Commentary

It has been more than 50 years since central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia (CCCA) was first defined by LoPresti and colleagues¹ as hot comb alopecia. Fifty years later, we are only just starting to understand the pathogenesis of CCCA and its systemic implications.

Then and Now

The use of hot combs, a metal device used to straighten naturally curly hair, was ubiquitous in the households of black women in the 1960s. It is no surprise then that this styling process was labeled as the culprit of this disease that affects black women almost exclusively. As the use of hot combs waned but the prevalence of CCCA persisted, its name evolved to chemically induced alopecia—an ode to the popular styling product of the 1990s, the chemical relaxer—and eventually CCCA, a name that reflects its clinical progression and histologic findings.²

Since then, research has explored the association with systemic diseases, some noting increased rates of type 2 diabetes mellitus and thyroid disease, and more recently, an increased rate of fibroids in affected patients.^3,4

Clues to Pathogenesis

Compared to other primary cicatricial alopecias, CCCA is unique in that active progression is difficult to detect. Symptoms, such as pruritus, often are minimal or absent, rendering clinical assessment quite difficult.⁵ Unlike other forms of scarring hair loss, fibrosis, not inflammation, is the predominant clinical feature. The clinical presentation is not unlike a group of disorders termed fibroproliferative disorders, which includes systemic sclerosis, uterine fibroids, atherosclerosis, and keloids, among others. It has been postulated that diseases of aberrant scarring are more common in black individuals due to the protective effect profibrotic alleles have against endemic helminthic infections of sub-Saharan infections, including oncocerciasis.⁶

A recent study showed an increased expression of fibroproliferative genes, particularly those implicated in other fibroproliferative disorders, in affected scalp of patients with CCCA.⁷ Most notably, an expression in gene overlap was noted between fibroids and CCCA in this study, though the relationship between these two diseases needs to be further explored.

Gene Variants Identified in CCCA

More recently, a new study has identified a gene variant of peptidyl arginine deiminase 3, PADI3, that is present in approximately one-quarter of studied patients with CCCA.⁸PADI3 plays a role in hair shaft formation and has been implicated in another hair disorder, uncombable hair syndrome, though the latter presents in children, improves with age, and is not associated with a scarring phenotype.⁹ However, this study has provided greater insight into our understanding of CCCA by establishing a possible genetic predisposition in patients affected with this disease.⁸

What’s Next for CCCA?

For years, many patients with CCCA have been turned away with few answers and left thinking that it is their own styling habits that have led to their hair loss, when in fact the data we have now suggest a possible link with other systemic diseases and a genetic predisposition for disease. Armed with this knowledge, we can start working to identify treatment options and discuss strategies for early detection of CCCA. Future research should address 1 of 4 large domains: (1) understanding the influence of PADI3 on the scarring pattern seen in CCCA and identifying additional genetic variants implicated in CCCA; (2) identifying what, if any, inheritance pattern is associated with CCCA; (3) identifying other systemic disease associations; and (4) optimizing treatment options for patients with CCCA.

The future is bright for CCCA. Although our understanding of CCCA is still in its infancy, it is my hope that with greater understanding of this disease will come greater empathy for our patients.

It has been more than 50 years since central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia (CCCA) was first defined by LoPresti and colleagues¹ as hot comb alopecia. Fifty years later, we are only just starting to understand the pathogenesis of CCCA and its systemic implications.

Then and Now

The use of hot combs, a metal device used to straighten naturally curly hair, was ubiquitous in the households of black women in the 1960s. It is no surprise then that this styling process was labeled as the culprit of this disease that affects black women almost exclusively. As the use of hot combs waned but the prevalence of CCCA persisted, its name evolved to chemically induced alopecia—an ode to the popular styling product of the 1990s, the chemical relaxer—and eventually CCCA, a name that reflects its clinical progression and histologic findings.²

Since then, research has explored the association with systemic diseases, some noting increased rates of type 2 diabetes mellitus and thyroid disease, and more recently, an increased rate of fibroids in affected patients.^3,4

Clues to Pathogenesis

Compared to other primary cicatricial alopecias, CCCA is unique in that active progression is difficult to detect. Symptoms, such as pruritus, often are minimal or absent, rendering clinical assessment quite difficult.⁵ Unlike other forms of scarring hair loss, fibrosis, not inflammation, is the predominant clinical feature. The clinical presentation is not unlike a group of disorders termed fibroproliferative disorders, which includes systemic sclerosis, uterine fibroids, atherosclerosis, and keloids, among others. It has been postulated that diseases of aberrant scarring are more common in black individuals due to the protective effect profibrotic alleles have against endemic helminthic infections of sub-Saharan infections, including oncocerciasis.⁶

A recent study showed an increased expression of fibroproliferative genes, particularly those implicated in other fibroproliferative disorders, in affected scalp of patients with CCCA.⁷ Most notably, an expression in gene overlap was noted between fibroids and CCCA in this study, though the relationship between these two diseases needs to be further explored.

Gene Variants Identified in CCCA

More recently, a new study has identified a gene variant of peptidyl arginine deiminase 3, PADI3, that is present in approximately one-quarter of studied patients with CCCA.⁸PADI3 plays a role in hair shaft formation and has been implicated in another hair disorder, uncombable hair syndrome, though the latter presents in children, improves with age, and is not associated with a scarring phenotype.⁹ However, this study has provided greater insight into our understanding of CCCA by establishing a possible genetic predisposition in patients affected with this disease.⁸

What’s Next for CCCA?

For years, many patients with CCCA have been turned away with few answers and left thinking that it is their own styling habits that have led to their hair loss, when in fact the data we have now suggest a possible link with other systemic diseases and a genetic predisposition for disease. Armed with this knowledge, we can start working to identify treatment options and discuss strategies for early detection of CCCA. Future research should address 1 of 4 large domains: (1) understanding the influence of PADI3 on the scarring pattern seen in CCCA and identifying additional genetic variants implicated in CCCA; (2) identifying what, if any, inheritance pattern is associated with CCCA; (3) identifying other systemic disease associations; and (4) optimizing treatment options for patients with CCCA.

The future is bright for CCCA. Although our understanding of CCCA is still in its infancy, it is my hope that with greater understanding of this disease will come greater empathy for our patients.

It has been more than 50 years since central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia (CCCA) was first defined by LoPresti and colleagues¹ as hot comb alopecia. Fifty years later, we are only just starting to understand the pathogenesis of CCCA and its systemic implications.

Then and Now

The use of hot combs, a metal device used to straighten naturally curly hair, was ubiquitous in the households of black women in the 1960s. It is no surprise then that this styling process was labeled as the culprit of this disease that affects black women almost exclusively. As the use of hot combs waned but the prevalence of CCCA persisted, its name evolved to chemically induced alopecia—an ode to the popular styling product of the 1990s, the chemical relaxer—and eventually CCCA, a name that reflects its clinical progression and histologic findings.²

Since then, research has explored the association with systemic diseases, some noting increased rates of type 2 diabetes mellitus and thyroid disease, and more recently, an increased rate of fibroids in affected patients.^3,4

Clues to Pathogenesis

Compared to other primary cicatricial alopecias, CCCA is unique in that active progression is difficult to detect. Symptoms, such as pruritus, often are minimal or absent, rendering clinical assessment quite difficult.⁵ Unlike other forms of scarring hair loss, fibrosis, not inflammation, is the predominant clinical feature. The clinical presentation is not unlike a group of disorders termed fibroproliferative disorders, which includes systemic sclerosis, uterine fibroids, atherosclerosis, and keloids, among others. It has been postulated that diseases of aberrant scarring are more common in black individuals due to the protective effect profibrotic alleles have against endemic helminthic infections of sub-Saharan infections, including oncocerciasis.⁶

A recent study showed an increased expression of fibroproliferative genes, particularly those implicated in other fibroproliferative disorders, in affected scalp of patients with CCCA.⁷ Most notably, an expression in gene overlap was noted between fibroids and CCCA in this study, though the relationship between these two diseases needs to be further explored.

Gene Variants Identified in CCCA

More recently, a new study has identified a gene variant of peptidyl arginine deiminase 3, PADI3, that is present in approximately one-quarter of studied patients with CCCA.⁸PADI3 plays a role in hair shaft formation and has been implicated in another hair disorder, uncombable hair syndrome, though the latter presents in children, improves with age, and is not associated with a scarring phenotype.⁹ However, this study has provided greater insight into our understanding of CCCA by establishing a possible genetic predisposition in patients affected with this disease.⁸

What’s Next for CCCA?

For years, many patients with CCCA have been turned away with few answers and left thinking that it is their own styling habits that have led to their hair loss, when in fact the data we have now suggest a possible link with other systemic diseases and a genetic predisposition for disease. Armed with this knowledge, we can start working to identify treatment options and discuss strategies for early detection of CCCA. Future research should address 1 of 4 large domains: (1) understanding the influence of PADI3 on the scarring pattern seen in CCCA and identifying additional genetic variants implicated in CCCA; (2) identifying what, if any, inheritance pattern is associated with CCCA; (3) identifying other systemic disease associations; and (4) optimizing treatment options for patients with CCCA.

The future is bright for CCCA. Although our understanding of CCCA is still in its infancy, it is my hope that with greater understanding of this disease will come greater empathy for our patients.

Another Match Day is approaching. Students find themselves paying more each year to apply to one of the most competitive fields, while program directors struggle to sort through hundreds of stellar applications to invite a handful of candidates for interviews. Estimates place the cost of the application process at $5 million in total for all medical school seniors, or roughly $10,000 per applicant.¹ Approximately 60% of these costs occur during the interview process.^1,2 In an era in which students routinely graduate medical school with hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt, these costs must be addressed as soon as possible.

This problem is not unique to dermatology; otolaryngology, another especially competitive field, has considered various changes to the match process based on applicants’ feedback.³ As an applicant during the 2018-2019 match cycle for dermatology, I offer 2 solutions that are a starting point aimed at streamlining the application process for both applicants and program directors: regional interview coordination and a cap on the number of residency applications.

Regional Interview Coordination

Regional interview coordination would reduce travel costs and facilitate greater predictability in scheduling clinical rotations. In the current climate, it is not uncommon for applicants to make multiple cross-country round trips in the same week, especially given that the interview season for dermatology, including interviews for preliminary programs, now ranges from mid-October to early February. Although affluent applicants may not be concerned with financial costs of frequent travel, all applicants face travel inconveniences that could be mitigated through regional coordination. For example, an applicant invited to multiple interviews in the New York City area could reserve a room in a single hotel over a period of several days. During each interview day, he/she could travel back and forth from that accommodation to each institution without needing to bring luggage, worrying about reaching the airport on time, or missing a pre-interview dinner at a program in a faraway city.

Given the amount of coordination required among programs, it may lead to more positive working relationships among regional dermatology programs. One limitation of this approach is that competitive programs may be unwilling to cooperate. If even one program deviates from the interview time frame, it reduces the incentive for others to participate. Programs must be willing to sacrifice short-term autonomy in interview scheduling for their long-term shared interest in reducing the application burden for students, which is known as a commitment problem in game theory, and could be addressed through joint decision-making that incorporates the time frame preferences of all programs as well as binding commitments on interview dates that are decided before the process begins.⁴ Another limitation is that inclement weather could affect all regional programs simultaneously. In this case, offering interviews via video conference for affected students may be a solution.

Capping the Number of Applications

A second method of reducing interview costs would be capping the number of applications. Although matched seniors applied to a median of 72 programs, the Association of American Medical Colleges suggests that dermatology applicants can maximize their return on investment (ie, ratio of interviews to applications) by sending 35 to 55 applications depending on US Medical Licensing Examination scores. Attending more than 10 interviews does not meaningfully improve the chance of matching.^5,6

Programs have limited capacity for interviews and must judiciously allocate invitations based solely on the information provided through the Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS). Given the competitiveness of dermatology, applicants usually will accept every interview invitation. Therefore, applicants who are not genuinely interested in a program may crowd out others who are interested. In a survey of otolaryngology applicants (N=150), 90.6% of respondents admitted applying to programs in which they had no specific interest, simply to increase their chance of matching.³ Capping application numbers would force students to apply more selectively and enable residencies to gauge students’ true interest more effectively. In contrast to regional interview coordination, this policy change would be easy to enforce. It also may be popular; nearly two-thirds of otolaryngology applicants agreed to a hypothetical cap on residency applications to reduce the burden on students and programs.³

An alternative to a hard cap on applications could be restructuring the ERAS application fee to incentivize students to apply to fewer programs. For example, a flat fee might cover application numbers up to the point of diminishing returns, after which the price per application could increase exponentially. This approach would have a similar effect of a hard cap and cause many students to apply to fewer programs; however, one notable drawback is that highly affluent applicants would simply absorb the extra cost and still gain a competitive advantage in applying to more programs, which might further decrease the number of lower-income individuals successfully matching into dermatology.

A benefit of decreased application numbers to program directors would be giving them more time to conduct a holistic review of applicants, rather than attempting to weed out candidates through arbitrary cutoffs for US Medical Licensing Examination scores or Alpha Omega Alpha Honor Medical Society membership. The ERAS could allow applicants the option of stating preferences for geographic regions, desired fellowships, areas of research interest, and other intangible metrics. Selection committees could filter their candidate search by different variables and then look at each candidate holistically.

Limitations of capping application numbers include the risk that such a cap would harm less-competitive applicants while failing to address the primary cost drivers (ie, travel costs). The specific cap number would be controversial and may need to be adjusted higher for special cases such as couples matching and international applicants, thus making a cap seem arbitrary.

Final Thoughts

The dermatology residency match can be streamlined to the benefit of both applicants and selection committees. Regional interview coordination would reduce both financial and logistical barriers for applicants but may be difficult to enforce without cooperation from multiple programs. Capping the number of applications, either through a hard cap or an increased financial barrier, would be relatively easy to enforce and might empower selection committees to conduct more detailed, holistic reviews of applicants; however, certain types of applicants may find the application limits detrimental to their chances of matching. These policy recommendations are meant to be a starting point for discussion. Streamlining the application process is critical to improving the diversity of dermatology residencies.

Another Match Day is approaching. Students find themselves paying more each year to apply to one of the most competitive fields, while program directors struggle to sort through hundreds of stellar applications to invite a handful of candidates for interviews. Estimates place the cost of the application process at $5 million in total for all medical school seniors, or roughly $10,000 per applicant.¹ Approximately 60% of these costs occur during the interview process.^1,2 In an era in which students routinely graduate medical school with hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt, these costs must be addressed as soon as possible.

This problem is not unique to dermatology; otolaryngology, another especially competitive field, has considered various changes to the match process based on applicants’ feedback.³ As an applicant during the 2018-2019 match cycle for dermatology, I offer 2 solutions that are a starting point aimed at streamlining the application process for both applicants and program directors: regional interview coordination and a cap on the number of residency applications.

Regional Interview Coordination

Regional interview coordination would reduce travel costs and facilitate greater predictability in scheduling clinical rotations. In the current climate, it is not uncommon for applicants to make multiple cross-country round trips in the same week, especially given that the interview season for dermatology, including interviews for preliminary programs, now ranges from mid-October to early February. Although affluent applicants may not be concerned with financial costs of frequent travel, all applicants face travel inconveniences that could be mitigated through regional coordination. For example, an applicant invited to multiple interviews in the New York City area could reserve a room in a single hotel over a period of several days. During each interview day, he/she could travel back and forth from that accommodation to each institution without needing to bring luggage, worrying about reaching the airport on time, or missing a pre-interview dinner at a program in a faraway city.

Given the amount of coordination required among programs, it may lead to more positive working relationships among regional dermatology programs. One limitation of this approach is that competitive programs may be unwilling to cooperate. If even one program deviates from the interview time frame, it reduces the incentive for others to participate. Programs must be willing to sacrifice short-term autonomy in interview scheduling for their long-term shared interest in reducing the application burden for students, which is known as a commitment problem in game theory, and could be addressed through joint decision-making that incorporates the time frame preferences of all programs as well as binding commitments on interview dates that are decided before the process begins.⁴ Another limitation is that inclement weather could affect all regional programs simultaneously. In this case, offering interviews via video conference for affected students may be a solution.

Capping the Number of Applications

A second method of reducing interview costs would be capping the number of applications. Although matched seniors applied to a median of 72 programs, the Association of American Medical Colleges suggests that dermatology applicants can maximize their return on investment (ie, ratio of interviews to applications) by sending 35 to 55 applications depending on US Medical Licensing Examination scores. Attending more than 10 interviews does not meaningfully improve the chance of matching.^5,6

Programs have limited capacity for interviews and must judiciously allocate invitations based solely on the information provided through the Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS). Given the competitiveness of dermatology, applicants usually will accept every interview invitation. Therefore, applicants who are not genuinely interested in a program may crowd out others who are interested. In a survey of otolaryngology applicants (N=150), 90.6% of respondents admitted applying to programs in which they had no specific interest, simply to increase their chance of matching.³ Capping application numbers would force students to apply more selectively and enable residencies to gauge students’ true interest more effectively. In contrast to regional interview coordination, this policy change would be easy to enforce. It also may be popular; nearly two-thirds of otolaryngology applicants agreed to a hypothetical cap on residency applications to reduce the burden on students and programs.³

An alternative to a hard cap on applications could be restructuring the ERAS application fee to incentivize students to apply to fewer programs. For example, a flat fee might cover application numbers up to the point of diminishing returns, after which the price per application could increase exponentially. This approach would have a similar effect of a hard cap and cause many students to apply to fewer programs; however, one notable drawback is that highly affluent applicants would simply absorb the extra cost and still gain a competitive advantage in applying to more programs, which might further decrease the number of lower-income individuals successfully matching into dermatology.

A benefit of decreased application numbers to program directors would be giving them more time to conduct a holistic review of applicants, rather than attempting to weed out candidates through arbitrary cutoffs for US Medical Licensing Examination scores or Alpha Omega Alpha Honor Medical Society membership. The ERAS could allow applicants the option of stating preferences for geographic regions, desired fellowships, areas of research interest, and other intangible metrics. Selection committees could filter their candidate search by different variables and then look at each candidate holistically.

Limitations of capping application numbers include the risk that such a cap would harm less-competitive applicants while failing to address the primary cost drivers (ie, travel costs). The specific cap number would be controversial and may need to be adjusted higher for special cases such as couples matching and international applicants, thus making a cap seem arbitrary.

Final Thoughts

The dermatology residency match can be streamlined to the benefit of both applicants and selection committees. Regional interview coordination would reduce both financial and logistical barriers for applicants but may be difficult to enforce without cooperation from multiple programs. Capping the number of applications, either through a hard cap or an increased financial barrier, would be relatively easy to enforce and might empower selection committees to conduct more detailed, holistic reviews of applicants; however, certain types of applicants may find the application limits detrimental to their chances of matching. These policy recommendations are meant to be a starting point for discussion. Streamlining the application process is critical to improving the diversity of dermatology residencies.

Another Match Day is approaching. Students find themselves paying more each year to apply to one of the most competitive fields, while program directors struggle to sort through hundreds of stellar applications to invite a handful of candidates for interviews. Estimates place the cost of the application process at $5 million in total for all medical school seniors, or roughly $10,000 per applicant.¹ Approximately 60% of these costs occur during the interview process.^1,2 In an era in which students routinely graduate medical school with hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt, these costs must be addressed as soon as possible.

This problem is not unique to dermatology; otolaryngology, another especially competitive field, has considered various changes to the match process based on applicants’ feedback.³ As an applicant during the 2018-2019 match cycle for dermatology, I offer 2 solutions that are a starting point aimed at streamlining the application process for both applicants and program directors: regional interview coordination and a cap on the number of residency applications.

Regional Interview Coordination

Regional interview coordination would reduce travel costs and facilitate greater predictability in scheduling clinical rotations. In the current climate, it is not uncommon for applicants to make multiple cross-country round trips in the same week, especially given that the interview season for dermatology, including interviews for preliminary programs, now ranges from mid-October to early February. Although affluent applicants may not be concerned with financial costs of frequent travel, all applicants face travel inconveniences that could be mitigated through regional coordination. For example, an applicant invited to multiple interviews in the New York City area could reserve a room in a single hotel over a period of several days. During each interview day, he/she could travel back and forth from that accommodation to each institution without needing to bring luggage, worrying about reaching the airport on time, or missing a pre-interview dinner at a program in a faraway city.

Given the amount of coordination required among programs, it may lead to more positive working relationships among regional dermatology programs. One limitation of this approach is that competitive programs may be unwilling to cooperate. If even one program deviates from the interview time frame, it reduces the incentive for others to participate. Programs must be willing to sacrifice short-term autonomy in interview scheduling for their long-term shared interest in reducing the application burden for students, which is known as a commitment problem in game theory, and could be addressed through joint decision-making that incorporates the time frame preferences of all programs as well as binding commitments on interview dates that are decided before the process begins.⁴ Another limitation is that inclement weather could affect all regional programs simultaneously. In this case, offering interviews via video conference for affected students may be a solution.

Capping the Number of Applications

A second method of reducing interview costs would be capping the number of applications. Although matched seniors applied to a median of 72 programs, the Association of American Medical Colleges suggests that dermatology applicants can maximize their return on investment (ie, ratio of interviews to applications) by sending 35 to 55 applications depending on US Medical Licensing Examination scores. Attending more than 10 interviews does not meaningfully improve the chance of matching.^5,6

Programs have limited capacity for interviews and must judiciously allocate invitations based solely on the information provided through the Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS). Given the competitiveness of dermatology, applicants usually will accept every interview invitation. Therefore, applicants who are not genuinely interested in a program may crowd out others who are interested. In a survey of otolaryngology applicants (N=150), 90.6% of respondents admitted applying to programs in which they had no specific interest, simply to increase their chance of matching.³ Capping application numbers would force students to apply more selectively and enable residencies to gauge students’ true interest more effectively. In contrast to regional interview coordination, this policy change would be easy to enforce. It also may be popular; nearly two-thirds of otolaryngology applicants agreed to a hypothetical cap on residency applications to reduce the burden on students and programs.³

An alternative to a hard cap on applications could be restructuring the ERAS application fee to incentivize students to apply to fewer programs. For example, a flat fee might cover application numbers up to the point of diminishing returns, after which the price per application could increase exponentially. This approach would have a similar effect of a hard cap and cause many students to apply to fewer programs; however, one notable drawback is that highly affluent applicants would simply absorb the extra cost and still gain a competitive advantage in applying to more programs, which might further decrease the number of lower-income individuals successfully matching into dermatology.

A benefit of decreased application numbers to program directors would be giving them more time to conduct a holistic review of applicants, rather than attempting to weed out candidates through arbitrary cutoffs for US Medical Licensing Examination scores or Alpha Omega Alpha Honor Medical Society membership. The ERAS could allow applicants the option of stating preferences for geographic regions, desired fellowships, areas of research interest, and other intangible metrics. Selection committees could filter their candidate search by different variables and then look at each candidate holistically.

Limitations of capping application numbers include the risk that such a cap would harm less-competitive applicants while failing to address the primary cost drivers (ie, travel costs). The specific cap number would be controversial and may need to be adjusted higher for special cases such as couples matching and international applicants, thus making a cap seem arbitrary.

Final Thoughts

The dermatology residency match can be streamlined to the benefit of both applicants and selection committees. Regional interview coordination would reduce both financial and logistical barriers for applicants but may be difficult to enforce without cooperation from multiple programs. Capping the number of applications, either through a hard cap or an increased financial barrier, would be relatively easy to enforce and might empower selection committees to conduct more detailed, holistic reviews of applicants; however, certain types of applicants may find the application limits detrimental to their chances of matching. These policy recommendations are meant to be a starting point for discussion. Streamlining the application process is critical to improving the diversity of dermatology residencies.

The findings from the C-axSpAnd study that Jonathan Kay, MD, and colleagues reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology are not surprising. Earlier studies in patients with ankylosing spondylitis showed that short symptom duration is one of the best predictors of good treatment response to TNFi therapy. The highest response rates were obtained in studies conducted in axSpA patients with symptom duration of less than 5 years or even less than 3 years. Since nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA) and r-axSpA are considered as two stages of one disease, it is logical that the same effect is also observed in studies in nr-axSpA. Indeed, in the first study of a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) in nr-axSpA (ABILITY-1), patients with symptom duration less than 5 years responded much better to the TNFi adalimumab than did those with longer symptom duration, and the delta of the response between adalimumab and placebo was much greater. All these results together indicate that early disease stage associated with favorable treatment response in axSpA is better defined by symptom duration than by the presence or absence of structural damage in the sacroiliac joints. Furthermore, these data stress the importance of the early diagnosis in axSpA.

We also know from observational studies and subanalyses from clinical trials that treatment with monoclonal antibodies against TNF is associated with reduction of uveitis flares in axSpA. However, no prospective clinical studies had been conducted with acute anterior uveitis flares as the primary outcome until the C-VIEW study, which was presented by Irene E. van der Horst-Bruinsma, MD, PhD, at ACR 2019. The results of C-VIEW are therefore the first to prospectively address the question of reduction of uveitis flares under TNFi. The main limitation of the study is the lack of a control group, which makes interpretation of the results difficult because it is not clear to what extent the natural course of the disease – which might involve very long flare-free periods lasting from months to years – contributed to the reduction of flares. A randomized, controlled study aimed at label extension is highly desired for patients with acute anterior uveitis, especially for those with a frequently relapsing course resistant to local treatment.

Denis Poddubnyy, MD , is head of the rheumatology department at Charite-Universitätsmedizin Berlin. He disclosed receiving research grants from AbbVie, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, and Pfizer, as well as receiving consultancy or speaker fees from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB.

The findings from the C-axSpAnd study that Jonathan Kay, MD, and colleagues reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology are not surprising. Earlier studies in patients with ankylosing spondylitis showed that short symptom duration is one of the best predictors of good treatment response to TNFi therapy. The highest response rates were obtained in studies conducted in axSpA patients with symptom duration of less than 5 years or even less than 3 years. Since nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA) and r-axSpA are considered as two stages of one disease, it is logical that the same effect is also observed in studies in nr-axSpA. Indeed, in the first study of a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) in nr-axSpA (ABILITY-1), patients with symptom duration less than 5 years responded much better to the TNFi adalimumab than did those with longer symptom duration, and the delta of the response between adalimumab and placebo was much greater. All these results together indicate that early disease stage associated with favorable treatment response in axSpA is better defined by symptom duration than by the presence or absence of structural damage in the sacroiliac joints. Furthermore, these data stress the importance of the early diagnosis in axSpA.

We also know from observational studies and subanalyses from clinical trials that treatment with monoclonal antibodies against TNF is associated with reduction of uveitis flares in axSpA. However, no prospective clinical studies had been conducted with acute anterior uveitis flares as the primary outcome until the C-VIEW study, which was presented by Irene E. van der Horst-Bruinsma, MD, PhD, at ACR 2019. The results of C-VIEW are therefore the first to prospectively address the question of reduction of uveitis flares under TNFi. The main limitation of the study is the lack of a control group, which makes interpretation of the results difficult because it is not clear to what extent the natural course of the disease – which might involve very long flare-free periods lasting from months to years – contributed to the reduction of flares. A randomized, controlled study aimed at label extension is highly desired for patients with acute anterior uveitis, especially for those with a frequently relapsing course resistant to local treatment.

Denis Poddubnyy, MD , is head of the rheumatology department at Charite-Universitätsmedizin Berlin. He disclosed receiving research grants from AbbVie, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, and Pfizer, as well as receiving consultancy or speaker fees from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB.

The findings from the C-axSpAnd study that Jonathan Kay, MD, and colleagues reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology are not surprising. Earlier studies in patients with ankylosing spondylitis showed that short symptom duration is one of the best predictors of good treatment response to TNFi therapy. The highest response rates were obtained in studies conducted in axSpA patients with symptom duration of less than 5 years or even less than 3 years. Since nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA) and r-axSpA are considered as two stages of one disease, it is logical that the same effect is also observed in studies in nr-axSpA. Indeed, in the first study of a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) in nr-axSpA (ABILITY-1), patients with symptom duration less than 5 years responded much better to the TNFi adalimumab than did those with longer symptom duration, and the delta of the response between adalimumab and placebo was much greater. All these results together indicate that early disease stage associated with favorable treatment response in axSpA is better defined by symptom duration than by the presence or absence of structural damage in the sacroiliac joints. Furthermore, these data stress the importance of the early diagnosis in axSpA.

We also know from observational studies and subanalyses from clinical trials that treatment with monoclonal antibodies against TNF is associated with reduction of uveitis flares in axSpA. However, no prospective clinical studies had been conducted with acute anterior uveitis flares as the primary outcome until the C-VIEW study, which was presented by Irene E. van der Horst-Bruinsma, MD, PhD, at ACR 2019. The results of C-VIEW are therefore the first to prospectively address the question of reduction of uveitis flares under TNFi. The main limitation of the study is the lack of a control group, which makes interpretation of the results difficult because it is not clear to what extent the natural course of the disease – which might involve very long flare-free periods lasting from months to years – contributed to the reduction of flares. A randomized, controlled study aimed at label extension is highly desired for patients with acute anterior uveitis, especially for those with a frequently relapsing course resistant to local treatment.

Denis Poddubnyy, MD , is head of the rheumatology department at Charite-Universitätsmedizin Berlin. He disclosed receiving research grants from AbbVie, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, and Pfizer, as well as receiving consultancy or speaker fees from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB.

In this edition of “How I Will Treat My Next Patient,” I highlight two recent drug approvals by the Food and Drug Administration – crizanlizumab for sickle cell patients with painful crises and zanubrutinib for mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) patients in relapse.

Crizanlizumab

P-selectin is an adhesion molecule expressed on activated vascular endothelial cells and platelets. It is a key molecule in the initiation of leukocyte rolling on vessel walls and promotes firm attachment and extravasation to underlying tissues during inflammation. Up-regulation of P-selectin on endothelial cells and platelets contributes to the cell-cell interactions involved in the pathogenesis of sickle cell pain crises.

The SUSTAIN study was a multisite, placebo-controlled, randomized phase 2 trial of two different dosage levels of intravenous crizanlizumab (2.5 mg/kg or 5 mg/kg for 52 weeks), a humanized anti–P-selectin antibody, examining its effect on pain crises in patients with sickle cell disease. The primary endpoint was the annual rate of sickle cell pain crises, with a variety of clinically relevant secondary endpoints. The target population had 2-10 pain crises in the 12 months before enrollment. Patients on a stable dose of hydroxyurea for at least the most recent 3 months were allowed to enter, but if patients were not receiving hydroxyurea, it could not be initiated during the trial. Patients who were undergoing chronic red-cell transfusion therapy were excluded.

Among 198 enrolled patients, 35% did not complete the 52 weeks of treatment. Discontinuations were equally balanced among patients assigned to the high-dose, low-dose, and placebo cohorts. Adverse events associated with crizanlizumab included back pain, nausea, pyrexia, and arthralgia. Serious adverse events occurred in 55 patients, with 5 deaths, all of which were unrelated to treatment. Crizanlizumab did not augment hemolysis or bacterial infections.

In the efficacy analysis, patients receiving high-dose crizanlizumab had a median annual rate of 1.63 health care visits for sickle cell pain crises, compared with 2.98 visits for placebo patients (P = .01). In comparison with placebo, high-dose crizanlizumab also delayed the first pain crisis after starting treatment (4.1 months vs. 1.4 months), delayed the median time to a second pain crisis, and decreased the median number of pain crises annually.

More than twice as many high-dose crizanlizumab patients had no pain crisis episodes, compared with placebo patients. In general, differences were more striking in patients who were not taking hydroxyurea and who had non–hemoglobin SS disease. Differences in the primary endpoint between low-dose crizanlizumab and placebo were numerically, but not statistically, different.

How these results influence practice

It has been over 20 years since a new agent (hydroxyurea) was approved for sickle cell patients and, despite its use, sickle cell pain crises remain a frequent problem. Pain crises are associated with worse quality of life and increased risk of death. A promising advance is badly needed, especially in an era in which sensitivity to providers’ role in the opioid addiction crisis is highly scrutinized and may contribute to future undertreatment of pain episodes. This is especially true for patients from areas with high levels of opioid misuse.

The SUSTAIN trial was international, multi-institutional, placebo-controlled, and inclusive. These attributes enhance the likelihood that crizanlizumab will enhance patient care in routine practice. As an intravenous agent, monitoring adherence and toxicity are less challenging than with hydroxyurea. Despite these factors, however, there are some concerns. Crizanlizumab was not free of toxicity, quality of life via the Brief Pain Inventory used in the trial was not improved, and changes in the pain-severity and pain-interference domains were small. Treatment in SUSTAIN ensued for 52 weeks, so the emergence of late neutralizing antibodies and late toxicities with longer-term therapy will require careful postmarketing assessment.

These concerns notwithstanding, anyone who has cared for sickle cell patients would be excited about the potential benefits crizanlizumab could bring to patient care.
 

Zanubrutinib

The FDA has approved zanubrutinib for the treatment of MCL in adult patients who have received at least one prior therapy. The approval is based on the results of two studies in which overall response rate was the primary endpoint.

BGB-3111-206 (NCT03206970) was a phase 2, open-label, multicenter, single-arm trial of 86 patients with MCL who received at least one prior therapy. Zanubrutinib was given orally at 160 mg twice daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. BGB-3111-AU-003 (NCT 02343120) was a phase 1/2, open-label, dose-escalation trial of B-cell malignancies, including 32 previously treated MCL patients treated with zanubrutinib at 160 mg twice daily or 320 mg once daily.

In the phase 2 trial, 18fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)–PET scans were required and the ORR was 84% (95% confidence interval, 74%-91%), with a complete response rate of 59% (95% CI, 48%-70%) and a median response duration of 19.5 months (95% CI, 16.6% to not estimable). In the phase 1/2 dose-escalation trial, FDG-PET scans were not required and the ORR was 84% (95% CI, 67%-95%), with a complete response rate of 22% (95% CI, 9%-40%) and a median response duration of 18.5 months (95% CI, 12.6% to not estimable). In both trials, median follow-up on study was about 18 months.

The most common adverse reactions were cytopenias, upper respiratory tract infection, rash, bruising, diarrhea, and cough. The most common serious adverse reactions were pneumonia in 11% and hemorrhage in 5% of patients. Of 118 MCL patients, 8 stopped therapy because of an adverse event, most frequently pneumonia (3.4%).

How these results influence practice

Unfortunately, the therapy of recurrent MCL is noncurative, because of the rapid development of treatment resistance. There are multiple single-and multiagent chemotherapy regimens that may be tried, many incorporating immunotherapy options such as anti-CD20- or Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK)–targeted agents. Given the limited efficacy of these agents, temporary nature of remissions, and paucity of data comparing these various treatment options, participation in clinical trials is encouraged whenever possible.

Outside of a clinical trial, zanubrutinib joins ibrutinib and acalabrutinib as approved single-agent BTK inhibitors for adult MCL patients in relapse. The impressive ORR and response duration reported for zanubrutinib are similar to the results achieved with the other agents, but the toxicity pattern may be slightly different.

As in the treatment of hormonally sensitive breast cancer, clinicians and patients benefit when they have multiple similar, equally efficacious oral agents with slightly different toxicity patterns so that quality of life can be improved and treatment duration maximized before treatment resistance develops and a more toxic and/or inconvenient therapy needs to be employed.

Whether zanubrutinib has benefits beyond those for MCL patients in relapse will depend on the results of confirmatory trials and patient-reported outcome data.

Dr. Lyss has been a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years, practicing in St. Louis. His clinical and research interests are in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of breast and lung cancers and in expanding access to clinical trials to medically underserved populations.

In this edition of “How I Will Treat My Next Patient,” I highlight two recent drug approvals by the Food and Drug Administration – crizanlizumab for sickle cell patients with painful crises and zanubrutinib for mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) patients in relapse.

Crizanlizumab

P-selectin is an adhesion molecule expressed on activated vascular endothelial cells and platelets. It is a key molecule in the initiation of leukocyte rolling on vessel walls and promotes firm attachment and extravasation to underlying tissues during inflammation. Up-regulation of P-selectin on endothelial cells and platelets contributes to the cell-cell interactions involved in the pathogenesis of sickle cell pain crises.

The SUSTAIN study was a multisite, placebo-controlled, randomized phase 2 trial of two different dosage levels of intravenous crizanlizumab (2.5 mg/kg or 5 mg/kg for 52 weeks), a humanized anti–P-selectin antibody, examining its effect on pain crises in patients with sickle cell disease. The primary endpoint was the annual rate of sickle cell pain crises, with a variety of clinically relevant secondary endpoints. The target population had 2-10 pain crises in the 12 months before enrollment. Patients on a stable dose of hydroxyurea for at least the most recent 3 months were allowed to enter, but if patients were not receiving hydroxyurea, it could not be initiated during the trial. Patients who were undergoing chronic red-cell transfusion therapy were excluded.

Among 198 enrolled patients, 35% did not complete the 52 weeks of treatment. Discontinuations were equally balanced among patients assigned to the high-dose, low-dose, and placebo cohorts. Adverse events associated with crizanlizumab included back pain, nausea, pyrexia, and arthralgia. Serious adverse events occurred in 55 patients, with 5 deaths, all of which were unrelated to treatment. Crizanlizumab did not augment hemolysis or bacterial infections.

In the efficacy analysis, patients receiving high-dose crizanlizumab had a median annual rate of 1.63 health care visits for sickle cell pain crises, compared with 2.98 visits for placebo patients (P = .01). In comparison with placebo, high-dose crizanlizumab also delayed the first pain crisis after starting treatment (4.1 months vs. 1.4 months), delayed the median time to a second pain crisis, and decreased the median number of pain crises annually.

More than twice as many high-dose crizanlizumab patients had no pain crisis episodes, compared with placebo patients. In general, differences were more striking in patients who were not taking hydroxyurea and who had non–hemoglobin SS disease. Differences in the primary endpoint between low-dose crizanlizumab and placebo were numerically, but not statistically, different.

How these results influence practice

It has been over 20 years since a new agent (hydroxyurea) was approved for sickle cell patients and, despite its use, sickle cell pain crises remain a frequent problem. Pain crises are associated with worse quality of life and increased risk of death. A promising advance is badly needed, especially in an era in which sensitivity to providers’ role in the opioid addiction crisis is highly scrutinized and may contribute to future undertreatment of pain episodes. This is especially true for patients from areas with high levels of opioid misuse.

The SUSTAIN trial was international, multi-institutional, placebo-controlled, and inclusive. These attributes enhance the likelihood that crizanlizumab will enhance patient care in routine practice. As an intravenous agent, monitoring adherence and toxicity are less challenging than with hydroxyurea. Despite these factors, however, there are some concerns. Crizanlizumab was not free of toxicity, quality of life via the Brief Pain Inventory used in the trial was not improved, and changes in the pain-severity and pain-interference domains were small. Treatment in SUSTAIN ensued for 52 weeks, so the emergence of late neutralizing antibodies and late toxicities with longer-term therapy will require careful postmarketing assessment.

These concerns notwithstanding, anyone who has cared for sickle cell patients would be excited about the potential benefits crizanlizumab could bring to patient care.
 

Zanubrutinib

The FDA has approved zanubrutinib for the treatment of MCL in adult patients who have received at least one prior therapy. The approval is based on the results of two studies in which overall response rate was the primary endpoint.

BGB-3111-206 (NCT03206970) was a phase 2, open-label, multicenter, single-arm trial of 86 patients with MCL who received at least one prior therapy. Zanubrutinib was given orally at 160 mg twice daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. BGB-3111-AU-003 (NCT 02343120) was a phase 1/2, open-label, dose-escalation trial of B-cell malignancies, including 32 previously treated MCL patients treated with zanubrutinib at 160 mg twice daily or 320 mg once daily.

In the phase 2 trial, 18fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)–PET scans were required and the ORR was 84% (95% confidence interval, 74%-91%), with a complete response rate of 59% (95% CI, 48%-70%) and a median response duration of 19.5 months (95% CI, 16.6% to not estimable). In the phase 1/2 dose-escalation trial, FDG-PET scans were not required and the ORR was 84% (95% CI, 67%-95%), with a complete response rate of 22% (95% CI, 9%-40%) and a median response duration of 18.5 months (95% CI, 12.6% to not estimable). In both trials, median follow-up on study was about 18 months.

The most common adverse reactions were cytopenias, upper respiratory tract infection, rash, bruising, diarrhea, and cough. The most common serious adverse reactions were pneumonia in 11% and hemorrhage in 5% of patients. Of 118 MCL patients, 8 stopped therapy because of an adverse event, most frequently pneumonia (3.4%).

How these results influence practice

Unfortunately, the therapy of recurrent MCL is noncurative, because of the rapid development of treatment resistance. There are multiple single-and multiagent chemotherapy regimens that may be tried, many incorporating immunotherapy options such as anti-CD20- or Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK)–targeted agents. Given the limited efficacy of these agents, temporary nature of remissions, and paucity of data comparing these various treatment options, participation in clinical trials is encouraged whenever possible.

Outside of a clinical trial, zanubrutinib joins ibrutinib and acalabrutinib as approved single-agent BTK inhibitors for adult MCL patients in relapse. The impressive ORR and response duration reported for zanubrutinib are similar to the results achieved with the other agents, but the toxicity pattern may be slightly different.

As in the treatment of hormonally sensitive breast cancer, clinicians and patients benefit when they have multiple similar, equally efficacious oral agents with slightly different toxicity patterns so that quality of life can be improved and treatment duration maximized before treatment resistance develops and a more toxic and/or inconvenient therapy needs to be employed.

Whether zanubrutinib has benefits beyond those for MCL patients in relapse will depend on the results of confirmatory trials and patient-reported outcome data.

Dr. Lyss has been a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years, practicing in St. Louis. His clinical and research interests are in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of breast and lung cancers and in expanding access to clinical trials to medically underserved populations.

In this edition of “How I Will Treat My Next Patient,” I highlight two recent drug approvals by the Food and Drug Administration – crizanlizumab for sickle cell patients with painful crises and zanubrutinib for mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) patients in relapse.

Crizanlizumab

P-selectin is an adhesion molecule expressed on activated vascular endothelial cells and platelets. It is a key molecule in the initiation of leukocyte rolling on vessel walls and promotes firm attachment and extravasation to underlying tissues during inflammation. Up-regulation of P-selectin on endothelial cells and platelets contributes to the cell-cell interactions involved in the pathogenesis of sickle cell pain crises.

The SUSTAIN study was a multisite, placebo-controlled, randomized phase 2 trial of two different dosage levels of intravenous crizanlizumab (2.5 mg/kg or 5 mg/kg for 52 weeks), a humanized anti–P-selectin antibody, examining its effect on pain crises in patients with sickle cell disease. The primary endpoint was the annual rate of sickle cell pain crises, with a variety of clinically relevant secondary endpoints. The target population had 2-10 pain crises in the 12 months before enrollment. Patients on a stable dose of hydroxyurea for at least the most recent 3 months were allowed to enter, but if patients were not receiving hydroxyurea, it could not be initiated during the trial. Patients who were undergoing chronic red-cell transfusion therapy were excluded.

Among 198 enrolled patients, 35% did not complete the 52 weeks of treatment. Discontinuations were equally balanced among patients assigned to the high-dose, low-dose, and placebo cohorts. Adverse events associated with crizanlizumab included back pain, nausea, pyrexia, and arthralgia. Serious adverse events occurred in 55 patients, with 5 deaths, all of which were unrelated to treatment. Crizanlizumab did not augment hemolysis or bacterial infections.

In the efficacy analysis, patients receiving high-dose crizanlizumab had a median annual rate of 1.63 health care visits for sickle cell pain crises, compared with 2.98 visits for placebo patients (P = .01). In comparison with placebo, high-dose crizanlizumab also delayed the first pain crisis after starting treatment (4.1 months vs. 1.4 months), delayed the median time to a second pain crisis, and decreased the median number of pain crises annually.

More than twice as many high-dose crizanlizumab patients had no pain crisis episodes, compared with placebo patients. In general, differences were more striking in patients who were not taking hydroxyurea and who had non–hemoglobin SS disease. Differences in the primary endpoint between low-dose crizanlizumab and placebo were numerically, but not statistically, different.

How these results influence practice

It has been over 20 years since a new agent (hydroxyurea) was approved for sickle cell patients and, despite its use, sickle cell pain crises remain a frequent problem. Pain crises are associated with worse quality of life and increased risk of death. A promising advance is badly needed, especially in an era in which sensitivity to providers’ role in the opioid addiction crisis is highly scrutinized and may contribute to future undertreatment of pain episodes. This is especially true for patients from areas with high levels of opioid misuse.

The SUSTAIN trial was international, multi-institutional, placebo-controlled, and inclusive. These attributes enhance the likelihood that crizanlizumab will enhance patient care in routine practice. As an intravenous agent, monitoring adherence and toxicity are less challenging than with hydroxyurea. Despite these factors, however, there are some concerns. Crizanlizumab was not free of toxicity, quality of life via the Brief Pain Inventory used in the trial was not improved, and changes in the pain-severity and pain-interference domains were small. Treatment in SUSTAIN ensued for 52 weeks, so the emergence of late neutralizing antibodies and late toxicities with longer-term therapy will require careful postmarketing assessment.

These concerns notwithstanding, anyone who has cared for sickle cell patients would be excited about the potential benefits crizanlizumab could bring to patient care.
 

Zanubrutinib

The FDA has approved zanubrutinib for the treatment of MCL in adult patients who have received at least one prior therapy. The approval is based on the results of two studies in which overall response rate was the primary endpoint.

BGB-3111-206 (NCT03206970) was a phase 2, open-label, multicenter, single-arm trial of 86 patients with MCL who received at least one prior therapy. Zanubrutinib was given orally at 160 mg twice daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. BGB-3111-AU-003 (NCT 02343120) was a phase 1/2, open-label, dose-escalation trial of B-cell malignancies, including 32 previously treated MCL patients treated with zanubrutinib at 160 mg twice daily or 320 mg once daily.

In the phase 2 trial, 18fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)–PET scans were required and the ORR was 84% (95% confidence interval, 74%-91%), with a complete response rate of 59% (95% CI, 48%-70%) and a median response duration of 19.5 months (95% CI, 16.6% to not estimable). In the phase 1/2 dose-escalation trial, FDG-PET scans were not required and the ORR was 84% (95% CI, 67%-95%), with a complete response rate of 22% (95% CI, 9%-40%) and a median response duration of 18.5 months (95% CI, 12.6% to not estimable). In both trials, median follow-up on study was about 18 months.

The most common adverse reactions were cytopenias, upper respiratory tract infection, rash, bruising, diarrhea, and cough. The most common serious adverse reactions were pneumonia in 11% and hemorrhage in 5% of patients. Of 118 MCL patients, 8 stopped therapy because of an adverse event, most frequently pneumonia (3.4%).

How these results influence practice

Unfortunately, the therapy of recurrent MCL is noncurative, because of the rapid development of treatment resistance. There are multiple single-and multiagent chemotherapy regimens that may be tried, many incorporating immunotherapy options such as anti-CD20- or Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK)–targeted agents. Given the limited efficacy of these agents, temporary nature of remissions, and paucity of data comparing these various treatment options, participation in clinical trials is encouraged whenever possible.

Outside of a clinical trial, zanubrutinib joins ibrutinib and acalabrutinib as approved single-agent BTK inhibitors for adult MCL patients in relapse. The impressive ORR and response duration reported for zanubrutinib are similar to the results achieved with the other agents, but the toxicity pattern may be slightly different.

As in the treatment of hormonally sensitive breast cancer, clinicians and patients benefit when they have multiple similar, equally efficacious oral agents with slightly different toxicity patterns so that quality of life can be improved and treatment duration maximized before treatment resistance develops and a more toxic and/or inconvenient therapy needs to be employed.

Whether zanubrutinib has benefits beyond those for MCL patients in relapse will depend on the results of confirmatory trials and patient-reported outcome data.

Dr. Lyss has been a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years, practicing in St. Louis. His clinical and research interests are in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of breast and lung cancers and in expanding access to clinical trials to medically underserved populations.

To the Editor: We read with interest the editorial on the clinical use of intranasal esketamine in treatment-resistant depression by Editor-in-Chief Cynthia Geppert in the October 2019 issue of Federal Practitioner.¹ A recent case report published in your journal illustrated the success of IV ketamine in alleviating refractory chronic pain caused by a rare disease.² Ketamine has been well established as an appropriate adjuvant as well as an alternative to opioids in attenuating acute postoperative pain and in certain chronic pain syndromes.³ We write out of concern for the rapidity of adoption of intranasal esketamine without considering the merits of IV ketamine.

When adopting new treatments or extending established drugs for newer indications, clinicians must balance beneficence and nonmaleficence. There is an urgent need for better treatment options for depression, suicidality, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and chronic pain in the veteran population. However, one must proceed with caution before wide adoption of a treatment that lacks real-world data on sustained or long-term benefits.⁴ Enthusiasm for this drug must also be tempered by the documented adverse effect (AE) of hepatic injury and the lack of data tracking this AE from repeated, long-term use.⁵ With these considerations in mind, reliable dosing and predictable pharmacokinetics are of great importance.

In addition to outpatient esketamine, outpatient IV administration of racemic ketamine remains an advantageous option with unique benefits compared with esketamine. Pharmacokinetically, IV ketamine is superior to intranasal esketamine. The bioavailability of intranasal esketamine is likely to be variable. A patient with a poor intranasal application or poor absorption might be falsely labeled an esketamine nonresponder. Increasing intranasal esketamine dosage to avoid false nonresponders may place other patients at risk for overdose and undesired AEs, including dysphoria and hallucinations. The variable bioavailability of intranasal ketamine adds complexity to the examination of its clinical effectiveness. IV ketamine should provide a predictable drug level and more reliable data. One might retort that esketamine is not the same as ketamine. True, esketamine is the S-enantiomer of ketamine, whereas ketamine is a racemic mixture of S- and R-ketamine. However, there is no clear evidence of clinically relevant differences between these formulations.⁵

Psychomimetic effects and cardiovascular changes are the most common short-term AEs resulting from ketamine.⁵ An IV infusion allows the treating physician to slowly titrate the administered ketamine to reach an effective concentration at the target site. Unlike an all-or-none intranasal administration, an infusion can be stopped at the first appearance of an AE. Psychomimetic effects, such as hallucinations, visual disturbances, and dysphoria are thought to occur in a dose-dependent fashion and remit once a ketamine infusion is stopped.⁵ Furthermore, cardiovascular AEs, such as hypertension and tachycardia, are commonly in patients with a body mass index > 30, with IV administration on a mg/kg basis. This suggests that calculated ideal body weight is a safer denominator, and reliable dosing is important to mitigating AEs.⁶

We urge caution with the widespread adoption of intranasal esketamine and suggest the advantages of the IV route, which offers predictability of AEs and titratability of dose. Questions remain regarding the appropriate dose and formulation of ketamine, rate of infusion, and route of administration for chronic pain and psychiatric indications.^5,7 It is our responsibility to further study the long-term safety profile of ketamine and determine an appropriate dose of ketamine. The IV route allows many veterans to be helped in a safe and controllable manner.

Eugene Raggi, MD; and Srikantha L. Rao, MD, MS, FAS

To the Editor: We read with interest the editorial on the clinical use of intranasal esketamine in treatment-resistant depression by Editor-in-Chief Cynthia Geppert in the October 2019 issue of Federal Practitioner.¹ A recent case report published in your journal illustrated the success of IV ketamine in alleviating refractory chronic pain caused by a rare disease.² Ketamine has been well established as an appropriate adjuvant as well as an alternative to opioids in attenuating acute postoperative pain and in certain chronic pain syndromes.³ We write out of concern for the rapidity of adoption of intranasal esketamine without considering the merits of IV ketamine.

When adopting new treatments or extending established drugs for newer indications, clinicians must balance beneficence and nonmaleficence. There is an urgent need for better treatment options for depression, suicidality, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and chronic pain in the veteran population. However, one must proceed with caution before wide adoption of a treatment that lacks real-world data on sustained or long-term benefits.⁴ Enthusiasm for this drug must also be tempered by the documented adverse effect (AE) of hepatic injury and the lack of data tracking this AE from repeated, long-term use.⁵ With these considerations in mind, reliable dosing and predictable pharmacokinetics are of great importance.

In addition to outpatient esketamine, outpatient IV administration of racemic ketamine remains an advantageous option with unique benefits compared with esketamine. Pharmacokinetically, IV ketamine is superior to intranasal esketamine. The bioavailability of intranasal esketamine is likely to be variable. A patient with a poor intranasal application or poor absorption might be falsely labeled an esketamine nonresponder. Increasing intranasal esketamine dosage to avoid false nonresponders may place other patients at risk for overdose and undesired AEs, including dysphoria and hallucinations. The variable bioavailability of intranasal ketamine adds complexity to the examination of its clinical effectiveness. IV ketamine should provide a predictable drug level and more reliable data. One might retort that esketamine is not the same as ketamine. True, esketamine is the S-enantiomer of ketamine, whereas ketamine is a racemic mixture of S- and R-ketamine. However, there is no clear evidence of clinically relevant differences between these formulations.⁵

Psychomimetic effects and cardiovascular changes are the most common short-term AEs resulting from ketamine.⁵ An IV infusion allows the treating physician to slowly titrate the administered ketamine to reach an effective concentration at the target site. Unlike an all-or-none intranasal administration, an infusion can be stopped at the first appearance of an AE. Psychomimetic effects, such as hallucinations, visual disturbances, and dysphoria are thought to occur in a dose-dependent fashion and remit once a ketamine infusion is stopped.⁵ Furthermore, cardiovascular AEs, such as hypertension and tachycardia, are commonly in patients with a body mass index > 30, with IV administration on a mg/kg basis. This suggests that calculated ideal body weight is a safer denominator, and reliable dosing is important to mitigating AEs.⁶

We urge caution with the widespread adoption of intranasal esketamine and suggest the advantages of the IV route, which offers predictability of AEs and titratability of dose. Questions remain regarding the appropriate dose and formulation of ketamine, rate of infusion, and route of administration for chronic pain and psychiatric indications.^5,7 It is our responsibility to further study the long-term safety profile of ketamine and determine an appropriate dose of ketamine. The IV route allows many veterans to be helped in a safe and controllable manner.

Eugene Raggi, MD; and Srikantha L. Rao, MD, MS, FAS

To the Editor: We read with interest the editorial on the clinical use of intranasal esketamine in treatment-resistant depression by Editor-in-Chief Cynthia Geppert in the October 2019 issue of Federal Practitioner.¹ A recent case report published in your journal illustrated the success of IV ketamine in alleviating refractory chronic pain caused by a rare disease.² Ketamine has been well established as an appropriate adjuvant as well as an alternative to opioids in attenuating acute postoperative pain and in certain chronic pain syndromes.³ We write out of concern for the rapidity of adoption of intranasal esketamine without considering the merits of IV ketamine.

When adopting new treatments or extending established drugs for newer indications, clinicians must balance beneficence and nonmaleficence. There is an urgent need for better treatment options for depression, suicidality, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and chronic pain in the veteran population. However, one must proceed with caution before wide adoption of a treatment that lacks real-world data on sustained or long-term benefits.⁴ Enthusiasm for this drug must also be tempered by the documented adverse effect (AE) of hepatic injury and the lack of data tracking this AE from repeated, long-term use.⁵ With these considerations in mind, reliable dosing and predictable pharmacokinetics are of great importance.

In addition to outpatient esketamine, outpatient IV administration of racemic ketamine remains an advantageous option with unique benefits compared with esketamine. Pharmacokinetically, IV ketamine is superior to intranasal esketamine. The bioavailability of intranasal esketamine is likely to be variable. A patient with a poor intranasal application or poor absorption might be falsely labeled an esketamine nonresponder. Increasing intranasal esketamine dosage to avoid false nonresponders may place other patients at risk for overdose and undesired AEs, including dysphoria and hallucinations. The variable bioavailability of intranasal ketamine adds complexity to the examination of its clinical effectiveness. IV ketamine should provide a predictable drug level and more reliable data. One might retort that esketamine is not the same as ketamine. True, esketamine is the S-enantiomer of ketamine, whereas ketamine is a racemic mixture of S- and R-ketamine. However, there is no clear evidence of clinically relevant differences between these formulations.⁵

Psychomimetic effects and cardiovascular changes are the most common short-term AEs resulting from ketamine.⁵ An IV infusion allows the treating physician to slowly titrate the administered ketamine to reach an effective concentration at the target site. Unlike an all-or-none intranasal administration, an infusion can be stopped at the first appearance of an AE. Psychomimetic effects, such as hallucinations, visual disturbances, and dysphoria are thought to occur in a dose-dependent fashion and remit once a ketamine infusion is stopped.⁵ Furthermore, cardiovascular AEs, such as hypertension and tachycardia, are commonly in patients with a body mass index > 30, with IV administration on a mg/kg basis. This suggests that calculated ideal body weight is a safer denominator, and reliable dosing is important to mitigating AEs.⁶

We urge caution with the widespread adoption of intranasal esketamine and suggest the advantages of the IV route, which offers predictability of AEs and titratability of dose. Questions remain regarding the appropriate dose and formulation of ketamine, rate of infusion, and route of administration for chronic pain and psychiatric indications.^5,7 It is our responsibility to further study the long-term safety profile of ketamine and determine an appropriate dose of ketamine. The IV route allows many veterans to be helped in a safe and controllable manner.

Eugene Raggi, MD; and Srikantha L. Rao, MD, MS, FAS

Readers may recall that at the end of each calendar as opposed to fiscal year—I know it is hard to believe time exists outside the Federal system—Federal Practitioner publishes my ethics-focused version of the familiar year-end roundup. This year I am reversing the typical order of most annual rankings by putting the worst first for 2 morally salient reasons.

The first is that, sadly, it is almost always easier to identify multiple incidents that compete ignominiously for the “worst” of federal health care. Even more disappointing, it is comparatively difficult to find stories for the “best” that are of the same scale and scope as the bad news. This is not to say that every day there are not individual narratives of courage and compassion reported in US Department of Defense, US Public Health Service, and US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and hundreds more unsung heroes.

The second reason is that as human beings our psychology is such that we gravitate toward the worst things more powerfully and persistently than we do the best. This is in part why it is more difficult to find uplifting stories and why the demoralizing ones affect us so strongly. In an exhaustive review of the subject, psychologists Roy Baumeister and colleagues conclude that,

When equal measures of good and bad are present, however, the psychological effects of bad ones outweigh those of the good ones. This may in fact be a general principle or law of psychological phenomena, possibly reflecting the innate predispositions of the psyche or at least reflecting the almost inevitable adaptation of each individual to the exigencies of daily life.²

I am thus saving the best for last in the hope that it will be more memorable and impactful than the worst.

Unique to this year’s look-back, both the negative and the positive accounts come from the domain of end-of-life care. And unlike prior reviews where the lack of administrative vigilance and professional competence affected hundreds of patients, families, and staff, each of this year’s incidents involve a single patient.

An incident that occurred in September 2019 at a VA Community Living Center (CLC) in Georgia stood out in infamy apart from all others. It was the report of a veteran in a VA nursing home who had been bitten more than 100 times by ants crawling all over his room. He died shortly afterward. In a scene out of a horror movie tapping into the most primeval human fears, his daughter Laquana Ross described her father, a Vietnam Air Force veteran with cancer, to media and VA officials in graphic terms. “I understand mistakes happen,” she said. “I’ve had ants. But he was bit by ants two days in a row. They feasted on him.”³

In this new era of holding its senior executive service accountable, the outraged chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee demanded that heads roll, and the VA acted rapidly to comply.⁴ The VA Central Office placed the network director on administrative leave, reassigned the chief medical officer, and initiated quality and safety reviews as well as an administrative investigative board to scrutinize how the parent Atlanta VA medical center managed the situation. In total, 9 officials connected to the incident were placed on leave. The VA apologized, with VA Secretary Robert Wilke zeroing in on the core values involved in the tragedy, “This is about basic humanity and dignity,” he said. “I don’t care what steps were taken to address the issues. We did not treat a vet with the dignity that he and his family deserved.”⁵ Yet it was the veteran’s daughter, with unbelievable charity, who asked the most crucial question that must be answered within the framework of a just culture if similar tragedies are not to occur in the future, “I know the staff, without a shadow of doubt, respected my dad and even loved him,” Ross said. “But what’s their ability to assess situations and fix things?”³

To begin to give Ms. Ross the answer she deserves, we must understand that the antithesis of love is not hate but indifference; of compassion, it is not cruelty but coldness. A true just culture reserves individual blame for those who have ill-will and adopts a systems perspective of organizational improvement toward most other types of errors.⁶ This means that the deplorable conditions in the CLC cannot be charged to the failure of a single staff member to fulfil their obligations but to collective collapse at many levels of the organization. Just culture is ethically laudable and far superior to the history in federal service of capricious punishment or institutional apathy that far too often were the default reactions to media exposures or congressional ire. Justice, though necessary, is not sufficient to achieve virtue. Those who work in health care also must be inspired to offer mercy, kindness, and compassion, especially in our most sacred privilege to provide care of the dying.

The best of 2019 illustrates this distinction movingly. This account also involves a Vietnam veteran, this time a Marine also dying of cancer, which happened just about a month after the earlier report. To be transparent it occurred at my home VA medical center in New Mexico. I was peripherally involved in the case as a consultant but had no role in the wondrous things that transpired. The last wish of a patient dying in the hospice unit on campus was to see his beloved dog who had been taken to the local city animal shelter when he was hospitalized because he had no friends or family to look after the companion animal. A social worker on the palliative care team called the animal shelter and explained the patient did not have much time left but wanted to see his dog before he died. Working together with support from facility leadership, shelter workers brought the dog to visit with the patient for an entire day while hospice staff cried with joy and sadness.⁷

As the epigraph for this editorial from Dame Cicely Saunders, the founder of the modern hospice movement, says, the difference between unspeakable pain and meaningful suffering can be measured in the depth of compassion caregivers show to the dying. It is this quality of mercy that in one case condemns, and in the other praises, us all as health care and administrative professionals in the service of our country. Baumeister and colleagues suggest that the human tendency to magnify the bad and minimize the good in everyday myopia may in a wider vision actually be a reason for hope:

It may be that humans and animals show heightened awareness of and responded more quickly to negative information because it signals a need for change. Hence, the adaptiveness of self-regulation partly lies in the organism’s ability to detect when response modifications are necessary and when they are unnecessary. Moreover, the lessons learned from bad events should ideally be retained permanently so that the same dangers or costs are not encountered repeatedly. Meanwhile, good events (such as those that provide a feeling of satisfaction and contentment) should ideally wear off so that the organism is motivated to continue searching for more and better outcomes.²

Let us all take this lesson into our work in 2020 so that when it comes time to write this column next year in the chilling cold of late autumn there will be more stories of light than darkness from which to choose.

Readers may recall that at the end of each calendar as opposed to fiscal year—I know it is hard to believe time exists outside the Federal system—Federal Practitioner publishes my ethics-focused version of the familiar year-end roundup. This year I am reversing the typical order of most annual rankings by putting the worst first for 2 morally salient reasons.

The first is that, sadly, it is almost always easier to identify multiple incidents that compete ignominiously for the “worst” of federal health care. Even more disappointing, it is comparatively difficult to find stories for the “best” that are of the same scale and scope as the bad news. This is not to say that every day there are not individual narratives of courage and compassion reported in US Department of Defense, US Public Health Service, and US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and hundreds more unsung heroes.

The second reason is that as human beings our psychology is such that we gravitate toward the worst things more powerfully and persistently than we do the best. This is in part why it is more difficult to find uplifting stories and why the demoralizing ones affect us so strongly. In an exhaustive review of the subject, psychologists Roy Baumeister and colleagues conclude that,

When equal measures of good and bad are present, however, the psychological effects of bad ones outweigh those of the good ones. This may in fact be a general principle or law of psychological phenomena, possibly reflecting the innate predispositions of the psyche or at least reflecting the almost inevitable adaptation of each individual to the exigencies of daily life.²

I am thus saving the best for last in the hope that it will be more memorable and impactful than the worst.

Unique to this year’s look-back, both the negative and the positive accounts come from the domain of end-of-life care. And unlike prior reviews where the lack of administrative vigilance and professional competence affected hundreds of patients, families, and staff, each of this year’s incidents involve a single patient.

An incident that occurred in September 2019 at a VA Community Living Center (CLC) in Georgia stood out in infamy apart from all others. It was the report of a veteran in a VA nursing home who had been bitten more than 100 times by ants crawling all over his room. He died shortly afterward. In a scene out of a horror movie tapping into the most primeval human fears, his daughter Laquana Ross described her father, a Vietnam Air Force veteran with cancer, to media and VA officials in graphic terms. “I understand mistakes happen,” she said. “I’ve had ants. But he was bit by ants two days in a row. They feasted on him.”³

In this new era of holding its senior executive service accountable, the outraged chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee demanded that heads roll, and the VA acted rapidly to comply.⁴ The VA Central Office placed the network director on administrative leave, reassigned the chief medical officer, and initiated quality and safety reviews as well as an administrative investigative board to scrutinize how the parent Atlanta VA medical center managed the situation. In total, 9 officials connected to the incident were placed on leave. The VA apologized, with VA Secretary Robert Wilke zeroing in on the core values involved in the tragedy, “This is about basic humanity and dignity,” he said. “I don’t care what steps were taken to address the issues. We did not treat a vet with the dignity that he and his family deserved.”⁵ Yet it was the veteran’s daughter, with unbelievable charity, who asked the most crucial question that must be answered within the framework of a just culture if similar tragedies are not to occur in the future, “I know the staff, without a shadow of doubt, respected my dad and even loved him,” Ross said. “But what’s their ability to assess situations and fix things?”³

To begin to give Ms. Ross the answer she deserves, we must understand that the antithesis of love is not hate but indifference; of compassion, it is not cruelty but coldness. A true just culture reserves individual blame for those who have ill-will and adopts a systems perspective of organizational improvement toward most other types of errors.⁶ This means that the deplorable conditions in the CLC cannot be charged to the failure of a single staff member to fulfil their obligations but to collective collapse at many levels of the organization. Just culture is ethically laudable and far superior to the history in federal service of capricious punishment or institutional apathy that far too often were the default reactions to media exposures or congressional ire. Justice, though necessary, is not sufficient to achieve virtue. Those who work in health care also must be inspired to offer mercy, kindness, and compassion, especially in our most sacred privilege to provide care of the dying.

The best of 2019 illustrates this distinction movingly. This account also involves a Vietnam veteran, this time a Marine also dying of cancer, which happened just about a month after the earlier report. To be transparent it occurred at my home VA medical center in New Mexico. I was peripherally involved in the case as a consultant but had no role in the wondrous things that transpired. The last wish of a patient dying in the hospice unit on campus was to see his beloved dog who had been taken to the local city animal shelter when he was hospitalized because he had no friends or family to look after the companion animal. A social worker on the palliative care team called the animal shelter and explained the patient did not have much time left but wanted to see his dog before he died. Working together with support from facility leadership, shelter workers brought the dog to visit with the patient for an entire day while hospice staff cried with joy and sadness.⁷

As the epigraph for this editorial from Dame Cicely Saunders, the founder of the modern hospice movement, says, the difference between unspeakable pain and meaningful suffering can be measured in the depth of compassion caregivers show to the dying. It is this quality of mercy that in one case condemns, and in the other praises, us all as health care and administrative professionals in the service of our country. Baumeister and colleagues suggest that the human tendency to magnify the bad and minimize the good in everyday myopia may in a wider vision actually be a reason for hope:

It may be that humans and animals show heightened awareness of and responded more quickly to negative information because it signals a need for change. Hence, the adaptiveness of self-regulation partly lies in the organism’s ability to detect when response modifications are necessary and when they are unnecessary. Moreover, the lessons learned from bad events should ideally be retained permanently so that the same dangers or costs are not encountered repeatedly. Meanwhile, good events (such as those that provide a feeling of satisfaction and contentment) should ideally wear off so that the organism is motivated to continue searching for more and better outcomes.²

Let us all take this lesson into our work in 2020 so that when it comes time to write this column next year in the chilling cold of late autumn there will be more stories of light than darkness from which to choose.

Readers may recall that at the end of each calendar as opposed to fiscal year—I know it is hard to believe time exists outside the Federal system—Federal Practitioner publishes my ethics-focused version of the familiar year-end roundup. This year I am reversing the typical order of most annual rankings by putting the worst first for 2 morally salient reasons.

The first is that, sadly, it is almost always easier to identify multiple incidents that compete ignominiously for the “worst” of federal health care. Even more disappointing, it is comparatively difficult to find stories for the “best” that are of the same scale and scope as the bad news. This is not to say that every day there are not individual narratives of courage and compassion reported in US Department of Defense, US Public Health Service, and US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and hundreds more unsung heroes.

The second reason is that as human beings our psychology is such that we gravitate toward the worst things more powerfully and persistently than we do the best. This is in part why it is more difficult to find uplifting stories and why the demoralizing ones affect us so strongly. In an exhaustive review of the subject, psychologists Roy Baumeister and colleagues conclude that,

When equal measures of good and bad are present, however, the psychological effects of bad ones outweigh those of the good ones. This may in fact be a general principle or law of psychological phenomena, possibly reflecting the innate predispositions of the psyche or at least reflecting the almost inevitable adaptation of each individual to the exigencies of daily life.²

I am thus saving the best for last in the hope that it will be more memorable and impactful than the worst.

Unique to this year’s look-back, both the negative and the positive accounts come from the domain of end-of-life care. And unlike prior reviews where the lack of administrative vigilance and professional competence affected hundreds of patients, families, and staff, each of this year’s incidents involve a single patient.

An incident that occurred in September 2019 at a VA Community Living Center (CLC) in Georgia stood out in infamy apart from all others. It was the report of a veteran in a VA nursing home who had been bitten more than 100 times by ants crawling all over his room. He died shortly afterward. In a scene out of a horror movie tapping into the most primeval human fears, his daughter Laquana Ross described her father, a Vietnam Air Force veteran with cancer, to media and VA officials in graphic terms. “I understand mistakes happen,” she said. “I’ve had ants. But he was bit by ants two days in a row. They feasted on him.”³

In this new era of holding its senior executive service accountable, the outraged chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee demanded that heads roll, and the VA acted rapidly to comply.⁴ The VA Central Office placed the network director on administrative leave, reassigned the chief medical officer, and initiated quality and safety reviews as well as an administrative investigative board to scrutinize how the parent Atlanta VA medical center managed the situation. In total, 9 officials connected to the incident were placed on leave. The VA apologized, with VA Secretary Robert Wilke zeroing in on the core values involved in the tragedy, “This is about basic humanity and dignity,” he said. “I don’t care what steps were taken to address the issues. We did not treat a vet with the dignity that he and his family deserved.”⁵ Yet it was the veteran’s daughter, with unbelievable charity, who asked the most crucial question that must be answered within the framework of a just culture if similar tragedies are not to occur in the future, “I know the staff, without a shadow of doubt, respected my dad and even loved him,” Ross said. “But what’s their ability to assess situations and fix things?”³

To begin to give Ms. Ross the answer she deserves, we must understand that the antithesis of love is not hate but indifference; of compassion, it is not cruelty but coldness. A true just culture reserves individual blame for those who have ill-will and adopts a systems perspective of organizational improvement toward most other types of errors.⁶ This means that the deplorable conditions in the CLC cannot be charged to the failure of a single staff member to fulfil their obligations but to collective collapse at many levels of the organization. Just culture is ethically laudable and far superior to the history in federal service of capricious punishment or institutional apathy that far too often were the default reactions to media exposures or congressional ire. Justice, though necessary, is not sufficient to achieve virtue. Those who work in health care also must be inspired to offer mercy, kindness, and compassion, especially in our most sacred privilege to provide care of the dying.

The best of 2019 illustrates this distinction movingly. This account also involves a Vietnam veteran, this time a Marine also dying of cancer, which happened just about a month after the earlier report. To be transparent it occurred at my home VA medical center in New Mexico. I was peripherally involved in the case as a consultant but had no role in the wondrous things that transpired. The last wish of a patient dying in the hospice unit on campus was to see his beloved dog who had been taken to the local city animal shelter when he was hospitalized because he had no friends or family to look after the companion animal. A social worker on the palliative care team called the animal shelter and explained the patient did not have much time left but wanted to see his dog before he died. Working together with support from facility leadership, shelter workers brought the dog to visit with the patient for an entire day while hospice staff cried with joy and sadness.⁷

As the epigraph for this editorial from Dame Cicely Saunders, the founder of the modern hospice movement, says, the difference between unspeakable pain and meaningful suffering can be measured in the depth of compassion caregivers show to the dying. It is this quality of mercy that in one case condemns, and in the other praises, us all as health care and administrative professionals in the service of our country. Baumeister and colleagues suggest that the human tendency to magnify the bad and minimize the good in everyday myopia may in a wider vision actually be a reason for hope:

It may be that humans and animals show heightened awareness of and responded more quickly to negative information because it signals a need for change. Hence, the adaptiveness of self-regulation partly lies in the organism’s ability to detect when response modifications are necessary and when they are unnecessary. Moreover, the lessons learned from bad events should ideally be retained permanently so that the same dangers or costs are not encountered repeatedly. Meanwhile, good events (such as those that provide a feeling of satisfaction and contentment) should ideally wear off so that the organism is motivated to continue searching for more and better outcomes.²

Let us all take this lesson into our work in 2020 so that when it comes time to write this column next year in the chilling cold of late autumn there will be more stories of light than darkness from which to choose.

Mitchel L. Zoler’s article on Abstract A105, presented at Obesity Week 2019, addresses an important health concern and is timely.

Over the past 4 decades we have seen a rise in the prevalence of obesity and associated health complications, not just in the United States but across the world. The incidence of obesity (having a BMI greater than 30) was 35% for women and 31% for men in the United States, and associated deaths and disability were primarily attributed to diabetes and cardiovascular disease resulting from obesity.

This article references the benefits of bariatric/metabolic surgery in individuals with class 1 obesity. In the United States, more than half of those who meet the criteria for obesity come under the class 1 category (BMI, 30-34.9). Those in this class of obesity are at increased risk of developing diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, coronary artery disease, cerebrovascular disease, obstructive sleep apnea, polycystic ovarian syndrome, and bone and joint disorders.

There are several studies that document the significant reduction in incidence of the above cardiometabolic risks with sustained weight loss. Nonsurgical interventions in individuals with class 1 obesity through lifestyle modifications and pharmacotherapy have not demonstrated success in providing persistent weight loss or metabolic benefits. The data presented in this article are of great significance to patients and physicians alike as they highlight the long-term benefits and reversal of metabolic disorders.

Current guidelines for bariatric surgery for individuals with a BMI greater than 35 were published in 1991. Since then several safe surgical options including laparoscopic procedures, sleeve gastrectomy, and adjustable gastric banding have been developed with decreased surgical risks, morbidity, and mortality.

The International Federation for the Surgery of Obesity and Metabolic Disorders, the International Diabetes Federation, and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence of the United Kingdom, have supported the option of bariatric surgery in class 1 obese individuals with metabolic disorders.

While lifestyle modifications with medications should be the first-line treatment for class 1 obesity, as a primary care physician I believe that, given the major changes in the surgical options, the proven long-term benefits, and the rising incidences of obesity and metabolic syndrome, it is time for the health care community, insurers, patients, and all other stakeholders to consider bariatric surgery in class 1 obese individuals as a potential and viable option.

Noel N. Deep, MD, is a general internist in a multispecialty group practice with Aspirus Antigo (Wis.) Clinic and the chief medical officer and a staff physician at Aspirus Langlade Hospital in Antigo. He is also assistant clinical professor at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Central Wisconsin Campus, Wausau, and the governor of the Wisconsin chapter of the American College of Physicians. Dr. Deep serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News.

He made these comments in response to questions from MDedge and had no relevant disclosures.

Mitchel L. Zoler’s article on Abstract A105, presented at Obesity Week 2019, addresses an important health concern and is timely.

Over the past 4 decades we have seen a rise in the prevalence of obesity and associated health complications, not just in the United States but across the world. The incidence of obesity (having a BMI greater than 30) was 35% for women and 31% for men in the United States, and associated deaths and disability were primarily attributed to diabetes and cardiovascular disease resulting from obesity.

This article references the benefits of bariatric/metabolic surgery in individuals with class 1 obesity. In the United States, more than half of those who meet the criteria for obesity come under the class 1 category (BMI, 30-34.9). Those in this class of obesity are at increased risk of developing diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, coronary artery disease, cerebrovascular disease, obstructive sleep apnea, polycystic ovarian syndrome, and bone and joint disorders.

There are several studies that document the significant reduction in incidence of the above cardiometabolic risks with sustained weight loss. Nonsurgical interventions in individuals with class 1 obesity through lifestyle modifications and pharmacotherapy have not demonstrated success in providing persistent weight loss or metabolic benefits. The data presented in this article are of great significance to patients and physicians alike as they highlight the long-term benefits and reversal of metabolic disorders.

Current guidelines for bariatric surgery for individuals with a BMI greater than 35 were published in 1991. Since then several safe surgical options including laparoscopic procedures, sleeve gastrectomy, and adjustable gastric banding have been developed with decreased surgical risks, morbidity, and mortality.

The International Federation for the Surgery of Obesity and Metabolic Disorders, the International Diabetes Federation, and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence of the United Kingdom, have supported the option of bariatric surgery in class 1 obese individuals with metabolic disorders.

While lifestyle modifications with medications should be the first-line treatment for class 1 obesity, as a primary care physician I believe that, given the major changes in the surgical options, the proven long-term benefits, and the rising incidences of obesity and metabolic syndrome, it is time for the health care community, insurers, patients, and all other stakeholders to consider bariatric surgery in class 1 obese individuals as a potential and viable option.

Noel N. Deep, MD, is a general internist in a multispecialty group practice with Aspirus Antigo (Wis.) Clinic and the chief medical officer and a staff physician at Aspirus Langlade Hospital in Antigo. He is also assistant clinical professor at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Central Wisconsin Campus, Wausau, and the governor of the Wisconsin chapter of the American College of Physicians. Dr. Deep serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News.

He made these comments in response to questions from MDedge and had no relevant disclosures.

Mitchel L. Zoler’s article on Abstract A105, presented at Obesity Week 2019, addresses an important health concern and is timely.

Over the past 4 decades we have seen a rise in the prevalence of obesity and associated health complications, not just in the United States but across the world. The incidence of obesity (having a BMI greater than 30) was 35% for women and 31% for men in the United States, and associated deaths and disability were primarily attributed to diabetes and cardiovascular disease resulting from obesity.

This article references the benefits of bariatric/metabolic surgery in individuals with class 1 obesity. In the United States, more than half of those who meet the criteria for obesity come under the class 1 category (BMI, 30-34.9). Those in this class of obesity are at increased risk of developing diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, coronary artery disease, cerebrovascular disease, obstructive sleep apnea, polycystic ovarian syndrome, and bone and joint disorders.

There are several studies that document the significant reduction in incidence of the above cardiometabolic risks with sustained weight loss. Nonsurgical interventions in individuals with class 1 obesity through lifestyle modifications and pharmacotherapy have not demonstrated success in providing persistent weight loss or metabolic benefits. The data presented in this article are of great significance to patients and physicians alike as they highlight the long-term benefits and reversal of metabolic disorders.

Current guidelines for bariatric surgery for individuals with a BMI greater than 35 were published in 1991. Since then several safe surgical options including laparoscopic procedures, sleeve gastrectomy, and adjustable gastric banding have been developed with decreased surgical risks, morbidity, and mortality.

The International Federation for the Surgery of Obesity and Metabolic Disorders, the International Diabetes Federation, and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence of the United Kingdom, have supported the option of bariatric surgery in class 1 obese individuals with metabolic disorders.

While lifestyle modifications with medications should be the first-line treatment for class 1 obesity, as a primary care physician I believe that, given the major changes in the surgical options, the proven long-term benefits, and the rising incidences of obesity and metabolic syndrome, it is time for the health care community, insurers, patients, and all other stakeholders to consider bariatric surgery in class 1 obese individuals as a potential and viable option.

Noel N. Deep, MD, is a general internist in a multispecialty group practice with Aspirus Antigo (Wis.) Clinic and the chief medical officer and a staff physician at Aspirus Langlade Hospital in Antigo. He is also assistant clinical professor at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Central Wisconsin Campus, Wausau, and the governor of the Wisconsin chapter of the American College of Physicians. Dr. Deep serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News.

He made these comments in response to questions from MDedge and had no relevant disclosures.

Preterm birth (PTB) remains a significant public health concern and a major cause of newborn morbidity and mortality. In the United States, 1 in 10 babies are born preterm (< 37 weeks), and this rate has changed little in 30 years.¹ 

In 2011, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved progesterone supplementation—specifically, α-hydroxyprogesterone caproate (17P) injection (Makena)—to prevent recurrent PTB in women with a singleton pregnancy at high risk by virtue of a prior spontaneous PTB.² This was the first-ever FDA-approved drug for PTB prevention, and it was the first drug approved by the FDA for use in pregnancy in more than 15 years. The approval of 17P utilized the FDA's Subpart H Accelerated Approval Pathway, which applies to therapies that: 1) treat serious conditions with unmet need, and 2) demonstrate safety and efficacy on surrogate end points reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit.³ 

By voting their approval of 17P in 2011, the FDA affirmed that PTB was a serious condition with unmet need, that birth < 37 weeks was an accepted surrogate end point, and that there was compelling evidence of safety and benefit. The compelling evidence presented was a single, randomized, vehicle-controlled clinical trial conducted by the Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units (MFMU) Network, which showed significant reduction in recurrent PTB < 37 weeks (from 54.9% in the placebo group to 36.3% in the 17P group; P<.001; relative risk [RR], 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.54-0.81).⁴ 

In 2017, the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM) reaffirmed the use of 17P to prevent recurrent PTB and, that same year, it was estimated that 75% of eligible patients received 17P.^5,6 Importantly, Subpart H approval requires one or more follow-up clinical trials confirming safety and efficacy. And the FDA has the right—the responsibility—to revisit approval if such trials are either not performed or are unfavorable. 

The recently published PROLONG study by Blackwell and colleagues is this required postapproval confirmatory trial conducted to verify the clinical benefit of 17P supplementation.⁷ 

Continue to: Study design, and stunning results...

Study design, and stunning results 

PROLONG (Progestin's Role in Optimizing Neonatal Gestation) was a randomized (2:1), double-blind, vehicle-controlled, multicenter international trial (2009-2018) conducted to assess the safety and efficacy of 17P injection in 1,708 women with a singleton pregnancy and one or more prior spontaneous PTBs.⁷ Women in the active treatment group (n = 1,130) received weekly intramuscular injections of 17P, while those in the control group (n = 578) received weekly injections of inert oil vehicle. 

Results of the trial showed no significant reduction in the co-primary end points, which were PTB < 35 weeks (11.0% in the 17P group vs 11.5% in the placebo group; RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.71-1.26) and neonatal morbidity index (5.6% in the 17P group vs 5.0% in the placebo group; RR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.68-1.61). There was no evidence of benefit for any subpopulation (geographic region, race, or other PTB risk factor). Maternal outcomes also were similar between the groups. No significant safety concerns were identified. 

Important differences between MFMU and PROLONG trials 

Strengths of the PROLONG trial include its randomized, placebo-controlled design, excellent follow-up rate, and use of a protocol that mirrored that of the MFMU trial. The primary limitation of PROLONG is that participants experienced a lower rate of PTB compared with those in the MFMU trial. The rate of PTB < 37 weeks was 54.9% in the control group of the MFMU trial compared with 21.9% in PROLONG. 

Given the low rate of PTB in PROLONG, the study was underpowered for the co-primary outcomes. In addition, lower rates of PTB in PROLONG compared with in the MFMU trial likely reflected different patient populations.⁸ Moreover, PROLONG was an international trial. Of the 1,708 participants, most were recruited in Russia (36%) and Ukraine (25%); only 23% were from the United States. By contrast, participants in the MFMU trial were recruited from US academic medical centers. Also, participants in the MFMU trial were significantly more likely to have a short cervix, to have a history of more than one PTB, and to be African American.

Discrepant trial results create clinical quandary 

In October 2019, the FDA's Bone, Reproductive and Urologic Drugs Advisory Committee voted 9-7 to withdraw approval for 17P. Committee members struggled with the conflicting data between the 2 trials and hesitated to remove a medication whose use has become standard practice. Ultimately, however, it was lack of substantial evidence of effectiveness of 17P that swayed the committee's vote. While the FDA generally follows the recommendation of an advisory committee, it is not bound to do so. 

Societies' perspectives 

So what are physicians and patients to do? It is possible that a small subgroup of women at extremely high risk for early PTB may benefit from 17P administration. SMFM stated: "...it is reasonable for providers to use 17-OHPC [17P] in women with a profile more representative of the very high-risk population reported in the Meis [MFMU] trial."⁸ Further, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) stated in a Practice Advisory dated October 25, 2019, that "ACOG is not changing our clinical recommendations at this time... [We] will be reviewing subsequent forthcoming analyses and will issue updated clinical guidance as appropriate."⁹ 

Where we stand on 17P use going forward 

17P should be available to women who previously may have benefited from its use. However, 17P should not be recommended routinely to prevent recurrent spontaneous PTB in women with one prior PTB and no other risk factors. Of note, the PROLONG trial does not change recommendations for cervical length screening. Women with a history of a prior spontaneous PTB should undergo cervical length screening to identify those individuals who may benefit from an ultrasound-indicated cerclage.  

Preterm birth (PTB) remains a significant public health concern and a major cause of newborn morbidity and mortality. In the United States, 1 in 10 babies are born preterm (< 37 weeks), and this rate has changed little in 30 years.¹ 

In 2011, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved progesterone supplementation—specifically, α-hydroxyprogesterone caproate (17P) injection (Makena)—to prevent recurrent PTB in women with a singleton pregnancy at high risk by virtue of a prior spontaneous PTB.² This was the first-ever FDA-approved drug for PTB prevention, and it was the first drug approved by the FDA for use in pregnancy in more than 15 years. The approval of 17P utilized the FDA's Subpart H Accelerated Approval Pathway, which applies to therapies that: 1) treat serious conditions with unmet need, and 2) demonstrate safety and efficacy on surrogate end points reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit.³ 

By voting their approval of 17P in 2011, the FDA affirmed that PTB was a serious condition with unmet need, that birth < 37 weeks was an accepted surrogate end point, and that there was compelling evidence of safety and benefit. The compelling evidence presented was a single, randomized, vehicle-controlled clinical trial conducted by the Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units (MFMU) Network, which showed significant reduction in recurrent PTB < 37 weeks (from 54.9% in the placebo group to 36.3% in the 17P group; P<.001; relative risk [RR], 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.54-0.81).⁴ 

In 2017, the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM) reaffirmed the use of 17P to prevent recurrent PTB and, that same year, it was estimated that 75% of eligible patients received 17P.^5,6 Importantly, Subpart H approval requires one or more follow-up clinical trials confirming safety and efficacy. And the FDA has the right—the responsibility—to revisit approval if such trials are either not performed or are unfavorable. 

The recently published PROLONG study by Blackwell and colleagues is this required postapproval confirmatory trial conducted to verify the clinical benefit of 17P supplementation.⁷ 

Continue to: Study design, and stunning results...

Study design, and stunning results 

PROLONG (Progestin's Role in Optimizing Neonatal Gestation) was a randomized (2:1), double-blind, vehicle-controlled, multicenter international trial (2009-2018) conducted to assess the safety and efficacy of 17P injection in 1,708 women with a singleton pregnancy and one or more prior spontaneous PTBs.⁷ Women in the active treatment group (n = 1,130) received weekly intramuscular injections of 17P, while those in the control group (n = 578) received weekly injections of inert oil vehicle. 

Results of the trial showed no significant reduction in the co-primary end points, which were PTB < 35 weeks (11.0% in the 17P group vs 11.5% in the placebo group; RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.71-1.26) and neonatal morbidity index (5.6% in the 17P group vs 5.0% in the placebo group; RR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.68-1.61). There was no evidence of benefit for any subpopulation (geographic region, race, or other PTB risk factor). Maternal outcomes also were similar between the groups. No significant safety concerns were identified. 

Important differences between MFMU and PROLONG trials 

Strengths of the PROLONG trial include its randomized, placebo-controlled design, excellent follow-up rate, and use of a protocol that mirrored that of the MFMU trial. The primary limitation of PROLONG is that participants experienced a lower rate of PTB compared with those in the MFMU trial. The rate of PTB < 37 weeks was 54.9% in the control group of the MFMU trial compared with 21.9% in PROLONG. 

Given the low rate of PTB in PROLONG, the study was underpowered for the co-primary outcomes. In addition, lower rates of PTB in PROLONG compared with in the MFMU trial likely reflected different patient populations.⁸ Moreover, PROLONG was an international trial. Of the 1,708 participants, most were recruited in Russia (36%) and Ukraine (25%); only 23% were from the United States. By contrast, participants in the MFMU trial were recruited from US academic medical centers. Also, participants in the MFMU trial were significantly more likely to have a short cervix, to have a history of more than one PTB, and to be African American.

Discrepant trial results create clinical quandary 

In October 2019, the FDA's Bone, Reproductive and Urologic Drugs Advisory Committee voted 9-7 to withdraw approval for 17P. Committee members struggled with the conflicting data between the 2 trials and hesitated to remove a medication whose use has become standard practice. Ultimately, however, it was lack of substantial evidence of effectiveness of 17P that swayed the committee's vote. While the FDA generally follows the recommendation of an advisory committee, it is not bound to do so. 

Societies' perspectives 

So what are physicians and patients to do? It is possible that a small subgroup of women at extremely high risk for early PTB may benefit from 17P administration. SMFM stated: "...it is reasonable for providers to use 17-OHPC [17P] in women with a profile more representative of the very high-risk population reported in the Meis [MFMU] trial."⁸ Further, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) stated in a Practice Advisory dated October 25, 2019, that "ACOG is not changing our clinical recommendations at this time... [We] will be reviewing subsequent forthcoming analyses and will issue updated clinical guidance as appropriate."⁹ 

Where we stand on 17P use going forward 

17P should be available to women who previously may have benefited from its use. However, 17P should not be recommended routinely to prevent recurrent spontaneous PTB in women with one prior PTB and no other risk factors. Of note, the PROLONG trial does not change recommendations for cervical length screening. Women with a history of a prior spontaneous PTB should undergo cervical length screening to identify those individuals who may benefit from an ultrasound-indicated cerclage.  

Preterm birth (PTB) remains a significant public health concern and a major cause of newborn morbidity and mortality. In the United States, 1 in 10 babies are born preterm (< 37 weeks), and this rate has changed little in 30 years.¹ 

In 2011, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved progesterone supplementation—specifically, α-hydroxyprogesterone caproate (17P) injection (Makena)—to prevent recurrent PTB in women with a singleton pregnancy at high risk by virtue of a prior spontaneous PTB.² This was the first-ever FDA-approved drug for PTB prevention, and it was the first drug approved by the FDA for use in pregnancy in more than 15 years. The approval of 17P utilized the FDA's Subpart H Accelerated Approval Pathway, which applies to therapies that: 1) treat serious conditions with unmet need, and 2) demonstrate safety and efficacy on surrogate end points reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit.³ 

By voting their approval of 17P in 2011, the FDA affirmed that PTB was a serious condition with unmet need, that birth < 37 weeks was an accepted surrogate end point, and that there was compelling evidence of safety and benefit. The compelling evidence presented was a single, randomized, vehicle-controlled clinical trial conducted by the Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units (MFMU) Network, which showed significant reduction in recurrent PTB < 37 weeks (from 54.9% in the placebo group to 36.3% in the 17P group; P<.001; relative risk [RR], 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.54-0.81).⁴ 

In 2017, the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM) reaffirmed the use of 17P to prevent recurrent PTB and, that same year, it was estimated that 75% of eligible patients received 17P.^5,6 Importantly, Subpart H approval requires one or more follow-up clinical trials confirming safety and efficacy. And the FDA has the right—the responsibility—to revisit approval if such trials are either not performed or are unfavorable. 

The recently published PROLONG study by Blackwell and colleagues is this required postapproval confirmatory trial conducted to verify the clinical benefit of 17P supplementation.⁷ 

Continue to: Study design, and stunning results...

Study design, and stunning results 

PROLONG (Progestin's Role in Optimizing Neonatal Gestation) was a randomized (2:1), double-blind, vehicle-controlled, multicenter international trial (2009-2018) conducted to assess the safety and efficacy of 17P injection in 1,708 women with a singleton pregnancy and one or more prior spontaneous PTBs.⁷ Women in the active treatment group (n = 1,130) received weekly intramuscular injections of 17P, while those in the control group (n = 578) received weekly injections of inert oil vehicle. 

Results of the trial showed no significant reduction in the co-primary end points, which were PTB < 35 weeks (11.0% in the 17P group vs 11.5% in the placebo group; RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.71-1.26) and neonatal morbidity index (5.6% in the 17P group vs 5.0% in the placebo group; RR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.68-1.61). There was no evidence of benefit for any subpopulation (geographic region, race, or other PTB risk factor). Maternal outcomes also were similar between the groups. No significant safety concerns were identified. 

Important differences between MFMU and PROLONG trials 

Strengths of the PROLONG trial include its randomized, placebo-controlled design, excellent follow-up rate, and use of a protocol that mirrored that of the MFMU trial. The primary limitation of PROLONG is that participants experienced a lower rate of PTB compared with those in the MFMU trial. The rate of PTB < 37 weeks was 54.9% in the control group of the MFMU trial compared with 21.9% in PROLONG. 

Given the low rate of PTB in PROLONG, the study was underpowered for the co-primary outcomes. In addition, lower rates of PTB in PROLONG compared with in the MFMU trial likely reflected different patient populations.⁸ Moreover, PROLONG was an international trial. Of the 1,708 participants, most were recruited in Russia (36%) and Ukraine (25%); only 23% were from the United States. By contrast, participants in the MFMU trial were recruited from US academic medical centers. Also, participants in the MFMU trial were significantly more likely to have a short cervix, to have a history of more than one PTB, and to be African American.

Discrepant trial results create clinical quandary 

In October 2019, the FDA's Bone, Reproductive and Urologic Drugs Advisory Committee voted 9-7 to withdraw approval for 17P. Committee members struggled with the conflicting data between the 2 trials and hesitated to remove a medication whose use has become standard practice. Ultimately, however, it was lack of substantial evidence of effectiveness of 17P that swayed the committee's vote. While the FDA generally follows the recommendation of an advisory committee, it is not bound to do so. 

Societies' perspectives 

So what are physicians and patients to do? It is possible that a small subgroup of women at extremely high risk for early PTB may benefit from 17P administration. SMFM stated: "...it is reasonable for providers to use 17-OHPC [17P] in women with a profile more representative of the very high-risk population reported in the Meis [MFMU] trial."⁸ Further, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) stated in a Practice Advisory dated October 25, 2019, that "ACOG is not changing our clinical recommendations at this time... [We] will be reviewing subsequent forthcoming analyses and will issue updated clinical guidance as appropriate."⁹ 

Where we stand on 17P use going forward 

17P should be available to women who previously may have benefited from its use. However, 17P should not be recommended routinely to prevent recurrent spontaneous PTB in women with one prior PTB and no other risk factors. Of note, the PROLONG trial does not change recommendations for cervical length screening. Women with a history of a prior spontaneous PTB should undergo cervical length screening to identify those individuals who may benefit from an ultrasound-indicated cerclage.  

You have just safely delivered the baby who is quietly resting on her mother’s chest. You begin active management of the third stage of labor, administering oxytocin, performing uterine massage and applying controlled tension on the umbilical cord. There is no evidence of excess postpartum bleeding.

How long will you wait to deliver the placenta?

Active management of the third stage of labor

Most authorities recommend active management of the third stage of labor because active management reduces the risk of maternal hemorrhage >1,000 mL (relative risk [RR], 0.34), postpartum hemoglobin levels < 9 g/dL (RR, 0.50), and maternal blood transfusion (RR, 0.35) compared with expectant management.¹

The most important component of active management of the third stage of labor is the administration of a uterotonic after delivery of the newborn. In the United States, oxytocin is the uterotonic most often utilized for the active management of the third stage of labor. Authors of a recent randomized clinical trial reported that intravenous oxytocin is superior to intramuscular oxytocin for reducing postpartum blood loss (385 vs 445 mL), the frequency of blood loss greater than 1,000 mL (4.6% vs 8.1%), and the rate of maternal blood transfusion (1.5% vs 4.4%).²

In addition to administering oxytocin, the active management of the third stage often involves maneuvers to accelerate placental delivery, including the Crede and Brandt-Andrews maneuvers and controlled tension on the umbilical cord. The Crede maneuver, described in 1853, involves placing a hand on the abdominal wall near the uterine fundus and squeezing the uterine fundus between the thumb and fingers.^3,4

The Brandt-Andrews maneuver, described in 1933, involves placing a clamp on the umbilical cord close to the vulva.⁵ The clamp is used to apply judicious tension on the cord with one hand, while the other hand is placed on the mother’s abdomen with the palm and fingers overlying the junction between the uterine corpus and the lower segment. With judicious tension on the cord, the abdominal hand pushes the uterus upward toward the umbilicus. Placental separation is indicated when lengthening of the umbilical cord occurs. The Brandt-Andrews maneuver may be associated with fewer cases of uterine inversion than the Crede maneuver.^5-7

Of note, umbilical cord traction has not been demonstrated to reduce the need for blood transfusion or the incidence of postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) >1,000 mL, and it is commonly utilized by obstetricians and midwives.^8,9 Hence, in the third stage, the delivering clinician should routinely administer a uterotonic, but use of judicious tension on the cord can be deferred if the woman prefers a noninterventional approach to delivery.

Following a vaginal birth, when should the diagnosis of retained placenta be made?

The historic definition of retained placenta is nonexpulsion of the placenta 30 minutes after delivery of the newborn. However, many observational studies report that, when active management of the third stage is utilized, 90%, 95%, and 99% of placentas deliver by 9 minutes, 13 minutes, and 28 minutes, respectively.¹⁰ In addition, many observational studies report that the incidence of PPH increases significantly with longer intervals between birth of the newborn and delivery of the placenta. In one study the rate of blood loss >500 mL was 8.5% when the placenta delivered between 5 and 9 minutes and 35.1% when the placenta delivered ≥30 minutes following birth of the baby.¹⁰ In another observational study, compared with women delivering the placenta < 10 minutes after birth, women delivering the placenta ≥30 minutes after birth had a 3-fold increased risk of PPH.¹¹ Similar findings have been reported in other studies.^12-14

Continue to: Based on the association between a delay in delivery...

Based on the association between a delay in delivery of the placenta and an increased risk of PPH, some authorities recommend that, in term pregnancy, the diagnosis of retained placenta should be made at 20 minutes following birth and consideration should be given to removing the placenta at this time. For women with effective neuraxial anesthesia, manual removal of the placenta 20 minutes following birth may be the best decision for balancing the benefit of preventing PPH with the risk of unnecessary intervention. For women with no anesthesia, delaying manual removal of the placenta to 30 minutes or more following birth may permit more time for the placenta to deliver prior to performing an intervention that might cause pain, but the delay increases the risk of PPH.

Beware of placenta accreta spectrum disorder, and be ready to recognize and treat uterine inversion

---

The retained placenta may prevent the uterine muscle from effectively contracting around penetrating veins and arteries, thereby increasing the risk of postpartum hemorrhage. The placenta that has separated from the uterine wall but is trapped inside the uterine cavity can be removed easily with manual extraction. If the placenta is physiologically adherent to the uterine wall, a gentle sweeping motion with an intrauterine hand usually can separate the placenta from the uterus in preparation for manual extraction. However, if a placenta accreta spectrum disorder is contributing to a retained placenta, it may be difficult to separate the densely adherent portion of the uterus from the uterine wall. In the presence of placenta accreta spectrum disorder, vigorous attempts to remove the placenta may precipitate massive bleeding. In some cases, the acchoucheur/midwife may recognize the presence of a focal accreta and cease attempts to remove the placenta in order to organize the personnel and equipment needed to effectively treat a potential case of placenta accreta. In one study, when a placenta accreta was recognized or suspected, immediately ceasing attempts at manually removing the placenta resulted in better case outcomes than continued attempts to remove the placenta.¹

Uterine inversion may occur during an attempt to manually remove the placenta. There is universal agreement that once a uterine inversion is recognized it is critically important to immediately restore normal uterine anatomy to avoid massive hemorrhage and maternal shock. The initial management of uterine inversion includes:

• stopping oxytocin infusion
• initiating high volume fluid resuscitation
• considering a dose of a uterine relaxant, such as nitroglycerin or terbutaline
• preparing for blood product replacement.

In my experience, when uterine inversion is immediately recognized and successfully treated, blood product replacement is not usually necessary. However, if uterine inversion has not been immediately recognized or treated, massive hemorrhage and shock may occur.

Two approaches to the vaginal restoration of uterine anatomy involve using the tips of the fingers and palm of the hand to guide the wall of the uterus back to its normal position (FIGURE 1) or to forcefully use a fist to force the uterine wall back to its normal position (FIGURE 2). If these maneuvers are unsuccessful, a laparotomy may be necessary.

At laparotomy, the Huntington or Haultain procedures may help restore normal uterine anatomy. The Huntington procedure involves using clamps to apply symmetrical tension to the left and right round ligaments and/or uterine serosa to sequentially tease the uterus back to normal anatomy.^2,3 The Haultain procedure involves a vertical incision on the posterior wall of the uterus to release the uterine constriction ring that is preventing the return of the uterine fundus to its normal position (FIGURE 3).^4,5

References

1. Kayem G, Anselem O, Schmitz T, et al. Conservative versus radical management in cases of placenta accreta: a historical study. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 2007;36:680-687.
2. Huntington JL. Acute inversion of the uterus. Boston Med Surg J. 1921;184:376-378.
3. Huntington JL, Irving FC, Kellogg FS. Abdominal reposition in acute inversion of the puerperal uterus. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1928;15:34-40.
4. Haultain FW. Abdominal hysterotomy for chronic uterine inversion: a record of 3 cases. Proc Roy Soc Med. 1908;1:528-535.
5. Easterday CL, Reid DE. Inversion of the puerperal uterus managed by the Haultain technique; A case report. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1959;78:1224-1226.

Manual extraction of the placenta

Prior to performing manual extraction of the placenta, a decision should be made regarding the approach to anesthesia and perioperative antibiotics. Manual extraction of the placenta is performed by placing one hand on the uterine fundus to stabilize the uterus and using the other hand to follow the umbilical cord into the uterine cavity. The intrauterine hand is used to separate the uterine-placental interface with a gentle sweeping motion. The placental mass is grasped and gently teased through the cervix and vagina. Inspection of the placenta to ensure complete removal is necessary.

An alternative to manual extraction of the placenta is the use of Bierer forceps and ultrasound guidance to tease the placenta through the cervical os. This technique involves the following steps¹⁵:

1. use ultrasound to locate the placenta

2. place a ring forceps on the anterior lip of the cervix

3. introduce the Bierer forcep into the uterus

4. use the forceps to grasp the placenta and pull it toward the vagina

5. stop frequently to re-grasp placental tissue that is deeper in the uterine cavity

6. once the placenta is extracted, examine the placenta to ensure complete removal.

Of note when manual extraction is used to deliver a retained placenta, randomized clinical trials report no benefit for the following interventions:

• perioperative antibiotics¹⁶
• nitroglycerin to relax the uterus¹⁷
• ultrasound to detect retained placental tissue.¹⁸

Best timing for manual extraction of the placenta

The timing for the diagnosis of retained placenta, and the risks and benefits of manual extraction would be best evaluated in a large, randomized clinical trial. However, based on observational studies, in a term pregnancy, the diagnosis of retained placenta is best made using a 20-minute interval. In women with effective neuraxial anesthesia, consideration should be given to manual removal of the placenta at that time.

You have just safely delivered the baby who is quietly resting on her mother’s chest. You begin active management of the third stage of labor, administering oxytocin, performing uterine massage and applying controlled tension on the umbilical cord. There is no evidence of excess postpartum bleeding.

How long will you wait to deliver the placenta?

Active management of the third stage of labor

Most authorities recommend active management of the third stage of labor because active management reduces the risk of maternal hemorrhage >1,000 mL (relative risk [RR], 0.34), postpartum hemoglobin levels < 9 g/dL (RR, 0.50), and maternal blood transfusion (RR, 0.35) compared with expectant management.¹

The most important component of active management of the third stage of labor is the administration of a uterotonic after delivery of the newborn. In the United States, oxytocin is the uterotonic most often utilized for the active management of the third stage of labor. Authors of a recent randomized clinical trial reported that intravenous oxytocin is superior to intramuscular oxytocin for reducing postpartum blood loss (385 vs 445 mL), the frequency of blood loss greater than 1,000 mL (4.6% vs 8.1%), and the rate of maternal blood transfusion (1.5% vs 4.4%).²

In addition to administering oxytocin, the active management of the third stage often involves maneuvers to accelerate placental delivery, including the Crede and Brandt-Andrews maneuvers and controlled tension on the umbilical cord. The Crede maneuver, described in 1853, involves placing a hand on the abdominal wall near the uterine fundus and squeezing the uterine fundus between the thumb and fingers.^3,4

The Brandt-Andrews maneuver, described in 1933, involves placing a clamp on the umbilical cord close to the vulva.⁵ The clamp is used to apply judicious tension on the cord with one hand, while the other hand is placed on the mother’s abdomen with the palm and fingers overlying the junction between the uterine corpus and the lower segment. With judicious tension on the cord, the abdominal hand pushes the uterus upward toward the umbilicus. Placental separation is indicated when lengthening of the umbilical cord occurs. The Brandt-Andrews maneuver may be associated with fewer cases of uterine inversion than the Crede maneuver.^5-7

Of note, umbilical cord traction has not been demonstrated to reduce the need for blood transfusion or the incidence of postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) >1,000 mL, and it is commonly utilized by obstetricians and midwives.^8,9 Hence, in the third stage, the delivering clinician should routinely administer a uterotonic, but use of judicious tension on the cord can be deferred if the woman prefers a noninterventional approach to delivery.

Following a vaginal birth, when should the diagnosis of retained placenta be made?

The historic definition of retained placenta is nonexpulsion of the placenta 30 minutes after delivery of the newborn. However, many observational studies report that, when active management of the third stage is utilized, 90%, 95%, and 99% of placentas deliver by 9 minutes, 13 minutes, and 28 minutes, respectively.¹⁰ In addition, many observational studies report that the incidence of PPH increases significantly with longer intervals between birth of the newborn and delivery of the placenta. In one study the rate of blood loss >500 mL was 8.5% when the placenta delivered between 5 and 9 minutes and 35.1% when the placenta delivered ≥30 minutes following birth of the baby.¹⁰ In another observational study, compared with women delivering the placenta < 10 minutes after birth, women delivering the placenta ≥30 minutes after birth had a 3-fold increased risk of PPH.¹¹ Similar findings have been reported in other studies.^12-14

Continue to: Based on the association between a delay in delivery...

Based on the association between a delay in delivery of the placenta and an increased risk of PPH, some authorities recommend that, in term pregnancy, the diagnosis of retained placenta should be made at 20 minutes following birth and consideration should be given to removing the placenta at this time. For women with effective neuraxial anesthesia, manual removal of the placenta 20 minutes following birth may be the best decision for balancing the benefit of preventing PPH with the risk of unnecessary intervention. For women with no anesthesia, delaying manual removal of the placenta to 30 minutes or more following birth may permit more time for the placenta to deliver prior to performing an intervention that might cause pain, but the delay increases the risk of PPH.

Beware of placenta accreta spectrum disorder, and be ready to recognize and treat uterine inversion

---

The retained placenta may prevent the uterine muscle from effectively contracting around penetrating veins and arteries, thereby increasing the risk of postpartum hemorrhage. The placenta that has separated from the uterine wall but is trapped inside the uterine cavity can be removed easily with manual extraction. If the placenta is physiologically adherent to the uterine wall, a gentle sweeping motion with an intrauterine hand usually can separate the placenta from the uterus in preparation for manual extraction. However, if a placenta accreta spectrum disorder is contributing to a retained placenta, it may be difficult to separate the densely adherent portion of the uterus from the uterine wall. In the presence of placenta accreta spectrum disorder, vigorous attempts to remove the placenta may precipitate massive bleeding. In some cases, the acchoucheur/midwife may recognize the presence of a focal accreta and cease attempts to remove the placenta in order to organize the personnel and equipment needed to effectively treat a potential case of placenta accreta. In one study, when a placenta accreta was recognized or suspected, immediately ceasing attempts at manually removing the placenta resulted in better case outcomes than continued attempts to remove the placenta.¹

Uterine inversion may occur during an attempt to manually remove the placenta. There is universal agreement that once a uterine inversion is recognized it is critically important to immediately restore normal uterine anatomy to avoid massive hemorrhage and maternal shock. The initial management of uterine inversion includes:

• stopping oxytocin infusion
• initiating high volume fluid resuscitation
• considering a dose of a uterine relaxant, such as nitroglycerin or terbutaline
• preparing for blood product replacement.

In my experience, when uterine inversion is immediately recognized and successfully treated, blood product replacement is not usually necessary. However, if uterine inversion has not been immediately recognized or treated, massive hemorrhage and shock may occur.

Two approaches to the vaginal restoration of uterine anatomy involve using the tips of the fingers and palm of the hand to guide the wall of the uterus back to its normal position (FIGURE 1) or to forcefully use a fist to force the uterine wall back to its normal position (FIGURE 2). If these maneuvers are unsuccessful, a laparotomy may be necessary.

At laparotomy, the Huntington or Haultain procedures may help restore normal uterine anatomy. The Huntington procedure involves using clamps to apply symmetrical tension to the left and right round ligaments and/or uterine serosa to sequentially tease the uterus back to normal anatomy.^2,3 The Haultain procedure involves a vertical incision on the posterior wall of the uterus to release the uterine constriction ring that is preventing the return of the uterine fundus to its normal position (FIGURE 3).^4,5

References

1. Kayem G, Anselem O, Schmitz T, et al. Conservative versus radical management in cases of placenta accreta: a historical study. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 2007;36:680-687.
2. Huntington JL. Acute inversion of the uterus. Boston Med Surg J. 1921;184:376-378.
3. Huntington JL, Irving FC, Kellogg FS. Abdominal reposition in acute inversion of the puerperal uterus. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1928;15:34-40.
4. Haultain FW. Abdominal hysterotomy for chronic uterine inversion: a record of 3 cases. Proc Roy Soc Med. 1908;1:528-535.
5. Easterday CL, Reid DE. Inversion of the puerperal uterus managed by the Haultain technique; A case report. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1959;78:1224-1226.

Manual extraction of the placenta

Prior to performing manual extraction of the placenta, a decision should be made regarding the approach to anesthesia and perioperative antibiotics. Manual extraction of the placenta is performed by placing one hand on the uterine fundus to stabilize the uterus and using the other hand to follow the umbilical cord into the uterine cavity. The intrauterine hand is used to separate the uterine-placental interface with a gentle sweeping motion. The placental mass is grasped and gently teased through the cervix and vagina. Inspection of the placenta to ensure complete removal is necessary.

An alternative to manual extraction of the placenta is the use of Bierer forceps and ultrasound guidance to tease the placenta through the cervical os. This technique involves the following steps¹⁵:

1. use ultrasound to locate the placenta

2. place a ring forceps on the anterior lip of the cervix

3. introduce the Bierer forcep into the uterus

4. use the forceps to grasp the placenta and pull it toward the vagina

5. stop frequently to re-grasp placental tissue that is deeper in the uterine cavity

6. once the placenta is extracted, examine the placenta to ensure complete removal.

Of note when manual extraction is used to deliver a retained placenta, randomized clinical trials report no benefit for the following interventions:

• perioperative antibiotics¹⁶
• nitroglycerin to relax the uterus¹⁷
• ultrasound to detect retained placental tissue.¹⁸

Best timing for manual extraction of the placenta

The timing for the diagnosis of retained placenta, and the risks and benefits of manual extraction would be best evaluated in a large, randomized clinical trial. However, based on observational studies, in a term pregnancy, the diagnosis of retained placenta is best made using a 20-minute interval. In women with effective neuraxial anesthesia, consideration should be given to manual removal of the placenta at that time.

You have just safely delivered the baby who is quietly resting on her mother’s chest. You begin active management of the third stage of labor, administering oxytocin, performing uterine massage and applying controlled tension on the umbilical cord. There is no evidence of excess postpartum bleeding.

How long will you wait to deliver the placenta?

Active management of the third stage of labor

Most authorities recommend active management of the third stage of labor because active management reduces the risk of maternal hemorrhage >1,000 mL (relative risk [RR], 0.34), postpartum hemoglobin levels < 9 g/dL (RR, 0.50), and maternal blood transfusion (RR, 0.35) compared with expectant management.¹

The most important component of active management of the third stage of labor is the administration of a uterotonic after delivery of the newborn. In the United States, oxytocin is the uterotonic most often utilized for the active management of the third stage of labor. Authors of a recent randomized clinical trial reported that intravenous oxytocin is superior to intramuscular oxytocin for reducing postpartum blood loss (385 vs 445 mL), the frequency of blood loss greater than 1,000 mL (4.6% vs 8.1%), and the rate of maternal blood transfusion (1.5% vs 4.4%).²

In addition to administering oxytocin, the active management of the third stage often involves maneuvers to accelerate placental delivery, including the Crede and Brandt-Andrews maneuvers and controlled tension on the umbilical cord. The Crede maneuver, described in 1853, involves placing a hand on the abdominal wall near the uterine fundus and squeezing the uterine fundus between the thumb and fingers.^3,4

The Brandt-Andrews maneuver, described in 1933, involves placing a clamp on the umbilical cord close to the vulva.⁵ The clamp is used to apply judicious tension on the cord with one hand, while the other hand is placed on the mother’s abdomen with the palm and fingers overlying the junction between the uterine corpus and the lower segment. With judicious tension on the cord, the abdominal hand pushes the uterus upward toward the umbilicus. Placental separation is indicated when lengthening of the umbilical cord occurs. The Brandt-Andrews maneuver may be associated with fewer cases of uterine inversion than the Crede maneuver.^5-7

Of note, umbilical cord traction has not been demonstrated to reduce the need for blood transfusion or the incidence of postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) >1,000 mL, and it is commonly utilized by obstetricians and midwives.^8,9 Hence, in the third stage, the delivering clinician should routinely administer a uterotonic, but use of judicious tension on the cord can be deferred if the woman prefers a noninterventional approach to delivery.

Following a vaginal birth, when should the diagnosis of retained placenta be made?

The historic definition of retained placenta is nonexpulsion of the placenta 30 minutes after delivery of the newborn. However, many observational studies report that, when active management of the third stage is utilized, 90%, 95%, and 99% of placentas deliver by 9 minutes, 13 minutes, and 28 minutes, respectively.¹⁰ In addition, many observational studies report that the incidence of PPH increases significantly with longer intervals between birth of the newborn and delivery of the placenta. In one study the rate of blood loss >500 mL was 8.5% when the placenta delivered between 5 and 9 minutes and 35.1% when the placenta delivered ≥30 minutes following birth of the baby.¹⁰ In another observational study, compared with women delivering the placenta < 10 minutes after birth, women delivering the placenta ≥30 minutes after birth had a 3-fold increased risk of PPH.¹¹ Similar findings have been reported in other studies.^12-14

Continue to: Based on the association between a delay in delivery...

Based on the association between a delay in delivery of the placenta and an increased risk of PPH, some authorities recommend that, in term pregnancy, the diagnosis of retained placenta should be made at 20 minutes following birth and consideration should be given to removing the placenta at this time. For women with effective neuraxial anesthesia, manual removal of the placenta 20 minutes following birth may be the best decision for balancing the benefit of preventing PPH with the risk of unnecessary intervention. For women with no anesthesia, delaying manual removal of the placenta to 30 minutes or more following birth may permit more time for the placenta to deliver prior to performing an intervention that might cause pain, but the delay increases the risk of PPH.

Beware of placenta accreta spectrum disorder, and be ready to recognize and treat uterine inversion

---

The retained placenta may prevent the uterine muscle from effectively contracting around penetrating veins and arteries, thereby increasing the risk of postpartum hemorrhage. The placenta that has separated from the uterine wall but is trapped inside the uterine cavity can be removed easily with manual extraction. If the placenta is physiologically adherent to the uterine wall, a gentle sweeping motion with an intrauterine hand usually can separate the placenta from the uterus in preparation for manual extraction. However, if a placenta accreta spectrum disorder is contributing to a retained placenta, it may be difficult to separate the densely adherent portion of the uterus from the uterine wall. In the presence of placenta accreta spectrum disorder, vigorous attempts to remove the placenta may precipitate massive bleeding. In some cases, the acchoucheur/midwife may recognize the presence of a focal accreta and cease attempts to remove the placenta in order to organize the personnel and equipment needed to effectively treat a potential case of placenta accreta. In one study, when a placenta accreta was recognized or suspected, immediately ceasing attempts at manually removing the placenta resulted in better case outcomes than continued attempts to remove the placenta.¹

Uterine inversion may occur during an attempt to manually remove the placenta. There is universal agreement that once a uterine inversion is recognized it is critically important to immediately restore normal uterine anatomy to avoid massive hemorrhage and maternal shock. The initial management of uterine inversion includes:

• stopping oxytocin infusion
• initiating high volume fluid resuscitation
• considering a dose of a uterine relaxant, such as nitroglycerin or terbutaline
• preparing for blood product replacement.

In my experience, when uterine inversion is immediately recognized and successfully treated, blood product replacement is not usually necessary. However, if uterine inversion has not been immediately recognized or treated, massive hemorrhage and shock may occur.

Two approaches to the vaginal restoration of uterine anatomy involve using the tips of the fingers and palm of the hand to guide the wall of the uterus back to its normal position (FIGURE 1) or to forcefully use a fist to force the uterine wall back to its normal position (FIGURE 2). If these maneuvers are unsuccessful, a laparotomy may be necessary.

At laparotomy, the Huntington or Haultain procedures may help restore normal uterine anatomy. The Huntington procedure involves using clamps to apply symmetrical tension to the left and right round ligaments and/or uterine serosa to sequentially tease the uterus back to normal anatomy.^2,3 The Haultain procedure involves a vertical incision on the posterior wall of the uterus to release the uterine constriction ring that is preventing the return of the uterine fundus to its normal position (FIGURE 3).^4,5

References

1. Kayem G, Anselem O, Schmitz T, et al. Conservative versus radical management in cases of placenta accreta: a historical study. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 2007;36:680-687.
2. Huntington JL. Acute inversion of the uterus. Boston Med Surg J. 1921;184:376-378.
3. Huntington JL, Irving FC, Kellogg FS. Abdominal reposition in acute inversion of the puerperal uterus. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1928;15:34-40.
4. Haultain FW. Abdominal hysterotomy for chronic uterine inversion: a record of 3 cases. Proc Roy Soc Med. 1908;1:528-535.
5. Easterday CL, Reid DE. Inversion of the puerperal uterus managed by the Haultain technique; A case report. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1959;78:1224-1226.

Manual extraction of the placenta

Prior to performing manual extraction of the placenta, a decision should be made regarding the approach to anesthesia and perioperative antibiotics. Manual extraction of the placenta is performed by placing one hand on the uterine fundus to stabilize the uterus and using the other hand to follow the umbilical cord into the uterine cavity. The intrauterine hand is used to separate the uterine-placental interface with a gentle sweeping motion. The placental mass is grasped and gently teased through the cervix and vagina. Inspection of the placenta to ensure complete removal is necessary.

An alternative to manual extraction of the placenta is the use of Bierer forceps and ultrasound guidance to tease the placenta through the cervical os. This technique involves the following steps¹⁵:

1. use ultrasound to locate the placenta

2. place a ring forceps on the anterior lip of the cervix

3. introduce the Bierer forcep into the uterus

4. use the forceps to grasp the placenta and pull it toward the vagina

5. stop frequently to re-grasp placental tissue that is deeper in the uterine cavity

6. once the placenta is extracted, examine the placenta to ensure complete removal.

Of note when manual extraction is used to deliver a retained placenta, randomized clinical trials report no benefit for the following interventions:

• perioperative antibiotics¹⁶
• nitroglycerin to relax the uterus¹⁷
• ultrasound to detect retained placental tissue.¹⁸

Best timing for manual extraction of the placenta

The timing for the diagnosis of retained placenta, and the risks and benefits of manual extraction would be best evaluated in a large, randomized clinical trial. However, based on observational studies, in a term pregnancy, the diagnosis of retained placenta is best made using a 20-minute interval. In women with effective neuraxial anesthesia, consideration should be given to manual removal of the placenta at that time.