User login
Why Don’t Physicians Call In Sick?
I began practicing medicine on July 1, 1981. In the 43-plus years since then,
There are several reasons, both good and bad, why this is so: (1) like most physicians, I am a terrible patient; (2) as a solo practitioner, there was (until recently — I’ll get to that in a minute) no one else to see an office full of patients who had waited significant amounts of time for their appointments and in many cases had taken off work themselves to keep them; and (3) there is an unspoken rule against it. Taking sick days is highly frowned upon in the medical world. As a medical student, intern, and resident I was told in so many words not to call in sick, no matter how serious the illness might be.
Apparently, I was not the only doctor-in-training to receive that message. In a survey reported in JAMA Pediatrics several years ago, 95% of the physicians and advanced practice clinicians (APCs) surveyed believed that working while sick put patients at risk — yet 83% reported working sick at least one time over the prior year. They understood the risks, but did it anyway.
There is no question that this practice does put patients’ health at risk. The JAMA study linked numerous reports of outbreaks traceable to symptomatic healthcare workers. Some outbreaks of flu, staph infections, norovirus, and pertussis were shown to originate from a sick physician or supporting staff member. These associations have led to increased morbidity and mortality, as well as excess costs. Those of us who treat immunocompromised patients on a regular basis risk inducing a life-threatening illness by unnecessarily exposing them to pathogens.
The JAMA survey results also confirmed my own observation that many physicians feel boxed in by their institutions or practice situations. “The study illustrates the complex social and logistic factors that cause this behavior,” the authors wrote. “These results may inform efforts to design systems at our hospital to provide support for attending physicians and APCs and help them make the right choice to keep their patients and colleagues safe while caring for themselves.”
What might those efforts look like? For one thing, we can take the obvious and necessary steps to avoid getting sick in the first place, such as staying fit and hydrated, and eating well. We can keep up with routine health visits and measures such as colorectal screening, pap smears, and mammograms, and stay up to date with flu shots and all other essential immunizations.
Next, we can minimize the risk of spreading any illnesses we encounter in the course of our work by practicing the basic infectious disease prevention measures driven home so forcefully by the recent COVID-19 pandemic — washing our hands, using hand sanitizers, and, when appropriate, wearing gloves and masks.
Finally, we can work to overcome this institutional taboo against staying home when we do get sick. Work out a system of mutual coverage for such situations. Two years ago, I merged my solo practice with a local, larger group. I did it for a variety of reasons, but a principal one was to assure that a partner could cover for me if I became ill. Practitioners who choose to remain solo or in small groups should contact colleagues and work out a coverage agreement.
Now, during flu season, it is especially important to resist the temptation to work while sick. The CDC has guidelines for employees specific for the flu, which notes that “persons with the flu are most contagious during the first 3 days of their illness,” and should remain at home until at least 24 hours after their fever subsides (without the use of fever-reducing medications) or after symptoms have improved (at least 4-5 days after they started) — or, if they do not have a fever, after symptoms improve “for at least 4-5 days after the onset of symptoms.”
Of course, we need to remember that COVID-19 is still with us. With the constant evolution of new strains, it is especially important to avoid exposing patients and colleagues to the disease should you become infected. The most recent advice from the CDC includes the recommendation that those who are mildly ill and not moderately or severely immunocompromised should isolate after SARS-CoV-2 infection for at least 5 days after symptom onset (day 0 is the day symptoms appeared, and day 1 is the next full day thereafter) if fever has resolved for at least 24 hours (without taking fever-reducing medications) and other symptoms are improving. In addition, “a high-quality mask should be worn around others at home and in public through day 10.”
We should also extend these rules to our support staff, starting with providing them with adequate sick leave and encouraging them to use it when necessary. Research has found a direct correlation between preventative health care and the number of paid sick leave days a worker gets. In a study of over 3000 US workers, those with 10 paid sick days or more annually accessed preventative care more frequently than those without paid sick days.
Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].
I began practicing medicine on July 1, 1981. In the 43-plus years since then,
There are several reasons, both good and bad, why this is so: (1) like most physicians, I am a terrible patient; (2) as a solo practitioner, there was (until recently — I’ll get to that in a minute) no one else to see an office full of patients who had waited significant amounts of time for their appointments and in many cases had taken off work themselves to keep them; and (3) there is an unspoken rule against it. Taking sick days is highly frowned upon in the medical world. As a medical student, intern, and resident I was told in so many words not to call in sick, no matter how serious the illness might be.
Apparently, I was not the only doctor-in-training to receive that message. In a survey reported in JAMA Pediatrics several years ago, 95% of the physicians and advanced practice clinicians (APCs) surveyed believed that working while sick put patients at risk — yet 83% reported working sick at least one time over the prior year. They understood the risks, but did it anyway.
There is no question that this practice does put patients’ health at risk. The JAMA study linked numerous reports of outbreaks traceable to symptomatic healthcare workers. Some outbreaks of flu, staph infections, norovirus, and pertussis were shown to originate from a sick physician or supporting staff member. These associations have led to increased morbidity and mortality, as well as excess costs. Those of us who treat immunocompromised patients on a regular basis risk inducing a life-threatening illness by unnecessarily exposing them to pathogens.
The JAMA survey results also confirmed my own observation that many physicians feel boxed in by their institutions or practice situations. “The study illustrates the complex social and logistic factors that cause this behavior,” the authors wrote. “These results may inform efforts to design systems at our hospital to provide support for attending physicians and APCs and help them make the right choice to keep their patients and colleagues safe while caring for themselves.”
What might those efforts look like? For one thing, we can take the obvious and necessary steps to avoid getting sick in the first place, such as staying fit and hydrated, and eating well. We can keep up with routine health visits and measures such as colorectal screening, pap smears, and mammograms, and stay up to date with flu shots and all other essential immunizations.
Next, we can minimize the risk of spreading any illnesses we encounter in the course of our work by practicing the basic infectious disease prevention measures driven home so forcefully by the recent COVID-19 pandemic — washing our hands, using hand sanitizers, and, when appropriate, wearing gloves and masks.
Finally, we can work to overcome this institutional taboo against staying home when we do get sick. Work out a system of mutual coverage for such situations. Two years ago, I merged my solo practice with a local, larger group. I did it for a variety of reasons, but a principal one was to assure that a partner could cover for me if I became ill. Practitioners who choose to remain solo or in small groups should contact colleagues and work out a coverage agreement.
Now, during flu season, it is especially important to resist the temptation to work while sick. The CDC has guidelines for employees specific for the flu, which notes that “persons with the flu are most contagious during the first 3 days of their illness,” and should remain at home until at least 24 hours after their fever subsides (without the use of fever-reducing medications) or after symptoms have improved (at least 4-5 days after they started) — or, if they do not have a fever, after symptoms improve “for at least 4-5 days after the onset of symptoms.”
Of course, we need to remember that COVID-19 is still with us. With the constant evolution of new strains, it is especially important to avoid exposing patients and colleagues to the disease should you become infected. The most recent advice from the CDC includes the recommendation that those who are mildly ill and not moderately or severely immunocompromised should isolate after SARS-CoV-2 infection for at least 5 days after symptom onset (day 0 is the day symptoms appeared, and day 1 is the next full day thereafter) if fever has resolved for at least 24 hours (without taking fever-reducing medications) and other symptoms are improving. In addition, “a high-quality mask should be worn around others at home and in public through day 10.”
We should also extend these rules to our support staff, starting with providing them with adequate sick leave and encouraging them to use it when necessary. Research has found a direct correlation between preventative health care and the number of paid sick leave days a worker gets. In a study of over 3000 US workers, those with 10 paid sick days or more annually accessed preventative care more frequently than those without paid sick days.
Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].
I began practicing medicine on July 1, 1981. In the 43-plus years since then,
There are several reasons, both good and bad, why this is so: (1) like most physicians, I am a terrible patient; (2) as a solo practitioner, there was (until recently — I’ll get to that in a minute) no one else to see an office full of patients who had waited significant amounts of time for their appointments and in many cases had taken off work themselves to keep them; and (3) there is an unspoken rule against it. Taking sick days is highly frowned upon in the medical world. As a medical student, intern, and resident I was told in so many words not to call in sick, no matter how serious the illness might be.
Apparently, I was not the only doctor-in-training to receive that message. In a survey reported in JAMA Pediatrics several years ago, 95% of the physicians and advanced practice clinicians (APCs) surveyed believed that working while sick put patients at risk — yet 83% reported working sick at least one time over the prior year. They understood the risks, but did it anyway.
There is no question that this practice does put patients’ health at risk. The JAMA study linked numerous reports of outbreaks traceable to symptomatic healthcare workers. Some outbreaks of flu, staph infections, norovirus, and pertussis were shown to originate from a sick physician or supporting staff member. These associations have led to increased morbidity and mortality, as well as excess costs. Those of us who treat immunocompromised patients on a regular basis risk inducing a life-threatening illness by unnecessarily exposing them to pathogens.
The JAMA survey results also confirmed my own observation that many physicians feel boxed in by their institutions or practice situations. “The study illustrates the complex social and logistic factors that cause this behavior,” the authors wrote. “These results may inform efforts to design systems at our hospital to provide support for attending physicians and APCs and help them make the right choice to keep their patients and colleagues safe while caring for themselves.”
What might those efforts look like? For one thing, we can take the obvious and necessary steps to avoid getting sick in the first place, such as staying fit and hydrated, and eating well. We can keep up with routine health visits and measures such as colorectal screening, pap smears, and mammograms, and stay up to date with flu shots and all other essential immunizations.
Next, we can minimize the risk of spreading any illnesses we encounter in the course of our work by practicing the basic infectious disease prevention measures driven home so forcefully by the recent COVID-19 pandemic — washing our hands, using hand sanitizers, and, when appropriate, wearing gloves and masks.
Finally, we can work to overcome this institutional taboo against staying home when we do get sick. Work out a system of mutual coverage for such situations. Two years ago, I merged my solo practice with a local, larger group. I did it for a variety of reasons, but a principal one was to assure that a partner could cover for me if I became ill. Practitioners who choose to remain solo or in small groups should contact colleagues and work out a coverage agreement.
Now, during flu season, it is especially important to resist the temptation to work while sick. The CDC has guidelines for employees specific for the flu, which notes that “persons with the flu are most contagious during the first 3 days of their illness,” and should remain at home until at least 24 hours after their fever subsides (without the use of fever-reducing medications) or after symptoms have improved (at least 4-5 days after they started) — or, if they do not have a fever, after symptoms improve “for at least 4-5 days after the onset of symptoms.”
Of course, we need to remember that COVID-19 is still with us. With the constant evolution of new strains, it is especially important to avoid exposing patients and colleagues to the disease should you become infected. The most recent advice from the CDC includes the recommendation that those who are mildly ill and not moderately or severely immunocompromised should isolate after SARS-CoV-2 infection for at least 5 days after symptom onset (day 0 is the day symptoms appeared, and day 1 is the next full day thereafter) if fever has resolved for at least 24 hours (without taking fever-reducing medications) and other symptoms are improving. In addition, “a high-quality mask should be worn around others at home and in public through day 10.”
We should also extend these rules to our support staff, starting with providing them with adequate sick leave and encouraging them to use it when necessary. Research has found a direct correlation between preventative health care and the number of paid sick leave days a worker gets. In a study of over 3000 US workers, those with 10 paid sick days or more annually accessed preventative care more frequently than those without paid sick days.
Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].
Testosterone Replacement May Cause ... Fracture?
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
I am showing you a graph without any labels.
What could this line represent? The stock price of some company that made a big splash but failed to live up to expectations? An outbreak curve charting the introduction of a new infectious agent to a population? The performance of a viral tweet?
I’ll tell you what it is in a moment, but I wanted you to recognize that there is something inherently wistful in this shape, something that speaks of past glory and inevitable declines. It’s a graph that induces a feeling of resistance — no, do not go gently into that good night.
The graph actually represents (roughly) the normal level of serum testosterone in otherwise-healthy men as they age.
A caveat here: These numbers are not as well defined as I made them seem on this graph, particularly for those older than 65 years. But it is clear that testosterone levels decline with time, and the idea to supplement testosterone is hardly new. Like all treatments, testosterone supplementation has risks and benefits. Some risks are predictable, like exacerbating the symptoms of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Some risks seem to come completely out of left field. That’s what we have today, in a study suggesting that testosterone supplementation increases the risk for bone fractures.
Let me set the stage here by saying that nearly all prior research into the effects of testosterone supplementation has suggested that it is pretty good for bone health. It increases bone mineral density, bone strength, and improves bone architecture.
So if you were to do a randomized trial of testosterone supplementation and look at fracture risk in the testosterone group compared with the placebo group, you would expect the fracture risk would be much lower in those getting supplemented. Of course, this is why we actually do studies instead of assuming we know the answer already — because in this case, you’d be wrong.
I’m talking about this study, appearing in The New England Journal of Medicine.
It’s a prespecified secondary analysis of a randomized trial known as the TRAVERSE trial, which randomly assigned 5246 men with low testosterone levels to transdermal testosterone gel vs placebo. The primary goal of that trial was to assess the cardiovascular risk associated with testosterone supplementation, and the major take-home was that there was no difference in cardiovascular event rates between the testosterone and placebo groups.
This secondary analysis looked at fracture incidence. Researchers contacted participants multiple times in the first year of the study and yearly thereafter. Each time, they asked whether the participant had sustained a fracture. If they answered in the affirmative, a request for medical records was made and the researchers, still blinded to randomization status, adjudicated whether there was indeed a fracture or not, along with some details as to location, situation, and so on.
This was a big study, though, and that translates to just a 3.5% fracture rate in testosterone vs 2.5% in control, but the difference was statistically significant.
This difference persisted across various fracture types (non–high-impact fractures, for example) after excluding the small percentage of men taking osteoporosis medication.
How does a drug that increases bone mineral density and bone strength increase the risk for fracture?
Well, one clue — and this was pointed out in a nice editorial by Matthis Grossman and Bradley Anawalt — is that the increased risk for fracture occurs quite soon after starting treatment, which is not consistent with direct bone effects. Rather, this might represent behavioral differences. Testosterone supplementation seems to increase energy levels; might it lead men to engage in activities that put them at higher risk for fracture?
Regardless of the cause, this adds to our knowledge about the rather complex mix of risks and benefits of testosterone supplementation and probably puts a bit more weight on the risks side. The truth is that testosterone levels do decline with age, as do many things, and it may not be appropriate to try to fight against that in all people. It’s worth noting that all of these studies use low levels of total serum testosterone as an entry criterion. But total testosterone is not what your body “sees.” It sees free testosterone, the portion not bound to sex hormone–binding globulin. And that binding protein is affected by lots of stuff — diabetes and obesity lower it, for example — making total testosterone levels seem low when free testosterone might be just fine.
In other words, testosterone supplementation is probably not terrible, but it is definitely not the cure for aging. In situations like this, we need better data to guide exactly who will benefit from the therapy and who will only be exposed to the risks.
Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
I am showing you a graph without any labels.
What could this line represent? The stock price of some company that made a big splash but failed to live up to expectations? An outbreak curve charting the introduction of a new infectious agent to a population? The performance of a viral tweet?
I’ll tell you what it is in a moment, but I wanted you to recognize that there is something inherently wistful in this shape, something that speaks of past glory and inevitable declines. It’s a graph that induces a feeling of resistance — no, do not go gently into that good night.
The graph actually represents (roughly) the normal level of serum testosterone in otherwise-healthy men as they age.
A caveat here: These numbers are not as well defined as I made them seem on this graph, particularly for those older than 65 years. But it is clear that testosterone levels decline with time, and the idea to supplement testosterone is hardly new. Like all treatments, testosterone supplementation has risks and benefits. Some risks are predictable, like exacerbating the symptoms of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Some risks seem to come completely out of left field. That’s what we have today, in a study suggesting that testosterone supplementation increases the risk for bone fractures.
Let me set the stage here by saying that nearly all prior research into the effects of testosterone supplementation has suggested that it is pretty good for bone health. It increases bone mineral density, bone strength, and improves bone architecture.
So if you were to do a randomized trial of testosterone supplementation and look at fracture risk in the testosterone group compared with the placebo group, you would expect the fracture risk would be much lower in those getting supplemented. Of course, this is why we actually do studies instead of assuming we know the answer already — because in this case, you’d be wrong.
I’m talking about this study, appearing in The New England Journal of Medicine.
It’s a prespecified secondary analysis of a randomized trial known as the TRAVERSE trial, which randomly assigned 5246 men with low testosterone levels to transdermal testosterone gel vs placebo. The primary goal of that trial was to assess the cardiovascular risk associated with testosterone supplementation, and the major take-home was that there was no difference in cardiovascular event rates between the testosterone and placebo groups.
This secondary analysis looked at fracture incidence. Researchers contacted participants multiple times in the first year of the study and yearly thereafter. Each time, they asked whether the participant had sustained a fracture. If they answered in the affirmative, a request for medical records was made and the researchers, still blinded to randomization status, adjudicated whether there was indeed a fracture or not, along with some details as to location, situation, and so on.
This was a big study, though, and that translates to just a 3.5% fracture rate in testosterone vs 2.5% in control, but the difference was statistically significant.
This difference persisted across various fracture types (non–high-impact fractures, for example) after excluding the small percentage of men taking osteoporosis medication.
How does a drug that increases bone mineral density and bone strength increase the risk for fracture?
Well, one clue — and this was pointed out in a nice editorial by Matthis Grossman and Bradley Anawalt — is that the increased risk for fracture occurs quite soon after starting treatment, which is not consistent with direct bone effects. Rather, this might represent behavioral differences. Testosterone supplementation seems to increase energy levels; might it lead men to engage in activities that put them at higher risk for fracture?
Regardless of the cause, this adds to our knowledge about the rather complex mix of risks and benefits of testosterone supplementation and probably puts a bit more weight on the risks side. The truth is that testosterone levels do decline with age, as do many things, and it may not be appropriate to try to fight against that in all people. It’s worth noting that all of these studies use low levels of total serum testosterone as an entry criterion. But total testosterone is not what your body “sees.” It sees free testosterone, the portion not bound to sex hormone–binding globulin. And that binding protein is affected by lots of stuff — diabetes and obesity lower it, for example — making total testosterone levels seem low when free testosterone might be just fine.
In other words, testosterone supplementation is probably not terrible, but it is definitely not the cure for aging. In situations like this, we need better data to guide exactly who will benefit from the therapy and who will only be exposed to the risks.
Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
I am showing you a graph without any labels.
What could this line represent? The stock price of some company that made a big splash but failed to live up to expectations? An outbreak curve charting the introduction of a new infectious agent to a population? The performance of a viral tweet?
I’ll tell you what it is in a moment, but I wanted you to recognize that there is something inherently wistful in this shape, something that speaks of past glory and inevitable declines. It’s a graph that induces a feeling of resistance — no, do not go gently into that good night.
The graph actually represents (roughly) the normal level of serum testosterone in otherwise-healthy men as they age.
A caveat here: These numbers are not as well defined as I made them seem on this graph, particularly for those older than 65 years. But it is clear that testosterone levels decline with time, and the idea to supplement testosterone is hardly new. Like all treatments, testosterone supplementation has risks and benefits. Some risks are predictable, like exacerbating the symptoms of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Some risks seem to come completely out of left field. That’s what we have today, in a study suggesting that testosterone supplementation increases the risk for bone fractures.
Let me set the stage here by saying that nearly all prior research into the effects of testosterone supplementation has suggested that it is pretty good for bone health. It increases bone mineral density, bone strength, and improves bone architecture.
So if you were to do a randomized trial of testosterone supplementation and look at fracture risk in the testosterone group compared with the placebo group, you would expect the fracture risk would be much lower in those getting supplemented. Of course, this is why we actually do studies instead of assuming we know the answer already — because in this case, you’d be wrong.
I’m talking about this study, appearing in The New England Journal of Medicine.
It’s a prespecified secondary analysis of a randomized trial known as the TRAVERSE trial, which randomly assigned 5246 men with low testosterone levels to transdermal testosterone gel vs placebo. The primary goal of that trial was to assess the cardiovascular risk associated with testosterone supplementation, and the major take-home was that there was no difference in cardiovascular event rates between the testosterone and placebo groups.
This secondary analysis looked at fracture incidence. Researchers contacted participants multiple times in the first year of the study and yearly thereafter. Each time, they asked whether the participant had sustained a fracture. If they answered in the affirmative, a request for medical records was made and the researchers, still blinded to randomization status, adjudicated whether there was indeed a fracture or not, along with some details as to location, situation, and so on.
This was a big study, though, and that translates to just a 3.5% fracture rate in testosterone vs 2.5% in control, but the difference was statistically significant.
This difference persisted across various fracture types (non–high-impact fractures, for example) after excluding the small percentage of men taking osteoporosis medication.
How does a drug that increases bone mineral density and bone strength increase the risk for fracture?
Well, one clue — and this was pointed out in a nice editorial by Matthis Grossman and Bradley Anawalt — is that the increased risk for fracture occurs quite soon after starting treatment, which is not consistent with direct bone effects. Rather, this might represent behavioral differences. Testosterone supplementation seems to increase energy levels; might it lead men to engage in activities that put them at higher risk for fracture?
Regardless of the cause, this adds to our knowledge about the rather complex mix of risks and benefits of testosterone supplementation and probably puts a bit more weight on the risks side. The truth is that testosterone levels do decline with age, as do many things, and it may not be appropriate to try to fight against that in all people. It’s worth noting that all of these studies use low levels of total serum testosterone as an entry criterion. But total testosterone is not what your body “sees.” It sees free testosterone, the portion not bound to sex hormone–binding globulin. And that binding protein is affected by lots of stuff — diabetes and obesity lower it, for example — making total testosterone levels seem low when free testosterone might be just fine.
In other words, testosterone supplementation is probably not terrible, but it is definitely not the cure for aging. In situations like this, we need better data to guide exactly who will benefit from the therapy and who will only be exposed to the risks.
Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
How much would you bet on a diagnosis?
“You have psoriasis,” I say all the time. I mean it when I say it, of course. But I don’t always to the same degree. Sometimes I’m trying to say, “You probably have psoriasis.” Other times I mean, “You most definitely have psoriasis.” I rarely use those terms though.
One 36-year-old man with a flaky scalp and scaly elbows wasn’t satisfied with my assessment. His dad has psoriasis. So does his older brother. He was in to see me to find out if he had psoriasis too. “Probably” was what I gave him. He pushed back, “What percent chance?” That’s a good question — must be an engineer. I’m unsure.
With the exception of the poker players, our species is notoriously bad at probabilities. We’re wired to notice the significance of events, but terrible at understanding their likelihood. This is salient in lottery ticket holders and some NFL offensive coordinators who persist despite very long odds of things working out. It’s also reflected in the language we use. Rarely do we say, there’s a sixty percent chance something will happen. Rather, we say, “it’s likely.” There are two problems here. One, we often misjudge the actual probability of something occurring and two, the terms we use are subjective and differences in interpretation can lead to misunderstandings.
Let’s take a look. A 55-year-old man with a chronic eczematous rash on his trunk and extremities is getting worse despite dupilumab. He recently had night sweats. Do you think he has atopic dermatitis or cutaneous T-cell lymphoma? If you had to place a $100 bet, would you change your answer? Immanuel Kant thinks you would. In his “Critique of Pure Reason,” the German philosopher proposes that betting helps clarify the mind, an antidote to brashness. The example Kant uses is of a physician who observes a patient and concludes he has phthisis (tuberculosis), but we really don’t know if the physician is confident. Kant proposes that if he had to bet on his conclusion, then we’d have insight into just how convinced he is of phthisis. So, what’s your bet?
If you’re a bad poker player, then you might bet he has cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. However, not having any additional information, the smart call is atopic dermatitis, which has a base rate 1000-fold higher than CTCL. It is therefore more probable to be eczema even in a case that worsens despite dupilumab or with recent night sweats, both of which could be a result of common variables such as weather and COVID. Failure to account for the base rate is a mistake we physicians sometimes make. Economists rarely do. Try to think like one before answering a likelihood question.
If you think about it, “probably” means something different even to me, depending on the situation. I might say I’ll probably go to Montana this summer and I’ll probably retire at 65. The actual likelihoods might be 95% and 70%. That’s a big difference. What about between probably and likely? Or possibly and maybe? Do they mean the same to you as to the person you’re speaking with? For much of the work we do, precise likelihoods aren’t critical. Yet, it can be important in decision making and in discussing probabilities, such as the risk of hepatitis on terbinafine or of melanoma recurrence after Mohs.
I told my patient “I say about a 70% chance you have psoriasis. I could do a biopsy today to confirm.” He thought for a second and asked, “What is the chance it’s psoriasis if the biopsy shows it?” “Eighty six percent,” I replied.
Seemed like a good bet to me.
Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on X. Write to him at [email protected].
“You have psoriasis,” I say all the time. I mean it when I say it, of course. But I don’t always to the same degree. Sometimes I’m trying to say, “You probably have psoriasis.” Other times I mean, “You most definitely have psoriasis.” I rarely use those terms though.
One 36-year-old man with a flaky scalp and scaly elbows wasn’t satisfied with my assessment. His dad has psoriasis. So does his older brother. He was in to see me to find out if he had psoriasis too. “Probably” was what I gave him. He pushed back, “What percent chance?” That’s a good question — must be an engineer. I’m unsure.
With the exception of the poker players, our species is notoriously bad at probabilities. We’re wired to notice the significance of events, but terrible at understanding their likelihood. This is salient in lottery ticket holders and some NFL offensive coordinators who persist despite very long odds of things working out. It’s also reflected in the language we use. Rarely do we say, there’s a sixty percent chance something will happen. Rather, we say, “it’s likely.” There are two problems here. One, we often misjudge the actual probability of something occurring and two, the terms we use are subjective and differences in interpretation can lead to misunderstandings.
Let’s take a look. A 55-year-old man with a chronic eczematous rash on his trunk and extremities is getting worse despite dupilumab. He recently had night sweats. Do you think he has atopic dermatitis or cutaneous T-cell lymphoma? If you had to place a $100 bet, would you change your answer? Immanuel Kant thinks you would. In his “Critique of Pure Reason,” the German philosopher proposes that betting helps clarify the mind, an antidote to brashness. The example Kant uses is of a physician who observes a patient and concludes he has phthisis (tuberculosis), but we really don’t know if the physician is confident. Kant proposes that if he had to bet on his conclusion, then we’d have insight into just how convinced he is of phthisis. So, what’s your bet?
If you’re a bad poker player, then you might bet he has cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. However, not having any additional information, the smart call is atopic dermatitis, which has a base rate 1000-fold higher than CTCL. It is therefore more probable to be eczema even in a case that worsens despite dupilumab or with recent night sweats, both of which could be a result of common variables such as weather and COVID. Failure to account for the base rate is a mistake we physicians sometimes make. Economists rarely do. Try to think like one before answering a likelihood question.
If you think about it, “probably” means something different even to me, depending on the situation. I might say I’ll probably go to Montana this summer and I’ll probably retire at 65. The actual likelihoods might be 95% and 70%. That’s a big difference. What about between probably and likely? Or possibly and maybe? Do they mean the same to you as to the person you’re speaking with? For much of the work we do, precise likelihoods aren’t critical. Yet, it can be important in decision making and in discussing probabilities, such as the risk of hepatitis on terbinafine or of melanoma recurrence after Mohs.
I told my patient “I say about a 70% chance you have psoriasis. I could do a biopsy today to confirm.” He thought for a second and asked, “What is the chance it’s psoriasis if the biopsy shows it?” “Eighty six percent,” I replied.
Seemed like a good bet to me.
Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on X. Write to him at [email protected].
“You have psoriasis,” I say all the time. I mean it when I say it, of course. But I don’t always to the same degree. Sometimes I’m trying to say, “You probably have psoriasis.” Other times I mean, “You most definitely have psoriasis.” I rarely use those terms though.
One 36-year-old man with a flaky scalp and scaly elbows wasn’t satisfied with my assessment. His dad has psoriasis. So does his older brother. He was in to see me to find out if he had psoriasis too. “Probably” was what I gave him. He pushed back, “What percent chance?” That’s a good question — must be an engineer. I’m unsure.
With the exception of the poker players, our species is notoriously bad at probabilities. We’re wired to notice the significance of events, but terrible at understanding their likelihood. This is salient in lottery ticket holders and some NFL offensive coordinators who persist despite very long odds of things working out. It’s also reflected in the language we use. Rarely do we say, there’s a sixty percent chance something will happen. Rather, we say, “it’s likely.” There are two problems here. One, we often misjudge the actual probability of something occurring and two, the terms we use are subjective and differences in interpretation can lead to misunderstandings.
Let’s take a look. A 55-year-old man with a chronic eczematous rash on his trunk and extremities is getting worse despite dupilumab. He recently had night sweats. Do you think he has atopic dermatitis or cutaneous T-cell lymphoma? If you had to place a $100 bet, would you change your answer? Immanuel Kant thinks you would. In his “Critique of Pure Reason,” the German philosopher proposes that betting helps clarify the mind, an antidote to brashness. The example Kant uses is of a physician who observes a patient and concludes he has phthisis (tuberculosis), but we really don’t know if the physician is confident. Kant proposes that if he had to bet on his conclusion, then we’d have insight into just how convinced he is of phthisis. So, what’s your bet?
If you’re a bad poker player, then you might bet he has cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. However, not having any additional information, the smart call is atopic dermatitis, which has a base rate 1000-fold higher than CTCL. It is therefore more probable to be eczema even in a case that worsens despite dupilumab or with recent night sweats, both of which could be a result of common variables such as weather and COVID. Failure to account for the base rate is a mistake we physicians sometimes make. Economists rarely do. Try to think like one before answering a likelihood question.
If you think about it, “probably” means something different even to me, depending on the situation. I might say I’ll probably go to Montana this summer and I’ll probably retire at 65. The actual likelihoods might be 95% and 70%. That’s a big difference. What about between probably and likely? Or possibly and maybe? Do they mean the same to you as to the person you’re speaking with? For much of the work we do, precise likelihoods aren’t critical. Yet, it can be important in decision making and in discussing probabilities, such as the risk of hepatitis on terbinafine or of melanoma recurrence after Mohs.
I told my patient “I say about a 70% chance you have psoriasis. I could do a biopsy today to confirm.” He thought for a second and asked, “What is the chance it’s psoriasis if the biopsy shows it?” “Eighty six percent,” I replied.
Seemed like a good bet to me.
Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on X. Write to him at [email protected].
10 Weight-Loss Strategies to Help Patients With Obesity
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the obesity prevalence in America was 41.9% between 2017 and 2020. Just 10 years ago, no state had an obesity prevalence above 35%.
Over the past 3 years, many patients gained weight during the COVID-19 pandemic as a result of adopting more sedentary lifestyles, staying at home, avoiding the gym owing to the potential for respiratory spread, and working remotely. For a long time, patients were avoiding attending social events and, as a result, were walking much less.
and other physicians to help patients with obesity realize their goal of achieving weight loss.
1. Embracing the GLP-1 Revolution, With Some Caveats
Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists have become a popular treatment for type 2 diabetes and weight loss. These medications, which are given as an injection either weekly or daily depending on the type, have helped patients achieve weight loss with tremendous success.
They work by stimulating the body to produce insulin, which in turn lowers blood sugar. GLP-1 receptor agonists also slow peristalsis and the movement of food from the stomach into the small bowel, which allows patients to eat less by feeling fuller for longer and decreasing hunger.
Two GLP-1 receptor agonists are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for weight loss in patients without diabetes: liraglutide (Saxenda) and semaglutide (Wegovy). There are also lower-dose versions of these active ingredients with the trade names Ozempic and Victoza, designed to help patients with diabetes achieve better glucose and A1c control. In November 2023, the FDA approved a new medication called tirzepatide (Zepbound), which is a glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) plus GLP-1 receptor agonist.
This is a very exciting time for the management of type 2 diabetes and weight loss. Gastroenterologists can work with endocrinologists and primary care physicians to help patients choose appropriate weight loss medications.
However, gastroenterologists should also be aware of common GLP-1 receptor agonist side effects, including nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and — in severe cases — hypoglycemia. These medications can also cause pancreatitis, acute kidney injury, worsening diabetes-related retinopathy, tachycardia, headaches, indigestion, gastroparesis, bowel obstruction, or ileus. We don’t use these medications in patients with a family or personal history of medullary thyroid cancer or multiple endocrine neoplasia. Consider avoiding their use as well in patients with a personal history of pancreatitis.
Recently, the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) suggested holding off on the use of GLP-1 receptor agonists prior to elective endoscopy procedures owing to case reports of aspiration. Gastroenterologists and anesthesiologists are working together to make esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and colonoscopy as safe as possible in patients taking these treatments.
According to the ASA recommendations, GLP-1 receptor agonists that are given at a daily dose should be held on the day of their procedure. Weekly-dose versions are supposed to be held for 1 week prior to colonoscopy or EGD. During EGD procedures, I also recommend keeping the head of the bed at a 45° angle to help prevent aspiration even further.
Gastroenterologists are eagerly awaiting additional studies to determine whether holding GLP-1 receptor agonists prior to endoscopy is really necessary. But for now, we recommend following the ASA guidelines.
2. Substituting Out Sugary Drinks
Gastroenterologists and primary care physicians constantly advise their patients to avoid consuming sugary drinks, such as soda, fruit juices, calorie-laden coffee drinks, sweetened tea, hot chocolate, and, of course, alcohol. Many of our patients drink three to six of these sugary drinks a day.
As a gastroenterologist, it’s important to counsel our overweight patients and obtain an accurate history about their daily and weekly consumption of excess calories.
Recommend substituting sugary drinks with water, unsweetened tea (either hot or cold), and coffee.
To prevent constipation, encourage patients to drink at least eight 8-ounce glasses of fluid per day. Drinking water, tea, and coffee can also help keep patients feeling fuller for longer and avoid those tempting snacks.
3. Adopting the Right Diet
Every day, I encourage my patients to avoid eating fried fatty foods and processed meats. We also advise patients to avoid junk food filled with carbohydrates and salt.
Instead, patients should try to eat a piece of fruit or some vegetables with every single meal, which keeps patients feeling fuller for longer, prevents diverticulitis from forming, and can even help prevent colon cancer.
Making small dietary changes can dramatically reduce daily calorie consumption, which adds up over time and can help patients lose weight in a safe way.
Meal prepping for the week ahead, perhaps on a Sunday, is a very simple way to eat more nutritious foods instead of constantly getting takeout and fast food.
Many of our patients have also successfully lost weight through intermittent fasting, although I recommend working with a nutritionist on this one.
A Mediterranean diet is also a great option.
4. Getting Active
I encourage patients to take daily walks, swim, play sports, take fitness classes, do yoga or Pilates, and use weights at a gym.
Exercise burns calories, which is great for our hearts, prevents hepatic steatosis, and helps relieve stress. Exercise also stimulates peristalsis, which can help our constipated patients achieve more regular bowel movements.
There are a few other things to keep in mind in this area. Try to avoid strenuous exercise right after eating, because this will help prevent both heartburn and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD).
5. Reducing Stomach Volume With a Gastric Balloon
A gastric balloon procedure is a temporary obesity treatment that helps patients lose weight by reducing the volume of the stomach so that they feel full more easily. This can be accomplished endoscopically through the mouth without the need for surgery.
Basically, a deflated balloon is placed through the mouth using an endoscope and advanced into the stomach by a gastroenterologist or surgeon. The balloon is inflated with salt water and can remain in the stomach for 6 months before it is removed.
This procedure can help patients feel full and consequently eat less, thereby leading to gradual and safe weight loss.
6. Using the Accordion Procedure
An endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty procedure, sometimes called an accordion procedure, is used for patients with a body mass index ≥ 30 when diet and exercise alone have failed. An EGD tube is equipped with small stitching instruments that are used to reduce the size of the stomach.
This procedure has less complications than open or laparoscopic surgery and can be reversed.
7. Injecting Botulinum Toxin
Another technique is having the gastroenterologist inject botulinum toxin into the stomach wall. This works by relaxing the stomach propulsion muscles, which delays gastric emptying so that patients feel fuller longer and more easily.
This approach is good for achieving moderate weight loss of approximately 5%-10% of body weight. It works best in combination with a good diet and exercise. The effects of the botulinum toxin can last for 3 months, and the procedure can be repeated every 6 months.
8. Adjusting Certain Lifestyle Factors
Gastroenterologists should also counsel our patients about exercise, stress management, and the importance of sleep to prevent overeating. Self-care is extremely important for patients. Walk, swim, lift weights, and play sports; I personally love basketball and tennis.
I also recommend allocating enough time for sleep each night. At least 7-9 hours of sleep is ideal. Good sleep hygiene can help keep a stable schedule. Create a comfortable bedroom that is free of disruptions like TV watching or playing on your phone or computer.
Gastroenterologists can provide simple instructions to their patients on how to achieve this. For example, unplug from electronics 30-60 minutes prior to sleep. Try also to avoid eating late at night, which will help patients prevent GERD and heartburn symptoms too.
9. Considering Orlistat as an Option
Orlistat is an oral over-the-counter lipase inhibitor that inhibits fat absorption in the intestines. This drug can interfere with the absorption of fat-soluble vitamins A, D, E, and K. Therefore, it’s important to take a multivitamin 2 hours before or 2 hours after taking orlistat.
However, orlistat can cause steatorrhea, so it’s often not our first choice.
10. Working With Dietitians
I highly recommend that gastroenterologists regularly refer patients to a registered dietitian for medical nutrition therapy. Dietitians help patients establish nutritional goals with calorie limits. I find that many of my patients like the nutritional counseling the dietitians provide, and this can even be done via telemedicine.
A dietitian will examine a patient’s eating habits and help them set weight loss goals that are both realistic and achievable. Having a dietitian motivate a patient through several clinic visits is important for success. A dietitian can plan how many calories a patient should consume in a day while maintaining food, protein, and vitamin intake.
With this therapy, many patients are able to lose approximately 1-1.5 pounds each week. A dietitian can help keep patients accountable for their weight loss goals. I encourage my patients to use their dietitian as a weight loss teacher and a coach who can personalize a diet plan that tastes great.
Some of our patients also have overlapping gastrointestinal issues, such as celiac disease or irritable bowel syndrome. Dietitians can also formulate diets that are great for these other diagnoses too.
There are also apps available on our phones to help with diet and weight loss.
Having a Difficult Conversation to Prevent Long-Term Disease
It’s important for gastroenterologists to work with patients to achieve weight loss. Addressing obesity is sometimes a difficult topic to bring up with patients, but it’s nonetheless very important.
Together, we can help treat obesity plus improve and prevent hepatic steatosis, metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), and metabolic dysfunction–associated steatohepatitis (MASH). The estimated global prevalence of MASLD is 32% in adults, so gastroenterologists and hepatologists are working together to try to treat obesity and to prevent long-term liver disease.
Dr. Levy is a gastroenterologist at the University of Chicago. In 2017, Levy, a previous Fulbright Fellow in France, also started a gastroenterology clinic for refugees resettling in Chicago. His clinical projects focus on the development of colorectal cancer screening campaigns. Levy, who recently gave a TEDx Talk about building health education campaigns using music and concerts, organizes Tune It Up: A Concert To Raise Colorectal Cancer Awareness with the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG). He frequently publishes on a variety of gastroenterology topics and serves on ACG’s Public Relations Committee and FDA-Related Matters Committee. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the obesity prevalence in America was 41.9% between 2017 and 2020. Just 10 years ago, no state had an obesity prevalence above 35%.
Over the past 3 years, many patients gained weight during the COVID-19 pandemic as a result of adopting more sedentary lifestyles, staying at home, avoiding the gym owing to the potential for respiratory spread, and working remotely. For a long time, patients were avoiding attending social events and, as a result, were walking much less.
and other physicians to help patients with obesity realize their goal of achieving weight loss.
1. Embracing the GLP-1 Revolution, With Some Caveats
Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists have become a popular treatment for type 2 diabetes and weight loss. These medications, which are given as an injection either weekly or daily depending on the type, have helped patients achieve weight loss with tremendous success.
They work by stimulating the body to produce insulin, which in turn lowers blood sugar. GLP-1 receptor agonists also slow peristalsis and the movement of food from the stomach into the small bowel, which allows patients to eat less by feeling fuller for longer and decreasing hunger.
Two GLP-1 receptor agonists are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for weight loss in patients without diabetes: liraglutide (Saxenda) and semaglutide (Wegovy). There are also lower-dose versions of these active ingredients with the trade names Ozempic and Victoza, designed to help patients with diabetes achieve better glucose and A1c control. In November 2023, the FDA approved a new medication called tirzepatide (Zepbound), which is a glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) plus GLP-1 receptor agonist.
This is a very exciting time for the management of type 2 diabetes and weight loss. Gastroenterologists can work with endocrinologists and primary care physicians to help patients choose appropriate weight loss medications.
However, gastroenterologists should also be aware of common GLP-1 receptor agonist side effects, including nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and — in severe cases — hypoglycemia. These medications can also cause pancreatitis, acute kidney injury, worsening diabetes-related retinopathy, tachycardia, headaches, indigestion, gastroparesis, bowel obstruction, or ileus. We don’t use these medications in patients with a family or personal history of medullary thyroid cancer or multiple endocrine neoplasia. Consider avoiding their use as well in patients with a personal history of pancreatitis.
Recently, the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) suggested holding off on the use of GLP-1 receptor agonists prior to elective endoscopy procedures owing to case reports of aspiration. Gastroenterologists and anesthesiologists are working together to make esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and colonoscopy as safe as possible in patients taking these treatments.
According to the ASA recommendations, GLP-1 receptor agonists that are given at a daily dose should be held on the day of their procedure. Weekly-dose versions are supposed to be held for 1 week prior to colonoscopy or EGD. During EGD procedures, I also recommend keeping the head of the bed at a 45° angle to help prevent aspiration even further.
Gastroenterologists are eagerly awaiting additional studies to determine whether holding GLP-1 receptor agonists prior to endoscopy is really necessary. But for now, we recommend following the ASA guidelines.
2. Substituting Out Sugary Drinks
Gastroenterologists and primary care physicians constantly advise their patients to avoid consuming sugary drinks, such as soda, fruit juices, calorie-laden coffee drinks, sweetened tea, hot chocolate, and, of course, alcohol. Many of our patients drink three to six of these sugary drinks a day.
As a gastroenterologist, it’s important to counsel our overweight patients and obtain an accurate history about their daily and weekly consumption of excess calories.
Recommend substituting sugary drinks with water, unsweetened tea (either hot or cold), and coffee.
To prevent constipation, encourage patients to drink at least eight 8-ounce glasses of fluid per day. Drinking water, tea, and coffee can also help keep patients feeling fuller for longer and avoid those tempting snacks.
3. Adopting the Right Diet
Every day, I encourage my patients to avoid eating fried fatty foods and processed meats. We also advise patients to avoid junk food filled with carbohydrates and salt.
Instead, patients should try to eat a piece of fruit or some vegetables with every single meal, which keeps patients feeling fuller for longer, prevents diverticulitis from forming, and can even help prevent colon cancer.
Making small dietary changes can dramatically reduce daily calorie consumption, which adds up over time and can help patients lose weight in a safe way.
Meal prepping for the week ahead, perhaps on a Sunday, is a very simple way to eat more nutritious foods instead of constantly getting takeout and fast food.
Many of our patients have also successfully lost weight through intermittent fasting, although I recommend working with a nutritionist on this one.
A Mediterranean diet is also a great option.
4. Getting Active
I encourage patients to take daily walks, swim, play sports, take fitness classes, do yoga or Pilates, and use weights at a gym.
Exercise burns calories, which is great for our hearts, prevents hepatic steatosis, and helps relieve stress. Exercise also stimulates peristalsis, which can help our constipated patients achieve more regular bowel movements.
There are a few other things to keep in mind in this area. Try to avoid strenuous exercise right after eating, because this will help prevent both heartburn and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD).
5. Reducing Stomach Volume With a Gastric Balloon
A gastric balloon procedure is a temporary obesity treatment that helps patients lose weight by reducing the volume of the stomach so that they feel full more easily. This can be accomplished endoscopically through the mouth without the need for surgery.
Basically, a deflated balloon is placed through the mouth using an endoscope and advanced into the stomach by a gastroenterologist or surgeon. The balloon is inflated with salt water and can remain in the stomach for 6 months before it is removed.
This procedure can help patients feel full and consequently eat less, thereby leading to gradual and safe weight loss.
6. Using the Accordion Procedure
An endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty procedure, sometimes called an accordion procedure, is used for patients with a body mass index ≥ 30 when diet and exercise alone have failed. An EGD tube is equipped with small stitching instruments that are used to reduce the size of the stomach.
This procedure has less complications than open or laparoscopic surgery and can be reversed.
7. Injecting Botulinum Toxin
Another technique is having the gastroenterologist inject botulinum toxin into the stomach wall. This works by relaxing the stomach propulsion muscles, which delays gastric emptying so that patients feel fuller longer and more easily.
This approach is good for achieving moderate weight loss of approximately 5%-10% of body weight. It works best in combination with a good diet and exercise. The effects of the botulinum toxin can last for 3 months, and the procedure can be repeated every 6 months.
8. Adjusting Certain Lifestyle Factors
Gastroenterologists should also counsel our patients about exercise, stress management, and the importance of sleep to prevent overeating. Self-care is extremely important for patients. Walk, swim, lift weights, and play sports; I personally love basketball and tennis.
I also recommend allocating enough time for sleep each night. At least 7-9 hours of sleep is ideal. Good sleep hygiene can help keep a stable schedule. Create a comfortable bedroom that is free of disruptions like TV watching or playing on your phone or computer.
Gastroenterologists can provide simple instructions to their patients on how to achieve this. For example, unplug from electronics 30-60 minutes prior to sleep. Try also to avoid eating late at night, which will help patients prevent GERD and heartburn symptoms too.
9. Considering Orlistat as an Option
Orlistat is an oral over-the-counter lipase inhibitor that inhibits fat absorption in the intestines. This drug can interfere with the absorption of fat-soluble vitamins A, D, E, and K. Therefore, it’s important to take a multivitamin 2 hours before or 2 hours after taking orlistat.
However, orlistat can cause steatorrhea, so it’s often not our first choice.
10. Working With Dietitians
I highly recommend that gastroenterologists regularly refer patients to a registered dietitian for medical nutrition therapy. Dietitians help patients establish nutritional goals with calorie limits. I find that many of my patients like the nutritional counseling the dietitians provide, and this can even be done via telemedicine.
A dietitian will examine a patient’s eating habits and help them set weight loss goals that are both realistic and achievable. Having a dietitian motivate a patient through several clinic visits is important for success. A dietitian can plan how many calories a patient should consume in a day while maintaining food, protein, and vitamin intake.
With this therapy, many patients are able to lose approximately 1-1.5 pounds each week. A dietitian can help keep patients accountable for their weight loss goals. I encourage my patients to use their dietitian as a weight loss teacher and a coach who can personalize a diet plan that tastes great.
Some of our patients also have overlapping gastrointestinal issues, such as celiac disease or irritable bowel syndrome. Dietitians can also formulate diets that are great for these other diagnoses too.
There are also apps available on our phones to help with diet and weight loss.
Having a Difficult Conversation to Prevent Long-Term Disease
It’s important for gastroenterologists to work with patients to achieve weight loss. Addressing obesity is sometimes a difficult topic to bring up with patients, but it’s nonetheless very important.
Together, we can help treat obesity plus improve and prevent hepatic steatosis, metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), and metabolic dysfunction–associated steatohepatitis (MASH). The estimated global prevalence of MASLD is 32% in adults, so gastroenterologists and hepatologists are working together to try to treat obesity and to prevent long-term liver disease.
Dr. Levy is a gastroenterologist at the University of Chicago. In 2017, Levy, a previous Fulbright Fellow in France, also started a gastroenterology clinic for refugees resettling in Chicago. His clinical projects focus on the development of colorectal cancer screening campaigns. Levy, who recently gave a TEDx Talk about building health education campaigns using music and concerts, organizes Tune It Up: A Concert To Raise Colorectal Cancer Awareness with the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG). He frequently publishes on a variety of gastroenterology topics and serves on ACG’s Public Relations Committee and FDA-Related Matters Committee. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the obesity prevalence in America was 41.9% between 2017 and 2020. Just 10 years ago, no state had an obesity prevalence above 35%.
Over the past 3 years, many patients gained weight during the COVID-19 pandemic as a result of adopting more sedentary lifestyles, staying at home, avoiding the gym owing to the potential for respiratory spread, and working remotely. For a long time, patients were avoiding attending social events and, as a result, were walking much less.
and other physicians to help patients with obesity realize their goal of achieving weight loss.
1. Embracing the GLP-1 Revolution, With Some Caveats
Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists have become a popular treatment for type 2 diabetes and weight loss. These medications, which are given as an injection either weekly or daily depending on the type, have helped patients achieve weight loss with tremendous success.
They work by stimulating the body to produce insulin, which in turn lowers blood sugar. GLP-1 receptor agonists also slow peristalsis and the movement of food from the stomach into the small bowel, which allows patients to eat less by feeling fuller for longer and decreasing hunger.
Two GLP-1 receptor agonists are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for weight loss in patients without diabetes: liraglutide (Saxenda) and semaglutide (Wegovy). There are also lower-dose versions of these active ingredients with the trade names Ozempic and Victoza, designed to help patients with diabetes achieve better glucose and A1c control. In November 2023, the FDA approved a new medication called tirzepatide (Zepbound), which is a glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) plus GLP-1 receptor agonist.
This is a very exciting time for the management of type 2 diabetes and weight loss. Gastroenterologists can work with endocrinologists and primary care physicians to help patients choose appropriate weight loss medications.
However, gastroenterologists should also be aware of common GLP-1 receptor agonist side effects, including nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and — in severe cases — hypoglycemia. These medications can also cause pancreatitis, acute kidney injury, worsening diabetes-related retinopathy, tachycardia, headaches, indigestion, gastroparesis, bowel obstruction, or ileus. We don’t use these medications in patients with a family or personal history of medullary thyroid cancer or multiple endocrine neoplasia. Consider avoiding their use as well in patients with a personal history of pancreatitis.
Recently, the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) suggested holding off on the use of GLP-1 receptor agonists prior to elective endoscopy procedures owing to case reports of aspiration. Gastroenterologists and anesthesiologists are working together to make esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and colonoscopy as safe as possible in patients taking these treatments.
According to the ASA recommendations, GLP-1 receptor agonists that are given at a daily dose should be held on the day of their procedure. Weekly-dose versions are supposed to be held for 1 week prior to colonoscopy or EGD. During EGD procedures, I also recommend keeping the head of the bed at a 45° angle to help prevent aspiration even further.
Gastroenterologists are eagerly awaiting additional studies to determine whether holding GLP-1 receptor agonists prior to endoscopy is really necessary. But for now, we recommend following the ASA guidelines.
2. Substituting Out Sugary Drinks
Gastroenterologists and primary care physicians constantly advise their patients to avoid consuming sugary drinks, such as soda, fruit juices, calorie-laden coffee drinks, sweetened tea, hot chocolate, and, of course, alcohol. Many of our patients drink three to six of these sugary drinks a day.
As a gastroenterologist, it’s important to counsel our overweight patients and obtain an accurate history about their daily and weekly consumption of excess calories.
Recommend substituting sugary drinks with water, unsweetened tea (either hot or cold), and coffee.
To prevent constipation, encourage patients to drink at least eight 8-ounce glasses of fluid per day. Drinking water, tea, and coffee can also help keep patients feeling fuller for longer and avoid those tempting snacks.
3. Adopting the Right Diet
Every day, I encourage my patients to avoid eating fried fatty foods and processed meats. We also advise patients to avoid junk food filled with carbohydrates and salt.
Instead, patients should try to eat a piece of fruit or some vegetables with every single meal, which keeps patients feeling fuller for longer, prevents diverticulitis from forming, and can even help prevent colon cancer.
Making small dietary changes can dramatically reduce daily calorie consumption, which adds up over time and can help patients lose weight in a safe way.
Meal prepping for the week ahead, perhaps on a Sunday, is a very simple way to eat more nutritious foods instead of constantly getting takeout and fast food.
Many of our patients have also successfully lost weight through intermittent fasting, although I recommend working with a nutritionist on this one.
A Mediterranean diet is also a great option.
4. Getting Active
I encourage patients to take daily walks, swim, play sports, take fitness classes, do yoga or Pilates, and use weights at a gym.
Exercise burns calories, which is great for our hearts, prevents hepatic steatosis, and helps relieve stress. Exercise also stimulates peristalsis, which can help our constipated patients achieve more regular bowel movements.
There are a few other things to keep in mind in this area. Try to avoid strenuous exercise right after eating, because this will help prevent both heartburn and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD).
5. Reducing Stomach Volume With a Gastric Balloon
A gastric balloon procedure is a temporary obesity treatment that helps patients lose weight by reducing the volume of the stomach so that they feel full more easily. This can be accomplished endoscopically through the mouth without the need for surgery.
Basically, a deflated balloon is placed through the mouth using an endoscope and advanced into the stomach by a gastroenterologist or surgeon. The balloon is inflated with salt water and can remain in the stomach for 6 months before it is removed.
This procedure can help patients feel full and consequently eat less, thereby leading to gradual and safe weight loss.
6. Using the Accordion Procedure
An endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty procedure, sometimes called an accordion procedure, is used for patients with a body mass index ≥ 30 when diet and exercise alone have failed. An EGD tube is equipped with small stitching instruments that are used to reduce the size of the stomach.
This procedure has less complications than open or laparoscopic surgery and can be reversed.
7. Injecting Botulinum Toxin
Another technique is having the gastroenterologist inject botulinum toxin into the stomach wall. This works by relaxing the stomach propulsion muscles, which delays gastric emptying so that patients feel fuller longer and more easily.
This approach is good for achieving moderate weight loss of approximately 5%-10% of body weight. It works best in combination with a good diet and exercise. The effects of the botulinum toxin can last for 3 months, and the procedure can be repeated every 6 months.
8. Adjusting Certain Lifestyle Factors
Gastroenterologists should also counsel our patients about exercise, stress management, and the importance of sleep to prevent overeating. Self-care is extremely important for patients. Walk, swim, lift weights, and play sports; I personally love basketball and tennis.
I also recommend allocating enough time for sleep each night. At least 7-9 hours of sleep is ideal. Good sleep hygiene can help keep a stable schedule. Create a comfortable bedroom that is free of disruptions like TV watching or playing on your phone or computer.
Gastroenterologists can provide simple instructions to their patients on how to achieve this. For example, unplug from electronics 30-60 minutes prior to sleep. Try also to avoid eating late at night, which will help patients prevent GERD and heartburn symptoms too.
9. Considering Orlistat as an Option
Orlistat is an oral over-the-counter lipase inhibitor that inhibits fat absorption in the intestines. This drug can interfere with the absorption of fat-soluble vitamins A, D, E, and K. Therefore, it’s important to take a multivitamin 2 hours before or 2 hours after taking orlistat.
However, orlistat can cause steatorrhea, so it’s often not our first choice.
10. Working With Dietitians
I highly recommend that gastroenterologists regularly refer patients to a registered dietitian for medical nutrition therapy. Dietitians help patients establish nutritional goals with calorie limits. I find that many of my patients like the nutritional counseling the dietitians provide, and this can even be done via telemedicine.
A dietitian will examine a patient’s eating habits and help them set weight loss goals that are both realistic and achievable. Having a dietitian motivate a patient through several clinic visits is important for success. A dietitian can plan how many calories a patient should consume in a day while maintaining food, protein, and vitamin intake.
With this therapy, many patients are able to lose approximately 1-1.5 pounds each week. A dietitian can help keep patients accountable for their weight loss goals. I encourage my patients to use their dietitian as a weight loss teacher and a coach who can personalize a diet plan that tastes great.
Some of our patients also have overlapping gastrointestinal issues, such as celiac disease or irritable bowel syndrome. Dietitians can also formulate diets that are great for these other diagnoses too.
There are also apps available on our phones to help with diet and weight loss.
Having a Difficult Conversation to Prevent Long-Term Disease
It’s important for gastroenterologists to work with patients to achieve weight loss. Addressing obesity is sometimes a difficult topic to bring up with patients, but it’s nonetheless very important.
Together, we can help treat obesity plus improve and prevent hepatic steatosis, metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), and metabolic dysfunction–associated steatohepatitis (MASH). The estimated global prevalence of MASLD is 32% in adults, so gastroenterologists and hepatologists are working together to try to treat obesity and to prevent long-term liver disease.
Dr. Levy is a gastroenterologist at the University of Chicago. In 2017, Levy, a previous Fulbright Fellow in France, also started a gastroenterology clinic for refugees resettling in Chicago. His clinical projects focus on the development of colorectal cancer screening campaigns. Levy, who recently gave a TEDx Talk about building health education campaigns using music and concerts, organizes Tune It Up: A Concert To Raise Colorectal Cancer Awareness with the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG). He frequently publishes on a variety of gastroenterology topics and serves on ACG’s Public Relations Committee and FDA-Related Matters Committee. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Rosemary, Part 1
A member of the Lamiaceae family, Salvia rosmarinus (rosemary),* an aromatic plant native to the Mediterranean region and now cultivated globally, has been used for centuries in cuisine and medicine, with several well-established biological activities.1-3 Thought to contribute to preventing hair loss, rosemary oil was also used for hundreds of years in hair rinses in the Mediterranean area.4 In traditional Iranian medicine, rosemary essential oil has been topically applied as an analgesic, anti-inflammatory, and anti-acne remedy.5 Rosemary is known to absorb UV light well and to impart antibacterial and antifungal activity, as well as help maintain skin homeostasis.3 It is also used and under further study for its anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, anti-infective, and anticancer activity.2,6-9 The health benefits of rosemary are typically ascribed to its constituent carnosol/carnosic and ursolic acids.7.
Chemical Constituents
The key chemical components of S. rosmarinus include bitter principle, resin, tannic acid, flavonoids, and volatile oils (made up of borneol, bornyl acetate, camphene, cineol, pinene, and camphor).10 Other important constituents of rosemary oil, in particular, include p-Cymene, linalool, gamma-terpinene, thymol, beta-pinene, alpha-pinene, eucalyptol, and carnosic acid.9 Volatile oils of rosemary have been used in various oils and lotions to treat wounds and with the intention of stimulating hair growth.10
Wound Healing
In a 2022 study in 60 adult male rats, Bulhões and colleagues found that the use of rosemary leaf essential oil-based ointments on skin lesions spurred wound healing, decreased inflammation, and enhanced angiogenesis as well as collagen fiber density.11
Three years earlier, Labib and colleagues studied the wound healing capacity of three chitosan-based topical formulations containing either tea tree essential oil, rosemary essential oil, or a mixture of both oils in an excision wound model in rats.
The combination preparation was found to be the most effective in fostering various stages of wound healing, with significant increases in wound contraction percentage observed in the combination group compared with either group treated using individual essential oils or the untreated animals.12
A 2010 in vivo study by Abu-Al-Basal using BALB/c mice with diabetes revealed that the topical application of rosemary essential oil for three days reduced inflammation, enhanced wound contraction and re-epithelialization, and promoted angiogenesis, granulation tissue regeneration, and collagen deposition.13
Anticancer Activity
Using a 7,12-dimethlybenz(a)anthracene (DMBA)-initiated and croton oil-promoted model in 2006, Sancheti and Goyal determined that rosemary extract administered orally at a dose rate of 500 mg/kg body weight/mouse significantly inhibited two-stage skin tumorigenesis in mice.14 Nearly a decade later, Cattaneo and colleagues determined that a rosemary hydroalcoholic extract displayed antiproliferative effects on the human melanoma A375 cell line.8
The polyphenols carnosic acid and rosmarinic acid are most often cited as the sources of the reputed anticancer effects of rosemary.15
Hair Health
Early in 2023, Begum and colleagues developed a 1% hair lotion including a methanolic extract of the aerial part of S. rosmarinus that they assessed for potential hair growth activity in C57BL/6 mice. Using water as a control and 2% minoxidil hair lotion as standard, the investigators determined that their rosemary hair lotion demonstrated significant hair growth promotion, exceeding that seen in the mice treated with the drug standard.1
In a randomized controlled study in C57BL/6NCrSlc mice a decade earlier, Murata and colleagues evaluated the anti-androgenic activity and hair growth potential imparted by topical rosemary oil compared with finasteride and minoxidil. Rosemary oil leaf extract, with 12-O-methylcarnosic acid as its most active component, robustly suppressed 5alpha-reductase and stimulated hair growth in vivo in both the androgenetic alopecia/testosterone-treated mouse model, as well as the hair growth activating mouse model as compared with minoxidil. Further, the inhibitory activity of rosemary was 82.4% and 94.6% at 200 mcg/mL and 500 mcg/mL, respectively, whereas finasteride demonstrated 81.9% at 250 nM.16
A human study two years later was even more encouraging. Panahi and colleagues conducted a randomized comparative trial with 100 patients to investigate the effects of rosemary oil as opposed to minoxidil 2% for the treatment of androgenetic alopecia over 6 months. By 6 months, significantly greater hair counts were observed in both groups compared with baseline and 3-month readings, but no significant variations between groups. No differences were found in the frequency of dryness, greasiness, or dandruff at any time point or between groups. Scalp itching was significantly greater at the 3- and 6-month points in both groups, particularly in the minoxidil group at both of those time points. The investigators concluded that rosemary oil compared well with minoxidil as androgenetic alopecia therapy.17
Conclusion
Rosemary has been used in traditional medicine for hundreds of years and it has been a common ingredient in cosmetic and cosmeceutical formulations for more than 20 years. Recent findings suggest a broad array of applications in modern medicine, particularly dermatology. The next column will focus on the most recent studies pertaining to the antioxidant and anti-aging activity of this aromatic shrub.
Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur in Miami. She founded the division of cosmetic dermatology at the University of Miami in 1997. The third edition of her bestselling textbook, “Cosmetic Dermatology,” was published in 2022. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Galderma, Johnson & Johnson, and Burt’s Bees. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions Inc., a SaaS company used to generate skin care routines in office and as a ecommerce solution. Write to her at [email protected].
References
1. Begum A et al. Adv Biomed Res. 2023 Mar 21;12:60.
2. de Oliveira JR et al. J Biomed Sci. 2019 Jan 9;26(1):5.
3. González-Minero FJ et al. Cosmetics. 2020 Oct 3;7(4):77.
4. Dinkins J et al. Int J Dermatol. 2023 Aug;62(8):980-5.
5. Akbari J et al. Pharm Biol. 2015;53(10):1442-7.
6. Allegra A et al. Nutrients. 2020 Jun 10;12(6):1739.
7. de Macedo LM et al. Plants (Basel). 2020 May 21;9(5):651.
8. Cattaneo L et al. PLoS One. 2015 Jul 15;10(7):e0132439.
9. Borges RS et al. J Ethnopharmacol. 2019 Jan 30;229:29-45.
10. Begum A et al. Acta Sci Pol Technol Aliment. 2013 Jan-Mar;12(1):61-73.
11. Bulhões AAVC et al. Acta Cir Bras. 2022 Apr 8;37(1):e370104.
12. Labib RM et al. PLoS One. 2019 Sep 16;14(9):e0219561.
13. Abu-Al-Basal MA. J Ethnopharmacol. 2010 Sep 15;131(2):443-50.
14. Sancheti G and Goyal PK. Phytother Res. 2006 Nov;20(11):981-6.
15. Moore J et al. Nutrients. 2016 Nov 17;8(11):731.
16. Murata K et al. Phytother Res. 2013 Feb;27(2):212-7.
17. Panahi Y et al. Skinmed. 2015 Jan-Feb;13(1):15-21.
*Correction, 2/27: This column was updated with the more recent name for rosemary, Salvia rosmarinus.
A member of the Lamiaceae family, Salvia rosmarinus (rosemary),* an aromatic plant native to the Mediterranean region and now cultivated globally, has been used for centuries in cuisine and medicine, with several well-established biological activities.1-3 Thought to contribute to preventing hair loss, rosemary oil was also used for hundreds of years in hair rinses in the Mediterranean area.4 In traditional Iranian medicine, rosemary essential oil has been topically applied as an analgesic, anti-inflammatory, and anti-acne remedy.5 Rosemary is known to absorb UV light well and to impart antibacterial and antifungal activity, as well as help maintain skin homeostasis.3 It is also used and under further study for its anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, anti-infective, and anticancer activity.2,6-9 The health benefits of rosemary are typically ascribed to its constituent carnosol/carnosic and ursolic acids.7.
Chemical Constituents
The key chemical components of S. rosmarinus include bitter principle, resin, tannic acid, flavonoids, and volatile oils (made up of borneol, bornyl acetate, camphene, cineol, pinene, and camphor).10 Other important constituents of rosemary oil, in particular, include p-Cymene, linalool, gamma-terpinene, thymol, beta-pinene, alpha-pinene, eucalyptol, and carnosic acid.9 Volatile oils of rosemary have been used in various oils and lotions to treat wounds and with the intention of stimulating hair growth.10
Wound Healing
In a 2022 study in 60 adult male rats, Bulhões and colleagues found that the use of rosemary leaf essential oil-based ointments on skin lesions spurred wound healing, decreased inflammation, and enhanced angiogenesis as well as collagen fiber density.11
Three years earlier, Labib and colleagues studied the wound healing capacity of three chitosan-based topical formulations containing either tea tree essential oil, rosemary essential oil, or a mixture of both oils in an excision wound model in rats.
The combination preparation was found to be the most effective in fostering various stages of wound healing, with significant increases in wound contraction percentage observed in the combination group compared with either group treated using individual essential oils or the untreated animals.12
A 2010 in vivo study by Abu-Al-Basal using BALB/c mice with diabetes revealed that the topical application of rosemary essential oil for three days reduced inflammation, enhanced wound contraction and re-epithelialization, and promoted angiogenesis, granulation tissue regeneration, and collagen deposition.13
Anticancer Activity
Using a 7,12-dimethlybenz(a)anthracene (DMBA)-initiated and croton oil-promoted model in 2006, Sancheti and Goyal determined that rosemary extract administered orally at a dose rate of 500 mg/kg body weight/mouse significantly inhibited two-stage skin tumorigenesis in mice.14 Nearly a decade later, Cattaneo and colleagues determined that a rosemary hydroalcoholic extract displayed antiproliferative effects on the human melanoma A375 cell line.8
The polyphenols carnosic acid and rosmarinic acid are most often cited as the sources of the reputed anticancer effects of rosemary.15
Hair Health
Early in 2023, Begum and colleagues developed a 1% hair lotion including a methanolic extract of the aerial part of S. rosmarinus that they assessed for potential hair growth activity in C57BL/6 mice. Using water as a control and 2% minoxidil hair lotion as standard, the investigators determined that their rosemary hair lotion demonstrated significant hair growth promotion, exceeding that seen in the mice treated with the drug standard.1
In a randomized controlled study in C57BL/6NCrSlc mice a decade earlier, Murata and colleagues evaluated the anti-androgenic activity and hair growth potential imparted by topical rosemary oil compared with finasteride and minoxidil. Rosemary oil leaf extract, with 12-O-methylcarnosic acid as its most active component, robustly suppressed 5alpha-reductase and stimulated hair growth in vivo in both the androgenetic alopecia/testosterone-treated mouse model, as well as the hair growth activating mouse model as compared with minoxidil. Further, the inhibitory activity of rosemary was 82.4% and 94.6% at 200 mcg/mL and 500 mcg/mL, respectively, whereas finasteride demonstrated 81.9% at 250 nM.16
A human study two years later was even more encouraging. Panahi and colleagues conducted a randomized comparative trial with 100 patients to investigate the effects of rosemary oil as opposed to minoxidil 2% for the treatment of androgenetic alopecia over 6 months. By 6 months, significantly greater hair counts were observed in both groups compared with baseline and 3-month readings, but no significant variations between groups. No differences were found in the frequency of dryness, greasiness, or dandruff at any time point or between groups. Scalp itching was significantly greater at the 3- and 6-month points in both groups, particularly in the minoxidil group at both of those time points. The investigators concluded that rosemary oil compared well with minoxidil as androgenetic alopecia therapy.17
Conclusion
Rosemary has been used in traditional medicine for hundreds of years and it has been a common ingredient in cosmetic and cosmeceutical formulations for more than 20 years. Recent findings suggest a broad array of applications in modern medicine, particularly dermatology. The next column will focus on the most recent studies pertaining to the antioxidant and anti-aging activity of this aromatic shrub.
Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur in Miami. She founded the division of cosmetic dermatology at the University of Miami in 1997. The third edition of her bestselling textbook, “Cosmetic Dermatology,” was published in 2022. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Galderma, Johnson & Johnson, and Burt’s Bees. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions Inc., a SaaS company used to generate skin care routines in office and as a ecommerce solution. Write to her at [email protected].
References
1. Begum A et al. Adv Biomed Res. 2023 Mar 21;12:60.
2. de Oliveira JR et al. J Biomed Sci. 2019 Jan 9;26(1):5.
3. González-Minero FJ et al. Cosmetics. 2020 Oct 3;7(4):77.
4. Dinkins J et al. Int J Dermatol. 2023 Aug;62(8):980-5.
5. Akbari J et al. Pharm Biol. 2015;53(10):1442-7.
6. Allegra A et al. Nutrients. 2020 Jun 10;12(6):1739.
7. de Macedo LM et al. Plants (Basel). 2020 May 21;9(5):651.
8. Cattaneo L et al. PLoS One. 2015 Jul 15;10(7):e0132439.
9. Borges RS et al. J Ethnopharmacol. 2019 Jan 30;229:29-45.
10. Begum A et al. Acta Sci Pol Technol Aliment. 2013 Jan-Mar;12(1):61-73.
11. Bulhões AAVC et al. Acta Cir Bras. 2022 Apr 8;37(1):e370104.
12. Labib RM et al. PLoS One. 2019 Sep 16;14(9):e0219561.
13. Abu-Al-Basal MA. J Ethnopharmacol. 2010 Sep 15;131(2):443-50.
14. Sancheti G and Goyal PK. Phytother Res. 2006 Nov;20(11):981-6.
15. Moore J et al. Nutrients. 2016 Nov 17;8(11):731.
16. Murata K et al. Phytother Res. 2013 Feb;27(2):212-7.
17. Panahi Y et al. Skinmed. 2015 Jan-Feb;13(1):15-21.
*Correction, 2/27: This column was updated with the more recent name for rosemary, Salvia rosmarinus.
A member of the Lamiaceae family, Salvia rosmarinus (rosemary),* an aromatic plant native to the Mediterranean region and now cultivated globally, has been used for centuries in cuisine and medicine, with several well-established biological activities.1-3 Thought to contribute to preventing hair loss, rosemary oil was also used for hundreds of years in hair rinses in the Mediterranean area.4 In traditional Iranian medicine, rosemary essential oil has been topically applied as an analgesic, anti-inflammatory, and anti-acne remedy.5 Rosemary is known to absorb UV light well and to impart antibacterial and antifungal activity, as well as help maintain skin homeostasis.3 It is also used and under further study for its anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, anti-infective, and anticancer activity.2,6-9 The health benefits of rosemary are typically ascribed to its constituent carnosol/carnosic and ursolic acids.7.
Chemical Constituents
The key chemical components of S. rosmarinus include bitter principle, resin, tannic acid, flavonoids, and volatile oils (made up of borneol, bornyl acetate, camphene, cineol, pinene, and camphor).10 Other important constituents of rosemary oil, in particular, include p-Cymene, linalool, gamma-terpinene, thymol, beta-pinene, alpha-pinene, eucalyptol, and carnosic acid.9 Volatile oils of rosemary have been used in various oils and lotions to treat wounds and with the intention of stimulating hair growth.10
Wound Healing
In a 2022 study in 60 adult male rats, Bulhões and colleagues found that the use of rosemary leaf essential oil-based ointments on skin lesions spurred wound healing, decreased inflammation, and enhanced angiogenesis as well as collagen fiber density.11
Three years earlier, Labib and colleagues studied the wound healing capacity of three chitosan-based topical formulations containing either tea tree essential oil, rosemary essential oil, or a mixture of both oils in an excision wound model in rats.
The combination preparation was found to be the most effective in fostering various stages of wound healing, with significant increases in wound contraction percentage observed in the combination group compared with either group treated using individual essential oils or the untreated animals.12
A 2010 in vivo study by Abu-Al-Basal using BALB/c mice with diabetes revealed that the topical application of rosemary essential oil for three days reduced inflammation, enhanced wound contraction and re-epithelialization, and promoted angiogenesis, granulation tissue regeneration, and collagen deposition.13
Anticancer Activity
Using a 7,12-dimethlybenz(a)anthracene (DMBA)-initiated and croton oil-promoted model in 2006, Sancheti and Goyal determined that rosemary extract administered orally at a dose rate of 500 mg/kg body weight/mouse significantly inhibited two-stage skin tumorigenesis in mice.14 Nearly a decade later, Cattaneo and colleagues determined that a rosemary hydroalcoholic extract displayed antiproliferative effects on the human melanoma A375 cell line.8
The polyphenols carnosic acid and rosmarinic acid are most often cited as the sources of the reputed anticancer effects of rosemary.15
Hair Health
Early in 2023, Begum and colleagues developed a 1% hair lotion including a methanolic extract of the aerial part of S. rosmarinus that they assessed for potential hair growth activity in C57BL/6 mice. Using water as a control and 2% minoxidil hair lotion as standard, the investigators determined that their rosemary hair lotion demonstrated significant hair growth promotion, exceeding that seen in the mice treated with the drug standard.1
In a randomized controlled study in C57BL/6NCrSlc mice a decade earlier, Murata and colleagues evaluated the anti-androgenic activity and hair growth potential imparted by topical rosemary oil compared with finasteride and minoxidil. Rosemary oil leaf extract, with 12-O-methylcarnosic acid as its most active component, robustly suppressed 5alpha-reductase and stimulated hair growth in vivo in both the androgenetic alopecia/testosterone-treated mouse model, as well as the hair growth activating mouse model as compared with minoxidil. Further, the inhibitory activity of rosemary was 82.4% and 94.6% at 200 mcg/mL and 500 mcg/mL, respectively, whereas finasteride demonstrated 81.9% at 250 nM.16
A human study two years later was even more encouraging. Panahi and colleagues conducted a randomized comparative trial with 100 patients to investigate the effects of rosemary oil as opposed to minoxidil 2% for the treatment of androgenetic alopecia over 6 months. By 6 months, significantly greater hair counts were observed in both groups compared with baseline and 3-month readings, but no significant variations between groups. No differences were found in the frequency of dryness, greasiness, or dandruff at any time point or between groups. Scalp itching was significantly greater at the 3- and 6-month points in both groups, particularly in the minoxidil group at both of those time points. The investigators concluded that rosemary oil compared well with minoxidil as androgenetic alopecia therapy.17
Conclusion
Rosemary has been used in traditional medicine for hundreds of years and it has been a common ingredient in cosmetic and cosmeceutical formulations for more than 20 years. Recent findings suggest a broad array of applications in modern medicine, particularly dermatology. The next column will focus on the most recent studies pertaining to the antioxidant and anti-aging activity of this aromatic shrub.
Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur in Miami. She founded the division of cosmetic dermatology at the University of Miami in 1997. The third edition of her bestselling textbook, “Cosmetic Dermatology,” was published in 2022. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Galderma, Johnson & Johnson, and Burt’s Bees. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions Inc., a SaaS company used to generate skin care routines in office and as a ecommerce solution. Write to her at [email protected].
References
1. Begum A et al. Adv Biomed Res. 2023 Mar 21;12:60.
2. de Oliveira JR et al. J Biomed Sci. 2019 Jan 9;26(1):5.
3. González-Minero FJ et al. Cosmetics. 2020 Oct 3;7(4):77.
4. Dinkins J et al. Int J Dermatol. 2023 Aug;62(8):980-5.
5. Akbari J et al. Pharm Biol. 2015;53(10):1442-7.
6. Allegra A et al. Nutrients. 2020 Jun 10;12(6):1739.
7. de Macedo LM et al. Plants (Basel). 2020 May 21;9(5):651.
8. Cattaneo L et al. PLoS One. 2015 Jul 15;10(7):e0132439.
9. Borges RS et al. J Ethnopharmacol. 2019 Jan 30;229:29-45.
10. Begum A et al. Acta Sci Pol Technol Aliment. 2013 Jan-Mar;12(1):61-73.
11. Bulhões AAVC et al. Acta Cir Bras. 2022 Apr 8;37(1):e370104.
12. Labib RM et al. PLoS One. 2019 Sep 16;14(9):e0219561.
13. Abu-Al-Basal MA. J Ethnopharmacol. 2010 Sep 15;131(2):443-50.
14. Sancheti G and Goyal PK. Phytother Res. 2006 Nov;20(11):981-6.
15. Moore J et al. Nutrients. 2016 Nov 17;8(11):731.
16. Murata K et al. Phytother Res. 2013 Feb;27(2):212-7.
17. Panahi Y et al. Skinmed. 2015 Jan-Feb;13(1):15-21.
*Correction, 2/27: This column was updated with the more recent name for rosemary, Salvia rosmarinus.
‘Stop Teaching’ Children It’s Their Fault They’re Fat
The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has published draft recommendations that 6-year-olds with obesity be lectured to about diet and exercise.
Never mind that there are no reproducible or scalable studies demonstrating durable and clinically meaningful benefits of this for adults let alone children. Never mind that children are not household decision-makers on matters of grocery shopping, cooking, or exercise. Never mind the corollary that many children so lectured who fail to see an impact on their weight will perceive that as their own personal failures. And of course, never mind that we’re privileged to be in an era with safe, effective, pharmacotherapeutic options for obesity. No. We must teach children it’s their fault if they’re fat. Because ultimately that’s what many of them will learn.
That’s not to say there’s no room for counseling. But with children as young as 6, that counseling should be delivered exclusively to their parents and caregivers. That counseling should focus as much if not more so on the impact of weight bias and the biological basis of obesity rather than diet and exercise, while explicitly teaching parents the means to discuss nutrition without risking their children feeling worse about themselves, increasing the risk for conflict over changes, or heightening their children’s chance of developing eating disorders or maladaptive relationships with food.
But back to the USPSTF’s actual recommendation for those 6 years old and up. They’re recommending “at least” 26 hours of lectures over a year-long interprofessional intervention. Putting aside the reality that this isn’t scalable time-wise or cost-wise to reach even a fraction of the roughly 15 million US children with obesity, there is also the issue of service provision. Because when it comes to obesity, if the intervention is purely educational, even if you want to believe there is a syllabus out there that would have a dramatic impact, its impact will vary wildly depending on the skill and approach of the service providers. This inconvenient truth is also the one that makes it impossible to meaningfully compare program outcomes even when they share the same content.
The USPSTF’s draft recommendations also explicitly avoid what the American Academy of Pediatrics has rightly embraced: the use where appropriate of medications or surgery. While opponents of the use of pharmacotherapy for childhood obesity tend to point to a lack of long-term data as rationale for its denial, something that the USPSTF has done, again, we have long-term data demonstrating a lack of scalable, clinically meaningful efficacy for service only based programs.
Childhood obesity is a flood and its ongoing current is relentless. Given its tremendous impact, especially at its extremes, on both physical and mental health, this is yet another example of systemic weight bias in action — it’s as if the USPSTF is recommending a swimming lesson–only approach while actively fearmongering, despite an absence of plausible mechanistic risk, about the long-term use of life jackets.
Dr. Freedhoff is associate professor, Department of Family Medicine, University of Ottawa; Medical Director, Bariatric Medical Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Dr. Freedhoff has disclosed ties with Bariatric Medical Institute, Constant Health, and Novo Nordisk.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has published draft recommendations that 6-year-olds with obesity be lectured to about diet and exercise.
Never mind that there are no reproducible or scalable studies demonstrating durable and clinically meaningful benefits of this for adults let alone children. Never mind that children are not household decision-makers on matters of grocery shopping, cooking, or exercise. Never mind the corollary that many children so lectured who fail to see an impact on their weight will perceive that as their own personal failures. And of course, never mind that we’re privileged to be in an era with safe, effective, pharmacotherapeutic options for obesity. No. We must teach children it’s their fault if they’re fat. Because ultimately that’s what many of them will learn.
That’s not to say there’s no room for counseling. But with children as young as 6, that counseling should be delivered exclusively to their parents and caregivers. That counseling should focus as much if not more so on the impact of weight bias and the biological basis of obesity rather than diet and exercise, while explicitly teaching parents the means to discuss nutrition without risking their children feeling worse about themselves, increasing the risk for conflict over changes, or heightening their children’s chance of developing eating disorders or maladaptive relationships with food.
But back to the USPSTF’s actual recommendation for those 6 years old and up. They’re recommending “at least” 26 hours of lectures over a year-long interprofessional intervention. Putting aside the reality that this isn’t scalable time-wise or cost-wise to reach even a fraction of the roughly 15 million US children with obesity, there is also the issue of service provision. Because when it comes to obesity, if the intervention is purely educational, even if you want to believe there is a syllabus out there that would have a dramatic impact, its impact will vary wildly depending on the skill and approach of the service providers. This inconvenient truth is also the one that makes it impossible to meaningfully compare program outcomes even when they share the same content.
The USPSTF’s draft recommendations also explicitly avoid what the American Academy of Pediatrics has rightly embraced: the use where appropriate of medications or surgery. While opponents of the use of pharmacotherapy for childhood obesity tend to point to a lack of long-term data as rationale for its denial, something that the USPSTF has done, again, we have long-term data demonstrating a lack of scalable, clinically meaningful efficacy for service only based programs.
Childhood obesity is a flood and its ongoing current is relentless. Given its tremendous impact, especially at its extremes, on both physical and mental health, this is yet another example of systemic weight bias in action — it’s as if the USPSTF is recommending a swimming lesson–only approach while actively fearmongering, despite an absence of plausible mechanistic risk, about the long-term use of life jackets.
Dr. Freedhoff is associate professor, Department of Family Medicine, University of Ottawa; Medical Director, Bariatric Medical Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Dr. Freedhoff has disclosed ties with Bariatric Medical Institute, Constant Health, and Novo Nordisk.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has published draft recommendations that 6-year-olds with obesity be lectured to about diet and exercise.
Never mind that there are no reproducible or scalable studies demonstrating durable and clinically meaningful benefits of this for adults let alone children. Never mind that children are not household decision-makers on matters of grocery shopping, cooking, or exercise. Never mind the corollary that many children so lectured who fail to see an impact on their weight will perceive that as their own personal failures. And of course, never mind that we’re privileged to be in an era with safe, effective, pharmacotherapeutic options for obesity. No. We must teach children it’s their fault if they’re fat. Because ultimately that’s what many of them will learn.
That’s not to say there’s no room for counseling. But with children as young as 6, that counseling should be delivered exclusively to their parents and caregivers. That counseling should focus as much if not more so on the impact of weight bias and the biological basis of obesity rather than diet and exercise, while explicitly teaching parents the means to discuss nutrition without risking their children feeling worse about themselves, increasing the risk for conflict over changes, or heightening their children’s chance of developing eating disorders or maladaptive relationships with food.
But back to the USPSTF’s actual recommendation for those 6 years old and up. They’re recommending “at least” 26 hours of lectures over a year-long interprofessional intervention. Putting aside the reality that this isn’t scalable time-wise or cost-wise to reach even a fraction of the roughly 15 million US children with obesity, there is also the issue of service provision. Because when it comes to obesity, if the intervention is purely educational, even if you want to believe there is a syllabus out there that would have a dramatic impact, its impact will vary wildly depending on the skill and approach of the service providers. This inconvenient truth is also the one that makes it impossible to meaningfully compare program outcomes even when they share the same content.
The USPSTF’s draft recommendations also explicitly avoid what the American Academy of Pediatrics has rightly embraced: the use where appropriate of medications or surgery. While opponents of the use of pharmacotherapy for childhood obesity tend to point to a lack of long-term data as rationale for its denial, something that the USPSTF has done, again, we have long-term data demonstrating a lack of scalable, clinically meaningful efficacy for service only based programs.
Childhood obesity is a flood and its ongoing current is relentless. Given its tremendous impact, especially at its extremes, on both physical and mental health, this is yet another example of systemic weight bias in action — it’s as if the USPSTF is recommending a swimming lesson–only approach while actively fearmongering, despite an absence of plausible mechanistic risk, about the long-term use of life jackets.
Dr. Freedhoff is associate professor, Department of Family Medicine, University of Ottawa; Medical Director, Bariatric Medical Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Dr. Freedhoff has disclosed ties with Bariatric Medical Institute, Constant Health, and Novo Nordisk.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Tips and Techniques to Boost Colonoscopy Quality
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
When it comes to the use of colonoscopy to reduce the risk for cancer, quality is key.
There are a number of performance improvements we can make in our practices so that we can do better. This is evident in several recently published studies and a recent review article on the topic, which I’d like to profile for you; many of these key quality indicators you can implement now.
Even though it may take more time before they’re supported in the guidelines, you’ll see that the evidence behind these is extraordinarily strong.
Increasing the Adenoma Detection Rate
Certainly, we all do what we can to increase the adenoma detection rate (ADR).
However, at the moment, the nationally recommended benchmark is to achieve an ADR of 25%, which is inordinately low. The ADR rate reported in the GIQuIC registry data is closer to 39%, and in high-level detectors, it’s actually in the greater-than-50% range.
There’s no question that we can do more, and there are a number of ways to do that.
First, This may actually decrease your withdrawal time because you don’t spend so much time trying to face these folds.
In considering tools to aid ADR, don’t forget electronic chromoendoscopy (eg, narrow-band imaging).
There are a number of new artificial intelligence options out there as well, which have been reported to increase the ADR by approximately 10%. Of importance, this improvement even occurs among expert endoscopists.
There’s also important emerging data about ADR in fecal immunochemical test (FIT)–positive patients. FIT-positive status increases the ADR threshold by 15%-20%. This places you in an ADR range of approximately 50%, which is really the norm when screening patients that present for colonoscopy because of FIT positivity.
Adenoma Per Colonoscopy: A Possible ADR Substitute
Growing evidence supports the use of adenoma per colonoscopy (APC) as a substitute to ADR. This would allow you to record every adenoma and attribute it to that index colonoscopy.
A high-quality paper showed that the APC value should be around 0.6 to achieve the current ADR minimum threshold of 25%. Having the APC < 0.6 seems to be associated with an increased risk for residual polyp. Sessile serrated lesions also increased the hazard ratio for interval colorectal cancer. This was evaluated recently with data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry, which Dr Joseph Anderson has led for so long. They showed that 21% of endoscopists had an ADR of 25% or greater but still had APCs < 0.6.
Therefore, when it comes to remedial corrective work, doctors need to be reevaluated, retrained, and educated in the ways that they can incorporate this. The APC in high-level detectors is > 1.0.
APC may be something you want to consider using internally. It does require that you place each polyp into an individual jar, which can increase incremental cost. Nonetheless, there is clear evidence that APC positively changes outcomes.
Including Sessile Serrated Lesions in ADR Detectors
Unfortunately, some of the high-level ADR detectors aren’t so “high level” when it comes to detecting sessile serrated lesions. It’s not quite as concordant as we had previously thought.
Nonetheless, there are many adjunctive things you can do with sessile serrated lesions, including narrow-band imaging and chromoendoscopy.
When it comes to establishing a discriminant, the numbers should be 5%-6% if we’re going to set a quality ratio and an index. However, this is somewhat dependent on your pathologist because they have to read these correctly. Lesions that are ≥ 6 mm above the sigmoid colon and anything in the right colon should be evaluated really closely as a sessile serrated lesion.
I’ve had indications where the pathologist says the lesion is hyperplastic, to which I say, “I’m going to follow as a sessile serrated lesion.” This is because it’s apparent to me in the endoscopic appearance and the narrow-band imaging appearance that it was characteristic of sessile serrated lesions.
Best Practices in Bowel Preparations
The US Multi-Society Task Force recommends that adequate bowel preparation should occur in 85% or more of outpatients, and for the European Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, it’s 90% or more.
I’ll pass along a tip I use in my patients undergoing bowel preparation: I make them aware that during this process, they want to see a clear, yellow, urine-like color to their stool. Otherwise, many patients will think if they’ve had some diarrhea, they don’t need to finish prep. Setting that expectation for them upfront is really important.
The nurses also should be aware of this because if there’s a murky brown effluent upon presentation for the colonoscopy, there’s a greater than 50% chance that they’re going to have had an inadequate preparation. In such cases, you would want to preempt the colonoscopy and perhaps send them out for a re-prep that day or bring them back for a rescheduled appointment.
Resection Considerations
There is substantial variation when it comes to lesion resection, which makes it an important quality indicator on which to focus: High-level detectors aren’t always high-level resectors.
There are two validated instruments that you can use to gauge the adequacy of resection. Those aren’t really ready for prime time in every practice, though they may be seen in fellowship programs.
The idea here is that you want to get a ≥ 2 mm margin for cold snare polypectomy in lesions 1-10 mm in size. This has been a challenge, as findings indicate we don’t do this that well.
Joseph Anderson and colleagues recently published a study using a 2-mm resection margin. They reported that this was only possible in approximately 28% of polyps. For a 1-mm margin, the rate was 84%.
We simply need to set clearer margins when setting our snare. Make sure you’re close enough to the polyp, push down on the snare, and get a good margin of tissue.
When the sample contracts are placed into the formalin, it’s not quite so simple to define the margin at the time of the surgical resection. This often requires an audit evaluation by the pathologist.
There are two other considerations regarding resection.
The first is about the referral for surgery. Referral should not occur for any benign lesions ascribed by your endoscopic advanced imaging techniques and classifications that are not thought to have intramucosal carcinoma. These should be referred to an expert endoscopic evaluation. If you can’t do it, then somebody else should. And you shouldn’t attempt it unless you can get it totally because resection of partially resected lesions is much more complicated. The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy says this applies to any benign lesion of any size, which I think really is the emerging standard of care. You should consider and offer that to the patient. It may require a referral for outside of your institution.
The second additional consideration is around the minimization of cold forceps for removal of polyps. The US Multi-Society Task Force says cold forceps shouldn’t be used for any lesions > 2 mm, whereas for the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, it is > 3 mm. However, it’s still done very commonly in clinical practice. Nibbling the polyp is not an option. Cold snare is actually quicker, more effective, has better outcomes, and is something that you can bill for when you look at the coding.
In summary, there are a lot of things that we can do now to improve colonoscopy. Quality indicators continue to emerge with a compelling, excellent evidence base that strongly supports their use. Given that, I think most of these are actionable now, and it’s not necessary to wait for the guidelines to begin using them. I’d therefore challenge all of us to incorporate them in our continual efforts to do better.
Dr. Johnson is professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, and a past president of the American College of Gastroenterology. His primary focus is the clinical practice of gastroenterology. He has published extensively in the internal medicine/gastroenterology literature, with principal research interests in esophageal and colon disease, and more recently in sleep and microbiome effects on gastrointestinal health and disease. He has disclosed ties with ISOTHRIVE and Johnson & Johnson.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
When it comes to the use of colonoscopy to reduce the risk for cancer, quality is key.
There are a number of performance improvements we can make in our practices so that we can do better. This is evident in several recently published studies and a recent review article on the topic, which I’d like to profile for you; many of these key quality indicators you can implement now.
Even though it may take more time before they’re supported in the guidelines, you’ll see that the evidence behind these is extraordinarily strong.
Increasing the Adenoma Detection Rate
Certainly, we all do what we can to increase the adenoma detection rate (ADR).
However, at the moment, the nationally recommended benchmark is to achieve an ADR of 25%, which is inordinately low. The ADR rate reported in the GIQuIC registry data is closer to 39%, and in high-level detectors, it’s actually in the greater-than-50% range.
There’s no question that we can do more, and there are a number of ways to do that.
First, This may actually decrease your withdrawal time because you don’t spend so much time trying to face these folds.
In considering tools to aid ADR, don’t forget electronic chromoendoscopy (eg, narrow-band imaging).
There are a number of new artificial intelligence options out there as well, which have been reported to increase the ADR by approximately 10%. Of importance, this improvement even occurs among expert endoscopists.
There’s also important emerging data about ADR in fecal immunochemical test (FIT)–positive patients. FIT-positive status increases the ADR threshold by 15%-20%. This places you in an ADR range of approximately 50%, which is really the norm when screening patients that present for colonoscopy because of FIT positivity.
Adenoma Per Colonoscopy: A Possible ADR Substitute
Growing evidence supports the use of adenoma per colonoscopy (APC) as a substitute to ADR. This would allow you to record every adenoma and attribute it to that index colonoscopy.
A high-quality paper showed that the APC value should be around 0.6 to achieve the current ADR minimum threshold of 25%. Having the APC < 0.6 seems to be associated with an increased risk for residual polyp. Sessile serrated lesions also increased the hazard ratio for interval colorectal cancer. This was evaluated recently with data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry, which Dr Joseph Anderson has led for so long. They showed that 21% of endoscopists had an ADR of 25% or greater but still had APCs < 0.6.
Therefore, when it comes to remedial corrective work, doctors need to be reevaluated, retrained, and educated in the ways that they can incorporate this. The APC in high-level detectors is > 1.0.
APC may be something you want to consider using internally. It does require that you place each polyp into an individual jar, which can increase incremental cost. Nonetheless, there is clear evidence that APC positively changes outcomes.
Including Sessile Serrated Lesions in ADR Detectors
Unfortunately, some of the high-level ADR detectors aren’t so “high level” when it comes to detecting sessile serrated lesions. It’s not quite as concordant as we had previously thought.
Nonetheless, there are many adjunctive things you can do with sessile serrated lesions, including narrow-band imaging and chromoendoscopy.
When it comes to establishing a discriminant, the numbers should be 5%-6% if we’re going to set a quality ratio and an index. However, this is somewhat dependent on your pathologist because they have to read these correctly. Lesions that are ≥ 6 mm above the sigmoid colon and anything in the right colon should be evaluated really closely as a sessile serrated lesion.
I’ve had indications where the pathologist says the lesion is hyperplastic, to which I say, “I’m going to follow as a sessile serrated lesion.” This is because it’s apparent to me in the endoscopic appearance and the narrow-band imaging appearance that it was characteristic of sessile serrated lesions.
Best Practices in Bowel Preparations
The US Multi-Society Task Force recommends that adequate bowel preparation should occur in 85% or more of outpatients, and for the European Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, it’s 90% or more.
I’ll pass along a tip I use in my patients undergoing bowel preparation: I make them aware that during this process, they want to see a clear, yellow, urine-like color to their stool. Otherwise, many patients will think if they’ve had some diarrhea, they don’t need to finish prep. Setting that expectation for them upfront is really important.
The nurses also should be aware of this because if there’s a murky brown effluent upon presentation for the colonoscopy, there’s a greater than 50% chance that they’re going to have had an inadequate preparation. In such cases, you would want to preempt the colonoscopy and perhaps send them out for a re-prep that day or bring them back for a rescheduled appointment.
Resection Considerations
There is substantial variation when it comes to lesion resection, which makes it an important quality indicator on which to focus: High-level detectors aren’t always high-level resectors.
There are two validated instruments that you can use to gauge the adequacy of resection. Those aren’t really ready for prime time in every practice, though they may be seen in fellowship programs.
The idea here is that you want to get a ≥ 2 mm margin for cold snare polypectomy in lesions 1-10 mm in size. This has been a challenge, as findings indicate we don’t do this that well.
Joseph Anderson and colleagues recently published a study using a 2-mm resection margin. They reported that this was only possible in approximately 28% of polyps. For a 1-mm margin, the rate was 84%.
We simply need to set clearer margins when setting our snare. Make sure you’re close enough to the polyp, push down on the snare, and get a good margin of tissue.
When the sample contracts are placed into the formalin, it’s not quite so simple to define the margin at the time of the surgical resection. This often requires an audit evaluation by the pathologist.
There are two other considerations regarding resection.
The first is about the referral for surgery. Referral should not occur for any benign lesions ascribed by your endoscopic advanced imaging techniques and classifications that are not thought to have intramucosal carcinoma. These should be referred to an expert endoscopic evaluation. If you can’t do it, then somebody else should. And you shouldn’t attempt it unless you can get it totally because resection of partially resected lesions is much more complicated. The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy says this applies to any benign lesion of any size, which I think really is the emerging standard of care. You should consider and offer that to the patient. It may require a referral for outside of your institution.
The second additional consideration is around the minimization of cold forceps for removal of polyps. The US Multi-Society Task Force says cold forceps shouldn’t be used for any lesions > 2 mm, whereas for the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, it is > 3 mm. However, it’s still done very commonly in clinical practice. Nibbling the polyp is not an option. Cold snare is actually quicker, more effective, has better outcomes, and is something that you can bill for when you look at the coding.
In summary, there are a lot of things that we can do now to improve colonoscopy. Quality indicators continue to emerge with a compelling, excellent evidence base that strongly supports their use. Given that, I think most of these are actionable now, and it’s not necessary to wait for the guidelines to begin using them. I’d therefore challenge all of us to incorporate them in our continual efforts to do better.
Dr. Johnson is professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, and a past president of the American College of Gastroenterology. His primary focus is the clinical practice of gastroenterology. He has published extensively in the internal medicine/gastroenterology literature, with principal research interests in esophageal and colon disease, and more recently in sleep and microbiome effects on gastrointestinal health and disease. He has disclosed ties with ISOTHRIVE and Johnson & Johnson.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
When it comes to the use of colonoscopy to reduce the risk for cancer, quality is key.
There are a number of performance improvements we can make in our practices so that we can do better. This is evident in several recently published studies and a recent review article on the topic, which I’d like to profile for you; many of these key quality indicators you can implement now.
Even though it may take more time before they’re supported in the guidelines, you’ll see that the evidence behind these is extraordinarily strong.
Increasing the Adenoma Detection Rate
Certainly, we all do what we can to increase the adenoma detection rate (ADR).
However, at the moment, the nationally recommended benchmark is to achieve an ADR of 25%, which is inordinately low. The ADR rate reported in the GIQuIC registry data is closer to 39%, and in high-level detectors, it’s actually in the greater-than-50% range.
There’s no question that we can do more, and there are a number of ways to do that.
First, This may actually decrease your withdrawal time because you don’t spend so much time trying to face these folds.
In considering tools to aid ADR, don’t forget electronic chromoendoscopy (eg, narrow-band imaging).
There are a number of new artificial intelligence options out there as well, which have been reported to increase the ADR by approximately 10%. Of importance, this improvement even occurs among expert endoscopists.
There’s also important emerging data about ADR in fecal immunochemical test (FIT)–positive patients. FIT-positive status increases the ADR threshold by 15%-20%. This places you in an ADR range of approximately 50%, which is really the norm when screening patients that present for colonoscopy because of FIT positivity.
Adenoma Per Colonoscopy: A Possible ADR Substitute
Growing evidence supports the use of adenoma per colonoscopy (APC) as a substitute to ADR. This would allow you to record every adenoma and attribute it to that index colonoscopy.
A high-quality paper showed that the APC value should be around 0.6 to achieve the current ADR minimum threshold of 25%. Having the APC < 0.6 seems to be associated with an increased risk for residual polyp. Sessile serrated lesions also increased the hazard ratio for interval colorectal cancer. This was evaluated recently with data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry, which Dr Joseph Anderson has led for so long. They showed that 21% of endoscopists had an ADR of 25% or greater but still had APCs < 0.6.
Therefore, when it comes to remedial corrective work, doctors need to be reevaluated, retrained, and educated in the ways that they can incorporate this. The APC in high-level detectors is > 1.0.
APC may be something you want to consider using internally. It does require that you place each polyp into an individual jar, which can increase incremental cost. Nonetheless, there is clear evidence that APC positively changes outcomes.
Including Sessile Serrated Lesions in ADR Detectors
Unfortunately, some of the high-level ADR detectors aren’t so “high level” when it comes to detecting sessile serrated lesions. It’s not quite as concordant as we had previously thought.
Nonetheless, there are many adjunctive things you can do with sessile serrated lesions, including narrow-band imaging and chromoendoscopy.
When it comes to establishing a discriminant, the numbers should be 5%-6% if we’re going to set a quality ratio and an index. However, this is somewhat dependent on your pathologist because they have to read these correctly. Lesions that are ≥ 6 mm above the sigmoid colon and anything in the right colon should be evaluated really closely as a sessile serrated lesion.
I’ve had indications where the pathologist says the lesion is hyperplastic, to which I say, “I’m going to follow as a sessile serrated lesion.” This is because it’s apparent to me in the endoscopic appearance and the narrow-band imaging appearance that it was characteristic of sessile serrated lesions.
Best Practices in Bowel Preparations
The US Multi-Society Task Force recommends that adequate bowel preparation should occur in 85% or more of outpatients, and for the European Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, it’s 90% or more.
I’ll pass along a tip I use in my patients undergoing bowel preparation: I make them aware that during this process, they want to see a clear, yellow, urine-like color to their stool. Otherwise, many patients will think if they’ve had some diarrhea, they don’t need to finish prep. Setting that expectation for them upfront is really important.
The nurses also should be aware of this because if there’s a murky brown effluent upon presentation for the colonoscopy, there’s a greater than 50% chance that they’re going to have had an inadequate preparation. In such cases, you would want to preempt the colonoscopy and perhaps send them out for a re-prep that day or bring them back for a rescheduled appointment.
Resection Considerations
There is substantial variation when it comes to lesion resection, which makes it an important quality indicator on which to focus: High-level detectors aren’t always high-level resectors.
There are two validated instruments that you can use to gauge the adequacy of resection. Those aren’t really ready for prime time in every practice, though they may be seen in fellowship programs.
The idea here is that you want to get a ≥ 2 mm margin for cold snare polypectomy in lesions 1-10 mm in size. This has been a challenge, as findings indicate we don’t do this that well.
Joseph Anderson and colleagues recently published a study using a 2-mm resection margin. They reported that this was only possible in approximately 28% of polyps. For a 1-mm margin, the rate was 84%.
We simply need to set clearer margins when setting our snare. Make sure you’re close enough to the polyp, push down on the snare, and get a good margin of tissue.
When the sample contracts are placed into the formalin, it’s not quite so simple to define the margin at the time of the surgical resection. This often requires an audit evaluation by the pathologist.
There are two other considerations regarding resection.
The first is about the referral for surgery. Referral should not occur for any benign lesions ascribed by your endoscopic advanced imaging techniques and classifications that are not thought to have intramucosal carcinoma. These should be referred to an expert endoscopic evaluation. If you can’t do it, then somebody else should. And you shouldn’t attempt it unless you can get it totally because resection of partially resected lesions is much more complicated. The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy says this applies to any benign lesion of any size, which I think really is the emerging standard of care. You should consider and offer that to the patient. It may require a referral for outside of your institution.
The second additional consideration is around the minimization of cold forceps for removal of polyps. The US Multi-Society Task Force says cold forceps shouldn’t be used for any lesions > 2 mm, whereas for the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, it is > 3 mm. However, it’s still done very commonly in clinical practice. Nibbling the polyp is not an option. Cold snare is actually quicker, more effective, has better outcomes, and is something that you can bill for when you look at the coding.
In summary, there are a lot of things that we can do now to improve colonoscopy. Quality indicators continue to emerge with a compelling, excellent evidence base that strongly supports their use. Given that, I think most of these are actionable now, and it’s not necessary to wait for the guidelines to begin using them. I’d therefore challenge all of us to incorporate them in our continual efforts to do better.
Dr. Johnson is professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, and a past president of the American College of Gastroenterology. His primary focus is the clinical practice of gastroenterology. He has published extensively in the internal medicine/gastroenterology literature, with principal research interests in esophageal and colon disease, and more recently in sleep and microbiome effects on gastrointestinal health and disease. He has disclosed ties with ISOTHRIVE and Johnson & Johnson.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Biosimilar Business Deals Keep Up ‘Musical Chairs’ Game of Formulary Construction
As the saying goes, “The more things change, the more they stay the same.” That is particularly true when it comes to the affordability of drugs for our patients even after the launch of so many Humira biosimilars. And we still have the “musical chairs” game of formulary construction — when the music stops, who knows whether your patient’s drug found a chair to sit on. There seems to be only a few chairs available for the many adalimumab biosimilars playing the game.
Nothing has changed since my testimony before the FDA Arthritis Advisory Committee in July 2016 during the approval hearing of the first Humira biosimilar. Below is a quote from that meeting where I was speaking predominantly about the pharmacy side of drugs.
“I’d like to highlight the term ‘access’ because none of us are really naive enough to believe that just approving a biosimilar gives a patient true, hands-on access to the medication, because even if the biosimilar is offered at a 30% discount, I don’t have any patients that can afford it. This means that access is ultimately controlled by third-party payers.”
My prediction, that approving and launching biosimilars with lower prices would not ensure patient access to the drug unless it is paid for by insurance, is now our reality. Today, a drug with an 85% discount on the price of Humira is still unattainable for patients without a “payer.”
Competition and Lower Prices
Lawmakers and some in the media cry for more competition to lower prices. This is the main reason that there has been such a push to get biosimilars to the market as quickly as possible. It is abundantly clear that competition to get on the formulary is fierce. Placement of a medication on a formulary can make or break a manufacturer’s ability to get a return on the R&D and make a profit on that medication. For a small biotech manufacturer, it can be the difference between “life and death” of the company.
Does anyone remember when the first interchangeable biosimilar for the reference insulin glargine product Lantus (insulin glargine-yfgn; Semglee) came to market in 2021? Janet Woodcock, MD, then acting FDA commissioner, called it a “momentous day” and further said, “Today’s approval of the first interchangeable biosimilar product furthers FDA’s longstanding commitment to support a competitive marketplace for biological products and ultimately empowers patients by helping to increase access to safe, effective and high-quality medications at potentially lower cost.” There was a high-priced interchangeable biosimilar and an identical unbranded low-priced interchangeable biosimilar, and the only one that could get formulary placement was the high-priced drug.
Patients pay their cost share on the list price of the drug, and because most pharmacy benefit managers’ (PBMs’) formularies cover only the high-priced biosimilar, patients never share in the savings. So much for the “competitive marketplace” creating lower costs for patients. This is just one of hundreds of examples in which lower-priced drugs are excluded from the formulary. It is unfortunate that the bidding process from manufacturers to PBMs to “win” preferred formulary placement is like an art auction, where the highest bidder wins.
Biosimilars and Formulary Construction
For those of us who have been looking into PBMs for many years, it is no surprise that PBMs’ formulary construction has become a profit center for them. Now, with so many adalimumab biosimilars having entered the market, it has become the Wild West where only those with the most money to fork over to the PBMs get preferred placement. Unfortunately, many of the choices that make money for the PBM cost employers and patients more.
How did we get here? In the 1980s and 90s, the price of medications began to increase to the point that many were not affordable without insurance. And who better to construct the list of drugs that would be covered by insurance (formulary) than the PBMs who were already adjudicating the claims for these drugs. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) realized the power inherent in constructing this list of medications known as the formulary. So when the manufacturer Merck acquired the PBM Medco in the mid-1990s, the FTC stepped in. The FTC surmised that making the drugs and deciding which ones will be paid for created a “conflict of interest” with anticompetitive ramifications.
So, in 1998, William J. Baer, director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition, said, “Our investigation into the PBM industry has revealed that Merck’s acquisition of Medco has reduced competition in the market for pharmaceutical products … We have found that Medco has given favorable treatment to Merck drugs. As a result, in some cases, consumers have been denied access to the drugs of competing manufacturers. In addition, the merger has made it possible for Medco to share with Merck sensitive pricing information it gets from Merck’s competitors, which could foster collusion among drug manufacturers.” Wow!
These anticompetitive behaviors and conflicts of interest resulting from the Medco acquisition led the FTC to propose a consent agreement.
The agreement would require Merck-Medco to maintain an “open formulary” — one that includes drugs selected and approved by an independent Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee regardless of the manufacturer. Medco would have to accept rebates and other price concessions and reflect these in the ranking of the drugs on the formulary. Merck would have to make known the availability of the open formulary to any drug maker with an agreement with Medco.
Let’s hope the FTC of 2024 remembers the stance of the FTC in the 1990s regarding anticompetitive behavior involved in formulary construction.
Conflicts of Interest
But today it is apparent that crafting formularies that pay only for the drugs that make the most money for the PBM is not a conflict of interest. In its policy manual, Cigna directly tells employers and employees that they are collecting and keeping rebates and fees on medical pharmaceuticals, and they are not for the benefit of the employer or the plan.
And now, in August 2023, CVS launched Cordavis, a subsidiary wholly owned by CVS. Cordavis/CVS has partnered with Sandoz, which makes Hyrimoz, an adalimumab biosimilar. There is a high-priced version that is discounted 5% from Humira, a lower-cost unbranded version that is discounted 80% off the list price of Humira, and a co-branded CVS/Sandoz version of Hyrimoz that is lower priced as well.
It isn’t a surprise that CVS’ Standard and Advanced Commercial and Chart formularies are offering only Sandoz adalimumab biosimilar products. While these formularies have excluded Humira, CVS has entered into an agreement with AbbVie to allow Humira on a number of their other formularies. It can be very confusing.
As stated earlier, in the 1990s, the FTC frowned upon manufacturers owning PBMs and allowing them to construct their own formularies. Here we have CVS Health, mothership for the PBM CVS Caremark, owning a company that will be co-producing biosimilars with other manufacturers and then determining which biosimilars are on their formularies. The FTC knew back then that the tendency would be to offer only their own drugs for coverage, thus reducing competition. This is exactly what the CVS-Cordavis-Sandoz partnership has done for their Standard and Advanced Commercial and Chart formularies. It is perhaps anti-competitive but certainly profitable.
Perhaps the FTC should require the same consent agreement that was given to Merck in 1998. CVS Caremark would then have to open their formularies to all competitors of their co-branded, co-produced Sandoz biosimilar.
Summary
It is the same old adage, “The more things change, the more they stay the same.” PBMs are still constructing formularies with biosimilars based on their profitability, with huge differences between gross and net cost. Patients still pay their cost share on the list (gross) price. With the CVS-Cordavis-Sandoz partnership, more vertical integration has led to yet another profit river. Self-funded employers are still getting the wool pulled over their eyes by the big three PBMs who threaten to take away rebates if they don’t choose the preferred formularies. The employers don’t realize that sometimes it is less expensive to choose the lower-priced drugs with no rebates, and that holds true for biosimilars as well.
Let’s hope that the FTC investigates the situation of a PBM partnering with a manufacturer and then choosing only that manufacturer’s drugs for many of their formularies.
We need to continue our advocacy for our patients because the medication that has kept them stable for so long may find itself without a chair the next time the music stops.
Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is the CSRO’s Vice President of Advocacy and Government Affairs and its immediate Past President, as well as past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at [email protected].
As the saying goes, “The more things change, the more they stay the same.” That is particularly true when it comes to the affordability of drugs for our patients even after the launch of so many Humira biosimilars. And we still have the “musical chairs” game of formulary construction — when the music stops, who knows whether your patient’s drug found a chair to sit on. There seems to be only a few chairs available for the many adalimumab biosimilars playing the game.
Nothing has changed since my testimony before the FDA Arthritis Advisory Committee in July 2016 during the approval hearing of the first Humira biosimilar. Below is a quote from that meeting where I was speaking predominantly about the pharmacy side of drugs.
“I’d like to highlight the term ‘access’ because none of us are really naive enough to believe that just approving a biosimilar gives a patient true, hands-on access to the medication, because even if the biosimilar is offered at a 30% discount, I don’t have any patients that can afford it. This means that access is ultimately controlled by third-party payers.”
My prediction, that approving and launching biosimilars with lower prices would not ensure patient access to the drug unless it is paid for by insurance, is now our reality. Today, a drug with an 85% discount on the price of Humira is still unattainable for patients without a “payer.”
Competition and Lower Prices
Lawmakers and some in the media cry for more competition to lower prices. This is the main reason that there has been such a push to get biosimilars to the market as quickly as possible. It is abundantly clear that competition to get on the formulary is fierce. Placement of a medication on a formulary can make or break a manufacturer’s ability to get a return on the R&D and make a profit on that medication. For a small biotech manufacturer, it can be the difference between “life and death” of the company.
Does anyone remember when the first interchangeable biosimilar for the reference insulin glargine product Lantus (insulin glargine-yfgn; Semglee) came to market in 2021? Janet Woodcock, MD, then acting FDA commissioner, called it a “momentous day” and further said, “Today’s approval of the first interchangeable biosimilar product furthers FDA’s longstanding commitment to support a competitive marketplace for biological products and ultimately empowers patients by helping to increase access to safe, effective and high-quality medications at potentially lower cost.” There was a high-priced interchangeable biosimilar and an identical unbranded low-priced interchangeable biosimilar, and the only one that could get formulary placement was the high-priced drug.
Patients pay their cost share on the list price of the drug, and because most pharmacy benefit managers’ (PBMs’) formularies cover only the high-priced biosimilar, patients never share in the savings. So much for the “competitive marketplace” creating lower costs for patients. This is just one of hundreds of examples in which lower-priced drugs are excluded from the formulary. It is unfortunate that the bidding process from manufacturers to PBMs to “win” preferred formulary placement is like an art auction, where the highest bidder wins.
Biosimilars and Formulary Construction
For those of us who have been looking into PBMs for many years, it is no surprise that PBMs’ formulary construction has become a profit center for them. Now, with so many adalimumab biosimilars having entered the market, it has become the Wild West where only those with the most money to fork over to the PBMs get preferred placement. Unfortunately, many of the choices that make money for the PBM cost employers and patients more.
How did we get here? In the 1980s and 90s, the price of medications began to increase to the point that many were not affordable without insurance. And who better to construct the list of drugs that would be covered by insurance (formulary) than the PBMs who were already adjudicating the claims for these drugs. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) realized the power inherent in constructing this list of medications known as the formulary. So when the manufacturer Merck acquired the PBM Medco in the mid-1990s, the FTC stepped in. The FTC surmised that making the drugs and deciding which ones will be paid for created a “conflict of interest” with anticompetitive ramifications.
So, in 1998, William J. Baer, director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition, said, “Our investigation into the PBM industry has revealed that Merck’s acquisition of Medco has reduced competition in the market for pharmaceutical products … We have found that Medco has given favorable treatment to Merck drugs. As a result, in some cases, consumers have been denied access to the drugs of competing manufacturers. In addition, the merger has made it possible for Medco to share with Merck sensitive pricing information it gets from Merck’s competitors, which could foster collusion among drug manufacturers.” Wow!
These anticompetitive behaviors and conflicts of interest resulting from the Medco acquisition led the FTC to propose a consent agreement.
The agreement would require Merck-Medco to maintain an “open formulary” — one that includes drugs selected and approved by an independent Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee regardless of the manufacturer. Medco would have to accept rebates and other price concessions and reflect these in the ranking of the drugs on the formulary. Merck would have to make known the availability of the open formulary to any drug maker with an agreement with Medco.
Let’s hope the FTC of 2024 remembers the stance of the FTC in the 1990s regarding anticompetitive behavior involved in formulary construction.
Conflicts of Interest
But today it is apparent that crafting formularies that pay only for the drugs that make the most money for the PBM is not a conflict of interest. In its policy manual, Cigna directly tells employers and employees that they are collecting and keeping rebates and fees on medical pharmaceuticals, and they are not for the benefit of the employer or the plan.
And now, in August 2023, CVS launched Cordavis, a subsidiary wholly owned by CVS. Cordavis/CVS has partnered with Sandoz, which makes Hyrimoz, an adalimumab biosimilar. There is a high-priced version that is discounted 5% from Humira, a lower-cost unbranded version that is discounted 80% off the list price of Humira, and a co-branded CVS/Sandoz version of Hyrimoz that is lower priced as well.
It isn’t a surprise that CVS’ Standard and Advanced Commercial and Chart formularies are offering only Sandoz adalimumab biosimilar products. While these formularies have excluded Humira, CVS has entered into an agreement with AbbVie to allow Humira on a number of their other formularies. It can be very confusing.
As stated earlier, in the 1990s, the FTC frowned upon manufacturers owning PBMs and allowing them to construct their own formularies. Here we have CVS Health, mothership for the PBM CVS Caremark, owning a company that will be co-producing biosimilars with other manufacturers and then determining which biosimilars are on their formularies. The FTC knew back then that the tendency would be to offer only their own drugs for coverage, thus reducing competition. This is exactly what the CVS-Cordavis-Sandoz partnership has done for their Standard and Advanced Commercial and Chart formularies. It is perhaps anti-competitive but certainly profitable.
Perhaps the FTC should require the same consent agreement that was given to Merck in 1998. CVS Caremark would then have to open their formularies to all competitors of their co-branded, co-produced Sandoz biosimilar.
Summary
It is the same old adage, “The more things change, the more they stay the same.” PBMs are still constructing formularies with biosimilars based on their profitability, with huge differences between gross and net cost. Patients still pay their cost share on the list (gross) price. With the CVS-Cordavis-Sandoz partnership, more vertical integration has led to yet another profit river. Self-funded employers are still getting the wool pulled over their eyes by the big three PBMs who threaten to take away rebates if they don’t choose the preferred formularies. The employers don’t realize that sometimes it is less expensive to choose the lower-priced drugs with no rebates, and that holds true for biosimilars as well.
Let’s hope that the FTC investigates the situation of a PBM partnering with a manufacturer and then choosing only that manufacturer’s drugs for many of their formularies.
We need to continue our advocacy for our patients because the medication that has kept them stable for so long may find itself without a chair the next time the music stops.
Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is the CSRO’s Vice President of Advocacy and Government Affairs and its immediate Past President, as well as past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at [email protected].
As the saying goes, “The more things change, the more they stay the same.” That is particularly true when it comes to the affordability of drugs for our patients even after the launch of so many Humira biosimilars. And we still have the “musical chairs” game of formulary construction — when the music stops, who knows whether your patient’s drug found a chair to sit on. There seems to be only a few chairs available for the many adalimumab biosimilars playing the game.
Nothing has changed since my testimony before the FDA Arthritis Advisory Committee in July 2016 during the approval hearing of the first Humira biosimilar. Below is a quote from that meeting where I was speaking predominantly about the pharmacy side of drugs.
“I’d like to highlight the term ‘access’ because none of us are really naive enough to believe that just approving a biosimilar gives a patient true, hands-on access to the medication, because even if the biosimilar is offered at a 30% discount, I don’t have any patients that can afford it. This means that access is ultimately controlled by third-party payers.”
My prediction, that approving and launching biosimilars with lower prices would not ensure patient access to the drug unless it is paid for by insurance, is now our reality. Today, a drug with an 85% discount on the price of Humira is still unattainable for patients without a “payer.”
Competition and Lower Prices
Lawmakers and some in the media cry for more competition to lower prices. This is the main reason that there has been such a push to get biosimilars to the market as quickly as possible. It is abundantly clear that competition to get on the formulary is fierce. Placement of a medication on a formulary can make or break a manufacturer’s ability to get a return on the R&D and make a profit on that medication. For a small biotech manufacturer, it can be the difference between “life and death” of the company.
Does anyone remember when the first interchangeable biosimilar for the reference insulin glargine product Lantus (insulin glargine-yfgn; Semglee) came to market in 2021? Janet Woodcock, MD, then acting FDA commissioner, called it a “momentous day” and further said, “Today’s approval of the first interchangeable biosimilar product furthers FDA’s longstanding commitment to support a competitive marketplace for biological products and ultimately empowers patients by helping to increase access to safe, effective and high-quality medications at potentially lower cost.” There was a high-priced interchangeable biosimilar and an identical unbranded low-priced interchangeable biosimilar, and the only one that could get formulary placement was the high-priced drug.
Patients pay their cost share on the list price of the drug, and because most pharmacy benefit managers’ (PBMs’) formularies cover only the high-priced biosimilar, patients never share in the savings. So much for the “competitive marketplace” creating lower costs for patients. This is just one of hundreds of examples in which lower-priced drugs are excluded from the formulary. It is unfortunate that the bidding process from manufacturers to PBMs to “win” preferred formulary placement is like an art auction, where the highest bidder wins.
Biosimilars and Formulary Construction
For those of us who have been looking into PBMs for many years, it is no surprise that PBMs’ formulary construction has become a profit center for them. Now, with so many adalimumab biosimilars having entered the market, it has become the Wild West where only those with the most money to fork over to the PBMs get preferred placement. Unfortunately, many of the choices that make money for the PBM cost employers and patients more.
How did we get here? In the 1980s and 90s, the price of medications began to increase to the point that many were not affordable without insurance. And who better to construct the list of drugs that would be covered by insurance (formulary) than the PBMs who were already adjudicating the claims for these drugs. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) realized the power inherent in constructing this list of medications known as the formulary. So when the manufacturer Merck acquired the PBM Medco in the mid-1990s, the FTC stepped in. The FTC surmised that making the drugs and deciding which ones will be paid for created a “conflict of interest” with anticompetitive ramifications.
So, in 1998, William J. Baer, director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition, said, “Our investigation into the PBM industry has revealed that Merck’s acquisition of Medco has reduced competition in the market for pharmaceutical products … We have found that Medco has given favorable treatment to Merck drugs. As a result, in some cases, consumers have been denied access to the drugs of competing manufacturers. In addition, the merger has made it possible for Medco to share with Merck sensitive pricing information it gets from Merck’s competitors, which could foster collusion among drug manufacturers.” Wow!
These anticompetitive behaviors and conflicts of interest resulting from the Medco acquisition led the FTC to propose a consent agreement.
The agreement would require Merck-Medco to maintain an “open formulary” — one that includes drugs selected and approved by an independent Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee regardless of the manufacturer. Medco would have to accept rebates and other price concessions and reflect these in the ranking of the drugs on the formulary. Merck would have to make known the availability of the open formulary to any drug maker with an agreement with Medco.
Let’s hope the FTC of 2024 remembers the stance of the FTC in the 1990s regarding anticompetitive behavior involved in formulary construction.
Conflicts of Interest
But today it is apparent that crafting formularies that pay only for the drugs that make the most money for the PBM is not a conflict of interest. In its policy manual, Cigna directly tells employers and employees that they are collecting and keeping rebates and fees on medical pharmaceuticals, and they are not for the benefit of the employer or the plan.
And now, in August 2023, CVS launched Cordavis, a subsidiary wholly owned by CVS. Cordavis/CVS has partnered with Sandoz, which makes Hyrimoz, an adalimumab biosimilar. There is a high-priced version that is discounted 5% from Humira, a lower-cost unbranded version that is discounted 80% off the list price of Humira, and a co-branded CVS/Sandoz version of Hyrimoz that is lower priced as well.
It isn’t a surprise that CVS’ Standard and Advanced Commercial and Chart formularies are offering only Sandoz adalimumab biosimilar products. While these formularies have excluded Humira, CVS has entered into an agreement with AbbVie to allow Humira on a number of their other formularies. It can be very confusing.
As stated earlier, in the 1990s, the FTC frowned upon manufacturers owning PBMs and allowing them to construct their own formularies. Here we have CVS Health, mothership for the PBM CVS Caremark, owning a company that will be co-producing biosimilars with other manufacturers and then determining which biosimilars are on their formularies. The FTC knew back then that the tendency would be to offer only their own drugs for coverage, thus reducing competition. This is exactly what the CVS-Cordavis-Sandoz partnership has done for their Standard and Advanced Commercial and Chart formularies. It is perhaps anti-competitive but certainly profitable.
Perhaps the FTC should require the same consent agreement that was given to Merck in 1998. CVS Caremark would then have to open their formularies to all competitors of their co-branded, co-produced Sandoz biosimilar.
Summary
It is the same old adage, “The more things change, the more they stay the same.” PBMs are still constructing formularies with biosimilars based on their profitability, with huge differences between gross and net cost. Patients still pay their cost share on the list (gross) price. With the CVS-Cordavis-Sandoz partnership, more vertical integration has led to yet another profit river. Self-funded employers are still getting the wool pulled over their eyes by the big three PBMs who threaten to take away rebates if they don’t choose the preferred formularies. The employers don’t realize that sometimes it is less expensive to choose the lower-priced drugs with no rebates, and that holds true for biosimilars as well.
Let’s hope that the FTC investigates the situation of a PBM partnering with a manufacturer and then choosing only that manufacturer’s drugs for many of their formularies.
We need to continue our advocacy for our patients because the medication that has kept them stable for so long may find itself without a chair the next time the music stops.
Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is the CSRO’s Vice President of Advocacy and Government Affairs and its immediate Past President, as well as past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at [email protected].
Magnesium Sulfate for Fetal Neuroprotection in Preterm Birth
Introduction: The Many Lanes of Research on Magnesium Sulfate
The research that improves human health in the most expedient and most impactful ways is multitiered, with basic or fundamental research, translational research, interventional studies, and retrospective research often occurring simultaneously. There should be no “single lane” of research and one type of research does not preclude the other.
Too often, we fall short in one of these lanes. While we have achieved many moonshots in obstetrics and maternal-fetal medicine, we have tended not to place a high priority on basic research, which can provide a strong understanding of the biology of major diseases and conditions affecting women and their offspring. When conducted with proper commitment and funding, such research can lead to biologically directed therapy.
Within our specialty, research on how we can effectively prevent preterm birth, prematurity, and preeclampsia has taken a long road, with various types of therapies being tried, but none being overwhelmingly effective — with an ongoing need for more basic or fundamental research. Nevertheless, we can benefit and gain great insights from retrospective and interventional studies associated with clinical therapies used to treat premature labor and preeclampsia when these therapies have an unanticipated and important secondary benefit.
This month our Master Class is focused on the neuroprotection of prematurity. Magnesium sulfate is a valuable tool for the treatment of both premature labor and preeclampsia, and more recently, also for neuroprotection of the fetus. Interestingly, this use stemmed from researchers looking retrospectively at outcomes in women who received the compound for other reasons. It took many years for researchers to prove its neuroprotective value through interventional trials, while researchers simultaneously strove to understand on a basic biologic level how magnesium sulfate works to prevent outcomes such as cerebral palsy.
Basic research underway today continues to improve our understanding of its precise mechanisms of action. Combined with other tiers of research — including more interventional studies and more translational research — we can improve its utility for the neuroprotection of prematurity. Alternatively, ongoing research may lead to different, even more effective treatments.
Our guest author is Irina Burd, MD, PhD, Sylvan Freiman, MD Endowed Professor and Chair of the department of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at the University of Maryland School of Medicine.* Dr. Burd is also a physician-scientist. She recounts the important story of magnesium sulfate and what is currently known about its biologic plausibility in neuroprotection — including through her own studies – as well as what may be coming in the future.
E. Albert Reece, MD, PhD, MBA, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist, is dean emeritus of the University of Maryland School of Medicine, former university executive vice president; currently the endowed professor and director of the Center for Advanced Research Training and Innovation (CARTI), and senior scientist in the Center for Birth Defects Research. Dr. Reece reported no relevant disclosures. He is the medical editor of this column. Contact him at [email protected].
Magnesium Sulfate for Fetal Neuroprotection in Preterm Birth
Without a doubt, magnesium sulfate (MgSO4) given before anticipated preterm birth reduces the risk of cerebral palsy. It is a valuable tool for fetal neuroprotection at a time when there are no proven alternatives. Yet without the persistent research that occurred over more than 20 years, it may not have won the endorsement of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecologists in 2010 and worked its way into routine practice.
Its history is worthy of reflection. It took years of observational trials (not all of which showed neuroprotective effects), six randomized controlled trials (none of which met their primary endpoint), three meta-analyses, and a Cochrane Database Systematic Review to arrive at the conclusion that antenatal magnesium sulfate therapy given to women at risk of preterm birth has definitive neuroprotective benefit.
This history also holds lessons for our specialty given the dearth of drugs approved for use in pregnancy and the recent withdrawal from the market of Makena — one of only nine drugs to ever be approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use in pregnancy — after a second trial showed lack of benefit in preventing recurrent preterm birth. The story of MgSO4 tells us it’s acceptable to have major stumbling blocks: At one point, MgSO4 was considered to be not only not helpful, but harmful, causing neonatal death. Further research disproved this initial finding.
Moreover, the MgSO4 story is one that remains unfinished, as my laboratory and other researchers work to better understand its biologic plausibility and to discover additional neuroprotective agents for anticipated preterm birth that may further reduce the risk of cerebral palsy. This leading cause of chronic childhood disability is estimated by the United Cerebral Palsy Foundation to affect approximately 800,000 people in the United States.
Origins and Biologic Plausibility
The MgSO4 story is rooted in the late seventeenth century discovery by physician Nehemiah Grew that the compound was the key component of the then-famous medicinal spring waters in Epsom, England.1 MgSO4 was first used for eclampsia in 1906,2 and was first reported in the American literature for eclampsia in 1925.3 In 1959, its effect as a tocolytic agent was reported.4
More than 30 years later, in 1995, an observational study coauthored by Karin B. Nelson, MD, and Judith K. Grether, PhD of the National Institutes of Health, showed a reduced risk of cerebral palsy in very-low-birth-weight infants (VLBW).5 The report marked a turning point in research interest on neuroprotection for anticipated preterm birth.
The precise molecular mechanisms of action of MgSO4 for neuroprotection are still not well understood. However, research findings from the University of Maryland and other institutions have provided biologic plausibility for its use to prevent cerebral palsy. Our current thinking is that it involves the prevention of periventricular white matter injury and/or the prevention of oxidative stress and a neuronal injury mechanism called excitotoxicity.
Periventricular white matter injury involving injury to preoligodendrocytes before 32 weeks’ gestation is the most prevalent injury seen in cerebral palsy; preoligodendrocytes are precursors of myelinating oligodendrocytes, which constitute a major glial population in the white matter. Our research in a mouse model demonstrated that the intrauterine inflammation frequently associated with preterm birth can lead to neuronal injury as well as white matter damage, and that MgSO4 may ameliorate both.6,7
Excitotoxicity results from excessive stimulation of N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) glutamatergic receptors on preoligodendrocytes and a rush of calcium through the voltage-gated channels. This calcium influx leads to the production of nitric oxide, oxidative stress, and subsequent mitochondrial damage and cell death. As a bivalent ion, MgSO4 sits in the voltage-gated channels of the NMDA receptors and reduces glutamatergic signaling, thus serving as a calcium antagonist and modulating calcium influx (See Figure).
In vitro research in our laboratory has also shown that MgSO4 may dampen inflammatory reactions driven by intrauterine infections, which, like preterm birth, increase the risk of cerebral palsy and adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes.8 MgSO4 appears to do so by blocking the voltage-gated P2X7 receptor in umbilical vein endothelial cells, thus blocking endothelial secretion of the proinflammatory cytokine interleukin (IL)–1beta. Much more research is needed to determine whether MgSO4 could help prevent cerebral palsy through this mechanism.
The Long Route of Research
The 1995 Nelson-Grether study compared VLBW (< 1500 g) infants who survived and developed moderate/severe cerebral palsy within 3 years to randomly selected VLBW controls with respect to whether their mothers had received MgSO4 to prevent seizures in preeclampsia or as a tocolytic agent.5 In a population of more than 155,000 children born between 1983 and 1985, in utero exposure to MgSO4 was reported in 7.1% of 42 VLBW infants with cerebral palsy and 36% of 75 VLBW controls (odds ratio [OR], 0.14; 95% CI, 0.05-0.51). In women without preeclampsia the OR increased to 0.25.
This motivating study had been preceded by several observational studies showing that infants born to women with preeclampsia who received MgSO4 had significantly lower risks of developing intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH) and germinal matrix hemorrhage (GMH). In one of these studies, published in 1992, Karl C. Kuban, MD, and coauthors reported that “maternal receipt of magnesium sulfate was associated with diminished risk of GMH-IVH even in those babies born to mothers who apparently did not have preeclampsia.”9
In the several years following the 1995 Nelson-Grether study, several other case-control/observational studies were reported, with conflicting conclusions, and investigators around the world began designing and conducting needed randomized controlled trials.
The six published randomized controlled trials looking at MgSO4 and neuroprotection varied in their inclusion and exclusion criteria, their recruitment and enrollment style, the gestational ages for MgSO4 administration, loading and maintenance doses, how cerebral palsy or neuroprotection was assessed, and other factors (See Table for RCT characteristics and main outcomes).10-14 One of the trials aimed primarily at evaluating the efficacy of MgSO4 for preventing preeclampsia.
Again, none of the randomized controlled trials demonstrated statistical significance for their primary outcomes or concluded that there was a significant neuroprotective effect for cerebral palsy. Rather, most suggested benefit through secondary analyses. Moreover, as mentioned earlier, research that proceeded after the first published randomized controlled trial — the Magnesium and Neurologic Endpoints (MAGnet) trial — was suspended early when an interim analysis showed a significantly increased risk of mortality in MgSO4-exposed fetuses. All told, it wasn’t until researchers obtained unpublished data and conducted meta-analyses and systematic reviews that a significant effect of MgSO4 on cerebral palsy could be seen.
The three systematic reviews and the Cochrane review, each of which used slightly different methodologies, were published in rapid succession in 2009. One review calculated a relative risk of cerebral palsy of 0.71 (95% CI, 0.55-0.91) — and a relative risk for the combined outcome of death and cerebral palsy at 0.85 (95% CI, 0.74-0.98) — when women at risk of preterm birth were given MgSO4.15 The number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one case of cerebral palsy was 63, investigators determined, and the NNT to prevent one case of cerebral palsy or infant death was 44.
Another review estimated the NNT for prevention of one case of cerebral palsy at 52 when MgSO4 is given at less than 34 weeks’ gestation, and similarly concluded that MgSO4 is associated with a significantly “reduced risk of moderate/severe CP and substantial gross motor dysfunction without any statistically significant effect on the risk of total pediatric mortality.”16
A third review, from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network (MFMU), estimated an NNT of 46 to prevent one case of cerebral palsy in infants exposed to MgSO4 before 30 weeks, and an NNT of 56 when exposure occurs before 32-34 weeks.17
The Cochrane Review, meanwhile, reported a relative reduction in the risk of cerebral palsy of 0.68 (95% CI, 0.54-0.87) when antenatal MgSO4 is given at less than 37 weeks’ gestation, as well as a significant reduction in the rate of substantial gross motor dysfunction (RR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.44-0.85).18 The NNT to avoid one case of cerebral palsy, researchers reported, was 63.
Moving Forward
The NNTs calculated in these reviews — ranging from 44 to 63 — are convincing, and are comparable with evidence-based medicine data for prevention of other common diseases.19 For instance, the NNT for a life saved when aspirin is given immediately after a heart attack is 42. Statins given for 5 years in people with known heart disease have an NNT of 83 to save one life, an NNT of 39 to prevent one nonfatal heart attack, and an NNT of 125 to prevent one stroke. For oral anticoagulants used in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation for primary stroke prevention, the NNTs to prevent one stroke, and one death, are 22 and 42, respectively.19
In its 2010 Committee Opinion on Magnesium Sulfate Before Anticipated Preterm Birth for Neuroprotection (reaffirmed in 2020), the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists left it to institutions to develop their own guidelines “regarding inclusion criteria, treatment regimens, concurrent tocolysis, and monitoring in accordance with one of the larger trials.”20
Not surprisingly, most if not all hospitals have chosen a higher dose of MgSO4 administered up to 31 weeks’ gestation in keeping with the protocols employed in the NICHD-sponsored BEAM trial (See Table).
The hope moving forward is to expand treatment options for neuroprotection in cases of imminent preterm birth. Researchers have been assessing the ability of melatonin to provide neuroprotection in cases of growth restriction and neonatal asphyxia. Melatonin has anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties and is known to mediate neuronal generation and synaptic plasticity.21
N-acetyl-L-cysteine is another potential neuroprotective agent. It acts as an antioxidant, a precursor to glutathione, and a modulator of the glutamate system and has been studied as a neuroprotective agent in cases of maternal chorioamnionitis.21 Both melatonin and N-acetyl-L-cysteine are regarded as safe in pregnancy, but much more clinical study is needed to prove their neuroprotective potential when given shortly before birth or earlier.
Dr. Burd is the Sylvan Freiman, MD Endowed Professor and Chair of the department of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore. She has no conflicts of interest.
References
1. Clio Med. 1984;19(1-2):1-21.
2. Medicinsk Rev. (Bergen) 1906;32:264-272.
3. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;174(4):1390-1391.
4. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1959;78(1):27-32.
5. Pediatrics. 1995;95(2):263-269.
6. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;201(3):279.e1-279.e8.
7. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;202(3):292.e1-292.e9.
8. Pediatr Res. 2020;87(3):463-471.
9. J Child Neurol. 1992;7(1):70-76.
10. Lancet. 1997;350:1517-1518.
11. JAMA. 2003;290:2669-2676.
12. BJOG. 2007;114(3):310-318.
13. Lancet. 2002;359(9321):1877-1890.
14. N Engl J Med. 2008;359:895-905.
15. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;113(6):1327-1333.
16. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;200(6):595-609.
17. Obstet Gynecol 2009;114:354-364.
18. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009 Jan 21:(1):CD004661.
19. www.thennt.com.
20. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;115:669-671.
21. Front Synaptic Neurosci. 2012;13:680899.
*This story was corrected on June 10, 2024.
Introduction: The Many Lanes of Research on Magnesium Sulfate
The research that improves human health in the most expedient and most impactful ways is multitiered, with basic or fundamental research, translational research, interventional studies, and retrospective research often occurring simultaneously. There should be no “single lane” of research and one type of research does not preclude the other.
Too often, we fall short in one of these lanes. While we have achieved many moonshots in obstetrics and maternal-fetal medicine, we have tended not to place a high priority on basic research, which can provide a strong understanding of the biology of major diseases and conditions affecting women and their offspring. When conducted with proper commitment and funding, such research can lead to biologically directed therapy.
Within our specialty, research on how we can effectively prevent preterm birth, prematurity, and preeclampsia has taken a long road, with various types of therapies being tried, but none being overwhelmingly effective — with an ongoing need for more basic or fundamental research. Nevertheless, we can benefit and gain great insights from retrospective and interventional studies associated with clinical therapies used to treat premature labor and preeclampsia when these therapies have an unanticipated and important secondary benefit.
This month our Master Class is focused on the neuroprotection of prematurity. Magnesium sulfate is a valuable tool for the treatment of both premature labor and preeclampsia, and more recently, also for neuroprotection of the fetus. Interestingly, this use stemmed from researchers looking retrospectively at outcomes in women who received the compound for other reasons. It took many years for researchers to prove its neuroprotective value through interventional trials, while researchers simultaneously strove to understand on a basic biologic level how magnesium sulfate works to prevent outcomes such as cerebral palsy.
Basic research underway today continues to improve our understanding of its precise mechanisms of action. Combined with other tiers of research — including more interventional studies and more translational research — we can improve its utility for the neuroprotection of prematurity. Alternatively, ongoing research may lead to different, even more effective treatments.
Our guest author is Irina Burd, MD, PhD, Sylvan Freiman, MD Endowed Professor and Chair of the department of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at the University of Maryland School of Medicine.* Dr. Burd is also a physician-scientist. She recounts the important story of magnesium sulfate and what is currently known about its biologic plausibility in neuroprotection — including through her own studies – as well as what may be coming in the future.
E. Albert Reece, MD, PhD, MBA, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist, is dean emeritus of the University of Maryland School of Medicine, former university executive vice president; currently the endowed professor and director of the Center for Advanced Research Training and Innovation (CARTI), and senior scientist in the Center for Birth Defects Research. Dr. Reece reported no relevant disclosures. He is the medical editor of this column. Contact him at [email protected].
Magnesium Sulfate for Fetal Neuroprotection in Preterm Birth
Without a doubt, magnesium sulfate (MgSO4) given before anticipated preterm birth reduces the risk of cerebral palsy. It is a valuable tool for fetal neuroprotection at a time when there are no proven alternatives. Yet without the persistent research that occurred over more than 20 years, it may not have won the endorsement of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecologists in 2010 and worked its way into routine practice.
Its history is worthy of reflection. It took years of observational trials (not all of which showed neuroprotective effects), six randomized controlled trials (none of which met their primary endpoint), three meta-analyses, and a Cochrane Database Systematic Review to arrive at the conclusion that antenatal magnesium sulfate therapy given to women at risk of preterm birth has definitive neuroprotective benefit.
This history also holds lessons for our specialty given the dearth of drugs approved for use in pregnancy and the recent withdrawal from the market of Makena — one of only nine drugs to ever be approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use in pregnancy — after a second trial showed lack of benefit in preventing recurrent preterm birth. The story of MgSO4 tells us it’s acceptable to have major stumbling blocks: At one point, MgSO4 was considered to be not only not helpful, but harmful, causing neonatal death. Further research disproved this initial finding.
Moreover, the MgSO4 story is one that remains unfinished, as my laboratory and other researchers work to better understand its biologic plausibility and to discover additional neuroprotective agents for anticipated preterm birth that may further reduce the risk of cerebral palsy. This leading cause of chronic childhood disability is estimated by the United Cerebral Palsy Foundation to affect approximately 800,000 people in the United States.
Origins and Biologic Plausibility
The MgSO4 story is rooted in the late seventeenth century discovery by physician Nehemiah Grew that the compound was the key component of the then-famous medicinal spring waters in Epsom, England.1 MgSO4 was first used for eclampsia in 1906,2 and was first reported in the American literature for eclampsia in 1925.3 In 1959, its effect as a tocolytic agent was reported.4
More than 30 years later, in 1995, an observational study coauthored by Karin B. Nelson, MD, and Judith K. Grether, PhD of the National Institutes of Health, showed a reduced risk of cerebral palsy in very-low-birth-weight infants (VLBW).5 The report marked a turning point in research interest on neuroprotection for anticipated preterm birth.
The precise molecular mechanisms of action of MgSO4 for neuroprotection are still not well understood. However, research findings from the University of Maryland and other institutions have provided biologic plausibility for its use to prevent cerebral palsy. Our current thinking is that it involves the prevention of periventricular white matter injury and/or the prevention of oxidative stress and a neuronal injury mechanism called excitotoxicity.
Periventricular white matter injury involving injury to preoligodendrocytes before 32 weeks’ gestation is the most prevalent injury seen in cerebral palsy; preoligodendrocytes are precursors of myelinating oligodendrocytes, which constitute a major glial population in the white matter. Our research in a mouse model demonstrated that the intrauterine inflammation frequently associated with preterm birth can lead to neuronal injury as well as white matter damage, and that MgSO4 may ameliorate both.6,7
Excitotoxicity results from excessive stimulation of N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) glutamatergic receptors on preoligodendrocytes and a rush of calcium through the voltage-gated channels. This calcium influx leads to the production of nitric oxide, oxidative stress, and subsequent mitochondrial damage and cell death. As a bivalent ion, MgSO4 sits in the voltage-gated channels of the NMDA receptors and reduces glutamatergic signaling, thus serving as a calcium antagonist and modulating calcium influx (See Figure).
In vitro research in our laboratory has also shown that MgSO4 may dampen inflammatory reactions driven by intrauterine infections, which, like preterm birth, increase the risk of cerebral palsy and adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes.8 MgSO4 appears to do so by blocking the voltage-gated P2X7 receptor in umbilical vein endothelial cells, thus blocking endothelial secretion of the proinflammatory cytokine interleukin (IL)–1beta. Much more research is needed to determine whether MgSO4 could help prevent cerebral palsy through this mechanism.
The Long Route of Research
The 1995 Nelson-Grether study compared VLBW (< 1500 g) infants who survived and developed moderate/severe cerebral palsy within 3 years to randomly selected VLBW controls with respect to whether their mothers had received MgSO4 to prevent seizures in preeclampsia or as a tocolytic agent.5 In a population of more than 155,000 children born between 1983 and 1985, in utero exposure to MgSO4 was reported in 7.1% of 42 VLBW infants with cerebral palsy and 36% of 75 VLBW controls (odds ratio [OR], 0.14; 95% CI, 0.05-0.51). In women without preeclampsia the OR increased to 0.25.
This motivating study had been preceded by several observational studies showing that infants born to women with preeclampsia who received MgSO4 had significantly lower risks of developing intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH) and germinal matrix hemorrhage (GMH). In one of these studies, published in 1992, Karl C. Kuban, MD, and coauthors reported that “maternal receipt of magnesium sulfate was associated with diminished risk of GMH-IVH even in those babies born to mothers who apparently did not have preeclampsia.”9
In the several years following the 1995 Nelson-Grether study, several other case-control/observational studies were reported, with conflicting conclusions, and investigators around the world began designing and conducting needed randomized controlled trials.
The six published randomized controlled trials looking at MgSO4 and neuroprotection varied in their inclusion and exclusion criteria, their recruitment and enrollment style, the gestational ages for MgSO4 administration, loading and maintenance doses, how cerebral palsy or neuroprotection was assessed, and other factors (See Table for RCT characteristics and main outcomes).10-14 One of the trials aimed primarily at evaluating the efficacy of MgSO4 for preventing preeclampsia.
Again, none of the randomized controlled trials demonstrated statistical significance for their primary outcomes or concluded that there was a significant neuroprotective effect for cerebral palsy. Rather, most suggested benefit through secondary analyses. Moreover, as mentioned earlier, research that proceeded after the first published randomized controlled trial — the Magnesium and Neurologic Endpoints (MAGnet) trial — was suspended early when an interim analysis showed a significantly increased risk of mortality in MgSO4-exposed fetuses. All told, it wasn’t until researchers obtained unpublished data and conducted meta-analyses and systematic reviews that a significant effect of MgSO4 on cerebral palsy could be seen.
The three systematic reviews and the Cochrane review, each of which used slightly different methodologies, were published in rapid succession in 2009. One review calculated a relative risk of cerebral palsy of 0.71 (95% CI, 0.55-0.91) — and a relative risk for the combined outcome of death and cerebral palsy at 0.85 (95% CI, 0.74-0.98) — when women at risk of preterm birth were given MgSO4.15 The number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one case of cerebral palsy was 63, investigators determined, and the NNT to prevent one case of cerebral palsy or infant death was 44.
Another review estimated the NNT for prevention of one case of cerebral palsy at 52 when MgSO4 is given at less than 34 weeks’ gestation, and similarly concluded that MgSO4 is associated with a significantly “reduced risk of moderate/severe CP and substantial gross motor dysfunction without any statistically significant effect on the risk of total pediatric mortality.”16
A third review, from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network (MFMU), estimated an NNT of 46 to prevent one case of cerebral palsy in infants exposed to MgSO4 before 30 weeks, and an NNT of 56 when exposure occurs before 32-34 weeks.17
The Cochrane Review, meanwhile, reported a relative reduction in the risk of cerebral palsy of 0.68 (95% CI, 0.54-0.87) when antenatal MgSO4 is given at less than 37 weeks’ gestation, as well as a significant reduction in the rate of substantial gross motor dysfunction (RR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.44-0.85).18 The NNT to avoid one case of cerebral palsy, researchers reported, was 63.
Moving Forward
The NNTs calculated in these reviews — ranging from 44 to 63 — are convincing, and are comparable with evidence-based medicine data for prevention of other common diseases.19 For instance, the NNT for a life saved when aspirin is given immediately after a heart attack is 42. Statins given for 5 years in people with known heart disease have an NNT of 83 to save one life, an NNT of 39 to prevent one nonfatal heart attack, and an NNT of 125 to prevent one stroke. For oral anticoagulants used in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation for primary stroke prevention, the NNTs to prevent one stroke, and one death, are 22 and 42, respectively.19
In its 2010 Committee Opinion on Magnesium Sulfate Before Anticipated Preterm Birth for Neuroprotection (reaffirmed in 2020), the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists left it to institutions to develop their own guidelines “regarding inclusion criteria, treatment regimens, concurrent tocolysis, and monitoring in accordance with one of the larger trials.”20
Not surprisingly, most if not all hospitals have chosen a higher dose of MgSO4 administered up to 31 weeks’ gestation in keeping with the protocols employed in the NICHD-sponsored BEAM trial (See Table).
The hope moving forward is to expand treatment options for neuroprotection in cases of imminent preterm birth. Researchers have been assessing the ability of melatonin to provide neuroprotection in cases of growth restriction and neonatal asphyxia. Melatonin has anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties and is known to mediate neuronal generation and synaptic plasticity.21
N-acetyl-L-cysteine is another potential neuroprotective agent. It acts as an antioxidant, a precursor to glutathione, and a modulator of the glutamate system and has been studied as a neuroprotective agent in cases of maternal chorioamnionitis.21 Both melatonin and N-acetyl-L-cysteine are regarded as safe in pregnancy, but much more clinical study is needed to prove their neuroprotective potential when given shortly before birth or earlier.
Dr. Burd is the Sylvan Freiman, MD Endowed Professor and Chair of the department of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore. She has no conflicts of interest.
References
1. Clio Med. 1984;19(1-2):1-21.
2. Medicinsk Rev. (Bergen) 1906;32:264-272.
3. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;174(4):1390-1391.
4. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1959;78(1):27-32.
5. Pediatrics. 1995;95(2):263-269.
6. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;201(3):279.e1-279.e8.
7. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;202(3):292.e1-292.e9.
8. Pediatr Res. 2020;87(3):463-471.
9. J Child Neurol. 1992;7(1):70-76.
10. Lancet. 1997;350:1517-1518.
11. JAMA. 2003;290:2669-2676.
12. BJOG. 2007;114(3):310-318.
13. Lancet. 2002;359(9321):1877-1890.
14. N Engl J Med. 2008;359:895-905.
15. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;113(6):1327-1333.
16. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;200(6):595-609.
17. Obstet Gynecol 2009;114:354-364.
18. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009 Jan 21:(1):CD004661.
19. www.thennt.com.
20. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;115:669-671.
21. Front Synaptic Neurosci. 2012;13:680899.
*This story was corrected on June 10, 2024.
Introduction: The Many Lanes of Research on Magnesium Sulfate
The research that improves human health in the most expedient and most impactful ways is multitiered, with basic or fundamental research, translational research, interventional studies, and retrospective research often occurring simultaneously. There should be no “single lane” of research and one type of research does not preclude the other.
Too often, we fall short in one of these lanes. While we have achieved many moonshots in obstetrics and maternal-fetal medicine, we have tended not to place a high priority on basic research, which can provide a strong understanding of the biology of major diseases and conditions affecting women and their offspring. When conducted with proper commitment and funding, such research can lead to biologically directed therapy.
Within our specialty, research on how we can effectively prevent preterm birth, prematurity, and preeclampsia has taken a long road, with various types of therapies being tried, but none being overwhelmingly effective — with an ongoing need for more basic or fundamental research. Nevertheless, we can benefit and gain great insights from retrospective and interventional studies associated with clinical therapies used to treat premature labor and preeclampsia when these therapies have an unanticipated and important secondary benefit.
This month our Master Class is focused on the neuroprotection of prematurity. Magnesium sulfate is a valuable tool for the treatment of both premature labor and preeclampsia, and more recently, also for neuroprotection of the fetus. Interestingly, this use stemmed from researchers looking retrospectively at outcomes in women who received the compound for other reasons. It took many years for researchers to prove its neuroprotective value through interventional trials, while researchers simultaneously strove to understand on a basic biologic level how magnesium sulfate works to prevent outcomes such as cerebral palsy.
Basic research underway today continues to improve our understanding of its precise mechanisms of action. Combined with other tiers of research — including more interventional studies and more translational research — we can improve its utility for the neuroprotection of prematurity. Alternatively, ongoing research may lead to different, even more effective treatments.
Our guest author is Irina Burd, MD, PhD, Sylvan Freiman, MD Endowed Professor and Chair of the department of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at the University of Maryland School of Medicine.* Dr. Burd is also a physician-scientist. She recounts the important story of magnesium sulfate and what is currently known about its biologic plausibility in neuroprotection — including through her own studies – as well as what may be coming in the future.
E. Albert Reece, MD, PhD, MBA, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist, is dean emeritus of the University of Maryland School of Medicine, former university executive vice president; currently the endowed professor and director of the Center for Advanced Research Training and Innovation (CARTI), and senior scientist in the Center for Birth Defects Research. Dr. Reece reported no relevant disclosures. He is the medical editor of this column. Contact him at [email protected].
Magnesium Sulfate for Fetal Neuroprotection in Preterm Birth
Without a doubt, magnesium sulfate (MgSO4) given before anticipated preterm birth reduces the risk of cerebral palsy. It is a valuable tool for fetal neuroprotection at a time when there are no proven alternatives. Yet without the persistent research that occurred over more than 20 years, it may not have won the endorsement of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecologists in 2010 and worked its way into routine practice.
Its history is worthy of reflection. It took years of observational trials (not all of which showed neuroprotective effects), six randomized controlled trials (none of which met their primary endpoint), three meta-analyses, and a Cochrane Database Systematic Review to arrive at the conclusion that antenatal magnesium sulfate therapy given to women at risk of preterm birth has definitive neuroprotective benefit.
This history also holds lessons for our specialty given the dearth of drugs approved for use in pregnancy and the recent withdrawal from the market of Makena — one of only nine drugs to ever be approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use in pregnancy — after a second trial showed lack of benefit in preventing recurrent preterm birth. The story of MgSO4 tells us it’s acceptable to have major stumbling blocks: At one point, MgSO4 was considered to be not only not helpful, but harmful, causing neonatal death. Further research disproved this initial finding.
Moreover, the MgSO4 story is one that remains unfinished, as my laboratory and other researchers work to better understand its biologic plausibility and to discover additional neuroprotective agents for anticipated preterm birth that may further reduce the risk of cerebral palsy. This leading cause of chronic childhood disability is estimated by the United Cerebral Palsy Foundation to affect approximately 800,000 people in the United States.
Origins and Biologic Plausibility
The MgSO4 story is rooted in the late seventeenth century discovery by physician Nehemiah Grew that the compound was the key component of the then-famous medicinal spring waters in Epsom, England.1 MgSO4 was first used for eclampsia in 1906,2 and was first reported in the American literature for eclampsia in 1925.3 In 1959, its effect as a tocolytic agent was reported.4
More than 30 years later, in 1995, an observational study coauthored by Karin B. Nelson, MD, and Judith K. Grether, PhD of the National Institutes of Health, showed a reduced risk of cerebral palsy in very-low-birth-weight infants (VLBW).5 The report marked a turning point in research interest on neuroprotection for anticipated preterm birth.
The precise molecular mechanisms of action of MgSO4 for neuroprotection are still not well understood. However, research findings from the University of Maryland and other institutions have provided biologic plausibility for its use to prevent cerebral palsy. Our current thinking is that it involves the prevention of periventricular white matter injury and/or the prevention of oxidative stress and a neuronal injury mechanism called excitotoxicity.
Periventricular white matter injury involving injury to preoligodendrocytes before 32 weeks’ gestation is the most prevalent injury seen in cerebral palsy; preoligodendrocytes are precursors of myelinating oligodendrocytes, which constitute a major glial population in the white matter. Our research in a mouse model demonstrated that the intrauterine inflammation frequently associated with preterm birth can lead to neuronal injury as well as white matter damage, and that MgSO4 may ameliorate both.6,7
Excitotoxicity results from excessive stimulation of N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) glutamatergic receptors on preoligodendrocytes and a rush of calcium through the voltage-gated channels. This calcium influx leads to the production of nitric oxide, oxidative stress, and subsequent mitochondrial damage and cell death. As a bivalent ion, MgSO4 sits in the voltage-gated channels of the NMDA receptors and reduces glutamatergic signaling, thus serving as a calcium antagonist and modulating calcium influx (See Figure).
In vitro research in our laboratory has also shown that MgSO4 may dampen inflammatory reactions driven by intrauterine infections, which, like preterm birth, increase the risk of cerebral palsy and adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes.8 MgSO4 appears to do so by blocking the voltage-gated P2X7 receptor in umbilical vein endothelial cells, thus blocking endothelial secretion of the proinflammatory cytokine interleukin (IL)–1beta. Much more research is needed to determine whether MgSO4 could help prevent cerebral palsy through this mechanism.
The Long Route of Research
The 1995 Nelson-Grether study compared VLBW (< 1500 g) infants who survived and developed moderate/severe cerebral palsy within 3 years to randomly selected VLBW controls with respect to whether their mothers had received MgSO4 to prevent seizures in preeclampsia or as a tocolytic agent.5 In a population of more than 155,000 children born between 1983 and 1985, in utero exposure to MgSO4 was reported in 7.1% of 42 VLBW infants with cerebral palsy and 36% of 75 VLBW controls (odds ratio [OR], 0.14; 95% CI, 0.05-0.51). In women without preeclampsia the OR increased to 0.25.
This motivating study had been preceded by several observational studies showing that infants born to women with preeclampsia who received MgSO4 had significantly lower risks of developing intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH) and germinal matrix hemorrhage (GMH). In one of these studies, published in 1992, Karl C. Kuban, MD, and coauthors reported that “maternal receipt of magnesium sulfate was associated with diminished risk of GMH-IVH even in those babies born to mothers who apparently did not have preeclampsia.”9
In the several years following the 1995 Nelson-Grether study, several other case-control/observational studies were reported, with conflicting conclusions, and investigators around the world began designing and conducting needed randomized controlled trials.
The six published randomized controlled trials looking at MgSO4 and neuroprotection varied in their inclusion and exclusion criteria, their recruitment and enrollment style, the gestational ages for MgSO4 administration, loading and maintenance doses, how cerebral palsy or neuroprotection was assessed, and other factors (See Table for RCT characteristics and main outcomes).10-14 One of the trials aimed primarily at evaluating the efficacy of MgSO4 for preventing preeclampsia.
Again, none of the randomized controlled trials demonstrated statistical significance for their primary outcomes or concluded that there was a significant neuroprotective effect for cerebral palsy. Rather, most suggested benefit through secondary analyses. Moreover, as mentioned earlier, research that proceeded after the first published randomized controlled trial — the Magnesium and Neurologic Endpoints (MAGnet) trial — was suspended early when an interim analysis showed a significantly increased risk of mortality in MgSO4-exposed fetuses. All told, it wasn’t until researchers obtained unpublished data and conducted meta-analyses and systematic reviews that a significant effect of MgSO4 on cerebral palsy could be seen.
The three systematic reviews and the Cochrane review, each of which used slightly different methodologies, were published in rapid succession in 2009. One review calculated a relative risk of cerebral palsy of 0.71 (95% CI, 0.55-0.91) — and a relative risk for the combined outcome of death and cerebral palsy at 0.85 (95% CI, 0.74-0.98) — when women at risk of preterm birth were given MgSO4.15 The number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one case of cerebral palsy was 63, investigators determined, and the NNT to prevent one case of cerebral palsy or infant death was 44.
Another review estimated the NNT for prevention of one case of cerebral palsy at 52 when MgSO4 is given at less than 34 weeks’ gestation, and similarly concluded that MgSO4 is associated with a significantly “reduced risk of moderate/severe CP and substantial gross motor dysfunction without any statistically significant effect on the risk of total pediatric mortality.”16
A third review, from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network (MFMU), estimated an NNT of 46 to prevent one case of cerebral palsy in infants exposed to MgSO4 before 30 weeks, and an NNT of 56 when exposure occurs before 32-34 weeks.17
The Cochrane Review, meanwhile, reported a relative reduction in the risk of cerebral palsy of 0.68 (95% CI, 0.54-0.87) when antenatal MgSO4 is given at less than 37 weeks’ gestation, as well as a significant reduction in the rate of substantial gross motor dysfunction (RR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.44-0.85).18 The NNT to avoid one case of cerebral palsy, researchers reported, was 63.
Moving Forward
The NNTs calculated in these reviews — ranging from 44 to 63 — are convincing, and are comparable with evidence-based medicine data for prevention of other common diseases.19 For instance, the NNT for a life saved when aspirin is given immediately after a heart attack is 42. Statins given for 5 years in people with known heart disease have an NNT of 83 to save one life, an NNT of 39 to prevent one nonfatal heart attack, and an NNT of 125 to prevent one stroke. For oral anticoagulants used in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation for primary stroke prevention, the NNTs to prevent one stroke, and one death, are 22 and 42, respectively.19
In its 2010 Committee Opinion on Magnesium Sulfate Before Anticipated Preterm Birth for Neuroprotection (reaffirmed in 2020), the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists left it to institutions to develop their own guidelines “regarding inclusion criteria, treatment regimens, concurrent tocolysis, and monitoring in accordance with one of the larger trials.”20
Not surprisingly, most if not all hospitals have chosen a higher dose of MgSO4 administered up to 31 weeks’ gestation in keeping with the protocols employed in the NICHD-sponsored BEAM trial (See Table).
The hope moving forward is to expand treatment options for neuroprotection in cases of imminent preterm birth. Researchers have been assessing the ability of melatonin to provide neuroprotection in cases of growth restriction and neonatal asphyxia. Melatonin has anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties and is known to mediate neuronal generation and synaptic plasticity.21
N-acetyl-L-cysteine is another potential neuroprotective agent. It acts as an antioxidant, a precursor to glutathione, and a modulator of the glutamate system and has been studied as a neuroprotective agent in cases of maternal chorioamnionitis.21 Both melatonin and N-acetyl-L-cysteine are regarded as safe in pregnancy, but much more clinical study is needed to prove their neuroprotective potential when given shortly before birth or earlier.
Dr. Burd is the Sylvan Freiman, MD Endowed Professor and Chair of the department of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore. She has no conflicts of interest.
References
1. Clio Med. 1984;19(1-2):1-21.
2. Medicinsk Rev. (Bergen) 1906;32:264-272.
3. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;174(4):1390-1391.
4. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1959;78(1):27-32.
5. Pediatrics. 1995;95(2):263-269.
6. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;201(3):279.e1-279.e8.
7. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;202(3):292.e1-292.e9.
8. Pediatr Res. 2020;87(3):463-471.
9. J Child Neurol. 1992;7(1):70-76.
10. Lancet. 1997;350:1517-1518.
11. JAMA. 2003;290:2669-2676.
12. BJOG. 2007;114(3):310-318.
13. Lancet. 2002;359(9321):1877-1890.
14. N Engl J Med. 2008;359:895-905.
15. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;113(6):1327-1333.
16. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;200(6):595-609.
17. Obstet Gynecol 2009;114:354-364.
18. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009 Jan 21:(1):CD004661.
19. www.thennt.com.
20. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;115:669-671.
21. Front Synaptic Neurosci. 2012;13:680899.
*This story was corrected on June 10, 2024.
A 27-year-old Haitian woman presented with a painful umbilical mass which had been growing in size for 5 months
Endometriosis is defined as the presence of endometrial tissue outside of the uterine cavity, commonly occurring in women of reproductive age. The condition usually affects the adnexa (ovaries, Fallopian tubes, and associated ligaments and connective tissue) but can also be seen in extrapelvic structures.
Cutaneous endometriosis is an uncommon subtype that accounts for 1% of endometriosis cases and occurs when endometrial tissue is found on the surface of the skin. It is divided into primary and secondary cutaneous endometriosis. The that may lead to seeding of endometrial tissue on the skin. In the case of our patient, it appears that her laparoscopic procedure 2 years ago was the cause of endometrial seeding in the umbilicus.
Clinically, the condition may present with a palpable mass, cyclic pain, and bloody discharge from the affected area. Due to the rarity of cutaneous endometriosis, it may be hard to distinguish from other diagnoses such as keloids, dermatofibromas, hernias, or cutaneous metastasis of cancers (Sister Mary Joseph nodules).
The definitive diagnosis can be made by biopsy and histopathological assessment showing a mixture of endometrial glands and stromal tissue. Imaging studies such as computed tomography (CT) scan and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are helpful in excluding more common diagnoses such as hernia or cutaneous metastasis. In this patient, the mass was surgically excised. Histopathological assessment established the diagnosis of cutaneous endometriosis.
Treatment options include surgical excision and medical therapy. Medical therapy entails the use of hormonal agents such as gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists, danazol (a pituitary gonadotropin inhibitor), and oral contraceptives, which reduce the cyclical proliferation of endothelial tissue. These agents can be used preoperatively to reduce the size of the cutaneous mass before surgical excision, or as an alternative treatment for patients who wish to avoid surgery. The rate of recurrence is observed to be higher with medical therapy rather than surgical treatment.
The case and photo were submitted by Mina Ahmed, MBBS, Brooke Resh Sateesh MD, and Nathan Uebelhoer MD, of San Diego Family Dermatology, San Diego, California. The column was edited by Donna Bilu Martin, MD.
Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Florida. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to [email protected].
References
1. Gonzalez RH et al. Am J Case Rep. 2021;22:e932493-1–e932493-4.
2. Raffi L et al. Int J Womens Dermatol. 2019 Dec;5(5):384-386.
3. Sharma A, Apostol R. Cutaneous endometriosis. Treasure Island, Fla: Statpearls Publishing, 2023.
Endometriosis is defined as the presence of endometrial tissue outside of the uterine cavity, commonly occurring in women of reproductive age. The condition usually affects the adnexa (ovaries, Fallopian tubes, and associated ligaments and connective tissue) but can also be seen in extrapelvic structures.
Cutaneous endometriosis is an uncommon subtype that accounts for 1% of endometriosis cases and occurs when endometrial tissue is found on the surface of the skin. It is divided into primary and secondary cutaneous endometriosis. The that may lead to seeding of endometrial tissue on the skin. In the case of our patient, it appears that her laparoscopic procedure 2 years ago was the cause of endometrial seeding in the umbilicus.
Clinically, the condition may present with a palpable mass, cyclic pain, and bloody discharge from the affected area. Due to the rarity of cutaneous endometriosis, it may be hard to distinguish from other diagnoses such as keloids, dermatofibromas, hernias, or cutaneous metastasis of cancers (Sister Mary Joseph nodules).
The definitive diagnosis can be made by biopsy and histopathological assessment showing a mixture of endometrial glands and stromal tissue. Imaging studies such as computed tomography (CT) scan and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are helpful in excluding more common diagnoses such as hernia or cutaneous metastasis. In this patient, the mass was surgically excised. Histopathological assessment established the diagnosis of cutaneous endometriosis.
Treatment options include surgical excision and medical therapy. Medical therapy entails the use of hormonal agents such as gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists, danazol (a pituitary gonadotropin inhibitor), and oral contraceptives, which reduce the cyclical proliferation of endothelial tissue. These agents can be used preoperatively to reduce the size of the cutaneous mass before surgical excision, or as an alternative treatment for patients who wish to avoid surgery. The rate of recurrence is observed to be higher with medical therapy rather than surgical treatment.
The case and photo were submitted by Mina Ahmed, MBBS, Brooke Resh Sateesh MD, and Nathan Uebelhoer MD, of San Diego Family Dermatology, San Diego, California. The column was edited by Donna Bilu Martin, MD.
Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Florida. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to [email protected].
References
1. Gonzalez RH et al. Am J Case Rep. 2021;22:e932493-1–e932493-4.
2. Raffi L et al. Int J Womens Dermatol. 2019 Dec;5(5):384-386.
3. Sharma A, Apostol R. Cutaneous endometriosis. Treasure Island, Fla: Statpearls Publishing, 2023.
Endometriosis is defined as the presence of endometrial tissue outside of the uterine cavity, commonly occurring in women of reproductive age. The condition usually affects the adnexa (ovaries, Fallopian tubes, and associated ligaments and connective tissue) but can also be seen in extrapelvic structures.
Cutaneous endometriosis is an uncommon subtype that accounts for 1% of endometriosis cases and occurs when endometrial tissue is found on the surface of the skin. It is divided into primary and secondary cutaneous endometriosis. The that may lead to seeding of endometrial tissue on the skin. In the case of our patient, it appears that her laparoscopic procedure 2 years ago was the cause of endometrial seeding in the umbilicus.
Clinically, the condition may present with a palpable mass, cyclic pain, and bloody discharge from the affected area. Due to the rarity of cutaneous endometriosis, it may be hard to distinguish from other diagnoses such as keloids, dermatofibromas, hernias, or cutaneous metastasis of cancers (Sister Mary Joseph nodules).
The definitive diagnosis can be made by biopsy and histopathological assessment showing a mixture of endometrial glands and stromal tissue. Imaging studies such as computed tomography (CT) scan and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are helpful in excluding more common diagnoses such as hernia or cutaneous metastasis. In this patient, the mass was surgically excised. Histopathological assessment established the diagnosis of cutaneous endometriosis.
Treatment options include surgical excision and medical therapy. Medical therapy entails the use of hormonal agents such as gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists, danazol (a pituitary gonadotropin inhibitor), and oral contraceptives, which reduce the cyclical proliferation of endothelial tissue. These agents can be used preoperatively to reduce the size of the cutaneous mass before surgical excision, or as an alternative treatment for patients who wish to avoid surgery. The rate of recurrence is observed to be higher with medical therapy rather than surgical treatment.
The case and photo were submitted by Mina Ahmed, MBBS, Brooke Resh Sateesh MD, and Nathan Uebelhoer MD, of San Diego Family Dermatology, San Diego, California. The column was edited by Donna Bilu Martin, MD.
Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Florida. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to [email protected].
References
1. Gonzalez RH et al. Am J Case Rep. 2021;22:e932493-1–e932493-4.
2. Raffi L et al. Int J Womens Dermatol. 2019 Dec;5(5):384-386.
3. Sharma A, Apostol R. Cutaneous endometriosis. Treasure Island, Fla: Statpearls Publishing, 2023.
