Clinical Review

The major classifications of thyroid disease include hyperthyroidism, which is seen in Graves disease, and hypothyroidism due to iodine deficiency and Hashimoto thyroiditis, which have potentially devastating health consequences. The prevalence of hyperthyroidism ranges from 0.2% to 1.3% in iodine-sufficient parts of the world, and the prevalence of hypothyroidism in the general population is 5.3% in Europe and 3.7% in the United States.¹ Thyroid hormones physiologically potentiate α- and β-adrenergic receptors by increasing their sensitivity to catecholamines. Excess thyroid hormones manifest as tachycardia, increased cardiac output, increased body temperature, hyperhidrosis, and warm moist skin. Reduced sensitivity of adrenergic receptors to catecholamines from insufficient thyroid hormones results in a lower metabolic rate and decreases response to the sympathetic nervous system.² Nail changes in thyroid patients have not been well studied.³ Our objectives were to characterize nail findings in patients with thyroid disease. Early diagnosis of thyroid disease and prompt referral for treatment may be instrumental in preventing serious morbidities and permanent sequelae.

Methods

PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched for the terms nail + thyroid, nail + hyperthyroid, nail + hypothyroid, nail + Graves, and nail + Hashimoto on June 10, 2020, and then updated on November 18, 2020. All English-language articles were included. Non–English-language articles and those that did not describe clinical trials of nail changes in patients with thyroid disease were excluded. One study that utilized survey-based data for nail changes without corroboration with physical examination findings was excluded. Hypothyroidism/hyperthyroidism was defined by all authors as measurement of serum thyroid hormones triiodothyronine, thyroxine, and thyroid-stimulating hormone outside of the normal range. Eight studies were included in the final analysis. Patient demographics, thyroid disease type, physical examination findings, nail clinical findings, age at diagnosis, age at onset of nail changes, treatments/medications, and comorbidities were recorded and analyzed.

Results

Nail changes in patients with thyroid disease were reported in 8 studies (7 cross-sectional, 1 retrospective cohort) and are summarized in the Table.^4-11 The mean age was 41.2 years (range, 5–80 years), with a higher representation of females (range, 70%–94% female). The most common nail changes in thyroid patients were koilonychia, clubbing, and nail brittleness. Other changes included onycholysis, thin nails, dryness, and changes in nail growth rate. Frequent physical findings were xerosis, pruritus, and alopecia.

Both koilonychia and clubbing were reported in patients with hyperthyroidism. In a study of 32 patients with koilonychia, 22 (68.8%) were diagnosed with hyperthyroidism.¹⁰ Nail clubbing affected 7.3% of Graves disease patients (n=150)⁶ and 5.0% of hyperthyroid patients (n=120).⁷ Dermopathy presented more than 1 year after diagnosis of Graves disease in 99 (66%) of 150 patients as a late manifestation of thyrotoxicosis.⁶ Additional physical features in patients with Graves disease (n=150) were pretibial myxedema (100%), ophthalmopathy (99.0%), and proptosis (88.0%). Non–Graves hyperthyroid patients showed physical features of soft hair (83.3%) and soft skin (66.0%).⁷

Nail brittleness was a frequently reported nail change in thyroid patients (4/8 studies, 50%), most often seen in 22% of autoimmune patients, 19.6% of nonautoimmune patients, 13.9% of hypothyroid patients, and 9.2% of hyperthyroid patients.^5,8 For comparison, brittle nails presented in 10.8% of participants in a control group.⁵ Brittle nails in thyroid patients often are accompanied by other nail findings such as thinning, onycholysis, and pitting.

Among hypothyroid patients, nail changes included fragility (70%; n=50), slow growth (48%; n=50), thinning (40%; n=50), onycholysis (38%; n=50),⁷ and brittleness (13.9%; n=173).⁵ Less common nail changes in hypothyroid patients were leukonychia (9.4%; n=32), striped nails (6%; n=50), and pitting (1.2%; n=173).^5,7,11 Among hyperthyroid patients, the most common nail changes were koilonychia (100%; n=22), softening (83%; n=120), onycholysis (29%; n=14), and brittleness (9.2%; n=173).^5,7,9,10 Less common nail changes in hyperthyroid patients were clubbing (5%; n=120), thinning (4.6%; n=173), and leukonychia (3%; n=120).^5,7

Additional cutaneous findings of thyroid disorder included xerosis, alopecia, pruritus, and weight change. Xerosis was most common in hypothyroid disease (57.2%; n=460).⁴ In 2 studies,^8,9 alopecia affected approximately 70% of autoimmune, nonautoimmune, and hyperthyroid patients. Hair loss was reported in 42.6% (n=460)⁴ and 33.0% (n=36)⁹ of hypothyroid patients. Additionally, pruritus affected up to 28% (n=32)¹¹ of hypothyroid and 16.0% (n=120)⁷ of hyperthyroid patients and was more common in autoimmune (41%) vs nonautoimmune (32%) thyroid patients.⁸ Weight gain was seen in 72% of hypothyroid patients (n=32),¹¹ and soft hair and skin were reported in 83.3% and 66% of hyperthyroid patients (n=120), respectively.⁷ Flushing was a less common physical finding in thyroid patients (usually affecting <10%); however, it also was reported in 17.1% of autoimmune and 57.1% of hyperthyroid patients from 2 separate studies.^8,9

There are limited data describing nail changes with thyroid disease. Singal and Arora³ reported in their clinical review of nail changes in systemic disease that koilonychia, onycholysis, and melanonychia are associated with thyroid disorders. We similarly found that koilonychia and onycholysis are associated with thyroid disorders without an association with melanonychia.

In his clinical review of thyroid hormone action on the skin, Safer¹² described hypothyroid patients having coarse, dull, thin, and brittle nails, whereas in thyrotoxicosis, patients had shiny, soft, and concave nails with onycholysis; however, the author commented that there were limited data on the clinical findings in thyroid disorders. These nail findings are consistent with our results, but onycholysis was more common in hypothyroid patients than in hyperthyroid patients in our review. Fox¹³ reported on 30 cases of onycholysis, stating that it affected patients with hypothyroidism and improved with thyroid treatment. In a clinical review of 8 commonly seen nail abnormalities, Fowler et al¹⁴ reported that hyperthyroidism was associated with nail findings in 5% of cases and may result in onycholysis of the fourth and fifth nails or all nails. They also reported that onychorrhexis may be seen in patients with hypothyroidism, a finding that differed from our results.¹⁴

The mechanism of nail changes in thyroid disease has not been well studied. A protein/amino acid–deficiency state may contribute to the development of koilonychia. Hyperthyroid patients, who have high metabolic activity, may have hypoalbuminemia, leading to koilonychia.¹⁵ Hypothyroidism causes hypothermia from decreased metabolic rate and secondary compensatory vasoconstriction. Vasoconstriction decreases blood flow of nutrients and oxygen to cutaneous structures and may cause slow-growing, brittle nails. In hyperthyroidism, vasodilation alternatively may contribute to the fast-growing nails. Anti–thyroid-stimulating hormone receptor antibodies in Graves disease may increase the synthesis of hyaluronic acid and glycosaminoglycans from fibroblasts, keratinocytes, adipocytes, or endothelial cells in the dermis and may contribute to development of clubbing.¹⁶

Our review is subject to several limitations. We recorded nail findings as they were described in the original studies; however, we could not confirm the accuracy of these descriptions. In addition, some specific nail changes were not described in sufficient detail. In all but 1 study, dermatologists performed the physical examination. In the study by Al-Dabbagh and Al-Abachi,¹⁰ the physical examinations were performed by general medicine physicians, but they selected only for patients with koilonychia and did not assess for other skin findings. Fragile nails and brittle nails were described in hypothyroid and hyperthyroid patients, but these nail changes were not described in detail. There also were studies describing nail changes in thyroid patients; some studies had small numbers of patients, and many did not have a control group.

Conclusion

Nail changes may be early clinical presenting signs of thyroid disorders and may be the clue to prompt diagnosis of thyroid disease. Dermatologists should be mindful that fragile, slow-growing, thin nails and onycholysis are associated with hypothyroidism and that koilonychia, softening, onycholysis, and brittle nail changes may be seen in hyperthyroidism. Our review aimed to describe nail changes associated with thyroid disease to guide dermatologists on diagnosis and promote future research on dermatologic manifestations of thyroid disease. Future research is necessary to explore the association between koilonychia and hyperthyroidism as well as the association of nail changes with thyroid disease duration and severity.

The major classifications of thyroid disease include hyperthyroidism, which is seen in Graves disease, and hypothyroidism due to iodine deficiency and Hashimoto thyroiditis, which have potentially devastating health consequences. The prevalence of hyperthyroidism ranges from 0.2% to 1.3% in iodine-sufficient parts of the world, and the prevalence of hypothyroidism in the general population is 5.3% in Europe and 3.7% in the United States.¹ Thyroid hormones physiologically potentiate α- and β-adrenergic receptors by increasing their sensitivity to catecholamines. Excess thyroid hormones manifest as tachycardia, increased cardiac output, increased body temperature, hyperhidrosis, and warm moist skin. Reduced sensitivity of adrenergic receptors to catecholamines from insufficient thyroid hormones results in a lower metabolic rate and decreases response to the sympathetic nervous system.² Nail changes in thyroid patients have not been well studied.³ Our objectives were to characterize nail findings in patients with thyroid disease. Early diagnosis of thyroid disease and prompt referral for treatment may be instrumental in preventing serious morbidities and permanent sequelae.

Methods

PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched for the terms nail + thyroid, nail + hyperthyroid, nail + hypothyroid, nail + Graves, and nail + Hashimoto on June 10, 2020, and then updated on November 18, 2020. All English-language articles were included. Non–English-language articles and those that did not describe clinical trials of nail changes in patients with thyroid disease were excluded. One study that utilized survey-based data for nail changes without corroboration with physical examination findings was excluded. Hypothyroidism/hyperthyroidism was defined by all authors as measurement of serum thyroid hormones triiodothyronine, thyroxine, and thyroid-stimulating hormone outside of the normal range. Eight studies were included in the final analysis. Patient demographics, thyroid disease type, physical examination findings, nail clinical findings, age at diagnosis, age at onset of nail changes, treatments/medications, and comorbidities were recorded and analyzed.

Results

Nail changes in patients with thyroid disease were reported in 8 studies (7 cross-sectional, 1 retrospective cohort) and are summarized in the Table.^4-11 The mean age was 41.2 years (range, 5–80 years), with a higher representation of females (range, 70%–94% female). The most common nail changes in thyroid patients were koilonychia, clubbing, and nail brittleness. Other changes included onycholysis, thin nails, dryness, and changes in nail growth rate. Frequent physical findings were xerosis, pruritus, and alopecia.

Both koilonychia and clubbing were reported in patients with hyperthyroidism. In a study of 32 patients with koilonychia, 22 (68.8%) were diagnosed with hyperthyroidism.¹⁰ Nail clubbing affected 7.3% of Graves disease patients (n=150)⁶ and 5.0% of hyperthyroid patients (n=120).⁷ Dermopathy presented more than 1 year after diagnosis of Graves disease in 99 (66%) of 150 patients as a late manifestation of thyrotoxicosis.⁶ Additional physical features in patients with Graves disease (n=150) were pretibial myxedema (100%), ophthalmopathy (99.0%), and proptosis (88.0%). Non–Graves hyperthyroid patients showed physical features of soft hair (83.3%) and soft skin (66.0%).⁷

Nail brittleness was a frequently reported nail change in thyroid patients (4/8 studies, 50%), most often seen in 22% of autoimmune patients, 19.6% of nonautoimmune patients, 13.9% of hypothyroid patients, and 9.2% of hyperthyroid patients.^5,8 For comparison, brittle nails presented in 10.8% of participants in a control group.⁵ Brittle nails in thyroid patients often are accompanied by other nail findings such as thinning, onycholysis, and pitting.

Among hypothyroid patients, nail changes included fragility (70%; n=50), slow growth (48%; n=50), thinning (40%; n=50), onycholysis (38%; n=50),⁷ and brittleness (13.9%; n=173).⁵ Less common nail changes in hypothyroid patients were leukonychia (9.4%; n=32), striped nails (6%; n=50), and pitting (1.2%; n=173).^5,7,11 Among hyperthyroid patients, the most common nail changes were koilonychia (100%; n=22), softening (83%; n=120), onycholysis (29%; n=14), and brittleness (9.2%; n=173).^5,7,9,10 Less common nail changes in hyperthyroid patients were clubbing (5%; n=120), thinning (4.6%; n=173), and leukonychia (3%; n=120).^5,7

Additional cutaneous findings of thyroid disorder included xerosis, alopecia, pruritus, and weight change. Xerosis was most common in hypothyroid disease (57.2%; n=460).⁴ In 2 studies,^8,9 alopecia affected approximately 70% of autoimmune, nonautoimmune, and hyperthyroid patients. Hair loss was reported in 42.6% (n=460)⁴ and 33.0% (n=36)⁹ of hypothyroid patients. Additionally, pruritus affected up to 28% (n=32)¹¹ of hypothyroid and 16.0% (n=120)⁷ of hyperthyroid patients and was more common in autoimmune (41%) vs nonautoimmune (32%) thyroid patients.⁸ Weight gain was seen in 72% of hypothyroid patients (n=32),¹¹ and soft hair and skin were reported in 83.3% and 66% of hyperthyroid patients (n=120), respectively.⁷ Flushing was a less common physical finding in thyroid patients (usually affecting <10%); however, it also was reported in 17.1% of autoimmune and 57.1% of hyperthyroid patients from 2 separate studies.^8,9

There are limited data describing nail changes with thyroid disease. Singal and Arora³ reported in their clinical review of nail changes in systemic disease that koilonychia, onycholysis, and melanonychia are associated with thyroid disorders. We similarly found that koilonychia and onycholysis are associated with thyroid disorders without an association with melanonychia.

In his clinical review of thyroid hormone action on the skin, Safer¹² described hypothyroid patients having coarse, dull, thin, and brittle nails, whereas in thyrotoxicosis, patients had shiny, soft, and concave nails with onycholysis; however, the author commented that there were limited data on the clinical findings in thyroid disorders. These nail findings are consistent with our results, but onycholysis was more common in hypothyroid patients than in hyperthyroid patients in our review. Fox¹³ reported on 30 cases of onycholysis, stating that it affected patients with hypothyroidism and improved with thyroid treatment. In a clinical review of 8 commonly seen nail abnormalities, Fowler et al¹⁴ reported that hyperthyroidism was associated with nail findings in 5% of cases and may result in onycholysis of the fourth and fifth nails or all nails. They also reported that onychorrhexis may be seen in patients with hypothyroidism, a finding that differed from our results.¹⁴

The mechanism of nail changes in thyroid disease has not been well studied. A protein/amino acid–deficiency state may contribute to the development of koilonychia. Hyperthyroid patients, who have high metabolic activity, may have hypoalbuminemia, leading to koilonychia.¹⁵ Hypothyroidism causes hypothermia from decreased metabolic rate and secondary compensatory vasoconstriction. Vasoconstriction decreases blood flow of nutrients and oxygen to cutaneous structures and may cause slow-growing, brittle nails. In hyperthyroidism, vasodilation alternatively may contribute to the fast-growing nails. Anti–thyroid-stimulating hormone receptor antibodies in Graves disease may increase the synthesis of hyaluronic acid and glycosaminoglycans from fibroblasts, keratinocytes, adipocytes, or endothelial cells in the dermis and may contribute to development of clubbing.¹⁶

Our review is subject to several limitations. We recorded nail findings as they were described in the original studies; however, we could not confirm the accuracy of these descriptions. In addition, some specific nail changes were not described in sufficient detail. In all but 1 study, dermatologists performed the physical examination. In the study by Al-Dabbagh and Al-Abachi,¹⁰ the physical examinations were performed by general medicine physicians, but they selected only for patients with koilonychia and did not assess for other skin findings. Fragile nails and brittle nails were described in hypothyroid and hyperthyroid patients, but these nail changes were not described in detail. There also were studies describing nail changes in thyroid patients; some studies had small numbers of patients, and many did not have a control group.

Conclusion

Nail changes may be early clinical presenting signs of thyroid disorders and may be the clue to prompt diagnosis of thyroid disease. Dermatologists should be mindful that fragile, slow-growing, thin nails and onycholysis are associated with hypothyroidism and that koilonychia, softening, onycholysis, and brittle nail changes may be seen in hyperthyroidism. Our review aimed to describe nail changes associated with thyroid disease to guide dermatologists on diagnosis and promote future research on dermatologic manifestations of thyroid disease. Future research is necessary to explore the association between koilonychia and hyperthyroidism as well as the association of nail changes with thyroid disease duration and severity.

The major classifications of thyroid disease include hyperthyroidism, which is seen in Graves disease, and hypothyroidism due to iodine deficiency and Hashimoto thyroiditis, which have potentially devastating health consequences. The prevalence of hyperthyroidism ranges from 0.2% to 1.3% in iodine-sufficient parts of the world, and the prevalence of hypothyroidism in the general population is 5.3% in Europe and 3.7% in the United States.¹ Thyroid hormones physiologically potentiate α- and β-adrenergic receptors by increasing their sensitivity to catecholamines. Excess thyroid hormones manifest as tachycardia, increased cardiac output, increased body temperature, hyperhidrosis, and warm moist skin. Reduced sensitivity of adrenergic receptors to catecholamines from insufficient thyroid hormones results in a lower metabolic rate and decreases response to the sympathetic nervous system.² Nail changes in thyroid patients have not been well studied.³ Our objectives were to characterize nail findings in patients with thyroid disease. Early diagnosis of thyroid disease and prompt referral for treatment may be instrumental in preventing serious morbidities and permanent sequelae.

Methods

PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched for the terms nail + thyroid, nail + hyperthyroid, nail + hypothyroid, nail + Graves, and nail + Hashimoto on June 10, 2020, and then updated on November 18, 2020. All English-language articles were included. Non–English-language articles and those that did not describe clinical trials of nail changes in patients with thyroid disease were excluded. One study that utilized survey-based data for nail changes without corroboration with physical examination findings was excluded. Hypothyroidism/hyperthyroidism was defined by all authors as measurement of serum thyroid hormones triiodothyronine, thyroxine, and thyroid-stimulating hormone outside of the normal range. Eight studies were included in the final analysis. Patient demographics, thyroid disease type, physical examination findings, nail clinical findings, age at diagnosis, age at onset of nail changes, treatments/medications, and comorbidities were recorded and analyzed.

Results

Nail changes in patients with thyroid disease were reported in 8 studies (7 cross-sectional, 1 retrospective cohort) and are summarized in the Table.^4-11 The mean age was 41.2 years (range, 5–80 years), with a higher representation of females (range, 70%–94% female). The most common nail changes in thyroid patients were koilonychia, clubbing, and nail brittleness. Other changes included onycholysis, thin nails, dryness, and changes in nail growth rate. Frequent physical findings were xerosis, pruritus, and alopecia.

Both koilonychia and clubbing were reported in patients with hyperthyroidism. In a study of 32 patients with koilonychia, 22 (68.8%) were diagnosed with hyperthyroidism.¹⁰ Nail clubbing affected 7.3% of Graves disease patients (n=150)⁶ and 5.0% of hyperthyroid patients (n=120).⁷ Dermopathy presented more than 1 year after diagnosis of Graves disease in 99 (66%) of 150 patients as a late manifestation of thyrotoxicosis.⁶ Additional physical features in patients with Graves disease (n=150) were pretibial myxedema (100%), ophthalmopathy (99.0%), and proptosis (88.0%). Non–Graves hyperthyroid patients showed physical features of soft hair (83.3%) and soft skin (66.0%).⁷

Nail brittleness was a frequently reported nail change in thyroid patients (4/8 studies, 50%), most often seen in 22% of autoimmune patients, 19.6% of nonautoimmune patients, 13.9% of hypothyroid patients, and 9.2% of hyperthyroid patients.^5,8 For comparison, brittle nails presented in 10.8% of participants in a control group.⁵ Brittle nails in thyroid patients often are accompanied by other nail findings such as thinning, onycholysis, and pitting.

Among hypothyroid patients, nail changes included fragility (70%; n=50), slow growth (48%; n=50), thinning (40%; n=50), onycholysis (38%; n=50),⁷ and brittleness (13.9%; n=173).⁵ Less common nail changes in hypothyroid patients were leukonychia (9.4%; n=32), striped nails (6%; n=50), and pitting (1.2%; n=173).^5,7,11 Among hyperthyroid patients, the most common nail changes were koilonychia (100%; n=22), softening (83%; n=120), onycholysis (29%; n=14), and brittleness (9.2%; n=173).^5,7,9,10 Less common nail changes in hyperthyroid patients were clubbing (5%; n=120), thinning (4.6%; n=173), and leukonychia (3%; n=120).^5,7

Additional cutaneous findings of thyroid disorder included xerosis, alopecia, pruritus, and weight change. Xerosis was most common in hypothyroid disease (57.2%; n=460).⁴ In 2 studies,^8,9 alopecia affected approximately 70% of autoimmune, nonautoimmune, and hyperthyroid patients. Hair loss was reported in 42.6% (n=460)⁴ and 33.0% (n=36)⁹ of hypothyroid patients. Additionally, pruritus affected up to 28% (n=32)¹¹ of hypothyroid and 16.0% (n=120)⁷ of hyperthyroid patients and was more common in autoimmune (41%) vs nonautoimmune (32%) thyroid patients.⁸ Weight gain was seen in 72% of hypothyroid patients (n=32),¹¹ and soft hair and skin were reported in 83.3% and 66% of hyperthyroid patients (n=120), respectively.⁷ Flushing was a less common physical finding in thyroid patients (usually affecting <10%); however, it also was reported in 17.1% of autoimmune and 57.1% of hyperthyroid patients from 2 separate studies.^8,9

There are limited data describing nail changes with thyroid disease. Singal and Arora³ reported in their clinical review of nail changes in systemic disease that koilonychia, onycholysis, and melanonychia are associated with thyroid disorders. We similarly found that koilonychia and onycholysis are associated with thyroid disorders without an association with melanonychia.

In his clinical review of thyroid hormone action on the skin, Safer¹² described hypothyroid patients having coarse, dull, thin, and brittle nails, whereas in thyrotoxicosis, patients had shiny, soft, and concave nails with onycholysis; however, the author commented that there were limited data on the clinical findings in thyroid disorders. These nail findings are consistent with our results, but onycholysis was more common in hypothyroid patients than in hyperthyroid patients in our review. Fox¹³ reported on 30 cases of onycholysis, stating that it affected patients with hypothyroidism and improved with thyroid treatment. In a clinical review of 8 commonly seen nail abnormalities, Fowler et al¹⁴ reported that hyperthyroidism was associated with nail findings in 5% of cases and may result in onycholysis of the fourth and fifth nails or all nails. They also reported that onychorrhexis may be seen in patients with hypothyroidism, a finding that differed from our results.¹⁴

The mechanism of nail changes in thyroid disease has not been well studied. A protein/amino acid–deficiency state may contribute to the development of koilonychia. Hyperthyroid patients, who have high metabolic activity, may have hypoalbuminemia, leading to koilonychia.¹⁵ Hypothyroidism causes hypothermia from decreased metabolic rate and secondary compensatory vasoconstriction. Vasoconstriction decreases blood flow of nutrients and oxygen to cutaneous structures and may cause slow-growing, brittle nails. In hyperthyroidism, vasodilation alternatively may contribute to the fast-growing nails. Anti–thyroid-stimulating hormone receptor antibodies in Graves disease may increase the synthesis of hyaluronic acid and glycosaminoglycans from fibroblasts, keratinocytes, adipocytes, or endothelial cells in the dermis and may contribute to development of clubbing.¹⁶

Our review is subject to several limitations. We recorded nail findings as they were described in the original studies; however, we could not confirm the accuracy of these descriptions. In addition, some specific nail changes were not described in sufficient detail. In all but 1 study, dermatologists performed the physical examination. In the study by Al-Dabbagh and Al-Abachi,¹⁰ the physical examinations were performed by general medicine physicians, but they selected only for patients with koilonychia and did not assess for other skin findings. Fragile nails and brittle nails were described in hypothyroid and hyperthyroid patients, but these nail changes were not described in detail. There also were studies describing nail changes in thyroid patients; some studies had small numbers of patients, and many did not have a control group.

Conclusion

Nail changes may be early clinical presenting signs of thyroid disorders and may be the clue to prompt diagnosis of thyroid disease. Dermatologists should be mindful that fragile, slow-growing, thin nails and onycholysis are associated with hypothyroidism and that koilonychia, softening, onycholysis, and brittle nail changes may be seen in hyperthyroidism. Our review aimed to describe nail changes associated with thyroid disease to guide dermatologists on diagnosis and promote future research on dermatologic manifestations of thyroid disease. Future research is necessary to explore the association between koilonychia and hyperthyroidism as well as the association of nail changes with thyroid disease duration and severity.

ABSTRACT

Background: Medical assistant (MA) roles have expanded rapidly as primary care has evolved and MAs take on new patient care duties. Research that looks at the MA experience and factors that enhance or reduce efficiency among MAs is limited.

Methods: We surveyed all MAs working in 6 clinics run by a large academic family medicine department in Ann Arbor, Michigan. MAs deemed by peers as “most efficient” were selected for follow-up interviews. We evaluated personal strategies for efficiency, barriers to efficient care, impact of physician actions on efficiency, and satisfaction.

Results: A total of 75/86 MAs (87%) responded to at least some survey questions and 61/86 (71%) completed the full survey. We interviewed 18 MAs face to face. Most saw their role as essential to clinic functioning and viewed health care as a personal calling. MAs identified common strategies to improve efficiency and described the MA role to orchestrate the flow of the clinic day. Staff recognized differing priorities of patients, staff, and physicians and articulated frustrations with hierarchy and competing priorities as well as behaviors that impeded clinic efficiency. Respondents emphasized the importance of feeling valued by others on their team.

Conclusions: With the evolving demands made on MAs’ time, it is critical to understand how the most effective staff members manage their role and highlight the strategies they employ to provide efficient clinical care. Understanding factors that increase or decrease MA job satisfaction can help identify high-efficiency practices and promote a clinic culture that values and supports all staff.

As primary care continues to evolve into more team-based practice, the role of the medical assistant (MA) has rapidly transformed.¹ Staff may assist with patient management, documentation in the electronic medical record, order entry, pre-visit planning, and fulfillment of quality metrics, particularly in a Primary Care Medical Home (PCMH).² From 2012 through 2014, MA job postings per graduate increased from 1.3 to 2.3, suggesting twice as many job postings as graduates.³ As the demand for experienced MAs increases, the ability to recruit and retain high-performing staff members will be critical.

MAs are referenced in medical literature as early as the 1800s.⁴ The American Association of Medical Assistants was founded in 1956, which led to educational standardization and certifications.⁵ Despite the important role that MAs have long played in the proper functioning of a medical clinic—and the knowledge that team configurations impact a clinic’s efficiency and quality^6,7—few investigations have sought out the MA’s perspective.^8,9 Given the increasing clinical demands placed on all members of the primary care team (and the burnout that often results), it seems that MA insights into clinic efficiency could be valuable.

Continue to: Methods...

METHODS

This cross-sectional study was conducted from February to April 2019 at a large academic institution with 6 regional ambulatory care family medicine clinics, each one with 11,000 to 18,000 patient visits annually. Faculty work at all 6 clinics and residents at 2 of them. All MAs are hired, paid, and managed by a central administrative department rather than by the family medicine department. The family medicine clinics are currently PCMH certified, with a mix of fee-for-service and capitated reimbursement.

We developed and piloted a voluntary, anonymous 39-question (29 closed-ended and 10 brief open-ended) online Qualtrics survey, which we distributed via an email link to all the MAs in the department. The survey included clinic site, years as an MA, perceptions of the clinic environment, perception of teamwork at their site, identification of efficient practices, and feedback for physicians to improve efficiency and flow. Most questions were Likert-style with 5 choices ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree” or short answer. Age and gender were omitted to protect confidentiality, as most MAs in the department are female. Participants could opt to enter in a drawing for three $25 gift cards. The survey was reviewed by the University of Michigan Institutional Review Board and deemed exempt.
 

Seventy-five percent of MAs reported preclinic huddles to plan for patient care were helpful, but only half said huddles took place “always” or “most of the time.”

We asked MAs to nominate peers in their clinic who were “especially efficient and do their jobs well—people that others can learn from.” The staff members who were nominated most frequently by their peers were invited to share additional perspectives via a 10- to 30-minute semi-structured interview with the first author. Interviews covered highly efficient practices, barriers and facilitators to efficient care, and physician behaviors that impaired efficiency. We interviewed a minimum of 2 MAs per clinic and increased the number of interviews through snowball sampling, as needed, to reach data saturation (eg, the point at which we were no longer hearing new content). MAs were assured that all comments would be anonymized. There was no monetary incentive for the interviews. The interviewer had previously met only 3 of the 18 MAs interviewed.

Analysis. Summary statistics were calculated for quantitative data. To compare subgroups (such as individual clinics), a chi-square test was used. In cases when there were small cell sizes (< 5 subjects), we used the Fisher’s Exact test. Qualitative data was collected with real-time typewritten notes during the interviews to capture ideas and verbatim quotes when possible. We also included open-ended comments shared on the Qualtrics survey. Data were organized by theme using a deductive coding approach. Both authors reviewed and discussed observations, and coding was conducted by the first author. Reporting followed the STROBE Statement checklist for cross-sectional studies.¹⁰ Results were shared with MAs, supervisory staff, and physicians, which allowed for feedback and comments and served as “member-checking.” MAs reported that the data reflected their lived experiences.

Continue to: RESULTS...

RESULTS

Surveys were distributed to all 86 MAs working in family medicine clinics. A total of 75 (87%) responded to at least some questions (typically just demographics). We used those who completed the full survey (n = 61; 71%) for data analysis. Eighteen MAs participated in face-to-face interviews. Among respondents, 35 (47%) had worked at least 10 years as an MA and 21 (28%) had worked at least a decade in the family medicine department.

Perception of role

All respondents (n = 61; 100%) somewhat or strongly agreed that the MA role was “very important to keep the clinic functioning” and 58 (95%) reported that working in health care was “a calling” for them. Only 7 (11%) agreed that family medicine was an easier environment for MAs compared to a specialty clinic; 30 (49%) disagreed with this. Among respondents, 32 (53%) strongly or somewhat agreed that their work was very stressful and just half (n = 28; 46%) agreed there were adequate MA staff at their clinic.

Efficiency and competing priorities

MAs described important work values that increased their efficiency. These included clinic culture (good communication and strong teamwork), as well as individual strategies such as multitasking, limiting patient conversations, and doing tasks in a consistent way to improve accuracy. (See TABLE 1.) They identified ways physicians bolster or hurt efficiency and ways in which the relationship between the physician and the MA shapes the MA’s perception of their value in clinic.

When asked about “pet peeves,” a few MAs advised that physicians should not “talk down” to staff and should try to teach rather than criticize.

Communication was emphasized as critical for efficient care, and MAs encouraged the use of preclinic huddles and communication as priorities. Seventy-five percent of MAs reported preclinic huddles to plan for patient care were helpful, but only half said huddles took place “always” or “most of the time.” Many described reviewing the schedule and completing tasks ahead of patient arrival as critical to efficiency.

Participants described the tension between their identified role of orchestrating clinic flow and responding to directives by others that disrupted the flow. Several MAs found it challenging when physicians agreed to see very late patients and felt frustrated when decisions that changed the flow were made by the physician or front desk staff without including the MA. MAs were also able to articulate how they managed competing priorities within the clinic, such as when a patient- or physician-driven need to extend appointments was at odds with maintaining a timely schedule. They were eager to share personal tips for time management and prided themselves on careful and accurate performance and skills they had learned on the job. MAs also described how efficiency could be adversely affected by the behaviors or attitudes of physicians. (See TABLE 2.)

Continue to: Clinic environment...

Clinic environment

Thirty-six MAs (59%) reported that other MAs on their team were willing to help them out in clinic “a great deal” or “a lot” of the time, by helping to room a patient, acting as a chaperone for an exam, or doing a point-of-care lab. This sense of support varied across clinics (38% to 91% reported good support), suggesting that cultures vary by site. Some MAs expressed frustration at peers they saw as resistant to helping, exemplified by this verbatim quote from an interview:

“Some don’t want to help out. They may sigh. It’s how they react—you just know.” (Clinic #1, MA #2 interview)

Efficient MAs stressed the need for situational awareness to recognize when co-workers need help:

“[Peers often] are not aware that another MA is drowning. There’s 5 people who could have done that, and here I am running around and nobody budged.” (Clinic #5, MA #2 interview)

A minority of staff used the open-ended survey sections to describe clinic hierarchy. When asked about “pet peeves,” a few advised that physicians should not “talk down” to staff and should try to teach rather than criticize. Another asked that physicians not “bark orders” or have “low gratitude” for staff work. MAs found micromanaging stressful—particularly when the physician prompted the MA about patient arrivals:

“[I don’t like] when providers will make a comment about a patient arriving when you already know this information. You then rush to put [the] patient in [a] room, then [the] provider ends up making [the] patient wait an extensive amount of time. I’m perfectly capable of knowing when a patient arrives.” (Clinic #6, survey)
 

MAs did not like physicians “talking bad about us” or blaming the MA if the clinic is running behind.
 

Despite these concerns, most MAs reported feeling appreciated for the job they do. Only 10 (16%) reported that the people they work with rarely say “thank you,” and 2 (3%) stated they were not well supported by the physicians in clinic. Most (n = 38; 62%) strongly agreed or agreed that they felt part of the team and that their opinions matter. In the interviews, many expanded on this idea:

“I really feel like I’m valued, so I want to do everything I can to make [my doctor’s] day go better. If you want a good clinic, the best thing a doc can do is make the MA feel valued.” (Clinic #1, MA #1 interview)

Continue to: DISCUSSION...

DISCUSSION

Participants described their role much as an orchestra director, with MAs as the key to clinic flow and timeliness.⁹ Respondents articulated multiple common strategies used to increase their own efficiency and clinic flow; these may be considered best practices and incorporated as part of the basic training. Most MAs reported their day-to-day jobs were stressful and believed this was underrecognized, so efficiency strategies are critical. With staff completing multiple time-sensitive tasks during clinic, consistent co-worker support is crucial and may impact efficiency.⁸ Proper training of managers to provide that support and ensure equitable workloads may be one strategy to ensure that staff members feel the workplace is fair and collegial.

Several comments reflected the power differential within medical offices. One study reported that MAs and physicians “occupy roles at opposite ends of social and occupational hierarchies.”¹¹ It’s important for physicians to be cognizant of these patterns and clinic culture, as reducing a hierarchy-based environment will be appreciated by MAs.⁹ Prior research has found that MAs have higher perceptions of their own competence than do the physicians working with them.¹² If there is a fundamental lack of trust between the 2 groups, this will undoubtedly hinder team-building. Attention to this issue is key to a more favorable work environment.

Almost all respondents reported health care was a “calling,” which mirrors physician research that suggests seeing work as a “calling” is protective against burnout.^13,14 Open-ended comments indicated great pride in contributions, and most staff members felt appreciated by their teams. Many described the working relationships with physicians as critical to their satisfaction at work and indicated that strong partnerships motivated them to do their best to make the physician’s day easier. Staff job satisfaction is linked to improved quality of care, so treating staff well contributes to high-value care for patients.¹⁵ We also uncovered some MA “pet peeves” that hinder efficiency and could be shared with physicians to emphasize the importance of patience and civility.

One barrier to expansion of MA roles within PCMH practices is the limited pay and career ladder for MAs who adopt new job responsibilities that require advanced skills or training.^1,2 The mean MA salary at our institution ($37,372) is higher than in our state overall ($33,760), which may impact satisfaction.¹⁶ In addition, 93% of MAs are women; thus, they may continue to struggle more with lower pay than do workers in male- dominated professions.^17,18 Expected job growth from 2018-2028 is predicted at 23%, which may help to boost salaries. ¹⁹  Prior studies describe the lack of a job ladder or promotion opportunities as a challenge^1,20; this was not formally assessed in our study.


Prior research has found that MAs have higher perceptions of their own competence than do the physicians working with them.

MAs see work in family medicine as much harder than it is in other   specialty clinics. Being trusted with more responsibility, greater autonomy,^21-23 and expanded patient care roles can boost MA self-efficacy, which can reduce burnout for both physicians and MAs. ^8,24  However, new responsibilities should include appropriate training, support, and compensation, and match staff interests.⁷

Study limitations. The study was limited to 6 clinics in 1 department at a large academic medical center. Interviewed participants were selected by convenience and snowball sampling and thus, the results cannot be generalized to the population of MAs as a whole. As the initial interview goal was simply to gather efficiency tips, the project was not designed to be formal qualitative research. However, the discussions built on open-ended comments from the written survey helped contextualize our quantitative findings about efficiency. Notes were documented in real time by a single interviewer with rapid typing skills, which allowed capture of quotes verbatim. Subsequent studies would benefit from more formal qualitative research methods (recording and transcribing interviews, multiple coders to reduce risk of bias, and more complex thematic analysis).

Our research demonstrated how MAs perceive their roles in primary care and the facilitators and barriers to high efficiency in the workplace, which begins to fill an important knowledge gap in primary care. Disseminating practices that staff members themselves have identified as effective, and being attentive to how staff members are treated, may increase individual efficiency while improving staff retention and satisfaction.

CORRESPONDENCE Katherine J. Gold, MD, MSW, MS, Department of Family Medicine and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Michigan, 1018 Fuller Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48104-1213; [email protected]

ABSTRACT

Background: Medical assistant (MA) roles have expanded rapidly as primary care has evolved and MAs take on new patient care duties. Research that looks at the MA experience and factors that enhance or reduce efficiency among MAs is limited.

Methods: We surveyed all MAs working in 6 clinics run by a large academic family medicine department in Ann Arbor, Michigan. MAs deemed by peers as “most efficient” were selected for follow-up interviews. We evaluated personal strategies for efficiency, barriers to efficient care, impact of physician actions on efficiency, and satisfaction.

Results: A total of 75/86 MAs (87%) responded to at least some survey questions and 61/86 (71%) completed the full survey. We interviewed 18 MAs face to face. Most saw their role as essential to clinic functioning and viewed health care as a personal calling. MAs identified common strategies to improve efficiency and described the MA role to orchestrate the flow of the clinic day. Staff recognized differing priorities of patients, staff, and physicians and articulated frustrations with hierarchy and competing priorities as well as behaviors that impeded clinic efficiency. Respondents emphasized the importance of feeling valued by others on their team.

Conclusions: With the evolving demands made on MAs’ time, it is critical to understand how the most effective staff members manage their role and highlight the strategies they employ to provide efficient clinical care. Understanding factors that increase or decrease MA job satisfaction can help identify high-efficiency practices and promote a clinic culture that values and supports all staff.

As primary care continues to evolve into more team-based practice, the role of the medical assistant (MA) has rapidly transformed.¹ Staff may assist with patient management, documentation in the electronic medical record, order entry, pre-visit planning, and fulfillment of quality metrics, particularly in a Primary Care Medical Home (PCMH).² From 2012 through 2014, MA job postings per graduate increased from 1.3 to 2.3, suggesting twice as many job postings as graduates.³ As the demand for experienced MAs increases, the ability to recruit and retain high-performing staff members will be critical.

MAs are referenced in medical literature as early as the 1800s.⁴ The American Association of Medical Assistants was founded in 1956, which led to educational standardization and certifications.⁵ Despite the important role that MAs have long played in the proper functioning of a medical clinic—and the knowledge that team configurations impact a clinic’s efficiency and quality^6,7—few investigations have sought out the MA’s perspective.^8,9 Given the increasing clinical demands placed on all members of the primary care team (and the burnout that often results), it seems that MA insights into clinic efficiency could be valuable.

Continue to: Methods...

METHODS

This cross-sectional study was conducted from February to April 2019 at a large academic institution with 6 regional ambulatory care family medicine clinics, each one with 11,000 to 18,000 patient visits annually. Faculty work at all 6 clinics and residents at 2 of them. All MAs are hired, paid, and managed by a central administrative department rather than by the family medicine department. The family medicine clinics are currently PCMH certified, with a mix of fee-for-service and capitated reimbursement.

We developed and piloted a voluntary, anonymous 39-question (29 closed-ended and 10 brief open-ended) online Qualtrics survey, which we distributed via an email link to all the MAs in the department. The survey included clinic site, years as an MA, perceptions of the clinic environment, perception of teamwork at their site, identification of efficient practices, and feedback for physicians to improve efficiency and flow. Most questions were Likert-style with 5 choices ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree” or short answer. Age and gender were omitted to protect confidentiality, as most MAs in the department are female. Participants could opt to enter in a drawing for three $25 gift cards. The survey was reviewed by the University of Michigan Institutional Review Board and deemed exempt.
 

Seventy-five percent of MAs reported preclinic huddles to plan for patient care were helpful, but only half said huddles took place “always” or “most of the time.”

We asked MAs to nominate peers in their clinic who were “especially efficient and do their jobs well—people that others can learn from.” The staff members who were nominated most frequently by their peers were invited to share additional perspectives via a 10- to 30-minute semi-structured interview with the first author. Interviews covered highly efficient practices, barriers and facilitators to efficient care, and physician behaviors that impaired efficiency. We interviewed a minimum of 2 MAs per clinic and increased the number of interviews through snowball sampling, as needed, to reach data saturation (eg, the point at which we were no longer hearing new content). MAs were assured that all comments would be anonymized. There was no monetary incentive for the interviews. The interviewer had previously met only 3 of the 18 MAs interviewed.

Analysis. Summary statistics were calculated for quantitative data. To compare subgroups (such as individual clinics), a chi-square test was used. In cases when there were small cell sizes (< 5 subjects), we used the Fisher’s Exact test. Qualitative data was collected with real-time typewritten notes during the interviews to capture ideas and verbatim quotes when possible. We also included open-ended comments shared on the Qualtrics survey. Data were organized by theme using a deductive coding approach. Both authors reviewed and discussed observations, and coding was conducted by the first author. Reporting followed the STROBE Statement checklist for cross-sectional studies.¹⁰ Results were shared with MAs, supervisory staff, and physicians, which allowed for feedback and comments and served as “member-checking.” MAs reported that the data reflected their lived experiences.

Continue to: RESULTS...

RESULTS

Surveys were distributed to all 86 MAs working in family medicine clinics. A total of 75 (87%) responded to at least some questions (typically just demographics). We used those who completed the full survey (n = 61; 71%) for data analysis. Eighteen MAs participated in face-to-face interviews. Among respondents, 35 (47%) had worked at least 10 years as an MA and 21 (28%) had worked at least a decade in the family medicine department.

Perception of role

All respondents (n = 61; 100%) somewhat or strongly agreed that the MA role was “very important to keep the clinic functioning” and 58 (95%) reported that working in health care was “a calling” for them. Only 7 (11%) agreed that family medicine was an easier environment for MAs compared to a specialty clinic; 30 (49%) disagreed with this. Among respondents, 32 (53%) strongly or somewhat agreed that their work was very stressful and just half (n = 28; 46%) agreed there were adequate MA staff at their clinic.

Efficiency and competing priorities

MAs described important work values that increased their efficiency. These included clinic culture (good communication and strong teamwork), as well as individual strategies such as multitasking, limiting patient conversations, and doing tasks in a consistent way to improve accuracy. (See TABLE 1.) They identified ways physicians bolster or hurt efficiency and ways in which the relationship between the physician and the MA shapes the MA’s perception of their value in clinic.

When asked about “pet peeves,” a few MAs advised that physicians should not “talk down” to staff and should try to teach rather than criticize.

Communication was emphasized as critical for efficient care, and MAs encouraged the use of preclinic huddles and communication as priorities. Seventy-five percent of MAs reported preclinic huddles to plan for patient care were helpful, but only half said huddles took place “always” or “most of the time.” Many described reviewing the schedule and completing tasks ahead of patient arrival as critical to efficiency.

Participants described the tension between their identified role of orchestrating clinic flow and responding to directives by others that disrupted the flow. Several MAs found it challenging when physicians agreed to see very late patients and felt frustrated when decisions that changed the flow were made by the physician or front desk staff without including the MA. MAs were also able to articulate how they managed competing priorities within the clinic, such as when a patient- or physician-driven need to extend appointments was at odds with maintaining a timely schedule. They were eager to share personal tips for time management and prided themselves on careful and accurate performance and skills they had learned on the job. MAs also described how efficiency could be adversely affected by the behaviors or attitudes of physicians. (See TABLE 2.)

Continue to: Clinic environment...

Clinic environment

Thirty-six MAs (59%) reported that other MAs on their team were willing to help them out in clinic “a great deal” or “a lot” of the time, by helping to room a patient, acting as a chaperone for an exam, or doing a point-of-care lab. This sense of support varied across clinics (38% to 91% reported good support), suggesting that cultures vary by site. Some MAs expressed frustration at peers they saw as resistant to helping, exemplified by this verbatim quote from an interview:

“Some don’t want to help out. They may sigh. It’s how they react—you just know.” (Clinic #1, MA #2 interview)

Efficient MAs stressed the need for situational awareness to recognize when co-workers need help:

“[Peers often] are not aware that another MA is drowning. There’s 5 people who could have done that, and here I am running around and nobody budged.” (Clinic #5, MA #2 interview)

A minority of staff used the open-ended survey sections to describe clinic hierarchy. When asked about “pet peeves,” a few advised that physicians should not “talk down” to staff and should try to teach rather than criticize. Another asked that physicians not “bark orders” or have “low gratitude” for staff work. MAs found micromanaging stressful—particularly when the physician prompted the MA about patient arrivals:

“[I don’t like] when providers will make a comment about a patient arriving when you already know this information. You then rush to put [the] patient in [a] room, then [the] provider ends up making [the] patient wait an extensive amount of time. I’m perfectly capable of knowing when a patient arrives.” (Clinic #6, survey)
 

MAs did not like physicians “talking bad about us” or blaming the MA if the clinic is running behind.
 

Despite these concerns, most MAs reported feeling appreciated for the job they do. Only 10 (16%) reported that the people they work with rarely say “thank you,” and 2 (3%) stated they were not well supported by the physicians in clinic. Most (n = 38; 62%) strongly agreed or agreed that they felt part of the team and that their opinions matter. In the interviews, many expanded on this idea:

“I really feel like I’m valued, so I want to do everything I can to make [my doctor’s] day go better. If you want a good clinic, the best thing a doc can do is make the MA feel valued.” (Clinic #1, MA #1 interview)

Continue to: DISCUSSION...

DISCUSSION

Participants described their role much as an orchestra director, with MAs as the key to clinic flow and timeliness.⁹ Respondents articulated multiple common strategies used to increase their own efficiency and clinic flow; these may be considered best practices and incorporated as part of the basic training. Most MAs reported their day-to-day jobs were stressful and believed this was underrecognized, so efficiency strategies are critical. With staff completing multiple time-sensitive tasks during clinic, consistent co-worker support is crucial and may impact efficiency.⁸ Proper training of managers to provide that support and ensure equitable workloads may be one strategy to ensure that staff members feel the workplace is fair and collegial.

Several comments reflected the power differential within medical offices. One study reported that MAs and physicians “occupy roles at opposite ends of social and occupational hierarchies.”¹¹ It’s important for physicians to be cognizant of these patterns and clinic culture, as reducing a hierarchy-based environment will be appreciated by MAs.⁹ Prior research has found that MAs have higher perceptions of their own competence than do the physicians working with them.¹² If there is a fundamental lack of trust between the 2 groups, this will undoubtedly hinder team-building. Attention to this issue is key to a more favorable work environment.

Almost all respondents reported health care was a “calling,” which mirrors physician research that suggests seeing work as a “calling” is protective against burnout.^13,14 Open-ended comments indicated great pride in contributions, and most staff members felt appreciated by their teams. Many described the working relationships with physicians as critical to their satisfaction at work and indicated that strong partnerships motivated them to do their best to make the physician’s day easier. Staff job satisfaction is linked to improved quality of care, so treating staff well contributes to high-value care for patients.¹⁵ We also uncovered some MA “pet peeves” that hinder efficiency and could be shared with physicians to emphasize the importance of patience and civility.

One barrier to expansion of MA roles within PCMH practices is the limited pay and career ladder for MAs who adopt new job responsibilities that require advanced skills or training.^1,2 The mean MA salary at our institution ($37,372) is higher than in our state overall ($33,760), which may impact satisfaction.¹⁶ In addition, 93% of MAs are women; thus, they may continue to struggle more with lower pay than do workers in male- dominated professions.^17,18 Expected job growth from 2018-2028 is predicted at 23%, which may help to boost salaries. ¹⁹  Prior studies describe the lack of a job ladder or promotion opportunities as a challenge^1,20; this was not formally assessed in our study.


Prior research has found that MAs have higher perceptions of their own competence than do the physicians working with them.

MAs see work in family medicine as much harder than it is in other   specialty clinics. Being trusted with more responsibility, greater autonomy,^21-23 and expanded patient care roles can boost MA self-efficacy, which can reduce burnout for both physicians and MAs. ^8,24  However, new responsibilities should include appropriate training, support, and compensation, and match staff interests.⁷

Study limitations. The study was limited to 6 clinics in 1 department at a large academic medical center. Interviewed participants were selected by convenience and snowball sampling and thus, the results cannot be generalized to the population of MAs as a whole. As the initial interview goal was simply to gather efficiency tips, the project was not designed to be formal qualitative research. However, the discussions built on open-ended comments from the written survey helped contextualize our quantitative findings about efficiency. Notes were documented in real time by a single interviewer with rapid typing skills, which allowed capture of quotes verbatim. Subsequent studies would benefit from more formal qualitative research methods (recording and transcribing interviews, multiple coders to reduce risk of bias, and more complex thematic analysis).

Our research demonstrated how MAs perceive their roles in primary care and the facilitators and barriers to high efficiency in the workplace, which begins to fill an important knowledge gap in primary care. Disseminating practices that staff members themselves have identified as effective, and being attentive to how staff members are treated, may increase individual efficiency while improving staff retention and satisfaction.

CORRESPONDENCE Katherine J. Gold, MD, MSW, MS, Department of Family Medicine and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Michigan, 1018 Fuller Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48104-1213; [email protected]

ABSTRACT

Background: Medical assistant (MA) roles have expanded rapidly as primary care has evolved and MAs take on new patient care duties. Research that looks at the MA experience and factors that enhance or reduce efficiency among MAs is limited.

Methods: We surveyed all MAs working in 6 clinics run by a large academic family medicine department in Ann Arbor, Michigan. MAs deemed by peers as “most efficient” were selected for follow-up interviews. We evaluated personal strategies for efficiency, barriers to efficient care, impact of physician actions on efficiency, and satisfaction.

Results: A total of 75/86 MAs (87%) responded to at least some survey questions and 61/86 (71%) completed the full survey. We interviewed 18 MAs face to face. Most saw their role as essential to clinic functioning and viewed health care as a personal calling. MAs identified common strategies to improve efficiency and described the MA role to orchestrate the flow of the clinic day. Staff recognized differing priorities of patients, staff, and physicians and articulated frustrations with hierarchy and competing priorities as well as behaviors that impeded clinic efficiency. Respondents emphasized the importance of feeling valued by others on their team.

Conclusions: With the evolving demands made on MAs’ time, it is critical to understand how the most effective staff members manage their role and highlight the strategies they employ to provide efficient clinical care. Understanding factors that increase or decrease MA job satisfaction can help identify high-efficiency practices and promote a clinic culture that values and supports all staff.

As primary care continues to evolve into more team-based practice, the role of the medical assistant (MA) has rapidly transformed.¹ Staff may assist with patient management, documentation in the electronic medical record, order entry, pre-visit planning, and fulfillment of quality metrics, particularly in a Primary Care Medical Home (PCMH).² From 2012 through 2014, MA job postings per graduate increased from 1.3 to 2.3, suggesting twice as many job postings as graduates.³ As the demand for experienced MAs increases, the ability to recruit and retain high-performing staff members will be critical.

MAs are referenced in medical literature as early as the 1800s.⁴ The American Association of Medical Assistants was founded in 1956, which led to educational standardization and certifications.⁵ Despite the important role that MAs have long played in the proper functioning of a medical clinic—and the knowledge that team configurations impact a clinic’s efficiency and quality^6,7—few investigations have sought out the MA’s perspective.^8,9 Given the increasing clinical demands placed on all members of the primary care team (and the burnout that often results), it seems that MA insights into clinic efficiency could be valuable.

Continue to: Methods...

METHODS

This cross-sectional study was conducted from February to April 2019 at a large academic institution with 6 regional ambulatory care family medicine clinics, each one with 11,000 to 18,000 patient visits annually. Faculty work at all 6 clinics and residents at 2 of them. All MAs are hired, paid, and managed by a central administrative department rather than by the family medicine department. The family medicine clinics are currently PCMH certified, with a mix of fee-for-service and capitated reimbursement.

We developed and piloted a voluntary, anonymous 39-question (29 closed-ended and 10 brief open-ended) online Qualtrics survey, which we distributed via an email link to all the MAs in the department. The survey included clinic site, years as an MA, perceptions of the clinic environment, perception of teamwork at their site, identification of efficient practices, and feedback for physicians to improve efficiency and flow. Most questions were Likert-style with 5 choices ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree” or short answer. Age and gender were omitted to protect confidentiality, as most MAs in the department are female. Participants could opt to enter in a drawing for three $25 gift cards. The survey was reviewed by the University of Michigan Institutional Review Board and deemed exempt.
 

Seventy-five percent of MAs reported preclinic huddles to plan for patient care were helpful, but only half said huddles took place “always” or “most of the time.”

We asked MAs to nominate peers in their clinic who were “especially efficient and do their jobs well—people that others can learn from.” The staff members who were nominated most frequently by their peers were invited to share additional perspectives via a 10- to 30-minute semi-structured interview with the first author. Interviews covered highly efficient practices, barriers and facilitators to efficient care, and physician behaviors that impaired efficiency. We interviewed a minimum of 2 MAs per clinic and increased the number of interviews through snowball sampling, as needed, to reach data saturation (eg, the point at which we were no longer hearing new content). MAs were assured that all comments would be anonymized. There was no monetary incentive for the interviews. The interviewer had previously met only 3 of the 18 MAs interviewed.

Analysis. Summary statistics were calculated for quantitative data. To compare subgroups (such as individual clinics), a chi-square test was used. In cases when there were small cell sizes (< 5 subjects), we used the Fisher’s Exact test. Qualitative data was collected with real-time typewritten notes during the interviews to capture ideas and verbatim quotes when possible. We also included open-ended comments shared on the Qualtrics survey. Data were organized by theme using a deductive coding approach. Both authors reviewed and discussed observations, and coding was conducted by the first author. Reporting followed the STROBE Statement checklist for cross-sectional studies.¹⁰ Results were shared with MAs, supervisory staff, and physicians, which allowed for feedback and comments and served as “member-checking.” MAs reported that the data reflected their lived experiences.

Continue to: RESULTS...

RESULTS

Surveys were distributed to all 86 MAs working in family medicine clinics. A total of 75 (87%) responded to at least some questions (typically just demographics). We used those who completed the full survey (n = 61; 71%) for data analysis. Eighteen MAs participated in face-to-face interviews. Among respondents, 35 (47%) had worked at least 10 years as an MA and 21 (28%) had worked at least a decade in the family medicine department.

Perception of role

All respondents (n = 61; 100%) somewhat or strongly agreed that the MA role was “very important to keep the clinic functioning” and 58 (95%) reported that working in health care was “a calling” for them. Only 7 (11%) agreed that family medicine was an easier environment for MAs compared to a specialty clinic; 30 (49%) disagreed with this. Among respondents, 32 (53%) strongly or somewhat agreed that their work was very stressful and just half (n = 28; 46%) agreed there were adequate MA staff at their clinic.

Efficiency and competing priorities

MAs described important work values that increased their efficiency. These included clinic culture (good communication and strong teamwork), as well as individual strategies such as multitasking, limiting patient conversations, and doing tasks in a consistent way to improve accuracy. (See TABLE 1.) They identified ways physicians bolster or hurt efficiency and ways in which the relationship between the physician and the MA shapes the MA’s perception of their value in clinic.

When asked about “pet peeves,” a few MAs advised that physicians should not “talk down” to staff and should try to teach rather than criticize.

Communication was emphasized as critical for efficient care, and MAs encouraged the use of preclinic huddles and communication as priorities. Seventy-five percent of MAs reported preclinic huddles to plan for patient care were helpful, but only half said huddles took place “always” or “most of the time.” Many described reviewing the schedule and completing tasks ahead of patient arrival as critical to efficiency.

Participants described the tension between their identified role of orchestrating clinic flow and responding to directives by others that disrupted the flow. Several MAs found it challenging when physicians agreed to see very late patients and felt frustrated when decisions that changed the flow were made by the physician or front desk staff without including the MA. MAs were also able to articulate how they managed competing priorities within the clinic, such as when a patient- or physician-driven need to extend appointments was at odds with maintaining a timely schedule. They were eager to share personal tips for time management and prided themselves on careful and accurate performance and skills they had learned on the job. MAs also described how efficiency could be adversely affected by the behaviors or attitudes of physicians. (See TABLE 2.)

Continue to: Clinic environment...

Clinic environment

Thirty-six MAs (59%) reported that other MAs on their team were willing to help them out in clinic “a great deal” or “a lot” of the time, by helping to room a patient, acting as a chaperone for an exam, or doing a point-of-care lab. This sense of support varied across clinics (38% to 91% reported good support), suggesting that cultures vary by site. Some MAs expressed frustration at peers they saw as resistant to helping, exemplified by this verbatim quote from an interview:

“Some don’t want to help out. They may sigh. It’s how they react—you just know.” (Clinic #1, MA #2 interview)

Efficient MAs stressed the need for situational awareness to recognize when co-workers need help:

“[Peers often] are not aware that another MA is drowning. There’s 5 people who could have done that, and here I am running around and nobody budged.” (Clinic #5, MA #2 interview)

A minority of staff used the open-ended survey sections to describe clinic hierarchy. When asked about “pet peeves,” a few advised that physicians should not “talk down” to staff and should try to teach rather than criticize. Another asked that physicians not “bark orders” or have “low gratitude” for staff work. MAs found micromanaging stressful—particularly when the physician prompted the MA about patient arrivals:

“[I don’t like] when providers will make a comment about a patient arriving when you already know this information. You then rush to put [the] patient in [a] room, then [the] provider ends up making [the] patient wait an extensive amount of time. I’m perfectly capable of knowing when a patient arrives.” (Clinic #6, survey)
 

MAs did not like physicians “talking bad about us” or blaming the MA if the clinic is running behind.
 

Despite these concerns, most MAs reported feeling appreciated for the job they do. Only 10 (16%) reported that the people they work with rarely say “thank you,” and 2 (3%) stated they were not well supported by the physicians in clinic. Most (n = 38; 62%) strongly agreed or agreed that they felt part of the team and that their opinions matter. In the interviews, many expanded on this idea:

“I really feel like I’m valued, so I want to do everything I can to make [my doctor’s] day go better. If you want a good clinic, the best thing a doc can do is make the MA feel valued.” (Clinic #1, MA #1 interview)

Continue to: DISCUSSION...

DISCUSSION

Participants described their role much as an orchestra director, with MAs as the key to clinic flow and timeliness.⁹ Respondents articulated multiple common strategies used to increase their own efficiency and clinic flow; these may be considered best practices and incorporated as part of the basic training. Most MAs reported their day-to-day jobs were stressful and believed this was underrecognized, so efficiency strategies are critical. With staff completing multiple time-sensitive tasks during clinic, consistent co-worker support is crucial and may impact efficiency.⁸ Proper training of managers to provide that support and ensure equitable workloads may be one strategy to ensure that staff members feel the workplace is fair and collegial.

Several comments reflected the power differential within medical offices. One study reported that MAs and physicians “occupy roles at opposite ends of social and occupational hierarchies.”¹¹ It’s important for physicians to be cognizant of these patterns and clinic culture, as reducing a hierarchy-based environment will be appreciated by MAs.⁹ Prior research has found that MAs have higher perceptions of their own competence than do the physicians working with them.¹² If there is a fundamental lack of trust between the 2 groups, this will undoubtedly hinder team-building. Attention to this issue is key to a more favorable work environment.

Almost all respondents reported health care was a “calling,” which mirrors physician research that suggests seeing work as a “calling” is protective against burnout.^13,14 Open-ended comments indicated great pride in contributions, and most staff members felt appreciated by their teams. Many described the working relationships with physicians as critical to their satisfaction at work and indicated that strong partnerships motivated them to do their best to make the physician’s day easier. Staff job satisfaction is linked to improved quality of care, so treating staff well contributes to high-value care for patients.¹⁵ We also uncovered some MA “pet peeves” that hinder efficiency and could be shared with physicians to emphasize the importance of patience and civility.

One barrier to expansion of MA roles within PCMH practices is the limited pay and career ladder for MAs who adopt new job responsibilities that require advanced skills or training.^1,2 The mean MA salary at our institution ($37,372) is higher than in our state overall ($33,760), which may impact satisfaction.¹⁶ In addition, 93% of MAs are women; thus, they may continue to struggle more with lower pay than do workers in male- dominated professions.^17,18 Expected job growth from 2018-2028 is predicted at 23%, which may help to boost salaries. ¹⁹  Prior studies describe the lack of a job ladder or promotion opportunities as a challenge^1,20; this was not formally assessed in our study.


Prior research has found that MAs have higher perceptions of their own competence than do the physicians working with them.

MAs see work in family medicine as much harder than it is in other   specialty clinics. Being trusted with more responsibility, greater autonomy,^21-23 and expanded patient care roles can boost MA self-efficacy, which can reduce burnout for both physicians and MAs. ^8,24  However, new responsibilities should include appropriate training, support, and compensation, and match staff interests.⁷

Study limitations. The study was limited to 6 clinics in 1 department at a large academic medical center. Interviewed participants were selected by convenience and snowball sampling and thus, the results cannot be generalized to the population of MAs as a whole. As the initial interview goal was simply to gather efficiency tips, the project was not designed to be formal qualitative research. However, the discussions built on open-ended comments from the written survey helped contextualize our quantitative findings about efficiency. Notes were documented in real time by a single interviewer with rapid typing skills, which allowed capture of quotes verbatim. Subsequent studies would benefit from more formal qualitative research methods (recording and transcribing interviews, multiple coders to reduce risk of bias, and more complex thematic analysis).

Our research demonstrated how MAs perceive their roles in primary care and the facilitators and barriers to high efficiency in the workplace, which begins to fill an important knowledge gap in primary care. Disseminating practices that staff members themselves have identified as effective, and being attentive to how staff members are treated, may increase individual efficiency while improving staff retention and satisfaction.

CORRESPONDENCE Katherine J. Gold, MD, MSW, MS, Department of Family Medicine and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Michigan, 1018 Fuller Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48104-1213; [email protected]

This year’s Menopause Update focuses on 2 menopause-related issues relevant to ObGyns and our menopausal patients:

• choosing the safest regimens, particularly with respect to risk of breast cancer, when prescribing hormone therapy (HT) to menopausal women
• reviewing the risks and benefits of premenopausal bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy and the pros and cons of replacement HT in surgically menopausal patients.

We hope that you find this updated information useful as you care for menopausal women.

Revisiting menopausal HT  and the risk of breast cancer:  What we know now

Abenhaim HA, Suissa S,  Azoulay L, et al. Menopausal hormone therapy formulation and breast cancer risk. Obstet Gynecol. 2022;139:1103-1110. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000004723.

Reevaluation of the Women’s Health Initiative randomized controlled trials (WHI RCTs), long-term (median follow-up more than 20 years) cumulative  follow-up data, and results from additional studies have suggested that estrogen therapy (ET) alone in menopausal women with prior hysterectomy does not increase the risk of breast cancer. By contrast, estrogen with progestin (synthetic progestogens that include medroxyprogesterone acetate [MPA] and norethindrone acetate) slightly increases the risk of breast cancer. In the past 10 years, several publications have shed light on whether the type of progestogen affects the risk of breast cancer and can help provide evidence-based information to guide clinicians.

Breast cancer risk with combined HT and synthetic progestin

In the first part of the WHI RCT, women were randomly assigned to receive either conjugated equine estrogen (CEE) plus synthetic progestin (MPA) or a placebo. Combined estrogen-progestin therapy (EPT) was associated with a modestly elevated risk of breast cancer.¹ In the second part of the WHI trial, CEE only (estrogen alone, ET) was compared with placebo among women with prior  hysterectomy, with no effect found on breast cancer incidence.²

Most older observational studies published in 2003 to 2005 found that neither CEE nor estradiol appeared to increase the risk of breast cancer when used alone.^3-5 However, estrogen use in combination with synthetic progestins (MPA, norethindrone, levonorgestrel, and norgestrel) has been associated with an increased risk of breast cancer,^4,6 while the elevated risk of breast cancer with micronized progesterone has been less substantial.^7,8

Continue to: Newer data suggest the type of progestogen used affects risk...

In a report published in the June 2022 issue of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Abenhaim and colleagues used a nested population-based case-control study of administrative data available in the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink and provider prescriptions to evaluate the additive effect on the risk of breast cancer of the type of progestogen (micronized progesterone or synthetic progestins) when combined with estradiol for the treatment of menopausal symptoms.⁹ A cohort of 561,379 women was included in the case-control study (10:1 ratio), 43,183 in the case group (patients diagnosed with invasive breast cancer), and 431,830 in the matched control group.

Overall, in the stratified analysis, a small but significant increase in the risk of breast cancer was found in ever users of menopausal HT (odds ratio [OR], 1.12; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09–1.15). Neither estradiol (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.00–1.09) nor CEE (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.96–1.06) was associated with an elevated risk of being diagnosed with invasive breast cancer. Of note, no elevated risk of breast cancer was associated with combination estrogen-progesterone therapy. However, the risk of breast cancer for women who had used synthetic progestins, mostly MPA, was significantly elevated (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.22-1.35). Notably, this modestly elevated odds ratio with the use of estrogen-progestin HT is almost identical to that observed with CEE/ MPA in the WHI.¹ Similar findings were found in women aged 50 to 60 years.

The adjusted analyses from the large WHI RCTs provide additional support: the synthetic progestin MPA combined with CEE showed a higher risk of breast cancer than CEE alone in women with prior hysterectomy.¹⁰

In the long-term follow-up of the WHI RCTs, after a median of 20.3 years postrandomization, prior randomization to CEE alone for postmenopausal women with prior hysterectomy was associated with a significantly lowered risk of breast cancer incidence and mortality.¹¹ By contrast, prior randomization to CEE plus MPA (EPT) for women with an intact uterus was associated with a small but significantly increased incidence of breast cancer but no significant difference in breast cancer mortality.

In the French E3N EPIC population-based prospective cohort study, Fournier and colleagues^4,5 found that women who received estrogen combined with synthetic progestins (mostly MPA) had a higher risk of breast cancer, with an age-adjusted relative risk of 1.4 (95% CI, 1.2–1.7), a finding not seen in women who received estrogen combined with micronized progesterone, similar to findings by Cordina-Duverger and colleagues and Simin and colleagues.^12,13 In the E3N study, only 948 women were identified with breast cancer; 268 of these had used synthetic progestins.^4,5

Both the Abenhaim cohort⁹ and the longterm outcomes of WHI RCT trial data¹¹ found a significant contributing effect of MPA (synthetic progestin) in the risk of breast cancer. Progestogens are not thought to exert a class effect. Although it is clear that progestogens (progesterone or progestins) prevent estrogeninduced endometrial neoplasia when dosed adequately, different types of progestogens have a differential risk of breast epithelium proliferation and carcinogenic potential.¹⁴ A systematic review by Stute and colleagues found that micronized progesterone did not appear to alter mammographic breast density assessments or breast biopsy results.¹⁵

Race considerations

The study by Abenhaim and colleagues was unable to address the issues of race or ethnicity.⁹ However, in the racially diverse WHI trial of women with prior hysterectomy, estrogen-alone use significantly reduced breast cancer incidence in all participants.^10,16 Post hoc analysis of the 1,616 Black women with prior hysterectomy in the WHI RCT showed a significantly decreased breast cancer incidence with use of estrogen alone (hazard ratio [HR], 0.47; 95% CI, 0.26–0.82).¹ When race was evaluated in the long-term cumulative follow-up of the WHI trial, estrogen-alone use significantly reduced breast cancer incidence in Black women, with no adverse effect on coronary heart disease, global index, or all-cause mortality, and with fewer cases of venous thromboembolism.¹⁷ The global index findings were favorable for Black women in their 50s and those with vasomotor symptoms.

Continue to: Impact of HT in women with an elevated risk of breast cancer...

Impact of HT in women with an elevated risk of breast cancer

Abenhaim and colleagues could not evaluate the effect of HT in women with a baseline elevated risk of breast cancer.⁹ For these women, HT may be recommended after premature surgical menopause due to increased risks for coronary heart disease, osteoporosis, genitourinary syndrome of menopause, and cognitive changes when estrogen is not taken postsurgery through to at least the average age of menopause, considered age 51.^18,19

Marchetti and colleagues reviewed 3 clinical trials that assessed breast cancer events in 1,100 BRCA gene mutation carriers with intact breasts who underwent risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) who used or did not use HT.²⁰ For BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers who received HT after RRSO, no elevated risk of breast cancer risk was seen (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.63–1.52). There was a nonsignificant reduction in breast cancer risk for the estrogen-alone users compared with EPT HT (OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.25–1.15). Thus, short-term use of HT, estrogen alone or EPT, does not appear to elevate the risk of breast cancer after RRSO in these high-risk women.

Individualizing HT  for menopausal symptoms

The data presented provide reassuring evidence that longer-term use of ET does not appear to increase breast cancer risk, regardless of the type of estrogen (CEE or estradiol).^4,5,9,11 For women with a uterus, micronized progesterone has less (if any) effect on breast cancer risk. By contrast, the use of synthetic progestins (such as MPA), when combined with estrogen, has been associated with a small but real increased breast cancer risk.

The most evident benefit of HT is in treating vasomotor symptoms and preventing bone loss for those at elevated risk in healthy women without contraindications who initiate systemic HT when younger than age 60 or within 10 years of menopause onset. Benefit and risk ratio depends on age and time from menopause onset when HT is initiated. Hormone therapy safety varies depending on type, dose, duration, route of administration, timing of initiation, and whether, and type, of progestogen is used. Transdermal estradiol, particularly when dosed at 0.05 mg or less, has been shown to have less thrombotic and stroke risk than oral estrogen.²¹

Individualizing treatment includes using the best available evidence to maximize benefits and minimize risks, with periodic reevaluation of benefits and risks of continuing or discontinuing HT or changing to lower doses. ObGyns who follow best practices in prescribing systemic HT can now help menopausal patients with bothersome symptoms take advantage of systemic HT’s benefits while providing reassurance regarding menopausal HT’s safety.¹⁸ Transdermal therapy is a safer option for women at elevated baseline risk of venous thrombosis (for example, obese women) and older patients. Likewise, given its safety with respect to risk of breast cancer, the use of micronized progesterone over synthetic progestins should be considered when prescribing EPT to women with an intact uterus.

Continue to: Benefits of avoiding BSO in women at average risk of ovarian cancer...

Benefits of avoiding BSO in women at average risk of ovarian cancer

Erickson Z, Rocca WA, Smith CY, et al. Time trends in unilateral and bilateral oophorectomy in a geographically defined American population. Obstet Gynecol. 2022;139:724-734. doi: 10.1097/ AOG.0000000000004728.

In 2005, gynecologist William Parker, MD, and colleagues used modeling methodology to assess the long-term risks and benefits of performing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO) at the time of hysterectomy for benign disease in women at average risk for ovarian cancer.²³ They concluded that practicing ovarian conservation until age 65 increased women’s long-term survival. Among their findings were that women with BSO before age 55 had an 8.6% excess overall mortality by age 80, while those with oophorectomy before age 59 had 3.9% excess mortality. They noted a sustained, but decreasing, mortality benefit until the age of 75 and stated that at no age did their model suggest higher mortality in women who chose ovarian conservation. Parker and colleagues concluded that ovarian conservation until at least age 65 benefited long-term survival for women at average risk for ovarian cancer when undergoing hysterectomy for benign disease.²³

Certain risks decreased, others increased

A second report in 2009 by Parker and colleagues from the large prospective Nurses’ Health Study found that, while BSO at the time of hysterectomy for benign disease was associated with a decreased risk of breast and ovarian cancer, BSO was associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality, fatal and nonfatal coronary heart disease, and lung cancer.²⁴ Similar to the findings of the 2005 report, the authors noted that in no analysis or age group was BSO associated with increased survival. They also noted that compared with those who underwent BSO before age 50 and used ET, women with no history of ET use had an approximately 2-fold elevated risk of new onset coronary heart disease (HR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.18–3.32).²⁴

In 2007, Walter Rocca, MD, a Mayo Clinic neurologist with a particular interest in the epidemiology of dementia, and colleagues at the Mayo Clinic published results of a study that assessed a cohort of women who had undergone unilateral oophorectomy or BSO prior to the onset of menopause.²⁵ The risk of cognitive impairment or dementia was higher in these women compared with women who had intact ovaries (HR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.13-1.90). Of note, this elevated risk was confined to those who underwent oophorectomy before 49 years of age and were not prescribed estrogen until age 50 or older.²⁵

In a subsequent publication, Rocca and colleagues pointed out that BSO prior to menopause not only is associated with higher rates of all-cause mortality and cognitive impairment but also with coronary heart disease, parkinsonism, osteoporosis, and other chronic conditions associated with aging, including metabolic, mental health, and arthritic disorders.²⁶

Oophorectomy trends tracked

Given these and other reports²⁷ that highlighted the health risks of premenopausal BSO in women at average risk for ovarian cancer, Rocca and colleagues recently assessed trends in the occurrence of unilateral oophorectomy or BSO versus ovarian conservation among all women residing in the Minnesota county (Olmsted) in which Mayo Clinic is located, and who underwent gynecologic surgery between 1950 and 2018.²⁸

The investigators limited their analysis to women who had undergone unilateral oophorectomy or BSO between ages 18 and 49 years (these women are assumed to have been premenopausal). The authors considered as indications for oophorectomy primary or metastatic ovarian cancer, risk-reducing BSO for women at elevated risk for ovarian cancer (for example, strong family history or known BRCA gene mutation), adnexal mass, endometriosis, torsion, and other benign gynecologic conditions that included pelvic pain, abscess, oophoritis, or ectopic pregnancy. When more than 1 indication for ovarian surgery was present, the authors used the most clinically important indication. Unilateral oophorectomy or BSO was considered not indicated if the surgery was performed during another primary procedure (usually hysterectomy) without indication, or if the surgeon referred to the ovarian surgery as elective.

Results. Among 5,154 women who had oophorectomies between 1950 and 2018, the proportion of these women who underwent unilateral oophorectomy and BSO was 40.6% and 59.4%, respectively.

For most years between 1950 and 1979, the incidence of unilateral oophorectomy was higher than BSO. However, from 1980 to 2004, the incidence of BSO increased more than 2-fold while the incidence of unilateral surgery declined. After 2005, however, both types of ovarian surgery declined. During the years 2005–2018, a marked decline in BSO occurred, with the reduced incidence in premenopausal BSO most notable among women undergoing hysterectomy or those without an indication for oophorectomy.

Historically, ObGyns were taught that the benefits of removing normal ovaries (to prevent ovarian cancer) in average-risk women at the time of hysterectomy outweighed the risks. We agree with the authors’ speculation that beginning with Parker’s 2005 publication,²³ ObGyns have become more conservative in performing unindicated BSO in women at average risk for ovarian cancer, now recognizing that the harms of this procedure often outweigh any benefits.²⁸

Women with BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutations are at elevated risk for ovarian, tubal, and breast malignancies. In this population, risk-reducing BSO dramatically lowers future risk of ovarian and tubal cancer.

Data addressing the effect of RRSO in BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutation carriers continue to be evaluated, with differences between the 2 mutations, but they suggest that the surgery reduces not only ovarian cancer and tubal cancer but also possibly breast cancer.²⁹

Continue to: Trends show decline in ET use in surgically menopausal women... 

Trends show decline in ET use in surgically menopausal women 

Suzuki Y, Huang Y, Melamed A, et al. Use of estrogen therapy after surgical menopause in women who are premenopausal. Obstet Gynecol. 2022;139:756-763. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000004762.

In addition to highlighting the risks associated with premenopausal BSO in women at average risk for ovarian cancer, the reports referred to above also underscore that the use of replacement menopausal HT in premenopausal women who undergo BSO prevents morbidity and mortality that otherwise accompanies surgical menopause. In addition, the North American Menopause Society (NAMS) recommends replacement menopausal HT in the setting of induced early menopause when no contraindications are present.¹⁸

To assess the prevalence of HT use in surgically menopausal women, investigators at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons used a national database that captures health insurance claims for some 280 million US patients, focusing on women aged 18 to 50 years who underwent BSO from 2008 to 2019.³⁰ The great majority of women in this database have private insurance. Although the authors used the term estrogen therapy in their article, this term refers to systemic estrogen alone or with progestogen, as well as vaginal ET (personal communication with Jason Wright, MD, a coauthor of the study, May 19, 2022). In this Update section, we use the term HT to include use of any systemic HT or vaginal estrogen.

Prevalence of HT use changed over time period and patient age range

Among almost 61,980 evaluable women who had undergone BSO (median age, 45 years; 75.1% with concomitant hysterectomy; median follow-up time, 27 months), with no history of gynecologic or breast cancer, HT was used within 3 years of BSO by 64.5%. The highest percentage of women in this cohort who used HT peaked in 2008 (69.5%), declining to 58.2% by 2016. The median duration of HT use was 5.3 months. The prevalence of HT use 3 years after BSO declined with age, from 79.1% in women aged 18–29 to 60.0% in women aged 45–50.³⁰

This report, published in the June 2022 issue of Obstetrics and Gynecology, makes several sobering observations: Many surgically menopausal women aged 50 years and younger are not prescribed HT, the proportion of such women receiving a prescription for HT is declining over time, and the duration of HT use following BSO is short. ●

This year’s Menopause Update focuses on 2 menopause-related issues relevant to ObGyns and our menopausal patients:

• choosing the safest regimens, particularly with respect to risk of breast cancer, when prescribing hormone therapy (HT) to menopausal women
• reviewing the risks and benefits of premenopausal bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy and the pros and cons of replacement HT in surgically menopausal patients.

We hope that you find this updated information useful as you care for menopausal women.

Revisiting menopausal HT  and the risk of breast cancer:  What we know now

Abenhaim HA, Suissa S,  Azoulay L, et al. Menopausal hormone therapy formulation and breast cancer risk. Obstet Gynecol. 2022;139:1103-1110. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000004723.

Reevaluation of the Women’s Health Initiative randomized controlled trials (WHI RCTs), long-term (median follow-up more than 20 years) cumulative  follow-up data, and results from additional studies have suggested that estrogen therapy (ET) alone in menopausal women with prior hysterectomy does not increase the risk of breast cancer. By contrast, estrogen with progestin (synthetic progestogens that include medroxyprogesterone acetate [MPA] and norethindrone acetate) slightly increases the risk of breast cancer. In the past 10 years, several publications have shed light on whether the type of progestogen affects the risk of breast cancer and can help provide evidence-based information to guide clinicians.

Breast cancer risk with combined HT and synthetic progestin

In the first part of the WHI RCT, women were randomly assigned to receive either conjugated equine estrogen (CEE) plus synthetic progestin (MPA) or a placebo. Combined estrogen-progestin therapy (EPT) was associated with a modestly elevated risk of breast cancer.¹ In the second part of the WHI trial, CEE only (estrogen alone, ET) was compared with placebo among women with prior  hysterectomy, with no effect found on breast cancer incidence.²

Most older observational studies published in 2003 to 2005 found that neither CEE nor estradiol appeared to increase the risk of breast cancer when used alone.^3-5 However, estrogen use in combination with synthetic progestins (MPA, norethindrone, levonorgestrel, and norgestrel) has been associated with an increased risk of breast cancer,^4,6 while the elevated risk of breast cancer with micronized progesterone has been less substantial.^7,8

Continue to: Newer data suggest the type of progestogen used affects risk...

In a report published in the June 2022 issue of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Abenhaim and colleagues used a nested population-based case-control study of administrative data available in the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink and provider prescriptions to evaluate the additive effect on the risk of breast cancer of the type of progestogen (micronized progesterone or synthetic progestins) when combined with estradiol for the treatment of menopausal symptoms.⁹ A cohort of 561,379 women was included in the case-control study (10:1 ratio), 43,183 in the case group (patients diagnosed with invasive breast cancer), and 431,830 in the matched control group.

Overall, in the stratified analysis, a small but significant increase in the risk of breast cancer was found in ever users of menopausal HT (odds ratio [OR], 1.12; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09–1.15). Neither estradiol (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.00–1.09) nor CEE (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.96–1.06) was associated with an elevated risk of being diagnosed with invasive breast cancer. Of note, no elevated risk of breast cancer was associated with combination estrogen-progesterone therapy. However, the risk of breast cancer for women who had used synthetic progestins, mostly MPA, was significantly elevated (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.22-1.35). Notably, this modestly elevated odds ratio with the use of estrogen-progestin HT is almost identical to that observed with CEE/ MPA in the WHI.¹ Similar findings were found in women aged 50 to 60 years.

The adjusted analyses from the large WHI RCTs provide additional support: the synthetic progestin MPA combined with CEE showed a higher risk of breast cancer than CEE alone in women with prior hysterectomy.¹⁰

In the long-term follow-up of the WHI RCTs, after a median of 20.3 years postrandomization, prior randomization to CEE alone for postmenopausal women with prior hysterectomy was associated with a significantly lowered risk of breast cancer incidence and mortality.¹¹ By contrast, prior randomization to CEE plus MPA (EPT) for women with an intact uterus was associated with a small but significantly increased incidence of breast cancer but no significant difference in breast cancer mortality.

In the French E3N EPIC population-based prospective cohort study, Fournier and colleagues^4,5 found that women who received estrogen combined with synthetic progestins (mostly MPA) had a higher risk of breast cancer, with an age-adjusted relative risk of 1.4 (95% CI, 1.2–1.7), a finding not seen in women who received estrogen combined with micronized progesterone, similar to findings by Cordina-Duverger and colleagues and Simin and colleagues.^12,13 In the E3N study, only 948 women were identified with breast cancer; 268 of these had used synthetic progestins.^4,5

Both the Abenhaim cohort⁹ and the longterm outcomes of WHI RCT trial data¹¹ found a significant contributing effect of MPA (synthetic progestin) in the risk of breast cancer. Progestogens are not thought to exert a class effect. Although it is clear that progestogens (progesterone or progestins) prevent estrogeninduced endometrial neoplasia when dosed adequately, different types of progestogens have a differential risk of breast epithelium proliferation and carcinogenic potential.¹⁴ A systematic review by Stute and colleagues found that micronized progesterone did not appear to alter mammographic breast density assessments or breast biopsy results.¹⁵

Race considerations

The study by Abenhaim and colleagues was unable to address the issues of race or ethnicity.⁹ However, in the racially diverse WHI trial of women with prior hysterectomy, estrogen-alone use significantly reduced breast cancer incidence in all participants.^10,16 Post hoc analysis of the 1,616 Black women with prior hysterectomy in the WHI RCT showed a significantly decreased breast cancer incidence with use of estrogen alone (hazard ratio [HR], 0.47; 95% CI, 0.26–0.82).¹ When race was evaluated in the long-term cumulative follow-up of the WHI trial, estrogen-alone use significantly reduced breast cancer incidence in Black women, with no adverse effect on coronary heart disease, global index, or all-cause mortality, and with fewer cases of venous thromboembolism.¹⁷ The global index findings were favorable for Black women in their 50s and those with vasomotor symptoms.

Continue to: Impact of HT in women with an elevated risk of breast cancer...

Impact of HT in women with an elevated risk of breast cancer

Abenhaim and colleagues could not evaluate the effect of HT in women with a baseline elevated risk of breast cancer.⁹ For these women, HT may be recommended after premature surgical menopause due to increased risks for coronary heart disease, osteoporosis, genitourinary syndrome of menopause, and cognitive changes when estrogen is not taken postsurgery through to at least the average age of menopause, considered age 51.^18,19

Marchetti and colleagues reviewed 3 clinical trials that assessed breast cancer events in 1,100 BRCA gene mutation carriers with intact breasts who underwent risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) who used or did not use HT.²⁰ For BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers who received HT after RRSO, no elevated risk of breast cancer risk was seen (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.63–1.52). There was a nonsignificant reduction in breast cancer risk for the estrogen-alone users compared with EPT HT (OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.25–1.15). Thus, short-term use of HT, estrogen alone or EPT, does not appear to elevate the risk of breast cancer after RRSO in these high-risk women.

Individualizing HT  for menopausal symptoms

The data presented provide reassuring evidence that longer-term use of ET does not appear to increase breast cancer risk, regardless of the type of estrogen (CEE or estradiol).^4,5,9,11 For women with a uterus, micronized progesterone has less (if any) effect on breast cancer risk. By contrast, the use of synthetic progestins (such as MPA), when combined with estrogen, has been associated with a small but real increased breast cancer risk.

The most evident benefit of HT is in treating vasomotor symptoms and preventing bone loss for those at elevated risk in healthy women without contraindications who initiate systemic HT when younger than age 60 or within 10 years of menopause onset. Benefit and risk ratio depends on age and time from menopause onset when HT is initiated. Hormone therapy safety varies depending on type, dose, duration, route of administration, timing of initiation, and whether, and type, of progestogen is used. Transdermal estradiol, particularly when dosed at 0.05 mg or less, has been shown to have less thrombotic and stroke risk than oral estrogen.²¹

Individualizing treatment includes using the best available evidence to maximize benefits and minimize risks, with periodic reevaluation of benefits and risks of continuing or discontinuing HT or changing to lower doses. ObGyns who follow best practices in prescribing systemic HT can now help menopausal patients with bothersome symptoms take advantage of systemic HT’s benefits while providing reassurance regarding menopausal HT’s safety.¹⁸ Transdermal therapy is a safer option for women at elevated baseline risk of venous thrombosis (for example, obese women) and older patients. Likewise, given its safety with respect to risk of breast cancer, the use of micronized progesterone over synthetic progestins should be considered when prescribing EPT to women with an intact uterus.

Continue to: Benefits of avoiding BSO in women at average risk of ovarian cancer...

Benefits of avoiding BSO in women at average risk of ovarian cancer

Erickson Z, Rocca WA, Smith CY, et al. Time trends in unilateral and bilateral oophorectomy in a geographically defined American population. Obstet Gynecol. 2022;139:724-734. doi: 10.1097/ AOG.0000000000004728.

In 2005, gynecologist William Parker, MD, and colleagues used modeling methodology to assess the long-term risks and benefits of performing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO) at the time of hysterectomy for benign disease in women at average risk for ovarian cancer.²³ They concluded that practicing ovarian conservation until age 65 increased women’s long-term survival. Among their findings were that women with BSO before age 55 had an 8.6% excess overall mortality by age 80, while those with oophorectomy before age 59 had 3.9% excess mortality. They noted a sustained, but decreasing, mortality benefit until the age of 75 and stated that at no age did their model suggest higher mortality in women who chose ovarian conservation. Parker and colleagues concluded that ovarian conservation until at least age 65 benefited long-term survival for women at average risk for ovarian cancer when undergoing hysterectomy for benign disease.²³

Certain risks decreased, others increased

A second report in 2009 by Parker and colleagues from the large prospective Nurses’ Health Study found that, while BSO at the time of hysterectomy for benign disease was associated with a decreased risk of breast and ovarian cancer, BSO was associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality, fatal and nonfatal coronary heart disease, and lung cancer.²⁴ Similar to the findings of the 2005 report, the authors noted that in no analysis or age group was BSO associated with increased survival. They also noted that compared with those who underwent BSO before age 50 and used ET, women with no history of ET use had an approximately 2-fold elevated risk of new onset coronary heart disease (HR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.18–3.32).²⁴

In 2007, Walter Rocca, MD, a Mayo Clinic neurologist with a particular interest in the epidemiology of dementia, and colleagues at the Mayo Clinic published results of a study that assessed a cohort of women who had undergone unilateral oophorectomy or BSO prior to the onset of menopause.²⁵ The risk of cognitive impairment or dementia was higher in these women compared with women who had intact ovaries (HR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.13-1.90). Of note, this elevated risk was confined to those who underwent oophorectomy before 49 years of age and were not prescribed estrogen until age 50 or older.²⁵

In a subsequent publication, Rocca and colleagues pointed out that BSO prior to menopause not only is associated with higher rates of all-cause mortality and cognitive impairment but also with coronary heart disease, parkinsonism, osteoporosis, and other chronic conditions associated with aging, including metabolic, mental health, and arthritic disorders.²⁶

Oophorectomy trends tracked

Given these and other reports²⁷ that highlighted the health risks of premenopausal BSO in women at average risk for ovarian cancer, Rocca and colleagues recently assessed trends in the occurrence of unilateral oophorectomy or BSO versus ovarian conservation among all women residing in the Minnesota county (Olmsted) in which Mayo Clinic is located, and who underwent gynecologic surgery between 1950 and 2018.²⁸

The investigators limited their analysis to women who had undergone unilateral oophorectomy or BSO between ages 18 and 49 years (these women are assumed to have been premenopausal). The authors considered as indications for oophorectomy primary or metastatic ovarian cancer, risk-reducing BSO for women at elevated risk for ovarian cancer (for example, strong family history or known BRCA gene mutation), adnexal mass, endometriosis, torsion, and other benign gynecologic conditions that included pelvic pain, abscess, oophoritis, or ectopic pregnancy. When more than 1 indication for ovarian surgery was present, the authors used the most clinically important indication. Unilateral oophorectomy or BSO was considered not indicated if the surgery was performed during another primary procedure (usually hysterectomy) without indication, or if the surgeon referred to the ovarian surgery as elective.

Results. Among 5,154 women who had oophorectomies between 1950 and 2018, the proportion of these women who underwent unilateral oophorectomy and BSO was 40.6% and 59.4%, respectively.

For most years between 1950 and 1979, the incidence of unilateral oophorectomy was higher than BSO. However, from 1980 to 2004, the incidence of BSO increased more than 2-fold while the incidence of unilateral surgery declined. After 2005, however, both types of ovarian surgery declined. During the years 2005–2018, a marked decline in BSO occurred, with the reduced incidence in premenopausal BSO most notable among women undergoing hysterectomy or those without an indication for oophorectomy.

Historically, ObGyns were taught that the benefits of removing normal ovaries (to prevent ovarian cancer) in average-risk women at the time of hysterectomy outweighed the risks. We agree with the authors’ speculation that beginning with Parker’s 2005 publication,²³ ObGyns have become more conservative in performing unindicated BSO in women at average risk for ovarian cancer, now recognizing that the harms of this procedure often outweigh any benefits.²⁸

Women with BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutations are at elevated risk for ovarian, tubal, and breast malignancies. In this population, risk-reducing BSO dramatically lowers future risk of ovarian and tubal cancer.

Data addressing the effect of RRSO in BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutation carriers continue to be evaluated, with differences between the 2 mutations, but they suggest that the surgery reduces not only ovarian cancer and tubal cancer but also possibly breast cancer.²⁹

Continue to: Trends show decline in ET use in surgically menopausal women... 

Trends show decline in ET use in surgically menopausal women 

Suzuki Y, Huang Y, Melamed A, et al. Use of estrogen therapy after surgical menopause in women who are premenopausal. Obstet Gynecol. 2022;139:756-763. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000004762.

In addition to highlighting the risks associated with premenopausal BSO in women at average risk for ovarian cancer, the reports referred to above also underscore that the use of replacement menopausal HT in premenopausal women who undergo BSO prevents morbidity and mortality that otherwise accompanies surgical menopause. In addition, the North American Menopause Society (NAMS) recommends replacement menopausal HT in the setting of induced early menopause when no contraindications are present.¹⁸

To assess the prevalence of HT use in surgically menopausal women, investigators at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons used a national database that captures health insurance claims for some 280 million US patients, focusing on women aged 18 to 50 years who underwent BSO from 2008 to 2019.³⁰ The great majority of women in this database have private insurance. Although the authors used the term estrogen therapy in their article, this term refers to systemic estrogen alone or with progestogen, as well as vaginal ET (personal communication with Jason Wright, MD, a coauthor of the study, May 19, 2022). In this Update section, we use the term HT to include use of any systemic HT or vaginal estrogen.

Prevalence of HT use changed over time period and patient age range

Among almost 61,980 evaluable women who had undergone BSO (median age, 45 years; 75.1% with concomitant hysterectomy; median follow-up time, 27 months), with no history of gynecologic or breast cancer, HT was used within 3 years of BSO by 64.5%. The highest percentage of women in this cohort who used HT peaked in 2008 (69.5%), declining to 58.2% by 2016. The median duration of HT use was 5.3 months. The prevalence of HT use 3 years after BSO declined with age, from 79.1% in women aged 18–29 to 60.0% in women aged 45–50.³⁰

This report, published in the June 2022 issue of Obstetrics and Gynecology, makes several sobering observations: Many surgically menopausal women aged 50 years and younger are not prescribed HT, the proportion of such women receiving a prescription for HT is declining over time, and the duration of HT use following BSO is short. ●

This year’s Menopause Update focuses on 2 menopause-related issues relevant to ObGyns and our menopausal patients:

• choosing the safest regimens, particularly with respect to risk of breast cancer, when prescribing hormone therapy (HT) to menopausal women
• reviewing the risks and benefits of premenopausal bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy and the pros and cons of replacement HT in surgically menopausal patients.

We hope that you find this updated information useful as you care for menopausal women.

Revisiting menopausal HT  and the risk of breast cancer:  What we know now

Abenhaim HA, Suissa S,  Azoulay L, et al. Menopausal hormone therapy formulation and breast cancer risk. Obstet Gynecol. 2022;139:1103-1110. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000004723.

Reevaluation of the Women’s Health Initiative randomized controlled trials (WHI RCTs), long-term (median follow-up more than 20 years) cumulative  follow-up data, and results from additional studies have suggested that estrogen therapy (ET) alone in menopausal women with prior hysterectomy does not increase the risk of breast cancer. By contrast, estrogen with progestin (synthetic progestogens that include medroxyprogesterone acetate [MPA] and norethindrone acetate) slightly increases the risk of breast cancer. In the past 10 years, several publications have shed light on whether the type of progestogen affects the risk of breast cancer and can help provide evidence-based information to guide clinicians.

Breast cancer risk with combined HT and synthetic progestin

In the first part of the WHI RCT, women were randomly assigned to receive either conjugated equine estrogen (CEE) plus synthetic progestin (MPA) or a placebo. Combined estrogen-progestin therapy (EPT) was associated with a modestly elevated risk of breast cancer.¹ In the second part of the WHI trial, CEE only (estrogen alone, ET) was compared with placebo among women with prior  hysterectomy, with no effect found on breast cancer incidence.²

Most older observational studies published in 2003 to 2005 found that neither CEE nor estradiol appeared to increase the risk of breast cancer when used alone.^3-5 However, estrogen use in combination with synthetic progestins (MPA, norethindrone, levonorgestrel, and norgestrel) has been associated with an increased risk of breast cancer,^4,6 while the elevated risk of breast cancer with micronized progesterone has been less substantial.^7,8

Continue to: Newer data suggest the type of progestogen used affects risk...

In a report published in the June 2022 issue of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Abenhaim and colleagues used a nested population-based case-control study of administrative data available in the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink and provider prescriptions to evaluate the additive effect on the risk of breast cancer of the type of progestogen (micronized progesterone or synthetic progestins) when combined with estradiol for the treatment of menopausal symptoms.⁹ A cohort of 561,379 women was included in the case-control study (10:1 ratio), 43,183 in the case group (patients diagnosed with invasive breast cancer), and 431,830 in the matched control group.

Overall, in the stratified analysis, a small but significant increase in the risk of breast cancer was found in ever users of menopausal HT (odds ratio [OR], 1.12; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09–1.15). Neither estradiol (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.00–1.09) nor CEE (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.96–1.06) was associated with an elevated risk of being diagnosed with invasive breast cancer. Of note, no elevated risk of breast cancer was associated with combination estrogen-progesterone therapy. However, the risk of breast cancer for women who had used synthetic progestins, mostly MPA, was significantly elevated (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.22-1.35). Notably, this modestly elevated odds ratio with the use of estrogen-progestin HT is almost identical to that observed with CEE/ MPA in the WHI.¹ Similar findings were found in women aged 50 to 60 years.

The adjusted analyses from the large WHI RCTs provide additional support: the synthetic progestin MPA combined with CEE showed a higher risk of breast cancer than CEE alone in women with prior hysterectomy.¹⁰

In the long-term follow-up of the WHI RCTs, after a median of 20.3 years postrandomization, prior randomization to CEE alone for postmenopausal women with prior hysterectomy was associated with a significantly lowered risk of breast cancer incidence and mortality.¹¹ By contrast, prior randomization to CEE plus MPA (EPT) for women with an intact uterus was associated with a small but significantly increased incidence of breast cancer but no significant difference in breast cancer mortality.

In the French E3N EPIC population-based prospective cohort study, Fournier and colleagues^4,5 found that women who received estrogen combined with synthetic progestins (mostly MPA) had a higher risk of breast cancer, with an age-adjusted relative risk of 1.4 (95% CI, 1.2–1.7), a finding not seen in women who received estrogen combined with micronized progesterone, similar to findings by Cordina-Duverger and colleagues and Simin and colleagues.^12,13 In the E3N study, only 948 women were identified with breast cancer; 268 of these had used synthetic progestins.^4,5

Both the Abenhaim cohort⁹ and the longterm outcomes of WHI RCT trial data¹¹ found a significant contributing effect of MPA (synthetic progestin) in the risk of breast cancer. Progestogens are not thought to exert a class effect. Although it is clear that progestogens (progesterone or progestins) prevent estrogeninduced endometrial neoplasia when dosed adequately, different types of progestogens have a differential risk of breast epithelium proliferation and carcinogenic potential.¹⁴ A systematic review by Stute and colleagues found that micronized progesterone did not appear to alter mammographic breast density assessments or breast biopsy results.¹⁵

Race considerations

The study by Abenhaim and colleagues was unable to address the issues of race or ethnicity.⁹ However, in the racially diverse WHI trial of women with prior hysterectomy, estrogen-alone use significantly reduced breast cancer incidence in all participants.^10,16 Post hoc analysis of the 1,616 Black women with prior hysterectomy in the WHI RCT showed a significantly decreased breast cancer incidence with use of estrogen alone (hazard ratio [HR], 0.47; 95% CI, 0.26–0.82).¹ When race was evaluated in the long-term cumulative follow-up of the WHI trial, estrogen-alone use significantly reduced breast cancer incidence in Black women, with no adverse effect on coronary heart disease, global index, or all-cause mortality, and with fewer cases of venous thromboembolism.¹⁷ The global index findings were favorable for Black women in their 50s and those with vasomotor symptoms.

Continue to: Impact of HT in women with an elevated risk of breast cancer...

Impact of HT in women with an elevated risk of breast cancer

Abenhaim and colleagues could not evaluate the effect of HT in women with a baseline elevated risk of breast cancer.⁹ For these women, HT may be recommended after premature surgical menopause due to increased risks for coronary heart disease, osteoporosis, genitourinary syndrome of menopause, and cognitive changes when estrogen is not taken postsurgery through to at least the average age of menopause, considered age 51.^18,19

Marchetti and colleagues reviewed 3 clinical trials that assessed breast cancer events in 1,100 BRCA gene mutation carriers with intact breasts who underwent risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) who used or did not use HT.²⁰ For BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers who received HT after RRSO, no elevated risk of breast cancer risk was seen (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.63–1.52). There was a nonsignificant reduction in breast cancer risk for the estrogen-alone users compared with EPT HT (OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.25–1.15). Thus, short-term use of HT, estrogen alone or EPT, does not appear to elevate the risk of breast cancer after RRSO in these high-risk women.

Individualizing HT  for menopausal symptoms

The data presented provide reassuring evidence that longer-term use of ET does not appear to increase breast cancer risk, regardless of the type of estrogen (CEE or estradiol).^4,5,9,11 For women with a uterus, micronized progesterone has less (if any) effect on breast cancer risk. By contrast, the use of synthetic progestins (such as MPA), when combined with estrogen, has been associated with a small but real increased breast cancer risk.

The most evident benefit of HT is in treating vasomotor symptoms and preventing bone loss for those at elevated risk in healthy women without contraindications who initiate systemic HT when younger than age 60 or within 10 years of menopause onset. Benefit and risk ratio depends on age and time from menopause onset when HT is initiated. Hormone therapy safety varies depending on type, dose, duration, route of administration, timing of initiation, and whether, and type, of progestogen is used. Transdermal estradiol, particularly when dosed at 0.05 mg or less, has been shown to have less thrombotic and stroke risk than oral estrogen.²¹

Individualizing treatment includes using the best available evidence to maximize benefits and minimize risks, with periodic reevaluation of benefits and risks of continuing or discontinuing HT or changing to lower doses. ObGyns who follow best practices in prescribing systemic HT can now help menopausal patients with bothersome symptoms take advantage of systemic HT’s benefits while providing reassurance regarding menopausal HT’s safety.¹⁸ Transdermal therapy is a safer option for women at elevated baseline risk of venous thrombosis (for example, obese women) and older patients. Likewise, given its safety with respect to risk of breast cancer, the use of micronized progesterone over synthetic progestins should be considered when prescribing EPT to women with an intact uterus.

Continue to: Benefits of avoiding BSO in women at average risk of ovarian cancer...

Benefits of avoiding BSO in women at average risk of ovarian cancer

Erickson Z, Rocca WA, Smith CY, et al. Time trends in unilateral and bilateral oophorectomy in a geographically defined American population. Obstet Gynecol. 2022;139:724-734. doi: 10.1097/ AOG.0000000000004728.

In 2005, gynecologist William Parker, MD, and colleagues used modeling methodology to assess the long-term risks and benefits of performing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO) at the time of hysterectomy for benign disease in women at average risk for ovarian cancer.²³ They concluded that practicing ovarian conservation until age 65 increased women’s long-term survival. Among their findings were that women with BSO before age 55 had an 8.6% excess overall mortality by age 80, while those with oophorectomy before age 59 had 3.9% excess mortality. They noted a sustained, but decreasing, mortality benefit until the age of 75 and stated that at no age did their model suggest higher mortality in women who chose ovarian conservation. Parker and colleagues concluded that ovarian conservation until at least age 65 benefited long-term survival for women at average risk for ovarian cancer when undergoing hysterectomy for benign disease.²³

Certain risks decreased, others increased

A second report in 2009 by Parker and colleagues from the large prospective Nurses’ Health Study found that, while BSO at the time of hysterectomy for benign disease was associated with a decreased risk of breast and ovarian cancer, BSO was associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality, fatal and nonfatal coronary heart disease, and lung cancer.²⁴ Similar to the findings of the 2005 report, the authors noted that in no analysis or age group was BSO associated with increased survival. They also noted that compared with those who underwent BSO before age 50 and used ET, women with no history of ET use had an approximately 2-fold elevated risk of new onset coronary heart disease (HR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.18–3.32).²⁴

In 2007, Walter Rocca, MD, a Mayo Clinic neurologist with a particular interest in the epidemiology of dementia, and colleagues at the Mayo Clinic published results of a study that assessed a cohort of women who had undergone unilateral oophorectomy or BSO prior to the onset of menopause.²⁵ The risk of cognitive impairment or dementia was higher in these women compared with women who had intact ovaries (HR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.13-1.90). Of note, this elevated risk was confined to those who underwent oophorectomy before 49 years of age and were not prescribed estrogen until age 50 or older.²⁵

In a subsequent publication, Rocca and colleagues pointed out that BSO prior to menopause not only is associated with higher rates of all-cause mortality and cognitive impairment but also with coronary heart disease, parkinsonism, osteoporosis, and other chronic conditions associated with aging, including metabolic, mental health, and arthritic disorders.²⁶

Oophorectomy trends tracked

Given these and other reports²⁷ that highlighted the health risks of premenopausal BSO in women at average risk for ovarian cancer, Rocca and colleagues recently assessed trends in the occurrence of unilateral oophorectomy or BSO versus ovarian conservation among all women residing in the Minnesota county (Olmsted) in which Mayo Clinic is located, and who underwent gynecologic surgery between 1950 and 2018.²⁸

The investigators limited their analysis to women who had undergone unilateral oophorectomy or BSO between ages 18 and 49 years (these women are assumed to have been premenopausal). The authors considered as indications for oophorectomy primary or metastatic ovarian cancer, risk-reducing BSO for women at elevated risk for ovarian cancer (for example, strong family history or known BRCA gene mutation), adnexal mass, endometriosis, torsion, and other benign gynecologic conditions that included pelvic pain, abscess, oophoritis, or ectopic pregnancy. When more than 1 indication for ovarian surgery was present, the authors used the most clinically important indication. Unilateral oophorectomy or BSO was considered not indicated if the surgery was performed during another primary procedure (usually hysterectomy) without indication, or if the surgeon referred to the ovarian surgery as elective.

Results. Among 5,154 women who had oophorectomies between 1950 and 2018, the proportion of these women who underwent unilateral oophorectomy and BSO was 40.6% and 59.4%, respectively.

For most years between 1950 and 1979, the incidence of unilateral oophorectomy was higher than BSO. However, from 1980 to 2004, the incidence of BSO increased more than 2-fold while the incidence of unilateral surgery declined. After 2005, however, both types of ovarian surgery declined. During the years 2005–2018, a marked decline in BSO occurred, with the reduced incidence in premenopausal BSO most notable among women undergoing hysterectomy or those without an indication for oophorectomy.

Historically, ObGyns were taught that the benefits of removing normal ovaries (to prevent ovarian cancer) in average-risk women at the time of hysterectomy outweighed the risks. We agree with the authors’ speculation that beginning with Parker’s 2005 publication,²³ ObGyns have become more conservative in performing unindicated BSO in women at average risk for ovarian cancer, now recognizing that the harms of this procedure often outweigh any benefits.²⁸

Women with BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutations are at elevated risk for ovarian, tubal, and breast malignancies. In this population, risk-reducing BSO dramatically lowers future risk of ovarian and tubal cancer.

Data addressing the effect of RRSO in BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutation carriers continue to be evaluated, with differences between the 2 mutations, but they suggest that the surgery reduces not only ovarian cancer and tubal cancer but also possibly breast cancer.²⁹

Continue to: Trends show decline in ET use in surgically menopausal women... 

Trends show decline in ET use in surgically menopausal women 

Suzuki Y, Huang Y, Melamed A, et al. Use of estrogen therapy after surgical menopause in women who are premenopausal. Obstet Gynecol. 2022;139:756-763. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000004762.

In addition to highlighting the risks associated with premenopausal BSO in women at average risk for ovarian cancer, the reports referred to above also underscore that the use of replacement menopausal HT in premenopausal women who undergo BSO prevents morbidity and mortality that otherwise accompanies surgical menopause. In addition, the North American Menopause Society (NAMS) recommends replacement menopausal HT in the setting of induced early menopause when no contraindications are present.¹⁸

To assess the prevalence of HT use in surgically menopausal women, investigators at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons used a national database that captures health insurance claims for some 280 million US patients, focusing on women aged 18 to 50 years who underwent BSO from 2008 to 2019.³⁰ The great majority of women in this database have private insurance. Although the authors used the term estrogen therapy in their article, this term refers to systemic estrogen alone or with progestogen, as well as vaginal ET (personal communication with Jason Wright, MD, a coauthor of the study, May 19, 2022). In this Update section, we use the term HT to include use of any systemic HT or vaginal estrogen.

Prevalence of HT use changed over time period and patient age range

Among almost 61,980 evaluable women who had undergone BSO (median age, 45 years; 75.1% with concomitant hysterectomy; median follow-up time, 27 months), with no history of gynecologic or breast cancer, HT was used within 3 years of BSO by 64.5%. The highest percentage of women in this cohort who used HT peaked in 2008 (69.5%), declining to 58.2% by 2016. The median duration of HT use was 5.3 months. The prevalence of HT use 3 years after BSO declined with age, from 79.1% in women aged 18–29 to 60.0% in women aged 45–50.³⁰

This report, published in the June 2022 issue of Obstetrics and Gynecology, makes several sobering observations: Many surgically menopausal women aged 50 years and younger are not prescribed HT, the proportion of such women receiving a prescription for HT is declining over time, and the duration of HT use following BSO is short. ●

The evaluation and management of chronic pelvic pain in patients with a history of Essure device (Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc, Whippany, New Jersey) insertion have posed many challenges for both clinicians and patients. The availability of high-quality, evidence-based clinical guidance has been limited. We have reviewed the currently available published data, and here provide an overview of takeaways, as well as share our perspective and approach on evaluating and managing chronic pelvic pain in this unique patient population.

The device

The Essure microinsert is a hysteroscopically placed device that facilitates permanent sterilization by occluding the bilateral proximal fallopian tubes. The microinsert has an inner and outer nitinol coil that attaches the device to the proximal fallopian tube to ensure retention. The inner coil releases polyethylene terephthalate fibers that cause tubal fiber proliferation to occlude the lumen of the fallopian tube and achieve sterilization.

The device was first approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2002. In subsequent years, the device was well received and widely used, with approximately 750,000 women worldwide undergoing Essure placement.^1,2 Shortly after approval, many adverse events (AEs), including pelvic pain and abnormal uterine bleeding, were reported, resulting in a public meeting of the FDA Obstetrics and Gynecology Devices Panel in September 2015. A postmarket surveillance study on the device ensued to assess complication rates including unplanned pregnancy, pelvic pain, and surgery for removal. In February 2016, the FDA issued a black box warning and a patient decision checklist.^3,4 In December 2018, Bayer stopped selling and distributing Essure in the United States.⁵ A 4-year follow-up surveillance study on Essure was submitted to the FDA in March 2020.

Adverse outcomes

Common AEs related to the Essure device include heavy uterine bleeding, pelvic pain, and other quality-of-life symptoms such as fatigue and weight gain.^6-8 The main safety endpoints for the mandated FDA postmarket 522 surveillance studies were chronic lower abdominal and pelvic pain; abnormal uterine bleeding; hypersensitivity; allergic reaction, as well as autoimmune disorders incorporating inflammatory markers and human leukocyte antigen; and gynecologic surgery for device removal.⁹ Postmarket surveillence has shown that most AEs are related to placement complications or pelvic pain after Essure insertion. However, there have been several reports of autoimmune diseases categorized as serious AEs, such as new-onset systemic lupus erythematosus, rheumatoid arthritis, and worsening ulcerative colitis, after Essure insertion.⁵

Evaluation of symptoms

Prevalence of pelvic pain following device placement

We conducted a PubMed and MEDLINE search from January 2000 to May 2020, which identified 43 studies citing AEs related to device placement, including pelvic or abdominal pain, abnormal uterine bleeding, hypersensitivity, and autoimmune disorders. A particularly debilitating and frequently cited AE was new-onset pelvic pain or worsening of preexisting pelvic pain. Perforation of the uterus or fallopian tube, resulting in displacement of the device into the peritoneal cavity, or fragmentation of the microinsert was reported as a serious AE that occurred after device placement. However, due to the complexity of chronic pelvic pain pathogenesis, the effect of the insert on patients with existing chronic pelvic pain remains unknown.

Authors of a large retrospective study found that approximately 2.7% of 1,430 patients developed new-onset or worsening pelvic pain after device placement. New-onset pelvic pain in 1% of patients was thought to be secondary to device placement, without a coexisting pathology or diagnosis.¹⁰

In a retrospective study by Clark and colleagues, 22 of 50 women (44%) with pelvic pain after microinsert placement were found to have at least one other cause of pelvic pain. The most common alternative diagnoses were endometriosis, adenomyosis, salpingitis, and adhesive disease. Nine of the 50 patients (18%) were found to have endometriosis upon surgical removal of the microinsert.⁷

Another case series examined outcomes in 29 patients undergoing laparoscopic device removal due to new-onset pelvic pain. Intraoperative findings included endometriosis in 5 patients (17.2%) and pelvic adhesions in 3 (10.3%).² Chronic pelvic pain secondary to endometriosis may be exacerbated with Essure insertion due to discontinuation of hormonal birth control after device placement,⁷ and this diagnosis along with adenomyosis should be strongly considered in patients whose pelvic pain began when hormonal contraception was discontinued after placement of the device.

Continue to: Risk factors...

Authors of a retrospective cohort study found that patients with prior diagnosis of a chronic pain syndrome, low back pain, headaches, or fibromyalgia were 5 to 6 times more likely to report acute and chronic pain after hysteroscopic sterilization with Essure.¹¹ Since chronic pain is often thought to be driven by a hyperalgesic state of the central nervous system, as previously shown in patients with conditions such as vulvodynia, interstitial cystitis, and fibromyalgia,¹² a hyperalgesic state can potentially explain why some patients are more susceptible to developing worsening pain.

Van Limburg and colleagues conducted a retrospective cohort study with prospective follow-up on 284 women who underwent Essure sterilization. Among these patients, 48% reported negative AEs; risk factors included young age at placement, increasing gravidity, and no prior abdominal surgery.¹³

Onset of pain

The timing and onset of pelvic pain vary widely, suggesting there is no particular time frame for this AE after device placement.^2,6,14-18 A case series by Arjona and colleagues analyzed the incidence of chronic pelvic pain in 4,274 patients after Essure sterilization. Seven patients (0.16%) reported chronic pelvic pain that necessitated device removal. In 6 of the women, the pelvic pain began within 1 week of device placement. In 3 of the 6 cases, the surgeon reported the removal procedures as “difficult.” In all 6 cases, the level of pelvic pain increased with time and was not alleviated with standard analgesic medications.⁶

In another case series of 26 patients, the authors evaluated patients undergoing laparoscopic removal of Essure secondary to pelvic pain and reported that the time range for symptom presentation was immediate to 85 months. Thirteen of 26 patients (50%) reported pain onset within less than 1 month of device placement, 5 of 26 patients (19.2%) reported pain between 1 and 12 months after device placement, and 8 of 26 patients (30.8%) reported pain onset more than 12 months after microinsert placement.² In this study, 17.2% of operative reports indicated difficulty with device placement. It is unclear whether difficulty with placement was associated with development of subsequent abdominal or pelvic pain; however, the relevance of initial insertion difficulty diminished with longer follow-up.

Workup and evaluation

We found 5 studies that provided some framework for evaluating a patient with new-onset or worsening pelvic pain after microinsert placement. Overall, correct placement and functionality of the device should be confirmed by either hysterosalpingogram (HSG) or transvaginal ultrasonography (TVUS). The gold standard to determine tubal occlusion is the HSG. However, TVUS may be a dependable alternative, and either test can accurately demonstrate Essure location.¹⁹ Patients often prefer TVUS over HSG due to the low cost, minimal discomfort, and short examination time.¹ TVUS is a noninvasive and reasonable test to start the initial assessment. The Essure devices are highly echogenic on pelvic ultrasound and easily identifiable by the proximity of the device to the uterotubal junction and its relationship with the surrounding soft tissue. If the device perforates the peritoneal cavity, then the echogenic bowel can impede adequate visualization of the Essure microinsert. If the Essure insert is not visualized on TVUS, an HSG will not only confirm placement but also test insert functionality. After confirming correct placement of the device, the provider can proceed with standard workup for chronic pelvic pain.

If one or more of the devices are malpositioned, the devices are generally presumed to be the etiology of the new pain. Multiple case reports demonstrate pain due to Essure misconfiguration or perforation with subsequent resolution of symptoms after device removal.^18,20,21 A case study by Alcantara and colleagues described a patient with chronic pelvic pain and an Essure coil that was curved in an elliptical shape, not adhering to the anatomic course of the fallopian tube. The patient reported pain resolution after laparoscopic removal of the device.²⁰ Another case report by Mahmoud et al described a subserosal malpositioned device that caused acute pelvic pain 4 months after sterilization. The patient reported resolution of pain after the microinsert was removed via laparoscopy.²¹ These reports highlight the importance of considering malpositioned devices as the etiology of new pelvic pain after Essure placement.

Continue to: Device removal and patient outcomes...

Removal

Several studies that we evaluated included a discussion on the methods for Essure removal. which are divided into 2 general categories: hysteroscopy and laparoscopy.

Hysteroscopic removal is generally used when the device was placed less than 12 weeks prior to removal.^7,19 After 12 weeks, removal is more difficult due to fibrosis within the fallopian tubes. A risk with hysteroscopic removal is failure to remove all fibers, which allows inflammation and fibrosis to continue.⁷ This risk is mitigated via laparoscopic hysterectomy or mini-cornuectomy with bilateral salpingectomy, where the devices can be removed en bloc and without excessive traction.

Laparoscopic Essure removal procedures described in the literature include salpingostomy and traction on the device, salpingectomy, and salpingectomy with mini-cornuectomy. The incision and traction method is typically performed via a 2- to 3-cm incision on the antimesial edge of the fallopian tube along with a circumferential incision to surround the interstitial tubal area. The implant is carefully extracted from the fallopian tube and cornua, and a salpingectomy is then performed.²² The implant is removed prior to the salpingectomy to ensure that the Essure device is removed in its entirety prior to performing a salpingectomy.

A prospective observational study evaluated laparoscopic removal of Essure devices in 80 women with or without cornual excision. Results suggest that the incision and traction method poses more technical difficulties than the cornuectomy approach.²³ Surgeons reported significant difficulty controlling the tensile pressure with traction, whereas use of the cornuectomy approach eliminated this risk and decreased the risk of fragmentation and incomplete removal.^23,24

Charavil and colleagues demonstrated in a prospective observational study that a vaginal hysterectomy with bilateral salpingectomy is a feasible approach to Essure removal. Twenty-six vaginal hysterectomies with bilateral salpingectomy and Essure removal were performed without conversion to laparoscopy or laparotomy. The surgeons performed an en bloc removal of each hemiuterus along with the ipsilateral tube, which ensured complete removal of the Essure device. Each case was confirmed with an x-ray of the surgical specimen.²⁵

If device fragmentation occurs, there are different methods recommended for locating fragments. A case report of bilateral uterine perforation after uncomplicated Essure placement used a preoperative computed tomography (CT) scan to locate the Essure fragments, but no intraoperative imaging was performed to confirm complete fragment removal.²⁶ The patient continued reporting chronic pelvic pain and ultimately underwent exploratory laparotomy with intraoperative fluoroscopy. Using fluoroscopy, investigators identified omental fragments that were missed on preoperative CT imaging. Fluoroscopy is not commonly used intraoperatively, but it may have added benefit for localizing retained fragments.

A retrospective cohort study reviewed the use of intraoperative x-ray of the removed specimen to confirm complete Essure removal.²⁷ If an x-ray of the removed specimen showed incomplete removal, an intraoperative pelvic x-ray was performed to locate missing fragments. X-ray of the removed devices confirmed complete removal in 63 of 72 patients (87.5%). Six of 9 women with an unsatisfactory specimen x-ray had no residual fragments identified during pelvic x-ray, and the device removal was deemed adequate. The remaining 3 women had radiologic evidence of incomplete device removal and required additional dissection for complete removal. Overall, use of x-ray or fluoroscopy is a relatively safe and accessible way to ensure complete removal of the Essure device and is worth consideration, especially when retained device fragments are suspected.

Symptom resolution

We reviewed 5 studies that examined pain outcomes after removal of the Essure devices. Casey et al found that 23 of 26 patients (88.5%) reported significant pain relief at the postoperative visit, while 3 of 26 (11.5%) reported persistent pelvic pain.² Two of 3 case series examined other outcomes in addition to postoperative pelvic pain, including sexual function and activities of daily living.^7,14 In the first case series by Brito and colleagues, 8 of 11 patients (72.7%) reported an improvement in pelvic pain, ability to perform daily activities, sexual life, and overall quality of life after Essure removal. For the remaining 3 patients with persistent pelvic pain after surgical removal of the device, 2 patients reported worsening pain symptoms and dyspareunia.¹⁴ In this study, 5 of 11 patients reported a history of chronic pelvic pain at baseline. In a retrospective case series by Clark et al, 28 of 32 women (87.5%) reported some improvement in all domains, with 24 of 32 patients (75%) reporting almost total or complete improvement in quality of life, sexual life, pelvic pain, and scores related to activities of daily living. Pain and quality-of-life scores were similar for women who underwent uterine-preserving surgery and for those who underwent hysterectomy. Ten of 32 women (31.3%) reported persistent or worsening symptoms after the Essure removal surgery. In these patients, the authors recommended consideration of other autoimmune and hypersensitivity etiologies.⁷

In a retrospective cohort study by Kamencic et al from 2002 to 2013 of 1,430 patients who underwent Essure placement with postplacement imaging, 62 patients (4.3%) required a second surgery after Essure placement due to pelvic pain.¹⁰ This study also found that 4 of 62 patients (0.3%) had no other obvious cause for the pelvic pain. All 4 of these women had complete resolution of their pain with removal of the Essure microinsert device. A prospective observational study by Chene et al examined health-related quality-of-life outcomes in 80 women who underwent laparoscopic Essure removal for pelvic pain. This survey study demonstrated significant improvement in the quality of life in both psychological and physical aspects, and these results were maintained at 3- and 6-month follow-up examinations.²³

Summary

Although Essure products were withdrawn from the market in the United States in 2018, many patients still experience significant AEs associated with the device. The goal of the perspectives and data presented here is to assist clinicians in addressing and managing the pain experienced by patients after device insertion. ●

​​​​​​​

The evaluation and management of chronic pelvic pain in patients with a history of Essure device (Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc, Whippany, New Jersey) insertion have posed many challenges for both clinicians and patients. The availability of high-quality, evidence-based clinical guidance has been limited. We have reviewed the currently available published data, and here provide an overview of takeaways, as well as share our perspective and approach on evaluating and managing chronic pelvic pain in this unique patient population.

The device

The Essure microinsert is a hysteroscopically placed device that facilitates permanent sterilization by occluding the bilateral proximal fallopian tubes. The microinsert has an inner and outer nitinol coil that attaches the device to the proximal fallopian tube to ensure retention. The inner coil releases polyethylene terephthalate fibers that cause tubal fiber proliferation to occlude the lumen of the fallopian tube and achieve sterilization.

The device was first approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2002. In subsequent years, the device was well received and widely used, with approximately 750,000 women worldwide undergoing Essure placement.^1,2 Shortly after approval, many adverse events (AEs), including pelvic pain and abnormal uterine bleeding, were reported, resulting in a public meeting of the FDA Obstetrics and Gynecology Devices Panel in September 2015. A postmarket surveillance study on the device ensued to assess complication rates including unplanned pregnancy, pelvic pain, and surgery for removal. In February 2016, the FDA issued a black box warning and a patient decision checklist.^3,4 In December 2018, Bayer stopped selling and distributing Essure in the United States.⁵ A 4-year follow-up surveillance study on Essure was submitted to the FDA in March 2020.

Adverse outcomes

Common AEs related to the Essure device include heavy uterine bleeding, pelvic pain, and other quality-of-life symptoms such as fatigue and weight gain.^6-8 The main safety endpoints for the mandated FDA postmarket 522 surveillance studies were chronic lower abdominal and pelvic pain; abnormal uterine bleeding; hypersensitivity; allergic reaction, as well as autoimmune disorders incorporating inflammatory markers and human leukocyte antigen; and gynecologic surgery for device removal.⁹ Postmarket surveillence has shown that most AEs are related to placement complications or pelvic pain after Essure insertion. However, there have been several reports of autoimmune diseases categorized as serious AEs, such as new-onset systemic lupus erythematosus, rheumatoid arthritis, and worsening ulcerative colitis, after Essure insertion.⁵

Evaluation of symptoms

Prevalence of pelvic pain following device placement

We conducted a PubMed and MEDLINE search from January 2000 to May 2020, which identified 43 studies citing AEs related to device placement, including pelvic or abdominal pain, abnormal uterine bleeding, hypersensitivity, and autoimmune disorders. A particularly debilitating and frequently cited AE was new-onset pelvic pain or worsening of preexisting pelvic pain. Perforation of the uterus or fallopian tube, resulting in displacement of the device into the peritoneal cavity, or fragmentation of the microinsert was reported as a serious AE that occurred after device placement. However, due to the complexity of chronic pelvic pain pathogenesis, the effect of the insert on patients with existing chronic pelvic pain remains unknown.

Authors of a large retrospective study found that approximately 2.7% of 1,430 patients developed new-onset or worsening pelvic pain after device placement. New-onset pelvic pain in 1% of patients was thought to be secondary to device placement, without a coexisting pathology or diagnosis.¹⁰

In a retrospective study by Clark and colleagues, 22 of 50 women (44%) with pelvic pain after microinsert placement were found to have at least one other cause of pelvic pain. The most common alternative diagnoses were endometriosis, adenomyosis, salpingitis, and adhesive disease. Nine of the 50 patients (18%) were found to have endometriosis upon surgical removal of the microinsert.⁷

Another case series examined outcomes in 29 patients undergoing laparoscopic device removal due to new-onset pelvic pain. Intraoperative findings included endometriosis in 5 patients (17.2%) and pelvic adhesions in 3 (10.3%).² Chronic pelvic pain secondary to endometriosis may be exacerbated with Essure insertion due to discontinuation of hormonal birth control after device placement,⁷ and this diagnosis along with adenomyosis should be strongly considered in patients whose pelvic pain began when hormonal contraception was discontinued after placement of the device.

Continue to: Risk factors...

Authors of a retrospective cohort study found that patients with prior diagnosis of a chronic pain syndrome, low back pain, headaches, or fibromyalgia were 5 to 6 times more likely to report acute and chronic pain after hysteroscopic sterilization with Essure.¹¹ Since chronic pain is often thought to be driven by a hyperalgesic state of the central nervous system, as previously shown in patients with conditions such as vulvodynia, interstitial cystitis, and fibromyalgia,¹² a hyperalgesic state can potentially explain why some patients are more susceptible to developing worsening pain.

Van Limburg and colleagues conducted a retrospective cohort study with prospective follow-up on 284 women who underwent Essure sterilization. Among these patients, 48% reported negative AEs; risk factors included young age at placement, increasing gravidity, and no prior abdominal surgery.¹³

Onset of pain

The timing and onset of pelvic pain vary widely, suggesting there is no particular time frame for this AE after device placement.^2,6,14-18 A case series by Arjona and colleagues analyzed the incidence of chronic pelvic pain in 4,274 patients after Essure sterilization. Seven patients (0.16%) reported chronic pelvic pain that necessitated device removal. In 6 of the women, the pelvic pain began within 1 week of device placement. In 3 of the 6 cases, the surgeon reported the removal procedures as “difficult.” In all 6 cases, the level of pelvic pain increased with time and was not alleviated with standard analgesic medications.⁶

In another case series of 26 patients, the authors evaluated patients undergoing laparoscopic removal of Essure secondary to pelvic pain and reported that the time range for symptom presentation was immediate to 85 months. Thirteen of 26 patients (50%) reported pain onset within less than 1 month of device placement, 5 of 26 patients (19.2%) reported pain between 1 and 12 months after device placement, and 8 of 26 patients (30.8%) reported pain onset more than 12 months after microinsert placement.² In this study, 17.2% of operative reports indicated difficulty with device placement. It is unclear whether difficulty with placement was associated with development of subsequent abdominal or pelvic pain; however, the relevance of initial insertion difficulty diminished with longer follow-up.

Workup and evaluation

We found 5 studies that provided some framework for evaluating a patient with new-onset or worsening pelvic pain after microinsert placement. Overall, correct placement and functionality of the device should be confirmed by either hysterosalpingogram (HSG) or transvaginal ultrasonography (TVUS). The gold standard to determine tubal occlusion is the HSG. However, TVUS may be a dependable alternative, and either test can accurately demonstrate Essure location.¹⁹ Patients often prefer TVUS over HSG due to the low cost, minimal discomfort, and short examination time.¹ TVUS is a noninvasive and reasonable test to start the initial assessment. The Essure devices are highly echogenic on pelvic ultrasound and easily identifiable by the proximity of the device to the uterotubal junction and its relationship with the surrounding soft tissue. If the device perforates the peritoneal cavity, then the echogenic bowel can impede adequate visualization of the Essure microinsert. If the Essure insert is not visualized on TVUS, an HSG will not only confirm placement but also test insert functionality. After confirming correct placement of the device, the provider can proceed with standard workup for chronic pelvic pain.

If one or more of the devices are malpositioned, the devices are generally presumed to be the etiology of the new pain. Multiple case reports demonstrate pain due to Essure misconfiguration or perforation with subsequent resolution of symptoms after device removal.^18,20,21 A case study by Alcantara and colleagues described a patient with chronic pelvic pain and an Essure coil that was curved in an elliptical shape, not adhering to the anatomic course of the fallopian tube. The patient reported pain resolution after laparoscopic removal of the device.²⁰ Another case report by Mahmoud et al described a subserosal malpositioned device that caused acute pelvic pain 4 months after sterilization. The patient reported resolution of pain after the microinsert was removed via laparoscopy.²¹ These reports highlight the importance of considering malpositioned devices as the etiology of new pelvic pain after Essure placement.

Continue to: Device removal and patient outcomes...

Removal

Several studies that we evaluated included a discussion on the methods for Essure removal. which are divided into 2 general categories: hysteroscopy and laparoscopy.

Hysteroscopic removal is generally used when the device was placed less than 12 weeks prior to removal.^7,19 After 12 weeks, removal is more difficult due to fibrosis within the fallopian tubes. A risk with hysteroscopic removal is failure to remove all fibers, which allows inflammation and fibrosis to continue.⁷ This risk is mitigated via laparoscopic hysterectomy or mini-cornuectomy with bilateral salpingectomy, where the devices can be removed en bloc and without excessive traction.

Laparoscopic Essure removal procedures described in the literature include salpingostomy and traction on the device, salpingectomy, and salpingectomy with mini-cornuectomy. The incision and traction method is typically performed via a 2- to 3-cm incision on the antimesial edge of the fallopian tube along with a circumferential incision to surround the interstitial tubal area. The implant is carefully extracted from the fallopian tube and cornua, and a salpingectomy is then performed.²² The implant is removed prior to the salpingectomy to ensure that the Essure device is removed in its entirety prior to performing a salpingectomy.

A prospective observational study evaluated laparoscopic removal of Essure devices in 80 women with or without cornual excision. Results suggest that the incision and traction method poses more technical difficulties than the cornuectomy approach.²³ Surgeons reported significant difficulty controlling the tensile pressure with traction, whereas use of the cornuectomy approach eliminated this risk and decreased the risk of fragmentation and incomplete removal.^23,24

Charavil and colleagues demonstrated in a prospective observational study that a vaginal hysterectomy with bilateral salpingectomy is a feasible approach to Essure removal. Twenty-six vaginal hysterectomies with bilateral salpingectomy and Essure removal were performed without conversion to laparoscopy or laparotomy. The surgeons performed an en bloc removal of each hemiuterus along with the ipsilateral tube, which ensured complete removal of the Essure device. Each case was confirmed with an x-ray of the surgical specimen.²⁵

If device fragmentation occurs, there are different methods recommended for locating fragments. A case report of bilateral uterine perforation after uncomplicated Essure placement used a preoperative computed tomography (CT) scan to locate the Essure fragments, but no intraoperative imaging was performed to confirm complete fragment removal.²⁶ The patient continued reporting chronic pelvic pain and ultimately underwent exploratory laparotomy with intraoperative fluoroscopy. Using fluoroscopy, investigators identified omental fragments that were missed on preoperative CT imaging. Fluoroscopy is not commonly used intraoperatively, but it may have added benefit for localizing retained fragments.

A retrospective cohort study reviewed the use of intraoperative x-ray of the removed specimen to confirm complete Essure removal.²⁷ If an x-ray of the removed specimen showed incomplete removal, an intraoperative pelvic x-ray was performed to locate missing fragments. X-ray of the removed devices confirmed complete removal in 63 of 72 patients (87.5%). Six of 9 women with an unsatisfactory specimen x-ray had no residual fragments identified during pelvic x-ray, and the device removal was deemed adequate. The remaining 3 women had radiologic evidence of incomplete device removal and required additional dissection for complete removal. Overall, use of x-ray or fluoroscopy is a relatively safe and accessible way to ensure complete removal of the Essure device and is worth consideration, especially when retained device fragments are suspected.

Symptom resolution

We reviewed 5 studies that examined pain outcomes after removal of the Essure devices. Casey et al found that 23 of 26 patients (88.5%) reported significant pain relief at the postoperative visit, while 3 of 26 (11.5%) reported persistent pelvic pain.² Two of 3 case series examined other outcomes in addition to postoperative pelvic pain, including sexual function and activities of daily living.^7,14 In the first case series by Brito and colleagues, 8 of 11 patients (72.7%) reported an improvement in pelvic pain, ability to perform daily activities, sexual life, and overall quality of life after Essure removal. For the remaining 3 patients with persistent pelvic pain after surgical removal of the device, 2 patients reported worsening pain symptoms and dyspareunia.¹⁴ In this study, 5 of 11 patients reported a history of chronic pelvic pain at baseline. In a retrospective case series by Clark et al, 28 of 32 women (87.5%) reported some improvement in all domains, with 24 of 32 patients (75%) reporting almost total or complete improvement in quality of life, sexual life, pelvic pain, and scores related to activities of daily living. Pain and quality-of-life scores were similar for women who underwent uterine-preserving surgery and for those who underwent hysterectomy. Ten of 32 women (31.3%) reported persistent or worsening symptoms after the Essure removal surgery. In these patients, the authors recommended consideration of other autoimmune and hypersensitivity etiologies.⁷

In a retrospective cohort study by Kamencic et al from 2002 to 2013 of 1,430 patients who underwent Essure placement with postplacement imaging, 62 patients (4.3%) required a second surgery after Essure placement due to pelvic pain.¹⁰ This study also found that 4 of 62 patients (0.3%) had no other obvious cause for the pelvic pain. All 4 of these women had complete resolution of their pain with removal of the Essure microinsert device. A prospective observational study by Chene et al examined health-related quality-of-life outcomes in 80 women who underwent laparoscopic Essure removal for pelvic pain. This survey study demonstrated significant improvement in the quality of life in both psychological and physical aspects, and these results were maintained at 3- and 6-month follow-up examinations.²³

Summary

Although Essure products were withdrawn from the market in the United States in 2018, many patients still experience significant AEs associated with the device. The goal of the perspectives and data presented here is to assist clinicians in addressing and managing the pain experienced by patients after device insertion. ●

​​​​​​​

The evaluation and management of chronic pelvic pain in patients with a history of Essure device (Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc, Whippany, New Jersey) insertion have posed many challenges for both clinicians and patients. The availability of high-quality, evidence-based clinical guidance has been limited. We have reviewed the currently available published data, and here provide an overview of takeaways, as well as share our perspective and approach on evaluating and managing chronic pelvic pain in this unique patient population.

The device

The Essure microinsert is a hysteroscopically placed device that facilitates permanent sterilization by occluding the bilateral proximal fallopian tubes. The microinsert has an inner and outer nitinol coil that attaches the device to the proximal fallopian tube to ensure retention. The inner coil releases polyethylene terephthalate fibers that cause tubal fiber proliferation to occlude the lumen of the fallopian tube and achieve sterilization.

The device was first approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2002. In subsequent years, the device was well received and widely used, with approximately 750,000 women worldwide undergoing Essure placement.^1,2 Shortly after approval, many adverse events (AEs), including pelvic pain and abnormal uterine bleeding, were reported, resulting in a public meeting of the FDA Obstetrics and Gynecology Devices Panel in September 2015. A postmarket surveillance study on the device ensued to assess complication rates including unplanned pregnancy, pelvic pain, and surgery for removal. In February 2016, the FDA issued a black box warning and a patient decision checklist.^3,4 In December 2018, Bayer stopped selling and distributing Essure in the United States.⁵ A 4-year follow-up surveillance study on Essure was submitted to the FDA in March 2020.

Adverse outcomes

Common AEs related to the Essure device include heavy uterine bleeding, pelvic pain, and other quality-of-life symptoms such as fatigue and weight gain.^6-8 The main safety endpoints for the mandated FDA postmarket 522 surveillance studies were chronic lower abdominal and pelvic pain; abnormal uterine bleeding; hypersensitivity; allergic reaction, as well as autoimmune disorders incorporating inflammatory markers and human leukocyte antigen; and gynecologic surgery for device removal.⁹ Postmarket surveillence has shown that most AEs are related to placement complications or pelvic pain after Essure insertion. However, there have been several reports of autoimmune diseases categorized as serious AEs, such as new-onset systemic lupus erythematosus, rheumatoid arthritis, and worsening ulcerative colitis, after Essure insertion.⁵

Evaluation of symptoms

Prevalence of pelvic pain following device placement

We conducted a PubMed and MEDLINE search from January 2000 to May 2020, which identified 43 studies citing AEs related to device placement, including pelvic or abdominal pain, abnormal uterine bleeding, hypersensitivity, and autoimmune disorders. A particularly debilitating and frequently cited AE was new-onset pelvic pain or worsening of preexisting pelvic pain. Perforation of the uterus or fallopian tube, resulting in displacement of the device into the peritoneal cavity, or fragmentation of the microinsert was reported as a serious AE that occurred after device placement. However, due to the complexity of chronic pelvic pain pathogenesis, the effect of the insert on patients with existing chronic pelvic pain remains unknown.

Authors of a large retrospective study found that approximately 2.7% of 1,430 patients developed new-onset or worsening pelvic pain after device placement. New-onset pelvic pain in 1% of patients was thought to be secondary to device placement, without a coexisting pathology or diagnosis.¹⁰

In a retrospective study by Clark and colleagues, 22 of 50 women (44%) with pelvic pain after microinsert placement were found to have at least one other cause of pelvic pain. The most common alternative diagnoses were endometriosis, adenomyosis, salpingitis, and adhesive disease. Nine of the 50 patients (18%) were found to have endometriosis upon surgical removal of the microinsert.⁷

Another case series examined outcomes in 29 patients undergoing laparoscopic device removal due to new-onset pelvic pain. Intraoperative findings included endometriosis in 5 patients (17.2%) and pelvic adhesions in 3 (10.3%).² Chronic pelvic pain secondary to endometriosis may be exacerbated with Essure insertion due to discontinuation of hormonal birth control after device placement,⁷ and this diagnosis along with adenomyosis should be strongly considered in patients whose pelvic pain began when hormonal contraception was discontinued after placement of the device.

Continue to: Risk factors...

Authors of a retrospective cohort study found that patients with prior diagnosis of a chronic pain syndrome, low back pain, headaches, or fibromyalgia were 5 to 6 times more likely to report acute and chronic pain after hysteroscopic sterilization with Essure.¹¹ Since chronic pain is often thought to be driven by a hyperalgesic state of the central nervous system, as previously shown in patients with conditions such as vulvodynia, interstitial cystitis, and fibromyalgia,¹² a hyperalgesic state can potentially explain why some patients are more susceptible to developing worsening pain.

Van Limburg and colleagues conducted a retrospective cohort study with prospective follow-up on 284 women who underwent Essure sterilization. Among these patients, 48% reported negative AEs; risk factors included young age at placement, increasing gravidity, and no prior abdominal surgery.¹³

Onset of pain

The timing and onset of pelvic pain vary widely, suggesting there is no particular time frame for this AE after device placement.^2,6,14-18 A case series by Arjona and colleagues analyzed the incidence of chronic pelvic pain in 4,274 patients after Essure sterilization. Seven patients (0.16%) reported chronic pelvic pain that necessitated device removal. In 6 of the women, the pelvic pain began within 1 week of device placement. In 3 of the 6 cases, the surgeon reported the removal procedures as “difficult.” In all 6 cases, the level of pelvic pain increased with time and was not alleviated with standard analgesic medications.⁶

In another case series of 26 patients, the authors evaluated patients undergoing laparoscopic removal of Essure secondary to pelvic pain and reported that the time range for symptom presentation was immediate to 85 months. Thirteen of 26 patients (50%) reported pain onset within less than 1 month of device placement, 5 of 26 patients (19.2%) reported pain between 1 and 12 months after device placement, and 8 of 26 patients (30.8%) reported pain onset more than 12 months after microinsert placement.² In this study, 17.2% of operative reports indicated difficulty with device placement. It is unclear whether difficulty with placement was associated with development of subsequent abdominal or pelvic pain; however, the relevance of initial insertion difficulty diminished with longer follow-up.

Workup and evaluation

We found 5 studies that provided some framework for evaluating a patient with new-onset or worsening pelvic pain after microinsert placement. Overall, correct placement and functionality of the device should be confirmed by either hysterosalpingogram (HSG) or transvaginal ultrasonography (TVUS). The gold standard to determine tubal occlusion is the HSG. However, TVUS may be a dependable alternative, and either test can accurately demonstrate Essure location.¹⁹ Patients often prefer TVUS over HSG due to the low cost, minimal discomfort, and short examination time.¹ TVUS is a noninvasive and reasonable test to start the initial assessment. The Essure devices are highly echogenic on pelvic ultrasound and easily identifiable by the proximity of the device to the uterotubal junction and its relationship with the surrounding soft tissue. If the device perforates the peritoneal cavity, then the echogenic bowel can impede adequate visualization of the Essure microinsert. If the Essure insert is not visualized on TVUS, an HSG will not only confirm placement but also test insert functionality. After confirming correct placement of the device, the provider can proceed with standard workup for chronic pelvic pain.

If one or more of the devices are malpositioned, the devices are generally presumed to be the etiology of the new pain. Multiple case reports demonstrate pain due to Essure misconfiguration or perforation with subsequent resolution of symptoms after device removal.^18,20,21 A case study by Alcantara and colleagues described a patient with chronic pelvic pain and an Essure coil that was curved in an elliptical shape, not adhering to the anatomic course of the fallopian tube. The patient reported pain resolution after laparoscopic removal of the device.²⁰ Another case report by Mahmoud et al described a subserosal malpositioned device that caused acute pelvic pain 4 months after sterilization. The patient reported resolution of pain after the microinsert was removed via laparoscopy.²¹ These reports highlight the importance of considering malpositioned devices as the etiology of new pelvic pain after Essure placement.

Continue to: Device removal and patient outcomes...

Removal

Several studies that we evaluated included a discussion on the methods for Essure removal. which are divided into 2 general categories: hysteroscopy and laparoscopy.

Hysteroscopic removal is generally used when the device was placed less than 12 weeks prior to removal.^7,19 After 12 weeks, removal is more difficult due to fibrosis within the fallopian tubes. A risk with hysteroscopic removal is failure to remove all fibers, which allows inflammation and fibrosis to continue.⁷ This risk is mitigated via laparoscopic hysterectomy or mini-cornuectomy with bilateral salpingectomy, where the devices can be removed en bloc and without excessive traction.

Laparoscopic Essure removal procedures described in the literature include salpingostomy and traction on the device, salpingectomy, and salpingectomy with mini-cornuectomy. The incision and traction method is typically performed via a 2- to 3-cm incision on the antimesial edge of the fallopian tube along with a circumferential incision to surround the interstitial tubal area. The implant is carefully extracted from the fallopian tube and cornua, and a salpingectomy is then performed.²² The implant is removed prior to the salpingectomy to ensure that the Essure device is removed in its entirety prior to performing a salpingectomy.

A prospective observational study evaluated laparoscopic removal of Essure devices in 80 women with or without cornual excision. Results suggest that the incision and traction method poses more technical difficulties than the cornuectomy approach.²³ Surgeons reported significant difficulty controlling the tensile pressure with traction, whereas use of the cornuectomy approach eliminated this risk and decreased the risk of fragmentation and incomplete removal.^23,24

Charavil and colleagues demonstrated in a prospective observational study that a vaginal hysterectomy with bilateral salpingectomy is a feasible approach to Essure removal. Twenty-six vaginal hysterectomies with bilateral salpingectomy and Essure removal were performed without conversion to laparoscopy or laparotomy. The surgeons performed an en bloc removal of each hemiuterus along with the ipsilateral tube, which ensured complete removal of the Essure device. Each case was confirmed with an x-ray of the surgical specimen.²⁵

If device fragmentation occurs, there are different methods recommended for locating fragments. A case report of bilateral uterine perforation after uncomplicated Essure placement used a preoperative computed tomography (CT) scan to locate the Essure fragments, but no intraoperative imaging was performed to confirm complete fragment removal.²⁶ The patient continued reporting chronic pelvic pain and ultimately underwent exploratory laparotomy with intraoperative fluoroscopy. Using fluoroscopy, investigators identified omental fragments that were missed on preoperative CT imaging. Fluoroscopy is not commonly used intraoperatively, but it may have added benefit for localizing retained fragments.

A retrospective cohort study reviewed the use of intraoperative x-ray of the removed specimen to confirm complete Essure removal.²⁷ If an x-ray of the removed specimen showed incomplete removal, an intraoperative pelvic x-ray was performed to locate missing fragments. X-ray of the removed devices confirmed complete removal in 63 of 72 patients (87.5%). Six of 9 women with an unsatisfactory specimen x-ray had no residual fragments identified during pelvic x-ray, and the device removal was deemed adequate. The remaining 3 women had radiologic evidence of incomplete device removal and required additional dissection for complete removal. Overall, use of x-ray or fluoroscopy is a relatively safe and accessible way to ensure complete removal of the Essure device and is worth consideration, especially when retained device fragments are suspected.

Symptom resolution

We reviewed 5 studies that examined pain outcomes after removal of the Essure devices. Casey et al found that 23 of 26 patients (88.5%) reported significant pain relief at the postoperative visit, while 3 of 26 (11.5%) reported persistent pelvic pain.² Two of 3 case series examined other outcomes in addition to postoperative pelvic pain, including sexual function and activities of daily living.^7,14 In the first case series by Brito and colleagues, 8 of 11 patients (72.7%) reported an improvement in pelvic pain, ability to perform daily activities, sexual life, and overall quality of life after Essure removal. For the remaining 3 patients with persistent pelvic pain after surgical removal of the device, 2 patients reported worsening pain symptoms and dyspareunia.¹⁴ In this study, 5 of 11 patients reported a history of chronic pelvic pain at baseline. In a retrospective case series by Clark et al, 28 of 32 women (87.5%) reported some improvement in all domains, with 24 of 32 patients (75%) reporting almost total or complete improvement in quality of life, sexual life, pelvic pain, and scores related to activities of daily living. Pain and quality-of-life scores were similar for women who underwent uterine-preserving surgery and for those who underwent hysterectomy. Ten of 32 women (31.3%) reported persistent or worsening symptoms after the Essure removal surgery. In these patients, the authors recommended consideration of other autoimmune and hypersensitivity etiologies.⁷

In a retrospective cohort study by Kamencic et al from 2002 to 2013 of 1,430 patients who underwent Essure placement with postplacement imaging, 62 patients (4.3%) required a second surgery after Essure placement due to pelvic pain.¹⁰ This study also found that 4 of 62 patients (0.3%) had no other obvious cause for the pelvic pain. All 4 of these women had complete resolution of their pain with removal of the Essure microinsert device. A prospective observational study by Chene et al examined health-related quality-of-life outcomes in 80 women who underwent laparoscopic Essure removal for pelvic pain. This survey study demonstrated significant improvement in the quality of life in both psychological and physical aspects, and these results were maintained at 3- and 6-month follow-up examinations.²³

Summary

Although Essure products were withdrawn from the market in the United States in 2018, many patients still experience significant AEs associated with the device. The goal of the perspectives and data presented here is to assist clinicians in addressing and managing the pain experienced by patients after device insertion. ●

​​​​​​​

ILLUSTRATION BY KIMBERLY MARTENS FOR OBG MANAGEMENT

CASE Part 1: CPR initiated during induction of labor

A 32-year-old gravida 4 para 3-0-0-3 is undergoing induction of labor with intravenous (IV) oxytocin at 39 weeks of gestation. She has no significant medical or obstetric history. Fifteen minutes after reaching complete cervical dilation, she says “I don’t feel right,” then suddenly loses consciousness. The nurse finds no detectable pulse, calls a “code blue,” and initiates cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). The obstetrician is notified, appears promptly, assesses the situation, and delivers a 3.6-kg baby via vacuum extraction. Apgar score is 2/10 at 1 minute and 6/10 at 5 minutes. After delivery of the placenta, there is uterine atony and brisk hemorrhage with 2 L of blood loss.

Management of AFE: A rare complication

This case demonstrates a classic presentation of amniotic fluid embolism (AFE) syndrome—a patient in labor or within 30 minutes after delivery has sudden onset of cardiorespiratory collapse followed by disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC). AFE is rare, affecting only about 2 to 6 per 100,000 births, but classic cases have a reported maternal mortality rate that exceeds 50%.¹ It is thought to reflect a complex, systemic proinflammatory response to maternal intravasation of pregnancy material, such as trophoblast, thromboplastins, fetal cells, or amniotic fluid. Because the syndrome is not necessarily directly caused by emboli or by amniotic fluid per se,² it has been proposed that AFE be called “anaphylactoid syndrome of pregnancy,” but this terminology has not yet been widely adopted.³

Guidelines from the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM) recommend several time-critical steps for the initial stabilization and management of patients with AFE.⁴ However, because AFE is rare, most obstetric providers may not encounter a case for many years or even decades after they have received training, so it is unrealistic to expect that they will remember these guidelines when they are needed. For this reason, when AFE occurs, it is important to have a readily accessible cognitive aid, such as a checklist that summarizes the key management steps. The SMFM provides a checklist for initial management of AFE that can be used at your institution; it is presented in the FIGURE and provides the outline for this discussion.⁵

Provide CPR immediately

Most AFE cases are accompanied by cardiorespiratory arrest. If the patient has no pulse, call a “code” to mobilize additional help and immediately start CPR. Use a backboard to make cardiac compressions most effective and manually displace the uterus or tilt the patient to avoid supine hypotension. Designate a timekeeper to call out 1-minute intervals and record critical data, such as medication administration and laboratory orders/results.

Expedite delivery

Immediate delivery is needed if maternal cardiac activity is not restored within 4 minutes of starting CPR, with a target to have delivery completed within 5 minutes. Operative vaginal delivery may be an option if delivery is imminent, as in the case presented, but cesarean delivery (CD) will be needed in most cases. This was previously called “perimortem cesarean” delivery, but the term “resuscitative hysterotomy” has been proposed because the primary goal is to improve the effectiveness of CPR⁶ and prevent both maternal and perinatal death. CPR is less effective in pregnant women because the pregnant uterus takes a substantial fraction of the maternal cardiac output, as well as compresses the vena cava. Some experts suggest that, rather than waiting 4 minutes, CD should be started as soon as an obstetrician or other surgeon is present, unless there is an immediate response to electrical cardioversion.^6,7

In most cases, immediate CD should be performed wherever the patient is located rather than using precious minutes to move the patient to an operating room. Antiseptic preparation is expedited by simply pouring povidone-iodine or chlorhexidine over the lower abdomen if readily available; if not available, skip this step. Enter the abdomen and uterus as rapidly as possible using only a scalpel to make generous midline incisions.

If CPR is not required, proceed with cesarean or operative vaginal delivery as soon as the mother has been stabilized. These procedures should be performed using standard safety precautions outlined in the SMFM patient safety checklists for cesarean or operative vaginal delivery.^8,9

Continue to: Anticipate hemorrhage...

Be prepared for uterine atony, coagulopathy, and catastrophic hemorrhage. Initiate IV oxytocin prophylaxis as soon as the infant is delivered. Have a low threshold for giving other uterotonic agents such as methylergonovine, carboprost, or misoprostol. If hemorrhage or DIC occurs, give tranexamic acid. Have the anesthesiologist or trauma team (if available) insert an intraosseous line for fluid resuscitation if peripheral IV access is inadequate.

Massive transfusion is often needed to treat DIC, which occurs in most AFE cases. Anticipate—do not wait—for DIC to occur. We propose activating your hospital’s massive transfusion protocol (MTP) as soon as you diagnose AFE so that blood products will be available as soon as possible. A typical MTP provides several units of red blood cells, a pheresis pack of platelets, and fresh/frozen plasma (FFP). If clinically indicated, administer cryoprecipitate instead of FFP to minimize volume overload, which may occur with FFP.

CASE Part 2: MTP initiated to treat DIC

The MTP is initiated. Laboratory results immediately pre-transfusion include hemoglobin 11.3 g/dL, platelet count 46,000 per mm³, fibrinogen 87 mg/dL, and an elevated prothrombin time international normalized ratio.

Expect heart failure

The initial hemodynamic picture in AFE is right heart failure, which should optimally be managed by a specialist from anesthesiology, cardiology, or critical care as soon as they are available. An emergency department physician may manage the hemodynamics until a specialist arrives. Avoidance of fluid overload is one important principle. If fluid challenges are needed for hypovolemic shock, boluses should be restricted to 500 mL rather than the traditional 1000 mL.

Pharmacologic treatment may include vasopressors, inotropic agents, and pulmonary vasodilators. Example medications and dosages recommended by SMFM are summarized in the checklist (FIGURE).⁵

After the initial phase of recovery, the hemodynamic picture often changes from right heart failure to left heart failure. Management of left heart failure is not covered in the SMFM checklist because, by the time it appears, the patient will usually be in the intensive care unit, managed by the critical care team. Management of left heart failure generally includes diuresis as needed for cardiogenic pulmonary edema, optimization of cardiac preload, and inotropic agents or vasopressors if needed to maintain cardiac output or perfusion pressure.⁴

Debrief, learning opportunities

Complex emergencies such as AFE are rarely handled 100% perfectly, even those with a good outcome, so they present opportunities for team learning and improvement. The team should conduct a 10- to 15-minute debrief soon after the patient is stabilized. Make an explicit statement that the main goal of the debrief is to gather suggestions as to how systems and processes could be improved for next time, not to find fault or lay blame on individuals. Encourage all personnel involved in the initial management to attend and discuss what went well and what did not. Another goal is to provide support for individuals who may feel traumatized by the dramatic, frightening events surrounding an AFE and by the poor patient outcome or guarded prognosis that frequently follows. Another goal is to discuss the plan for providing support and disclosure to the patient and family.

The vast majority of AFE cases meet criteria to be designated as “sentinel events,” because of patient transfer to the intensive care unit, multi-unit blood transfusion, other severe maternal morbidities, or maternal death. Therefore, most AFE cases will trigger a root cause analysis (RCA) or other formal sentinel event analysis conducted by the hospital’s Safety or Quality Department. As with the immediate post-event debrief, the first goal of the RCA is to identify systems issues that may have resulted in suboptimal care and that can be modified to improve future care. Specific issues regarding the checklist should also be addressed:

• Was the checklist used?
• Was the checklist available?
• Are there items on the checklist that need to be modified, added, or deleted?

The RCA concludes with the development of a performance improvement plan.

Ultimately, we encourage all AFE cases be reported to the registry maintained by the Amniotic Fluid Embolism Foundation at https://www.afesupport.org/, regardless of whether the outcome was favorable for the mother and newborn. The registry includes over 130 AFE cases since 2013 from around the world. Researchers periodically report on the registry findings.¹⁰ If providers report cases with both good and bad outcomes, the registry may provide future insights regarding which adjunctive or empiric treatments may or may not be promising.

Continue to: Empiric treatments...

From time-to-time, new regimens for empiric treatment of AFE are reported. It is important to recognize that these reports are generally uncontrolled case reports of favorable outcomes and that, without a control group, it is impossible to determine to what extent the treatment contributed to the outcome or was merely incidental. Given the rarity of AFE, it seems unlikely that there will ever be a randomized clinical trial or even a controlled prospective study comparing treatment regimens.

The “A-OK” regimen is an empiric treatment that has garnered some interest after an initial case report.¹¹ It consists of an anticholinergic agent (atropine 0.2 mg IV), a selective 5-HT3 receptor antagonist (ondansetron 8 mg IV), and a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (ketorolac 15 mg IV). We have some reservations about this regimen, however, because atropine is relatively contraindicated if the patient has tachycardia (which is common in patients with hemorrhage) and ketorolac may suppress platelet function, which might be harmful for patients with DIC or thrombocytopenia.

Another empiric treatment is the “50-50-500” regimen, which includes an H1 antihistamine (diphenhydramine 50 mg IV), an H2 antihistamine (famotidine 50 mg IV), and a corticosteroid (hydrocortisone 500 mg IV). This regimen aims to suppress histamine-mediated and cell-mediated inflammatory responses, based on the notion that proinflammatory responses likely mediate much of the underlying pathophysiology of the AFE syndrome.

We would emphasize that these empiric regimens are not clinically validated, US Food and Drug Administration approved for treatment of AFE, or considered standard of care. Future reports of these and other regimens will be needed to evaluate their efficacy, limitations, and risks. Again, we encourage providers to report all AFE cases to the AFE Foundation registry, regardless of whether the treatments are successful.

CASE Conclusion

The hemorrhage stops after administration of oxytocin, carboprost, 6 units of cryoprecipitate, and a 6-unit platelet pheresis pack. The patient is transferred to the intensive care unit where she eventually requires a total of 10 units of red cells, 8 more units of cryoprecipitate, and another platelet pheresis pack. She is discharged to home in stable condition on postpartum day 4.

Be prepared, have the checklist ready

Because AFE is rare, most members of the health care team will have no prior experience managing a real case. It may have been years or decades since they had any education on AFE or they last read a review article such as this one. It is even possible the anesthesiologist, cardiologist, or critical care specialist has never heard of AFE. Thus if they rely on memory alone, there is substantial risk of forgetting items, getting dosages wrong, or other errors. With this in mind, what is the best way to prepare the team to expeditiously employ the management steps outlined here?

Use of a checklist that summarizes these key steps for early management, such as the SMFM checklist in the FIGURE, will help ensure that all relevant steps are performed in every AFE case. It is designed to be printed on a single sheet of letter-sized paper, and we propose that every labor and delivery (L&D) unit keep laminated copies of this checklist in several places where they will be immediately available should an AFE occur. Copies can be kept on the anesthesia carts in the L&D operating rooms, in an emergency procedures binder on the unit, and on the “crash carts” and hemorrhage supply carts in the L&D unit. Effective implementation of an AFE checklist requires all personnel know where to readily find it and have some familiarity with its contents.

An interdisciplinary team comprising representatives from nursing, obstetrics, and anesthesia should meet to discuss whether the checklist needs to be modified to fit the local hospital formulary or other unique local circumstances. The team should develop an implementation plan that includes where to keep checklist copies, a process to periodically ensure that the copies are still present and readable, a roll-out plan to inform all personnel about the checklist process, and most importantly a training plan that includes incorporating AFE cases into the schedule of multidisciplinary simulations and drills for obstetric emergencies. Other implementation strategies are outlined in the SMFM document.⁵

Ultimately an organized, systematic approach is recommended for management of AFE. There is no single best treatment of AFE; it is supportive and directed toward the underlying pathophysiology, which may vary from patient to patient. Therefore, although a checklist, in conjunction with regular education and simulation activities, may help optimize care and improve outcomes, there is still a high risk of maternal morbidity and mortality from AFE. ●

ILLUSTRATION BY KIMBERLY MARTENS FOR OBG MANAGEMENT

CASE Part 1: CPR initiated during induction of labor

A 32-year-old gravida 4 para 3-0-0-3 is undergoing induction of labor with intravenous (IV) oxytocin at 39 weeks of gestation. She has no significant medical or obstetric history. Fifteen minutes after reaching complete cervical dilation, she says “I don’t feel right,” then suddenly loses consciousness. The nurse finds no detectable pulse, calls a “code blue,” and initiates cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). The obstetrician is notified, appears promptly, assesses the situation, and delivers a 3.6-kg baby via vacuum extraction. Apgar score is 2/10 at 1 minute and 6/10 at 5 minutes. After delivery of the placenta, there is uterine atony and brisk hemorrhage with 2 L of blood loss.

Management of AFE: A rare complication

This case demonstrates a classic presentation of amniotic fluid embolism (AFE) syndrome—a patient in labor or within 30 minutes after delivery has sudden onset of cardiorespiratory collapse followed by disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC). AFE is rare, affecting only about 2 to 6 per 100,000 births, but classic cases have a reported maternal mortality rate that exceeds 50%.¹ It is thought to reflect a complex, systemic proinflammatory response to maternal intravasation of pregnancy material, such as trophoblast, thromboplastins, fetal cells, or amniotic fluid. Because the syndrome is not necessarily directly caused by emboli or by amniotic fluid per se,² it has been proposed that AFE be called “anaphylactoid syndrome of pregnancy,” but this terminology has not yet been widely adopted.³

Guidelines from the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM) recommend several time-critical steps for the initial stabilization and management of patients with AFE.⁴ However, because AFE is rare, most obstetric providers may not encounter a case for many years or even decades after they have received training, so it is unrealistic to expect that they will remember these guidelines when they are needed. For this reason, when AFE occurs, it is important to have a readily accessible cognitive aid, such as a checklist that summarizes the key management steps. The SMFM provides a checklist for initial management of AFE that can be used at your institution; it is presented in the FIGURE and provides the outline for this discussion.⁵

Provide CPR immediately

Most AFE cases are accompanied by cardiorespiratory arrest. If the patient has no pulse, call a “code” to mobilize additional help and immediately start CPR. Use a backboard to make cardiac compressions most effective and manually displace the uterus or tilt the patient to avoid supine hypotension. Designate a timekeeper to call out 1-minute intervals and record critical data, such as medication administration and laboratory orders/results.

Expedite delivery

Immediate delivery is needed if maternal cardiac activity is not restored within 4 minutes of starting CPR, with a target to have delivery completed within 5 minutes. Operative vaginal delivery may be an option if delivery is imminent, as in the case presented, but cesarean delivery (CD) will be needed in most cases. This was previously called “perimortem cesarean” delivery, but the term “resuscitative hysterotomy” has been proposed because the primary goal is to improve the effectiveness of CPR⁶ and prevent both maternal and perinatal death. CPR is less effective in pregnant women because the pregnant uterus takes a substantial fraction of the maternal cardiac output, as well as compresses the vena cava. Some experts suggest that, rather than waiting 4 minutes, CD should be started as soon as an obstetrician or other surgeon is present, unless there is an immediate response to electrical cardioversion.^6,7

In most cases, immediate CD should be performed wherever the patient is located rather than using precious minutes to move the patient to an operating room. Antiseptic preparation is expedited by simply pouring povidone-iodine or chlorhexidine over the lower abdomen if readily available; if not available, skip this step. Enter the abdomen and uterus as rapidly as possible using only a scalpel to make generous midline incisions.

If CPR is not required, proceed with cesarean or operative vaginal delivery as soon as the mother has been stabilized. These procedures should be performed using standard safety precautions outlined in the SMFM patient safety checklists for cesarean or operative vaginal delivery.^8,9

Continue to: Anticipate hemorrhage...

Be prepared for uterine atony, coagulopathy, and catastrophic hemorrhage. Initiate IV oxytocin prophylaxis as soon as the infant is delivered. Have a low threshold for giving other uterotonic agents such as methylergonovine, carboprost, or misoprostol. If hemorrhage or DIC occurs, give tranexamic acid. Have the anesthesiologist or trauma team (if available) insert an intraosseous line for fluid resuscitation if peripheral IV access is inadequate.

Massive transfusion is often needed to treat DIC, which occurs in most AFE cases. Anticipate—do not wait—for DIC to occur. We propose activating your hospital’s massive transfusion protocol (MTP) as soon as you diagnose AFE so that blood products will be available as soon as possible. A typical MTP provides several units of red blood cells, a pheresis pack of platelets, and fresh/frozen plasma (FFP). If clinically indicated, administer cryoprecipitate instead of FFP to minimize volume overload, which may occur with FFP.

CASE Part 2: MTP initiated to treat DIC

The MTP is initiated. Laboratory results immediately pre-transfusion include hemoglobin 11.3 g/dL, platelet count 46,000 per mm³, fibrinogen 87 mg/dL, and an elevated prothrombin time international normalized ratio.

Expect heart failure

The initial hemodynamic picture in AFE is right heart failure, which should optimally be managed by a specialist from anesthesiology, cardiology, or critical care as soon as they are available. An emergency department physician may manage the hemodynamics until a specialist arrives. Avoidance of fluid overload is one important principle. If fluid challenges are needed for hypovolemic shock, boluses should be restricted to 500 mL rather than the traditional 1000 mL.

Pharmacologic treatment may include vasopressors, inotropic agents, and pulmonary vasodilators. Example medications and dosages recommended by SMFM are summarized in the checklist (FIGURE).⁵

After the initial phase of recovery, the hemodynamic picture often changes from right heart failure to left heart failure. Management of left heart failure is not covered in the SMFM checklist because, by the time it appears, the patient will usually be in the intensive care unit, managed by the critical care team. Management of left heart failure generally includes diuresis as needed for cardiogenic pulmonary edema, optimization of cardiac preload, and inotropic agents or vasopressors if needed to maintain cardiac output or perfusion pressure.⁴

Debrief, learning opportunities

Complex emergencies such as AFE are rarely handled 100% perfectly, even those with a good outcome, so they present opportunities for team learning and improvement. The team should conduct a 10- to 15-minute debrief soon after the patient is stabilized. Make an explicit statement that the main goal of the debrief is to gather suggestions as to how systems and processes could be improved for next time, not to find fault or lay blame on individuals. Encourage all personnel involved in the initial management to attend and discuss what went well and what did not. Another goal is to provide support for individuals who may feel traumatized by the dramatic, frightening events surrounding an AFE and by the poor patient outcome or guarded prognosis that frequently follows. Another goal is to discuss the plan for providing support and disclosure to the patient and family.

The vast majority of AFE cases meet criteria to be designated as “sentinel events,” because of patient transfer to the intensive care unit, multi-unit blood transfusion, other severe maternal morbidities, or maternal death. Therefore, most AFE cases will trigger a root cause analysis (RCA) or other formal sentinel event analysis conducted by the hospital’s Safety or Quality Department. As with the immediate post-event debrief, the first goal of the RCA is to identify systems issues that may have resulted in suboptimal care and that can be modified to improve future care. Specific issues regarding the checklist should also be addressed:

• Was the checklist used?
• Was the checklist available?
• Are there items on the checklist that need to be modified, added, or deleted?

The RCA concludes with the development of a performance improvement plan.

Ultimately, we encourage all AFE cases be reported to the registry maintained by the Amniotic Fluid Embolism Foundation at https://www.afesupport.org/, regardless of whether the outcome was favorable for the mother and newborn. The registry includes over 130 AFE cases since 2013 from around the world. Researchers periodically report on the registry findings.¹⁰ If providers report cases with both good and bad outcomes, the registry may provide future insights regarding which adjunctive or empiric treatments may or may not be promising.

Continue to: Empiric treatments...

From time-to-time, new regimens for empiric treatment of AFE are reported. It is important to recognize that these reports are generally uncontrolled case reports of favorable outcomes and that, without a control group, it is impossible to determine to what extent the treatment contributed to the outcome or was merely incidental. Given the rarity of AFE, it seems unlikely that there will ever be a randomized clinical trial or even a controlled prospective study comparing treatment regimens.

The “A-OK” regimen is an empiric treatment that has garnered some interest after an initial case report.¹¹ It consists of an anticholinergic agent (atropine 0.2 mg IV), a selective 5-HT3 receptor antagonist (ondansetron 8 mg IV), and a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (ketorolac 15 mg IV). We have some reservations about this regimen, however, because atropine is relatively contraindicated if the patient has tachycardia (which is common in patients with hemorrhage) and ketorolac may suppress platelet function, which might be harmful for patients with DIC or thrombocytopenia.

Another empiric treatment is the “50-50-500” regimen, which includes an H1 antihistamine (diphenhydramine 50 mg IV), an H2 antihistamine (famotidine 50 mg IV), and a corticosteroid (hydrocortisone 500 mg IV). This regimen aims to suppress histamine-mediated and cell-mediated inflammatory responses, based on the notion that proinflammatory responses likely mediate much of the underlying pathophysiology of the AFE syndrome.

We would emphasize that these empiric regimens are not clinically validated, US Food and Drug Administration approved for treatment of AFE, or considered standard of care. Future reports of these and other regimens will be needed to evaluate their efficacy, limitations, and risks. Again, we encourage providers to report all AFE cases to the AFE Foundation registry, regardless of whether the treatments are successful.

CASE Conclusion

The hemorrhage stops after administration of oxytocin, carboprost, 6 units of cryoprecipitate, and a 6-unit platelet pheresis pack. The patient is transferred to the intensive care unit where she eventually requires a total of 10 units of red cells, 8 more units of cryoprecipitate, and another platelet pheresis pack. She is discharged to home in stable condition on postpartum day 4.

Be prepared, have the checklist ready

Because AFE is rare, most members of the health care team will have no prior experience managing a real case. It may have been years or decades since they had any education on AFE or they last read a review article such as this one. It is even possible the anesthesiologist, cardiologist, or critical care specialist has never heard of AFE. Thus if they rely on memory alone, there is substantial risk of forgetting items, getting dosages wrong, or other errors. With this in mind, what is the best way to prepare the team to expeditiously employ the management steps outlined here?

Use of a checklist that summarizes these key steps for early management, such as the SMFM checklist in the FIGURE, will help ensure that all relevant steps are performed in every AFE case. It is designed to be printed on a single sheet of letter-sized paper, and we propose that every labor and delivery (L&D) unit keep laminated copies of this checklist in several places where they will be immediately available should an AFE occur. Copies can be kept on the anesthesia carts in the L&D operating rooms, in an emergency procedures binder on the unit, and on the “crash carts” and hemorrhage supply carts in the L&D unit. Effective implementation of an AFE checklist requires all personnel know where to readily find it and have some familiarity with its contents.

An interdisciplinary team comprising representatives from nursing, obstetrics, and anesthesia should meet to discuss whether the checklist needs to be modified to fit the local hospital formulary or other unique local circumstances. The team should develop an implementation plan that includes where to keep checklist copies, a process to periodically ensure that the copies are still present and readable, a roll-out plan to inform all personnel about the checklist process, and most importantly a training plan that includes incorporating AFE cases into the schedule of multidisciplinary simulations and drills for obstetric emergencies. Other implementation strategies are outlined in the SMFM document.⁵

Ultimately an organized, systematic approach is recommended for management of AFE. There is no single best treatment of AFE; it is supportive and directed toward the underlying pathophysiology, which may vary from patient to patient. Therefore, although a checklist, in conjunction with regular education and simulation activities, may help optimize care and improve outcomes, there is still a high risk of maternal morbidity and mortality from AFE. ●

ILLUSTRATION BY KIMBERLY MARTENS FOR OBG MANAGEMENT

CASE Part 1: CPR initiated during induction of labor

A 32-year-old gravida 4 para 3-0-0-3 is undergoing induction of labor with intravenous (IV) oxytocin at 39 weeks of gestation. She has no significant medical or obstetric history. Fifteen minutes after reaching complete cervical dilation, she says “I don’t feel right,” then suddenly loses consciousness. The nurse finds no detectable pulse, calls a “code blue,” and initiates cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). The obstetrician is notified, appears promptly, assesses the situation, and delivers a 3.6-kg baby via vacuum extraction. Apgar score is 2/10 at 1 minute and 6/10 at 5 minutes. After delivery of the placenta, there is uterine atony and brisk hemorrhage with 2 L of blood loss.

Management of AFE: A rare complication

This case demonstrates a classic presentation of amniotic fluid embolism (AFE) syndrome—a patient in labor or within 30 minutes after delivery has sudden onset of cardiorespiratory collapse followed by disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC). AFE is rare, affecting only about 2 to 6 per 100,000 births, but classic cases have a reported maternal mortality rate that exceeds 50%.¹ It is thought to reflect a complex, systemic proinflammatory response to maternal intravasation of pregnancy material, such as trophoblast, thromboplastins, fetal cells, or amniotic fluid. Because the syndrome is not necessarily directly caused by emboli or by amniotic fluid per se,² it has been proposed that AFE be called “anaphylactoid syndrome of pregnancy,” but this terminology has not yet been widely adopted.³

Guidelines from the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM) recommend several time-critical steps for the initial stabilization and management of patients with AFE.⁴ However, because AFE is rare, most obstetric providers may not encounter a case for many years or even decades after they have received training, so it is unrealistic to expect that they will remember these guidelines when they are needed. For this reason, when AFE occurs, it is important to have a readily accessible cognitive aid, such as a checklist that summarizes the key management steps. The SMFM provides a checklist for initial management of AFE that can be used at your institution; it is presented in the FIGURE and provides the outline for this discussion.⁵

Provide CPR immediately

Most AFE cases are accompanied by cardiorespiratory arrest. If the patient has no pulse, call a “code” to mobilize additional help and immediately start CPR. Use a backboard to make cardiac compressions most effective and manually displace the uterus or tilt the patient to avoid supine hypotension. Designate a timekeeper to call out 1-minute intervals and record critical data, such as medication administration and laboratory orders/results.

Expedite delivery

Immediate delivery is needed if maternal cardiac activity is not restored within 4 minutes of starting CPR, with a target to have delivery completed within 5 minutes. Operative vaginal delivery may be an option if delivery is imminent, as in the case presented, but cesarean delivery (CD) will be needed in most cases. This was previously called “perimortem cesarean” delivery, but the term “resuscitative hysterotomy” has been proposed because the primary goal is to improve the effectiveness of CPR⁶ and prevent both maternal and perinatal death. CPR is less effective in pregnant women because the pregnant uterus takes a substantial fraction of the maternal cardiac output, as well as compresses the vena cava. Some experts suggest that, rather than waiting 4 minutes, CD should be started as soon as an obstetrician or other surgeon is present, unless there is an immediate response to electrical cardioversion.^6,7

In most cases, immediate CD should be performed wherever the patient is located rather than using precious minutes to move the patient to an operating room. Antiseptic preparation is expedited by simply pouring povidone-iodine or chlorhexidine over the lower abdomen if readily available; if not available, skip this step. Enter the abdomen and uterus as rapidly as possible using only a scalpel to make generous midline incisions.

If CPR is not required, proceed with cesarean or operative vaginal delivery as soon as the mother has been stabilized. These procedures should be performed using standard safety precautions outlined in the SMFM patient safety checklists for cesarean or operative vaginal delivery.^8,9

Continue to: Anticipate hemorrhage...

Be prepared for uterine atony, coagulopathy, and catastrophic hemorrhage. Initiate IV oxytocin prophylaxis as soon as the infant is delivered. Have a low threshold for giving other uterotonic agents such as methylergonovine, carboprost, or misoprostol. If hemorrhage or DIC occurs, give tranexamic acid. Have the anesthesiologist or trauma team (if available) insert an intraosseous line for fluid resuscitation if peripheral IV access is inadequate.

Massive transfusion is often needed to treat DIC, which occurs in most AFE cases. Anticipate—do not wait—for DIC to occur. We propose activating your hospital’s massive transfusion protocol (MTP) as soon as you diagnose AFE so that blood products will be available as soon as possible. A typical MTP provides several units of red blood cells, a pheresis pack of platelets, and fresh/frozen plasma (FFP). If clinically indicated, administer cryoprecipitate instead of FFP to minimize volume overload, which may occur with FFP.

CASE Part 2: MTP initiated to treat DIC

The MTP is initiated. Laboratory results immediately pre-transfusion include hemoglobin 11.3 g/dL, platelet count 46,000 per mm³, fibrinogen 87 mg/dL, and an elevated prothrombin time international normalized ratio.

Expect heart failure

The initial hemodynamic picture in AFE is right heart failure, which should optimally be managed by a specialist from anesthesiology, cardiology, or critical care as soon as they are available. An emergency department physician may manage the hemodynamics until a specialist arrives. Avoidance of fluid overload is one important principle. If fluid challenges are needed for hypovolemic shock, boluses should be restricted to 500 mL rather than the traditional 1000 mL.

Pharmacologic treatment may include vasopressors, inotropic agents, and pulmonary vasodilators. Example medications and dosages recommended by SMFM are summarized in the checklist (FIGURE).⁵

After the initial phase of recovery, the hemodynamic picture often changes from right heart failure to left heart failure. Management of left heart failure is not covered in the SMFM checklist because, by the time it appears, the patient will usually be in the intensive care unit, managed by the critical care team. Management of left heart failure generally includes diuresis as needed for cardiogenic pulmonary edema, optimization of cardiac preload, and inotropic agents or vasopressors if needed to maintain cardiac output or perfusion pressure.⁴

Debrief, learning opportunities

Complex emergencies such as AFE are rarely handled 100% perfectly, even those with a good outcome, so they present opportunities for team learning and improvement. The team should conduct a 10- to 15-minute debrief soon after the patient is stabilized. Make an explicit statement that the main goal of the debrief is to gather suggestions as to how systems and processes could be improved for next time, not to find fault or lay blame on individuals. Encourage all personnel involved in the initial management to attend and discuss what went well and what did not. Another goal is to provide support for individuals who may feel traumatized by the dramatic, frightening events surrounding an AFE and by the poor patient outcome or guarded prognosis that frequently follows. Another goal is to discuss the plan for providing support and disclosure to the patient and family.

The vast majority of AFE cases meet criteria to be designated as “sentinel events,” because of patient transfer to the intensive care unit, multi-unit blood transfusion, other severe maternal morbidities, or maternal death. Therefore, most AFE cases will trigger a root cause analysis (RCA) or other formal sentinel event analysis conducted by the hospital’s Safety or Quality Department. As with the immediate post-event debrief, the first goal of the RCA is to identify systems issues that may have resulted in suboptimal care and that can be modified to improve future care. Specific issues regarding the checklist should also be addressed:

• Was the checklist used?
• Was the checklist available?
• Are there items on the checklist that need to be modified, added, or deleted?

The RCA concludes with the development of a performance improvement plan.

Ultimately, we encourage all AFE cases be reported to the registry maintained by the Amniotic Fluid Embolism Foundation at https://www.afesupport.org/, regardless of whether the outcome was favorable for the mother and newborn. The registry includes over 130 AFE cases since 2013 from around the world. Researchers periodically report on the registry findings.¹⁰ If providers report cases with both good and bad outcomes, the registry may provide future insights regarding which adjunctive or empiric treatments may or may not be promising.

Continue to: Empiric treatments...

From time-to-time, new regimens for empiric treatment of AFE are reported. It is important to recognize that these reports are generally uncontrolled case reports of favorable outcomes and that, without a control group, it is impossible to determine to what extent the treatment contributed to the outcome or was merely incidental. Given the rarity of AFE, it seems unlikely that there will ever be a randomized clinical trial or even a controlled prospective study comparing treatment regimens.

The “A-OK” regimen is an empiric treatment that has garnered some interest after an initial case report.¹¹ It consists of an anticholinergic agent (atropine 0.2 mg IV), a selective 5-HT3 receptor antagonist (ondansetron 8 mg IV), and a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (ketorolac 15 mg IV). We have some reservations about this regimen, however, because atropine is relatively contraindicated if the patient has tachycardia (which is common in patients with hemorrhage) and ketorolac may suppress platelet function, which might be harmful for patients with DIC or thrombocytopenia.

Another empiric treatment is the “50-50-500” regimen, which includes an H1 antihistamine (diphenhydramine 50 mg IV), an H2 antihistamine (famotidine 50 mg IV), and a corticosteroid (hydrocortisone 500 mg IV). This regimen aims to suppress histamine-mediated and cell-mediated inflammatory responses, based on the notion that proinflammatory responses likely mediate much of the underlying pathophysiology of the AFE syndrome.

We would emphasize that these empiric regimens are not clinically validated, US Food and Drug Administration approved for treatment of AFE, or considered standard of care. Future reports of these and other regimens will be needed to evaluate their efficacy, limitations, and risks. Again, we encourage providers to report all AFE cases to the AFE Foundation registry, regardless of whether the treatments are successful.

CASE Conclusion

The hemorrhage stops after administration of oxytocin, carboprost, 6 units of cryoprecipitate, and a 6-unit platelet pheresis pack. The patient is transferred to the intensive care unit where she eventually requires a total of 10 units of red cells, 8 more units of cryoprecipitate, and another platelet pheresis pack. She is discharged to home in stable condition on postpartum day 4.

Be prepared, have the checklist ready

Because AFE is rare, most members of the health care team will have no prior experience managing a real case. It may have been years or decades since they had any education on AFE or they last read a review article such as this one. It is even possible the anesthesiologist, cardiologist, or critical care specialist has never heard of AFE. Thus if they rely on memory alone, there is substantial risk of forgetting items, getting dosages wrong, or other errors. With this in mind, what is the best way to prepare the team to expeditiously employ the management steps outlined here?

Use of a checklist that summarizes these key steps for early management, such as the SMFM checklist in the FIGURE, will help ensure that all relevant steps are performed in every AFE case. It is designed to be printed on a single sheet of letter-sized paper, and we propose that every labor and delivery (L&D) unit keep laminated copies of this checklist in several places where they will be immediately available should an AFE occur. Copies can be kept on the anesthesia carts in the L&D operating rooms, in an emergency procedures binder on the unit, and on the “crash carts” and hemorrhage supply carts in the L&D unit. Effective implementation of an AFE checklist requires all personnel know where to readily find it and have some familiarity with its contents.

An interdisciplinary team comprising representatives from nursing, obstetrics, and anesthesia should meet to discuss whether the checklist needs to be modified to fit the local hospital formulary or other unique local circumstances. The team should develop an implementation plan that includes where to keep checklist copies, a process to periodically ensure that the copies are still present and readable, a roll-out plan to inform all personnel about the checklist process, and most importantly a training plan that includes incorporating AFE cases into the schedule of multidisciplinary simulations and drills for obstetric emergencies. Other implementation strategies are outlined in the SMFM document.⁵

Ultimately an organized, systematic approach is recommended for management of AFE. There is no single best treatment of AFE; it is supportive and directed toward the underlying pathophysiology, which may vary from patient to patient. Therefore, although a checklist, in conjunction with regular education and simulation activities, may help optimize care and improve outcomes, there is still a high risk of maternal morbidity and mortality from AFE. ●

A patient presenting with a hand pustule is a phenomenon encountered worldwide requiring careful history-taking. Some occupations, activities, and various religious practices (eg, Eid al-Adha, Passover, Easter) have been implicated worldwide in orf infection. In the United States, orf virus usually is spread from infected animal hosts to humans. Herein, we review the differential for a single hand pustule, which includes both infectious and noninfectious causes. Recognizing orf virus as the etiology of a cutaneous hand pustule in patients is important, as misdiagnosis can lead to unnecessary invasive testing and/or treatments with suboptimal clinical outcomes.

Case Series

When conducting a search for orf virus cases at our institution (University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, Iowa), 5 patient cases were identified.

Patient 1—A 27-year-old otherwise healthy woman presented to clinic with a tender red bump on the right ring finger that had been slowly growing over the course of 2 weeks and had recently started to bleed. A social history revealed that she owned several goats, which she frequently milked; 1 of the goats had a cyst on the mouth, which she popped approximately 1 to 2 weeks prior to the appearance of the lesion on the finger. She also endorsed that she owned several cattle and various other animals with which she had frequent contact. A biopsy was obtained with features consistent with orf virus.

Patient 2—A 33-year-old man presented to clinic with a lesion of concern on the left index finger. Several days prior to presentation, the patient had visited the emergency department for swelling and erythema of the same finger after cutting himself with a knife while preparing sheep meat. Radiographs were normal, and the patient was referred to dermatology. In clinic, there was a 0.5-cm fluctuant mass on the distal interphalangeal joint of the third finger. The patient declined a biopsy, and the lesion healed over 4 to 6 weeks without complication.

Patient 3—A 38-year-old man presented to clinic with 2 painless, large, round nodules on the right proximal index finger, with open friable centers noted on physical examination (Figure 1). The patient reported cutting the finger while preparing sheep meat several days prior. The nodules had been present for a few weeks and continued to grow. A punch biopsy revealed evidence of parapoxvirus infection consistent with a diagnosis of orf.

Patient 4—A 48-year-old man was referred to our dermatology clinic for evaluation of a bleeding lesion on the left middle finger. Physical examination revealed an exophytic, friable, ulcerated nodule on the dorsal aspect of the left middle finger (Figure 2). Upon further questioning, the patient mentioned that he handled raw lamb meat after cutting the finger. A punch biopsy was obtained and was consistent with orf virus infection.

Patient 5—A 43-year-old woman presented to clinic with a chronic wound on the mid lower back that was noted to drain and crust over. She thought the lesion was improving, but it had become painful over the last few weeks. A shave biopsy of the lesion was consistent with orf virus. At follow-up, the patient was unable to identify any recent contact with animals.

Transmission From Animals to Humans—Orf virus is a member of the Parapoxvirus genus of the Poxviridae family.¹ This virus is highly contagious among animals and has been described around the globe. The resulting disease also is known as contagious pustular dermatitis,² soremuzzle,³ ecthyma contagiosum of sheep,⁴ and scabby mouth.⁵ This virus most commonly infects young lambs and manifests as raw to crusty papules, pustules, or vesicles around the mouth and nose of the animal.⁴ Additional signs include excessive salivation and weight loss or starvation from the inability to suckle because of the lesions.⁵ Although ecthyma contagiosum infection of sheep and goats has been well known for centuries, human infection was first reported in the literature in 1934.⁶

Transmission of orf to humans can occur when direct contact with an infected animal exhibiting active lesions occurs.⁷ Orf virus also can be transmitted through fomites (eg, from knives, wool, buildings, equipment) that previously were in contact with infected animals, making it relevant to ask all farmers about any animals with pustules around the mouth, nose, udders, or other commonly affected areas. Although sanitation efforts are important for prevention, orf virus is hardy, and fomites can remain on surfaces for many months.⁸ Transmission among animals and from animals to humans frequently occurs; however, human-to-human transmission is less common.⁹ Ecthyma contagiosum is considered an occupational hazard, with the disease being most prevalent in shepherds, veterinarians, and butchers.^1,8 Disease prevalence in these occupations has been reported to be as high as 50%.¹⁰ Infections also are seen in patients who attend petting zoos or who slaughter goats and sheep for cultural practices.⁸

Clinical Characteristics in Humans—The clinical diagnosis of orf is dependent on taking a thorough patient history that includes social, occupational, and religious activities. Development of a nodule or papule on a patient’s hand with recent exposure to fomites or direct contact with a goat or sheep up to 1 week prior is extremely suggestive of an orf virus infection.

Clinically, orf most often begins as an individual papule or nodule on the dorsal surface of the patient’s finger or hand and ranges from completely asymptomatic to pruritic or even painful.^1,8 Depending on how the infection was inoculated, lesions can vary in size and number. Other sites that have been reported less frequently include the genitals, legs, axillae, and head.^11,12 Lesions are roughly 1 cm in diameter but can vary in size. Ecthyma contagiosum is not a static disease but changes in appearance over the course of infection. Typically, lesions will appear 3 to 7 days after inoculation with the orf virus and will self-resolve 6 to 8 weeks later.

Orf lesions have been described to progress through 6 distinct phases before resolving: maculopapular (erythematous macule or papule forms), targetoid (formation of a necrotic center with red outer halo), acute (lesion begins to weep), regenerative (lesion becomes dry), papilloma (dry crust becomes papillomatous), and regression (skin returns to normal appearance).^1,8,9 Each phase of ecthyma contagiosum is unique and will last up to 1 week before progressing. Because of this prolonged clinical course, patients can present at any stage.

Reports of systemic symptoms are uncommon but can include lymphadenopathy, fever, and malaise.¹³ Although the disease course in immunocompetent individuals is quite mild, immunocompromised patients may experience persistent orf lesions that are painful and can be much larger, with reports of several centimeters in diameter.¹⁴

Dermatopathology and Molecular Studies—When a clinical diagnosis is not possible, biopsy or molecular studies can be helpful.⁸ Histopathology can vary depending on the phase of the lesion. Early stages are characterized by spongiform degeneration of the epidermis with variable vesiculation of the superficial epidermis and eosinophilic cytoplasmic inclusion bodies of keratinocytes (Figure 3). Later stages demonstrate full-thickness necrosis with epidermal balloon degeneration and dense inflammation of the dermis with edema and extravasated erythrocytes from dilated blood vessels. Both early- and late-stage disease commonly show characteristic elongated thin rete ridges.⁸

Molecular studies are another reliable method for diagnosis, though these are not always readily available. Polymerase chain reaction can be used for sensitive and rapid diagnosis.¹⁵ Less commonly, electron microscopy, Western blot, or enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays are used.¹⁶ Laboratory studies, such as complete blood cell count with differential, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and C-reactive protein, often are unnecessary but may be helpful in ruling out other infectious causes. Tissue culture can be considered if bacterial, fungal, or acid-fast bacilli are in the differential; however, no growth will be seen in the case of orf viral infection.

Differential Diagnosis—The differential diagnosis for patients presenting with a large pustule on the hand or fingers can depend on geographic location, as the potential etiology may vary widely around the world. Several zoonotic viral infections other than orf can present with pustular lesions on the hands (Table).^17-24

Clinically, infection with these named viruses can be hard to distinguish; however, appropriate social history or polymerase chain reaction can be obtained to differentiate them. Other infectious entities include herpetic whitlow, giant molluscum, and anthrax (eTable).^24-26 Biopsy of the lesion with bacterial tissue culture may lead to definitive diagnosis.²⁶

Treatment—Because of the self-resolving nature of orf, treatment usually is not needed in immunocompetent patients with a solitary lesion. However, wound care is essential to prevent secondary infections of the lesion. If secondarily infected, topical or oral antibiotics may be prescribed. Immunocompromised individuals are at increased risk for developing large persistent lesions and sometimes require intervention for successful treatment. Several successful treatment methods have been described and include intralesional interferon injections, electrocautery, topical imiquimod, topical cidofovir, and cryotherapy.^8,14,27-30 Infections that continue to be refractory to less-invasive treatment can be considered for wide local excision; however, recurrence is possible.⁸ Vaccinations are available for animals to prevent the spread of infection in the flock, but there are no formulations of vaccines for human use. Prevention of spread to humans can be done through animal vaccination, careful handling of animal products while wearing nonporous gloves, and proper sanitation techniques.

Complications—Orf has an excellent long-term prognosis in immunocompetent patients, as the virus is epitheliotropic, and inoculation does not lead to viremia.² Although lesions typically are asymptomatic in most patients, complications can occur, especially in immunosuppressed individuals. These complications include systemic symptoms, giant persistent lesions prone to infection or scarring, erysipelas, lymphadenitis, and erythema multiforme.^8,31 Common systemic symptoms of ecthyma contagiosum include fever, fatigue, and myalgia. Lymphadenitis can occur along with local swelling and lymphatic streaking. Although erythema multiforme is a rare complication occurring after initial ecthyma contagiosum infection, this hypersensitivity reaction is postulated to be in response to the immunologic clearing of the orf virus.^32,33 Patients receiving systemic immunosuppressive medications are at an increased risk of developing complications from infection and may even be required to pause systemic treatment for complete resolution of orf lesions.³⁴ Other cutaneous diseases that decrease the skin’s barrier protection, such as bullous pemphigoid or eczema, also can place patients at an increased risk for complications.³⁵ Although human-to-human orf virus transmission is exceptionally rare, there is a case report of this phenomenon in immunosuppressed patients residing in a burn unit.³⁶ Transplant recipients on immunosuppressive medications also can experience orf lesions with exaggerated presentations that continue to grow up to several centimeters in diameter.³¹ Long-term prognosis is still good in these patients with appropriate disease recognition and treatment. Reinfection is not uncommon with repeated exposure to the source, but lesions are less severe and resolve faster than with initial infection.^1,8

Conclusion

The contagious hand pustule caused by orf virus is a distinct clinical entity that is prevalent worldwide and requires thorough evaluation of the clinical course of the lesion and the patient’s social history. Several zoonotic viral infections have been implicated in this presentation. Although biopsy and molecular studies can be helpful, the expert diagnostician can make a clinical diagnosis with careful attention to social history, geographic location, and cultural practices.

A patient presenting with a hand pustule is a phenomenon encountered worldwide requiring careful history-taking. Some occupations, activities, and various religious practices (eg, Eid al-Adha, Passover, Easter) have been implicated worldwide in orf infection. In the United States, orf virus usually is spread from infected animal hosts to humans. Herein, we review the differential for a single hand pustule, which includes both infectious and noninfectious causes. Recognizing orf virus as the etiology of a cutaneous hand pustule in patients is important, as misdiagnosis can lead to unnecessary invasive testing and/or treatments with suboptimal clinical outcomes.

Case Series

When conducting a search for orf virus cases at our institution (University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, Iowa), 5 patient cases were identified.

Patient 1—A 27-year-old otherwise healthy woman presented to clinic with a tender red bump on the right ring finger that had been slowly growing over the course of 2 weeks and had recently started to bleed. A social history revealed that she owned several goats, which she frequently milked; 1 of the goats had a cyst on the mouth, which she popped approximately 1 to 2 weeks prior to the appearance of the lesion on the finger. She also endorsed that she owned several cattle and various other animals with which she had frequent contact. A biopsy was obtained with features consistent with orf virus.

Patient 2—A 33-year-old man presented to clinic with a lesion of concern on the left index finger. Several days prior to presentation, the patient had visited the emergency department for swelling and erythema of the same finger after cutting himself with a knife while preparing sheep meat. Radiographs were normal, and the patient was referred to dermatology. In clinic, there was a 0.5-cm fluctuant mass on the distal interphalangeal joint of the third finger. The patient declined a biopsy, and the lesion healed over 4 to 6 weeks without complication.

Patient 3—A 38-year-old man presented to clinic with 2 painless, large, round nodules on the right proximal index finger, with open friable centers noted on physical examination (Figure 1). The patient reported cutting the finger while preparing sheep meat several days prior. The nodules had been present for a few weeks and continued to grow. A punch biopsy revealed evidence of parapoxvirus infection consistent with a diagnosis of orf.

Patient 4—A 48-year-old man was referred to our dermatology clinic for evaluation of a bleeding lesion on the left middle finger. Physical examination revealed an exophytic, friable, ulcerated nodule on the dorsal aspect of the left middle finger (Figure 2). Upon further questioning, the patient mentioned that he handled raw lamb meat after cutting the finger. A punch biopsy was obtained and was consistent with orf virus infection.

Patient 5—A 43-year-old woman presented to clinic with a chronic wound on the mid lower back that was noted to drain and crust over. She thought the lesion was improving, but it had become painful over the last few weeks. A shave biopsy of the lesion was consistent with orf virus. At follow-up, the patient was unable to identify any recent contact with animals.

Transmission From Animals to Humans—Orf virus is a member of the Parapoxvirus genus of the Poxviridae family.¹ This virus is highly contagious among animals and has been described around the globe. The resulting disease also is known as contagious pustular dermatitis,² soremuzzle,³ ecthyma contagiosum of sheep,⁴ and scabby mouth.⁵ This virus most commonly infects young lambs and manifests as raw to crusty papules, pustules, or vesicles around the mouth and nose of the animal.⁴ Additional signs include excessive salivation and weight loss or starvation from the inability to suckle because of the lesions.⁵ Although ecthyma contagiosum infection of sheep and goats has been well known for centuries, human infection was first reported in the literature in 1934.⁶

Transmission of orf to humans can occur when direct contact with an infected animal exhibiting active lesions occurs.⁷ Orf virus also can be transmitted through fomites (eg, from knives, wool, buildings, equipment) that previously were in contact with infected animals, making it relevant to ask all farmers about any animals with pustules around the mouth, nose, udders, or other commonly affected areas. Although sanitation efforts are important for prevention, orf virus is hardy, and fomites can remain on surfaces for many months.⁸ Transmission among animals and from animals to humans frequently occurs; however, human-to-human transmission is less common.⁹ Ecthyma contagiosum is considered an occupational hazard, with the disease being most prevalent in shepherds, veterinarians, and butchers.^1,8 Disease prevalence in these occupations has been reported to be as high as 50%.¹⁰ Infections also are seen in patients who attend petting zoos or who slaughter goats and sheep for cultural practices.⁸

Clinical Characteristics in Humans—The clinical diagnosis of orf is dependent on taking a thorough patient history that includes social, occupational, and religious activities. Development of a nodule or papule on a patient’s hand with recent exposure to fomites or direct contact with a goat or sheep up to 1 week prior is extremely suggestive of an orf virus infection.

Clinically, orf most often begins as an individual papule or nodule on the dorsal surface of the patient’s finger or hand and ranges from completely asymptomatic to pruritic or even painful.^1,8 Depending on how the infection was inoculated, lesions can vary in size and number. Other sites that have been reported less frequently include the genitals, legs, axillae, and head.^11,12 Lesions are roughly 1 cm in diameter but can vary in size. Ecthyma contagiosum is not a static disease but changes in appearance over the course of infection. Typically, lesions will appear 3 to 7 days after inoculation with the orf virus and will self-resolve 6 to 8 weeks later.

Orf lesions have been described to progress through 6 distinct phases before resolving: maculopapular (erythematous macule or papule forms), targetoid (formation of a necrotic center with red outer halo), acute (lesion begins to weep), regenerative (lesion becomes dry), papilloma (dry crust becomes papillomatous), and regression (skin returns to normal appearance).^1,8,9 Each phase of ecthyma contagiosum is unique and will last up to 1 week before progressing. Because of this prolonged clinical course, patients can present at any stage.

Reports of systemic symptoms are uncommon but can include lymphadenopathy, fever, and malaise.¹³ Although the disease course in immunocompetent individuals is quite mild, immunocompromised patients may experience persistent orf lesions that are painful and can be much larger, with reports of several centimeters in diameter.¹⁴

Dermatopathology and Molecular Studies—When a clinical diagnosis is not possible, biopsy or molecular studies can be helpful.⁸ Histopathology can vary depending on the phase of the lesion. Early stages are characterized by spongiform degeneration of the epidermis with variable vesiculation of the superficial epidermis and eosinophilic cytoplasmic inclusion bodies of keratinocytes (Figure 3). Later stages demonstrate full-thickness necrosis with epidermal balloon degeneration and dense inflammation of the dermis with edema and extravasated erythrocytes from dilated blood vessels. Both early- and late-stage disease commonly show characteristic elongated thin rete ridges.⁸

Molecular studies are another reliable method for diagnosis, though these are not always readily available. Polymerase chain reaction can be used for sensitive and rapid diagnosis.¹⁵ Less commonly, electron microscopy, Western blot, or enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays are used.¹⁶ Laboratory studies, such as complete blood cell count with differential, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and C-reactive protein, often are unnecessary but may be helpful in ruling out other infectious causes. Tissue culture can be considered if bacterial, fungal, or acid-fast bacilli are in the differential; however, no growth will be seen in the case of orf viral infection.

Differential Diagnosis—The differential diagnosis for patients presenting with a large pustule on the hand or fingers can depend on geographic location, as the potential etiology may vary widely around the world. Several zoonotic viral infections other than orf can present with pustular lesions on the hands (Table).^17-24

Clinically, infection with these named viruses can be hard to distinguish; however, appropriate social history or polymerase chain reaction can be obtained to differentiate them. Other infectious entities include herpetic whitlow, giant molluscum, and anthrax (eTable).^24-26 Biopsy of the lesion with bacterial tissue culture may lead to definitive diagnosis.²⁶

Treatment—Because of the self-resolving nature of orf, treatment usually is not needed in immunocompetent patients with a solitary lesion. However, wound care is essential to prevent secondary infections of the lesion. If secondarily infected, topical or oral antibiotics may be prescribed. Immunocompromised individuals are at increased risk for developing large persistent lesions and sometimes require intervention for successful treatment. Several successful treatment methods have been described and include intralesional interferon injections, electrocautery, topical imiquimod, topical cidofovir, and cryotherapy.^8,14,27-30 Infections that continue to be refractory to less-invasive treatment can be considered for wide local excision; however, recurrence is possible.⁸ Vaccinations are available for animals to prevent the spread of infection in the flock, but there are no formulations of vaccines for human use. Prevention of spread to humans can be done through animal vaccination, careful handling of animal products while wearing nonporous gloves, and proper sanitation techniques.

Complications—Orf has an excellent long-term prognosis in immunocompetent patients, as the virus is epitheliotropic, and inoculation does not lead to viremia.² Although lesions typically are asymptomatic in most patients, complications can occur, especially in immunosuppressed individuals. These complications include systemic symptoms, giant persistent lesions prone to infection or scarring, erysipelas, lymphadenitis, and erythema multiforme.^8,31 Common systemic symptoms of ecthyma contagiosum include fever, fatigue, and myalgia. Lymphadenitis can occur along with local swelling and lymphatic streaking. Although erythema multiforme is a rare complication occurring after initial ecthyma contagiosum infection, this hypersensitivity reaction is postulated to be in response to the immunologic clearing of the orf virus.^32,33 Patients receiving systemic immunosuppressive medications are at an increased risk of developing complications from infection and may even be required to pause systemic treatment for complete resolution of orf lesions.³⁴ Other cutaneous diseases that decrease the skin’s barrier protection, such as bullous pemphigoid or eczema, also can place patients at an increased risk for complications.³⁵ Although human-to-human orf virus transmission is exceptionally rare, there is a case report of this phenomenon in immunosuppressed patients residing in a burn unit.³⁶ Transplant recipients on immunosuppressive medications also can experience orf lesions with exaggerated presentations that continue to grow up to several centimeters in diameter.³¹ Long-term prognosis is still good in these patients with appropriate disease recognition and treatment. Reinfection is not uncommon with repeated exposure to the source, but lesions are less severe and resolve faster than with initial infection.^1,8

Conclusion

The contagious hand pustule caused by orf virus is a distinct clinical entity that is prevalent worldwide and requires thorough evaluation of the clinical course of the lesion and the patient’s social history. Several zoonotic viral infections have been implicated in this presentation. Although biopsy and molecular studies can be helpful, the expert diagnostician can make a clinical diagnosis with careful attention to social history, geographic location, and cultural practices.

A patient presenting with a hand pustule is a phenomenon encountered worldwide requiring careful history-taking. Some occupations, activities, and various religious practices (eg, Eid al-Adha, Passover, Easter) have been implicated worldwide in orf infection. In the United States, orf virus usually is spread from infected animal hosts to humans. Herein, we review the differential for a single hand pustule, which includes both infectious and noninfectious causes. Recognizing orf virus as the etiology of a cutaneous hand pustule in patients is important, as misdiagnosis can lead to unnecessary invasive testing and/or treatments with suboptimal clinical outcomes.

Case Series

When conducting a search for orf virus cases at our institution (University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, Iowa), 5 patient cases were identified.

Patient 1—A 27-year-old otherwise healthy woman presented to clinic with a tender red bump on the right ring finger that had been slowly growing over the course of 2 weeks and had recently started to bleed. A social history revealed that she owned several goats, which she frequently milked; 1 of the goats had a cyst on the mouth, which she popped approximately 1 to 2 weeks prior to the appearance of the lesion on the finger. She also endorsed that she owned several cattle and various other animals with which she had frequent contact. A biopsy was obtained with features consistent with orf virus.

Patient 2—A 33-year-old man presented to clinic with a lesion of concern on the left index finger. Several days prior to presentation, the patient had visited the emergency department for swelling and erythema of the same finger after cutting himself with a knife while preparing sheep meat. Radiographs were normal, and the patient was referred to dermatology. In clinic, there was a 0.5-cm fluctuant mass on the distal interphalangeal joint of the third finger. The patient declined a biopsy, and the lesion healed over 4 to 6 weeks without complication.

Patient 3—A 38-year-old man presented to clinic with 2 painless, large, round nodules on the right proximal index finger, with open friable centers noted on physical examination (Figure 1). The patient reported cutting the finger while preparing sheep meat several days prior. The nodules had been present for a few weeks and continued to grow. A punch biopsy revealed evidence of parapoxvirus infection consistent with a diagnosis of orf.

Patient 4—A 48-year-old man was referred to our dermatology clinic for evaluation of a bleeding lesion on the left middle finger. Physical examination revealed an exophytic, friable, ulcerated nodule on the dorsal aspect of the left middle finger (Figure 2). Upon further questioning, the patient mentioned that he handled raw lamb meat after cutting the finger. A punch biopsy was obtained and was consistent with orf virus infection.

Patient 5—A 43-year-old woman presented to clinic with a chronic wound on the mid lower back that was noted to drain and crust over. She thought the lesion was improving, but it had become painful over the last few weeks. A shave biopsy of the lesion was consistent with orf virus. At follow-up, the patient was unable to identify any recent contact with animals.

Transmission From Animals to Humans—Orf virus is a member of the Parapoxvirus genus of the Poxviridae family.¹ This virus is highly contagious among animals and has been described around the globe. The resulting disease also is known as contagious pustular dermatitis,² soremuzzle,³ ecthyma contagiosum of sheep,⁴ and scabby mouth.⁵ This virus most commonly infects young lambs and manifests as raw to crusty papules, pustules, or vesicles around the mouth and nose of the animal.⁴ Additional signs include excessive salivation and weight loss or starvation from the inability to suckle because of the lesions.⁵ Although ecthyma contagiosum infection of sheep and goats has been well known for centuries, human infection was first reported in the literature in 1934.⁶

Transmission of orf to humans can occur when direct contact with an infected animal exhibiting active lesions occurs.⁷ Orf virus also can be transmitted through fomites (eg, from knives, wool, buildings, equipment) that previously were in contact with infected animals, making it relevant to ask all farmers about any animals with pustules around the mouth, nose, udders, or other commonly affected areas. Although sanitation efforts are important for prevention, orf virus is hardy, and fomites can remain on surfaces for many months.⁸ Transmission among animals and from animals to humans frequently occurs; however, human-to-human transmission is less common.⁹ Ecthyma contagiosum is considered an occupational hazard, with the disease being most prevalent in shepherds, veterinarians, and butchers.^1,8 Disease prevalence in these occupations has been reported to be as high as 50%.¹⁰ Infections also are seen in patients who attend petting zoos or who slaughter goats and sheep for cultural practices.⁸

Clinical Characteristics in Humans—The clinical diagnosis of orf is dependent on taking a thorough patient history that includes social, occupational, and religious activities. Development of a nodule or papule on a patient’s hand with recent exposure to fomites or direct contact with a goat or sheep up to 1 week prior is extremely suggestive of an orf virus infection.

Clinically, orf most often begins as an individual papule or nodule on the dorsal surface of the patient’s finger or hand and ranges from completely asymptomatic to pruritic or even painful.^1,8 Depending on how the infection was inoculated, lesions can vary in size and number. Other sites that have been reported less frequently include the genitals, legs, axillae, and head.^11,12 Lesions are roughly 1 cm in diameter but can vary in size. Ecthyma contagiosum is not a static disease but changes in appearance over the course of infection. Typically, lesions will appear 3 to 7 days after inoculation with the orf virus and will self-resolve 6 to 8 weeks later.

Orf lesions have been described to progress through 6 distinct phases before resolving: maculopapular (erythematous macule or papule forms), targetoid (formation of a necrotic center with red outer halo), acute (lesion begins to weep), regenerative (lesion becomes dry), papilloma (dry crust becomes papillomatous), and regression (skin returns to normal appearance).^1,8,9 Each phase of ecthyma contagiosum is unique and will last up to 1 week before progressing. Because of this prolonged clinical course, patients can present at any stage.

Reports of systemic symptoms are uncommon but can include lymphadenopathy, fever, and malaise.¹³ Although the disease course in immunocompetent individuals is quite mild, immunocompromised patients may experience persistent orf lesions that are painful and can be much larger, with reports of several centimeters in diameter.¹⁴

Dermatopathology and Molecular Studies—When a clinical diagnosis is not possible, biopsy or molecular studies can be helpful.⁸ Histopathology can vary depending on the phase of the lesion. Early stages are characterized by spongiform degeneration of the epidermis with variable vesiculation of the superficial epidermis and eosinophilic cytoplasmic inclusion bodies of keratinocytes (Figure 3). Later stages demonstrate full-thickness necrosis with epidermal balloon degeneration and dense inflammation of the dermis with edema and extravasated erythrocytes from dilated blood vessels. Both early- and late-stage disease commonly show characteristic elongated thin rete ridges.⁸

Molecular studies are another reliable method for diagnosis, though these are not always readily available. Polymerase chain reaction can be used for sensitive and rapid diagnosis.¹⁵ Less commonly, electron microscopy, Western blot, or enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays are used.¹⁶ Laboratory studies, such as complete blood cell count with differential, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and C-reactive protein, often are unnecessary but may be helpful in ruling out other infectious causes. Tissue culture can be considered if bacterial, fungal, or acid-fast bacilli are in the differential; however, no growth will be seen in the case of orf viral infection.

Differential Diagnosis—The differential diagnosis for patients presenting with a large pustule on the hand or fingers can depend on geographic location, as the potential etiology may vary widely around the world. Several zoonotic viral infections other than orf can present with pustular lesions on the hands (Table).^17-24

Clinically, infection with these named viruses can be hard to distinguish; however, appropriate social history or polymerase chain reaction can be obtained to differentiate them. Other infectious entities include herpetic whitlow, giant molluscum, and anthrax (eTable).^24-26 Biopsy of the lesion with bacterial tissue culture may lead to definitive diagnosis.²⁶

Treatment—Because of the self-resolving nature of orf, treatment usually is not needed in immunocompetent patients with a solitary lesion. However, wound care is essential to prevent secondary infections of the lesion. If secondarily infected, topical or oral antibiotics may be prescribed. Immunocompromised individuals are at increased risk for developing large persistent lesions and sometimes require intervention for successful treatment. Several successful treatment methods have been described and include intralesional interferon injections, electrocautery, topical imiquimod, topical cidofovir, and cryotherapy.^8,14,27-30 Infections that continue to be refractory to less-invasive treatment can be considered for wide local excision; however, recurrence is possible.⁸ Vaccinations are available for animals to prevent the spread of infection in the flock, but there are no formulations of vaccines for human use. Prevention of spread to humans can be done through animal vaccination, careful handling of animal products while wearing nonporous gloves, and proper sanitation techniques.

Complications—Orf has an excellent long-term prognosis in immunocompetent patients, as the virus is epitheliotropic, and inoculation does not lead to viremia.² Although lesions typically are asymptomatic in most patients, complications can occur, especially in immunosuppressed individuals. These complications include systemic symptoms, giant persistent lesions prone to infection or scarring, erysipelas, lymphadenitis, and erythema multiforme.^8,31 Common systemic symptoms of ecthyma contagiosum include fever, fatigue, and myalgia. Lymphadenitis can occur along with local swelling and lymphatic streaking. Although erythema multiforme is a rare complication occurring after initial ecthyma contagiosum infection, this hypersensitivity reaction is postulated to be in response to the immunologic clearing of the orf virus.^32,33 Patients receiving systemic immunosuppressive medications are at an increased risk of developing complications from infection and may even be required to pause systemic treatment for complete resolution of orf lesions.³⁴ Other cutaneous diseases that decrease the skin’s barrier protection, such as bullous pemphigoid or eczema, also can place patients at an increased risk for complications.³⁵ Although human-to-human orf virus transmission is exceptionally rare, there is a case report of this phenomenon in immunosuppressed patients residing in a burn unit.³⁶ Transplant recipients on immunosuppressive medications also can experience orf lesions with exaggerated presentations that continue to grow up to several centimeters in diameter.³¹ Long-term prognosis is still good in these patients with appropriate disease recognition and treatment. Reinfection is not uncommon with repeated exposure to the source, but lesions are less severe and resolve faster than with initial infection.^1,8

Conclusion

The contagious hand pustule caused by orf virus is a distinct clinical entity that is prevalent worldwide and requires thorough evaluation of the clinical course of the lesion and the patient’s social history. Several zoonotic viral infections have been implicated in this presentation. Although biopsy and molecular studies can be helpful, the expert diagnostician can make a clinical diagnosis with careful attention to social history, geographic location, and cultural practices.

Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) is the most common keratinocyte carcinoma and affects more than 3 million individuals per year in the United States.¹ Approximately 40% of patients diagnosed with BCC will develop another BCC within 5 years of the initial diagnosis.² Most cases are successfully treated with surgical excision and occasionally topical therapy or radiotherapy. Despite the high cure rate with conventional treatments, BCC can recur and can cause substantial destruction of the surrounding tissue if left untreated.^3-5 In some instances, BCC can even metastasize and lead to death.⁶ For patients who are poor candidates for surgical or topical treatment modalities because of locally advanced BCC (laBCC) or metastatic BCC (mBCC), systemic treatment may be indicated. Vismodegib, sonidegib, and cemiplimab are the only systemic medications approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of laBCC and/or mBCC. Vismodegib and sonidegib target the sonic hedgehog (SHH) signaling pathway that is abnormally activated in more than 90% of BCCs.⁷ Cemiplimab is an immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) that targets the programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) receptor.⁸ Herein, we review the clinical utility of these medications and their evolving roles in the treatment of BCC.

SHH Pathway Inhibitors

The SHH pathway is a key regulator of cell proliferation and differentiation during embryogenesis.⁷ During adulthood, SHH signaling decreases but still plays an important role in stem cell activation and in regulation of the hair follicle growth cycle.^9,10 However, de novo mutations in the genes that comprise the SHH pathway can result in aberrant constitutive activation, leading to unrestricted cell proliferation. Genetic mutations resulting in activation of Smoothened (SMO), a G-protein–coupled receptor involved in the signal transduction and propagation of the SHH pathway, have been implicated in the pathogenesis of BCC. Inactivating mutations also are commonly observed in patched homolog 1, an upstream cell-surface protein that inhibits SMO.⁷ The mechanism by which vismodegib and sonidegib, 2 of the FDA-approved oral medications for the treatment of advanced BCC, block the SHH pathway is through the selective inhibition of SMO.^7,11

Vismodegib first received FDA approval in 2012 for the treatment of laBCC and mBCC after initial results from the pivotal ERIVANCE phase 2 trial demonstrated an objective response rate (ORR) of 43% (27/63) and 30% (10/33) in patients with locally advanced and metastatic disease, respectively. In this single-arm study, all enrolled patients (63 with laBCC and 33 with mBCC) received 150 mg of oral vismodegib daily.¹² Updated results at 39 months demonstrated improved ORRs of 60% (38/63) and 48% (16/33) for the laBCC and mBCC groups, respectively. A complete response (CR) and partial response (PR) were observed in 32% (n=20) and 29% (n=18) of patients with laBCC, respectively.¹³ These results have been confirmed in subsequent studies, including the large international open-label trial known as STEVIE, with ORRs of 68.5% for 1119 cases of laBCC and 37% for 96 cases of mBCC.^14-17 The CR and PR rates were 33% and 35%, respectively, for the laBCC group. The CR and PR rates for the mBCC group were 5% and 32%, respectively.¹⁴

The FDA approval of sonidegib for laBCC—but not mBCC—occurred in 2015 after the pivotal BOLT randomized phase 2 trial demonstrated an initial ORR of 43% (18/42) for laBCC and 15% (2/13) for mBCC after administration of 200 mg of sonidegib daily.¹⁸ A final follow-up analysis at 42 months resulted in ORRs of 56% (37/66) and 8% (1/13) for the laBCC and mBCC groups, respectively.¹⁹ Additionally, improved efficacy was not observed in the 151 patients who were randomized to receive treatment with the higher 800-mg dose; however, they did experience a higher incidence of adverse events.^18,19

Currently, the true clinical differences between vismodegib and sonidegib remain uncertain, as no head-to-head trials have been conducted. Moreover, direct comparison of the data from the ERIVANCE and BOLT trials is challenging owing to fundamental differences in methodologic design, including the criteria used to assess BCC severity. The ERIVANCE trial utilized the conventional Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), while BOLT used the rigorous modified RECIST. However, an expert consensus study attempted to compare the 2 trials by modifying the outcomes from BOLT with the former RECIST criteria. The expert group found that the 2 SHH inhibitors had comparable efficacy and adverse event profiles.²⁰ Nevertheless, a recent meta-analysis found that although ORRs for laBCC were similar between the 2 drugs, the CR rate for vismodegib was 31% compared with 3% for sonidegib. Additionally, for mBCC, they reported the ORR of vismodegib to be 2.7 times higher than that of sonidegib (39% vs 15%).²¹

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors

Immune checkpoint inhibitors have successfully been utilized in the treatment of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC); however, their use for treating BCC has been limited until recently.^22-25 In February 2021, cemiplimab became the first and only ICI approved for the treatment of laBCC and mBCC in patients who did not respond to or were intolerant to prior SHH inhibitor therapy.²⁶ Cemiplimab—a human monoclonal antibody against the PD-1 receptor expressed on T cells—blocks its interaction with programmed cell death ligand 1 and programmed cell death ligand 2 present on tumor cells. The blockade of the PD-1 pathway releases the inhibition of the antitumor immune response and enables appropriate cytotoxic T-cell activity to occur.⁸

The FDA approval of cemiplimab for the treatment of advanced BCC was based on an open-label, multicenter, single-arm phase 2 trial (NCT03132636) evaluating 84 patients with laBCC refractory or intolerant to SHH inhibitor therapy.²⁶ Patients received an intravenous infusion of cemiplimab 350 mg every 3 weeks for up to 93 weeks or until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. An ORR of 31% (26/84) was observed with a CR and PR of 6% (5/84) and 25% (21/84), respectively. The median duration of follow-up was 15 months.²⁶ Given the clinically meaningful results of this trial, investigating the efficacy of other PD-1 inhibitors, such as pembrolizumab and nivolumab, for treatment of advanced BCC may prove worthwhile.

The 2 approved SHH inhibitors—vismodegib and sonidegib—appear to have similar side-effect profiles, with the most common adverse effects being muscle spasms, dysgeusia, alopecia, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, weight loss, and fatigue.^20,21,27 These side effects occur at high frequencies (>40%) for both SHH inhibitors and often lead to discontinuation of the medication.²¹ Rates of treatment discontinuation range from 15% to 50% on average.^12-14,18 Fortunately, the majority of these adverse effects do not appear to increase in severity or frequency with prolonged use of these medications.^14,16,28

Various conservative and pharmacologic measures can be implemented to help manage side effects. For muscle spasms, which are the most commonly reported adverse effect, supplementation with magnesium, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, acupuncture, massages, stretching, and thermal compresses can potentially be beneficial.²⁹ Calcium channel blockers also may be effective, as one small prospective cohort study reported a reduction in the frequency of muscle cramps with amlodipine 10 mg daily.³⁰ For alopecia, which typically is reversible and caused by SHH inhibition of the normal hair cycle, minoxidil theoretically can help, as it reduces telogen arrest and extends the anagen growth phase.^31,32 Although usually mild and self-limiting, management of dysgeusia, weight loss, and gastrointestinal upset often can be managed with dietary changes, such as smaller, more frequent meals.^33,34 Finally, alternative dosing strategies and drug holidays have been employed to mitigate these side effects and increase drug tolerability.^35,36 These are discussed in the Alternative Dosing section.

Given the essential role of the SHH pathway in embryologic development, SHH inhibitors carry a black box warning of embryofetal teratogenicity and are contraindicated in females who are pregnant or breastfeeding. For females of reproductive potential, verification of pregnancy status should be performed prior to initiating treatment with an SHH inhibitor. These patients should be counseled on the use of contraception during treatment and for at least 24 months and 20 months after cessation of vismodegib and sonidegib, respectively.^27,37,38 Male patients, even after a vasectomy, should use barrier contraception during treatment and for at least 3 months and 8 months after the final dose of vismodegib and sonidegib, respectively.^37,38

Laboratory abnormalities commonly associated with SHH inhibitors include elevated hepatic enzymes, particularly with vismodegib, and elevated creatine kinase levels, particularly with sonidegib.^28,39 Other laboratory abnormalities that can occur include hypercholesterolemia, hypercreatininemia, hyperglycemia, and increased serum lipase levels.^19,28 Although these laboratory abnormalities usually are asymptomatic and self-limiting, regular monitoring should be performed.

There also is concern that SHH inhibitors may induce the development of cSCC. A case-control study of 55 cases and 125 control patients found an increased risk for cSCC in those previously treated with vismodegib, with a hazard ratio of 8.12.⁴⁰ However, a subsequent retrospective cohort study of 1675 patients with BCC failed to find any association with cSCC among those treated with vismodegib compared to those who received standard surgical therapy.⁴¹ Clinical data for sonidegib are lacking, but the BOLT trial found that cSCC occurred in 3 patients receiving treatment with the SHH inhibitor.¹⁸ Thus, further studies are needed to more thoroughly assess this concern. Close monitoring for cSCC may be warranted in patients prescribed SHH inhibitors at this time.

Cemiplimab has demonstrated an acceptable safety profile and is generally well tolerated. In the phase 2 trial of cemiplimab for cSCC, approximately 5% of patients discontinued treatment because of adverse effects. The most commonly reported side effects of cemiplimab were diarrhea (27%), fatigue (24%), nausea (17%), constipation (15%), and rash (15%).²³ In the phase 2 trial for laBCC, grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 48% of patients, with hypertension (5%) being the most common.²⁶ Although rare, immune-mediated adverse reactions also can occur, given the mechanism of action of ICIs. These side effects, ranging in severity from mild to fatal, include pneumonitis, colitis, hepatitis, nephritis, myocarditis, and hypophysitis. Therefore, close monitoring for these immune-mediated reactions is critical, but most can be managed with corticosteroids or treatment interruption if they occur.^42,43

No absolute contraindications exist for cemiplimab; however, extreme caution should be taken in immunosuppressed individuals, such as solid organ transplant recipients and those with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), as safety data are limited in these patients.^44,45 Although small retrospective studies have reported reasonable tolerability in solid organ transplant recipients treated with ICIs, an allograft rejection rate of 41% was found in a meta-analysis of 64 patients.^46-48 In CLL patients with keratinocyte carcinomas, ICIs have been safely used and have even demonstrated efficacy for CLL in some cases.^49-52

Alternative Dosing

The side effects of SHH inhibitors have led to alternative dosing strategies to prevent medication discontinuation and improve adherence. In patients with basal cell nevus syndrome, multimonth drug holidays have been shown to increase drug tolerability without compromising efficacy.^35,36 Weekly intermittent dosing regimens of vismodegib ranging from 1 week on followed by 1 to 3 weeks off demonstrated efficacy in a retrospective study of 7 patients with advanced BCC.⁵³ All 7 patients experienced improvement in their BCCs, with 3 patients experiencing CR. Importantly, treatment-related adverse effects were mild and well tolerated, with no patients terminating the medication.⁵³ Two other retrospective case series of patients with advanced BCC treated with vismodegib reported similar findings for those placed on an intermittent dosing schedule ranging from once every other day to once per week.^54,55

In the large phase 2 randomized trial known as MIKIE, 2 different intermittent dosing regimens of 150 mg vismodegib daily for patients with multiple BCCs were found to have good activity and tolerability.⁵⁶ The first group (n=116) received vismodegib for 12 weeks, then 3 rounds of 8 weeks of placebo, followed by 12 weeks of vismodegib; there was a 63% reduction in clinically evident BCCs after 73 weeks. The second group (n=113) received the medication for 24 weeks, then 3 rounds of 8 weeks of placebo, followed by 8 weeks of vismodegib; there was a 54% reduction at the end of 73 weeks.⁵⁶ Subsequent analyses found improvements in health-related quality-of-life outcomes that were similar for both groups.⁵⁷

Consequently, alternative dosing schedules appear to be a viable option for patients at risk of discontinuing treatment because of adverse effects, and current data support the recently approved recommendations of dose interruptions of up to 8 weeks to manage adverse effects in patients with laBCC or mBCC.⁵⁸ Nevertheless, further clinical studies are required to determine the optimal intermittent dosing regimen for patients treated with SHH inhibitors.

Neoadjuvant Administration

Recently, vismodegib has been studied as a neoadjuvant therapy for BCC with promising results. Several small retrospective studies and case reports have documented successful treatment of both operable and inoperable periocular laBCC, with preservation of the eye in all patients.^59-61 An open-label trial of 15 patients with advanced BCC who received neoadjuvant vismodegib for 3 to 6 months prior to surgical excision reported a mean reduction of 35% in the final surgical defect size, with no recurrence at 22 months.^62,63 The latest and largest study performed was a phase 2 open-label trial known as VISMONEO, where 44 of 55 laBCC patients (80%) receiving neoadjuvant vismodegib for a mean duration of 6 months (range, 4–10 months) achieved the primary end point of tumor surgical downstaging.⁶⁴ Of the 44 patients who had tumor downstaging, 27 (61%) experienced histologically proven CRs. Additionally, a 66% reduction in the average target lesion size was reported in this group compared to29% in the 11 patients who did not have tumor downstaging (P=.0002).⁶⁴ Thus, SHH inhibitors may hold an important neoadjuvant role in the treatment of BCC by decreasing surgical defect size and allowing for surgical management of previously inoperable cases.

Synergism With Radiation

Preliminary data suggest SHH inhibitors may help potentiate the effects of radiation therapy for the treatment of BCC. Currently, the evidence primarily is limited to case studies, with several reports describing complete remission in patients with advanced BCCs who were considered unsuitable candidates for surgery. In these cases, vismodegib was administered either prior to or concurrently with radiation treatment.^65-69 An in vitro study also documented the radiation-sensitizing effects of vismodegib in a BCC cell line.⁷⁰ Recently, a phase 2 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01835626) evaluating the concurrent use of vismodegib and radiotherapy for patients with advanced BCC was completed, but data has yet to be published.

Synergism With and Benefit of Antifungal Therapy

The antifungal drug itraconazole is a potent inhibitor of the SHH pathway and may have an adjunctive role in the treatment of BCC. Similar to vismodegib and sonidegib, itraconazole acts as a direct antagonist of SMO. However, it is thought to bind to a distinct site on SMO.^71,72 An open-label, exploratory phase 2 trial of 19 patients with BCC found that oral itraconazole 200 to 400 mg daily decreased tumor proliferative index by 45% (P=.04), as measured by Ki-67; SHH activity by 65% (P=.03), as measured by GLI1 messenger RNA; and mean tumor area by 24%.⁷³ In a case series of 5 patients with mBCC refractory to conventional SHH inhibitor therapy, combined treatment with itraconazole and arsenic trioxide resulted in stable disease and a 75% reduction in SHH activity (P<.001).⁷⁴ One case report documented tumor regression leading to stable disease for 15 months in a patient with laBCC treated with itraconazole monotherapy due to being unable to afford vismodegib or sonidegib. However, within 2 months of treatment discontinuation, the lesion progressed considerably.⁷⁵ The efficacy of a topical formulation of itraconazole also has been tested in an open-label, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial, but no benefit was observed.⁷⁶

Posaconazole is a second-generation antifungal agent that may serve as a potential alternative to itraconazole.⁷⁷ Although clinical data are lacking, a basic science study found that posaconazole could inhibit the growth of SHH-dependent BCC in vivo (in mice).⁷⁸ Furthermore, posaconazole has demonstrated a better safety profile with fewer and more mild side effects than itraconazole and does not require dose adjustment for those with hepatic or renal failure.^79,80 Thus, posaconazole may be a safer alternative to itraconazole for the treatment of BCC. Further clinical studies are needed to elucidate the potential synergistic effects of these antifungal agents with the 2 currently approved SHH inhibitors for the treatment of advanced BCC.

Treatment resistance to SHH inhibitors, though uncommon, is a growing concern. Acquired mutations in the SMO binding site or downstream mediators of the SHH pathway have been shown to confer resistance to vismodegib and sonidegib.^72,81-83 In addition, it appears that there may be shared resistance among the drugs in this class. One study assessing the efficacy of sonidegib in 9 patients with laBCC resistant to vismodegib found that these patients also did not respond to sonidegib.⁸⁴ Interestingly, 1 case report documented tumor regression of an intracranial BCC in a patient treated with sonidegib and itraconazole after failure with vismodegib.⁸⁵ An in vitro study also found that itraconazole maintained SHH inhibitory activity for all drug-resistant SMO mutations that have been reported.⁷² Therefore, itraconazole monotherapy or combination therapy with a canonical SHH inhibitor may be considered for patients with recalcitrant BCC and warrants further investigation.

Taladegib is a newly developed SMO inhibitor that may serve as another promising alternative for patients who develop resistance to vismodegib or sonidegib. A phase 1 trial of taladegib for advanced BCC found an ORR of 69% (11/16) in the SHH inhibitor–naïve group and an ORR of 36% (11/32) in the group previously treated with a SHH inhibitor.⁸⁶ Additionally, the safety profile and frequency of adverse effects appear to be similar to those associated with vismodegib and sonidegib.^86,87 Unfortunately, no clinical trials evaluating taladegib for BCC are ongoing or in development at this time.

Recurrence

There appears to be a relatively high rate of recurrence for BCC patients who achieve a CR to SHH inhibitors. In a retrospective study of 116 laBCC patients who experienced a CR after vismodegib therapy, 54 patients (47%) relapsed at 36 months. Among the 54 patients that relapsed, 27 were re-treated with vismodegib, which resulted in an ORR of 85% (23/27), a CR rate of 37% (10/27), and a PR rate of 48% (13/27).⁸⁸ Another retrospective study of 35 laBCC patients who relapsed after vismodegib treatment reported a 31% (11/35) clinical recurrence rate at 6-month follow-up.⁸⁹ An observational retrospective study also assessed the efficacy of SHH inhibitor maintenance therapy for advanced BCC patients who achieved a CR.⁹⁰ In the study, 27 (64%) patients received a maintenance dose of 150 mg vismodegib once per week for 1 year, while 15 (36%) patients decided not to take a maintenance dose following CR of their BCC. All patients who took the maintenance therapy did not experience clinical recurrence at 1-year follow-up, whereas 26% of patients not on the maintenance dose relapsed.⁹⁰ Consequently, these results indicate that BCC recurrence is frequent after SHH inhibitor therapy and highlights the importance of close surveillance after CR is attained. Nevertheless, most patients still respond to treatment with SHH inhibitors after relapsing, and intermittent maintenance doses may be an effective means to reduce risk of recurrence.

Conclusion

Vismodegib and sonidegib are SHH inhibitors approved for the treatment of laBCC and mBCC. Cemiplimab is now also approved for patients who do not respond to SHH inhibitors or for whom SHH inhibitors are not tolerable. Although these systemic targeted therapies can lead to notable tumor shrinkage and even complete regression in some patients, recurrence is common, and adverse effects may limit their use. Drug resistance is an emerging issue that requires additional examination. Further clinical studies are needed to determine which patients are likely to respond to these targeted treatments.

Various intermittent and maintenance drug regimens should be evaluated for their potential to mitigate adverse effects and reduce risk of recurrence, respectively. The synergistic effects of these medications with other therapies as well as their neoadjuvant and adjuvant roles should be further investigated. For example, administration of an SHH inhibitor prior to surgical excision of a BCC may allow for a smaller surgical defect size, thereby improving cosmetic and functional outcomes. Moreover, these systemic targeted medications may allow for previously inoperable tumors to become amenable to surgical treatment.

Although SHH inhibitors and PD-1 inhibitors represent a major advancement in the field of oncodermatology, real-world efficacy and safety data in the upcoming years will be important for elucidating their true benefit for patients with BCC.

Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) is the most common keratinocyte carcinoma and affects more than 3 million individuals per year in the United States.¹ Approximately 40% of patients diagnosed with BCC will develop another BCC within 5 years of the initial diagnosis.² Most cases are successfully treated with surgical excision and occasionally topical therapy or radiotherapy. Despite the high cure rate with conventional treatments, BCC can recur and can cause substantial destruction of the surrounding tissue if left untreated.^3-5 In some instances, BCC can even metastasize and lead to death.⁶ For patients who are poor candidates for surgical or topical treatment modalities because of locally advanced BCC (laBCC) or metastatic BCC (mBCC), systemic treatment may be indicated. Vismodegib, sonidegib, and cemiplimab are the only systemic medications approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of laBCC and/or mBCC. Vismodegib and sonidegib target the sonic hedgehog (SHH) signaling pathway that is abnormally activated in more than 90% of BCCs.⁷ Cemiplimab is an immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) that targets the programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) receptor.⁸ Herein, we review the clinical utility of these medications and their evolving roles in the treatment of BCC.

SHH Pathway Inhibitors

The SHH pathway is a key regulator of cell proliferation and differentiation during embryogenesis.⁷ During adulthood, SHH signaling decreases but still plays an important role in stem cell activation and in regulation of the hair follicle growth cycle.^9,10 However, de novo mutations in the genes that comprise the SHH pathway can result in aberrant constitutive activation, leading to unrestricted cell proliferation. Genetic mutations resulting in activation of Smoothened (SMO), a G-protein–coupled receptor involved in the signal transduction and propagation of the SHH pathway, have been implicated in the pathogenesis of BCC. Inactivating mutations also are commonly observed in patched homolog 1, an upstream cell-surface protein that inhibits SMO.⁷ The mechanism by which vismodegib and sonidegib, 2 of the FDA-approved oral medications for the treatment of advanced BCC, block the SHH pathway is through the selective inhibition of SMO.^7,11

Vismodegib first received FDA approval in 2012 for the treatment of laBCC and mBCC after initial results from the pivotal ERIVANCE phase 2 trial demonstrated an objective response rate (ORR) of 43% (27/63) and 30% (10/33) in patients with locally advanced and metastatic disease, respectively. In this single-arm study, all enrolled patients (63 with laBCC and 33 with mBCC) received 150 mg of oral vismodegib daily.¹² Updated results at 39 months demonstrated improved ORRs of 60% (38/63) and 48% (16/33) for the laBCC and mBCC groups, respectively. A complete response (CR) and partial response (PR) were observed in 32% (n=20) and 29% (n=18) of patients with laBCC, respectively.¹³ These results have been confirmed in subsequent studies, including the large international open-label trial known as STEVIE, with ORRs of 68.5% for 1119 cases of laBCC and 37% for 96 cases of mBCC.^14-17 The CR and PR rates were 33% and 35%, respectively, for the laBCC group. The CR and PR rates for the mBCC group were 5% and 32%, respectively.¹⁴

The FDA approval of sonidegib for laBCC—but not mBCC—occurred in 2015 after the pivotal BOLT randomized phase 2 trial demonstrated an initial ORR of 43% (18/42) for laBCC and 15% (2/13) for mBCC after administration of 200 mg of sonidegib daily.¹⁸ A final follow-up analysis at 42 months resulted in ORRs of 56% (37/66) and 8% (1/13) for the laBCC and mBCC groups, respectively.¹⁹ Additionally, improved efficacy was not observed in the 151 patients who were randomized to receive treatment with the higher 800-mg dose; however, they did experience a higher incidence of adverse events.^18,19

Currently, the true clinical differences between vismodegib and sonidegib remain uncertain, as no head-to-head trials have been conducted. Moreover, direct comparison of the data from the ERIVANCE and BOLT trials is challenging owing to fundamental differences in methodologic design, including the criteria used to assess BCC severity. The ERIVANCE trial utilized the conventional Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), while BOLT used the rigorous modified RECIST. However, an expert consensus study attempted to compare the 2 trials by modifying the outcomes from BOLT with the former RECIST criteria. The expert group found that the 2 SHH inhibitors had comparable efficacy and adverse event profiles.²⁰ Nevertheless, a recent meta-analysis found that although ORRs for laBCC were similar between the 2 drugs, the CR rate for vismodegib was 31% compared with 3% for sonidegib. Additionally, for mBCC, they reported the ORR of vismodegib to be 2.7 times higher than that of sonidegib (39% vs 15%).²¹

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors

Immune checkpoint inhibitors have successfully been utilized in the treatment of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC); however, their use for treating BCC has been limited until recently.^22-25 In February 2021, cemiplimab became the first and only ICI approved for the treatment of laBCC and mBCC in patients who did not respond to or were intolerant to prior SHH inhibitor therapy.²⁶ Cemiplimab—a human monoclonal antibody against the PD-1 receptor expressed on T cells—blocks its interaction with programmed cell death ligand 1 and programmed cell death ligand 2 present on tumor cells. The blockade of the PD-1 pathway releases the inhibition of the antitumor immune response and enables appropriate cytotoxic T-cell activity to occur.⁸

The FDA approval of cemiplimab for the treatment of advanced BCC was based on an open-label, multicenter, single-arm phase 2 trial (NCT03132636) evaluating 84 patients with laBCC refractory or intolerant to SHH inhibitor therapy.²⁶ Patients received an intravenous infusion of cemiplimab 350 mg every 3 weeks for up to 93 weeks or until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. An ORR of 31% (26/84) was observed with a CR and PR of 6% (5/84) and 25% (21/84), respectively. The median duration of follow-up was 15 months.²⁶ Given the clinically meaningful results of this trial, investigating the efficacy of other PD-1 inhibitors, such as pembrolizumab and nivolumab, for treatment of advanced BCC may prove worthwhile.

The 2 approved SHH inhibitors—vismodegib and sonidegib—appear to have similar side-effect profiles, with the most common adverse effects being muscle spasms, dysgeusia, alopecia, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, weight loss, and fatigue.^20,21,27 These side effects occur at high frequencies (>40%) for both SHH inhibitors and often lead to discontinuation of the medication.²¹ Rates of treatment discontinuation range from 15% to 50% on average.^12-14,18 Fortunately, the majority of these adverse effects do not appear to increase in severity or frequency with prolonged use of these medications.^14,16,28

Various conservative and pharmacologic measures can be implemented to help manage side effects. For muscle spasms, which are the most commonly reported adverse effect, supplementation with magnesium, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, acupuncture, massages, stretching, and thermal compresses can potentially be beneficial.²⁹ Calcium channel blockers also may be effective, as one small prospective cohort study reported a reduction in the frequency of muscle cramps with amlodipine 10 mg daily.³⁰ For alopecia, which typically is reversible and caused by SHH inhibition of the normal hair cycle, minoxidil theoretically can help, as it reduces telogen arrest and extends the anagen growth phase.^31,32 Although usually mild and self-limiting, management of dysgeusia, weight loss, and gastrointestinal upset often can be managed with dietary changes, such as smaller, more frequent meals.^33,34 Finally, alternative dosing strategies and drug holidays have been employed to mitigate these side effects and increase drug tolerability.^35,36 These are discussed in the Alternative Dosing section.

Given the essential role of the SHH pathway in embryologic development, SHH inhibitors carry a black box warning of embryofetal teratogenicity and are contraindicated in females who are pregnant or breastfeeding. For females of reproductive potential, verification of pregnancy status should be performed prior to initiating treatment with an SHH inhibitor. These patients should be counseled on the use of contraception during treatment and for at least 24 months and 20 months after cessation of vismodegib and sonidegib, respectively.^27,37,38 Male patients, even after a vasectomy, should use barrier contraception during treatment and for at least 3 months and 8 months after the final dose of vismodegib and sonidegib, respectively.^37,38

Laboratory abnormalities commonly associated with SHH inhibitors include elevated hepatic enzymes, particularly with vismodegib, and elevated creatine kinase levels, particularly with sonidegib.^28,39 Other laboratory abnormalities that can occur include hypercholesterolemia, hypercreatininemia, hyperglycemia, and increased serum lipase levels.^19,28 Although these laboratory abnormalities usually are asymptomatic and self-limiting, regular monitoring should be performed.

There also is concern that SHH inhibitors may induce the development of cSCC. A case-control study of 55 cases and 125 control patients found an increased risk for cSCC in those previously treated with vismodegib, with a hazard ratio of 8.12.⁴⁰ However, a subsequent retrospective cohort study of 1675 patients with BCC failed to find any association with cSCC among those treated with vismodegib compared to those who received standard surgical therapy.⁴¹ Clinical data for sonidegib are lacking, but the BOLT trial found that cSCC occurred in 3 patients receiving treatment with the SHH inhibitor.¹⁸ Thus, further studies are needed to more thoroughly assess this concern. Close monitoring for cSCC may be warranted in patients prescribed SHH inhibitors at this time.

Cemiplimab has demonstrated an acceptable safety profile and is generally well tolerated. In the phase 2 trial of cemiplimab for cSCC, approximately 5% of patients discontinued treatment because of adverse effects. The most commonly reported side effects of cemiplimab were diarrhea (27%), fatigue (24%), nausea (17%), constipation (15%), and rash (15%).²³ In the phase 2 trial for laBCC, grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 48% of patients, with hypertension (5%) being the most common.²⁶ Although rare, immune-mediated adverse reactions also can occur, given the mechanism of action of ICIs. These side effects, ranging in severity from mild to fatal, include pneumonitis, colitis, hepatitis, nephritis, myocarditis, and hypophysitis. Therefore, close monitoring for these immune-mediated reactions is critical, but most can be managed with corticosteroids or treatment interruption if they occur.^42,43

No absolute contraindications exist for cemiplimab; however, extreme caution should be taken in immunosuppressed individuals, such as solid organ transplant recipients and those with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), as safety data are limited in these patients.^44,45 Although small retrospective studies have reported reasonable tolerability in solid organ transplant recipients treated with ICIs, an allograft rejection rate of 41% was found in a meta-analysis of 64 patients.^46-48 In CLL patients with keratinocyte carcinomas, ICIs have been safely used and have even demonstrated efficacy for CLL in some cases.^49-52

Alternative Dosing

The side effects of SHH inhibitors have led to alternative dosing strategies to prevent medication discontinuation and improve adherence. In patients with basal cell nevus syndrome, multimonth drug holidays have been shown to increase drug tolerability without compromising efficacy.^35,36 Weekly intermittent dosing regimens of vismodegib ranging from 1 week on followed by 1 to 3 weeks off demonstrated efficacy in a retrospective study of 7 patients with advanced BCC.⁵³ All 7 patients experienced improvement in their BCCs, with 3 patients experiencing CR. Importantly, treatment-related adverse effects were mild and well tolerated, with no patients terminating the medication.⁵³ Two other retrospective case series of patients with advanced BCC treated with vismodegib reported similar findings for those placed on an intermittent dosing schedule ranging from once every other day to once per week.^54,55

In the large phase 2 randomized trial known as MIKIE, 2 different intermittent dosing regimens of 150 mg vismodegib daily for patients with multiple BCCs were found to have good activity and tolerability.⁵⁶ The first group (n=116) received vismodegib for 12 weeks, then 3 rounds of 8 weeks of placebo, followed by 12 weeks of vismodegib; there was a 63% reduction in clinically evident BCCs after 73 weeks. The second group (n=113) received the medication for 24 weeks, then 3 rounds of 8 weeks of placebo, followed by 8 weeks of vismodegib; there was a 54% reduction at the end of 73 weeks.⁵⁶ Subsequent analyses found improvements in health-related quality-of-life outcomes that were similar for both groups.⁵⁷

Consequently, alternative dosing schedules appear to be a viable option for patients at risk of discontinuing treatment because of adverse effects, and current data support the recently approved recommendations of dose interruptions of up to 8 weeks to manage adverse effects in patients with laBCC or mBCC.⁵⁸ Nevertheless, further clinical studies are required to determine the optimal intermittent dosing regimen for patients treated with SHH inhibitors.

Neoadjuvant Administration

Recently, vismodegib has been studied as a neoadjuvant therapy for BCC with promising results. Several small retrospective studies and case reports have documented successful treatment of both operable and inoperable periocular laBCC, with preservation of the eye in all patients.^59-61 An open-label trial of 15 patients with advanced BCC who received neoadjuvant vismodegib for 3 to 6 months prior to surgical excision reported a mean reduction of 35% in the final surgical defect size, with no recurrence at 22 months.^62,63 The latest and largest study performed was a phase 2 open-label trial known as VISMONEO, where 44 of 55 laBCC patients (80%) receiving neoadjuvant vismodegib for a mean duration of 6 months (range, 4–10 months) achieved the primary end point of tumor surgical downstaging.⁶⁴ Of the 44 patients who had tumor downstaging, 27 (61%) experienced histologically proven CRs. Additionally, a 66% reduction in the average target lesion size was reported in this group compared to29% in the 11 patients who did not have tumor downstaging (P=.0002).⁶⁴ Thus, SHH inhibitors may hold an important neoadjuvant role in the treatment of BCC by decreasing surgical defect size and allowing for surgical management of previously inoperable cases.

Synergism With Radiation

Preliminary data suggest SHH inhibitors may help potentiate the effects of radiation therapy for the treatment of BCC. Currently, the evidence primarily is limited to case studies, with several reports describing complete remission in patients with advanced BCCs who were considered unsuitable candidates for surgery. In these cases, vismodegib was administered either prior to or concurrently with radiation treatment.^65-69 An in vitro study also documented the radiation-sensitizing effects of vismodegib in a BCC cell line.⁷⁰ Recently, a phase 2 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01835626) evaluating the concurrent use of vismodegib and radiotherapy for patients with advanced BCC was completed, but data has yet to be published.

Synergism With and Benefit of Antifungal Therapy

The antifungal drug itraconazole is a potent inhibitor of the SHH pathway and may have an adjunctive role in the treatment of BCC. Similar to vismodegib and sonidegib, itraconazole acts as a direct antagonist of SMO. However, it is thought to bind to a distinct site on SMO.^71,72 An open-label, exploratory phase 2 trial of 19 patients with BCC found that oral itraconazole 200 to 400 mg daily decreased tumor proliferative index by 45% (P=.04), as measured by Ki-67; SHH activity by 65% (P=.03), as measured by GLI1 messenger RNA; and mean tumor area by 24%.⁷³ In a case series of 5 patients with mBCC refractory to conventional SHH inhibitor therapy, combined treatment with itraconazole and arsenic trioxide resulted in stable disease and a 75% reduction in SHH activity (P<.001).⁷⁴ One case report documented tumor regression leading to stable disease for 15 months in a patient with laBCC treated with itraconazole monotherapy due to being unable to afford vismodegib or sonidegib. However, within 2 months of treatment discontinuation, the lesion progressed considerably.⁷⁵ The efficacy of a topical formulation of itraconazole also has been tested in an open-label, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial, but no benefit was observed.⁷⁶

Posaconazole is a second-generation antifungal agent that may serve as a potential alternative to itraconazole.⁷⁷ Although clinical data are lacking, a basic science study found that posaconazole could inhibit the growth of SHH-dependent BCC in vivo (in mice).⁷⁸ Furthermore, posaconazole has demonstrated a better safety profile with fewer and more mild side effects than itraconazole and does not require dose adjustment for those with hepatic or renal failure.^79,80 Thus, posaconazole may be a safer alternative to itraconazole for the treatment of BCC. Further clinical studies are needed to elucidate the potential synergistic effects of these antifungal agents with the 2 currently approved SHH inhibitors for the treatment of advanced BCC.

Treatment resistance to SHH inhibitors, though uncommon, is a growing concern. Acquired mutations in the SMO binding site or downstream mediators of the SHH pathway have been shown to confer resistance to vismodegib and sonidegib.^72,81-83 In addition, it appears that there may be shared resistance among the drugs in this class. One study assessing the efficacy of sonidegib in 9 patients with laBCC resistant to vismodegib found that these patients also did not respond to sonidegib.⁸⁴ Interestingly, 1 case report documented tumor regression of an intracranial BCC in a patient treated with sonidegib and itraconazole after failure with vismodegib.⁸⁵ An in vitro study also found that itraconazole maintained SHH inhibitory activity for all drug-resistant SMO mutations that have been reported.⁷² Therefore, itraconazole monotherapy or combination therapy with a canonical SHH inhibitor may be considered for patients with recalcitrant BCC and warrants further investigation.

Taladegib is a newly developed SMO inhibitor that may serve as another promising alternative for patients who develop resistance to vismodegib or sonidegib. A phase 1 trial of taladegib for advanced BCC found an ORR of 69% (11/16) in the SHH inhibitor–naïve group and an ORR of 36% (11/32) in the group previously treated with a SHH inhibitor.⁸⁶ Additionally, the safety profile and frequency of adverse effects appear to be similar to those associated with vismodegib and sonidegib.^86,87 Unfortunately, no clinical trials evaluating taladegib for BCC are ongoing or in development at this time.

Recurrence

There appears to be a relatively high rate of recurrence for BCC patients who achieve a CR to SHH inhibitors. In a retrospective study of 116 laBCC patients who experienced a CR after vismodegib therapy, 54 patients (47%) relapsed at 36 months. Among the 54 patients that relapsed, 27 were re-treated with vismodegib, which resulted in an ORR of 85% (23/27), a CR rate of 37% (10/27), and a PR rate of 48% (13/27).⁸⁸ Another retrospective study of 35 laBCC patients who relapsed after vismodegib treatment reported a 31% (11/35) clinical recurrence rate at 6-month follow-up.⁸⁹ An observational retrospective study also assessed the efficacy of SHH inhibitor maintenance therapy for advanced BCC patients who achieved a CR.⁹⁰ In the study, 27 (64%) patients received a maintenance dose of 150 mg vismodegib once per week for 1 year, while 15 (36%) patients decided not to take a maintenance dose following CR of their BCC. All patients who took the maintenance therapy did not experience clinical recurrence at 1-year follow-up, whereas 26% of patients not on the maintenance dose relapsed.⁹⁰ Consequently, these results indicate that BCC recurrence is frequent after SHH inhibitor therapy and highlights the importance of close surveillance after CR is attained. Nevertheless, most patients still respond to treatment with SHH inhibitors after relapsing, and intermittent maintenance doses may be an effective means to reduce risk of recurrence.

Conclusion

Vismodegib and sonidegib are SHH inhibitors approved for the treatment of laBCC and mBCC. Cemiplimab is now also approved for patients who do not respond to SHH inhibitors or for whom SHH inhibitors are not tolerable. Although these systemic targeted therapies can lead to notable tumor shrinkage and even complete regression in some patients, recurrence is common, and adverse effects may limit their use. Drug resistance is an emerging issue that requires additional examination. Further clinical studies are needed to determine which patients are likely to respond to these targeted treatments.

Various intermittent and maintenance drug regimens should be evaluated for their potential to mitigate adverse effects and reduce risk of recurrence, respectively. The synergistic effects of these medications with other therapies as well as their neoadjuvant and adjuvant roles should be further investigated. For example, administration of an SHH inhibitor prior to surgical excision of a BCC may allow for a smaller surgical defect size, thereby improving cosmetic and functional outcomes. Moreover, these systemic targeted medications may allow for previously inoperable tumors to become amenable to surgical treatment.

Although SHH inhibitors and PD-1 inhibitors represent a major advancement in the field of oncodermatology, real-world efficacy and safety data in the upcoming years will be important for elucidating their true benefit for patients with BCC.

Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) is the most common keratinocyte carcinoma and affects more than 3 million individuals per year in the United States.¹ Approximately 40% of patients diagnosed with BCC will develop another BCC within 5 years of the initial diagnosis.² Most cases are successfully treated with surgical excision and occasionally topical therapy or radiotherapy. Despite the high cure rate with conventional treatments, BCC can recur and can cause substantial destruction of the surrounding tissue if left untreated.^3-5 In some instances, BCC can even metastasize and lead to death.⁶ For patients who are poor candidates for surgical or topical treatment modalities because of locally advanced BCC (laBCC) or metastatic BCC (mBCC), systemic treatment may be indicated. Vismodegib, sonidegib, and cemiplimab are the only systemic medications approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of laBCC and/or mBCC. Vismodegib and sonidegib target the sonic hedgehog (SHH) signaling pathway that is abnormally activated in more than 90% of BCCs.⁷ Cemiplimab is an immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) that targets the programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) receptor.⁸ Herein, we review the clinical utility of these medications and their evolving roles in the treatment of BCC.

SHH Pathway Inhibitors

The SHH pathway is a key regulator of cell proliferation and differentiation during embryogenesis.⁷ During adulthood, SHH signaling decreases but still plays an important role in stem cell activation and in regulation of the hair follicle growth cycle.^9,10 However, de novo mutations in the genes that comprise the SHH pathway can result in aberrant constitutive activation, leading to unrestricted cell proliferation. Genetic mutations resulting in activation of Smoothened (SMO), a G-protein–coupled receptor involved in the signal transduction and propagation of the SHH pathway, have been implicated in the pathogenesis of BCC. Inactivating mutations also are commonly observed in patched homolog 1, an upstream cell-surface protein that inhibits SMO.⁷ The mechanism by which vismodegib and sonidegib, 2 of the FDA-approved oral medications for the treatment of advanced BCC, block the SHH pathway is through the selective inhibition of SMO.^7,11

Vismodegib first received FDA approval in 2012 for the treatment of laBCC and mBCC after initial results from the pivotal ERIVANCE phase 2 trial demonstrated an objective response rate (ORR) of 43% (27/63) and 30% (10/33) in patients with locally advanced and metastatic disease, respectively. In this single-arm study, all enrolled patients (63 with laBCC and 33 with mBCC) received 150 mg of oral vismodegib daily.¹² Updated results at 39 months demonstrated improved ORRs of 60% (38/63) and 48% (16/33) for the laBCC and mBCC groups, respectively. A complete response (CR) and partial response (PR) were observed in 32% (n=20) and 29% (n=18) of patients with laBCC, respectively.¹³ These results have been confirmed in subsequent studies, including the large international open-label trial known as STEVIE, with ORRs of 68.5% for 1119 cases of laBCC and 37% for 96 cases of mBCC.^14-17 The CR and PR rates were 33% and 35%, respectively, for the laBCC group. The CR and PR rates for the mBCC group were 5% and 32%, respectively.¹⁴

The FDA approval of sonidegib for laBCC—but not mBCC—occurred in 2015 after the pivotal BOLT randomized phase 2 trial demonstrated an initial ORR of 43% (18/42) for laBCC and 15% (2/13) for mBCC after administration of 200 mg of sonidegib daily.¹⁸ A final follow-up analysis at 42 months resulted in ORRs of 56% (37/66) and 8% (1/13) for the laBCC and mBCC groups, respectively.¹⁹ Additionally, improved efficacy was not observed in the 151 patients who were randomized to receive treatment with the higher 800-mg dose; however, they did experience a higher incidence of adverse events.^18,19

Currently, the true clinical differences between vismodegib and sonidegib remain uncertain, as no head-to-head trials have been conducted. Moreover, direct comparison of the data from the ERIVANCE and BOLT trials is challenging owing to fundamental differences in methodologic design, including the criteria used to assess BCC severity. The ERIVANCE trial utilized the conventional Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), while BOLT used the rigorous modified RECIST. However, an expert consensus study attempted to compare the 2 trials by modifying the outcomes from BOLT with the former RECIST criteria. The expert group found that the 2 SHH inhibitors had comparable efficacy and adverse event profiles.²⁰ Nevertheless, a recent meta-analysis found that although ORRs for laBCC were similar between the 2 drugs, the CR rate for vismodegib was 31% compared with 3% for sonidegib. Additionally, for mBCC, they reported the ORR of vismodegib to be 2.7 times higher than that of sonidegib (39% vs 15%).²¹

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors

Immune checkpoint inhibitors have successfully been utilized in the treatment of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC); however, their use for treating BCC has been limited until recently.^22-25 In February 2021, cemiplimab became the first and only ICI approved for the treatment of laBCC and mBCC in patients who did not respond to or were intolerant to prior SHH inhibitor therapy.²⁶ Cemiplimab—a human monoclonal antibody against the PD-1 receptor expressed on T cells—blocks its interaction with programmed cell death ligand 1 and programmed cell death ligand 2 present on tumor cells. The blockade of the PD-1 pathway releases the inhibition of the antitumor immune response and enables appropriate cytotoxic T-cell activity to occur.⁸

The FDA approval of cemiplimab for the treatment of advanced BCC was based on an open-label, multicenter, single-arm phase 2 trial (NCT03132636) evaluating 84 patients with laBCC refractory or intolerant to SHH inhibitor therapy.²⁶ Patients received an intravenous infusion of cemiplimab 350 mg every 3 weeks for up to 93 weeks or until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. An ORR of 31% (26/84) was observed with a CR and PR of 6% (5/84) and 25% (21/84), respectively. The median duration of follow-up was 15 months.²⁶ Given the clinically meaningful results of this trial, investigating the efficacy of other PD-1 inhibitors, such as pembrolizumab and nivolumab, for treatment of advanced BCC may prove worthwhile.

The 2 approved SHH inhibitors—vismodegib and sonidegib—appear to have similar side-effect profiles, with the most common adverse effects being muscle spasms, dysgeusia, alopecia, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, weight loss, and fatigue.^20,21,27 These side effects occur at high frequencies (>40%) for both SHH inhibitors and often lead to discontinuation of the medication.²¹ Rates of treatment discontinuation range from 15% to 50% on average.^12-14,18 Fortunately, the majority of these adverse effects do not appear to increase in severity or frequency with prolonged use of these medications.^14,16,28

Various conservative and pharmacologic measures can be implemented to help manage side effects. For muscle spasms, which are the most commonly reported adverse effect, supplementation with magnesium, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, acupuncture, massages, stretching, and thermal compresses can potentially be beneficial.²⁹ Calcium channel blockers also may be effective, as one small prospective cohort study reported a reduction in the frequency of muscle cramps with amlodipine 10 mg daily.³⁰ For alopecia, which typically is reversible and caused by SHH inhibition of the normal hair cycle, minoxidil theoretically can help, as it reduces telogen arrest and extends the anagen growth phase.^31,32 Although usually mild and self-limiting, management of dysgeusia, weight loss, and gastrointestinal upset often can be managed with dietary changes, such as smaller, more frequent meals.^33,34 Finally, alternative dosing strategies and drug holidays have been employed to mitigate these side effects and increase drug tolerability.^35,36 These are discussed in the Alternative Dosing section.

Given the essential role of the SHH pathway in embryologic development, SHH inhibitors carry a black box warning of embryofetal teratogenicity and are contraindicated in females who are pregnant or breastfeeding. For females of reproductive potential, verification of pregnancy status should be performed prior to initiating treatment with an SHH inhibitor. These patients should be counseled on the use of contraception during treatment and for at least 24 months and 20 months after cessation of vismodegib and sonidegib, respectively.^27,37,38 Male patients, even after a vasectomy, should use barrier contraception during treatment and for at least 3 months and 8 months after the final dose of vismodegib and sonidegib, respectively.^37,38

Laboratory abnormalities commonly associated with SHH inhibitors include elevated hepatic enzymes, particularly with vismodegib, and elevated creatine kinase levels, particularly with sonidegib.^28,39 Other laboratory abnormalities that can occur include hypercholesterolemia, hypercreatininemia, hyperglycemia, and increased serum lipase levels.^19,28 Although these laboratory abnormalities usually are asymptomatic and self-limiting, regular monitoring should be performed.

There also is concern that SHH inhibitors may induce the development of cSCC. A case-control study of 55 cases and 125 control patients found an increased risk for cSCC in those previously treated with vismodegib, with a hazard ratio of 8.12.⁴⁰ However, a subsequent retrospective cohort study of 1675 patients with BCC failed to find any association with cSCC among those treated with vismodegib compared to those who received standard surgical therapy.⁴¹ Clinical data for sonidegib are lacking, but the BOLT trial found that cSCC occurred in 3 patients receiving treatment with the SHH inhibitor.¹⁸ Thus, further studies are needed to more thoroughly assess this concern. Close monitoring for cSCC may be warranted in patients prescribed SHH inhibitors at this time.

Cemiplimab has demonstrated an acceptable safety profile and is generally well tolerated. In the phase 2 trial of cemiplimab for cSCC, approximately 5% of patients discontinued treatment because of adverse effects. The most commonly reported side effects of cemiplimab were diarrhea (27%), fatigue (24%), nausea (17%), constipation (15%), and rash (15%).²³ In the phase 2 trial for laBCC, grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 48% of patients, with hypertension (5%) being the most common.²⁶ Although rare, immune-mediated adverse reactions also can occur, given the mechanism of action of ICIs. These side effects, ranging in severity from mild to fatal, include pneumonitis, colitis, hepatitis, nephritis, myocarditis, and hypophysitis. Therefore, close monitoring for these immune-mediated reactions is critical, but most can be managed with corticosteroids or treatment interruption if they occur.^42,43

No absolute contraindications exist for cemiplimab; however, extreme caution should be taken in immunosuppressed individuals, such as solid organ transplant recipients and those with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), as safety data are limited in these patients.^44,45 Although small retrospective studies have reported reasonable tolerability in solid organ transplant recipients treated with ICIs, an allograft rejection rate of 41% was found in a meta-analysis of 64 patients.^46-48 In CLL patients with keratinocyte carcinomas, ICIs have been safely used and have even demonstrated efficacy for CLL in some cases.^49-52

Alternative Dosing

The side effects of SHH inhibitors have led to alternative dosing strategies to prevent medication discontinuation and improve adherence. In patients with basal cell nevus syndrome, multimonth drug holidays have been shown to increase drug tolerability without compromising efficacy.^35,36 Weekly intermittent dosing regimens of vismodegib ranging from 1 week on followed by 1 to 3 weeks off demonstrated efficacy in a retrospective study of 7 patients with advanced BCC.⁵³ All 7 patients experienced improvement in their BCCs, with 3 patients experiencing CR. Importantly, treatment-related adverse effects were mild and well tolerated, with no patients terminating the medication.⁵³ Two other retrospective case series of patients with advanced BCC treated with vismodegib reported similar findings for those placed on an intermittent dosing schedule ranging from once every other day to once per week.^54,55

In the large phase 2 randomized trial known as MIKIE, 2 different intermittent dosing regimens of 150 mg vismodegib daily for patients with multiple BCCs were found to have good activity and tolerability.⁵⁶ The first group (n=116) received vismodegib for 12 weeks, then 3 rounds of 8 weeks of placebo, followed by 12 weeks of vismodegib; there was a 63% reduction in clinically evident BCCs after 73 weeks. The second group (n=113) received the medication for 24 weeks, then 3 rounds of 8 weeks of placebo, followed by 8 weeks of vismodegib; there was a 54% reduction at the end of 73 weeks.⁵⁶ Subsequent analyses found improvements in health-related quality-of-life outcomes that were similar for both groups.⁵⁷

Consequently, alternative dosing schedules appear to be a viable option for patients at risk of discontinuing treatment because of adverse effects, and current data support the recently approved recommendations of dose interruptions of up to 8 weeks to manage adverse effects in patients with laBCC or mBCC.⁵⁸ Nevertheless, further clinical studies are required to determine the optimal intermittent dosing regimen for patients treated with SHH inhibitors.

Neoadjuvant Administration

Recently, vismodegib has been studied as a neoadjuvant therapy for BCC with promising results. Several small retrospective studies and case reports have documented successful treatment of both operable and inoperable periocular laBCC, with preservation of the eye in all patients.^59-61 An open-label trial of 15 patients with advanced BCC who received neoadjuvant vismodegib for 3 to 6 months prior to surgical excision reported a mean reduction of 35% in the final surgical defect size, with no recurrence at 22 months.^62,63 The latest and largest study performed was a phase 2 open-label trial known as VISMONEO, where 44 of 55 laBCC patients (80%) receiving neoadjuvant vismodegib for a mean duration of 6 months (range, 4–10 months) achieved the primary end point of tumor surgical downstaging.⁶⁴ Of the 44 patients who had tumor downstaging, 27 (61%) experienced histologically proven CRs. Additionally, a 66% reduction in the average target lesion size was reported in this group compared to29% in the 11 patients who did not have tumor downstaging (P=.0002).⁶⁴ Thus, SHH inhibitors may hold an important neoadjuvant role in the treatment of BCC by decreasing surgical defect size and allowing for surgical management of previously inoperable cases.

Synergism With Radiation

Preliminary data suggest SHH inhibitors may help potentiate the effects of radiation therapy for the treatment of BCC. Currently, the evidence primarily is limited to case studies, with several reports describing complete remission in patients with advanced BCCs who were considered unsuitable candidates for surgery. In these cases, vismodegib was administered either prior to or concurrently with radiation treatment.^65-69 An in vitro study also documented the radiation-sensitizing effects of vismodegib in a BCC cell line.⁷⁰ Recently, a phase 2 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01835626) evaluating the concurrent use of vismodegib and radiotherapy for patients with advanced BCC was completed, but data has yet to be published.

Synergism With and Benefit of Antifungal Therapy

The antifungal drug itraconazole is a potent inhibitor of the SHH pathway and may have an adjunctive role in the treatment of BCC. Similar to vismodegib and sonidegib, itraconazole acts as a direct antagonist of SMO. However, it is thought to bind to a distinct site on SMO.^71,72 An open-label, exploratory phase 2 trial of 19 patients with BCC found that oral itraconazole 200 to 400 mg daily decreased tumor proliferative index by 45% (P=.04), as measured by Ki-67; SHH activity by 65% (P=.03), as measured by GLI1 messenger RNA; and mean tumor area by 24%.⁷³ In a case series of 5 patients with mBCC refractory to conventional SHH inhibitor therapy, combined treatment with itraconazole and arsenic trioxide resulted in stable disease and a 75% reduction in SHH activity (P<.001).⁷⁴ One case report documented tumor regression leading to stable disease for 15 months in a patient with laBCC treated with itraconazole monotherapy due to being unable to afford vismodegib or sonidegib. However, within 2 months of treatment discontinuation, the lesion progressed considerably.⁷⁵ The efficacy of a topical formulation of itraconazole also has been tested in an open-label, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial, but no benefit was observed.⁷⁶

Posaconazole is a second-generation antifungal agent that may serve as a potential alternative to itraconazole.⁷⁷ Although clinical data are lacking, a basic science study found that posaconazole could inhibit the growth of SHH-dependent BCC in vivo (in mice).⁷⁸ Furthermore, posaconazole has demonstrated a better safety profile with fewer and more mild side effects than itraconazole and does not require dose adjustment for those with hepatic or renal failure.^79,80 Thus, posaconazole may be a safer alternative to itraconazole for the treatment of BCC. Further clinical studies are needed to elucidate the potential synergistic effects of these antifungal agents with the 2 currently approved SHH inhibitors for the treatment of advanced BCC.

Treatment resistance to SHH inhibitors, though uncommon, is a growing concern. Acquired mutations in the SMO binding site or downstream mediators of the SHH pathway have been shown to confer resistance to vismodegib and sonidegib.^72,81-83 In addition, it appears that there may be shared resistance among the drugs in this class. One study assessing the efficacy of sonidegib in 9 patients with laBCC resistant to vismodegib found that these patients also did not respond to sonidegib.⁸⁴ Interestingly, 1 case report documented tumor regression of an intracranial BCC in a patient treated with sonidegib and itraconazole after failure with vismodegib.⁸⁵ An in vitro study also found that itraconazole maintained SHH inhibitory activity for all drug-resistant SMO mutations that have been reported.⁷² Therefore, itraconazole monotherapy or combination therapy with a canonical SHH inhibitor may be considered for patients with recalcitrant BCC and warrants further investigation.

Taladegib is a newly developed SMO inhibitor that may serve as another promising alternative for patients who develop resistance to vismodegib or sonidegib. A phase 1 trial of taladegib for advanced BCC found an ORR of 69% (11/16) in the SHH inhibitor–naïve group and an ORR of 36% (11/32) in the group previously treated with a SHH inhibitor.⁸⁶ Additionally, the safety profile and frequency of adverse effects appear to be similar to those associated with vismodegib and sonidegib.^86,87 Unfortunately, no clinical trials evaluating taladegib for BCC are ongoing or in development at this time.

Recurrence

There appears to be a relatively high rate of recurrence for BCC patients who achieve a CR to SHH inhibitors. In a retrospective study of 116 laBCC patients who experienced a CR after vismodegib therapy, 54 patients (47%) relapsed at 36 months. Among the 54 patients that relapsed, 27 were re-treated with vismodegib, which resulted in an ORR of 85% (23/27), a CR rate of 37% (10/27), and a PR rate of 48% (13/27).⁸⁸ Another retrospective study of 35 laBCC patients who relapsed after vismodegib treatment reported a 31% (11/35) clinical recurrence rate at 6-month follow-up.⁸⁹ An observational retrospective study also assessed the efficacy of SHH inhibitor maintenance therapy for advanced BCC patients who achieved a CR.⁹⁰ In the study, 27 (64%) patients received a maintenance dose of 150 mg vismodegib once per week for 1 year, while 15 (36%) patients decided not to take a maintenance dose following CR of their BCC. All patients who took the maintenance therapy did not experience clinical recurrence at 1-year follow-up, whereas 26% of patients not on the maintenance dose relapsed.⁹⁰ Consequently, these results indicate that BCC recurrence is frequent after SHH inhibitor therapy and highlights the importance of close surveillance after CR is attained. Nevertheless, most patients still respond to treatment with SHH inhibitors after relapsing, and intermittent maintenance doses may be an effective means to reduce risk of recurrence.

Conclusion

Vismodegib and sonidegib are SHH inhibitors approved for the treatment of laBCC and mBCC. Cemiplimab is now also approved for patients who do not respond to SHH inhibitors or for whom SHH inhibitors are not tolerable. Although these systemic targeted therapies can lead to notable tumor shrinkage and even complete regression in some patients, recurrence is common, and adverse effects may limit their use. Drug resistance is an emerging issue that requires additional examination. Further clinical studies are needed to determine which patients are likely to respond to these targeted treatments.

Various intermittent and maintenance drug regimens should be evaluated for their potential to mitigate adverse effects and reduce risk of recurrence, respectively. The synergistic effects of these medications with other therapies as well as their neoadjuvant and adjuvant roles should be further investigated. For example, administration of an SHH inhibitor prior to surgical excision of a BCC may allow for a smaller surgical defect size, thereby improving cosmetic and functional outcomes. Moreover, these systemic targeted medications may allow for previously inoperable tumors to become amenable to surgical treatment.

Although SHH inhibitors and PD-1 inhibitors represent a major advancement in the field of oncodermatology, real-world efficacy and safety data in the upcoming years will be important for elucidating their true benefit for patients with BCC.

Last year, our Update focused on the expansion of sequencing in prenatal diagnosis. This year, we are taking a step sideways to remember the many diagnoses we may miss if we rely on exome sequencing alone. A recent case report in Prenatal Diagnosis describes a pregnancy affected by fetal akinesia sequence and polyhydramnios in which sequencing did not reveal a diagnosis. Expansion of the differential to include congenital myotonic dystrophy and subsequent triplet repeat testing led the clinicians to the diagnosis and identification of a triplet repeat expansion in the DMPK gene. This case serves as our first example of how complementary testing and technologies should continue to help us make critical diagnoses. 

What is the yield of exome sequencing vs panels in nonimmune hydrops?

Rogers R, Moyer K, Moise KJ Jr. Congenital myotonic dystrophy: an overlooked diagnosis not amenable to detection by sequencing. Prenat Diagn. 2022;42:233-235. doi:10.1002/pd.6105.

Norton ME, Ziffle JV, Lianoglou BR, et al. Exome sequencing vs targeted gene panels for the evaluation of nonimmune hydrops fetalis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2021;28:S0002-9378(21)00828-0. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2021.07.014.
 

We have had several illuminating discussions with our colleagues about the merits of exome sequencing (ES) versus panels and other modalities for fetal diagnosis. Many obstetricians practicing at the leading edge may feel like ES should be utilized uniformly for fetal anomalies with nondiagnostic karyotype or microarray. However, for well-defined phenotypes with clear and narrow lists of implicated genes (eg, skeletal dysplasias) or patients without insurance coverage, panel sequencing still has utility in prenatal diagnosis. The question of which phenotypes most benefit from ES versus panel sequencing is an area of interesting, ongoing research for several investigators.

Secondary analysis of nonimmune hydrops cohort

Norton and colleagues tackled one such cohort in a study presented in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. They compared the proportion of diagnoses that would have been identified in commercial lab panels with their research of phenotype-driven ES in a cohort of 127 fetuses with features of nonimmune hydrops fetalis (NIHF). NIHF can be caused by a variety of single-gene disorders in addition to chromosomal disorders and copy number variants on chromosomal microarray. Patients were eligible for inclusion in the cohort if they had a nondiagnostic karyotype or microarray and any of the following features: nuchal translucency of 3.5 mm or greater, cystic hygroma, pleural effusion, pericardial effusion, ascites, or skin edema. Standard sequencing methods and variant analysis were performed. They assumed 100% analytical sensitivity and specificity of the panels for variant detection and collected cost information on the targeted gene panels.

Study outcomes

In the ES analysis of cases, 37 of 127 cases (29%) had a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant in 1 of 29 genes, and another 12 of 127 cases (9%) had variants of uncertain significance that were strongly suspected to be the etiology during clinical analysis. The types of disorders that were identified are listed in the TABLE. In addition to a feature of NIHF, 50% of the cases had a structural anomaly.

There were 10 identified clinical panels from 7 clinical laboratories. These panels ranged in size from 11 to 128 genes. The highest simulated yield of any commercial panel was only 62% of the pathogenic variants identified by ES. The other commercial laboratory panels detection yield ranged from 11% to 62% of pathogenic variants detected by ES. For overall yield, the largest panel would have a diagnostic yield of 18% of diagnoses relative to the 29% diagnostic yield from ES.

The largest panel included 128 genes prior to the publication of the original cohort and was updated after publication to include 148 genes. The larger updated panel would have identified all of the patients in the ES cohort. However, many of the other panels listed would have identified a smaller fraction of the variants identified by ES (range, 11%-62%). At the time of publication, the cost of the panels ranged from $640 to $3,500, and the cost of prenatal ES ranged from $2,458 to $7,500.

Continue to: Strengths and limitations...

Strengths and limitations

Twenty-three percent of the patients who were sequenced had an increased fetal nuchal translucency or cystic hygroma, and another 17% had a single fetal effusion. This inclusivity makes this study more applicable to broader fetal anomaly populations. However, it is worth noting that only 61% of patients had NIHF by the definition of 2 or more fluid collections or skin thickening.

The authors assumed 100% sensitivity and specificity for the panel tests relative to diagnostic ES results, but this may not reflect real-life analysis. There is inherent subjectivity and subsequent differences in variant calling (deciding which genetic changes are pathogenic) between institutions and companies despite efforts to standardize this process. Due to the simulated nature of this study, these differences are not captured. Additionally, although the authors note that the research ES had at least 30 times the coverage (an adequate number of sequence reads for accurate testing) than did the commercial lab panels, some gene panels have additional sequencing of intronic regions, copy number analysis, and up to 10 times more coverage than ES, which could lead to more diagnoses.

Frequency of Beckwith-Widemann syndrome in prenatally diagnosed omphaloceles

Abbasi N, Moore A, Chiu P, et al. Prenatally diagnosed omphaloceles: report of 92 cases and association with Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome. Prenat Diagn. 2021;41:798-816. doi:10.1002/pd.5930.

An omphalocele is diagnosed prenatally on ultrasound when an anterior midline mass, often containing abdominal contents, is seen herniating into the base of the umbilical cord. Omphaloceles are often associated with additional structural abnormalities and underlying genetic syndromes, thus a thorough fetal assessment is required for accurate prenatal counseling and neonatal care.

Identification of Beckwith-Widemann syndrome (BWS) in the setting of a prenatally diagnosed omphalocele is difficult because of its wide range of clinical features and its unique genetic basis. Unlike many genetic disorders that are caused by specific genetic variants, or spelling changes in the genes, BWS results from a change in the expression of one or more of the genes in a specific region of chromosome 11. A high index of clinical suspicion as well as an understanding of the various genetic and epigenetics alterations that cause BWS is required for prenatal diagnosis.

Retrospective cohort at a single center

The authors in this study reviewed all pregnancies in which an omphalocele was diagnosed prenatally at a single center between 2010 and 2015. They describe a standard prenatal evaluation following identification of an omphalocele including echocardiogram, detailed anatomic survey, and availability of an amniocentesis to facilitate aneuploidy screening and testing for BWS. This review also includes an overview of perinatal and long-term outcomes for cases of BWS diagnosed at their center between 2000 and 2015.

Study outcomes

Results of prenatal genetic testing in this cohort were divided between cases of an isolated omphalocele (without other structural changes) and cases of nonisolated omphaloceles. In the group of pregnancies with an isolated omphalocele, 2 of 27 pregnancies (7.4%) were found to have an abnormal karyotype, and 6 of 16 of the remaining pregnancies (37.5%) were diagnosed with BWS. Among the group of pregnancies with a nonisolated omphalocele, 23 of 59 pregnancies (39%) were found to have an abnormal karyotype, and 1 of 20 pregnancies (5%) were diagnosed with BWS.

Prenatal sonographic features associated with cases of BWS included polyhydramnios in 12 of 19 cases (63%) and macrosomia in 8 of 19 cases (42%). Macroglossia is another characteristic feature of the disorder, which was identified in 4 of 19 cases (21%) prenatally and in an additional 10 of 19 cases (52.6%) postnatally. Interestingly, only 1 of the cases of BWS was caused by a microdeletion at 11p15.4—a change that was identified on microarray. The additional 6 cases of BWS were caused by imprinting changes in the region, which are only detectable with a specific methylation-analysis technique.

Among the 19 cases of BWS identified over a 15-year period, there was 1 intrauterine demise. Preterm birth occurred in 10 of 19 cases (52.6%), including 8 of 19 cases (42.1%) of spontaneous preterm labor. Respiratory distress (27.8%), hypoglycemia (61%), and gastrointestinal reflux (59%) were common neonatal complications. Embryonal tumors were diagnosed in 2 of 16 patients (12.5%). Although neurodevelopmental outcomes were incomplete, their data suggested normal development in 75% of children. There were 2 neonatal deaths in this cohort and 1 childhood death at age 2 years.

Study strengths and limitations

As with many studies investigating a rare disorder, this study is limited by its retrospective nature and small sample size. Nevertheless, it adds an important cohort of patients with a prenatally diagnosed omphalocele to the literature and illuminates the utility of a standardized approach to testing for BWS in this population.

Continue to: Genetic diagnoses that could have been identified by expanded carrier screening...

Stevens BK, Nunley PB, Wagner C, et al. Utility of expanded carrier screening in pregnancies with ultrasound abnormalities. Prenat Diagn. 2022;42:60-78. doi:10.1002/pd.6069.

This series is a thorough retrospective review of patients evaluated in a pediatric genetics clinic from 2014 through 2017. Patients were included if they were evaluated in the first 6 months of life and had a structural abnormality that might be detected on prenatal ultrasonography. The genetic testing results were analyzed and categorized according to types of genetic disorders, with the goal of identifying how many patients might have been identified by expanded carrier screening (ECS) panels.

Study outcomes

A total of 931 charts were reviewed, and 85% (791 of 931) of patients evaluated in the first 6 months of life were determined to have a structural anomaly that might be detected on prenatal ultrasonography. Of those patients, 691 went on to have genetic testing and 32.1% (222 of 691) of them had a diagnostic (pathogenic) genetic testing result related to the phenotype. The types of diagnostic testing results are shown in the FIGURE. Notably, 42 single-gene disorders were detected.

FIGURE Diagnostic test result in pediatric patients evaluated under age 6 months

Of those 222 patients with diagnostic results, there were 8 patients with autosomal recessive and X-linked conditions that could be detected using a 500-gene ECS panel. Five patients could be detected with a 271-gene panel. After nondiagnostic microarray, 11.3% of patients had a condition that could be detected by using a 500-gene ECS panel. The identified conditions included cystic fibrosis, CYP21‐related congenital adrenal hyperplasia, autosomal recessive polycystic kidney disease, Antley‐Bixler syndrome, and Morquio syndrome type A.

Furthermore, the authors conducted a literature review of 271 conditions and found that 32% (88 of 271) of conditions may be associated with ultrasound findings.

Study strengths and limitations

When applying these data to prenatal populations, the authors acknowledge several notable limitations. There is a selection bias toward less-severe phenotypes for many patients choosing to continue rather than to interrupt a pregnancy. Additionally, only 23% of the patients in the study had a microarray and ES, which may lead to an underrepresentation of single-gene disorders and an underestimation of the utility of ECS. Finally, a retrospective classification of structural abnormalities that may be detectable by ultrasonography may not always reflect what is actually reported in prenatal imaging.

However, the work that the authors put forth to evaluate and categorize 931 participants by the results of genetic testing and structural anomalies is appreciated, and the level of detail is impressive for this retrospective chart review. Additionally, the tables itemizing the authors’ review of 271 ECS disorders that may have ultrasonography findings categorized by disorder and system are helpful and quick diagnostic references for clinicians providing prenatal care. ●

Last year, our Update focused on the expansion of sequencing in prenatal diagnosis. This year, we are taking a step sideways to remember the many diagnoses we may miss if we rely on exome sequencing alone. A recent case report in Prenatal Diagnosis describes a pregnancy affected by fetal akinesia sequence and polyhydramnios in which sequencing did not reveal a diagnosis. Expansion of the differential to include congenital myotonic dystrophy and subsequent triplet repeat testing led the clinicians to the diagnosis and identification of a triplet repeat expansion in the DMPK gene. This case serves as our first example of how complementary testing and technologies should continue to help us make critical diagnoses. 

What is the yield of exome sequencing vs panels in nonimmune hydrops?

Rogers R, Moyer K, Moise KJ Jr. Congenital myotonic dystrophy: an overlooked diagnosis not amenable to detection by sequencing. Prenat Diagn. 2022;42:233-235. doi:10.1002/pd.6105.

Norton ME, Ziffle JV, Lianoglou BR, et al. Exome sequencing vs targeted gene panels for the evaluation of nonimmune hydrops fetalis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2021;28:S0002-9378(21)00828-0. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2021.07.014.
 

We have had several illuminating discussions with our colleagues about the merits of exome sequencing (ES) versus panels and other modalities for fetal diagnosis. Many obstetricians practicing at the leading edge may feel like ES should be utilized uniformly for fetal anomalies with nondiagnostic karyotype or microarray. However, for well-defined phenotypes with clear and narrow lists of implicated genes (eg, skeletal dysplasias) or patients without insurance coverage, panel sequencing still has utility in prenatal diagnosis. The question of which phenotypes most benefit from ES versus panel sequencing is an area of interesting, ongoing research for several investigators.

Secondary analysis of nonimmune hydrops cohort

Norton and colleagues tackled one such cohort in a study presented in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. They compared the proportion of diagnoses that would have been identified in commercial lab panels with their research of phenotype-driven ES in a cohort of 127 fetuses with features of nonimmune hydrops fetalis (NIHF). NIHF can be caused by a variety of single-gene disorders in addition to chromosomal disorders and copy number variants on chromosomal microarray. Patients were eligible for inclusion in the cohort if they had a nondiagnostic karyotype or microarray and any of the following features: nuchal translucency of 3.5 mm or greater, cystic hygroma, pleural effusion, pericardial effusion, ascites, or skin edema. Standard sequencing methods and variant analysis were performed. They assumed 100% analytical sensitivity and specificity of the panels for variant detection and collected cost information on the targeted gene panels.

Study outcomes

In the ES analysis of cases, 37 of 127 cases (29%) had a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant in 1 of 29 genes, and another 12 of 127 cases (9%) had variants of uncertain significance that were strongly suspected to be the etiology during clinical analysis. The types of disorders that were identified are listed in the TABLE. In addition to a feature of NIHF, 50% of the cases had a structural anomaly.

There were 10 identified clinical panels from 7 clinical laboratories. These panels ranged in size from 11 to 128 genes. The highest simulated yield of any commercial panel was only 62% of the pathogenic variants identified by ES. The other commercial laboratory panels detection yield ranged from 11% to 62% of pathogenic variants detected by ES. For overall yield, the largest panel would have a diagnostic yield of 18% of diagnoses relative to the 29% diagnostic yield from ES.

The largest panel included 128 genes prior to the publication of the original cohort and was updated after publication to include 148 genes. The larger updated panel would have identified all of the patients in the ES cohort. However, many of the other panels listed would have identified a smaller fraction of the variants identified by ES (range, 11%-62%). At the time of publication, the cost of the panels ranged from $640 to $3,500, and the cost of prenatal ES ranged from $2,458 to $7,500.

Continue to: Strengths and limitations...

Strengths and limitations

Twenty-three percent of the patients who were sequenced had an increased fetal nuchal translucency or cystic hygroma, and another 17% had a single fetal effusion. This inclusivity makes this study more applicable to broader fetal anomaly populations. However, it is worth noting that only 61% of patients had NIHF by the definition of 2 or more fluid collections or skin thickening.

The authors assumed 100% sensitivity and specificity for the panel tests relative to diagnostic ES results, but this may not reflect real-life analysis. There is inherent subjectivity and subsequent differences in variant calling (deciding which genetic changes are pathogenic) between institutions and companies despite efforts to standardize this process. Due to the simulated nature of this study, these differences are not captured. Additionally, although the authors note that the research ES had at least 30 times the coverage (an adequate number of sequence reads for accurate testing) than did the commercial lab panels, some gene panels have additional sequencing of intronic regions, copy number analysis, and up to 10 times more coverage than ES, which could lead to more diagnoses.

Frequency of Beckwith-Widemann syndrome in prenatally diagnosed omphaloceles

Abbasi N, Moore A, Chiu P, et al. Prenatally diagnosed omphaloceles: report of 92 cases and association with Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome. Prenat Diagn. 2021;41:798-816. doi:10.1002/pd.5930.

An omphalocele is diagnosed prenatally on ultrasound when an anterior midline mass, often containing abdominal contents, is seen herniating into the base of the umbilical cord. Omphaloceles are often associated with additional structural abnormalities and underlying genetic syndromes, thus a thorough fetal assessment is required for accurate prenatal counseling and neonatal care.

Identification of Beckwith-Widemann syndrome (BWS) in the setting of a prenatally diagnosed omphalocele is difficult because of its wide range of clinical features and its unique genetic basis. Unlike many genetic disorders that are caused by specific genetic variants, or spelling changes in the genes, BWS results from a change in the expression of one or more of the genes in a specific region of chromosome 11. A high index of clinical suspicion as well as an understanding of the various genetic and epigenetics alterations that cause BWS is required for prenatal diagnosis.

Retrospective cohort at a single center

The authors in this study reviewed all pregnancies in which an omphalocele was diagnosed prenatally at a single center between 2010 and 2015. They describe a standard prenatal evaluation following identification of an omphalocele including echocardiogram, detailed anatomic survey, and availability of an amniocentesis to facilitate aneuploidy screening and testing for BWS. This review also includes an overview of perinatal and long-term outcomes for cases of BWS diagnosed at their center between 2000 and 2015.

Study outcomes

Results of prenatal genetic testing in this cohort were divided between cases of an isolated omphalocele (without other structural changes) and cases of nonisolated omphaloceles. In the group of pregnancies with an isolated omphalocele, 2 of 27 pregnancies (7.4%) were found to have an abnormal karyotype, and 6 of 16 of the remaining pregnancies (37.5%) were diagnosed with BWS. Among the group of pregnancies with a nonisolated omphalocele, 23 of 59 pregnancies (39%) were found to have an abnormal karyotype, and 1 of 20 pregnancies (5%) were diagnosed with BWS.

Prenatal sonographic features associated with cases of BWS included polyhydramnios in 12 of 19 cases (63%) and macrosomia in 8 of 19 cases (42%). Macroglossia is another characteristic feature of the disorder, which was identified in 4 of 19 cases (21%) prenatally and in an additional 10 of 19 cases (52.6%) postnatally. Interestingly, only 1 of the cases of BWS was caused by a microdeletion at 11p15.4—a change that was identified on microarray. The additional 6 cases of BWS were caused by imprinting changes in the region, which are only detectable with a specific methylation-analysis technique.

Among the 19 cases of BWS identified over a 15-year period, there was 1 intrauterine demise. Preterm birth occurred in 10 of 19 cases (52.6%), including 8 of 19 cases (42.1%) of spontaneous preterm labor. Respiratory distress (27.8%), hypoglycemia (61%), and gastrointestinal reflux (59%) were common neonatal complications. Embryonal tumors were diagnosed in 2 of 16 patients (12.5%). Although neurodevelopmental outcomes were incomplete, their data suggested normal development in 75% of children. There were 2 neonatal deaths in this cohort and 1 childhood death at age 2 years.

Study strengths and limitations

As with many studies investigating a rare disorder, this study is limited by its retrospective nature and small sample size. Nevertheless, it adds an important cohort of patients with a prenatally diagnosed omphalocele to the literature and illuminates the utility of a standardized approach to testing for BWS in this population.

Continue to: Genetic diagnoses that could have been identified by expanded carrier screening...

Stevens BK, Nunley PB, Wagner C, et al. Utility of expanded carrier screening in pregnancies with ultrasound abnormalities. Prenat Diagn. 2022;42:60-78. doi:10.1002/pd.6069.

This series is a thorough retrospective review of patients evaluated in a pediatric genetics clinic from 2014 through 2017. Patients were included if they were evaluated in the first 6 months of life and had a structural abnormality that might be detected on prenatal ultrasonography. The genetic testing results were analyzed and categorized according to types of genetic disorders, with the goal of identifying how many patients might have been identified by expanded carrier screening (ECS) panels.

Study outcomes

A total of 931 charts were reviewed, and 85% (791 of 931) of patients evaluated in the first 6 months of life were determined to have a structural anomaly that might be detected on prenatal ultrasonography. Of those patients, 691 went on to have genetic testing and 32.1% (222 of 691) of them had a diagnostic (pathogenic) genetic testing result related to the phenotype. The types of diagnostic testing results are shown in the FIGURE. Notably, 42 single-gene disorders were detected.

FIGURE Diagnostic test result in pediatric patients evaluated under age 6 months

Of those 222 patients with diagnostic results, there were 8 patients with autosomal recessive and X-linked conditions that could be detected using a 500-gene ECS panel. Five patients could be detected with a 271-gene panel. After nondiagnostic microarray, 11.3% of patients had a condition that could be detected by using a 500-gene ECS panel. The identified conditions included cystic fibrosis, CYP21‐related congenital adrenal hyperplasia, autosomal recessive polycystic kidney disease, Antley‐Bixler syndrome, and Morquio syndrome type A.

Furthermore, the authors conducted a literature review of 271 conditions and found that 32% (88 of 271) of conditions may be associated with ultrasound findings.

Study strengths and limitations

When applying these data to prenatal populations, the authors acknowledge several notable limitations. There is a selection bias toward less-severe phenotypes for many patients choosing to continue rather than to interrupt a pregnancy. Additionally, only 23% of the patients in the study had a microarray and ES, which may lead to an underrepresentation of single-gene disorders and an underestimation of the utility of ECS. Finally, a retrospective classification of structural abnormalities that may be detectable by ultrasonography may not always reflect what is actually reported in prenatal imaging.

However, the work that the authors put forth to evaluate and categorize 931 participants by the results of genetic testing and structural anomalies is appreciated, and the level of detail is impressive for this retrospective chart review. Additionally, the tables itemizing the authors’ review of 271 ECS disorders that may have ultrasonography findings categorized by disorder and system are helpful and quick diagnostic references for clinicians providing prenatal care. ●

Last year, our Update focused on the expansion of sequencing in prenatal diagnosis. This year, we are taking a step sideways to remember the many diagnoses we may miss if we rely on exome sequencing alone. A recent case report in Prenatal Diagnosis describes a pregnancy affected by fetal akinesia sequence and polyhydramnios in which sequencing did not reveal a diagnosis. Expansion of the differential to include congenital myotonic dystrophy and subsequent triplet repeat testing led the clinicians to the diagnosis and identification of a triplet repeat expansion in the DMPK gene. This case serves as our first example of how complementary testing and technologies should continue to help us make critical diagnoses. 

What is the yield of exome sequencing vs panels in nonimmune hydrops?

Rogers R, Moyer K, Moise KJ Jr. Congenital myotonic dystrophy: an overlooked diagnosis not amenable to detection by sequencing. Prenat Diagn. 2022;42:233-235. doi:10.1002/pd.6105.

Norton ME, Ziffle JV, Lianoglou BR, et al. Exome sequencing vs targeted gene panels for the evaluation of nonimmune hydrops fetalis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2021;28:S0002-9378(21)00828-0. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2021.07.014.
 

We have had several illuminating discussions with our colleagues about the merits of exome sequencing (ES) versus panels and other modalities for fetal diagnosis. Many obstetricians practicing at the leading edge may feel like ES should be utilized uniformly for fetal anomalies with nondiagnostic karyotype or microarray. However, for well-defined phenotypes with clear and narrow lists of implicated genes (eg, skeletal dysplasias) or patients without insurance coverage, panel sequencing still has utility in prenatal diagnosis. The question of which phenotypes most benefit from ES versus panel sequencing is an area of interesting, ongoing research for several investigators.

Secondary analysis of nonimmune hydrops cohort

Norton and colleagues tackled one such cohort in a study presented in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. They compared the proportion of diagnoses that would have been identified in commercial lab panels with their research of phenotype-driven ES in a cohort of 127 fetuses with features of nonimmune hydrops fetalis (NIHF). NIHF can be caused by a variety of single-gene disorders in addition to chromosomal disorders and copy number variants on chromosomal microarray. Patients were eligible for inclusion in the cohort if they had a nondiagnostic karyotype or microarray and any of the following features: nuchal translucency of 3.5 mm or greater, cystic hygroma, pleural effusion, pericardial effusion, ascites, or skin edema. Standard sequencing methods and variant analysis were performed. They assumed 100% analytical sensitivity and specificity of the panels for variant detection and collected cost information on the targeted gene panels.

Study outcomes

In the ES analysis of cases, 37 of 127 cases (29%) had a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant in 1 of 29 genes, and another 12 of 127 cases (9%) had variants of uncertain significance that were strongly suspected to be the etiology during clinical analysis. The types of disorders that were identified are listed in the TABLE. In addition to a feature of NIHF, 50% of the cases had a structural anomaly.

There were 10 identified clinical panels from 7 clinical laboratories. These panels ranged in size from 11 to 128 genes. The highest simulated yield of any commercial panel was only 62% of the pathogenic variants identified by ES. The other commercial laboratory panels detection yield ranged from 11% to 62% of pathogenic variants detected by ES. For overall yield, the largest panel would have a diagnostic yield of 18% of diagnoses relative to the 29% diagnostic yield from ES.

The largest panel included 128 genes prior to the publication of the original cohort and was updated after publication to include 148 genes. The larger updated panel would have identified all of the patients in the ES cohort. However, many of the other panels listed would have identified a smaller fraction of the variants identified by ES (range, 11%-62%). At the time of publication, the cost of the panels ranged from $640 to $3,500, and the cost of prenatal ES ranged from $2,458 to $7,500.

Continue to: Strengths and limitations...

Strengths and limitations

Twenty-three percent of the patients who were sequenced had an increased fetal nuchal translucency or cystic hygroma, and another 17% had a single fetal effusion. This inclusivity makes this study more applicable to broader fetal anomaly populations. However, it is worth noting that only 61% of patients had NIHF by the definition of 2 or more fluid collections or skin thickening.

The authors assumed 100% sensitivity and specificity for the panel tests relative to diagnostic ES results, but this may not reflect real-life analysis. There is inherent subjectivity and subsequent differences in variant calling (deciding which genetic changes are pathogenic) between institutions and companies despite efforts to standardize this process. Due to the simulated nature of this study, these differences are not captured. Additionally, although the authors note that the research ES had at least 30 times the coverage (an adequate number of sequence reads for accurate testing) than did the commercial lab panels, some gene panels have additional sequencing of intronic regions, copy number analysis, and up to 10 times more coverage than ES, which could lead to more diagnoses.

Frequency of Beckwith-Widemann syndrome in prenatally diagnosed omphaloceles

Abbasi N, Moore A, Chiu P, et al. Prenatally diagnosed omphaloceles: report of 92 cases and association with Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome. Prenat Diagn. 2021;41:798-816. doi:10.1002/pd.5930.

An omphalocele is diagnosed prenatally on ultrasound when an anterior midline mass, often containing abdominal contents, is seen herniating into the base of the umbilical cord. Omphaloceles are often associated with additional structural abnormalities and underlying genetic syndromes, thus a thorough fetal assessment is required for accurate prenatal counseling and neonatal care.

Identification of Beckwith-Widemann syndrome (BWS) in the setting of a prenatally diagnosed omphalocele is difficult because of its wide range of clinical features and its unique genetic basis. Unlike many genetic disorders that are caused by specific genetic variants, or spelling changes in the genes, BWS results from a change in the expression of one or more of the genes in a specific region of chromosome 11. A high index of clinical suspicion as well as an understanding of the various genetic and epigenetics alterations that cause BWS is required for prenatal diagnosis.

Retrospective cohort at a single center

The authors in this study reviewed all pregnancies in which an omphalocele was diagnosed prenatally at a single center between 2010 and 2015. They describe a standard prenatal evaluation following identification of an omphalocele including echocardiogram, detailed anatomic survey, and availability of an amniocentesis to facilitate aneuploidy screening and testing for BWS. This review also includes an overview of perinatal and long-term outcomes for cases of BWS diagnosed at their center between 2000 and 2015.

Study outcomes

Results of prenatal genetic testing in this cohort were divided between cases of an isolated omphalocele (without other structural changes) and cases of nonisolated omphaloceles. In the group of pregnancies with an isolated omphalocele, 2 of 27 pregnancies (7.4%) were found to have an abnormal karyotype, and 6 of 16 of the remaining pregnancies (37.5%) were diagnosed with BWS. Among the group of pregnancies with a nonisolated omphalocele, 23 of 59 pregnancies (39%) were found to have an abnormal karyotype, and 1 of 20 pregnancies (5%) were diagnosed with BWS.

Prenatal sonographic features associated with cases of BWS included polyhydramnios in 12 of 19 cases (63%) and macrosomia in 8 of 19 cases (42%). Macroglossia is another characteristic feature of the disorder, which was identified in 4 of 19 cases (21%) prenatally and in an additional 10 of 19 cases (52.6%) postnatally. Interestingly, only 1 of the cases of BWS was caused by a microdeletion at 11p15.4—a change that was identified on microarray. The additional 6 cases of BWS were caused by imprinting changes in the region, which are only detectable with a specific methylation-analysis technique.

Among the 19 cases of BWS identified over a 15-year period, there was 1 intrauterine demise. Preterm birth occurred in 10 of 19 cases (52.6%), including 8 of 19 cases (42.1%) of spontaneous preterm labor. Respiratory distress (27.8%), hypoglycemia (61%), and gastrointestinal reflux (59%) were common neonatal complications. Embryonal tumors were diagnosed in 2 of 16 patients (12.5%). Although neurodevelopmental outcomes were incomplete, their data suggested normal development in 75% of children. There were 2 neonatal deaths in this cohort and 1 childhood death at age 2 years.

Study strengths and limitations

As with many studies investigating a rare disorder, this study is limited by its retrospective nature and small sample size. Nevertheless, it adds an important cohort of patients with a prenatally diagnosed omphalocele to the literature and illuminates the utility of a standardized approach to testing for BWS in this population.

Continue to: Genetic diagnoses that could have been identified by expanded carrier screening...

Stevens BK, Nunley PB, Wagner C, et al. Utility of expanded carrier screening in pregnancies with ultrasound abnormalities. Prenat Diagn. 2022;42:60-78. doi:10.1002/pd.6069.

This series is a thorough retrospective review of patients evaluated in a pediatric genetics clinic from 2014 through 2017. Patients were included if they were evaluated in the first 6 months of life and had a structural abnormality that might be detected on prenatal ultrasonography. The genetic testing results were analyzed and categorized according to types of genetic disorders, with the goal of identifying how many patients might have been identified by expanded carrier screening (ECS) panels.

Study outcomes

A total of 931 charts were reviewed, and 85% (791 of 931) of patients evaluated in the first 6 months of life were determined to have a structural anomaly that might be detected on prenatal ultrasonography. Of those patients, 691 went on to have genetic testing and 32.1% (222 of 691) of them had a diagnostic (pathogenic) genetic testing result related to the phenotype. The types of diagnostic testing results are shown in the FIGURE. Notably, 42 single-gene disorders were detected.

FIGURE Diagnostic test result in pediatric patients evaluated under age 6 months

Of those 222 patients with diagnostic results, there were 8 patients with autosomal recessive and X-linked conditions that could be detected using a 500-gene ECS panel. Five patients could be detected with a 271-gene panel. After nondiagnostic microarray, 11.3% of patients had a condition that could be detected by using a 500-gene ECS panel. The identified conditions included cystic fibrosis, CYP21‐related congenital adrenal hyperplasia, autosomal recessive polycystic kidney disease, Antley‐Bixler syndrome, and Morquio syndrome type A.

Furthermore, the authors conducted a literature review of 271 conditions and found that 32% (88 of 271) of conditions may be associated with ultrasound findings.

Study strengths and limitations

When applying these data to prenatal populations, the authors acknowledge several notable limitations. There is a selection bias toward less-severe phenotypes for many patients choosing to continue rather than to interrupt a pregnancy. Additionally, only 23% of the patients in the study had a microarray and ES, which may lead to an underrepresentation of single-gene disorders and an underestimation of the utility of ECS. Finally, a retrospective classification of structural abnormalities that may be detectable by ultrasonography may not always reflect what is actually reported in prenatal imaging.

However, the work that the authors put forth to evaluate and categorize 931 participants by the results of genetic testing and structural anomalies is appreciated, and the level of detail is impressive for this retrospective chart review. Additionally, the tables itemizing the authors’ review of 271 ECS disorders that may have ultrasonography findings categorized by disorder and system are helpful and quick diagnostic references for clinicians providing prenatal care. ●