration and access to your patients, colleagues, and communities. ●

Continue to: The implications of the Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision on the health care and wellbeing of our patients...

In the musical Hamilton, there is a line from the song “The Election of 1800” in which, after a tumultuous time, Thomas Jefferson pleads for a sense of normalcy with, “Can we get back to politics?”

Trying to get back to “normal,” whatever that is, characterized the year 2022. Peeking out from under the constant shadow of the COVID-19 pandemic (not really gone, definitely not forgotten) were some blockbuster obstetrical headlines, including those on the CHAP (Chronic Hypertension and Pregnancy) trial and the impact of the Dobbs v Jackson Supreme Court decision. As these have been extensively covered in both OBG Management and other publications, in this Update we simply ask, “Can we get back to obstetrics?” as we focus on some straightforward patient care guidelines.

Thus, we offer updated information on the use of progesterone for preterm birth prevention, management of pregnancies that result from in vitro fertilization (IVF), and headache management in pregnant and postpartum patients.

Society guidance and FDA  advisement on the use of  progesterone for the prevention  of spontaneous preterm birth

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ Committee on Practice Bulletins–Obstetrics. Prediction and prevention of spontaneous preterm birth. ACOG practice bulletin no. 234. Obstet Gynecol. 2021;138:e65-e90.

EPPPIC Group. Evaluating Progestogens for Preventing Preterm birth International Collaborative (EPPPIC): meta-analysis of individual participant data from randomised controlled trials. Lancet. 2021;397:1183-1194.

This is not déjà vu! Progesterone and spontaneous preterm birth (sPTB) is a hot topic again. If you wonder what to tell your patients, you are not alone. Preterm birth (PTB) continues to pose a challenge in obstetrics, with a most recently reported overall rate of 10.49%¹ in the United States—a 4% increase from 2019. Preterm birth accounts for approximately 75% of perinatal mortality and more than half of neonatal morbidity.²

What has not changed

A recent practice bulletin from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) notes that some risk factors and screening assessments for PTB remain unchanged, including²:

• A history of PTB increases the risk for subsequent PTB. Risk increases with the number of prior preterm deliveries.
• A short cervix (<25 mm between 16 and  24 weeks’ gestation) is a risk factor for sPTB.
• The cervix should be visualized during the anatomy ultrasound exam (18 0/7 to 22 6/7 weeks’ gestation) in all pregnant patients regardless of prior birth history. If the cervix length (CL) appears shortened on transabdominal imaging, transvaginal (TV) imaging should be performed.
• Patients with a current singleton pregnancy and history of sPTB should have serial TV cervical measurements between 16 0/7 and 24 0/7 weeks’ gestation.²

EPPPIC changes and key takeaway points

In a meta-analysis of data from 31 randomized controlled trials, the EPPPIC (Evaluating Progestogens for Preventing Preterm birth International Collaborative) investigators compared vaginal progesterone, intramuscular 17-hydroxyprogesterone caproate  (17-OHPC), or oral progesterone with control or with each other in women at risk for PTB.³ Outcomes included PTB and the associated adverse neonatal and maternal outcomes.

The EPPPIC study’s main findings were:

• Singleton pregnancies at high risk for PTB due to prior sPTB or short cervix who received 17-OHPC or vaginal progesterone were less likely to deliver before  34 weeks’ gestation compared with those who received no treatment.
• There is a benefit to both 17-OHPC and vaginal progesterone in reducing the risk of PTB, with no clear evidence to support one intervention’s effectiveness over the other.
• There is benefit to either 17-OHPC or vaginal progesterone for CL less than 25 mm. The shorter the CL, the greater the absolute risk reduction on PTB.
• In multifetal pregnancies, use of 17-OHPC, when compared with placebo, was shown to increase the risk of preterm premature rupture of membranes. Neither 17-OHPC nor vaginal progesterone was found to reduce the risk of sPTB in multifetal pregnancies.³

What continues to change

While the March 30, 2021, statement from the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM), “Response to EPPPIC and consideration for the use of progestogens for the prevention of preterm birth” (https://www .smfm.org/publications/383-smfm-stat ement-response-to-epppic-and-consider ations-of-the-use-of-progestogens-for-the -prevention-of-preterm-birth), stands, ACOG has withdrawn its accompanying Practice Advisory on guidance for integrating the EPPPIC findings.

In August 2022, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted a hearing on the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research’s proposal to withdraw approval for Makena (hydroxyprogesterone caproate injection, 250 mg/mL, once weekly) on the basis that available evidence does not demonstrate that it is effective for its approved indication to reduce the risk of PTB in women with a singleton pregnancy with a history of singleton sPTB.⁴

The key takeaway points from the FDA hearing (October 17–19, 2022) were:

• A better designed randomized controlled confirmatory trial is needed in the most at-risk patients to determine if Makena is effective for its approved indication.
• Makena and its approved generic equivalents remain on the market until the FDA makes its final decision regarding approval.⁴

Continue to: Managing pregnancies that result from IVF...

Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM); Ghidini A, Gandhi M, McCoy J, et al; Publications Committee. Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine consult series #60: management of pregnancies resulting from in vitro fertilization. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2022;226:B2-B12.

Assisted reproductive technology contributes to 1.6% of all infant births, and although most pregnancies are uncomplicated, some specific risks alter management.^5–7 For example, IVF is associated with increased rates of prematurity and its complications, fetal growth restriction, low birth weight, congenital anomalies, genetic abnormalities, and placental abnormalities. In addition, there is doubling of the risk of morbidities to the pregnant IVF patient, including but not limited to hypertensive disorders and diabetes. These complications are thought to be related to both the process of IVF itself as well as to conditions that contribute to subfertility and infertility in the first place.

Genetic screening and diagnostic testing options

IVF pregnancies have a documented increase in chromosomal abnormalities compared with spontaneously conceived pregnancies due to the following factors:

• karyotypic abnormalities in couples with infertility
• microdeletions on the Y chromosome in patients with oligospermia or azoospermia
• de novo chromosomal abnormalities in IVF pregnancies that utilize intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI)
• fragile X mutations in patients with reduced ovarian reserve
• imprinting disorders in patients with fertility issues.

A common misconception is that preimplantation genetic testing renders prenatal genetic screening or testing unnecessary. However, preimplantation testing can be anywhere from 43% to 84% concordant with prenatal diagnostic testing due to biologic and technical factors. Therefore, all pregnancies should be offered the same options of aneuploidy screening as well as diagnostic testing. Pretest counseling should include an increased risk in IVF pregnancies of false-positives for the first-trimester screen and “no-call” results for cell-free fetal DNA. Additionally, diagnostic testing is recommended specifically in cases where mosaic embryos are transferred when euploid embryos are not available.

Counseling on fetal reduction for multifetal pregnancies

The risks of multifetal pregnancies (particularly higher order multiples) are significant and well documented for both the patient and the fetuses. It is therefore recommended that the option of multifetal pregnancy reduction be discussed, including the risks and benefits of reduction versus pregnancy continuation, timing, procedural considerations, and genetic testing options.^5,8

Detailed anatomic survey and fetal echocardiogram are indicated

Fetal anomalies, including congenital cardiac defects, occur at a higher rate in IVF pregnancies compared with spontaneously conceived pregnancies (475/10,000 live births vs 317/10,000 live births). Placental anomalies (such as placenta previa, vasa previa, and velamentous cord insertion) are also more common in this population. A detailed anatomic survey is therefore recommended for all IVF pregnancies and it is suggested that a fetal echocardiogram is offered these patients as well.

Pregnancy management and delivery considerations

Despite an increased risk of preterm birth, preeclampsia, and fetal growth restriction in IVF pregnancies (odds ratios range, 1.4–2), serial cervical lengths, serial growth ultrasound exams, and low-dose aspirin are not recommended for the sole indication of IVF. Due to lack of data on the utility of serial exams, a single screening cervical length at the time of anatomic survey and a third-trimester growth assessment are recommended. For aspirin, IVF qualifies as a “moderate” risk factor for preeclampsia; it is therefore recommended if another moderate risk factor is present (for example, nulliparity, obesity, or family history of preeclampsia).⁹

There is a 2- to 3-fold increased risk of stillbirth in IVF pregnancies; therefore, antenatal surveillance in the third trimester is recommended (weekly starting at 36 weeks for the sole indication of IVF).¹⁰ As no specific studies have evaluated the timing of delivery in IVF pregnancies, delivery recommendations include the option of 39-week delivery with shared decision-making with the patient.

Continue to: Evaluating and treating headaches in pregnancy and postpartum...

Evaluating and treating headaches in pregnancy and postpartum

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Clinical practice guideline no. 3: headaches in pregnancy and postpartum. Obstet Gynecol. 2022;139:944-972.

For obstetricians, headaches are a common and often frustrating condition to treat, as many of the available diagnostic tools and medications are either not recommended or have no data on use in pregnancy and lactation. Additionally, a headache is not always just a headache but could be a sign of a time-sensitive serious complication. An updated guideline from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists approaches the topic of headaches in a stepwise algorithm that promotes efficiency and efficacy in diagnosis  and treatment.¹¹

Types of headaches

The primary headache types—migraine, cluster, and tension—are distinguished from each other by patient characteristics, quality, duration, location, and related symptoms. Reassuringly, headache frequency decreases by 30% to 80% during pregnancy, which allows for the option to decrease, change, or stop current medications, ideally prior to pregnancy. Prevention via use of calcium channel blockers, antihistamines, or β-blockers is recommended, as requiring acute treatments more than 2 days per week increases the risk of medication overuse headaches.

Treating acute headache

For patients who present with an acute headache consistent with their usual type, treatment starts with known medications that are compatible with pregnancy and proceeds in a stepwise fashion:

1. Acetaminophen 1,000 mg orally with or without caffeine 130 mg orally (maximum dose, acetaminophen < 3.25–4 g per day, caffeine 200 mg per day)

2. Metoclopramide 10 mg intravenously with or without diphenhydramine 25 mg intravenously (for nausea and to counteract restlessness and offer sedation)

3. If headache continues after steps 1 and 2, consider the following secondary treatment options: magnesium sulfate 1–2 g intravenously, sumatriptan 6 mg subcutaneously or 20-mg nasal spray, ibuprofen 600 mg orally once, or ketorolac 30 mg intravenously once (second trimester only)

4. If continued treatment and/or hospitalization is required after step 3, steroids can be used: prednisone 20 mg 4 times a day for 2 days or methylprednisolone 4-mg dose pack over 6 days

5. Do not use butalbital, opioids, or ergotamines due to lack of efficacy in providing additional pain relief, potential for addiction, risk of medication overuse headaches, and association with fetal/ pregnancy abnormalities.

Consider secondary headache

An acute headache discordant from the patient’s usual type or with concerning symptoms (“red flags”) requires consideration of secondary headaches as well as a comprehensive symptom evaluation, imaging, and consultation as needed. While secondary headaches postpartum are most likely musculoskeletal in nature, the following symptoms need to be evaluated immediately:

• rapid onset/change from baseline
• “thunderclap” nature
• hypertension
• fever
• focal neurologic deficits (blurry vision or blindness, confusion, seizures)
• altered consciousness
• laboratory abnormalities.

The differential diagnosis includes preeclampsia, reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome (RCVS), posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome (PRES), infection, cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST), post–dural puncture (PDP) headache, idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH), and less likely, carotid dissection, subarachnoid hemorrhage, intracranial hemorrhage, pituitary apoplexy, or neoplasm.

Treatment. Individualized treatment depends on the diagnosis. Preeclampsia with severe features is treated with antihypertensive medication, magnesium sulfate, and delivery planning. PDP headache is treated with epidural blood patch, sphenopalatine block, or occipital block with an anesthesiology consultation. If preeclampsia and PDP are ruled out, or if there are more concerning neurologic features, imaging is essential, as 25% of pregnant patients with acute headaches will have a secondary etiology. Magnetic resonance imaging without contrast is preferred due to concerns about gadolinium crossing the placenta and the lack of data on long-term accumulation in fetal  tissues. Once diagnosed on imaging, PRES and RCVS are treated with antihypertensives and delivery. CVST is treated with anticoagulation and a thrombophilia workup. IIH may be treated with acetazolamide after 20 weeks or serial lumbar punctures. Intracranial vascular abnormalities may be treated with endoscopic resection and steroids. ●

In the musical Hamilton, there is a line from the song “The Election of 1800” in which, after a tumultuous time, Thomas Jefferson pleads for a sense of normalcy with, “Can we get back to politics?”

Trying to get back to “normal,” whatever that is, characterized the year 2022. Peeking out from under the constant shadow of the COVID-19 pandemic (not really gone, definitely not forgotten) were some blockbuster obstetrical headlines, including those on the CHAP (Chronic Hypertension and Pregnancy) trial and the impact of the Dobbs v Jackson Supreme Court decision. As these have been extensively covered in both OBG Management and other publications, in this Update we simply ask, “Can we get back to obstetrics?” as we focus on some straightforward patient care guidelines.

Thus, we offer updated information on the use of progesterone for preterm birth prevention, management of pregnancies that result from in vitro fertilization (IVF), and headache management in pregnant and postpartum patients.

Society guidance and FDA  advisement on the use of  progesterone for the prevention  of spontaneous preterm birth

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ Committee on Practice Bulletins–Obstetrics. Prediction and prevention of spontaneous preterm birth. ACOG practice bulletin no. 234. Obstet Gynecol. 2021;138:e65-e90.

EPPPIC Group. Evaluating Progestogens for Preventing Preterm birth International Collaborative (EPPPIC): meta-analysis of individual participant data from randomised controlled trials. Lancet. 2021;397:1183-1194.

This is not déjà vu! Progesterone and spontaneous preterm birth (sPTB) is a hot topic again. If you wonder what to tell your patients, you are not alone. Preterm birth (PTB) continues to pose a challenge in obstetrics, with a most recently reported overall rate of 10.49%¹ in the United States—a 4% increase from 2019. Preterm birth accounts for approximately 75% of perinatal mortality and more than half of neonatal morbidity.²

What has not changed

A recent practice bulletin from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) notes that some risk factors and screening assessments for PTB remain unchanged, including²:

• A history of PTB increases the risk for subsequent PTB. Risk increases with the number of prior preterm deliveries.
• A short cervix (<25 mm between 16 and  24 weeks’ gestation) is a risk factor for sPTB.
• The cervix should be visualized during the anatomy ultrasound exam (18 0/7 to 22 6/7 weeks’ gestation) in all pregnant patients regardless of prior birth history. If the cervix length (CL) appears shortened on transabdominal imaging, transvaginal (TV) imaging should be performed.
• Patients with a current singleton pregnancy and history of sPTB should have serial TV cervical measurements between 16 0/7 and 24 0/7 weeks’ gestation.²

EPPPIC changes and key takeaway points

In a meta-analysis of data from 31 randomized controlled trials, the EPPPIC (Evaluating Progestogens for Preventing Preterm birth International Collaborative) investigators compared vaginal progesterone, intramuscular 17-hydroxyprogesterone caproate  (17-OHPC), or oral progesterone with control or with each other in women at risk for PTB.³ Outcomes included PTB and the associated adverse neonatal and maternal outcomes.

The EPPPIC study’s main findings were:

• Singleton pregnancies at high risk for PTB due to prior sPTB or short cervix who received 17-OHPC or vaginal progesterone were less likely to deliver before  34 weeks’ gestation compared with those who received no treatment.
• There is a benefit to both 17-OHPC and vaginal progesterone in reducing the risk of PTB, with no clear evidence to support one intervention’s effectiveness over the other.
• There is benefit to either 17-OHPC or vaginal progesterone for CL less than 25 mm. The shorter the CL, the greater the absolute risk reduction on PTB.
• In multifetal pregnancies, use of 17-OHPC, when compared with placebo, was shown to increase the risk of preterm premature rupture of membranes. Neither 17-OHPC nor vaginal progesterone was found to reduce the risk of sPTB in multifetal pregnancies.³

What continues to change

While the March 30, 2021, statement from the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM), “Response to EPPPIC and consideration for the use of progestogens for the prevention of preterm birth” (https://www .smfm.org/publications/383-smfm-stat ement-response-to-epppic-and-consider ations-of-the-use-of-progestogens-for-the -prevention-of-preterm-birth), stands, ACOG has withdrawn its accompanying Practice Advisory on guidance for integrating the EPPPIC findings.

In August 2022, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted a hearing on the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research’s proposal to withdraw approval for Makena (hydroxyprogesterone caproate injection, 250 mg/mL, once weekly) on the basis that available evidence does not demonstrate that it is effective for its approved indication to reduce the risk of PTB in women with a singleton pregnancy with a history of singleton sPTB.⁴

The key takeaway points from the FDA hearing (October 17–19, 2022) were:

• A better designed randomized controlled confirmatory trial is needed in the most at-risk patients to determine if Makena is effective for its approved indication.
• Makena and its approved generic equivalents remain on the market until the FDA makes its final decision regarding approval.⁴

Continue to: Managing pregnancies that result from IVF...

Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM); Ghidini A, Gandhi M, McCoy J, et al; Publications Committee. Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine consult series #60: management of pregnancies resulting from in vitro fertilization. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2022;226:B2-B12.

Assisted reproductive technology contributes to 1.6% of all infant births, and although most pregnancies are uncomplicated, some specific risks alter management.^5–7 For example, IVF is associated with increased rates of prematurity and its complications, fetal growth restriction, low birth weight, congenital anomalies, genetic abnormalities, and placental abnormalities. In addition, there is doubling of the risk of morbidities to the pregnant IVF patient, including but not limited to hypertensive disorders and diabetes. These complications are thought to be related to both the process of IVF itself as well as to conditions that contribute to subfertility and infertility in the first place.

Genetic screening and diagnostic testing options

IVF pregnancies have a documented increase in chromosomal abnormalities compared with spontaneously conceived pregnancies due to the following factors:

• karyotypic abnormalities in couples with infertility
• microdeletions on the Y chromosome in patients with oligospermia or azoospermia
• de novo chromosomal abnormalities in IVF pregnancies that utilize intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI)
• fragile X mutations in patients with reduced ovarian reserve
• imprinting disorders in patients with fertility issues.

A common misconception is that preimplantation genetic testing renders prenatal genetic screening or testing unnecessary. However, preimplantation testing can be anywhere from 43% to 84% concordant with prenatal diagnostic testing due to biologic and technical factors. Therefore, all pregnancies should be offered the same options of aneuploidy screening as well as diagnostic testing. Pretest counseling should include an increased risk in IVF pregnancies of false-positives for the first-trimester screen and “no-call” results for cell-free fetal DNA. Additionally, diagnostic testing is recommended specifically in cases where mosaic embryos are transferred when euploid embryos are not available.

Counseling on fetal reduction for multifetal pregnancies

The risks of multifetal pregnancies (particularly higher order multiples) are significant and well documented for both the patient and the fetuses. It is therefore recommended that the option of multifetal pregnancy reduction be discussed, including the risks and benefits of reduction versus pregnancy continuation, timing, procedural considerations, and genetic testing options.^5,8

Detailed anatomic survey and fetal echocardiogram are indicated

Fetal anomalies, including congenital cardiac defects, occur at a higher rate in IVF pregnancies compared with spontaneously conceived pregnancies (475/10,000 live births vs 317/10,000 live births). Placental anomalies (such as placenta previa, vasa previa, and velamentous cord insertion) are also more common in this population. A detailed anatomic survey is therefore recommended for all IVF pregnancies and it is suggested that a fetal echocardiogram is offered these patients as well.

Pregnancy management and delivery considerations

Despite an increased risk of preterm birth, preeclampsia, and fetal growth restriction in IVF pregnancies (odds ratios range, 1.4–2), serial cervical lengths, serial growth ultrasound exams, and low-dose aspirin are not recommended for the sole indication of IVF. Due to lack of data on the utility of serial exams, a single screening cervical length at the time of anatomic survey and a third-trimester growth assessment are recommended. For aspirin, IVF qualifies as a “moderate” risk factor for preeclampsia; it is therefore recommended if another moderate risk factor is present (for example, nulliparity, obesity, or family history of preeclampsia).⁹

There is a 2- to 3-fold increased risk of stillbirth in IVF pregnancies; therefore, antenatal surveillance in the third trimester is recommended (weekly starting at 36 weeks for the sole indication of IVF).¹⁰ As no specific studies have evaluated the timing of delivery in IVF pregnancies, delivery recommendations include the option of 39-week delivery with shared decision-making with the patient.

Continue to: Evaluating and treating headaches in pregnancy and postpartum...

Evaluating and treating headaches in pregnancy and postpartum

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Clinical practice guideline no. 3: headaches in pregnancy and postpartum. Obstet Gynecol. 2022;139:944-972.

For obstetricians, headaches are a common and often frustrating condition to treat, as many of the available diagnostic tools and medications are either not recommended or have no data on use in pregnancy and lactation. Additionally, a headache is not always just a headache but could be a sign of a time-sensitive serious complication. An updated guideline from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists approaches the topic of headaches in a stepwise algorithm that promotes efficiency and efficacy in diagnosis  and treatment.¹¹

Types of headaches

The primary headache types—migraine, cluster, and tension—are distinguished from each other by patient characteristics, quality, duration, location, and related symptoms. Reassuringly, headache frequency decreases by 30% to 80% during pregnancy, which allows for the option to decrease, change, or stop current medications, ideally prior to pregnancy. Prevention via use of calcium channel blockers, antihistamines, or β-blockers is recommended, as requiring acute treatments more than 2 days per week increases the risk of medication overuse headaches.

Treating acute headache

For patients who present with an acute headache consistent with their usual type, treatment starts with known medications that are compatible with pregnancy and proceeds in a stepwise fashion:

1. Acetaminophen 1,000 mg orally with or without caffeine 130 mg orally (maximum dose, acetaminophen < 3.25–4 g per day, caffeine 200 mg per day)

2. Metoclopramide 10 mg intravenously with or without diphenhydramine 25 mg intravenously (for nausea and to counteract restlessness and offer sedation)

3. If headache continues after steps 1 and 2, consider the following secondary treatment options: magnesium sulfate 1–2 g intravenously, sumatriptan 6 mg subcutaneously or 20-mg nasal spray, ibuprofen 600 mg orally once, or ketorolac 30 mg intravenously once (second trimester only)

4. If continued treatment and/or hospitalization is required after step 3, steroids can be used: prednisone 20 mg 4 times a day for 2 days or methylprednisolone 4-mg dose pack over 6 days

5. Do not use butalbital, opioids, or ergotamines due to lack of efficacy in providing additional pain relief, potential for addiction, risk of medication overuse headaches, and association with fetal/ pregnancy abnormalities.

Consider secondary headache

An acute headache discordant from the patient’s usual type or with concerning symptoms (“red flags”) requires consideration of secondary headaches as well as a comprehensive symptom evaluation, imaging, and consultation as needed. While secondary headaches postpartum are most likely musculoskeletal in nature, the following symptoms need to be evaluated immediately:

• rapid onset/change from baseline
• “thunderclap” nature
• hypertension
• fever
• focal neurologic deficits (blurry vision or blindness, confusion, seizures)
• altered consciousness
• laboratory abnormalities.

The differential diagnosis includes preeclampsia, reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome (RCVS), posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome (PRES), infection, cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST), post–dural puncture (PDP) headache, idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH), and less likely, carotid dissection, subarachnoid hemorrhage, intracranial hemorrhage, pituitary apoplexy, or neoplasm.

Treatment. Individualized treatment depends on the diagnosis. Preeclampsia with severe features is treated with antihypertensive medication, magnesium sulfate, and delivery planning. PDP headache is treated with epidural blood patch, sphenopalatine block, or occipital block with an anesthesiology consultation. If preeclampsia and PDP are ruled out, or if there are more concerning neurologic features, imaging is essential, as 25% of pregnant patients with acute headaches will have a secondary etiology. Magnetic resonance imaging without contrast is preferred due to concerns about gadolinium crossing the placenta and the lack of data on long-term accumulation in fetal  tissues. Once diagnosed on imaging, PRES and RCVS are treated with antihypertensives and delivery. CVST is treated with anticoagulation and a thrombophilia workup. IIH may be treated with acetazolamide after 20 weeks or serial lumbar punctures. Intracranial vascular abnormalities may be treated with endoscopic resection and steroids. ●

In the musical Hamilton, there is a line from the song “The Election of 1800” in which, after a tumultuous time, Thomas Jefferson pleads for a sense of normalcy with, “Can we get back to politics?”

Trying to get back to “normal,” whatever that is, characterized the year 2022. Peeking out from under the constant shadow of the COVID-19 pandemic (not really gone, definitely not forgotten) were some blockbuster obstetrical headlines, including those on the CHAP (Chronic Hypertension and Pregnancy) trial and the impact of the Dobbs v Jackson Supreme Court decision. As these have been extensively covered in both OBG Management and other publications, in this Update we simply ask, “Can we get back to obstetrics?” as we focus on some straightforward patient care guidelines.

Thus, we offer updated information on the use of progesterone for preterm birth prevention, management of pregnancies that result from in vitro fertilization (IVF), and headache management in pregnant and postpartum patients.

Society guidance and FDA  advisement on the use of  progesterone for the prevention  of spontaneous preterm birth

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ Committee on Practice Bulletins–Obstetrics. Prediction and prevention of spontaneous preterm birth. ACOG practice bulletin no. 234. Obstet Gynecol. 2021;138:e65-e90.

EPPPIC Group. Evaluating Progestogens for Preventing Preterm birth International Collaborative (EPPPIC): meta-analysis of individual participant data from randomised controlled trials. Lancet. 2021;397:1183-1194.

This is not déjà vu! Progesterone and spontaneous preterm birth (sPTB) is a hot topic again. If you wonder what to tell your patients, you are not alone. Preterm birth (PTB) continues to pose a challenge in obstetrics, with a most recently reported overall rate of 10.49%¹ in the United States—a 4% increase from 2019. Preterm birth accounts for approximately 75% of perinatal mortality and more than half of neonatal morbidity.²

What has not changed

A recent practice bulletin from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) notes that some risk factors and screening assessments for PTB remain unchanged, including²:

• A history of PTB increases the risk for subsequent PTB. Risk increases with the number of prior preterm deliveries.
• A short cervix (<25 mm between 16 and  24 weeks’ gestation) is a risk factor for sPTB.
• The cervix should be visualized during the anatomy ultrasound exam (18 0/7 to 22 6/7 weeks’ gestation) in all pregnant patients regardless of prior birth history. If the cervix length (CL) appears shortened on transabdominal imaging, transvaginal (TV) imaging should be performed.
• Patients with a current singleton pregnancy and history of sPTB should have serial TV cervical measurements between 16 0/7 and 24 0/7 weeks’ gestation.²

EPPPIC changes and key takeaway points

In a meta-analysis of data from 31 randomized controlled trials, the EPPPIC (Evaluating Progestogens for Preventing Preterm birth International Collaborative) investigators compared vaginal progesterone, intramuscular 17-hydroxyprogesterone caproate  (17-OHPC), or oral progesterone with control or with each other in women at risk for PTB.³ Outcomes included PTB and the associated adverse neonatal and maternal outcomes.

The EPPPIC study’s main findings were:

• Singleton pregnancies at high risk for PTB due to prior sPTB or short cervix who received 17-OHPC or vaginal progesterone were less likely to deliver before  34 weeks’ gestation compared with those who received no treatment.
• There is a benefit to both 17-OHPC and vaginal progesterone in reducing the risk of PTB, with no clear evidence to support one intervention’s effectiveness over the other.
• There is benefit to either 17-OHPC or vaginal progesterone for CL less than 25 mm. The shorter the CL, the greater the absolute risk reduction on PTB.
• In multifetal pregnancies, use of 17-OHPC, when compared with placebo, was shown to increase the risk of preterm premature rupture of membranes. Neither 17-OHPC nor vaginal progesterone was found to reduce the risk of sPTB in multifetal pregnancies.³

What continues to change

While the March 30, 2021, statement from the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM), “Response to EPPPIC and consideration for the use of progestogens for the prevention of preterm birth” (https://www .smfm.org/publications/383-smfm-stat ement-response-to-epppic-and-consider ations-of-the-use-of-progestogens-for-the -prevention-of-preterm-birth), stands, ACOG has withdrawn its accompanying Practice Advisory on guidance for integrating the EPPPIC findings.

In August 2022, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted a hearing on the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research’s proposal to withdraw approval for Makena (hydroxyprogesterone caproate injection, 250 mg/mL, once weekly) on the basis that available evidence does not demonstrate that it is effective for its approved indication to reduce the risk of PTB in women with a singleton pregnancy with a history of singleton sPTB.⁴

The key takeaway points from the FDA hearing (October 17–19, 2022) were:

• A better designed randomized controlled confirmatory trial is needed in the most at-risk patients to determine if Makena is effective for its approved indication.
• Makena and its approved generic equivalents remain on the market until the FDA makes its final decision regarding approval.⁴

Continue to: Managing pregnancies that result from IVF...

Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM); Ghidini A, Gandhi M, McCoy J, et al; Publications Committee. Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine consult series #60: management of pregnancies resulting from in vitro fertilization. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2022;226:B2-B12.

Assisted reproductive technology contributes to 1.6% of all infant births, and although most pregnancies are uncomplicated, some specific risks alter management.^5–7 For example, IVF is associated with increased rates of prematurity and its complications, fetal growth restriction, low birth weight, congenital anomalies, genetic abnormalities, and placental abnormalities. In addition, there is doubling of the risk of morbidities to the pregnant IVF patient, including but not limited to hypertensive disorders and diabetes. These complications are thought to be related to both the process of IVF itself as well as to conditions that contribute to subfertility and infertility in the first place.

Genetic screening and diagnostic testing options

IVF pregnancies have a documented increase in chromosomal abnormalities compared with spontaneously conceived pregnancies due to the following factors:

• karyotypic abnormalities in couples with infertility
• microdeletions on the Y chromosome in patients with oligospermia or azoospermia
• de novo chromosomal abnormalities in IVF pregnancies that utilize intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI)
• fragile X mutations in patients with reduced ovarian reserve
• imprinting disorders in patients with fertility issues.

A common misconception is that preimplantation genetic testing renders prenatal genetic screening or testing unnecessary. However, preimplantation testing can be anywhere from 43% to 84% concordant with prenatal diagnostic testing due to biologic and technical factors. Therefore, all pregnancies should be offered the same options of aneuploidy screening as well as diagnostic testing. Pretest counseling should include an increased risk in IVF pregnancies of false-positives for the first-trimester screen and “no-call” results for cell-free fetal DNA. Additionally, diagnostic testing is recommended specifically in cases where mosaic embryos are transferred when euploid embryos are not available.

Counseling on fetal reduction for multifetal pregnancies

The risks of multifetal pregnancies (particularly higher order multiples) are significant and well documented for both the patient and the fetuses. It is therefore recommended that the option of multifetal pregnancy reduction be discussed, including the risks and benefits of reduction versus pregnancy continuation, timing, procedural considerations, and genetic testing options.^5,8

Detailed anatomic survey and fetal echocardiogram are indicated

Fetal anomalies, including congenital cardiac defects, occur at a higher rate in IVF pregnancies compared with spontaneously conceived pregnancies (475/10,000 live births vs 317/10,000 live births). Placental anomalies (such as placenta previa, vasa previa, and velamentous cord insertion) are also more common in this population. A detailed anatomic survey is therefore recommended for all IVF pregnancies and it is suggested that a fetal echocardiogram is offered these patients as well.

Pregnancy management and delivery considerations

Despite an increased risk of preterm birth, preeclampsia, and fetal growth restriction in IVF pregnancies (odds ratios range, 1.4–2), serial cervical lengths, serial growth ultrasound exams, and low-dose aspirin are not recommended for the sole indication of IVF. Due to lack of data on the utility of serial exams, a single screening cervical length at the time of anatomic survey and a third-trimester growth assessment are recommended. For aspirin, IVF qualifies as a “moderate” risk factor for preeclampsia; it is therefore recommended if another moderate risk factor is present (for example, nulliparity, obesity, or family history of preeclampsia).⁹

There is a 2- to 3-fold increased risk of stillbirth in IVF pregnancies; therefore, antenatal surveillance in the third trimester is recommended (weekly starting at 36 weeks for the sole indication of IVF).¹⁰ As no specific studies have evaluated the timing of delivery in IVF pregnancies, delivery recommendations include the option of 39-week delivery with shared decision-making with the patient.

Continue to: Evaluating and treating headaches in pregnancy and postpartum...

Evaluating and treating headaches in pregnancy and postpartum

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Clinical practice guideline no. 3: headaches in pregnancy and postpartum. Obstet Gynecol. 2022;139:944-972.

For obstetricians, headaches are a common and often frustrating condition to treat, as many of the available diagnostic tools and medications are either not recommended or have no data on use in pregnancy and lactation. Additionally, a headache is not always just a headache but could be a sign of a time-sensitive serious complication. An updated guideline from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists approaches the topic of headaches in a stepwise algorithm that promotes efficiency and efficacy in diagnosis  and treatment.¹¹

Types of headaches

The primary headache types—migraine, cluster, and tension—are distinguished from each other by patient characteristics, quality, duration, location, and related symptoms. Reassuringly, headache frequency decreases by 30% to 80% during pregnancy, which allows for the option to decrease, change, or stop current medications, ideally prior to pregnancy. Prevention via use of calcium channel blockers, antihistamines, or β-blockers is recommended, as requiring acute treatments more than 2 days per week increases the risk of medication overuse headaches.

Treating acute headache

For patients who present with an acute headache consistent with their usual type, treatment starts with known medications that are compatible with pregnancy and proceeds in a stepwise fashion:

1. Acetaminophen 1,000 mg orally with or without caffeine 130 mg orally (maximum dose, acetaminophen < 3.25–4 g per day, caffeine 200 mg per day)

2. Metoclopramide 10 mg intravenously with or without diphenhydramine 25 mg intravenously (for nausea and to counteract restlessness and offer sedation)

3. If headache continues after steps 1 and 2, consider the following secondary treatment options: magnesium sulfate 1–2 g intravenously, sumatriptan 6 mg subcutaneously or 20-mg nasal spray, ibuprofen 600 mg orally once, or ketorolac 30 mg intravenously once (second trimester only)

4. If continued treatment and/or hospitalization is required after step 3, steroids can be used: prednisone 20 mg 4 times a day for 2 days or methylprednisolone 4-mg dose pack over 6 days

5. Do not use butalbital, opioids, or ergotamines due to lack of efficacy in providing additional pain relief, potential for addiction, risk of medication overuse headaches, and association with fetal/ pregnancy abnormalities.

Consider secondary headache

An acute headache discordant from the patient’s usual type or with concerning symptoms (“red flags”) requires consideration of secondary headaches as well as a comprehensive symptom evaluation, imaging, and consultation as needed. While secondary headaches postpartum are most likely musculoskeletal in nature, the following symptoms need to be evaluated immediately:

• rapid onset/change from baseline
• “thunderclap” nature
• hypertension
• fever
• focal neurologic deficits (blurry vision or blindness, confusion, seizures)
• altered consciousness
• laboratory abnormalities.

The differential diagnosis includes preeclampsia, reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome (RCVS), posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome (PRES), infection, cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST), post–dural puncture (PDP) headache, idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH), and less likely, carotid dissection, subarachnoid hemorrhage, intracranial hemorrhage, pituitary apoplexy, or neoplasm.

Treatment. Individualized treatment depends on the diagnosis. Preeclampsia with severe features is treated with antihypertensive medication, magnesium sulfate, and delivery planning. PDP headache is treated with epidural blood patch, sphenopalatine block, or occipital block with an anesthesiology consultation. If preeclampsia and PDP are ruled out, or if there are more concerning neurologic features, imaging is essential, as 25% of pregnant patients with acute headaches will have a secondary etiology. Magnetic resonance imaging without contrast is preferred due to concerns about gadolinium crossing the placenta and the lack of data on long-term accumulation in fetal  tissues. Once diagnosed on imaging, PRES and RCVS are treated with antihypertensives and delivery. CVST is treated with anticoagulation and a thrombophilia workup. IIH may be treated with acetazolamide after 20 weeks or serial lumbar punctures. Intracranial vascular abnormalities may be treated with endoscopic resection and steroids. ●

The approach to hysterectomy has been debated, with the need for individualization case by case stressed, and the expertise of the operating surgeon considered.

CASE Was surgeon experience a factor in case complications?

VM is a 46-year-old woman (G5 P4014) reporting persistent uterine bleeding that is refractory to medical therapy. The patient has uterine fibroids, 6 weeks in size on examination, with “mild” prolapse noted. Additional medical diagnoses included vulvitis, ovarian cyst in the past, cystic mastopathy, and prior evidence of pelvic adhesion, noted at the time of ovarian cystectomy. Prior surgical records were not obtained by the operating surgeon, although her obstetric history includes 2 prior vaginal deliveries and 2 cesarean deliveries (CDs). The patient had an umbilical herniorraphy a number of years ago. Her medications include hormonal therapy, for presumed menopause, and medication for depression (she reported “doing well” on medication). She reported smoking 1 PPD and had a prior tubal ligation.

VM was previously evaluated for Lynch Syndrome and informed of the potential for increased risks of colon, endometrial, and several other cancers. She did not have cancer as of the time of planned surgery.

The patient underwent robotic-assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. The operating surgeon did not have a lot of experience with robotic hysterectomies but told the patient preoperatively “I have done a few.” Perioperatively, blood loss was minimal, urine output was recorded as 25 mL, and according to the operative report there were extensive pelvic adhesions and no complications. The “ureters were identified” when the broad ligament was opened at the time of skeletonization of the uterine vessels and documented accordingly. The intraoperative Foley was discontinued at the end of the procedure. The pathology report noted diffuse adenomyosis and uterine fibroids; the uterus weighed 250 g. In addition, a “large hemorrhagic corpus luteum cyst” was noted on the right ovary.

The patient presented for a postoperative visit reporting “leaking” serosanguinous fluid that began 2.5 weeks postoperatively and required her to wear 3 to 4 “Depends” every day. She also reported constipation since beginning her prescribed pain medication. She requested a copy of her medical records and said she was dissatisfied with the care she had received related to the hysterectomy; she was “seeking a second opinion from a urologist.” The urologist suggested evaluation of the “leaking,” and a Foley catheter was placed. When she stood up, however, there was leaking around the catheter, and she reported a “yellowish-green,” foul smelling discharge. She called the urologist’s office, stating, “I think I have a bowel obstruction.” The patient was instructed to proceed to the emergency department at her local hospital. She was released with a diagnosis of constipation. Upon follow-up urologic evaluation, a vulvovaginal fistula was noted. Management was a “simple fistula repair,” and the patient did well subsequently.

The patient brought suit against the hospital and operating gynecologist. In part the hospital records noted, “relatively inexperienced robotic surgeon.” The hospital was taken to task for granting privileges to an individual that had prior privilege “problems.”

PHOTO: GETTY IMAGES LL28

Continue to: Medical opinion...

Medical opinion

This case demonstrates a number of issues. (We will discuss the credentials for the surgeon and hospital privileges in the legal considerations section.) From the medical perspective, the rate of urologic injury associated with all hysterectomies is 0.87%.¹ Robotic hysterectomy has been reported at 0.92% in a series published from Henry Ford Hospital.¹ The lowest rate of urologic injury is associated with vaginal hysterectomy, reported at 0.2%.² Reported rates of urologic injury by approach to hysterectomy are¹:

• robotic, 0.92%
• laparoscopic, 0.90%
• vaginal, 0.33%
• abdominal, 0.96%.

Complications by surgeon type also have been addressed, and the percent of total urologic complications are reported as¹:

• ObGyn, 47%
• gyn oncologist, 47%
• urogynecologist, 6%.

Intraoperative conversion to laparotomy from initial robotic approach has been addressed in a retrospective study over a 2-year period, with operative times ranging from 1 hr, 50 min to 9 hrs of surgical time.¹ The vast majority of intraoperative complications in a series reported from Finland were managed “within minutes,” and in the series of 83 patients, 5 (6%) required conversion to laparotomy.² Intraoperative complications reported include failed entry, vascular injury, nerve injury, visceral injury, solid organ injury, tumor fragmentation, and anesthetic-related complications.³ Of note, the vascular injuries included inferior vena cava, common iliac, and external iliac.

Mortality rates in association with benign laparoscopic and robotic procedures have been addressed and noted to be 1:6,456 cases based upon a meta-analysis.⁴ The analysis included 124,216 patients. Laparoscopic versus robotic mortality rates were not statistically different. Mortality was more common among cases of undiagnosed rare colorectal injury. This mortality is on par with complications from Roux-en-Y gastric bypass procedures. Procedures such as sacrocolpopexy are equated with higher mortality (1:1,246) in comparison with benign hysterectomy.⁵

Infectious complications following either laparoscopic or robotic hysterectomy were reported at less than 1% and not statistically different for either approach.⁶ The series authored by Marra et al evaluated 176,016 patients.

Overall, robotic-assisted gynecologic complications are rare. One series was focused on gynecological oncologic cases.⁷ Specific categories of complications included⁷:

• patient positioning and pneumoperitoneum
• injury to surrounding organs
• bowel injury
• port site metastasis
• surgical emphysema
• vaginal cuff dehiscence
• anesthesia-related problems.

The authors concluded, “robotic assisted surgery in gynecological oncology is safe and the incidence of complications is low.”⁷ The major cause of death related to robotic surgery is vascular injury–related. The authors emphasized the importance of knowledge of anatomy, basic principles of “traction and counter-traction” and proper dissection along tissue planes as key to minimizing complications. Consider placement of stents for ureter identification, as appropriate. Barbed-suturing does not prevent dehiscence.

Continue to: Legal considerations...

Robotic surgery presents many legal issues and promises to raise many more in the future. The law must control new technology while encouraging productive uses, and provide new remedies for harms while respecting traditional legal principles.⁸ There is no shortage of good ideas about controlling surgical robots,⁹ automated devices more generally,¹⁰ and artificial intelligence.¹¹ Those issues will be important, and watching them unfold will be intriguing.

In the meantime, physicians and other health care professionals, health care facilities, technology companies, and patients must work within current legal structures in implementing and using robotic surgery. These are extraordinarily complex issues, so it is possible only to review the current landscape and speculate what the near future may hold.

Regulating surgical robots

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is the primary regulator of robots used in medicine.¹² It has the authority to regulate surgical devices, including surgical robots—which it refers to as “robotically-assisted surgical devices,” or RASD. In 2000, it approved Intuitive Surgical’s daVinci system for use in surgery. In 2017, the FDA expanded its clearance to include the Senhance System of TransEnterix Surgical Inc. for minimally invasive gynecologic surgery.¹³ In 2021, the FDA cleared the Hominis Surgical System for transvaginal hysterectomy “in certain patients.” However, the FDA emphasized that this clearance is for benign hysterectomy with salpingo-oophorectomy.¹⁴ (The FDA has cleared various robotic devices for several other areas of surgical practice, including neurosurgery, orthopedics, and urology.)

The use of robots in cancer surgery is limited. The FDA approved specific RASDs in some “surgical procedures commonly performed in patients with cancer, such as hysterectomy, prostatectomy, and colectomy.”¹⁵ However, it cautioned that this clearance was based only on a 30-day patient follow up. More specifically, the FDA “has not evaluated the safety or effectiveness of RASD devices for the prevention or treatment of cancer, based on cancer-related outcomes such as overall survival, recurrence, and disease-free survival.”¹⁵

The FDA has clearly warned physicians and patients that the agency has not granted the use of RASDs “for any cancer-related surgery marketing authorization, and therefore the survival benefits to patients compared to traditional surgery have not been established.”¹⁵ (This did not apply to the hysterectomy surgery as noted above. More specifically, that clearance did not apply to anything other than 30-day results, nor to the efficacy related to cancer survival.)

States also have some authority to regulate medical practice within their borders.⁹ When the FDA has approved a device as safe and effective, however, there are limits on what states can do to regulate or impose liability on the approved product. The Supreme Court held that the FDA approval “pre-empted” some state action regarding approved devices.¹⁶

Hospitals, of course, regulate what is allowed within the hospital. For example, it may require training before a physician is permitted to use equipment, limit the conditions for which the equipment may be used, or decline to obtain equipment for use in the hospitals.¹⁷ In the case of RASDs, however, the high cost of equipment may provide an incentive for hospitals to urge the wide use of the latest robotic acquisition.¹⁸

Regulation aims primarily to protect patients, usually from injury or inadequate treatment. Some robotic surgery is likely to be more expensive than the same surgery without robotic assistance. The cost to the patient is not usually part of the FDA’s consideration. Insurance companies (including Medicare and Medicaid), however, do care about costs and will set or negotiate how much the reimbursement will be for a procedure. Third-party payers may decline to cover the additional cost when there is no apparent benefit from using the robot.¹⁹ For some institutions, the public perception that it offers “the most modern technology” is an important public message and a strong incentive to have the equipment.²⁰

There are inconsistent studies about the advantages and disadvantages of RADS in gynecologic procedures, although there are few randomized studies.²¹ The demonstrated advantages are generally identified as somewhat shorter recovery time.²² The ultimate goal will be to minimize risks while maximizing the many potential benefits of robotic surgery.²³

Continue to: Liability...

Liability

A recent study by De Ravin and colleagues of robotic surgery liability found a 250% increase in the total number of robotic surgery–related malpractice claims reported in 7 recent years (2014-2021), compared with the prior 7 (2006-2013).²⁴ However, the number of cases varied considerably from year to year. ObGyn had the most significant gain (from 19% to 49% of all claims). During the same time, urology claims declined from 56% to 16%. (The limitations of the study’s data are discussed later in this article.)

De Ravin et al reported the legal bases for the claims, but the specific legal claim was unclear in many cases.²⁴ For example, the vast majority were classified as “negligent surgery.” Many cases made more than 1 legal claim for liability, so the total percentages were greater than 100%. Of the specific claims, many appear unrelated to robotic surgery (misdiagnosis, delayed treatment, or infection). However, there were a significant number of cases that raised issues that were related to robotic surgery. The following are those claims that probably relate to the “robotic” surgery, along with the percentage of cases making such a claim as reported²⁴:

• “Patient not a candidate for surgery performed” appeared in about 13% of the cases.²⁴ Such claims could include that the surgeon should have performed the surgery with traditional laparoscopy or open technique, but instead using a robot led to the injury. Physicians may feel pressure from patients or hospitals, because of the equipment’s cost, to use robotic surgery as it seems to be the modern approach (and therefore better). Neither reason is sufficient for using robotic assistance unless it will benefit the patient.
• “Failure to calibrate or operate robot” was in 11% of the claims.²⁴ Physicians must properly calibrate and otherwise ensure that surgical equipment is operating correctly. In addition, the hospitals supplying the equipment must ensure that the equipment is maintained correctly. Finally, the equipment manufacturer may be liable through “products liability” if the equipment is defective.²⁵ The expanding use of artificial intelligence in medical equipment (including surgical robots) is increasing the complexity of determining what “defective” means.¹¹
• “Training deficiencies or credentialing” liability is a common problem with new technology. Physicians using new technology should be thoroughly trained and, where appropriate, certified in the use of the new technology.²⁶ Early adopters of the technology should be especially cautious because good training may be challenging to obtain. In the study, the claims of inadequate training were particularly high during the early 7 years (35%), but dropped during the later time (4%).²⁴
• “Improper positioning” of the patient or device or patient was raised in 7% of the cases.²⁴
• “Manufacturing problems” were claimed in a small number of cases—13% in 2006-2013, but 2% in 2014-2021.²⁴ These cases raise the complex question of products liability for robotic surgery and artificial intelligence (AI). Products liability has been part of surgical practice for many years. There usually will be liability if there are “defects” in a product, whether or not resulting from negligence. What a “defect” in a computer program means is a complicated issue that will be significant in future liability cases.²⁷

Several other cases reported in the De Ravin study were probably related to robotic surgery. For example, Informed Consent and Failure to Monitor each appeared in more than 30%, of 2014-2021 cases, and Failure to Refer in 16% of the cases.^24,27

The outcomes of the reported cases were mostly verdicts (or trial-related settlements) for defendants (doctors and hospitals). The defense prevailed 69% of the time in the early period and 78% of the time in 2014-2021. However, there were substantial damages in some cases. The range of damages in 2006-2013 was $95,000 to $6 million (mean, $2.5 million); in 2014-2021, it was $10,000 to $5 million (mean, $1.3 million).²⁴

An earlier study looked at reported cases against Intuitive Surgical, maker of the daVinci system, from 2000-2017.²⁸ Of the 108 claims in the study, 62% were gynecologic surgeries. Of these claims, 35% were dismissed, but “no other information regarding settlements or trial outcomes was available.” The study did not report the basis for the lawsuits involving gynecologic surgeries.

We should exercise caution in reviewing these studies. Although the studies were of considerable value, the authors note significant limitations of the databases available. The database was Westlaw in the first study discussed (“Robotic surgery: the impact”²⁴) and Bloomberg in the second (“Robotic urologic”²⁸). For example, the “impact” study was based on “jury verdict reports” excluding settlements, and the latter excluded class actions and cases settled. Thus the studies undoubtedly understated the number of claims made (those that resulted in settlement before a lawsuit was filed), cases filed but abandoned, and settlements made before trial.

Despite these limitations, the studies provide valuable insights into current malpractice risks and future directions. It is worth remembering that these cases nearly all involved a single robot, the daVinci, produced by Intuitive Surgical. It is not a “smart” robot and is commonly referred to as a “master-slave” machine. With much more intelligent and independent machines, the future will raise more complex problems in the FDA approval process and malpractice and product liability claims when things go wrong.

Continue to: What’s the verdict?...

The case of VM and operating surgeon Dr. G illustrates several important legal aspects of using surgical robots. It also demonstrates that the presence of the robot assist still requires the surgeon’s careful attention to issues of informed consent, adequate specific training, and thorough follow up. In the following discussion, we divide the case review into the elements of negligence-malpractice (duty and breach, causation, and damages) and conclude with a thought about how to proceed when things have gone wrong.

Dr. G’s statement, “I’ve done a few,” is indefinite, but it may suggest that Dr. G. had not received full, supervised training in the robotic assist he was planning to use. That problem was underlined by the conclusion that Dr. G was a “relatively inexperienced robotic surgeon.” If so, that failure could constitute a breach of the duty of care to the patient. In addition, if it is inaccurate or did not provide information VM reasonably needed in consenting to Dr. G proceeding with the surgery, there could be an issue of whether there was a partial failure of fully informed consent.

The hospital also may have potential liability. It was “taken to task for granting privileges to an individual that had prior privilege ‘problems,’” suggesting that it had not performed adequate review before granting hospital privileges. Furthermore, if Dr. G was not sufficiently practiced or supervised in robotic surgery, the hospital, which allowed Dr. G to proceed, might also be negligent.

VM had a series of problems postsurgery that ultimately resulted in additional care and “simple fistula repair.” Assuming that there was negligence, the next question is whether that failure caused the injury. Causation may be the most difficult part of the case for VM to prove. It would require expert testimony that the inadequate surgery (inappropriate use of robotic surgery or other error during surgery) and follow up resulted in the formation or increase in the likelihood of the fistula.

VM would also have to prove damages. Damages are those costs (the economic value) of injuries that would not have occurred but for negligence. Damages would include most of the cost of the follow-up medical care and any related additional future care required, plus costs that were a consequence of the negligence (such as lost work). In addition, damages would include pain and suffering that resulted from the negligence, subject to caps in some states.

When the patient was dissatisfied and reported a postsurgical problem, the hospital and Dr. G may have had an opportunity to avoid further dissatisfaction, complaints, and ultimately a lawsuit. Effective approaches for dealing with such dissatisfaction may serve the institution’s and physician’s values and financial best interests.

The jury verdict was in favor of the plaintiff. Jurors felt the operating surgeon should have conveyed his experience with robotic surgery more clearly as part of the informed consent process.

“Hey Siri! Perform a type 3 hysterectomy. Please watch out for the ureter!”²⁹

Medicine is still at the frontier of surgical robots. Over future decades, the number and sophistication of these machines will increase substantially. They likely will become much more like robots, guided by AI, and make independent judgments. These have the potential for significant medical progress that improves the treatment of patients. At the same time, the last 20 years suggest that robotic innovation will challenge medicine, the FDA and other regulators, lawmakers, and courts. In the future, regulators and patients should embrace genuine advances in robotic surgery but not be dazzled by these new machines’ luster (or potential for considerable profits).³⁰

The public may be wildly optimistic about the benefits without balancing the risks. The AI that runs them will be essentially invisible and constantly changing. Physicians and regulators must develop new techniques for assessing and controlling the software. Real surgical robots require rigorous testing, cautious promotion, disciplined use, and perpetual review. ●

The approach to hysterectomy has been debated, with the need for individualization case by case stressed, and the expertise of the operating surgeon considered.

CASE Was surgeon experience a factor in case complications?

VM is a 46-year-old woman (G5 P4014) reporting persistent uterine bleeding that is refractory to medical therapy. The patient has uterine fibroids, 6 weeks in size on examination, with “mild” prolapse noted. Additional medical diagnoses included vulvitis, ovarian cyst in the past, cystic mastopathy, and prior evidence of pelvic adhesion, noted at the time of ovarian cystectomy. Prior surgical records were not obtained by the operating surgeon, although her obstetric history includes 2 prior vaginal deliveries and 2 cesarean deliveries (CDs). The patient had an umbilical herniorraphy a number of years ago. Her medications include hormonal therapy, for presumed menopause, and medication for depression (she reported “doing well” on medication). She reported smoking 1 PPD and had a prior tubal ligation.

VM was previously evaluated for Lynch Syndrome and informed of the potential for increased risks of colon, endometrial, and several other cancers. She did not have cancer as of the time of planned surgery.

The patient underwent robotic-assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. The operating surgeon did not have a lot of experience with robotic hysterectomies but told the patient preoperatively “I have done a few.” Perioperatively, blood loss was minimal, urine output was recorded as 25 mL, and according to the operative report there were extensive pelvic adhesions and no complications. The “ureters were identified” when the broad ligament was opened at the time of skeletonization of the uterine vessels and documented accordingly. The intraoperative Foley was discontinued at the end of the procedure. The pathology report noted diffuse adenomyosis and uterine fibroids; the uterus weighed 250 g. In addition, a “large hemorrhagic corpus luteum cyst” was noted on the right ovary.

The patient presented for a postoperative visit reporting “leaking” serosanguinous fluid that began 2.5 weeks postoperatively and required her to wear 3 to 4 “Depends” every day. She also reported constipation since beginning her prescribed pain medication. She requested a copy of her medical records and said she was dissatisfied with the care she had received related to the hysterectomy; she was “seeking a second opinion from a urologist.” The urologist suggested evaluation of the “leaking,” and a Foley catheter was placed. When she stood up, however, there was leaking around the catheter, and she reported a “yellowish-green,” foul smelling discharge. She called the urologist’s office, stating, “I think I have a bowel obstruction.” The patient was instructed to proceed to the emergency department at her local hospital. She was released with a diagnosis of constipation. Upon follow-up urologic evaluation, a vulvovaginal fistula was noted. Management was a “simple fistula repair,” and the patient did well subsequently.

The patient brought suit against the hospital and operating gynecologist. In part the hospital records noted, “relatively inexperienced robotic surgeon.” The hospital was taken to task for granting privileges to an individual that had prior privilege “problems.”

PHOTO: GETTY IMAGES LL28

Continue to: Medical opinion...

Medical opinion

This case demonstrates a number of issues. (We will discuss the credentials for the surgeon and hospital privileges in the legal considerations section.) From the medical perspective, the rate of urologic injury associated with all hysterectomies is 0.87%.¹ Robotic hysterectomy has been reported at 0.92% in a series published from Henry Ford Hospital.¹ The lowest rate of urologic injury is associated with vaginal hysterectomy, reported at 0.2%.² Reported rates of urologic injury by approach to hysterectomy are¹:

• robotic, 0.92%
• laparoscopic, 0.90%
• vaginal, 0.33%
• abdominal, 0.96%.

Complications by surgeon type also have been addressed, and the percent of total urologic complications are reported as¹:

• ObGyn, 47%
• gyn oncologist, 47%
• urogynecologist, 6%.

Intraoperative conversion to laparotomy from initial robotic approach has been addressed in a retrospective study over a 2-year period, with operative times ranging from 1 hr, 50 min to 9 hrs of surgical time.¹ The vast majority of intraoperative complications in a series reported from Finland were managed “within minutes,” and in the series of 83 patients, 5 (6%) required conversion to laparotomy.² Intraoperative complications reported include failed entry, vascular injury, nerve injury, visceral injury, solid organ injury, tumor fragmentation, and anesthetic-related complications.³ Of note, the vascular injuries included inferior vena cava, common iliac, and external iliac.

Mortality rates in association with benign laparoscopic and robotic procedures have been addressed and noted to be 1:6,456 cases based upon a meta-analysis.⁴ The analysis included 124,216 patients. Laparoscopic versus robotic mortality rates were not statistically different. Mortality was more common among cases of undiagnosed rare colorectal injury. This mortality is on par with complications from Roux-en-Y gastric bypass procedures. Procedures such as sacrocolpopexy are equated with higher mortality (1:1,246) in comparison with benign hysterectomy.⁵

Infectious complications following either laparoscopic or robotic hysterectomy were reported at less than 1% and not statistically different for either approach.⁶ The series authored by Marra et al evaluated 176,016 patients.

Overall, robotic-assisted gynecologic complications are rare. One series was focused on gynecological oncologic cases.⁷ Specific categories of complications included⁷:

• patient positioning and pneumoperitoneum
• injury to surrounding organs
• bowel injury
• port site metastasis
• surgical emphysema
• vaginal cuff dehiscence
• anesthesia-related problems.

The authors concluded, “robotic assisted surgery in gynecological oncology is safe and the incidence of complications is low.”⁷ The major cause of death related to robotic surgery is vascular injury–related. The authors emphasized the importance of knowledge of anatomy, basic principles of “traction and counter-traction” and proper dissection along tissue planes as key to minimizing complications. Consider placement of stents for ureter identification, as appropriate. Barbed-suturing does not prevent dehiscence.

Continue to: Legal considerations...

Robotic surgery presents many legal issues and promises to raise many more in the future. The law must control new technology while encouraging productive uses, and provide new remedies for harms while respecting traditional legal principles.⁸ There is no shortage of good ideas about controlling surgical robots,⁹ automated devices more generally,¹⁰ and artificial intelligence.¹¹ Those issues will be important, and watching them unfold will be intriguing.

In the meantime, physicians and other health care professionals, health care facilities, technology companies, and patients must work within current legal structures in implementing and using robotic surgery. These are extraordinarily complex issues, so it is possible only to review the current landscape and speculate what the near future may hold.

Regulating surgical robots

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is the primary regulator of robots used in medicine.¹² It has the authority to regulate surgical devices, including surgical robots—which it refers to as “robotically-assisted surgical devices,” or RASD. In 2000, it approved Intuitive Surgical’s daVinci system for use in surgery. In 2017, the FDA expanded its clearance to include the Senhance System of TransEnterix Surgical Inc. for minimally invasive gynecologic surgery.¹³ In 2021, the FDA cleared the Hominis Surgical System for transvaginal hysterectomy “in certain patients.” However, the FDA emphasized that this clearance is for benign hysterectomy with salpingo-oophorectomy.¹⁴ (The FDA has cleared various robotic devices for several other areas of surgical practice, including neurosurgery, orthopedics, and urology.)

The use of robots in cancer surgery is limited. The FDA approved specific RASDs in some “surgical procedures commonly performed in patients with cancer, such as hysterectomy, prostatectomy, and colectomy.”¹⁵ However, it cautioned that this clearance was based only on a 30-day patient follow up. More specifically, the FDA “has not evaluated the safety or effectiveness of RASD devices for the prevention or treatment of cancer, based on cancer-related outcomes such as overall survival, recurrence, and disease-free survival.”¹⁵

The FDA has clearly warned physicians and patients that the agency has not granted the use of RASDs “for any cancer-related surgery marketing authorization, and therefore the survival benefits to patients compared to traditional surgery have not been established.”¹⁵ (This did not apply to the hysterectomy surgery as noted above. More specifically, that clearance did not apply to anything other than 30-day results, nor to the efficacy related to cancer survival.)

States also have some authority to regulate medical practice within their borders.⁹ When the FDA has approved a device as safe and effective, however, there are limits on what states can do to regulate or impose liability on the approved product. The Supreme Court held that the FDA approval “pre-empted” some state action regarding approved devices.¹⁶

Hospitals, of course, regulate what is allowed within the hospital. For example, it may require training before a physician is permitted to use equipment, limit the conditions for which the equipment may be used, or decline to obtain equipment for use in the hospitals.¹⁷ In the case of RASDs, however, the high cost of equipment may provide an incentive for hospitals to urge the wide use of the latest robotic acquisition.¹⁸

Regulation aims primarily to protect patients, usually from injury or inadequate treatment. Some robotic surgery is likely to be more expensive than the same surgery without robotic assistance. The cost to the patient is not usually part of the FDA’s consideration. Insurance companies (including Medicare and Medicaid), however, do care about costs and will set or negotiate how much the reimbursement will be for a procedure. Third-party payers may decline to cover the additional cost when there is no apparent benefit from using the robot.¹⁹ For some institutions, the public perception that it offers “the most modern technology” is an important public message and a strong incentive to have the equipment.²⁰

There are inconsistent studies about the advantages and disadvantages of RADS in gynecologic procedures, although there are few randomized studies.²¹ The demonstrated advantages are generally identified as somewhat shorter recovery time.²² The ultimate goal will be to minimize risks while maximizing the many potential benefits of robotic surgery.²³

Continue to: Liability...

Liability